What of India's Athletes?

The Washington Post recently reported that India, a perennial Olympic underachiever, has begun to boost its emphasis on sports and athletics. Although the article notes that Indians are fanatical about cricket, I'm unaware of any other sports for which Indians are known, despite Abhinav Bindra's 2008 gold medal in 10-meter air rifle shooting. And with a population of more than 1 billion people, the question is why is India so athletically challenged?

Obviously, some of this lack of athletic achievement owes to underinvestment in sports, in direct contrast to India's great rival to the east, China, which spends vast amounts on developing athletes and has won droves of Olympic medals to show for it. But the athletic gap between China (430 Olympic medals) and India (20 Olympic medals) seems far greater than mere underinvestment suggests, to the point that it seems possible that there may be some underlying feature of Indian culture that simply doesn't jive with competitive sports. (It's also possible, though in my opinion unlikely, that an Indian diet that's been historically, primarily for religious reasons, predisposed to vegetarianism, or near-vegetarianism, has created a population that is less capable of synthesizing the higher protein diets correlated with athletic achievement.) That is, I'm looking for some sort of institutional explanation as to why Indians don't really seem particularly prone to athletics. Is Indian culture not very supportive of athletes? (Certainly, not in the case of cricket.) Are sports not a particularly viable way for the average (poor) Indian to rise up in society? Why, since independence, has India never invested in athletics the way China has? Is it simply because it's easier for a one party totalitarian state (China) to mandate investment in athletics, rather than in economic development, than it is for a more democratic state (like India)? I think that there must be something more going on. Thoughts from the (very few) remaining readers of Bollocks?

Bollocks has previously discussed the issue of shootouts in soccer and made some modest proposals for finding a better way to determine a winner in matches that end in a draw after full time. Christopher Clarey apparently also finds the tie-breaking spectacle of penalty kicks unsatisfying and contends that shootouts are soccer's recurring nightmare.

[I]t is hard not to...wonder how a game of enormous skill and endurance, a game defined by carefully constructed attacks, can be reduced to a relatively static, out-of-context lottery with the most important trophy in world sports at stake.

Thus, Clarey suggests that soccer adopt the overtime format introduced in the NHL, and carried over into Olympic hockey, whereby, in overtime, teams compete five-on-five rather than the usual six-on-six. The idea is that reducing the number of players on the ice frees up space for offense and for resolution, as evidenced by the lack of shootouts in Olympic hockey from the quarterfinals onward at both 2006 Games in Turin and 2010 Games in Vancouver.

See the article for Clarey's complete ruminations on how this type of overtime format could be applied to soccer. I found the idea interesting and worth experimenting with, even though it's exceedingly difficult for me to imagine an overly conservative organization like FIFA making an effort to adopt such a scheme. My immediate concern with the system is that unless teams knew in advance that overtime periods would persist, possibly with fewer and fewer men on the field in successive periods, until one team scored a goal--that is, there would be no possibility of a shootout--then teams would be tempted, as they are now, to simply play to a draw. Beyond that point, finding a way to create more offense sounds like a good idea, and if it can help bring a more satisfying resolution to close matches, so much the better.

Defending the Humanities

I bothers me that when I try to make a case to some random undergrad to pick up a major or minor in philosophy, that I usually end up selling the option in terms of its practical benefits. (See the bottom of the page here, for instance). It's linked to a question that I've found pressing, if not totally precise, for a while now: what the point of the humanities? Especially at Purdue, a school whose mission is overwhelmingly pragmatic, and whose ethos is dominated by its engineering, agriculture, and business schools, the question always seems to be in the air. In such a culture, the humanities can come off as a cute but ultimately useless set of exercises; serious minds apply themselves to endeavors that have more concrete and marketable results.

I don't have a coherent response yet. It's, admittedly, a big topic. I think it's probably related to another question I have: I spend a lot of my time reading novels. Why? Surely I could be doing something more useful with that time. What explains the impulse, and what justifies that I indulge it so often (assuming it is justifiable)? Those aren't the same questions, but I'm guessing the answers to both will be related to each other.

I'd be happy to hear anyone's thoughts. For now, I'm just going to start compiling a list of interesting articles and posts that feel relevant.

From Harper's: Dehumanized
DFW: Deciderization, Kenyon Address
Baskin on DFW's project: Death is Not the End

Pondering Polanski's Punishment

Everyone seems to be chiming in with his or her take on the artist versus the man within Academy Award winning director Roman Polanski who was recently arrested in Switzerland, 31 years after he fled the U.S. just before he was to be sentenced in California for having sex with a 13-year-old girl. I'm sure there was some reason that California prosecutors decided to pursue Polanski now, 32 years after the case began, and it may have been triggered by last year's documentary which exposed the bizarre behavior of the original judge on the case and the corruption behind Polanski's prosecution. Regardless, I'm more interested in what the current prosecutors plan to do with him now that he's been detained--he did after all admit to drugging and raping a 13-year old. Skirting the deal-making and haggling that will inevitably transpire to extradite Polanski to California, what's next? I anticipate Polanski's lawyers will try to work out some sort of plea bargain and will do everything in their power to keep him out of jail.

I open the floor to the (very) few who still read Bollocks to propose suitable deals and/or punishments for Polanski should he ultimately be extradited and face sentencing. Should he go to jail? For how long? What if he served a short jail sentence and also donated a considerable sum of money to raped or abused women's groups?

Frustrated Over Health Care

Today Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana) revealed the first concrete, allegedly bipartisan proposal to overhaul the US health care system. I say allegedly because even though the Finance Committee has apparently been trying to hash out some sort of bipartisan deal for a year, Baucus's bill hasn't attracted any Republican support. All the time Congressional Democrats have spent working with the so-called Gang of Six to reach a bipartisan compromise has yielded no real bipartisan proposal. Despite President Obama's attempt last week to rejuvenate the health care debate, the public's interest after all of these months has waned, and possibly worse, the initial proposal doesn't even have the full support of many Democrats.

At what point is this bipartisan charade a waste of time? Yes, President Obama came to office on promises of bipartisan inclusiveness that he learned to appreciate when he was an Illinois State Senator and that he was forced to work with while he was in the US Senate. Yes, several Democratic Senators, notably Bill Nelson, have voiced their concerns over moving forward on a bill that doesn't have at least some Republican support (among other things, the death of Senator Kennedy means that the Democrats currently have only 59 votes in the Senate). Whether this hesitancy among Democrats owes to a seemingly tenuous Democratic Congressional coalition, the bipartisan wishes of the President, or an annoyingly Democratic tendency toward some sort of fantastical bipartisan ideal, it's been a long time since I've seen the Democrats mix it up in Congress with a straight up, smart Democratic proposal that they all stood behind.

In a related article, in case you missed it, it's worth checking out David Leonhardt's take on why implementing more choice in insurance policies is too radical for most legislators in Congress.

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was making people believe he did not exist."

Sitting in the back seat of a car with relatives through the flat wasteland known as Florida, I made the assertion that right-wing AM radio ""political"" talk show entertainers wind people up, and make them angry. I was rebuked with the comment, "We're already angry, they just express how we feel." In a less dramatic phone conversation with a different relative, I mentioned that she might consider avoiding certain, ahem, ""Fucked and Biased"" cable """"News****""" personalities because their rhetoric increase her blood pressure. This was met with befuddlement. (insert sound of something going over aformentioned relative's head).

In comparing Baudrillard's nihilistic irreality and popular media, scholar Jeffrey Sconce made the comment that people generally don't "like" Paris Hilton, rather she is something of a "negative irritation." In the case of "The celebra-nality known as Capital of France Corporate Hotel Brand" we can attach our irritation to some sort of human embodiment complete with accessory pets, the best skin money can buy and a publicly deliberated crotch.

In the case of Fux Nudz, we (not me actually) do not attach our irritation with the man who is known as B.O., Ayn Coulter or whatever.

So now I have this image of being bitten by a mosquito before mosquitos were a known quantity.
I scratch the itch, and curse it, but I know not where my discomfort originates. I blame it on Zeus, the Titans, fate, the weather, the socialists, the Tetons, or wherever the gameshow host, i mean, "news" ""journalist****""" tells me to. He does not actually create my anger and insecurity. No, I have slowly incurred that through years of quiet desolation and despair, but, now I have a target, to funnel, exacerbate and shape my anger. His name is...that fucking Nazi, immigrant, Culicidae(mosquito)-socialist health care crusader-Obama.

So, three questions for our resident evolutionary cognitive philosophers out there, (both armchair and professional):

1. explain to me this "negative irritation" response.

2. Why is it so easy to direct angry people's anger with a "conservative" message? (scapegoat might be the key term here)

3. Is the alternative being a smug, overeducated, cynical Jon Stewart fan? (I plead guilty) is the analog emotion Laughter here?


****terms used extraordinarily loosely, in accordance with the parlance of our times.

The New "It" Beer - Stone Ruination IPA

This stuff is tasty.


A bit of a case of "You get what you pay for."

I had an epiphany, after deciding that Double (aka Imperial) IPAs are twice as good as IPAs, when my home-brewing colleague showed me the prices for the kits he orders: IPA - $35, Double IPA - $67: beer tastes better when more is invested in the ingredients. It makes perfect sense, but I had always thought of things like location (e.g., Belgium), age of the brewery (e.g., Guiness and Stella), and being cool (e.g., Free State Brewery) as the determining factors.

The Ruination is pricey, but tasty. Recommended.

How hip am I?

So, allow me to ask a serious question: would you guys label this trend as being hipster?

I think it's trite shit meant for tourists, but I could be wrong.

...kids say the darndest things

....ah, i thought it was funny.

We can argue about whether spelling bees are a sport or just merely a competition if you're tired of me just posting links.

....me being dramatic again...

So, i've been thinking a lot about this topic recently. My question to you - is this video meaningful? cheap? gimmicky? beautiful?

What is up with taking your shirt off?

I've never understood the impetus for soccer players to remove their shirts in celebration when they score goals. It's pretty ubiquitous in the soccer world--score an important goal; remove shirt. I can think of no other sport in which players celebrate by removing their clothes. Imagine if Albert Pujols just ripped off his shirt when he hit a home run, or if Rajon Rondo tore off his jersey after he dunked over someone. Yes, I get that scoring a goal in a soccer game is usually far more significant to the outcome of the game than hitting a home run or dunking a basketball. But still, why is the "natural" celebratory impulse to remove the shirt? Even when players in other sports have conquered their opponents, thus putting aside the significance of a single goal in a soccer game, they don't usually take their clothes off. Only in soccer is there this compulsion to remove the jersey. Would someone explain what this is all about?

Can Fantasy be Good Literature?

I wasn't always this way, but I'm mostly surrounded by folks with very little or no interest in literature these last few years, and I've lost the tenuous empathy I once had for people with aspirations to pursue high-minded literary art to the exclusion of all other fiction.

I just listened to the audiobook series "The Wheel of Time," the completed portion of the series; there's one book left to be completed by a different author (Brandon Sanderson) following the death of the writer who created the series (Robert Jordan). I'm now listening to audiobooks written Brandon Sanderson.

I'd never read fantasy series until the last year or two, and I find that it helps make my commute much more enjoyable.

Am I right in remembering or imagining that at-least-somewhat-right-minded people denounce the fantasy genre as a whole?

Along similar lines, I read "I am Charlotte Simmons" by Tom Wolfe, and I enjoyed it, but reading about the book afterward, I gathered that the author has been periodically attacked for writing in a style that lacks literary merit.

Can someone condense the basic arguments involved in these types of literary debates for me? Is there a moral hazard in reading works of fiction that lack sufficient literary credentials?

believing is seeing

Perhaps you might argue that a goal which merely secured a 1-1 draw in the first leg of the Champions League quarterfinals does not deserve an its own post on the super-discriminating Bollocks on Top of More Bollocks blog - I mean, there are only like 20 posts for all of 2009. Still, this was an incredible goal, and I think we have about a 75% chance of advancing to the semi's (to face Porto?). At any rate, Adebayor hasn't exactly had a great year for the Arse, so hopefully this portends better things from him for the last few months of the season.

What's the matter with Kansas?

To start, I just want to say that I hate any study that fails to support my own proconceptions. So, file this one under 'very interesting but completely bullshit'. Essentially, the authors of the original study look at the geographical variation of the 'Big 5' personality traits across the states of the US. This blog post summarizes their findings nicely.

First, are there really 'the big 5' personality traits? What does it mean if one scores low on all 5? Lastly, the conscientious measure shows once and for all why we should have just let the South secede (and still should).
I was glad to see that New York scored highly on the neuroticism measure. That may be a surprising result to the rest of you.
Anyone else learn anything?

Rushbo

As great as the theatre and schadenfreude is, there's something I still don't understand about all all this stuff: WHY do the republicans who criticize Rush always go slinking back with the tails between their legs and apologize to him afterwards? What's kind of power does he have? What's their incentive? He's clearly a bombastic blowhard who is out of touch with most of America and toxic to conservatives moving forward, but he's also a radio talk show host. Why do people with actual responsibilities and positions grovel before this guy?

Please, no need to thank me

I'm not exactly sure why, but this and this provided a much needed reprieve from the seemingly neverending and increasingly dire reports about our crumbling economy. I mean, what is it about dick jokes?
But, then I realized that sex and the economy are inextricably intertwined. For example, this may account for much of Japan's cratering exports.

So, this is all to ask: does anyone have any book or movie recommendations that will temporarily take my mind off our impending collective penury?

So, are we really this fucked?

I'd say yes. But, I'd like to add that my 1Q drinking is up at least 10% on an annualized basis compared to my 4Q drinking.

Hollywood's turn to the Origin Story

First, let me say I think the most interesting film studies work demonstrates how films represent some sort of cultural theme - whether it be Apatow's dufus masculinity, or the Reagan era hard-men (Die Hard, Schwarzenegger, Lethal Weapon). Here is my attempt.

My question: Why is Hollywood is turning to the origin stories of superheroes, and why is that compelling to, among others, me?

The phenomenon: Batman's lucrative turn to the story of Bruce Wayne's transformation to Batman (the origin story). Other examples of origin stories include Star Wars preludes, the upcoming Star Trek, the upcoming Wolverine. My folklore friend assures me that the origin story is a staple of world mythology, but the question might be thought of in terms of why now do we want to learn the origins of these heroes? It seems to me that a past iteration of the Hollywood hero, the guy just appears on the scene, and is super. Sure, there might be some back story to how they got there, but now, the back story IS the story. (this might explain the failure of the latest Superman, though it might not have much to say about the Spiderman).

So why? Economically, it makes sense. It is a way to reinvigorate a valuable franchise without jumping the shark (ala Lethal Weapon, Rocky). Audiences flock to these films knowing where the characters will end up, but not sure how they will get there. There is something reassuring about that, although it takes out some of the suspense, no doubt. These films act as star vehicles for a younger generation - who really wants to see Shatner in a tight shirt anymore- substitute with younger, better looking dude.

While these explanations might tell us why Hollywood would like the origin story, it doesn't go too far in telling us why the audience actually responds to them. Surely, Batman Begins was a really good movie, and had an influence, but to reiterate my concern, what cultural theme might we identify?

My basic answer is Reality TV. Historically, stars (our modern day heroes?) were treated as gods. Rock Hudson was straight, the President faithful to Jacky, and no one had a drug problem. Now, the media industry feeds on the carcasses of Britney Spears, and Kurt Cobain. Nixon and Monica Lewinsky have taught us that even public servants sometimes do not tell the truth...

In sum, we, as proud Americans, want our heroes to be flawed. To have problems. We want them to be like us. Despite working at Kmart, I can become a multi-million record selling singer if I can just get on TV. I can become the Biggest Loser. I want hope.

I want my superheroes....to be human.

What We Talk About When We Talk About Love

Would you rather have a can't miss love potion, or an anti-love drug? Both may be available in the relatively near future, apparently.

While on the subject, I just finished a collection of short stories, edited by the author of The Virgin Suicides and Middlesex, that was fantastic. Called My Mistress's Sparrow is Dead. Super good.


*** Moved to the top from June 16th 2008. ***


" What We Talk About When We Talk About Love " is the title of a great, albeit kind of bleak, short story by Raymond Carver. It's also an interesting question, especially if you find yourself wondering, like I do, if romantic love isn't sort of a covert national religion.

What we're talking about, though, is probably a lot of different things. It's a good case of what I think is fairly common, one in which common sense sees a single thing where there are really a bunch of different things, where hiding behind a single word are a couple of subtly distinct phenomena. In this case, behind that word are the sorts of bonds people have to each other and the emotions that underlie them - the feeling people have towards their kids and other relatives, the sorts of feelings that link us to our close friends, and then there's what we feel when we're head over heels for someone else (just for starters).

Evolutionary theory tells us that these are all different things, and psychology tells us that each is sustained by different mechanisms. Three different theories about the head over heels variety pull in different directions though.

According to one, romantic love evolved to ensure commitment to a pair bond after a partner has lost the qualities s/he was initially valued for. Doubt it.

The second takes the fact that a couple can only be madly in love for a couple of years, that the honeymoon stage has a fairly constrained length, which is often taken to be supported by the shortish shelf life of marriages in societies that promote autonomy and allow divorce. This theory holds that the emotion was designed by natural selection to do two things: to motivate couples to mate (duh); but also to make sure they stay together just long enough to jointly take care of the infant they produce. Then, once they've got the kid up and running, the emotion's done it's job and the fire goes out. This one is certainly plausibility.

The third is probably the most interesting, though, if only because it cuts against the conventional wisdom the hardest. This one takes as it's jumping off point that pair bonding is a fairly recent development in our species' evolutionary past. Moreover, historically speaking, human societies rarely establish pair bonds on the basis of romantic love (think fixed and arranged marriages). The biological function of romantic love, rather, is to facilitate adultery and abandonment rather than continuation of the pair bond. It's to shake things up, genetically speaking, and keep the variety producing mix and match of genes going. Complementary to this one is the idea that romantic love is the psychological mechanism in humans that is responsible for a mating gambit found in a number of species, the "sneaky fucker" strategy.

Sweet.

Camille la Chanteuse

Camille - Gospel With No Lord - Live
by maiden666