Just think about this idea for a little while.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Comments Policy
This is outfrickingstanding. In so many ways too. The self-importance, the condescension, living up to every cliche of the humorless feminist, the consistent use of PC terms that literally have no meaning, etc.
The first commenter pretty much sums it all up.
The first commenter pretty much sums it all up.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Palm Pre
This past Saturday I stood in line at 6AM in order to purchase the Palm Pre. I'm not much of a technology geek, but I was motivated to get this one just so my friends would stop making fun of the fact that my phone had a stylus and because I was not quite ready to join the Apple cult. Worth the wait. It's a pretty phenomenal piece of hardware. Now I just need an 8-year old to teach me how to use it.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Back
Took a short break there for a while (since January). I had hoped to do some blogging while in legislative session, but it was not to be. Part of it is just time constraints as we keep fairly insane hours during session. Part of it is also fear of writing something I may regret during the heated environment of the legislative session. In any case, back to it.
This session was a pretty intense one for the folks I represent, the health plans. The Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) was up for Sunset review. Every agency in Texas undergoes Sunset review every 12 years. The review process is designed to review all of the agency functions to determine if there is still a need for the agency and, since the answer to that is usually yes, to determine what changes in statute need to be made to either expend or contract statutory authority. Without a proactive step from the legislature (passing a bill) the agency ceases to exist. Well, that is what happened with TDI. The legislature did not pass the elgislation and so one year from September the agency will cease to exist.
How did that happen? Well, the Sunset review process makes a lot of sense on paper. In reality, I think many legislators believe the process is broken. Because the legislation which reauthorizes the agencies is so broad, the Sunset bills have become "Christmas trees" rather than focusing on the agency's actual role or statutory duties. The TDI Sunset bill, for instance, had more than 179 amendments filed for cosnideration. The Transportation Sunset bill was filed as a 145 page bill and ended up at over 500 pages. The final bill was Many of these contained significant changes in policy that had never been discussed or reviewed as part of the normal legilative process. They were simply trying to catch a ride on what many thought was a "must pass" bill. (Regardless of the merit of each of these amendments, this strikes me as a really lousy way to make policy.) The TDI Sunset bill never made it to the floor of the Texas House, mainly due to a major fight between Democrats and Republicans over Voter ID; I'll write some about that later. The contingency for this is to place all of the Sunset bills into a safety net bill which extends the agencies for two more years. This keeps the agencies in existence whicle ensuring they will be reviewed again the next session. Well, at the end of session the safety net bill was killed on a point of order. They then tried to resurrect the safety net bill by amending a fiscal matters bill that would have extended the agency two more years. The House did just that and then adjourned sine die (they ended the session). This put the Senate in the position of having to concur witht he House rather than negotiating on anumber of remaining issues. The Senate decided that they could not live with that and so they adjourned sine die as well without taking any action.
That leaves the state with no department of insurance, no department of transportation, and no agency regulating gaming. The plans I represent have regular dealings with TDI and while they are often frustrated by the positions the agency takes, they all agree on a need for the agency and vouch for the integrity of the folks who work there. Beyond that, eliminating the agency would be a radical change in the market dynamic and most businesses, insurance in particular, crave stability and consistency.
Given the importance of this issue, it would be normal to expect a special session to be called by the Governor. But these are not normal times. The Governor (Rick Perry) is expected to be involved in a hotly contested primary by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and this is going to enter into any decision he makes about calling a special session. Many of the Republicans would prefer not to have a special session on insurance because it might put them in the position of having to vote on populist measures that are terrible policy (like electing an insurance commissioner) and because the trial lawyers view the insurance Sunset bill as an opportunity to attacke many of the tort reform measures enacted in Texas in recent years. Democrats for their part do not want a special session either. Democrats brought the Texas House to a standstill to prevent consideration of the Voter ID bill, a bill they view as doing damage to minority constituencies that many of them represent. Well, it is almost guaranteed that any special session called will have Voter ID as a matter to be considered. The Governor has sole discretion to determine what can be considered during a special session and Voter ID is a huge issue for Republican primary voters. Add to the equation that the 2/3 rule which usually applies in the Senate (requires 2/3 of the Senators to agree to take up any bill) does not apply in special session adn you can see why the Democrats would be nervous.
So that was one of the big stories of this session. I'll write more about how we fared later, but this was kind of a big deal.
This session was a pretty intense one for the folks I represent, the health plans. The Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) was up for Sunset review. Every agency in Texas undergoes Sunset review every 12 years. The review process is designed to review all of the agency functions to determine if there is still a need for the agency and, since the answer to that is usually yes, to determine what changes in statute need to be made to either expend or contract statutory authority. Without a proactive step from the legislature (passing a bill) the agency ceases to exist. Well, that is what happened with TDI. The legislature did not pass the elgislation and so one year from September the agency will cease to exist.
How did that happen? Well, the Sunset review process makes a lot of sense on paper. In reality, I think many legislators believe the process is broken. Because the legislation which reauthorizes the agencies is so broad, the Sunset bills have become "Christmas trees" rather than focusing on the agency's actual role or statutory duties. The TDI Sunset bill, for instance, had more than 179 amendments filed for cosnideration. The Transportation Sunset bill was filed as a 145 page bill and ended up at over 500 pages. The final bill was Many of these contained significant changes in policy that had never been discussed or reviewed as part of the normal legilative process. They were simply trying to catch a ride on what many thought was a "must pass" bill. (Regardless of the merit of each of these amendments, this strikes me as a really lousy way to make policy.) The TDI Sunset bill never made it to the floor of the Texas House, mainly due to a major fight between Democrats and Republicans over Voter ID; I'll write some about that later. The contingency for this is to place all of the Sunset bills into a safety net bill which extends the agencies for two more years. This keeps the agencies in existence whicle ensuring they will be reviewed again the next session. Well, at the end of session the safety net bill was killed on a point of order. They then tried to resurrect the safety net bill by amending a fiscal matters bill that would have extended the agency two more years. The House did just that and then adjourned sine die (they ended the session). This put the Senate in the position of having to concur witht he House rather than negotiating on anumber of remaining issues. The Senate decided that they could not live with that and so they adjourned sine die as well without taking any action.
That leaves the state with no department of insurance, no department of transportation, and no agency regulating gaming. The plans I represent have regular dealings with TDI and while they are often frustrated by the positions the agency takes, they all agree on a need for the agency and vouch for the integrity of the folks who work there. Beyond that, eliminating the agency would be a radical change in the market dynamic and most businesses, insurance in particular, crave stability and consistency.
Given the importance of this issue, it would be normal to expect a special session to be called by the Governor. But these are not normal times. The Governor (Rick Perry) is expected to be involved in a hotly contested primary by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and this is going to enter into any decision he makes about calling a special session. Many of the Republicans would prefer not to have a special session on insurance because it might put them in the position of having to vote on populist measures that are terrible policy (like electing an insurance commissioner) and because the trial lawyers view the insurance Sunset bill as an opportunity to attacke many of the tort reform measures enacted in Texas in recent years. Democrats for their part do not want a special session either. Democrats brought the Texas House to a standstill to prevent consideration of the Voter ID bill, a bill they view as doing damage to minority constituencies that many of them represent. Well, it is almost guaranteed that any special session called will have Voter ID as a matter to be considered. The Governor has sole discretion to determine what can be considered during a special session and Voter ID is a huge issue for Republican primary voters. Add to the equation that the 2/3 rule which usually applies in the Senate (requires 2/3 of the Senators to agree to take up any bill) does not apply in special session adn you can see why the Democrats would be nervous.
So that was one of the big stories of this session. I'll write more about how we fared later, but this was kind of a big deal.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Rick Barry on LeBron
"He's got major flaws in his game. He's six years into the NBA. How can a man six years into the NBA with his talent have a major flaw in his shot? How can he not use screens effectively? ... I watch the game very carefully, he doesn't use screens effectively and this is not LeBron's fault. It's the fault of the people who are teaching him ... There is no doubt in my mind that LeBron, if shown these things, would do them, because he wants to be a great player, he wants to win a championship. As great as he is, he should be better."
Here are LeBron's career stats. You might notice that they are awesome. You also might notice that the Cavaliers are 34-8 and have the best record in the league. Then you might notice that the Cavs have already been to an NBA championship with LeBron. And then you might notice that LeBron is only 25 years old. He came into the league with ridiculously high expectations and, somehow, has managed to surpass them.
Lord make me as flawed as LeBron.
Here are LeBron's career stats. You might notice that they are awesome. You also might notice that the Cavaliers are 34-8 and have the best record in the league. Then you might notice that the Cavs have already been to an NBA championship with LeBron. And then you might notice that LeBron is only 25 years old. He came into the league with ridiculously high expectations and, somehow, has managed to surpass them.
Lord make me as flawed as LeBron.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
My Bike
I took the saddle bags off cause they looked pretty dumb. I know it's trite, but it really is a feeling of freedom when you're riding.
Lobbyists
Dumb.
I've never understood the obsession people have with banning lobbyists from transition teams, appointments, staff positions, etc. Granted, I'm probably biased, but it really is dumb. No person exists who doesn't have personal relationships and so the idea that somehow a lobbyist is too corrupted to serve in these positions ignores the fact that all people bring baggage to the table. There are a few kind of lobbyists. One type is the former legislator/bigwig that trades on their relationships and insight into the process. Another type of lobbyist is the subject matter expert. Those folks know more about the issues then other people. And they should, it is their job to know more than other people. That also makes them uniquely qualified to serve.
Obama seems to have taken the worst approach of all. Pretend like it is a huge problem to have former lobbyists in certain positions while recognizing that they are uniquely qualified and then finding a way around it. Like I said, it's dumb.
I've never understood the obsession people have with banning lobbyists from transition teams, appointments, staff positions, etc. Granted, I'm probably biased, but it really is dumb. No person exists who doesn't have personal relationships and so the idea that somehow a lobbyist is too corrupted to serve in these positions ignores the fact that all people bring baggage to the table. There are a few kind of lobbyists. One type is the former legislator/bigwig that trades on their relationships and insight into the process. Another type of lobbyist is the subject matter expert. Those folks know more about the issues then other people. And they should, it is their job to know more than other people. That also makes them uniquely qualified to serve.
Obama seems to have taken the worst approach of all. Pretend like it is a huge problem to have former lobbyists in certain positions while recognizing that they are uniquely qualified and then finding a way around it. Like I said, it's dumb.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
I Are Pissed
So during the last month my car has been hit, while stationary, three times. In each of these instances the transgressor has failed to leave a note or accept responsibility. Yesterday, I went into the liquor store for 5 minutes and came out to find the front passenger side dented. Very annoying.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
Molly Wolfe RIP
Our dog died today. We had to put her to sleep. She had a number of ailments and it was clearly the right thing for her. But I'm crushed all the same. She was a smart, beautiful, loving dog and she and my wife were connected in a special way. I will really miss her. I already do.
Friday, January 2, 2009
BMW K1200s
In these uncertain financial times, there are few better investments than vehicles (right honey?). Please enjoy the BMW K1200s motorcycle. This beauty will take you from 0-60 in 2.8 seconds. Yes, 2.8 seconds. Please count to three in your head. You are now going 60mph.
O8 hand
I like to think I'm a pretty good Omaha Hi-Lo (aka O8) player. Omaha is a variation of Texas Hold Em, but you get 4 cards instead of two. However, unlike Hold Em you have to use two cards in your hand. In Hi-Lo, as the name implies, the high hand and the low hand split the pot. You can use all 4 cards in your hand (two to make a high hand and a different two to make a low hand) and the goal is really to scoop pots by winning both the high and the low. So here is an awesome hand from a tournament I was playing in yesterday. When I say "awesome" I mean it in the literal sense. I am still in awe of how unbelievably badly my opponent, who had made it down to the final 100 out of 600 people, played this hand. So, here we go.
Folded around to me on the button. I have QQ35 (double suited in hearts and clubs). I generally think bad players tend to overplay big pairs in O8, but on the button without anyone else in the pot this is a raising hand. I raise. Small blind flats, big blind folds.
Flop: 9hTh5d
So let's review. In order to make a low hand in O8 you have to have five unpaired cards all under 8. The best low hand is the wheel, A2345, the worst low hand is 87654. So given the board, a player playing a low draw is going to need the last two cards to be under an 8 in order to make a low hand and they can figure that even then they will be drawing to only half the pot. Can you see where this is headed?
I bet the pot (about $8K) which represents about 90% of my opponent's remaining chips. He calls.
Turn: 6d
I bet enough to put my opponent in, because I have to but I'm a little concerned now that I'm beat, but it doesn't matter because there is way too much money in the pot and my opponent has almost no chips left. So the cards are flipped over and my opponent shows me....drumroll.....Ac2d3d4h.
River: 8d
I lose a massive pot to a 8 high flush and he has the best possible low.
So my opponent was absolutely correct to call preflop, he has a premium starting hand and could have even raised me and I would have folded immediately. Post flop looks good for me as I have an overpair and a flush draw, though not a very good one, and any low drawing hand is clearly folding since they completely missed the flop. At least, that is what a normal, rationale human being would think. My opponent, however, decided it ould be a good deal to call off all his chips with no pair, no draw, and needing the board to come consecutive diamonds to make the worst flush possible or to have two low cards come consecutively to win only half the pot. Fortunately for him he was playing against me and while the math on this hand suggests that I'm in a dominating position (I'll scoop it over 60% of the time and win the high 80% of the time) that is exactly what occurred. Well played sir.
I used to get mad about these types of beats, but now I just wonder why someone would play for 5 hours and then decide that they want to bet all their money when they have almost no chance of winning. Very odd. Also, I'm a huge liar as I am still furious and I would gladly murder this person and his entire family given the opportunity.
Folded around to me on the button. I have QQ35 (double suited in hearts and clubs). I generally think bad players tend to overplay big pairs in O8, but on the button without anyone else in the pot this is a raising hand. I raise. Small blind flats, big blind folds.
Flop: 9hTh5d
So let's review. In order to make a low hand in O8 you have to have five unpaired cards all under 8. The best low hand is the wheel, A2345, the worst low hand is 87654. So given the board, a player playing a low draw is going to need the last two cards to be under an 8 in order to make a low hand and they can figure that even then they will be drawing to only half the pot. Can you see where this is headed?
I bet the pot (about $8K) which represents about 90% of my opponent's remaining chips. He calls.
Turn: 6d
I bet enough to put my opponent in, because I have to but I'm a little concerned now that I'm beat, but it doesn't matter because there is way too much money in the pot and my opponent has almost no chips left. So the cards are flipped over and my opponent shows me....drumroll.....Ac2d3d4h.
River: 8d
I lose a massive pot to a 8 high flush and he has the best possible low.
So my opponent was absolutely correct to call preflop, he has a premium starting hand and could have even raised me and I would have folded immediately. Post flop looks good for me as I have an overpair and a flush draw, though not a very good one, and any low drawing hand is clearly folding since they completely missed the flop. At least, that is what a normal, rationale human being would think. My opponent, however, decided it ould be a good deal to call off all his chips with no pair, no draw, and needing the board to come consecutive diamonds to make the worst flush possible or to have two low cards come consecutively to win only half the pot. Fortunately for him he was playing against me and while the math on this hand suggests that I'm in a dominating position (I'll scoop it over 60% of the time and win the high 80% of the time) that is exactly what occurred. Well played sir.
I used to get mad about these types of beats, but now I just wonder why someone would play for 5 hours and then decide that they want to bet all their money when they have almost no chance of winning. Very odd. Also, I'm a huge liar as I am still furious and I would gladly murder this person and his entire family given the opportunity.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Can't Close the Deal
I've been sick this past week. One of the good things about being sick is that my wife lets me play poker when I'm sick. I final tabled three times this week and had several other deep runs in tournaments. But I couldn't close the deal in any of them which stinks. I had a 4th, a 3rd, and a 4th place finish. Also had a 20th, 14th, 19th, and an 18th. Cashing is nice, but all of the money is in the top three spots so it's still pretty disappointing. I wish I had the time to play seriously again, but playing in mega tournies with multiple thousands of people takes a serious time commitment and I just can't.
US Health Care Costs
Good series by Uwe Reinhardt on US health care costs. Very readable. This installment is about practice variation, the most important and least discussed issue in health care.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Thanks Men's Health!
The good folks at Men's Health magazine sent me a list of the "20 Symptoms a Man Should Never Ignore." This list is really helpful and includes important advice about not ignoring such things as:
Sudden Blindness, Sudden Groin Pain, A Mysterious Lump in Your Testicle, and A Wound That Doesn't Heal.
Sudden Blindness, Sudden Groin Pain, A Mysterious Lump in Your Testicle, and A Wound That Doesn't Heal.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Pondering
Took two sick beats today which cost me some serious money in tournaments I was playing. No one likes bad beat stories, but this is my blog so tough.
First. I'm in the $109 tourney. 1st place is $12K. Cruising along, about 200 people left out of 639. Got about $12K in chips. Blinds are 200/400. Cut off, who has about 6300, raises to 1200. I've got JJ. He's probably got a marginal hand and is just looking to take the blinds, though his raise here has put about 20% of his chips in already. In any case, I have an actual hand so I repop him to $4400. So....he calls, which leaves him with $1850 and out of position playing a pot which has $10k in it. Board comes 634 and he bets his last $1800. I, of course call, and he has KQ. Of course a Q comes in the tune and I lose the pot. But how much worse could he have played his hand? My answer, it's not possible to play it any worse. This was one of those hands that was going to vault me up or put me in short stack. I went out shortly thereafter.
The second bad beat involved me getting AA cracked against the chip leader. Would have put me top 5 in chips. Such is life. Guy had QQ so can't fault his move, but still.
Last one. This is the one I'm pondering. $50 tourney. It's pretty deep in the tourney, probably about 170 people left or so (out of more than 1000). Blinds are 1500/3000. I have a little over $90K so I'm in good shape. In early position I raise to $7500 with 77. The big blind calls. Flop is Ks2d3d. He leads out into the pot for $8000, less than 1/2 the pot. I raise him to $30K and he calls. Now I'm concerned. Problem is he has $12K left and the pot is pretty large so I'm committed. We get all in on the river and he has KQ and I'm down to about $30K. Pretty sure I misplayed the hand, but need to think on it. Ended up cashing in this one.
First. I'm in the $109 tourney. 1st place is $12K. Cruising along, about 200 people left out of 639. Got about $12K in chips. Blinds are 200/400. Cut off, who has about 6300, raises to 1200. I've got JJ. He's probably got a marginal hand and is just looking to take the blinds, though his raise here has put about 20% of his chips in already. In any case, I have an actual hand so I repop him to $4400. So....he calls, which leaves him with $1850 and out of position playing a pot which has $10k in it. Board comes 634 and he bets his last $1800. I, of course call, and he has KQ. Of course a Q comes in the tune and I lose the pot. But how much worse could he have played his hand? My answer, it's not possible to play it any worse. This was one of those hands that was going to vault me up or put me in short stack. I went out shortly thereafter.
The second bad beat involved me getting AA cracked against the chip leader. Would have put me top 5 in chips. Such is life. Guy had QQ so can't fault his move, but still.
Last one. This is the one I'm pondering. $50 tourney. It's pretty deep in the tourney, probably about 170 people left or so (out of more than 1000). Blinds are 1500/3000. I have a little over $90K so I'm in good shape. In early position I raise to $7500 with 77. The big blind calls. Flop is Ks2d3d. He leads out into the pot for $8000, less than 1/2 the pot. I raise him to $30K and he calls. Now I'm concerned. Problem is he has $12K left and the pot is pretty large so I'm committed. We get all in on the river and he has KQ and I'm down to about $30K. Pretty sure I misplayed the hand, but need to think on it. Ended up cashing in this one.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
OU Sucks
Hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaaaaahahaahahaha
Best wishes to both players on a speedy recovery.
Best wishes to both players on a speedy recovery.
Battlestar Galactica
So Newsweek asked some "cultural critics" what work best described life under Bush. One of the works chosen was Battlestar Galactica. The guy who writes about it makes the show seem interesting enough to watch. I've always assumed when I was scrolling through the channels that it might be good for a laugh, but now I might actually have to watch it.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
54 Degrees
It was 54 degrees in Austin this morning....in my house. Ive been described as stubborn before. After an ice storm two years ago the company that provides propane to us jacked the price up and then came out and filled us up. One month cost us $1000. They are the only provider out there so I can't switch. So I stopped turning the heat on and I haven't looked back. But this morning kind of sucked.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The Big Three
Good article in the NYT on the bailout and the Big Three.
I am not a big fan of the bailout. The "czar" concept is stupid. As the article linked to above points out, the Big Three's problem is mainly that people don't want their cars. And reading lefty bloggers rejoice that the bailout could allow Congress to direct automakers to build only "green" cars should scare the hell out of every sane person.
I will, however, take a moment to defend the Big Three on a few charges. The CEOs have faced some scathing commentary, some of it deserved (going to Congress to ask for billions and having zero ideas on what the plan to remain viable is) and some of it unfairly placed (that the specific CEOs in question ran their companies into the ground). I love cars. I can't fix them or work on them. In fact the only thing I know how to do is drive one and put gas in it. But I'm a gear head in that I read all the reviews and have followed the plight of Detroit for multiple years. The Big Three have taken numerous steps to remain competitive, from negotiating concession with workers, to shedding products and lines, to making vastly improved vehicles.
The last point, in particular, is important. Detroit is making much, much better vehicles today than they were even a decade ago. Their issue reminds me of the struggles the Italians faced in the wine industry. Unlike the French, the Italians decided to export all of their terrible wine. As such, Italian wine long suffered a reputation of being terrible. Ford, GM, and Daimler suffer much the same way. They have changed, they are making better and more relevant products, but it is hard to get people to come back after years of slapping a Cadillac symbol over a Cavalier and marking it up $10K.
I don't support the bailout as structured and I definitely agree that the Big Three have made some really bad decisions. My pnly point here is that it is unfair to say that the CEOs and the workers have continued slinging out terrible products because they haven't.
I am not a big fan of the bailout. The "czar" concept is stupid. As the article linked to above points out, the Big Three's problem is mainly that people don't want their cars. And reading lefty bloggers rejoice that the bailout could allow Congress to direct automakers to build only "green" cars should scare the hell out of every sane person.
I will, however, take a moment to defend the Big Three on a few charges. The CEOs have faced some scathing commentary, some of it deserved (going to Congress to ask for billions and having zero ideas on what the plan to remain viable is) and some of it unfairly placed (that the specific CEOs in question ran their companies into the ground). I love cars. I can't fix them or work on them. In fact the only thing I know how to do is drive one and put gas in it. But I'm a gear head in that I read all the reviews and have followed the plight of Detroit for multiple years. The Big Three have taken numerous steps to remain competitive, from negotiating concession with workers, to shedding products and lines, to making vastly improved vehicles.
The last point, in particular, is important. Detroit is making much, much better vehicles today than they were even a decade ago. Their issue reminds me of the struggles the Italians faced in the wine industry. Unlike the French, the Italians decided to export all of their terrible wine. As such, Italian wine long suffered a reputation of being terrible. Ford, GM, and Daimler suffer much the same way. They have changed, they are making better and more relevant products, but it is hard to get people to come back after years of slapping a Cadillac symbol over a Cavalier and marking it up $10K.
I don't support the bailout as structured and I definitely agree that the Big Three have made some really bad decisions. My pnly point here is that it is unfair to say that the CEOs and the workers have continued slinging out terrible products because they haven't.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Mortgage Modifications
There have been many calls that mortgage restructuring or assistance should be included as part of any bailout. This report indicates that homeowners who received such aid actually defaulted at a much higher level. The gentleman from the Comptroller's office expresses surprise. I guess I'm not all that surprised.
Defending the CDS Market
The argument that CDS' do no good and should be done away with was inevitably going to be raised. Thankfully, we have Felix Salmon to explain in a readable manner why the CDS market is actually a good thing.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Lebanon, Syria, and the UN
Really good article in The Atlantic about the investigation into Syria's role in the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Mount Union
Mount Union is a DIII football powerhouse. And when I say powerhouse, I mean it. They won again yesterday which puts them in the semi-finals (yes, college football does have playoffs that work for everyone else) for the national championship. So here is what is impressive about Mount Union.
In 23 years, their head coach now has a record of 260-21-3. That's a 92% winning rate over two decades. They have lost one conference game since 1999. They have gone undefeated 5 times since 1999. They have never lost two games in a season since 1999. They have lost 5 games total since 1999.
Mount Union won the national championship in 1993. They won again in 1996. Went ahead and won it in 1997 and 1998. They missed out in 1999 when they lost by 3 in overtime in the semi-finals, then they won the title three times in a row in 2000, 2001, and 2002. They lost in the championship game in 2003. In 2004, they lost in the national semi-finals by 3 points. They won the national title again in both 2005 and 20006. They made the title game again in 2007 and lost. So, since 1996 Mount Union has made the final or semi-finals every single year. They have played in 10 out the last 12 national title games, winning 8 of those. In the tow years they did not make the title game they lost in the semi-finals, both times by 3 points.
This year, Mount Union is the #11 rushing team in the nation, the #20 passing team in the nation, has the #1 total offense, #1 scoring offense, #1 rushing defense, #2 passing defense, #1 total defense (166 ypg), #1 scoring defense (5.6 ppg), an average margin of victory of 41 points, and the closest game they have had this year was a 27 point win.
So if you ever want to chime in on the greatest college football program ever, now you know it is Mount Union. And it isn't even close.
In 23 years, their head coach now has a record of 260-21-3. That's a 92% winning rate over two decades. They have lost one conference game since 1999. They have gone undefeated 5 times since 1999. They have never lost two games in a season since 1999. They have lost 5 games total since 1999.
Mount Union won the national championship in 1993. They won again in 1996. Went ahead and won it in 1997 and 1998. They missed out in 1999 when they lost by 3 in overtime in the semi-finals, then they won the title three times in a row in 2000, 2001, and 2002. They lost in the championship game in 2003. In 2004, they lost in the national semi-finals by 3 points. They won the national title again in both 2005 and 20006. They made the title game again in 2007 and lost. So, since 1996 Mount Union has made the final or semi-finals every single year. They have played in 10 out the last 12 national title games, winning 8 of those. In the tow years they did not make the title game they lost in the semi-finals, both times by 3 points.
This year, Mount Union is the #11 rushing team in the nation, the #20 passing team in the nation, has the #1 total offense, #1 scoring offense, #1 rushing defense, #2 passing defense, #1 total defense (166 ypg), #1 scoring defense (5.6 ppg), an average margin of victory of 41 points, and the closest game they have had this year was a 27 point win.
So if you ever want to chime in on the greatest college football program ever, now you know it is Mount Union. And it isn't even close.
Insurance insurance
One of the plans I represent is UnitedHealth. They get in trouble sometimes, mainly because they got so big so fast. But they have really been one of the innovators in bringing new products to market. They were the first ones to really develop the idea of medical lines of credit and now they have developed this product.
I've always wondered why term health insurance does not exist. I've had people offer explanations, but never one that I thought was particularly good.
OU sucks.
I've always wondered why term health insurance does not exist. I've had people offer explanations, but never one that I thought was particularly good.
OU sucks.
Porsche 911 GT2
In these uncertain financial times, the Porsche 911 GT2 makes for a fine investment. Right honey? 530hp, 0-62 in 3.7 seconds.
Also, OU sucks.
Also, OU sucks.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Technology Buying Binge
So I've been on a gadget buying binge lately.
Bought myself a netbook. Pretty pleased so far. It'll be really good for hauling to the Capitol for the late nights. Weighs only 2 lbs and I won't have to injure my thumbs typing out emails on my Palm.
New digital camera. Got the EOS Rebel at Coscto. This is an absolute steal right now as the camera comes with 2 high def lenses are usually $300-500 on their own. Costco is weird in that their online division competes with their stores so go to the physical store location. Not sure who I'm writing this to since nobody actually reads this. My wife is actually a pretty talented photographer so she has been wanting this for a while.
Got a 50 inch plasma. One of the Black Friday deals at Best Buy. Per usual, the install is turning into a debacle. We can't hang it on our wall so I'm going to have to run a pole out of the ceiling. That's going to be expensive, but it will look pretty cool when it's done.
Bout time to upgrade the old phone. I've got a Palm Treo which was cutting edge a short time ago and is now the equivalent of walkign around with a rotary phone. Thinking IPhone, but really I just want a decent phone, email, and web browser. I can live without most of the other nonsense.
OU sucks.
Bought myself a netbook. Pretty pleased so far. It'll be really good for hauling to the Capitol for the late nights. Weighs only 2 lbs and I won't have to injure my thumbs typing out emails on my Palm.
New digital camera. Got the EOS Rebel at Coscto. This is an absolute steal right now as the camera comes with 2 high def lenses are usually $300-500 on their own. Costco is weird in that their online division competes with their stores so go to the physical store location. Not sure who I'm writing this to since nobody actually reads this. My wife is actually a pretty talented photographer so she has been wanting this for a while.
Got a 50 inch plasma. One of the Black Friday deals at Best Buy. Per usual, the install is turning into a debacle. We can't hang it on our wall so I'm going to have to run a pole out of the ceiling. That's going to be expensive, but it will look pretty cool when it's done.
Bout time to upgrade the old phone. I've got a Palm Treo which was cutting edge a short time ago and is now the equivalent of walkign around with a rotary phone. Thinking IPhone, but really I just want a decent phone, email, and web browser. I can live without most of the other nonsense.
OU sucks.
Solar Panels
Living in the People's Republic of Austin does have some benefits. Actually, quite a few. The city's energy efficiency program offers pretty substantial rebates on certain home improvements. I'm seriously considering getting solar panels as the city offers substantial rebates and access to low interest loans.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Horns
Ugh, this is going to get interesting. OU is a good team, but I'm not sure how it is possible that Oklahoma is going to jump them. Actually, I am...a really bad tiebreaker system used by the Big 12.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Citigroup
People smarter than me with reactions to the Citigroup bailout. Short version, they're not fans.
Nominee for Most Idiotic Sentence(s) of the Year
Harold Meyerson
"And yet, at the same time, the industry needs to be restructured, and it is ludicrous to believe that the executives who have helped run these companies into the ground are the executives who can make the necessary changes. The task cannot be given either to them or to a bankruptcy judge. It must be undertaken by the federal government -- by the Obama administration and the next Democratic Congress."
Yes, that is exactly what we need. All that has been missing has been Congress running an auto manufacturer.
"And yet, at the same time, the industry needs to be restructured, and it is ludicrous to believe that the executives who have helped run these companies into the ground are the executives who can make the necessary changes. The task cannot be given either to them or to a bankruptcy judge. It must be undertaken by the federal government -- by the Obama administration and the next Democratic Congress."
Yes, that is exactly what we need. All that has been missing has been Congress running an auto manufacturer.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Earmarks
I've never been one who is all wild-eyed about the reports of earmarks in appropriations bills. One, because they are not new or particularly novel, although they have grown massively. Two, earmarks are a rounding error compared to the entitlement crisis we face. Three, there are very good reasons for earmarks. When Congress doesn't direct the spending, it leaves that discretion to the agencies, the largely unregulated fourth branch of government. Agencies, in turn, direct money to their patrons, the committee chairmen who oversee their oversight committees and who appropriate them money.
Now what is broken is the process by which earmarks are authorized. The omnibus bills that package them all together and then require a single up or down vote feeds into every image of Congress as a group of detestable slimebags. Earmarks need to be subject to votes and they need to be decided on their merits.
Anyway, the Seattle Times put together a list of the atrocities. Here.
Now what is broken is the process by which earmarks are authorized. The omnibus bills that package them all together and then require a single up or down vote feeds into every image of Congress as a group of detestable slimebags. Earmarks need to be subject to votes and they need to be decided on their merits.
Anyway, the Seattle Times put together a list of the atrocities. Here.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Newsweek 's Secrets of the 2008 Campaign
A seven part series from Newsweek who had reporters embedded with the campaigns. Long, but good. Hat tip to Duane for pointing me toward the story.
Bailing out the Auto Industry
I've been wondering why bankruptcy is not a viable option for the automakers. Bankruptcy allows debt to be restructured or eliminated and a company can emerge in a much stronger position to actually be successful. I've not closed my mind to the idea that there may be a reason, but I've not seen anyone offer a convincing reason why a bailout is preferable to bankruptcy. But today we've got a good round of opinions on it.
Justin Fox
Brad DeLong
Jonathan Cohn
Justin Fox
Brad DeLong
Jonathan Cohn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
