Movin' on over
Category: Blogging

As mentioned, this blog is once again on the move.  I always hated the presentation on Myspace, but I was willing to tolerate it if I could get a decent jump in readership. That didn't really happen, at least not enough to override the kitschy appearance, so I am going back to somewhere a little more serene.  I don't really mind not having readers, but if I'm going it alone, I'm going to do it on my own terms. 

Getting away from the Rupert-Borg Cube is a nice bonus, even if, as it turns out, I'm just replacing him with Teh Google.  I've obviously done a poor job cultiviating my friends count, which I wasn't aware was still a concern for people beyond high school.  (Though as I once heard someone say, "Real life is like high school with money." I'm alarmed at how true this sometimes is.)  The whole idea of begging to be a part of somebody's crew is just the sort of thing that caused me a great many problems for a couple years.  I think we're past that.  Most people will just stick to the insular group of people they already know, anyway, making the notion of befriending people rather futile. 

So I'll still be around sometimes, just not as much, because I probably won't update this blog anymore. 

The new blog (#4 now!) will be located at http://mel-anon.blogspot.com.  Posting will commence shortly.

9:42 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Propoganda's propoganda
Category: News and Politics

I hope everyone got a chance to see some of the PBS/Frontline series "News War" over the past month.  I only managed to see a couple of the episodes myself, but they were excellent, so I'm sure the rest of the series was as well. You can head over to the website and watch some, if not all, of it for yourself.

A couple of things struck me watching tonight's episode, which was chiefly about the pan-Arab satellite channels al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya and the American government's attempt to combat the supposed anti-American bias in the Arab news media, which has included setting up its own satellite channel called alHurra.  You'll notice the reporter in this story does not use the word "propoganda" when describing what the State Department is doing, although the word is present when discussing the Arab channels.  The United States is old hat at this game (see Voice of America, Radio Free Europe etc.), but American journalists have an aversion to the word "propoganda," believing somehow that word should only be used to describe a government's attempt at papering over something untoward (well, now that you mention it...).  Propoganda has its place, I suppose, but American journalists believe the United States is above that sort of thing, so they refuse to call it what it is. 

You see, American journalists have this funny belief that their mission of objectivity that's been drilled into them since J-school doesn't apply when it comes to the United States.  Listen to both sides of the story, they say, unless one side of the story opposes the American government, in which case they are wicked and deranged people who hate freedom and puppies.  There's a famous clip of Dan Rather in Fahrenheit 9/11 (I believe) in which he says something to the effect of "when my country is at war, I'm not objective; I want it to win."  A country whose press must have its reports vetted by the government and military concerned about "national security' or "putting Americans in harm's way" or, the favorite of the rightwing hawks, "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," is not a country that's earned the right to look down on Pravda. 

We have this situation because we've all bought the pablum tirelessly peddled for decades by the jingoist right that disagreeing with the American government's stance (especially if its a Republican administration) is "blame America first'ism.  As a result, the default position in our discourse now is on the side of good and right, freedom, democracy, and a pony, and any neutral analysis, any attempt to empathize with people who disagree with us (even if we don't agree with their conclusion) is quickly dismissed by our journalists*, afraid that the the gasbags will start the blast furnace aimed at them. 

The other interesting bit was yet another 'we're number 53!" moment; the national blackout of the new al-Jazzeera English language channel, complete with a couple of hacks from the rightwing Accuracy in Media gloating merrily about keeping the network (which is mostly staffed by American and British journos, including Josh Rushing, a former Marine officer featured in the film Control Room) away from the vulnerable minds of honest "Muricans.  Ironically, the reporter in the Frontline piece interviews two military press officers, who both agree al-Jazeera in English should be broadcast in the USA, showing how much the chickenhawks are behind even their beloved troops. 

*Or, more specifically, their corporate bosses.  This is an important distinction, because, while most of the young grunts who populate American newsrooms are more likely to be left-ish, the suits are not.  As documented by Eric Alterman and others, the idea of the "liberal media" has been a myth for some time now.  How liberal can you be when you're just a line on the balance sheet at some megaconglomerate?  The great thing about Fox News and Rupert's other "news" outlets is they have allowed us to see, after years and years of listening to them whine, just what kind of media the rightwingers think is "fair and balanced." 

11:15 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Now the News
Current mood: amused

Eventually I will write about something on this blog other than movie ratings, but I saw this post on Pandagon today showing L. Brent Bozell III espousing the Puritannical position that NC-17 = pornography, which is something I discussed in my last post.  (Bozell is something of an all-porpuse attack dog; you can usually find him huffing and puffing about the lib'rul media, often in the lib'rul media, but apparently he does Hollywood, too!)

Currently watching : American Hardcore Release date: 20 February, 2007

6:48 PM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Rated "C" for Censored, revisited
Category: Movies, TV, Celebrities

I finally made it around to watching Kirby Dick's documentary "This Film is Not Yet Rated" last weekend.  I originally wrote about the movie when it came out back in September, as I'm wont to do occasionally given my lack of patience, but there a few more things worth adding to my original comment. 

Perhaps the first thing I'm inclined to think about this movie is "what's the purpose?"  Yes, nearly everyone agrees the MPAA rating system is a badly broken system that's trying to put a flea collar on Godzilla, but who pays attention to them anyway?  I don't, and I assume most educated people don't either. 

But we should care, because it affects the filmmakers, particularly, as I wrote earlier, those who have their films tagged with an NC-17 rating, a virtual commercial kiss of death.

The question, though, is why is the NC-17 such a stumbling block?  For theaters who won't show such movies, at least it makes some financial sense.  You are, by definition, showing a movie that excludes a sizable portion of your potential customers.  But that doesn't explain the aversion by media that doesn't accept the adverstising.  I'm assuming this is another manifestation of our faux-Victorian puritanism; "won't somebody please think of the children?"

Which happens to explain why I hate the euphemism "adult entertainment."  We've all bought into the puritan framework that this can only mean "pornography," and thus there is no space between porn and "safe for the kiddes."  Children do not have an inalienable right to have every kind of entertainment neutered for their consumption.  As ought to be obvious, there is a lot of art that is not pornographic but is likewise not intended for children; there's not reason why we have to pretend it's so taboo.  (But as I wrote in the other post, the eventual goal of the cultural puritans lies not in protecting children, bu in making all of our art-consumption childlike.)

Ratings systems like the MPAA's are obviously intended for parents, not for heathen lifelong bachelors like me, and I understand this impulse, but the MPAA's system fails miserably at that, as well.  Lance Mannion hasa great post today about the movie-showing policy at one of his local schools, one which I imagine is fairly prevalent around the country.  Teachers can only show films rated G, PG, or PG-13, not R, and Mannion explains the vacuousness of this. 

There's the rub.  A PG-13 rating sets off more alarm bells in my parental brain than a R-rating because R ratings are routinely given to movies because they treat certain facts of life and issues seriously while PG-13 movies very often deal with the same facts and issues in silly, trivial, sophomoric, and insulting ways.

Sex and violence are as frequently depicted in PG-13 movies as they are to R rated movies, but they are treated as entertainment and wish-fulfillment fantasies and jokes. I'm about to generalize recklessly here but: Naked ladies in R rated movies are human beings.  Nearly naked ladies are objects of derision and aides to masturbation in PG-13 movies.  Violence is brutal, bloody, and gut-wrenching in R rated movies.  Violence is a cure-all and meant to be cheered in PG-movies.  Characters swear in R rated movies.  They talk dirty in PG-13 movies.

Currently watching : This Film Is Not Yet Rated Release date: 23 January, 2007

4:49 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

The news from Lake Wobegon
Category: News and Politics

There's been a lot of wrangling on the internets concerning Garrison Keillor's syndicated column last week in which he writes, in typical Keillor fashion, a lot of stuff that doesn't seem to make any sense, but which struck a lot of people as homophobic (and, to be honest, left me with a blank "WTF?" look on my face for a moment.)  Even though I'm generally a fan of his work, Keillor sometimes gives me the preachy curmudgeon vibe that I sense in some older liberal men. So unfortunately it's not something I couldn't imagine him actually believing. 

But I don't think that's happening here.  I've been reading Keillor's column since it started appearing in Salon, and almost everything he writes has layer upon layer of irony, and this blantant lack of subtlety would be very abnormal, and he is way too smart to be so obviously hypocritical about his own lack of monogamy.  Plus, those accusing Keillor of being another "geezer pining for the halcyon days of the small-town nuclear family of the '50s" are showing their own ignorance of Keillor's public act, both in his column and "PHC," most of which is dedicated to a gentle satire of that belief, with the understanding that the listener is in on the joke that such times never were.  It doesn't take the form of the typical "dark times in a small town" muckraking that you might expect; it's more complex, and I think comes from Keillor's wrestling with his own feelings about that illusory ideal. 

I'm too tired to think up anything more to write now, but I'll point you to this post by Alex Blaze at Bilerico, who's written pretty much everything better than I could have anyway.

1:24 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

In which I fill out my bracket (part 4: Now with Westhead!)
Category: Sports

Talking about Loyola Marymount Monday made me intensely curious to track down the story of that 1990 tournament run.  I was eight years old at the time, and it's suprising how you remember some minute details perfectly for some reason, yet everything else seems blurry.  I got the score of that Loyola-UNLV game exactly right even though I don't think I've ever heard or seen it since then.  I couldn't have been quite aware of the magnitude of what was happening, yet somehow I was. 

Anyway, just for gawking purposes, here are the scores of LMU's tournament games that year.

111-92 vs. New Mexico State
149-115 vs. Michigan (I think I speak for everyone here when I say WTFZOMGBBQ!!11!1!  Seriously, how is this even possible?  That's nearly four points per minute! )
62-60 vs. Arkansas.  There used to be an old high school coach in this area (who happens to have the state's all-time wins record) who was famous and feared for deploying a stalling strategy and sitting on the ball (no shot clock in HS here).  Because any old coach can win with normal tactics (like say, scoring baskets and playing defense), it takes a real genius to win while not even playing the game.  I imagine this game must have felt like the sensation racing drivers get while in a street car. 
101-131 vs. UNLV  Interestingly, the closest game UNLV played in that tournament was a 69-67 game in the round of sixteen against 12th-seeded Ball State, which I didn't know until now. 

Then Paul Westhead took his zany circus to the NBA's Denver Nuggets with limited success, despite the presence of a guy named "Fats Lever."  Sadly, although I suppose not surprisingly, Westhead has never been able to duplicate the success of Loyola Marymount, though he has resurfaced with the WNBA's Phoenix Mercury, giving us hope that the run'n'shoot will rise again.  Because someone really ought to play that way, even though it's certifiably insane. 

South Region

#1 Ohio State vs. #16 Central Connecticut State

I used to work in Chicago
at a convenience store.
I used to work in Chicago,
I did but I don't anymore
A lady came in with some porcelain skin
and I asked her what she came in for.
"Liquor" she said and liquor I did
and I don't work there anymore.

# 8 BYU vs. #9 Xavier

In lieu of having any actual information on these times, I'll turn to a tried and true method of picking toss-up games:  Am I taking the Mormons or the Jesuits?  BYU probably has too mnay plodding white guys, while Xavier probably doesn't, so I'll take the Musketeers for $200, Alex, setting up a dangerous intra-state battle with OSU that might be too close for comfort for the Buckeyes.

#5 Tennessee vs. #12 Long Beach State

The Dirtbags are a baseball powerhouse, a legacy not much resembled by their basketball colleagues, in no small part because they don't have a great nickname-inside-a-nickname like "Dirtbags."  They come out of the Big West, which has had success in recent years with Pacific, but I think Tennessee will recover from it's awful showing one year ago (when they nearly lost to Winthrop as a 2 seed) and slip by the first round, despite having the worst-dressed coach in college basketbal. 

#4 Virginia vs. #13 Albany

Albany led Connecticut by double-digits as a 16-seed last year, before falling apart in the final ten minutes.  They're moving up a lot in seeding here despite not winning their conference regular-season title, but with their courageous effort last year it's hard to dismiss them too easily, and Vermont won a first-round game two years ago, so this league has it in them.  Speaking of Vermont, Albany denied Everybody's Second Home a spot in the tournament with a one-point win in the America East final, after the Catamounts won the regular season title. So they must be punished.  But I don't feel comfortable with another clean sweep by the higher seeds, and I don't have a 4 losing yet, so sorry Virginia, you're the odd ones out. 

# 6 Louisville vs. # 11 Stanford

I don't see how Stanford can win this game, seeing as how they're only one Cardinal going up against a whole bunch of Cardinals.  The odds don't look to be in their favor. Maybe they have some kind of Ninja Cardinal.  Or a Pat Robertson Cardinal.  (He's so good, he's even Catholic!)  Even though Louisville hasn't really done anything this year, I'll go with them here since I already have two 11-seeds winning. 

#3 Texas A&M vs #14 Pennsylvania

Perhaps if the Quakers suited up some actual Quakers, they'd be having more success in recent tournaments than they have been despite being the class of the Ivy League.  The egghead league hasn't sent a winner since the great Princeton teams of 1996-97, sides which sparked the current fad of Pete Carril's footdragging backdoor-and-threes offense that's infesting the smaller conferences (but which will soon be overthrown by the Westhead revolution!) 

#7 Nevada vs. #10 Creighton

I was all ready to pencil Nevada into the Sweet 16, then I took another look at this first-round game.  Creighton seems to be a perpetual 10-seed, and they're always a hard out.  But I think Nevada's a bit under-seeded here, and I also expect them to have a bounce-back year after losing as a 5-seed last season.  Plus, Nevada is the subject of one of my most-proud moments as a pundit, when they knocked off second-seeded Gonzaga in the second round in 2004.  So I can't resist going to the well again, especially since they'll be facing a similarly-untested team this year. 

#2 Memphis vs. #15 North Texas

Memphis is one of those talented-but-untested teams that many people take a flyer on to go deep and others, like me, are ready to send them packing on the first weekend.  They are certianly a talented and athletic team, but I have my doubts that they can turn it on after not playing a close and meaningful game since December.  They have more than enough to roll over the Mean Green Fightin' Machine, but that will only set them up for a bigger fall. 

Second round onward

#1 Ohio State vs. #9 Xavier
#5 Tennessee vs. #13 Albany
#3 Texas A&M vs. #6 Louisville
#2 Memphis vs. #7 Nevada

#1 Ohio State vs. #5 Tennessee
#3 Texas A&M vs. #7 Nevada

#3 Texas A&M vs. #5 Tennessee

Final Four

M1 Florida vs. W4 Southern Illinois
E2 Georgetown vs. S3 Texas A&M

M1 Florida vs. E2 Georgetown

You can't draw up a college basketball team any better than Florida; although they might lack a typical "standout" player, they have a virtual prototype of what you want out of each position on the floor.  When they put it all together, as they did last year, they're dominant.  I'm not too concerned about that little hiccup last month, it comes with the territory of getting everyone's best effort every night.  And they seem to have righted the ship in the last couple of weeks. With that experience under their belt, I can't see anyone stopping them. 

3:39 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Filling out my bracket Part 3: In which the People revolt!
Category: Sports

Not surprisingly, there has been a backlash to the outporing of disgust at the NCAA's jilting of non-major conferences in favor of BCS mediocrity, in yesterday's KKSD letters and in this Mike Decourcy column, in which he invokes Rush Limbaugh and chides us for engaging in "class warfare."  Yes, that Rush Limbaugh who, to invoke Fred Clark is "a man who is forever and always stepping on the neck of the underdog."  Reminds me why I haven't read the Sporting News in years.  Decourcy is taking Limbaugh's usual schtick of excuse-making to feel good about rooting for the haves against the have-nots.

So the People want to see the underdogs win, but the question is whether the NCAA Tournament exists to give us bread and circuses or to decide a college basketball champion.  It's set up poorly to do the latter as presently structured, however, as a large, single-elimination draw has a high degree of randomness, and the "best team" rarely wins. 

Even if that were its purpose, as is often argued by stodgy obsessive-types, that doesn't justify giving all the bids to the power leagues, even if they are more likely to outperform their seed (as one study apparently shows.)   The mid-pack dreck of the power leagues has had all season to show it can beat the best teams in the country.  Why do they deserve another chance? 

East Region

#1 North Carolina vs #16 Eastern Kentucky
Why does it seem that so many dominant sports teams come from red states?  Perhaps it comes from the boosters' willingness to throw money at athletics in lieu of education.  Not that I have much room to talk here in Hoosier country; we're  probably not that far removed from playing basketball at Klan rallies.  Anyway, every so often they get to beat up on each other, which is at least partially satisfying.  (Though this is a bit unfair to UNC, which is located in the Blue Triangle of North Carolina, and Texas, which is located in Austin, which is in the state of Austin.) 

#8 Marquette vs #9 Michigan State
Now this is more like it. That Villanova-Kentucky game could use some of the green on display here.  Both of these teams feel like they should be better than they are somehow.  Michigan State is probably the more talented team, but I'm going to go back to two maxims I have this year.  1)  Don't trust a Big Ten team away from home and 2) Don't trust a Big Ten team in an 8-9 game in recent years.  Golden Eagles, in a tight one. 

#5 Southern California vs #12 Arkansas
Arkansas is one of those teams that has no business being in the tournament, a perfect example of the new backdoor for big-conference teams, a good run in the meaningless postseason tournament (even though they only beat one other NCAA-bound team in the three games.)  That said, there isn't a great deal of difference between these two teams, and the Hogs could easily win it.  But I'm not going to let them. 

#4 Texas vs #13 New Mexico State
Texas is a very young team that exceeded expectations this year, which might make them vulnerable here, but they have been steadily improving and are probably playing their best ball of the season right now.  New Mexico State won the WAC tournament after someone else removed Nevada from their path, and they don't strike me as the kind of side who can come up with an upset.  The 'Horns should celebrate South by Southwest week in Austin with a trip to the Sweet Sixteen.

#6 Vanderbilt vs #11 George Washington
Who would you rather have, Cornelius Vanderbilt or the nation's first president?  The Colonials get a nostalgia boost from me (anyone remember Yinka Dare?), and I really like those mid-size teams on the 11 line, as you can probably tell.  Too much so, in fact, that I have to put the brakes on somewhere. Gee-Dub is nothing too special, so despite the hoser they're named after, Vandy goes through with some ease.

#3 Washington State vs #14 Oral Roberts
Oral Roberts may be the only university in the country named for someone who isn't dead.  Who would be so vain to name a university after themselves?  Why, a televangelist of course!  Jerry Falwell is kicking himself for settling for such a cliche name like "Liberty."  It's only too bad that Bob Jones University doesn't have Division I basketball.  ORU comes from the Mid-Con, which produced those exciting Valparaiso teams of the late '90's but hasn't had much luck since then.  Washington State is a low scoring team, which could keep the Golden Eagles in the game for awhile, but I just can't quite do it...

#7 Boston College vs #10 Texas Tech
As if you needed any more reasons to hate Bob Knight, here's another one; over the last couple of weeks he has been lobbying for Bob Huggins' Kansas State team to get a bid for the tournament.  Because if there's another person who's a bigger blight to the coaching profession than Bob Knight, it's Bob Huggins.  This game is impossible to read, because both teams have been all over the place this year, but heaven help me if I ever willingly pick a Bob Knight team.  When the revolution comes, he'll be first against the wall, screwed sideways with a vintage 14th-century Swiss infantry pike. 

#2 Georgetown vs #15 Belmont
Here is the other instance where I do not root for the dark shirts, and the reason requires knowing what Belmont is.  Located in Nashville, squeaky-clean but hipster-fresh yuppies looking to get their noses into the corporate Christian industry with their graphic-design or management degrees practically breed there.  Here's hoping Georgetown kills them.  Which they will.

Second round onward.

I just realized I picked the higher seed in every first round game, which I'm guessing doesn't happen often.  Whoops...

#1 North Carolina vs #8 Marquette
#4 Texas vs. #5 Southern California
#3 Washington State vs #6 Vanderbilt
#2 Georgetown vs # 7 Boston College

#1 North Carolina vs. #4 Texas
#2 Georgetown vs. #6 Vanderbilt

#1 North Carolina vs. #2 Georgetown

12:10 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

In which I fill out my bracket (part 2)
Current mood: creative
Category: Sports

Let's continue our trip down memory lane (and the dark corners of my mind) with the West Region, where first-weekend games will be played in the western outposts of Chicago, Columbus and Buffalo.  (And a very belated congratulations to William and Mary for winning the 1807 NCAA tournament!)

Winners in bold

#1 Kansas vs Play-in Game Winner
This gives me the opportunity to express my hate of the stupid play-in game.  "Congratulations, men, you've made the NCAA Tournament."  "Not so fast, little team!  You have to play one more game because we need to squeeze another lameass mid-pack BCS conference team into the field!"  I don't even know who's in it; Florida A&M and somebody else, which I'm sure is part of the problem. 

A Cardinal rule of bracket-making is not putting all four #1 seeds into the Final Four, but this year you have it easy because Kansas is a 1 seed, and they're guaranteed to cough it up against somebody. 

#8 Kentucky vs. #9 Villanova
Is there a less-aesthetically pleasing game in the first round?  Two teams sharing the same nickname, which also happens to be the most generic nickname in American sports. The uniforms are nothing to look at either; they've found shades of dark blue I didn't even know existed.  I'll bet the arena has a totally unpainted floor too!  It's like Basketball Grease here.

#5 Virginia Tech vs. #12 Illinois
A few weeks ago Illinois finally retired its repulsive Chief Illiniwek mascot, despite loud protestations from many alumni and boosters, who just can't see why they can't keep making a mockery of people we damn near exterminated.  Hey, it's all fun and games until somebody starts a genocide!  The Hokies will succeed in fighting the Big Knives until they are off our lands, albeit a bit late. 

#4 Southern Illinois vs #13 Holy Cross
Should I mention that the Holy Cross Crusaders play in the Patriot League?  Nah, too rich, can't be true.  That league had no NCAA wins to its credit until two years ago, and even now all of them belong to Bucknell.  Holy Cross is probably getting a bit too much credit for their colleague's work the past two years, and I can't see an experienced SIU team coming out flat against them.

Apparently the selection committee felt it could get over the injustice of shutting out the mid-major leagues by giving SIU and Butler unusually high seeds, and even that came out looking a little ridiculous (does anyone really think there's a seven-seed difference between Butler and ODU?) That said, the Mo.Valley has played like a mjor the past few years, and Southern Illinois probably deserves their seeding.

#6 Duke vs #11 Virginia Commonwealth
Oooh, Virginia's a Commonwealth, not like the rest of us lowly States.  Ooooh, I'm shakin' in muh boots!

Duke is one of those teams you don't expect to be upset in the first round.  (You wait for them to choke later.)  That's because they're rarely seeded low enough to face a stiff test. That changes this year.  The Dookies are overseeded here (the virtue of being Duke, no doubt) but their "reward" is a very stout VCU team that won the suddenly-ascendent CAA.

#3 Pittsburgh vs #14 Wright State
I have no special feeling about this game, but if you're filling out a real bracket (i.e., not being chicken) you have to pick at least one of the 4-13 or 3-14 games to go for the 'dog, and Wright State's being woefully underestimated here.  They were co-champs in the regular season with Butler, and beat them two out of three, including the conference tournament.  Plus, I feel Wright State should be famous for some reason that's not occuring to me right now, so maybe that's what is tugging at me. 

#7 Indiana vs. #10 Gonzaga
Now that Adam Morrison is no longer around, it's ok to like Gonzaga again, with their lovable melting pot of a team that's typical of many West Coast middies.  Unfortunately they aren't as strong as they have been in recent years, and they've long since been unable to sneak up on teams (as witnessed by their middling tournament performance since 2000).  That said, the old Alma Mater has been utterly inept away from Bloomington this year, and a trip out west isn't likely to help.  Plus, if I pick Indiana, I'll be picking all four #7's, and that's a recipe for failure.

#2 UCLA vs #15 Weber State
That's WEE-ber State, of course, but you know that, because they've on the giving end of some big upsets before, most notably beating Michigan State as a 14 seed back in the late '90s.  And they're purple, and you know how I swoon for the purple teams.  I'll have my heart broken here, though.  I've gone through this region like a wild banshee, and I've gotta keep somebody around who can beat Kansas. 

Second Round Onward!

#1 Kansas vs #9 Villanova
#4 Southern Illinois vs #5 Virginia Tech
#11 VCU vs #14 Wright State
#2 UCLA vs #10 Gonzaga

#1 Kansas vs #4 Southern Illinois
#2 UCLA vs #11 VCU

#2 UCLA vs #4 Southern Illinois
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, bastards.

5:31 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

In which I fill out my bracket Ipart 1)
Current mood: nostalgic
Category: Sports

There's a great way in which the underdog spirit that permeates the NCAA basketball tournament is reflected in the ubiquitous bracket pools, which are usually won by some nerdy clerk with no basketball knowledge who picks teams based on mascots leaving the obsessive sports buffs for whom such games are a barometer of some kind of male IQ befuddled by defeat.  Fortunately, unlike the selection committe of the actual tournament, our tortured overdogs can't legislate away their tormenters by affording them fewer spots in the draw.  But more on that later. 

For me, though, the process is a fun combination of nostalgia and blindly ignorant speculation, which is rather how I prefer it.  So take that with a grain of salt, and the knowledge that the following guessork in no way reflects the opinion of anyone who knows what on earth he's talking about. 

Midwest Region: 

#1 Florida vs #16 Jackson State:
The eternal question that everyone who follows the tournament has asked themselves at one point or another is "Will a 16-seed ever beat a top seed?"  Like usual, I'm going to go against the consensus and say I don't think it will ever happen.  I remember the game where it almost did,  desperately trying to pull in an AM radio station ten years ago when Purdue squeaked out a win against Western Carolina.  But that Purdue team might have been one of the worst #1's in history; they went on to lose handily in the second round, and the notion took a big dagger this year with the NBA's new rule forcing the top high school players to attend college for at least one year, which will likely tip the balance of power back toward the very top teams. 
Florida

#8 Arizona vs #9 Purdue
Speaking of Purdue, here they are, and I have to say I'm cautiously glad to see Matt Painter get the program turned around after some lean years, because it's uncouth to root against a team that's abjectly pathetic.  I can see I'm already breaking my rule of rooting for the team in the dark jerseys every game. (Though I'm going to do it again, at least twice.)  I'm not bullish on the Big 10's chances this year, particularly the big sludge of mediocrity in the center.  Arizona should win this with some ease. 

#5 Butler vs #12 Old Dominion
Here we have the first-round pairing that has everyone chattering.  How could the cold-hearted bastards at the NCAA send out two small-school sweethearts to consume each other in the first round, and that after shrinking the share of at-large bids given to non-major conferences for the thrid straight year.  And all this in the year after a non-major at-large team went to the Final Four and became the Story of the Century. 

How could the NCAA look their gift horse in the mouth?  Well, as Mr. Clemons says, they all worship money.  As much as we would all like to see Drexel and Missouri State in the tournament over power-conference mediocrity that could barely manage .500 in their league, that ultimately puts no money in the wallet in the short term.  In particular, the big conferences are desperate to establish the validity of their extraneous, end-of-season conference tournaments which exist solely as a cash cow.  Hence the presence of Illinois and Arkansas, who were pushed over the bubble by a couple of wins in their tournament, an opportunity that's available only to big-conference teams. 

If I were in charge, I would institute a rule similar to the one for college football bowl eligibility:  You have to be over .500 in your conference and have at least 20 wins to be eligible for an at-large berth.  But I don't think that's ever going to happen. 

Now I'll get around to actually picking this game.  Butler did most of their damage early in the season, and, frankly, I think some of the shine has come off them in the last month or so.  They had a 13-3 league mark, the same as Wright State, which is a 14 seed.  And the Colonial is a stronger league.  I'll take ODU.

#4 Maryland vs. #13 Davidson
29-win Davidson would be a trendy upset pick had they landed anyne other than red-hot Maryland.  This is the first game on Thursday afternoon and ought to make for an entertaining kick-off, although I think I'll stick with the Terps in a tight one. 

#6 Notre Dame vs #11 Winthrop
I always hated Notre Dame when I was growing up, largely, I think, because I had a natural distrust of any team that wore gold.  I still can't be convinced to like them all that much, though I waiver from time to time.  I feel a bit sorry for them here, though, as the seeding left them acting the part of the wicked stepsisters to this year's pre-ordained Cinderella. Anyone who doesn't think the non-majors aren't getting the shaft should ask Irish fans if they would rather be playing Stanford instead. Unfortunately I can't help them. Winthrop has been building toward a good run, and they are seasoned and ready to get it.

#3 Oregon vs. #14 Miami (OH)
Several years ago, Miami changed its nickname from "Redskins' to "Redhawks."  Point for them.  But you can't argue with a team that proudly calls themsleves "Ducks" and has one of my favorite logo/uniform designs in college sports. 

#7 UNLV vs. #10 Georgia Tech
20 years ago this month marks the last Indiana national championship, and the team they defeated in the natinal semifnals that year was none other than UNLV, which was just beginning a run of national prominence that would culminate in a national championship and near-miss undefeated season before collapsing in scandal. 

During the 1990 championship run, they came up against Loyola Marymount, a team that might perhaps have been the original George Mason were it not for the tragic death of Hank Gathers a few weeks prior.  Loyola played a furiously frenetic pace of basketball which was trendy for a few years in the late '80's and set numerous offensive records that will likely never be approached.  UNLV won that game 131-101, a scoreline you won't see again in college baskeball anytime soon, and frankly, I lament its loss.  Call me an anti-purist, but I'll take that over the Princeton offense any day. 

Is there anybody who wants to see Georgia Tech win this game?  I didn't think so.

#2 Wisconsin vs #15 Texas A&M-Corpus Christi
On my bracket, that looks like "Texas A&M Community College" which would be pretty hilarious.  Not as funny are the Islanders' 26 wins, or that they come from the same league whose entry last year knocked off a Big Ten team in the first round.  I've felt Wisconsin's been a house of cards for a couple of months now, skating through a mediocre Big Ten and missing a key role player.  15 over 2 games happen too rarely to actually pick one, but this could put the fear of God into the Wisky faithful. 

Second round onward:

Less comments here, since the likelihood they'll be germane to whatever games actually happen is slim. Winners in bold

#1 Florida vs #8 Arizona
#4 Maryland vs #12 Old Dominion
#3 Oregon vs # 11 Winthrop
#2 Wisconsin vs #7 UNLV

# 1 Florida vs #4 Maryland
#3 Oregon vs #7 UNLV

#1 Florida vs #7 UNLV

1:18 PM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

No pepper
Current mood: guilty
Category: Romance and Relationships

I can't pretend to understand everything in this great post by Auguste at Pandagon, but I think I get enough to feel implicated.  Auguste is writing about the inherent misogyny of "Nice-Guyism," a abstract know-it-when-you-see-it kind of attitude that, as best I can tell, involves approaching women with an exaggerated level of adoration, then being mystified when none of them wants to get together with you, because you're such a Wonderful Guy and all.

With apologies to Umberto Eco, here are Auguste's Eternal Niceguyism:  Five Steps to Spotting a Brown Nose.

1. Intent - To be a nice guy, one must have the intent to treat women with respect. A man won't be too worried about another man "treating a woman like crap" if he doesn't believe, deep down inside, that he doesn't treat women like crap.
2. Sex - Most nice guys hold one of two views about sex: a) If I was dating her, I wouldn't be so disrespectful as to ask her to have sex with me or b) Women are totally free to do whatever they want with their bodies, as long as it involves my cock and not his. (Being from a religious upbringing, I was mostly on the side of a) with a little bit of c) Holy shit, what if I do it badly? thrown in for awhile.)

And here's the thing: All of those factors add up to one word, which you've already guessed: Pedestal. And that's why it drives me crazy when guys say, and they really do, "What's wrong with being put on a pedestal? Who doesn't like to be adored?" And, of course, the answer - or one answer, anyway - is along the lines of "adoration is something the adorer does, not something the adoree is expected to do." But all of the "nice-guy elements" depend on the participation, knowing or not, of the object of the Nice Guy's affection. Adoration is what Nice Guys hope will stand in for actual emotion.

And, of course, the thing about a pedestal is that one inevitably falls off it. What a healthy person does, after watching this happen every time, is realize that the problem is with the pedestal, not the women on it. And, of course, this is where the responsibility to change oneself really comes into play. And pattern recognition: If ten women in a row fail to live up to your standards, is that a problem with the women, or a problem with your standards?

Guilty as charged.  I'm not even going to try and talk my way out of this one.

See, fully individuated people tend to be fully interactive, which is to say, if you want to discover the attitude a particular woman has towards sex, or dating, or whatever, the best way is to ask the following:

         So. What's your attitude towards sex, or dating, or whatever?

And no, that's not a pickup line. Because before you can believably ask, you have to really care. And that's the real point. For people of goodwill, dating and sex are not about games. Games are othering. Othering is sexism. And sexism, apart from everything else, is a lousy way to get laid.

I can get behind that.  

7:57 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment