Fourth and Two

Gary Johnson is my new favorite Republican

2010-05-05T14:43:00.002-04:00

Maine Commission Moves to Ban Gender Specific Bathrooms, Sports Teams in Schools*

2010-04-12T20:35:00.001-04:00

(*No, actually, they did no such thing. Read on.)

Congratulations to--who else--Fox News, for inspiring and winning the first Egregious Misrepresentation of the News of the Week award (note: more likely to become an occasional series than a weekly series, but we'll see).

Pretty much everything about this article makes it EMNW-worthy, but what puts it over the top is the bold strategy of sticking the blatant falsehoods right in the headline. (To be fair, their headline is a little catchier than "Maine Commission Moves to Prohibit Discrimination Against Transgender Students." or even something conservative-slanted-but-still-in-the-neighborhood-of-accurate like "Maine Commission Moves to Require Schools to Provide Special Accommodations for Transgender Students.")

So, what's really going on here? According to Fox:

The commission is taking heat over a controversial proposal to ban schools from enforcing gender divisions in sports teams, school organizations, bathrooms and locker rooms.

Well, that sounds absolutely absurd! Thankfully, Fox is helpful enough to provide a PDF of the proposal. Not helpful enough to provide it in the conventional "right side up" format to which most human beings are accostomed, but I'll take what I can get.

Here's what the proposal says about sports teams:

Transgender students must be permitted to participate in gender-segregated sports in accordance with their gender identity or expression.

And here's what it says about bathrooms and locker rooms:

Transgender students must be allowed access to the bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity or expression or, if they prefer, to existing single-stall bathrooms. With respect to locker rooms and shower facilities that involve undressing in front of others, transgender students must be provided with accommodations that meet their needs and that take into account the legitimate privacy concerns of all students involved.

That's not exactly the genderless hellscape, in which men take over women's soccer teams and pedophiles hang out in girl's bathrooms, that Fox seems to be describing. In fact, banning "gender specific" anything could hardly be farther from what the Maine HRC is proposing. See, gender is "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex," while sex is "the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of living things that are involved in reproduction by two interacting parents and that distinguish males and females." The Maine HRC is essentially advocating the replacement of sex-based distinctions with gender-based distinctions.

That's not to say the proposal is immune from criticism. Permitting individuals with the biological characteristics of men to compete in women's sports is a complicated and nuanced issue; the sort that is virtually impossible to resolve without making somebody upset. Another controversial topic: accommodating transgender individuals in places where society expects a fairly strict degree of sex-based segregation, such as bathrooms and locker rooms. How does Fox address these concerns? By proxy. It seems several "experts" and concerned citizens were persuaded to pull their heads out of the sand long enough to offer their opinions:

"When we separate biology it gets very confusing for everyone," Mike Heath, president of the American Family Association of New England, told FoxNews.com. "Now we're talking about bathrooms where ladies will entertain the possibility of men being in the restroom with them, and every woman I've talked to has indicated that they wouldn't be comfortable with that."

...

"If my kid walks into a girls' bathroom and sees a man in there, the child is going to instinctively feel that something’s wrong. If you create an entirely new climate where anything goes, you’re going to create increased confusion, and those with ill intentions could take advantage of that confusion and decreased ability to make a distinction," [President of National School Safety and Security Services Ken] Trump told FoxNews.com.

Surely you realize, Mike Heath and Ken Trump, that if you have your way, men who look and dress like women will be forced to use men's bathrooms, and women who look and dress like men will be forced to use women's bathrooms. That could get confusing, too! Thinking is hard!

"There's not a whole lot of places a girl can expect privacy, but the bathroom should be one of them," said [Rev. Bob] Celeste. "And there's not a whole lot of places a boy expects privacy, but the bathroom should be one of them. Married couples close the door when they go to the bathroom.”

An excellent argument against Maine's little-publicized Open Restrooms Act of 2008, an initiative that would have mandated the removal of all doors and stall dividers and furnished every bathroom with a closed-circuit camera, but fortunately died in committee. Unless this is intended to be an argument against the HRC proposal, in which case the point has been thoroughly missed.

And finally, just for fun, here are a few thoughts from some folks with access to the Fox News comment board and severe credulity imbalances (among other ailments):

veritasaeternum: "Apparently the water in Maine has been poisoned. I wonder how the high school boys are going to like taking showers with the girls? This ought to be interesting."

Because every teenage boy knows the best way to secure acceptance, popularity, and attention from girls is to come out as transgender.

dfromnc: "Wow! When did all the men on the liberal left loose their stones and start trying to make our all of our children into little girls? What is wrong with a man being a man and a woman being a woman? This should be a wake up call to dissolve the union and let states like Maine go there own way"

Maine voters, by the way, repealed a same-sex marriage law in 2009.

Dave40: "Didn't anyone see this coming. unintended consequences of so called gay rights. Liberals are putting this country in the toilet. What kind of sick-o lets a 12 year old be transgender?"

Seriously. I mean, we don't allow people to decide if they're right- or left-handed, if they're dark- or light-skinned, or if they have innies or outies, until age 18. Kids just don't understand these things!

1conservative: "Majority no longer has any rights, only the minorities."

And really, who has more rights than transgender people? Sex changes are legally recognized in almost every state!

Steve Menlo: "Seems like the transgender persons are not the only ones mixed up in the brain. The simple solution is to let them (and how many could there be, anyway?) use whatever restroom they think they belong in and be done with it. And leave the rest of us normals alone. Yeah, I know, so unsympathetic. Last I heard, being a surgical transgender was a CHOICE. How about some common sense."

I'm closing with this one because it's my favorite. Insensitive language aside, this guy actually seems to have a realistic grasp on the issue. Problem is, his opinion is based on a Fox News article with a willfully unrealistic grasp on a completely different, non-existent issue.

Bill Simmons Writes the Worst Column of All Time

2009-11-20T15:50:00.012-05:00

I was extremely disappointed to hear Bill Simmons displaying Peter King-esque adherence to conventional wisdom on Monday's podcast, but I hoped he'd come around after giving some actual thought to Fourth and Two. Sadly, it seems he did not.

But, he's one of the smartest sportswriters out there right now, surely he's looked at the issue from every side and come up with some compelling arguments. Let's see:

By this logic, Belichick also should have held a loaded pistol to his head on the sideline, spun the chamber and tried to shoot himself like Chris Walken in "The Deer Hunter."

As Simmons would say, let's just move on.

There are also times when statistics make that same discussion dumber. For instance, a former Mavericks statistician named Wayne Winston recently debuted a complicated plus-minus statistic for basketball that included the following two revelations:
1. Kevin Durant made the 2008-09 Zombie Sonics worse.
2. Tim Thomas is underrated.

What? Who is Tim Thomas? Who is Wayne Winston? Is this why he lost his job? What does this have to do with anything?

The "Belichick made the right move" argument was nearly as dense. In the biggest game of the regular season, when a football coach tries something that -- and this is coming from someone who watches 12 hours of football every Sunday dating back to elementary school -- I cannot remember another team doing on the road in the last three minutes of a close game, that's not "gutsy." It's not a "gamble." It's not "believing we can get that two yards." It's not "revolutionary." It's not "statistically smart." It's reckless.

You know why you've never seen a team do this? Articles like this.

At this point, Simmons takes on each argument in favor of Belichick one-by-one. "Inane Angle No. 1" (apparently the most reasonable, as the rest are "insane") is that the statistics favored going for it.

I find it really, really, REALLY hard to believe they would have completed that play 56 times out of 100 times with how they lined up.

So...their chances would've been better with a different play call. That's hard to argue with, especially in retrospect. By the way, this is intended to support the argument that 55.7% is too high. Do you think the stupid play call is somehow already factored into the probability?

They spread the field with five receivers, eliminating any chance of a run. The Colts brought pressure -- happily -- ensuring a quick pass and a short field (so Indy's D-backs could hug the line of scrimmage). Given these realities, if you're feeding me "Here's what happened in this situation historically" numbers, shouldn't we be looking at the data for two-point conversions?

No, we should be looking at the data for 4th-and-2 attempts from the 28 with a five-wide formation against a defense bringing pressure and keeping its DBs close to the line of scrimmage. And if those numbers are unfavorable, all it tells us is that New England should've run a different play.

Admittedly, the Patriots have a better passing offense than just about any other team; they also were throwing the ball effectively against Indy's battered secondary. Which is what made that specific decision so frustrating: By not showing even a threat of a run, they eliminated the possibilities of a draw, a play-action pass, a delayed screen, a designed rollout or anything else that would have made the Colts say, "We have to be prepared for anything here," and soften their coverage.

Again, Simmons' argument that the Patriots should've punted is that the 4th down play failed because it was tactically flawed?

You cannot tell me the odds for success here were 55.7 percent for that specific formation at that specific moment in time. You cannot. Just stop.

How can we stop what we were never doing in the first place?

I know it's fun to think stats can settle everything, but they can't, and they don't.

Someone who thinks stats can settle everything is just as unreasonable as someone who thinks stats can settle nothing.

Moving on to "Insane Angle No. 2," that Manning would've scored just as easily after a punt. (By the way, this is the same guy who said "Peyton Manning is clutch. He's a champion. He's the heart of the Colts, and for all we know he's coaching them, too. You cannot wager against him, especially in night games" and "[Manning] will steal any game in the last five minutes if you let him" last freaking week.)

Had the Patriots punted, Indy would have had to pull off a third long touchdown drive to win the game. I asked Peter Newmann to research the number of times a team started and completed three touchdown drives in the fourth quarter to erase a double-digit deficit and win an NFL game since 2005.

Answer: 4 (now 5). Case closed, apparently. But wait, wouldn't it be more (i.e. arguably, as opposed to not-at-all) relevant to talk about how many teams erased a double-digit deficit after, having already completed two long touchdown drives in the fourth quarter, getting a chance to score one more touchdown? Answer: still 4 (now 5), but the sample size is a bit smaller.

Also, it's too bad Simmons didn't have Mr. Newmann go back to 2003--he would've found this game.

If you're playing the statistics card, why not play that one? By punting, the Patriots would have been asking Peyton Manning to pull off something THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN EVEN ONCE EVERY EFFING SEASON. You're damned right I just went all caps. Hold on, I have to repeatedly bang my head against my desk again.

Again? That might explain a few things.

Now to "Insane Angle No. 3," that Belichick thought they could get the two yards.

Look, I'm glad he felt that way. But isn't life about resisting the urge to try something reckless just because you thought you could do it?

Sure. Belichick probably thought they could punt and get a defensive stop, too, but that would've been reckless. I mean, Simmons conceded above that "the percentages" favor going for it.

Simmons then goes into a seemingly (and, it turns out, actually) unrelated story about a calculated risk gone wrong and a $299 speeding ticket.

"I thought I wouldn't get caught" is no different from "I thought we could get the 2 yards." It's just not. You either know or you don't.

Ok, I can see the logic in this. You either know or you don't. Simmons didn't know he wouldn't get a ticket and Belichick didn't know they could get the two yards, placing both of them squarely in the "don't know" camp.

(Also, seriously? Clearly what he's trying to say is that you either know you'll get the two yards or know that you won't. This in reference to a play in which the difference between 5 feet, 9 inches and 6 feet, 3 inches was an almost imperceptible bobble by Kevin Faulk. Is this a belated April Fools Day column?)

Next, "Insane Angle No. 4," that the play was somehow meant to be a bold statement of Patriot supremacy.

Stupid. Last time I checked, winning makes the strongest statement.

Right. So how do you win? Some, including Simmons, seem to think you win by punting. Fair enough, but others think your best chance to win is by going for it. That's actually what this whole debate has been about.

The bigger issue: Let's say they punt, then Indy rolls down the field and scores for the victory. We spend the next few days saying, "Wow, I can't believe the Pats blew that game, they had it, Manning is so great, holy crap." Then the whole thing dies.

That's right, Simmons would rather talk about the Patriots' defensive collapse and the apparent invincibility of their biggest rival than have an stimulating discussion about challenging the conventional wisdom.

But losing because you went for it on fourth-and-2 on your own 28? Much more damaging. The reward (of converting it) did not match the risk (the fallout from a demoralizing loss and a week's worth of "What the hell happened?" questions, not to mention its impact on the team's psyche).

First reasonable point of the column. I can see Simmons' side, but on the other hand, the fallout he refers to has been almost entirely about a coach who, with one debatable decision, pulled off the seemingly impossible task of making everyone forget about the fact that the Patriots blew a 17-point lead in the fourth quarter. How would it impact the team's psyche to hear about that all week?

This week, the Pats made a big stink about looking forward and not letting that defeat affect them. How can it not? How? Isn't the impact much deeper than that of simply losing because Peyton Manning is great and he drove 70 yards to beat them?

Is it? At least now they can tell themselves they were the better team, but only lost because of a bad coaching decision. If Manning had won on a 70-yard drive, they'd only have themselves to blame. Again, a reasonable point, but far from self-evident.

In the playoffs, when it's life or death, maybe that risk is more defensible. In the regular season, when you're building your team's collective confidence like a bunch of Jenga sticks and can't risk knocking the stack over? No.
Just … no.

And thus Simmons sums up what may be the only argument I've ever read that wittingly (more or less) makes the case for why NFL teams should sometimes play to lose.

Finally, "Insane Angle No. 5," that even though the attempt failed, the decision "came from a well-thought-out place."

On first down -- by the way, the best down to take a chance if you're going to be reckless...

What does he mean by reckless? Going for it on fourth down? That's hard to do on first down.

Let's look at third down again. If Belichick knew at this point, "I am not punting the ball," then they were in two-down territory.

Excellent point, Simmons, I completely agree. A run may have made more sense. Although, it should be noted that at that point in the drive, the Patriots were averaging 0 yards per run and 8 yards per pass (because who cares about sample size). Therefore, a pass was infinity times more likely to give them a first down.

In a close game, Belichick, Brady and our defense would take us home. Every time.
Not Sunday night. The Patriots looked rattled and unprepared. The Colts did not. They do not keep statistics for this.

I agree with this too. In the fourth quarter, the Patriots looked rattled and the Colts did not. How, exactly, does that make the case for giving the ball to the Colts offense?

Did it feel like the end of an era? Yeah, a little.

Maybe, just maybe, the end of the era of mindless, cookie-cutter, both-feet-squarely-inside-the-box punditry.

My six favorite things about The Superstars

2009-08-06T15:09:00.005-04:00

ABC's reality competition series The Superstars has come and gone. Purportedly a grueling competition among athletes and celebrities in male/female pairs, the end result was a comical attempt to inject drama and athleticism into what was clearly a leisurely two-week Bahamian vacation for everyone involved.

The Superstars received little fanfare, and surely ranks among the worst reality shows of all time, but count me among those who will remember it fondly. Here are six reasons why:

6. The single funniest moment of the series:

John Saunders: "We're here at the Atlantis basketball court, but sorry Lisa [Leslie], there will be no dunking in this one. I know you did it in the WNBA, but not here at The Superstars."
[A little later, during a warm-up montage, we see Terrell Owens easily dunking off an alley oop.]
Owens: "I'm not a stranger to basketball...I played in high school, played in college. That's what I do in my spare time, but I'm not a professional...[makes the smuggest face I've ever seen]...like Lisa."

5. The practice of referring to the participants by first name, sometimes with intelligence-insulting epithets, like they were just another bunch of surname-lacking Wipeout contestants.

4. John Saunders' narration, clearly written for an imaginary audience of toddlers with severe short-term memory loss. Incidentally, we now have conclusive proof that you cannot create excitement simply by excitedly raving about the suspense and intensity of a hypothetical competition that in no way resembles the lackadaisical jog-fest unfolding on screen.

3. Dan Cortese's apparent insistence that his name be pronounced trisyllabically. I like to think that Cortese made this a condition of his appearance on the show, leading the producers to put up a half-assed search for another male celebrity before sighing and giving in.

2. The competitions themselves, which could only have been less grueling if everyone was given amphibious golf carts. Here is a complete list of what the competitors were asked to do, in chronological order:

-Run/bike for one mile.
-Kayak a quarter mile, as many as three times.
-Sprint 100 yards, as many as six (6!) times.
-Long jump, twice (the first was just for practice).
-Swim/run 200 yards.
-Spend one minute shooting baskets--rebounding optional.
-Run two-thirds of a mile.
-Bowl.
-Ride around on a jet ski.
-Shoot arrows at a target.
-Climb a 36-foot wall.
-Paddle a canoe for 10 minutes or so.
-Manually reel in weighted-down ropes.
-Complete a convoluted "triathlon" consisting of a short run, a short swim, stepping over or crawling under a row of unintimidating obstacles, tandem surfboard paddling, and an even shorter run. Total distance: about one-third of a mile.

That's 14 events, competed over about as many days. Only nine of them required even a minimal display of endurance, and none reached the level of strenuousness of, say, running a 5K. One of them, as noted above, was freaking archery.

And of course, appearing at the end of each episode, was the obstacle course--a short series of uninteresting non-challenges, with the lone exception of the cargo net, which was only interesting to the extent that it forced the viewer to consider that some network executive decided people might like to see washed-up athletes and sort-of-celebrities struggling with a discernible lack of desperation to disentangle themselves from a cargo net.

1. Bode Miller. More specifically, ABC's unwavering portrayal of Miller as a strategic mastermind. Sure, Bode seems like a smart guy--I certainly never got the impression that he was at risk of being outwitted by, say, Baywatch star David Charvet. But most, if not all, of his brilliant strategizing could easily have been mistaken for lethargy.

Why try really hard for first place, Bode says to his teammate, when we can try kind of hard for second? Why inconvenience ourselves with a brisk jog when we can take it easy and be rested for whatever minimal exertion is asked of us tomorrow? Why spend all afternoon sprinting across the beach? Now that third place is locked up, we can just relax and enjoy the weather--but let's do it in a way that makes it look like we're playing incomprehensible mind games with the other teams.

Bode rode this commitment to calculated nonchalance all the way to the final, in the process doing the seemingly impossible. The man once best-known for exuding laziness and indifference while failing to meet the nation's expectations has reinvented himself as a cunning schemer whose drive to win will stop at nothing--up to and including diabolical displays of, well, laziness and indifference.

At least one out of four is legitimate

2008-05-28T16:13:00.003-04:00

Joakim Noah recently had a hell of a night in Gainesville, apparently receiving citations for violating the open container law, marijuana possession, not wearing a seat belt, and driving with a suspended license. What drives me crazy about this is that three of these things have absolutely no business being crimes. I'll concede driving with a suspended license--presumably the state of Florida had a good reason for telling Noah not to drive for a while, but that's it.

I've never understood open container laws. Even for a society as conservative as ours, forcing people to keep their drinks off the streets seems ridiculous. There have been no reports that he was drunk and/or disorderly, or that he drove drunk, so where's the crime? Who was the victim?

Of course, similar logic applies to marijuana. As is often the case when pot is involved, there was no action that in any way put anyone in immediate danger--therefore there was no victim. Why are so many of us ok with this being a crime? If it's because of the notion that something that might be harmful to the user's health and ability to function in society should be prohibited, then we should've dealt with alcohol, video games, bacon cheeseburgers, daytime TV, going out in the sun without sunscreen, and in-car DVD players before even getting around to pot.

And finally, the seat belt. Unlike the other "crimes," this was an act that actually did put someone in danger--Noah himself. But why do we feel the need to punish people for their own idiocy? Again, if that's a legitimate basis for a crime, then failure to wear a seat belt should be way down the list, behind, say, inability to differentiate between good and bad investments (oh, nevermind, we do punish people for that--through the lottery).

Bob Barr for president...I guess

2008-05-28T08:49:00.005-04:00

In one of the five most exciting things I've seen on C-SPAN (a more selective list than you might think), the Libertarian Party chose Bob Barr as their 2008 candidate for president. As far as I can tell, subsequent news accounts have omitted the side of the story that, from a Libertarian perspective, is most interesting.

In 2004, the nomination came down to Michael Badnarik and Aaron Russo. At the convention, Badnarik was well-spoken, likeable, and philosophically libertarian in every way, but he was unknown and had no money. Russo was something of a newcomer--a former Republican who, despite his largely libertarian views, was less than inspiring when it came to speaking about his personal beliefs, but he had more money than any other candidate and a degree of notoriety as a movie producer. It was a simple trade-off: the "more libertarian" candidate or the candidate likely to get more votes (try to imagine that even being an issue at a Republican or Democratic convention). Badnarik won by a narrow margin and went on to win less than half a percent of the popular vote.

The issue was the same this year, but the result was different. Barr won by a narrow margin over the "more libertarian" Mary Ruwart (my choice, Mike Gravel, was eliminated after the fourth ballot--it's a sad day when your personal favorite presidential candidate is a longshot for the nomination of a minor party). The implications of this are clear: Barr, formerly a Republican Congressman, will bring in Republicans frustrated with McCain, but he will drive away Libertarians skeptical that Barr has genuinely changed his mind on a number of views he has held throughout his political career. He will get more votes than any Libertarian has in the past, but if he can't do it without tearing the party apart it may turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory.

Jack Morris should be well-rested for game 8

2008-05-15T10:09:00.004-04:00

Maybe this will represent the beginning of a wave of semi-frequent posting, or maybe it won't. But I have too many half-formed thoughts not to turn a few of them into half-thoughtful internet content. Anyway...

The number one cliche on the List of Sports Cliches That Irritate Me is officially getting out of control. Like any good cliche, a simple internet search reveals countless examples:

"The series doesn't start until someone wins on someone else's home court." -Lebron James after game 4 against Boston

"[Pat Riley] always said 'a series doesn't start until someone loses a home game.' '' -Stan Van Gundy after game 4 against Toronto

"They told me the playoffs don't start until you win on the road." -Rajon Rondo after game 2 against Atlanta

Really? We're just going to accept this without questioning it? In fact, the opposite is closer to the truth--playoff series often end due to a road win or two. But when the home team wins every game, the series tends to just keep on going. So far in round 2 of the NBA Playoffs only Detroit has won on the road; apparently the Boston-Cleveland, LA-Utah, and New Orleans-San Antonio series have yet to commence. Not coincidentally, those series are also on the verge of a game 6 to be hosted by the team that's down 3-2 and desperate to avoid elimination, to be potentially followed by a game 7 hosted by the favorite, desperate to avoid an upset.

Some of the other playoff series which, apparently, we're still waiting on:

The 2004 NLCS between St. Louis and Houston, including the classic 12-inning game 6.
The Miami-New Orleans first round series in the 2004 NBA playoffs, in which 6 of 7 games were decided by 9 points or less.
Two first round series in the 2002 NBA playoffs in which 4 of 5 games were decided by 10 points or less: Detroit-Toronto and Boston-Philadelphia.
The 2001 World Series between Arizona and New York, which featured four one-run games, two extra-inning games, all that "Mr. November" nonsense, and Rivera's blown save in game 7.
The 1995 ALDS between Seattle and New York, which featured two extra-inning games, 68 runs in five games, and Griffey's winning run in game 5.
The Greatest World Series of All Time, Minnesota-Atlanta in 1991, which I'd rather not talk about right now.
And of course, the 1955 NBA Finals between the Syracuse Nationals and Fort Wayne Pistons.

The Live Earth Call to Action

2007-07-07T22:35:00.000-04:00

Libertarianism and environmentalism can co-exist. In fact, it is essential that they do. Any act which does harm to others is wrong, and there are about six billion people out there doing damage to my health and my property without my consent.

Here is the pledge people are being asked to sign:

1.To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;

2.To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become "carbon neutral;"

3.To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2;

4.To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;

5.To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;

6.To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,

7.To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st century.

www.liveearth.org

The Real Media Bias

2007-06-01T12:11:00.000-04:00

A few Google search numbers:

"media bias" liberal = 878,000 hits
"media bias" conservative = 832,000 hits
"media bias" liberal -conservative = 294,000 hits
"media bias" conservative -liberal = 244,000 hits

These data are hardly scientific, of course, but they support what I believe to be true: that bickering about media bias is no stronger on one side than it is on the other. And that a great number of liberals and conservatives are seriously missing the point.

Issues are rarely two-sided. They are often multi-sided, and sometimes one-sided. The idea that news stories are slanted to appeal to the audience's conservative or liberal tendencies is, while not entirely untrue, an affront to the real problem.

The most egregious media bias is toward simplicity. Important information is watered down for mass consumption, leaving only a few easily digested facts and the contrasting-yet-assumed-to-be-equally-valid opinions of two "experts." And then the stories disappear, as if they are simply static entities which come and go with each news cycle. This Onion article (which is what reminded me to write this post in the first place) sums it up pretty well.

Where do I send my donation?

2007-05-02T19:20:00.000-04:00

I already thought Frozen Peas was a pretty good candidate, but when I went to YouTube to get the video I stumbled across something even better:

Of course, that would only work during a divided congress--I'm concerned that Hashbrowns' lack of opposable thumbs would severely hinder its ability to veto legislation. Some sort of Veto Robot though, I'd vote for that in a second.

But seriously, I'm tired of seeing these ads. The fewer semi-informed voters the better, I say. I don't want my vote diluted by the arbitrary neural firings of those who would be influenced by a public service announcement.

Big Ten Network

2007-04-13T21:32:00.000-04:00

Apparently something called the Big Ten Network is in the works. Here's a breakdown of what we will and won't be seeing.

What we will be seeing:

-Arrogance.
-Fundamentals by the boatload.
-A steady decline in incoming talent as top recruits continue to look southward and westward.
-Northwestern and Indiana facing off in the hope of reaching the Champs Sports Bowl.
-The false confidence that comes with soundly beating a "powerhouse" like Notre Dame.
-Someone riding convincing victories over the likes of Northwestern, Indiana, and Notre Dame all the way to the top spot in the polls.
-Ron Zook.

What we won't be seeing:

-A replay of Florida thrashing Ohio State in basketball in December 2006.
-A replay of Florida thrashing Ohio State in the 2007 BCS championship game.
-A replay of Florida thrashing Ohio State in the 2007 NCAA basketball championship game.
-Replays of Iowa, Minnesota, Purdue, and Michigan losing their 06-07 bowl games.
-Replays of Michigan State, Purdue, Wisconsin, and Indiana losing in the first round of the 2007 NCAA basketball tournament.
-A montage of minivans with Michigan and Ohio plates driving too slow in the left lane.

Kurt Vonnegut, 1922-2007

2007-04-12T10:35:00.000-04:00

"If God were alive today, he would have to be an atheist, because the excrement has hit the air-conditioning big time, big time."

"There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don’t know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president."

"If you want to take my guns away from me, and you’re all for murdering fetuses, and love it when homosexuals marry each other, and want to give them kitchen appliances at their showers, and you’re for the poor, you’re a liberal. If you are against those perversions and for the rich, you’re a conservative. What could be simpler?"

"Here’s what I think the truth is: We are all addicts of fossil fuels in a state of denial, about to face cold turkey. And like so many addicts about to face cold turkey, our leaders are now committing violent crimes to get what little is left of what we’re hooked on."

"I am, incidentally, Honorary President of the American Humanist Association, having succeeded the late, great science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in that totally functionless capacity. We had a memorial service for Isaac a few years back, and I spoke and said at one point, "Isaac is up in heaven now." It was the funniest thing I could have said to an audience of humanists. I rolled them in the aisles. It was several minutes before order could be restored. And if I should ever die, God forbid, I hope you will say, "Kurt is up in heaven now." That's my favorite joke."

So it goes.

Someone at Page 2 has been reading my site

2007-04-11T20:29:00.000-04:00

On February 11 of this year I wrote this post, titled "Russell, Chamberlain, Bird...and Nash?"

On April 9, two days ago, Page 2 published this article by Scoop Jackson, titled "Russell, Wilt, Bird...and Nash?"

Coincidence? Yeah, probably.

Page 2 should be happy to hear that I will not be suing for copyright infringement, after a thorough examination revealed that I have sustained a total monetary damage of approximately $0.

Not a bad start to the season

2007-04-04T23:19:00.000-04:00

Let's start this with a big giant disclaimer: it's early and anything could happen.

But still, after the first two games, the Braves are looking pretty good (and against the trendy-choice-to-win-the-NL-East-if-not-more Phillies, no less). The biggest problem last year was the late-game collapses, due partially to a lack of clutch hitting and primarily to shaky relief pitching. This year, in two games there has been an eight inning comeback, a ninth inning comeback, and two extra-inning victories. The offense has provided four hits to tie the game or take the lead in the eighth inning or later, all home runs. The bullpen has allowed one run on six hits in eight innings--and that includes five different pitchers.

And how about the decision to let Macay McBride pitch to Ryan Howard with two on and first base open in the tenth? I'm not sure if that's gutsy or crazy, but it worked.

They aren't without their concerns, of course. I could go for less of a reliance on home runs. Five of the 17 hits so far have been home runs, and homers have driven in all eight runs. But things should pick up a bit once Francoeur and the Joneses get their seasons started.

I probably have more to say, and I'll post it as I think of it. My point is, I'm excited.

My new favorite NFL teams: the Cardinals and Bengals

2007-03-28T10:58:00.000-04:00

During the league's owners meeting, Arizona and Cincinnatti were the only teams to vote against making instant replay a permanent part of the game. Here's an incomplete list of reasons why I hate instant replay:

-It takes, what, like five minutes each time? Remember when they started the whole thing a few years ago and told us there was a 90-second time limit and that if a replay ever took longer than that it would revert to the call on the field? What the hell happened to that?
-Referees are becoming increasingly inclined to just make the safe call on the field on the assumption the play will be reviewed. Which, of course, wastes the aforementioned five minutes we could otherwise be using to watch football. (For example: a player is clearly down, and then fumbles. The refs are now more likely to let the play continue.)
-Coaches only get two challenges (well, three if the first two are successful) and these challenges can only be used if the team has a timeout to lose. In combination with the above point, this is a huge problem. I'm very much looking forward to the time when an obvious "safe call" is made, only the team on the wrong end can't do anything because they are out of challenges or timeouts. The bigger the game, and the more important the situation, the better.
-They don't even get the call right every time! How many times do we see a call which initially appeared correct overturned for no apparent reason? Or a dubious call replaced with an equally dubious call going the other way, which leads me to...
-The whole notion that a ruling has to be clear "beyond a shadow of a doubt," which is being gradually replaced by "enough that it certainly seems likely that maybe the call should be overturned."
-And finally, so many coaches have no sense of balancing risk and reward. A five-yard pass on second down is not worth risking a challenge or timeout, much less wasting five minutes of valuable football-watching time.

Here's the thing about the Braves

2007-03-06T20:18:00.000-05:00

There are several reasons to like them. Obviously, unconditional support of the hometown team is a big one, but here are a few others:

-Loyalty to likeable players. And vice versa. Chipper Jones and John Smoltz have stayed with the team even though they could make more money elsewhere. If only the Braves could have worked something out with Glavine...
-Continued success while managing to avoid the Yankees/Red Sox practice of paying for victories with ridiculously inflated payrolls. (A full post on this should be forthcoming--I made a chart!)
-A recent reliance on young players from Georgia, including Jeff Francoeur, Brian McCann (who, all due respect to Francoeur, may turn out to be a bigger star), Kyle Davies, and Macay McBride.
-Their tendency, which, unfortunately, seems to have waned a bit, to keep things exciting.

But this one is my favorite--no steroids. Well, maybe some steroids. When I look back at the Braves during baseball's steroid era I can think of five players whose careers seem (or indisputably are) tainted:

-Ken Caminiti, who admitted steroid use, was only with the Braves for part of one season, and died in 2004.
-Gary Sheffield, who has been linked to BALCO, is a friend of Barry Bonds, is refusing to cooperate with the ongoing steroid probe, and was only with the Braves for two years.
-John Rocker, who has been linked to the same shady pharmacy as Jose Canseco, but not until two years after he was run out of town.
-And two others who I won't name because such an uncited accusation would be unfair and irresponsible, but neither came up through the minors with Atlanta and neither was with the team for an extended time.

That's it. Only five. I'm sure there are others, but the point is the team has never been led by a Bonds, Giambi, McGwire, or Sosa. Except for Rocker, no such players have come up through the minors, and they are not pursued when they become available through free agency. It's almost like, and maybe I'm reaching here, they have some sort of internal ethical code that guides the operation of the team. Or is that just crazy?

Yeah, those fish, in that barrel over there--I'd like a shot

2007-03-03T13:49:00.000-05:00

Shifting away from baseball for a second, I just discovered something called Conservapedia. Apparently, there is such liberal bias in Wikipedia that a conservative version is called for. It's hard to tell how much this actually reflects conservative thought, as some of the entries have clearly been messed with, but it's a comically misguided and fundamentally flawed concept nonetheless. A few of my favorites:

-Democrat, "Right-wing critics claim, however, that the Democrat voting record reveals a true agenda of cowering to terrorism, treasonous anti-Americanism, and comtempt for America's founding principles such as freedom of religion."
-Gravity, "Some have criticized gravity, reminding us that it is only a theory, and that no scientist has ever seen a graviton or a space curve."
-Wikipedia, "The administrators who monitor and control the content on Wikipedia do not represent the views of the majority of Americans, and many are in fact not American."

[Here's a fun game: keep hitting random page and see how long it takes to find an entry that isn't hilarious or maddening, or both. For example, I was shocked to find that the page for Libertarian is actually kind of reasonable.]

Now the best part: the Fox News page. It turns out "the success of Fox news over every other news channel is because it is fair and balanced." And how do we know that's true? Because a source is given! And what, exactly, does the author cite as evidence of Fox News' fairness and balance? This page, from Fox News' own damn site. And the source for the statement that Fox News is best because "they only report the news unbiased and then allow the viewer to decide" is simply a link to their damn logo with that "We Report, You Decide" slogan. I don't even know where to start going off on everything that's wrong with this, so I'll stop before I become tempted to go outside and charge full-speed into oncoming traffic.

Ok, one more quick thing. How do we know Sean Hannity's a great American? Because someone did a Google search and found this, which is about a damn car giveaway!

In praise of good sportscasting

2007-03-01T17:10:00.000-05:00

I can put any announcer into one of four groups. Group A: announcers who enhance the game-watching experience. Group B: announcers who neither add anything nor take anything away. Group C: announcers who detract from the experience. And group D: Dick Vitale.

The vast majority go in groups B or C, the latter including the irritating likes of Joe Morgan, Tim McCarver, John Madden, and Joe Theismann. Group A, of course, is a little more exclusive. Off the top of my head, its members include:

-Howard Cosell
-Larry Munson, the voice of the Georgia Bulldogs
-Keith Jackson
-Gus Johnson, for the sheer excitement
-And from your Atlanta Braves: Skip Caray, Joe Simpson, Pete Van Wieren, and Don Sutton

There are others, I'm sure, but not many. So what are the traits of an enjoyable sportscaster? Knowledge, insight, and humor are a few, but the big one--and this is where Keith Jackson and Joe Morgan are diametrically opposed--is fluidity. The ability to begin a thought, hit all the important points, and wrap it up without stammering, staggering, or changing direction. Listen to Morgan or Madden some time--they are constantly diving into a sentence, clearly with no plan whatsoever for getting out of it. Maybe it's just me, but this makes the broadcasts...what's the auditory equivalent to unwatchable? I don't like unlistenable because you aren't "listening the broadcast" in the first place. Unlistentoable, which gets about 100 Google hits, is the best I can do.

Anyway, back to this week's theme. One of the many things that stood out about the Braves through the division title run was the unparalled quality of the announcers--specifically Caray, Simpson, Van Wieren, and Sutton. But that era is now over too, as Sutton has moved on to work for the Nationals. If his replacement is half as good we should be in fine shape for a while, but it still won't be the same. A few thoughts:

-Caray's old pregame show was absolutely classic. He would relentlessly mock anyone who dared to call with a lame question.
-I would often turn to a game on the radio and be greeted by several seconds of silence before anyone spoke. Not many announcers understand that the listener does not need to be bombarded with constant chatter for the game to be interesting and exciting.
-Listening to Sutton, you would never guess he is in the Hall of Fame. He refuses to tell a story from his playing career unless it involves losing a game, giving up a home run, or some other form of ineptitude.
-I will never get tired of Caray's "that foul ball was caught by a fan from [insert semi-arbitrarily chosen town]" routine. And the best part of the pregame show was when a caller would ask how he could possibly know. The answer, invariably: from decades of studying subtle differences in body language.

Braves--Unforgettable playoff games (happy ending division

2007-02-27T21:45:00.000-05:00

1. 1991 NLCS, game 6. A great moment for Steve Avery, who forced game seven by pitching eight shutout innings. Doug Drabek was just as good, until Greg Olson's RBI double in the ninth. This would not, of course, be the last time Drabek cost the Pirates a World Series appearance by blowing a shutout in the ninth.

2. 1991 World Series, game 3. Mark Lemke's game-winning hit in the twelfth went a long way toward getting the taste of Kent Hrbek pulling Ron Gant off first base in game two out of everyone's mouth.

3. 1991 World Series, game 4. A day later Lemke does it again, this time leading off the ninth with a triple and scoring a few batters later on Jerry Willard's sacrifice fly.

4. 1992 NLCS, game 7. Cabrera, Justice, and Bream. I don't think any elaboration is necessary.

5. 1995 World Series, game 6. And not just because of the championship. Tom Glavine and Mark Wohlers combined for a one-hit shutout which put Glavine next to Morris and Beckett on the pantheon of great World Series deciding-game pitching performances. And there was also David Justice, only a few hours after calling Atlanta's fans passionless, redeeming himself with a home run--the game's only run.

6. 1996 NLCS, games 5-7. I know, three games, but they all need to be included. Down three to one in the series, the Braves desperately needed to get their shit together. And holy crap, did they do just that--winning out with a combined score of 32-1.

7. 1998 NLCS, game 5. This time the Braves had dug a three game hole, but had just won game four. Game five was notable for the sheer tenacity with which they fought to keep the season alive, twice overcoming San Diego leads and being forced to bring in Greg Maddux for the save in the ninth when Kerry Ligtenberg threatened to let the whole thing get away.

8. 1999 Division Series, game 3. How many games are remembered primarily for a defensive play? It was the bottom of the tenth and the Astros had loaded the bases with no outs--a run would give them the lead in the series. I don't remember exactly how the Braves got out of the inning, but I remember Walt Weiss diving to stop a ground ball and making an impossible throw to the plate to save the game. And I remember Brian Jordan's two-run double in the twelfth.

9. 1999 NLCS, game 6. In a series that went a whole lot like the previous year's NLCS, the Braves had let the hated Mets come back from three games down and force a game six (after a particularly dramatic, 15-inning game five). After several momentum swings and a tenth inning in which each team scored, it became very important to me that the Mets lose this series in the most heartbreaking way possible. You can imagine my elation, then, when in the eleventh Andruw Jones won the pennant by drawing a bases loaded walk.

10. 2004 Division Series, game 2. Two things stand out about this series. First, the Braves were playing with an immensely frustrating lack of passion. Second, Rafael Furcal, having been convicted of DUI, was going to jail as soon as the season ended. Needless to say, Furcal was playing with plenty of passion, as evidenced by his home run to win the game in the eleventh.

Braves--Unforgettable playoff games (tragic ending division)

2007-02-27T17:58:00.000-05:00

1. 1991 World Series, game 6. Kirby freaking Puckett in the 11th damn inning. [A side note here: Page 2 recently came up with a list of five anti-heroes (or whatever they called it) for each team. I was shocked to see Charlie Liebrandt among the Braves. After some searching I discovered it was for giving up the home run to Puckett. I can't speak for anyone else, but it never even occurred to me to blame Liebrandt--this one was all Puckett.]

2. 1991 World Series, game 7. Remember when it wasn't uncommon for a pitcher to go more than nine innings? Neither do I--but I remember this game, and it was an anachronism even at the time. John Smoltz was 24, Jack Morris was 36. Smoltz pitched an amazing game, shutting down the Twins into the eight, but Morris was better. His ten inning shutout ranks pretty high on the list of all-time great pitching performance and, frankly, if the Braves had to lose this series I can't think of a better way for it to happen.

3. 1992 World Series, game 6. It all came down to Otis Nixon, who decided to bunt. I thought he was going to make it, too.

4. 1996 World Series, game 4. The beginning of the Yankees' mini-dynasty and the end of Mark Wohlers' accuracy.

5. 1999 NLCS, game 5. This one went 15 innings, all but the last of which were fairly uneventful. The Braves finally broke through when Keith Lockhart tripled in a run, but the Mets staved off elimination with a walk-off grand slam in the bottom of the inning.

6. 2005 Division Series, game 4. I can't even think of anything to say about this game, except that it lasted six hours and completely ruined my day.

Braves--Seven moments you may not remember

2007-02-26T20:54:00.000-05:00

1. Greg Maddux makes a catcher look like a fool. (I think, for some reason, that it was Don Slaught. My apologies to Mr. Slaught if I'm wrong.) I'm pretty sure this happened in 1993 or 1994, but I could not find any reference to it online. Here's how I remember it happening: Maddux is making his way down the third base line as the throw comes in to Slaught. It's slightly to the first base side. Slaught, assuming Maddux is sliding into the plate, makes the catch and dives to make a low tag. Maddux sees this coming, staying on his feet and jumping clear over both Slaught and home plate. Now we have a standoff, as Maddux has come to a stop several feet behind the plate and Slaught is back on his feet. They cautiously approach each other, Maddux waiting for Slaught to make the first move. He swipes, Maddux dodges, and, in one of the most athletic moments of his career, dives toward the plate, reaching it a split-second before Slaught is finally able to apply a tag. But again, that's just how I remember it.

2. Charlie Liebrandt makes a spectacular catch on a line drive by Andy Van Slyke in 1992. The game is better known for Otis Nixon's even more spectacular catch in the ninth to rob a home run from the aforementioned Van Slyke, who very likely remembers both catches in great clarity.

3. Deion Sanders and Otis Nixon running wild. This had to have been sometime in the 1991-1993 range. Nixon was on first and Sanders was batting (I seem to remember this happening at the beginning of a game). Sanders hits a long fly ball and the Cubs all-out panic over the fact that two of the fastest players in the league are now running the bases at the same time. The outfielder misplays the ball, allowing Nixon to score easily, and then a bad throw to third brings Sanders in right behind him.

4. Rafael Belliard's second career home run. The first came in 1987, his second full year in the league. Belliard was probably the Braves' most underappreciated clutch hitter during the division title run. This might have had something to do with his constant efforts to double his career home run total. When it didn't matter, Belliard would either strike out or tease the hell out of everyone with a long--but not long enough--fly ball. When it did matter, he had a knack for coming through with an awkward ground ball single. Anyway, in 1997 he finally pulls it off with a shot into Shea Stadium's left field bleachers that absolutely no one saw coming.

5. That ninth inning comeback against the Mets. I had to look up the box score on this one. It was September 2001, and the Braves, holding a slim lead in the standings over the Mets and Phillies, were trailing 5-1 going into the bottom of the ninth. Andruw Jones leads off the inning with a single and, eight batters later, Brian Jordan comes to the plate with the bases loaded and the Braves traling by one. He ends the game and, essentially, the Mets' playoff chances, with a walk-off grand slam.

6. Tom Glavine throwing at Dale Murphy. This was in 1991, early in Glavine's career and late in Murphy's. The Phillies pitcher has just thrown at one of the Braves and, in accordance with the Unwritten Rules of Baseball, Glavine has to retaliate against whoever is batting next. It happens to be Dale Murphy. So Glavine retaliates, throwing four of his slowest changeups, all placed very carefully between the strike zone and Murphy's head--so as not to hit either. Then, in accordance with the Written Rules of Baseball, Glavine is thrown out of the game, ruining his chance at a complete game and the team strikeout record.

7. Andruw Jones on the hill in the Ballpark Formerly Known as Enron Field. The stadium had only been around a few months and no outfielder had ever actually had to deal with a fly ball all the way to that hill in deep center field. On a long shot off Tom Glavine, Jones becomes the first, and he misplays it and just generally looks very awkward--but no one remembers that. What people might remember is what happened on the next pitch, when the next Astros batter hits a ball to almost the same spot and Jones, having learned quickly, deftly climbs the hill and makes the catch.

Your 2007 Atlanta Braves--now with 100% less Ted Turner

2007-02-26T18:43:00.000-05:00

The Braves-being-owned-by-a-giant-soulless-corporation era began in 1996, but at least in the Time Warner years we could pretend that maybe, hopefully, Ted Turner was still calling the shots. But those days are over. The new owner: Liberty Media, a "holding company that owns interests in a broad range of electronic retailing, media, communications and entertainment businesses." Their chairman is nicknamed "Darth Vader" and one of their board members is the man who represented Clinton during the Lewinsky investigation.

What the hell is a holding company, anyway? They don't appear to actually do anything besides buy and sell shit and hope their stock goes up. I suspect their board meetings consist of a whole lot of ritualistic tribal dances meant to raise stock values, increase dividends, and alleviate shareholder concerns. But do they understand the importance of assembling a corps of reliable middle relievers to shift the burden from an aging and injury-prone starting rotation?

Anyway, this is the first of what should be a relatively-prolific flurry of posts in anticipation of the coming season. Among the topics that, as of now, seem likely to be covered:

-Looking back on the greatest division title run in the history of American sports.
-Lists--memorable moments, best playoff games, whatever--who doesn't love a good list?
-Who's going to play left field?
-And, of course, Andruw Jones--what's his deal?

The Big Ten is getting on my nerves

2007-02-20T11:05:00.000-05:00

This is starting to look familiar.

Florida loses a tough SEC game and drops in the polls--and a few other teams are having trouble getting through their strong conference schedules unscathed as well--setting the stage for an overhyped #1 vs. #2 matchup in Columbus between Big Ten teams who have coasted to the top by pummeling the likes of Northwestern and Minnesota.

This post, like this one, has nothing to do with football.

The most interesting statistic is not always the overtly stated one

2007-02-11T23:49:00.000-05:00

There is a commercial which states that "one study found that up to 70% of people who had genital herpes got it from their partner when they had no signs of an outbreak."

OK. But what we've really learned here is that 30% of people who had genital herpes have serious trouble controlling their urges.

Russell, Chamberlain, Bird...and Nash?

2007-02-11T22:38:00.000-05:00

So the Phoenix Suns go 36-4 between November 11 and February 1 and dump a ton of fuel on the Steve-Nash-should-be-the-MVP fire. Nash, however, has won the MVP two years in a row, controversially beating out the likes of Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and Dwyane Wade. That means Nash is facing an uphill battle this year because, while he stands out as an elite basketball player, he hardly seems worthy of three-consecutive-MVP-awards status.

Now, considering all this, how does Phoenix go about making it clear to everyone that Steve Nash is, in fact, the league's most valuable player? Perhaps by fabricating a shoulder injury and then going 2-2, winning two close games (presumably on the residual influence of Nash's presence) and losing two very winnable, yet relatively meaningless games against Atlanta and Chicago.

I'm not saying I actually think the Suns are conspiring to emphasize Nash's value. I am saying that, when he attains three-consecutive-MVP-awards status in a few months, we should remember this current stretch of mediocrity as a very important reason why.

Probably not a coincidence

2007-02-06T10:01:00.000-05:00

I don't have the college basketball knowledge to know exactly how meaningful this is, but it seems fairly significant to me:

Over Florida's entire season (and that's unanimous #1 Florida, by the way) there have only been two instances of a player fouling out of a game. Both were Al Horford, and the foul-outs came in Florida's only two losses.

SEC quarterbacks and NFL success - Not the positive correlation one would expect

2007-01-21T18:08:00.001-05:00

Few people seem to realize that, since the days of Tarkenton, Namath, and Stabler, quarterbacks from SEC schools have become exceedingly likely to flop in the NFL. David Woodley, of LSU, started Super Bowl XVII for the Dolphins, and no SEC quarterback has started a Super Bowl in the 24 years since (and really, who the hell is David Woodley?).

Rex Grossman, who has not exactly been the model of quarterbacking excellence as a professional, just became the first SEC quarterback to win a conference championship game since Woodley. Peyton Manning, of course, has a chance to become the second.

And the last time an SEC quarterback won a Super Bowl (as a quarterback--lest we forget about Hines Ward) was 30 years ago, when Ken Stabler and the Raiders won Super Bowl XI.

We could do worse--and probably will

2007-01-17T17:07:00.000-05:00

The list of Republicans and Democrats I would consider voting for is very short. Ron Paul is on said list, and he may be running for president. The 1988 Libertarian candidate for president and current U.S. House member is not my favorite Libertarian, but he is my favorite Republican.

I'll be writing more about this.

The ongoing debate between Holocaust deniers and fanatical cult members

2007-01-17T11:55:00.000-05:00

Neal Boortz, who occasionally claims to be a Libertarian but has become increasingly inclined to spew conservatism, has an item in his "Nuze" today about global warming. My problem is not so much with Boortz, but with his argument, which exemplifies the type of dangerous reasoning that a huge portion of the population seems to whole-heartedly endorse.

The global-warming-is-not-to-be-worried-about crowd loves to remind us that global warming is an unproven theory, that there is plenty of disagreement among scientists, and that we don't even know that humans are causing any problems in the first place. That's all fine, and it should be noted that the climate-change-is-going-to-kill-us-all faction typically doesn't add much substance to the debate either. The result is that, instead of pooling our knowledge in the Socratic spirit of scientific inquiry, we become mired in this ridiculous bickering that is all but guaranteed to accomplish nothing, and prominent media personalities like Boortz are among those doing the most damage.

Boortz, in full compliance with Godwin's Law, claims that those who would question global warming are treated as if they are denying the Holocaust. He also refers to his opposition as a religion, which suggests, fairly clearly, that their beliefs are based on faith rather than science.

And just to drive the point home, we get this nugget: "I-10 is shut down for 300 miles West of San Antonio, Texas. That would be our southernmost coast-to-coast expressway. Global warming, I guess ....." Well, I guess that settles that. Let's all move to the nearest beach and build houses at sea level.

Boortz at least goes as far as to acknowledge that the average global temperature is, in fact, increasing. But then he attempts to place the responsibility on increased solar activity, thereby casting doubt on any explanation that involves human interaction. The solar thing seems reasonable to me. How about a logical debate on the science of it? How about some research? How likely is it that some very relevant scientific research is out there but has been buried under an avalanche of irrational and politically-biased vitriol? Who do we know with a radio show that reaches millions of impressionable people every weekday?

I did not vote in the poll because, as with most elections, a viable option was not offered. The correct answer, as far as I can tell, is "Global warming exists, and is caused by a variety of factors which we may never fully understand, but the only course of action that we can be certain will improve nothing is the one we seem to be favoring, which is to sit back and assume that there is not a problem and/or there is nothing we can do."

Congress gets down to business

2007-01-11T23:14:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure I can adequately explain how I discovered this, but it seems that two of Florida's House members have introduced resolutions lauding the University of Florida's recent athletic accomplishments.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz's H. Res. 39 is notable in that it refers to UF as "the premier academic institution in the state of Florida," but I prefer the more stat-laden H. Res. 44--introduced by Cliff Stearns and included in its entirety below:

RESOLUTION
To commend the University of Florida Gators for winning the Bowl Championship Series National Championship Game.
Whereas, on January 8, 2007, the University of Florida Gators defeated the Ohio State Buckeyes 41-14 in the Bowl Championship Series National Championship Game in Glendale, Arizona;
Whereas the Gators' dominating victory over Ohio State was the second national title for the University of Florida, the other won in 1996;
Whereas the Gators become the first Division I school to hold the national championships in men's basketball and football at the same time;
Whereas head coach Urban Meyer, a former Ohio State assistant coach, became only the 7th coach to win a national title within his first two seasons at a school;
Whereas quarterback Chris Leak was named the offensive MVP, completing 25 of 36 passes for 213 yards and a touchdown;
Whereas the Gators' two-quarterback system and innovative offense produced 370 yards of total offense and 41 points against a Buckeyes' defense that had previously only allowed an average of 10 points and 273 total yards;
Whereas the Gators' offense dominated the time of possession, controlling the ball for nearly 41 minutes compared to Ohio State's 19;
Whereas defensive end Derrick Harvey tied a BCS game record with 3 sacks and was named the defensive MVP;
Whereas the Gators' defense held Ohio State's offense, which had averaged 36 points and over 400 yards per game during the season, to only 82 yards of total offense, 8 first downs, and 7 points;
Whereas the Gators finished their season an impressive 13-1, including a Southeast Conference championship and a national championship;
Whereas the Gators' players and coaches football team represent the University and the State of Florida with honor and integrity; and
Whereas residents of Florida and Gator fans worldwide are to be commended for their longstanding support, perseverance, and pride in the team: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) commends the University of Florida Gators for winning the Bowl Championship Series National Championship;

(2) recognizes the achievements of the players, coaches, students, and support staff who were instrumental in the victory; and

(3) directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to transmit a copy of this resolution to University of Florida President J. Bernard Machen and head coach Urban Meyer for appropriate display.

Why don't you just make ten louder?

2007-01-10T21:35:00.000-05:00

What the president said:

In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents — but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared.

What I heard:

These go to eleven.

How 'bout that Southeast Conference

2007-01-09T21:41:00.000-05:00

So Florida looks a little shaky against Georgia and has trouble pulling away against Arkansas, but completely thrashes the vaunted Ohio State team.

Wait a minute...if you didn't know any better you might think I'm talking about football.

If we can't get a few yards, we don't deserve to win

2006-12-29T20:12:00.000-05:00

More examples of the trend toward aggressive play-calling in football which, hopefully, will continue to spread:

-Oregon State chose to attempt a two-point conversion to take the lead in the final seconds, rather than settle for a tie.
-South Carolina took a chance on fourth-and-one in their own half of the field with a few minutes to go and an eight point lead.

Oregon State was successful, South Carolina was not (though they won the game anyway), but that's hardly the point. The point is that maybe, if this type of thinking becomes prevalent enough, it will start to overshadow the irrational criticism coaches are always forced to endure when risky calls don't work out.

He'd only be worth $112 million if he were right-handed

2006-12-28T22:00:00.000-05:00

$126 million over seven years for Barry Zito--a pitcher who is, at best, above average?

Am I the only one who was just reminded of Alan Greenspan's irrational exuberance speech?

Come to think of it, I probably am.

The NFL Network is messing with the space-time continuum

2006-12-21T14:25:00.000-05:00

So last Saturday the Falcons-Cowboys game was on the NFL Network, which I don't get, so I was forced to watch the game in a bar.

[Side note: The battle between the NFL Network and the cable companies has taken on the misinformation and petty bickering of a political campaign. Check out Time Warner's version of the story here, and the NFL Network's version here.]

It did not take long for me to note a strangeness in the broadcast. Everything seemed to flow. Each play was followed by the perfect reaction shot from the sideline or the crowd, and preceded by a carefully crafted build-up of drama. Every shot morphed into the next, allowing the broadcast as a whole to fit together with a surprising lack of down time and an inexplicable maintenance of excitement. It was, in a word, cinematic. I was very impressed.

And then they slipped up. A lingering shot of the Falcons cheerleaders doing a routine in the end zone was followed immediately with a cut to the teams lined up at midfield, only a few seconds from snapping the ball and starting the next play. Wait a minute, I thought, the cheerleaders would not be on the field when a play is about to start! Something was highly amiss.

So I started to pay closer attention. After a while, I got the distinct impression that the shots they were using were not necessarily happening in real-time. I don't know if this has been attested anywhere, or if there is any precedent for such a thing, but it strikes me as very disturbing. What if they start messing with the game itself, manipulating the footage to make it more exciting? My God, what if they're already doing this?

Needless to say, I will not be calling my cable company to ask them to carry the NFL Network.

What's so religious about a pine tree?

2006-12-20T12:00:00.000-05:00

In this week's Tuesday Morning Quarterback, Gregg Easterbrook gives a perfect description of the current state of Christmas:

"Modern observation of Christmas involves two simultaneous events: religious commemoration of the birth story of Jesus and an entirely secular festival of gift-giving centered on a pleasing children's fable about a kindly bearded sorcerer who loves little boys and girls and leaves them presents while they sleep."

His point being that just about anyone who chooses to play the separation-of-church-and-state card concerning, say, a Christmas tree displayed in a government-owned airport probably has a fairly misguided sense of just what exactly Christianity is.

Some accountability would be nice

2006-12-17T19:53:00.000-05:00

The BBC used the results of a recent study to call out a segment of society for having a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of the English language...and in so doing showed a fundamental lack of understanding of the English language.

The lesson: never trust "science" when it has been commissioned by a corporation and/or relayed by a journalist.

The tide is turning

2006-12-15T22:17:00.000-05:00

It seems to be becoming increasingly trendy to apply statistical analysis to football play-calling decisions. There is Gregg Easterbrook's Tuesday Morning Quarterback, which makes a weekly habit of deriding NFL coaches for being too quick to punt on fourth-and-short. There is UC-Berkeley professor David Romer's paper from a few years ago which applied risk analysis to football and concluded that coaches are often far too conservative. There are the clever people at pigskinrevolution.com, whose recent article on ESPN.com's Page 2 described the computer program they have derived for determining the ideal play selection. And there is also apparently an article in a forthcoming issue of ESPN the Magazine, which I've not read, along similar lines.

If there is any traction behind this development (and I very much hope that there is), we can expect that the coaches, those actually making the decisions, will be the last to pick up on it. But there might be hope. Bill Belichick, who has earned a level of respect that is largely unrivaled at the moment, has been getting some attention for his "risky" choices (earlier this season I heard a commentator state with a mix of befuddlement and admiration that Belichick is using some sort of "new math").

And by the way, as I'm writing this, UMass just converted a gutsy fourth-and-inches around their own 30 in the Division-formerly-known-as-1-AA Championship Game. They scored a touchdown to tie the game a few plays later.

Falcons-Bucs: first half thoughts

2006-12-10T14:24:00.001-05:00

[There will be plenty of Falcons coverage posted here, by the way]

1. Can we stop propagating this myth that the Falcons are a great running team? Their offense is absolutely inept, but is lucky enough to have three outstanding athletes: Michael Vick, Warrick Dunn, and Jerrious Norwood. The receivers are awful (with the occasional, but frustratingly inconsistent exception of Alge Crumpler), and the offensive line is atrocious. Much of their rushing yardage comes from broken passing plays, when the line breaks down and Vick can’t find an open receiver. Much of the remaining, more conventional rushing yardage comes on runs where the line floods to one side and the ball carrier goes the other way. These are not traits exhibited by great running teams. These are traits exhibited by a team that sometimes (why the hell not all the time?) has the sense to recognize its shortcomings and work around them.

2. The tide seems to be turning, in terms of the focus of the criticism of the Falcon’s offense. I’m hearing less and less about Vick being a bad passer (he’s no Peyton Manning, but with some protection he could easily be a Carson Palmer or Philip Rivers) and more and more about the receiving corps being bad (holy crap, are they bad). It’s reached the point where Ashley Lelie is lauded for catching a ball over his head (He had to reach up for it! And he didn’t even bobble it all that much!).

3. Is there any team in the league better at making nothing out of something than the Bucs? Three drives in the first half inside Atlanta’s 35, and only six points out of it.

The versatility of English

2006-12-10T11:01:00.000-05:00

A recent Language Log post by Geoffrey Pullum attacks a claim that, by virtue of its giant vocabulary, English is (or at least, can be) more descriptive and precise than, say, French.

To back up his point Pullum quotes Teresa Cunningham, who says: "I have never had anybody turn to me and ask to ‘borrow’ an English word so they can express their thoughts more precisely while speaking another language."

That’s perfectly reasonable, but try turning it around. How often do English speakers, hoping to express their thoughts more precisely, borrow a word from another language? And how often are those words welcomed into English as if they had been part of the family all along? Hors d’oeuvre, laissez faire, film noir, and portmanteau come to mind from French alone.

Obviously this isn’t enough evidence to even suggest that English is the world’s most descriptive language, and I don’t mean to assert that similar processes do not happen in other tongues, but I think it illustrates an area where English excels and many languages fall short: there is a sense of immense versatility, that no word or phrase, no matter how obscure or “foreign,” is outside the realm of the English lexicon.

Just what in the hell is a passer rating, anyway?

2006-12-05T19:19:00.000-05:00

Around the time I heard for the fifth time that Rex Grossman's passer rating against the Vikings last Sunday was an atrocious 1.3, I decided to figure out just what in the hell a passer rating is, anyway.

Turns out it's an exceedingly goofy and convoluted system which includes eight (eight!) numbers that appear to have been chosen arbitrarily and must at some point be added, subtracted, multiplied, or divided in combination with a quarterback's actual statistics. The best possible rating is 158.33. (Who's ready to put 158.33 alongside 10, 100, and 1600 on the Mt. Rushmore of perfect scores?)

The most interesting part is that when I calculate my own passer rating (0 attempts, 0 completions, 0 yards, 0 touchdowns, and 0 interceptions) I come up with a rating of 39.58. To put this another way, here's a brief list of people and things that had a higher passer rating this Sunday than Rex Grossman:
- Me
- Dick Cheney
- The USS Constitution
- Marilyn Monroe
- Every member of Spinal Tap (even the drummers)
- You
- A 12-pack of Rolling Rock
- The Theory of Relativity
- And, of course, Bears coach Lovie Smith, who continues to say things like "we are not making a change" and "Rex is our starting quarterback and we're trying to get him better."

That's right, a blog

2006-12-05T17:27:00.000-05:00

Here is where I will be making public various thoughts, opinions, and observations and, more importantly, practicing my writing. There will not be any particular focus, though I expect disproportionate attention to be given to sports, politics, and language.

Updates will be occasional. Accountability will be minimal. Fact-checking will be surprisingly thorough. Comments will be welcomed.