Gregory Pratt

Grossman IS soft as can be. He's afraid of being hit, he's "small", can't handle snaps, can't hold onto the football... but at least he's "better" than a fifty year old man, eh?

I've been reading a variety of books. Lots of train travel in the last week. Right now, it's mainly baseball and poetry. So the more I read about the World Series over the years, I can hardly fathom it. Earthquakes, weather, world wars, etc. etc. couldn't stop the World Series from happening -- but money did? That saddens me.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 25, 2007 -> 02:19 PM) I will agree that the few thousand professional philosophers will pick a fellow professional as the best of our generation. But who is having the greatest impact today and on the greatest number of people? Clearly it will not be someone publishing only for academics. To have any impact, and therefor something beyond theoretical value, it has to be in the hands of the common man. Why does almost every American poet give props to Whitman? Because he not only wrote great poetry, he also made poetry accessible. The counter to that is: would the romance novels sold at Walgreens or the murder mysteries count as the greatest books of our day? "Sales" and "popularity" are nothing to the importance of a work, especially long-term. And I disagree that X or Y has to be "in the hands of the common man" to make an impact. First of all, there's nothing stopping "the common man" from picking up a copy of X or Y. Second, most people have never heard of Strauss and yet he's cited as a reason we went to War in Iraq, because Paul Wolfowitz As for Whitman -- I don't believe that Whitman gets his props because he "made poetry accessible". That's too simplistic.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 10:49 PM) The 72 team is still being interviewed each year. It's an answer to the trivia question. Nationally, more people will remember the '72 team then the 85 Bears. It could also be an age thing. You youngin's that get your history off the internet, versus living it. I get my history from books and interviews, as a College journalist and ever-inquisitive person. And yes, the 72 teams are being interviewed each year but the 85 Bears still have their song played at times, are invited to speak, Mike Ditka is a host of football shows, etc. etc. so it's not like the 85 Bears are under-represented. They most definitely aren't. I don't know who's "better remembered" but I do know that the Bears are "remembered" same as those Dolphins. I know Walter Payton's image still graces hospitals and currently CTA trains with a message saying that he's still "making big gains" (with liver research at Rush hospital). Your points are well-taken but I'd like to clarify mine: Bears still remembered and revered, at the least the same as the Dolphins are honored but IMO much more.

First, this was said to me by someone else on a different place: "Almost every professional philosopher today is in academia. Here's a good starting list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:21st...losophers" So, that's where we would find "professional philosophers" and as I suspected, they're almost all in academia. As to your newest query -- I am unsure how to respond. I am fit to defend philosophy in general terms but not in great specifics. I am no expert on the subject, so I'll yield to anyone here who does know more about philosophy and is better able to address your questions. But I will give a couple of general opinions I believe are accurate: 1. Philosophers and academics would probably be incredulous if they heard you refer to their work as "dusty tome that will be read by dozens". It's a disrespectful designation: thousands of people read most of the philosophers' work, I'm sure. 2. There's always been a discrepency between what the general public listens to and what academics do. Generally, what academics, what hte brain trust elite remember, is what the society will remember in time or what will be remembered of the society. That gets us into the subject of HISTORY and who writes history and who assigns "merit" to ideas and books and things of that sort, but I have little to add beyond what I've alluded to. 3. Bob Dylan might well be the most influential philosopher of his day, but who knows how he'll be treated by time. 4. Strauss is a fine example -- Strauss is a guy whose work you might've characterized as read by "dozens" but if one of htose dozens is Paul Wolfowitz and he takes it as his creed and helps lead the nation into war, clearly it's more important than Radiohead which only inspires people to -- what, exactly? (I don't want to dismiss Radiohead. I'm just saying.)

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 25, 2007 -> 01:29 PM) All very good points, but if no one knows about them, do they exist? Not a bad laugh! But responding to that seriously -- plenty of people know about modern philosophers. Academics, students, those with a significant interest in contemporary philosophy. I don't count myself a student of philosophy. I prefer poetry for concise, vague insight. The last philosopher I really became acquainted with was Leo Strauss, whose ideas I was espousing at work without knowing it and my boss, who is big on the Greeks, said, "Oh, you should check out Strauss!" so I did. He's alright. He's also in my general realm: politics. He's known by some as the forefather of neoconservatism but I disagree with that, though that's a whole nother story. Anyway, I'm just saying -- lots of philosophers exist and know about each other. I mean, did the average person know about Hobbes and Nietzsche when they lived? Does the average person know? That sort of intellectual discourse isn't made for Vanity magazine or websites but there are a lot of people involved and knowledgebale about it. Maybe I'll ask one of my Professors about philosophers of today on Friday, since this is a guy I met by chance who I talk baseball with since he's completely crazy about the game and I am as well. (we also talk a little politics and a little life.) That's all I've got on the subject.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 25, 2007 -> 12:57 PM) No, I said that the philosophers of our day would have a website, perhaps an infomercial, a viral video on youtube, a myspace account, etc. Those are the popular forms of communications today. I don't think it would be to tough to apply most definitions of philosophy to Robbins. However, his philosophy probably will not extend past his life. I also am not saying his philosophy is good, valid, rational, or anything else. But even a poor philosopher is still a philosopher, just like the guy who dgraduates last from medical school is still called Doctor. Or as was penned four decades ago And the people bowed and prayed To the neon god they made And the sign flashed out its warning In the words that it was forming And the sign said "The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls" Okay. I thought I'd give you the chance to add depth to your statement, because this: was confusing to me for a variety of reasons, the first being the jumble of statements there: you state that they are the modern day philosophers; then you say that infomercials and websites are the ways to "philosophize"; then you say that the great philosopher of our day probably has a website and is making some sort of profit. I am having trouble beginning my criticism so I'll simply point out where I think you have erred. I will state that "the great philosopher of our day" probably doesn't have a website and likely works for a College somewhere, or a research institution or he writes books. He certainly makes money somehow but I promise you, the "great philosopher" and, hell, great philosophers of our day don't have infomercials or flashy websites and they likely don't put themselves on YouTube or MySpace. Books still rule academia and there's little more "academic" than philosophy. I just took exception to the phrase, "these are the modern day philosophers" and thought I'd elaborate on why Robbins or people like him don't really count.

Tex, Did you really just say that infomercials, websites and Robbins are today's philosophers? Please elaborate. Gregory Pratt

He told the Red Sox that someone had offered Damon a longer, greater contract than they had and the Red Sox said, "Sorry, he can go if he wants that length" and he signed with NYY for less years than the Red Sox had been told. Boston loves Boras and his clients but in that case they did the right thing.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 24, 2007 -> 05:31 PM) Either way...his next positive test is a 50 game suspension. And he didn't seem smart enough to avoid them after his first positive test, right before hitting the FA market. I mean, seriously, if you're a FA, ending the season on a slump hurts you vastly less than a suspension, and yet he still kept doing the stuff. How can you possibly fail to account for that if you're trying to decide on how to spend tens of millions of dollars? By no means am I advocating a Cameron signing. I'm just saying steroids =! amphetamines nor is there real correlation.

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 24, 2007 -> 05:20 PM) In my mind, there's likely a huge correlation between people who took amphetamines and people who did steroids. I really hope KW does his research to make sure he doesn't sign someone that's going to get busted in a month. What? Amphetamines have been a part of the game forever. Steroids are a relatively new thing, and exponentially a greater percentage in recent years. All sorts of players have used amphetamines and I don't think there's much correlation there. Just stating the opposing view. I don't know whether or not Cameron is a juicer or whether or not you're trying to hint at that, but that's my two cents about amphetamines-steroids connected.

Philadelphia is such a great, sad movie.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 24, 2007 -> 03:51 PM) The interesting part of the Trib today is that KW wasn't given a chance to match Anaheims offer, and according to Kenny, would not have done so anyway. Hunter heard the offer and ran like a bat out of hell for the bank.

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 23, 2007 -> 12:06 PM) His article on Monday bashing Rex for stating that the Bears have a chance still might be the worst article I've ever seen. I could only imagine what his article would have been if the Bears QB had said that the team had no chance. He's a piece of s***, and it's too bad Ozzie never kicked his ass. Only because you'd like to see it get Ozzie fired.

Willits is going to Florida.

Jenks wasn't released because relieving itself is a "crapshoot" or whatever. Jenks was released for drugs, drinking, fighting and self-mutilation of sorts (setting his hand on fire certainly counts). I'm glad he's clean, to the best of the public's knowledge, but the Angels knew what they had and we knew what we'd get when we got him: a young man with personal problems and a super arm. His problems seem to be gone now, though. ... On the deal: I kind of shrug. We'll wait and see.

Hamilton's available? Jesus Christ. I'm sure he isn't really available -- only available in the sense that Hughes is available.

Jones.

QUOTE(Beastly @ Nov 21, 2007 -> 12:02 PM) I have been in radio for five years now and I am currently working for the Odyssey at Eastern Illinois University. The problem is, I do not have a partner who I can talk sports with but at least I can do a solo ranting show just like Jim Rome. Right now my format is a Rock/Sports show. How is the radio program up at UIC? Is that your major and what kind of job are you looking to get into? By the way, my show streams Mondays at 5:00 on http://www.weiu.net:8080/odyssey/. Once you are there, hit select under "Listen Live" and select the Odyssey. Then hit "Tune It." I have little interest in doing anything on the radio besides the occasional interview in future years but a friend asked me to be his co-host and I said, Yeah, definitely. How is our radio program? I think it's new and it's very rocky, but I enjoy it. Political science is my major and I want to work in writing. All sorts. If you'd welcome me, I'd love to "join" you on your show sometime. Call in, y'know? And "guest host". We could have you on our show sometime, as well, and would be happy to.

Yesterday's show was a fantastic disaster. One of my TAs, who is also a good friend, brought the class up to the studio because I have a discussion scheduled at that time but instead radio and go to a different discussion. Well, we're talking about Barry Bonds' indictment and arguing over whether or not it's a waste of taxpayer dollars when all of a sudden the door opens and over a dozen kids shuffle in. We took a break about five minutes later and when we came back, we brought on two people -- my TA and my friend, Mark. Except their mics didn't work, so when I'd say something to them, no one would hear it on air but we were having a rocking good time in the studio. It was really, really fun. I don't think I've ever been more pleasantly surprised in my life.

“On the off-chance that you hear this song/ I’ll try and make it quick/ I know I ramble on and your attention’s limited/ so I’ll skip the metaphor and head right for the heart of it/ I want you.”

Enjoy it? I'm about to watch it. What do you think?

Last week was a lot of fun except my co-host embarrassed me a little by asking Jeff Pearlman twenty questions about Jay Mariotti. (He LOVES Mariotti.) http://uicradio.pages.uic.edu/index.php That's to listen, if you're interested. 312-413-2191 To call in. I probably won't answer "on-air" but I might pick up otherwise and if you're not naughty naughty, I'll put you on. Should be fun today.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Nov 20, 2007 -> 12:52 PM) What are you talking about? I never once said I have an inside source. I am posting pure speculation base on how things are going. I claim no inside sources whatsoever. Just remember where you heard it first. The deal is done. I hope you don't expect, ah, "credit" for "calling" that the "deal is done" and "there is no meeting" (between Texas and Hunter) if you are, indeed, insisting that you have no inside knowledge and no nothing beyond your own guesses.