Trey Givens
A Blog about a Hero
How Soccer Breeds Divas
Mar 13th
Diana posted a link to this video on Twitter. It’s HILARIOUS.
These guys aren’t actually any more wimpy than your average fellow, but they certainly are melodramatic. And they have “good” reasons to be. The simple fact is that the way soccer is set up there is a big advantage to be gained, low penalties for faking, and low risk of being caught faking.
First, the advantages. You may have noticed that scores in soccer games are generally pretty low. Scores of 0 – 0 are not uncommon. Championships are often decided by the difference of a single point. And the game lasts 90 minutes. This means that a single point is VERY valuable.
Further, soccer is pretty strict about fouls and penalties. The restitution made to the victim of a foul could be an indirect kick at the goal where the fouled player is allowed to shoot at the goal without any pressure of other players rushing him. It’s called indirect because other players are allowed to stand between him and the goal. A direct kick could also be awarded and that’s where no one but the goalie stands between the kicker and the goal.
In really bad cases, cards may be given to the offender. Two Yellow Cards equals a Red Card and a Red Card gets you ejected from the game.
So, basically, being the victim of a foul can give you a very big chance to tip the game in your favor.
There is a penalty for unsporting behavior like faking an injury. If you’re REALLY bad about it, the ref could give YOU a yellow card and the advantage to the other team. But for the rate at which fouls and injuries are faked, this penalty is very, very rarely applied.
Which makes you wonder what the risk is of getting caught faking an injury. Very low. There are 22 people on the field at any given time, but there is one referee and two linemen to watch them all. Naturally, they’re usually watching the people with the ball, so if you’re not where the ball is, you’re probably not being watched by a game official. Also, soccer refs are traditionally very uppity about their reffing skills and refuse to use any sort of camera or replay technology to aid them in making good judgments.
So, what you have in soccer are near perfect conditions for this type of fraud.
The Logic of Unintended Consequences
Mar 12th
I cannot give enough credit to Mark Perry’s blog, Carpe Diem, for calling attention to the way market forces operate, often in spite of government interference intended to get people to behave in a different way.
Today, I’d like to call your attention to this:
[Carriers] will aggressively cancel flights before and during storms—even if the bad weather never materializes. The threats could foreshadow significant changes in air travel, making it even less reliable for millions of road warriors and vacationers. By canceling flights, it could take days for all travelers to get home when storms strike.
Here’s the issue: carriers have no idea when “acts of god” will interfere with their ability to get you from point A to point B. Because of logistical concerns with boarding and unboarding, they would prefer to keep you on the plane in cases where they believe they’ll be able to take off and get you to point B.
And they really, really do want to get you to point B, because if they don’t, they usually have to deal with a lot of bitchy customers and sometimes refunds. It’s a pain in the ass. It’s WAY better when they can just fly your bitchy asses where they want to go.
But if they spent a lot of time letting you run on and off the plane, then the airport looses money because it could let another plane park there and the airline looses money because they can’t process as many flights.
As much as it sucks, if airlines keep you on the plane, you are more likely to get where you want to be.
But the government has increased the fees for people who, for whatever reason, don’t get moving to their destination at the 3 hours mark. This means that airlines would be better suited by avoiding the 3 hour mark. Let me try to make this more clear:
A passenger on the plane proceeding to their destination without worry is worth $100.
A passenger on the plane delayed for any amount of time going to their destination is worth $50.
A passenger who deplanes and doesn’t get to their destination is work $5.
A passenger who sits on the plan, delayed, for more than 3 hours under new legistlation: -$Eleventy Million Dollars.
Basically, it’s more profitable with this legislation for carriers to simply not offer new flights in the event of weather delays with are beyond their control. As a business, they have to choose between making $5, the cost of paying off people whose flights were cancelled, or paying eleventy million dollars because they try to fulfill the original ticket requirements.
Once again, the government is making things harder and more costly for us while allegedly trying to make things easier and cheaper.
Objectivist Roundup #139
Mar 11th
Titanic Deck Chairs has the Obloggers’ round up this week! GET SOME!
Behavior in Context
Mar 11th
Reading through the article on Bromosexuals, I am struck by the implication that these fellows behave in exactly the same way in all contexts, excepting, of course, that Mets fan the article mentioned. A great number of people seem to walk around with the belief that, regardless of where they are or what they do, they are utterly “visible” to the world, particularly when it comes to whether or not they are gay or straight.
As I mentioned in that post, I drop hints to people about my sexuality to people who might be misled. For example, if someone comments on an attractive woman, I might say something like, “Well, you know that’s not for me, but I agree she’s very attractive.” Or if someone talks about marriage, I might make a comment about not being permitted to marry or some such. If appropriate, I will sometimes toss in a stereotypically gay remark, too, like if people are talking about television shows, I’ll mention Project Runway or Real Housewives of New York, even though my favorite shows right now are Caprica, 30 Rock, and other “non-gay” fare.
But I have to emphasize that I only make these remarks and comments where it is socially appropriate and relevant, like at parties or in crowds of mixed company. I do not do this for clients or business associates like that. And among gay friends I may gay it up a little further. And on dates, I’m just plain gay silly.
Perhaps the consciousness with which I modulate my behavior is remarkable but that I do it isn’t.
My sister is three years younger than I am and it was early in high school or late in middle school when I became particularly conscious of modifying my behavior for particular contexts. My sister commented frequently that she saw it as being disingenuous. She would usually remark on it during church. At church, I would smile and shake hands. I would be personable, polite, and charming. Even if she and I had been screaming at one another in the car minutes before, I would compose myself for the new context quickly and merge effortlessly into the crowd. And she would elbow me in the ribs for using what she called my “fake smile.”
I think her view of this is really just absurd. It isn’t appropriate, relevant, or even anyone’s business for me to go around broadcasting my every thought, mood, and emotion.
Just because you have sex behind closed doors does not in any way justify having sex in the supermarket. Similarly, while shooting at people in war is mandatory, I would hope soldiers would not scream in my face or discharge firearms in restaurants.
Behavior is contextual from the gross to the discrete levels. Manners, charm, and poise are about modulating behavior so that it is appropriate for the venue and company you’re in. It’s all about context.
You guys see a lot of me here on the internet. You see me angry. You see me happy. Sometimes you see me when I’m bummed out. You often see me being silly. But you don’t see all of me. There are certain aspects of my life and personality that you won’t and can’t see via the internet or even if we were friends in real life.
It isn’t an indictment of anyone’s character to say that you act differently in different places. But a lot of people like to pretend as if they never change from place to place or time to time. What a boring person you’d be if you really were that way!
Bromosexuals
Mar 11th
I just learned the term “bromosexual” from Kenneth in the 212. It’s the term for “openly gay men [who are] mistaken for straight.” There’s an article about it.
99.99% of people (That’s the number pulled out of my head because I don’t actually know) know I’m gay upon meeting me, and I do make some effort to send out signals to people who seem like they might be caught unawares, but every now and then I run into people who just don’t realize it. Two such instances stand out in my head.
Ironically, one of them was when I was in a gay bar in Boston. This guy named David, I think, kept walking by me and the female friend I was with and eventually he went up to her and asked, “Is that your boyfriend?” And then “Is he gay?” I have no idea what made him think that except maybe the fact that I was with a lady. But, HELLO! Gay bar! I know some girls drag straight boys to gay bars, but mostly it’s gay boys there. Cuz it’s a gay bar. And also look at me for a second. This is the face of a man completely unburdened with heterosexuality.
The second instance was at a business school Christmas party. I was chatting with this guy who had been in classes with me for two years. He knew me. He’d heard me speak in class and seen me interact with my fellow students. And we’re standing there chatting and he said something about his wife and all that stuff and then he said, “Are you married? Girlfriend?” And he said it in a completely nonchalant, innocent way. I freaked out. I said, “What? Oh. OH! OH. Ooohhhh. Ahh… Whoa. No, I’m gay.” He apologized and said he didn’t know and I said he didn’t have to apologize, it just surprised me to be asked that. Anyway, he excused himself from the conversation a minute or two later. Very strange.
I know there are a lot of gays out there who prefer “straight” guys and, I suppose, bromosexuals because they’re “straight-acting.” I know people have their preferences and I myself prefer more masculine men. But I regard heteronormative posturing as decidedly unmasculine. It’s one thing if you’re at ease in your body and manage a sophisticated but not-fussy appearance. It’s quite another if you plaster your body with Hollister and Abercrombie & Fitch and show up to the neighborhood’s only gay “sports bar” because you think that makes you butch. It’s about authenticity.
I see it going both ways because I have the same reaction to those (usually) young gays who squeal and cartwheel around in t-shirts from Baby Gap.
So, maybe that’s the essence of it, authenticity. And maybe that’s how I and others sometimes get mistaken for being straight. If you’re comfortable and unprepossessing about your homosexuality, then people fall back on the default assumption that everyone is straight.
Who Pays on Guy-Guy Dates?
Mar 11th
shlevy asked this question today on Twitter. There are three scenarios I’ve experienced and here they are:
Dinner ends
Dude 1: [reaching for the check] Thank you for joining me for dinner this evening!Dude 2: No, thank you. Want to just split it down the middle?
Dude 1: Sure, that works.
RESULT: They split it.
This doesn’t necessarily mean anything. Dude 2’s tone might indicate that he didn’t have a good time and so his offer to go dutch MIGHT be seen as a subtle rebuff against future dates, but not necessarily. If I were in either dude’s place, I’d probably toss in a “I had a great time this evening” or a “I’d like to go out again soon” just to show him that splitting the check didn’t mean anything. If he reciprocates my enthusiasm for a second date, then I know we’re set to go out again. If he doesn’t, then I might press more overtly for some indication of his intentions, but I’d take it as a sign that he’s not interested. And if I’m not interested, then I probably started signaling my lack of interest right around the time we ordered appetizers and I will continue to make clear my intentions until we part ways, which means I will neither suggest nor accept invitations for future dates.
Dinner ends
Dude 1: [reaching for the check] Thank you for joining me for dinner this evening!Dude 2: Thank you. Want to just split it down the middle?
Dude 1: I wouldn’t hear of it. It’s the least I can do for asking you to put up with my bad jokes all evening. By the way, did I tell you the one about the mad scientist and his frog?
RESULT: Dude 1 pays
Here, Dude 2 could have insisted on splitting the check. Dude 1 might have insisted back. If Dude 2 insists on splitting it a second time, courtesy dictates that Dude 1 accept it. The same things apply as above regarding whether or not this is an indication of negative interest because some guys just don’t like to let other people pay. Some people only let very close friends/boyfriends pay for them. You don’t know their story, so you can’t really judge.
If I were Dude 1, my second instance of insistence would have included another reason or a counter-offer such as “I asked you out, so I’d like to pick up the check,” or, “how about you pick up dinner next time?” That second one is very clever because it gives them an opportunity to clearly state whether or not they’d like another date without any awkward moments later where they aren’t sure if I’d like another date. (I think I make my intentions pretty clear, but I’ve noticed a lot of people lie and some people are just nervous.)
In this scenario, it’s also possible for Dude 2, to intercept the offer and take it from Dude 1 and insist on paying himself. All the social dynamics are the same as the above, it’s just a matter of charm and sophistication on the part of Dude 2 when it comes to wrestling away the check.
Dinner ends
Dude 1: [reaching for the check] Thank you for joining me for dinner this evening!Dude 2: No, thank you.
RESULT: Dude 1 pays.
I’ve encountered this only rarely. It’s generally considered impolite for the other guy not to at least offer to split the check even if he doesn’t want to. Unless you’re very well off, it’s seen as presumptuous to simply allow the other guy to pay for you.
I add the caveat “unless you’re very well off” because I was watching the Real Housewives of New York the other day and the Countess made a big fuss that if you ask someone out for some activity like surfing, drinks, or lunch, then you are offering to pay. She regarded it as stingy for Bethenny to even suggest that they go dutch. Countess is simply out of touch with regular people if you ask me. Not everyone can comfortably buy all their friends lunches, drinks, and surfing lessons every time they want to spend time together and the amount of money you spend on your friends should not serve as any indicator for how valuable they are as a friend.
I will say that Dude 1 can ask Dude 2 to pay. He doesn’t have to pay just because he touched the check first. He could place it on the table between them and say, “Are you OK splitting it?” Or he could make a show — although I would regard this as being snotty, passive-aggressive, and rude — and say, “Do you mind if I pick up the check?” There are even more, less polite options, but I’ll stop there with the assumption that no one reading this blog would resort to those.
When men have pulled this on me, I’ve paid without further mention of it, but it definitely when in my mental ledger as a strike against them. True or not, among the reasons it counts against them are:
- I think it’s presumptuous of them to assuming that I would pay for them for some reason, particularly if they didn’t seem to restrain themselves on what they selected from the menu. (I will point out that in the above scenarios, I’ve assumed the meal orders are nearly even and that neither party has made any overt display of ordering small, cheap dishes or something like that which sometimes indicates that someone doesn’t want to spend a lot of money. Not wanting to spend a lot of money is not a moral failing or anything. It can be social awkward, but I believe a gentleman can tactfully avoid any awkwardness by simply being observant and sensitive to that possibility.)
- I think it’s un-masculine. I don’t think it’s feminine. I think it’s un-masculine. I’m not sure how to best put that, but those are the words that come to mind. I ask myself, not in so many words, but, “What man is going to let someone just carry him like that? How can his independence, self-regard, or just plain personal wherewithal allow him to act like that?”
- It seems insensitive to what my financial situation might be. While I spent some small portion of the meal taking note of things that might indicate that they’re looking for a relatively inexpensive night out, their actions seem to say that they didn’t do the same for me.
And here’s a few scenarios I’ve never encountered before (at least not on any first, second, or third dates):
Dinner ends
Dude 1: [reaching for the check] Thank you for joining me for dinner this evening!Dude 2: Thank you, daddy.
Dude 1: uh…
Dude 2: Damn right you better pick up that check if you think you’re going to get any of this tonight.
End Scene
…
Dinner ends
Dude 1: [reaching for the check] Thank you for joining me for dinner this evening!Dude 2: I will set you on fire if you think you are going to try to trick me into another date by paying for this dinner. But don’t get me wrong. You will be paying. Let me make this perfectly clear for your stupid ass: you have wasted my time tonight. With your lameass jokes and your bustedass outfit. PSH! Homo you didn’t show up on a date with ME looking like you swam over here from Williamsburg in those tightass jeans that you can’t even pull up past your bony hips and that Che Guevara t-shirt. I should teach you a lesson in “cultural diversity” with a slap upside your head, but I am wearing my good rings tonight and I am not trying to wreck the settings just because you bumped your head getting out of bed this morning. I don’t know who you thought you were coming out with tonight, but you have reached above your station this time, child. You better get me another drink before you check out so I could calm down. For real. Shiiiiiit. I’m going to the bathroom to powder my nose and pray to Jesus that I don’t have to cut you tonight.
End Scene
…
Dinner ends
Dude 1: [reaching for the check] Thank you for joining me for dinner this evening!Dude 2: [Flips the table over and runs for the door]
End Scene
…
Dinner ends
Dude 1: [reaching for the check] Thank you for joining me for dinner this evening! Do you want to split it?Dude 2: Oooooooo… yeah, seeeeee… I left my wallet, um, at my dealer’s house today. Spot me?
Dude 1: Call him. Tell him to bring it here now. You can use my phone.
Dude 2: Whoooooaaaaaa… dooooooooood…
End Scene
Harry Reid (D – Nevada): Income Tax is Voluntary!
Mar 9th
Check out the rationalization behind this madness!
Hat tip: Blue Owl
I Hope You’re Sitting Down, I Hope in a Restaurant
Mar 9th
I realize there are people who never tire of bossing other people around and minding other people’s business, but I am of the opinion that such people should be kept far from me or any other sane person if not simply flogged and set on fire. And yet, YET, they continue to be elected to public office.
The Center for Consumer Freedom: New York Considers Legislation to Ban Salt in Restaurants
Not content with just trying to tax soft drinks, New York’s nanny-state politicians are also considering legislation to prohibit the use of salt in the preparation of restaurant food. Assemblyman Felix Ortiz introduced this absurdist bill on March 5. Ortiz is one of New York’s more strident food cops, having already introduced strict restaurant menu labeling proposals in the past. He is also following in the steps of fellow food nanny Mayor Michael Bloomberg who went so far as to compare salt to carcinogenic asbestos.
The Blue Owl likes when I tell you he sent me something, so please take note that this story was sent to me by the Blue Owl.
Take note: this bill isn’t simply about allowing restaurants to put salt on the table, but prohibits the use of salt in the preparation of food. There is absolutely no way that this bill can pass.
Salt is a critical element in the preparation of innumerable recipes. It’s used EVERYWHERE. When I make ice-cream, I even use salt. It helps with the chemistry of the custards. It is a natural preservative and it’s one of the ways a number of people get iodine in their diet. (Iodine is essential to thyroid health.) Salt can, in some cases, be used to reduce cooking time. I imagine some things simply cannot be made without salt.
Even though there’s no way this can pass (today) it’s outrageous to me that anyone would even propose it. Aside from being absurd, it’s such a clear invasion of our personal rights that anyone claiming to support our rights as such must be guilty of rationalization on a spectacular scale. It’s preposterous, fantastic, ridiculous, outrageous, and ludicrous. And yet, here Mr. Felix Ortiz is suggesting it to us with a straight face.
“I’m Chiquita Banana and I’ve Come to Say…”
Mar 9th
“Bananas have to ripen in a certain way!
When they’re flecked with brown and have a golden hue
bananas taste the best and are the best for you!”
I love the Chiquita Banana song.
Anywhoodles, the point of this post is really just to tell you about Chiquita Banana’s latest campaign/rebrand. They engaged CP+B in Colorado for the project and Art Director, DJ Neff, drove the refresh with new, fun stickers as the cornerstone of the effort.
![chiquita-banana-redesign-sticker-set[1]](http://treygivens.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/chiquita-banana-redesign-sticker-set1-300x227.jpg "chiquita-banana-redesign-sticker-set[1]")
I’ve run into these stickers in my Google Reader feed a lot lately and shared them about 25% of the time because I think they’re super-fun and cool. They manage to be playful and edgy and by maintaining the classic CB colors retain a clear connection to the brand.
So, basically, I love these stickers and wanted to share. I so rarely actually talk about marketing and advertising on this blog. I really should make more of an effort to do that…
Update: OH! And I forgot to direct you to this interview with DJ Neff about the project, which was the whole reason I mentioned his name up above in the first place. Anyway, check it out. Pretty interesting stuff.
I am Together and Wise
Mar 8th
I found this quiz over at Gus Van Horn’s place, who got it here.
You Are Together and Wise
You have a broad, mature outlook on life. You know that there are ups and downs, and you feel like you can weather them.You feel like you can’t depend on anyone but yourself in this world. You feel quite alone sometimes.
You feel exhausted about your past and those you have loved. It’s been a long, hard road.
You succeed by tapping into your reserves. You have an extraordinary amount of energy and endurance.
While you’re over there, check out Gus’s comments under the heading of “Wrong Metric” which discusses how people look at and measure the growth of a political movement. The interesting part to me is his comments regarding political parties outside of the main two.
Recent Comments