So I'm a little late getting to this one, but it's humorous:
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Newsweek
I was looking over the April 21st Newsweek this afternoon, and ran across an article on Obama titled "A Man at Home in the World." It had a picture of him at a rally in Kenya, and other picture of him on a poster in the city of Obama, Japan. I thought that this would be a wonderful article on how Obama is the most globalized candidate, the choice of the world, if they could vote. Wow was I mistaken.
After glancing at the exciting pictures, I began to read the pull out quotes and captions, which are larger and more obvious to readers than the article itself. Let's look at them and see what we can deduce about the article:
"Obama says he knows the globe better than his rivals. Does he know it too well?"
My thoughts: Of course "knowing the globe" too well is a serious problem that is going to hurt his candidacy and would devastate his presidency. It's not like we live in a globalized society where knowing other countries and cultures is important. Just kidding.
"Hearts and Minds: Obama, in Nairobi on a 2006 trip, says he knows intuitively about how others see America"
My thoughts: If someone claimed to "intuitively" know how others see America, that would sound arrogant. Too bad there are no such quotes or even references from Obama along those lines in the entire article.
"He played hide-and-seek in the local mosque, dueled with bamboo sticks, learned dirty words in Indonesian."
My thoughts:This pull out quote isn't even too bad, although it does just happen to reinforce the false notion that he is Muslim, which is one of the reasons many Americans refuse to vote for him.
"The more Obama-mania sweeps the world, the more suspicious his background becomes to some."
My thoughts: Who thinks it's suspicious? Obviously, they've neglected to mention that the "some" who are suspicious are largely non-educated Americans who still think he is a Muslim, and that all Muslims are suspicious.
"Too popular? A poster in the town of Obama, Japan"
My thoughts: Yes, being too popular in the world is a serious problem. As it is, America and its president are way too popular and this has forced us to build way to many alliances with countries all over the world, so much so that we can barely keep up with all of the countries that want to be our friends. Just kidding.
And that is every single pull-out quote and caption in the article. The article was about as fairly balanced as well. I guess what is frustrating me is that the media appear to be doing the same thing to Obama that they did to Kerry. They took a clearly superior candidate and tried to suggest that his strengths are weaknesses. For instance, John Kerry's patriotism and heroism in the Vietnam War was turned into anti-Americanism and lies about his combat service. I see the same thing happening here with Obama's global and multicultural experiences. I would consider trying to find the article online and linking to it so that you could read it with disgust too, but I don't want you to accidentally click on an advertising link and give them money.
After glancing at the exciting pictures, I began to read the pull out quotes and captions, which are larger and more obvious to readers than the article itself. Let's look at them and see what we can deduce about the article:
"Obama says he knows the globe better than his rivals. Does he know it too well?"
My thoughts: Of course "knowing the globe" too well is a serious problem that is going to hurt his candidacy and would devastate his presidency. It's not like we live in a globalized society where knowing other countries and cultures is important. Just kidding.
"Hearts and Minds: Obama, in Nairobi on a 2006 trip, says he knows intuitively about how others see America"
My thoughts: If someone claimed to "intuitively" know how others see America, that would sound arrogant. Too bad there are no such quotes or even references from Obama along those lines in the entire article.
"He played hide-and-seek in the local mosque, dueled with bamboo sticks, learned dirty words in Indonesian."
My thoughts:This pull out quote isn't even too bad, although it does just happen to reinforce the false notion that he is Muslim, which is one of the reasons many Americans refuse to vote for him.
"The more Obama-mania sweeps the world, the more suspicious his background becomes to some."
My thoughts: Who thinks it's suspicious? Obviously, they've neglected to mention that the "some" who are suspicious are largely non-educated Americans who still think he is a Muslim, and that all Muslims are suspicious.
"Too popular? A poster in the town of Obama, Japan"
My thoughts: Yes, being too popular in the world is a serious problem. As it is, America and its president are way too popular and this has forced us to build way to many alliances with countries all over the world, so much so that we can barely keep up with all of the countries that want to be our friends. Just kidding.
And that is every single pull-out quote and caption in the article. The article was about as fairly balanced as well. I guess what is frustrating me is that the media appear to be doing the same thing to Obama that they did to Kerry. They took a clearly superior candidate and tried to suggest that his strengths are weaknesses. For instance, John Kerry's patriotism and heroism in the Vietnam War was turned into anti-Americanism and lies about his combat service. I see the same thing happening here with Obama's global and multicultural experiences. I would consider trying to find the article online and linking to it so that you could read it with disgust too, but I don't want you to accidentally click on an advertising link and give them money.
Obama and the Media
I tried to post this yesterday, but Clipmarks seems to be acting up.
clipped from editorialcartoonists.com
 |
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Jeremiah Wright
I stole this video from my dad's blog because it's revealing of whom Jeremiah Wright is and also of what the media is doing.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Nothing but Net
I prefer to rave about the under-credited or unexpected guys who do well. I don't often rave about Tyler Hansbrough because everyone else does, and it's obvious that he's a huge part of our success. However, after his unexpected barrage of swished jumpers against Louisville, I need to make an exception.
Here is a quote from Basketball Prospectus' John Gasaway on Hansbrough's performance:
Hansbrough's fusillade of 17-foot jumpers, launched from the seams of the Louisville zone, represents an ominous development for North Carolina's next opponent (potentially, their next two opponents). If Hansbrough can make jump shots, it's unclear what, exactly, an opposing defense is supposed to do.
That line gets me quite excited, though I don't want to get too overconfident just yet. I can't wait for the day when people are saying "Yeah, Hansbrough, he and Wayne Ellington and Stephen Curry, those guys are the best pure shooters in college basketball."
Here is a quote from Basketball Prospectus' John Gasaway on Hansbrough's performance:
Hansbrough's fusillade of 17-foot jumpers, launched from the seams of the Louisville zone, represents an ominous development for North Carolina's next opponent (potentially, their next two opponents). If Hansbrough can make jump shots, it's unclear what, exactly, an opposing defense is supposed to do.
That line gets me quite excited, though I don't want to get too overconfident just yet. I can't wait for the day when people are saying "Yeah, Hansbrough, he and Wayne Ellington and Stephen Curry, those guys are the best pure shooters in college basketball."
Sunday, March 30, 2008
I love this game
From Adam Lucas's piece on UNC's visit to San Antonio:
And let's hope we do just that. The stage is now set: all #1 seeds that spent most of the tournament crushing opponents. High stakes and great teams. I feel like this year's #1 seeds are substantially better than last year's. This year, the #1s have only 9 losses combined., compared to 18 combined losses among the #1 seeds last year before the tournament began. Whichever team can survive this Final Four certainly deserves the title.
Now, being part of that thing called Carolina Basketball means understanding where you fit among those who came before you. In the summer, former players return for pickup games. The trash talk flows, but there is only one ultimate final word.
"The guys who come back from that '05 team, if you say anything to them, they just point at their title banner," Wayne Ellington said. "There's nothing you can say to that. That's why you come to North Carolina, to win championships."And let's hope we do just that. The stage is now set: all #1 seeds that spent most of the tournament crushing opponents. High stakes and great teams. I feel like this year's #1 seeds are substantially better than last year's. This year, the #1s have only 9 losses combined., compared to 18 combined losses among the #1 seeds last year before the tournament began. Whichever team can survive this Final Four certainly deserves the title.
El Gran Baile
That's how you say "The Big Dance" in Spanish, in case you were wondering. Exciting times this March. UNC has just earned a Final Four birth, along with UCLA. Personally, I'm hoping that fellow #1 seeds Kansas and Memphis also make it to San Antonio for what would be one of the most hyped Final Fours ever. Never before have all four #1 seeds made it. I want to be playing the best of the best. I want double and triple overtime games. I want it to be considered the best tournament of all time. And I want UNC to win. Let's hope for the best.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
So that's why everyone hates taxes
I remember growing up and hearing adults complain about taxes. A lot. One of my first "favorite songs" was Taxman by the Beatles, but mostly because it had a rocking guitar, not really because of the content. I thought adults thought it was cool to hate paying taxes and I thought that it was because they felt like their money was being stolen from them.
However, I did met one adult who genuinely thought tax-paying was good. She was a Mexican immigrant who I taught in an ESL class at El Centro Latino in Carrboro. The ESL teacher said something like "What's something that people don't like? Paying taxes. Let's go around the room and everyone explain why you don't like paying taxes."
The first lady to be called on said, "Well, I thought paying taxes was good. It pays for roads and schools." I guess when you come from a place with lousy roads and limited public education, you appreciate what American taxes pay for much more than an American who takes it all for granted.
I really liked her attitude and since then have always felt pretty similar about paying taxes. Basically, they pay for lots of things help us all the time, like garbage collection and police protection. I felt that paying my taxes was patriotic and I feel like I owe the government a lot of money for creating a country where I'm blessed with incredible opportunities and safety, even though I certainly don't agree with a lot of ways the government spends the money.
Yesterday, I was doing my taxes for the first time. Previously, my parents had an accountant that took care of it, so i just signed on the bottom line and that took care of my contribution. Now my dad is making me do my own taxes, and my initial cheerfulness toward my patriotic duty quickly turned into frustration and anger.
The source of my anger is not the amount I'm paying or the fact that I'm paying it, but rather the ridiculous tax forms that we are required to fill out. There is so much financial jargon that I don't know and I have to look up terms like earned vs. unearned income, tax credit, itemized deductions, and many others. I know that part of this is just growing pains since this is my first time filing, but it's such a pain in the neck I can't stand it. There are so many wordy questions like "If you are a dependent older than 65 or blind, check box A, if you're a dependent younger than 65 or not blind, check box B." I realize there is some value to this, but it feels like I'm taking a standardized test. I spent several hours just trying to figure out what I'm supposed to do and what I do and don't qualify for. I have a college degree and I can't understand what they're talking about half of the time. The whole experience left me pissed off for the rest of the day. And this was just doing the state taxes. I haven't even started the federal taxes. (turns out I'm doing them in the wrong order, too; some of the state forms request info off of the federal forms...augh). I now completely understand why some people despise taxes so much, especially if they couple this frustration with a sense of entitlement to all of the money they made.
However, there was one silver lining. My favorite part of the NC tax form is where they ask you if you'd like to put $3 of your taxes into public campaign finance. Of similar significance, but of less interest to me, they also ask if you'd like to assign $3 of your taxes to the Republican or Democratic party. The basic concept here is ground-breaking: allowing the tax-payer to choose where his or her tax dollars are going.
Imagine if you could have some direct say in how the government spends your money. If you think we need to improve health and education, you designate your taxes to be spent accordingly. If you think the war in Iraq is a bad idea, you can reassign your defense tax money from being spent on weapons and instead have it go toward veteran services. If you think the transportation department isn't meeting your needs, don't support them with your tax dollars.
If you turn doing taxes into a game of SimCity, everyone would be begging for tax season. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but I would love to be able to put certain designations on my money to make sure it is used in ways that I approve of. This would encourage me to pay more attention to the government and it's role in my life, and also to recognize what the government does for me. This would be one step closer to government by the people. If I could choose how my money was being spent without worrying that it might go to causes I disagree with, I would be much happier to give it away.
Now some of you (all two of you who read this blog) are thinking "What, you just spent the first half of this complaining about the excessive bureaucracy of tax code, and now you're in favor of putting in more options?!"
Now hear me out. All I want (so far) is something like a pie chart, divided into different funding categories, like education, transportation, defense, healthcare, etc. If desired, tax payers have the option of selecting what percent of our money goes into each category. For tax-payers with specific interests, they can then subspecify funding from within these categories. For example, if you decide to give your tax money to transportation, you can specify highway buget, mass transit, green initiatives, etc. Tax payers who don't specify or subspecify will have their money used as needed to fill holes in the budget. However, I think most people would be interested in specifying how they want their money spent; I think it's part of our capitalist upbringing in America.
Obviously, this is a first draft idea for me, though I wouldn't be surprised if it has been tried before on some smaller scales. There would also have to be limits, obviously, on how much of their tax money people can assign. You can't have everyone going off on some trendy spending idea while some basic service is being starved. You could at least test out this idea one year with a trial run without actually following the tax payer specifications just to see how people actually want their money spent and compare that to the real budget. There are still a lot of details to be worked out, but the mere concept gets me excited. Magically, from this one idea, I have gone from having a bad day to a good day.
However, I did met one adult who genuinely thought tax-paying was good. She was a Mexican immigrant who I taught in an ESL class at El Centro Latino in Carrboro. The ESL teacher said something like "What's something that people don't like? Paying taxes. Let's go around the room and everyone explain why you don't like paying taxes."
The first lady to be called on said, "Well, I thought paying taxes was good. It pays for roads and schools." I guess when you come from a place with lousy roads and limited public education, you appreciate what American taxes pay for much more than an American who takes it all for granted.
I really liked her attitude and since then have always felt pretty similar about paying taxes. Basically, they pay for lots of things help us all the time, like garbage collection and police protection. I felt that paying my taxes was patriotic and I feel like I owe the government a lot of money for creating a country where I'm blessed with incredible opportunities and safety, even though I certainly don't agree with a lot of ways the government spends the money.
Yesterday, I was doing my taxes for the first time. Previously, my parents had an accountant that took care of it, so i just signed on the bottom line and that took care of my contribution. Now my dad is making me do my own taxes, and my initial cheerfulness toward my patriotic duty quickly turned into frustration and anger.
The source of my anger is not the amount I'm paying or the fact that I'm paying it, but rather the ridiculous tax forms that we are required to fill out. There is so much financial jargon that I don't know and I have to look up terms like earned vs. unearned income, tax credit, itemized deductions, and many others. I know that part of this is just growing pains since this is my first time filing, but it's such a pain in the neck I can't stand it. There are so many wordy questions like "If you are a dependent older than 65 or blind, check box A, if you're a dependent younger than 65 or not blind, check box B." I realize there is some value to this, but it feels like I'm taking a standardized test. I spent several hours just trying to figure out what I'm supposed to do and what I do and don't qualify for. I have a college degree and I can't understand what they're talking about half of the time. The whole experience left me pissed off for the rest of the day. And this was just doing the state taxes. I haven't even started the federal taxes. (turns out I'm doing them in the wrong order, too; some of the state forms request info off of the federal forms...augh). I now completely understand why some people despise taxes so much, especially if they couple this frustration with a sense of entitlement to all of the money they made.
However, there was one silver lining. My favorite part of the NC tax form is where they ask you if you'd like to put $3 of your taxes into public campaign finance. Of similar significance, but of less interest to me, they also ask if you'd like to assign $3 of your taxes to the Republican or Democratic party. The basic concept here is ground-breaking: allowing the tax-payer to choose where his or her tax dollars are going.
Imagine if you could have some direct say in how the government spends your money. If you think we need to improve health and education, you designate your taxes to be spent accordingly. If you think the war in Iraq is a bad idea, you can reassign your defense tax money from being spent on weapons and instead have it go toward veteran services. If you think the transportation department isn't meeting your needs, don't support them with your tax dollars.
If you turn doing taxes into a game of SimCity, everyone would be begging for tax season. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but I would love to be able to put certain designations on my money to make sure it is used in ways that I approve of. This would encourage me to pay more attention to the government and it's role in my life, and also to recognize what the government does for me. This would be one step closer to government by the people. If I could choose how my money was being spent without worrying that it might go to causes I disagree with, I would be much happier to give it away.
Now some of you (all two of you who read this blog) are thinking "What, you just spent the first half of this complaining about the excessive bureaucracy of tax code, and now you're in favor of putting in more options?!"
Now hear me out. All I want (so far) is something like a pie chart, divided into different funding categories, like education, transportation, defense, healthcare, etc. If desired, tax payers have the option of selecting what percent of our money goes into each category. For tax-payers with specific interests, they can then subspecify funding from within these categories. For example, if you decide to give your tax money to transportation, you can specify highway buget, mass transit, green initiatives, etc. Tax payers who don't specify or subspecify will have their money used as needed to fill holes in the budget. However, I think most people would be interested in specifying how they want their money spent; I think it's part of our capitalist upbringing in America.
Obviously, this is a first draft idea for me, though I wouldn't be surprised if it has been tried before on some smaller scales. There would also have to be limits, obviously, on how much of their tax money people can assign. You can't have everyone going off on some trendy spending idea while some basic service is being starved. You could at least test out this idea one year with a trial run without actually following the tax payer specifications just to see how people actually want their money spent and compare that to the real budget. There are still a lot of details to be worked out, but the mere concept gets me excited. Magically, from this one idea, I have gone from having a bad day to a good day.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
UNC-Duke
Congrats to the Tar Heels for defeating Duke. Luckily, I was able to watch the gamehere in Nicaragua with Spanish-speaking commentators. I wish I could have made a recording of the play-by-play so that you could experience it too. Hopefully I'll be able to see several more games here as we enter the post season. Although it was a good victory, I'm a little worried about our team being overconfident since everyone is like "oh yeah, now we're number one and we deserve it." We'll see what happens...
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Quentin Thomas' Championship Stat Line
1 minute, 1 rebound, 1 turnover, 1 foul
I'm glad to find out that he did in fact play in the 2005 championship game. That's quite an accomplishment in itself. He has come such a long way since then, and I'm very happy for him. He reminds me a lot of a couple of other players who went from goats/unknowns as freshman to heroes/fan favorites by their senior year:
Jackie Manuel: I remember fans being terrified every time he had the ball on offense back when he was a freshman. He learned to pick his spots and contribute offensively, and defensively, he was the official shut 'em-down type. By his senior year, everyone loved him for his relentless work ethic and defense, and he became such a fan favorite that he had his own pirated t-shirt line, "Jackie Manuel has a Posse."
David Noel: So he was never really a goat, but he was a mostly unknown role player for his first three years, who did a good job fitting in and didn't mess things up. Although never an offensive juggernaut, he was a good defender, averaging 16.9 minutes per game and 3.9 pts during his junior year, and playing 20 minutes in the championship game. He senior year he was thrust into the spotlight as the returning leading scorer from the championship team. Although many didn't even expect the team to make the NCAA tournament after losing its top seven scorers, Noel led this team of freshman and walk-ons to a memorable season, going 23-8, including ruining JJ Reddick and Sheldon Williams' senior night in Cameron. The Heels reached the NCAAs, but were upset in the second round by eventual Final Four Cinderella George Mason.
Byron Sanders: Sanders was similar to Manuel in that he wasn't very skilled offensively, but he made up for it in heart. Sanders was thrust into a starting role in his freshman year after Sean May broke his foot, but replacing Sean May is a huge task and fans were a little disappointed and frustrated. Nonetheless, Sanders worked hard and improved over the years. He never quite gained the same minutes in his senior year as others on this list, but he did have some memorable moments, including posting up and nailing 2 shots in the 2006 Senior Night upset at Duke. By his senior year, he had his own crowd chant every time he hit a shot in the Dean Dome: "By-ron Sand-ers!"
Among other recent players, I considered putting Reyshawn Terry and Wes Miller on this list, but didn't mostly because their careers followed a slightly different trajectory. Statistically, both peaked in their junior years on the 2006 team, but then had to make way for Lawson, Ellington, Thompson, and Stepheson during their senior years in 2007. Had they played the same minutes their senior years, they probably would have shown continued improvement. Also, they weren't upsetting fans with their play in the beginning of their careers, they were just little-used due to the high levels of talent on those teams. So, they didn't quite remind me enough of Thomas.
All right, all of these comparisons are a bit of a stretch, but you get the idea: Work hard, be humble, and good things will happen.
I'm glad to find out that he did in fact play in the 2005 championship game. That's quite an accomplishment in itself. He has come such a long way since then, and I'm very happy for him. He reminds me a lot of a couple of other players who went from goats/unknowns as freshman to heroes/fan favorites by their senior year:
Jackie Manuel: I remember fans being terrified every time he had the ball on offense back when he was a freshman. He learned to pick his spots and contribute offensively, and defensively, he was the official shut 'em-down type. By his senior year, everyone loved him for his relentless work ethic and defense, and he became such a fan favorite that he had his own pirated t-shirt line, "Jackie Manuel has a Posse."
David Noel: So he was never really a goat, but he was a mostly unknown role player for his first three years, who did a good job fitting in and didn't mess things up. Although never an offensive juggernaut, he was a good defender, averaging 16.9 minutes per game and 3.9 pts during his junior year, and playing 20 minutes in the championship game. He senior year he was thrust into the spotlight as the returning leading scorer from the championship team. Although many didn't even expect the team to make the NCAA tournament after losing its top seven scorers, Noel led this team of freshman and walk-ons to a memorable season, going 23-8, including ruining JJ Reddick and Sheldon Williams' senior night in Cameron. The Heels reached the NCAAs, but were upset in the second round by eventual Final Four Cinderella George Mason.
Byron Sanders: Sanders was similar to Manuel in that he wasn't very skilled offensively, but he made up for it in heart. Sanders was thrust into a starting role in his freshman year after Sean May broke his foot, but replacing Sean May is a huge task and fans were a little disappointed and frustrated. Nonetheless, Sanders worked hard and improved over the years. He never quite gained the same minutes in his senior year as others on this list, but he did have some memorable moments, including posting up and nailing 2 shots in the 2006 Senior Night upset at Duke. By his senior year, he had his own crowd chant every time he hit a shot in the Dean Dome: "By-ron Sand-ers!"
Among other recent players, I considered putting Reyshawn Terry and Wes Miller on this list, but didn't mostly because their careers followed a slightly different trajectory. Statistically, both peaked in their junior years on the 2006 team, but then had to make way for Lawson, Ellington, Thompson, and Stepheson during their senior years in 2007. Had they played the same minutes their senior years, they probably would have shown continued improvement. Also, they weren't upsetting fans with their play in the beginning of their careers, they were just little-used due to the high levels of talent on those teams. So, they didn't quite remind me enough of Thomas.
All right, all of these comparisons are a bit of a stretch, but you get the idea: Work hard, be humble, and good things will happen.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Quuuuuuuue
This makes me really happy:
from Adam Lucas on Tar Heel Blue:
"• Quentin Thomas had seven assists and three turnovers. He was making his sixth consecutive start at point guard. In the last seven games (including the Florida State game in which Ty Lawson got hurt), Thomas has 46 assists, 23 turnovers and 56 points. He is averaging 6.6 assists in those seven games. His assist-error ratio of 2 to 1 is the best among all ACC point guards in the last seven games. Thomas has seven or more assists in five of the six games in which he has started this year."
The best assist-turnover ratio among all ACC PGs in the last 7 games!? Wow, Q has come so far and I am so happy for him. UNC is winning, Q is playing great. I wish I could be there for Senior Night to wish him well. The teams really seems to have gotten behind him and has been playing great lately.
from Adam Lucas on Tar Heel Blue:
"• Quentin Thomas had seven assists and three turnovers. He was making his sixth consecutive start at point guard. In the last seven games (including the Florida State game in which Ty Lawson got hurt), Thomas has 46 assists, 23 turnovers and 56 points. He is averaging 6.6 assists in those seven games. His assist-error ratio of 2 to 1 is the best among all ACC point guards in the last seven games. Thomas has seven or more assists in five of the six games in which he has started this year."
The best assist-turnover ratio among all ACC PGs in the last 7 games!? Wow, Q has come so far and I am so happy for him. UNC is winning, Q is playing great. I wish I could be there for Senior Night to wish him well. The teams really seems to have gotten behind him and has been playing great lately.
Monday, February 18, 2008
UNC Basketball Museum
Today, I visited the recently opened Carolina Basketball Museum, just a couple buildings away from the Dean Dome. It's a very fancy place with all sorts of memorabilia and highlights. Admittedly, parts are a bit cheesy, but it's definitely the first museum to get me teary-eyed reliving all my favorite plays over the years. It was funny to watch other people watching highlights too, and see their reactions to games played over a decade ago, like the guy shouting, "Oh come on, Montross, get that ball!"
Overall, it's a fun place. As my sister said, "This is first time I've actually enjoyed going to a museum!"
For me, one surreal part of the experience was watching footage from the 2005 championship game. I completely missed this game and most of the 2005 season while overseas, so I had followed their progress from game recaps, but had never seen the highlights before. For the first time, I got to see Felton's key steal and free throws that sealed the game, as well as some other highlights. I couldn't believe that I had really never seen any of that before. Almost every Carolina fan except for me has vivid memories of that game and the celebration afterwards, but all I remember is waking up the next day and reading the espn.com recap and box score and then being really happy and smiling hard. I was particularly proud of Sean May's stats and how this final game consummated his development into a complete beast. But it was a little awkward because I couldn't even shout or get too excited in my room because no one else even knew what college hoops were. I tried to explain how happy I was to my apartment mates, but they were like "Uh, good for you!...I guess." Although I was very happy about the championship, I feel like I missed what a lot of my fellow UNC students consider their favorite college memory.
Besides my memories from reading espn.com the day afterward, most of my happy memories come from reading the Daily Tar Heel front page spread, which was posted on the wall of my psych lab, about a year after the game. I remember being unusually fascinated by the paper, like the Sean May fist pumping photo where it looks like his jersey in in his mouth, and the Felton pullout quote about his key steal and free throws. It was all a little foreign, but I could just happily stare at that poster completely fascinated by the emotions on the faces of the players and coaches.
This comparison is pretty extreme, but it'd kind of be like going into a coma in 1968, then waking up in 1973, and completely missing all of the lunar landings. You read about it and see pictures of joyous people celebrating and astronauts with moon rocks. Then a few years later, you happen to see actual footage of the guys bouncing on the moon and people celebrating, and you think, "Wow, that's what it was like!" followed by "...too bad I totally missed it. I wonder if it'll happen again sometime so I can celebrate too..."
Let's hope for the best!
Overall, it's a fun place. As my sister said, "This is first time I've actually enjoyed going to a museum!"
For me, one surreal part of the experience was watching footage from the 2005 championship game. I completely missed this game and most of the 2005 season while overseas, so I had followed their progress from game recaps, but had never seen the highlights before. For the first time, I got to see Felton's key steal and free throws that sealed the game, as well as some other highlights. I couldn't believe that I had really never seen any of that before. Almost every Carolina fan except for me has vivid memories of that game and the celebration afterwards, but all I remember is waking up the next day and reading the espn.com recap and box score and then being really happy and smiling hard. I was particularly proud of Sean May's stats and how this final game consummated his development into a complete beast. But it was a little awkward because I couldn't even shout or get too excited in my room because no one else even knew what college hoops were. I tried to explain how happy I was to my apartment mates, but they were like "Uh, good for you!...I guess." Although I was very happy about the championship, I feel like I missed what a lot of my fellow UNC students consider their favorite college memory.
Besides my memories from reading espn.com the day afterward, most of my happy memories come from reading the Daily Tar Heel front page spread, which was posted on the wall of my psych lab, about a year after the game. I remember being unusually fascinated by the paper, like the Sean May fist pumping photo where it looks like his jersey in in his mouth, and the Felton pullout quote about his key steal and free throws. It was all a little foreign, but I could just happily stare at that poster completely fascinated by the emotions on the faces of the players and coaches.
This comparison is pretty extreme, but it'd kind of be like going into a coma in 1968, then waking up in 1973, and completely missing all of the lunar landings. You read about it and see pictures of joyous people celebrating and astronauts with moon rocks. Then a few years later, you happen to see actual footage of the guys bouncing on the moon and people celebrating, and you think, "Wow, that's what it was like!" followed by "...too bad I totally missed it. I wonder if it'll happen again sometime so I can celebrate too..."
Let's hope for the best!
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Virginia Tech - UNC
UNC played one of it's best games of the entire year, even though the team was shorthanded, toppling Virginia Tech 92-53. Since I just had a post about UNC's offensive and defensive efficiency, I figured I would mention this game since it was notable. Offensively, UNC was back at its average with an efficiency of 116.4. Defensively, we easily had our best game of the year with a season low efficiency of 67.1 A lot of that was due to the fact that Virginia Tech played terribly, but perhaps some was due to improved defense.
Obama Catching Up
If you've read the news lately, you've heard about how Obama is crushing Clinton in one state after another, having swept 8 of the last 8. This is very impressive; however, the race is still quite close. The AP delegate count favors Obama 1,275 to 1,220; the more conservative NY Times count favors Obama too with a margin of 934 to 892. The media have played up the closeness of the race for quite some time, but until the last few weeks, Clinton was far ahead nationally.
Here is a look at his dramatic rise over the last month and a half:
Here is a look at his dramatic rise over the last month and a half:
 |
Even in the beginning of January 2008, a mere month and a half ago, Clinton was ahead by about 20 percentage points nationally. According to this recent polling data, they are basically tied, although Obama may have a slight edge. This month, there are two more Democratic primaries, both occuring February 19th. They are in Hawaii (29) and Wisconsin (92 delegates). Though Wisconsin should be very close, Obama is favored to win both at this point; however, when all is said and done, the delegates will be split fairly evenly between both candidates.
Although Obama has some momentum going, Clinton is banking on the next few delegate-heavy states to take a lead. However, her lead in these has been shrinking too:
On March 4, there are four major primaries, the two largest are Ohio (161 delegates) and Texas (228 delegates). Obama has made serious inroads into Clinton's huge lead, but has yet to catch her.
In Ohio:
|
In Texas:
 |
Further out, there is a Pennsylvania primary on April 22 with 188 delegates at stake. Here, Obama has has yet to cut into Clinton's lead:
|
The other big issue is the 796 superdelegates, important individual party members who each count as a delegate themselves. About 300 of these have committed to a candidate so far, a ratio of about 2:1 in favor of Clinton. There is some talk that the Democratic superdelegates will, in the end, all align with whomever wins the most delegates in the state by state match up to avoid taking democracy out of the process. At this point, it seems unlikely that either candidate will be able to garner the 2,025 delegates necessary to win the nomination based solely on the results of the state primaries and caucuses. We'll have to wait and see how the primaries go, and if that's still inconclusive, see what the Democratic superdelegates decide. I think it's generating excitement and I think it'll be be nice for some states (like North Carolina, perhaps) to have a say in the nomination.
Friday, February 15, 2008
The Lawson Effect
Ty Lawson of the UNC basketball team has missed several games this season and he is currently injured. UNC clearly hasn't played as well with him gone. Points per game have gone down and turnovers have gone way up. Let's have a little look into how he affects the Heels from a statistical point of view.
The best place to start is with Ken Pomeroy because he runs an excellent college basketball statistics site. I have taken the follow numbers from his UNC Game Plan page
Here is a chart I made detailing UNC's offensive (pink) and defensive (blue) efficiency. Efficiency is basically a measure of how many points you score per possession. You want a high offensive efficiency and a low defensive efficiency (points allowed per possession).
As you can tell, the last couple of games, Lawson has been missing and the offensive and defensive efficiencies are nearly equal, and the scores reflect that as we've played very close games. There is also a large drop in offensive efficiency in late November when Lawson missed games against BYU and Ohio State (he played 2 minutes against BYU before being injured, so I'm not counting it).
To better determine Lawson's effect on the team, lets look at the overall season averages, conference averages, averages with Lawson, and averages without Lawson. Any game where Lawson only played a few minutes and then left due to injury was counted as game without him. Explanation of the columns is available here.
This offers some more insight into where Lawson matters most. Here are some of the notable differences in playing without Lawson:
On Offense:
- UNC has about 4 fewer possessions per game
- UNC's offensive efficiency is much lower, going from about 1.20 points per possession with him to only 1.01.
- Effective field goal percentage (values 3 point shots 50% more than 2 pointers) drops from 54.01 to 46.72
- The number of possessions on which we turn the ball over increases from 17.67% to 20.82%.
- One thing that is a bit confusing is that with Lawson, a 5'11'' point guard, we do a better job of collecting offensive rebounds than without him: 43.52% to 38.28%
- Our free throw rate is about the same on offense, 40.31 with Lawson to 39.63 without him.
On Defense:
- Our defensive efficiency is about the same, 93.97 with to 94.32 without
- Curiously, opponents shoot better when Lawson is playing: 49.08% with to 45.92% without.
- However, opponents turn it over more frequently against Lawson: 22.08% with to 17.40% without
- Opponents have the same offensive rebounding rate with or without Lawson playing; however, they do have a slightly better free throw rate when Lawson plays.
Conclusions:
Obviously, we're really hurting offensively without Lawson. Anyone watching recent games could tell you that. It's impressive that almost all of our offensive numbers are better (except FTR) with him playing, even offensive rebounding.
On the other hand, our team doesn't seem to be suffering much from his absence on the defensive end. UNC doesn't create quite as many turnovers and opponents make more free throws, but their field goal percentage drops.
On the whole, the extra playing time for Quentin Thomas may help to make UNC a more complete team in the future. From here on out, all the games are against high quality competition.
The best place to start is with Ken Pomeroy because he runs an excellent college basketball statistics site. I have taken the follow numbers from his UNC Game Plan page
Here is a chart I made detailing UNC's offensive (pink) and defensive (blue) efficiency. Efficiency is basically a measure of how many points you score per possession. You want a high offensive efficiency and a low defensive efficiency (points allowed per possession).
As you can tell, the last couple of games, Lawson has been missing and the offensive and defensive efficiencies are nearly equal, and the scores reflect that as we've played very close games. There is also a large drop in offensive efficiency in late November when Lawson missed games against BYU and Ohio State (he played 2 minutes against BYU before being injured, so I'm not counting it).
To better determine Lawson's effect on the team, lets look at the overall season averages, conference averages, averages with Lawson, and averages without Lawson. Any game where Lawson only played a few minutes and then left due to injury was counted as game without him. Explanation of the columns is available here.
| Offense | |||||||||||
| Pace | Eff. | eFG% | TO% | OR% | |||||||
| Sea. avg | 76.36 | 115.48 | 52.26 | 18.42 | 42.26 | ||||||
| ACC avg | 75.00 | 110.92 | 49.16 | 19.03 | 41.86 | ||||||
| w/Lawson | 77.26 | 119.98 | 54.01 | 17.67 | 43.52 | ||||||
| w/oLawson | 73.50 | 101.25 | 46.72 | 20.82 | 38.28 |
| Defense | |||||
| Eff. | eFG% | TO% | OR% | FTR | |
| Average | 94.05 | 48.32 | 20.96 | 28.40 | 23.71 |
| ACC | 100.49 | 48.92 | 17.07 | 29.63 | 24.57 |
| w/Lawson | 93.97 | 49.08 | 22.08 | 28.45 | 25.27 |
| w/oLawson | 94.32 | 45.92 | 17.40 | 28.23 | 18.75 |
This offers some more insight into where Lawson matters most. Here are some of the notable differences in playing without Lawson:
On Offense:
- UNC has about 4 fewer possessions per game
- UNC's offensive efficiency is much lower, going from about 1.20 points per possession with him to only 1.01.
- Effective field goal percentage (values 3 point shots 50% more than 2 pointers) drops from 54.01 to 46.72
- The number of possessions on which we turn the ball over increases from 17.67% to 20.82%.
- One thing that is a bit confusing is that with Lawson, a 5'11'' point guard, we do a better job of collecting offensive rebounds than without him: 43.52% to 38.28%
- Our free throw rate is about the same on offense, 40.31 with Lawson to 39.63 without him.
On Defense:
- Our defensive efficiency is about the same, 93.97 with to 94.32 without
- Curiously, opponents shoot better when Lawson is playing: 49.08% with to 45.92% without.
- However, opponents turn it over more frequently against Lawson: 22.08% with to 17.40% without
- Opponents have the same offensive rebounding rate with or without Lawson playing; however, they do have a slightly better free throw rate when Lawson plays.
Conclusions:
Obviously, we're really hurting offensively without Lawson. Anyone watching recent games could tell you that. It's impressive that almost all of our offensive numbers are better (except FTR) with him playing, even offensive rebounding.
On the other hand, our team doesn't seem to be suffering much from his absence on the defensive end. UNC doesn't create quite as many turnovers and opponents make more free throws, but their field goal percentage drops.
On the whole, the extra playing time for Quentin Thomas may help to make UNC a more complete team in the future. From here on out, all the games are against high quality competition.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The Searchers
Since love is in the air on Valentine's Day, here is a fun little video. I can't believe I had never heard this song until Monday. It's a classic:
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Comparing "1/2 Hour" with the Daily Show
There are several key differences between the FoxNews "1/2 Hour News Hour" and The Daily Show. As I mentioned in the last post, The Daily Show uses actual people and has them defend their beliefs, as well as criticizing both conservatives and liberals. One other major difference is that The Daily Show uses actual news clips and critiques them, catches people in lies, and makes a point of showing dishonesty and prejudice. Here is one such example of TDS using actual footage to demonstrate a point about how Republicans are attacking Democrats. Note that Jon Stewart analyzes the way Romney presents his resignation speech (around the 2 minute mark, Stewart begins addressing Romney's resignation speech, and at about the 3 minute mark, he gets the part about the Democrats):
Now this is a nice piece of journalism that catches Romney implying that supporting the Democrats is akin to supporting the terrorists. This is downright offensive to Democrats and completely unsupported by evidence. By broadcasting this clip and analyzing it closely, Stewart is holding Romney accountable for his claims. He then goes on to address Romney's claims about faith in god and how that affects a country's government.
The viewers have been primed and are now ready to bash Mitt Romney for his comments. The Daily Show then segues into a segment with Jason Jones in which they discuss Mitt Romney being a douchebag.
I suppose it's also worth noting that The Daily Show at least shows some self-deprecation and Jones calls himself a douchebag, as well as Jon Stewart. Clearly, had The Daily Show not preceding the Jason Jones segment with clips of Romney demonizing Democrats, it would have come across as baseless slander. Instead, I think most viewers feel little sympathy for Romney.
If the "1/2 Hour" program wanted, they could use a similar format to promote conservative ideas. For instance, one major claim of conservative media is that mainstream media has a liberal bias. So, the "1/2 Hour" could try to find clips that demonstrate liberal media bias and analyze them. They could show clips to present evidence to the audience, and then crack jokes. However, I have not found any clips of "1/2 Hour" using real media segments. Here is one way in which FoxNews has promoted the idea of liberal media bias:
I think that this segment could be much stronger if they could actually find a clip of a reporter blatantly demonstrating liberal media bias. If liberal media bias is as rampant as conservatives claim, it shouldn't be too hard to find. Instead, they go straight for the jokes. As for actual evidence, they do loosely paraphrase a Democrat, Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, who did say that if the surge works, it'll be a problem for the Democrats to pass legislation to set a timetable to end the war. True, what Clyburn said wasn't particularly well phrased, but it was taken out of context. However, FoxNews can't claim this as evidence of liberal media bias since he is a Democrat and not part of the media.
All told, it is a weak attempt to demonstrate liberal bias in the media. Most critical viewers watching this FoxNews program will not be able to take it seriously or consider it a watchdog program on par with the Daily Show without some evidence. Perhaps that's why it didn't last very long.
Now this is a nice piece of journalism that catches Romney implying that supporting the Democrats is akin to supporting the terrorists. This is downright offensive to Democrats and completely unsupported by evidence. By broadcasting this clip and analyzing it closely, Stewart is holding Romney accountable for his claims. He then goes on to address Romney's claims about faith in god and how that affects a country's government.
The viewers have been primed and are now ready to bash Mitt Romney for his comments. The Daily Show then segues into a segment with Jason Jones in which they discuss Mitt Romney being a douchebag.
I suppose it's also worth noting that The Daily Show at least shows some self-deprecation and Jones calls himself a douchebag, as well as Jon Stewart. Clearly, had The Daily Show not preceding the Jason Jones segment with clips of Romney demonizing Democrats, it would have come across as baseless slander. Instead, I think most viewers feel little sympathy for Romney.
If the "1/2 Hour" program wanted, they could use a similar format to promote conservative ideas. For instance, one major claim of conservative media is that mainstream media has a liberal bias. So, the "1/2 Hour" could try to find clips that demonstrate liberal media bias and analyze them. They could show clips to present evidence to the audience, and then crack jokes. However, I have not found any clips of "1/2 Hour" using real media segments. Here is one way in which FoxNews has promoted the idea of liberal media bias:
I think that this segment could be much stronger if they could actually find a clip of a reporter blatantly demonstrating liberal media bias. If liberal media bias is as rampant as conservatives claim, it shouldn't be too hard to find. Instead, they go straight for the jokes. As for actual evidence, they do loosely paraphrase a Democrat, Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, who did say that if the surge works, it'll be a problem for the Democrats to pass legislation to set a timetable to end the war. True, what Clyburn said wasn't particularly well phrased, but it was taken out of context. However, FoxNews can't claim this as evidence of liberal media bias since he is a Democrat and not part of the media.
All told, it is a weak attempt to demonstrate liberal bias in the media. Most critical viewers watching this FoxNews program will not be able to take it seriously or consider it a watchdog program on par with the Daily Show without some evidence. Perhaps that's why it didn't last very long.
Monday, February 11, 2008
FoxNews: 1/2 Hour News Hour
As I mentioned in the last post's comments, the FoxNews channel briefly had a satire show called the "1/2 Hour News Hour," which was, in the words of creator Joel Surnow, meant to be a sort of "Daily Show for conservatives." So I looked up the show online to see what it was actually about and see how it and the Daily Show compare. I found a couple of clips for you to look at; I chose these based on what I could find on Youtube and won't take up too much of your time.
This first one is about Barack Obama.
As you can see, the show gets humor by mentioning things like his drug use as a teenager, a Marion Berry reference, making up a nickname "Gassy," his middle name Hussein, his initials BO, etc. The Daily Show also makes fun of stupid things, like Condoleezza Rice's name ("a starchy side dish often served with beans"). However, the Daily Show also regularly makes fun of Democrats, and recent examples include Hillary Clinton and Edward Kennedy. I have yet to see a single criticism of conservatives on this FoxNews show. Once again, this is based on a small sample of clips that I've seen.
The Daily Show and Colbert Report frequently have real conservatives on their shows and press them to defend their opinions and actions. John McCain and Bill Kristol are two of the most frequent Daily Show guests. I haven't seen any real people defend their beliefs on the "1/2 Hour News Hour," only actors. The only "guests" seem to be caricatures of liberal opinions.
I think that this show could have done a much better job by actually interviewing a gun control activist and trying to find holes in his argument.
Here is another, similar example:
The Daily Show or Colbert Report would actually interview real authors, both conservatives and liberals.
Although I don't find these clips particularly entertaining or funny, I do think that it is valuable to see them. As I watch them, I can pick out tons of things I disagree with or think are plain irrelevant or irreverent. Being able to recognize this issues can help you to look at The Daily Show with a more critical eye. Not all that Jon Stewart says is perfect and not everything they make fun of is deserving of criticism. For instance, making fun of CNN's Election Center and all of their fancy television screens and floating pie charts isn't very useful, nor is it funny. Sure, CNN may be a little proud of their fancy studio, but that doesn't mean they're doing a bad job of reporting. In the next post, I'll directly compare a couple of clips from The Daily Show and 1/2 Hour News Hour.
This first one is about Barack Obama.
As you can see, the show gets humor by mentioning things like his drug use as a teenager, a Marion Berry reference, making up a nickname "Gassy," his middle name Hussein, his initials BO, etc. The Daily Show also makes fun of stupid things, like Condoleezza Rice's name ("a starchy side dish often served with beans"). However, the Daily Show also regularly makes fun of Democrats, and recent examples include Hillary Clinton and Edward Kennedy. I have yet to see a single criticism of conservatives on this FoxNews show. Once again, this is based on a small sample of clips that I've seen.
The Daily Show and Colbert Report frequently have real conservatives on their shows and press them to defend their opinions and actions. John McCain and Bill Kristol are two of the most frequent Daily Show guests. I haven't seen any real people defend their beliefs on the "1/2 Hour News Hour," only actors. The only "guests" seem to be caricatures of liberal opinions.
I think that this show could have done a much better job by actually interviewing a gun control activist and trying to find holes in his argument.
Here is another, similar example:
The Daily Show or Colbert Report would actually interview real authors, both conservatives and liberals.
Although I don't find these clips particularly entertaining or funny, I do think that it is valuable to see them. As I watch them, I can pick out tons of things I disagree with or think are plain irrelevant or irreverent. Being able to recognize this issues can help you to look at The Daily Show with a more critical eye. Not all that Jon Stewart says is perfect and not everything they make fun of is deserving of criticism. For instance, making fun of CNN's Election Center and all of their fancy television screens and floating pie charts isn't very useful, nor is it funny. Sure, CNN may be a little proud of their fancy studio, but that doesn't mean they're doing a bad job of reporting. In the next post, I'll directly compare a couple of clips from The Daily Show and 1/2 Hour News Hour.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Television News - Comedy Central's Take
As far as I can tell, there are a variety of "watchdogs" out there that attempt to hold the media responsible for their mistakes. I think that they have been somewhat successful; however, there is still room for improvement. I think that one example of a major success of these groups has been identifying FoxNews as a conservative network, and then increasing public awareness of this fact. Nowadays, it is fairly common knowledge that FoxNews has a conservative take on the news. Two popular media watchdogs are the Colbert Report and Daily Show.
My favorite parts of the Daily Show and Colbert Report are when they hold people accountable. The shows are similar, so I'll pull an example from the Daily Show. For instance, in this clip (go to the 3:05 mark), FoxNews' Chris Wallace brings up the fact that his employer has just hired Karl Rove. Wallace then asks if Jon Stewart has any questions that he would like to ask him. Stewart replies, "Does lying feel bad?" For the rest of the clip, Jon Steward makes Wallace ends up regretting that he even mentioned Rove. It is clear that Wallace and FoxNews aren't going to ask Rove any tough questions about his dealings with the Valerie Plame scandal or anything else. In my opinion, this is The Daily Show at it's best. It's funny, edgy, and it makes a point.
The shows often have insightful political analysis and dig out the truth when other places are too timid. On the other hand, sometimes I feel like the shows are wasting my time. For instance, the recent Colbert-Stewart-Conan O'Brian feud about who made Huckabee was not even very funny. Okay, it was a little funny. But the point was to kill time because they don't have any writers; I didn't feel like I learned anything useful. Filler pieces like that don't do it for me. There's a whole world outside the US that I could be learning about. In general, American news is way to US-centric. I realize Comedy Central's goal is to be funny and not edgy, and I'm not going to hold Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert responsible for my education, but I wish they had found a better way to use the time.
My favorite parts of the Daily Show and Colbert Report are when they hold people accountable. The shows are similar, so I'll pull an example from the Daily Show. For instance, in this clip (go to the 3:05 mark), FoxNews' Chris Wallace brings up the fact that his employer has just hired Karl Rove. Wallace then asks if Jon Stewart has any questions that he would like to ask him. Stewart replies, "Does lying feel bad?" For the rest of the clip, Jon Steward makes Wallace ends up regretting that he even mentioned Rove. It is clear that Wallace and FoxNews aren't going to ask Rove any tough questions about his dealings with the Valerie Plame scandal or anything else. In my opinion, this is The Daily Show at it's best. It's funny, edgy, and it makes a point.
The shows often have insightful political analysis and dig out the truth when other places are too timid. On the other hand, sometimes I feel like the shows are wasting my time. For instance, the recent Colbert-Stewart-Conan O'Brian feud about who made Huckabee was not even very funny. Okay, it was a little funny. But the point was to kill time because they don't have any writers; I didn't feel like I learned anything useful. Filler pieces like that don't do it for me. There's a whole world outside the US that I could be learning about. In general, American news is way to US-centric. I realize Comedy Central's goal is to be funny and not edgy, and I'm not going to hold Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert responsible for my education, but I wish they had found a better way to use the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
