Pistol

Yeah, "Butter Jesus" as I respectfully call it. It looks like it was sculpted from some sort of dairy product, but I think it's plaster on some steel beams. One of the funny parts is that because it is plaster, I think they only wanted it to just barely touch the surface of the water it rests in. Well, the water level in that artificial pond in front of the megachurch is about 2-3 feet lower than the cut-off point for the body of the sculpture so the beams are exposed, making Butter Jesus look even cheaper. I think I like that one even better than the giant aluminum cross outside Effingham along I-70 and I-57, or the "Effing Cross."

As hilarious as that is, I can't get over how many people think it's true. Last spring, I visited what very well might be the most bizarre place in America, the $27 million Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY. It's just off the I-275 loop through Northern Kentucky, right across the Ohio from Cincinnati. I had been itching to go there since I heard it existed so I had no excuse not to once I moved here (morbid curiosity is a major motivator for me). The only problem is my girlfriend and I had to drop $19.95 a head to get in the door and weren't thrilled about dropping that coin to a bunch of nutjobs like Ken Ham, founder and CEO of Answers in Genesis, the organization that got this place built. The good word isn't free, apparently. That coloring book page you linked is pretty spot-on to the content of their exhibits. The place is truly surreal- animatronic dinosaurs and humans (in the same place at the same time, of course), tons of multimedia displays, a life-size cross section of Noah's Ark, an interactive step-by-step of how the Earth began 6,000 years ago and a great flood put fossils where they are, a scare-you-straight section about how refusal to believe these theories is mortal sin and is responsible for other mortal sins, and so on. I walked through both greatly entertained and deeply disturbed, and I'm pretty sure my girlfriend and I were the only ones there for the spectacle and not to reinforce beliefs. (In fact, this "museum" has shattered attendance projections and is almost completely paid off ahead of schedule. About 2/3 came from Answers in Genesis and other private donations, while the rest was debt.) Moral of the story, if an accredited American university is allowed to teach this stuff in degree-granting programs, then it is no surprise our country's science programs are swiftly descending the ladder of international prestige. We need to beat Liberty for more than just basketball itself.

Yeah, what an awful way to spend what should be the most fun four years of your life. The last thing I want is some annoying, pompous born-again telling me, "That's not the Liberty way," and getting me fined for watching The Big Lebowski on DVD, staying out until midnight, or having a beer. This school also has a Bachelor of Science (!) program, which has one department called Creation Studies. I would question the merits of my school's Science department when some of its cornerstone beliefs are rejected by over 99% of the scientific community.

Liberty was just ranked 13th in the ESPN Mid-Major poll. Only losses are to Clemson by 5 and UNC-Asheville by 18. Wins were against Virginia (!), Coker, William and Mary, George Mason, and Gardner-Webb. They play up at DePaul two nights before coming to St. Louis as part of the Findlay Toyota Las Vegas Classic. I sure hope we don't sleep on this team. We play some sneaky good teams this year.

Here's an article, which has some interesting quotes: http://www.dailypress.com/sports/dp-spt_tr...0,4809372.story

You'd think he would have learned after the first Curry. I just can't believe Seth Curry went to Liberty to play basketball. I have a hard enough time understanding why any 18-year-old would choose to go to Liberty, let alone someone going to school for basketball. Did he really not have any other offers? Not even Davidson?

I'm with you. He's the most fun player to watch in college basketball this year and so easy to root for. Davidson has completely justified their high ranking so far, and he's taken over when they've needed him. My personal favorite game of his so far this year was the game against Loyola-Maryland where he was held scoreless. They ran a triangle and two against him, so he just stayed out of the way and let his teammates have a 4-on-3 power play the whole game. They won by 30, and his goose egg left him with the lousy PPG average of 36. Incredible. By the way, the attention that Davidson's basketball success has gotten in the past two years because of Curry and co. has totally changed the school. Enrollment has been held at pretty much the same small amount, but admissions are unreal. My buddy's sister graduated near the top of her class from one of the Francis Howell schools (I get them mixed up) and had a 35 on her ACT. This is a girl who had full rides to a few different very good schools, but for Davidson she was initially wait listed, then rejected.

Definitely. Pizzotti was horrible. She left Shimmy with a blank slate. This is a complete start from scratch situation. It takes at least four years, and I think she deserves another after this one.

YOU LEFT THE CAPS LOCK KEY ON STOP YOU MIGHT WANT TO TURN IT OFF NEXT TIME STOP IT WOULD MAKE IT MORE ENJOYABLE TO READ STOP I HOPE THIS WAS NOT DONE INTENTIONALLY IN ORDER TO CONVEY A SENSE OF URGENCY STOP AT LEAST LET HER FINISH HER FOURTH FULL SEASON STOP

That could be true, but they still don't vote in massive numbers despite how almost uniformally they vote Democrat. I think their older generations still feel a strong degree of disenfranchisement and younger black voters do not vote in high numbers- this election turned those numbers a good amount, but it will be interesting to see what sticks down the road. I would also argue that their numbers are virtually offset by the approximately 25% of Americans who consider themselves "Evangelicals" and are predominantly white and Republican. This is also a subset of the population that votes consistently in huge numbers.

I agree with you there. It is rare that a candidate is bad enough to bring down a party to any serious degree. Heck, the more I read about Nixon, I'm surprised the Republican Party still exists and isn't one of those "history book" parties we read about in high school, like the Whigs. I think McCain (once again, not a bad candidate albeit much better in 2000) may have been the strongest candidate of the bunch on the right side and I also think that the Republican Party is going to retain a lot of strength; these tales of its demise are wildly blown out of proportion. That said, this election may have signaled some sea change on the right and delivered another blow to the Republicans' overall strength and direction. After this administration, that is probably the natural result. They need to decide whether to continue this with-us-or-against-us mentality or try to regain the middle. The Democrats are more unified than ever but still not enough to shut the door on anyone.

Good question. I wonder the same thing. I think some of it has to do with the party's own mismanagement and infighting in recent years, but a lot of it also has to do with the various voting blocs the Republicans have been able to build over the past 25 or so years. Those particular groups seem more unified in their ideals and more consistent in voter turnout than any easily-identifiable left-leaning groups. As far as the more moderate Republicans who help them stay even, I think it comes down to a matter of taxes. People in the top x% don't want to have a 39.6% tax rate instead of a 35.0% tax rate, which is hard to argue with. I have a tougher time reconciling while so many moderates vote Republican despite the fact that they are nowhere near the brackets that receive tax cuts, and likely are in brackets that receive tax breaks from Democrats. This might just be a group willing to take their lumps on principle, what they would probably classify as 'Socialist' or 'redistribution of wealth.' As for the media, there is no denying that individual members of the media are predominantly liberal in their political views. That's why they get into journalism- young, idealistic, want to change the world. It makes sense. However, they generally work for large, right-leaning corporations (as large corporations are wont to be) who are willing to let their journalists stay satisfied by subtly inserting their viewpoints while enjoying corporate tax breaks from Republicans. There are more liberal major news vehicles out there, but they are way more moderate and subtle in their political views that the right-leaning ones, which seem to be a more recent development. In education, that's probably another reflection of a field that young liberals pursue. As far as I can tell, educators have always been liberal unless not allowed to by their institutions or governments. The correlation between the most educated states voting Democrat and the least educated states voting Republican has been very strong in recent elections. I would disagree with you that voters "put morals second" when voting and contend that a lot of voters put their own versions of morals first, which does not discount the fact that many voters are self-absorbed- you treat these two as mutually exclusive, and they are certainly not.

You said this a few posts back: "counter punching without substance is a trademarked democractic party tactic." When Republicans do it, are they guilty of trademark infringement? Can we be honest and just say that arguing without substance is a characteristic of politics in general? There are way too many variables in the campaign to put the margin of victory on one thing (e.g. record number of black voters, young people, shift in Hispanic vote, vice presidential nominees, several 2004 red states turning blue, Obama's online campaigning, economic environment, and so on and so on). If the Republicans don't want it to be a battle between a crotchety old dude and vibrant young buck then they probably shouldn't have run crotchety old dudes against vibrant young bucks. It's pretty hard to look at Dole or McCain (didn't they learn?!) and paint them as anything but crotchety old dudes, well over a generation removed from their opponents. No media spin did that; it's a function of age and personality.

Was the problem the multitude of jokes or his actual age? He seemed to be aging before our eyes as the campaign wore on. Didn't help to have the likes of Palin waiting in the wings. I feel terrible for what happened to McCain in SC in 2000 (you can't claim that speaking without substance is a tactic exclusive to Dems), and the country would be much better off with him in office for the past eight years than Bush. However, his time passed and his own party is largely to blame.

Another good SLU backdrop in in a photo from today's news. Will Allen take a basketball scholarship and walk on for football, or a football scholarship and walk on for basketball? Or does this just depend on what the coaches decide to do at the school he chooses?

Just wait until Jack Meiners shows up on campus next season.

All I wanted was the reason they would be in front of a SLU backdrop, not your opinion. They had a Base Realignment and Closure Commission meeting there in June 2005- that is where the picture is from. The AP wanted to put them in a picture together, and I guess the best they could do was one that was over 3 years old. Also, you might want to refrain from calling someone a fraud before he actually commits, you know, fraud. What Blagojevich wanted and what Obama did (or did not do, in this case) are two totally different things.

I know it's a huge reach, I was being somewhat facetious when I made the suggestion. It would probably never happen in Missouri because people don't care enough. Why would it be bad, though?

So you're saying that if the governor of Arizona did the same thing if McCain were elected, McCain would personally be getting scrutinized for it already? I find that hard to believe. Without any signs of approval from the guy who left his seat, the press would be idiotic for trying to blame him for it. There are connections between Obama and Blagojevich, naturally. A state senator and governor of the same state would have a hard time not being connected. If you're referring to Rezko, he was unavoidable for Illinois politicians during that time period. Given the long-standing corruption in both parties in Illinois, the back-room favor politics in Chicago, and the media scrutiny both get, I'm actually very pleased at how clean Obama has kept. But none of this answers the question- why are they in front of a SLU backdrop?

Obama had nothing to do with it. I bet he'd like to clock Rowdy Roddy in the face right now. Why are they in front of a SLU backdrop, anyway?

Pizzotti was just awful and she got a whole decade to do nothing. I think Shimmy deserves 5 full years, then I think it's a good time to have a serious sit down. I also agree with Roy in that the wheels spin slower for the non-revenue generating programs. We still don't even know how this season will end up. What are the terms of her contract?

Does anyone know the exact reasons why this game doesn't happen? Is it financial, and if so, what are the terms they can't agree on? We also need to write Missouri congressmen and have them make it a law for the two programs to play each year- it is that way in a decent amount of other states.

Isn't the whole point of small class sizes to guarantee contact with human beings? Lecture halls are where you can skip, disappear, or find one of a thousand others to take notes for you. Small classes require you to be there and participate. I know that was just an aside, but anyone who attended college could understand that.

I'd split it up into a North/East/Northeast division and South/West/Southwest division: NE: UMass LaSalle St. Joe's Fordham St. Bonaventure Temple Rhode Island SW: SLU Xavier Dayton Charlotte Richmond Duquesne George Washington Those are pretty even, and make the most geographic sense (if that is possible). The only tough one is St. Bonaventure, which isn't far from Pittsburgh. The others are all so close, and that's all the way across NY state- I had to draw the line somewhere, though.

I have no problem with this thread. They're the only program in the state bigger than ours, the post is marked OT, and they're having a very nice season so far. I think it's worth taking a look at. Plus, this is the first thread that's gone into how that other team is doing and it's already 8 games in. It's also worth looking at because we've been complaining all season about the pathetic local coverage we've been given; now that Mizzou is playing well, will they be able to justify more coverage? Granted, if a SLU post of this nature showed up on Tigerboard, they'd piss all over it, but I think this is still a worthy discussion. We're much classier than Tiger fans in general, aren't we? Nice analysis, TCO. I would contend, though, that Anderson and Majerus are not essentially at the same points of rebuilding as you contend. No matter what the mess was from the Quin Snyder fallout, he's still in his third full year. Nearly all the guys on the Tigers' roster are now his recruits, too. He's still had a number of off-court issues with his players, even if a lot of them weren't guys he brought in. His 'zero tolerance' policy was more a media-friendly phrase than an ultimatum. That said, I agree that there are some parallels to our roster, mainly in the large signature recruiting class for each coach. I still don't like that Mizzou didn't schedule more than one true road game. That won't exactly toughen them up for a solid Big XII this year.