Lloyd Dobbler was right.

Right now I would call myself an "interested poseur." As in, I'm doing a post about MMA and yet I confess I don't watch it that much.

But when I do watch it, I dig it.

It's already pretty big, and seems, to me, poised to break out.

In case you only know of it from fifteen years ago, when it was a carnival-barker stunt-tv thing: When they first put this together, and were chased out of venues for being too violent, they really did sell the brutality of it to a public which always has a thirst for that kind of thing.

But despite that initial marketing, they tightened up a lot of the rules to prevent the most brutal stuff. They stopped selling it as an extreme, brutish spectacle, and started packaging instead as a legitimate sport.

And it is that now. A legitimate sport.

I have to wonder how long boxing maintains its status as the top fighting sport. Does it still cling to that title now? Maybe... if it does, not for long. The fact is, MMA is just so much more interesting than boxing. There are so many more ways to win (and lose) a fight.

A couple of weeks ago I saw something I hadn't seen before: A roundhouse kick to the head knockout. (Actually, he hit with the shin to the chin -- good enough.) I'm sure anyone watching this for a while has seen that, but it was a new one on me.

Sure, I've seen it in movies. I always thought it was sort of BS. I thought it was too big a move in a close fight; that you'd be opening yourself to too much counterattack to try it.

Not so much, not so much.

I don't watch enough so I thought that the wrestlers were dominant, and this therefore proved grappling was a superior form of combat to striking, and as far as striking, MMA bouts proved boxing was superior to kicking, especially superior to high kicks.

Not exactly. Those high kicks are still pretty rare and often don't connect but when they do, that is that. (Low kicks have long been effective at slowing a fighter down and taking the spring out of his legs.)

And my recent viewing seems to indicate that striking has come back to pull even with grappling.

My observations may be wrong. Just what it seems to me based on limited viewing. But the point I guess I'm trying to make is -- well, it's pretty varied. I think for a while there the sport became very dominated by that Brazilian jujitsu and so was mostly grappling. But it seems to have opened up again. The last several fights I saw caused me to wonder, "Hey, when are they going to grapple?"

I don't know if this is true or not, but steve_in_hb, who tells me interesting stuff, even if it's not true, says that the MMA may actually be, despite the bloodiness of it, less brutal than boxing.

The theory he relayed is that the heavy padded gloves in boxing are really terrible for a fighter's brain. The idea being all that cushion will prevent knockouts... but will do nothing to prevent the fact your brain is constantly being bruised badly as it sloshes against the skull due a forceful blow. And because you won't get knocked out cleanly, you'll instead endure pummel after pummel after pummel.

The theory, then, postulates that in the MMA, knockouts are more frequent, but the fights then are overall more merciful as regards long-term brain health.

If one of those lands on you in MMA, you're done for the night. The fights are not prolonged in that way.

The MMA also has none of that standing 8 count stuff, which, now that I consider it, seems incredibly cruel: If in boxing, you're kind of halfway briefly knocked out, but can be gathered up to your feet, your manly honor compels you to fight on, right? Saying "No Mas" would be... contrary to the spirit of competition, right? So you soldier on.

But why are they putting you through that? If you were kinda-sorta knocked out, even for a half second, shouldn't that be the end of your night? (I know this rule is used for simple knockdowns as well that don't involve knockout, but you can tell, often, a guy getting the standing 8 count is three blocks north of Queer Street.)

Just out of regard for humanity: Don't encourage that guy to fight any further. Yeah, he wants to win the fight. He also wants to be able to recognize his wife and kids when he retires.

On the other hand, when you get knocked to the ground in MMA, the fight does not necessarily stop, and your opponent can pummel you while you're senseless on the mat; but refs come in quickly to stop a fight when one opponent isn't capable of an intelligent defense.

I kinda wish they'd swoop in there sooner after what looks like a telling blow and prevent those two or three bonus-damage hits, but, still.

At least it's quickly over. Maybe they need a one-second pause rule -- ref stops the advancing fighter for one second -- to check to see if the guy on the mat has just been knocked down or is, in fact, out.

I don't know if that's true. We don't have a big enough pool of long-career fighters in MMA to gauge the aftereffects of the sport on cognitive functions. Still, based on interviews, most MMA fighters seem less punch-drunk and uppercut-stupid than boxers.

Anyway, if you haven't watched it lately (and if you have Spike TV, I'm not sure how you avoided it), give it a shot. It might seem right now as if it's drawing a bit of a recovering-WWE-fan crowd, but I think that's going to change. I think they're just early adopters, who weren't put off by the sport's trashy beginnings.

I don't want to say that David Frum will start having UFC parties, but it does actually have enough poetry in it for an intellectual like George Will to write columns about.

Bonus: No corruption, or at least none that is known yet.

Posted by: Ace at 05:12 PM | Comments (324)
Post contains 1064 words, total size 6 kb.

Remember this guy?

Here are some choice emails from Otis Mathis, Detroit School Board President, explaining why he should continue on with sole control over kids' education:

"Do DPS control the Foundation or outside group? If an outside group control the foundation, then what is DPS Board row with selection of is director? Our we mixing DPS and None DPS row's, and who is the watch dog?"

Do DPS control? Do they ever!!!

"If you saw Sunday's Free Press that shown Robert Bobb the emergency financial manager for Detroit Public Schools, move Mark Twain to Boynton which have three times the number seats then students and was one of the reason's he gave for closing school to many empty seats."

We has a lot of reason's kids does not read well.

So, straight off the jump, he's, oh, what's the diagnostically proper word nowadays, a full-on retard.

Well, I guess that's a bit harsh; people are not "retards," they're people. We should emphasize he is a person, first and foremost; a person, then, with a retard-brain.

Okay: So he's a Person of Stupid. That's better.

No big problem; I mean, he's just involved in educating children. But who knows, maybe he's a delightful man of a good character -- that, too, is important when we're instructing children.

Well, he might have a deficit there, too.

I can't quote too much here but I will steal this and tell you there really is more at JWF.

"On many occasions, I have asked him not to touch himself," she wrote in the letter dated Wednesday.

Mathis declined to comment on the allegations today...

Board member Reverend David Murray called the allegations "a terrible thing" but said he doesn't believe the 55-year-old Mathis should quit.

...

"I feel bad for him because he probably felt that it was something she would probably like or she got humor out of it."

Can the Democrats run him for governor?

And speaking of mildly retarded black men in trouble for inappropriate expressions of unwanted sexuality, here's Ann Coulter on Alvin Greene.

Posted by: Ace at 03:08 PM | Comments (211)
Post contains 365 words, total size 3 kb.

His post is not theoretical at all; he actually was involved in waiving the act last time 'round, during Hurricane Katrina.

So why no waiver? Because the US-flagged shipping industry wants the business.

Without a strong lean from President Bush on his Cabinet to “do everything we can,” the waivers would not have happened. Given the intense pushback from the narrow interest groups, Presidential leadership was required to make this happen. The benefits were small but, in my mind, easily worth it. When things are really bad in the Gulf, you do everything you possibly can, even if it’s small.

At the time the debate sounded like this:

A: We have found N foreign-flagged ships that can help us get this done.
B: We have American ships and crews you can use.
A: Maybe, but the foreign-flagged ships are better/faster/more flexible/ready now.
B: But we have American ships and crews you can use, and the marginal improvement in speed or flexibility is small.
A: Sure itÂ’s small, but every little bit helps.

The Deputy Administration of the Maritime Administration (MARAD) has confirmed that one foreign-flagged skimmer has made a Jones Act waiver request. Yesterday, Dallas businessman Fred McAllister announced that “he has immediate access to 12 foreign ships and could pull in another 13 vessels in the next month.”

Before these recent developments, I had frequently read and heard the Administration argue “We don’t have any requests.” This is reminiscent of the house on Halloween with no lights on and an angry pet bull tied to a tree in the front yard. When asked why they don’t hand out candy to trick-or-treaters, they reply that they haven’t had any requests.

In my experience government officials in crisis management sometimes focus too much on what the government will do, and not enough on the incentive effects of what the government says to the private sector. A blanket waiver combined with a strong encouraging signal from government officials could, I think, spur significant private help, including from friends around the world. WeÂ’ll never know unless the President tries.

Thanks to ATaLien.

Posted by: Ace at 02:36 PM | Comments (60)
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.

Ummm...

Almost a game I was happy to watch... and then this happened. After going down 2-0 early, the USA rallied back to a 2-2 tie and then scored the winning goal.

But they got Galaraggaed.

Background on the reasons for this idiotic call at Allah's joint. And what was the claimed foul? The ref won't say. You'll just have to take his word that something happened here.

Just when I open the door to soccer...

It's not just that we tied when we should have won, of course. It's a confirmation of the suspicion that the game is kind of nonsense in the first place.

That idiot at The Nation (and NPR) whined that if the United States was doing well at the World Cup, all of us wingnuts would rally around them and root our little fascist hearts out.

Well, yeah. I'm not a fan of competitive swimming but if an American is doing something historic, you betcha, I'm a fan of swimming for a week and a half.

He says this like it's a bad thing -- as it's somehow wrong to cultivate an appreciation of a sport not based on the sport itself but out of patriotic sentiment and wishing your fellow countrymen to do well.

Anyway: Good job, Team USA. You won the game. Most anyone can ask of you.

Posted by: Ace at 01:42 PM | Comments (144)
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

Kathleen Parker will be the show's representative from the... right?

Chicago is... out? Chicago is out?

David Frum wasn't available?

David Brock?

Andrew Sullivan? He needs a steady gig.

How about John Dean? No? Already committed to appear on Olbermann four times a week? Oh, okay.

Kathleen Parker is not a conservative nor a Republican but she will represent the right, as far as CNN goes, because she was born in the south, like noted conservatives James Carville and Ed Shultz. Paul Begala too, I think.

Close enough, Wingnuts.

CNN

We cover the full spectrum of opinion, from center left to slightly more center left.

Posted by: Ace at 01:08 PM | Comments (118)
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

Good YouTube argument, thought-out and well-delivered, but I have to warn you it is long.

If you want a shorter version, start watching at about 4:15 (through the end, at about 7:30).

This begins the more effective part of his argument, in which he recounts some Muslim history, with special emphasis on the building of mosques upon the most sacred, highest profile grounds of a conquered people.

Not that that has a damn thing to do with the Ground Zero site, mind you.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:56 PM | Comments (41)
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

What a shock.

I had no idea this was coming when Obama sent troops to the border (only to check for guns and drugs, not illegal immigrant traffic).

It was unclear yesterday whether ClintonÂ’s comments were simply a prediction or mistake or whether instead she was getting ahead of a planned announcement by the administration.

Now a senior administration official tells CBS News that the federal government will indeed formally challenge the law when Justice Department lawyers are finished building the case. The official said Justice is still working on building the case.

Ed wonders who Obama's constituency is:

The Obama administration informed the Ecuadorian people of this decision before the White House informed Americans.

Posted by: Ace at 11:41 AM | Comments (310)
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

She's nothing but a lying Jezebel! Two thumbs up, way up!

He’s still convinced she’s lying about their “inappropriate physical relationship,” but Will Folks is endorsing South Carolina state Rep. Nikki Haley for governor anyway.

After all that, it turns out Folks doesnÂ’t think the alleged affair matters.

“The fact remains that this election (at least to us) isn’t about whether Haley is telling the truth regarding Sic Willie’s [sic] claim — or a subsequent claim made by lobbyist Larry Marchant — it’s about the hundreds of millions of dollars that will likely be saved as a result of her winning the general election in November,” Folks wrote Friday on his blog, FITSNews.com.

Thank God he's back on the team.

Whew.

Update: My good friend Larry Merchant just wrote me to say he also endorses Nikki Haley, and also, Restoration Hardware is having a sale on milk-paint faux-antique furnishings. He says they have an armoire that is, in his words, "to die."

Another Update: Will Folks himself just wrote me to say he's going to reveal he had once had sex with a cantaloupe in college, and he wants to go as public as possible with this revelation "so it doesn't embarrass my wife... I mean, my God, I don't want her reading this on a blog. I want her to read it in the Washington Post, classy-like."

PS, the cantaloupe denies the story, and I believe the cantaloupe.

Posted by: Ace at 11:36 AM | Comments (91)
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

Recently I was having yet another argument with some readers and someone advanced the idea that the GOP had to stake out maximalist positions (I use this word instead of "hard right," but you know what I mean: Highballing one's first demand, or lowballing one's first offer).

The argument made was that the further right you began as your first negotiating position, the further right the actual final agreed policy would be.

It was urged that even moderates, who want a center-right final policy, should support the maximalist first offer, because the maximalist first offer has the greatest chance of getting the center-right position desired.

I don't believe this is correct. I think it assumes that politics is like a lawsuit in which there are two fixed parties, two parties who remain constant, and thus any compromise which is to be forged will be forged between these parties. And each of these parties has a veto over the final agreement -- thus, each party has a strong negotiating position, and the only real question of where the final compromise will be is which party has the greatest will and zeal and determination and willingness to walk away from the table.

Again, the key assumption is that both parties will be at the negotiating table. If that assumption is true, then this theory holds.

But what if both parties will not necessarily be at the negotiating table? What if the judge has the power to rule that one party is being too unreasonable and substitutes in a more compliant party for the original party?

If Party A and Party B are negotiating, and are guaranteed to remain at the table, the demand-everything position makes sense.

But what if, in fact, the Judge has the power to decide that Party A is making in unrealistic demands, and stands in the way of compromise, and may decide, further, to replace Party A with more-compromising Party C?

What if the Judge actually replaces Party A with another member of Party B, so that the ensuing negotiations take place between Party B and Party B?

I submit this is precisely the position we are in now. This was how health care was passed: We were spectators to the negotiations, which occurred completely with Party B/Pelsoi wing and Party B/Stupak block.

We could do nothing. We were reduced to cheerleading for Bart Freaking Stupak.

Well, we could do almost nothing: We did show up for Party B's press conferences to jeer them, and it had an effect. But that effect was mostly due to the fear instilled that in 2010, we would have our term to ask the Judge -- the public, of course -- to re-instate us in the negotiations.

These claims that maximalist outcomes are best secured by maximalist demands before an election fail to take into account that the public gets to decide who will be sitting at that negotiating table. And if we're not at that table, our continuing demands are futile in and of themselves.

There is a type of mediated dispute resolution which I think is more analogous. In this type of resolution, each party writes down its demand/offer. The third-party mediator also writes down his opinion of a fair resolution. Let's say it's a money demand of some kind, for simplicity's sake, so both parties write down their demand/offer, and the mediator writes down what he believes is a fair number.

Crucially, in this type of resolution, the mediator's number will not, under any circumstances, be the number imposed on both parties. His number -- somewhere in between the two, a compromise -- will not form the basis of the settlement.

In this type of mediation, one or the other party's number will be used. The mediator will choose one of the two party's numbers, the one that is closest to his own.

The point of this sort of mediation is to force the negotiating parties into making more reasonable demands, to start the process much closer to what each figures the final resolution will be.

Because in this sort of mediation, if Party A offers $10,000 in compensation, and the mediator thinks that $500,000 is fair, but Party B decides to demand thirty million dollars, guess what? Party A's offer is closer to the mediator's number and Party B walks out not with thirty million, nor with $200,000, but with a paltry $10,000. He has walked in with a demand so far from the mark that the other party gets to make all decisions about the resolution.

I really think that to save offshore drilling -- and most energy production -- we need to come in a little closer to the mediator's -- the public's -- best estimate right now of what seems "fairest."

And I think to do that Republicans have to get out in front in investigating the MMS and themselves proposing enhanced safety regulations and a better-funded, better-staffed inspection corps, with the corrupt and incompetent rooted out.

And, to tie this in to Barton's point, I think we have to come into the negotiations a little more mindful of the public's beliefs about corporations and less fulsomely apologizing to a corporate malefactor (who, it must be pointed out, has seriously jeopardized if not outright killed any plans for a push for domestic American energy production).

That means you don't come in yammering about a roughed-up corporation being a "tragedy of the first order." You come in demanding to know if the public's interest has been well-represented here, or merely the Administration's and BP's, and introduce the idea of a "shakedown" as a secondary question to the primary one.

You get that question in there -- but you couch it in terms that show you're not just in the pocket of BP.

Their Fight Is Your Fight: Any time a union is in a squabble with the government or business they attempt to claim that giving them a raise is in the public's own self-interest.

This sort of works, for reasons that are unfathomable to me.

Certainly every time the millionaires of professional sports are in a labor negotiation they try to convince me to care about their plight. The owners, of course, do likewise, and tell me that it's because of those greedy athletes that it costs $150 to see a baseball game.

But the basic point is that in a negotiation, you tie your concerns to something tangible that is likely to catch the interest, intellectual or emotional, of the public.

And you do this especially when you're representing, or advocating for, an unpopular, unsympathetic party.

By the Way: My "yet another argument with some readers" was supposed to be self-deprecating, but it doesn't read that way.

It has been brought to my attention that I am being a real bitch lately. I was trying to confess that in an offhand way. I am super-bitchy lately.

Posted by: Ace at 09:01 AM | Comments (554)
Post contains 1162 words, total size 7 kb.

Ouch.

...Overall, 41% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. ThatÂ’s the lowest level of approval yet recorded for this president. Fifty-eight percent (58%) now disapprove. ...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 08:11 AM | Comments (177)
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.