A 20-3 holocaust for Toronto at midway turned into Survival, 34-21 at the end of the quarter. It’s a game. But Toronto has to shoot way better than GS in the 4Q to win. Shooting way better than GS. Good luck with that Tonto.
Sunday, June 02, 2019
Tight one up north, tight one. Golden State 61 Toronto 59, under 10’ left 3Q. Low-scoring one too. My goodness. “Warriors” have had more than that at the half tons of times. GS was genuinely alarmed about playing Toronto—because of Kawhi Leonard. The Leonard effect is evident in the scoreline. That’s an ominous scoreline for GS. Can they win a 90-87 defensive struggle? Mmm. And if they do drop this game and go down 0-2, they’ll get KD back for Game 3 whether he’s ready or not.
Major League Soccer
Through 13 weeks every team in the league is down in attendance. The league average is 8% lower than through the same period a year ago. And, 2018 saw the first league-wide attendance drop in five years. The team averages ranges from -1%, LAFC, to a disturbingly large -17% in Minnesota, double trouble because Minnesota is a recently added team; they came into the league with Atlanta.
The darkest aspect of the situation is that every team is affected.
The darkest aspect of the situation is that every team is affected.
Saturday, June 01, 2019
Picking Bones
I have had a bone to pick with two eminent historians for quite a number of years now. The bone really sticks in my craw and tonight I'm a finnin' pick it out. As in all the fights I've picked with my betters I assert that I, the idiot blogger, is correct and that these eminences are wrong. Caveat emptor.
First, James McPherson. At the very end, pages 853-862, of Battle Cry of Freedom McPherson sifts through the various prior explanations that historians have offered for the United States victory and the Confederate States defeat and finds them all wanting. A minor shard of the bone I have to pick with McPherson is his use of the phrase "fallacy of reversibility" to dismiss one constellation of explanations. The "fallacy of reversibility"? What that is? I googled it one time: it appears ONCE--in this book--yet it sounds like it has the force of ancient law, like the fallacy of the perpetual motion machines or like it's a rule of logic. I object to the phrase.
Nine-tenths of the bone with McPherson is the explanation he offers after he finds all the others fallacious. Here is McPherson's money shot:
Most attempts to explain southern defeat or northern victory lack the dimension of contingency--the recognition that at numerous critical points during the war things might have gone altogether differently...Northern victory and southern defeat in the war cannot be understood apart from the contingency that hung over every campaign, every battle, every election, every decision during the war. (emphasis in original)
So, the South would have won the war if it had won more battles. See? That commits the fallacy of tautology.
The second historian I wish to cudgel tonight is James MacGregor Burns in Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox. In the chapter Court Packing: The Miscalculated Risk, pp 291-315, Burns describes Roosevelt's plan as "sanctioned by precedent...as previous presidents had done," "clearly constitutional," "quite moderate"(296) and "there was tremendous support in Congress and in the country for curbing the Court's excesses" (314). That's a pretty powerful combo there! So, um, why did it like fail? Because it was always going to fail.
In language strikingly similar to that used by McPherson, Burns sweeps away contending explanations for his own:
All such explanations ignored the probability that the original court plan never had a chance of passing. This was the crucial point. (313-14)
So: didn't pass...never had chance to pass...crucial point.
Holy hell.
I don't know if that commits the fallacy of reversibility but it does something bad, fallacy-wise! It contradicts Burns' previous descriptions of the plan is one damn thing it does. It is asinine. It is not an argument, it is a tautology also.
In both these instances I am not picking nits, I am picking Mammoth bones. McPherson’s tautology was his judgment on the entire Civil War! Burns’ was his “crucial point” on one of the most crucial points of Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency. They both struck air.
First, James McPherson. At the very end, pages 853-862, of Battle Cry of Freedom McPherson sifts through the various prior explanations that historians have offered for the United States victory and the Confederate States defeat and finds them all wanting. A minor shard of the bone I have to pick with McPherson is his use of the phrase "fallacy of reversibility" to dismiss one constellation of explanations. The "fallacy of reversibility"? What that is? I googled it one time: it appears ONCE--in this book--yet it sounds like it has the force of ancient law, like the fallacy of the perpetual motion machines or like it's a rule of logic. I object to the phrase.
Nine-tenths of the bone with McPherson is the explanation he offers after he finds all the others fallacious. Here is McPherson's money shot:
Most attempts to explain southern defeat or northern victory lack the dimension of contingency--the recognition that at numerous critical points during the war things might have gone altogether differently...Northern victory and southern defeat in the war cannot be understood apart from the contingency that hung over every campaign, every battle, every election, every decision during the war. (emphasis in original)
So, the South would have won the war if it had won more battles. See? That commits the fallacy of tautology.
The second historian I wish to cudgel tonight is James MacGregor Burns in Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox. In the chapter Court Packing: The Miscalculated Risk, pp 291-315, Burns describes Roosevelt's plan as "sanctioned by precedent...as previous presidents had done," "clearly constitutional," "quite moderate"(296) and "there was tremendous support in Congress and in the country for curbing the Court's excesses" (314). That's a pretty powerful combo there! So, um, why did it like fail? Because it was always going to fail.
In language strikingly similar to that used by McPherson, Burns sweeps away contending explanations for his own:
All such explanations ignored the probability that the original court plan never had a chance of passing. This was the crucial point. (313-14)
So: didn't pass...never had chance to pass...crucial point.
Holy hell.
I don't know if that commits the fallacy of reversibility but it does something bad, fallacy-wise! It contradicts Burns' previous descriptions of the plan is one damn thing it does. It is asinine. It is not an argument, it is a tautology also.
In both these instances I am not picking nits, I am picking Mammoth bones. McPherson’s tautology was his judgment on the entire Civil War! Burns’ was his “crucial point” on one of the most crucial points of Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency. They both struck air.
0-1, 83’
Dave O'Grady
@daveGildedALM
Will they even be able to make a highlights programme out of this ?
#totvsliv #ChampionsLeague
4:42 PM · Jun 1, 2019 · Twitter for iPhone
This is embarrassing for English football.
@daveGildedALM
Will they even be able to make a highlights programme out of this ?
#totvsliv #ChampionsLeague
4:42 PM · Jun 1, 2019 · Twitter for iPhone
This is embarrassing for English football.
0-1, 76’
Oh my God, please don’t let it end this way. Somebody score a regular goal: Tottenham because they probably deserve it; Liverpool to validate their lead, but SOMEbody.
0-1, 70’
Samuel Sinyangwe
@samswey
This has to be the most lackluster Champions League final in history.
4:24 PM · Jun 1, 2019 · Twitter for iPhone
@samswey
This has to be the most lackluster Champions League final in history.
4:24 PM · Jun 1, 2019 · Twitter for iPhone
Spurs 0 Liverpool 1, 64’
Man, I would hate to see the Champions League final decided on a 2’ penalty kick. Sheesh.
Perhaps I was too hasty, God does not hate me. But he doesn’t like me very much. I would think He, in his Mercy, having Created an Incompetent in His Image would compensate for His Error by sparing him an Old Air Filter or would provide His Poor Creature with a Sign that His Air Filter was about to fuck up his Creature’s AC.
Ceiling fan konks out, eh I’ll live with it. Refrigerator goes, no problem! Kitchen lights go, I’ll use the hall light! I live very simply. But the AC MUST WORK. MUST. And that’s the thing that goes on me every goddamn summer. I have had everything that can be replaced replaced. What will they fix this time?
The English-speaking peoples do not grasp the idea of “too much of a good thing.” No matter how large, breasts must be larger; no matter how big...your bank account, it can always be bigger; there is always one more soccer match to watch, today the Champions League Final, last week the Europa League final; in the Colonies both the NBA and NHL finals (4-7 games) have just begin—in June!
I understand the public interest in the ever-lengthening sports seasons: as a society we want to
spare spouses the agony of having to speak to each other, which could lead, it is acknowledged by all, to having to engage in sexual relations and, well, this is a respectable blog not a dystopian journal. I just would have thought that these two inventive societies, one the progenitor of the Industrial Revolution, the other of McDonald’s franchises, could have invented something else to do in the summer.
I understand the public interest in the ever-lengthening sports seasons: as a society we want to
spare spouses the agony of having to speak to each other, which could lead, it is acknowledged by all, to having to engage in sexual relations and, well, this is a respectable blog not a dystopian journal. I just would have thought that these two inventive societies, one the progenitor of the Industrial Revolution, the other of McDonald’s franchises, could have invented something else to do in the summer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
