Anybody around Elmwood that likes to play basketball, can come by my Church (Lafayette Ave Presbyterian--see the link on the right) on Tuesday nights starting at 8pm. We aren't particularly good, so don't let that intimidate you.
The gym isn't all that well heated, so you may want to wear your warm-ups.
Drew's Journal
My Podcast Link
03/10/2008 11:22 #43601
Hoops03/05/2008 12:38 #43561
What if?Category: politics
About 30 years ago, the parties flipped. Republicans used to like abortion, and Dems did not. If you think about this callously, it makes sense. More poor people have abortions, more poor people vote for Democrats. More abortions = more power for republicans. Democrats were always for "the little guy," and that once included the unborn.
I don't know why Democrats flipped.
The point of this is not to advocate for or against any abortion law. I understand both sides of that argument. I just want to point out one thing:
Many Christian voters, including many in my family, only vote for Republicans because of abortion. The rest of the platform doesn't matter.
For whatever reason, torture and war don't matter, but abortion does.
Once upon a time, the whole Roman Catholic church voted for Democrats.
I wonder, if that "flip" never happened, if the war would have happened? I wonder if Ronald Reagan would have been elected president?
Today, A pro-life democrat may never get the party's nomination, but he or she would walk in the general election. It would be a Reagan-style blow out.
I don't know why Democrats flipped.
The point of this is not to advocate for or against any abortion law. I understand both sides of that argument. I just want to point out one thing:
Many Christian voters, including many in my family, only vote for Republicans because of abortion. The rest of the platform doesn't matter.
For whatever reason, torture and war don't matter, but abortion does.
Once upon a time, the whole Roman Catholic church voted for Democrats.
I wonder, if that "flip" never happened, if the war would have happened? I wonder if Ronald Reagan would have been elected president?
Today, A pro-life democrat may never get the party's nomination, but he or she would walk in the general election. It would be a Reagan-style blow out.
jason - 03/05/08 13:00
Fascinating. I have some Liberal friends who are pretty much the same way - one issue voter on the abortion argument. I really don't understand that mode of thinking. What, the economy, national security, taxes, foreign policy, none of that stuff matters?
Call me cynical, but I think the Democrats flipped strictly because of fealty to powerful special interests. A pro-lifer could never be the Democratic nominee today, and probably not in the near future either. They would get the usual treatment, get castigated, called anti-woman, a 1800's throwback, and that's on the nice end of things.
Regardless of this flip, yes I do think Reagan would have won, because Carter was so unpopular (Kennedy even mounted a challenge), and his administration was so ineffective. Abortion policy was the least of our concerns in those days. I think he's been a much more effective personality outside of US politics, for what it's worth.
I don't really disagree that a Moderate (Pro Life) Democrat could win handily these days. The opportunity is certainly out there.
Fascinating. I have some Liberal friends who are pretty much the same way - one issue voter on the abortion argument. I really don't understand that mode of thinking. What, the economy, national security, taxes, foreign policy, none of that stuff matters?
Call me cynical, but I think the Democrats flipped strictly because of fealty to powerful special interests. A pro-lifer could never be the Democratic nominee today, and probably not in the near future either. They would get the usual treatment, get castigated, called anti-woman, a 1800's throwback, and that's on the nice end of things.
Regardless of this flip, yes I do think Reagan would have won, because Carter was so unpopular (Kennedy even mounted a challenge), and his administration was so ineffective. Abortion policy was the least of our concerns in those days. I think he's been a much more effective personality outside of US politics, for what it's worth.
I don't really disagree that a Moderate (Pro Life) Democrat could win handily these days. The opportunity is certainly out there.
james - 03/05/08 13:00
About half the country supports abortion, if both major parties did not support abortion and worked towards a constitutional amendment outlawing it a third party would have formed. Women make up 55%-60% of the democratic party. It is hard to imagine them remaining a viable party with much of their base disinterested.
Also, my mom used to be a Democrat. Then she found Jesus and became super Catholic. She was suckered into the GOP on abortion. Now she is a war hawk, thinks all people on welfare are black welfare queens, and is disappointed Mike Huckabee did not get the nomination despite the fact I told her she thinks everyone with AIDS should be sent to an island and homosexuals are just as 'bad' as necrophiles and zoophiles. I think abortion gets people into church and they later drag you to the alter.
But, it is certainly an interesting 'what if?'
About half the country supports abortion, if both major parties did not support abortion and worked towards a constitutional amendment outlawing it a third party would have formed. Women make up 55%-60% of the democratic party. It is hard to imagine them remaining a viable party with much of their base disinterested.
Also, my mom used to be a Democrat. Then she found Jesus and became super Catholic. She was suckered into the GOP on abortion. Now she is a war hawk, thinks all people on welfare are black welfare queens, and is disappointed Mike Huckabee did not get the nomination despite the fact I told her she thinks everyone with AIDS should be sent to an island and homosexuals are just as 'bad' as necrophiles and zoophiles. I think abortion gets people into church and they later drag you to the alter.
But, it is certainly an interesting 'what if?'
03/03/2008 13:31 #43538
102 Million over 8 years.Category: football
Wow.
Let's pretend that I was given such a contract.
102 Million.
No wait. That's even too much to comprehend. Let me just deal with the signing bonus: 25 Million.
Lets assume half goes to taxes (I would try to avoid this, but I am going to play it safe with each number.)
That leaves me just over 12 million. I would give 10% to the church, (this is not a legalistic thing--just a good idea) so after taxes and giving, that leaves me 10 million dollars.
Half a million would go to paying off student loans and mortgage. Hmm. Never mind the mortgage. I would move. But I wouldn't go crazy--I would probably buy a condo. So lets put aside a million for all for all of that (I am assuming that I stay in Buffalo).
9 Million to Go.
4 Million gets invested, and I budget myself to live off of 5% of the fund each year. I know that I COULD spend more and still make it for life, but my house is already paid for, as is my education, so my $200,000 a year will go pretty far.
$200k allows me to drive a nice car, eat out whenever I want, go to the shows/concerts/games I want to, and get cable. I can probably switch to mac now, too--and get an iphone!
Wow. 5 million to go, and I am already set for life (and this is just the signing bonus, mind you).
Let's designate another million for gifts. I could probably be generous from my budgeted salary, but now Dad gets a new motorcycle, and Mom gets a luxury car and a vacation. (They might not take these things--I think they could buy them if they really wanted them--ditto houses and stuff like that). Janelle's family gets in on it, too. As do my friends. Estrip gets whatever server it needs.
4 million to go.
1 to Wittenberg University, and another to Palmer Seminary.
1 million to opportunity international, one of the better micro-enterprise groups.
1 mil for Janelle to designate. I probably should have consulted with her on all the other stuff, but she gets to live off of the investment returns and all of that anyway.
And this is all imaginary. I don't throw a football that well.
So there it is: what I would do with a quarterback's signing bonus.
(and I still would have another 77 million in salary to deal with, plus what I would make in endorsments)
Wow.
I would hire a maid, too. I hate doing laundry.
metalpeter - 03/03/08 18:19
(e:jenks) (and others). Here is why athletes get paid so much money {my View). First of all you have the TV deal. It used to be that the NFL TV deal was devided equaly between all the NFL teams and that gave each team 1 million dollars over the sallery cap. The reason the NFL can charge so much is because of everone who watchs then sees the ads. Companies want there products to sell. Here is the kicker all you need is one thing to cause the NFL to fall apart. If anyone wants to kill pro sports do this: Prove that ads don't cause people to buy a certain product, I don't think it is possible. But once Bud, Pepsi/Lays, and all the other companies stop paying for ads then the TV companies don't make money that means the TV deal becomes a lot less that means player don't get paid as much. Yes there is other sources of money like shirts, hats, and Jackets. But again if the NFL wasn't on TV no one other then people at the stadium would watch so only those people would buy them. It is also a business for the owners also. They want a good team to bring people into the stadium. If the game gets blacked out I would assume they make less local money. The other thing to is on like some other sports Owners are part of the show in the NFL and often put winning before money (unlike the leafs and sabres) there should be a balance but sometimes it is hard to find. For example Jerry Jones (cowboys) often goes down on the sideline and stands next to the coach. It is the same reason why everyone on friends got that pay raise years ago. They all went to the network and said we want more money. The network was making so much money from the ads in that time slot they gave them all what they wanted and still killed it dollarwise. It is just the economics of the situtation. It is the same reason why Lacrosse Players don't get very much money. If you want to see a game you have to go to it live or watch it over the internet there is no TV contract so there isn't a lot of money coming in. As the league gets bigger this may change and ticket prices may rise.
(e:jenks) (and others). Here is why athletes get paid so much money {my View). First of all you have the TV deal. It used to be that the NFL TV deal was devided equaly between all the NFL teams and that gave each team 1 million dollars over the sallery cap. The reason the NFL can charge so much is because of everone who watchs then sees the ads. Companies want there products to sell. Here is the kicker all you need is one thing to cause the NFL to fall apart. If anyone wants to kill pro sports do this: Prove that ads don't cause people to buy a certain product, I don't think it is possible. But once Bud, Pepsi/Lays, and all the other companies stop paying for ads then the TV companies don't make money that means the TV deal becomes a lot less that means player don't get paid as much. Yes there is other sources of money like shirts, hats, and Jackets. But again if the NFL wasn't on TV no one other then people at the stadium would watch so only those people would buy them. It is also a business for the owners also. They want a good team to bring people into the stadium. If the game gets blacked out I would assume they make less local money. The other thing to is on like some other sports Owners are part of the show in the NFL and often put winning before money (unlike the leafs and sabres) there should be a balance but sometimes it is hard to find. For example Jerry Jones (cowboys) often goes down on the sideline and stands next to the coach. It is the same reason why everyone on friends got that pay raise years ago. They all went to the network and said we want more money. The network was making so much money from the ads in that time slot they gave them all what they wanted and still killed it dollarwise. It is just the economics of the situtation. It is the same reason why Lacrosse Players don't get very much money. If you want to see a game you have to go to it live or watch it over the internet there is no TV contract so there isn't a lot of money coming in. As the league gets bigger this may change and ticket prices may rise.
drew - 03/03/08 15:07
I think he is a Manning type of QB. I also think that he is enough of a team player, that he might even give some back if the salary cap demands it.
The Rooneys will make back way more than they pay.
That's the thing that I don't like: everybody complains about player salaries, but nobody complains about exorbitant profit.
If a league is going to have a monopoly (as the major sports do), and if people are going to be willing to spend $100s on tickets, jerseys, etc (to say nothing of tv and luxury boxes and such) then a lot of money is going to come in, then there is going to be a lot of cash out there. Either we nationalize professional sports (which I don't think even the most liberal of Dems would do) or we live with things the way they are.
As much as I love football (and I do love football) I don't spend much money on it. If there were more people with my attitude, salary and profits would both be lower.
I wish I could find the article that studies pay multiples. Basically, if the highest paid employee makes more than, I think 25 times that of the lowest paid employee, the company will begin to function worse. What I like about a cap in multiples is that it could be good for everyone. CEO's could still make a ton of money, but not without paying their employees.
Of course, this would just lead to sports teams going to an all volunteer cleaning staff (or contracting things out), but limiting pay differential to an overly high number, say a multiple of 50 would be a good start.
I think he is a Manning type of QB. I also think that he is enough of a team player, that he might even give some back if the salary cap demands it.
The Rooneys will make back way more than they pay.
That's the thing that I don't like: everybody complains about player salaries, but nobody complains about exorbitant profit.
If a league is going to have a monopoly (as the major sports do), and if people are going to be willing to spend $100s on tickets, jerseys, etc (to say nothing of tv and luxury boxes and such) then a lot of money is going to come in, then there is going to be a lot of cash out there. Either we nationalize professional sports (which I don't think even the most liberal of Dems would do) or we live with things the way they are.
As much as I love football (and I do love football) I don't spend much money on it. If there were more people with my attitude, salary and profits would both be lower.
I wish I could find the article that studies pay multiples. Basically, if the highest paid employee makes more than, I think 25 times that of the lowest paid employee, the company will begin to function worse. What I like about a cap in multiples is that it could be good for everyone. CEO's could still make a ton of money, but not without paying their employees.
Of course, this would just lead to sports teams going to an all volunteer cleaning staff (or contracting things out), but limiting pay differential to an overly high number, say a multiple of 50 would be a good start.
jason - 03/03/08 14:33
What do you think about that figure, Drew? Sounds to me like this last season for him (which was damn good) got him his dough. Not like he was a bust or anything before that, but you would think that is Manning type of money.
What do you think about that figure, Drew? Sounds to me like this last season for him (which was damn good) got him his dough. Not like he was a bust or anything before that, but you would think that is Manning type of money.
jenks - 03/03/08 13:58
UGH.
Frankly, that makes me ill.
(not what you would do with the money drew- but the fact that athletes (or anyone for that matter) make so much money.)
How about they pay him 10 million (still more than enough to live comfortably) and give the rest to charity? lower ticket prices? anything.
Why on earth does this guy deserve that much money? i know, i know, b/c the market supports it.
again UGH.
UGH.
Frankly, that makes me ill.
(not what you would do with the money drew- but the fact that athletes (or anyone for that matter) make so much money.)
How about they pay him 10 million (still more than enough to live comfortably) and give the rest to charity? lower ticket prices? anything.
Why on earth does this guy deserve that much money? i know, i know, b/c the market supports it.
again UGH.
mrmike - 03/03/08 13:37
Good for Big Ben, here's hoping his accountant is on his A game
Good for Big Ben, here's hoping his accountant is on his A game
03/02/2008 09:14 #43527
10 Things I like about u2 in 3DCategory: 10 things
1. The cast (u2--duh).
2. It's a concert, and just a concert. No interviews, no backstage stuff--just the band onstage and the crowd.
3. The crowd. The film was shot in stadiums, and you constantly feel like you are surrounded by tens of thousands of other fans.
4. The angles. They used a million cameras, placed everywhere. Extra-wide, extra-close, and everything in between.
5. It's in 3D, and pretty realistic 3D at that.
6. The glasses. I like wearing glasses.
7. My company. I went to see the film with new friends and old, estrippers and non-estrippers. And even my dear wife, who doesn't even like u2 that much.
8. The restraint. At first I was a little bit disappointed that they didn't end with "40," but now I am glad they didn't. Some things have to be live.
9. They didn't clean it up too much. Bono wasn't pitch perfect all of the time, but there was no overdub. It's not about being perfect, it's about being real.
10. It felt like I was there. And being at a u2 concert is about as good as it gets.
2. It's a concert, and just a concert. No interviews, no backstage stuff--just the band onstage and the crowd.
3. The crowd. The film was shot in stadiums, and you constantly feel like you are surrounded by tens of thousands of other fans.
4. The angles. They used a million cameras, placed everywhere. Extra-wide, extra-close, and everything in between.
5. It's in 3D, and pretty realistic 3D at that.
6. The glasses. I like wearing glasses.
7. My company. I went to see the film with new friends and old, estrippers and non-estrippers. And even my dear wife, who doesn't even like u2 that much.
8. The restraint. At first I was a little bit disappointed that they didn't end with "40," but now I am glad they didn't. Some things have to be live.
9. They didn't clean it up too much. Bono wasn't pitch perfect all of the time, but there was no overdub. It's not about being perfect, it's about being real.
10. It felt like I was there. And being at a u2 concert is about as good as it gets.
mrmike - 03/02/08 15:01
They got it right. I'm all for passion ahead of precision.
Most enjoyable Monday night I've had in some time. Thanks again for instigating.
They got it right. I'm all for passion ahead of precision.
Most enjoyable Monday night I've had in some time. Thanks again for instigating.
02/29/2008 12:54 #43507
StatisticsCategory: stats
I am way far away from being in the top 50 in terms of views, but I am the #19 commenter on estrip.
I am also #19 in terms of comment receivers.
I am #42 in terms of journals written.
What does this tell me?
I guess I give and recieve more than thte average number of comments, despite getting less than average number of views. This could mean that people are less likely to read my journal, but if they do read it, it will inspire comment. The other reason I may be behind in vies is because I have been posting for less than a year. But how often are old posts really viewed? I guess a bunch, or that estrip used to get more views, because there really is nobody new on the top 50 views list.
It also tells me that I am far more likely to comment than to journal. This fits--I am a reactionary person by nature.
Finally, I can see that I am wasting my time thinking about this. I should be reading my book an researching kitchen people and cleaning up my house and getting the oil changed in my truck.
I am also #19 in terms of comment receivers.
I am #42 in terms of journals written.
What does this tell me?
I guess I give and recieve more than thte average number of comments, despite getting less than average number of views. This could mean that people are less likely to read my journal, but if they do read it, it will inspire comment. The other reason I may be behind in vies is because I have been posting for less than a year. But how often are old posts really viewed? I guess a bunch, or that estrip used to get more views, because there really is nobody new on the top 50 views list.
It also tells me that I am far more likely to comment than to journal. This fits--I am a reactionary person by nature.
Finally, I can see that I am wasting my time thinking about this. I should be reading my book an researching kitchen people and cleaning up my house and getting the oil changed in my truck.
jenks - 03/02/08 18:17
holy crap, I'm the #2 commentor?!
whoa, the #2 comments received?
Hmm. I was just thinking the other day "I haven't gotten many comments lately" and was feeling unloved. Guess I shouldn't!
Maybe b/c i haven't been posting much. duh.
holy crap, I'm the #2 commentor?!
whoa, the #2 comments received?
Hmm. I was just thinking the other day "I haven't gotten many comments lately" and was feeling unloved. Guess I shouldn't!
Maybe b/c i haven't been posting much. duh.
metalpeter - 02/29/08 18:39
When you have time do a little bit of math you have based on the top bar 143 journals and 25,094 views so that comes out to about 175 views per post. To me that says a lot of people read your posts and check up on the comments made.
You have 557 not counting this one in comments. By my math that averages out to almost four comments per journal.
Dude why so few Pictures? Kidding there. Based on your first stat I listed that means a lot of people are looking at your journal. Your rank in views in your mind are low. But the thing is that you haven't been here that long so you don't have the numbers yet. I myself know I have a lot of views but I have a couple years head start on you. Assuming you keep posting you will pass others and so will other people. Like (e:paul) said it is really a timing thing or how long you have been posting. I'm going to have to find the stats and see where I'm at.
When you have time do a little bit of math you have based on the top bar 143 journals and 25,094 views so that comes out to about 175 views per post. To me that says a lot of people read your posts and check up on the comments made.
You have 557 not counting this one in comments. By my math that averages out to almost four comments per journal.
Dude why so few Pictures? Kidding there. Based on your first stat I listed that means a lot of people are looking at your journal. Your rank in views in your mind are low. But the thing is that you haven't been here that long so you don't have the numbers yet. I myself know I have a lot of views but I have a couple years head start on you. Assuming you keep posting you will pass others and so will other people. Like (e:paul) said it is really a timing thing or how long you have been posting. I'm going to have to find the stats and see where I'm at.
paul - 02/29/08 14:29
It really is just a time thing. We get way more views now that in the past, but you have to add a lot of years of views onto some of those. The site started in 2003. Also some people have external links that drive more views to their blog entries.
Maybe I will do a statistics view for this year alone. I am sure you would be much higher up.
It really is just a time thing. We get way more views now that in the past, but you have to add a lot of years of views onto some of those. The site started in 2003. Also some people have external links that drive more views to their blog entries.
Maybe I will do a statistics view for this year alone. I am sure you would be much higher up.
mrmike - 02/29/08 13:35
or writing the ten things about the u2 movie post
or writing the ten things about the u2 movie post
It is.
If this is an every week thing I may be up for it in the future.