One of the greatest days of the year, Opening Day, is tomorrow, and to celebrate, here are some quick predictions for the 2006 season.
AL East: Toronto Blue Jays
Yeah, I said it. They should have won the division last year, if not for a terrible bullpen. Check out a little evidence here. For full disclosure, I wrote the article, so yes, I'm incredibly biased.
Even though AJ Burnett is starting the season on the DL, they still have Roy Halladay at the top of the rotation, and I love BJ Ryan as a closer. The additions of Troy Glaus and Lyle Overbay will give Vernon Wells some much-needed help in the middle of the lineup. As for the two biggest payrolls in baseball, they'll spend a combined 4,503 days on the DL this season. Manny and Big Papi can't do everything for the Sox, and neither can Jeter and A-Rod for the Yanks. It's all about pitching.
That being said, watch out for the Baltimore Orioles. Now that Leo Mazzone has joined his best friend, Sam Perlozzo, on the bench as the new pitching coach, Daniel Cabrera & Co. are about to get a lot better. And yes, I hate saying that Leo Mazzone is the pitching coach anywhere but Atlanta.
Even the bottom of the division has reason to celebrate. Tampa Bay has finally turned the organization around and dumped the incompetent morons that used to run this sad franchise. Now their biggest challenge will be keeping Delmon Young at Tropicana Field after he reels off five consecutive years of 30+ HR, starting this season. This guy is a beast.
AL Central: Cleveland Indians
Jake Westbrook and Cliff Lee provide a great 2-3 punch to the already fantastic CC Sabathia. Travis Hafner will finally get the recognition he deserves, and Grady Sizemore will be a household name by the end of the season for his defensive prowess in center field (he's a pretty sweet hitter, too).
The Minnesota Twins are going into the season as one of the sport's biggest enigmas. Their offense will rely heavily on Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau, neither of whom has shown the durability required of franchise cornerstones. If they get into a groove, this division should be very competitive.
The defending champs got incredibly lucky last year, especially with Jon Garland. I'm happy for the South Siders because they waited even longer than the Red Sox for their championship, and with far less bitching. Unfortunately, I don't see them repeating, even with an improved rotation. Javier Vasquez will flourish in Chicago, and the White Sox will fall just short of the playoffs.
AL West: Oakland A's
With Rich Harden and Barry Zito fronting arguably the deepest rotation in baseball, Huston Street closing with a year under his belt and a healthy Bobby Crosby, Billy Beane will get another shot. I know "[his] shit doesn't work in the playoffs," but this team will give him a chance to win the lottery we like to call the World Series.
AL Wild Card: Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
I don't know how they keep winning, but the Angels find a way. Bartolo Colon will go down in history as one of the weakest Cy Young Award winners in history, but he still blows hitters away, and I can never count out any team with Vlad Guerrero in the middle of the lineup. With all due respect to the Red Sox, Yankees and White Sox, the team whose name is far too long will claim the same position they won in 2002 before Rally Monkey-ing their way to the crown.
AL Cy Young: Roy Halladay
AL MVP: Vlad Guerrero
AL ROY: Delmon Young
NL East: Atlanta Braves
You were expecting anyone else? Until Bobby Cox and John Scheurholz are laid to rest or run out of town, picking against the Braves is about as smart as playing chicken with a bullet train. The season is not decided at the end of April, so don't count these guys out even if they're already ten games back. This organization homegrows talent like few others have ever done, and the free agent acquisitions are rarely busts. Even when they are, like last year's Raul Mondesi debacle, in walks Jeff Francoeur and almost wins Rookie of the Year. Tim Hudson is healthy, and he's ready to prove he's worthy of being the next great Atlanta ace.
NL Wild Card: New York Mets
I'm not ready to give them the division yet, but the addition of Carlos Delgado cannot be underestimated. Unless he folds like Beltran under the glare of the Big Apple media, their lineup will be deadly. However, I think the most important acquisition, also from the Marlins, was Paul Lo Duca. I love the competitive spirit he brings to a team. I'm a stats guy, but Lo Duca works really well with his pitching staff and can bring everyone in the clubhouse together. We've seen over the last few seasons how important chemistry can be in baseball.
NL Central: St. Louis Cardinals
Another no-brainer. How do you pick against a team that's averaged 96 wins during the last five seasons? Clemens can't pitch for the Astros for almost the first half of the season, and I doubt he's coming back, anyway. The Cards' lineup is still ridiculously deep, and the emergence of Chris Carpenter as a bona fide star will ensure another division title. Oh, and I heard that Pujols guy was pretty good, too.
NL West: Los Angeles Dodgers
It doesn't really matter who I pick to win this division: no way does that team make it out of the NLDS. Let's go with the Dodgers just to give Nomar some positive energy. I honestly feel bad for the guy - he was the face of the Red Sox, but was the one addition by subtraction they really needed to break the curse. That's got to hurt. Besides, don't we need to see Grady Little in a playoff series again? If anything else, it'll give Bill Simmons plenty of material (with the added bonus his life doesn't hinge on the Dodgers' fate), and that's enough encouragement for me.
NL Cy Young: Tim Hudson
NL MVP: Albert Pujols
NL ROY: Jeremy Hermida
Pretty short, I know, but I'll have more in-depth analysis, especially of teams I didn't mention today, in tomorrow's post. I just wanted to get my picks out there before I could be accused of waiting after the season started.
Baseball, finally!
The regular season's here
Life just got better
Friday, March 31, 2006
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Shuffling off
I'm afraid to die.
Last night I couldn't help but think about dying. I had no reason to think about it, but occasionally the thought grabs me and holds on like a starved leech. The thought consumes me and the anxiety builds until, I presume, my brain shuts down from the overload.
I don't have the peace of mind of my more spiritual friends; I have no faith to lean on when I think about leaving this world. During those moments I wish I had their faith, but that's a matter for another day.
I worry about the sheer fact I will cease to exist. I know it's an irrational fear - I won't know when I cease to exist, so there's no point in worrying about it. Any beliefs of reincarnation aside, I didn't exist before I was born, and that doesn't bother me one bit. Unfortunately, I've grown accustomed to this whole "living" thing, and I don't want to give that up. Hopefully I have many more years before it's even an issue, but I still can't help but think about what will happen.
According to the strict laws of science, absolutely nothing will happen. I will lose consciousness and never regain it. However, I keep holding onto this fear of somehow passing through eternity and knowing I'm not alive. Descartes would have something to say about that, I'm sure.
Like many people, I fear I will not accomplish what I am capable of. I cannot think of a sadder fate than lying on my deathbed regretting what I had done with my life. My impatience only exacerbates the problem; since I'm not in any great and visible position now, how can I possibly get there at any point in the future? Once again, my irrationality envelops my mind.
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I wish I was more like my mother. Just today she mentioned her death and sounded very proud of the inheritance she would leave behind. I found the comment to be slightly perverse - I guess it makes her happy to know she's giving something after she's gone, but she won't be able to see the enjoyment it brings. Regardless, she's unafraid.
Ray Kurzweil posed a disturbing yet very important question in The Age of Spiritual Machines: Without death, where would we find meaning in our lives? Perhaps the approximate knowledge of our time here gives us the drive to achieve. Once again the balance of nature upsets our fragile egos. It upsets mine, at least.
I don't like to think of myself as just another person with a lifespan no noticeably different than anyone else's. I hope as I grow more mature I'll make peace with this reality of life, but at the same time I don't want to become complacent. The balance is always the hardest thing to find; it's like a tightrope walker - falling to the left or right is so easy anyone can do it, but walking that thin line makes the tightrope walker someone to see.
I want to be someone to see. I hope I can be.
Do not go gently
Into that good night, he said
Not my wish at all
Last night I couldn't help but think about dying. I had no reason to think about it, but occasionally the thought grabs me and holds on like a starved leech. The thought consumes me and the anxiety builds until, I presume, my brain shuts down from the overload.
I don't have the peace of mind of my more spiritual friends; I have no faith to lean on when I think about leaving this world. During those moments I wish I had their faith, but that's a matter for another day.
I worry about the sheer fact I will cease to exist. I know it's an irrational fear - I won't know when I cease to exist, so there's no point in worrying about it. Any beliefs of reincarnation aside, I didn't exist before I was born, and that doesn't bother me one bit. Unfortunately, I've grown accustomed to this whole "living" thing, and I don't want to give that up. Hopefully I have many more years before it's even an issue, but I still can't help but think about what will happen.
According to the strict laws of science, absolutely nothing will happen. I will lose consciousness and never regain it. However, I keep holding onto this fear of somehow passing through eternity and knowing I'm not alive. Descartes would have something to say about that, I'm sure.
Like many people, I fear I will not accomplish what I am capable of. I cannot think of a sadder fate than lying on my deathbed regretting what I had done with my life. My impatience only exacerbates the problem; since I'm not in any great and visible position now, how can I possibly get there at any point in the future? Once again, my irrationality envelops my mind.
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I wish I was more like my mother. Just today she mentioned her death and sounded very proud of the inheritance she would leave behind. I found the comment to be slightly perverse - I guess it makes her happy to know she's giving something after she's gone, but she won't be able to see the enjoyment it brings. Regardless, she's unafraid.
Ray Kurzweil posed a disturbing yet very important question in The Age of Spiritual Machines: Without death, where would we find meaning in our lives? Perhaps the approximate knowledge of our time here gives us the drive to achieve. Once again the balance of nature upsets our fragile egos. It upsets mine, at least.
I don't like to think of myself as just another person with a lifespan no noticeably different than anyone else's. I hope as I grow more mature I'll make peace with this reality of life, but at the same time I don't want to become complacent. The balance is always the hardest thing to find; it's like a tightrope walker - falling to the left or right is so easy anyone can do it, but walking that thin line makes the tightrope walker someone to see.
I want to be someone to see. I hope I can be.
Do not go gently
Into that good night, he said
Not my wish at all
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Welcome back, Kotter (and I'm Kotter)
The roadtrip has ended. Twelve states, two time zones and more than 2,000 miles later, I'm back in Rochester. It was a blast, and I'm glad to finally be putting up new lines on my map - it had been far too long since I last busted out the red Sharpie. Now I'm back to complete the degree I could probably do without, but one thought keeps ringing in my head:
I'm ready to get out on the road and do it all over again.
Usually after a roadtrip I'm anxious to get home and get settled again. I always love the drive, but I also love getting out of the car. This time I could just keep driving. I drove more than eight hours two consecutive days and felt great. I could wake up tomorrow and drive to Chicago, hang out there for a night, then wake up and drive to Lincoln, if only to heckle anyone that goes to Nebraska.
I feel comfortable on the road. I get a sense of peace inside my car as I count down the miles. I have the ultimate say in where I go, and as long as I have the money for gas, it could be anywhere I want. It's the ultimate in freedom.
Some people get bored when they're driving on the interstate and there's little to see. I have lots of ways to break up the doldrums. I enjoy the mini-trips I create for myself inside the overall journey. I don't think about the entire trip, but instead just concern myself with making it to the next town. I get a sense of accomplishment every 200 miles instead of every 600.
Besides, there's a lot to look forward to outside of the final destination. I love seeing the green signs overhead alerting me of the next major city I'll encounter. I may be a big nerd (OK, I am, stop laughing), but I get a huge kick out of starting my day in one region of the country and ending it in another. Seeing signs for cities in the southeast in the morning (ex. Birmingham/Huntsville) and seeing signs for St. Louis and Chicago later in the day just blows me away.
The biggest reason I'm consistently impressed by the difference in signs is that I can start my day in one region of the country and end it in a completely different one. Lifestyles, attitudes and even accents alter drastically within one day's drive. I find it amazing that I can wake up in a small Southern town and go to bed in the third largest city in America. I've only driven ten hours, but within those ten hours everything has changed. One set of lives has been exchanged for another, and rarely will the two ever meet. To say it's surreal is one of the biggest understatements I can imagine.
I know further distances and greater differences in culture can be obtained by flying, but flying is like going through a Warp Zone pipe in Super Mario Brothers. I step on a plane in one location, step off in another, and never see any changes until I arrive. Driving lets me witness the change more gradually. The changes are still pretty sudden since I don't get out of the car every 50 miles to stop and look around, but I feel a much greater connection when I see the landscape as I travel.
For as much as I enjoy seeing new places, there's one other reason I love to drive: the escape. Life gets much simpler when all that's required is getting from Point A to Point B. I used to think about being a truck driver, but then I thought back to the old adage, "If you love sausage, don't work in a sausage factory." I'd hate for long drives to become a chore, so I've put that off for now. I've heard, though, of people paying someone to drive a car to a friend, spouse or buyer. That would be a great way, in my opinion, to spend a week's vacation. Maybe I could even make enough money on the drive to pay for my plane ticket back.
Above all, the roadtrips are so enjoyable because I have such great friends to welcome me. I'm truly fortunate to have friends across the country who have opened their doors and let me come to visit. Besides the obvious enjoyment of seeing friends, I also get to learn more about the various locales. Sure, I could go online and look up places to go, but that's nowhere near as fun as trying out a restaurant or club my friend has found. So, to all of you who have been gracious enough to host me, or even extend an invitation, I am truly grateful. You are the real reason I love to travel.
On the road again
I see old friends and make more
I'll drive anywhere
I'm ready to get out on the road and do it all over again.
Usually after a roadtrip I'm anxious to get home and get settled again. I always love the drive, but I also love getting out of the car. This time I could just keep driving. I drove more than eight hours two consecutive days and felt great. I could wake up tomorrow and drive to Chicago, hang out there for a night, then wake up and drive to Lincoln, if only to heckle anyone that goes to Nebraska.
I feel comfortable on the road. I get a sense of peace inside my car as I count down the miles. I have the ultimate say in where I go, and as long as I have the money for gas, it could be anywhere I want. It's the ultimate in freedom.
Some people get bored when they're driving on the interstate and there's little to see. I have lots of ways to break up the doldrums. I enjoy the mini-trips I create for myself inside the overall journey. I don't think about the entire trip, but instead just concern myself with making it to the next town. I get a sense of accomplishment every 200 miles instead of every 600.
Besides, there's a lot to look forward to outside of the final destination. I love seeing the green signs overhead alerting me of the next major city I'll encounter. I may be a big nerd (OK, I am, stop laughing), but I get a huge kick out of starting my day in one region of the country and ending it in another. Seeing signs for cities in the southeast in the morning (ex. Birmingham/Huntsville) and seeing signs for St. Louis and Chicago later in the day just blows me away.
The biggest reason I'm consistently impressed by the difference in signs is that I can start my day in one region of the country and end it in a completely different one. Lifestyles, attitudes and even accents alter drastically within one day's drive. I find it amazing that I can wake up in a small Southern town and go to bed in the third largest city in America. I've only driven ten hours, but within those ten hours everything has changed. One set of lives has been exchanged for another, and rarely will the two ever meet. To say it's surreal is one of the biggest understatements I can imagine.
I know further distances and greater differences in culture can be obtained by flying, but flying is like going through a Warp Zone pipe in Super Mario Brothers. I step on a plane in one location, step off in another, and never see any changes until I arrive. Driving lets me witness the change more gradually. The changes are still pretty sudden since I don't get out of the car every 50 miles to stop and look around, but I feel a much greater connection when I see the landscape as I travel.
For as much as I enjoy seeing new places, there's one other reason I love to drive: the escape. Life gets much simpler when all that's required is getting from Point A to Point B. I used to think about being a truck driver, but then I thought back to the old adage, "If you love sausage, don't work in a sausage factory." I'd hate for long drives to become a chore, so I've put that off for now. I've heard, though, of people paying someone to drive a car to a friend, spouse or buyer. That would be a great way, in my opinion, to spend a week's vacation. Maybe I could even make enough money on the drive to pay for my plane ticket back.
Above all, the roadtrips are so enjoyable because I have such great friends to welcome me. I'm truly fortunate to have friends across the country who have opened their doors and let me come to visit. Besides the obvious enjoyment of seeing friends, I also get to learn more about the various locales. Sure, I could go online and look up places to go, but that's nowhere near as fun as trying out a restaurant or club my friend has found. So, to all of you who have been gracious enough to host me, or even extend an invitation, I am truly grateful. You are the real reason I love to travel.
On the road again
I see old friends and make more
I'll drive anywhere
Monday, March 20, 2006
12 states in 8 days
Spring Break has arrived! It's still snowing lightly in Rochester, but not down south, and that's where I'll be. Leaving for Nashville shortly, and then to Sweet Home Alabama. I'm also stopping in Myrtle Beach and Philly before coming back to my last quarter of grad school. If not for the stupid cold, I would have been to Chez Dan LNC. I'll make it to his neck of the woods soon enough, I'm sure. What does all this mean to you? It means I'll most likely be on hiatus, enjoying warm weather and sunshine for a change. Keep your chin up - I'll have plenty of stories next week to amuse you when you're bored. Peace out!
Leaving for the South
The food is much better there
And no chance of snow
Leaving for the South
The food is much better there
And no chance of snow
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Well I guess this is growing up
Thanks to Carlos' lack of knowledge about college basketball spreads (and a surprisingly plucky performance by Penn), I was able to drink almost entirely for free last night. Had I not made those bets, I would have owed about $15 for my bar tab. Obviously this figure alone is not meant to be impressive, but it builds up over time. Three more similar nights and my bar tab for the week is $60. Over an entire month that's $240 spent in bars, and I haven't eaten yet.
As I complained about earlier this week, I've been hit by a cold or allergies (still not sure which). However, this ailment has proven useful in at least one way: by not going out this week, I've realized 1) how much I go out and 2) how much money I could save by not going out all the time.
Only in the last two years have I seen the financial problems with my bar habits; the money was never a problem in Missouri. Drinks are so cheap there the difference between buying beer at home or at a bar is minimal. On the East Coast, that just isn't the case. Dollar bottles and $5 pitchers have turned into $2 bottles and $7 pitchers...if I'm lucky. And it's going to get even worse when I move to Washington. Three dollars for a Budweiser bottle?! No way I can continue going to bars at my current pace.
I have to admit, I'm going to have a hard time adjusting. I like to go out for a multitude of reasons. Usually I simply prefer being around several people to being around a few. I like being in a high-energy environment; I don't like the idea of coming home at the end of the day, zoning out to TV and falling asleep. I like going out on particular days of the week because of what's going on at the bar, like karaoke or a great drink special. Then there's the weekends, and you have to go out on the weekends.
Unfortunately, not all my reasons are so benign. I go out so much because I'm afraid if I don't I'm going to miss something. I know it won't be something terribly important, but it could be a fantastic, once-in-a-lifetime kind of night that you rehash with your friends for years. I could also miss out on meeting really cool people and making new friends. Besides missing out on something, I've felt that spending the night in is some sort of admission of failure, something you do when you can't find any friends to go out with.
I'm starting to come around, albeit slowly. Thanks to an amazing conversation with Stephen (and yes, in a small way, to my sickness), I'm realizing I don't have to go out and drink myself silly to consider my evening successful. At the same time, not going out doesn't have to include planting myself on the couch and subjecting myself to My Wife and Kids or the latest reality flavor of the week. And finally, going out doesn't have to be limited to bars. Maybe I could go out, literally, as in go outside. In Rochester that's been difficult because the weather is miserable enough to drive a person to madness, but Washington will be warmer. The monuments there will provide a fantastic backdrop, too.
If nothing else, I'll end up a better cook.
Going out to bars
It's fun, but there's a lot more
Time to go find it
As I complained about earlier this week, I've been hit by a cold or allergies (still not sure which). However, this ailment has proven useful in at least one way: by not going out this week, I've realized 1) how much I go out and 2) how much money I could save by not going out all the time.
Only in the last two years have I seen the financial problems with my bar habits; the money was never a problem in Missouri. Drinks are so cheap there the difference between buying beer at home or at a bar is minimal. On the East Coast, that just isn't the case. Dollar bottles and $5 pitchers have turned into $2 bottles and $7 pitchers...if I'm lucky. And it's going to get even worse when I move to Washington. Three dollars for a Budweiser bottle?! No way I can continue going to bars at my current pace.
I have to admit, I'm going to have a hard time adjusting. I like to go out for a multitude of reasons. Usually I simply prefer being around several people to being around a few. I like being in a high-energy environment; I don't like the idea of coming home at the end of the day, zoning out to TV and falling asleep. I like going out on particular days of the week because of what's going on at the bar, like karaoke or a great drink special. Then there's the weekends, and you have to go out on the weekends.
Unfortunately, not all my reasons are so benign. I go out so much because I'm afraid if I don't I'm going to miss something. I know it won't be something terribly important, but it could be a fantastic, once-in-a-lifetime kind of night that you rehash with your friends for years. I could also miss out on meeting really cool people and making new friends. Besides missing out on something, I've felt that spending the night in is some sort of admission of failure, something you do when you can't find any friends to go out with.
I'm starting to come around, albeit slowly. Thanks to an amazing conversation with Stephen (and yes, in a small way, to my sickness), I'm realizing I don't have to go out and drink myself silly to consider my evening successful. At the same time, not going out doesn't have to include planting myself on the couch and subjecting myself to My Wife and Kids or the latest reality flavor of the week. And finally, going out doesn't have to be limited to bars. Maybe I could go out, literally, as in go outside. In Rochester that's been difficult because the weather is miserable enough to drive a person to madness, but Washington will be warmer. The monuments there will provide a fantastic backdrop, too.
If nothing else, I'll end up a better cook.
Going out to bars
It's fun, but there's a lot more
Time to go find it
Friday, March 17, 2006
This is much easier than writing
Is it just me, or did Adam Morrison not look entirely stable as he was banging the ball against his head?
Hopefully I'll have more time later today to put up a real post. In the meantime, check this shite out:
www.pandora.com - If you like music AT ALL, you have to check this place out. These brilliant people have put together a relational database that takes whatever bands/songs you like and finds other bands/songs that have similar styles. Other sites have tried this in the past, but these folks got it right. Simply amazing.
about.com - We've all seen the advice columns about how to succeed in your career and move up the corporate ladder. This one takes the opposite approach. Maybe the author was inspired by Office Space: "I usually show up about 15 minutes late. I take the sidedoor; that way Lumbergh can't see me."
imdb.com - Shameless plug for my sister's movie, coming out later this year, but probably not to a theater near you. What's interesting about the site, though, is that people have already rated the movie...it's not finished yet!
mcsweeneys.net - I don't care if it was on Sports Guy's Links of the Day earlier this week, everyone needs to read this. Quite possibly the most brilliant thing I've ever seen. Seriously, the people who run this site should be up for an award of some kind - isn't there a Nobel Prize lying around we could give them?
That's all you get for now. I have a final to study for.
Only a few links
I have a final tonight
I hope you'll manage
Hopefully I'll have more time later today to put up a real post. In the meantime, check this shite out:
www.pandora.com - If you like music AT ALL, you have to check this place out. These brilliant people have put together a relational database that takes whatever bands/songs you like and finds other bands/songs that have similar styles. Other sites have tried this in the past, but these folks got it right. Simply amazing.
about.com - We've all seen the advice columns about how to succeed in your career and move up the corporate ladder. This one takes the opposite approach. Maybe the author was inspired by Office Space: "I usually show up about 15 minutes late. I take the sidedoor; that way Lumbergh can't see me."
imdb.com - Shameless plug for my sister's movie, coming out later this year, but probably not to a theater near you. What's interesting about the site, though, is that people have already rated the movie...it's not finished yet!
mcsweeneys.net - I don't care if it was on Sports Guy's Links of the Day earlier this week, everyone needs to read this. Quite possibly the most brilliant thing I've ever seen. Seriously, the people who run this site should be up for an award of some kind - isn't there a Nobel Prize lying around we could give them?
That's all you get for now. I have a final to study for.
Only a few links
I have a final tonight
I hope you'll manage
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Who needs sleep?
As my stupid "changing of the seasons" cold continues, it's reminded me of something I had nearly forgotten.
I come up with a lot of little melodies in my head when I've had very little sleep.
Over the last couple nights, I'll wake up coughing and barely conscious, but out of nowhere a 4 or 5-note melody comes to me. Sometimes it comes with words, sometimes it doesn't.
I never have these flashes of mediocre intelligence when I'm fully awake and focused. Nope, I have to be hanging on to the real world by my fingernails in order to receive these gifts.
Unfortunately, this means most of the melodies have been forgotten. I'll fall back asleep, and by the time I wake up the notes will have drifted away. I made sure to remember a couple this time, just to play with them later when I have the chance, but I came up with a better idea: record the brain waves themselves.
We've mapped out the entire human genome. I'm positive someone has the technology to figure out what synapses are firing in our minds when we think of music. I'm not asking for the machine to read the lyrics that come with it (although that would be pretty frickin' sweet), just the melodies. If different brain waves can decipher our mood, than I figure our brain waves differ when we think of different notes.
I'd like to hook myself up to this machine while I'm dead tired and the elusive melodies are taunting me. The melodies are freshest in my mind and have the greatest chance of being recorded. Besides, I'm so tired when I think of these songs I don't have much else going through my head.
I wish I had the ability to simply write them down, but I don't know music well enough to jot down some notes on a staff. I definitely have less than perfect pitch, so I can't write out the letters of the notes, either. If I thought of lyrics then yes, I should drag my lazy ass out of bed and jot them down, but that rarely happens. More than 90 percent of the time I have just the music.
The latest aural delight to come my way brought both words and accompaniment. It's a paint-by-numbers R&B song probably titled, "I'm Feelin' Love." I searched for the title to make sure I wasn't just recalling some filler radio song, so I know it's an original. I use 'original' in the loosest of terms; this song is by no means an artistic expression, but hey, if I can find the right people maybe I can sell it to one of the flavor-of-the-month female R&B singers and make some money.
I wonder if my lack of sleep does similar things to the brain as certain drugs. You always hear about artists writing their best material on a bender; sleep deprivation could be the new trend. It's a lot safer to try than heroin. I'll give Scott Weiland a call and see what he thinks.
Sleep deprivation
Artistic visions dancing
In a weary head
I come up with a lot of little melodies in my head when I've had very little sleep.
Over the last couple nights, I'll wake up coughing and barely conscious, but out of nowhere a 4 or 5-note melody comes to me. Sometimes it comes with words, sometimes it doesn't.
I never have these flashes of mediocre intelligence when I'm fully awake and focused. Nope, I have to be hanging on to the real world by my fingernails in order to receive these gifts.
Unfortunately, this means most of the melodies have been forgotten. I'll fall back asleep, and by the time I wake up the notes will have drifted away. I made sure to remember a couple this time, just to play with them later when I have the chance, but I came up with a better idea: record the brain waves themselves.
We've mapped out the entire human genome. I'm positive someone has the technology to figure out what synapses are firing in our minds when we think of music. I'm not asking for the machine to read the lyrics that come with it (although that would be pretty frickin' sweet), just the melodies. If different brain waves can decipher our mood, than I figure our brain waves differ when we think of different notes.
I'd like to hook myself up to this machine while I'm dead tired and the elusive melodies are taunting me. The melodies are freshest in my mind and have the greatest chance of being recorded. Besides, I'm so tired when I think of these songs I don't have much else going through my head.
I wish I had the ability to simply write them down, but I don't know music well enough to jot down some notes on a staff. I definitely have less than perfect pitch, so I can't write out the letters of the notes, either. If I thought of lyrics then yes, I should drag my lazy ass out of bed and jot them down, but that rarely happens. More than 90 percent of the time I have just the music.
The latest aural delight to come my way brought both words and accompaniment. It's a paint-by-numbers R&B song probably titled, "I'm Feelin' Love." I searched for the title to make sure I wasn't just recalling some filler radio song, so I know it's an original. I use 'original' in the loosest of terms; this song is by no means an artistic expression, but hey, if I can find the right people maybe I can sell it to one of the flavor-of-the-month female R&B singers and make some money.
I wonder if my lack of sleep does similar things to the brain as certain drugs. You always hear about artists writing their best material on a bender; sleep deprivation could be the new trend. It's a lot safer to try than heroin. I'll give Scott Weiland a call and see what he thinks.
Sleep deprivation
Artistic visions dancing
In a weary head
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Maybe this theory only applies to me
It's snowing in Rochester. Again. I'm not upset about the weather; it's Rochester, so it's always cold. No, I'm upset we were teased into thinking winter was over. Last night I could walk around in a t-shirt, jeans and sandals. Today it was back to the full-length coat. I'm also sick now, thanks to the suddenly changing weather. Bitch, bitch, bitch.
I know about Seasonal Affect Disorder, in which the bleak weather can make someone depressed through lack of serotonin. I'd like to present another theory, one that involves weather and depression, but slightly different.
It's the Pocket of Sunshine Syndrome (PSS).
This theory borrows from both Seasonal Affect Disorder and Expectation Theory. PSS occurs when the weather has been consistently dreary for at least three months, then changes for the better, then changes for the worse again with no end in sight. It causes the victim to get his/her hopes up and then feel defeated again.
Expectation Theory states a person's level of satisfaction is not based solely on performance, but on performance based on expectations. Therefore, if someone's performance is mediocre but was expected to perform terribly, then satisfaction is much higher than someone who performs well, but not at the usual standard. PSS occurs because the expectation is the weather will remain at its new standard, but drops below this new standard, causing great dissatisfaction.
Seasonal Affect Disorder can be tempered by the knowledge of the length and severity of winter, but humans are always fooled by sunshine. Anyone who says, "Well, it was nice while it lasted" and then continued on as if nothing happened is deceiving both you and themself. When you get a taste of something, you want more. You won't likely become a fiend, but the thought will always be in the back of your mind, and your satisfaction always will be slightly altered as a result.
PSS can best be described as a form of cognitive dissonance, an occurance of the world not behaving as previously believed. We humans are arrogant as a whole, and the idea of weather not succumbing to our will is a point of frustration. When weather suddenly changes in a way we don't like, we are frustrated further.
The basic guidelines for PSS can be boiled down to a few points:
- drop in temperature of at least 20 degrees from previous day's high
- adverse change in conditions, as in clear skies to snow
- must occur when general weather patterns could change (i.e. cannot happen in January)
I hope this theory helps you understand your misery during this difficult time. However, if you live in an area where weather patterns are stable, I hate you. I will be moving out of "further north than parts of Canada" shortly. I can't wait.
Pocket of sunshine
Screw the pocket, I want more
Spring Break, get here soon
I know about Seasonal Affect Disorder, in which the bleak weather can make someone depressed through lack of serotonin. I'd like to present another theory, one that involves weather and depression, but slightly different.
It's the Pocket of Sunshine Syndrome (PSS).
This theory borrows from both Seasonal Affect Disorder and Expectation Theory. PSS occurs when the weather has been consistently dreary for at least three months, then changes for the better, then changes for the worse again with no end in sight. It causes the victim to get his/her hopes up and then feel defeated again.
Expectation Theory states a person's level of satisfaction is not based solely on performance, but on performance based on expectations. Therefore, if someone's performance is mediocre but was expected to perform terribly, then satisfaction is much higher than someone who performs well, but not at the usual standard. PSS occurs because the expectation is the weather will remain at its new standard, but drops below this new standard, causing great dissatisfaction.
Seasonal Affect Disorder can be tempered by the knowledge of the length and severity of winter, but humans are always fooled by sunshine. Anyone who says, "Well, it was nice while it lasted" and then continued on as if nothing happened is deceiving both you and themself. When you get a taste of something, you want more. You won't likely become a fiend, but the thought will always be in the back of your mind, and your satisfaction always will be slightly altered as a result.
PSS can best be described as a form of cognitive dissonance, an occurance of the world not behaving as previously believed. We humans are arrogant as a whole, and the idea of weather not succumbing to our will is a point of frustration. When weather suddenly changes in a way we don't like, we are frustrated further.
The basic guidelines for PSS can be boiled down to a few points:
- drop in temperature of at least 20 degrees from previous day's high
- adverse change in conditions, as in clear skies to snow
- must occur when general weather patterns could change (i.e. cannot happen in January)
I hope this theory helps you understand your misery during this difficult time. However, if you live in an area where weather patterns are stable, I hate you. I will be moving out of "further north than parts of Canada" shortly. I can't wait.
Pocket of sunshine
Screw the pocket, I want more
Spring Break, get here soon
No more salisbury steak
We have a serious problem. This is bigger than the ports issue, Saddam's trial, Bill Frist winning the first straw poll of the '08 campaign (seriously, how the hell?! I don't care that he's from Tennessee, that guy sucks) and the possibility of a bird flu pandemic combined.
Isaac Hayes quit South Park. Because they made fun of Scientology. Is every celebrity on this kick right now?
What in the world is that show going to do without Chef? Don't tell me they're going to find someone else to play Chef, because that would just be wrong. Barry White is no longer with us, and he's the only person on this planet who could have pulled that off. My guess is they kill Chef off in a blaze of glory and hilarity.
The second biggest surprise in that article was finding out Chef had a name. Apparently he is Jerome McElroy. I can't remember a single episode where that came out. I haven't been watching much over the past few years; maybe this was an episode similar to finding out the identity of Cartman's dad: the entire episode built up to the answer. If anybody knows, please impart your sacred knowledge.
Not a lot else I can say; the article sums up the exchange between Hayes and Stone/Parker pretty well. It's a shame it had to happen, but let's try to remember the good times.
My bet? South Park DVD sales are about to go up.
One last note: I keep wanting to post right after midnight, so I end up skipping a day. Maybe I should just set my time zone to Mountain and avoid this problem.
Isaac Hayes, farewell
No one else can take your place
Chocolate salty balls
Isaac Hayes quit South Park. Because they made fun of Scientology. Is every celebrity on this kick right now?
What in the world is that show going to do without Chef? Don't tell me they're going to find someone else to play Chef, because that would just be wrong. Barry White is no longer with us, and he's the only person on this planet who could have pulled that off. My guess is they kill Chef off in a blaze of glory and hilarity.
The second biggest surprise in that article was finding out Chef had a name. Apparently he is Jerome McElroy. I can't remember a single episode where that came out. I haven't been watching much over the past few years; maybe this was an episode similar to finding out the identity of Cartman's dad: the entire episode built up to the answer. If anybody knows, please impart your sacred knowledge.
Not a lot else I can say; the article sums up the exchange between Hayes and Stone/Parker pretty well. It's a shame it had to happen, but let's try to remember the good times.
My bet? South Park DVD sales are about to go up.
One last note: I keep wanting to post right after midnight, so I end up skipping a day. Maybe I should just set my time zone to Mountain and avoid this problem.
Isaac Hayes, farewell
No one else can take your place
Chocolate salty balls
Sunday, March 12, 2006
March Angryness (because the other name is copyrighted)
The field of 65 is set. Here are one man's thoughts on this year's bracket:
- Missouri State got shafted. Air Force has no business in the tournament; they won zero games against the RPI Top 50 and had a nonconference schedule ranking of 270. 270! Missouri State had an RPI of 21. That has to be the highest RPI ranking sitting out of the tournament.
- Tennessee as a 2 seed and Gonzaga as a 3? I think someone forgot to switch those seedings after the committee stopped laughing.
- I had no idea the tournament committee was full of doctors or fortune tellers. It's the only reason George Washington is an 8 seed. If they didn't think Pops Mensah-Bonsu was going to be hurt the entire tournament, GW is at least a 3. How your seed can be lower than your Top 25 ranking is beyond me.
- I saw much more emphasis on conference tournaments this year. Syracuse went from out of the tournament to a 5 seed and UCLA, despite not being in the top 10 all year, becomes a 2 seed after winning the Pac-10 tournament.
- Second Missouri State note: Not only did they get shafted by a team out of the conference, but they got shafted by teams in their own conference. Bradley had no business getting in ahead of them. The same could be said for Seton Hall getting in ahead of Cincinnati.
- Maybe I just haven't watched enough basketball this year, but there seems to be a big dropoff after the top 5-6 teams. I don't think all the 1 seeds are going to the Final Four, but if it ever was to happen, this is the year.
- Overall, just one of the weirdest brackets I've ever seen. I don't think I've disagreed with so many of the committee's decisions. I really don't like the idea of placing so much emphasis on the last few games, but I guess it provides more drama to keep the door open for more teams.
Here are a few teams I like (can't give them all away):
- Boston College
- UNC
- Georgetown
- West Virginia
Some teams I don't like:
- Oklahoma
- Tennessee
- Iowa
- Ohio State
My Final Four: Duke, UConn, BC, Gonzaga
My National Champ: UConn
Why UConn will win: They have the easiest road to the Final Four, with UNC the only legitimate test. UConn's experience will win over. I also think they're incredibly motivated after losing to Syracuse in the second round of the Big East tournament. Kentucky endured a similar fate 10 years ago, losing to Mississippi State in the SEC tournament before steamrolling to a national title. I predict the past will meet the present in the second round, as UConn blows by the Wildcats to meet Illinois in the Sweet 16.
As for the other 1 seeds, Duke has a fairly easy road, too, but they've shown how vulnerable they really are if Redick is having an off-night. I think Memphis will face a streaking ku team (yes, I know the letters aren't capitalized - it's a Mizzou thing), and if they get past the chickenhawks, an incredibly pissed off Gonzaga team will most likely be waiting for Memphis in the Elite 8. Finally, for Villanova, they have the unfortunate fate of facing a Boston College team in the Sweet 16 that realized they can play with the best teams in the country after nearly defeating Duke for the ACC title.
This is going to be a weird tournament, without a doubt. There's a lot of parity after the first handful, and it wouldn't surprise me to see a mid-major in the Elite 8. The last three games should be a joy to watch, and here's why (as long as my picks are right):
- Duke vs. Gonzaga will hopefully end the debate once and for all who the National Player of the Year is. Redick vs. Morrison will be the best individual battle of the entire tournament. I'm guessing they'll score roughly 90 points combined, especially when everyone else just stops playing and lets them go at it one-on-one. It'll be the first time you'll ever see someone say "Check" in a Final Four game. Duke will win at the last second when Redick makes a 3-point shot from Evansville.
- UConn vs. BC will be an intense used-to-be-in-the-same-conference brawl. Rudy Gay will put on an amazing show in hopes of convincing the NBA he should be the #1 overall pick in this year's draft. I'm just waiting for him to jump out of the gym*; everyone says he can do it, so why haven't we seen this yet?
*Note to non-sports fans who are still reading: draft gurus love hyperbole more than sex.
- Duke vs. UConn will be the game we've been waiting for all season. UConn's overall team will take home the trophy as Redick cannot do it alone. He'll try, though. Once he realizes Sheldon Williams really does suck, he'll convince Coach K that Williams doesn't need the ball again, ever. UConn will pick up on this and triple-team Redick from the moment he gets the ball. Redick will keep shooting, however, and UConn will walk away as national champs.
But then again, I could be wrong.
65-team field
The tournament will start soon
Time for some madness
- Missouri State got shafted. Air Force has no business in the tournament; they won zero games against the RPI Top 50 and had a nonconference schedule ranking of 270. 270! Missouri State had an RPI of 21. That has to be the highest RPI ranking sitting out of the tournament.
- Tennessee as a 2 seed and Gonzaga as a 3? I think someone forgot to switch those seedings after the committee stopped laughing.
- I had no idea the tournament committee was full of doctors or fortune tellers. It's the only reason George Washington is an 8 seed. If they didn't think Pops Mensah-Bonsu was going to be hurt the entire tournament, GW is at least a 3. How your seed can be lower than your Top 25 ranking is beyond me.
- I saw much more emphasis on conference tournaments this year. Syracuse went from out of the tournament to a 5 seed and UCLA, despite not being in the top 10 all year, becomes a 2 seed after winning the Pac-10 tournament.
- Second Missouri State note: Not only did they get shafted by a team out of the conference, but they got shafted by teams in their own conference. Bradley had no business getting in ahead of them. The same could be said for Seton Hall getting in ahead of Cincinnati.
- Maybe I just haven't watched enough basketball this year, but there seems to be a big dropoff after the top 5-6 teams. I don't think all the 1 seeds are going to the Final Four, but if it ever was to happen, this is the year.
- Overall, just one of the weirdest brackets I've ever seen. I don't think I've disagreed with so many of the committee's decisions. I really don't like the idea of placing so much emphasis on the last few games, but I guess it provides more drama to keep the door open for more teams.
Here are a few teams I like (can't give them all away):
- Boston College
- UNC
- Georgetown
- West Virginia
Some teams I don't like:
- Oklahoma
- Tennessee
- Iowa
- Ohio State
My Final Four: Duke, UConn, BC, Gonzaga
My National Champ: UConn
Why UConn will win: They have the easiest road to the Final Four, with UNC the only legitimate test. UConn's experience will win over. I also think they're incredibly motivated after losing to Syracuse in the second round of the Big East tournament. Kentucky endured a similar fate 10 years ago, losing to Mississippi State in the SEC tournament before steamrolling to a national title. I predict the past will meet the present in the second round, as UConn blows by the Wildcats to meet Illinois in the Sweet 16.
As for the other 1 seeds, Duke has a fairly easy road, too, but they've shown how vulnerable they really are if Redick is having an off-night. I think Memphis will face a streaking ku team (yes, I know the letters aren't capitalized - it's a Mizzou thing), and if they get past the chickenhawks, an incredibly pissed off Gonzaga team will most likely be waiting for Memphis in the Elite 8. Finally, for Villanova, they have the unfortunate fate of facing a Boston College team in the Sweet 16 that realized they can play with the best teams in the country after nearly defeating Duke for the ACC title.
This is going to be a weird tournament, without a doubt. There's a lot of parity after the first handful, and it wouldn't surprise me to see a mid-major in the Elite 8. The last three games should be a joy to watch, and here's why (as long as my picks are right):
- Duke vs. Gonzaga will hopefully end the debate once and for all who the National Player of the Year is. Redick vs. Morrison will be the best individual battle of the entire tournament. I'm guessing they'll score roughly 90 points combined, especially when everyone else just stops playing and lets them go at it one-on-one. It'll be the first time you'll ever see someone say "Check" in a Final Four game. Duke will win at the last second when Redick makes a 3-point shot from Evansville.
- UConn vs. BC will be an intense used-to-be-in-the-same-conference brawl. Rudy Gay will put on an amazing show in hopes of convincing the NBA he should be the #1 overall pick in this year's draft. I'm just waiting for him to jump out of the gym*; everyone says he can do it, so why haven't we seen this yet?
*Note to non-sports fans who are still reading: draft gurus love hyperbole more than sex.
- Duke vs. UConn will be the game we've been waiting for all season. UConn's overall team will take home the trophy as Redick cannot do it alone. He'll try, though. Once he realizes Sheldon Williams really does suck, he'll convince Coach K that Williams doesn't need the ball again, ever. UConn will pick up on this and triple-team Redick from the moment he gets the ball. Redick will keep shooting, however, and UConn will walk away as national champs.
But then again, I could be wrong.
65-team field
The tournament will start soon
Time for some madness
Friday, March 10, 2006
60% up the hill
It's Chuck Norris' birthday. Oh, and mine, too. How cool does that make me?
So I'm a year older today. Am I a year wiser? That's definitely up for debate. Anyway, I hit the big 2-4. Not a whole lot to get excited about, no matter how cool Jack Bauer has made that number. Still one more year before I can rent a car with no penalties and my insurance drops to a civilized number.
It'll be a good time tonight, though. A lot of people had said they'll turn out for the festivities, and that's always good to see. As long as I know I still have people that want to celebrate my life with me, I've got little to complain about. I'm keeping this one short today - time for the haiku.
Twenty-four today
Will I do twenty-four shots?
Nope - I want to live
And a bonus haiku, as per Pat's request. See how easy it is to get what you want?
Skull-fucking Scott Stapp
Cock in the right eyesocket
Pat wants to do it
So I'm a year older today. Am I a year wiser? That's definitely up for debate. Anyway, I hit the big 2-4. Not a whole lot to get excited about, no matter how cool Jack Bauer has made that number. Still one more year before I can rent a car with no penalties and my insurance drops to a civilized number.
It'll be a good time tonight, though. A lot of people had said they'll turn out for the festivities, and that's always good to see. As long as I know I still have people that want to celebrate my life with me, I've got little to complain about. I'm keeping this one short today - time for the haiku.
Twenty-four today
Will I do twenty-four shots?
Nope - I want to live
And a bonus haiku, as per Pat's request. See how easy it is to get what you want?
Skull-fucking Scott Stapp
Cock in the right eyesocket
Pat wants to do it
Thursday, March 09, 2006
You have enough money, Gary
Canada beat the U.S. on Wednesday 8-6. Some, like Dan LNC, believe this loss is good for the World Baseball Classic because U.S. domination would dampen future support. I agree that a total slaughter by our side would not be good for the event (which I am largely in support of), but a loss to Canada is somewhat embarrassing. Canada's starting lineup does not even consist entirely of starting Major League Baseball players, while the American lineup reads more like an All-Star ballot. I strongly believe anything can happen in one baseball game, and if this game were replayed 100 times, the U.S. would win 97 of them. However, I hope this game serves as a warning to the American players who skipped the WBC: we cannot crush everyone just because we're America.
I hope some American players who skipped feel at least some shame for choosing not to represent their country. If America gets eliminated (it could happen), it will be because several of the game's best players chose not to participate. Where is Chris Carpenter, last year's National League Cy Young award winner? Whither Roy Halladay? I know he plays professionally in Canada, but he's from the good ol' U. S. of A. Roy Oswalt should be pitching, not Al Leiter. Jim Edmonds sits, so we're subjected to Randy Winn donning the Stars and Stripes. More on this later in the tirade.
Some players, like Pedro Martinez (Dominican Republic) are injured and cannot play. Pedro expressed such disappointment at not being able to play that I have to believe him. If you're hurt, you're hurt; no shame there.
The most notable voluntary absences from other countries are Hideki Matsui (Japan), Manny Ramirez (Dominican Republic/U.S.) and Vladimir Guerrero (Dominican Republic). Guerrero is completely exonerated because he is with his family after the death of three of his cousins. In fact, there are rumors that he will join his countrymen for the second round. Matsui and Ramirez chose not to participate.
I wonder if they had the same reason, although vocalized much less, than Gary Sheffield. In an interview with the New York Daily News, Sheffield showed his true colors by saying, "My season is when I get paid."
While I appreciate the candor (are you listening, Billy Wagner and C.C. Sabathia?), Sheffield's remarks cut to the core of the problem. We've come upon an age in which players forego representing their country solely for money. Playing for the U.S. used to be a dream for every kid playing in the backyard; maybe now that's replaced by the thrill of signing their first free agent contract.
I'm afraid the economists are right on this one: the value in playing for your country no longer strictly outweighs the possible monetary loss you can incur from injury. I've always worried we would get to a day when corporations became more important than countries, and it appears that day has arrived.
It hasn't arrived for the entire world, thankfully. The Dominican players, while some of the richest in the game, all eagerly signed up at the first opportunity (the inscrutable Ramirez excluded). The same can be said for Valenzuela, Mexico, Korea, and virtually every other country in this tournament. Unfortunately, Americans never got the memo describing the thrill of playing for your country.
Why is that? Are we so comfortable in our surroundings that we feel no need to get excited? I fear our lives have become so easy compared to most countries that national pride has become superfluous. If we lose, so what? We still have a plasma screen to watch Big Papi duel Johan Santana for the title. If we don't even make the second round? Well, that sucks, but I'll forget about it after a nice mocha latte frappucino. Going back to economic theory, the value of our accumulated wealth has exceeded the value of national pride. I'm not talking about your national pride, I'm talking about that of the players. These people play baseball as a profession, and their complete lack in wanting to represent that profession on an international stage is a disappointing sign. It's an irreversible trend, so I'm probably wasting my time, but I still think it's a sad day when the creature comforts you can afford bring you greater pleasure than representing your country as one of the best it has to offer.
World Baseball Classic
Americans sitting out
Where's their sense of pride?
I hope some American players who skipped feel at least some shame for choosing not to represent their country. If America gets eliminated (it could happen), it will be because several of the game's best players chose not to participate. Where is Chris Carpenter, last year's National League Cy Young award winner? Whither Roy Halladay? I know he plays professionally in Canada, but he's from the good ol' U. S. of A. Roy Oswalt should be pitching, not Al Leiter. Jim Edmonds sits, so we're subjected to Randy Winn donning the Stars and Stripes. More on this later in the tirade.
Some players, like Pedro Martinez (Dominican Republic) are injured and cannot play. Pedro expressed such disappointment at not being able to play that I have to believe him. If you're hurt, you're hurt; no shame there.
The most notable voluntary absences from other countries are Hideki Matsui (Japan), Manny Ramirez (Dominican Republic/U.S.) and Vladimir Guerrero (Dominican Republic). Guerrero is completely exonerated because he is with his family after the death of three of his cousins. In fact, there are rumors that he will join his countrymen for the second round. Matsui and Ramirez chose not to participate.
I wonder if they had the same reason, although vocalized much less, than Gary Sheffield. In an interview with the New York Daily News, Sheffield showed his true colors by saying, "My season is when I get paid."
While I appreciate the candor (are you listening, Billy Wagner and C.C. Sabathia?), Sheffield's remarks cut to the core of the problem. We've come upon an age in which players forego representing their country solely for money. Playing for the U.S. used to be a dream for every kid playing in the backyard; maybe now that's replaced by the thrill of signing their first free agent contract.
I'm afraid the economists are right on this one: the value in playing for your country no longer strictly outweighs the possible monetary loss you can incur from injury. I've always worried we would get to a day when corporations became more important than countries, and it appears that day has arrived.
It hasn't arrived for the entire world, thankfully. The Dominican players, while some of the richest in the game, all eagerly signed up at the first opportunity (the inscrutable Ramirez excluded). The same can be said for Valenzuela, Mexico, Korea, and virtually every other country in this tournament. Unfortunately, Americans never got the memo describing the thrill of playing for your country.
Why is that? Are we so comfortable in our surroundings that we feel no need to get excited? I fear our lives have become so easy compared to most countries that national pride has become superfluous. If we lose, so what? We still have a plasma screen to watch Big Papi duel Johan Santana for the title. If we don't even make the second round? Well, that sucks, but I'll forget about it after a nice mocha latte frappucino. Going back to economic theory, the value of our accumulated wealth has exceeded the value of national pride. I'm not talking about your national pride, I'm talking about that of the players. These people play baseball as a profession, and their complete lack in wanting to represent that profession on an international stage is a disappointing sign. It's an irreversible trend, so I'm probably wasting my time, but I still think it's a sad day when the creature comforts you can afford bring you greater pleasure than representing your country as one of the best it has to offer.
World Baseball Classic
Americans sitting out
Where's their sense of pride?
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Hate the sin, not the sinner
Three college students have been arrested for burning churches in West Alabama. None of the churches were in my home county, but half of them were in Bibb County, which borders it, so I've tried to keep up with the story whenever I see an update. All of the churches were Southern Baptist, but the boys burned an equal number of predominantly white and black churches.
All of the burnings happened late at night, meaning the boys had no intention of hurting anyone specifically. They were simply angry at Southern Baptists. While I do not condone their actions in any way, I understand their anger. I was once as angry as they are at Southern Baptists. I also grew up in that environment, one that shuns you for not going to church on Sundays and youth group Wednesday nights. I understand the pain of being ostracized for not believing in the same deity.
To my Christian friends: you know we have different beliefs, but I hope you know I respect your faith and do not want to try and change your views. Trying to do so would make me a hypocrite on the grandest scale. For years I had to defend my beliefs (or lack thereof) to those who could not stand the thought of a classmate not believing in Jesus as the savior. This was not a rational debate of opposite yet equally thought out views; this was a personal attack designed to batter me into submission.
The challenges did not just come from peers, however. I was forced to withstand the questions from adults, well-meaning as they may have been. Do you know what it's like as a child to listen to adults cajole you into doing something that makes you uncomfortable? Children who grow up in the Deep South but are not religious must deal with this consistently. I can imagine with little difficulty that the situations I've described played out in the three boys' lives as well.
Thankfully I no longer live in the Deep South. Parts of it I love, especially the food, the weather and the easy pace of life. Unfortunately, religion is an unescapable part of life in that region. It permeates virtually every business and school.
You might be thinking, "That was a long time ago. You can't judge an area by your childhood alone." That line of thought is valid, and I would be forced to agree, except I know it continues well into adulthood. My mother still lives in Alabama, and she has told me on numerous occasions the attempts her peers make to "save her." When she rejects those attempts, she suffers the same social repercussions I felt years ago.
I do not wish to come off as anti-religious. I have absolutely no problem with someone practicing the faith of their choice in the privacy of their home or place of worship. I do have a problem with someone putting it in my face. I have an even bigger problem with a denomination that requires its members to do just that.
I just wish I could have spoken to those boys before they committed those awful crimes. I would have told them they have other options. I know exactly why they're angry, but burning churches will solve nothing. Now they have thrown their lives away with nothing to show for it.
I left the area, promising never to live there again. That may look like a cowardly solution to some, and it possibly is, but I couldn't think of a better alternative. All I do know is it beats sitting in jail for decades to come.
All these church fires
Flames made from pain and anguish
Not the right answer
All of the burnings happened late at night, meaning the boys had no intention of hurting anyone specifically. They were simply angry at Southern Baptists. While I do not condone their actions in any way, I understand their anger. I was once as angry as they are at Southern Baptists. I also grew up in that environment, one that shuns you for not going to church on Sundays and youth group Wednesday nights. I understand the pain of being ostracized for not believing in the same deity.
To my Christian friends: you know we have different beliefs, but I hope you know I respect your faith and do not want to try and change your views. Trying to do so would make me a hypocrite on the grandest scale. For years I had to defend my beliefs (or lack thereof) to those who could not stand the thought of a classmate not believing in Jesus as the savior. This was not a rational debate of opposite yet equally thought out views; this was a personal attack designed to batter me into submission.
The challenges did not just come from peers, however. I was forced to withstand the questions from adults, well-meaning as they may have been. Do you know what it's like as a child to listen to adults cajole you into doing something that makes you uncomfortable? Children who grow up in the Deep South but are not religious must deal with this consistently. I can imagine with little difficulty that the situations I've described played out in the three boys' lives as well.
Thankfully I no longer live in the Deep South. Parts of it I love, especially the food, the weather and the easy pace of life. Unfortunately, religion is an unescapable part of life in that region. It permeates virtually every business and school.
You might be thinking, "That was a long time ago. You can't judge an area by your childhood alone." That line of thought is valid, and I would be forced to agree, except I know it continues well into adulthood. My mother still lives in Alabama, and she has told me on numerous occasions the attempts her peers make to "save her." When she rejects those attempts, she suffers the same social repercussions I felt years ago.
I do not wish to come off as anti-religious. I have absolutely no problem with someone practicing the faith of their choice in the privacy of their home or place of worship. I do have a problem with someone putting it in my face. I have an even bigger problem with a denomination that requires its members to do just that.
I just wish I could have spoken to those boys before they committed those awful crimes. I would have told them they have other options. I know exactly why they're angry, but burning churches will solve nothing. Now they have thrown their lives away with nothing to show for it.
I left the area, promising never to live there again. That may look like a cowardly solution to some, and it possibly is, but I couldn't think of a better alternative. All I do know is it beats sitting in jail for decades to come.
All these church fires
Flames made from pain and anguish
Not the right answer
Maybe I'm just too loud
Unfortunately I didn't make it home in time to post for Tuesday. This means you get a double-shot today! I'm thinking a double shot of Sweaty Lumberjack is in order (please excuse the poor math on how to make the shot). Oh, and it's for you, not for me. I hate that shit.
I wanted to alert you to this interesting interview about introverts. Feel free to read the column first before the interview, but if not, enough of the column is mentioned to get the general idea.
I love learning about different personality types. I used to be obsessed with this book, an absolutely amazing look into how different people process information and interact with the world around them. So now if I see anything that can somehow relate to what I've read, I'm hooked.
The article and subsequent interview really intrigued me because not only did it discuss a personality trait I do not personally hold, it gave suggestions for how to interact with these foreign beings (foreign at least to me). I've heard people say they get tired just by being around a large group of people, but I don't think I ever paid much attention to them. The concept is as bizarre to me as saying you prefer to walk by using your hands. I like to do my own thing from time to time, but being in large groups in one of the best energy boosts I can imagine. If the crowd is large enough, I can get just as loud sober as I would drunk as hell.
But these people, the ones who just cannot physically function for long periods of time in large groups, fascinate me to no end. Because it is something I cannot understand, I want to know so much about it. In the discussion the author mentions that introverts possibly have different mental processes and brain scans. The part about mental processes is easy enough to comprehend, but actually having a difference in the structure of the brain? Now I want to know when in fetal development it happens (if that's when it happens) and when it can be detected. Does this mean part of a person's personality can be predicted by observing the brain? As I said before, I'm utterly spellbound.
However, the most perplexing point in the entire discussion is that "shy" and "introverted" are completely different concepts. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the concept, mostly because Rauch claims shy people have reluctance approaching people, while introverts can, but just get exhausted doing so. If you get exhausted doing something you don't prefer doing, wouldn't that make you reluctant? I understand his point that in-depth topics in smaller gatherings can make introverts come alive, but is he saying that shy people, no matter what, just refuse to speak much? Final question: is he saying all shy people are introverts, but not all introverts shy? Maybe you can explain the difference to me.
I enjoyed the section on how to treat introverts, and I'll try my best not to harass them in the future. Just be warned: if I see you at a party and you're off to the side by yourself, I'm still going to come up to you and ask if you're having a good time. The only difference now is if you say you are, I'm much more likely to believe you.
Introverted folks
So much I don't understand
I still like you, though
I wanted to alert you to this interesting interview about introverts. Feel free to read the column first before the interview, but if not, enough of the column is mentioned to get the general idea.
I love learning about different personality types. I used to be obsessed with this book, an absolutely amazing look into how different people process information and interact with the world around them. So now if I see anything that can somehow relate to what I've read, I'm hooked.
The article and subsequent interview really intrigued me because not only did it discuss a personality trait I do not personally hold, it gave suggestions for how to interact with these foreign beings (foreign at least to me). I've heard people say they get tired just by being around a large group of people, but I don't think I ever paid much attention to them. The concept is as bizarre to me as saying you prefer to walk by using your hands. I like to do my own thing from time to time, but being in large groups in one of the best energy boosts I can imagine. If the crowd is large enough, I can get just as loud sober as I would drunk as hell.
But these people, the ones who just cannot physically function for long periods of time in large groups, fascinate me to no end. Because it is something I cannot understand, I want to know so much about it. In the discussion the author mentions that introverts possibly have different mental processes and brain scans. The part about mental processes is easy enough to comprehend, but actually having a difference in the structure of the brain? Now I want to know when in fetal development it happens (if that's when it happens) and when it can be detected. Does this mean part of a person's personality can be predicted by observing the brain? As I said before, I'm utterly spellbound.
However, the most perplexing point in the entire discussion is that "shy" and "introverted" are completely different concepts. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the concept, mostly because Rauch claims shy people have reluctance approaching people, while introverts can, but just get exhausted doing so. If you get exhausted doing something you don't prefer doing, wouldn't that make you reluctant? I understand his point that in-depth topics in smaller gatherings can make introverts come alive, but is he saying that shy people, no matter what, just refuse to speak much? Final question: is he saying all shy people are introverts, but not all introverts shy? Maybe you can explain the difference to me.
I enjoyed the section on how to treat introverts, and I'll try my best not to harass them in the future. Just be warned: if I see you at a party and you're off to the side by yourself, I'm still going to come up to you and ask if you're having a good time. The only difference now is if you say you are, I'm much more likely to believe you.
Introverted folks
So much I don't understand
I still like you, though
Monday, March 06, 2006
Run, diary, run!
I don’t like award shows – I think they’re nothing but self-congratulation parties. However, Meredith wanted to watch the celebrities walk down the red carpet, so I relented. I managed to watch the entire show for the first time in my life. During the show, Dan suggested I write a running diary of this historic occasion. How could I say no?
Highlights from the first 49 minutes of the Oscars:
- Jon Stewart bombing the beginning of the monologue, but finishing strong
- George Clooney being proud of being out of the mainstream and giving great examples of Hollywood pushing the envelope
- Ben Stiller in a green wetsuit, acting as if a green screen was behind him to make him invisible to viewers, to present for Best Special Effects
And now the actual running diary:
8:49 – Jennifer Aniston just presented Best Costume. Wow, she could not be more bored with herself if she tried. I also remarked to Meredith how far she’s fallen if she’s presenting such a minor award.
8:50 – It’s Russell Crowe, and he’s not drunk and fighting anyone. OK, my mistake, it’s obviously not Russell Crowe.
8:56 – Will Ferrell and Steve Carell presenting for Best Makeup wearing horrible makeup themselves. With the combined comedic genius of those two, I would have expected a little more, but I guess they just didn’t have much to work with.
8:59 – Jon Stewart just joked that he’s surprised Cinderella Man didn’t win Best Makeup because it’s obviously so hard to make Russell Crowe look like he got in a fight. My guess is Stewart won’t be going to the same afterparty as Crowe. My next guess is Crowe spends the night looking for Stewart.
9:02 – Morgan Freeman presents the award for Best Supporting Actress. His voice is fantastic. I don’t care what he does – that man can read the phonebook and I’d listen.
9:06 – There’s a pan shot of the front row. It’s comprised of the nominees for the big awards…and Jack Nicholson. How does he get to sit in the front row when I can’t think of a single movie he was in all year? Jack Nicholson is still the King of Hollywood. It’s good to be Jack.
9:08 – Commercial for Tab Energy, positioned as an energy drink for women…it’s even pink! Tab needs to stop and realize they’re just done.
9:10 – Lauren Bacall just took the stage. She has such a look of class to her; I can only hope to age as well as she has. If you tell me she’s had plastic surgery or Botox, I will punch you in the face. Some things I just need to believe.
9:15 – Stephen Colbert is doing a voice-over about the nominees for Best Actress in true Daily Show style. It looks like a bunch of political commercials. The best was the one endorsing Reese Witherspoon – an “American” couple lamenting the foreign sounding first names of the other nominees. I love the flair those guys are putting on the show.
9:20 – Charlize Theron is presenting for Best Documentary. It includes the Enron movie, one of the two movies I’ve seen this year that was nominated. I have no connection to pop culture.
9:23 – Adjusting the TV one more time. I hate Time Warner Cable for the crappy broadcast station reception.
9:25 – The song from “Crash” is nice enough, but the fiery car on stage combined with the people walking from it like zombies is a little unsettling.
9:30 – Back from commercial, and I just noticed that the show is rated TV-14. Can that possibly be because of Brokeback?
9:31 – Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves are presenting Art Direction. Two notes: 1) Was “Speed” that big of an event in their lives? 2) They gave the most wooden presence possible. Maybe someone thought it would be a good idea to put them together but they actually hate each other after the filming of “Speed.” If I were pairing people, that’s what I’d do. Watching people have to be civil when they’d prefer not to in front of millions of people is always fun.
9:35 – Samuel L. Jackson! I think he should be a middle school teacher in a rough urban school. If he can’t get the kids to straighten up, nobody can.
9:40 – It’s the president of the Academy’s turn to take the stage. Do you think he gets bored at the award shows since he knows who’s going to win? I don’t care much for award shows to begin with, but if I knew ahead of time who would win, what’s the point?
9:48 – “Brokeback Mountain” won its first Oscar of the night, this one for Original Score. And the music was good too. I’m here all week, tip your waitress.
9:56 – Let’s follow that with a presentation by Jake Gyllenhall. There’s really nothing of interest going on right now. Jon Stewart’s trying a little too hard, but that’s about it.
9:58 – Nice. Jon Stewart is actually making fun of the show he’s hosting. I agree, the montages are waaaayyyy too long.
10:02 – Who is that sitting next to Jack Nicholson? Is that his daughter or his girlfriend? That’s a nice goal to have in life, to have people confused over that.
10:03 – Lily Tomlin and Merryl Streep are presenting and giving the most confusing intro in the history of the Oscars. They’re purposefully tripping over each other lines. It’s actually a pretty good acting job to be that disconnected.
10:05 – That intro lasted so long I forgot who they were giving a tribute to.
10:11 – Is it just me, or does Joaquin Phoenix look like the picture of evil? Catch him at the right angle, and I’m convinced he’s Satan.
10:13 – Robert Altman just made a joke about the heart he received in a transplant and referenced the age of the woman he received it from. As expected, nervous but respectful laughter ensued.
10:17 – Ludacris is presenting one of the songs nominated for Best Original Song. Needless to say, it’s the one from “Hustle and Flow,” “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp.” One of the guys in the song has two diamond watches on his wrist. But the best part is the preacher doing the pop-and-lock.
10:21 – Oops, the director at ABC messed up. They kept the view on the camera showing people clearing off the stage. Not exactly the magical look they’re going for, I’m sure.
10:22 – “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp” just won for Best Original Song. They’re showing all the black actors at the Oscars, regardless of whether they were in the show. The guys who wrote the song barged their way to the stage and looked honestly thrilled. You know there’s going to be a huge party tonight.
10:23 – Jon Stewart cannot stop laughing. I think he really enjoyed the spike they brought to the Oscars.
10:25 – Another Daily Show-style political commercial about sound design. At the end, it asked to support Wylie Stateman, and the fine print at the bottom read, “Paid for by Wylie Stateman’s mother.” Jon Stewart may be trying a bit too hard at times, but having the Daily Show crew sure beats Whoopi Goldberg.
10:26 – Jennifer Garner, looking like she’s going to deliver her baby onstage, almost falls on her way to the podium. You know that would have been in the tabloids for weeks.
10:36 – Will Smith is saying “Hello” to different countries by saying “What happens in Bangkok stays in Bangkok.” He just wanted to say Bangkok.
10:38 – The winner for Best Foreign Language Film looks deeply touched. It’s always nice to see the award really matters to someone.
10:39 – Jon Stewart just gave us a score update: Martin Scorcese, 0 Oscars, Three Six Mafia, 1. I told you he got a kick out of that.
10:42 – The winner for Best Editing just told the conductor not to start the music. The conductor should have started the music anyway and flipped the guy off. Then the Oscar winner would have dived into the orchestra pit and tackled the conductor. Or not.
10:46 – Philip Seymour Hoffman just won for Best Actor. I had always thought of him as a character actor and not a leading man, but after hearing all the buzz from “Capote” and this award, I think those days are over.
10:52 – Just saw an ad for “American Inventor.” That looks like a horrible idea. This reality-contest thing has gone way too far.
10:54 – The award for Best Actor came before Best Cinematography?! I liked the old days better where they built up to it, but I guess this way makes people more likely to watch the whole thing instead of the last hour.
10:56 – Jamie Foxx, before presenting for Best Actress, mentioned Three Six Mafia and the afterparty. Their win is easily the story of the Oscars.
11:00 – Reese Witherspoon takes home Best Actress. Seeing the cutaways to Ryan Phillipe makes me wonder how those two ended up together. Phillipe looks like the guy who gets girls drunk to sleep with them, and Witherspoon is the ultimate good girl. And here I thought we could know celebrities just by seeing them on TV and reading about them in magazines.
11:07 – Dustin Hoffman has the most nervous laugh I’ve ever seen.
11:09 – One of the winners of Best Adapted Screenplay (Brokeback) is wearing jeans with his tuxedo jacket and shirt. I’m not saying I want everyone to look exactly the same, but that just looks stupid.
11:11 – Uma Thurman looks drugged out. Did she pre-party with Courtney Love or just get makeup tips from her?
11:17 – I wondered when Tom Hanks was going to show up. He looks really different. It actually looks like he made a visit to the Botox fairy. When is his next movie coming out?
11:18 – The Brokeback parade continues. I had no idea Ang Lee directed it. I guess we can’t make fun of him for only directing action movies. Fantastic, he just said, “I wish I could quit you” and nobody realized it was a joke until he gave a laugh. He also dedicated the movie to his late father. I’m sure his generation took the movie very well.
11:21 – Ahhh, now it all makes sense. Jack Nicholson is presenting for Best Picture. And he’s drunk. He forgot to mention the producers for a movie, stopped, realized he forgot, then fixed his mistake. Oh, and he stuttered the entire time.
11:22 – “Crash” just upset “Brokeback” for Best Picture. I heard it might do that in the pre-show, but I just thought that was to promote interest in the Oscars.
11:24 – Sorry, honey, but not even the producer for Best Picture is immune to the “get off the stage” music.
11:28 – Show’s over, folks. Time for what really matters – the afterparty! I’m going out on a limb and saying Three Six Mafia will throw the best afterparty.
Final note: I just learned Philip Seymour Hoffman is from Rochester. His mom still lives here. That’s pretty frickin’ cool. Maybe he’ll come back to town as a victory lap.
Running diary
Of course I stole the idea
Thank you, Bill Simmons
Highlights from the first 49 minutes of the Oscars:
- Jon Stewart bombing the beginning of the monologue, but finishing strong
- George Clooney being proud of being out of the mainstream and giving great examples of Hollywood pushing the envelope
- Ben Stiller in a green wetsuit, acting as if a green screen was behind him to make him invisible to viewers, to present for Best Special Effects
And now the actual running diary:
8:49 – Jennifer Aniston just presented Best Costume. Wow, she could not be more bored with herself if she tried. I also remarked to Meredith how far she’s fallen if she’s presenting such a minor award.
8:50 – It’s Russell Crowe, and he’s not drunk and fighting anyone. OK, my mistake, it’s obviously not Russell Crowe.
8:56 – Will Ferrell and Steve Carell presenting for Best Makeup wearing horrible makeup themselves. With the combined comedic genius of those two, I would have expected a little more, but I guess they just didn’t have much to work with.
8:59 – Jon Stewart just joked that he’s surprised Cinderella Man didn’t win Best Makeup because it’s obviously so hard to make Russell Crowe look like he got in a fight. My guess is Stewart won’t be going to the same afterparty as Crowe. My next guess is Crowe spends the night looking for Stewart.
9:02 – Morgan Freeman presents the award for Best Supporting Actress. His voice is fantastic. I don’t care what he does – that man can read the phonebook and I’d listen.
9:06 – There’s a pan shot of the front row. It’s comprised of the nominees for the big awards…and Jack Nicholson. How does he get to sit in the front row when I can’t think of a single movie he was in all year? Jack Nicholson is still the King of Hollywood. It’s good to be Jack.
9:08 – Commercial for Tab Energy, positioned as an energy drink for women…it’s even pink! Tab needs to stop and realize they’re just done.
9:10 – Lauren Bacall just took the stage. She has such a look of class to her; I can only hope to age as well as she has. If you tell me she’s had plastic surgery or Botox, I will punch you in the face. Some things I just need to believe.
9:15 – Stephen Colbert is doing a voice-over about the nominees for Best Actress in true Daily Show style. It looks like a bunch of political commercials. The best was the one endorsing Reese Witherspoon – an “American” couple lamenting the foreign sounding first names of the other nominees. I love the flair those guys are putting on the show.
9:20 – Charlize Theron is presenting for Best Documentary. It includes the Enron movie, one of the two movies I’ve seen this year that was nominated. I have no connection to pop culture.
9:23 – Adjusting the TV one more time. I hate Time Warner Cable for the crappy broadcast station reception.
9:25 – The song from “Crash” is nice enough, but the fiery car on stage combined with the people walking from it like zombies is a little unsettling.
9:30 – Back from commercial, and I just noticed that the show is rated TV-14. Can that possibly be because of Brokeback?
9:31 – Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves are presenting Art Direction. Two notes: 1) Was “Speed” that big of an event in their lives? 2) They gave the most wooden presence possible. Maybe someone thought it would be a good idea to put them together but they actually hate each other after the filming of “Speed.” If I were pairing people, that’s what I’d do. Watching people have to be civil when they’d prefer not to in front of millions of people is always fun.
9:35 – Samuel L. Jackson! I think he should be a middle school teacher in a rough urban school. If he can’t get the kids to straighten up, nobody can.
9:40 – It’s the president of the Academy’s turn to take the stage. Do you think he gets bored at the award shows since he knows who’s going to win? I don’t care much for award shows to begin with, but if I knew ahead of time who would win, what’s the point?
9:48 – “Brokeback Mountain” won its first Oscar of the night, this one for Original Score. And the music was good too. I’m here all week, tip your waitress.
9:56 – Let’s follow that with a presentation by Jake Gyllenhall. There’s really nothing of interest going on right now. Jon Stewart’s trying a little too hard, but that’s about it.
9:58 – Nice. Jon Stewart is actually making fun of the show he’s hosting. I agree, the montages are waaaayyyy too long.
10:02 – Who is that sitting next to Jack Nicholson? Is that his daughter or his girlfriend? That’s a nice goal to have in life, to have people confused over that.
10:03 – Lily Tomlin and Merryl Streep are presenting and giving the most confusing intro in the history of the Oscars. They’re purposefully tripping over each other lines. It’s actually a pretty good acting job to be that disconnected.
10:05 – That intro lasted so long I forgot who they were giving a tribute to.
10:11 – Is it just me, or does Joaquin Phoenix look like the picture of evil? Catch him at the right angle, and I’m convinced he’s Satan.
10:13 – Robert Altman just made a joke about the heart he received in a transplant and referenced the age of the woman he received it from. As expected, nervous but respectful laughter ensued.
10:17 – Ludacris is presenting one of the songs nominated for Best Original Song. Needless to say, it’s the one from “Hustle and Flow,” “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp.” One of the guys in the song has two diamond watches on his wrist. But the best part is the preacher doing the pop-and-lock.
10:21 – Oops, the director at ABC messed up. They kept the view on the camera showing people clearing off the stage. Not exactly the magical look they’re going for, I’m sure.
10:22 – “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp” just won for Best Original Song. They’re showing all the black actors at the Oscars, regardless of whether they were in the show. The guys who wrote the song barged their way to the stage and looked honestly thrilled. You know there’s going to be a huge party tonight.
10:23 – Jon Stewart cannot stop laughing. I think he really enjoyed the spike they brought to the Oscars.
10:25 – Another Daily Show-style political commercial about sound design. At the end, it asked to support Wylie Stateman, and the fine print at the bottom read, “Paid for by Wylie Stateman’s mother.” Jon Stewart may be trying a bit too hard at times, but having the Daily Show crew sure beats Whoopi Goldberg.
10:26 – Jennifer Garner, looking like she’s going to deliver her baby onstage, almost falls on her way to the podium. You know that would have been in the tabloids for weeks.
10:36 – Will Smith is saying “Hello” to different countries by saying “What happens in Bangkok stays in Bangkok.” He just wanted to say Bangkok.
10:38 – The winner for Best Foreign Language Film looks deeply touched. It’s always nice to see the award really matters to someone.
10:39 – Jon Stewart just gave us a score update: Martin Scorcese, 0 Oscars, Three Six Mafia, 1. I told you he got a kick out of that.
10:42 – The winner for Best Editing just told the conductor not to start the music. The conductor should have started the music anyway and flipped the guy off. Then the Oscar winner would have dived into the orchestra pit and tackled the conductor. Or not.
10:46 – Philip Seymour Hoffman just won for Best Actor. I had always thought of him as a character actor and not a leading man, but after hearing all the buzz from “Capote” and this award, I think those days are over.
10:52 – Just saw an ad for “American Inventor.” That looks like a horrible idea. This reality-contest thing has gone way too far.
10:54 – The award for Best Actor came before Best Cinematography?! I liked the old days better where they built up to it, but I guess this way makes people more likely to watch the whole thing instead of the last hour.
10:56 – Jamie Foxx, before presenting for Best Actress, mentioned Three Six Mafia and the afterparty. Their win is easily the story of the Oscars.
11:00 – Reese Witherspoon takes home Best Actress. Seeing the cutaways to Ryan Phillipe makes me wonder how those two ended up together. Phillipe looks like the guy who gets girls drunk to sleep with them, and Witherspoon is the ultimate good girl. And here I thought we could know celebrities just by seeing them on TV and reading about them in magazines.
11:07 – Dustin Hoffman has the most nervous laugh I’ve ever seen.
11:09 – One of the winners of Best Adapted Screenplay (Brokeback) is wearing jeans with his tuxedo jacket and shirt. I’m not saying I want everyone to look exactly the same, but that just looks stupid.
11:11 – Uma Thurman looks drugged out. Did she pre-party with Courtney Love or just get makeup tips from her?
11:17 – I wondered when Tom Hanks was going to show up. He looks really different. It actually looks like he made a visit to the Botox fairy. When is his next movie coming out?
11:18 – The Brokeback parade continues. I had no idea Ang Lee directed it. I guess we can’t make fun of him for only directing action movies. Fantastic, he just said, “I wish I could quit you” and nobody realized it was a joke until he gave a laugh. He also dedicated the movie to his late father. I’m sure his generation took the movie very well.
11:21 – Ahhh, now it all makes sense. Jack Nicholson is presenting for Best Picture. And he’s drunk. He forgot to mention the producers for a movie, stopped, realized he forgot, then fixed his mistake. Oh, and he stuttered the entire time.
11:22 – “Crash” just upset “Brokeback” for Best Picture. I heard it might do that in the pre-show, but I just thought that was to promote interest in the Oscars.
11:24 – Sorry, honey, but not even the producer for Best Picture is immune to the “get off the stage” music.
11:28 – Show’s over, folks. Time for what really matters – the afterparty! I’m going out on a limb and saying Three Six Mafia will throw the best afterparty.
Final note: I just learned Philip Seymour Hoffman is from Rochester. His mom still lives here. That’s pretty frickin’ cool. Maybe he’ll come back to town as a victory lap.
Running diary
Of course I stole the idea
Thank you, Bill Simmons
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Political par-tay
I am a liberal. I imagine that all of you who know me know this. I want to explain to you, though, my latest reason for being a liberal. It has nothing to do with W, abortion, welfare or any political issue.
Liberals are far more interesting people.
My life's path has taken me through a wide range of environments, and my experiences thus far have cemented this belief I've held for quite some time. If I wanted to throw a party, I would want the number of liberals at the party to outnumber the conservatives. This is not to protect my views from criticism; this is to ensure the party's success.
Let's take a look at the words 'liberal' and 'conservative.' 'Liberal,' according to Dictionary.com, means "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry" and "Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded." Who wouldn't want to be free from bigotry and broad-minded? On the flip side, 'conservative' is defined as "Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change" and "Traditional or restrained in style."
Now don't get me wrong, I think some traditions are wonderful things, but tending to oppose change? Change is how we evolved from our cave-dwelling ancestors. Change brought us electricity and air travel. If you take even the briefest glimpse at history, we are who we are today because someone changed how we thought about something or how we did something. Hell, change even brought the gift of this blog. OK, bad example, let's move on.
Socializing with both types is an exercise in contrast. Conservative people rarely have anything new to say. They often stick to safe topics in conversation. More than once I've offended a conservative person by saying something I would say to most of my liberal friends without hesitation. Also, all the conservatives I know have very uninspired taste in music. They either listen to "whatever is on the radio" or aren't very interested in music. On the other hand, several times I have met liberal people and within half an hour we are joking and trading verbal swipes. Every new suggestion for music comes from a liberal. My world is more colorful thanks to liberal people.
You might be thinking that I am confusing 'outgoing' with liberal. Far from true. Someone can be very outgoing but not have anything particularly new to say. Someone could also have a wealth of interesting ideas but too shy to tell them to strangers (this kind of person often makes for the best writers). I like outgoing people, too, but it's better if they bring something new and different to the table.
For the record, I'm not trying to be closed-minded about this. Maybe I'll meet some witty, thought-provoking conservatives in DC. I'm sure a few political wannabes have strayed to the right and somehow kept a sense of humor and love of discovery. I just haven't seen it.
If you are a conservative and I have offended you, please do not take too much offense. In an effort of good faith, I extend to you this olive branch. May the two of you live a happy life. Also, If you think I am wrong, please let me know. I'm always up for meeting new and exciting people.
I'm pretty sure there's a liberal inside you just waiting to get out.
Which side are you on?
Those on the left have more fun
I'd rather be there
Liberals are far more interesting people.
My life's path has taken me through a wide range of environments, and my experiences thus far have cemented this belief I've held for quite some time. If I wanted to throw a party, I would want the number of liberals at the party to outnumber the conservatives. This is not to protect my views from criticism; this is to ensure the party's success.
Let's take a look at the words 'liberal' and 'conservative.' 'Liberal,' according to Dictionary.com, means "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry" and "Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded." Who wouldn't want to be free from bigotry and broad-minded? On the flip side, 'conservative' is defined as "Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change" and "Traditional or restrained in style."
Now don't get me wrong, I think some traditions are wonderful things, but tending to oppose change? Change is how we evolved from our cave-dwelling ancestors. Change brought us electricity and air travel. If you take even the briefest glimpse at history, we are who we are today because someone changed how we thought about something or how we did something. Hell, change even brought the gift of this blog. OK, bad example, let's move on.
Socializing with both types is an exercise in contrast. Conservative people rarely have anything new to say. They often stick to safe topics in conversation. More than once I've offended a conservative person by saying something I would say to most of my liberal friends without hesitation. Also, all the conservatives I know have very uninspired taste in music. They either listen to "whatever is on the radio" or aren't very interested in music. On the other hand, several times I have met liberal people and within half an hour we are joking and trading verbal swipes. Every new suggestion for music comes from a liberal. My world is more colorful thanks to liberal people.
You might be thinking that I am confusing 'outgoing' with liberal. Far from true. Someone can be very outgoing but not have anything particularly new to say. Someone could also have a wealth of interesting ideas but too shy to tell them to strangers (this kind of person often makes for the best writers). I like outgoing people, too, but it's better if they bring something new and different to the table.
For the record, I'm not trying to be closed-minded about this. Maybe I'll meet some witty, thought-provoking conservatives in DC. I'm sure a few political wannabes have strayed to the right and somehow kept a sense of humor and love of discovery. I just haven't seen it.
If you are a conservative and I have offended you, please do not take too much offense. In an effort of good faith, I extend to you this olive branch. May the two of you live a happy life. Also, If you think I am wrong, please let me know. I'm always up for meeting new and exciting people.
I'm pretty sure there's a liberal inside you just waiting to get out.
Which side are you on?
Those on the left have more fun
I'd rather be there
Friday, March 03, 2006
If he can be successful, we all have a chance
I have a guess that my readership consists of people that either like reading ESPN or The New Yorker. Some like to read both, and that's great, too. Either way, you will absolutely love this conversation between Bill Simmons (aka The Sports Guy) and Malcolm Gladwell (author of The Tipping Point and Blink, as well as a major contributor to The New Yorker). Yes, the conversation centers around sports, but Gladwell puts in his usual brilliance to connect sports issues to larger sociological topics.
I'm not just here to promote the conversation, though. What amazes me is that Bill Simmons has gotten to a point where not only can he have a huge email conversation with one of the most well-known writers today, but receive equal praise on Gladwell's website. I remember reading Simmons back when he was The Boston Sports Guy, just a regular guy writing about sports from a regular guy's perspective. He never claimed to be an objective journalist; he loves Boston teams to the bitter end. My friends and I started reading him in college and were hooked immediately.
His style amuses me to no end. You can almost hear your friends say exactly what he writes, and that's what drew so many people to him. He was very knowledgeable about sports, but interjected humor in ways traditional, "objective" columnists couldn't do. He complains about trades and officiating, just like any two people sitting at a bar. He's admittedly irrational at times. He creates phrases that are still part of my circle of friends' vernacular. I don't think I will forget "I will now light myself on fire" for the rest of my life.
He took his sports column to a new frontier, however, when he began weaving pieces of his own life into the sports he covered. He describes going to the sports books in Vegas, as well as the rest of his weekend in Sin City with his buddies from college. He'd whine about his girlfriend (now wife) making him watch some sappy chick flick as payback for the 11 hours of football he watched the day before. Sometimes, as when his daughter was born, he would deviate from sports topics entirely.
Those deviations, despite several objections, made him the phenomenon he is today. Many people can write well about a particular topic because they know a great deal on the subject. The true artists can wax poetic on any subject life throws their way. Simmons is the kind of writer I will read, regardless of the topic. I watch approximately 10 NBA games a year, but I read every column he writes on professional basketball; he's just that engaging.
I'll venture a guess and say more than 200,000 people visit his site daily, but I don't know exactly how many people read his columns. I know he's a featured writer for the largest sports media outlet in the world, so that's one big honkin' feather in his cap. He's written for Jimmy Kimmel Live and has a book that has sold several thousand copies. He's done so much, and he's not even 40. I have no idea what could come next for him.
His meteoric rise has astounded me, mostly because I've been able to see it from almost the beginning. I've seen the changes in his style. Because I read him so often, I've watched him mature from a guy who wanted to relive his wild college days to a husband and father. Thankfully, he hasn't gotten too stiff on us, at least not yet.
It's a mixed feeling to be in on something that explodes into the mainstream. It makes you feel hip and ahead of the curve, but it's also bittersweet. While you get to say, "Yeah, I was reading him back in the day," it's also not as special because everyone else knows about him, too. In college, especially my first two years, Sports Guy was a part of my group's subculture. He spoke to just us, those of us who followed sports as closely as he did and understood his crazy humor. Now, he's likely to make as many pop culture references as sports, most of which I don't get. I still love his writing, but sometimes he doesn't speak to me like he once did.
That's the problem with becoming popular: it's much easier to adjust your style or way of thinking than the legions of those who may or may not read you. Some pandering has to occur. I'll most likely read Sports Guy until he puts the keyboard away, but my best memories will be of those columns that made him famous originally, the columns devoted entirely to sports and peppered with one-liners that still make me laugh out loud.
I will not argue about this.
Bill Simmons, Sports Guy
I love to read his columns
Early stuff? Better
I'm not just here to promote the conversation, though. What amazes me is that Bill Simmons has gotten to a point where not only can he have a huge email conversation with one of the most well-known writers today, but receive equal praise on Gladwell's website. I remember reading Simmons back when he was The Boston Sports Guy, just a regular guy writing about sports from a regular guy's perspective. He never claimed to be an objective journalist; he loves Boston teams to the bitter end. My friends and I started reading him in college and were hooked immediately.
His style amuses me to no end. You can almost hear your friends say exactly what he writes, and that's what drew so many people to him. He was very knowledgeable about sports, but interjected humor in ways traditional, "objective" columnists couldn't do. He complains about trades and officiating, just like any two people sitting at a bar. He's admittedly irrational at times. He creates phrases that are still part of my circle of friends' vernacular. I don't think I will forget "I will now light myself on fire" for the rest of my life.
He took his sports column to a new frontier, however, when he began weaving pieces of his own life into the sports he covered. He describes going to the sports books in Vegas, as well as the rest of his weekend in Sin City with his buddies from college. He'd whine about his girlfriend (now wife) making him watch some sappy chick flick as payback for the 11 hours of football he watched the day before. Sometimes, as when his daughter was born, he would deviate from sports topics entirely.
Those deviations, despite several objections, made him the phenomenon he is today. Many people can write well about a particular topic because they know a great deal on the subject. The true artists can wax poetic on any subject life throws their way. Simmons is the kind of writer I will read, regardless of the topic. I watch approximately 10 NBA games a year, but I read every column he writes on professional basketball; he's just that engaging.
I'll venture a guess and say more than 200,000 people visit his site daily, but I don't know exactly how many people read his columns. I know he's a featured writer for the largest sports media outlet in the world, so that's one big honkin' feather in his cap. He's written for Jimmy Kimmel Live and has a book that has sold several thousand copies. He's done so much, and he's not even 40. I have no idea what could come next for him.
His meteoric rise has astounded me, mostly because I've been able to see it from almost the beginning. I've seen the changes in his style. Because I read him so often, I've watched him mature from a guy who wanted to relive his wild college days to a husband and father. Thankfully, he hasn't gotten too stiff on us, at least not yet.
It's a mixed feeling to be in on something that explodes into the mainstream. It makes you feel hip and ahead of the curve, but it's also bittersweet. While you get to say, "Yeah, I was reading him back in the day," it's also not as special because everyone else knows about him, too. In college, especially my first two years, Sports Guy was a part of my group's subculture. He spoke to just us, those of us who followed sports as closely as he did and understood his crazy humor. Now, he's likely to make as many pop culture references as sports, most of which I don't get. I still love his writing, but sometimes he doesn't speak to me like he once did.
That's the problem with becoming popular: it's much easier to adjust your style or way of thinking than the legions of those who may or may not read you. Some pandering has to occur. I'll most likely read Sports Guy until he puts the keyboard away, but my best memories will be of those columns that made him famous originally, the columns devoted entirely to sports and peppered with one-liners that still make me laugh out loud.
I will not argue about this.
Bill Simmons, Sports Guy
I love to read his columns
Early stuff? Better
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
If you know me, this post may not be for you
Yesterday's post included the first ever comment from someone I didn't know (thanks, Scott). It was also the first post that included a fairly well-known link. I tried to find out more on my Statcounter, but it gave me no information as to how this visitor found my blog. Supposedly it can tell me which search engines people use to find my blog; maybe he found it through some other way I can't even think of.
I can already find out where, geographically speaking, people read my blog. I've gotten a few hits from faraway lands such as Yemen, Estonia and Poland. I assume they're bored and hit "Next Blog" and mine just happens to appear. Today, however, I want to conduct an experiment. I've heard that more people can find your blog if you include several links. I'd like to see if that works. Don't worry, the post isn't just going to be a page of links, but I plan on throwing them in whenever I see fit. You may have noticed a few already.
Since today's post is an experiment, and the goal of the experiment is to direct random traffic to this site, I guess this would be a good opportunity to introduce myself to those who don't know how they found their way here.
My name is Jason, and I live in Rochester, NY. I am originally from Alabama, but went to college at the University of Missouri. I'm a huge sports fan. My favorite team is the Atlanta Braves. I've been a fan all my life. My dad says shortly after I came home from the hospital I would sit on his lap and watch games with him. My favorite player of all time is Dale Murphy. I have an autographed bat and ball, and hopefully, after I move to Washington, DC in June, I can give them the respect they deserve and put them in glass cases.
Speaking of Washington, here's a story about the strangest thing that's ever happened to me. Shortly after moving there for an internship last summer, my car, a Mazda Protege, was stolen. I rode with the cops for more than an hour, but no luck. I went almost the entire summer without a car, but in August, less than two weeks before I was supposed to leave, I got a call from the police saying they were about to tow my car. I was shocked! Of course, I told them I would be there shortly to claim it. The side mirrors had been broken off and conveniently placed on the hood, but absolutely nothing was stolen. They didn't take my mp3 player, my golf clubs, or anything else. The weirdest part - it was found five blocks from my apartment! My guess is some teenagers wanted to take it for a joyride, but something happened and they got scared shortly into it. They wanted me to know they took it, though, so they broke the mirrors off. It's the only thing I can think of.
That's a little bit about me. If you found this site randomly* please drop me a comment and tell me how you did. I'm curious to see if all of these links are anything other than obnoxious.
*Dan, do not pose as random people. I know you've thought of this already.
The power of links
How far will they connect me?
Next time, a real post
I can already find out where, geographically speaking, people read my blog. I've gotten a few hits from faraway lands such as Yemen, Estonia and Poland. I assume they're bored and hit "Next Blog" and mine just happens to appear. Today, however, I want to conduct an experiment. I've heard that more people can find your blog if you include several links. I'd like to see if that works. Don't worry, the post isn't just going to be a page of links, but I plan on throwing them in whenever I see fit. You may have noticed a few already.
Since today's post is an experiment, and the goal of the experiment is to direct random traffic to this site, I guess this would be a good opportunity to introduce myself to those who don't know how they found their way here.
My name is Jason, and I live in Rochester, NY. I am originally from Alabama, but went to college at the University of Missouri. I'm a huge sports fan. My favorite team is the Atlanta Braves. I've been a fan all my life. My dad says shortly after I came home from the hospital I would sit on his lap and watch games with him. My favorite player of all time is Dale Murphy. I have an autographed bat and ball, and hopefully, after I move to Washington, DC in June, I can give them the respect they deserve and put them in glass cases.
Speaking of Washington, here's a story about the strangest thing that's ever happened to me. Shortly after moving there for an internship last summer, my car, a Mazda Protege, was stolen. I rode with the cops for more than an hour, but no luck. I went almost the entire summer without a car, but in August, less than two weeks before I was supposed to leave, I got a call from the police saying they were about to tow my car. I was shocked! Of course, I told them I would be there shortly to claim it. The side mirrors had been broken off and conveniently placed on the hood, but absolutely nothing was stolen. They didn't take my mp3 player, my golf clubs, or anything else. The weirdest part - it was found five blocks from my apartment! My guess is some teenagers wanted to take it for a joyride, but something happened and they got scared shortly into it. They wanted me to know they took it, though, so they broke the mirrors off. It's the only thing I can think of.
That's a little bit about me. If you found this site randomly* please drop me a comment and tell me how you did. I'm curious to see if all of these links are anything other than obnoxious.
*Dan, do not pose as random people. I know you've thought of this already.
The power of links
How far will they connect me?
Next time, a real post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
