Skip to content

“Don’t ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee…”

February 16, 2012

“Don’t ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee,” from Hemingway’s, For Whom the Bell Tolls, and celebrated/imprinted to me via the incredible Professor of Political Science @ the University of Arizona, a one Ed Williams. I’ll get back to many-things-Ed @ a later date, I promise you that, my friend. Some classic stuff, too (e.g., get your popcorn ready, thanks Terrell Owens).

So, this is the first post on this new blog. I start with that quote above because this blog represents the meaning of the quote. That you, and only you, have your destiny in your hands. It’s up to yourself/ourselves, to create your life’s work, whether professionally, or personally; socially, physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, etc. So it begins, or like Jon “The” Hodgman says, “That is all.” (Much more on the phenomena that is Hodgman soon.)

I hope this venue/medium fits, and serves as a good conduit to express/transmit things I think about, like, that make me think/laugh/feel/inspire, etc. — anything and everything is in play. E.g., the Chomskian notion that there are infinite amounts of things we can choose to think, feel, do, create, etc., even within a context of finite letters, words, ideas, to express them in. The infinite from tge finite concept of linguistics, but applicable to any field, or context you want.

Anything and everything is game. I gave so many interests that I don’t ever feel comfortable boxing in on one thing, genre, because everything is related, essentially. So, whole connecting the dots among any topic and context, nothing is excluded from potential application. Oh yeah, I’m a Sociologist (my major in college) by education, with Political Science as my minor. Gravitated to go to law school when I was younger, but started to feel a bit boxed-in, maybe drawn to it for the wrong reasons, etc.

I’ve loved, even though it seems very cliché to me now, the type and nature of what Malcolm Gladwell does. Sifting, combing through everything; from sports, film, politics, economics, geography, geopolitics, international relations, philosophy, physics, engineering, biology, zoology, innovation, etc. — I’m thinking about starting/opening a blog for each/every area of interest/subject/theme/etc., and what blog/site platform (wordpress, blogger, tumblr, livejournal, etc.) would be best, most apt, etc., for each specific subject. Seems like each ‘platform’ has various qualities and character that provide a better/worse forum/frame within which the nature of each subject should be better expressed. Or maybe It’d be better to just use one total blog divided up into the various/different areas of interest, like a newspaper (does that date me?! newspapers, you know those things that are delivered to your house by a teenaged-kid for his/her first jobby-job, that you use in art class in elementary school for paper mache, etc., pardon my nostalgic reminiscing). Like flip-flops for the beach, bball shoes for hoopin’, and barefoot por la casa! Q comodo sin calces y zapos, aye. Ha

The Annals of Annals
Using the phrase, “The Annals of ___ ,” makes any idea sound more professional. I try not to mention anything related to or about Malcolm Gladwell since he’s exploded in fame, popularity, etc. — why, because I was reading his articles before he blew up (also known as the B.C.-rule, ‘before-cool’) on (his website) back in ’99, as per required for my Sociology 274/275 courses by a kick-ass teacher, Saylor Breckenridge — but, a moment has beckoned a mention. The old pieces he used to write used the title template, but not all, if I remember correctly. But, his pieces in “The New Yorker” are almost always under the banner, “The Annals of Innovation” seems to be the notable old reliable, per se.

Measurables and Unmeasurables
With the NFL combine coming up, a note on a few things…
(I’ll be back to this)

A note on, re Billy Bean, “Moneyball,” the book by Michael Lewis, and film by fellow Missouri native, Señor Jolie, errr, Arm-Pitt.
Operationalizing things, metrics, sabermetrics (shout out to Brian Kenny and Jay Harris), and economic/finance theory applied to sports, culture, film, philosophy, science, anything. Esp the ‘neo’ rational-choice economic analysis that seems to be ever popular and useful to our dynamic world. See Dan Ariely, Dean Baker, Simon Johnson, Marketplace/NPR-PRI, Robert Ruben, and Michael Lewis’ other books, “Quants,” “Boomerang,” etc.
For instance; these could be called metrics, or ways to measure a player’s (or ‘playah’ for some of us) combined stengths and weaknesses, or whatever you want to analyze. Style and substance, winning’ness quality, efficeiency, whatever your heart/brain desires.
1. Handedness (more at some point in the future on why lefties always seem to have smooth (errr schmooove) stroke, and other characteristics re lefties not just on their jump-shot or throwing-style which are the usual ‘lefties-have’ modes of physicality, but also on such seemingly irrelevant handedness/dominant-brain effected things like running style [for running backs, wide receivers, etc.), dribbling style, overall way to think/conceive of the game, and blah blah blah, you get the drift.
2. Height/Weight Proportion
3. Footedness (copyright that)
note – “footedness,” is very telling actually, one of the more revealing variables. catalyst metric.
a. Duck, Pigeon, Instep-heavy, Outstep-heavy, Flat-footed, Spring-footed, etc.

Limits on Measurables, Immesurables, etc. (yet, ‘measuring-immeasurables’ is possible for a lot of things that seem immeasurable, as best as you can, obviously)
– Why sports drafts always ‘miss’, on people like Jeremy Lin, Tom Brady, etc.
– Immeasurables more representative, more accurate of someone’s value, identity, import, etc., whatever word/notion you choose to understand.
Much more on this idea, paradigm later…

From NPR, 2-23-12, Talk of the Nation, w/ Neal “The REAL-Real-Deal” Conan, talking w/ Vin Wenders, who wrote, produced, and directed the 3D documentary film, “Pina” about Pina Bausch, which is nominated for best feature length documentary film at this year’s Oscars.

One phrase caught my attention, when Wenders says: “that Pina didn’t believe in words, she just believed in the eyes, she had this look, she would look into your soul, but it wasn’t scary, she had a totally gentle way of doing it.”

Grabbed my attention for some reason.


From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: