Comments for Matt Schiavenza

Comment on Why I Hate The Super Bowl by Jascha

Jascha — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:58:39 +0000

Yeah, I like it. But I think thats because I have (mostly) detached football from the spectacle. If the Niners were in it, the non-serious fans at all. But for a Packers/Steelers game I like having everybody watching it and putting in their two cents about everything.

Comment on Why I Hate The Super Bowl by Matt Schiavenza

Matt Schiavenza — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:42:31 +0000

My biggest objection to the neutral site is that it’s almost always in a dome or in a warm-weather city. Football is meant to be played in the cold (insert Howard Cosell intoning about the frozen tundra of Lambeau Field) and in front of a hostile crowd.

Of course, I’m a hypocrite, because under my scenario the 49ers could potentially host a Super Bowl in balmy wintry San Francisco. (And in fact they did once play in a Super Bowl at Stanford Stadium, in 1985). But I like the possibility of the weather affecting the play on the field.

You’re right about the music- even this year they had M.I.A and Nicki Minaj out there in addition to Madonna. It just seems like a big exercise in music nostalgia, though.

You like the non-serious fans getting into it? I’m too much of a snob for that.

Comment on Why I Hate The Super Bowl by Jascha

Jascha — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:23:32 +0000

I like the Super Bowl. I didn’t watch it for the first time in probably since I was a wee baby this year, and I feel like I had something taken away from me. Stupid Giants and Patriots… crappy matchup of crappy teams.

In any case, point-by-point rebuttal.

1) I like that it is neutral site and agreed upon years in advance. I like that it is a spectacle. You get to say “We are on the road to Indianapolis” all year long. And since I will never ever go to a football playoff game due to outrageous ticket prices, I don’t really care if there is an “environment” favoring one team or the other. I’m watching it on TV. And the Super Bowl, more than any sporting event, is a TV event. I prefer the “spectacleness” created by the neutral site.

2) OK I agree, 2 weeks is annoying. But it was just long enough for Barrett Robins to get drunk in Tijuana the day before the Super Bowl, which is awesome.

3) Mostly agree, but they did have the Black Eyed Peas last year, and Justin Timberlake recently, so you can’t really call it just old people. I didn’t see the Madonna show, but it seems like she is a great fit for the Super Bowl. Like MJ was years ago.

4) Oh god. I don’t understand the Joe Buck thing either.

OK, so maybe it wasn’t a rebuttal. But I like the spectacle. I like that it is the one day completely devoted to sports watching, regardless of where you are in the country and how much you dislike watching football. You just watch it. Unless its the Pats and the Giants.

Comment on Cyber-Flaneurs Are Alive and Well by walter

walter — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 03:17:41 +0000

Amen. I think a comparison between bygone eras of voluminous, meaningful interpersonal email and social networking would be more relevant and meaningful.

Comment on The Southern Tour and Deng by Chris Waugh

Chris Waugh — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 01:20:17 +0000

And yet the UK went to war to keep las Islas Malvinas. When a large number of the men of Pitcairn Island were brought up on paedophilia charges, they tried to get out of it by arguing that the UK had never held sovereignty over Pitcairn Island, so the court had no jurisdiction. Quite a slap in the face considering how dependent they were on a British supply ship… Anyway, their argument was thrown out and the trials proceeded at quite some expense considering the distances involved. I did read recently that Tony Blair’s government was on the point of doing a deal with Spain for shared sovereignty over Gibraltar, only for the Spanish to pull out at the last minute – note __shared__ sovereignty, not a return to Spanish rule. To this day, the UK maintains sovereignty over, among others, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and Pitcairn Island, has a territorial claim in the Antarctic (suspended, like all others, under the Antarctic Treaty) and maintains military bases in Cyprus. So, I dunno, they may have been keen to get rid of Hong Kong (which doesn’t make sense, considering it’s far more of a money spinner than either the Falklands or Pitcairn), but they certainly don’t seem to be in a hurry to ditch the last remaining vestiges of their empire.

Comment on The Southern Tour and Deng by matt_schiavenza

matt_schiavenza — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:44:38 +0000

By first trip south do you mean the one that established the SEZ’ in the late ’70s?

Comment on The Southern Tour and Deng by matt_schiavenza

matt_schiavenza — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:42:21 +0000

That’s a good point, Lee, and it ties into another reason why Asian communism was so often linked to nationalist movements in a way that Eastern European communism wasn’t. One of the reasons why the Poles, Czechs, and East Germans were so willing to throw off their Communist leaders were that they did not appreciate being puppets of Moscow. For the Chinese and Vietnamese, the Communists remain the party of national unity. For now, at least.

Comment on The Southern Tour and Deng by Prisoner666

Prisoner666 — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 05:00:34 +0000

One of the really interesting things about those Asian leaders who worked or studied in France is that the Communist Party at the time was the only party on the country to advocate decolonialisation of Asia by European nations. This is interesting because a it meant that for Asian political activists of all ilks were automatically drawn to the Communist wether they previously Communist or just left leaning socialite. It was certainly the case with Ho Chi Min.

Comment on The Southern Tour and Deng by Prisoner666

Prisoner666 — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:23:02 +0000

Also, its worth a mention that one of the reasons for his first trip to the south was to consolidate his power base with the Canton cabal. It was a straight power broker deal – ‘you guys basically get economic freedom and effective autonomy, and I get to run the rest of the country.’

Comment on The Southern Tour and Deng by Prisoner666

Prisoner666 — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:14:14 +0000

The thing about HK is overblown. The Foreign Office were desperate to give back all colonial possesions and the lease on the New Territories was a great reason. There are fairly reliable rumours that Deng was prepared to renegotiate the lease as the return was a really tricky issue that would have been a huge loss of face if it went wrong, but the FO were having none of it.

The interesting thinkg is that China could have taken the territory back at any time but it was never in their interest – even the staunchest Maoist party member needs to buy his air conditioning unit somewhere.