Looks like this is the end. I haven't posted to LJ in a long time, and neither have most of my friends. I'm still checking my friends page weekly, but I don't really expect to post any more to this journal.
It's a shame that Twitter and Facebook are so useful, because I'd like to post longer, LJ-like entries at times -- things too long for Facebook. But there aren't many people left to read 'em.
Also, I have a wife now, and so I do most of my ranting to her, instead of to the internet. So, there's that.
I'm thinking of doing a West Coast trip to San Fran & drive up the coast to Seattle. See Adam & Evan & anyone else still out that way.
Arizona & Colorado are going to be real pains to get to, since they aren't near any other cities. Pretty much requires their own trip each. At least with Colorado I might lump in a Broncos game or something.
The latest chapter in "My Dad's Life Rocks" - never-ending series of updates on how ridiculously awesome my dad's life is. Here's today's dispatch:
"Hi, just got back from my Caribbean cruise. I'm back in Florida now.
I became the first person on the ship ever to win both the blackjack and poker tournaments.
I am leaving this rental house this week and will be staying temporarily with a friend until my new house is finished being built and ready for me to move in on Feb. 11."
I had my checkup appointment with a new dentist today. She asked me what I did for a living and I replied, "I'm a science teacher."
"Oh," she says, "Science was my favorite subject in school."
I said some non-descript pleasantry back to her. "Oh, that's great."
But really, in my head, I was thinking, "NO SHIT! I damn well hope science was your favorite class, because you're a DOCTOR now, and you're currently engaged in the act of STABBING THE INSIDES OF MY BODY WITH TINY, METAL DAGGERS!! I really hoped her response wouldn't be: 'Oh, I was always really bored with science classes. I loved poetry best. I wanted to be a poet, but this dentistry thing just pays better.' "
I don't think I've fully realized that the Denver Broncos started this season 6-0 and failed to make the playoffs. I don't think it's hit me yet. Otherwise, how could I explain my calm?
Denver Broncos record to start the season, in the past decade: 2009: Started 6-0 2008: 4-1 2007: 2-0 2006: 7-2 2005: 9-2 2004: 5-1 2003: 4-0 2002: 4-1 2001: 2-0
2000 was the outlier year, in which the Broncos started the season poorly at 4-4, and got hot late to finish with an 11-6 record and a surprise Wild Card berth.
(That was the first post-season appearance in the post-Elway era. Shannon Sharpe, playing for the Baltimore Ravens, helped eliminate the Broncos in the wild card round. I watched that game from a bowling alley in Pittsburgh while AEPi was winning the intramural bowling championship on the mighty right arm of Dave Falk.)
The two "2-0" years don't really count as hot starts I suppose, but it's better than starting 0-2 and being in that panicked mode that basically a quarter of the teams in the league find themselves in each September.
Denver hasn't had an 0-2 start since 1999, the first post-Elway year when the team went 6-10, but nobody cared because the Broncos had just won 2 Super Bowls.
What is it about the Broncos that makes them so great in September and October? None of the Broncos teams this past decade went to the Super Bowl. They only had 1 postseason victory all decade: the 2005 team handed Tom Brady his first postseason defeat in Denver, thanks in large part to a very controversial pick-six that turned the tide as the Patriots were about to take the lead and 5 turnovers by the Pats.
The Broncos had a pretty mediocre decade. They finished at 8-8 three separate times in the ten years.
The Broncos had, in the last 10 seasons, four playoff appearances (two WC round losses to the Colts, and 1 WC loss to the Ravens, and one upset loss at home in the AFC Champ. game to #6 seed Steelers).
On the plus side, they only had one losing season all decade (7-9).
Despite being almost the very definition of mediocrity (never crummy, never dominant), the Broncos were superb in starting off each season on a high note.
One-quarter of the way through each season, the Broncos seemed like they were going to be one of the premiere teams that year, and almost every year they regressed back to the pack in November and December.
This has been going on now under 2 different head coaches, with four different starting QBs (Griese, Plummer, Cutler, Orton), and totally different personnel all over the field.
Is it the weather? Is it the Denver altitude?
Why do the Broncos consistently play so well in the summer/fall, but so lousy after Thanksgiving?
The opening lines of an LA Times entertainment article:
"Last week, Seth MacFarlane conquered Fox’s Sunday lineup like it was Russia in a game of Risk. But, like the largest landmass in that classic game of strategy, Sunday night isn’t meant to be controlled forever. Just get your extra seven pieces, and turn your focus to Australia."
2) There is no "Russia" in RISK. There's Ukraine, Ural, Irkutsk, Yakutsk, Siberia, and Kamchatka.
3) What kind of RISK strategy focuses on holding ASIA for 1 turn and then abandoning it to then take Australia?
Listen, LA Times guy, just stick to discussing offensive "Family Guy" jokes and don't actually try making any clever pop culture references of your own. That's Seth MacFarlane's job.
Denver (6-2) leads San Diego (5-3) by 1 game at the halfway mark, including 1 head-to-head victory over the Chargers.
In the second half, the Chargers & Broncos have 3 common opponents, and they play each other head-to-head once. Therefore they each have four unique opponents.
The strength-of-schedule is nearly identical for both teams.
Denver has only played 2 division games so far (2-0), while SD has played four (3-1). Denver will mostly be within the division down the stretch.
Remaining 8 Games.
Broncos Opponents
Common Opponents
Chargers Opponents
@IND (8-0)
SD/DEN
CIN (6-2)
NYG (5-4)
PHI
@DAL (6-2)
OAK (2-6)
WASH
@TEN (2-6)
@KC (1-7)
KC
@CLE (1-7)
Whew, it's gonna be a close race. That SD @ DEN game in 2 weeks is huge.
In Mongtgomery County, we have some pretty crazy grading policies which take a lot of grading control out of the hands of the teachers.
First, there's a rule that homework in science can only be graded for effort (completion), not for correctness. Basically, if you write anything down, no matter how nonsensical, you get 100% credit for homework.
Second, there's a minimum grade of 50% on tests and quizzes that every student is entitled to as long as they "complete" the test -- which again basically means just writing down anything. On a multiple-choice test, that's just filling in all the bubbles.
There's also a rule that homework can't count for more than 10% of the final grade...but that's not relevant to my current issue.
Under the grading rules, a student who turns in crappy homework and gets 0 questions correct on the test will get a final grade of 55% in my class -- still failing, but not by much.
I ran some numbers today. Each quarter, I give 3 Lab Reports, 3 Quizzes, and 3 Tests in addition to homeworks which are points for completion.
A student could get a 69% (D) on the first lab report, a 69% (D) on the first quiz, and a 63% (D) on the first test...and then do nothing for the next two months (E) and still pass thanks to the 50% rule.
The final grade would be a 59.5, which the grading computer would round up to a 60% (D). The student passes Honors Physics. Congrats, he's your problem now, Real World.
Another scenario that results in a passing grade: First Test = 73% Second, Third Tests = 0 All lab reports = 0 All quizzes = 0 (Since zeroes are really 50% grades)
contemplative
amused
confused
bouncy
