The REAL Reason Dave Will Die Single

I was trying to figure out dinner tonight and engaged in the following inner monologue:
"Is that mold?
"Whatever, it's cool.
"It's a good thing I don't have kids."

It's off to Buffalo in about five hours - who's ready for a four day rager?

Facebook's Value

is currently $19.41.  Maybe it would be worth more if it was good for more than just two things: attention-seeking (which is why all my blog posts get posted on my Facebook), and stalking. It's also good for shorting (back to talking stock prices), but that's only because investors are apparently as deft as we knew they were. Within the attention-seeking value of Facebook we identify two subgroups: complaining (e.g., feel bad for me, this thing happened and I wasn't willing to confront the perpetrator because I was scared and/or it wasn't societally acceptable so I'm foisting it upon you instead, etc.) and braggadociousness (e.g., my use of 'braggadociousness' is pretty fucking awesome). In this note I do both, because, as has been established via myriad mediums, I'm pretty awesome.

So I ran the Turning Stone half marathon this morning, and it really reinforced how big of assholes runners are. After the race I watched the finals of a four day billiards tournament, got some chow, and just wandered around watching old people transfer their children's inheritance to some Indian Nation one 50¢ lever pull at a time. By this point I'd changed, sporting a nondescript t-shirt, shorts, and sandals. Yet I kept seeing people walking around with their numbers still safety pinned to their shirts and wearing the medal around their necks (every finisher gets a medal - it's like an elementary school track meet). Good job, you finished, congratulations. But seriously, you look like an asshole wearing that ribbon around your neck. Besides, it's heavy and the ribbon has sharp threads poking out. It can't be comfortable. You're uncomfortable to boot? That makes you an asshole and an idiot. I'm not impressed.

The reason I'm not impressed is because I beat you (get ready for the complaining-to-braggadociousness transition). How do I know I beat you? Because real runners win real hardware.

Now give me some likes.

What Happens If Our OTHER Running Back Goes Down?

Cranking out some ideas for my first article featured in Arrowhead Addict. I'm excited about working with the idea of 'who's more indispensable' going forward - it wrangles with the strategic balance of roster building in weighing who provides not just the most value to the team, but also the most net value (i.e., but for that player's presence, what is the team able to achieve?). 

Jamaal Charles is the best running back the Chiefs have. I could recite his accomplishments and drone on about how I believe he will come back from last year's injury just fine, but there's no use in preaching to the choir here. What you may not be ready to hear is that Charles not only fails to carry the title of "most indispensable to the team," he's not even the most indispensable at his position; Peyton Hillis's presence is more important to our success this year.

To avoid being immediately suspended from ever writing again, let me qualify that paragraph by saying I'm not merely judging what a player brings to the table - I'm also evaluating how readily their talents can be replaced. A 1,600 yard season for Charles and 1,000 yard season for Hillis are reasonable expectations. But without Hillis, we have no change-of-pace bruiser. Currently on the roster at fullback are Shane Bannon, who spent his rookie year in 2011 on the practice squad, and Taylor Gentry, an undrafted rookie out of North Carolina State. Unless one of these guys exceeds expectations during training camp, there is no reliable replacement to run between the tackles and provide burly backfield pass protection if Hillis goes down.

Last year Jackie Battle led the team in rushing while Thomas Jones ranked third. They're never coming back. Dexter McCluster caught 46 receptions and was second on the team in rushing while averaging 4.5 yards/carry in 2011. McCluster is also 5'8", 170 lbs. He's a serviceable substitute for Charles, but not Hillis. He's an exciting player who may not deliver Pro Bowl talent, but can provide  backup if needed to move in from wide receiver. Additionally, with the glut of receivers the Chiefs suddenly find themselves blessed with, moving McCluster back into the backfield wouldn't be that damaging to the receiving corps - we should still have a solid set of receivers plus Moeaki at TE. Cyrus Gray also intrigues me, and provides about the same size as Charles.

There is no doubt in my mind that Charles's contributions will be greater than Hillis's this year. Yet in the event of some unforeseen event depriving us of this extraordinary backfield duo, I'm gritting my teeth and professing a preference for keeping Hillis. Besides, we'll need a bruiser in January to run out the clock as Peyton Manning watches the time wind down to zero to record our first playoff win in far too long. 

So whaddaya think Addicts, is there enough talent on the roster to compensate for another year without Jamaal Charles? Or should I stop writing and just go back to reading Arrowhead Addict from the sidelines?

Hot Gay Latinos

I was listening to some smart commentary a couple weeks ago about how Obama has (smartly) cherry-picked certain policies to excite an otherwise (very) unexcited base. Gay marriage energizes Hollywood elites and rich benefactors with a personal interest in the matter (even if his support is limited to not opposing states that recognize same-sex marriages). This is important because he needs money. The recent position decision to provide children of illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship energizes the Latino vote. This is important because otherwise these people aren't going to show up. Call it cynical politics, smart politics, bad policy, or smart policy. I'm it calling strategy. He's got the money and the voters, but is missing an essential link - the mobilization effort. This will require the work of either students or greenies. Smart money is on the greenies. If Obama was gonna do something to excite students, it needed to be done a month ago. Now summer break is halfway over and 20-year-olds are already preoccupied with shitty summer jobs and awkwardly hooking up with old high school flings while skyping with their college boy/girlfriends every other night. He'll need them in the fall, but it just doesn't make sense to believe they'll provide support like in 2008.

However, there's a perfect storm calling for the green mobilization machine. Environmentalists have taken a backseat to everyone but the typewriter lobby since the failed cap and trade effort of 2009. They've been grumbling for three years about how every major liberal group got something big accomplished but them. They're not happy. As such, your current Campaigner In Chief needs to do something to get them to go pound the pavement and telephone lines. The weather this summer has been ridiculous, and the time to pounce is probably this week:

(The ten day forecast back home in KS)

Exploit the weather now! Between half the western US being on fire, Florida going underwater, and the enthusiasm bump from environmentalists finally getting some attention, it seems like the thing Obama could pounce on. (Remember kids - always point to peculiar weather events as confirmation/disprove. Both sides love using anecdotal evidence to back up their science.) Plus, as of Tuesday there's less uncertainty about whether the EPA can go forward with regulating GHGs under the Clean Air Act after a federal appeals court ruled the EPA was “unambiguously correct” in its legal rationale behind regulating greenhouse gases. Probably highlight the legal triumph and use it to bolster your argument for the new GHG policy.

The flip side of this is that the Obama team recognizes how unhappy the markets will be at the prospect of an energy tax, making economic output sink, and really giving conservatives to rally around and drum up more support from business. With Europe unable to remove itself from one huge clusterf*** and China slowing down, the Dow is just looking for an excuse to plummet back to 11,000. As such, I think it's iffy politics. It'll also be done in a way that's dumb policy. After the SCOTUS ruling today upholding the health care mandate, I don't know if the administration prefers to bask in the glow of 'winning' or would rather divert attention away from an unpopular law. Just don't discount the possibility of a cap and trade announcement coming to a campaign near you.

Building a New Cuckoo Cuckoo Nest

Apparently Anders Behring Breivik (mass murderer from Norway) is getting a psychiatric ward built solely for him. I oppose the death penalty, and I think I can give a pretty enlightened argument to support my position. This, however, is a step too far. The Slate article also discusses how prison officials announced plans to hire "friends" for Breivik because they’re unwilling to restrict him to solitary confinement but also do not want to subject other inmates to him, worried he may try to take hostages. The "professional community" will have tasks that include playing indoor hockey and chess with Breivik. I think it's fair to say society has no use for this man. Without a use for him, there is no reason to maintain him. I won't protest his early retirement from life.

Gettin' Our G-Walk On

I'm referring to gunwalking here, obviously. A couple facts about the Fast and Furious scandal that Republicans need to be made cognizant of:

• This was a Bush-era program. Obama let it perpetuate, he didn't establish it.
• If you subscribe to the idea that "if we outlaw guns, then only criminals will have them," with gun ownership being important to defend yourself against criminals who will find ways to acquire firearms regardless of their legality, then we have to acknowledge these crimes probably would've happened anyway. The weapons involved just would've originated elsewhere.

Conversely, what I would like to remind Democrats of:

• See bullet #1 - your boy was responsible for perpetuating the program. Also, this administration has been a bunch of dicks about it.

This country seems to have a problem with supplying weapons to people and having the supply come back and bite us in the ass. Look to Afghanistan, look to the Contras, just look somewhere (yes folks, Reagan sent a lot more bullets to outlaws down in Central America than anyone who's held the office recently). When you purposefully let terrorists acquire instruments manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people, don't act surprised if it occasionally comes back to bite you in the ass; at the end of the day, you're still dealing with terrorists.

The next paragraph is where I offer my own insightful analysis on how to bring down higher-level traffickers and the cartels they supply without having to rely on gunwalking:

 

Gimme Money (I've an Election to Win!)

Following Neil Munro of the Daily Caller's interruption of Obama and the gleeful support of a segment of 'conservatives,' I've given up on the prospect of civility ever returning to the national political arena. Maybe the answer is for Obama to start taking questions from the press. Actually, scratch that, I gave up when Joe Wilson became a fundraising champion after interrupting the State of the Union (did you know his wife actually admonished whoever yelled out at the President... before she found out it was her husband?). No, scratch that one too - I gave up when liberals squealed with glee after someone threw a shoe at Bush in Iraq. Well, whenever all my hope was supplanted with absolute cynicism, it's time to stop swimming against tide. There's more money to be made as an Olberman or Brit Hume than trying to promote something that isn't harmful to our democracy. So here's my media offering:

I'm willing to make inflammatory remarks about any political party or politician someone else believes is evil because their policy desires don't converge. Now someone give me a radio talk show to blather bullshit for a couple hours every afternoon.

How Close was ‘Close?’

The AFC West was hands down the most unexceptional division in the NFL last year, with three teams going 8-8 and the Chiefs dragging tail at 7-9. Such density of mediocrity suggests even the last-place team was a bounce or two away from winning not just the West, but landing among the playoff elite (and no, one inexplicable win against the Steelers did not make Tebow’s Donkeys elite). Yet even though KC was close enough to be in play for a division title entering the last week of the season, to say we were close to good is a serious reach.

Although the Chiefs embarrassed themselves during more than one blow out, the overall scoring defense was actually better than average – it’s the offense that failed us week in and week out. For reference, within the division, only San Diego ended the season scoring more points than their opponents.

Team	Points For	NFL Rank	Points Against	NFL Rank	+/-	NFL Rank
Denver	19.3	25	24.4	24	-5.1	25
Kansas City	13.3	31	21.1	12	-7.8	29
Oakland	22.4	16	27.1	29	-4.7	23
San Diego	25.4	5(t)	23.6	22	1.8	11

Aside from a 28-0 blowout of the Raiders, the largest margin of victory the Kansas City enjoyed in 2011 was an ugly 10-3 win over Chicago. Losses included 7-41 (Bills), 3-48 (Lions), 3-31 (Dolphins), 3-34 (Patriots), and 10-37 (Jets). (The Jets game particularly sticks in my craw as my Christmas present to my father was a ticket to the delightful experience of watching the Chiefs gain four net yards in the first half.) Although we finished 7-9, the club played more like a 6-10 or 5-11 team.

So what does being close to winning a bad division portend for the future? Relying on no statistical basis whatsoever, I believe the return of Eric Berry, Jammal Charles, and Tony Moeaki allows us to score/prevent exactly one touchdown per Sunday, requiring free agent pickups and the draft to bridge the remaining gap that puts KC in positive net scoring territory. It’s likely that replacing Barry Richardson single-handedly gives us that bump. The more the Hillis acquisition is dissected, the better it looks. The wide receiver situation is looking exciting. And the potential pairing of Dallas Clark and Moeaki would literally give Cassel more options than he’s capable of checking down.

It’s tempting to worry that all the optimistic conjecture heading into this season is a little overdone; last season, after all, was a few mediocre wins and some very, very bad losses. Has any team ever made the playoffs after suffering so many 30+ point losses the season before?  I believe this year’s team is a playoff team, but going from 7-9 to 10-6 would be much more than a mere three game improvement – and hopefully compared to the Rams turnaround of 1999. 

Chevy Chase is a Joke

Community was given a temporary shot in the arm today with the announcement the show has been extended for 13 more episodes. I'm happy. Despite society's demonstrated indifference to this slice of programming genius because it doesn't feature nut shots or drunken spoiled 20-somethings fighting over fake tans, NBC is willing to pay for a great sitcom with meager ratings. Ayn Rand would be proud.

Methinks Ayn Rand would also call Chevy Chase classic second-hander. Chase is a well-known jackass, and he does a great job of playing one on the show. He also hasn't done anything worthwhile in over a decade. Yet his lack of talent hasn't stopped him from publicly feuding with the creator while calling the show a "fucking mediocre sitcom" unworthy of his time. Other classic quotes from Chase include "I've been too funny in my life to have to play a character who's ... moderately funny," and that he could make the show funnier by adding "his brand of humor" to it. Once again, Chase hasn't done something funny over the past 20 years. The opportunity to appear in such a brilliant show shouldn't be squandered on an asshat who believes he could make it funnier by essentially adding more nut shots. I imagine the man walking onto every set hungover while muttering, "ugghhhh... clever jokes make old man head hurt." Chase's character adds an excellent element to the show; it's unfortunate he's too much of a Philistine to appreciate it.

Freshman Logic Fail

When Obama talks about gay marriage, it sounds like he's pandering. When Romney brings it up, he sounds like an idiot. Witness his statements last night on Fox News: "I happen to believe that the best setting for raising a child is where this is the opportunity to a mom and a dad to be in the home. I know there are many circumstances where that is not possible, through death or divorce. I also know many gay couples are able to adopt children. That's fine."

Let's play a simple logic game:
Gay marriage illegal=A
Gay marriage legal=B
Heterosexual couple raising a child=C
Gay couple raising a child=D

What Romney is apparently OK with:
1. If A, then C.
2. If B, then C.
3. If A, then D.
4. If B, then not D.

I understand #1 & #2. Reconciling three and four, however, can only be done one way: Mitt Romney is worried that gay married couples will begin procreating. Apparently Cranbrook did not teach sex ed.


FYI - Obama isn't gonna do anything that materially advances the cause of gay marriage. If you support the cause, you don't have to give him money now, because political expediency never stops evolving.

Not to Talk Smack on Richard E. Mourdock, but...

Senator Lugar, 
Thank you for your years of dedicated service to your country. You were a man cut from rarefied cloth, and the world is safer today due to your efforts in curtailing nuclear proliferation in Russia.
Sincerely,
Dave

I'm Not Crafty Enough to Make This Graph Look Good: Put If You Click it, Looks Nice

The recent criticism du jour against Obama is how he's responsible for high gas prices. Such rants must be somewhat tempered with the fact that we've actually expanded domestic drilling operations over the past four years. Potential geopolitical instability is also insanely high right now (yes, moron, the futures market does impact current prices. Also, moron, the futures market is driven by what people think will happen in the future. Stop saying talk of war with Iran in the future doesn't impact oil prices, moron). So that has something to do with it. Let's look at a couple of other things. The first is that our oil reserves are pretty high right now, and much higher than we ever saw under Bush (to see a nifty, interactive version of the graph, click here!):
Oil refineries are sitting on a lot of petro right now, it's just not being turned into gas. That's one reason you're seeing record high gas prices even though the price per barrel isn't historically that bad: oil is available. Gasoline is not.

Semi-related note: gasoline prices increase every Spring as refineries convert operations to blend a different fuel mix. Summer and Winter demand different fuel compositions. The price will usually stay high until after July 4. This happens every year. It's historical fact - look it up.

Another item to consider is that the economy has been doing well recently. This brings us to a supply and demand argument: when the economy went in the shitter, there was no demand and gas prices fell. We weren't building things, transporting things, visiting things, or otherwise engaging in activities that caused energy demand. Now we are. Simple economics tells us that this heightened demand will increase the price. Ergo, you can blame higher gas prices on the economy. You can even say that high gas prices are an economic indicator; a symbol of success.

This isn't a roundabout way of saying high gas prices are Obama's fault because he's helped the economy springboard and the trajectory of gas prices are a function of this springboarding. Obama doesn't really deserve that much credit for our economic improvement. But blaming him for current gas prices is stupid too. Moron.

Helping Someone: The Enemy of Helping Everyone?

Slate carried an article this Thursday entitled "Mobile Phones Will Not Save the Poorest of the Poor." Cell phones have received a lot of coverage regarding the opportunities they've provided in developing nations, but the claim is probably defensible - those earning $5 day can't afford phones, and therefore can't take advantage of their services.

The article immediately became more intriguing when I clicked and saw the subtitle: The Cost of Cellphone-Based Services is Hurting Large Swaths of the Developing World. I'm always up for an argument that challenges my perceptions, and the idea that cellphone access is actually a bad thing certainly offers a challenge to my paradigm.

The crux of the argument is this paragraph:

But there’s a downside to this program—and others like it—that’s too often ignored: These mobile money services do not effectively reach the poorest of the poor. In a 2010 study of M-PESA usage in Kenya, where mobile money penetration is greatest, 60 percent of the poorest quartile did not use the service. Part of the problem is access: Telecom companies have relatively little incentive to build out infrastructure, especially in poorer, rural markets.

A second argument is then made that the fees for using this service are too expensive for some people to afford.

REBUTTAL

So the poorest people are hurt because the kind-of-poor now have access to a technology that may allow them to rise to the middle class? While I'm not a huge fan of income disparity, this is an awful argument for two reasons:
1. A method for bettering a peoples' position in life should not be criticized if it's not hurting someone else. The article literally condemns upward progress because some people are not able to take advantage of new technologies that others have access to.
2. A rising tide can raise boats. Issues of inflation, exploitation, corruption, and a host of other factors will keep always keep the very poor in underdeveloped countries from achieving success. Hell, these issues prevent upward mobility in the U.S. too. But if a segment of a lower class finds itself financially secure for the first time in history, they're gonna buy more goods, pay for more services, and some of that will trickle down to rural farmers producing these goods.

I get the idealism of wanting to save everyone. I don't get the logic of decrying an opportunity to help some if it doesn't help everyone. I'll recognize that the ability to make payments on a cell phone isn't a panacea. The writers should recognize it's a helluva lot better than the status quo of five years ago.

Cops

I've watched a lot - and I mean a lot - of Cops in my day. Recent episode has one of my favorite clips ever:

Full Cast of WTM Obstacles

I've been uploading descriptions of the World's Toughest Mudder piecemeal over the past couple weeks, and finally completed the endeavor. On December 17-18 I competed in this event in Englishtown, NJ. The 24 endurance race featured numerous obstacles and constant exposure to mud and water which rapidly whittled down the competition given the winter weather conditions. Most competitors dropped after the first 10-mile lap, and only 1% of the elite who qualified for the race actually completed it (for further perspective: of 50,000 to compete in a One Tough Mudder event this year, only 11 qualified for and completed the culminating event, the Toughest Mudder). Behold, my crude and embellished attempt to capture the obstacles encountered throughout the course.

World's Toughest Mudder Events

The Ratings Say Otherwise

I've been pissy over K-State being passed over for a BCS bowl for awhile now, and I'm about to be vindicated. On New Year's I had the fortune to debate the Sugar Bowl selections ad naseum with the University of Detroit Associate Athletics Director (and, more importantly, a U of M alum). While the idea that K-State fans wouldn't come down to New Orleans has been thoroughly debunked, I had no comeback for the television argument (V. Tech and/or Michigan has more national appeal than a better, higher ranked Wildcat team). The discussion then went to non-BCS conference teams, and how the lack of national interest will always preclude them from consideration of BCS participation as well. Yet let's compare this year's games with last year's:

2012 Orange Bowl (West Virginia over Clemson, 70-33): 5.3 rating
In 2011, the Orange Bowl (Stanford over Virginia Tech 40-12) drew a 7.1

-This game was awful. I'm sure it would've had a better rating if Clemson showed up for more than a quarter of play.

2012 Sugar Bowl (Michigan over Virginia Tech, 23-20 in OT): 7.0 rating.
In 2011, the Sugar Bowl (Ohio State over Arkansas 31-26) drew a 9.5.

- Last year's teams had better resumes and featured Big 10(+2) v. SEC rather than Big 10(+2) v. ACC . Notice: Stanford's blow out of V. Tech last year in the Orange Bowl garnered better ratings than Michigan's OT squeaker over the Hokies this year. A BCS bowl game that goes into OT only getting a 7.0 rating? America obviously didn't care about this game.

2012 Fiesta Bowl (Oklahoma State over Stanford, 41-38 in OT): 9.7 rating.
In 2011, the Fiesta Bowl (Oklahoma over Connecticut 48-20) drew a 7.1 rating.

-The 2012 version was a great game. The 2011 version was an awful game. Once again, notice how an awful game last year generated more viewers than an OT game played this year (UM v. V-Tech). Pattern?

2012 Rose Bowl (Oregon over Wisconsin 45-38): 11.8 rating.
In 2011, the Rose Bowl (TCU over Wisconsin 21-19) drew a 13.1 rating.

-The meat of the issue. I will defend to the death the fascination we have in David v. Goliath. TCU won't get a lot of people excited next year when they join the Big 12(-2 or 3). But as a member of the Mountain West, people tuned in to watch them play Wisconsin. A Wisconsin team that was more exciting in 2011 than 2010 with Russell Wilson at QB. A Wisconsin team that played a much more offensively dynamic team in Oregon this year. A Wisconsin team that once again only lost by a possession.

So there you have it. Americans prefer match-ups with good teams in good games. They also have a fetish for good teams that get consistently snubbed by the powers that be due to conference affiliation. You can argue all you want about national branding and alumni support, but that pudding's baked with proof: nobody cared about a very close Sugar Bowl game this year. K-State (and Boise) deserved to be in that game. Unlike V. Tech and Michigan, those two were actually ranked in the top ten.

-Please don't "better resume" me on this. V. Tech beat every ranked opponent they played in the regular season. That would be one team: Clemson. Who they later lost to 38-10 in the ACC Championship game. Clemson then went on to lose to West Virginia (the Big Least’s best team, for what it’s worth) 70-33. Quality win, what?

Michigan, on the other hand, beat half the ranked teams they played this year. That would also add up to one win against a ranked team: #20 Nebraska. Who finished the season with four losses and likely drops from the rankings following their loss in the Capital One Bowl.

K-State's resume doesn't need defending. They played four ranked teams. They beat two, lost to Okie State by one score, and had a bad loss to Oklahoma. Boise State also beat 1/2 ranked teams it played, putting the hurt on Georgia and dropping one to TCU. Oh, and they beat Tech last year.

In conclusion: two teams with crappy rankings were brought in to play in the Sugar Bowl due to their "intangible catchet." One team couldn't even get its fans to buy tickets for the game (which isn't a surprise, given Virginia Tech fans have failed to support their team the last three BCS games they attended. Probably because they hate watching their team lose, which is almost guaranteed, as the ACC has gone 2-13 in BCS games. Did I mention the Sugar Bowl Committee justified its selection by citing Tech's stellar success in past BCS appearances?).

As such I make this (bold?) prediction: tonight's Cotton Bowl (which sold out w/in a week of being announced, b-dubs) will have a better rating than the Sugar Bowl. If not, I'll eat crow, but I highly doubt this will be the case.

In 360 days, this will still be video clip of the year.

Session started, which makes me said, but I got to watch this today, which made me very happy (skip to about second 30):

Thank you for this, internets, thank you.

Just Sayin' (as of 1-3-12)...

Conference	Schools	Bowl Record	Win %
Big 12 (8)	Bay, ISU, KState, Mizzou, OU, OklSt, TA&M, Texas	6-1	0.857
C-USA (5)	Houston, Marshall, SMU, SoMiss, Tulsa	3-1	0.75
MAC (5)	NIU, Ohio, Temple, Toledo, WMich	3-1	0.75
SEC (9)	Ala,Ark,Aub,Fla,Geor,LSU,MissSt,SCar,Vandy	4-2	0.667
Big East (5)	Cincy, Lou, Pitt, Rutgers, WVU	2-1	0.667
Sun Belt (3)	ArkSt, FIU, La.-Laf.	1-1	0.5
Ind. (2)	BYU, ND	1-1	0.5
MWC (5)	AF, Boise, SDSU, TCU, Wym	2-3	0.4
Big Ten(10)	Ill,Iowa,Mich,MSU,Neb,N'Wstrn,OSU,PSU,Pur,Wis	3-6	0.333
ACC (8)	Clem, FSU, GT, NC, NCS, Vir, VT, WF	2-4	0.333
Pac-12 (7)	ASU, Cal, Ore, Stan, UCLA, Utah, Wash	2-5	0.286
WAC (3)	LaTech, Nev, UtahSt	0-3	0