Saturday, January 31, 2009

Best BC Teachers

I think it's safe to say we have an unhealthy and unusual obsession on this blog with high school and the romanticization of things that happened 10 years ago in general. But seriously, who cares. That's what you get for going to the best high school and being from the greatest city in America.

I felt it was long past time to name the best teachers on Seawright Drive. I could substantiate these rankings by listing academic reasons why each teacher deserves to be on here, but that would just sound really gay. Plus, different teachers are good for different reasons (Tvrdy, for example, makes this list for entirely different reasons than, say, Curley does).

1. Coach Yeckley
2. Mr. Graham
3. Fr. Jeff
4. Coach Curley
5. Mr. Tvrdy

Honorable mentions: LTC Owens, Coach Orsini.

What's your list? And please no negative stuff. While I'd like to think nobody reads what we say on here, history has shown that's not always the case.

Friday, January 30, 2009

Snuffy's Food For Thought

Lee McCurry played varsity basketball at BC.

Happy Birthday Phil

On this day back in 1951, Philip David Charles Collins, was born in Chiswick, London.
Phil comes from an era when pop stars actually wrote their own music, and it sounded good.

Here are lyrics from my personal favorite.

(Phil begins...)

Easy lover
She'll get a hold on you believe it
Like no other
Before you know it you'll be on your knees
She's an easy lover
She'll take your heart but you won't feel it
She's like no other
And I'm just trying to make you see

(Now for high pitched black guy, Philip Bailey...)
She's the kind of girl you dream of
Dream of keeping hold of You'd better forget it
You'll never get it
She will play around and leave you
Leave you and deceive you
Better forget it
Oh you'll regret it....


Wednesday, January 28, 2009

It's Official

Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid think they know how to spend $1 trillion better than 300 million private individuals do. Kudos to the House Republicans, all of whom opposed the measure.

Street View

View Larger Map

The Stimulus Package Ruse

by Walter Williams.

Here is what my George Mason University colleague Professor Richard Wagner wrote, which was published by Office of the House Republican Leader: "Any so-called stimulus program is a ruse. The government can increase its spending only by reducing private spending equivalently. Whether government finances its added spending by increasing taxes, by borrowing, or by inflating the currency, the added spending will be offset by reduced private spending. Furthermore, private spending is generally more efficient than the government spending that would replace it because people act more carefully when they spend their own money than when they spend other people's money." A short translation of Wagner's comment is: There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. Let's examine the ruse.

Suppose the value of all that we will produce in 2009, our gross domestic product (GDP), totals $14 trillion. There cannot be any disagreement that if Congress spends $4 trillion, of necessity there is only $10 trillion left over for us to spend privately. In other words, if Congress is going to spend $4 trillion, it must find a way to get us to spend $4 trillion less. The most open and aboveboard method to force us to spend less privately is to tax us to the tune of $4 trillion.
You might say, "Congress doesn't have to tax us $4 trillion. They could tax us $3 trillion and run a $1 trillion budget deficit." You have that wrong. There is no way for Congress to spend $4 trillion out of our 2009 $14 trillion GDP by getting us to spend only $3 trillion less privately. It has to be $4 trillion less. Another method to force us to spend less privately is to print money and inflate the currency. Rising prices reduce our ability to spend privately since each dollar we hold will not buy as much. Another way is for Congress to borrow, thereby reducing our ability to spend privately. By the way, all of this means that in any real economic sense the federal budget is always balanced. That is, if Congress spends $4 trillion we must privately spend $4 trillion less whether it is accomplished through taxation, inflation or borrowing.

The stimulus package being discussed is politically smart but economically stupid. It's that bedeviling, omnipresent Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy problem again. Let's say that Congress taxes you $500 to put toward creating construction jobs building our infrastructure. The beneficiaries will be quite visible, namely men employed building a road. The victims of Congress are invisible and are only revealed by asking what you would have done with the $500 if it were not taxed away from you. Whatever you would have spent it on would have contributed to someone's employment. That person is invisible. Politicians love it when the victims of their policies are invisible and the beneficiaries visible. Why? Because the beneficiaries know for whom to vote and the victims do not know who is to blame for their plight.

In stimulus package language, if Congress taxes to hand out money, one person is stimulated at the expense of another, who pays the tax, who is unstimulated. A visual representation of the stimulus package is: Imagine you see a person at work taking buckets of water from the deep end of a swimming pool and dumping them into the shallow end in an attempt to make it deeper. You would deem him stupid. That scenario is equivalent to what Congress and the new president proposes for the economy. A far more important measure that Congress can take toward a healthy economy is to ensure that the 2003 tax cuts don't expire in 2010 as scheduled. If not, there are 15 separate taxes scheduled to rise in 2010, costing Americans $200 billion a year in increased taxes. In the face of a recession, we don't need that.

(Remember, government spending needs to be reduced in proportion with tax cuts... increased government spending is only a tax increase for future periods whether it be in the form of increased income tax rates, borrowing, or printing money.etc)

Monday, January 26, 2009

Snuffy's Food For Thought

Have you ever noticed how time drags on when you're at work, but flies by when you are home, sick?

The mother of Pat Holland's future children.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Friday, January 23, 2009

Augusta International

I have a feeling you guys are really excited to see this guy at the Masters.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Logistics Question

This morning I was flossing with my little, dainty girl hands.  No problems.  Smooth operation.  Then I wondered how T.C. flosses.  Can you fit this big paws in there?  Or do you have to use one of these?

Snuffy's Food For Thought

You know things are bad when Country Day is having financial problems.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Against the Stimulus in 45 Seconds

Also, I understood Mr. Obama to say that under his leadership, we will enter a new "Era of Responsibility." Can someone explain to me how spending over a $1 trillion we don't even have is "responsible"? I really need some of his supporters to help me out with this because I'm deeply confused.

Lie to Me

If you have watched Fox recently you have seen the commercials for a new show called "Lie to Me."  It follows a team of people who can supposedly tell by a suspect's mannerisms and behavior whether or not they are lying.  This is the worst premise for a show I've heard in a long time for one simple reason: it's actors acting like they are lying.

On the other hand, this would have made a decent reality show to air with Cops and America's Most Wanted.  Showing actual suspects and their accounts of what happened, trying to determine for ourselves if they are telling the truth, and then at the end they reveal how the case was ruled.  Obviously, we wouldn't know for sure if they were lying unless they ended up confessing, but it would be intriguing to see if justice was served based on what we are shown.

Well, at least it would have been more interesting than seeing actors shift their eyes, tap their feet nervously, or stutter.  Jesus Christ, that is stupid.

Monday, January 19, 2009

In Requiem: The Bush Presidency

I first heard of this man at the age of 16 during my junior year of high school. I knew I was conservative by that point, and I knew I certainly hated Bill Clinton and just about everything he stood for. His ambivalence; his double-speak; his slick but sleazy delivery; his gutless, triangulating, finger-in-the-air, let's-take-a-poll and-please-as-many-people-as-possible-without-really-doing-anything response to just about every major problem facing the country at home and abroad really aggravated me (does anyone remember those days now?).

America, it seemed, was long overdue for decisive action, for moral clarity, for strong leadership. It had been 12 long years since Ronald Wilson Reagan's conservatism had departed from Washington and many saw W. as his reincarnation. The Right salivated over this prospect at the dawn of a new millennium, with endless opportunities and a Republican Congress to boot. I was one of those people, 100%.

I also loved Governor Bush simply because his style was so unlike Clinton's. His conviction, his swagger, his cockiness, his simplicity, his don't-really-give-a-damn, shoot-from-the-hip, cut-taxes-and-everything-will-take-care-of-itself, even-though-I-constantly-stumble-over-words-I'm-still-right-and-better-than-you style of rhetoric really won me over because it reminded me of someone who graduated from BC (or maybe, subconsciously, my father). Clinton could eloquently prattle for hours on end without missing a beat, yet no one in his audience could grasp what he really meant or what his positions really were. By contrast, Bush could stumble over a few short, choppy sentences yet you still understood exactly where he was coming from every time. This resonated with a lot of folks, and while he didn't win the popular vote in 2000, it's the reason he did as well as he did at a time when Democrats were presiding over a surging Dow Jones and the longest peacetime expansion in history.

It soon became apparent, however, that aside from issues of style and the initial tax cuts he gets passed, Dubya wasn't like Reagan at all. It's kind of like when you first get to Georgia and notice how all the fraternity guys wear boat shoes, polo shirts, and khacki pants. "Wow, these guys look and dress normal like they could have gone to BC. I bet they're cool." But then, for various reasons, you soon realize these guys have very little, if anything, in common with you, and that they give people that do dress normal a really bad name.

In his first term alone, W. more than doubles federal funding for education, pledges trillions into new welfare and healthcare entitlements, pours billions more into foreign aid programs, oversees a dramatic expansion in farm subsidies and corporate handouts, and clings to a self-professed philosophy that "when somebody hurts, government has got to move." It is true that in foreign affairs, he deserves lots of credit for demonstrating ballsy resolve in the weeks and months following 9/11, something Al Gore probably wouldn't have shown. But that ballsyness goes too far in pursuing what now looks to be a war of choice in Iraq and years of nation-building and an over-extended military, things Bush railed against during the 2000 campaign.

By 2004 many of us were agitated, but were told to grin and bear it because the alternative was far worse and that these compromises were necessary to win a second term that would truly enable the administration to carry out its "real" goals: downsizing the federal government, implementing a flat tax, slashing spending, and privitizing Social Security. The first part of this was true: John Kerry's stances were far worse. But the second part never even came close to materializing. Instead, all we got was more of the same.

I don't think Bush deserves a whole lot of blame for this country's bellicosity in the wake of that fateful September day during his first year. We all felt something had to be done after nearly a decade of fruitless half-measures. The days of bombing an aspirin factory or lobbing a cruise missile into some tiny tent in the middle of the desert were over, and action had to be taken. We were undoubtedly right to go into Afghanistan I still think we made the right decision invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein given the intelligence reports and what we thought was true (the presence of WMD) at the time. Knowing what we know now, would it make sense? Of course not. Trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives needn't be lost just so we can go around the world "spreading democracy" in places filled with irrational and ungrateful fanatics that will never get their act together.

Where Bush deserves tons of blame is on the domestic stuff, and what should have been achieved. Not since the 1920's has so much opportunity been wasted by a Republican president. Other than the supply-side tax cuts, which do deserve some credit for igniting a robust expansion between 2002-2007, he did not advance any semblance of a true conservative agenda on economic issues at a time when his own party controlled both houses of Congress. He was not able to effectively communicate a coherent message on what should have been key policy initiatives. He sat back and allowed the opposition and liberals in the media to dominate the discussion. He rarely exercised any form of restraint when spending other people's money, and never showed any skepticism toward government power. Alongside his colleagues in Congress, he instead abandoned much of what Republicans used to stand for.

How will history judge this man? I have no idea. More generously than right now? Probably. Almost certainly. But he's still the main reason why the party brand is in tatters and will remain that way for some time. Because of him, an entire generation of voters will predominately vote Democrat for decades to come. Because of him, many see the GOP as the party of big government, authoritarian federal mandates, corporate welfare, bailouts, foreign adventurism, and nanny-state socialism.

It's true that others will continue to see Bush and Republicans as evil "free-market," "far right," "trickle-down" ideologues. They blame capitalism, greed, and oil companies for our current troubles and see higher taxes and more labor unions as the way out (yay! let's create more GM's!). But these people have always been around, have always been wrong, and can never be reasoned with. They are the sorry folks that voted for Mondale in '84. They are the ignorant, partisan, Paul Krugman lackeys who remain firmly convinced that FDR somehow "got us out" of the Great Depression and that only through more bureaucracy, higher tax rates, and another trillion-dollar New Deal can the economy recover and can America become a "great" country again, and by "great" they mean more like France. Unfortunately, while a minority voice, their viewpoints constitute the false history now being written in the pages of Time, Newsweek, and even The Economist. They declare Bush's presidency the final demonstration that "small government" is bad and that the "free market" is dangerous and has miserably failed. Yet government has nearly doubled in size since Bush's arrival and our economy is in many areas substantially less free.

The bad news (or good news, if you're pulling for the Republicans), is that much of Obama's agenda promises even more of the same mistakes that Bush made on even a larger scale. Trillions in new spending. More entitlements. Additional bailouts. Maybe this will open voters' eyes a bit and help them realize that Democrats are just as bad, if not worse, and that we can't spend our way out of problems by creating make work projects or mailing out checks from the treasury. However, unlike Bush, Obama will have the media on his side and will always be seen as a compassionate figure with the best of intentions.

Has George W. Bush been the worst leader this country has ever seen? No, we've had far worse. But his 8 years illustrate the failures of a governing strategy that must never be repeated. With W. gone, we can hopefully redraw that line in the sand proclaiming Democrats and only Democrats to be the party of big government.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

New Merchandise

These new bumper stickers available at Cafepress recall the BC-Savannah High rivalry days.

And, if you're really old school, the same sticker is available in Cherry Red, which was BC's original color during the height of the rivalry in the 30s and 40s:

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Two More Months!

For those of you in town this weekend, the monthly Club Seventeen meeting will take place at Kevin Barry's tonight. If you have not already started your alcohol tolerance preperation for St. Patrick's Day, I suggest you start tonight.

Friday, January 16, 2009

Dear Mr. Stastny

My letter to Anthony Stastny, sports editor for the Savannah Morning News.

Mr. Stastny,

I noticed an inconsistency in the the basketball stats column this morning. Cody Padgett of Calvary is listed as the area's leading scorer with 371 points in 16 games for an average of 24.7 ppg. If those numbers are correct, his real ppg average should be 23.2, but that is besides the point (no pun intended). The second leading scorer is Jibri Bryan of Benedictine with 293 points in 11 games for an average of 26.6 ppg.

As I looked at the other statistical categories, I noticed that every other category was ranked by average per game, not by the raw total. So, why is Cody Padgett listed ahead of Jibri Bryan, when Bryan is averaging 3.4 ppg more than Padgett?

I will not hide the fact that I am a BC alumn and an avid fan of the Cadets. Adam VanBrimmer and I exchanged a few emails not too long ago after his column about Calvary gaining ground on the public schools. Calvary failed to live up to the hype by losing to Windsor Forest, again, by 17 points. Then, this morning, I noticed the discrepency in the stats and Rich McGowan's column about the "Calvary Crazies."

I am not sure why the Savannah Morning News has this love affair with a 9-7 Calvary team, when there are several more deserving teams in this area, including the Benedictine Cadets.

Snuffy P. Smith

This shit is getting ridiculous.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Fleet Foxes

My favorite new band from 2008, Fleet Foxes, will be playing SNL this Saturday.  So, if you like a lot of harmony, Beach Boys, CSNY, that sort of thing, check them out.  Hard to describe their sound properly.  Here are a couple of their videos.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Gran Torino

Gran Torino might not have that much action, as far as gunplay and explosions, but there's a lot of tension and menace.  Clint Eastwood is a serious hardass, and it's easy to buy his over-the-top portrayal of a racist, grizzled Korean War vet.  There's a suprising amount of humor, often coming from the "Did he just say that?" angle.  The best stuff comes from the ways he tries to teach his wuss of a neighbor how to act like a man.

The movie takes its time but never feels like it's dragging.  Its biggest weakness is the sub-par acting of the supporting cast, and it's obvious that Eastwood hired amateur actors to play his Hmong neighbors to have them feel more authentic.  The brother and sister are piss poor at acting, but good at portraying obnoxious Asian stereotypes.  The only authenticity I'll give them is that I felt like I was living next to Tech's campus again.

It all leads to a logical, yet surprising conclusion which really sends the movie into Very Good territory.  If you're wary of Hollywood ramming a "lesson learned" sermon down your throat regarding Eastwood's character, rest easy.  It never patronizes us by forcing us to believe this crusty bastard suddenly decides to stop using racial slurs and being distrustful of others.  The change we get is natural and welcome.

El Pollo Loco

Everything was terrible. One item stood out:

"The Ultimate Pollo Bowl"
I could have made this at home. I could pour some instant brown rice into a bowl, then hand it to you.

Friday, January 09, 2009


Here are some quotes I recall from last night's bowl game commentators:

"If you were fortunate enough to spend five or twenty minutes with this young man, your life would be better for it."

"He traveled with his parents doing missionary work.  He lived in an orphanage.  He spent time in a leper colony!"

Tebow = Bill Brasky?

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

National Championship Prediction

As a college football observer, and a resident of the city of Jacksonville, I have seen the craziness of all the Gator fans here. Believe it or not, I look at it as breath of fresh air. As some of you know, I have been a Georgia Tech fan since the late 80's and I have endured a 5-15 record against the Dawgs during this span. I do not consider myself a Gator by no means, but this could be one of the fastest and most dynamic football teams I have seen in my short life.

At the end of October, I made my way to Gainsville to watch the Gators trounce the Kentucky Wildcats 63-5 on a cool, overcast day in the sunshine state. In person, my eyes have never seen football players run circles around the opposing team so much. In a span of 3 Kentucky possessions there was 2 blocked punts, and 1 blocked field goal that lead to a 42-3 halftime lead. Now, this in no way will happen to the Sooners. But, don't be surprised if a blocked punt or a punt return touchdown by Branndon James occurs at a crucial point during the game.

If your not a fan of offense, don't even bother to tune in to this Touchdown show. We all know it is Heisman winner against Heisman winner or Tool vs Tool. However, these are two amazing QBs that can will their team to victory, and it has happen time and time again. Bradford will throw for 300 plus yards with three touchdowns to give his team a fighting chance. His two interceptions will be detrimental to his team's hope of claiming the BCS. Tebow on the other hand, will throw for 215 with two rushing and two passing touchdowns with no picks.

Also, before I make my prediction look at these scores the Big 12 has produced in the bowl season:

Mizzou 30 NW 23

Oregon 42 Olk st 31

Miss 47 TT 34

Texas 24 OSU 21

The four other giants of the Big 12 have put up sub par performances against the Big Ten who have not come close to touching the SEC in their history. Everyone can also point out the Mississippi upset over the Gators and connect it with Texas Tech losing to Oklahoma, and say I am wrong. Fla's lost to the rebels was a aberration, and it is evident with their stellar play since. I want some opinions on this game from everyone! My prediction is speed kills, and the only way the Gators lose is if Tebow rides a bus to the game and gets motion sickness.(A problem he has according to the Fl Times-Union)

Fl 45 Olk 31

"He could be one of the best to come out of Savannah."

Former Savannah High football star dies.

Other than Hank and some of the boys over at OIA, most of you probably don't remember Mede Lewis. The title of this post is the truth. However, the key phrase is could be. He certainly had the talent, much like Murdock Ferguson did on the hardwood, but he could not live above his environment. It's a shame how much talent is wasted in this city.

Sunday, January 04, 2009

My Favorite TV Show of 2008

Battlestar Galactica. 

Though this show debuted in 2004, I put this as 2008 favorite because I caught up with the DVDs this year.  This version is almost entirely different than the Battlestar Galactica of the early 80s, and is darker than any other sci fi show.

The basic premise is that humans created sophisticated robots who rebel and nuke their planets all to hell (yes, very much like Terminator).  The only humans who survive are the 50,000 who were on spaceships when the attacks happened, and they're on the run.  Also, the robots look like humans, and some of them may think they are human until their programming switches on.  So, any of the main characters could be bad guys. 

You have prejudice - I understand.  Yes, these things are true about it:
-It is science fiction
-It is on the Sci Fi Channel
-The humans are not from Earth
-They are in space on spaceships

Do you like Star Wars?  Because Battlestar Galactica is way less geeky sci-fi than that.  There are no Wookiees, Ewoks, talking catfish, talking obese lizards, talking fact, there are no aliens at all.  

Do you like the Terminator movies?  BSG also has killer robots that look like humans, including hot chicks (yes, I deliberately used Tricia Helfer's hot picture to help sell my post).

How about 24?  BSG is the only other show that handles controversial political topics and sometimes is even ballsier than 24.

Lost? BSG also handles a large cast of characters who are so well written and acted that you forget your bias against "sci fi."

Of the three people I have persuaded to give this show a chance, all three have become huge fans.  It has better action, acting, and writing than most shows on TV.  

Thursday, January 01, 2009

2008 MOTY Winner: Jack Holland

A special congrats to a dear friend, cousin, and sportscaster: John Joseph Holland IV has officially won our annual Man of the Year contest. After a total of 60 votes cast, Jack coasted to victory with a comfortable margin last night, garnering 56% of the vote over Jason's 44%. I've had the pleasure of knowing Jack since the age of 2 and I can tell you he is one of the humblest people you'll meet. So he'll act like he doesn't know what you're talking about when you go to congratulate him on this most prestigious of accomplishments. Kind of like Reardon. Anyway, thanks to all who participated and congratulations Jack.