|
"...you live in a nation where the vast majority of Americans are struggling every day to reach an ever-shifting and moving bar..." -Michelle Obama |
Aboot Reader's Rep Home RSS Feed Contributors The Elder: rightwinger23 at hotmail.com Saint Paul: saintp at excite.com JB Doubtless: abunodisceomnes at hotmail.com Atomizer: atomizer77 at yahoo.com
FEATURES ATOMIZER's A-LIST JB's SACK SITES SAINT PAUL'S SHOW STOPPERS ELDER's ELITE THE USUAL SUSPECTS IN AGGREGATE CENTER OF GRAVITY INVISIBLE AIRWAVES |
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Yesterday, my wife and I received the sad news that a dear friend had passed away after a long battle with cancer. Well, it seemed like a long battle, although after talking it over we realized that it had only been about nine months from the time she was diagnosed with a brain tumor. Her funeral is on Saturday and we'll be leaving town on Friday in order to attend it.
Her death is a true tragedy and any words offered as condolences seem like trite platitudes at this point. For there are no words that can ease the pain. What do you say to a husband who's just lost his wife and the mother of his children? What do you say to two young daughters whose memories of their wonderful mother will grow increasingly vague as they grow older? What do you say to a mother, who suddenly lost her husband a few years ago and now must cope with a parent's worst nightmare; the death of one of your children? There are also no answers to the inevitable question of why? Why did it happen to her? Why did a young woman in the prime years of her life face such a horrible affliction? Why her, a caring woman who lived a good life and wanted nothing more than to raise her children and grow old with her husband? Why? Why? Why? There are no answers to offer. It's a time when the clichés about "putting things in perspective" "making you realize how lucky you are" and "not taking anything for granted" don't seem so worn after all. It's a time to mourn what you have lost, but also cherish what you have and recognize how fleeting it all can be. I don't want to turn this into some maudlin, "Cats In The Cradle" like heart-tugging reflection, but it does serves as a cautionary reminder. Even though at some level you know it's not true, you assume that your friends and family will always be there. So if you're too busy today, you can always call or visit them tomorrow. Or the next tomorrow. Or the tomorrow after that. It shouldn't be, but it always comes as a shock when one day you hear the news and realize that there is no tomorrow. It's also a time to wonder where God figures in all this. It's disquieting to consider a world with God where such awful things happen. But it's even more disquieting to consider such a world without God. For with God there is hope. And at a time like this when words will not suffice and no answers are to be had, hope is about all we have to go on. Gina Johnson R.I.P.
For years, I've wondered what the origin of Detroit's claim to the title "Hockeytown" was. I assumed it had something to do with the glory days of the Red Wings when the likes of Gordie Howe, Ted Lindsay, and Sid Abel skated in the Motor City. In a piece in today's WSJ called What Happened to Hockeytown? (sub req), we learn the cold truth:
After a dozen years of serving as the signature of the Motor City's sports fever, Hockeytown appears to have caught a cold. First conceived in 1996 as a marketing slogan aimed at revving up Detroit Red Wings fans starving for a Stanley Cup, Hockeytown evolved into part of the hardscrabble city's identity. Along the way, the team collected three championships. But after a generation of sellouts, the franchise is struggling to re-establish itself. So the whole "Hockeytown" mystique was nothing more than a marketing gimmick? For some reason I'm not surprised. I can recall the apathy of Detroit toward the Wings during the late Seventies and early Eighties when the team was struggling. The problem with such marketing gimmicks of course is that over time their appeal tends to fade even if the team continues to do well. So far the Wings have played nine home games in the post season, and Mr. Catallo hasn't bought tickets to a single one. He's not alone, either. With conference finals tickets starting at $75, the Wings have struggled to sell out Joe Louis Arena. At their last home game--a riveting 2-1 win Saturday over the Dallas Stars--swaths of red seats remained empty throughout the arena. Blocks of four tickets could be purchased online three hours before Game 2; blocks of 10 could be had before Game 1. Outside the arena, scalpers peddled tickets below face value. The whole concept of "Hockeytown" isn't about how good your team is on the ice. It's about how the city and fans embrace and support the game. The Red Wings also saw regular-season attendance drop nearly 6%, to an average of 18,912 fans, according to ESPN.com. That ranked them seventh in the NHL; they ranked second in 2006-07. I think it's safe to say that the "Hockeytown" title can officially be stripped from Detroit. It's time to move on from cheap marketing gimmicks and embrace a more authentic and genuine moniker that truly captures an area's passion for hockey. Something like "The State of Hockey*" perhaps. *Trademark Minnesota Wild 2000--Any reproduction or other use of "The State of Hockey" without the express written consent of the Minnesota Wild is strictly prohibited. Labels: Hockey
A couple of e-mails on yesterday's post on the new TSA "Black Diamond" security lines both notice the same problem with the program: no consequences for non-experts going where they should fear to tread.
Tim from Colorado is skeptical: Regarding the TSA's new "Black Diamond" program, color me dubious at best. I don't think it will work for very long. At a ski area, if you are less than an expert and go down an expert run, you'll probably get yourself killed. The inexperienced can see the dangers from the top (sometimes the bottom) and will wisely back off. At the airport, once the inexperienced see how much faster the "experts" move through security, they will deem themselves experts, too. It's kind of like skiing or golf; there are a lot of people out there who think they're better than they really are. At the airport, their will be no consequences if somebody gets in the wrong line and ends up delaying everybody behind them. Tom has the same concern, but thinks he has the answer: As a person who goes through airport security at least twice a week and sometimes four roughly 3 of every 4 weeks, I would welcome this program at MSP or any of the airports I fly from. The upside to "Black Diamond" lines on the ski hill is that the penalty for choosing this over the bunny hill is a probability of broken limbs and as the excerpt suggests people self selectively opt out. With travel, many people will want to go through the fast moving line. At MSP, in the Land of 10,000 Entitlements, I would hate to be the poor TSA schlep having to explain to some fairness expert and resident of our open minded capitol city that because she and her partner and their two children only travel once per year she has to go through the bunny line while the "corporate" "suits" get to go through the fast lane. Before leaving the fast line the aggrieved traveler will have to blog about it, file suit and arrange for a full protest and boycott. The fast line will be just as slow as ever. Maybe if the TSA had a bone crushing enforcer at the end of the Black Diamond line if you held up the line for longer than a specified amount of time, it would work. I'm sure there are some former hockey goons looking for good government jobs. JB, get the tapes out. WARNING: Failure to navigate through the Black Diamond security line in a forthright manner will result in an extensive passenger debriefing with Agent Probert. Proceed at your own risk. Labels: Travel Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The WSJ editorializes on McCain's climate change plan (in the print version it was titled "Obama-lite"):
The latest stop on John McCain's policy tour came at an Oregon wind-turbine manufacturer, where the topic was--what else?--the Senator's plan to address climate change. This is one of those issues where Mr. McCain indulges his "maverick" tendencies, which usually means taking the liberal line. That was the case yesterday, no matter how frequently he claimed his approach was "market based." In fact, if "the market" is your favored mechanism, Mr. McCain's endorsement of a "cap and trade" system is the worst choice for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. The Bush Administration has pursued one option, which combines voluntary measures with subsidies for "clean" alternatives. Since 2001 under this approach, U.S. net carbon emissions have fallen by 3%--that is, by more than all but four countries in cap-and-trade-bound Europe. At the other end of the market spectrum is a straight carbon tax, which would at least distribute costs more efficiently. It would also force politicians to be honest about--and take responsibility for--the true price of their global-warming posturing. Then there's cap and trade, which Mr. McCain has backed for years and would, as he put it with some understatement, "change the dynamic of our energy economy." He noted that Americans have a genius for problem-solving but continued, "The federal government can't just summon these talents by command--only the free market can draw them out." To translate: His plan is "market based" insofar as it requires an expensive, invasive government bureaucracy to interfere with the market. That much pretty sums up that feelings that I had yesterday when reading about McCain's plan. The Journal editorial closes by questioning McCain's understanding of the economics of climate change and reminding Republicans for the 7,834th time that--no matter what the issue is--they can't out-Dem the Dems: Given the distance between Mr. McCain's rhetoric and the policy reality, we wonder if he even knows what he's proposing. This is of a piece with his approach to many domestic issues, where the policy contradictions and cul-de-sacs overwhelm his professed political convictions. The McCain campaign believes his global-warming plan will appeal to independents and young people, as well as separate the Senator from President Bush. But he will never be green enough for the climate-change fundamentalists. The Obama campaign and Democrats were already dinging Mr. McCain yesterday for half-measures. His concessions won't help him much in November, but they will make his governing decisions in 2009 that much more difficult if by some chance he does win. When will they ever learn? Labels: 2008 Election
In no particular order.
The one thing that most of these movies share is the collective agreement that these are all important, smart movies that people who want to be viewed as being important and smart are supposed to like. The truth is, these movies are either boring as hell, never as good as they are hailed, or simply played out and no longer entertaining in any way, whatsoever. Chinatown--snooze fest dee-luxe! I have actually seen it in a movie theatre and it added nothing. Water? Who controls the water? Who cares? Nicholson looks ridikkeruss with that bandaid on his nose throughout the five hour epic (seems like it, anyhow). Plus, it looks so 1975 and not 1946 or whatever it was supposed to be. The Last Waltz--little insight here folks: most of the recordings were re-done in the studio, so the great harmonies you think you're hearing live were fixed later. Lame. And what the hell is up with the interviews? Robbie Robertson and "Marty" Scorsese are so wacked out of their self-important gourds on coke that they are incoherent. Notice the white nostril artwork in the background? Hilarious. *rolls eyes* Spinal Tap--plaaaaayyyed out. Way out. Yes, we all get the gags. They're 25 years old. I thought this was really funny when I was 17--"They're making fun of heavy metal? Hah, that is so funny!" The next person I hear say "Hello Cleveland" or "This one goes to 11" is going to be assaulted with a Telecaster. Enough already. Raging Bull--more boring than Chinatown. Yes, I know, hard to imagine. I watched this again recently for about 40 minutes and not a damn thing happened. They went to a nightclub and there was some talking. Then they talked some more. Then Deniro was walking around in a wife beater and acting all angry. I fell asleep. Dr. Strangelove--zzzzzzzzz...I watched about 20 minutes of this one recently too and I felt like I was being beaten about the head and back by the movie. WHACK! WHACK! WHACK! They pummel the audience with cloying irony, my least favorite literary device. This is another movie where I want to yell out "YES! WE GET IT! THE MILITARY ARE STUPID! IT'S HILARIOUS! NOW STFU!" That's all I can think of for now. The Elder Takes A Whack: I imagine that this post will generate some discussion (with reaction from Saint Paul and Atomizer forthcoming) as JB processes several sacred movie cows through his abattoir. My only real disagreement is with "Tap" which I believe still retains its timeless appeal. Labels: Movies
Scott McCartney reports from The Middle Seat (WSJ-sub req) that even an organization as nightmarishly bureaucratic as the TSA can come up with a good idea at times:
The government is introducing segregation into airport security lines. And many travelers seem to like it. In an effort to ease traveler anxiety and maybe even improve airport security, the Transportation Security Administration is rolling out a new setup where fliers are asked to self-segregate into different screening lanes depending on their security prowess. There are lanes for "Expert Travelers," who know the drill cold; "Casual Travelers," who run the airport gauntlet infrequently; and people with small children or special needs who move slowly through screening. Hal-a-freakin-luyah. Many is the time I've wished for just such a system to separate those wise in the ways of security checkpoint procedures from those who react as if someone has just asked them to fill out the complete New York Times Sunday crossword. In Aramaic. The nameless, faceless TSA bureaucrat who proposed this system deserves a heartfelt thank you from all frequent travelers. The idea, akin to how ski resorts divide skiers by ability, was suggested to TSA by focus groups of fliers. The agency didn't think it would work, says TSA chief Kip Hawley, but a test showed travelers liked the idea, and it had some benefits for security screening. So TSA has now rolled it out in 12 airports, from Seattle to Boston, dubbing the program "Black Diamond," the name it uses for expert lanes, borrowed from the ski-resort term for expert trails. More "Black Diamond" setups are coming. "You have to see it to believe it," Mr. Hawley said. "It has improved the flow and calm at the checkpoints." Sigh. Okay, we should thank the nameless, faceless TSA bureaucrat who had the common sense to at least try something different. Improving the flow and increasing the sense of calm at security checkpoints are both huge factors in reducing the stress and needless anxiety that usually accompany any trip to the airport. Labels: Travel Monday, May 12, 2008
On last Saturday's First Team of the Northern Alliance Radio Network, one of the topics that we covered was our wish for Republican candidates to offer clear and distinct energy policy alternatives to those espoused by the Democrats. Unfortunately that wish appears increasingly fanciful as evidenced by John McCain's remarks on global warming and energy today:
Republican John McCain, reaching out to both independents and green-minded social conservatives, argues that global warming is undeniable and the country must take steps to bring it under control while adhering to free-market principles. In remarks prepared for delivery Monday at a Portland, Ore., wind turbine manufacturer, the presidential contender says expanded nuclear power must be considered to reduce carbon-fuel emissions. He also sets a goal that by 2050, the country will reduce carbon emissions to a level 60 percent below that emitted in 1990. "For all of the last century, the profit motive basically led in one direction--toward machines, methods and industries that used oil and gas," said McCain. "Enormous good came from that industrial growth, and we are all the beneficiaries of the national prosperity it built. But there were costs we weren't counting, and often hardly noticed. And these terrible costs have added up now, in the atmosphere, in the oceans and all across the natural world." Two problems with this. The first is that achieving McCain's goal--while less drastic than others proposed--is completely unrealistic without major impacts to the economy. The second is that while he claims his approach adheres to free market principles, it's just a less drastic form of government intervention. McCain's major solution is to implement a cap-and-trade program on carbon-fuel emissions, like a similar program in the Clean Air Act that was used to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions that triggered acid rain. Industries would be given emission targets, and those coming in under their limit could sell their surplus polluting capacity to companies unable to meet their target. McCain wants the country to return to 2005 emission levels by 2012; 1990 levels by 2020; and to a level sixty percent below that by 2050. "As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy," he said. "More likely, however, there will be some companies that need extra emissions rights, and they will be able to buy them. The system to meet these targets and timetables will give these companies extra time to adapt--and that is good economic policy." No, it isn't. It's trying to solve a problem that we may very well have little or no ability to impact while taking on costs that are likely far in excessive of any realistic potential consequences from said problem. The benefits of this are dubious at best, while the costs are very real (and almost always understated). McCain is not the only Republican proposing Democrat-lite energy polices: The Brookings Institution held a discussion on energy challenges for the next president of the United States, where Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) spoke about his Seven "Grand Challenges" for the next five years. The 5-year proposal, which he calls "A New Manhattan Project," includes integration of plug-in electric cars and trucks, carbon capture for coal-burning power plants, cost-competitive solar power, nuclear waste management, advanced biofuels made from inedible crops, green building construction, and fusion energy. I always cringe when I hear about the need for "A New Manhattan Project" or "A New Apollo Program" to address the country's energy needs. It's clear that when the government has a concentrated, focused effort on a specific goal, it can use its power to accomplish remarkable feats in relatively short periods of time. In addition to the examples cited above, you could include the Hoover Dam or more recently the building of the new I-35W bridge: The bridge was expected to open on December 24, 2008, but Sanderson said they are about three months ahead of schedule. There's a financial incentive to finish early, too: $200,000 for each day before December 24, with a limit of 100 days. The contractors will receive an extra $20 million if they finish by September 15. Sanderson said that's the date his crews are shooting for. Pretty impressive considering the bridge collapsed on August 1st, 2007. Now that's what you call adhering to free market principals. The one thing that all these projects have in common are clear and concrete goals to achieve. Building a useable atomic bomb. Landing the first man on the moon. Building a damn. Building a bridge. Of course, there were thousands of actions that went into each goal being realized, but at the end each could easily be demonstrated as having been reached. So what is the goal of our "New Manhattan Project" for energy? Lower carbon emissions? More "alternative" fuel sources? Less reliance on foreign energy supplies? Or simply more energy for the US? All laudable goals no doubt, but not exactly the specific, easily measured ones mentioned early. Having the government try to drive such an energy effort across a broad spectrum of industries, geographies, regulatory groups,research specialties, etc. with no clear goals seems like a prescription for inefficiency, waste, and poor results. Like the "war on poverty" or the "war on drugs" before it, a centralized government energy program will likely become another vast and endless sinkhole where billions (if not trillions)of dollars are invested in efforts that pay few dividends. Labels: Energy
A couple of e-mails regarding my post on "bottlenomics."
Todd from Pennsylvania reminds us of the seasonality of Scotch: Scotch is certainly a 'staple' in my house, even being assigned a cabinet top in the dining room, but I don't plan on buying any more anytime soon. Not because of the economy, we're doing fine--it's the the seasonal switch to gin. I'm off to the store later this AM to start stocking up on the staple of spring, summer and early fall, half gallons of Booths. I bet the scotch economy barometer will start to spike in late Sept., early October at the latest. I too make somewhat of a seasonal transition from brown liquors to clear, but I also believe that two things that are always in season are good Scotch and a dry Martini. Dan from Minnetonka waxes philosophically: Read your post on scotch and the economy. The thought comes to mind. Drinking, while a necessity, does not have to be done to the level one would most enjoy. Both in quantity, and more importantly as we mature quality. While there is some truth there, I would disagree on the quality angle. As you get older (and hopefully wiser) you naturally tend to drink less than in your days of misspent youth. But you should be drinking better. Much better. Of course, when your drink of choice in college was a five-dollar liter of gut-rot vodka diluted with Sunny Delight, the bar has been set pretty low. Labels: Drinking Friday, May 09, 2008
A couple of points from a quick perusal of Michelle Obama's May 2nd stump speech.
I know that she's a very intelligent woman, but I'm not sure if she really gets irony. They move the bar. They raise it up. They shift it to the left and to the right. It's always just quite out of reach. And that's a little bit of what Barack has been experiencing. The bar is constantly changing for this man. Raise the money? Not enough. Build an organization? Not enough. Win a whole bunch of states? Not the right states. You got to win certain states. So the bar has been shifting and moving in this race, but the irony is, the sad irony is that that's exactly what's happening to most Americans in this country. The bar is shifting and moving on people all the time. And folks are struggling like never before, working harder than ever, believing that their hard work will lead to some reward, some payoff. But what they find is that they get there and the bar has changed, things are different, wasn't enough. So you have to work even harder. Even if what she says about all that confounded bar moving is true, is it in any way ironic? And see what happens when you live in a nation where the vast majority of Americans are struggling every day to reach an ever-shifting and moving bar, then what happens in that nation is that people do become isolated. I have to agree with her here. It's been my experience that when you're struggling to reach an ever-shifting and moving bar, you do become isolated. Once the bar starts moving, you usually find yourself cut off and booted out on the street in no time. If you're lucky, one of your friends will come out and pick you up from the sidewalk, but you're often on your own. By the way, she uses the word "bar" no less than thirty-one times in the speech. Unfortunately, it's never in the right context. Labels: 2008 Election
There was much talk this week about the special election in Louisiana's Sixth District, where Republican Woody Jenkins was knocked off by Don Cazayoux. The district had been in Republican hands for thirty-four years and many pundits divined that this election's outcome was a preview of a coming Republican debacle in the fall. In today's WSJ, Kimberly Strassel says that while there is a lesson for Republicans in Jenkins' defeat, it's not that all hope is lost:
Yet Mr. Jenkins was also a divisive firebrand. He was infamous for carrying around plastic fetuses, to demonstrate his opposition to abortion. He'd previously landed in a weird entanglement with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. This history made even conservatives fidgety, and crowded out anything Mr. Jenkins had to say on issues. More debilitating to the Jenkins campaign was a strong whiff of the ethical problems that have plagued Republicans. A labor union ran ads noting Mr. Jenkins's had seen 19 tax liens filed against him and his broadcasting company since 1990. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee pointed out that a murky Jenkins charity had paid him consulting fees, paid rent to his company, and paid more than a half-a-million dollars to his wife. He'd been in hot water over campaign contributions, and voted against financial disclosure. Democrats, meanwhile, have realized it's more important to win than to impose liberal litmus tests on candidates. Mr. Jenkins's opponent, Don Cazayoux, was pro-life and pro-gun. He had nice things to say about John McCain, and rarely mentioned Mr. Obama or Hillary Clinton. A self-styled "John Breaux Democrat," he focused on education and health care. As the polls deteriorated, the National Republican Congressional Committee ran desperate ads attempting to link Mr. Cazayoux to Mr. Obama. The comparison was ludicrous, and Louisiana voters knew it (even if the national press corps didn't). It failed to save Mr. Jenkins from a three percentage-point loss. Clearly in Jenkins case, there were problems with both the message and the messenger. In contrast to another GOP candidate in Louisiana: He might have also directed those listening to another Louisiana election this weekend, one that didn't get nearly the attention. The district is also conservative; Mr. Bush won 71% in 2004. The real difference was the campaign. The 43-year-old Republican, Steve Scalise, had pinpointed today's GOP vulnerabilities, and ran an anti-status-quo campaign. His focal point was wasteful spending, and he touted his legislation to reform Louisiana's earmark process. Another hallmark was ethics reform and his fight against public corruption. He talked up competitive private health care, lower taxes and school choice. Republicans looking for an Obama doppelganger would have been better served by his Democratic competitor, Gilda Reed. She campaigned on immediate withdrawal from Iraq and "universal" health care. Trade came in for a bashing, as did secret ballots in union-organizing elections. Ms. Reed explained she was personally pro-life, but felt abortion needed to remain legal. Her cause became that of the liberal left, with the Daily Kos hosting an online fund-raiser on her behalf. Mr. Scalise won 75% of the vote. Strassel summarizes what the real lessons of both campaigns should be for the GOP: With Democrats actively recruiting conservative candidates, it's no longer good enough for the GOP names to fall back on cultural credentials, to demagogue immigration, or to simply promise lower taxes. Voters care about the size of government, but they are equally worried about the cost of doctor visits and gas prices. The winners will be those who explain the merits of a private health-care reform, who talk about vouchers, who push for energy production. And given its reputation on ethics, it's clear the GOP has to recruit Mr. Cleans, who also make voters believe they are more interested in solving problems than bringing home pork. It's almost a cliché these days to say that politicians can't just be against something, they have to be for something, but Republican candidates need to beaten over the head with that simple message every day between now and November 4th. Labels: 2008 Election
Canada has lost track of 41,000 illegals:
Auditor General Sheila Fraser is reporting that Canada's border agency has lost track of 41,000 people who have been ordered out of the country. In a report tabled Tuesday, Fraser said that the numbers of people in Canada illegally may be growing because the Canada Border Services Agency is failing to monitor its detention and removal decisions properly. I'm sure there's nothing to worry about here. Labels: Canada Thursday, May 08, 2008
Bert e-mails to hep us to a story on what sales of Scotch may tell us about the economy:
For those trying to see through the current global economic fog and work out how bad things may get, enlightenment can come in many forms. Sales of scotch whisky are regarded by some as a fair, if unusual, barometer of economic prospects and how confident people feel about the present and the future. "I tend to believe there is a correlation between the two," says Paul Hughes, director of the International Centre for Brewing and Distilling at Heriot Watt University. The reason for this is fairly simple. Scotch is a truly global product sold in more than 200 countries. Though it may not be a staple item Well maybe not in your house. or a commodity, like oil, which is traded by the second and whose price is tracked in minute detail, it is enjoyed in most corners of the world and therefore a decent indicator of broader buying patterns. Historically, scotch sales have tended to follow the global economic curve. In the last 30 years, the value of sales has only fallen three times: in 1983, 1998 and 2004. This makes sense. If you are going to cut back, one of the areas that would likely be impacted would be booze. Not that you would quit drinking, but instead of a fifty dollar bottle of single malt Scotch, you might opt for a fifteen dollar domestic whiskey instead. I used to think that the liquor industry was fairly recession proof, but a friend who owns a store here reports that rising gas prices and the softening economy have directly impacted his sales. Again, it's not that people aren't drinking anymore. They're just drinking more frugally. Labels: Economics
Dave Golokhov provides his list of the Top 10: Worst franchises in pro sports:
Every fan wants to cheer for a team that has the championship history of the New England Patriots, New York Yankees or Detroit Red Wings. Unfortunately, many get stuck with a long string of bad luck, like the Chicago Cubs; thrifty ownership, like the now-defunct Montreal Expos; or a dim-witted front office that is unable to make logical personnel decisions, like the current New York Knicks. Here is a list of the top 10 worst sports franchises currently in operation. 10. Los Angeles Clippers 9. Vancouver/Memphis Grizzlies 8. Atlanta Hawks Three eternally crappy NBA teams. So far so good. 7. Minnesota Twins "Moneyball" is to baseball what frugal is to cheap; it's a creative way of saying, "we're not going to pay for our stars or reward our veterans who have earned their keep." Sabermetrics and scientific stats are used to evaluate players and give a better indication of their worth, but teams like the Minnesota Twins use this strategy to kiss their superstars goodbye at the trade deadline or the first day of free agency. The Twins constantly sell proven veterans for prospects and draft picks, but when those youngsters finally develop, they get shipped away to start the cycle again. The Twins incessantly look to the future and winning now is not a priority. Translation: the Twins care more about the dollars than about winning. Are you kidding? Sure, the Twins have made some questionable moves of late. Letting Hunter go. Trading Santana. Allowing a guy like Atomizer to help design their new stadium. But you can't seriously claim that they're the seventh worst franchise in all of pro sports. They're only the third worst franchise in Minnesota. Has Golokhov missed the clown show that plays at Target Center or the NFL team that's letting its Super Bowl dreams ride on the arm of Tavaris Jackson? How about the Brewers? The Cubs? The Florida Panthers? The Phoenix Coyotes? When's the last time any team from Cleveland's won anything? Worst list ever. Yes, that IS saying a lot. Labels: Baseball
The news that Robert Beale had been found guilty of tax evasion last week was cause for celebration among lefty bloggers. Robert is the father of Theodore Beale, better known as Vox Day and no doubt many were happy to use the sins of the father against the son, especially those who had oft felt the sting of the back of Vox's virtual hand in the past. The fact that Robert Beale was an outspoken Christian also contributed to the joy they felt as his downfall.
But I also believe part of the reason for their exuberant reaction and the level of opprobrium they directed at the elder Beale was that in their eyes he committed the ultimate crime against the state by refusing to pay his taxes. In no way am I defending Robert Beale's actions--it's pretty clear that he broke the law and should pay an appropriate penalty for it--but when it comes to heinous crimes against society, not paying your taxes isn't high on my list. If instead of refusing to pay his taxes because of fervently held beliefs, Beale had been a leftist radical whose revolutionary ideals lead him to try to blow up the Pentagon or plant bombs under police cars, he would have received a much more sympathetic ear in the media and among the left. Labels: Crime
From an article in yesterday's WSJ on China's softball team's attempt to Recapture Olympic Glory (sub req):
In December 2005, with the Beijing Olympics on the horizon, the Sports Administration's Small Balls Department abruptly replaced Ms. Lihong with an American, Michael Bastian. Hey Bill, congrats on the new job. Where you working again? Um...(lowers voice) the Small Balls Department. What? (coughs) The Small Balls Department. Still can't understand you man. (Much louder) I work in the Small Balls Department, okay? And it's a great place to work too. (snickers) Yeah, sounds perfect for you dude. Labels: China Wednesday, May 07, 2008
There's been some concern expressed about the welfare of Atomizer after he participated in last Sunday's National MS Society Walk. For most people, such a walk would not push them to their physical limits, but considering that Atomizer's body has been in a state of advanced atrophy for some time now, that fact that we haven't heard from him since does give us reason to worry.
The second round of the Stanley Cup playoffs proved to be a bit of a dud. Other than the four-overtime thriller that sent the Stars past the Sharks in six, the other series lacked excitement. Detroit throttled the Avs in four, proving just how pathetic it was that the Wild lost to the Avs in the first round. The Pens handled the Rangers without too much trouble in five games. While the Flyers taking out Montreal in five was an upset, it wasn't all that interesting of series. In summary, of the four second round series one was done in four games, two in five, and one in six.
Compare this to the first round where three series went the full seven games, three went six, and one each finished in five and four games respectively. Long series make for more drama, more intensity, and more interest. There's nothing better than a Game Seven, especially if it goes into overtime. Plus short series lead to ridiculous gaps in the NHL playoff schedule, as we're suffering through now with Sunday's Sharks-Stars game being followed by THREE DAYS of no hockey. Yeah, that helps create and hold interest. Let's hope that the third round matchups bring back the level of excitement that playoff hockey should have. I hate to say it, but I find myself in the uncomfortable position of pulling for Detroit in the Western Conference Finals. Two reasons: #1 The last three Stanley Cups have been won by Anaheim, Carolina, and Tampa Bay. If that doesn't make the hockey purist in you wince, I don't know what will. Thankfully, the only non-traditional hockey team still left in this year's Cup chase is Dallas. #2 From the perspective of purely entertaining hockey, the best Finals matchup would be Detroit and Pittsburgh. That would be a lot of fun to watch. Of course, I'd then be pulling for the Pens to knock off the Red Wings and win the Cup. In no less than seven games. Labels: Hockey Tuesday, May 06, 2008
If you missed our interview with Douglas Feith (the man who helped put the neo in neo-con) you can now listen to it in its entirety commercial-free here. John ended up asking most of the questions about Feith's new book "War and Decision," while Brian and I were able to sit back and listen to his account of what really happened in the run-up to the war in Iraq.
Feith also has created a website with the same name that includes links to many of the official documents referenced in the book. The site has a section listing some of common misconceptions about the war and the real facts behind them. The entire "Bush lied" narrative that is so widely accepted these days does not hold up under the scrutiny of the evidence that Feith presents. Labels: NARN
This year's Minnesota GOP state convention will be held on May 29th-31st at the Mayo Civic Center in downtown Rochester. Once again, the Northern Alliance Radio Network will be broadcasting live from the convention floor (or perhaps vertigo-inducingly high above it as in 2006). The current schedule calls for us be on the air from 5pm-7pm on Thursday and Friday (pre-empting some obscure national host) and doing our regular full slate of Saturday shows from 11am-5pm.
Taking the show on the road also provides an opportunity to organize a little gathering of hosts, bloggers, groupies, and other assorted hangers-on who congregate at such events. Since our own JB Doubtless is a proud Rochester resident, I asked him to come up with the manliest joint in town for us to get together at. Something along the lines of the Salty Spittoon. JB's suggestion? Whistle Binkies on the Lake. Hmmm...The name left me a little skeptical, but after checking out their selection of tap beers, it appears okay to trust JB's recommendation. This time. By the way, if any of the campaigns are looking to have a swinging good time at their convention hospitality suites, they should consider booking these good old boys. Contact Chad The Labels: Events
If you haven't checked it out lately, you may have missed the expansion of the RiffTrax Catalogue. There are now a score of movies to enjoy, including a number of recent releases such as "I Am Legend," "Cloverfield," and "Beowulf." You may also notice that one James Lileks has been added to roster of guest riffers. His profile includes a picture of him doing his best impersonation of Tom Cruise in "Top Gun" (nice try James):
James Lileks was born in Fargo North Dakota, the son of Norman Rockwell and Betty Crocker. He attended the University of Minnesota for seven years, attending class for five; at the Minnesota Daily he started writing a column that has continued in the Twin Cities market for thirty years. After college he used his English Major to find employment as a convenience store clerk, but soon left the world of actual labor for a series of jobs spent typing fiction in small, cloth-covered cubicles. He has been a columnist for City Pages, the Pioneer Press, Newhouse News Service and is presently a columnist for the Star-Tribune, where he also runs the buzz.mn blog. They've also come up with a RiffTrax player to make the entire synchronization process almost idiot proof. So idiot proof that I'm going to finally try it myself on the next bidness trip I take. Labels: Movies
|
TALK O' THE TOWN 
Listen to the Northern Alliance Radio Network on Saturdays from 11am 'til 5pm on AM 1280-The Patriot:
Listen Live!
TRIVIAL PURSUITS |
![[Powered by Blogger]](bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
