Sunday, October 10, 2010

The Politics of Cat Football



Things that I have to know for work:

* That Georgia defeated Tennessee 41-17 in football. I should know three things beyond the score. Let's see:

** Georgia is 2-4 and 1-3 in the SEC.
** They play Vanderbilt next
** Quarterback Aaron Murray had a good game: 2 TD passes, 17-for-25 passing, and a touchdown run.

* That Georgia Tech defeated Virginia 33-21.

** Georgia Tech is 4-2 and 3-1 in the ACC. Easy to remember. Turn the Georgia numbers around and you get Tech's numbers.
** They play Middle Tennessee next
** RB Anthony Allen: 195 yards, 3 TD runs.

* Georgia State is 4-2. I don't need to know any more than that.

So what does this have to do with work? Well, for one, it allows me to have a conversation with one of my cubicle-mates who follows Georgia football. It allows me to have something to talk about with the other jockish guys. I really don't give a damn about college football one way or another - it's the same to me if Georgia is 6-0 or 0-6, but to thousands of people in the state it's a freaking crisis or a cause for celebration.

* The Simpsons had a great line in this week's episode. Lisa is feeling down because Springfield Elementary's only Yale graduate - and only Ivy League University graduate (what, Ralph Wiggum couldn't get into Cornell?) - has criticised Lisa's list of extracurricular activities which is clearly not extensive enough for admission to a school like Yale.

Lisa, seeing her chances at an elite education disappearing, is consoled by her mother who believes that Lisa can go to McGill University - "the Harvard of Canada". Lisa answers with something I'll call "Lisa's Law".

Lisa's Law: "Anything that's the 'something of something' isn't the anything of anything."

* The ASPCA's commericals are horribly ineffective. The idea is that they'll guilt-trip you into contributing. There is nothing wrong with guilt-tripping people into giving to an organization - it's a great approach to any charitable commercial.

The problem is that the entire commerical is sad looking dogs and cats in cages. It's too sad - it's so unnerving and horrifying that people change the channel the very second they figure out what the commercial's about...and no one ever gets to the message at the end. Sad dog + Enya = channel change.

* Today's Cat Evil: we put out some frozen chicken to thaw before dinner. Ruth goes out shopping. I go out for a 40-minute walk. I come back and Malcolm and Eartha are eating the frozen chicken!

You can't turn your back for a second before the cats have your food. The cats slept most of these evening. No wonder. All that protein.

* There's a gubernatorial election in the state of Georgia this year. Two guys, both good old boys (or at least, they can talk the lingo), both running the same commercial about two old goobers in Georgia ruminating about...

"Did you hear what Candidate X said about Y?"
"Really? That ain't Georgia home spun wisdom!"


This makes me glad that most of the stuff we watch is recorded, and I can speed past this crap. After this, the state goes back to sleep for two years.

* Political thought exercise: stolen from another blog.

There's an election of some sort. A voter has four options: vote for D, vote for R, vote for I, or don't vote all. Assume that voting for I and not voting at all have equivalent effect, i. e. I is the kind of party that no one votes for.

Furthermore, assume that D is always a better choice than R. (Or, likewise, R is always a better choice than D.) The inequality sign has no bar underneath.

Questions: If D is always better than R, how bad does D have to get before you won't vote for D?

* Planning to see Casablanca on the big screen sometime this Friday. Will write about that later.

1 comment:

Scissors MacGillicutty said...

(Parties names changed to remove emotional resonances)

If P1 is always better than P2...well, there are a lot of different issues out there, so I don't think the goodness scores of P1 and P2 are scalar quantities. They'd be vectors, (i0,i1,...in) where n is the number of issues P1 and P2 have to take a stand on. So by better, do we mean that for every issue i0 through in P1's score is greater than P2's score? Or only that the number of scores by which P1 exceeds P2's score for the same issue is greater than those for which P2 exceeds P1?

Oh, the hell with the belabored mathematical metaphor—I was going to make it worse by having the scores be not constant vectors but vectors as a function of time—the difference has to shrink to the D party implementing the policies of the R party at a slower rate, which I think is the current difference between the Rethugs and Democons.