Woke up to learn that the Red Raiders had lost but played fairly respectably, in Oklahoma State. But what, I found out while I was using the bathroom at the Market Street, their quarterback was injured in the process.
Travesty! As a loyal Red Raider fan, I hate it when we have to run with some stringer for a while while this poor lad heals. But another side of me says, another victim of the crunch. This game wipes out more bodies than ISIS.
OK State - aren't they the ones who got a few hundred million to blow on their football program, so they took it all, and went about recruiting kids from Texas, and offered them the moon, and they even got caught, got their wrists slapped by the NCAA because they'd offered some stuff illegally to recruits? Well it really rankles us here in Texas, given the fact that they're using the money to grab these Texas boys and turn them against their own home state. But, one person told me, when it happens, hey, every school is doing something like that, they just were stupid enough to get caught.
Every school? I suppose they have to compete. If one school offers recruits a free trip all the way up here by plane, we'll pick you up, give you this and that while you're here, some of it might be bawdy or memorable or whatever, hopefully you'll come here and pound heck out of those Texas boys you used to call friends. Then when their quarterback comes up here, we'll crunch him.
Not that these injuries are on purpose. They teach everyone to tackle so it doesn't hurt anyone. But things happen, we all know that. Bodies only bend certain ways, sometimes we come at ya from some other way. It's survival of the fittest. Injuries put these teams down, set them back, you only notice it when it's a quarterback, but it happens to them all. A little bit of attrition. All to feed the insatiable appetite of American television.
Somehow I've become a little cynical. But I still wear my Tech hat, especially on Fridays.
Saturday, September 27, 2014
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
special election
Could not believe the results of the SD28 election last night: Charles Perry 53%, Jodey Arrington 30%, Wortham (the Democrat) 13%, two more Republicans and a Libertarian, all under 2%.
Actually I could believe it, as I've come to believe lots of wild stuff, but I couldn't explain it. Republicans divide their vote four ways, and a Dem can't even come close? The hard right, which could be said to be, in large part, fundamentalists and/or tea party, apparently unites behind Perry? While the loyal mainstream Bush Republicans, represented by Arrington, gets less than a third?
From the Democratic perspective, I can say that clearly Democrats are voting for Republicans just so they can have some influence on the election. But, in that case, I would imagine they voted for Arrington, who is the more liberal of the two clear front-runners. And if they did, that says even less about the strength of the traditional Bush establishment Republicans. Or, the Dems just stay home, unless they have someone like Obama (or presumably Wendy Davis) on the ticket. Wortham doesn't have a chance, so they stay home?
Then I look at the 53/30 number again. OK, SD 28 covers 50 counties, most of it is ranch country (or cotton-growing? oil? I'm not sure) - and West Texas is very conservative. The whole area was roughly 70-30 for Romney, with some counties, like Lubbock, more like 68-32, others more like 74-26. Voting for Romney didn't show how truly conservative they were, but it's possible they've become more conservative, or they have some serious issue that they wanted to be represented with, in a more conservative way. But here are some more possibilities: that they really really liked Charles Perry. Or, that they really really distrusted Jodey Arrington, or policies he professed.
But here's another theory. There was a lot of outside money in this campaign, and most of it went to Perry. Where was it from? I have no idea. Presumably it was from in the state, but not in SD 28. Presumably it was from someone who would benefit greatly from a Charles Perry victory. And presumably, it worked. Perry bought television ads, sent lots of mail, poured the money in. A friend of mine received lots of mail with guns all over it, all pushing Perry. Did the NRA care about this election? The oil people? Or the chemical industry? Apparently the Senate is evenly divided, and it was an important race for the rest of the state. So who opens their wallet in this case?
Recently, upon hearing that Kliff Kingsbury would receive $3 million a year for many years, I remarked that he might be the richest guy in Lubbock. Not even close, somebody said; there's a lot of money here. So people are making more than three million a year? and they're doing what with the money?
I have no answers; I'm new here. If I'm wrong about any of this stuff, fill me in. At the moment, I feel somewhat tricked. I voted Democrat on the assumption that it would matter. As it turns out, it might not have mattered no matter who I voted for. I'd like to know why people do what they do; where this money is going, in the district, and why it matters so much who represents SD 28.
Actually I could believe it, as I've come to believe lots of wild stuff, but I couldn't explain it. Republicans divide their vote four ways, and a Dem can't even come close? The hard right, which could be said to be, in large part, fundamentalists and/or tea party, apparently unites behind Perry? While the loyal mainstream Bush Republicans, represented by Arrington, gets less than a third?
From the Democratic perspective, I can say that clearly Democrats are voting for Republicans just so they can have some influence on the election. But, in that case, I would imagine they voted for Arrington, who is the more liberal of the two clear front-runners. And if they did, that says even less about the strength of the traditional Bush establishment Republicans. Or, the Dems just stay home, unless they have someone like Obama (or presumably Wendy Davis) on the ticket. Wortham doesn't have a chance, so they stay home?
Then I look at the 53/30 number again. OK, SD 28 covers 50 counties, most of it is ranch country (or cotton-growing? oil? I'm not sure) - and West Texas is very conservative. The whole area was roughly 70-30 for Romney, with some counties, like Lubbock, more like 68-32, others more like 74-26. Voting for Romney didn't show how truly conservative they were, but it's possible they've become more conservative, or they have some serious issue that they wanted to be represented with, in a more conservative way. But here are some more possibilities: that they really really liked Charles Perry. Or, that they really really distrusted Jodey Arrington, or policies he professed.
But here's another theory. There was a lot of outside money in this campaign, and most of it went to Perry. Where was it from? I have no idea. Presumably it was from in the state, but not in SD 28. Presumably it was from someone who would benefit greatly from a Charles Perry victory. And presumably, it worked. Perry bought television ads, sent lots of mail, poured the money in. A friend of mine received lots of mail with guns all over it, all pushing Perry. Did the NRA care about this election? The oil people? Or the chemical industry? Apparently the Senate is evenly divided, and it was an important race for the rest of the state. So who opens their wallet in this case?
Recently, upon hearing that Kliff Kingsbury would receive $3 million a year for many years, I remarked that he might be the richest guy in Lubbock. Not even close, somebody said; there's a lot of money here. So people are making more than three million a year? and they're doing what with the money?
I have no answers; I'm new here. If I'm wrong about any of this stuff, fill me in. At the moment, I feel somewhat tricked. I voted Democrat on the assumption that it would matter. As it turns out, it might not have mattered no matter who I voted for. I'd like to know why people do what they do; where this money is going, in the district, and why it matters so much who represents SD 28.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
of zoos & critter-fests
I think cities feel like they need a place for kids to stare at the hugeness of an elephant, and somehow it's all worth it to get that moment when a kid reaches out and actually pets some horse or goat or whatever, and feels that kinship with the animal world. The animals, for their part, must live in captivity, and do as their trainers say, but they eat pretty well, don't have to fight for their food or worry about predators, and somehow seem to know that it's all about reaching out to the kids and they dutifully are pretty nice.
At the Science Spectrum / city Critter-fest there was a tiger show, a crocodile/alligator show, horse and elephant rides, even maybe a camel ride, and lots of other attractions, so it was about as close as the city of Lubbock could get to actually having a zoo for a few days. I was happy with it, because, even though they soaked us parents every time we turned around, and even the animals recognized and responded to the temporary nature of the crowded quarters, everyone did what they were supposed to: the animals gave the kids rides, and let themselves be petted, and everyone came out with a better sense of what animals are really like.
When you get right down to it, an animal will just pee or poop right where it is, because somebody is always there to clean it up, and it's one of the perks of living in captivity and letting kids pet you all the time. To the kids, who are right at the level where it all seems to fall right near them, it might be the most amazing thing about the animals, besides the general smell of hay and animal breath. In the tiger show, once, one of the tigers let out a mighty roar; I was really amazed. In the end I didn't know if they permitted that routinely or even if they encouraged it once in a while. In general they led the tigers around by a stick but the stick had raw meat out at the end of it, and you knew that the tiger was a little depressed to be in this huge cage, but then, he had plenty of raw meat all the time. It's a living, eh?
I obviously have mixed feelings about the whole thing, but I'll say this: I'm not sure the alternatives are all that much better. I think these days they figure that in order to be humane they have to have an enormous space for the animals before they even start, so a permanent zoo would have to be out of town or at the very least take up most of some park. And people like me aren't crazy about permanent open-air jails for creatures that have to be locked up at night, that require permanent guides and regular employees who feed them and, every once in a while, fall in the moat.
But there's another option: a permanent buffalo prairie, somewhere just outside of town, with a place where people could come up to certain animals and get that moment of recognition, where they could peddle their wildlife preservation schemes and people could relate to the natural world in the kind of way that they used to around here, by watching buffaloes get up a good speed along a wides stretch of grass. This of course would require a huge commitment of land and money by the state, but would at least be feasible, and would run itself with very little upkeep.
When I lived in Kansas they had one of these across the border in Missouri, a place called Prairie State Park, in or near Lamar. The locals were mad for several reasons. One was that the local tax base was eroded and that put pressure on the schools to survive; these were schools that had trouble surviving anyway for lack of kids. A huge chunk of land carved out of the countryside, and put to buffalo, and there's that many fewer kids. But the other problem was brucelosis; the buffalo got it and gave it to the local cows, maybe? I can't remember the problem exactly, but it was something like that. It was kind of like the wolves at Yellowstone: actually preserving, or rebuilding a natural environment was very threatening to people who had basically devoted their lives to taming that environment.
At the Science Spectrum / city Critter-fest there was a tiger show, a crocodile/alligator show, horse and elephant rides, even maybe a camel ride, and lots of other attractions, so it was about as close as the city of Lubbock could get to actually having a zoo for a few days. I was happy with it, because, even though they soaked us parents every time we turned around, and even the animals recognized and responded to the temporary nature of the crowded quarters, everyone did what they were supposed to: the animals gave the kids rides, and let themselves be petted, and everyone came out with a better sense of what animals are really like.
When you get right down to it, an animal will just pee or poop right where it is, because somebody is always there to clean it up, and it's one of the perks of living in captivity and letting kids pet you all the time. To the kids, who are right at the level where it all seems to fall right near them, it might be the most amazing thing about the animals, besides the general smell of hay and animal breath. In the tiger show, once, one of the tigers let out a mighty roar; I was really amazed. In the end I didn't know if they permitted that routinely or even if they encouraged it once in a while. In general they led the tigers around by a stick but the stick had raw meat out at the end of it, and you knew that the tiger was a little depressed to be in this huge cage, but then, he had plenty of raw meat all the time. It's a living, eh?
I obviously have mixed feelings about the whole thing, but I'll say this: I'm not sure the alternatives are all that much better. I think these days they figure that in order to be humane they have to have an enormous space for the animals before they even start, so a permanent zoo would have to be out of town or at the very least take up most of some park. And people like me aren't crazy about permanent open-air jails for creatures that have to be locked up at night, that require permanent guides and regular employees who feed them and, every once in a while, fall in the moat.
But there's another option: a permanent buffalo prairie, somewhere just outside of town, with a place where people could come up to certain animals and get that moment of recognition, where they could peddle their wildlife preservation schemes and people could relate to the natural world in the kind of way that they used to around here, by watching buffaloes get up a good speed along a wides stretch of grass. This of course would require a huge commitment of land and money by the state, but would at least be feasible, and would run itself with very little upkeep.
When I lived in Kansas they had one of these across the border in Missouri, a place called Prairie State Park, in or near Lamar. The locals were mad for several reasons. One was that the local tax base was eroded and that put pressure on the schools to survive; these were schools that had trouble surviving anyway for lack of kids. A huge chunk of land carved out of the countryside, and put to buffalo, and there's that many fewer kids. But the other problem was brucelosis; the buffalo got it and gave it to the local cows, maybe? I can't remember the problem exactly, but it was something like that. It was kind of like the wolves at Yellowstone: actually preserving, or rebuilding a natural environment was very threatening to people who had basically devoted their lives to taming that environment.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
e pluribus haiku 2014
e pluribus haiku 2014 is out. 875 haiku, better packaging, more complete. I'm really proud of it. click on the picture to order it through amazon or by kindle. my intention was to publish on July 4, but if you think about it, the season is already over by then. The season is now. so pass this along, and celebrate the diversity of this country, its 50 unique states (and the District of Columbia); and the expression, through poetry, of a traveler's view.
Friday, February 21, 2014
If you don't mind, we would appreciate your being respectful to the members of the opposing team...
It was what, the Oklahoma State basketball game, where the "Super-fan" went overboard, and the OSU player shoved him, and got a three-game suspension. Shame on everyone! What's up with the bad behavior?
Apparently bad behavior is somewhat of a tradition here; the guy had been doing it for years, it was well known that he did it, his reputation preceded him. And they let him do it because, he paid big money, he was a "Super-fan," and they just don't like telling people to shut up here. It's a free country. You can say what you want, generally.
Now I'm sure I've offended just about everyone already, so I'll just keep on going. Not only Bobby Knight, but also most of the Tech sports establishment, including a good friend of mine, directly defended this guy as a really nice guy who just apparently lost his cool, because he gets so involved in the game. And, they said it was impossible that he used a racial slur then or anytime, or meant any of his insults as a racial slur, because he wasn't that kind of guy. OK. And that he feels bad about the whole thing, and has even stopped going to games for the remainder of the season.
Whoa now, that's what seems like the tragedy to me. Here they're losing the business of a loyal fan and a "nice guy" all because what, they were never able to tell him when he'd gone over the line? seems to me, a couple of words would have been all that it would take in this situation.
People here were pretty quick to blame the player, and ok, I can see how he was at fault, and he lost his cool, and he shouldn't have pushed anyone. I don't have an argument with that, he was at fault, he shouldn't have pushed anyone.
But Tech should make a venue where people are respected, and that's the norm, and if you use a foul mouth, you have to go to some other place, because we don't act that way, because it makes our team and our stadium and our people look bad. If that wasn't stated at some point, maybe it should have been.
Basketball is the new rage on campus. Kids are going to the games. Maybe it's because it's so hard, or so expensive, to go to the football game, or they've made it so you have to behave. Whatever the reason, they're filling up the arena. And that's nice, because our team is good, and tries hard out there. Also, basketball doesn't give you concussions, and is generally easier on your legs, knees and ankles than football. So they're not paying money to watch people get killed - and that should be encouraged. If we have to be subtle about this new "politeness" idea, which, I admit, has never really caught on, then we have to improve general manners among a steadily growing and younger crowd which is sure to have some pretty good & wild times here in its near future.
More power to 'em, I say. The time is now.
Apparently bad behavior is somewhat of a tradition here; the guy had been doing it for years, it was well known that he did it, his reputation preceded him. And they let him do it because, he paid big money, he was a "Super-fan," and they just don't like telling people to shut up here. It's a free country. You can say what you want, generally.
Now I'm sure I've offended just about everyone already, so I'll just keep on going. Not only Bobby Knight, but also most of the Tech sports establishment, including a good friend of mine, directly defended this guy as a really nice guy who just apparently lost his cool, because he gets so involved in the game. And, they said it was impossible that he used a racial slur then or anytime, or meant any of his insults as a racial slur, because he wasn't that kind of guy. OK. And that he feels bad about the whole thing, and has even stopped going to games for the remainder of the season.
Whoa now, that's what seems like the tragedy to me. Here they're losing the business of a loyal fan and a "nice guy" all because what, they were never able to tell him when he'd gone over the line? seems to me, a couple of words would have been all that it would take in this situation.
People here were pretty quick to blame the player, and ok, I can see how he was at fault, and he lost his cool, and he shouldn't have pushed anyone. I don't have an argument with that, he was at fault, he shouldn't have pushed anyone.
But Tech should make a venue where people are respected, and that's the norm, and if you use a foul mouth, you have to go to some other place, because we don't act that way, because it makes our team and our stadium and our people look bad. If that wasn't stated at some point, maybe it should have been.
Basketball is the new rage on campus. Kids are going to the games. Maybe it's because it's so hard, or so expensive, to go to the football game, or they've made it so you have to behave. Whatever the reason, they're filling up the arena. And that's nice, because our team is good, and tries hard out there. Also, basketball doesn't give you concussions, and is generally easier on your legs, knees and ankles than football. So they're not paying money to watch people get killed - and that should be encouraged. If we have to be subtle about this new "politeness" idea, which, I admit, has never really caught on, then we have to improve general manners among a steadily growing and younger crowd which is sure to have some pretty good & wild times here in its near future.
More power to 'em, I say. The time is now.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)