Recently saw a modern interpretation of the 4th dimension and thought it was very poor. So bad, I almost forgot what it was! I had to go dig up the classic Sagan clip that’s 50 something years old, and it’s aging like fine wine. My hypothesis is that every reality is completed by 3 dimensions so the 4th dimension is just one leg of the 3 dimension cube that is surrounded by infinite 3 dimension cubes like a Russian doll with our world in the center.
Watching a rare primetime regular season network hockey game and noticed there is a female color commentator working the game. Why have all the leagues and networks pushed this agenda only to relegate women to color? Broadcasters first and foremost need effective voices to communicate, it’s essential for play by play calls, and color is supposed to be a more nontraditional ex player role meant to add insight, levity, and context. How can a female broadcaster accomplish any of these when they’re not an active or former league player, and are silent 75% of the time, only speaking when told, by her more dominant male play by play partner. The silences are awkward and it’s almost like someone gives them a signal to speak. It’s bad broadcasting any way you slice it and makes for a lesser product. MLB on espn makes a flirty former softball player the literal third wheel adding to the unprofessionalism. Last week’s NHL allstar game in San Jose featured plenty of virtue signalling, including a ‘girls can skate too’ feature followed by a ‘our minority players can talk’ post game show that immediately digressed into jokes regarding racial genitalia stereotypes. Either unleash the girls and hold them to the same standards as everyone else or stop pushing your halfhearted virtue signals on everyone, it’s obvious nobody wants this product except for your fear of offending someone somewhere.
Back before late night TV was purely a leftwing political platform, there used to be guys in suits and gals in dresses interacting, conversing, even drinking and smoking! These were the ‘conservative’ 20th century days when Carson had more pull than just about anyone else in the country. I’ve been learning a lot watching old tonight show reruns for the past 3 months, one of which is Super Bowl ratings. Back then monologues were about more than the GOP potus, there were sports, entertainment, and plenty of bipartisan political cracks.
In a 1990 ep shortly after SB XXIV, Carson lamented that this year’s ratings were the worst in a decade and concerns were growing at NBC about the plunging value of the ad time they had to sell by next year’s game. I was shocked! Wasn’t the NFL soaring in popularity at this time? Technically the 81 SB was worse, but that one involved Philadelphia so let’s just call it an outlier since both their appearances produced a dip in ratings. So if I wasn’t watching a 29yo Tonight Show rerun on antenna TV, I would have never looked it up and realized a fact that goes against the common historical narrative of 80s NFL; people were sick and damn tired of the Niners by their 4th SB! Or were the 80s Broncos a 90s Bills predecessor? Let’s take a closer look.
The Broncos produced strong ratings in both 87 and 88, but far less than the 10 year record held by the 85 Bears SB. It’s understandable that the Bears, with their mainstream popularity and greatest team ever consideration, held the ratings record until the Boys’ 3rd 90s SB appearance, the one with Deion and without Jimmy Johnson. But the Broncos went up against the NY Giants and Washington Redskins in 87 and 88, and they were both top tier teams in terms of national loathing and I-95 popularity. Even though ratings did dip from 87 to 88, it is hard to blame the Broncos since that was a strike shortened season that bittered many fans worldwide. True, maybe by the 3rd SB in 4 years the Donkey faithful may have had doubts, but Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Roger Craig, Ronnie Lott ‘the team of the 80s’ had lost national appeal by 90? Hard to believe but it appears to be true.
I always considered the 1990 NFC championship an abomination since the moment I saw the Marshall hit and the subsequent Craig fumble live, but were the networks and Tampa area ecstatic with the rest of New York? Was everyone outside of the bay rooting against the record 3 SB’s in a row? Were the west coast Niners poor draws? Not from what I recall, they were on MNF several times a year back then, they were endlessly hyped as the greatest dynasty ever, trumping the 70s Steelers thanks to the first Golden Boy qb, an unorthodox mad genius head coach, and an organization that kept drafting stars. The 95 SB’s dip in ratings adds to the evidence. SB ratings continued to soar post 2006 with the proliferation of internet streams and global market growth except a small dip in SB 47, the 6th and final appearance for the then Harbaugh led gold and red.
I had no idea the home of Ric-a-roni was so hated nationally! That contradicts 4 decades of being told other wise, but it had to change somewhere for some reason, but where and why? 85 SB had strong ratings and people now tout that pre Rice, Taylor, Craig, Rathman, Hailey, Romanowski team as the greatest ever in online comment boards. In my opinion, that team was nowhere near the 89 team or the 85 Bears team that also went 15-1 on the road to Super Sunday immortality. Please comment below, tell me when the Niners became so unpopular and what your explanation is for the peaks and valleys over the past 53 years.
It did not take long for the MAGA faithful to easily capitalize on the newly disgraced Virginia governor. Still reeling from the last meme war and with the 2020 election season already ramping up, the left has to keep their memeable moments to a minimum if they want to seriously contend for the hearts and minds of young voters on social media. Unless the tech giants increase their censorship to beyond 1984 levels, young liberals that ‘know how to code’ must match the MAGA base’s online intensity. If the dems lose again this time around at both the ballot box and the meme boards, Russian bots will not be a valid excuse for even the most staunch MSNBC viewer.
One of the first things Democrats did after taking control of the House of Representatives this year was to introduce a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College. The purpose is of course to prevent the election of Republican presidents who lose the popular vote (as Trump did in 2016 and Bush in 2000) This makes sense since much of the recent campaign battles have been over Supreme Court justices, and of course appointing them is one of the few powers the president has to make a lasting impact
What’s interesting to me though, is that for all the fearmongering over Trump’s appointments and Republicans controlling the Senate that seminal cases like Roe v. Wade might be overturned, Democrats did not see fit to introduce an amendment guaranteeing a right to an abortion. It would have a better chance of ratification than the Electoral College amendment, and would eliminate fears of Roe being overturned.
But that is of course exactly the problem, Democrats can’t afford to eliminate fear, they need it for their campaign. Your rights can be no safer than the next Supreme Court case, so if you want to keep them you must elect Democrats who will appoint progressive judges (of course as I noted in my previous post, this puts you on the hook for the entire progressive agenda, not just the parts you like)
Naturally Republicans are not to be outdone, they can introduce an amendment to clarify or expand the 2nd Amendment, guarantee religious business owners to operate their business in line with their religious beliefs, or to fix any of the problems they like to fearmonger about, they but they don’t want to either.
Obviously these are not rights at all, but rather privileges in a form of “benevolent” dictatorship, whose benevolence depends on you keeping the right dictators in power.
I’m sure by now you’ve all heard of billionaire and Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announcing his intent to run for president in 2020 as an independent, and I’m sure you’ve also heard the Democrats’ responses. How did we get to a point where it is somehow “undemocratic” to have more options on a ballot? Have we really fallen so deep into tribalism that only the 2 major parties are allowed to decide who gets to be president?
The biggest threat, of course, to such tribalism is people who check some boxes of one of the major parties, but not all of them. The person who believes in LGBT rights, but not gun control, or the pro-choice who is also concerned about unchecked and reckless federal spending. As both parties race full speed away from the center they need those centrists to be forced to choose one extreme or the other, and of course independent and third party candidates give voters another option. But the establishment parties need to force their extremist agendas on people by attaching them to the policies people want, so naturally when someone comes along without all the far-right or far-left baggage people are intrigued.
Sure I’ve heard the “spoiler” arguments, but I don’t buy it, because that means you have to accept our tribalism as a good thing, that should be preserved. In that case I say spoil away, as the major parties get more and more extreme the “spoiler” candidates will start to have a chance to win, or at the very least force the major parties back toward center
Wow, it has been 10 years…where has the time gone? There was an arctic cold blast back then as well, but nothing compares to the weather we’ve experienced in the last 24hrs. Winter has returned, and it is back with a vengeance so frigid, your pipes and windows may never live to tell the tale. Potentially the new mini ice age has begun, or something greater or lesser, we will have to wait and see. Bundle up and hunker down, tonight is going to be -20 something.