It has been a slow start to the training season. My knee is feeling better, but I have contracted the cold, riff with unbearable sinus pressure, that has been sweeping Portland, Oregon. Just as I thought things were going to get rolling I have already missed several workouts this week. It seems I am finding it difficult to sustain any kind of momentum this winter. If this continues I will be slow come June 21st.
2.24.2009
2.08.2009
2.07.2009
influenced part 2
I made some inadvertent, but blatant, omissions in the last list I hastily through up. Oops. Below are the additions.
Albert Camus
Louis-Ferdinand Celine
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Emily Dickinson (For You Kate)
Jean-Paul Sartre
Leo Tolstoy
Richard Yates
Albert Camus
Louis-Ferdinand Celine
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Emily Dickinson (For You Kate)
Jean-Paul Sartre
Leo Tolstoy
Richard Yates
2.02.2009
franchise
I listen to sports radio almost exclusively when driving by myself. It is my not so secret indulgence. It seems to make me nostalgic for a time that feels too long ago now, often distilled into half hour radio segments as I run errands for my job. I have been ridiculed and taunted by my family with their religious devotion to NPR and its news. I have long given that up for what can only be called male soap opera, complete with heroes and villains, love and hate. Sports radio is a man's equivalent to Days of our Lives, but I am unashamed.
Today, on one program, there was a pertinant post Super Bowl discussion of the franchise quarterbacks in the NFL. Discussing sports exists on two levels, one being winners and losers. This discussion is black and white. Scores determine winners and records, eventually champions. This elementary discussion always evolves into something more gray. This is the spectral discussion of 'Why?'
Today the discussion about franchise QB's devolved into first defining what franchise means and finally which one's in the NFL were and which were not. This is a classic example of sports discussion. First you have to take a very specific word, like franchise, place an extraneous meaning on it, then argue. In this case franchise, as defined by the host, was that the QB, no matter what happened would still be the quarterback the next week. The team and its organziation would, barring an injury, still play the quarterback week after week no matter the performance in any singular game.
Security defined by performance. That would be nice.
Today, on one program, there was a pertinant post Super Bowl discussion of the franchise quarterbacks in the NFL. Discussing sports exists on two levels, one being winners and losers. This discussion is black and white. Scores determine winners and records, eventually champions. This elementary discussion always evolves into something more gray. This is the spectral discussion of 'Why?'
Today the discussion about franchise QB's devolved into first defining what franchise means and finally which one's in the NFL were and which were not. This is a classic example of sports discussion. First you have to take a very specific word, like franchise, place an extraneous meaning on it, then argue. In this case franchise, as defined by the host, was that the QB, no matter what happened would still be the quarterback the next week. The team and its organziation would, barring an injury, still play the quarterback week after week no matter the performance in any singular game.
Security defined by performance. That would be nice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)