Pages

The Modern Day Holocaust (oh, and some baseball picks!)

Friday, August 7, 2009




I'm a little ashamed.

I have a history degree after all, and while I wouldn't call myself a World War II expert I'd like to think I have at least a lay knowledge of the basics of the Holocaust.

But in all the years I've been teaching, I don't recall ever covering that really what the Nazis wanted was universal health care.

Today's Greenwald provides the clip of Limbaugh comparing Obama and Pelosi to Nazis.

Moreoever, the article and this one, by Joan Walsh place in context the sheer volume of the Nazi talk that has existed about Obama coming from the right since the end stages of the campaign (and the lack of mainstream media interest in that talk) with the mainstream firestorm when a random entrant in a contest equated Bush with Nazis a few years ago.

You're allowed to be against a national health care system. I disagree and disagree strongly.

But neither one of us is a Nazi because of it.

Obama doesn't hate white people (quoting Glenn Beck, who to make a reference to the movie Tropic Thunder, has apparently gone "full retard". I may start calling him Simple Jack. I don't have any idea what a "Glenn Beck" + "Simple Jack" search would yield, but I'd like to see it grow with the speed of my "Michael Jackson" + "William Appleman Williams" google) because he timidly offered that maybe we don't arrest black professors in their homes for arrogance.

Since the last days of that dying, absolutely blown out in the popular vote McCain/Palin campaign, the voices on the right have been yelling socialism, and secret Muslim, and not born in this country, and now racist, Nazi, who wants to use this health care program as cover to murder old people.

It is madness.

I've referred multiple times to the Mike Judge film Idiocracy, which is largely crappy, but increasingly prescient about our increasing level of collective duh-ness.

I just made that up this second by the way. Duh-ness. Feel free to trade with your friends.

Here was Sarah Palin, just today, on her facebook page. Now, this is not a joke. This is from last year's Republican candidate for the Vice-Presidency of the United States:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

I get a lot of mail from the left. Obama. The DNC. Moveon.org. Robert Greenwald. Michael Moore.

I've read Chomsky and Zinn and Barbara Ehrenreich.

I don't like organized religion. I don't like the Electoral College. I think Ronald Wilson Reagan was a terrible president.

I don't like the Star Spangled Banner.

I don't believe in Jesus. If it ever came up for a vote - I'd take your guns away and raise your taxes.

I'm full on lefty, pro gay marriage and animal rights. I'm most of the things you don't like.

There is no death panel. Someone would have sent me an email. Or a tweet.

@deathpanel: "Kill the babies. And the grandmas. Especially the white ones. Who heart Jesus."

It's made up. Fully and totally. 'Cause that's all they got. Crazy ass made up stories. That's what's left of the Republican Party. Its Vice Presidential nominee says Obama wants a death panel to decide to kill babies with down's syndrome. That's where we are in 2009.
Unrelated - 50 games left in the MLB season - here are my playoff picks and the current WARP3 All-MLB Team for the season:

P Dan Haren (NL) Zach Greinke (AL)
1B Albert Pujols (NL) Justin Morneau (AL)
2B Chase Utley (NL) Ben Zobrist (AL)
SS Marco Scutaro (AL) Hanley Ramirez (NL)
3B Evan Longoria (AL) Casey Blake (NL)
OF Matt Kemp (NL) Ichiro Suzuki (AL)
OF Ryan Braun (NL) Adam Jones (AL)
OF Shin-soo Choo (AL) Jayson Werth (NL)
C Joe Mauer (AL) Yadier Molina (AL)

My MVP votes are Pujols and Longoria/Mauer

AL East - Yankees
Central - White Sox
West - Angels
WC - Red Sox

NL East -Phils
Central - Cards
West - Dodgers
WC - Rockies (I mean, Giants! Go Giants! Grumble.)

Sotomayor.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

(Sotomayor gets confirmed today, which isn't a surprise; it's also not a surprise that the hearings played out in the way that I anticipated...well, admittedly, the Ricky Ricardo impression caught me flatfooted, but the lack of intellectual seriousness wasn't a surprise.  Note that my prediction that Republicans would completely ignore the impossibility of criticzing her as an activist while criticizing her vote in Ricci was entirely correct.  John McCain announced this week he'd be voting against her for that specific reason - that she's a judicial activist.  I'd love it if she were a judicial activist.  Just as during the campaign and now the first 6 months of the Administration, I'd love it if Obama were a wild eyed radical leftist.  That's the country I'd like to live in - the country I do live in however is one where no matter what Democrats do - Republicans will label them as socialists, which means the ideological continuum stretches from the most extreme form of right wingism to the milky moderate Democrats.  I've been making the same argument for fifteen years - the left should go as far left as it can if for no other reason than the widen the space of acceptable argument; media frames everything as "this side says this, and this side says that, so the truth must be in the middle" -- Remember when somehow CNN was the Clinton News Network, despite their employment of Pat Buchanan?  It plays into our desire for fairness, for moderation - I've been standing in front of students and teaching government for a decade, virtually every student believes "the truth is somewhere in the middle" - Republicans understood that early on, they recognized that if they moved further right - then the middle - where media and the public will seek - would then also move further right.  The more extreme they got - the more Democrats, accomodationists to the end - would move to the center.  It was the entire story of the 90s and hasn't stopped with the Obama Administration; the Sotomayor hearings, to double back to the below post, illustrated that perfectly - Republicans said "you're an activist!" and instead of Democrats saying "actually, she's not, she's in the middle - who the activists are are you guys, the radicals are the conservatives on this court" - instead they said, "nah, she's good, she locks up criminals and is pro business just like you guys like."  The result - Sotomayor becomes the limit of the acceptable left, she's defined as the outer edge of left wing judges who are able to ascend to the Court - and the left/right continuum shifts even further right.  These town hall disruptions are excellent examples - the right shouts and shouts and shouts - labeling what is going to wind up as a watered down, corporate friendly health care policy as socialized medicine - and the Democrats quietly accept that definition.  No single payer health care for us.  That's too radical.  Too extreme.  Un-american. 

Regardless, here's the Sotomayor piece - and then some torture stuff too.




http://www.slate.com/id/2222092/pagenum/all/

An excellent piece discussing the Ricci decision is here, in Slate, by a Stanford Law professor. I'm less interested in discussing the merits of the decision (I'm with the minority - which, you know, received 4 votes as opposed to 0, despite what you might have heard on Fox) than reiterating a point I made prior to the decision in predicting this outcome (correctly).

Ricci could not possibly be a more activist decision - it is a decision that (1) substitutes the justices judgments for that of a democratically elected legislature and (2) forges brand new constitutional interpretation where law appeared to be settled.

That doesn't necessarily make it a bad decision on the merits, there are plenty of "activist" decisions that I love and think reflect the best parts of who we are, you can go to the Slate piece to read discussion about the merits, the point here is about Sotamayor and the rhetoric of the right about judicial activism. The truth is that the right labels as "activist" decisions it doesn't like in an attempt to say, "not only don't I want this result, not only don't I agree with this result, but this result is illegitimate, this result is not correctly within the purview of how judges should behave."

It's almost always a nakedly political argument; one could have a debate about the proper role of unelected judges within a democracy - but we don't have that debate, the debate we have is that conservatives criticize decisions they don't like by calling them activist.

Note that, in the Slate pieces and like minded pieces from the left to disagree with Ricci on the merits, you won't see similar demagoguery; you'll read disagreements with constitutional interpretation and notions of what justice requires, but instead of saying "only liberal judges are real judges - conservative judges just act politically" what you'll read (or should) is that all judges act politically. If I'm a judge (I won't be) I'm going to rule in ways that I feel are compelled by my understanding of what law and justice is.

The additional irony of Ricci is the opinion is loaded with (dare I say it) "empathy" for the white firefighters - which is related and also perfectly reasonable - effectively, when a court "empathizes" with a party, it isn't saying "I don't care about the merits, look how cute they are" a court is saying "there are qualities about the facts and circumstances of this party and this case of which judicial notice should be taken to serve the interests of justice."

However, none of this is likely to be understood by the US Senate in the Sotomayor hearings - conservatives will make a case against her based on her being "activist" and "empathetic" while simultaneously using the reversal in Ricci, which completely undermines their argument, as evidence to support these attacks.

Granted, nothing that will be said in the Senate is likely to be as, well, sad is the adjective I'm going to use because there isn't hyperbole sufficient to speak to it, as sad as Rush Limbaugh's reaction to the Ricci decision, which is that the Supreme Court ruled that Sotomayor was a racist.

I don't care if he's big or fat, and while I don't find him intellectually compelling, I don't think Rush Limbaugh is an idiot, but he's just not a serious minded individual. His role in our national discussion should be on par with Bubba the Love Sponge as opposed to William Buckley (did you hear him blame the Obama stimulus package for Sanford's "crossing the ultimate line - the sex line"?) and his place at the adult table makes the Republicans look like a dying party.

This is why I like writing about sports, and particularly using sports as a vehicle to write about everything else (the NBA Drafts have been good like that; I've been pleased with how those recaps have turned out) because you can see these same shortcomings in how the Sports Industrial Complex talks about things like chemistry.

Chemistry is bullshit, a label that sports media throws around when it wants to attribute dramatic elements to their made up narratives. Kobe wasn't a good teammate before and it fractured the Laker locker room and that's why they didn't win titles. Then Kobe won a title, so, he must be a good teammate now. Teams win not because of talent and execution that can be quantified and understood by sports fans - no, teams win because of a peculiar, mysterious alchemy that is only understood by sportswriters who are in locker rooms or at games and can look deeply in the faces of the athletes to read their body language and levels of heart and guts and moral fortitude. You know the essential position of the Catholic Church that helped lead to the Reformation was the Church was required to serve as mediator between you and god - you can't understand the holy book on your own - here is this entire structure that serves as a go-between - it will tell you what god says - the Church effectively said "there is universal truth - but you need us to tell you what it is." Conservatives claim a similar interpretive power over the Constitution - that only they are able to divine its meaning, that the framers had a clear and plain intent that must be followed - and they are the ones who are able to explain it. That it happens to line up perfectly with their political beliefs, that the same way they'd vote if they were legislators unconstrained by judicial robes, is entirely coincidental.

The self serving nature of that is evident - if you could figure out the truth yourself - if it were knowable without the church - then you don't need it.

If sports are quantifiable - if you can use statistics and your own observation to destermine who the best players are, who the best teams are - then you don't need the mysterious men in the giant robes on Around the Horn to tell you about the great chemistry of winning teams.

You should read/listen/watch sportswriters the same reason you should go to church, for the entertainment value of the stories.

But if you're looking for truth you're better off with math or science books.

Congratulations to Senator Al. Who would have thought that it would be the 20teens that would be the real Al Franken Decade? 60's a nice number, but the number of Democrats who belong to what the late Paul Wellstone used to call "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" is significantly smaller than that. Good to see (hopefully) one more.

A great piece from Glenn Greenwald on an interesting word choice from an obit in the NYTimes. American hypocrisy has not been so nakedly apparent on such a large scale in a very long time as it is when talking about torture.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/08/torture/


What function do conservatives have in our national discourse? They aren't the limited government party, check the size of the military and the level of domestic surveilance they support. They aren't the personal freedom party, wanting complete state control over what you do with your body. They aren't even the "Country First" party, given the recent polls on the percentage of them that would like to secede (half of all Texas and Georgia republicans want their state to leave the union. It's 1840 all over again. I think John C Calhoun was at that pizza party they had in Virginia the other day. Calhoun/Palin would be a helluva ticket.)


But the traditional values party? Come on. If progressives definitionally want to move forward, don't conservatives have value in retaining tradition - in keeping us grounded on what makes America great?

You just can't believe that torture is okay. You just can't believe that. Not and pretend to uphold morality.

Americans have been tortured. And those who tortured Americans have been punished.

It's a moral issue. Black and white. Right and wrong. Conservatives are the people who understand the meaning of those terms, they're the party that scorns Foucault, that scoffs at the idea of "evolving standards" of "living documents" they are literalists - the Bible, the Constitution - words have fixed and unchanged meanings. Right?

So, if it was torture then, it's torture now. You break the law - you get punished.

What's more traditional than that?

LeBron walking off the court without shaking Dwight Howard's hand and the assassination of the abortion provider in Kansas struck me in a similar place.

(You: What?)

A skill that has faded from our public discourse is gradation among various levels of response. "I dislike this" doesn't need to always turn into "that person should die a painful death in the street."

Obama isn't just a President whose policies the right disagrees with, he's a Marxist/Communist/Fascist preparing re-education camps. The Texas (Edit, this was Rush Limbaugh from Wednesday June 3: "If al Qaeda wants to demolish the America we know and love, they better hurry, because Obama's beating them to it," That's kinda exactly what I'm talking about.) governor didn't just disagree with the bailout proposals, he raised the idea of secession. Sonia Sotomayor, whose judicial record, if anything, lacks the level of overarching progressive philosophy that I really, in a hard way, want to see from this first nominee (and she's 55 and diabetic, just saying) somehow became David Duke mixed with Bill Brennan on a bender.

There's probably some distance we should travel before we get to that spot.

LeBron James didn't show a lot of the "sportsmanship" that we've collectively decided is required of athletes following close out games of playoff series'. The reaction of sports radio was as if he had raped some teenage chambermaid in Colorado.

Yeah, you, for whatever reason, want to see LeBron shake hands. That's weird to me, but okay. And if he doesn't, maybe the proper response should be "that's too bad, he showed some immaturity" as opposed to "goddamn disrespectful punk - Magic woulda never done that."

Barry Bonds (here we go again) used steroids (along, clearly, with everyone else) and to some extent that aided in his performance. Sports Illustrated conducted a jihad against him. The level of rhetoric associated with Bonds at the height of the scandal far surpassed, say, what was hurled at Ray Lewis. If you did a survey of US sports fans attitudes toward athletes a year ago, I would guess Bonds's favorability rating would approximate OJ Simpson's.

Yeah, you, for whatever reason, think that Bonds's records are tainted. I'd point to innumerable conditions that made his pursuit more, as opposed to less, challenging than the nearest contenders, but okay. Maybe you react a little less harshly than "blackball him from the game, no Hall of Fame, tear down any sign of him at the Giants ballpark, throw a needle at him when he's on the field."

A student, not too far back, was upset with a professor of my acquaintance about something which blew away pretty easily. His first step was neither to bring it to the professor's attention, nor to make an appointment to see a supervisor, but instead to storm from class, demand that the other students follow him to the administrative offices, and demand that the professor be fired.

It was the second class meeting of the term.


Maybe, you know, a "can I see you for a second" request after class might have been a more appropriate response than "he must be fired immediately!"

I don't have a moral problem with abortion (or steroids, or LeBron, etc..) I could see where others might, and where the aborting of a fetus might be disturbing to some.

But we've created a debate where fetus is used interchangeably with baby - hell, we've got a debate where blastocysts and zygotes are used interchangeably with baby. It's not much of a leap, if you're going to say zygote = baby to say abortion = murder to say abortion doctors = Nazis to say "well, what would your moral obligation be if it were 1935 and you could kill Hitler?"

I've had, multiple times, conversations with students who make absolutely no moral distinction between a blastocyst and their Uncle Bill. None. They've seen the blown up pictures after all. They look like babies!

Sure, sperm are swimming around too. Blow them up (that's a photographic reference) and sperm sure look like subjects for moral consideration.

But those aren't thoughts they've ever had. They were taught that fertilization = person. The same way they were taught the earth's 6,000 year's old.

I'm not arguing for moderation or even civility. Sometimes, extreme language (and action) is needed. But you can't Chicken Little every proposed top marginal tax increase of 3%. Every moderate judge isn't a threat to the republic. Every poor display of athlete's behavior isn't Rae Carruth. Every OBGYN isn't Mengele. Our ability to determine when we are actually being threatened, when we are actually in peril, when we should actually be shouting from the rooftops, taking dramatic action, stopping normal behavior because normal behavior is taking us on a bullet train to hell is impaired when we're constantly barraged with hyperbole.

Which is probably the point. A little misdirection paints the extreme with the same bad brush. If the right yells "Obama's a secret Muslim, he's a sleeper agent, it's the Manchurian Candidate" and the left says "waterboarding is torture" the easiest thing for people to do is say "pah! look at how partisan both sides are."

Everything winds up funneled in the "truth is somewhere in the middle" place that we comfortably go to. Feels fair. We like things that feel fair. "Teach both sides" of how humans got here feels fair. That's how it was taught to me as an undergrad taking a freshman level Biology course "either, the collected body of science is correct and we've evolved from simpler life forms, a theory that has approximately the same strength of support as gravity -- or, Adam and Eve were placed here and lived at the same time as dinosaurs and all people came from their loins. Both are views. You can make up your own mind. Equal time for everyone."

Feels fair. You go into math class and say, "8x7 isn't 56, my religion says it's actually 52. Teach the controversy!" and presumably no one would pay attention to your demand of equal time, but maybe. Try it kids!

Abortion's either a fundamentally recognized right that women have dominion over their own bodies - or we're Nazis. That's the frame in which the debate sits. The rhetorical box in which we're stuck.


Well, not George Tiller. He's not in any rhetorical box. The box he's in is real.

Emptying The Steroids Bucket - The Rest of The Steroid Reposts

Wednesday, August 5, 2009




(Bill James recently came out entirely on my side in the steroids dispute (1) the impact of steroid use in MLB is overblown (2) in context of the history of baseball, from changes to ball, to park, to segregation, to amphetamine use, it's just without merit to argue that the record book reflected a level playing field that has now been tarnished by the steroid era (3) steroids weren't against the rules of baseball prior to 2003; the 90s memo by Fay Vincent that some now prop up as being evidence to the contrary is an attempt to give the commissioner a power he did not possess and most importantly (4) history will look at us as foolish, that this moralism of classifying steroids as a "bad, evil drug" is temporary, that future generations will not view their use as anathema but as part of an anti-aging regiment. 

I've been steadfast on all of these issues for years; life is long, we change our views; the next time a member of the BBWA says "none of these guys is ever going into the Hall of Fame" - just remember that; ARod will still be on the ballot 30 years from now - virtually everyone who currently has a HOF vote will be long gone; our lives will have changed in literally unimaginable ways (for example, until the age of 29 I never owned a computer; I'm not 38 and make half my living as an online college instructor; the next time I read the words I'm writing now will be on my phone - words that will circle around the globe seconds after I finish them; it took George Washington 2 weeks to find out he was President and I think I knew Michael Jackson had died before LaToya did - the idea that our view of steroids in fixed in the American consciousness forever because Mike Lupica says so is small)

Anyway - here's the rest of my old steroids talk)

In a typically unfunny and wrongheaded piece, Rick Reilly called for the MVP Awards won by those caught up in the PED hysteria to be turned over to the "clean" runners-up.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3915217

Putting aside that the degree to which the drugs aid performance in a statistically significant way has not been quantified, among the players Reilly chose as his new NL MVPs are Mike Piazza, Albert Pujols, and the player pictured above, Luis Gonzalez.

These are Gonzo's career home run totals for each of his 19 big league seasons:

0, 13, 10, 15, 8, 13, 15, 10, 23, 26, 31, 57, 28, 26, 17, 24, 15, 15, 8.

Should we play "one of these things is not like the other"?

I don't know what Gonzo took and I don't care, but it highlights the silliness of asterisk-mania. Yesterday's "A-Rod will give us a clean home run king!" becomes today's "look at how his lip quivers, that means he's telling a half truth!"

You don't know who took what, and you don't know what impact any of it had.

But yet, still, we are ripping and shredding away at a handful of guys, destroying legacies, threatening liberty. We've gone all Shirley Jackson, seemingly randomly choosing to destroy Player Y while leaving Player X intact. Barry Bonds goes to jail - Jason Giambi gets moustache day at Yankee Stadium.

It's foolish when placed in any kind of context.

In a baseball context, you have NL umpire Tim McClellan from Monday's Dan Partrick Radio Show saying somewhat bravely that he doesn't care at all about what anyone took prior to the drug testing policy in 2004.
McClellan's argument wasn't complicated. PED use wasn't against the rules prior to 2004 (and no, memos from commissioners didn't make it so, the office didn't have that unilateral ability - nor, of course, were the memos serious - there was never an attempt to enforce any type of PED policy, too much money rained down upon the owners for that to happen) and there has always been a boatload of actual breaking of the baseball rules, doctoring bats, balls, diamonds has always been part and parcel of our national pastime. Gaylord Perry's a confessed career long cheater; with full knowledge of that, the BBWA put him in the HOF. Whitey Ford cheated with winks and smiles, but his manipulation of the ball is legendary.

Patrick's response was typical, effectively saying: Can you really compare corking a bat to taking steroids?

Why not? Why no congressional hearings, meetings with the commissioner, years of outrage from sports pundits? When will Mike Lupica call Whitey Ford a disgrace? Isn't cheating cheating?

Patrick's additional response was, of course, that even if PEDs weren't against the rules, they were against the law - and that matters!

Know what else is illegal? Gambling. Is there a baseball clubhouse where illegal gambling doesn't occur constantly? Card games. NCAA pools. Golf. Constant violations of the law.

Where is the outrage?

I read Ball Four just like everyone else; I can never recall being a sports fan and not knowing that ballplayers gobbled speed like candy. Baseball players took illegal drugs to gain an advantage. They did it in the 80s, the 70s, the 60s and the 50s.

John Perricone, who has consistently and thoroughly been right about steroid use, recently unearthed a Sports Illustrated piece from 40 years ago in which the entire 1960s sports landscape was said to be awash in steroids.


Is there any debate about this? Taking drugs without prescriptions have always been part of baseball culture. And that's putting aside the gallons of cortisone athletes have pumped into their bodies their entire lives. Kirk Gibson gets shot up to hit a home run and he's a hero, Alex Rodriguez gets shot up to hit a home run and he loses his reputation.

How will the future regard this current hystorical period?

There's a book by Ray Kurzweil, called The Singularity is Near, the thesis of which is that by 2045, people will have merged with machines in ways that will effectively mean the end of the biological human being. The idea that when Alex Rodriguez retires ten years from now and then is first eligible for the HOF five years after that we'll still be consumed by what type of ointment he used in 2002 doesn't really seem worthy of serious discussion.

We've had a bad decade, you and me. There was a C-Span poll of American historians last week ranking each of the 43 US Presidents. I tend to distrust rankings like that, viewing American Presidents much like I view baseball managers - largely as fungible figureheads. The Phillies won the World Series in 2008 and Charlie Manuel was "in charge" but he deserves as much credit as McKinley does for "winning" the Spanish-American War. You can take the guy sitting in the dugout, I want Cole Hamels charging up San Juan Hill.

But there are exceptions. Malcolm Gladwell's new book Outliers discusses the commonalities of exceptionally successful people; I tend not to view the world this way; I see as outliers the people who are truly, painfully destructive - so painfully bad at their jobs that they cause incalculable harm. I didn't vote for Barack Obama because I thought he would bring hope to the hopeless - I voted for Barack Obama because George Bush spent 8 years destroying the ballclub. I don't need Obama to be Earl Weaver; I need him to stop giving Neffi Perez 450 plate appearances.

In two decades, historians may analyze the first decade of this millennium as the one from which the US couldn't recover. The economy never comes back, the engendered international hatred blows back time and time again - and the environmental collapse leads to conversations like "Remember when we had running water all 7 days a week? We were like Aqua Emperors! Now sacrifice the rabbit to Poseidon and pray we are allowed to bathe this week."

The American Empire was collapsing, will go the thesis of book upon book in 2030- and the media was consumed with Alex Rodriguez taking a variant of a drug that we now put in pre-natal vitamins. Instead of hearings about subprime lending and torture we hauled Rafael Palmeiro to Capital Hill. Alberto Gonzalez and Karl Rove got to walk free and Roger Clemens was a grand jury target. Dick Cheney, who hasn't left the US since 2010 for fear of being captured and hauled to the Hague for his much deserved war crimes trial lies in his hyperbaric chamber but Barry Bonds's trainer's mother in law had her house stormed by fifty-five federal agents.

We'll be owned by the Chinese. But at least Luis Gonzalez will have his MVP Award.

Slowly but surely, people outside of the traditional sports media, people less invested in institutionalism, are questioning the establishment view of the Bonds case. The sports media for years - for years - have treated Barry Bonds in a mocking, sneering way - the level of invective hurled at him for the better part of this decade has surpassed any for similarly positioned athletes. While NFL players who failed PED tests like Shawn Merriman and Rodney Harrison worked as network analysts last season, while NFL players like Ray Lewis and Leonard Little, implicated in actually serious crimes performed on the field week after week, while Kobe Bryant has been able to return to the life he had before Colorado - the sports media and an arm of the US Government has made it a mission to destroy Barry Bonds. Victor Conte got 6 months, but Greg Anderson did 12.


This is Jonathan Littman's article in Playboy entitled The Persecution of Barry Bonds; you'll read phrases like perjury trap and repeal of the 4th Amendment.

http://www.playboy.com/magazine/features/barry-bonds-2009/barry-bonds-p1.html


Many of us have recognized that the last decade has involved unchecked federal government power designed to suppress dissent, to attack those who would question it; and that government power relied on a compliant media, whose silence or overt support helped lead to as disasterous a decade as has occurred in our lifetimes.

Sports is not immune from this. The Jim Calhoun episode from last week is an excellent example.

Calhoun was asked at a press conference if, as the highest paid government official in the state of Connecticut, he'd join the Governor in giving up a fraction of his salary to help offset the billion dollar budget shortfall in that state.


To me, the story wasn't so much that Calhoun scoffed - screamed - told the reporter he was a clown and to shut up - to me, the story was the reaction of the sports media.


Reporters uncritically accepted Calhoun's line that he was beyond criticism given the 12 million dollars taken in by the UConn basketball program.


Beyond that Calhoun was wrong, UConn took in 7 million last year and spent 6 - Calhoun's implicitly taking credit for that money earned, despite never (far as I know) hitting a single jump shot.


But the sports media, having created this coach worship culture - where we are taught to lap up whatever pearls drip from the mouths of these great leaders of men - didn't make that distinction. Moreover, the question as to where that 12 million (actually one million) goes wasn't asked - it's not the science lab that gets that money, it's the UConn basketball program. Big time college sports is hermetically sealed - the success of a basketball program doesn't translate to success anywhere else on the campus - which is why at schools like UConn all across the country Universities are in the midst of hiring freezes and layoffs. I've previously written about the intense difficulties, really unprecedented difficulties, that PhDs are having in the professorship job market. This is a time when everyone employed by Universities - everyone employed at any level by state governments - are faced with salary cuts at the very least.


But if you ask the highest paid government official in Connecticut about his own salary - he'll tell you to shut up and do it to the full support of the media.


Sure, Calhoun's tone might have gotten him a tsk, tsk (not from Greg Gumble, however, he was just fine with the coach bully boy tone) but it was the identity of the questioner that was most slammed by the sports media - he was immediately marginalized as not a mainstream journalist - he wasn't from a real newspaper - he was a provocateur - he was a leftist, after all - he was once arrested for taking photographs at a parade!


In a different generation, we'd call him a muckraker, doing the job that the mainstream media used to do.


He gets bullied, he gets arrested, because we allow it. Because we have so little questioning of power in this country that any that occurs strikes us as offensive. And that's what most interested me - what most interested me was that the sports media spoke in one voice to rip the journalist for asking the question in the forum...a press conference...where he chose to ask the question.


'Cause why would anyone ask a serious question at a press conference? Craziness.


Talk about offensive rebounds. Like we do. Ignore the broader social issues. Don't you know there's an accepted narrative - a right way to think about everything?


Barry Bonds is a cheater and liar and doesn't deserve the home run record. The "story" isn't the San Francisco Giants building a stadium on his back and then throwing every trace of him out of it - the story isn't MLB growing at an unprecedented rate and then declaring those who caused it to grow weren't ethically sufficient to go to the HOF - the story isn't Babe Ruth hitting home runs off entirely white pitchers - and then Hank Aaron hitting home runs in a tiny ballpark in an era where bowls of amphetamines were placed in open view in clubhouses - the story isn't the US government, at a time when there are no hearings for torture, 2 unwinnable wars, environmental catastrophe and a complete collapse of the American economy spending 55 million dollars to chase Barry Bonds for 6 years -- the only story you're allowed to tell, over and over and over again, is how Barry Bonds cheated baseball.


I love me a daily newspaper. But if some of the "journalists" who have sucked up to power wind up without jobs, there's positive outcome of the collapse of that industry.


Edit: Here's 91 year old Marvin Miller - more right than anyone in the sports media about the persecution of Bonds - and the attempt at union busting in which the sports media has been complicit. If you aren't registered it may be behind the firewall.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/sports/baseball/02rhoden.html?_r=1


It really has been remarkable - dial back a handful of years and all you heard from the sports media is that the union was at fault for being too stringent about drug testing - too much in opposition to management. And now, after the 2003 test results somehow escape - the union is blamed for being too compliant - not standing up and fighting to get the results destroyed. I actually saw Costas make both points in the same breath on the MLB Network the day the ARod story broke. The Union is simultaneously too rigid and too compliant for the sports media - because, of course, it's really organized labor that's to blame for the media - as we watch the wealthy loot this country into oblivion.

I Feel Deliciously Light and Cool - I Rank the Noble Eightfold Path

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Over the weekend, I heard from a reader that the blog had become overly sports focused. In the spirit of this, here is my ranking of Buddhism's Noble Eightfold Path which outlines a model of discliplined behavior designed to achieve Nirvana.




No, not that Nirvana.



Although, now that we're here -



8 Best Nirvana Songs. 8-1.


8. You Know You're Right

7. Polly

6. All Apologies

5. Smells Like Teen Spirit

4. Lithium

3. Come As You Are

2. Where Did You Sleep Last Night

1. Heart Shaped Box

Hey, that's not a sports list either. Score! I recognize my multiple constituencies; some of you are here for wrestling, some for academia, some for delicious holiday recipes:

Christmas Eve Whore Cake


1/2 cup of butter

1 ½ cup of sugar

3 eggs

1 teaspoon of lemon extract
½ teaspoon of vanilla extract
½ teaspoon of salt
3 cups of flour
1 cup of milk


Preheat to 340 degrees
Bake 22 minutes.


What? Whores don't like cake? Whores don't like to celebrate the birth of the Baby Jesus with a tasty lemon cake before they are paid cash monies for intercourse? Awfully judgmental.


Judgment's our new national pastime. Least about the small stuff. You'll hear tell of the United States being a "forgiving" country; I'd argue that's like saying we're an "early parole for good behavior" country - what we really like to do is get our righteous condemnation on. Michael Phelps - Boom. Alex Rodriguez - Boom.


Wait - that's drifting back toward sports and we're throwing a bone to the non sports reader with this blog.

Hell, consider just writing your own blog from a list of terms that I can helpfully provide here:

flyboy, haymaker, feverish, tommyknocker, dreamworld, taco, Euclidian, katzenjammer, ukelele, white slavery, thermodynamics, vector, gas, chum, ineffable, traverse, wondertwin powers activate, barkeep, bayonet, needlepoint, kinky, salt water taffy, RICOH, entropy, epigram, nonlinear, Nikola Tesla, bikini line, sly, lucidity, Teletubbies, moisturizing, Sonnets to Laura, toxic, boneless, Vichy, pathos, rabbits, uncouth, marrow, linger, amalgam, mercury, enamel, uncoiled, beefy, reductionist, Medicare, thug, soda, ravioli, shaky, Zappa, syphilitic caramels, nutmeat, never-ending nervendings


What I really could use is a Choose Your Own Adventure mechanism wherein those of you who want to read about Honus Wagner's best 4 seasons by WARP3 could take one path and those of you waiting to see which of the Eightfold Path will be ranked 5th (spoiler alert - Right Concentration) could just flip to different screens.


Do you know Choose Your Own Adventure, people?


If you decide to commit genocide, turn to page 4.


If you decide to bone Neil Diamond, turn to page 5.


Choose Your Own Adventure was a series of kids' books in the 80s and 90s; they stopped publishing in '98; it's based on the Lionnais schematic of tree literature that he presented at the 79th meeting of the Ouvroir de Littérature Potentielle in May, 1967. Using a present tense second person narrative, the text gives the reader a series of choices that shapes her reading of the story. So, in, for example, The Cave of Time, the reader is portrayed as the protagonist of the story, visiting her Uncle Howard at Red Creek Ranch when she stumbles upon a cave, which serves as a portal to multiple time periods. It teaches children that they are the captains of their own ships; if you choose to jump on the boat, you go to page 14 and perhaps sail to Byzantium to find fortune and glory. If you choose to stay behind, you go to page 20 and are slowly devoured by wolverines, the beasts enjoying the full flavor of your every orifice before settling you into their rabid gullets.


There aren't many lessons, let me suggest, more important to learn.


I'm not a motivational speaker; when I see a bumper sticker saying "destiny is not a matter of chance, it's a matter of choice" my first thought is "I hope William Jennings Bryan's estate is getting a cut from that bitch, 'cause dude said that a hundred years before Hallmark put it on a card" and my next thought, "tell that to Mr. Neil Diamond, 'cause he has absolutely no say in the matter when I turn to page five and bring him to a thunderous orgasm while singing the chorus of "Cracklin' Rosie."


So, don't consider me Pollyannaish when I gently suggest that our individual circumstance is more within our own control that we like to recognize. There's a psychological concept known as the fundamental attribution error, and it goes something like this: when something happens in our own lives, we tend to attribute it to external causes, situational factors outside of our control – it's the boss, it's the kids, it's the planets being out of alignment, it's god or fate or my weak genetic traits perhaps caused because my great-great grandparents were first cousins.

Oh, I assume most of you aren't aware, in Florida, it's legal for first cousins to marry.


This is an outlier in terms of domestic relations laws across the country, and leads one to wonder how such a law was passed. I'm going with this theory:


One day, there was a guy in the Florida state legislature who desperately wanted to do his first cousin.


But she was a good girl, and while she had no interest in this guy, kin or not, she also didn't want to hurt his feelings irreparably, given the possibility that they'd be running into each other during future family reunions, and wanted to avoid an ugly scene during a particularly high spirited strawberry pie eating contest. So, she politely declined his advances, saying that since, you know, their mothers were sisters, such a rendezvous would be inappropriate.


He, however, as men can occasionally be, was dumb as dishwater and didn't see any of the "please go away, you creepy, creepy man" signs, and turned the full force of his legislative energy on getting a bill passed in the Florida statehouse saying that, forevermore, first cousins not only could marry, but, in fact, must marry – if the girl is hot enough.


Hey, I don't make these things up, read the Florida Statutes.


So, if you are one of my many Florida readers, and you get the big pants for your little cousin, it's all legal down here, just like concealed weapons and crank and mountain bikes made of diamonds.


Anyway, the fundamental attribution error states that when it comes to our own problems, we find circumstances on which to blame them, but, when others fail – we tend to attribute those failings as internal. Why didn't things work out for me? Bad luck. Bad bosses. Fate. I'm married to the sea. Why didn't things work out for that guy? It's 'cause that guy is lazy, soft, old, weak minded, crazy, mildly retarded, he smells like feet, etc...


When you blow it – it's circumstance.


When he blows it – it's an inherent characteristic, a weakness, a flaw. And the best day of Mr. Neil Diamond's life. Cracklin' Rosie indeed.

It's an easy trap in which to fall, and that's why I like Choose Your Own Adventure; no one else makes you turn to page 24 where you suffer an epileptic seizure and go to a Russian debtor's prison; no one makes you turn to page 39 where you are a macromolecular chemist in the 1920s discovering nylon for DuPont or Thomas Smith, inexplicably spending the first half of the 16th century writing De Recta et Emendata Linguae Anglicae Scriptione Dialogus; no one else makes you turn to page 53, where you are the tattoo artist misspelling the word Heart Breaker on Jenna Jameson's right butt cheek before she goes to film The Wicked One.


You made your choice. You take the consequences. It's an unavoidable conclusion. You can't hide from it. It's on you.


For reasons that will soon become apparent, I had to thumb through a copy of Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy in the past few weeks; I probably haven't opened it in a decade, and found an old post it note on which I had cryptically written:


I feel deliciously light and cool.
I'm diggin' that phrase the most, and had no idea upon reading it that it was taken from Little Women; which raises the perfectly acceptable curiosity as to why I was taking notes about Little Women in Meditations on First Philosophy; perhaps there had been some type of industrial spillage and I was tasked with salvaging authors A-D from the local library.


I realized pretty quickly, however, why it was I like the phrase:



I feel deliciously light and cool.


It's the letter L – I don't know if I've mentioned this to you, but I realized about a decade ago that I am categorically heels over head in love with the letter L. Whenever someone asks what my favorite color is, my response is always, "who has time to worry about favorite colors when there are all these L's lyin' around waiting for a boy to take them home and drown them in compliments and kiss the napes of their necks."

I Feel deliciously light and cool.

L – it's euphonic. Euphony is flowing and aesthetically pleasing sounds; languages seek it out; there is a sentence in French, for example:

Je l'avais dit aux enfants

Now, the 'x' of "aux" is usually silent; but in this example it's enunciated (as a 'z' sound) owing to the presence of a vowel at the beginning of the following word "enfant".

Why? It's prettier. That's it. Euphony. France is good that way. I mean, they're also good in the way that we wouldn't have won the Revolutionary War without them, which you'd think would give them lifetime amnesty from our making jokes at their expense, but that's not how Americans roll. Next time there's an international conflict and some dumbass starts talking about freedom fries, suggest he reads a history book.

Oh, that sentence means "I had told the children." I took 2 ½ years of French in high school and a full year in undergrad, getting some forgotten mixture of A's and B's, and other than, "Ousmanne, où est la bibliotèque?" that's the only thing I can say in the entire language.
I have a deep seated, almost primordial, attraction to the letter L (is it a Penny Marshall thing? Discuss) somewhere, in my medulla oblongata, the part of the brain I share with lizards, leopards, lemmings, and Tommy Lasorda, I have a primal, pre-conscious attraction to the letter L. It's like a lucky number.


I feel deliciously light and cool. All those L's sitting right there in my Descartes.

In my position at my school (for the uninitiated, I'm a professor) I was corresponding with a woman from an organization, back in December, for her to come and train my students in a particular seminar.

We settled upon a date and time, but when, over the holidays, I wrote to confirm, I didn't receive a response.


Those of you who know me recognize that I like to be blown off about as much as I like to be blown up, so I was less than pleased, and wrote a series of increasingly concerned emails questioning why I was not getting my requisite confirmation.

The day for the seminar arrived. Still no response.


I called customer service and was told in an exceedingly apologetic fashion that they were really sorry, but I had gotten lost in the shuffle, as the woman with whom I was corresponding suddenly dropped dead over the holidays from a brain aneurysm.


I have to admit; I've heard some excuses from women who blew me off before, but that one won the prize.


So, yeah, I was emailing a person who didn't exist. She was my imaginary friend. Like Snuffleupagus or Roger Peckinpaugh.


That's when I opened up the Descartes.


In 1641, Descartes wrote the book in which I found the post it note, Meditations on First Philosophy, a book which marked the beginning of the epistemological turn in Western philosophy; a shift from a focus on the universal to the individual. Central to the Cartesian philosophy was the method of doubt, that one should "accept nothing as true which I do not clearly recognize to be so." Descartes' conclusion was cogito ergo sum, "I think, therefore, I am", which is that the only principal of which one can be absolutely certain is that one exists.


The rest of you, the rest of all of this, might just be a figment of my imagination.


Tell the debt collector that next time he calls:


You: Yeah, I'm sorry about the 11 grand, but I'm a figment of Jim Jividen's imagination, so call him, please.

What Descartes is really requiring is a rigorous proof; the law, for example, works like this; Jones sues Smith for damages, claiming that Smith borrowed a water jug and returned it broken.


Smith's defense is what we call pleading in the alternative (1) the jug doesn't exist (2) I didn't borrow it (3) it wasn't broken when I returned it (4) it was broken when I borrowed it.


Descartes really isn't saying that one literally should solipsistically believe that one is alone in the universe, just recognize that we are often lazy in establishing the nexus between our beliefs and their justifications. Are we sure the jug wasn't broken when it was borrowed and merely had the cosmetic appearance of being whole? Are we certain that Jones didn't break the jug after it was returned? Are there photographs? Witnesses? Where is the broken piece no longer in the jug? Did the jug have a pre-existing break that had previously been repaired? What's the life expectancy of a jug anyway? Maybe it was time to Terry Schiavo that jug. Has anyone thought of that?


Descartes is saying that even though Jones thinks he's caught Smith jug-handed; Smith doesn't need to roll over.


Make him prove it.


Make us all prove it.


Are you real?


How would I know?


The Choose Your Own Adventure series shut down in '98, but about three years ago, with a new publisher, it came back.


More choices to make. More consequences. More lessons learned. A whole new generation to sex up Mr. Neil Diamond. Some of us will choose poorly. We'll massively bet the under on SB43, and watch the Steelers and Cards combine for a wildly improbably 23 points in the final 8 minutes to snatch victory from us.


Always with the sports.


And some of will choose well, correctly walking along the noble eightfold path to enlightenment.


The Noble Eightfold Path. 8-1.

8. Right Bodily Action- I'm awkward and nonrythmic; I'm exhibit A in the "bodily action is overrated" discussion. Further, this refers to specifically following the Moral precepts, of which there are either five or ten, and until the Buddhists get their shit together, I can't take this path seriously.


7. Right speech - An upset, as talking is the only marketable skill I've ever been able to cultivate; but the devil's in the details, and Buddhism requires both that one speak truthfully and speak kindly. And those two tasks are often diametrically opposed. If all I ever did was tell the truth, I'd have no friends at all.

Huh.

6. Right view - On most things, I tend toward Roshomon, that there's less a right view than multiple reasonable perspectives. If you ask me "will stimulating demand lift us out of the economic downturn (Depression 2K: Great Depression or the Greatest Depression?) or should we continue to pump supply via tax cuts" my answer would be "23 points in 8 minutes! Jesus H Christ - how did they score 23 points in 8 minutes!" Generally, reasonable people of good will can differ on most matters. The right view requires an understanding of the 4 noble truths; the first of which:


Life involves suffering and is inevitably sorrowful


...is undeniably true, clearly this would be part of the right view - but the second:


Suffering has its roots in desire and craving, which arise from ignorance.

...boxes up suffering more than I think is reasonable. Life has good days, days with cream cheese frosting and Neil Diamond reverse cowgirl and the Bengals and Jets taking wide receivers in the first round ahead of Jerry Rice allowing his fall to my Niners - but eventually, eventually it's sickness and pain and agony and Eternal Darkness of the Slumbering Mind. Any view that isn't that isn't the right view.

5. Right concentration - This path sounds awfully mixological to me. Take two parts grenadine and one part triple sec and an olive and ooooh, you gurgle that on down. You know who has excellent concentration? My friend Beevo.






And Beevo has many admirable qualities, when the interspecies war finally commences, I'd like to be on his side - but I'm uncertain that my following his path would lead to enlightenment. Ear licking - absolutely. But maybe not enlightenment.


4. Right endeavor - the upper half really gets tight; this path involves meditation in order to stop bad thoughts; I occasionally will tell students something like "you are what's in your brain" and they will occasionally tell me something like "I know I haven't been to class in a month, can I still get an A?" The more you are able to hold tight reign on what's in your brain (best Cypress Hill lyric ever) the better you can survive your day. Life's less about what happens than about what's in your head. I've lived virtually every moment of my life entirely inside my head. Weather sucks but the company is boss.

3. Right livelihood - this is giving best effort to one's career. Competence is underrated; know who I really liked?




That's Stefan's panna cotta from the most recent season of Top Chef (returning soon - Bravo is wearing a hole in my DVR, I assume you all know the etymology of the phrase "prostitution whore! Engaged 19 times!" but still on the underground is Andy Cohen's gayer than gay midnight Thursday show. It's live and they get their drink on. Best. Show. Ever.) Anyway, that Stefan dude could cook. I don't know anything about him beyond what's on the tv box, but dude clearly has spent his professional life honing his craft. All the American chefs complain and complain "that Stefan is so arrogant" meanwhile he just beats their doors off in every competition. I like competence at one's gig. Makes me feel like there are still people who know what they're doing. I also enjoy Friday Night Lights. That's a good show. Did you see the episode where Smash got into Texas A&M? I got all choked up like the first time I heard Heart Shaped Box.


Big Love and United States of Tara are also good to watch. I mean, while we're talking Buddhism and all. Just because the Shield is gone doesn't mean TV has ended. Just feels that way sometimes.

2. Right mindfulness - better than right livelihood because while livelihood implies only sustainable work, mindfulness is giving best effort in all of one's undertakings. I'm clearly never going to be able to write for a living; the thousands of hours that I've spent blogging has to be a good for it's own sake - but I'll go back right now to craft another nifty Neil Diamond sexual reference, not because I think anyone but me will appreciate it - but because it's the right thing to do. How many L's in fellating Mr. Neil Diamond? The aspects of myself of which I'm most proud aren't that I'm good at my job (I am) but that my wrestling Counterfactual is really underrated. http://www.whatifwrestling.blogspot.com/. Go read Counterfactual SummerSlam 2008 if you, you know, share my mania.

1. Right aspiration - caring intent for all living things. This is good, I think. Good to want good things for everything. Maybe you don't want to build a school for monsters, but you recognize that someone good does and so you root for them. Maybe you don't care that the San Francisco Giants have never won a World Series, but I do, and all good hearted people do, so it's time that you get on board and start thinking the good thoughts. We're 10 up! 10 up! Just half a game out of the WC with 50 to go - and if we can get into the postseason who has a better 1-2 hammer of Thor than Lincecum/Cain - just coming at you - Boom! Boom! Boom! Yeah! This is our year! When the Giants come to Town! It's Bye - Bye - can you believe that Bengie Freaking Molina and his .268 OBP is still hitting cleanup for this team! I have to listen to Mike Krukow (love you Kruk, but Jesus) talk about playing the right way and heart and team and the Giants way and it's all bullshit because our cleanup hitter has a .268 OBP and the trade deadline's come and gone and we dealth our best chip for a scrappy 31 year old low OBP second baseman. And the worst part is the level of self satisfaction that the Giants and Giants media clearly feel - in a universe that worked correctly - in a universe where we devoted the type of attention to our craft that the Noble Eightfold Path would require, there wouldn't be a .268 OBP in the middle of a major league lineup - certainly not the middle of my major league lineup - as I love my Giants with all the purity of Linus in that pumpkin patch the night before Halloween. Bengie Molina. Good grief.

And that's Right aspriation, the best of the noble eightfold paths to Nirvana. You're welcome.

All Time Saturday Night Live Cast



Occasional Jim Jividen writing partner Kirk Hiner as is his wont, put forth the following challenge:


"All time Saturday Night Live cast, 6 men, 5 women, host, musical guest. Go"

My obvious response was "career value or peak"?


I await a response. While I wait, let's start to work through the list.



I've asked another question "am I picking a news anchor and does that news anchor have to be part of the 11 person cast."


I've gotten the answer to the first question - peak value.


Let's start to -- and now I have the second answer - there is a news anchor, but it does have to come from the 11.


Okay. Let's start to narrow things down.



6 men, 5 women.


Aykroyd
Belushi
Chevy
Murray
Eddie
Piscopo
Billy
Chris Guest
Martin Short
Lovitz
Dennis Miller
Carvey
Hartman
Myers
Rock
Farley
Sandler
Spade
Norm
Ferrell
Hammond
Tracy Morgan
Forte
Hader

That's 24. Much as I love Mark McKinney and Chris Elliott, they're not really contenders for their SNL work. If I had to come up with a Top 20 male SNL cast members ever, the list would come out of here. Maybe Tim Meadows would be 25, just to firm that up.


And now I have to cut to 6...let's cut to 12, easier to do.


Drop the current guys, who are talented - the show has no buzz anymore, outside of Sarah Palin no one notices at all, but it's really pretty well crafted. But this is the deep end of the pool. And I really liked Tracy, but it's really 30 Rock where his crazy has been best unsheathed.


Norm and Dennis Miller can't act. If I could have a separate news anchor, they'd make this cut, but I don't so they don't.


Sandler and Spade are famous, but that's my least favorite successful cast.


Rock's a genius, and was better on the show than he gives himself credit for, but his work wasn't at this level.

Piscopo was underrated. He became a joke so that's all he is now, but he's out of time here.


Who's left:

Aykroyd
Belushi
Chevy
Murray
Eddie
Billy
Chris Guest
Martin Short
Lovitz
Carvey
Hartman
Myers
Farley
Ferrell
Hammond

15 left. Chevy and Murray go. Chevy was the first breakout, just a superduperstar and Murray's the most critically acclaimed cast member ever for his film work - but their work on the show lands them just outside the top 10. (edit - Robert Downey's the most critically acclaimed ever for his film work; Christine Ebsersole the most critically acclaimed for her stage work)

13 left.

I'm taking out Billy/Marty/Chris Guest.

Part of this might be a career/peak thing since they weren't on very long; maybe there's a level of depth, of utility, they weren't able to show in just a year; maybe there was an element of polish on the performances that slides them - choices have to be made, I'm leaving them outside the top 10.

4 cuts left.

Hammond. Terrific impressionist, that's all he can do. It's a tremendous skill for a sketch show, particularly one with only 6 men, and I could see an argument that you need him in this cast, but I'm gonna drop him here.

3 cuts left.

Aykroyd
Belushi
Eddie
Lovitz
Carvey
Hartman
Myers
Farley
Ferrell

Lovitz and Farley.
I think, in the aftermath of his death, Farley's become a little overrated. Not a lot overrated in the context of his SNL work - but playing the "everything in the world is either overrated or underrated, which one is Farley" he's overrated.

Lovitz is a tough cut. Maybe his range is a little limited. Maybe.  I'm unhappy with this result.
One more.

Nope. Can't do it. I'm taking 7. I'll take 7 men and 5 women and deal with the fallout.  I have to have all 7.  Have to.  Have to.  Have to.  Dammit!  Why you gotta push me so hard!

Aykroyd
Belushi
Eddie
Carvey
Hartman
Myers
Ferrell

That's the male cast. 7. 7 goddammit. 7 (this is just my inner monologue now, to whatever extent there's anyone reading, just skip to the women - I'm leaving it at 7, 'cause that's just how it has to be, but if I had to, with maybe something I hold dear, like pie, held hostage, I'd have to cut...NO!  I will leave it at 7!  Hah!)



And yeah, I've decided who would go if I had to go to six. I'm keeping it on the DL.


Women:

Jane
Gilda
Julia
Nora
Jan
Molly Shannon
Tina
Amy
Kristen Wiig

Chris Elliott's smoking hot daughter.  Mmmmmm.  I need a moment. 

Admittedly, the last one's just because I enjoy thinking about her. And how painfully old I am. So. Old.  Seriously, that the Guy Under the Stairs has a blistering hot daughter (seriously, where's the secret hotel cam video of Chris Elliott's superhot daughter?) is the oldest I've ever felt.


Julia's an easy cut, I liked her at the time and it seemed to me that within whatever circle of SNL watchers I was part of when I was 13, we all liked her and thought she'd be a star; so that she became Julia isn't really a surprise (like Rock, in a different context) but she doesn't go past here.


Nora was talented and did a nice job. She gets cut here.


2 cuts left.


You have to cut Tina Fey.

All she did was news; now, in light of the Emmy Awards, presumably she could have been used more broadly, but the writing and then the news stretched her thin as it was. Like Al Franken, I'd like to take Tina and put them on the writing staff. If I had the space (and I almost did it, I was like this close to doing it - I was going to just give her the news and get out of the way) I'd let her do the news, but I'm only picking five women. Hard cut. Molly goes next - Molly was all around talented, like the next level up from Nora Dunn - but she goes here.

So, the women:
Jane
Gilda
Jan
Amy
Kristen Wiig



That's 12 and that's where it's gonna stop. I'm inclined to make Jane and Danny the news anchors - ack - I'm changing my mind.

I'm taking Jane down (what? seriously?) and putting Tina Fey back on and giving her the news. Done.

Hard to do. Done!

Tina gets the news. Amy can do it with her when she's not in all of the sketches.

So, the cast:


Dan Aykroyd



John Belushi



Eddie Murphy



Dana Carvey



Phil Hartman



Mike Myers



Will Ferrell



Gilda Radner



Jan Hooks



Tina Fey (news)



Amy Poehler



Kristen Wiig

Host/Musical Guest.

Only a couple I'm considering for host - Steve Martin, Alec Baldwin, Tom Hanks, maybe John Goodman and Chris Walken.


I'll take Steve Martin. And Paul Simon as the musical guest. Done. Task completed!

Now, what Japanese professional wrestlers should be added to the cast? For example, CIMA could do the news....

Blogger Template created by Just Blog It