What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Great Works Draft (3 Viewers)

Here you go:

Q What is the difference between Syrah and Shiraz?

A It's all the same grape, but the name gives you a clue what the winemaker did with it. Syrah is a red grape traditionally grown in the Rhône Valley of France. Since then it has spread to many places around the world including California, Argentina, and, more recently, South Africa and Washington. The place that has taken the grape to its heart is Australia. But in Aussie fashion, as the barbecue became the "barbie," so syrah became "shiraz." The name stems from the belief that the grape's original home lies in the town "Shiraz" in Iran.

Nowadays you'll find Shiraz used outside Australia as well. Generally, if the producer has labelled the wine Shiraz, you can expect a big, fruity style - the Aussie way. "Syrahs," on the other hand tend to emphasize earth and spice. Try them both; can you tell the difference? Which do you prefer?
Click to expand...
 
31.19 NON FICTION On War by Carl Von Clausewitz Make up pick

With the Art of War, pretty much every military tactical or strategic idea is covered from the days of sticks to modern air power and the future space power theroies.

Carl Philipp Gottlieb von Clausewitz ( July 1, 1780[1] – November 16, 1831) was a Prussian soldier, military historian and military theorist. He is most famous for his military treatise Vom Kriege, translated into English as On War.

Clausewitz, considered an author of contemporary military strategy, was born in Burg bei Magdeburg, Kingdom of Prussia, to a poor but middle-class family. His grandfather, the son of a Lutheran Pastor, had been a professor of theology. Clausewitz's father was once a lieutenant in the Prussian army and held a minor post in the Prussian internal revenue service. Carl was the fourth and youngest son. He entered the Prussian military service at the age of twelve years as a Lance-Corporal, eventually attaining the rank of Major-General.

Some of the key ideas discussed in On War include:

* the dialectical approach to military analysis

* the methods of "critical analysis"

* the nature of the balance-of-power mechanism

* the relationship between political objectives and military objectives in war

* the asymmetrical relationship between attack and defense

* the nature of "military genius" (involving matters of personality and character, beyond intellect)

* the "fascinating trinity" (wunderliche Dreifaltigkeit) of war

* philosophical distinctions between "absolute" or "ideal war," and "real war"

* in "real war," the distinctive poles of a) limited war and b) war to "render the enemy helpless"

* "war" belongs fundamentally to the social realm—rather than to the realms of art or science

* "strategy" belongs primarily to the realm of art

* "tactics" belongs primarily to the realm of science

* the importance of "moral forces" (more than simply "morale") as opposed to quantifiable physical elements

* the "military virtues" of professional armies (which do not necessarily trump the rather different virtues of other kinds of fighting forces)

* conversely, the very real effects of a superiority in numbers and "mass"

* the essential unpredictability of war

* the "fog" of war

* "friction"

* strategic and operational "centers of gravity"

* the "culminating point of the offensive"

* the "culminating point of victory"

 
Tirnan said:
31.19 NON FICTION On War by Carl Von Clausewitz Make up pick

With the Art of War, pretty much every military tactical or strategic idea is covered from the days of sticks to modern air power and the future space power theroies.

Carl Philipp Gottlieb von Clausewitz ( July 1, 1780[1] – November 16, 1831) was a Prussian soldier, military historian and military theorist. He is most famous for his military treatise Vom Kriege, translated into English as On War.

Clausewitz, considered an author of contemporary military strategy, was born in Burg bei Magdeburg, Kingdom of Prussia, to a poor but middle-class family. His grandfather, the son of a Lutheran Pastor, had been a professor of theology. Clausewitz's father was once a lieutenant in the Prussian army and held a minor post in the Prussian internal revenue service. Carl was the fourth and youngest son. He entered the Prussian military service at the age of twelve years as a Lance-Corporal, eventually attaining the rank of Major-General.

Some of the key ideas discussed in On War include:

* the dialectical approach to military analysis

* the methods of "critical analysis"

* the nature of the balance-of-power mechanism

* the relationship between political objectives and military objectives in war

* the asymmetrical relationship between attack and defense

* the nature of "military genius" (involving matters of personality and character, beyond intellect)

* the "fascinating trinity" (wunderliche Dreifaltigkeit) of war

* philosophical distinctions between "absolute" or "ideal war," and "real war"

* in "real war," the distinctive poles of a) limited war and b) war to "render the enemy helpless"

* "war" belongs fundamentally to the social realm—rather than to the realms of art or science

* "strategy" belongs primarily to the realm of art

* "tactics" belongs primarily to the realm of science

* the importance of "moral forces" (more than simply "morale") as opposed to quantifiable physical elements

* the "military virtues" of professional armies (which do not necessarily trump the rather different virtues of other kinds of fighting forces)

* conversely, the very real effects of a superiority in numbers and "mass"

* the essential unpredictability of war

* the "fog" of war

* "friction"

* strategic and operational "centers of gravity"

* the "culminating point of the offensive"

* the "culminating point of victory"
Click to expand...
Was on my shorts list for my next two picks. Nice pick, Tirnan.
 
I'm not a huge believer in the Keynesian model, but this is one of the great modern economic works. A little more controversial pick and one of the great argument creators since some watery tart and a rock sporting cutlery became the basis for a monarchy.

32.02 NON FICTION The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes

The book, generally considered to be his magnum opus, is largely credited with creating the terminology and shape of modern macroeconomics. Published in February 1936 it sought to bring about a revolution, commonly referred to as the "Keynesian Revolution", in the way economists thought - especially in relation to the proposition that a market economy tends naturally to restore itself to full employment after temporary shocks. Regarded widely as the cornerstone of Keynesian thought, the book challenged the established classical economics and introduced important concepts such as the consumption function, the multiplier, the marginal efficiency of capital and liquidity preference.

Although The General Theory was written in the aftermath of the Great Depression and was taken by many to justify the assumption by government of the responsibility for the achievement and maintenance of full employment, it is for the most part a highly abstract work of theory and by no means a tract on policy. Its full meaning and significance continues to be debated even today. As a book, it is a difficult read for a modern student of economics, although it is enlivened by some brilliant rhetorical passages, including the description of the stock market in Chapter 12 and the concluding chapter 24 on the (rather tentative) policy implications Keynes derived from his theory.

The central argument of the book is that the level of employment is determined, not by the price of labour as in neoclassical economics, but by the spending of money (aggregate demand). He argues that it is wrong to assume that competitive markets will, in the long run, deliver full employment or that full employment is the natural, self-righting, equilibrium state of a monetary economy. On the contrary, under-employment and under-investment are likely to be the natural state unless active measures are taken. Although few modern economists would disagree with the need for at least some intervention, policies such as labour market flexibility are underpinned by the neoclassical notion of equilibrium in the long run. One implication of The General Theory is that a lack of competition is not the fundamental problem and measures to reduce unemployment by cutting wages or benefits are not only hard-hearted but ultimately futile. Keynes does not set out a detailed policy program in The General Theory, but he went on in practice to place great emphasis on the reduction of long-term interest rates[1] and the reform of the international monetary system[2] as structural measures needed to encourage both investment and consumption by the private sector.

Just as the reception of The General Theory was encouraged by the 1930s experience of mass unemployment, its fall from favour was associated with the ‘stagflation’ of the 1970s. Although Keynes explicitly addresses inflation, The General Theory does not treat it as an essentially monetary phenomenon nor suggest that control of the money supply or interest rates is the key remedy for inflation. This conflicts both with neoclassical theory and with the experience of pragmatic policy-makers[3]. Furthermore the main Keynesian prescription for inflation, incomes policy, has lost credibility.

However, many of the innovations introduced by The General Theory continue to be central to modern macroeconomics. For instance, the idea that recessions reflect inadequate aggregate demand and that Say's Law (that supply creates its own demand) does not hold in a monetary economy. President Richard Nixon famously said in 1971 (ironically, shortly before Keynesian economics fell out of fashion) that "We are all Keynesians now", a phrase often repeated by Nobel laureate Paul Krugman.
Click to expand...
 
A couple that hit close to the heart and on my personal favorites list.

33.19 MOVIE Reservoir Dogs by Quentin Tarantino (1992)

Probably not a huge score in the category, but one of my favorite movies of all time.

The 1992 debut film of director and writer Quentin Tarantino. It portrays what happens before and after a botched jewel heist, but not the heist itself. Reservoir Dogs stars an ensemble cast with Harvey Keitel, Steve Buscemi, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Quentin Tarantino, Eddie Bunker, Chris Penn and Lawrence Tierney. Tarantino has a minor role, as does criminal-turned-author Eddie Bunker. It incorporates many themes and aesthetics that have become Tarantino's hallmarks: violent crime, pop culture references, memorable dialogue, profuse profanity, and a nonlinear storyline.

The film has become a classic of independent film and a cult hit[1]. It was named "Greatest Independent Film of all Time" by Empire. Reservoir Dogs was generally well received and the cast was praised by many critics. Although it was never given much promotion upon release, the film was a modest success by grossing $2,832,029, which made its budget back. However, it did become a major hit in the United Kingdom; grossing nearly 6.5 million pounds, and it achieved higher popularity after the success of Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. It is often criticized for its high degree of violence and profanity, and audience members reportedly walked out during a torture scene.

34.02 ACTING PERFORMANCE Michael Madsen as Mr. Blonde in Reservoir Dogs (1992)

His real name is Vic Vega, also known as Toothpick Vic. He is a soft-spoken, sadistic psychopath who indiscriminately shot several civilians during the robbery, which angered Mr. White and Mr. Pink. He also gleefully tortures a policeman for his own pleasure—slashing the young officer's face, cutting off his ear and dousing him with gasoline—only to be stopped from burning him alive by Mr. Orange, when he shoots Mr. Blonde several times in the chest, killing him. Vic Vega is the brother of Vincent Vega from Tarantino's film Pulp Fiction.

 
That should put me back in the up to date category. I'll be reading past posts to make sure I didn't duplicate efforts and / or miss the major dramas.

By the way BigRocks, I hate you for grabbing the anatomy book that ties in with my round 2 pick just as I was getting ready to finally pull the trigger on it.

 
Hey Tides

Is it raining or is somebody taking a piss on my head? Would you mind making a pick so I can get mine in before Doug B pulls a Tirnan? TIA

 
Tirnan said:
A couple that hit close to the heart and on my personal favorites list.

33.19 MOVIE Reservoir Dogs by Quentin Tarantino (1992)

Probably not a huge score in the category, but one of my favorite movies of all time.

The 1992 debut film of director and writer Quentin Tarantino. It portrays what happens before and after a botched jewel heist, but not the heist itself. Reservoir Dogs stars an ensemble cast with Harvey Keitel, Steve Buscemi, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Quentin Tarantino, Eddie Bunker, Chris Penn and Lawrence Tierney. Tarantino has a minor role, as does criminal-turned-author Eddie Bunker. It incorporates many themes and aesthetics that have become Tarantino's hallmarks: violent crime, pop culture references, memorable dialogue, profuse profanity, and a nonlinear storyline.

The film has become a classic of independent film and a cult hit[1]. It was named "Greatest Independent Film of all Time" by Empire. Reservoir Dogs was generally well received and the cast was praised by many critics. Although it was never given much promotion upon release, the film was a modest success by grossing $2,832,029, which made its budget back. However, it did become a major hit in the United Kingdom; grossing nearly 6.5 million pounds, and it achieved higher popularity after the success of Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. It is often criticized for its high degree of violence and profanity, and audience members reportedly walked out during a torture scene.

34.02 ACTING PERFORMANCE Michael Madsen as Mr. Blonde in Reservoir Dogs (1992)

His real name is Vic Vega, also known as Toothpick Vic. He is a soft-spoken, sadistic psychopath who indiscriminately shot several civilians during the robbery, which angered Mr. White and Mr. Pink. He also gleefully tortures a policeman for his own pleasure—slashing the young officer's face, cutting off his ear and dousing him with gasoline—only to be stopped from burning him alive by Mr. Orange, when he shoots Mr. Blonde several times in the chest, killing him. Vic Vega is the brother of Vincent Vega from Tarantino's film Pulp Fiction.
Click to expand...
awesome movie and performance
 
Other than the Madsen role, I don't know a single one of Tirnan's picks.

Which is pretty much why I signed up for this thing :shock: ... even though it's been uncanny how many of us have the same short-lists, I do love getting me some learning.

eta: recent picks. I've probably heard of a couple of the others.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
El Floppo said:
Other than the Madsen role, I don't know a single one of Tirnan's picks.

Which is pretty much why I signed up for this thing :lmao: ... even though it's been uncanny how many of us have the same short-lists, I do love getting me some learning.

eta: recent picks. I've probably heard of a couple of the others.
Click to expand...
Von Clausewitz wrote what may be the defining book on the "Theory" of modern warfare. While much of the fame of the work goes towards adapted ideas (such as the German Blitzkrieg of WW II), it really can be thought of as the corner stone of modern warfare strategy. The author pointed out that war was about making the other side suffer immensely and destroy their economy, production, and society as a primary means of bringing them to the table. The presence of armies was incidental in his thinking. If you think of the blitzkrieg, it was aimed at bypassing the enemy strong points and destroying or capturing vital installations that kept the enemy involved in (think able to continue to survive) the war. Sort of a screw the armies, destroy the factories, roads, and distribution points of the enemy. Sure their people will starve, but more importantly they can no longer move their armies to repel our forces and can no longer supply static strong points.

Best illustrated by the Germans driving around the French at the outbreak of WW II. Few realize it now, but the Nazi invaders defeated a french force that was larger, had better equipment and was fortified. They decimated an enemy in a matter of days. it may be the single most impressive military triumph in human history.

Keynesian economics leans a little too far into the socialist voodoo economics column for me, but it is a widely accepted economic theory. Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and therefore advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.

I chose it because our current ruling administration obviously believes firmly that Public sector (ie Government) decisions can positively effect private sector issues. I'll also highlight why I think it fails: Lets use GM as an example. The public sector bailed out and then enacted a semi-hostile takeover. It appears that the public sector will now define future product for this once private sector industry. GM will be making an American version of the smart car that will tie in nicely with other public sector choices and preferences. However in doing so they are gambling that the free market sees a need for and is willing to purchase said product. If the private sector chooses not to, we have created a new series of problems and created an even bigger black hole to funnel taxpayer dollars into.

In a true free market, GM would have been allowed to fail, been forced into bankruptcy, sold off or restructured to satisfy its creditors, and then the free market would have replaced GM if a demand for missing product existed. If sufficient demand existed, then the market would reward future entrepreneurs for meeting said demand. If it didn't then the death of GM would have been a sad, but acceptable loss to an overcrowded sector. In effect the weakest herd member(s) would have been fed to the economic market forces so that the surviving herd members could then thrive. It works, but its not always comfortable to watch.

Instead we may be slowly killing the entire herd by maintaining the sick and the weak members in an artificial bubble that will also collapse eventually as market forces continue to erode the sector.

 
El Floppo said:
Other than the Madsen role, I don't know a single one of Tirnan's picks.

Which is pretty much why I signed up for this thing :lmao: ... even though it's been uncanny how many of us have the same short-lists, I do love getting me some learning.

eta: recent picks. I've probably heard of a couple of the others.
Click to expand...
So wait, you know the Madsen role but not the movie?
 
I was scrambling in an indecisive mode, then saw that The Mighty Tirnan took Two Reservoir Dogs picks, so.......................

I will take one that is near and dear to my own heart, I have a copy at home that always seems to generate more comment and discussion than any of the others.

34.13 - The Son of Man - Painting by Rene Magritte

Link to photo

From wikki, per timschochet :lmao: ..........................

The Son of Man, 1964 is synonymous with Rene Magritte. That image of a man with a bowler-hat has become part of society's psyche. It has been used in commercial advertisement in various forms. And it also played a part in the motion picture The Thomas Crown Affair (1999)

When you look at any painting, it's important to keep in mind that everything is positioned where it is for a reason. The artist had a reason for it all. Ask yourself what is the meaning of each artistic element in the artwork. The man in the painting is very staid, very "stiff-upper-lip". His arms are straight down by his sides. Why is his bottom button unbuttoned yet the top two are buttoned? He's looking straight forward with a blank stare; at least it appears that way from his left eye that you can see peaking around behind the apple. Notice that it is a green apple, not a red apple. How is the apple staying were it is? Is the main biting the apple? Is it merely floating? He's standing beside a wall that overlooks a body of water (blue water typically symbolizes the subconscious); what body of water is that, is it an ocean, a lake, a pond? Notice the gray clouds; is a storm forming? And look at the wall again; notice the lines on the top of the bricks that project away from you; continue both those lines and you will see that they intersect just above the top button, just at the level of the man's heart. Do you think that is an accident? Magritte planned it that way. Look at his right hand and at his left hand; the right hand is in front while the left hand is slightly behind. But look closer at the left arm at the elbow; that's a bulge; his left arm is on backwards, we are looking at the backside of a right arm! Take your hand and cover everthing except what appears to be the man's left arm; look at it and you'll see that it appears that you are now looking at the man from behind and what you see is his right arm from behind. That's surreal. That's Magritte.

About the painting The Son of Man, 1964 Magritte said, Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see, but it is impossible. Humans hide their secrets too well ...

Magritte was quoted as saying, "My painting is visible images which conceal nothing; they evoke mystery and, indeed, when one sees one of my pictures, one asks oneself this simple question 'What does that mean?' It does not mean anything, because mystery means nothing either, it is unknowable."

Magritte's signture theme of a man in a bowler hat reappears in several of his paintings
Click to expand...
It catches your attention, imagination, and leads to questions, the answers to which are different for us all - that is Magritte in essential form
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Eephus
Desert Island "Discs" Draft (2010-2019) - We Did It
26 27 28
Replies
1K
Views
48K
rockaction
rockaction
Eephus
\\m// Official Dealer's Choice Music Mixtape Draft
40 41 42
Replies
2K
Views
68K
Northern Voice
Northern Voice
timschochet
Timdraft # 2
34 35 36
Replies
2K
Views
64K
charvik
charvik

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top