Monday, June 09, 2014

Rats have regrets, Rolls-Royces for the poor and lying MLBers

-->
- Baltimore Orioles third baseman Manny Machado needs to work on becoming a better liar. Athletes lie all the time about their intentions and feelings related to what happens on the field because they know they might be fined, suspended or mocked if they say what’s really on their mind. It’s an accepted part of sports, but with one caveat: Athletes must at least offer a semi-plausible lie and be quasi-convincing in selling said lie. Machado did neither when he claimed there was no ill-intent Sunday after being at the center of another heated dugout-clearing confrontation with the Oakland Athletics. The sh*t got real when Oakland left-hander Fernando Abad threw inside to Machado in the eighth inning of Baltimore's 11-1 loss to the A's. Perhaps smarting from being on the wrong end of a double-digit ass-kicking, Machado “accidentally” let go of the bat and sent it helicoptering down the third base line toward A’s third baseman Josh Donaldson. Machado and Abad exchanged some non-friendly words and in typically lame baseball fashion, both benches and bullpens emptied, sending dozens of large, well-muscled professional athletes jogging toward one another with no intention of actually fighting anyone. Crew chief Larry Vanover said Machado was ejected for throwing the bat and Abad was tossed for throwing at him a second time, but by that point the damage had been done – except the damage Machado did to his credibility by lying about his not-so-subtle bat toss. . "The bat slipped out of my hands,'' Machado said. "Trying to make contact and the umpire thought it was intentional and he tossed me at that point. The umpire thought it was intentional, so I guess at that point you've got to toss the pitcher and the hitter at the same time.'' The why of throwing at Machado could stem from an incident during Friday’s game between the two teams when he didn't like the force of the tag by Donaldson and the two had to be separated……….

- If a strip club doesn’t have its integrity, what does it have? Other than the quality, affordable food for which such establishments are known and the coke-addled strippers grinding on brass poles – and the laps of skeevy strangers for $1 bills – and the overall stench of pathetic desperation? That’s a question Temptations, a Kansas City strip club on Grand Boulevard just a block south of the Sprint Center, must ask itself after it willingly covered up its very classy, “Come see skanks get naked for your amusement” sign in order to help The Man lure a bunch of right wing conserva-Nazis to town. Yes, Temptations covered up its signage in order to pretend it doesn’t exist because top Republicans were in town considering Kansas City as host for the party’s 2016 political convention. The 2016 Republican National Convention's 13-member site selection committee arrived in town for a three-day visit and before the plane carrying these suited, pocket-square-rocking squares touched down, Temptations dropped a tarp over a sign advertising its "totally nude" skanks. Ironically, the club considered moving a few years ago but elected to stay because zoning restrictions made a potential move difficult. City officials refused to say whether the sign being covered was related to the RNC visit, but a large-scale downtown cleanup effort in the weeks leading up to the visit suggests there is a link. A few residents noted that all four cities vying for the convention have strip clubs and committee members know it, so covering up the sign is pointless. Clearly, these people are idiots. No RNC member has a smartphone, laptop or tablet that could allow them to determine whether or not a city has strip clubs and since the Republican Party is clearly stuck in 1930, these guys may not know the Internet exists. Either that, or they know their convention attendees will find the strip clubs when they arrive and thus, committee members just pick the place with the best naked ladies, advertised or otherwise……….

- Oh good, another entertainment franchise for Darren Aronofsky to ruin. Aronofsky was most recently seen hijacking the Biblical tale of Noah and using it as the very general basis for a sprawling, bastardized and bloated action flick in which God flooded the world with lame CGI effects and left only Noah and his family alive at the end of the movie. Now, HBO has given the director a green light to develop a TV version of “MaddAddam,” which is based on Margaret Atwood’s book trilogy Oryx and Crake (2003), Year Of The Flood (2009), and MaddAddam (2013). Some might argue that Aronofsky was nominated for an Oscar for “Black Swan” a few years back and those people would clearly be ignoring the steady slew of stupendously bad stink bombs and bloated blockbusters he has churned out since than. “Maddam” would be the first project to come out of the three-year first-look deal the filmmaker and his Protozoa Pictures inked with HBO in January and it would also be HBO’s first chance to officially  ask itelf what the hell it was thinking when it signed that deal in the first place. The story in the MaddAddam books is in the vein of Atwood’s self-described genre of “speculative fiction” and it takes place in a mid-21st century in a world where corporations have taken over for governments and the genetic modification of organisms is perversely ubiquitous. The corporation part sounds a lot like the present day on Earth, but in this case the setting is in the aftermath of a Waterless Flood that wipes out almost all of the world’s population. The book follows an extensive cast of characters, including those responsible for the apocalypse and those struggling to survive it, and when it is ruined by Aronofsky, fans of the franchise can thank producer Brandi-Ann Milbradt, who is engaged to the director and brought the project to Protozoa. The future Mrs. (and ex-Mrs.) Aronofsky will serve as executive producer on the project, assuming Aronofsky’s meeting with writers for the film………..

- Give Rolls-Royce credit. As one of the most iconic makers of ridiculously expensive luxury cars, it could easily look at one of the world’s poorest countries and figure that a people who often cannot afford to feed their family even one nutritious meal a day would never be able to afford a car that retails for well into six figures – let alone have anywhere to drive said Rolls-Royce Phantom. Thankfully, the executives who run the automaker are forward-thinking enough to conceive of joining with a Cambodian business partner to open a showroom in the Cambodian capital of Phnom Penh, thereby throwing an insanely overpriced fleet of cars directly in the face of impoverished people with very little reason not to grab their torches and pitchforks and storm this automotive castle rather than let the elite rub it in their face that there are cars on the market that cost more than their entire village will earn in 10 years. Rolls-Royce Asia-Pacific regional manager Paul Harris announced the company’s deal with HGB Group Co., Ltd. and boldly said the auto maker signed the accord because it believes that demand for its rides will grow along with Cambodia's economy. When, how and why the economy will grow is a mystery Rolls-Royce did not unravel and given that Cambodia's average per capita annual income is about $2,600, a bit less than 1 percent of the cost of the cheapest Rolls-Royce, the two ends of the continuum don’t appear poised to meet soon. Sure, there is a small, wealthy group of elite folks living in the capital of the mostly rural nation, but whether they want to pony up for a new ride remains to be seen…………


- Rats regret things. It’s true. University of Minnesota researchers have discovered that human beings are not the only ones capable of getting really drunk, doing something asinine that involves them either peeing on or riding in a police car and feeling really bad about it the next day. According to the UM research team, regretting a lost opportunity extends to the rodent world in a profound way. "Regret is the recognition that you made a mistake, that if you had done something else, you would be better off," said David Redish, Ph.D., a professor of neuroscience in the University of Minnesota Department of Neuroscience. "The difficult part of this study was separating regret from disappointment, which is when things aren't as good as you would have hoped. The key to distinguishing between the two was letting the rats choose what to do."  By proving that rats are able to feel a complex emotion such as regret, the research team believes it can better understand decision-making skills in humans. Taking a page from Manhattan’s most-famous dining destination, the researchers put four rats under a test called "Restaurant Row." In this case, there were no exotic eateries featuring cuisine from around the globe, but rather a series of food options at a tiny rat restaurant and a few measly seconds for the rats to choose what to eat. Often, rats chose a bad food over a good one. They were fitted with electrodes that helped researchers monitor the brain activity and those electrodes measured to response of a region called the orbitofrontal cortex. The cortex is responsible for people feeling different pleasant and unpleasant emotions and in humans, it regulates regret. In the study, rats that recognized that they had made a poor food choice showed heavy activity in the orbitofrontal cortex, suggesting rat regret……….

No comments: