October 21, 2011: Too Old for This

Today I have to take a written driver's test for the first time in over half my life. I'm a great driver that has never caused an accident, but all these specific footage rules that I never think about...I'm totally going to fail.

112 thoughts on “October 21, 2011: Too Old for This”

    1. I had to take the written test in Illinois when I lived there. They had a few questions the the penalties for different moving violations. I remember thinking that the only people that would know the answers were those that had violated said violations. That doesn't really seem like a good way to decide who gets a license.

  1. I had to take the written test when I got my Minnesota license. Dude, if you fail, you should feel really bad about yourself.

    1. I had to take a written test to get my california license (both when I came to the state for grad school and when I returned years later, IIRC). Trivial pursuit exam, which, sadly, has very little connection with being a good driver. (but I passed)

    2. When we moved to Nee-braska we had to take the written test, as I remember it was pretty easy. I had the option to take it in English, Spanish or Hmong which I thought was a little weird. I mean if you can only read Hmong, do the road signs really mean anything to you. Anyhow, at the time the Mrs. had just had to renew her Minnesota license about a month before we moved. There was some sort of backlog at the DMV and all she got was the paper reciept that was supposed to act as her license until the new one was sent to her. Of course the new license never came and when she went to get her Nee-braska license they told her that her Minnesota license was not valid and that she had to take the driving test. Needless to say she was not happy. She did pass the driving test just fine though.

      1. Many of those where English is a second language have learned the road signs, but may not be proficient enough in English to be able to take tests well. Confusion over the words 'except' 'not' 'all' or could make someone fail a test when they knew the answer.

    3. I'm probably psyching myself out. I just expect tons and tons of questions with one-foot differences in the possible answers or something.

      In Arizona, you don't have to renew your license until you're 65. That's insane. If I do it now and never move, I won't take another test for 31 years. People carry around licenses with pictures of them from ages ago.

    1. I agree. We'll never know what would've happened had he done it differently, but I think last night LaRussa outsmarted himself.

    2. I think that focusing on management for that inning is losing the forest for the trees. The Rangers had their 1-2-3 hitters up in the 9th and the Cardinals had their 7-8-9 hitters up. And if Kinsler gets thrown out at second (which he nearly was--had Motte held him closer Molina's essentially perfect throw would have had him), then Ron Washington is the guy who overmanaged and LaRussa gets the last laugh.

      While Rhodes for Motte was a dumb move, there was really a lot more to the inning than that. 0 K for Motte, Rhodes, and Lynn, 2 K for Feliz. Kinsler's speed >>>> Laird's speed, which is apparently better than Molina's speed. Pujols inexplicably not cutting off the throw which was too far up the line to get Kinsler even if Kinsler had tried for home. Punto's hero complex coming through again, trying to bunt for a hit rather than just getting the runner over.

      1. Why wasn't Hamilton walked? The go-ahead run was already in scoring position; why not at least set up a double play and concede the tying run. Unless you don't trust your bullpen not to walk in the run...

        1. Yeah, that was my question. Just dumb. Yeah, the guy is in a major slump, but then why bring in a 100-yr-old reliever instead of going after him with a guy that throws 100 and is more likely to get a strikeout in that situation. Plus, if you get a ground ball with the bases loaded, you are more likely to get an out at home on a forceout and possibly a double play.

        2. You're going to walk the bases loaded with no outs and the cleanup hitter due up? I'm pretty sure LaRussa would have been at least as crazy to do that as he was to bring in an elderly LOOGY to go for the strikeout. I don't think the worry there is that you walk in a run. I just wouldn't want the bases loaded for Young, Beltre, and Cruz. Even just going by the book, looking here, from '75 to '92, the probability of a team scoring at least one run increases if you walk the bases loaded in that situation, and your expected runs allowed increases by about 0.3 runs. Walking the bases loaded only starts to look like a good move (and then even marginally so) when you have one out already. LaRussa more or less needed the strikeout and Hamilton has pretty big splits (which is pretty common for lefty hitters.)

          For being such an awful pitching move, the relievers after Motte basically did the league average thing of allowing two runs in that situation, and they got the next three hitters out. They couldn't get the big strikeout, but neither could Motte with the first two hitters. I think the difference between Motte and Rhodes is probably bigger than Hamilton's platoon split, but it's not the craziest thing I've seen. If Hamilton strikes out, then maybe you walk Young to load the bases for Beltre, but I wouldn't be terribly thrilled about that situation either. Even if Motte had stayed in, he would have just had to allow one hit before getting three outs to do just as poorly as his replacements did.

            1. I just thought the two half-innings were a fascinating contrast between the two groups of players and I wanted to draw attention to that, because I thought that was a lot more interesting than the pitching strategery.

      2. Certainly, there was a lot more to the inning. Once it gets to second and third with no one out, well, you're in a tough spot no matter what you do. I don't think anyone's saying LaRussa is the sole reason the Cardinals lost. I still think he outsmarted himself, though.

        I loved Kinsler stealing simply because it was such a daring move. If Kinsler had been thrown out, the headlines today would be about what an idiot Ron Washington is for having him steal. As it was, the steal was a major factore in the Rangers' win, and Washington is a genius.

        1. Of course, I suppose you could argue that replacing Motte with Rhodes was a daring move, too. That's how it goes when you're a manager, especially when you don't go by the book. If it works, you're a genius. If it doesn't, you're an idiot.

          1. I would have had no problem with the steal attempt even if he had been thrown out. They had no offense all game and it was going to take another bloop hit to tie the game, which is essentially what happened. They were trailing in the 9th of a World Series game. No one had rallied in that situation since 2001 (Game 7), so it was going to take a daring move to pull it off. And when you're trailing in a game, that's when you need to be more daring, not when you are leading in the ninth at home. I'm pretty sure I would have thought bringing in Rhodes was a dumb move even if Rhodes had gotten a strikeout.

            1. Would you have had a problem with a Gerald Laird steal attempt? Or a Yadier Molina steal attempt? Sometimes the other guy has more bullets in his gun than you do. Sure, the Rhodes move was dumb, but I don't feel like the managers decided that game.

              1. I have always hated it when LaRussa goes out and makes multiple pitching changes in an inning. Therefore, I enjoyed it when he took out his best reliever and put in a 40 year old to face last year's MVP and it didn't work out.

                1. Watched the guy filling in on 4ltr's "radio" show on TV, and the guy thinks that New Busch should have a sand path from the home dugout to the pitcher's mound, just like Detroit's path from home to the mound.

              2. I would have had no problem if Kinsler had been thrown out. Someone extremely slow would have been different, but I doubt someone slow would have been running the bases at that point. Closers are pretty notorious for not paying much attention to base runners, although Motte hasn't been a closer very long. The Cardinals could have very easily lost anyways, but my main point is, I don't think La Russa put his team in the best position to win the game, which is all a manager can try to do anyways.

                1. My whole issue with all this focus on the managers is that these guys play such a minimal role in the game. Sure, maybe LaRussa had a bad game, but the impact of his bad game is barely anything anyway. It's like complaining about a pitcher because he doesn't hit well. Sure, his hitting has an impact on the game, but it doesn't have nearly the impact that his pitching does. Like you say, the Cardinals could have very easily lost anyways. Whatever damage LaRussa did with his pitching move was a lot less damage than Motte caused by letting the first two hitters reach second and third base with no outs. If anything, LaRussa's decision to play no doubles defense was probably the move he made which had the biggest impact on the inning. If the outfield is playing normal depth, Kinsler never reaches, and then Motte's pitching to Andrus with one out and no one on.

  2. Of course the extremely interesting discussion of higher education would happen on the day I'm locked away, grading midterms. I really appreciated the conflicting perspectives on research universities vs. liberal arts colleges, since that's a question down the road for me. Good stuff, guys; wish I could have been there to participate.

    1. Of the things that my graduate schooling, and Dr. Chop's for that matter, didn't really prepare us well for was the job market. We had mock interviews and a seminar on letter writing, but we both left without a clear understanding of the actual profession. As I said yesterday, her faculty were more than a little disappointed that she took this job because it was on the teaching and service track. We've since learned what to look for, how to negotiate, how to say no to lazy senior faculty, and when to say yes to lazy senior faculty. We've also learned how to play nice when you don't get your way by watching how the resident malcontents act when they are (always) upset. I don't blame my advisers because how can you fully prepare someone for all the nuances of the academic world, but The notion that there is such a thing as an academic starter job was completely foreign to us both

  3. As of yesterday, the WGOM is setup to be community funded. There needs to be some discussion about the details, but I think a donation drive is not far in the future.

        1. actually, I really like the coffee mug idea. If meat or bootsy would consider adding some things to the company store, I bet we could sell quite a few branded items to the Nation. And I look forward to seeing a company store link on the front page (I never got around to getting my _elm_n shirt, for example).

          I definitely would purchase a coffee cup with, say, bootsy's logo for the old site. some arrangement to compensate the artist(s) and put a few sheckels into the .org's coffers would be kewl.

          1. we attempted to create a WGOM coffee mug with just that logo, but negotiations with the artist broke down after his licensing demands were deemed unreasonable.

                1. I LOLed.

                  (I wouldn't mind one of those mugs either. I'll waive my fees in exchange for product--say, maybe, 6 of them. Fair?)

          2. I definitely would purchase a coffee cup with, say, bootsy's logo for the old site.

            Dido, for sure. I'd get one of CH's wgom.org logo, too. In fact, I don't even want to know how many coffee mugs I'd be willing to buy if they were WGOM-related.

            1. heh, i made this awhile ago when we first started talking about fundraising, but never got around to using it.

            2. I hereby release the logo for any wgom.org-related merch which helps underwrite wgom.org, and surrender any royalties thereto. Although I would take a Surly.

      1. Perhaps. I think first we need to make it self-sufficient in funding itself and then open governing. It's a lot more work to turn it into a non-profit, especially if it's a tax-deductible one.

      1. your donation was indeed accepted, as was everyone else's that donated. that money has not been used yet, but will start to be used from this point on.

        1. Yep. We have about three months worth of funds I believe. My aim is to align the WGOM fiscal year with the calendar year, meaning a fund drive every end of the year.

  4. I removed the link to New Guy's blog, since it doesn't exist anymore. I may pull Greet Machine and Born by the Wires, which haven't been updated in seven and fourteen months, respectively, and are also from guys who never showed up here. If anyone has a reason to keep them, say so.

    Also, if anyone has a blog I don't know about, speak up and I'll create a link to it.

          1. i can't remember where it was in the podcast (somewhere towards the middle) but gleeman referenced something from WY's old blog, which was great, but then he got married and went and got an actual life, or something like that. i was driving through frustrating traffic while listening to it this morning, so i only heard it in passing.

        1. I listen to the podcasts. Let me just say this: Gleeman knows the Twins organization about ten times better than Geek does. Geek should just interview Gleeman because his opinions, sitting next to Gleeman's analysis, look silly.

          1. Agreed. Gleeman, despite expressing zero self-confidence on his site, comes off quite intelligent and eloquent on the podcast and in radio interviews I've heard. The guy works tirelessly and it shows.

              1. Aaron's a pro, though.

                Literally. This is his actual profession. Not just the Twins, but he still devotes all his time to baseball-related writing and research. TwinsGeek is like the vast majority of us in that this is just a hobby and is using his spare time to dedicate to this stuff.

  5. Five(!) new banners today. Three were supposed to be live ages ago, but I stashed them in the wrong folder...meh. Another is a hungry joe find from this morning, and the fifth is the half-bakef Born to Run thing that - FTLT? - did. The dimensions are off, so hj and I agreed it had to be one of the Hitman's creations.

      1. The link to nibbish's blog appears to be out-of-order. Luckily, the link at Casa de Leche still works, so I know that nibbish didn't suddenly give up on video games.

    1. "I have pending issues,

      do tell. But good for him. Hopefully they will raise some decent money for charity.

  6. Well, after a few hours of studying and a handful of mock tests to avoid certain embarrassment, it turns out the DMV website was outdated and I didn't have to take a written test. Here's $25, here's your license. Well, alright then.

  7. Well, today was my last day of work at the park/golf course. I started at as a temp and moved to a seasonal position and being a groundskeeper at a golf course is something I could total do and enjoy

      1. Cinderella story. Outta nowhere. A former greenskeeper, now, about to become the Masters champion. It looks like a mirac…It’s in the hole! It’s in the hole! It’s in the hole!

  8. Lots of "Red October" hype here on the local media re: the Cardinals, but it was neat to see the local soldiers and their families turn out at the airport at the fence near the team's plane. Of all the players, I only heard that broadcaster Mike Shannon and LNP went over to the fence and shook hands with the folks there.

Comments are closed.