revival.

threestripes is coming back, legit, May 2011. Count on it/put it in the ledger/and cetera.

Until then, goodnight and good luck.

tuesday museday round these parts

"... greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works."

- Gordon Gekko, from the motion picture Wall Street

The picture above is a screenshot of the values of the leading for-profit companies at the end of trading yesterday. Why the sudden uptick? The announcement of the coming departure of Mr. Rob Shireman, a key figure at the Department of Education who has been known for taking a hard stance against for-profit colleges, that's why. The rise in stock values was Wall Street's collective boner at the fact that these companies could face less stringent regulation after July 1 (and thus could be much more profitable). Hmm. For-profit, for whom exactly?

Not the students, IMO. Of all the stakeholders involved in the business of for-profit colleges: the students, the federal government, the shareholders of the for-profits, the management, the "admissions counselors" and so on, the students are probably lowest on the totem poll. They bear all of the risk involved in the process: the tremendous cost of the loans, the opportunity cost of time spent in classes, and the chance that they will not even succeed in getting the degree they are seeking. For the for-profits (FPs), the risk is minimal. As long as they can get a butt in each seat in the classroom, they can keep the loan money flowing in and their investors happy. They are completely divorced from the outcomes of their students. Whether students fail or succeed is really of minimal concern to the FP, even if a student comes out with a terrible experience, loads of debt, and is super vocal about their tribulations, these companies have tremendous advertising budgets that will allow to them to drown out the voices of dissent with their siren song of "get this degree, make more money, have a better life."

For this reason, I think the FP model of education is simply untenable. The best interests of the students and the companies that run these schools are almost in complete opposition. The students are in need of a relevant and useful educational experience that can be parlayed into a better job and more opportunities. The company is best served by increasing enrollments and delivering this "education" at the greatest margin of profit. Because there is only so much money that these students could likely pay in a year (based on income and loans), these companies have to cut back on overhead. This profit maximization takes place in the form of more online classes of dubious rigor and value and more "vocational experiences" where a nursing clinical is actually a trip to a daycare (I cannot make this up, watch the Frontline piece mentioned in my previous post). The very essence of their business model depends on educating as many students as cheaply as possible.

Traditional non-profit schools, in a sense, operate in a much more "market-oriented" fashion: if they are truly good at educating their students, putting them in the best possible position to succeed, they should be able to solicit donations from grateful alumni and build a nice endowment. With said endowment (and yes, this is EGREGIOUS simplification here, but bear with me), they can build nicer facilities, hire better professors. and offer better financial aid packages to needy students. All of these benefits are cyclical in that they go back to the next generation of students, who then repeat the process. Hmm... a company (college/university) makes a good product (an education), its customers (students) go out and make money/gain prominence/promote product, and the company is able to expand and improve operations with more investment (alumni/corporate/foundational support). SEEMS PRETTY CAPITALIST TO ME. Somewhere Adam Smith is reaching for a Kleenex. The difference between this setup and the FP model is that the students, college, and the pursuit of knowledge benefit in this model, where as the shareholders reap most of the benefit with FPs.

Proponents of FPs say that they are simply catering to the "market" for education, that they fill a much-needed niche in the education sector. In some cases that may be true. By and large, these schools merely do the job that community colleges should perform: provide a vast array of vocational and transferable 1-2 year degrees. If all of the federal money currently going to line the pockets of the Barons of For-Profit Education went instead to a drastic reshaping and revitalization of our community college system to meet the dynamic needs of our workforce, it would be money much better spent.

tuesday museday

Two things, timely and of moderate levels of interest:

- Britain has a new leader today (or yesterday, technically, because the UK is in the future as it were). He looks like this:
Apparently, that getup is called a "Born to Rule" outfit or somesuch. Interesting, and very appropriately British. This Cameron guy got to be Prime Minister by forming a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. These Liberal Democrats are not at all similar to American liberal Democrats, who in Britain would belong to the Labour Party. And no, that's not a typo, they actually spell "labor" with an extra 'u' in there. Don't ask me why. In any event these Liberal Democrats are actually more in the center of the political spectrum, contrary to what their name would have you believe. I guess in America their equivalent would be the moderates from either party who get out-primaried by more wingish adversaries. I'm really not too sure, but what I can say is that this marriage is quite strange. As far as my American political sense can reckon, this maneuver would be akin to the Democratic Party, in some dystopian future where they have been marginalized towards the center by a party led by Ralph Nader's zombie corpse, helping the Republicans into power in an inconclusive Electoral College. In this horror future, the Democratic Party's consolation prize for this odd coupling would be the Vice Presidency and a promise from the Republicans to not eat all the Poors immediately. Not the best bargain! But good luck to the Brits all the same.

- Last week, Frontline debuted this special about for-profit educational institutions. I found it informative, but not entirely shocking. The overall premise: yeah these places do some really shady things. Is that a shock? No. Should it be? Only if you are extremely naive or a complete free-market hack. The simple fact is that the dynamics of higher education allow for these schools to be pretty heinous actors, with students, employers, and the taxpayer getting the shaft. I plan to have a more extensive rundown of this topic in a later post, but for now check out that vid and get your mind grapes ripened.

an ad, for america

I saw this web ad for ESPN's coverage of WC2010 and thought it was worth sharing.

It features Mandon, Timmy Howard, et al. on a boat approaching South Africa in the style of George "made of radiation" Washington crossing the Delaware. IT'S SO HIGH BROW. It works on many levels because in that instance Washington was going all out to defeat the British in a great struggle in which his army was the underdog, JUST LIKE THE USMNT.

It would be a lot more accurate, though, if England contracted out some Germans strikers to fill out their squad. Still, a class advertisement all around.

tuesday museday revival

Ha, ha ha! Not quite. Circumstances largely beyond my control have prevented me from blogging in depth (or at all, ha) as of late. This will change in the coming days, to be sure. For now, I think I will do some (lazy) linking:

- FIFA World Cup Matchball, explained!


- Hilarious Wonkette post I can relate to, featuring this site:

- 1st song + 2nd song = where my head is at these days:
the first:


the second:


- Until yesterday, I had no idea who Justin Beiber was. Literally zero clue. I think I like that I am moving well past the point of knowing about each little flash in the pan pop sensation. I will now resume smoking my pipe in my old man attire.

- Thinking about deactivating from the Facebook machine. The "privacy" settings and layout are getting rather bothersome.

- That is all for now.

back, with soccer...

Ah, the pageantry of the Semifinals of the UEFA Champions League. With only two games to follow, gone is the need to dual-monitor your matches, watch games on broadcasting delay, and (for me at least) read many, many lines before figuring out how to predict a match. Its truly the best time of the year.

But enough of my waxing poetic, on to the predicting!

Tuesday, 20 April 2:45 EDT

Internazionale Milan v. FC Barcelona [O/U 2.5 even -130] - The Special One gets a second crack at Barcelona in this year's Champions League as Inter welcome Barcelona to the San Siro Tuesday. During the group stage, Inter drew 0-0 at home despite being dominated statistically by Barca. Will it happen again? I am not so sure this time around, as these teams are not the same ones that met in the fall. Noticeably absent from the Blaugrana is Andres "lo puto crack" Iniesta, whose play in the midfield is instrumental to an efficient Barcelona side. Guardiola has been experimenting with different looks to make up for his absence, most notably bringing up Maxwell and Dani Alves into more midfield roles in the past couple of games, to mixed effect. Xavi has picked up the slack as well, as my beloved Real side can attest. And finally, how can we forget about this guy:

I really don't know what he is looking at so intently, but its kind of frightening. Maicon, the Special One, and the rest of Inter would be wise to keep their eyes on the little magician as he is easily the most dangerous player in the multiverse right now. (Even Thong Boy agrees, kind of!) Honestly, I would be shocked if Mourinho hasn't prepared his side to the utmost to deal with the Messi Problem, so his impact on the game may be somewhat muted. The real question for me is how much will Mourinho push his men to go for the aggressive strategy of attaining a home goal or play the conservative counterattack to contain Barca's offense. I see the match falling somewhere in-between:

Prediction: Inter 1-1 Barcelona

Wednesday, 21 April 2:45 EDT

FC Bayern Munich (-.5) v. Olympique Lyonnais [O/U 2.5 -110 -120] - Yes, yes we have all heard it before. Germany v. France, World War overtones, et cetera et cetera. Really though, perhaps the best and most notable thing about this match is that it will probably be recreated in Lego form by some ingenious (insane?) Germans:

If you haven't seen that yet, you really, really have to watch. The Robben moneyshot is incredible. Anyways, I think this should be a rather compelling tie. I have hated on both of these teams in the past, predicting the downfall of Bayern at various stages and underestimating Lyon's ability to get by Bordeaux. As John has pointed out to me (in a bit of pro-German bias I think? What propaganda has Eisbar been feeding you?), Bayern score with great aplomb. The facts actually bare this out; Bayern have a fat +24 GD in games at home in the Bundesliga. They are also the 4th highest scoring team this year's CL. Lyon have been nothing if not plucky in defense, though. Through the competition, they have been able to frustrate the competent offenses of Madrid and Bordeaux. How will strength play against strength at the Fussball Arena Munchen? I will look for Bayern to come away with the win in a close and exciting match:

Prediction: Bayern 2-1 Lyon

And what would be a matchday featuring Inter be without a Special guest appearance?

"Shut up, Messi!"

oh, and its a soccer thing

Alright, I managed to go one post without talking about soccer in some form or fashion, but I just HAD to comment on this article I came across in the New Republic today.

'Galacticos' In Hell - Aleksandar Hemon

Here is a picture of the guy, just to give you a mental image of the man I will proceed to rant against:

Oh Hi, I am Alek. I am supposes to know about the soccer. Check out my glasses.

So in case you are backtracking, the The New Republic (double the's intentional) is, in fact, having a guy (that guy, up there) cover soccer from here to and through the World Cup. Soccer coverage? From a news and politics magazine? You've got me. But really, why not? More soccer coverage in America can't be a bad thing, right?

As it turns out, the answer is plainly 'yes.' Yes, it can be a bad thing to have more coverage of soccer if that coverage is crazy terrible. Like this guy's was. There are a LOT of people in this country (and outside of it, for that matter) who could do a vastly better job covering the beautiful game for the American audience. Why is this guy so terrible? Where to begin...

... I guess the biggest thing for me was the fact that he really doesn't seem to have all that deep on an understanding of the game. In the paragraph where he mentions Liverpool's financial trouble, he initially called world-renown striker Fernando Torres "Francisco Torres." (The mistake was edited later in the day.) I don't mean to be a soccer snob, but anyone actually following the game (instead of just looking up facts to write an article) would NOT make that mistake. I'm sorry, a simple mistake like that subverts any claim to be knowledgeable about anything regarding the game in Europe.

But on to the substance of the argument. I guess his main idea is that Real are pretty foolish in their attempt to win European glory through the second go-round of the galacticos policy. In that main respect, he may be right. This commentary is far (and I mean fucking Pluto-distant) from insightful and hardly worth a column in the The New Republic. About a million bloggers, commentators, soccer personalities, et al. have made this exact same observation. It doesn't take a soccer genius to note "hey, maybe buying great players isn't the best policy for winning the CL." Barcelona proved just that last year. And everyone noticed. Last year. Way to be on top of your game, guy! A mere 10 months late to that party!

But this common line of attack against the galacticos policy is not without its faults as well. Many seem to forget that under the first Perez regime, Madrid were quite successful, winning two Champions League crowns (2000 and 2002) and two Ligas (2001 and 2003). They only stopped succeeding when Perez sacked manager Vicente del Bosque, the current gaffer of the Spanish national team. Back in those halcyon days under del Bosque, Madrid's policy of signing the greatest players was hailed as masterstroke, and they were truly a delight to watch. While the current generation of superstars may not play together as well (bearing in mind they have only been at it for less than a season), no one can rightly claim that they are doomed to fail in future efforts. This is a team built for the future (many of the stars are under the age of 28), not for immediate results on the field.

Hemon also seems to lack an understanding of relative player quality. He lists Arbeloa and Garay as cut-rate defenders, while both of them have been capped for their respective national sides - Arbeloa generally figuring as a starter or substitute as of late. He claims that Guti is a "divinity among Madridistas for his fanatical club loyalty and meticulous hair care"... I really don't even know where to begin with that one. The general consensus among Madrid fans is that Guti is a player to be tolerated more then celebrated at this point, as he has both tremendous upside (sublime passes) and disastrous downside (disappears from games, bad attitude). "Fanatical club loyalty" in reference to Guti is probably the richest statement in this entire piece, which is otherwise riddled with bold statements; Guti has on many occasions expressed his desire to leave the club or shared his displeasure with his current amount of playing time. I think Hemon makes the dangerous error of conflating time of service with club (no one would deny that Guti has been with Real for ages) with loyalty to said club. Guti is no Raul, for example.

In the final analysis, this guy is pretty far off base when it comes to backing up his very bland "analysis." The fact that TNR picked this guy to give its American readers in-depth soccer coverage through the Mundial is quite disappointing.

/endrant

//really, what is up with those glasses?