You could look at the Celtics’ record through eleven games — 4-7 — and bet accordingly, assuming you’re a betting man. I’m not. I am, however, a firm believer in intangibles, and few teams work the X factor as efficiently as Boston at home. Did the Irishmen look lethargic in the first half? Not a problem: they’ll come alive in the second. Down seven, then ten, they fought back to a tie, and were down only three with 2:20 left. And then the Thunder tossed up one, two, three, four consecutive treys, two by Thabo Sefolosha, two by Russell Westbrook, and goodnight, Boston, 97-88.
The bitter pill for the Garden crowd — apart, of course, from seeing Kendrick Perkins in blue — was that those OKC characters had missed 12 of 15 previous attempts from distance, and suddenly four in a row? Things didn’t seem to add up. The Celtics, by any definition of the term, owned the boards (48-40); Kevin Garnett had 12 of them, Jermaine O’Neal 11. Reserve swingman Mickael Pietrus (14 points) had the hot hand in the final frame, and, well, Paul Pierce (24 points) was busy being Paul Pierce all night.
Still, OKC is working that whole Hard to Kill thing as well as anyone this season. With the bench largely bottled up — James Harden was held to five points — the starters gutted it out. Kevin Durant checked in with 28 points, Westbrook with 26, and what’s this? Thabo with 19?
Last season the Thunder went 22-8 against teams from the East. There won’t be thirty non-conference games this year, but 2-0 is a pretty decent start. And the semi-hapless Wizards come up next.
The California high-speed rail system may end up costing $120 billion, which prompts NRO commenter “VenturaCapitalist” to propose an alternative:
How about this: We buy TEN MILLION round trip plane tickets from San Diego to SFO and give one to everyone who wants to make the trip. At 400 bucks apiece that’s $4 Billion.
There you go. I just saved the taxpayers 116 Billion dollars.
To say nothing of what it might have done for an airline suffering the heartbreak of penury.
You may have already seen this scene:
(Obtained surreptitiously from Historic LOLs.)
A new study by Jennifer Lawless (American University) and Richard Fox (Loyola Marymount University) is called “Men Rule: The Continued Under-Representation of Women in U. S. Politics,” and while that title may suggest yet another broadside at the Evil Patriarchy, the actual study says no such thing, other than to suggest that a nation half female probably ought to have more than 19 percent of its electoral offices filled with women.
From the first paragraph of the Executive Summary:
Study after study finds that, when women run for office, they perform just as well as their male counterparts. No differences emerge in women and men’s fundraising receipts, vote totals, or electoral success. Yet women remain severely under-represented in U.S. political institutions. We argue that the fundamental reason for women’s under-representation is that they do not run for office. There is a substantial gender gap in political ambition; men tend to have it, and women don’t.
A number of factors contribute to this situation, one of which is simply that women, for no substantive reason, tend to think themselves less qualified than men:
[M]en remain almost 60 percent more likely than women to assess themselves as “very qualified” to run for office. Women in the sample are more than twice as likely as men to rate themselves as “not at all qualified.”
Similarly, 100 percent of members of Congress rate themselves as “qualified” or “very qualified,” and we know that can’t be true.
Certainly, because women are more likely than men to view the electoral process as biased against them, self-doubt regarding their qualifications and more pessimistic perceptions of the likelihood of winning may simply be a rational response to what women perceive as a more challenging political context. But the overwhelming majority of people — women and men — do not run for office unless they believe that they have a chance of winning.
That perception of bias was aggravated by 2008 experiences with Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin: roughly two-thirds of “potential women candidates” said that Clinton and Palin were subjected to sexist media coverage, and that both of them, though Clinton more than Palin, were on the receiving end of voter gender bias as well. (I demur on the latter point: the bias that afflicted Senator Clinton was, I believe, as least as much a function of Democratic voters’ desire to be seen as non-racist, and poor Hillary was just too white.)
And there’s that whole housework thing, but it’s not as much of a factor as you might think:
[S]urprisingly, women’s disproportionate familial responsibilities do not dramatically affect whether they have considered running for office or express interest in running for office in the future. Forty-eight percent of women who are responsible for the majority of the household tasks and childcare, for instance, have considered running for office. Forty-five percent of women who shoulder no such burdens have thought about a candidacy. In another example, 43 percent of women with children at home have considered a candidacy, compared to 46 percent of women without children at home. Neither of these small differences approaches conventional levels of statistical significance.
(Via Kevin Drum.)
If you’re new around here, this is the first piece that comes out on Monday morning, in which search strings are extracted from the site logs and then evaluated for cheap laff potential. (Of course, if you’re not new around here, this is still the first piece that comes out on Monday morning, in which search strings are extracted from the site logs and then evaluated for cheap laff potential.)
hate “dallas style homes”: They’re especially sick of them in Fort Worth.
“common cents” law suit: Commonly, the plaintiff gets the cents, counsel the dollars.
wank avoid filter: Watch 24 hours of C-Span. It should eliminate even the slightest thought of wankage.
bacon helper: Since when does bacon need any help?
where’s my electrical tape: You probably left it in the garage again.
plagiarism 2.1: It’s already up to 3.0, incorporating all the previously-stolen text.
hitting me where i live: Hitting you where you work is considered unsporting.
oklahoma private land taken for private use: Shh. We can’t talk about that here. It’s private.
natural warm wax nads big packets from distributor: Shh. We can’t talk about that here. It’s privates.
how looks an ordinary girl in victoria’s secrets lingerie: Like anyone else who overpaid for underwear.
too old for hello kitty: Hint: it has nothing to do with whether you buy your lingerie at Victoria’s Secret.
anvil falling on obama: Well, there goes Acme’s Obamacare waiver.
infiniti m37x viper blade vs nissan maxima: They don’t have quite the same size vindshield, so the vipers might be different.
being unobservant: The secret of my success, such as it is.
In fact, all of our usual measurements of time are based on cesium:
Since 1967, the second has been defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
Which corresponds pretty closely, but not exactly, to the behavior of the planet on which we found that atom:
Every now and again, the folks at IERS either add or subtract a second from the world’s calendars and clocks in order to make the Earth’s time match the atomic clock time. They last did it in 2008 and this year will do it between June 30 and July 1. Once your clock hits 12:59:59 on June 30, it will actually take it two seconds to go to 0:00:00 on July 1 instead of one second.
Did you say that should be 11:59:59? Sorry, you forgot about DST, about which neither a French lab nor the planet itself give a damn.
Incidentally, while the system allows for adjustments in both directions, in the forty years since the protocol was established, all the corrections have involved adding a second, never to subtract one. The earth, apparently, is slowing down a bit.
As for me — well, it’s a Saturday night, so there’s at least a small chance I’ll be awake for it. Not that I’ll notice anything.
Britain’s Channel 4 last week presented a documentary called My Daughter The Teenage Nudist, and while it didn’t call to mind any particular incident in my own life — my own children tend toward the buttoned-up — it did point out the basic disconnect between older naturists, for whom nudity is a lifestyle of sorts, and the younger set, for whom it’s an occasional pastime. (One young woman said she had no particular desire to see “genitalia 24/7.”)
British Naturism, the national organisation, has suffered from declining membership in recent years, though their own survey indicates sustained interest in nude activities. A similar situation prevails in the States, where two rival groups fight for their piece of a pie that continues to shrink.
Unlike some sections of its self-conscious former colony, though, Britain has no specific anti-public-nudity law, which makes life easier for both part-time and full-time naturists. (Compare to some places not so far away where you can be threatened with jail time for taking a leak off your back porch.)
The teenager in the documentary seems normal enough: she liked the idea of the World Naked Bike Ride, and will occasionally participate in a nude event, but she’s not going to get to the point where she recoils in horror at the very thought of having to wear clothes.
(You can see this program — about 47 minutes — here. Believe me, you don’t have 47 minutes during the work day to watch this, and you probably shouldn’t try.)
Or maybe not “spring,” exactly. Designer Erdem Moralıoğlu — who, quite understandably, goes by simply “Erdem” — has announced a Pre-Fall 2012 Collection, and while I think most of it is worthy, this is, I think, the dress to die, or at least waste away, for:
Possible downside: Erdem enjoys “Premier Designer” status at Neiman’s, so this means a four-digit price tag. Yes, I checked. I’m just that way. I also looked at some of his previous collections, which are also worth some of your time.
Joseph Epstein has a book out called Gossip (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011) which covers various aspects of the snooper/blabber matrix, though the one most pertinent to us at the moment might be his discussion of the Internet variation on the theme:
As far as I know, I have never been directly gossiped about on the Internet. I live, after all, a dullish life that does not provide much fodder for exotic gossip. But I have been insulted innumerable times online, as has anyone who writes for the general public, and insults not made to your face but with the capacity to be instantly widespread are an indirect form of gossip. Stendhal said that to write a book is to risk being shot at in public. But until the Internet, one didn’t know all the tender places in which one could be shot. And there is no redress, not really, not likely, not ever, not so long as the Internet remains the playground of the too often pathological and the Valhalla of the unvalorous, where the unqualified and the outright foolish can say what they please about whom they please, which in the end amounts, as Molly Haskell has it, to “democracy’s revenge on democracy.”
Does Epstein call for regulations? Well, maybe:
Meanwhile, until such time as laws governing behavior in cyberspace are made, or at least an etiquette for Internet behavior is developed, we are all potential Internet victims.
My valor is perhaps debatable, but I would definitely prefer people behaving themselves to people being ordered to behave themselves, purely as a matter of principle. The problem, as I see it, is that J. Random Googler doesn’t always have a way to evaluate what he encounters: it could be complete and utter BS or God’s Own Truth, and there’s no reliable mechanism for determining which is which.
In the meantime, I’m thinking there are distinct advantages to living a dullish life, one of which is keeping down the chatter.
Do pets evaluate pet food on the basis of appearance? Maybe, maybe not. But I’d bet the resident humanoids do, which can lead to uncomfortable situations like this:
So I was cleaning out my jacket pockets as I got home from the cigar lounge tonight, looking for my cell phone, which I haven’t seen since before I left to go there, and sitting on my desk next to me is a beggin strip.
It looks like fake bacon. Tofu bacon. Turkey bacon. It looks ALmost like bacon.
In fact, it looks JUST enough like bacon that it’s triggering my bacon center.
And it’s sitting there.
On my desk.
He did not give in to the temptation. The scary part, of course, is that there exists a possibility for temptation in the first place. Certainly no one is going to look at Alpo and think “Dinty Moore.”
I have to admit, I still grin a bit when I see “New York at Oklahoma City” on the NBA schedule; the steadily-shrinking podunkularity of my adopted home town continues to impress. And it’s the only meeting with the Knicks this year — the foreshortened schedule cut out a lot of East/West games to preserve conference and division matchups — which probably doesn’t bother the Knicks too much, since they were down 70-47 at the half and Scott Brooks pulled his starters in the third quarter, sending the Carmelo Anthony-less Brickerbockers back to Gotham with a 104-92 drubbing. (Obviously Brooks doesn’t believe in running up the score on a vanquished opponent.)
With lots of garbage time available, there wasn’t a single DNP-CD; Renaldo Balkman did his darnedest to make a game of it in the fourth, running up 12 points in the final 12 minutes, and in fact five Knicks finished in double figures, but none of them managed more than 14 minutes. With ‘Melo out, Bill Walker got the start, and he was simply overwhelmed.
Batman and Robin swapped utility belts this time around: Russell Westbrook led the Thunder in both assists (8) and rebounds (also 8), and tossed in 21 points, while Kevin Durant was visible mostly as a shooter, rolling up 28 points on 10-13 shooting. There was an anxious moment early on, when Westbrook apparently stepped on Mike Bibby and did something weird to his ankle; however, he was back within half a minute of game time, showing no ill effects. And something happened to Reggie Jackson in the fourth; James Harden replaced him for the rest of the game. (Harden, incidentally, had a season-high 24 points.)
Some aspects of this game were not pretty. We’re talking 41 turnovers (Thunder 21, Knicks 20), and 45 fouls, not counting the T dropped on Amar’e Stoudemire. Brooks’ post-game statement didn’t seem too concerned, though, and you didn’t hear Loud City complaining about it.
The upcoming three-game tour of Eastern clubs will take all week, something closer to normal scheduling: it starts Monday night in Boston. (Next home game is one week later, against the Pistons.)
One evening Emma Thompson opened the door of her home in Scotland, and there stood a policeman, reporting that “a dog walker had called the police to say he had seen ‘a naked man, about 50 years old’ walking on her land in the afternoon.
At precisely the right moment twelve-year-old Gaia chimed in from from the top of the stairs: “Wasn’t that about the time that you came up from the river, mum?”
Said Thompson of the incident:
“Making the connection, I could see the same thing happening to the policeman. And I could see him, as he backed off, and I was thinking, he’s going to go back to the station and he’s going to say, ‘You see that Emma Thompson? Her tits must be so low that from a distance they read as testicles’.”
Um, no, they’re not.
The problem of defining left, right, conservative, and liberal comes up a good bit around election time. People (especially the lackwits in MiniTru) like nice, tidy labels and categories: this or that person is “conservative” or “progressive”.
Especially if their contribution to Teh Narrative is dependent on such tagging — and apparently it always is. Of course, it fails:
Another problem is that most people aren’t rabid on any position. Hence, they may consider themselves pro-2A but support “sensible” gun control. They may consider themselves liberal but support the War on Drugs. Etc. In the final analysis, they just want things to run smoothly: for their families, houses and businesses to be safe; for grandma not to be cold or hungry; for the kids to be off the streets during the day (and if they actually learn something, hurrah!); for the trains to run on time; for taxes not to be too high; and to be left the hell alone. They’ll vote for whomever convincingly promises to do these things, and labels be damned.
I have the simplest possible stance on gun control — I keep my guns under control, and expect you to do the same — and as for the Drug Warriors, I find their lack of faith in Charles Darwin disturbing. (We could get rid of meth-heads in no time: identify them, send them a two-pound package, and then fill out the death certificates. Most of them won’t last long enough to share any of it, let alone offer any for resale.) But beyond that, I’m one of those guys who just wants things to run smoothly, though unlike a few of my peers, I have a pretty good idea of what that takes, and some of it is a lot more complicated than it sounds.
That said, any tax that supports a governmental function not authorized by the Constitution is “too high” by definition.
A new voter ID arrived yesterday from the County Election Board, and since I hadn’t changed anything about my registration, it took me a couple of moments to figure out why: after the Census, all sorts of district lines were redrawn, and while I’m still represented by the same old crew, I’m in a new precinct. (Goodbye, 453; hello, 195.)
The new cards also list those districts by number, which is nice. From my own:
US Rep: 5 Senate: 40 House: 87 Cnty Comm: 1
Everyone in the same precinct should have the same numbers, of course.
Under scrutiny: Jennifer Lawrence, perhaps best known as Ree Dolly in Winter’s Bone, for which she got an Academy Award nomination, at this week’s People’s Choice Awards. At least part of the reason you’re seeing this here is that I’m enthralled by this little cobalt-blue number conjured up by Viktor & Rolf:
I even like the shoes — Sergio Rossi — except for one minor detail:
I mean, these are about a size and a half too big for her.
A line from Stan Freberg’s “Elderly Man River”: “He must know something, but he doesn’t say anything.”
If that brings out your inner Tweedly, you’re on stage, doing Grammarian’s Karaoke:
We expect (and even demand) that poets will stretch and bend the language — we call it poetic license, and we issue those licenses right and left… So why don’t we extend the same privilege to song lyrics?
Perhaps it’s because poems, unlike popular songs, aren’t in heavy rotation: you may be disturbed by the words of the poem, but you’re not going to hear them once every other hour for the next three weeks. Song lyrics, however, tend to drill themselves into your head.
Or it may simply be this:
[T]hese days, we expect our popular entertainment (unlike poetry, which we no longer consider popular) to be smooth and easily digestible, and any lump in the lyrical oatmeal sticks in our craws. The wrong word sounds a wrong note, if you will; to some listeners, it’s just as jarring.
Sometimes it gives us a chance to free-associate. For years my head has been playing a mashup of Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall” with Treasure of the Sierra Madre: “We don’t need no stinkin’ badges…”
Michigan, alone among the 57 states, has a ten-cent container-deposit law — five cents seems to be the maximum elsewhere — and apparently this is high enough to motivate your friendly neighborhood derelict to go poking around in people’s trash bins in hopes of finding some easy dimes:
It is bad enough to find my trash in my own yard, but a few weeks ago, I was infuriated to discover my “reject” bottles (which lack the magical Michigan label) thrown onto the lawn of the nearest lot where there is a street light! The picker obviously couldn’t read the label in front of my house as it was too dark, but once he saw that they weren’t redeemable, he just figured he’d throw them wherever he was. I hate having to pick up my bottles (trust me, I know they’re mine, as it’s a beer not sold in Michigan which I buy as a special treat) from a neighbor’s yard, and I hate whoever the hell did this. I would love to see whoever it is punished. But there never can or will be any sort of legal punishment, because derelicts who commit summary quality of life offenses are one of the classes exempt from the law. In order to be arrested for things like littering or taking a leak (or even a dump) in public, you have to be middle class and capable of showing up in court and paying the fine. Otherwise the cops won’t bother. And not only is there no incentive for them to bother with a filthy derelict, there are major disincentives. For starters, the guy will stink up the officer’s nice police car and maybe throw up in it, or give the officer bedbugs or lice. And if the officer were dumb enough to write a citation, the derelict will most likely never show up, never pay the fine, and the likely result would be that the officer would learn from his superiors (unofficially and off the record, of course) that if he wants to be promoted, he’d best not mess with “the homeless.” Or illegal aliens, and other exempt classes.
That’s the funny thing about the Law of Unintended Consequences: it requires no separate enforcement mechanism.
The guys who handle my 401(k) evidently use ScareMonger™ software to produce their projections: they’re now claiming that if I’m to have the same none-too-comfortable existence after retirement, I need to be socking away somewhere around 127 percent of my income. This, needless to say, is not an option.
Then again, interest rates are in the toilet, the Fed having decided that it’s more important for Goldman Sachs to be able to suck down dollars through a straw than it is for sad sacks like me to be able to stash them away. I have a smallish money-market account in the far corner, but I haven’t tossed it any coin in recent years, simply because the returns were so poor. And “coin” is the operative word; last year, in fact, the account lost one cent.
However, I did show a positive return (even before employer match) for the year; the biggest percentage gain, ironically, came from a since-closed Goldman Sachs large-cap fund.
Once in a while, I will answer Rebecca Black-related questions on Yahoo! Answers, on the (mostly) honorable basis that I’ve already looked all this stuff up myself, and hey, why shouldn’t I share? Besides, the amount of misinformation being circulated is positively (or negatively) staggering; there was a brief flurry of suicide references earlier this month.
I was not, however, prepared for this: What does God think of Rebecca Black?
Several answers came in, but I seemed to be wandering in the desert. Then, just as I was about to give up in despair, a book arrived at my desk. The Last Testament: A Memoir by God [with David Javerbaum] (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011) actually addresses the question. From 1,400 Years of Sanctitude 22:14:
I have gleaned much from Numa Numa Guy; I have rolled my eyes at “Double Rainbow” (though I appreciated its numerous shout-outs); I have reeled in horror at 2 Girls 1 Cup, and I have seen Rebecca Black do her level best to help remove the phrase “Thank God It’s Friday” from the popular lexicon.
Which, you may be certain, He approves. Same book, 3:8-9:
The worst is Friday, for that is the day I am forced to hear myself endlessly and mistakenly thanked. Thank not me; thank Frigg, the Norse goddess of love, ye unwitting pagans.
It’s official: Rebecca Black is doing the Lord’s work. Expect a harp arrangement of “Friday” some time in the next millennium.
And by “the next millennium,” I mean last year sometime: