I've never been a basketball fan. Not that I didn't enjoy the athleticism, and excitement that at times the game provided. But the nuances, and things that a basketball fan sees and appreciates were lost on me. A buddy, at some point, explained to me that you have to watch the whole game, not the ball. "Movement away from the ball" it's called.
As I've been watching the World Cup that phrase made a return to my consciousness from my recesses of memory. It got past baseball stats, football matchups, jokes, trivia, Bill Murray movie lines, boobie images, shopping lists, errands, and what ever else is there.
Watching soccer is like watching basketball, or hockey. In fact, hockey is basically soccer on ice with players on skates as opposed to cleats. Basket ball is soccer on a wooden floor with the goal raised and shrunk without a goal keeper. It's not the ball so much as players moving and the defenders adjusting. The whole idea of soccer derivatives is to move the ball, the offensive players, and when the defensive players react, adjusting to get a better shot. It's the same thing. Identical. If you can appreciate a backdoor cut on a basketball floor, you can appreciate a centering pass between defenders. A shot off a rebound is the same as it is in hockey. If you find yourself out and a match it on, give it a chance. You don't need to know who Ronaldo is. You don't need to care about who members of the US Mens Team might be.
None of this is to say, or convince, that soccer is as good as basketball or hockey. You may not even really give a shit.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Saturday, June 28, 2014
It's been 100 years
June 28, 1914 the first domino was tipped. Dominoes from that that first historical domino, and the imperceptibly long domino chain that followed are still toppling today. Arch Duke Ferdinand was shot by Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo triggering World War I. It's history we've heard over and over, but unlike World War II, World War I is comparatively under studied, under discussed, and under investigated. Consider what would not have happened without World War I.
Without World War I, and the Treaty of Versailles is the rise of Hitler, and the Nazis in post war Europe possible?
If the Nazis don't ascend, does WWII become less likely?
Without WWI does Germany return the exiled Lenin to Russia to threaten the already weak Czar?
If Lenin does not return to Russia is there a Bolshevik Revolution?
With no Bolshevik Revolution, is there a different end to the Russian Czar?
Without WWI and the treaties defining its end, do Japan, and to a lesser extent, Italy, get the shaft as victors with no spoils?
Without hurt national pride to Italy and Japan begin their quest for empire?
Again, does this make WWII less likely?
Without WWI how does the end of the Ottoman Empire come about? Do the Ottomans crumble organically, as they had been, and then what does the Middle East look like if its borders are the result of its own regional political dynamics as opposed to the benefit of France and England as they drew them at the end of WWI?
None of this is to say WWI would never have happened. Europe in the early 20th Century was a tinder box of nationalism, competition among royals, as well as regional and ethnic strife. But we don't study the "War to end all wars" the way we study World War II. World War I was the beginning of the end of monarchies as a heads of state. It saw the end of the Russian Czar, German Kaiser, Ottoman Sultan, Austrian Emperor, as well as the dwindling importance of the English Crown.
Where are the movies about the soldiers, and generals that fought WWI? It's been easy to romanticize WWII. Villains are obvious, making the heroes just as obvious. WWI is not so easy to romanticize into conventional stories. The bad guys are not so obviously bad. The Arch-Duke whose assassination sparked it all was not a loved royal figure whose assassination was unforeseen. The Kaiser wasn't particularly evil and tyrannical. If we spent more time learning the lessons of WWI, and less time over learning, and misapplying the lessons of WWII we'd be in a better spot.
Without World War I, and the Treaty of Versailles is the rise of Hitler, and the Nazis in post war Europe possible?
If the Nazis don't ascend, does WWII become less likely?
Without WWI does Germany return the exiled Lenin to Russia to threaten the already weak Czar?
If Lenin does not return to Russia is there a Bolshevik Revolution?
With no Bolshevik Revolution, is there a different end to the Russian Czar?
Without WWI and the treaties defining its end, do Japan, and to a lesser extent, Italy, get the shaft as victors with no spoils?
Without hurt national pride to Italy and Japan begin their quest for empire?
Again, does this make WWII less likely?
Without WWI how does the end of the Ottoman Empire come about? Do the Ottomans crumble organically, as they had been, and then what does the Middle East look like if its borders are the result of its own regional political dynamics as opposed to the benefit of France and England as they drew them at the end of WWI?
None of this is to say WWI would never have happened. Europe in the early 20th Century was a tinder box of nationalism, competition among royals, as well as regional and ethnic strife. But we don't study the "War to end all wars" the way we study World War II. World War I was the beginning of the end of monarchies as a heads of state. It saw the end of the Russian Czar, German Kaiser, Ottoman Sultan, Austrian Emperor, as well as the dwindling importance of the English Crown.
Where are the movies about the soldiers, and generals that fought WWI? It's been easy to romanticize WWII. Villains are obvious, making the heroes just as obvious. WWI is not so easy to romanticize into conventional stories. The bad guys are not so obviously bad. The Arch-Duke whose assassination sparked it all was not a loved royal figure whose assassination was unforeseen. The Kaiser wasn't particularly evil and tyrannical. If we spent more time learning the lessons of WWI, and less time over learning, and misapplying the lessons of WWII we'd be in a better spot.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Fool me once - Fool me twice - fuck you Donald Rumsfeld
Why the fuck is Paul Wolfowitz on the news being asked what we should do about Iraq's descent into civil war?
Why the fuck is William Kristol being asked the same questions? Or Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld. At least George Bush has the respect for this fuck up happening as a result of his "Decider-ing" to be quiet and paint cats.
How, and why, are people who so colossally oversold a threat, misled expected outcomes, so poorly prepared for occupation, and so pathetically mismanaged all of the above being asked what should be done now?
You might call this Monday morning quarterbacking. It's more like the week after Monday, since what is happening in Iraq now was predicted before the invasion, and during the early stages of the occupation.
"Naysayers" "America-haters" "Non-supporters" we were called. We wanted the invasion to fail we were told. We loved Saddam we were accused. Bullshit. We would be happy if it failed we were admonished by the "grown ups" - as they called themselves when they won the disputed 2000 election. I'm not "happy" that the Iraq misadventure failed. It would have been some karmic justice if what is happening now had happened in 2007 so these fucknuts would be the ones answering the questions - "What do we do now?"
I don't know what should be done about Iraq. I don't know if the United States should do much of anything. I certainly don't support sending troops back. I don't know that air strikes, and drone strikes are enough to quell the civil war that the "grown ups" pooh pooed when told it was coming.
I do know that Paul "Iraq doesn't have a history of sectarian discord, and its reconstruction can be paid for by oil revenues." Wolfowitz, Dick "We'll be greeted as liberators" Cheney, Donald "You go with the military you have, not the one you want - We know the WMD are in the north by Tikrit" Rumsfeld, and Bill "The Iraqi National Congress is a popular group in exile to build a government around" Kristol are not the ones to ask what to be done. They were so epically, and tragically wrong in 03. Why would anyone listen to them again?
What to do? I don't know, but this time can we ask someone who knows what the fuck they're talking about? Seriously - can we?
Why the fuck is William Kristol being asked the same questions? Or Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld. At least George Bush has the respect for this fuck up happening as a result of his "Decider-ing" to be quiet and paint cats.
How, and why, are people who so colossally oversold a threat, misled expected outcomes, so poorly prepared for occupation, and so pathetically mismanaged all of the above being asked what should be done now?
You might call this Monday morning quarterbacking. It's more like the week after Monday, since what is happening in Iraq now was predicted before the invasion, and during the early stages of the occupation.
"Naysayers" "America-haters" "Non-supporters" we were called. We wanted the invasion to fail we were told. We loved Saddam we were accused. Bullshit. We would be happy if it failed we were admonished by the "grown ups" - as they called themselves when they won the disputed 2000 election. I'm not "happy" that the Iraq misadventure failed. It would have been some karmic justice if what is happening now had happened in 2007 so these fucknuts would be the ones answering the questions - "What do we do now?"
I don't know what should be done about Iraq. I don't know if the United States should do much of anything. I certainly don't support sending troops back. I don't know that air strikes, and drone strikes are enough to quell the civil war that the "grown ups" pooh pooed when told it was coming.
I do know that Paul "Iraq doesn't have a history of sectarian discord, and its reconstruction can be paid for by oil revenues." Wolfowitz, Dick "We'll be greeted as liberators" Cheney, Donald "You go with the military you have, not the one you want - We know the WMD are in the north by Tikrit" Rumsfeld, and Bill "The Iraqi National Congress is a popular group in exile to build a government around" Kristol are not the ones to ask what to be done. They were so epically, and tragically wrong in 03. Why would anyone listen to them again?
What to do? I don't know, but this time can we ask someone who knows what the fuck they're talking about? Seriously - can we?
Monday, June 2, 2014
History Channel - come on man!!!
I generally love the History Channel.
There's a lot to like. Watching people barter, and price antiques on shows like Pawn Stars, American Pickers, and American Restoration, besides it's entertainment value, allows for spontaneous education. I mean, one can't help but learn SOMETHING from the experts brought in to assess objects ranging from a 1st edition of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea to weapons from the the Colonial, and Civil War eras.
Where the History Channel really drives it home is the dedicated mini-series that focus on particular subjects like Mankind: The Story of All of Us, The Men Who Built America, and The Ultimate Guide To Presidents all dealt with the subject matter interestingly, and informatively.
Needless to say I was in the early throes of a nerdgasm when History Channel promoted a 3 night miniserries - The World Wars. First off, it was three straight nights, not one night a week over three weeks. Kickass! Teasers promised that it treated the World War I, and II as a singular event, with a promised focus on the Treaty of Versailles and how it's terms contributed to the Second World War, as well as principles in WWII, and their development in WWI, and the interim time.
Well it was a waste. It sucked. Assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Arch Duke started WWI. That's the beginning! No deeper explanations of the web of alliances, and the dominoes that toppled after the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand. That's remedial 8th grade history. Lame!!
Any interesting tidbits? Well, the fucked up Gallipoli invasion was mostly the fault of Churchill. But it was underplayed if that cluster cost him credibility when he was the only one who really thought Hitler was bad news. That's another thing, they kept on the point that only Churchill thought Hitler was a bad guy, like if we had only listened to Churchill. The whole rise of the 3rd Reich is glossed over. 6 hours and they couldn't touch on how deep economic ties in the west were to industrial Germany in the 30s. That's kind of important I think.
What else? Oh yeah - a soldier had Hitler in his gunsight during WWI, but did not pull the trigger. How do we know that's true? It's not like there were big nametags on WWI uniforms. Shit, Hitler - as was customary in the early 20th Century - even still had a giant mustache as opposed to the teeny half-stache that was his hallmark.
The whole 3 nights was just reciting 8th grade remedial history. Hitler bad. Churchill and Roosevelt good. Stalin, kinda bad, then ok, then bad again.
History Channel - come on man.
There's a lot to like. Watching people barter, and price antiques on shows like Pawn Stars, American Pickers, and American Restoration, besides it's entertainment value, allows for spontaneous education. I mean, one can't help but learn SOMETHING from the experts brought in to assess objects ranging from a 1st edition of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea to weapons from the the Colonial, and Civil War eras.
Where the History Channel really drives it home is the dedicated mini-series that focus on particular subjects like Mankind: The Story of All of Us, The Men Who Built America, and The Ultimate Guide To Presidents all dealt with the subject matter interestingly, and informatively.
Needless to say I was in the early throes of a nerdgasm when History Channel promoted a 3 night miniserries - The World Wars. First off, it was three straight nights, not one night a week over three weeks. Kickass! Teasers promised that it treated the World War I, and II as a singular event, with a promised focus on the Treaty of Versailles and how it's terms contributed to the Second World War, as well as principles in WWII, and their development in WWI, and the interim time.
Well it was a waste. It sucked. Assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Arch Duke started WWI. That's the beginning! No deeper explanations of the web of alliances, and the dominoes that toppled after the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand. That's remedial 8th grade history. Lame!!
Any interesting tidbits? Well, the fucked up Gallipoli invasion was mostly the fault of Churchill. But it was underplayed if that cluster cost him credibility when he was the only one who really thought Hitler was bad news. That's another thing, they kept on the point that only Churchill thought Hitler was a bad guy, like if we had only listened to Churchill. The whole rise of the 3rd Reich is glossed over. 6 hours and they couldn't touch on how deep economic ties in the west were to industrial Germany in the 30s. That's kind of important I think.
What else? Oh yeah - a soldier had Hitler in his gunsight during WWI, but did not pull the trigger. How do we know that's true? It's not like there were big nametags on WWI uniforms. Shit, Hitler - as was customary in the early 20th Century - even still had a giant mustache as opposed to the teeny half-stache that was his hallmark.
The whole 3 nights was just reciting 8th grade remedial history. Hitler bad. Churchill and Roosevelt good. Stalin, kinda bad, then ok, then bad again.
History Channel - come on man.
Friday, May 9, 2014
Online dating - threat to monogamy or bullshit?
A Million First Dates
Interesting piece recommended in general by someone on a dating site.
Equally as interesting are the reply pieces with an array of perspectives.
I quite disagree with the conclusion that online dating has made commitment, and monogamy a dying phenomenon. I think the issue has too many moving parts, and none of the pieces attempt to isolate variables in a meaningful way. It's all anecdotal, which makes any perspective based on any individual story or "my friend's" (yeah right) story equally valid, or more correctly invalid.
Online dating is, in the history of dating context, a recent development. It's slightly less recent than the feminist movement, no-fault divorce, increased divorce, the sexual revolution, Disney princesses, daytime drama, prime time drama, reality TV, reality matchmaking TV, American Idol, and the fucking tea party. That is to say, our recent history is replete with movements and phenomena that reinforce our Freudian Ego with the idea that the perfection we want is out there. All we have to do is go get it. And goddamn do we go get it.
Problem with that is there are no competing phenomena to help our Freudian Id. Poor Id. The most important subconscious job, and Ego gets all the ammo. It's the Dark Side/Light Side of the Force dichotomy. The Dark side is more powerful, and easier, but the Light side wins with discipline and patience. But who wants to go through all the training?
My experience with online dating began with my divorce. At first it was a reinforcement that I was, indeed, not a freak. There were all kinds of divorced people out there. Most of them were quite normal. I'm sure, like most people feeling the rejection divorce brings with it, online dating also brought back feeling attractive to the opposite sex. That's powerful, and it's easy to follow it down the dark side, especially when it comes in waves - as it can online - when messaging multiple people.
Online dating also gives an immediate sense of identifying people who accept myths that I reject. Soul mate? The one person in the world meant for me, who just happens to be in a 25 mile radius. Can't find her, set your search criteria to 50 miles. Sorry, soul mate, not real. Thank you Disney, soap operas, the Bachelor/Bacheloerette and most every romantic comedy for sharing that sweet piece of bullshit with everyone. There is no such thing as a soul mate. I hope when I meet mine, she does not hold it against me. I was able to read dating profiles with this "one true love" shit, and quickly go "next."
No matter what happens, you'll land on your feet. Get up, and carry on. The ONLY difference between doing that online versus offline is that online you see all the faces/profiles. Offline it's a matter of confidence that you'll be OK. That only comes with experience. Online you see the safety net, and offline you do not. Are you more likely to take risks seeing the net, or just knowing it's there?
But those things are not endemic to online dating. In the analog world you can find yourself with multiple dating options. You still need to make 2 choices. Choice 1 is whom to date. Choice 2 is to not be a douche. That's really what it comes to.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
25 Draft Day Predictions 2014
By including the year in the title I am in no way indicating that I have made predictions in the past, or that I will do so in the future.
This is a short list of predictions,
1) 32 NFL GMs will tell us they are very happy with their first selection, and that they believe that he will be an impact player for years to come.
2) 31 Owners will likewise express excitement about said players.
3) The Packers, not having an owner, will have that sentiment echoed by the team president.
4) Mel Kiper Jr. will tell us that a player is a reach when he's taken at least 7 times.
5) Jon Gruden will tell us that the player taken is a great football player, that you can't just go by measurables, and that Mel Kiper Jr. is full of shit. Of course he won't use that language.
6) Roger Goodell will hug a lot of guys on stage as if he was really good buddies with them.
7) 32 1st round selections will hug, and fist bump Roger Goodell, without giving away how full of shit they think he is - on the advice of agents of course.
8) Once the 1st overall pick is made, many fans of the team picking him will be gleefully excited.
9) Once the 1st overall pick is made, many fans of the team picking him will be apoplectic that they did not take the other guy.
10) Most of the rabid draftniks don't know what apoplectic means.
11) Twitter will be ablaze all night in fury over 32 teams 1st round selections.
12) So will Facebook.
13) The Jacksonville Jaguars will fuck it up.
14) Chris Berman will talk too much using the bullshit baritone voice - ala John Facenda - because he's cool like that.
15) He won't know, or won't care how much football fans hate that voice when he does it - just like they hate his "Back back back - GONE!" home run call at the HR Derby. And it doesn't matter because he makes bank no matter how sucky that voice is.
16) I will wish that Charles Barkley was a commenter on the draft, just so I can hear him say "turrible" and "knuckleheads."
17) Fans will hail 32 GMs as really smart, and having run a great draft.
18) Fans of all 32 teams will curse their team GMs as total idiots, and lament the gloomy future their teams face.
19) Mel Kiper Jr.'s hair will look like it's snapped on.
20) Jon Gruden will be a living reminder of the times our Mom's said "If you keep making that face someday it'll stay that way."
21) 1st rd draftees being able to select walk up music to play as they walk to the podium for the bullshit hug and fistbump with Goodell will not be noticed.
22) Shit. Maybe now it will.
23) Thousands of fans watching on television will marvel at how elite college football players all have really hot girlfriends.
24) Know it alls will get many picks wrong, but the few times they are right, they'll remind their buddies incessantly.
25) There will be a lot of beer commercials.
This is a short list of predictions,
1) 32 NFL GMs will tell us they are very happy with their first selection, and that they believe that he will be an impact player for years to come.
2) 31 Owners will likewise express excitement about said players.
3) The Packers, not having an owner, will have that sentiment echoed by the team president.
4) Mel Kiper Jr. will tell us that a player is a reach when he's taken at least 7 times.
5) Jon Gruden will tell us that the player taken is a great football player, that you can't just go by measurables, and that Mel Kiper Jr. is full of shit. Of course he won't use that language.
6) Roger Goodell will hug a lot of guys on stage as if he was really good buddies with them.
7) 32 1st round selections will hug, and fist bump Roger Goodell, without giving away how full of shit they think he is - on the advice of agents of course.
8) Once the 1st overall pick is made, many fans of the team picking him will be gleefully excited.
9) Once the 1st overall pick is made, many fans of the team picking him will be apoplectic that they did not take the other guy.
10) Most of the rabid draftniks don't know what apoplectic means.
11) Twitter will be ablaze all night in fury over 32 teams 1st round selections.
12) So will Facebook.
13) The Jacksonville Jaguars will fuck it up.
14) Chris Berman will talk too much using the bullshit baritone voice - ala John Facenda - because he's cool like that.
15) He won't know, or won't care how much football fans hate that voice when he does it - just like they hate his "Back back back - GONE!" home run call at the HR Derby. And it doesn't matter because he makes bank no matter how sucky that voice is.
16) I will wish that Charles Barkley was a commenter on the draft, just so I can hear him say "turrible" and "knuckleheads."
17) Fans will hail 32 GMs as really smart, and having run a great draft.
18) Fans of all 32 teams will curse their team GMs as total idiots, and lament the gloomy future their teams face.
19) Mel Kiper Jr.'s hair will look like it's snapped on.
20) Jon Gruden will be a living reminder of the times our Mom's said "If you keep making that face someday it'll stay that way."
21) 1st rd draftees being able to select walk up music to play as they walk to the podium for the bullshit hug and fistbump with Goodell will not be noticed.
22) Shit. Maybe now it will.
23) Thousands of fans watching on television will marvel at how elite college football players all have really hot girlfriends.
24) Know it alls will get many picks wrong, but the few times they are right, they'll remind their buddies incessantly.
25) There will be a lot of beer commercials.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Salute to corporate "nothing speak" (probably part I)
We will appropriately coordinate best of brand action items.
Best practices should be distinctively bench marked in the interest of accuracy.
An expanded array of catalysts for change shall be cultivated 24/7.
Adaptive applications must aggregate continually.
Uniquely efficient leadership skills disseminate seamlessly.
Networks and niche markets objectively impact deliverables.
"Outside the box thinking" and equity invested methodologies quickly leverage existing intermediaries.
Human capital and dynamic growth strategies dynamically enhance cross platform content.
Distinctive expertise harnesses progressively integrated opportunities.
Credibly communicating cross-functional method of empowerment.
Customer directed imperatives, and markets dynamically aggregate globally.
An expanded array of partnerships synergistically fabricate innovation.
Cost effective organic sources intrinsically develop infrastructures.
ROI scenarios dynamically predominate "just in time" scenarios.
Quality vectors evolve continually.
Ubiquitous testing procedures dramatically re-conceptualize supply chains.
Leading edge web services quickly re-invent e-business.
E-services proactively re-purpose maintainable processes.
Frictionless models facilitate efficiently.
Long term, high impact solutions holistically cultivate core communities.
Diverse supply chains formulate globally client-centered markets.
Cross media ideas seamlessly, and uniquely, facilitate services.
Best practices should be distinctively bench marked in the interest of accuracy.
An expanded array of catalysts for change shall be cultivated 24/7.
Adaptive applications must aggregate continually.
Uniquely efficient leadership skills disseminate seamlessly.
Networks and niche markets objectively impact deliverables.
"Outside the box thinking" and equity invested methodologies quickly leverage existing intermediaries.
Human capital and dynamic growth strategies dynamically enhance cross platform content.
Distinctive expertise harnesses progressively integrated opportunities.
Credibly communicating cross-functional method of empowerment.
Customer directed imperatives, and markets dynamically aggregate globally.
An expanded array of partnerships synergistically fabricate innovation.
Cost effective organic sources intrinsically develop infrastructures.
ROI scenarios dynamically predominate "just in time" scenarios.
Quality vectors evolve continually.
Ubiquitous testing procedures dramatically re-conceptualize supply chains.
Leading edge web services quickly re-invent e-business.
E-services proactively re-purpose maintainable processes.
Frictionless models facilitate efficiently.
Long term, high impact solutions holistically cultivate core communities.
Diverse supply chains formulate globally client-centered markets.
Cross media ideas seamlessly, and uniquely, facilitate services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)