So the English Premier League is set to start today.
Of course Arsenal don't play til tomorrow. Chelsea don't play either till tomorrow but they have to play Wigan, the newly promoted side.
I can only hope that Chelsea's exorbitant spending doesn't automatically give them the title again. It belongs in Islington!
Now, then, you fans of the English game, let the football begin!
8.13.2005
God's justice and our own
I recently stumbled on this article (while reading about a very different subject), summarizing a speech given by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The article delves into many topics: the death penalty, secularism, democracy, but its main focus is the role of the divine in government.
I don't want to comment on the article in whole, since reading it is a gateway into the mind of one of America's top-level adjudicators. I do want to say I respect Antonin Scalia for his level-headedness, his strict constitutionalism, and his loyalty to the notion of popular sovereignty. I also think he's a funny guy. Like almost every other Supreme Court justice he can write very well, his ideas are organized cleanly, and they are presented as equally well.
Where I disagree with him is in his assertion that government "however you want to limit that concept—derives its moral authority from God". What justice Scalia is saying then, at least insofar as I understand it, is that no matter the type of government, no matter the ruler, no matter the decision making process, the ultimate authority to lead a nation of people derives from God. I have no doubt that this position in part stems from Scalia's Roman Catholic religion, which teaches the special connection between man and God. Scalia believes that the great moral authority that the state possesses to do things not allowed to the individual doesn't come from the collective will of the people but rather from the hand of the divine lordship. This is why the state has the authority to execute people, take land and property, create rules for all to follow, etc. Scalia even references non-democratic governments as divinely ordained because their leaders are chosen in a series of battles the outcomes of which are decided by the "Lord of Hosts" or "Lord of Armies".
Where this breaks down is a familar logical pitfall for anyone who's thought about the legitimacy of human government: we come to a conclusion that either every government that has ever existed has a "mandate of heaven" or that God sanctions some governments and not others. Both of these are equally fallacious. If the ruling government is always ordained by God either through the democratic exercise of the people or the submission of them to the strongest army, then even the ultra-atheistic former Soviet Union and current People's Republic of China have God's go-ahead to rule. If however, governments can be formed without the approval of the "Big Guy Upstairs" then how are we to know which governments have it and which don't? It's quite possible then that governments created in war and maintained by brute force against their civilian populace have the utmost approval of the Lord, while democratically elected ones do not. We could not only argue about which types of government have God's favor, but indeed which individual governments themselves have it. What a mess we have made for ourselves, then.
Also, Scalia's comments about the outcome of battles being decided by the Lord of Armies bespeaks a peasant mentality, if you ask me. Any competent military commander or student of history will tell you battles are won by those more prepared, more trained, and more willing to win. There have been countless times in history where a superior numerical force has been repulsed by a smaller force better equipped and better trained. It is not up to random chance to decide the outcome of battles but rather the decided, calculated actions of the men involved. No one would expect to win a major military confrontation by simply praying and marching in. There will always be a battle plan, always maps and logistics tables, always scouts and spies and reconaissance. To win you must win in this universe, in this reality. The external universe of the Godhead does not factor into deciding victors.
There is one more problem with this notion I want to go into. It is best to illustrate it by example. In 1781, the leaders of the provisional government of thirteen former colonies of Great Britain accepted the surrendur of Lord Cornwall, the highest British military authority in the land, effectively ending the British military presence in the colonies at the time. It also generally assured American independence since Britain no longer had an army to force its will on the colonies. So, since the fate of the colonies had been decided on the battlefields of North America, and by extension had been decided by the "Lord of Hosts", then it stood that the new American government had received its seal of approval from the Office of Heaven and could legitimately claim to rule. Fast forward 190 years, and the American nation, remember given a divine decree to rule, wars in Vietnam to stop "Communist aggression". Eventually, due to Vietnamese military persistence and domestic turmoil, the American military is forced to withdraw. So, the new Vietnamese government (Communist and not religion-friendly) having won on the battlefield, now has the seal of Heaven to rule legitimately. You see where this is headed? The American nation has the heavenly right to rule, but only in a certain geographical area. Other than that God has partitioned other governments to rule. We are falling into a trap of "might-makes-right". Indeed, the human impossibility of fullly comprehending God would mean any attempt to measure human governmental authority in this way is ultimately an exercise in futility.
I submit that as free individuals we possess the authority, moral or otherwise, to do whatever we please. It is only through the unwritten social contract, which is itself written in various ways by different societies throughout the world, that we agree to concede these individual rights to a greater collective entity. It is a distinctly human action, and human action, having been set free by God at the beginning of the universe, needs no higher justification then its own satisfaction. Indeed, as God has forfeited all responsibility for us, he has likewise absolved all our responsibility to him, so that we might do whatever we want to do. This is the practice of free will.
I don't want to comment on the article in whole, since reading it is a gateway into the mind of one of America's top-level adjudicators. I do want to say I respect Antonin Scalia for his level-headedness, his strict constitutionalism, and his loyalty to the notion of popular sovereignty. I also think he's a funny guy. Like almost every other Supreme Court justice he can write very well, his ideas are organized cleanly, and they are presented as equally well.
Where I disagree with him is in his assertion that government "however you want to limit that concept—derives its moral authority from God". What justice Scalia is saying then, at least insofar as I understand it, is that no matter the type of government, no matter the ruler, no matter the decision making process, the ultimate authority to lead a nation of people derives from God. I have no doubt that this position in part stems from Scalia's Roman Catholic religion, which teaches the special connection between man and God. Scalia believes that the great moral authority that the state possesses to do things not allowed to the individual doesn't come from the collective will of the people but rather from the hand of the divine lordship. This is why the state has the authority to execute people, take land and property, create rules for all to follow, etc. Scalia even references non-democratic governments as divinely ordained because their leaders are chosen in a series of battles the outcomes of which are decided by the "Lord of Hosts" or "Lord of Armies".
Where this breaks down is a familar logical pitfall for anyone who's thought about the legitimacy of human government: we come to a conclusion that either every government that has ever existed has a "mandate of heaven" or that God sanctions some governments and not others. Both of these are equally fallacious. If the ruling government is always ordained by God either through the democratic exercise of the people or the submission of them to the strongest army, then even the ultra-atheistic former Soviet Union and current People's Republic of China have God's go-ahead to rule. If however, governments can be formed without the approval of the "Big Guy Upstairs" then how are we to know which governments have it and which don't? It's quite possible then that governments created in war and maintained by brute force against their civilian populace have the utmost approval of the Lord, while democratically elected ones do not. We could not only argue about which types of government have God's favor, but indeed which individual governments themselves have it. What a mess we have made for ourselves, then.
Also, Scalia's comments about the outcome of battles being decided by the Lord of Armies bespeaks a peasant mentality, if you ask me. Any competent military commander or student of history will tell you battles are won by those more prepared, more trained, and more willing to win. There have been countless times in history where a superior numerical force has been repulsed by a smaller force better equipped and better trained. It is not up to random chance to decide the outcome of battles but rather the decided, calculated actions of the men involved. No one would expect to win a major military confrontation by simply praying and marching in. There will always be a battle plan, always maps and logistics tables, always scouts and spies and reconaissance. To win you must win in this universe, in this reality. The external universe of the Godhead does not factor into deciding victors.
There is one more problem with this notion I want to go into. It is best to illustrate it by example. In 1781, the leaders of the provisional government of thirteen former colonies of Great Britain accepted the surrendur of Lord Cornwall, the highest British military authority in the land, effectively ending the British military presence in the colonies at the time. It also generally assured American independence since Britain no longer had an army to force its will on the colonies. So, since the fate of the colonies had been decided on the battlefields of North America, and by extension had been decided by the "Lord of Hosts", then it stood that the new American government had received its seal of approval from the Office of Heaven and could legitimately claim to rule. Fast forward 190 years, and the American nation, remember given a divine decree to rule, wars in Vietnam to stop "Communist aggression". Eventually, due to Vietnamese military persistence and domestic turmoil, the American military is forced to withdraw. So, the new Vietnamese government (Communist and not religion-friendly) having won on the battlefield, now has the seal of Heaven to rule legitimately. You see where this is headed? The American nation has the heavenly right to rule, but only in a certain geographical area. Other than that God has partitioned other governments to rule. We are falling into a trap of "might-makes-right". Indeed, the human impossibility of fullly comprehending God would mean any attempt to measure human governmental authority in this way is ultimately an exercise in futility.
I submit that as free individuals we possess the authority, moral or otherwise, to do whatever we please. It is only through the unwritten social contract, which is itself written in various ways by different societies throughout the world, that we agree to concede these individual rights to a greater collective entity. It is a distinctly human action, and human action, having been set free by God at the beginning of the universe, needs no higher justification then its own satisfaction. Indeed, as God has forfeited all responsibility for us, he has likewise absolved all our responsibility to him, so that we might do whatever we want to do. This is the practice of free will.
8.12.2005
The fallacy of behavioral laws and the tool of the free market
Recently there was an ordinance passed in Austin (read about it here) banning smoking from all public places including restaurants and bars. Now this ordinance doesn't ban smoking in public places, so far as public means owned by the public. Rather, it means public in the sense of not a private residence. So any place that's open to public business. This ban doesn't go into effect till September, but the point remains the same. That is, that there has been yet another law passed to regulate the personal behavior of people in the interest of protecting the "public good". In this case, the "public good" is disguised as the health of non-smokers. Nevermind that smokers are part of the "public".
This is the liberal fallacy that undermines democracy and the free choice of the human animal. I must contend that it is a liberal fallacy, though I'm sure some "conservatives" share the logic. That fallacy is that enough rules and regulations will minimize injustice and maximize freedom. If the behaviors of the individual can be regulated, then the direction of society to something more harmonious and equal can be set.
The years between 1945 and 1992 showed us nothing if not that massive state-run programs to control society through the individual are doomed for failure (ie socialism). But this fallacy has persisted in a watered-down variety in the West, where absolute state control of individual behavior hasn't been practiced, yet.
What these controlling measures aim to do however, can be accomplished by a completely free market system. That is, allowing the owners of private business to decide what will be done in their own businesses. If people don't like being around smoke when they go out, they will go to businesses where the owner has chosen to go smoke-free. If the great majority of people dislike smoking, then businesses that allow smoking will not attract enough customers, will cease to be profitable endeavors, and will either shut down or adapt to the market.
But the continued success of businesses that allowed smoking inside their walls shows that a great number of people liked smoking, or at least didn't dislike it enough to not visit and spend money at these places. So in the interest of protecting "public health" (really the preferences of some) a law has been passed regulating the behavior of anyone.
It might be argued that since this was a referendum, the greatest number of citizens voted for it and thus it is the will of the majority. This, while a laudable defense, for me at least falls under the "trick of democracy". That is, the notion that an election proves the will of the people. Note from the article above that only 16% of eligible voters went to the polls that day, meaning the desires of 84% of the population are not expressly contented. This is the same problem with all democratic offices. The will of the people (the only sovereing power, according to democracy) changes often, sometimes day to day, while the results of one-time elections may stand for years, or even permanently. This is the fallacy in any democracy, as supporters of one position may try to unduly influence public opinion near an election/referendum date, knowing that the result will stand for years regardless of change in public opinion.
I'm digressing. The point is that there should be no law regulating the smoking of tobacco in private establishments. The reason being that free choice by consumers will determine whether a business succeeds or fails, and businesses will cater to that choice to succeed. Regulation takes the time of our elected legislators, the time of our law enforcement officers, and the time and money of our prosecuting offices for offenses. In addition to the economic cost, it just plain old limits freedom of choice. Society as a whole (and definitely not the state, acting as the temporary proxy for the society) does not have a right to tell an individual he cannot pollute his own body, if it is the individual's express will to do so.
This is the liberal fallacy that undermines democracy and the free choice of the human animal. I must contend that it is a liberal fallacy, though I'm sure some "conservatives" share the logic. That fallacy is that enough rules and regulations will minimize injustice and maximize freedom. If the behaviors of the individual can be regulated, then the direction of society to something more harmonious and equal can be set.
The years between 1945 and 1992 showed us nothing if not that massive state-run programs to control society through the individual are doomed for failure (ie socialism). But this fallacy has persisted in a watered-down variety in the West, where absolute state control of individual behavior hasn't been practiced, yet.
What these controlling measures aim to do however, can be accomplished by a completely free market system. That is, allowing the owners of private business to decide what will be done in their own businesses. If people don't like being around smoke when they go out, they will go to businesses where the owner has chosen to go smoke-free. If the great majority of people dislike smoking, then businesses that allow smoking will not attract enough customers, will cease to be profitable endeavors, and will either shut down or adapt to the market.
But the continued success of businesses that allowed smoking inside their walls shows that a great number of people liked smoking, or at least didn't dislike it enough to not visit and spend money at these places. So in the interest of protecting "public health" (really the preferences of some) a law has been passed regulating the behavior of anyone.
It might be argued that since this was a referendum, the greatest number of citizens voted for it and thus it is the will of the majority. This, while a laudable defense, for me at least falls under the "trick of democracy". That is, the notion that an election proves the will of the people. Note from the article above that only 16% of eligible voters went to the polls that day, meaning the desires of 84% of the population are not expressly contented. This is the same problem with all democratic offices. The will of the people (the only sovereing power, according to democracy) changes often, sometimes day to day, while the results of one-time elections may stand for years, or even permanently. This is the fallacy in any democracy, as supporters of one position may try to unduly influence public opinion near an election/referendum date, knowing that the result will stand for years regardless of change in public opinion.
I'm digressing. The point is that there should be no law regulating the smoking of tobacco in private establishments. The reason being that free choice by consumers will determine whether a business succeeds or fails, and businesses will cater to that choice to succeed. Regulation takes the time of our elected legislators, the time of our law enforcement officers, and the time and money of our prosecuting offices for offenses. In addition to the economic cost, it just plain old limits freedom of choice. Society as a whole (and definitely not the state, acting as the temporary proxy for the society) does not have a right to tell an individual he cannot pollute his own body, if it is the individual's express will to do so.
American jobs and globalization
This is an interesting article I found linked at Fark.
It details a current problem in the American economy, that is that state, regional, and local governments often compete with each other trying to bring companies in. They lure them with start up money, bonuses, tax credits, and other things in the idea that if the company puts down roots it will bring jobs and commerce to the area.
Most interesting in this read is the fact that there is now a village industry that's sprung up around "consulting" for these companies that are trying to make the most possible out of their corporate investments. Meaning these consultants tell these companies what to do to get local governments to give them themost money. Of course the consultants get a percentage of the final deal as their fee.
Additionally, these consultants also often work for the local governments themselves, in effect playing both sides of the field, creating what's commonly known as a conflict of interest.
Anyway, I don't want to go into the minute details of the article, read it yourself and be enlightened.
Where is this world of ours headed?
It details a current problem in the American economy, that is that state, regional, and local governments often compete with each other trying to bring companies in. They lure them with start up money, bonuses, tax credits, and other things in the idea that if the company puts down roots it will bring jobs and commerce to the area.
Most interesting in this read is the fact that there is now a village industry that's sprung up around "consulting" for these companies that are trying to make the most possible out of their corporate investments. Meaning these consultants tell these companies what to do to get local governments to give them themost money. Of course the consultants get a percentage of the final deal as their fee.
Additionally, these consultants also often work for the local governments themselves, in effect playing both sides of the field, creating what's commonly known as a conflict of interest.
Anyway, I don't want to go into the minute details of the article, read it yourself and be enlightened.
Where is this world of ours headed?
8.11.2005
European style sponsorship is on its way to the States
Though sponsorship is nothing new in American sports, it has not yet reached the large, dare I say endemic proportions it has in Europe. In Europe everything is sponsored. There are no more real Stadium names. Arsenal's stadium (in continuous use since 1913) is going to be demolished next year because Arsenal are completing a new stadium 500 meters down the road. So Highbury, a great name with lots of tradition will yield to the new Emirate's Stadium. At least Emirates airlines had to pay 100 million pounds (roughly 180 million dollars) for the naming rights. On top of that, the new stadium will hold 70,000 fans while Highbury holds a maximum 20,000. So basically they are coming out with lots of money, but the tradition is gone.
Now one of the greatest college rivalries of all time, the Red River Shootout, which has been played for almost a hundred years, will change its name. It will now be called the SBC Red River Rivalry.
The article notes that the name change comes as a result of the sponsorship deal between SBC Communications and both schools, and an official notes it was also for reasons of political correctness. Interestingly, the article does not note how much the sponsorship deal is worth, nor who will receive that money when it is eventually paid. Does the deal go to the states' school systems or directly to the schools themselves? Furthermore, who will receive this money and decide how it's used?
More to come...
Now one of the greatest college rivalries of all time, the Red River Shootout, which has been played for almost a hundred years, will change its name. It will now be called the SBC Red River Rivalry.
The article notes that the name change comes as a result of the sponsorship deal between SBC Communications and both schools, and an official notes it was also for reasons of political correctness. Interestingly, the article does not note how much the sponsorship deal is worth, nor who will receive that money when it is eventually paid. Does the deal go to the states' school systems or directly to the schools themselves? Furthermore, who will receive this money and decide how it's used?
More to come...
8.10.2005
national anthems
This is a song that's played as the English national anthem though no Act of Parliament has ever specified it as such. It has the same tune as My Country, 'tis of Thee
God save our gracious Queen
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen.
Send her victorious,
happy and glorious,
long to reign over Us,
God save the Queen.
God save our gracious Queen
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen.
Send her victorious,
happy and glorious,
long to reign over Us,
God save the Queen.
how much is a problem?
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens recently spoke out against the death penalty, saying that capital cases take a huge part of the Supreme Court's time.
The full article explains his position in more detail.
What I'm intrigued about though is the discussion at the end of the article. It notes that Death Penalty Information Center gives a number of 3 dozen death row inmates have been exonerated since 2000.
Most interesting to me is that Kent Scheidegger, lawyer for a pro-death penalty group is quoted at the end of the article as saying "I wouldn't say that 20 or 30 cases out of 8,000 constitutes a broken system."
Firstly I don't know that I disagree with him. I have always thought I was a fan of capital punishment though I admit that I don't think about it all that often. And, assuming that 30 folks are exonerated on death row, then out of 8,000 cases nationwide, that's less than a half of one percent are killed erroneously.
However, I must ask now if that itself is too much. I believe most folks think human life is supposed to be worth more than anything else (which is rubbish, the individual life doesn't matter only the species). So if even the remote possibility exists that you might be killing an innocent man, shouldn't that be enough to stop all executions?
Especially if I consider the views of the pro-lifers (note I am pro-choice) whose ideology is that all human life is precious, and you can't kill the life inside the womb. I would think then that pro-lifers would be the most vocal anti-death penalty advocates. I mean, human society can by no means dish out "justice". We only have a "justice system" that is as capable of committing errors as the humans running it are.
Let us give pause then, and think about the consequences of our actions.
The full article explains his position in more detail.
What I'm intrigued about though is the discussion at the end of the article. It notes that Death Penalty Information Center gives a number of 3 dozen death row inmates have been exonerated since 2000.
Most interesting to me is that Kent Scheidegger, lawyer for a pro-death penalty group is quoted at the end of the article as saying "I wouldn't say that 20 or 30 cases out of 8,000 constitutes a broken system."
Firstly I don't know that I disagree with him. I have always thought I was a fan of capital punishment though I admit that I don't think about it all that often. And, assuming that 30 folks are exonerated on death row, then out of 8,000 cases nationwide, that's less than a half of one percent are killed erroneously.
However, I must ask now if that itself is too much. I believe most folks think human life is supposed to be worth more than anything else (which is rubbish, the individual life doesn't matter only the species). So if even the remote possibility exists that you might be killing an innocent man, shouldn't that be enough to stop all executions?
Especially if I consider the views of the pro-lifers (note I am pro-choice) whose ideology is that all human life is precious, and you can't kill the life inside the womb. I would think then that pro-lifers would be the most vocal anti-death penalty advocates. I mean, human society can by no means dish out "justice". We only have a "justice system" that is as capable of committing errors as the humans running it are.
Let us give pause then, and think about the consequences of our actions.
breeding dogs is good business...
this is my baby
So I bit the bullet and sent in Margo's registration papers. Cost me 67 dollars. 15 for registering, 35 for "late fees", and 17 for something they called the Silver Plan. Really all it is is a three generation pedigree sheet.
AT 1500 a puppy, my student loan payments are loving the idea.
being in the middle of fucking summer...
Should I get a jacket?
Not a big jacket, but a track jacket. Like a puma or adidas jacket. A really nice one.
No I am not emo. I do not want this jacket cause it is popular with emo kids. I want one because I am a footballer! And this is popular with football kids :P.
They are not that expensive, nor are they that heavy.
I've found this great site run by a group of Argentine guys who cater to folks with just my discriminating tastes. Retro League will hook you up with a retro jersey from every country that's any country in football. This includes to my chagrin Greece, who surprised the world by winning Euro 2004 but have unsurprisingly not done anything of note since. They were kind of like the Danes of the mid-2000s (though their road to the finals was much less chaotic than the Danes, for a brief synopsis of that drama click here).
I like the England, Spain, and Sweden jackets. I also like the Deutschland ones, the Beckenbauer is particularly choice.
At 40.00 bucks a pop they should last, and the guys' feedback on ebay is all good.
Not a big jacket, but a track jacket. Like a puma or adidas jacket. A really nice one.
No I am not emo. I do not want this jacket cause it is popular with emo kids. I want one because I am a footballer! And this is popular with football kids :P.
They are not that expensive, nor are they that heavy.
I've found this great site run by a group of Argentine guys who cater to folks with just my discriminating tastes. Retro League will hook you up with a retro jersey from every country that's any country in football. This includes to my chagrin Greece, who surprised the world by winning Euro 2004 but have unsurprisingly not done anything of note since. They were kind of like the Danes of the mid-2000s (though their road to the finals was much less chaotic than the Danes, for a brief synopsis of that drama click here).
I like the England, Spain, and Sweden jackets. I also like the Deutschland ones, the Beckenbauer is particularly choice.
At 40.00 bucks a pop they should last, and the guys' feedback on ebay is all good.
more more more
At work.
It's so easy to get distracted at work.
It's one thing to say you're distracted because of music or tv. I have no issues with being distracted cause of those things.
However, being distracted by radio/tv has nothing on being distracted cause of the fucking internet. TV and radio are passive distractions. That is you just sit there and absorb what is sent to you. However, the internet is an interactive phenomenon. You must put something into it as well as pull information out of it to truly use it.
I don't even want to say something like "In my line of work...". The internet is my line of work. I can't do my job without using 3 or 4 different levels of the "internet". A huge part of this is the web. So I am more than tempted (invited I would say) to surf the web whenever I'm working. And believe me I do this all the time. Looking for any and everything.
This leads to some problems though with me tripping over my own feet. While helping someone out on the phone, I start with the "now click on, uhh, the uhh, the uhh, oh what were we doing again?". Today this got so bad that it prompted my coworker to snap at me "Pay attention!" Which briefly put me in line, but I quickly digressed again.
In other news, I don't know why html reference code won't work in this thing. I'll find it out.
I want to go into some detail about my feelings on the "new" NHL. Altogether I like this new hockey-creature. The salary cap has started to disburse some of the talent in the league to smaller teams, as noted in my last post. Hence I like the salary cap. However, I have a huge problem with shootouts at the end of league games. The system should be that a win in regulation gets 3 points, a tie gets one point each, and a win in OT gets 2 points. In this way teams would be induced to win in regulation, rather than play for a tie or a win in OT. But no, we have shootouts now. What a fucking joke! So 18 guys can bust their ass for 65 minutes and then lose cause 3 of their shooters didn't deke at just the right moment.
If this is what fans want, I don't want to be a fan.
It's so easy to get distracted at work.
It's one thing to say you're distracted because of music or tv. I have no issues with being distracted cause of those things.
However, being distracted by radio/tv has nothing on being distracted cause of the fucking internet. TV and radio are passive distractions. That is you just sit there and absorb what is sent to you. However, the internet is an interactive phenomenon. You must put something into it as well as pull information out of it to truly use it.
I don't even want to say something like "In my line of work...". The internet is my line of work. I can't do my job without using 3 or 4 different levels of the "internet". A huge part of this is the web. So I am more than tempted (invited I would say) to surf the web whenever I'm working. And believe me I do this all the time. Looking for any and everything.
This leads to some problems though with me tripping over my own feet. While helping someone out on the phone, I start with the "now click on, uhh, the uhh, the uhh, oh what were we doing again?". Today this got so bad that it prompted my coworker to snap at me "Pay attention!" Which briefly put me in line, but I quickly digressed again.
In other news, I don't know why html reference code won't work in this thing. I'll find it out.
I want to go into some detail about my feelings on the "new" NHL. Altogether I like this new hockey-creature. The salary cap has started to disburse some of the talent in the league to smaller teams, as noted in my last post. Hence I like the salary cap. However, I have a huge problem with shootouts at the end of league games. The system should be that a win in regulation gets 3 points, a tie gets one point each, and a win in OT gets 2 points. In this way teams would be induced to win in regulation, rather than play for a tie or a win in OT. But no, we have shootouts now. What a fucking joke! So 18 guys can bust their ass for 65 minutes and then lose cause 3 of their shooters didn't deke at just the right moment.
If this is what fans want, I don't want to be a fan.
fuck free spending chelsea!
fuck free spending Chelsea
Current mood: bummed out
I've just watched the Community Shield on delay. Arsenal lose 2-1. I am pretty bummed about it.
Drogba scores both for Chelsea, and both were fuck ups by Senderos. Fabregas pulled an ugly one back. That kid has talent and I hope he really flowers this year.
The teams meet in two weeks time at Stamford Bridge. If Arsenal can win there, then we can win the season. If we tie we may win yet. If we lose Chelsea will repeat as Champions. There is something that upsets my sense of universal balance at Chelsea winning again.
The NHL is back. 39 million dollar salary cap and all. I really fucking hope the NHLPA learned its lesson, especially Trevor Linden and Bill Guerin. For their "hardball" they got a year of unemployment and worse working conditions then they could've gotten originally.
The great thing about this cap is the talent it frees up. Colorado, New York, and Detroit won't be able to lock up all the talent anymore. Anaheim just signed the Niedermayer brothers. Pittsburgh is rebuilding. Lemieux's back, Crosby's there, Fleury's there, Jackman's there, Gonchar just got bought up, and they're looking to contend again. Oh yeah, they just signed Ziggy Palffy too.
Paul Kariya signed with Nashville, of all places.
I'm no Forsberg fan, but it seems the Floppa has ended up in Philadelphia. Clarke is really eager to take my beloved Flyers to the Cup.
As for the two teams that take my love before Philadelphia, St. Louis and Dallas, Dallas signed Modano to a career ending 5 year contract, kept Billy G, are resigning a bunch of RFAs on the cheap, and looking to have a solid team. The Pacific got better not only because JR went to LA, but also because Gretzky said he'd be coaching the Phoenix Coyotes. I knew the Hull-Gretzky partnership wasn't over in St. Louis!
Both the EPL and the NHL this year are going to be great.
So long as we keep Chelsea down!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
