NFL Owners Are Rapacious Hyenas

To say NFL owners are stupid, craven, avaricious, and frankly disgusting collection of rapacious low life is an understatement. They went to the wall for a few million bucks (out of the billions they earn from their “product”) against the referees they were too dumb to realize they needed to keep their brain omelette creating gladiatorial bread and circuses spectacle going.

At first, they figured that fan attacks would be pointed at the NFL referees for allowing these overmatched replacements to take the field. And initially they were right, but then the inevitable happened – the Green Bay Hail Mary TD interception disaster, and the outrage began to turn to a more general attack on, well, them. Would the public demand they open their books, or sniff around their real estate, labor-busting deals to see if they pass the smell test? Maybe…

At which point they caved like a bunch of pantywaists. 

That makes you wonder two things. 

One. It only goes to show how utterly outrageous you have to be to get rich these days.

Two. It makes you want to vomit. 

Everyone’s Wrong: Facebook Played Its IPO Brilliantly.

Zuckerberg’s sitting on $10 billion. Not bad for some vaporware.

I know, I know, the CW on this is quite the opposite, but in the light of what institutions, analysts, journos and just about everyone has been saying for months about FB’s mobile monetization woes, fifteen bucks is a very fat benchmark for the company (and the price is currently $20). Everyone’s dumping the desktop platform – and Facebook’s share of the miniscule mobile ad-spend is, let’s just say, miniscule. With its market cap still at still half that of McDonalds, one has to ask, how did they do that!?

The answer may be very simply this. That when the pump machine was working overtime, the guys backing this IPO knew the truth. They knew retail investors were going to climb on and then take a bath. But here’s the thing. They were going to take a mobile-concern driven 50% haircut if they’d priced the IPO at a fairer $20, and if they did that, the price would now be a thin and unhealthy $10, so they went all out and piled on, knowing that with the drop, they’d still be in the $15-20 range. They used the vastly over-inflated venture capital “valuation” of the company based on past equity purchases, to suspend disbelief that $38 was just a ridiculous opening price. And now they’re sitting pretty with a good price as the market’s low.

In this case there may well have been a plan at Facebook. Too bad the rest of the “analysts” and retail schmucks didn’t have one, or the price would be where it should be – at $10.

Snark About The New MySpace Is Off The Charts

The Mere Existence Of A “New Myspace” Makes Me Want To Hurl. Just Let It Go.
says Drew Olanoff.

There’s been a huge amount of snark about #myspace . The interface looks great, and the outfit cost what Mark Zuckerberg earns in a day. They’re wrong to try and revive it? Of course not. It’s just in the macho-nerd tech world everything is either hyped to the point of absurdity or cast off into the deadpool as a has-been. Except that this is the same tech world that has deified Steve Jobs, who was the ultimate comeback kid. 

It’s probable that MySpace revived won’t make it, but stranger things have happened. And if it becomes the neXT big thing Drew will probably change his tune. 

Libyan Crisis: The Good Guys Fight Back But Is It Enough

Perhaps someone tipped off the Salafist militia in Benghazi that the good people of the city were coming to burn their house down, because nobody was home when it happened. The bad guys had gone to ground.

The media has been basking in the warm sunshine of the moment. Look, the reports all imply, the good guys have fought back against the dudes with the black banners and sent them packing. It must mean that a liberal democracy is just around the corner. Putting aside the fact journalism shouldn’t be about wishful thinking, there’s another very good reason they’re whistling in the wind. And it’s this…

It takes way, way, way, way less people to trigger a failed state than it does to build a successful one.

Let’s just take the Libyan example. Do we honestly think that people who want to recreate a Medieval Caliphate are going to just go gently into the night? No, we expect them to fight back any way they can. And that means terrorism. Terrorism against innocent people, against oil installations, against public figures, against any advance towards a liberal, economically successful, essentially secular state. 

Will they be successful in creating their beloved Caliphate? Of course not. But will their attempt be enough to stifle the development of their country? Definitely. Will their outrages be enough to destabilize their putative nationhood? Easily. 

Western nations, like the UK and US with full anti-terrorist infrastructures, top quality law enforcement, and strong constitutional governments have enough trouble suppressing Islamic extremism. What are the chances that a young, fractured, poorly-educated country with limited infrastructure, history, and education will be able to? 

Almost none.

Ditto with Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq…

Salafists and The Arab Spring. The Clash Begins.

Apparently a Tunisian Salafist leader has “escaped” arrest for protesting the world’s most crap anti-Islam movie.

But what’s really going on here? Nobody really knows, but here’s an idea. The “moderate” Islamists that are taking over their basket case economies after the Arab Spring are scared shitless of the Salafists that have been unleashed by the end of strongman driven dictatorships, and in Tunisia, they let this guy go for fear of what arresting him might do. When Salafists attacked an art gallery in Tunis for showing work that insulted the Prophet, the government suggested that it was actually “hooligans infiitrating” the peaceful Salafist demonstration that wrecked the gallery.

Ahah. Sure. That sounds feasible.

Ben-Ali, Gaddafi, and Mubarak are gone (and Assad seems sure to follow) and that means it’s open season for the previously underground Salafists to bring out their whipping sticks and start beating up on girls who show a little ankle.

But here’s the problem. These countries are damned if they go after the Salafists and damned if they don’t.

If the governments of these countries squirrel their way out of confronting the Salafist threat, then they can kiss Western Tourism good-bye as the Salafists start raiding Western beaches with their switches, and watch their countries go into an economic tailspin – which ultimately threatens their own survival unless they decide to forgo the whole democracy deal and declare a state of emergency for thirty years or so. If they do that, of course, it’s b-bye foreign aid too.

And if the Islamists in power do summon up the courage to seriously go after the Salafists, then they’ll have to deal with a fired up bunch of extremists who will see the moderate Islamists as agents of the infidel, go underground and start bombing up the place, which will have pretty much the same effect. These post-strongman countries simply don’t have the security apparatus in place in keep a lid on the Salafists, and if they get the apparatus, they’ll be inviting a strongman to take over when the time is right.

We’ve yet to reap the true rewards of the Arab Spring, but we’re about to. And within a year or two, as unpalatable as this sounds, we in the West may well be wishing for regional strongmen we can trust to reestablish a semblance of order. If that happens, we’ll have the Salafists to thank for the irony.

Parallel Universe: Obama as Moderate Republican, Romney as Blue Dog Democrat.

Is it really that far fetched?

No.

The Romney that was Governor in Massachusetts, you know, the Romneycare, pro-life, Romney could easily have been a Blue Dog. And if the GOP was the way it should be if it wants any hope of winning the White House in 2020 and beyond, it could easily nominate that Romney as its candidate.

And Obama the cautious, you know, the Obama who went soft on Wall Street, and pushed a Heritage Foundation Healthcare plan, and piled the Stimulus with tax cuts, and bailed on Elizabeth Warren, and didn’t take us out of Aghanistan, and is busy piling sanctions on Iran, and took out Osama Bin Ciao for Now, could easily be a moderate Republican in the Ford, Dole, Teddy Roosevelt, Bush the Elder, mould.

And here’s the i-y-ony.

A GOP Obama would be beating a Democratic Romney just the same as he is now.

Both Kate Middleton’s Boobs Are Fair Game.

The British Royal Family has been reinventing itself for quite some time now.

Starting with the salacious details of Princess Di’s life and loves, the deliberate tabloidization of the monarchy has become a staple of international life and media. It came on apace in the Cool Brittania era and is now moving at breakneck speed, In only the last few weeks, The Queen had her diamante jubilee on a boat in the pissing rain for hours, has allowed a body double of herself to parachute into the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics, while her wayward grandson Prince Harry has been caught with his wanger on show in Las Vegas of all places, and now an enterprising French ( it has to be French!) “publication” has got the telephotos of her eldest grandson’s duchess with her kit off.

Is nothing sacred?

Answer. Non.

The Royals have set them up for this by allowing themselves to become celebrities in the purest sense of the word. They actively seek public display, as part of Britain’s attempt to paper over its gaping, post-imperial cracks, and in fact they’re probably secretly quite happy with the kerfuffle. The idea that they’ll sue the magazine is just grist to the mill. Fat chance that’ll work without a huge blowback. You leave the sanctuary of the palace and you’re fair game even if Rupert Murdoch won’t publish the shots. A lawsuit for that? Uhh?

Commoners sue to get their honor back, monarchies go to war. Ask any self-respecting Dauphin and his bint in ancien regime France, and they’d have told you they couldn’t take a dump in private, let alone sunbathe topless. But now, somehow, the monarchy are crying that their privacy has been violated. With respect, your highnesses, but bollox. As ye reap, so shall ye sow.

Vive La France and all that.

Obama: Politics is More About Likability Than Ever.

If I could earn a buck for every time the following was mentioned I’d be a rich man; we’re living in a digital age, elections are gotcha, soundbites and spin, people vote their gut, it’s a 24/7 news cycle.

What does it all add up to?

It adds up to this. Politics is a reality show. A great big amalgam of Survivor meets The Voice meets Big Brother meets The Bachelor, with added suits, bunting, tele-prompters, buses, planes, campaign teams and twenty-something, over-ambitious journalists in tow.

Ninety per cent of the people watching the show tune in to see the guy they don’t like screw up. Of that group, enough whites and women plus just about all the Hispanics and Blacks should be enough to give the Democrat a very slight edge, especially as polls show that Obama is not seen as being to blame for a profoundly economic meltdown so deep that it’s been hard to dig us out. So let’s give him 45.5% to Romney’s 44.5%, a number that is borne out by the polls to date, which balanced out pre-convention gave Obama a 1% lead overall.

The other ten per-cent are more interesting. They’re the ones who are actually swayed by the show.

In Hollywood, one of the biggest ways of divining whether a movie or TV show is going to make it or not is how “likable” the characters are. They have to be believable, and human, and good or bad, you have to empathize with them. A classic case is Tony Soprano. Sure he was a mobster, but he was human, flawed like the rest of us, and he had problems just like us. Another is Mr. Spock. Sure he was a half-human Vulcan with a nerdy logical streak, but to this day he’s one of the most popular characters in TV history.

The ten percent of voters who politicians care about are the ones that care most about likability. They’re not ideologically driven, they’re open to believing. And the way most of them decide who to believe is the same whether they’re looking at voting for a President or giving a thumbs up to a movie. In other words, six out of ten of them will vote for the likable guy. The other four will make a considered political decision.

Let’s assume the four split evenly. That’ll give Romney 2 and Obama 2. So what about the six?

Obama is more believable, more human, more sympathetic, more able to appeal to emotions, to a higher moral aspiration, he’s more familiar, more flawed, less arrogant, less rich, less entitled, less self-serving. Romney seems detached, awkward, mechanical, and rich. Obama showed that in Charlotte with a speech ( supported by Bill and Michelle’s too), which while a tad pedestrian, was a wonderful emotional appeal. Romney’s speech was rushed, impersonal, and perfect only for a powerpoint.

Of course, not everyone will agree, but let’s make what I would suggest is a conservative stab at suggesting that 4 of those 6 will find Obama more likable than Romney.

Add the 4 and 2 to Obama’s 45.5 and you get 51.5% per cent to Romney’s 48.5%, which is probably where the race is now, post-convention, nationally, and most importantly in the battleground states.

On October 3, the likability stakes really kick into high gear with the start of the debates. Romney, the awkward, dispassionate businessman, against the cautious, consider incumbent, a President with proven rhetoric, proven appeal, and the proven debating skills of the half-human Vulcan. (Give Obama pointy ears and he would be just like Spock).

Unless Romney hits home with a killer-zinger of Reagan-like proportions, which is highly unlikely, or gets a rise out of Barack which is even more unlikely, it’s probable that he’ll lose ground rather than make it up. Even if the debates are a draw, that’s good enough for Obama. His will be the more likable part of the split.