home again, home again

Even with Isaiah Stanback, the Huskies would have had two chances to win this weekend: slim and fat. Take Stanback (the Pac-10's #2 player in total offense) out, however, and the Huskies really look to have an insurmountable task on Saturday. (If you didn't know, Stanback--the heart of the Huskies' offense and a big reason they are 4-3 overall--is out, probably for the season.)

Shed no tears for the Pac's puppies from the north, however. With ASU and Stanford still on their home schedule, I am confident the Huskies will play in a bowl game this year, even without Stanback. That would make me happy as they are my second favorite Pac-10 team, and I will root for them every weekend but this one.

You don't need to know much about the stats or schedules to see how this one will shake out, though. The Bears should dominate on offense and, especially with Stanback out, dominate on defense.

The Bears possess the conference's #1 or #2 offense, depending on what yardsticks you use. Cal and Oregon are #1 or #2 in the four major offensive categories: Rushing (Oregon #1, Cal #2), Passing (Cal #1, Oregon #2), Total Offense (Oregon #1, Cal #2), and Scoring (Cal #1, Oregon #2). In addition, the Bears present the conference's leading rusher (Lynch, with 108 yards per game and 6.8 yards per carry), most efficient passer (Longshore, with 63.3% completion, 17 TDs, and 7 interceptions), top all-purpose producer (Lynch, with 146 yards per game including kickoff returns), and top TD scorer (Jackson, with 10 TDs). Jackson, the league's best game-breaker, is also #7 in receptions per game, #3 in receiving yards per game, #5 in all-purpose yards per game, #2 in overall scoring per game, and #2 in punt return average.

The Bears score a remarkable five touchdowns per game and average 6.5 yards per play. The Bears lead the league in first downs and have +5 turnovers in their 7 games. Only Oregon and USC protect the QB better (Cal has given up only 8 sacks in 7 games). Finally, while the Bears rank 3rd in red zone offense, they are the most efficient at getting points there with 17 TDs in 22 appearances (77%). And as Mr. Dempster pointed out last week, the Bears don't need a layover in the red zone to visit the end zone through the air; they have 10 passing TDs from outside the red zone. An explosive and efficient offense if ever there was one.

WSU had pretty good defensive statistics with some pretty good players. The Huskies, however, give up 24 points per game (7th in conference). They have the league's worst pass defense with a very generous 7.8 yards per pass (worst in the league) and 250 yards per game. Only ASU gives up more passing TDs per game than UW, and I'm betting they will flip-flop after this weekend. Their rushing defense will not measure up either, though their 3.7 yards allowed per carry is better than Cal's 3.9. UW is 9th in total defense, giving up 371 yards per game and 5.7 yards per play. (Compare to Cal, however, which is 8th at 366 yards per game and an equivalent 5.7 yards per play.)

What's the difference? Simply put, the Bears don't let the other team score. Cal has by far the best red zone defense in the conference. Only UCLA has allowed fewer red zone touchdowns, but they've played one fewer games. The Bears have allowed only 8 TDs in 18 opponent opportunities. We all heard about (or read about) the goal line stand last week after Thompson hurtled down the field to save a long touchdown. We know the Bears have supreme confidence when they have a short field to defend. Without Stanback, we may never see UW in Cal's red zone anyway, but if they get there, the Bears will keep them out of the end zone.

Cal also has the league's best punt team, though this game is never going to be about field position. The Bears are also near the top in punt and kickoff returns while the Huskies wallow at 7th in all the kicking and return categories.

But it's not like UW has built their 4-3 record on a diet of creampuffs, right? After all, Sagarin rates their schedule 11th toughest in the nation (Cal's is rated 3rd toughest). They've already faced (and lost to) Oklahoma and USC, both on the road. Their other loss was to a reasonably talented and highly motivated Oregon State team last week. Their wins were over SJSU (6 points), Fresno State (1 point), UCLA (10 points), and Arizona (11 points on the road). They still have to face Cal and Oregon on the road but get ASU and Stanford at home, then finish up by visiting WSU.

This is not a record that inspires fear. It is not an offense that looks like it could break out on any given play. It is not a defense headlined by a couple of outstanding players holding teams under 15 points per game four games running. In short, this 4-3 team from the Pacific Northwest is very different from the other 4-3 team from the same state. Sagarin's algorithms predict a 21-point victory for the Bears. That to me seems a bit low, but it's not unreasonable considering we may see Ayoob in the 3rd quarter and Levy in the 4th. We may be treated to Marcus O'Keith gaining 6 yards a carry throughout the fourth quarter to run down the clock.

In short, this is predicted to be a blowout, and I see no reason it won't be, particularly with the offense coming off a poor performance and the defense fired up and faced with a backup quarterback.

The biggest question on Saturday night will be, how will we survive a bye week with no Cal football on Saturday the 28th?

I'm saying Cal 42, UW 13.

Go Bears!

not the end of the world but you can see it from there...

Until I read it today, I hadn't realized that Tedford has never appeared in Pullman as a head coach. Two years Cal did not meet WSU, and two years the Cougars came to Berkeley. This means that although the Bears have not won in Pullman since 1979, they also are unbeaten in Pullman in the last five years.

I think that the Bears win this game 9 out of 10 times. I just can't shake the feeling, though, that this has the same feel as the game when Cal beat USC in Berkeley lo these many years ago. USC underestimated the Bears, but Cal had seen similar top-notch competition (Kansas State) early in the year. The Bears were at home, ravenous for a signature game, ready to break out.

If you read cyberbears, Bear fans are certainly looking right past WSU. It's a checkmark on the list, a stamp in their Pac-10 passports. Oh, we'll say "one game at a time" and all that, but truth be told, very few Cal fans think much of WSU. But in fact, they were quite possibly the best 1-7 team in Pac-10 history last year. They lost by three to Stanford, UCLA, ASU, and Oregon, and they lost by four to Cal. Every week it seemed they were on the verge of a big win, but they never got one (can't really call beating UW last year a "big" win).

This year they're 4-2, and one of their losses was their opener on the road at Auburn. If we can write off the Tennessee game, then we have to give them similar respect. Which means that they are 4-1 in games that count, with the one loss a reasonably close affair against USC at home (28-22).

This one has "upset" written ALL OVER it, folks.

The big talk in Berkeley this week? The banana uniforms. The team is either loose or overconfident--it's impossible to tell which. No TV to pump up the Bears. The smallest crowd in the Pac-10 (yes, even smaller than Stanford--WSU averages a league-worst 35,302 per game). WSU homecoming day. The Palouse... it's not the end of the world, but you can see it from there. A talented, underrated team ravenous for a signature win...

This one is either a nail-biter to the end or the biggest blowout of the season. I'm hoping the latter, but I'm afraid it will be the former.

OK, on to stats: In the stats, the Bears clearly own offensive superiority. No doubt about it: Cal scores nearly 40 points per game (5th nationally) to WSU's 26. The Bears are 11th nationally in pass offense and 8th nationally in total offense. But wait! WSU is 24th nationally in passing offense and 17th in total offense. So the superiority may not be so clear. Let's dig deeper:

Cal nets 6.8 yards per play, best in the Pac-10. WSU is third, however, at 5.8 yards per play. The Bears have scored 27 offensive TDs to WSU's 19, so that's a big difference. Cal has 18 TD passes to just 6 interceptions, but WSU is nearly as good with 13 TDs to just 5 interceptions in the same number of games. Both teams are just above 60% completion rate. We know Cal has a great passing offense; WSU also has a very good passing offense.

Similarly, both teams are good at running the ball. Cal nets 4.9 yards per carry and 167 yards per game, but WSU is right behind at 4.5 yards per carry and 162 yards per game. Both teams also have positive turnover margin. Cal leads with +6 (+1.0 per game) with WSU at +2 (+.33 per game).

WSU is #1 in the Pac in first downs with 135 in 6 games; Cal is right behind with 130. Both the Bears and WSU are around 43% in 3rd down conversions. WSU has allowed 12 sacks to Cal's 7, but they're slightly better in time of possession. The real difference may be in the red zone, where Cal has scored 14 TDs in 19 appearances (plus 2 field goals). WSU has 14 TDs in 27 appearances plus 6 field goals. Three of their fumbles have come in the opponent's red zone, and their red zone TDs are overwhelmingly through the air.

All this says to me that the Bears had better be ready for a team that will attack with a very strong passing game. They will get big yardage and will probably score a few. Although Jason Hill injured his shoulder last week, it looks likely he will play. Against ASU and Oregon, the Bears faced inexperienced quarterbacks who got rattled under pressure and gave up big turnovers. Don't expect the same hospitality from Alex Brink. The best way to keep WSU from scoring will be to keep their offense off the field.

But that may not be an easy task, either. Everyone is raving about WSU's underrated defense, which has held four opponents under 15 points (their four wins). The Cougars allow a miserly 18 points per game (3 better than Cal's 21 ppg allowed). They are strong against the run, holding opponents to 3.3 yards per carry and just 98.8 yards per game. They have not allowed a 100-yard rusher since Auburn's Kenny Irons in their opener. Cal, meanwhile, is just 7th in the Pac-10 against the run, allowing 3.8 yards per carry and 131 yards per game.

Like Cal, however, WSU has a weaker pass defense... at least at first glance. They give up 221 passing yards per game (better than Cal's 238), bu they are more efficient, collecting one interception per game and allowing just one passing TD per game. The Bears, meanwhile, are a big-play defense: 10 passing TDs allowed, but 11 interceptions grabbed. WSU leads the nation in sacks with 27 (4.5 per game!). The Bears have been improving in that category and are 5th in the conference with 16 QBs bagged. The Bears are good at protecting Lonshore, though, giving up a little more than one sack per game.

WSU also has the better red zone defense, giving up just 8 TDs in 20 opponent appearances. The Bears have given up 8 TDs in 15 appearances. So... does that mean WSU is better in the red zone, or does that mean the Bears are better at keeping opponents out of the red zone? Hmmm...

So, these teams are remarkably similar. How about their competition? WSU has a blowout loss in their opener at Auburn and a close loss to USC at home. Their wins came at Stanford and Oregon State, and at home against Idaho and Baylor. Their win last week at Reser Stadium was 13 to 6. Certainly, Cal fared better in Corvallis.

Finally, a quick look at turnovers and special teams. I have this nagging feeling in the back of my mind that says, one of these days the Bears are not going to benefit from a lot of turnovers by the opponent. One of these days, the opponent is going to protect the ball. I worry that it will be WSU on Saturday, and the Bears will have to prove they can finish a close game in the second half.

On special teams, the Bears appear to have the hands-down advantage. Cal is 3rd in the league in kickoff returns, and WSU is 9th in kickoff coverage. Maybe this week will be the week the Bears run one all the way back. On the other side, the Bears are 7th in kickoff coverage but WSU is only #8 in kickoff returns, so it's a wash there. Both teams punt well: WSU is 4th with a net of 35.5 yards per punt and 1 touchback, while Cal leads the Pac with 38.3 yards per punt with 3 touchbacks. Cal has the league's second-best punt return average at 14.8 yards per return, however, and is one of two teams with two punts returned for touchdowns. WSU, however, gets only 5.8 yards per return and has not (yet) run one back all the way.

All in all, I do think the Bears win this game 9 times out of 10. The talent and depth is simply awesome, and the defense appears to be improving each week. I think Cal has played a tougher schedule, though not THAT much tougher.

I think this game hinges entirely on two things: First, Cal's defense shutting down WSU's passing game. They don't have to keep Brink and Hill from getting yards... they have to keep Hill out of the end zone. Some of that will be pressure, and the middle of the O line is where their inexperience is. The Bears need a good push in the middle of the line to disrupt Brink's pocket and rush his passes.

The other thing this game hinges on is Cal's ability to protect the ball. If the Bears suffer minus-two or worse in turnovers, they will lose. If they hold on to the ball and don't get sloppy, they should roll.

I am hoping for the blowout victory, of course, but I think this one won't have the benefit of a first-play-from-scrimmage turnover. We can't count on the Cougars imploding the way the Ducks did last week, and I think they will play tough for all four quarters. In the end, though, this is not that tenth game out of ten that the Cougs win. It is maybe the fourth game out of ten, which is still a Cal victory, with the final score Cal 38 WSU 28.

Go Bears!

duck season is open, too

It's obvious this Saturday's game pits two extraordinary teams against each other. But something's gotta give. Cal's time of possession is 28:43 per game, and Oregon's is 27:26 per game. Unless the game is called early, one of the two teams will have to come in over their average.

OK, just a few notes this week. Basically, this Oregon offense looks, on paper, like the best offense in the Pac-10. Check it out: The conference's leading passer, leading rusher, leader in receptions per game, leader in receiving yards per game, and leader in scoring all play for Oregon. Some other scary stats: Oregon leads the league in scoring at 40.2 points per game. They're also #1 in rushing offense (227 ypg) and total offense (497 ypg). Oregon gets the most first downs per game of any Pac-10 team. They are #2 in red zone offense, scoring 21 times out of 23 tries, with 16 of those being touchdowns. They average an astounding 6.2 yards per rush and 6.8 yards per play. And they have allowed just one sack in their four games. It's not like they've played a bunch of patsies, either.

Cal is no slouch on offense, though, sporting the league's most efficient passer, the league's leader in touchdowns scored, and the league's leader in all-purpose yardage. The Bears are right behind Oregon in scoring offense (38.4 ppg) and total offense (452 ypg). The Bears are a skitch better in the red zone, scoring on 13 of 14 opportunities with 11 of those being TDs. Someone on cyberbears analyzed the two teams' big play tendencies, and although I don't have the stats, it went something like this: Cal had a lot more big plays (over 20 yards) than Oregon. Apparently, this means Cal is a more explosive offense while Oregon is more a constant mover.

It's on the defensive side of the ball where Oregon appears to outclass the Bears--at least, statistically. Oregon has the league's leading tackler and has the league's best and most efficient pass defense. They've allowed just three passing TDs in four games and hold opponents to a miserly 50% completion and 5.3 yards per pass. Their run defense is suspect, though, as they give up 163 ypg and 4.3 yards per carry.

The Bears, meanwhile, appear to allow teams to walk up and down the field but don't let them into the end zone. Cal is #9 in the conference in pass defense and #7 in rush defense. While they lead the league in interceptions (Hughes has five of the team's eight), they have given up a league-worst 8 passing touchdowns and allow 7.7 yards per pass. Only Stanford has worse total defense stats as Cal gives up 5.7 yards per play and 370 yards per game (both #9). But the Bears are #4 in the conference in scoring defense at 20.4 points per game. (Oregon allows 20.0 ppg.) So they're doing something right. Indeed, the Bears are #2 in red zone defense, allowing just 6 TDs in 12 opportunities.

The only other stat that jumps out at me (besides the all-important Time Of Possession, noted above) is turnover ratio. The Bears are +3 on the season, but the Ducks are -1.

This is bound to be a close game. Recent history has the Ducks winning 8 of the last 9 games, with Cal's only win in that stretch two years ago in Berkeley when the Duck TE dropped an easy pass that would have given Oregon a chip-shot field goal for the win. But the last three games have all been close nail-biters, and this one should be no different. I only wish I could be there.

I honestly don't understand how Cal is a 5 point favorite unless there are injuries I'm not taking into account. I know the Bears have the talent to win this game, but I'd call it even. Given the offensive propensities, I think Cal might have a slight game planning edge--the Bears appear to have more explosive capabilities and may be able to focus on the running game more. Meanwhile, Oregon's offense may be unable to fully exploit Cal's youth at DB to provide explosive plays--the Bears have tremendous speed on defense and have proven to be good tacklers when they get their paws on a ball carrier.

I think perhaps this game is the single biggest reason Tedford hired a new Offensive Coordinator. Tedford got too predictable last year and second-guessed himself too much against the Ducks. resulting in a very flat offense. Having a new guy throwing curve balls at Bellotti can only help the Bears. Plus, the Bears have serious momentum after four beautiful games. But Oregon still has something to prove after The Replay two weeks ago. They spanked little poser ASU last week, but that's not enough for them. If they want to be part of the nation's elite, they need to wipe out that Oklahoma memory with a pasting of one of the big boys. Motivation and momentum and to spare on both sidelines this week.

All in all, this game is huge, and it has all the look of the Cal vs Virginia Tech game a few years ago--a real shootout with the last team having the ball to be the one to win.

I'll go out on the limb and say that the Bears will benefit from two interceptions in the second half and will be able to ride Marshawn's running game to victory. Final score: Bears 38, Ducks 35.

GO BEARS!

Boy, I wish I could be there.

NaNoWriMo site is open

Just one month away from National Novel Writing Month. Their spiffed-up web site is now on line, the forums are open, and the store is stocked with tee shirts and mugs and posters. My day job has commanded so much of my time recently that I have written just a few minutes here and there, but November 1st I sit down and pound out the novel that's been fermenting in my mind for two months already now. Before that, I have two short pieces to write and send off somewhere.

Any of you all who regularly (ahem) read this blog going to join me this year? 50,000 words is not that hard if you have say two hours a day to commit. The trick for me will be to make the 50,000 word goal and to have it be quality work. This will be my third novel. The first was publishable. The second... well, I haven't read it yet, so I don't really know. I think it's a little boring, to be honest, though in sections the writing looks really good. This third one will not only be publishable but will be published (eventually). I have little doubt of that.

Unless, of course, I get hit by a bus or something.

I am so tired. But there's still energy for Cal at OSU

A harder week at work I have not had in probably 15 years. I'm exhausted.

But I think the Bears will win up in Corvallis this weekend. Oregon State has good defensive stats, especially in the secondary. Only one touchdown allowed to five interceptions and only 5.9 yards per pass. They're also allowing only 3.6 yards per rush and 115 yards per game on the ground. They allow opponents only 12 first downs a game (Cal allows 19.5), and they have 11 sacks in 3 games. They've also held opponents to an astounding 5 third-down conversions in 33 attempts (15.2%).

Their worry on defense, though, is in the red zone. Oregon State has not yet stopped an opponent from scoring in the red zone, giving up five TDs on their opponents' five opportunities. USC and UCLA are the only teams to allow fewer red zone appearances... that's one reason they're #1 and #2 in the conference in scoring defense.

But the Beavers will face an offense like they've not yet seen in the likes of Eastern Washington, Idaho, or even Boise State. Cal QB Nate Longshore has won two of the four Pac-10 Offensive Player Of The Week awards and is the league's top-rated passer in efficiency with 66% completion, 10 TDs, and 3 interceptions. DeSean Jackson has six receiving touchdowns in four games and is the league's top receiver in yards per catch at 18.5. Then there's Marshawn Lynch, the league's second-leading rusher at 112.2 yards per game. He has three touchdowns and leads the league's top rushers at 7.2 yards per carry. Cal's offense has faced Tennessee on the road and Minnesota and Arizona State at home--all of them supposedly tough defenses. Cal's scoring has gone up game over game, and they've scored 42 or more in their past three contests. Will the Beavers' stats hold up when they face this kind of offense?

On offense, the Beavers do not look so dominant. They take care of the ball and score well (36 points per game), but they're middle of the Pac in most statistical categories on offense. While the Beaver defense makes plenty of appearances at the top of the statistical tables, you have to go pretty far down the chart to fine the OSU offense. In fact, I can't find a single category worthy of note.

Cal's defense is not so hot, statistically, however. They're allowing 4.3 yards per rush and 165 yards per game on the ground. Meanwhile, they're last in pass defense with 223.5 yards per game. Daymeion Hughes has five interceptions in his last three games, but Cal is #9 in the conference at 7.8 yards per pass given up, and they've allowed a league-worst 8 passing touchdowns to go with their league-best 8 interceptions. Sort of a big-play defense on every down, you'd guess, one way or the other.

The only other stat to note is that this game pits the only two Pac-10 teams that have scored on punt returns. The Bears did it last week against ASU, and Oregon State is the only team to have done it twice in this young season. Plus, they sport an eye-popping 19.3 yard average on their punt returns. Special teams could be a big factor in this game if it's a close game.

For me, this game hinges on two things:
First, is the Beaver secondary as good as their stats? We saw last week that ASU's high-powered offense built their hot stats against weak competition. But sometimes good stats are good stats, no matter who the competition is. Can the Beavers shut down one of the best offenses in the league, if not the country? Or are the Bears balanced enough to score even if OSU takes away the pass?

Second, will the atmosphere bring down the Bears? Cal is third in the Pac-10 with an average home attendance of 58,000. The crowd is pretty enthusiastic at Memorial, too. But get into Corvallis and they'll be lucky to play in front of 40,000. Tedford's teams tend to play better in front of big crowds, TV audiences, loud pressure (Tennessee is the exception). Ironically, the best thing for the Beavers could be a half-empty stadium with no noise at all. The Bears would have a hard time gearing up for that environment.

All in all, though, I come back to this: OSU's schedule so far. Destroyed Eastern Washington at home, 56-17. Got creamed at Boise State, 42-14. Demolished Idaho at home, 38-0. They can mop up the patsies, but can they play a good team like Cal close?

I predict Cal would win this matchup 9 out of 10 times, barring crazy injuries. The Beavers just don't have enough of an offense to compete with Cal's offense, even if the defense is pretty strong.

Cal's more difficult schedule is an advantage, though Longshore still has never won a game on the road.

I'm betting on a relatively mundane game. No crazy turnover frenzies or kicks returned for scores. A lot of running on both sides, a lot of clock management and balanced offense. I think the Bears will build a steady lead, up 21-10 at halftime and 35-23 at the final gun.

Go Bears!

Unskilled at writing, but unaware of it

Miss Snark keeps saying, "Good writing trumps all," when she's referring to the process of getting published (or rejected, the less amusing alternative). Many of her readers ask, "What about 'write well' do people not get?"

I think it's that people who do not write well are unaware of their lack of skill. That is, they think they do write well; therefore, they think it must be something else—discrimination, bad luck, aliens, George Bush, etc.—causing their stories to get rejected time and again. There is not a human on the planet who has avoided this type of trap their entire lives. Maybe not in writing but in other areas. The guy who thinks his "special move" will please every woman concludes that the woman who isn't satisfied is a cold fish. The rookie soccer player who thinks he's hot stuf quits the team when he's not elected MVP. The amateur chef who loves to experiment doesn't realize he's making all his dinner guests struggle not to barf at the table. The "excellent" and opinionated mother who thinks she's got all the answers will later find herself on Nanny 911 with two little monsters controlling her life.

If I remember my 9th grade trig, the contrapositive should be true: If you are aware of your lack of skill, then you should be reasonably competent. It seems to hold true in my limited experience: Those people who are most humble about their need to improve also appear to be the ones who already have decent skills but who are most likely to improve with teaching and critique.

There are, of course, the extremes that fall outside this norm: The truly great know they're exceptional, and the truly awful know they're tragically abysmal. I am hopeful that I fall into the category of "most likely to improve." I take confidence from the fact that I've placed two stories in my first eight months of serious writing, and I am proud of the fact that my writers group helped improve both pieces. I think that means that I can learn and improve.

I do think my first novel is good enough to sell--I just have to read the critiques from the PNWA contest to believe that--but I know in the future I'll do better because I know I'm not quite "there" yet.

Arizona State visits Bear Territory

While I haven't done a full analysis, and while I'm still stinging from how atrociously wrong I got the Tennessee game, here goes...

This game will come down to three things:

1. Can Cal's injury-plagued offensive line hold up against a D line that leads the nation in sacks with 18 and has not allowed a rushing TD in three games?
2. Can the Bear pass defense, 9th in the Pac-10 statistically, hold up against the #2 pass offense in the Pac-10?
3. How much weight do you put on ASU's weak schedule and Cal's difficult schedule when looking at the stats?

ASU and Cal are ranked pretty closely by most services and polls. 3-0 ASU is #20/#18 in the AP & Coaches polls, while Cal is #22/#20. Sagarin puts Cal #21 and ASU #24, predicting a 5-point Cal win when you consider home field advantage. The betting public seems to like Cal better, with the line having gone from Cal -7 to Cal -9 in one case.

But looking at the stats doesn't really bear that optimism out. I think this game is much more even, and the stats would give ASU the slight edge, I think. (But again, how much weight do you put on the strength of schedule after only three games?)

Some quick hits (all Pac-10 rankings, not national):

• ASU brings the #2 pass offense against the #9 pass defense
• ASU's rushing offense is slightly better than Cal's, averaging the same yards per carry (4.8), one more rush yard per game (162), and gaining two more touchdowns than Cal (6 vs 4).
• ASU's pass offense is for real, leading the league in TDs (9) and yards per pass (9.3). They also have a good 63.7% completion rate. (Carpenter has thrown 4 interceptions, however.)
• ASU allows a measly 12.7 points per game, #2 behind USC. Cal allows 22.7 points per game.
• ASU's rushing defense has been outstanding, allowing just 104 yards per game, 2.6 yards per carry (best in the conference), and no touchdowns. Cal's rush defense gives up 3.9 yards per carry and 140 yards per game, but they have held opponents to just 2 rushing TDs.
• ASU's pass defense is mediocre except for 5 interceptions in 3 games while allowing just 4 passing touchdowns. They do allow 7.5 yards per pass, 3rd worst in the league. Cal, however, allows 9.2 yards per pass, far and away the worst in the Pac-10. In addition, Cal has given up 6 passing TDs but gained 4 interceptions, and they're giving up nearly 240 yards passing a game.
• Overall, Cal's defense is 2nd worst in the league, allowing 6.2 yards per play and nearly 380 yards a game. They've given up 8 TDs, 3rd worst in the league. ASU, meanwhile gives up just 4.4 yards per play (2nd best) and has given up just 4 offensive TDs (3rd best).

Nothing else really jumps out at you except for 18 sacks and the fact that ASU has outscored opponents 49-7 in the second half this year.

Are some of these stats starting to sound familiar? I think the ASU defense sounds a lot like Cal's dominating defense of the year we got screwed out of the Rose Bowl. Low point totals. Low yards per rush allowed. Dominant in the second half of games.

On the other side, ASU has as strong a passing attack as Cal has seen. The young DBs must improve, or Cal must get huge pass pressure, if the Bears are to keep the devils from getting to the end zone frequently.

Cal fans no doubt remember that Dirk Koetter's teams are 0-10 in the state of California, and ASU are 0-3 in their last three games against Cal. But the Bears did not see ASU last year, and the Sun Devils have been improving since they got thumped 27-0 the last time the two teams met. The Devils have been to two straight bowl games (though they had to rally to beat Arizona to end last year at 6-5).

Finally, do not count on any emotional wreckage from the whole Sam Keller affair. ASU has been performing well since then. The risk for the Devils is if Carpenter gets injured; their only backup is a redshirt freshman who's never played.

So... predicting this game comes down to a few philosophical questions:

1. How much weight do you put on ASU's weak schedule and Cal's strong schedule when analyzing the stats?
2. Do you believe the stats reflect the team at this point in the season?
3. Do you believe in home field advantage?

Personally, I think that after three games the stats start to show the overall character of the team. There will be some movement, but generally Arizona, Washington, and Stanford will still be at the bottom at the end of the season, and USC, Oregon, ASU, and Cal will be at the top (offensively, at least). Cal's pass defense has been surprisingly atrocious (thanks to the injury to Tim Mixon), and the run defense has not been as good as expected. Will that continue, or will the Bears climb up the rankings statistically? (I believe the latter.)

Finally, there's the wildcard. Last time the teams met, the Sun Devils handed the ball over five times. That's not likely to happen this week, though we'll see if either team suffers fumbleitis or pick syndrome.

This is Cal's first true test. Was the Tennessee game an aberration or a predictor of how the Bears will fare against very good teams? Cal still has a lot to prove, and they can go a long way towards that with a solid victory today. But ASU also has a lot to prove, facing their first good opponent this year. It's a big test for them, too, and they'll be ready to fight hard.

In the end, I believe that Cal is still the superior team, and that the stats are lying just a little bit. This will be a close game, but I think the Bears will hang on something like 30-28.

Go Bears!

unavoidably delayed

stories still unread
unavoidably delayed
katrina damage


I wish the mainstream media would not forget important stories like the devastation caused by last year's hurricanes. I'm not talking about the finger-pointing "blame game" and the incompetence displayed by federal, state, and local authorities. I'm talking about the tragedy of families still living in FEMA trailers or much worse. The tragedy of a rebuilding process that will take years just to get to third-world status in some areas.

I may have the opportunity to attend a meeting in New Orleans in January, and an extra day would be added for the attendees to get involved in a volunteer project in some of the hardest hit areas. A year after the hurricanes swept through, I am told that the devastation is still mind-blowing. I hope I do get the chance to attend that meeting so I can see and help firsthand.

I was right the first time

While some people I know have (incorrectly) self-diagnosed many fatal or near-fatal diseases, my self-diagnosis was correct. I finally saw an orthopedic surgeon last week, and he did the x-ray thing and the poking my foot thing and the wiggling my foot thing. He proclaimed nothing worse than plantar fasciitis, which was both a relief and a frustration.

So now I can forget about the possibility of broken bones or surgery. I just have to stumble through the pain for another month or two (or three or four if I get back out on the soccer field in the meantime).

I can not wait to get back to writing and working out. Work has finally dropped to a regular pace, at least for the moment, so I hope to get back onto track with regular life. Wish me luck.

A poem that made it to the "final cuts" at one litmag

Blessed Coffee
by Peter Dudley

In the beginning, there was emptiness.
Not one single drop.
While the priest turned
Water into wine and labored to
Convert the masses in his echoing
Stone and concrete hall,
I percolated, converting water into
Coffee.

Such a church should have
A bigger kitchen and
A sink that works.

Black mystery of the divine
Heat of his love
Steam ascending toward Heaven
Glass window into God

The ladies will arrive soon, ignoring
Doughnuts and fussing over brooches.
They will sip from their
Styrofoam fonts,
God’s love burning on their lips and
In their throats.

If Father Brian asks,
I don’t know what happened
To the rest of his
Holy water.

But I do know the number of a good plumber.

The First Line Has Arrived!

I can't believe the fall issue of The First Line is already out. Very cool to see my fiction in print. I have not had a chance to read the rest of it, but the intro by the editors makes it sound like interesting reading. Git yerself a copy.

Thereby Hangs A Tale has arrived!

My first sold story in print has arrived in the mail. It's a lovely job they've done with the design and photos, and it was a great feeling when Maria read the story again last night and laughed in all the right places and then said, "This is really good."

To buy copies, go over to Thereby Hangs A Tale.

And to subscribe to The First Line in time to get the fall issue containing my second sold story, head over to The First Line.

I love that I've sold two stories. I've got five other stories in review right now at small litmags, but no ETAs on when they'll render judgment.

I hate that I haven't been able to write anything or work on any stories in over a month. But that's the nature of my day job... From June to October, I'm at full sprint, and the past three weeks have seen me burning the midnight bandwidth at least three or four nights a week... on work, not writing. But it pays the bills, right? I have been able to do a little plotting and character development for my third novel, which I'll draft during NaNoWriMo in November, when the pace of my job settles down to a comfortable stroll. I just hope I don't get sick of the story by the time I finally get to write it. The effort scares me a little because I'm going to try writing in a voice from a POV I've never tried before. If it works, I think it'll be really good. If it doesn't, well... it'll be a learning experience, I guess.

2,666 and counting

A high school classmate of mine is shipping off to Iraq today. I have not seen him or kept in touch with him since graduation 21 years ago. A good friend's husband is currently serving in Afghanistan.

2,666 and counting.

When will it end?

guess I got THAT one wrong

Wow. 35-18. I was pretty close on the differential... but I picked the wrong team to win.

How lucky was I that I was nowhere near a TV on Saturday? Instead, I was enjoying a sunny day at Lake Sonoma with a whole bunch of friends, my family, and a few beers. Unfortunately, I also had my AM radio, so Starkey spent a little time with us, too. I turned the game off at halftime, and when I turned it back on, what I heard was this: "The kickoff is again very deep (oh, good, I thought, I'm tuning in just in time for the second half comeback), so the Bears will again start at their twenty (uh-oh... shouldn't the Bears kick off to start the second half?) down twenty-eight to nothing." Click. Off went the radio. I turned it on twice more just to catch score updates.

All I have to say is this: Unlike Stanford, Cal is undefeated in the Pac-10 this year!

Cal at Tennessee

How in the world could Cal have dropped from a two point favorite to a two point underdog? The line should have gone the other way.

After all, Cal is ranked much more highly (#12 in the USA Today poll, #9 in the AP poll) than the Volunteers (#23 in both polls). Sagarin’s preseason calculations rank the teams closer at #20 and #30, giving the Volunteers the two-point edge due to home field advantage. The Volunteers finished 5-6 last year and stayed home during bowl season; the Bears stumbled to a 7-4 finish and then hung on to beat BYU in the Las Vegas Bowl.

The first game of the year is, of course, the most difficult to predict. Player turnover, coaching changes, and injuries all have an effect. The emotion of the college game inspires more intensity among the fans, the players, and even the media.

But in the end, the fans and media don’t play the games. And I am not one who subscribes to the idea that a packed house of 100,000 Tennessee fans will equate to a four point or even a seven point swing. In fact, I think the size and intensity of the venue is a benefit for and Tedford-coached Bears squad.

You may be getting the sense that I think Cal will win. You would be right.

Sizing Up The Vols Offense
Tennessee is coming off a losing season, a huge disappointment to everyone involved in the program. The coach has challenged everyone to redouble their efforts, practice harder, study harder, come out harder. The players are “angry” and “have a chip on their shoulder,” says the coach. If the Vols are to win, it will be due to this singular increase in effort.

On offense, the Volunteers are not overwhelming. They rushed for under 130 yards per game in 2005, and it was often posited that the defense did more than their fair share to win more than five games. Part of the problem was at quarterback. After a good go as a freshman, Erik Ainge came back to have a mediocre sophomore season. Only a fool would think he would be bad again, and in fact he is one of 21 preseason candidates for the Manning Award.

Ainge has a few good players to throw to, but the three top receivers have only 13 combined career starts. Still, they’ve been around as backups and are capable of scoring. Robert Meacham is six foot three and led the team in receiving yards in both 2004 and 2005 despite having just two career starts. Given the Bears’ recent loss of Tim Mixon and the loss of key coverage men to graduation, east-coasters must be excited at the prospects of seeing Ainge come back to form against a depleted Cal secondary.

Supplementing the Tennessee passing game will be a two- or even three-headed rushing attack. Sophomore tailback Aaron Foster leads the way after a freshman year of over 800 yards rushing and ending last season with five straight 100-yard games.

The weakness, though, is that pesky offensive line. Despite the return of 320-pound preseason all American LT Arron Sears, the offensive line is young and constitutes the weakness of the team. Only this week did the lineup solidify with the selection of Michael Frogg at center. If the Tennessee depth chart is accurate, outside of Sears, the other four offensive linemen return a total of seven career starts.

Although I expect Tennessee wants to present a balanced attack on offense, I think they will look to establish a running game out of the gate. With an inexperienced, big offensive line, they will want to get some success on the ground before laying into Cal’s depleted secondary.

Unfortunately for them, it won’t work.

Cal’s defensive front is outstanding, and despite the loss of a few key players, the depth and speed of the Cal defense is probably greater than in recent years. It is not impossible for this Cal defense to average 10 or fewer points over the season, and we know what kind of schedule the Pac-10 offers. The linebacking corps has two freshman all-Americans on the bench, and the speed is unparalleled.

I believe the Volunteers will have to draw on every ounce of anger and motivation to establish any offensive rhythm. They won’t be held scoreless, but they will have to work hard for every point.

Defensive Turnover
The biggest question for the Vols besides QB play is whether their depleted defense will reload or rebuild. The turnover for Tennessee was remarkable, losing three defensive linemen to the NFL and all three of their linebackers to graduation. The defensive backfield is in better shape and looks to be a very strong unit, but gone are the biggest factors that led to Tennessee being #2 nationally against the rush in 2005.

Big DT Justin Harrell (300 pounds) provides the only experience in the front seven, with 22 career starts in 32 career appearances. He is a force and can plug up the middle. The remaining six of the front seven, however, return just nine career starts; there is some significant game experience among the DL, however, with all four linemen having appeared in at least 20 games.

I think over time, the Tennessee defense will become known as a strong side with impressive statistics. They will create some problems down the road. Unfortunately for them, however, they face what may end up being the nation’s best rushing attack by season’s end (barring injury). Add in a bevy of speedy wide receivers and a crafty, deceptive offensive scheme, and the youngsters in orange are likely in for a long day.

My Prediction
As with any opening game, there are too many questions that can not be answered by statistics, media guides, or speculation. If the Bears can’t field a competent quarterback, Tennessee’s defense may gain confidence and momentum. If Cal’s secondary goes cold and Ainge catches fire, the Vols could rip off some long plays.

But I think it’s more likely that the Bears will control the game through a strong running attack, quieting the huge crowd and confusing the young defenders. I also look to the Bear front four to get pressure on Ainge every time he drops back, keeping him from getting into rhythm with his receivers and allowing the linebackers and safeties to make big plays.

The usual caveats about turnovers and injuries apply. If the game goes as I think it will, however, the Bears will show a level of class that will surprise the betting public and will impress the pollsters. Meanwhile, Tennessee will make a good showing but will, ultimately, not be able to keep up. I expect good things from them later in the year, but they’re too young in all the most important places to win this one.

Final score: Cal 28, Tennessee 10.

Go Bears!

writing group written up

Penny Warner, a writer of books who also has a column in our local paper, penned this column about the writing group that has helped me so much this past eight months. Although there is a factual error (or two) and the quotation at the end was edited a little too severely, it captures the essence of the group.

Airport Security

So I flew to Chicago today. I got to the airport ridiculously early, just in case someone decided to smuggle some Old Spice roll-on on the plane and they had to shut the place down.

As it turns out, the check-in line and security line were... the same as they've been for the past three years. Security was a little slower, but not much. (Instead of 18 minutes, I had to wait 20 with the same length line.) It's a pain in the ass to have to carry a larger bag and check it for such a short trip--I wasted about 30 minutes waiting for my bag in Chicago--but all in all, the process went smoothly.

Which begs the question: What are they really doing there? Does the x-ray machine pick up the presence of liquids, or does it just see bottle-shaped items? I understand that some bags are hand-searched. Three guys with white shirts and blue latex gloves stood by the gate as we all borded, "randomly" searching carryon bags. I never saw them inspect a single one.

I have yet to hear anyone say that banning carryon liquids and gels actually makes flying safer. In all the flights I've taken, and all the flights everyone I know has ever taken, there has not been a single attempt at hijacking, blowing up, poisoning, or aspifying the flight. Statistically, that's a very low percentage of flights targeted (it approaches zero pretty closely, for those still trying to do the math).

Yes, but remember Lockerbie. Remember 9/11. "Never again." That is, in a word, bullshit. I don't have the stats (who does?), but I would bet money that mechanical or pilot failure is responsible for more airplane deaths than terrorism... even before 9/11. Should we be vigilant in security? Sure, within reason. The steps taken recently have stepped outside the realm of reason and into the realm of action motivated by pure fear. And guess what? That means the terrorists have already won! Isn't that ironic? Terrorism's goal is not the deaths of a few hundred people or even a few thousand; it's to make people live in fear. That's why it's called terrorism. (The linguists among you may have picked up on that already.)

I'll tell you what we need. We need insurance companies to make the rules for airport security. Talk about a group who understands risk management. Airport security should not be an exercise in eradicating every possibility of risk. Somehow, fear and paranoia have turned it into that. Instead, it should be an exercise in managing risk against convenience and economics. It has become run by politics and political correctness when what is really needed is good ole Republican heartless analysis and cold calculation. Get the actuaries in and let them declare how much time and money should be spent on bag and passenger screening, how many restrictions should be placed on passengers on various flights (face it, Duluth to Fargo is not going to be a highly targeted route), and what the real risk levels are. Hell, post the risk values of each flight just like airlines now post the on-time percentage of each flight. Just like McDonald's has to post nutrition information of their foods. Let the consumers understand the risks they're taking when they get on the plane. How likely is it to crash due to faulty manufacturing? How likely due to drunk pilots? How likely due to aging and cracks in the fuselage? How likely due to terrorist activity?

Post all that information, then stand back and let the market sort it out. I bet the airlines already have all this information.

The way it's done today is stupidity at its most elegant.

Did you know that you're statistically more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the airport than you are in a terrorist-related flight incident?

I heard someone in line today saying they thought the "no liquids" rule was simply a way of making people buy more $3 and $4 drinks on the airplane. The more I think about it, the more I bet they're right.

Car For Sale

Vintage 1978 VW beetle, candy apple red convertible, Karmann edition. 121,000 miles. Original owner. Asking $8,000. Passed California emissions testing (smog) today. Runs well. Draws a crowd and interested comments from onlookers, especially when a pretty girl is driving.

It's Lit Season

With the start of school imminent, it's time to pull out those short stories that did not find a home over the summer and send them out. One went out today; another goes out at the end of the month. Three additional queries for Jumping The Stream also went out today, bringing to four the number in circulation.

Still waiting for Thereby Hangs A Tale to appear in my mailbox. Still floating a bit that The First Line will be publishing "Saved" in the fall. Have identified some older poetry I can dust off and improve for another submission after I get back from my business trip to Chicago the rest of this week.

I hate being injured

Being injured sucks.

My plantar fasciitis (if that is indeed what I've been struggling with for the past several months) seemed to be healing. I could walk most days with only a little pain in the morning or after sitting for a long time at my desk. Then, last Thursday, I played soccer on it, and something slipped. Today is the first day that I had stretches of as much as fifteen minutes without it hurting like hell. But it's possible that I have a separate injury because the really excruciating pain is more on the side of my heel rather than the bottom of my heel.

I will be missing at least the first month of my soccer season to try to rest it and heal. I hate that boring slog on the stationary bike at the gym. But that will have to suffice until I can get back to normal. I bought some inserts [pdf] for arch support and heel cushion, but I wonder if I'll play this year at all. I already feel myself going soft in the gut.

Being injured sucks.

Flying Naked II

So this is news to me. You'd think I'd have heard of this when it happened. Huh.

Politics or Security?

This article at MSNBC says that the terrorist suspects arrested the day after Lieberman lost his primary did not have plane tickets and that in fact no attack was iminent. This is not to say they weren't bad guys; they were. The British had been watching some of them for years and wanted to continue surveillance for another week or more.

But the United States pressured to arrest them immediately.

Why would US officials do that if there is no imminent threat? Some of the arrested blokes did not even have passports, apparently. Wouldn't it be better to watch them a little longer, hoping to get more information and evidence, maybe have them give up some other conspirators or contacts?

Instead, the US pushed Britain to make the arrests the day after Lieberman's loss.

This is the way our government makes us more secure? Decide the timing of significant arrests based on political rather than security concerns?

ACCEPTED!

A short story of mine has won acceptance in a paying market. The First Line, a literary journal out of (of all places) Plano, TX, has finally capitulated under my relentless onslaught of submissions and selected one for publication in their fall issue. Probably out of pity.

Seriously, my story, Saved, is probably my best short story to date. I look back at what I wrote just six months ago, and although I'm not exactly embarrassed by it, I see how improved my writing is now. I owe it all to my writers group, soon to be featured in a column in our local newspaper. (Well, maybe not all of it, but their critiques and my dad's comments helped immensely.)

I am not sure when the fall issue comes out; I am expecting it some time in October. They appear to be quite quick at turning around their print issues.

Flying Naked

It can't be far away.

I don't remember which sci-fi book it was (I read a lot of Asimov, Heinlein, and Niven as a kid), but one author had their characters walking around in disposable paper clothing. Sounded uncomfortable to me at the time.

First it was nail clippers. Now it's shampoo. Aftershave. Mascara. Toothpaste. You just can't carry anything on the plane any more. When I travel with my family, that's not a hardship; we simply drop everything into our checked luggage and wait for it at the far end. Of course, in the past 18 months I've flown about 20 round-tips and had my luggage lost no fewer than seven times.
So that's not always a reliable solution.

But what about my two-day business trips to Chicago, Denver, Orlando? My business overnights to Seattle? There's no reason for me to check luggage and waste an extra 45 minutes at the far end just to pick up my aftershave and toothpaste. And yet, if I buy them at the far end, I'll spend just as long shopping... then I'll have to mail them home or throw them out a day or two later. And I've got it easy--I've got no hair products to worry about.

The terrorists have already won. If every business traveler on a one- or two-night stay now has to check their luggage, then we're talking another 45 minutes of lost productivity for every business trip in the country, every day. Checked luggage will get lost more frequently when there's more of it to move. Claiming bags will take longer when the number of people waiting and the number of bags to be claimed increase 50%. This is going to be a huge economic drain.

But I'm certain it won't stop there. Some clever terrorist will find a way to make an explosive stick of chewing gum like James Bond used. Squish the two colors of gum together, and kablooey. At that point, all food will be banned on flights, and we'll be stuck with cross-country cheese nips or $10 cafeteria sandwiches on tasteless bread with squeeze packets of mayonnaise.

Then it won't be long before someone comes up with explosive or poison-gas-generating fabrics. Imagine a pair of socks that, when rubbed together vigorously, create a fatal poison gas. Shortly thereafter, we'll be forced into holding areas at check-in where we take off all our clothes and put on those disposable one-piece coveralls used in hospital surgery rooms, neatly printed with the logo of the airline we're flying that day. We'll stuff our regular clothes into our checked luggage and get on the plane. We'll get off the plane and wait 40 minutes to find out our luggage never got on the plane with us, and we'll stand another 40 minutes in line to file the lost-luggage claim. Then we'll rush off to our business meeting in our disposable one-piece outfit with only our IDs and cell phones and boarding pass stubs and lost luggage claim checks, and we'll sit around the table with our colleagues dressed in other airline-branded disposable outfits and our messy hair and bad breath and talk about how we should really invest more in videoconferencing, or maybe teleportation research.

The terrorists have already won. It's only a matter of time before air travel becomes more of an inconvenience than a benefit.

Amazing Timing

I love how national security victories tend to occur immediately after Republican political losses. Is there anyone in the entire world who thinks it a coincidence that big news about a terror threat against the US was released the day after the Rupublicans lost an ally in a primary election?

Democrats are soft on terror! George Bush is keeping us safe! 9/11! 9/11! Awk! Pretty birdie! Polly wanna cracker!

Six years of history has shown that this administration knows no media coincidences, only policy screwups, indictments and convictions, and a blatant disregard for truth, individual liberty, and transparency in government. The fact that I no longer automatically scoff at conspiracies about these things says a lot about how little trust I have in any aspect of the Bush administration. I mean, it is no longer entirely, unequivocably ludricous to suggest that the Bush administration set up this "terrorist plot" just so it could be "thwarted" in order to create a media frenzy at a sensitive political moment.

Lieberman, the only Democrat to continue to support Bush's inane war in Iraq, lost to an anti-war liberal. The media began a feeding frenzy about how this was a turn in the tide, a shift in political momentum--and the Republicans had better watch out in the midterms in November, just around the corner. Then, wham! Out comes this amazing news showing how secure we are under Bush's watch... after absolutely no such news in the past several years, not since the shoe bomber was thwarted. A political victory for anti-war elements is immediately turned into a "See? See what could have happened if lily-livered pansy pinko fag-loving marriage-hating fetus-killing liberals are allowed to be put in charge of homeland security? We'd all be blown to smithereens today."

Won't be fooled again.

yet another knot in the rope

no time for haiku
rejections wait for no man
I've run out of words

words to live by

From the venerable and incomprehensible (oh, wait, I think I meant incontrovertible... no, that's not right... incompatible? interminable? oh, drat, it'll come to me... indefatiguable... um... indescribable... interesting... oh, to hell with it) Miss Snark:

"Quit asking me why I said no, and go find someone to say yes."

I haven't actually asked the three agents who've passed on Jumping The Stream why they said "no", but I admit it gets under your skin the first time through the system. With hundreds of agents to go (and two still in consideration at the moment), I am quite confident I'll find someone to say "yes". Especially given the positive feedback I've received so far.

bruce, kenny, and the ponies

Every horse I picked lost today at the horse races in Minneapolis. But all my 2nd choice horses won, and at least I didn't pick the one horse that didn't finish. Of the seven of us picking horses tonight, only my two kids picked winning tickets. I came oh-so-close, but E picked a place and a show and walked away with $8.60 in profit, and S picked one show ticket and picked up $3.20 in profit. (It helps their P & L numbers that they were spotted the original price of the $2 wagers.)

The highlight of the day, however, was when a pretty young thing at the ice cream stand paid me a compliment. Here is the conversation:

PYT: Did anyone ever tell you you look like Bruce Willis?

ME: No. Someone told me I looked like Kenny Chesney, but I didn't believe her either.

PYT: Oh.

ME: But Bruce is getting kind of old.

PYT: No! I meant a young Bruce Willis.

ME: Want to get married?

Cover Art

Check out this sneak peek at the upcoming debut issue of Thereby Hangs A Tale. Easy to purchase issues for yourself, your friends, your family, your dentist's office, your library, your coworkers, and your elected representatives. If you buy one and I see you some time, I'll sign it for you! Although I've had articles published in much larger publications (EE Times comes to mind with a circulation of 150,000), this is the first publication of my creative writing. The first of many to come.

Critiques on "Jumping The Stream"

I received my two critiques from the PNWA literary contest to which I sent my first-draft version of Jumping The Stream. At that time it was titled Across The Stream, and since then I've made significant revision and enhancement. These critiques are from agents, published authors, or editors.

The first is even-handed, doling out praise such as "You draw a wonderful picture of Anna with few words" and "You have good imagery, a clear style, an understated and effective sense of humor in Kate's [sic] character." (Her name is Katie, but I'll take Kate.) This critique also offers many opportunities for improvement. I believe that most of them were also noted by an additional critique I got and have since revised the manuscript accordingly.

The second essentially gushes about the entire story, noting only that another pass to turn the few "telling" parts into "showing"parts would be worthwhile.

Both critiques covered only the synopsis (5 pages) and first two chapters (21 pages). Here are my favorite quotes from the gushing critique:

"The opening scenes grabbed my attention and were quite realistic. Great job setting the stage and immediately creating drama. My interest was piqued from the beginning and I was curious to find out more and wanted to read on."

"The well planned out synopsis points to an intricate plot. The writing in the first 21 pages leads me to believe you will pull it off with great success."

And the kicker:

"Wow! What a great story. You have great writing and story telling skills. The story is very publishable and would be one I'd read if I picked it up off the shelf and read the jacket cover."

Here's hoping an agent and an editor agree. I think I will eventually get this novel published, but I also know I have better work yet to be created.

McBride no more on US squad

It was bound to happen. He's 34, after all, so he'd be 38 at the next World Cup. He'd never make the squad, especially not with the young, athletic strikers the US have coming up.

Brian McBride Retires [link]

The article does not say whether he's retiring from club soccer; I rather think not since he's still young enough to play a few more years in the Premier and then return to MLS for a swan song.

Anyway, I'm sad to see him go. I always enjoyed watching him play, always enjoyed his work ethic and quiet confidence. I don't recall ever seeing him dive, and I don't recall any tantrums at referees or linesmen (even when thoroughly deserved). Tough kid. Sorry to see you go, Brian. I'll keep watching you as long as you're at Fulham.

I assume these are Democrats

In an article from The Boston Globe:

The federal government has inflated the "No Fly List" to 200,000 names. But the list has nabbed more members of Congress than it has terrorists.

Ted Kennedy is the most famous "false positive," according to an FAQ at the ACLU site of Washington State.

From the same Boston Globe article:

Bush declared a year ago that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted." But only 39 people were convicted on crimes tied to terrorism or national security, a Washington Post analysis found.

I feel much safer than I did on September 10th, 2001. Especially since I can be assured the President is fighting a valiant battle against gays (protecting the sanctity of marriage, goddammit) and against sick people (no stem cells to be harvested on his watch, thank God).

Couple this with the Homeland Security Department's well-documented incompetence in how they allocate funds and identify "targets" of terrorism, and I think it's a miracle that the US hasn't suffered a major attack since 9/11. Maybe God actually is on W's side. Or maybe it's because of this.

back up on that horse

Another near-miss on a short story, so it's going out again today. In honor of getting closer to the prize, a haiku:

story rejection
each time, I write a haiku
it keeps getting verse

Whas a guy gotta do?

Y'all can read a basic query letter template for my first novel, Jumping The Stream, here. I've tried only five agents so far; the two superstars I sent it to passed ("not right for my list"), and I've not yet heard from the other three.

I think I may have spent more time on the query letter than I did writing the entire first draft of the novel. (That old saw, "I can give you 30 pages in 2 days, but I'll need 30 days to give you 2 pages.") Anyway, the novel is really women's literary fiction; more literary than chick-lit, not quite as self-impressed as literary fiction. It takes a new approach to an old story. It has an historical aspect yet does not fit the historical genre. Just the other day, I read that these things are exactly what editors are looking for right now.

Gives me hope despite the two rejections, yet the jury is still out. How do editors feel about male-authored women's fiction? How do editors feel about an aspect of lesbianism that is integral to the story? (OK, I know the answers: Editors don't care; they only care if they can sell the book. So I guess the questions really are about whether editors feel they can sell books with those characteristics.)

The results of a straw poll are impossible to gage. 50-50. But sometimes that happens with a sample of two. What do you think? Is there hope for this book? (Assume that it's competently written, that the characters are interesting and sympathetic, and that the story holds together. Obviously without those, the other questions are moot.)

I am not terribly discouraged by my two rejections thus far. They come from the very best at times when those agents are brimming with clients. It's like I decided I wanted to play soccer professionally and took my first tryouts with Manchester United and Real Madrid. Shoot for the moon, right?

Update on my first published work: The first issue of Thereby Hangs A Tale is going to print pretty much as I write this. So all of you who subscribed should receive your first issue in the mail probably between late August and mid September (that's my guess, not a commitment from the publishers). All those of you who've not subscribed: C'mon, pony up! I only get two contributor copies (plus my subscription copy, I'm hoping), so don't expect me to send you one unless you gave birth to me or paid for my college education. That pretty much narrows the field.

two more agent queries

Another writing update. I've just sent off another agent query for Jumping The Stream and packaged up another to send out tomorrow. That makes three in circulation.

Also, I finished a new short story that I will be submitting next week for an August 1st deadline. My last story submitted to the same publication got lost in the ether, which is too bad because I think they'd have bought it. Fortunately, this one may be better, and the editors felt bad about losing my previous story (not their fault), so they may be inclined to give me a break. Not that I need one, of course, being the best as-yet-undiscovered talent this side of Hemingway.

Zidane

OK, so BSP asked me to get off politics and talk about that bonehead soccer player. I'm not sure what to say except that I read he has done similar things in the past (and got caught) and that only hotheads really lose it on the pitch. Last season, my teammate and I worked this one guy on the other team that clearly was losing his head, and it was not difficult to trick the referee into sending him off. First, I kept grabbing his shirt where the ref couldn't see until the player finally elbowed me in the chest. The ref didn't see it, but I bellied up to him and could see he was in a real state, entirely pissed off. As the ref ran over to cool us down, my teammate casually walked past the opposing player and totally goosed him (the ref could not see). The guy lost it and spun around and kicked my teammate hard in the shins. The ref had no option but to send him off for fighting.

The moral of the story: A lot of crap happens on the field, and you have to be stable enough to let it roll off you. If you're not, then you might lose your cool and headbutt someone. Zidane is lucky he didn't injure either the Italian player or himself. He is in danger of losing his Outstanding Player trophy for the tournament. He has a legacy now defined by the last play of his career rather than by the oodles of games that came before.

Sad. Very sad.

wealth distribution

Heard this at a conference recently:
The top 20% of the nation's population own 85% of the nation's wealth.
The bottom 60% of the nation's population own just 4% of the nation's wealth.

It's nice to think that if you give more money to wealthy people (i.e., tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans), they will share that extra money in the form of investing in business and creating jobs. The reality, however, is that businesses in the United States are structured with the overriding purpose of returning additional wealth to investors. The rich people are investing in vehicles that are fundamentally designed to make them richer, not fundamentally designed to improve the economy. The basis for the idea that tax cuts spur economic growth is the "rising tide" theory: If rich people get richer, then poor people are getting richer, too. It simply is not working out that way in practice.

I recently also heard a financial conservative use the term "enlightened self-interest" to describe the idea that being motivated entirely by self-interest is equivalent to being enlightened. I found this hilarious because the exact opposite is true. Here's what wikipedia currently says about enlightened self-interest:

Enlightened self-interest is the ethical principle that when persons act to further the interests of others or at least the interests of the group or groups of which they belong to, that such persons ultimately serve their own self-interests. It has often been simply expressed by the belief that an individual or even a commercial entity will "do well by doing good".

My personal observation is that more people are coming to understand and embrace this idea. Invest in early childhood development because a child who comes to first grade ready to learn is more likely to end up being a college graduate and therefore a productive worker. Invest in available child care because working mothers can't work if they don't have somewhere they can keep their children safe. Invest in strong levees and disaster preparedness so we don't have to spend five times as much on disaster recovery. Invest in renewable energy and better efficiency of usage to avoid having an "oil addiction" that drags down the economy and brutalizes the environment. These are examples of enlightened self-interest.

If only those tax cuts for the rich and all the money we're spending on war were being invested in areas that qualify as enlightened self-interest... we would be on a path to becoming a truly great society.

Go Bears!

Spent the last week in Tahoe with kids & parents. Beautiful week, wonderful weather. lotsa fun. Plus, a bear in the dumpster.

Viva El Presidente

You'd think that I, as a liberal and a Bush-disliker, would have known about this. It turns out that there is some sort of legal loophole that allows the president to sign a bill into law while at the same time signing another statement affirming that the law doesn't apply to him. Bush has done this 750 times, far more than any other president. Is anyone surprised?

I thought we used to try to export democracy to banana republics. Now it appears we're importing their fascism while putting armed guards on our borders to keep the people out.

What a bunch of dopes we have running our country, and it starts at the top.

happy birthday to me

yip yahoo

Excellence in Volunteer Programs

A quick plug for my employer. I was on hand in Seattle on Monday to watch our CEO accept the Points Of Light Foundation's award for excellence in workplace volunteer programs. I am proud of this award because not only do I help run many of the programs that helped Wells Fargo earn this award, but I also wrote a good portion of the application that won it.

hooray for me

one of the worst jobs

Why in the world would anyone ever want to be a referee? The one in the USA v Italy game blew it, big time. While I do think the first two red cards were deserved, the first yellow on Pope was undeserved, and the second merited a warning but probably not a yellow. What it means, of course (besides putting the US a man down for 45 minutes) is that Pope can not play in the final match. The US defense held up without him, but it will be too bad to have him unavailable. Mastroeni--well, I'm not really sure why he was on the field to begin with.

Go USA! Go Azzurri! Too bad, though, that there is no case in which both Ghana and the US can advance.

jumping out of the airplane

This week, a young American soccer player compared playing in the World Cup to going to war. Personally, I find such analogies disingenuous. Nothing but war should be compared to war; perhaps if we were less cavalier about comparing sports to war, we would have fewer wars.

Be that as it may, I will use another analogy that really doesn't work: I just jumped out of the airplane. That is, I sent my query for Jumping The Stream out to an agent. It's not really a leap of faith in the way that a skydiver has faith that his parachute will open. It's a different kind of risk--if the agent declines, really I've lost nothing other than a potential opportunity. If the parachute fails to open, the skydiver is likely to lose somewhat more than the opportunity of slowing down.

I think this would be a more momentous occasion if I had not already sent the novel once to a small, independent publishing house for its first rejection. I've learned a lot in the ensuing six months, and the novel is much improved, as is the query itself.

Wish me luck. Or don't, if you don't like me. It's really up to you. Just remember: In publishing, it's a war out there.

An even 2,500 and counting

While we've got a long way to go to hit Vietnam's 58,000+ American deaths (thank goodness), we have finally hit 2,500 in Iraq. Let's all hope it does not get much higher.

Blogger's Block

I notice that most of my blogging friends (and I) have not posted new items for days, or even weeks. Spring fever? Rampant bloggers' block? Too busy? Wrapped up in World Cup?

For me it's a combination of all four. It is hard to revise a novel, raise two kids, keep the weeds and pool algae in check, and hold down the day job.

Speaking of my writing, in general it's going well. Feedback from a professional writer is very positive, and I plan on sending queries out to agents within a week or two. Wish me luck. I've finished revising 13 of the 19 chapters, though I'll need to do another pass at some point. I worry that there's not quite enough action in the middle chapters and that the story is too character-based. But we shall see whether it flies or sinks. Or stinks so bad that it draw flies.

Still no word yet on the stories I submitted to THEMA way back when, or my submission to the Glimmer Train new writers contest, or my most recent submission to The First Line.

Go USA, beat Italy.

Kittens!

We have two new members of our household. Meet Annie (the gray striped) and Alice (the pale tortoiseshell). We got them at the Martinez Animal Shelter, and they were just about eight weeks old. They're not sisters, and at first they didnt much care for each other. In three days they've warmed up to us and to each other, and they're both wonderful wee beasties now.

The first night we had them, we had to go out for a social engagement (happy 40th, Beth!). So we locked them snug in our half-bath downstairs. When we returned at 1 a.m., we could find only one kitten in the tiny room. I quickly figured out that Annie had climbed inside the pedestal of the pedestal sink, snaking through the access opening in the back and getting stuck down in the bottom cavity of the pedestal. The only solution was to unhook the piping and pull the sink off the wall since I could not reach in and pull her out. I finally got to bed around 2:30 a.m.

Welcome, Alice and Annie!

The Greatest Generation

Honoring those who showed the real meaning of courage.
June 6, 1944

Cub Scout Camp

What a great time Camp Lindblad was. It's a cub scout family camp where the boys can participate in crafts, woodworking, archery, first aid, nature hikes, and campfire skits. The counselors are terrific people who interact really well with the kids. All in all, a great time.

I have known peripherally about the controversy over the Boy Scouts' homophobic policies. In a nutshell, there are two Boy Scout policies with which I disagree:

• Scout leaders must believe in God. Agnostics don't count. That is, if you're agnostic, you can't be a scout leader at any level.
• Neither scouts nor scout leaders may be homosexual. The policy does not mention homosexuals per se but does say that scouts and leaders must be "morally straight," and BSA makes it quite clear that homosexuality does not fall within the boundaries of moral straightness.

The FAQ on the policies can be found here.

Now, I entirely 100% without misgiving support BSA's right as a private organization to set their own policies. I do not feel they should be compelled to accept athiests or homosexuals any more than they should be compelled to accept sheep or goats. These policies, however, deeply offend my sensibilities... to the point that I frequently consider removing my kids from scouting because of them.

Scouting ends up being so much fun most of the time, though, that I keep the kids in it and hope they continue with it. They do learn many useful skills and leadership qualities, and I feel that the homophobic, discriminatory, small-minded, paranoid policies of the BSA organization can be overcome with patient and wise parenting and an inclusive and diverse approach to life.

Thereby Hangs A Tale

The first issue of Thereby Hangs A Tale is due out some time in June. You all should subscribe because my first published story will be in their first issue.

moving right along

I have had enough of the previous entry's title occupying the top of my page. Bad dharma.

So here is something fluffy: Although I think Taylor will win Idol, I want Katherine to win. That said, I would be more likely to buy Taylor's album than Katherine's, and I've enjoyed Taylor's performances more. But that's because I like KFOG, which is more his style. McPhee is more in line with the other pop divas that are so popular these days. I do love her effortless, crystal voice. And she's hecka cute.

I officially hate someone now

If you'd asked me a few days ago whether I hated anyone, I'd think about George W Bush for a bit but then say, no, I don't think I hate anyone. Even George has the country's best interests at heart, though I thoroughly disagree with his methods. Today, though, I officially hate someone.

I officially hate the Richardsons who now own the property where my wife grew up, 1171 Camino Tassajara in Danville, CA. They believe my father-in-law lied to them about a sewer line in his back yard. In my opinion--and I knew the man for over fifteen years--he would never lie about something like that. He would go well out of his way to point out any known flaw in any item he wanted to sell. He was the epitome of honest and forthright. But the Richardsons, when they found that they had not done their homework regarding an extension they wanted to build on to the house after they bought it, decided they needed to blame someone else for their disappointment.

Who better to attack than the bereaved widow?

That's right: my father-in-law passed away from pancreatic cancer less than two months after the Richardsons bought the house. He was in steep decline shortly after the sale contract was signed, and he died just two weeks after moving out of the house. So the Richardsons had a lawyer send his widow a nastygram threatening a $250,000 lawsuit if she didn't fork over $85,000 within two weeks. Of course, we acquired our own lawyer (expensive retainer) and gently reminded them that according to the sale agreement, they were supposed to offer mediation before lawsuit. We then did our homework and found out that both of their claims in the nastygram were wrong: although they said they "knew" my father-in-law knew about the sewer line, I don't think he understood that it was a "main" requiring disclosure. Also, they claimed the existing addition to the house which was done in the mid 70s was "illegal." In fact, the addition had fully approved permits and was entirely legal even though it sat over the sewer main that is in the back yard.

The Richardsons also knew about the sewer line within days of their sale agreement because they had a company come to clean it out. They certainly should bear some responsibility for not doing their own homework to find out more about it vis a vis their expansion plans.

All this culminated in the mediation, which took place on Monday. My mother-in-law ended up paying them a significant chunk of money because they were dead-set on going to court, and she had had her fill of anxiety, pain, and suffering. The Richardsons feel they were lied to. Those who knew my father-in-law know that he would not have lied about something like that. At the time he filled out the disclosure form, he was on heavy chemotherapy and was sleeping sixteen hours a day. The Richardsons, in choosing to attack his grieving widow, have earned my lasting enmity. They think they were wronged. I disagree and think they are the ones who have wronged someone. In my opinion, they extorted a significant portion of her very small retirement fund.

The Richardsons have torn down the entire house that used to stand at 1171 Camino Tassajara in Danville, California. They plan to build a larger, new house in its place. I would say I hope they're happy there, but really I can't say that because I don't hope it. I hope they're very unhappy there, that every time they drive up to the property they think about how they used lawyers and intimidation and strongarming to squeeze a little bit of money out of a grieving widow. The money she gave them is a huge portion of her life savings but a very small amount compared to what the Richardsons paid for the house and are no doubt shelling out for its complete demolition and reconstruction.

I do not like officially hating someone. It is not something to which I aspire. But I will do it if someone earns it.

MLB vs Idol

Steroids or voting scandal? Petulant, whiny prima donnas who play a game for millions a year, or overeager amateurs trying to win a recording contract?

I'll be in Denver this week attending the United Way's annual leadership conference. It's a terrific conference, with great speakers. The dillemma is on Tuesday night.

I am attending as both an advisory council member and a Gold Sponsor. The advisory council has group tickets to Tuesday's Dodgers v Rockies game and is a fun group to go out with. The Gold Sponsors have tickets to a sky box for the same game. But then I'd have to miss American Idol.

I can't explain why I like Idol so much. I'm not a freak about it--I never vote, I don't read the idolsonfox.com web site, I don't really care who wins. But I really like the show. When I was in college, I tried out for the UC Men's Octet even though I'd never had any singing lessons, voice coaching, or anything like that. They gave me two chances. The first time, I sang in the wrong key. The second time, I sang quite well but ended with the melody instead of the harmony line I was supposed to sing. Fortunately, they had a dozen other hopefuls, most of whom sang really well. Anyway, they were nice and gracious and didn't make fun of me. And I'm glad I tried... and I'm really glad they held the auditions in a closed session instead of in front of FOX's TV cameras.

On the other side, I can't exactly explain why I despise major league baseball. OK, yes I can. The game is boring. Ticket prices are astronomical, as are prices for food, parking, souvenirs, merchandise, etc. The players make far too much money. Free agency has robbed the game of any consistency of rosters for more than about six months at a time. And at this time of year, besides a few column-inches and a photo or two of the NBA and NHL playoffs, baseball gets the entire sports section. I am mostly ignoring the whole steroids hullaballoo because I mostly try to ignore the entire sport anyway. Add to this the fact that Little League turns normal parents into crazy bitches from hell this time of year and that if your little boy doesn't play little league everyone thinks you're gay, communist, or a devil-worshipper (or that your little boy is "special needs"), and I think I know exactly why I hate the "sport."

So, my dillemma: Do I stay in the hotel room and watch Idol and try to get some revision in on my novel, or do I go out with the gang and pump up the machine with United Way's money, or do I go to the sky box to be a good corporate drone and get the red carpet treatment?

Decisions, decisions.

dammit!

Rejected again. And this one was actually a good story.

The best part is that with the rejection letter (in the envelope I paid for, I self-addressed, and I stamped), the editor was nice enough to include a subscription card. Not a card saying I was getting a free subscription. A card asking me to send them some money because, well, it would be my duty as a writer to subscribe to their magazine because they make the world a better place. (I'm paraphrasing here, but that was the message on the card.)

Imagine you're a 17-year-old boy who has never really been on a date before, and you're dying to go to the prom yet terrified of asking someone. Finally you get up the courage. You ask that smart girl, the one who seems a little quiet but is cute in her own way. She says, "Thanks for asking, but I've got so many boys asking me that I have to reject 99% of them. But you could rent a limo and pick us up and drive us to the dance. That would be nice."

As if.

dooh nibor goes to Washington

The Senate just extended some tax cuts for another few years (pending agreement by the House and signature from Bush). The result is a reduction of federal revenue by $70 billion. This year's deficit is projected at $300 billion already, and I'm not even sure whether that includes the next $60 billion Bush will request as an "emergency" procurement outside the budget to support the troops slogging it out in Iraq.

The benefits this cut to the AMT and dividend taxes provides? Quoting today's Washington Post article:

Middle-income households would receive an average tax cut of $20 from the agreement, according to the joint Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, while 0.02 percent of households with incomes over $1 million would receive average tax cuts of $42,000.

Whoopie. What's in it for me is about twenty bucks. What's in it for poor people is about... nothing. Oh, that's right, all those rich people getting their $42,000 back will create jobs with that extra cash! So the economy will keep getting stronger!

I am consistently baffled by our government. Why don't they do something about the exorbitant costs of health care and the nation's addiction to oil instead? Weren't those two of Bush's biggest priorities? Instead, we get tax cuts for the rich and amendments to the constitution codifying discrimination against homosexual citizens.

Huh.

they like me! they really like me!

Quite unexpectedly, I won my soccer team's MVP award this year. Now, most years I self-delusionally think I deserve it more than whatever guy that wins it, but this year I thought I was only 4th or 5th best. After the votes were tallied, it appeared that my teammates thought different. So that was nice.

whose side is God on, anyway

This [link] may determine the answer once and for all. Though I think a tournament would have been more appropriate.

evil editor opines on brevity

I have become a quick fan of two publishing-related blogs recently. One, Miss Snark, led me to the other, Evil Editor.

Evil Editor had a Q & A post the other day that discussed the difficulties of summarizing an 80,000-word book down into one or two paragraphs for a query letter. (It could be noted here that my book's first draft took me 35 days to complete at 72,000 words. My first query letter took 14 days and is less than a page.)

Here is what EE said about the plot distillation process:

Your ability to distill your entire book into one brief paragraph is admirable. Your literary heroes, no doubt, are screenplay log line writers, who describe a two-hour film in one sentence. But don't forget about title writers. The complete essence of Frank Herbert's 500-page story of political, environmental and economic intrigue is conveyed in the simple word Dune. Stephen King outdid Herbert by half with It. Among the greatest plot distillers in literary history was the guy who determined that only one m needed to be stamped on the side of an m & m. Janice Delaney's legendary query for her history of menstruation entitled The Curse, consisted of a blank sheet of paper with a period in the center. (This used half as much ink as the previous record, the query for Dr. Jensen's Guide to Better Bowel Care, which was, of course, a colon.)

And here are a few other choice quotations about brevity:

Brevity is the soul of wit.
-- William Shakespeare

Much wisdom often goes with brevity of speech.
-- Sophocles

Can do thirty pages in two days. Need thirty days to do two pages.
-- attributed to Mark Twain, in a note to his editor

I am sorry I wrote you a four-page letter; I did not have time to write a one-page letter.
-- I do not know, but one web site attributes it to George Bernard Shaw

2,400 and counting

It's worth a reminder.