Who’s on First?

I have probably listened to Abbott and Costello’s brilliant comedy classic “Who’s on First” a zillion times, and it still brings a huge smile to my face. It was awarded the title “Routine of the Millenium” by Time Magazine.

McCain’s 100+ Years in Iraq

Feel Good Story

Western Oregon softball player Sara Tucholsky, a senior, hits her first career home run, in an important game that would would help determine whether Western Oregon or their opponent Central Washington advance the NCAA Division II Playoffs. But Tucholsky’s knee gave out between first and second base and she couldn’t continue. If her teammates helped her, she would be declared out, so her coach was preparing to put in a pinch runner at first base, giving up the run, and giving up Tucholsky’s only career home run.

Then, Tucholsky’s opponents, Mallory Holtman and Liz Wallace, lifted Tucholsky up and carried her around the bases, allowing her to touch each base as they went by.

Tucholsky gets her home run. Standing ovation from the crowd.

Update (4/30/08): Photo here. Links to all stories about this event on the Central Washington University website.

Update (5/7/08): A video of Holtman and Wallace carrying Tucholsky around the bases has surfaced.

McCain: Let’s Stay in Iraq 100 Years

Let the whining by Republicans begin about how unfair it is to point out John McCain’s actual words.

McCain: In Favor of Helping Katrina Victims, Except When It Comes Up For A Vote In The Senate

Where is John McCain’s Lapel Flag Pin?

Mark Nickolas goes looking for John McCain’s flag lapel pin, and finds that:

Since at least March 4th -- when McCain secured the Republican presidential nomination -- through the present, he has not worn an American flag lapel pin on any of those days. Not one photo shows him doing so.

How can John McCain call himself patriotic?

Periodic Table of Elements …

… set to a possibly recognizable song (and then animated).

McCain: Out of Touch

John McCain, more of the same George W. Bush policies.

John McCain, in Summary

From Glenn Greenwald, interviewed by Paul Rosenberg:

Like most right-wing leaders, the life of John McCain is chock full of dishonorable, ugly behavior. Huge numbers of female voters would be disgusted by the details of how and why he dumped his first wife, after she was in a disfiguring car accident that caused her to gain much weight and lose several inches of height, in order to marry his much younger, prettier and extremely rich mistress with whom he had been committing adultery while his first wife raised his three children. His public life is filled with corruption, deceit, lobbyist dependency, and a complete lack of principle. He holds himself out as a principled torture opponent but is, in fact, the single greatest enabler of legalizing torture in this country, from his 2005 bill which exempted the CIA from torture prohibitions to his 2006 leadership in enacting the Military Commissions Act to his opposition this year to the waterboard ban.

Dubyaville

BBC reports on a tent-city that has sprung up near Los Angeles, made up of citizens who have lost their homes in the current banking crisis. It’s name is Dubyaville, in honor of our President W. (via)



As Bob Cesca points out, when will American news media cover this story?

Spitzer vs Vitter

Ten reasons why Spitzer’s case is different than Vitter’s.

10. Larry Flynt wasn't tipped off first.

9. IOKIYAR

8. Spitzer lost his job, while Vitter has moved on with (risky) business as usual.

7. The Republican leadership was outraged by Spitzer's behavior. Vitter? Not so much. In fact, they appear to be relieved that Vitter's prostitue was at least over the age of consent. A nice change for their party.

6. The bust was different? Oooooh......Vitter thought we said "busts."

5. Vitter asked for and received forgiveness from God. His slate is as clean as can be.

4. Vitter only went to prostitutes because his wife was not down with the idea of seeing her husband in a big diaper, begging to have his bottom powdered. It was really more of a marital aide. Totally different.

3. Vitter drew a firm moral line and immediately dumped his hooker after discovering her name was the same as his wife's.

2. His hookers were way, way cheaper than Spitzer's, only running around $300 per hour, compared with Spitzer's $5500 calls.

And, the #1 reason that Vitter's case is different than Spitzer's?

Because he says so.

Congress Stands Up To Liars

Blogwhoring, I give you Tom Engelhardt:

Recently, an ARG poll put George W. Bush’s job approval rating at an almost inconceivable low of 19%, giving “lame” a new meaning in the last lame-duck year of his presidency. Finally, recognizing a genuine opening, the Democratic Congress has been moving; in fact, the whole government seems to be lurching into action. Congressional hearings were held that split harshly along party lines. They focused on a big Republican pitch-man who, like so many before him in these last years, made outrageous claims and denials, while swearing that others had “misremembered” the facts. This time, however, the Democrats hung together and delivered a no-nonsense message to the White House via the Justice Department: We’re coming after your man. The FBI promptly began forming an investigation team. A prosecution now seems to be in the cards.

What makes this so remarkable is that Congress is no longer taking on lesser subjects like Iraq, torture policy, or the political staffing of the Justice Department. It’s attending to something of paramount significance to the nation, something that matters whether you live in Boston, New York, or Houston. But let Tomdispatch Jock Culture Correspondent Robert Lipsyte tell you the rest; the story of a man who actually does, in his own way, catch something essential about our last lamentable seven-plus years in Bush hell.

University of Buffalo

Tennessee–Rutgers

Officially, Tennessee center Nicky Anosike was fouled by Rutgers’ Kia Vaughn with 0.2 seconds left in the game and Tennessee trailing by 1. Anosike made both free throws, and Tennessee won the game.

But ... the clock appeared to have stopped at 0.2 seconds, and stayed there for a short period of time, before running down to zero. What happened? ESPN, to its credit, does an analysis of the video to help provide more facts and possibly eliminate the emotion surrounding this event. They show that the clock stopped at 0.2 seconds, and stayed there for 1.3 seconds. But they did the wrong analysis! It is irrelevant how long the clock stayed at 0.2. If the foul occurred 0.1 seconds after the clock froze, then the foul should be penalized, free throws shot, and, well, you know what happened.

However, over at YouTube, someone did the right analysis. We can see a superimposed timer, synchronized with the game clock starting with 1.0 seconds left, showing what the clock should have read after it froze at 0.2 seconds. The only problem is that from the angle shown on this video, you can’t specifically see when the foul occurred. I believe that the foul actually occurred a hair after the clock hits zero, but you could also make the argument that the foul occurred a hair before the clock hits zero.

So what to make of this? What do we think of the officials handling of this situation? First, there is no doubt that there was a foul. They were absolutely correct to signal the foul, as the buzzer hadn’t sounded. The only question is: did time expire before the foul because of the clock malfunction? Since the officials did not have the YouTube video, and since this video shows the foul occurred within a hair of 0.0, I don’t have a problem with the decision to say the foul occurred before time expired. Could the officials (should the officials) have noticed that the clock froze at 0.2? Possibly, but note that ESPN’s announcers (Eric Collins and Carolyn Peck) didn’t notice the clock freezing until the third or fourth replay. It’s not something you normally look for, as I have never seen it happen in any other situation. So even if the officials noticed the clock freezing at 0.2, then what? They still have to decide whether or not the foul occurred before 0.0 should have occurred, and that would be an extremely difficult thing to do given the video evidence. If you notice the clock has frozen at 0.2, it is not an automatic decision that the foul came after 0.0. And so, I give the officials the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Which brings me to a larger point, one that I have felt strongly about for many years. I get so tired of coaches and players, in effect, saying “We wuz robbed”. I would have more tolerance for this attitude if they would also say, at other times in their career, that the officials or timing device erred in their favor and they didn’t really deserve the win. But as far as I can remember, that has never happened. No one ever says that. Clock errors happen, and they will happen again in the future. One side or the other will not be happy, and you know what? I have no sympathy. It’s part of sports, deal with it.

Side point: several people, including an announcer or two, have stated that the whistle didn’t blow until after 0.0. A variation was that the referee didn’t raise his/her arm until after 0.0. And neither the whistle, nor the raising of an arm, is important here. The only thing that matters is whether the contact on Anosike was before 0.0 or not. The whistle can be after 0.0, it doesn’t mean a thing if the actual contact was before 0.0.

Side point: the manufacturer of the clock seems to think that the only way for the clock to freeze as it did was because someone pushed a button. He rules out (but I do not rule out) an electrical or mechanical malfunction. I guess we will never know.

Thoughts About The Super Bowl

Now that I have had time to clear my mind about what happened in the Superbowl, let me throw out a few comments:

1. This was the most exciting Super Bowl in a long long time. The excitement was magnified by the Patriots’ attempt to go undefeated. There are not many sporting events where I can feel my heart pounding at the end, but I felt it at the end of this game.
2. Eli Manning: he certainly has played well from week 17 on, after several years of inconsistency. He deserved to be the Super Bowl MVP, but I’m not ready to put him into the category of elite quarterback just yet. It takes more than five games of consistency to prove that you are now consistent.
3. Eli Manning’s escape and pass to David Tyree on 3rd down and 5 with 1:15 left in the game was the greatest play I have ever seen in a Super Bowl. ESPN’s Mike and Mike agree with me, so I know they’re correct!
4. Bill Belichick leaves the field one second early: classless, graceless, unprofessional and entirely in character for him. But on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 doesn’t get me upset and 10 sends me into a screaming fury, I would rate this a 1 or 2.
5. Boris Cheek: yes, Boris Cheek. You know, the guy wearing number 41 in the striped shirt. Oh, you didn’t notice him, did you? I didn’t either, until the next night when he was interviewed by ESPN’s Rebecca Lobo while he was attending his daughter Joy’s basketball game (she plays for Duke). It was a very touching moment, to hear his thoughts about the game. Normally, we only hear about referees when they screw up, but here was one referee discussing the highlight of his career. The basketball game’s play by play announcer, Eric Collins, referred to him as refereeing royalty. (Have I metioned that I like Eric Collins? Oh yeah, I did...)
   
6. NY Giants Chase Blackburn didn’t get off the field before the snap, leading to a crucial penalty against NY for 12 men on the field. I thought it was a correct call, because in my mind, rules involving lines must be strictly enforced. If you have to be on one side of the line, then you have to be on that side of the line, not one inch on the other side. This is different than other judgment calls involving contact, like pass interference, where different people can look at the play and come to different conclusions. However, the Super Bowl announcers, Joe Buck and Troy Aikman got into an extended debate on this topic; Aikman eventually invoked the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein to support his point, and I think (although I’m not really sure) that Wittgenstein agrees with me.