Thursday, August 31, 2006

Media Review: Astrology


1. A follow-up on that nutty French soccer coach.

According to MSNBC:
Domenech was ridiculed for his aversion to players born under the Scorpio sign, including such experienced players as Arsenal midfielder Robert Pires.

“I do not base myself only on astrology, but in the end, it can have an influence on my decisions,” he said.

After beating Spain, Brazil and Portugal, no one doubts his strategy now.

This last sentence is false. For example, I doubt the strategy to the extent it is influenced by astrology. You know who else should? You. Also, everyone else.

“I agree, sometimes it did not seem to be self-evident,” he said.

Maybe there's a language barrier here, but is Domenech actually suggesting that most of the time (or even any of the time) the truth of astrology is self-evident? Please excuse me while I clean up the cerebral cortex which has inconveniently exploded all over my monitor.


2. NYT snarks it up.

My favorite part:
“Pluto does not take prisoners,” [Richard Brown, an astrologer in Toronto] said. “World War II was your essential Pluto moment.”

Jigga what?


3. The Skeptic's Dictionary takes a shot.

(a) I like the portmanteau in the website name.

(b) I would have gone with “http://skepdic.com/astrology.html” rather than “http://skepdic.com/astrolgy.html,” but, like, whatever, it's cool.

(c) The reader comment “Astrology is Bigotry” is a little bizarre. I agree that astrology has no scientific basis. Bob Steiner combines this premise with the definition:
Bigotry, n. Prejudgment of a person based upon an accident of birth over which the person has no control, and which has no scientific validity.

to deduce that astrology is bigotry. My problem is that this definition seems to have been pulled from somewhere between Mr. Steiner's belly button and his kneecaps. It's pretty boring, but you can see for yourself: five reputable online dictionaries don't say anything about scientific validity in their definitions of bigot(ry):

one
two
three
four
and five

Personally, I would've gone with one of these:
  • Astrology is carcinogenic. Carcinogenic is an adjective meaning “cancer-causing” or “having no scientific validity.”

  • Astrology fucked your mom. Fucked your mom is a phrase meaning “engaged in sexual intercourse with the woman who gave birth to you” or “having no scientific validity.”

  • Astrology chokes in clutch situations. Clutch situations is a baseball term meaning “in the seventh inning or later of a one-run or tie game”or “rigorous scientific trials.”


4. Cosmo girl! or maybe CosmoGIRL! (I have no clue how to punctuate magazine titles like this) has a deal for you.
Daily Horoscope on your Cell Phone: $2.49 per month, charged directly to your phone bill.

I can beat this offer. Suppose a typical horoscope is 250 characters. For $2.00 per month, every day I will text you a completely random string of 250 characters, including but not limited to letters, numbers, punctuation marks, and spaces. My offer is better for two reasons.
(a) It saves you $0.49 per month.
(b) Since the strings of symbols which daily appear on your cell phone will be incomprehensible, you will not read them in an attempt to glean meaning. Therefore you will not absorb as having a shred of truth a load of bullshit, whereas there is a nonzero probability you will absorb some bullshit if you subscribe to Cosmo(...)'s service.


5. Notorious B.I.G. speaks the truth in his timeless classic “Big Poppa.”
[thanks to reader Aaron for assistance on this one]
Most of these niggaz think they be mackin but they be actin
Who they attractin with that line, "What's your name, what's
your sign"?
Soon as he buy that wine I just creep up from behind
And ask what your interests are, "who you be with"?
Things to make you smile, what numbers to dial

He gets it. This is no surprise as Ready to Die is one of the ten best albums of all time.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Images of Long Island (Nova Scotia)




Any correspondents in Chicago?

Your assignment, if you choose to accept it: check out the DEA's Target America exhibit. Want to learn more? Check out the DEA's press release.

Before or after we parse said release, enjoy:
(a) Good work by our friends at the Post.
(b) The rebuttal -- N.B. don't get distracted by the sexy eyes.


Target America Opens at the Museum of Science and Industry

The Museum of Science and Industry. Why, of course.


Most Americans are unaware of the tremendous costs associated with the production, sale and use of illegal drugs.

I'm sure this exhibit is a boon to awareness, but another explanation is that we don't have a color-coded way of communicating the Drug Threat Level. On April 20, for example, the DEA oughtta be waving some brightly-colored flag.


The costs to society, estimated at more than $60 billion a year, are assumed by all of us in some way—in users’ lost productivity, their health care, criminal justice costs, child welfare costs and the impact drug use has on our own health and safety.

It's just a press release, fine, but if you don't explain how you arrived at a number like this, you might as well say illegal drugs cost society 14,000 unicorns and 800 Tim Teufel rookie cards each year. I'm looking at you, “users’ lost productivity,” “criminal justice costs,” and “our own health and safety.” [more on this later]


Target America : Opening Eyes to the Danger Drugs Cause , presented by McDonald’s, is a powerful exhibit developed by the Drug Enforcement Administration Museum.

(1) I wanted to say McDonald's blows, but even the nutjobs at The Nation have some nice things to say about Mickey Dizzle.
(2) I humbly suggest this exhibit be moved from the Museum of Science and Industry to the Drug Enforcement Administration Museum.
(3) Bonus: what percentage of visitors to the DEA Museum are stoned out of their minds?

Science and Industry dude is about speak. I'll copy it all in the name of Fairness.


“We are pleased to bring the Target America exhibit to Chicago ,” said David Mosena , President and CEO of the Museum of Science and Industry. “Our mission to inspire and educate the community includes addressing tough topics that are real and relevant, and increasing understanding of issues like drug abuse. This exhibit not only teaches young people about the dangers of using drugs, but it also exposes them to the science and technology behind drugs and drug enforcement—the effects drugs have on the body, the chemists who work with the DEA to analyze drug samples, and the advanced technology that is used to apprehend those involved in the drug trade.”

More on the justification shortly, but for now, “inspire”?! I think you meant “intimidate” or maybe “I'm surprisingly douchey for a guy who runs a science and industry museum.”


The exhibit begins with an in-depth look at drug production, trafficking and money laundering—in a historical and present-day context—from trading opium on the Silk Road in the 1800s to the Columbian cocaine trade that exists today. Guests will also discover the many intricate ways different drugs are produced throughout the world. Displays illustrating drug production include a recreated jungle cocaine lab, an Afghan heroin factory and a toxic methamphetamine hotel “cook” room.

This actually sounds pretty interesting, if a little Hell House-y. [You're very welcome.]


Displays that focus on trafficking show how drugs are smuggled in soles of shoes; soaked into fabrics; or even swallowed by drug “mules,” people who perform the dangerous and sometimes lethal task of swallowing balloons full of drugs to transport the illegal cargo. The exhibit also explains where drug money goes and how it is secretly laundered, very often through wire transfers, and sometimes to the financial benefit of terrorist groups around the world.

OK, if this counts as science and industry, here are some suggestions for subjects of a “real and relevant” exhibit:
  • stem-cell research

  • global warming / climate change

  • how explosives are smuggled onto planes

  • how we lost 241 Americans to a truck bomber

  • how money is laundered and how we catch people who launder money, whether or not they're getting people high

  • how terrorism is financed (versus how drug money sometimes financially benefits terrorists, PS the drug war is good for terrorists and mobsters)

  • [without sacrificing national security] how we track terrorists

  • a history of Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorist groups

  • the effects of (GASP) legalizing drugs

  • a history of museums being steamrolled by organizations trying to ride the coattails of the war on terror by campaigns of conflation



The opium and heroin connections of Afghanistan’s Taliban regime are explored, as are the interrelationships between drugs and terrorism. A special tribute to victims of September 11 th includes a towering sculpture made from pieces of the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

I cannot stress this enough: VOMIT


A section special to the Chicago exhibit highlights the evolution of drug enforcement technology in Chicago, from an old-time Chicago Police Department “call box” to today’s high-tech POD surveillance cameras that transmit video wirelessly.

This sounds like interesting history, but I'm not sure why it gets to be near pieces of the World Trade Center.


From there, the exhibit explores the devastating effects drugs have on our society. Guests view actual wreckage from a drug-related car accident, a tenement crack-house environment, and the bedroom of a young teen who has accessed a Web site that sells illegal drugs.

OK, drugs are bad. OBVIOUSLY they should be illegal. PS September 11th.


The terrible toll drugs take on the body is highlighted as well. Guests view common patterns of brain activity in addicts and learn how MRI machines are helping scientists uncover the secrets of addiction and recovery. An interactive display allows guests to compare the effects of certain “rewards” in a normal brain versus an addicted brain, and discover how addictions take control of the brain’s reward circuit, gradually altering motivation and desire. Another interactive display allows guests to hear true stories of addiction and recovery from addicts themselves.

This sounds like interesting science. WTC chunks should fit right in.


The exhibit touches upon the damage that drug production has on our environment, which is not often addressed. This includes the clear cutting of the rain forests in Central and South America to plant coca fields, the destruction of natural forests in the U.S. to grow marijuana and the dumping of hazardous waste products into the water table after the manufacture of methamphetamine.

I wanted to say: Hahahahaha McDonald's, you have got to be fucking kidding me.

But there are pesky facts = press releases from organizations I trust.


At the end of the exhibit, guests reach the exhibit’s “Discovery Corner,” an area that offers many resources on how the cycle of drug abuse and drug-related violence can be broken with awareness, outreach and treatment.

Sounds good, though maybe these efforts fail to reach their targets in the Museum of Science and Industry.


"Target America is a powerful display showing how drugs eat away not just at individual users, but entire families, communities and our nation,” DEA Administrator Karen Tandy said. “Drugs cost all of us dearly: from financing terrorism
Remark: drugs are lucrative for terrorists because they're illegal

and causing crime,
Remark: in part because drug prices are higher when drugs are illegal

to increased health care costs,
Remark: not to mention the cost of imprisoning those fuckers!

danger on the highways,
Remark: alcohol is legal though driving under the influence is not
Remark: I wish our DEA administrator would keep arguments like this to herself

economic loss
Remark: we could collect revenue by taxing drugs
Remark: if you're counting as losses money that finances drug habits that would otherwise be part of the legitimate economy, you are using circular reasoning
Remark: if you're counting losses due to financial markets being closed after September 11th, fuck you

and family breakdown.
OKAY, DRUGS ARE BAD, GOT IT, btw, families of victims of September 11th

In conclusion, a quick quiz. Which public official uttered the following line?

"If you quit drugs, you join the fight against terror in America."

(a) some DEA windbag
(b) George W. Bush
(c) John Ashcroft
(d) Alberto Gonzales

answer

Monday, August 28, 2006

Here is a good example of something you shouldn't buy for me.

Courtesy of Brookstone, the wireless remote cooking thermometer.



What's more, the motherfucker talks.


Grilling on the BBQ is a great way to entertain. Constantly standing next to the grill, however, is not.

Gosh, the tension is killing me. I love to grill. I hate standing next to a grill. It's quite a conundrum! Merchant Brookstone, do you have a solution?


Now you can have the freedom to mingle with our remote meat thermometer for BBQ.

Brookstone again! with its finger on the pulse of America.


A voice prompt alerts you when your entrée is “Almost Ready” and “Ready.”

I wish there were a vibrate mode too. That way I could discreetly sneak out of a large lecture to remove my barbecued items from my barbecue grill.


It’s one of the hottest BBQ gifts you can give!

Clever!


A remote meat thermometer for BBQ takes the guesswork out of grilling.

It's an obvious point, but this sentence is just as true if you remove “remote.” Do not interpret this remark as a request for an old-fashioned meat thermometer.


Brookstone BBQ gifts sizzle with innovation.

Touché.


Remote meat thermometer for BBQ works from up to 300 feet away.

IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME. My current remote meat thermometer kicks out at around 220 feet, and many times I have found myself wanting to be another 75 or even 80 feet from my grill.

I wonder: when I hear “Almost Ready,” do I have enough time to comfortably traverse 300 feet? Does the remote device know how far I am from the grill? The next version of this product should be GPS-powered. Brookstone, don't tell me you don't have the technology!

Bonus Safety Recommendation: if there are kids around, make sure there is an adult within 300 feet of any grill in use, remote meat thermometer-equipped or not.


Belt clip for added freedom.

Typical meat thermometers come with less freedom. Also, they fail to support our troops. Good Americans buy the remote meat thermometer and receive two installments of freedom: freedom to mingle, and freedom to use one's hands while mingling. (Note the hand usage freedom is added by the belt clip.)


Display backlight for convenient night grilling.

But it's so dark at night! Is it safe to grill then? Yes!

Brookstone, how did you miss this opportunity to promote your handle mount grill light which “literally brightens any meal”? As far as BBQ gifts go, I must agree it's “a truly brilliant idea that puts the spotlight on your cooking!”

Saturday, August 26, 2006

What's the deal with: Dippin' Dots


For years I have wondered about the neurological makeups of the set of geniuses which invented theIce Cream of the Future. I have some questions for them, but since they're no longer Prosthetic Wernicke readers, I will accept answers from anyone.

What is “dippin'” or even “dipping” about your dots? We, your potential but almost certainly not actual customers, can't dip the dots into anything. At best we can dip our spoons into the dots, but then you'd need to produce “dippin' spoons.” But that product name would fail to be: alliterative, irredundant, a referencer of anything well-established.

I have noticed that in the decade or so since your product hit the market, the future has only gotten closer. However, sales and consumption of your product don't seem to be increasing with time. So I wonder: when is the future? And, WHAT THE HELL HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE THAT WE WANT/NEED ICE CREAM TO BE SERVED AS A COLLECTION OF SMALL SPHERES RATHER THAN A SINGLE SCOOP OF CREAMY GOODNESS? Your Small Spheres Format has a number of disadvantages: inferior texture, inability to deftly handle chunks of (say) cookie dough or brownie, likelier to spill out of a cup or spoon, more expensive (I would imagine) to manufacture. So whatever happens in the future must be serious enough to outweigh these concerns. Or, are you trying to make ice cream crappier so that we consume less of it, and if so, why did you enter the business of selling ice cream/future ice cream?

ALSO, in light of the fact that you predict future consumers of ice cream will want a bunch of tiny spheres, why do you sell Dots 'n Cream? One projection goes: Future = Dots, Distant Future = Dots 'n Cream, Distanter Future = Cream, which is to say, the Distanter Future is now, PS your product blows. This would mean you're admitting defeat! So the scenario must be: Present = Cream, Future = Dots, Distant Future = Dots 'n Cream, because the Dots and Cream mated to produce an evolutionarily superior offspring.

FINALLY, How many members are in your club? What's the deal with them? How much does membership cost? What are the benefits? Do I get something for my keychain?

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

When kids try to sneak breast milk and gasoline onto planes, wash their mouths out with SoaP.


Confession: last night I saw SoaP. Some comments.

[Spoiler alert: you already know how it ends, but I will reveal aspects of the movie which are more hilarious if you don't know they're coming.]

Opening Credits
Most movies just flash the names of the people most essential to the film's creation, but SoaP is not most movies. After “Samuel L. Jackson” fades, “Snakes” materializes in the center of the screen. Seconds later “On A Plane” shows up right underneath. NICE.

Awareness of Own Far-Fetchedness
(a) After learning from Agent Flynn that the plane is infested with poisonous snakes, Agent Harris prefaces his request for a snake expert with an incredulous “I can't believe I'm saying this.”
(b) Stewardess Claire is quite aware of her disbelief upon asking the passengers if any among them knows how to fly a plane. (Both pilots die.)
(c) When Sammy utters the picture's most memorable line (“That's it! Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane!”), we too have had it with the snakes and (more generally) the movie -- about 85 minutes have elapsed and 20 more is all we can take.

Mentions of Interrogation Techniques
Two.

Snake/Penis Humor
Three.
First human victims are a young couple trying to gain membership in the Mile High Club.
Next victim is a man who's begun to urinate after referring to his penis as “big boy.” The snake pops out of the toilet and goes right for the good stuff.
A sleeping old drunk woman is aroused by a slitherer, then killed by it.

Stereotypes: Black Guys
Groups of three black guys may consist of one rap star and two childhood friends, both of whom are quite fat.
When someone loses his cool in a tense situation, it's the black guy, and he reaches for a gun.
When someone loses his cool in a tense situation, the older black guy knows how to snatch the gun back and restore order.
Tough black guys like to cheesily bond with white surfer guys.

Stereotypes: White Surfer Guys
White surfer guys drink Red Bull and lots of it.

Stereotypes: Asian Guys
Asian mob bosses like to karate fight in their spare time.
Asian mob bosses are ridiculously fit.
Asian kickboxers are actually quite sensitive.

Stereotypes: Venomous Snake Traffickers
VSTs tend to be white, male, unshaven, scraggly-haired.
VSTs tend to wear trucker hats without a trace of irony. Also, tight jeans.
VSTs own shotguns.

Stereotypes: Pompous Older British Men
POBM are pompous.
POBM are often suffocated by boa constrictors and you feel the least bad for them because they were douchebags all along.

Stereotypes: Eastern European Women
EEW like olive oil.
EEW carry their babies in a sling. The sling is in the front.
EEW have hot accents.
EEW are hot.
EEW have expertise in removing snake venom.

The Tuesday Night Audience at 23 St and 8 Ave
HOLY CRAP did the audience blow. The theater was only 25-40% full, but that's enough to know when the audience is reacting to something. Some things and how the audience reacted:

ThingReaction
opening credits: “On a Plane” fades insilence
Eddie Kim (Asian mob boss) kills prosecutor with baseball bat; we see only the swings and blood splattering all over his white suitnot laughter
interrogators to WSG (the witness): we know you were there, your fingerprints are all over it; plastic bag with Red Bull can and magazine tossed onto tablenot laughter
stewardess tells WSG his decision to testify against Eddie Kim is “hot?” not laughter
urinating man appears to have huge snake for a penisnot laughter
Sam Jackson tazes snakesnot laughter
Flynn: We need to create a barrier between us and the snakesnot laughter
Flynn explains to WSG why WSG can't leave safe area: if you die, this was all for nothingnot laughter
airhead lady defends her suggestion to take pictures of the snakes so experts can have proper antivenoms ready (POBM had mocked her): it's called email, dickwadnot laughter
boa constrictor makes surprise appearance by falling through some sort of ceilingnot laughter
POBM hurls airhead's yappy dog at boanot laughter
Flynn delivers indelible “...motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane!” lineapplause without laughter
after Sam declares he's going to “open some windows” (OMG he meant by firing bullets at them!), one snake flung from the cockpit wraps around airhead's neck; sensitive kickboxer rips it offlaughter! no, JK, the reation was in fact: not laughter


I checked again, and the audience seemed to be composed of humans, not (say) androids or electric sheep. This experience was reminiscent of my watching in a bar full of strangers the World Cup Final. The TV announcer mentioned the French coach refused to have (some astrological sign)s on his team and strongly preferred not to field (some other astrological sign)s. Wide-eyed and agape, I thought, AREN'T YOU BATSHIT INSANE IF YOU EXCLUDE FROM THE POOL FROM WHICH YOU WILL CREATE A WORLD-CLASS SOCCER TEAM TEN PERCENT OF THE POPULATION BASED SOLELY ON THE BIRTH MONTH OF THAT TEN PERCENT? but no one else in the bar seemed to notice. (At least they might have been tuning out the announcer; there is no tuning out Samuel L. Jackson.)

Questions about Love and Dating for the 21st Century: Technology


Rate* the following behaviors according to the scale:
Totally cool / Cool enough / Acceptable / Unacceptable / Atrocious

Justify** your ratings.


1. Coming out of the closet (revealing that you are sexually attracted to members of the very gender of which you are a member) via clicking the appropriate boxes on a website such as facebook or myspace (or friendster, which Demetri Martin points out has itself gotten kinda gay).

2. Internet dating as a sociological experiment.

3. Internet dating in earnest.

4. Answering “Atrocious” to the previous prompt solely due to a freaking bizarre experience endured by a friend in middle school.

5. Breaking off contact with someone solely because his/her emails are awfully written, ASSUMING YOU WOULD OTHERWISE SUSPECT NOTHING TO BE WRONG WITH PERSON IN QUESTION'S NOODLE.

6. Giving so-called “bedroom eyes” to strangers until one of them tries to contact you here.

7. Creative uses of the apostrophe.

8. Creative uses of the testicles.

9. Attempting to secure a first date via text message.

10. Breaking off contact with someone solely because (s)he persists in arguing about a factual question*** which could be resolved immediately by the Internet, ASSUMING INTERNET ACCESS IS READILY AVAILABLE.

11. Exchanging cutesy text messages with a significant other while seated in a room with said other IN ADDITION TO friends who have expressed interest in carrying on a conversation.

12. Breaking off contact with someone solely because (s)he does not use gmail.

13. Being sexually attracted to an Apple product.


* e.g. by making a comment.
** e.g. by making a funny.
*** e.g. who won the NL MVP in 1991? or, is there a God, and if so, what's the deal with Jerusalem?

Monday, August 21, 2006

Miths II: Alexander Emmanuel Rodriguez


2002-2006 (through Sunday)
SituationABHHRRBIBBHBPSOAVGOBPSLGOPS
Overall2897866213587417576290.2990.3980.5730.971
Close and Late3891012481666960.2600.3750.5190.895
RISP79723351361153161910.2920.4160.5370.953


2006 Close and Late:
14/65, 2 HR, 10 RBI, 7 BB, 1 HBP, 19 SO; .215/.297/.369/.666

Those are awful numbers, though 65 AB is a small sample. Oh, also, the recent media pressure can't plausibly claim credit.

First 23 PA 2006 Close and Late:
2/20, 0 HR, 0 RBI, 2 BB, 1 HBP, 5 SO

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Analyzing miths: is Derek Sanderson Jeter a Clutch Hitter?

2002-2006 (through Saturday)

SituationABHHRRBIBBHBPSOAVGOBPSLGOPS
Overall289189480350294524950.3090.3830.4520.835
Close and Late3659410545111700.2580.3650.3810.746
RISP65620415266102111300.3110.4120.4330.845


Stats culled from ESPN.

Close And Late - results in the 7th inning or later with the batting team either ahead by one run, tied or with the potential tying run at least on deck.

RISP - Runners in Scoring Position

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.












Excepting Kid Rock's sexy getup, none of these are actually flags, which leads to the question: would (sadness!) it have been illegal to desecrate these items? Printed images of the flag? Electronic images of flag desecration seem to clearly fail being “physical,” but how might we unambiguously separate .jpg from .flag? No wonder the amendment failed.

"Countless men and women have died defending that flag," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., closing two days of debate. "It is but a small humble act for us to defend it."

Humble. Exactly.




The Katrina amendment?

Friday, August 18, 2006

I'm tardy. He's a windbag.

Six months ago, Richard Cohen over at the WaPo penned an (ostensibly serious) column called, “What Is the Value of Algebra?” Though I'm tardy, I would like to respond.

N.B. All of the column's text reappears here, though I will interrupt frequently and at times obnoxiously.

I am haunted by Gabriela Ocampo.

Last year, she dropped out of the 12th grade at Birmingham High School in Los Angeles after failing algebra six times in six semesters, trying it a seventh time and finally just despairing over ever getting it. So, according to the Los Angeles Times, she "gathered her textbooks, dropped them at the campus book room and, without telling a soul, vanished from Birmingham High School."

Gabriela, this is Richard: There's life after algebra.

In truth, I don't know what to tell Gabriela. The L.A. school district now requires all students to pass a year of algebra and a year of geometry in order to graduate. This is something new for Los Angeles (although 17 states require it) and it is the sort of vaunted education reform that is supposed to close the science and math gap and make the U.S. more competitive. All it seems to do, though, is ruin the lives of countless kids. In L.A., more kids drop out of school on account of algebra than any other subject. I can hardly blame them.


All that such reforms seem to do is ruin the lives of (a finite and discernible number of) kids if one focuses only on those who fail. But if math/science scores improve overall, to another anecdote collector, the reforms might seem to enhance education. It would be really neat if we had tools for analyzing situations in which there are both winners and losers, and if those tools were other than (a) use of emotional anecdote; (b) rhetoric.

Whether or not these specific reforms are wise, your method of analyzing them is most certainly unwise.

[Foreshadowing] Whether these specific reforms are too hard on students is a quite distinct issue from whether algebra should be part of such reforms.


I confess to be one of those people who hate math. I can do my basic arithmetic all right (although not percentages) but I flunked algebra (once), barely passed it the second time -- the only proof I've ever seen of divine intervention -- somehow passed geometry and resolved, with a grateful exhale of breath, that I would never go near math again. I let others go on to intermediate algebra and trigonometry while I busied myself learning how to type. In due course, this came to be the way I made my living. Typing: Best class I ever took.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not advocating replacing algebra with typing, and instead are exorcising adolescent demons in a column published by the Washington Post.


Here's the thing, Gabriela: You will never need to know algebra. I have never once used it and never once even rued that I could not use it.

Have you, Mr. Cohen, considered that you are quite lucky to be able to support yourself by your writing talents alone? That the experiences of a columnist at one of the nation's top papers might not generalize to your subject?


You will never need to know -- never mind want to know -- how many boys it will take to mow a lawn if one of them quits halfway and two more show up later -- or something like that.

Word. Those textbook writers are such clowns for trying to relate possibly intimidating and abstract material to the mundane lives of students. Those writers are of course really saying, “Algebra is justified by its applications to these word problems. Don't remember the techniques and try to apply them elsewhere, just remember how to solve these silly examples. You are learning nothing more than how to find lawn-mowing times.”


Most of math can now be done by a computer or a calculator. On the other hand, no computer can write a column or even a thank-you note -- or reason even a little bit. If, say, the school asked you for another year of English or, God forbid, history, so that you actually had to know something about your world, I would be on its side. But algebra? Please.

I don't know how you determined what comprises “most of math” if you struggle with percentages, or why a human's ability to program a machine to do a task says anything about the level of reasoning involved in the task, to say nothing of the reasoning required to create a machine which can complete certain tasks much more quickly than any human can. [If computers kinda suck at voice-recognition, is it high reasoning to type what others?] Sometimes (gasp!) humans and their computers work in tandem. Sometimes computers offer evidence for what humans have thought for a long time. Anyway computers haven't made humans obsolete.

Probably you had in mind more down-to-earth instances of math, in which case your use of “now” is a little bit confusing. But fine -- computers have made great strides. So what? Humans (still) need to convert the real world into a language a computer understands. Then humans (still) need to convert the computer's results into a statement about the real world. BONUS: struggling with problems a calculator could do might build one's quantitative sense. DOUBLE BONUS: at best you're arguing for computer education to replace math; probably they should both be taught.

As a show of goodwill, I concede your point about thank-you notes.


Gabriela, sooner or later someone's going to tell you that algebra teaches reasoning. This is a lie propagated by, among others, algebra teachers. Writing is the highest form of reasoning. This is a fact. Algebra is not. The proof of this, Gabriela, is all the people in my high school who were whizzes at math but did not know a thing about history and could not write a readable English sentence. I can cite Shelly, whose last name will not be mentioned, who aced algebra but when called to the board in geography class, located the Sahara Desert right where the Gobi usually is. She was off by a whole continent.

Let's start with a technical point, Mr. Writer, Sir. Your pair of sentences:“This is a fact. Algebra is not.” could be construed as meaning that algebra is not a fact. This would be both an awkward and incorrect thing to say.

Your use of the word “fact” is at best creative and at worst wrong. Likewise with “proof” and “lie.”

Why do you single out algebra? If writing, not algebra, is the highest form of reasoning, surely it's the case that writing, not geography, is the highest form of reasoning. Oh, right, Richard Cohen has no geography demons, and Richard Cohen's demons should be the basis for education policy.

Also, I asked around, and none of my friends have ever suffered in the workplace or in higher education for not being able to identify a particulat desert on a map.

I loooooove that your “proof” of the “fact” that writing, not algebra, is the highest form of reasoning, consists in the fact* that you went to school with kids who were good at math but bad at writing and geography. You're again being (almost laughably) unfair, Richard. Algebra isn't the best because (you claim) mastery doesn't spill over to writing ability. OK, fine. If writing is the highest form of reasoning, by the test you apply to algebra, shouldn't it be the case that all of the best writing students are naturally whizzes at math and geography?

Not only is your reasoning unfair, it's circular. You assume either writing or algebra is the highest form of reasoning; whatever. Your reason for asserting the highest form of reasoning is writing, not algebra, is that algebra doesn't teach the highest form of reasoning, which is writing. This argument makes approximately no sense whatsoever.

Fact: baseball is the best sport.
Proof: I went to high school with some people who were really good at football but could not hit a curveball to save their lives. What's more, these kids couldn't make omelets for shit. QED.


*I'm trusting you here!


Look, Gabriela, I am not anti-algebra.

You have a funny way of showing it!


It has its uses, I suppose, and I think it should be available for people who want to take it. Maybe students should even be compelled to take it, but it should not be a requirement for graduation. There are those of you, and Gabriela you are one, who know what it is like to stare at an algebra problem until you have eyeballed a hole in the page and not understand a thing you're seeing . There are those of us who know the sweat, the panic, the trembling, cold fear that comes from the teacher casting an eye in your direction and calling you to the blackboard. It is like being summoned to your own execution.

Algebra should be available, maybe compulsory. You suppose it has its uses. REVOLUTIONARY CONCESSIONS. You know, I think schooling through grade 12 should be available, maybe compulsory. As yet another show of goodwill, I'll one-up you: I think writing “readable English sentences” should be compulsory, maybe mandatory for graduation. But really this is on you (!); if this column has any substance underneath your rhetoric and appeal to emotion, you really (like, REALLY) should have answered the following question:

Should there be language/writing requirements for graduation?

On this subject you've said only:
If, say, the school asked you for another year of English or, God forbid, history, so that you actually had to know something about your world, I would be on its side.
So we may “ruin lives” over your favorite subjects, but not mine? Or, you have a general problem with policies which you view as too harsh on kids and are using your column (which the Washington Post Company has been kind enough to publish) to expose your innumeracy to the world?

Perhaps you are right in suggesting that calling students to the blackboard is bad pedagogy -- if publicly failing at math sours one's view of the subject, publicly being “off by a whole continent” is likely to ruin geography. I'm forgetting my point here...wait for it...wait...OH RIGHT, the point made by your story has nothing to do with algebra. Whoops!


Almost 20 years ago, I wrote a similar column about algebra. Math teachers struck back with a vengeance. They made so many claims for algebra's intrinsic worth that I felt, as I once had in class, like a dummy. Once again, I just didn't get it. Still, in the two decades since, I have lived a pretty full life and never, ever used -- or wanted to use -- algebra. I was lucky, though. I had graduated from high school and gone on to college. It's different for you, Gabriela. Algebra ruined many a day for me. Now it could ruin your life.

A (final) incredibly irritating feature of your column is that you treat writing and algebra as utterly distinct subjects. In writing courses students (ideally) learn to communicate their ideas to others. In math courses students (ideally and among other things) learn to communicate their mathematical ideas to others. Every equation is a sentence. Every manipulation of an equation is the assertion that one sentence implies another. Every word problem involves translating words into symbols, manipulating those symbols, then translating the answer back into words.

Sounds a lot like reasoning, doesn't it?

Your complete reliance on anecdote without a shred of analysis or fact is nauseating.

Grade: F

Thursday, August 17, 2006

moron search engine understand not combustion

One's relationship with a search engine is like one's relationship with a priest, doctor, lawyer, or journalist. In other words, keep Slate away from your medical records and your churches.

jokes about dick cheney
So far, Mr(s). AOL User-Person, I like you.

jokes about dick cheney but not george bush
Okay, not anymore. Plus, you have used one preposition and one conjunction, whereas you should have used zero and zero, respectively.

dick cheney creep
dick cheney dickhead

I too resort to name-calling when I can't think of anything funny, but in the future you can just think these things and not type them into a search engine.

where is iraq
This is earnest if nothing else. If something else, ignorant.

where is lebenon
Let me know if you ever figure this one out.

his bullets
his bullies

Hezbollah is a transliteration. You is a moron.

bush appruval
Ouch.

bush approvel
Why did you change the “a”? You almost had it! You almost passed a fifth grade spelling test!

bush drops below
I would really hate computers if I had to come up with phrases to replace words like “approval.” Alternatively, I would learn how to spell words like “approval.”

love thine enemas
Hahahahaha, that's pretty funny. Maybe you've been kidding all along.

love thine enemies
bible quote of the day
insperation from bible

This is awkward.

george bush great president
george w bush great president
dream on

I choose to view these as a unit.

places like crawford but without cindy sheehan
I'm not sure what you mean by “like.” Did Sheehan really ruin the city for you?

crawford the town not cindy crawford
Probably you should have dropped “cindy” altogether and left “sheehan.”

like crawford tx but not so hot
best places to retire not hot
best places to retire global warming
global warming mith
global warming myth

Someone is a little defensive about his/her pseudoscience.
mith ?!?!?! really?!?!?!

crawford hot
cindy crawford hot

Are you taking suggestions from the search engine?

rice hot
rice hot not recipes
rice naked
rice nude

Stare at this: Condoleezza
Now, try to spell: the first name of the Secretary of State.
Finally, do this: reveal that you want to see Condi naked.

bible quotes resisting temptation
Sorry, I couldn't.

Money-saving tips: beverages edition

CombineWithTo Obtain

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

We've got tons of steel in the air. The last thing we need is a crate of 500 poisonous reptiles.


Only two days separate us from learning how Samuel L. Jackson will handle serpents on his (matriarch-grabbing) airborne vessel! The producers have copied the marketing strategy known as Intense Appeal to Two Disjoint Segments of the Population, also used to promote Deep Blue Sea. In no particular order those Segments are:

(1) people who are:
(a) scared senseless out of proportion to beasts
(b) excessively nervous about an uncertain future

(2) people with:
(a) instinctive irreverence
(b) a willingness to be entertained rather than disgusted at objectively putrid art
(c) ten dollars both they and an African child can do without

While I won't see Snakes on a Plane (SoaP), genealogically I see it as seventh in a line begun by a giant gorilla. With the possible exception of a certain rabid dog, each member of the line is superior (evolutionarily, not cinematically) to its predecessor. Each points towards the formula: Frightening Creature + Intimidating Feature of Modernity = $$ + Amygdala Action. N.B. these aren't all putrid.

Film Beast Modernity Opposable Thumbs Sorry, I Don't Speak Grunt
King Kong (1933) giant gorilla New York City gorillas are real fell for a lady; giant gorillas are not real; probably stinky
Godzilla (1954) dino-mammalian savage nuclear weapons targeted and mature IFM modernity solely responsible for the creature, so no organic associations with Godzilla to exploit; not a real creature
Jaws (1975) great white shark suburban sprawl/marine biology human response to threat plays prominent role; excellent Beast closing beach might have averted disaster, so terror tenuous
Cujo (1983) rabid St. Bernard domestic problems put into perspectivecreature undergoes transformation to become fearsome; bats (also scary) involved humans in no way responsible for said change; IFM lacking; no Soviets; Beast evokes only Fear, no Awe
Jurassic Park (1993) dinosaurs um, THEY MADE FUCKING DINOSAURS WITH A COMPUTER science-y; dinosaurs win; Samuel L. Jackson Beast and Modernity effectively the same idea
Deep Blue Sea (1999) genetically engineered sharks genetic engineering; Alzheimer's research naturally scary Beast enhanced by Modernity; Samuel L. Jackson fuel for opponents of stem-cell research; LL Cool J
SoaP (2006) snakes airplanes naturally scary Beast enhanced by Modernity without being science-y; Symbol of Modernity now moderner than ever; Samuel L. Jackson snakes not trained to attack only the witness; planes associated with lawbreaking groups other than the mob


The Red-Headed Stepchildren

The Net (1995): An enthusiastic web user's identity is stolen.
In its favor: Made before the internet or identity theft hit it big.
Not part of the line because: No Beasts, though the cast tried its hardest.

Anaconda (1997): A National Geographic crew is kidnapped by a snake hunter.
In its favor: The snake vomits captured prey so that it may kill again.
Not part of the line because: The snake did nothing with the crew's equipment; snake hunter is Ancient, not Modern.

The Day after Tomorrow (2004): Sudden changes in climate make America uninhabitable.
In its favor: Liberal slant; NASA official confuses time-scale on a chart; Weather as Beast is prescient; used marketing strategy of SoaP; Jake Gyllenhaal; putrid.
Not part of the line because: Weather is actually a threat; makes no sense that Dennis Quaid needs to get to NYC minutes before helicopters arrive.


SoaP in context.


In yet other SoaP news:
Yet at one point, executives at New Line Cinema renamed the release “Pacific Air 121,” because they didn’t want to give away the plot.

Surely “plot” can't mean “storyline.” The executives must mean “plot” with its sinister/scheming connotation, as in, they didn't want to reveal their plan to produce a crappy film and peddle it via the Beast+Modernity algorithm outlined above, thereby securing buckets of money in exchange for a crappy film.

But Sam, whose appearance in three consecutive Beast+Modernity films might not be a coincidence, “was appalled”:

“Nobody wants to see ‘Pacific Air 121,’ ’’ he told Entertainment Weekly. “That’s like saying ‘Boat to Heaven.’ ”

Sunday, August 13, 2006

The T-shirt equivalent of Brien Taylor


Today I witnessed the wearing by a stranger of this shirt [drag your cursor over the picture and click on the closeup of the graphic]. Like Brien Taylor, upon first glance the article of clothing was filled with promise. The Yankees' first overall pick never made it to the majors in part because of an injury sustained in a barfight. How could a t-shirt match this disappointment?

(1) I'm the wrong person to assess this sort of thing, but it might be true that the FOIL method sticks with people more than most things uttered by secondary school math instructors. If true, I accept this as an argument in favor of teaching FOIL. Nevertheless, the FOIL method is pedagogically bankrupt. The proper name for the rule by which one multiplies a sum (a1 + ... + an) by another sum (b1 + ... + bn) is (possibly many applications of) the distributive law. The distributive law says a(b+c)=ab+ac. Applying it twices gives the equation (a+b)(c+d)=a(c+d)+b(c+d)=ac+ad+bc+bd. Teaching the FOIL method is bad because it replaces with a trick the axiom which relates the operations of addition and multiplication.

If most people would answer the question “Why does FOIL work?” by mentioning the distributive law, I would be happier. But not only is this unlikely, once a student understands how the distributive law allows one to find an expression equivalent to (a+b)(c+d), the trick is unnecessary.

Finally, the FOIL method singles out the multiplication of two binomials. An expert FOILer might be at a loss to find an expression equivalent to (a+b+c)(d+e+f), say. (You could FOIL twice, but then you SO have a crush on the distributive law it's, like, ridiculous.) But it's clear how to proceed if multiplication of binomials it taught by the distributive law; likewise with expressions involving more than one multiplication symbol.

In fact people like to study sets with addition and multiplication operations which are related by a distributive law, and emphasizing the distributive law gives context that FOIL does not.



(2) Even if you like the FOIL method, which you shouldn't, why would you glorify its application to the multiplication (a+b)(a+b)?! This might give the reader the misleading impression that FOIL is only good for simplifying (a+b)2, when in fact it works for (a+b)(c+d). Is it possible that not only does the shirt's designer know how to multiply only binomials, (s)he knows only how to square a binomial?! Eek.

Also (this is a minor point), once one chooses to simplify (a+b)2, it's irresistible to write a2 + 2ab + b2 in the stead of a2 + ab + ba + b2. In arbitrary rings multiplication need not be commutative (e.g. multiplication of matrices is not), yet the distributive law (and therefore FOIL) must hold. Writing (a+b)(c+d)=ac+ad+bc+bd gives one less of a chance to assume multiplication is commutative.

This is “the perfect shirt to wear to your algebra tests” until c+d is distinct from a+b. So the knowledge on this shirt should be good for an F, which by the way is the grade earned by this shirt in the Execution category.

(3) (a+b)(a+b) is not an equation. It's an expression. An equation asserts that two expressions are equal. The equation the FOIL method asserts is (a+b)(a+b)=a2 + ab + ba + b2 (=a2 + 2ab + b2 if the ring is commutative). Maker of this shirt, you didn't have many words to choose. You should have chosen the right ones.

(4) In your description, you are missing some commas. The period doesn't belong inside the parentheses. By what gimmicks did you learn grammar?


Saturday, August 12, 2006

Yao, watch Shark Week.


As an extension of our policy of not negotiating with terrorists, we really ought not to appease these killing machines either:

NBA star Yao Ming recently pledged to give up eating shark's fin soup, a Chinese delicacy, as part of a campaign to promote wildlife protection in his homeland.

Who at ESPN decides whether this is classified under ESPN Outdoors (where you'll find it) or, say, ESPN NBA? I'm not sure they have a consistent policy. This falls under ESPN NFL, rather than, say, ESPN Robberies or ESPN Justice. It's not the case that ESPN Justice would suffer from a dearth of stories.

If an NBA player does something outdoors-y, the ESPN Outdoors department takes over. It follows that when an NFL player does something justice-y, ESPN Justice should take the reins.

[While we're at it, why does news about Barbaro's health qualify as sports news at all?]

Maybe ESPN Outdoors took control because of the story's depth:

The campaign promotes the protection of animals besides sharks. A Chinese television commercial shown at Yao's news conference features him leaping from a basketball court to block a bullet fired at an elephant.

I know what you're wondering. The answer is yes.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Your mom wins championships!

I respectfully disagree with Ivan Maisel's argument that in college football, defense no longer wins championships. To clarify, I don't think defense wins championships; I think the question he engages is inane. Of course defense (alone) doesn't win championships. It never did. Outscoring Your Opponent is the key to winning championships. OYO itself is composed of two parts: Points Scored (suggestively, “Offense”) and Points Allowed (“Defense”). If PS - PA is positive, you win. This holds even if PS is small (Offense is bad) or PA is large (Defense is bad). Observe the formula PS - PA involves a sort of comparison between Offense and Defense.

Perennial pigskin paradigm questioned

Oh boy, you're pretty proud of that, aren't you? Ouch.

How many coaches have you heard say, "If they can't score, they can't win." The problem is, in the 21st century, they can score.

If I am understanding correctly, and I may not be because of the distracting missing question mark at the end of the first sentence (what is your livelihood again?), you are arguing that because offenses have improved, defenses are less important. Moreover, you regard this inference as self-evident.

I find your use of the term “21st century” pompous and annoying.

I'm not sure we can be friends.

Defense wins championships? Look again. USC scored 55 points to humiliate Oklahoma and win the 2004 national championship.

Hmm, I see. If only Oklahoma had found some way of reducing the number of points scored by USC, thereby keeping USC's point total below its own. Is there a component of a football team devoted to keeping the opponent's point total as low as possible? 'cause that would be really helpful.

Your question mark key totally works.

A championship? Defense can't guarantee even a winning season. Ask Tennessee. The Volunteers last season finished seventh in Division I-A in total defense, allowing 298.2 yards per game. They finished second in I-A in rushing defense, giving up only 82.5 yards per game. And those stats went unsullied by a bowl game, because Tennessee finished 5-6.

I would bet anything Tennessee Outscored Its Opponent only 5 out of 11 times!

Texas and USC, on the other hand, finished in the top three in total offense.

Measured by points/game, Texas' defense was 4th, USC's 27th. Tennessee? 18th.

By yards/game, Texas' defense was 6th, USC's 40th. Also, you are lying. Tennessee finished 12th by this metric. Also, why do you single out rushing defense? If they were 7th (as in 12th) overall and 2nd in rushing, perhaps they were worse in passing. In fact you won't find them in the top 50, 215.7 being greater than 209.5.

So you are totally full of shit with respect to Texas; its defense was very good. You are mostly full of shit with respect to Tennessee, having engaged in both lying and emphasizing an irrelevant fact.

Were you a better journalist/columnist, you would have mentioned how USC's defense performed last year. It actually supports your point! But only better, not good: the rankings in isolation don't tell the whole story. You'd probably want to take account of strength of schedule. You'd also want to consider how the data is distributed. 60 yards/game separate the 1st and 14th ranked defenses; 45 yards/game separate the 14th and 40th(=USC) ranked defenses. It should be noted that USC led the nation in turnovers gained, explaining the disparity in points/game and yards/game. In the end, the points matter.

But you like yards/game. Let's do that.
  • Arizona State finished 4th in offense yards/game and ended 7-5 after beating Rutgers in the Insight Bowl.

  • Minnesota finished 5th in offense yards/game and ended 7-5 after losing in the Music City Bowl.

  • IT GETS MUCH BETTER.

  • Michigan State finished 6th in offense yards/game and ended 5-6. These stats also went unsullied by a bowl game, to borrow your awkward phrase, person who earns income by writing. Notice a few things:

    • 6th is actually 6th

    • 6th is better than 12th

    • 6th is better than 7th, a comparison we might need to make if you are allowed to lie to make your point

  • Do you have room for dessert? Hawaii was 11th in offense yards/game and finished 5-7.


By Mr. Maisel's own logic, offense doesn't even guarantee a winning season. In conclusion, his method of using facts/lies to support his point fails miserably.


But let's see what the other side has to say. You were kind enough to interview them, Ivan, which in part makes up for the lying you did above.

"Look at the game. The best offense ever," [Ole Miss coach Ed] Orgeron said, referring to Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush & Co., "couldn't win it."

"If you look at the play of the game for the national championship, it was still a fourth-and-two," [Ohio State coach Jim] Tressel said, referring to when the Longhorns stuffed the Trojans' LenDale White at the Texas 45 with 2:09 to play and USC leading, 38-33. "It still comes down to that."


The master of alliteration replies:

Yes, but isn't that the equivalent of praising the pitching in a 15-13 Yankees' victory because Mariano Rivera got the last out?

Good analogy, but you are missing the point. Sure, it's the equivalent of praising Mariano after a bloodbath. It's also the equivalent of using one event to decide a question which should be decided by observing many events, describing their outcomes numerically, analyzing those numbers, and converting some numbers thus obtained into explanations.

Dear Sirs:
You should be interested in what wins games in general, not just what wins championships. Even if you only care about championships, you should still analyze the entire seasons of the major contenders, not just one game between two of them. Even if you only care about championship games, you should analyze more than one of them. Even if you only care about one championship game, you should analyze more than one of its plays. Finally, even if you only care about one play in one game, I believe that play pitted one (1) offense against one (1) defense. The defense prevailed in this instance, agreed. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THIS MEANS DEFENSE IS MORE IMPORTANT.
Your reasoning is poor and it doesn't support your position. You are as wrong as the sorry excuse for a writer who interviewed you ALTHOUGH, it seems, you are (unlike said writer) not a liar. Then again, I am learning your opinions from said liar, so I can't be positive.
Good luck next season.
Regards.


But back to your arc, author:

The advent of the passing game in general and the spread offense in particular has changed the eternal equation of the game.

Ooh, again, if only teams could react to improvements in offense!

If offense hasn't shoved defense off its throne, it has forced it to move over and share. Defense, by itself, is no longer enough.

DEFENSE BY ITSELF WAS NEVER ENOUGH. I HATE YOU.

Statistics back up the theory that offenses are moving the line of scrimmage farther forward than ever before. The average amount of total offense per game, points per game, and yards per play for all I-A teams has reached a level in each of the last five seasons that it had never reached prior to 2001.

You are using the word “statistics” to intimidate readers. You could have just stated those statistics and drawn your conclusions, but instead you chose to start by asserting authority without justification. Incidentally, I am not intimidated, see, e.g., all of the crap regarding Texas, USC, Tennessee above.


Now you're going to interview West Virginia coach and offensive innovator Rich Rodriguez, who's going to say all aspects of the game are important. Then Nebraska coach Bill Callahan is going to observe that "You gotta score points nowadays." But before all of that happens, you, Ivan Maisel, are going to embarrass yourself:


But before we all whip out our calculators and compare football cosines...

Did you mean for this to be homoerotic? What about mathematically illiterate? You succeeded on both counts.



In other sports news, the Boston Red Sox have decided to spend their past five games (a) losing two games to the Tampa Bay Devil Rays to prepare for (b) getting swept by the Kansas City Royals. Yes, these Kansas City Royals. Rufffff.

We should have been sipping insulin months ago.

Earlier we compared an afternoon of imagined violence/sex to five days of actual pizza. Today we tackle imagined versus actual security.

Setting aside for the moment the possibility that forced ingestion of carry-on liquids won't work, another major issue remains. Why is the liquid policy being instituted only now?

We've known about these particular fuckers for months, and planes have been blown up before. As a previous character might say, as an American in 2001 yourself, you've seen what happens when we underestimate the enemy.

That we are forcing passengers to drink their liquids means we (think we) might catch someone trying to make a plane go boom. So:

(1) why didn't we start this on, say, September 12, 2001?
(2) if that's asking too much (which it's not), why didn't we start as soon as we were onto these dudes?

Perhaps we were worried we'd give away that we were onto them, but then again the whole premise of any search is that some of the bad guys might escape our vigilant tracking. (Anyway that objection makes question (1) burn more brightly.)
Maybe another terror cell also had the bright idea to blow up a plane with some liquids. Wouldn't they deserve to be caught too?

How simple things once were

Post Script

Kleenex, Band-Aid, Jacuzzi, move over. We have a new winner.

Secretaries react when someone tries to blow our shit up.

And we react to their remarks.

British Home Secretary John Reid said the operation was aimed at bringing down "a number of aircraft" -- reportedly at least ten -- "through mid-flight explosions, causing a considerable loss of life." The plot, he said, "was a very significant one indeed."

Actually, he said, “Police believe the alleged plot was a very significant one indeed,” but I don't see how you, writer for the Washington Post, would have access to that information.

UPDATE: words from London's Deputy Police Commissioner, Paul Stephenson. Apparently the WaPo is listening.

Back to Mr. Reid: I always thought “indeed” connoted reflection; you don't conclude a remark with “indeed” unless you've thought things through at least once. Mr. Reid's comment therefore worries me. There isn't time for careful judgment and reflection in the post 9-?? (drawing a blank on the date) world, certainly not enough to warrant an “indeed.” These are times for hasty decisions/invasions and losing one's cool. (I stand by this paragraph whether “indeed” belongs to Mr. Reid or the police.)

Also, “significant”? Nice work, Blandosaurus Rex. Why not excite the population with more vivid and suggestive language? That might make it easier to convince them of the wisdom of various hasty decisions/invasions.

Next up, Michael Chertoff. Chertoff enters the game with an on-base percentage of .371.

"To defend further against any remaining threat from this plot, we will also raise the threat level [for all commercial aviation operating in or destined for the United States] to High, ..."

It seems you are keen on protecting us from terrorism, dear Secretary, but it's a little bit vague to say the threat level is “High.” Could you maybe describe the situation in terms more readily understood? More primitive terms. Speak to the People, Michael. We are all very nervous about being blown up.

", or Orange ..."

THANKS MAN, that really helps. True or false: our coded system is a clever way of getting George W. Bush to finally learn his colors.



One last thing:

The TSA said passengers who need to bring medicine and baby formula on board planes would need to present those items for inspection at checkpoints. In Britain, passengers were being asked to taste these liquids in the presence of security guards.

Cough syrup, chloraseptic spray - fine. But even insulin?


One last last thing:

Invest.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

The Mario Minister


If I may simplify this article, and I may because it's about video games, it's a sandwich:

Bread: generic discussion about Mario's role in video game industry

Meat: the Palamore family's relationship with Mario
Bread: Mario history and context

We'll get to the meat soon enough, but first a query: how was the Palamore family selected? More generally, when a reputable newspaper runs a fluff piece, are its journalists held to ethical standards? If Jose Antonio Vargas (author) went to college with Brad Palamore (subject), or even worse, if the pair played video games together, could we trust Mr. Vargas to be objective?

On several occasions in college, friends of mine who wrote for the school paper called me for quotes. I understand the practice. If it's awkward to talk with a stranger, it must be all the worse to talk with a stranger about some nearly-guaranteed-to-be-inane topic. Plus you could meet the stranger later. Anyway, soon I started mentally replacing “Students” with “Friends of the Clown who Penned this Junk” while reading the school paper; eventually I started physically replacing the school paper with books and magazines. To this day I have not stopped.

Mr. Vargas, may I borrow your segue? (What about your sweet graphic?)

It's all Mario, all Nintendo, all the time at the Palamore residence in Arlington, where it's not entirely clear who's the biggest Mario fan.

Oh man, I hope we get to the bottom of this by the article's end!

Is it 8-year-old Matthew, who proudly declares, "I have Mario's voice," and spontaneously says " Mamma mia! "?

Imma Wario. Imma gonna win. LOVE THAT SHIT. Matthew, if you're ever in the city, give me a ring. “Mamma mia!” would be a ladykiller, but you'll need a freaking serious fake ID. So far you are awesome and have my vote.

Or Curtis, 10, who goes on and on about "Super Mario Sunshine"?

While I like the name Curtis, I have absolutely no idea what he's talking about. “Sunshine” is a little suspicious, especially coming from a second-born son*.

Or 12-year-old Chris, who can't decide which of the family's eight Mario games is his favorite?

In this day and age, I think we need a biggest Mario fan who knows where he stands on the tough questions. I bet Chris voted for Mario Kart before he voted against it. Also he probably looks like Death. PS September Eleventh.

STYLISTIC ASIDE: notice how Vargas deftly alternates strategies as he reveals the ages of the children. First we meet “8-year-old Matthew,” then “Curtis, 10,” and finally “12-year-old Chris.” The monotony is so well averted you almost forget you are reading quotes from children about video games.

Or is it Brad -- the boys' 30-year-old dad, a minister at the Arlington Church of Christ -- who jokingly introduces himself as "Luigi" and has very fond memories of a five-day binge of pizza and "Super Mario Bros." on his Nintendo Entertainment System when he was 10?

This paragraph should have been a list, and soon it will be. Here are some properties of the quantity “Brad Palamore”:
  • Basics: human, male, 30 years old

  • First child had at: age 18

  • Occupation: minister

  • Introduces himself as: Luigi

  • Apparently thinks people will understand the reference and find it funny when he: introduces himself as Luigi

  • Engaged in fraternity brother-like behavior at: age 10

Exercise for the reader: describe in greater detail a five-day pizza binge. Devote at least 100 words to each of the five days.

Silence! The quantity speaks.

"The thing about Mario is, you can play it with your kids," says Brad Palamore, a self-described "Nintendo dad."

(1) If by “the thing” Mr. Palamore intends “that which distinguishes it from other activities,” this claim is either patently false or patently sad.

(2) While I don't aspire to be a “Nintendo dad,” that's a big improvement on “Luigi.”

But he is about to clarify (1):

"You don't have to worry about what they're seeing on the screen because as a kid yourself, you've seen what goes on in a Mario game."

GRAMMATICAL ASIDE: “...as a kid yourself, you have seen...” means you are a kid. Like, now. Like, in 2006, you are a kid. Probably he meant:

...as a kid yourself, you saw...
OR
...as a kid, you saw...
OR the clumsier
...having been a kid (yourself), you have seen...

Were I interviewing a college friend/video game buddy for a newspaper article, I would grant him/her perfect grammar. Furthermore, I would tweak his/her statements to make their meanings both clear and correct. Mr. Vargas, you're an honest man.


OKAY, so his ministership might be accompanied by a taste for video game censorship. This is stupid, but fine. Let's meet him on his turf and assume children can't tell fact from fiction, which incidentally is false. It remains to decide: is Mario good for children?

Positives: Important Lessons
  • If you see a mushroom which appears to be moving along the ground with no assistance from another force, eat it.

  • Likewise, eat fluorescent flowers.

  • Jump on your enemies, unless they have a spiky shell, in which case shoot fire at them.

  • If you are unable to shoot fire at your enemies, run past them.


Negatives: False Notions
  • Every now and then, plumbers run into dragons.

  • Also princesses.

  • Plumbers are related to pipes in the following way: they (plumbers) go into them (pipes) and are then transported to different worlds.

  • Not only did Plumbers and Dinosaurs once Roam the Earth simultaneously, they got along so swimmingly that plumbers were frequently able to ride on the backs of dinosaurs.

  • If you need to break some bricks and can't find a sledgehammer, go ahead and “bop it with your head.” [Vargas' glorification, not mine]

One other thing, Mr. Palamore. Aren't you a little worried about the five-day pizza binges?



*If you can't access that, here are the first two paragraphs. I like gay people, kids, and gay kids. I found the following article interesting and thought this would be a good time to mention it, that's all.

Brothers in arms

Jun 29th 2006 | TORONTO
From The Economist print edition
Some men are gay because their mothers have already had many sons

RAY BLANCHARD, a researcher at Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, was reviewing some data a few years ago when he noticed something odd: gay men seemed to have more older brothers than straight men.

Intrigued—and sceptical—he decided to investigate. He recruited 302 gay men and the same number of heterosexual controls and inquired about their families. How many siblings did they have, of what sex, and how had the births been spaced? How old had their parents been when they had had them? Dr Blanchard found that only one detail seemed to predict sexual orientation: the more elder brothers a man had, the more likely he was to be gay. Neither elder sisters nor younger siblings of either sex had any effect, but each additional elder brother increased his chance of being gay by about 33% from the population average of one man in 50.
...

Shark Week has passed, but catch reruns next week before the sharks catch you.


Its airer implores us to keep cool:
Given the drama and horror of a shark attack, it's easy to forget how rare they are, and how widely scattered. For example, in 2005, there were only 58 confirmed unprovoked shark attacks on humans worldwide, four of which were fatal.

Shall we?

Given the drama and horror of a shark attack, it's easy to forget how rare they are,

It is easy to “forget” how rare they are, especially when an institution such as (say) the Discovery Channel devotes an entire week to terror tactics masquerading as education. Their show titles, their descriptions:
  • Perfect Shark (Imagine a shark that can attack with the force and speed of a bus - the perfect shark?)

  • Shark Rebellion (The Brazilian city of Recife is under siege. Its sharks have suddenly become man-eaters.)

  • Shark Attack Survivors (Learn the secrets of the most deadly and misunderstood marine predator in the world.)


and how widely scattered.

Again I object to the choice of the word “forget,” which distributes -- Discovery Channel is trying to evade responsibility for its role in hyping shark attacks and attributes widespread irrational fear to “forgetfulness” rather than sensationalist manipulation of an unusually fear-stricken populace.

Also, I would like to know how the drama and horror cause one to form beliefs about the geographical distribution of shark attacks.


For example, in 2005, there were only 58 confirmed unprovoked shark attacks on humans worldwide, four of which were fatal.

OMG can you please do a show about the provoked ones?!?!

In its defense, the Discovery Channel page above contains a link to the International Shark Attack File, whose staff has, in its unbounded wisdom, computed for you “The Relative Risk of Shark Attacks to Humans Compared to Other Risks.”

The ten Other Risks are:

alligator attacks
lightning strikes
tornadoes
animal-related fatalities
injuries associated with home-improvement equipment
biting injuries occurring annually in New York City
bicycle-related injuries and fatalities
beach injuries and fatalities
dog attack fatalities
hunting incident fatalities


We bear witness to an unimaginably helpful act of data collection. Now people can compare the risk of being attacked by a shark to the risk of some other bad thing whose probability they understand just as poorly. ISAF, your work is done.

Plus, ISAF's tables suggest more people die on bikes than from shark attacks. If that were true, wouldn't an institution such as (say) the Discovery Channel devote a week to bike accidents? My kids will be riding bikes, not sharks, International Shark Attack File.