The Man in Blak

Apologies if it's been linked elsewhere, but Bas Rutten has chimed in with his commentary for Saturday's main event on his website. Obviously, you're not going to find complete partiality here, but he does admit in the postscript that the fight should have been stopped at the end of the second round.

Edwin's on the clock (for a few hours, actually) and Darthtiki can pick at any time.

You're telling me. My wife, of all people, was just Tivo-ing forward to the local news and decided to stop right at the intros for the last fight, mainly out of morbid curiosity. And we ended up watching it all the way to the end. For two completely uninitiated viewers, the finish seemed a little bogus. I'm not going to be so bold as to call EliteXC's legitimacy into question after watching one fight as a complete novice, but I can't omit the feeling that the timing of the TKO was very "convenient": Kimbo caught that ear right out of the gate in the third round, after appearing to completely disregard it in the previous rounds, and the referee seemed kind of eager to call it, even if Thompson was probably almost out on his feet. (The fact that the referee let the action go when Thompson took a couple of bombs to the face earlier in the match did not help matters.) It almost made it seem like Thompson's cauliflower ear was a "ripcord" for the match. And, though the play-by-play during the match wasn't terrible, the post-match commentary actually made things worse, continually hammering home that this was a controversial victory, that Kimbo Slice got away with one. I know that EliteXC is trying to make the most of this prime-time television opportunity, but the tone of that post-match commentary seemed a little desperate; maybe my previous years of wrestling fandom betray me, but I would not have been surprised at all to have heard Gus Johnson yelping in the background, urging us to "tune in next week to find out Thompson's response to this controversial finish." As for the match itself, I found it interesting at spots, but I was never really excited at any point, so to speak. The "technical" aspects of the match yielded mixed results - some of the reversals were interesting, but the clutching was just brutal at times. It seems to me like the referees are in a very tough spot with MMA: you want to encourage takedowns and grappling so that you differentiate yourself from boxing, but you don't want the match to drag into oblivion as one guy takes two minutes to go for a guillotine. Aside from all of that, one potentially stupid question: are these fights judged on any kind of point system? If so, why wasn't there any kind of indication as to what the scores were as we progressed from round to round? If that were the case, it would seem like presenting that information would not only provide viewers a better context for the match, but give the commentators a springboard for actually touching on a natural storyline for the fight.

Didn't realize the pick would come around to me so quick, so I'll make this one in a hurry and add the writeup to my backlog: DJ Shadow - Endtroducing...

Just to keep things rolling, Cowboy Numbers has been on the clock for a bit, Coat can pick at anytime.

The Sperm is ON DA CLAAAAHCK, StevieKick can pick at any time.

About time.

Here's a CBS Sportsline fluff piece on Rick Ankiel, who came to the plate for the first time since injuring his knee a few days ago and smacked his eighth home run of the year. An excerpt below, with some information that I wasn't necessarily aware of: I knew that he had run into arm injuries up to the 2004 season, but his return to the majors in 2004 (which was conveniently left out of this article) had mixed results. In ten innings, he struck out nine batters and only walked one batter, but he had an ERA in the fives and he also managed to bean Dave Krynzel in the head in the last game of the season. Why the local media didn't play up arm injuries as the issue, instead of letting most of Cardinal fandom wonder if Ankiel was cracking under pressure again, is beyond me.

Writeup forthcoming, since all hell is breaking loose at work today, but here's my pick: Sonic Youth - Daydream Nation

Two ball-busting picks in a row, dude. Though, interestingly enough, it's the last one that's actually more frustrating, since I had that one tabbed to round out some soul in my collection. The next couple of rounds will determine whether I mail you a turd sandwich for picking Dummy or not.

I make that separation because the two acts are completely different from an evolutionary standpoint. One act can lead to continued procreation of the race; the other one does not. And our understanding of sexual impulses, to this point, seems tied to that evolutionary fact...so why would any given species (animal, human, whatever) consider homosexuality? Is it general dysfunction or is it actually an evolutionary trait (i.e. natural)? If it is actually an evolutionary trait, why is it apparently constrained to such a small minority of the population? Answers to these questions may not change the minds of every single person that is considering this issue, but it will provide more information to the people who are undecided on the issue to really consider it. The consideration of homosexuality as taboo is a sociological decision and that decision is founded on what perceived benefits it has to the culture at large, benefits that may be tied to some of the questions that I asked above. If you're content to say that homosexuality is acceptable or that it's a scourge, either way, you're entitled to your opinion...but I think that coming to that decision so quickly kind of cheats yourself out of a better understanding as to what really drives it. And the legislative acceptance of gay marriage as a civil union implies, culturally, that we accept gay marriage as an equal commodity to "normal" marriage, a union which already has religious ties to begin with. People that don't agree with gay marriage in principle may not feel that gay couples should receive the same benefits as "normal" married couples, that such benefits are in play to encourage "normal" marriage. (Precedent was a poor word choice.) Personally, I'm completely indifferent to gay marriage. The government already allows marriages to exist outside of the traditional religious boundaries (you can get married by a local justice of the peace, for example), so I'm not sure I understand all of the rancor directed towards keeping things "in line with the traditional Christian beliefs." Conversely, I don't think that homosexual couples are necessarily entitled to social benefits from a government standpoint either; any government is well within its rights to exempt them from such benefits if it feels that such relationships don't contribute positively to society. Ultimately, I would prefer that the government (and anybody else, really) would make such a judgment based upon some kind of rational argument, knowledge, rather than the fact that one loud minority thinks that gays should burn in hell or another loud minority thinks that homosexuality is natural, beautiful, and should be embraced within society. And I personally feel that the knowledge surrounding homosexuality is lacking at this time...so if the government wants to wait and see more proof that gay couples can positively add to society, then so be it; the burden of proof lies with with the gay community to further build that case.

For one, emotional attachment isn't necessarily a required component for any kind of sexual encounter, homosexual or otherwise. As welcome as an explanation for love and attachment would be, it's not entirely germane to the specific issue of homosexuality. Secondly, the legislative implications that surround marriage, such as tax breaks/penalties, make it a public issue for the Bill O'Reillys and the message board pundits to discuss and debate at length. If you want to argue that those implications shouldn't be there, fire away, but the fact that they exist ensure that gay marriage isn't just happening in a vacuum, so to speak. There are consequences, precedents at stake that can affect everybody. Finally, the explanation that you're requiring for sexual attraction in this case is the very explanation that would be provided by a biological/genetic/environmental study, so I'm a little puzzled as to how you wouldn't understand the need for it in one sentence, then call for it as a necessity in the next.

I don't buy into any pro-gay agenda behind this study, but I would think that any such conclusions based upon this single study are a bit premature. The fact that we're observing homosexual behavior in animals closes one door (homosexuality only as choice), but opens many others; is this behavior an adaptive mechanism (i.e. is it learned over time through evolution)? Are there any environmental causalities? Does the occurrence of this behavior increase in a given population over time (i.e. is it learned through observation)? Are there any biological similarities between animals that exhibit homosexual behavior in a given population or across populations? You're missing the point entirely - it's not that they are at odds with the homosexual lifestyle but, rather, homosexuality itself. They feel that homosexuality is bad and, thus, they probably feel that legalization of gay marriage only encourages that behavior, that lifestyle, and the cultural acceptance of both. Personally, I'm loathe to really make any kind of sociological judgment towards homosexuality because there's still far too much unknown about it, other than the fact that it happens. I don't really agree with rampant persecution, nor do I celebrate it through gay pride and all that, though I would imagine that the latter is a direct result of the former. Maybe I'm off in left field, but I'm more intrigued with why it happens...and, from that standpoint, the study only answers that question with more questions.

If only I had been here sooner. I haven't looked through all of the YouTubes, so apologies in advance for duplicates, but here's a couple that immediately spring to mind: Folk Implosion - Natural One: The Verve Pipe - The Freshmen: Prodigy - Breathe: Fiona Apple - Criminal: Green Day - Longview: The Black Crowes - Hard to Handle: The Smashing Pumpkins - Bullet With Butterfly Wings: Everlast - What It's Like: The Cardigans - Lovefool: Next - Too Close:

TV on the Radio - Return to Cookie Mountain Probably seems like an overdraft, but it seemed far too likely that it would be gone by the time things made their way back around. So, time to modernize. A 21st Century Funkadelic, where glitchy synths punch over cheap elephant horns, sitars, and laments in the opener, "I Was A Lover", ominous and beautiful, while Tunde Adebimpe and chorus climb over a wall of distortion into a desperate rave in "Playhouses." Most of the western world probably associates this album with "Wolf Like Me", a blood-burning rush into feral madness, but it doesn't quite hit me like "Province", a power ballad (of all things) delivered atop an apocalypse, declaring love as true courage, a message so bold that even David Bowie was compelled to join on for backup vocals. Let me lay waste to thee, indeed.

Well, you can find the TMNT arcade game on Xbox Live Arcade. I can't attest to the emulation quality, but it does offer online co-op. As for my VC stash: Galaga (NES) Castlevania (NES) Super Mario Bros. 2 [import] (NES) Kirby's Adventure (NES) Bubble Bobble (NES) Blades of Steel (NES) Double Dribble (NES) Battle Lode Runner [import] (TG-16) Bomberman '93 (TG-16) Legend of Zelda: Link to the Past (SNES) Gunstar Heroes (Genesis) Shining Force (Genesis) Phantasy Star II (Genesis) Super Mario 64 (N64) Sin & Punishment [import] (N64) Baseball Stars 2 (Neo Geo) King of Fighters '94 (Neo Geo) With the exception of Castlevania and Kirby's Adventure, I didn't own any of these games in the original cartridge form.

I don't disagree that the investigation seems to have come to a standstill, but that really wasn't my point. (Though, to that point, I'm sure there's a response forthcoming from the Herald and/or Tomase.) I'm talking about the story itself - people will continue to talk about this for years down the line, whenever we consider the successes of the Patriots during this era, because there is still "truth" that has not yet been revealed, truth that will not be revealed because those tapes were destroyed.

This story will never go away. Roger Goodell destroyed the evidence that would have allowed for complete closure and, as a result, there will always be questions, regardless of whatever the truth may be, surrounding the extent of the cheating, as well as the legitimacy and the intent of the NFL's investigation.

Yeah, I heavily considered it over the Dylan album, but I thought it would come back to me in the next round anyway. Oops.

Which is why Czech responded with an assurance that he'd handle that stuff, case-by-case, right? If those are the rules, then sure, I've got no problem with those...but that wasn't exactly clear from the original post (or from the posting of those rules at the top of the forum as "Community Guidelines").

Then why not put those in the rules? I'm not asking for more rules just for the sake of having more rules; in fact, I'm not even asking for more rules at all. All that I'm saying is that laying down the rules only answers half of the questions. If you don't lay out how those rules will be enforced, even if you're completely reserving the right to case-by-case judgment, then you're going to bring about questions about how and why things are being done, questions that may or may not be conveniently raised here in Site Feedback, questions that speak to the "bias" that's perceived around here, questions that may lead people to go somewhere else. The amount of detail you put in the community guidelines is inversely related to the amount of justification that people will expect for administrative decisions. If you want to spend time answering the same questions again and again about the Gulag (just to pick out a specific example), that's your prerogative, but isn't that detrimental to the whole "hands-off moderation" approach?

Nice to see that the celestial routing of PEHDTSCKJMBA includes a stop through St. Louis.

I think Bissinger's argument is well-intentioned, somewhat, but completely misdirected and hilariously undermined by his own hypocritical tirade towards Leitch. Blasting Deadspin for a lack of productive, intellectual discussion is like blasting The Daily Show for a lack of journalistic integrity; does Bissinger reserve the same level of vitriol for Rotoworld? What about Baseball Prospectus, or Football Outsiders, or The Hardball Times?

That's a good start, but I think people are still looking for more details regarding the actual enforcement of these rules. (e.g., What offenses constitute a complete ban from the site? What offenses get you gulag'd? Any escalation in enforcement for repeated offenses?)

Dylan, Dylan, Dylan Dylan Dylan.