It seems to me that the political powers that be are giving Blogo the Gov too much power. By saying that they will not confirm any nominee of Gov. Blogojevitch no matter what, cross their hearts, hope to die, the Senate, Attorney General and whoever is allowing Rod to burn through a bunch of perfectly qualified candidates for no particular reason other than to avoid some appearance of impropriety. But the practical effect is that Blogo can now burn through thirty or forty candidates without breaking a sweat. Anyone from Jesse Jackson, Jr. to Richard Daley to whoever else... Gone, because God forbid we should let Blogojevitch pick a senator. It's pretty insane.
I mean, my firt thought was that if Rod Blogojevitch wanted to be a mean-spirited prick, he'd start nominated every qualified candidate he could find, just to burn them for the real process. Then I thought, "If?" Blogojevitch has definitely proven that he is kind of a mean-spirited prick. Today he announced one Roland Burris as his nomineee. Burris is someone I don't know a lot about other than he is a career politico who has a long track record of public service and failed attempts to run for office. My reaction: fine. He appears to be genuinely committed to public service. He has proven he cannot win the election to keep the seat, but he can probably do the job of senator well. And if they confirm him, it solves the problem. You don't have to worry about what to do with the senate seat. You no longer have the prospect of drawn out fight about who gets to pick. And most importantly, Burris appears to be about as qualified anyone else. Why just reject him because Blagojevitch picked him? He was Attorney General of Illinois for four years. He was state comptroller. He has, therefore, managed to serve in Illinois government for several years without getting indicted.
He strikes me, bluntly, as a trial balloon. He is not a sexy choice. He is politcally connected and qualified enough to be a reasonable choice on his own. I would not be surprised if Blagojevitch nominated him just to see if the senate and the attorney general were actually going jerk their knees into their jaws without considering his pick. I say they should take those bullets out of the gun. Unless there is some specific reason that Burris is actually, in fact, unqualified to be a Senator from Illinois, they should let him be the Senator from Illinois. He has repeatedly proven he cannot win a popular election, so you only have to worry for a couple more years, and then the people of Illinois can pcik someone.
And more important, as a Hoosier who gets Chicago news, I won't have to listen to news about it for several months.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Monday, December 29, 2008
Lou Brock for Ernie Broglio
Over the Christmas holidays, I have been examining the Phillies recent trading of stars such as Curt Schilling, Scott Rolen and Bobby Abreu. The unmitigated disaster of that group was Bobby Abreu who traded for four useless players a couple years back.. However, the Phillies just won the World Series, so what is the moratorium on whining about bad trades?
The Cubs have been whining about Lou Brock for forty years now. That's fine, I guess, but I wonder what if the Cubs had won a World Series? Lou Brock did win a couple World Series with the Cards, and did a great job doing it. But Brock also played the same position as Billy Williams, left field. Billy Williams was a heck of a ballplayer. I suppose they could have put Brock in center, but really, that would have a bit troublesome. I mean, when the Cardinals got rid of Curt Flood, they did not move Brock to Center. They put Jose Cardenal in Center. I don't see any special advantage to getting Lou Brock and Williams. They had to trade one of them. They traded him for a young starter who had won 18 and 20 games within the prior 5 years. And when he did not work out, they screwed the Phils out of Fergie Jenkins.
No,the reason Cubs fans still whine about the Brock is that Brock actually won a couple World Series with the Cards. In retrospect it was a lousy trade, but if the Cubs had actually won in 1969, I do not think they'd still be bringing it up.
The Phillies, in 2000, traded Curt Schilling for Vincente Padilla and Travis Lee and a couple others. They did okay, but they were only around for a couple years. In 2002 , Scott Rolen was traded for Placido Polanco, who was in turn traded to the Tigers where he has been exteemely valuable. They traded him for Ugueth urbina, who then went to prison, but the Phils should have gotten more anyway. Then a couple years back, they traded Abreu. I still can't believe how little they got for him, but the simple fact is this: when they got rid of Abreu, they started to contend.
Now they won the World Series. I suppose I have to stop whining about the bad trades, now, but I still think they should have gotten more for Abreu.
The Cubs have been whining about Lou Brock for forty years now. That's fine, I guess, but I wonder what if the Cubs had won a World Series? Lou Brock did win a couple World Series with the Cards, and did a great job doing it. But Brock also played the same position as Billy Williams, left field. Billy Williams was a heck of a ballplayer. I suppose they could have put Brock in center, but really, that would have a bit troublesome. I mean, when the Cardinals got rid of Curt Flood, they did not move Brock to Center. They put Jose Cardenal in Center. I don't see any special advantage to getting Lou Brock and Williams. They had to trade one of them. They traded him for a young starter who had won 18 and 20 games within the prior 5 years. And when he did not work out, they screwed the Phils out of Fergie Jenkins.
No,the reason Cubs fans still whine about the Brock is that Brock actually won a couple World Series with the Cards. In retrospect it was a lousy trade, but if the Cubs had actually won in 1969, I do not think they'd still be bringing it up.
The Phillies, in 2000, traded Curt Schilling for Vincente Padilla and Travis Lee and a couple others. They did okay, but they were only around for a couple years. In 2002 , Scott Rolen was traded for Placido Polanco, who was in turn traded to the Tigers where he has been exteemely valuable. They traded him for Ugueth urbina, who then went to prison, but the Phils should have gotten more anyway. Then a couple years back, they traded Abreu. I still can't believe how little they got for him, but the simple fact is this: when they got rid of Abreu, they started to contend.
Now they won the World Series. I suppose I have to stop whining about the bad trades, now, but I still think they should have gotten more for Abreu.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Ya Gotta Have Heaaaarrrrrtttttt......
The damn Yankees signed Mark Teixeira today. Some people take the attitude that the Yankees ability to get any player they want is unfair. I take the attitude that Sabathia, Burnett, A-Rod and Teixeira are all out of the national League, so the Phillies don't have to deal with them. I do not thbink it's going to work. Is Teixiera really that much better than Ortiz? The Rays players are all young. They'll improve. Sabathia is solid, but I do not think he scares anyone. His tear through the National League was against all bad teams. When he faced good teams, he lost. Teixeira came to Atlanta as a savior and was traded to the Angels as a savior and did not get either team anywhere. Burnett was a great pitcher last season, but his previou career high in wins was 12. In ten year. he did that twice. he also won 10 twice. Sabathia's career high is 19 wins. He won 17 last year. Another thing they both have in common besides never having won 20 is that last year they both had teammates won did: Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay. So Sabathia and Burnett are a good one two punch, but it's hard for me to see how they are ridiculously better than, say, Beckett, Dice-K and Lester.
Teixeira, A-Rod and whoever are an impressive line-up, but but they aren't god. I would rather have the Cubs line up.
Btw, the Cubs should really sign Abreu.
Teixeira, A-Rod and whoever are an impressive line-up, but but they aren't god. I would rather have the Cubs line up.
Btw, the Cubs should really sign Abreu.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Animal Man was in Justice league Europe
It's not all Grant Morrison's fault. I was thinking about Morrison' descent into self-parody while reading Grant Morrison' Doctor Who. These are reprints from Doctor Who Monthly, and they are really good. Morrison captures the spirit of Doctor Who perfectly, and Frobisher the penguin is still one of my favorite companions. Morrison used to be able to take characters and write effortlessly good comics which could be enjoyed on there own merits as comic book stories. Then something happened at DC. I mean, he did write other things with the tinge of weirdness, but when he got Animal Man and Doom Patrol, they seemed to be attempts just to be weird. And now when he writes something, it just seems to be off, somehow. I'm convinced, now, that when they hire Grant Morrison to write a comic book, they want the touch of weirdnes. But when I read the the Docotr Who strips, I am reminded of the old Grant Morrison who wrote a character that could participate in Justice League without anyone blinking.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Screw the Future, I'm Cold Now
Drew carey used to have the bit where he talked about global warming. I couldn't find it, but I did find his first Tonight Show gig. The Tonight Show actually ruined Albert Brooks' stand up act. He was apparently on the show so much that he wound up using all his material. Doug Tonks said the same thing happened to Bill Cosby with "Noah."
Richard Dreyfus would make a Good Adama
I finally managed to track down "The Education of Max Bickford." I really liked the show when it was on. It changed direction a couple times. For reasons beyond me, they added Jay Thomas in the middle of the show. They forgot the daughter thought she was pregnant in the pilot. They brought Peter O'Toole in for the penultimate episode. In between it wandered around pretty much aimlessly. I cannot figure out why I like the show. I suppose I do not technically need a reason. Never the less, I am watching the episodes again, and I still like the show.
One thing that bothers me is something that bothered in a couple other place. In the book, Hannibal, Thomas Harris makes Lector out to be a brilliant Dante scholar. The actual Dante scholarship in the book, however, the actual Dante stuff presented in the book kind of sucks. In comic books, characters are sometimes presented as superintelligent or brilliant in some area, but they are limited in what the author actually knows, so Kang the Conqueror knows nothing about military tactics. In Max Bickford, the main character has written a novel that purports to be some combination of Philip Roth, John Updike and James Joyce, but the actual snippets of content we hear in narration stink.
I do not have a good way to address this, and I am not sure it needs to be addressed, but you would think that if a main character is supposed to be brilliant at something, the writers would find someone who actually was, and make sure.
The tv show "Chef!" is an excellent take on a kitchen. Better than reality hows, because in a reality show the camera rolls and people are self conscious. In a scripted show based on reality, the actors have no reason to hide. Now, this obviously has problems. I can't expect "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to make sure it's history course are accurate in the classroom scenes, because the show is not about history. But if the fighting techniques look wrong, that is another thing entirely. Anyway, I still enjoy Max Bickford, and I have finally found it, and I am happy.
One thing that bothers me is something that bothered in a couple other place. In the book, Hannibal, Thomas Harris makes Lector out to be a brilliant Dante scholar. The actual Dante scholarship in the book, however, the actual Dante stuff presented in the book kind of sucks. In comic books, characters are sometimes presented as superintelligent or brilliant in some area, but they are limited in what the author actually knows, so Kang the Conqueror knows nothing about military tactics. In Max Bickford, the main character has written a novel that purports to be some combination of Philip Roth, John Updike and James Joyce, but the actual snippets of content we hear in narration stink.
I do not have a good way to address this, and I am not sure it needs to be addressed, but you would think that if a main character is supposed to be brilliant at something, the writers would find someone who actually was, and make sure.
The tv show "Chef!" is an excellent take on a kitchen. Better than reality hows, because in a reality show the camera rolls and people are self conscious. In a scripted show based on reality, the actors have no reason to hide. Now, this obviously has problems. I can't expect "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to make sure it's history course are accurate in the classroom scenes, because the show is not about history. But if the fighting techniques look wrong, that is another thing entirely. Anyway, I still enjoy Max Bickford, and I have finally found it, and I am happy.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Bring Out Your Dead
American hero, Mark Felt, has died. Was he responsible for a shift in American journalism? Or was that the journalists. It' impossible for us to remember today how much people trusted the government prior to Watergate. In the 1970's we had movies like "All the President's men" and "Serpico," which showed the corruption of our institutions. Mark Felt was at the FBI. I'm sure some people think he should have just tried to arrest the people involved in the coverup, but that would not have been possible back then.
Hal Holbrook is still alive. Mark Twain, still dead. We probably need to keep Holbrook from playing any living people...
Also passed is Majel Barrett-Roddenberry. She is best known for playing various roles on Star Trek shows, such as Nurse Chapel, the computer, Mrs. Troi and who knows what else.
Hal Holbrook is still alive. Mark Twain, still dead. We probably need to keep Holbrook from playing any living people...
Also passed is Majel Barrett-Roddenberry. She is best known for playing various roles on Star Trek shows, such as Nurse Chapel, the computer, Mrs. Troi and who knows what else.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Gutless Cowards and Fun Killers
The last couple seasons the Mets-Phillies rivalry has been heating up. I do not know that prior to 2007 that there actually was a Mets-Phillies rivalry. Before 2007, the Mets were the class of the National League, while the Phillies were sort of perennial also rans. After the Phillies brought up Ryan Howard to replace the injured Jim Thome in 2005, there was a bit of a shift. That offseason they traded Thome for Aaron Rowand. Then mid-year they got rid of Boobby Abreu, and suddenly, they made a run at the post-season. Ryan Howard won the MVP, and the Phils were second to the Mets. Tyhat off-season, Jimmy Rollins made the statement that the Phillies were the team to beat in NL East. He said this after the Phillies acquired Freddy Garcia for prospects, under the theory that the Phillies had acquired an ace.
Rollins' statement caused some mirth in the league, when the Phillies opened the year up as the team to beat -- they proved it by getting beaten by everyone. Garcia was horrible. Brett Myers the opening day starter was moved to the bullpen. Jon Lieber got hurt. Adam Eaton was horrid. So, by the mid-season, three of their opening day starters were gone. Then something strange happened. They started beating Mets in head-to-head matchup regular as clockwork. The Mets collapsed, but the Phillies also beat them.
Rollins went on to win the MVP himself that year, partially for backing up his pre-season prediction. Garcia was a washout, but the Phils did have an ace, in Cole Hamels, and Ryan Howard and Chase Utley both had monster years.They brought up Kyle Kendrick and traded for Kyle Lohse to help the rotation. Eaton still pitched, but you have o put someone out there. Brett Myers turned out to be a wonderful relief ace. The Phils made the post-season, but lost three straight to the Rockies.
That off-season, the Mets' made some predictions, and the Phillies responded. The Mets actually beat the Phillies in head-to-head competition, but then the Phillies led for most of the way. The Mets started losing again, and the Phillies won the division and then the World Series.
Then a couple weeks ago, a New York radio station asked Cole hamels if the Phillies think the Mets are choke artists. Hamels said "Yes." After the Mets signed a couple terrific bullpen artists, K-Rod, their new closer, aid that the Mets were the team to beat. The Mets-Phillies rivalry was starting to get really interesting.
And then this.
All I have to say is that New York Mets General manager Omar Minaya is a major buzzkill.
Rollins' statement caused some mirth in the league, when the Phillies opened the year up as the team to beat -- they proved it by getting beaten by everyone. Garcia was horrible. Brett Myers the opening day starter was moved to the bullpen. Jon Lieber got hurt. Adam Eaton was horrid. So, by the mid-season, three of their opening day starters were gone. Then something strange happened. They started beating Mets in head-to-head matchup regular as clockwork. The Mets collapsed, but the Phillies also beat them.
Rollins went on to win the MVP himself that year, partially for backing up his pre-season prediction. Garcia was a washout, but the Phils did have an ace, in Cole Hamels, and Ryan Howard and Chase Utley both had monster years.They brought up Kyle Kendrick and traded for Kyle Lohse to help the rotation. Eaton still pitched, but you have o put someone out there. Brett Myers turned out to be a wonderful relief ace. The Phils made the post-season, but lost three straight to the Rockies.
That off-season, the Mets' made some predictions, and the Phillies responded. The Mets actually beat the Phillies in head-to-head competition, but then the Phillies led for most of the way. The Mets started losing again, and the Phillies won the division and then the World Series.
Then a couple weeks ago, a New York radio station asked Cole hamels if the Phillies think the Mets are choke artists. Hamels said "Yes." After the Mets signed a couple terrific bullpen artists, K-Rod, their new closer, aid that the Mets were the team to beat. The Mets-Phillies rivalry was starting to get really interesting.
And then this.
All I have to say is that New York Mets General manager Omar Minaya is a major buzzkill.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Pixar's Magic Movies
I have to say, I wasn't that impressed by "Wall-E." I have enjoyed every Pixar movie I have seen, and I guess I liked "Wall-E" okay. But I do not see it as a particularly brilliant film, and I do not see that it achieved anything that hadn't been done before in other Pixar movies. The machine love story? "Cars." Humans interacting with strange creatures? "Monsters, Inc." Bumpkins dealing with sophisticates from the outside? "A Bug's Life." And "Cars." I like the Pixar animation, but it's no longer o far beyond the other companies that it blows them away. Dreamworks, in particular the Shrek series is just as good, technically.
So without an original story, we need a good story. "Wall-E" is a good story, but it's not a great story. A lot of critics are praising it because of the the majesty of the space visuals, but I have to say, I found "Finding Nemo" and "Monsters Inc." more impressive. As to the idea that Wall-E i somehow evocative of silent films, I would find that more convincing if the human characters did not talk up a storm. And according to the subtitles, even the robots talk. Wall-E is a cute character, but in some ways he is a shlub. He does not change his environment. He does not do anything. Stuff happens to him. The classic silent comedians, like Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton were not victim because stuff happened to them. They were victims becaue they did something that turned out horribly wrong.
I see the reviewer at Time actually compared the chemitry of Wall-E and Eve to tracy and Hepburn. Uh huh. Was that from "The Desk Set?" Or perhaps "Adam's Rib?"
I suppose I shouldn't be so, so negative. I liked the movie fine, but this is the first time Pixar has not taken a great leap forward. Every movie they have made ha been an improvement over te last one until now. I think this from a quality standpoint would slide in between "Monsters , Inc" which has a great leap forward in animation, but a rather pedestrian story, and "Finding Nemo" which reached about the level where humans can tell when animation has improved and had a terrific story. The emotiveness of the characters in "Wall-E" was more obvious, but not better than in previous stories, and the use of live action sequences was just distracting. To be honest, we've had live action mixed with cartoons since "Anchor's Away," so who cares?
Also, the autopilot looked too much like HAL from "2001."
I
So without an original story, we need a good story. "Wall-E" is a good story, but it's not a great story. A lot of critics are praising it because of the the majesty of the space visuals, but I have to say, I found "Finding Nemo" and "Monsters Inc." more impressive. As to the idea that Wall-E i somehow evocative of silent films, I would find that more convincing if the human characters did not talk up a storm. And according to the subtitles, even the robots talk. Wall-E is a cute character, but in some ways he is a shlub. He does not change his environment. He does not do anything. Stuff happens to him. The classic silent comedians, like Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton were not victim because stuff happened to them. They were victims becaue they did something that turned out horribly wrong.
I see the reviewer at Time actually compared the chemitry of Wall-E and Eve to tracy and Hepburn. Uh huh. Was that from "The Desk Set?" Or perhaps "Adam's Rib?"
I suppose I shouldn't be so, so negative. I liked the movie fine, but this is the first time Pixar has not taken a great leap forward. Every movie they have made ha been an improvement over te last one until now. I think this from a quality standpoint would slide in between "Monsters , Inc" which has a great leap forward in animation, but a rather pedestrian story, and "Finding Nemo" which reached about the level where humans can tell when animation has improved and had a terrific story. The emotiveness of the characters in "Wall-E" was more obvious, but not better than in previous stories, and the use of live action sequences was just distracting. To be honest, we've had live action mixed with cartoons since "Anchor's Away," so who cares?
Also, the autopilot looked too much like HAL from "2001."
I
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Man, I Didn't Realize how Ugly Everything is...
I have the misfortune of needing contact lenses to correct my vision properly. I hate wearing the damned things, though, so I end up getting a "backup" pair of glasses whih lat time I wound up wearing until they almost literally fell apart. I saw the eye doctor a couple weeks ago at an optometry school and ordered a pair of contact lense. So instead of using my insurance on glases, I went to the open market. I did some research, and discovered that these eyegalss places are a bunch of incompetent boobs. ABC news says that if you order glasses from somewhere, yuo should expect them to work about as well as a Bush adminstration appointee.
I went to For Eyes, however, because they were the cheapest. I asked the manager about the ABC story, and he explained that those result were people going to a place that makes glasses in an hour, and those guys using whatever lenses they happen to have lying around. Actually, I was really impresed wtih For Eyes. They had the same brands as the higher end place, and even as Sam's Club, but they were at least twenty clams cheaper.
Once I got my glases, however, I was pleasantly surprised. Not only do they work. They work much beter than my older glasses, even compared to what I was expecting based on my eye appointment. My vision is loads better. In fact, I suspect the ganev who made my last pair did not know what he was doing.
So, in short. Good eye sight.
I went to For Eyes, however, because they were the cheapest. I asked the manager about the ABC story, and he explained that those result were people going to a place that makes glasses in an hour, and those guys using whatever lenses they happen to have lying around. Actually, I was really impresed wtih For Eyes. They had the same brands as the higher end place, and even as Sam's Club, but they were at least twenty clams cheaper.
Once I got my glases, however, I was pleasantly surprised. Not only do they work. They work much beter than my older glasses, even compared to what I was expecting based on my eye appointment. My vision is loads better. In fact, I suspect the ganev who made my last pair did not know what he was doing.
So, in short. Good eye sight.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Please Enjoy This Brief Musical Interlude from Silvio
Due to some time pressure, I haven't been able to finish up anything. However, the last couple weeks "Little Steven's Underground Garage". has been doing some great Christmas shows. Pop by and listen. I think you have to register to listen tothe archives, but it' free, and I actually don't mind the one e-mail a week they send me, becaue it reminds me to go listen to the show.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Mark deRosa would Make a Nice Replacement for Orotn, though
Having failed in their attempt to trade two prospects for the immortal Mark DeRosa, the Phillies signed Raul Ibenez today. Ibanez does not have as much power as Burrell, but he hits for a higher average, and he drives in runs. My hope is he will solve the problem that cropped up the last couple years. The Phillies have these stretches where they all stop hitting at the same times. I will miss Burrell, but the simple fact is that he only hits when everyone else on the team hits, so he does not match the production his power numbers might normally imply. e hit 33 homers and 33 doubles last year, but drove in and scored 88 and 74 run, respectively. Now, those numbers are skewed a little by the use of pinch runners and defensive replacements, but they are not skew so much that in makes up for 20 rbi. Ibanez had one more win share thanBurrell last year. In the end, however, I think Ibanez is a good pick up because of his batting average. He hits for a higher average than Burrell, so we might actually score some of the runners in scoring position we've been stranding the last several years/
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Okay, He's Stopped Even Trying...
Pres. George W. Bush -- in an apparent effort to demonstrate his absolute contempt of democracy -- has awarded the Prsidential Citizen's Medal to Chuck Colson. That's right. You read that correctly. Nixon's enforcer just received the second highest civilian medal. The man who tried to cover up Watergate. The man who suggested burning the Brookings Institute and stealing records during the confusion. That guy just received the second highest civilian honor. Lenny Bruce's proclamation of the importance of the first amendment never seemed less hypothetical.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Just a Link for the Day
Strangely haunting, Enya sings "Silent Night" in the original Klingon..er, Gaelic, but not original
The original is actually German:
The original is actually German:
Hey, Let's Not Dismiss the Idea Out of Hand
In Acts 8:18-24, Simon Magus attempts to purchase the ability to infuse people with the Holy Ghost. Thus began the concept of simony, the buying of religious offices. Yesterday, the governor of Illinois was arrested for attempting, among other things, to sell President-elect Obama's now-vacated Senate seat. There has been a general cry of outrage, but the simply fact is, all Blago was asking for was money. Really, is that so wrong? Well, illegal, yes. Horribly distasteful, yes. Subverting democracy, yes. Betraying the electorate in a way that confirms the worst paranoia of the electorate, yes. But wrong?
Who should get the seat, who is going to get it, and who can afford it are separate questions, I suppose, but if there is a special election, for example, candidates will spend money. "Who is going to get it" and "Who can afford it" are intertwined. For example, Oberweis and Ryan and Keyes are all still around. None of them are getting it, and all could probably afford it (well, maybe not Keyes.) On that basis the seat was never going to the highest bidder. The popular candidates are people like Jesse Jackson, the younger, and Tammy Duckworth, but really, does it make a difference? The people who were going to get the seat would have been the same anyway. Typically, a spouse is nominated, but I can't see Michelle Obama having the time.
There are advantages, as I see it, to a straight forward above-board bribe for power. For one thing, there is no payback because "you owe the guy." You have your senate seat, and the governor's wife has her cush job. Things are even. If you just got the job "on merit," then there'd always be a feeling of gratitude. In Roddy's proposed system, there would be no future favors. The favors would all be in the past. You'd have your Senate seat. If Blago called for a favor, you could tell him where to go. What's he gonna do, take it back? Royal families have been selling patents of nobility for centuries.
On a side note, I was also amused at the outrage" over an Illinois governor being corrupt, because we've never seen that happen before.
As to who should get the seat. I'll tell you who could win an Illinois election for senate: Mike Ditka, Oprah Winfrey and Richard Daley. None of them want the job. (Though they'd all probably be fairly good at it, at least in comparison to the bozos we have in Congress now. Even Da Coach.)
I wouldn't mind seeing Paul Simon take the seat. The politician is dead, but the singer/songwriter is alive. He has the right name for an Illinois senator. And he once beat Connie Hawkins at one-on-one.
Here's my suggestion: Illinois should forfeit that seat. I say give it to whomever winds up losing the Minnesota senate race. That way both sides in Minnesota win, and Illinois has at least one political office that cannot involve it in a political scandal. When Obama's term as senator is over, Coleman or Franken can either move to Illinois or someone else can run.
Who should get the seat, who is going to get it, and who can afford it are separate questions, I suppose, but if there is a special election, for example, candidates will spend money. "Who is going to get it" and "Who can afford it" are intertwined. For example, Oberweis and Ryan and Keyes are all still around. None of them are getting it, and all could probably afford it (well, maybe not Keyes.) On that basis the seat was never going to the highest bidder. The popular candidates are people like Jesse Jackson, the younger, and Tammy Duckworth, but really, does it make a difference? The people who were going to get the seat would have been the same anyway. Typically, a spouse is nominated, but I can't see Michelle Obama having the time.
There are advantages, as I see it, to a straight forward above-board bribe for power. For one thing, there is no payback because "you owe the guy." You have your senate seat, and the governor's wife has her cush job. Things are even. If you just got the job "on merit," then there'd always be a feeling of gratitude. In Roddy's proposed system, there would be no future favors. The favors would all be in the past. You'd have your Senate seat. If Blago called for a favor, you could tell him where to go. What's he gonna do, take it back? Royal families have been selling patents of nobility for centuries.
On a side note, I was also amused at the outrage" over an Illinois governor being corrupt, because we've never seen that happen before.
As to who should get the seat. I'll tell you who could win an Illinois election for senate: Mike Ditka, Oprah Winfrey and Richard Daley. None of them want the job. (Though they'd all probably be fairly good at it, at least in comparison to the bozos we have in Congress now. Even Da Coach.)
I wouldn't mind seeing Paul Simon take the seat. The politician is dead, but the singer/songwriter is alive. He has the right name for an Illinois senator. And he once beat Connie Hawkins at one-on-one.
Here's my suggestion: Illinois should forfeit that seat. I say give it to whomever winds up losing the Minnesota senate race. That way both sides in Minnesota win, and Illinois has at least one political office that cannot involve it in a political scandal. When Obama's term as senator is over, Coleman or Franken can either move to Illinois or someone else can run.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
William Hartnell was the Coach in "This Sporting Life"
[This somehow failed to post yeterday.]
So, I got the Doctor Who story, "The Time Meddler" from Netflix, and was not for the first time struck by the fact that William Hartnell was actually kind of a touch guy. I decided, then to list the Doctors in descending order of physical toughness:
(Btw, there's rumor going around that Patrivck Stewart will play the Meddling Monk in an upcoming Dr. Who series. That's actually good casting, in my opinion.)
1. The Third Doctor. Jon Pertwee's Doctor was the mater of Venusian Aikido, and was constantly getting into fights.
2. The First Doctor. Bill Hartnell was actually a standard tough guy in British cinema sort of like a poor man's Gene Hackman or something. People remember him as a frail old guy, but he was actually pretty solid.
3. The Tenth Doctor. David Tennant. The Tenth Doctor is not so much shown fighting on screen but he always threaten people, and he has racke up a heavy body count.
4. The Second Doctor. Patrick Troughton actually had a tough side to his portrayal of the Doctor. In the Ice Warriors epsidoes, he's always willing to do dangerous stuf, but he never so much engages in combat.
5. The Fourth Doctor. Tom Baker was over 6 foot tall and over 200 pounds. He went back and forth though. He'd engage Sontaran and villains in combat. But he'd also get beaten up. He was like Jim Rockford.
6. The Seventh Doctor. Sylvester McCoy's Doctor was pretty damned cold-blooded in the Troughton tradition and has some similarities to Tennant.
7. The Sixth Doctor. Colin Baker was a big guy, and did some stuff that was heroic, but he was kind of a wimp.
8. The Ninth Doctor. Christopher Eccleston's Doctor got beat up kind of a lot, andnever actually engaged anyone phyiically that I recall. Also, Jackie slapped him.
X. Peter Cushing, the Doctor Who from the movies. He was one of the the great stage fihters, and I'll be damned if I am rating Peter Davison over Van Helsing. He doesn't do anything fighting in the Who flicks, though.
9. The Fifth Doctor. Peter Davison actually did a fair amoutnof action, but he was never credible.
10. The Eightth Doctor. Paul McGann never had much of a chance but such is life.
So, I got the Doctor Who story, "The Time Meddler" from Netflix, and was not for the first time struck by the fact that William Hartnell was actually kind of a touch guy. I decided, then to list the Doctors in descending order of physical toughness:
(Btw, there's rumor going around that Patrivck Stewart will play the Meddling Monk in an upcoming Dr. Who series. That's actually good casting, in my opinion.)
1. The Third Doctor. Jon Pertwee's Doctor was the mater of Venusian Aikido, and was constantly getting into fights.
2. The First Doctor. Bill Hartnell was actually a standard tough guy in British cinema sort of like a poor man's Gene Hackman or something. People remember him as a frail old guy, but he was actually pretty solid.
3. The Tenth Doctor. David Tennant. The Tenth Doctor is not so much shown fighting on screen but he always threaten people, and he has racke up a heavy body count.
4. The Second Doctor. Patrick Troughton actually had a tough side to his portrayal of the Doctor. In the Ice Warriors epsidoes, he's always willing to do dangerous stuf, but he never so much engages in combat.
5. The Fourth Doctor. Tom Baker was over 6 foot tall and over 200 pounds. He went back and forth though. He'd engage Sontaran and villains in combat. But he'd also get beaten up. He was like Jim Rockford.
6. The Seventh Doctor. Sylvester McCoy's Doctor was pretty damned cold-blooded in the Troughton tradition and has some similarities to Tennant.
7. The Sixth Doctor. Colin Baker was a big guy, and did some stuff that was heroic, but he was kind of a wimp.
8. The Ninth Doctor. Christopher Eccleston's Doctor got beat up kind of a lot, andnever actually engaged anyone phyiically that I recall. Also, Jackie slapped him.
X. Peter Cushing, the Doctor Who from the movies. He was one of the the great stage fihters, and I'll be damned if I am rating Peter Davison over Van Helsing. He doesn't do anything fighting in the Who flicks, though.
9. The Fifth Doctor. Peter Davison actually did a fair amoutnof action, but he was never credible.
10. The Eightth Doctor. Paul McGann never had much of a chance but such is life.
Mark DeRosa?
The Phillies are apparently considering trading prospects to the Cubs for Mark DeRosa in order for the Cub to trade those prospects to the Padres for jake Peavy. WHich leads me to ask...who the hell thin k Mark DeRosa i worth enough prospects to get jake peavy? Yeah, DeRosa can play left field and bats right, so he could, in principle, replace Pat Burrell, I guess, but if the Phillies are going to get anyone from the Cubs in a trade that net the Cubs Peavy, it should Aramis Ramirez. I'm just saying.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Saturday, December 6, 2008
So, That's Why Hawkeye was into Her
I am a huge fan of "M*A*S*H." I liked the tv show I liked the movie. I liked the books. "M*A*S*H" turned me into a fan of acting, because it made me aware when I was a small child that actors could appear in more than one role. Macia Strassman played Margie Cutler for a year on M*A*S*H and then Julie on "Welcome Back Kotter." I do not know what the people on MASH did not like about her, but she apparently was only on six episodes.
There are a couple other actresses from MASH that Hawkeye was into who did not seem that attractive on the show, who I only saw years later and realized when she was in another outfit on Qunicy that she actually was worth the trouble hawkeye seemed to be going through over her. Or Gretchen Corbett. She was Rockford's lawyer on "The Rockford Files." She shows up in a bikini on "Columbo."
I was wondering about this the other day, because an actress showed up on a DVD, and I could not figure out where I has seen before. Well, she has guest-starred on "The Pretender." The question, of course, is whether recognizing an actor from a different role throws the audience out of the story.
For many years I insisted the world's greatest living actor was Bill Daily who played essentially the same role on "I Dream of Jeannie" and "The Bob Newhart Show" and never threw me out of the show.
There are a couple other actresses from MASH that Hawkeye was into who did not seem that attractive on the show, who I only saw years later and realized when she was in another outfit on Qunicy that she actually was worth the trouble hawkeye seemed to be going through over her. Or Gretchen Corbett. She was Rockford's lawyer on "The Rockford Files." She shows up in a bikini on "Columbo."
I was wondering about this the other day, because an actress showed up on a DVD, and I could not figure out where I has seen before. Well, she has guest-starred on "The Pretender." The question, of course, is whether recognizing an actor from a different role throws the audience out of the story.
For many years I insisted the world's greatest living actor was Bill Daily who played essentially the same role on "I Dream of Jeannie" and "The Bob Newhart Show" and never threw me out of the show.
Friday, December 5, 2008
YESSSS!
Ball State lost. Karma's a predictable bitch. I feel so very happy. I am doing the Snoopy dance. Buffalo beat them. I am very, very happy. Let us bask in the glow of the Football Gods refusing to let the Cardinals duck an opponent and be rewarded with a unbeaten record.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
At Least Hitler Had One...
The most ironically named college in the country, Ball St., has has turned down a chance to play fellow unbeaten Boise St. in the Humanitarian Bowl. This move is completely gutless. The reason, apparently, is that the Humantiarin Bowl is played on Boise State's home field. That coimbined with being several states away, thus limiting the Cardinals' ability to bring their fans along led to them aying, "Thanks but no thanks."
Nuh uh.
You suck it up and accept the challenge. You say, "Hell, yeah, we'll take on Boise St. on their own field. Nobody has beaten us yet, and we're not going to start losing now." This annoys me because with Notre Dame and Pur-who dying, Hoosier football is going nowhere. The Ball State Cardinals had a chance to play in a game of enormous national interest, and they completely dropped the ball...so to speak.
If I sound unforgiving, it's because this was both Ball St. and the Mid-American Conference to become players. They could have gained some respect in the college football world. Here's what their director had to say, "“I think it would be great for television but I’m not sure it’s fair to our student-athletes to ask them to go out and play on Boise State’s home field.” So not only won't they play in the bowl, but they won't schedule Boisie St., I guess. Maybe they can only play home games next year. I bet the players, especially Nate Davis, one of the finest quarter bakcs in college football, like being made out as gutless cowards. I wonder what David Letterman think of his beloved Cardinals chickening out. Personally, I think the Ball State palyers would have relished the chance to go into Boise State's house and beat them. Boisie State has earned a deserved reputation as a tough program, but if Ball State and the MAC want a chance for national exposure and a solid pigskin reputation, they need to take invitations like this.
So it becomes apparent that Ball State has none.
Nuh uh.
You suck it up and accept the challenge. You say, "Hell, yeah, we'll take on Boise St. on their own field. Nobody has beaten us yet, and we're not going to start losing now." This annoys me because with Notre Dame and Pur-who dying, Hoosier football is going nowhere. The Ball State Cardinals had a chance to play in a game of enormous national interest, and they completely dropped the ball...so to speak.
If I sound unforgiving, it's because this was both Ball St. and the Mid-American Conference to become players. They could have gained some respect in the college football world. Here's what their director had to say, "“I think it would be great for television but I’m not sure it’s fair to our student-athletes to ask them to go out and play on Boise State’s home field.” So not only won't they play in the bowl, but they won't schedule Boisie St., I guess. Maybe they can only play home games next year. I bet the players, especially Nate Davis, one of the finest quarter bakcs in college football, like being made out as gutless cowards. I wonder what David Letterman think of his beloved Cardinals chickening out. Personally, I think the Ball State palyers would have relished the chance to go into Boise State's house and beat them. Boisie State has earned a deserved reputation as a tough program, but if Ball State and the MAC want a chance for national exposure and a solid pigskin reputation, they need to take invitations like this.
So it becomes apparent that Ball State has none.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Just a Link for the Day
Former New York Doll, Buster Poindexter does the Satchmo classic, "Zat You Santa Clause."
It's a Fair Cop
I have decided that Hugh Laurie is the best actor in the world. I say this because I have followed his career since the late-1980's. Black Adder, Jeeves and Wooster, A Bit of Fry and Laurie. He's a brilliant comedian. I watch him on House, and his American accent is so good, most people who did not know him at the start of the show do not realize he is British. But here's the thing: Hugh Laurie is an icon of British comedy, and I ahev known this for years. So last night, I am watching House, and House makes a Monty Python and the Holy Grsil reference. And I thought, "Huh, I wonder who the Monty Python fan is on the House set." Hugh laurie was right there on screen, and I thought "I wonder who the Monty Python fan is on the House set."
So, rather than admit that I am a moron, I have decideed that Hugh Laurie is just that good. He made me forget who he was so totally that even when a reference on the show threw me into a metatextual consideration of who made the Python reference, and Hugh frickin' Laurie was right there on the goddam screen, it still took me a second to realize that it might have been an adlib, because Hugh Laurie probably knows every line of Python by heart.
So, rather than admit that I am a moron, I have decideed that Hugh Laurie is just that good. He made me forget who he was so totally that even when a reference on the show threw me into a metatextual consideration of who made the Python reference, and Hugh frickin' Laurie was right there on the goddam screen, it still took me a second to realize that it might have been an adlib, because Hugh Laurie probably knows every line of Python by heart.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Barack was Second on Yahoo
Britney Spears was apparently the top search on both Yahoo and Google this past year. Think about this for a second: people apparently do not get enough Britney Spears inflicted on them just walking around in their everyday life on the news, on magazine covers, in newspaper, on the web, etc. They have to deliberately seek out more Britney Spears.
Just a Link for the Day
If you saw the Colbert Christmas Album shill, this song from Bing Crosbie and David Bowie is the sort of thing he was lampooning:
Maybe It's Time to Examine the Knicks' Management
Stephon Marbury is not a jerk. He has been named to The Sporting news list of "Good Guys in Sports" several times. His Starbury line of shoes is priced at 15 clams specifically to let poorer kids afford the shoes. And he backed it up, too. He played an entire seaon in the NBA wearing the shoes. He's also not a Hall of Famer, except the NBA Hall of Fame let's everyone in.
I bring this up because all ESPN can talk about is how big a jerk he is. All big time sports guys are jerks. People used to whine about Bobby Knight, and Knight was a jerk. But John Cheney threatened to kill another coach. Mike Krzyzewski's wife threatened to leave him. And those are the good people that people like.
Every single pro athlete or coach and even at the elite college and high school level is kind of a jerk. The reason Marbury sticks out is that he's only good player on the Knicks. My friend Todd Allen asures me that Marbury was an asshole compared even to other players. I don't claim to know better, but the stories I hear about Michael Jordan and Larry Bird and Scottie Pippin make me think that's impoible. He might be as big an asshole as those guys, but it's not possible to be bigger. Of course, Kobe kind of went off the rail for a while, and he was actually charged crimnally. Now, I brought MJ up to Todd and he said "Yeah, but that's Jordan," like he got to be a bigger jerk just because of his superior ball skills.
I think there's something to that, actually. If you're Scottie Pippin, you have to moderate your behavior a little bit, because you cannot be more nuts than Michael. When Michael wasn't there, Scottie actually refused to participate in a game, remember? He took himelf out out of game three of the 1994 playoffs with the score tied because with 1.8 seconds left Phil Jackson designed the last play for Toni Kukoc. You can't do that if there's another superstar of greater or equal stature on the team. If you're Larry Bird, you can't sulk if Kevin McHale is on the team because he'll kill you. Not only that, but if you're Larry Bird, you might be better than Kevin McHale, but you are not that much better. If you suddenly do things like opt out of the tie game, you are no longer the best player on the team.
You are the sulking superstar who won't play. Michael could be as nuts as he wanted, actually, but his nuttyness manifested itself in an intense desire to win. I still remember him yelling at Steve Kerr for passing up a three-point shot in the finals.
So marbury might be a little isolated from other superstars being on a crap team. Also, I gues the other players ont he Knicks just do not want him around, but when you here someone talking about how big a jerk Steph is, do not forget he's an athlete, and ask "Compared to whom?"
I bring this up because all ESPN can talk about is how big a jerk he is. All big time sports guys are jerks. People used to whine about Bobby Knight, and Knight was a jerk. But John Cheney threatened to kill another coach. Mike Krzyzewski's wife threatened to leave him. And those are the good people that people like.
Every single pro athlete or coach and even at the elite college and high school level is kind of a jerk. The reason Marbury sticks out is that he's only good player on the Knicks. My friend Todd Allen asures me that Marbury was an asshole compared even to other players. I don't claim to know better, but the stories I hear about Michael Jordan and Larry Bird and Scottie Pippin make me think that's impoible. He might be as big an asshole as those guys, but it's not possible to be bigger. Of course, Kobe kind of went off the rail for a while, and he was actually charged crimnally. Now, I brought MJ up to Todd and he said "Yeah, but that's Jordan," like he got to be a bigger jerk just because of his superior ball skills.
I think there's something to that, actually. If you're Scottie Pippin, you have to moderate your behavior a little bit, because you cannot be more nuts than Michael. When Michael wasn't there, Scottie actually refused to participate in a game, remember? He took himelf out out of game three of the 1994 playoffs with the score tied because with 1.8 seconds left Phil Jackson designed the last play for Toni Kukoc. You can't do that if there's another superstar of greater or equal stature on the team. If you're Larry Bird, you can't sulk if Kevin McHale is on the team because he'll kill you. Not only that, but if you're Larry Bird, you might be better than Kevin McHale, but you are not that much better. If you suddenly do things like opt out of the tie game, you are no longer the best player on the team.
You are the sulking superstar who won't play. Michael could be as nuts as he wanted, actually, but his nuttyness manifested itself in an intense desire to win. I still remember him yelling at Steve Kerr for passing up a three-point shot in the finals.
So marbury might be a little isolated from other superstars being on a crap team. Also, I gues the other players ont he Knicks just do not want him around, but when you here someone talking about how big a jerk Steph is, do not forget he's an athlete, and ask "Compared to whom?"
Monday, December 1, 2008
A Couple Links for the Day
My X-mas song today is "Snoopy's Christmas" by the Royal Guardsmen, note the Christmas Turce ending:
But here's also the original Snoopy vs. the Red Baron song
Or
But here's also the original Snoopy vs. the Red Baron song
Or
See, the Problem is America Doesn't Play Soccer
Well, we do, but we're really, really bad at it. Back in the first world war, both sides took some time off for Christmas. This was the so-called "Christmas Truce." They exchanged presents. They had music. They played football. Not real football, but soccer. They call it "football" to hide the fact that it's really just a bunch of small guys running around for a couple hours not scoring.
We won't play soccer against the Afghanis and Iraqis, and they won't play real Football or Baseball (they play cricket) against us, and also they don't celebrate Christmas. So, basically we have to challenge them to hoops.
There's a pretty good movie about the Christmas Truce called "Joyeux Noel". The History Channel special is also available.
We won't play soccer against the Afghanis and Iraqis, and they won't play real Football or Baseball (they play cricket) against us, and also they don't celebrate Christmas. So, basically we have to challenge them to hoops.
There's a pretty good movie about the Christmas Truce called "Joyeux Noel". The History Channel special is also available.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Maybe We Can Introduce Dexter to the Joker
Every week I watch "Dexter" with my dad. This week something struck me which also struck me last season. Dexter has a lot in common with the Fawcett Captain Marvel. If you actually read the old Fawcett Cap comics, those are some dark stories. His villains are some of the most truly evil and vicious nasties around, and Captain Marvel and Billy have no problem at all sinking to their level should the occasion demand it. The stories are told with cartoony art and in a light-hearted almost comedic tone. They have to be or they never could have gotten away with the stories they were telling.
Dexter is in the same boat. It's about a serial killer, and it's as black a comedy as I can imagine. Last season and this season have a character trying to kill Dexter, but I feel no tension. Why? He has it coming. He's a sociopath, like Hannibal Lector or Mr. Mind. I don't worry about him because he's evil. But also, because the show is a black comedy, I know they won't kill him. Heck, they will not even injure him seriously, because then his friends might notice. Also, every time someone takes him on one-on-one, he wins. In a way he's a supervillain, and those guys never lose permanently.
I actually found myself thinking today, when Dexter was kidnapped, "Bad move, brother." I don't think that Dexter is my first choice of kidnap victim. picture "The Ransom of Red Chief" with Shang Chi, master of Kung Fu as Red Chief.
I found "The Sopranos" unwatchable toward the end, because Tony was a monster and I did not want to root for him. I do not root for Dexter, but since it is a comedy, it doesn't matter. I would like a crossover maybe with CSI: Miami.
Dexter is in the same boat. It's about a serial killer, and it's as black a comedy as I can imagine. Last season and this season have a character trying to kill Dexter, but I feel no tension. Why? He has it coming. He's a sociopath, like Hannibal Lector or Mr. Mind. I don't worry about him because he's evil. But also, because the show is a black comedy, I know they won't kill him. Heck, they will not even injure him seriously, because then his friends might notice. Also, every time someone takes him on one-on-one, he wins. In a way he's a supervillain, and those guys never lose permanently.
I actually found myself thinking today, when Dexter was kidnapped, "Bad move, brother." I don't think that Dexter is my first choice of kidnap victim. picture "The Ransom of Red Chief" with Shang Chi, master of Kung Fu as Red Chief.
I found "The Sopranos" unwatchable toward the end, because Tony was a monster and I did not want to root for him. I do not root for Dexter, but since it is a comedy, it doesn't matter. I would like a crossover maybe with CSI: Miami.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Just a Link for the Day
The Spice Girls covered the Waitresses minor punk carol, "Christmas Wrapping." I hate to say it, but they actually did a reasonable job. I mean, they did not just do the song, the changed it up a little. Besides, if they'd started up in 1974 instead of 1994, they would have been a fabricated punk band instead of a fabircated bubble gum band. There's a certain irony to a punk band being covered by a bubble gum brit chick band... I think Patty Donahue, God rest her soul, would have laughed. Certainly, the songwriter got paid.
Okay, Just Maybe Consumerism is a Tiny Bit Out of Control
Yesterday, people decided to give "Black Friday" a whole new meaning as as shoppers trampled a Walmart worker to death. Let me repeat that, because although anyone reading this has heard the story, it bears repeating that shoppers trampled a Walmart worker to death. Did I mention that SHOPPERS TRAMPLED A WALMART WORKER TO DEATH? In fact, let me just put this in perspective: a newspaper in Belfast has picked up the story. That's Belfast as in capital of Northern Ireland. Call me a wide-eyed idealist, but if Northern-focking-Ireland thinks you are violent enough to mention in their newspaper, just maybe, you have a problem.
However, I'm not going to solve the issue of holiday consumerism, let me just point out a few things. I, myself, have gone out a couple times. Once, a couple years back, I went to a consumer electronics store and picked up a DVD. I waited in line for one and a half hours, and the line moved twenty feet. I got annoyed, put the DVD down where I was, went home, and went to sleep. I woke up at around 10 a.m. and thought, "Well, I might as well see whether it's still there." I went back to the store, and sure enough, there they were. I bought the DVDs, and even went to another store and got some stuff. At that point, I realize, that unless I was looking for an Xbox, I probably could get some sleep on Black Friday.
The next year, I wandered out at 10:30 and picked up some stuff. Lat year, I skipped it. This year, I was on my way to the gym at 10:50 a.m. I passed by a store, and I thought, "You know, if I can get in and out in ten minutes, then I win." And you know what, I did. And after the gym, I even went to another store and picked up some stuff there. These items were, by the way, presents, and also perhaps something for myself. Additionally, I avoided even attempted homicide.
However, I'm not going to solve the issue of holiday consumerism, let me just point out a few things. I, myself, have gone out a couple times. Once, a couple years back, I went to a consumer electronics store and picked up a DVD. I waited in line for one and a half hours, and the line moved twenty feet. I got annoyed, put the DVD down where I was, went home, and went to sleep. I woke up at around 10 a.m. and thought, "Well, I might as well see whether it's still there." I went back to the store, and sure enough, there they were. I bought the DVDs, and even went to another store and got some stuff. At that point, I realize, that unless I was looking for an Xbox, I probably could get some sleep on Black Friday.
The next year, I wandered out at 10:30 and picked up some stuff. Lat year, I skipped it. This year, I was on my way to the gym at 10:50 a.m. I passed by a store, and I thought, "You know, if I can get in and out in ten minutes, then I win." And you know what, I did. And after the gym, I even went to another store and picked up some stuff there. These items were, by the way, presents, and also perhaps something for myself. Additionally, I avoided even attempted homicide.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
God As My Witness, I Though Turkeys Could Fly
A true classic the full episode of WKRP's "Turkeys Away."
Just the turkey drop from You Tube:
Thanks to crystalcheats
Just the turkey drop from You Tube:
Thanks to crystalcheats
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Hit, Run and Throw
Major League baseball has this obsession with pitching. They say the game is 90 percent pitching, which makes no sense, by the way. Babe Ruth was a great pitcher. A really great pitcher. He was on his way to a Hall of Fame career. They moved him to the outfield.
However, the search for pitching continue, and now the Pirates have signed a couple of pitchers from India. These pitchers were found it a contest sponsored by a California outfit. The theory being that in a billion people, they can find a few that can hit the strike zone at 85 plus.
This is an interesting theory. I suppose they might have found Walter Johnson and Christy Matthewson but it's more likely they just found two javelin throwers who don't know anything about playing baseball. The places with the most talent for baseball do not appear to have high populations. What they have are kids who do nothing but actually play baseball. Baseball is a hard enough game that I have might doubts that you can learn to play it at a high level just because you have a strong throwing arm. Ron LeFlore was famous for never having playing organized ball until he played in a prison league, but I would imagine that he played in at least one or two games in his life.These guys threw javelin. I would imagin they played cricket. On the other hand, the Pirates saw something they liked.
However, the search for pitching continue, and now the Pirates have signed a couple of pitchers from India. These pitchers were found it a contest sponsored by a California outfit. The theory being that in a billion people, they can find a few that can hit the strike zone at 85 plus.
This is an interesting theory. I suppose they might have found Walter Johnson and Christy Matthewson but it's more likely they just found two javelin throwers who don't know anything about playing baseball. The places with the most talent for baseball do not appear to have high populations. What they have are kids who do nothing but actually play baseball. Baseball is a hard enough game that I have might doubts that you can learn to play it at a high level just because you have a strong throwing arm. Ron LeFlore was famous for never having playing organized ball until he played in a prison league, but I would imagine that he played in at least one or two games in his life.These guys threw javelin. I would imagin they played cricket. On the other hand, the Pirates saw something they liked.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Zero Mostel said...
Romanian cooking has killed more Jews than Hitler.
So where does deli food come from?
Pastrami is actually smoked, brined beef. At Manny's, in Chicago, I believe they just smoke their corned beef. Their corned beef is just about the best I have ever had, and their pastrami is one of the transcedent culinary experiences of the world.
There is such a thing as turkey pastrami, which I assumed to be some sort of crime against food, but is apparently quite popular in Europe and in Israel. I might be forced to taste some.
Knishes are dumplings. Chopped liver kishes are my favorite, but I do not find them around here. Manny's has potato knishes, which are beef inside mashed potatoes. Manny's also has an excellent Matzo ball soup.
The Reuben, made from corned beef, kraut and russian dressing on rye, is either from New York or Oklahoma. The Rachel is made with Turkey and cole slaw.
Which brings me to the real point of this rant:
WHy are we making deli food out of turkey? Okay, we have to use chicken for the chopped liver and the schmaltz. But turkey? Turkey gives the whole exercise the stench of health food.
There are other deli staples lke franks and beans or brisket or various fish like gefilte fish. But if you walk into a deli once in your life, I recommend, pastrami on an onion roll.
So where does deli food come from?
Pastrami is actually smoked, brined beef. At Manny's, in Chicago, I believe they just smoke their corned beef. Their corned beef is just about the best I have ever had, and their pastrami is one of the transcedent culinary experiences of the world.
There is such a thing as turkey pastrami, which I assumed to be some sort of crime against food, but is apparently quite popular in Europe and in Israel. I might be forced to taste some.
Knishes are dumplings. Chopped liver kishes are my favorite, but I do not find them around here. Manny's has potato knishes, which are beef inside mashed potatoes. Manny's also has an excellent Matzo ball soup.
The Reuben, made from corned beef, kraut and russian dressing on rye, is either from New York or Oklahoma. The Rachel is made with Turkey and cole slaw.
Which brings me to the real point of this rant:
WHy are we making deli food out of turkey? Okay, we have to use chicken for the chopped liver and the schmaltz. But turkey? Turkey gives the whole exercise the stench of health food.
There are other deli staples lke franks and beans or brisket or various fish like gefilte fish. But if you walk into a deli once in your life, I recommend, pastrami on an onion roll.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Bobby Fisher Kinda went a Little Nuts There...
What is superintelligence? We see character in comic books with it all the time, but then we see other characters in the book who seem to be if not just as smart, at least smart enough that the practical results are similar. For example, the Legion of Super-Heroes has Brainiac 5, Querl Dox. His power is superintelligence. I used to talk about this with regard to Karate Kid. His fighting ability is so extreme it's a power. How do I know? Because Batman and Lady Shiva and Richard Dragon are nice little martial artists, but none of them would last a second against a Kryptonian. Karate Kid could. Val could hold a Keyptonian. Val could train other people to fight Daxamites, as seen by Cham throwing a Daxamite around during the Great Darkness Saga. His fighting skills are a power because they are as effective as the powers of other people.
Intelligence presents a different issue. Is Brainiac 5 smarter than Reed Richards? Well, yes, and I got it straight from Jim Shooter's lips at a con, but so what? Reed Richards can still do things like MacGuyver weapons and escape plans. He still builds interdimensional gateways. He still makes strategies. Occasionally, people act like he has a superintelligence power, but the Marvel Universe is just silly with similar types of guys like Dr. Doom, the Mad Thinker and even people who are meant to be smarter like the High Evolutionary. The fact is that in Marvel comics Hank Pym and Tony Stark and Bruce Banner are all supposed to be geniuses, and the difference between them and Reed on a practical build-me-a-laser-suit level is minimal. And let's not even talk about people who are geniuses only when it suits the story like T'Challa and Spidey.
But back over at DC, even with Brainy, you have Lyle Norg and Lex Luthor. As a teenager, Lex Luthor built a time machine and took on the LSH. Is that level of intelligence a power or not?It occurs to me that it might not matter that much on a story level. Superman is strong enough to move the planet out of orbit and shrug off a supernova. Clearly he has superstrength and invulnerability, but usually he's just punching out criminals and letting bullets bounce off his chest. The fact that Brainiac 5 has a twelfth level mind and is smarter than Lyle Norg might not have anymore practical consequence than his being able to prove some esoteric theory about fractal geometry that no one else can understand. I was annoyed in one Levitz era story when they showed Brainy being frustrated by not understanding Gil'dishpan technology, because that's what Brainy is for. He should be able to at least understand anything that was built by a mortal. (I once tried to convince a LSH writer who was also writing New Gods that B5 should worship Metron. That's how he knew about Darkseid after 1,000 years. Same religious pantheon.)
But it's not just comics. Among other characters that de facto have superintelligence are Mr. Spock, the Time Lords, some Stargate characters,Data, and maybe Wesley Crusher. But there are other characters you are just plain geniuses like Will Hunting. Part of the way to get around this might be that some of those people are just really smart people, like Lyle Norg, whereas others are smart because they are not humans and Time Lords and Vulcans are just smarter than human beings the same way that gorillas are stronger than human beings, and that's all there is to it.
On the other other, hand superintelligence is just story telling short hand for "Hey, wouldn't it be neat to have a super scientist character in LSH? We'll call it superintelligence, and we won't think how that is different than what Invisible Kid can do." Because when you get right down to it, it does matter if you can prove that 1+1=2 in order to build a stun ray to take on the Legion of Doom. Maybe you "only" have to be as smart as Peter Parker for most stuff that superheroes actually do every day.
Intelligence presents a different issue. Is Brainiac 5 smarter than Reed Richards? Well, yes, and I got it straight from Jim Shooter's lips at a con, but so what? Reed Richards can still do things like MacGuyver weapons and escape plans. He still builds interdimensional gateways. He still makes strategies. Occasionally, people act like he has a superintelligence power, but the Marvel Universe is just silly with similar types of guys like Dr. Doom, the Mad Thinker and even people who are meant to be smarter like the High Evolutionary. The fact is that in Marvel comics Hank Pym and Tony Stark and Bruce Banner are all supposed to be geniuses, and the difference between them and Reed on a practical build-me-a-laser-suit level is minimal. And let's not even talk about people who are geniuses only when it suits the story like T'Challa and Spidey.
But back over at DC, even with Brainy, you have Lyle Norg and Lex Luthor. As a teenager, Lex Luthor built a time machine and took on the LSH. Is that level of intelligence a power or not?It occurs to me that it might not matter that much on a story level. Superman is strong enough to move the planet out of orbit and shrug off a supernova. Clearly he has superstrength and invulnerability, but usually he's just punching out criminals and letting bullets bounce off his chest. The fact that Brainiac 5 has a twelfth level mind and is smarter than Lyle Norg might not have anymore practical consequence than his being able to prove some esoteric theory about fractal geometry that no one else can understand. I was annoyed in one Levitz era story when they showed Brainy being frustrated by not understanding Gil'dishpan technology, because that's what Brainy is for. He should be able to at least understand anything that was built by a mortal. (I once tried to convince a LSH writer who was also writing New Gods that B5 should worship Metron. That's how he knew about Darkseid after 1,000 years. Same religious pantheon.)
But it's not just comics. Among other characters that de facto have superintelligence are Mr. Spock, the Time Lords, some Stargate characters,Data, and maybe Wesley Crusher. But there are other characters you are just plain geniuses like Will Hunting. Part of the way to get around this might be that some of those people are just really smart people, like Lyle Norg, whereas others are smart because they are not humans and Time Lords and Vulcans are just smarter than human beings the same way that gorillas are stronger than human beings, and that's all there is to it.
On the other other, hand superintelligence is just story telling short hand for "Hey, wouldn't it be neat to have a super scientist character in LSH? We'll call it superintelligence, and we won't think how that is different than what Invisible Kid can do." Because when you get right down to it, it does matter if you can prove that 1+1=2 in order to build a stun ray to take on the Legion of Doom. Maybe you "only" have to be as smart as Peter Parker for most stuff that superheroes actually do every day.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Just a Link for the Day
Chicago public radio makes a podcast of "This American Life available for a limited time after broadcast.
Who's Afraid of Elmer Fudd?
A character is given a name to make him have an affect. Giving a good name is all that separate a Lex Luthor from a -- well, I can't think of anyone which is part of the point. Anyone I could remember would have a memorable name. But take pate Pot Pete...please! In principle kind of a dumb character, but then again, a smart supervillain might not annouce his powers. They tried calling him "The Trapster," but really, who cares. "The trapster?" Paste Pot Pete has if not more charisma, at least more Q value.
Comics are actually pretty good at naming characters. Lex Luthor has a solid amount of strength to it, if not the Dickensian flair that some Victorian novels inflicted on their characters. I some of the more inane superhero definition discussions I used to have on Usenet, some moron would inevitably propose "codename" as a requirement,missing the fact that Dr. Strange was called that because it was his name. Do people really know the Thing as "the Thing" or is he "Ben Grimm." And what about Reed and Sue Richards. For a while Kitty Pride was just about the most popular X-man. They tried giving her a codename. Repeatedly. She burned through Shadowcat and Ariel and Sprite, and I forget what all else if there even were anymore. But when they spun her off into a miniseries and gave her top billing or Wolvy, what did they call it? "Kitty Pryde and Wolverine." The whole point of the series was the end wherein they call her "Shadowcat." But that name did not really stick either.
Comics are not the sole source of intriguing name. The world of science fiction television has given us a few good ones too, but they tend to follow a rather minimalist trend. "Doctor Who," the venerable British children's show solved the problem by simply not giving the big guy a name. He's the Doctor. They called him "Theta Sigma" in "The Armageddon Factor." But really, not. He's the Doctor. Julius Irving can play him next time. In fact, his namelessness became a central plot point of one of the better episodes of the new season.
My favorite name from the series was the mercenary "Sabolom Glitz," which would make a good name for a rock band, except someone is using it. "Duran Duran" was named after a character from "Barbarella." I'm sure there's a band out there named "Surok" or "kal El" or whatever.
But generic names are part and parcel to the realm of fiction. Dr. Stephen Strange and Dr. Hugo Strange could open a medical practice together. And Victor von Doom really needed to look at the peerage guide. Same with Star Trek. Mr. Spock? Isn't he a baby doctor?
Comics are actually pretty good at naming characters. Lex Luthor has a solid amount of strength to it, if not the Dickensian flair that some Victorian novels inflicted on their characters. I some of the more inane superhero definition discussions I used to have on Usenet, some moron would inevitably propose "codename" as a requirement,missing the fact that Dr. Strange was called that because it was his name. Do people really know the Thing as "the Thing" or is he "Ben Grimm." And what about Reed and Sue Richards. For a while Kitty Pride was just about the most popular X-man. They tried giving her a codename. Repeatedly. She burned through Shadowcat and Ariel and Sprite, and I forget what all else if there even were anymore. But when they spun her off into a miniseries and gave her top billing or Wolvy, what did they call it? "Kitty Pryde and Wolverine." The whole point of the series was the end wherein they call her "Shadowcat." But that name did not really stick either.
Comics are not the sole source of intriguing name. The world of science fiction television has given us a few good ones too, but they tend to follow a rather minimalist trend. "Doctor Who," the venerable British children's show solved the problem by simply not giving the big guy a name. He's the Doctor. They called him "Theta Sigma" in "The Armageddon Factor." But really, not. He's the Doctor. Julius Irving can play him next time. In fact, his namelessness became a central plot point of one of the better episodes of the new season.
My favorite name from the series was the mercenary "Sabolom Glitz," which would make a good name for a rock band, except someone is using it. "Duran Duran" was named after a character from "Barbarella." I'm sure there's a band out there named "Surok" or "kal El" or whatever.
But generic names are part and parcel to the realm of fiction. Dr. Stephen Strange and Dr. Hugo Strange could open a medical practice together. And Victor von Doom really needed to look at the peerage guide. Same with Star Trek. Mr. Spock? Isn't he a baby doctor?
Friday, November 21, 2008
Just a Link for the Day
The Chicago Symphony has been named the best orchestra in the United States.
CC Sabathia was 3-0 Against Pittsburgh this Year
I was driving yesterday, and discovered that piracy is on the upturn again. My buddy Doug Tonks, did an item on Tuesday, but when NPR does a story, you know it's the cutting edge of the news. In listening to the story, I was struck by a couple things. First, the pirates are apparently operating without fear of sanction from the Somali government, and are even kicking back the ransoms they demand for return of the ships to the Somali government. If this scenario is not government sanction, it is the next best thing, and so I put it forth that the Somali pirates are not pirates at all, but rather privateers. Second, the strategies for dealing with these pirates are contradictory in some respects.
The pirates are capturing freighters and are holding them for ransom. This process involves feeding and watering the crews of the vessels without abusing them. And once they receive the ransom, the pirates kick back some of the ransom to what passes for the Somali government and even to militants in opposition to the Somali government. Well, I feel certain that a portion of a large ransom is a whole lot of money to these guys, so they see no reason to discourage the pirates. This connivance with the pirates in my mind is either one step removed or the same thing as actually employing them. The pirates are de facto privateers then, committing acts of piracy on behalf of a sovereign nation.
Which leads to the second point, which is that people cannot seem to find effective means of dealing with the pirates. The first problem is to find someone to put them on trial. I gather from the story that Kenya has reluctantly agreed to try some of these pirates, but in the main they simply wind up letting the pirates go. Without fear of actual prosecution there is not much the "authorities" can do to stop the piracy. Another issues is identifying the pirates who appear to be normal fishermen when confronted by, say, as US Navy battleship. They only appear where the authorities are not. The ships themselves can take steps such as installing water cannons or keeping their ladders rolled up, and their are even technological options, but realistically these are not enough.
The security expert on the NPR show apparently instills three member teams on boats, which are unarmed but ready to deal with pirates. Unarmed? Apparently ships have to be careful with engaging in violence. If someone on a fishing vessel brandishes a weapon without firing it, and a ship fires on that person, the ship might become the pirate. This does seem to be a threat based on a reading the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea at Part VII Article 101. However, based on the current abilities to enforce these laws, I have to wonder what the fear is. Apparently nobody will try them. I am told the cost of arming the ships might be prohibitive, but realistically, four .50 cal machine guns at strategic places could saw a fishing troller in half.
So here's my oddball theory: they do not want to arm the ships, because then the crew will take over and go a-roving. Because if you arm the ships, you have to train people to use the arms. If you don't, then you have given said to the pirates "Please, take my ship, and here are four complimentary machine guns for you to use against the next freight you take." And the ships that are being targeted are not necessarily from the most civilized nations. The pirates don't take American ships, because the US would be more than happy to invade Somalia. It would give the military a chance to write their own sequel to Black Hawk Down. To a lesser extent the same is true of countries like the UK and France. So the pirates target less militarily capable countries. But these countries do not necessarily treat their sailors well. Give them some weapons and and training and set them off to see, and they steal your boat and become pirates.
This just a guess.
Of course, recent events indicate that the countries of the world are losing patience with the pirates. An Indian warship recently sank a pirate vessel and the US has asked the UN how violent it can be in defensing the shipping lanes. MY guess is the pirates made a mistake in taking an oil tanker. Because if there's one thing the United States likes more than weapons, it's oil.
The pirates are capturing freighters and are holding them for ransom. This process involves feeding and watering the crews of the vessels without abusing them. And once they receive the ransom, the pirates kick back some of the ransom to what passes for the Somali government and even to militants in opposition to the Somali government. Well, I feel certain that a portion of a large ransom is a whole lot of money to these guys, so they see no reason to discourage the pirates. This connivance with the pirates in my mind is either one step removed or the same thing as actually employing them. The pirates are de facto privateers then, committing acts of piracy on behalf of a sovereign nation.
Which leads to the second point, which is that people cannot seem to find effective means of dealing with the pirates. The first problem is to find someone to put them on trial. I gather from the story that Kenya has reluctantly agreed to try some of these pirates, but in the main they simply wind up letting the pirates go. Without fear of actual prosecution there is not much the "authorities" can do to stop the piracy. Another issues is identifying the pirates who appear to be normal fishermen when confronted by, say, as US Navy battleship. They only appear where the authorities are not. The ships themselves can take steps such as installing water cannons or keeping their ladders rolled up, and their are even technological options, but realistically these are not enough.
The security expert on the NPR show apparently instills three member teams on boats, which are unarmed but ready to deal with pirates. Unarmed? Apparently ships have to be careful with engaging in violence. If someone on a fishing vessel brandishes a weapon without firing it, and a ship fires on that person, the ship might become the pirate. This does seem to be a threat based on a reading the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea at Part VII Article 101. However, based on the current abilities to enforce these laws, I have to wonder what the fear is. Apparently nobody will try them. I am told the cost of arming the ships might be prohibitive, but realistically, four .50 cal machine guns at strategic places could saw a fishing troller in half.
So here's my oddball theory: they do not want to arm the ships, because then the crew will take over and go a-roving. Because if you arm the ships, you have to train people to use the arms. If you don't, then you have given said to the pirates "Please, take my ship, and here are four complimentary machine guns for you to use against the next freight you take." And the ships that are being targeted are not necessarily from the most civilized nations. The pirates don't take American ships, because the US would be more than happy to invade Somalia. It would give the military a chance to write their own sequel to Black Hawk Down. To a lesser extent the same is true of countries like the UK and France. So the pirates target less militarily capable countries. But these countries do not necessarily treat their sailors well. Give them some weapons and and training and set them off to see, and they steal your boat and become pirates.
This just a guess.
Of course, recent events indicate that the countries of the world are losing patience with the pirates. An Indian warship recently sank a pirate vessel and the US has asked the UN how violent it can be in defensing the shipping lanes. MY guess is the pirates made a mistake in taking an oil tanker. Because if there's one thing the United States likes more than weapons, it's oil.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Cool Hamels
For the last two months, America has been treated to the advantages of have moderate, logical, thinking adults in positions of responsibility in two fronts. In the World Series, Cole Hamels was utterly unflappable. It's not merely that he was cool on the mound. He did not get upset when calls went against him. He did not argue balls and strike. He did not make wild demonstrations. He just went out and pitched. And he won.
Sometimes athletes are lauded for showing fire and passion. Hamels should be lauded and emulated for showing constraint and focus. Hamels doesn't whine when he doesn't get run support. He just pitches and tries to get people out. If someone hits a homerun, he tries to get the next guy out. Carlos Zambrano tries to punch out his own catcher. Hamels is not just unflappable because nothing happens to him. Thanks to the wonders of mlb.tv and the Comcast package, I watched just about every start Hamels made this year, and if anyone ever had a beef about run support, it was Hamels. Except that Hamels never had a beef about run support. He’d lose a game 1-0or 2-1 and it was water off a duck’s back.
They used to have a saying for that: “Pitches good enough to lose.” I must admit that during the season that this position when the Phillies went through one of their stretches where they all stop hitting at once. If the other pitcher is shutting down the offense, the our guy has to do the same if we're going to win. Obviously, no one can meet that standard. Hamels never tired to. Hamels never complained about run support, even when people asked him about it. Hamels never offered to pitch on short rest or bitched about being taken out of games. If he feels tired, he tells his manager. If he thinks he needs a chiropractor to pitch effectively, he says so. Why? Because he knows his goal: to help the Phillies win the World Series. This year, they did.
This post season, he went 4-0. He did not whine about the playing conditions in game 5 of the World Series. He just went out and pitched. Earlier in the season, people derided his toughness for not volunteering to pitch on three days rest. That's a bogus criticism because it ignores that the Phillies have other pitchers. He was thinking to the end of the season.. He was thinking about the World Series.
I was thinking about that in the election season.
This other guy is the more important one. In electing Barack Obama the citizens of the United States appears to have actually found a thinking adult to put in office. Watching his "60 Minutes" interview on Sunday, he looked relaxed and calm. He seemed to have a grasp of what needed to be done. In short, he is another guy like Cole Hamels. He's not going to panic. He's not going to act tough or get demonstrative just because people on Fox News or CNN shout the sky is falling. He is going to handle problems rationally. When Cole Hamels took that approach, he went 4-0. I hope the President-Elect has similar results.
Sometimes athletes are lauded for showing fire and passion. Hamels should be lauded and emulated for showing constraint and focus. Hamels doesn't whine when he doesn't get run support. He just pitches and tries to get people out. If someone hits a homerun, he tries to get the next guy out. Carlos Zambrano tries to punch out his own catcher. Hamels is not just unflappable because nothing happens to him. Thanks to the wonders of mlb.tv and the Comcast package, I watched just about every start Hamels made this year, and if anyone ever had a beef about run support, it was Hamels. Except that Hamels never had a beef about run support. He’d lose a game 1-0or 2-1 and it was water off a duck’s back.
They used to have a saying for that: “Pitches good enough to lose.” I must admit that during the season that this position when the Phillies went through one of their stretches where they all stop hitting at once. If the other pitcher is shutting down the offense, the our guy has to do the same if we're going to win. Obviously, no one can meet that standard. Hamels never tired to. Hamels never complained about run support, even when people asked him about it. Hamels never offered to pitch on short rest or bitched about being taken out of games. If he feels tired, he tells his manager. If he thinks he needs a chiropractor to pitch effectively, he says so. Why? Because he knows his goal: to help the Phillies win the World Series. This year, they did.
This post season, he went 4-0. He did not whine about the playing conditions in game 5 of the World Series. He just went out and pitched. Earlier in the season, people derided his toughness for not volunteering to pitch on three days rest. That's a bogus criticism because it ignores that the Phillies have other pitchers. He was thinking to the end of the season.. He was thinking about the World Series.
I was thinking about that in the election season.
This other guy is the more important one. In electing Barack Obama the citizens of the United States appears to have actually found a thinking adult to put in office. Watching his "60 Minutes" interview on Sunday, he looked relaxed and calm. He seemed to have a grasp of what needed to be done. In short, he is another guy like Cole Hamels. He's not going to panic. He's not going to act tough or get demonstrative just because people on Fox News or CNN shout the sky is falling. He is going to handle problems rationally. When Cole Hamels took that approach, he went 4-0. I hope the President-Elect has similar results.
Just a Link for the Day
Hey, kids! Remember the Holocaust? Well now you can never forget with the help of the handy Genocide Watch website. Darfur isn't gone yet, but it's just a matter of time.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Just a Link for the Day
Megan Fox will not be Wonder Woman. Nobody knows who will be, but I favor Rachel Wacholder.
Joe Lieberman, Friend of America
Amongst my friends a question has arisen, what to do with Joe Lieberman? I do not actually see any reason to do anything with him. My friends think that the Democrats need to punish him in some fashion, perhaps stripping him of his seniority and perhaps not letting him caucus with him. This anger from my buddies stems from his very public repudiation of the Democratic. The Democrats seem to have gotten over it. and are taking away one of his subcommittee chairs. Well, tough on him. He's still the chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee.
I think they all have it wrong. Lieberman was useful in the Senate, but he's a wild card. The question is what can Joe do for his country and for the Democratic party.
I think President Obama should put him in the cabinet.
My favorite choice is the Department of Homeland Security. He already chairs the relevant Senate committee. He's Jewish, so the Arab Terrorists will hate him. He's Jewish, so the Israelis will love him.. He's a Republican on this stuff, so it lets Obama keep his promise to the Republicans. He's a lawyer, so he knows what civil rights are. He's a Republican, so he does not care. Most importantly, though, it's a crappy, ill-defined job that no sane person would want, but it still looks like a promotion to the outside. Besides, there's an outside chance Lieberman would actually be good at it. He certainly can't be worse at it than the people we've had so far.
My second favorite choice is the Department of Defense, for many of the same reasons but especially to annoy the Republicans, because they could not really squawk about him as a choice without sounding like a bunch of babies. Clearly, though, someone else needs to run that place.
I say we let Joe do it.
Beyond that there are departments which would be rewards like State, which appears to be heading toward a Clinton and Attorney General which might be decided as well. There are jobs which are nice enough on their own, but would be demotions for a guy like Lieberman, such as HUD or Labor. Besides, I do not think Lieberman cares enough about poor people for either of those jobs. Of course, not caring about poor people seems to be a requirement.
The neutral positions for a guy like Lieberman would be Interior, Energy, Education and maybe Transportation. He just lost his committee spot on the Environment and Public Works Committee, so he might just be qualified for those slots. I think he would do some good in those offices, but the message would be clear: you aren't in the Senate, and we are not happy with you. However we still think you can be useful, and we need someone to deal with these problems. Tag, you're it.
The other post I like is United States Trade Representative. It's not in the Cabinet but it is Cabinet Level. The great thing is that given his experience in dealing with the Democrats and Republicans, he clearly can talk to two sides and the same time that cannot talk to each other.
Or they can do what they did. Leave him in the Senate, and wait till he comes up for re-election..
I think they all have it wrong. Lieberman was useful in the Senate, but he's a wild card. The question is what can Joe do for his country and for the Democratic party.
I think President Obama should put him in the cabinet.
My favorite choice is the Department of Homeland Security. He already chairs the relevant Senate committee. He's Jewish, so the Arab Terrorists will hate him. He's Jewish, so the Israelis will love him.. He's a Republican on this stuff, so it lets Obama keep his promise to the Republicans. He's a lawyer, so he knows what civil rights are. He's a Republican, so he does not care. Most importantly, though, it's a crappy, ill-defined job that no sane person would want, but it still looks like a promotion to the outside. Besides, there's an outside chance Lieberman would actually be good at it. He certainly can't be worse at it than the people we've had so far.
My second favorite choice is the Department of Defense, for many of the same reasons but especially to annoy the Republicans, because they could not really squawk about him as a choice without sounding like a bunch of babies. Clearly, though, someone else needs to run that place.
I say we let Joe do it.
Beyond that there are departments which would be rewards like State, which appears to be heading toward a Clinton and Attorney General which might be decided as well. There are jobs which are nice enough on their own, but would be demotions for a guy like Lieberman, such as HUD or Labor. Besides, I do not think Lieberman cares enough about poor people for either of those jobs. Of course, not caring about poor people seems to be a requirement.
The neutral positions for a guy like Lieberman would be Interior, Energy, Education and maybe Transportation. He just lost his committee spot on the Environment and Public Works Committee, so he might just be qualified for those slots. I think he would do some good in those offices, but the message would be clear: you aren't in the Senate, and we are not happy with you. However we still think you can be useful, and we need someone to deal with these problems. Tag, you're it.
The other post I like is United States Trade Representative. It's not in the Cabinet but it is Cabinet Level. The great thing is that given his experience in dealing with the Democrats and Republicans, he clearly can talk to two sides and the same time that cannot talk to each other.
Or they can do what they did. Leave him in the Senate, and wait till he comes up for re-election..
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
ERA or ERA
Well, a teenage girl has been drafted into the japanese professional baseball leagues. She's a side arm knuckleball pitcher.
C'ya in Pinstripes
I hope Sabathia does sign with the Yankees. I hope they sign Manny and I hope they sign AJ Burnett and I even hope they get Mark Teixeira. Why? Why do I want the Yankees to have their own All-Star team? Because, 1) they are not in the Phillies’ division, so what do I care. And B) that trick never works.
Teams have tried to buy championships before. The Yankees have tried it for the past ten years. How many rings does A-Rod have? As many as I do. How about Bobby Abreu who the Phils traded to the Yankees for absolutely nothing? Nada. The Braves won one World Series with one of the great pitching staffs in history with Glavine and Maddux and Smoltz. They had hitters too. They won once. When they Yankees won in the late 1990’s, it was not because they had a bunch of high-priced free agents that they bought, like the Marlins did in their championship years. The big stars on the Yankees were Mariano Rivera and Derek Jeter. They had Bernie Williams and Paul O’Neill. Nobody was complaining that Paul O’Neill should not have been traded to the Yankees, and the rest of those guys came up through the farm system. Yeah, they got Roger Clemens. The one year he won twenty they lost the series to the Snakes. They can sign whoever they want. Maybe it will work. Maybe it won’t. But one thing they cannot do is bat more than one at a time.
I told my friend Chris Maka a couple years ago when the Phillies wanted to low ball Ryan Howard in arbitration, “Apparently they really want to see how he looks in pin stripes.” Chris said that was a depressing thought, but the fact is the Phillies have other players. If Howard has no loyalty to the team, I do not even want him. Or at least I don’t want him after the 2010 season when he is 31 years old and will be in the position to demand 150 million dollars for 7 years, and is still fielding with a machete instead of a glove. Now, if he’s coming off another 50 homer, 150 RBI season, I might want to pay that much, but if the Phillies won’t, I darn well do not want him playing for the Mets. I’d rather take the draft pick, in principle.
In the specific case of Sabathia, however, I take a look at his record. He's a great pitcher and a good guy, but when he was traded to the Brewers, he was not setting the world on fire. He was phenomenal with the Brew crew, but his wins were mostly against crappy teams. When he faced good teams, like the Cubs, he lost. Then in the playoffs, the Phillies got rid of him in the second game before the game was even in the books. His final total record was 17-10. That includes the American League teams that the Yankees will be playing.
Also, much was made of what a horse Sabathia was, starting the last several starts on three days rest and pitching complete games like he was Wilbur Wood and shut outs like Bob Gibson. Well, while it is true that Sabathia came over in mid-season and led the senior circuit in complete games and shut outs, it is also true that the Brewers did that because they had nothing to lose. They knew they couldn't re-sign him so they had no reason not to work him like a rented mule or pitcher in this case. They tried to do the same thing to their ace, Ben Sheets, because he was in a contract year and in the era of Barry Zito and Johan Santana, they figured they couldn't retain him either. Sheets got injured. Sabathia is a horse and can and did take it, and the Brewers have tendered him an offer, but the Yankees will not use him the same way. They'll use him on normal rest with relief help.
The same thing with Manny. He's a nice enough player, but he's not always as hot as he was down the stretch and at that, the Phillies still beat the Dodgers in five. Teixeira is also great as is Burnett, but they aren't gods. The Braves had Teixeira and Chipper Jones and Brian McCann and Tom Glavine and Mike Hampton and, well, you know. What happened? They did not compete like they hoped and they traded Teixeira to the Angels, who fell to the Sawx. I do not know where Teixeira will land, but the Yankees do not frighten me as a landing spot. If they want to tie up five hundred million dollars in A-Rod, Sabathia, Teixeira, and Manny, let ‘em.
Teams have tried to buy championships before. The Yankees have tried it for the past ten years. How many rings does A-Rod have? As many as I do. How about Bobby Abreu who the Phils traded to the Yankees for absolutely nothing? Nada. The Braves won one World Series with one of the great pitching staffs in history with Glavine and Maddux and Smoltz. They had hitters too. They won once. When they Yankees won in the late 1990’s, it was not because they had a bunch of high-priced free agents that they bought, like the Marlins did in their championship years. The big stars on the Yankees were Mariano Rivera and Derek Jeter. They had Bernie Williams and Paul O’Neill. Nobody was complaining that Paul O’Neill should not have been traded to the Yankees, and the rest of those guys came up through the farm system. Yeah, they got Roger Clemens. The one year he won twenty they lost the series to the Snakes. They can sign whoever they want. Maybe it will work. Maybe it won’t. But one thing they cannot do is bat more than one at a time.
I told my friend Chris Maka a couple years ago when the Phillies wanted to low ball Ryan Howard in arbitration, “Apparently they really want to see how he looks in pin stripes.” Chris said that was a depressing thought, but the fact is the Phillies have other players. If Howard has no loyalty to the team, I do not even want him. Or at least I don’t want him after the 2010 season when he is 31 years old and will be in the position to demand 150 million dollars for 7 years, and is still fielding with a machete instead of a glove. Now, if he’s coming off another 50 homer, 150 RBI season, I might want to pay that much, but if the Phillies won’t, I darn well do not want him playing for the Mets. I’d rather take the draft pick, in principle.
In the specific case of Sabathia, however, I take a look at his record. He's a great pitcher and a good guy, but when he was traded to the Brewers, he was not setting the world on fire. He was phenomenal with the Brew crew, but his wins were mostly against crappy teams. When he faced good teams, like the Cubs, he lost. Then in the playoffs, the Phillies got rid of him in the second game before the game was even in the books. His final total record was 17-10. That includes the American League teams that the Yankees will be playing.
Also, much was made of what a horse Sabathia was, starting the last several starts on three days rest and pitching complete games like he was Wilbur Wood and shut outs like Bob Gibson. Well, while it is true that Sabathia came over in mid-season and led the senior circuit in complete games and shut outs, it is also true that the Brewers did that because they had nothing to lose. They knew they couldn't re-sign him so they had no reason not to work him like a rented mule or pitcher in this case. They tried to do the same thing to their ace, Ben Sheets, because he was in a contract year and in the era of Barry Zito and Johan Santana, they figured they couldn't retain him either. Sheets got injured. Sabathia is a horse and can and did take it, and the Brewers have tendered him an offer, but the Yankees will not use him the same way. They'll use him on normal rest with relief help.
The same thing with Manny. He's a nice enough player, but he's not always as hot as he was down the stretch and at that, the Phillies still beat the Dodgers in five. Teixeira is also great as is Burnett, but they aren't gods. The Braves had Teixeira and Chipper Jones and Brian McCann and Tom Glavine and Mike Hampton and, well, you know. What happened? They did not compete like they hoped and they traded Teixeira to the Angels, who fell to the Sawx. I do not know where Teixeira will land, but the Yankees do not frighten me as a landing spot. If they want to tie up five hundred million dollars in A-Rod, Sabathia, Teixeira, and Manny, let ‘em.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Just a Link for the Day
Since I just wrote 800 words about how ugly I am, I thought I would provide some basis for comparison. A French man and a Brazilian woman just got named the World's Most Beautiful Bottoms.
But I Don't have a Beard or a War Hammer
So, I was talking to a colleague the other day, and he said that his secretary had asked him what I look like. I usually describe myself as the big, fat, ugly guy. Though this description does enable people to find me, some people will say I am too hard on myself and the like. This has two implications. One, that I do not own a mirror or have not noticed or something. Two, that I place as heavy and emphasis on physical attractiveness as the rest of the people on this giant marble we live on and have chosen to do nothing about it. Other people walk up to me and tell me “Gee, you’re fat.” Presumably these people are under the impression that making fun of people for being larger than they are is a good idea. The last time it happened was a little over a year ago. My response was to say “Yes, I am.” And then when he made another comment, I said “Mean too.”
My colleague said to his secretary, “He’s a big Viking lookin’, mofo.” Which I suppose is sort of true. I will say this: despite the protests that I am too hard on myself -- ask me how smart I am sometime, and we’ll find out how unjustifiably healthy my ego is, by the way – my description has never failed to allow anyone to identify me. However, I will justify my description a little. People who do not know me are scared of me. Based entirely on my physical appearance. I have paralyzed small children. Literally. When we did a haunted house in college, I wore green make up and stood there. There were other monsters, but giving me green makeup I like giving brass knuckles to Superman. While children ran pat the other monsters screaming. They stopped at me, utterly paralyzed. One looked like he was going to wet himself until I broke character and told him to relax. I was told I should probably take the day off. Yes, I was fired from a Haunted House for being too scary.
Lest I attributed this incident to the costume, God decided to take steps. I was walking home from class one day and students from the local preschool crossed my path. They stood paralyzed and one of them looked like he was about the wet himself. And then another kid tried to kill me and steal my golden-egg-laying goose. See, giants are well-known monsters. When I was in high school, my friend Betsy Peterson used to run into me. I mean, literally, walk into me. She I was like a wall and she did not notice me. I used to arrive at school somewhat earlier than most people, and the principal told me I should try to avoid walking around the school because I was scaring the cleaning staff. He told me larger people had to me more sensitive to how other people react to their size. See, we have a word for people who frighten other people because of their appearance. The word is “ugly.” People say to me, “That’s just because you are bigger.” Yes, but when did size stop being part of one’s physical appearance.
o, I get it already. I’m a big guy. Over 6’3”. Over 250. Way over. I get mistaken for a wall. Seriously, it is the only way I can explain it. People keep running into to me and backing into me and leaning on me. It’s starting to make me wonder if I even exist in an odd ways.
I remember playing soccer in college. A little Pakistani guy ran into me at full speed and promptly rebounded off me to the ground. I’m not entirely certain what he thought was going to happen. I was 6’6” 300 pounds at that point. He was apparently in some sort of denial about my sheer size. Perhaps he did not believe it. He thought he was seeing something unreal.
Friends who have not seen me in awhile still ask me how tall I am. Chris Maka had not seen me in a few years and said “I forgot how goddam huge you are.” My friend Sara said “How are tall are you?” because I dwarfed her new boyfriend. Still the same size. It’s bizarre. Also, what is that? How tall are you? What difference does that make? I ask because I seem to have reached some level where I am too big to be a person. Instead, I am a building. That’s the only explanation I have. Except people still bump into me. Since people do not walk into walls, generally, I have come to a conclusion. Walls are invisible except as a sort of sensory boundary. People take note of the walls when they walk into the building and then ignore them because the walls will not move. I do move. Thus when people walk into a room, they take note of my massive size, identify me as a wall, and then take no further conscious notice of me. I then move, and they walk into me.
Or maybe I am just a natural ninja. Despite my enormous 6’6” four hundred pound size, I move with such stealth and grace that people simply do not notice. This seems unlikely to me. But I do have a working theory. People are blind and deaf.
In any event, I do have a suggestion for the next person who calls me fat: come with me to the gym, where I am six days a week. If you can keep up with my workout, fine. If not, shut your damned mouth.
My colleague said to his secretary, “He’s a big Viking lookin’, mofo.” Which I suppose is sort of true. I will say this: despite the protests that I am too hard on myself -- ask me how smart I am sometime, and we’ll find out how unjustifiably healthy my ego is, by the way – my description has never failed to allow anyone to identify me. However, I will justify my description a little. People who do not know me are scared of me. Based entirely on my physical appearance. I have paralyzed small children. Literally. When we did a haunted house in college, I wore green make up and stood there. There were other monsters, but giving me green makeup I like giving brass knuckles to Superman. While children ran pat the other monsters screaming. They stopped at me, utterly paralyzed. One looked like he was going to wet himself until I broke character and told him to relax. I was told I should probably take the day off. Yes, I was fired from a Haunted House for being too scary.
Lest I attributed this incident to the costume, God decided to take steps. I was walking home from class one day and students from the local preschool crossed my path. They stood paralyzed and one of them looked like he was about the wet himself. And then another kid tried to kill me and steal my golden-egg-laying goose. See, giants are well-known monsters. When I was in high school, my friend Betsy Peterson used to run into me. I mean, literally, walk into me. She I was like a wall and she did not notice me. I used to arrive at school somewhat earlier than most people, and the principal told me I should try to avoid walking around the school because I was scaring the cleaning staff. He told me larger people had to me more sensitive to how other people react to their size. See, we have a word for people who frighten other people because of their appearance. The word is “ugly.” People say to me, “That’s just because you are bigger.” Yes, but when did size stop being part of one’s physical appearance.
o, I get it already. I’m a big guy. Over 6’3”. Over 250. Way over. I get mistaken for a wall. Seriously, it is the only way I can explain it. People keep running into to me and backing into me and leaning on me. It’s starting to make me wonder if I even exist in an odd ways.
I remember playing soccer in college. A little Pakistani guy ran into me at full speed and promptly rebounded off me to the ground. I’m not entirely certain what he thought was going to happen. I was 6’6” 300 pounds at that point. He was apparently in some sort of denial about my sheer size. Perhaps he did not believe it. He thought he was seeing something unreal.
Friends who have not seen me in awhile still ask me how tall I am. Chris Maka had not seen me in a few years and said “I forgot how goddam huge you are.” My friend Sara said “How are tall are you?” because I dwarfed her new boyfriend. Still the same size. It’s bizarre. Also, what is that? How tall are you? What difference does that make? I ask because I seem to have reached some level where I am too big to be a person. Instead, I am a building. That’s the only explanation I have. Except people still bump into me. Since people do not walk into walls, generally, I have come to a conclusion. Walls are invisible except as a sort of sensory boundary. People take note of the walls when they walk into the building and then ignore them because the walls will not move. I do move. Thus when people walk into a room, they take note of my massive size, identify me as a wall, and then take no further conscious notice of me. I then move, and they walk into me.
Or maybe I am just a natural ninja. Despite my enormous 6’6” four hundred pound size, I move with such stealth and grace that people simply do not notice. This seems unlikely to me. But I do have a working theory. People are blind and deaf.
In any event, I do have a suggestion for the next person who calls me fat: come with me to the gym, where I am six days a week. If you can keep up with my workout, fine. If not, shut your damned mouth.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Just a Link For the Day
Another trailer which is going to be making the rounds is the Star Trek trailer:
I Will Watch a Watchmen
So, the new Watchmen trailer is out. I’ll see it, but it will not be as good as the comic book. Why? Because in order for it to be as good a movie as the comic book was a comic book, Watchmen the movie would have to be on a par with “Citizen Kane” or “Godfather” or “Casablanca” or whatever your candidate for greatest movie ever. (I do not mention “Gone with the Wind” because I hate “Gone with the Wind” and have never watched it all the way through.) Watchmen is, by consensus, the greatest comic book ever.
Back in the 1980’s, when Watchmen came out, there were several contenders. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Maus came out at about the same time. Sandman and Animal Man came out a bit later. Twenty years later, however, it seems safe to say that Watchmen has claimed the title. It is the Babe Ruth comics. If someone picks another comic book as “The Greatest of All-Time” they have an ax to grind. I mean Peanuts and Doonesbury? Strips. And like that. Watchmen is the standard.
Given that status, well, chances are long that the Watchmen flick will be as good as the greatest movies. It is not simply an issue of adapting material to the big screen. “It Happened One Night,” “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” and “Silence of the Lambs” are the only movies to win all five major Oscars, and were all adapted material. “The Lord of the Rings” movies and “The Godfather” movies are likewise based on pre-existing material, so that does not handicap a movie. Actually, I think Spiderman 2 was a truly brilliant movie.
I just do not get that sense from the Watchmen movie that it is aimed that way. So what could the movie do? Well, to be honest, part of the reason the comic was considered so great was its cinematic sensibility. That attitude will not help a movie since movies are already cinematic all on their own. The grittiness of the Watchmen was an interesting contrast to the brightness of DC Universe comics back in the day. Now we have had quite a few gritty superhero movies, but the successful Marvel movies of the last few years, like Spidey and the Hulk and Iron Man have actually been pretty bright. So the atmosphere in the Watchmen movie could give it a touch of the different. The trailer seems almost cartoony to me, but I have not seen it on a big screen. In fact, some actual cartoon sequences might help. The Watchmen comic was also interesting because it had long text pieces for information dumps. You cannot really do that in a movie, but you can change the type of movie to play with the medium. (“Blade Runner” had computer screen info dumps, but I can’t see that working.)
Back in the 1980’s I always assumed that when they made a movie, they’d have to simply cut out the Pirate scenes. The pirate comic book, Tales of the Black Freighter, I think it was called, provided an interesting commentary on the action in the story proper. And since we were reading a comic book ourselves, it added another level of appreciation to the everyday experience of people like us – i.e. comics readers – within the course of the story. We could identify with these characters because they read comics, and if we were in their world, these are the comics we would read. That would never, I thought, work in a movie. But it turns out you can still make some terrific and successful pirate movies. In fact, if the makers had any sense of humor, they would have hired Johnny Depp or Orlando Bloom or Geoffrey Rush to play the Black Freighter guy, but as far as I can tell he’s not even in the film. I realize adding in The Tales of the Black Freighter would make the movie longer, but “The Godfather” clocks in at three hours, and if you are one the many who disagrees with my position on “Gone with the Wind,” that movie clicks in at almost four. “The Godfather II” actually does tell a parallel story with Robert deNiro playing the young Don Vito Corleone, and that film clocks in at 200 minutes. If you are trying to make a great movie, length is no vice.
Length aside, the problem is taking a truly great source material and making a truly great movie. It’s hard enough to make a great movie, and meeting the expectations of great source material is even harder. “Silence of the lambs” and “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest” actually exceeded their sources which were good but not truly great. “Gone with the Wind” paeon to slave culture, well, I’ll let someone else judge. “Lord of the Rings” worked. “The Fugitive” surpassed the tv show. “The Great Escape” surpassed the book. Just about every Disney cartoon surpassed the fairy tales.
However, how do you set out to make a movie of the greatest comic book ever and meet that challenge on its own terms as a movie? I think the answer is the answer Nabokov’s novel Lolita. How did they make a movie of “Lolita?” They didn’t. Lolita simply does not lend itself to filmmaking. I get the sense that Watchmen will be an exciting action flick, but that which makes it the greatest comic book of all time will have to remain married to the comics medium. It is the greatest comic of all time the same way the Michael Jordan is the great basketball player of all time, and could make it to the majors in baseball. It’ a comic book story, and a comic book story it shall remain. So when I watch the Watchmen I’ll be expecting to see the comic book on the big screen, but I won’t be expecting a mind-blowing cinematic experience. Which, I might add, was my expectation of “The Lord of the Ring,” and what I got was a great movie.
Back in the 1980’s, when Watchmen came out, there were several contenders. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Maus came out at about the same time. Sandman and Animal Man came out a bit later. Twenty years later, however, it seems safe to say that Watchmen has claimed the title. It is the Babe Ruth comics. If someone picks another comic book as “The Greatest of All-Time” they have an ax to grind. I mean Peanuts and Doonesbury? Strips. And like that. Watchmen is the standard.
Given that status, well, chances are long that the Watchmen flick will be as good as the greatest movies. It is not simply an issue of adapting material to the big screen. “It Happened One Night,” “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” and “Silence of the Lambs” are the only movies to win all five major Oscars, and were all adapted material. “The Lord of the Rings” movies and “The Godfather” movies are likewise based on pre-existing material, so that does not handicap a movie. Actually, I think Spiderman 2 was a truly brilliant movie.
I just do not get that sense from the Watchmen movie that it is aimed that way. So what could the movie do? Well, to be honest, part of the reason the comic was considered so great was its cinematic sensibility. That attitude will not help a movie since movies are already cinematic all on their own. The grittiness of the Watchmen was an interesting contrast to the brightness of DC Universe comics back in the day. Now we have had quite a few gritty superhero movies, but the successful Marvel movies of the last few years, like Spidey and the Hulk and Iron Man have actually been pretty bright. So the atmosphere in the Watchmen movie could give it a touch of the different. The trailer seems almost cartoony to me, but I have not seen it on a big screen. In fact, some actual cartoon sequences might help. The Watchmen comic was also interesting because it had long text pieces for information dumps. You cannot really do that in a movie, but you can change the type of movie to play with the medium. (“Blade Runner” had computer screen info dumps, but I can’t see that working.)
Back in the 1980’s I always assumed that when they made a movie, they’d have to simply cut out the Pirate scenes. The pirate comic book, Tales of the Black Freighter, I think it was called, provided an interesting commentary on the action in the story proper. And since we were reading a comic book ourselves, it added another level of appreciation to the everyday experience of people like us – i.e. comics readers – within the course of the story. We could identify with these characters because they read comics, and if we were in their world, these are the comics we would read. That would never, I thought, work in a movie. But it turns out you can still make some terrific and successful pirate movies. In fact, if the makers had any sense of humor, they would have hired Johnny Depp or Orlando Bloom or Geoffrey Rush to play the Black Freighter guy, but as far as I can tell he’s not even in the film. I realize adding in The Tales of the Black Freighter would make the movie longer, but “The Godfather” clocks in at three hours, and if you are one the many who disagrees with my position on “Gone with the Wind,” that movie clicks in at almost four. “The Godfather II” actually does tell a parallel story with Robert deNiro playing the young Don Vito Corleone, and that film clocks in at 200 minutes. If you are trying to make a great movie, length is no vice.
Length aside, the problem is taking a truly great source material and making a truly great movie. It’s hard enough to make a great movie, and meeting the expectations of great source material is even harder. “Silence of the lambs” and “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest” actually exceeded their sources which were good but not truly great. “Gone with the Wind” paeon to slave culture, well, I’ll let someone else judge. “Lord of the Rings” worked. “The Fugitive” surpassed the tv show. “The Great Escape” surpassed the book. Just about every Disney cartoon surpassed the fairy tales.
However, how do you set out to make a movie of the greatest comic book ever and meet that challenge on its own terms as a movie? I think the answer is the answer Nabokov’s novel Lolita. How did they make a movie of “Lolita?” They didn’t. Lolita simply does not lend itself to filmmaking. I get the sense that Watchmen will be an exciting action flick, but that which makes it the greatest comic book of all time will have to remain married to the comics medium. It is the greatest comic of all time the same way the Michael Jordan is the great basketball player of all time, and could make it to the majors in baseball. It’ a comic book story, and a comic book story it shall remain. So when I watch the Watchmen I’ll be expecting to see the comic book on the big screen, but I won’t be expecting a mind-blowing cinematic experience. Which, I might add, was my expectation of “The Lord of the Ring,” and what I got was a great movie.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Just a Link for the Day
One of my favorite radio shows is Sound Opinions. It's a weekly show on modern music of all kinds and is available as a pod cast.
Hi, I'm Jimbo. Pleased to Meetcha.
Okay, James Bond. I do not ask for much from a James Bond movie, and last week when I told my buddies that “Casino Royale” was a good James Bond movie but a bad James Bond movie, they understood what I meant. James Bond has a specific brand formula now. Watching David Niven due it as a comedy is nice…once. Watching Daniel Craig due as a sort of hodge podge between Jason Bourne and a John LeCarre adaption is nice…once. We can call that the role of movies called “Casino Royale.” Get rid of the formula and let us see another kind of Bond.
Not yet having seen “Quantum of Solace,” I would hesitate to comment on whether it is a good movie or not, but the reviews I have seen are essentially an echo of what I said about the first Craig movie: good movie, bad Bond. Actually, they have not said that. They’ve said, “Bad movie. Who are you and what have you done with James Bond?” My reaction is this: Timothy Dalton. Those were some bad movies. Also, they were indifferent Bond. I mean, the element were there, kind of, but they never stripped the Bond babes down to a bikini or had Bond sleep with anyone, and the villain in “Licence to Kill” was played by Wayne Newton. Wayne Newton, who is camp all on his own, but come on.
The current movie apparently does not even pay lip service to Bond tropes. If you are going to make a bad movie, you had better make it good Bond which includes five main factors.
First, you have to start with a chase. And it had better be improbable, stupid and have nothing to do with the main plot. See “The Spy Who Loved Me,” which is the point in the Bond series where they just sort of gave up on having plots and went for the Bond tropes as a justification for the movies.
Second, you need a Bond babe with some ludicrously suggestive name like Plenty O’Toole or something. And you should probably put her in a bikini. Carey Lowell is a ridiculously beautiful woman with a rockin’ bod, and not only did they not stick her in a two piece, they named her “Pam Bouvier.” I’m not saying they should have called her “Honey Potts” or something, but this is a James Bond movie, dammit. (Maryam d’Abo is incredibly beautiful, but not terribly voluptuous, would not have looked good in a bikini. Well, okay, in real life I would probably slice off my own thumb to see her in a bikini, but by Hollywood standards…)
Third, you need a comically insane villain who is trying to do the whole take over the world shtick. “Licence to Kill” had a drug dealer. I realize that was the 1980’s, but James Bond does not work for the Reagan administration. The annoying thing was that Wayne Newton was there on set. You cannot get more over the top than Wayne Newton. He was friends with Elvis.
Fourth, you need gadgets. After almost fifty years, if James Bond does not have a pen which turns into a laser or a watch which doubles as a buzz saw, something is amiss.
Five, James Bond kills people. He has a license to kill. That’s what he is for. He racks up a body count,
Oh, and “Quantum of Solace” means “particle of comfort,” so I am guessing the plot of the current movie has something to do with Bond getting comfort for some tragedy. I do not mind that because of the scene where Roger Moore puts flowers on Diana Riggs’ grave in “For Your Eyes Only.” However, that led to someone trying to blow up his chopper and 007 killing someone. I will see “Quantum of Solace” because I’m a guy who grew up after 1965 and that’s the law. But I will whine about it if it is both a bad movie and bad Bond. (And yes, he should introduce himself as "Bond. James Bond." And he does not drink lager.)
Not yet having seen “Quantum of Solace,” I would hesitate to comment on whether it is a good movie or not, but the reviews I have seen are essentially an echo of what I said about the first Craig movie: good movie, bad Bond. Actually, they have not said that. They’ve said, “Bad movie. Who are you and what have you done with James Bond?” My reaction is this: Timothy Dalton. Those were some bad movies. Also, they were indifferent Bond. I mean, the element were there, kind of, but they never stripped the Bond babes down to a bikini or had Bond sleep with anyone, and the villain in “Licence to Kill” was played by Wayne Newton. Wayne Newton, who is camp all on his own, but come on.
The current movie apparently does not even pay lip service to Bond tropes. If you are going to make a bad movie, you had better make it good Bond which includes five main factors.
First, you have to start with a chase. And it had better be improbable, stupid and have nothing to do with the main plot. See “The Spy Who Loved Me,” which is the point in the Bond series where they just sort of gave up on having plots and went for the Bond tropes as a justification for the movies.
Second, you need a Bond babe with some ludicrously suggestive name like Plenty O’Toole or something. And you should probably put her in a bikini. Carey Lowell is a ridiculously beautiful woman with a rockin’ bod, and not only did they not stick her in a two piece, they named her “Pam Bouvier.” I’m not saying they should have called her “Honey Potts” or something, but this is a James Bond movie, dammit. (Maryam d’Abo is incredibly beautiful, but not terribly voluptuous, would not have looked good in a bikini. Well, okay, in real life I would probably slice off my own thumb to see her in a bikini, but by Hollywood standards…)
Third, you need a comically insane villain who is trying to do the whole take over the world shtick. “Licence to Kill” had a drug dealer. I realize that was the 1980’s, but James Bond does not work for the Reagan administration. The annoying thing was that Wayne Newton was there on set. You cannot get more over the top than Wayne Newton. He was friends with Elvis.
Fourth, you need gadgets. After almost fifty years, if James Bond does not have a pen which turns into a laser or a watch which doubles as a buzz saw, something is amiss.
Five, James Bond kills people. He has a license to kill. That’s what he is for. He racks up a body count,
Oh, and “Quantum of Solace” means “particle of comfort,” so I am guessing the plot of the current movie has something to do with Bond getting comfort for some tragedy. I do not mind that because of the scene where Roger Moore puts flowers on Diana Riggs’ grave in “For Your Eyes Only.” However, that led to someone trying to blow up his chopper and 007 killing someone. I will see “Quantum of Solace” because I’m a guy who grew up after 1965 and that’s the law. But I will whine about it if it is both a bad movie and bad Bond. (And yes, he should introduce himself as "Bond. James Bond." And he does not drink lager.)
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Is Denny Crane Sluttier than Captain Kirk
One television show I like and can't explain why is "Boston
Legal." In some ways it is as though two shows are occupying
the same space. One show is a rather brilliant legal comedy
starring two marvelous about Denny Crane and Alan Shore. The
other is a rather mediocre feel good legal melodrama starring
everyone else in the cast, except when they are needed to play
second banana to Bill Shatner and Alan Shore.
To begin with, the show was started as a spin-off of "The
Practice." On that show, James Spader and William Shatner shared
screen time, but their interaction was different. Denny Crane
was a wonderful lawyer. Alan Shore was a schemer. The actors
both won Emmys, and then suddenly the show was about their man
love on "Boston Legal." They problem is that both Denny Crane
and Alan Shore are, essentially, loonies. Well, loonies need
straightmen. Hence the rest of the cast.
They had Lake Bell, Rhona Mitra, Monica Potter, Rene
Auberjenois, and Mark Valley. Currently they have Candice
Bergen, Christian Clemenson, Saffron Burrows, John Larroquette,
Tara Summers and Gary Anthony Williams. In between, they've
had Betty White, Julie Bowen, Craig Berko, Contance Zimmer and
various others. These actors are not hacks. They are
substantial talents. And the show has burned through them like
Shaggy and Scooby eating in a 7-Eleven. They are there to
backup to Shatner and Spader.
Of course you cannot just hire Betty White, Henry Gibson and
Craig Bierko and do nothing with them. So they do all kinds of
typical tv story lines like love triangles, a professional
issues and occasionally even standard issue court room drama.
It's all padding. The real stories are Alan and Denny doing
their various wacky hijinks and occasional forays into
complicated legal issues.
Tuesday, for instance, they took on abortion and father's
rights. They took on Katrina lat year. They are constantly
haranguing the war in Iraq. It's pretty impressive how topical
they get. Another issue is the guest stars they have from
Michael J. Fox to Tom Selleck to Al Sharpton. I think they get
the actors because David Kelly seems to be running an Emmy
Nomination machine, but never the less, they are on the show.
Also, they seem to have a a lot of ex-Star Trek guys on the
show. But that's just an odd quirk.
Legal." In some ways it is as though two shows are occupying
the same space. One show is a rather brilliant legal comedy
starring two marvelous about Denny Crane and Alan Shore. The
other is a rather mediocre feel good legal melodrama starring
everyone else in the cast, except when they are needed to play
second banana to Bill Shatner and Alan Shore.
To begin with, the show was started as a spin-off of "The
Practice." On that show, James Spader and William Shatner shared
screen time, but their interaction was different. Denny Crane
was a wonderful lawyer. Alan Shore was a schemer. The actors
both won Emmys, and then suddenly the show was about their man
love on "Boston Legal." They problem is that both Denny Crane
and Alan Shore are, essentially, loonies. Well, loonies need
straightmen. Hence the rest of the cast.
They had Lake Bell, Rhona Mitra, Monica Potter, Rene
Auberjenois, and Mark Valley. Currently they have Candice
Bergen, Christian Clemenson, Saffron Burrows, John Larroquette,
Tara Summers and Gary Anthony Williams. In between, they've
had Betty White, Julie Bowen, Craig Berko, Contance Zimmer and
various others. These actors are not hacks. They are
substantial talents. And the show has burned through them like
Shaggy and Scooby eating in a 7-Eleven. They are there to
backup to Shatner and Spader.
Of course you cannot just hire Betty White, Henry Gibson and
Craig Bierko and do nothing with them. So they do all kinds of
typical tv story lines like love triangles, a professional
issues and occasionally even standard issue court room drama.
It's all padding. The real stories are Alan and Denny doing
their various wacky hijinks and occasional forays into
complicated legal issues.
Tuesday, for instance, they took on abortion and father's
rights. They took on Katrina lat year. They are constantly
haranguing the war in Iraq. It's pretty impressive how topical
they get. Another issue is the guest stars they have from
Michael J. Fox to Tom Selleck to Al Sharpton. I think they get
the actors because David Kelly seems to be running an Emmy
Nomination machine, but never the less, they are on the show.
Also, they seem to have a a lot of ex-Star Trek guys on the
show. But that's just an odd quirk.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Remington Steele Has Horrible Taste in Movies
This past, autumn with nothing to occupy the devil's playground,
I decide to compare how many movies I had seen with those of TV
detective Remington Steele. For those who don't remember the
show, Steele would solve cases by drawing analogies to classic
motion pictures. I'm batting around .900, one I hadn't seen was
"Little Murders."
"Little Murders" starred Elliot Gould and was directed by Alan
Arkin. It was written and based on a play by legendary comics
creator and screenwriter Jules Feiffer. So, I thought, "Okay, I have Netflix." So I got hold of "Little Murders," and let me tell you, I have seldom seen a movie which
suffered so much from being a play brought to the screen. The
interesting part of the DVD, however, is the commentary track
with Feiffer and Gould giving their separate recollections.
The movie itself, for those of you unfamiliar with it, is a romantic
dark comedy which inserts the random urban violence of the
late-1960's New York City into the happy Broadway plays of the
mid-1950's. A young couple meets, and falls n love, and tragedy
befalls them just as the happy ending seems about to kick in.
I have to say that as a comics fan, it is somewhat odd to see
Jules Feiffer completely ignore his comics career. He was
entirely focused on "Little Murders" and how it got made, and
how it was a a play, and what he did on it. Elliot Gould does
mention Feiffer's cartoon career briefly, but apart from that,
if you didn't know Feiffer had been a cartoonist, you'd never
know from the commentary track.
But I do know about Feiffer's cartoon career, and "Little
Murders" shows a lot of Eisner influence, but it's a darker New
York. Feiffer claims it was a response to the Broadway plays of
the 1950' and 1960's, and I can sort of see it, I suppose. But
the left turn into absurdist violence for the final quarter of
the movie is a touch surreal for a movie.
In a play, you can get away with more wackiness than in a movie.
When the characters in "You Can't Take It With You" act like
loonies, you can sort of buy it on stage, just because the
actors are actually there, in the room, with the audience,doing
this stuff. In the movie, well, we buy it because we saw the
play or we know it was a play, and we see Jimmy Stewart and
Jean Arthur and Lionel Barrymore, and Frank Capra directed, and
these people are just good at making movies, and if they tell
us to believe something, by Jeffrey, we believe it. Or maybe,
those people just knew where the line was and not to cross it.
"Little Murders," as a movie, has a surreal bent that would
work better on stage. Feiffer says in the commentary that he
did not think it would be possible for him to adapt it, but he
did after reading the first treatment. Perhaps he was right. I
am reminded of the tag line for Stanley Kubrick's "Lolita:"
"How did they ever make a movie of _Lolita?_" Answer from
audiences: They didn't.
I decide to compare how many movies I had seen with those of TV
detective Remington Steele. For those who don't remember the
show, Steele would solve cases by drawing analogies to classic
motion pictures. I'm batting around .900, one I hadn't seen was
"Little Murders."
"Little Murders" starred Elliot Gould and was directed by Alan
Arkin. It was written and based on a play by legendary comics
creator and screenwriter Jules Feiffer. So, I thought, "Okay, I have Netflix." So I got hold of "Little Murders," and let me tell you, I have seldom seen a movie which
suffered so much from being a play brought to the screen. The
interesting part of the DVD, however, is the commentary track
with Feiffer and Gould giving their separate recollections.
The movie itself, for those of you unfamiliar with it, is a romantic
dark comedy which inserts the random urban violence of the
late-1960's New York City into the happy Broadway plays of the
mid-1950's. A young couple meets, and falls n love, and tragedy
befalls them just as the happy ending seems about to kick in.
I have to say that as a comics fan, it is somewhat odd to see
Jules Feiffer completely ignore his comics career. He was
entirely focused on "Little Murders" and how it got made, and
how it was a a play, and what he did on it. Elliot Gould does
mention Feiffer's cartoon career briefly, but apart from that,
if you didn't know Feiffer had been a cartoonist, you'd never
know from the commentary track.
But I do know about Feiffer's cartoon career, and "Little
Murders" shows a lot of Eisner influence, but it's a darker New
York. Feiffer claims it was a response to the Broadway plays of
the 1950' and 1960's, and I can sort of see it, I suppose. But
the left turn into absurdist violence for the final quarter of
the movie is a touch surreal for a movie.
In a play, you can get away with more wackiness than in a movie.
When the characters in "You Can't Take It With You" act like
loonies, you can sort of buy it on stage, just because the
actors are actually there, in the room, with the audience,doing
this stuff. In the movie, well, we buy it because we saw the
play or we know it was a play, and we see Jimmy Stewart and
Jean Arthur and Lionel Barrymore, and Frank Capra directed, and
these people are just good at making movies, and if they tell
us to believe something, by Jeffrey, we believe it. Or maybe,
those people just knew where the line was and not to cross it.
"Little Murders," as a movie, has a surreal bent that would
work better on stage. Feiffer says in the commentary that he
did not think it would be possible for him to adapt it, but he
did after reading the first treatment. Perhaps he was right. I
am reminded of the tag line for Stanley Kubrick's "Lolita:"
"How did they ever make a movie of _Lolita?_" Answer from
audiences: They didn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)