I have just finished reading The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis (thankfully I had a 2 hour plane flight yesterday on which my kids slept). I have only read 3 or 4 of Lewis' books. This is probably the deepest. I have yet to form a complete opinion on what he says. So far I would say that I agree with him. I find his metaphor of "men without chests" to be amazing. I have never heard a more powerful description of modern man than this. I agree that all value comes from a single source, what he calls the Tao. I would go futher and say that the source of this Tao is God. I do not understand why he doesn't take this step. It may be that he is not attempting to turn men to Christ in this book. Rather, he is attempting to show the existience and value of universal values. This he does quite effectively. He makes a strong point by evidencing that most every "religion" upholds the same basic values. There does seem to be something to this. One of his most striking statements is that Man's conquest of Nature is actually Nature's conquest of Man. This is profound. He says later that to see through everything is to see nothing.
I hope to ponder this book much more. I wonder if anyone else has read the book and has some thoughts on it?
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Monday, March 28, 2005
Notes on "Notes"
I have recently finished reading Notes from the Underground by Fydor Dostoyevsky. The three best novels I have ever read, though I don't read many novels, are by Dost.--Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamozov, and Notes from the Underground. No other author can more effectively portray the inner man. As you read Dost., you feel as though you are looking at the world through the eyes of his characters. He is absolute genius. He is genius in total control of his art.
Notes is a fascinating look at a disgusting individual. I think the narrator of Notes is so disgusting because we are so much like him. At least, I am at times so much like him. Many of the narrator's thoughts are often my thoughts. Someone said the "I" in the story is all of us. I have a few diverse thoughts that came directly and indirectly from the book.
1. Consciousness v. intellegence--The narrator talks at times about being a conscious individual. He talks at others times about being an intellegent individual. Are these different words for the same state? Is being conscious the same as being intellegent? Is intellegence simply a more acute consciousness of yourself and your surroundings? I think it is. Most people we call intellegent are just aware of most everything. It is not capability. Some people are capable of retaining knowledge, but are not intellegent. It is not being knowledgeable. Many people are knowledgeable idiots. The narrator is very knowledeable. He is most likely very capable. But he is mostly just conscious. Understand, there is some irony in the novel here, because, though the narrator is "conscious", there are many things about himself he cannot see. That may be Dost.'s point. The question still strikes me as interesting. What does it mean to be intellegent?
2. Free will--In the first part of the book, the narrator strives to make the point that men do what they want to do. There is no overriding principle that makes men do what they do. He argues against the position that men do what is good for them. They merely do what they want. What is it that makes me do what they do? I believe that man has a completely free will, and that is chooses to do everything he does. He may do many things out of habit. He may do many things without being aware of the motivation. Yet he always to chooses to act. Now, what makes him choose what he chooses, which may be the real question? Jonathan Edwards said that the will always is as the greatest apparent good is. This seems to be the best description of the will. Seldom is what seems good for us truly good for us. We do stupid things frequently. This is one aspect of the novel. The narrator seems unable to do many of the things he wants to do. He wants to bump in to the soldier, and yet he doesn't. He wants to tell his friends what he really thinks, and yet he doesn't. What is it that determines our will? Unfortunately, I have no answer.
Hopefully, I will have more remarks as I ponder on the novel more. To be continued . . .
Notes is a fascinating look at a disgusting individual. I think the narrator of Notes is so disgusting because we are so much like him. At least, I am at times so much like him. Many of the narrator's thoughts are often my thoughts. Someone said the "I" in the story is all of us. I have a few diverse thoughts that came directly and indirectly from the book.
1. Consciousness v. intellegence--The narrator talks at times about being a conscious individual. He talks at others times about being an intellegent individual. Are these different words for the same state? Is being conscious the same as being intellegent? Is intellegence simply a more acute consciousness of yourself and your surroundings? I think it is. Most people we call intellegent are just aware of most everything. It is not capability. Some people are capable of retaining knowledge, but are not intellegent. It is not being knowledgeable. Many people are knowledgeable idiots. The narrator is very knowledeable. He is most likely very capable. But he is mostly just conscious. Understand, there is some irony in the novel here, because, though the narrator is "conscious", there are many things about himself he cannot see. That may be Dost.'s point. The question still strikes me as interesting. What does it mean to be intellegent?
2. Free will--In the first part of the book, the narrator strives to make the point that men do what they want to do. There is no overriding principle that makes men do what they do. He argues against the position that men do what is good for them. They merely do what they want. What is it that makes me do what they do? I believe that man has a completely free will, and that is chooses to do everything he does. He may do many things out of habit. He may do many things without being aware of the motivation. Yet he always to chooses to act. Now, what makes him choose what he chooses, which may be the real question? Jonathan Edwards said that the will always is as the greatest apparent good is. This seems to be the best description of the will. Seldom is what seems good for us truly good for us. We do stupid things frequently. This is one aspect of the novel. The narrator seems unable to do many of the things he wants to do. He wants to bump in to the soldier, and yet he doesn't. He wants to tell his friends what he really thinks, and yet he doesn't. What is it that determines our will? Unfortunately, I have no answer.
Hopefully, I will have more remarks as I ponder on the novel more. To be continued . . .
Thursday, March 17, 2005
It is not too late
I need to change some of my picks for the Madness. After making these picks I realized a couple of things.
First of all, I had no Number 1 seed advancing to the Final-4. I don't believe there has ever been a time when no No.1 seeds advanced. I doubt this year will be the first.
Secondly, I believe I underestimated two teams, Duke and UNC. They are both very good teams. I still believe that UNC struggles with maturity, and this will affect them when they get deep in the tourney. But they will make the Final-4. I almost wish, for Roy Williams' sake, that they didn't. If they make it to the F-4 they will be expected to win. If he doesn't, that is just more hearbreak for him. Duke is a great team. They only have 5 losses this season. One was to Virginia Tech at VA Tech, and VA Tech played their best game all year. They couldn't miss, and Duke couldn't make anything. That loss was a fluke. They lost to Maryland at Cameron. They just played a poor game, and Maryland played well. They lost to Maryland at College Park. The game went into overtime. Duke might have won had not 5 players fouled out. Duke lost a close game to Wake Forest at Wake Forest. They lost by 3 points. Redick kept them close and almost tied the game at the last second. They lost a close game to UNC at Chapel Hill. They were up towards the end. UNC's last basket came off a tremendously athletic offensive rebound. Redick had a chance to win, but missed. So they have no really bad losses. They have many great wins--GA Tech thrice, NC State twice, Wake Forest, UNC, Michigan State. They won the ACC Tourney. Coach K. has them playing very good. Sean Dockery will be back for the tournament. They are going to beat Syracuse. I think they will make it to the F-4 if not the championship game. Go Duke.
First of all, I had no Number 1 seed advancing to the Final-4. I don't believe there has ever been a time when no No.1 seeds advanced. I doubt this year will be the first.
Secondly, I believe I underestimated two teams, Duke and UNC. They are both very good teams. I still believe that UNC struggles with maturity, and this will affect them when they get deep in the tourney. But they will make the Final-4. I almost wish, for Roy Williams' sake, that they didn't. If they make it to the F-4 they will be expected to win. If he doesn't, that is just more hearbreak for him. Duke is a great team. They only have 5 losses this season. One was to Virginia Tech at VA Tech, and VA Tech played their best game all year. They couldn't miss, and Duke couldn't make anything. That loss was a fluke. They lost to Maryland at Cameron. They just played a poor game, and Maryland played well. They lost to Maryland at College Park. The game went into overtime. Duke might have won had not 5 players fouled out. Duke lost a close game to Wake Forest at Wake Forest. They lost by 3 points. Redick kept them close and almost tied the game at the last second. They lost a close game to UNC at Chapel Hill. They were up towards the end. UNC's last basket came off a tremendously athletic offensive rebound. Redick had a chance to win, but missed. So they have no really bad losses. They have many great wins--GA Tech thrice, NC State twice, Wake Forest, UNC, Michigan State. They won the ACC Tourney. Coach K. has them playing very good. Sean Dockery will be back for the tournament. They are going to beat Syracuse. I think they will make it to the F-4 if not the championship game. Go Duke.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Movies that actually are good
I didn't realize until halfway through this list of the "105 Best Movies of All Time" that the author, Semicolon, was a lady. This would explain why some of the films that are on the list are on the list, and why some of the films that are not on the list are not on the list. I can appreciate her taste. Yet I cannot agree with her on many choices--most notably Pirates of the Caribbean. I didn't like this movie. I can watch some films for the sole purpose of entertainment, but most movies need to have much more. This movie had nothing. Behind the fluff was cardboard. I personally found it excruciatingly shallow, and simplistic. I recently watched the movie Hero. This wasn't a great movie. It did seek to be more than simply a martial arts flick. It did have some fantastic fight seqences with amazing choreography and cinematography. I enjoyed this movie, even with the subtitles.
Let me now remind you of some "guy movies" that are certainly great films. Ever hear of The Godfather? This isn't entirely a guy's movie--my wife liked this film. I personally liked The Godfather, Part II more. The scene where Fredo is killed is one of the most ironically beautiful scenes ever. While speaking of mobster films, let me mention Goodfellas. This is a harsh, violent, melodic film. It is hard to watch, with all the language and blood, yet it is difficult to stop watching it. It is so compelling. The characters draw you completely into the story. Another great Scorsese film is Raging Bull. This might be my favorite. Never has there been a more brutally beautiful film than this. It is dark and tragic. It is a masterpiece. Another dark and tragic masterpiece is Unforgiven. This is a complicated film. Few modern directors utilize shadows as effectively as Eastwood. Gene Hackman gives one of the strongest supporting roles in recent years. None of these films will find a place on many "Chick Flick" lists, but they are great films.
If we go back a few years, we find a film named Citizen Kane. How any film lover can leave this off their list is beyond me. This is the greatest film ever made. I love every scene of this film. I love the deep focus techniques. I love the screenplay, the dialogue, the characters, the sets, the cinematography. I love this film. Although I nearly prefer another Orson Welles' film, Touch of Evil. This is a powerful character study. I am not fond of Charlton Heston. He is somewhat misplaced, though effective, in this film. By far the greatest opening shot to any movie.
Surely we cannot avoid one of the greatest epic films of all time, Lawrence of Arabia. Semicolon mentioned Bridge on the River Kwai, which is a great film. I think that Lawrence is better. I could almost watch this movie without any sound. The scenery is breathtaking.
Let me introduce a few foreign films. We begin with Seven Samuri. It is long, and subtitled. Yet it remains a great action film. Another great film by Akira Kurosawa is Ran, made in the early 80s. This is a gorgeous film. This is one of the most tragic movies I have ever scene. The final scene is a tremendous.
I will leave the list at that for right now.
Let me now remind you of some "guy movies" that are certainly great films. Ever hear of The Godfather? This isn't entirely a guy's movie--my wife liked this film. I personally liked The Godfather, Part II more. The scene where Fredo is killed is one of the most ironically beautiful scenes ever. While speaking of mobster films, let me mention Goodfellas. This is a harsh, violent, melodic film. It is hard to watch, with all the language and blood, yet it is difficult to stop watching it. It is so compelling. The characters draw you completely into the story. Another great Scorsese film is Raging Bull. This might be my favorite. Never has there been a more brutally beautiful film than this. It is dark and tragic. It is a masterpiece. Another dark and tragic masterpiece is Unforgiven. This is a complicated film. Few modern directors utilize shadows as effectively as Eastwood. Gene Hackman gives one of the strongest supporting roles in recent years. None of these films will find a place on many "Chick Flick" lists, but they are great films.
If we go back a few years, we find a film named Citizen Kane. How any film lover can leave this off their list is beyond me. This is the greatest film ever made. I love every scene of this film. I love the deep focus techniques. I love the screenplay, the dialogue, the characters, the sets, the cinematography. I love this film. Although I nearly prefer another Orson Welles' film, Touch of Evil. This is a powerful character study. I am not fond of Charlton Heston. He is somewhat misplaced, though effective, in this film. By far the greatest opening shot to any movie.
Surely we cannot avoid one of the greatest epic films of all time, Lawrence of Arabia. Semicolon mentioned Bridge on the River Kwai, which is a great film. I think that Lawrence is better. I could almost watch this movie without any sound. The scenery is breathtaking.
Let me introduce a few foreign films. We begin with Seven Samuri. It is long, and subtitled. Yet it remains a great action film. Another great film by Akira Kurosawa is Ran, made in the early 80s. This is a gorgeous film. This is one of the most tragic movies I have ever scene. The final scene is a tremendous.
I will leave the list at that for right now.
Christian Carnival--3.15.05
Go see this week's Christian Carnival:
"The 61st Edition of the Christian Carnival is being hosted here this week. I decided to break the posts up into several categories. In some cases posts could have fit in various categories so I placed them either where I thought they best fit, or to balance out the groupings."
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Meditations on the Madness
I love college basketball. There is no greater sport in America. I enjoy the exciting pre-season match-ups. I delight in conference play. The conference tournaments are like cheesecake after a steak dinner. And nothing in sports compares to March Madness.
I believe that the "analysts" at ESPN don't know squat. Digger Phelps said Syracuse would beat Duke because Boeheim is a great tournament coach. What?!! What happened to Coach K? Since when did he become a second-class tourney coach? Syracuse is a great team, and they could very well defeat Duke if they meet in the Sweet-16. Syracuse first needs to get passed Vermont, which will not be easy. Duke's 3-point shooting will do a number on the dreaded 2-3 zone. My pick is Duke. I do have them loosing to Kentucky in the Regional Final, and match-up I am really wanting to see. That will be a great game.
I have not heard any analysts talk about Eddie Sutton. This is probably his last legitimate chance to win the National Title. He will retire in a year or two. Ok. State is loosing 7 quality players, all of whom were in the Final Four last year. They are my pick to win it all. I think they are stronger and tougher than the great Illinois team. Ill is strong, but I don't think they can match the Pokes.
I am picking Gonzaga to go to the Final Four. They will get past Wake Forest. WF is good, but they struggle on defense, and the Zags have a great, powerful offense. WF is smooth, but I think the Zags will out-power them.
I had picked UNC to win it all, but after watching them many times this season, I don't think they will. They are too immature. They get too frustrated too easily. They are too dependent on the play of their guards. If they meet UConn in the Regional Final, which I think they will, they will not outlast them this time. Incidentally, the "analysts" at ESPN have been talking recently on how well the Huskies (UConn) have been playing. Then they say they will loose because they don't have a back-up point guard. Marcus Williams is leading the country in assists. I believe he can take the Huskies to their second consecutive Final Four without a back-up. I still would like to see a UNC-Kansas match-up in the Regional Final. KU needs Keith Langford healthy, though. Even still, I don't know if they can get past UConn.
I think Louisville will do well. I think they can beat Washington (a very good team), but I don't think they will get by Gonzaga.
Let me summarize my picks:
Elite-8: Illinois, Oklahoma State, Louisville, Gonzaga, UNC, UConn, Duke, and Ketucky.
Final-4: Ok.St., Gonzaga, UConn, and Kentucky
Championship: Ok.St. and Kent.
National Champions: Oklahoma State
Tourney MVP: John Lucas.
Not too far from my picks in January.
I believe that the "analysts" at ESPN don't know squat. Digger Phelps said Syracuse would beat Duke because Boeheim is a great tournament coach. What?!! What happened to Coach K? Since when did he become a second-class tourney coach? Syracuse is a great team, and they could very well defeat Duke if they meet in the Sweet-16. Syracuse first needs to get passed Vermont, which will not be easy. Duke's 3-point shooting will do a number on the dreaded 2-3 zone. My pick is Duke. I do have them loosing to Kentucky in the Regional Final, and match-up I am really wanting to see. That will be a great game.
I have not heard any analysts talk about Eddie Sutton. This is probably his last legitimate chance to win the National Title. He will retire in a year or two. Ok. State is loosing 7 quality players, all of whom were in the Final Four last year. They are my pick to win it all. I think they are stronger and tougher than the great Illinois team. Ill is strong, but I don't think they can match the Pokes.
I am picking Gonzaga to go to the Final Four. They will get past Wake Forest. WF is good, but they struggle on defense, and the Zags have a great, powerful offense. WF is smooth, but I think the Zags will out-power them.
I had picked UNC to win it all, but after watching them many times this season, I don't think they will. They are too immature. They get too frustrated too easily. They are too dependent on the play of their guards. If they meet UConn in the Regional Final, which I think they will, they will not outlast them this time. Incidentally, the "analysts" at ESPN have been talking recently on how well the Huskies (UConn) have been playing. Then they say they will loose because they don't have a back-up point guard. Marcus Williams is leading the country in assists. I believe he can take the Huskies to their second consecutive Final Four without a back-up. I still would like to see a UNC-Kansas match-up in the Regional Final. KU needs Keith Langford healthy, though. Even still, I don't know if they can get past UConn.
I think Louisville will do well. I think they can beat Washington (a very good team), but I don't think they will get by Gonzaga.
Let me summarize my picks:
Elite-8: Illinois, Oklahoma State, Louisville, Gonzaga, UNC, UConn, Duke, and Ketucky.
Final-4: Ok.St., Gonzaga, UConn, and Kentucky
Championship: Ok.St. and Kent.
National Champions: Oklahoma State
Tourney MVP: John Lucas.
Not too far from my picks in January.
Friday, March 11, 2005
Aesthetics: The Intro
What is a poet? An unhappy man who conceals profound anguish in his heart, but whose lips are so fashioned that when sighs and groans pass over them they sound like beautiful music. His fate resembles that of the unhappy men who were slowly roasted by a gentle fire in the tyrant Phalaris' bull—their shrieks could not reach his ear to terrify him, to him they sounded like sweet music. And people flock about the poet and say to him: do sing again; Which means, would that new sufferings tormented your soul, and: would that your lips stayed fashioned as before, for your cries would only terrify us, but your music is delightful. And the critics join them, saying: well done, thus must it be according to the laws of aesthetics. Why, to be sure, a critic resembles a poet as one pea another, the only difference being that he has no anguish in his heart and no music on his lips. Behold, therefore would I rather be a swineherd on Amager, and be understood by the swine than a poet, and misunderstood by men.
This quote comes from Soren Kierkegaard's work, Either/Or. It is from a section of that work named "Diapslmata." That quote has always haunted me. It provokes me to think about the meaning of beauty. I am sure many people have written books and essays on Christian aesthetics. I have not read many of these, however, and am not very familiar with many perspectives on aesthetics. That being said, I have begun to formulate a philosophy of Christian aesthetics. I want to be able to define and describe what beauty means for a Christian. Kierkegaard is an excellent resource in this field. The book I mentioned above discusses many aspects of beauty. One of K's main teachings is his "spheres of existence." The first of those spheres, or stages, is the esthetic stage. This stage is much more than what is commonly indicated by esthetics. It involves living in the moment. It involves an emotional, accidental perspective on the universe. But it does contain many descriptions of beauty. I have not read anyone who could eludicate on beauty as poetically as K. He is a master. One of the most astounding passages I have ever read is "The Banquet" from Stages on Life's Way.
I have formulated some beginning principles on beauty, which may or may be tenable.
1. Beauty is a reflection of God.
2. Beauty is transcendant.
3. Beauty is illogical.
4. Beauty exists in context.
5. Beauty is contrast.
6. Pain is the absense of beauty.
7. There is a false beauty.
I hope to add more. I hope to expand on these basic principles. I hope to find what true beauty is.
Tuesday, March 8, 2005
Berry on relationships
I have not seen or heard anyone who has a stronger grasp on relationships than Dave Berry:
"Of course, as a professional journalist, I would never resort to psychological trickery (Gary! Marry Suzanne!). But I do think we need to explore the commitment problem, which has caused many women to mistakenly conclude that men, as a group, have the emotional maturity of hamsters. This is not the case. A hamster is much more capable of making a lasting commitment to a woman, especially if she gives it those little food pellets. Whereas a guy, in a relationship, will consume the pellets of companionship, and he will run on the exercise wheel of lust; but as soon as he senses that the door of commitment is about to close and trap him in the wire cage of true intimacy, he'll squirm out, scamper across the kitchen floor of uncertainty and hide under the refrigerator of Non-Readiness."
Monday, March 7, 2005
Some cure
I doubt England will regret passing comprehensive gun bans, but they should:
God bless those jolly ol' chaps.
"In a pattern that's repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease."
God bless those jolly ol' chaps.
Political insanity
Welcome to Muffinville, where morons are kings and the national pastime is sophistry:
In other words, sane people know that personal accounts are a horrible plan. Only Republican hacks support the President's crazy plans. Keep up the good work, Ms. Pelosi.
"Also on Sunday, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said on Fox that because of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's support of personal accounts, some people 'have seriously questioned the independence of the Fed.' She declined to say whether she would describe Greenspan as a 'political hack,' as Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid did last week."
In other words, sane people know that personal accounts are a horrible plan. Only Republican hacks support the President's crazy plans. Keep up the good work, Ms. Pelosi.
Apathy
Martha Stewart
Michael Jackson
Robert Blake
Scott Peterson
Donald Trump
Ashlee Simpson
Jessica Simpson
Barry Bonds
Brad Pitt
Jennifer Anniston
What do these people have in common? I do not care what these people do. I do not care to know what these people are involved in. I do not want to hear their names. I do not want to hear the most current updates on these people. This is the only time I plan on mentioning these people. I could add others to the list, but I feel the list is sufficient.
What these people do is insignificant. Why should we pay attention to these people and what they do, and meanwhile ignore the many people that are doing worthwhile tasks? Why do we have to have news broadcasts and television shows dedicated to these average human beings? Why do we have to report the munutiae of these people's existence? What possible good could knowing these people's eating habits do for America? What are we going to remember of these people in 50 years? in 20 years? in 10 years? in 1 year? These people are not captivating. They are not interesting. They are not special in any historical context. They are people, no better or worse than any other person. Leave them be, and let us live our lives without incessantly hearing what type of shoes some person just purchased.
Michael Jackson
Robert Blake
Scott Peterson
Donald Trump
Ashlee Simpson
Jessica Simpson
Barry Bonds
Brad Pitt
Jennifer Anniston
What do these people have in common? I do not care what these people do. I do not care to know what these people are involved in. I do not want to hear their names. I do not want to hear the most current updates on these people. This is the only time I plan on mentioning these people. I could add others to the list, but I feel the list is sufficient.
What these people do is insignificant. Why should we pay attention to these people and what they do, and meanwhile ignore the many people that are doing worthwhile tasks? Why do we have to have news broadcasts and television shows dedicated to these average human beings? Why do we have to report the munutiae of these people's existence? What possible good could knowing these people's eating habits do for America? What are we going to remember of these people in 50 years? in 20 years? in 10 years? in 1 year? These people are not captivating. They are not interesting. They are not special in any historical context. They are people, no better or worse than any other person. Leave them be, and let us live our lives without incessantly hearing what type of shoes some person just purchased.
The Eclectic Reader, 3.07.2005--College Basketball
Illinois--
Illinois was beaten for the very first time this season. Ohio State beat them by one point in the last regular season game. Illinois is a very good team. They are one of the best in the country, if not the best. Their RPI rank is number 2, with a Strength of Schedule rank of 80. They have had some huge wins this season, 29 of them in fact. They beat Wisconsin twice, in one of them ending Wisconsin's 38 game home win streak. They have defeated Michigan State twice. They defeated both Wake Forest and Gonzaga, two top ten teams. I don't think the national polls mean much, but if they are to mean anything, then the Illini should remain number 1. I think they deserve to remain at the top spot. Ohio State is a good team. They are 19-11 overall, and 8-8 in conference. They RPI rank is 55 with a Strength of Schedule rank of 60. I had thought that if Illinois was to be beaten, it would be by a good team, but not a strong, nationally recognized team. Illinois deserves to be number 1 in both polls, and they deserve to be number 1 overall in the tournament.
Duke and UNC--
What a game last night! Unquestionably the greatest rivalry in any sport. UNC defeated Duke 75-73. I am somewhat upset that Duke lost. I always want to see them win. They did much better than I thought they would do, so that makes me happy. At least they lost at Chapel Hill. Sean May had a monster game, 26 points and 24 rebounds. Redick scored 17 points, and yet he didn't score the last 25 minutes of the game. He did have 6 assists. Sheldon Williams was great with 22 points and 6 blocks. The ACC tournament begins this Thursday, and should be a thriller. I hope Duke does well. I would love to see them win, though it will be difficult for them. I want to see them receive a high seed in the NCAA tourney. I am hoping for at least a 3 seed, which they should get. They have a RPI of 3 with a Strength of Schedule of 11. Those are pretty good numbers. They might even receive a 1 seed if they win the ACC tourney.
BTW: Does anyone know the last time Duke was not ranked in the top ten in the national polls?
John Cheney--
What has happened with John Cheney is a shame. What he did was a shame. I imagine he knows what he did was wrong, and I imagine he feels truly sorry for it. There is no excuse for his actions. A coach has the duty to keep his players and the other team's players safe. I know it is very difficult for a coach to deal with a game that is loosely or tightly officiated. It is very frustrating, and it is easy to retaliate. Coaches should never do this, and they ought to be held accountable when they do. The question is, how much should they be punished? John Cheney is an excellent coach. By the end of the 2003-2004 season, he was number 20 on the all-time win list with 708. He had a win percentage of .714. He has done as much for basketball as any other coach in recent years. He has done so much for his players. He is a mentor and a inspiration. I believe he is a great man. He has made many mistakes. Should those mistakes erase years of quality, honorable leadership? I don't think so. I am a big fan of Bobby Knight. He too has made many mistakes. He should never have done many of the things he did. He too is a mentor and an inspiration. You would be hard pressed to find a player that has been under these coaches that do not admire and respect these men. Most players are better men because of the "life-coaching" of Cheney and Knight. They are not perfect, and we should never gloss over these blemishes. We should look at their lifetime of achievement, and understand all men make mistakes.
Illinois was beaten for the very first time this season. Ohio State beat them by one point in the last regular season game. Illinois is a very good team. They are one of the best in the country, if not the best. Their RPI rank is number 2, with a Strength of Schedule rank of 80. They have had some huge wins this season, 29 of them in fact. They beat Wisconsin twice, in one of them ending Wisconsin's 38 game home win streak. They have defeated Michigan State twice. They defeated both Wake Forest and Gonzaga, two top ten teams. I don't think the national polls mean much, but if they are to mean anything, then the Illini should remain number 1. I think they deserve to remain at the top spot. Ohio State is a good team. They are 19-11 overall, and 8-8 in conference. They RPI rank is 55 with a Strength of Schedule rank of 60. I had thought that if Illinois was to be beaten, it would be by a good team, but not a strong, nationally recognized team. Illinois deserves to be number 1 in both polls, and they deserve to be number 1 overall in the tournament.
Duke and UNC--
What a game last night! Unquestionably the greatest rivalry in any sport. UNC defeated Duke 75-73. I am somewhat upset that Duke lost. I always want to see them win. They did much better than I thought they would do, so that makes me happy. At least they lost at Chapel Hill. Sean May had a monster game, 26 points and 24 rebounds. Redick scored 17 points, and yet he didn't score the last 25 minutes of the game. He did have 6 assists. Sheldon Williams was great with 22 points and 6 blocks. The ACC tournament begins this Thursday, and should be a thriller. I hope Duke does well. I would love to see them win, though it will be difficult for them. I want to see them receive a high seed in the NCAA tourney. I am hoping for at least a 3 seed, which they should get. They have a RPI of 3 with a Strength of Schedule of 11. Those are pretty good numbers. They might even receive a 1 seed if they win the ACC tourney.
BTW: Does anyone know the last time Duke was not ranked in the top ten in the national polls?
John Cheney--
What has happened with John Cheney is a shame. What he did was a shame. I imagine he knows what he did was wrong, and I imagine he feels truly sorry for it. There is no excuse for his actions. A coach has the duty to keep his players and the other team's players safe. I know it is very difficult for a coach to deal with a game that is loosely or tightly officiated. It is very frustrating, and it is easy to retaliate. Coaches should never do this, and they ought to be held accountable when they do. The question is, how much should they be punished? John Cheney is an excellent coach. By the end of the 2003-2004 season, he was number 20 on the all-time win list with 708. He had a win percentage of .714. He has done as much for basketball as any other coach in recent years. He has done so much for his players. He is a mentor and a inspiration. I believe he is a great man. He has made many mistakes. Should those mistakes erase years of quality, honorable leadership? I don't think so. I am a big fan of Bobby Knight. He too has made many mistakes. He should never have done many of the things he did. He too is a mentor and an inspiration. You would be hard pressed to find a player that has been under these coaches that do not admire and respect these men. Most players are better men because of the "life-coaching" of Cheney and Knight. They are not perfect, and we should never gloss over these blemishes. We should look at their lifetime of achievement, and understand all men make mistakes.
Wednesday, March 2, 2005
The Christian Carnival--3.02.2005
I am not a fan of Soap Operas, yet I encourage you to check out this weeks The Christian Carnival:
"I have always been fascinated by soap operas, those afternoon dramas of angst. So, I thought it might be a bit of fun to classify the posts under the program of which they reminded me."
Tuesday, March 1, 2005
Doctor dog
Dave Berry reminds us why we shouldn't make doctors out of dogs:
"If you know anything about dogs, you know how Refrigerator spent his recuperation period: He licked himself pretty much full time. Dogs are very big believers in the healing power of licking. If dogs operated a hospital, here's how it would work: A patient would arrive in the Emergency Room, and a team of doctor dogs would gather around to conduct an examination, which would consist of thoroughly sniffing the patient. (They would also sniff the floor, in case anybody had left food lying around.)
Then, the doctor dogs would hold a conference, and whatever the patient's symptoms were -- coughing, lack of pulse, a spear passing all the way through the patient's head -- the doctor dogs would agree that the best course of treatment was: licking. And we're talking about a LOT of licking. Not just the patient licking himself or herself, but also the doctors licking the patient, licking themselves, and licking the other doctors. This is state-of-the-art medical care for dogs."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)