Metasketball

In kung fu class we students routinely spar against one another, meaning we fight without making (much) contact. The object is to practice fighting your opponent without really hurting him (or vice-versa).

How much this helps the student become a better fighter is a topic of interest to me. Certainly a drawback to the technique's effectiveness is the lack of fear, rage, and any other adrenaline-involving response that a real fight would certainly involve. But this lack of adrenaline might have a benefit: the sparrer can think more rationally about what moves he should be employing. There can also be trial-and-error in sparring, whereas I can't imagine getting swept to the floor by a genuine assailant and then telling him ooo - try that again but this time let me double-crescent-kick your face.

So while sparring is not perfect practice for fighting, it, with all its optional little rules you can impose, like kicks only, half-speed, and using a form, is probably the best option aside from real fighting, which is expressly not cool. What's more, it has advantages that real fighting lacks. I can envision a version of basketball that has parallel advantages over the real basketball.

I am almost certainly re-inventing the wheel, as I'm sure numerous coaches have already tried this. But I haven't been formally trained in the sport, and basketball coaches don't appear to be avid bloggers, so I will continue my thoughts.

In metasketball, the court is the normal size and the ball and rules are the same, except that there are no baskets. Players dribble and pass, trying to get open shots just like in basketball, but of course there never are shots taken. The idea is that since no shot has a 100% chance of success, there is always theoretically a better shot that could be taken. It is the player's job is to find the best assist possible.

Of course a fast-break layup is, in practice, probably the highest percentage shot there is, and the basketball player who looks to pass instead of take such a shot is a poor basketball player. But the equivalent happening in sparring is an open shot to the opponent's head, which of course the sparrer must never land. Nonetheless, both experienced sparrers will concede that, had this been a real basketball game, the puncher would have been ejected. So will metasketball players concede that the goal would have been scored.

The metasketball player has the advantage of a mind free from scoring baskets, outscoring the other team, and beating any kind of a clock (unless coach imposes one). I think it would be invaluable basketball practice. Whether a shot actually goes down is of course all that matters in basketball, but it's a matter of individual player accuracy, and is essentially a dice roll once the ball leaves the shooter's hand. At any given non-critical point of a game the coach will favor a well-executed miss over an off-balance prayer that goes in.

The idea translates to other sports and games, but if I described them all I would deny my beloved 'dloggers the thrill of discovery. So onward, dear reader! And upward!

Why I'm Reppin' The 'Bahmer

It's funny how you need to spell words more phonetically when you abbreviate. This post is a.k.a. Why I Am Representing Barack Obama and Why I Support Barack Obama's Bid For President.

The wonderful news is that the president who takes office in January will be much, much better than the one we have now. Of course the chance that it will be John McCain, Hillary Clinton, or Obama is astronomical. Any of the three will be a breath of fresh air. Even McCain, ostensibly the most Bush-like, at least opposes torture, about the softest-ball issue that a U.S. president should ever have to take a side on.

And for brevity's sake let me just say that I think it is pretty much 100% okay to vote straight ticket (either for the Democrats or Republicans) in this country. I think there is enough difference in the parties' platforms on meaningful issues - health care, war, and the environment, to name a few - that the voter need not go to intangibles like character, or worse - charisma, which if anyone ever confessed to voting for someone based on such an attribute, he should turn in his grown-up card immediately.

So my preference for either Clinton or Obama over McCain can be said, in short, to spring from my preference for the Democratic Party's platform over the Republican Party's. But which Democratic candidate to choose?

Using the same reasoning, let me say that I'm an issues guy, and you should be, too. Or an issues girl. When voting for president one selects the person better/best fit to head the executive branch of the federal government. I keep that in mind, to such an extent that Bob Dole's wondering aloud in 1996 whether most Americans would rather have him or Bill Clinton watch their kids held little sway in my decision tree (which by then was admittedly pretty much branchless - see above). I'll worry about my kids (which by now admittedly don't exist); you worry about the war.

So which candidate has, in my opinion, a better stance on the issues? Probably Clinton, by a hair, if only because she has a more robust health care plan. They are pretty indistinguishable otherwise, to me. So why, if I may get back to the point, am I reppin' the Bahmer? This is admittedly where the issues-character thing gets clouded - plus you have to consider strategy, that 800 pound gorilla.

I'm a bald-faced liar - if I really were an issues guy, I'd do like I did in 2000 and vote for Nader. Take health care: McCain of course will not meaningfully change the system we have. Obama will try some modest changes that insurance companies will be okay with, which, mark my words, will be next to nothing. Hillary will make everyone buy health care, which is an awkward step toward what needs to happen, which is Ralph Nader's plan (I don't think he came up with it, but you get my drift): national health care. In such a system, if one is a) a U.S. citizen, and b) sick, one c) goes to the doctor and d) gets better. It will mean a bit more in taxes, but the reduction in health care costs will more than take care of it. Google that shit. We spend more - lots more - on health care than do countries with nationalized health care, and we get less for it. This is because private insurers spend gobs of cash on adjuster-like people who go around finding reasons not to pay for certain people's claims. These people then get nothing for what they spent their health care money on and instead have to go to the ER, for which costs they are still held responsible. A serious waste.

But I won't vote for Nader this November. His argument compels: the Democrats and Republicans are one-and-the-same, so would-be Democratic voters who instead vote for Nader needn't worry that they're giving the election to the more unified right-wing Republican voters. Democrats are just as bad. Look at the records of JFK, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton: they could drop bombs with the best Republicans.

But there can be a difference between the parties, if one of the candidates were to faithfully uphold the party platform. Even though this platform is much weaker than Nader's, the added bonus of really getting a mediocre candidate elected would far outweigh the glory of going down in electoral flames with a great candidate. A real baby step is better than a fantasy giant leap for mankind.

So Hillary's stance on the issues is 5% better than Obama's. They both fall painfully short of Nader's. The only reason I should support a Democrat is if I believe they will do what they're supposed to do and make that 5% of the progress away from the barbarism of 21st century America.

I think Obama might do that. Perhaps this is naive - he's certainly had to take some less-than-sparkling money. He has had to do all those things one must do to rise up in the monolithic institution that is the Democratic Party - from being charismatic to playing by a set of rules, written and un-, that sucks the very spine out of the politician, and gives that word its connotation. A. and I spent last Saturday being Obama delegates at the Travis County Democratic Convention, and the delegation process is both boring and subtly confusing - it commonly elicits the why not just count the dang votes? reaction. Its contrast with straightforward democracy is striking. It is institutionalized strategy; it rewards a hearty mixture of cold calculation and zealous ambition. It is soulless - heartfelt speeches (including one by Lloyd Doggett, for whose presidential election I would eat something disgusting) notwithstanding.

But Obama voted against the Iraq invasion. He showed just enough guts to prove to me that he will follow his heart at the possible expense of political popularity. Clinton has not ever really done that for me. She ducks issues; she equivocates now for flexibility later. And we don't need flexible Democrats; we need ones with spine.