A For Effort

Huzzah to Eli Manning for not stinking up the joint tonight, and 1.5 cheers for the Giants for at least making the mouthbreathing Patriot fans sweat it out.

And, as loath as I am to admit it, three cheers for the Patriots, for compiling an downright impressive 16-0 season, really proving their moxie over the last 4 or so weeks in a series of thrilling comebacks over the Eagles, Ravens, and Giants.

I am off to the mountains for a 3-day snowboarding extravaganza starting tomorrow morning, so unless I decide to log on from the condo, no more blogging in 2007.

Happy New Year, everyone, and see you in '08!

Sports Roundup

A few sports items:

1) Must-read of the day is Simmons letting his wife take over the column for the Friday NFL picks, in honor of the fact that, entering week 17, she can go 0-16 to his 16-0 and still beat him for the season. Money quote:

I also don't get how I'm doing so well at picking these games. For the first two months of the season, I was pregnant and angry and feeling like one of those bouncy castles they have at kids' birthday parties. Then I passed a 9-pound human being out of my body. Then I didn't sleep for the next seven weeks and had to feed that same baby for 24 hours a day except for the 13.2 minutes per day he doesn't eat. I have probably seen a total of six minutes of football and never turn on ESPN because I'm always afraid two sportswriters yelling at each other are going to make one of my kids cry.

2) The Broncos have officially crossed the line from 'depressingly bad' to 'hilariously bad' this week, as they released punter Todd Sauerbrun last week, bring back Paul Ernster. Only, Ernster's first punt of the game went a whopping 17 yards, and he was poor all night. He was then released the next morning. The Broncos are interviewing several punters to try and find one for their final game of the season, which makes me wonder - what does a punter interview look like?

I mean, you only need to know how he punts the ball, right? So is 'interview' just code for 'sticking him on the field with half a dozen balls and telling him to kick them a long way?' Or do they actually want to know more about his philosophy of punting, is he a team player, etc.?

3) I take back anything good I said about the Nuggets this year. They're depressingly inconsistent, the telltale sign of a badly coached or mentally weak team.

4) I don't understand many things I've heard said about this weekend's Patriots/Giants game.

- Firstly, let me give kudos to the NFL, something I failed to do before, for being man enough to admit that they were wrong to try to use this game as leverage over their fans. I mean, really, with the Democrats in charge of the Senate, everyone knows that they would never actually punish the NFL for anything, because that would require, you know, doing stuff. I'm sure Bush would veto it anyway, out of reflex. But still, the NFL was smart enough to use it as cover to do the right thing and make sure football fans can see the game.

- On Today this morning, Matt Lauer said the game is the most anticipated matchup in many years. Really, Matt? Because I always think of an 'anticipated matchup' as a game between two high quality franchises, with some history or bad blood between them, with high stakes. Say, a week 9 game between the 8-0 Patriots and the 7-0 Colts, a rematch of last season's hotly contested AFC Championship game, with likely home field advantage in this year's AFC Championship game at stake. Even, for that matter, the week 11 matchup of the 9-1 Packers vs. the 9-1 Cowboys. Not a week 17 game between a team on the greatest regular season win streak of all time vs. a decidedly inconsistent, mediocre team led by the worst quarterback for a playoff team this year, unless the Vikes eke their way in.

- Lots of discussion about whether or not the Pats or Giants should be playing to win this game, or worrying about the possibility of injuries and prepping for the playoffs.

The common refrain is something like what I heard John Kincaid say on Cowherd's show on ESPN Radio this week. To paraphrase: "You don't play for regular season records. You play for championships. You want to get a perfect season? Really? Did they start handing out rings for that now?"

This is patently ridiculous. The only reason championships are worth more than regular season records is because the public affords you more prestige for winning them. A great player who never wins a title, like Marino or Barkley, has their public reputation degraded. That's the only reason it matters.

But what gets you more prestige? An 18-1 championship season or a 19-0 championship season? I say the second, and not by a little. By a lot. If the Patriots go 18-1 and win the championship, they cement their status as a dynasty. 4 titles in 7 years. One of the greatest runs of all time by a pro football team. If they go 19-0, they are the greatest football team in the history of the NFL. Ever. No doubt. No argument. 4 titles in 7 years, capped off by the best season in NFL History. You know you are the best. Isn't that why you play?

What are the odds of a major injury if they play normally against the Giants? 5% Maybe 10%? They've had 15 games already this year and not suffered any such injuries on the offensive side of the ball. Compare that with the fact that the amount of prestige they get if they win this game, and the next three, goes up exponentially.

If you're looking for prestige and recognition, then by playing the numbers, the only reasonable thing to do is to go for it.

On the other side, the Giants just aren't very good. In fact, they're just on this side of 'bad', mostly because they can run the ball, and also because their coach makes them show up to meetings five minutes early, otherwise they are considered 'late' and fined for it. That's just funny.

I would put their chances of running the table, winning 3 playoff games on the road then defeating whoever emerges from the burning crucible of the AFC this year at about 2 or 3%. Whereas, if they go out and play their damndest, they might have as much as a 15 or even 20% chance of beating the Patriots, assuming that the Pats are playing to win as well.

And, just like with the Pats above, the Giants get major props if they are the team to derail a perfect season. Yes, you'd rather win a championship, but frankly that just isn't going to happen. On any given Sunday, yes, any NFL team can beat any other. So the Giants can win. But on 4 straight any given Sundays, the Giants will not beat those particular NFL teams.

So, in short, as far as I am concerned, both of these teams ought to be playing to win. For the Giants, its their Super Bowl. For the Pats, it's their shot at History.

This Just In: Coffee Addicts Drink More Coffee. Film At 11.

Great article in Slate today about the Starbucks reverse-jinx, wherein having a Starbucks move into your neighborhood actually improves the business of the local mom-and-pop coffeehouse.

When Starbucks opens a store next to a mom and pop, it creates a sort of coffee nexus where people can go whenever they think "coffee." Local consumers might have a formative experience with a Java Chip Frappuccino, but chances are they'll branch out to the cheaper, less crowded, and often higher-quality independent cafe later on.

Quite right. Another point which is hinted at in the article, but never quite explicated is the way that Starbucks creates demand which did not exist before. When Wal-Mart moves into the neighborhood, they don't really create demand. One doesn't go around, see a Wal-Mart, and suddenly think 'oh yeah - I really want a new pair of sunglasses!' Whereas, people who start really enjoying coffee as a result of the local Starbucks are a new customer, created entirely out of whole cloth, who might visit the local coffeehouse sometimes that they never would have done before.

It's sort of a 'rising tide lifts all boats' phenomenon. Starbucks continues to grow faster than the mom-and-pop outlets, but they don't care, so long as they're doing more business overall.

Another point, which is well-raised in the article, but really has been bugging me lately, is how exactly Starbucks fits into the 'mass production' market. When I go to Taco Bell, I know why I'm only paying $1.39 for a burrito - economies of scale (many outlets bargaining ingredient prices down), lower quality ingredients, and the use of poorly-trained laborers on an assembly line. You don't have to be a fine chef to grab the guacamole-dispensing caulking gun and make a 7-layer burrito.

Mmmm....7 layer burrito...

Anyhow, he says, wiping drool from his chin, Starbucks has the same idea: mediocre (albeit consistently so) quality coffee, prepared by a fairly untrained, poorly-compensated employee who is taught that all you have to do to make a shot of espresso is press the 'shot of espresso' button. Not to mention the 'opening 6 new stores a day' level economies of scale. Yet, somehow, with all these supposed competetive advantages, they still charge more money for an inferior product!

I'm sure an economist can tell me all about how Starbucks, having created brand recognition that would make Mickey-fucking-Mouse jealous, can get away with these sorts of shenanigans. I'm left deciding that this is yet another example of how the market theory of economics fails, mostly due to the fact that people are very poor approximations to the ideal consumer.

As an inveterate, unrepentant coffee snob, I love all of this. More coffeeshops, the better, as far as I am concerned. And if I can go to a bar now and order a halfway-decent cup of espresso, while Joe Six-pack mooingly waits in line for a nonfat-half-caff-venti mocha latte with sugar-free vanilla syrup, then more power to both of us.

Where Have All The Tough Guys Gone?

Via Sir Charles over at the Cogitamus blog, a very good question: what, exactly, in the life history of President George W. Bush, leads Ed Henry of CNN to characterize him as a 'tough guy from Texas?'

The fact that he was a cheerleader at prep school?

The fact that he bravely pulled family strings to get into the Texas Air National Guard, assuring he would not have to go to Vietnam?

The fact that he is a confirmed alcoholic and cocaine addict?

The fact that, when he decided it was time to start thinking about running for President, he bought a former pig farm in Crawford, TX and did some landscaping so that it would look more 'ranch-like'?

The fact that, during his public appearances, the policy is to not allow members of the audience to wear t-shirts which express opinions different from his own?

Then, you read Christopher Hitchens' memoriam for Benazir Bhutto. Read about the fact that, even though her brothers and father had been murdered, both in Pakistan and in Europe, she fought to 'escape' from her comfortable retirement retirement/exile in Dubai, so that she could return to try and help the country of her birth.

Read about how, on the night before she was first elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, she took a visiting journalist out on a personal tour of the slums of Karachi, with no security whatsoever.

Then think, again, about the guy who is so tough that he's afraid of a t-shirt.

Are We All Going To Hell?

As Matthew says, there's really not much I can add, in terms of truly insightful punditry, to the news that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated this morning in Pakistan.

I'm not going to get quite as worked up as Matthew, and some of his commentators, get about this news. Bhutto was a useful symbol of the concept of democracy in a fairly undemocratic part of the world, especially relevant because Pakistan has, you know, The Bomb. But many commentators pointed out, when she first returned a few months back, that as an actual living person, she was not nearly as idealistic as we would have liked her to be, having been implicated in many scandals about corruption during her time in power.

So, while it's definitely a step back from the direction we'd like Pakistan to be going, I don't think it's the end of the world. We will, as we usually do, find a way to muddle through this most recent clusterfuck. It will probably mean dealing with Musharraf for another few years, but that probably would have been the case even before today's events.

Go Freedom!

A major success for the forces of goodness and justice and lardasses everywhere, as the NFL caves and announces a simulcast of Saturday night's Giants/Pats tilt on CBS and NBC, in addition to the NFL Network.

I like that the Senate Judiciary Committee was threatening to look again at the NFL's antitrust exemption. If the NFL wants to use its monopoly status to try and squeeze maximum profit from the cable and satellite companies, then they don't deserve that monopoly status. Let them have to compete in an open market, and see how much their product is really worth. Since they receive special privileges at, in essence, the expense of the taxpayer, they owe the taxpayer the opportunity to see their games, and offering to sell the NFL Network to cable companies at the low, low rate of $8 per household (just slightly less than what the ESPN family of network charges) isn't really being very generous at all. Good job by the Senators, representing the interests of their constituents.

Gotta love Commissioner Goodell's blowing smoke up our collective ass:

What we have seen for the past year is a very strong consumer demand for NFL Network. We appreciate CBS and NBC delivering the NFL Network telecast on Saturday night to the broad audience that deserves to see this potentially historic game. Our commitment to the NFL Network is stronger than ever.

No, Commissioner, we don't care a whit for the NFL Network. We want the NFL games. Specifically, we want the two games this year featuring two actual professional-grade teams (Cowboys/Packers and Giants/Pats, although calling the Giants 'professional-grade' is a stretch.) To say that means we are showing a 'very strong consumer demand' for the network might be just a sliiiight exaggeration

I Will Drink Hot Chocolate From The Frozen Skull Of Al Gore...

Global warming, my ass...

Check out this forecast. It isn't supposed to break 34 degrees for a week, and we're in for 4 to 8 inches of new snow tomorrow, on top of the fact that the snow from 2 weeks ago still hasn't melted.

It's enough to turn a guy Republican, I tell ya. Or get me to move somewhere with more civil winter weather. You know, like Saskatchewan.

Been Nice Knowin' Ya

Well, to all my Faithful Readers, it's been a real pleasure.

Clearly, the Apocalypse is upon us, for today I received the following e-mail from my mother:

Dad found an add for the Science Connection, www.sciconnect.com . The ad says “Stick your neck out and meet someone. Mingle with others of your kind in the only singles group for science and nature enthusiasts.”

I guess I need to give her credit for the 21st century-ness of it all, but mostly I'm just frightened that my mother is even aware of online dating. If that's not a sign of the end of the world, I don't know what is!

A Modest Proposal

In some ways, I can't believe that I'm even writing this post. I love zoos; many great formative memories of my youth have to do with the Philadelphia Zoo, and the insiderish little plastic elephant key that we had as official Zoo Members, which allowed you to activate little boxes at each animal's enclosure that would tell you about the animal.

But, in light of the fatal attack of a patron at a cafe at the San Francisco Zoo yesterday, I think I have gotten to the point where I can say that I look forward to the utopian day when we don't have to have zoos anymore.

I think it would be pretty hard to argue that the animals in zoos are 'satisfied' with their lives, however you choose to define that word. You don't have to be a crazy evolutionist like me to believe that so-called 'higher' animals probably have at least some sense of their surroundings, and might be aware of how a 200' x 200' pen is not exactly 'the wild'.

But, I do agree that the mission many zoos cite, which is to raise awareness of biodiversity and the vast array of life forms on this planet, is a valid one. So, for that matter, is entertainment; I don't even mind seals being taught to jump through hoops, if the seals don't mind it either.

I'm envisioning something like a holodeck zoo - holograms of real tigers, acting like real tigers, lounging in real (holographic) tiger habitats. I feel like, as one of the employees at the World's Leader in Holographic Data Storage, I ought to be able to help bring this process along. Maybe that's something I can aspire to with my eighth million or so...

The Best Thing I Can Say

My mother always taught me that, if I had nothing nice to say, I shouldn't say anything at all. So, I will restrict my commentary about Alien vs. Predator: Requiem to saying that it only wasted 86 minutes of my life, and the previews were actually pretty cool (Hellboy 2 and J.J. Abrams' new Cloverfield being the high points.)

And, ummm...well, the two women behind me who were clearly terrified and chit-chatting incessantly through the movie finally got up and left about 30 minutes into the film.

Best quote from Rotten Tomatoes: "Despite what the harsher R-rating recommends, it's not really advisable that anyone over the age of 17 see this movie."

Compared to that, I was nice, right?

Politics Over Christmas Ham

Shane asks an interesting question, or at least relays an interesting one from his Dad. Since politics has become, at essence, the heart of adopting positions that get you elected to office, and then trying to implement policies that ensure your reelection, how do you gauge the sincerity of someone's beliefs from their rhetoric? In other words, how do you know that they aren't just saying what they are in order to get elected, with no particular intention to fight very hard for anything controversial?

I think this is a good point (leading me to ask, why isn't Shane smart, like his dad?) and worth thinking about. To me, it's probably the strongest argument in favor of Edwards in the Dem primary. At least on domestic policy issues, he is the most progressive/liberal, and also the most willing to, well, be angry about it.

To that extent, I think anger could serve as a useful proxy towards the concept Shane labels 'honor'. For instance, does anyone doubt that if, through some sort of horrible set of circumstances, Giuliani is actually elected President, we will start bombing more people in more places, regardless of the opinions of a) the Congress, b) the judiciary or even c) the American populace?

Of course not. He's aggressive and angry when he talks about Islamic fascism, and he is going to do something about it.

Similarly, when Edwards talks about, say, free trade, you can tell that he really believes in the rhetoric he is using. I have no doubts that he would go to the mat for such things as universal health care, defending the rights of American workers, etc.

The reason I support Obama is that I like to think that, maybe, just maybe, he can reduce the need for such fights. If he can defuse tensions, maybe he can pass some halfway measures, such as a health care plan that gives people the option of keeping their own plans or buying into a socialized one, which would really be the right experiment, if implemented correctly.

But, if you want someone who is really going to fight for what you believe in, then I think publicly palpable anger probably isn't the worst measure of such beliefs.

Incidentally, I think Republicans are probably even worse on this measure than Democrats are. For instance, the Republicans count as valuable members of their coalition out-and-out racists. So when they go to Southern strongholds (see last month's bloviating debate about Reagan kicking off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, MS), they speak about "State's Rights." This is supposed to be code for 'I hate black people like you, so you should vote for me'. And, of course, it mostly works.

The only (well, not the only, but one) problem is, the Republicans aren't idiots. They know they are both morally and electorally in the wrong if they try to, say, repeal the Voting Rights Act. So they never try.

You see similar dynamics with regards to abortion (how many anti-choice laws passed when the Republicans held both houses of Congress, the White House, and a majority on the Supreme Court, again?), gay issues (whatever happened to that Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, anyhow? You know, that one that became such a big deal right before the '04 Election? Kind of evaporated as an issue, didn't it?), and others.

So, I do agree that it's an important question to think about, but it also has to be acknowledged that it's a problem for everyone, on both sides of the aisle, and I'm not sure that you have much, other than past performance, to help you predict future results. Unless, of course, you just want to pick the candidate who wins the 'anger primary'.

You'll Shoot Your Eye Out

Okay, one last post for the night, and I'm done.

It's been a fine Christmas Eve for me - a day snowboarding, a home-cooked meal (albeit, cooked at my house, by me, which takes a little of the shine off), and an autographed (if not specifically to me) copy of Tony Leonardo's Ultimate: The Greatest Sport Ever Invented By Man (thanks Michelle and LJ!) arrived in the mail.

Plus, I got my last-ever 'Happy Holidays' disc from the UPA, last-ever because I have finally extracted myself from the volunteer position of chair of the College Eligibility Committee, thank goodness.

Anyhow, the point is, a very nice day. And I'm about to kick on the DVD for my annual showing of 'A Christmas Story', only the greatest Christmas movie of all time. I've got popcorn and a freshly-opened box of wine, and I'm ready to go.

All that's left is to wish 'Merry Christmas to all, and to all, a good night.' and to tell you to get the hell away from your computer and go spend some quality time with your family, dammit!

Holy Consistency, Batman!

Stat of the week, via Peter King's Monday Morning Quarterback: on Sunday, as they do just about every week, the Colts started 22 players (11 offense, 11 defense. To my knowledge, the only exception to that this year was when the Redskins played 10 on D the first play after Sean Taylor's murder.) Of those 22, 22 have played their entire careers with the Patriots.

That's ridiculous. In this supposed era of free agency and big-name signings, to have one of the two best teams of this decade have that sort of consistency and acumen in drafting and signing undrafted players is absolutely amazing. King leads off the article talking about how the Patriots wrote the book, starting in 2002, on how to build a successful NFL franchise in this era: get a good QB, draft well, and fill in the rest of the slots with lesser-known free agents.

Although, he doesn't note how far from that pattern the team deviated this year, with big-name signings on offense (Moss, Welker, Stallworth) and defense (Adalius Thomas). On the other hand, they are pretty clearly playing the game of professional football as well as it has ever been played in the history of mankind, unless there was some australopithescene team who was equally dominant, but of course their record wasn't recording because, duh!, no writing yet.

Anyhow, the point is that if you look at the franchises that have been most consistently successful since 2000, which I would argue are Pats, Colts, Eagles in that order, they all follow the pattern of being completely willing to cut ties with a popular and successful player at a moment's notice if they think it will be good for the team's success, and they normally are very leery of going out and paying market price for a big-name free agent.

Fortunately, there continue to be franchises like the Redskins and the Lions, who are all too willing to bid up the market price of said free agents, which drives up the salary cap and allows the Pats and the Colts to stockpile more weapons for their inevitable AFC Championship showdown. I'll bring the popcorn...

God May Not Be Great, But Who Doesn't Love Santa?

In honor, sort of, of the season, The Onion's AV Club posts an interview with Christopher Hitchens, one of the so-called 'new atheists'. If you have a free 20 minutes or so, it's definitely worth a read.

Hitchens is the most frustrating of the new atheists, to me. There are four most commonly mentioned ones - Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. Dawkins (of The Selfish Gene fame) is a brilliant scientist, but not very good as a commentator on other topics. He tends to bloviate quite a bit when talking about non-science topics, although his scientific writings (I particularly recommend The Extended Phenotype) are absolutely top-notch.

Dennett is simply, and incredibly, arrogant - the man wrote a book called Consciousness Explained, for Pete's sake - and is fairly easy to dislike for that reason, even if you agree with him, as I generally tend to. I don't have a strong opinion on Harris, as I've never read anything of his.

But Hitchens, oh, Hitchens is a shifty one. For one, he's far-and-away the best writer. He has a magnificent gift for rhetoric, which of course makes it very difficult to disagree with him sometimes. He has that talent that I've heard applied to Antonin Scalia, although in Scalia's case I don't really see it - the ability to make an argument so persuasive that, even though you disagree with every fiber of your being with the conclusion, you cannot find fault with any step of the argument and are left stuttering 'but, but, that's just not right!'

Also, as seen in this argument, he can be quite sensible, smart, and funny. But, usually, he just goes for the ridiculous, over-the-top rhetoric, which I guess he thinks (probably correctly) will sell more books. It's damn frustrating, as I said, because I think he could be so much more. If his public persona was more like the person in the interview I linked to, I think he could be ever-so-more persuasive...

My Inner Nerd's Wet Dream

Is anyone else as unnaturally excited by the new movie Alien vs. Predator: Requiem as I am?

There's absolutely no excuse for it. I saw the first AvP movie. It was awful. Ridiculous. The only upside was that they got the guy who played Bishop in Alien and Aliens to reprise his role, only his actual human character. Well, that, and the fact that, finally we got to see Aliens fight Predators on the big screen, something us geeks have been anxiously awaiting ever since Dark Horse Comics' first Alien vs. Predator series, back in the day.

Nonetheless, my inner nerd (who is, believe it or not, much nerdier than my outer nerd) is practically going into convulsions about this movie. I'm probably going to go see a Christmas matinee of it.

What's wrong with me?

Ouch!

I'm watching the Packers/Bears game, mostly as an excuse to avoid accomplishing anything helpful during the rest of the day, and there's a blocked punt. I can't help but think that I understand the concept of football. Tackling seems pretty vicious to me, but okay, I get it. But holy crap, how hard a motherfucker do you have to be to dive towards the foot of someone who is attempting to kick something as hard as he possibly can?

I think it's safe to say martial artists are pretty tough dudes, right? But still - when someone tries to kick them, they try to block it, or get out of the way of it. They don't dive into it. But a gunner on special teams is paid to dive towards the punter's foot. Yikes.

Our New Foreign Policy: Cold. Hard. Cash.

It has often occurred to me that if we had known, in advance, how much the current misadventures in Iraq would cost us, just in terms of straight-up money spent (ignoring, for the sake of argument, the cost in human lives, national and military morale, the opportunity costs of having all of our military forces tied up there, not to mention the opportunity costs of increasing the amount of hatred towards and decreasing the reputation of the US around the world) then we could have had much better results by simply showering that much money on Iraq.

To wit, the population of Iraq in July was about 27 million people. I think it's a conservative estimate to say that we will spend 1 trillion dollars by the time we get out of there. 1 trillion by 27 million is $37,000 per person.

What if we had offered Saddam Hussein 1 billion dollars, straight up, to retire to someplace warm and sunny with white, sandy beaches? And then offered every man, woman, and child, say, $10,000 as a lump-sum payment contingent on, I don't know, some sort of good behavior clause. We could have saved a lot of money, bought off a shit-ton more good will than we have there right now, plus saved so many uselessly-lost lives.

But Matt points out one major reason why that may not have been a very good idea. Specifically, in a society full of old hatreds and divided secular groups, simply handing out cash and money and training to a bunch of people who would like to use them to kill each other probably won't increase safety and security.

Which, mostly, leads me back to the end decision that going into Iraq was such a horrible idea that there really was absolutely no way that we could have ended up anywhere other than where we have. Especially true with the chuckleheads that were making the decisions at the time, but the more time goes on, the more convinced I become that Matt is right and the so-called 'incompetence dodge' is just a cover-your-ass excuse for people who were flat-out wrong.

Philosophy: Now With Pretty Pictures!

There's a comic which runs in the Longmont paper (the Daily Times-Call, seriously, even though that sounds like the name of a paper where a comic book superhero's alter ego works) called 'Pearls Before Swine'. It's got infantile artwork, but it's usually fairly funny.

The one from December 23rd, on the other hand, goes well beyond 'fairly funny' into 'remarkably insightful'. Check it out (you may have to scroll a bit to find the one from 12/23.)

Suffice to say, I am a airplaneseatreclineologist.

For Real, This Time

Okay, now that I have been out of work for about 4 hours, I have a little more perspective on the fact that, even though this was a terrible, long, damn week, it is over now, and it's o-fficially time to celebrate.

So, to all my readers, of all persuasions, go and have yourself a Merry Little Christmas. There'll be more posts between now and then, but if I'm not working again until December 26th, then it's already officially Christmastime.

It's Like Ra-ee-ain, On Your Wedding Day...

In light of the supposed-to-be merry mood of the holiday season, I am only going to point to this bittersweetly-ironic story without comment.

Department Of Corrections

Technically, Shane, now it's 5 posts in 1 hour, 32 minutes.

Technically.

Since this post has no other purpose, umm....Happy Holidays! I'll miss you, big guy...

On January 31st, My Life Begins Anew

Oh yeah, baby, Lost is finally coming back. January 31st, 9 PM. You better believe I'll be watching. And...is that Charlie we see at second 24? I'm sure that will end up being important, somehow...

Things That Make You Stupider

While we're speaking of things, like Puerto Rico, which seem overly-complicated just for the sake of being complicated, you really should not check out Duel, the new trivia game show on ABC. Holy crap, what a load of dreck. Look, Mike Greenberg is entertaining enough, in the context of the Mike and Mike show on ESPN radio. But, really, as a host of one of these nominally dramatic shows, where we manufacture drama using extreme music, flashy lights, and random commercial breaks, he just brings nothing to the table whatsoever. As I say: load of dreck.

My Nightmare

There are many things which terrify me. Zombies. The prospect of a President Giuliani. The music of Wayne Newton. Those monkeys with the swollen red butts. But nothing quite so much as a vlorgy featuring three slightly overweight white guys with bad haircuts...

For all the terror, though, it is an interesting discussion.

Game Night!

For reasons that are slightly opaque, even to me, I ended up in Golden on Tuesday night for a game night. Don't get me wrong - I love game nights, and would have one every week if I could. It's more the whole 'driving a touch over an hour, each way, on a school night' part that I'm pretty sure I won't be doing again.

Anyhow, at Jeff and Tracy's we ended up playing a game called Puerto Rico. I have to say I was generally unimpressed. It's not that it's a bad game, not that at all. In fact, it was quite...stimulating. It's complicated, and works on a lot of levels. I didn't do very well, in large part because I didn't quite understand how badly my general strategy was screwing me over, but I don't mind that. I suspect that with a couple more repetitions, I'd start to really get it and probably be pretty good at the game itself.

But, as a game night game, it was downright rotten. I enjoy game nights for a very specific reason: it's social night for nerds. It's the nerd-equivalent of poker night, or girls' night watching Sex and the City. Often, at game night, we play Settlers of Catan. And everyone, the first time they play Settlers, thinks that it's complicated. But, like any good game, once you get the rules down it's actually fairly simple. During everyone else's turn, there's relatively little that you have to worry about doing. This leaves lots of time for chit-chatting, trash talking, or heavy drinking, all necessary parts of any enjoyable evening.

Puerto Rico, on the other hand, never really simplified. It works in too many dimensions, and the number of things you have to keep track of while you're playing the game is ridiculously complicated. You have a little less to do on other peoples' turns than on your own, but it's still way too much. Plus, while you can screw with people in Puerto Rico, it's always via these ridiculous double bank-shots, whereas in Settlers you can relatively directly mess with your opponents which is, let's face it, fun!

So, not a bad game, but a bad 'game night' game. I don't know quite where this leaves it, in terms of when I'd actually want to play, but c'est la vie.

On the other hand, Shane recently introduced me to a game called Munchkin, which is just a hoot. The best part about it is the inherent sense of humor built into the game. For instance, one of the pieces of armor is the 'Kneepads of Allure'. The curses include 'The Duck of Doom' and 'A Chicken on Your Head!' Also, in various ways, you can directly mess with the other players, which is just, as previously mentioned, fun.

So, in short, chatting with your friends - fun. Messing with your friends - even better. Making sure that your warehouse isn't full of corn such that, if you can't ship your indigo, you don't lose it to the bank? Less so.

What I'm Watching

I'm in the midst of a personal television renaissance of sorts right now. With a little more downtime than I've had, thanks in large part to my stupid back and neck which keep waylaying me, and a little less motivation to hang out with friends, in large part due to the craptacular weather which has kept the roads snowy for about a week now, I've been catching up on some good old-fashioned TV.

The big discovery, in the Christopher Columbus sense of 'discovering something that millions of people knew about already' (yes, yes, I stole the line from Lisa Simpson. It's a good line, so sue me.), is the general greatness of 'The Wire'. Yet another one of those HBO shows which is, well, redefining the whole concept of what is possible with a television show.

Yes, I'm only halfway through the first season, and I know that means that aficionados are going to tell me that I don't have any idea just how good the show actually is. Which is why I don't spend a lot of time talking to aficionados, frankly. I have no use for someone who only wants to tell me how I don't understand something.

Anyhow, the point is, it's a damn fine show. The characters are interesting, and well-developed. The show is totally willing to spend 6 or 8 minutes developing a fine point of one of its characters, and does almost no explication at all. Which makes it quite unique for TV - even Lost, my personal favorite show, gets sucked down the 'must explain it all to you using teeny tiny words' every once in a while.

As an example, check out this famous scene (caution: not appropriate for work.) The two detectives, McNulty and Bunk, are trying to investigate a months-old crime using nothing but the photos taken by the previous investigators and variations on the word 'fuck'. But somehow, it all makes sense. It gives you an idea of what's going through the protagonists' minds, without them saying 'let me tell you what's going on in my mind.' It's amazing television.

Let's see, what else. Well, something I saw, which I truly regret, was Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End. I saw the second one, 'Dead Man's Chest', on an airplane once. I hated it, but was giving it the benefit of the doubt because it was on a plane, with bad sound, a tiny, faraway TV screen, etc. and maybe that detracted from the watching experience.

But, no. The last two movies of this franchise just sucked. Which is a damn shame, because the first one was such good fun. Not a great movie, but equal parts silly and funny and entertaining. I can't say exactly how the last two went off the rails, mostly because I don't want to waste any more time thinking about them than I already wasted in watching them.

I have been catching up on my Must-See TV watching, as well. I am still mystified by 'The Office'. I guess, in theory, I understand why people think that this show is funny. And no, I've never seen the Ricky Gervais version. But, much like I understand the concept of post-modern art, but cannot actually appreciate it, I don't really laugh very much when I watch 'The Office', either.

On the other hand, '30 Rock' is just about the funniest damn thing on TV right now. Tina Fey is so funny in it, and the writing is generally so spot-on hilarious, that it's almost enough to make me regret missing the last 8 years of Saturday Night Live. Not quite enough, but almost.

The show is worth watching for Alec Baldwin's character alone, and there are plenty of other memorable performances as well. But Baldwin is just sublime. He hits the perfect tone of sarcasm, arrogance, and self-unawareness that the character requires. '30 Rock' is what I will miss the most as a fallout from the writer's strike in Hollywood.

Also, I just finished reading 'The Golden Compass'. Not a half-bad book, actually. Although, I don't understand how anyone can really deny the anti-religiosity of the book. He may not smack you over the head with it, at least not in the later portions of the first book, but Pullman expressly states that 'The Magisterium' originates from The Catholic Church! He talks about the Pope and everything...

I'm tempted to see the movie, mostly as a 'fuck you' to the Christianists, to use Andrew Sullivan's wonderful term, who argue that children need to be protected from the movie, even though it's had nearly all the religion surgically removed from it, because the movie might prompt kids to read the book, and that might put ideas in their heads! Oh, the horrors! Suffice to say, I am thoroughly unimpressed with a God who is so weak that a mere movie (or a book, or, even, a trilogy!) would suffice to turn members of His flock away from Him. But I will probably pass on the movie, at least until DVD time, because I really try to save my $9.50 for things I am legitimately excited about.

Finally, I was very glad to see Volume 2 of Heroes stumble to a close. Talk about an uninspiring show. Really, the big bad guy is so scary because he's invulnerable to physical harm and he's really mad at the world? Color me, well, whatever color 'not frightened' is. The storyline where Hiro became Takero Kensei was vaguely interesting, but not nearly as interesting as the amount of time spent on it would indicate it ought to have been. And really, for being the most powerful imaginable hero, since he absorbs everyone else's power just by being near them, Peter is really ridiculously easy to take advantage of.

Don't even get me started on the fact that The Company would put its most dangerous prisoner, Adam, in the adjoining cell with its most powerful, allow them to talk to one another, and never, you know, pay attention to their conversations, or something, so that they might know when Peter stopped taking his pills. The whole season was full of completely absurd plot holes like that.

Anyhow, Heroes is something I will not be particularly missing as a result of the writer's strike. Maybe, after the strike ends, they'll be able to find actual good writers to take over for a show which is rapidly fallowing in the shallow sandbars of its own incredibly low expectations.

In Defense Of The Indefensible

I doubt that any of my reader(s) are really of the 'torture is okay, kinda, 'cause we're the good guy' crowd. But I'm sure some of you know someone like that. I'm thinking specifically of my ex-roommate Matty, whose bro-in-law is a former military total wingnut.

Anyhow, if anyone of you know someone like that, go ahead and point them in the direction of this post at the new Cogitamus blog, which is the new home of Ezra's old weekend bloggers. It's as good a statement as I've seen of the absolutely ridiculousness of the fact that we are even having this debate, in this suppsedly-civilized day and age.

Jesus Fucking Christ

Via Matt, news comes that the Pope considers abortion, birth control, and gay marriage to be threats to world peace, on par with nuclear proliferation and economic inequality.

Because, yeah: the only reason we don't have world peace is that there just aren't enough people in the world.

The Most Triumphant Of A Triumverate Of Trilogies

Via Faithful Reader M.S., Cracked.com's official decision as to which is the superior sci-fi trilogy, Star Wars, The Matrix, or Lord Of The Rings. Please note that if you cannot stand massive amounts of sarcasm and cynicism, you probably should not click through on the link. However, if you can't stand massive amounts of sarcasm and cynicism, you probably shouldn't be reading this here blog either, so there you go.

The money quote of the whole thing:

In the new trilogy, Anakin Skywalker portrays a damning indictment of technology's modern dehumanization of mankind through Hayden Christensen's lifeless, almost inhuman performance. There is a river of tragedy in every robotic line he utters, a horrific monotonal indication of his cyborgal fate.

For whatever it's worth, I think LOTR was the best trilogy, while The Matrix was the best individual movie of the bunch. I want to give props to Star Wars, but it's still too soon for me to forgive Lucas for foisting 'The Phantom Menace' on us. Too soon...

For Love Of Money

Via Ezra, Matt, the new Cogitamus blog, and just about everyone else in the 'sphere, everyone ought to check out Michael Lewis' profile of Blaine Lourd in Conde Nast's Portfolio magazine.

For a variety of reasons, mostly having to do with the fact that I have many better things to do with my time, I've never heard of this guy. I don't watch CNBC, or really pay attention to the stock market.

I think, for reasons that have entirely to do with my personal style and the way my brain work, rather than the fact that I've done a really deep and detailed study of the alternatives, the general concept of the efficient market hypothesis really makes a lot of sense to me. If you believe that the stock market represents, in some way, the general knowledge of the tens of thousands of people who are actively partaking of it on a day-to-day basis, then I really think you can't also reasonably believe that a single person could really 'beat' that market.

Not that one person can't be smarter than the market, far from it. It did not take a genius to see, in 1998, that tech stocks were wildly overvalued. But the thing of it is, that genius who saw that, and got out, would have missed out on a lot of money to be made. The point is that nobody is really smart enough, or good enough, to pick out the signals from the noise, and know when the right time to make any particular move is.

However, it's also a historical fact that the market has outperformed just about every other wealth-creation mechanism since 1930. That doesn't mean it will be a fact going forward, of course, but enough examples of a trend tend to point towards an underlying reality.

So, my general position on investments is pretty simple. Put in what you can, as early as you can. Get in a broad-market index, and also something representing small-cap companies, which seem to have slightly outperformed the market at large. If you're really pro-diversity, then get into some international stuff. Balance every year or so to make sure you stay balanced. Check in every 6 to 12 months to make sure nothing is looking really crazy, but otherwise sit the hell back, and try not to think too hard about it until retirement time.

I know, not a very sexy investment strategy, and certainly not enough to fill much more than a single segment of 'Mad Money'. But still, the best historical strategy for minimizing long-term risk, and happily also something that works well for a 'not very interested in this sort of stuff' guy like myself.

Anyhow, you should read the profile. It's long, but really worthwhile, and does a good job showing the way that the whole edifice of Wall Street is really more like a big house of cards, built ever-higher-and-higher on the shakiest of foundations. Although, really, it's built on the foundation that people are lazy and stupid, and willing to believe that someone out there has a magic answer to all their problems, which probably means the foundation isn't all that shaky at all.

Holy crap, I'm a cynic.

Ezra Is To Dave As...

It's clear that Shane, having admitted that my linking to him doubles his traffic (which must mean from 2 to 4, or something like that), is now pulling the same trick that I do. Most people, when they have a salient comment about something that a blogger has written, leave a comment on that Blogger's site. Those of us struggling to make our voices heard in the wilderness, on the other hand, will post to our own blog with the comment, thus ensuring that it basically gets heard by no one at all. Except, of course, for that occasional, glorious occasion when your man-crush links to your blog, and your traffic spikes 4900%, etc. etc. etc. Sometimes, we'll even make up controversial opinions just to try and get the other person's goat and get them to link to us.

I don't know what it says that Shane is to me on the blogger scale as I am to Ezra. Whatever it is, it's not complimentary to Shane, I know that much.

However, he does, as usual, have some interesting things to say, so let's get to 'em.

1) Yes, Shane, congratulations on being one of about eight people in the world, one of whom is Reggie Bush, to tear your PCL while participating in sports. Maybe he also shares your atrocious layout form, which is what caused you to tear yours. Of course, he also has the excuse of playing a contact sport, which you lack. Although, as this is coming from someone whose retirement-causing injury came when he was running in a straight line on a flat grassy field, it probably doesn't count for much.

2) The 2007-08 Denver Nuggets are the greatest collection of indivudual talent in the history of, well, the Denver Nuggets anyhow. But I do disagree pretty strongly when Shane says that the Nuggets are a terrible defensive team. Like all teams, they have their strengths and their weaknesses, but Karl has done a pretty good job of figuring out what those are and playing to them.

To watch the Nuggets play D is an entertaining, and often frustrating, exercise. It is undoubtedly true that they give up a ton of layups, which gives opponents a fairly high shooting percentage. However, there is a lot more to life than shooting percentage. The Nuggets' strategy is built around Marcus Camby, who is almost certainly the best weakside defender in the NBA. He gets a ton of blocks, and gets almost all of them not on the guy he is guarding, but coming on to assist a teammate who has been beating near the basket. He also grabs a ton of rebounds, because he is always aware of what's going on around the rim.

So Marcus is the lynchpin of the D. Knowing that they have a safety blanket, so to speak, allows the perimeter players to ballhawk and play passing lanes. As a result, they get a lot of steals, or at least opposition possessions that end in turnovers (this is Hollinger's TOR, turnover rate, in which the Nuggets are second in the league.) They also don't give up many offensive rebounds, also due mostly to Camby and, oddly, to Iverson, who is a very good defensive rebounder for a tiny guy. Again, they are second in the league in allowing offensive boards.

Also, they don't give up a ton of 3-pointers, both because they are more aggressive on the perimeter and because they give up so many easy layups that teams stop trying to take them.

So, the point is, there is more to D than getting stops. That's what Hollinger's stats are trying to show. You can argue about the validity of any given stat, but I don't think it's a legitimate beef to say 'well, I saw them play, and they were terrible!' I won't argue that their being actually a quite good defensive team is a weird thing, and rather counterintuitive, but given the number of injuries they've already suffered this year, to be tied for the lead in their division is pretty impressive.

3) Finally, last week or the week before, Shane criticized my call to eliminate the BCS in favor of, well, nothing. And he's right, to some extent: it is the nature of sports to crown a winner, and if you're going to have a season, people are going to argue who had the best one, or who is the best team, or whatever.

I wanted to keep the length of my original argument under control, so I didn't write about what I thought would pop up in place of the BCS. I'll give a quick nod to that now. What I imagine happening is that a variety of new polls will come out. Some of them will be similar to what we have now; coaches' polls, press member polls, computer polls, etc.

But someone, somewhere, will start to use a poll which says things that make sense, like 'beating Akron 72-7 in September is not worth anything, while losing to Georgia in triple-overtime means you're a pretty damn good team.' Under this sort of poll, Ohio State could go undefeated over the schedule they had this year, and still not get within sniffing distance of #1 in this poll.

And some people will say 'hey, that's a damn good poll. It really seems to pick who the best teams actually are, and rewards the kinds of things we like, such as being in a tough conference, and playing tough out-of-conference games.' And, magically, through nothing more than the experience of having lots of different ideas tried out, and seeing which ones actually worked well for people, we would have arrived at a better system. I don't know if this would result in an eventual bowl game between the #'s 1 and 2 teams in this poll - honestly I don't spend much time worrying about it, since it doesn't matter either way as this idea would require the NCAA actually loosening their grip over the process, which means it will never happen.

But wouldn't it be nice?

Cheering For Laundry

Seinfeld did a routine, back on his show, about the inherent silliness of cheering for specific sports teams. As the rosters shift around, and you have 30% or 40% roster turnover from year to year, yet you keep cheering for the same team, you're really just 'cheering for laundry'.

However, for better or worse, such is the way of things. You cheer for your teams, because, well, they're your teams, and that's the way such things are done. I've spoken earlier in defense of the fair-weather fan. Since I'm a lifelong Eagles fan, I've never really jumped on the Broncos bandwagon, preferring to retain a sarcastic, postmodern distance which allows me to say, snidely, 'well, every win now just means the inevitable postseason meltdown is going to be more painful.' And, so far, I've been right every single year. This isn't a huge accomplishment, of course: 31 of 32 teams fail to win the Super Bowl every single year, and the fact is the Broncos have been a quality organization most of my time here, although never quite a Super Bowl-caliber team since Elway retired.

But this year, they've been bad. Really bad. I went to the Broncs/Chargers game and oh dear lord, they were 'who is this high school J.V. team, and what have they done with the Broncos' bad.

But they did kick the living crap out of the Chiefs today. That offense has a lot of weapons, and it looks like Cutler has a real, live arm. It'll be interesting to see if the O continues to develop. I don't think they have the defensive coaching chops to be competitive in the AFC (honestly, it seems like there's about 5 such coaches in the whole league!), but they should be fun to watch. Which is nice, since the NFL rules ensure that I'll have a Broncos game to watch every week so long as I live in the metro Denver area.

However, to show that I'm not entirely unusual, I have completely hopped on the Nuggets bandwagon. I was not a huge Sixers fan, although I have always been an NBA lover. But I've been a big Iverson fan for a long time, which made it easy to made the change from casual to hardcore Nuggets fan when they acquired him in a trade last season.

Go Powder Blues!

Life Sucks, Get A Fucking Back Brace

The ongoing adventure of finding out just how much damage a teensy little getting-hit-by-a-car-accident is ongoing. I made what appears to be a very bad decision this morning, forgoing a day of snowboarding in fresh powder because I didn't feel like my back was quite ready for it yet. Instead, I decided to hit the gym and do a little leg work, something I've been decidedly underworking since my accident back in September.

Unfortunately, my lower back had diferrent ideas, as on the final squat of the final set it decided that it had had enough, in the form of one of those unmissable 'tweaks'. Not exceptionally painful at the time, but one of those things that let you know 'oh yes, you will be feeling this later, yes you will.'

And now, here I am, some 8 hours later, laying on my back on the couch with my ice pack, heating pad in reach, and desperately hoping I don't have to go to the bathroom anytime soon.

I really hate my body sometimes.

Too Awesome For Words

I believe I just saw Rudy Giuliani, on Meet the Press, claim that he had to decline membership in the 9/11 Commission because it would make the report 'too political' for him to be involved, since he was thinking about running for President at the time.

Because, you know, Giuliani would never use his ties to 9/11 for his own political gain, or anything.

And it certainly had nothing to do with his charging $300,000 each for a series of speeches he was giving during that time frame, which allowed him to gather over $10 million in under 2 years' time.

His general shamelessness is just totally awesome.

Get A Job!

Clearly, Shane is trying to get me fired, pointing me in the direction of Wil Wheaton's episode-by-episode summary of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Because they're just too funny not to read, but there are going to be too damn many of them to read while remaining gainfully employed.

Damn you, Shane.

Race-Based Intelligence Researchers Are Genetically Predisposed Towards Inanity

I'm going to agree with Matt here, you should read Steven Metcalf's take-down of Will Saletan's series of pieces about race and intelligence in Slate.

The long and short of it is that there really doesn't appear to be a strong basis for claiming strict racial heritability of IQ differences. I really like this analogy Metcalf discusses, which I had never heard before but seems pretty strong to me:

Imagine two wheat fields. Now imagine two genetically identical sets of seeds. (The analogy was first made famous by the Harvard evolutionary biologist and geneticist Richard Lewontin.) Now imagine each field is planted with these two identical seed stocks. Field No. 1 is given the best possible inputs: sunshine intensity, rain, soil nitrates, etc. Field No. 2 is given much less of all of the above. Within each field, inputs are kept uniform. Inevitably, the first field grows a healthier supply of grain than the second. But here is the rub: Within each field, the variation in outcomes is entirely hereditary. Between the two fields, the variation in outcomes in entirely environmental.

There are many, many problems to tackling questions of race and intelligence. As far as I am concerned, you get bogged down in your original definitions and it's pretty much impossible to really get beyond that. For one thing, what do you mean by 'race'? It's, at best, a poorly-defined concept, and I'm unaware of a really convincing definition of it anywhere out there.

For another thing, and one which is much more crippling to the discussion, what do you mean by 'intelligence'? You can talk about IQ tests, and that's all well and good, but I have very little faith in their ability to measure much beyond your ability to do well on, well, IQ tests.

There are more interesting, and complicated, definitions of intelligence out there, but there's still no real agreement about what intelligence is, what its hallmarks are, or how one can measure it.

Note: for a good summary of the debate so far (so far being 1996 or thereabouts, by virtue of its publication date) check out Steven Gould's The Mismeasure of Man. It's an interesting look at the history of intelligence measures, and in particular how they always seemed to be designed, by white scientists, to measure white folks as being more intelligent than people of other races. Convenient, that. I don't know how Saletan is somehow shocked, shocked! to find out that most of the scientists who he was relying on for his questionable conclusions have some very large, and not particularly savory, skeletons in their closets.

End The Force-Out Foul!

TMQ, in a typically-for-him-insightful column (not sure why there's so much hate running around for him right now, but whatever), argues that the force-out foul should be abolished:

End the Force-Out Rule: Was Kellen Winslow forced out of bounds on the Browns' final play? Maybe, but the fact that the sports-nut world is debating this question shows you can't be sure. (Had force-out been called, Cleveland would have been awarded a touchdown and won.) The force-out rule requires officials to make a snap judgment about whether the receiver would have come down in bounds if he hadn't been shoved. Answering with anything but guesswork requires a time machine and an alternate universe. Guesswork shouldn't be part of football officiating. The force-out rule should be abolished. To make the catch, your feet must be in bounds, and if the defender knocks you out of bounds first, bully for him.

I like this idea. In Ultimate, which is a non-contact sport, we have a force-out foul. Same idea: if you were going to come down in-bounds, absent contact from your opponent, then you can call a force-out foul and retain possession (or the goal, if it happened in the end zone.) But then, Ultimate is a non-contact sport. If someone slamming into you causes you to drop the disc, it's a foul, not a turnover.

Football, on the other hand, is a contact sport. If you can knock the ball away from someone before then hit the ground, then it's a drop, not a catch. By analogy, the rational rule would seem to be that if you can knock them out of bounds before they come down, then it's not a catch.

However, I should point out that it was one hell of a catch by Winslow. They don't award points for style in the NFL, but if they did, that would have been a game-winner for sure.

Driving For Health

I know that I cannot be the only person interested in the politics of healthcare who thinks that the concept of an individual mandate is nearly as flawed as much of the commentariat seems to believe it is.

By way of example, although it is just one example of many I've seen, today in Slate Tim Noah writes:

If you want to drive a car, it's accepted that you have to buy private auto insurance. But that's conditional on enjoying the societal privilege of driving a car; you can avoid the requirement by choosing not to drive one. A mandate to buy private health insurance, however, would be conditional on … being alive.

This is ridiculous. We require you to buy car insurance because you, driving your car, are not just a hazard to yourself. You are also a hazard to those around you. That's why you have to buy collision coverage, but you don't have to buy coverage for damage you cause your own car. You can avoid the requirement to own car insurance by not partaking in the automotive sector.

Likewise you, as a human being, when you get sick, are not just a hazard to yourself. In particular, because our hospitals have been taught to treat the sick, regardless of their ability to pay, if you show up to a hospital destitute but very sick, they will treat you and, essentially, bill everyone else who comes in for your costs (by raising prices on the procedures that are paid for in order to keep profitable, etc.)

So it's totally reasonable to require anyone who partakes of our healthcare system to pay for insurance, by direct analogy to driving a car. Even if we didn't care about your health, we care about the effects you not taking care of your health have on the rest of the system.

By my estimate, the only way to avoid this problem is to allow people to opt out of buying health insurance, with the explicit understanding that they are then opting out of the health care system. Someone who doesn't want to pay State Farm to insure their car is always welcome not to ever drive, and anyone who doesnt want to pay Blue Cross to insure their body is always welcome not to ever go to a doctor.

However, I think we can all agree that we really don't want to start telling the doctors 'don't treat this patient if they don't have their Health Insurance ID Card on them at all times,' which means that the only really rational thing to do is to ensure that everyone has health insurance. Whether that's through public insurance (my preference) or mandates to purchase private insurance (probably a politically obligatory halfway measure), it simply will have to be done.

Awwwww

Faithful reader AA sends me a link to the cutest story of the week, a chocolate lab puppy getting his head stuck in a watering can. The picture is just adorable.

BCSmageddon?

Every sports-talk shouting head's wet dream came true this weekend, as the mediocre teams that were meandering their way towards a matchup in the BCS Championship Game, Missouri and West Virginia, both lost, WVU choking it away against a 3-touchdown underdog in Pitt. This gives every one of the aforementioned shouting heads to rail against the BCS, and for a playoff system. Or against a playoff system, and for the BCS. Or against both a playoff system and the BCS, and in favor of rock-paper-scissors for the championship. Or whatever. The great thing about being a shouting head is that you don't have to actually make sense with what you say, as Skip Bayless proves daily. You just have to say it very loudly.

Now, we're probably left with the right matchup. I don't think anyone really thinks LSU and Ohio State are actually the best teams in the country - consensus seems to be that USC is playing the best right now - but they probably did have the best seasons of any two major-conference schools. If you are going to insist on having a championship game, it's probably the right matchup, although man, would I love to see Hawaii have a shot at taking out Ohio State. That would be entertaining.

Last Friday, Josh Levin argued in Slate that the championship game shouldn't happen every year. Needless to say, he posted today saying how the weekend's events only proved him right.

And he's right, but I'll go him one better. The championship game simply shouldn't happen at all.

I love College Football. The rivalries, the traditions, the ridiculous names for games like 'Ye Olde Wooden Bucket, With A Small Hole In It, Bowl.' But it's time to realize that, with so many teams playing so few games, there's simply no way to really know who the best team is, or to know who deserves to be playing in a championship game.

Football is unique for its pace. The physical nature of the game seems to really restrict normal human beings to about 1 game per week, which puts a pretty severe limit on how many games teams can play in a season. In the pros, there are a limited number of teams, and a central scheduling organization that makes sure everyone plays a balanced schedule.

However, in College, there are too many teams, and too few weeks, and as a result, there will never be even remotely balanced schedules. Which mostly serves as an excuse for pundits to vote for teams they know (like LSU) rather than having to stay up until midnight on a Saturday to watch Hawaii play.

So, in reality, we'll never actually know who the best team is. I suppose if you put in a 32-team bracket, you could reasonably expect to figure it out, but that would be a prohibitively big change in the system. And, of course, this all depends on your definition of the word 'best'. Is it best, as in 'played the best all season?' Or best, as in 'playing the best right now?' Or some other definition altogether?

To the point, I really don't mind the BCS. Let's just be honest with ourselves, and agree that Ohio State vs. LSU is just a January game between two very good teams who would normally never face each other during the regular season, and be happy with that. And, for those of us who understand it, secretly rejoice every time there is some clusterfuck-or-other in the system, and they rapidly try to fix it, only to have things break down in a whole new way the next year.

UPDATE: Shane wrote on this topic yesterday, arguing in favor of a playoff system. I'm not anti-playoff, per se, and it would have to be better than what they have now. I stand by my argument, though; college football simply is not designed, as a sport, to be capable of determining who the best team out there is, and the sooner we come to grips with that, the better off we will be.

Line Of The Day

I don't usually have much use for Bruce Reed's snarky stuff on Slate; it's too Idaho-centric and Rahm Emmanuel-praising for my tastes. But I have to give him credit for today's Line Of The Day, regarding Mike Huckabee. He claims that Huckabee "lost 110 pounds—nearly the size of an entire Dennis Kucinich."

Now there's an image that I'll be striving to forget all day.

Salvation For Mikey

My mom forwarded me one of those little mind trick things last week. Usually I have no use for these things, but this one was rather amazing. See if you can make it out:

*************************************

fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too


Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.


i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs forwrad it

**************************************

Clearly, the takeaway message here is that this whole concept of 'spelling' is highly overrated. Which is wonderful news for Mikey, who I went to Hawaii with, as it's a concept that he never really quite grasped.