02 September 2008
Hey Freakonomics Dude, That's My Gimmick!
At least he does it the right way (even cites Swift), here is Stephen J. Dunber's An Immodest Proposal: Time for a Sex Tax
You Are On My List Now, Mr. Chris Ayres, I'll Be Keeping an Eye on You.
UPDATE: Someone who seems to be Chris Ayres left a comment here, I respond in this post (also a small correction below)
Chris Ayres, writes the LA Notebook for the Times of London. He is also either, a poor fact checker, or an out and out liar, haven't figured out which, yet.
Let's check his last 3 columns and one news article, August 12th he has two whoppers of tales that strain credulity.
Here's the first paragraph from that 'report':
First, the tone is snide, and ridiculous, complicated machinery doesn't always work as designed, failure is part of progress, plus there's the bit about it being in the New Mexico desert, thing is, it's not, it's in nice wooded hilly part of New Mexico. Turns out, New Mexico isn't one big vast desert, whodathunkit?
Same column, different bit of nonsense:
I call shennanigans on this. I can't prove this is made up, but I seriously, seriously, seriously, doubt the veracity of his statement. I can assure you that conspicuous consumption in Los Angeles is far from dead, and most likely Mr. Ayres needs his eyes examined.
Moving on to August 19th's column:
No a meal for two at Patina can't "easily" cost $400. The most expensive entree is $49, and the most expensive appetizer (the aforementioned foie gras) is $28. Even if you go for the 11 course tasting menu option, that'll run you $150 per greedy gut. With wine that could run to $400 per couple, but that's certainly not a normal night out, and you can easily get out of there for less than $150 for a couple if you share an appetizer and each get a modest plate (which, really, why the hell would you want to pig out, anyway?). Also, $8 for parking is 'hoity toity'? Ummm, I've seen event parking at Staples run as high as $150 for valet service, so $8 really ain't so bad in downtown L.A.. Ayres doesn't tell an outright lie there, but he stretches the truth to make his point, and what point is it? That the mayor of L.A. likes good food, the horror, the horror. Sorry, Chris, most folks here don't care one way or another how their public officials choose to spend their off time, so long as they do it on their own dime. (I'm really pissed at Ayres now, he forced me to defend Mayor Villaraigosa, uggghh)
On to theAugust 26thSept 2nd column: (correction, wrote the wrong date, had the right link, right article, but wrong date, sorry 'bout that, and see, when I correct a mistake, I leave a record of the original text so as not to make my readers think they're crazy and saw something that wasn't there, unlike some larger internationally renowned news websites that shall remain nameless)
Uh, yeah, and ahhh, hell no! Where to begin? First, "Hollywood" was not interested, or helpful in getting Schwarzenegger elected. There's a big difference between a few of his friends (Leno, Tom Arnold, and Danny DeVito) saying nice things about him even though he's a Republican and Tinseltown helping to 'dump' Gray Davis. He simply doesn't know what he's talking about, or he does, and he knows he's lying, but doesn't care because it fits his narrative. And ummmmm, ahhhhhhh, about those "faultless oratory skills", has Mr. Ayres heard Sen. Obama speak off prompter before? Yes, he delivers a written speech well, but to earn the appelation orator, I believe one (even The One) should be able to speak well extempraneously as well. And ummmm, ahhhhhh, Oooooooobbaaaaaammmmaa hasn't done too well in debates, forums, or unfriendly interviews (all things which he avoids as much as possible). Orator? Hardly. Watched Leno on Friday, and they had a fake Obama on, he didn't look a thing like Obama, but most of their impressionist don't look like the folks they are impressing, but what he did capture in a very exaggerated way was the ummmmmm, aahhhhhh, looooonggggg paaauuuuussseeeess, annnnnnddddd draaawwwwwwwnnnn oouuuuuuuutttt syllables at the indicative portion of sentences, and the overly emphatic consanants at the enddddddddd. Also, the impressionist captured the aloofness of The Obama tone, and the dismissive attitude towards questions. It will be interesting to see if SNL will be as pointed in their impressions of The One, or will they wimp out like everyone else? (sorry, I meant to bury Ayres, not give Leno faint praise).
Almost over (for now), here's another bit of questionable narrative (and one outright factual boner) from Chris Ayres, this time from an article meant to introduce British readers to potentially the next VP of the United States:
Great anecdote, except, so far not corroborated anywhere else, and is entirely inconsistent how a hunting family would introduce their child to hunting. The way he framed it, the family went to a pet store, picked out a domesticated bunny, plopped it down in the backyard, and told young Sarah to fire away. Her first hunt very well may have been for rabbit, but wild rabbits are common in Alaska, and they go through cycles where they are scarce and other times when they breed like, well, rabbits, so culling their numbers is an important part of helping to maintain a proper ecological balance. Plus, they're tasty. Also, I doubt they started her out with a shotgun, a .22-caliber rifle is much more likely.
That's not so bad, but here's a bit from the same article that's plain bizarre (which they've changed, finally, it was wrong for a good 24 hours, I'll show both versions, the fixed, and how it originally appeared as best as I can remember it):
originally:
Damn, they caught his mistake, doesn't mention the correction anywhere, that's not just a word left out or a spelling mistake, that's a serious error, and given that the names of all five of her children are relatively unusual, you'd think there'd be enough material there to make his point with out making it wrongly.
So, Chris Ayres, I'm talking to you, buddy, Los Angeles is my city, even if it's your beat for the Times of London, get crap wrong, make stuff up, exaggerate things for effect, and I'll be noticing, I won't be able to do much about it, or get you to fix it, but I'll be noticing.
Chris Ayres, writes the LA Notebook for the Times of London. He is also either, a poor fact checker, or an out and out liar, haven't figured out which, yet.
Let's check his last 3 columns and one news article, August 12th he has two whoppers of tales that strain credulity.
Here's the first paragraph from that 'report':
Chances are you didn't pay much attention to a story in last week's edition of the Albuquerque Journal regarding the Los Alamos National Laboratory, home of the Manhattan Project in the Second World War. It revealed that after 20 years and $350 million, scientists at the vast 40 sq mile atom bomb factory in the New Mexico desert finally plugged in and switched on a brain-meltingly complex new X-ray machine known as the dual-axis radiographic hydrotest facility (DARHT, for short). Instead of doing what it was supposed to - scan the vast stockpile of nuclear warheads at Los Alamos to see if any of them need repairing - the contraption somehow X-rayed itself, causing part of it to blow up.
First, the tone is snide, and ridiculous, complicated machinery doesn't always work as designed, failure is part of progress, plus there's the bit about it being in the New Mexico desert, thing is, it's not, it's in nice wooded hilly part of New Mexico. Turns out, New Mexico isn't one big vast desert, whodathunkit?
Same column, different bit of nonsense:
Speaking of job losses, I fear Los Angeles is having a hard time coming to terms with the new post-crunch economy. I was driving through Hollywood the other day and pulled up behind an incredibly handsome-looking sports coupé whose badge declared it to be a Hyundai. After a couple of red lights spent admiring the vehicle's powerful rump and twin exhausts, I made a resolution to find a Hyundai dealership the very next day and inquire about the exact same model.
There was only one problem: when I overtook, I realised it wasn't a bloody Hyundai at all. It was a brand-new $200,000 Bentley Continental GT, the owner of which had ripped off all the official badges and replaced them with Hyundai ones, presumably in an effort to diffuse the envy of other motorists. If this is LA's idea of slumming it during a recession, I heartily approve.
I call shennanigans on this. I can't prove this is made up, but I seriously, seriously, seriously, doubt the veracity of his statement. I can assure you that conspicuous consumption in Los Angeles is far from dead, and most likely Mr. Ayres needs his eyes examined.
Moving on to August 19th's column:
Everything else you need to know about him was summed up by a list of favourite restaurants he recently submitted to the Los Angeles Times. Amid the collapsing economy, the Mayor of the People chose as his No1 spot Patina, where a meal for two can easily cost $400 (parking alone is $8). “I always get the foie gras,” he wrote. “It's great.”
No a meal for two at Patina can't "easily" cost $400. The most expensive entree is $49, and the most expensive appetizer (the aforementioned foie gras) is $28. Even if you go for the 11 course tasting menu option, that'll run you $150 per greedy gut. With wine that could run to $400 per couple, but that's certainly not a normal night out, and you can easily get out of there for less than $150 for a couple if you share an appetizer and each get a modest plate (which, really, why the hell would you want to pig out, anyway?). Also, $8 for parking is 'hoity toity'? Ummm, I've seen event parking at Staples run as high as $150 for valet service, so $8 really ain't so bad in downtown L.A.. Ayres doesn't tell an outright lie there, but he stretches the truth to make his point, and what point is it? That the mayor of L.A. likes good food, the horror, the horror. Sorry, Chris, most folks here don't care one way or another how their public officials choose to spend their off time, so long as they do it on their own dime. (I'm really pissed at Ayres now, he forced me to defend Mayor Villaraigosa, uggghh)
On to the
It's tempting to see all this as part of the Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy. But that would be wrong. Hollywood is much shallower than that. Hollywood likes Obama because he is movie-script material, an underdog endowed with supernatural photogenicism (“manorexia” as it's known in the business) and faultless oratory skills. Let's face it, Obama's biopic would clean up on Oscars night. John McCain's biopic would go straight to DVD - before being picked up for syndication by the History Channel.
This isn't as cynical as it sounds. Hollywood is a company town, and company towns like to elect politicians who fit in with the corporate culture. Why else would it have helped to dump the former Democratic Governor, Gray Davis (old, spindly, boring), to replace him with the more Tinseltown-friendly Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who once professed his love for Richard Nixon?
Uh, yeah, and ahhh, hell no! Where to begin? First, "Hollywood" was not interested, or helpful in getting Schwarzenegger elected. There's a big difference between a few of his friends (Leno, Tom Arnold, and Danny DeVito) saying nice things about him even though he's a Republican and Tinseltown helping to 'dump' Gray Davis. He simply doesn't know what he's talking about, or he does, and he knows he's lying, but doesn't care because it fits his narrative. And ummmmm, ahhhhhhh, about those "faultless oratory skills", has Mr. Ayres heard Sen. Obama speak off prompter before? Yes, he delivers a written speech well, but to earn the appelation orator, I believe one (even The One) should be able to speak well extempraneously as well. And ummmm, ahhhhhh, Oooooooobbaaaaaammmmaa hasn't done too well in debates, forums, or unfriendly interviews (all things which he avoids as much as possible). Orator? Hardly. Watched Leno on Friday, and they had a fake Obama on, he didn't look a thing like Obama, but most of their impressionist don't look like the folks they are impressing, but what he did capture in a very exaggerated way was the ummmmmm, aahhhhhh, looooonggggg paaauuuuussseeeess, annnnnnddddd draaawwwwwwwnnnn oouuuuuuuutttt syllables at the indicative portion of sentences, and the overly emphatic consanants at the enddddddddd. Also, the impressionist captured the aloofness of The Obama tone, and the dismissive attitude towards questions. It will be interesting to see if SNL will be as pointed in their impressions of The One, or will they wimp out like everyone else? (sorry, I meant to bury Ayres, not give Leno faint praise).
Almost over (for now), here's another bit of questionable narrative (and one outright factual boner) from Chris Ayres, this time from an article meant to introduce British readers to potentially the next VP of the United States:
At the age of 10, Sarah Palin got her very own bunny rabbit. Which means to say that she crouched down in the grass outside her family home, aimed her shotgun and blew its furry little head off. That's how things work in Alaska. You kill stuff. You freeze it. You turn it into stew.
Great anecdote, except, so far not corroborated anywhere else, and is entirely inconsistent how a hunting family would introduce their child to hunting. The way he framed it, the family went to a pet store, picked out a domesticated bunny, plopped it down in the backyard, and told young Sarah to fire away. Her first hunt very well may have been for rabbit, but wild rabbits are common in Alaska, and they go through cycles where they are scarce and other times when they breed like, well, rabbits, so culling their numbers is an important part of helping to maintain a proper ecological balance. Plus, they're tasty. Also, I doubt they started her out with a shotgun, a .22-caliber rifle is much more likely.
That's not so bad, but here's a bit from the same article that's plain bizarre (which they've changed, finally, it was wrong for a good 24 hours, I'll show both versions, the fixed, and how it originally appeared as best as I can remember it):
Mother of five (one of whom is named Piper Indy, after the Polaris Indy snowmobile).
originally:
Mother of five (one of whom is named Polaris, after a snowmobile).
Damn, they caught his mistake, doesn't mention the correction anywhere, that's not just a word left out or a spelling mistake, that's a serious error, and given that the names of all five of her children are relatively unusual, you'd think there'd be enough material there to make his point with out making it wrongly.
So, Chris Ayres, I'm talking to you, buddy, Los Angeles is my city, even if it's your beat for the Times of London, get crap wrong, make stuff up, exaggerate things for effect, and I'll be noticing, I won't be able to do much about it, or get you to fix it, but I'll be noticing.
The Most Humiliating Series of Posts, Ever. Predicting the Entire Football Season Before the First Kick Off . . .
Today and tomorrow I'm going to scour the schedule, and make my straight wins and losses picks for every game of the football season. I'll divide this into eight posts, one for each division. Clip and save, cause by the end of the year, I'll look like a fool.
Some People Still Take Guinness Records Seriously, I Guess . . .
There was a time that each year's arrival of the latest version of the Guinness Book of World Records meant something (that and the World Almanac), but that moment has long past. But I guess in Spain and France, they still like their records. Here are two incredibly dumb ones.
First up, 'Basque' style standing wood block chop. Evidently 'Basque' is the Spanish word for 'People with an inordinate amount of folks limping around with mangled feet and legs'
Second up, non-dwarf tossing. Tossing little people, offensive, tossing petite, but not little people, comedy gold.
First up, 'Basque' style standing wood block chop. Evidently 'Basque' is the Spanish word for 'People with an inordinate amount of folks limping around with mangled feet and legs'
Second up, non-dwarf tossing. Tossing little people, offensive, tossing petite, but not little people, comedy gold.
Something That's Been Bugging Me Most of This Long Weekend . . .
The thing that's been bugging me is the notion that the Palin nomination represents a "hail mary" from McCain.
I'm not going to dig up the specific citations of said analogy, it's been used in just about every MSM TV and news report about the introduction of the McCain-Palin ticket.
I have a problem with this, to suggest that this was a "hail mary" is to suggest that McCain is in a desparate situation, with little chance of success, and has to pull off a miracle play to win this 'game'. That's absurd, Obama isn't polling much ahead of McCain, and from Electoral College projections, neither candidate should really be considered a frontrunner at the moment. But media types are so in love with The One, that it's beyond their ken to even consider that McCain isn't doing that badly. Plus, a 'hail mary' is a desparation play at the end of a game or half, and most sane people haven't even begun to pay attention to the election yet, so we aren't at the end of this game. A better analogy might be an onside kick at the start of the second half while down by only a field goal. If successful, it's a potential game changer, and could create positive momentum that would put the opposing team on its heels (though if it fails, then your opponent has great field position).
If you must stick with passing analogies, though, I'm thinking this is more of a bread and butter play, not a last page of the playbook, only use in case of emergency type play. It's more of an adjustment made at halftime. The Obama camp managed to put pressure on with some blitzes, but the Palin play isn't a 'hail mary', it's more of an offensive adjustment where a fullback stays back to block, picks up the weak side blitzer , and the McCain QB has time and finds his best receiver isolated in man to man coverage on a simple corner route. They've scored a TD with this play, but the game's not won, yet.
The Palin pick is just one play, early in the 2nd half, we'll have to wait to see what happens over the next 8 weeks to see which side has to resort to a 'hail mary' to try and keep things close.
Which reminds me, time to start making some humiliating picks, again, I've missed my weekly humiliation, an early humiliating preview, though, The Superbowl Champs will miss the playoffs this season, you heard it hear first (OK, after all the injuries, maybe not first, more like thirty-seventh, most likely, you'd have to be nuts to predict that they'll make the playoffs this season).
I'm not going to dig up the specific citations of said analogy, it's been used in just about every MSM TV and news report about the introduction of the McCain-Palin ticket.
I have a problem with this, to suggest that this was a "hail mary" is to suggest that McCain is in a desparate situation, with little chance of success, and has to pull off a miracle play to win this 'game'. That's absurd, Obama isn't polling much ahead of McCain, and from Electoral College projections, neither candidate should really be considered a frontrunner at the moment. But media types are so in love with The One, that it's beyond their ken to even consider that McCain isn't doing that badly. Plus, a 'hail mary' is a desparation play at the end of a game or half, and most sane people haven't even begun to pay attention to the election yet, so we aren't at the end of this game. A better analogy might be an onside kick at the start of the second half while down by only a field goal. If successful, it's a potential game changer, and could create positive momentum that would put the opposing team on its heels (though if it fails, then your opponent has great field position).
If you must stick with passing analogies, though, I'm thinking this is more of a bread and butter play, not a last page of the playbook, only use in case of emergency type play. It's more of an adjustment made at halftime. The Obama camp managed to put pressure on with some blitzes, but the Palin play isn't a 'hail mary', it's more of an offensive adjustment where a fullback stays back to block, picks up the weak side blitzer , and the McCain QB has time and finds his best receiver isolated in man to man coverage on a simple corner route. They've scored a TD with this play, but the game's not won, yet.
The Palin pick is just one play, early in the 2nd half, we'll have to wait to see what happens over the next 8 weeks to see which side has to resort to a 'hail mary' to try and keep things close.
Which reminds me, time to start making some humiliating picks, again, I've missed my weekly humiliation, an early humiliating preview, though, The Superbowl Champs will miss the playoffs this season, you heard it hear first (OK, after all the injuries, maybe not first, more like thirty-seventh, most likely, you'd have to be nuts to predict that they'll make the playoffs this season).
When Police Confiscate "X" From Law Abiding Citizens, Then Only Criminals Will Have "X"
The peaceful protesters of the RNC welcoming committee had amongst their 'welcoming' supplies, rocks, throwing stars, flaming liquids, bows, arrows, and . . .
drum roll please . . .
When hoarding buckets of urine is a criminal act, then only criminals (and utter, total, lunatics) will have buckets of urine.
And you know what, I'm perfectly OK with that, I'm going to go out on a limb here, and despite my non-expertise on constitutional law, but I think it's pretty safe to say, that in most cases (images of a crucifix submerged in urine being an obvious exception) urine in of itself does not constitute 'free speech' and is not protected by the first amendment.
UPDATE: There are one group of folks who have legitimate uses for buckets of urine, fullers, but I doubt too many of them are running around St. Paul in 2008.
From Worst Jobs in History (Medieval Period), fulling gets its due at about the 4 minute mark (and continued on the bit below it)
drum roll please . . .
keep rolling . . .
keep rolling . . .
I didn't say to stop . . .
BUCKETS OF URINE
When hoarding buckets of urine is a criminal act, then only criminals (and utter, total, lunatics) will have buckets of urine.
And you know what, I'm perfectly OK with that, I'm going to go out on a limb here, and despite my non-expertise on constitutional law, but I think it's pretty safe to say, that in most cases (images of a crucifix submerged in urine being an obvious exception) urine in of itself does not constitute 'free speech' and is not protected by the first amendment.
UPDATE: There are one group of folks who have legitimate uses for buckets of urine, fullers, but I doubt too many of them are running around St. Paul in 2008.
From Worst Jobs in History (Medieval Period), fulling gets its due at about the 4 minute mark (and continued on the bit below it)
01 September 2008
I Blame Diablo Cody (and Jason Reitman) . . .
He's a superhunky bad-boy ice hockey player from cold country; she's a chestnut-haired beauty and popular high school senior.(from the NY Daily News, and given that lead paragraph, wouldn't be surprised if all three journalists with a byline on this article are barely out of high school, themselves)
Folks on the left have already started up about Sarah Palin's daughter being pregnant at 17, and how that is obviously proof that abstinence only education doesn't work since Palin is for that, but her oldest daughter, Bristol, failed to abstain (not bothering with links, but have been hearing this stuff all day on CNN, Bill Bennett sounded like he wanted to give Wolf Blitzer a beatdown for his snide tone over this).
First, schools don't influence teenagers choices when it comes to their sexuality, they'll screw or not screw largely based on opportunity, popularity, attractiveness, and their own hormone stew. "Protection", and the realization that actions have consequences aren't often at the forefront of a teen kids thoughts when making decisions about that sort of activity.
Second, parents have an influence, but they can't be everywhere, they can't prevent their kids from doing the stuff that kids have done since forever. All parents can do is accept that life happens, and embrace life when life is the result of that 'life happening'. That's what the Palin family has done, and that's commendable. Lefties have been bad enough about this with Bristol Palin proceeding with the pregnancy, imagine if she had slipped off to the closest planned parenthood office and 'taken care of' her problem. Chances are, someone would have leaked it, and then the lefties would be calling Sarah Palin a hypocrite because she had a daughter end a pregnancy (which would make as much sense as blaming Gov. Palin's support for abstinence only education, but would have been ten times nastier).
Third, I don't blame Bristol, I don't blame Sarah, I don't blame abstinence only education, I blame the realities of small towns, long cold Alaska nights, time to kill, and not that many different options for killing that time, and most of all, I blame Diablo Cody (and Jason Reitman).
How much you wanna bet Bristol had seen Juno before getting pregnant herself? (a shame they don't live in Juneau, then I could play with that pair of homophones, but sounds like the kids and husband have spent most of their time in Wasilia, and didn't move to the state capital, so no Juno/Juneau jokes). There were commenters on the left who were disappointed that the character Juno didn't do the 'smart thing' and end her unplanned pregnancy. Part of the reason why that little art house movie played well beyond the art houses was (besides being well done) was that it didn't preach one way or other regarding this issue, it just showed one kids choice, and one family's (humorous) struggle to deal with the consequences. So, for showing a teen make the hard choice and proceed with an unplanned pregnancy, and showing that choice within the context of a humorous film, she paved the way for stuff like this.
(hey, my contention is no more ridiculous than saying the presence or absence of abstinence only sex ed in public schools made a difference in the personal choices this teenaged couple made)
UPDATE: I think I should be clear (just in case on the off chance that someone might actually read this), Bristol Palin's uterus is none of my business, nor is it the sole responsibility of her mother, nor do the facts as presented show Gov. Palin to be anything but a caring parent who gets to be a grandparent a little earlier than planned. Beyond that, Obama's response was the correct one, to a degree. non-adult children of politicians should be off limits, adult children of politicians (along with any other relation or acquaintence) who themselves engage in political activity, need to be scrutinized, especially if they use their special access to a powerful personage for financial gain, or contribute to their powerful relation in engaging in questionable activities.
Family stuff, should remain family stuff, but just cause someone is a family member, doesn't automatically make all their actions 'family stuff'. Clearly, a teen pregnancy should just about be the definition of 'family stuff', and most voters get that, and those that don't will only end up hurting the candidate they hope to support by making this situation a big issue.
You like how I alluded to Biden's son and brother without ever mentioning their names?
30 August 2008
An Issue That Won't Go Away . . .
People want to see Sarah Palin while less clothed apparently (see here, and here). I can appreciate that, I'm a big fan of seeing as many attractive women in less clothing possible, too. It seems, some of this frenzy isn't just good old American horn-doggedness, though, some folks on the left somehow have bought in to their own twisted notions about social conservatives and have come to the conclusion that ALL Republicans are gynophobic, skinnophobic, and will recoil in horror at the sight of women with bared ankles, knees and stomachs.
Given Sarah Palin did compete in pageants, and she's a red blooded American woman who grew up in the 80s, I'm guessing she has more than one or two private and semi-public photos of herself with a bit of skin showing.
She should post them on her official website before someone else digs through their pageant photos to try and 'out' her and show off her assets. Make them flash images that can't be easily copied to other websites, and have text of policy positions floating over the pics. Or, do a narrated slideshow and post it on YouTube, show off those pictures, and while you're at it, tell us about you and McCain's positions on the stuff that's really important.
That'd be amusing, display a sense of humor about yourself, and be a great avenue in getting non-political junkies to see, hear and read specific policy positions for the GOP ticket.
So far, the McCain camp seems to understand things like this and have used YouTube far more effectively than Camp Obama, go ahead and harness the power of all those horndogs searching Google, give them what they want, and give them information, too, do this and you won't lose anybody who will be voting for the GOP ticket, and if it's done right, this might even pick up a few independents and centrist Democrats. Every vote will be needed in this election, and every avenue should be explored in getting the message out, it's the message above all else that will win this election for McCain-Palin, and if they need to show a bit of skin to get folks to listen to that message, so be it.
Given Sarah Palin did compete in pageants, and she's a red blooded American woman who grew up in the 80s, I'm guessing she has more than one or two private and semi-public photos of herself with a bit of skin showing.
She should post them on her official website before someone else digs through their pageant photos to try and 'out' her and show off her assets. Make them flash images that can't be easily copied to other websites, and have text of policy positions floating over the pics. Or, do a narrated slideshow and post it on YouTube, show off those pictures, and while you're at it, tell us about you and McCain's positions on the stuff that's really important.
That'd be amusing, display a sense of humor about yourself, and be a great avenue in getting non-political junkies to see, hear and read specific policy positions for the GOP ticket.
So far, the McCain camp seems to understand things like this and have used YouTube far more effectively than Camp Obama, go ahead and harness the power of all those horndogs searching Google, give them what they want, and give them information, too, do this and you won't lose anybody who will be voting for the GOP ticket, and if it's done right, this might even pick up a few independents and centrist Democrats. Every vote will be needed in this election, and every avenue should be explored in getting the message out, it's the message above all else that will win this election for McCain-Palin, and if they need to show a bit of skin to get folks to listen to that message, so be it.
29 August 2008
Just For a Second, Bet You Thought This Might Be an Ad for a New Anchor Team at Your Local Network Affiliate . . .
Aren't most of your local anchor teams, 'distinguished dude', and 'younger (but not too young) babe' combos?
(and the weatherperson is usually the eye candy, or comic relief)
Biden is going to come across as a mean old (and possibly lecherous) man during the Vice Presidential debate, it's almost inevitable.
(I'm pretty sure "A Team You Can Trust" is a slogan that's been used more than a few times for local TV news, too)
H O R S E, Political Style
Given that Sarah Palin was the point guard for a state champion high school basketball team, and Barack Obama also 'balled a bit in his day;
I say, why not a couple of games of HORSE for charity (Say best out of seven)?
The two older Senators could play checkers in the same gym, also (don't want to ask either Biden or McCain to do anything too strenuous).
I say, why not a couple of games of HORSE for charity (Say best out of seven)?
The two older Senators could play checkers in the same gym, also (don't want to ask either Biden or McCain to do anything too strenuous).
27 August 2008
Something to Blog About, The Song Shuffle
OK, I'm firing up the Zune software, and I'm hitting shuffle on the entire music collection, no restrictions, let's see what pops up, and I'll write about each song for as long as it plays (only to look for links after I get tired of this experiment) . . . (listed by artist, song --- album)
1. Bob Marley, Duppy Conquerer --- Songs of Freedom, Disc 1
Yeah, that's the stuff, good start, not one of his more well known songs, but it's got a nice easy loping riddim. And if you don't own the 4 disc Songs of Freedom set, what's wrong with you? Good thing this is a short song, I don't really have anything else to say about it, now it's just waiting to see what pops up next . . . . . . . . . . What the hell is a "Duppy" anyway? (that will haunt me till I look it up, if I get a long song next, that's what I'll be doing)
2. Cut Copy, Saturdays (Reprise) --- Bright Like Neon Love
No such look, this is just a snipet, I don't think I've even listened to this whole album yet, sounds like it might be good though, I sample most any new release that looks half way interesting, I like the 'all you can eat'-ness of Zunepass
3. The Cure, The Blood --- The Head on the Door
Damn, mighty fine album, this. Starts with a Spanish guitar riff, add in a dose of depressed sounding Robert Smith, layer on a heavy dose of a solid rhythm track, and you've got yourself something good. The Cure are much better than their fans would make you think they are. You don't have to be a depressed adolescent addicted to kohl eyeliner to enjoy their music (but it sure as hell helps) Still no time to look up what the hell Duppy means, at least this is a good song that I haven't heard in years, yeah shuffle!
4. Sam Butera & the Witnesses, Pennies From Heaven --- Ultra Lounge, Vol.1
Hey, I went through a lounge phase back in the early 90s, didn't everyone? (and I was into the neo-swing thing a few years before "Swingers", I had been to most of the joints in the film before Favreau and company even thought of that film)
5. Sia, Little Black Sandals --- Some People Have Real Problems
Sia, she's good, she's a bit of a change of pace after Sam Butera, but that's the nature of randomness (not that switching gears from The Cure to Sam was exactly normal, either). This is one of the better tracks on this excellent album. Go ahead, click over to your favorite seller of MP3s, and buy yourself a copy of the whole album, you won't be sorry. She's got a solid voice, an interesting way in using it, and a solid band behind her. She seems a bit goofy from TV appearances I've seen (I missed her live when she blew through town).
6. Haircut 100, Boat Party --- Pelican West/Plus
This was their attempt at Spandau Ballet-ish smooth grooviness. It was a B-Side on their big hit Favourite Shirts. It's been long enough ago that this no longer sounds so dated. Funny how that works. Some songs from ten years ago sound ancient, but other songs from 25 years ago sound fresh. Damn, this song is more than 25 years old, now I feel old. I don't think people now really appreciate just how 'funky' some of the early 80s British new wave bands were. There were the heavily electronic outfits, but there was also some nice organic sounding stuff, too.
7. The Untouchables, Twist & Shake --- A Decade of Dance (Live)
I dislike live albums generally, but there's no other Untouchables available on Zune, and I can't not have The Untouchables. They were local gods for a few years during my Junior High School years. I saw more than a few shows, they used to play all sorts of festivals back in those days.
8. Kodo, Nanfushi --- Tataku (Best of Kodo II, 1994-99)
Drums, the whole drums, and nothin' but the drums (Japanese style). This song sounds more 'drumline'ish than Japanese. It's an interesting melding of drumming styles, though. Wouldn't want to make a steady diet of this stuff, don't think I could sit through an entire album of just drumming, but as an occasional song, it's a percussive blast of energy. OK, this song is only half over, it better go some where soon, cause it's starting to lose me. Nice quiet bridge, now it's building towards something, don't remember hearing this before, so I don't know ahead of time where they're taking me. That's always interesting. Kodo is best experienced live, I think, it's different when you can see it and feel it throughout your whole body, then nothing but drums for 90 minutes is no problem at all. OK, some nice syncopations and big beats at the end, good finish.
9. Steely Dan, My Old School --- Countdown to Ecstasy
Ohh, smooth sounds and bitter lyrics. I know, big surprise coming from Steely Dan. Seriously talented, great studio musicians, great headphone music, also stuff of this ilk is directly responsible for punk and new wave. Kids can't aspire to 'smooth', this ain't 'rock' anymore, it's professionals getting together and trying to out do each other. There's a place for that, and it sounds good, but it ain't 'rock', that's for sure. But hey, it still has cowbell, so it can't be all bad. And even in a minor Steely Dan song you can expect to hear some interesting changes, tricks, and licks, and this song is no exception. This song is about 90 seconds longer than it needs to be, but I don't hate it, just wish they'd be more to the point, and less masturbatory.
10. Cuby & the Blizzards, Your Body Not Your Soul --- Nuggets, Vol 2
I love me some garage, even from foreigners. Vol. 2 of Nuggets is all un-American bands, and it rocks hard. It's a bit more psychedelic than the first collection, but both rock hard and are worthy additions to the library of any person who considers themselves a fan of good music. This song is a straight ahead rave up, solid stuff.
11. Funkadelic, A Joyful Process --- Music For Your Mother, Disc 2
An instrumental from earlier Funkadelic. Not too polished, and that's a good thing, has some nice strings+horns accents. Both bouncy and orchestral, strange juxtaposition, but it works. Great drumming, too, along with a fuzzy bass line. If Barack Obama strutted out to this song at tomorrow's appearance, I might even switch my vote (OK, not really, but if dude really does break out with Springsteen and Bon Jovi, he definitely loses my vote)
12. Carla Bruni, L'Amour --- Quelqu'un M'a Dit
Ohhh, L'Amour. Damn, Sarkozy's one lucky little President of France. She's got a seriously seductive purr of a voice, and even if I barely understand a word, I'm still totally won over by her (and her band's not too bad, either). She came out with an English language album this year, but the French language album this song is from sounds better (but both albums are very listenable).
13. Prince, I Wanna Be Your Lover --- Prince
Damn, Prince and Funkadelic in the same shuffle. Not bad, not bad at all. This is one of his best pre-Controversy songs. His first hit, first of many (yet he deserves so many more hits than he's had, he has no equal over the past 30 years). It's two songs in one, really, the first part is a bouncy little song, then after the vocals end, the song goes on as a solid little jam. He was a freakishly talented young little freak back then. All of that still applies other than the young part. His guitar playing isn't given enough credit, either, you can hear his skill, even this early on. There's no way the next song can top this . . .
14. Cut Copy, Unforgettable Season --- In Ghost Colours
I'm not even sure why I downloaded this. It's kind of interesting though. Who are these guys? Guess I'm going to have to listen to both albums I downloaded from them now, this ain't bad. Crunchy guitars, vocals a touch annoying, but it's got a nice new-new wave feel to it. Part of the problem with being an old fart hearing stuff like this is you can hear all the bands that they're cribbing from as strongly (if not stronger) than their own material. It's hard to hear this stuff as being fresh and new, which is unfair to them, but unavoidable, must sound like a great discovery to younger ears, though.
15. Stevie Wonder, They Won't Go When I Go, Fulfillingness' First Finale
This is the least interesting album from Stevie Wonders ridiculously talented half decade. Still a great album, full of good songs, but hints of the crap he'd be putting out after this phenomenal period seeps out from the cracks. This song is a bit too serious, not too interesting, really. OK, I take that back, it's utterly ridiculous the more I hear it. Still a mystery what happened to him in the 80s and 90s. He had the most remarkable five album run in the early-mid 70s, but after that, it all kind of fell apart from a quality standpoint. Occasionally he came out with something good, but most of it was Ebony and Ivory or Woman in Red level dross. Seriously, this is a pretty (unintentionally) silly song both lyrically and in execution, what was he thinking? If I'm offending you with my opinion and this song touches deeply down to the depths of your soul, sorry 'bout that.
16. The Velvet Underground, Venus in Furs --- The Velvet Underground & Nico
Shiny, Shiny, Boots of Leather, Whiplash Girlchild . . . I wrote a paper on this song, back in the late 80s. My English Prof got a bit too excited over it, though. Turns out he was seriously "in" to the works of Sacher-Masoch. Never tried reading it myself, most later German-language romantic literature is a bit too mannered for my tastes. Goethe's not so bad, though. I love this song, and whole album, used to listen to it over and over and over again back during my high school, "I'm going to listen to the original bands that inspired the bands I like" phase.
17. Wendy & Lisa, White --- Wendy and Lisa
From their first solo album after "The Revolution" disbanded. They're really talented composers, and they've done well for themselves lately scoring film and TV soundtracks (they do all the score work for Heroes, they also did Crossing Jordan). This is very much of its time, has that mid to late 80s smooth but funky jazz feel to it. Don't think I'd make a steady diet of this genre, but the occasional reminder of this sound isn't bad at all. There's a real nice deeply buried guitar riff running throughout the song, but the lead instruments are sax and piano on this instrumental piece. It's getting late, I'm cutting this off at 20 songs, let's see if something truly embarrassing pops up (you'll have to trust me and assume that I haven't already censored any of the songs that have popped up). . .
18. Stone Temple Pilots, Trippin' On a Hole in a Paper Heart --- Tiny Music...Songs From the Vatican Gift Shop
By the time I'm done typing the band,song---album info for this song it's half over. Great song, title's too long, though. They don't get the praise they're do, probably cause they're a bit more 'commercial' sounding than their grungy brethren, but out of all the bands from that time period, they may have rocked the hardest and most consistently. Weiland is a solid vocalist, and the band could wail. But, some of the songs are kind of anonymous.
19. Hooverphonic, Club Monterpulciano --- Blue Wonder Power Milk
Groovy song, this. Groovy album, this. Groovy band, this. Their first album was amazing, this album was pretty good, too, but that first album was something special. Not much to say about this, it's a solid bit of euro-chill out music. Anyone out there remember 'chill out' rooms in clubs?
20. The Factory, Path Through the Forest, Nuggets, Vol.2
Another bit of late 60s psychedelica from a band you've probably never heard of. I love me some garage sounds, though. This one's got the fuzzy freak out guitars going for it, and an insistent beat. It's a good song, just on the edge of self-parody, but never goes over that edge. Remember back when every bad movie from the late 60s and early 70s had a bad club scene with a truly awful fake psychedelic band playing in the background?
OK, that's enough of this, good way to kill some time, and keep my fingers busy, if you've read this far, my apologies, don't you have better things to do?
(also, not going to bother finding YouTube links where available, the ones you've heard before, you know, the obscure stuff, probably won't be on YouTube, so I'm not going to spend time on the hunt)
(One last thing, before it keeps me up all night . . . Ahhh, so that's what Duppy means, I'm pretty sure I knew that at one time, and if I hadn't been so busy typing while the song was playing, I probably would have sussed that out from the lyrics of the first song on this list, oh well)
(that's your vocabulary word for the day, try and work "duppy" into a sentence some time before Thursday becomes Friday)
1. Bob Marley, Duppy Conquerer --- Songs of Freedom, Disc 1
Yeah, that's the stuff, good start, not one of his more well known songs, but it's got a nice easy loping riddim. And if you don't own the 4 disc Songs of Freedom set, what's wrong with you? Good thing this is a short song, I don't really have anything else to say about it, now it's just waiting to see what pops up next . . . . . . . . . . What the hell is a "Duppy" anyway? (that will haunt me till I look it up, if I get a long song next, that's what I'll be doing)
2. Cut Copy, Saturdays (Reprise) --- Bright Like Neon Love
No such look, this is just a snipet, I don't think I've even listened to this whole album yet, sounds like it might be good though, I sample most any new release that looks half way interesting, I like the 'all you can eat'-ness of Zunepass
3. The Cure, The Blood --- The Head on the Door
Damn, mighty fine album, this. Starts with a Spanish guitar riff, add in a dose of depressed sounding Robert Smith, layer on a heavy dose of a solid rhythm track, and you've got yourself something good. The Cure are much better than their fans would make you think they are. You don't have to be a depressed adolescent addicted to kohl eyeliner to enjoy their music (but it sure as hell helps) Still no time to look up what the hell Duppy means, at least this is a good song that I haven't heard in years, yeah shuffle!
4. Sam Butera & the Witnesses, Pennies From Heaven --- Ultra Lounge, Vol.1
Hey, I went through a lounge phase back in the early 90s, didn't everyone? (and I was into the neo-swing thing a few years before "Swingers", I had been to most of the joints in the film before Favreau and company even thought of that film)
5. Sia, Little Black Sandals --- Some People Have Real Problems
Sia, she's good, she's a bit of a change of pace after Sam Butera, but that's the nature of randomness (not that switching gears from The Cure to Sam was exactly normal, either). This is one of the better tracks on this excellent album. Go ahead, click over to your favorite seller of MP3s, and buy yourself a copy of the whole album, you won't be sorry. She's got a solid voice, an interesting way in using it, and a solid band behind her. She seems a bit goofy from TV appearances I've seen (I missed her live when she blew through town).
6. Haircut 100, Boat Party --- Pelican West/Plus
This was their attempt at Spandau Ballet-ish smooth grooviness. It was a B-Side on their big hit Favourite Shirts. It's been long enough ago that this no longer sounds so dated. Funny how that works. Some songs from ten years ago sound ancient, but other songs from 25 years ago sound fresh. Damn, this song is more than 25 years old, now I feel old. I don't think people now really appreciate just how 'funky' some of the early 80s British new wave bands were. There were the heavily electronic outfits, but there was also some nice organic sounding stuff, too.
7. The Untouchables, Twist & Shake --- A Decade of Dance (Live)
I dislike live albums generally, but there's no other Untouchables available on Zune, and I can't not have The Untouchables. They were local gods for a few years during my Junior High School years. I saw more than a few shows, they used to play all sorts of festivals back in those days.
8. Kodo, Nanfushi --- Tataku (Best of Kodo II, 1994-99)
Drums, the whole drums, and nothin' but the drums (Japanese style). This song sounds more 'drumline'ish than Japanese. It's an interesting melding of drumming styles, though. Wouldn't want to make a steady diet of this stuff, don't think I could sit through an entire album of just drumming, but as an occasional song, it's a percussive blast of energy. OK, this song is only half over, it better go some where soon, cause it's starting to lose me. Nice quiet bridge, now it's building towards something, don't remember hearing this before, so I don't know ahead of time where they're taking me. That's always interesting. Kodo is best experienced live, I think, it's different when you can see it and feel it throughout your whole body, then nothing but drums for 90 minutes is no problem at all. OK, some nice syncopations and big beats at the end, good finish.
9. Steely Dan, My Old School --- Countdown to Ecstasy
Ohh, smooth sounds and bitter lyrics. I know, big surprise coming from Steely Dan. Seriously talented, great studio musicians, great headphone music, also stuff of this ilk is directly responsible for punk and new wave. Kids can't aspire to 'smooth', this ain't 'rock' anymore, it's professionals getting together and trying to out do each other. There's a place for that, and it sounds good, but it ain't 'rock', that's for sure. But hey, it still has cowbell, so it can't be all bad. And even in a minor Steely Dan song you can expect to hear some interesting changes, tricks, and licks, and this song is no exception. This song is about 90 seconds longer than it needs to be, but I don't hate it, just wish they'd be more to the point, and less masturbatory.
10. Cuby & the Blizzards, Your Body Not Your Soul --- Nuggets, Vol 2
I love me some garage, even from foreigners. Vol. 2 of Nuggets is all un-American bands, and it rocks hard. It's a bit more psychedelic than the first collection, but both rock hard and are worthy additions to the library of any person who considers themselves a fan of good music. This song is a straight ahead rave up, solid stuff.
11. Funkadelic, A Joyful Process --- Music For Your Mother, Disc 2
An instrumental from earlier Funkadelic. Not too polished, and that's a good thing, has some nice strings+horns accents. Both bouncy and orchestral, strange juxtaposition, but it works. Great drumming, too, along with a fuzzy bass line. If Barack Obama strutted out to this song at tomorrow's appearance, I might even switch my vote (OK, not really, but if dude really does break out with Springsteen and Bon Jovi, he definitely loses my vote)
12. Carla Bruni, L'Amour --- Quelqu'un M'a Dit
Ohhh, L'Amour. Damn, Sarkozy's one lucky little President of France. She's got a seriously seductive purr of a voice, and even if I barely understand a word, I'm still totally won over by her (and her band's not too bad, either). She came out with an English language album this year, but the French language album this song is from sounds better (but both albums are very listenable).
13. Prince, I Wanna Be Your Lover --- Prince
Damn, Prince and Funkadelic in the same shuffle. Not bad, not bad at all. This is one of his best pre-Controversy songs. His first hit, first of many (yet he deserves so many more hits than he's had, he has no equal over the past 30 years). It's two songs in one, really, the first part is a bouncy little song, then after the vocals end, the song goes on as a solid little jam. He was a freakishly talented young little freak back then. All of that still applies other than the young part. His guitar playing isn't given enough credit, either, you can hear his skill, even this early on. There's no way the next song can top this . . .
14. Cut Copy, Unforgettable Season --- In Ghost Colours
I'm not even sure why I downloaded this. It's kind of interesting though. Who are these guys? Guess I'm going to have to listen to both albums I downloaded from them now, this ain't bad. Crunchy guitars, vocals a touch annoying, but it's got a nice new-new wave feel to it. Part of the problem with being an old fart hearing stuff like this is you can hear all the bands that they're cribbing from as strongly (if not stronger) than their own material. It's hard to hear this stuff as being fresh and new, which is unfair to them, but unavoidable, must sound like a great discovery to younger ears, though.
15. Stevie Wonder, They Won't Go When I Go, Fulfillingness' First Finale
This is the least interesting album from Stevie Wonders ridiculously talented half decade. Still a great album, full of good songs, but hints of the crap he'd be putting out after this phenomenal period seeps out from the cracks. This song is a bit too serious, not too interesting, really. OK, I take that back, it's utterly ridiculous the more I hear it. Still a mystery what happened to him in the 80s and 90s. He had the most remarkable five album run in the early-mid 70s, but after that, it all kind of fell apart from a quality standpoint. Occasionally he came out with something good, but most of it was Ebony and Ivory or Woman in Red level dross. Seriously, this is a pretty (unintentionally) silly song both lyrically and in execution, what was he thinking? If I'm offending you with my opinion and this song touches deeply down to the depths of your soul, sorry 'bout that.
16. The Velvet Underground, Venus in Furs --- The Velvet Underground & Nico
Shiny, Shiny, Boots of Leather, Whiplash Girlchild . . . I wrote a paper on this song, back in the late 80s. My English Prof got a bit too excited over it, though. Turns out he was seriously "in" to the works of Sacher-Masoch. Never tried reading it myself, most later German-language romantic literature is a bit too mannered for my tastes. Goethe's not so bad, though. I love this song, and whole album, used to listen to it over and over and over again back during my high school, "I'm going to listen to the original bands that inspired the bands I like" phase.
17. Wendy & Lisa, White --- Wendy and Lisa
From their first solo album after "The Revolution" disbanded. They're really talented composers, and they've done well for themselves lately scoring film and TV soundtracks (they do all the score work for Heroes, they also did Crossing Jordan). This is very much of its time, has that mid to late 80s smooth but funky jazz feel to it. Don't think I'd make a steady diet of this genre, but the occasional reminder of this sound isn't bad at all. There's a real nice deeply buried guitar riff running throughout the song, but the lead instruments are sax and piano on this instrumental piece. It's getting late, I'm cutting this off at 20 songs, let's see if something truly embarrassing pops up (you'll have to trust me and assume that I haven't already censored any of the songs that have popped up). . .
18. Stone Temple Pilots, Trippin' On a Hole in a Paper Heart --- Tiny Music...Songs From the Vatican Gift Shop
By the time I'm done typing the band,song---album info for this song it's half over. Great song, title's too long, though. They don't get the praise they're do, probably cause they're a bit more 'commercial' sounding than their grungy brethren, but out of all the bands from that time period, they may have rocked the hardest and most consistently. Weiland is a solid vocalist, and the band could wail. But, some of the songs are kind of anonymous.
19. Hooverphonic, Club Monterpulciano --- Blue Wonder Power Milk
Groovy song, this. Groovy album, this. Groovy band, this. Their first album was amazing, this album was pretty good, too, but that first album was something special. Not much to say about this, it's a solid bit of euro-chill out music. Anyone out there remember 'chill out' rooms in clubs?
20. The Factory, Path Through the Forest, Nuggets, Vol.2
Another bit of late 60s psychedelica from a band you've probably never heard of. I love me some garage sounds, though. This one's got the fuzzy freak out guitars going for it, and an insistent beat. It's a good song, just on the edge of self-parody, but never goes over that edge. Remember back when every bad movie from the late 60s and early 70s had a bad club scene with a truly awful fake psychedelic band playing in the background?
OK, that's enough of this, good way to kill some time, and keep my fingers busy, if you've read this far, my apologies, don't you have better things to do?
(also, not going to bother finding YouTube links where available, the ones you've heard before, you know, the obscure stuff, probably won't be on YouTube, so I'm not going to spend time on the hunt)
(One last thing, before it keeps me up all night . . . Ahhh, so that's what Duppy means, I'm pretty sure I knew that at one time, and if I hadn't been so busy typing while the song was playing, I probably would have sussed that out from the lyrics of the first song on this list, oh well)
(that's your vocabulary word for the day, try and work "duppy" into a sentence some time before Thursday becomes Friday)
26 August 2008
Improving the Quality of Candidates That Seek Higher Office . . .
I'm sick of perpetual candidates, seeking one office while holding another. I'd love to see an amendment to address this ridiculousness, combine it with a clause to rectify the ridiculousness of barring the Presidency from people who just happen to have not been born in the United States or its territories.
So this amendment would do two things, first, allow any citizen, foreign born or not who has lived continuously in the United States as a citizen for at least a decade prior to the election be eligible to for our highest office. That should be enough, we need the best politicians available to seek our highest office, and the native only clause in the constitution has barred some excellent people from even contemplating a run at the presidency. The other part of the amendment would require any current federal elected office holder (with two exceptions) to resign their current office at least 14 months prior to the election (sitting Presidents or Vice-Presidents excluded). Senators McCain, Obama, Clinton, Biden, Dodd, all did lousy jobs being Senators while they were candidates. If they're serious about being President, I think they should go for that position without the safety net of falling back into their old comfy job in the Senate. They are shortchanging the people of their respective states, and the United States as a whole by this nonsense. In the same clause of the amendment, also bar folks from running for more than one federal office concurrently. That way, the primary losers could still try and win back their Senate seats, though their appointed replacements might have something to say about that, and in the case of an ex-Senator losing the general election, they'll be forced to sit out a few years before jumping back in to the Senate. It may seem contradictory to want more people eligible on the one hand, but place greater limits on one of the primary pools that has produced candidates, but by in large, those trying to go straight from the Senate to the presidency haven't been the best available, they've simply been the ones most familiar with DC, and the ones DC was most familiar with. In my mind, that's more a disqualification for the office rather than a qualification, and an amendment like this wouldn't ban them from running, it'd just give them something a little extra to consider should they choose to make the attempt.
Nobody should be Senator for more than two terms, that so many of them linger for so much longer is sad, but those that stick around longest have access to all the best pork, and pork still buys votes in most states, despite protestations to the contrary. This wouldn't be a big change, but at least it would make these candidates face some real consequences for their ego driven attempts at higher office. Anybody in the House wouldn't be as affected, given that they know they can always get back in two years, but the Senators would lose quite a bit of DC influence if they run and fail, and in my opinion that's exactly how it should be.
If I checked my archives I'd probably find I've made a similar complaint before, but this issue won't go away, so I'll keep complaining.
So this amendment would do two things, first, allow any citizen, foreign born or not who has lived continuously in the United States as a citizen for at least a decade prior to the election be eligible to for our highest office. That should be enough, we need the best politicians available to seek our highest office, and the native only clause in the constitution has barred some excellent people from even contemplating a run at the presidency. The other part of the amendment would require any current federal elected office holder (with two exceptions) to resign their current office at least 14 months prior to the election (sitting Presidents or Vice-Presidents excluded). Senators McCain, Obama, Clinton, Biden, Dodd, all did lousy jobs being Senators while they were candidates. If they're serious about being President, I think they should go for that position without the safety net of falling back into their old comfy job in the Senate. They are shortchanging the people of their respective states, and the United States as a whole by this nonsense. In the same clause of the amendment, also bar folks from running for more than one federal office concurrently. That way, the primary losers could still try and win back their Senate seats, though their appointed replacements might have something to say about that, and in the case of an ex-Senator losing the general election, they'll be forced to sit out a few years before jumping back in to the Senate. It may seem contradictory to want more people eligible on the one hand, but place greater limits on one of the primary pools that has produced candidates, but by in large, those trying to go straight from the Senate to the presidency haven't been the best available, they've simply been the ones most familiar with DC, and the ones DC was most familiar with. In my mind, that's more a disqualification for the office rather than a qualification, and an amendment like this wouldn't ban them from running, it'd just give them something a little extra to consider should they choose to make the attempt.
Nobody should be Senator for more than two terms, that so many of them linger for so much longer is sad, but those that stick around longest have access to all the best pork, and pork still buys votes in most states, despite protestations to the contrary. This wouldn't be a big change, but at least it would make these candidates face some real consequences for their ego driven attempts at higher office. Anybody in the House wouldn't be as affected, given that they know they can always get back in two years, but the Senators would lose quite a bit of DC influence if they run and fail, and in my opinion that's exactly how it should be.
If I checked my archives I'd probably find I've made a similar complaint before, but this issue won't go away, so I'll keep complaining.
25 August 2008
The Dream v The Redeem Teams, A Numerical Analysis (heh, heh, He said ysis)
Basketball Reference is an invaluable site for NBA basketball fans/stat junkies. It's also mostly worthless. Of all the major sports, NBA basketball is the one where stats tell the least of what each player contributes to his team. But, imperfect numbers, are better than no numbers at all.
So, using their stats, I compiled a google spreadsheet that compares the players of the 2008 Beijing gold medal winning team to the 1992 Barcelona gold medal winning team.
I intentionally ignored 2 players from each team, first, cause of the 12 players on the original 'Dream Team', ten of them were part of that Top 50 All Time list that the NBA came up with for their 50th anniversary, and the other two were a college player (Christian Laettner), so no NBA stats available to that point, and the other player's haircut was just too awful to mention or think about (Chris Mullin), plus the 'Redeem Team' really only went 10 deep with Carlos Boozer and Michael Redd primarily relegated to 'in emergency break glass' duty on the roster (and nobody got injured, so they sat and sat and sat for the most part).
The stats I used were Player Effeciency Rating in their most recent NBA campaign, an average of the past 3 years of PER, their Win Share, and a 3 year average of WS, plus their NBA regular season and playoff games played up to their appearance in the Olympics.
Why those stats? Well, PER isn't perfect, but it's the stat that translates best from season to season, and player to player. The formula is complicated, and different analyst tweak their formula here and there, but it's pretty indicative of what kind of season a player is having, and how they compare to others at their position. Win Share is a bit trickier, but it's also a pretty good number, it's meant to compute the 'share' of a team's victories attributable to that player, a solid player can see that number plummet if they are on a lousy team (see Wade, Dwyane last year), or if they are the number two guy on a good team with a mega-superstar on their squad (see Pippen, Scottie, any of his Bulls years).
If you want to peruse the individual stats, the link is above, but here are the averages for each squad.
All this proves for certain is that the 1992 Olympians were older, and had much more NBA experience. The PER numbers are fairly close, as are the win shares, though Dream Team has the edge on both of those.
Also, if you were to list the ten best players at their position, I think it'd be hard to leave any of the 10 Dream Teamers I did stats for off the list. On the Redeem Team, only Kobe Bryant, Jason Kidd, and LeBron James would be locks for that list, but Chris Paul, Deron Williams, seem headed in that direction, and Dwight Howard, Chris Bosh, and Carmelo Anthony all seem like they have the potential to be that good, but whether or not they realize that potential is an open question. Another interesting quirk in the numbers is that the previous season PER and WS are lower than the 3 year average for 1992, and reversed for 2008. I think this shows that you had more players at or past their peak in 1992, while in 2008 you have players who are just beginning to figure out the league. In 1992 all the players were 26 or over (other than Laettner, who I didn't count), while in 2008 you had six players 23 or under. Also, if you take out Kobe and Kidd, none of the other players in 2008 had more than 500 regular season games played, but in 1992 only Scottie Pippen and David Robinson (again, ignoring Laettner) were below that number.
But none of those numbers tell you how'd they match up against each other. Could 29 year old Kobe guard 28 year old MJ? In that match up, Kobe is actually the more veteran player with almost 200 more regular season games played, and 60 more playoff games, plus Kobe to that point had 3 rings, and 2 other Finals appearances, while MJ was off his 2nd straight championship team. Everyone assumes MJ would kill Kobe, but Kobe is a better defender, and has better range on his jump shot. Who guards LeBron James? Malone doesn't have the footspeed, neither does Barkley, Pippen might get the assignment, as long as you give him lots of help in the middle. Where 1992 shines compared to 2008 is in the middle. Ewing and Robinson would eat Howard and Bosh for breakfast, and then ask for seconds. But Paul and Williams would wear down Stockton and Magic in the backcourt, though Magic could use his size to post up those guys, so some adjustments would have to be made. Old and slow Larry Bird would be a huge liability on defense for the 1992 team, and would see most of his minutes go to Malone, or Robinson if Coach Daly went with a 'Twin Towers' approach by putting Ewing and Robinson on the floor at the same time to take advantage of 2008's lack of size.
I don't think the winner between these squads is absolutely certain, 1992 is made up of greater players, some of the best all time, but their age, and lack of ball handlers (seems crazy to say a team with Magic and Stockton has problems with handles, but Paul, Williams, Kobe, Prince could give them both problems) might cause problems against a younger, far quicker team in the 2008 vintage Olympians. Jordan was a phenomenal player, at his peak, but if Jordan is the Alpha of all time shooting guards, then Kobe is a not too distant Gamma or Delta (Elgin Baylor or Oscar Robertson slot in somewhere between Kobe and MJ, probably). Size is where 1992 can kill 2008, and speed and greater team defensive intensity is where 2008 can counter 1992's better individual players. Coach K's 2008 squad is better balanced as a team, but the experience and the collective competitive fire of the 1992 squad would overwhelm the 'Redeem Team' in a single game.
In a seven game series, I think the 2008 players might give those old guys a run for their money, though.
Somebody needs to invent a time machine, snatch these players off the podiums just after they get their golds, and answer this question once and for all (just make sure not to neglect wiping their memories of the contests so that they don't pollute their respective timelines with knowledge of the future).
(also, if you added 2008 vintage Kevin Garnett, and Paul Pierce to the "Redeem Team", in place of Bosh and Prince, I think you'd have a much more competitive game, but then, if you got rid of old and busted 1992 Larry Bird and replaced him with younger and annoying 1992 Reggie Miller, balance would be restored)
So, using their stats, I compiled a google spreadsheet that compares the players of the 2008 Beijing gold medal winning team to the 1992 Barcelona gold medal winning team.
I intentionally ignored 2 players from each team, first, cause of the 12 players on the original 'Dream Team', ten of them were part of that Top 50 All Time list that the NBA came up with for their 50th anniversary, and the other two were a college player (Christian Laettner), so no NBA stats available to that point, and the other player's haircut was just too awful to mention or think about (Chris Mullin), plus the 'Redeem Team' really only went 10 deep with Carlos Boozer and Michael Redd primarily relegated to 'in emergency break glass' duty on the roster (and nobody got injured, so they sat and sat and sat for the most part).
The stats I used were Player Effeciency Rating in their most recent NBA campaign, an average of the past 3 years of PER, their Win Share, and a 3 year average of WS, plus their NBA regular season and playoff games played up to their appearance in the Olympics.
Why those stats? Well, PER isn't perfect, but it's the stat that translates best from season to season, and player to player. The formula is complicated, and different analyst tweak their formula here and there, but it's pretty indicative of what kind of season a player is having, and how they compare to others at their position. Win Share is a bit trickier, but it's also a pretty good number, it's meant to compute the 'share' of a team's victories attributable to that player, a solid player can see that number plummet if they are on a lousy team (see Wade, Dwyane last year), or if they are the number two guy on a good team with a mega-superstar on their squad (see Pippen, Scottie, any of his Bulls years).
If you want to peruse the individual stats, the link is above, but here are the averages for each squad.
Dream Team 1992
AVG PER = 24.19
3YR PER = 24.65
AVG WS = 12.95
3YR WS = 13.40
AVG Regular Season Games = 613.3
AVG Playoff Games = 82.9
AVG Age = 29.0
Redeem Team 2008
AVG PER = 22.40
3YR PER = 22.02
AVG WS = 10.57
3YR WS = 10.14
AVG Regular Season Games = 458.3
AVG Playoff Games = 56.0
AVG Age = 25.2
All this proves for certain is that the 1992 Olympians were older, and had much more NBA experience. The PER numbers are fairly close, as are the win shares, though Dream Team has the edge on both of those.
Also, if you were to list the ten best players at their position, I think it'd be hard to leave any of the 10 Dream Teamers I did stats for off the list. On the Redeem Team, only Kobe Bryant, Jason Kidd, and LeBron James would be locks for that list, but Chris Paul, Deron Williams, seem headed in that direction, and Dwight Howard, Chris Bosh, and Carmelo Anthony all seem like they have the potential to be that good, but whether or not they realize that potential is an open question. Another interesting quirk in the numbers is that the previous season PER and WS are lower than the 3 year average for 1992, and reversed for 2008. I think this shows that you had more players at or past their peak in 1992, while in 2008 you have players who are just beginning to figure out the league. In 1992 all the players were 26 or over (other than Laettner, who I didn't count), while in 2008 you had six players 23 or under. Also, if you take out Kobe and Kidd, none of the other players in 2008 had more than 500 regular season games played, but in 1992 only Scottie Pippen and David Robinson (again, ignoring Laettner) were below that number.
But none of those numbers tell you how'd they match up against each other. Could 29 year old Kobe guard 28 year old MJ? In that match up, Kobe is actually the more veteran player with almost 200 more regular season games played, and 60 more playoff games, plus Kobe to that point had 3 rings, and 2 other Finals appearances, while MJ was off his 2nd straight championship team. Everyone assumes MJ would kill Kobe, but Kobe is a better defender, and has better range on his jump shot. Who guards LeBron James? Malone doesn't have the footspeed, neither does Barkley, Pippen might get the assignment, as long as you give him lots of help in the middle. Where 1992 shines compared to 2008 is in the middle. Ewing and Robinson would eat Howard and Bosh for breakfast, and then ask for seconds. But Paul and Williams would wear down Stockton and Magic in the backcourt, though Magic could use his size to post up those guys, so some adjustments would have to be made. Old and slow Larry Bird would be a huge liability on defense for the 1992 team, and would see most of his minutes go to Malone, or Robinson if Coach Daly went with a 'Twin Towers' approach by putting Ewing and Robinson on the floor at the same time to take advantage of 2008's lack of size.
I don't think the winner between these squads is absolutely certain, 1992 is made up of greater players, some of the best all time, but their age, and lack of ball handlers (seems crazy to say a team with Magic and Stockton has problems with handles, but Paul, Williams, Kobe, Prince could give them both problems) might cause problems against a younger, far quicker team in the 2008 vintage Olympians. Jordan was a phenomenal player, at his peak, but if Jordan is the Alpha of all time shooting guards, then Kobe is a not too distant Gamma or Delta (Elgin Baylor or Oscar Robertson slot in somewhere between Kobe and MJ, probably). Size is where 1992 can kill 2008, and speed and greater team defensive intensity is where 2008 can counter 1992's better individual players. Coach K's 2008 squad is better balanced as a team, but the experience and the collective competitive fire of the 1992 squad would overwhelm the 'Redeem Team' in a single game.
In a seven game series, I think the 2008 players might give those old guys a run for their money, though.
Somebody needs to invent a time machine, snatch these players off the podiums just after they get their golds, and answer this question once and for all (just make sure not to neglect wiping their memories of the contests so that they don't pollute their respective timelines with knowledge of the future).
(also, if you added 2008 vintage Kevin Garnett, and Paul Pierce to the "Redeem Team", in place of Bosh and Prince, I think you'd have a much more competitive game, but then, if you got rid of old and busted 1992 Larry Bird and replaced him with younger and annoying 1992 Reggie Miller, balance would be restored)
22 August 2008
A Modest Proposal on the Summer Olympics to Ensure That We as Viewers Are Truly Up Close and Personal With the Athletes
The current Beijing Summer Olympics of 2008 are rapping up, and much of the planning and preparation for the next London Summer Olympics of 2012 are already under way. Ever since the spectacularly expensive and well produced opening ceremonies of the current games, commentators have openly questioned London's ability to live up to the new high standard set by the totalitarian government of the People's Republic of China. Leave it to dictators to put on a great show! There hasn't been this much pomp, ceremony, and collective nationalistic good feeling since the Berlin Olympics in 1936. Dictators know how to get their people in line and spruce up a host city to the point where even major politicians from important nations can stand back and only admire and envy the ruthless efficiency with which they can transform and improve their urban areas.
But this has nothing to do with London, with all its fine features, its surveillance cameras everywhere, its policing of ideas (nobody must ever say anything that might offend someone else, to do so would be criminal, unless its a traditionally oppressed minority expressing their dissatisfaction with the status quo, then nobody must question their right to call for the death of other Londoners), London may be edging towards the sort of totalitarian perfection exhibited by Beijing in 2008 and Berlin in 1936, but they fall far short. No, they won't be able to put on the kind of show Beijing did, it's not in the British national character, it's not within the bounds of their legal system, and Londoners have 'evolved' far beyond the sort of civic pride exhibited this past fortnight by the people of Beijing. A further hindrance towards competing with the scale of Beijing 2008 is the simple fact that the economy of the United Kingdom is fall smaller than that of China, and worst of all, it's a democracy, so if they spend more than a paltry £10,000,000,000 there might be some whingers who cause a stink within their parliament and chat shows.
So, with those structural defects when compared to Beijing and China, London and the UK are going to have to be creative and innovative to try and top the spectacle and pageantry of Beijing. To compete they'll have to go with their strengths. "What are the current strengths of the United Kingdom"?, you ask. I'm here to tell you, the people there have cultivated an appreciation and appetite for reality TV programming, and in the aggregate, absolutely no sense of shame in the pursuit of fame.
Use those talents, then, turn the Olympic Village into the most massive and watched episodes of the show Big Brother in history. Run episodes of Big Brother concurrently in every nation that agrees to do so. Given this Times Online article by an ex-athlete revealing the testosterone fueled Bacchanalia of young fit bodies finding fleshy pleasures with each other, if there were cameras throughout the village capturing this activity, the ratings for this would be through the roof. It would be up to each country's broadcasting partner with the London Committee how explicit they chose to make the programming based on local customs. Personally, I'd pay money to watch the Brazilian feed (with or without dubbing or subtitles). The TV rights for these shows would make a mint, I suspect, and would go quite a ways in deferring the enormous bill that will burden the people of Great Britain for a generation or two.
Obviously, a few changes would have to be made, first, no minors allowed, for the 2012 games, all competitors must be 18 years of age at the time of competition, can't have any chance of questionable material of underage folks generating friction with each other. Most sports won't be effected, and any athletes who might miss out on 2012 because of the rule change, will always have 2016 in their future (besides, those disturbingly young gymnast bouncing around are a bit annoying, anyway). Another change would be to make being billeted in the Olympic village mandatory for all athletes, as well as signing a release form allowing for the airing of any footage that is captured. Wire the entire village the way the Big Brother house is, and just sit back, relax, and watch as hours and hours of entertaining television programming piles up. Any athlete who doesn't want to be caught doing anything too kinky, can abstain from having too much fun, and given that many athletes are extroverted, beautiful, in the best shape they'll ever be in, and desperately horny, they'll probably not even notice the cameras watching their flirtations, and beyond.
Why should we, the citizens of each of these nations, only get to see their performance on the tracks, and fields, and pitches, and pools, why not also see their 'performances' on the rooftops, and closets, and balconies, and bathrooms, and bedrooms?
But this has nothing to do with London, with all its fine features, its surveillance cameras everywhere, its policing of ideas (nobody must ever say anything that might offend someone else, to do so would be criminal, unless its a traditionally oppressed minority expressing their dissatisfaction with the status quo, then nobody must question their right to call for the death of other Londoners), London may be edging towards the sort of totalitarian perfection exhibited by Beijing in 2008 and Berlin in 1936, but they fall far short. No, they won't be able to put on the kind of show Beijing did, it's not in the British national character, it's not within the bounds of their legal system, and Londoners have 'evolved' far beyond the sort of civic pride exhibited this past fortnight by the people of Beijing. A further hindrance towards competing with the scale of Beijing 2008 is the simple fact that the economy of the United Kingdom is fall smaller than that of China, and worst of all, it's a democracy, so if they spend more than a paltry £10,000,000,000 there might be some whingers who cause a stink within their parliament and chat shows.
So, with those structural defects when compared to Beijing and China, London and the UK are going to have to be creative and innovative to try and top the spectacle and pageantry of Beijing. To compete they'll have to go with their strengths. "What are the current strengths of the United Kingdom"?, you ask. I'm here to tell you, the people there have cultivated an appreciation and appetite for reality TV programming, and in the aggregate, absolutely no sense of shame in the pursuit of fame.
Use those talents, then, turn the Olympic Village into the most massive and watched episodes of the show Big Brother in history. Run episodes of Big Brother concurrently in every nation that agrees to do so. Given this Times Online article by an ex-athlete revealing the testosterone fueled Bacchanalia of young fit bodies finding fleshy pleasures with each other, if there were cameras throughout the village capturing this activity, the ratings for this would be through the roof. It would be up to each country's broadcasting partner with the London Committee how explicit they chose to make the programming based on local customs. Personally, I'd pay money to watch the Brazilian feed (with or without dubbing or subtitles). The TV rights for these shows would make a mint, I suspect, and would go quite a ways in deferring the enormous bill that will burden the people of Great Britain for a generation or two.
Obviously, a few changes would have to be made, first, no minors allowed, for the 2012 games, all competitors must be 18 years of age at the time of competition, can't have any chance of questionable material of underage folks generating friction with each other. Most sports won't be effected, and any athletes who might miss out on 2012 because of the rule change, will always have 2016 in their future (besides, those disturbingly young gymnast bouncing around are a bit annoying, anyway). Another change would be to make being billeted in the Olympic village mandatory for all athletes, as well as signing a release form allowing for the airing of any footage that is captured. Wire the entire village the way the Big Brother house is, and just sit back, relax, and watch as hours and hours of entertaining television programming piles up. Any athlete who doesn't want to be caught doing anything too kinky, can abstain from having too much fun, and given that many athletes are extroverted, beautiful, in the best shape they'll ever be in, and desperately horny, they'll probably not even notice the cameras watching their flirtations, and beyond.
Why should we, the citizens of each of these nations, only get to see their performance on the tracks, and fields, and pitches, and pools, why not also see their 'performances' on the rooftops, and closets, and balconies, and bathrooms, and bedrooms?
21 August 2008
That Idiot, Nobody Takes Him Seriously . . . What? Really?, Ummmm, What a Great Choice,
Let the rehabilitation of Sen. Joe Biden begin!
(suddenly, he's a fine elder statesman who speaks truth to power and is a champion of the 'little people')
(I don't know that Biden will be the pick, but I am fascinated by the immediate 180° pivot performed by media types)
(the link above isn't a specific example of bias, but just turn on MSNBC today, or watch any of the network nightly news half hours tomorrow, and watch them scrub clean Sen. Biden's record)
(suddenly, he's a fine elder statesman who speaks truth to power and is a champion of the 'little people')
(I don't know that Biden will be the pick, but I am fascinated by the immediate 180° pivot performed by media types)
(the link above isn't a specific example of bias, but just turn on MSNBC today, or watch any of the network nightly news half hours tomorrow, and watch them scrub clean Sen. Biden's record)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)