Monthly Archives: June 2008

George Carlin on Hockey

One of the guys on my hockey team forwarded these — I haven’t validated the quotes, but it sure sounds like Carlin.

People think hockey is a sport. It’s not. Hockey is three activities taking place at the same time: ice skating, fooling around with a puck, and beating the sh*t out of somebody. If these guys had more brains then teeth, they’d do these things one at a time. First go ice skating, then fool around with a puck, then you go to the bar and beat the sh*t out of somebody. The day would last longer, and these guys would have a lot more fun.

Another reason why hockey isn’t a sport is that it’s not played with a ball. Anything not played with a ball can’t be a sport. The only other place you’ll find a puck is in the urinal to control the smell in the bathroom.

Which reminds me of a dissertation on urinal pucks vs urinal cakes…  what was the final decision on that, guys?

Also, I hate to disagree with a dead man* but there are numerous sports that aren’t played with a ball; for example: badminton, horseshoes, and NASCAR.  So there you go.

[* that’s not really true, I have no problem with it.]

10 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

hey Kobe, show me how you Gas Face

in Shaq’s defense, do you realize how difficult it is to rhyme something with “last place”?  I mean, that’s almost as impossible as rhyming with “orange”.

what amazes me the most about this is what TMZ has bleeped from the video…  apparently you can string together several words into an offensive sentence, and there’s no need to bleep the sentence; but a handful of offensive words have to be bleeped.  shit gets bleeped.  nigga, when used by a black man (Shaq) in a non-offensive way, gets bleeped.  but asking another man ‘tell me how my ass tastes’?  yeah, that’s permitted, even on TV.  I don’t get it.

anyhow, the only thing I can come up with that rhymes with “last place” is “gas face”.  for those of you who have forgotten (or tried to forget), here’s MC Serch and Prime Minister Pete Nice laying it down:

Leave a comment

Filed under boogie woogie, dumbfounded

our radically different musical tastes will tear us apart, again

overheard, on the sofa:

“so who do you like better,
the Wombats or Joy Division?”

“well, I’d have to say the Wombats…”

[??!?!?]

“because although I’ve never heard of them,
I have heard of Joy Division
and they’re… weird.”

[uhhhhh.]

you be the judge:

The Wombats: Let’s Dance to Joy Division

Joy_Division:  Love Will Tear Us Apart

Leave a comment

Filed under married life, music

you’re gonna love 2009

so the kids at VH1 haven’t had enough love yet — they Loved the 80’s, they Loved the 70’s, they Loved the 90’s. they loved them all so much, they had two servings of the 70’s and 90’s and a third serving of the 80’s… you think that we’d be free and clear of all this pop-culture self-love for at least a few years, until we’d cleared the naughts, right?

NOT.

(wait, Wayne’s World was in the I-Love-The-90’s, wasn’t it?)

It’s only 2008, and VH1 is remembering the decade that isn’t done yet with I Love the New Millennium. And I’m not going to say anything bad about the show or the people who are lulled into a stupefied, hypnotic trance by watch it… I’ve wasted almost as much time on VH1’s mindless Saturday programming as I’ve wasted in rush hour traffic each year. It’s not supposed to be intellectually challenging, but the washed up celebrities their digging up for appearances are so recent, it becomes frustratingly confusing. Is Andrew W.K. currently considered a celebrity? Is he washed up? or is he there for irony, as he was never really A-list? How about Sisqo? VH1 shows shouldn’t require mental gymnastics to enjoy.

I’m wondering how this season is going to end, and secretly hoping that I’m going to catch the I Love 2009 episode that will clue me into all the fads, celebrity faux pas, and internet memes before they happen.

That would be great.

[ahh, Winnie Cooper (Danica McKellar) singing Fergie’s “London Bridge” — I love I LOVE 2006.]

1 Comment

Filed under nostalgia

translation: become a shareholder

am I the only one who sees that as the obvious message from this editorial cartoon?

what I imagine everyone else sees: being a wage slave is a run-around, a rat race.  (no argument there.)  and the ‘stockholders’ sign is supposed to imply that a share of the profits are unattainable to anyone but the CEO.

that couldn’t be further from the truth — almost anyone can be a shareholder, just buy some shares.  many public companies have employee stock purchase plans, some even give discounts on the stock to encourage employee ownership.*

it’s true that CEO’s may receive stock grants and options as part of their compensation package, and no doubt that puts them on the fast track to wealth accumulation if the company is profitable — but it’s misleading to imply that stock ownership is out of reach of everyone else.

[* full disclosure:  I have no idea why I’m promoting employee stock purchase plans so heavily — I’ve been virtually Enron’d (Worldcom’d?) by our plan.  I guess I hold out hope that next time around, things could be better — the same investment in a company that isn’t actively trying to go bankrupt and I could be sitting pretty.  long story short, your mileage may vary — buyer beware.]

Leave a comment

Filed under debunking

the Canadian zombie embargo

It’s funny you mention these laws because I am an American living in Canada with my wife, and I tried to get a role as a zombie extra on both George Romero’s Land of the Dead and Diary of the Dead; but nooooo, they have to hire a certain number of Canadian actors, and so all the zombies are Canadian. Alas, I don’t have a work permit. I asked Romero about this at a signing and he said there’s nothing that he can do about the Canadian zombie embargo. But, goddamit! What good is Condoleeza Rice if not to fix problems like this?

indeed.  thanks, rufus, for making me laugh.  thread about Canadian film subsidies on reason.

4 Comments

Filed under dumbfounded

Blood Money: Incentives for Violence in NHL Hockey

— the name of an economics paper by Haisken-DeNew and Vorell (two Germans); and surprisingly no mention of whether anyone has done similar studies of European hockey.

Tyler Cowen summarized the paper thusly:

In other words, there are substantial incentives for violence in hockey.

Well, duh.

But not just strategic incentives or marketing incentives, this study demonstrates that there are monetary incentives for players to be violent, “These estimated per-fight premia, depending on fight success ($10,000 to $18,000), are even higher than those for an additional point made.”

I don’t think this argument holds up if you look at the list of top-paid players. Are there any in the top-10 that are drop-the-gloves fighters? I’m guessing it’s all big-scorers and goalies.

And then the paper outlines financial penalties against players and teams that should effectively offset the incentives:

By introducing a “fight fine” of twice the maximum potential gain ($36,000) and adding this amount to salaries paid for the team salary cap (fines would be 6.7% of the team salary cap or the average wage of 2 players), then all involved would have either little or no incentives to allow fighting to continue.

— finally ridding fighting from hockey, I suppose. No question as to whether that is a desirable thing for the game, but given the introductory paragraph it’s clear these guys don’t think much of the North American enforcement-style game.

A good discussion follows in MR’s comments — if you a fan of the game, check them out.
Another interesting response
.

1 Comment

Filed under hockey