The conservative nightmare endgame of environmental politics would be a world in which we are told what lightbulbs, shopping bags, and drink containers we can use; in which the government monitors our waste streams to find improper disposal of batteries or failure to recycle; in which, even inside the supposed safety and privacy of our own homes, our every move is watched and evaluated for conformity to environmental principles.
This is the world that Audi presents us with in its Super Bowl commercial from last night. Green Police are on top of your every move, dragging away otherwise law-abiding citizens for infractions against a strict environmental code. And in this world, the correct car to drive is an Audi TDI. Why does Audi package its environmentally friendly car inside a dystopian enviro-fascist nightmare? Who is it targeting with this ad?
Honestly, I'm not sure. Here's my theory: the commercial is obviously not aimed at you. If you are an environmentalist, than this commercial is openly mocking you. Instead, this commercial is targeting those that think recycling is a waste of time, that climate change is a fraud, and that personally freedom trumps societal needs. In other words: if you were at the Teabaggers Convention (or at least wanted to be), then this commercial was aimed at you. It reflects the world as you see it: an oppressive regime stripping you of your personal freedoms under the (false) guise of environmentalism. And in this world of oppression, the only way to avoid being scrutinized and outcast by society is to conform.
So, uh... I guess Audi figured everybody who actually cared about the environment was already driving a Prius?
The Superbowl is finally here! Which means we all get to see new (and probably stupid) commercials. I know that's why I watch. But more than just commercials, the Superbowl signifies the end of the football season, especially since the Pro Bowl was moved to before the Superbowl this year. So no more interesting NFL news until mid-April when the NFL Draft takes over a whole weekend. Then we have to wait three more grueling months until training camps start at the end of July. Then 4 meaningless preseason games in August, followed by the start of the 2010 season. I CAN"T WAIT!!!
OK, so now I'll update the uninteresting Playoff Pick 'Em standings. Due to the push in the Vikings-Saints game, only people that picked the Colts got the 4 points, thus we have:
The Suze: 13 (1-0-1 two weeks ago) Jesse: 12 (0-1-1 two weeks ago) Jim: 11 (0-1-1 two weeks ago) Daytrader: 10 (1-0-1 two weeks ago) Rose: 10 (1-0-1 two weeks ago) Greg: 4 (0-1-1 two weeks ago)
Now for the Superbowl, the correct pick gets EIGHT points, and I'm making up BONUS POINTS!!! Everyone tells me what they think the total score will be and the closest gets 6 points, the second closest gets 5, the third gets 4, etc. OK...to the analysis!
New Orleans Saints vs. Indianapolis Colts (-5.0) So the Colts are technically the home team, and all that really means is that the Saints will call the coin toss. And I guess the Colts get to decide if they want to wear their white jerseys or their colored jerseys, forcing the Saints to wear the opposite. I'm not in the mood to look at the stats to see if the "home" team wins more Superbowls (I kinda feel like it doesn't matter), so I don't think that it's a big deal.
There are a few different things to consider in this game. A few match-ups and question marks have been discussed so far, so I think that I should weigh in on what I think.
Colts Offense vs. Saints Defense I think this is the most important thing that no one seems to be talking about. During the regular season, the Jets defense was ranked #1 and the Ravens defense was ranked #3. The Colts faced both of these teams in the playoffs and scored 30 and 20 points on these two defenses respectively. The Saints were ranked #25 in overall defense! It's absurd in my opinion to think that the Saints are going to shut down the Colts offense. So I think it's safe to say that if the Saints are going to win, they need to be able to score points to keep up with the Colts.
Saints Offense vs. Colts Defense In the regular season the Saints had the #1 ranked offense! The Colts defense was ranked at #18. So it looks good for the Saints to be able to score points. The Saints two opponents so far this postseason were the Cardinals (#20 defense) and the Vikings (#6 defense), and the Saints were able to score 45 and 31 points respectively. But against the Vikings, the Saints only gained 257 total yards (and gave up 475!). Basically the only way that the Saints won were due to the FIVE turnovers that their defense got. And still they only won by 3 in overtime. Granted that the Colts defense is not as good as the Vikings, but it's clear that the Vikings outplayed the Saints, but also made more mistakes than the Saints.
The Dwight Freeney Situation Dwight Freeney is a defensive end on the Colts who, depending on the source, tore a ligament in his right ankle in the 4th quarter (with like 2 minutes left in the game I might add) against the Jets. Dwight Freeney is unarguably the Colts' best defensive player, and without him their pass rush is not the same. The Colts have another very good defensive end in Robert Mathis, but he is very good because Freeney is great. Freeney occupies consistent double-teams which allows Mathis to play one-on-one and he is good enough to beat one-on-ones. Without Freeney, Mathis would be double-teamed. And plus, Freeney still beats double-teams consistently. There is great speculation to whether or not Freeney will play in this game. This situation reminds me of Terrel Owens' situation when the Eagles played the Patriots in the Superbowl a few years back. And Owens, who had an ankle sprain and a fractured fibula, had a GREAT game. Might we see something similar from Freeney? I doubt it. I feel that this will force the Colts to blitz more on Drew Brees in order to get pressure on the Saints' quarterback, and if the Colts don't get to Brees it exposes the Colts' secondary and the Saints might be able to make some big plays.
Peyton Manning I don't care what anyone says, but Peyton Manning is the best quarterback of this generation, not Tom Brady. If Manning had the kind of defenses that the Patriots had in the middle of the 2000s, it would be Manning with all the Superbowls, not Brady. Peyton Manning ALWAYS knows what the defense is planning on doing. And he always knows how to counter it. Peyton Manning is the greatest against the blitz. If you bring pressure, he knows who will be open and he will get the ball to him. In my opinion, the best way the Saints can play defense is by limiting their blitzes. Unfortunately, I don't think the Saints will do this. It gives the impression that you can't beat Manning if you don't blitz him, and everyone thinks that they know how to beat Peyton Manning. I'm telling you Saints, you can't beat him with the blitz, especially not if you have the #25 defense.
Experience I think sometimes people talk too much about playoff experience. I don't think it's as big of a factor as people make it seem. I think you prepare for every game in the playoffs like you do in the regular season. You prepare to win. But the Superbowl is different. Because of the hype, I'm sure that it's easy to allow that pressure to get to you, especially if you've never dealt with it before. And the Saints have NEVER dealt with it before. This is their first Superbowl since they started in 1967. The Colts won the Superbowl just 3 years ago. And a good portion of that team is still intact, especially the Colts' major weapons: Manning, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Dwight Freeney, most of the offensive line. And this doesn't really fit into experience, but everyone is putting the Katrina pressure on the Saints. Which is RETARDED! That happened like 4 and a half years ago. Get the fuck over it. Nobody jumped all over the New York teams after 9/11. The Yankees LOST the World Series in 2001. And I'm sure there weren't any Red Sox fans rooting for the Yankees because of 9/11. IT'S TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!
The Saints' Special Teams I'm only going to talk about the Saints' special teams because I only think that they have the opportunity to make a big difference on the game. Two names: Reggie Bush and Garret Hartley. Reggie Bush can change the game with a punt return for a touchdown (he can also be a game-changer on offense, but I think it's kinda in a similar matter), but he can also muff a punt and is prone to fumbles. Hartley is basically a rookie kicker (he's not really, but let's just say he is). He missed that kick against Tampa Bay in Week 16, but he hit the game-winner 40 yarder against the Vikings in OT to bring the Saints to the Superbowl. I feel that he cannot miss kicks in this game. If they Saints have the opportunity to score points, even via a 3 point field goal, they cannot squander those opportunities, because the Colts are going to keep on scoring.
The Prediction I think this game will be "close". I put that in quotes because I think if a team quickly gets down by 14 points is very much still in it because of the way that both of these teams can score points. So if it's a 10 point win, I say it's a close game. I also wouldn't be surprised if it's a blowout, but I think that it will be competitive for at least 3 quarters. But I just feel that the Colts are going to win this game. There is just only one question mark for me, and that's the status of Dwight Freeney, and I think that the Colts are going to prepare like he's not going to play. That way if he does, then it's a bonus, not a liability. I'm thinking that it will be a 7-14 point win by Indy, so I'm not worried about the spread. My guess for total score is 65.
Can you name the five categories in which a Nobel Prize is given out each year? Everybody knows Peace. People have probably heard of Literature, Physics, and Chemistry. There is also one for Medicine. But in addition to these prizes, the Swedish central bank has established a sixth prize: the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.
Note that the Nobel for Economics is not technically a Nobel prize, but it is given out at the same ceremony and generally regarded the same as its peers. I guess you could say its separate but equal.
The elevation of economics to the level of the other Nobel categories might seem strange to some, but I would argue that economics is just as important to our understanding of the modern world as chemistry or physics. To grasp that, you need to first understand that economics refers to more than just the economy. Economics is the study of motivations and behavior, of how and why decisions are made. It is part math, part psychology, and part statistics.
In his book "The Undercover Economist", Tim Harford explores how economics shapes the world around us. And in doing so, he gives readers insights on making better, more informed decisions. Everyday questions like why does Starbucks charge so much, why do supermarkets have coupons, and what role government should play in the economy are tackled in a rigorous, yet easily understood fashion.
More importantly, the book is fun. Reading the book is like having Harford pull back a curtain on a hidden part of how our society functions. In addition to the book, Harford writes an online blog and, to my delight, an advice column, where you can see for yourself before diving into a whole book how insightful and fun Harford is to read. In his column, Harford brings economic theory to bear on such diverse subjects as choosing a wine on a date, parenting, traffic, and sports.
The greatest compliment I can give Harford is that I would never try to write a "Somebody Else's Business" based on one of his columns - his advice is always unimpeachable.
Oscar fever is here, and I once again forgot to get my shots. Symptoms may include night sweats, an inexplicable attraction to an aged Meryl Streep, and an uncontrollable urge to praise movies about the Holocaust. And the only known cure is to participate in an Oscar pool.
Here's how it works: you send me your picks for the winners in every category. Points will be awarded for correct picks based on the following criteria:
Top prize (Best Picture): 7 points Major categories (Best Director, Actor, Actress, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay): 4 points Intermediate categories (Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Foreign Film, Animated Feature, Documentary Feature): 3 points Minor categories: (Cinematography, Score, Original Song, Film Editing): 2 points Random bullshit categories: (Everything else) 1 point
If you are anything like our prior winners Yaworm and Elisa, you can go ahead and send your picks now to craftj2@gmail.com. Or, if you are like last year's loser, Kevin, you'll want to get some expert advice. No, not from Yaworm and Elisa. From me and Jim! We'll be spending the next few days breaking down each race, and making our picks for winners and losers? Think you can beat us. Well, you are probably right. But you can't win if you don't enter!
I have never watched the Grammys start-to-finish before in my life. In fact, the only awards show I have ever sat through start-to-finish is the Oscars, for the only reason somebody sits through something that would otherwise be boring: they have gambled on the outcome.
I had not gambled on the outcome of the Grammys, although in retrospect I wish I had. Guessing the winner of various categories proved ridiculously easy, especially if either Beyonce or Taylor Swift were among the nominees. Guessing the loser of the night was also easy: whoever had to sit behind Lady Gaga and her hat made of piles and piles of sparkly triangles.
At one point I wondered aloud if, in fact, Lady Gaga and Pink had gotten into a glitter fight the night before, when Pink emerged from backstage wearing nothing but glitter and bed sheet. Then, at some point during the performance, the bed sheet disappeared, and what had been a musical performance became a sneak peak at the next Cirque du Soleil, with Pink hanging 40 feet above the audience and, improbably, shooting water everywhere. I do not remember the name of the song.
If such a show can have a highlight, it was either Stephen Colbert standing on stage reading the nominees for Song of the Year from his iPad, and then asking Jay-Z: "Oh, you didn't have one in your gift bag?" or it was Stephen Colbert's Christmas album winning for Comedy Album of the Year, and Stephen on stage asking his daughter if he was finally cool. If such a show can have a lowlight (spoiler alert: it can), then it was Taylor Swift and her unsettling lack of breasts winning award after award, with, I can only assume, Kanye chained up in the basement howling in uncontrollable, auto-tuned rage.
William Saletan on Slate has written a very informative article relating the facts surrounding the almost-abortion of Tim Tebow.
The story, apparently, is about Tim's birth in 1987, when his parents were missionaries in the Philippines. According to Pam's account in the Gainesville Sun,
she contracted amoebic dysentery and went in a coma shortly before the
pregnancy. To facilitate her recovery, she was given heavy-duty drugs.
Afterward, doctors told her the fetus was damaged. They diagnosed her
with placental abruption, a premature separation of the placenta from the uterine wall. They predicted a stillbirth and recommended abortion.
But Pam was against abortion, and she had faith in God. She refused.
Today, her reward is a healthy, athletic, stellar son. "I've always
been very [pro-life] because that's the reason I'm here, because my mom
was a very courageous woman," Tim told reporters last week. That's the prescribed moral of the story: Choose life. Dave Andrusko, the editor of National Right to Life News, puts it eloquently:
"This amazing young man is able to share his many gifts because, and
only because, Pam Tebow said no to abortion and yes to life."
Saletan goes on to relay some of the statistics surrounding placental abruption, and why doctors recommended an abortion in the first place: despite being a rather rare occurrence, placental abruption is responsible for as many as 6% of all maternal deaths, and has a perinatal fatality rate (infant death within 20 weeks of delivery) 10-20 times higher than that of regular pregnancies.
What Saletan misses, I think, is the reason for the proselytizing:
[Pam Tebow] and her son are with us today not just because of courage but because of luck.
If you asked Pam and Tim why they are here, however, its not just because of luck and courage. It is because of God. Pam prayed and prayed and not only did her baby survive, he went on to win the Heismann Trophy! The only way her story could have ended better is if he won the big game only to be crucified on the goal posts by a furious road crowd (perhaps after a game against Brandeis?)
When I look at the statistics for infant and maternal mortality following a placental abruption, I see a strong case for considering the (admittedly tragic) option of abortion. When the Tebows look at it, they see 6% of mothers who just didn't pray hard enough. If you argue (like the Tebows do) that you can be saved by prayer, the logical opposite is that those who didn't pray deserved to die.
Three things about this latest misdirected e-mail: (1) April 18th is also my birthday. (2) Because of this, I know that April 18th is on a Sunday this year. Get your shit together, people. (3) Is it wise to plan a 90th birthday get together a few months in advance? It seems like this has a higher likelihood of not happening than a normal party, what with death and all.
From
David Schutt
date
Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:52 PM
subject
Sony's birthday
Hope all is well with you both and the boys. I just wanted to give you a heads up that we are planning a small family get together for Sony's 90th birthday. The date of the "party" will be on her birthday, Sat April 18th. I'm pretty sure Berna will not be able to make it, with her knee surgery in mid-Feb but if you guys had nothing to do that weekend and wanted to take a drive up north, we would love to have you join us. Steve will be coming down and Nikki is trying to arrange to be here. I don't know if any of Steve's kid's will be able to come in and if so, if they will come alone or with their families. I've suggested that if they came, the adults only would be good since we don't want to overwhelm her.
Unfortunately we don't have room for everyone to stay here. Maybe if you came, Joan's Aunt and Uncle would be in town and you could visit with them as well.
I don't need to know anything definite as we are not doing anything really formal but wanted to give you a heads up so you could decide if you could/would want to, join us.
Two legal cases. Two Super Bowl ads. One fucked up decision by CBS.
Case #1:
A Kansas jury, in an almost unbelievable display of intelligence and comprehension, has convicted Scott Roeder of murder in the killing of Dr. George Tiller. Dr. Tiller was one of only a handful of doctors in the US who performed late-term abortions. Roeder (who it feels like somewhat of an understatement at this point to call an anti-abortion activist) walked up behind Dr. Tiller in the foyer of his church before Sunday services, and shot him point blank in the back of the head.
(Quick sidebar: There exists a provision in Kansas law by which someone may be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter instead of murder if the killer has an "unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force". Roeder's lawyers unsuccessfully attempted to use this provision to get the severity of his sentence downgraded. Isn't this an incredibly persuasive argument? Here's what I mean: if you truly believe that a fetus is equal to a baby as Roeder clearly does, then in his eyes, Dr. Tiller was murdering babies every day. If somebody actually was murdering babies every day, would those circumstances not justify deadly force? All this is not to mean that Roeder should have been acquitted of murder, but rather that Kansas is, collectively, fucking retarded for having such a law in the first place.)
Ad #1:
Florida quarterback Tim Tebow will star in an anti-abortion ad with his mother. While pregnant, Tebow's mom considered having an abortion before, I dunno, probably praying or some shit.
The Federal Appeals Court is currently deliberating a constitutional challenge to Prop 8, the controversial California law that banned same sex marriage in that state. Arguing for the pro-gay marriage side are David Boies and Theodore Olsen, the two lawyers who argued on opposite sides before the Supreme Court of the Bush v. Gore gas. Arguing for the anti-gay marriage side are, I presume, a bunch of horrible bigots who should just kill themselves.
