I have eaten in some top notch restaurants including places run by celebrity chefs like Emeril Lagasse and Wolfgang Puck. My experiences have always been wonderful. If pressed to find an issue, I couldn’t come anywhere near anything disastrous (though my experiences with my lovely wife, Jennifer on two occasions at Emeril’s at City Walk in Orlando were quite interesting and warrant future blog material).
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Yes, I'm a Snob
/facepalm:
Health Care = Votes
Shit like this is a perfect example of why it's hard to take The Progressive seriously any more.
Rothchild's screed contains no discussion of facts, statistics or the merits and deficiencies of policy alternatives; nor an assessment of political realities -- real, perceived, or otherwise. It's just a wish list followed by incessant whining and blame:
First, the object of health care reform is to reform health care delivery. Not to progressives, not to conservatives, but to human bodies regardless of ideology. Rothchild seems to think that only "progressives" have any skin in the game (as it were) here. That's bullshit.
Secondly, it constructs a heirarchy based on the government delivery of said health care reform: the more government involvement one desires with reform, the more ore "progressive" you can consider yourself. This is the exact ideological trap conservatives currently find themselves in, only with a liberal twist. The moment liberals return to a mindset wherein they believe the government is the solution to all of society's problems, then they start on that long road back to the minority.
Let's just cut to the chase. One of our favorite numbers here at The Chief is this one: "96 percent of voters -- as opposed to people at large -- have health insurance."
Got that?
This health care bill has the potential to create millions of new voters in the long run ... and those new voters aren't going to be voting for conservatives.
Rothchild's screed contains no discussion of facts, statistics or the merits and deficiencies of policy alternatives; nor an assessment of political realities -- real, perceived, or otherwise. It's just a wish list followed by incessant whining and blame:
If you’re a good progressive, and you wanted single-payer health care for all, or, second best, Medicare for All Who Want It, or third best, a robust public option, or fourth best, a paltry public option, now you’ve got nothing, nada, zippo.The entire construction of this asinine sentence pisses me off to know end.
First, the object of health care reform is to reform health care delivery. Not to progressives, not to conservatives, but to human bodies regardless of ideology. Rothchild seems to think that only "progressives" have any skin in the game (as it were) here. That's bullshit.
Secondly, it constructs a heirarchy based on the government delivery of said health care reform: the more government involvement one desires with reform, the more ore "progressive" you can consider yourself. This is the exact ideological trap conservatives currently find themselves in, only with a liberal twist. The moment liberals return to a mindset wherein they believe the government is the solution to all of society's problems, then they start on that long road back to the minority.
Let's just cut to the chase. One of our favorite numbers here at The Chief is this one: "96 percent of voters -- as opposed to people at large -- have health insurance."
Got that?
This health care bill has the potential to create millions of new voters in the long run ... and those new voters aren't going to be voting for conservatives.
Rush Limbaugh: The Man Who Gave America Health Care Reform!
Kevin Drum and Paul Krugman both have noted the impact that the Club for Growth played in getting Arlen Specter to switch parties and provide the 60th caucus vote.
But just as much praise is also due to Rush Limbaugh.
Recall Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos," an effort to get Republicans in Pennsylvania to re-register as Democrats for the state's closed 2008 Presidential primary in order to vote for Hillary Clinton, whom, Rush theorized, would be dead in the water during the general election. Well, lots of Pennsylvanians did register as Dems during the primary, but they never re-registered back to the GOP, thus creating a more conservative GOP electorate and bad news for Specter.
Say what you will about Nelson and Lieberman, but if Arlen Specter doesn't become a Democrat health care reform never survives a filibuster.
Lame
Perhaps you've seen this stupid cartoon being passed around by climate change deniers:
It's very amusing, and not because it's a profound comment on the nature of certainty in the scientific process, but because it's science and historical perspective thereof is so far off that it makes the cartoonist look foolish.
First, the "Flat earth" theory of the world was almost exclusively a result of Biblical interpretation, not science. The ancient Greeks provided the world with ample evidence of the spherical Earth. It wasn't until the middle ages that "flat Earth" notions started to pop up. When they did, they entered the cultural consciousness not by science, but through theology.
The geocentric universe theory is far more complicated, but it's acceptance has it's roots in the epistemology of Aristotle. The notions grounding it are far more what we would consider "scientific" today, but did not develop using the epistemological breakthroughs advanced by Copernicus and Galileo. The philosophical differences between the ancient Greeks and the Renaissance astronomers couldn't be more different, and the details why explain almost perfectly the differences between climate change deniers and those that accept the science. (Unfortunately, this would take forever to explain.)
"Heaver bodies fall faster than light ones." Here Ramirez is just wrong. Speed is a function of distance and time and a bowling ball will cover the same distance "faster," as Rameriz says, than a feather when dropped from the same height. The breakthrough that Galileo made was the law of uniform acceleration, not speed. Why is that important? It's the first step taken to arriving at a theory of gravity.
"The atom is the smallest particle in the universe." Again, this demonstrates a complete ignorance of the history of the atom. In 1897 J.J. Thompson discovered the electron, an atomic element, but still posited a "plum pudding" atomic model. The model that is currently taught to school children didn't develop until 1911.
The last two panels are obviously the cartoon's punchline. I know it's just a comic aside, but if very jest must carry an element of truth in it to be funny, then this cartoon fails on just about every level. Laughing at the this comic demonstrates a total ignorance of the history of science would be like reading a book the explained how the Germans won World War I and blindly accepting it.
Of course, given how good climate change deniers are at ignoring science, one shouldn't be at all surprised that they have an equally poor ability to examine history.
It's very amusing, and not because it's a profound comment on the nature of certainty in the scientific process, but because it's science and historical perspective thereof is so far off that it makes the cartoonist look foolish.
First, the "Flat earth" theory of the world was almost exclusively a result of Biblical interpretation, not science. The ancient Greeks provided the world with ample evidence of the spherical Earth. It wasn't until the middle ages that "flat Earth" notions started to pop up. When they did, they entered the cultural consciousness not by science, but through theology.
The geocentric universe theory is far more complicated, but it's acceptance has it's roots in the epistemology of Aristotle. The notions grounding it are far more what we would consider "scientific" today, but did not develop using the epistemological breakthroughs advanced by Copernicus and Galileo. The philosophical differences between the ancient Greeks and the Renaissance astronomers couldn't be more different, and the details why explain almost perfectly the differences between climate change deniers and those that accept the science. (Unfortunately, this would take forever to explain.)
"Heaver bodies fall faster than light ones." Here Ramirez is just wrong. Speed is a function of distance and time and a bowling ball will cover the same distance "faster," as Rameriz says, than a feather when dropped from the same height. The breakthrough that Galileo made was the law of uniform acceleration, not speed. Why is that important? It's the first step taken to arriving at a theory of gravity.
"The atom is the smallest particle in the universe." Again, this demonstrates a complete ignorance of the history of the atom. In 1897 J.J. Thompson discovered the electron, an atomic element, but still posited a "plum pudding" atomic model. The model that is currently taught to school children didn't develop until 1911.
The last two panels are obviously the cartoon's punchline. I know it's just a comic aside, but if very jest must carry an element of truth in it to be funny, then this cartoon fails on just about every level. Laughing at the this comic demonstrates a total ignorance of the history of science would be like reading a book the explained how the Germans won World War I and blindly accepting it.
Of course, given how good climate change deniers are at ignoring science, one shouldn't be at all surprised that they have an equally poor ability to examine history.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
26 Best of the Decade Lists
Top 50 Photos of the Decade
Best 200 Albums of the Decade
Top 100 Songs of the Decade
20 Best Science Fiction Books of the Decade
40 Best Works of Fiction of the Decade
100 Best Books of the Decade
10 Best Documentaries of the Decade
Top 10 Air Travel Stories of the Decade
Top 10 Web Sites of the Decade
30 Funniest Political Viral Videos of the Decade
Top 10 Viral Videos of the Decade
10 Best Comics of the Decade
15 Best Entertainers of the Decade
25 Best American Breweries of the Decade
10 Worst NASCAR Wrecks of the Decade
13 Best Movie Villains of the Decade
50 Best Video Games of the Decade
Top 20 Male Athletes of the Decade
Top 20 Female Athletes of the Decade
Best Sports Teams of the Decade
10 Best Fashion Designers of the Decade
Top 10 Poker Events of the Decade
Top 10 Cook Books of the Decade
19 Top Medical Advances of the Decade
Top 10 Scientific Breakthroughs of the Decade
The Decade's 10 Dumbest Business Moves
Best 200 Albums of the Decade
Top 100 Songs of the Decade
20 Best Science Fiction Books of the Decade
40 Best Works of Fiction of the Decade
100 Best Books of the Decade
10 Best Documentaries of the Decade
Top 10 Air Travel Stories of the Decade
Top 10 Web Sites of the Decade
30 Funniest Political Viral Videos of the Decade
Top 10 Viral Videos of the Decade
10 Best Comics of the Decade
15 Best Entertainers of the Decade
25 Best American Breweries of the Decade
10 Worst NASCAR Wrecks of the Decade
13 Best Movie Villains of the Decade
50 Best Video Games of the Decade
Top 20 Male Athletes of the Decade
Top 20 Female Athletes of the Decade
Best Sports Teams of the Decade
10 Best Fashion Designers of the Decade
Top 10 Poker Events of the Decade
Top 10 Cook Books of the Decade
19 Top Medical Advances of the Decade
Top 10 Scientific Breakthroughs of the Decade
The Decade's 10 Dumbest Business Moves
So it's Come to This?
Taegan Goodard passes on this mind-blowing story that I probably wouldn't believe if the whole incident hadn't been caught on video:
Think Progress caught a chilling moment on C-SPAN this morning. A "teabagger," apparently taking Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) at his word, called in tears, worried that his prayers for Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) to die before the early morning procedural vote on health care had backfired. The caller was distraught over the absence of Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK).
(emphasis added)
John Rogers on HCR
None have said it better:
Last fall:
Republicans: Jesus, you're just voting for Hopey McChangey because he's a great speaker and he's promising unicorns and rainbows of change.
Democrats: How condescending. No, I'm voting for Obama based on his stated policy goals and his deliberative nature. We are, after all, the reality-based community.
Now:
Democrats: WHERE THE &#%&@ IS MY GODDAM UNICORN?!!
Why "The Phantom Menace" Sucked
This is the first part of a -- I shit you not -- 70 minute epic review of "The Phantom Menace." Watch every last minute of it -- it's dead on, hilarious and apparently done by some dude from Milwaukee.
MORE: Just wanted to add the link to the other six parts here and a snippet from the original post:
I can only hope this is the start of a trend. I'd love to see equally in-depth reviews for episode II and III, the second and third Matrix movies, Battlefield Earth, and countless other filmic disasters. I can see film school students, with literature minors, go apeshit on movie adaptations of classic novels.
In conclusion: more of this, please.
MORE: Just wanted to add the link to the other six parts here and a snippet from the original post:
Some guy named Mike from Milwaukee, WI put together a 70-minute video review discussing the many reasons why the movie was horrible. And this isn’t your usual fanboy rant, this is an epic, well-edited well-constructed piece of geek film criticism. In fact, the way I learned about the video was from Lost co-creator and Star Trek producer Damon Lindelof, who said “Your life is about to change. This is astounding film making. Watch ALL of it.”Lindelof isn't speaking hyperbolically. It's a pretty kick-ass piece of guerrilla film-making. "Mike" -- or the narrator of the review -- actually develops into a character with more depth than any of the characters in the prequels. It's a fascinating meta-narrative that's both entertaining, intellectually engaging and succeeds in so many ways that it claims TPM does not.
I can only hope this is the start of a trend. I'd love to see equally in-depth reviews for episode II and III, the second and third Matrix movies, Battlefield Earth, and countless other filmic disasters. I can see film school students, with literature minors, go apeshit on movie adaptations of classic novels.
In conclusion: more of this, please.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Drama in The OC
I'd suggest that BAE should be given a big fat gold star for persistence, but the fact of the matter is that's just how the "Beltway Bandits" roll.
Politics over Policy
Nate Silver did yeoman's work yesterday picking apart the absurdity of the "bill killers" argument against the current health care reform bill (here, here and here). Ezra Klein delivered something of a coup d'grace and Jacob Hacker, the dude who "invented" the public option, is on board too ... and yet there are still haters.
Why? Largely because process and politics are trumping sound policy in these corners.
We've noted this before, but bill killers have no interest in public health or policy. They want to stick it to PhRMA and the insurance companies. I don't blame them, but let's cut the shit about what Obama could have done or what the bill should have looked like. It's the view of the bill killers that no one in this country should be insured if drug and/or insurance companies make so much as a dime from the endeavor.
That's just ridiculous.
What's most important to the bill killer is reclaiming a niche that has been dormant for much of the last 10 years -- that of the far left -- with the aim of eventually pulling the rest of the party and/or political apparatus along with it. This is exactly what happened to the GOP during the 1990s.
Looking on the right, there are no shortage of people who have enjoyed long and profitable careers as opinion-makers and advocates for various conservative causes. Think Grover Norquist, Gary Bauer, Team Shlaffley, the late Jerry Falwell, the Bradley Foundation, Human Events, et al. There isn't that kind of infrastructure on the left just yet -- it's still being built. Howard Dean has been angling for just such a position since losing his bid for the presidency in 2004. He started his own PAC, got elected DNC chair, and now consults for a lobbying firm (on biotech issues, it should be noted). He clearly doesn't mean to go back to private practice in Burlington, VT.
We've made the argument in the past that the country is about due for a swing to the left. There will be jobs for people like Dean who give a voice to like-minded individuals who oppose a left-of-center government from the left. Health Care Reform is the first opportunity to make themselves heard. (One can't rule out the possibility that Dean is also still a little bitter about not getting picked to be HHS secretary.) So let's not pretend for an instant that opposition to the HCR is a valiant stand by a few outsiders speaking truth to powerful interests. Their motives aren't a pure as most would believe.
Why? Largely because process and politics are trumping sound policy in these corners.
We've noted this before, but bill killers have no interest in public health or policy. They want to stick it to PhRMA and the insurance companies. I don't blame them, but let's cut the shit about what Obama could have done or what the bill should have looked like. It's the view of the bill killers that no one in this country should be insured if drug and/or insurance companies make so much as a dime from the endeavor.
That's just ridiculous.
What's most important to the bill killer is reclaiming a niche that has been dormant for much of the last 10 years -- that of the far left -- with the aim of eventually pulling the rest of the party and/or political apparatus along with it. This is exactly what happened to the GOP during the 1990s.
Looking on the right, there are no shortage of people who have enjoyed long and profitable careers as opinion-makers and advocates for various conservative causes. Think Grover Norquist, Gary Bauer, Team Shlaffley, the late Jerry Falwell, the Bradley Foundation, Human Events, et al. There isn't that kind of infrastructure on the left just yet -- it's still being built. Howard Dean has been angling for just such a position since losing his bid for the presidency in 2004. He started his own PAC, got elected DNC chair, and now consults for a lobbying firm (on biotech issues, it should be noted). He clearly doesn't mean to go back to private practice in Burlington, VT.
We've made the argument in the past that the country is about due for a swing to the left. There will be jobs for people like Dean who give a voice to like-minded individuals who oppose a left-of-center government from the left. Health Care Reform is the first opportunity to make themselves heard. (One can't rule out the possibility that Dean is also still a little bitter about not getting picked to be HHS secretary.) So let's not pretend for an instant that opposition to the HCR is a valiant stand by a few outsiders speaking truth to powerful interests. Their motives aren't a pure as most would believe.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
"'His name is Inhofe,' a German journalist told a Japanese reporter, 'but I don’t know if it’s one or two f’s.'"
I Enjoy a Hardy Chuckle Every Time Charlie Sykes Whines Like a Bitch about Media Bias ...
... as if he were the paragon of non partisan journalistic integrity and not a cranky shill.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Sean Duffy's Money Bomb Bomb
I can't seem to find the final figures for Sean Duffy's "money bomb," but if what Duffy has put on his Facebook page is any indication, they don't look very good. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he raised $5,500, a number which elicits little more than a marginal "meh" from us.
To put that in context, $5,500 is well below what only three donors can give for just the primaries alone.
The point of a money bomb is volume and strength in numbers, an avalanche of small dollar donors that render obsolete big money contributors. That really didn't pan out in this case. Far more impressive than the total haul were the number of contributors (which at last count were at 112, but let's be generous and say Duffy finished the day with 120). That's about $46 a head. Duffy can go back to those folks for more money as the campaign wears on, but it's still far below our expectations.
And likely below the Duffy campaign's expectations as well. There's no press release with the final numbers for the day. The last Facebook message for the day was posted over 2 hours before the day ended, which gives the impression that the campaign just said "To hell with this!" and went to a bar or something. Duffy's fund-raising numbers were far more impressive than this guy's, but at least he managed to sound enthusiastic about it (then again, his expectations were marginal). Rand Paul, on other hand, raised $200,000. There are no shortage of reasons why, but it's still not the kind of figure with which one wants to be measured.
To put that in context, $5,500 is well below what only three donors can give for just the primaries alone.
The point of a money bomb is volume and strength in numbers, an avalanche of small dollar donors that render obsolete big money contributors. That really didn't pan out in this case. Far more impressive than the total haul were the number of contributors (which at last count were at 112, but let's be generous and say Duffy finished the day with 120). That's about $46 a head. Duffy can go back to those folks for more money as the campaign wears on, but it's still far below our expectations.
And likely below the Duffy campaign's expectations as well. There's no press release with the final numbers for the day. The last Facebook message for the day was posted over 2 hours before the day ended, which gives the impression that the campaign just said "To hell with this!" and went to a bar or something. Duffy's fund-raising numbers were far more impressive than this guy's, but at least he managed to sound enthusiastic about it (then again, his expectations were marginal). Rand Paul, on other hand, raised $200,000. There are no shortage of reasons why, but it's still not the kind of figure with which one wants to be measured.
The Burj Dubai
Now that's one hell of an occupational hazard:
The Burj Dubai is so tall that Bedouins can see it from their oases 100 kilometers (63 miles) inland and sailors can see it from their supertankers, 50 nautical miles out in the Gulf -- at least on the few winter days when the air is as clear as it's portrayed on the mural in front of the model apartment window.
The tower is so enormous that the air temperature at the top is up to 8 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than at the base. If anyone ever hit upon the idea of opening a door at the top and a door at the bottom, as well as the airlocks in between, a storm would rush through the air-conditioned building that would destroy most everything in its wake, except perhaps the heavy marble tiles in the luxury apartments. The phenomenon is called the "chimney effect."
Thursday, December 17, 2009
With Friends Like These...
Tony Palmeri's in high dudgeon over the health reform bill, joining a few other mostly loud voices on the left calling for it to be killed because it lacks a public option or the Medicare buy-in.
Nothing could be more reckless.
Kevin Drum rather succinctly explains why:
But the fate of failed major initiatives is so obvious that I can't believe anyone is taking this seriously. When big legislative efforts go down in flames, they almost never spring back onto the calendar anytime soon — and that's especially true when big healthcare bills fail. It didn't happen in 1936, it didn't happen in 1949, it didn't happen in 1974, and it didn't happen in 1995. What makes anyone think it will happen in 2010?Lets take this several steps further: if health care goes down in flames, the left can also say good bye to meaningful climate change legislation, financial regulatory reform and most other high priority domestic agenda items. Almost immediately the Obama Administration starts becoming about school uniforms and Midnight Basketball.
If healthcare reform dies this year, it dies for a good long time.
And that will be the status quo for, at minimum, the next seven years, or until there is a new Democratic president. Of course, that President likely won't enjoy an nominal 20 vote majority in the Senate which means things like a public option or Medicare buy-in are out of the question. Seven years quickly turns into 15, which turns into another generation.
During that time, health care in the real world only gets worse. Premiums are expected to rise 71% in the next decade, and since we may be headed for a very long decade economically speaking, that means more families with fewer health care options. Why? Because members of the far left didn't think they got enough.
Pardon me while I roll my eyes and make the universal "jerking off" sign language motion ...
Here's what the bill still has according to Drum:
- Insurers have to take all comers. They can't turn you down for a preexisting condition or cut you off after you get sick.
- Community rating. Within a few broad classes, everyone gets charged the same amount for insurance.
- Individual mandate. I know a lot of liberals hate this, but how is it different from a tax? And its purpose is sound: it keeps the insurance pool broad and insurance rates down.
- A significant expansion of Medicaid.
- Subsidies for low and middle income workers that keeps premium costs under 10% of income.
- Limits on ER charges to low-income uninsured emergency patients.
- Caps on out-of-pocket expenses.
- A broad range of cost-containment measures.
- A dedicated revenue stream to support all this.
The bottom line is this: anyone one on the left who thinks this bill must die because it "doesn't go far enough" is not serious about health care reform. They prefer an increase in physical pain and financial hardship, since that's what inaction would result in, over measures that will likely relieve suffering for millions for purely ideological and revanchist reasons. It's impossible to take these claims seriously.
Thankfully, there isn't a Senator on Capitol Hill who seems to be entertaining these calls. Not Feingold, not Franken, not even Bernie Sanders. They all know the stakes are too high to be playing games. I'm sure there will be a few wankers in the House like Dennis Kucinich who will vote against the Senate version of the bill "on principle," but the only principle they'll be voting on is self-importance.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Money Bombs are so 2007...
Apparently Sean Duffy is trying to tap into the tea bagger demo by hosting a money bomb tomorrow.
I can't imagine this will end well for several reasons.
1.) He's running for the House ... in Wisconsin. It's not exactly the sexiest elected office in the country. Yes, he's running against the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, but I doubt if that's enough to capitalize on.
2.) He's not the only person throwing a money bomb on the same day. So is Rand Paul, who s something of the rightful heir to the gimmick, as well as numerous others. That means Duffy has to fight for attention from a nationwide audience and rely mostly on donors from Wisconsin, who tend to be frugal.
3.) The economy sucks. That's not a small thing. Money bombs rely on small dollar donors and now really isn't a good time to be throwing money away for anyone.
4.) It's the holiday season during a shitty economy. See #3. People have more things to do with less money right around this time of year.
5.) Money bombs actually take a lot of preparation and laying of groundwork. They don't happen spontaneously. The Duffy camp doesn't look like they've done this. It takes more than just a post on RedState a few days before the event.
6.) No one has ever seemed to replicate the success that Ron Paul had with money bombs. It should be noted that the folks who ran Paul's money bomb weren't officially affiliated with the campaign, which I gather lent a ton of legitimacy to the "grassroots" nature of the effort. In this case Duffy's out there asking for money himself.
The good news for Duffy is that there are no real measures for success with money bombs and therefore no real measures of failure. All partisan cynicism aside, I'm actually quite curious to see what the results are. In the meantime, however, let's look at some expectations.
Duffy is asking folks to pony up $12.16 ... because this event is happening on December (12) 16th. That being the case, I'd imagine that the Duffy campaign needs to clear over $12,160 or $14,000 (or about 10% of last period's total fund-raising effort) for the money bomb to be of any PR use.
Another way they could measure success would be numbers of donors. Let's take an average of $13,000 and divide it by $35, or roughly the average small dollar donation to a political campaign: that gives us about 370 donors. So let's round that out and suggest that if Duffy can pull in 300 donors of any size he'll also have a moral victory on his hands.
These, by the way, are pretty low expectations. The trade-off with money bombs is that they are very public enterprises. If you succeed, everyone knows about it, but if you fail everybody knows about it.
I can't imagine this will end well for several reasons.
1.) He's running for the House ... in Wisconsin. It's not exactly the sexiest elected office in the country. Yes, he's running against the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, but I doubt if that's enough to capitalize on.
2.) He's not the only person throwing a money bomb on the same day. So is Rand Paul, who s something of the rightful heir to the gimmick, as well as numerous others. That means Duffy has to fight for attention from a nationwide audience and rely mostly on donors from Wisconsin, who tend to be frugal.
3.) The economy sucks. That's not a small thing. Money bombs rely on small dollar donors and now really isn't a good time to be throwing money away for anyone.
4.) It's the holiday season during a shitty economy. See #3. People have more things to do with less money right around this time of year.
5.) Money bombs actually take a lot of preparation and laying of groundwork. They don't happen spontaneously. The Duffy camp doesn't look like they've done this. It takes more than just a post on RedState a few days before the event.
6.) No one has ever seemed to replicate the success that Ron Paul had with money bombs. It should be noted that the folks who ran Paul's money bomb weren't officially affiliated with the campaign, which I gather lent a ton of legitimacy to the "grassroots" nature of the effort. In this case Duffy's out there asking for money himself.
The good news for Duffy is that there are no real measures for success with money bombs and therefore no real measures of failure. All partisan cynicism aside, I'm actually quite curious to see what the results are. In the meantime, however, let's look at some expectations.
Duffy is asking folks to pony up $12.16 ... because this event is happening on December (12) 16th. That being the case, I'd imagine that the Duffy campaign needs to clear over $12,160 or $14,000 (or about 10% of last period's total fund-raising effort) for the money bomb to be of any PR use.
Another way they could measure success would be numbers of donors. Let's take an average of $13,000 and divide it by $35, or roughly the average small dollar donation to a political campaign: that gives us about 370 donors. So let's round that out and suggest that if Duffy can pull in 300 donors of any size he'll also have a moral victory on his hands.
These, by the way, are pretty low expectations. The trade-off with money bombs is that they are very public enterprises. If you succeed, everyone knows about it, but if you fail everybody knows about it.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Anniversaries of the Damned: Philly Fans Boo Santa
Via the 700 Level:
The rest of the post is actually devoted to justifying the booing. Seriously.
This is why I do not screw with Philly fans.
Nothing has continued to eternally damn the reputation of Philly sports fans more than their behavior on December 15th, 1968. On halftime of the Eagles' game against the Vikings, a 19-year-old in a Santa Claus suit came out to greet the fans, and was greeted with a shower of boos and a probably much-harder-to-ignore shower of snowballs. Despite occurring over 40 years ago, the incident continues to get brought up in almost every half-assed indictment of Philly Fans Gone Wild, as the primary evidence of the cold, black heart that apparently beats inside every one of us.
The rest of the post is actually devoted to justifying the booing. Seriously.
This is why I do not screw with Philly fans.
The Big 12?
Lets talk Big Ten expansion!
Lot's of people seems to like the idea because it allows the league to have a championship football game. There are other reasons, I suppose, but this really seems to be the only important one worth mentioning, which is kind of absurd on so many levels. But, whatever ...
So who gets the invite?
Apparently, Notre Dame is out of the picture while West Virginia, Missouri and Louisville are favored (at least according to Brooks). Let me just throw Mizzu off that list right away: their biggest rival is Kansas and I doubt they would diminish one of the most heated rivalries in college football by making it a non-conference match-up. West Virginia seems like a better idea, but they also appear to fit in well with the Big East, so who knows?
And Louisville? Well, if they're going to look at Louisville, the league may as well look at Cincinnati, which is on better footing in both basketball and football right now. This creates an instant in-state rivalry with Ohio State and gives a football team that's on a roll at the moment the momentum it probably needs to get beyond it's head coach defecting to ND.
Another choice: Iowa State. They're really not doing much in the Big 12 right now, fit in perfectly from a geographical perspective, and provide Iowa with an in-state, intra-conference rival. The down side: it's Iowa State. If you're going to invite another school into the league, why not make it a school in a major media market in the Eastern time zone.
If I were in charge of picking the 12th Big Ten school, I'd go with Pittsburgh, though I don't know if they're looking for a change of conference venue.
Any other ideas? Am I missing a school somewhere in the Midwest that would make a natural fit? Tell me what you got in the comments.
Lot's of people seems to like the idea because it allows the league to have a championship football game. There are other reasons, I suppose, but this really seems to be the only important one worth mentioning, which is kind of absurd on so many levels. But, whatever ...
So who gets the invite?
Apparently, Notre Dame is out of the picture while West Virginia, Missouri and Louisville are favored (at least according to Brooks). Let me just throw Mizzu off that list right away: their biggest rival is Kansas and I doubt they would diminish one of the most heated rivalries in college football by making it a non-conference match-up. West Virginia seems like a better idea, but they also appear to fit in well with the Big East, so who knows?
And Louisville? Well, if they're going to look at Louisville, the league may as well look at Cincinnati, which is on better footing in both basketball and football right now. This creates an instant in-state rivalry with Ohio State and gives a football team that's on a roll at the moment the momentum it probably needs to get beyond it's head coach defecting to ND.
Another choice: Iowa State. They're really not doing much in the Big 12 right now, fit in perfectly from a geographical perspective, and provide Iowa with an in-state, intra-conference rival. The down side: it's Iowa State. If you're going to invite another school into the league, why not make it a school in a major media market in the Eastern time zone.
If I were in charge of picking the 12th Big Ten school, I'd go with Pittsburgh, though I don't know if they're looking for a change of conference venue.
Any other ideas? Am I missing a school somewhere in the Midwest that would make a natural fit? Tell me what you got in the comments.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
