January 2013 began with possibly the biggest, geekiest news ever: J.J. Abrams was officially named as the director of the next Star Wars film, due out in 2015. That gives us all several years to debate whether the choice was a good one, but I thought I'd go ahead and get a jump on things. With such massive news, why not flash forward a bit? Get it? Flash...forward? Never mind.
The Florida Everglades are being overrun, er, over-slithered, with pythons. The environmental balance is out of whack because of one of the most feared and hard to control kinds of animals around-- the invasive species.
I really want to title this article “Sharks bite back,” but aside from being obnoxiously flippant, people are getting sick in China after eating food in good faith, and that’s just not fair play. We animal activists shouldn’t gloat over the fact that China’s bizarre and dangerous food system has found a way to create shark fins for shark fin soup, and that some of the fake shark fins may be toxic.
This holiday season, I was the recipient of a brand new iPod touch. Though regarded as an mp3 player, the new iPod (as well as most in the touch series) is more like having a miniature tablet in your pocket. Having never had one before, the hours spent downloading apps, syncing my Facebook, e-mail, iTunes, etc. were all much enjoyed. The sheer magnitude of such a small device was mind boggling to me.
There's been a growing consciousness around food for some time now in the U.S. People are choosing to explore vegetarian and vegan eating, learning about the benefits of organic food, and exploring the relationship of food to health in a much deeper way.
.
On the subject of NBA franchise relocation, James had an intriguing way to organize our thoughts:
.
Personally, I don't think it's important to preserve [statistical] records, because we'll adapt to the new records, just like we adapted to huge strikeout changes, etc, (or NFL going from 14- to 16-game season and eventually 18). Even so, going to 8-inning game will radically change bullpen usage, but, we've seen that over the past 30 years anyway.Asked by: tangotigerAnswered: 1/14/2013Well. ...philosophically, you and I share a predisposition in favor of change; I think we're both inclined to believe that baseball hurts itself more than it helps itself by its fear of change.But at the same time, it does not follow that all changes are good changes, or that there is no value in tradition. Indeed, almost the ENTIRE value of a sports franchise is in its traditions. You and I could design a game which is as entertaining to watch as baseball or football, but were a league to be launched based on that game, its revenues in Year One would be less than 1% of the revenues of the NFL or MLB. The other 99% is accounted for traditions.The value in the franchises is in the traditions which bind its fan base to the team. While I agree that baseball needs to be open to change, I also think that it needs to be not TOO anxious to change.
.
This is a thought-provoking suggestion -- that 99% of the Seahawks' shirt sales* are really because of a contextual backdrop. The fact that they're playing in the NFL(TM), the league of Lombardi and Walsh and Unitas and etc., and the investment that sons and fathers have made over the years -- this is the fabric of fan loyalty and intensity.
Compare the value of a product's "brand"; the Coca-Cola "brand" is worth 60-something billion. The memories, feelings, and attitudes are themselves the marketable product.
Obviously, most of this is true. You could build a USFL team to play in Portland, and it might have great players, but it's not going to have anything that we value about a Felix Hernandez - Albert Pujols matchup on Friday night. This would be true even if Felix and Pujols jumped to the USFL.*
.
Sent this to Jill Bames:
.
A question I've never gotten my ethical bearings on -- the potential move now of the Sacramento Kings to Seattle. As you see it, should a Seattle basketball fan feel sheepish about the situation in general?
The new franchise will, or won't, be (or feel like) the Sonics on a civically psychic level?
Certainly you have a strong perspective on the general issue of sports teams relocating, the ethic that applies, and the tendency for it to turn out to be emotionally satisfying, or to manifest good karma so to speak, or not ...
.
I'm looking for something a little more satisfying than "hey, they did it to us, so why should we feel bad about doing it to them?" If I accidentally cut a guy off in traffic, and that guy jumps out of car and starts hollering at me at a stoplight, and I lower myself to his level (meaning the level he was at during that incident, not during his life generally!), then I'm not going to feel good about my decision that night.
We certainly know how we felt about that Oklahoma City businessman hijacking the Sonics -- especially right before the big emergence.
.
Trent Dilfer was en fuego Sunday night -- they were literally running in from off camera to fan out the flames. Did you catch it? Whether it was Dilfer's Dimes, whether it was post-RGIII reaction, whether it was Wilson analysis, whether it was being called in to swap punches with Boomer and Tom Jackson ... you can't stop Trent Dilfer, you can only hope to contain him.
.
=== Flinch Response ===
Dilfer marvelled at the Redskins coming out and splashing the bowling pins all over the back of the catch-basin on their first two strikes. Big crowd, bright lights in the nation's capital, only NFL game on in the country, Redskins tsunami crashes over the Seahawks and ....
ZERO FLINCH RESPONSE. Dilfer's words.
Seahawks down 14-0 in the first. Rookie QB, on the road, the dogs barking. The Seahawks come out, go back to work, and ... how shrill are they? What's the very opposite of shrill? They were like Kirk and Spock and Sulu and Uhura in 1967. Bracketed by Klingons, sir. Shields at 12%. Incoming fire. ... tea, anybody? Yes, ensign, with lemon, and patch me through on subspace line three. We have six seconds left, sir ... :: wink :: Scotty, do that theoretical plasma burst thing.
.
We axed Counselor Mojo how he would mediate the John Olerud Tree-Gate Scandal - not just in terms of the letter of the law, but in terms of what's fair and what's Do Unto Others. His brilliant analysis runs,
........
... I hadn't known anything about the situation other than the headline. Had figured that Olerud and the other homeowner had sharp words, and then the other guy ran off to the media to create a sensation. If it developed out of Olerud himself trying to bring leverage to bear, then ... yowch.
Olerud has a few things working against him in the tree dispute:
1. The tree was there when he built the house. Whatever arrangements he made for his view should have been made before he built the house or bought the lot.
2. Trees, though common, are priceless. If you chop one down that you particularly like, you will never get another one exactly like it. You are dealing with a unique creature; A man can chop down a tree but only God can create one.
3. By account this tree was particularly rare. The article says it was a Chinese Pine and that it was old.
4. Further, a pine tree is particularly inoffensive. It doesn't pollute the neighbor's yard with leaves or seedlings or poop, it doesn't yap like a dog, it doesn't run along the ground and sprout in wierd areas like a Red Aldar or a bamboo, it doesn't eat the neighbor's wild birds from their bird feeder, like a cat, it doesn't abut any property line so that it is intrusive, the roots are not breaking or unsettling any concrete or foundation, it is not dangerous to little children, it does not carry any loathsome disease, and it does not grow at an alarming rate. Further, the objection to the tree is purely aesthetic, rather than causing any real economic harm. The tree is not costing Olerud his livelihood.
These factors combine to create a situation that money cannot fix. It is impossible for Olerud to pay for repairs, to make both parties happy. So, while this tree might be a small thing to some owners, who could then come to a reasonable agreement for its removal, if an owner likes the tree for its individuality, then an agreement will be unreachable.
I don't view this as a small or minor situation blown up by the media. To want the tree removed is one thing, but to sue for its removal is quite another. There are many things that people desire that they should not sue over. Further, Olerud does damage to the Christian faith by telling the zoning board that his neighbor is not a good Christian because he does not cut down the tree as asked. The Bible states that Christians should have the Church arbitrate disputes between them so as not to bring the faith into discredit. 1 Cor. 6:7. Olerud, whether he likes it or not, is a particularly influental person, so when he says these things, it reaches a larger audience than he probably intended. He should leave his private obsessions out of the public eye.