My Tweet Face Space

Favre's "Failure" - Why You're Wrong About His Legacy

2011-01-06T20:22:00.000-05:00

I am a Brett Favre fan. These days, I feel like the only one.

I know that is absurd. He remains an immensely popular figure, obviously, but this season seems to have given his haters more cause to celebrate than it has given his supporters. I repeat: this season seems to have given his haters more cause to celebrate than it has given his supporters. I am here to correct that perception.

Is Brett Favre the best quarterback ever to play the game? I don’t know. What does that really mean, anyway? How are we supposed to determine who the best player is? We can all summon our most prized criteria and make our arguments, but that doesn’t prove anything. There is no such thing as proof of who is the best player of all time. We address many factors when we discuss this issue: career statistics, championships, individual honours, records, etc. We argue over which factors should weigh more: is Dan Marino a lesser quarterback than Ben Roethlisberger because the former never won a Super Bowl while the latter has thus far won two? Is Fran Tarkenton a better quarterback than Terry Bradshaw because the former threw 47,000 yards while the latter threw 28,000? Don Hutson holds more receiving records than Jerry Rice; who is better?

I could answer the rhetorical questions I have posed, but my answers would not represent facts, but rather arguments. However, here is one fact: during his career, Brett Favre did his job more than any other did. He is the most prolific passer in football history and winner of more games than anyone else is. I cannot say decisively that he is the best, but he demonstrably did more during his career than anyone else has. In short, his NFL career was a smashing success.

Yet here we are, likely having seen him play his last game, caught in a shitstorm of smack-talkers who insist that his final season has permanently tarnished his legacy. These smack-talkers have arguments to back up their claims. This season we saw Favre publicly accused of sexual harassment (and subsequently sued for said offense), throw more interceptions than touchdowns, record more losses than wins (for only the second time) and his ironman streak (the single most impressive record in football history, in my opinion) end not to retirement but to injury. Ergo, it is clear that this season tarnished his legacy. Right?

Fucking wrong, shit-head.

I do not think his texting habits are appropriate, and actually think he got off extremely light when you compare his punishment to those of other players, most obviously Ben Roethlisberger (who suffered a four-game suspension after a woman accused him of sexual assault), but for me, his legacy had nothing to do with being a gentleman. Just as the recent scandals of Tiger Woods do nothing to diminish his standing as a golfer, Brett Favre’s alleged sexual harassment habits could not do less to affect his standing as a quarterback.

As for what happened on the field this year, yes, I agree that it was not a good year. True, he did pass the 500-touchdown mark, finally threw 400 yards in a game, played with a twice-fractured ankle and injured throwing shoulder but overall, there wasn’t much celebrating for #4. But to say that returning for a twentieth season tarnished his legacy because he played poorly is to say that there is no point to playing if you lose. Tell that to your children and see how many Parent of the Year awards you rake in. “It’s not whether you have fun; it’s not whether you give it your best effort. It’s all about winning, kid. If you can’t win, don’t play.” Essentially, this is what people are saying to Brett Favre. Reporters that ask him if he regrets coming back this season may as well ask players if they wish they’d “stayed in bed today” after a loss. It is beyond cunty to say he should not have returned this year. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a tragically pathetic sense of sportsmanship. Brett Favre thought he was capable of playing, thought he owed it to his teammates to return, and was willing to give his best effort. Win or lose, he made the admirable decision under these circumstances.

And let’s not forget all the other athletes that “tarnished their careers” at the end of their playing days. Emmitt Smith in Arizona, Joe Montana in Kansas City, Bobby Orr in Chicago, Guy Lafleur in Quebec and New York, Michael Jordan in Washington, everything Gordie Howe did after 1971, Jerry Rice in Seattle and Denver, Mario Lemieux’s numerous futile attempts at career revival, Dan Marino’s final game (a 62-7 playoff loss in which he turned the ball over four times despite only playing half the game and completed his first pass only after his team was down by 38 points)... I could go on. Does anyone give a fuck about this shit? When each of these players were inducted to their respective Halls of Fame, how many people decided to focus on the mediocre ends to these truly magnificent careers? That’s right: no one. The same will happen to Favre. He’ll have to listen to a bunch of retards (like Kurt Warner, a man who couldn’t get a job in the NFL for a couple seasons in the middle of his career) talk about how he “tarnished his legacy” for a year or two before they all forget he was ever anything less than elite. Sports pundits, like sports fans, are mostly idiots and will say anything that passes through their feeble minds.

But what most outrages me are the minority of fans that have actually gone so far as to say that Brett Favre is a loser, pointing to his two final NFC Championship games that ended with costly interceptions as proof. That’s right, there are hundreds of people out there that think Brett Favre (winner of a Super Bowl, three league MVP titles and more games than any other quarterback) is a loser. What does that make the rest of us? What is wrong with our culture that anyone could even entertain the idea that this man is a loser? Are we so obsessed with mythologizing athletes that we are disappointed at any athletic career that doesn’t end as John Elway’s did? Are we so disappointed with our own accomplishments that we try to undermine those of people who actually did something remarkable during their careers? Next time you find yourself about to criticize Brett Favre, compare his ability to throw a football to your own ability to do whatever it is you do for a living. Unless you are Alfred Hitchcock or John Lennon (both dead) or Maria Bamford, he is better at it. If the career of Brett Favre does not deserve our unconditional respect, whose the fuck does?

Area Serial Killer Condemns Revelation That He Is Area Serial Killer

2010-12-01T14:52:00.001-05:00

An area serial killer named Punch Addarachick has publicly condemned the media's revelation earlier this week that he has systematically murdered countless people. The news came as a shock to many, even though local hippies and pinkos had been boldly accusing the man of such heinous actions for years.

"I hereby condemn the media for revealing that I am the serial killer who has been plaguing this city for decades," said Addarachick when asked for comment. "Up until this week, knowledge of this fact had been limited to myself, a few close friends and family members, as well as the legal authorities that I had been bribing to look the other way. Oh, and anyone who bothered to think critically about the crimes, but no one listens to them."

When asked why he condemns the recent revelations, he exclaimed, "I feel unsafe! You have no idea how much jeopardy I am in now that everyone knows I have been roaming the streets at night, raping and killing as I please. The things I do to satisfy my psycho-sexual impulses are no-one's business but mine and my family's. It is going to be much harder for me to continue squeezing the life out of unsuspecting victims and pillaging their property now that my name and image has been published to such widespread kerfuffle. And without the proceeds of my post-coital ransacking, how am I supposed to feed my family?"

When one naive reporter questioned the possibility of jail time, the man laughed and quipped, "That's not how things work in the real world."

39 Steps From Hell » Episode 7 - 21 September 2010

2010-09-21T19:44:00.000-04:00

39 Steps From Hell » Episode 7 - 21 September 2010

In this extra-long episode, I explain why my face looks like a Picasso painting, describe getting sexually harassed by a drunk guy on the bus, and break down my experience at the 2010 Toronto International Film Festival.

39 Steps From Hell » Episode 6 - September 16, 2010

2010-09-16T14:07:00.000-04:00

39 Steps From Hell » Episode 6 - September 16, 2010

39 Steps From Hell » Episode 5 - September 3, 2010

2010-09-03T16:11:00.000-04:00

39 Steps From Hell » Episode 5 - September 3, 2010

Chomsky: Obama's Imperialist Policies

2010-08-30T17:50:00.000-04:00

Barclay's Premiere League Power Rankings: After 3 Matches

2010-08-29T14:09:00.001-04:00

Methodology
I use three basic criteria to form my overall rating for a team: record, offense and defense. The 'record' criterion weighs a side's result (W-L-D) against the 'record' rating its opponent held at the commencement of the match. The 'offense' criterion weighs a side's goals scored against the defensive prowess of its opponent (basically its goals allowed weighed against the offensive strength of its opponents), and vice-versa for the 'defense' criterion. In short, to earn a good 'record' score, a side must post respectable results against quality teams. To earn a good 'offense' score, a side must either score many goals or score an average number against teams with quality defenses. Conversely, to earn a good 'defense' score, a side must either allow few goals or allow an average number against teams with quality offenses. In all cases, the strength of opponent matters more than the isolated result.

Format

Ranking - Team - Overall score (Record score, offense score, defense score)

Rankings

Arsenal - 110 (100, 100, 131)
Chelsea - 93 (75, 89, 115)
Newcastle United - 83 (81, 67, 100)
Wolverhampton Wanderers - 69 (75, 33, 100)
Manchester United - 69 (75, 56, 77)
Fulham - 66 (75, 17, 108)
Birmingham City - 64 (94, 61, 38)
Bolton Wanderers - 59 (81, 11, 85)
Blackburn Rovers - 59 (25, 28, 123)
Blackpool - 44 (63, 61, 8)
Manchester City - 42 (50, 6, 69)
Sunderland - 35 (63, -28, 69)
Tottenham Hotspur - 33 (38, -22, 85)
Wigan Athletic - 31 (44, 11, 38)
Stoke City - 30 (0, 22, 69)
Everton - 30 (38, -33, 85)
Aston Villa - 29 (69, 11, 8)
Liverpool - 29 (56, 0, 31)
West Bromwich Albion - 12 (38, -33, 31)
West Ham United - 0 (0, 0, 0)

39 Steps From Hell

2010-08-28T21:29:00.000-04:00

39 Steps From Hell - Episode 4!

Long walk home, my funny funeral, tax reform, Eugene Mirman and Stephen Harper's criminal agenda.

Reporter ohne Grenzen: Petition Iran

2010-08-26T14:47:00.000-04:00

Reporter ohne Grenzen: Petition Iran

Save a journalist!

39 Steps From Hell

2010-08-20T20:58:00.000-04:00

39 Steps From Hell

The quality of American democracy: The freest and most democratic nation? | The Economist

2010-08-19T19:12:00.000-04:00

The quality of American democracy: The freest and most democratic nation? | The Economist

A know-nothing strain of conservatism - Andrew Coyne - Macleans.ca

2010-08-19T14:03:00.000-04:00

A know-nothing strain of conservatism - Andrew Coyne - Macleans.ca

The Hitchcock Hollywood Portfolio Culture: vanityfair.com

2010-08-18T15:44:00.000-04:00

The Hitchcock Hollywood Portfolio Culture: vanityfair.com

Stephen Harper: Tough on Criminals, Not Crime

2010-08-17T14:40:00.001-04:00

Stephen Harper has always emphasized crime in his political agenda. For his entire political career, he has worked to perpetuate the myth that crime is rampant in Canada and that sissy Liberals are to blame. He convinces gullible constituents that his is the only political party in the country that cares more about the victims of crime than its perpetrators. This could not be further from the truth. Ignoring the fact that crime has been steadily decreasing for decades and is now at a thirty-year low, the Prime Minister is actually working for criminal proliferation, though he is probably too anti-intellectual to realize it.

To many average people, it makes sense to suggest that stiffer prison sentences reduce crime. On an extremely elementary level, this rings true. Indeed, nonprofessionals comprise the target audience for Harper. After all, this is a man who once justified his 'tough-on-crime' initiatives by saying, "We're not listening to criminologists... we're listening to regular people." Good idea, Steve! Why would you want to listen to academics that have the firmest and most extensive grasp of all elements that affect criminal justice when you could listen to a bunch of people that have no qualifications whatsoever to comment on such a thing?

Evidence available in societies comparable to Canada suggests strongly that stiffer punishments actually increase crime. Prisoners become more committed to the criminal lifestyle as they spend more time in jail, they exit prison with fewer years of productivity available to them, and organized criminals seek more desperate measures to avoid prison time (while few would murder a witness to avoid house arrest, many might to avoid prison). Europe teaches us that shorter prison sentences combined with social programs such as drug rehabilitation, adult education, job training and psychotherapy take big bites out of crime by rehabilitating established criminals and preventing the development of new ones (not to mention costing taxpayers less). The United States teaches us that longer prison sentences not complimented by such social programs (or complimented by dramatically underfunded ones) expand crime by leaving offenders with few choices aside from further commitment to criminal lifestyles.

Harper is not big on evidence; he is more of a 'by-the-gut' type of politician. His idea of being 'tough on crime' is to cut funding to initiatives that prevent crime, such as the aforementioned social programs, while spending the freed-up funds (and much, much more) on militarizing police and expanding the prison-industrial complex to handle more prisoners (indeed, prison services will soon become the largest building contractors in the country). He also has cut funding to initiatives that treat victims of crime and allow them to recover and move on with their lives. In case you are keeping score, he is opposed to preventing crime, opposed to rehabilitating victims of crime, but favours expanded punishment of criminals, which in turn reinforces their illegal behaviour.

The idea that this jackass can convince anyone he is tough on crime is ludicrous. He is tough on criminals, yes, but his policies, given the opportunity, will undoubtedly result in more crime. He wants more crime and more prisoners, and in this regard, is probably the worst leader this country has ever seen.

Episode 2 - August 16, 2010

2010-08-16T21:51:00.000-04:00

Episode 2 - August 16, 2010

39 Steps From Hell - Episode 1

2010-08-07T16:45:00.002-04:00

Best celebration ever in football

2010-07-31T11:05:00.000-04:00

Is the Tea Party racist?

2010-07-30T17:48:00.000-04:00

Since the Tea Party political movement began in 2009, many critics have accused it of harbouring racists, and some have gone so far as to argue that racism is its defining feature. So, much like every other political commentator out there, I may as well address the question too: is the Tea Party a racist political movement?
There are undoubtedly racists and other bigots within the Tea Party. We have heard about the events of March 20, 2010 on which a Tea Party protest occurred at the Capital. Black legislators reported being called "niggers" and spat upon, while someone called Barney Frank a "faggot." The reaction of the right-wing blogosphere was to say, "prove it." This was a politically unsound strategy, because the general public consensus was belief that these events occurred. Elected Republicans were wiser, with both John Boehner and Eric Canter renouncing overt racism and pointing out that the individuals in question did not represent the whole of the Tea Party.

That is a fair point. It is probably difficult to find any organization that doesn't house individuals with bigoted ideas. Things got worse for the Tea Party the very next day, however, when Springboro Tea Party founder Sonny Thomas tweeted, "Illegals everywhere today! So many spics makes me feel like a speck. Grrr. Where's my gun!?" It is unfathomable how Thomas thought this would result in anything but a public relations catastrophe, and it proves decidedly that a major player in the Tea Party movement is violently racist.

But this hardly proves the entire movement is racist. I do not think the entire political movement can be reduced to one specific quality. As with anything as large as the Tea Party, a confluence of factors allows its existence.

First, there is libertarianism. Hang on, let me correct that. "Libertarianism." That's better. I use the quote-marks because in the United States, the idea of libertarianism is quite perverse. Generally speaking, American libertarians embrace all the economic aspects of libertarianism but none of the social values. They disparage taxation and governmental participation in virtually all economic activity. But they also endorse militant domestic law enforcement and hyperactive military aggression abroad. This is a rather convenient marriage of classical liberalism and authoritarianism. It should come as no surprise that American libertarians tend to be financially well-off Caucasians. Their ideology boils down to, "Fuck everyone but me." But to return to my original point, many of these people existed before the Tea Party. Most of them were self-identified Republicans, but after the disastrous Bush administration, wanted to distance themselves from that sinking ship.

The second factor is psychotic, feverish opposition to the Democratic party. A historical trend has long existed in American media that when Democrats control the White House, radical right-wing radio talk programs gain popularity. Obama was certainly no exception to this rule.

The third factor is bigotry against African-Americans and Islam. The right-wing reaction to the election of Barack Obama was more rabid than that of any President since the Ku Klux Klan was still allowed to speak in public. Even George W. Bush, who did not win either of his Presidential elections honestly, did not generate as much extremism as Obama, but part of that must be credited to the extensive stifling of dissent exercised by the Bush administration. From the get-go, some people were terrified of Obama because he had dark skin and was born to a Muslim father. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck commonly accuse Obama of issuing reparation payments in the absolute absence of anything approaching evidence because they knowingly demagogue to a racist audience.

The smoking gun in all of this is when the Tea Party formed. It claims to be an altruistic libertarian movement, but it only appeared upon the election of Barack Obama. George W. Bush was the most anti-libertarian President since Richard Nixon, but this movement was entirely non-existent for all eight years of his illegitimate reign. Tea Party activists claim to be anti-Bush, but only in revisionist hindsight. There was virtually no voiced right-wing opposition to Bush while he was in the White House. His Presidency was so thoroughly unsuccessful that it became politically mandatory to repudiate him (that's repudiate, with a P, Sarah Palin).

Sure, Obama made a lot of flowery speeches about "change" and whatnot, but every substantive promise he made on the campaign trail was conventional and centrist. His actions since inauguration have been eerily similar to those of Bush. Anyone who liked Bush (when it mattered, not now) and dislikes Obama is acting in either a pigheadedly partisan fashion, or is simply afraid to see a black man in such a powerful position.

So, can the entire Tea Party movement be reduced to racism? Not quite. A confluence of irrational qualities defines the Tea Party, and racism is undeniably one of them.

Kate Micucci: Walking In Los Angeles

2010-07-29T13:04:00.004-04:00

Thanks to podcast Comedy Death-Ray Radio (the greatest podcast on the planet!), I recently discovered the delightful music of Kate Micucci and Riki Lindholme, known as Garfunkel and Oates (Riki is Garfunkel, Kate is Oates) and have authored astutely amusing songs like Pregnant Women Are Smug and This Party Just Took a Turn For the Douche. Not to take anything away from the very talented Lindholme, but I must admit that I find Kate Micucci uniquely enchanting. Her fashion and mannerisms heavily contribute to a persona that is both hilarious and adorable, and who could resists these eyes?

She has a solo EP simply titled Songs featuring five quality tracks, but I want to focus on one track in particular, that is nothing less than a masterpiece: Walking in Los Angeles. Like most (if not all) of Micucci's work, she sings and plays the ukulele, which in its petite allure is a lot like the artist herself. The track bears a tinny, echoing, mildly distorted timbre that harks back to a time when the popular perception of Los Angeles was considerably more glamorous and optimistic than today's. Micucci sings in a jazzy style aptly complimenting this nostalgic vibe. The lyrics reflect an infatuation with the much-maligned metropolis: always optimistic but never naïve, they walk the Pixar-patented line of agelessly universal appeal. One second, she is avoiding sidewalk cracks in fear of matronly paralysis, and the next she is admonishing the accidental entry into border territory. The song concludes with a lovely touch of communal unity, bringing together a homeless man, a civil servant and Micucci herself, "marching like never before."

This song extols a dirty little Los Angeleno secret: it is a beautiful city. If only more people would get out of their fucking cars and enjoy it!

The Velvet Underground - Heroin

2010-07-26T10:47:00.000-04:00

The Velvet Undergound & Nico - Femme Fatale

2010-07-25T13:18:00.001-04:00

velvet underground - venus in furs

2010-07-24T11:40:00.000-04:00

Switzerland Releases Roman Polanski

2010-07-15T15:38:00.005-04:00

Roman Polanski is a free man again, and I am very happy for him. Why am I happy for him? Is it because I think great artists should be allowed to rape children, like many douche-bags consider the only alternative to wanting him illegally imprisoned for life? No, I do not think that, madams and sirs. I am a fan of Polanski, but the main reason I am happy in this case is that back in 1977, he pleaded guilty, served his sentence and fled the United States to escape illegal imprisonment. I am a fan of the rule of law. I'm a bit of a radical in that way.

I am also no fan of the United States government. Without consulting any facts or data, my cat estimates that the US government commits more crimes than any other organization in the world. She is not just any cat; she has thumbs. It seems like a believable estimate to me. Moving along, it seems the Swiss are similar sticklers for annoying little shits like evidence and rules that the US Justice Department did not expect to get in their way. Swiss officials asked for the records from a January 2010 hearing that the defence believed exonerated Polanski, and US officials refused. When asking a government to extradite a cultural hero, it does not seem extraordinary to share the case court records, unless the government requesting extradition is doing so illegally.

This suggestion should come as no surprise to those of us who have become rather disillusioned with the bizarre twists and turns that plague the American sense of justice. For all the bribery, lying to constituents, war crimes committed, non-combatants killed and wars fought on false premises, a President has to burglarize his political opponents or lie about getting a blowjob to face impeachment. Arizona thinks it can legalize racial profiling. The Supreme Court believes the founding fathers probably meant "human beings, multi-national corporations and everything in between" when they said, "person." Essentially any legal official with any weight to throw around thinks it is acceptable to kidnap and torture persons of interest to the asinine "war on terror," even without evidence of criminality. If you object to mass murder enabled by unwavering American support of a criminal regime, you are "putting unfair blame on Israel," as if there is no difference between a provocation and a justification.

The point is, when you discuss the US government, you are not discussing an organization currently riding a legal hot streak. When the State Department issued an extradition request for Polanski from Switzerland, it unsurprisingly did so in willing ignorance of judicial misconduct in the case. Samantha Geimer's (the victim) attorney arranged a plea bargain in 1977 that the defence, prosecution and judge accepted. The generous bargain required Polanski to serve a 90-day in-prison psychiatric evaluation following a stay in Europe to allow him to finish directing a film. Released halfway through the term, the conducting psychiatrist recommended probation without jail time because Polanski did not fit the profile of a dangerous sex-criminal. Judge Rittenband disapproved of the half-term release and ordered Polanski back for another in-prison psychiatric evaluation conducted by a different doctor, who reached the exact same conclusion in the same duration. Prior to sentencing, Polanski's probation officer, two examining psychiatrists and the victim all recommended no jail time. Moreover, the defence has always insisted that judge Rittenband agreed in the initial plea bargain that Polanski's in-prison evaluations would constitute his entire prison term. Puzzlingly though, Rittenband told a prosecutor that he was planning to sentence Polanski to a long prison term and deportation. This would represent an illegal renunciation of the plea bargain whose rejection must occur before the defence fulfills its terms. The defence argues that the January 2010 confidential hearing proves judge Rittenband acted unethically. Swiss officials wanted to guarantee the hearing in question did not document an exoneration of the party facing extradition, which would naturally render extradition imprudent.

The State Department refused to share the court records under the argument that the hearing was confidential. The Swiss made it clear they would not extradite Polanski if they could not verify the legality of its request. The Americans still refused. There is only one logical conclusion, and that is that the hearing contained evidence of judicial misconduct by Rittenband. If you are a federal lawyer orchestrating a high-profile extradition, and the only thing that can obstruct your efforts is the disclosure of a state superior court hearing, you disclose it, even off the record if required. I like italics. Here are more: There is only one reason not to disclose these records. Can you guess what it is? Shall I italicize? I shall. The only reason is that the records will undermine the credibility of said extradition request.

Not to be too practical about this matter, but do not forget why we put people in jail! I always thought prison should serve two functions: one, to protect society from re-offense; and two, to rehabilitate criminals and prepare them for release, unless rehabilitation is impossible, which warrants indefinite incarceration until rehabilitation is possible. Over 33 years after Polanski engaged in illegal sexual conduct with Samantha Geimer, not a single person has ever accused him of committing another crime. If 33 years of good behaviour cannot convince you that this 76-year-old man is not a social threat, what could?

Roman Polanski Is a Free Man Again!

2010-07-12T12:05:00.002-04:00

My comments to follow later today or tomorrow.

Los Angeles Times
The Washington Post
The Toronto Star

World Cup Performance Rankings: Entering the Semi-Finals

2010-07-03T16:20:00.000-04:00

Netherlands (4); defeated Brazil.
Germany (6); defeated Argentina.
Uruguay (16); defeated Ghana in penalties.
Spain (2); defeated Paraguay.
Argentina (7); defeated by Germany.
Brazil (1); defeated by Netherlands.
Paraguay (31); defeated by Spain.
Ghana (32); defeated in penalties by Uruguay.
USA (14); eliminated.
England (8); eliminated.
Japan (45); eliminated.
Chile (18); eliminated.
Portugal (3); eliminated.
South Africa (83); eliminated.
Switzerland (24); eliminated.
South Korea (47); eliminated.
Australia (20); eliminated.
New Zealand (78); eliminated.
Slovenia (25); eliminated.
Slovakia (34); eliminated.
Mexico (17); eliminated.
Ivory Coast (27); eliminated.
Serbia (15); eliminated.
Denmark (36); eliminated.
Greece (13); eliminated.
Italy (5); eliminated.
Algeria (30); eliminated.
France (9); eliminated.
Honduras (38); eliminated.
Nigeria (21); eliminated.
Cameroon (19); eliminated.
North Korea (105); eliminated.