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.

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.)

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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'

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.