TMQ Watch: September 4, 2012.

Once again, TMQ’s all-haiku predictions roll around. Let’s jump in and listen for the splash of water

We hate to admit it, but we totally miss the point of TMQ’s “Female Anxiety” item. If there’s anyone out there who does get the point, could you explain it in comments?

Could the NFL Referees Association strike end up like the PATCO strike?

Chaminade 49, Pulaski 39. Heh. Heh. Heh. (Also, you can now skip 429 words of this week’s TMQ, unless you’re really obsessed with the fourth down breakdown. In which case, we would advise you to seek professional help.)

Drone, sweet drone. “Where were the big newspapers, the major networks, the public-interest organizations?” Can’t speak for anyone else, Gregg, but looking at their website, it seems that EFF was on the drone issue in 2007, and has done some pretty good work since then.

“But there will not be craftsmen who work on cars — the repairs will be done by robots. ” Oh, bullshit, Gregg.

Disclaimer of the week: “Ye cannot change the laws of physics, laws of physics, laws of physics; ye cannot change the laws of physics, laws of physics, Jim.” (Hattip.)

The rules require the fleet-average of new cars to rise from the present federal standard of 27.5 MPG to 54.5 MPG by 2025. Aside from the absurd precision of such figures, the goal is extremely unrealistic — in fact, absent a fundamental technological breakthrough, certain not to be realized. But this is still good news!

So the government demanding that manufacturers meet an impossible goal is a good thing? Why?

Because if the unrealistic 54.5 MPG number results in an actual fleet average of a combined-cycle 30 MPG for cars and 25 MPG for pickup trucks, fuel economy will improve significantly over today’s, greenhouse emissions will continue their decline and U.S. oil imports from Persian Gulf dictatorships will decline. Getting halfway to the new goal would be great!

So instead of letting people decide what they want to buy, and what level of fuel efficiency they’re willing to pay for, we’re going to let the government set an impossible to meet standard and hope that automakers will get halfway there? Isn’t big government swell!

“Terra Nova” haiku!

Creep. “Barack Obama began his reelection campaign on May 5”. We’d say Barack Obama began his reelection campaign on January 21, 2009, but that’s just us. (We’d pretty much say that about any president in recent memory; the reelection campaign begins after the first term inauguration. But we’re cynical like that.)

Rule changes for 2012: 12 men on the field is a dead ball infraction, kickoffs are moved out t0 the 35 yard line in NCAA ball, “in most states, the force-out rule for high school football will be the same as in the pros”, the National Federation of High Schools “will not allow a kickoff team to block members of the receiving team until the kick has traveled 10 yards”, and the same organization now allows corporate logos anywhere on the field.

Eureka 62, Knox 55. Morgan State 30, Sacred Heart 27. (Wow!)

“Oklahoma State won by 84-0 over Savannah State, a lower-division opponent which last year lost by 56 points to Bethune-Cookman.” “lower-division”? Savannah State is a D1 program. “Did blowing out opponents that stood absolutely no chance make North Carolina and Oklahoma State boosters feel good?” Actually, we believe it probably did, Gregg. That’s one reason why we’re not big fans of college football these days. Also, we have a sneaking suspicion that the $860,000 Savannah State is getting from Oklahoma State and Florida State makes them feel pretty good.

“Upset at home by mid-major Ohio University, Penn State has not won a football game since 1997.” Congrats once again to TMQ for once again appropriating a FARK trope for his column.

Wasteful spending on bodyguards returns! And once again, the subject is perennial TMQ favorite Rick Perry!

Tune in next week, and watch for the exciting return of the loser update, also on Tuesday next week!

One Response to “TMQ Watch: September 4, 2012.”

  1. We hate to admit it, but we totally miss the point of TMQ’s “Female Anxiety” item. If there’s anyone out there who does get the point, could you explain it in comments?

    Upper class feminists have such an unrealistic outlook on life that they can never be happy.

    Why it’s in a sports column I couldn’t tell you.