Saturday, March 25, 2006

my bleeding heart catharsis

i'm sure you've heard the term 'bleeding heart liberal.' it's the conservative way of mocking the left's dedication to social welfare programs. slang-slinging republicans contend that many liberals hear a single sob story and then forge their entire political doctrine with the aim of helping that poor unfortunate soul. that's fine, the conservative might say, but the problem is that these 'bleeding heart' agendas tend to offer free hand-outs to a vast contingent of welfare abusers.

politically, i fall somewhere between the bleeding hearts and their conservative counterparts. however, i'm starting to develop a bleeding heart complex of an altogether different kind: i'm becoming a 'bleeding heart sports fan.' after the seahawks unfathomable playoff loss and the uw huskies sweet sixteen loss, i just can't help complaining about the biased stated of officiating in sports. seriously, i'm sick of sports. that is, i'm sick of sports officiating, and unfortunately, in most sports it's impossible to separate the two. maybe i should join the rest of america and take up nascar.

i don't mean to scapegoat the boys in black and white, i just can't see why they have to make themselves the pivotal piece of sports. refs are like wallpaper -- you only notice them if the colors aren't right. friday's NCAA battle of the dawgs featured more foul calls than minutes, including several lopsided calls against uw that turned the tide of the game in favor of uconn (e.g., the double foul on roy). actually, i think that lorenzo deserves serious props for holding off the uconn advance while half of his starters sat on the pine. and, aggg! the missed goal-tending call? if the refs can swap fouls back and forth between players several minutes after the original play, why can't they review a simple goaltending call? in any case, as sean wrote in yesterday's comments, uw certainly made some stupid mistakes (although, i don't think applebee was necessarily wrong to dish it off. in that situation, i think you really do want to let some more time slip off the clock. besides, wasn't the lane filled with several big guys? applebee wasn't the one to make the awful pass...), uconn showed some more last-minute heroics, and ultimately, us seattle fans should (just forget about the bad calls and) simply be proud of our dawgs.

(but, holy sammamish, it sure is hard)

ps. have you ever wondered what it would be like to roll around in liquid wax? do you think you would burn yourself? it hurts a bit when you stick your finger in candle wax, but it certainly doesn't burn. well, obviously you couldn't dunk your head, but i think it might be fun.

2 comments:

The Dude said...

As far as I know, you can put wax on your finger or even on your leg or something (to remove hair) and it doesn't burn because it's not very hot for very long. But if you dunk yourself in wax it will cook you! (I seem to remember that most candles melt between 140 and 190 depending on the oils added.) But hey, people used to bathe in milk or blood or any number of wierd things (they used to thing that water was bad for you, that's why your skin wrinkled when it got wet), so you go ahead and bathe in wax and tell us how it went.

andrew said...

at first i thought, 'nasty! a bath of blood -- uggh.' but, while i see no glamour in blood baths, these medieval folk had a point: it really does suck getting dishpanny hands.

soooo...perhaps it might be less dangerous to take a wax shower. above your head you have a super candle burning that burns so vigorously that (a neverending supply of) wax spills down on you. its hot/warm at first contact, but no longer 140 degrees warm. and then all the wax at your feet cools, constantly forming an ever-generating floor. fun!