Thoughts On A Picture
by Jeff on Jun 15, 2009 4:18 PM PDT
in Miscellaneous
115 comments
- An hour later, the skies were full of dark clouds and the press boxes were evacuated due to a tornado warning. To this day I don't understand why people insist on living in places where something powerful clearly doesn't want them to live.
- Jason Hammel looks like he just landed after jumping in the air and clicking his heels. Hammel's not an Irish name, is it? What a weird way to pitch. Or maybe he already finished his follow-through and clicked his heels really fast in celebration of the pitch being so good. That would probably be distracting for the hitter. I wonder what clicking your heels together while throwing does to your elbow.
- It's interesting that bending over and placing your hands on your knees has become the universal way of preparing for a hit ball. That's usually what I do after a really hard run. Bending over and placing my hands on my knees is a position I associate with not doing anything for the next four or five minutes.
- No spectator has ever been in less danger of being struck by a batted ball than all those people on the concourse above the Wells Fargo sign.
- I know so little about the Rockies that I'm not sure if one guy in the bullpen is standing up, or if all of them are sitting down and one of them is a giant.
- Comfort Dental? Is anybody really going to believe that? That's like naming a company Agreeable Plumbing.
- Fifty bucks says that ball is on its way in, not on its way out.
4 recs |
115 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I thought the ball was a particularly large-headed person in the stands.
by NOLAmarinergirl on Jun 15, 2009 4:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Something powerful...
sort of like earthquakes and wildfires in San Diego?
by Inkara1 on Jun 15, 2009 4:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I've been trying to think of a place that doesn't qualify. I've got nothing so far.
by Lanky on Jun 15, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take the risk of an earthquake or volcanic eruption every 25 years or so over tornado season once a year.
by acblue on Jun 15, 2009 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd take the risk of a simultaneous earthquake/eruption over 115 degree heat every FUCKING DAY.
Something powerful thinks that Phoenix is an abomination.
by marc w on Jun 15, 2009 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have you seen the way that city is laid out?
Whatever it is is right.
by acblue on Jun 15, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Population in 1950: 100,000
Population now: Almost 5 million. Urban Growth Boundawhatnow? Plus their arterials are like small freeways.
by waldo rojas on Jun 15, 2009 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Population density, 2007:
- New York CIty-27,264/square mile
- Seattle-7,086/square mile
- Portland-4,288/square mile
- Houston-3,828/square mile
- Bellevue-3,947/square mile
- Lacey-3,239/square mile
- Phoenix-2,937/square mile
That’s not a city, it’s the world’s largest exurb.
by acblue on Jun 15, 2009 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The thing I don't get about Phoenix
Okay, well, one of the things. When the white man was coming across the country to settle the West, what on earth prompted them to get to Phoenix, survey the flat, moon-like landscape, feel the searing heat, and go “OK, this looks great! Let’s stop here!” I mean, Denver I can understand – you’re coming west, you look up, you see some big-ass mountains, and you go “OK, I’ve gone far enough”. But Phoenix? Gah.
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
by pdb on Jun 15, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or even the high plains desert cities like Flagstaff where it doesn't get nearly as hot.
I understand that some people love living in the desert so I get Palm Springs and stuff like that but five million people?
by acblue on Jun 15, 2009 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is what cheap property has begat
Throughout the 90’s you could get 4+ BR and 3000ish SF in the Phoenix area for $200K. People believe that property is the be all end all of life, so they went where the land was cheap.
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
by pdb on Jun 15, 2009 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
White people like sun.
Go figure.
by waldo rojas on Jun 15, 2009 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nobody wanted anything to do with Arizona until after WWII (probably because of the advent of affordable air conditioning.)
Look at these census figures for Arizona. There wasn’t even anyone who wanted duing the Civil War era.
1860 6,482
—
1870 9,658 49.0%
1880 40,440 318.7%
1890 88,243 118.2%
1900 122,931 39.3%
1910 204,354 66.2%
1920 334,162 63.5%
1930 435,573 30.3%
1940 499,261 14.6%
1950 749,587 50.1%
1960 1,302,161 73.7%
1970 1,745,944 34.1%
1980 2,718,215 55.7%
1990 3,665,228 34.8%
2000 5,130,632 40.0%
Est. 2008 6,500,180 26.7%
Las Vegas’ demographic growth follows a similar pattern, as ac pointed out (hey – ac and AC!)
by Decatur on Jun 15, 2009 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another thing about the Pheonix area
is how bad their water situation is. With 6 million+ people in the middle of the desert, they are seriously hurting for water down there, which is why I wouldn’t ever even contemplate living there.
by KDC_1988 on Jun 16, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As of two years ago
they were still building exurbs in the Las Vegas area even though they knew full well that the new areas did not and would not ever have water rights. Which is insane. Phoenix isn’t much better, either.
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
by pdb on Jun 16, 2009 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In general
this is the case for most of those cities down there with rapid growth in the middle of the desert. I was just using Phoenix as an example since it was being talked about already. I have no clue why anyone wants to live down in Phoenix, Los Vegas, Los Angeles, ect. because of the history of wildfires, and the problems with water availability.
by KDC_1988 on Jun 16, 2009 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LA has a completely different lifestyle from anywhere else on the West Coast
and many people enjoy that sort of life
by seattlebruin on Jun 16, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't mean it
can’t be on the list of stupid places to live based on natural hazards and resource availability.
by KDC_1988 on Jun 16, 2009 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, LA rarely has wildfires
you’re thinking of San Diego.
by seattlebruin on Jun 16, 2009 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vegetation, I should say.
by Lanky on Jun 16, 2009 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oops.
Honestly, what the hell is wrong with these people?
by Lanky on Jun 16, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Evereyone riots when they win the title
remember when Michigan State almost burned down East Lansing?
by seattlebruin on Jun 16, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Especially when you douse them in gasoline and fire up a flamethrower in the driveway
but I’ve said too much.
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
by pdb on Jun 16, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is Seattle really 2nd on that list?
I guess everything does seem to be pretty close to each other.
by Fin on Jun 15, 2009 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seattle is fairly dense
but Chicago, Boston, Philly, DC, Pittsburgh, San Fran, Miami (?), LA and Baltimore are denser.
by acblue on Jun 16, 2009 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The reason Seattle is dense is that it's not terribly large compared to other cities
by seattlebruin on Jun 16, 2009 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought it was the excellent public transit system.
by Lanky on Jun 16, 2009 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually a big part of the reason Seattle is dense
is because it did have excellent public transportation prior to highway expansion and increased car ownership. In most cities neighborhoods like Ballard, Roosevelt, Phinney, etc. would have developed as almost exclusively single-family zoned suburban neighborhoods but because Seattle had an excellent streetcar system the suburban areas of Seattle developed in a similar manner to small cities.
by acblue on Jun 16, 2009 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is this based on something you can refer me to, or is this just a good theory of yours?
by Lanky on Jun 16, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's pretty well documented.
I can’t think of a specific source right now because it was generally accepted as common knowledge when I was studying the history of urbanization in the PNW.
by acblue on Jun 16, 2009 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
MOHAI's a good source for Seattle history
not sure that it’s all available online but it’s well worth a visit.
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
by pdb on Jun 16, 2009 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well if it's a popularly held belief it must be true.
by Lanky on Jun 16, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is a popularly held belief by people who study urban history and urban planning for a living.
People who actually know what they’re talking about. And given my knowledge of urban history and planning there is absolutely no reason to think that this is not the case. If you can give me a valid reason why I should listen to you and not people who actually know what they’re talking about maybe I will care what you have to say.
by acblue on Jun 16, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was a joke.
I’m not disagreeing or questioning you. I just found it funny to see an appeal to authority in a forward-thinking baseball blog like this, that’s all. Let’s be friends.
by Lanky on Jun 16, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not appeal to authority.
Appeal to authority would be arguing that someone with actual evidence against your claim is wrong because someone in a position of authority disagrees with them, such as “the Adam Jones trade is good because Bavasi is an MLB GM and you aren’t.”
My point was that the belief about Seattle’s development is so widespread that I read it in pretty much every account of the history of Seattle’s urban development. Those are two very different things.
by acblue on Jun 16, 2009 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fine, we won't be friends.
Your definition sounds to me like cases in which an appeal to authority is a fallacy. My understanding is that an appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacy if the authority is, in fact, an appropriate authority. But whatever.
by Lanky on Jun 16, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a clear argument from authority
It may in fact be true (this is likely even), but given that people who study urban planning for a living often disagree, and given there have been several ‘schools’ or movements within the discipline, well… maybe a source would be nice.
In this case, the reasoning would be that having a developed mass-transit infrastructure that predates highway expansion does NOT separate Seattle from other cities (like Tacoma). Maybe it’s the infrastructure and something else, like how aggressive a city was with annexation or geography (and I can see THAT being important in Seattle’s case).
by marc w on Jun 16, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough I suppose.
But the idea of streetcar suburbs leading to density is pretty much universally accepted. It isn’t the only factor obviously, but Seattle was a city of streetcar suburbs while Tacoma and Portland were not. And annexation was a huge part of it, but the areas annexed were large suburban areas (Ballard for example) that were exceptionally dense (for suburban areas) along the streetcar line.
by acblue on Jun 16, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seattle,
The town when mass transit regressed instead of progressing.
by Sec 108 on Jun 17, 2009 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At least we're not L.A.
They used to have a fully functioning subway system and then whoopsadoodle!
by OlSalty on Jun 17, 2009 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's how it happened in many (most?) cities
Replicating Tacoma’s old mass-transit lines would take billions. Covered a hell of a lot of ground, including a line that went all the way to Steilacoom. That’s covering a shit-ton of ground.
Hell, think of the Interurban connecting Everett to Seattle… in 1910. This was everywhere.
by marc w on Jun 17, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All to support an industry
That we are now bailing out. That isn’t aggravating at all.
by Sec 108 on Jun 17, 2009 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Buh?
It’s not, but that’s not really why it’s dense.
by acblue on Jun 16, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well I mean in that Seattle isn't nearly as large population-wise as a Phoenix/LA/Chicago
but since the area is smaller, the density is higher.
by seattlebruin on Jun 16, 2009 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chicago and LA are both denser than Seattle.
And Seattle has the population it does because it developed in a way that promoted density (or higher density than a lot of other cities of its age) not vice versa. Portland and Tacoma are both examples of what Seattle would look like in terms of density had it not been for its transportation network and the streetcar suburbs.
by acblue on Jun 16, 2009 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
San Diego and Orange Counties have similar-sized streets
most of our main thoroughfares are at least three lanes on each side, if not more.
by seattlebruin on Jun 16, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yakima, WA
I read not too long ago it’s the safest place in the country.
Not safe because you won’t get stabbed by a gang member, but safe because natural disasters pretty much don’t happen there. Off any big fault lines, out of range of any volcanoes, the terrain and weather doesn’t lend itself to tornadoes, out of the hurricane belt, not close enough to major water for flooding, yada yada yada.
I think I remember reading about this in a news article related to why big companies were building IT disaster recovery centers there. I’d look it up, but I’m too lazy.
IF I WAS MANAGER I'D HAVE A FIST FIGHT WITH YUNI RIGHT NOW AND KNOCK HIS FUCKING MONKEY HEAD CLEAN OFF (~EM)
by seattlecougar on Jun 15, 2009 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you serious? This seems completely counter intuitive to me.
But then I was butt deep in ash once, and the only two earthquakes I’ve ever felt happened there. Perception is a bitch.
by Kermit. on Jun 15, 2009 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There were quite a few Pacific North West cities on that list
Those IT companies may need to rethink building disaster recovery centers in the region though.
by Frosty Raptor on Jun 15, 2009 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mt. Rainier + Yakima +eruption+ Naches River = Lots of Dead Yakimians
It wouldnt near be as bad as the Kent/Auburn/Puyallup Valley….but…..the dead people will be the ones who dont think they have anything you worry about.
It may have been 120 years since the last eruptive activity….
Just because no one has died in the last 120 years, doesnt mean its Safety-nation in Yakima
Just make sure you are 200 Feet above the River level and you should be fine.
by CSD on Jun 15, 2009 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Greater probability
Mt Rainier erupts, tornado, hurricane, flood, earthquake, tsunami.
Um, yeah.
by seattlebruin on Jun 15, 2009 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unless you live on a hill overlooking Puyallup/Orting valleys. South Hill says suck it!
Hard work never killed nobody, but I won't take my chances.
by JAH on Jun 15, 2009 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Historically
Mt. Rainier has erupted to the Northwest side of the mountain, so this actually wouldn’t be that big of a problem, unless it goes against any other previous piece of geological evidence, which is entirely possible.
by KDC_1988 on Jun 16, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But there would still be lahars in all of the rivers right?
The snow would still melt everywhere on the mountain?
by Mariner John on Jun 16, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How much does that historical evidence actually figure in, though?
Couldn’t the pressure build at another area in the mountain?
by NOLAmarinergirl on Jun 16, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if it's because Yakima is on the edge of a giant lava flow about a mile thick that covers central Washington.
by Kermit. on Jun 15, 2009 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oops I should have clarified, I was keying on the fault line part of seattlecougars statement.
With it’s close proximity to the Cascades it didn’t make sense to me that Yakima isn’t sitting on a fault line, or close enough to be a problem.
by Kermit. on Jun 15, 2009 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno
I was just going off of something I vaguely remember reading once. I’m feeling more inclined to go try and find that article now.
IF I WAS MANAGER I'D HAVE A FIST FIGHT WITH YUNI RIGHT NOW AND KNOCK HIS FUCKING MONKEY HEAD CLEAN OFF (~EM)
by seattlecougar on Jun 16, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That wasn't so hard after all...
Forbes’ Safest and Least Safe Places in the U.S.
Yakima, Wash. #4
2004 Pop.: 229,100
Tornado: 0
Hurricane: 0
Quake: 15
Wind: 0
Hail : 0
Brush fires: 0
Extreme weather: 25
Total* 40
* The lower the total, the safer a place is and vice versa. Click here to read more about the methodology in our introduction.
IF I WAS MANAGER I'D HAVE A FIST FIGHT WITH YUNI RIGHT NOW AND KNOCK HIS FUCKING MONKEY HEAD CLEAN OFF (~EM)
by seattlecougar on Jun 16, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love it that three of the top ten are in Eastern Washington
and five of the top ten are withing 200 miles of each other.
by acblue on Jun 16, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I noticed that the Tri-Cities don't have any mention of radiation problems.
by abender20 on Jun 16, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My brother-in-law's dad worked at Hanford from 1944-1980something
and if you ask him there’s no radiation problem at Hanford. I have learned not to ask him.
Nice Guys Finish Third - My semantics are a waste of time.
by pdb on Jun 16, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Radioactive wasps good enough for you?
Recent news from Hanford. A friend of mine tells a very entertaining story about digging up a spent fuel rod while building a road out there. Nothing says fun like screaming “run for you life” while holding your dosimeter up in the air.
by Kermit. on Jun 16, 2009 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your friend needs to work on his English.
by abender20 on Jun 16, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry :(
Women are also capable of building roads and digging up spent fuel rods.
by abender20 on Jun 17, 2009 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Earthquakes aren't that big a danger in San Diego.
Historically they do happen, but the risk is much lower than most of SoCal. The fires, well…yeah.
by lemonverbena on Jun 15, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is the smoke blowing the wrong way?
by Wilder. on Jun 16, 2009 7:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Santa Ana winds
They blow offshore and are a main reason for wilfires in SoCal.
by garett1210 on Jun 16, 2009 8:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW (and not to distract from all the snarking on Phoenix)
but Comfort Dental’s a good chain, and highly-recommended.
by The Ancient Mariner on Jun 15, 2009 6:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Lookout Landing
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
