Hillary's picture

AP ran an unusual picture of Hillary Clinton yesterday.



The caption?

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is pictured through a video viewfinder as she speaks during a news conference in Amman September 16, 2010.

Okay.

But, I'm wondering about that viewfinder. I've seen something like that before. If I could just remember where.

The SEC East has turned upside down

In the Southeast Conference, each team's goal is to win its division. You got to do that to make it to the conference championship game. And, if you win that, you are pretty much guaranteed a spot in the faux National Championship game.

When the college football season starts, every team (theoretically) controls its own destiny. Essentially, as long as you win your games, you'll play in the conference championship game.

When the season started, all six teams in the SEC East controlled their destiny. Now, after four weeks of play, that number is down to three.

My team, the University of Georgia, isn't one of those three. If UGA wins out, they still aren't guaranteed the SEC East title. Tennessee is in the same boat. If Tennessee wins out, they could still be left out, if, for instance, Florida also wins out.

Kentucky, too, can win out and still not take the SEC East.

So, guess what three teams in the SEC East are in the situation of controlling their own destiny?

Well, one is the University of Florida. If the Gators win the rest of their games, they'll be the only unbeaten team in the SEC East, and win the division.

South Carolina is another team that would win the East if they win out. They have a conference loss, but if the Gamecocks win out, the worst they could do would be tied with Florida, but would win the tie-breaker because they would have beaten the Gators.

The last of the Final Three? Vanderbilt.

Yes, Vanderbilt University would win the SEC East if they win out. They have one conference loss, but if the Commodores win out, the worst they could do would be tie Florida, and would win the head-to-head tiebreaker.

If I had told you before the season started that, going into Week Five, Florida, South Carolina, and Vanderbilt would be the only teams that control their own destiny, you'd think I was nuts.

Turns out that 2010 college football is nuts, instead.

Gonna be an interesting rest of the season.

How 'bout them dogs

For many, many years, fans of the Georgia Bulldogs have cried "How 'Bout Them Dawgs!"

No so much this year. And, when it's said, it'd be more appropriate to say "How 'bout them dogs" instead.

The difference is that "Dawgs" is an affectionate way to refer to the Georgia Bulldogs. But, in this instance, "dogs" refers to the performance of this year's team.

Georgia's problems this year are a delight to many who don't care for UGA. And, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran the most obvious headline of the season: "Fans upset about Bulldogs' losses." Well, duh.

This year has been a rough one. And, it began before the season started, when they had so many players arrested for ... well, you name it. Misdemeanors, sure, but crimes nonetheless. And, it hasn't stopped. This week, another player was arrested. That's 10 this year. One more, and they can film "Longest Yard II" in Athens.

Why have so many UGA players been arrested? Because that's a place that's out of control.

Who is to blame?

• The players, for being old enough to know better, but not doing better.
• And they players' parents, for not raising them better.
• And the coaches, for not making the players have to face consequences all along.
• And the UGA administration, for making some really stupid decisions in hiring. 
• And the fans, for putting up with it ... as long as UGA won.

Just so you know, I was not in favor of UGA hiring Mark Richt to begin with. I would have preferred that Paul Johnson, Georgia Tech's current coach, been hired instead. But, that was a pipe dream.

Think back. It was after the 2000 season, and Jim Donnan was the UGA coach, and Vince Dooley was the Athletic Director. UGA president Michael Adams wanted Donnan gone, and Dooley didn't. So, Adams fired Donnan.

If Donnan had stayed, as Dooley had wished, would Donnan have reached the levels of success that UGA fans wanted? Maybe not. But, while Donnan's Bulldogs teams never reached the success of Richt's, his never reached the lows that Richt's are experiencing right now.

Anyway, after Donnan's Division 1-AA background, there's no way they'd replace him with another 1-AA coach, as was Johnson at the time (he was Georgia Southern's coach).

But, hiring Richt? Whose coaching career of 14 of 15 years as an assistant was at Florida State? Or Tallahassee State Prison, as it might more properly be known. FSU has been out of control for years, but the fans there didn't care, because they won.

Sounds a lot like what I was worried about with Richt coming to UGA.

And, much like FSU, UGA's football team has no discipline.

Now, as a person, I suspect that Mark Richt is a fine man. I've heard nothing bad about him. But, learning how to coach college by learning at FSU isn't how you learn to run a disciplined program. And now UGA is an undisciplined program.

But, this last arrest has led to a dismissal from the team. Of course, that player had never played a down for UGA. So, the net impact to the team is zero. It's not like Richt stepped up and kicked a star player off the team. And I'm not sure he would.

And that's the problem.

If you are a star at UGA, you can do whatever you want and nothing bad will happen. And, when the team is winning, the whole team is a star. When you're 0-3 in the SEC, players that don't start will get kicked off the team.

Should UGA fire Richt? No. Not right now, anyway.

UGA isn't a very good football team right now. If, by the end of the season, they are a good team, then perhaps that means that Richt finally has things under control. After 10 years.

If not, though, I fully expect to see the state's unemployment rate go up more -- by an amount that's equal to the UGA coaching staff -- at the end of this season.

Oh, look! Another idiot has a computer. Isn't that cute!

Every so often, you run across total nutcases on them Internets. Then, every so often, a nutcase runs across you.

Friday night, a little before 9 o'clock, a new comment appeared in the moderation queue. I was at a football game, so I gave it a quick look when the notification arrived. It was a long rambling thing that appeared to be from someone who was mixing his medications again. I decided it could wait until I got back from the game.

When I got back, a little after midnight (it was an away game), I looked in detail at the comment. And I discovered that my first impression was probably correct.

Probably. But not definitely. Because he might not have been mixing his meds. He may have never been properly diagnosed and never was taking the meds he so desperately needs.

Here is the post he left a comment on. The comment isn't there, but that's the post he wanted to leave me a message about. Go ahead and click it if you like. It's the one I wrote about a new spam feature that Google added to their Blogger platform. Let me sum up: Google added spam filters to Blogger, and it's about time. Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

Only, this clown seems to think that I'm running Google. Or their Blogger division. Or maybe the Spam Filter division. Or something. Who knows what he thinks.

Here's what he wrote:

You know, this is a lie. The spam filter is a farce. I'm usually a nice guy and easy to get along with, but this is a joke, an absolute joke.

Here's a link to what you claim isn't supposed to be happening:

http://www.blogger.com/comment-spam.g?blogID=21219785

Only Blogger can access this because it's my spam box. In in there are basically 365 spam comments from the same nutcase since Augusts 26th.

Some of them threaten my life.

It is NOT that much trouble to allow me to block IP addresses. I am an adult. I demand the capability to do this with idiots like this just as newspaper editors have the right not to publish a letter to the editor.

I am so very pissed about this. I received over 50 of these comments today alone!

I will hound you about this. I am nobody to you but I will run a campaign about this if you do not do something about this immediately.

Apply the golden rule,. What would YOU do if this were you?

I am so thoropughly frustrated about this.

Get with it.

Here's his Google/Blogger user profile page.

He's been blogging since July 2005 (that's almost as long as I have). And he still thinks it's a good idea to call someone a liar in the first sentence.

Then, he says the spam filter isn't working ... then tries to prove it by pointing to 365 items in his spam filter! Seems it worked 365 times, based on the information he provided.

Then, he says he's going to hound me unless I do something about the situation. Like I'm in charge of the spam filter, which, by the way, sucks because it works or something.

Anyway, you read what he wrote. And you have a link to his profile page. Which contains his email address, if you want to write him and offer encouragement or something.

Me? I'm going to grant his request. I will do something about the situation. I just posted his comment (which is in the spam queue) so everyone could see it. And see what an idiot he is. That ought to make him happy.

One final thought: based on what he wrote in the comment and the information on his profile page, I'm guessing that he voted for Obama. Because that's what idiots do. That and leave idiotic comments that the spam filters catch.

Dear Delaware: Choose Wisely

Republican Christine O'Donnell says that, in high school, she "dabbled in witchcraft."

Democrat Chris Coons called himself a "bearded Marxist."

Let's review:

Dabbled in witchcraft

Bearded Marxists

Hey, Delaware: Choose wisely

Whatever you do, don't call your wife a purple blob

I've worn glasses most of my life. I'm near-sighted. Very, very near-sighted. Without my glasses, everything over a distance of 3-5 feet away looks like blobs of color.

So, this morning, right after I stepped into the shower, I realized something I needed to ask The Wife.

Although we will often car-pool, today she was planning to drive separate. And, when I thought of what I needed to ask, I was concerned that she might leave before I finished the shower. And, since it would impact her route to work, depending on her answer, I stepped out of the shower, grabbed my robe, walked through the bedroom, and opened the door to the living room.

Notice that I did not say that I picked up my eyeglasses.

So, when I opened the door, I was pretty much blind. I could see shapes and colors, and that's about all. She was sitting in a dark rocker-recliner, wearing dark pants, and a purple top.

I asked her what I needed, and she agreed. Only, she agreed by nodding her head. I think. I saw some movement of a shape and color, but couldn't be sure if it was a nod yes or shake no.

"I can't tell if you nodding your head or shaking your head. All I see is a purple blob," I said.

I couldn't see the look on her face, but I could hear it in her voice when she said "Yes."

I had never known that "yes" could be such a terrifying word.

If you wear glasses, wear them. Avoids all kinds of unpleasantness. Trust me on this.

Don't ask, I'll tell

The current fake issue of the day is... Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).

Yes, it's a fake issue.

If it was a real issue, the Democrats would have approached yesterday's vote in another manner. More on how the Democrats could repeal DADT in a moment. For now, we should all be honest and recognize that throwing issues like this into appropriations bills are intended to make political capital, nothing more.

Yesterday, 40 Republican Senators joined Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and two other Democrat Senators in voting against DATA attachments to a defense authorizations bill. Who says the GOP won't work with the Senate leadership?

What does the vote mean for Republicans? Nothing. Not a single Republican lost a November vote and not a single Democrat picked up a November vote.

Now, if the Senate wants to take on DADT, then the Senate should take on DADT, not back door it. So to speak.

But should the Senate address DADT?

The solution seems simple to me: if the Commander-in-Chief directs military personnel to ignore the current restrictions and to drop all DADT prosecutions. And he can promise (and -- this is key -- deliver) pardons to anyone who is prosecuted in defiance of his orders. At least, that's what I would do. And it would work.

Why won't Obama do it?

He has nothing to gain by doing it.

If he did, the whole issue would go away. No Republican president would revoke the decision after January 20, 2013. DADT would effectively be dead. And, eventually, DADT would come off the books.

But, like I said, Obama won't do it. Because it would take away a cudgel the Democrats use against Republicans.

Obama and the Democrats don't want to win the issue. They had large enough majorities to make it happen for a year and a half.

So, what do they want? They want to argue the issue.

Because if they have something to point at and say "Look how unfair this is!" then they have a distraction from the real issues. Like the socialist policies they believe in, and how they are damaging this country.

And that's damage that no army -- no matter how many heterosexuals or homosexuals make up that army -- can defend against.