D.U.M.B.A.S.S.

by Slate Quicksilver

Sometimes new parents prove to the world why there should be, at minimum, a test before being allowed to have a child. This is not a stamp on the hot button issue of abortion, this is more of a promotion of the idea of "let's remove everyone's baby making components (re: not the WHOLE THING) until you can pass a test proving you won't ruin your/the kid's life due to your own stupidity." Names are a simple thing and should be in the first 5 questions.

***EXAMPLE QUESTION***
If you were to have a child, what would you consider as a name?

The correct answer would be a normal, simple name and a unique name would be accepted as long as a committee, who of course would convene over this pressing matter, approved it. This would eliminate names like: Presley, N'Qua, Billy Jo Bob, Lane and Tonkqwainla (SPOILER ALERT! REAL NAMES/SPELLINGS!). If the committee rejects your letter, a list of recommended and, more importantly, allowed names will be provided for you as long as you don't fail the test by eating the paper or answering "Leave Baby in your 2005 Hyundai Solar Oven while you go buy a carton of Marlboros and a fresh bottle of Seagram's 7." (That one would eliminate baby making in the entire state of South Carolina. My idea sounds better and better doesn't it?)

On that question, there is really only one truly wrong answer.

This is that answer.

Upon giving this as your answer for the name question, your baby making parts will be removed and thrown into a ditch, covered with gasoline and set ablaze while you watch. This would be done not just because we don't want a kid as unfortunately named as such, but because if you are that dumb to name you kid that, we should assume your next kid will have an equally stupid name (Yes, we know you'll reproduce at least once more after that terrible of a name because that's what stupid people do... they reproduce).

Oh, what's that? You were born in 1970? Local supporters of a geographic rival jokingly suggested you were the reason for your team's misfortune for the LAST 40 YEARS of failure? That makes PERFECT sense! And now, 40 years later your son is born and why not use backward logic on already ludicriously stupid logic to try to create a wonderful logic multiball in order to shoot the Ramp of Logic 3 times to get the SUPER MEGA LOGIC JACKPOT by hurting your son's chances at any relevance in life in an attempt to somehow get your team to win a Super Bowl by giving him initials that not only spell your team's name out but also is a cheer for the team. Frankly sir, that is as bulletproof in terms of logic as wishing your mom started dinner 5 minutes earlier because she said dinner would be ready in 5 minutes and wanted dinner now.

One can only hope that tests for baby making is instituted sooner than later or else we will see more names like this: P.A.C.K.E.R.S.: Peter Aaron Charlie Knight Ellen Rogers Simonsen.

Being a Jinx: Why My Predictions Are Bad Luck

Posted by Iroquois Plisken

It is doubtless that faithful readers of the blog noted that the one week we failed to mention Iowa, they go down to a scrappy Northwestern team. I also summarily wrecked any Josh Nesbitt H---man chances, a mere day after I wrote:

Crouch: 1,500 yards passing with 7 TD's and a 134 rating while rushing for 1,100 yards with 18 TD's.
Nesbitt (current): 1,172 yards passing with 6 TD's and a 158 rating while rushing for 763 yards with 13 TD's.
Nesbitt (projected): 1,563 yards passing with 8 TDs and a 158 rating while rushing for 1,018 yards with 18 TD's.

In a year with no runaway candidate, why not Nesbitt, especially if Ga Tech wins the ACC?

Sure enough, he goes out and stinks up the joint against Wake Forest, though he was incredibly clutch when he needed to be. Further on the point, regular readers surely know that I crushed the playoff hopes of the Braves (and likely the rest of the teams that I predicted would do well), in addition to my misguided call of Dodgers in 6.

So, why does it seem like most calls that I (or perhaps you) make end up being wrong? Perhaps we just exist so that Vegas can make money, though most might call things differently with money on the line. There's some fairly accurate predictor of presidential elections (I forget where I saw it; I'm sure some Google expert can find it) that has people guess who will win the presidency on two levels. First, the pollees are asked who they want to win. Next, they ask if, they were to put money on the line, who they think will win. More often than not, people's money-line predictions tend to be truer to form than their gut instinct. Of course, I realize elections and sports don't parallel and has a much smaller sample size, but I find it interesting at the very least.

Perhaps I'm just not good at this prognostication thing. This is probably true. It makes the so-called expert/analyst predictions all the better when they hit a high clip of their predictions. Most likely, though, it just speaks to the thrill of the sport and to the nature of humans to try and rationalize their problems basing themselves as the root cause. We all want to believe we're great on some level, and for some, their sports prediction knowledge is what they metaphorically hang their hat on. Failure at this equivocates to failure at life.

I don't pride myself on knowing everything about sports. Like most, I have opinions about sports, some more correct than others, and I have my predispositions to teams/events/coaches. But, mostly...

I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHY I CAN'T WIN $1M FOR FAILING TO PICK 30 IN A ROW CORRECT ON ESPN'S STREAK FOR THE CASH. IT'S JUST AS HARD TO BE WRONG 30 TIMES IN A ROW AS IT IS TO BE RIGHT 30 TIMES IN A ROW!