Hunter S. Thompson spoke to me because I was just too late for the '60s. Oh, I certainly knew about them. I watched the evening news with dad. Heck, I lived in freakin' San Francisco. But I didn't hit puberty until around 1970, after the heyday had gone. By the time high school rolled around and drugs and free love could actually be invited into my life, the Haight Ashbury was dead, Vietnam was pretty much over and disco was king. I and my friends felt cheated. If only we'd been born just a little bit sooner ...
So Thompson's first person style of reporting from the field caught the eye and heart of me and my friends. "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" was the lost weekend we all dreamed about but didn't have the nerve to pull off. "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" explained all the fire over the McGovern campaign and loss we just missed. By the time I was ready to vote it had come down to Ford vs. Carter, dull and duller. There were no organized hippies, no antiwar demonstrators pounding the campaign pavement, just Jimmy Carter apologizing for having "lust in his heart." For adolescent boys, who have lust running all over their bodies, it was hard to understand this one.
Thompson also offered a warning. Part of his drug fueled mania seemed motivated by his taking life and politics just waaaay too seriously. I considered and still consider a life around politics a good life indeed, but I would never want to get to the point where it sent me into hallucinogenic depression. Hallucinogenic alone would do fine as an end point. I've always tried to keep this in mind, as I've swallowed life under Republican ascendancy over the last twenty years. The Republic keeps standing, gays are prevalent on teevee and black people anywhere in the media are never poor. Progress keeps up, regardless of how often people themselves seem to want to slow it down.
So I settle into my chair and watch the sunset over the Central Valley with a cold beer and memories of the Summer of Love I never lived. Which is even better, considering that this way I can make it all up.
Bye Hunter. See you in the afterlife, I'm sure.
Go here for the New York Times's retrospective on the life and times of Hunter S. Thompson. (Registration required)
Monday, February 21, 2005
Freaks with Bombs
From the New York Times:
To Europeans, the latest example of Washington's failure to recognize their diplomatic preferences is its stance on Iran. The European Union will press Mr. Bush to support the European initiative with Iran that envisions rewards if Iran gives up important nuclear activities, an approach the United States rejects.
In "On the Beach", the great story about life after the Day After (anyone else remember that incredibly unintentionally funny 1983 ABC TV movie about WW3?) the Big One is started when a Nasser-like Egyptian leader drops a big bomb on Washington, DC and New York City. The U.S. thinks the Soviets did it, and retaliates and off we went to Armageddon. The prescient lesson at a time when only the really big countries had the bomb is that we just can't trust the freaks with the future of humanity.
So it worries people when North Korea says it has the Bomb and Iran insists it's not trying but no one believes that at all.
When I was in college I had a poster of a hydrogen bomb explosion. A friend of mine thought this was terrifying and asked me if I weren't afraid of this sort of thing. Sure, I said, but if and when WW3 comes, it'll likely come from either a local US or Soviet commander acting a fool (like what might have happened in Cuba had we invaded) or from some nimrod country with nothing to lose. For the US and USSR the bombs were Sampson weapons, something you threaten with when all else seems lost. You don't burn down the town you're trying to take over unless you're going to lose it anyway, and if you can't have it, you'll be damned if the other guy does.
Maniacs don't have the luxury of this logic. The big bombs serve as equalizers, where rooty poots get to act big, and since they generally don't run anything too many people would miss if it got blasted off the face of the earth, they have little to lose. Except a seat in Heaven or legendary status in their own minds.
Bush's take is to:
a) refuse the obvious bribe,
b) loudly threaten isolation, and
c) quietly threaten force.
The likely response to this from today's Dear Leaders and mad mullahs is:
a) ask again,
b) laugh at being cut off when the US has no leverage to enforce that, and
c) consider this additional justification for building the bombs as deterrent.
The US has spent decades "isolating" Cuba to no effect. As long as Europe and Latin American continue relations, it hurts but it's not fatal. The Europeans are using their continued relationship with Iran to gain political leverage on this issue. They're not going to shut that off just because Bush asks them too. Iran offers then a unique place to forge a unique EU voice, they're not giving that up. And South Korea is attempting to do in the North what even many conservatives say is the best way to bring down Castro, flood the island with capitalism. They're not likely to stop doing that either, just 'cause Bush asks them too.
So we're left with bribe or bomb. Bribing worked under Clinton. North Korea built no bombs, threatened no one who lived outside of the country. Bombing Iran just weakens whatever political energy the democrat moderates might have, and overextends an already ridiculously overextended American military.
So the answer's simple. Cut 'em checks, on the grounds that we get real boots on the ground willing and able to effectively monitor nuclear facilities. Iran gets expanded economic ties. North Korea gets some cash to turn the lights back on. It's so simple.
But it gets in the way of Bush Co. pride. So it won't happen. At least soon.
BTW, if you've never read "On the Beach" or seen the movie, don't. It's pretty depressing.
To Europeans, the latest example of Washington's failure to recognize their diplomatic preferences is its stance on Iran. The European Union will press Mr. Bush to support the European initiative with Iran that envisions rewards if Iran gives up important nuclear activities, an approach the United States rejects.
In "On the Beach", the great story about life after the Day After (anyone else remember that incredibly unintentionally funny 1983 ABC TV movie about WW3?) the Big One is started when a Nasser-like Egyptian leader drops a big bomb on Washington, DC and New York City. The U.S. thinks the Soviets did it, and retaliates and off we went to Armageddon. The prescient lesson at a time when only the really big countries had the bomb is that we just can't trust the freaks with the future of humanity.
So it worries people when North Korea says it has the Bomb and Iran insists it's not trying but no one believes that at all.
When I was in college I had a poster of a hydrogen bomb explosion. A friend of mine thought this was terrifying and asked me if I weren't afraid of this sort of thing. Sure, I said, but if and when WW3 comes, it'll likely come from either a local US or Soviet commander acting a fool (like what might have happened in Cuba had we invaded) or from some nimrod country with nothing to lose. For the US and USSR the bombs were Sampson weapons, something you threaten with when all else seems lost. You don't burn down the town you're trying to take over unless you're going to lose it anyway, and if you can't have it, you'll be damned if the other guy does.
Maniacs don't have the luxury of this logic. The big bombs serve as equalizers, where rooty poots get to act big, and since they generally don't run anything too many people would miss if it got blasted off the face of the earth, they have little to lose. Except a seat in Heaven or legendary status in their own minds.
Bush's take is to:
a) refuse the obvious bribe,
b) loudly threaten isolation, and
c) quietly threaten force.
The likely response to this from today's Dear Leaders and mad mullahs is:
a) ask again,
b) laugh at being cut off when the US has no leverage to enforce that, and
c) consider this additional justification for building the bombs as deterrent.
The US has spent decades "isolating" Cuba to no effect. As long as Europe and Latin American continue relations, it hurts but it's not fatal. The Europeans are using their continued relationship with Iran to gain political leverage on this issue. They're not going to shut that off just because Bush asks them too. Iran offers then a unique place to forge a unique EU voice, they're not giving that up. And South Korea is attempting to do in the North what even many conservatives say is the best way to bring down Castro, flood the island with capitalism. They're not likely to stop doing that either, just 'cause Bush asks them too.
So we're left with bribe or bomb. Bribing worked under Clinton. North Korea built no bombs, threatened no one who lived outside of the country. Bombing Iran just weakens whatever political energy the democrat moderates might have, and overextends an already ridiculously overextended American military.
So the answer's simple. Cut 'em checks, on the grounds that we get real boots on the ground willing and able to effectively monitor nuclear facilities. Iran gets expanded economic ties. North Korea gets some cash to turn the lights back on. It's so simple.
But it gets in the way of Bush Co. pride. So it won't happen. At least soon.
BTW, if you've never read "On the Beach" or seen the movie, don't. It's pretty depressing.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Trekking to Oblivion
"To boldly go where so many shows have gone, ... into the wastebasket."
I found out about the cancellation of ‘Enterprise’, the latest Star Trek series, in a weird way. I was scanning through my StarTrek.com e-newsletter. There was the usual list of stories. Interview with …, Appearance by …., Enterprise:Cancelled, Web Site revised ….
What? That’s it? A footnote in an e-zine? You’d think they’d make a lot more out of this. Not only is the show going off the air, but unlike the last three renditions, it isn’t to clear the way for something else. No mo’ Trek, at least for awhile.
Now, clearly I’m a Trekker (as distinguished from “Trekkie”, but I’ll explain the critical difference later). Not only that, I’m an original Trekker. I watched the original show during its original run in the ‘60s. This makes me an oddball at Star Trek Conventions (resist the temptation to say what you want to say). The Gospel is that no one watched the original show, that it revived through syndication during the ‘70s. I mentioned that I happened to watch the original show while talking to a friend at the 5th anniversary celebration for “ST:The Next Generation” back in ’92 and stopped conversation in the immediate vicinity. They all just stared at me like I’d just said I was there when Jesus raised the dead.
But a lot of us did watch the show in the ‘60s. We just weren’t counted. At the time, Nielsen only counted the set Dad watched in the living room. All those secondary black and white sets with kids in front of them down in the basement or den didn’t count. After all, who cares what kids watch? (Sounds funny now, don’t it?) I even wrote one of the famous letters to NBC which kept the show on for one more season.
Star Trek died of its own success. The franchise proved that science fiction, if done well enough, could build an audience. This happened just as the explosion of syndication and cable channels carved up the market. Instead of going for whatever would wash across the broadest spectrum, teevee had to create niches, and sci-fi provided that. A mid-‘60s teevee critic wrote that Kirk and Spock belonged on Saturday morning, not Thursday night. TNG earned Paramount money because it was, at one point, the most watched show for men between 19 and 35. Needless to say, now there are a good half dozen sci-fi shows on, and a good dozen since TNG aired. Some were crappy, some were silly, some were very good and died fast (Fox’s ‘Firefly’) but there’s no shortage and no coming shortage of shows. Star Trek, once unique, ended up just another blip on the sensors.
The backdrop since midway between the first season has been the United Federation of Planets, a U.N. in space led by United Earth, the American internationalists’ wet dream. Wouldn’t it be great, I thought, if somehow Paramount developed episodes, or even a show, on how all this came about? It did, in Enterprise. Unfortunately, it didn’t get around to actually telling this story until this season, apparently too late for the audience. Half that audience failed to return for the second season, and the show’s struggled in the ratings since. After the colossal disappointment of ‘Voyager’, too many base fans had left. (Even ‘Voyager’ was a symptom of success. Paramount wanted a Trek show to anchor its new network and fashioned an uninteresting crew it thought would attract younger viewers.)
Fortunately, there are always reruns and DVD’s. I had to stay home during the week recently to care for a sick Leroy and found that Spike Network carried two DS9 and then two TNG episodes every day. That’s four hours of Trek. I taped most of the second and third seasons of TNG thinking I’d keep them for posterity. What a fool. The reruns are on everywhere, and I can get whole seasons on one DVD. The franchise will live on, even if Captain Archer’s trip to found the Federation gets cut a little short.
As a matter of fact, I have to go watch my tape of last night’s ‘Enterprise’. It might be the one where they explain howcum the Klingons got the funny heads after the original series. I’ve been waiting since 1979, when the first Trek movie came out, to find out this one, even if Worf did say in ‘DS9’s’ Trials and Tribblations’ that it’s something they just don’t talk about.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Winners and Losers
One of the great things about being a sports fan is that I can understand politics a lot better.
As Howard Dean ascends to the DNC chairmanship, a move I strongly support, I keep reading about how his campaign "imploded" in the early primaries. It did no such thing.
Dean struck a chord among "Tired of taking it" Democrats, who feel, righteously so, that the national leadership is so afraid of being tarred as "liberal" that they're afraid to take any strong stand on anything, allowed The Enemy to tar them anyway because we don't define ourselves first. But is that enough to choose a candidate on? No. When put to the test, Democratic voters made the rational choice that Kerry was the better candidate to stand against Bush. They were right too. Dean didn't "implode", which implies mass failure on his part. He was simply reviewed against other candidates when it mattered and came up short.
His campaign was revolutionary. Even conservative nutcase Richard Viguirie admired the way it used alternative media to connect with voters. It would be a waste to turn away from his clear ability to organize and galvanize voters. Glad to see the DNC made a sensible choice itself in choosing its leader.
But why do we say he "imploded"? The answer, as in so many things in life, lies in baseball.
The San Francisco Giants' Dustin Hermanson came into a late season game against the Houston Astros with his team leading 3-2. It was the top of the ninth inning, and a win would mean a Giants sweep of the three game series and a strong position to make the post-season wild card. It wasn't to be. Lance Berkman hit a three run homer off Hermanson and the Astros rallied to win.
The next day, a sports page noted that Hermanson threw a "mistake" to Berkman, which led to the Giants' loss. Yet, a replay of the game showed that it was a actually a pretty good pitch, low and to the inside. It was hard to hit, but Berkman did it anyway.
The moral of the story is that sometimes you don't lose, the other guy wins. But Americans don't like to hear this. Loss is generally viewed as something we bring upon ourselves, that winning is as much a matter of choice as circumstances and dynamics. Yet Hermanson has no control over whether or not Berkman could hit that pitch. Many, if not most, batters couldn't. It would probably get most batters out. But Berkman happened to be a good batter who happened to get good wood on the pitch. The Astros won because he won, not because Hermanson lost.
So now Dean gets to loose his fastball in another game where he has more control over the outcome. This more skills contest than competitive game. Personally, I think he'll do quite well.
As Howard Dean ascends to the DNC chairmanship, a move I strongly support, I keep reading about how his campaign "imploded" in the early primaries. It did no such thing.
Dean struck a chord among "Tired of taking it" Democrats, who feel, righteously so, that the national leadership is so afraid of being tarred as "liberal" that they're afraid to take any strong stand on anything, allowed The Enemy to tar them anyway because we don't define ourselves first. But is that enough to choose a candidate on? No. When put to the test, Democratic voters made the rational choice that Kerry was the better candidate to stand against Bush. They were right too. Dean didn't "implode", which implies mass failure on his part. He was simply reviewed against other candidates when it mattered and came up short.
His campaign was revolutionary. Even conservative nutcase Richard Viguirie admired the way it used alternative media to connect with voters. It would be a waste to turn away from his clear ability to organize and galvanize voters. Glad to see the DNC made a sensible choice itself in choosing its leader.
But why do we say he "imploded"? The answer, as in so many things in life, lies in baseball.
The San Francisco Giants' Dustin Hermanson came into a late season game against the Houston Astros with his team leading 3-2. It was the top of the ninth inning, and a win would mean a Giants sweep of the three game series and a strong position to make the post-season wild card. It wasn't to be. Lance Berkman hit a three run homer off Hermanson and the Astros rallied to win.
The next day, a sports page noted that Hermanson threw a "mistake" to Berkman, which led to the Giants' loss. Yet, a replay of the game showed that it was a actually a pretty good pitch, low and to the inside. It was hard to hit, but Berkman did it anyway.
The moral of the story is that sometimes you don't lose, the other guy wins. But Americans don't like to hear this. Loss is generally viewed as something we bring upon ourselves, that winning is as much a matter of choice as circumstances and dynamics. Yet Hermanson has no control over whether or not Berkman could hit that pitch. Many, if not most, batters couldn't. It would probably get most batters out. But Berkman happened to be a good batter who happened to get good wood on the pitch. The Astros won because he won, not because Hermanson lost.
So now Dean gets to loose his fastball in another game where he has more control over the outcome. This more skills contest than competitive game. Personally, I think he'll do quite well.
XXXIX
DHGulley said...
"My man McNabb didn't do so well..."
Yup. And he sucked in the Pro Bowl, too. Starting to see a pattern?
So he can't stand in The Big Game. Maybe he can go to Arizona, where they don't expect as much as Philly. Where they don't expect anything, actually.
I found myself spending some down time in Phoenix airport during a trip a couple of years ago. I got into a chat with a local about football, and the fact that the Arizona Cardinals are lucky to pull 25,000 some games.
"It's the heat", the guy said. "Anyone here knows they have to play at night. But the teevee contract requires afternoon games, and who wants to sit out there in 95 degree heat for three hours?"
Maybe they need to give out "Croix de Cardinal" buttons, similar to what the Giants gave out to hardy souls who sat through extra inning night games at the 'Stick some years ago.
All this talk of the ridiculously-named Arizona Cardinals leads me to this business of naming teams after whole states. It's silly and ought'n be allowed, except when the name is cool. Like the Colorado Rockies, or Texas Rangers. Even the Minnesota Twins works, and I'll allow "new England because it's a regional state of mind." But the "California" Angels was a joke. The whole "Angels" name was a play on L.A. and the former minor league team of the same name. To say nothing of the fact that four other teams happened to play in the state too. Don't get me started on "Los Angeles of Anaheim." How's that fit in a sports page standings box? What's next, "The New York Giants of New Jersey"?
And Florida Marlins, what, are they too embarrassed to be part of "Miami"? The Tennessee Titans are the silliest. They play in Nashville, where people have an image of country music, the Grand Ol' Opry and all that. Roll with it. It's a fine town, be proud of your roots. I also have to admire the NBA Suns, who are brave enough to stand up for the proud municipality of 'Phoenix', durn it, unlike the local baseball and football teams.
Maybe the answer to all this is to follow the Japanese model and name the team after the company which owns them. It's more honest. I mean, it really isn't the "San Francisco" Giants because none of the players come from there. When Toronto beat Philly in the '93 Series one Canadian paper wrote, "Our Dominicans beat their Dominicans." They're all really just mercenary hirelings battling out for the bosses.
So let's have a Series where the McDonalds Giants face off against the Ford Motor Tigers or some such. In the most capitalistic of major capitalistic nations, this is the way it should be. We could even get a guy to dress up like Calvin Coolidge every year to throw out the first ball.
Dirty Rotten Commies
Anonymous wrote:
"The fatal flaw in traditional Marxist theory and practice was the notion that the revolutionary dictatorship would allow itself to wither away."
By traditional, you mean Leninist. A seemingly minor quibble that may not be altogether minor. There are a plethora of socialist theories that lend themselves to very different practices. They all owe something to Marx. http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf
Yes, I'll grant that "traditional" is the spin applied by the societies which adopted Marxist theory and put it into practice. There were other communistic theories in play, such as Anarchism, which generally held that the state had to be done away with first. One problem with that, as the Spanish Anarchists discovered trying to fight Franco's Fascists, is that it's hard to get anything done when just about everything is put to a vote. "All those in favor of charging the machine gun nest, raise their hand ...".
I think the biggest revelation is that when people become Communists, they don't somehow become "better" or more enlightened people than the rest of us. Traditional Western democratic theory is based on trying to keep any one or faction from accumulating too much power by creating offsetting power structures. This less trustworthy view of human nature appears to be the most practical over time.
"The fatal flaw in traditional Marxist theory and practice was the notion that the revolutionary dictatorship would allow itself to wither away."
By traditional, you mean Leninist. A seemingly minor quibble that may not be altogether minor. There are a plethora of socialist theories that lend themselves to very different practices. They all owe something to Marx. http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf
Yes, I'll grant that "traditional" is the spin applied by the societies which adopted Marxist theory and put it into practice. There were other communistic theories in play, such as Anarchism, which generally held that the state had to be done away with first. One problem with that, as the Spanish Anarchists discovered trying to fight Franco's Fascists, is that it's hard to get anything done when just about everything is put to a vote. "All those in favor of charging the machine gun nest, raise their hand ...".
I think the biggest revelation is that when people become Communists, they don't somehow become "better" or more enlightened people than the rest of us. Traditional Western democratic theory is based on trying to keep any one or faction from accumulating too much power by creating offsetting power structures. This less trustworthy view of human nature appears to be the most practical over time.
All-American Sports
Anonymous commentator said:
"Yeah, but you guys (Blue States) get the 49ers."
Whoop-de-doo. Have you seen their record lately? Fortunately, there seems to be some hope on the horizon. The cheap-ass owner's backed up the truck on the whole staff and next season doesn't seem likely a bottomless stanky hole.
Like most new coaches, Nolan comes in with a ton of authority, because ownership is desperate and will give him whatever he wants. If the record elsewhere is any indication, this is a for a limited time. As the seasons go by, ownership in our "win or else" sports culture gets frustrated and gradually shaves all this authority off, as both punishment and so the coach "can focus on the field." Just watch. It'll happen.
The real test of how invested the 'Niners owner wants to be comes with the stadium. Simply put, he's gonna have to build it hisownself. The City's meager contribution was based on some kind of revenue-generating mall built where no one is ever going to go to shop. The only way any new football stadium is built is with York's own money. Maybe not in San Francisco, since only Candlestick's got the space to do it. Heck, maybe this is San Jose's chance to get a pro sports team, since the 'Niners are already HQ and summer camping it there.
I'll miss the 'Stick, though. A crappy baseball park, it actually serves football well. The weather's better during fall days than summer nights, and it'll always be home to those great moments from the '80s and '90s. Sigh ...
Which brings us to baseball. People keep bugging me about the steroids thang. I feel like Stephen King being interviewed in the stands at Fenway during Game Three of the ALCS, as the Yankees were whomping the Sox a zillion to two, and seemingly well on their way to the Series. King kept telling the guy that the Sox had a great year and he enjoyed it all, and the interviewer kept nagging him to break down and cry. He didn't.
Baseball, like all pro sports, makes money by giving us a welcome diversion after a tough day or week at the mines. It ain't real life to us. This ain't so for sportswriters. This is all they do and think about, because it's their living. They got nothing to apply it against to give them perspective. So they blow it all out of proportion. Add any writers dream to go Woodward and Bernstein on some issue, and it's not surprising the whole thing is treated like the Watergate break in. But it's not.
No one has ever said how many more home runs any player has hit because they goosed up their body strength. Putting on lbs. is generally accepted in baseball. Some teams encourage it among young players, so they can hit the ball harder. Did growth inducing steroids make it easier for some to bulk up? Certainly. But they woulda done it anyway. As I understand it, you take these things as part of an exercise regimen. They ain't comic book Power Pills, duck into a nearby phone booth, down one and fly out to save the day as SuperStud. If they're unhealthy, then regulate and/or ban them. But you can't punish someone after the fact.
All I know now about Barry Bonds is that this season, as always, the crowd at SBC will stop whatever it's doing, even buying hot dogs, when he steps to the plate, to watch. He's exciting to watch, and for $25 a seat in the upper deck, that's all that matters.
"Yeah, but you guys (Blue States) get the 49ers."
Whoop-de-doo. Have you seen their record lately? Fortunately, there seems to be some hope on the horizon. The cheap-ass owner's backed up the truck on the whole staff and next season doesn't seem likely a bottomless stanky hole.
Like most new coaches, Nolan comes in with a ton of authority, because ownership is desperate and will give him whatever he wants. If the record elsewhere is any indication, this is a for a limited time. As the seasons go by, ownership in our "win or else" sports culture gets frustrated and gradually shaves all this authority off, as both punishment and so the coach "can focus on the field." Just watch. It'll happen.
The real test of how invested the 'Niners owner wants to be comes with the stadium. Simply put, he's gonna have to build it hisownself. The City's meager contribution was based on some kind of revenue-generating mall built where no one is ever going to go to shop. The only way any new football stadium is built is with York's own money. Maybe not in San Francisco, since only Candlestick's got the space to do it. Heck, maybe this is San Jose's chance to get a pro sports team, since the 'Niners are already HQ and summer camping it there.
I'll miss the 'Stick, though. A crappy baseball park, it actually serves football well. The weather's better during fall days than summer nights, and it'll always be home to those great moments from the '80s and '90s. Sigh ...
Which brings us to baseball. People keep bugging me about the steroids thang. I feel like Stephen King being interviewed in the stands at Fenway during Game Three of the ALCS, as the Yankees were whomping the Sox a zillion to two, and seemingly well on their way to the Series. King kept telling the guy that the Sox had a great year and he enjoyed it all, and the interviewer kept nagging him to break down and cry. He didn't.
Baseball, like all pro sports, makes money by giving us a welcome diversion after a tough day or week at the mines. It ain't real life to us. This ain't so for sportswriters. This is all they do and think about, because it's their living. They got nothing to apply it against to give them perspective. So they blow it all out of proportion. Add any writers dream to go Woodward and Bernstein on some issue, and it's not surprising the whole thing is treated like the Watergate break in. But it's not.
No one has ever said how many more home runs any player has hit because they goosed up their body strength. Putting on lbs. is generally accepted in baseball. Some teams encourage it among young players, so they can hit the ball harder. Did growth inducing steroids make it easier for some to bulk up? Certainly. But they woulda done it anyway. As I understand it, you take these things as part of an exercise regimen. They ain't comic book Power Pills, duck into a nearby phone booth, down one and fly out to save the day as SuperStud. If they're unhealthy, then regulate and/or ban them. But you can't punish someone after the fact.
All I know now about Barry Bonds is that this season, as always, the crowd at SBC will stop whatever it's doing, even buying hot dogs, when he steps to the plate, to watch. He's exciting to watch, and for $25 a seat in the upper deck, that's all that matters.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
The Bear Flag Republic
Dear President Bush:
Congratulations on your victory over all us non-evangelicals.
Actually, we're a bit ticked offhere in California, so we're leaving. California will now be its own country. And we're taking all the Blue States with us. In case you are not aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and all of the Northeast. We spoke to God, and She agrees that this split will be beneficial to almost everybody, and especially to us in the new country of California. In fact, God is so excited about it, she's going to shift the whole country at 4:30 pm EST this Friday. Therefore, please let everyone know they need to be back in their states by then. So you get Texas and all the former slave states. We get the Governator, stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay. (Okay, we have to keep Martha Stewart, we can live with that.)
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.
We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard. You get Old Miss.
We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get all the technological innovation in Alabama.
We get about two-thirds of the tax revenue, and you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms to support, and we know how much you like that.
Did I mention we produce about 70% of the nation's veggies? But heck the only greens the Bible-thumpers eat are the pickles on their Big Macs.Oh yeah, another thing, don't plan on serving California wine at your state dinners. From now on it's imported French wine for you. Ouch, bet that hurts. Just so we're clear, the country of California will be pro-choice and anti-war.
Speaking of war, we're going to want all Blue States citizens back from Iraq. If you need people to fight, just ask your evangelicals. They have tons of kids they're willing to send to their deaths for absolutely no purpose. And they don't care if you don't show pictures of theirkids' caskets coming home.Anyway, we wish you all the best in the next four years and we hope, really hope, you find those missing weapons of mass destruction.
Seriously. Soon.Sincerely, California
Congratulations on your victory over all us non-evangelicals.
Actually, we're a bit ticked offhere in California, so we're leaving. California will now be its own country. And we're taking all the Blue States with us. In case you are not aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and all of the Northeast. We spoke to God, and She agrees that this split will be beneficial to almost everybody, and especially to us in the new country of California. In fact, God is so excited about it, she's going to shift the whole country at 4:30 pm EST this Friday. Therefore, please let everyone know they need to be back in their states by then. So you get Texas and all the former slave states. We get the Governator, stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay. (Okay, we have to keep Martha Stewart, we can live with that.)
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.
We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard. You get Old Miss.
We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get all the technological innovation in Alabama.
We get about two-thirds of the tax revenue, and you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms to support, and we know how much you like that.
Did I mention we produce about 70% of the nation's veggies? But heck the only greens the Bible-thumpers eat are the pickles on their Big Macs.Oh yeah, another thing, don't plan on serving California wine at your state dinners. From now on it's imported French wine for you. Ouch, bet that hurts. Just so we're clear, the country of California will be pro-choice and anti-war.
Speaking of war, we're going to want all Blue States citizens back from Iraq. If you need people to fight, just ask your evangelicals. They have tons of kids they're willing to send to their deaths for absolutely no purpose. And they don't care if you don't show pictures of theirkids' caskets coming home.Anyway, we wish you all the best in the next four years and we hope, really hope, you find those missing weapons of mass destruction.
Seriously. Soon.Sincerely, California
Rights
Of course, try telling a teenager to "be quiet" and they'll scream to the heavens about how they have a right to speak, and you can't tell -me- I can't talk, and I have a right to be heard, etc.
Kids are like most people. The only rights that matter are their own.
News Report:
First Amendment no big deal, students say
Study shows American teenagers indifferent to freedoms
Kids are like most people. The only rights that matter are their own.
News Report:
First Amendment no big deal, students say
Study shows American teenagers indifferent to freedoms
XXXIX
So My Man Donovan didn't play too well.
Hard to say whether it's lack of ability or lack of ability to rise to the occasion. That was the rap on Steve Young for years. He'd kick ass during the season, but get too excited to play to the same level in the Big Games. One of the announcers mentioned this as a probability early on, and it makes sense. I mean, it -is- what seems to define a lot of players. "Great career, but never got the ring."
Also, the Eagles lack of a solid running game came back to haunt them. Westbrook is fine as one of those all-purpose run-it-and-catch-it backs, but there's no one else back there. Where's the bruiser fullback who can block and guarantee a few yards just by falling forward? Without that, McNabb's forced to rely on running himself and on his WR's acrobatics to make up the difference in crunch time. This quickly turns into West Coast Offense of the worst sort.
The comparison was evident in the late quarters as Dillon was able to run and wear down the Eagles defense. Meanwhile, the Pats D could just sit back and wait for McNabb to throw one up for grabs. Donovan's got some pretty acrobatic receivers. They've probably bailed him out a lot during the season making impossible catches, but eventually that catches up to you.
The half-assing around as the game rolled up to the final gun shocked me too. But it shouldn't be surprising. From the games I saw over the season, clock management is a lost art among coaches. Maybe it comes from all those hours they insist they have to work. They just forget what the damn thing's up there for. Herman Edwards might be the worst among top team coaches, but he ain't alone. I mean, the whole -point- of football is to score within a set time frame, right? So why is watching the clock so hard? The mind boggles.
Starting out, it looked like the Pats were the nervous nellies. How many penalties before the half? And Dillon wasn't doing squat. But after he picked it up the whole team turned around, because then the Eagles were ripe for the play action. BTW, the last few SB's seem to start off slow, then pick up. I wonder if it's nerves, conservative game planning, or a little of both.
Talk about conservative, Paul McCartney's medley of song most people younger than me haven't heard and the dullest ads in years. The best one, to me, was MC Hammer spoofing his money problems. And he's clearly up for hire. That ad confused me at first. What's insurance got to do with Lay's potato chips, I thought? Then I realized ol' MC's just pimping himself good this game. Can we all agree, at least, that's it's a blessing that those "parachute" pants never caught on?
The broadcast itself had some shaky moments. The announcers didn't bother to realize that a lot of people tune in to the Super Bowl with little real idea how the game is played. Yet, they played in like any ol' Sunday morning scrimmage. They never tried to let anyone know how the replay challenge rule is used, for example. There was precious little graphic analysis, it seems, of the plays. A million useless angle shots, (can the Crotch Camera be far behind?) but football is best enjoyed when you see the misdirections, the favorable matchups and how other players open up to let the scoring play go down. Nuthin.' A chance to educate millions of potential new ongoing viewers lost.
Still, the Eagles beat the over-under in a pretty entertaining game overall. Yeah, lots of penalties and key turnovers but the turnovers make it interesting. Nothing like a team driving for a TD when "Oh, no!", a fumble/int on the two yard line! The Conventional Wisdom had the Pats in a walkover, despite the one touchdown betting line, so give the Eagles some credit for fighting the good fight before inevitably settling for the consolation prize.
Oh well, Philly gets to moan some more. Be interesting to see how the Philly press treats this. Did McNabb blow it, or did the Eagles just get beat by a better team? And what is it about Northeast pro sports anyway, from Boston through New York to Philly? Is life really that hard there that they have nothing else to hold on to?
Hard to say whether it's lack of ability or lack of ability to rise to the occasion. That was the rap on Steve Young for years. He'd kick ass during the season, but get too excited to play to the same level in the Big Games. One of the announcers mentioned this as a probability early on, and it makes sense. I mean, it -is- what seems to define a lot of players. "Great career, but never got the ring."
Also, the Eagles lack of a solid running game came back to haunt them. Westbrook is fine as one of those all-purpose run-it-and-catch-it backs, but there's no one else back there. Where's the bruiser fullback who can block and guarantee a few yards just by falling forward? Without that, McNabb's forced to rely on running himself and on his WR's acrobatics to make up the difference in crunch time. This quickly turns into West Coast Offense of the worst sort.
The comparison was evident in the late quarters as Dillon was able to run and wear down the Eagles defense. Meanwhile, the Pats D could just sit back and wait for McNabb to throw one up for grabs. Donovan's got some pretty acrobatic receivers. They've probably bailed him out a lot during the season making impossible catches, but eventually that catches up to you.
The half-assing around as the game rolled up to the final gun shocked me too. But it shouldn't be surprising. From the games I saw over the season, clock management is a lost art among coaches. Maybe it comes from all those hours they insist they have to work. They just forget what the damn thing's up there for. Herman Edwards might be the worst among top team coaches, but he ain't alone. I mean, the whole -point- of football is to score within a set time frame, right? So why is watching the clock so hard? The mind boggles.
Starting out, it looked like the Pats were the nervous nellies. How many penalties before the half? And Dillon wasn't doing squat. But after he picked it up the whole team turned around, because then the Eagles were ripe for the play action. BTW, the last few SB's seem to start off slow, then pick up. I wonder if it's nerves, conservative game planning, or a little of both.
Talk about conservative, Paul McCartney's medley of song most people younger than me haven't heard and the dullest ads in years. The best one, to me, was MC Hammer spoofing his money problems. And he's clearly up for hire. That ad confused me at first. What's insurance got to do with Lay's potato chips, I thought? Then I realized ol' MC's just pimping himself good this game. Can we all agree, at least, that's it's a blessing that those "parachute" pants never caught on?
The broadcast itself had some shaky moments. The announcers didn't bother to realize that a lot of people tune in to the Super Bowl with little real idea how the game is played. Yet, they played in like any ol' Sunday morning scrimmage. They never tried to let anyone know how the replay challenge rule is used, for example. There was precious little graphic analysis, it seems, of the plays. A million useless angle shots, (can the Crotch Camera be far behind?) but football is best enjoyed when you see the misdirections, the favorable matchups and how other players open up to let the scoring play go down. Nuthin.' A chance to educate millions of potential new ongoing viewers lost.
Still, the Eagles beat the over-under in a pretty entertaining game overall. Yeah, lots of penalties and key turnovers but the turnovers make it interesting. Nothing like a team driving for a TD when "Oh, no!", a fumble/int on the two yard line! The Conventional Wisdom had the Pats in a walkover, despite the one touchdown betting line, so give the Eagles some credit for fighting the good fight before inevitably settling for the consolation prize.
Oh well, Philly gets to moan some more. Be interesting to see how the Philly press treats this. Did McNabb blow it, or did the Eagles just get beat by a better team? And what is it about Northeast pro sports anyway, from Boston through New York to Philly? Is life really that hard there that they have nothing else to hold on to?
Peanuts and Crackerjack
Man, I sure hope this business of belting out "God Bless America" at ballgames stops this year.
It's not only mighty hard on the ears, give me "America the Beautiful" any day for good patriotic tune, it's a ridiculous choice in it's sung at the seventh inning in response to an attack by homicidal maniacs who insist they're doing God's bidding. It turns it all into a war of My God vs. Your God. I don't like baseball being used for that kind of nonsense. (I do go to church, BTW)
We didn't start singing the national anthem before ballgames until WW2. There was a big debate at the time over whether it was right to keep playing pro baseball in the middle of the war. By adding the national anthem, pro baseball made each game a pep rally, and earned justification for staying open (and keep making money) during the war.
Although I -love- "Take Me Out to the Ballgame." And I'll miss "O Canada" now that the Expos are in DC.
It's not only mighty hard on the ears, give me "America the Beautiful" any day for good patriotic tune, it's a ridiculous choice in it's sung at the seventh inning in response to an attack by homicidal maniacs who insist they're doing God's bidding. It turns it all into a war of My God vs. Your God. I don't like baseball being used for that kind of nonsense. (I do go to church, BTW)
We didn't start singing the national anthem before ballgames until WW2. There was a big debate at the time over whether it was right to keep playing pro baseball in the middle of the war. By adding the national anthem, pro baseball made each game a pep rally, and earned justification for staying open (and keep making money) during the war.
Although I -love- "Take Me Out to the Ballgame." And I'll miss "O Canada" now that the Expos are in DC.
The Red Menace
[From a conversation I had elsewhere in cyberspace]
Val,
Of course it never decentralized. A Communist state was by nature centralized. The fatal flaw in traditional Marxist theory and practice was the notion that the revolutionary dictatorship would allow itself to wither away. People tend to like absolute power once they get hold of it. It's fun. Communists were no different.
I can't speak to what East Germany did to "help people around the world". I know that in the US most foreign aid never leaves the country. Say the agriculture minister of Lower Slobbovia receives a dollop of American development aid. He gets a loan guarantee from the US govt, takes that to New York City to secure a bank loan, then spends that loan in Minnesota and Illinois on seed and farm equipment. The aid stays in the Union, generating profits for the bank, John Deere and ADM. This is why you rarely hear organized labor or big business complain about foreign aid. It's really just another transfer payment.
Back to the East Germans, a college friend of mine got a job driving the East German press corps around Los Angeles during the '84 Olympics. Since the Eastern bloc was boycotting the games in retaliation for Carter boycotting the '80 Moscow Games, the press corps didn't have much to do, so he ended up mainly showing them the sights.
They were like kids who'd never left the orphanage before, he said. Just about everything amazed them. They'd drive up to Jack in the Box restaurants just to hear the clown (remember this?) ask them for their order. They'd roar laughing, then ask to drive around and do it again. Supermarkets stunned them, particularly the extensive meat section. They would just stare at it for minutes on end. But nothing amazed them more than housing. They couldn't believe that even in South Central L.A. (and my friend noted that they had anything-but-progressive views on race overall) people could buy and own their own home.
They hated the Russians. They considered them backward and ignorant for the most part, and told my friend with some pride that the Soviets quietly used German expertise on everything from armaments to fishing, while offering nothing in return. "They're nothing but a drag on us", they said. They had a low opinion of the Soviet military, too. "Outside of the big bombs (nukes) there's nothing much for you Westerners to worry about. If they ever attack Europe", they said, "just drop some vodka and whores among them and they'll forget all about you." They accused the East German Communist Party of making money by supplying Soviet occupation troops with sex workers in return for hard currency which they kept outside of the country.
Moral to the story of Communism: you can't run a country with a Department of Everything doing everything. It just don't work.
But a little socialized health care right now ain't a bad idea.
Val,
Of course it never decentralized. A Communist state was by nature centralized. The fatal flaw in traditional Marxist theory and practice was the notion that the revolutionary dictatorship would allow itself to wither away. People tend to like absolute power once they get hold of it. It's fun. Communists were no different.
I can't speak to what East Germany did to "help people around the world". I know that in the US most foreign aid never leaves the country. Say the agriculture minister of Lower Slobbovia receives a dollop of American development aid. He gets a loan guarantee from the US govt, takes that to New York City to secure a bank loan, then spends that loan in Minnesota and Illinois on seed and farm equipment. The aid stays in the Union, generating profits for the bank, John Deere and ADM. This is why you rarely hear organized labor or big business complain about foreign aid. It's really just another transfer payment.
Back to the East Germans, a college friend of mine got a job driving the East German press corps around Los Angeles during the '84 Olympics. Since the Eastern bloc was boycotting the games in retaliation for Carter boycotting the '80 Moscow Games, the press corps didn't have much to do, so he ended up mainly showing them the sights.
They were like kids who'd never left the orphanage before, he said. Just about everything amazed them. They'd drive up to Jack in the Box restaurants just to hear the clown (remember this?) ask them for their order. They'd roar laughing, then ask to drive around and do it again. Supermarkets stunned them, particularly the extensive meat section. They would just stare at it for minutes on end. But nothing amazed them more than housing. They couldn't believe that even in South Central L.A. (and my friend noted that they had anything-but-progressive views on race overall) people could buy and own their own home.
They hated the Russians. They considered them backward and ignorant for the most part, and told my friend with some pride that the Soviets quietly used German expertise on everything from armaments to fishing, while offering nothing in return. "They're nothing but a drag on us", they said. They had a low opinion of the Soviet military, too. "Outside of the big bombs (nukes) there's nothing much for you Westerners to worry about. If they ever attack Europe", they said, "just drop some vodka and whores among them and they'll forget all about you." They accused the East German Communist Party of making money by supplying Soviet occupation troops with sex workers in return for hard currency which they kept outside of the country.
Moral to the story of Communism: you can't run a country with a Department of Everything doing everything. It just don't work.
But a little socialized health care right now ain't a bad idea.
Friday, February 04, 2005
Parliamentary Democracy:Update
Anonymous said...
You missed: Goth Republicans in Flame Throwing Hearses.
http://66.34.10.12/aaamembersnew/zac/external.htm
One of several reasons why the Red States Rock. (Screw gun control...this link includes instructions on how to create your own personal flamethrower.)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheesh, and these people think men marrying men is a danger to society?
Me, I'm a Blue Stater Against Gun Control. I want to be able to carry around Star Trek-type phaser guns after they're invented. Imagine being able to disintegrate anyone who bugs you. Just "zap!" and they're gone. No problem disposing of the body, no embarrassing DNA evidence, no need to hire Johnny Cochrane to keep my sorry ass out of jail?
Just, "Me, kill someone? Nope. See a dead body anywhere?"
It's an environmentally sound way to get rid of anyone with a "God Bless America" bumper sticker on their SUV. How can any right-thinking Blue Stater object to this?
The Wisdom of Youth
My six year old son's pet rat recently passed away, from unknown causes. All we know is that we discovered this as he was trying to 'fix' the rat by putting a band-aid on him, even though the poor beast was quite inert, with no evidence of physical trauma.
So, after some time, I asked him yesterday, "Leroy, how did the rat die? Do you know?"
He mulls this for a few seconds, then answers, "He died from not being alive."
Yep, that'll do it every time.
So, after some time, I asked him yesterday, "Leroy, how did the rat die? Do you know?"
He mulls this for a few seconds, then answers, "He died from not being alive."
Yep, that'll do it every time.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Comments: Parliamentary Democracy
Anonymous said...
Personally I'm for a parliamentary system. I look forward to the day when a group like this has the capacity to bring down the government:
http://www.gunsanddope.com/
----------------------------------------------
Praise the Lord and don't Bogart that joint!
It's apparent that our "parties" are really coalitions in the parliamentary sense, held together by our single member first-past-the-post system. Within each party, as Imperius Bush will find over the next four years, there are threads and threads, shifting alliances among factions, but rarely working in complete lockstep.
In a true parliamentary system we would have, instead of the GOP:
The Chickenhawk / Breakfast Blend Alliance - devoted to the aggressive expansion of Starbucks franchises worldwide through the constant use of liberating force, creating an endless supply of viewing material for the Military Channel.
The Cheapskate Party - don't wanna pay nothing for no one who ain't me.
The Free Silver Party - economic libertarians who agree with Civil War-era thinking that precious metals were prepared by God to serve as real currency. (Anything else is an international financiers' conspiracy.)
The Leave it to Beaver Party - devoted to bringing back 1956 if it means tearing the whole country apart. I mean, weren't we all just so happy then? No gays, no Negroes except on the radio, and happy wives who never complained about missing the big "O". Isn't that worth fighting anything and everyone else for?
The Deuteronomy Movement - devoted to applying discriminate and carefully selected verses of the Bible to public policy (anything agreed to by Sojourners magazine is automatically eliminated from consideration); except for anyone who lives in a state bordering an ocean, a.k.a. "heathens." The ancient Israelites left the coast to the Philistines, they clearly knew something about its corrupting aspects.
The Motorcross Party - wants a constitutional change that only someone willing and able to successfully steer a motorbike over mountains of dirt for thirty minutes straight has proven themselves man enough to vote. (Women who do this will be granted honorary "man" status.) Also, every five trailers in a trailer park will be considered three people for purposes of congressional representation.
The Cliff Huxtable Party - only Negroes allowed; must have forsworn anything to do with hip-hop, Jesse Jackson and any acknowledgement that the civil rights movement ever mattered.
The Big Business Party - not officially a party, it covertly funds all the others and plays them off against each other to continue reaping mind-bending profits at the expense of national security, long term economic health and the environment. Anyone publicly acknowledging the party's existence will be expunged from reality.
The Democratic Party - a hairy-legged, cappucino-drinking tree-hugging, God-hating environmentalist lesbian from Berkeley. If she doesn't exist, the Big Business Party will pay to provide one, to keep up the illusion of real public debate. All other purported party followers will have been expunged from reality. Or just died out.
Spring Fever
February has always been my second hardest month of the year. Football is generally over and baseball hasn't begun. Basketball, which I follow least, is still waiting for its interminable playoff season to begun, so that's not worth worrying about either right now. The only saving grace is that it's a short month, which means I get a couple of extra days out of my paycheck.
"Baseball is slow, and it's dull on teevee", I hear. Yes, I answer. That's the point.
Every other major sport is pretty much a different version of the same drill. You have a rectangular field with a goal on each end, an object and a clock, which dictates how long a team has to get the object into the goals. Football, basketball, soccer, hockey and the rest are fast and interesting to watch. But it's pretty much the same drill across the board.
Not baseball. The field is a game board, similar to Monopoly. The goal is to move your piece around, back to "home", as George Carlin reminded us in a truly memorable monologue. Most important, there is no clock... There's no pressure to finish up within a set time. And that's what makes baseball work more than any other sport for me.
The clock is perhaps the most evil thing ever devised. Prior to the clock, life ran in a natural rhythm. You got up with the sun; you went to bed with the moon. You worked when it was light; you stopped when it got dark. All that changed with the clock. Everyone began working the same hours, and extended the day well past the time God and Mother Nature intended. The clock runs our lives. Every device we use has a clock on it. I've stopped wearing a wristwatch because I don't need to. As I type this, the computer clock in the bottom right hand corner tells me the time. My cell phone tells me the exact time it rings. My car tells me when I start it up and when I park it. The clock is everywhere.
So it's nice to see a collective effort take place which doesn't require a clock. In theory, a baseball game could go on until the End of Days. In theory, a team down by ten runs in the ninth inning could win, as it has all the time in the world to do so. Anything is possible, because there is always time to make it happen, unlike the real world of pressure deadlines and collective schedules. This is why baseball, despite constant predictions of imminent demise, thrives and will continue to thrive. It's a throwback to a time when effort dictated time, not the other way around. When we were freer, in this regard.
Which is why television is an insidious force for baseball. Teevee wants speed and a predictable time limit for scheduling. This smacks against one of baseball's great virtues. Yet teevee can and does dictate scheduling and rules changes in other sports. It would seem to be an inevitable force in baseball.
Fortunately, baseball just doesn't do as well on teevee. It's a radio sport. It works best as a companion in the background on a lazy afternoon or night, which you read, chat, and putter in the yard or around the garage. That's another thing I really like about the sport. I can do something else and enjoy it.
Basketball doesn't work at all on the tube; you have to see it to really understand what's going on. Football isn't quite as good on the radio, but doesn't work as well either. Besides, there are so few games that watching any game becomes an event. Football is much, much better on teevee. All the down time is conveniently and efficiently used for replays and analysis which makes the game seem a lot faster than it really is in person. Baseball and radio is a perfect match. The pace allows for more detailed description, and the storytelling which is as much a part of the game as pine tar. Former San Francisco Giants broadcaster Hank Greenwald hated doing teevee broadcasts. He prefers radio, he said, "Because the pictures are better."
So February moves along, a weird void in an armchair fan's life. Fortunately, it ends with the crack of the bat and the promise of spring. And this year, as every year, every fan knows that it's the year we go to the Series. We just feel it in the air.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
