Judging from the Amazon ads that keep showing up on my sidebar (Naked Frat Men and Crotchless Panties), I'm guessing this is perceived by their algorithms as being a pretty smutty blog.
I can't argue with Amazon, they're too powerful, too all knowing, if they think I'm a smut blogger, I must be a smut blogger.
So here are some NSFW (18+ to view, please) video links to stuff I've seen recently at LiveLeak.
I won't embed the full on smut, but I will link it.
The first bit of smut is both extraordinarily wrong, and yet just a little bit right for Memorial Day. It's also why we fight. We fight against the gynophobic, puritanical, maniacal Islamist fascists so that young buxom blonde European pornstars can pose naked (but for some boots and gloves) with an RPG launcher and some other weapons (which I assume are as fake as her breasts) and perform push ups and jump rope (with really good form, if you watch this video for one reason it would be to observe her technique). She may not be American, but she can thank America for letting her produce videos like this without fearing for her life.
The second bit of smut is a montage of clips of a young slim fit South American woman. It's not spectacular in of itself (though she is exceedingly attractive), rather it's the music used (if you can stand to look at the smut, enjoy the music, it's so wrong it's right).
LiveLeak is trying to compete with YouTube by being completely unfiltered. What has ended up happening is you have lots of porn and violence being uploaded along with unfettered copyright infringement and more fringe stuff from a political standpoint. Also, it would seem to be the go to sight for both the Jihadis and the people in our Armed Forces to upload war footage.
It's hard to know where that site is headed. Either it will get bought by one of the bigger players and will move towards respectability, or it will stay as the "wild west" alternative to the comparatively staid YouTube. So long as no deep pockets get involved, it's lawsuit proof (the way YouTube was before Google stepped in), as soon as they sell, then there'll be lawsuits a plenty (as has been the case with YouTube/Google). Maybe they can afford to keep the servers going just on the ads they already get and make enough profit to please the folks who put it together. If so, it's probably a net positive to have an outlet like this for (mostly) crappy videos. If not, they'll move towards respectability, and some new video site will take its place on the "the other guys won't show you the sickest crap" rung on the ladder. There's plenty wrong with the impulse to put this stuff up. I have no problem with the titillating stuff, I have a problem with the 'faces of death' footage that also seems to be popular on this site and wonder how kids will turn out who grow up having finger tip access to whatever they want to see, whenever they want to see it (so long as they are on a computer unsupervised). But then, society always thinks that the latest tech is too much for the kiddies to handle and will rot their weak little minds. Good parents keep kids' brains unrotten, no matter what media is out there for them to consume.
Also, LiveLeak's search engine sucks, big time. If they want to get more popular, they'll need to fix that, pronto.
28 May 2007
27 May 2007
25 May 2007
Pirates, Boardrooms, Two Capt. Jacks, and Dubious Thighs (A Non-Review of Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End)
Saw the big new Pirates movie last night. It was what it was. The good moments outweigh the sluggishly turgid moments, in my opinion. The ability to create visuals has vastly superseded the capacity to turn out comprehensive and coherent plots it would seem. If you focus on plot and coherence, than this wasn't a film you'd enjoy. If instead you revel in surreal visual treats, truly odd moments and cinematic spectacle, then you might find yourself won over by this mess.
About those dubious thighs, at some point during this film, supposedly the leg of Keira Knightly is displayed. I have strong doubts as to whether or not the leg in question has ever been attached to the rest of Keira's body. Whoever possesses said leg, has truly a stunning set of gams, and seems to have allowed a hamburger or two pass through her palate (and let it stay in her stomach long enough to be processed). The rest of Keira looks too angular and sharp to still have a leg that looks so delicious.
About those two Capt. Jacks. This movie has far more than two Capt. Jacks. In one of the more surreal touches in the film, Jack would conference with himself on a regular basis, but those aren't the multiple Jacks I'm talking about. The two Jacks are Jack Shaftoe and Jack Sparrow. The Pirate films and the Baroque Cycle trod similar ground. Both examine the end of one system and the beginning of another. Both Jacks are insane, but inspired. There's a huge difference in the quality of writing between Stephenson's cycle and the mess of influences and thoughts that comprise the Pirate scripts. Part of the difference is between the visual and the written. If you were to try and film the Baroque Cycle, it would be a mess, a glorious mess, but a mess nevertheless. The only way to do something like that justice would be a limited run Anime style series that goes on for 60-70 half hour episodes. You could probably tell the tale in about 35 hours and keep it interesting, plus animation would suit the settings better than live action, and many adult aimed Anime is as complex, byzantine, contemplative and digressive as what Neal Stephenson writes. But that's a different topic all together.
About the ending of one system and the beginning of another. That's one thing that the Pirate films gets exactly 180 degrees wrong. They suggest throughout the last two films that the East India Trading Company represents an encroaching (and malevolent) modernity while piracy represents a waning (and romantic) past. But the opposite is true. The old style mercantile system is what began to fall apart in the late 18th and early 19th century. Large state sponsored and controlled monopolies on trading routes were being dashed by improving technologies and fiercely darwinistic entrepreneurship. Pirates are the forerunners to today's "captain's of industry", not the petty bureaucrats who ran the state backed monopolies. Pirates were ruthlessly capitalistic, innovative, and would fit in more easily in a modern boardroom than any East Indian Trading Company big wig would. There's a boardroom scene in the latest Pirate film, they don't call it a boardroom, of course, but takeaway the swords and guns, and it's perfectly recognizable as being thoroughly modern.
Why do these effects driven pictures lack coherence lately? I think the answer lies in how they are constructed. Each action set piece is worked on by dozens if not hundreds of techs working for months on their little section of film. They get input from the director as they go, but by and large each big effects laden sequence is a little fiefdom all its own. As these sequences come together I suspect that the original narrative intent for including these sequences or for the particular beats and moments included in these bits gets lost. The lead effects people show off a new trick here, a nice innovation there, and pretty soon the sequence no longer precisely resembles what was intended, and doesn't mesh well with the original narrative. The director is then faced with a quandary. Lose months of work from dozens of techs, or tack on some extra exposition that makes these sequences fit into the overall narrative better. Well multiply that problem and solution over a dozen or so sequences and you end up with a bloated mess that can't be reduced, and can't be trimmed to a runtime of less than 2.5 hours.
People flock to these pictures (myself included, and yes, I'll see Transformers no matter how stupid it is, the eye candy aspect of that film is irresistible) as they are, and visuals transcend language so these films do massive business world wide. But they might do even better if they held the runtimes down and tried to tell simpler tales more effectively.
About those dubious thighs, at some point during this film, supposedly the leg of Keira Knightly is displayed. I have strong doubts as to whether or not the leg in question has ever been attached to the rest of Keira's body. Whoever possesses said leg, has truly a stunning set of gams, and seems to have allowed a hamburger or two pass through her palate (and let it stay in her stomach long enough to be processed). The rest of Keira looks too angular and sharp to still have a leg that looks so delicious.
About those two Capt. Jacks. This movie has far more than two Capt. Jacks. In one of the more surreal touches in the film, Jack would conference with himself on a regular basis, but those aren't the multiple Jacks I'm talking about. The two Jacks are Jack Shaftoe and Jack Sparrow. The Pirate films and the Baroque Cycle trod similar ground. Both examine the end of one system and the beginning of another. Both Jacks are insane, but inspired. There's a huge difference in the quality of writing between Stephenson's cycle and the mess of influences and thoughts that comprise the Pirate scripts. Part of the difference is between the visual and the written. If you were to try and film the Baroque Cycle, it would be a mess, a glorious mess, but a mess nevertheless. The only way to do something like that justice would be a limited run Anime style series that goes on for 60-70 half hour episodes. You could probably tell the tale in about 35 hours and keep it interesting, plus animation would suit the settings better than live action, and many adult aimed Anime is as complex, byzantine, contemplative and digressive as what Neal Stephenson writes. But that's a different topic all together.
About the ending of one system and the beginning of another. That's one thing that the Pirate films gets exactly 180 degrees wrong. They suggest throughout the last two films that the East India Trading Company represents an encroaching (and malevolent) modernity while piracy represents a waning (and romantic) past. But the opposite is true. The old style mercantile system is what began to fall apart in the late 18th and early 19th century. Large state sponsored and controlled monopolies on trading routes were being dashed by improving technologies and fiercely darwinistic entrepreneurship. Pirates are the forerunners to today's "captain's of industry", not the petty bureaucrats who ran the state backed monopolies. Pirates were ruthlessly capitalistic, innovative, and would fit in more easily in a modern boardroom than any East Indian Trading Company big wig would. There's a boardroom scene in the latest Pirate film, they don't call it a boardroom, of course, but takeaway the swords and guns, and it's perfectly recognizable as being thoroughly modern.
Why do these effects driven pictures lack coherence lately? I think the answer lies in how they are constructed. Each action set piece is worked on by dozens if not hundreds of techs working for months on their little section of film. They get input from the director as they go, but by and large each big effects laden sequence is a little fiefdom all its own. As these sequences come together I suspect that the original narrative intent for including these sequences or for the particular beats and moments included in these bits gets lost. The lead effects people show off a new trick here, a nice innovation there, and pretty soon the sequence no longer precisely resembles what was intended, and doesn't mesh well with the original narrative. The director is then faced with a quandary. Lose months of work from dozens of techs, or tack on some extra exposition that makes these sequences fit into the overall narrative better. Well multiply that problem and solution over a dozen or so sequences and you end up with a bloated mess that can't be reduced, and can't be trimmed to a runtime of less than 2.5 hours.
People flock to these pictures (myself included, and yes, I'll see Transformers no matter how stupid it is, the eye candy aspect of that film is irresistible) as they are, and visuals transcend language so these films do massive business world wide. But they might do even better if they held the runtimes down and tried to tell simpler tales more effectively.
23 May 2007
A Better Summary of the Early 70s I Can't Think Of . . .
How stupid were the early 70s and the 60s hangover of stupid thinking that lead to bad decisions after bad decisions?
This bad (from the Band on the Run wiki):
I think that sums up so much of that mindset. A massive amount of drugs is the only explanation for the actions of all involved.
Would love to turn that into a screenplay though. Not some love letter to the stupidity that was the late 60s, but a moment in time that captures the stoned thinking and stoned consequences of stoned actions.
Decided to give Macca a try, since most of McCartney's early albums are available on URGE for the first time. Must say, I'm inclined to agree with Robert Cristgau regarding Band on the Run, a decidedly C+ effort (always liked the song Jet, though).
Nothing I've heard from actual former Beatles (or the Beatles themselves for that matter) has swayed me from the opinion that Beatlesque pop is best left to non-Beatles. Both Jellyfish albums are far superior to Band on the Run, and I like both Sean Lennon albums (though to be fair to Sean, neither album is particularly "beatlesque") better than any of his father's output.
And I still prefer the Monkees over the Beatles any day of the week. Matter of fact, watch this video, you know it will make you smile (from the film Head, co-written by Jack Nicholson, this film is an example of good 60s stoner stupidity)
This bad (from the Band on the Run wiki):
After the success of Red Rose Speedway, "Live And Let Die" - the new James Bond theme song - was released as the next "Wings" single (without McCartney's name in the artist credit) and became a worldwide smash. It was at this juncture that Paul and wife Linda McCartney began contemplating their next album. Bored with recording in the UK, they really wanted to challenge themselves and Wings by going to some exotic locale. Asking EMI to send him a listing of all its international recording studios, Paul happened upon Lagos in Nigeria and was instantly taken with the idea of recording in Africa. Alongside the McCartneys, guitarist Denny Laine was set to go, as well as lead guitarist Henry McCullough, and drummer Denny Seiwell. However, a few weeks before departing in late August, McCullough quit Wings in Scotland; with Seiwell following suit the night before the departure, this left just the core of the band, Paul, Linda and Denny Laine, to venture to Lagos alone.
While there, both the McCartneys were mugged at knifepoint, and were accosted in the studio by legendary musician Fela Kuti for fear that Paul was plagiarizing African music (fears which McCartney quickly assuaged by playing Kuti the recorded music), and were persuaded to record at Ginger Baker's studio in Lagos (where he lived at the time) by the man himself, once he heard that the McCartneys were in town. It was a most action-packed time, clearly, and one which only saw the recording of the ensuing album's backing tracks.
I think that sums up so much of that mindset. A massive amount of drugs is the only explanation for the actions of all involved.
Would love to turn that into a screenplay though. Not some love letter to the stupidity that was the late 60s, but a moment in time that captures the stoned thinking and stoned consequences of stoned actions.
Decided to give Macca a try, since most of McCartney's early albums are available on URGE for the first time. Must say, I'm inclined to agree with Robert Cristgau regarding Band on the Run, a decidedly C+ effort (always liked the song Jet, though).
Nothing I've heard from actual former Beatles (or the Beatles themselves for that matter) has swayed me from the opinion that Beatlesque pop is best left to non-Beatles. Both Jellyfish albums are far superior to Band on the Run, and I like both Sean Lennon albums (though to be fair to Sean, neither album is particularly "beatlesque") better than any of his father's output.
And I still prefer the Monkees over the Beatles any day of the week. Matter of fact, watch this video, you know it will make you smile (from the film Head, co-written by Jack Nicholson, this film is an example of good 60s stoner stupidity)
22 May 2007
Yeah, Makes Sense, Cause There's Nothing Sexual About an Adult Man Sucking at the Teat of an Adult Woman . . .
He argued that if a man nursed from a co-worker, it would establish a family bond between them and allow the two to work side-by-side without raising suspicion of an illicit sexual relation.
(hat tip LGF)
Interesting theoretical backflips done to come up with that fatwa.
So let me try and understand this, as long as the woman in question is "expressive" (in a lactating sort of way) then it would be familial, but if she weren't "expressive", then it becomes tawdry and dirty?
Does this mean only lactating women can work outside of home in mixed company?
If we were to follow this edict in the United States, would the pay disparity between men and women evaporate?
Would women mention in their resumes the sweetness and nutritional content of their milk as part one of their selling points?
20 May 2007
Whatever Your Ideological Perspective May Be, Can We All Agree On This One Thing?
That thing being, they show far too many films in K-12 schools. A North Ontario kid named McKenzie complains that he's seen Inconvenient Truth in four different courses at his high school.
But first, a digression about the, 'we used his first name only to at the request of his parents to protect his identity', bit. How protective of ones identity is the use of a first name if that first name itself is fairly unique? How many male 18 year olds in high school in North Ontario have the first name McKenzie? I know people have been picking some messed up first names over the past 3-4 decades, but a Canuck with the first name McKenzie? That's messed up. Besides, it's totally a chicks name to begin with, so unless you have centuries of family precedent you're honoring, don't name your boychild McKenzie. He probably would have been less identifiable had they gone with last name only rather than first name. But given the nature of his complaint (he makes no complaint about the content of the doc itself, just that the teachers at his school all feel compelled to show it, even in classes where it may be of dubious relevance), why bother with the whole, 'protect his identity' silliness in the first place?
But anyway, back to my point about the overuse of video in classroom settings. We don't pay teachers excellent money (yes, I said excellent money, given that it's a 9 month a year job, one that only requires 5-6 hours of face time with students per day, and has some of the sweetest benefits packages and most militant unions of any job available) to rely on videos to babysit the students in their charge.
Video should be used never to exceedingly rarely. Students are there to learn from each other and their teachers, if the teacher can't get the job done without wasting class time on videos of little true educational value, then find a different line of work, cause those teachers are just killing time and feathering their nests till they've served long enough to receive full benefits in retirement.
We all had those teachers more interested in counting the minutes than even their students, this is a symptom of that problem. Force them to engage, or quit, demand quality from instructors, maybe you'll find that if mediocrity is no longer tolerated, then higher quality people will be attracted to the job.
But back to this particular incident, it sure seems like Gaiaism is the newest and most agressive religion to be let loose on this planet. I'm fairly certain that there are those that believe in Goracle Infalibility with regards to statements he makes on the environment, and even if he's wrong on the facts, he's right with his message so don't let any inconvenient misapplications of the data get in the way of genuflecting before the holy DVD that shows the Goracle in all his most glorious Goracleness.
But first, a digression about the, 'we used his first name only to at the request of his parents to protect his identity', bit. How protective of ones identity is the use of a first name if that first name itself is fairly unique? How many male 18 year olds in high school in North Ontario have the first name McKenzie? I know people have been picking some messed up first names over the past 3-4 decades, but a Canuck with the first name McKenzie? That's messed up. Besides, it's totally a chicks name to begin with, so unless you have centuries of family precedent you're honoring, don't name your boychild McKenzie. He probably would have been less identifiable had they gone with last name only rather than first name. But given the nature of his complaint (he makes no complaint about the content of the doc itself, just that the teachers at his school all feel compelled to show it, even in classes where it may be of dubious relevance), why bother with the whole, 'protect his identity' silliness in the first place?
But anyway, back to my point about the overuse of video in classroom settings. We don't pay teachers excellent money (yes, I said excellent money, given that it's a 9 month a year job, one that only requires 5-6 hours of face time with students per day, and has some of the sweetest benefits packages and most militant unions of any job available) to rely on videos to babysit the students in their charge.
Video should be used never to exceedingly rarely. Students are there to learn from each other and their teachers, if the teacher can't get the job done without wasting class time on videos of little true educational value, then find a different line of work, cause those teachers are just killing time and feathering their nests till they've served long enough to receive full benefits in retirement.
We all had those teachers more interested in counting the minutes than even their students, this is a symptom of that problem. Force them to engage, or quit, demand quality from instructors, maybe you'll find that if mediocrity is no longer tolerated, then higher quality people will be attracted to the job.
But back to this particular incident, it sure seems like Gaiaism is the newest and most agressive religion to be let loose on this planet. I'm fairly certain that there are those that believe in Goracle Infalibility with regards to statements he makes on the environment, and even if he's wrong on the facts, he's right with his message so don't let any inconvenient misapplications of the data get in the way of genuflecting before the holy DVD that shows the Goracle in all his most glorious Goracleness.
17 May 2007
OK, That's A Point In Her Favor, But I Still Won't Be Voting For Her
Sen. Hillary Clinton has picked up the very important "world's most famous pornstar" endorsement (via Drudge).
As a business person you'd think Jenna would worry more about higher taxes and increased regulatory complexity than any perceived GOP interference in her industry (despite his social positions, you'd think Jenna would be a Huckabee fan given what a boon a Fair Tax would be for a professional like her).
When the GOP is in control they talk about regulations, but it's when Dems are in control is when they actually get inacted. Even though she says the Clinton era was a golden age for porn (not her words, but her inference), I think she's mistaken.
But if I were interviewing Jenna Jameson regarding the Clintons my follow up question would have been, "Which would you prefer doing a scene with, Bill, Hillary, or Chelsea?"
That's a question for which she would be uniquely qualified to give an interesting answer.
Speaking of Chelsea, she would seem to be the perfect answer for Sen. Clinton's "First Lady" problem. Bill would make a terrible First Lady. The role is too traditionally feminine, and too wrapped up in protocol for someone of his inclinations and temperament to fulfill. Chelsea on the other hand might be just right for the role. She could resign her position as an access peddler in NYC (I mean important cog in the wheel that is Avenue Capital hedge fund), move into the White House, and fulfill the wifely functions for her mother that her father would be so terrible at.
She'd be a more natural choice to fulfill the First Lady function than former President Clinton, and much less controversial.
And as far as the question I would have asked Jenna, my guess is her answer would have been, 'all three at once'.
As a business person you'd think Jenna would worry more about higher taxes and increased regulatory complexity than any perceived GOP interference in her industry (despite his social positions, you'd think Jenna would be a Huckabee fan given what a boon a Fair Tax would be for a professional like her).
When the GOP is in control they talk about regulations, but it's when Dems are in control is when they actually get inacted. Even though she says the Clinton era was a golden age for porn (not her words, but her inference), I think she's mistaken.
But if I were interviewing Jenna Jameson regarding the Clintons my follow up question would have been, "Which would you prefer doing a scene with, Bill, Hillary, or Chelsea?"
That's a question for which she would be uniquely qualified to give an interesting answer.
Speaking of Chelsea, she would seem to be the perfect answer for Sen. Clinton's "First Lady" problem. Bill would make a terrible First Lady. The role is too traditionally feminine, and too wrapped up in protocol for someone of his inclinations and temperament to fulfill. Chelsea on the other hand might be just right for the role. She could resign her position as an access peddler in NYC (I mean important cog in the wheel that is Avenue Capital hedge fund), move into the White House, and fulfill the wifely functions for her mother that her father would be so terrible at.
She'd be a more natural choice to fulfill the First Lady function than former President Clinton, and much less controversial.
And as far as the question I would have asked Jenna, my guess is her answer would have been, 'all three at once'.
16 May 2007
Sure Your Product Smells Like Grandpa, But Damn, You Sure Do Make Fine Commercials
Bruce Campbell cheesing it up with a piano bar version of Duran Duran's Hungry Like the Wolf?
Doesn't get any better than that.
Still not touching your stinky product, but bravo anyway.
UPDATE:
A behind the scenes video for a commercial? Yes, of course, when it's this awesome of a commercial it makes sense.
Why does this work where Wendy's use of Blister in the Sun doesn't? Partly it's the song. Duran Duran was cheesy to begin with, and Hungry Like the Wolf is already nonsensical, so to be put in this context only improves rather than detracts from the song. Also, Bruce Campbell can pull off anything. A lesson to other actors out there, if you shill, shill shamelessly. There's no shame in making a buck. Do it with joy, or don't do it at all. Bruce is clearly enjoying himself and the awesomeness shows up in the final commercial spot.
Crass commercialism is an art form not to be trifled with. Also, his bit in Spiderman 3 was superb.
Memo to the networks, if you think those whiny Geico cavemen are capable of sustaining a sitcom, then surely Old Spice's "Man of Experience" is worthy his own series as well. I'm thinking do it McBragg style where he tells a slightly impossible vignette to some whippersnapper each week. The possibilities are endless. And you could go animated a la Venture Bros. if you really want to open up the potential plots and scenarios, or if you go live action, use Bruce to full effect and give him a good cast to work off of. Make this and I wouldn't mind a ton of obvious Procter & Gamble product placement each week. Actually it would be preferable if you load it up with product placement but skip the commercial interruptions.
Banorama
Earlier, I embedded a little bit of the John Sweeney v Scientology Panorama action, well now below we have the Rich and Mark version involving a banana.
Not bad, not bad at all, but he still don't have nothing on John Sweeney. Sweeney's still the master of the emotional outburst and defeats all comers, but in the future hopefully someone else will lose it as fantastically as he did.
(and get a haircut hippie)
Not bad, not bad at all, but he still don't have nothing on John Sweeney. Sweeney's still the master of the emotional outburst and defeats all comers, but in the future hopefully someone else will lose it as fantastically as he did.
(and get a haircut hippie)
I Agree With David Stern?
And not just cause I hate the Phoenix Suns (I also hate the San Antonio Spurs).
Diaw and Stoudemire deserve the punishment they've earned, even if it costs their team this series. They knew the rule, they violated it. It's that simple. Not everyone agrees with me and David Stern, though.
And Robert Horry, MVP?
His foul wasn't a cheap shot, it was a hard foul, an intentional foul, but Nash did overact once he was flying through the air. Being from Canada, you'd think he'd appreciate a hip check into the boards.
But as far as Horry, it was a veteran play, a tone setter for the next game, and he lucked out that two of the stars for Phoenix got sucked into getting themselves suspended.
As far as the rest of the playoffs, I'm leaning towards thinking that Charles Barkley is right and Utah has a real chance at winning it all. I didn't think they'd get out of the first round, but they've surprised me, and they match up well against any team they might face. Could Sloan get his first championship with these guys? Seems incredible, but not impossible.
Whichever team survives the battle between the Spurs and the Suns will be physically and emotionally spent and may have trouble facing a strong, rested, and motivated Jazz team.
And whichever team advances in the West will be a much better team than either of the teams likely to emerge from the East. Detroit and Cleveland are good for Eastern Conference squads, but I expect them to have trouble against any of the possible Western Conference champions.
Every year there's a 2nd round match up that's better than the finals it seems. This year it's the San Antonio v. Phoenix match. The NBA needs to radically alter how they seed the playoff teams. Here's how they should do it.
Mix the conferences together from the first round on. Take the six division winners and make them the 1-6 seeds. Let each team pick their opponent out of any of the remaining 10 playoff teams in order of season record. If the playoffs were set up that way, a possible first round would look something like this, Dallas-Orlando, Phoenix-Washington, Detroit-Lakers, Utah-Golden State, Toronto-New Jersey, Miami-Houston, leaving San Antonio-Cleveland as the two teams that none of the conference winners wanted to face.
All the following rounds would be reseeded based on season record with the three first round winners with the best record being able to pick their opponents from the other five teams.
A system like this would reward consistency in the regular season, give more teams a reason to play all the way up to the last game, and allow coaching staffs of the best teams to pick opponents that match-up with them in a manner they find attractive.
Seeing the same teams knock each other out in the 2nd round is a bit annoying, instead having a possible Final of Dallas v Phoenix or Phoenix v San Antonio is a lot more attractive than the possible Utah v Cleveland showdown that might be looming.
Diaw and Stoudemire deserve the punishment they've earned, even if it costs their team this series. They knew the rule, they violated it. It's that simple. Not everyone agrees with me and David Stern, though.
And Robert Horry, MVP?
His foul wasn't a cheap shot, it was a hard foul, an intentional foul, but Nash did overact once he was flying through the air. Being from Canada, you'd think he'd appreciate a hip check into the boards.
But as far as Horry, it was a veteran play, a tone setter for the next game, and he lucked out that two of the stars for Phoenix got sucked into getting themselves suspended.
As far as the rest of the playoffs, I'm leaning towards thinking that Charles Barkley is right and Utah has a real chance at winning it all. I didn't think they'd get out of the first round, but they've surprised me, and they match up well against any team they might face. Could Sloan get his first championship with these guys? Seems incredible, but not impossible.
Whichever team survives the battle between the Spurs and the Suns will be physically and emotionally spent and may have trouble facing a strong, rested, and motivated Jazz team.
And whichever team advances in the West will be a much better team than either of the teams likely to emerge from the East. Detroit and Cleveland are good for Eastern Conference squads, but I expect them to have trouble against any of the possible Western Conference champions.
Every year there's a 2nd round match up that's better than the finals it seems. This year it's the San Antonio v. Phoenix match. The NBA needs to radically alter how they seed the playoff teams. Here's how they should do it.
Mix the conferences together from the first round on. Take the six division winners and make them the 1-6 seeds. Let each team pick their opponent out of any of the remaining 10 playoff teams in order of season record. If the playoffs were set up that way, a possible first round would look something like this, Dallas-Orlando, Phoenix-Washington, Detroit-Lakers, Utah-Golden State, Toronto-New Jersey, Miami-Houston, leaving San Antonio-Cleveland as the two teams that none of the conference winners wanted to face.
All the following rounds would be reseeded based on season record with the three first round winners with the best record being able to pick their opponents from the other five teams.
A system like this would reward consistency in the regular season, give more teams a reason to play all the way up to the last game, and allow coaching staffs of the best teams to pick opponents that match-up with them in a manner they find attractive.
Seeing the same teams knock each other out in the 2nd round is a bit annoying, instead having a possible Final of Dallas v Phoenix or Phoenix v San Antonio is a lot more attractive than the possible Utah v Cleveland showdown that might be looming.
The Debates I'd Like to See
Fox News did an as good as job as possible with the 10 person circus style debate format they were saddled with. MSNBC's debates were a travesty in comparison.
But the format itself is a dead format and should be abandoned.
Here's the debate format I'd like to see.
Acknowledge that the way the system works now, there are a first tier and second tier of candidates. That's the reality, and by letting everyone who can get there name on a ballot to participate, you only make it harder for voters to see the differences between the candidates that might actually have a chance to be running the country one day.
Another thing worth changing would be to combine the Democrats and Republicans together. These debates are a conversation, and that conversation should offer both sides, not just one or the other, the earlier both major parties actively engage the other, the better it would be for both party's electorate to determine which candidate is best capable of offering a strong challenge in the only poll that matters, the one on the 2nd Tuesday in November of an election year.
So here's the format, invite four candidates from each party to bi-weekly debates. If logistics makes meeting in the same town impossible, there's this thing called teleconferencing, and I hear you can do pretty amazing things with it.
Have each candidate be the "host" for ten minutes at a time, asking questions to the four opposing party candidates. Have a moderator ensure that they don't use their time to ask 9 minute questions full of their own campaign talking points, but instead reward candidates for engaging the other side directly. If Sen. Clinton is a legitimate potential leader for this nation, she ought to be able to ask questions, and get asked questions, directly from Mayor Giuliani or Sen. McCain, or Gov. Romney. Likewise, a former prosecutor like Giuliani would have fun going after Clinton, or Sen. Obama, or Sen. Edwards on specific issues of interest to him and the nation.
If a candidate like Romney wanted to spend his time getting the Dems to bicker amongst themselves, he could, or he could directly challenge them to explain how their choices would be better for the country. Likewise Obama could use his time as "host" to offer a quick take on his views and challenge any of the leading Republicans to offer better.
By forcing the two sides together as early as possible, that would change the tone of these debates from monologue to dialogue. It would be up to each candidate to decide whether that dialogue should be shrill, informative, cooperative, or combative. This would give the primary voters real information on how these folks would perform come general election time, and it would generate far more interest amongst that big group of independents who sit these things out till the last minute usually.
The current format favors agreement over conflict (except when it comes to the fringe candidates like Paul, Gravel or Kucinich), and that's boring. My suggestion favors engagement while at least offering the possibility that a touch of substance might seep to the surface.
Also, by rotating in a different 4th from each party, you'd give the possibility that somebody currently on the outside like Gov. Richardson or Gov. Huckabee could make a big enough impression to build up a more solid base. Right now there's just too much noise and too little time to do so. Also, having those two changing seats in the debate would mark a difference and add some needed unpredictability to these proceedings.
Bi-weekly would be a burden on the candidates, but then these folks expect to be president one day, so it's not too much to ask if they want all that power. The more often they're exposed to situations they don't control fully control the better. We need to see how these folks operate under pressure, and my format suggestion would add a deal of pressure and force them to apply some intellectual rigor to their own positions and their understanding of their opponents'.
But neither party would ever agree to this, even though this could be a benefit to both given that the candidates who emerged from this process would be razor sharp and battle tested rather than some sad sack standard bearer who gets a shot at the presidency simply cause it was their turn.
But the format itself is a dead format and should be abandoned.
Here's the debate format I'd like to see.
Acknowledge that the way the system works now, there are a first tier and second tier of candidates. That's the reality, and by letting everyone who can get there name on a ballot to participate, you only make it harder for voters to see the differences between the candidates that might actually have a chance to be running the country one day.
Another thing worth changing would be to combine the Democrats and Republicans together. These debates are a conversation, and that conversation should offer both sides, not just one or the other, the earlier both major parties actively engage the other, the better it would be for both party's electorate to determine which candidate is best capable of offering a strong challenge in the only poll that matters, the one on the 2nd Tuesday in November of an election year.
So here's the format, invite four candidates from each party to bi-weekly debates. If logistics makes meeting in the same town impossible, there's this thing called teleconferencing, and I hear you can do pretty amazing things with it.
Have each candidate be the "host" for ten minutes at a time, asking questions to the four opposing party candidates. Have a moderator ensure that they don't use their time to ask 9 minute questions full of their own campaign talking points, but instead reward candidates for engaging the other side directly. If Sen. Clinton is a legitimate potential leader for this nation, she ought to be able to ask questions, and get asked questions, directly from Mayor Giuliani or Sen. McCain, or Gov. Romney. Likewise, a former prosecutor like Giuliani would have fun going after Clinton, or Sen. Obama, or Sen. Edwards on specific issues of interest to him and the nation.
If a candidate like Romney wanted to spend his time getting the Dems to bicker amongst themselves, he could, or he could directly challenge them to explain how their choices would be better for the country. Likewise Obama could use his time as "host" to offer a quick take on his views and challenge any of the leading Republicans to offer better.
By forcing the two sides together as early as possible, that would change the tone of these debates from monologue to dialogue. It would be up to each candidate to decide whether that dialogue should be shrill, informative, cooperative, or combative. This would give the primary voters real information on how these folks would perform come general election time, and it would generate far more interest amongst that big group of independents who sit these things out till the last minute usually.
The current format favors agreement over conflict (except when it comes to the fringe candidates like Paul, Gravel or Kucinich), and that's boring. My suggestion favors engagement while at least offering the possibility that a touch of substance might seep to the surface.
Also, by rotating in a different 4th from each party, you'd give the possibility that somebody currently on the outside like Gov. Richardson or Gov. Huckabee could make a big enough impression to build up a more solid base. Right now there's just too much noise and too little time to do so. Also, having those two changing seats in the debate would mark a difference and add some needed unpredictability to these proceedings.
Bi-weekly would be a burden on the candidates, but then these folks expect to be president one day, so it's not too much to ask if they want all that power. The more often they're exposed to situations they don't control fully control the better. We need to see how these folks operate under pressure, and my format suggestion would add a deal of pressure and force them to apply some intellectual rigor to their own positions and their understanding of their opponents'.
But neither party would ever agree to this, even though this could be a benefit to both given that the candidates who emerged from this process would be razor sharp and battle tested rather than some sad sack standard bearer who gets a shot at the presidency simply cause it was their turn.
A Reader Suggests . . .
Scouring my endless torrent of email, I came across a suggestion from a reader
Anyway, that's what "a reader suggests", I certainly wouldn't have put my criticisms of Mr. Sullivan in those terms, I would have just pointed you to his rather incomprehensible man crush on Rep. Ron Paul as all the evidence you need that Sully has lost his freaking mind.
Don't believe me? Look at his reaction to the debate yesterday, in a series of posts that boggle my mind he takes on the media for their unfair(!) portrayal of Dr. Ron Paul as a crackpot.
He seems to think that internet polls are beyond gaming and sees Paul's victory in a Worldnet Daily poll as proof that Paul has appeal to rabid conservatives. If The Advocate had a poll on gay marriage and a bunch of "Christianist" (his term, certainly not mine) jumped in and skewed the results, I doubt he'd take that poll seriously. I suspect a serious case of the Mobys whenever these polls go up and some lefty jokers are organizing to screw up every online and text message poll where Ron Paul is an option. If Republicans and conservatives didn't have lives, they could do the same to the Dems and Gravel would win every time, but things like google bombing and astroturf letter campaigns and poll fixing are mostly the provenance of lefty losers and tech savvy idiots with too much time on their hands.
Whenever I visit Sully's site I tell myself this is the last time as he has ceased being capable of sustaining a thought that's worth listening to, yet I still venture over there. What's wrong with me?
Notice how whenever Andrew Sullivan does one of his "a reader writes" or "a reader suggests" that this unnamed reader basically says exactly what Mr. Sullivan was thinking. I'm beginning to think that there are no readers, and that he's faking these emails! I know, shocking to say the least, but it does seem like just a tired, hackneyed and pussified way to distance himself from statements that he wanted to make anyway but which he's hoping to paint with a shimmering veneer of credibility that if he just comes out and says that this is what he thinks may lack. And when I say that this is pussified behavior, I of course mean no disrespect towards his orientation. There are plenty of pussified heterosexual men, and there are plenty of non-pussified homosexual men, but when it comes to matters of intellectual honesty there are more than a few occaisons of late where Mr. Sullivan is one big massive vagina.
Anyway, that's what "a reader suggests", I certainly wouldn't have put my criticisms of Mr. Sullivan in those terms, I would have just pointed you to his rather incomprehensible man crush on Rep. Ron Paul as all the evidence you need that Sully has lost his freaking mind.
Don't believe me? Look at his reaction to the debate yesterday, in a series of posts that boggle my mind he takes on the media for their unfair(!) portrayal of Dr. Ron Paul as a crackpot.
He seems to think that internet polls are beyond gaming and sees Paul's victory in a Worldnet Daily poll as proof that Paul has appeal to rabid conservatives. If The Advocate had a poll on gay marriage and a bunch of "Christianist" (his term, certainly not mine) jumped in and skewed the results, I doubt he'd take that poll seriously. I suspect a serious case of the Mobys whenever these polls go up and some lefty jokers are organizing to screw up every online and text message poll where Ron Paul is an option. If Republicans and conservatives didn't have lives, they could do the same to the Dems and Gravel would win every time, but things like google bombing and astroturf letter campaigns and poll fixing are mostly the provenance of lefty losers and tech savvy idiots with too much time on their hands.
Whenever I visit Sully's site I tell myself this is the last time as he has ceased being capable of sustaining a thought that's worth listening to, yet I still venture over there. What's wrong with me?
15 May 2007
They're All A Bunch of Losers
While listening to the radio I heard a bit of the BBC Panorama reporter going ballistic with a Scientology representative.
Knowing there's more to the story, and knowing everything always ends up on YouTube, I was rewarded.
Above is the losing it snippet (the Scientology approved and provided version). It's a classic of the genre, it may never be topped. He goes from zero to insane, then back to zero, then right back to insane, in nothing flat. It's marvelous. Michael Palin doing his martinet routine couldn't have done it better.
But there was a backstory of course, as there always is. Sweeney was doing a hit piece on Scientology, and he was being pointedly jerky with all his pro-Scientology subjects. He would have done a better job destroying them had he not childishly insisted on bringing up Xenu or insisting on calling their religion a cult to their faces.
They are creepy enough when allowed to say what they want to say that you don't need to be confrontational to make them look like assholes. Instead he came across as the asshole the whole time. He lost it where he had his strongest case against them. Their ridiculous assertion that psychiatry can be blamed for the holocaust, 9/11, and just about every other thing wrong with this world is pretty damn crazy, and if it wasn't against their religion, I'd suggest they all need to seek psychiatric help. It's a sick and twisted game that Scientologists play when they try and subvert history to support their own pet neuroses regarding psychiatry. But, because that's where Sweeney loses it, that point might be lost on some viewers.
It does seem fairly clear that 'fair game' (explained in the piece as the practice of savaging critics and intimidating them with every legal, physical and emotional trick possible) is still in play, even if they claim that's not part of their tactics anymore.
It's entertaining, even if it's a bit vile, and for the moment is up in its entirety on YouTube.
Panorama Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV
And his Scientologiststalker minder, Tommy Davis, is a close talker, I hate close talkers (but you have to love the Judge Reinhold)
It's hard to know who to hate more in this, on the one hand you have Tommy Davis who is pretty damn creepy, on the other you have the ridiculously biased and supremely unjournalistic BBC Panorama crew, which make our crappy 20/20s and Datelines look downright responsible.
I'd call it a draw this time, but there's definitely no winners in this exchange, only losers.
Here's Sweeney's explanation (or apology in the original sense of the word) regarding these events.
Knowing there's more to the story, and knowing everything always ends up on YouTube, I was rewarded.
Above is the losing it snippet (the Scientology approved and provided version). It's a classic of the genre, it may never be topped. He goes from zero to insane, then back to zero, then right back to insane, in nothing flat. It's marvelous. Michael Palin doing his martinet routine couldn't have done it better.
But there was a backstory of course, as there always is. Sweeney was doing a hit piece on Scientology, and he was being pointedly jerky with all his pro-Scientology subjects. He would have done a better job destroying them had he not childishly insisted on bringing up Xenu or insisting on calling their religion a cult to their faces.
They are creepy enough when allowed to say what they want to say that you don't need to be confrontational to make them look like assholes. Instead he came across as the asshole the whole time. He lost it where he had his strongest case against them. Their ridiculous assertion that psychiatry can be blamed for the holocaust, 9/11, and just about every other thing wrong with this world is pretty damn crazy, and if it wasn't against their religion, I'd suggest they all need to seek psychiatric help. It's a sick and twisted game that Scientologists play when they try and subvert history to support their own pet neuroses regarding psychiatry. But, because that's where Sweeney loses it, that point might be lost on some viewers.
It does seem fairly clear that 'fair game' (explained in the piece as the practice of savaging critics and intimidating them with every legal, physical and emotional trick possible) is still in play, even if they claim that's not part of their tactics anymore.
It's entertaining, even if it's a bit vile, and for the moment is up in its entirety on YouTube.
Panorama Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV
And his Scientologist
It's hard to know who to hate more in this, on the one hand you have Tommy Davis who is pretty damn creepy, on the other you have the ridiculously biased and supremely unjournalistic BBC Panorama crew, which make our crappy 20/20s and Datelines look downright responsible.
I'd call it a draw this time, but there's definitely no winners in this exchange, only losers.
Here's Sweeney's explanation (or apology in the original sense of the word) regarding these events.
Lileks Should Go to Disneyworld and Get Fired/Reassigned/Quit More Often
The last two Bleats have been terrific, and he promises two more regarding his time in Orlando. Has me half wanting to go to Disneyland (where I haven't been for about a decade). Do they rent out 5-7 year olds with which to share the experience? (Links to the whole week, Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV)
(if only that wouldn't be so creepy)
Someone should pay Lileks (and wife if she could get the time off) to travel with Gnat this summer and take 4-5 weeks hitting all the major theme parks across the country.
It might kill him, but it'd make for some great writing.
The well of feeling for non-Disney parks wouldn't be as great, obviously, and Gnat is probably too young for the major coaster parks like Magic Mountain and Cedar Point, but surely Knott's and Dollywood, and the various Seaworlds, and Universal parks might produce some worthwhile reading.
Ideally, he could be partnered with some foreigner with which to share and trade observations about that particularly exuberant and corporate expression of Americana represented by major theme parks. Imagine a podcast/blogposts/bloggingheads collected from him travelling around these parks with Christopher Hitchens or Andrew Sullivan or Mark Steyn.
The mind boggles (in a good way) at the possibilities.
And judging from some of the comments he makes during Part II of his Disneybleats, I'm fairly certain that regarding his current employment, Lileks has indeed taken it, and shoved it as deeply and firmly as possible (but constant exposure to all things Disney may have prevented Johnny Paycheck's song from creeping into his consciousness).
(if only that wouldn't be so creepy)
Someone should pay Lileks (and wife if she could get the time off) to travel with Gnat this summer and take 4-5 weeks hitting all the major theme parks across the country.
It might kill him, but it'd make for some great writing.
The well of feeling for non-Disney parks wouldn't be as great, obviously, and Gnat is probably too young for the major coaster parks like Magic Mountain and Cedar Point, but surely Knott's and Dollywood, and the various Seaworlds, and Universal parks might produce some worthwhile reading.
Ideally, he could be partnered with some foreigner with which to share and trade observations about that particularly exuberant and corporate expression of Americana represented by major theme parks. Imagine a podcast/blogposts/bloggingheads collected from him travelling around these parks with Christopher Hitchens or Andrew Sullivan or Mark Steyn.
The mind boggles (in a good way) at the possibilities.
And judging from some of the comments he makes during Part II of his Disneybleats, I'm fairly certain that regarding his current employment, Lileks has indeed taken it, and shoved it as deeply and firmly as possible (but constant exposure to all things Disney may have prevented Johnny Paycheck's song from creeping into his consciousness).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)