So I think it's fair at this point to view the last decade as overall a pretty awful period of time, when it comes to the Nation as a whole.
The odd part of it is that even though even when things started to turn problematic, we never really took that next step and actually acted on it. Somehow when the Bush administration and the whole crew of troublemakers served us all a shit sandwich, we ate the thing and ordered another one if it came with a free dessert. Don't even ask what's in the dessert.
As a result, I'm hereby offering my List of the Top 5 Frauds of the Decade:
5. The Sports Purity Myth:
This really goes to the extended period of various athletic organizations, and the perpetually fabricated notion of the games being focused on good, honest sportsmanship and competition. Hey, I'm fine with artificial enhancements when it's done openly. There's nothing morally wrong with an actress getting huge fake breasts or whatever the hell Mickey Rourke did to his face, creepy as it may be. At least they'll admit to getting the work done to have big fake breasts or whatever it was Mickey Rourke was trying to get (maybe more roles as a horrible burn victim?). Professional wrestling deserves some serious props for at least owning up to the fact that it's not real, and the guys are on huge numbers of steroids. But the sporting community has never honestly come to grips with all its demons, and that creates a huge misrepresentation of what's happening.
The biggest American athletic scandal over the last decade has been the baseball steroid situation--unquestionably. Consider where we were in the late nineties. In 1998 and 1999, Sammy Sosa averaged 65 homers and 150 RBI as the darling of both MLB and the country. Mark McGwire was still a monster star, and was suddenly promoting Bedwetting Awareness (and he made us feel bad for kidding about it). And this was before everyone from A-Rod, Bonds, and Manny Ramirez got roped into it after their enormous personal success. Ugh. What a goddamn mess everything became. The good thing is that finally everyone wised up in the latter part of the decade and became distrustful, but no one stopped watching or buying stuff, so it didn't matter.
The NFL is facing some serious problems as well, although the money situation is overall pretty good (even if there is a lock-out in the next few years, everyone involved is still rich). Most importantly of the issues, there has been an increasing focus being cast on the long-term health of players. Realistically, the NFL has about as much concern for the post-retirement lives of its workers as a Cambodian whorehouse. The average life span for players with 5 year careers is 55, and 52 for linemen. Brain injuries are an enormous part of the game and at some point, there's going to be a reckoning with all of this. I love the NFL like few other things, but the way the league has tossed aging players onto the scrap heap is a disgrace.
Others in this category: NCAA recruiting and enormous money, NBA Refs and Player Drug Use, Money controlling the Olympic Committees.
4. Fictitious Media as Reality
This is somewhat of a consolidation, as I'm combining a number of elements. We've seen the enormous growth of "Reality Television" as a mainstream form of entertainment, even though to say that it even vaguely reflects reality is preposterous. I don't mind it as a form of entertainment, and I fully admit to loving some of the trashiest entries (You know I love "Jersey Shore"), but when some of the shows create this manufactured image of the ideal and people start emulating it, that's a problem. I've got no beef with the stuff that's clearly a niche thing or documentary style (like "Real World Challenge" and "I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant." You're not in Thailand eating bugs with Johnny Bananas and you'd know if you were pregnant, even though if they didn't.). Same thing for the big jump in cable news, mainly the gauntlet of derangement offered every night at Fox News. They offer up this explanation that Glenn Beck and the rest of the Patriotism Action Squad is all "analysis" and thus doesn't have to follow the normal standards of journalistic responsibility, but let's get real, people. Everything on these shows is presented as fact, and everybody knows it.
And the concept of Hannah Montana. It's a Disney show that somehow became the biggest entity since gravity, denim, and the color orange. Seriously, Hannah Montana is bigger than the color orange, and somehow she's able to still hang her hat as a "musician" or "person with a soul." When this makes sense, someone please let me know. I'll be banging my head against a wall to the beat of "Achy Breaky Heart."
3. The Conservative Co-Opting of American Social and Legal Values
When we look back in a few years, we're going to really regret a lot of what happened over the last decade in the name of: (1) traditional values; and (2) National security. We somehow managed to follow the right wing into, among other things: cutting taxes for the wealthiest segments of the population, continually undercutting the rights of gay Americans trying to just get married, rolling back gun laws, and ensuring that the all Americans have access to quality health care. We saw an administration somehow try to justify torture and pass it off as a reasonable way to gather information. We also saw that same administration take step after step to isolate the country from the rest of the world. Seriously, who thought it was a good plan to appoint someone (John Bolton) who openly despised the United Nations to be the UN Ambassador?
And yet somehow an enormous part of the population still bought this. And they bought into creationism, abstinence-only education, deregulating financial rules, and secretly screwing Veterans by cutting VA benefits and health care when they came home. But torture was OK. Right. Got it.
For chrissakes people, open your damn eyes.
2. Enron, Madoff, and Lehman, and the Myth of Getting Rich
I group these together because while the details had distinctions, the ultimate point was basically the same. In short, these 3 were able to convince enough people (and themselves) that it was possible to pull enough shady shit to get rich without anyone figuring out how it happened.
Enron went down about 10 years ago, and despite being the warning that we ought to learn a little something, nobody did. Turns out it's tougher to make a truckload of money when you can't make stuff up. Who knew? Enron, as a reminder, was a huge Texas energy corporation with a ton of power (back in the day Phil Gramm was nicknamed "The Senator from Enron") bringing in about $100 Billion in annual revenue. The problem was that they were bleeding red ink on a lot of their internal finances, and paid off their accounting firm (Arthur Andersen) to fudge the numbers by a few billion. Of course when it all shook down, the people on the bottom lost everything, all but a handful in the middle and top just walked away rich, and a couple of big players went to jail.
Within a couple of years the mortgage crisis started developing and firms like Lehman started investing huge funds into stuff that didn't really exist for purposes other than making themselves rich off of other people's money (like credit default swaps). Same deal with Madoff. Nobody questioned it when they looked like they were making money. And nobody cared about whether they were selling ridiculous mortgages if they could collect a fee and pass it off to someone else.
Maybe that's the biggest takeaway from all of this. There was always a chance to catch the financial frauds at any point, but nobody wanted to. Blowing the whistle always meant the end of the gravy train, and nobody wanted it to end. Problem was, it had to end sometime and the longer it went, more people hopped on board.
1. Iraq
By this point, it's clear to everyone that there wasn't any factual basis for why we ever stepped foot in Iraq. There was no yellow cake, no WMDs, no Al Qaeda, and no goddamn point. Now that the smoke has cleared, it's apparent that we've now lost $700 Billion, over 4000 dead American soldiers and another 30,000 wounded, anywhere between 100,000 and a million dead Iraqis, and there's no stopping any of these numbers soon. Dick Cheney used to talk about not wanting the "smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," and instead it's just a giant pile of burning money and large sections of Iraq being on fire over the last 7 years.
The ugliest part of it is that even though the Republicans dragged us into this debacle, they're still sticking to the idea that it was a good idea and somehow the fault of the Democrats. "Well they voted for it too!" the right contends. Well no shit they did. When the President tells everyone that they have surefire evidence that we are under imminent threat of nuclear attack from the Iraqi government, I hope to hell they support action. There's nothing wrong with confronting an aggressive enemy. But when the President and his cronies make the whole damn thing up to make the hawks look good, that's just punching a ticket for disaster.
And so, here's a hope that as we move onward, we get it together a little bit and stop falling for the same old tricks. There has been a little bit of movement on rolling on past the health care scare tactics the conservatives and insurance lobby tossed out there this summer (Death Panels! Free Insurance for Illegal Aliens! Scary Public Option Bad!), indicating some growth in the bullshit radar of at least 55% of the American public. There are always going to be 30% who buy whatever Hannity and the boys are paid to sell, and they're not worth worrying about. But the remaining 70% needs to keep fighting for reality, now and throughout the next Decade.
Let's make it the Decade of (Actual) Reality.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
The #1 Most Wonderful Time of the Year
It's that remarkable time of year where everybody and their brother starts cranking out the "Best of the Year" List. Hey, I get it. This is a good time to look back and evaluate where we've been as a culture and compare the highs and lows. More importantly, it's an easy way to skip out on a couple of weeks of actual journalism and start up some fervent discussion as to whether "GI Joe" was better than "Old Dogs." (The answer to that, of course, will be debated by scholars for years.)
Among the most widely seen of this series of lists are the ones published by Entertainment Weekly. By now, a few of you know I have my own personal beef with EW (they don't seem to have any beef with me, I guess). I love it as a quick filler for coffee tables and dental waiting rooms, and it's impeccable as a restroom literature source. They generally get who they are just fine, and everyone's happy. The problem is that interspersed with the poppy Tiger Beat stuff, they sometimes start making comparisons to more highbrow elements and the whole damn thing blows up in a sloppy mess of artistic/cultural relativism. The whole "it's good for what it is trying to be, so it gets an A- as a tween album even though it's recycled dreck" argument.
I'm not looking for Pitchfork reviews here (Among my favorite lines from a Pitchfork review of Kid A: "The experience and emotions tied to listening to Kid A are like witnessing the stillborn birth of a child while simultaneously having the opportunity to see her play in the afterlife on Imax." I cannot understand how this is remotely helpful to anyone with their head not firmly inside their ass. I like that the stillborn child is on an Imax, though, and not a normal movie screen. Widescreens are so passe.) What kills me with EW is that they give something a mediocre review, then publicize the hell out of it and pass it off like it's culturally relevant for its artistic value. I'm fine with big successes getting covered as a newsworthy event. I don't give a shit about Twilight or the Hannah Montana movie, but I get that a lot of people do, and that has news value in itself. But to subsequently conflate this as being indicative of critical importance or to compare it to lesser known items on a single list is idiotic and realistically, irresponsible as a journalistic entity.
My main objection is Sandra Bullock. Listen, I wish the woman the best and hope she has a nice Holiday. EW just published her as the "#1 Entertainer of the Year" in this week's edition and had a cover story last week about her work. This, in short, is preposterous. The woman made two movies that both received mediocre reviews, but did well financially, and as a result, we're now declaring her to be the top artistic performer of the year? Huh? It's not that some snobby film commission didn't like it, EW noted that "The Blind Side," "isn't solid at all — it's more like cotton-candy uplift" and gave it a C. "The Proposal," her other big hit, got a B+, narrowly edging the artistic achievement, "Paul Blart."
In contrast, there was no mention of George Clooney, even though his "Up in the Air" was their film of the year (as well as a great many others'). Nothing for anyone attached to much more highly regarded films like "District 9," "Up," or "The Hurt Locker." I only reference other movies and actors to make the comparison a little more natural--they ranked Lady Gaga highly and I can't see why she lost out to the cotton-candy uplift. In the end, this is all fine if we're going to portray this as a list of "The Biggest Hits" or "Nicest Surprise for People We Thought Were Dead After "Miss Congeniality 2." But the fringing of the lines between box office receipts and putting out material that furthers the genre drives me absolutely batshit crazy.
Anyways, that's about it on this issue. I know she's gotten a Golden Globe nomination, and if I had any real regard for that, it would really mean something. Especially if she won. This stuff really falls into a lot of the same problems as the Heisman (I mention this because of a recent post criticizing voters who don't pay enough attention), so there's a grain/mountain of salt to be had with all the trophy business. I know some people take the opposite view on the whole thing and see the merging as a little more allowable, and I'm being a self-righteous prick about the whole thing. But I don't care, I'm sticking to my view: You can't be Entertainer of the Year when you make "All About Steve," and that's all there is to it.
Among the most widely seen of this series of lists are the ones published by Entertainment Weekly. By now, a few of you know I have my own personal beef with EW (they don't seem to have any beef with me, I guess). I love it as a quick filler for coffee tables and dental waiting rooms, and it's impeccable as a restroom literature source. They generally get who they are just fine, and everyone's happy. The problem is that interspersed with the poppy Tiger Beat stuff, they sometimes start making comparisons to more highbrow elements and the whole damn thing blows up in a sloppy mess of artistic/cultural relativism. The whole "it's good for what it is trying to be, so it gets an A- as a tween album even though it's recycled dreck" argument.
I'm not looking for Pitchfork reviews here (Among my favorite lines from a Pitchfork review of Kid A: "The experience and emotions tied to listening to Kid A are like witnessing the stillborn birth of a child while simultaneously having the opportunity to see her play in the afterlife on Imax." I cannot understand how this is remotely helpful to anyone with their head not firmly inside their ass. I like that the stillborn child is on an Imax, though, and not a normal movie screen. Widescreens are so passe.) What kills me with EW is that they give something a mediocre review, then publicize the hell out of it and pass it off like it's culturally relevant for its artistic value. I'm fine with big successes getting covered as a newsworthy event. I don't give a shit about Twilight or the Hannah Montana movie, but I get that a lot of people do, and that has news value in itself. But to subsequently conflate this as being indicative of critical importance or to compare it to lesser known items on a single list is idiotic and realistically, irresponsible as a journalistic entity.
My main objection is Sandra Bullock. Listen, I wish the woman the best and hope she has a nice Holiday. EW just published her as the "#1 Entertainer of the Year" in this week's edition and had a cover story last week about her work. This, in short, is preposterous. The woman made two movies that both received mediocre reviews, but did well financially, and as a result, we're now declaring her to be the top artistic performer of the year? Huh? It's not that some snobby film commission didn't like it, EW noted that "The Blind Side," "isn't solid at all — it's more like cotton-candy uplift" and gave it a C. "The Proposal," her other big hit, got a B+, narrowly edging the artistic achievement, "Paul Blart."
In contrast, there was no mention of George Clooney, even though his "Up in the Air" was their film of the year (as well as a great many others'). Nothing for anyone attached to much more highly regarded films like "District 9," "Up," or "The Hurt Locker." I only reference other movies and actors to make the comparison a little more natural--they ranked Lady Gaga highly and I can't see why she lost out to the cotton-candy uplift. In the end, this is all fine if we're going to portray this as a list of "The Biggest Hits" or "Nicest Surprise for People We Thought Were Dead After "Miss Congeniality 2." But the fringing of the lines between box office receipts and putting out material that furthers the genre drives me absolutely batshit crazy.
Anyways, that's about it on this issue. I know she's gotten a Golden Globe nomination, and if I had any real regard for that, it would really mean something. Especially if she won. This stuff really falls into a lot of the same problems as the Heisman (I mention this because of a recent post criticizing voters who don't pay enough attention), so there's a grain/mountain of salt to be had with all the trophy business. I know some people take the opposite view on the whole thing and see the merging as a little more allowable, and I'm being a self-righteous prick about the whole thing. But I don't care, I'm sticking to my view: You can't be Entertainer of the Year when you make "All About Steve," and that's all there is to it.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
NFL Items, 12/19 and 12/20
So for this week, there are a handful of games that really do pose some interesting questions. We're at the point of the season where all the teams fit into one of about 3 categories:
(1) The few who have locked up the division and are just riding out the string to avoid injuries (Indy, New Orleans, Minnesota, San Diego, Cincinnati, Arizona, etc.)
(2) The crowd of teams with plausible to flickering playoff hopes (New England, Green Bay, Miami, Houston, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Tennessee, etc.)
(3) The stiffs who are already done for the year (Buffalo, Cleveland, KC, Detroit, etc.)
Taking a look at the picks and games, what have we got here?
New Orleans vs. Dallas:
How does this not end up at about 38-30? Dallas really doesn't do much on defense, and their offense is good enough to put up some points. To have a shot at the upset, the Cowboys are going to need a couple of huge defensive plays, like a strip sack at the Saint 10 and/or an interception for a TD. Overall, an unlikely scenario.
The Equation: Saints' Explosion - Saint's Ability to Stop the Run + Dallas' Inconsistency = NO, 38-30.
New England vs. Buffalo:
New England has consistently owned Buffalo, and even when they haven't played well (like last weekend), they've done enough to grind out wins over bad teams. Buffalo shouldn't be able to throw much, and NE can stack 8 in the box and force them to win through the air. Look for the Pats to play it safe offensively, and have success.
Equation: Pats Offensive Efficiency + Buffalo's Inability to Consistently Pass = NE, 27-16.
Atlanta at Jets:
If Atlanta was 7-6 and not 6-7, I'd think about picking them here. But they're not. And I have a feeling they're going to pack it up tomorrow in the cold weather. The Jets are going to run it right over an undersized Atlanta D, and make enough plays to keep the Falcon offense in check. I'm looking for a fairly unwatchable game, TV-wise. Although I think Tony Gonzalez could play well, I don't like the Atlanta offense in this game.
Equation: Jet run game + Atlanta's questionable motivation + Solid Jet D = Jets, 20-13.
Green Bay vs. Pittsburgh:
Pittsburgh's really been exposed lately as somewhere between a bully and a sham. They've really relied on beating up on bad teams, and now injuries have removed their ability to do that. Green Bay has played well lately and should be able to throw the ball on an overrated Pittsburgh secondary. Look for Green Bay to play a lot of coverage and make some plays in the secondary.
Equation: Pittsburgh's Suddenly Shaky D + Green Bay's Explosive Passing + Play Making Secondary= Green Bay, 30-20.
Bengals v. Chargers:
Best Game of the Weekend. Both teams are playoff locks, so it's really a matter of home field advantage. And of course, there's the Chris Henry factor. These things have a way of motivating the team to play with a lot of heart, and the Bengals have already shown they respond to these bad situations (Early in the year they had a huge win after the Defensive Coordinator's wife died mid-week). That, and the Cincy cornerbacks are a hell of a lot better than the public knows.
Equation: Bengals Emotional Edge + Healthy Benson + San Diego's Good but Susceptible Defense= Cincinnati, 24-20.
Bears v. Ravens:
By now, it's clear that the Bears are D-U-N. Too bad Chicago couldn't play Thursday night because then when they mailed it in they could have gotten it there by Christmas. Baltimore's going to look like world-beaters, and my guess is that this isn't close. Probably a Raven defensive TD, although I don't think Flacco is going to be the big hitter. Rice is going to have a stat line like 130 yards rushing, 2 TDs.
Equation: Bears Cashing it in+ Ravens running game + Raven Frustration = Baltimore, 34-13.
Vikings vs. Panthers
Hey, speaking of teams that have completely mailed it in, it's the Panthers! This team is really just a pile of shit in powder blue unis. This is a terrible match-up for Carolina, and Jared Allen will have 3 sacks and a forced fumble tomorrow. Even though Favre hasn't played well lately, Peterson can carry them enough to make this a lopsided win.
Equation: Well, Carolina is Junk + Minnesota's Running Game + Minn. D Line = Vikes, 30-10.
(1) The few who have locked up the division and are just riding out the string to avoid injuries (Indy, New Orleans, Minnesota, San Diego, Cincinnati, Arizona, etc.)
(2) The crowd of teams with plausible to flickering playoff hopes (New England, Green Bay, Miami, Houston, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Tennessee, etc.)
(3) The stiffs who are already done for the year (Buffalo, Cleveland, KC, Detroit, etc.)
Taking a look at the picks and games, what have we got here?
New Orleans vs. Dallas:
How does this not end up at about 38-30? Dallas really doesn't do much on defense, and their offense is good enough to put up some points. To have a shot at the upset, the Cowboys are going to need a couple of huge defensive plays, like a strip sack at the Saint 10 and/or an interception for a TD. Overall, an unlikely scenario.
The Equation: Saints' Explosion - Saint's Ability to Stop the Run + Dallas' Inconsistency = NO, 38-30.
New England vs. Buffalo:
New England has consistently owned Buffalo, and even when they haven't played well (like last weekend), they've done enough to grind out wins over bad teams. Buffalo shouldn't be able to throw much, and NE can stack 8 in the box and force them to win through the air. Look for the Pats to play it safe offensively, and have success.
Equation: Pats Offensive Efficiency + Buffalo's Inability to Consistently Pass = NE, 27-16.
Atlanta at Jets:
If Atlanta was 7-6 and not 6-7, I'd think about picking them here. But they're not. And I have a feeling they're going to pack it up tomorrow in the cold weather. The Jets are going to run it right over an undersized Atlanta D, and make enough plays to keep the Falcon offense in check. I'm looking for a fairly unwatchable game, TV-wise. Although I think Tony Gonzalez could play well, I don't like the Atlanta offense in this game.
Equation: Jet run game + Atlanta's questionable motivation + Solid Jet D = Jets, 20-13.
Green Bay vs. Pittsburgh:
Pittsburgh's really been exposed lately as somewhere between a bully and a sham. They've really relied on beating up on bad teams, and now injuries have removed their ability to do that. Green Bay has played well lately and should be able to throw the ball on an overrated Pittsburgh secondary. Look for Green Bay to play a lot of coverage and make some plays in the secondary.
Equation: Pittsburgh's Suddenly Shaky D + Green Bay's Explosive Passing + Play Making Secondary= Green Bay, 30-20.
Bengals v. Chargers:
Best Game of the Weekend. Both teams are playoff locks, so it's really a matter of home field advantage. And of course, there's the Chris Henry factor. These things have a way of motivating the team to play with a lot of heart, and the Bengals have already shown they respond to these bad situations (Early in the year they had a huge win after the Defensive Coordinator's wife died mid-week). That, and the Cincy cornerbacks are a hell of a lot better than the public knows.
Equation: Bengals Emotional Edge + Healthy Benson + San Diego's Good but Susceptible Defense= Cincinnati, 24-20.
Bears v. Ravens:
By now, it's clear that the Bears are D-U-N. Too bad Chicago couldn't play Thursday night because then when they mailed it in they could have gotten it there by Christmas. Baltimore's going to look like world-beaters, and my guess is that this isn't close. Probably a Raven defensive TD, although I don't think Flacco is going to be the big hitter. Rice is going to have a stat line like 130 yards rushing, 2 TDs.
Equation: Bears Cashing it in+ Ravens running game + Raven Frustration = Baltimore, 34-13.
Vikings vs. Panthers
Hey, speaking of teams that have completely mailed it in, it's the Panthers! This team is really just a pile of shit in powder blue unis. This is a terrible match-up for Carolina, and Jared Allen will have 3 sacks and a forced fumble tomorrow. Even though Favre hasn't played well lately, Peterson can carry them enough to make this a lopsided win.
Equation: Well, Carolina is Junk + Minnesota's Running Game + Minn. D Line = Vikes, 30-10.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
16-0? I say go for it.
Tonight's NFL Network game (to be viewed by 13 people) is likely to be the toughest challenge for Indy to complete the undefeated regular season of the remaining 3 games. That being said, if they play their guys tonight a full game, they'll probably win by a TD or so.
There's been some discussion as to whether the Colts and Saints should go for the 16-0 season, but I have a hard time seeing why they wouldn't. I completely understand the claim that you don't want to allow guys to get hurt. That's fair. The only problem is that by this point, we've seen the vast majority of major injuries that are going to happen. If you make it to week 13 reasonably healthy, I see little advantage in completely changing the team's outlook on games and messing up the rhythm. Both teams are already getting the playoff bye in the first round, so there is an extra week of rest for them already on the horizon. I say go for it and don't mess with what's been working.
If both teams try to get the 16-0, I'd put the chances at about 60% for Indy and 80% for the Saints . There are a couple of odd matchups for both teams that could throw a wrench in the works. For Indy, Jacksonville and the Jets should both be able to run the ball well, which could pose problems. Moreover, the Jets defense could pose some problems since Revis will be tough on Wayne and the pass rush could be effective. Finally, they'll travel to Buffalo just after New Year's Day, which you know would be cold and windy.
I have a hard time seeing how the Saints don't run the table. They have an overrated Dallas team coming to town this weekend, a crappy Tampa the next, and then a road game at the Panthers, who should have mailed it in by that point. Maybe Dallas or Carolina could have a big game running the ball and pull off the upset, but it's hard to see either team holding New Orleans under 30 points.
There's been some discussion as to whether the Colts and Saints should go for the 16-0 season, but I have a hard time seeing why they wouldn't. I completely understand the claim that you don't want to allow guys to get hurt. That's fair. The only problem is that by this point, we've seen the vast majority of major injuries that are going to happen. If you make it to week 13 reasonably healthy, I see little advantage in completely changing the team's outlook on games and messing up the rhythm. Both teams are already getting the playoff bye in the first round, so there is an extra week of rest for them already on the horizon. I say go for it and don't mess with what's been working.
If both teams try to get the 16-0, I'd put the chances at about 60% for Indy and 80% for the Saints . There are a couple of odd matchups for both teams that could throw a wrench in the works. For Indy, Jacksonville and the Jets should both be able to run the ball well, which could pose problems. Moreover, the Jets defense could pose some problems since Revis will be tough on Wayne and the pass rush could be effective. Finally, they'll travel to Buffalo just after New Year's Day, which you know would be cold and windy.
I have a hard time seeing how the Saints don't run the table. They have an overrated Dallas team coming to town this weekend, a crappy Tampa the next, and then a road game at the Panthers, who should have mailed it in by that point. Maybe Dallas or Carolina could have a big game running the ball and pull off the upset, but it's hard to see either team holding New Orleans under 30 points.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Are you there God? It's Me, John Thune.
Andrea sent a youtube link (many thanks; see below for the link) through that captures Senate footage of John Thune (R-S. Dakota) and the incomparable Al Franken (D-Minn.) debating the timing on taxation and benefits of the current health care proposal. Essentially, Thune just made up some ridiculous crap about the benefits not starting until 2014 although the taxes would start now. He omitted the fact that benefits will start immediately, a point which Franken clearly explained, undercutting Thune's entire point. Thune responds by arguing, "but it's on my chart! Did you see my chart?" Touche, monsieur. If you put it on your chart, it obviously could not be wrong. Shit, everyone knows Kinko's has a magic machine that makes everything you print true. It's in the back room near the candy machine.
At first, I'm trying to figure why this Thune character wants to take on Franken. Franken's CLEARLY a hell of a lot smarter and more informed on the matter, and the kind of person who's going to go through the details to make his point. The guy has made a goddamn career out of getting the details straight. Thune has long made it clear that his mission in Congress is to instill Evangelical concepts onto national policy (this was one of his central reasons for promoting the Iraqi invasion--because the Iraqi people just couldn't wait to get some of his good South Dakota Christianity). He went to a no-name Christian college in LA with substantially lower academic standards than Auburn. And he's kind of an ass, although that's a different issue.
The problem, of course, is that Thune's (and the Republican Party's) purpose in this is not to argue facts. As John McCain noted, "facts are stubborn things." Thune, et al. have to throw out this malarkey just to keep the base happy. It just doesn't matter any more what he says. The more he gets his name out in public, the more he gets the poor, old, and scared to send in their $10 of Social Security each year.
Accuracy on the facts doesn't make the tea party nuts show up to wave Obama=Hitler signs, it's just the arguing with the other side. So in the end, it doesn't really matter what he says. He can claim that a key point of the bill is that Obama gets to shit on everyone's lawn on Wednesdays, and make the Democrats respond to it. Until the dust settles Fox News can have the round table on why this CLEARLY demonstrates that Obama is a Socialist and how you can show him that nobody shits on your lawn by watching Hannity more often. Maybe Glenn Beck can start advertising Obama lawn shit cleaner like he used to do with ads for buying gold (after telling people on the show they needed to buy all the gold they could). "Act Now, and Don't Let that Big Stinky Pile of Communism Stay on Your Lawn Any Longer! Only $19.95!"
The link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n2P0QsTe8c&feature=player_embedded
At first, I'm trying to figure why this Thune character wants to take on Franken. Franken's CLEARLY a hell of a lot smarter and more informed on the matter, and the kind of person who's going to go through the details to make his point. The guy has made a goddamn career out of getting the details straight. Thune has long made it clear that his mission in Congress is to instill Evangelical concepts onto national policy (this was one of his central reasons for promoting the Iraqi invasion--because the Iraqi people just couldn't wait to get some of his good South Dakota Christianity). He went to a no-name Christian college in LA with substantially lower academic standards than Auburn. And he's kind of an ass, although that's a different issue.
The problem, of course, is that Thune's (and the Republican Party's) purpose in this is not to argue facts. As John McCain noted, "facts are stubborn things." Thune, et al. have to throw out this malarkey just to keep the base happy. It just doesn't matter any more what he says. The more he gets his name out in public, the more he gets the poor, old, and scared to send in their $10 of Social Security each year.
Accuracy on the facts doesn't make the tea party nuts show up to wave Obama=Hitler signs, it's just the arguing with the other side. So in the end, it doesn't really matter what he says. He can claim that a key point of the bill is that Obama gets to shit on everyone's lawn on Wednesdays, and make the Democrats respond to it. Until the dust settles Fox News can have the round table on why this CLEARLY demonstrates that Obama is a Socialist and how you can show him that nobody shits on your lawn by watching Hannity more often. Maybe Glenn Beck can start advertising Obama lawn shit cleaner like he used to do with ads for buying gold (after telling people on the show they needed to buy all the gold they could). "Act Now, and Don't Let that Big Stinky Pile of Communism Stay on Your Lawn Any Longer! Only $19.95!"
The link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n2P0QsTe8c&feature=player_embedded
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
All this Casey Anthony Craziness
So we've seen the first elements of the Casey Anthony being put forth, and, unsurprisingly, I'm torn over the matter. Since I love estimating things and making up scales and measurements that may or may not exist, I'm 70% in it for blood, 20% in it for the legal stuff, and 10% guilty that I'm even paying any attention to it at all. At least I can get it on the mainstream news and not rely on that rabid harpy Nancy Grace. Jesus Heathcliff Christ that woman's annoying.
Of course the whole damn thing is sordid as hell, but still, the Old Testament side of me is all "electrocute that cold bitch and let's all be done with it!" For anyone who didn't catch it the first time through, Casey had a young child named Caylee, who turned up missing. The problem here (well, one of many) was that mom didn't tell the police for about a month, and spent that time allegedly leading her own investigation. Her investigation, from what later surfaced, primarily involved her grinding on strangers in Orlando area dance clubs and devastating the Central Florida supply of Mike's Lemonade and Aftershock. At that point she blamed a random person she apparently found in the phone book, and ever since, a mountain of evidence has slowly emerged indicating that she obviously did it in cold blood. Bad, bad stuff.
On a side note, I wonder if this might have been the basis for a snappy new cop show where she, OJ, and La Toya Jackson all hunt down "the real killers" in Florida golf courses, bars, and the occasional unemployment office (shout-out to the Toya!) Call it something like "The Juice and the Squeeze."
Anyways, this actually has an interesting legal outlook, as it could become one of the top death penalty cases in recent memory, and one of the few where an attractive (in a somewhat trashy way) woman is on trial. No joke, they might kill her ass for this, and it's clear that's the prosecution's plan. They just offered her a deal where she could admit to the crime and take a life sentence, or go to trial and potentially get the big ticket. She opted for the trial, and is hoping to cry herself to a long sentence. My guess is that there will be someone in the jury box who gets a little weak in the stomach and votes for life, but there's at least a 50/50 shot she's getting plugged into the wall for this one. Now that's rolling the dice-- I'm sure as hell hoping she comes up snake eyes.
Of course the whole damn thing is sordid as hell, but still, the Old Testament side of me is all "electrocute that cold bitch and let's all be done with it!" For anyone who didn't catch it the first time through, Casey had a young child named Caylee, who turned up missing. The problem here (well, one of many) was that mom didn't tell the police for about a month, and spent that time allegedly leading her own investigation. Her investigation, from what later surfaced, primarily involved her grinding on strangers in Orlando area dance clubs and devastating the Central Florida supply of Mike's Lemonade and Aftershock. At that point she blamed a random person she apparently found in the phone book, and ever since, a mountain of evidence has slowly emerged indicating that she obviously did it in cold blood. Bad, bad stuff.
On a side note, I wonder if this might have been the basis for a snappy new cop show where she, OJ, and La Toya Jackson all hunt down "the real killers" in Florida golf courses, bars, and the occasional unemployment office (shout-out to the Toya!) Call it something like "The Juice and the Squeeze."
Anyways, this actually has an interesting legal outlook, as it could become one of the top death penalty cases in recent memory, and one of the few where an attractive (in a somewhat trashy way) woman is on trial. No joke, they might kill her ass for this, and it's clear that's the prosecution's plan. They just offered her a deal where she could admit to the crime and take a life sentence, or go to trial and potentially get the big ticket. She opted for the trial, and is hoping to cry herself to a long sentence. My guess is that there will be someone in the jury box who gets a little weak in the stomach and votes for life, but there's at least a 50/50 shot she's getting plugged into the wall for this one. Now that's rolling the dice-- I'm sure as hell hoping she comes up snake eyes.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Why We Can't Trust Heisman Voters
Tonight will see the Heisman selection and I'm just going to say it now: They're going to get it wrong. My guess is that the pick will be Mark Ingram, because he's basically the best offensive threat on the best team (and they are the best team, probably by 10 points). He's had big games on TV, especially the Florida game, and the voters will put a lot of stock on that one.
But they'll have it wrong. The rightful winner, and hands down best player, is Ndamakong Suh. He's dominated every metric for defensive linemen all year long, to an extent that the other players on the list haven't. There are a couple of huge issues that are going to kill his chances. First, Nebraska doesn't have the TV air time that Texas or Alabama does, so there hasn't been nearly enough exposure.
Here's the other problem: Heisman voters are lazy and don't do the research they should. Rather than pay close attention to the game footage, they spend 15 minutes looking at some stats and sign off on it. This inherently places players like Suh at an enormous disadvantage, because they can't accumulate stats that leap out at the voters. Gerhart is a fine player, but you're kidding yourself if you think there aren't 40 running backs in the country who could get the stats he did on that Stanford team in the PAC-10. Most of the voters can't accurately access the positions other than QB, RB, and WR, and overvalue the players at those spots. That's why they work for the Kansas City Star instead of the Kansas City Chiefs.
To reasonably pick the best player, you ultimately need to compare him to an average player at his position, and see how much better. I like Mark Ingram and all, but like Gerhart, a merely good tailback could do extremely well in that system. Same thing for McCoy. Put Jimmy Clausen or Jake Locker in that Texas QB role and they're the finalist, not him. Replace Suh with anyone else in the country and you get an enormous difference.
And so we are left with Suh. He faced double and triple teams every week and nevertheless dominated the line of scrimmage like no one else in the country. He almost single-handedly beat Texas last weekend without touching the ball. Ask any pro scout who they're drafting first of the finalists and Suh's the only name you'll hear.
And nevertheless, he's not going to win it tonight.
But they'll have it wrong. The rightful winner, and hands down best player, is Ndamakong Suh. He's dominated every metric for defensive linemen all year long, to an extent that the other players on the list haven't. There are a couple of huge issues that are going to kill his chances. First, Nebraska doesn't have the TV air time that Texas or Alabama does, so there hasn't been nearly enough exposure.
Here's the other problem: Heisman voters are lazy and don't do the research they should. Rather than pay close attention to the game footage, they spend 15 minutes looking at some stats and sign off on it. This inherently places players like Suh at an enormous disadvantage, because they can't accumulate stats that leap out at the voters. Gerhart is a fine player, but you're kidding yourself if you think there aren't 40 running backs in the country who could get the stats he did on that Stanford team in the PAC-10. Most of the voters can't accurately access the positions other than QB, RB, and WR, and overvalue the players at those spots. That's why they work for the Kansas City Star instead of the Kansas City Chiefs.
To reasonably pick the best player, you ultimately need to compare him to an average player at his position, and see how much better. I like Mark Ingram and all, but like Gerhart, a merely good tailback could do extremely well in that system. Same thing for McCoy. Put Jimmy Clausen or Jake Locker in that Texas QB role and they're the finalist, not him. Replace Suh with anyone else in the country and you get an enormous difference.
And so we are left with Suh. He faced double and triple teams every week and nevertheless dominated the line of scrimmage like no one else in the country. He almost single-handedly beat Texas last weekend without touching the ball. Ask any pro scout who they're drafting first of the finalists and Suh's the only name you'll hear.
And nevertheless, he's not going to win it tonight.
Friday, December 11, 2009
NFL Thoughts for 12/13
Some thoughts on a handful of the NFL Games this weekend:
Pats vs. Panthers:
I have a hard time seeing this being close. The Pats have played extremely well at home, especially in cold weather, and now they get a struggling Panthers team playing with a young QB. Panthers will be able to run the ball somewhat, but they are not going to be able to keep the game close.
The Equation: Cold Foxborough + Mediocre QB+ Shaky Panther Defense = 37-16 Pats win.
Packers v. Bears:
The big problem for the Bears is that they're secretly pretty terrible. (1)They don't play defense; (2) their OL is awful; and (3) their QB has a tendency to throw the ball to the wrong jerseys. Granted, 3 is largely a product of problems 1 and 2, but it still counts as a pick. Green Bay will be comfortable enough playing in cold weather and they'll generate a couple of critical turnovers.
Equation: Bad Bear Defense + Turnover Prone GB Defense + No Bear Running Game = 24-13, GB.
Jets v. Buccaneers:
If the Sanchise (or is it Sanchize?) was playing, I'd expect a blowout. As it is, the Jets defense should be able to control the game. The Bucs, as has been clear all year, are junk. Look for a Jets defensive TD, as these are the games where Rex Ryan can get his guys to look good.
Equation: Unprepared Bucs QB + Attacking Defense + Just enough Jets Running= 24-13, Jets.
Colts v. Broncos:
Broncos are going to look better than most people think. They have a fairly balanced offense and can run the ball well. Clady can do a solid job on Freeney, which is a huge help. Dumerville is going to have a big day on the turf, because the Indy OL isn't that good. But clearly, Manning is extremely tough to handle now, and Indy will get their points. Look for big games from Marshall and Moreno. I'm thinking Moreno gets 18 carries for 110 yards and a TD or 2.
Equation: Well-Suited Bronco D + Manning Doing His thing + Bronco Running Game = 30-27 Denver upset win.
Bengals v. Vikings:
I don't like this matchup for the Bengals one bit. They're a team reliant on running, and the Vikes stop the run well. The other problem is that the Bengals only get about 17-20 points per game, and I think the Vikes are going to top that every time in the Dome. Game is probably close for the first half, and the Vikes pull away late.
Equation: Tough Minn Run Defense + Peterson's Consistent Running + Cincy's Lack of Big Plays = Minnesota, 24-16.
Eagles v. Giants:
This is going to be an ugly, ugly game. It's going to be cold and rainy, so plan on both teams struggling to pass and the defenses playing 8 in the box. Manning can't throw in bad weather, and the Eagles can't keep up their pass-heavy ratio. The game's going to turn on a couple of fluky big plays, like a 55-yard screen pass with 3 missed tackles that goes for a TD. Good for the Eagles, since they can get the ball to guys like Jackson, Vick, and McCoy.
Equation: Bad Weather + Run Heavy Defenses + Slightly More Playmakers =Eagles, 20-13
Pats vs. Panthers:
I have a hard time seeing this being close. The Pats have played extremely well at home, especially in cold weather, and now they get a struggling Panthers team playing with a young QB. Panthers will be able to run the ball somewhat, but they are not going to be able to keep the game close.
The Equation: Cold Foxborough + Mediocre QB+ Shaky Panther Defense = 37-16 Pats win.
Packers v. Bears:
The big problem for the Bears is that they're secretly pretty terrible. (1)They don't play defense; (2) their OL is awful; and (3) their QB has a tendency to throw the ball to the wrong jerseys. Granted, 3 is largely a product of problems 1 and 2, but it still counts as a pick. Green Bay will be comfortable enough playing in cold weather and they'll generate a couple of critical turnovers.
Equation: Bad Bear Defense + Turnover Prone GB Defense + No Bear Running Game = 24-13, GB.
Jets v. Buccaneers:
If the Sanchise (or is it Sanchize?) was playing, I'd expect a blowout. As it is, the Jets defense should be able to control the game. The Bucs, as has been clear all year, are junk. Look for a Jets defensive TD, as these are the games where Rex Ryan can get his guys to look good.
Equation: Unprepared Bucs QB + Attacking Defense + Just enough Jets Running= 24-13, Jets.
Colts v. Broncos:
Broncos are going to look better than most people think. They have a fairly balanced offense and can run the ball well. Clady can do a solid job on Freeney, which is a huge help. Dumerville is going to have a big day on the turf, because the Indy OL isn't that good. But clearly, Manning is extremely tough to handle now, and Indy will get their points. Look for big games from Marshall and Moreno. I'm thinking Moreno gets 18 carries for 110 yards and a TD or 2.
Equation: Well-Suited Bronco D + Manning Doing His thing + Bronco Running Game = 30-27 Denver upset win.
Bengals v. Vikings:
I don't like this matchup for the Bengals one bit. They're a team reliant on running, and the Vikes stop the run well. The other problem is that the Bengals only get about 17-20 points per game, and I think the Vikes are going to top that every time in the Dome. Game is probably close for the first half, and the Vikes pull away late.
Equation: Tough Minn Run Defense + Peterson's Consistent Running + Cincy's Lack of Big Plays = Minnesota, 24-16.
Eagles v. Giants:
This is going to be an ugly, ugly game. It's going to be cold and rainy, so plan on both teams struggling to pass and the defenses playing 8 in the box. Manning can't throw in bad weather, and the Eagles can't keep up their pass-heavy ratio. The game's going to turn on a couple of fluky big plays, like a 55-yard screen pass with 3 missed tackles that goes for a TD. Good for the Eagles, since they can get the ball to guys like Jackson, Vick, and McCoy.
Equation: Bad Weather + Run Heavy Defenses + Slightly More Playmakers =Eagles, 20-13
Et Tu, Situation?
After last week's 2 hour installment of "Jersey Shore," I had my doubts as to whether I'd be able to commit to this train wreck of humanity on a weekly basis. I love me some drunken Guido sluttery just like everyone else, but 14 weeks in a row?
Fortunately, the zookeepers at MTV opted instead to turn the monkeys loose on each other, which is clearly going to be the best part of the show (other than the Valtrex dispenser bolted to the wall). Last night saw the Situation become openly creepy toward Ronnie and Sammie/Sammy/Sammi/Samm% (whichever one is right) and discuss his own relationship with her. This was done with approximately the same level of skin-crawling that would accompany a child molester explaining his relationship with his 11 year old step-daughter. Classy, my friend.
The other big development was JWoww making out with and then inspecting another roommate's pierced junk 14 hours into being there while allegedly maintaining her Elizabethan morals. By the way, seeing her in the morning officially requires a name change to "JYikes" or "JUghhh." It's like she stole those hair extensions from George Clinton's back hair. I can't even describe how much I loved her whole "Now that I'm single, I'm going to slut it up" forecast. She's going to have a new disease named after her by the end of this thing, and I'm naming it right now: JWowwerrhea.
The departure of Angelina was pretty unremarkable since by the time she left everyone hated her. Basically the equivalent of a Mark Sanford resignation (Really? He's still on the SC dime? I love the South and the bible thumpers.). She was right though, it was some huge courtesy she threw at the store manager telling him that she was hung over and leaving. Emily Post would be proud.
Fortunately, the zookeepers at MTV opted instead to turn the monkeys loose on each other, which is clearly going to be the best part of the show (other than the Valtrex dispenser bolted to the wall). Last night saw the Situation become openly creepy toward Ronnie and Sammie/Sammy/Sammi/Samm% (whichever one is right) and discuss his own relationship with her. This was done with approximately the same level of skin-crawling that would accompany a child molester explaining his relationship with his 11 year old step-daughter. Classy, my friend.
The other big development was JWoww making out with and then inspecting another roommate's pierced junk 14 hours into being there while allegedly maintaining her Elizabethan morals. By the way, seeing her in the morning officially requires a name change to "JYikes" or "JUghhh." It's like she stole those hair extensions from George Clinton's back hair. I can't even describe how much I loved her whole "Now that I'm single, I'm going to slut it up" forecast. She's going to have a new disease named after her by the end of this thing, and I'm naming it right now: JWowwerrhea.
The departure of Angelina was pretty unremarkable since by the time she left everyone hated her. Basically the equivalent of a Mark Sanford resignation (Really? He's still on the SC dime? I love the South and the bible thumpers.). She was right though, it was some huge courtesy she threw at the store manager telling him that she was hung over and leaving. Emily Post would be proud.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Climategate? Really?
This entire "Climategate" thing is just bafflingly stupid. For those who didn't catch the story, it's basically that some right wing hackers stole the emails of some climate scientists and ever since, the conservatives have been twisting random language into a vast conspiracy to fool the world. Points along the lines of "we need to get better ways to track greenhouse gas/temperature correlation" has suddenly become "We need to make up some fake stuff to keep fooling people." Thank you Mr. Limbaugh for your insightful analysis.
It's clear from the facts that the hackers who stole the emails actually did it in the fall, and waited until now to publicize them so as to interfere with the Copenhagen meetings. Nice thinking, you scumbags.
I understand (though find idiotic) the argument that there isn't enough evidence to clearly state that man is causing global warming. At least they can argue that there is some small level of uncertainty. But why do they think that all these scientists care enough about this to just make this whole thing up? Hey, I'm all for a good conspiracy. But the whole point though is that there needs to be a benefit to the involved people to make it worthwhile, and otherwise it's just a bunch of wasting time. Of course Exxon has an incentive to say that it doesn't exist--they sell a product directly responsible for the change. But why does an oceanographer make up a career-long story about changing ocean chemistry? Ummmm....he doesn't.
It's clear from the facts that the hackers who stole the emails actually did it in the fall, and waited until now to publicize them so as to interfere with the Copenhagen meetings. Nice thinking, you scumbags.
I understand (though find idiotic) the argument that there isn't enough evidence to clearly state that man is causing global warming. At least they can argue that there is some small level of uncertainty. But why do they think that all these scientists care enough about this to just make this whole thing up? Hey, I'm all for a good conspiracy. But the whole point though is that there needs to be a benefit to the involved people to make it worthwhile, and otherwise it's just a bunch of wasting time. Of course Exxon has an incentive to say that it doesn't exist--they sell a product directly responsible for the change. But why does an oceanographer make up a career-long story about changing ocean chemistry? Ummmm....he doesn't.
First Things First
Why am I doing this?
It's a couple of things in particular. The biggest reason is that I've recently concluded that the Facebook postings are too short and it forces me to cut my posts off when I'm half done. Damn you Facebook! The other big element is that because I haven't started working on a full-time "career" job yet, I have some extra time and figured I'd keep myself busy writing down all the crazy stuff I think about all day.
What is it that you'll see and be mesmerized to read?
I'm thinking it's going to be sort of a combination of the things that I find interesting in general, namely sports, food, some political/news items, West Coast living, and pretty likely a million other things that just happen to come up. So you'll read about the upcoming Patriots game, a crazy left-wing rant I'm currently on, and why I think Chipotle is 200% overrated as compared to other Mexican joints (seriously, I cannot understand why people go there).
How often?
Hard to say, although I'll try to stay on it as best as I can. Probably at least a few times a week. Maybe more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)