SEC = Soap opEra Conference?

What the heck is wrong with the SEC? You'd think that the strongest conference in college football would have it together. Apparently, they don't:

Kicking Controversy
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4582664
Steve Spurrier complained that the Alabama kicker was using tape to spot his kicks, which is a 5-yard penalty. This is not news, but pretty much any time an SEC coach says something that will get a couple rednecks riled up, it's going to be on ESPN. The highlight of this article is the sixth paragraph: "'We certainly don't want our players to do anything that's illegal,' Saban said. 'It is a 5-yard penalty if you do anything to enhance the spot. We've done some research on it, and over half the teams in the league do something with it.'" OK, so Saban says, "hey, we are against this illegal stuff, but everyone else does it, so it should be alright if we do it." Cool.
Side note: is it even worth responding to a coach who didn't even fill out his own all-conference ballot?

Lame-o Refs
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4583642
I don't know how to respond to this one. I mean, are your refs really so clueless that they can't distinguish when it's OK to throw a game altering 15 yard flag. Everyone knows that you don't throw a flag when the game is on the line unless it's really obvious. Or unless it's a really dumb call.
In case you're wondering what all these rednecks are so worked up about, here is a video of the play. Watch the left side of the screen about 8-12 seconds in.

And I'm sure there's more SEC drama going on, but I don't feel like poking around for it. I just like thinking about how hilarious it would be to coach an SEC team. You coach one of the best programs in the nation, but you also get a side job as a high school girl. Totally!

Crazy Much?

Maryland gym patron declares war on Fox News -- baltimoresun.com

Posted using ShareThis

OK. This lady has so many problems, I don't know where to start. Let's start with the most obvious: pretty much everyone who has ever been to a gym knows that nobody really gives a damn what you want to watch. If they did, they would have given you a remote. It's funny that they noted this in the article, as apparently she has complained to the entire Columbia Association, but no one really seems to care.

We also see that the article notes that there are other rowing machines which face TVs that are tuned to other stations. However, one of two things prevents this woman from switching machines. First, the other machines are so crappy that it's not worth switching (not likely at a facility of Supreme Sports' caliber). Or, this woman is so idiotic that she would rather go through the effort of complaining to everyone she finds, including the media, than take the logical step of switching to another machine.

Then come the silly quotes:
"I literally just close my eyes, but the problem I have frankly is, I see out of the corner of my eye. You can't help peeking."
What? I'm just picturing this woman happily rowing with her eyes closed and then suddenly turning into the incredible hulk because she has less self-discipline than a six year old on Christmas morning. On a side note, how do you see out of the corner of your eye if your eyes are closed?

Geddes also has a ready answer for anyone who accuses her of censorship.
"They won't show the Playboy channel," she points out. That could be considered censorship, too.
Again, what the hell are you talking about? First of all, who the hell works out and thinks to themself, "you know what would make this workout even better? Porn." Second, everyone knows that Playboy Channel is on super premium cable and no gym shells out for premium cable, mainly because only crazy people actually care about what's on the TVs.

But she acknowledges one positive benefit to staring at Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity against her will. Facing Fox News, she said, "does make me exercise harder."
How clever. I completely forgot about what a nutcase you are cuz of that hilarious joke at the end. Way to go.

Can't Friend Yourself

Duke...38?

Sagarin Ratings from USA Today for Sept. 27, 2008:

31. Ball State

38. Duke

56. Troy

84. Jacksonville State

Two Things That I Hate About Politics

1. When someone labels someone as a liberal/conservative as if that were something dangerous:

"John mentioned me being wildly liberal. Mostly that's just me opposing George Bush's wrong headed policies since I've been in Congress but I think it is that it is also important to recognize I work with Tom Coburn, the most conservative, one of the most conservative Republicans who John already mentioned to set up what we call a Google for government saying we'll list every dollar of federal spending to make sure that the taxpayer can take a look and see who, in fact, is promoting some of these spending projects that John's been railing about."

- Barack Obama, Sept. 26th, 2008 in the First Presidential Debate

I would say that's a pretty good explanation and rebuttal by Obama after being defined as the most liberal voter in the Senate...

2. Somehow if you wear a US flag lapel pin, then you're patriotic:

Studies show that wearing a lapel pin is not correlated to levels of patriotism. Nor are middle names. 

Death and Taxes: McCain/Obama

I thought this was interesting...

In the latest AC360 podcast:

Income OBAMA MCCAIN

38-66K -$1042 -$319
66-112K -$1,290 -$1,009

227-603K +$12 -$7,871
603K+ +$115,974 -$45,361**

For each income bracket, shown is the difference per capita under the Obama and McCain tax plans versus Bush's current tax cuts. Negative amounts mean persons under that income bracket would pay less, whereas positive amounts mean an increase in taxes.

What first struck me is that the 603K+ bracket would be paying anywhere from 10-16% more on their taxes under Obama and 4-8% less under McCain. That's a huge swing. But notice the upper middle class tax bracket; they would be paying about $1,000 less in taxes under both Obama and McCain. This income bracket contains about 20% of the population and would be getting the same tax relief under both candidates. Interesting, considering that liberals love to attack the other side for not giving enough tax relief to those not in the top 2% in income. However, while Obama's plan would increase government revenue by 600 billion dollars, McCain's plan would decrease government revenue by approximately the same amount. 

Anyone with info on what the total revenue difference for each income bracket from the Bush Administration would be?

From the Tax Policy Center:

"The two candidates' tax plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those tax cuts would be small as a share of after-tax income. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise significantly."

** Source: Tax Policy Center on AC360 Podcast