That idea, splitting up California, who thought of it first, not me, though when I first brought it up I was unaware that The Cranky Geek himself, John C. Dvorak, had posted his thoughts well in advance of my own immodest attempt to divvy up California's people, geography, and wondrous bounty.
It came to my attention cause I was checking out the effects of the recent Trollcats related Althouse-aided Instalanche (over 4000 new visits in one day), and notice a smaller wave of search hits to my old proposal on dividing California. When I googled "dividing California", my post was still tops, but Dvorak's recent repost of his old post was driving people to google, and I guess a few hundred folks decided to check out my proposal as well.
Thanks for the hits Mr. Dvorak, even if it hadn't been intentional, still appreciate it. I enjoy your wit and wisdom whenever you do your thing on This Week in Tech.
Now, I have some meat to baste...
Showing posts with label Either Brilliantly Self Mocking or Madly Self Delusional. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Either Brilliantly Self Mocking or Madly Self Delusional. Show all posts
26 March 2009
Women Whose Blogs at Which I Should Comment More Vigorously (and Flirtatiously) . . .
. . . so, over the weekend, Prof. Althouse made it official and revealed some details about her recent betrothment to a fine gentleman (by the handle of Meade) she met in part because he was an avid commenter on her blog.
So, as a single man, maybe I should explore this avenue of bliss more heartily, if it worked once, why shouldn't it work again?
I know inconstancy is a big turn off for women, so if I wanted this to be effective, I should probably limit this list to one name, but in fairness to all the wonderful and attractive women who blog, I'm not capable as of yet to limit my affections (a touch of reciprocity would go a long way into focusing my attentions, and intentions).
So here's a list in no particular order, with reasons for, and against, of bloggers whom I might pitch woo.
Moxie
Conservative, check, gorgeous, check, creative, check, smart, check, drives a Porsche, big fat check, lots of positives going for her, she could post a bit more often, but I'm sure she's doing other things, so it's understandable. Now some reasons why I might hesitate, blonde, sorry, I just don't find blondes aesthetically pleasing for the most part, it's a peculiarity of mine, for the right woman I could look past it, and celibacy, now that isn't necessarily a drawback, it would mean that any relationship would move forward strictly based on intellect and emotions with the physical stuff limited until we are both ready for a serious commitment, I'd like to say that's a positive, but the horndog in me used to relationships proceeding physically fairly quickly would probably get frustrated.
Tammy Bruce
Conservative, check, gorgeous, check, creative, check, smart, check, loves animals, big fat check, lots of positives going for her, and really just one minor negative. OK, so that one negative is more a problem regarding me, being non-distaffed and all, and unfortunately that's not something one can overlook easily. I guess it's true, all the good ones are taken, or gay.
Felicia Day
Gorgeous, check, creative, check, smart, check, loves D&D, big fat check (I've never played myself, but I'd be willing with the right group of geeks), lots of positives going for her, and really just one big negative, that she's probably a big fat liberal. Having dated people in or interested in 'the business' in the past, I'm not sure it's something I want to repeat. It's tough on people's psyche and all the crap they deal with tends to come home with them, I would imagine it would be even harder on a woman just shy of 30 who enjoys a strange mix of big success in one market segment and near anonymity with the mainstream. I'd be shocked if she's not ever so slightly neurotic, but I'd probably enjoy being a stabilizing rock with which she could anchor herself to the real world (and those pics with her and firearms, as Conan would say, rowwwwwwrrrrrrrrrr!!!)
Kat Dennings
Gorgeous, check, creative, check, smart, check, endearingly quirky, big fat check, lots of positives going for her, and one huge almost deal breaking negative, she's way too damn young for me to even consider thinking about in a romantic manner. Normally, I'd consider any woman under the age of 25 a big huge fat no-no, but there's just something so interesting about her that I'd be willing to risk corrupting her and negatively influencing her development as a person (most of these flings between guys pushing, or past 40 and girls barely past 21 do harm to both parties). It's those damn YouTube videos she used to make, she comes across as so charming that I'm willing to throw my scruples out the window. (I have to admit it, it's also her big huge . . . ., eyes that stir my passions)
Heather of Go Fug Yourself
Gorgeous, unknown, creative, check, smart, check, endearingly snarky and completely obsessed with pop culture, big fat check, lots of positives going for her, as to the negative, she may not actually look like Joan Collins circa 1982. Seems like being around her might bring my inner Blackwell to the fore, which probably wouldn't be that sexy and could be really confusing sexually for both of us. Can a straight man snark on fashion and be sexually enticing simultaneously? It would be an interesting experiment. I think Heather's writing style is slightly better than Jessica's, but if it turned out that I was more compatible with Jessica rather than Heather, I'd have to attempt the very tricky blogging version of the infamous "Roommate Switch". Better men than I have lost limbs trying that maneuver.
Better start working on those commenting/flirting skills, before others beat me to the punch, and to all the bloggers out there I didn't list, it's not you, it's me, really.
So, as a single man, maybe I should explore this avenue of bliss more heartily, if it worked once, why shouldn't it work again?
I know inconstancy is a big turn off for women, so if I wanted this to be effective, I should probably limit this list to one name, but in fairness to all the wonderful and attractive women who blog, I'm not capable as of yet to limit my affections (a touch of reciprocity would go a long way into focusing my attentions, and intentions).
So here's a list in no particular order, with reasons for, and against, of bloggers whom I might pitch woo.
Moxie
Conservative, check, gorgeous, check, creative, check, smart, check, drives a Porsche, big fat check, lots of positives going for her, she could post a bit more often, but I'm sure she's doing other things, so it's understandable. Now some reasons why I might hesitate, blonde, sorry, I just don't find blondes aesthetically pleasing for the most part, it's a peculiarity of mine, for the right woman I could look past it, and celibacy, now that isn't necessarily a drawback, it would mean that any relationship would move forward strictly based on intellect and emotions with the physical stuff limited until we are both ready for a serious commitment, I'd like to say that's a positive, but the horndog in me used to relationships proceeding physically fairly quickly would probably get frustrated.
Tammy Bruce
Conservative, check, gorgeous, check, creative, check, smart, check, loves animals, big fat check, lots of positives going for her, and really just one minor negative. OK, so that one negative is more a problem regarding me, being non-distaffed and all, and unfortunately that's not something one can overlook easily. I guess it's true, all the good ones are taken, or gay.
Felicia Day
Gorgeous, check, creative, check, smart, check, loves D&D, big fat check (I've never played myself, but I'd be willing with the right group of geeks), lots of positives going for her, and really just one big negative, that she's probably a big fat liberal. Having dated people in or interested in 'the business' in the past, I'm not sure it's something I want to repeat. It's tough on people's psyche and all the crap they deal with tends to come home with them, I would imagine it would be even harder on a woman just shy of 30 who enjoys a strange mix of big success in one market segment and near anonymity with the mainstream. I'd be shocked if she's not ever so slightly neurotic, but I'd probably enjoy being a stabilizing rock with which she could anchor herself to the real world (and those pics with her and firearms, as Conan would say, rowwwwwwrrrrrrrrrr!!!)
Kat Dennings
Gorgeous, check, creative, check, smart, check, endearingly quirky, big fat check, lots of positives going for her, and one huge almost deal breaking negative, she's way too damn young for me to even consider thinking about in a romantic manner. Normally, I'd consider any woman under the age of 25 a big huge fat no-no, but there's just something so interesting about her that I'd be willing to risk corrupting her and negatively influencing her development as a person (most of these flings between guys pushing, or past 40 and girls barely past 21 do harm to both parties). It's those damn YouTube videos she used to make, she comes across as so charming that I'm willing to throw my scruples out the window. (I have to admit it, it's also her big huge . . . ., eyes that stir my passions)
Heather of Go Fug Yourself
Gorgeous, unknown, creative, check, smart, check, endearingly snarky and completely obsessed with pop culture, big fat check, lots of positives going for her, as to the negative, she may not actually look like Joan Collins circa 1982. Seems like being around her might bring my inner Blackwell to the fore, which probably wouldn't be that sexy and could be really confusing sexually for both of us. Can a straight man snark on fashion and be sexually enticing simultaneously? It would be an interesting experiment. I think Heather's writing style is slightly better than Jessica's, but if it turned out that I was more compatible with Jessica rather than Heather, I'd have to attempt the very tricky blogging version of the infamous "Roommate Switch". Better men than I have lost limbs trying that maneuver.
Better start working on those commenting/flirting skills, before others beat me to the punch, and to all the bloggers out there I didn't list, it's not you, it's me, really.
12 September 2008
Geee, I Wonder Where He Got This Idea From . . .
From today's post by My Nemesis Bill Simmons™
(Do I ramble in my picks?)
(and just cause you decided to copy my picking style, doesn't mean I'm going to go and compare our results, again, you just haven't earned it given past performance)
This probably won't work and I don't care: For the first time in 12 years of writing this Friday column (and probably the last), I'm writing my weekly picks in semi-coherent, pseudo-Ramblings form. Don't try this at home. Anyway …
(Do I ramble in my picks?)
(and just cause you decided to copy my picking style, doesn't mean I'm going to go and compare our results, again, you just haven't earned it given past performance)
19 July 2007
Again With the Claiming Primacy with Regards to Certain Ideas . . .
Today, Ed Driscoll points to a CNN interview of Dave Chappelle, and Chappelle mentions he wouldn't mind being a White House Press Secretary.
Where have I heard that idea before?
Also, Catholic Archbishop Pius Ncube from Zimbabwe said in London (as a critic of the administration, staying in Zimbabwe would mean certain death) that Mugabe must be destroyed from the outside before reform can begin inside.
Where have I heard that idea before?
(my claim on primacy on this one is weaker, since he's quoted well before I posted, but I only heard of what he said, after, so in my mind I said it first, and the suggestion is a more martial outgrowth of my modest proposal for Bill and Melinda Gates, so in that sense it definitely predates Archbishop Ncube's statement)
UPDATE:
Ed Driscoll was kind enough to link my post from last year, now let's see if the Archbishop admits to reading my modest proposal from awhile back, also . . .
Where have I heard that idea before?
Also, Catholic Archbishop Pius Ncube from Zimbabwe said in London (as a critic of the administration, staying in Zimbabwe would mean certain death) that Mugabe must be destroyed from the outside before reform can begin inside.
Where have I heard that idea before?
(my claim on primacy on this one is weaker, since he's quoted well before I posted, but I only heard of what he said, after, so in my mind I said it first, and the suggestion is a more martial outgrowth of my modest proposal for Bill and Melinda Gates, so in that sense it definitely predates Archbishop Ncube's statement)
UPDATE:
Ed Driscoll was kind enough to link my post from last year, now let's see if the Archbishop admits to reading my modest proposal from awhile back, also . . .
04 July 2007
Calvin Coolidge, Jumped In a Time Machine, Read My Blog, and Stole My Ideas . . .
. . . or not.
That might be a little far fetched.
Still, the idea that we represent modernity with our classical liberal Burkean founding principles while reactionary movements like postmodernism, gaiaism, and fundamental islamism represent regressive primitivism would seem to be echoed in his 5th of July speech in 1926 commemorating our nation's 150th birthday. It's not a short speech, but it's a reminder of a more thoughtful and scholarly time in our politics. Even though we're constantly reminded of the sheer brilliance of President Clinton on a regular basis by his fans, when it came to writing his autobiography it was a meandering mess. A president who admired Coolidge greatly, was the one that came closest to his scholarship since, as evidenced by his recently published diaries.
Silent Cal could orate, when needed. His reputation for silence was exaggerated, his commitment to the core Jeffersonian and Burkean values at the heart of our national experiment, under appreciated.
Here's the part that resonates most with what I wrote earlier (having not read this speech before)
The summation of the speech is also very interesting,
What we get so right, and what too many nations still get so wrong is a strong adherence to a rule of law endowed by unalienable rights. Coolidge ascribes these rights as divine. Whatever the source of that spiritual yearning for freedom, that yearning waited a long time till it found its best expression in our founding documents. Lucky for us that we get to live at a time when we see the expression of those values more so than at any time in the past. Luckily for the rest of the world, we're happy to export the best of what we have to offer. We'll let you have those ideas for free, no strings attached. We'll even spend a great deal of our own treasure helping your country get there. We know in the long run our philosophy is irresistible (if not to those in power, at least to the people governed), and that trade partners are vastly preferable to armed rivals. But if you insist on the rivalry route, we're generous with the ass-kickings, as well (just ask our first dance partners, the Barbary Pirates).
(hat tip Powerline, via Ed Driscoll)
That might be a little far fetched.
Still, the idea that we represent modernity with our classical liberal Burkean founding principles while reactionary movements like postmodernism, gaiaism, and fundamental islamism represent regressive primitivism would seem to be echoed in his 5th of July speech in 1926 commemorating our nation's 150th birthday. It's not a short speech, but it's a reminder of a more thoughtful and scholarly time in our politics. Even though we're constantly reminded of the sheer brilliance of President Clinton on a regular basis by his fans, when it came to writing his autobiography it was a meandering mess. A president who admired Coolidge greatly, was the one that came closest to his scholarship since, as evidenced by his recently published diaries.
Silent Cal could orate, when needed. His reputation for silence was exaggerated, his commitment to the core Jeffersonian and Burkean values at the heart of our national experiment, under appreciated.
Here's the part that resonates most with what I wrote earlier (having not read this speech before)
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
The summation of the speech is also very interesting,
No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.
What we get so right, and what too many nations still get so wrong is a strong adherence to a rule of law endowed by unalienable rights. Coolidge ascribes these rights as divine. Whatever the source of that spiritual yearning for freedom, that yearning waited a long time till it found its best expression in our founding documents. Lucky for us that we get to live at a time when we see the expression of those values more so than at any time in the past. Luckily for the rest of the world, we're happy to export the best of what we have to offer. We'll let you have those ideas for free, no strings attached. We'll even spend a great deal of our own treasure helping your country get there. We know in the long run our philosophy is irresistible (if not to those in power, at least to the people governed), and that trade partners are vastly preferable to armed rivals. But if you insist on the rivalry route, we're generous with the ass-kickings, as well (just ask our first dance partners, the Barbary Pirates).
(hat tip Powerline, via Ed Driscoll)
02 July 2007
Woohoo!
Doing some ego-googling, for the term "immodest proposals", and currently this website is the first link on google's list.
Take that William Tenn!
(whose collected works I've yet to read, and might be wonderful, probably should read and review them one day)
Also #1 on Yahoo
Also #1 on MSFT's Live Search
But, Ask.com, and their fancy algorithms, can go screw themselves, they haven't yet put this site on top.
The other link high on all the lists is an article interviewing a Burlington lawyer (specialist in obscenity cases) in Seven Days (Vermont's Alternative Weekly, cause I guess the regular weeklys in Vermont aren't "alternative" enough, I can't imagine how "alternative" alternative means in a state where Bernie Sanders represents)
Take that William Tenn!
(whose collected works I've yet to read, and might be wonderful, probably should read and review them one day)
Also #1 on Yahoo
Also #1 on MSFT's Live Search
But, Ask.com, and their fancy algorithms, can go screw themselves, they haven't yet put this site on top.
The other link high on all the lists is an article interviewing a Burlington lawyer (specialist in obscenity cases) in Seven Days (Vermont's Alternative Weekly, cause I guess the regular weeklys in Vermont aren't "alternative" enough, I can't imagine how "alternative" alternative means in a state where Bernie Sanders represents)
08 June 2007
Another In a Long Line of Posts Where I Claim Primacy With Regards to a Matter of Small Consequence . . .
Which fantastic idea I had this time that is suddenly being batted about?
Cross-party debates earlier in the election cycle.
I came up with the idea back in the middle of May, independently of my idea, Ann Althouse's son John, IM'ed her with a notion along those lines and she blogged about it, now Patrick Ruffini guest posting at Hugh Hewitt's blog also comes out for such a notion.
The pros for this are greater than the cons (at least if they follow my brilliant scheme). One of the main pros would be entertainment value. Politics should be engaging, and a broader group of folks will engage sooner if politics were more entertainingly combative. Right now we have a terrible combination, sure politics are combative, , but not in a manner that's instructive, intellectual or engaging. The sooner the better for forcing an honest intellectual, emotional and moral confrontation between the folks who hope to lead this nation. The other main pro would be that this would force candidates to campaign more like the person they will be in office rather than the person they think people of their own party want them to be. Screw the cons. I'm about the positives factors affirming ideas I take credit for, as far as all the cons I have two words for you, pish and tosh.
If the campaign for the presidency is to be a 18-24 month affair as it seems to be now, steps should be taken to make as many of those months moments of revelation rather than obfuscation. Debates between the parties would be revelatory, debates within the parties are too often obfuscatory.
But, all this aside, another notion I remember suggesting (or at least thinking, maybe I never typed it out before) was that it would be far more instructive if candidates were forced to send their 'policy experts' and 'advisers' out into the internet to have debates with each other. When we pick a President we aren't just picking a single person, we are picking a team, and I want to know as soon as possible what the make up of that team will look like. A Bloggingheads type format would be perfect, with dingalinks, and a relatively unstructured time frame. Would Clinton have beaten Bush in 1992 if we had known it would have been a bunch of dweeby munchkins, a few crusty Carter leftovers, and heavily favoring academic over real world folks? Likewise, in 2000 if folks had known Bush was skipping past his father, and even Reagan to pick folks with experience in the Nixon and Ford years, would Gore have won more than the popular vote (although in this scenario I think he would have had a stable of far lefty policy wonks that would make Hillary look like Ayn Rand, so he probably would have lost resoundingly, even against the Bush/Ford/Nixon team).
Could any of the Republicans get Colin Powell to speak on their behalf? Would Clinton be crazy enough to dust off Albright? Does anyone know who Obama's people are or what his cabinet would look like? Does McCain have any friends (aside from a few in the media)? Would Rudy look past the five boroughs for advisers?
These are all questions that would be far more informative than if some 4th tier candidate manages to get off a sound bite, or if a first tier candidate has a response interrupted by a lightning strike.
But, there's no incentive whatsoever for the presidential hopefuls to submit to such a risky scheme. The money people could turn off the money spigot until the candidates engage each other and the issues more directly, but that won't happen, folks are eager to throw money at the campaigns, either cause they're true believers, or cause they hope a scratched back has a memory and where there's some quids there might also be some pros hanging out with some quos. Too bad the multiple 'expert's roundtables' idea will never take off, it would be magnificent, and lead to better governance, but so would terminal limits, and those aren't likely to ever be imposed.
So many ideas, so few listening, oh well . . .
UPDATE:
Woohoo! Hello Althouse readers. I always like it when a popular site turns its attention towards my immodest little blog. Feel free to read other posts, they won't bite, some of them might even be interesting . . .
Cross-party debates earlier in the election cycle.
I came up with the idea back in the middle of May, independently of my idea, Ann Althouse's son John, IM'ed her with a notion along those lines and she blogged about it, now Patrick Ruffini guest posting at Hugh Hewitt's blog also comes out for such a notion.
The pros for this are greater than the cons (at least if they follow my brilliant scheme). One of the main pros would be entertainment value. Politics should be engaging, and a broader group of folks will engage sooner if politics were more entertainingly combative. Right now we have a terrible combination, sure politics are combative, , but not in a manner that's instructive, intellectual or engaging. The sooner the better for forcing an honest intellectual, emotional and moral confrontation between the folks who hope to lead this nation. The other main pro would be that this would force candidates to campaign more like the person they will be in office rather than the person they think people of their own party want them to be. Screw the cons. I'm about the positives factors affirming ideas I take credit for, as far as all the cons I have two words for you, pish and tosh.
If the campaign for the presidency is to be a 18-24 month affair as it seems to be now, steps should be taken to make as many of those months moments of revelation rather than obfuscation. Debates between the parties would be revelatory, debates within the parties are too often obfuscatory.
But, all this aside, another notion I remember suggesting (or at least thinking, maybe I never typed it out before) was that it would be far more instructive if candidates were forced to send their 'policy experts' and 'advisers' out into the internet to have debates with each other. When we pick a President we aren't just picking a single person, we are picking a team, and I want to know as soon as possible what the make up of that team will look like. A Bloggingheads type format would be perfect, with dingalinks, and a relatively unstructured time frame. Would Clinton have beaten Bush in 1992 if we had known it would have been a bunch of dweeby munchkins, a few crusty Carter leftovers, and heavily favoring academic over real world folks? Likewise, in 2000 if folks had known Bush was skipping past his father, and even Reagan to pick folks with experience in the Nixon and Ford years, would Gore have won more than the popular vote (although in this scenario I think he would have had a stable of far lefty policy wonks that would make Hillary look like Ayn Rand, so he probably would have lost resoundingly, even against the Bush/Ford/Nixon team).
Could any of the Republicans get Colin Powell to speak on their behalf? Would Clinton be crazy enough to dust off Albright? Does anyone know who Obama's people are or what his cabinet would look like? Does McCain have any friends (aside from a few in the media)? Would Rudy look past the five boroughs for advisers?
These are all questions that would be far more informative than if some 4th tier candidate manages to get off a sound bite, or if a first tier candidate has a response interrupted by a lightning strike.
But, there's no incentive whatsoever for the presidential hopefuls to submit to such a risky scheme. The money people could turn off the money spigot until the candidates engage each other and the issues more directly, but that won't happen, folks are eager to throw money at the campaigns, either cause they're true believers, or cause they hope a scratched back has a memory and where there's some quids there might also be some pros hanging out with some quos. Too bad the multiple 'expert's roundtables' idea will never take off, it would be magnificent, and lead to better governance, but so would terminal limits, and those aren't likely to ever be imposed.
So many ideas, so few listening, oh well . . .
UPDATE:
Woohoo! Hello Althouse readers. I always like it when a popular site turns its attention towards my immodest little blog. Feel free to read other posts, they won't bite, some of them might even be interesting . . .
05 May 2007
You Know Those Posts Where I Complain About a Much More Famous Person Stealing One of My Ideas, Yeah This Is One of Them
This time it's Mark Steyn who I'm not quite accusing of plagarism. Way back when, I connected Sheryl Crow's supposed joke regarding one square toilet visits with the new policy of fortnightly trash collection in some councils in Great Britain.
Well, look at this paragraph Steyn posted at The Corner (hat tip Instapundit):
He gets points for the added value of comparing the reception of Gaiaist influenced ecototalitarianism and supposed anti-terror overreaching by the Bush Administration. If Bush only repurposed the Global War on Terror into the Global Initiative to Save Gaia, he'd still be reviled, but maybe a touch less so.
Either I'm really brilliant on a Mark Steyn level, or we're both being really obvious.
You Make the Call!!!
Well, look at this paragraph Steyn posted at The Corner (hat tip Instapundit):
If George Bush put a microchip in your garbage under the Patriot Act, there'd be mass demonstrations across the land. But do it in the guise of saving the planet and everyone's fine with it. Meanwhile, to encourage recycling, garbage collection has been halved from weekly to fortnightly. As a result, flies swarm and rats gambol. One of the biggest causes of improved health and life expectancy over the last 150 years has been what we now regard as simple hygiene: clean bathroom facilities and waste disposal. Between Miss Crow and Her Majesty's Government, we seem determined to reverse that.
He gets points for the added value of comparing the reception of Gaiaist influenced ecototalitarianism and supposed anti-terror overreaching by the Bush Administration. If Bush only repurposed the Global War on Terror into the Global Initiative to Save Gaia, he'd still be reviled, but maybe a touch less so.
Either I'm really brilliant on a Mark Steyn level, or we're both being really obvious.
You Make the Call!!!
27 April 2007
19 April 2007
NBA Playoff Preview (aka Why I'm Right and Marc Stein Is Wrong)
Marc Stein has put up his NBA Playoff Preview with alarming alacrity, I'll do the same with my inevitable takedown of what he has to say.
You can go over to ESPN.com and absorb what Stein has to say, he's not an idiot, his rankings during the season are entertaining, and they could do worse for analyst, but that won't stop me from disagreeing with just about every one of his picks.
He ranks the matchups in order of "intriguing/wild/watchable", I'm not going to comment on the ranking, just comment on the picks, but to make comparisons easier, I'll use his order of matchups.
1. Chicago (5) v Miami (4)
Stein's Line: Heat in six.
Why he's wrong: Chicago's coach isn't stupid, and Miami is more vulnerable to the Haq-A-Shaq in this playoff series than any of the teams Shaq has been on. It will be ugly, it will be wave after wave of benchwarmers being sent Shaq's way, and Shaq will either sit, or be forced to make his free throws, he'll continue to miss as his form has regressed, and a major weapon for Miami will be nullified. The Bulls will prevail easily in a series of ugly, boring games.
Bulls in five.
2. San Antonio (3) v Denver (6)
Stein's Line: Spurs in six.
Why he's mostly right. The Spurs are good, and will dominate this series through defense. But Denver's pretty damn good, also, and will manage to win a few games through their shooters getting hot and sheer determination by AI. The key to this series will be defense. Will Denver be able to impose it's well and keep the tempo high? Or will San Antonio successfully bring the game to a crawl and turn each possession into a battle? I'm guessing, battle, mostly, with a few flashes of high tempo, the end result . . .
Spurs in six.
3. Phoenix (2) v Los Angeles Lakers (7)
Stein's Line: Phoenix (no number of games given, the only series he doesn't give a prediction on length)
Stein underestimates just how ridiculously good Kobe has been this season. If he gets any support at all, the Lakers will give the Suns a lot of trouble. Defensive intensity has been lacking for the Lakers since the All Star break, and their near plummet out of the playoffs resulted. But, it's the playoffs now, and I think they will all wake up and play with intensity for 48 minutes. Phoenix has some of the most talented players in the league, but they only go 8 deep. At times the Lakers seem to only go 2 or 3 deep, so that seems like it shouldn't be a problem for the Suns, but I think Jackson will figure out a method of throwing guards and small forwards at Nash that will keep him from making the passes he's used to making. Take his playmaking out of the equation and the Suns become suddenly very vulnerable. Also, either Kobe's going to scorch Raja Bell, or they are going to double and triple team Bryant so agressively that the other Lakers are going to eat up the Suns in the paint. Either Kobe will score an insane amount of points, or he'll be a very effective decoy, either way, the Suns won't know what hit them.
Lakers in five.
4. Dallas (1) v Golden State (8)
Stein's Line: Mavs in five.
Dallas has been superb this season. They've were unbeatable in one big stretch of the season, yet they have nothing but trouble against Golden State. Big guards are the Mavericks biggest weakness, and the Warriors have two of the best. Stein dismisses this advantage and figures that the stars on Dallas will step up and negate this, but I disagree. I think Coach Nelson will exploit this weakness, and the Warriors beating the Mavericks will go down as one of the biggest upsets since Man O' War suffered his only loss.
Warriors in five.
5. Toronto (3) v New Jersey (6)
Stein's Line: Nets in six.
Who cares?
Nets in five.
6. Houston (4) v Utah (5)
Stein's Line: Rockets in six.
May resemble a five on five wrestling match more than a basketball game at times. These teams will be throwing lots of bodies at each other. The team with the more skilled bodies will prevail. Also, the losing team may not break 85 points in any of these contests. Utah won't lose at home, but neither will Houston, so expect this to go the full seven games.
Rockets in seven.
7. Cleveland (2) v Washington (7)
Stein's Line: Cavs in four.
Book the Cavs in the Eastern Conference Finals right now. After dispatching an undermanned and overmatched Wizards team, they'll take on whichever crappy team prevails between the Nets and the Raptors. That means only the Pistons or the Bulls will be able to keep LeBron from stinking up the NBA Finals. The Cavs will manage to lose against the Wiz at least once this series, anyway.
Cavs in five.
8. Detroit (1) v Orlando (8)
Stein's Line: Pistons in four.
On paper, a massacre, in reality, a sweep. Dammit, I have to agree with Stein again, oh well.
Pistons in four.
Stein doesn't give his predictions for the rest of the rounds, but I might as well.
2nd round:
Detroit will have trouble with Chicago but prevail.
Cleveland will roll over the Nets without a problem.
LA Lakers will continue their string of upsets and beat San Antonio in a game seven on the road.
Houston will end Golden State's run, the Warriors matched up perfectly against Dallas, against Houston, not so much.
Conference Finals
Cleveland will discover a consistency they lacked all season and beat the Pistons
LA Lakers will be stretched to the limit against Houston, but will manage to pull off a game seven road victory to make another Finals appearance.
NBA Finals
LeBron v Kobe. 23 v 24. Oh, and there'll be some other guys on the court, too. 24 is one more than 23, and the Lakers will win one more game than the Cavs, the Lakers will win yet another championship in a classic 2OT game on the Cavs floor. Three series that make it to game seven, and three road victories by the Lakers. If that won't make Kobe one of the most legendary athletes of all time, nothing will, not to mention this championship run giving Phil his tenth ring. Party on Figueroa Blvd.!!!
You can go over to ESPN.com and absorb what Stein has to say, he's not an idiot, his rankings during the season are entertaining, and they could do worse for analyst, but that won't stop me from disagreeing with just about every one of his picks.
He ranks the matchups in order of "intriguing/wild/watchable", I'm not going to comment on the ranking, just comment on the picks, but to make comparisons easier, I'll use his order of matchups.
1. Chicago (5) v Miami (4)
Stein's Line: Heat in six.
Why he's wrong: Chicago's coach isn't stupid, and Miami is more vulnerable to the Haq-A-Shaq in this playoff series than any of the teams Shaq has been on. It will be ugly, it will be wave after wave of benchwarmers being sent Shaq's way, and Shaq will either sit, or be forced to make his free throws, he'll continue to miss as his form has regressed, and a major weapon for Miami will be nullified. The Bulls will prevail easily in a series of ugly, boring games.
Bulls in five.
2. San Antonio (3) v Denver (6)
Stein's Line: Spurs in six.
Why he's mostly right. The Spurs are good, and will dominate this series through defense. But Denver's pretty damn good, also, and will manage to win a few games through their shooters getting hot and sheer determination by AI. The key to this series will be defense. Will Denver be able to impose it's well and keep the tempo high? Or will San Antonio successfully bring the game to a crawl and turn each possession into a battle? I'm guessing, battle, mostly, with a few flashes of high tempo, the end result . . .
Spurs in six.
3. Phoenix (2) v Los Angeles Lakers (7)
Stein's Line: Phoenix (no number of games given, the only series he doesn't give a prediction on length)
Stein underestimates just how ridiculously good Kobe has been this season. If he gets any support at all, the Lakers will give the Suns a lot of trouble. Defensive intensity has been lacking for the Lakers since the All Star break, and their near plummet out of the playoffs resulted. But, it's the playoffs now, and I think they will all wake up and play with intensity for 48 minutes. Phoenix has some of the most talented players in the league, but they only go 8 deep. At times the Lakers seem to only go 2 or 3 deep, so that seems like it shouldn't be a problem for the Suns, but I think Jackson will figure out a method of throwing guards and small forwards at Nash that will keep him from making the passes he's used to making. Take his playmaking out of the equation and the Suns become suddenly very vulnerable. Also, either Kobe's going to scorch Raja Bell, or they are going to double and triple team Bryant so agressively that the other Lakers are going to eat up the Suns in the paint. Either Kobe will score an insane amount of points, or he'll be a very effective decoy, either way, the Suns won't know what hit them.
Lakers in five.
4. Dallas (1) v Golden State (8)
Stein's Line: Mavs in five.
Dallas has been superb this season. They've were unbeatable in one big stretch of the season, yet they have nothing but trouble against Golden State. Big guards are the Mavericks biggest weakness, and the Warriors have two of the best. Stein dismisses this advantage and figures that the stars on Dallas will step up and negate this, but I disagree. I think Coach Nelson will exploit this weakness, and the Warriors beating the Mavericks will go down as one of the biggest upsets since Man O' War suffered his only loss.
Warriors in five.
5. Toronto (3) v New Jersey (6)
Stein's Line: Nets in six.
Who cares?
Nets in five.
6. Houston (4) v Utah (5)
Stein's Line: Rockets in six.
May resemble a five on five wrestling match more than a basketball game at times. These teams will be throwing lots of bodies at each other. The team with the more skilled bodies will prevail. Also, the losing team may not break 85 points in any of these contests. Utah won't lose at home, but neither will Houston, so expect this to go the full seven games.
Rockets in seven.
7. Cleveland (2) v Washington (7)
Stein's Line: Cavs in four.
Book the Cavs in the Eastern Conference Finals right now. After dispatching an undermanned and overmatched Wizards team, they'll take on whichever crappy team prevails between the Nets and the Raptors. That means only the Pistons or the Bulls will be able to keep LeBron from stinking up the NBA Finals. The Cavs will manage to lose against the Wiz at least once this series, anyway.
Cavs in five.
8. Detroit (1) v Orlando (8)
Stein's Line: Pistons in four.
On paper, a massacre, in reality, a sweep. Dammit, I have to agree with Stein again, oh well.
Pistons in four.
Stein doesn't give his predictions for the rest of the rounds, but I might as well.
2nd round:
Detroit will have trouble with Chicago but prevail.
Cleveland will roll over the Nets without a problem.
LA Lakers will continue their string of upsets and beat San Antonio in a game seven on the road.
Houston will end Golden State's run, the Warriors matched up perfectly against Dallas, against Houston, not so much.
Conference Finals
Cleveland will discover a consistency they lacked all season and beat the Pistons
LA Lakers will be stretched to the limit against Houston, but will manage to pull off a game seven road victory to make another Finals appearance.
NBA Finals
LeBron v Kobe. 23 v 24. Oh, and there'll be some other guys on the court, too. 24 is one more than 23, and the Lakers will win one more game than the Cavs, the Lakers will win yet another championship in a classic 2OT game on the Cavs floor. Three series that make it to game seven, and three road victories by the Lakers. If that won't make Kobe one of the most legendary athletes of all time, nothing will, not to mention this championship run giving Phil his tenth ring. Party on Figueroa Blvd.!!!
13 April 2007
Stories You Don't Expect To Be Followed In Communist China
This is really news in Communist China?!?
(and I love Luke's joke about his father that caps the story)
And just to squelch any rumors right now, I'm also NOT dating Britney Spears.
Slightly crazy female artists of recent vintage I would date are as follows
Mariah Carey (since she went crazy, she's been really, really hot)
Fiona Apple (kind of too young, kind of too thin, kind of too intense, but also kind of really compelling)
Meshell NdegeOcello (if she ever swings towards men again, I'd hope to be the guy she swings with)
Kylie Minogue (does liking her music and finding her really sexy make me kind of gay?)
Alanis Morrisette (wouldn't have been on the list if it wasn't for her Humps video)
Less recent vintage female artists, that nevertheless still compel
Sheila E (she can be my "minister" of love, anytime she wants)
Chrissy Hynde (I couldn't handle her, but one can dream)
Paula Abdul (never liked her music, but hey, ex-Laker girl)
Annabella Lwin (My first and strongest fantasy crush, still a sucker for a woman with a mohawk)
Marie Osmond (She's single again, but the whole doll thing scares me)
12 April 2007
Should the Lakers Play for 8th?
The Lakers, after losing most of their front line for a chunk of the season, find themselves in the bottom half of the playoff draw (with a very real chance of slipping out of the playoffs entirely).
Denver's been on a tear lately (including two victories over the Lakers) and look to be solidly in control of the 6th seed.
The Lakers, should they hold on and make the playoffs, will either start off against Phoenix, or Dallas.
This Laker team can give either of those teams trouble, if they play perfectly together. Most likely, the Lakers lack the depth to give Dallas much trouble. Phoenix also lacks depth, so the Lakers, despite all their problems, are in a similar spot as they were last year. If they get Phoenix again, they might be able to finish them off, unlike what happened last season.
They were 26-15 at the half-way point this season, and were one of the better teams in the league, having racked up victories against all the top teams. But since, they've been awful more often than they've been good.
Should they hold on to 7th and prevail over the Suns, then that means a second round against San Antonio most likely (Denver looks good, but not beating the Spurs good), and that's a rough assignment for the Lakers.
Even though the first round match-up against Dallas would be difficult, and most likely impossible for the Lakers to overcome, if somehow they get 4 perfect games out of their team, then it would be clear sailing to the rest of the way.
By dropping to 8th, that means if they somehow succeed (improbable, but not impossible given they have #24 on their team), they get a much easier 2nd round opponent in either a struggling Utah team, or an uneven Houston team. They can beat either of those teams over a seven game series, so long as all their players remember to play defense for a full 48 minutes (something that hasn't happened in awhile).
Then they only have the survivor of the San Antonio-Phoenix battle on the other side of the draw to contend with.
If they hold on for 7th, they are 'rewarded' by having to face a likely road of Phoenix, San Antonio, and Dallas should they advance past each round.
That's a lot rougher road than a likely path of Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio.
But the Lakers have been too inconsistent this season and deserve to fall completely out of the playoffs with the way they've played down the stretch.
Who knows, maybe they'll have that one lucky lottery ball and pick up the #1 pick while they are at it.
With all their players healthy, and a #1, they'd immediately become a top tier team in the league again next season.
But looking at the probable Western Conference match-ups, it kind of sucks to be the top 3 teams. Dallas, despite having a magical regular season, could face a Clipper team that matches up well against them, or a Laker team that can give them all sorts of troubles, or a Golden State team that went 3-0 against Dallas this year. Kind of a crappy reward for having one of the best stretches in the history of major league sports in North America. Getting bounced in the first round isn't out of the question.
Likewise, Phoenix played well, but are capable of losing to any of the likely 7 seeds.
San Antonio at 3 does not match-up well against a Denver team that is finally figuring out how to intergrate Anthony and Iverson into the same offense.
It would be shocking if all three top seeds lose, but it's not out of the question. The teams in the bottom draw are all very talented, but they've been inconsistent. Whichever teams are 6, 7 and 8 in the West just need to get suddenly consistent during the playoffs to ruin great regular seasons by some good teams.
So what I'm really saying is that as always, I expect a Lakers-Clippers Western Conference Finals, and a Lakers Championship, even though both teams are missing key parts (and it seems unlikely they will both make the playoffs).
Speaking of Lakers-Clippers, it's their last match-up until the Conference Finals and it's on TNT, so watch it already, both teams need this victory to solidify their shot at the playoffs, should be a fun one.
Denver's been on a tear lately (including two victories over the Lakers) and look to be solidly in control of the 6th seed.
The Lakers, should they hold on and make the playoffs, will either start off against Phoenix, or Dallas.
This Laker team can give either of those teams trouble, if they play perfectly together. Most likely, the Lakers lack the depth to give Dallas much trouble. Phoenix also lacks depth, so the Lakers, despite all their problems, are in a similar spot as they were last year. If they get Phoenix again, they might be able to finish them off, unlike what happened last season.
They were 26-15 at the half-way point this season, and were one of the better teams in the league, having racked up victories against all the top teams. But since, they've been awful more often than they've been good.
Should they hold on to 7th and prevail over the Suns, then that means a second round against San Antonio most likely (Denver looks good, but not beating the Spurs good), and that's a rough assignment for the Lakers.
Even though the first round match-up against Dallas would be difficult, and most likely impossible for the Lakers to overcome, if somehow they get 4 perfect games out of their team, then it would be clear sailing to the rest of the way.
By dropping to 8th, that means if they somehow succeed (improbable, but not impossible given they have #24 on their team), they get a much easier 2nd round opponent in either a struggling Utah team, or an uneven Houston team. They can beat either of those teams over a seven game series, so long as all their players remember to play defense for a full 48 minutes (something that hasn't happened in awhile).
Then they only have the survivor of the San Antonio-Phoenix battle on the other side of the draw to contend with.
If they hold on for 7th, they are 'rewarded' by having to face a likely road of Phoenix, San Antonio, and Dallas should they advance past each round.
That's a lot rougher road than a likely path of Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio.
But the Lakers have been too inconsistent this season and deserve to fall completely out of the playoffs with the way they've played down the stretch.
Who knows, maybe they'll have that one lucky lottery ball and pick up the #1 pick while they are at it.
With all their players healthy, and a #1, they'd immediately become a top tier team in the league again next season.
But looking at the probable Western Conference match-ups, it kind of sucks to be the top 3 teams. Dallas, despite having a magical regular season, could face a Clipper team that matches up well against them, or a Laker team that can give them all sorts of troubles, or a Golden State team that went 3-0 against Dallas this year. Kind of a crappy reward for having one of the best stretches in the history of major league sports in North America. Getting bounced in the first round isn't out of the question.
Likewise, Phoenix played well, but are capable of losing to any of the likely 7 seeds.
San Antonio at 3 does not match-up well against a Denver team that is finally figuring out how to intergrate Anthony and Iverson into the same offense.
It would be shocking if all three top seeds lose, but it's not out of the question. The teams in the bottom draw are all very talented, but they've been inconsistent. Whichever teams are 6, 7 and 8 in the West just need to get suddenly consistent during the playoffs to ruin great regular seasons by some good teams.
So what I'm really saying is that as always, I expect a Lakers-Clippers Western Conference Finals, and a Lakers Championship, even though both teams are missing key parts (and it seems unlikely they will both make the playoffs).
Speaking of Lakers-Clippers, it's their last match-up until the Conference Finals and it's on TNT, so watch it already, both teams need this victory to solidify their shot at the playoffs, should be a fun one.
11 April 2007
A Woman After My Own Heart
Another famous person has begun reading my blog.
This time it's Camille Paglia who covers territory I've already covered.
You Go Girl! But, I expressed contempt for Baudrillard before you did (but I disagree about Foucault, of that group, he's the only one with a brain).
Also, she rips Albertus Goracle a new one with incandescent fury and in surprisingly metaphysical terms (plenty of pokes at the Goracle can be found hereabouts, too many to link)
There's much, much more, but I'll trust your interest is piqued enough to head over to Salon on your own.
One of these days someone famous will link me and admit to being 'inspired' by my ideas. Until then, I'll just have to point out the similar strains of thought after the fact.
(and I heard that *cough* delusional *cough*)
Also, I'm fitting in the stereotype of the rightosphere versus the leftosphere in that I'm ignoring the parts of her Salon answers to letters bit where I vehemently disagree with what she has to say.
Always looking for converts.
This time it's Camille Paglia who covers territory I've already covered.
Jean Baudrillard recently passed away. Do you have any thoughts or opinions about this influential French thinker. I'm especially interested in your opinion of his idea regarding hyper-reality.
Conor Ryan
I suspect Dante designing his Inferno would have had a very special little hot spot for poststructuralists and postmodernists (see above letter), who distorted language with self-important opacity and who inflated small ideas into giant, groaning bladder-bags.
I never encountered a single sentence by Jean Baudrillard, Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan or Michel Foucault that drew or held my interest. As for Baudrillard's dizzy maunderings about mass media, they made no sense whatever to me as a professor of media studies or as an American who grew up on pop and whose vibrant patron saint was Andy Warhol.
Good riddance to that whole crew!
You Go Girl! But, I expressed contempt for Baudrillard before you did (but I disagree about Foucault, of that group, he's the only one with a brain).
Also, she rips Albertus Goracle a new one with incandescent fury and in surprisingly metaphysical terms (plenty of pokes at the Goracle can be found hereabouts, too many to link)
However, I am a skeptic about what is currently called global warming. I have been highly suspicious for years about the political agenda that has slowly accrued around this issue. As a lapsed Catholic, I detest dogma in any area. Too many of my fellow Democrats seem peculiarly credulous at the moment, as if, having ground down organized religion into nonjudgmental, feel-good therapy, they are hungry for visions of apocalypse. From my perspective, virtually all of the major claims about global warming and its causes still remain to be proved.
Climate change, keyed to solar cycles, is built into Earth's system. Cooling and warming will go on forever. Slowly rising sea levels will at some point doubtless flood lower Manhattan and seaside houses everywhere from Cape Cod to Florida -- as happened to Native American encampments on those very shores. Human habitation is always fragile and provisional. People will migrate for the hills, as they have always done.
Who is impious enough to believe that Earth's contours are permanent? Our eyes are simply too slow to see the shift of tectonic plates that has raised the Himalayas and is dangling Los Angeles over an unstable fault. I began "Sexual Personae" (parodying the New Testament): "In the beginning was nature." And nature will survive us all. Man is too weak to permanently affect nature, which includes infinitely more than this tiny globe.
There's much, much more, but I'll trust your interest is piqued enough to head over to Salon on your own.
One of these days someone famous will link me and admit to being 'inspired' by my ideas. Until then, I'll just have to point out the similar strains of thought after the fact.
(and I heard that *cough* delusional *cough*)
Also, I'm fitting in the stereotype of the rightosphere versus the leftosphere in that I'm ignoring the parts of her Salon answers to letters bit where I vehemently disagree with what she has to say.
Always looking for converts.
04 April 2007
Hey! Will F. Buckley, Jr., Where's My Link?
I'm glad you read my blog, Mr. Buckley, Jr., I've been a fan of yours since I was in grade school (didn't all 4th graders watch Firing Line?), and I gobbled up your Blackford Oakes novels in the 80s (but stopped reading them after High Jinx), but dude (may I call you dude?), where's my link?
I came up with the idea of the Green Inquisition, I don't mind you using the idea, fleshing it out in your inimitable style, but dude, I want my link.
Is that too much to ask?
(hat tip Drudge)
Speaking of Buckleys, I really am looking forward to reading Christopher Buckley's latest Boomsday, sounds like something I might have thought up (but I never got around to creating a "proposal", so I can't take credit on this one).
I came up with the idea of the Green Inquisition, I don't mind you using the idea, fleshing it out in your inimitable style, but dude, I want my link.
Is that too much to ask?
(hat tip Drudge)
Speaking of Buckleys, I really am looking forward to reading Christopher Buckley's latest Boomsday, sounds like something I might have thought up (but I never got around to creating a "proposal", so I can't take credit on this one).
07 December 2006
The Other Untouchables
Ironic use of the phrase "above the rim"?
(for some reason, seeing English school boys in ties playing basketball amuses me)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)