will the real football please stand up?

I could post some already overdone ramblings about the upcoming SB41, how Peyton finally made it past his arch-rival, how Rex Chapman is a shitty QB (BTW, what's the over/under on his QB rating for the game? I'll take the under), how we're all going to be subjected to countless utterences of "da Bears" (which is already annoying), or some other made-for-tv drama revolving around the lamest professional sport in America (step aside Curling!).

The real question: Who cares? The NFL is completely irrelevant. I'm not even convinced it is a sport. (See Honest Abe's criteria for "sports" in his post "priorities" from a few days ago.) At one point in my life I had a rant, probably 2,000 words worth or so, dedicated to this argument. I even sat with a stop watch and counted how many minutes worth of SB39 was actual sporting-action (22 out of 48, which may be a lower action:inaction ratio than baseball). But most of that rant doesn't really matter, here is all you need to know about the NFL: it's slow, rarely exciting, and promotes obesity. The Superbowl is a 4 hour beer, junk food, and erectile dysfunction commercial. I know more people who "watch for the commercials" than for the game itself, which says that there is something seriously flawed with the on-field product.

"Soccer" is the real football. It moves quickly, it is 90 straight minutes of action and therefore requires an entire team of elite athletes, it is strategic, it has flair, and above all it has the power to end wars!! (See Cote D'Ivoire's trip to the World Cup, or Angola's, or even the success of Iraq in the pan-asian games--which they won!). It even makes sense etymologically: foot + ball = football. On the other hand, American "football" is completely nonsensical. You MAYBE use your feet one out of every four plays, and that is only if your team sucks. I don't even need a real argument for why soccer/football is superior in almost every way, the proof is in the puddin (which is a very odd phrase, what in the hell does it mean?). Everyone other man, woman, child and country in the world loves football (the real one). And the sooner we Americans can figure that out, the better we will all be, and the better our standing in the world will be. Seeing as our geopolitics are a mess, the least thing we could do is put a competitive team on the pitch every four years at the World Cup. Otherwise everyone thinks of us as both arrogant and shitty athletes. (The latter point reinforced by our recent decline on the world stage of the world's second most popular sport: basketball).

Which leads me to David Beckham. Sure, he's basically the Tom Cruise of [real] football. But lest we forget, although crazy, Cruise is still a mighty fine actor. Becks--although drunk with his own fame and like any good junkie always wanting more--is a mighty fine footballer (me likey this Cruise parallel, whats even more interested is that I read that Becks & Posh are like BFF with TomKat, but that is for someone elses blog). His right foot alone is probably worth millions, and I would be shocked if he hasn't taken out a policy on it with Lloyd's of London. ANYWAYS, as I am sure you have read, Becks is coming to our shores to show us a thing or two about footy, and make a cool $50 mill per year in the process. Not bad for a kids game.

A lot of people are talking about how he'll increase the popularity of the sport and blah blah blah. Maybe. He will certainly sell a shitload of jerseys (especially in Asia, where in places like Thailand and Japan there are shrines dedicated to this man). And he'll help sell out a bunch of stadiums in his first year in the MLS. But what has me hopefully is that he is coming over at the tail-end of his prime. He's certainly not washed up. He's probably at the same point in his career as say Steffan Marbury (or Tom Cruise); while not the best in the world or even the best at his own position, he's still pretty damn good, and way better than average. I am hopeful that his move by Becks opens the door to the US market to other world class players in similar positions in their careers. For example, Ronaldo just signed with AC Milan. But Milan has a bevy of strikers and its hard to see how Ronny will get any PT, after all he's become rather slow and fat (no, not as slow and fat as your average o-lineman). After watching his old Real Madrid teammate Becks make $50 mill/yr and carving up the American competition, don't be surprised to see Ronny in a New York Red Bulls jersey come March of 2008. And more will follow. And that to me is what is so good about this $250 million dollar investment in football in the US. Becks himself won't change the perception of football in the states, but if more stars like him start coming, it will. And that will lead to a better on-field product for people to watch, and that is what almost certainly increase the appeal of the sport. Well, that AND an entire generation of American football fans dying from Type II diabetes.

objectivity in the media

Terry Moran has a very interesting piece on his ABCNews Blog. He tells how a NY Times reporter (Michael Gordon) is chastised by his superiors for voicing his own opinion while appearing on the Charlie Rose Show. Really, go read the full article, I hate summarizing, but here is what you need to know from his post in order to get my response (which is pasted below).

The New York Times has publicly reprimanded reporter Michael Gordon--a great journalist, author of the definitive Iraq War book Cobra II--for saying in a television interview that he thinks the US can still win the war.

Gordon was on The Charlie Rose Show on January 8th and was asked if he believed "victory was within our grasp."

...

All this raises some interesting questions for those of us in the media, and for the public we serve. Should reporters want the US to win the war in Iraq? Whatever their personal judgment, should reporters say whether or not they believe the US can win the war? What role, if any, should patriotism play in the reporting of the United States at war?
...

"Objectivity" became the lodestar of reporting, and a notion took hold that a journalist should cover events as neutrally as possible, without taking sides. This meant that reporters acted as independent observers and voices, in the hope of earning the trust and respect of the public.

But it seems to me there was always a built-in tension in this approach. There is no such thing as a person who is so untethered to any community--national, racial, religious, etc--that she or he is able to gain a truly "objective" view of things. We are all contingent creatures. We all know this. And when your country is at war, the tension becomes acute.

There was a lot more in here, including a bit about WWII reporter Ernie Pyle. Read the whole thing, it won't kill you.

Here though, is my response:

If you are a follower of economics, it seems pretty clear a growing portion of the American public has no real "demand" for unbiased journalism. What else can explain the dominance of Fox News, the uprising of political blogs, and the diminishing circulation of old fashioned newspapers?

Phil S. says it perfectly, although I would go as far as to say that all "objective journalists" do it: "slant their stories unwittingly." I don't think it is devious or malicious on the part of journalists, but like Terry notes, "There is no such thing as a person who is so untethered to any community." Meaning all stories are unwittingly slanted. So why do old school media types like the New York Times still insist on objectivity from their workers? Makes no sense to me.

Chuck Klosterman has a different take. He wrote a great essay about objectivity in the media in his book "Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs." His take is:

"Everybody seems to be concerned that journalists are constantly trying to slip their own political and philosophical beliefs into what they cover. This virtually never happens. And I am not being naive when I say this; it really doesn't happen. There are thousands of things that affect the accuracy of news stories, but the feelings of the actual reporter is almost never one of them. The single most important impact of any story is far less sinister: Mostly it all comes down to (a) who the journalist has called, and (b) which of those people happens to call back first."

It seems to me this is more apt as pertaining to local media coverage, but it is interesting coming from a person within the media. His main point is that journalism under deadlines will never capture the whole story, as well as pointing out that that most people insert their own biases into the stories they read; not that reporters are covertly slipping theirs in. Interesting point, and something we are seeing here on this blog. While Sunny thinks the NY Times is a liberal rag, I think Fox News is a conservative shrill. Are either true? No. Not really. But that is how we both perceive them.

I recently read an Obama piece in the NY Times (which I perceive to have a pro-Hillary bias), that I came away thinking the reporter had an anti-Obama bias. But you see, I already held that presumption going into the article, so not surprisingly, that is what I came away with. The same is true of Iraq stories, if you are already for the war, any story you come across that speaks to the nastiness of the war is perceived as a liberal critique bordering on treason, while on the other side any story that tries to trumpet the good that is resulting from U.S. intervention (I can't believe I just wrote that), is perceived as propaganda by anti-war types (obviously, like me).

Basically, it's a no-win situation. Reporters can't be purely objective, because that is just impossible; and even if they could be objective, some portion of the public will never perceive it that way.

###
So, that is that. For the record, I decided to cut out this part, which if you read the comments to Terry Moran's post and are anything like me, was very hard to do:

Sunny, the cold war "hero" (funny, I always ignorantly thought it was the nuclear warheads that kept the Soviets at bay), sounds more like the fascists we were fighting in WWII than a real patriot to me.

But it's a good thing I didn't write that, methinks. Sunny sounds violent.

my new years was better than yours

you don't think so? 10 days in Spain, 2 new years eves celebrated in Madrid (they do a dress-rehearsal on the 30th to make sure they don't fuck it up on the big one). here is a little photo essay backing up my claim on Best New Year of 06-07.

We start with a little tour of Madrid...


Then, onto New Year's eve (the actual one)...

Yes, this guy was seriously holding two bottles of cava and shouting happy new year at the top of his lungs while this picture is being taken. Yes, he was also completely sober at the time.

They wear elaborate wigs to celebrate the holidays, it's really weird.

There was much dancing and "saluding" going on.

So at midnight in Madrid, its a lot like midnight in the states. Everyone who is not in the middle of the city is at home watching on TV. And there is a clock. And there is a dropping ball. And there are shitloads of people. Since we had already done it the night before, we decided to attend a house party. ANYWAYS, they [Spaniards, and Italians too maybe] do this one thing different, and I gotta say, it too is weird. Instead of kissing--which is a pretty awesome custom since its the only way most of us will ever kiss random hot people--they eat twelve grapes. One grape for each ring of the church bell when the clock strives twelve. So ANYWAYS we decided to teach them a thing or two about kissing.

This young lady was having none of this demonstration.

Or maybe she just didn't like her options before. I mean this guy may be better looking, but only just barely, right?
Turns out that "hotter" gay was gay. Or something, it was hard to tell. Maybe it was his "Italian"-ness.
Speaking of Italian, he apparently had heard of the Sopranos. God Bless HBO.

Las chicas guapas! So anyways, you get the point, great party.


Now, onto the Granada and the Alhambra. Without hyperbole (or at least without much), I can say it the single most amazing impressive man-made thing I have ever seen in my life.*

* This is not saying much. Although I did just see the Biltmore estate this past Thanksgiving. That was neat. But too new to count in same category as this.

For more on the Alhambra, try here.

This Cyprus tree (below) is 700 years old. Respect.Also note, these fountains in the Generalife. Being a nerd, I made my travel companions have a seat with me in this incredible garden and brainstorm ways that they made this shit happen without pumps and whatnot way back in the 13th century. The solution: physics.* And without calculators. Damn

* Read: still no clue, and mad at myself for killing those particular brain cells from 11th grade.

Moving right along, here below are some ruins of an old Nazrid dynasty, circa, a long long time ago. In the background, a Catholic church (San Francisco's, I believe) built on the site of a Muslim masque that they leveled when they conqured the Alhmbra in 1492. Yep, the very same people who brough you Columbus. Thank you Ferdinand and Isabella.

And now some shots from the Alhambra, which sits atop a big hill.

(above...) In the side of the hill across the valley you can see caves which were inhabited (are?) by the Roma people (popularly known as Gypsies)

El Albaicin, the old Moorish quarter, really cool. Look in the upper-right region of this pic and spot a white church (with tall white bell tower). There is a wall underneath this church that you can [sorta] make out in the photo. Remember this wall.

Alhambra at dusk, taken from aforementioned wall.
Sunset from said wall.
Picture of these nice gringo tourists, also enjoying sunset on the wall next to me.

And I will close with this, "Nice fountains, Granada."

So, you think you had a better New Years than me? I don't think so.
Prove it.

focus group for peace

... and throw away the key!
I'll probably never forgetBush's response to the 2003 protests:
"First of all, you know, size of protests--it's like deciding, `Well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group.' The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon, in this case, the security of the people."
That was in response to something like 2 million people across the country all marching together on the same day. Yesterday, I went down to the mall to partake in the protest/rally/march against the senseless escalation of another 20K(ish) troops in Iraq. Here are some pics...

my favorite peacenik group, as of yesterday: the raging grannies. they were awesome.

two HOTT protesters
some cool puppets
best poster
1199 was the only labor org with a real presence that I saw here. This bums me out, seems like they could have used their size to make this day an even bigger event.
hip hop for peace
another cool puppet-thing
So this was certainly the largest focus group I have ever been a part of. And whether it does an ounce of good or not, only time will tell. I sorta doubt it will. There were lots of calls for impeachment of Bush and Cheney, and while that sounds great and I would certainly welcome a change in the White House before 2008, it's pretty much a pipe dream.

We heard a bunch of speakers at the rally before the march, so among the good and bad speakers yesterday, here is my report card of the more memorable ones:
- Jess Jackson: C- (Rambling. WHile he does get credit for his call-and-response stuff and trying to get folks riled up, he was a bit nonsensical to me)
- Sean Penn: B (short, sweet, to the point)
- Jane Fonda: A (she was great, the daughter/granddaughter bit helped her too, read more here)
- Susan Surandan: A+ (exciting, emotional and still rational, well-spoken, still sexxy at 61!)
- Tim Robbins: F (blubbering idiot... shame too, I normally like this guy)