this doesn't seem appropriate at all

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.

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

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

I give it 10 episodes.

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!

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.

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.

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”

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.”

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.

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.

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.

"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."

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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