GM,
It's 2:30 in the morning, and I just finished watching Paranormal Activity... at home... alone... with the lights off.
A little boring, I must say.
It's clearly just another Blair Witch Project, which seemed to draw the scorn of most viewers I know. PA, on the other hand, has been quite the hot topic 'round these parts, so much so that even I heard about it. "Strange," I thought, considering that I'd never seen a preview. After minimal research, I learned that the movie's distribution and marketing strategies were quite unique. The film opened about a month ago but only for midnight showings and only in 12 major college towns. Those who didn't feel like making the drive were asked to log onto PA's website and "demand" the film in their city. When 200,000 people demanded the film, it was released in 20 more cities. When a million people demanded it, it opened nationwide.
This sounds like an amazingly interesting marketing campaign, doesn't it? "Don't push the product onto the people; make them want it first. After all, the American consumer is fickle, particularly when it comes to entertainment. Only by depriving people of a movie that cost $15,000 to make can we make them want to see it."
But here's my question: Why wasn't I asked to demand the damn thing?! Over a three-week period, more than a million people knew about, wanted to see, and took time to request a movie that I had never heard of. So what am I doing wrong?! I live in a college town and watch three hours of television every weekday! What's wrong with me?! I feel like George on Seinfeld when the Sunshine Carpet Cleaners didn't try to recruit him for their cult. GM, what are we doing--or not doing--to put ourselves out of the loop?
-JW
JW,
Let me start by saying that I like whatever I'm doing that keeps me from hearing of things. (I heard of Twitter yesterday; Facebook, last week.) Getting to the bottom of my pop-culture seclusion seems akin to wondering why I haven't been killed by a suicide bomber--an academic rather than a practical question, and one I'm not desperate to explore. Nevertheless, it is interesting that a person living amongst a movie's target audience could avoid picking up on the film's release merely by osmosis. Given what I've heard about Paranomal Activity's hostility toward its audience (Justine Elias of The Boston Globe wrote that it's "like watching a YouTube clip of your irritating neighbors."), I'm wondering if missing things is a skill that you can market.
Regarding the film's marketing idea, I couldn't be less impressed if a Paramount executive came to my house and kicked me in the crotch. Articifical scarcity? In the 21st century? Please. Furthermore, the very notion that consumers can be "tricked" into buying something is more than a little insulting. It's true, I'm sure, but I still don't like it. In a world of my design, commercials would consist of a simple shot of the product itself with no other adornments. No quick cuts, no girls in bikinis, and no Morgan Freeman doing his wisest-negro-on-the-plantation voiceover schtick. I'm interested or I'm not, and the very notion that I can be persuaded otherwise ("I am hungry for Fritos!") is ridiculous.
-GM
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Moral Victories, Immoral Losses
JW,
Halfway through a first year in which he's managed to offend everyone but dwarfs, Mennonites, and the Knoxville Fireman's Association, University of Tennessee head football coach Lane Kiffin had this to say about Saturday's 12-10 loss to number two-ranked Alabama:
"I don't believe in moral victories. We should've won the game."
Cousin to the win by forfeit, the moral victory gets about as much respect as male cheerleaders, Survivor contestants, and the winner of the Meineke Car Care Bowl. But should that be so? And what does a college football win really mean? Let's take a Smarter look.
The Circumstances
Not since the Lin Elliott game has a loss been so decidedly the fault of a kicker. Forget the fact that junior Daniel Lincoln had already seen one kick blocked and another fall short earlier in the game. The 44-yarder that would have won it was so low that Tide nose guard Terrence Cody spent the post-game thanking God for his cup. Asked about his performance afterwards, Lincoln stated, "My leg is so weak that I should be cut from the team immediately." Or at least he should have. The fact of the matter is that any loss that comes down to one botched gimme counts as a win. At least in my book.
Recruitment
Let's face it. Tennessee isn't going anywhere this season, and a one-loss Alabama team that wins the SEC Championship is probably still playing for the BCS title. Other than bragging rights, this game was about Tennessee's national presence--about reminding recruits that the Vols still exist. Big-time high school players watch games and read (um, have read to them) national coverage. What they saw on Saturday was a Tennessee team that's very close to being ready to compete, a head coach whose flexibility led to the abandonment of the Cover 2 when it clearly wasn't working against the Wildcat, and a marching band that can play "Rocky Top" at decibels frightening to behold. A good day, to be sure.
The Fans' Perspective
Anyone who expected Lincoln to win the game simply hadn't been watching. Given the miracle that was the onside kick recovery and the subsequent drive, my confidence as Lincoln lined up was shockingly low. (I gave that last kick a 40% chance of success out loud and a 10% chance in my heart.) Still, the purpose of Saturdays in a down year is not necessarily to win the huge games but to convince yourself that the team is heading in the right direction. After playing tough against Florida, destroying Georgia at home, and taking Alabama to the buzzer, is there any doubt that Tennessee's in that category?
JW, your Mississippi State Bulldogs hung with Florida much longer than they should have. What's your take on the moral victory?
-GM
GM,
It's frightening how much time I've already devoted to Mississippi State football--part of one blog prior to today. We have our pick of all the sports, political, and day-to-day news out there, and you've left me to write about a piss-poor football program just because the school is my Alma mater. Fine. Let me first make two points, though.
One, the coaches seem to be echoing the media's unfounded sentiment that Florida and Alabama stumbled a little over the weekend. Texas, which received no first-place votes in last week's poll, now has seven. I assure you that neither a near-home loss to Tennessee nor an unconvincing win at Mississippi State is as bad as playing your first five games against unranked opponents, beating a mostly-Bradford-less Oklahoma, and only playing one other ranked team, and that's Texas' formula for going to the national championship game!
Two, a week after the SEC suspended some of its officials, both Lane Kiffin and Mississippi State coach Dan Mullen were reprimanded by the SEC for criticizing the men in stripes. The steps that leagues go through to protect referees from verbal assault simply amaze me. Everything about the NFL, NBA, and NCAA are consumer-driven, so why don't we get to hear what coaches are really thinking in the postgame when that's what everybody wants?! In fact, I think officials who make game-changing calls should address the media afterward just like coaches and players who do. Everyone has a job. Why is theirs above scrutiny?
As for Mississippi State's "moral victory," I have to admit it was nice. You used to be able to pick one play at random, watch it, and realize why Mississippi State was the inferior opponent. Corners would get beaten twice in one play. Offensive linemen would cooperatively lead defenders to the quarterback. Wide receivers would chest bump passes as if to celebrate their arrival. Quarterbacks would toss the ball into a crowd and yell "200!" It was a mess--and a funny one, at that. On Saturday, State showed that ESPN2 didn't have to be sorry for coming to Starkville. We gave 'em three solid quarters, and that's more than ESPN got out of Auburn. Looks like somebody just beat Auburn.
-JW
Halfway through a first year in which he's managed to offend everyone but dwarfs, Mennonites, and the Knoxville Fireman's Association, University of Tennessee head football coach Lane Kiffin had this to say about Saturday's 12-10 loss to number two-ranked Alabama:
"I don't believe in moral victories. We should've won the game."
Cousin to the win by forfeit, the moral victory gets about as much respect as male cheerleaders, Survivor contestants, and the winner of the Meineke Car Care Bowl. But should that be so? And what does a college football win really mean? Let's take a Smarter look.
The Circumstances
Not since the Lin Elliott game has a loss been so decidedly the fault of a kicker. Forget the fact that junior Daniel Lincoln had already seen one kick blocked and another fall short earlier in the game. The 44-yarder that would have won it was so low that Tide nose guard Terrence Cody spent the post-game thanking God for his cup. Asked about his performance afterwards, Lincoln stated, "My leg is so weak that I should be cut from the team immediately." Or at least he should have. The fact of the matter is that any loss that comes down to one botched gimme counts as a win. At least in my book.
Recruitment
Let's face it. Tennessee isn't going anywhere this season, and a one-loss Alabama team that wins the SEC Championship is probably still playing for the BCS title. Other than bragging rights, this game was about Tennessee's national presence--about reminding recruits that the Vols still exist. Big-time high school players watch games and read (um, have read to them) national coverage. What they saw on Saturday was a Tennessee team that's very close to being ready to compete, a head coach whose flexibility led to the abandonment of the Cover 2 when it clearly wasn't working against the Wildcat, and a marching band that can play "Rocky Top" at decibels frightening to behold. A good day, to be sure.
The Fans' Perspective
Anyone who expected Lincoln to win the game simply hadn't been watching. Given the miracle that was the onside kick recovery and the subsequent drive, my confidence as Lincoln lined up was shockingly low. (I gave that last kick a 40% chance of success out loud and a 10% chance in my heart.) Still, the purpose of Saturdays in a down year is not necessarily to win the huge games but to convince yourself that the team is heading in the right direction. After playing tough against Florida, destroying Georgia at home, and taking Alabama to the buzzer, is there any doubt that Tennessee's in that category?
JW, your Mississippi State Bulldogs hung with Florida much longer than they should have. What's your take on the moral victory?
-GM
GM,
It's frightening how much time I've already devoted to Mississippi State football--part of one blog prior to today. We have our pick of all the sports, political, and day-to-day news out there, and you've left me to write about a piss-poor football program just because the school is my Alma mater. Fine. Let me first make two points, though.
One, the coaches seem to be echoing the media's unfounded sentiment that Florida and Alabama stumbled a little over the weekend. Texas, which received no first-place votes in last week's poll, now has seven. I assure you that neither a near-home loss to Tennessee nor an unconvincing win at Mississippi State is as bad as playing your first five games against unranked opponents, beating a mostly-Bradford-less Oklahoma, and only playing one other ranked team, and that's Texas' formula for going to the national championship game!
Two, a week after the SEC suspended some of its officials, both Lane Kiffin and Mississippi State coach Dan Mullen were reprimanded by the SEC for criticizing the men in stripes. The steps that leagues go through to protect referees from verbal assault simply amaze me. Everything about the NFL, NBA, and NCAA are consumer-driven, so why don't we get to hear what coaches are really thinking in the postgame when that's what everybody wants?! In fact, I think officials who make game-changing calls should address the media afterward just like coaches and players who do. Everyone has a job. Why is theirs above scrutiny?
As for Mississippi State's "moral victory," I have to admit it was nice. You used to be able to pick one play at random, watch it, and realize why Mississippi State was the inferior opponent. Corners would get beaten twice in one play. Offensive linemen would cooperatively lead defenders to the quarterback. Wide receivers would chest bump passes as if to celebrate their arrival. Quarterbacks would toss the ball into a crowd and yell "200!" It was a mess--and a funny one, at that. On Saturday, State showed that ESPN2 didn't have to be sorry for coming to Starkville. We gave 'em three solid quarters, and that's more than ESPN got out of Auburn. Looks like somebody just beat Auburn.
-JW
Friday, October 23, 2009
'Creeps' of Wrath
GM,
You’d have to be a pretty faithful reader of
The word "creeper" is derived from “creep,” but it's more than that. It's like a creep/stalker. So if a frat boy approaches a college girl in a bar (although they're usually too scared to), it's fine. If an old man does it, he's a creeper. If one were to search Facebook until he found a girl whose last name he didn't already know, he'd be a creeper. If a guy is drunk and hits on multiple girls in the same bar, creeper.
One time, a girl I'm real-life friends with practically called me a creeper for getting her e-mail address from her Facebook account. "Why didn't you just send me a Facebook message? That was just weird." Also, an interesting phenomenon has occurred. "Creeper" is so established that girls are trying to sororitize it even more. In the same spirit that drives "whatevs" and "
I say all that to say this. A girl I don't know just sent me a Facebook message:
Hey, this is really random and may be creepy, but I found your ID a parking lot tonight. I don't know if you want it back or have already gotten a new one, but if you want it, I can give it to you.
-H
“Random,” by the way, is a sorority favorite that goes back to my own college days. Its various misuses are fascinating (people can be “randoms” now). But how could her message be random or creepy?!?! It's helpful and logical! I once found a girl’s flash drive, opened a file on there, and got her name from a paper's heading so I could look her up and get it back to her. She must be traumatized!!!
-JW
JW,
Imagine taking a football coach from before the invention of the forward pass and setting him down in today's game. That's me if I ever have to date again.
Because I got married in 2003--just missing Facebook and texting as integral parts of the process--I'm completely oblivious to the rules of today's game. Reading your post, though, I think I'm getting a sense of some general principles. First of all, saying words in their entirety has clearly become passe. Second, the guidelines for acceptable behavior seem to have grown more rigorous. (Emailing is wrong but sending "a Facebook message" is okay? What the hell?!) Third--and this is the big one--initiating a conversation outside of "normal" channels (in person, in a bar) is now so stigmatized that a person doing so for even altruistic reasons has to stammer and apologize her way through it.
Let's discuss this for a moment.
I've been saying for years (though not yet on Smarter Than Y'all, sadly) that Facebook and texting are going to be the death of actual conversations--that, like letter writing, meaningful face-to-face interactions would become the province of hobbyists and Luddites. What I didn't anticipate, however, is the way in which online and digital means of communication have explicitly driven us away from one another. Forget looking up your telephone number. The girl who found your ID was hesitant to make contact even by the least formal method, and not because of shyness or modesty but because of her confusion (warranted, I suppose) regarding what's acceptable. The proof isn't in the "random or creepy" moment, but in the message's conclusion: "if you want it, I can give it to you." If you're willing to see a human being you haven't previously seen, in other words, I can spare you hours of bureaucratic hoop-jumping.
Imagine taking a football coach from before the invention of the forward pass and setting him down in today's game. That's me if I ever have to date again.
Because I got married in 2003--just missing Facebook and texting as integral parts of the process--I'm completely oblivious to the rules of today's game. Reading your post, though, I think I'm getting a sense of some general principles. First of all, saying words in their entirety has clearly become passe. Second, the guidelines for acceptable behavior seem to have grown more rigorous. (Emailing is wrong but sending "a Facebook message" is okay? What the hell?!) Third--and this is the big one--initiating a conversation outside of "normal" channels (in person, in a bar) is now so stigmatized that a person doing so for even altruistic reasons has to stammer and apologize her way through it.
Let's discuss this for a moment.
I've been saying for years (though not yet on Smarter Than Y'all, sadly) that Facebook and texting are going to be the death of actual conversations--that, like letter writing, meaningful face-to-face interactions would become the province of hobbyists and Luddites. What I didn't anticipate, however, is the way in which online and digital means of communication have explicitly driven us away from one another. Forget looking up your telephone number. The girl who found your ID was hesitant to make contact even by the least formal method, and not because of shyness or modesty but because of her confusion (warranted, I suppose) regarding what's acceptable. The proof isn't in the "random or creepy" moment, but in the message's conclusion: "if you want it, I can give it to you." If you're willing to see a human being you haven't previously seen, in other words, I can spare you hours of bureaucratic hoop-jumping.
The sad thing is that a lot of people her age probably would have had to think about it.
-GM
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Making News?
JW,
Every now and then, a completely obvious piece of news is presented so breathlessly that it simply must be mocked here at Smarter Than Y'all. Such was the case Monday morning, when my search for "Jeff Fisher Shot Dead By Titans Fans" stories led me to the following headline in Nashville's Tennessean: "Poor kids' teachers earn less in Metro (Nashville)."
Well, my goodness.
Perhaps I should begin by explaining that public school teachers (at least here in Smarter Than Yall country) are not currently ordered to and fro by a beaurocratic entity determined to spread the best teaching across the racial and socioeconomic spectrum. As surely as you and I breathe, that day will one day arrive, but it hasn't yet. Instead, individual teachers apply for individual jobs, and individual principals hire them. Thus the existence of the following truths, as voiced by reporter Jaime Sarrio:
"Some of Nashville's hardest-to-educate students are taught by the district's least-experienced, lowest-paid teachers"
and
"The district's top earners with the most experience and education are more likely to work in schools with fewer poor and minority students."
Let's parse these earth-shaking revelations for a moment, first by admitting that teachers will choose a tolerable environment if allowed to do so. Next, let's remember that principals boasting good schools will naturally receive the most job applicants. Finally, let's assume that principals will act rationally by hiring the best of those applicants--i.e., those with the most experience, the most education, and, inevitably, the highest salaries.
All of this is as obvious as any other market phenomenon, right? So why the frantic reporting, particularly when this is the exact sort of thing that gets white people called racists?
In fact, the issue isn't racism at all but the rather predictable tendency of humans not to make their lives harder than necessary for purely altruistic reasons. Furthermore, the "best" teachers remain so in part by gravitating toward students capable of achievement. As Patrick Welsh wrote Sunday in an article as prescient as Sarrio's is precious, many "poor and minority students" simply aren't.
Now that's news.
-GM
GM,
Not only is your last statement news, it's news that, if true, should be swept under America's rug. I'm not sure whether I should agree with you or call you a racist, un-American cynic (read: modern-day liberal). If "poor and minority students" truly aren't capable of achievement, then one of two ideals must be right.
1. The Liberal Point of View: The notion of the American Dream only applies to those whose foundation is strong enough to set them up for success. No amount of hard work or God-given intelligence can even theoretically offset the disadvantage of being born to a single mother who collects welfare checks and looks to overpopulate the planet in order to increase the dollar amount on them. Only if he were to somehow be rescued by a more responsible part of society (i.e. put into a private school with richer, whiter people) would he be able to improve his hand in life. Therefore, we must use our government to correct this societal imbalance--to right the wrong created by the inherent inequity of births.
2. The Libertarian Point of View???: While it is impossible to rise above certain unfortunate situations, the more fortunate have no responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Even though some people have no chance whatsoever, I expect them to respect my property and family until they die of starvation. If someone wants to house and feed them out of charity, I won't stand in the way.
I can only assume that you fall into category No. 2, GM. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but our point-counterpoint format doesn't give you the chance to elaborate. I believe that every generally healthy American has a chance to live a happy life--even to control his fate to a certain extent. And if our school system fails to make that a true statement, then maybe we should be shuffling teachers around until the best wind up in the inner city. Of course, that would ruin the incentive for teachers to excel at their jobs, but maybe, just maybe those who get into teaching do it because they want to make the world better, not just for the summer's off.
-JW
Every now and then, a completely obvious piece of news is presented so breathlessly that it simply must be mocked here at Smarter Than Y'all. Such was the case Monday morning, when my search for "Jeff Fisher Shot Dead By Titans Fans" stories led me to the following headline in Nashville's Tennessean: "Poor kids' teachers earn less in Metro (Nashville)."
Well, my goodness.
Perhaps I should begin by explaining that public school teachers (at least here in Smarter Than Yall country) are not currently ordered to and fro by a beaurocratic entity determined to spread the best teaching across the racial and socioeconomic spectrum. As surely as you and I breathe, that day will one day arrive, but it hasn't yet. Instead, individual teachers apply for individual jobs, and individual principals hire them. Thus the existence of the following truths, as voiced by reporter Jaime Sarrio:
"Some of Nashville's hardest-to-educate students are taught by the district's least-experienced, lowest-paid teachers"
and
"The district's top earners with the most experience and education are more likely to work in schools with fewer poor and minority students."
Let's parse these earth-shaking revelations for a moment, first by admitting that teachers will choose a tolerable environment if allowed to do so. Next, let's remember that principals boasting good schools will naturally receive the most job applicants. Finally, let's assume that principals will act rationally by hiring the best of those applicants--i.e., those with the most experience, the most education, and, inevitably, the highest salaries.
All of this is as obvious as any other market phenomenon, right? So why the frantic reporting, particularly when this is the exact sort of thing that gets white people called racists?
In fact, the issue isn't racism at all but the rather predictable tendency of humans not to make their lives harder than necessary for purely altruistic reasons. Furthermore, the "best" teachers remain so in part by gravitating toward students capable of achievement. As Patrick Welsh wrote Sunday in an article as prescient as Sarrio's is precious, many "poor and minority students" simply aren't.
Now that's news.
-GM
GM,
Not only is your last statement news, it's news that, if true, should be swept under America's rug. I'm not sure whether I should agree with you or call you a racist, un-American cynic (read: modern-day liberal). If "poor and minority students" truly aren't capable of achievement, then one of two ideals must be right.
1. The Liberal Point of View: The notion of the American Dream only applies to those whose foundation is strong enough to set them up for success. No amount of hard work or God-given intelligence can even theoretically offset the disadvantage of being born to a single mother who collects welfare checks and looks to overpopulate the planet in order to increase the dollar amount on them. Only if he were to somehow be rescued by a more responsible part of society (i.e. put into a private school with richer, whiter people) would he be able to improve his hand in life. Therefore, we must use our government to correct this societal imbalance--to right the wrong created by the inherent inequity of births.
2. The Libertarian Point of View???: While it is impossible to rise above certain unfortunate situations, the more fortunate have no responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Even though some people have no chance whatsoever, I expect them to respect my property and family until they die of starvation. If someone wants to house and feed them out of charity, I won't stand in the way.
I can only assume that you fall into category No. 2, GM. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but our point-counterpoint format doesn't give you the chance to elaborate. I believe that every generally healthy American has a chance to live a happy life--even to control his fate to a certain extent. And if our school system fails to make that a true statement, then maybe we should be shuffling teachers around until the best wind up in the inner city. Of course, that would ruin the incentive for teachers to excel at their jobs, but maybe, just maybe those who get into teaching do it because they want to make the world better, not just for the summer's off.
-JW
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Patriots vs. An Empty Field: A Recap
GM,
Yesterday, the Patriots' 59-0 blowout of the Titans left few people wondering if New England was for real and if Tennessee was really that bad. It's a resounding "yes" to both. What some may have forgotten, though, is Bill Belichick's far-from-normal-anywhere-outside-of-intramural-football coaching mentality, which leads to passing, calling timeouts, and going for it on fourth down while pummeling a team mercilessly. This was the 2007 Belichick; the 2008 Belichick just didn't have the horses.
Allow our readers to get a glimpse into our lives. You may remember having this phone conversation yesterday at halftime, after Tom Brady had thrown his fifth touchdown pass of the second quarter thanks to Belichick's running a hurry-up offense while up 38-0:
GM: Can you believe Belichick called a timeout to get one more score in?!
JW: Well, honestly, I can understand not kneeling on your opponent's 10-yard line in the first half. That could be more disrespectful. But if Brady comes out in the second half...
GM: Oh, I hope they end his career.
JW: Exactly. And if he throws a pass, I hope they find a way to end Belichick's too.
What ensued, of course, was a Brady-led drive that consisted of three runs and six passes, the last of which hit Moss for his third TD of the day and Brady's sixth. You may take a different stance than I on running up scores, but what about leaving your Hall-of-Fame quarterback in the snow 13 months after he suffered a season-ending injury--in a game that was actually close at the time?
-JW
JW,
It says something about Tennessee's collective psyche that Tom Brady made it out of Gillette Stadium yesterday with working legs and a head still attached to his body. Seriously? There wasn't a third-string safety willing to take one for the team and give Brady the career-ending ass kicking he so richly deserved? There wasn't a bounty on his photogenic head? Sure, the refs nipped any chippiness in the bud by issuing a bulls--t roughing-the-passer penalty on the second half's first play from scrimmage, but I'm not sure they needed to. The Titans are done in every conceivable way, and you have to care before you can take revenge.
Here's some other thoughts, presented in the order in which they occurred to me:
1. We'll hear a lot about Jeff Fisher's job over the next few days, but perhaps it's owner Bud Adams who needs to hand over the reigns. Asked to comment on yesterday's loss, the 86-year-old stated, "The way it is going, I don't know if we'll win any games, and that is unheard of in the National Football League." I think it's safe to say that the Detroit Lions are popping champagne corks and slapping each other on the backs. Meanwhile, Bud's trying to convince his financial people that the stock market can never have an off year.
2. Given the fact that I was still hearing a few "The Titans Really Have To Win This One" stories as late as Sunday morning, I think it's safe to say that we've been overvaluing them as a football community. Folks, let's agree. Unless "have to" means "shouldn't because it will compromise their draft position," the Titans no longer have to win anything.
3. In 2002, the Kansas City Chiefs beat the Arizona Cardinals 49-0 at home, showing flashes of the offensive brilliance that would lead them to a 10-0 start the next season. Their next four games? 2-2 and a date with the remote control come January. While the Patriots are good, they're still not great. And they're certainly not beating anyone else that badly anytime soon.
4. Vince Young didn't step onto the field until eleven seconds remained in the third quarter of a 59-0 game. He promptly went 0-2 with an interception. Titans fans, say hello to your savior.
-GM
Yesterday, the Patriots' 59-0 blowout of the Titans left few people wondering if New England was for real and if Tennessee was really that bad. It's a resounding "yes" to both. What some may have forgotten, though, is Bill Belichick's far-from-normal-anywhere-outside-of-intramural-football coaching mentality, which leads to passing, calling timeouts, and going for it on fourth down while pummeling a team mercilessly. This was the 2007 Belichick; the 2008 Belichick just didn't have the horses.
Allow our readers to get a glimpse into our lives. You may remember having this phone conversation yesterday at halftime, after Tom Brady had thrown his fifth touchdown pass of the second quarter thanks to Belichick's running a hurry-up offense while up 38-0:
GM: Can you believe Belichick called a timeout to get one more score in?!
JW: Well, honestly, I can understand not kneeling on your opponent's 10-yard line in the first half. That could be more disrespectful. But if Brady comes out in the second half...
GM: Oh, I hope they end his career.
JW: Exactly. And if he throws a pass, I hope they find a way to end Belichick's too.
What ensued, of course, was a Brady-led drive that consisted of three runs and six passes, the last of which hit Moss for his third TD of the day and Brady's sixth. You may take a different stance than I on running up scores, but what about leaving your Hall-of-Fame quarterback in the snow 13 months after he suffered a season-ending injury--in a game that was actually close at the time?
-JW
JW,
It says something about Tennessee's collective psyche that Tom Brady made it out of Gillette Stadium yesterday with working legs and a head still attached to his body. Seriously? There wasn't a third-string safety willing to take one for the team and give Brady the career-ending ass kicking he so richly deserved? There wasn't a bounty on his photogenic head? Sure, the refs nipped any chippiness in the bud by issuing a bulls--t roughing-the-passer penalty on the second half's first play from scrimmage, but I'm not sure they needed to. The Titans are done in every conceivable way, and you have to care before you can take revenge.
Here's some other thoughts, presented in the order in which they occurred to me:
1. We'll hear a lot about Jeff Fisher's job over the next few days, but perhaps it's owner Bud Adams who needs to hand over the reigns. Asked to comment on yesterday's loss, the 86-year-old stated, "The way it is going, I don't know if we'll win any games, and that is unheard of in the National Football League." I think it's safe to say that the Detroit Lions are popping champagne corks and slapping each other on the backs. Meanwhile, Bud's trying to convince his financial people that the stock market can never have an off year.
2. Given the fact that I was still hearing a few "The Titans Really Have To Win This One" stories as late as Sunday morning, I think it's safe to say that we've been overvaluing them as a football community. Folks, let's agree. Unless "have to" means "shouldn't because it will compromise their draft position," the Titans no longer have to win anything.
3. In 2002, the Kansas City Chiefs beat the Arizona Cardinals 49-0 at home, showing flashes of the offensive brilliance that would lead them to a 10-0 start the next season. Their next four games? 2-2 and a date with the remote control come January. While the Patriots are good, they're still not great. And they're certainly not beating anyone else that badly anytime soon.
4. Vince Young didn't step onto the field until eleven seconds remained in the third quarter of a 59-0 game. He promptly went 0-2 with an interception. Titans fans, say hello to your savior.
-GM
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Hearing Optional: 'Signs' of Self Denial
JW,
Four years after Katrina, the state of Louisiana continues to impress. As you may have read, a Tangipahoa Parish Justice of the Peace has denied a marriage license to an interracial couple, citing concern for the union's potential children and his personal observation that "most interracial marriages do not last long." Justice Bardwell, on behalf of a South still fighting the notion that racism is our defining feature, let me be the first to say thanks.
And thanks also to another community embroiled in self-deception: the deaf! I was reading theatre reviews in the New York Times recently--and perhaps I should just stop there--when I came across this lovely tidbit. A staged version of Carson McCullers' novel The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter is being protested by the deaf community because a "hearing" actor has been cast in a deaf role--the equivalent, says (um, signs?) deaf actor Linda Bove, of "putting a white actor in blackface."
Let's be clear on this. Deafness, first a disability, then a subculture, has now risen to the level of a separate race. To accept a cochlear implant (click here for a truly fascinating summary of the deaf community's response to that particular wizardry) is to become a race traitor. A deaf Uncle Tom. Furthermore, dramatic portrayals of the deaf "race" may only be made by members of that group. It's a good thing they're not reviving The Miracle Worker, I suppose. Given the specifics of Helen Keller's differently-abledness, they'd never cast the damn thing!
JW, I'm convinced that we can extrapolate from these fiascoes any number of sports-related lessons having to do with delusional coaching and general management buffoonery. What say you?
-GM
GM,
I say we should be clear on a certain stance just in case there are any liberals out there who read our post and completely fail to understand sarcasm. (Hard to imagine, I know.) Despite our Southern heritage, we're fine with interracial marriage--even interracial schooling!
I know you'd probably like for me to relate this to sports as soon as possible, but I don't even think your lengthy post adequately covers the lunacy that's unfolding before our eyes. The CBS News story you linked us to is very direct in addressing the problem--deaf people resent the aid of science, hearing devices, and the hearing able.
The deaf community feels that its way of life is fully functional, and that using American Sign Language instead of oral English gives them no disadvantage in society.
I had my friend read the line aloud just so I could say, "I can't believe my ears!" Granted, at least 50 percent of the noises on this planet are annoying, just as at least 50 percent of smells are unpleasant, but I would never claim that a hearing-impaired or smelling-impaired person is on an even playing field. From a leisure perspective, deaf people are missing an entire art form--the best art form--in music. From a social perspective, sarcastic signing must be nearly impossible. From a safety perspective, inability to hear key phrases like "Look out!," "Heads up!," and "I'll f---ing kill you!" must be hazardous.
Denial this detrimental could only be matched by Sylvester Croom, who coached Mississippi State to four years of dreadfulness and one winning season. Granted, Croom took over when the program was at its lowest point (2003 saw the team finish 2-10 and 1-7 in the SEC), but his coaching philosophy was simply mind-boggling:
1. Kick players off the team for committing any sort of infraction, including cutting class, regardless of their potential contribution to the team.
2. Run the west-coast offense--an offense that requires intelligence at all positions--with players who averaged an 18 on the ACT. (Note: A few years ago, I read a Commercial Appeal article reporting that 50 percent of African-Americans in Mississippi aren't eligible for college. Imagine what that does to recruiting.)
3. Miss an entire recruiting season (his first) because the Packers (the team he coached running backs for) made the playoffs.
4. Frequently punt the ball from inside the other team's 40-yard line.
A recently trendy definition of insanity is "doing the same thing as before and expecting different results." I say a better definition is believing one thing despite proof to the contrary. If deafness is a race, label me a racist for holding the traditional view that lacking one of the five senses is, in fact, unfortunate. If I had a deaf child, he or she would get a cochlear implant (a race upgrade, if you will) faster than you could sign a protest.
-JW
Four years after Katrina, the state of Louisiana continues to impress. As you may have read, a Tangipahoa Parish Justice of the Peace has denied a marriage license to an interracial couple, citing concern for the union's potential children and his personal observation that "most interracial marriages do not last long." Justice Bardwell, on behalf of a South still fighting the notion that racism is our defining feature, let me be the first to say thanks.
And thanks also to another community embroiled in self-deception: the deaf! I was reading theatre reviews in the New York Times recently--and perhaps I should just stop there--when I came across this lovely tidbit. A staged version of Carson McCullers' novel The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter is being protested by the deaf community because a "hearing" actor has been cast in a deaf role--the equivalent, says (um, signs?) deaf actor Linda Bove, of "putting a white actor in blackface."
Let's be clear on this. Deafness, first a disability, then a subculture, has now risen to the level of a separate race. To accept a cochlear implant (click here for a truly fascinating summary of the deaf community's response to that particular wizardry) is to become a race traitor. A deaf Uncle Tom. Furthermore, dramatic portrayals of the deaf "race" may only be made by members of that group. It's a good thing they're not reviving The Miracle Worker, I suppose. Given the specifics of Helen Keller's differently-abledness, they'd never cast the damn thing!
JW, I'm convinced that we can extrapolate from these fiascoes any number of sports-related lessons having to do with delusional coaching and general management buffoonery. What say you?
-GM
GM,
I say we should be clear on a certain stance just in case there are any liberals out there who read our post and completely fail to understand sarcasm. (Hard to imagine, I know.) Despite our Southern heritage, we're fine with interracial marriage--even interracial schooling!
I know you'd probably like for me to relate this to sports as soon as possible, but I don't even think your lengthy post adequately covers the lunacy that's unfolding before our eyes. The CBS News story you linked us to is very direct in addressing the problem--deaf people resent the aid of science, hearing devices, and the hearing able.
The deaf community feels that its way of life is fully functional, and that using American Sign Language instead of oral English gives them no disadvantage in society.
I had my friend read the line aloud just so I could say, "I can't believe my ears!" Granted, at least 50 percent of the noises on this planet are annoying, just as at least 50 percent of smells are unpleasant, but I would never claim that a hearing-impaired or smelling-impaired person is on an even playing field. From a leisure perspective, deaf people are missing an entire art form--the best art form--in music. From a social perspective, sarcastic signing must be nearly impossible. From a safety perspective, inability to hear key phrases like "Look out!," "Heads up!," and "I'll f---ing kill you!" must be hazardous.
Denial this detrimental could only be matched by Sylvester Croom, who coached Mississippi State to four years of dreadfulness and one winning season. Granted, Croom took over when the program was at its lowest point (2003 saw the team finish 2-10 and 1-7 in the SEC), but his coaching philosophy was simply mind-boggling:
1. Kick players off the team for committing any sort of infraction, including cutting class, regardless of their potential contribution to the team.
2. Run the west-coast offense--an offense that requires intelligence at all positions--with players who averaged an 18 on the ACT. (Note: A few years ago, I read a Commercial Appeal article reporting that 50 percent of African-Americans in Mississippi aren't eligible for college. Imagine what that does to recruiting.)
3. Miss an entire recruiting season (his first) because the Packers (the team he coached running backs for) made the playoffs.
4. Frequently punt the ball from inside the other team's 40-yard line.
A recently trendy definition of insanity is "doing the same thing as before and expecting different results." I say a better definition is believing one thing despite proof to the contrary. If deafness is a race, label me a racist for holding the traditional view that lacking one of the five senses is, in fact, unfortunate. If I had a deaf child, he or she would get a cochlear implant (a race upgrade, if you will) faster than you could sign a protest.
-JW
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Rushing to Judgment (Lost in Limbaugh?)
GM,
It’s frightening to know that Al Davis has job security despite his dreadful incompetence, while Rush Limbaugh may be prevented from buying a team because of his political views. The fact is, though, that for many mega-successful businessmen, success is due to an utter refusal to reveal potentially unpopular or divisive stances. Hell, ask Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods, who are notorious for refusing to admit they’re Democrats because it would harm their brands. For media personalities, on the other hand, niches make riches, and Rush’s niche is conservative America, which, contrary to what popular television programming would have us believe, is a pretty big segment in this country. Should his bid to own an NFL team be denied just because he votes differently and thinks differently than three-fourths of the players? Reverend Al Sharpton seems to think so. (Scroll halfway down or search "Sharpton".)
In an interview with Anderson Cooper Monday, Sharpton joined former Dolphins running back Mercury Morris to talk about the possibility. While Morris seemed level-headed through much of the interview (and I’ll get to his absurdity later), Sharpton suggested that Rush’s attempt at ownership should immediately be squashed simply because of his past comments about Donovan McNabb, Michael Vick (scroll down to Story #8), and the league in general.
Morris was reasonable--saying he had every right to buy the team but that it may be unwise because of his reputation--until he arrived at this:
We have got a president now who is the quarterback. And I think that that's what's bothering Limbaugh the most, is that the guy who is calling the shots here in this country is a black man.
And, so, how can I have some power? Well, let me buy some -- some people, and then I can put who I want in there, rather than who's the best person there.
If you think Rush is a racist, fine, although his McNabb remarks weren’t racist; rather, they accused the sports media of being racist. But surely he’s not so racist that he would burn through his own money and reputation to ruin a franchise so that white players can see more playing time. If that is the case, I highly suggest he first consult Larry Bird.
-JW
JW,
I saw the segment you linked us to live, and I'm now ready to declare that I support anything that allows former NFL players to talk politics with Anderson Cooper and Al Sharpton. So what if CNN's journalistic standards are losing ground to Kent Brockman at this point? This is television we're talking about, and I couldn't have been more enthralled if the participants had been juggling pies.
After all, the Limbaugh story has spent the past week engendering that strange mix of careerism and self-righteousness peculiar to television and newspaper personalities during an invented crisis. Anderson Cooper was at his faux-compassionate best; Kevin Blackistone strung together several complete sentences; and Jason Whitlock broke out the hyperbole like it was going bad in his refrigerator. Add to that Mercury Morris's unintentional exploration of the political insensitivity of sports "ownership" and you've got my favorite story of the year.
What you've also got, of course, is a story that exposes the laughable hypocrisy of the people who run the American media establishment. While you're right about Jordan and Woods, surely you've noticed that Keith Olbermann has done quite well on NBC's pre-game show despite a niche every bit as intricately defined as Rush's and potentially as overbearing. This is the guy, don't forget, who called television's 24 a right-wing plot to breed intolerance of Arabs. (He's right, by the way, in that I'm pronouncing it A-rabs in my head and giggling.) This is the guy who refers to the "irrational" Right on one program and calls the Right's favorite game on another. Simply put, he's a double agent, just like Limbaugh. To the extent that the men and women in charge overlook him, they do so because they spend long stretches of time having forgotten that conservatives even exist. That we're not all in agreement.
It seems clear at this point that Limbaugh's not going to get his team, and in the end, the real victims of this debacle are the people of St. Louis. After all, they were very close to putting the team in the hands of someone who actually cares about football. So what if those hands are a little dirty? Last I checked, the wins still count.
-GM
It’s frightening to know that Al Davis has job security despite his dreadful incompetence, while Rush Limbaugh may be prevented from buying a team because of his political views. The fact is, though, that for many mega-successful businessmen, success is due to an utter refusal to reveal potentially unpopular or divisive stances. Hell, ask Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods, who are notorious for refusing to admit they’re Democrats because it would harm their brands. For media personalities, on the other hand, niches make riches, and Rush’s niche is conservative America, which, contrary to what popular television programming would have us believe, is a pretty big segment in this country. Should his bid to own an NFL team be denied just because he votes differently and thinks differently than three-fourths of the players? Reverend Al Sharpton seems to think so. (Scroll halfway down or search "Sharpton".)
In an interview with Anderson Cooper Monday, Sharpton joined former Dolphins running back Mercury Morris to talk about the possibility. While Morris seemed level-headed through much of the interview (and I’ll get to his absurdity later), Sharpton suggested that Rush’s attempt at ownership should immediately be squashed simply because of his past comments about Donovan McNabb, Michael Vick (scroll down to Story #8), and the league in general.
Morris was reasonable--saying he had every right to buy the team but that it may be unwise because of his reputation--until he arrived at this:
We have got a president now who is the quarterback. And I think that that's what's bothering Limbaugh the most, is that the guy who is calling the shots here in this country is a black man.
And, so, how can I have some power? Well, let me buy some -- some people, and then I can put who I want in there, rather than who's the best person there.
If you think Rush is a racist, fine, although his McNabb remarks weren’t racist; rather, they accused the sports media of being racist. But surely he’s not so racist that he would burn through his own money and reputation to ruin a franchise so that white players can see more playing time. If that is the case, I highly suggest he first consult Larry Bird.
-JW
JW,
I saw the segment you linked us to live, and I'm now ready to declare that I support anything that allows former NFL players to talk politics with Anderson Cooper and Al Sharpton. So what if CNN's journalistic standards are losing ground to Kent Brockman at this point? This is television we're talking about, and I couldn't have been more enthralled if the participants had been juggling pies.
After all, the Limbaugh story has spent the past week engendering that strange mix of careerism and self-righteousness peculiar to television and newspaper personalities during an invented crisis. Anderson Cooper was at his faux-compassionate best; Kevin Blackistone strung together several complete sentences; and Jason Whitlock broke out the hyperbole like it was going bad in his refrigerator. Add to that Mercury Morris's unintentional exploration of the political insensitivity of sports "ownership" and you've got my favorite story of the year.
What you've also got, of course, is a story that exposes the laughable hypocrisy of the people who run the American media establishment. While you're right about Jordan and Woods, surely you've noticed that Keith Olbermann has done quite well on NBC's pre-game show despite a niche every bit as intricately defined as Rush's and potentially as overbearing. This is the guy, don't forget, who called television's 24 a right-wing plot to breed intolerance of Arabs. (He's right, by the way, in that I'm pronouncing it A-rabs in my head and giggling.) This is the guy who refers to the "irrational" Right on one program and calls the Right's favorite game on another. Simply put, he's a double agent, just like Limbaugh. To the extent that the men and women in charge overlook him, they do so because they spend long stretches of time having forgotten that conservatives even exist. That we're not all in agreement.
It seems clear at this point that Limbaugh's not going to get his team, and in the end, the real victims of this debacle are the people of St. Louis. After all, they were very close to putting the team in the hands of someone who actually cares about football. So what if those hands are a little dirty? Last I checked, the wins still count.
-GM
Monday, October 12, 2009
Perverse Entertainment
JW,
On January 6th, 2007, my beloved Kansas City Chiefs played the Indianapolis Colts for forty-one playoff minutes before making a first down. Their final line? Forty-four rushing yards, seven first downs, and 126 yards of total offense against a defense for whom "porous" would have been a compliment. I'm bringing this up to let you know that I thought I'd seen everything as far as football incompetence is concerned. The Chiefs snuck into the playoffs that year (needing and getting a Detroit win over Dallas and a San Francisco win over Denver, in addition to their own win), and they played like a team that didn't belong. That day was an embarrassment, and in a lot of ways I'm still getting over it.
Happily, I took a big step in the right direction yesterday when I watched (yes, watched) the Buffalo Bills host the Cleveland Browns in what has to be the worst football game ever played, on any level. Though the stats are agonizing (193 offensive yards for the winning Browns; sixteen combined punts; thirty percent combined third-down efficiency), it's this number that really stands out: two for seventeen. That's Derek Anderson's passing line. That's the winning quarterback. At this point, it's not just the NFL that wishes it could take back Anderson's 2008 Pro Bowl appearance. Hawaii itself is pissed off.
But hey, talk about a healing experience! Watching passes swirl in the wind, watching Jamal Lewis contribute meaningfully to a professional football team, I couldn't help but come a little closer to forgiving my Chiefs (though Herm Edwards can never be forgiven, that touchdown-hating bastard). Unless Trent Edwards' parents live in, say, Topeka, I may have been the only person outside of New York and Ohio who watched this game. Let me tell you, though. It was well worth it.
-GM
GM,
I've watched as much football as anybody over the last 10 years, and I've seen some horrible stuff. A high school game tied 0-0 at the end of regulation. An onside kick literally go backwards. I was present when Auburn beat Mississippi State 3-2 last year. It's always a little funnier when it happens in the NFL, though. After all, these guys are getting paid heftily to entertain us. Ironically, to the fans who know the league best, there's a large entertainment value to total incompetence. And let's not pretend yesterday's Bills/Browns showdown was some sort of defensive exhibition. It takes skill, timing, and chemistry to make an offense work--more so than for a defense--and neither of these teams have any of those attributes.
Personally, I had to decide if I wanted to dedicate my space today to telling you why Alabama deserved to jump Texas in both polls (obvious, although the coaches stubbornly kept Texas at No. 2), discussing the Denver Broncos' 5-0 start (unfathomable), or filling today's section with more embarrassment from the NFL (what I'll actually do). Get ready for the most amazing QB statistics you've ever seen in your life. They belong to JaMarcus Russell... through five games, all of which he's started.
51-for-121 (42 percent), 606 yards, 4 interceptions, 1 touchdown
Yet he and his 47.1 QB rating continue to take the field every week. Do you remember when this guy signed? He took forever to do so, holding out for more money while we rolled our eyes knowing he'd be a huge bust. On the field, he looks clueless, overweight, and apathetic. Nothing about him says "NFL quarterback." Everything says "Raider."
Yesterday against the Giants, Russell had (by far) his best game of the season statistically. He was 8-for-13 with no interceptions. Think about this, though. The Raiders were down 28-0 in the second quarter, and Russell threw only 13 passes?! The way I see it, that's Tom Cable making a statement to Al Davis:
"We will never come from behind with this guy under center, so let me play a real quarterback, or this is what you'll see--a losing team milking the clock with predictable running plays."
From the owner to the coaching staff to the face of the franchise to the fans, the Raiders are a joke. Hey, at least it's a funny one. I once flew to Miami to watch the Dolphins beat the Raiders the year Oakland went to the Super Bowl. As I walked through the airport afterward, I noticed that the dejected fans continued to wear their gear for the returning flight! Imagine these guys moping down a terminal.
-JW
On January 6th, 2007, my beloved Kansas City Chiefs played the Indianapolis Colts for forty-one playoff minutes before making a first down. Their final line? Forty-four rushing yards, seven first downs, and 126 yards of total offense against a defense for whom "porous" would have been a compliment. I'm bringing this up to let you know that I thought I'd seen everything as far as football incompetence is concerned. The Chiefs snuck into the playoffs that year (needing and getting a Detroit win over Dallas and a San Francisco win over Denver, in addition to their own win), and they played like a team that didn't belong. That day was an embarrassment, and in a lot of ways I'm still getting over it.
Happily, I took a big step in the right direction yesterday when I watched (yes, watched) the Buffalo Bills host the Cleveland Browns in what has to be the worst football game ever played, on any level. Though the stats are agonizing (193 offensive yards for the winning Browns; sixteen combined punts; thirty percent combined third-down efficiency), it's this number that really stands out: two for seventeen. That's Derek Anderson's passing line. That's the winning quarterback. At this point, it's not just the NFL that wishes it could take back Anderson's 2008 Pro Bowl appearance. Hawaii itself is pissed off.
But hey, talk about a healing experience! Watching passes swirl in the wind, watching Jamal Lewis contribute meaningfully to a professional football team, I couldn't help but come a little closer to forgiving my Chiefs (though Herm Edwards can never be forgiven, that touchdown-hating bastard). Unless Trent Edwards' parents live in, say, Topeka, I may have been the only person outside of New York and Ohio who watched this game. Let me tell you, though. It was well worth it.
-GM
GM,
I've watched as much football as anybody over the last 10 years, and I've seen some horrible stuff. A high school game tied 0-0 at the end of regulation. An onside kick literally go backwards. I was present when Auburn beat Mississippi State 3-2 last year. It's always a little funnier when it happens in the NFL, though. After all, these guys are getting paid heftily to entertain us. Ironically, to the fans who know the league best, there's a large entertainment value to total incompetence. And let's not pretend yesterday's Bills/Browns showdown was some sort of defensive exhibition. It takes skill, timing, and chemistry to make an offense work--more so than for a defense--and neither of these teams have any of those attributes.
Personally, I had to decide if I wanted to dedicate my space today to telling you why Alabama deserved to jump Texas in both polls (obvious, although the coaches stubbornly kept Texas at No. 2), discussing the Denver Broncos' 5-0 start (unfathomable), or filling today's section with more embarrassment from the NFL (what I'll actually do). Get ready for the most amazing QB statistics you've ever seen in your life. They belong to JaMarcus Russell... through five games, all of which he's started.
51-for-121 (42 percent), 606 yards, 4 interceptions, 1 touchdown
Yet he and his 47.1 QB rating continue to take the field every week. Do you remember when this guy signed? He took forever to do so, holding out for more money while we rolled our eyes knowing he'd be a huge bust. On the field, he looks clueless, overweight, and apathetic. Nothing about him says "NFL quarterback." Everything says "Raider."
Yesterday against the Giants, Russell had (by far) his best game of the season statistically. He was 8-for-13 with no interceptions. Think about this, though. The Raiders were down 28-0 in the second quarter, and Russell threw only 13 passes?! The way I see it, that's Tom Cable making a statement to Al Davis:
"We will never come from behind with this guy under center, so let me play a real quarterback, or this is what you'll see--a losing team milking the clock with predictable running plays."
From the owner to the coaching staff to the face of the franchise to the fans, the Raiders are a joke. Hey, at least it's a funny one. I once flew to Miami to watch the Dolphins beat the Raiders the year Oakland went to the Super Bowl. As I walked through the airport afterward, I noticed that the dejected fans continued to wear their gear for the returning flight! Imagine these guys moping down a terminal.
-JW
Friday, October 9, 2009
Special Report: The Obama Nobel Peace Prize
Here at Smarter Than Y'all, we're particularly attuned to moments of cultural (and multi-cultural) insanity. Hence the Wal-Mart jibes and the complaints about vehicular scrotum. You can imagine our glee, then, at waking up this morning to the news that Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize, thus entering the proud company of an anti-semite, a beaurocratic stooge, and a terrorist. And that's just the last fifteen years! They didn't give out the prize between 1939 and 1943, but if they had, you can bet that one of them would have gone to Hitler.
Though Obama's "prize" (1.4 million dollars and a citation that half the world views as fraudulent on its best day) is stupid for a number of reasons, chief among them has to be the misplaced idealism and political symbolism that informed the council's decision. Consider the New York Times' take on the award--a take which, as usual, manages to combine startling canniness with breathless naivete:
In one sense, the award was a rebuke to the foreign policies of Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, some of which the president has sought to overturn. Mr. Obama made repairing the fractured relations between the United States and the rest of the world a major theme of his campaign for the presidency. Since taking office as president he has pursued a range of policies intended to fulfill that goal. He has vowed to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, as he did in a speech in Prague earlier this year; reached out to the Muslim world, delivering a major speech in Cairo in June; and sought to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
While a complete explication would involve more time than we're willing to commit, please note that although the Times has Obama "seeking," "making priorities," "pursuing," "intending,"
"vowing," "reaching out," and "seeking" (yet again), it doesn't have him achieving much of anything. Furthermore, the goals in question are patently unachievable. Or so sayeth history. A world without nuclear weapons? Peace in Israel? A permanent, meaningful repairing of America's "fractured" relations? Fool's gold, all of them. The province of poets, not presidents.
Only half a day into the story, commentators are already asserting that the Nobel committee's citation reads more like "a wish list" than a list of achievements. Those hoping Obama will decline the award, however, quite clearly fail to know our president.
-GM and JW
Though Obama's "prize" (1.4 million dollars and a citation that half the world views as fraudulent on its best day) is stupid for a number of reasons, chief among them has to be the misplaced idealism and political symbolism that informed the council's decision. Consider the New York Times' take on the award--a take which, as usual, manages to combine startling canniness with breathless naivete:
In one sense, the award was a rebuke to the foreign policies of Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, some of which the president has sought to overturn. Mr. Obama made repairing the fractured relations between the United States and the rest of the world a major theme of his campaign for the presidency. Since taking office as president he has pursued a range of policies intended to fulfill that goal. He has vowed to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, as he did in a speech in Prague earlier this year; reached out to the Muslim world, delivering a major speech in Cairo in June; and sought to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
While a complete explication would involve more time than we're willing to commit, please note that although the Times has Obama "seeking," "making priorities," "pursuing," "intending,"
"vowing," "reaching out," and "seeking" (yet again), it doesn't have him achieving much of anything. Furthermore, the goals in question are patently unachievable. Or so sayeth history. A world without nuclear weapons? Peace in Israel? A permanent, meaningful repairing of America's "fractured" relations? Fool's gold, all of them. The province of poets, not presidents.
Only half a day into the story, commentators are already asserting that the Nobel committee's citation reads more like "a wish list" than a list of achievements. Those hoping Obama will decline the award, however, quite clearly fail to know our president.
-GM and JW
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Even More Trouble In the Aisles
GM,
Maybe it’s time for a lighter note—a Wal-Mart note. Making my first trip to the white-trash embassy since my last entry about it, I personally witnessed a woman in her 70s use the self checkout lane last night. My initial admiration of her courage to confront technology soon dissolved when I saw her scan, bag, swipe her debit card, enter the PIN, and pocket the receipt for each item in her cart. Needless to say, my fascination with this complete confusion of the system ended when she made it to the fruit; even multiples were separated (I now know the product code for oranges). As you may imagine, the pace at which she went wouldn’t have satisfied me even if she understood the concept completely. You also won’t be surprised to hear that the lone customer service representative was content to sit and watch as the Waltons’ money and my patience were lost transaction by transaction. I’m convinced that the self-checkout lane is the single greatest separator of the wheat from the chaff in this 21st-century society.
Then again, in a world where technology has us handcuffed to our phones, where human resource departments add to the complexity and ambiguity of application processes just to lower the number of Internet applicants, where the University of Colorado ruins it for everybody, where male-enhancement-pill advertisements run so rampant that I wonder if everyone else is getting an unfair advantage, maybe it’s time to show some understanding for a lack of understanding. (Told you today would be lighthearted!) Wal-Mart granny isn't so bad compared to these offenders.
-JW
JW,
Perhaps because I'm still staggering from the news that M. C. Hammer was at least partially responsible for Michael Crabtree's new deal with the San Francisco 49ers, I can't get too worked up about your newest Wal-Mart story (though your oldest one still gives me fits). Or perhaps it's the fact that 43-year-old blogger Penelope Trunk used Twitter earlier this week to announce her miscarriage-in-progress. (Here's the story: The It's-A-Good-Thing-Because-Abortion-Waits-Are-So-Long-In-Wisconsin moment near the end is especially charming.) In either case, don't get mad if I refrain from outrage at the technological cluelessness of the elderly. I'm not ashamed to admit that those self-checkouts slow me down, too.
The Wal-Mart employee who stood watching, on the other hand, is deserving of some fairly serious ire. I'll go so far as to call him (it was a white male, right?) a representation of much of what ails us as a society. What kind of person--and I mean this very seriously--would sit by and watch wanton destruction (of time and money, unintentional or not) without attempting to intervene? What deeply ingrained cultural flaw (Is it anger? Is it resentment?) allows such behavior?
If there's a lesson here, it's that those folks who complain about Wal-Mart's mistreatment of its employees must rarely shop there. Otherwise they'd see that mistreatment is sometimes called for.
-GM
Maybe it’s time for a lighter note—a Wal-Mart note. Making my first trip to the white-trash embassy since my last entry about it, I personally witnessed a woman in her 70s use the self checkout lane last night. My initial admiration of her courage to confront technology soon dissolved when I saw her scan, bag, swipe her debit card, enter the PIN, and pocket the receipt for each item in her cart. Needless to say, my fascination with this complete confusion of the system ended when she made it to the fruit; even multiples were separated (I now know the product code for oranges). As you may imagine, the pace at which she went wouldn’t have satisfied me even if she understood the concept completely. You also won’t be surprised to hear that the lone customer service representative was content to sit and watch as the Waltons’ money and my patience were lost transaction by transaction. I’m convinced that the self-checkout lane is the single greatest separator of the wheat from the chaff in this 21st-century society.
Then again, in a world where technology has us handcuffed to our phones, where human resource departments add to the complexity and ambiguity of application processes just to lower the number of Internet applicants, where the University of Colorado ruins it for everybody, where male-enhancement-pill advertisements run so rampant that I wonder if everyone else is getting an unfair advantage, maybe it’s time to show some understanding for a lack of understanding. (Told you today would be lighthearted!) Wal-Mart granny isn't so bad compared to these offenders.
-JW
JW,
Perhaps because I'm still staggering from the news that M. C. Hammer was at least partially responsible for Michael Crabtree's new deal with the San Francisco 49ers, I can't get too worked up about your newest Wal-Mart story (though your oldest one still gives me fits). Or perhaps it's the fact that 43-year-old blogger Penelope Trunk used Twitter earlier this week to announce her miscarriage-in-progress. (Here's the story: The It's-A-Good-Thing-Because-Abortion-Waits-Are-So-Long-In-Wisconsin moment near the end is especially charming.) In either case, don't get mad if I refrain from outrage at the technological cluelessness of the elderly. I'm not ashamed to admit that those self-checkouts slow me down, too.
The Wal-Mart employee who stood watching, on the other hand, is deserving of some fairly serious ire. I'll go so far as to call him (it was a white male, right?) a representation of much of what ails us as a society. What kind of person--and I mean this very seriously--would sit by and watch wanton destruction (of time and money, unintentional or not) without attempting to intervene? What deeply ingrained cultural flaw (Is it anger? Is it resentment?) allows such behavior?
If there's a lesson here, it's that those folks who complain about Wal-Mart's mistreatment of its employees must rarely shop there. Otherwise they'd see that mistreatment is sometimes called for.
-GM
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Inevitable USC Ascent Begins, Nation Mourns Loss of Soul
JW,
I came across a fantastic Commercial Appeal article this morning about the woefully unwatched Memphis Grizzlies' approach to marketing the '09-'10 season. The headline? "Ball In Fans' Court." I am not making this up.
It got me me thinking, though. In what other sports-related realms are fans asked to sacrifice logic and their desire for a good product so that the inexplicable yearnings of a privileged few can be satisfied? The answer, of course, is college football, whose corrupt, common sense-defying ranking scheme can only be defended by the old and petulant. Take, for example, the recent comments of University of Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman. Asked why university chancellors are against forming a playoff system, Perlman replied, "First, we don't want to."
First, we don't want to?! Not even and, but first? Where on earth--I'm seriously asking--do they find these people?
And where on earth, I'm curious to know, is it okay to rank one-loss USC four slots ahead of one-loss Miami, whose impenetrable schedule thus far is the most difficult season-opening stretch I've ever seen? From whence doth this USC bias spring?
JW, I'm leaving you the bulk of the work today, so come out with guns blazing. What in the world is the Trojan-controlled media thinking?
-GM
GM,
Perlman's words, "First, we don't want to," remind me of what I would hear growing up when questioning a parental policy--"Because I said so." It's legitimately the truth, but I haven't learned anything new, have I? These profound explanations should be coupled as an explanation for all sorts of ranking absurdities. Take, for example, your own argument.
GM: Voter A, why haven't you moved Miami past USC despite the fact that the Hurricanes have had a much tougher schedule and have a much better loss?
VOTER A: First, we don't want to.
GM: How could USC be comfortably in the top ten two weeks after losing to Washington?!
VOTER A: Because I said so... before the season began, and what I've seen on the field is less relevant.
Let's face it, asking for fairness in college football is like asking for democracy in the Middle East. You don't know which archaic, out of touch authority figure to turn to. In Perlman's defense, the TV personality who wrote that piece clearly has about as much sports knowledge as these guys. The interview must have been frustrating. The unnamed author wrote:
The Utah Utes went undefeated last year yet failed to qualify for a BCS game.
Not only is that false--Utah beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, a BCS game--a similar, truer statement is repeated later and needlessly attributed to a source:
Utah officials said (the Utes) were kept out of the BCS title game last year, despite going undefeated.
Good thing we know Utah's state officials are aware of obvious, indisputable facts that pertain to their primary state university. Today's headline will read, "Favre: We beat Green Bay, 30 to 23." This could only be the work of Cynthia Izaguirre. Afterward, the battle of incompetence waged on, and the winner was indeterminable:
Perlman said (Utah) was not excluded from the (national championship) game....
Of all the BCS positions in contrast with my own, this seems the most impossible--to pretend Utah actually did play for the national championship! Maybe it's subtly brilliant. Did he actually say that, or did the reporter's confusion about the existence of multiple BCS games somehow inspire this paraphrased interpretation? And why didn't we spend any time on the NFL today? Well...
First, we don't want to.
-JW
I came across a fantastic Commercial Appeal article this morning about the woefully unwatched Memphis Grizzlies' approach to marketing the '09-'10 season. The headline? "Ball In Fans' Court." I am not making this up.
It got me me thinking, though. In what other sports-related realms are fans asked to sacrifice logic and their desire for a good product so that the inexplicable yearnings of a privileged few can be satisfied? The answer, of course, is college football, whose corrupt, common sense-defying ranking scheme can only be defended by the old and petulant. Take, for example, the recent comments of University of Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman. Asked why university chancellors are against forming a playoff system, Perlman replied, "First, we don't want to."
First, we don't want to?! Not even and, but first? Where on earth--I'm seriously asking--do they find these people?
And where on earth, I'm curious to know, is it okay to rank one-loss USC four slots ahead of one-loss Miami, whose impenetrable schedule thus far is the most difficult season-opening stretch I've ever seen? From whence doth this USC bias spring?
JW, I'm leaving you the bulk of the work today, so come out with guns blazing. What in the world is the Trojan-controlled media thinking?
-GM
GM,
Perlman's words, "First, we don't want to," remind me of what I would hear growing up when questioning a parental policy--"Because I said so." It's legitimately the truth, but I haven't learned anything new, have I? These profound explanations should be coupled as an explanation for all sorts of ranking absurdities. Take, for example, your own argument.
GM: Voter A, why haven't you moved Miami past USC despite the fact that the Hurricanes have had a much tougher schedule and have a much better loss?
VOTER A: First, we don't want to.
GM: How could USC be comfortably in the top ten two weeks after losing to Washington?!
VOTER A: Because I said so... before the season began, and what I've seen on the field is less relevant.
Let's face it, asking for fairness in college football is like asking for democracy in the Middle East. You don't know which archaic, out of touch authority figure to turn to. In Perlman's defense, the TV personality who wrote that piece clearly has about as much sports knowledge as these guys. The interview must have been frustrating. The unnamed author wrote:
The Utah Utes went undefeated last year yet failed to qualify for a BCS game.
Not only is that false--Utah beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, a BCS game--a similar, truer statement is repeated later and needlessly attributed to a source:
Utah officials said (the Utes) were kept out of the BCS title game last year, despite going undefeated.
Good thing we know Utah's state officials are aware of obvious, indisputable facts that pertain to their primary state university. Today's headline will read, "Favre: We beat Green Bay, 30 to 23." This could only be the work of Cynthia Izaguirre. Afterward, the battle of incompetence waged on, and the winner was indeterminable:
Perlman said (Utah) was not excluded from the (national championship) game....
Of all the BCS positions in contrast with my own, this seems the most impossible--to pretend Utah actually did play for the national championship! Maybe it's subtly brilliant. Did he actually say that, or did the reporter's confusion about the existence of multiple BCS games somehow inspire this paraphrased interpretation? And why didn't we spend any time on the NFL today? Well...
First, we don't want to.
-JW
Friday, October 2, 2009
Tips and Picks: The Week 4 Edition
JW,
I'll admit to getting caught up in Brett Favre's ridiculous game-winner last week in Minnesota, a play so perfectly executed they should send the ball directly to Canton. Sure, I've bitched about Favre from time to time (to time), but I can't deny his (occasional, fleeting) greatness. He actively won that football game, and in the Age of the Rinky-Dink Pass, not many quarterbacks can say that.
Still, some problems remain, namely the continuing glorification of Favre to the detriment of everyone else on the field. Listen to that call again. Not "great catch" but "Favre did it." Forget Greg Lewis's epic positioning, timing, and footwork, we're breathlessly told. This was Favre's accomplishment, and it's his story.
Meanwhile, despite Favre's insistence that revenge won't be a factor when his Vikes meet the Packers on Monday night, you can bet that it will be the chief factor for everyone covering the game, as well as most of the people watching it. Favre's presence in the wake of last Sunday's heroics has so eclipsed the teams themselves that we're forgetting two very important facts: 1) The Vikings appear to be a very good team, and 2) The Packers might not be. As of today, the Vikings are minus-3.5. Give the points.
In other news . . .
Tampa Bay at Washington promises to be one of those games that remind you why too much television is a bad thing. Why not go outside and throw the ball around with your kids? I guarantee you'll have more yards of total offense than the Bucs and Skins.
Tennessee at Jacksonville boasts the highest stakes of any game this week. After all, Tennessee has everything going for them except wins, and of all of the 0-3 teams in recent memory, they seem most likely to rebound. Lose this week in Florida, though, and even I'll be calling for Vince Young, if only to improve the Titans' draft positioning.
New York Jets at New Orleans should salvage an afternoon slate whose second best match-up is NBC's encore presentation of Meet the Press. Unless it's crossed into three figures, take the over.
Baltimore at New England has my full attention, if only because I'm so certain the Patriots will lose. Don't forget, this is a revenge game, too. The Ravens were this close to ruining the Pats' perfect season in '07. (Click here and fastfoward to 4:55 for some Rex Ryan idiocy that's almost too good to be true.) This is their first meeting since.
-GM
GM,
When it comes to picks, I'm not going to share mine with our readers this week. Anyone who's followed my lead knows I've made some poor predictions in weeks past (e.g. Miami over Virginia Tech). Strangely enough, my walk hasn't mirrored my talk, and I've actually had an outstanding season gambling so far. But as my second-favorite band's No. 2 singer once wrote...
"I ain't gonna crawl upon no high horse 'cause I got thrown off of one when I was young, and I ain't no Cowboy, so I ain't goin' where I don't belong." -Mike Cooley, Drive-By Truckers
So let's just talk some amateur football. For those who consider the regular season a playoff, this week has some marquee games that actually help prove that flawed point. In fact, I'll be at the best of them, so let's start with that one.
LSU at UGA: Initials are fine, right? The Dawgs are actually giving 3 1/2, meaning Vegas has absolutely no respect for LSU, the No. 4 team in the nation. The problem, in my opinion, is that Georgia has little reason to be respected either. Based on previous performance this season, both teams would get rolled by the Tide or chomped by the Gators. But yes, I expect Georgia to take care of business at home, mainly because LSU forgot how to run the football, and UGA is figuring out how to stop the homeruns--the only reason the Tigers edged Mississippi State last week.
Oklahoma at Miami: Landry Jones, a redshirt freshman, is starting again for the Sooners because Sam Bradford still isn't ready. Did the Hurricanes get trounced last week at Va. Tech because they're not who I thought they were, or because the Hokies proved that their game against Alabama to open the season was actually a battle of two top-three teams? It's the latter, folks. If you look at who has proven what, it's Alabama first, then VT, then Florida, but of course, Florida is yet to be tested. The Big 12 is overrated; the ACC is underrated; Miami will win, or my name isn't, ehhh, JW.
USC at Cal: It's a shame that both teams will still be respected after this game. The Trojans don't have the horses this year to run all over anybody, so it will be another one- or two-score victory, which will force Cal out of the AP rankings, drop the school to 25th in the coaches' poll, and have half the media talking about how USC still deserves to play for the national championship if it wins out, regardless of who's still undefeated. This is the country we live in. No, no... as another great artist once said...
"This is our country." -You know who.
-JW
I'll admit to getting caught up in Brett Favre's ridiculous game-winner last week in Minnesota, a play so perfectly executed they should send the ball directly to Canton. Sure, I've bitched about Favre from time to time (to time), but I can't deny his (occasional, fleeting) greatness. He actively won that football game, and in the Age of the Rinky-Dink Pass, not many quarterbacks can say that.
Still, some problems remain, namely the continuing glorification of Favre to the detriment of everyone else on the field. Listen to that call again. Not "great catch" but "Favre did it." Forget Greg Lewis's epic positioning, timing, and footwork, we're breathlessly told. This was Favre's accomplishment, and it's his story.
Meanwhile, despite Favre's insistence that revenge won't be a factor when his Vikes meet the Packers on Monday night, you can bet that it will be the chief factor for everyone covering the game, as well as most of the people watching it. Favre's presence in the wake of last Sunday's heroics has so eclipsed the teams themselves that we're forgetting two very important facts: 1) The Vikings appear to be a very good team, and 2) The Packers might not be. As of today, the Vikings are minus-3.5. Give the points.
In other news . . .
Tampa Bay at Washington promises to be one of those games that remind you why too much television is a bad thing. Why not go outside and throw the ball around with your kids? I guarantee you'll have more yards of total offense than the Bucs and Skins.
Tennessee at Jacksonville boasts the highest stakes of any game this week. After all, Tennessee has everything going for them except wins, and of all of the 0-3 teams in recent memory, they seem most likely to rebound. Lose this week in Florida, though, and even I'll be calling for Vince Young, if only to improve the Titans' draft positioning.
New York Jets at New Orleans should salvage an afternoon slate whose second best match-up is NBC's encore presentation of Meet the Press. Unless it's crossed into three figures, take the over.
Baltimore at New England has my full attention, if only because I'm so certain the Patriots will lose. Don't forget, this is a revenge game, too. The Ravens were this close to ruining the Pats' perfect season in '07. (Click here and fastfoward to 4:55 for some Rex Ryan idiocy that's almost too good to be true.) This is their first meeting since.
-GM
GM,
When it comes to picks, I'm not going to share mine with our readers this week. Anyone who's followed my lead knows I've made some poor predictions in weeks past (e.g. Miami over Virginia Tech). Strangely enough, my walk hasn't mirrored my talk, and I've actually had an outstanding season gambling so far. But as my second-favorite band's No. 2 singer once wrote...
"I ain't gonna crawl upon no high horse 'cause I got thrown off of one when I was young, and I ain't no Cowboy, so I ain't goin' where I don't belong." -Mike Cooley, Drive-By Truckers
So let's just talk some amateur football. For those who consider the regular season a playoff, this week has some marquee games that actually help prove that flawed point. In fact, I'll be at the best of them, so let's start with that one.
LSU at UGA: Initials are fine, right? The Dawgs are actually giving 3 1/2, meaning Vegas has absolutely no respect for LSU, the No. 4 team in the nation. The problem, in my opinion, is that Georgia has little reason to be respected either. Based on previous performance this season, both teams would get rolled by the Tide or chomped by the Gators. But yes, I expect Georgia to take care of business at home, mainly because LSU forgot how to run the football, and UGA is figuring out how to stop the homeruns--the only reason the Tigers edged Mississippi State last week.
Oklahoma at Miami: Landry Jones, a redshirt freshman, is starting again for the Sooners because Sam Bradford still isn't ready. Did the Hurricanes get trounced last week at Va. Tech because they're not who I thought they were, or because the Hokies proved that their game against Alabama to open the season was actually a battle of two top-three teams? It's the latter, folks. If you look at who has proven what, it's Alabama first, then VT, then Florida, but of course, Florida is yet to be tested. The Big 12 is overrated; the ACC is underrated; Miami will win, or my name isn't, ehhh, JW.
USC at Cal: It's a shame that both teams will still be respected after this game. The Trojans don't have the horses this year to run all over anybody, so it will be another one- or two-score victory, which will force Cal out of the AP rankings, drop the school to 25th in the coaches' poll, and have half the media talking about how USC still deserves to play for the national championship if it wins out, regardless of who's still undefeated. This is the country we live in. No, no... as another great artist once said...
"This is our country." -You know who.
-JW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
