Archive for the 'Games People Play' Category

Page 2 of 6

The Super Genius Club Regrets

That membership will be limited this year to Tim Legler.

1000words.jpg

As to the rest of our expert panel, just playing out the string, cashing the checks, punching the clock, etc. I note that Accuscore called this one. Probably slumming with PECOTA.

Hey Congresscritters, you CAN try this at home

(Text of the speech)

Via Glenn Greenwald — first, second

And meanwhile, as GG notes, across the pond:

Democrats are about to institutionalize a proposition that has been rejected since the Nuremberg Trials — namely, that individuals (or, more accurately, lobbyist-protected corporations) are free to break the law as long as they can claim afterwards that they were told by the Leader to do so.

Please Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood

The degree of cognitive dissonance involved in being a person who oppresses people out of love for them is summed up in a poster that Baby Doc Duvalier had put up in Haiti. It read, “I should like to stand before the tribunal of history as the person who irreversibly founded democracy in Haiti.” And it was signed “Jean-Claude Duvalier, president-for-life.”

Louis Menand, New Yorker, July 28, 2003

Put the £157,000 In the Bank

You don’t necessarily even have to understand the rules of Snooker to kind of appreciate this. Think of it as a 300 game in bowling.

Ronnie Legend gets to pocket 157 extra large for that business. All his perfect score needs to do is hold out as the only one.

Bank it, the man is a star.

What, WHAT??

Continued:

The Crucible, chunderholes, The Crucible.


Bonus Note
: The second guy’s opponent had, in the previous frame, had his own chance, and blew the final black. The Crucible indeed!

fish vs shorebird file — part [CLASSIFIED]

We have met the enemy and he is us.
— Pogo

Long, long ago (the past few days), in a galaxy far, far away (fish’s blog):

fish posted a selection from the more worrisome quotes of the Democratic Presidential candidates concerning their respective approaches to national security. AG and BP commented on that post to the effect that making worrisome statements about national security is an apparently unavoidable aspect of campaigning for president in the US.

In reply to these comments, fish made the argument that polling shows Americans are less pro-war than the national security positions of our candidates and Presidents would indicate, writing:

Continue reading ‘fish vs shorebird file — part [CLASSIFIED]’

Top This

Quote:

By Nick

March 28, 2008 6:18 PM | Link to this

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH! I’M COMMENTING ONLINE!

So some AJC chump writes an inane column, Fire Joe Morgan toasts it rightfully, then about 300 people descend upon he comment thread and fill it with unironic and ironic racism, a gigantic dollop of ageism, and just smackery all around. The above comment I think takes the gun cake.

POST ABOUT FERNANDO ALONSO

Looks like the Canadian Curling ASSociation is stepping up to the bigs: Formula 1. Seriously, looking good, country of Spain. I cannot think of anything that makes the country that brought us Ibiza, running with the bulls, the pathetic Galacticos, and a petulant baby of a race car driver, better than fans of the world’s most boring sport, withstanding even cricket, than racist cobag fans of said “sport.” Seriously Fernando, you make ABBA want to kill themselves. You make Rafael Nadal look like a good sport. You make your World Cup Team look like overachievers. Bravo, choads! WANKER OF THE DAY.

Seriously click that link to see the picture.

5000 dollars please.

Holy Effin’ Jinxpants McGoo!!!!!

Jinxwagon express!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sometimes half an ass wins the race

Big bad bully blogs behave belligerently, bringing ‘brook blogging. As you may know, we half-assedly staked out TMQ for probing the goldmine that is Gregg Easterbrook’s brain.

We still are able to bring you this, from Wednesday’s afterbirth from Tuesday’s column:

TMQ has noted before that defenses run by the tastefully named Gregg Williams perform better when Williams resists the urge to call lots of blitzes. Now, as pointed out by Ben Domenech of Leesburg, Va.,, Washington Times sportswriter Ryan O’Halloran has the chapter and verse.

No way. Could it be this Ben Domenech?

Come on, fellows, imagine the conspiracy of ultimate hackery that could resort! I wonder about Easterbrook’s other correspondents.

Yes, It’s True

I read Gregg Easterbrook’s ridiculous and sadly verbose eruptions of cobaggery every week at his Tuesday Morning Quarterback gig. Of course he thinks to himself that his stories are the most commented on every week, so he must be doing something right. I would argue that you are not necessarily a player, even with a boatload of haters. I read him every week so I can read 100-1000 comments talking about how stupid he is. On top of that, his cheerleader jones makes him look sadder than Hinderloaf at Powerline. For the ultra awesome in non-player hatin’, I bring you the ESPN Ombudswoman, Le Ann Schreiber, who frankly would do an awesome job at the Washington Post, or editor-in-chief of the Times. She doesn’t post that often, but she is a real journalist and she doesn’t pull punches on the clearly market driven choadery at teh ESPN. I think she and everyone knows that ESPN isn’t becoming more like a real news outlet, everyone else is fakening more like fake-real ESPN. Allow me to excerpt her taking Easterbrook to school RE: his Patriots obsession (consider Eastie a talentless Tacitus, and Belichick his Tiberius, and you’ll get the hint):

Extremes of opinion varied from Sean Salisbury’s “the media is making way too big a deal of it,” voiced on both ESPN TV and ESPN Radio, to columnist Gregg Easterbrook’s inflammatory piece, prominently played on the front page of ESPN.com, claiming “the situation with the National Football League is a lot worse than people realize” and forecasting the demise not only of Belichick but the entire NFL. “Belichick’s head might be necessary to preserve the integrity of the game,” Easterbrook concluded.

The amount of opinion was so vast, its range so wide and contradictory, that it was beyond hard for readers and viewers to get their bearings within it. It was clear Belichick had violated a league rule, but what kind of “cheating” did that amount to, what kind of unfair competitive advantage could it bestow? Reporting might have answered that crucial question, but the question was tossed to the realm of opinion. If you search the archives of ESPN.com, if you remember the scores of opinions voiced on dozens of different programs, you are free to conclude: (A) It bestowed no competitive advantage whatsoever; (B) it might have provided the winning edge for those Super Bowls, which would then warrant a Bondsian asterisk in the record books; or (C) nobody knows, but you shouldn’t let that stop you from choosing option A or B because having an opinion about it is all that matters.

And feel free to custom design the opinion of your choice out of rumor, speculation and twisted logic, as Tuesday Morning Quarterback Easterbrook did, not once, but twice, in manufacturing extended false analogies between Richard Nixon’s Watergate and Bill Belichick’s tapegate, as if stonewalling to the press is the same as stonewalling to congressional investigators, as if violating a league rule is the same as violating federal law, as if he didn’t promptly hand over to the commissioner all the material that was asked of him and accept his punishment.

Easterbrook is entitled to his opinion, to his logic, to his analogies, however strained I think they are, but what is not OK is cloaking opinion in the camouflage of reporting. In his Sept. 18 piece, “Dark days for NFL,” Easterbrook indulges in several speculations about Belichick’s spying, couching his imaginings in “perhaps” and “might have beens” and “the rumor mill says,” which leads him to suggest “the Patriots’ cheating might have been more extensive than so far confirmed.” That “so far confirmed” is sneaky, implying there is only a small gap between his imagination and fact. Well, all right, sneaky implications are within bounds for a column. It is when he vaults from speculation to posing this question — “What else is there about New England cheating that the team or league isn’t telling us?” — that he goes out of bounds. Not what might there be, but what else is there. That’s where the line is — the line between the grammar of speculation and the grammar of implied fact — and he crossed it.

Ironically, in his next piece, written after commissioner Goodell had demanded not Belichick’s head but $500,000 from the coach and a draft pick from the Patriots, Easterbrook accuses NFL spokesman Greg Aiello of trying to pull off a sneaky Nixonian “non-denial denial” by using the verb “is.” “There is no such evidence,” Aiello had written in response to Easterbrook’s asking whether the Patriots’ material had shown evidence of Super Bowl cheating. “But wait,” Easterbrook writes, “three days earlier, the NFL destroyed the evidence.” Because the NFL had shredded the tapes and notes Belichick surrendered, of course they could say there is no such evidence, but maybe there was evidence. This loophole of tense allows Easterbrook to continue speculating about the Patriots’ cheating during the Super Bowl.

Asked to explain his attitude toward the use of speculation and rumor, Easterbrook said, “I’m uncomfortable with dropping the barrier about rumor mills about purely private behavior, but in this case, the rumors were relevant to something that was on the league’s plate, that was in the sports news. The way I approach it is to ask if there is some reasonable reason to believe the parties involved would be lying to avoid public disclosure, thus forcing people who want to talk to reporters onto the rumor mill.

“I had a reasonable reason to think that the parties involved were trying to keep something off the public record that should be on it. Since I can’t get them to answer the questions, I don’t know whether they are hiding something or just being weird and evasive. Believe me, I’m working on it, I know some things that are not in that column, but I don’t have them on the record yet. I hope to be publishing proof of all those things in great detail.”

My attitude is that you get the proof, or at least sources whose reliability you are willing to characterize and vouch for, before you publish. Until then, you keep your rumor-based speculations to yourself.

Emphasis mine, Easterbrookian hackery in the quoted material undoctored. I think ESPN should give Le Anne a yardstick for her to whack the crap out of these chumps.