[2005.03.01 - 00:00 P.M.] Dawkins
I'm not one to be bowled over by professional credentials or résumés, but I do believe that it's possible to learn something about the shape of a debate by looking at the public champions of each side.
On the subject of global warming, the right has science thriller author Michael Crichton, and the left has... well, pretty much 99.99% of the world's scientists. Let's see, better example...
Ah, yes. On the subject of evolution, the right has "B. C." comic strip author Gary Hart, and the left has world-renowned biologist Richard Dawkins. See what I mean?
I've been a Dawkins fan for a while now. He is, without a doubt, one of the best science writers alive today. Just as important to me, however, is that he's a "public intellectual" who never misses an opportunity to bash religion. Salon has an entertaining and engaging interview with Dawkins that's well worth your time. (Thanks to Rob Salkowitz for the link to this weekend item, which may have otherwise escaped my attention.)
You are working on a new book tentatively called "The God Delusion." Can you explain it?
A delusion is something that people believe in despite a total lack of evidence. Religion is scarcely distinguishable from childhood delusions like the "imaginary friend" and the bogeyman under the bed. Unfortunately, the God delusion possesses adults, and not just a minority of unfortunates in an asylum. The word "delusion" also carries negative connotations, and religion has plenty of those.
What are its negative connotations?
A delusion that encourages belief where there is no evidence is asking for trouble. Disagreements between incompatible beliefs cannot be settled by reasoned argument because reasoned argument is drummed out of those trained in religion from the cradle. Instead, disagreements are settled by other means which, in extreme cases, inevitably become violent. Scientists disagree among themselves but they never fight over their disagreements. They argue about evidence or go out and seek new evidence. Much the same is true of philosophers, historians and literary critics.
But you don't do that if you just know your holy book is the God-written truth and the other guy knows that his incompatible scripture is too. People brought up to believe in faith and private revelation cannot be persuaded by evidence to change their minds. No wonder religious zealots throughout history have resorted to torture and execution, to crusades and jihads, to holy wars and purges and pogroms, to the Inquisition and the burning of witches.
How rare -- how refreshing -- to come across a voice like this who, rather than observing the near-universal taboo on criticizing religious belief, brashly and smartly calls religion exactly what it is: Intellectual garbage at best, a pernicious psychological cancer at worst.
I've been called intolerant and judgmental for my deeply anti-religious views. Maybe that's fair, although on the "tolerance" count, at least I'm not trying to write atheism into the nation's laws, which is more than the nimrods on the Christian Right can claim. But, yes, I am judgmental about those who hold religious beliefs. In my judgement, one of the hallmarks of intellectual maturity is that, in the absence of proof, one should withhold belief. Frankly, that judgement doesn't seem so "out there" when you put it like that, does it? In fact, it's a nice, simple, common-sense rule of thumb that most people apply in most circumstances. It's a tragedy that, for whatever reason, we exempt religious ideas from having to pass this test.
Gotta hand it to a guy like Dawkins who's not afraid to grab the megaphone and point that out.
|
[2005.05.01 - 01:55 P.M.] Chumps
TPM Guest Poster Ivo Daalder points out an interesting shift in Bush's pre-election vs. post-election rhetoric:
Whatever happened to Bush’s “global war on terror”? For three years, the president didn’t let an opportunity go by without repeating that we were in a global war against evil terrorists. But he’s gone strangely silent ever since his reelection last November. My Brookings intern, Jina Chung, examined the text of Bush’s speeches over the 12 months, as posted on the White House website to see how many times Bush referred to the “war on terror” or some variant of the phrase in the six months since November 2 and how many times he did so in the six months prior the elections. Here’s what she came up with: Before the elections, Bush mentioned the war on terror three times as often as after. In fact, he referred to it more often in the thirty days prior to the election (71 times) than in the six months since (66 times).
Now, all you Bush voters out there whose trembling little hearts were aflutter with fears of terrorists under the bed, causing you to pull the lever for Big Daddy Bush, who promised that protecting you from these baddies was Job One, do me a favor and try to shut down the excuse-making circuitry in your brain for just one minute.
Do you hear a little voice? Shhhh. Listen, now. Do you hear it?
You got played.
|
[2005.04.22 - 05:40 P.M.] BUD LIGHT
Holy Binge Posting, Batman! After a long, long dry spell, Aaron Kinney over at Hornswaggler is back with a vengeance. Many items of interest. Do go take a look.
I want to take issue, however, with this post in particular, because it is about a subject near and dear to my heart: Beer.
Taste Loss
That ad campaign by Miller Lite that was played endlessly during March Madness - it was a parody of ads about erectile dysfunction, etc. - was funny ("Is now a good time to talk about taste loss?"), but there was one major problem. Miller Lite is shitty, tasteless beer. Hence an unavoidable irony. I mean, everyone once in awhile, if I'm feeling really bloated or full, a Budweiser or a Miller sounds like a good idea. They're good beers for beer pong. But that's about it. They have no taste and trying to differentiate between Miller Lite, Bud Light and Coors Light is a pointless exercise. But that's precisely what these ads do, try to draw distinctions between bland and featureless products.
Aaron, buddy, I have to respectfully disagree. While it is true that all mass-produced domestic American beers are basically swill, Bud Light really does distinguish itself from the pack. Miller Lite and Michelob Light are your basic beer-like beverages. Coors Light might actually be the smallest -- and I mean barely distinguishable -- step up in taste, but I don't drink it because, as you point out, it's made by Nazis. But Bud Light? Whoa, there...
Bud Light is tepid, partially-diluted iguana piss with just a hint of formaldehyde.
Bud Light has the magical ability to taste warm at any temperature.
Instead of stamping Bud Light cans and bottles with that ridiculous "born on" date, Anheuser-Busch should stamp them with a "died on" date.
I have drank many, many, many, many beers in my lifetime -- from Colt 45 to Samiclaus, from Piels Light pounders to Sam Adams Triple Bock -- and few have offended me more than Bud Light. I actually prefer Piels to Bud Light. I prefer Utica Club to Bud Light. In fact, about the only beer I like less than Bud Light is Gennessee Cream Ale, and I'm not sure that counts since Screamer is so un-beer-like to begin with.
Miller Lite is no prize, for sure. But the folks at Miller were pretty smart to pick Bud Light as the (obviously intended) target of their ad campaign. Next to Bud Light, Miller Lite tastes like Pilsner Urquell.
|
[2005.04.20 - 07:20 P.M.] LIBERATION FROM HISTORY
The other morning, I was listening to NPR as they did a story on Marla Ruzicka. While discussing her heroic efforts to track civilian casualties and bring aid to survivors of U. S. attacks -- and make no mistake, this woman was a hero -- the person reading the story referred to the Afghanistan conflict as "The U. S. War to liberate Afghanis from the Taliban."
Now, keep in mind, this wasn't an opinion piece; this was a straight NPR news story. No "spin" here that I could detect. Just an egregious perversion of history passed off with the sort of casual, matter-of-fact attitude that a reporter would lend to a piece of background so well-known as to be of little significance. It was a detail that probably blew right past most listeners, and yet it's stuck with me for days, irritating me like the husk of a corn kernel that gets stuck under your gum line.
We invaded Afghanistan, of course, to get at Al-Quaeda. Overthrowing the Taliban was a means to that end. "Liberating" the Afghanis -- and I'm not sure what, exactly, they've been liberated from, except, in many cases, the confines of their mortality -- was never our intention, stated or otherwise.
But, see, that's the power of the story line. That's the power of the frame. Bush and company have leveraged what was originally a face-saving bait-and-switch on Iraq -- the Threat of WMD's suddenly morphs into the Drumbeat of Freedom's March -- into an all-purpose backstory for their many foreign policy adventures. And so now we hear the "liberation" theme applied to the invasion of Afghanistan, a claim which even the most creative right-wing apologists had not, if my memory serves, tried to make. It's a meme on a rampage, tearing up history right before our eyes and ears. Awe-inspiring, in its way.
|
[2005.04.09 - 08:30 P.M.] TICKET FROM HELL
From Shakespeare's Sister:
Last night, while sharing hot Singapore chow mai at our favorite local restaurant, Mr. Shakes and I challenged each other to come up with a presidential ticket so bad that we would vote for Bush/Cheney instead.
The winner: Hitler/Stalin.
Other contenders included the Madonna/Paris Hilton ticket, the PeeWee Herman/Michael Jackson ticket (“I’d vote for them,” said Mr. Shakes. “The worst thing they’d do is turn Utah into a theme park.”), the Anna-Nicole Smith/a banana ticket, and the Donald Trump/a monkey ticket.
So, what presidential duo would be so horrifying that, if compelled to vote, you’d cast your ballot for Bush/Cheney instead?
(Hmmmm...)
DeLay/Keyes
Norquist/Hinderaker
(But why stick with political types...)
Schilling/Varitek
(And... Can I go fictional? Yes? Thanks.)
Khan/Smith (as in Agent Smith)
|
[2005.04.05 - 07:45 P.M.] BLOOD-AVERSE BROTHERS
This post from Atrios probably didn't strike most of you as terribly interesting. For me, though, it elicited a classic "Wow, I'm not alone!" reaction:
I had a shitty day today. I have a wee problem - I tend to almost faint when blood is taken from me. Combine that with the fact that my veins apparently took off for Aruba, and it took 20-30 mins. to get a few drops out of me today, I really wasn't enjoying myself.
I have no idea why blood extraction makes me faint. I don't have a problem with gore of all kinds, but for some reason any semi-realisitic medical stuff tends to make me go woozy. Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction make me giggle, the organ transplant show on PBS freaks me out. The apex of this was when I actually fainted while watching movie - not a big deal, except for the fact that one of the stars of this movie was a cousin of Mrs. Atrios.
True story: When I was a kid, my fourth grade class took a field trip to the Museum of Science in Boston. Wicked cool museum. Beautiful planetarium. Lots of interactive physics exhibits. Great stuff. I was having a blast until I got to the biology section, where they had a transparent model of the human circulatory system. Fake plastic heart pumping red fruit juice through transparent tubing, right? I fainted dead away. Came to a few minutes later lying on a bench with my Mom (chaperone) and my teachers freaking out.
Another one: A few years ago, I decided it really was my civic duty to give blood twice a year. Every time I went -- every time -- was deeply traumatic. I would imagine that I could feel them sucking the blood out of me, and that if they took too much my heart would stop. Finally, one particularly onery nurse told me point blank: "Stop coming. You fidget too much. It's not worth the trouble for either of us." (Note: I'm A/B+, the so-called universal recipient, so my blood's kinda worthless to the population anyhow.)
Like Atrios, I too have no issues with violent, bloody action flicks. Like Atrios, I feel like I'm going to crawl out of my skin and lose my mind whenever a documentary (or reasonably life-like medical drama) portrays someone being opened up.
I guess you could call us "blood-averse brothers".
|
[2005.04.01 - 08:00 P.M.] COMMISSION THIS
As you have all no doubt heard, The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction ("CICUSRWMD" or, with a little tweaking "WMDCIRCUS") has issued its long-awaited report to the president, which attempts to obscure shed light on why our Iraq "intelligence" was so, you know, completely fucking wrong.
The report, which I downloaded this morning and read in its entirety in the bathroom while at work, is 618 pages long. It details a long list of screw-ups, miscalculations, and instances where evidence that may have cast Hussein's regime in a less threatening light was peremptorily dismissed. It does not, however, find any fault with the administration for bringing political pressure to bear on the diverse and sundry agencies involved.
Because I know that you, dear readers, have better things to do with your time than wade through this epic laundry list of "intelligence failures", I decided early this afternoon to appoint the Toast Select Committee for the Investigation of Presidential White-Washes to get to the bottom of things. Amazingly, after only a few short hours, their report has already landed on my desk. It reads:
The Bush Administration planned to invade Iraq before taking office.
They dictated to the intelligence community what they were supposed to report about Iraq.
They started a war knowing it was completely unnecessary.
The End.
There you have it. I'll try to put that in .pdf format later so you can download it and archive a copy to show your kids and grand kids.
Seriously: Always remember what happened here. Don't you dare let those motherfuckers re-write history, people. Don't you dare.
|
[2005.04.01 - 07:55 P.M.] Insecure Little Monkey
I really enjoyed E. J. Dionne's piece today on the insecure little monkey's scripted Social Security events and the ham-handed techniques that members of the "campaignistration" (props to Avedon) are using to enforce their sheep-only crowd policy. Dionne wonders why, exactly, they go to such extremes:
[A]ll presidents try to present themselves in the best light, a fact acknowledged by Joe Lockhart and Doug Sosnik, top aides to former president Bill Clinton who also helped John Kerry in 2004. "We clearly used our allies to try to build crowds," Sosnik said of the Clinton approach. But the Clintonians did not exclude opponents, as a review of scores of news stories reporting hecklers at Clinton speeches confirmed. "I'd guess that at one out of every six events, people heckled," Lockhart said, "and Clinton came out ahead." Facing dissent head-on is part of the job description for the leader of a free people.
And so you wonder why a president who sells himself as a tough, confident bring-'em-on type of guy seems so anxious about facing average citizens who disagree with him. Why does he insist on being surrounded, always, by people who tell him that he's right and great and wonderful?
Here's a thought: Could it be because Bush is an enormous coward who's never faced adversity in his entire life? Could it be because, like most bullies and posers, Bush is actually a huge pussy? Hmmmmm.
|
[2005.03.24 - 07:50 P.M.] THE BRONZE RAT
Had to pass this along. It gave me a chuckle:
A tourist walked into a curio shop in San Francisco. Looking around at the exotica, he noticed a very lifelike, life-sized bronze
statue of a rat. It had no price tag, but it was so striking he decided he must have it. He took it to the counter. "How much for the bronze rat?"
"Twelve dollars for the rat, one hundred dollars for the story," the owner said. The tourist gave the shop owner twelve dollars. "I'll take the rat. You
can keep the story." As he walked down the street carrying the rat, he soon noticed that a few real rats had crawled out of the alleys and sewers and
began following him. This was disconcerting, so he began walking faster. But within a couple of blocks, the herd of rats behind him had grown to hundreds,
and they began squealing. He began to trot toward the Bay, but looking back he saw that the rats now numbered in the millions, were squealing ever
louder, and coming toward him faster and faster. Now scared, he broke into a run, then a full Olympic sprint to the edge of the Bay where he threw the
bronze rat as far out as he could muster. Amazingly, the millions of rats all jumped into the Bay after the bronze rat, and they all drowned. The man
walked back to the curio shop. "Aha!" said the owner. "You have come back for the story." "No," said the man, "I came back to see if you have a bronze
Republican."
|
[2005.03.23 - 07:00 P.M.] High-End Survey
Rob Salkowitz over at Emphasis Added has passed along an internet survey targeted at book lovers. I'll take a swing at it:
You're stuck inside Fahrenheit 451, which book do you want to be?
Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. Precisely the kind of brilliant work that the mouth breathers find most threatening.
Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?
F'Lessa from Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern series.
I was 12. Bite me.
The last book you bought was?
Wow. Bought and read, or bought and put into the queue (currently at four dozen and growing)? And can that include gifts? Because I haven't
read anything that wasn't either a gift or already languishing in the queue since... Ah: Consciousness Explained by Daniel C. Dennett.
The last book you read was?
Quicksilver: Volume One of the Baroque Series by Neal Stephenson. Simultaneously fascinating and mind-numbing. Enjoyably interminable. Took me
four months to plow through. And there are two more volumes...
What are you currently reading?
The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution by Richard Dawkins. Absolutely wonderful book. A family history of all life on
Earth, traced backwards from humanity's point of view. Boggles the mind to read such an accessible, richly-textured work on evolution and then see all
those ignorant jackasses in the 'Wing-o-sphere yapping about how it's "just" a theory. Makes me want to hit them over the head with it. And it is a hefty
tome.
Five books you'd take to a deserted island?
- The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson. Blasphemous of Rob (Salkowitz) to even mention DaVinci Code in
the same breath as this book. If anything, it's more like Foucault's Pendulum, only written by a pair of former Playboy editors who were clearly
tripping at the time.
- Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson. Closest thing I've ever found to an operating manual for the human mind.
- Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson. Easily one of the most enjoyable books I've ever read.
- The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien. Long, dense, and eminently re-readable.
- A History Of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell. On a desert island, perhaps I'd finally have the time to finish it.
Who will you pass this stick (3 persons) on to, and why?
Well, I'd pass it on to my wife Tracy, but a.) She's already gotten it from a mutual friend and b.) I already know what she's read, what she's reading,
and what her favorite books are.
So...
Fridge, Hank, and Kibitz.
|
[2005.03.20 - 02:13 P.M.] POSTCARDS FROM THE FEAST -
SUNDAY EDITION
Ouch. That fucking hurt. I think I would have been able to handle this a little better if UConn hadn't come all the way back to tie it up.
That sucks hard.
Still, I can deal. I did, after all, kind of see this coming. Lot of talent on this team, but they're awfully rough around the edges.
And what the hell can you expect when Ed Nelson is your player of the game?
Fuck. OK, off to do some house hunting. I'll try to check back later, assuming I'm sufficiently recovered psychologically.
--- 01:40 ---
I figured it out. NC State is using a similar approach to the one Syracuse used to stifle UConn in the Big East Tournament semis. Not the exact same
2-3 defense as Boeheim (of course) employed, but they're falling in deep and packing the middle just like 'Cuse. And, apparently, if you gum up the middle
and don't allow UConn's big men to penetrate, that's enough to completely explode the team's flow. Not helping that we're getting nothing from the
perimeter. Hell, Anderson can't hit a thing right now.
NC State by 6, headed to the line for a 1 and 1. Under 7 minutes left. This blows.
--- 01:36 ---
This is not going well. In fact, I can't remember the last time I saw a UConn team put on a show of such breathtaking offensive ineptitude. Villanueva
is our only semi-reliable option right now. Boone is struggling, and Gay, who was electric in the first round, hasn't shown up at all. Not getting a good
feeling.
--- 12:57 ---
Halftime of the UConn game, and wow, this is so not the NC State team I remember. Last time I saw these guys play they were a fast, athletic,
run-and-gun style offense. This year's team is a taller version of Princeton. Slow, pasty-looking white guys running back-door cuts. Bo-o-ooooo-ring.
The Huskies are up 5, which I suppose I should be thankful for, given their 11 first-half turnovers. Amazing, really, that Calhoun continues to
tolerate this problem, which has plagued the team all season long. This goes straight to fundamentals, and that usually drives him apeshit. So far, the
team's stellar defense has been able to compensate by keeping NC State from capitalizing on the slew of extra opportunities they've been handed.
Obviously, as the competition gets better (assuming UConn advances), it's going to become increasingly difficult to cover for this major flaw. Don't know
what the problem is, but time's running out to fix it.
|
[2005.03.19 - 05:12 P.M.] POSTCARDS FROM THE FEAST -
SATURDAY EDITION
Bad day to be a three seed. Utah (6) leads Oklahoma (3) by double digits with 11 and change left.
Meanwhile, Washington is cruising against Pacific, which surprises me because, with the exception of Arizona, the Pac-10 is usually quite the choker
conference (sorry, Rob, but it's true) and I figured these guys to be the first 1 seed to bite it. Go figure. (Update: I just clicked over to a
Pac-10 conference site and discovered that they refer to themselves as the "Conference of Champions". That elicited quite the bark of laughter.)
Anyhow, I am outta here for a while. Tracy and I are taking my bro-in-law out to dinner, so I will be limited to catching glimpses of this evening's
action on whatever stray TV's I can get my eyeballs on. Ah, the things we do for family. Back later.
--- 04:41 ---
Oh shit. I just checked the schedule for tomorrow. Two things:
1.) UConn is playing at 12:10 PM, which is bad because I was hoping to go to the gym before the game, knowing that I wouldn't be going to the gym
after the game, because I try to avoid the whole drinking and then lifting weights thing, and no, I don't envision getting up early enough to get to
the gym by 10:30 in the morning, and no, I'm not going to not drink beer during the UConn game. Ack. Oh, and it's also bad because, if my quick
memory survey isn't entirely inaccurate, UConn doesn't have a real good performance history with early games.
2.) UConn is playing NC State? Somehow I missed that. NC State is one of those... upset schools. Don't know why that is. It just is. They're
a school that, when I see them in the bracket against a higher seed, I always think "Hmmmm...". Not good times. I hope I'm wrong.
--- 04:26 ---
I am reasonably certain that there is a degree of self-deprecating humor involved in the new Hootie commercial for Burger King.
This in no way diminishes the perverse pleasure I take in seeing Hootie reduced to doing Burger King jingles.
--- 03:36 ---
Wal-Mart and its defenders often invoke the following argument: Sure we pay our employees jack, but it helps us keep our prices ultra-low, which
ultimately benefits people who have to shop on a limited income (like our employees). For some reason, I was thinking about this at the gym yesterday, and
it occurred to me why this defense is so asinine. Retail purchases are only a small slice of a typical family's expenses. Compared with rent (or
mortgage), utilities, and healthcare - just to name a few - the purchases these "limited income" shoppers are likely to make are small potatoes. So
obviously, the minimal benefit of being able to buy crappy consumer goods on the cheap courtesy of their employer does not offset the sub-par wages of Wal-
Mart employees.
Why am I writing about this in a tournament post? Because I'm still wicked fucking pissed about the Gonzaga game, and I need to take a time-out
from basketball.
--- 03:30 ---
When I burp, I like to say the word "Burp" while I'm doing it. I call this "Recursive Onomatopoeia".
I thought you should know this.
--- 03:16 ---
SHIT! FUCKING SHIT! FUCKING FUCKITY FUCK FUCK FUCCCCCCCCCCCCCK!
Bob Fucking Knight's team just took a giant dump across both my tournament pools, ruined my parlay, and sent Gonzaga home. Fuck you, Knight, OK? Now I
hate you even more than before you bloated, disgusting f.........k......(spit dribbling).. (mouth foaming)... jackass.
And another thing: Dear Gonzaga, You sweet little scamps, you. Always have a soft spot for you, but I am never, ever wagering on you again.
Thank you so much for boning me sideways these last few years. It's been real. Bye.
--- 01:45 ---
Cingular commercial: "More bars in more places. That's our goal."
And a laudable goal that is.
--- 01:13 ---
We lead off today with Gonzaga vs. Texas Tech, and I'm pulling hard for the Zags. Not because I have them going to the Sweet Sixteen in both my
brackets, although I do. And not because I included them in a 5-team parlay earlier this morning, although I did. And not because Gonzaga fostered a
healthy respect in me back in '99 when they pushed my Huskies to the limit in the Elite Eight, although they did.
Today, I am mainly rooting for Gonzaga because Texas Tech coach Bob Knight is a festering douchebag of a human being. (No, I don't actually know if
douchebags can fester. Just stay with me.)
I have no problem with tough, old-school coaches. My two favorite coaches in the world, Jim Calhoun and Bill Parcells, both come from that mold. But
there's a difference between being a no-nonsense guy who pushes his players hard (Calhoun, Parcells) and being a punk-ass bully who not only assaults his
players, but verbally and physically abuses his employees, sports journalists, and random students in the hall. Bob Knight's a real piece of shit who
never should have been given the opportunity to coach again after getting fired from Indiana. So I'd like to see Gonzaga smack his team around a bit and
send him back to Lubbock with a nice, fresh bruise on that titanic ego of his.
|
[2005.03.18 - 02:09 PM] POSTCARDS FROM THE FEAST
No ridiculous upsets. Haven't seen any buzzer-beaters. So far this tournament has been pretty quiet. Just Waiting on the UConn game at this point.
---
Overheard this afternoon...
Jim Nance: "And Charlotte takes a timeout. Folks, be sure to tune in to CBS Sunday night for the world-premiere movie Spring
Break Shark Attack. You don't want to miss this."
Um, yes, Jim. Yes I do want to miss it. Because, if the promos are any indication, it might just be the worst made-for-TV movie in history, and there
has been some serious competition in that category over the years. Really, every time you hawk this debacle, every time you flash those shark fins
across the bottom of the screen - during game action, no less - I just sit and stare in slack-jawed disbelief. Is your network trying to become a parody
of itself? I need to know.
---
OK, lest I forget later, time to have a little fun with King Kaufman
of Salon.com (my second-favorite sportswriter after ESPN's Bill Simmons). Back on Monday, King opened his Tournament preview article thusly:
Three predictions, right off the bat: Illinois to win it all, Alabama A&M to win that dumb play-in game Tuesday over Oakland, and this
will be a year when a 12th seed doesn't knock off a 5.
Hmmm. Let's see.
Oakland convincingly bests Alabama A & M 79 - 69 in
the play-in game (which is stupid, by the way).
12-seed Wisconsin-Milwaukee "stuns" Alabama, 83-73.
(Note to Sportsline: A 12 seed beats a 5 every year. You know that. Couldn't you do better than "stuns"?)
As for "Illinois to win it all", that remains to be seen. But given King's record on the first two items, I sure wish I could go back and change my
brackets right now...
---
Three words any basketball fan with a pulse hates to hear in March: "Princeton-Style Offense"
---
Scanning the board right now, 15-seed Southeast Louisiana is down a mere 5 points to OK State with a little under 8 minutes left. Hopefully CBS will
have the good sense to go there when NC State vs. Charlotte is over (looking like NC State is going to take that one).
---
Cool thing about the current state of HDTV programming: As any of you who have cable HDTV know, the cable provider gives you two feeds for HD networks,
the regular feed and the HD feed. These two feeds, particularly with sports programming, don't always carry the same content. For example, watching CBS
for the tournament, the regular CBS channel features the tournament programming we've all come to know and grudgingly accept. They feature the game they
deem as having the most regional interest, but they also cut between games, often at the oddest of times. Not so on the HD channel. They stick with one
game (except during half time) and that's pretty much it. I'm guessing that this is just a current limitation on the networks ability to get HD
broadcasting equipment to all the events they need to cover, and that eventually it will go away. But for now, it means HD tourney viewers are a little
less shackled by CBS's whims
---
Not that you necessarily care, but it's 43 beautiful degrees in Connecticut right now. Yes, that actually qualifies as Spring-like. I was actually
driving around with my window down today, OK? Not a moment too soon, either.
---
Prominent tournament commercial:
"Why do you work? Why do you get up every day and leave the people you love? At the Principal Financial Group, we know you don't just
work for a paycheck...
Really? Care to enlighten me as to what my ulterior motive is? I mean, really now.
---
Looks like Florida (4) is going to hold on and beat Ohio (13). Thought we had our biggest upset of the tournament there for a minute, when they were
tied at 60 with 1:20 left. But apparently not. Oh well.
More after the UConn game. Maybe.
|
[2005.03.18 - 09:36 AM] MCGWIRE INVOKES THE BUSH DEFENSE
I've been studiously avoiding the whole Steroids-in-Baseball controversy because, frankly, I don't give a flying fuck whether baseball players -- or any
other professional athletes -- use steroids. Sure, steroids give some players an edge, but that edge comes at a substantial price, and I think that alone
will tend to make the problem self-limiting. And if it doesn't, fuck 'em, it's their bodies they're destroying in order to entertain us. Anyhow, I'm sick
to death of the whole thing and I was hoping everyone would just shut up about it but then Canseco comes along with his book and as if he wasn't
stupid and annoying enough, Congress had to get into the act.
So I was successfully ignoring this whole spectacle, right? Then Mark McGwire comes along.
Oh, Mark. So sad. So pathetic.
If you didn't use steroids, Mark, why not say "I didn't use steroids"?
If you did use steroids, and you're man enough to admit it (and avoid twenty years of Pete-Rose-esque "Did He or Didn't He?" in the process), just say,
"Yeah, I used steroids."
If you did use steroids, but you're afraid of the repercussions for your career, just say "I refuse to answer that question." It's your right, after
all.
But don't, don't, DON'T insult our intelligence and test our patience with this lame-ass "I don't want to talk about the past" garbage.
What a bullshit answer. What kind of asshole hides behind such a nauseatingly transparent dodge? I mean, other than George Bush -- Mr. "My Nose Was A
Coke Vacuum For Most Of The Seventies But That's The Past So It Doesn't Count". And is that the company you want to put yourself in, Mark?
Just disgusting.
|
[2005.03.17 - 07:18 PM] TERRORISM = CRIME
Via Atrios, this quote from our new Homeland Security
Director, Michael Chertoff, is the sort of thing that seriously makes me want to kick someone in the head:
But that's why as we manage the most serious risks, we drive down the consequences of an act. It's not terribly different from what we
do with organized crime in this sense. When we attacked organized crime at law enforcement community, we didn't eliminate crime, but by targeting the high-
priority elements of where they were causing the greatest damage to society, we drove the risks down, we drove the consequences down to a level which was
still bad but was not as bad as it had been. Likewise, in the era of terrorism, what we seek to on the way to eliminating terrorism is drive down, again to
protect the most important, most valuable things against the greatest risks so that the consequences of an act are less serious a year from now than they
would have been, let's say, a year ago.
This, of course, is exactly what John Kerry said during the campaign:
'We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' the article states
as the Massachusetts senator's reply.
''As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're
going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's
something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''
Kerry was exactly right. But what happened? The GOP and their press whores rode him for days for using the word "nuisance". And when they
were forced to confront the full context of the quote, they tried to argue that Kerry was wrong to portray terrorism as on a par with mere "crime"
problems.
Well, sorry assholes, but terrorism does, in fact, resemble organized crime far more closely than it resembles a conflict between nation states. It's
not something you fight a "war" against. Terrorism isn't something you try to bomb out of existence. It's a set of tactics. It's a type of activity.
It's an "asymmetrical threat".
Chertoff is right. Kerry was right. We need to reduce the likelihood of terrorism and reduce the impact of those events terrorists are able to
pull off. Most of that work isn't going to resemble storming the gates of Mordor. It's going to look like a crime drama.
Chertoff is right. Kerry was right. And the GOP and their media whores crucified him for it.
|
[2005.03.17 - 06:42 PM] SURVIVOR - WEEKS 4 & 5
In week 4 of Survivor - Palau, a boring person who I can't remember got voted off.
OK, just kidding. It was Kim from Ulong who got sent home, in a totally
predictable move by her fellow losers. Kim's strategy of conspicuously sitting on her ass doing nothing was (surprisingly) good enough to get her a few
weeks deep. But after getting smoked in four straight immunity challenges, the Not-uLong-For-This-Island Crew decided they'd seen enough.
Now, Week 5? That was one for the memory banks, as the producers got a little wild and crazy.
The Big Twist this week was that both tribes had to go to tribal council and vote someone off. Personally, I think this was a little ad-hoc gimmickry
on the part of the Survivor crew to force Koror to go where Ulong lacked the ability to send them. The twist on the twist was that the "winning"
tribe in the non-immunity challenge (Koror, of course) got to sit and listen in on the losing tribe's council, all while stuffing their maws with beef
stew.
This was good. I really thought Stephanie of Ulong was going to
stomp across the council area and shove a ladle up Ian's ass at one point.
But wait, there was more! Ulong was seriously down on Ibrehem, who
pretty much blew their chances during the challenge with three failed diving attempts. Now, personally, I think James, who was leading the boot-Ibrehem charge, should have kept his mouth shut,
considering he single-handedly lost the previous week's challenge in his now-famous "I Got My Ass Kicked By a Homosexual" moment (his words,
people). But I digress. The point is, Ibrehem was gone.
Until Jeff and the crew threw in the twist on the twist on the twist. With no warning, Jeff announces that the members of Koror would be allowed
to vote for one member of Ulong to give immunity to. And guess who won? Right. So instead of Ibrehem getting snuffed, poor tattooed Angie was -- after a tie-breaker vote -- given the heave-ho.
(Hopefully, the first thing she'll do when she gets home is shave those pits.)
All in all, a highly satisfying episode, full of the sort of innovative tricks longtime fans need to see more of to keep coming back.
[Current Favorite Player: Ian]
|
[2005.03.17 - 08:32 AM] THE FEAST IS HERE
Ah, yes, it has finally arrived. The greatest four-day span in all of sports. Every basketball lover's dream. Wall-to-wall 'Ball, and that's all,
y'all.
It has been suggested by myself and at least one other that the federal government
really ought to declare the first Thursday and Friday of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament national holidays. Work, after all, takes a back seat for so
many people on those days that it seems appropriate to just have employers close up shop instead of paying us to glance furtively at portable televisions
or hit "Refresh" as we stare, glaze-eyed, at the online score ticker. Several years
ago, in fact, burdened by the guilt that I was not performing at the highest possible level whilst the tournament was in progress, I decided it was my duty
to take these two days off as personal days.
The only problem with my "holiday" idea -- the one thing that really prevents it from taking hold in the national psyche -- is the lack of a name.
Somehow, "The First Four Days of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament" just doesn't seem like a catchy enough moniker to land holiday status. And so I
have come up with a better idea. I hereby propose renaming the first weekend of the tourney as:
The Feast of Saint Naismith
What do you think?
This year, in what I heard referred to as "The Halley's Comet of Partying Excuses", Day One of the Feast happens to coincide with Saint Patrick's Day.
Truly, I tell you, this shall be an opening day to remember.
Oh yes, and...
GO HUSKIES!!!
|
[2005.03.10 - 01:00 P.M.] GOOD NEWS ON SOCIAL SECURITY -
BUSH WON'T BACK DOWN
Walking into the office this morning, I caught this headline on the front page of USA Today:
Adviser: Accounts Won't Wait
Rejects proposals to postpone, substitute Soc. Security plan.
"Excellent," thought I, "The Son of a Bitch is finally going to fall victim to that collosal pig-headedness of his. Bring it on, Dumbya."
Later, I had a chance to look up the story online. Here are the first
few grafs:
WASHINGTON The top White House economic adviser rejected as "absolutely a non-starter" bipartisan proposals that the administration
put aside its drive to create individual investment accounts in Social Security and focus first on extending the system's solvency.
Allan Hubbard, in an interview Wednesday with USA TODAY, also dismissed a Democratic proposal that investment accounts be created to
supplement Social Security, not as part of the system.
"President Bush's No. 1 goal is passing legislation that permanently solves the solvency problem, and 'add-on' accounts do not deal with
the solvency problem," Hubbard said in his first on-the-record interview since he became head of the National Economic Council in January.
Meanwhile, Bush continued to push for Congress to come up with a plan to shore up the system and a key Republican committee chairman
suggested Wednesday that workers may have to accept cuts in future Social Security benefits.
Now that is the kind of story I want to see more of.
Good, good stuff.
I mean, this Hubbard guy must have been away from the office because he clearly did not get the memo. Nobody appears to have told him that 1.)
The president's plan for carve-out private accounts does not in any way help with Social Security's solvency problem, so please stop arguing that point,
and 2.) "Add-on" plans poll well, so try to get on the add-on bandwagon by referring to the president's carve-out plan as an add-on plan.
I think someone is in for an ass-chewing.
This is the issue. This is the battle. This is Bush's Waterloo.
This is where his arrogance, his stubborness, his ideological blindness, and his cocky my-way-or-the-highway attitude are finally going to prove
his undoing. All the Democrats need to do is keep saying "NO", and when the time comes, step aside and let him walk off the cliff.
|
[2005.03.08 - 06:26 PM] BARTCOP ON BANKRUPTCY
Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa is the chief sponsor of the vile, anti-working-class, pro-usury bankruptcy "reform" bill that is currently
squeezing out of Congress like an impacted, blood-encrusted turd trying to strain free of our plutocracy's collective asshole. Recently, Grassley had this to say in the bill's defense:
"People who have the ability to repay some or all of their debt should not be able to use bankruptcy as a financial planning tool so
they get out of paying their debt scot-free, while honest Americans who play by the rules have to foot the bill."
I'd sure love to get into a tussle with Grassley about where he draws the line between those "able to repay" and those who have been sufficiently raped
by credit card companies that deliberately offer phony hope to those with bad credit. But I think I'll cede the floor to the Godfather of Left Blogistan
himself, BartCop:
Senator, I have a question - if a 60 year-old uninsured man has a heart attack and survives, what should he do when he gets the hospital
bill for $350,000? Get a second job?
Word.
Goddamned bastards.
|
[2005.03.08 - 02:00 P.M.] EPISTEMOLECTOMY
Shakespeare's Sister asks a question:
What's your greatest fear about the Bush administration?
Be honest or be funny. And if youre feeling feisty, follow it up with any suggestions about how to prevent it from becoming reality.
Now there's a question I could riff all day answering. I mean, where to start? Greatest fear... Greatest fear...
Not what they're doing to the nation's finances. Reagan launched the deficit through the stratosphere and helped trash the economy too,
remember? Clinton, with the help of fiscally sane types on both sides of the aisle, fixed it.
Not how they're wrecking international relations. I think most of the world understands that what they're seeing right now isn't "The United
States", it's "The GOP". Get a Democrat in the White House and most of Bush's transgressions will be forgiven. (The unfortunate exception being the
terrorists Bush is creating today, who are unlikely to care which American party wronged them.)
Not what they're doing to the environment. Granted, it's scary how hard they're trying to turn back the clock in this arena. I actually do have
faith in the American people here, however. A strong majority of Americans care deeply about the environment -- it's real to them in a way the
federal budget isn't, after all -- and even if they cannot shame our greedy corporatist "leaders" into doing the right thing, I think there's enough that
regular people can do through their own behavior and local initiatives to offset the damage.
Not their continuing project of replacing our federal judiciary with right-wing Pod People. (Sigh) Tough one there, too, because that was my
first answer. I am deeply terrified at the idea of federal judgeships being handed over in wholesale quantity to Federalist Society drones who view all
human and societal rights as being subservient to property rights. Still, assuming we can regain power over the other branches of government, that
imbalance could be corrected at some point.
So, then, what? Well, after some pondering, I'd have to say that what scares me the most about the Bushies is...
They're killing the Truth.
They are giving the country an involuntary Epistemolectomy, removing the means by which we have traditionally evaluated truth and falsehood.
You know what I'm talking about. They've systematically debased the scientific enterprise, dismissing out of hand research that contradicts their
ideology, no matter how strong the consensus behind it. They've undermined the fourth estate, spitefully bashing the efforts of our few remaining
investigative journalists, derisively referring to the news media as "the filter", and enthusiastically trying to reframe all journalism as
"opinion" journalism. They've lied to our face day after day for so long now we don't expect anything else, and the vast, blaring machine backing them up
repeats their lies so insistently that more than half the nation routinely believes things that are as demonstrably untrue as flat-Earth theories. Saddam
had WMD's and used them! Social Security will be bankrupt by 2017! They've created a society where, as David Brock put it, we have "Red Facts" and "Blue
Facts" instead of just facts.
This is what scares me the most: Democracy thrives on an informed populace and healthy debate. The Bush administration and the "movement"
conservatives are deliberately sabotaging both to satisfy their ideological ends. Once everyone is convinced that "all politics is just a matter of
opinion"
we are completely screwed, more or less permanently.
And as to the second part of the question, I don't have a friggin' clue what to do about this.
|
[2005.03.08 - 09:40 A.M.] STICKS AND STONES?
Ezra Klein makes a good argument this morning as to why we (progressives)
still need the DLC. His post centers on the realization that Big Party
politics is "factional" by nature, no matter what side of the aisle you're on:
The reason factional politics are important is that they give disparate interest groups a community within the larger party. That allows
the party's leaders to cross their agendas, as the interest groups are connected to a smaller, like-minded structure able to keep them loyal even when the
folks at the top ignore their demands. That's how the Christian Right deals with Bush's heresy -- by being comforted by Ralph Reed and Karl Rove. And
that's
how the budget hawks and Goldwaterites deal with his profligacy, through reassurances from Grover Norquist and Stephen Moore. Their doomed fight for the
soul of the party proceeds, their investment in the party increases, and their loyalty, when the chips are down, continues. They might step out of line now
and again, providing quotes for a New York Times article on the President's precarious position with homo-haters or the increasing anxiety over his
deficit-
spending, but when the votes need counting, they know which lever to pull.
For conservative Democrats, the DLC acts as that structure. Lieberman, Carper, Landrieu and others can strut about pontificating on
centrism and bipartisanship and market-based solutions and the perils of liberalism, but at the end of most days, they still vote like Democrats. That's
because they see themselves as engaged with the Democratic party. Maybe not dominant in it, but definitely engaged. Whether or not they've already lost the
fight for the soul of the party, it's important that they still feel invested in the struggle.
This idea of factional organizations within the larger party serving as anchors for various ideological viewpoints is worth noting. The DLC is
just one example. MoveOn is another. How many Deaniacs out there would have bailed out last Spring if MoveOn hadn't been there to make them feel like
they
had a seat at the table? Perhaps, for some African Americans, the Congressional Black Caucus provides another such anchor point to the larger whole of the
Democratic Party. You get the gist, though. The national Democratic Party is often too big, too diverse, and, sometimes, too diffuse for people to relate
to in the direct, intense fashion that these smaller organizations afford.
Where I think Ezra's analysis comes up a little short is this: Just because we need these factional organizations doesn't mean we should ignore or
under-state the damage done when one faction publicly attacks another. Ezra says:
Al From's base-baiting is annoying, but it's not really dangerous -- indeed, it shows he and his are still involved in the party.
Actually, yes it is dangerous. Digby nicely summarized
why this is so in a recent post:
People are more reluctant to identify themselves as liberals or progressives than they were in 1988 and one of the reasons is that
people
like Al From and his boys helped the Republicans degrade the label to such an extent that people don't want to be associated with it. It is one thing to
criticize your brothers; it's another to sully the family name. They continue to do this by talking about purging Michael Moore and Move-On and generally
showing such a lack of respect for the grassroots that you wonder why they don't just call us all filthy rabble and tell us to eat cake. The lesson here is
to never employ GOP rhetoric about the Democratic Party, ever. This is one thing that simply has got to stop.
That's precisely right. What message does it send when Al From or Peter Beinart spits in the face of the liberal wing of the party? Americans
unfamiliar with what we stand for could be forgiven for thinking "Wow, these guys are Democrats and even they think MoveOn is just a bunch of crazy
leftists." What we lefties fail to point out, however, is that the reverse also holds true. What kind of PR is created when we denounce the DLC as
"Republican Lite"? We might as well say to our fellow voters "Hey, our party's been infiltrated by these posers, so go ahead and vote for the real thing."
There is nothing to be gained by airing our disagreements in such a highly-public, highly-vitriolic fashion. Nothing. It's just feeding the Right Wing
Noise Machine what it wants to hear.
The Left often speaks in envious tones of the Right's party discipline. And well we should. Look at their factions. When was the last time
Grover Norquist made a public statement about the GOP's need to purge the party of their "religious nuts"? When was the last time Bill Bennett criticized
the over-zealousness and fiscal irresponsibility of the party's "Tax Nazis"? These things don't happen over there, people. Think maybe it gives them an
edge?
We're going to continue to have real disagreements on many of the issues that animate us, sure. But we should find healthier ways to air them out.
Every intra-party discussion should be based on the implicit acknowledgement that we play for the same team, and that no matter what our
differences might be, they pale beside the vast moral and political gulf that separates us from the GOP. And let's stop painting each other with the
broadest brush in the paint box. Al From seems like a bit of an ass, at least based on his public comments, but I've seen nothing from his fellow DLC'er
Ed Kilgore that indicates he takes his lead from From's rhetoric. Indeed, Kilgore seems perfectly willing to sit
down
and have a conversation with any Democrat who has fresh ideas, no matter what part of the Democratic map they hail from.
We don't need lock-step unity. We can't have that. We're the real Big Tent party in this country, after all. We need our "factions" to
give us a home, and to give us a voice. But we can't let those factions break us apart. If we do, we'll never get from 49% to 51%.
|
[2005.03.05 - 11:44 AM] SURVIVOR - WEEK 3
Starting a little weekly commentary here. If you don't like Survivor, don't read it. Although, for my money, it's the only "reality" show worth
watching.
To recap, here's who has gone so far:
Wanda (The Unbelievably Annoying Psychotic Singing Teacher)
Jonathon (The Non-Descript Guy)
Jolanda (The Ridiculously Bossy Black Chick)
Ashlee (The Chubby-Faced Girl)
Which brings us to last Thursday, and my question of the week. Do any of the members of Ulong watch sports? For that matter, have any of them
played
sports? See, here's what happened: Jeff (the player, not the host) turned his ankle on a coconut while out walking at night. Jeff was a member of
Ulong (aka the Strong-But-Stupid Bunch). Muscular. Good-natured. Team player. But, like all the members of his tribe, dumb as a rock.
A little background: Ulong won the Reward Challenge this week, and as their reward they got a sewing kit, complete with what looked suspiciously like
rolls of fabric. So, um, you've got a sprained ankle. You've got fabric. What do you do? You wrap the fucking thing, right? I mean, how many
times have you seen athletes roll an ankle, tape it up, and head back out onto the field?
Not Jeff though. Jeff thought the best thing for everybody would be if he volunteered to be voted off. And his equally-clueless tribemates
happily obliged him, keeping the astonishingly useless Kim in the process.
Nice work. This could be the first time that an entire tribe is gone before the merge.
|
