Monday, March 28, 2011

Totally Random Rerun

I have nothing new for today (and possibly the next week or so, as I find my work to have piled up during the three days I was out sick last week, which I could tell you about but how much do you really want to hear about phlegm? All things considered a rerun is probably preferable.) So, in order to fill this space and amuse myself, I'm going to choose a past post, at random, and put it out here again today.

Since I truly will be grabbing one at random, it may make little or no sense in the current day. Or it may prove my abilities as a seer. Or it may just suck, at random, for no particular reason.

Anyway, I shall go into my archives and take post #229 (since 2/29 is our wedding anniversary.)

And the winner is...

(originally published 12/12/2006)

I have exactly eleven minutes to type up something while my macaroni is cooking and the sauce is re-heating. So, random thoughts!


I hate it when the term "B.C.E." is used when referring to the modern age. I’m a "B.C." guy - "Before Christ". It was good enough for how many hundreds of years? Now the politically correct types are using "B.C.E." - "Before Common Era".

I understand your use of that term if you’re not a Christian, OK? If you’re Jewish or a Hindu or otherwise have no belief system that includes Jesus Christ, no problem. It's most certainly not my call to tell you how to refer to the passing of years. What really boils my onions, however, is when Christian clergy use "B.C.E" instead of "B.C." What is it, exactly, that you believe in?

I was a lector at St. Bernard’s catholic church in Newton, MA, for about four years. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, a lector is a person who does Bible readings during mass. Now, during the time when I was a lector, each year I’d receive a new book detailing the readings for the coming church year. The book would have some background information concerning the readings - in case you never actually read the Bible, I guess – and one year the notes made reference to a time in the past and the author of the notes used the date "400 B.C.E."

I wrote to the Archbishop of Chicago, whose imprimatur was on the inside frontispiece, explaining to him my position as a participant in the celebration of mass at my church and asking him if he might explain to me why a church-published document would include a term specifically made up to placate people who don’t believe that Jesus Christ existed, let alone was a relative of God.

I never got an answer. That was the beginning of the end for me, insofar as the Catholic Church was concerned. Not enough to get me to indignantly quit right then and there, but it was the first of many straws that finally added up to a broken back for this camel.

What brought this to mind for me again, enough to make me want to write about it, is that I was listening to a religious discussion show on the radio this past Sunday morning. The participants were a Protestant Minister, a Jewish Rabbi, and a Catholic Priest. The Minister gave an ancient date and used "B.C.E." when saying it. I felt like reaching into the radio and... well, saying what I felt like doing wouldn’t be very Christian of me, so I’ll just swallow it.

(Later on, after she and the priest had had a discussion concerning Mary, Jesus’s mother, she apparently felt bad about monopolizing the time with a strictly Christian topic and so she tried to include the Rabbi in the discussion by asking him what Jews thought about The Virgin Mary. Well, now at least I knew why a Protestant Minister was using a term such as "B.C.E." It was because she was a dolt.

The Rabbi, bless him, was extremely diplomatic, but I could tell by the initial silence that he was as dumbfounded by this question as I was. He haltingly explained, as nicely as possible, that Mary really doesn’t enter into the minds of most Jews, generally speaking. The Priest tried to help by saying something to the effect of such a thing not being on the radar of most Jewish people and the Rabbi gratefully grabbed onto this lifeline being offered. The Minister said something profound. I think it was, "Oh, I see."

What in the Hell could she possibly have expected this poor fellow to answer? It boggles the mind. She may as well have asked him if he wanted a bite of her ham sandwich and would he like to wash it down with a big glass of clam juice.)


My macaroni is done, so I’m going to eat. There’s more than one thing bothering me, though, so I’ll be back.


OK, I’m back.

Allen Iverson has demanded to be traded. There is talk of the Celtics acquiring him.

No. Please, No.

First off, I don’t ever want anyone on my team who has demanded to be traded from his current team. Who knows how long it will be before he becomes as disgruntled in your town and demands to be traded again?

Second, there is no way Iverson can work effectively on a team that includes both Paul Pierce and Wally Szczerbiak. There just are not enough basketballs to go around for a team like that. Iverson will take at least 20 shots and given the chance, he’ll take 45 or 50.

(I’m not saying that Iverson is a totally selfish player. Despite the number of shots he puts up, I truly believe he isn’t just looking for his own numbers. He’s a warrior and I appreciate his hustle and willingness to bust his chops. However, you can’t have three guys like that on a team and expect anything but chaos.)

(You could offer Szczerbiak or Pierce in the trade, of course, but the Sixers have shown no interest in Szczerbiak and you’d be an absolute moron to offer Pierce.)

Third, the Celtics do not need a guard, even one of Iverson’s experience and talent. They have two potentially fine guards now and maybe a third.

Rajon Rondo is something special. He’ll prove that soon to the basketball world at large, once he starts getting more playing time. He is a superb passer and well above average defensively. Delonte West is perhaps the best defensive player on the team and all he needs is a continuing defined role instead of being shuffled from point to shooting guard and back to the point again. He is tremendous under pressure, the best foul shooter on the team and a three-point threat.

Sebastian Telfair may or may not be as good a player as he’s been touted. For whatever reason, he’s been ordained permanent starting point guard. I’d much rather see Rondo there, but Telfair definitely has skills; he’s not a bum. And Tony Allen is a good defensive player, one I’m willing to look at further to see if he can play up to the potential he’s shown over the 3+ seasons he’s been here.

In any case, we don’t need a guard.

Fourth, I don’t want to give up the players we’d need to give up to get Iverson. Al Jefferson? He’s finally having the type of games that I’ve been predicting for the past two years. There isn’t anybody in the league I’d trade Jefferson for at this point. Gerald Green? Rondo? West? Kendrick Perkins? Ryan Gomes? Pierce??? I don’t want to lose any of those guys. I still believe the Celtics have as much talent – albeit much of it raw – as any team in the NBA.

Getting Iverson would be a short-term fix, probably guaranteeing a playoff spot for a few years, but also fairly much guaranteeing no championships during that same time span.

We don’t need Iverson. What we need is patience.


Now, what else is currently making me angry?

I guess there’s that Iraq thing, what with people being maimed, mutilated, blown to bits and dying. World Hunger is a shame. All the talk about global warming comes to mind. AIDS is pretty bad, huh?

No. Petulant point guards and petty linguistics. That’s what really steams me.

Oy. Tomorrow, with what would have to be - by default - more better stuff.


Nope, not tomorrow. Maybe later this week, maybe not. Anyway, that was a pretty good one, albeit dated (and I don't mean BCE, unless it means Boston Celtics Era.)

Soon, With God Only Knows What


Craig said...

Man, you nailed this one, Sully. We had a perfectly good basketball team here in The D, Champs in '04, losers in Game 7 of the Finals in '05. Six straight trips to the Conference Finals (which even Isaiah and those guys back in the 80s/90s never did). And then they traded Chauncey Billups for Iverson, and that was basically the end of the era in Day-Twah. . .

Chris said...

I think the Celtics should definitely trade for Iverson. Maybe they could deal Kendrick Perkins?

Deb said...

B.C.E.? What the hell kind of PC crap is that? Now I really have heard everything.

Anonymous said...

I like your way of randomly choosing reposts.

- Jazz

Anonymous said...

B.C.E. stands for "Before Common Era"? You mean the years you and I are spending on earth are just common?! Just another politically correct insult.

(not necessarily your) Uncle Skip, said...

Effin' polite correctness has take most of the fun outta anything.
There's nothing wrong with being polite and civil, but the extremes one has to go to today are too dang much.
Thanks for the repost, Sully.

Suldog said...

Craig - Yeah, I read what I had written then and thought, "Wow! Pretty good!" Of course, in the spirit of full disclosure, I later on railed against them trading Jefferson, Green, Telfair, Gomes, and draft choices for Kevin Garnett, so I don't have a perfect record at predictions :-)

Trading Billups was a horrible move, of course. I couldn't believe it when I heard that the Pistons did that

Suldog said...

Chris - Funny guy. If you've noticed the C's results lately, it appears my dire thoughts concerning Danny Ainge's latest adventures were correct. Of course, see above, concerning Garnett. That said, there's only one way Danny gets credit for a good trade here, and that's if the Celtics win the ring this year. If they do, Doc Rivers should get Coach Of The Year. Danny changed a full third of his roster with about 20 games left on the schedule. Amazingly dumb.

Suldog said...

Deb - Yup. Nuff said.

Jazz - You shouldn't encourage me. I might commit the same crime again.

Hamster - Indeed. I refuse to be common!

Uncle Skip - See all of the above :-)

Clare Dunn said...


xoxoxocd thanks you, so very much, for adding us to your favorites... we truly appreciate it!


Daryl said...

Basketball everywhere I turn .. either men or women .. GAH .. March Madness is well named

IT (aka Ivan Toblog) said...

How much fun would it have been if Arizona had played Kentucky?

Wildcats v. Wildcats... just that close.

Anyway, basketball and hockey are over as of Thursday... IYKWIM?

Michelle H. said...

Ah, the randomness of your mind. You were definitely before my time (I'm talking about the post... and when I first found your blog.) But good rambling.

Anonymous said...

Now I know I'm really behind on things... I didn't realize BCE had replaced BC!!

Buck said...

Yeah, "BCE" frosts my cookies, too.

Skip said...

"Frosted Cookies" WBAGNFA.... aah forget it.

Three Hundred Sixty Five said...

~I have to agree with you on the BC and BCE bullcrap. As I've been in school attempting to obtain my bachelor's degree, and taking a lot of history, I've run into this situation in a lot of different books. Anthropology offered the BCE. New Mexico history went with the ol' BC (but with the predominately Catholic population, it's not a surprise). Western Civ. is a mixed bag, like they can't figure out what to do. Even Art History seems confused. I understand the IDEA, but it's stupid, like calling it "winter break" instead of what it is, which is "Christmas break". Although I don't want to make non-Christians uncomfortable, most of those that I know don't really give a damn either. I'm sick of being PC. It's too damn boring.

lime said...

that minister really does sound like a special kind of idiot.