Home | Away

Monday, February 22, 2010

Do you believe in unlikelihoods?

Nominations are open today for the 3 Quarks Daily Prize in Arts and Literature.  Here’s how this works:

After the nominating period is over, there will be a round of voting by our readers which will narrow down the entries to the top twenty semi-finalists. After this period, we will take these top twenty voted-for nominees, and the four main daily editors of 3 Quarks Daily (Abbas Raza, Robin Varghese, Morgan Meis, and Azra Raza) will select six finalists from these, plus they may also add up to three wildcard entries of their own choosing. The three winners will be chosen from these by former U.S. Poet Laureate, Robert Pinsky, who, we are extremely pleased, has agreed to be the final judge.

The nominating process will end on 11:59 pm this Sunday, February 28, so if you want to nominate a post, you have to do it this week, folks.  You don’t have to nominate one of mine (each person is allowed only one nomination), though of course I’d be honored if you do.  The post must have been written after February 21, 2009, which eliminates all my fine posts from the summer of 2005, and they must be under 4000 words, which eliminates all my other posts.  Personally, I’d recommend this one.

No, wait, that’s not right.  Maybe this one.  I don’t know.  The truth is that when I went through the archives for the past year I found the whole thing kind of depressing.  There’s a little verve here and a little snark there, and of course a series of profound and deeply unsettling debates on His Dark Materials, cultural studies, and teabagging.  (Yes, that was all in one post—and what a post it was!) And, of course, the thing that makes this blog worth the trouble: lots of fun banter with readers in the comments.  But the writing itself, meh.  I’ve seen better. 

Still, the 3 Quarks Daily Prize in Arts and Literature looks like a fun thing, regardless of whether this humble blog is weighed in its scales and found wanting.  So head on over and nominate a blog post you really like.

And now to last night’s game.  Let’s turn things over to the Associated Press:

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — The Americans didn’t believe in miracles. They just believed.

And they pulled off the biggest Olympic hockey upset since the Miracle on Ice, stunning Canada 5-3 on Sunday to advance to the quarterfinals of an already mixed-up tournament.

Brian Rafalski scored two goals, Ryan Miller held off a flurry of shots and the Americans quieted a raucous, pro-Canada crowd that came to cheer its dream team, only to see it upstaged by a bunch of unproven kids.

One day short of the 30th anniversary of the country’s greatest hockey victory – the unfathomable win over the Soviet Union in Lake Placid – these underrated Americans were faster, more disciplined and more determined than Canada’s collection of all-stars.

Better, too.

Um, no.  Also, no, and furthermore, and in conclusion, nuh-uh.  First, Richard and MCA in this LGM thread have it right: comparing a prelim round game in which a bunch of talented NHL players beat a bunch of somewhat-more-talented NHL players to a climactic medal-round game in which a bunch of talented college kids beat the wizened superstars of the Soviet Union is just silliness distilled.  That’s understandable, given the level of hockey illiteracy in the media; no one expects the AP guy (Alan Robinson) to do a detailed comparison of this game to the Czech run of ‘98 or Belarus-Sweden in ‘02.  But the second “no” is worse:  these “underrated” Americans were not faster than Team Canada.  On the contrary, the Canadians blew their doors off for five, ten minutes at a time, flying through the neutral zone and/or playing keepaway in the attacking zone.  You don’t need to know any hockey history to understand this; you simply have to have watched the game.  The shots-on-goal stat does not lie, and I mean this not only about last night’s game (45-22) but as a comment on the stat in general: I have never seen a lopsided SOG total that did not correspond to a lopsided game.  And it wasn’t just Miller outplaying Brodeur, although that certainly did happen: it was also the Crosby line (I love the fact that Crosby plays with Nash—if only we had a great player named Stills) and Heatley and Toews and Getzlaf and Thornton doing very much what they wanted whenever they wanted to.  Except, you know, scoring.

So let’s be clear: the US was outskated and outplayed.  But that doesn’t mean Canada deserved to win.

As I mentioned in comments last night, whenever you take three consecutive stupid penalties, you deserve to pay for it.  You might even deserve to lose!  The first two were especially awful, coming in the offensive zone and committed by high-skill players: Eric Staal somehow thinking no one would notice if he tried to climb over a defender, and Crosby failing to control his stick around the net.  The third was a stick-breaking slash from Corey Perry, and the US took that 4-2 lead on the ensuing power play.  At that point, I suggested to my viewing companions that we were looking at a 5-3 game, in which Canada makes it close in the final minutes but gives up an empty-net goal.  (Before that point, I firmly believed the Canadians were coming back to win the thing.) So much for the suspense in that house!  But I didn’t predict the part where, after closing to 4-3, Canada owns the puck for ninety seconds in the USA zone while five exhausted Americans are chased around on defense.  That shift was just utterly intense, and well worth the price of admission—but I have a question.  Well, it’s more of a comment.  If I’m Mike Babcock, I pull Brodeur right there.  I don’t wait for the final minute.  I’m running the Americans ragged and they can’t get off the ice; they’re not going to take a long shot at the empty net because they won’t be able to change lines if they miss and the puck goes for icing; and I want to extend this shift forever, because it is a well-known Hockey Fact that no one ever gets tired when the puck is in the other team’s end and you’re peppering their goaltender with shots from everywhere, whereas players get extra extra tired when they’re stuck in their own zone racing from the boards to the faceoff dots and back and then diving to block shots every so often.  Instead, the Canadians had themselves one great shift from the 2:30 mark to the 1:00 mark, and after the US cleared the zone and got the faceoff, the Canadians never really came close again.

And then there is the great Brodeur Question.  It’s interesting to see that someone in the LGM thread brought up this controversial blog, about which I’ve been meaning to write for a very long time.  Suffice it to say, for now, that I don’t think Brodeur is a fraud.  Yes, he has played his entire career with a team that features a stellar defensive system, and he is not the Best Goaltender Ever.  He is not quite in the league of Roy, Hasek, Esposito, or Plante.  But shutouts are not flukes: playing on a solid team (and the Devils have been solid for a very long time now) will help you get that wins record, but the shutout is largely up to you.  I remember being in the Garden in 1970 when the ancient Terry Sawchuk beat the Penguins 6-0: not an impressive win by any measure, but even at the age of eight, I knew enough to think, “dang, I just saw a record that will never be broken—103 career shutouts.” So I give Brodeur his due.  But the second goal was entirely his fault, and anytime you’re stopping 18 of 22 in a big game, you’re just not playing well enough.  (I hesitate to blame goalies for shots that go in off deflections, like Rafalski’s opening stunner off Crosby.  But on that goal and Langenbrunner’s, Brodeur could plausibly have squared up better; his position as Langenbrunner’s went in was downright awkward.) The man is 37, after all, and as Scott says, “the game won’t comfort any Canada rooter who (like me) was concerned about the team dipping into its nostalgia file.” Niedermayer must have turned over the puck half a dozen times alone; in fact, it was when Zach Parise outhustled and outdug him in the corner that the USA gained control of the puck and got it to Rafalski for that first goal.

So my verdict is that Canada is in moderate-to-severe trouble, and that Babcock should start Luongo tomorrow against Germany.  And I don’t like their chances against those crazy Russians.

Update:  According to spyder in comment 36, Luongo it is.

Posted by Michael on 02/22 at 06:14 PM
(21) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Friday, February 19, 2010

AFF Friday

I was absent the day Sarah Palin was elected World Spokesperson for People with Down Syndrome, so I’ll just turn things over to Andrea Fay Friedman.

Posted by Michael on 02/19 at 10:14 AM
(40) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Evan Bayh lashes out at Congress, gridlock

Washington, DC—In a sign that political paralysis in Congress is taking a toll on its own members, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) on Monday unexpectedly announced he would not run for reelection this year, blasting the Senate for its recent failure to address major issues like reducing unemployment and the federal deficit.

“After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so in Congress has waned,” said Bayh, whose decision to step down was all the more surprising because he appeared almost certain to be reelected to a third term in November even though he represents a predominantly Republican state.

“There is too much partisanship and not enough progress—too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving,” Bayh said in a statement. “Even at a time of enormous challenge, the people’s business is not being done.”

“Two weeks ago, the Senate voted down a bipartisan commission to deal with one of the greatest threats facing our nation: our exploding deficits and debt. The measure would have passed, but seven members who had endorsed the idea instead voted ‘no’ for short-term political reasons,” he said.

“Just last week, a major piece of legislation to create jobs—the public’s top priority—fell apart amid complaints from both the left and right. All of this and much more has led me to believe that there are better ways to serve my fellow citizens, my beloved state and our nation than continued service in Congress.”

Bayh blamed “so-called centrist Democrats” for enabling Republican obstructionism, claiming that they were exploiting Senate filibuster rules to extract concessions that capitulate to capricious Republican demands and water down White House initiatives.  “A handful of ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats in both chambers did all they could to blunt Obama’s agenda, block meaningful health care reform, and reinforce the image of the Democrats as a party unable to govern,” Bayh said.  “The Republicans couldn’t have done it all by themselves—they needed the help of a key group of Democrats who were willing to repeat their talking points and serve as all-purpose concern trolls.  Some of them did it for personal gain, some for sheer pettiness, but it doesn’t matter what their motives were.  What matters is that they have effectively sealed the Democrats’ fate for the foreseeable future.”

Bayh refused to name specific members of Congress in the statement, but a senior aide said privately that Bayh was “especially furious” at Senate Democrats who pose publicly as “deficit hawks” but vote repeatedly to lower tax rates on the very rich.  “Evan wants those people out of the Senate altogether,” said the aide, “and he wants them out now.”

Posted by Michael on 02/16 at 11:39 AM
(19) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Monday, February 15, 2010

Guns and puppies

I keep forgetting to note that State College, Pennsylvania is now the official world capital of basset hound blogging.  Congratulations to TBogg and Mrs. TBogg and their lovely family!  Sorry about the snow.  But you’re all welcome back anytime.

Over at the Timber that Cannot be Straightened, we’re having a nice pleasant discussion about bringing guns to faculty meetings.  I managed to work a District 9 link into the update about Instapundit, but I don’t suppose anyone is going to get it.

Posted by Michael on 02/15 at 05:34 PM
(21) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Friday, February 12, 2010

ABF Friday:  Special Science Fiction Edition!

It’s so great to see that this guy has his very own blog.  Though he should update it more often if he wants to become a real A-lister.  I kept telling you that the giant enlightened insects were coming, but would you listen to me?  Noooooo.  Well, we’re all Multi-National United now.

Blogs are so 2005, though.  And in the spirit of aught-five, I’d like to say a couple of things about the first season of Battlestar Galactica.  The opening miniseries is very effective, and sheds new light (for me) on how much of the wingnut mentality depends on seeing apocalyptic threats everywhere, like that time when the inscrutable Cylon Soviet Mexican Islamists killed all but fifty thousand of us.  And this household hearts Starbuck.  Who wouldn’t?

But we have two complaints.  One, the setting in the distant past.  Yes, we understand that this will all be explained in the end, and the polytheistic humans and monotheistic Cylons will eventually be us, and the twelve colonies will become the twelve constellations, got it.  But didn’t any of the writers see that this would pose a spot of trouble along the way when it came to accessories and backgrounds?  Like, for instance, why is it that ancient humans had corded telephones and suits and neckties and stuff, and then lost them, and then got them back again?  Take the victory celebration after Baltar’s election as vice-president: are you telling me that ancient humans danced to swing music, then forgot it, then invented it again in the twentieth century? 

More important, the distant-past thing takes a lot of sand out of the bag, so to speak.  I mean, I don’t know about you, but for me, nine-tenths of the fun and interest in science fiction is the depiction of a more-or-less plausible future.  (See below for today’s Arbitrary game!) And I didn’t realize I felt this way until I started thinking for a while about the whole entire premise of BSG, so it’s not like I came to the series with a bad attitude.

Two, we hate the Number Six / Gaius Baltar plot.  Hate it hate it hate it.  And all its silly devices, too.

After we started season two last night, I asked Janet to remind me just why we were doing this anyway.  Weren’t we going to catch up on Deadwood or something instead?  She said that a friend and colleague told her that we absolutely had to see Battlestar Galactica first because, in the friend’s words, “it’s like The West Wing with sex.” When Janet told her that we’d never seen The West Wing, our friend did what all our academic friends do when we tell them we’ve never seen seen The West Wing: she fell out of her chair. 

Apparently we were supposed to watch The West Wing. 

Anyway, now that the enlightened insects are here and one of them has his own blog, which SF movie most plausibly depicts what the Earth will be like in the next few decades?

2001, except for the floating-fetus bit and, oh yeah, except for the whole “set-in-2001” bit.

Blade Runner, except for the flying cars.

Children of Men, except for the global-infertility epidemic.

I Am Legend 28 Days Later, except with extra zombies.

Independence Day, except that the First Lady survives the helicopter crash and becomes President of the Twelve Colonies.

Terminator series, except that after the terminator comes at us in a big truck carrying crude oil or liquid nitrogen or something, and we crush it in a drill press or maybe shoot it and shatter it into a million pieces, but then his metal forearm survives and provides scientists with the basis for creating a whole new kind of artificial intelligence, and then the liquid-metal terminator re-forms and we have to shoot it with one of those huge exploding bullets and make it fall backwards into a vat of molten steel, and then we send ourselves back into the past (that is, the present) to protect ourselves from the terminators who want to start a global thermonuclear war, but then it turns out that the war happens anyway, which is kind of complicated, because we thought we’d avoided it when we shot the liquid-metal terminator with the huge exploding bullet and he fell into the vat of molten steel, but then we win the war in the future and also there’s a sequel to the molten-vat part that’s also a prequel to the ... never mind, I meant to say “except for the part where the terminator becomes governor of California and turns the state into a barren, nightmarish landscape of twisted steel.” Because that’s from Demolition Man.

District 9, except for ... no, that one seems pretty much spot on.

Your suggestions?

Posted by Michael on 02/12 at 12:33 PM
(76) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Snow snow snow snow snow

So when is Al Gore going to return that Nobel Prize for If You Don’t Recycle It Will Never Snow Again?

Just in from a round of “knock the icicles off the roof” and a brief snowball fight with Jamie.  The fight was brief because, well, let’s just say that you don’t want to get into a snowball fight with Jamie.  He has a strong arm and is accurate like a “laser.” I took one to the left eye and one to the right cheek before surrendering and going inside to eat cheese.

(Interpolated update:  a friend just sent this implicit commentary on the above grafs.)

OK, back to older news.  About those wimmen-hating Super Bowl ads:  it’s not as if very much time or money or thought went into them, after all.  Seriously, people, I warned you about the creeping Bradley Cooperization of American masculinity months and months ago, but did you listen to me?  Nooooooo.  And now you’ve all got The Hangover.

Finally, I hear that much has happened lately in the world of talking-about-retards.  Apparently a vicious and incompetent White House chief of staff should resign (or just apologize repeatedly) for calling liberal Democrats “fucking retarded,” but a vicious and incoherent professional gasbag/ part-time drug addict can insist that it’s OK “to call retards ‘retards,’” because that’s “satire.” This is too hard for me to keep up with, so I figure I’ll just refer everyone to this ancient post in which I called for the banning of words I don’t like and therefore violated every principle for which the Founding Fathers fought and died suggested that you can call people “jackasses” (and many other insults!) instead.  Though I added an important caveat:

If you’re concerned about stigmatizing jackasses, however, on the grounds that you may be likening an innocent beast to a hideous human (or, conversely, figuratively dehumanizing one of your fellow men or women), you can always adopt the more politically correct term “jackass-American,” presuming, of course, that the jackass in question is -American.

So next time you’re fed up with someone and you want to call his or her intelligence or judgment into question, remember: you might be better off with insults that speak to the performance of intelligence or judgment rather than to capacity.  This isn’t just a matter of politeness; it’s also a matter of proper English usage.  Many, many morons and retards have very good judgment about some matters, whereas many, many ostensibly intelligent people make bafflingly, excruciatingly bad decisions.  Why?  Because some of them are knaves, and others gulls, and still others hoodlums and miscreants.  That’s why.

This goes for the Tea Party Patriots™ as well, of course!  Don’t hurl unseemly epithets at people who do the selective-outrage thing about the R-word and proceed to share the Tea Party Patriot™ stage with rabid-right birther Joseph Farah.  Remember, Jackass-Americans are an important part of our national heritage.  As for Rahm, well, perhaps a politically sensitive job like WH chief of staff just isn’t for him.  Washington, D.C. contains many fine establishments such as the Institute for Pissing On Liberals, the Center for Advanced Triangulation, and the Foundation for Squandering Democrats’ Political Capital; his talents might be better suited to one of those organizations.  Not to mention the National Association for the Advancement of Jackass-Americans.

Posted by Michael on 02/10 at 05:14 PM
(28) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 2 of 185 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »