It's been a rough couple of months for the financial sector. And in an industry accustomed to fat year-end bonuses, Christmas may be looking a little bleak this year. But John Thain, CEO of Merrill Lynch, wasn't about to let his stocking go empty this holiday. So earlier this week, Thain recommended to the Merrill compensation committee that he receive a $10 million performance bonus. After all, under Thain's guidance Merrill only lost $11.7 billion this year. And while similarly staggering losses forced several competing firms to fold outright, Merrill has sold out to Bank of America.
So maybe Thain deserves some credit for blunting the impact of the economic crisis on his firm. But a $10 million bonus? Have we truly regressed to such an entitled, everybody-gets-a-trophy society that this guy honestly believes his firm can lose almost $12 billion dollars and he should be rewarded? Isn't that sort of like giving a bonus to the airline pilot who manages to save half the passengers in a crash? "Yeah, we know it's not your fault that the wings fell off, but that's a hell of a crash landing. Here's an extra 10%."
After several days of very public ridicule, Thain withdrew his bonus recommendation. But let's take a moment to acknowledge a seminal moment in corporate greed and entitlement. John Thain, we salute you.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Case for Obama/Biden
I got into some back and forth on Facebook this evening over the merits of the presidential candidates. One of my Facebook buddies posted this link to a blog where the conservative authors laid out the case against Barack Obama. She encouraged people thinking about voting Democrat to read the blog and consider their position. I read it. The authors rehashed the same attacks the McCain campaign has been employing for months. Nothing new.
I responded with the following comment: "Read it. Still voting for Obama/Biden. Are there any McCain/Palin supporters willing to state a case for their candidates, or is the tank so dry that attacking the other guy is the only thing left?"
She came right back with: "Ben, it's all about balance within the government. There are other people I might like above McCain but above all I'm a fiscal conservative. As a small business owner I am a capitalist and don't believe in spreading the wealth nor raising taxes on people who suceed in this world. Without any checks and balances we may be bordering on socialism. Keep government out of my pockets and my home. Capatalism works. That's why I'm voting McCain. Why are you voting Obama? Just wondering. I know I live in a state where it doesn't matter anyway:)"
I want to respond, because after taking shots at McCain and Palin in previous blog posts, I haven't explained precisely why I believe Barack Obama is the superior candidate. So here it is:
I am also a fiscal conservative. I believe in institutional deregulation and placing an emphasis on individual education and accountability. I think that irresponsible borrowers should share the blame for the crisis in the credit market with the lenders. And I agree that McCain's fiscal policy reflects those beliefs more closely than Obama's.
But here's the problem. After eight years of mismanagement by the Bush administration, the presidency has been compromised. The American public no longer trusts the Executive to lead effectively on matters of domestic and foreign policy. So regardless of who is elected in November, much of their first term agenda will be dictated by the Congress and the media, as these institutions have replaced the Oval Office as the director of American government. With that in mind, I'm looking to the incumbent to serve as a "rebuilding" President. A man who can restore trust and confidence in the office, so that in another one or two election cycles, we can elect a candidate based more on policy, than personality.
I think Obama is the best equipped candidate to put the Executive back in the driver's seat. He has demonstrated patience, intelligence and diplomacy in his brief senate career. And he has carried himself with poise and dignity throughout a grueling campaign. But most importantly, he has shown a capacity for openness and a willingness to compromise that has been lacking from the current Republican administration and from the McCain ticket. According to Bush and McCain, if you are not with them, you are against them. If you oppose their foreign policy, you are not a patriot. If you believe that we must fund improvements in health care and education with tax dollars, you are a socialist. Not all the policies are bad, but the way the Republican party conducts themselves alienates Americans, instead of building consensus.
Every election cycle we put a President into office who makes a practice of divisive politics, we are another four years removed from electing a President who has a say in setting their own agenda. This is why, in 2008, Barack Obama is the candidate for the job.
I responded with the following comment: "Read it. Still voting for Obama/Biden. Are there any McCain/Palin supporters willing to state a case for their candidates, or is the tank so dry that attacking the other guy is the only thing left?"
She came right back with: "Ben, it's all about balance within the government. There are other people I might like above McCain but above all I'm a fiscal conservative. As a small business owner I am a capitalist and don't believe in spreading the wealth nor raising taxes on people who suceed in this world. Without any checks and balances we may be bordering on socialism. Keep government out of my pockets and my home. Capatalism works. That's why I'm voting McCain. Why are you voting Obama? Just wondering. I know I live in a state where it doesn't matter anyway:)"
I want to respond, because after taking shots at McCain and Palin in previous blog posts, I haven't explained precisely why I believe Barack Obama is the superior candidate. So here it is:
I am also a fiscal conservative. I believe in institutional deregulation and placing an emphasis on individual education and accountability. I think that irresponsible borrowers should share the blame for the crisis in the credit market with the lenders. And I agree that McCain's fiscal policy reflects those beliefs more closely than Obama's.
But here's the problem. After eight years of mismanagement by the Bush administration, the presidency has been compromised. The American public no longer trusts the Executive to lead effectively on matters of domestic and foreign policy. So regardless of who is elected in November, much of their first term agenda will be dictated by the Congress and the media, as these institutions have replaced the Oval Office as the director of American government. With that in mind, I'm looking to the incumbent to serve as a "rebuilding" President. A man who can restore trust and confidence in the office, so that in another one or two election cycles, we can elect a candidate based more on policy, than personality.
I think Obama is the best equipped candidate to put the Executive back in the driver's seat. He has demonstrated patience, intelligence and diplomacy in his brief senate career. And he has carried himself with poise and dignity throughout a grueling campaign. But most importantly, he has shown a capacity for openness and a willingness to compromise that has been lacking from the current Republican administration and from the McCain ticket. According to Bush and McCain, if you are not with them, you are against them. If you oppose their foreign policy, you are not a patriot. If you believe that we must fund improvements in health care and education with tax dollars, you are a socialist. Not all the policies are bad, but the way the Republican party conducts themselves alienates Americans, instead of building consensus.
Every election cycle we put a President into office who makes a practice of divisive politics, we are another four years removed from electing a President who has a say in setting their own agenda. This is why, in 2008, Barack Obama is the candidate for the job.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Vote Obama/Biden... Please, I'm Begging You
Ok, here's the deal: I'm a registered Independent. I like having the freedom to vote the candidates and not get railroaded by party lines. As such, I am always hesitant to seriously endorse a candidate. Once you jump on the bandwagon, it's easy to lose objectivity. But I'm sitting here in my hotel room in San Francisco watching the VP debate and, screw it... We need to elect Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
We have suffered for almost 8 years under the governance of a fear-mongering, divisive, incompetent administration. When we have an opportunity to put two candidates into the Executive who have conducted themselves with poise, intelligence and a demonstrated capacity to focus on policy instead of partisanship, it is inexcusable to do otherwise.
When I'm watching a VP candidate speak, I'm not thinking about how that candidate is going to perform as president of the Senate. I'm thinking about about how they're going to perform as president of the United States. And right now, I'm watching Sarah Palin speak. Have the political standards of the Amerian people sunk so low that we will tolerate this joke of a candidate? Ok, silly question.
But the only reason I'm able to stomach this debate is because from time-to-time Sarah Palin's folksy, pre-packaged, totally irrelevant drivel is interrupted by a sound answer from Joe Biden.
This woman is almost as painful as George Bush. Did she just say "nuke-yuh-ler weapons?" She IS George Bush: Woefully underqualified for an executive role in the federal government, unfit to serve as an ambassador of the American public and lacking basic grammar and articulation.
This debate is encouraging. Largely because I hope a lot of Americans who were thinking about voting McCain/Palin are cringing at what the Governor of Alaska is saying this evening. And maybe for the first time, they're thinking of how embarassing it would be to have the Governor of Alaska carrying the American standard if anything were to happen to their 72 year old Presidential candidate.
In putting in writing how strongly I feel about electing Obama and Biden (or more appropriately, NOT electing McCain and Palin), I'm exposing myself to criticism should their administration fail to meet it's potential. This is a limb I wouldn't have crawled out on for Gore, or Kerry, or Hillary Clinton. But I'm starting to believe that Obama represents something different. I'm excited about the prospect of seeing a leader I respect in the Oval Office. As a nation, we have an opportunity to make a bold statement that heightens expectations for our leaders. So please, let's not screw this up again. Vote Obama/Biden.
We have suffered for almost 8 years under the governance of a fear-mongering, divisive, incompetent administration. When we have an opportunity to put two candidates into the Executive who have conducted themselves with poise, intelligence and a demonstrated capacity to focus on policy instead of partisanship, it is inexcusable to do otherwise.
When I'm watching a VP candidate speak, I'm not thinking about how that candidate is going to perform as president of the Senate. I'm thinking about about how they're going to perform as president of the United States. And right now, I'm watching Sarah Palin speak. Have the political standards of the Amerian people sunk so low that we will tolerate this joke of a candidate? Ok, silly question.
But the only reason I'm able to stomach this debate is because from time-to-time Sarah Palin's folksy, pre-packaged, totally irrelevant drivel is interrupted by a sound answer from Joe Biden.
This woman is almost as painful as George Bush. Did she just say "nuke-yuh-ler weapons?" She IS George Bush: Woefully underqualified for an executive role in the federal government, unfit to serve as an ambassador of the American public and lacking basic grammar and articulation.
This debate is encouraging. Largely because I hope a lot of Americans who were thinking about voting McCain/Palin are cringing at what the Governor of Alaska is saying this evening. And maybe for the first time, they're thinking of how embarassing it would be to have the Governor of Alaska carrying the American standard if anything were to happen to their 72 year old Presidential candidate.
In putting in writing how strongly I feel about electing Obama and Biden (or more appropriately, NOT electing McCain and Palin), I'm exposing myself to criticism should their administration fail to meet it's potential. This is a limb I wouldn't have crawled out on for Gore, or Kerry, or Hillary Clinton. But I'm starting to believe that Obama represents something different. I'm excited about the prospect of seeing a leader I respect in the Oval Office. As a nation, we have an opportunity to make a bold statement that heightens expectations for our leaders. So please, let's not screw this up again. Vote Obama/Biden.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Who's Up For a Recession?
I just watched the President's address regarding the "economic crisis." This is the first time since his 2001 inaugural address that I've been able to sit through an entire Bush speech. I read the transcripts of the state of the union each year, but I simply can't watch the man speak in public. It's painful.
But tonight was different. The economic mess we find ourselves in came to fruition under Bush's watch. And if he doesn't find a quick fix, the resulting recession will be his legacy. I'm also fairly certain that Bush realizes the fate of his GOP successor, John McCain, hangs on the current administration's ability to bail out Wall Street. Either way, Bush needed to sell his plan tonight to throw the financial sector a lifeline. So he stuck to the script, didn't entertain any questions (thinking on his feet is not his strong suit) and remarkably, didn't smirk. It was Bush at his most watchable. Only took 7 years.
The key provision of the Bush plan is to take $700 billion of the taxpayers' cash and use it to start buying up bad mortgage assets. The government will sit on these assets until they rebound at some point in the future and then sell them off, mitigating the initial $700 billion investment. But don't worry. None of that money is going to end up in the pockets of Wall Street executives. Because after we cut this enormous check, Congress is going to legislate new methods of oversight. Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't we change the rules of the game, then dump boatloads of money back in the market?
I respect the efforts of those individuals who want to try and prevent the collapse of major financial institutions. For better or worse, there are thousands of jobs, and billions in investor assets at risk. The same sidewalk-loitering, interview fodder on the local evening news who say, "it's their dumb mistakes, why should we pay?" are the same people whose 401k's are going to tank and who won't be able to get approval for a Gap card if this situation continues unchecked.
But there is a select group of people out there who wouldn't mind a helping of recession, and I'm one of them. We're the same folks who have are saving for retirement, protecting our credit, investing prudently and purchasing homes we can afford. And through fiscal common sense, we have managed to insulate ourselves from market corrections. And that's what this situation is. It's not economic catastrophe. It's not a crisis. It's a correction. Maybe you remember 9/11, Enron, etc. back in 2001? Same deal. From time to time, the market must realign itself. And there are always casualties. Last time, the government bailed out airlines. This time, it's brokerage houses who backed the wrong pony.
Now that Bush has publicly made his case, the reactionary masses are going to demand a bail out. There are too many baby boomers nearing retirement who haven't sufficiently reduced the risk in their portfolios. I'm sure that within the next week or two, we'll probably pick up the tab for at least half a trillion dollars worth of bad mortgages. And as result, we'll save a whole lot of retirement funds. But that only prolongs the problem.
Credit needs to be tough to get, or the cycle will repeat itself in short order. Nobody wants to see jobs lost or nest eggs evaporate. But until we force lenders to accept responsibility for the consequences of their determinations of creditworthiness, we ignore the fundamental cause of the current situation. Will we fund a bail out? Yes. Should we? Probably not. That's how capitalism is played.
But tonight was different. The economic mess we find ourselves in came to fruition under Bush's watch. And if he doesn't find a quick fix, the resulting recession will be his legacy. I'm also fairly certain that Bush realizes the fate of his GOP successor, John McCain, hangs on the current administration's ability to bail out Wall Street. Either way, Bush needed to sell his plan tonight to throw the financial sector a lifeline. So he stuck to the script, didn't entertain any questions (thinking on his feet is not his strong suit) and remarkably, didn't smirk. It was Bush at his most watchable. Only took 7 years.
The key provision of the Bush plan is to take $700 billion of the taxpayers' cash and use it to start buying up bad mortgage assets. The government will sit on these assets until they rebound at some point in the future and then sell them off, mitigating the initial $700 billion investment. But don't worry. None of that money is going to end up in the pockets of Wall Street executives. Because after we cut this enormous check, Congress is going to legislate new methods of oversight. Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't we change the rules of the game, then dump boatloads of money back in the market?
I respect the efforts of those individuals who want to try and prevent the collapse of major financial institutions. For better or worse, there are thousands of jobs, and billions in investor assets at risk. The same sidewalk-loitering, interview fodder on the local evening news who say, "it's their dumb mistakes, why should we pay?" are the same people whose 401k's are going to tank and who won't be able to get approval for a Gap card if this situation continues unchecked.
But there is a select group of people out there who wouldn't mind a helping of recession, and I'm one of them. We're the same folks who have are saving for retirement, protecting our credit, investing prudently and purchasing homes we can afford. And through fiscal common sense, we have managed to insulate ourselves from market corrections. And that's what this situation is. It's not economic catastrophe. It's not a crisis. It's a correction. Maybe you remember 9/11, Enron, etc. back in 2001? Same deal. From time to time, the market must realign itself. And there are always casualties. Last time, the government bailed out airlines. This time, it's brokerage houses who backed the wrong pony.
Now that Bush has publicly made his case, the reactionary masses are going to demand a bail out. There are too many baby boomers nearing retirement who haven't sufficiently reduced the risk in their portfolios. I'm sure that within the next week or two, we'll probably pick up the tab for at least half a trillion dollars worth of bad mortgages. And as result, we'll save a whole lot of retirement funds. But that only prolongs the problem.
Credit needs to be tough to get, or the cycle will repeat itself in short order. Nobody wants to see jobs lost or nest eggs evaporate. But until we force lenders to accept responsibility for the consequences of their determinations of creditworthiness, we ignore the fundamental cause of the current situation. Will we fund a bail out? Yes. Should we? Probably not. That's how capitalism is played.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Movie Review: Righteous Kill
In 1995, Heat, a film written and directed by Michael Mann, was released. Since then, Heat has become the archetype for intelligent, gritty, crime dramas and heist flicks. While the ensemble cast was exceptional, the keys to Heat's success were the performances of Robert De Niro and Al Pacino. As two men on opposite sides of the law, Hanna and McCauley found much in common even as their respective careers pitted them against one another. The scene in the coffee shop (the only one where both actors share significant dialogue together) demonstrated what was possible when two great actors were given intelligent roles to work with.
In 2008, Righteous Kill tries to capitalize off of the dynamic that made Heat great. It comes up short. If you've seen the trailers, you already know that someone is killing off bad guys. And two cops investigating the muders, De Niro and Pacino, may have something to do with it. The film introduces a narrative device in the first few minutes that seems to explain all, and immediately make wary viewers suspicious that a twist ending is imminent.
Righteous Kill smacks of a B movie that would go straight to DVD if not for the involvement of the two stars. And while it's fun to watch De Niro and Pacino play off of each other, the weak plot means that the brief interplay the two actors share in Heat is still more compelling than the whole of Righteous Kill.
And if you're wondering just how much director Jon Avnet was hoping to borrow from Heat's success, look no further than the climactic warehouse scene. It's setup and cinematic elements (where are those lights coming from?) mirrors the airfield scene from Heat so closely, you already know how it's going end. De Niro and Pacino make Righteous Kill worth a look, but do yourself a favor, and wait for the DVD.
In 2008, Righteous Kill tries to capitalize off of the dynamic that made Heat great. It comes up short. If you've seen the trailers, you already know that someone is killing off bad guys. And two cops investigating the muders, De Niro and Pacino, may have something to do with it. The film introduces a narrative device in the first few minutes that seems to explain all, and immediately make wary viewers suspicious that a twist ending is imminent.
Righteous Kill smacks of a B movie that would go straight to DVD if not for the involvement of the two stars. And while it's fun to watch De Niro and Pacino play off of each other, the weak plot means that the brief interplay the two actors share in Heat is still more compelling than the whole of Righteous Kill.
And if you're wondering just how much director Jon Avnet was hoping to borrow from Heat's success, look no further than the climactic warehouse scene. It's setup and cinematic elements (where are those lights coming from?) mirrors the airfield scene from Heat so closely, you already know how it's going end. De Niro and Pacino make Righteous Kill worth a look, but do yourself a favor, and wait for the DVD.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
What's Up at PTI?
Those who know me, know that I always get my daily dose of Pardon the Interruption (PTI). So when the format changes, I tend to notice. This week, during each commercial break, the broadcast has cut back to the set for about 15 seconds, where Tony and Wilbon are bantering, checking mic levels, or having makeup applied. It's kind of like those satellite TV channels that show you what news anchors are doing when the cameras (supposedly) aren't rolling. And it's genius. This may be the first thing inserted in a commercial break that actually makes people sit and watch (or at least fast forward slow enough to catch the shots from the set). I think other live programs should take a lesson here and cut back to the studio during the break, even for a few seconds. Who's going to skip the commercials when there's a chance of catching Regis Philbin cursing out a production assistant for putting too much creamer in his coffee? That's quality TV.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Vote McCain/Spears '08!
Yeah, I went there. Sarah Palin, is starting to look more like Lynne Spears than a legitimate Vice-Presidential nominee. Let's review two key details about this GOP shooting star:
-Apparently, there have been rumors since Palin was announced as the VP nom, that her 4 month old son was actually the child of Palin's 17 year old daughter, Bristol. Nope, according to statement from the Palin camp today, Bristol's bundle of joy isn't due for another 4 months. So that means Sarah's going to be the 44 year old mother of a special-needs infant and the doting grandmother of her currently unwed teenage daughter's toddler about the same time she's supposed to assuming the second highest office in the executive branch of the federal government. Barack Obama has taken the only logical course of action and called off his dogs, stating that candidates' families are off-limits. But this kind of gaping vulnerability is too difficult for the rest of the democratic establishment and the media to ignore.
-Before all the baby-mama-drama, Sarah had already gotten herself wrapped up in another scandal. Back in 2006, Palin demanded that Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan fire Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten. Why? Because Wooten, Palin's brother-in-law had been having an affair with a married woman. The affair is certainly contemptible, but Palin overstepped her bounds as governor when she proceeded to dismiss Monegan after he refused to fire Wooten for cheating on Palin's sister. Both parties have now lawyered-up and an independent investigation into Palin's actions is expected to conclude by October.
So if Governor Palin is looking like she might not be the perfect VP pick after all, here's the kicker: McCain knew about all of this before he chose her. I was already of the opinion that McCain was completely out of touch with the electorate he was attempting to woo. But his decision regarding his running mate has sealed the deal. McCain is simply unfit to elect, as is Palin.
-Apparently, there have been rumors since Palin was announced as the VP nom, that her 4 month old son was actually the child of Palin's 17 year old daughter, Bristol. Nope, according to statement from the Palin camp today, Bristol's bundle of joy isn't due for another 4 months. So that means Sarah's going to be the 44 year old mother of a special-needs infant and the doting grandmother of her currently unwed teenage daughter's toddler about the same time she's supposed to assuming the second highest office in the executive branch of the federal government. Barack Obama has taken the only logical course of action and called off his dogs, stating that candidates' families are off-limits. But this kind of gaping vulnerability is too difficult for the rest of the democratic establishment and the media to ignore.
-Before all the baby-mama-drama, Sarah had already gotten herself wrapped up in another scandal. Back in 2006, Palin demanded that Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan fire Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten. Why? Because Wooten, Palin's brother-in-law had been having an affair with a married woman. The affair is certainly contemptible, but Palin overstepped her bounds as governor when she proceeded to dismiss Monegan after he refused to fire Wooten for cheating on Palin's sister. Both parties have now lawyered-up and an independent investigation into Palin's actions is expected to conclude by October.
So if Governor Palin is looking like she might not be the perfect VP pick after all, here's the kicker: McCain knew about all of this before he chose her. I was already of the opinion that McCain was completely out of touch with the electorate he was attempting to woo. But his decision regarding his running mate has sealed the deal. McCain is simply unfit to elect, as is Palin.
Breaking Up (A Blog) is Hard to Do
Later this evening, I'm going to be posting on both the last of my 2008 fantasy football drafts AND the Palin pregnancy story. As I was sitting down to figure out which of these items I should blog about first, I realized that the individuals who might read this blog for fantasy football purposes probably have no interest in my social-political commentary, and vice-versa. So, later today I'm going to be adding a second blog to Pfeiffersite. This blog will be dedicated solely to fantasy football. Verbal Currency will carry on as an outlet for whatever topics I'm interested in. I'll link to the new fantasy football blog in Verbal Currency this evening once it's set up.
Monday, August 25, 2008
"Crew" is NOT a Verb!
Emily and I went on a DC monument boat cruise on Sunday afternoon. It was a beautiful day to be out on the Potomac and it was kind of interesting to hear the narration about the various sites as we motored between Alexandria and Georgetown. I thought it was nice that they mentioned Thompson Boat Center (a favorite club of scullers in the DC area) and I wondered if they would mention the Alexandria Community Boathouse on the way back. They did: "... a gift from the city of Alexandria to the T.C. Williams crew team. T.C. Williams has one of the finest high school crewing programs in the country..."
CREWING PROGRAMS!? This has got to stop. I appreciate that rowing is not a "major" sport with a significant fan following. I admit that the terminology is esoteric and mastering it takes significant exposure to the sport. But this is fundamental: Rowers ROW. They don't CREW. They are not CREWERS and they do not spend their mornings CREWING. The only thing more obnoxious than having a non-rower use "crew" as a verb, is when they do it in conjunction with that weird arm flailing that is supposed to signify rowing.
Now, I understand the confusion. Ask most high school or college rowers what they do with their time and they'll respond, "I'm on the crew team." Even the term "crew team" is an affront to the purist, who demands these organizations be called "rowing teams." But "crew team," or referring to the sport of rowing as "crew" has won a battle of attrition and worked its way into acceptable rowing vernacular. In addition, the use of the word "crew" as a verb is technically correct when it's definition is limited to "participating as a member of a crew or team in the activities related to the operation of a boat, yacht or ship." So if I were to say that I crewed an eight in college, that's a legitimate use of the word. As long as I mean that I was one of eight rowers who participated in the operation of the boat. But if I'm referring to act of propelling a shell in a race through the act of rowing, "crewed" no longer applies. Once I intend to convey the specific action of rowing, only the word "rowing" is correct.
In sailing, participants use the word "crew" as verb much more frequently than in rowing. As in, "I crewed an America's Cup yacht last year." But if you asked the speaker what they were doing on that America's cup yacht, they would say "sailing."
Ok, so maybe the subject is a little convoluted. And as folks who enjoy the sport, we can correct the misguided crew-speak of our friends and family. But when a popular recreational provider like the Potomac Riverboat Company (PRC) includes the word "crewing" 10 or more time a day in their narration and in front of hundreds of uninformed tourists, it just makes the situation that much worse. So I'm calling on the PRC and all tour operators in the Alexandria area to clean up your narrations and be a part of the the fight to stop one of America's most troubling grammatical issues: The improper use of "crew" as a verb.
CREWING PROGRAMS!? This has got to stop. I appreciate that rowing is not a "major" sport with a significant fan following. I admit that the terminology is esoteric and mastering it takes significant exposure to the sport. But this is fundamental: Rowers ROW. They don't CREW. They are not CREWERS and they do not spend their mornings CREWING. The only thing more obnoxious than having a non-rower use "crew" as a verb, is when they do it in conjunction with that weird arm flailing that is supposed to signify rowing.
Now, I understand the confusion. Ask most high school or college rowers what they do with their time and they'll respond, "I'm on the crew team." Even the term "crew team" is an affront to the purist, who demands these organizations be called "rowing teams." But "crew team," or referring to the sport of rowing as "crew" has won a battle of attrition and worked its way into acceptable rowing vernacular. In addition, the use of the word "crew" as a verb is technically correct when it's definition is limited to "participating as a member of a crew or team in the activities related to the operation of a boat, yacht or ship." So if I were to say that I crewed an eight in college, that's a legitimate use of the word. As long as I mean that I was one of eight rowers who participated in the operation of the boat. But if I'm referring to act of propelling a shell in a race through the act of rowing, "crewed" no longer applies. Once I intend to convey the specific action of rowing, only the word "rowing" is correct.
In sailing, participants use the word "crew" as verb much more frequently than in rowing. As in, "I crewed an America's Cup yacht last year." But if you asked the speaker what they were doing on that America's cup yacht, they would say "sailing."
Ok, so maybe the subject is a little convoluted. And as folks who enjoy the sport, we can correct the misguided crew-speak of our friends and family. But when a popular recreational provider like the Potomac Riverboat Company (PRC) includes the word "crewing" 10 or more time a day in their narration and in front of hundreds of uninformed tourists, it just makes the situation that much worse. So I'm calling on the PRC and all tour operators in the Alexandria area to clean up your narrations and be a part of the the fight to stop one of America's most troubling grammatical issues: The improper use of "crew" as a verb.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Golden Girls
No, this isn't a belated tribute to Estelle Getty (we will miss you Sophia Petrillo). The golden girls I'm referring to are Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh. They just knocked off a tenacious Chinese duo to win their 108th straight match and second consecutive Olympic gold. Want to know how freakishly good these ladies are? Two straight gold medal runs without dropping a set.
After Michael Phelps won his eighth gold medal the other night, I cautioned that before we start lauding his Beijing games as the greatest sporting feat of all time, we need to put it in perspective. So here's some perspective: May-Treanor and Walsh winning every single set, of every Olympic match at both Athens and Beijing is sort of like Phelps winning every single heat, semi, and final of the past two Olympics. Every time these two hit the beach, they win. Phelps is ridiculous in his own right, but even he cruises to a 3rd place in the semis every once in a while.
Of course, sometimes in swimming it makes sense to hold back in a preliminary round. And there is no benefit to dropping a set in volleyball. But what we're talking about here is dominance. The willpower to enter an athletic arena on an international stage and never submit to the competition. Does such a performance diminish Phelps' achievement? Absolutely not. But it does suggest that there are other Americans at the games putting on some truly amazing athletic performances.
After Michael Phelps won his eighth gold medal the other night, I cautioned that before we start lauding his Beijing games as the greatest sporting feat of all time, we need to put it in perspective. So here's some perspective: May-Treanor and Walsh winning every single set, of every Olympic match at both Athens and Beijing is sort of like Phelps winning every single heat, semi, and final of the past two Olympics. Every time these two hit the beach, they win. Phelps is ridiculous in his own right, but even he cruises to a 3rd place in the semis every once in a while.
Of course, sometimes in swimming it makes sense to hold back in a preliminary round. And there is no benefit to dropping a set in volleyball. But what we're talking about here is dominance. The willpower to enter an athletic arena on an international stage and never submit to the competition. Does such a performance diminish Phelps' achievement? Absolutely not. But it does suggest that there are other Americans at the games putting on some truly amazing athletic performances.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Drink, Freshman!
I read an interesting article on CNN.com this morning. It involves a group of over 100 college presidents who have become signatories of the Amethyst Initiative. The goal of the Amethyst Initiative is to spur public debate about changing the legal drinking age back to 18. Originally, I planned a little exposition piece here about why this is an issue. But let's cut to the chase: On any given college campus, the vast majority of students are going to drink. And of that vast majority, less than half can do so legally.
Lowering the drinking age back to 18Raising the drinking age back to 21 solves a lot of problems:
-It removes the social taboo of drinking in college. Take away the forbidden-fruit status of booze, and suddenly getting tanked at every possible opportunity doesn't seem as attractive.
-It opens up venues where alcohol can be purchased and consumed legally, and in moderation. Where's the incentive to drink in somebody's basement when you could just as easily have a beer in a bar?
-It frees up police and college resources (money and manpower) committed to a never ending war on underage drinking.
-It presents educational alternatives to the "alcoholic abstinence" stance parents and educators are forced to adopt given the national drinking age.
-It ceases the blatant violation of civil liberties engendered by the fact that an 18 year old can vote, enter into a legally binding contract and serve in the armed forces, but they cannot purchase a beer.
If any of the above items sounds like a good reason to consider lowering the drinking age, then welcome to the club. But of course, every reasonable idea has its detractors. And in this case MADD is leading the charge. Head on over to their website and you will be inundated with quotes from "experts" citing all of the "scientific data" that the current drinking age saves lives. Click through enough of these "expert" testimonials and you eventually work your way to a single line graph which tells us that modifying the drinking age to 21 reduced alcohol related fatal crashes by 32% between 1983 and 1989 for individuals age 16-20. Now, seeing as this is the sole piece of quantitative evidence offered up by MADD, a couple of questions:
-Does this data account for deaths per mile driven, or is the data raw?
-Why are we counting 16 and 17 year olds? We're talking about lowering the drinking age to 18.
-How has the data looked since 1989? Fatalities still going down? Maybe that's because DUI penalties have gotten stiffer and enforcement has gotten more aggressive. Something that would continue to happen regardless of the drinking age. Fatalities up? How could that happen if people under 21 can't legally obtain booze?
I could continue asking probing questions all day, but that would only anger the MADD folks. Especially when they're awfully busy running a smear campaign against college presidents who work the front line of the underage drinking battle and are finally admitting that the system is broken. I'm not sure when MADD turned into Focus on the Family and became a bunch of propaganda smearing zealots, but letting reactionary hot heads determine the social and political landscape in this country has got to stop.
Lowering the drinking age back to 18
-It removes the social taboo of drinking in college. Take away the forbidden-fruit status of booze, and suddenly getting tanked at every possible opportunity doesn't seem as attractive.
-It opens up venues where alcohol can be purchased and consumed legally, and in moderation. Where's the incentive to drink in somebody's basement when you could just as easily have a beer in a bar?
-It frees up police and college resources (money and manpower) committed to a never ending war on underage drinking.
-It presents educational alternatives to the "alcoholic abstinence" stance parents and educators are forced to adopt given the national drinking age.
-It ceases the blatant violation of civil liberties engendered by the fact that an 18 year old can vote, enter into a legally binding contract and serve in the armed forces, but they cannot purchase a beer.
If any of the above items sounds like a good reason to consider lowering the drinking age, then welcome to the club. But of course, every reasonable idea has its detractors. And in this case MADD is leading the charge. Head on over to their website and you will be inundated with quotes from "experts" citing all of the "scientific data" that the current drinking age saves lives. Click through enough of these "expert" testimonials and you eventually work your way to a single line graph which tells us that modifying the drinking age to 21 reduced alcohol related fatal crashes by 32% between 1983 and 1989 for individuals age 16-20. Now, seeing as this is the sole piece of quantitative evidence offered up by MADD, a couple of questions:
-Does this data account for deaths per mile driven, or is the data raw?
-Why are we counting 16 and 17 year olds? We're talking about lowering the drinking age to 18.
-How has the data looked since 1989? Fatalities still going down? Maybe that's because DUI penalties have gotten stiffer and enforcement has gotten more aggressive. Something that would continue to happen regardless of the drinking age. Fatalities up? How could that happen if people under 21 can't legally obtain booze?
I could continue asking probing questions all day, but that would only anger the MADD folks. Especially when they're awfully busy running a smear campaign against college presidents who work the front line of the underage drinking battle and are finally admitting that the system is broken. I'm not sure when MADD turned into Focus on the Family and became a bunch of propaganda smearing zealots, but letting reactionary hot heads determine the social and political landscape in this country has got to stop.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Great Eight
Less than 10 minutes ago Michael Phelps became the Olympic golden boy, winning his eighth gold medal of the Beijing games. The magnitude of his accomplishment is undeniable. For this this Olympics, this week, this moment in time, there is no one better than Michael Phelps.
So let the punditry begin: Is Phelps the greatest athlete ever? Is he the most dominant athlete in a single sport? Is this the greatest Olympic accomplishment ever? Already, the questions are being asked.
What's my opinion? I think we need to be careful about what we say about the performance. We cannot diminish the magnitude of the accomplishment, nor should we call into question the enormity of other athletic feats. Lance Armstrong, 7 consecutive Tour yellow jerseys; Tiger Woods,15 14 majors in a pro career spanning only 11 years; Michael Jordan, 2 championship three-peats with the Bulls. The list goes on. There's going to be a lot of buzz about Phelps' accomplishment being the greatest in sport. But let's use some restraint, perspective and imagination in trying to qualify the amazing display of athleticism Phelps has brought to Beijing this week.
So let the punditry begin: Is Phelps the greatest athlete ever? Is he the most dominant athlete in a single sport? Is this the greatest Olympic accomplishment ever? Already, the questions are being asked.
What's my opinion? I think we need to be careful about what we say about the performance. We cannot diminish the magnitude of the accomplishment, nor should we call into question the enormity of other athletic feats. Lance Armstrong, 7 consecutive Tour yellow jerseys; Tiger Woods,
Olympic Air Supply
I heard it on PTI the other day: "Michael Phelps is sucking all the air out of Beijing." And I thought it was just the smog. But it's a true statement. Michael Phelps' improbable run at eight gold medals has reduced the rest of the Olympics to an afterthought. For the most part, I'm OK with that. Phelps is a dominant performer in most of his events, and he conducts himself with poise and enthusiasm. He's the type of athlete you don't mind being inundated with.
However, there are athletes in other sports that are not getting the typical level of attention. Great example: Women's gymnastics. The other night, the US had two gymnasts with realistic medal hopes. Shawn Johnson and Nastia Liukin both had the potential to win the women's all-around. But Phelps-mania held the collective attention of the American audience and remains the big story despite Liukin and Johnson's Gold-Silver finish. But is it really all Phelps' fault? Nope.
Much of the reason that Phelps has been permitted to dominate the attention surrounding the games is that he was the only viable storyline the media chose to promote prior to the opening ceremonies. Kerri Walsh and Misty May-Treanor are the two most dominant women's beach volleyball players in the world. They closed out the gold in the 2004 Olympics in Athens without dropping a set. But the dynamic duo didn't get much press heading into games, despite the fact that they're favored for another run to the gold. And as far as gymnastics go, most sponsors that actually sunk money into a specific athlete backed the wrong horse. Shawn Johnson was remarkably consistent, but it was Nastia Liukin who took the gold. Now the pre-games face of the US women's gymastics team isn't the winning face. Oops. Looking at track and field, we have no flamboyant speedsters like Michael Johnson to market, so another Olympic staple loses focus to the goings-on in the Water Cube.
I can't explain why Walsh and Misty-May didn't get more pre-games press, but I have a theory as to why gymnastics, track and field, and the US swimmers not named Michael Phelps don't get much play before the opening ceremonies. The reason: Competitive parity. Back in the cold war days, it was the US vs the Soviet bloc. If the Soviets didn't have a contender in a sport that the US did, nobody else was going to get in our way. But times have changed. The globalization of sport has allowed elite athletes to emerge all over the world. No longer can corporate sponsors and the media predictably crown their heroes before the games. Phelps is an exception, but in coming Olympiads, the media will be less and less likely to celebrate the achievements of an athlete before the gold is in the bag.
However, there are athletes in other sports that are not getting the typical level of attention. Great example: Women's gymnastics. The other night, the US had two gymnasts with realistic medal hopes. Shawn Johnson and Nastia Liukin both had the potential to win the women's all-around. But Phelps-mania held the collective attention of the American audience and remains the big story despite Liukin and Johnson's Gold-Silver finish. But is it really all Phelps' fault? Nope.
Much of the reason that Phelps has been permitted to dominate the attention surrounding the games is that he was the only viable storyline the media chose to promote prior to the opening ceremonies. Kerri Walsh and Misty May-Treanor are the two most dominant women's beach volleyball players in the world. They closed out the gold in the 2004 Olympics in Athens without dropping a set. But the dynamic duo didn't get much press heading into games, despite the fact that they're favored for another run to the gold. And as far as gymnastics go, most sponsors that actually sunk money into a specific athlete backed the wrong horse. Shawn Johnson was remarkably consistent, but it was Nastia Liukin who took the gold. Now the pre-games face of the US women's gymastics team isn't the winning face. Oops. Looking at track and field, we have no flamboyant speedsters like Michael Johnson to market, so another Olympic staple loses focus to the goings-on in the Water Cube.
I can't explain why Walsh and Misty-May didn't get more pre-games press, but I have a theory as to why gymnastics, track and field, and the US swimmers not named Michael Phelps don't get much play before the opening ceremonies. The reason: Competitive parity. Back in the cold war days, it was the US vs the Soviet bloc. If the Soviets didn't have a contender in a sport that the US did, nobody else was going to get in our way. But times have changed. The globalization of sport has allowed elite athletes to emerge all over the world. No longer can corporate sponsors and the media predictably crown their heroes before the games. Phelps is an exception, but in coming Olympiads, the media will be less and less likely to celebrate the achievements of an athlete before the gold is in the bag.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
The Danny Almonte Reverso
It's official. We Americans may be the world's worst losers. After the US team's poor showing in the women's gymnastics competition last night, the excuses came fast and furious. First came word that Chellsie Memmel was competing with an injured ankle. But then the media seized on the idea that some of the Chinese gymnast were ineligible to compete. And why might these athletes be ineligible? Was it doping? Secret liaisons with the judges? Nope, it seems that three of the golden ladies might be under 16 years old, the minimum age for Olympic eligibility.
Many of you remember Danny Almonte. Danny was the lights out ace pitcher for the Bronx team in the 2001 Little League World Series. Danny seemed to enjoy a distinct height and strength advantage over the other twelve year old players. An advantage that suddenly made sense when investigations after the fact revealed that Almonte was actually 14 at the time. The media circus surrounding the Almonte situation was ridiculous.
Here we are, seven years later. And after an effort that really amounted to a sub-par performance, we are collectively up in arms that our female gymnastic representatives got their asses kicked by a few 72 pound 14 year olds.
So what exactly gives a 14 year old gymnast an edge over an older, larger gymnast? Depending on who's whining about it, 14 year olds don't understand the gravity of the situation and are less likely to succumb to pressure. They're lighter, requiring less muscle mass to execute the same skills and achieve the same velocity of larger gymnasts. Pick your excuse, they all suck. Not because they aren't legitimate, but because you could so easily flip the arguments for the older gymnasts: They're more mature, focused and poised because of their age and experience. Their larger, more muscular bodies make the skills easier, etc. You can spin anything. Ask our presidential candidates.
The bottom line here is that the situation is admittedly goofy. But I'm still conflicted. The part of me that refuses to take a mulligan on the golf course thinks that despite the nature of the violation, it boils down to cheating, and the athletes should be punished. But the part of me that tries to view this event from a cultural perspective thinks this is much ado about nothing. If we're going to be a nation of poor losers, then let's at least stick with excuses that don't get us laughed at. Blame it on the officiating and move on...
Many of you remember Danny Almonte. Danny was the lights out ace pitcher for the Bronx team in the 2001 Little League World Series. Danny seemed to enjoy a distinct height and strength advantage over the other twelve year old players. An advantage that suddenly made sense when investigations after the fact revealed that Almonte was actually 14 at the time. The media circus surrounding the Almonte situation was ridiculous.
Here we are, seven years later. And after an effort that really amounted to a sub-par performance, we are collectively up in arms that our female gymnastic representatives got their asses kicked by a few 72 pound 14 year olds.
So what exactly gives a 14 year old gymnast an edge over an older, larger gymnast? Depending on who's whining about it, 14 year olds don't understand the gravity of the situation and are less likely to succumb to pressure. They're lighter, requiring less muscle mass to execute the same skills and achieve the same velocity of larger gymnasts. Pick your excuse, they all suck. Not because they aren't legitimate, but because you could so easily flip the arguments for the older gymnasts: They're more mature, focused and poised because of their age and experience. Their larger, more muscular bodies make the skills easier, etc. You can spin anything. Ask our presidential candidates.
The bottom line here is that the situation is admittedly goofy. But I'm still conflicted. The part of me that refuses to take a mulligan on the golf course thinks that despite the nature of the violation, it boils down to cheating, and the athletes should be punished. But the part of me that tries to view this event from a cultural perspective thinks this is much ado about nothing. If we're going to be a nation of poor losers, then let's at least stick with excuses that don't get us laughed at. Blame it on the officiating and move on...
Monday, August 11, 2008
Those Who Can't Do... Get TV Gigs
Last night, in addition to the men's 4 x 100, NBC also covered the women's gymnastic qualifiers. It wasn't a great night for the ladies. There were some falls, a dq for stepping out of bounds and one gymnast managed to hurt her ankle between the locker room and the first event. But all-in-all, the women's team still qualified in second place behind the Chinese favorites. Not too shabby. Of course, if you were listening to the three banshees calling the event, you would have thought Marta Karolyi was going to march the whole team out the back of the gym and beat them in an alley. I distinctly remember that the commentators for gymnastics at the past few Olympics have been very uptight, very judgmental and sort of cruel. But this year, they're taking it to a new level. They hammer on the competitors (American and international alike) and make each misstep sound like a grievous sin. Before I go on, let's meet the offenders:
Al Trautwig: I'm not going to go too hard on Trautwig here. He's a career sports reporter, and has no personal experience in gymnastics. His general knowledge of the sport is really sufficient to call a quadrennial event and he makes a nice counterpoint to his buddies in the booth. Which brings us to...
Elfi Schegel: A Canadian gymnast whose career peaked at the 1980 Pan Am Games. Schegel never medaled in an Olympics, and is now almost 30 years removed from her prime, but still feels comfortable tearing apart contemporary gymnasts for minor mistakes.
Tim Daggett: If you've ever done a double take at the unnaturally high voice when a male gymnast is being interviewed, then you probably also grit your teeth while this male pixie damages egos one vicious comment at a time. Daggett is the obnoxious, talkative John Madden to Al Trautwig's fairly competent Pat Summerall.
Aside from the fact that these goons have a vendetta against self esteem, what makes them truly obnoxious is how they never stop to acknowledge the fact that gymnastics have progressed a long way since they last competed. I still think they spend too much time being unnecessarily cruel, but it wouldn't be so bad if they exhibited some class and acknowledged that in their primes they could never do what gymnasts do today.
Not all commentators exhibit this kind of poor behavior. During last night's historic swimming events, Dan Hicks asked Rowdy Gaines what it felt like to hold a world record. Gaines responded by immediately pointing out that the last record he held was now the property of Michael Phelps and was 5 seconds better than his WR time 28 years ago. He copped to the fact that it's a totally different playing field out there now. And I think that gives Gaines some additional credibility, and makes him far less irritating.
There's a whole platoon of gymnasts from recent Olympics who would probably be great in the booth. It's time NBC made an effort to develop some new talent that isn't as dissonant, harsh and out of touch.
Al Trautwig: I'm not going to go too hard on Trautwig here. He's a career sports reporter, and has no personal experience in gymnastics. His general knowledge of the sport is really sufficient to call a quadrennial event and he makes a nice counterpoint to his buddies in the booth. Which brings us to...
Elfi Schegel: A Canadian gymnast whose career peaked at the 1980 Pan Am Games. Schegel never medaled in an Olympics, and is now almost 30 years removed from her prime, but still feels comfortable tearing apart contemporary gymnasts for minor mistakes.
Tim Daggett: If you've ever done a double take at the unnaturally high voice when a male gymnast is being interviewed, then you probably also grit your teeth while this male pixie damages egos one vicious comment at a time. Daggett is the obnoxious, talkative John Madden to Al Trautwig's fairly competent Pat Summerall.Aside from the fact that these goons have a vendetta against self esteem, what makes them truly obnoxious is how they never stop to acknowledge the fact that gymnastics have progressed a long way since they last competed. I still think they spend too much time being unnecessarily cruel, but it wouldn't be so bad if they exhibited some class and acknowledged that in their primes they could never do what gymnasts do today.
Not all commentators exhibit this kind of poor behavior. During last night's historic swimming events, Dan Hicks asked Rowdy Gaines what it felt like to hold a world record. Gaines responded by immediately pointing out that the last record he held was now the property of Michael Phelps and was 5 seconds better than his WR time 28 years ago. He copped to the fact that it's a totally different playing field out there now. And I think that gives Gaines some additional credibility, and makes him far less irritating.
There's a whole platoon of gymnasts from recent Olympics who would probably be great in the booth. It's time NBC made an effort to develop some new talent that isn't as dissonant, harsh and out of touch.
Wicked Fast
In my last post, I think my frustration with the Beijing games was apparent. What I really needed was a little Olympic magic to get me back on board and feeling good about the whole production. The magic arrived last night. The men's 4 x 100 freestyle relay team of Michael Phelps, Garrett Weber-Gale, Cullen Jones and Jason Lezak silenced some trash-talking French poolboys by putting together a come-from-behind, last second victory that demolished the previous world record by nearly four seconds. In the aftermath, anchor Jason Lezak is getting much of the press for his anchor leg heroics. Trailing by a half body length deficit at the turn, Lezak found a gear somewhere between "hauling ass" and "superhuman" over the last 10 meters, outreaching Alain Bernard at the wall to snag the win. There was no mystery about the affiliation of most of the 17,000 fans at the Cube, as the place exploded following finish. It was one of those sporting moments that you can walk into with no context whatsoever and still get pumped about. Well, unless you're French.
NBC tried a little too hard following the spectacle to grant the race "instant-classic" cred, but I'm letting that slide. This was the most exciting 3 minutes and 8 seconds in recent Olympic history.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
International Smackdown
Despite their underdog status, the Chinese men's basketball team kept things interesting for the first half of their eventual 101-70 loss to team USA. Watching the Chinese team keep things tight with some ridiculous perimeter shooting in the first half sort of reminded me of every NCAA game I've watched where a ridiculously overmatched 13, 14, 15 or 16 seed goes out and makes a run at a top seed. But inevitably the tide turns, as it did for the US in the 3rd quarter. What they lacked in 3 point shooting, team USA made up for with ridiculous defensive rebounds and powering through the lane like Yao Ming was a JV player. After some embarrassing losses during recent international outings, this morning's blowout was a good indicator. But there are some more serious tests before anyone with a right mind declares these guys a gold medal lock.
Some Olympic observations from the opening days of the Olympic games:
-Way to go Beijing! Disgusting air quality, filtered internet to the Olympic Village and now a tragic murder suicide involving the family of an American coach. 24 hours down and you're doing a bang-up job. And I hear those opening ceremonies were gorgeous.
-Dara Torres: Fastest leg of the women's 4x100 freestyle silver medal effort. Props to Dara for showing up the young'uns. Here's hoping she doesn't pop positive for HGH.
-Micheal Phelps: Thanks for losing the facial hair prior to competing. The gold medals are going to look a lot classier without the porn star 'stache.
-Laura Bush and Henry Kissenger: You're at the US vs China basketball game. You're getting roughly the same amount of camera time as Chris Bosh. Try to stay awake.
-George Bush: Don't restrain yourself. When Kobe drops a tomahawk dunk down on Yao's head, stand up, pop your shirt and ask the Chinese President, "whatchoo gonna say 'bout THAT, shorty?" It's only slightly less classy than how you usually behave on an international stage.
Some Olympic observations from the opening days of the Olympic games:
-Way to go Beijing! Disgusting air quality, filtered internet to the Olympic Village and now a tragic murder suicide involving the family of an American coach. 24 hours down and you're doing a bang-up job. And I hear those opening ceremonies were gorgeous.
-Dara Torres: Fastest leg of the women's 4x100 freestyle silver medal effort. Props to Dara for showing up the young'uns. Here's hoping she doesn't pop positive for HGH.
-Micheal Phelps: Thanks for losing the facial hair prior to competing. The gold medals are going to look a lot classier without the porn star 'stache.
-Laura Bush and Henry Kissenger: You're at the US vs China basketball game. You're getting roughly the same amount of camera time as Chris Bosh. Try to stay awake.
-George Bush: Don't restrain yourself. When Kobe drops a tomahawk dunk down on Yao's head, stand up, pop your shirt and ask the Chinese President, "whatchoo gonna say 'bout THAT, shorty?" It's only slightly less classy than how you usually behave on an international stage.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Mask of Rage
Earlier this week 4 members of the US cycling team arrived in Beijing sporting masks to ward off the effects of Beijing's notoriously smoggy air. These four athletes were hammered in the popular press. Even Wilbon and guest host J.A. Adande ripped these athletes on PTI. And I'm disgusted. The Olympics represent an opportunity for some of the world's best athletes, in the most underrepresented sports, to perform on a world stage and enjoy the attention and glory we dole out daily to professional athletes in the US. If you are a cyclist, a runner, a rower, a triathlete, or any other athlete who has worked many long years to get to the Olympics, why would you accept anything less than your absolute peak physical condition? I could not care less if the Chinese are offended by those athletes who wisely choose to don masks. If the host country had kept their promise of pollution reduction, then the mask would be unwarranted. But when daily air conditions flirt with the 100 mark on the air quality index, China forfeits their right to get upset that visiting athletes don't want to inhale airborne sludge.
Shame on members of the media who are slamming these athletes for protecting themselves. These are not NBA prima-donnas making millions a year. These are amateur athletes who have gotten to the games without shoe deals and fat Olympic Committee money. If these athletes want to ensure they are able to compete without any reservation or excuse, let them be.
With the opening ceremonies just wrapping up a few minutes ago, the question of whether other US athletes chose to wear the masks (provided by the USOC by the way) during the open-air ceremonies will be determined sometime around 8PM ET tonight. I truly hope that a number of athletes choose to wear the masks, or skip the opening ceremonies altogether (I know I won't be watching). The news media may be keeping it's mouth shut about China's treatment of Tibet during these games, but I don't think that's indicative of anyone giving China a pass on the issue. So why are US athletes being attacked in response to the air quality issue, when the Chinese are responsible for the mess in the first place?
Favregate Over?
Yesterday morning reports began popping up around the web that Brett Favre had been traded to the Jets. I know that throughout this entire saga the Packers had been looking at the Jets and the Bucs as nice safe landing places for their franchise QB. Of course the last thing they wanted was to see Favre end up with division rivals Chicago or Minnesota. For more on that, check the Verbal Currency archives for my "Nightmare Scenario" posts. And now it appears the Packers have gotten exactly what they want: Brett is going to play on an AFC team that will NEVER be in an position to embarrass the Packers organization. Sure, Brett's got Laveranues Coles and Jerricho Cotchery, but does anyone honestly believe that the Jets are going to beat down the Patriots, the Colts, and the Chargers to be in a position to match up against an NFC opponent in the Super Bowl? Of course not, and that's what Packers management is counting on.
But how does Brett feel about this situation? Let's face it: Minnesota would have been the perfect place for Favre to end up. The Vikings have a fantastic RB duo, a great defense, much improved WR corps and one of the best O-lines in the game. What they're missing is a QB who can exploit defenses that are already shellshocked by the Peterson/Taylor combo. Favre would have been a perfect fit, and the Vikings would have been an immediate contender. Once the Packers made it clear that Favre was not going to be allowed back as the starting QB (Mike McCarthy made that official on Tuesday), why didn't Brett take a hard line? "Trade me to a contender, release me, or watch me sit on the sidelines and lead the Aaron Rodgers second guessing." Instead, he seemed to acquiesce to this trade to the Jets that seems to work out a lot better for the Packers than for Favre. If it were me, I wouldn't have gone quite so quietly into that dark night.
And sure, the Jets could go on a run this year. But it's not likely. And if they do, guess who's going to get all the credit... No, not Brett. It'll be the Mangenius, head coach Eric Mangini, who will get heavy praise for working Favre into a new system so successfully. Part of the reason Brett got so much credit for his MVP-caliber season last year is because nobody thinks of Mike McCarthy as praise-worthy. But Mangini is a different animal. He's gotten a lot of cred for being an uber-talented coach and a disciple of Bill Belichick. So if Brett thinks he can swing the Jets to a winning record, or a playoff run, and bask in all the Jersey accolades, fuhgeddaboudit.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Summer Doldrums - Time to Shape Up
I've been saying it for a week, but we have officially hit the summer doldrums. The doldrums are that 2-4 week period during the summer where things go quiet at the office, there's not much on TV, baseball is just starting to get interesting and the NFL regular season still seems a long way off. So to kill time, I'm committing to getting back in shape. I've started a new blog to track my daily workout activities, and maybe once daily activities aren't embarrassing, I'll make it public.
So aside from sheer boredom, what else is motivating me to get my ass in gear and start moving?
First and foremost, there's a Bucknell Crew Associationreunion in October. And part of that reunion is going to involve some alumni rowing. I know I can't keep up with the current rowers and recent graduates, but I'd like to hold my own against the other "old guys."
I've also made it clear that I'm not in love with Northern Virginia, but one of the benefits I have yet to experience is a winter that is far milder than Rochester's. It would be nice to be able to take advantage of the nice weather to run. And I'd like to be in a routine by then.
Another drawback to the doldrums is that there isn't much to write about. Hence this lame entry. I'll find something interesting and topical to write about tomorrow.
So aside from sheer boredom, what else is motivating me to get my ass in gear and start moving?
First and foremost, there's a Bucknell Crew Associationreunion in October. And part of that reunion is going to involve some alumni rowing. I know I can't keep up with the current rowers and recent graduates, but I'd like to hold my own against the other "old guys."I've also made it clear that I'm not in love with Northern Virginia, but one of the benefits I have yet to experience is a winter that is far milder than Rochester's. It would be nice to be able to take advantage of the nice weather to run. And I'd like to be in a routine by then.
Another drawback to the doldrums is that there isn't much to write about. Hence this lame entry. I'll find something interesting and topical to write about tomorrow.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Reality TV: Dumb and Dumber
I just wrapped up a post regarding A&E's Intervention, and I would be remiss if I didn't add some commentary regarding the VH1 travesty that is I Love Money. 
We were flipping channels Sunday morning at the cottage and came across this abomination. Apparently, the entire cast on this show comes from other reality shows on VH1. Joan is an expert on the history and culture of VH1 reality shows, so she tried to explain the origins of these freaks. But aside from the reality show pedigree, it looked like the only thing these people had in common was silicone, steroids and an IQ of less than 85.
In my post on Intervention, it may have come across as cruel that I was rooting for the addict to make the interventionist look bad. But ultimately this type of detached response to the gravity of the situation reflects the dirty truth about reality TV: Whether we're watching a legitimately tragic figure like Dillon, or brain-dead celebutantes named 12-Pack, Whiteboy or Toastee, the goal is entertainment. And as consumers of both types of media, it becomes difficult to differentiate our responses. How do we not mock the stupidity and foolishness of the drug addict and the interventionist, when that's the entire point of a show like I Love Money?
We were flipping channels Sunday morning at the cottage and came across this abomination. Apparently, the entire cast on this show comes from other reality shows on VH1. Joan is an expert on the history and culture of VH1 reality shows, so she tried to explain the origins of these freaks. But aside from the reality show pedigree, it looked like the only thing these people had in common was silicone, steroids and an IQ of less than 85. In my post on Intervention, it may have come across as cruel that I was rooting for the addict to make the interventionist look bad. But ultimately this type of detached response to the gravity of the situation reflects the dirty truth about reality TV: Whether we're watching a legitimately tragic figure like Dillon, or brain-dead celebutantes named 12-Pack, Whiteboy or Toastee, the goal is entertainment. And as consumers of both types of media, it becomes difficult to differentiate our responses. How do we not mock the stupidity and foolishness of the drug addict and the interventionist, when that's the entire point of a show like I Love Money?
Best Intervention EVER!
Last year I started watching Intervention on A&E. It's a compelling show that clearly demonstrates the horrific toll drug and alcohol abuse takes on the addict, as well as their friends and family. The show's formula is fairly simple: The addict is told they are participating in a documentary on addiction; the addict and their family are interviewed and followed by camera crews to demonstrate the need for an intervention; an interventionist preps the family and friends; the intervention is sprung on the addict and ultimately they are convinced to enter a treatment facility; black and white captions update the progress of the addict at the end of each episode.
I have no doubt that the individuals featured on this show have turned their lives into train wrecks of grand proportions and are in imminent danger. However, two things have always bothered me about the intervention process:
1. Addiction 101 tells us that an addict cannot successfully embark on recovery until they have hit rock bottom. What constitutes "rock bottom" can vary widely (prison, loss of family, and loss of a home are oft-cited examples). An intervention attempts to simulate rock-bottom by exposing the addict to the pain he or she has caused their loved ones. But I question how effective the simulation really is. Can someone who has not yet felt the need for recovery themselves actually commit to the process as a result of external input?
2. The interventionists strike me as smug, obnoxious individuals who have a standoffish demeanor that clearly frustrates the more aggravated addicts. Their approach to the intervention is formulaic and always presumes superiority over the addict.
As a result, I think I've always been secretly rooting for one of the addicts to call BS on the interventionist and just walk out. And last night's rerun of a season 3 episode, "Dillon," was exactly what I was waiting for. After starting the ball rolling with the "documentary" following Dillon and his family around Oklahoma, the production gets gummed up pretty fast when Dillon quickly suspects he is on Intervention. Seeing the producers get screwed by their own success was enormously gratifying.
But of course, there's production money invested already, so why do the smart thing and call the whole thing off? Instead, interventionist Jeff VanVonderen decides to ambush Dillon in his trailer with members of the local police department and force the intervention anyway.
After having his entire family and the local police chief barge into the trailer, Dillon becomes understandably upset. When Jeff tells him he's going to explain how this works, and Dillon curtly replies, "don't bother, I've seen the show," I started dying. It only got better when Dillon locked himself in his room, slipped out a window and took off running. A sharp-eyed family member in the living room sees the escape and the local police (who obviously take the donuts and sitting around regimen very seriously) take off in pursuit. Apparently prolonged crystal meth abuse really takes a toll on the ol' gas tank because Dillon doesn't make it very far with Chief "Hell Yeah I Want Gravy on That" in hot pursuit.
At this point, we are 56 minutes into the episode and I'm thinking that this is it. Finally, one of these unfortunate addicts is going to succeed in making the interventionist look the jackass he appears to be. But after a talking-to by the cops, Dillon caves and heads off for treatment.
This was one of the few times where a reality TV subject manages to turn the production on it's head by refusing the play by the rules. And that seems immensely more entertaining than the standard fare.
I have no doubt that the individuals featured on this show have turned their lives into train wrecks of grand proportions and are in imminent danger. However, two things have always bothered me about the intervention process:
1. Addiction 101 tells us that an addict cannot successfully embark on recovery until they have hit rock bottom. What constitutes "rock bottom" can vary widely (prison, loss of family, and loss of a home are oft-cited examples). An intervention attempts to simulate rock-bottom by exposing the addict to the pain he or she has caused their loved ones. But I question how effective the simulation really is. Can someone who has not yet felt the need for recovery themselves actually commit to the process as a result of external input?
2. The interventionists strike me as smug, obnoxious individuals who have a standoffish demeanor that clearly frustrates the more aggravated addicts. Their approach to the intervention is formulaic and always presumes superiority over the addict.
As a result, I think I've always been secretly rooting for one of the addicts to call BS on the interventionist and just walk out. And last night's rerun of a season 3 episode, "Dillon," was exactly what I was waiting for. After starting the ball rolling with the "documentary" following Dillon and his family around Oklahoma, the production gets gummed up pretty fast when Dillon quickly suspects he is on Intervention. Seeing the producers get screwed by their own success was enormously gratifying.
But of course, there's production money invested already, so why do the smart thing and call the whole thing off? Instead, interventionist Jeff VanVonderen decides to ambush Dillon in his trailer with members of the local police department and force the intervention anyway.
After having his entire family and the local police chief barge into the trailer, Dillon becomes understandably upset. When Jeff tells him he's going to explain how this works, and Dillon curtly replies, "don't bother, I've seen the show," I started dying. It only got better when Dillon locked himself in his room, slipped out a window and took off running. A sharp-eyed family member in the living room sees the escape and the local police (who obviously take the donuts and sitting around regimen very seriously) take off in pursuit. Apparently prolonged crystal meth abuse really takes a toll on the ol' gas tank because Dillon doesn't make it very far with Chief "Hell Yeah I Want Gravy on That" in hot pursuit.
At this point, we are 56 minutes into the episode and I'm thinking that this is it. Finally, one of these unfortunate addicts is going to succeed in making the interventionist look the jackass he appears to be. But after a talking-to by the cops, Dillon caves and heads off for treatment.
This was one of the few times where a reality TV subject manages to turn the production on it's head by refusing the play by the rules. And that seems immensely more entertaining than the standard fare.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
The Nightmare Scenario: Update
Favregate looked like it might get wrapped up over the weekend. But good 'ol Brett decided he was going to further demolish any popularity GM Ted Thompson may have had by asking if he would be welcome at training camp. Of course, Thompson had to say no, so the saga goes on. Now I'm not exactly sitting on the edge of my seat to see how this ends, but I did see one fantastic post on the Sporting Blog today. They had gotten the folks at EA Sports to put Favre on a couple of teams mentioned in trade rumors and then play out the '09 season. Far cooler than the pointless computer generated stats is this picture of Favre in a Vikings uni handing off to Purple Jesus...
Turning Stone Golf Review
I needed to put 24 hours between me and my final round at Turning Stone before I tried to blog about the experience. Now that I've had some time to reflect, here it is:
Day 1 - Atunyote
The phrase that I keep using to describe Atunyote is "over the top." From the moment you pull up to the imposing wooden gates at the entrance to the course, the sensory overload is ridiculous. The perfectly manicured practice facility, the gorgeous plantation-style clubhouse, the white coverall clad forecaddies all serve to remind the average golfer that that they are definitely playing out of their league. And that's before setting foot on the first tee. The course itself is, if nothing else, very nice to look at. Rolling, checkerboard fairways of intense shades of green look smoother than the greens at your local muni. But for all of it's splendor, the course relies heavily on length and sand to keep scores out of the basement. 
Fringed with beautiful pine and hardwoods on the front nine, the back is noticeably lacking in mature timber and draws on centrally placed water features for design focus. The experience of playing a course like Atunyote is so overwhelming that a second round may be warranted just to gain a better appreciation for the course itself after a first time through with one's head in the clouds.
Score - 8 out of 10. Beautiful layout and royal treatment. Lacks the name brand significance and enduring PGA tour cred of an Augusta National, Torrey Pines, Pebble Beach, or TPC Sawgrass.
Day 1 - Sandstone Hollow
After an early afternoon round at Atunyote on Friday, we were still pumped up and decided to play Turning Stone's executive par 3 course. It is unlike any nine hole, par-3 course I have ever played. It is challenging, extremely well maintained and has the feel of a much larger private course. The course was near-deserted when we arrived and the foxes and rabbits roaming the grounds gave the impression of playing our own private wooded course. The sand traps are prevalent and punishing, as are the low-lying marsh areas that must be carried to reach many of holes. Believing that Sandstone was a typical pitch and putt, we foolishly decided this was an ideal location for a two-club challenge. In reality, I would have enjoyed myself a great deal more with the better half of my bag along for the ride. Andy and I chose to walk Sandstone while Mike and Matt rode. The scenery is beautiful, but its less than friendly walking distance reflects the idea that Sandstone is meant to play like a full size course.
Score - 9 out 10 (for an executive course). This course was exceptional in the aesthetic appeal and challenge it presented in a 27 shot par package.
Day 2 - Kaluhyat
As much as I'm trying to repress my memories of Saturday, I can't neglect reflecting on my experience playing Kaluhyat. Simply put, this course is extremely hard. It is not suitable for the casual golfer. If you tend to spray left or right off the tee on occasion, you will lose your ball. If you hit worm burners off the tee, you will lose your ball. If your shot placement with your mid and short irons is anything but rock solid, you will lose your ball. From my perspective the two most noticeable features about this course are the ever-present hazards off the tee and the ridiculous length of each hole. Every tee shot must be relatively straight, with decent loft and carry at least 150 yards, or it will be lost. The length of the course was exacerbated by the soggy conditions on the fairway. My general impression is that the sand is not as vicious on Kaluhyat as it is on Atunyote and Shenendoah, simply because there are so many "natural" course elements in which to lose a ball or end up in jail. I have no desire to play Kaluhyat again any time in the near future.
Score - 6 out of 10. Beautifully crafted in low-lying marsh and meadow environs. Punishing tee locations and narrow fairways force players to follow a particular path to the hole, or else. Little opportunity for creativity or risk reward propositions. Mildly soggy fairways.
Day 3 - Shenendoah
I shot my best round of the weekend on Shenendoah and, generally speaking, had the best time out of the whole weekend on Shenendoah. As a result, I would love to give it a score right up there with Atunyote. But I can't. In fact, I can't even say I would recommend the course to a friend. Why? Because the fairways were slop. Squishy, soupy, saturated fairways made what could be a beautiful golf course, absolutely maddening. I know that there are those individuals who will say, "but they got so much rain, it's not their fault!" As a matter of fact, members of my foursome expressed that very sentiment. But here's the rub: When someone plays a resort course and ponies up the exorbitant greens fee for the privilege, THERE ARE NO EXCUSES. Awfully dry this season? Time to invest in better sprinkler coverage. Bugs driving you nuts near that island green? They've got chemicals for that. Fairways playing like a wading pool? Time to address your drainage. A course as long as Shenendoah can be intimidating without any extenuating circumstances, but when not a single shot is capable of producing roll, that length just gets frustrating. As a golfer, I know that any 18 holes is always better than the office. But as a consumer, I want to know why I'm shelling out full price for swamped fairways that I will inevitably have to trudge across all day because I can't take my cart off the path.
Score - 3 out of 10. Lots of potential, but the experience is ruined by inexcusable fairway conditions for a resort course.
Day 1 - Atunyote
The phrase that I keep using to describe Atunyote is "over the top." From the moment you pull up to the imposing wooden gates at the entrance to the course, the sensory overload is ridiculous. The perfectly manicured practice facility, the gorgeous plantation-style clubhouse, the white coverall clad forecaddies all serve to remind the average golfer that that they are definitely playing out of their league. And that's before setting foot on the first tee. The course itself is, if nothing else, very nice to look at. Rolling, checkerboard fairways of intense shades of green look smoother than the greens at your local muni. But for all of it's splendor, the course relies heavily on length and sand to keep scores out of the basement. 
Fringed with beautiful pine and hardwoods on the front nine, the back is noticeably lacking in mature timber and draws on centrally placed water features for design focus. The experience of playing a course like Atunyote is so overwhelming that a second round may be warranted just to gain a better appreciation for the course itself after a first time through with one's head in the clouds. Score - 8 out of 10. Beautiful layout and royal treatment. Lacks the name brand significance and enduring PGA tour cred of an Augusta National, Torrey Pines, Pebble Beach, or TPC Sawgrass.
Day 1 - Sandstone Hollow
After an early afternoon round at Atunyote on Friday, we were still pumped up and decided to play Turning Stone's executive par 3 course. It is unlike any nine hole, par-3 course I have ever played. It is challenging, extremely well maintained and has the feel of a much larger private course. The course was near-deserted when we arrived and the foxes and rabbits roaming the grounds gave the impression of playing our own private wooded course. The sand traps are prevalent and punishing, as are the low-lying marsh areas that must be carried to reach many of holes. Believing that Sandstone was a typical pitch and putt, we foolishly decided this was an ideal location for a two-club challenge. In reality, I would have enjoyed myself a great deal more with the better half of my bag along for the ride. Andy and I chose to walk Sandstone while Mike and Matt rode. The scenery is beautiful, but its less than friendly walking distance reflects the idea that Sandstone is meant to play like a full size course.
Score - 9 out 10 (for an executive course). This course was exceptional in the aesthetic appeal and challenge it presented in a 27 shot par package.
Day 2 - Kaluhyat
As much as I'm trying to repress my memories of Saturday, I can't neglect reflecting on my experience playing Kaluhyat. Simply put, this course is extremely hard. It is not suitable for the casual golfer. If you tend to spray left or right off the tee on occasion, you will lose your ball. If you hit worm burners off the tee, you will lose your ball. If your shot placement with your mid and short irons is anything but rock solid, you will lose your ball. From my perspective the two most noticeable features about this course are the ever-present hazards off the tee and the ridiculous length of each hole. Every tee shot must be relatively straight, with decent loft and carry at least 150 yards, or it will be lost. The length of the course was exacerbated by the soggy conditions on the fairway. My general impression is that the sand is not as vicious on Kaluhyat as it is on Atunyote and Shenendoah, simply because there are so many "natural" course elements in which to lose a ball or end up in jail. I have no desire to play Kaluhyat again any time in the near future.Score - 6 out of 10. Beautifully crafted in low-lying marsh and meadow environs. Punishing tee locations and narrow fairways force players to follow a particular path to the hole, or else. Little opportunity for creativity or risk reward propositions. Mildly soggy fairways.
Day 3 - Shenendoah
I shot my best round of the weekend on Shenendoah and, generally speaking, had the best time out of the whole weekend on Shenendoah. As a result, I would love to give it a score right up there with Atunyote. But I can't. In fact, I can't even say I would recommend the course to a friend. Why? Because the fairways were slop. Squishy, soupy, saturated fairways made what could be a beautiful golf course, absolutely maddening. I know that there are those individuals who will say, "but they got so much rain, it's not their fault!" As a matter of fact, members of my foursome expressed that very sentiment. But here's the rub: When someone plays a resort course and ponies up the exorbitant greens fee for the privilege, THERE ARE NO EXCUSES. Awfully dry this season? Time to invest in better sprinkler coverage. Bugs driving you nuts near that island green? They've got chemicals for that. Fairways playing like a wading pool? Time to address your drainage. A course as long as Shenendoah can be intimidating without any extenuating circumstances, but when not a single shot is capable of producing roll, that length just gets frustrating. As a golfer, I know that any 18 holes is always better than the office. But as a consumer, I want to know why I'm shelling out full price for swamped fairways that I will inevitably have to trudge across all day because I can't take my cart off the path.
Score - 3 out of 10. Lots of potential, but the experience is ruined by inexcusable fairway conditions for a resort course.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
The Nightmare Scenario?
Yesterday as I was driving up to Rochester and flipping radio stations along the way, I stopped on the Sirius NFL station to listen to Sirius Blitz for a while. Jim Miller and Solomon Wilcots were discussing Favregate and Miller referred to the possibility of Favre ending up in Minnesota as "the nightmare scenario" for the packers. Jim's back and forth with Wilcots suggested that both personalities felt that Favre ending up a Viking would lead to the undoing of existence as we know it. A true doomsday event.
I agree that it would be embarrassing for Packers management to see Favre sign with an NFC rival and then lose to that rival. The Green Bay fans will immediately question the decision to trade or release Favre in favor of putting Aaron Rodgers under center. But starting fresh this year with Rodgers is the right decision whether Favre wants to play or not. Favre's gunslinger tactics have always made him a high risk-high reward player at QB, and after 17 years in the league, it's time for Green Bay to roll the dice on a new signal caller. Particularly while they have the supporting cast to make their new starter effective immediately.
Whether you agree that it's time for Favre to move on from Green Bay, I don't think there's a legitimate debate that this situation is simply a reflection of the current state of professional sports. Iconic players do not spend their entire careers with a single team any longer. Whether it's for more money, personal issues, increased playing time or the chance to win a championship, stars are no longer faithful to a single city. That doesn't make them bad people. And I think most fans are intelligent enough to recognize that.
When you think of the biggest rivalry in sports, what comes to mind? Probably Red Sox and Yankees. There is no love lost between the respective fan communities of these two organizations. Yet when Johnny Damon left the Red Sox and joined the hated Yankees, the world did not end. Damon was a highly visible, much beloved member of the curse-breaking 2004 Sox. And when he visits Fenway wearing the Yankees uni, he is not reviled. The rivalry between the Packers and the Vikings is not nearly as rabid. So why would Favre's defection be such a tragedy?
I'm of the opinion that if Favre does indeed return to Football, Minnesota is the right team. It features a West coast offense, coaching personnel Favre is familiar with and all the components of a highly successful team, with the notable exception of a solid QB. But unlike Jim Miller, I wasn't a mediocre QB is the NFL for 4 seasons. So what do I know?
I agree that it would be embarrassing for Packers management to see Favre sign with an NFC rival and then lose to that rival. The Green Bay fans will immediately question the decision to trade or release Favre in favor of putting Aaron Rodgers under center. But starting fresh this year with Rodgers is the right decision whether Favre wants to play or not. Favre's gunslinger tactics have always made him a high risk-high reward player at QB, and after 17 years in the league, it's time for Green Bay to roll the dice on a new signal caller. Particularly while they have the supporting cast to make their new starter effective immediately.
Whether you agree that it's time for Favre to move on from Green Bay, I don't think there's a legitimate debate that this situation is simply a reflection of the current state of professional sports. Iconic players do not spend their entire careers with a single team any longer. Whether it's for more money, personal issues, increased playing time or the chance to win a championship, stars are no longer faithful to a single city. That doesn't make them bad people. And I think most fans are intelligent enough to recognize that.
When you think of the biggest rivalry in sports, what comes to mind? Probably Red Sox and Yankees. There is no love lost between the respective fan communities of these two organizations. Yet when Johnny Damon left the Red Sox and joined the hated Yankees, the world did not end. Damon was a highly visible, much beloved member of the curse-breaking 2004 Sox. And when he visits Fenway wearing the Yankees uni, he is not reviled. The rivalry between the Packers and the Vikings is not nearly as rabid. So why would Favre's defection be such a tragedy?
I'm of the opinion that if Favre does indeed return to Football, Minnesota is the right team. It features a West coast offense, coaching personnel Favre is familiar with and all the components of a highly successful team, with the notable exception of a solid QB. But unlike Jim Miller, I wasn't a mediocre QB is the NFL for 4 seasons. So what do I know?
Monday, July 21, 2008
Best Ball Draft Review
I spend a couple of minutes every few days trolling the discussion boards on the ESPN Fantasy Football site for interesting leagues. I'm not a big fan of the "pick your favorite NFL or college team" leagues, but every once in a while somebody comes up with something interesting. So when I saw a "Best Ball" league, I was interested. The concept is based on the common golf variation where two or more players use the best individual score on each hole to come up with the low round. Transferred to Fantasy Football, the concept goes something like this: Sixteen teams draft a full team. After the draft, the teams are randomly paired off. The pairings play each other throughout the season and the best position from each pairing counts. So if we start one QB, and my partner has Peyton Manning and he scores 25 points, and I have Philip Rivers and he scores 12 points, Peyton's score counts. I thought this was a really cool concept, so I joined the league. The draft was last night at 8PM. Despite all of my practice and obsession, I wasn't prepared for a 16 team draft (I ended up with the 13th pick). Despite the shock, I think I drafted a damn good team for a 16 team league(Philip Rivers, Marion Barber, Maurice Jones-Drew, Rashard Mendenhall, Ryan Torain, Joey Galloway, Roy Williams, Donte Stallworth, Antonio Gates, Titans D/ST, Josh Scobee and assorted other filler).And how did I manage a halfway decent roster in such a deep league? I followed my rules! I went RB/RB in rounds 1 and 2 and I didn't grab a QB until round 6 (might have been one round too late). I didn't take a D/ST until round 14 and I can tell you EXACTLY why I picked each player. Stick to the rules and it'll all work out.
Following the draft I got paired up with an owner that had not drafted quite as well. But what he lacked in roster, he made up for by brokering a dirt cheap trade for Peyton Manning today. Our combined team is now VERY solid. Of course, with the regular season over a month away, the post-draft enthusiasm will wane before too long. But it's still fun to get into the mix for a little while. I'm willing to manage four teams MAX this season. This league makes one, IDI two, friends and family league 3 (that one is up in the air). So I could potentially take on one more league. But unless I find a keeper looking for replacement owners, or I can get another league going with people I know, I think I'll stick with three.
More updates to come, but Ben's fantasy season is definitely underway.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Movie Review: The Dark Knight
*Spoiler Alert*
Yesterday afternoon Emily and I went to see The Dark Knight at Ballston Mall. Most of the reviews I've read so far have been glowing, and their adulation focuses on the performance of Heath Ledger as the Joker. I agree that Ledger's take on the role was impressive, but there's a lot more to talk about here. So I'll acknowledge that his Joker was phenomenal, and move on to some other observations:
-I was surprised that Bruce Wayne has essentially developed an additional persona. In earlier incarnations of the Batman franchise, there is Bruce Wayne (billionaire playboy) and there is batman. In Christopher Nolan's universe, there is Bruce Wayne (brooding, intelligent, savvy, sincere and only shared with Albert and Rachel), Bruce Wayne (obnoxious billionaire playboy fit for public consumption), and Batman. I am concerned that because there are now three personas, none of them received the appropriate screen time for any real character development.
-I was a little disappointed in Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent. After Tommy Lee Jones' over-the-top portrayal of at the Dent/Two Face role in the 1995 catastrophe "Batman Forever," I questioned whether the role could ever be played convincingly on film. This is supposed to be an incorruptible public servant, who succumbs to psychosis following his deforming accident. That's a tough combination to sell on screen. And Eckhart wasn't the man to do it. Whereas Dent is the "White Knight" and Two Face is a madman bent on revenge, Eckhart's best work has been where he is permitted to walk a fine line between good and evil. He plays en exceptional slimy individual with a nice-guy exterior (see Thank You for Smoking), but leaves something to be desired when working both extremes.
-What happened to the Rachel Dawes character? I'm not talking about Katie Holmes transmogrifying into Maggie Gyllenhaal in two short years. I'm referring to the fact that this character was reduced very quickly to the role of damsel in distress, by which point the audience couldn't care less that she got blown up. Maggie Gyllenhaal is a FAR more dynamic actress than Katie Holmes and that was completely neglected in this film. In addition, Gyllenhaal has the potential to be a hottie on screen (see Secretary or Stranger than Fiction). Yet she comes across as dowdy through most of the movie. What gives?
-Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman have become the heart of the franchise. Bale may be the star, but these three actors are the dramatic firepower that make the films worth watching.
-It's a theme that continues to play out in the superhero movies: The public's fickle relationship with their guardians. Spiderman/Batman/Superman is a good guy, no he's a bad guy, no he's a good guy, no... I am so freakin' sick of this melodrama getting dropped into superhero flicks to fill out flimsy plots. If a guy, with or without the gift or super powers, regularly saves lives, thwarts super criminals and generally makes life safer, then give him a break. As an audience, we love these characters for the righteousness they represent. So why does the "general public" in these films have so much trouble resolving their ambivalence? To the future directors of superhero movies: Knock it off! Everybody but the villain loves the hero. Act accordingly.
Overall, I was impressed with The Dark Knight, but I didn't enjoy it as much as I did Batman Begins. Perhaps that's because Batman Begins did so much to raise everyone's estimation of the Batman franchise. But I also believe that Nolan's first film was less conflicted and easier to enjoy.
Yesterday afternoon Emily and I went to see The Dark Knight at Ballston Mall. Most of the reviews I've read so far have been glowing, and their adulation focuses on the performance of Heath Ledger as the Joker. I agree that Ledger's take on the role was impressive, but there's a lot more to talk about here. So I'll acknowledge that his Joker was phenomenal, and move on to some other observations:
-I was surprised that Bruce Wayne has essentially developed an additional persona. In earlier incarnations of the Batman franchise, there is Bruce Wayne (billionaire playboy) and there is batman. In Christopher Nolan's universe, there is Bruce Wayne (brooding, intelligent, savvy, sincere and only shared with Albert and Rachel), Bruce Wayne (obnoxious billionaire playboy fit for public consumption), and Batman. I am concerned that because there are now three personas, none of them received the appropriate screen time for any real character development.
-I was a little disappointed in Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent. After Tommy Lee Jones' over-the-top portrayal of at the Dent/Two Face role in the 1995 catastrophe "Batman Forever," I questioned whether the role could ever be played convincingly on film. This is supposed to be an incorruptible public servant, who succumbs to psychosis following his deforming accident. That's a tough combination to sell on screen. And Eckhart wasn't the man to do it. Whereas Dent is the "White Knight" and Two Face is a madman bent on revenge, Eckhart's best work has been where he is permitted to walk a fine line between good and evil. He plays en exceptional slimy individual with a nice-guy exterior (see Thank You for Smoking), but leaves something to be desired when working both extremes.
-What happened to the Rachel Dawes character? I'm not talking about Katie Holmes transmogrifying into Maggie Gyllenhaal in two short years. I'm referring to the fact that this character was reduced very quickly to the role of damsel in distress, by which point the audience couldn't care less that she got blown up. Maggie Gyllenhaal is a FAR more dynamic actress than Katie Holmes and that was completely neglected in this film. In addition, Gyllenhaal has the potential to be a hottie on screen (see Secretary or Stranger than Fiction). Yet she comes across as dowdy through most of the movie. What gives?
-Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman have become the heart of the franchise. Bale may be the star, but these three actors are the dramatic firepower that make the films worth watching.
-It's a theme that continues to play out in the superhero movies: The public's fickle relationship with their guardians. Spiderman/Batman/Superman is a good guy, no he's a bad guy, no he's a good guy, no... I am so freakin' sick of this melodrama getting dropped into superhero flicks to fill out flimsy plots. If a guy, with or without the gift or super powers, regularly saves lives, thwarts super criminals and generally makes life safer, then give him a break. As an audience, we love these characters for the righteousness they represent. So why does the "general public" in these films have so much trouble resolving their ambivalence? To the future directors of superhero movies: Knock it off! Everybody but the villain loves the hero. Act accordingly.
Overall, I was impressed with The Dark Knight, but I didn't enjoy it as much as I did Batman Begins. Perhaps that's because Batman Begins did so much to raise everyone's estimation of the Batman franchise. But I also believe that Nolan's first film was less conflicted and easier to enjoy.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Turbulent British Open
I spent a couple of minutes watching the British Open this morning, and I was absolutely loving it. The wind is a constant 37 mph, which is wreaking havoc on just about everyone's game. Unless Greg Norman and KJ Choi can reign in the bogies, it looks like Simon Wakefield's clubhouse +5 will be the score to beat going into the final round. And conditions really are poor. Each pairing is averaging about 27 minutes on the 10th, where the wind across the green constantly causes the ball to threaten to tear loose and begin rolling. I really can't blame Sandy Lyle and Rich Beem for throwing in the towel halfway through the first round. It's punishing out there, but it makes for great TV. And that's fortunate. Because the first Tiger-less major in what seems like forever really needed some extra juice to prove that the golf world can survive without it's leading player.Two additional observations:
-Royal Birkdale is one of the courses included in Tiger Woods '07. It's kind of weird watching these guys play on a British course that I've never visited, yet seems eerily familiar.
-Where the hell did Greg Norman come from? I thought this guy was done golfing. He had gone all GQ: His own clothing label, wine, course architecture firm, etc. Now he marries Chris Evert and suddenly he's leading the British Open? I seem to recall Andre Agassi becoming a resurgent, bald dynamo following his marriage to Steffi Graff. It's nice to see that tying the knot with aging female tennis stars can improve athletic performance across the sports spectrum. Note to Tom Brady: Forget Giselle. Get with Monica Seles and that next Super Bowl is in the bag.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Draft Strategy: The Next Evolution
I've continued obsessing about my FF drafting strategy and I've come up with a few more thoughts to guide my selections:
-No QB's in rounds 1 and 2. I will not be swayed by the Golden Boy, nor will I be tempted to worry about Peyton's knee. I am absolutely picking a RB round 1 and a RB or WR round 2. There will be plenty of QB's to choose from in rounds 3, 4 and beyond.
-Portis is not all bad. For some reason I've been down on Clinton Portis this year. I think it's because Portis was dissed so frequently in last year's draft. The guy is quick, has good hands and gets most of the carries. He's a legit alternative to Marion Barber with a 7-10 pick.
-Stop with the early D/ST picks. I somehow cannot help myself from grabbing a D/ST in round 8-10. To prevent myself from making this mistake on draft day, I am trying to build a better list of desirable rookies and sleepers to look to once my starters are picked.
-Know why I picked every single player. I've looked over my rosters from previous years and there are some guys with no upside. Not now, not ever. So, new rule: If I can't state one really compelling reason to draft a player, I'm not taking him.
Overall, the thing that was lacking from my previous drafts was discipline. But this year, I'm turning all that around. I want to have teams that either look great on paper, or can be readily defended if otherwise.
-No QB's in rounds 1 and 2. I will not be swayed by the Golden Boy, nor will I be tempted to worry about Peyton's knee. I am absolutely picking a RB round 1 and a RB or WR round 2. There will be plenty of QB's to choose from in rounds 3, 4 and beyond.
-Portis is not all bad. For some reason I've been down on Clinton Portis this year. I think it's because Portis was dissed so frequently in last year's draft. The guy is quick, has good hands and gets most of the carries. He's a legit alternative to Marion Barber with a 7-10 pick.-Stop with the early D/ST picks. I somehow cannot help myself from grabbing a D/ST in round 8-10. To prevent myself from making this mistake on draft day, I am trying to build a better list of desirable rookies and sleepers to look to once my starters are picked.
-Know why I picked every single player. I've looked over my rosters from previous years and there are some guys with no upside. Not now, not ever. So, new rule: If I can't state one really compelling reason to draft a player, I'm not taking him.
Overall, the thing that was lacking from my previous drafts was discipline. But this year, I'm turning all that around. I want to have teams that either look great on paper, or can be readily defended if otherwise.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
It's Nice to Live Where Your Vote Doesn't Count
I want to start this post by saying that EVERYONE should vote. No exceptions. I believe that voting, regardless of who you vote for, grants you the right to bitch about our elected officials. But if you don't participate in the process, then suck it up and shut your mouth. I don't care what you think.
Now, having said that, I acknowledge that it can be frustrating to vote in general elections in a state that is strongly red or blue. If your candidate is of the appropriate political bent for your neck of the woods, their success is a foregone conclusion. And people like to vote for the underdog. We enjoy the thought that maybe it's our ballot that gets the win. On the flip side, if you know there's no way your candidate is ever going to win your state, then casting your vote is like spitting in the wind. So from a motivational perspective, it's good to live in a battleground state.
And according to the politicos at CNN.com, I now reside in a battleground state(Virginia). But because my living arrangement here is temporary, I will still be voting in NY via an absentee ballot. As a result, I'm getting the worst of both worlds. See, I'm going to be casting my vote in a Democratic stronghold (NY), where there is a certain inevitability to the electoral outcome. But I'm living in a battleground state, where I will be bombarded with political ads for Barack Obama and John McCain for the next 4 months.
Now if I had to decide between living and voting in a battleground state and being in the crossfire of massive partisan ad-buys, or living and voting in a very blue state where the outcome is certain, but television remains ad free, well... I think I'd rather be in New York. Sure it would be nice to feel like a true decision-maker, but it seems like my candidates never win anyway.
Now, having said that, I acknowledge that it can be frustrating to vote in general elections in a state that is strongly red or blue. If your candidate is of the appropriate political bent for your neck of the woods, their success is a foregone conclusion. And people like to vote for the underdog. We enjoy the thought that maybe it's our ballot that gets the win. On the flip side, if you know there's no way your candidate is ever going to win your state, then casting your vote is like spitting in the wind. So from a motivational perspective, it's good to live in a battleground state.
And according to the politicos at CNN.com, I now reside in a battleground state(Virginia). But because my living arrangement here is temporary, I will still be voting in NY via an absentee ballot. As a result, I'm getting the worst of both worlds. See, I'm going to be casting my vote in a Democratic stronghold (NY), where there is a certain inevitability to the electoral outcome. But I'm living in a battleground state, where I will be bombarded with political ads for Barack Obama and John McCain for the next 4 months.
Now if I had to decide between living and voting in a battleground state and being in the crossfire of massive partisan ad-buys, or living and voting in a very blue state where the outcome is certain, but television remains ad free, well... I think I'd rather be in New York. Sure it would be nice to feel like a true decision-maker, but it seems like my candidates never win anyway.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Context Sensitive
I was browsing CNN.com this afternoon and saw that both the Obama and McCain campaigns had spoken out about a controversial New Yorker cover. The cover, pictured at left, shows the Obamas fist-bumping while dressed like militants, with a US flag in the fireplace. Both campaigns have condemned the cover as tasteless and offensive. And it sure looks that way.The New Yorker responded that the cover was intended as satire. Their intention was to mock the perception of Obama that the right-wing propaganda machine is trying to create. Well why didn't you say so? Suddenly that cover is pretty darn funny. Too bad that no one at the New Yorker thought a caption might add some MUCH needed context to the image.
It just seems hard to believe that a group of editors could have that cartoon sitting on their desktops for a month and not one of them thought, ever so briefly, "You know what? The average American may not get this without a witty caption or one-liner."
Is the magazine publishing industry in such dire straights that these screwups are becoming commonplace? Let's ask the Golfweek editors who let fly with a noose on their cover after Kelly Tilghman's "lynching" remark. I know that it's tough selling glossy paper in a digital world. But that's no excuse for this type of mistake.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
iPhone 3G: Dodged the Bullet?
As I indicated in my post yesterday, today was the momentous launch of of the iPhone 3G. And I was pretty bummed I wasn't eligible to pick one up. But following widespread reports of long lines, significant wait times and serious difficulties activating the phones, I think I may be better off without an iPhone. At least for the moment. As early adopters of the the iPhone were burned last year by the rapid price decrease, so it seems that buying straight off the assembly line may not be the way to go.
In addition, there is a rising tide of vocal dissatisfaction around the globe at the ridiculous price of the data packages for the new iPhone. I would not be surprised if either the cost of the phone, or the cost of the data plan saw a reduction prior to the holiday season, when I'll be eligible to get one. Until then, I'll sit back, wait and watch.
In addition, there is a rising tide of vocal dissatisfaction around the globe at the ridiculous price of the data packages for the new iPhone. I would not be surprised if either the cost of the phone, or the cost of the data plan saw a reduction prior to the holiday season, when I'll be eligible to get one. Until then, I'll sit back, wait and watch.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
iPhone Dreams
The news is almost a month old, but on Friday Apple is releasing the new 3G version of the iPhone. I've been saying since the first iPhone was introduced, that as soon as Apple offered a version that ran on a 3G network and had Exchange support, I'd buy it. Now both these features have been added to to product and the price has dropped to $199 as well. So I decided the time was right to do away with my AT&T 8525 brick of a smartphone and make the plunge. One problem: When the original iPhone was introduced, AT&T allowed subscribers, regardless of where they were in their current plan, to make the switch to the iPhone with a new 2 year contract. But that was when AT&T wasn't subsidizing the cost of the iPhone.
Now, a year later, the drastic reduction in the price of the iPhone 3G is directly related to AT&T subsidizing about $200 of the cost. And since AT&T is footing the bill, if you're mid-contract with any handset other than the iPhone (which they didn't originally subsidize) then you're out of luck. You can either wait until you are eligible for an upgrade, or pay the unsubsidized price for the iPhone ($399 for the 8 GB model).
Regrettably, I'm not eligible for an upgrade until November of '08, and I'm not stupid enough to pay $400 now for a product that could see another price drop by the time I'm eligible for the discounted price. So for the moment, I'm stuck with the handset I've got and iPhone dreams.
Now, a year later, the drastic reduction in the price of the iPhone 3G is directly related to AT&T subsidizing about $200 of the cost. And since AT&T is footing the bill, if you're mid-contract with any handset other than the iPhone (which they didn't originally subsidize) then you're out of luck. You can either wait until you are eligible for an upgrade, or pay the unsubsidized price for the iPhone ($399 for the 8 GB model).
Regrettably, I'm not eligible for an upgrade until November of '08, and I'm not stupid enough to pay $400 now for a product that could see another price drop by the time I'm eligible for the discounted price. So for the moment, I'm stuck with the handset I've got and iPhone dreams.
Suze Orman on Oprah: Why I don't Watch Daytime TV
Yesterday afternoon I took my laptop into the bedroom between meetings and immediately regretted it. Emily was watching Oprah and Suze Ormanwas "counseling" couples who had gotten over their heads with consumer debt. I only saw one segment before I fled back to my office. The couple in question had $350,000 in debt, combined annual income of $140,000 and were expecting their first child. Of the 350k, 200k represented student loans, which they were struggling to repay. The rest was going towards their two Lexuses (Lexi? What is the plural form of Lexus?) (the guy referred to the car as "his baby" during the setup clip), a 900 DVD movie collection and a generally pimped out lifestyle. The collection agencies were calling all day, every day and these two had stopped picking up the phone.
Enter Suze Orman, the TV financial "expert." I've never seen Orman's daily show, but if her appearance on Oprah was indicative of the advice she usually gives, I fear for the financially uninformed viewers of the world. Here is a short summary of her "advice":
-"That car is your baby? No, that's your baby (points at wife's belly). That's your baby. That's your baby. That's... life(Oprah audience claps politely. Even they're not buying this crap)." Suze keeps ranting about the "baby" comment, and finally gets around to telling the guy to sell his cars, which he sheepishly admits he had already planned to do. No discussion of what car models or financing options might be more economical for a growing family.
-The DVD collection: "Get an iPod, copy the DVD's to the iPod. Sell the DVD's on ebay." Great idea Suze. Financial solvency through copyright infringement. When you purchase a movie or music album, you have a right to duplicate that media for private viewing on other mediums or for "backup" purposes. But once you sell the physical media, you can no longer claim ownership and any copies you made are considered pirated. Is the guy going to get busted for that type of infraction? No. Should a nationally syndicated financial advice guru be advocating movie piracy? Also no.
-Oprah promises that Suze will tell everyone how to do a personal financial checkup when she gets back from the break. Commercial break. Oprah comes back and sets up Suze to explain how to to the personal financial checkup. Suze promptly gets lost in the woods. "Oprah, you know that all the issues we've dealt with today are a result of trying to impress people we don't even know or like." No kidding, Suze? Have you met the average American lately. Of course we're trying to impress people we don't know. We are blasted hundreds of times a day with the idea that our car, house, clothes, computer, MP3 player and riding lawnmower must be better than our neighbor's. Blaming our cultural mindset for the uninhibited spending of the folks on the program is a cheap shot.
-Now Oprah appears peeved that Suze has still not gotten into this financial checkup thing and prompts her again. Suze wanders further into the forest. "Whenever you make a financial decision, ask yourself: "Is it kind, is it necessary, is it true?" WHAT? I'm trying to frame that advice in terms of a decision to buy an expensive new consumer product, and frankly, "kind" and "true" are not adjectives that factor into that decision. Oprah finally gives up and wraps the show by offering up a website (NOT associated with Orman) for viewers to go to and find out how to perform a financial checkup.
And there you have it. This couple has been belittled on national TV, and they are walking away without any kind of plan to get themselves out of trouble. Was it worth it just to sit on Oprah's soundstage for 15 minutes? This is why I can't stand daytime TV.
Enter Suze Orman, the TV financial "expert." I've never seen Orman's daily show, but if her appearance on Oprah was indicative of the advice she usually gives, I fear for the financially uninformed viewers of the world. Here is a short summary of her "advice":
-"That car is your baby? No, that's your baby (points at wife's belly). That's your baby. That's your baby. That's... life(Oprah audience claps politely. Even they're not buying this crap)." Suze keeps ranting about the "baby" comment, and finally gets around to telling the guy to sell his cars, which he sheepishly admits he had already planned to do. No discussion of what car models or financing options might be more economical for a growing family.
-The DVD collection: "Get an iPod, copy the DVD's to the iPod. Sell the DVD's on ebay." Great idea Suze. Financial solvency through copyright infringement. When you purchase a movie or music album, you have a right to duplicate that media for private viewing on other mediums or for "backup" purposes. But once you sell the physical media, you can no longer claim ownership and any copies you made are considered pirated. Is the guy going to get busted for that type of infraction? No. Should a nationally syndicated financial advice guru be advocating movie piracy? Also no.
-Oprah promises that Suze will tell everyone how to do a personal financial checkup when she gets back from the break. Commercial break. Oprah comes back and sets up Suze to explain how to to the personal financial checkup. Suze promptly gets lost in the woods. "Oprah, you know that all the issues we've dealt with today are a result of trying to impress people we don't even know or like." No kidding, Suze? Have you met the average American lately. Of course we're trying to impress people we don't know. We are blasted hundreds of times a day with the idea that our car, house, clothes, computer, MP3 player and riding lawnmower must be better than our neighbor's. Blaming our cultural mindset for the uninhibited spending of the folks on the program is a cheap shot.
-Now Oprah appears peeved that Suze has still not gotten into this financial checkup thing and prompts her again. Suze wanders further into the forest. "Whenever you make a financial decision, ask yourself: "Is it kind, is it necessary, is it true?" WHAT? I'm trying to frame that advice in terms of a decision to buy an expensive new consumer product, and frankly, "kind" and "true" are not adjectives that factor into that decision. Oprah finally gives up and wraps the show by offering up a website (NOT associated with Orman) for viewers to go to and find out how to perform a financial checkup.
And there you have it. This couple has been belittled on national TV, and they are walking away without any kind of plan to get themselves out of trouble. Was it worth it just to sit on Oprah's soundstage for 15 minutes? This is why I can't stand daytime TV.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
The Value of the EDB
As I continue my summer-long obsession with crafting the perfect fantasy football draft strategy, I am concerned that one of the most valuable commodities in FF is dying off. The unparalleled producer, the prize roster-dweller, the Every Down Back (EDB). These are the workhorses. The guys who combine talent and durability in a package so reliable that offensive coordinators will accept no substitutes. And with the popularity of the running back by committee principle (RBBC), drafting even a single EDB is no longer a certainty. And now even premier backs are being relegated to platoon duty thanks to an influx of talented rookies. New members of the committee system this season will include Willie Parker (thanks to Reshard Mendenhall), Justin Fargas (if McFadden > or = Peterson then Justin better be praying he gets the same timeshare deal in Oakland that Chester Taylor got in Minnestoa), Tatum Bell (Kevin Smith, meet Tatum Bell. Tatum, meet the bench), and DeAngelo Williams (Jonathon Stewart was built for goal-line carries). So the question is, with up-and-comers vulturing carries for established backs, is an over-the-hill, or questionable talent that gets all the carries more valuable than a truly talented back who's going to share carries? Before this latest bout of speculation, I would have skipped right over Frank Gore and Clinton Portis and taken a Maurice Jones-Drew if necessary. But now I'm not so sure. I'll have to see how the RBBC candidates shake out in pre-season before making a call. But I still submit that any draft pick after the five spot is going to be a painful pick. Maybe another mock will soothe my mind...
Monday, July 7, 2008
Federer vs. Nadal: Epic match, so what?
On Sunday Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal went at in what is already being called the greatest Wimbledon men's final ever. At a whopping 4 hours and 48 minutes, with 3 rain delays and five sets (the 5th going to 9-7), I'm not doubting the sports reporters calling Nadal's win "epic." But I have to wonder if anyone in the US cares. This was probably the most compelling setup for a men's tennis match in years, but few people in the US sat down to watch (and at almost 5 hours, can you blame us). Collectively, we seem to have a vague awareness of what goes on in the tennis world (An all Williams women's final is certainly good for the ratings), but we don't stop to watch. Some of that is because the dominant players are not American. In the absence of an American powerhouse, we turn to the international players/models for poster children (Sharapova, Kournikova, etc.). But our interest in those players has more to do with their men's magazine photo spreads than their game. With the exception of the emergence of the Williams sisters, tennis has offered little captivation for American audiences in the past decade. And in many ways, tennis shares that characteristic with another downtrodden enterprise in the US, the NHL.
OK, maybe comparing tennis and the NHL is a stretch. But when you think about what these sports have going against them, there are some similarities:
-Some of the best players are from international extraction. This is always going to kill American audiences. We want hometown heroes.
-There are no superstars. There are stars within both sports. But what makes a SUPERstar is talent and personality. A John McEnroe is the only thing that could potentially boost the American audience for tennis or hockey. But we live in such a high-performance era, that any tennis player with the athletic prowess to make it to the big show, must have an iron will and perfect focus to stay there. Racket tossing and shouting at the chair umpire are no longer eccentric and funny. They are signs of mental weakness. Hockey players, on the other hand, have always seemed to lack personality. Have you ever watched an interview with a hockey player? It's painful. I used to cover hockey games for RIT SportsZone and interviewing a hockey player after a game (whether they've won, lost, or set an NCAA saves record) is like pulling teeth.
-They're both kind of boring. In tennis, we have points. And lots of points go into a single game. And lots of games go into a set and a several sets go into a match. Are you kidding me? I love tennis. But as a spectator, when I see a drawn-out, scrambling for every-shot, flashing backhands and punishing overheads point, I kind of wish it counted for something. But think about it this way: In a men's match, where one opponent must score (at a minimum) 72 points to win 6-0, 6-0, 6-0. All of that work for 1/72 of a match just seems demoralizing. Hockey's problem is different, but no less mind numbing. The lines, the substitutions, the penalties and the power plays. There is something archaic about the game that does not lend itself to adoption by the casual fan. Even the 4 downs system in the NFL is easier to explain that an "icing" call.
But here's where they're different (and this is the important part). Tennis knows it's boring. Tennis knows it's champions are often unrecognizable. And it lives with those facts. Tennis is appreciative of the folks who do tune in to watch a Federer Nadal match and doesn't scold the audience and ask why they don't stop by more often. The NHL thinks it is bigger than it really is, or ever will be. Its executives whine that the NHL doesn't get enough TV coverage, but when the Stanley Cup is on, it's pulling in half the audience Dancing With the Stars manages. The NHL tries to keep up with the big three (NFL, MLB and NBA) and fails miserably. But instead of embracing the underdog mentality, the NHL will just keep upping player salaries and ticket prices until even the devoted fans have no avenue to the game itself. While tennis toils in obscurity, hockey toils against obscurity. And the NHL is losing.
OK, maybe comparing tennis and the NHL is a stretch. But when you think about what these sports have going against them, there are some similarities:
-Some of the best players are from international extraction. This is always going to kill American audiences. We want hometown heroes.
-There are no superstars. There are stars within both sports. But what makes a SUPERstar is talent and personality. A John McEnroe is the only thing that could potentially boost the American audience for tennis or hockey. But we live in such a high-performance era, that any tennis player with the athletic prowess to make it to the big show, must have an iron will and perfect focus to stay there. Racket tossing and shouting at the chair umpire are no longer eccentric and funny. They are signs of mental weakness. Hockey players, on the other hand, have always seemed to lack personality. Have you ever watched an interview with a hockey player? It's painful. I used to cover hockey games for RIT SportsZone and interviewing a hockey player after a game (whether they've won, lost, or set an NCAA saves record) is like pulling teeth.
-They're both kind of boring. In tennis, we have points. And lots of points go into a single game. And lots of games go into a set and a several sets go into a match. Are you kidding me? I love tennis. But as a spectator, when I see a drawn-out, scrambling for every-shot, flashing backhands and punishing overheads point, I kind of wish it counted for something. But think about it this way: In a men's match, where one opponent must score (at a minimum) 72 points to win 6-0, 6-0, 6-0. All of that work for 1/72 of a match just seems demoralizing. Hockey's problem is different, but no less mind numbing. The lines, the substitutions, the penalties and the power plays. There is something archaic about the game that does not lend itself to adoption by the casual fan. Even the 4 downs system in the NFL is easier to explain that an "icing" call.
But here's where they're different (and this is the important part). Tennis knows it's boring. Tennis knows it's champions are often unrecognizable. And it lives with those facts. Tennis is appreciative of the folks who do tune in to watch a Federer Nadal match and doesn't scold the audience and ask why they don't stop by more often. The NHL thinks it is bigger than it really is, or ever will be. Its executives whine that the NHL doesn't get enough TV coverage, but when the Stanley Cup is on, it's pulling in half the audience Dancing With the Stars manages. The NHL tries to keep up with the big three (NFL, MLB and NBA) and fails miserably. But instead of embracing the underdog mentality, the NHL will just keep upping player salaries and ticket prices until even the devoted fans have no avenue to the game itself. While tennis toils in obscurity, hockey toils against obscurity. And the NHL is losing.
Nike+ Experiment
Ok, you may have noticed that it is not in fact January 8th. Very astute. However, January 8th was the last time I uploaded run data to Nike+. And now that I have a blog, I wanted to see what it would look like to post run data. Now I just need to get myself up and moving so I can post new data.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
