What if the Moistboyz Make Antisemitic References in Video, Critics Notice, and Still Don't Care?

Glidemagazine's review of "Paperboy" reads like "oh these silly boyz at it again!":

 "You can always count on Moistboyz to shock and awe and there’s plenty of stuff in the video that’s controversial such as the shooting of dogs, a fat policeman eating a donut, an image of a Jewish man holding pennies and an ad for “Cohen Law” with the URL yourjewishlawyer.con [ but] We think the song itself rocks, see if you agree…"

 Except, no! You can't do that! You can't flatten antisemitism by equating it to arcade dog killing and fat policemen images and then say, oh yeah, and the song rocks! What the Hell?

And "an image of a Jewish man"? That's what you're gonna roll with? That's like calling a man in black face an African-American.

  Here's the Video: "Mr. Nickelback Cohen with his cheap ass hand"

 

How to Reconcile Tennessee's "Disappointing" Basketball Season with Its Tournament Run

Many UT basketball fans argue that UT had a "disappointing" regular season, and they say, therefore, that Coach Cuonzo Martin (CCM) deserves the blame for this disappointment (even if he deserves respect for his Tourney run).  Furthermore, they argue that Tennessee's "improvement" on the court matches CCM's growth as a coach.  In other words, they believe that Tennessee played poorly for much of the season and they blame CCM for that poor play.

I wonder, however, if he really does deserve so much criticism for the "disappointing" season.  If you judge the season simply on wins and losses, you wouldn't be unreasonable to call the season a disappointment.  It certainly was.

I don't want to argue here so much whether or not the season was a disappointment in terms of wins and losses, but, rather, I'd like to discuss why Tennessee lost 12 times (and some of them to bad teams).  We need to have this discussion because--if you believe the media--CCM found himself on the verge of being fired.  He certainly bore the brunt of the fans' blame for the losses.

But what if Cuonzo Martin coaching acumen wasn't to blame for the losses? What if Cuonzo Martin was just as good of a coach then as he is believed to be now? Even more startling, what if Tennessee actually played quite strong, well-coached basketball all season long? What would in that case have caused all the disappointment?

What if I were to tell you it was simply bad luck?

In fact, such statisticians such as Ken Pomeroy argue just that: Tennessee was one of the unluckiest teams in all of college basketball. 

After all, Kenpom--for those who follow such sabrmetrics fellows--has UT ranked 6th in the nation right now, statistics which weigh the entire season, including all the "disappointments."

How can that be, these CCM critics argue? Everyone knows that UT underperformed this regular season. What is more, he believes that Tennessee's 11 seeded birth into the NCAA is quite low for a team of UT's caliber.

But, again, how in the world can a team that supposedly so underperformed during the season that 30,000 fans signed a petition to get the guy fired be under-seeded at the 11 spot?

Sabermetrics gives us the answer: luck.

In fact, in a recent blog post, Pomeroy argues that "[t]he deceptively limited season of this sport is why a team that's probably one of the country's 25 best can be seeded like it's not in the top 40." In other words, if you flip a coin 1,000,0000 times, you could reasonably expect the coin to split its landings on heads or tails in half.  However, if you flip it only 35 times, you might end up with tails (or heads) 30 times even though it stats tell us it should be closer to 18 or 17 split. 

Therefore, sabermetrics/Kenpom.com thinkers argue that the two TxAM losses (where Jarnell Stokes's missed free throw to win the game and a TxAM player who can't shoot knocked down a three down 2 different times to win) and the  Missouri loss were just unlucky, statistical noise.  Some might even throw in the Wichita game in the mix.  After all, when UT started making a run, Jordan McCrae gets a ticky tack technical for excessive celebration and etc.

 In short, the luck just didn't go UT's way this year.  If UT played an NBA length season, this type of thinking goes, the luck would balance out and UT's record would look more like it should.  In short, UT lost some close ones to some bad teams which resulted in disappointment and calls for the coach's job due to his inability to "get the job done." 

Well, let's take a closer look at the losses:

1) @Xavier (NCAA Team): 4 points.
2) UTEP (neutral): 8 points
3) @WSU (NCAA Team #1 seed): 9 points
4) NC State (NCAA Team) : 10 points.
5) A&M: 1 point
6) @UK (NCAA Team): 8 points
7) @UF (NCAA Team #1 seed): 26 points
8) @VU: 4 points
9) UF (NCAA Team, #1 seed): 9 points
10) @Missou: 5 points
11) A&M: 2points  (OT)
12) UF (NCAA Team #1 seed): 7 points

So 3 losses to the number 1 team in the nation, two of them were "Games."  One loss to a another #1 seed in Wichita St. and another loss to a Kentucky Sweet 16 team.

2 losses on prayers (A&M) and another that UT just missed a final shot on (Missou).

Every other loss, UT  had a chance to win and for one reason or other just didn't. 

Another way to think of it is like this: in the tournament, Wichita lost to UK by missing that last second 3.  If he'd hit it, they tie (or win; I can't remember).  If he knocks it down, is WSU a better team?  Is CGM a better coach?

TxAM is another example: CCM draws up a set play on the final in-bound play after the time out.  It works perfectly: Stokes gets fouled for a shot at walk off free throw win.  Stokes misses.  Bad three point shooter knocks down a three and UT loses.  If Stokes  hits the free throw, CCM gets credit for a great play and strong coaching.  Instead, fans wanted him fired.  Was he really a better coach one way or the other? 

That's the question that sabermetrics forces us to ask ourselves.

In sum, then, the numbers suggest that CCM and UT weren't really far off from expectations, but they were extremely unlucky.  It should be no surprise then that kenpom.com rates UT as one of the top ten unluckiest teams in the nation. In fact, only Alabama, Oklahoma ST, and Iowa (of the big time programs) were unluckier.  No surprise again that Iowa was UT's toughest opponent in the NCAA tourney because both Iowa and UT were vastly under-seeded.

So what's at stake here? Well, our perception of what we see often deceives us. What looks like a disappointing season due to seeming incompetence due to poor coaching was really just a result of a skewed sample size.

In short, UT almost fired a strong coach because of a mis-perception. 

Insidious Journalism of the Worst Kind: What the AP Story about "Obamacare Losers" Gets Wrong

Insidious Journalism of the Worst Kind:
What the AP Story about "Obamacare Losers" Gets Wrong

Today, newspapers across the country--including drudgereport.com--published Kelli Kennedy's AP story, Sticker Shock Often Follows Insurance Cancellation, which "reports" the supposedly sad case of a Delaware County, PA resident, Dean Griffin and his wife, who received a cancellation notice from their insurance company. Kennedy explains that this previously happy 64 year old couple--one year away from Medicare qualification--is upset because they can't find an adequate replacement for their current plan, which costs $770 monthly with a $2,500 deductible. In fact, she claims that "the cheapest plan they found on their state insurance exchange was a so-called bronze plan charging a $1,275 monthly premium with deductibles totaling $12,700. It covers only providers in Pennsylvania, so the couple, who live near Delaware, won't be able to see doctors they've used for more than a decade." On the surface, then, Kennedy spins a yarn of woe in which these two kind soon-to-be-medicare recipients were lied to and, thus, find themselves as "Obamacare losers." Except, it's not remotely a true story. Even just a five minute glance at healthcare.gov, makes Kennedy, the AP, and all those unthinking newspapers that bought it in syndication look like lazy hacks. Does the AP not even fact check anymore?
 
In fact, note that Kennedy clearly didn’t follow through in the obvious hole in her own evidence. She herself writes that "[t]he cheapest plan they found on their state insurance exchange was a so-called bronze plan charging a $1,275 monthly premium with deductibles totaling $12,700." The cheapest plan "they found"?

That's very, very different than the "cheapest plan" in actuality. Maybe they didn't look very hard? Maybe the Griffins can't use a computer? Maybe they aren't very bright? Maybe their eyesight isn't very good? Why didn’t Griffin double check that herself?

Why hasn’t any editor at any newspaper that’s paid for this tripe yet screamed from the mountain tops about this glaring error?

It only takes a second to note that Pennsylvania’s Delaware County Exchange offers a Platinum plan, pre-subsidy, for a husband-wife combo that runs $870.82. This Personal Choice PPO Platinum Independence Blue Cross plan has ZERO deductible with an out of pocket max of 2,500. If their doctor is now considered “out-of-network,” their max cost for the year would be 4,000. That’s a far cry from not being able to see their doctor at all. In short, the Griffins can pay 100 dollars more a month and reduce their deductible from 2,500 to Zero, and they’d reduce their out-of-pocket max from 6,500 to 2,500 If they qualify for a subsidy—another glaring bit of information that Griffin neglects to provide us—they’ll get a top-of-the-line plan.
 
However, the Griffins complain that none of the plans “they found” will allow them “to see doctors they've used for more than a decade." Again, a simple check of Delaware County’s Exchange clearly shows a Silver "Blue Cross, Multi-State Plan," which costs 655.72 will fit that bill? It's a PPO, to boot.
Kennedy’s article--which inexplicably has been published un fact checked in the major markets covered the Washington Post, and lesser markets covered by papers such as The Knoxville News-Sentinel, and such highly trafficked Websites, like drudgereport.com--is inexcusably misinformed and misleading. In short, it's insidious journalism of the worse kind.
 
Are such articles politically motivated? Or does the AP know that this new narrative of “Obamacare losers” sells? Whatever the motivation, it is not in the interest of the truth.

Why Congress Should Not Be On the Obamacare Exchange

We'll hear a lot in the coming hours and days about making sure that Congress "plays by the same rules" as the rest of us. After all, who could disagree with such a notion? Most people believe that Congress should not be "above the law." So it sounds perfectly reasonable that Congress should have to buy their healthcare through the Exchanges "just like the rest of us."


Except it isn't. In fact, most of us will not be buying health insurance on the exchange because most people get their healthcare from an employer.


Therefore, this idea of "What's good enough for us is good enough for Congress" is a FALSE EQUIVALENCY. Congress has no rational reason for going on the Exchange.


The Exchanges are ONLY for people who DON'T have employee provided healthcare. If you have employer-based healthcare, the exchanges don't directly affect you in anyway. We, "us," only go through Exchanges if we are on the "individual market," i.e. self-employed or under-employed. If our job provides us insurance, we don't go on the Exchange. Since Congresspeople have jobs with employer-provided Health insurance, they have no need to go on the Exchange.


Therefore, for Congress to join the DC exchanges is a political stunt dreamed up by Chuck Grassley (R, IA) in order to embarrass Democrats.


The DC Health exchange rates, while much better than currently available plans for those on the individual market, aren't quite as cheap as those offered by the most robust employee plans. Furthermore, the Congress AND THEIR STAFFS would be banned from getting subsidies, so they will be paying full price. Full price for the most robust plans in DC will be like 440 bucks a month for zero deductible with 1,100 out of pocket for 40-63 year olds. Those prices are GREAT stuff for folks who are on the Individual market, particularly those with pre-existing conditions and who will get subsidies, but that's a significant increase in cost for those on robust employee plans.


Therefore, most Congresspeople lobbied the President to remove this "Grassley Amendment" because they were worried that their staff will leave for cheaper Employer insurance on K Street, which will lead to "Brain Drain" on the Hill. Congresspeople from both parties, Boehner AND Reid for example, both agree on this issue. Obama resolved the issue because "the anger over the administration’s inability or unwillingness to resolve this issue [was] bipartisan and deep. The feared so-called brain drain of congressional staffers over rising health care costs has become a topic of constant conversation on Capitol Hill" (The Hill).



In short, this is one of those issues that sounds good, but really is not quite what it seems. You'll have to ask yourself why the Republicans are so hell-bent on fighting for this rule that they themselves know will force their staff to quit after just having successfully lobbied Obama to change the rule. Can't be a political stunt, can it?

What the Hell is Going on in Knoxville?

What the hell is going on in Knoxville? Compared to Chattanooga, say, Knoxville used to be a fairly centrist town politically.  Sure, the city never would've been mistaken for "progressive"--if the city has added recycling as part of its waste program, it's a new development--and the city certainly was (unofficially) segregated and the like.   But compared to say the staunch conservativism that marked Chattanooga in the 80s, Knoxville's politics seemed relatively centrist.  I'd, of course, really have to study the exact policies of the day but, off the top of my head, I can name Randy Tyree, Victor Ashe, Lamar Alexander among the leading politicians of the day.  Alexander, of course, thas moved so far to the right he supports killing the minimum wage and introducing English-as-official-language bills and still is considered a liberal for the new Knoxville breed.  Victor Ashe, one supposes, would be considered a down right communist.  Randy Tyree?  Don't even get me started. 

Knoxville now has a Sheriff who supports "stacking undocumented immigrants like cordwood in his jails."  What is more, Knoxville's state representative in Nashville is Stacy Campfield, who supports tying Welfare money to a child's grades among other absurd notions that pass for normal in today's Knoxville.

 Here's a link to a petition to Eric Holder if you want: Click Here.

And, last but not least, the richest governor in the nation (whom many Knoxvillians view as too liberal) -- from Knoxville -- is denying medical care to the state's poorest by refusing Obamacare's Medicaid program? 

 What a national-- and human -- embarrassment.

 It makes me wonder how a Madeline Rogero got elected Mayor? 

 

Letter to the Editor: GA Rep Westmoreland: Minimum Wage

I hope during Representative Westmoreland’s Townhall on Monday that many people will remind him that it is time for a raise by encouraging him to support raising the minimum wage to $10.50/hr from the current $7.25.

He should support “The Catching Up to 1968 Act of 2013.”


That’s right: In 1968, the real value of minimum wage was $10.65. Ever since then, we’ve been losing ground.


It’s time for a raise, Rep. Westmoreland: support “The Catching Up to 1968 Act of 2013.”

Currently, those who work minimum wage fall well below the federal poverty level of $18,123. It bothers me that people can’t break even.

It’s time for a raise, Rep. Westmoreland: support “The Catching Up to 1968 Act of 2013.”

According to many leading economists in an open letter in support of the bill, “If a worker today is employed full time for a full 52-week year at a minimum wage job today, she or he is making $15,080. This is 19 percent below the official poverty line for a family of three.”

It’s time for a raise, Rep. Westmoreland: support

“The Catching Up to 1968 Act of 2013.”

Like me, many people have always assumed that only young people make minimum wage; however, the economists write that “only 9.3 percent of the workers who would benefit from this minimum wage increase are teenagers; i.e., 90.7 percent are adults.”

It’s time for a raise, Rep. Westmoreland: support “The Catching Up to 1968 Act of 2013.”

According to the Thomaston Chamber of Commerce, that as of 20007 Wal-Mart is the area’s second largest employer. I didn’t know until recently that Wal-Mart’s CEO makes $11,000 an hour? The average Wal-Mart employee, however, makes $15,576 a year.

My Gosh!:

Wal-Mart’s CEO makes $11,000 an hour.

The average Wal-Mart employee makes $15,576 a year.

It’s time for a raise, Mr. Westmoreland: support

“The Catching Up to 1968 Act of 2013.”

Now, Rep. Westmoreland will argue that raising the minimum to a living wage will kill jobs. In fact, he’ll reference the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), which says that the minimum kills jobs. However, this “think tank’s” own Website admits that it’s in the tank for big business. The NCPA has always resisted the bill.

Therefore, he responded to a letter I wrote him by telling me he doesn’t support this modest raise in the minimum wage now or anytime soon.

It’s time for a raise, Mr. Westmoreland: support “The Catching Up to 1968 Act of 2013.”

In fact, the economists who write in support of the bill argue that “the weight of evidence from the extensive professional literature has, for decades, consistently found that no significant effects on employment opportunities result when the minimum wage rises in reasonable increments. This is because the increases in overall business costs resulting from a minimum wage increase are modest.”

These economists, furthermore, argue that “on average, even fast-food restaurants, which employ a disproportionate share of minimum wage workers, are likely to see their overall business costs increase by only about 2.7 percent from a rise today to a $10.50 federal minimum wage. That means, for example, that McDonalds could cover fully half of the cost increase by raising the price of a Big Mac, on average, from $4.00 to $4.05. The remaining half of the adjustment could come through small productivity gains or a slightly more equal distribution of companies’ total revenues.”

It’s time for a raise, Mr. Westmoreland: support “The Catching Up to 1968 Act of 2013.”

It’s time for Wal-Mart—Upson County’s second largest employer—to pay its employees a living wage, one that doesn’t force its hard working employees on Medicaid and Food Stamps.

Henry Ford once said the following: “If you cut wages, you just cut the number of your own customers. If an employer does not share prosperity with those who make him prosperous, then pretty soon there will be no prosperity to share. That is why we think it is good business always to raise wages and never to lower them. We like to have plenty of customers.”

If you’d like more information on this subject, please visit timeforaraise.org

I hope all of you will go to the Townhall on Monday and tell Representative Westmoreland that It’s time for a raise: support “The Catching Up to 1968 Act of 2013.”

Sincerely,

Notes from  Annette Insdorf introduction to the screening of Kaufman's _The Unbearable Lightness of Being) at the National Gallery for the Arts.

Unlike most artists whom we can instantly recognize, Insdorf argues that Kaufman is simply "too damn versatile" for us to know a film is his unless we know going in that a film is actually his.  Think _The Right Stuff_ and _The Unbearable Lightness of Being_ being from the same film maker.   In other words, he doesn't have a signature trope or technique.  We know a Woody Allen film when we see one.  We don't know a Kaufman is a Kaufman until we know.   Take a look at the various films he's made and you'll see what she means.

 She argues that he's constantly changing because he's always tryingt to find the appropiate cinematic medium or technique for the story he's telling.

Many thought that no one could properly translate Kundera's novel to a film because no one thought you could properly translate his ideas and thoughts and philosophy that he uses words to convey and put that into a character driven film.  Kaufman, however, succeeds in taking the verbal to visual.  Kaufman made this a story about "voyeurism," about  "watching," about "surveillance."

Think mirrors; think the delayed reveals, people and objects in the process of becoming . . . 

He makes us appreciate sensuality. 

------
"Our lives are composed of music."

Music by Janicek. Kundera's father studied with him.  Kundera suggested his music for the score, rather than an original score.

Kaufman: form should be musical

Bright (Adarte) to Slow (Addagio) [she confused the two herself).

The move follows that form.

Form: Theme and variations

repetition of motifs riffing from Nietzche's "eternal return," which she suggests we can't ever really literally understand but Kaufman gets us close.  Note all the moments in this film where objects return.

Mirrors create internal rhymes.

Theme of Photograph--another form of eternal return.

Perception and limitation
Personal freedom and its costs.
Freedom from the tyranny of technology.

Movie makes us feel we are reading because we must actively participate to make the film work.

"Priviledges and limitations" of story telling.

Kundera=abstraction; Kaufman=obstruction.

voyeurism --- seeing (sanctioned/forbidden)

Wants us to think about how much we are allowed to see . . . . totalitarianism

How much do we allow ourselves to see?

Kaufman brings overt attention to sight with the Oedipus Rex return . . .

A good film coheres and resonates.

IF a work doesn't resonate, then it fails.