Point:
How can you possibly believe you can toss a laptop into a backpack, head for Iraq's Sunni Triangle and pretend to even come close to telling it like it is? For that you need a bulwark of experience, credibility and financial, medical, legal and logistical support. Not to mention a staff of savvy locals. And that cost [the New York Times] a million dollars last year... (read more)

Counterpoint:
The vast majority of politics and war blogs, like this one, offer an opinion, not an original piece of raw news material. Every now and then, a blogger will find him or herself in the midst of an event, or scoring an interview, or traveling through a newsworthy place. When that happens, he adds to the overall amount of raw material available for the general public to weigh and judge. But for the most part, bloggers aren't offering original, fresh news pieces. (read more)

Indie film makers make quality films without the wastefully big budgets of Hollywood films and the big-business bureaucracy of major film studios. Indie music acts make quality music without the wasteful expenditure on marketing and the big-business bureaucracy of major record companies. Likewise, bloggers are essentially indie reporters writing quality reports without the harnesses and big-business bureaucracy of the mainstream press.

Does this mean indie is better than mainstream? That's a matter of opinion. But the fact that someone is not licensed or certified to do a specific job does not mean they are less capable or qualified to do that job. People like Jill Abramson (managing editor of the New York Times) need to wake up.

(Thanks for the link, Chase.)

I feel like I've been neglecting this site lately. I don't mean to. Over the weekend I was in North Carolina visiting my brother before his deployment to Iraq (sometime tomorrow). He called a couple of hours ago in the middle of packing up his stuff. He's in good spirits, though I'm not sure if Mom's emotional state changed that after I handed her the phone.

Anyway, I wrote a very long entry about that trip on my livejournal (with a couple of pictures), and Jen wrote a bit (with many more pictures) on her livejournal. Jen's post also includes links to video of Jenny singing; Mom, Jenny, and Cheryl dancing; and a bunch of Marines singing "You've Lost That Loving Feeling" very badly! (And there's still more that hasn't made its way to the internet!)

I would have recapped the trip here, but that's a long post that I would rather you just see from there.

I've posted a preview for the Atlanta Braves' 2005 season over at the Braves blog I write for. It lists the players they've lost, players they've gained, the expected roster and lineup, and my concerns and expectations about how they'll perform. The lists are visible enough that you can get a decent idea without reading it all, so check it out!

7:30: I wake up four minutes before the alarm goes off. I have a weird habit of doing that, even on days when the alarm is supposed to wake me up insanely early in my sleep cycles for the night.

8:00: Shower time. Scrubbing the impurities from my naked wetness. What fun!

8:50: %#$@! Stupid tie won't cooperate!

9:06: Great, six minutes late. Stupid tie! Way to start a job interview! But wait, I tell myself, they want me to be comfortable. They believe I'm the perfect guy for the job, and all I have to do is keep it that way. Just like in class: you have the A from the start, you just have to keep it that way!

9:50: Paperwork done. Whee. Time to meet my Human Resources interviewer. Things go well. Luckily I already know all about myself, so these questions are easy.

10:15: Intro to the computer guys. A few hard-hitting questions. But, um, they're still about me so I still knew the answers. Good stuff.

10:30: Tour of the computer/server room and such. Wow, tons of stuff I've never seen or worked with before. Looks like fun!

10:55: Back home, talking to Mom about how things went, gotta pee after two hours of interviewing. To the bathroom I go. Fly's already unzipped. %#$@!

So much for making it an early night! But that doesn't change that this is an early morning for me! I ended up being awake until about 3:30, which is later than I've been staying up. Hopefully four hours of sleep means what it usually means: my mind will be active in ways I can't quite explain and everything will go well this morning.

For those who are unaware: I have a job interview at 9am, my first since graduating from college. It's for a computer-related position for the county, and the interview is actually in the county courthouse. It would pay a minimum of $33.7K/yr, which is a freakin' gold mine for a kid still living at home.

It's my very first interview, it's for an entry-level position, and I know what I know regardless of what they ask so I can't find it in me to be nervous about it at all. My only concern is that my lack of experience or paperwork or any other little thing that they make have come to expect from their job applicants might not be enough for them. But then again, they came to me -- my phone rang with them asking me to come in, and I didn't even know anything about this job. So maybe this is good.

I'll be spending time after the interview on the phone with Dad, at school and lunch with Jen, and later at school with my old boss Stacy for advice, picking up my W2, a job recommendation, and a little shooting the breeze (because we do that so well).

Wish me luck!

In a recent discussion of athletes', movie stars', and other celebrities' inflated salaries, I made the mistake of mentioning "basic economics", which apparently means something quite different to those who haven't studied economics in a classroom setting since that one required class in high school or college. I've quoted the best parts:

My view:
Athletes, actors, and other entertainers are grossly overpaid, because 21st century American society prioritizes entertainment much too highly.

Accusation:
Your view completely disregards basic economics. Economics, at its most basic level, says that supply and demand of a product determine its price.

My response:

Jen and I have been together since Christmas. We first met in our computer science class in late August, although I had seen her in a French class across the hall from mine several days before we met. I can remember the first time I saw her, through the window of the door to her classroom while my class was lectured on how to use the lab. Days later when I saw the web site she made for our computer science class, I decided that she should come sit next to me, and next time she came to class she did. I had no idea then that we would ever be together, and upon finding that she wasn't single I dropped any hint of pursuit. But months later, here we are. Funny how life works out sometimes.

In the picture to the right, the only source of light was the TV. I held the camera as still as I could at arm's length, but it still came out a little blurry.

I know, my track record with pictures so far isn't good; this is actually the first one I've posted in 367 days. But there may be good news for those of you who have consistently requested more photos: Jen is camera happy, and as a result I've been a little more camera happy lately, so in theory I'll be taking more pictures now too -- or at least she'll take more pictures of me that I can post here. You'll know when/if they show up!

After big names like JD Drew, Jaret Wright, and Russ Ortiz left the greener pastures of Turner Field (Ed Mangan and crew do a great job!) for greener wallets elsewhere, the big question on Braves fans' minds this offseason is obvious: will this year's payroll cuts be the beginning of the end of Atlanta's division championship streak? Maybe, but there is also the flipside of that coin: no one dares question John Schuerholz anymore, and people are beginning to wonder if that man even knows how to lose. But until the season begins, we may only speculate about what this year's team might be able to do given less money to work with.

According to recent reports and the data I have gathered, the Braves 2005 payroll should come in at just under $80 million, depending on how arbitration for Marcus Giles and Kevin Gryboski goes, and how the team decides to resolve its outfield situation.

To the right is a table of the 25-man roster as it would look today; salaries listed are in millions of dollars. Notice that Marcus Giles' and Kevin Gryboski's salaries are at this time only estimates of what they'll be paid after arbitration. This table will be updated when the numbers are finalized.

As for the outfield: I have listed Billy McCarthy, Andy Marte, and Ryan Langerhans -- three league-minimum rookies if they make the team, to fill the void. Former Brave Brian Jordan has been making headlines as a cost-efficient veteran who could play left field for Atlanta, and Ben Grieve and Magglio Ordoñez have also been mentioned as potentials. It isn't out of the question that the Braves might go for Jordan and Grieve, but I get the impression that Ordoñez is a no-go or else would be a huge surprise, and Grieve is unlikely to be signed unless Bobby Cox and John Schuerholz agree that the team needs another left-handed batter.

Other things of note:

• After reworking his contract last month, John Smoltz's $12M in 2005 includes $6M for pitching and a $6M signing bonus.
• Mike Hampton will make $12.5M in 2005, with $4.5M to be paid by the Florida Marlins and $8.0M to be paid by the Braves. Hampton has six years left on his contract, and the Braves have decided to pay one-sixth of their $48.5M share over each of the next six seasons.
• Tom Martin will make $1.9M in 2005, with half ($950K) to be paid by the Los Angeles Dodgers and the other half to be paid by the Braves.
• Sam McConnell or Jorge Vazquez could make the bullpen as well. This roster isn't final by any means; just a reasonable idea of what it could look like on opening day.

You can see the 25 names as well as I can, so I leave you with a question: do you think the Braves' 2005 roster as it looks now represents $80M well spent, or has their luck run out?

Jon Richardson, David Norman, and Colin William (among others) of the alt.sports.baseball.atlanta-braves newsgroup helped gather the salary data -- actually, they did most of the work, and I just knew where to find them. Thanks guys! (And correct me if I'm wrong or left anything/anyone out!)

I left for Jen's around 5:30, and happened to be passing down a familiar stretch of I-75 just before sunset, just like last night. But tonight I was prepared, and with Jen's Samsung Digimax 200 I captured a few moments in time, to be indefinitely and digitally trapped until and unless such time arrives that neither these images nor any replicants thereof should survive. (That was fun to write!)

Despite the illogical file name scheme (the first one is suffixed "b" while the second is suffixed "a"), and despite the apparent difference in daylight (doesn't the second picture look like it was taken hours earlier?), both images were taken within a few seconds of the other, and the one on top was indeed taken first. And your life is nearer to completion with that information considered.

Upon first arriving, I told Jen of the wonderful time I had on my shudder-button-happy trip to her house, which compelled her to look at the pictures I had taken with her old camera.

"Paul, it's so big!"

                                - Jen

I can't make this stuff up, folks. She said that. To me. With a straight face. She meant it sincerely, and I didn't know what to say. She was right, of course. The Samsung Digimax 200 is much bigger than her new toy: the faster, sleeker, and infinitely "cooler" Nikon Coolpix 3200.

For crucial details and pictures of the most interesting part of the night (boobies and crayons and sharks, oh my!), see Jen's livejournal.

It's barely been three weeks so I guess now is a good time to mention it: Jen is camera happy, so that means there may actually be more pictures of me for my photos page sometime soon -- but not yet. However, there are a few pictures of me on her livejournal, which is probably where you will find the most new pictures of me. (After all, I'm not just going to steal her pictures and post them on my page.) And tonight she even uploaded a quick clip of me picking up a spare.

On that note, cosmic bowling is a blast, and I've missed it more than I had realized until the last couple of weeks. It is strange that I'm bowling as well as I have given my absence from the lanes for the last few years, but in games that I try I'm averaging about 160 (151, 177, 151, 168, and 158 ... average to 161 unless the in-my-head math is wrong), which isn't bad at all considering I haven't bowled regularly since the turn of the millennium.

And come on, she says I bowl sexy, so what's not to love? Just look at how nonchalant I am about picking up that spare...

I get the feeling sometimes that every Slashdot article that mentions Internet Explorer is anti-IE, but for those users who are stuck using IE or refuse to switch to anything else, here are a few links I feel compelled to share with you that should make your experiences with Internet Explorer a bit smoother:

Lavasoft's Ad-Aware -- the freeware version is all you need for scanning purposes, but the professional version comes with Ad-Watch (popup and spyware blocker).

Spybot Search & Destroy -- another good (and free) spyware scanner that also "immunizes" Internet Explorer from certain well-known spyware and browser hacks.

Javacool Spyware Blaster -- another free spy-fighter that protects Internet Explorer from any malicious ActiveX code. You can also block Flash ads if you choose.

Anti-virus of your choice -- any free anti-virus should do the trick, but if you already have Norton or McAfee you're in great shape.

If you have XP SP2 -- with SP2 installed, set the popup blocker to its highest blocking setting, and just hold Ctrl any time your surfing requires a popup.

I have Google's toolbar installed with popup-blocking turned off. I have Ad-Aware's Ad-Watch set to tell me any time it blocks something, and it never does anything any more. The combination of SP2's popup blocking, Spybot's immunization, and Spyware Blaster's ActiveX protection make surfing the internet as peaceful as it was before spyware and popups existed.

So Jen and I were discussing tonight how horrible it was that Livejournal is down. I was sarcastically mocking her at first, but now that I'm home and I have no bed to sleep in (Jim is home a day earlier than I was told), I've realized the truth: it's as horrible as her sad-puppy-eyes implied, and I feel like I've been set loose in an empty world.

Okay, not really, but I feel the urge to check my recent livejournal posts for new comments and check all my friends livejournals for new posts to comment on, and none of them are there! I'd say livejournal is like an umbilical cord, except I've never thought of it as something I need (I just want it), and separating myself from it won't allow me to live -- I'm already doing that quite well with livejournal in my life!

And besides, it's almost been a whole year!

From an article titled Pentagon reveals rejected chemical weapons:

THE Pentagon considered developing a host of non-lethal chemical weapons that would disrupt discipline and morale among enemy troops, newly declassified documents reveal. Most bizarre among the plans was one for the development of an "aphrodisiac" chemical weapon that would make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other. Provoking widespread homosexual behaviour among troops would cause a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale, the proposal says.

Two things worry me: that something like this sex bomb might actually exist, and what chemical weapons weren't rejected. When I first saw the words "chemical weapon", "sex bomb", and "nonlethal" all used together, I was thinking some sort of airborn-induced sterilization that could render an entire population unable to reproduce. That would suck massive amounts of phalli.

Earlier tonight I offered my own comments, veiled advice I guess, to a friend who has been dealing with a rather difficult emotional situation lately. Well, more than just lately, but the pressure seems to be building to a point where the situation is likely to explode if a little air isn't let out.

A portion of the words I wrote are written below, modified slightly. People who know the situation will know where this comes from, but that's not important nor is it the purpose of this post. I copied the comments here because I think they accurately reflect the best advice I can give anyone dealing with any kind of conflict with another person. That is, as long as you remain nonviolent and nonconfrontational about it. Be patient and diplomatic, and the best results will come.

You have done absolutely nothing wrong that I can tell, and if anyone thinks otherwise without having all the facts then you shouldn't concern yourself with what they think. The only person that really has any legitimate right to judge the situation is you, because you're the only one that has to juggle [them], their feelings, and your feelings. Anyone else who thinks they know what is best for you only knows what they would want out of a similar situation. But they're not you, and they have no solid reason to believe that what would be best for them is what would be best for you.

This ties in somewhat to my idea that there really is no good or bad, right or wrong, just data to be manipulated to mean whatever it is the person holding all the facts thinks it means. Every opinion is based on incomplete data; we just make the best decision we can given what we do know. Therefore, people can only offer feedback based on what you tell them, and if coming to a decision is troubling you, then you can be damn sure that they don't know nearly as much as you do to know any recommendation they make is absolutely the best one. But they can offer a different perspective, and that perspective can be valuable as you combine it with how you know the person and what you've told them.

Finally, my favorite show is on again! The first two hours of "24" aired last night, beginning another 24 hours of riveting, dramatic suspense in the form of fictional terrorism and bureaucratic office politics.

All last year I had problems liking Chloe O'Brien's character, but tonight's two episodes really made her shine. Adding the fact that she's the only returning character besides Jack Bauer, she may be my favorite in Season 4 who isn't Jack Bauer. Then again, there are at least two other characters that I really like so far, but one of them is already dead and I don't remember the other's name.

I went back and looked up the line that Defense Secretary Heller said last night about "sixth grade Michael Moore logic", and I laughed out loud all over again! I don't mean to denounce liberals or support conservatives, because I do my fair share of denouncing and supporting both sides on different issues, but I absolutely can't stand Michael Moore's tactics, analogous to an overweight, unintelligent sixth grader picking on elementary school kids at the playground for being dumber than himself. I mean, maybe he's right, that the less-informed ones no less than he does, but the only ones who actually agree with him don't do their homework either and are therefore fooled by his ignorant ramblings.

Sorry, I'll leave that alone now. I don't want to upset anyone who actually thinks Michael Moore is an intelligent human being. You can agree generally with his politics and that's okay. But if you agree with his so-called logic and/or think Fahrenheit 9/11 was actually a good film, then we might have issues! I mean, that movie wasn't even a documentary (a real documentary presents facts objectively without editorializing as Moore did; his film was a mockumentary, which has the look and feel of a documentary without being objective or fair).

Anyway, the original purpose for this post was the New York Times article I found (registration is free, and I recommend using a junky webmail account if you have one). Here are a couple of exerpts I really liked:

Episode 3 will air tonight at 8pm, after which "24" will settle into its new time slot, 9pm Monday, beginning immediately with episode 4. I wonder if Jen is intrigued enough to watch tonight...

This is a little ridiculous: "experts say that within the next few years, an array of new services may revolutionize the way we use our cell phones. / We'll be able to tune in to as many as 100 channels of TV, find the nearest coffee shop, get directions or even pay for purchases. / Far-fetched? Not at all."

Jeff Belk, senior vice president of marketing for San Diego-based Qualcomm (developer of cell-phone technology and the world's second-largest maker of cell-phone chips), says, "Two years from now, I don't think they're even going to be called phones, but I don't know what they're going to be called."

This is a little more far-fetched than they're suggesting. The idea of savvy users using cell phones for the advanced functions listed above isn't a silly notion at all, but the idea that people who just want a convenient means of simple voice communication will suddenly want to do so much more with a handheld device that they will no longer even be called phones -- that is far-fetched.

That's really the only point I wanted to make. The rest of the (looong) article is quite a fascinating read.

I woke up on the morning of December 19 with mild upper neck pain. I figured it was a result of straining my neck muscles in odd ways while helping Jenny move in the day before. The pain didn't go away, but it really only bothered me in the mornings, and only a little at that. It was barely noticeable until Jen and I started hanging out pretty much full time (a couple days before Christmas), and I think various postures as a result of that (leaning on one arm, etc.) contributed to sustaining the pain.

Today is the 22nd morning I've awakened with these neck pains, so after three full weeks I've decided to take to the internet and see what's up. After consulting several web sites, I've found a concise one that may explain why I have pain and what I can do about it, just short of buying their Relaxica product for $69.95 (which actually looks useful, but no!).

Useful excerpts:

The pain mechanisms of neck pain are similar to headaches and eyestrain as described above -- diminished blood circulation caused by tensed muscles that irritate nerve endings. Your neck balances the most important thing you have -- your head -- and is very susceptible to tightening of the muscles even if you are a little tense. This coupled with awkward and incorrect postures (usually while sitting in front of the computer) only aggravates this dilemma for most people.

Pain relievers only prevent you from feeling the symptoms of pain. They do not treat the source or cause of the problem. You are simply ignoring your body's natural alarm system.... Suppose your car's oil light came on? Would you clip the wires to the oil light to fix the problem? Of course not! That would be so comical -- yet we are guilty of doing the same thing to our bodies every time we take a pain killer. [This is basically why I try to avoid painkillers.]

Acupressure and massage are two of the most ancient forms of healing. Together, they and variations of the same basic principles have been providing relief for centuries. Many of their benefits can easily be measured and felt. The techniques work by increasing the rate circulation of blood. This allows the muscles to relax and absorb more oxygen, which increases the delivery of nutrients, and washes away waste chemicals that build up in tense muscles.

I have been able to narrow down the source of my pain to the muscles in my neck near my right ear, which as far as I know could be a result of sinus pressure that just happens not to be aggravating the rest of my sinuses. I've determined that my posture lately is not the problem, because I've been cautious to keep my head elevated and my neck and back straight and supported. Maybe my bed and/or pillows aren't doing the job at night, which could be why I always wake up with the pain and it goes away after an hour or so. Or it could just be that the problem is there all along, and daily movement works like the massage technique does, allowing blood to flow to the problem and clean away the impurities that cause the pain, only for them to build up again when I lie down to sleep.

I'm going to see if I can locate our two-pronged massager toy and just hold it on the back of my neck to see if that helps.

Controversial former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich -- whose Contract with America in 1994 paved the way for the Republican Revolution in Congress, the first balanced budget in 16 years, and Time naming him its "Man of the Year" in 1995 -- is considering a run for President in 2008. His new book, Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America, includes:

[Newt's] plan for America’s greatness, including how to win the war on terror, reestablish God in American public life, reform Social Security, restore patriotism, and make American health care the global standard for excellence and accessibility. Like his original Contract with America ten years ago, Newt Gingrich challenges conservatives to ask the tough questions and face the big issues that will shape our future.

But is Newt a candidate?

Asked if he might be a candidate himself, Gingrich said. "For an Army brat from Pennsylvania who became the only Georgia Republican in the House and the first Republican Speaker of the House in 40 years, anything seems possible. I don't think it's very likely. On the other hand, if I have an impact on public policy and do it in a way that is exciting and positive, why wouldn't I want to do that?"

Gingrich was born in Pennsylvania, served in Congress as a Representative from Georgia, and currently resides in Virginia with his wife (for proximity to his communications and consulting firm in Washington).

For the past few weeks I have lived a somewhat exclusive lifestyle, preferring to spend my uptime with Jen when I wasn't at home with family or in my room keeping up with personal hobbies (like tending to my livejournal). I've also devoted minimal effort so far to the frustrating search for an acceptable form of full-time employment. Needless to say, there are many things to be done, and I'm methodically working it all out. College was fun; now I take the next first step down a new path of my own forging. Should be fun.

I can't say that I'm intimidated or afraid to work full-time; it's really the search that's most frustrating. The real-world experience of polishing myself, reaching out, expressing interest, and attempting to make myself seem valuable is not something with which I'm either experienced or comfortable, despite the opinion of so many that I'm an overconfident egomaniac. I'm quite humble at the core, and the thought of making critical decisions that may affect every opportunity that comes or does not come my way in the future is an intimidating one. Everyone always hopes for perfection to just fall right into their lap, and the real world doesn't work that way for most of us. Fortunately I am comfortable with taking initiative and doing things for myself when necessary, and that's what I've done. It's... just slow, being my first time and all.

Offsetting the stresses of joining the working world: Jen! Lately she has been the center of my universe and the source of nearly every happy thought that's passed through my mind. She makes me happy in ways I don't quite comprehend; I feel entirely enamored by her. I don't expect the excitement of a newly begun relationship to remain the same, and it hasn't. We both have been concerned that school and work could make things difficult. But the euphoria hasn't died down, and if nothing else, perhaps the intervention of real-world responsibilities only makes our desire to be with one another even stronger. She gives my personal goals new purpose, not so much to work hard so that I may spoil her, but to work hard so that I may be a better man for her.

I don't really know what I'm saying. I just know that I'm sad that the holiday season had to end, but I'm thrilled to begin a new chapter in my life, and all the more thrilled to have her be a part of it.

Okay, you've seen my mathematical rankings (or if you haven't scroll down to the previous post), figured by a formula I decided on at the beginning of the season. No bias there; it just works! Now I'm going to share my top 10 with a little adjustment for personal bias.

1. Southern Cal -- I don't like it, but after beating Oklahoma 55-19, USC has proven themselves to have played the best football for the 2004-2005 season. I take back the nasty things I said about them and Matt Leinart. They earned their #1 ranking this year.

2. Auburn -- No one could touch them all year, and their schedule would have been stronger if Bowling Green hadn't ditched them to play Oklahoma instead. But after watching the Sugar and Orange Bowls, I'm convinced that Auburn is #2 at best.

3. Utah -- They destroyed everyone in their path, including Texas A&M, Arizona, North Carolina, and Pittsburgh in the Fiesta Bowl. Utah's true ability remains unproven this year; they may have been #1 and we'll never know.

4. Oklahoma -- Dominant all year long until they self-destructed against USC in the Orange Bowl. Maybe they're still the #2 team, but such a horrible loss doesn't warrant such confidence.

5. Virginia Tech -- Subtract their unncessary 12th game against #1 USC at the beginning of the year, and they're four points from a perfect 12-0 record, including a three-point loss against #2 Auburn. They had the second-best scoring defense in IA despite a tough schedule.

6. Texas -- A single loss to Oklahoma keeps them from a #2 ranking (because it would have been Auburn and Oklahoma in the championship game, and Texas winning their way to Auburn's current position).

7. Louisville -- Their only loss was a 41-38 heartbreaker against Miami (of Florida!), although there were two other close calls against tough opponents. They earned their way to a BCS bowl but the formula didn't let them in.

8. Georgia -- The loss against Tennessee was unfortunate; the loss against Auburn was unavoidable. Either loss could be forgiven; both can't be overlooked.

9. California -- A tough loss against USC, a bad loss against Texas Tech, and a narrow victory over Oregon, but one of the best offenses and defenses in the nation.

10. Boise State -- They didn't play the toughest schedule, but their only loss was by four points against an unusually strong Louisville team, and otherwise only BYU came close.

After USC's destruction of Oklahoma's title hopes Tuesday night, here's how the top 25 ended up in 2004-2005. The final rankings before bowls began are on the left; the rankings after all 28 bowl games were played are on the right.

(I may update these rankings if I find corrections to be made. There are still some data missing, because the sum total of the wins and losses of all Division I-A matches are not equal. This means I'm missing data on a small number of games versus Division I-AA or II teams.)

Isn't that interesting? The top eight barely move with #6 and #7 swapping places, and the rest of the top 19 is slightly shuffled but still the same. So it seems to me that my ratings are a pretty good predictor of how everyone's going to do! I'll pretend they are, anyway, since the results support the assumption.

I have read time and time again that one of the main reasons why Auburn deserves to be #3 this year is their weak schedule when contrasted with Oklahoma's and USC's. Well, aside from disagreeing with that for my own reasons, there's also the fact that Bowling Green -- a tough out-of-conference opponent -- dropped Auburn from their schedule specifically to play Oklahoma instead, forcing Auburn to fill the void with a Division IAA team (the Citadel) since all IA schedules had already been filled.

When I simply added Bowling Green to Auburn's list of opponents, their rating jumped about .007, which put them at .784 instead of .777 before the bowls began, comparing to USC's .779 and Oklahoma's .775. I just thought I'd share for those who think Auburn deserves its #3 ranking outright.

I wrote about eight weeks ago about the Anaheim Angels' upper management wanting to change the team's name to the Los Angeles Angels -- you know, to put them on the map. But the city of Anaheim had an agreement with the team, one stipulation of which was that the word "Anaheim" must be part of the official name (correct me if you care and I'm wrong). Well, crisis averted and problem solved: they shall now be called the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. So we now have three cities with two MLB teams: New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

Our last three presidents have been spending some quality time together for the past few days. I find it interesting how they seem to wear different-colored ties when they're all together: Bush almost always in red and Clinton almost always in blue, and Bush's daddy in silver. Um, neato?

Auburn wrapped up their 2004 football season last night with a bang, winning the 2005 Sugar Bowl 16-13 over Virginia Tech in what looked for a while like bring on the verge of a blowout. Going into the game, Auburn had the #1 scoring defense in the nation, and Virginia Tech's was #3, so we were anticipating a low-scoring game.

Auburn scored the first touchdown of the game early in the second half to make it 16-0, and they were well on their way to making it 23-0 when a fumble gave Virginia Tech the ball. This led to Tech's first touchdown, and after they missed a two-point conversion, they eventually scored again to bring the score to 16-13. Earlier in the game, they had missed a field goal and dropped a pass in the endzone, but Auburn also had to settle for three field goals from within ten yards of scoring touchdowns in the first half. So given how things went but taking away unforced errors, the score should have been 28-23. But it doesn't matter: Auburn won on points missed 12-10, and they won on points scored 16-13.

A three-point victory is only enough to boost Auburn over the top in my ratings after tonight's "championship" game is if it's an incredibly close game. Auburn and tonight's winner are each guaranteed a top-two spot, though, and I think this would be the perfect time for that fifth BCS bowl to decide the best team between the top two bowl winners. (Last year would have been even more perfect, when LSU and USC were split champions.)

I also subjected Jen to her first football game last night, and to make matters worse I dropped my phone on her head at one point when attempting to check the time. At another point I thought I was touching her hand and I asked, "Is that your face?", which is an odd question to ask anyone anytime if you're being serious at the moment. Three strikes in one day, and she still didn't run screaming into the night! Thanks for putting up with me, Jen. :)

TONIGHT'S GAME: Last night's Sugar Bowl was a matchup between the #1 and #3 scoring defenses in the nation, and tonight's Orange Bowl is a matchup between the #2 and #5 scoring defenses in the nation. The average scoring numbers (offense and defense) are roughly the same between USC and Oklahoma, but the Pac-10 doesn't have a lot of high-scoring teams, while the Big 12 appears to be full of them. In other words, it appears to me that Oklahoma's defense may be slightly underrated while USC's may be slightly overrated. This could also mean that Oklahoma's offense is slightly overrated while USC's is slightly underrated.

Either way, tonight's Orange Bowl is going to be one of two things, and I don't think there's much room for middle ground: either a low-scoring defensive battle, or a high-scoring thriller like the Rose Bowl. The other two options are a one-sided blowout or a medium-scoring battle, the latter of which is most likely only if both teams play a good game and execute well. I don't see much chance for a blowout either way.

But I still pick Oklahoma to win. By a field goal, by a touch down, or by a landslide... it doesn't matter.

1. 16-team Playoff. Keep the BCS rating, eliminate conference championships, and have a 16-team playoff. The 16 invites would go to the 11 conference champions and the 5 at-large teams ranked highest in the BCS rating, with no conference getting more than one at-large invite. Set it up so the "traditional" bowl game matchups (Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta) are played in round one, and also so any teams from the same conference would meet in Round 2 if both win. One round each week for four weeks but skipping Christmas, with the national championship on or around January 8. Other bowl games for non-playoff teams would be played mostly between rounds 1 and 2, with some of the better games between rounds 2 and 3. Nothing between round 3 and the championship.

2. Bowls Plus-One. Eliminate the BCS and let Division IA go back to bartering bowls like they used to, with conference tie-ins to the major bowls. After the last bowl game is played on January 1, let the top two teams (however that's decided) play in one last game -- the national championship game on or around January 8.

3. Bowls Plus-Three. Same as Option 2, but make it a quick tournament among the nation's top four teams. Any undefeated teams after their bowl games are automatically invited unless there are more than four of them. A quick tournament begins on or around January 8, and the College Football "Superbowl" is played on or around January 15.

These are just ideas, but they're better than the current system now, which makes a mockery of both tradition and finding a legitimate champion. The LA Times has a good article on the subject.

I just posted a looong entry in a private journal reserved for my deepest, darkest thoughts. I think it was the fifth post I've ever put there, which made me wonder why I even have a private journal, because I don't really have a dark side and I don't really keep secrets. Every deep, dark, and dirty detail of my life is shared with someone, even if no one knows the whole story. I like it that way.

I've decided that I have the private journal because certain thoughts that involve other people would just provoke excessively dramatic or emotional responses if I posted it elsewhere (like here). This train of throught prompted a three-paragraph footnote on the last entry in that journal, which I'll share here just to be nice.

Maybe I'm crazy -- I know I'm different! -- but I just don't see any good reason for suffering through negative emotions; I don't like the idea of validing life through suffering. Placing so much emphasis on what pains us is what keeps us down. Why don't you step back and look at your life from my perspective? Most of the little things that bring you down are frivolous, especially in the grand scheme of things. Almost none of it really matters! Only the things that affect other people and your life really matter. I'm not talking about possessions, games, or social events -- I'm talking about communication, understanding, and love in its most primitive form.

Maybe it's weird that I can hate the idea of idealism and yet hold myself to such high standards, but maybe it's because I know I am in control of myself, and I can force myself to do anything my condition allows.

(I also posted this to my livejournal. Comment here; check "anonymous" if you have no livejournal account.)

Only two games are left: the Sugar Bowl between Auburn and Virginia Tech, and the Orange Bowl between Oklahoma and Southern California. I still say Utah (undefeated!) is good enough and should have been matched against Auburn, because then only two undefeated teams could possibly remain. As it stands, if Auburn wins Monday night, then there will be three undefeated teams and it will be impossible to know which of those three is really the best.

Only 10 games have been played since the last update two days ago, but a lot has changed since the 20 teams involved made up most of the top 25. Going into national championship week, here's how the top ten stand. For whatever it's worth, the top four teams according to my rankings (using the formula I settled on at the beginning of the season!) are the four teams in Monday's and Tuesday's bowl games. That prides me in some barely admittable way deep inside.

(Top 25 at Regular Season's End)

Okay, so the Texas-Michigan matchup in the Rose Bowl was a 38-37, down-to-the-wire thriller of a game. But I still think Auburn should have played Utah, and Texas should have played Virginia Tech, and Michigan should have played California, and Pittsburgh should have been cast out of BCS contention for coming from the Big East. But I have no control...

For the first time in 33 years, Dick Clark couldn't be found on ABC as the ball dropped on the network's "New Year's Rockin' Eve" celebration. He is in good health but still recuperating after a mild stroke, and while I'm glad he's feeling better, I'm also strangely glad that I didn't see his face anywhere on TV last night. I grew out of the whole "yay it's a new year!" thing years ago, so I was happy for things to change up a bit. I was also strangely pleased that I had so much fun without even watching the ball drop.

Instead, we (a group of about 40 of us) trekked up Amanda's driveway and enjoyed a private fireworks party before moving on to a short-lived bonfire, then hot cocoa and smores by the fire. Then we watched Garden State till about 3am, when the house was still buzzing with teenagers playing games and enjoying refreshments. Another first-in-a-long-time: no alcohol this new year! And that doesn't bother me at all. :)

The party was at Jen's friend Amanda's house. Tons of Amanda's and her sisters' friends gathered there to bring on 2005. Jen knew about a half-dozen of them or so (I think), and I knew only Jen and Kristina before the night began. We played games, told stories and jokes, watched movies, and just had a good time for several hours... The best part may have been humming random syllables and la-la-la-ing our way through our own version of "Auld Lang Syne".

It's been a wonderful week since Christmas, and spending all of 2005 so far with Jen has helped make this January 1 the best new year's ever. :)