. . .And Then I'd Get Punched in the Nose by a Place-Kicker

Football teams have three basic personnel units: offense, defense, and special teams.  Even to the uninitiated, "offense" and "defense" are fairly self-explanatory.  The simple way to think of "special teams" is that group of players who take the field whenever kicking is involved.  I've always thought there was something mildly derogatory about the term "special teams"--I associate it with things like "special education" and the like--and I often wonder if the other players make fun of members of the "special teams" squad.  'Cause, you know, I would.

Status Symbolism

There's a new app going viral on Facebook called "What would I say." The program combs through your previous statuses and generates a status based on other things you've written. I tried it, and the status that came back was, "Shut up that great big hill of sleep must be a single line!" I'm less bothered by the dreamlike incomprehensibility than by the status-bot's refusal to put a comma after "Shut up." This app is thoroughly inappropriate for grammar nerds.

Insane or Proactive--The Razor's Edge

My commute to work takes about 20 minutes when there's no traffic.  Unfortunately, there's never no traffic.  It's usually not too bad, though: Door to door usually takes about 30 minutes maximum.  Every now and then, though, there's a major backup.

I usually know when traffic is going to be bad.  I have to cross a bridge on my way to work, and, right on the far side of this bridge, I pass a traffic sign that provides real-time information on the approximate drive-time to various locations.  If the sign informs me that the drive-time to Berkeley is more than about 30 minutes, then that gives me a pretty good idea that I'm going to hit some heavy traffic before I reach my destination (which is about five miles north of Berkeley).

I hate seeing such a message because I immediately suffer a major bout of indecision: Do I stay on the freeway or go local?  Because, from the next exit (after the sign), the trip to work should take about twenty minutes on local roads.  If, therefore, I can assume that the freeway trip would take more than twenty minutes, well, then, logically, I should get off the freeway.  On the other hand. . . .

Well, you've probably figured out the flaw in the logic: If the freeway is backed up, then, quite often, the local road is similarly congested--if only by extra people who had the same bright idea that I had.  Such was the case today, when a major accident caused massive delays on the freeway.  Traffic was backed up for about a mile even before I reached the helpful sign.  I took the first exit I could, and, after cruising along a blissfully empty local road for about a mile and a half, I came upon a line of cars that could best be described as a parking lot.  All told, it took about an hour and a half to make it to my office.

This happens to me frequently--so frequently, in fact, that I've made a resolution: Just stay on the freeway, I tell myself.  No matter how backed up it is, it will still get you to work faster--or at any rate no slower--than the local roads.  I made that resolution some ten traffic jams ago, though, and every time I find myself facing a backed up freeway, I still feel the urge--and sometimes I give in to the urge--to try my luck on the local roads.  Why?

I think it has to do with this overwhelming need to assert control over my own destiny--no matter how futile the attempt may be.  I cannot contentedly resign myself to my vehicular fate when I think there's a chance--however slim--that I can avoid it, that by taking some initiative I can improve my outcome.  One definition of insanity is the constant repetition of a behavior coupled with the belief that it will lead to a different outcome.  I suppose some may look at my behavior, therefore, and call it insane.  I prefer to consider myself proactive.

Election Night Analysis

Election Day came and went while I was without power for my computer (aka, Solipsist Central).  As a result, I was unable to offer my trenchant analysis on any number of important races.  I am, however, disgusted with all the subsequent chatter from pundits of all political persuasions about what the various results portend for 2014 and beyond.  What does Terry McAuliffe's election mean for Obamacare?  Was Bill DeBlasio's landslide in the New York City mayoral race a sign of a resurgent progressive spirit in the electorate?  Or does Chris Christie's similarly lopsided victory across the Hudson River show that conservatism, wrapped in a mantle of apparent common-sense, can carry the day?  And, seriously, can we just give a rest to any talk of what the election results mean for the presidential race in 2016?

We can't?

Well, in that case, let me offer my own, definitive judgment on the 2016 presidential race: Hillary Clinton will win!  And this prognostication has nothing to do with the outcomes of ANY of the high--or even low-profile races decided last Tuesday.  No, Hillary's eventual ascension was guaranteed on Election Night 2008.  Because if "Star Trek" has taught us anything--and it has!--it's that the menopausal woman

naturally follows the black guy

who follows the old white guy.

Congratulations, Madame President!

America! You're Slipping!

Yesterday was the biggest online-shopping day in the history of ever!  And we missed it!

In China, November 11 is "Singles' Day" (all those sad and lonely '1's)--as far as I can tell, a sort of anti-Valentine's Day, whereon lonelyhearts across the world's most populous nation cry in their Tsing Tao and lament their fate--which, come to think of it, sounds pretty much like Valentine's Day, so ignore my earlier comment.  Anyway, Chinese internet retailers have seized upon 11/11 as their very own "Black Friday," a day to lure e-shoppers with ridiculous e-bargains, and this year's Singles' Day was the most profitable yet, with $5.75 billion worth of orders placed, "a record for a single day anywhere in the world, surpassing by two and a half times the total for American retailers last year on so-called Cyber Monday."

So, America, while you were sitting around, barbecuing and honoring veterans--

--that is to say: barbecuing.  And honoring veterans.

--while you were doing that, America, communist China was kicking your ass in that most "socialistic" of activities: Binge-shopping!

Those veterans fought for nothing!

Dubious Moments in Editing

For more than a half-century, Bill Mazeroski kept the Pittsburgh Pirates uniform he wore when he hit the home run to win the 1960 World Series in a cedar chest in his Pennsylvania home.
"Priceless Moment for Pirates, but $632,500 for the Uniform"

A bit of trivia: The 1960 fall classic, held in Bill Mazeroski's cedar chest, holds the record for lowest World Series attendance.  Not surprising, really: Once the fielders and umpires crammed in, the chest held barely enough room for the batter--to say nothing of fans.  Of course, the confined nature of the venue also detracts somewhat from the grandeur of Mazeroski's series-clinching round-tripper, which actually only traveled three-and-a-half feet.

(SIDE NOTE: The record for SECOND lowest attendance since 1960 belongs to the 2005 World Series, between the Houston Astros and the Chicago White Sox.  While that series was held in standard-size baseball stadiums, it also featured the Houston Astros.)

Kind of Makes the Title "Trustee" Ironic

Dave Wilson, a conservative Republican, was recently elected to the Houston Community College Board of Trustees.  He defeated Bruce Austin, a 24-year incumbent, by a mere 26 votes.  Why is this news?  Because Austin and others attribute Wilson's narrow victory to a sneaky campaign strategy: pretending to be black.

The population of the community college district in question is predominantly African-American.  As part of his campaign, Wilson sent out brochures featuring photographs of random black people (which Wilson admits to snatching off the internet) above the caption "Please vote for our friend and neighbor Dave Wilson."  Furthermore, Wilson bragged of an endorsement from "Ron Wilson," identified in small print as a cousin of Dave Wilson--who just happens to share a name with a former (African-American) state representative.

Now, I know I'm supposed to be shocked--Shocked!--by such spurious political shenanigans, but I have to say that I find it hard to see what, precisely, Dave Wilson did wrong.  Look, the guy is a sleazebag: During a campaign for Houston mayor, Wilson sent out homophobic mailers attacking an openly gay candidate.  But calling a politician--even one campaigning for so picayune an office as "community college trustee"--"sleazy" is kind of like calling an investment banker "cutthroat": It's not flattering, but it kind of goes with the territory.  While his mailers "suggested" that he was black, nowhere did Dave Wilson actually state that he was African-American: And if "African-Americanness" was so important to the voters as to be the deciding factor in the election, doesn't it behoove the electorate to make sure that the candidate is, in fact, African-American?  Do Houston voters not have access to Google?

And not for nothing, the man he defeated was a 24-year incumbent!  If he was voted out of office simply for being white, then it suggests either that he was not doing a very good job, and/or that the electorate was just as bigoted and cynical as Dave Wilson himself.  I kind of think they--the voters and Dave Wilson--deserve each other.