VIEW ALL TEDDYVEGAS' BLOG ENTRIES
EULOGY OF THE DAY: R.I.P. BARBARO:
Just heard the news. Feel sick. Like a time-lag kick to the stomach. So sad no longer to have the beloved underdog Uberhorse to root for. Such a glorious beast. Such a sickening feeling when he pulled up lame at the Preakness--when the most exciting 2 minutes in sports suddenly gave way to the most horrible single moment in sports. Mortality stealing the show, an unannounced longshot entry. The race itself suddenly an afterthought. And then the surprising signs of hope. The dire prognostications giving way to expressions of guarded optimism. The falling off the radar—encouraging the assumption of steady progress. And then, after almost 9 months, the sudden miscarriage of our fondest hopes. The kick to the stomach anew. The fate of the exquisite equine reminding us that most true stories don’t have happy endings. And--as it's said on "Brian's Song" by way of Ernest Hemingway-- all true stories end in death.
Really really sad. It feels less like the death of a horse than the death of innocence.
I notice that I am not alone. No one has had the heart to write the headline straight. Barbaro Dead. It’s all euphemized by “euthanized.” It’s all " Barbaro Loses Fight for Survival." Or "Barbaro's Battle to Overcome Injury Ends."
He spoke to our inner child. And we can't bring ourselves to break that little person's heart.
P.S. OF THE DAY:
For those interested, I wrote a little musical tribute to Barbaro. I think you can listen to it at:
www.getusc.com/index.php/do/get_page/pageID/32
Press the little red arrow next to "Requiem for Barbaro." It's sort of imagining one last leisurely lap around the ontological track.
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
"I just want to tell you, I didn't do it," Addington recalled Libby saying. "I didn't ask what the 'it' was."
So in the two most publicized special prosecutorial investigations of this generation, we've gone from "It depends what the meaning of "is" is" to "It depends what the meaning of "it" is."
Ah language! Ah epistemology! Ah humanity!
FAQs of the DAY:
Can I please speak to the manager?
Does my ass look fat?
Where is the love?
Do you want fries with that?
Can you spare some change?
Why do you have to be like that?
LFAQs of the DAY: (L is for Less).
Why is there something instead of nothing?
What to do, after the break-up of a long relationship, with the memories, the history, the untranslatable gestural language of an intimacy?
Are you always that short?
SUGGESTED BAND NAME OF THE DAY:
Melancholics Anonymous.
PEEVE OF THE DAY:
Bedside lamps that thwart rather than facilitate reading because they cast light directly downward towards their base.
NEWS ITEM OF THE DAY:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070129/us_nm/globalwarming_survey_dc
13% of Americans have not heard of Global Warming.
Wow. They must be listening to their Educaterer-in-Chief.
This news itself might be more frightening than the destruction of the ozone layer and the melting of the polar caps.
DESCRIPTION OF THE DAY:
His vaunted equanimity fell under a heavy barrage of solecisms, misnomers and malapropisms.
RHETORICAL PLAY OF THE DAY:
Finally a smart, media-friendly response to the Bush-Cheney "opposing the surge would embolden the enemy" rhetoric courtesy of Joe Biden:
"It is our failed policies that are emboldening the enemy."
The full quote was: " It's not the American people or the U.S. Congress who are emboldening the enemy," said Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and White House hopeful in 2008. "It's the failed policy of this president — going to war without a strategy, going to war prematurely."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070128/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
BRIEFLY CONSIDERED BUT HAPPILY REJECTED NICKNAME OF THE DAY:
For Gilbert Arenas--African American superstar of the Washington Wizards NBA Basketball team: The Grand Wizard.
Actually, maybe it's not so bad. Maybe it's a gesture of rhetorical defiance. Of subverting the racist oppressor by appropriating his terms. African-Americans have successfully employed whit strategy with the language used by white racists towards them (The N word), but to also appropriate the words white racists proudly use as honorifics for themselves could be interesting.
Or not.
BRANDING IDEA OF THE DAY:
Starbucks new slogan should be "Give up. We've got you surrounded." Or maybe, simply: "Resistance is futile."
"IS IT JUST ME OR...?" MOMENT OF THE DAY:
Check out this ad.
http://www.bravia-advert.com/paint/thead/
Gorgeous. But hauntingly if inadvertently reminiscent of the Twin Towers going down, no? Like a performance art terrorist spectacle.
NAME OF THE DAY:
Casomir Funk. Polish biochemist who --according to Michael Pollan in his NYT Magaizine cover article on the perils of nutritionism--discovered what are now known as vitamins.
AMAZING LINGUISTIC MOMENT OF THE DAY:
I was just watching the Nets-Nuggets game and I can't be 100% certain but I think, indeed I'm pretty sure that I just heard Marv Albert utter these immortal words: "The Nets-sational Senior Dancers! Yes, come see the Nets-sational Senior Dancers!"
POLITICAL COMMENTARY OF THE DAY:
My thoughts on Bush's speech. (Full disclosure: I couldn't bring myself to watch it and have only been able to tolerate the most perfunctory skimming of the text.)
OK, seems to me, here was his thought process as he tried to get someone to write this thing for him.
"Ok, gotta remind 'em we're at war. If there's one thing that has given my administration meaning, it's always being at war. Not the war the evildoers started. The war I started in response to the evildoers. You know. With the Other evildoers. Sure it turned out they had no relation to the first evildoers. But war is war. And we are at war. And therefore you can't criticize me without endangering the country. See I am the decider and I say we are at war against the evildoers. And you can't end the war..cause then I won't be able to say "We're at war." And I like saying "We're at war." I like it a lot. Cause, you see, I like being a war time president. (Hey, much better than being a wartime soldier! Hehe) And we have to stay the course with the war I started in honor of the people who have fallen in the war I started. Cause it makes me feel imporatant, see. You see, I'm a war time president. And--like I say-- I like being a war time president. Cause it let's me just keep saying we're at war. And we have to stay at war...to honor the people who have fallen in the war. But for some reason people keep forgettting we're at war. OK, so it's very important I remind them we're at war. Cause I'm not just the Decider-in-Chief. I'm the Educatorer-in-chief. OK, now in case they don't buy this ...well... I have to think up some other stuff. Stuff to distract them from the war that I've been using to distract them from all the other things. Like some side show of domestic initiatives everyone knows I have no intention of really pursuing. And, uh, Let's see what else ya got, staff... Oh, there are some heros out there? Good, let's brainstorm a list of heros. I like heros. Who do we got? Oh yes, get that tall African basketball player. And that New York City subway savior. Good. I like saviors. And that brave woman. I like brave people....Whoo-wee!
More and more he has had recourse to this peevish, churlish spoiled prince brattiness. No Daddy. I am the decider. I get to decide if we go to war. I get to decide if we add more troops. I get to decide what I'm gonna do with this job you got for me. I get to decide what rights people have. I get to decide if the Constitution applies. I get to decide if I have to listen to you or not. I get to decide if i have to listen to the American people or not. I get to decide if I have to listen to the law or not.
I sort of regret not watching it, cause it seems like the agony of enduring that sustained exercise in intransigence, disingenuosness and maddening intellectual dishonesty would have been more than compensated for by the pleasure of seeing Jim Webb administer a brisk, manly nine minute tongue lashing to the bratty princely Prez.
PRINT MEDIA CRITIQUE OF THE DAY:
I'm usually a big fan of the New Yorker and I recognize it's a hell of a lot easier to criticize than to create. But that said, last week's issue has struck me as really uninspired...at least so far. A banal article about an ambitious football player and his utterly conventional post-gridiron career aspirations and a long article that said in essence "Sometimes doctors make mistakes diagnosing patients." So at least through the first two articles, it's "Some football players aren't total meatheads." and "Doctors aren't perfect." That's pretty much it. What was alienating about the two articles was that you somehow got the sense that the writers thought they were saying something interesting, unusual and maybe even revelatory when in fact they were just saying something pretty trite in a fairly eloquent manner.
At least that's how it seemed to me.
This week's issue, on the other hand, looks very promising.
FRAGMENT OF THE DAY:
He liked the start of her personality.
RANDOM SINGLE SENTENCE PORTRIAIT OF THE DAY:
He would give endlessly so long as he was not asked to give completely.
NOTE TO THE READERS OF THE DAY:
Caveat Lector: The following contains some sport-related material and may not be suitable for the sports-allergic or otherwise sports-averse.
VERBAL GENUFLECTION OF THE DAY: FEDERER IS BETTERER
Wow. Actually stayed up and watched the men's Australian Open finals match between Federer and Gonzalez live. It was so rivetting, I almost forgave the Aussie's for scheduling it at such an inconvenient hour.
First set was extremely close. Gonzo actually kept pressure on Federer and matched him shot for shot. In fact, he held two set points and would probably have won the set if he had challenged a call that turned out to have been mistakenly ruled in Federer's favor. After Federer dominated the tie breaker, a certain inevitability crept into the proceedings. He was, strange to say, routinely flawless. He hits pretty much all his strokes (forehand up the line, forehand cross court, backhand up the line, backhand cross court, volley, overhead, backhand overhead, half-volley, serve, second serve, lob, shots that don't have names yet etc.) as well as anyone has ever hit any of them and moves with a grace, speed and uncanny sense of anticipation that simply boggles the mind. Just to clarify: His first serve is about as good as Sampras's (not as fast, but--in its varied spin and location-- every bit as effective), his second serve is as good as Sampras's or McEnroe's, his forehand is as powerful and precise as Sampras's or, for that matter, Gonzalez's, his backhand is as precise as Rosewall's or Borg's and as powerful as Agassi's or Lendl's or Petr Korda's, his touch at net is comparable to McEnroe's and the precision and power of both his volley and his overhead are comparable to those of Sampras, his court coverage is as about as good as Nadal's or Chang's or Hewitt's (not that he's as fast, but he anticipates as well as or better than any of them and, hence, gets as good a jump on the ball as anyone I've ever seen). In short: It's just unfair.
Here's the ultimate tribute to Federer: Gonzalez looked incredibly impressive losing to him in straight sets.
Some more quick observations before going off to see the Outsider Art Fair (to be followed by the Insider Art Exhibit at MOMA):
Federer systematically exploits small advantages of position like a chess grandmaster or more accurately a super computer program designed to crush a chess grandmaster. He is inexorable. Exact. Flawless. But he somehow combines this almost mechanical perfection with remarkable grace and panache.
He is so precise and freakishly accurate that on the rare occasions that he did challenge a call (an act he hates, becuase as he says, revealingly, you look like an idiot if you're wrong), he was never wrong. In fact,. the shots he hit that were ruled out and that he challenged were all shown to be in by less than a centimeter. Cumulatively. He is not only the best tennis player in the world but arguably the best linesman too.
He says in a pregame interview "I am very very dominant" in such a matter of fact way not only can't you argue with it, but it almost sounds humble. It almost sounds like he's selling himself short. Imagine being able to say that without irony or inaccuracy! Dang. Maybe I'll have it put on a t-shirt. "I am very very dominant."
In a rare, truly human moment (one of his first since crying last year at the same ceremony), Federer tried to tell a Joke after the match. In the post-match ceremony, Federer gestured to Rosewall and said he was honored to be the first person since him to win the tournament without losing a set and asked the diminutive Aussie tennis legend to please stand up to be acknowledged. Of course he was already standing. No one realized he was trying to tell a joke. So he just said, never mind. Cyborg telling joke. Does not compute. Does not compute. Alter program.
He is clearly a more complete and beautiful player than Sampras ever was. He can simply hit winners from any angle on any shot from any position on the court. It is almost impossible to force him into a position where he has to hit a merely defensive shot. In vanquishing both Roddick and Gonzalez (formidable adversaries at the top of their games), he has gone a ways towards overcoming the most viable objection I can think of to his being crowned the greatest ever: Namely that he hasn't had to rise to the occasion of a true challenge. While it is true that no one has come forward to put consistent pressure on him and force him to have his greatness forged in the crucible of a true and sustained rivalry (as Sampras did with Agassi, Becker with Lendl, McEnroe with Connors and Borg etc.), he has risen to each local challenge that has been put before him and consistently elevated his game in the biggest matches. Yes, it would be great if a true and worthy rival came along (and Nadal or Gonzalez might yet turn out to be one), but it is not reasonable to hold him accountable for that absence. It is not as if he is playing in an era devoid of excellent players and it is not his fault that he is so clearly superior to all of them.
KNICKS NOTE OF THE DAY:
From ESPN’s Chris Sheridan:
"David Lee is such a ferocious rebounder, they'd be calling him DaWhite Howard in New York if only Isiah Thomas would let him start. I drove up to the Knicks' practice fortress this morning in an effort to better understand Thomas' reasoning on this issue, because frankly I think he's digging his own grave by continuing to bring Lee off the bench. New York dropped to a season-low eight games below .500 entering Friday night's game against Miami, and the only player on the roster playing well enough to save both of Isiah's jobs is being unnecessarily held down for no good reason, as far as I can tell.
So what is the reason, Isiah? Why isn't David Lee starting? "He's doing well right now, right?" Thomas replied. "When a guy's doing well in the place that he's at, that means he's probably in the right place. And you run the risk once you move him someplace else that he may not do as well. Right now, he seems to be doing OK, so I think I got him in the right spot."
From Digital Napkins' and Random Act of Commentary's Teddy Vegas:
That is the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard. It argues against the very notion of promotion. By Isaiah’s logic, any rookie who’s doing a great job in his bench role should stay there. Forever. So no rookie would ever develop into a starter. And hence into a star. So Michael Jordan stays a sixth or seventh man (as he was during his rookie year) for his whole career? I don’t want to always be doubting Thomas, but Isaiah be talking some straight up nonsense right there. Pure, undiluted shizazz.
Tags:
None
© All rights reserved.
Posted on 1/30/2007
(
Permanent Link
)
Read
434 Times
Send to Friend
