Pardon the BloggEruption

Super Post-Mortem

As I stated many times (though not on this blog ... damn worm), Tampa Bay's defense totally shut down Oakland's elderly offense. Supposedly the core of the Raider team will return for the 2003 season, though I'm given to believe that Gannon, Brown, Rice, Romo, and the Woodsons are too physically worn out to be a major contender again. In my preseason predictions, I thought that age would catch up to them this year, but I'd be really surprised if it didn't next year.

Speaking of preseason projections, let's score it! (Correct predictions in underlining, semi-correct predictions in italics.)

*	North	South	East	West	Wild Cards
NFC	Green Bay	Tampa Bay	Philadelphia	St. Louis	San Francisco	Washington
AFC	Pittsburgh	Indianapolis	New England	Kansas City	Miami	Tennessee
NFC Championship		Philadelphia over St. Louis
AFC Championship		Pittsburgh over Tennessee
Super Bowl XXXVII		Pittsburgh over Philadelphia, 23-14

Hmm ... 4 exact division winners, 7 playoff teams out of a possible 10, and 2 of four conference finalists. I'll give myself a B, compared to the A for Pitt's season.

Going back to the Super Bowl, the best commercial was, by far, "Terry Tate: Office Linebacker." Though it was quite humorous on its own, what elevated it to the level of classic commercial was the Office Space reference: "You know you need a cover sheet on your TPS reports, Richard! That ain't new, baby!" Coming in second place was the Budweiser "Instant Replay / Zebra" commercial, proving that you can get great entertainment out of recycling and mixing old material and cliches. This was not a banner year for commercials, lacking any signature ad or series of ads ... this could be because we have already had two objectively great commercials this year, in the Miller Lite "Girlfight" ad (the late night cable version is even more classic) and the Nike "Streaker" spot.

I'm going to give special recognition to Gatorade's "Mike vs. Mike" commercial, largely for effort. Perhaps I don't remember the young Jordan as well as I should, but there were times I couldn't buy the effects. The idea of the commercial is great, and the tag is even better, but I think the technology wasn't all the way there.

As for the halftime show, I caught about five seconds of Shania Twain before switching over to the SNL halftime doohickey. The Hardball sketch was funny, but then again, almost anything involving either Tracy Morgan or Al Sharpton is. Combine the two, and you are guaranteed laughs.

(Pardon the Blog-Eruption, but ... Darrell Hammond is a great impressionist, perhaps even on the level of Phil Hartman. What made Hartman great, though, and what is keeping Hammond from reaching that level, is the level of nuance and exaggeration. Hartman was less nuanced in his impressions -- he would merely grab a trait or two and exploit it. Hammond seems dead set on fully impersonating his targets, and though he does a great job of inhabiting whomever he is playing, he doesn't make the role his own. When you think of some of the characters Hartman did on SNL, it is impressions like Frank Sinatra and Bill Clinton that immediately come to mind. He made those real people his own characters ... those of you who have done more than a smidge of acting, and particularly sketch type comedy know what I'm referring to. I just don't see that kind of ownership in Darrell Hammond's impressions, with the sole exception of Chris Matthews and "Hardball." Unfortunately for Darrell, not enough people know all about Chris Matthews to be able to appreciate it.)

The absolute best part of the SNL halftime show, however, was the fake commercial mocking the NFL Playoff commercials by Don Cheadle (aka, "The Poor Man's Denzel Washington"). Remember, "they made lasagna ... into the playoffs."

After the game, I had zero interest in watching either any of the postgame festivities (whoop-di-doo), or "Alias." Perhaps it's just that ABC seems to deliberately target my demographic and all the things I watch/browse, but I've never seen a network consistently try to hype a show for as long a period a time as I've seen ABC promote "Alias." Sorry, folks, it just looks plain boring. And who on earth decided Jennifer Garner was either "hot" or the new "it girl"?

I was, however, highly interested in watching "Jimmy Kimmel Live," largely thanks to some ABC hype and through reading The Sports Guy's columns on ESPN.com, and I was not disappointed. Jimmy Kimmel. Live. With Snoop Dog as the week's co-host. What more do you need to know?

Actually, it was quite refreshing to see a new talk show not in the tired style of the "Tonight Show." Kimmel mentioned in certain interviews that he wanted it to be a combination of things, including Letterman's early years and the old "Mike Douglas Show." The latter reference was truly appropriate, I think, what with the rotating co-host job and the fact that, since it's live, guests are likely to remain on the couch throughout the entire show, as opposed to invariably leaving on the other, taped shows. Perhaps it was just the atmosphere of being post-Super Bowl, or perhaps it was just George Clooney's vodka, but there seemed to be some real interaction between all of Snoop, Clooney, Sapp, and Kimmel last night. No, you're not likely to get anything earth-shattering or incredibly revealing, but it looked like they were having fun. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the key to a good late night show -- fun. Guests and hosts should have more of it, much more often.

That's it for now, tomorrow or Wednesday I really need to update Chez Steiny, considering I've cooked upwards of a dozen new dishes since the last update. Suffice it to say, however, that my original Texas AnChiPo Chili and Houston-style fajitas will be there. I'll save the lamb and stuff for later, when I make it again. Unfortunately, my grad school schedule is such that I don't have nearly the time or opportunity to cook as much as I'd like to. Very sad, indeed.

Georgia's Flag Still Sucks

David Broder has a piece today in reference to Georgia's flag situation. Some would like to return to the old flag, which featured the Confederate Battle Flag.

While I understand the reasons for possibly wanting to change Georgia's flag design away from any linkage to the Confederacy, any person with any sense of aesthetic value should understand why the current Georgian flag SUCKS ROYAL ASS, and that's putting it mildly. Honestly, as an amateur vexillologist, I've seen some pretty poor flags (mostly municipal), but Georgia's takes the cake. This is such a "committee" piece of work in that it makes everyone feel equally pissed.

My modest proposal: Create a third design, similar to Georgia's flag prior to the Civil War. This would be the middle flag in the banner of five flags on Georgia's current standard. It's similar enough to the real Stars and Bars to satisfy Southern purists, and evocative enough of Old Glory to satisfy those who cringe at any mention of the Confederacy.

But, please, Mr. Broder, and everyone else out there who still confuses the Confederate Battle Flag with the Stars and Bars, re-read my little primer below. You'll look and sound much brighter for it.

A-HA!

Mystery surrounding the Lincoln commercials has been solved. The song in question is "Get a Move On" by Mr. Scruff on the album Keep It Unreal. It will soon be mine.

Also found on Amazon.com, while comparing textbook prices (cheaper at the university store, believe it or not), was a particularly interesting attempt to have me purchase other items. I'm looking at this text, for Chemical Reactor Analysis and Design (fun course, eh?), and while scrolling down the page, I see the following:

First, there is the standard Amazon thing, "Customers who bought this book also bought:". This I can totally understand. But then, just below that, I see, "Customers who wear clothes also shop for:", and I'm just flabberghasted. How many nudist chemical engineers are there in the world for whom this phrase would be irrelevant? And why do I, as a ChemEng grad student, care about buying baby clothes? Moreover, they say that customers buy CLEAN underwear. Who doesn't?

This new Target-Amazon.com affiliation will obviously provide me with hours of both sheer hilarity and non-understanding angst.

Anyone remember the "Pat" sketch on SNL when Christopher Walken was so dumbfounded by his inability to discern Pat's gender that he just jumped out the window? I feel similarly struck after looking at that page.

BTW, thanks to Joe and Dwight for showing me the way to the Bud Dwyer fan club. I now understand the true depth of depravity that is WPXI. A few weeks ago, some UH student climbed up a Houston skyscraper and threw himself to his death. Several stations showed it as it happened, and one even replayed it. Surprisingly, it was not KPRC, the local version of WPXI, but rather the FOX affiliate.

McGahee Going Pro

ESPN.com is reporting that Willis McGahee, he of the three torn ligaments in his knee after the Fiesta Bowl, will declare for the NFL draft soon. Uhh ... Earth to Willis! Earth to Willis! You are now, at best, a fourth round pick. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE is going to take you in the first three rounds, with all the signing bonuses and such those three rounds usually entail. You are a serious risk to any team that picks you. Yes, you are a great talent. At least, you were a great talent until the knee injury. A knee injury, mind you, which will not be anywhere near being healed by the April draft. You have almost a full year's worth of rehabilitation left.

You also have $2.5 million dollars waiting for you, should you be unable to ever play football at a competitive level ever again. So, here's my advice -- take a medical redshirt this season. The NCAA would be fools to not grant you one (well, they often are fools, but not in cases like this), keep going to the University of Miami while you rehab, practice hard, and see if you can come back to form in 2004. If you do come back full throttle, you'll be in very good shape to make several million as a top draft pick.

As it is now, Willis, you're chopped liver for the NFL.

Asides ...

Anyone else think the jazz tune in the recent Lincoln commercials is pretty damn snappy? I find myself humming it at times. Like now. Seriously, if it's a real recording or something like that, I must own it.

On a related point, often when I get a song stuck in my head, I must either (a) listen to it incessantly for a few hours until it's gone, or (b) purchase or download said song and repeat part (a). Examples -- I own "Best Of" CDs for both Mot the Hoople ("All the Young Dudes") and Kansas ("Dust in the Wind").

Speaking of "Dust in the Wind," one of my favorite moments from (sadly) one of my favorite movies is when, in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, our adventuring heroes walk up to Socrates, who is lecturing over a pile of sand. Bill picks up a handful and says, "like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives ..." while Ted does the same while saying, "all we are, is dust in the wind." It's one of my guilty movie pleasures.

"ZIGGY PIGGY! ZIGGY PIGGY!"

There are a few liberal-leaning columnists I enjoy reading, one of whom is William Raspberry. He's usually a pretty clear and logical thinker, particularly on urban and race issues. I may not always agree with him, but I must give the man credit. Unfortunately, he's starting to lose it with his three most recent columns -- two on the War on Terror and one on tax cuts.

Re: Tax Cuts: First and foremost, its none of his (or anyone else's) business what any individual does with the money saved from tax cuts. It's that person's money. But here's the thing that Mr. Raspberry and too many other liberals don't understand about economic stimulus -- consumer spending is like a shot of espresso -- it gets you moving for a little while, but it won't keep you going into the next day. The US economy does not need a shot of espresso to wake it up -- it needs to invest in new development, new businesses, new ideas. This will, in turn and in time, create new jobs.

Re-reading his tax cut column again, there are so many economic fallacies and half-truths that it's almost not worth responding to. But again, just to reemphasize, the top 50% of all wage earners pay over 95% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay nearly 70% of all income taxes. Please, would someone tell me just HOW tax cuts could ever be frontloaded to "the working poor" who pay virtually no income tax? That's right, you can't.

Oh, and don't give me any guff about Social Security and Medicare. Remember, they aren't taxes, they're "federally mandated investment plans." Thank you, FDR.

Re: Iraq. Why Iraq and not North Korea? We're trying to prevent Iraq from becoming North Korea. Saddam doesn't have nukes yet. Kim Jong Il may very well have them now. Were Iraq to obtain nuclear weapons, how soon would it be before he used them in some sort of nuclear blackmail? And who would call his bluff? Saddam is obsessed enough with his desire to become a pan-Arab savior that I would not be surprised at all if he were to use them against Israel, even if it meant the end of his life and regime. In fact, I wouldn't even be so sure that an Iraqi (or Iraqi-backed) nuclear attack on Tel Aviv would necessarily bring the immediate wrath of anyone but the USA, possibly igniting yet another jihad/intifada/fatwaa against the Great Satan.

And what's this bull about constitutionality all of a sudden, Mr. Raspberry? While I'm glad that you seem to have rediscovered Article I, Section 8 (while you're there, please read it VERY carefully and explain to me just how one can justify 75% of our federal government, particularly the aforementioned SS and Medicare), you seem to have forgotten that Congress passed two resolutions which would seemingly give President Bush license to commit troops to a second Gulf War. The first, immediately after September 11, granted the president power to engage any enemy affiliated with terrorism, al Qaeda, or presumed to be planning a strike on American interests. There is ample evidence showing that Iraq has given aid, comfort, and material support to al Qaeda. The second resolution, passed in summer 2002, granted the president specific license to engage Iraq if circumstances warrant.

Do either of these amount to a true declaration of war? Not really, but it does signal the Congress' consent to commit American military forces to action on hostile shores. Will Raspberry now question the constitutionality of every US military action since the end of World War II? His record certainly indicates otherwise.


OK, that's enough pontificating for me for one day. Back to school I go, back to school I go ...

# posted by Eric @ 12:59 AM 0 Comments

A Minor Vexillogical Point

OK, everyone, repeat after me. The Confederate Battle Flag is NOT the "Stars and Bars." It is the Confederate Battle Flag.

Again. The Confederate Battle Flag is NOT the "Stars and Bars." It is the Confederate Battle Flag.

Let's have a little Southern history lesson, shall we? Upon creation of the CSA in 1861, this flag was adopted. This flag was known as "Stars and Bars," in contrast to the USA's "Stars and Stripes."




Notice how similar in general design it is to Old Glory? Now, picture having to discern whether you're seeing the CSA flag or the USA flag from several hundred feet away, through a haze of powder smoke or in low light. Pretty tough, huh? To remedy this problem, the Confederate Army took to using a different design and shape (square, as opposed to the normal elongated rectangle) for its battle flag, the now-familiar "Southern Cross," which features a blue St. Andrew's Cross on a red (or sometimes orange-ish red, the colors were never really defined) field.




In 1863, the CSA adopted a new flag, replacing the original Stars and Bars. The new national flag consisted of a stark white field with the CSA battle flag occupying the union square. This was a pretty dumb move, considering that when it flew over garrisons or towns, it would sometimes be taken for a white flag of surrender if there was insufficient wind to display the union square. To remedy this problem, a thick red horizontal bar was added to the fly end of the flag in 1865, shortly before Lee's surrender.

So, for all y'all Yankee folks out there, please get your facts straight regarding the CSA's flags. It's darned annoying, from both a flag-lover's standpoint, and as a proud Texan and Southerner.

72-55

I don't want to hear anything about the weak OOC schedule anymore, thank you. The foul shooting worries me, though Knight's problems at the line tonight can be attributed to (A) lingering knee problems and (B) sheer frustration at the hacks ND was giving him in the final few minutes. Totally uncalled-for crap from the Irish.

The only games that scare me right now are 2/1 at the 'Cuse and 3/2 at home vs. UCONN. Pitt could very easily run the table leading up to the Big East tournament, though I wouldn't bet on it. I would, however, bet on us to actually win the BE tourney this year. Look out N'awlins, here we come!