Brilliant!!

I am brilliant.

The missus likes to go to basketball games. Mind you, she doesn't like to watch the game. She likes being out, walking amongst the throngs, watching the non-basketball entertainment ... but not the basketball. We're pretty stereotypical this way. She asks all the "wrong" questions and continually yaps through the game. Then, when she sees my brother(s) and I talking during the games on TV, she gets mad because we're "talking." She doesn't understand the rules of talking while watching a sporting event. Rules such as:

1. Making fun of anyone, anytime, about anything is always allowed.

2. A quick paraphrase from some reporter (or, these days, blogger) who is "in the know" is acceptable so long as it relates to the game or the sport.

3. To paraphrase, "Brevity is ... wit." Quick quips are the key.

4. Random observations, witty or not, are generally well-received.

The most important part of the etiquette is that un-spoken and un-written rule of just "knowing" when to shut up. Most guys have an innate and indescribable understanding of the rule.

In any event, we almost always get into an argument because she wants to talk but doesn't understand the rules of conversation at a sporting event.

So, I'm looking at my wasted preseason tickets for Saturday night. Yes, "wasted" is the right word. I've got to pay full price for those lousy tickets just to get the 41 other tickets? It's robbery but I let it happen.

Being a "win-win" sort of guy, I took two negatives and made a positive: Take the wife to the preseason game.

She gets to go out and babble on and I'm not watching a game in which I'm paticularly interested. She can talk and because I don't care about the outcome of the game, I won't bitch at her for not following the rules. Everyone wins! Who knows? I might even have a two-hour conversation with my wife!

Brilliant!!

The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth

Over in the Star Wars blogosphere, I just put something up about the acquisition and use of power. As I was reading a Celtic mythology anthology by Peter Berresford Ellis, I can across this proverb:

"It is not he who has little that's poor, but he who desires more."

This is interesting because I was reading a money article on the internet a few months ago (I don't remember who wrote it). The author stated that giving to charity makes you feel wealthy for a couple of reasons. One, you realize there are those worse off than you, and, two, you feel kind of philanthropic about yourself.

When you do not "desire more" you are also accepting of others and making the attempt to be happy with yourself.

Kind of like the Gin Blossoms, I suppose:

"Don't expect too much of me and you'll never be let down."

Or, like jkthunder says,

"The higher you rise, the further you fall."

The "desire more" in here can be deceiving. It's not a call to ditch your car and clothes and other stuff. It's a call to put it in perspective. You need to look at Maslowe's Pyramid and figure out where you're at on it. Put your position into perspective.

Some may call this humility, but I think "humility" misses the point. Humility is a part of it, but not all of it. I think it's more about acceptance and realization of the situation.

I do appreciate where I'm at in life. I'd like to think that once I get to be the "rich man" I'll appreciate it even more without coveting that which others possess. Being poor is relative -- that's Economics 101, someone is always going to be poor. So, according to this proverb, it is the state of desire that creates poverty, or the perception thereof ("perception is reality" and that whole line of thinking).

So You Want to Fight, Do You?

This is where I'm going to post some comments to my letter from Stern, et al., re-explaining the decision to suspend Amare and Boris. A FULL WEEK after the suspensions four days after the Suns were eliminated, Stern and Jackson decided to explain themselves yet again. Why? Why did the email go out on the day of the Draft Lottery?

I'm just going to pick apart some lines. Sort of a brainstorm before the more focused and articulate response comes out.

I have to put something in out of order, because I don't know where it goes, but its bugging me. Someone (maybe more) in that national media said that the suspension really hurt because Amare and Boris were primarily responsible for guarding Duncan. Well, maybe in Game 1. Please, don't try to do us any favors; get your facts straight so I'm not lumped in with your un-educated opinion.

To paraphrase The Bard once again, "Methinks Stern doth protest too much." This is where the fun begins:

"Thank you for taking the time to contact us about the suspensions of Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw of the Phoenix Suns. Although we probably will not change your mind, we wanted to share with you the rationale for the rule and the facts requiring our decision."

Translation: "Let me patronize a little more. I seem to still keep getting heat for this thing and you babies should just listen."

"Although we probably will not change your mind ..."

Condescending is not a strong enough adjective here. They know we just can't get it through out little heads and wanted to take the opportunity to point that out again.

"The Rule
Rule 12, Section VII(c) of the NBA Official Playing Rules says: 'During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench. Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $50,000.'"·

Okay? But where are the terms "altercation" and "immeidate vicinity" defined. A wrote one about this already. How can you have a "bright line" rule that creates "strict liability" if the terms are not defined? Come on, Dave, you're supposed to be a layer.

"The purpose of the rule is to prevent an on-court altercation from getting worse by making sure that players on the bench do not become involved -- whether or not they intend to."

So, intention is not a part of the decision? Didn't Stern talk about Duncan's "intent," "body language," and "facial expressions" on the now-infamous Dan Patrick Interview. Dave, so we're sure, which part should I be writing down? That which you email me or the words that you utter?

"The fewer the number of players on the court, the less likely it is that an altercation will escalate and the more likely it is that the referees and coaches will be able to restore order without serious injury to players or to fans."

This is why he makes the big bucks.

· The rule doesn't look to the intent of the players leaving the bench and it does not distinguish among the curious, the peacemakers or those seeking to become involved in the altercation.

Tim Duncan and Bruce Bowen?

"The reason for this is simple -- the players on the court have no idea what a player's intent is when he leaves the bench and in the heat of the moment they may well assume the player is approaching as an aggressor. Thus, the language of the rule is firm: 'violators will be suspended.'"

I'm not going to re-hash this one as everyone has already linked to all of the other exceptions that have been made. Did all those guys in the Knicks-Nuggets "altercation" that came off the bench get suspended? I dont' know.

"· This is not a rule that can be enforced on a case-by-case basis"

Then, why have you done so in the past? And with Bowen and Duncan? It gets a lot better below when he starts talking about the intentions of Amare and Boris. Buckle up.

" -- if a player were able to leave the bench and later argue his case and avoid a suspension, there would be more players leaving the bench."

Do you really think so? Perhaps it is true. Of course, most employees are allowed some sort of hearing before being punished. I may be able to live with this comment, though.

"And because the rule has been applied consistently over the years, bench-clearing incidents have been rare."

It has not been applied consistently.

"Overall, the leaving-the-bench rule, together with others, has succeeded in dramatically reducing the amount of fighting in the league and all but eliminated serious injury during fights that do occur."

It was in place before the Brawl at Auburn Hills, right? Yeah, it was a great deterrent there.

See, this is the problem with making statements based on anecdotal evidence. That's about as logical as saying, "There's a large rock in my front yard and I've never been attacked by a bear. Do you want to purchase my bear-protecting rock so as to safeguard your family?"

In order to prove this statement, you need, at a minimum, the following:
1. An analysis of the frequency of fights in which the benches clear (or are largely emptied) both before and after the rule.
2. An analysis of the seriousness of the injuries occuring during bench-clearing brawls before and after the rule.
3. Evidence, probably based on player interviews, examining why they did not join into on-court altercations. Step 3, of course, only happens if the empirical data from 1 and 2 supports your hypothesis.

"· Teams and players are reminded of the rule before every regular season and again before the playoffs. Teams try to ensure that their players comply with the rule by both reminding them of it and assigning assistant coaches the job of keeping players in the vicinity of the bench when incidents do occur."

As soon as the coaches could, they turned around and tried to keep everyone back. They did a good job. Again, though, please give a definition of "vicinity" that is less vague than "between 1 and 25 feet from your seat."

"· As soon as Steve Nash was fouled, both Amare and Boris ran toward the scene, each ending up over 20 feet away from the Suns' bench and near the altercation."

So, every hard foul is automatically an "altercation"? That's interesting.

In any event, "immediately" after the foul, nothing was going on. Nash was in a heap and Horry was walking away like a boxer after a knock-out blow.

"Despite what many have said, they didn't 'walk' a few feet from the bench and they didn't 'wander' onto the court."

Are you saying they ran over to Nash? Maybe they did, I can't remember right now.

"· No one knew what the players' intentions were when they left the bench and they could very easily have gotten involved in the altercation had it spilled over in their direction."

I think we can agree this happened very near the Suns' bench. If they had stood up and the "altercation" spilled over toward them, would they have been in trouble.

At this point, you may want to stop me and say, "That's quite a few 'what-ifs' and we're not dealing in hypotheticals here." I'd be forced to agree with you, but I'd also point out that you should have easy, very defensible answers if it's such a clear-cut, bright-line rule.

"Zero tolerance," right? That means all you have to do is robotically answer and not make any decisions. Decision-making without using judgment is always what leads to the robots taking over humankind in the sci-fi movies.

"And although you could say they were having a "natural" reaction to seeing their teammate go down, assistant coaches are supposed to stop bench players from acting on those kinds of reactions,"

Again, Duncan in the second period. Look, you applied "judgment" and "discretion" to that situation but not to this one.

Oh, wait a second. I reminded everyone to buckle up, right? What "reactions" are the coaches supposed to stop? The "natural" ones?

Stu Jackson said that he's never seen anyone "trying to check in like Amare did." Why is that relevant, Stu?
Answer: Because you guys made it relevant by dancing around the Duncan-in-the-second-period question.

"which was the case with the 17 other players (active and inactive) who were on the benches at the time and did not leave."

Why is this relevant? Who cares what they were thinking, right? Who cares about their "intent," right? Are you trying to point out that not everyone gets up every time? Yeah, we all know it can be done. I suppose these two guys are just too stupid to follow along with what everyone else does.

Didn't We Already Get Over This?

I was about ready to let this go. In fact, I had let it go. Now, however, days after the fact, the NBA decides to poor salt in the (closed) wound with this pathetic, pandering palaver. I'm going to leave it here for a while. I'm going to be busy for a couple of days, but I will get back around to this soon. Just because it's all too easy, I'm going to post something picking this thing about. I'm also going to write an open letter to the NBA in response. I'll probably post that letter, too.

For Pete's sake! Who's having trouble getting past this?

"Methinks Stern doth protest too much."

Here is what was in my email inbox today:

Thank you for taking the time to contact us about the suspensions of Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw of the Phoenix Suns. Although we probably will not change your mind, we wanted to share with you the rationale for the rule and the facts requiring our decision.
The Rule
Rule 12, Section VII(c) of the NBA Official Playing Rules says: "During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench. Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $50,000."
· The purpose of the rule is to prevent an on-court altercation from getting worse by making sure that players on the bench do not become involved -- whether or not they intend to. The fewer the number of players on the court, the less likely it is that an altercation will escalate and the more likely it is that the referees and coaches will be able to restore order without serious injury to players or to fans.
· The rule doesn't look to the intent of the players leaving the bench and it does not distinguish among the curious, the peacemakers or those seeking to become involved in the altercation. The reason for this is simple -- the players on the court have no idea what a player's intent is when he leaves the bench and in the heat of the moment they may well assume the player is approaching as an aggressor. Thus, the language of the rule is firm: "violators will be suspended."
· This is not a rule that can be enforced on a case-by-case basis -- if a player were able to leave the bench and later argue his case and avoid a suspension, there would be more players leaving the bench. And because the rule has been applied consistently over the years, bench-clearing incidents have been rare. Overall, the leaving-the-bench rule, together with others, has succeeded in dramatically reducing the amount of fighting in the league and all but eliminated serious injury during fights that do occur.
· Teams and players are reminded of the rule before every regular season and again before the playoffs. Teams try to ensure that their players comply with the rule by both reminding them of it and assigning assistant coaches the job of keeping players in the vicinity of the bench when incidents do occur.
The Facts Requiring the Stoudemire and Diaw Suspensions
· As soon as Steve Nash was fouled, both Amare and Boris ran toward the scene, each ending up over 20 feet away from the Suns' bench and near the altercation. Despite what many have said, they didn't "walk" a few feet from the bench and they didn't "wander" onto the court. In fact, they engaged in the very conduct the rule was meant to stop.
· No one knew what the players' intentions were when they left the bench and they could very easily have gotten involved in the altercation had it spilled over in their direction. And although you could say they were having a "natural" reaction to seeing their teammate go down, assistant coaches are supposed to stop bench players from acting on those kinds of reactions, which was the case with the 17 other players (active and inactive) who were on the benches at the time and did not leave.
As with all NBA rules, this one can be changed by a vote of the Board of Governors. Rules are typically changed following a recommendation from the Competition Committee, which will discuss the leaving-the-bench rule (along with several other items) at its next meeting. At this time, we don’t have a better rule to recommend.
One thing everyone can agree on: this was an extremely unfortunate circumstance. We never want to suspend players for any game, much less a playoff game, but for all the reasons described above, the facts dictated the application of the rule.

Requiem for an NBA Season

Before I start, I want to put everything in a little perspective …

The universe is something like 15 to 20 billion years old (that’s nine zeroes). The planet earth is about 4 billion years old. The apes that eventually became humans appeared over 2 million years ago (the dinosaurs died out over 60 million years before that), and “thinking man” is less than 50,000 years old.

One day in high school this hit me like a ton of bricks. Rather than become a depressed Cadmus existentialist, I scorned Sisyphus and decided those two had missed the point. On a very cosmic level, we will never succeed, but in transcendent moments, we do have some high points.

Watching Steve Nash during the post-game for Game 6, I wondered, “How many times do you have to lose before you succeed?” I look around at myself and, while congratulating myself on how far I’ve come, I consider all that I haven’t accomplished and all that I won’t accomplish.

The human spirit strives for perfection, but humans never attain it. Sometimes, we get glimpses of perfection and success, but these are fleeting moments. For some reason, though, we keep going back for more.

You can be nihilistic about it, only focusing on the failure to get that rock up the hill, or we can embrace the ride. If you’re moving through life with blinders on, you’ll certainly miss quite a bit. I encourage you (and me) to ditch the atheistic existentialist view and embrace the transcendental view.

Fitting, too, that this occurred over the Feast of the Ascension. That time between Easter and Pentecost when the Apostles didn’t know what to do. Huddled and hiding in an apartment. Waiting, wondering and scared. Thinking to themselves, “What the hell are we going to do now?” Remember when you got married, changed jobs or had a child? What the hell? Right?

I can hear D’Antoni saying, “Look, this is fun. We’re trying our best and enjoying the ride.” He’s not the best tactical coach ever, but I appreciate him for this strategic attitude. Too bad basketball’s not more like football where the head coach isn’t much more than a glorified cheerleader – a strategist – and the assistants do all of the nuts-and-bolts work for the team.

Or, as Homer Simpson would say, “Feel that pounding in your chest and that tingling in your left arm?”

How can you do anything but smile? This is fun. This is exciting. This is what life is about.

Pentecost for the disciples of the Suns is coming on Tuesday. If the Suns are truly cursed, then Atlanta – against the odds – gets the number 3 pick. If not, we’ll get some divine intervention. If it goes well, maybe the pre-game introductions should have a flame over Steve Nash's head instead of the flames coming from his fingers.

Either way, though, we’ll be back for the ride. We had some good times this year. Barbosa’s killer 3 in Chicago. The OT battles with New Jersey and Dallas. Game 5 in Phoenix was the most fun sporting event I’ve ever attended.

Damn, we had a good season. Let’s go back for more.

Today is a Good Day to Die

I actually thought about using that title in a pre-Game 5 blog, but I was just too amped to think straight. I haven't been that wired for a sporting match since I was actually on a competitive team. I really thought we were going to get blown out and keep marching, much like the final assualt in Glory.

Today, I feel so useless. At Game 5, at least I felt like I added something as a loud fan. Before going further, I've got to say that was the best sporting event I've ever been at. It was kind of like a high school basketball game; every rebound, loose ball, shot and pass had the crowd cheering.

In high school, we went to a playoff game down in Tucson our senior year to cheer on the team (we lost that game, too). I was able to get down there, though. It was loud and hostile and fun. Paul Bertolini got escorted out of that game by an armed security guard for swearing at the other team's players (we sat behind their bench). At least I felt we could do something for the team.

Being at Game 5 was something like the atmosphere of the US v. Mexico soccer match a few months ago. That was hostile territory, too, but the Mexican fans were great. It was a great scene. I went to that game thinking, "Well, I watch and try to enjoy it." But a few minutes into the match, I really wanted the US to score so I could celebrate in the middle of the enemy territory.

I'd really love to be in San Antonio today.

Alas, I'll probably be at the Dubliner in my Pat Burke jersey drinking Guinness. Not a bad place to be ...

Is this something like raising your kid and sending him off to college -- now you can only watch? Growing up in Phoenix with the Suns as our only sports team, I've lived and died with this team. We may never win a championship, but you don't love your child only if she's smart and pretty, right?

Stop babbling!

How is anyone supposed to get anything done while we're waiting?

Update:

Fear is setting in. Everyone on the radio is saying that if we get this win, we'll definitely get Game 7. Sound familiar? Yes, that what they were saying in 1993 when the Bulls came to town for Game 6.

Damn that John Paxson! You know, he was open because of Barkley. He went for a steal at the top of the key, leaving Grant open under the basket. Ainge didn't double Grant, he ran over to provide some help defense -- which was probably a good move. Then Grant kicked it to Paxson. That shot had more hang time than any punt in football history.

What Evil Lurks in Bruce Bowen's Shadow?

Here's a link to a really good entry about "the shadow" of your "true self"-- you know, that other thing, lurking around, waiting for an opportunity to take over. Good, evil and the dualistic nature of man on display. If you can't win being you, then perhaps you should unleash "the shadow" and see what happens. If being you isn't good enough, do a 180 and see where it gets you.

I'm reminded of that linebacker in the movie, The Program. The guy who starts on steroids in the off-season to get a starting spot on the team, then he excels, gets caughts and sucks again. He gets on the 'roids -- and, in a cause-and-effect sequence similar to Popeye and his spinach -- makes the big play in the big game, only to lose everything. Who would've thought that movie warranted deep psycho-analysis; but, he did paint his face while on the juice so at least there was some symbolism.

I've been sitting here wondering what really rubs me the wrong way about Bruce Bowen. I mean, he's a cheap and dirty player, but why does that bother me?

A little more literary allusion before I go on. Remember Richard Rich from A Man for All Seasons? Early in the play, he asks Sir (later Saint) Thomas More for an appointment. More refuses because he knows Rich does not have the character to steer clear of temptation and corruption. More tells him to avoid his shadow and stay out of politics.

"Be a teacher," More says.
"But who will know what I do? What about prestige?" Rich asks (I'm paraphrasing here).
"Your students. Yourself. Your Lord. How can you ask for a better audience than that?"
Not surprisingly, Rich betrays More for political reasons. It does not benefit a man to gain the whole world in exchange for his soul, but for Wales, Richard? For Wales?

Bill Simmons really pointed out Bowen's shadow in this article. He sums it up thusly:

"There's no doubt in my mind -- absolutely none -- that at some point between Boston and San Antonio, Bruce Bowen decided to do whatever it took to remain in the NBA. Even if it meant becoming a dirty player. "

Some may argue that he's not "dirty" he's merely "smart" or "opportunistic." Well, okay, you mean like an opportunistic ninja lurking in the shadows?

I'm sure if he ever reads this, he'll just laugh at me while driving off in one of his many Porsches (or some such other expensive ride). What lurks in his heart, though, that would allow his shadow to take over? It can be greed or love of money, because he seems like a relatively smart and determined guy who could've done well in many different walks of life. He had some drive, some desire to want to become dirty so that he could play in the NBA (similar to the face-painting 'roid monster or the attention-starved Rich).

Bowen is the Bill Lumburgh (Office Space) of the NBA. He represents all that is wrong with the NBA.

Stu Jackson on the Radio

I listened to Stu on both 910 and 620 this morning. He said that the rule is a "bright-line" rule and is one of "strict liability," meaning that if you leave the bench during an altercation, you're suspended.

Well, okay, but let's look at "altercation" and "immediate vicinity" again. When he was asked for a definition of each term, he gave HIS definition. Therefore, by giving HIS definition, players and coaches are left to use their ESP as to what he means by these words. In order to create a "bright-line" or "strict liability" rule, these terms should be clearly defined.

In his defense, he gave a pretty good definition (IMO) of "altercation." Notwithstanding my grievance regarding the inherent vagueness and subjective nature of the use of HIS, unwritten definitions, the defintion did make sense. See, Stu, you can exercise judgment!

I can't remember the specifics of that definition right now, but it sure made a lot of sense. Per this definition, the Duncan-on-the-court incident in the second period would not warrant discipline.

However, let's get picky on defintions, Stu, if it's such an easy rule to read. When asked what "immediate vicinity" meant, he said, "Well, 20 to 25 feet is not the 'immediate vicinity.'" He then went on to say that one foot away from the bench would be the "immediate vicinity." This means that "immediate vicinity" is somewhere between 1 and 25 feet from your seat on the bench. That is anything but a clear rule.

From here on out, an essential part of every team's staff needs to be a Stu Jackson mind-reader so they know how far off the bench the players can be.

Forgiveness

I'm just writing something down so I don't forget it. Maybe I'll come back to it later, maybe I won't.

Over the Easter weekend I was watching parts of Jesus of Nazareth and The Greatest Story Ever Told. I was very sick and slipping in and out of awake-time and un-restful sleep. I did wake up, however, to see several scenes of Jesus forgiving various sex offenders. The lady with the oil on his feet, the "throw the first stone" speech -- you know the ones.

He went out of his way to forgive these persons and chastise those that would stone them to death. The clear message I got was, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

These teachings and warnings, however, did not accompany sins like murder, rape or the more heinous crimes. Today, one may call prostitution a "victimless" crime (although there is no such thing).

It makes me wonder what Jesus would have taught had an angry mob wanted to stone a murdering rapist. It makes me wonder why the Gospel writers didn't include such a story.

On the one hand, we can infer that those who these "lesser" crimes deserve more slack. On the other, it may be that we are supposed to be able to get the message from a story or two; moreover, Jesus didn't intend for only some sinners to be forgiven.

It may not be anything. Maybe I'll re-visit this issue.

Deuce the Athlete and Julia the Sweetheart

Deuce probably won’t make millions playing basketball or football. We were doing some jumping today, and the kid’s got no hops. He’ll also probably be a lot like his old man and be just shy of six feet (maybe a little taller). It’s a shame, because he’s got a great nickname.

His cousin Declan is enormous and has a good shot at playing football. He’s like 16 pounds at three months. His head is good-sized, too.

My boss says soccer is good because one doesn’t have to be a freak of nature to excel at it.

The boy has a good tolerance for pain, though. We were practicing bounce passes tonight – I kept telling him, “Let’s pass like Steve Nash!” Since he’s a big Nash fan, we really worked the fundamentals of the bounce pass and it was fun. Except for the time he failed to catch the ball with his hands and decided to catch it with his face. He got a very bloody nose, to which his reaction was, “Daddy, I got boogers, I need to blow my nose.” A few Kleenex and a new t-shirt and we were back at it.

Last Sunday, we were at a kids’ Easter party in which there were games. He was the first kid to hit the basket three times with the bean bag. The other parents said he was “leaning in” but he was behind the line. It’s not our fault he knows the rules of the game and uses them to his advantage. They aren’t “loop-holes” if they’re written into the law.

Then, for the next game, they had the egg-in-the-spoon race. That’s the one where you have to win the race, but can’t drop the egg you’re holding in your spoon. The contestants used plastic eggs that they had hunted earlier in the day. After having the rules explained to him and experimenting with the egg in his spoon, the boy ran back over to me telling me that his egg was too big. He wanted a smaller egg that would fit better in the spoon. After the equipment change, he won the race.

Earlier last week, we were playing soccer in the back yard. We practiced kicking with both feet (I think he’s right-handed and right-footed). I said he should kick with his left foot, too. Being ambidextrous is key in soccer. Later in the night, when I complimented his ambidextrous kicking, he said, “I have two feet so I kick with two feet.” I didn’t even prompt that.

Julia is growing well. For a while there, she was very low on the weight and height charts, but she’s gaining weight. Very petite. She still has her Daddy’s blue eyes, too. Her mom’s there, too – she’s very cute but very demanding.

I like that she stares longingly at me.

We Love Little Rose

Remeber that cheesy Aerosmith song from the killer-asteroid moive with Bruce Willis? Something about refusing to close your eyes because you "don't want to miss a thing"?

I can't put my little rose down. I did have a little bit of celebratory Black Bush tonight (I had to stay off the sauce for over a month due to "baby watch") but I figured that would get me to sleep.

It does help her sleep, too. I have a way with children. It always worked with Deuce. He's got this nighttime CD with lullabies and I could always get him to sleep by the third song. I use the same tricks on the girl. I have the "touch."

As soon as she can stand, I am going to train her in the deadly arts so that no boys ever touch her. I'm also going to buy a shot-gun. Not to use, just to clean when those horny preschool boys come over.

And, just so everyone knows, this is not the typical hypocritical male-chauvinist thing. I was a pretty good kid in high school. I do know what they're thinking, but not because I was seedy euro-trash lothario. Just because I'm observant.

Deuce has helped on this one, too. He's huge now, and I don't want to miss anything. It goes so fast.

After preschool, he said that he needed to get home because Julia missed him. Tonight, I had Julia in the room with him while we were reading (the wife was catching up on sleep). She cried through about four or five books and the boy never complained. He said, "Oh, sometimes babies are cranky. I will give Julia a kiss so she feels better." Then he crawled back on my lap to read while she cried on and on.

She's been asleep for a couple hours now and I can't put her down. Having two kids just makes the house feel full. We were kind of "buddies" and friends before with the three of us, and now its more of a loud family.

She also seemed to enjoy the Suns beat the Blazers tonight.

A New Babe

“A new born
Babe brings
Light to the cottage,
Warmth to the heart,
And Joy to the soul.
For wealth is family,
Family is wealth.”

-- Irish Proverb

Well, well, well, the first Kelly girl in over 90 years.

Who's that good-lucking guy in a Pat Burke jersey?