Monday, January 05, 2004

75% That is the Seer's NFL playoff goal: to get 75% of the games right.  So far, so good.  We missed badly on the Cowboys, who just don't have the skill in the offensive backfield or at QB necessary to win big games.  The defense is good, but they still need a good draft or two to be a real force. It's hard to know what to say about the Packers.  Even as Seattle QB Matt Hasselbeck was getting ready to throw that out route, I knew it was going to get picked off.  Can the Pack win in Philly?  Sure, but count on miracle finishes the rest of the way for that team. I'm glad Baltimore lost.  I loved watching Ray Lewis in that game Saturday; he's just a machine.  But Baltimore turns every game into a slogging field-position affair.  I like to watch one of those every now and again, but Saturday's was enough for me.  Bring on the offenses! 10:54:44 AM    Say what?[]

Moral Fashion Thanks to Nate D. for this link, which he mentions in one of the comment strings below.  It is an essay regarding why some ideas are seen as heretical or unpopular, and why many of those ideas end up frequently being wrong.  A good read. 10:49:55 AM    Say what?[]

Pete Rose's Pants Are On Fire Pete Rose now admits that he bet on baseball.  This was the act for which he was suspended for life, a clear violation of one of baseball's (and sport's) most sacred rules.  Then he lied about it for 14 years.  He mocked baseball and Jim Dowd, who put together the report which detailed quite clearly Rose's transgressions. Now, he admits not only that he is guilty of the act for which he was originally banned, but that he then had the gall to lie about it in a very public and spiteful way for 14 years.  (And profit from it as well.) So that's all you have to do to get reinstated?  Huh.  I would say I have lost all respect for Bud Selig and the owners cartel he represents, but I didn't have any in the first place. 9:45:31 AM    Say what?[]

Safire On Dean And God I'll confess right now that I don't see all the angles or implications of what William Safire is writing here, due to my lack of specific knowledge of the Bible.  But since our discussion last week regarding belief and politicians, I'm paying more attention to these types of stories.  Safire takes Dean to task a bit for misinterpreting the book of Job, and though he doesn't come out and say it directly, I think there is a definite undercurrent of skepticism of Dean's real Biblical knowledge in Safire's column. I have no idea what Dean or any other candidate does or doesn't know about the Bible, nor do I care.  I'm not saying Dean is guilty of this, but I wonder: Is it better to overstate your knowledge of religious matters and be seen as pandering, or is it better to politely refuse to talk about the subject?  I guarantee, if Dean had responded to that reporter's question about what his favorite New Testament book was with a "No comment", it would be a front-page story today and for the rest of the campaign. 9:21:46 AM    Say what?[]

© Copyright 2004 DH. Last update: 2/2/2004; 11:29:57 AM.