I've had like five articles linked up on Firefox for the last week and I've very slowly read them. Anyway, they're all worth the read if you ask me.
Because you can never have too much Chuck Klosterman in your life. I was thinking about Chuck the other day... he's only 9 years older than me, but he might as well by 15 years older than me. Yes folks, that's who wide the gap is between Gen X and Gen Y!
While the Mafia in Sicily seems to have taken a few shots and might be losing some of their grip on their power, the 'Ndrangheta is alive a well. And controls the coke trade in Europe.
All you ever wanted to know about the Subprime crisis. And if you ask me, it's not nearly as complicated as it appears. Well the derivative stuff is complicated, but the gist of what went wrong (loaning money to people who shouldn't have been loaned money) is pretty easy to 'get'.
Honestly, a long but amazing history of the War on Drugs. What I find the most amazing is that an issue that should be driven by policy has so often been driven by politics. I mean, who votes one way or the other because of drugs? That said, the policy has been far from perfect over the years. But it does go to show that destroying the supply will not change anything until we tackel drug use here in the States. That means going after the rich whites who are involved in drugs. (BTW, kudos to the Supreme Court to correcting the unjust, institutional racism that were the crack and cocaine laws).
Finally, a very interesting read on IQ and how flawed the test is. Maybe another case of institutional bias? Probably not, but it goes to show that IQ does test anything other well, read it.
It may shock those who know me, but I'm rooting for BC against Michigan State (and the Big Ten) in the Whatever Bowl Sponsored by Whomever game right now.
28.12.07
27.12.07
Bhutto isn't Mandela
The media coverage of Bhutto's tragic assassination on CNN is making her out to be something she really wasn't.
The thoughts and claims that Bhutto this pro-Democratic force is off base. While by no means anti-democratic she also wasn't this huge, Nelson Mandela like pro-democracy force. She was completely and totally corrupt - managing even to piss off the Swiss banks which in itself is an accomplishment. The idea that she went into 'self-exile' is pretty far off since she either had to leave Pakistan or be arrested on corruption charges. So she left.
Going back to this idea of democracy and Bhutto, in October she cut a deal with the US and Musharraf to come back to the country. This happened because Pakistan has have an election; there's also an Islamic party whose leader was also in exile (and may have come back, I'm not sure) which the US and Musharraf do not want to take power. So the US wanting no part of this party in the election because of their Islamic ties looked else where. As a result, a deal was cut with Bhutto since she was the lesser of two evils (btw her party either leans towards or is socialist - gots to love that go Communism says the USA!). Basically, the US in an attempt to prevent an Islamic government from taking over in Pakistan (which would be a complete and total disaster) decided to throw their support towards the socialist party. A moth ago this Islamic party, the Pakistan Muslim League, called off their boycott of the election to take place on the 8th of January. A lot of this - I believe - was being done to split the vote and allow Musharraf to stay in power. The US can't lose Pakistan as an ally and they knew at the same time that Pakistan couldn't be an undemocratic country.
I have no clue what Bhutto's death will lead to or what it 'means'. Will the elections be delayed? Will Musharraf declare emergency powers? Who knows. Hopefully it ends peacefully.
The thoughts and claims that Bhutto this pro-Democratic force is off base. While by no means anti-democratic she also wasn't this huge, Nelson Mandela like pro-democracy force. She was completely and totally corrupt - managing even to piss off the Swiss banks which in itself is an accomplishment. The idea that she went into 'self-exile' is pretty far off since she either had to leave Pakistan or be arrested on corruption charges. So she left.
Going back to this idea of democracy and Bhutto, in October she cut a deal with the US and Musharraf to come back to the country. This happened because Pakistan has have an election; there's also an Islamic party whose leader was also in exile (and may have come back, I'm not sure) which the US and Musharraf do not want to take power. So the US wanting no part of this party in the election because of their Islamic ties looked else where. As a result, a deal was cut with Bhutto since she was the lesser of two evils (btw her party either leans towards or is socialist - gots to love that go Communism says the USA!). Basically, the US in an attempt to prevent an Islamic government from taking over in Pakistan (which would be a complete and total disaster) decided to throw their support towards the socialist party. A moth ago this Islamic party, the Pakistan Muslim League, called off their boycott of the election to take place on the 8th of January. A lot of this - I believe - was being done to split the vote and allow Musharraf to stay in power. The US can't lose Pakistan as an ally and they knew at the same time that Pakistan couldn't be an undemocratic country.
I have no clue what Bhutto's death will lead to or what it 'means'. Will the elections be delayed? Will Musharraf declare emergency powers? Who knows. Hopefully it ends peacefully.
13.12.07
The NFL Mitchell Report
With Major League Baseball just minutes away from being dealt the blow that will be the Mitchell Report, where players both good and bad are about to be called out for their 'enjoyment' of steroids, I thought today would be a good day to bust out the 'what would the NFL Mitchell Report' look like.
Here's a list of guys who have some sort of connection to steroids in the NFL since 2000 or so:
Bill Romanowski*
Barret Robbins*
Dana Stubblefield*
Chris Cooper*
Jeff Mitchell
Todd Sauerbrun
Todd Steussie
John Milem
Henry Taylor
Dave Fiore
Wesley Walls
Kevin Donnalley
Ray Edwards*
Obafemi Ayanbadejo*
Shawne Merriman*
Rodney Harrison
Ryan Tucker*
David Boston*
Marcus Stroud *
*Tested positive for steroids or THG; here's a list of banned substances by the NFL.
But here's the thing with NFL suspensions - they don't always say if a player was suspended for steroid use. For example, Shaun Rogers was suspended last year, but we don't know for what. Travis Henry is another guy who may have violated the NFL's policy for something other than pot.
Anyway, getting back to what would the NFL Mitchell Report look like, let me make this quick - if there actually was a NFL Mitchell Report, we wouldn't be talking who was on the list, we'd be talking who WAS NOT on the list. See, as bad as baseball's steroid problem is (or was) the NFL's problem is much, much worse.
The problem in baseball is an obvious issue. But in the NFL, a game that we as a viewing public watch differently than baseball, may even be bigger. I don't know about anyone else, but if steroids are so useful in baseball, a game where strength and speed isn't as necessary as
in football, then wouldn't it make more sense for NFL players to be doing the juice? In a game where being bigger and stronger than the other guy is much more beneficial then well... I'll let you connect the dots. But I believe that most players in the NFL are probably using steroids, after all I don't know any 6'1", 250 pound men who can run 40 meters in less than 6 seconds let along 5 seconds.
I will say, that we follow and watch the NFL much differently than baseball. Baseball is the romantic, artful, intellectual American game. While we watch football in a much different manner - we gamble on football, it's a violent game, the players strap on armor to go into 'battle' to 'fight' the other team. It's a tactical game, where strategic takes place to prepare the team for the single battle once a week. Football is a battle, it's a war. And we watch it that way, so if the other players are willing to destroy their bodies, then that's okay by us - hypocritically of course.
George Carlin puts it best:
Here's a list of guys who have some sort of connection to steroids in the NFL since 2000 or so:
Bill Romanowski*
Barret Robbins*
Dana Stubblefield*
Chris Cooper*
Jeff Mitchell
Todd Sauerbrun
Todd Steussie
John Milem
Henry Taylor
Dave Fiore
Wesley Walls
Kevin Donnalley
Ray Edwards*
Obafemi Ayanbadejo*
Shawne Merriman*
Rodney Harrison
Ryan Tucker*
David Boston*
Marcus Stroud *
*Tested positive for steroids or THG; here's a list of banned substances by the NFL.
But here's the thing with NFL suspensions - they don't always say if a player was suspended for steroid use. For example, Shaun Rogers was suspended last year, but we don't know for what. Travis Henry is another guy who may have violated the NFL's policy for something other than pot.
Anyway, getting back to what would the NFL Mitchell Report look like, let me make this quick - if there actually was a NFL Mitchell Report, we wouldn't be talking who was on the list, we'd be talking who WAS NOT on the list. See, as bad as baseball's steroid problem is (or was) the NFL's problem is much, much worse.
The problem in baseball is an obvious issue. But in the NFL, a game that we as a viewing public watch differently than baseball, may even be bigger. I don't know about anyone else, but if steroids are so useful in baseball, a game where strength and speed isn't as necessary as
in football, then wouldn't it make more sense for NFL players to be doing the juice? In a game where being bigger and stronger than the other guy is much more beneficial then well... I'll let you connect the dots. But I believe that most players in the NFL are probably using steroids, after all I don't know any 6'1", 250 pound men who can run 40 meters in less than 6 seconds let along 5 seconds.
I will say, that we follow and watch the NFL much differently than baseball. Baseball is the romantic, artful, intellectual American game. While we watch football in a much different manner - we gamble on football, it's a violent game, the players strap on armor to go into 'battle' to 'fight' the other team. It's a tactical game, where strategic takes place to prepare the team for the single battle once a week. Football is a battle, it's a war. And we watch it that way, so if the other players are willing to destroy their bodies, then that's okay by us - hypocritically of course.
George Carlin puts it best:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)