Dave's Verse

I haven't paid any attention to the NCAA tournament since Duke lost (in typical fashion). But this post from LGM got me thinking about Duke hate again: I am sure you are all rooting for Oregon against Michigan and its Trump voters. Regardless, we can all agree that it’s great that Duke and its seemingly endless supply of privileged white players lost. Wait, so the implication is that Coach K shouldn't get good players if they're privileged and white because white men are too privileged by society? This argument would have merit if that's all he was doing, fielding a team full of mediocre white players because his team only serves to continue to further white male privilege. But the notion that this is even remotely what is happening is preposterous. I legit struggle to think of white players that got significant playing time who were mediocre. Gregg Paulus comes to mind. That kid was shit and I think he was only there because this was the time where K was refusing

I picked a great time to rewatch one of my favorite shows and one of the most important ones to me personally, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. With all of the misogyny with Trump and Republicans it's nice to see a great female hero figuratively smash the patriarchy. And this happens to be the 20th anniversary of the show first airing. So it's all come together for good timing. The first five seasons were as expected. 2 and 3 still stand out as the best, truly some of the best tv ever. Season 4 is pretty solid despite less well defined "big bad". Season 5 has a stronger big bad in Glory, but fewer good stand alone episodes. Season 6 is known as the really dark season. And apparently some fans are really down on it because of that. I remembered it being dark but not all that different in quality than season 5. And with Joanna Robinson of Vanity Fair pointing out that the big bad of the season are basically a bunch of alt-right internet trolls before that was a thing, I was

I used to work for a state Democratic party. So I saw the challenges of trying to win races in a red state up close. And for the most part, it's not going to change. I say that because with Democrats' embrace of civil rights in the 60s and the southern strategy of the Republicans, TN and much of the south change from being a Democratic stronghold to a Republican stronghold. This took a while, in part because it took a while for voters to fully get the signals and change their partisanship (which is something that rarely changes) and because they were used to voting for incumbents that they liked. Once Democratic incumbents retired voters finally made the switch. So we aren't going to get a lot of those people back, at least as long as the Democratic party is committed to equality and not being racist and sexist, which I obviously think we should. Sure, some of these people could be open to voting for us on economic issues, as they did with President Obama in 2008 and 2012

Brian Burke at ESPN asks why NFL passing numbers are exploding . It's no secret that the passing numbers in the NFL keep climbing. Analysts have been calling the NFL a passing league for the past few years, but the truth is it has been so for two generations, and there's no end in sight for passing's ascendancy. He does a good job looking strictly at the numbers. But one area I think worth discussing is the widened talent pool of potential NFL QBs. For much of NFL and college history, only white guys were QBs. Given that non-white guys make up a significant (if not the majority) % of the other positions on the field, it would make sense that when you start letting non-white guys play the position, you get an influx of talent. Combined with that new talent, you push out some of the less talented white guys who may have been holding onto positions simply because of a lack of resources. So now the NFL is choosing from a wider, more talented pool of players. This also wor

Emily over at Pajiba has a different take on Civil War : I’m not usually in the habit of publicly disagreeing with my fellow writers, but I feel it a service to warn you that both TK’s review and Rotten Tomatoes have lied to you. Captain America: Civil War is a garbage movie. Sure, it had its amusing moments. It had some terrific acting, and some amazing action sequences. And a plot so filled with holes I could use it to water my plants. Emily, you brave soul. Thank you for this. I'm not sure if the "garbage" line is tongue-in-cheek. If it's not I'll disagree on that point. It was entertaining enough to overlook the problem of hinting at making a political movie in this universe. I think Cap is a lot less wrong than others, apparently. Tony is a selfish prick who is doing this because being a selfish prick killed a lot of people. I don't buy the larger, political reason for him pushing the accords. I despise the UN hatred that goes on in the US. Read a fu

No spoilers Avengers part 3 Captain America: Civil War is typical Marvel in every way. It's fun, funny, well-enough-executed, a bit overstuffed, and a plot not really tied up that well in service of future movies. It seems to have the same cinematography and score as the others. Though don't see this in 3D, completely useless and even makes a lot of the early fight scenes tough to follow. What it does unquestionably better than BvS (which for some reason I haven't reviewed here, probably because I put my thoughts on twitter) is coherent editing and a nice narrative flow. I like BvS but there no getting around the fact it lacks there (maybe the director's cut saves it, idk). The tone is so different than BvS. Every other line has to be a joke, though now they don't have Joss Whedon so it's not the same. But some of the actors make up for it (mainly Rudd, Robert Downey Jr.'s schtick is a little stale). Maybe I need another viewing but I'm not convin