Apologia pro vita sua: As the 2008 presidential campaign winds down, we reach the final point of reflection for those few remaining undecided voters – and, indeed, for those of us who have decided but perhaps wish to reexamine our reasoning once more. Given the lateness of the hour (figuratively speaking), I feel obligated to offer up an explanation for how I will vote next Tuesday. Many of you have heard me express my frustration and anger over the direction the Republican campaign has taken in past few months, and I cannot express strongly enough my condemnation for certain tactical choices. However, I will still vote for John McCain on Election Day. Given this disconnect – and given my love for long, wordy articles that nobody wants to read – I feel it necessary to offer up a description and explanation of my logic.
For all of my dismay over the events of the last eight years, I am still a fundamentally conservative person. I still believe strongly in the basic Republican values of smaller government, lower taxes, lower spending, strong national defense, encouraging small business, and a general desire to stay out of the way of ordinary folks. I’m not sure Reagan’s axiom that “government is the problem” is still accurate; but the old statement that the government that governs best is the government that governs least sure is. One can argue about whether or not these values, as I have written them, are still what Republicanism is all about these days – I happen to think that they are, or at the least certainly ought to be. John McCain – for all his faults – is closer to these values than Barack Obama.
I will admit that I like Barack Obama. There is a wonderful line from the 1961 classic film Judgment at Nuremberg – one of the judges on the tribunal asks Spencer Tracy’s character where he falls politically. Tracy responds “Me? I’m a rock-ribbed Republican… who thought Franklin Roosevelt was a great man.” That’s kind of how I’ve always felt about Barack Obama – I don’t agree with him on much, but I think he’s an excellent man who will make a very good president. He represents something fresh and new, and it is hard to overlook the history-in-the-making aspects of his campaign, too.
That having been said, John McCain is much, much closer to me on the issues than Obama. This isn’t to say that I agree with everything McCain wants to do – his proposal to kick Russia out of the G-8 would be laughable if it weren’t so terrifying, and his health-care plan is, um, non-existent. Nor does it mean that I disagree with everything Obama is proposing – I’m a fan of his internationalist views on foreign policy in particular. It merely means that I think that the underlying principles of conservatism and the principles I believe in would be better achieved by a McCain administration than by an Obama administration.
No assessment of the McCain campaign would be complete without a discussion of his vice-presidential candidate. I’m solidly in the Frum/Sullivan/Parker/Buckley camp – the Palin choice was a disaster. Not only is she completely unqualified to be President of the United States, but she represents most of what is wrong with the Republican Party today – anti-intellectual, aggressive to those who disagree with us, ignoring the consequences of our actions past next week, questioning the patriotism of our opponents, perpetuating an us-against-them mentality, making decisions from the gut instead of from logic, encouraging the lunatic fringe of the party to greater heights, and freely squandering whatever goodwill the party once had in the name of victory. Victory, it is true, is the goal – but even should victory be within our grasp, it would surely be a pyrrhic one.
And yet. And yet. And yet. Even with all that, even with the poor choices the campaign has made and the tactics I find distasteful, I still cannot find it in myself to abandon this man. I still have great faith in John McCain. I believe he is a better man than all this. He is wiser than he seems at this moment, an excellent senator, a man of principle who once refused release from a hellish prison camp because his comrades would not be brought out with him. He is a man who would make an excellent president and would be a great leader for this country in all aspects – morally, intellectually, and politically.
If the polls are correct, next week Barack Obama will be elected the 44th President of the United States. I will not be voting for him. Two-thirds of people my own age and two-thirds of people in my home state will vote differently from me. So will a majority of the American people. I understand that. I respect that. I think we have been given an extraordinary choice in this election – for the first time in decades, we have been blessed with two truly excellent choices. I will be voting for John McCain. Although he may not win, and although he is not the popular choice, he is a candidate whom I can still be proud of.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Simpsons Reference of the Day
(Scene: After eating lunch with friends at the GSB's cafeteria, I walk through an automatic door)
Me: Thank you, door!
Alex: (Does spit take as he nearly loses his Coke from laughing)
Reference: "Bart Sells His Soul", Season 7, Episode 4
Me: Thank you, door!
Alex: (Does spit take as he nearly loses his Coke from laughing)
Reference: "Bart Sells His Soul", Season 7, Episode 4
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Movie Review: "The Dark Knight"
Well, it definitely gets my coveted "See In the Theater" rating.
As for the rest, I'm still trying to wrap my head around The Dark Knight, especially the final fifteen minutes. I'm not giving away any spoilers here, but the plot goes off in a direction I never really imagined (those who have seen the film know what I'm talking about). Part of the reason why this review is going to be somewhat disjointed is because I still don't quite know what to make of the ending - it makes sense from a certain point of view, but I don't know what to think about it.
Of course, for a film as rife with moral ambiguity as this one, that may be the point. The movie has been called an allegory for 9/11, an allegory for terrorism and the War on Terror, and an allegory for crime-fighting - and it is all of these things. Analyzing the line between hero and villain isn't exactly new territory (The Departed, Unforgiven, Episodes II and III of the Star Wars prequel trilogy, High Noon, and countless others have all explored similar territory - in fact, come to think of it, most of my favorite movies explore the line between good and evil, like The Godfather, Citizen Kane, Reservoir Dogs, Munich, The Fugitive, Casino Royale, The Manchurian Candidate, etc., albeit not in the specific is-the-hero-really-the-villain-and-vice-versa style as this film), but The Dark Knight presents these questions in a more explicit format than I have seen in any other film. I don't think you are supposed to draw any conclusions from it - like life itself, the line between good and evil in the film is never clear.
Part of the appeal of the movie is using the comic-book film genre to explore these questions. I mean, let's be brutally honest here - comic-book movies in general and superhero movies in particular are inherently silly. It is hard to explore serious questions of morality, good and evil, right and wrong, etc. while dealing with protagonists who wear silly costumes and can fly and antagonists who are launching various plans for world domination. Where The Dark Knight stands out is the manner in which it takes the basic comic-book format - masked costume-wearing vigilante battles masked costume-wearing villain with a plan - and stands it on its head.
Batman, of course, is hardly your traditional superhero - he has no superpowers and relies on technology, training and superior martial arts skills to save the day. The Joker, too, is equally anti-traditional - he has no real plan, and seems to exist solely to cause chaos. The film explores the distinction between the motivations of the two men - Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) seeks to do some good in Gotham, while The Joker (Heath Ledger) exists solely, as Alfred notes, "to watch the world burn". The monkey wrench in all this is the actions of Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), the new Gotham district attorney, who wants to same things as Bruce Wayne and is eventually destroyed by those desires.*
The film's exploration of these issues doesn't necessarily pave any new ground - it more presents modern moral ambiguity in a different light than I've seen it presented before. You all know how this is going to turn out - it's a narrative version of Robert McNamara's wonderful line from The Fog of War: "How much evil must we do in order to do good?" Batman and Harvey Dent must commit evils and become something of villains themselves in order to do good. Good becomes bad, bad becomes good, dark becomes light, white becomes black, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!** Unfortunately for me, the movie doesn't seem to draw and real conclusions, beyond the fact that nothing in Gotham is as simple as it may seem.
Okay, on to some more specific analysis.
Acting
Generally, the acting in the film was superb. Christian Bale does as excellent a job in this film as he does in Batman Begins, demonstrating the moral dilemmas Batman and Bruce Wayne face with aplomb. Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) and Michael Caine (Alfred) are awesome, as always (I think I would watch the two of them if they decided to do a remake of Plan 9 From Outer Space or Manos: The Hands of Fate, two films widely regarded as being the worst ever made). Maggie Gyllenhaal is much better as Rachel Dawes than Katie Holmes could ever hope to be, and even bit players like Eric Roberts are excellent in their small roles. I also couldn't help but giggle at the scene where The Joker places a knife to the throat of a wealthy party guest, mostly because said wealthy party guest is played by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy.***
Special notes on two actors: First, Heath Ledger is nothing short of spectacular as The Joker. He takes the character in an entirely new direction, making him just about the creepiest and scariest villain I have ever seen. His villain is more animal than man, lashing out at anything and everything. There seems to be a rising movement to get him at least a posthumous Oscar nomination for this role, and I think the honor of a nomination is at least somewhat in order. If nothing else, a twisted villain like this is a fitting end to a career that was snuffed out far too soon.
I find Aaron Eckhart to be one of the most frustrating actors in Hollywood. He is capable of creating marvelous and entertaining characters in some films (like Nick Naylor in Thank You For Smoking), but he is also capable of some of the worst acting performances ever committed to celluloid (The Black Dahlia, anyone?). Fortunately, this performance seems to go more in the former category than in the latter. I would never call him an incredibly talented actor or suggest that he has much range - indeed, he seems to be more like a less clueless version of Keanu Reeves more than anything else. Like Keanu, occasionally the right role will come along that will suit his talents or lack thereof - kind like how Keanu's role as Neo in the first Matrix film was the perfect merger of actor and role. Eckhart can't play much in way of characters beyond Nick Naylor, but his view of Dent is merely a slightly more twisted and less funny version of Naylor. Regardless of the source, it seems to work here.
Screenplay
Director Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan co-wrote the screenplay for The Dark Knight, and the generally did a decent job. With the exception of some incredibly hacky lines - like Dent's admonition that "You die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" - the dialogue fits the film well. The Joker, especially, is given some wonderfully quotable lines (heck, my buddy Chris and I have been quoting the lines "Good evening, Commissioner!", "You made plans. Look where that got you." and "Here is my card." to each other ever since the first trailer came out). As I say, it's a little dodgy at times, especially when given some of Dent's lines, but it usually works well.
(Brief digression - none of these hacky lines are nearly as bad as Natalie Portman's line "Kiss me again, like you did on Naboo" from Revenge of the Sith - a line that stands out as the corniest of all possible lines in one of the hackiest scripts ever written. Damn it, George Lucas, let other people write your scripts.)
Cinematography
Gorgeous. Absolutely gorgeous. I don't know who Nolan hired to shoot the movie, but interplay of light, action, and the Chicago setting are marvelous.
A word about the setting: Chicago has never, ever looked quite as wonderful as it does in this film. Part of the joy of watching it for me personally was to get to see all of the buildings in my adopted semi-hometown up on the big screen. It looks as if Nolan took all the best parts of the city of Chicago, all the wonderful architecture and cavernous city streets, Upper and Lower Wacker, the Chicago River and the like and made it look like an entirely different city while retaining the essential nature of the place. Like Chicago, Nolan's version of Gotham is dark and forbidding (especially the scene set outside the Chicago Board of Trade) yet somehow also relentlessly urbane with a real sense of the community that lies underneath. By the end of the movie, you get a real sense of the darkness that lies in the soul of any major metropolitan city, but also a sense of the hope and desire for good that is constantly fighting to rise to the top.
(Incidentally, for those who have seen the movie, look closely in the chase scene where the helicopter crashes and explodes. You'll see my office building in the background. The burned-out wreckage of the helicopter was in the street outside my office for about a week last summer when they were shooting the film.)
On the whole, I give The Dark Knight my highly coveted "Drop What You're Doing and Go See This Movie Now" rating. It's a little choppy and confusing at times, and the themes aren't anything new, but it is still one of the best films I've seen in recent years. Plus, as we all know, I'm something of a sucker for good action movies, and this one takes the cake.
Special thanks to The Long Road Around and her husband for organizing last night's movie outing.
Previous Movie Reviews:
21
*I don't think I'm giving anything away by saying that Harvey Dent eventually becomes Two-Face, one of the traditional Batman villains. Come on, you knew it was coming.
**As per usual, you get bonus points if you recognize which movie that sentence is a reference to.
***Or Governor Nehi, has Dustin Hoffman's character in Wag the Dog refers to him.
As for the rest, I'm still trying to wrap my head around The Dark Knight, especially the final fifteen minutes. I'm not giving away any spoilers here, but the plot goes off in a direction I never really imagined (those who have seen the film know what I'm talking about). Part of the reason why this review is going to be somewhat disjointed is because I still don't quite know what to make of the ending - it makes sense from a certain point of view, but I don't know what to think about it.
Of course, for a film as rife with moral ambiguity as this one, that may be the point. The movie has been called an allegory for 9/11, an allegory for terrorism and the War on Terror, and an allegory for crime-fighting - and it is all of these things. Analyzing the line between hero and villain isn't exactly new territory (The Departed, Unforgiven, Episodes II and III of the Star Wars prequel trilogy, High Noon, and countless others have all explored similar territory - in fact, come to think of it, most of my favorite movies explore the line between good and evil, like The Godfather, Citizen Kane, Reservoir Dogs, Munich, The Fugitive, Casino Royale, The Manchurian Candidate, etc., albeit not in the specific is-the-hero-really-the-villain-and-vice-versa style as this film), but The Dark Knight presents these questions in a more explicit format than I have seen in any other film. I don't think you are supposed to draw any conclusions from it - like life itself, the line between good and evil in the film is never clear.
Part of the appeal of the movie is using the comic-book film genre to explore these questions. I mean, let's be brutally honest here - comic-book movies in general and superhero movies in particular are inherently silly. It is hard to explore serious questions of morality, good and evil, right and wrong, etc. while dealing with protagonists who wear silly costumes and can fly and antagonists who are launching various plans for world domination. Where The Dark Knight stands out is the manner in which it takes the basic comic-book format - masked costume-wearing vigilante battles masked costume-wearing villain with a plan - and stands it on its head.
Batman, of course, is hardly your traditional superhero - he has no superpowers and relies on technology, training and superior martial arts skills to save the day. The Joker, too, is equally anti-traditional - he has no real plan, and seems to exist solely to cause chaos. The film explores the distinction between the motivations of the two men - Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) seeks to do some good in Gotham, while The Joker (Heath Ledger) exists solely, as Alfred notes, "to watch the world burn". The monkey wrench in all this is the actions of Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), the new Gotham district attorney, who wants to same things as Bruce Wayne and is eventually destroyed by those desires.*
The film's exploration of these issues doesn't necessarily pave any new ground - it more presents modern moral ambiguity in a different light than I've seen it presented before. You all know how this is going to turn out - it's a narrative version of Robert McNamara's wonderful line from The Fog of War: "How much evil must we do in order to do good?" Batman and Harvey Dent must commit evils and become something of villains themselves in order to do good. Good becomes bad, bad becomes good, dark becomes light, white becomes black, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!** Unfortunately for me, the movie doesn't seem to draw and real conclusions, beyond the fact that nothing in Gotham is as simple as it may seem.
Okay, on to some more specific analysis.
Acting
Generally, the acting in the film was superb. Christian Bale does as excellent a job in this film as he does in Batman Begins, demonstrating the moral dilemmas Batman and Bruce Wayne face with aplomb. Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) and Michael Caine (Alfred) are awesome, as always (I think I would watch the two of them if they decided to do a remake of Plan 9 From Outer Space or Manos: The Hands of Fate, two films widely regarded as being the worst ever made). Maggie Gyllenhaal is much better as Rachel Dawes than Katie Holmes could ever hope to be, and even bit players like Eric Roberts are excellent in their small roles. I also couldn't help but giggle at the scene where The Joker places a knife to the throat of a wealthy party guest, mostly because said wealthy party guest is played by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy.***
Special notes on two actors: First, Heath Ledger is nothing short of spectacular as The Joker. He takes the character in an entirely new direction, making him just about the creepiest and scariest villain I have ever seen. His villain is more animal than man, lashing out at anything and everything. There seems to be a rising movement to get him at least a posthumous Oscar nomination for this role, and I think the honor of a nomination is at least somewhat in order. If nothing else, a twisted villain like this is a fitting end to a career that was snuffed out far too soon.
I find Aaron Eckhart to be one of the most frustrating actors in Hollywood. He is capable of creating marvelous and entertaining characters in some films (like Nick Naylor in Thank You For Smoking), but he is also capable of some of the worst acting performances ever committed to celluloid (The Black Dahlia, anyone?). Fortunately, this performance seems to go more in the former category than in the latter. I would never call him an incredibly talented actor or suggest that he has much range - indeed, he seems to be more like a less clueless version of Keanu Reeves more than anything else. Like Keanu, occasionally the right role will come along that will suit his talents or lack thereof - kind like how Keanu's role as Neo in the first Matrix film was the perfect merger of actor and role. Eckhart can't play much in way of characters beyond Nick Naylor, but his view of Dent is merely a slightly more twisted and less funny version of Naylor. Regardless of the source, it seems to work here.
Screenplay
Director Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan co-wrote the screenplay for The Dark Knight, and the generally did a decent job. With the exception of some incredibly hacky lines - like Dent's admonition that "You die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" - the dialogue fits the film well. The Joker, especially, is given some wonderfully quotable lines (heck, my buddy Chris and I have been quoting the lines "Good evening, Commissioner!", "You made plans. Look where that got you." and "Here is my card." to each other ever since the first trailer came out). As I say, it's a little dodgy at times, especially when given some of Dent's lines, but it usually works well.
(Brief digression - none of these hacky lines are nearly as bad as Natalie Portman's line "Kiss me again, like you did on Naboo" from Revenge of the Sith - a line that stands out as the corniest of all possible lines in one of the hackiest scripts ever written. Damn it, George Lucas, let other people write your scripts.)
Cinematography
Gorgeous. Absolutely gorgeous. I don't know who Nolan hired to shoot the movie, but interplay of light, action, and the Chicago setting are marvelous.
A word about the setting: Chicago has never, ever looked quite as wonderful as it does in this film. Part of the joy of watching it for me personally was to get to see all of the buildings in my adopted semi-hometown up on the big screen. It looks as if Nolan took all the best parts of the city of Chicago, all the wonderful architecture and cavernous city streets, Upper and Lower Wacker, the Chicago River and the like and made it look like an entirely different city while retaining the essential nature of the place. Like Chicago, Nolan's version of Gotham is dark and forbidding (especially the scene set outside the Chicago Board of Trade) yet somehow also relentlessly urbane with a real sense of the community that lies underneath. By the end of the movie, you get a real sense of the darkness that lies in the soul of any major metropolitan city, but also a sense of the hope and desire for good that is constantly fighting to rise to the top.
(Incidentally, for those who have seen the movie, look closely in the chase scene where the helicopter crashes and explodes. You'll see my office building in the background. The burned-out wreckage of the helicopter was in the street outside my office for about a week last summer when they were shooting the film.)
On the whole, I give The Dark Knight my highly coveted "Drop What You're Doing and Go See This Movie Now" rating. It's a little choppy and confusing at times, and the themes aren't anything new, but it is still one of the best films I've seen in recent years. Plus, as we all know, I'm something of a sucker for good action movies, and this one takes the cake.
Special thanks to The Long Road Around and her husband for organizing last night's movie outing.
Previous Movie Reviews:
21
*I don't think I'm giving anything away by saying that Harvey Dent eventually becomes Two-Face, one of the traditional Batman villains. Come on, you knew it was coming.
**As per usual, you get bonus points if you recognize which movie that sentence is a reference to.
***Or Governor Nehi, has Dustin Hoffman's character in Wag the Dog refers to him.
Monday, June 16, 2008
I Love Hank Steinbrenner
Hank Steinbrenner is rapidly becoming my new favorite MLB team owner. As a non-Yankees fan, I generally think that anything an everything associated with that franchise has the taint of pure evil about it. However, Steinbrenner is quickly becoming an exception to the rule.
Of course, this isn't because of Steinbrenner's ability as a major league executive. Quite the opposite, in fact. As ESPN.com's Bill Simmons has repeatedly pointed out, "Kim Hank-Il" seems determined to take the lessons learned at his father George's knee literally: make bizarre, hysterical statements; play into media biases; spend money like a crazy person; whine when you don't get your way; and generally run your franchise like a lunatic.
Hank is the same guy who declared that the Yankees would not re-sign Alex Rodriguez if he opted out due to some gibberish about A-Rod not being a "True Yankee" - despite the fact that A-Rod is probably the best player in Major League Baseball today (here's a link to one of many firejoemorgan.com articles making that exact point). Hank paid several hundred thousand dollars to rip up newly poured concrete at new Yankee Stadium to remove a David Ortiz jersey an enterprising construction worker-cum-Red Sox fan had buried there in order to "curse" the Yankees, even though there's no such thing as a curse. As this blog post points out, Hank repeatedly threatens his management team with termination if they fail to make the playoffs - even though beyond actually assembling the team, management has very very very little to do with the action on the field, and given the complete randomness of an individual baseball game, it is borderline insane to fire the manager for a loss in one game (of course, Hank isn't alone in doing so - rumors were flying this weekend that the Mets were going to fire manager Willie Randolph if they didn't take at least two out of three from the Rangers [Ed. note: this was published about three hours before the Mets actually fired Randolph early Tuesday morning]). Plus, as has been repeatedly hammered into the ground in the blogosphere, Hank has also admitted that his favorite actress is Jennifer Love Hewitt, which should alone be enough to have him committed. At least he didn't claim Kate Bosworth as his favorite.
Anyway, today Hank decided to continue his insanity by calling out the National League for daring to have pitchers hit. Yankees "ace" Chien-Ming Wang tore a tendon in his foot running the bases in an interleague game, and it looks like he'll be out until at least September, leading to this Kim Hank-Il tirade:
"My only message is simple. The National League needs to join the 21st century," Steinbrenner said in Tampa, Fla. "They need to grow up and join the 21st century... "Am I [mad] about it? Yes," Steinbrenner added. "I've got my pitchers running the bases, and one of them gets hurt. He's going to be out. I don't like that, and it's about time they address it. That was a rule from the 1800s."... "This is always a concern of American League teams when their pitchers have to run the bases and they're not used to doing it," Steinbrenner said. "It's not just us. It's everybody. It probably should be a concern for National League owners, general managers and managers when their pitchers run the bases. Pitchers have enough to do without having to do that."
Um, Hank? This was kind of a freak injury. Yes, National League owners, general managers and managers are worried when their pitchers are out there running the bases. They are also worried when everybody else is out there running the bases. They are worried when any player steps on the field. They are worried when their pitchers step onto the mound and start throwing warm-up pitchers. THEY ARE WORRIED BECAUSE INJURIES ARE PART OF THE GAME, AND ANY PLAYER CAN GET HURT AT ANY TIME.
I'm on record as being opposed to the designated hitter rule, simply because I think it makes the game more interesting when the pitcher has to bat. There's no real right or wrong answer to whether or not the DH is good for baseball - frankly, I think it's one of the cool things about having two leagues with slightly different rules. I'm not a big fan of the DH and my favorite team happens to be in the National League, so I guess I'm more of a National League guy. I know people who are of the opposite view. Again, there's no right or wrong answer: it's just a difference of opinion.
That said, blaming Chien-Ming Wang's freak injury on a late 20th century rule change is borderline insane, and was probably said to distract Yankees fans from the tricky problem that the Yankees now have no pitching to speak of (which could have been remedied if they had made that trade for Johan Santana, but hey, hindsight is 20-20, right?). Anyway, Hank, keep it up: you're definitely entertaining this baseball fan.
Of course, this isn't because of Steinbrenner's ability as a major league executive. Quite the opposite, in fact. As ESPN.com's Bill Simmons has repeatedly pointed out, "Kim Hank-Il" seems determined to take the lessons learned at his father George's knee literally: make bizarre, hysterical statements; play into media biases; spend money like a crazy person; whine when you don't get your way; and generally run your franchise like a lunatic.
Hank is the same guy who declared that the Yankees would not re-sign Alex Rodriguez if he opted out due to some gibberish about A-Rod not being a "True Yankee" - despite the fact that A-Rod is probably the best player in Major League Baseball today (here's a link to one of many firejoemorgan.com articles making that exact point). Hank paid several hundred thousand dollars to rip up newly poured concrete at new Yankee Stadium to remove a David Ortiz jersey an enterprising construction worker-cum-Red Sox fan had buried there in order to "curse" the Yankees, even though there's no such thing as a curse. As this blog post points out, Hank repeatedly threatens his management team with termination if they fail to make the playoffs - even though beyond actually assembling the team, management has very very very little to do with the action on the field, and given the complete randomness of an individual baseball game, it is borderline insane to fire the manager for a loss in one game (of course, Hank isn't alone in doing so - rumors were flying this weekend that the Mets were going to fire manager Willie Randolph if they didn't take at least two out of three from the Rangers [Ed. note: this was published about three hours before the Mets actually fired Randolph early Tuesday morning]). Plus, as has been repeatedly hammered into the ground in the blogosphere, Hank has also admitted that his favorite actress is Jennifer Love Hewitt, which should alone be enough to have him committed. At least he didn't claim Kate Bosworth as his favorite.
Anyway, today Hank decided to continue his insanity by calling out the National League for daring to have pitchers hit. Yankees "ace" Chien-Ming Wang tore a tendon in his foot running the bases in an interleague game, and it looks like he'll be out until at least September, leading to this Kim Hank-Il tirade:
"My only message is simple. The National League needs to join the 21st century," Steinbrenner said in Tampa, Fla. "They need to grow up and join the 21st century... "Am I [mad] about it? Yes," Steinbrenner added. "I've got my pitchers running the bases, and one of them gets hurt. He's going to be out. I don't like that, and it's about time they address it. That was a rule from the 1800s."... "This is always a concern of American League teams when their pitchers have to run the bases and they're not used to doing it," Steinbrenner said. "It's not just us. It's everybody. It probably should be a concern for National League owners, general managers and managers when their pitchers run the bases. Pitchers have enough to do without having to do that."
Um, Hank? This was kind of a freak injury. Yes, National League owners, general managers and managers are worried when their pitchers are out there running the bases. They are also worried when everybody else is out there running the bases. They are worried when any player steps on the field. They are worried when their pitchers step onto the mound and start throwing warm-up pitchers. THEY ARE WORRIED BECAUSE INJURIES ARE PART OF THE GAME, AND ANY PLAYER CAN GET HURT AT ANY TIME.
I'm on record as being opposed to the designated hitter rule, simply because I think it makes the game more interesting when the pitcher has to bat. There's no real right or wrong answer to whether or not the DH is good for baseball - frankly, I think it's one of the cool things about having two leagues with slightly different rules. I'm not a big fan of the DH and my favorite team happens to be in the National League, so I guess I'm more of a National League guy. I know people who are of the opposite view. Again, there's no right or wrong answer: it's just a difference of opinion.
That said, blaming Chien-Ming Wang's freak injury on a late 20th century rule change is borderline insane, and was probably said to distract Yankees fans from the tricky problem that the Yankees now have no pitching to speak of (which could have been remedied if they had made that trade for Johan Santana, but hey, hindsight is 20-20, right?). Anyway, Hank, keep it up: you're definitely entertaining this baseball fan.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Gradumacation Day
About 18 hours ago, I graduated from law school.
(Waits for applause)
(Suddenly realizes he used this same joke two posts ago)
Ahem.
Anyway.
I will have more to say about my law school experience at some point, but for now, I wanted to leave you all with two brief comments.
First, my complete and utter excitement at our entrance music today. Our graduation ceremony was held in the Harper Quadrangle, an outdoor forum. I was quite delighted to discover that we would be entering with a group of bagpipers leading the way (kilts and all) and doubly delighted to discover that their first musical selection was Scotland the Brave, the unofficial Scotch national anthem. Of course, I was excited merely because this particular tune also doubles as Rowdy Roddy Piper's entrance music from both WWF and WCW:
Enjoy Rowdy Roddy Piper's entrance. I always do.
Anyway, I also wanted to express a quick thanks to all my classmates from the past three years. You all have made law school an overall enjoyable experience, and I don't know where I would be without you.
As I was driving back home from dinner with my family this evening, the song "Body of an American" by The Pogues came on. This song was known as the song played on The Wire as a farewell for departed characters, and I can think of no better tribute to those friends I have made over the last few years than the sentiments expressed therein:
Anyway, I love you all. I'll stop being sentimental tomorrow, I promise, but for now, just know that I appreciate and love you all.
Carcetti out.
(Waits for applause)
(Suddenly realizes he used this same joke two posts ago)
Ahem.
Anyway.
I will have more to say about my law school experience at some point, but for now, I wanted to leave you all with two brief comments.
First, my complete and utter excitement at our entrance music today. Our graduation ceremony was held in the Harper Quadrangle, an outdoor forum. I was quite delighted to discover that we would be entering with a group of bagpipers leading the way (kilts and all) and doubly delighted to discover that their first musical selection was Scotland the Brave, the unofficial Scotch national anthem. Of course, I was excited merely because this particular tune also doubles as Rowdy Roddy Piper's entrance music from both WWF and WCW:
Enjoy Rowdy Roddy Piper's entrance. I always do.
Anyway, I also wanted to express a quick thanks to all my classmates from the past three years. You all have made law school an overall enjoyable experience, and I don't know where I would be without you.
As I was driving back home from dinner with my family this evening, the song "Body of an American" by The Pogues came on. This song was known as the song played on The Wire as a farewell for departed characters, and I can think of no better tribute to those friends I have made over the last few years than the sentiments expressed therein:
Anyway, I love you all. I'll stop being sentimental tomorrow, I promise, but for now, just know that I appreciate and love you all.
Carcetti out.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
2162 Votes
Congratulations to presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama.
In the words of Sen. Arnold Vinick: "Okay. Let's go win this thing."
In the words of Sen. Arnold Vinick: "Okay. Let's go win this thing."
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
I'm So Excited! I'm So Excited! I'm So... Scared!
Apologies for not posting much lately. I spent last week pulling double-duty, running from final exams in the morning to my bar exam prep course in the afternoon. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank both the University of Chicago Law School and Bar/Bri for their thoughtful course scheduling that made my life a living hell last week. On the plus side, I'm now entirely done with law school.
(Waits for applause)
Ahem. Okay. Well then.
Anyway, I had planned a whole introspective post on law school, but let's be honest, you don't really want to read that. How about a "By the Numbers" post instead? I haven't written one yet for CarcettiBlog v.3.0. Consider this my graduation gift to you all.
Oh, also, I'm currently trying to give up caffeine, so if my thoughts seem a little, well, hazy and unclear, that's probably because I haven't woken up yet.
Carcetti By the Numbers
Days Without Caffeine: 2
Number of Times I Almost Fell Asleep in Yesterday's Bar/Bri Class: 3
Expected Number of Times I Will Almost Fall Asleep in Today's Bar/Bri Class: 5
Likely Correlation Between My Efforts to Give Up Caffeine and My Falling Asleep in Bar/Bri Class: 100%
Time I Woke Up This Morning: 7:15
Current Time: 11:45 A.M.
Number of Hours Spent While Groggy: 4.5
Likely Correlation Between My Efforts to Give Up Caffeine and My Current Grogginess: 100%
Hours Played of MLB 08: The Show Over the Last Four Days: ~10.
Video Derrek Lee's Stats (Through Video June 1): .475/.514/.616/1.130; 88 hits; 6 HR; 35 RBI; 35-of-39 stolen bases.
Real Derrek Lee's Stats (Through June 3): .293/.349/.531/.880; 70 hits; 13 HR; 37 RBI; 3-of-5 stolen bases.
Absurdity Level: Incalculable
Approximate Age of the Woman Who Hit On Me in the Bar on Saturday Night: ~35
Number of Children She Had: 3
Age of the Oldest Child: 16
Age of My Youngest Sister: 16
Minutes Spent Talking To Her After This Revelation: 1
Number Of Times I've Related This Story in the Past Three Days: ~10
Hours Spent on the El in the Last Two Days: ~4
Hours Spent Jogging in the Last Two Days: 1.6
Hours of Train Ride Spent Reading Sports Illustrated: 2
Hours of Train Ride Spent Watching Battlestar Galactica on My Video iPod: 2
Hours Spent Reading For Class at Home: 2
Possibility That I Could Just Kill Three Birds With One Stone and Listen to Bar/Bri Lectures While Jogging: 0%
Number of Curse Words Shouted Upon the Last Realization: ~12 (Depending on whether you count "son of a..." as three words or part of the larger curse phrase)
Estimated Number of Whiny Posts in the Near Future About How Bored I Am at Bar Exam Prep Course: 5
(Waits for applause)
Ahem. Okay. Well then.
Anyway, I had planned a whole introspective post on law school, but let's be honest, you don't really want to read that. How about a "By the Numbers" post instead? I haven't written one yet for CarcettiBlog v.3.0. Consider this my graduation gift to you all.
Oh, also, I'm currently trying to give up caffeine, so if my thoughts seem a little, well, hazy and unclear, that's probably because I haven't woken up yet.
Carcetti By the Numbers
Days Without Caffeine: 2
Number of Times I Almost Fell Asleep in Yesterday's Bar/Bri Class: 3
Expected Number of Times I Will Almost Fall Asleep in Today's Bar/Bri Class: 5
Likely Correlation Between My Efforts to Give Up Caffeine and My Falling Asleep in Bar/Bri Class: 100%
Time I Woke Up This Morning: 7:15
Current Time: 11:45 A.M.
Number of Hours Spent While Groggy: 4.5
Likely Correlation Between My Efforts to Give Up Caffeine and My Current Grogginess: 100%
Hours Played of MLB 08: The Show Over the Last Four Days: ~10.
Video Derrek Lee's Stats (Through Video June 1): .475/.514/.616/1.130; 88 hits; 6 HR; 35 RBI; 35-of-39 stolen bases.
Real Derrek Lee's Stats (Through June 3): .293/.349/.531/.880; 70 hits; 13 HR; 37 RBI; 3-of-5 stolen bases.
Absurdity Level: Incalculable
Approximate Age of the Woman Who Hit On Me in the Bar on Saturday Night: ~35
Number of Children She Had: 3
Age of the Oldest Child: 16
Age of My Youngest Sister: 16
Minutes Spent Talking To Her After This Revelation: 1
Number Of Times I've Related This Story in the Past Three Days: ~10
Hours Spent on the El in the Last Two Days: ~4
Hours Spent Jogging in the Last Two Days: 1.6
Hours of Train Ride Spent Reading Sports Illustrated: 2
Hours of Train Ride Spent Watching Battlestar Galactica on My Video iPod: 2
Hours Spent Reading For Class at Home: 2
Possibility That I Could Just Kill Three Birds With One Stone and Listen to Bar/Bri Lectures While Jogging: 0%
Number of Curse Words Shouted Upon the Last Realization: ~12 (Depending on whether you count "son of a..." as three words or part of the larger curse phrase)
Estimated Number of Whiny Posts in the Near Future About How Bored I Am at Bar Exam Prep Course: 5
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Simpsons Reference of the Day
Me: I need something good to write for my note of support for Anne.
Grant: To the Steelworkers of America, keep reaching for that rainbow?
Reference: "Homer's Phobia", Season 8, Episode 15.
Grant: To the Steelworkers of America, keep reaching for that rainbow?
Reference: "Homer's Phobia", Season 8, Episode 15.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Simpsons Reference of the Day
(During a cook-out lunch at the law school)
AK: Is this American cheese?
ML: I think its cheddar, actually.
Me: Mmmmmmm... sixty-four slices of American cheese.
Reference: "Rosebud", Season 5, Episode 4.
(Note: I actually knew a kid in my fraternity who ate 64 slices of American cheese in a single sitting. A devil with the ladies, that one.)
AK: Is this American cheese?
ML: I think its cheddar, actually.
Me: Mmmmmmm... sixty-four slices of American cheese.
Reference: "Rosebud", Season 5, Episode 4.
(Note: I actually knew a kid in my fraternity who ate 64 slices of American cheese in a single sitting. A devil with the ladies, that one.)
VP Thoughts: Republicans
The blogosphere has been abuzz of late with the news that both Barack Obama and John McCain are beginning the lengthy process of picking vice-presidential candidates. Both Obama and McCain are playing their cards close to the chest and are allowing very little information about their respective processes to leak out, leading to some wild speculation about both shortlists. Bloggers, pundits and journalists are having a blast making their own lists, from the logical (Charlie Crist) to the unlikely (Kathleen Sebelius) to the clinically insane (Jim Webb).
So, with that in mind, I thought I would join the party and make my own short list for both sides, beginning with the Republicans today and the Democrats tomorrow.
Names I've Seen In No Particular Order: Gov. Charlie Crist (FL), Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA), former Gov. Mitt Romney (MA), former Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR), former Gov. Jeb Bush (FL), Gov. Mark Sanford (SC), Gov. Haley Barbour (MS), Gov. Tim Pawlenty (MN), Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Sen. Norm Coleman (MN), Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC), Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE), Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), Sen. John Thune (SD), former Rep. Rob Portman (OH), Sec. Condoleezza Rice (CA), Sec. Tom Ridge (PA), and Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I-NY).
That is quite a list of luminaries. A bit of a ruckus emerged this week when the New York Times reported that McCain would be meeting with three such possible candidates this weekend at his home in Arizona: Crist, Jindal and Romney. Time magazine later clarified that Lieberman and Graham will also be in attendance, while Pawlenty and Huckabee were both invited but could not attend due to other obligations (Pawlenty has a wedding, the Huckster will be on a cruise with his wife). I do not put much stock in the idea that McCain will be using this opportunity to size up VP candidates, since the gathering seems to be more of a thank-you get-together for high-profile supporters.
That said, the parameters for a possible McCain pick seem to be pretty clear: McCain needs somebody younger (although it's going to be hard to find anybody older than John McCain), somebody who's prepared to be president, somebody who can appeal to conservatives or at least shore up support among the right wing of the party (and if they're not, they had better be able to carry a crucial swing demographic group in the middle to make up for that), somebody who knows economic policy (since McCain openly admits he knows nothing of it) and preferably somebody who can carry a swing state.
With that in mind, the candidates who best meet those qualifications are Mark Sanford, Charlie Crist, Tim Pawlenty, and Rob Portman. Sanford is a darling of the fiscal wing of the Republican Party (read: I love him) who will definitely help shore up support in the South. Charlie Crist has only been in office for a couple of years; probably won't do anything to help carry the South beyond Florida (which McCain will win anyway); and there's a few, um, rumors about him that will probably prevent him from being chosen. Pawlenty has the same benefits as Sanford but can help carry Minnesota, a state that is otherwise turning blue. Portman is perfect for economic policy, youth, and general political acumen, but he carries with him the added baggage of being a Bush administration cabinet official. He's also not terribly well known nationwide, and probably will do nothing to help carry Ohio in the fall.
My best guess is that the pick will end up being Sanford or Pawlenty for the reasons I described above.
Why I Rejected Some Other Possible Candidates:
Bobby Jindal - I love Bobby Jindal. I've donated to three candidates for political office in my life, and Jindal was one of them (for his first gubernatorial campaign in 2003). He's incredibly bright and is a talented politician. The downside to Jindal is that he's young (only 36) and has been in office for less than a year at this point. Jindal is the future of the party, and will be on a national ticket at some point - just not this year (although Sanford-Jindal 2016 or Pawlenty-Jindal 2016 sounds pretty damn good to me).
Mitt Romney - Romney's best asset is his business acumen and general economic knowledge. McCain could easily use Romney as a kind of economic pinch-hitter, deferring all questions on economic and fiscal policy to Romney while focusing exclusively on foreign policy and national defense. Unfortunately, Romney is still not trusted by the right wing (due to his flip-flopping on abortion and other issues), can't carry his home state (Massachusetts is blue and staying blue, Michigan probably the same), and doesn't seem to get along with McCain all that well. He's a possible pick for Treasury Secretary, but I can't see him getting the VP nod.
Condi Rice - Again, as with Jindal, I absolutely love Condi Rice. There's simply no way that one of the most inner members of George W. Bush's inner circle is getting on the ticket, though. All the Dems would have to do is repeat the story about Condi shoe-shopping in New York during Hurricane Katrina over and over again, which would completely undo any advantage Rice brings. Plus, her primary area of expertise (national security) is one that McCain needs no help in. Rice is intriguing, but unlikely.
Michael Bloomberg - New York Magazine published an article this week pitching Bloomberg as a possible veep nominee for both McCain and Obama. I simply can't see this happening. It's too much of a stretch.
I'm not even going to bother covering why I rejected Huckabee, Graham, and the others, but most of those candidates have the same flaws as the four I wrote about. Each fails to meet at least one piece of the criteria I've listed above.
The Pick: Pawlenty. I love Mark Sanford, and I think he's the best possible choice for McCain. Most of the buzz seems to be going to Pawlenty, though, and I think the appeal of bringing Minnesota back into the Republican column when the South will likely stay Republican anyway will be overpowering.
So, with that in mind, I thought I would join the party and make my own short list for both sides, beginning with the Republicans today and the Democrats tomorrow.
Names I've Seen In No Particular Order: Gov. Charlie Crist (FL), Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA), former Gov. Mitt Romney (MA), former Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR), former Gov. Jeb Bush (FL), Gov. Mark Sanford (SC), Gov. Haley Barbour (MS), Gov. Tim Pawlenty (MN), Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Sen. Norm Coleman (MN), Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC), Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE), Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), Sen. John Thune (SD), former Rep. Rob Portman (OH), Sec. Condoleezza Rice (CA), Sec. Tom Ridge (PA), and Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I-NY).
That is quite a list of luminaries. A bit of a ruckus emerged this week when the New York Times reported that McCain would be meeting with three such possible candidates this weekend at his home in Arizona: Crist, Jindal and Romney. Time magazine later clarified that Lieberman and Graham will also be in attendance, while Pawlenty and Huckabee were both invited but could not attend due to other obligations (Pawlenty has a wedding, the Huckster will be on a cruise with his wife). I do not put much stock in the idea that McCain will be using this opportunity to size up VP candidates, since the gathering seems to be more of a thank-you get-together for high-profile supporters.
That said, the parameters for a possible McCain pick seem to be pretty clear: McCain needs somebody younger (although it's going to be hard to find anybody older than John McCain), somebody who's prepared to be president, somebody who can appeal to conservatives or at least shore up support among the right wing of the party (and if they're not, they had better be able to carry a crucial swing demographic group in the middle to make up for that), somebody who knows economic policy (since McCain openly admits he knows nothing of it) and preferably somebody who can carry a swing state.
With that in mind, the candidates who best meet those qualifications are Mark Sanford, Charlie Crist, Tim Pawlenty, and Rob Portman. Sanford is a darling of the fiscal wing of the Republican Party (read: I love him) who will definitely help shore up support in the South. Charlie Crist has only been in office for a couple of years; probably won't do anything to help carry the South beyond Florida (which McCain will win anyway); and there's a few, um, rumors about him that will probably prevent him from being chosen. Pawlenty has the same benefits as Sanford but can help carry Minnesota, a state that is otherwise turning blue. Portman is perfect for economic policy, youth, and general political acumen, but he carries with him the added baggage of being a Bush administration cabinet official. He's also not terribly well known nationwide, and probably will do nothing to help carry Ohio in the fall.
My best guess is that the pick will end up being Sanford or Pawlenty for the reasons I described above.
Why I Rejected Some Other Possible Candidates:
Bobby Jindal - I love Bobby Jindal. I've donated to three candidates for political office in my life, and Jindal was one of them (for his first gubernatorial campaign in 2003). He's incredibly bright and is a talented politician. The downside to Jindal is that he's young (only 36) and has been in office for less than a year at this point. Jindal is the future of the party, and will be on a national ticket at some point - just not this year (although Sanford-Jindal 2016 or Pawlenty-Jindal 2016 sounds pretty damn good to me).
Mitt Romney - Romney's best asset is his business acumen and general economic knowledge. McCain could easily use Romney as a kind of economic pinch-hitter, deferring all questions on economic and fiscal policy to Romney while focusing exclusively on foreign policy and national defense. Unfortunately, Romney is still not trusted by the right wing (due to his flip-flopping on abortion and other issues), can't carry his home state (Massachusetts is blue and staying blue, Michigan probably the same), and doesn't seem to get along with McCain all that well. He's a possible pick for Treasury Secretary, but I can't see him getting the VP nod.
Condi Rice - Again, as with Jindal, I absolutely love Condi Rice. There's simply no way that one of the most inner members of George W. Bush's inner circle is getting on the ticket, though. All the Dems would have to do is repeat the story about Condi shoe-shopping in New York during Hurricane Katrina over and over again, which would completely undo any advantage Rice brings. Plus, her primary area of expertise (national security) is one that McCain needs no help in. Rice is intriguing, but unlikely.
Michael Bloomberg - New York Magazine published an article this week pitching Bloomberg as a possible veep nominee for both McCain and Obama. I simply can't see this happening. It's too much of a stretch.
I'm not even going to bother covering why I rejected Huckabee, Graham, and the others, but most of those candidates have the same flaws as the four I wrote about. Each fails to meet at least one piece of the criteria I've listed above.
The Pick: Pawlenty. I love Mark Sanford, and I think he's the best possible choice for McCain. Most of the buzz seems to be going to Pawlenty, though, and I think the appeal of bringing Minnesota back into the Republican column when the South will likely stay Republican anyway will be overpowering.
Monday, May 19, 2008
There It Is, Tommy, the Cleverest Thing You'll Ever Say and No One Is Around to Hear It
A shot of sideline reporter Craig Sager during this evening's Spurs-Hornets game (Game 7 in the Western Conference Semifinals) led to this exchange:
Me: What the hell is Craig Sager wearing?
JD: (giggling at Sager's garish pinstripe suit and paisley tie)
Me: He looks like... like a guy from the 70s... who's trying to look like a guy from the 30s.
JD: Combining the best aspects of the disco and gangster eras?
I realize that making fun of Sager's outfits is like using a bazooka to blast a fish in a rain puddle, but seriously, you had to see this suit.
(And yes, the headline for this post gets the "Simpsons Reference of the Day" tag. Reference: "Two Bad Neighbors", Season 7, Episode 13)
Me: What the hell is Craig Sager wearing?
JD: (giggling at Sager's garish pinstripe suit and paisley tie)
Me: He looks like... like a guy from the 70s... who's trying to look like a guy from the 30s.
JD: Combining the best aspects of the disco and gangster eras?
I realize that making fun of Sager's outfits is like using a bazooka to blast a fish in a rain puddle, but seriously, you had to see this suit.
(And yes, the headline for this post gets the "Simpsons Reference of the Day" tag. Reference: "Two Bad Neighbors", Season 7, Episode 13)
Simpsons Reference of the Day
(after explaining the concept of BABIP [batting average on balls hit in play] to M)
M: What was it about my face that suggested to you guys that I wanted you to explain that to me?
Me: I like stories.
(Note: Exchange has been edited to reflect what my response should have been; actual response was something along the lines of "I like hearing myself talk.")
Reference: "Itchy & Scratchy: The Movie", Season 4, Episode 6.
M: What was it about my face that suggested to you guys that I wanted you to explain that to me?
Me: I like stories.
(Note: Exchange has been edited to reflect what my response should have been; actual response was something along the lines of "I like hearing myself talk.")
Reference: "Itchy & Scratchy: The Movie", Season 4, Episode 6.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Edmonds Update
Despite my best efforts, the Cubs signed Jim Edmonds late last night. Cot's Baseball Contracts says it's for a pro-rated amount of major-league minimum, or about $290K.
I still predict this ends badly.
I still predict this ends badly.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Where Am I?
I spent most of today filling out benefit forms for the job I will start in the fall. In between the midst of 401Ks, health plans, life insurance plans, vision plans, dental plans, health savings accounts, employee information forms, and equipment election forms, I had a bit of an epiphany.
I am twenty-five years old.
My parents married in the late 1970s when they were both 22 years old. By this point in their lives, my parents had been married for two and a half years and Dad was in the middle of his first year of medical school. I was still two years away, but I know they were already trying to start a family. My grandparents' generation was even more so: Dad's parents married right after Grandpa graduated from college (and they punched out my Dad nine months later) - by this point, my Dad is 2 years old and my grandparents are pondering my uncle. Mom's parents are roughly the same way, except that my Mom is 2 and my oldest aunt is either on the way or already here.
Meanwhile, I have graduated from one of the best public universities in the United States and I am about to graduate from a top ten law school. I have spoken freely with senators, worked on legal problems at the highest level, been elected to the highest office a student can hold at my college, and had a beer with the former CEO of the Sara Lee Corporation. Yet I also note that I spend much of my free time playing video games and I, at times, still feel like the frat guy who was all excited about Station's dollar bottle special on Thursday nights.
Am I near where my parents and grandparents were at this point in their lives? Maybe. I've accomplished more educationally at this point than anybody except my Dad (and possibly more than him), and accomplished more professionally (even at this early date) except for my Dad and maybe my Grandpa on my Dad's side (my grandparents on Dad's side are small business owners; my Mom's dad is a retired factory worker; Mom's mom worked a variety of jobs over the years culminating in a stint as... well, I'm not clear what she did, but she worked for a small business for many years in their hometown. I am going to a prestigious Chicago law firm in the fall where I will no doubt do my best to assist large corporations with their legal problems). Have I accomplished as much personally? Debatable. I've had the opportunities to get married (twice, in fact) and am currently single by choice. I certainly do not have children, and it is uncertain whether I ever well. Perhaps I am far too picky for my own good.
Despite the fact that I am about to embark on a career where a simple mistake may cost a company millions of dollars, I cannot shake the feeling that I am still far too immature for my own good. Witness, for example, my differing reactions when asked about a legal problem versus a sports problem. If you ask me about a potential baseball trade, or the results of the Chicago Bulls' latest season, then I am likely to have an opinion and will make several points supporting my analysis (the same holds for any kind of political question). Ask me an important legal question, though, or try to engage me in Socratic method in class, and I enter what humorist P.J. O'Rourke termed the "MEGO" phase: "My Eyes Glaze Over". And yet, what career have I chosen?
I have to keep reminding myself of two things: First, I am not living in the same time period that my father and grandfather entered the "real world" in. Being single/unmarried/without kids but being highly educated at my age is much more common/acceptable today than it was in 1980 and 1955.* Second, although I've never had this discussion with any of them, it is all too likely that my Dad and both of my Grandpas had these exact same thoughts. All of them likely had the same doubts, fears, ambitions and dreams that I have right now. And all of them got past it - or, at least, got past it enough to serve as inspirations, guides, and guardians for the future... for me.
Yet I cannot shake the feeling that I am nowhere near where my parents and my grandparents were at this point in their lives. Intellectually, I know that I have achieved more than they ever could have hoped for, and that they are proud of me for doing so. Emotionally... I remain unconvinced.
*"This is the wrong 1955!" (You get a Tommy Point if you tell me what movie that quote is from.)
I am twenty-five years old.
My parents married in the late 1970s when they were both 22 years old. By this point in their lives, my parents had been married for two and a half years and Dad was in the middle of his first year of medical school. I was still two years away, but I know they were already trying to start a family. My grandparents' generation was even more so: Dad's parents married right after Grandpa graduated from college (and they punched out my Dad nine months later) - by this point, my Dad is 2 years old and my grandparents are pondering my uncle. Mom's parents are roughly the same way, except that my Mom is 2 and my oldest aunt is either on the way or already here.
Meanwhile, I have graduated from one of the best public universities in the United States and I am about to graduate from a top ten law school. I have spoken freely with senators, worked on legal problems at the highest level, been elected to the highest office a student can hold at my college, and had a beer with the former CEO of the Sara Lee Corporation. Yet I also note that I spend much of my free time playing video games and I, at times, still feel like the frat guy who was all excited about Station's dollar bottle special on Thursday nights.
Am I near where my parents and grandparents were at this point in their lives? Maybe. I've accomplished more educationally at this point than anybody except my Dad (and possibly more than him), and accomplished more professionally (even at this early date) except for my Dad and maybe my Grandpa on my Dad's side (my grandparents on Dad's side are small business owners; my Mom's dad is a retired factory worker; Mom's mom worked a variety of jobs over the years culminating in a stint as... well, I'm not clear what she did, but she worked for a small business for many years in their hometown. I am going to a prestigious Chicago law firm in the fall where I will no doubt do my best to assist large corporations with their legal problems). Have I accomplished as much personally? Debatable. I've had the opportunities to get married (twice, in fact) and am currently single by choice. I certainly do not have children, and it is uncertain whether I ever well. Perhaps I am far too picky for my own good.
Despite the fact that I am about to embark on a career where a simple mistake may cost a company millions of dollars, I cannot shake the feeling that I am still far too immature for my own good. Witness, for example, my differing reactions when asked about a legal problem versus a sports problem. If you ask me about a potential baseball trade, or the results of the Chicago Bulls' latest season, then I am likely to have an opinion and will make several points supporting my analysis (the same holds for any kind of political question). Ask me an important legal question, though, or try to engage me in Socratic method in class, and I enter what humorist P.J. O'Rourke termed the "MEGO" phase: "My Eyes Glaze Over". And yet, what career have I chosen?
I have to keep reminding myself of two things: First, I am not living in the same time period that my father and grandfather entered the "real world" in. Being single/unmarried/without kids but being highly educated at my age is much more common/acceptable today than it was in 1980 and 1955.* Second, although I've never had this discussion with any of them, it is all too likely that my Dad and both of my Grandpas had these exact same thoughts. All of them likely had the same doubts, fears, ambitions and dreams that I have right now. And all of them got past it - or, at least, got past it enough to serve as inspirations, guides, and guardians for the future... for me.
Yet I cannot shake the feeling that I am nowhere near where my parents and my grandparents were at this point in their lives. Intellectually, I know that I have achieved more than they ever could have hoped for, and that they are proud of me for doing so. Emotionally... I remain unconvinced.
*"This is the wrong 1955!" (You get a Tommy Point if you tell me what movie that quote is from.)
Monday, May 12, 2008
Please, Jim Hendry, I'm Begging You...
If you will all indulge me in a baseball-related vignette...
Those of you who were around the law school today may have heard me ranting about this article. (Original source article here, hat tip to MLB Trade Rumors)
For those of you too lazy to read it, it suggests that the Cubs may indulge Manager Lou Piniella's left-handed-power-hitting-outfielder jones by signing Jim Edmonds, recently released from the San Diego Padres and formerly of National League Central Division rival St. Louis Cardinals.
I cannot even begin to emphasize how terrible of an idea this is. But hey, I'll take a shot:
A) The San Diego Padres have a run differential of 128-173. Opponents have outscored them by 45 runs this season. I don't have Baseball Prospectus' preseason PECOTA prediction for runs scored handy, but it suggested that they would go 79-83, suggesting a 48%-52% run differential for the season. One major reason for this? The presence of Jim Edmonds.
B) Jim Edmonds is 37 years old.
C) St. Louis gave Edmonds away last winter while agreeing to pay part of his salary. Generally speaking, trading for/signing guys other teams are so desperate to get rid of that they agree to pay part of their salary is not good business sense (see, ex., Monroe, Craig, all of 2007 season).*
D) Jim Edmonds' 2008 line: .178/.265/.233. His 2007 line: .252/.325/.403. His 2006 line: .257/.350/.471. His 2005 line: .263/.385/.533. See a trend in those numbers?
E) Super-nerd stat time: From 2005 through 2008, Edmonds' EqA: .307, .285, .260, .187. (.260 is average). From 2005 through 2008, Edmonds' WARP3: 10.4, 4.6, 3.8, 0. Similar declines in both WARP1 and WARP2. Ditto for defensive numbers. About the only thing that didn't change was his K/BB rate, except this year (and as with all 2008 numbers, there's a SMALL SAMPLE SIZE ALERT attached to them).
Now, the obvious point I've been trying to make with all these stats is that Edmonds simply isn't a productive player any more. Granted, his production this year should not be this bad - his BABIP is .227 (average is .290), so he's probably "due" to improve his overall numbers. Of course, Edmonds' BABIP has also been consistently declining at the same rate as the rest of his numbers over the past few years. Edmonds, though, being a formerly dominant left-handed hitting power-hitting outfielder, has emerged on the Cubs' radar to replace/platoon with Felix Pie and Reed Johnson. Which brings me to my next point...
F) This plan, if it came to fruition, would take valuable at-bats away from Chicago's best outfield prospect. Now, I will grant you that Felix Pie is having a rough start to the year. He's largely been replaced as a starter by Reed Johnson, who was rather inexplicably cut by the Blue Jays to start the year (Note: I am also not a fan of Reed Johnson being a starter - great utility guy, though). As of this morning, though, Felix Pie has 264 career major league plate appearances. You know how he gets better, how he becomes more comfortable at the plate? BY GETTING MORE PLATE APPEARANCES. Giving up on one of your best prospects and sending him back down to Triple-A (where he was mashing minor league pitchers, by the way) in favor of an ancient 37-year-old with bad knees is the definition of short-sighted madness.
I know the Cubs have a real chance to contend this year, and that they are probably only a piece or two away from making a spot in the postseason certain. That said, sending Felix Pie back down to AAA is probably not going to help his development at all, nor will sending Jim Edmonds to patrol the outfield help the Cubs' postseason chances. If you're really that hard up for a final piece to the puzzle, make a Godfather offer to Cincinnati for Ken Griffey, Jr. (and send Kosuke Fukudome out to patrol center), talk to the Marlins about Luis Gonzalez on a one-year rental, or try to grab Matt Stairs from the Blue Jays. Hell, you could even try to talk the Giants out of Randy Winn if you really wanted to. I'm not advocating any of those moves (although seeing Griffey in a Cubs uniform would be pretty cool), but they would all be better than signing Jim Edmonds. Plus, let's not forget that if you want a young, left-handed hitting center fielder who plays good defense and has the capacity to be a star, you already have that in Felix Pie. Please, Jim, I'm begging you. You've made so many strides this year (signing Fukudome especially) toward allowing me to forgive you for the craptastic Juan Pierre and Craig Monroe trades and the Jacque Jones and Jason Marquis signings. Don't put yourself back to square one with me.
*I know, I know - gross overgeneralization. It's still a pretty damn bad idea, though.
Those of you who were around the law school today may have heard me ranting about this article. (Original source article here, hat tip to MLB Trade Rumors)
For those of you too lazy to read it, it suggests that the Cubs may indulge Manager Lou Piniella's left-handed-power-hitting-outfielder jones by signing Jim Edmonds, recently released from the San Diego Padres and formerly of National League Central Division rival St. Louis Cardinals.
I cannot even begin to emphasize how terrible of an idea this is. But hey, I'll take a shot:
A) The San Diego Padres have a run differential of 128-173. Opponents have outscored them by 45 runs this season. I don't have Baseball Prospectus' preseason PECOTA prediction for runs scored handy, but it suggested that they would go 79-83, suggesting a 48%-52% run differential for the season. One major reason for this? The presence of Jim Edmonds.
B) Jim Edmonds is 37 years old.
C) St. Louis gave Edmonds away last winter while agreeing to pay part of his salary. Generally speaking, trading for/signing guys other teams are so desperate to get rid of that they agree to pay part of their salary is not good business sense (see, ex., Monroe, Craig, all of 2007 season).*
D) Jim Edmonds' 2008 line: .178/.265/.233. His 2007 line: .252/.325/.403. His 2006 line: .257/.350/.471. His 2005 line: .263/.385/.533. See a trend in those numbers?
E) Super-nerd stat time: From 2005 through 2008, Edmonds' EqA: .307, .285, .260, .187. (.260 is average). From 2005 through 2008, Edmonds' WARP3: 10.4, 4.6, 3.8, 0. Similar declines in both WARP1 and WARP2. Ditto for defensive numbers. About the only thing that didn't change was his K/BB rate, except this year (and as with all 2008 numbers, there's a SMALL SAMPLE SIZE ALERT attached to them).
Now, the obvious point I've been trying to make with all these stats is that Edmonds simply isn't a productive player any more. Granted, his production this year should not be this bad - his BABIP is .227 (average is .290), so he's probably "due" to improve his overall numbers. Of course, Edmonds' BABIP has also been consistently declining at the same rate as the rest of his numbers over the past few years. Edmonds, though, being a formerly dominant left-handed hitting power-hitting outfielder, has emerged on the Cubs' radar to replace/platoon with Felix Pie and Reed Johnson. Which brings me to my next point...
F) This plan, if it came to fruition, would take valuable at-bats away from Chicago's best outfield prospect. Now, I will grant you that Felix Pie is having a rough start to the year. He's largely been replaced as a starter by Reed Johnson, who was rather inexplicably cut by the Blue Jays to start the year (Note: I am also not a fan of Reed Johnson being a starter - great utility guy, though). As of this morning, though, Felix Pie has 264 career major league plate appearances. You know how he gets better, how he becomes more comfortable at the plate? BY GETTING MORE PLATE APPEARANCES. Giving up on one of your best prospects and sending him back down to Triple-A (where he was mashing minor league pitchers, by the way) in favor of an ancient 37-year-old with bad knees is the definition of short-sighted madness.
I know the Cubs have a real chance to contend this year, and that they are probably only a piece or two away from making a spot in the postseason certain. That said, sending Felix Pie back down to AAA is probably not going to help his development at all, nor will sending Jim Edmonds to patrol the outfield help the Cubs' postseason chances. If you're really that hard up for a final piece to the puzzle, make a Godfather offer to Cincinnati for Ken Griffey, Jr. (and send Kosuke Fukudome out to patrol center), talk to the Marlins about Luis Gonzalez on a one-year rental, or try to grab Matt Stairs from the Blue Jays. Hell, you could even try to talk the Giants out of Randy Winn if you really wanted to. I'm not advocating any of those moves (although seeing Griffey in a Cubs uniform would be pretty cool), but they would all be better than signing Jim Edmonds. Plus, let's not forget that if you want a young, left-handed hitting center fielder who plays good defense and has the capacity to be a star, you already have that in Felix Pie. Please, Jim, I'm begging you. You've made so many strides this year (signing Fukudome especially) toward allowing me to forgive you for the craptastic Juan Pierre and Craig Monroe trades and the Jacque Jones and Jason Marquis signings. Don't put yourself back to square one with me.
*I know, I know - gross overgeneralization. It's still a pretty damn bad idea, though.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Movie Review: "21"
When I was in college, a few of my fraternity brothers and I took a spring break trip to Las Vegas. One of us brought along a copy of Ben Mezrich's book Bringing Down the House, his account of the version of the MIT blackjack team that operated in the 1990s. The story, like Vegas itself, was fast-paced and filled with glittering lights, impossible riches, and danger around every corner. Best of all, the protagonists who won these impossible riches were 21-or-22-year-olds, just like us (except that none of us can do math to save our lives - I'm handy at figuring out poker percentages and betting odds, but my eyes glaze over whenever I consider anything past freshman year algebra).
Naturally, I was very excited to watch 21, the movie adaptation of the story. For the most part, the movie delivers, but there are a few annoying plot modifications and twists that didn't seem to add to the story. Cinematography, editing, and sound are all top-notch and add to the glittering, flashing feel of Vegas, but the screenplay could have used another polish or two. Acting was largely good, although - as I'll get to in a minute - I still do not understand the appeal of Kate Bosworth.
Basic plot summary: Ben (Jim Sturgess) is a senior about to graduate from MIT and go off to Harvard Medical School. Unfortunately, he cannot afford the $300K it will apparently cost to attend there, and since there do not seem to be any student loans in this universe (annoying plot point # 1), Ben must find another way to pay for it. Enter Professor Mickey Rosa (Kevin Spacey), who operates a team of math-whiz-cum-card-counting students. The team wreaks havoc in Vegas with security expert Cole Williams (Laurence Fishburne) hot on their trail. Ben gets into a romance with Jill (Kate Bosworth) along the way, numerous bad things happen to Ben, and then the resolution happens.
For those of you who haven't seen the movie or read the book, the card-counting strategy is deceptively simple. In blackjack, if a casino is using a shoe with multiple decks (just nod your head and pretend you know what I'm talking about - all it means is that you use 5 or 6 decks of cards at a time), your odds of drawing a good hand will be better if more low cards have already come and gone from the shoe. The team would assign a "spotter" who would sit at a table and play the minimum, all the while counting cards. Low cards (2-5, I think) would receive a -1, 6-8 would receive no number at all, and 9-A would receive +1. (Apologies if I have reversed this or gotten the groupings wrong). If you reach a point where you are halfway through the deck and your count is extremely high (+15, for example), the deck is primed to have very, very good odds for players. At that point, the spotter would signal in another team member as the "big player" - usually posing as the heir to an oil fortune or a dot-com bazillionaire or something similar - who would then bet the big bucks and (usually) win. When the deck ran cold, they would stop playing, get up, and walk away.
The film does an excellent job describing and explaining actual blackjack play, which was probably crucial to a movie like this. As a Vegas-phile (is that the correct term?), I was pleased to see that Las Vegas in all its glory does receive a fitting treatment with overhead shots and the obligatory hey-everybody-let's-drive-in-a-limo-through-Vegas-and-see-the-sights (although that scene does have the Thirteen Days Problem* wherein they drive by landmarks that are in no way connected to each other, nor that they would have driven by en route from McCarran Airport to their final destination).
One note on the acting: Jim Sturgess was surprisingly good as Ben, going from a stammering, stuttering, unsure-of-himself clothing salesman to a high-roller in Vegas with ease. Kevin Spacey is actually good in this one, too. The other team members are quite good as well, except for the guy who plays Fisher (Jacob Pitts), who couldn't seem to put together a decent scene. Unfortunately, all this is trumped by the presence of Kate Bosworth, who was remarkably terrible. She had zero on-screen chemistry with Ben, wore the exact same expression for the entire movie, and generally added nothing to the film. Maybe it's just me, but I've never been able to stand Kate Bosworth - something about her just annoys me. Possibly it's residual annoyance over the fact that she was in Remember the Titans, a movie I absolutely hated, although I don't have that same problem with Denzel. It's probably just her, then.
Super-Annoying Plot Aspects That Probably Only Annoyed Me
The following a several super-annoying plot aspects that probably only annoyed me. Being a Vegas-phile and a grad student, I think I had the exact same reaction I get (digression alert!)when I watch inaccurate historical movies as a history major: that is to say, I roll my eyes at every inaccuracy and eventually end up doing things like - for example - when I was watching the movie Troy and ended up yelling at the television that Achilles was using incorrect combat tactics and that if he wished to fight as the Greeks actually did, he should form a line with shields and spears and fight like a real hoplite. Achilles did not take my advice. (End digression alert)
Annoying Plot Point #1: Ben's Quest to Pay for Medical School
As the holder of six figures worth of student loans that I have incurred in law school, I have to ask: doesn't Harvard have student loan programs to pay for medical school? More to the point, Ben (as the son of a single-parent household who just graduated from college) wouldn't have qualified for need-based grants? Aren't there other scholarships beyond this "Robinson Scholarship", a MacGuffin Ben chases for the entire movie? Harvard's endowment was $25.9 billion in 2005 - can't they spare some loose change for Ben? Why did he need to find some external source of income? Did the producers assume that only rich people could afford Harvard?
Annoying Plot Point #2: Ben's Fear of Banks
At one point in the movie, Ben is keeping over $300K in the drop-down ceiling in his dorm room (doesn't anybody at MIT move off campus for their senior year?). While I understand that he may not wish to put all that money into a bank account for fear of incurring the wrath of the IRS (and as a budding lawyer, I urge Ben to pay his taxes now lest he incur their wrath), couldn't he at least have put it into a safety deposit box or hidden it behind a picture frame (like Matt Damon's character in Rounders) or buried it under a dog house (like Denzel Washington in American Gangster)? Really? You're gonna keep $300K in a dorm room and hope that it doesn't get stolen? I didn't like leaving my computer in my dorm room for fear that it would be stolen, for crying out loud. Unless Ben has a Great Depression-style fear of banks, I would recommend the safety deposit box. Here and here are two banks in the Cambridge area that seem to offer this service.
Annoying Plot Point #3: Oh-No-Laurence-Fishburne-Is-Being-Replaced-By-a-Computer
If the producers intended this plot point as a parody of Fishburne's role in the Matrix movies, then bravo. Remarkably clever. If not, then I have to take issue with the Luddite nature of this plot point. Fishburne's security agency is being shoved out in favor of security software that uses biometric analysis to examine faces and reactions for cheaters (there's an excellent example of this in Ocean's Thirteen). Fishburne, though, proves them wrong by recognizing the strategy and tactics of the MIT blackjack team. I just want to point out that this is not an either-or proposition, here: casinos use both facial-recognition software (and presumably biometric analysis) AND they employ security experts like Fishburne (including former card counters, as in the movie Casino). The casinos know that computers are not perfect, and they have actual humans who fill in the gaps. The software is a tool, nothing more.
Final Analysis
On the whole, I will give 21 my coveted "Wait For Video" status**. Despite the annoying plot points, it is still a rather entertaining movie - generally well acted despite Ms. Bosworth and one that is faithful to the game and city it describes.
*The "Thirteen Days Problem" stems from a scene in Thirteen Days in which Ken O'Donnell drives RFK from the White House to a meeting at the Justice Department, a distance of five or so blocks. Somehow, they drive far, far out of their way up into Georgetown/Embassy Row to look at the Soviet embassy along the way. Something similar happens in my all-time single favorite television episode, The West Wing's second season finale "Two Cathedrals". The president's motorcade drives from the White House to the State Department via the National Cathedral, which is about four or five miles out of the way on a one-mile drive in the opposite direction.
**The different movie rankings I award:
"Drop What You're Doing and Go See This Now" - obvious
"See It in the Theater" - usually reserved for movies with really cool special effects
"Wait for Video" - worth paying for, but you can wait for video
"Wait for Cable" - worth seeing if you're flipping channels
"If You Can Avoid Paying For It Go Ahead and Watch It" - the type of movie that you can watch if you're stuck on a long airplane ride and it won't make you gouge your eyeballs out
"Avoid at All Costs" - reserved for true stinkers like Christmas With the Kranks or Gone Fishin'
Naturally, I was very excited to watch 21, the movie adaptation of the story. For the most part, the movie delivers, but there are a few annoying plot modifications and twists that didn't seem to add to the story. Cinematography, editing, and sound are all top-notch and add to the glittering, flashing feel of Vegas, but the screenplay could have used another polish or two. Acting was largely good, although - as I'll get to in a minute - I still do not understand the appeal of Kate Bosworth.
Basic plot summary: Ben (Jim Sturgess) is a senior about to graduate from MIT and go off to Harvard Medical School. Unfortunately, he cannot afford the $300K it will apparently cost to attend there, and since there do not seem to be any student loans in this universe (annoying plot point # 1), Ben must find another way to pay for it. Enter Professor Mickey Rosa (Kevin Spacey), who operates a team of math-whiz-cum-card-counting students. The team wreaks havoc in Vegas with security expert Cole Williams (Laurence Fishburne) hot on their trail. Ben gets into a romance with Jill (Kate Bosworth) along the way, numerous bad things happen to Ben, and then the resolution happens.
For those of you who haven't seen the movie or read the book, the card-counting strategy is deceptively simple. In blackjack, if a casino is using a shoe with multiple decks (just nod your head and pretend you know what I'm talking about - all it means is that you use 5 or 6 decks of cards at a time), your odds of drawing a good hand will be better if more low cards have already come and gone from the shoe. The team would assign a "spotter" who would sit at a table and play the minimum, all the while counting cards. Low cards (2-5, I think) would receive a -1, 6-8 would receive no number at all, and 9-A would receive +1. (Apologies if I have reversed this or gotten the groupings wrong). If you reach a point where you are halfway through the deck and your count is extremely high (+15, for example), the deck is primed to have very, very good odds for players. At that point, the spotter would signal in another team member as the "big player" - usually posing as the heir to an oil fortune or a dot-com bazillionaire or something similar - who would then bet the big bucks and (usually) win. When the deck ran cold, they would stop playing, get up, and walk away.
The film does an excellent job describing and explaining actual blackjack play, which was probably crucial to a movie like this. As a Vegas-phile (is that the correct term?), I was pleased to see that Las Vegas in all its glory does receive a fitting treatment with overhead shots and the obligatory hey-everybody-let's-drive-in-a-limo-through-Vegas-and-see-the-sights (although that scene does have the Thirteen Days Problem* wherein they drive by landmarks that are in no way connected to each other, nor that they would have driven by en route from McCarran Airport to their final destination).
One note on the acting: Jim Sturgess was surprisingly good as Ben, going from a stammering, stuttering, unsure-of-himself clothing salesman to a high-roller in Vegas with ease. Kevin Spacey is actually good in this one, too. The other team members are quite good as well, except for the guy who plays Fisher (Jacob Pitts), who couldn't seem to put together a decent scene. Unfortunately, all this is trumped by the presence of Kate Bosworth, who was remarkably terrible. She had zero on-screen chemistry with Ben, wore the exact same expression for the entire movie, and generally added nothing to the film. Maybe it's just me, but I've never been able to stand Kate Bosworth - something about her just annoys me. Possibly it's residual annoyance over the fact that she was in Remember the Titans, a movie I absolutely hated, although I don't have that same problem with Denzel. It's probably just her, then.
Super-Annoying Plot Aspects That Probably Only Annoyed Me
The following a several super-annoying plot aspects that probably only annoyed me. Being a Vegas-phile and a grad student, I think I had the exact same reaction I get (digression alert!)when I watch inaccurate historical movies as a history major: that is to say, I roll my eyes at every inaccuracy and eventually end up doing things like - for example - when I was watching the movie Troy and ended up yelling at the television that Achilles was using incorrect combat tactics and that if he wished to fight as the Greeks actually did, he should form a line with shields and spears and fight like a real hoplite. Achilles did not take my advice. (End digression alert)
Annoying Plot Point #1: Ben's Quest to Pay for Medical School
As the holder of six figures worth of student loans that I have incurred in law school, I have to ask: doesn't Harvard have student loan programs to pay for medical school? More to the point, Ben (as the son of a single-parent household who just graduated from college) wouldn't have qualified for need-based grants? Aren't there other scholarships beyond this "Robinson Scholarship", a MacGuffin Ben chases for the entire movie? Harvard's endowment was $25.9 billion in 2005 - can't they spare some loose change for Ben? Why did he need to find some external source of income? Did the producers assume that only rich people could afford Harvard?
Annoying Plot Point #2: Ben's Fear of Banks
At one point in the movie, Ben is keeping over $300K in the drop-down ceiling in his dorm room (doesn't anybody at MIT move off campus for their senior year?). While I understand that he may not wish to put all that money into a bank account for fear of incurring the wrath of the IRS (and as a budding lawyer, I urge Ben to pay his taxes now lest he incur their wrath), couldn't he at least have put it into a safety deposit box or hidden it behind a picture frame (like Matt Damon's character in Rounders) or buried it under a dog house (like Denzel Washington in American Gangster)? Really? You're gonna keep $300K in a dorm room and hope that it doesn't get stolen? I didn't like leaving my computer in my dorm room for fear that it would be stolen, for crying out loud. Unless Ben has a Great Depression-style fear of banks, I would recommend the safety deposit box. Here and here are two banks in the Cambridge area that seem to offer this service.
Annoying Plot Point #3: Oh-No-Laurence-Fishburne-Is-Being-Replaced-By-a-Computer
If the producers intended this plot point as a parody of Fishburne's role in the Matrix movies, then bravo. Remarkably clever. If not, then I have to take issue with the Luddite nature of this plot point. Fishburne's security agency is being shoved out in favor of security software that uses biometric analysis to examine faces and reactions for cheaters (there's an excellent example of this in Ocean's Thirteen). Fishburne, though, proves them wrong by recognizing the strategy and tactics of the MIT blackjack team. I just want to point out that this is not an either-or proposition, here: casinos use both facial-recognition software (and presumably biometric analysis) AND they employ security experts like Fishburne (including former card counters, as in the movie Casino). The casinos know that computers are not perfect, and they have actual humans who fill in the gaps. The software is a tool, nothing more.
Final Analysis
On the whole, I will give 21 my coveted "Wait For Video" status**. Despite the annoying plot points, it is still a rather entertaining movie - generally well acted despite Ms. Bosworth and one that is faithful to the game and city it describes.
*The "Thirteen Days Problem" stems from a scene in Thirteen Days in which Ken O'Donnell drives RFK from the White House to a meeting at the Justice Department, a distance of five or so blocks. Somehow, they drive far, far out of their way up into Georgetown/Embassy Row to look at the Soviet embassy along the way. Something similar happens in my all-time single favorite television episode, The West Wing's second season finale "Two Cathedrals". The president's motorcade drives from the White House to the State Department via the National Cathedral, which is about four or five miles out of the way on a one-mile drive in the opposite direction.
**The different movie rankings I award:
"Drop What You're Doing and Go See This Now" - obvious
"See It in the Theater" - usually reserved for movies with really cool special effects
"Wait for Video" - worth paying for, but you can wait for video
"Wait for Cable" - worth seeing if you're flipping channels
"If You Can Avoid Paying For It Go Ahead and Watch It" - the type of movie that you can watch if you're stuck on a long airplane ride and it won't make you gouge your eyeballs out
"Avoid at All Costs" - reserved for true stinkers like Christmas With the Kranks or Gone Fishin'
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Simpsons Reference of the Day
(during a group meeting in an online chat room)
Me: Pleas forgivethe speling errors.Ther’s something wrong w/my keybord (there actually was something wrong with my keyboard at the time that caused it to not register some of my keystrokes).
NSC: Sure, Tommy, we all know you’re drinking scotch.
Me: Mmmmm, scotch.
MJM: Brownest of the brown liquors.
Reference: “Marge in Chains”, Season 4, Episode 21.
Me: Pleas forgivethe speling errors.Ther’s something wrong w/my keybord (there actually was something wrong with my keyboard at the time that caused it to not register some of my keystrokes).
NSC: Sure, Tommy, we all know you’re drinking scotch.
Me: Mmmmm, scotch.
MJM: Brownest of the brown liquors.
Reference: “Marge in Chains”, Season 4, Episode 21.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Simpsons Reference of the Day
(During a conversation on Campaign 2008)
HEH: Did you see that Fox News thought that the Lincoln-Douglas debates were between Abraham Lincoln a Frederick Douglass? (laughter) What did they debate? ‘I think slavery is bad.’ ‘I agree!’
Me: Maybe they debated lunch. ‘Your chicken noodle soup plan goes too far!’ ‘I say your sandwich plan doesn’t go far enough!’
HEH: What’s the Simpsons episode about that? The one where Kang and Kodos run for president?
Me (quoting): Abortions for all! Boooooo! Very well, abortions for none! Boooooo! Hmmm. Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others! Yaaaaaaaayyyyyy!”
Reference: Treehouse of Horror VII, “Citizen Kang”, Season 8, Episode 1.
HEH: Did you see that Fox News thought that the Lincoln-Douglas debates were between Abraham Lincoln a Frederick Douglass? (laughter) What did they debate? ‘I think slavery is bad.’ ‘I agree!’
Me: Maybe they debated lunch. ‘Your chicken noodle soup plan goes too far!’ ‘I say your sandwich plan doesn’t go far enough!’
HEH: What’s the Simpsons episode about that? The one where Kang and Kodos run for president?
Me (quoting): Abortions for all! Boooooo! Very well, abortions for none! Boooooo! Hmmm. Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others! Yaaaaaaaayyyyyy!”
Reference: Treehouse of Horror VII, “Citizen Kang”, Season 8, Episode 1.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Stuff From the Weekend
Iron Man Opening
CNN: 'Iron Man' Makes Super-Strong Debut - So much for the collective wisdom that GTA IV would cut into Iron Man's opening. The movie made $104.2 million domestically. The article quotes one analyst as saying that this opening wasn't as strong as Spider-Man 3's opening one year ago, to which I would point to my previous statement less popular comic book hero + Robert Downey, Jr. + not a sequal = less strong opening than Spider-Man 3.
Kentucky Derby Wrap-Up
First, let me extend my condolences to the owner, trainer and jockey of Eight Belles. She ran a marvelous race, and her injury and subsequent euthanization was nothing short of a tragedy. Leg injuries to these beautiful and ultimately fragile animals are all too common and an unfortunate aspect of horse racing. The quick action of the veterinary personnel at Churchill Downs on Saturday to euthanize her in her condition deserves special commendation.
ESPN: Favorite Big Brown Dusts Field; Runner-Up Eight Belles Euthanized
As you can tell, I came close to correctly picking the Derby. Big Brown finished first, with Eight Belles a few lengths back and Denis of Cork filling out the trifecta eight lengths beyond her. As I noted previously, one of the bets I made was a Denis of Cork-Big Brown exacta box. Had Denis of Cork finished second instead of third, I would have won my bet. This is the closest I have ever come to correctly picking the Derby, so despite losing I'm rather happy with the result.
I must say, Big Brown's showing on Saturday was extremely impressive. He broke well from the 20th and last position, zoomed right to the front and stayed in second place behind Bob Black Jack - himself a swift horse - for most of the race before turning on the jets at the end. It compares quite favorably to Barbaro's run in 2006. He apparently managed to pull a 109 Beyer Figure for the race (for an explanation of Beyer Figures go here). It speaks well for his possible performance in the Preakness and the Belmont, especially since most of his best competitors will be skipping the Preakness. My best guess: Big Brown wins the Preakness in a walk, then loses the Belmont in a close race to one of Pyro, Colonel John, or Denis of Cork.
MSNBC: PETA Wants Eight Belles' Jockey Suspended - I have little to say about this widely reported and absurd suggestion that Gabriel Saez be suspended for his conduct on Saturday. Injuries such as these - as with Barbaro's injury in 2006 - can come so suddenly and with so little warning that there is ultimately nothing the jockey can do. From all accounts, it appears Saez leaped off as soon as he heard the "pop" and did his best to bring Eight Belles to a stop.
Look, I understand PETA's concern with horse racing. I understand that they consider the sport barbaric, and that the training, whipping, and injuries associated with the sport to be cruelty to animals. But to single out Saez for his actions on Saturday is incorrect and wrong.
Update: Slate explains why Eight Belles had to be put down on the track.
Cedric Benson Arrest
Chicago Bears running back Cedric Benson was arrested on Sunday for boating while intoxicated (which I didn't even realize was a crime given the number of people I know who have done exactly that) and resisting arrest. I must admit that I am having difficulty separating my personal feelings about Benson as a running back with the fact that all of the details of his arrest are not yet in. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his arrest in the absence of other information, but I still think we should trade him for 5 cents on the dollar.
CNN: 'Iron Man' Makes Super-Strong Debut - So much for the collective wisdom that GTA IV would cut into Iron Man's opening. The movie made $104.2 million domestically. The article quotes one analyst as saying that this opening wasn't as strong as Spider-Man 3's opening one year ago, to which I would point to my previous statement less popular comic book hero + Robert Downey, Jr. + not a sequal = less strong opening than Spider-Man 3.
Kentucky Derby Wrap-Up
First, let me extend my condolences to the owner, trainer and jockey of Eight Belles. She ran a marvelous race, and her injury and subsequent euthanization was nothing short of a tragedy. Leg injuries to these beautiful and ultimately fragile animals are all too common and an unfortunate aspect of horse racing. The quick action of the veterinary personnel at Churchill Downs on Saturday to euthanize her in her condition deserves special commendation.
ESPN: Favorite Big Brown Dusts Field; Runner-Up Eight Belles Euthanized
As you can tell, I came close to correctly picking the Derby. Big Brown finished first, with Eight Belles a few lengths back and Denis of Cork filling out the trifecta eight lengths beyond her. As I noted previously, one of the bets I made was a Denis of Cork-Big Brown exacta box. Had Denis of Cork finished second instead of third, I would have won my bet. This is the closest I have ever come to correctly picking the Derby, so despite losing I'm rather happy with the result.
I must say, Big Brown's showing on Saturday was extremely impressive. He broke well from the 20th and last position, zoomed right to the front and stayed in second place behind Bob Black Jack - himself a swift horse - for most of the race before turning on the jets at the end. It compares quite favorably to Barbaro's run in 2006. He apparently managed to pull a 109 Beyer Figure for the race (for an explanation of Beyer Figures go here). It speaks well for his possible performance in the Preakness and the Belmont, especially since most of his best competitors will be skipping the Preakness. My best guess: Big Brown wins the Preakness in a walk, then loses the Belmont in a close race to one of Pyro, Colonel John, or Denis of Cork.
MSNBC: PETA Wants Eight Belles' Jockey Suspended - I have little to say about this widely reported and absurd suggestion that Gabriel Saez be suspended for his conduct on Saturday. Injuries such as these - as with Barbaro's injury in 2006 - can come so suddenly and with so little warning that there is ultimately nothing the jockey can do. From all accounts, it appears Saez leaped off as soon as he heard the "pop" and did his best to bring Eight Belles to a stop.
Look, I understand PETA's concern with horse racing. I understand that they consider the sport barbaric, and that the training, whipping, and injuries associated with the sport to be cruelty to animals. But to single out Saez for his actions on Saturday is incorrect and wrong.
Update: Slate explains why Eight Belles had to be put down on the track.
Cedric Benson Arrest
Chicago Bears running back Cedric Benson was arrested on Sunday for boating while intoxicated (which I didn't even realize was a crime given the number of people I know who have done exactly that) and resisting arrest. I must admit that I am having difficulty separating my personal feelings about Benson as a running back with the fact that all of the details of his arrest are not yet in. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his arrest in the absence of other information, but I still think we should trade him for 5 cents on the dollar.
An Open Letter to the Dude Who Left His Clothes in the Washing Machine For an Hour
Dear Sir (or Madam, if you happen to be the unusually large woman I saw in the laundry room the second time I went downstairs),
I understand that today was a beautiful day outside. The temperature was a lovely 70 degrees with nary a cloud in the sky and only a light breeze to spoil the perfection. Doubtless you were outside enjoying the sunshine, roller-blading on the trail or jogging through the city. Perhaps your girlfriend dragged you out for a walk with a stopover for frozen yogurt.
Or perhaps you were inside all day. Game 7 of the Boston-Atlanta series and Game 1 of the Los Angeles-Utah series were on TV this afternoon, although why you would be watching the Celtics-Hawks blowout is beyond me. Maybe you got distracted by Grand Theft Auto IV - I've certainly been guilty of that offense this past week.
Unfortunately, you forgot one thing on this glorious day: you forgot to take your clothes out of the washing machine in our apartment complex.
When I say "machine," you should know that I actually mean "machines." There are six such washers in our complex's laundry room, and you monopolized four of them.
Again, nothing necessarily wrong with that. It's more efficient to do clothes all at once. No one is expecting you to do one load of laundry at a time.
What I do expect, though, is that you not leave your wet clothes in the washing machine for a FREAKING HOUR after they are done.
Again, I understand that you likely just got distracted. Hard to blame you for that offense on a day like today. But for someone like me, who is trying to do laundry on a Sunday afternoon when that's the only free moment I've had all week and I'm trying to simultaneously write a 5-page paper for class on Monday and buy a new cell phone because my old one died and help my landlord figure out exactly what size of new doors to buy for my bedroom closet and shop for groceries and decipher the overwhelmingly complex health plan my new job sent me this week when my election is due next week and and I have no idea how many numbers I lost in my old cell phone so now I'm trying to track them down on Facebook and in my old phone bill and now my landlord wants to show our apartment tomorrow and would like me to clean the place up a bit, your conduct this Sunday afternoon is a bit annoying.
So, if you don't mind, could you please take those clothes out of the washer and put them in the dryer? I have no qualms about removing somebody's dry attire from the washer, but wet clothes are, y'know, icky. Thanks sooooo much.
Kisses,
Thomas J "Tommy" Carcetti
I understand that today was a beautiful day outside. The temperature was a lovely 70 degrees with nary a cloud in the sky and only a light breeze to spoil the perfection. Doubtless you were outside enjoying the sunshine, roller-blading on the trail or jogging through the city. Perhaps your girlfriend dragged you out for a walk with a stopover for frozen yogurt.
Or perhaps you were inside all day. Game 7 of the Boston-Atlanta series and Game 1 of the Los Angeles-Utah series were on TV this afternoon, although why you would be watching the Celtics-Hawks blowout is beyond me. Maybe you got distracted by Grand Theft Auto IV - I've certainly been guilty of that offense this past week.
Unfortunately, you forgot one thing on this glorious day: you forgot to take your clothes out of the washing machine in our apartment complex.
When I say "machine," you should know that I actually mean "machines." There are six such washers in our complex's laundry room, and you monopolized four of them.
Again, nothing necessarily wrong with that. It's more efficient to do clothes all at once. No one is expecting you to do one load of laundry at a time.
What I do expect, though, is that you not leave your wet clothes in the washing machine for a FREAKING HOUR after they are done.
Again, I understand that you likely just got distracted. Hard to blame you for that offense on a day like today. But for someone like me, who is trying to do laundry on a Sunday afternoon when that's the only free moment I've had all week and I'm trying to simultaneously write a 5-page paper for class on Monday and buy a new cell phone because my old one died and help my landlord figure out exactly what size of new doors to buy for my bedroom closet and shop for groceries and decipher the overwhelmingly complex health plan my new job sent me this week when my election is due next week and and I have no idea how many numbers I lost in my old cell phone so now I'm trying to track them down on Facebook and in my old phone bill and now my landlord wants to show our apartment tomorrow and would like me to clean the place up a bit, your conduct this Sunday afternoon is a bit annoying.
So, if you don't mind, could you please take those clothes out of the washer and put them in the dryer? I have no qualms about removing somebody's dry attire from the washer, but wet clothes are, y'know, icky. Thanks sooooo much.
Kisses,
Thomas J "Tommy" Carcetti
Friday, May 2, 2008
Handicapping the Kentucky Derby
2008 represents the fourth year in a row that I have attempted to successfully handicap the Kentucky Derby. My friend J got me into horse racing during senior year of college, and although I haven’t had as much time to spend on it as would have liked in the past years, I still manage to spend a bit of time each year handicapping the big races. I usually end up spending at least one day a year out at a race track (either Arlington when in Chicago or Hoosier Park during my brief stay in Indianapolis) and watch the Big Four races (the Triple Crown races – Kentucky Derby, Preakness Stakes, and Belmont Stakes; and the Breeders’ Cup races in September). J takes these races much more seriously than I do, which may explain why he has managed to successfully handicap 3 of the last 4 Derbies.
In all likelihood, 5:30 p.m. tomorrow will come and go with this also being the fourth year of my failing to correctly handicap the race. The Derby is one of the most difficult horse races to predict: with 20 horses of such high caliber, the horse that stands in the winner’s circle often gets there through luck more than anything else. Terrible pole positions, bad trips, unpredictable paces and simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time have doomed countless contenders over the years.
With that said, it would be tempting to do as I have done in recent years with the NCAA Tournament – write it off as being impossible for me to predict. Unfortunately, I have no real sense of pattern recognition, so I’m going to take another crack at the Derby this year. I’m buoyed by my correct predictions in the 2006 Belmont Stakes and 2007 Preakness, so maybe I have at least some idea what I’m doing.
Contenders
The big boy this year is Big Brown. He’s coming off a blazing wire-to-wire victory in the Florida Derby with a 106 Beyer. Unfortunately, he’s also drawn the 20th post – furthest out from the field. His only shot is to try the same thing he did in that race – jump out to a lead and try to take the field all the way around. Coming at from the far post, though, will be much more difficult this time, especially with speedsters like Bob Black Jack in the field. My guess is that Big Brown gets caught in traffic and does no better than third.
I’m a big fan of closing-style horses (hence my pick of Jazil in the 2006 Belmont Stakes), so I like some combination of Pyro, Colonel John, and Denis of Cork. Both Pyro and Colonel John are going to have lower prices, so I’m keying most of my bets this year to Denis of Cork (expected to go off somewhere between 15-1 and 20-1). He’s coming from the 16 position – the first after the break – which should let him slide into a comfortable position between 5th and 10th in the pack early on, allowing him to shoot close to the rail and make a big surge at the end. Pyro and Colonel John could have similar trips.
I’m also keying in Gayego, Z Fortune, Court Vision and Bob Black Jack into my exotics. Each one is either a speedster or closer who could easily contend for place or show.
My Picks
Ultimately, I decided to go with a $10 win bet on Denis of Cork, a $2 show bet on Big Truck (a Barclay Tagg horse with the worst odds in the field, juuuuuuuuuust in case Giacomo’s ghost* decides to return), $5 exacta boxes on Denis of Cork with Big Brown and Pyro with Colonel John, and various trifectas and superfectas with each of the horses named above leading to $50 in bets. I’ve structured each bet in such a way that if any of them hit, I will at least cover my overall bets – a lesson I learned the hard way when I keyed a bunch of Barbaro-based exactas for the 2006 Preakness, none of which would have covered my overall cost even if Barbaro hadn’t gotten hurt.
I’ll post the results on Sunday.
*Stop composing angry comments – I know Giacomo’s still alive.
In all likelihood, 5:30 p.m. tomorrow will come and go with this also being the fourth year of my failing to correctly handicap the race. The Derby is one of the most difficult horse races to predict: with 20 horses of such high caliber, the horse that stands in the winner’s circle often gets there through luck more than anything else. Terrible pole positions, bad trips, unpredictable paces and simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time have doomed countless contenders over the years.
With that said, it would be tempting to do as I have done in recent years with the NCAA Tournament – write it off as being impossible for me to predict. Unfortunately, I have no real sense of pattern recognition, so I’m going to take another crack at the Derby this year. I’m buoyed by my correct predictions in the 2006 Belmont Stakes and 2007 Preakness, so maybe I have at least some idea what I’m doing.
Contenders
The big boy this year is Big Brown. He’s coming off a blazing wire-to-wire victory in the Florida Derby with a 106 Beyer. Unfortunately, he’s also drawn the 20th post – furthest out from the field. His only shot is to try the same thing he did in that race – jump out to a lead and try to take the field all the way around. Coming at from the far post, though, will be much more difficult this time, especially with speedsters like Bob Black Jack in the field. My guess is that Big Brown gets caught in traffic and does no better than third.
I’m a big fan of closing-style horses (hence my pick of Jazil in the 2006 Belmont Stakes), so I like some combination of Pyro, Colonel John, and Denis of Cork. Both Pyro and Colonel John are going to have lower prices, so I’m keying most of my bets this year to Denis of Cork (expected to go off somewhere between 15-1 and 20-1). He’s coming from the 16 position – the first after the break – which should let him slide into a comfortable position between 5th and 10th in the pack early on, allowing him to shoot close to the rail and make a big surge at the end. Pyro and Colonel John could have similar trips.
I’m also keying in Gayego, Z Fortune, Court Vision and Bob Black Jack into my exotics. Each one is either a speedster or closer who could easily contend for place or show.
My Picks
Ultimately, I decided to go with a $10 win bet on Denis of Cork, a $2 show bet on Big Truck (a Barclay Tagg horse with the worst odds in the field, juuuuuuuuuust in case Giacomo’s ghost* decides to return), $5 exacta boxes on Denis of Cork with Big Brown and Pyro with Colonel John, and various trifectas and superfectas with each of the horses named above leading to $50 in bets. I’ve structured each bet in such a way that if any of them hit, I will at least cover my overall bets – a lesson I learned the hard way when I keyed a bunch of Barbaro-based exactas for the 2006 Preakness, none of which would have covered my overall cost even if Barbaro hadn’t gotten hurt.
I’ll post the results on Sunday.
*Stop composing angry comments – I know Giacomo’s still alive.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Links of the Day
Here's a few links to articles on the recent release of Grand Theft Auto IV. As you may have noticed based on other posts, I've been playing the game essentially non-stop since its release on Tuesday.
CNN: 'GTA IV' Could Keep 'Iron Man' Audience at Home - Here's the thing: I understand that both GTA IV and Iron Man are going to share the 14-29 male we-love-explosions fanboy audience. Is it possible that there might be another reason why people might not go see Iron Man? The film is based off a super hero who is less well known than perennial favorites like Batman, Spider-Man, the X-Men, Superman, etc. and it stars Robert Downey, Jr. (excellent supporting actor, not so good in leading roles). If Iron Man does turn out to be a flop, isn't it possible that these are better reasons than blaming GTA IV?
Radar Online: Auto Eroticism - Fascinating interview with one of the founders of Rockstar Games, the maker of GTA IV.
Slate: The Surprising Narrative Richness of Grand Theft Auto IV - Excellent early review of GTA IV.
CNN: 'GTA IV' Could Keep 'Iron Man' Audience at Home - Here's the thing: I understand that both GTA IV and Iron Man are going to share the 14-29 male we-love-explosions fanboy audience. Is it possible that there might be another reason why people might not go see Iron Man? The film is based off a super hero who is less well known than perennial favorites like Batman, Spider-Man, the X-Men, Superman, etc. and it stars Robert Downey, Jr. (excellent supporting actor, not so good in leading roles). If Iron Man does turn out to be a flop, isn't it possible that these are better reasons than blaming GTA IV?
Radar Online: Auto Eroticism - Fascinating interview with one of the founders of Rockstar Games, the maker of GTA IV.
Slate: The Surprising Narrative Richness of Grand Theft Auto IV - Excellent early review of GTA IV.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
If They Played Basketball in Movies Not About Basketball: Ghostbusters
Ghostbusters (1984) and Ghostbusters II (1989)
The Team:
Center: Vigo the Carpathian (7’1”, 300) – Transylvania University
The Carpathian is a dominant center in the mold of Shaquille O’Neal. With his massive size, bruising style of play, and ability to absorb punishment (the man was "poisoned, stabbed, shot, hung, stretched, disemboweled, and drawn and quartered" by his own people in 17th century), The Carpathian is the complete package. His only weakness – if he has one – is his inability to focus on the task at hand. He is easily distracted and susceptible to counter-plays and misdirections. He also has a temper (His nicknames include "Vigo the Cruel", "Vigo the Torturer", "Vigo the Despised", and "Vigo the Unholy") and is not known as a team player either on or off the court.
Played by Wilhelm von Homburg
Power Forward: Ray Stantz (6’5”, 260) – New York University, Columbia
Describing Stantz as a power forward is a bit of a misnomer. He is shorter, stockier and less strong than you would like in the body of a power forward. That said, his girth disguises a low center of gravity and excellent footwork that enables him to generate tremendous jumping ability. His play has drawn comparisons to that of Charles Barkley – driving to the lane, using his bulk to knock defenders off guard, clogging up the lanes on defense, grabbing rebounds right and left, and the like. Unfortunately, the comparisons to Barkley stop there – he does not move quickly enough to be anything more than an adequate defender, his outside shooting is terrible, and he has difficulty passing the ball.
Played by Dan Aykroyd
Shooting Forward: Egon Spengler (6’10”, 210) – Harvard, Columbia
As with Stantz, describing Spengler as a shooting forward is a misnomer. He’s built more like a shorter version of Manute Bol – tall and lanky. He simply does not have the size, bulk, or athletic ability to dominate on the inside. His defense is often suspect, and is usually limited to assisting on double-teams. Fortunately, Spengler makes up for his lack of an inside game with a deadly outside shot. The Ghostbusters play him in a slashing style – alternatively swooping in to the basket for quick lay-ups after teams have double-covered The Carpathian and taking shots from 20 feet away. Spengler had a 63% shooting percentage (with 42% from beyond the arc) last season. Despite his drawbacks, teams simply cannot afford to ignore him.
Played by Harold Ramis
Shooting Guard: Peter Venkman (6’4”, 230) – Harvard, Harvard, Harvard
With PhD’s in both psychology and para-psychology, Venkman is better known for his brains than for his brawn. Like Spengler, Venkman is a deadly outside shot. He is also a weak defender, rebounder, and passer. He occupies the J.J. Redick Memorial Roster Spot: He shoots, and that’s pretty much all he does. He is quite proficient at setting high screens for Spengler or Zeddemore, though, making his game not a total loss without the ball.
Played by Bill Murray
Point Guard: Winston Zeddemore (6’2”, 210) – CCNY
Zeddemore is best known for his passing ability. He is an expert at managing the pace of the game, and usually has great skill in finding either The Carpathian on the inside or Spengler for an outside shot. He has also had some success finding The Carpathian on alley-oops. His shooting is decent (55%, 40% from beyond the arc) but not spectacular. He has little proficiency in defense, though, and covers the other team’s point guard only by necessity rather than ability. If Venkman were a better defender, the Ghostbusters would stick Zeddemore on the opposing team’s shooting guard and worry only about outside shots. As is, he must try to defend passes too, which he is hardly capable of doing.
Played by Ernie Hudson
Bench
Guard: Louis Tully (5’1”, 140) – Knox College, Indiana
Tully cannot play basketball at all. He trips over his own feet running up and down the court, cannot shoot, cannot rebound, and is too small to set picks. The only thing he is proficient at is stealing the ball – he can sneak in with his smaller size and swipe the ball before opposing players know he is there. That skill does not make up for his lack of ability, though.
Played by Rick Moranis
Forward: Walter Peck (6’6”, 245) – Northwestern
Peck is unliked by his teammates, having once threatened to rat them out to the EPA if they did not give into his demands. He is a decent energy player off the bench, though, with high speed and leaping ability. His shooting, defense, rebounding and passing are mediocre at best, but his Mike D’Antoni-style game at least offers a change of pace off the bench.
Played by That Guy From the Die Hard Movies (William Atherton)
Guard: Gozer the Gozerian (5’5”, 150) – Sumerian University
Like Peck, The Gozerian is best known for his/her change of energy. The Gozerian has been known to (literally) leap halfway across the gymnasium when challenged. It can rebound like none other, but for some reasons cannot shoot with any accuracy. The Gozerian is also not known as a team player, and has fired lightning bolts from his/her fingers at his/her own teammates in the past. Best used as a role player/energy guy who grabs rebounds and then immediately dishes off the rock to someone else.
Played by Slavitza Jovan
How They Would Have Fared in the NBA This Season:
The main strength of this team lies with Vigo the Carpathian. No team except Phoenix has a player who can match The Carpathian’s sheer basketball ability. Unfortunately, in no other area does this team come close to matching the skill of an NBA team. The Ghostbusters must rely on Zeddemore’s passing ability and Spengler and Venkman’s outside shooting. A team with a lock-down defense like Chicago or Boston, though, will keep them from scoring many points. Defensively the team also does not match up well, especially in the new era of changed hand-check rules. The upward ceiling of the team is probably somewhere around .500, with a floor closer to 28-30 wins.
Prediction: Eastern Conference 38-44, 8th seed, bounced in the first round. Western Conference 30-52, 12th place.
How They Would Fare Against the 2004-05 University of Illinois Fighting Illini Men’s Basketball Team:
The strengths and weaknesses of these two teams are matched up in a manner of direct opposition. Much like in the 2005 NCAA championship game when Illinois had nobody who could stop Sean May, Illinois also has nobody who can guard Vigo the Carpathian. None of the Illini big men will be big enough or strong enough to stop him from getting to the basket at will. Fortunately, the Ghostbusters have nobody who can efficiently guard Illinois’ outside shooting trio of Deron Williams, Luther Head, and Dee Brown. Illinois’ Roger Powell matches up well against Ray Stantz defensively and offensively, making their battle a wash. In the paint, Illinois will rotate some combination of starter James Augustine and bench players Jack Ingram, Nick “The Chainsaw” Smith, and sophomore Warren Carter against The Carpathian, possibly employing the Hack-a-Vigo technique with fouls to burn. The Ghostbusters will do what they can on the outside, but there is simply no way Spengler, Venkman, and Zeddemore are quick enough or have enough defensive prowess to cover Williams, Head, and Brown. Illinois wins this one in a close match-up 84-77.
Edit: Vigo the Carpathian quote fixed.
The Team:
Center: Vigo the Carpathian (7’1”, 300) – Transylvania University
The Carpathian is a dominant center in the mold of Shaquille O’Neal. With his massive size, bruising style of play, and ability to absorb punishment (the man was "poisoned, stabbed, shot, hung, stretched, disemboweled, and drawn and quartered" by his own people in 17th century), The Carpathian is the complete package. His only weakness – if he has one – is his inability to focus on the task at hand. He is easily distracted and susceptible to counter-plays and misdirections. He also has a temper (His nicknames include "Vigo the Cruel", "Vigo the Torturer", "Vigo the Despised", and "Vigo the Unholy") and is not known as a team player either on or off the court.
Played by Wilhelm von Homburg
Power Forward: Ray Stantz (6’5”, 260) – New York University, Columbia
Describing Stantz as a power forward is a bit of a misnomer. He is shorter, stockier and less strong than you would like in the body of a power forward. That said, his girth disguises a low center of gravity and excellent footwork that enables him to generate tremendous jumping ability. His play has drawn comparisons to that of Charles Barkley – driving to the lane, using his bulk to knock defenders off guard, clogging up the lanes on defense, grabbing rebounds right and left, and the like. Unfortunately, the comparisons to Barkley stop there – he does not move quickly enough to be anything more than an adequate defender, his outside shooting is terrible, and he has difficulty passing the ball.
Played by Dan Aykroyd
Shooting Forward: Egon Spengler (6’10”, 210) – Harvard, Columbia
As with Stantz, describing Spengler as a shooting forward is a misnomer. He’s built more like a shorter version of Manute Bol – tall and lanky. He simply does not have the size, bulk, or athletic ability to dominate on the inside. His defense is often suspect, and is usually limited to assisting on double-teams. Fortunately, Spengler makes up for his lack of an inside game with a deadly outside shot. The Ghostbusters play him in a slashing style – alternatively swooping in to the basket for quick lay-ups after teams have double-covered The Carpathian and taking shots from 20 feet away. Spengler had a 63% shooting percentage (with 42% from beyond the arc) last season. Despite his drawbacks, teams simply cannot afford to ignore him.
Played by Harold Ramis
Shooting Guard: Peter Venkman (6’4”, 230) – Harvard, Harvard, Harvard
With PhD’s in both psychology and para-psychology, Venkman is better known for his brains than for his brawn. Like Spengler, Venkman is a deadly outside shot. He is also a weak defender, rebounder, and passer. He occupies the J.J. Redick Memorial Roster Spot: He shoots, and that’s pretty much all he does. He is quite proficient at setting high screens for Spengler or Zeddemore, though, making his game not a total loss without the ball.
Played by Bill Murray
Point Guard: Winston Zeddemore (6’2”, 210) – CCNY
Zeddemore is best known for his passing ability. He is an expert at managing the pace of the game, and usually has great skill in finding either The Carpathian on the inside or Spengler for an outside shot. He has also had some success finding The Carpathian on alley-oops. His shooting is decent (55%, 40% from beyond the arc) but not spectacular. He has little proficiency in defense, though, and covers the other team’s point guard only by necessity rather than ability. If Venkman were a better defender, the Ghostbusters would stick Zeddemore on the opposing team’s shooting guard and worry only about outside shots. As is, he must try to defend passes too, which he is hardly capable of doing.
Played by Ernie Hudson
Bench
Guard: Louis Tully (5’1”, 140) – Knox College, Indiana
Tully cannot play basketball at all. He trips over his own feet running up and down the court, cannot shoot, cannot rebound, and is too small to set picks. The only thing he is proficient at is stealing the ball – he can sneak in with his smaller size and swipe the ball before opposing players know he is there. That skill does not make up for his lack of ability, though.
Played by Rick Moranis
Forward: Walter Peck (6’6”, 245) – Northwestern
Peck is unliked by his teammates, having once threatened to rat them out to the EPA if they did not give into his demands. He is a decent energy player off the bench, though, with high speed and leaping ability. His shooting, defense, rebounding and passing are mediocre at best, but his Mike D’Antoni-style game at least offers a change of pace off the bench.
Played by That Guy From the Die Hard Movies (William Atherton)
Guard: Gozer the Gozerian (5’5”, 150) – Sumerian University
Like Peck, The Gozerian is best known for his/her change of energy. The Gozerian has been known to (literally) leap halfway across the gymnasium when challenged. It can rebound like none other, but for some reasons cannot shoot with any accuracy. The Gozerian is also not known as a team player, and has fired lightning bolts from his/her fingers at his/her own teammates in the past. Best used as a role player/energy guy who grabs rebounds and then immediately dishes off the rock to someone else.
Played by Slavitza Jovan
How They Would Have Fared in the NBA This Season:
The main strength of this team lies with Vigo the Carpathian. No team except Phoenix has a player who can match The Carpathian’s sheer basketball ability. Unfortunately, in no other area does this team come close to matching the skill of an NBA team. The Ghostbusters must rely on Zeddemore’s passing ability and Spengler and Venkman’s outside shooting. A team with a lock-down defense like Chicago or Boston, though, will keep them from scoring many points. Defensively the team also does not match up well, especially in the new era of changed hand-check rules. The upward ceiling of the team is probably somewhere around .500, with a floor closer to 28-30 wins.
Prediction: Eastern Conference 38-44, 8th seed, bounced in the first round. Western Conference 30-52, 12th place.
How They Would Fare Against the 2004-05 University of Illinois Fighting Illini Men’s Basketball Team:
The strengths and weaknesses of these two teams are matched up in a manner of direct opposition. Much like in the 2005 NCAA championship game when Illinois had nobody who could stop Sean May, Illinois also has nobody who can guard Vigo the Carpathian. None of the Illini big men will be big enough or strong enough to stop him from getting to the basket at will. Fortunately, the Ghostbusters have nobody who can efficiently guard Illinois’ outside shooting trio of Deron Williams, Luther Head, and Dee Brown. Illinois’ Roger Powell matches up well against Ray Stantz defensively and offensively, making their battle a wash. In the paint, Illinois will rotate some combination of starter James Augustine and bench players Jack Ingram, Nick “The Chainsaw” Smith, and sophomore Warren Carter against The Carpathian, possibly employing the Hack-a-Vigo technique with fouls to burn. The Ghostbusters will do what they can on the outside, but there is simply no way Spengler, Venkman, and Zeddemore are quick enough or have enough defensive prowess to cover Williams, Head, and Brown. Illinois wins this one in a close match-up 84-77.
Edit: Vigo the Carpathian quote fixed.
Bonus Simpsons Reference of the Day
My uncle e-mailed me a picture of my seven-month old cousin sitting on their leather sofa. He accompanied the picture with the phrase "Like Montgomery Burns, your cousin has learned to enjoy a good sit."
Reference: “Mountain of Madness”, Season 8, Episode 12.
Reference: “Mountain of Madness”, Season 8, Episode 12.
Recurring Features
Since I’ll be including a few recurring features here at Carcetti for Mayor, I thought I ought to include a post explaining what each one is.
Simpsons Reference of the Day:
Like many of my friends, I am obsessed with the Simpsons, especially the first 12 seasons or so. I can quote episodes from memory, I have used analogies from the show in papers, and I above all pepper my conversations with references to the show. Of course, many of my friends and relatives do the same. “Simpsons Reference of the Day” is simply a catalogue of those references, presented in the context in which they were used. These references will mostly be spoken by me, but I’ll include those spoken by others as well. Example:
(Scene: While preparing for a night on the town, I have just completed a shower and am walking to my bedroom, wearing only a towel, when I hear a knock at the door. Seeing that my roommates are otherwise occupied, I walk to the door and open it for my friend JBM. JBM stares at me incredulously.)
Me: I have misplaced my pants.
(Note: This actually happened. Ah, college.)
Reference: “Bart After Dark”, Season 8, Episode 5.
By the Numbers:
“By the Numbers” is a feature in which I detail arcane events in my life in minute detail. It’s similar to a feature on many other blogs and web sites. This gets published approximately “whenever I feel like it”.
Example:
Hours of Grand Theft Auto IV Played Yesterday: 9.
Amount I Would Have Made If I Had Worked a Minimum-Wage Job During That Time: $65.25.
Cost of Said Grand Theft Auto IV Game: $64.96 after taxes.
Difference Between These Two Figures: $0.29.
Ounces of Diet Dr. Pepper Consumed During Those Hours: 64.
And so on.
If They Played Basketball in Movies Not About Basketball:
This is a recurring feature that I will write solely as a time-waster and is something that is probably only interesting to me. It’s basically just an analysis of the main characters from a given movie based on how well they would play as a basketball team. I’ll look at the different characters, make up positions (and pertinent information about each character to make them fit as basketball players), and then analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the team. I’ll figure out about how many wins they could expect to get in the current NBA season, and then finally compare them to the gold standard of basketball teams: the 2004-05 University of Illinois Fighting Illini Men’s Basketball Team (note: blatant homerism alert). See my post (linked below) on “Ghostbusters” for an example.
New York Times Editorials:
My absolute favorite post I wrote for my old blog was one where I ripped apart a New York Times editorial on the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination firejoemorgan.com-style. (If you haven’t visited firejoemorgan.com by now, you really should). Basically, all I do here is go through the editorial line by line and either refute what they’ve written, make fun of them, or both. Why the Grey Lady? Politically I’m closer to the Wall Street Journal than to the New York Times, plus NYT seems to have a more arrogant style, at least to me. I’ll post a link to an example once I do one.
Simpsons Reference of the Day:
Like many of my friends, I am obsessed with the Simpsons, especially the first 12 seasons or so. I can quote episodes from memory, I have used analogies from the show in papers, and I above all pepper my conversations with references to the show. Of course, many of my friends and relatives do the same. “Simpsons Reference of the Day” is simply a catalogue of those references, presented in the context in which they were used. These references will mostly be spoken by me, but I’ll include those spoken by others as well. Example:
(Scene: While preparing for a night on the town, I have just completed a shower and am walking to my bedroom, wearing only a towel, when I hear a knock at the door. Seeing that my roommates are otherwise occupied, I walk to the door and open it for my friend JBM. JBM stares at me incredulously.)
Me: I have misplaced my pants.
(Note: This actually happened. Ah, college.)
Reference: “Bart After Dark”, Season 8, Episode 5.
By the Numbers:
“By the Numbers” is a feature in which I detail arcane events in my life in minute detail. It’s similar to a feature on many other blogs and web sites. This gets published approximately “whenever I feel like it”.
Example:
Hours of Grand Theft Auto IV Played Yesterday: 9.
Amount I Would Have Made If I Had Worked a Minimum-Wage Job During That Time: $65.25.
Cost of Said Grand Theft Auto IV Game: $64.96 after taxes.
Difference Between These Two Figures: $0.29.
Ounces of Diet Dr. Pepper Consumed During Those Hours: 64.
And so on.
If They Played Basketball in Movies Not About Basketball:
This is a recurring feature that I will write solely as a time-waster and is something that is probably only interesting to me. It’s basically just an analysis of the main characters from a given movie based on how well they would play as a basketball team. I’ll look at the different characters, make up positions (and pertinent information about each character to make them fit as basketball players), and then analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the team. I’ll figure out about how many wins they could expect to get in the current NBA season, and then finally compare them to the gold standard of basketball teams: the 2004-05 University of Illinois Fighting Illini Men’s Basketball Team (note: blatant homerism alert). See my post (linked below) on “Ghostbusters” for an example.
New York Times Editorials:
My absolute favorite post I wrote for my old blog was one where I ripped apart a New York Times editorial on the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination firejoemorgan.com-style. (If you haven’t visited firejoemorgan.com by now, you really should). Basically, all I do here is go through the editorial line by line and either refute what they’ve written, make fun of them, or both. Why the Grey Lady? Politically I’m closer to the Wall Street Journal than to the New York Times, plus NYT seems to have a more arrogant style, at least to me. I’ll post a link to an example once I do one.
Simpsons Reference of the Day
Today's reference:
Conversation with my friend L:
L: (Our friend D) was upset that my hair was straight yesterday, so she's a little excited that it's back to curly today.
Me: Curly... straight! Curly... straight! Curly... straight!
Reference: "Homer Goes to College", Season 5, Episode 3.
Conversation with my friend L:
L: (Our friend D) was upset that my hair was straight yesterday, so she's a little excited that it's back to curly today.
Me: Curly... straight! Curly... straight! Curly... straight!
Reference: "Homer Goes to College", Season 5, Episode 3.
Carcetti Reloaded
Gentlemen (and ladies)! It's been two years, but I'm back.
Two years ago, I blogged my way through most of my first year of law school. Over those glorious months, my readership expanded from a handful of people to double digits as I held forth on politics, movies, sports, and everything in between. Unfortunately, an abortive summer job search led me to delete the old blog, as I was concerned about its effect on the job hunt. I walked away, deleting my articles and dreams and leaving them only as a memory.
In the interim, I discovered something: I missed blogging. I missed being able to scribble down my thoughts and post them. I missed running into friends in the hallway and hearing them say "Hey, I read that thing you wrote on your blog, let me share my thoughts on the topic with you." I missed being able to make fun of New York Times editorials firejoemorgan.com-style. I missed my recurring "By the Numbers" feature in which I figured out exactly how much time I had wasted that day. Most of all, I missed the sense of being able to communicate - albeit in sarcastic fashion - with the online world.
So, I'm back. We can call this version 2.0 of my blog (or, more appropriately 3.0, if one counts my very very old Xanga blog); my blog reloaded, if you will. The key difference this time is that I'll be blogging anonymously. I dislike anonymous blogging in general - if you're willing to put certain thoughts out on the World Wide Interweb of Tubes, you should at least be willing to put your name on those thoughts. My old blog was published under my real name for that reason. Unfortunately, I am concerned about the effect a blog with my name on it will have in my line of work. It's not that I generally publish articles that are offensive or inappropriate - it's just that my efforts at sanitizing Google of unflattering references to me have been largely successful up until now, and I'd like to keep it that way.
So, in the absence of using my real name, I've decided to adopt the pseudonym of Thomas J. "Tommy" Carcetti, the ambitious and sleazy mayoral candidate (and later mayor of Baltimore) from HBO's The Wire. I won't be blogging as Carcetti - these will be my thoughts, simply published under Carcetti's name. I'm not wild about this solution, but this seems to be best for all involved.
Enjoy. I'm looking forward to writing again. I've got a few things planned for the future - like a review of Grand Theft Auto IV, sarcastic discussions on NYT editorials, and even an analysis of who would win in a 2-on-2 basketball game between the Obamas and the Clintons. Check back soon!
Two years ago, I blogged my way through most of my first year of law school. Over those glorious months, my readership expanded from a handful of people to double digits as I held forth on politics, movies, sports, and everything in between. Unfortunately, an abortive summer job search led me to delete the old blog, as I was concerned about its effect on the job hunt. I walked away, deleting my articles and dreams and leaving them only as a memory.
In the interim, I discovered something: I missed blogging. I missed being able to scribble down my thoughts and post them. I missed running into friends in the hallway and hearing them say "Hey, I read that thing you wrote on your blog, let me share my thoughts on the topic with you." I missed being able to make fun of New York Times editorials firejoemorgan.com-style. I missed my recurring "By the Numbers" feature in which I figured out exactly how much time I had wasted that day. Most of all, I missed the sense of being able to communicate - albeit in sarcastic fashion - with the online world.
So, I'm back. We can call this version 2.0 of my blog (or, more appropriately 3.0, if one counts my very very old Xanga blog); my blog reloaded, if you will. The key difference this time is that I'll be blogging anonymously. I dislike anonymous blogging in general - if you're willing to put certain thoughts out on the World Wide Interweb of Tubes, you should at least be willing to put your name on those thoughts. My old blog was published under my real name for that reason. Unfortunately, I am concerned about the effect a blog with my name on it will have in my line of work. It's not that I generally publish articles that are offensive or inappropriate - it's just that my efforts at sanitizing Google of unflattering references to me have been largely successful up until now, and I'd like to keep it that way.
So, in the absence of using my real name, I've decided to adopt the pseudonym of Thomas J. "Tommy" Carcetti, the ambitious and sleazy mayoral candidate (and later mayor of Baltimore) from HBO's The Wire. I won't be blogging as Carcetti - these will be my thoughts, simply published under Carcetti's name. I'm not wild about this solution, but this seems to be best for all involved.
Enjoy. I'm looking forward to writing again. I've got a few things planned for the future - like a review of Grand Theft Auto IV, sarcastic discussions on NYT editorials, and even an analysis of who would win in a 2-on-2 basketball game between the Obamas and the Clintons. Check back soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)