Tuesday, December 30, 2003

Doing 5'ves Right Thanks to Sean S. for forwarding this link.  Some very funny stuff there. 1:15:10 PM    Say what?[]

Quick List: 5 Sports Feats I Wish I Could Do The ultimate in self-indulgence, certainly.  And yet, virtually every person I know who played, plays or watches sports has envisioned themselves in the heat of competition, doing something wonderful.  Ah, the joys of working during holiday week... Hit a homerun-Homeruns are special.  Hitting a pitched ball isn't easy, and seeing the ball take it's long, majestic flight is unparalleled.  Mine would be a no-doubter, resulting in 30 seconds of pandemonium as I circle the bases.  Even better if it hits an ad sign or scoreboard or lands in a hottub or something. Dunk-Such a pedestrian thing for so many large people, but when you're 5'8" and have never touched the rim, it might as well be the Holy Grail.  I literally dream about dunking, even to this day.  I take off, and I just keep going higher and higher.  I'll take the one-handed tomahawk jam in Kobe's face, thank you. Punt return for a TD-Punt returners have to be fast and crazy.  It's not a fun job.  You break through a wall of people running at you at a high speed that are trying to hurt you, and then it's a race for your life to get to the endzone.  It's the most exciting play in football, and it frequently changes the game's complexion entirely. Breakaway goal in hockey-Just me and the goalie, and I somehow get it past him.  Since I can't skate, and have never taken a hockey shot in my life, this is basically the same as me fantasizing about performing advanced brain surgery.  But it looks so cool when it happens on TV, and I want to hear that big loud horn that goes off when it happens.  I'm talking about the hockey, not the brain surgery. Blow a hitter away with a big-time fastball-You know what's great about throwing a ball really, really hard?  There's no pall cast over it by recent advances in training or performance-enhancing drugs.  For pretty much the last 100 years, the best arms around have been able to throw a ball near or slightly above 100 mph.  If pitching velocities had evolved like other aspects of athletic performance, guys would be throwing 140 now.  But they don't.  A big-time fastball is still a real force of nature, and a rare one at that.  There's more to pitching than throwing hard, for sure, but give me the ability to do one thing, and I'm going to pump gas at a guy for as long as I can.  I might throw in a knee-buckling curve if we get to a full count, though... 12:31:39 PM    Say what?[]

The Levitra Ad OK, I had a discussion about this ad with Jane over the holidays.  You know the one, especially if you're watching the NFL these days: Guy's out doing yard work, sees a football in his shed, tries to throw the football through a tire, can't do it.  He experiences shame, and his head droops. But wait!  Now there's Levitra!  Now he's firing rocket passes through that tire, over and over again.  Not coincidentally, his wife is now in the yard nuzzling him and smiling contentedly, and it ain't because of the nice work he did on the hedges.  It's because he can "put the ball in the hole", over and over again.  Get it? You have to take these clues to see what Levitra really does, because the spot never mentions what Levitra is for.  Yeah, seems really, painfully obvious, right?  Why not just show the guy driving a train into a tunnel, or blasting off into space in a rocket, or just staring into the camera talking about his amazing Levitra-inspired erection.  These obvious clues may have been beneficial to Jane, who assumed from the ads that Levitra was an arthritis drug.  Well, at least erectile dysfunction isn't at the forefront of my wife's thoughts. Anyway, enough of me talking about the ad.  Seth Stevenson's deconstruction of it in Slate is hilarious, and you should read it now. 11:36:49 AM    Say what?[]

Dean Gets Haughty Interesting stuff in TPM yesterday, regarding Howard Dean's implicit encouragement of his supporters to not endorse another Dem candidate should he lose the nomination.  It's not a scenario I had ever really thought about, but I can see why Dems would be upset about it.  Dean's statements, when I read them, are not an explicit call for them to not support the nominee, but they certainly give credence to the idea.  One of the problems I had with Nader was my perception that, given a choice, he would rather have a small island of followers rather than have those followers help defeat Bush.  I'm not arguing whether those followers did or did not help Bush; we've had that discussion many times over.  I'm simply saying that I think that's what Nader's priority was, and given his many procouncements about the sameness of Gore and Bush, I doubt he would argue. This move by Dean, if it continues to germinate, would strike me in the same way.  Yeah, you want to win, but in the end any Dem I want to support would need to recognize that it's better to have a guy like Kerry, Clark or Gephart in the White House than Bush, cult following be damned. Addtionally, as Sean S. mentions in a comment string below regarding religion, Dean's recent discussions about religion and their suspicious appearance just before the southern primary season really rubs me the wrong way as well. Maybe it would be different if I was a die-hard Dean guy.  I know they all do it.  But it just seems like a poor tactical move to me.  He had a strong position on the basis of his supposed outsider integrity, and now it will be very easy for people to talk about what a chameleon and political operator he has shown himself to be.  Such typical regional pandering blurs the distinctions between him and most every other pol, and I can't think that helps him.  But maybe he felt he needed to do it to win the South, where as a liberal North Easterner, he was going to be a long shot anyway? I think that's a bad omen for the Dems, that their current front-runner would have to play the religion card to have any chance in the South.  History is not kind to Dem nominees from states that border Canada. 10:51:46 AM    Say what?[]

"When I'm 34" Linus wears pull-ups to bed.  It's something we'd like to change, relatively soon.  (For the non-parents, a pull-up is basically a training diaper that fits like underwear.  It can hold up to 35 gallons of fluid, but it is vitally important that you never call it a diaper.) Anyway, we think he's old enough to get through the night without one.  It would save money on pull-ups, and it would be an important step in his development.  I suggested the idea to him last night as I was putting him down for bed.  He considered my request to convert to underwear carefully, then said, "No...I can't do that until I'm a grown up.  I can do that when I'm 34." 34 is a real benchmark to him.  It is the line between being able to stay up late, and going to bed on time.  34 year-olds have choices.  34 year-olds can drive cars.  It just so happens that I am 34. He knows no teenagers, very few older kids.  He pretty much sees people as either being 6 or younger, or 34 or older.  I told him he was growing up every day.  He asked me, "Why do people grow slow?"  But I was getting tired, and no answer popped into my head right away other than a drowsy "Because they do." You try your best to answer their questions, but there are just too many to address these days.  Sometimes, you just need to stall them for a few hours while you collect your energy and thoughts.  I'll have a better answer for him today, I promise.  But he'll probably move on to a completely different set of questions. 10:06:58 AM    Say what?[]

Did You Know Patriot II Passed? I sure didn't.  Guess when it passed?  Come on, you'll never guess.  When would be the absolute best time to pass something that has drawn widespread, bipartisan criticism?  Probably when something else big was going on.  Something that all the news media would cover, something that would allow the Administration to crow and pound the media lecturn with one hand while signing Patriot II with the other. Yes, Patriot II was signed the day Saddam was captured, on a Saturday, no less.  It's rare for Bush to sign anything on a Saturday, save for automatic funding renewall bills. The main points of Patriot II, as I understand it (and I certainly haven't read the law) are that it redefines "financial institution" to mean much more than just banks, and it allows the FBI to obtain records from a variety of these "institutions" without ever having to notify anyone of who they are obtaining the data on.  They can collect financial transactions all day long, with no check or balance.  But hey, it's not like the FBI would ever abuse power.  That would never happen! Here's a great writeup on it from David Martin of the San Antonio Current.  Check it out.  I think there is ground for discussion here, in terms of law enforcement needing more power to track financial transactions.  Personally, I think there are laws in place now which allow for this kind of tracking, but I at least think the discussion is valid.  But Martin's last paragraph is on the money: The Bush Administration has yet to answer pivotal questions about its latest constitutional coup: If these new executive powers are necessary to protect United States citizens, then why would the legislation not withstand the test of public debate? If the new act's provisions are in the public interest, why use stealth in ramming them through the legislative process? Even proponents of Patriot II opposed the legislative tactics used to sign it into law: The leak and ensuing public backlash frustrated the Bush administration's strategy, so Ashcroft and Co. disassembled Patriot Act II, then reassembled its parts into other legislation. By attaching the redefinition of "financial institution" to an Intelligence Authorization Act, the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies avoided public hearings and floor debates for the expansion of the Patriot Act. Even proponents of this expansion have expressed concern about these legislative tactics. "It's a problem that some of these riders that are added on may not receive the scrutiny that we would like to see," says St. Mary's Professor Robert Summers. Scrutiny?  Who wants that? Thanks to Nate D. for the head's up. 9:52:17 AM    Say what?[]

Brooks on Presidential Religion Interesting piece today by the NYT's David Brooks, in light of yesterday's discussion about the preponderance of Faith in this country.  He contrasts the rigidity and partisanship of American politics with the relative fluidity and relaxed atmosphere of American religion.  Meaning, it is accepted that many Americans will "try on" different denominations in the course of their lives.  Brooks begins the article by noting all of the different religious affiliations G.W. Bush, Howard Dean, and Wes Clark have claimed throughout their lives.  It's an interesting contrast. But note the implicit assumption in Brooks' column, that it doesn't so much matter to Americans what faiths we adhere to, because "...In the final days, the distinctions will fade away, and we will all be united in God's embrace." Again, I wonder how the American public (and media) would react to a candidate who was an agnostic or atheist.  For that matter, how would they react to someone who chose not to address religion at all?  I think it would be a firestorm that would doom any candidacy.  8:57:24 AM    Say what?[]

© Copyright 2004 DH. Last update: 1/2/2004; 9:25:12 AM.