Sunday, October 06, 2013
Chuck Asay Retired!
Whoa, I totally missed this! On June 28, 2013, Chuck Asay one of the most evil GOP-suckin' editorial cartoonists retired. Wow, I didn't even know, yet I feel a great relief that his demolished moral compass no longer infects us. Thanks Chuck.
The Tea Party Shutdown
Steelers, Week 4, Quick Thoughts
Didn't get to watch it yet (may never), only heard the game on radio. But, in one word, yeeeesh. If I needed any proof for the necessity of a workable Left Tackle, it's these first 4 games. But then again, I didn't expect our defense, the Dick LeBeau defense, the "#1" defense, one with HOF shoo-in Troy Polomalu, to be so freakin' bad.
Like any normal Steeler fan, I need to think about next year's draft. We'll have a high one. We need a primo Left-Tackle. And maybe let some other organization choose it for us. After the LT, maybe finally get a CB who can catch a ball.
Since the loss came from the defense...
All the commentaries are showing me my analysis is correct - there can't be turnovers, yet, because of our rebuilding phase... which this clearly is, BTW. The good veterans of yesteryear are gone, and with them the professionalism in the locker room. But the current state reveals a lot about last year's decision making: we thought we had the talent to make another 12-4 run. But because of injuries - and I believe that's the answer for last year's woes (plus the poisoned superstar pills of Wallace and Mendenhall) - we didn't have the consistency we needed. If we had in 2012 a healthy Harrison, Polamalu, Big Ben, and Antonio Brown for all 16 games, we'd have been around 12-4 again.
This is not the issue for 2013. We got rid of a HUGE number of people in order to get younger and (possibly) cheaper. With that, we've lost even more leadership: Max Starks, Harrison, Charlie Batch, Casey Hampton. These dudes obviously had enough talent, and even more leadership. We don't have that this year and you can see the fallout. But in the interest of the future, we needed to go younger.
What I saw in game 4 is that our offense is finally getting in shape, despite the crucial deficit in the o-line (see below about Levi Brown). It's amazing that the commentaries all lambasted Todd Haley, the OC, for 3 weeks and in game 4 he's finally doing well. Amazing what having your #1 TE, #1 RB, #1 FB will do, eh? The offense finally scored enough to win the game, it's the defense that let us down.
Same thing happened last year! And if Ben (and to a lesser extent AB) hadn't been injuried in the Chiefs game, I'd like to think we'd have kept the pace up and been around 12-4; we were that good. The 2012 defense started badly and slowly but got great at the end, despite no turnovers.
I'm thinking the same thing could happen this year, but with these caveats: (1) last year, the turnovers didn't come because we didn't have Harrison and Polomalu, (2) this year it's because we have a very young O-line (no more Hampton) which doesn't occupy the middle like we used to, and the middle LB - because of injuries - are 2 freakin' newbies! Vince Williams a rookie 7th rounder and Kion Wilson who was selling insurance last year. Our middle is so soft that it doesn't allow pressure to the edges and it forces the safeties to play linebacker. This neutralizes Polomalu and seems to have nerfed Clark.
Then again, given the number of rookies and over-fined vets, our defense could also be nerfing themselves so we don't give up 15 yard penalties all the time. Our defense, with our as old-school as definitionally possible DC, may not be able to adjust to the frankly chaotic rules changes. Every team may suffer, but it could be the Steelers most of all. The refs don't know how to call the imaginary penalties and this could make our group so flaccid. Maybe.
The Levi Brown trade...
This incident shows how much the commentariat fire too fast. And how much trust has been lost. The Steelers Lounge guys are a case in point - they made a special podcast on Wed afternoon to declare how horribly stupid the Steelers FO is - that they would dump 4 million dollars on a terrible LT! They are desperate!! Wah!!! And I listened to them, and the entire basis for their freakout is that we paid too much. They admitted b'ferush that if we paid "vet minimum" that the deal would be actually good.
Which turned out to be precisely the case.
They haven't made another podcast since the full facts were announced LATER THAT AFTERNOON. And so we can use them as an example of the standard internet paper tiger bluster: goin' nuts because of false information and too arrogant to admit error.
But these guys are experts and their doomsaying reveals a problematic context: they feel that the past few years has shown the poor decisions of the regime of Tomlin/Colbert and once the trust has been lost, it takes a lot of counter info to clean the slate. The past few drafts have been just terrible.
Tomlin not Colbert
But let's look at the record: Colbert has been GM since 2000. The drafts from then have been basically good. When did things go terribly? Well, Tomlin came aboard in 2007. Look at this 2011 chart of his picks - there's a lot of busts in there, especially in the most recent years (2012 is a freakin' disaster). It's possible to blame our previous success (see here, #5), that we can't pick higher because we're too good etc. Except first and second rounders are supposed to be really good, no matter the draft position. And Gilbert & Adams are both second rounders!
Until I see more information about Tomlin (so far, he's shown to be a bad evaluator of talent and a terrible in-game manager, and as seen in the disarray of 2012, a very bad disciplinarian) I will still blame the bad drafts on the bad position coaches. Which, yeah, still goes back to Tomlin's lack of talent evaluation, but at least its one step removed.
Like any normal Steeler fan, I need to think about next year's draft. We'll have a high one. We need a primo Left-Tackle. And maybe let some other organization choose it for us. After the LT, maybe finally get a CB who can catch a ball.
Since the loss came from the defense...
All the commentaries are showing me my analysis is correct - there can't be turnovers, yet, because of our rebuilding phase... which this clearly is, BTW. The good veterans of yesteryear are gone, and with them the professionalism in the locker room. But the current state reveals a lot about last year's decision making: we thought we had the talent to make another 12-4 run. But because of injuries - and I believe that's the answer for last year's woes (plus the poisoned superstar pills of Wallace and Mendenhall) - we didn't have the consistency we needed. If we had in 2012 a healthy Harrison, Polamalu, Big Ben, and Antonio Brown for all 16 games, we'd have been around 12-4 again.
This is not the issue for 2013. We got rid of a HUGE number of people in order to get younger and (possibly) cheaper. With that, we've lost even more leadership: Max Starks, Harrison, Charlie Batch, Casey Hampton. These dudes obviously had enough talent, and even more leadership. We don't have that this year and you can see the fallout. But in the interest of the future, we needed to go younger.
What I saw in game 4 is that our offense is finally getting in shape, despite the crucial deficit in the o-line (see below about Levi Brown). It's amazing that the commentaries all lambasted Todd Haley, the OC, for 3 weeks and in game 4 he's finally doing well. Amazing what having your #1 TE, #1 RB, #1 FB will do, eh? The offense finally scored enough to win the game, it's the defense that let us down.
Same thing happened last year! And if Ben (and to a lesser extent AB) hadn't been injuried in the Chiefs game, I'd like to think we'd have kept the pace up and been around 12-4; we were that good. The 2012 defense started badly and slowly but got great at the end, despite no turnovers.
I'm thinking the same thing could happen this year, but with these caveats: (1) last year, the turnovers didn't come because we didn't have Harrison and Polomalu, (2) this year it's because we have a very young O-line (no more Hampton) which doesn't occupy the middle like we used to, and the middle LB - because of injuries - are 2 freakin' newbies! Vince Williams a rookie 7th rounder and Kion Wilson who was selling insurance last year. Our middle is so soft that it doesn't allow pressure to the edges and it forces the safeties to play linebacker. This neutralizes Polomalu and seems to have nerfed Clark.
Then again, given the number of rookies and over-fined vets, our defense could also be nerfing themselves so we don't give up 15 yard penalties all the time. Our defense, with our as old-school as definitionally possible DC, may not be able to adjust to the frankly chaotic rules changes. Every team may suffer, but it could be the Steelers most of all. The refs don't know how to call the imaginary penalties and this could make our group so flaccid. Maybe.
The Levi Brown trade...
This incident shows how much the commentariat fire too fast. And how much trust has been lost. The Steelers Lounge guys are a case in point - they made a special podcast on Wed afternoon to declare how horribly stupid the Steelers FO is - that they would dump 4 million dollars on a terrible LT! They are desperate!! Wah!!! And I listened to them, and the entire basis for their freakout is that we paid too much. They admitted b'ferush that if we paid "vet minimum" that the deal would be actually good.
Which turned out to be precisely the case.
They haven't made another podcast since the full facts were announced LATER THAT AFTERNOON. And so we can use them as an example of the standard internet paper tiger bluster: goin' nuts because of false information and too arrogant to admit error.
But these guys are experts and their doomsaying reveals a problematic context: they feel that the past few years has shown the poor decisions of the regime of Tomlin/Colbert and once the trust has been lost, it takes a lot of counter info to clean the slate. The past few drafts have been just terrible.
Tomlin not Colbert
But let's look at the record: Colbert has been GM since 2000. The drafts from then have been basically good. When did things go terribly? Well, Tomlin came aboard in 2007. Look at this 2011 chart of his picks - there's a lot of busts in there, especially in the most recent years (2012 is a freakin' disaster). It's possible to blame our previous success (see here, #5), that we can't pick higher because we're too good etc. Except first and second rounders are supposed to be really good, no matter the draft position. And Gilbert & Adams are both second rounders!
Until I see more information about Tomlin (so far, he's shown to be a bad evaluator of talent and a terrible in-game manager, and as seen in the disarray of 2012, a very bad disciplinarian) I will still blame the bad drafts on the bad position coaches. Which, yeah, still goes back to Tomlin's lack of talent evaluation, but at least its one step removed.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Steelers, Week 3, Quick Thoughts
Yet another three-day holiday arriving, so I'll need to make this quick:
1. Can the Steelers stop playing night games? I'm getting used to the nobility of losing, but its freakin' tiring.
2. One word: snakebit. Explanation: When looked at logically, we're going through a major transition. We changed 4 key coaches in a year or so (OC, O-line, Receivers, Special teams), and if you see the history of the current team, page 28 here, you'll see 18 of the 53 man roster has come to the team in the past few months. That's the definition of transition. Then add onto that the serious crazy injuries all at once, and you have "bad luck." Or, as I think it can be put, "snakebit."
3. No massive injuries for another week. whew.
4. Heath is back! HEEEEEEATH!!
5. As someone put it, I think on Steelers lounge, that the Patriots are in the same boat as the Steelers - it's the price of success over the past decade. The Steelers have been to 3 Superbowls and been the top of the charts... which means we're an old team whose needed to draft at the dregs. At a certain point, parity catches up. But the Patriots have a way easier division than we have, so they have - logically - been able to stay better longer. Also, Brady is a safer QB.
6. All that said, I do think the o-line is slow to be good. As they said on Sunday night, this too is logical since they are so inexperienced. I have hope that they will gel and develop over the year. This can only be expected. However, we still have to wonder why our second round picks, Gilbert & Adams, aren't better than they are. So I wonder, how does scouting work? Is it done by the position coach? Because we seem to have incredible success with wide-receivers but terrible quality O-line. Its probable that the current coach is doing the best he can with crappy athletes. It's possible that the previous coach either selected badly, and/or coached badly, and the current guy has to do an Obama on the Iraq War that's the o-line.
7. Let's not forget that our defense started slow last year and got better. Why, I dunno. But I also know that our defense has had some key injuries: our #1 inside linebacker is out for the season and have been replaced with 2 rookies (and that is almost unheard of in LeBeau's defense), and our #2 CB is out. It's a bad sign when rookies are doing the play-calling and our HOF safety has to play pickup linebacker! I hope they rookies, like the o-line, will improve over the season. And, hey, maybe Sean Spence will play! (Again, the snakebit injury bug).
8. Let's be clear, while they talked about reload not rebuild last year, this is clearly a rebuilding year... so they better rebuild!
9. If this disaster continues, we may be lucky enough to get our next QB in the 2014 draft... maybe an Andrew Luck type who can stay in the pocket and outthink the opponents.
10. As for these past few weeks, I hear a lot of bellyaching by the fans and commentariat and they seem to adopt the Tomlin BS of ignoring the impact of injuries. It's an ideological/coaching point to parrot "the standard is the standard." But I'm not a coach, I deal with facts - and to understand cause/effect you can't let ideology blind you to facts (see my rant about the 2000 election). So if you asked me why we're 0-3, I'd say that since we played 3 tough teams (2-1, 2-1, 3-0) without our #1 center, #1 & 2 Tight ends, #1 ILB, #2 CB, #1 FB, #1 RB, that we would likely be 0-3. For the Bears, we just got fullback and top TE back and our offense looked better; let's see how much better the O-line will look when we get our top RB & #2 TE back!
11. You can't deny that the defense, week after week, stopped their best players, for the most part. It really was the turnovers.
12. About the Felix Jones fumble - he got walloped in the head, dude. Jim Brown had 57 career fumbles, over 9 years (118 games, that's an average of 1 every 2 games, 0.48 a game). Eric Dickerson, 78 over 10 years, 146 games (.53 a game). OK, so Barry Sanders is 41 over 153 games (whoa, 0.267!); but these things can be excused.
LEFTOVERS FROM WEEK 2
13. Don't give up on the running game. we NEED the running game, if anything to help give the defense a rest.
14. I see this a lot: “According 2 @EliasSports, 115 NFL teams have started 0-3 since '90. Only '92 SD, '95 DET, '98 BUF made playoffs” This is proof more than anything that we need to teach people how to use statistics.
15. How to get better for next week? I think time is the healer here. Let the O-line practice together more! That will really help. Back to fundamentals... because that's what sucks here.
16. About tomlin: he's so close to the chest. Does he know he messed up? We can't tell from his public comments, and we should know we will NEVER know from his public comments.
17. Other silver linings: we have actually been much better about penalties and special teams. That is encouraging!
18. Another example about facts and cause/effect, look at how people judge Brady vs. Manning. Manning is thought as not as good as Brady because of post-game failures. Except that many of those failures came because the Patriots clearly cheated. Just as Bush did in 2000. A win counts de-jure, but de-facto cheating doesn't make reality. Brady is great, but Manning is incredible.
1. Can the Steelers stop playing night games? I'm getting used to the nobility of losing, but its freakin' tiring.
2. One word: snakebit. Explanation: When looked at logically, we're going through a major transition. We changed 4 key coaches in a year or so (OC, O-line, Receivers, Special teams), and if you see the history of the current team, page 28 here, you'll see 18 of the 53 man roster has come to the team in the past few months. That's the definition of transition. Then add onto that the serious crazy injuries all at once, and you have "bad luck." Or, as I think it can be put, "snakebit."
3. No massive injuries for another week. whew.
4. Heath is back! HEEEEEEATH!!
5. As someone put it, I think on Steelers lounge, that the Patriots are in the same boat as the Steelers - it's the price of success over the past decade. The Steelers have been to 3 Superbowls and been the top of the charts... which means we're an old team whose needed to draft at the dregs. At a certain point, parity catches up. But the Patriots have a way easier division than we have, so they have - logically - been able to stay better longer. Also, Brady is a safer QB.
6. All that said, I do think the o-line is slow to be good. As they said on Sunday night, this too is logical since they are so inexperienced. I have hope that they will gel and develop over the year. This can only be expected. However, we still have to wonder why our second round picks, Gilbert & Adams, aren't better than they are. So I wonder, how does scouting work? Is it done by the position coach? Because we seem to have incredible success with wide-receivers but terrible quality O-line. Its probable that the current coach is doing the best he can with crappy athletes. It's possible that the previous coach either selected badly, and/or coached badly, and the current guy has to do an Obama on the Iraq War that's the o-line.
7. Let's not forget that our defense started slow last year and got better. Why, I dunno. But I also know that our defense has had some key injuries: our #1 inside linebacker is out for the season and have been replaced with 2 rookies (and that is almost unheard of in LeBeau's defense), and our #2 CB is out. It's a bad sign when rookies are doing the play-calling and our HOF safety has to play pickup linebacker! I hope they rookies, like the o-line, will improve over the season. And, hey, maybe Sean Spence will play! (Again, the snakebit injury bug).
8. Let's be clear, while they talked about reload not rebuild last year, this is clearly a rebuilding year... so they better rebuild!
9. If this disaster continues, we may be lucky enough to get our next QB in the 2014 draft... maybe an Andrew Luck type who can stay in the pocket and outthink the opponents.
10. As for these past few weeks, I hear a lot of bellyaching by the fans and commentariat and they seem to adopt the Tomlin BS of ignoring the impact of injuries. It's an ideological/coaching point to parrot "the standard is the standard." But I'm not a coach, I deal with facts - and to understand cause/effect you can't let ideology blind you to facts (see my rant about the 2000 election). So if you asked me why we're 0-3, I'd say that since we played 3 tough teams (2-1, 2-1, 3-0) without our #1 center, #1 & 2 Tight ends, #1 ILB, #2 CB, #1 FB, #1 RB, that we would likely be 0-3. For the Bears, we just got fullback and top TE back and our offense looked better; let's see how much better the O-line will look when we get our top RB & #2 TE back!
11. You can't deny that the defense, week after week, stopped their best players, for the most part. It really was the turnovers.
12. About the Felix Jones fumble - he got walloped in the head, dude. Jim Brown had 57 career fumbles, over 9 years (118 games, that's an average of 1 every 2 games, 0.48 a game). Eric Dickerson, 78 over 10 years, 146 games (.53 a game). OK, so Barry Sanders is 41 over 153 games (whoa, 0.267!); but these things can be excused.
LEFTOVERS FROM WEEK 2
13. Don't give up on the running game. we NEED the running game, if anything to help give the defense a rest.
14. I see this a lot: “According 2 @EliasSports, 115 NFL teams have started 0-3 since '90. Only '92 SD, '95 DET, '98 BUF made playoffs” This is proof more than anything that we need to teach people how to use statistics.
15. How to get better for next week? I think time is the healer here. Let the O-line practice together more! That will really help. Back to fundamentals... because that's what sucks here.
16. About tomlin: he's so close to the chest. Does he know he messed up? We can't tell from his public comments, and we should know we will NEVER know from his public comments.
17. Other silver linings: we have actually been much better about penalties and special teams. That is encouraging!
18. Another example about facts and cause/effect, look at how people judge Brady vs. Manning. Manning is thought as not as good as Brady because of post-game failures. Except that many of those failures came because the Patriots clearly cheated. Just as Bush did in 2000. A win counts de-jure, but de-facto cheating doesn't make reality. Brady is great, but Manning is incredible.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Steelers Week 2, Quick comments
So, the silver lining of our latest humiliating beat-down, is that no pro-bowl starter had a season ending injury. That's how bad things are in Pittsburgh... that's our silver lining. Look, I hope the signs are right and the AFC is as bad as it looks because the AFC North looks like its going to be won with 9-7 and the wildcard may also be 9-7 (see 2002).
Another silver lining is that we're actually getting better. I can't blame Haley for this, because our problem is (a) the key offensive players are currently injured, some for the year; (b) the rest of the key offensive players are either rookies or joined the team after the preseason. Logically, I can't expect them to play that well, especially against two very good defensive teams.
The defense also has two rookies as inside linebackers! And we need, NEED, turnovers!
I do feel things will get better, but I think we need to wait until Heath is back... and even better when Spaeth can join him.
And if you see what the Patriots are going through, if they played the Titans and Bengals maybe they'd be 0-2.
More later.
Another silver lining is that we're actually getting better. I can't blame Haley for this, because our problem is (a) the key offensive players are currently injured, some for the year; (b) the rest of the key offensive players are either rookies or joined the team after the preseason. Logically, I can't expect them to play that well, especially against two very good defensive teams.
The defense also has two rookies as inside linebackers! And we need, NEED, turnovers!
I do feel things will get better, but I think we need to wait until Heath is back... and even better when Spaeth can join him.
And if you see what the Patriots are going through, if they played the Titans and Bengals maybe they'd be 0-2.
More later.
Quick point about the latest shooting
Hey, guess what! Some crazy man uses a automatic rifle to kill innocent people in America!
I really hope we're actually not getting used to this, where it's like you take an umbrella because it may rain and you update your will because your co-workers are getting crazier. From the preliminary information (which follows the same pattern: "we have no idea he would do this" to "he kept shooting things and had untreated mental problems") this sounds like a weird twist on a workplace "postal" massacre. But I have to say, I don't see a good way forward on how to get the guns outa the hands of lunatics. Mainly because any lawmaker, or citizen, who tries to go after the gun lobby is likely to be shot dead by the selfsame lunatics. It's depressing.
I really hope we're actually not getting used to this, where it's like you take an umbrella because it may rain and you update your will because your co-workers are getting crazier. From the preliminary information (which follows the same pattern: "we have no idea he would do this" to "he kept shooting things and had untreated mental problems") this sounds like a weird twist on a workplace "postal" massacre. But I have to say, I don't see a good way forward on how to get the guns outa the hands of lunatics. Mainly because any lawmaker, or citizen, who tries to go after the gun lobby is likely to be shot dead by the selfsame lunatics. It's depressing.
Quick point about Syria
I'm someone who is usually confident in my ability to suss out the logical and moral direction in tough circumstances. That's why they pay me the big bucks (if one got paid big bucks to do that). I support Israel, even their current set of clowns in government, and I support Obama. I don't shy away from calls to war, and I believe that removing Assad from power is the ultimate goal for the region and, most importantly, for humanity. I am a social scientist, a rabbi, a philosopher. And, after all that, I can tell you that I have no freakin' idea what to do about Syria.
And I feel a need to give all that background because many Jewish organizations have been haranguing me, and the US government, to act on Syria. I hear many many people, especially my Israeli friends on Facebeook, that Obama needs to bomb Syria yesterday and since he hasn't that Obama proves he's a ninny. There's quite a lot of confidence in the words of the orgs & friends. And that is frightening. Because I can't see a good path to removing Assad. Why do these people think it's so simple?
Look, if there was a way to get the world together to remove Assad - for crimes against humanity - without risking chemical attacks against Israel, I'd be all for it. The problem with Syria (who, in my estimation, is synonymous with Iran) is the same problem a few miles East in North Korea. NK threatens the world, Iran threatens the world, but both punks have a Big Brother with a Big Stick: Russia for Iran/Syria, China for North Korea. And those scummy Big Brothers make this whole concept - making the world safe - very hard.
So all of you who think the answer is simple, who think that Obama is bad because he's not attacking Syria (which would lead to a chemical attack on Haifa), or who think everything is simple: please shut up.
And I feel a need to give all that background because many Jewish organizations have been haranguing me, and the US government, to act on Syria. I hear many many people, especially my Israeli friends on Facebeook, that Obama needs to bomb Syria yesterday and since he hasn't that Obama proves he's a ninny. There's quite a lot of confidence in the words of the orgs & friends. And that is frightening. Because I can't see a good path to removing Assad. Why do these people think it's so simple?
Look, if there was a way to get the world together to remove Assad - for crimes against humanity - without risking chemical attacks against Israel, I'd be all for it. The problem with Syria (who, in my estimation, is synonymous with Iran) is the same problem a few miles East in North Korea. NK threatens the world, Iran threatens the world, but both punks have a Big Brother with a Big Stick: Russia for Iran/Syria, China for North Korea. And those scummy Big Brothers make this whole concept - making the world safe - very hard.
So all of you who think the answer is simple, who think that Obama is bad because he's not attacking Syria (which would lead to a chemical attack on Haifa), or who think everything is simple: please shut up.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
What the Steeler Reporters Seem to miss
Ed Bouchette is a veteran Steelers reporter. Yet he fails to see a key fact in his recent article attacking the Steeler running game. Part of the problem is Tomlin's cliches, specifically "the standard is the standard" and ignoring injuries. Yes, injuries aren't an excuse... for the TEAM; but for those who analyze cause and effect of wins and losses the injuries are a huge deal.
So our running game is (still) poor. How do you get a good running game? The components are in order of importance (reverse logarithmic importance) (a) line play, (b) play calling, (c) the back. Without an o-line, the RB won't get anywhere, and the opposite is true. In 2012, our best running games were Weeks 7-9, and Week 7 was Dwyer (122 yds) Wk 8 Dwyer (107), Wk 9 was Redman (147). And those two guys are NOT GOOD. So how did they get 100+ games? The o-line and the o-line only. And we can't forget the o-line includes Tight Ends.
So, let's see who was injured in week 1:
Heath Miller, 1st Tight End, under-rated pro-bowler
Matt Spaeth, 2nd Tight End
Will Johnson, 1st string Fullback
Le'Veon Bell, 1st string Running-back
That list means we were automatically not going to have a quality running game. Decent maybe, based on line-play, but with these best guys out, what quality could we have? And then the roof caved in: Maurkice Pouncey, all-pro center gets blown apart. Which ruins our entire O-line, just plain ruins it. And add onto it, the best blocking "TE", Beachum, needs to move to center.
This doesn't excuse the loss, according to Tomlin's Rules. But this set of facts explains why we had no running game in Week 1. Don't confuse 'is' and 'ought' - don't forget the facts when trying to understand our running game woes.
P.S. Quick point about Ndamukong Suh: if you want to see what a sociopath sounds like, watch Suh. He sounds like a reasonable, personable guy... but that's what a standard sociopath does. He's just a stone cold psycho.
So our running game is (still) poor. How do you get a good running game? The components are in order of importance (reverse logarithmic importance) (a) line play, (b) play calling, (c) the back. Without an o-line, the RB won't get anywhere, and the opposite is true. In 2012, our best running games were Weeks 7-9, and Week 7 was Dwyer (122 yds) Wk 8 Dwyer (107), Wk 9 was Redman (147). And those two guys are NOT GOOD. So how did they get 100+ games? The o-line and the o-line only. And we can't forget the o-line includes Tight Ends.
So, let's see who was injured in week 1:
Heath Miller, 1st Tight End, under-rated pro-bowler
Matt Spaeth, 2nd Tight End
Will Johnson, 1st string Fullback
Le'Veon Bell, 1st string Running-back
That list means we were automatically not going to have a quality running game. Decent maybe, based on line-play, but with these best guys out, what quality could we have? And then the roof caved in: Maurkice Pouncey, all-pro center gets blown apart. Which ruins our entire O-line, just plain ruins it. And add onto it, the best blocking "TE", Beachum, needs to move to center.
This doesn't excuse the loss, according to Tomlin's Rules. But this set of facts explains why we had no running game in Week 1. Don't confuse 'is' and 'ought' - don't forget the facts when trying to understand our running game woes.
P.S. Quick point about Ndamukong Suh: if you want to see what a sociopath sounds like, watch Suh. He sounds like a reasonable, personable guy... but that's what a standard sociopath does. He's just a stone cold psycho.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Steelers Week 1, more comments
1. Tunch & Wolf are mystified why we fans are giving up hope (the hometown fans abandoned the stadium quickly, it was so ugly). Well it's because of the 0-4 preseason, which showed that last year's problems had not been fixed: no o-line, no running game, no defensive turnovers. We lost 5 of the last 7 in 2012, all preseason, and now game one in the HOME OPENER. There's reason to think the team not only will suck, but that the coaches don't have a clue how to fix it.
2. I asked the 'depot: does the salary of an IR player hit the cap? Dave Bryan says they do. That sucks. But Bryan emphasizes that the players you pick up in September do not hit your cap that much anyway.
3. Tomlin has much to blame here. When he says "the standard is the standard", I'm not certain he places any standards on himself. The team has been getting worse since 2010, not better, and in ways we all recognized. Moreover, his game-time decision making is very poor. We can all rip Rex Ryan for putting Sanchez in the 4th quarter of a pre-season game, leading to an inevitable injury (playing behind a non-cohesive, 3rd string, o-line = no protection), but Tomlin did the same bad thing. He used "LaSH" as his primary back instead of Felix Jones, who was dressed for the game! LaSH is a small, fragile back that you use for maybe 20 carries a game as a change of pace back. And when Tomlin used him on 5 straight carries, he broke. Why dress Jones?
4. There are more key problems from Tomlin, who has not shown me that he can do the job he was hired to do. This hurts me to say, because I think he's a cool character and I like him being the face of the franchise. But he can't coach, can't prepare players, can't improve the problems, and apparently can't draft well.
See these for more: Mike Tomlin Should Be on the Hot Seat | Bleacher Report & Homer's Take
5. For the record, I put some key blame on Defense. They failed to get off the field on key 3rd downs, and AGAIN no turnovers. Yet unlike offense, they had all of their starters! What was their excuse?
6. Some random thoughts: We just pay too much money to old vets and can't use the money to improve o-line. With pouncey out, maybe we'll again get Starks back. And its crazy that everyone in the division lost, but (a) Ravens & Bengals were *away* (b) both were playing against teams with winning records in 2012 (esp. the freakin' Broncos with Peyton Manning!) After we saw the Ravens lose, and with the Bengals playing away a 10-6 team, this was the week to win (holding aside we were playing a poor team at home). Gevalt.
2. I asked the 'depot: does the salary of an IR player hit the cap? Dave Bryan says they do. That sucks. But Bryan emphasizes that the players you pick up in September do not hit your cap that much anyway.
3. Tomlin has much to blame here. When he says "the standard is the standard", I'm not certain he places any standards on himself. The team has been getting worse since 2010, not better, and in ways we all recognized. Moreover, his game-time decision making is very poor. We can all rip Rex Ryan for putting Sanchez in the 4th quarter of a pre-season game, leading to an inevitable injury (playing behind a non-cohesive, 3rd string, o-line = no protection), but Tomlin did the same bad thing. He used "LaSH" as his primary back instead of Felix Jones, who was dressed for the game! LaSH is a small, fragile back that you use for maybe 20 carries a game as a change of pace back. And when Tomlin used him on 5 straight carries, he broke. Why dress Jones?
4. There are more key problems from Tomlin, who has not shown me that he can do the job he was hired to do. This hurts me to say, because I think he's a cool character and I like him being the face of the franchise. But he can't coach, can't prepare players, can't improve the problems, and apparently can't draft well.
See these for more: Mike Tomlin Should Be on the Hot Seat | Bleacher Report & Homer's Take
5. For the record, I put some key blame on Defense. They failed to get off the field on key 3rd downs, and AGAIN no turnovers. Yet unlike offense, they had all of their starters! What was their excuse?
6. Some random thoughts: We just pay too much money to old vets and can't use the money to improve o-line. With pouncey out, maybe we'll again get Starks back. And its crazy that everyone in the division lost, but (a) Ravens & Bengals were *away* (b) both were playing against teams with winning records in 2012 (esp. the freakin' Broncos with Peyton Manning!) After we saw the Ravens lose, and with the Bengals playing away a 10-6 team, this was the week to win (holding aside we were playing a poor team at home). Gevalt.
Sunday, September 08, 2013
Steelers Week 1, Quick Thoughts
1. Since I've been following the team with daily devotion, they have been playing terribly (mid-2011). So, sorry Steelers fans, this all may be my fault.
2. More accurately, though, it's clearly the coaches fault. You can tell this because the defense is consistently good - because they have a hall-of-fame coach, and the rest of the team has been laughable.
3. If asked at the beginning of the year which players we couldn't lose I'd say, in order, (a) Roethlisberger (b) Polamalu, (c) Pouncey. Well, we still have 2 of 3. Sadly, Pouncey was the one I expected to actually play all 16 games.
4. The silver linings for today's catastrophic rash of injuries - 3 critical starters - are (a) we've so recently cut people that can be possible replacements that they haven't lost their conditioning; and (b) more importantly, since Tomlin never knows when to allow a starter to get healthy, since these guys are gone for the year, the team can actually try playing with one person for the whole rest of the year. This is especially so for the O-line. The line needs to work as a consistent stable unit, and past few years, Tomlin would toss people in and out based on their fluctuating health. So now, I hope, we can get some dude to be a center and not try different permutations every week, which would guarantee a year of failure.
5. Note, I only listened to the game live, so I don't know how bad they looked. My view that things may not be a total disaster could change when I see the actual game.
6. I'd like to remind everyone that we started the game with our starting running-back and our 2 starting Tight Ends out with injuries. And when Pouncey went down, that meant that every offensive plan of the pre-season went up in smoke. You won't have a running game, or decent passing, with an on-the-fly O-line. Yes, sadly, the Steelers (offensive) coaches just don't seem to know how to train the backups to take over. But it happened all last year (we started to suck when both Big Ben and Antonio Brown were injured; not to mention the standard o-line idiocy).
7. I keep harping on the bad coaching because when I see other top-tier teams play, they plainly don't suck like the Steelers do for the past 3 years. I saw Green Bay vs. SF today. What a difference! It's like the Yankees vs. the Mets. GB & SF don't have better players than the Steelers, they have way better coaching.
8. If we get our RB & TEs back, especially Heath Miller, and if the Steelers get the new center to train a week with the O-line to form a unit, I'm assuming we'll play better. That will be the test - if we still suck after those conditions are met, then we're lost.
2. More accurately, though, it's clearly the coaches fault. You can tell this because the defense is consistently good - because they have a hall-of-fame coach, and the rest of the team has been laughable.
3. If asked at the beginning of the year which players we couldn't lose I'd say, in order, (a) Roethlisberger (b) Polamalu, (c) Pouncey. Well, we still have 2 of 3. Sadly, Pouncey was the one I expected to actually play all 16 games.
4. The silver linings for today's catastrophic rash of injuries - 3 critical starters - are (a) we've so recently cut people that can be possible replacements that they haven't lost their conditioning; and (b) more importantly, since Tomlin never knows when to allow a starter to get healthy, since these guys are gone for the year, the team can actually try playing with one person for the whole rest of the year. This is especially so for the O-line. The line needs to work as a consistent stable unit, and past few years, Tomlin would toss people in and out based on their fluctuating health. So now, I hope, we can get some dude to be a center and not try different permutations every week, which would guarantee a year of failure.
5. Note, I only listened to the game live, so I don't know how bad they looked. My view that things may not be a total disaster could change when I see the actual game.
6. I'd like to remind everyone that we started the game with our starting running-back and our 2 starting Tight Ends out with injuries. And when Pouncey went down, that meant that every offensive plan of the pre-season went up in smoke. You won't have a running game, or decent passing, with an on-the-fly O-line. Yes, sadly, the Steelers (offensive) coaches just don't seem to know how to train the backups to take over. But it happened all last year (we started to suck when both Big Ben and Antonio Brown were injured; not to mention the standard o-line idiocy).
7. I keep harping on the bad coaching because when I see other top-tier teams play, they plainly don't suck like the Steelers do for the past 3 years. I saw Green Bay vs. SF today. What a difference! It's like the Yankees vs. the Mets. GB & SF don't have better players than the Steelers, they have way better coaching.
8. If we get our RB & TEs back, especially Heath Miller, and if the Steelers get the new center to train a week with the O-line to form a unit, I'm assuming we'll play better. That will be the test - if we still suck after those conditions are met, then we're lost.
Monday, September 02, 2013
Contemporary Rainstorms
I used to love being inside during heavy rainstorms (like what's going on now) because it was an example of humanity's conquest over nature. However, in recent years, given the nation's crumbling infrastructure, any major storm fills me with persistent dread. I fear that I'll lose power... because it's happened way too often in storms that didn't seem to cause trouble a decade or so ago.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Iran, Israel, and Syria
According to the Times of Israel: Iran Revolutionary Guards chief: Israel will be destroyed if Syria is attacked. As far as I can see, this teaches us that: (1) Iran loves/supports the Assad regime, (2) Iran intends to destroy Israel (3) for no logical reason. Yet it is still debated in the Western world that Iran is not a crazy rogue threat that will teeter the world on the edge if they get nukes.
What am I missing here? Generally, I see things very differently from people, but I still need to ask that question when the stakes are high.
Now, I know that I can't change the minds of Europeans, whose antisemitism runs deeper and older than American's anti-Black racism. Europe just hates the Jews and always will, apparently. I guess I'm addressing myself to my fellow Jews. Jagoffs like Beinart, and his fellow-travelers on the American left (not to mention the crazy Israeli Left). What do you say about these things?
What am I missing here? Generally, I see things very differently from people, but I still need to ask that question when the stakes are high.
Now, I know that I can't change the minds of Europeans, whose antisemitism runs deeper and older than American's anti-Black racism. Europe just hates the Jews and always will, apparently. I guess I'm addressing myself to my fellow Jews. Jagoffs like Beinart, and his fellow-travelers on the American left (not to mention the crazy Israeli Left). What do you say about these things?
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Morning Music: Chase, "Get it On"
Gotta love any band with 4 - yes 4 - trumpets. 9 members (from the youtube description):
Vocal: Terry Richards,
Trumpets: Bill Chase, Ted Piercefield, Allen Ware, Jerry VanBlair.
Rhythm: Phil Porter (B3 organ), Jay Burrid (Drums),
Dennis Keith Johnson (bass),
Angel South (guitar)
and here's the awesome studio version
Vocal: Terry Richards,
Trumpets: Bill Chase, Ted Piercefield, Allen Ware, Jerry VanBlair.
Rhythm: Phil Porter (B3 organ), Jay Burrid (Drums),
Dennis Keith Johnson (bass),
Angel South (guitar)
and here's the awesome studio version
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Dave Barry in Israel
Dave Barry is a hero of the blog and since 2000 he's been married to a nice Jewish girl (the only female Jewish-Cuban sportswriter I've ever heard of). Here's his take on visiting Israel for his daughter's bat mitzvah: ‘I would convert and make aliya if it weren’t for the camels’ (Jpost)
h.t. Senderowicz
h.t. Senderowicz
Friday, June 14, 2013
What Tourists Need to Know About NYC
This essay is so good that it makes me miss NYC even more: What Tourists Need to Know About NYC
Key takeaway: "The rules of the road from wherever you live are exactly the same as the rules of the sidewalk here."
Manhattan... best non-Jerusalem city in the world.
h/t Shanna
Key takeaway: "The rules of the road from wherever you live are exactly the same as the rules of the sidewalk here."
Manhattan... best non-Jerusalem city in the world.
h/t Shanna
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Death of a Gadol: HaGaon Harav Yehoshua Yeshaya Neuwirth ZT”L
A sad day, the death of a Gadol b'Yisrael: HaGaon Harav Yehoshua Yeshaya Neuwirth ZT”L [Mechaber of Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa] (from The Yeshiva World). Another link.
h.t. R'Shaul Robinson
h.t. R'Shaul Robinson
Friday, June 07, 2013
Pencil, Pen & Highlighter Reviews
I possibly use more highlighters than most other humans. Anyone who knows me personally has seen my extensive collection of writing pieces and I try to find the best, because I use them so much. For pencils and pens, I think I've determined my favorites, and I'll list them first. But for highlighters, I haven't yet found the one that does what I need.
Pencil: I've been using mechanicals since I discovered them. They have stopped making the ones I really like, but to be a great tool I need (here's a page with the part names): (1) a long non-retractable lead-sleeve [this is critical], (2) I prefer 0.5mm lead for the precision and lack of smudging, (3) the body should be one piece otherwise the pencil will bisect in my jacket pocket (e.g. Pentel Twist-erase) and that means the pocket clip needs to be attached to the main body as well; (4) I would prefer a big, easily replaced eraser, but that has become optional; I now carry a Clic-Eraser in my pocket, and that serves me well.
Generally, the best pencil for my needs (and at a reasonable price), is the Pentel P205 0.5mm.
Pens: While I've been searching to have all my writing tools be retractable, sometimes that doesn't work. For pens, I have three needed categories: (1) standard note taking/writing - which means heavy use in lectures/rough drafts. One black, one blue, and preferably a red. (2) multi-colors for nuance in writing/note taking - the two most reliable colors for this are green & purple. (3) felt tip (or another broad nib) - for titles/indexing.
The gel-ink revolution of a decade ago has made many options for the first 2 categories. I have not found *any* retractable for #3. And, note, I stay far away from the permanent markers. I don't understand how they would fit in to a serious writing career. They bleed through most surfaces. They have their use, but for me they're more like screwdrivers or pocket-knives than pens.
As for now, the best pens for #1 are the Pilot G-2 series. The 07 for serious writing, but the 05 have their uses as well. The good news is that the blacks, blues, and reds are totally reliable, cheap, and plentiful. The bad news is that any other color is total garbage. Seriously, I don't know how they haven't been sued yet - the pens NEVER WORK.
For category 2, I haven't found a decent retractable. The best pen so far is the "Pilot Precise V5 Stick Rolling Ball Pens" - which write very smoothly, but in certain circumstances I've found that they leak. I don't know if its all the pens, all the time, but it makes me wary to carry them around too much.
Now onto highlighters. So far, I've found only three brands of retractables:
1. Pentel Handy-Lines
2. Bic Brite-Liner
3. Sharpie Accent
Pros & Cons of each:
Pentel Handy-Lines
The best attribute about these pens are the colors. By far the best of *all* highlighters; the color is bright, yet light enough that it doesn't obscure the words beneath. Yet the worst attribute of these pens are the meager longevity. They just don't last long enough. And they are advertised as "refillable" but that's laughable. Nobody sells them and they're nearly the same cost as the pen. Yeah, its cheaper to get the refill, but if a pen + refill costs more than 2 other comparable pens, why bother.
Bic Brite-Liner
These are brutal. Maybe it's me, but when I depress the clicker, it often catches on my index finger. The damn thing hurts. Why get a pen which injures you? The ink level also starts off too heavy (the paper is wet for a few seconds and it often bleeds through) and then doesn't last long afterward. It's the cheapest pen for a reason.
Sharpie Accent
These are pretty long, so they don't fit in my jacket or pencil-cases so well. The yellow is workable and decent, and since the price is low, this is the best bet for that color. Sadly, the other colors are just too dark. The text under them is hard to read. They're closer to markers than highlighters (especially in the exotic colors, but even orange/blue are just too dark).
As it stands, I don't have 1 pen to recommend. I hope others will join the market.
Pencil: I've been using mechanicals since I discovered them. They have stopped making the ones I really like, but to be a great tool I need (here's a page with the part names): (1) a long non-retractable lead-sleeve [this is critical], (2) I prefer 0.5mm lead for the precision and lack of smudging, (3) the body should be one piece otherwise the pencil will bisect in my jacket pocket (e.g. Pentel Twist-erase) and that means the pocket clip needs to be attached to the main body as well; (4) I would prefer a big, easily replaced eraser, but that has become optional; I now carry a Clic-Eraser in my pocket, and that serves me well.
Generally, the best pencil for my needs (and at a reasonable price), is the Pentel P205 0.5mm.
Pens: While I've been searching to have all my writing tools be retractable, sometimes that doesn't work. For pens, I have three needed categories: (1) standard note taking/writing - which means heavy use in lectures/rough drafts. One black, one blue, and preferably a red. (2) multi-colors for nuance in writing/note taking - the two most reliable colors for this are green & purple. (3) felt tip (or another broad nib) - for titles/indexing.
The gel-ink revolution of a decade ago has made many options for the first 2 categories. I have not found *any* retractable for #3. And, note, I stay far away from the permanent markers. I don't understand how they would fit in to a serious writing career. They bleed through most surfaces. They have their use, but for me they're more like screwdrivers or pocket-knives than pens.
As for now, the best pens for #1 are the Pilot G-2 series. The 07 for serious writing, but the 05 have their uses as well. The good news is that the blacks, blues, and reds are totally reliable, cheap, and plentiful. The bad news is that any other color is total garbage. Seriously, I don't know how they haven't been sued yet - the pens NEVER WORK.
For category 2, I haven't found a decent retractable. The best pen so far is the "Pilot Precise V5 Stick Rolling Ball Pens" - which write very smoothly, but in certain circumstances I've found that they leak. I don't know if its all the pens, all the time, but it makes me wary to carry them around too much.
Now onto highlighters. So far, I've found only three brands of retractables:
1. Pentel Handy-Lines
2. Bic Brite-Liner
3. Sharpie Accent
Pros & Cons of each:
Pentel Handy-Lines
The best attribute about these pens are the colors. By far the best of *all* highlighters; the color is bright, yet light enough that it doesn't obscure the words beneath. Yet the worst attribute of these pens are the meager longevity. They just don't last long enough. And they are advertised as "refillable" but that's laughable. Nobody sells them and they're nearly the same cost as the pen. Yeah, its cheaper to get the refill, but if a pen + refill costs more than 2 other comparable pens, why bother.Bic Brite-Liner
These are brutal. Maybe it's me, but when I depress the clicker, it often catches on my index finger. The damn thing hurts. Why get a pen which injures you? The ink level also starts off too heavy (the paper is wet for a few seconds and it often bleeds through) and then doesn't last long afterward. It's the cheapest pen for a reason.Sharpie Accent
These are pretty long, so they don't fit in my jacket or pencil-cases so well. The yellow is workable and decent, and since the price is low, this is the best bet for that color. Sadly, the other colors are just too dark. The text under them is hard to read. They're closer to markers than highlighters (especially in the exotic colors, but even orange/blue are just too dark). As it stands, I don't have 1 pen to recommend. I hope others will join the market.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Jack Vance (1916-2013)
Sad news: Jack Vance passed away on Sunday. He may have been the most brilliant sci-fantasy writer I've ever read. His "Dying Earth" series is so filled with creativity and brilliance that I've never seen it's peer. He had a huge effect on Dungeons & Dragons as well, and that echoes far.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Friday, May 24, 2013
What is Wohlberg Thinking?
I was just searching the intertubes for any updates of the Broyde scandal, when I came across this recent sermon by Rabbi Mitchell Wohlberg. I don't think I've ever met him, and I remember one of my NYC congregants talking positively about his sermons - and recommending that maybe I should self-promote like he does. Well, while I am terrible at self-promoting, I also refrain from it from a deep belief that it is against kavod-ha-Rav & kavod-ha-Torah. Also, most of the people I know who indulge in self-promotion are either (1) looking for a job (a rationale we can all support) or (2) are not good people. It's a yellow flag, mos' def'.
What's not good about it? Again, aside from the people who need to self-promote in order to eat, the others who indulge do so to feed different appetites. Generally they possess an itchy ego that will not ever be scratched enough. As Avot 4:1 states: "Rebbe Tzadok says... Do not make the Torah a crown to magnify yourself with, or a spade with which to dig." In my studies on Avot, I try to analyze each statement as if it were prescriptive or descriptive, i.e. whether the Sage is teaching an observation or advice. In this case, R'Tzadok could be saying "if you use Torah to dig it will lead to bad things" based on his perception of how that plays out, or he could be saying "according to Tradition, Torah mustn't be used like an adze, were it not for this law, you could adze away."
Either way, I am wary of the adzers, and people like Boteach, Schneier (pere du fils), and a bunch of the goobers on Tina Brown's list of fame, are guilty of digging their effigies with Torahs as shovels.
I didn't know if Wohlberg is on this list, but the first paragraph of his sermon popped the yellow flag to orange, at best:
Gevalt!
Again, I don't know him, so maybe he's so self-deprecating that he doesn't know he's coming across as dangerously arrogant. However, as the rest of his essay shows, he possesses questionable moral reasoning skills. Examples:
1. It's facile to compare Broyde to the rest of the rabbinic scandals. While I don't know what exactly Broyde did, I have said for many years that guilt must be determined through due process. The slavering jaws of internet journalists and anonymous commenters on blogs does not substitute for real evidence. What Broyde did does not actually make sense to me - he actually has real talent, unlike regular fabulists - and that means I need to hold judgement. When the RCA and Emory Law School conclude their reviews of his behavior, I will be able to feel secure in knowing his fate. Wohlberg doesn't think this way, probably because he can't.
2. I say this because he decides to compare the rabbinic scandals to the Boston bombers and their guilt. [Buzzer]
3. The rest of the sermon is equally facile and equates the possession and usage of a quote book with research. It's also aggressively triumphalist. And, hey, I remember giving weekly sermons, and I know there's nothing better than telling the audience they are better than everyone else. But I was cheap to do it, and so is he.
4. If I needed any further proof of how low Wohlbgerg thinks, its from this "proof":
And if Wohlberg calls this story "wonderful," then I really have all I need to know about this clown.
* Note: Attacking higher education has officially become a 'yellow flag' - it's not a good sign.
** The irony is that Prager's story illustrates his own behavior - the mother in the story isn't a liberal, she's a selfish solipsist. And people like Prager attack other's for behavior that is perfectly OK when they do it - especially bullying.
What's not good about it? Again, aside from the people who need to self-promote in order to eat, the others who indulge do so to feed different appetites. Generally they possess an itchy ego that will not ever be scratched enough. As Avot 4:1 states: "Rebbe Tzadok says... Do not make the Torah a crown to magnify yourself with, or a spade with which to dig." In my studies on Avot, I try to analyze each statement as if it were prescriptive or descriptive, i.e. whether the Sage is teaching an observation or advice. In this case, R'Tzadok could be saying "if you use Torah to dig it will lead to bad things" based on his perception of how that plays out, or he could be saying "according to Tradition, Torah mustn't be used like an adze, were it not for this law, you could adze away."
Either way, I am wary of the adzers, and people like Boteach, Schneier (pere du fils), and a bunch of the goobers on Tina Brown's list of fame, are guilty of digging their effigies with Torahs as shovels.
I didn't know if Wohlberg is on this list, but the first paragraph of his sermon popped the yellow flag to orange, at best:
The recent behavior of two rabbis caused me to email one of our synagogue’s “wise men,” Searle Mitnick, and ask him if it is possible that I am the only moral Orthodox rabbi in the world? It took Searle a while to respond, but his response was: “You may be the only one left standing.” Yes, I’m still standing!One could argue that his last line shows he's being jocular or sarcastic. That don't hold up, I'm afraid. Because if you EVER hear anybody asking his question "am I the only moral rabbi?" you should run away to hide your children while holding your wallet.
Gevalt!
Again, I don't know him, so maybe he's so self-deprecating that he doesn't know he's coming across as dangerously arrogant. However, as the rest of his essay shows, he possesses questionable moral reasoning skills. Examples:
1. It's facile to compare Broyde to the rest of the rabbinic scandals. While I don't know what exactly Broyde did, I have said for many years that guilt must be determined through due process. The slavering jaws of internet journalists and anonymous commenters on blogs does not substitute for real evidence. What Broyde did does not actually make sense to me - he actually has real talent, unlike regular fabulists - and that means I need to hold judgement. When the RCA and Emory Law School conclude their reviews of his behavior, I will be able to feel secure in knowing his fate. Wohlberg doesn't think this way, probably because he can't.
2. I say this because he decides to compare the rabbinic scandals to the Boston bombers and their guilt. [Buzzer]
3. The rest of the sermon is equally facile and equates the possession and usage of a quote book with research. It's also aggressively triumphalist. And, hey, I remember giving weekly sermons, and I know there's nothing better than telling the audience they are better than everyone else. But I was cheap to do it, and so is he.
4. If I needed any further proof of how low Wohlbgerg thinks, its from this "proof":
I recall a wonderful comment from Dennis Prager. He said that when his child was 4 years old, he was playing one day in the playground and another child, a 7 year-old, came along and for no reason hit his child and knocked him down, and bashed his head on the pavement. The 7 year-old’s mother came over, picked up her child and said to him, “What’s troubling you, my darling? What is it that’s making you feel so hostile?” And Dennis said, “I knew immediately that this mother must have gone to graduate school, because only a person who went to graduate school at a Liberal Arts college could say to a child who is beating up another child ‘what’s troubling you, my darling? Why do you feel so hostile?’ Anybody else would have given that child a frask, and said, “Behave yourself!” But not if you buy into the liberal perspective on life!OK, let's review what's wrong with this. Well, simply put, I myself have a graduate degree from a liberal arts college - in Sociology nukh - and while it didn't train me to coddle bullies, it did train me to recognize terrible arguments.* Do I really need to elaborate on how stupid Prager's comment is? I mean, anyone who actively supports the Republican party and their cruelty, brutality, and bullying cannot claim moral dudgeon.**
And if Wohlberg calls this story "wonderful," then I really have all I need to know about this clown.
* Note: Attacking higher education has officially become a 'yellow flag' - it's not a good sign.
** The irony is that Prager's story illustrates his own behavior - the mother in the story isn't a liberal, she's a selfish solipsist. And people like Prager attack other's for behavior that is perfectly OK when they do it - especially bullying.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Is this a Joke? (Updated)
This is the headline from VosIzNeias: History Unfolding In Belz As Monumental Wedding Takes Place. I read the article. Evidently an 18 year old chussid is marrying a 19 year old woman. Maybe that's the history? The article hints at the history when it says: "The chosson, eighteen year old Shalom Rokeach, who bears the name of the first Belzer Rebbe, is the son of the Belzer Rebbe's only son, Rabbi Aharon Mordechai Rokeach and is the heir apparent to one day lead the Belzer dynasty." Seriously, what am I missing? Does this not happen often in chassidic communities? The hyperbole is a bit disquieting.
UPDATE: Here are pictures from the wedding. Holy macaroni! I hate to say that my first thought was "that poor girl"
UPDATE: Here are pictures from the wedding. Holy macaroni! I hate to say that my first thought was "that poor girl"
Friday, May 10, 2013
Styx Rule #5
When another's behavior is illogical, most likely you're missing the key facts that would make it logical.
Corollary: people are more often crazy than stupid.
Corollary: people are more often stupid than evil.
Note: I shouldn't have to say this, but as I'm making rules, I should try to be thorough: this all depends on context. I'd say that was a Styx Rule, expect it's so necessary, and so obvious, that I feel it would arrogant to claim it as my rule. It's like trying to claim "Know Thyself." Both are above and beyond my creative ability.
The corollaries are there to modify the issue of logic. I.e., When someone does something illogical, it's common for observers to assume the person is stupid or evil (and depending on the action, they may jump to crazy, especially if it's a heinous crime). I want to add in the "crazy" - and, sorry for the political correctness, I'm subsuming all forms of neurological disorders under that term (aphorisms are terse, and "abnormal psychology" is more friendly than crazy, but you can't make an aphorism without breaking some eggs).
Corollary: people are more often crazy than stupid.
Corollary: people are more often stupid than evil.
Note: I shouldn't have to say this, but as I'm making rules, I should try to be thorough: this all depends on context. I'd say that was a Styx Rule, expect it's so necessary, and so obvious, that I feel it would arrogant to claim it as my rule. It's like trying to claim "Know Thyself." Both are above and beyond my creative ability.
The corollaries are there to modify the issue of logic. I.e., When someone does something illogical, it's common for observers to assume the person is stupid or evil (and depending on the action, they may jump to crazy, especially if it's a heinous crime). I want to add in the "crazy" - and, sorry for the political correctness, I'm subsuming all forms of neurological disorders under that term (aphorisms are terse, and "abnormal psychology" is more friendly than crazy, but you can't make an aphorism without breaking some eggs).
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Which Wins, British or Genius? Hawking Proves it's British
The British seem to harbor an inveterate anti-Semitism. It probably comes from their long-held racist colonialism. Who knows, but it's something wise people have noticed for years: when faced with a decision, a Brit will opt to hate, and hate Jews.
Hence we should not be surprised that arguably the smartest man alive, Steven Hawking, is boycotting Israel. He may be a genius, but he has to hate first, because that's the British way.
Look, I like it when people out themselves for what they are. I'm sad to see Hawking is one of them, but he can now join T.S. Eliot and others like him in the hall of shame.
Bonus quote from the above article:
Hence we should not be surprised that arguably the smartest man alive, Steven Hawking, is boycotting Israel. He may be a genius, but he has to hate first, because that's the British way.
Look, I like it when people out themselves for what they are. I'm sad to see Hawking is one of them, but he can now join T.S. Eliot and others like him in the hall of shame.
Bonus quote from the above article:
"“If Israel wants peace, it will have to talk to Hamas,” Hawking said at the time. “Hamas are the democratically elected leaders of the Palestinian people, and cannot be ignored.”"Which confirms another basic piece of wisdom - an expert in one field should not be consider an expert in another one. Put another way: stick to Physics, bigot.
Monday, May 06, 2013
Sunday, May 05, 2013
Richard Dawkins is a Jackass
I saw this quote on Facebook, attributed to Richard Dawkins: “Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colours.”
While this sounds like him - because it's arrogant, dismissive, and actually wrong - I also know that I can't trust anything on the internet, especially Facebook. So I googled it and luckily found a quote website that did a rare deed - it stated the book where the quote came from!.
So, OK, he did say it right? Well, I'm a scholar and I still needed more evidence before calling Dawkins out on his ignorant British BS. So I checked googlebooks, and sure enough, he said that quote, in The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution p. 147!
And it shows you the contempt you need for Dawkins that I'm more surprised that a random humor graphic on Facebook is correct than that Dawkins is wrong.
Oh, so why is it wrong? Because the fossil record is itself the constitutive data for our knowledge of prehistoric species. You can't say a conclusion is proved from its own data-set! Moreover, our concept of evolution is independent of the fossils - they don't prove anything because if a fossil is found "out of order" all that would do is add more data to the data-set about our knowledge of dinosaurs, not evolution.
While this sounds like him - because it's arrogant, dismissive, and actually wrong - I also know that I can't trust anything on the internet, especially Facebook. So I googled it and luckily found a quote website that did a rare deed - it stated the book where the quote came from!.
So, OK, he did say it right? Well, I'm a scholar and I still needed more evidence before calling Dawkins out on his ignorant British BS. So I checked googlebooks, and sure enough, he said that quote, in The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution p. 147!
And it shows you the contempt you need for Dawkins that I'm more surprised that a random humor graphic on Facebook is correct than that Dawkins is wrong.
Oh, so why is it wrong? Because the fossil record is itself the constitutive data for our knowledge of prehistoric species. You can't say a conclusion is proved from its own data-set! Moreover, our concept of evolution is independent of the fossils - they don't prove anything because if a fossil is found "out of order" all that would do is add more data to the data-set about our knowledge of dinosaurs, not evolution.
Saturday, May 04, 2013
Star Wars Day?
Someone just said that today was Star Wars Day... May the Fourth be with you
(h/t Jonathan Baker)
(h/t Jonathan Baker)
Friday, May 03, 2013
Styx Rule #4
Before I forget, I decided to assign a number to this long standing rule: "Yellow flags always lead to red flags." It's not really the same as "when there's smoke there's fire" - because that's about one-to-one causality. The yellow to red is about my dealings with people and seeing personality troubles that I categorize as troubling (yellow) that almost inevitably show themselves over longer exposure to be actual dysfunction (red).
This, this is China
My brother and I talk about what we fear most about China, and it's stories like these: Rat Meat Sold as Lamb in China Highlights Fears (NYTimes)
Wednesday, May 01, 2013
Sequester Madness, Firemen First
The damned Sequester is a grand example of Republican cruelty (similar to Thatcher the Milk Snatcher). It's disturbing that the Democrats yet again roll over and play dead on this issue, but that's a topic for another day. However some have been wondering about why they've allowed exceptions, for example in relieving air travel. James Fallows, of the Atlantic, linked to this story which explains that this is a technique used by legislators who are against budget cuts - they make it clear that "budgets" actually fund important thiings. According to the article, from 1976!, this is known as the "Firemen First" gambit.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Queen Beatrix Abdicates in the Netherlands
I just want to take a moment to note how ridiculous it is that the Dutch even have a monarchy. Seriously, how crazy is that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
