![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
quislibetSo J. turned on the TV last night just before dinner was ready out of idle curiosity concerning the Superbowl score, just in time for the half-time show. Well, we thought, let's eat in the living room and surely we'll see these fabulous commercials everyone is always on about! Instead, all of the commercials we saw seemed to be for "CSI," so we felt a bit cheated. Still, before we switched over to catch a few minutes of Cary Grant and Myrna Loy trying to build their dream house (and before, ultimately, getting back to work), we saw Janet's breast and the Riverdance streaker guy, so there was our requisite dose of football-related nudity for the weekend, and just in time, too.
Apparently the Patriots won. This news strikes me much as would the information that a friend of a friend had just been promoted at work, or that someone I know only slightly has gone and got engaged to someone I don't know at all. "Good for them!" I would think, perhaps even going so far as to follow that with "Let the next sip of this drink I was drinking anyway be in celebration."
(Flattening people with my Ford Explorer in celebration, however, would not occur to me, but I guess it works for some. Go Pats!)
Now, J., whose feelings about the Patriots are on par with mine, contends that any real New England sports fan (at least those that live on this side of New Haven, I suspect, and out of the Big Apple Hegemonic Region) would gladly trade last night's apparently thrilling last-minute victory for a Red Sox win (recently retroactive or future). Certainly I would, and I watch only about one baseball game every three years. You'd think the my fondest wishes would go to the Pats as the only Boston-area sports team that doesn't affect my subway commute between Kenmore and the Fleet Center,(*) but there it is.
But let us open this up: What do you think? Do two Superbowl wins in three years constitute an unfair hoarding of New England Sports Good Karma?
(I'd set up a poll, but I'd have to open a different browser for that, and I can't be bothered.)
---
(*) I hadn't remembered the existence of The Revolution when I wrote that sentence, but I can hardly be faulted for that.
Apparently the Patriots won. This news strikes me much as would the information that a friend of a friend had just been promoted at work, or that someone I know only slightly has gone and got engaged to someone I don't know at all. "Good for them!" I would think, perhaps even going so far as to follow that with "Let the next sip of this drink I was drinking anyway be in celebration."
(Flattening people with my Ford Explorer in celebration, however, would not occur to me, but I guess it works for some. Go Pats!)
Now, J., whose feelings about the Patriots are on par with mine, contends that any real New England sports fan (at least those that live on this side of New Haven, I suspect, and out of the Big Apple Hegemonic Region) would gladly trade last night's apparently thrilling last-minute victory for a Red Sox win (recently retroactive or future). Certainly I would, and I watch only about one baseball game every three years. You'd think the my fondest wishes would go to the Pats as the only Boston-area sports team that doesn't affect my subway commute between Kenmore and the Fleet Center,(*) but there it is.
But let us open this up: What do you think? Do two Superbowl wins in three years constitute an unfair hoarding of New England Sports Good Karma?
(I'd set up a poll, but I'd have to open a different browser for that, and I can't be bothered.)
---
(*) I hadn't remembered the existence of The Revolution when I wrote that sentence, but I can hardly be faulted for that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 09:06 am (UTC)What sort of connections? Surely the Democrats don't have any sort of power to rig the outcome of contests.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 09:18 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 07:23 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 08:21 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 08:22 pm (UTC)Re: In high schol, I had a friend who did sell pee to athletes.
Date: 2004-02-02 09:40 am (UTC)Re: In high schol, I had a friend who did sell pee to athletes.
Date: 2004-02-02 11:58 am (UTC)Re: What is really frightening ....
Date: 2004-02-02 09:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-02 08:52 am (UTC)I am more skeptical.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 09:04 am (UTC)What, all of them?
*hops in, can't resist*
Date: 2004-02-02 09:06 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 09:17 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 06:41 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 07:24 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 07:27 pm (UTC)(Homer) One word...Bucky
I did my research paper for English Comp on the Red Sox losing woes and how they are all related to people that have in their names. I was joking about it at first until I did the research...Bob...Brock...Barnett...Baines...it all sucks for the BoSox :)
Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 07:29 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 07:30 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 07:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-02 07:55 pm (UTC)I'm of the mind that clutch performance is more heavily dependent a factor in defense in baseball and basketball than it is in modern football (which I think is all defense until they get tired, and then it switches to offense, but I really don't understand the game, because there are too many rules).
In baseball, the other team scoring a lot of home runs just points to poor defense, or bad arrangement (for the defending team) of the field.
Well, f**k it, whatever. I've given up on the Celtics as their coach did. I'll read the papers the next couple of weeks on college roundball and make my picks for the games to watch in March. Louisville was always my nostalgic choice until ... recently. I hope his horses all go lame. Bastard.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 07:58 pm (UTC)Actually a team scoring home runs has alot to do with pitching, and to me pitching is the major part of baseball, followed by offense then defense.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 08:31 pm (UTC)Ah, now, I see pitching as part of defense, but I can see the case being made for a tripartite partition of the game (if the catcher is included in pitching). As a two-decade competitive softballer, though, it's a little hard for me to totally accept. I mean, I gave a shoulder and both sides of my collarbone to it.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 09:11 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 10:09 pm (UTC)paisley@angeldustrial.com
paisley@silentnoise.org
this message will self-destruct ...
Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 09:24 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 07:38 pm (UTC)But, really, only one of them can pass, right? (or throw right)
(When Julishka and others were buzzing about Tom Brady (sp) being in the audience for the State of the Union, I was really puzzled. The former Mayor of Los Angeles? Eh. I was satisfied with being confused until some (British!) person pointed out to me that he was the QB of my home team. Oh. Well, then! Rah, rah, and all that, old chap.)
no subject
Date: 2004-02-02 10:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-02 10:43 am (UTC)Those Sox. They don't really want to win. What would they whine about every year? Not winning makes them special. If they win they'll be like everybody else. "The Curse" gives them cachet.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 06:43 pm (UTC)So use to bitching about losing that they wouldn't know how to be happy after a win.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-02 12:35 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 02:00 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 10:53 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-03 08:01 am (UTC)