A classic SNL skit (for all the wrong reasons)  

Posted

Last year's Jack Black (w/ "Lazy Sunday") xmas SNL show was re-aired this week. I'm a sucker for JB, so I left it on. There was a skit (and yes, i know the word "skit" is offensive to "sketch comedy" writers, and that's exactly why I'm using it) that centered around a family sitting at a pizza place next to the door.

Ok, here's the joke: it's windy and cold, and when the door opens, the wind blows. Get it? You sure you don't need me to repeat it 6 times? B/c SNL didn't trust their audience to get it right away, so they had to keep running the same joke until they got to the punchline.

Sadly, this is what I think happened in the writing meeting. Someone came up with the idea, which is moderately clever (or, at the very least, has a "yeah, I can relate to that, it's cold when you sit by the door) and probably even had the climax (the wind blows so hard that the old grandmother gets blown in the air and then comes crashing down) thought out. But, that's a 30 second skit, not a 3 minute one. So they had to add filler. And the filler is what ruined the bit.

Door opens once to set up the bit.

Door opens a second time with nothing funny added.

JB tries to switch seats, but gets outraced to the open table by a homeless guy. completely irrelevant.

Door opens a third time, nothing funny added.

Pizza comes, but door opens a fourth time, and the pizza gets blown in the waiters face. This wasn't funny at all, but at least it was an attempt to add to the joke.

Door opens a 5th time, and the grandmother flies away, only to have a dummy come crashing down. Sort of funny, in a non funny kind of way. I mean, at least i could tell that was the punchline of the skit.

The middle part has to go. I don't care if SNL needs to have 100 writers on its staff and 50 sets ready to go in the studio. It HAS to stop stretching 1 joke skits into 3 minutes. It's too painful. Just plow through non stop small gags. Hit or miss, but then move on.

People really don't comprehend how a sit com works. On the E! true hollywood story of Friends, they were discussing how the actors fared after the show. The "experts" (btw, there's a side rant on how pathetic these people are for devoting their lives to knowing OTHER people's lives inside and out) kept going on and on about how funny the actors were on Friends, but how they weren't as funny on others shows. I don't have exact quotes, but it was clear that they weren't fully grasping the concept that the actors are just reading someone else's lines.

Sure, comedy requires a certain degree of innate timing, and perhaps there was some adlibbing or unique delivery going on. But in the end, you are only as funny as the writers behind you. Friends had decent writers. It's not Matt Leblanc's fault that Joey did not have the same writers. How is this a hard concept to understand?

Of course, I think I'm just bitter b/c they said Studio 60 wasn't that big a hit. That's a testament to the stupid american audience, NOT the quality of the show.

maybe the american version of the office IS realistic  

Posted

can't you picture michael doing "one bank"?

http://www.ifilm.com/collection/18220?sublisting=mostrecent&page=1&numPerPage=10

btw, average homeboy, and the asian seizure girl (on page 3) are also classics.

5 minutes of football takes 5 years off my life.  

Posted

I'm not much of a football watcher, but tonight i figured out that i can record two programs at once w/ my DVR, so i am recording the chiefs/chargers game alongside family guy. When I read that LT had a 84 yard td run, i figured it was worth watching. I'm so sorry I did.

The Chiefs partially blocked a punt, that wound up rolling forward. One of the KC players then haphazardly reached for the ball, but was unable to catch it (as it bounced around in the air). A Charger then fell on top of it.

Here were my initial thoughts: "Wow, I can't believe that player didn't realize that by touching the ball, he was making it live again and was risking the chance that SD could recover".

Al Michaels, who's been doing games for 20 years (I think), had this initial comment: "it doesn't matter that san diego fell on the ball....it will be Kansas City's possession."

After some initial confusion, the refs huddled up and then announced this: "The receiving team blocked the punt. However, they then touched the ball after it had crossed the line of scrimage. San diego recovered, and it will thus be 1st and 10 for San diego".

Simple enough, right? Wrong. Michaels: "hmm, it looks like they are reversing their call. It looks like San diego is getting the ball back, but..."

Madden jumps in: "I don't understand...I can't figure out how a team who blocks a punt could then lose posession. I guess what they are saying, what would have had to occur, is this: they are saying that KC obtained possession and then lost possession during the return."

Michaels, perhaps feeling the egg on his face: "well, the ref's initial comments were cut off, so we don't really know why they are ruling this way. and now Herm Edwards wants clarification on the rule. Hmm, whatever they are telling Herm, he seems satisfied with it".

[note: the refs innitial comments were NOT cut off.]

John Madden is a Hall of Fame coach who won a superbowl. he is the FACE of color commentary for the NFL. A legend. Al Michaels is one of the most respected announcers in the game. Also a legend.

me? Last week, i swore to myself that I was going to sit down and watch a football game, and wound up watching "finding neverland".....FOR A THIRD TIME! I can't be bothered with football at this point. The way it's presented is too low brow for me. "fans" have no idea what's going on. It's an excuse to eat chicken wings and crush beer cans on their head. And if they claim they are getting a richer experience out of the game, they are lying. Unless they are getting a different TV feed from the rest of us, b/c the camera doesn't even show the defense!!!!

Heck, the players don't even know the game. The KC player who lunged at the ball clearly had less than a 50% chance of actually grabbing the ball, as it was behind him. But he took that "chance" b/c he didn't understand that it was a chance. Either he thought that the ball was 100% live or 100% not-live. Go back to the horrible Giants game where the extra point was blocked and the giants players then let the other team run it in for 2 points b/c they were afraid to touch the ball.

And wasn't this the sort of thing that happened to leon lett on thanksgiving when the cowboys played the dolphins in the snow about a decade ago? How could this rule be a hidden mystery to so many people, when someone like me has heard about it before (multiple times!)

The ignorance that engulfs football is mind boggling. The game is reduced to a big cloud of dust as the offensive and defensive lines explode. That's all we can comprehend as average nfl fans. Everythign else eludes us. The concept of a ball being live after it is touched past the LOS is too complex.

I hate football.

oh, and i also hate that foxsports.com wouldn't show me how many tds LT threw for this season. Sure, i can understand how that wouldn't be a default stat when looking at a RB, but when i go all the way to "passing tds, complete leaders" of the AFC, and his name isn't listed (!), then you know something is wrong.

oh my god, is al michaels using len berman's "yeahbut" description of someone (or something) that is good, but not quite great. of course teams are going to have questions........the season is only 16 games.

this is from wiki under different ways to shoplift.

Milkshake subterfuge

A less common shoplifting technique used for smaller high-dollar items is the milkshake subterfuge. A milkshake is purchased by the shoplifter and taken into the store. The shoplifter proceeds to drop small heavy items like jewelry into the milkshake. On leaving the store their milkshake is unlikely to be searched. Shoplifters using this method must be wary of drinking too much of their milkshake or the items will be revealed in the bottom of their cup.

Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip  

Posted

On the slim chance that NBC runs some type of program that scans for posts about their shows, i need to pad the stats and state that this show is awesome. It's from the creator of sports night and west wing, so picture that type of show but w/ SNL as the backdrop instead of the whitehouse.

If and when NBC cancels this show, i'm going to be horribly upset. watch this show.

Superman Departs  

Posted

That's the movie that they should have made. Just because Superman has left us, the movie audiance, for over a decade doesn't mean that's what the plot had to be. There's no drama or conflict in him "coming back". That's inevitable, b/c you know, he's Superman(!) and he's a good guy and whatnot. The story is in him leaving. Leaving all the people that need him. Not being able to handle the pressure of constantly saving the world. Leaving Lois.

What the heck was the plot of this movie? Superman disapeared for awhile b/c he apparently had to go check out if Krypton still existed (at least that's what he told Lois). Then he decides to come back JUST as Lex Luthor (who hasn't been heard from in awhile) decides to create a new continent on top of North America. Why couldn't Lex build his new continent in the middle of the ocean and thus not destroy some of the most populous areas in the world. From a business standpoint, he's killing potential customers. Also, how are people supposed to live on these spikey rocks? that's not exactly a prime location. And if this kid is Supermans, how did lois find the time to meet a guy and get married between the time superman left and the time she started showing?

A "superman departs" movie would have had so much more conflict. The only decent scene was when he told Louis that he "hears everything" when they were up in the sky. That people are always asking for his help. Heck, the Incredibles had a more compelling plot. What happens when society takes for granted the person who dedicates his life to protect them. I want to see Superman struggle with some type of moral conflict. I want to see him try to balance a personal life with constantly saving the world.

This movie was just terrible. I can't imagine a less intersting concept than superman "returning" to save the world. If we NEEDED a happy ending b/c we are retarded americans, then just have him depart for the majority of the movie only to come back years later at the very end to save us from something. Honestly, some combination of the Incredibles and Lion King would have made for a great superman movie.

what, did he text this article into his editors by phone?  

Posted

A man who was recently dubbed the most accurate kicker in NFL history is now unemployeed. Sources have told FOXSports.com has learned that the Dallas Cowboys have cut kicker Mike Vanderjagt and will sign Martin Gramatica.

Vanderjagt has been very inconsistent this year and an inconsistent kicker and Bill Parcells are like oil and water.

With the Colts, Vanderjagt was near automatic but suffered interpersonal problems after he ripped P.M. on TV only to have Manning fire back and call him "liquored-up idiot kicker."




me: PM?!?!?!?

But what was more interesting was an exchange that wasn't published. BDD asked Hendry if the Cubs will try and initiate a philosophical change in trying to get guys on base since they were 28th in the league in runs scored and 29th in OBP or perhaps sign some free agents who have historically had higher on base percentages (maybe Carlos Lee or J.D. Drew?) or even bring in a new hitting coach to alter the mindset of the approach at the plate. Hendry responded with the following:

"Well we'd like to get guys who can get on base, but our trouble was knocking guys in. We finished 4th or 5th in the league in hitting so we did manage to get guys on base. You can get all the guys on base that you want, but you have to knock them in."

Q: Are you going to do something about the fact that you were last in oranges last year?
A: well, we had a decent amount of apples, so, we had a lot of oranges.

Seriously, this is willfull ignorance. On base percentage measures the percentage of time that your players get on base. To ignore that percentage and in fact refute it by giving one example of how you got on base is just mindblowing.

ARRGGHHH!

Ok, it wasn't THAT shocking, but I was reading an article in Spin about Americans using music to torture people in Guantanamo Bay, and I was already mentally preparing my email to Steve. I don't know why, but the fact that they use Rage Against The Machine as one of their torture songs particularly angered (and semi amused?) me. There was so many psychological tangents that were swirling in my head when I then read this sentence...

"Dr. Stephen X______ [their last name], a psychiatrist..." Now, i know it's steven, not stephen, but i honestly thought i was hallucinating when i first read it. It's like the article was speaking directly to me.

Rush admits that he's a liar?!?!  

Posted

caught this on a tivo'd CR (and then had to google it to get the exact quote). I'm blown away. How could anyone continue to listen to him? This isn't even a political issue. If I'm listening to soemone b/c i respect their opinions, and then he tells me, flat out, that he doesn't believe what he says, why on earth would I continue to listen?

"I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried.

...

Now I'm liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don't deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don't deserve it."

...........


I'm not trying to tell you that this is about me. I'm just answering questions that I've had from people about how I feel. There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves -- and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs."

How does one watch Fantasy Football?  

Posted

While I dabble in other fantasy sports (football, basketball, etc), nothing compares to fantasy baseball. competition based on skill is always more exciting than luck, and there is just too much luck involved in other fantasy sports. I take little to no pleasure in winning at fantasy football, but a victory in fantasy baseball is hard earned and well deserved.

I need to understand why Fantasy Football is so much more popular than fantasy baseball. It doesn't make sense. I can understand the argument that baseball is too time consuming. It is. But, some people actually think that football is more "exciting". This, I don't understand.

I've tried to get into the mindset of a fantasy football player, but something is lacking. Do these people go out to the bars every single sunday and watch all the games on the NFL ticket? If so, how can they possibly know how they are doing? Do they have their opponents lineup memorized? Can they calculate their fantasy points on the fly? I can get a general sense of how i'm doing (based on some key players, or if someone is in the midst of a huge game), but often times, i'm still unsure as to the ultimate outcome of my game.

I imagine that the average sunday is NOT spent at a bar. And the average person DOESN'T have the NFL ticket. So fantasy football basically comes down to watching the local team for three hours, and getting the occasional highlights. Then, at the end of halves and games (i.e. 2:30, 4:00, 5:30, etc) you go online and actually calculate your fantasy points. Yes, it all happens in one day, but the excitement is so short lived. I imagine that a good portion (25%?) of fantasy matchups are decided pretty quickly (or in the alternative, it's completely unknown b/c it all comes down to some random WR on a monday night game).

If you are just looking for excitment, why not just bet on the games? that has to be more exciting than fantasy football.

This is a test of one's self...  

Posted

I caught the last 10 minutes of "matrix reloaded", and all my anger towards that horrible movie came flowing back. I debated searching for a comprehensive "this is everything that's wrong with the movie" type of rant, but i knew that i'd get lost in a sea of rants that only covered 85% of the problems. and i can't have that. so i'm not even going to search.

should anyone paste me a link here, however, i'd be very happy.

while i was eating cereal...  

Posted

Ever have so many tasks that need to be accomplished in a certain time frame that it becomes completely overwhelming? Because I work six days a week, I have to pack in every single chore and leisure activity in the span of a day. It’s overwhelming. This morning was a no brainer; X-men: The Last Stand had to be viewed. But then I started to panic when I thought about how many clothes need to be ironed, how long it’s been since I’ve washed the floor, and how good a nap would be right now.

Left with too many choices, the human mind becomes overwhelmed. So I took the path of least resistence: a bowl of cereal. A man can do a lot of thinking while eating a bowl of cheerios, and here are my thoughts from the past 10 minutes…

I’ve been in the mood for sleater-kinney today, but I’m continuously faced with a dilemma when listening to them. In an interview, the lead singer [sidenote: how bizarre is it that I still don’t know the names of the members of my favorite band of all time? I like to think that it’s because I care more about the music than the people behind it, but in reality, I think it’s just because I’m bad with names] was discussing the fact that “The Woods” was a departure from their usual work. I don’t remember the exact quote, but her point was that it was not meant to appease the people who were “used” to their older albums. I specifically remember her saying that she didn’t want people listening to the album while vacuuming. Needless to say, this makes me very uncomfortable because I always put albums on that I’m familiar with while I’m vacuuming. Have I been unfaithful to the music that I love because I treat it as “background” music? Must all music be appreciated at its highest level? Must I only listen to music in the dark and with headphones on? “Can’t people have coffee anymore” [connect the dots to that Seinfeld reference].

Fine, I’ll eat my cheerios to Biggie. Biggie would have no qualms when or where I listened to his music, as long as I paid for the album. So I’m eating my cheerios, with Biggie in the background, and my mind starts wandering. Today I read an article about animals that was discussing whether or not they are conscious. Here’s a quote:

A key ingredient of consciousness is having a sense of self, a feeling that there's a "you" inside your brain. One sign of that is being able to imagine yourself in a different time and place.

I tried very hard to try and think like a dog. How smart can the smartest dog be? Is it aware that there is a species that is much smarter than it? Does it understand the master/slave relationship? Can an animal dislike my personality?

What’s more unsettling? Knowing that lesser species are still capable of a consciousness, or having two species of equal intelligence in the same planet? How different would homo sapiens existence be if there was another species that shared our level of intellect? I assume that there would such animosity between the two species, just as each ethnicity conflicts with each other as a self preservation mechanism. If early settlers were upset with the Irish coming in and taking all their jobs, can you imagine how much we’d hate another species? It would both be a uniting and dividing phenomenon to have another species to compete with.

This then segued into my ever continuing quest to try and understand the mindset of a slave owner. Did white people REALLY believe that they were better than black people? How does that start? I can understand being born into a culture of racism, and just going along for the ride, but there had to be a premiere generation that started it all, right? I just can’t imagine seeing something that had two arms, two legs, a head, and could (or eventually would learn) how to speak English and think that was more “property” than “man”. Seriously, can you imagine treating a human being like a garden tool? And yet, we can’t just dismiss the entire society as “evil”. There had to be theoretically “good” people who were slave owners. That, had they been born in a different era, would have been completely ok with racial equality.

Is all morality relative? Is there something that we are doing right now that will be looked upon as bad as slavery? Maybe the fact that we don’t fix the homeless problem in our country. I barely acknowledge homeless people when they ask me for money. Am I 21st century slave owner? Great now I’m not going to be able to sleep tonight. I hate people who can fall asleep easily. Why aren’t they worrying whether or not future societies will deem them to be slave owners?

Cereal is done. Time to vacuum.

what's going to hurt sabermetics more?  

Posted

the a's getting swept, or eckstein's homer?

wXw - the rebirth of my interest in professional wrestling  

Posted in

Obviously, I knew the WWE was bad, but I didn't realize how bad until last night. Somewhere in ECW's last year or two of existence, i basically gave up on professional wrestling. The downward spiral was pretty steady, so it's hard to pinpoint when i stopped watching. Towards the end, i remember watching JUST so i could fully appreciate Netcop's scathing recaps.

In the past couple of months, I've attempted to rekindle my interest, but the exercise had been futile. Raw is now on the level of "SNL bad" in that it's so proactively annoying that i can't even have it on the TV in the background. Just the very sound of the show makes me cringe with annoyance.

Despite my distaste for professional wrestling, I looked forward to the trip this weekend to see the wXw tourny in Allentown PA. If nothing else, it was going to be a good nostalgia trip and an excuse to eat Chik Fila. However, I never expected the show to spark a revival in my enjoyment of professional wrestling. Basically, when the show ended, I was already planning my next trip to an indy show.

Booking a quality show seems pretty simple. There were no Russo swerves or Sportz Entertaiment during the card. Just the simple "good vs. evil" battle between heels and faces that have been entertaining crowds for decades. The wrestlers were a bit on the unseasoned in their execution at times, but that was completely overshadowed by their youthful exerbance and dedication. Several of the wrestlers were definitely well rounded enough to "make it".

Ugh, it's a lot harder to write a "rave" compared to a "rant". Let's just leave it as i had an absolutely great time at the show, and i look forward to the next road trip in the near future.

Baseball is not a team sport  

Posted

Baseball is not a team sport. Few people really understand this. Yes, 25 people (more when you include coaches, replacements, trainers, etc) have to interact with each other for eight months every year, but that doesn’t make it a “team” sport. Not only is baseball not a team sport, but it’s not even a sport of continuous action but rather distinct, isolated events. If soccer is an example of an analog sport, baseball is its digital equivalent.

In basketball, a defense is only as strong as its weakest player. When a player gets beat, it’s up to his teammates to rotate over and help him out. A pointguard needs to be completely in tune with the players he’s trying to get the ball to. They need to think with one collective conscious. In football, if a receiver and quarterback sense a blitz, they will both independently (yet collectively) change the receiver’s route. Taking a great receiver and placing him with an equally great quarterback will not automatically lead to great results. It is only through “teamwork” and cohesiveness that they will become a strong unit together.

Baseball is not like that. When a player comes up to bat, he is alone. There isn’t a zone defense, or westcoast offense, but rather only a pitcher, a defense, and a ball. And perhaps an equally isolated teammate on a basepath or two. The only players who exhibit any type of “teamwork” in the traditional sense are the pitcher and catcher, and perhaps the two middle infielders in terms of turning double plays.

Say what you will about “team chemistry”, but it’s hard to believe that it really exists in a sport where the idea of “team” is as fragile as it is in baseball. A baseball team is a glorified company and the rules of chemistry are no different than if they worked in an office instead of a diamond.

The believers in team chemistry (and you know who you are) will argue that a work environment that lacks “chemistry” will suffer just as a team would. This is an overly simplistic analysis. If I worked at a job that actually had a team oriented goal and where I actually had to work with other people, perhaps I could buy that. But how many people actually have such jobs? Being annoyed by the person in the cubicle next to you is not an example of suffering from poor chemistry. I have worked in environments where I absolutely cannot stand my coworkers. However, once I turn my head and attention towards the work in front of me, it becomes only about the work. I might despise my peers, or be annoyed by the incompetence of people who work above me [not direct supervisors per se, but rather the people I have to deal with in order to get my job done], but at the end of the day, my work is my own. And, maybe I’m just more professional than other people (or perhaps I just lack certain human emotions), but I just don’t comprehend how a lack of “chemistry” could alter my ability to perform an isolated event.

It’s unfortunate that simple minds need nice simple “stories” to explain random events. The Yankees went 1-3 this week, and we need some type of “story” to explain why. Perhaps the fact that their offense consists of “paid mercenaries” explains the fact that Abreu’s line drive in game 2 wound up hitting the top of the wall for a single instead of going over for a home run. Perhaps Arod’s surliness is the reason that Captain Intangibles wasn’t able to inject him full of mystique and aura. Or maybe when two very good teams play each other four times, the better team can lose three times.

another good website bites the dust.  

Posted

at imdb.com, everytime you click on a message board page (or even to nest a thread), you get an advertisement page inbetween. it's now unusable.

thanks alot.

how does "fat girlz" end?  

Posted

on my last day on the job, i had absolutely nothing to watch. i mean NOTHING. so i borrowed "fat girlz" starring monique. it was as bad as you would assume. but, they let us go early, so i don't know how it ends. why do i want to know? i shouldn't care, but i do.

sad.

"wow, it's weird b/c i haven't actually seen this movie in years"  

Posted

That was actually one of the first lines of a dvd audio commentary. Obviously, i turned it right off. How arrogant is hollywood that they think the audience will spend two hours listening to actors or directors mindlessly banter about w/o any structure? I prefer a commentary that is informative over entertaining (though backstage stories can be interesting).

The best audio commentary ever is Resevoir Dogs. They took clips from multiple sources, including actors, QT, critics, and other people who worked on the film. It worked very well.

Hollywood, take note.

coolest. keyboard. ever.  

Posted

http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus/

it even beats my theoretical one where you just move your fingers and the keyboard "knows" what you meant.

they aren't really playing against each other!!  

Posted

they each play on a team that happens to be playing the team that the other is on.

George Lucas: Setting low standards to impress people  

Posted

They are now releasing Star Wars DVDs that come as 2 discs each. one disc is the original version of the movie, w/o all the added affects (and perhaps w/o greedo shooting first) . Of course, if he had originally released these versions, nobody would have bought the "other" version. But, by selling the crap first, he gets to double dip.

it's not the price of gas, stupid  

Posted

why do people complain about the price of gas per gallon, when it's less than basically every other liquid that is sold to mankind? because their minds aren't capable of grasping the concept that the reason we spend so much money on gas is because we are using it in great quantities. If the automobile industry put in a little effort, they could probably create a process that extracted more energy from the burning of gasoline. If "filling up" for the week only required 5-10 gallons, then 3 bucks per gallon would seem like a steal.

Is there were purple cows got their name?  

Posted

I never saw a purple cow
But if I were to see one
Would the probability ravens are black
Have a better chance to be one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox

"player news" regarding Manny.  

Posted

this doesn't seem appropriate at all

Manny Ramirez (BOS - LF)

News: Manny Ramirez returned to the starting lineup on Saturday and went 0-for-3 with an intentional walk.
Impact: Ramirez's sore knee caused a problem in the eighth, when he was wrongly called out at third by umpire Ron Kulpa. Ramirez was going from first to third on Mike Lowell's tiebreaking single with two outs and was tagged after choosing not to slide. The tag, though, knocked the ball out Adrian Beltre's glove, which meant it wasn't truly a tag at all. Kulpa called him out anyway, apparently because Beltre was able to grab the ball before it hit the ground (as if it mattered), and none of other umpires could be bothered to get the call right. It was an especially big play after the Red Sox lost 4-3.

When i first saw that comment i thought "well, it's really really stupid, but there's gotta be something more offensive, right?" I tried to get inside Dusty's head to see if there is any defensible excuse for making such a comment. There isn't.

I guess the type of player that Dusty is talking about is a Giambi w/o power. Imagine someone as slow as Giambi who has as good an eye as Giambi, but who doesn't hit that many homers.

So Giambi* (*that's what we'll call him) leads off with a walk. He's now "clogging the bases" for the guy after him. I'm picturing someone that Dusty really likes, like say Tony Womack.

What are the options for Tony Womack?

Giambi doesn't "clog the base paths" if Womack homers, strikes out, flies out, pops up, walks, or hits a regular single.

If Womack hits a ground ball and Giambi is forced out, then at least Womack, the speedster gets on base for free and is the antithesis of "clogging".

If womack hits into a double play, then Giambi doesn't get a chance to "clog".

If womack hits a long single that could have been a double, then yes Giambi has clogged the paths by not being able to get all the way to third. So instead of womack on 2nd, you get Giambi on second and Womack on first. The latter is much more valuable, unless you are playing for just one run and the next guy singles.

If womack hits a potential triple, but only gets to 2nd b/c of Giambi clogging, then you have 2nd and 3rd instead of just 3rd. Again, having two guys on is much more valuable.

I can't really think of any other examples of this alleged "clogging". So yes, i guess it is the dumbest thing ever. Dusty is just assuming that his speedsters are hitting triples and inside the park home runs, but are forced to just settle for singles b/c of the runners ahead of them.

9-4  

Posted

The AL currently has 9 teams above .500. The NL only has 4.

do i even waste my energy rooting against this?  

Posted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_Rock

I give it 10 episodes.

i lasted two skits. ARRRRGGHHH  

Posted

mind you, i wasn't even "watching" SNL; instead, i just had it on in the background. SNL is so bad, that i couldn't stomach having a TV w/ it on, even if it was over my shoulder w/ the volume turned low. This second skit is with the actor doing a press conference or something with a punch of pirates. The pirates keep getting excited when the actor says a word that has "argh" in it. They all "argh".

it's like nails on a chaulkboard. The only standard they have to meet is to "not be so annoying that i have to physically get up and shut off a tv i'm not even watching". and they FAILED!

"You guys live to eat, I eat to live"*  

Posted

This seems like a no brainer, but i'm not really sure how much i like food. I know that sounds like an odd thing to say, but I've seen the way other people enjoy food, and I don't think i'm on that level. Here is a list of people and their food tendencies:

Friend A: chooses not to eat 90% of the time, but goes to great lengths to prepare his meals that other 10% of the time. He painstakingly chews each bite the medically approved 33 times before swallowing and can make an egg sandwich from Dunkin Donuts last an hour. He refuses to reheat pizza in the microwave and will even make an oil and seasoning dip for his bread when he's eating alone. Picture Ruth Fischer eating by herself in that dark scene from Six Feet Under, but more depressing.

Friend B: Lives for the perfect combo meal. It's very important to him to have different things in each meal. The easiest way to make his day is to suggest to order two things from take out and then split it. Spending an entire evening with him is disturbing, as he will space out the smallest of snacks every couple of hours. My theory on his eating habbits, however, was completely destroyed when he said that he finds a salad dressing that he likes, and sticks with it until he gets sick of it.

Friend C: Lives to eat. Will actually call me to tell me what he had for lunch, and what he's planning for dinner. Probably the 2nd most unhealthy eater i know in terms of quality of food. Is able to maintain a low quantity of food intake though, probably b/c he's now middle aged :)

Me: I love the act of eating, and "full" is a very satisfying feeling, but i don't know if i actually enjoy food. I get an hour at lunch, but even when i'm trying to stretch it out, i've ordered, eaten, and cleaned up within 30 minutes. I don't like too many choices, and would basically be satisfied with the exact same 3-squares for the rest of my life (bagel w/ cream cheese for breakfast, pizza for lunch, and pasta for dinner). I can't imagine ever getting bored of that.

In fact, I've now been working downtown for over a months, and have had less than a handful of types of meals. #1 in the rotation is a burrito w/ free chips at burritosville. It's always exactly the same. I order a burrito (ok, i admit that i vary the type of burrito up), then get a plate of chips w/ their fresh salsa. I get the burrito and eat half. Then, i get up and get more chips, but with their spicey green sauce. The timing is very important. If i eat too much of the burrito, i feel self conscious about going up for more chips b/c 1) it looks like i'm mooching free chips and 2) it's admitting that the burrito isn't enough to fill me up (it's a huge burito). If i get the 2nd round too early, the spicy green salsa is going to make my mouth too hot, too early, and i'm going to fly through my soda. I'm not sure if refills are free, and i'm not about to ask. I get a paper while i'm there and pretend to read, but that's only b/c i don't like eating meals alone.

#2 in the rotation is Chicken fingers and fries from the cafeteria. I get this when i want to feel full, but feel guilty about spending 10 bucks on lunch. It comes out to only 3.90 and it's 7 big fingers with a full plate of fries. It does the job. I don't necessarily love the taste of this meal, but fries always has a warm spot in my heart. They are a perfect compliment for someone as socially awkward as me. When i'm eating with someone, fries allow me to pace myself with the speed by which they eat. When i'm alone, i can look down and focus on the dipping of the fries and pretend like i'm actually doing something. If we ever go to a diner, make a mental note that i will inevitably order something with fries. (exception: if they have a really big breakfast combo).

#3 make your own salad at the cafeteria. This is my "goal" every day at lunch. The problem is that, in order for me to make a salad worthy of my lunch, it winds up costing 7 bucks. At that point, i'm 3 away from a burrito, so what's the point?

#4 fancy burger in the cafeteria. I've had it twice. And yet that's #4 on my list.

#5 and #6: The two times i ate with my friend from lawschool. She picked both places. I enjoyed each meal, but the idea of having more choices has actually made me uncomfortable. Everyday i think "hmm, i should go get that gyro i had w/ elaine the other week, but....". I almost wish i didn't know of these other two places.


So, as you can see, i'm clearly not taking advantage of all the amazing choices for food in the city. People think i'm against trying new foods, as I've had indian and sushi for the first time w/in the past year. But, i think it's more than that. I just don't enjoy the taste of food enough to go through the efforts of discovering new things. I eat to get full. Sure, i like some meals more than others, but I can't remember ever crazing anything. If i ever get tired of the chicken fingers, i'm sure i'll be capable of moving on. But, for now, it's "good enough".

When I cook, i put absolutely no effort into the preperation of my meals. Microwaves are used instead of ovens, pasta is thrown into the pot before the water is boiled, and generally any and all shortcuts are taken. I think to myself "come on, there's no way i'll be able to taste the difference". And to be honest, i THINK i'm right. When the hell's kitchen chefs didn't realize that the fancy patte was really chopped up hotdogs and that the cheese sauce was actually cheese whiz, it got me thinking that palletes aren't as refined as people claim.

All of that being said, the act of eating is where it's at for me. I can still remember meals from decades ago and look back fondly. To piggyback poppasquat's post, here's my list of memorable meals.

- The turkey sandwiches during survivor series intermissions were particularly fun for me b/c it was fun watching/admiring Tony being in charge of something so adult. He'd confidently take the turkey out of the fridge and hack away with reckless abandon. I spent many a night on the floors of his bedrooms, but survivor series nights were probably the best.

- he remembers the "sack of cheese" from the turnpike, but for me, the better mcdonalds moments were when his mom (the once legendary Ma Z) would bring back a "pile" of mcdonalds food and just put it on top of the stove. You see, with three boys of various growing rates, and all of their friends hanging out, it would have been a futile attempt to figure out exactly how much to get. So, she'd just buy a little of everything and let it be a free for all. The best thing about a free for all is that, if you are shifty enough, you can get quite a good number of burgers in you w/o people keeping track. Hiding one wrapper inside another before you ball it is always the key.

- MV Deli: I don't know what was worse, discovering 40's or 3 dollar subs in our last month at Rutgers. Both discoveries changed my life. The sub was great though, b/c it was right around the block, and tucked away in a shady little convenience store. It was our little secret. The 40's were pretty much known to the world after all of the debauchery it caused.

There are more, but i'm blanking. I"m pretty tired. TBC.

*btw, her definiton of "living" consists of napping on the couch with tons of blankets and the heat turned on, but to each his own.

"just to fullfill their contractual obligation...." puh-lease  

Posted

I'm so tired of bands of blaming a decision on the fact that it's in their contract w/ the label. Well, technically, the first time, it was actually Steve defending Pearl Jam's greatest hits album by saying they probably just did it b/c it's in their contract. Now, DMB is doing it as well.

Unless you are dealing with Don Corleone, contracts aren't signed with guns to your head. The bands bargained for, and received, a benefit in exchange for their promises. You can't have it both ways.

Blech.

Go ahead and get beat with your 2nd best pitch  

Posted

There are two types of baseball cliches that bother me: ones that are untrue, and those that contradict other baseball cliches. Al Leiter, despite being an annoying republican, sometimes fights back against Kay on Yankee broadcasts. Kay was going on and on about how some pitcher just got beat on his second best pitch. Leiter was defending the pitcher, but he didn't go all the way. He said something to the effect that in that situation, maybe he thought his slider was in fact his best pitch. Here's how i would argue against kay.

me: well, what is his best pitch a fastball?

kay: yeah, his fastball.

me: So, he should just throw a fastball every single pitch then?

kay: no, that's not what i'm saying....

me: but it is what you are saying. the pitcher doesn't know what pitch in the at bat he's going to get "beat", so, i suppose he should just always throw his "best" pitch. The problem though, as, i HOPE you can see, is that if he's always throwing a fastball, it no longer becomes his best pitch. The hitter will be able to sit on it.

kay: that's why good pitchers have to mix it up.

me: but, that cliche is in direct contradiction with the other one!

kay: I'm just saying, i don't understand why farnsworth would throw a slider there when his fastball is clearly his best pitch. If he's going to get beat, it should be on his best pitch.

House S1-E1: “Pilot”  

Posted

House S1-E1: “Pilot”

By definition, a pilot is generally one of the weaker episodes of a series. It’s hampered by the requirement of introducing the characters to the audience, and thus it paints with an overly broad stroke. However, as far as pilots go, this premiere episode of House was above average.

Plots don’t interest me much when it comes to this show. Rather, I’m interested in the character development. This series is very formulaic anyway: 1) Episode starts w/ a stranger getting sick (note: half the time, the scene will lead the viewer to believe person A is going to be the one getting sick and then “shock” us when it’s person B) 2) House et al think they have the cure 3) person gets sicker 4) House fights to try his long shot diagnosis and 5) House is right.

Not a very compelling concept, I know. I still chuckle when I think about Colbert faux-ripping on House (b/c it, not he, was nominated for a Peabody) by pointing out that it was just a rebel doctor who plays by his own set of rules. If this was all the show was, I’d put it on the level of Law and Order (or slightly below): interesting to watch, but not thought provoking.

What sets House apart from other shows is the deep character development. The protagonist is miserable and disliked by almost everyone around him. That’s generally not a formula for mainstream success for a television show. However, the reasons for his misery (and contempt from his peers) is very complex. Extremely intelligent, Dr. House is able to both examine, critique, and reject societal norms with cold rationality. He’s also disturbingly honest and accurate when it comes to explaining other character’s motives and personality. A lot of the resentment towards House is that people are either afraid or unaware that he is right.

But, getting back to this episode…. The templates of the characters were well established. House walks with a bad limp, and is apparently self conscious of it (though I think they went way overboard in this area. It’s too simplistic to just label house as vein. House’s theory (which was validated in a nice subtle scene w/ the patient straining her neck to get a glimpse of the infamous “Dr. House”) is that patients don’t want a crippled doctor. He’s addicted to pain pills (there wasn’t much subtlety in the camera focusing on his hand as he popped them) and doesn’t trust people nor conform to general social norms. Basic stuff, for sure.

The two interesting portraits were of Dr. Foreman and Dr. Cameron. Foreman finds out he was hired because he stole a car as a kid. This is an interesting take on the general “young black professional has something to prove against the world” cliché. In this case, the negative stereotype actually helped him. It’s also an interesting development of House, who can take a negative quality and find its positive corollary. Being a criminal means that Dr. Foreman is also streetsmart. Likewise, this series will also have times where Dr. House finds the negative aspects of an otherwise positive quality. Those are always much more interesting, especially when House is forced to suffer insults for not jumping on the positive bandwagon.

Dr. Cameron demands to know why she was hired, as her qualifications are inferior to her peers. It turns out that Dr. House hired her because of her looks, but not for the normal reasons. As opposed to just being eye candy for him, Dr. House theorizes that someone who is beautiful but still went through the rigors of proving herself (instead of just being handed a comfortable life) must be extra motivated. He also assumes that Dr. Cameron is “damaged” in some way, and her stunned silence would be a good indication that he is correct. Another nice little character development was how Dr. Cameron always stood a little closer to House when he was talking than the rest of the doctors. She’s also the first one to comment on House’s peculiar personality. Her explanations almost borderline on a defense. It’s subtle enough where you don’t instantly sigh “oh, she has a crush on her boss, how clichéd.” Instead, it’s more interesting to see that the nicest doctor (throughout the episode she was more personable to the patient than the other doctors) is also the one most tolerant and accepting of House’s “mean” behavior. This issue will flesh out nicely throughout the season.

The one thing that caught my eye while re-watching this episode (and what inspired this rant) was House’s obsession with “General Hospital”. I always got a kick out of him watching GH, but didn’t think much of it. Throughout the episodes, he’ll be seen watching GH as a way to clear his mind while he’s struggling with the diagnosis. However, there may be a double meaning for his viewing. At the end of the episode, House is watching GH and one of the soap actor doctor says “If we make mistakes, people die”. His slight eyebrow raise was a nod to the fact that Dr. Cuddy (his boss) barked the same thing at him earlier in the episode. More than just the comedic effect of the coincidence, I think it’s possible that the writers are almost apologizing for the format of the show. Dr. House needs to space out to GH to really dive into a complicated issue. Likewise, us viewers need the “dramatic plots” of a hospital setting in order to embrace these characters and watch them develop. This show isn’t a medical drama…it’s a study on human interaction, societal norms, morality, psychology and sociology. Like in the play “our town”, some people need the scenery before they can dig deeper. With the GH reference, I think the writers were admitting to using this device, while also saying “bare with us, because we have some interesting topics to explore.”

When's the best time to go foodshopping?  

Posted

in my many months of unemployment, i've been able to go food shopping at random times. I have yet to pinpoint the exact time in the afternoon where it becomes too crowded (I wonder if parents immediately take their kids foodshopping when school gets out...I originally assumed that they would want to be home for their kids, but that doesn't seem to play out).

I tried to research online, but there is no website w/ this information. There should be. There should be a website that gives you all the tricks to life.

the most awkward 20 minutes of human existence  

Posted

is when a comedy movie tries to wrap up the story. it's extra uncomfortable when it tries to make a feel-good ending.

seriously, mediocre comedies should just end. after they are done with their jokes, they should clap their hands and step away backwards, like george costanza.

the biggest regret of my life  

Posted

i'm pretty sure i only have two regrets in my entire life. the first deals with a feud i had with my english teacher in hs (and the regret is that i didn't fight her as hard as i should have). but the 2nd keeps haunting me.

if i could do my life all over again, the one thing i would change is that i would buy ALL my socks all in one massive shot. the fact that i bought one pack here and there means that i have to now match my socks every time i do laundry. this is a very daunting task, and i was reminded by how painful it is last night as i tried to pack for montreal. if they were all the same, i wouldn't have to think.

live and learn.

Stephen Colbert examines Jeter's defense.  

Posted

"Anybody who knows me knows that I am no fan of dictionaries [statistics] or reference books. They're elitist for constantly telling us what is or isn't true, what did or didn't happen...

I don't trust books [stats]. They're all fact and no heart. And that's exactly what's pulling our country apart today. Because face it, folks, we are a divided nation... We are divided by those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart.

Consider Harriett Miers [Derek Jeter]. If you think about Harriett Miers [Derek Jeter], of course her nomination's absurd [he’s below average defensively]! But the President [Yankee fans] didn't say he thought about this selection [his defense], he [they] said this:

President Bush [Yankee fan]: "I know her heart." [“I know his intangibles”]

Notice that he didn't say anything about her brain [his range to the left]? He didn't have to. He feels the truth about Harriett Miers [Derek Jeter]. And what about Iraq [Zone Rating]? If you think about it, maybe there are a few missing pieces to the rationale for war [Gold Gloves that Jeter has won]. But doesn't taking Saddam out [praising Jeter] feel like the right thing...right here in the gut? Because that's where the truth comes from, ladies and gentlemen...the gut.

Did you know that you have more nerve endings in your stomach than in your head [there are more pop ups hit over a shortstops head than groundballs to their left]? Look it up. Now, somebody's gonna say `I did look that up and its wrong'. Well, Mister, that's because you looked it up in a book [verified it with statistics]. Next time, try looking it up in your gut. I did. And my gut tells me that's how our nervous system [defense] works.

Now I know some of you may not trust your gut...yet. But with my help you will. The "truthiness" is, anyone can read the news to you. I promise to feel the news...at you."

holy smoke!  

Posted

i may have just heard the dumbest thing ever during a baseball broadcast.

"the biggest thing of this inning, in my mind, was _____ moving the runner over to third".

here's how the inning went:

double
groundout
walk
walk.

yeah, that out was really productive.

innaccurate legal reporting  

Posted

here's an article about walmart trying to get the smiley face trademarked:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0508-04.htm

here's a blurb:

A bit like smileys themselves, the trademarking of common words has become endemic. Apple Computers wanted to claim ownership of the word "apple"

that makes it sound like that nobody else would be allowed to use the word apple anymore. that's simply not the case. When you trademark a name like that, it's limited to the market you are in. No other computer company would be able to use the word apple for their product. Even though "apple" is a common word, it's not common in the computer industry, save for that one company. Like bicycle cards. blech.

if voice recognition exists, why isn't it everywhere?  

Posted

my cellphone can call someone based on me saying "name dial"....."fat tony". of course, it says "fat tony, calling" instead of "calling fat tony", but i can live with that.

why can't i push a button on my computer and then say "open excel document fantasy draft 2006"? that's ridiculous. why can i push a one button remote and then say "yankee game" or "YES network" or "89"?

what are people waiting for?

United States of Artie  

Posted

Embarrassingly, I often miss metaphors in art. Whether it was scoring a 1 out of 5 on my Advanced English Placement test in Highschool or completely missing the fact that Maggie was the “blue bird of happiness” in season 5 of Six Feet Under, I’m not good at connecting abstract dots. But, I think I finally caught something on Sopranos this week, and I want to get all my thoughts out before I look up online as to whether or not I’m “right”. I think Arte’s story arc was a metaphor for the United States fall from grace.

The Bucco family’s early success was the stereotypical American Dream. In many ways, their success could be connected to early American in general. Through hard work and almost a naïve belief in self determination, they became a respected entity.

Somewhere along the line, though, Arte lost his way. He became consumed by success and greed, and got lazy. He started to care more about himself than his customers. Insecurity manifested itself as egotism, as he became a self defeating influence over his own business. Although he refused to admit it, he lost his dominance in the market and overall power.

Specifically, his competition (the new restaurant) represents the European Union. At first, Arte (America) tries to dismiss the upstart power as inferior, and even resorts to petty name calling instead of trying to compete on a qualitative level. He tries in vain to keep old markets open resorting to past success/friendships.

Suppliers (like the meat guy) begin losing faith in Arte, but he can’t understand why. The faith in the American product detoriates.

The United States helps third world countries only when it’s self beneficial. Arte was helping the Albanian hostess (specifically with governmental stuff such as green cards and housing) just because he wants to sleep with her. In fact, he even makes a comment about how it’s a small price to pay for freedom and says “we’re the leading power when it comes to data collection in the world” or something like that. He’s essentially referring to himself as the United States in that scene.

One of the reasons that Arte’s business suffers is because he is outsourcing his work. Tony tells him that he shouldn’t let the Mexicans do all the cooking in the restaurant. Arte is trying to cut costs (read: his own valuable time) by such outsourcing, but his product suffers. The general disdain that he feels towards his workers could also be correlated with our governments lack of concern over the dwindling middle class. The only thing that big business (which essentially IS the government) is concerned with is the bottom line. Comments regarding the size and inefficiency of American Express (a huge corporation) were also interesting, when taken in this context.

Arte increasingly becomes more irrational, which could be connected to the Bush administration. He dismisses the sound advice of Charmaine (the “far left”?), and instead chooses to believe his own hype regarding and outdated review of his restaurant (“they hate us for our freedom”?).

The trouble he suffers is in fact a result of his greed, and “associating with a certain element”. That’s Cheney, Karl Rove, etc. He then goes and burns the bridges of his most loyal allies (Tony) in order for a quick short term fix, which inevitably creates later problems.

Just in general, Arte’s refusal to adapt and change is directly on point with the current state of our government / society / country. We keep telling ourselves that “we’re the best” and that everyone loves us, when that’s clearly not the case. Economically, we’re falling apart, and yet we hold onto this false sense of superiority (Arte’s refusal to use coupons, our country’s moral naivety). You can even connect the B story of Christopher’s observations of the decadence in LA with America’s deterioration. The rich get richer, to the point of absurdity. I thought was interesting that the two famous actors were British (I’m assuming that woman was British). The last scene, where the two Italian guys were joking about the weak American dollar and how the items they purchased would have cost more in Italy was very telling. I think Chase was warning the country with this episode that you can only rest on your reputation for so long.

Then again, the Sopranos is the worst example of product placement I have ever witnessed on television, so maybe I’m completely wrong.

small ball  

Posted

read from bottom to top

Dye walked, Cintron to third, Thome to second.
Konerko popped out to shortstop.
Thome walked, Cintron to second.
Cintron singled to center.
Podsednik caught stealing, catcher to shortstop.
Podsednik walked.


three walks in the first inning, AND a hit, and still no runs.

i can't keep up with this 10 pm fox 5 new york news  

Posted

i gotta write this timeline down first before i miss something.

10:00-10:10 - interviewed the texas girl.

10:10-10:12 - duke lax players are from ny/nj area

10:12-10:21 - the cherry drink

10:21-10:24 - back to the train, teasers for more train stuff, and american idol controversy.

commercials

circa 10:26 - train, then cruise baby born.

10:29 back to commercials.

THIS WAS HALF THE NEWS.

more details to come when my blood pressure lessens.

Irony  

Posted

Kayne West going to some kid's birthday to sing Goldigger.

small ball vs. fundamentals  

Posted

not only is moneyball mis-labeled by the MSM, but so is small ball. For some reason, everything that is classified as "fundamental baseball" is also known as "small ball". It's kind of an unfair battle between moneyball and small ball when PITCHING is labeled as small ball.

The way i see it, the decision when to bunt is a moneyball vs. smallball debate. whether or not the person can successfully lay down that bunt is fundamentals. There's some overlap in that moneyball teams tend to collect players who's skills are more in the take and rake catagory and not the bunting, speed catagory. But, that doesn't mean that moneyballers wouldn't want guys who could also bunt.

this is such a intro 101 post that adds nothing to the discussion, but it's just frustrating to continue to see moneyball vs. smallball continue to be distorted in the MSM. i shouldn't have fallen asleep with sportscenter on.

holy 1990, batman  

Posted

The foxsports.com article discussing michael keaton ripping on the pirates management was titled "batman takes some swings". he hasn't been batman in 15 years.

i was reminded that i went to sunday school as a kid. i strained myself trying to remember ANYTHING from all those wasted years. here's what i came up with:

1) the guy who directed traffic in the parking lot was very obnoxious. He'd give the big windmill "i'm sending you from third to home to win the world series" arm gesture when it was our turn to go. it always drove me crazy.

2) me and a kid had a runny nose one day, but it was during the time period where i was self conscious about blowing my nose in public (actually, i'm still self conscious about that). we were sniffing so loudly, that the teacher actually handed us the tissue box. That always offended me.

3) when i was "older", we were in a class taught by a nun. My friend sitting next to me was leaning back on his chair, and as a joke, i was going to pretend to pull it out from him. unfortunately, i pulled too hard, and he fell. i got yelled at. 30 minutes later, i thought it would be funny to pretend to do it again. but once again, i pulled too hard.

4) in highschool, the Delbarton kids were sooooo proud of the fact that they went to delbarton. One even made a comment to me about how i would doodle on my notebook while he was "respecting god" or something. yikes.

5) kids were asked to host gatherings a few times a year. The woman hinted that i should host one. i told her no. she then called my house to insist on us hosting it. i told my mom that i would quit if we were forced to host one. I think that was my final straw with the church.

that's really all i can remember. i don't remember even a single story about god or anything.

another dodgeball post?  

Posted

me: "wow, that guy looks like milton from office space". "wait, he also looks like the boss from news radio".

me: "uh, is milton from office space the same guy as the boss from news radio?"

me: "wow!"


ugh, pitt better start fouling here.

dodgeball vs. matrix II.  

Posted

When i saw matrix reloaded, i became instantly obsessed. That movie was so epically bad, and yet so loved by the fan boys. I would go to the imdb boards every night and read the flame wars.

There was one guy who actually went to film school and seemed to know what he was talking about. He pointed to 5 fatal flaws of the movie. I wish i had saved the post, b/c i bet a lot of stuff applies to movies i hate.

dodgeball definitely has one of those flaws. I forget the official name, but there's a technique in movies that should only be used sparingly. It's when the characters have to explain the plot through a monologue. It's the kiss of death. In the first matrix, the example was when Morpheus was tied up by the agents, and Agent Smith was giving a monologue about how the machines hate earth/humans. in that case, it was effective b/c there was still "stuff" going on. Neo and Trinity were breaking into the building and were in a fire fight with the guards. Then they were flying a helicopter and whatnot. This kept the pace up during the monologue.

In matrix II, there was a lot of standing around and just describing what was going on. That's lazy writing and was one of the many reasons the movie was terrible.

I just watched the beginning of Dodgeball b/c, while i hated the 2nd half of the movie, i felt like I owed it to my rage to watch the whole thing. And, I'm glad I did, b/c the ______ [whatever you call the technique] was pheonomally overdone. To explain the rules of dodgeball to the viewers of the movie, they actually showed an instructional video! I imagine the video was supposed to be funny (it wasn't, of course), but still. It was a 5 minute video that explained "the rules".

wow. just wow.

the most degrading nickname in the NBA  

Posted

used to be "the human victory cigar". now it's "postertag". i don't know how long that's been around, but it's AWESOME.


also, here's a tidbit

"South Park" co-creator Matt Stone responded sharply in an interview with The Associated Press Monday, saying, "This is 100 percent having to do with his faith of Scientology... He has no problem — and he's cashed plenty of checks — with our show making fun of Christians."

why can't announcers fully understand fights?  

Posted

duke bc. The pg (who threw that game against georgetown) dives for a loose ball, and throws it off of a BC player. As he's being helped up by JJ, he excitingly throws his hands out with a fist pump like motion. He's not even looking at the BC player when he does this.

The bc guy feels the "punch", and then starts a fight.


the announcers couldn't decide if he was punching the bc player on purpose, or if it was "good hustle play" tap of acknowledgment play.

uh, he's not even looking at the BC guy.

sheesh.

why can't announcers fully understand fights?  

Posted

duke bc. The pg (who threw that game against georgetown) dives for a loose ball, and throws it off of a BC player. As he's being helped up by JJ, he excitingly throws his hands out with a fist pump like motion. He's not even looking at the BC player when he does this.

The bc guy feels the "punch", and then starts a fight.


the announcers couldn't decide if he was punching the bc player on purpose, or if it was "good hustle play" tap of acknowledgment play.

uh, he's not even looking at the BC guy.

sheesh.

i invented this show, but better  

Posted

I had an idea for a documentary where a bunch of people were put in a plain room, and they had to decide who would get a million dollars. Everyone would have to agree, or nobody would get it. They'd be given food and other essentials, but nothing else. people would be allowed to quit, but only after paying a penalty.


that would have been awesome. "real world", but stripped down. As it stands, fox now has a show that's similar, but not as good. here's the article:



In a dramatic new television experiment, a diverse group of nine strangers are locked in a bunker, where they’ll remain until they decide who is worthy of a 1.5-million-dollar cash prize.

There is a catch, though, because the longer it takes to make a unanimous decision, the less money there will be to win. If they take too long, they will be left with nothing.

Upon entering their isolated living quarters, the nine contestants are cut off from the outside world, locked away, and presented the opportunity to win $1.5 million. The only thing standing between them and the money is a simple vote. If they are able to come to a unanimous decision about who should win the money, the game is over. If the outcome of the vote is not unanimous, the money clock is activated and the cash prize begins its countdown with potentially thousands of dollars lost every hour until the next voting period.

n every episode, each of the nine contestants, who include a minister, an atheist, a ladies’ man and a feminist, must convince the others to vote only for him or her. Before the vote, personal facts, secrets and lies are revealed, perhaps helping them decide who should receive the money. As the game progresses, contestants will be eliminated from winning the cash prize, but – in a television first – they will continue to live in the bunker and will continue to vote.

Will contestants’ greed for the money outweigh their desire to help someone potentially less fortunate than themselves? Who will lie and connive, and who will be truthful and sincere? No matter what, the final vote must be UNAN1MOUS.

Move over Donuts, I’ve now dreamt about pizza as well.  

Posted

It’s 3:40 AM, and I’m furiously typing in an attempt to write about this dream before I forget it. I’m not exactly sure why, as nobody reads this blog, and even if they did, they wouldn’t be that interested in this dream, but whatever. It’s rare that I dream, and even rarer that I remember it, so here we go.

I’m hanging around with my lawschool “friends” at some type of airport/mall combo. It’s post lawschool, and we’re all on to bigger and better things. I have friends in quotes because these aren’t exactly the group of people I’d consider my friends. More like the people I was forced to be friendly with to keep the status quo.

Anyway, the majority of them are off to do something, while I have to fly back to Newark to go to a wedding. While in Newark, I’m going to have to attend this lecture run by some company at Seton Hall. The person I’m walking through the mall/airport with is complaining about the lecture, saying that it’s not really a good use of our state funded resources. I start getting into a rant about that’s how our government works now. The companies get sweetheart deals to produce goods, and in return they get set up with these fat gigs at schools where they put on mediocre seminars. Everything is “efficiently” run, but there is no quality product. She agrees, and suggests that I expose it all in an article. I guess I’m a writer or something.

I apparently have a meal plan ala Rutgers, and awkwardly inquire to see if she’s eaten already. She has, so instead, I start stopping at each free food tray in the mall. Ever have free fruit at a buffet? It’s always defined by the fact that the cantaloupe and honeydew are always sliced in such a way as to still be able to puzzle back together the entire ball. As in, yes, it’s sliced per se, but it might as well just be whole b/c the slices aren’t spread out and thus stick together. This has always bothered me because it’s very hard to get the exact amount of fruit I desire without getting stuck with more pieces. I think it says something about my personality that I just skip trying to eat this food in public b/c of such concerns. But this time, I’m diving in with both hands to get all this fruit.

As we’re walking through this mall, I’m becoming more enraged by the governmental abuses. I’ve decided I’m going to push my boss to let me write this op. ed. Piece. Then, we finally get to my office, which is a pizza place inside the mall. Joe is there, and is apparently my coworker. He’s writing some fluff piece about something, and discourages me in terms of exposing the fraud at RU (maybe it wasn’t seton hall after all?). But my boss, the editor in the spider man movies (yes, Schillenger from OZ), pushes Joe aside and tells me to run with the story. I can’t figure out why he’s so excited, since our paper is school run, and thus will be cutting off the hand that feeds us. He doesn’t care though, and offers me all the free pizza I need to get the story done.

As I go to write the article, I pull up a stool next to the already cooked pizzas. They are all on display and under lights, like at a pizza place that has multiple varieties (wow, that shouldn’t be a word that I spell so poorly as to make “word” unable to find the correct spelling) of pies in the mall. But, all the pizza looks the same. They are the pies that RU used to have for takeout w/ your meal plan on Wednesday nights. It was a pretty sweet deal for people like me, who didn’t want to eat in the dining hall. I used to cut class (it was stats for pysch majors…a nice little loophole of a class where a stats minor like me could ace w/o ever having to attend) and get a pie to bring back to the dorm. Maybe that’s an indication on how successful I thought RU was run. I mean, the very fact that I could get into such a class and literally have a 100% average without EVER going should say something.

Anyway, the pizza was really good in the dream. It was a little overcooked, but in the good way. The crust was thin and crunchy, and the sauce was very tasty. The cheese didn’t melt into the pizza, but that was ok.


Obviously, 90% of this dream is based on the fact that Joe and I were talking about this fabulous looking pizza he’s had in New Haven Connecticut called “the white clam pie”. I’d link the pictures, but it’s 4 am, and I’m not looking for them. It looks really really good though. I don’t know about all the political aspects of this dream though. Or the fact that there were a lot of law school people in it that I wouldn’t exactly call my best friends.

Oh well, this was dream.

Ugh, blogspot seems down. So, I’m going back to bed and will post this tomm, but I swear, it’s 4 am right now.

test  

Posted

why can't i post? test.

Embarassingly, I never knew what Instant Runoff Voting was  

Posted

But, in my defense, "crashing the party" was a really boring book, and i never got to that chapter. If i had, however, I would have been a huge supportor of this process. Seriously, this could really solve a lot of problems regarding our democracy (other than the lack of an independent media, of course).

If there was IRV, it would be impossible for the big two (well, one, if you want to just call them corportists) to demonize third party candidates. Instead of being labeled as "spoilers", third party candidates could run and address real issues. More voters would come out b/c they'd actually have candidates who represent them. They could vote their conscience instead of voting for the lesser of two evils. If we had IRV, i wouldn't have had to vote for Kerry in 2004!

Of course, discussing this is pointless, b/c there's no way that the big two will ever allow IRV to happen. God forbid we have elections that are actually based on issues. Anyway, here is the article.

[btw, i really enjoyed the critics theory that IRV is bad b/c "people will just not come out and vote b/c it's too complicated". Yeah, b/c i really want an election decided by people who don't understand "vote for your top 5 candidates". yikes].

Instant-Runoff Voting is Gaining Momentum as Problem Solver
It eliminates need for runoff election, cuts 'spoiler' effect
by Ross Sneyd

BURLINGTON, Vt. -- Runoff elections are traditionally cumbersome processes, taking weeks and sometimes months to determine a winner. On Tuesday, Burlington will do it all instantly.

The results for the first election and whatever runoffs are needed to settle a five-way race for mayor will be known soon after poll closing.

That's because voters, for the first time in a mayoral election in the United States, will vote Tuesday not only for their top choice, but also for their second, third and fourth choices through an innovation known as instant runoff voting.

Voters will be handed a ballot listing the five candidates, three of them representing major parties, with columns indicating first through fifth choices. If none of the five gets 50 percent of the vote on the first round, the candidate with the lowest vote total would be eliminated. The second choice of voters who made that candidate their initial top choice then would count.

"As soon as somebody gets to 50 percent, it stops," said Jo LaMarche, the city's election director.

Advocates have been promoting the idea of instant runoff voting, also known as ranked-choice voting, as a way of boosting voter turnout, encouraging more people to run for public office while eliminating the notion that a third-party candidate might be a spoiler.

"Nationally, people are catching on to how IRV can open up our politics," said Ryan O'Donnell, communications director of FairVote and the Center for Voting and Democracy. "It's a reform that produces majority winners, encourages candidates to reach out to more voters, and eliminates the 'spoiler' problem."

Burlington will not be the first community in the country to use a form of instant runoff. San Francisco has elected members of its board of supervisors using the system and the city of Ferndale, Mich., also is scheduled to use it. It will be the first to elect its chief executive officer with the system, though.

A number of other counties, cities, and towns also have shown interest, according to FairVote, including San Diego, Oakland, Davis and Berkeley in California. Bills are pending in at least 15 states to implement instant runoffs at local levels or statewide. The state of Washington last year gave a number of mid-sized cities authority to conduct instant runoff voting, although none has so far used it.

LaMarche said she's heard a lot of interest as well, fielding calls from South Carolina, Anchorage, Alaska, and communities in northern California. "A lot of people are just waiting to see how this works with Burlington," she said.

An academic who has studied voting systems said Burlington deserved the attention, despite its relatively small size. "I think it's significant because it's going to put Burlington on the cutting edge of this kind of election reform," said Doug Amy, professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College and author of "Behind the Ballot Box: A Citizen's Guide to Voting Systems."

He said the outcome of the 2000 presidential election likely would have been different if Florida had used instant runoff voting. Amy predicted that votes that went to Ralph Nader ultimately probably would have gone to Al Gore if there had been an instant runoff, giving the former vice president victory in Florida and ultimately the presidency.

"I think that really brought that problem to national attention," he said. "It allows people to vote for any candidate they want and they don't have to worry about electing someone they least want."

Not everyone is enthusiastic about the reform, though. Some election administrators around the country worry that because the system is somewhat more complicated than traditional plurality voting, fewer people will show up at the polls. There's also concern that some ranked choices might not get counted in second and third rounds, a problem that initially bedeviled the system in San Francisco.

Doug Lewis, director of the Election Center, which represents elections administrators nationally, said those all are concerns he and his colleagues have heard about instant runoffs. But he can't say whether they're valid.

"Most of my folks don't have the time or inclination (to investigate) because we're so busy," he said. "Until you work with it enough and find out, it would be difficult to find out."

LaMarche believes Burlington voters will not see much unusual. The city is using the same optical scanning machines and ballots that it's used in the past. The only difference is that there are extra ovals after each mayoral candidate's name for second, third, fourth and fifth choices.

The city clerk's office conducted some voter training in January to try to get voters interested and educated. There also have been mailings to all voters with graphics and text explaining how the system works.

Candidates even have tried to take advantage of the new system. Progressive Party candidate Bob Kiss' signs promote him as the "first choice for mayor." Republican Kevin Curley has told his supporters that he endorses Kiss as a second choice. Democrat Hinda Miller has declined to endorse a second choice, arguing she's confident she'll win in the first round.

Embarassingly, I never exactly knew what Instant-Runnoff Voting was  

Posted

But, in my defense, "crashing the party" was a really boring book, and i never got to that chapter. If i had, however, I would have been a huge supportor of this process. Seriously, this could really solve a lot of problems regarding our democracy (other than the lack of an independent media, of course).

If there was IRV, it would be impossible for the big two (well, one, if you want to just call them corportists) to demonize third party candidates. Instead of being labeled as "spoilers", third party candidates could run and address real issues. More voters would come out b/c they'd actually have candidates who represent them. They could vote their conscience instead of voting for the lesser of two evils. If we had IRV, i wouldn't have had to vote for Kerry in 2004!

Of course, discussing this is pointless, b/c there's no way that the big two will ever allow IRV to happen. God forbid we have elections that are actually based on issues. Anyway, here is the article.

[btw, i really enjoyed the critics theory that IRV is bad b/c "people will just not come out and vote b/c it's too complicated". Yeah, b/c i really want an election decided by people who don't understand "vote for your top 5 candidates". yikes].

Instant-Runoff Voting is Gaining Momentum as Problem Solver
It eliminates need for runoff election, cuts 'spoiler' effect
by Ross Sneyd

BURLINGTON, Vt. -- Runoff elections are traditionally cumbersome processes, taking weeks and sometimes months to determine a winner. On Tuesday, Burlington will do it all instantly.

The results for the first election and whatever runoffs are needed to settle a five-way race for mayor will be known soon after poll closing.

That's because voters, for the first time in a mayoral election in the United States, will vote Tuesday not only for their top choice, but also for their second, third and fourth choices through an innovation known as instant runoff voting.

Voters will be handed a ballot listing the five candidates, three of them representing major parties, with columns indicating first through fifth choices. If none of the five gets 50 percent of the vote on the first round, the candidate with the lowest vote total would be eliminated. The second choice of voters who made that candidate their initial top choice then would count.

"As soon as somebody gets to 50 percent, it stops," said Jo LaMarche, the city's election director.

Advocates have been promoting the idea of instant runoff voting, also known as ranked-choice voting, as a way of boosting voter turnout, encouraging more people to run for public office while eliminating the notion that a third-party candidate might be a spoiler.

"Nationally, people are catching on to how IRV can open up our politics," said Ryan O'Donnell, communications director of FairVote and the Center for Voting and Democracy. "It's a reform that produces majority winners, encourages candidates to reach out to more voters, and eliminates the 'spoiler' problem."

Burlington will not be the first community in the country to use a form of instant runoff. San Francisco has elected members of its board of supervisors using the system and the city of Ferndale, Mich., also is scheduled to use it. It will be the first to elect its chief executive officer with the system, though.

A number of other counties, cities, and towns also have shown interest, according to FairVote, including San Diego, Oakland, Davis and Berkeley in California. Bills are pending in at least 15 states to implement instant runoffs at local levels or statewide. The state of Washington last year gave a number of mid-sized cities authority to conduct instant runoff voting, although none has so far used it.

LaMarche said she's heard a lot of interest as well, fielding calls from South Carolina, Anchorage, Alaska, and communities in northern California. "A lot of people are just waiting to see how this works with Burlington," she said.

An academic who has studied voting systems said Burlington deserved the attention, despite its relatively small size. "I think it's significant because it's going to put Burlington on the cutting edge of this kind of election reform," said Doug Amy, professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College and author of "Behind the Ballot Box: A Citizen's Guide to Voting Systems."

He said the outcome of the 2000 presidential election likely would have been different if Florida had used instant runoff voting. Amy predicted that votes that went to Ralph Nader ultimately probably would have gone to Al Gore if there had been an instant runoff, giving the former vice president victory in Florida and ultimately the presidency.

"I think that really brought that problem to national attention," he said. "It allows people to vote for any candidate they want and they don't have to worry about electing someone they least want."

Not everyone is enthusiastic about the reform, though. Some election administrators around the country worry that because the system is somewhat more complicated than traditional plurality voting, fewer people will show up at the polls. There's also concern that some ranked choices might not get counted in second and third rounds, a problem that initially bedeviled the system in San Francisco.

Doug Lewis, director of the Election Center, which represents elections administrators nationally, said those all are concerns he and his colleagues have heard about instant runoffs. But he can't say whether they're valid.

"Most of my folks don't have the time or inclination (to investigate) because we're so busy," he said. "Until you work with it enough and find out, it would be difficult to find out."

LaMarche believes Burlington voters will not see much unusual. The city is using the same optical scanning machines and ballots that it's used in the past. The only difference is that there are extra ovals after each mayoral candidate's name for second, third, fourth and fifth choices.

The city clerk's office conducted some voter training in January to try to get voters interested and educated. There also have been mailings to all voters with graphics and text explaining how the system works.

Candidates even have tried to take advantage of the new system. Progressive Party candidate Bob Kiss' signs promote him as the "first choice for mayor." Republican Kevin Curley has told his supporters that he endorses Kiss as a second choice. Democrat Hinda Miller has declined to endorse a second choice, arguing she's confident she'll win in the first round.

something reminded me tonight of this...  

Posted

and i had to search for it. i was hoping that it was filthy who drew my attention to this way of writing, but wasn't sure. what a pleasent surprise:

I'm not sure who knows what Deus Ex Machina is, but it's a story term meaning "a god introduced into a story to resolve the entanglements of the plot. Any artificial or improbable device introduced into a story to resolve the plot." Whenever you see some cheap trick used to solve a plot problem, you're seeing Deus Ex Machina, the lazy bastard's best friend.

Most writers at least have enough class to invent their own cheap solution. But the not here. In Planet of the Apes, the Powerbook-and-goatee boys were so lazy they used the literal definition and ran with it. No, wait, they walked because it hurts too much to run with studio executive hands up their asses.

And, it gets worse. For whatever reason, the chimp is traveling through space with a pistol, which is then conveniently used for the one-millionth scramble-for-the-dropped-gun scene. Marky and the chimp hold hands causing all the apes to decide they were wrong to ever mistreat humans. That's followed Marky stealing the poor chimp's pod and flying back into space. He returns to earth back in the present where, for no good reason, modern-day earth is ruled by the exact same apes (down to the nams) who were ruling some distant planet hundreds of years from now. Hollywood expects our minds to be blown.

Those thieving grassfuckers in LA think we're so Goddamn stupid that the "surprise" of this ending will outweigh the sheer disbelief of even the dumb teenagers behind me. Note to studio executives: a twist only works if it makes some sense. Any sense. A ripe pile of shit out of left field just makes you look desperate. And you obviously were.