When I decided to subscribe to the NFL Super-Fan/Prime Ticket this year, DirectTV decided to toss in a free 3 month subscription to HBO as a gratuity. I was grateful. Although I find these subscription channels to be extremely thin on unique content, recycling the same thing over and over again, I do like to catch up with their antics every couple of years.
It had been more than 4 years since the last time I subscribed to HBO. There should be something new on
Well, I was quite surprised to discover that that something new was a series staring Thomas Jane called "Hung". Jane plays the title role, and is the 40-something Pisces gigolo king of Detroit... replete with a giant penis, which is the key to his success.
My only complaint is that the casting is astrologically faulty. If the producers knew anything about astrology, they would understand that Pisces dudes cannot be gigolos. The Libra guys have a natural monopoly on this business. All male Libras are natural-born gigolos (on the inside). If you don't believe me, ask David Lee Roth. He's a 10/10 Libra. Jim Rome can also be some help on this question.
Anyhow, I started watching this series and I found it hilarious. It did lose it's critical path and get mired in confusion during the final third of this season, but this mattered little to me. I figured the writers just needed an off-season to plan and recharge their batteries.
Unfortunately, HBO did not see it my way. The second the tranny client showed up, the viewing audience plummeted. I wasn't particularly fond of that subplot either, but I passed it by. Rather than recognizing that the writers stepped over the boundary-line, even for this insane series, HBO simply interpreted this moment as the natural death of audience interest in the show. There will be no season four.
I am disappointed. This is one of the few unique and daring comedy ideas in the past 20 years of television. Rather than simply accepting that there are some boundary points you can't cross, even in a series like this, and making a few adjustments, HBO simply decided to kill the series.
I hate to say it, but they just killed the only reason I had to continue my subscription. You had me on the line for more money. Now you don't.
A quick look at the last 15 Heisman trophy winners reveals a bunch of clear-cut patterns. Before generalizing, let's look at the empirical data:
Num
Year
Name
School
Position
Class
Points
1
1996
Danny Wuerffel
Florida
QB
Sr
1,363
2
1997
Charles Woodson
Michigan
CB
Jr
1,815
3
1998
Ricky Williams
Texas
RB
Sr
2,355
4
1999
Ron Dayne
Wisconsin
RB
Sr
2,042
5
2000
Chris Weinke
Florida State
QB
Sr
1,628
6
2001
Eric Crouch
Nebrska
QB
Sr
770
7
2002
Carson Palmer
USC
QB
Sr
1,328
8
2003
Jason White
Oklahoma
QB
Jr
1,481
9
2004
Matt Leinart
USC
QB
jr
1,325
10
2005
Reggie Bush
USC
RB
Jr
2,541
11
2006
Troy Smith
Ohio State
QB
Sr
2,540
12
2007
Tim Tebow
Florida
QB
Soph
1,957
13
2008
Sam Bradford
Oklahoma
QB
Soph
1,726
14
2009
Mark Ingram
Alabama
RB
Soph
1,304
15
2010
Cam Newton
Auburn
QB
Jr
2,263
After carefully reviewing this data, let's generalize:
You have to play offense. Even Charles Woodson played WR and caught passes from Tom Brady at Michigan. He would openly tell you that he never would have won the award if didn't play offense.
You must come from a major, major brand-name college to win the award. Guys from Fresno State and Alcorn State don't win the Heisman. It doesn't matter if they go on to become #1 and #3 overall picks in the NFL Draft. You don't win the Heisman if you are from a non-Fortune 25 program.
Your perennial top 25 program better be playing for the national championship, or you are not going to win the Heisman. There are a few exceptions on this list, but very few. Charles Woodson, in particular, won the award because he was Michigan's clear-cut MVP in the year they won the Championship. Tim Tebow is a major exception, but he was in-between two national championships at the time. He was also the clear-cut MVP of that program.
You better be the MVP of that #1 or #2 ranked team, or you are not going to win the Heisman. Just about every name on that list is the clear-cut MVP of his program.
You had better be a QB or an RB, or you are not going to win the award. Charles Woodson is the only exception to this rule, but he is the most exceptional winner of all-time, and everybody knows it.
As I stated in my last blog entry, Trent Richardson is the only guy who fits the suit. Nobody else on the list of contenders fits the suit. Ergo Richardson must be the projected winner of the award.
I have no idea why odds-makers have made Robert Griffin III the favorite to win the award. I guess this is because Las Vegas was built on losers, not on winners. The objective of the handicapper is not to pick the winner, but to trick you into betting on the loser. As far as I am concerned, Robert Griffin is an instant replay of the Steve McNair story. Nobody put up more impressive numbers than McNair. McNair went on to become the #3 pick in the draft. He did not win the Heisman.
Is Baylor really that kind of a small-time program? Compared to Alabama? Absolutely! No doubt about it. Baylor is not a perennial top 25 program. Quite frankly, they aren't even close. Baylor is not playing for the national title this year. Quite frankly, they aren't even close. Robert Griffin has two major strikes against him. Trent Richardson does not.
My buddy Rico, who happens to be a Libra, objected to this line of reasoning. He declared that this just wasn't fair. Such a statement would indicate that
Defensive players & lineman can't win the award
Kids from small schools can't win the award
Great performers who aren't the MVP of their squad can't win.
You win because of your program, not your own merits.
Yes, that is absolutely correct. That is what it is. These facts are clearly evident in the data. This is the empirical fact.
"That just isn't fair!" I ain't saying it's fair. I'm saying this is the fact of the matter.
My friends, this is a moment for an object lesson in Astrology. Rico is a Libra. Contrary to popular notions, Virgo is not the great perfectionist of the Zodiac. Libra is. Like all earth signs, we Virgos are concrete, pragmatic, factual, logical, evidence-based critters. We reason from the material facts to the conclusion, not from an abstract notion of what is fair or lovely or beautiful or nice to an idealized notion of perfect reality.
The air-critters go from the abstract vision of what is fair, lovely, beautiful, nice, and well-balanced to an idealized notion of what should be. They do this like crazy. Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius all do this on a routine basis. None more than Libra. This is one of the reasons why earth and air people don't communicate well. Their reasoning methodologies are just too different.
Colin Cowherd is famous for saying "Fair doesn't exist. It's not a part of real life. Get over it." You can hear the screams of air people as he says that. You can hear a Virgo like me chuckling, because I know the air people are screaming. It should be noted that Cowherd is a major college football fan, and also a Capricorn brother. That means he's an earth boy, like me. Capricorns are concrete, pragmatic, factual, evidence-based critters also.
The truth is where the evidence leads us, not where we would like it to be. Too bad, really. Life sucks in the real world, then you die.
One interesting fact: Charles Woodson happens to be a Libra, and he broke a couple of the empirical patterns. Not bad... Interesting.
So the company has me hopping these days. I will have time for only a short entry as a big batch job runs, under my careful supervision.
Last night I typed in the birthdates for over 100 female Geminis of my generation. Together with the Gemini dates already in the celebrity database, I had close to 200 total samples. I discarded many from generations gone by as un-interesting, and possibly detrimental to the scores.
For only the second time, I tried an automated batch tool inside Kepler 7.0 called "Match Maker". It was difficult, but possible, for me to segregate the Geminis into their own group, and compare them to my chart. The tool sequentially compares any given chart to that of any collection in the database. The results are presented in sorted order, high to low or low to high, which ever you prefer.
The results were remarkable. The Geminis are now the second hottest group behind the Libras. Their scores ran well ahead of the Aquarians, who also show unusually high scores versus my chart. The Gemini scores ranged between 0 and 323, with Mode, mean and median right around 138. There were several scores in the high 200s. They could not eclipse the scores of the top Libras, but the broke into the top 5.
Unfortunately, the aggression figures were also high. Gemini aggression scores were not as high as Libra aggression scores, but then again, neither were their romantic and sexual attraction scores. Both Libra and Gemini aggression scores are higher than the romantic and sexual attraction scores. The results with Aquarians were similar.
Incidentally, Angelina Jolie happens to be a Gemini. She comes pre-packaged in the celebrity database. I have a romantic and sexual attraction score of 64 versus Angelina. That might be a bit on the high side. Strangely, we have an aggression score of just 8 points. This is the lowest I have seen among the Air clan. Go figure.
This has left me scratching my head. Why does the elevated sexual score walk hand in hand and side by side with an elevated aggression score? Is this bullshit? Is this even possible?
After a bit of reading on the psychology of intense sexual relationships, it would seem that the answer is "No it's not bullshit, and yes it is entirely possible."
Those who study these things basically say that the blowtorch that burns 10 times as hot burns 10% as long. You can't get into one of these red-hot burners without getting burned out.
Further, there is a much more profound point to be found here. There is only one way you can enter into one of these red-hot burners, and that is through the gateway of hyper-sensitivity. If you not hyper-sensitive to everything your lover does, the relationship just won't be that intense. If you are hyper sensitive to your lover, every little thing she does is magic. Every little sway of the hips, every little brush or her hand, every little bat or her eyelashes will set you on fire.
There is a dark side to that force. If you are hyper-sensitive to her, any careless word, any little criticism, any sign of anger from her can demolish you to a pile of rubble. Further, any little criticism from you, any little sign of anger, any little bit of ingratitude or rejection will wound her to the core.
This is why those deep the throws of love can fight like mad putbulls in a steel cage.
If these Synastry scores are to be believed, I could easily get into one of the blow-torch relationships with a Libra like Kim Kardashian. All air women are somewhat likely candidates for this kind of relationship. These figures indicate that it would be a hyper-sensitive and unstable affair. It would be delicious in the extreme, and painful in the same measure.
I think Tony Romo and Jessica Simpson had one of these relationships. I need to check their Synastry figures...
So the research project continues with very interesting results. The Libras occupy the top 6 slots of the leader board. The scores are pretty well off the chart. Regrettably, so too are the aggression scores. Terrifying...
Another interesting finding seems to be emerging. The Aquarians are starting to show up strong. I haven't found one that can crack the Libra hegemony over the top 6, but the Aquarians are starting to show scores in the 180-220 range, which is remarkable, to say the least. The Aquarian reports also show high aggression scores, similar to the Libras, but in the 300 range.
Oh well, Tom Landry and Rodger Staubach didn't always get along. They blew their cool around each other a few times. They still formed one of the most famous partnerships in NFL history, and Landry is still Staubach's biggest fan. Incidentally, I happen to have Staubach's jersey hanging up in my cubical at work, so I think pretty well of him also.
I have not yet run the Gemini charts yet, but I am expecting those to show strong scores also.
Why? I am formulating a theory about this with the help of several websites. Many astrological sources will tell you can't match sun signs with sun signsper se. The logic is foul. You can only match whole charts with whole charts, looking at complex aspects. Nevertheless, certain common patterns do emerge.
Common pattern #1: Opposites attract. You heard the Paula Abdul song. In romance, the key principle is called erotic complementarity. In genetics the principle is called hybrid vigor. She brings something to the pot luck. You bring something else. Together, you put together a complete program. Since romance is a function of reproduction, and reproduction is a genetic thing, you need to think of this as you would DNA and RNA. Any biochemist worth a damn will tell you a strand of RNA is the exact mirror opposite of it's DNA counterpart.
You see, my thinking has been entirely wrong up to this point. I am a predominantly earth guy. I have 5 Virgos and one Taurus in my chart. After that, I have three key fire signs: Aries moon, Leo Venus, Leo Mars (just like Tim Tebow). The rest is water; one each of Scorpio, Pisces, Cancer. I haven't got the slightest shred of air in my chart.
Ergo, I should go after a predominantly air-girl, with little or no earth in her chart. She brings something to the table I don't have. I may bring something to the table she doesn't have. Together, we have compliantly. It's supposed to work.
I thought it was other way around. I thought I would be best off with an earthy girl, preferably of the Capricorn clan. I have been dismayed by how many mediocre/average scores I have seen comparing my chart to Capricorn women. I like them, and they don't exactly hate me, but evidently they don't think it's a hot match up. They are luke-warm to say the least. The story of my life thus far...
If these scores are to be believed, the air girls do think its a (real) hot match-up. Libra is an Air sign. Aquarius is an air sign. Gemini is an air sign. The approaching series of Gemini tests will be the critical key in qualifying this theory.
If some sources are to be believed, the Gemini scores will be hotter than the Libra scores. Mercury rules Gemini and Virgo. They are supposed to be the most mental signs of the Zodiac, with Aquarius coming in 3rd. Ergo, it is a hot match. Really?
I doubt this theory. First of all, how much hotter does it get than 357 to 371? Higher than this is nearly inconceivable. Second, I have never had a liaison or affair of the heart with a Gemini girl. Third, my Grandma was a Gemini. Despite the fact that I was her grandson, and I loved her, I have to tell you we didn't see eye to eye about a lot of things. This is where those fearsome aggression numbers would seem to manifest themselves. I used to make grandma plenty mad, and visa-versa. Finally, some of my least favorite stars (read Angelina Jolie) are Geminis.
How a Capricorn like Brad Pitt hooked up with a Gemini like Angelina Jolie... Brad, you are letting your earth brothers down.
Still, if there happens to be some magnificent Gemini chick waiting around out there for me...
