I just finished the entire series of "Six Feet Under." It's 5 seasons long, it's about a funeral home, it has relatively decent character bases, pretty great actors, the first season is almost perfect, the second season is almost almost perfect, the third season starts to slip, the fourth season gets very soap opera-y, the fourth season also contains one of the strangest, if not the single weirdest episode of television I've ever seen in my life, the fifth season has some really interesting parts, and then when you hear people talk about "the finale being so perfect" and then it builds and you have no idea where it's going and it takes such strange turns and then every single scene in the last episode is so on point and poignant and not pretentious and true to the characters and the story, and then it ends...the way it does. It's just very hard to put into words. I suppose it's a bit telling that you can't put it into words, and the show didn't even put it into words. Don't worry that doesn't give it away, but words aren't meant to summarize the ending, or any ending for that matter, which is what the show is all about. You can't put it into words and, as the last lines of the show tell us,
"You can't take a picture of this, it's already gone"
This is as close to speechless as I've ever been moved to, and I think that's exactly what was supposed to happen. Tip of the hat to you Alan Ball. To Alan.
6.19.2009
Conversations you never thought you'd hear
Working in the restaurant business allows for many conversations you would never think would happen in this world to not only happen, but with high frequency. Here's a gem from the other night I was lucky enough to over hear:
Waitress: What would you like to eat?
Patron: Just some bread.
Waitress: What kind of bread?
Patron: Just some bread.
Waitress: We have a lot of different kinds of bread, any kind in particular?
Patron: You know...bread.
Waitress: I know what bread is.
Waitress: (in the retelling of the story to me) I know what bread is...jackass.
Waitress: What would you like to eat?
Patron: Just some bread.
Waitress: What kind of bread?
Patron: Just some bread.
Waitress: We have a lot of different kinds of bread, any kind in particular?
Patron: You know...bread.
Waitress: I know what bread is.
Waitress: (in the retelling of the story to me) I know what bread is...jackass.
6.16.2009
Strangest sitcom turn...*spoiler alert
So I finally caught up on watching Weeds last night. Finished up season 4 and then watched the 5 premiere. This show has taken one of the strangest turns I've ever seen.
Weeds used to be about a white suburban single mom selling pot. Then it was about a white suburban mom selling a lot of pot. Then she sold heroine. Then they decided there wasn't much left to do in suburbia so they literally burned it down, and it became a show about a mom taking her family on the run...and selling drugs. Then she became affiliated with a big Mexican mafioso. And now it's about a white suburban mom having a Mexican mafia boss' love child...which, needless to say, is very far away from selling pot in suburbia.
I still consider the end of the show the end of season 3, when Agrestic was burned to the ground. That seemed the natural ending to the series, but since it's television, it obviously wouldn't end at 3 seasons since it's so popular. Now it just seems to be about "how else can we make Nancy's life even more complicated..."
I'll obviously still keep watching, because even for its wacky plot twists, it's still one of the better shows on TV, which also says a lot. Plus the comedy is still there and still mostly on point. They actually made a very funny Facebook joke in the 5 premiere.
Mainly I'll keep watching because I want to see where the hell they can go from here. I'm curious if the writers have any idea or if they're just pulling ideas out of their ass, or from Nancy's uterus.
Weeds used to be about a white suburban single mom selling pot. Then it was about a white suburban mom selling a lot of pot. Then she sold heroine. Then they decided there wasn't much left to do in suburbia so they literally burned it down, and it became a show about a mom taking her family on the run...and selling drugs. Then she became affiliated with a big Mexican mafioso. And now it's about a white suburban mom having a Mexican mafia boss' love child...which, needless to say, is very far away from selling pot in suburbia.
I still consider the end of the show the end of season 3, when Agrestic was burned to the ground. That seemed the natural ending to the series, but since it's television, it obviously wouldn't end at 3 seasons since it's so popular. Now it just seems to be about "how else can we make Nancy's life even more complicated..."
I'll obviously still keep watching, because even for its wacky plot twists, it's still one of the better shows on TV, which also says a lot. Plus the comedy is still there and still mostly on point. They actually made a very funny Facebook joke in the 5 premiere.
Mainly I'll keep watching because I want to see where the hell they can go from here. I'm curious if the writers have any idea or if they're just pulling ideas out of their ass, or from Nancy's uterus.
6.05.2009
If you thought 250 was great...
Then youll love Randy Johnson's 300th win last night, also against the Nationals.
Randy Johnson is about as opposite as Jaime Moyer, other than the fact that both are lefties. Randy Johnson is 6'10 and in his prime, which lasted a long time, was the most dominate pitcher out there. A lefty who throws 95-105 mph, will pitch inside, will never back down from any batter, and has one mean ass stare, that was Randy Johnson.
You can remember RJ from his time in Seattle, when he and Griffey Jr. put the Mariners into the playoffs several years in a row. You can remember RJ from his time in Arizona where he and Schilling led the team to their first World Series win, as he and Schilling were co-MVPs.
Another big 300 is strikeouts in a season, an accomplishment equivalent to 4000 passing yards in a season. Johnson reached this 5 times in his career, including 4 years in a row from 1999 to 2002, where he also won 4 straight Cy Young awards. He left Seattle in 1998, looking like maybe he was waning in his career. From there he went to Houston, Arizona, then back to the AL to the Yanks and back to Arizona and now in San Fransisco.
Johnson becomes only the 24th player ever to reach 300 wins, and could very well be the last player ever to do so. Just in how baseball is played these days, guys don't pitch as much as they used to, which influences the amount of wins. Pitchers these days have pitch counts, inning counts, injuries all mean pampered pitchers that don't want to go 7, 8 or 9 innings, which means more relievers are going to get wins.
Congratulations to The Big Unit, Randy Johnson and to baseball history.
Randy Johnson is about as opposite as Jaime Moyer, other than the fact that both are lefties. Randy Johnson is 6'10 and in his prime, which lasted a long time, was the most dominate pitcher out there. A lefty who throws 95-105 mph, will pitch inside, will never back down from any batter, and has one mean ass stare, that was Randy Johnson.
You can remember RJ from his time in Seattle, when he and Griffey Jr. put the Mariners into the playoffs several years in a row. You can remember RJ from his time in Arizona where he and Schilling led the team to their first World Series win, as he and Schilling were co-MVPs.
Another big 300 is strikeouts in a season, an accomplishment equivalent to 4000 passing yards in a season. Johnson reached this 5 times in his career, including 4 years in a row from 1999 to 2002, where he also won 4 straight Cy Young awards. He left Seattle in 1998, looking like maybe he was waning in his career. From there he went to Houston, Arizona, then back to the AL to the Yanks and back to Arizona and now in San Fransisco.
Johnson becomes only the 24th player ever to reach 300 wins, and could very well be the last player ever to do so. Just in how baseball is played these days, guys don't pitch as much as they used to, which influences the amount of wins. Pitchers these days have pitch counts, inning counts, injuries all mean pampered pitchers that don't want to go 7, 8 or 9 innings, which means more relievers are going to get wins.
Congratulations to The Big Unit, Randy Johnson and to baseball history.
6.01.2009
#250
Last night Jaime Moyer joined an elite group of pitchers in baseball history. He won his 250th career game, at the tender age of 46.
Moyer won't get the acclaim of a lot of hall of fame pitchers who are also on that list, mainly because he's in his 23rd season of play, has a career ERA of 4.22 and only 2200+ career strike outs.
What makes Moyer a great pitcher is his work ethic and his command of the skill of pitching. He never had a lights out fastball, in fact, his fastball never really hit over 80 miles per hour. He never really had a strong curve ball. He just knew how to throw the ball over the plate, hit his location and get people out.
He's played for 7 different teams, and looks like he'll finish out his career in Philadelphia. He's also under contract for 1 more year, so it's likely he'll play the 2010 season as well.
What makes this accomplishment noteworthy is that Moyer could be the last guy to reach 250 wins for a very long time. The only 2 guys with over 200 wins pitching right now are John Smoltz and Andy Pettite. Both are waining and would need 2-3 more full seasons to really get close to 250, and with injuries, it doesn't look likely. No one else with 180-190 wins looks like they'll reach it, so it could be up to some younger guys like Johan Santana (116 wins so far at age 30 or Roy Halladay 139 wins at 32. Both of them have the pitching abilities to reach it, but it would take a combination of winning teams and injury free baseball for roughly the next 5-7 years for them to even come close.
Something to keep an eye on over the next few years. For now, Moyer gets to be the latest in a group of historical pitchers.
Moyer won't get the acclaim of a lot of hall of fame pitchers who are also on that list, mainly because he's in his 23rd season of play, has a career ERA of 4.22 and only 2200+ career strike outs.
What makes Moyer a great pitcher is his work ethic and his command of the skill of pitching. He never had a lights out fastball, in fact, his fastball never really hit over 80 miles per hour. He never really had a strong curve ball. He just knew how to throw the ball over the plate, hit his location and get people out.
He's played for 7 different teams, and looks like he'll finish out his career in Philadelphia. He's also under contract for 1 more year, so it's likely he'll play the 2010 season as well.
What makes this accomplishment noteworthy is that Moyer could be the last guy to reach 250 wins for a very long time. The only 2 guys with over 200 wins pitching right now are John Smoltz and Andy Pettite. Both are waining and would need 2-3 more full seasons to really get close to 250, and with injuries, it doesn't look likely. No one else with 180-190 wins looks like they'll reach it, so it could be up to some younger guys like Johan Santana (116 wins so far at age 30 or Roy Halladay 139 wins at 32. Both of them have the pitching abilities to reach it, but it would take a combination of winning teams and injury free baseball for roughly the next 5-7 years for them to even come close.
Something to keep an eye on over the next few years. For now, Moyer gets to be the latest in a group of historical pitchers.
5.31.2009
Of all the movies...
There's a lot I could blog about. There are a lot of things I could talk about. There are a lot of movies I could talk about. But I'm going to talk about Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation.
Directed by Kim Henkel. Less importantly starring Mathew McCounahay who gets to be in the scariest role you will ever see him in, Rene Zellwegger in a strange role and a few other B actors. More importantly Kim Henkel was the co-writer for the original 1974 Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
So it came on, and as there is little to watch on a Saturday night, I figured a bad horror movie could always be fun. Usually I give a movie I forsee as going to be "bad" about 15 minutes to see if theres some hook. It doesn't have to be a good one, just some reason not to change the channel to Sportscenter repeats, just some reason why this movie was made.
It starts off very on the nose and boring and 70s, but it was made in '94 so there had to be some reason? Was it motif or just bad film making? I dunno, kept watching 10 minutes in. Still very scripted, but it's getting more obvious. Maybe it will be campy? 94 wasn't really into campy horror though, the late 80s and early 90s were much more about sequels and serialized horror. The Jasons, Freddys, Hellraisers, were all sequelized in the 90s. So this remake could just as easily be...really bad horror...and then there's this turn.
There had been one jump scare so far, the rest was all ambiance fear, setting mood and what not. A female character, the dumb prom queen one, waits in the front of the creepy house while her boyfriend, the obnoxious jock, goes around the back. In frame is simply the girl on a porch bench and then slowly, with no jump, a large figure enters the frame. He moves his way over, but is too tall for the screen. We can only see him from the waist down, so we know he's huge. And he just stands behind her. He very slowly waves at her hair with a few fingers. She bats it away. Again. A few times. Then it just cuts away. Nice, light, simple. This was not a 90s movie.
From there it makes a lot of really interesting choices in terms of horror and gore, who gets killed, how, how someone escapes and all that. McConaughey plays an incredibly creepy sadistic lunatic with a robotic leg, for some reason. The interesting choice made here is what they did with McConaughey and the other villains. Our heroes were stereotyped action figures. There was the heroine who was shy and quiet and everyone made fun of her, there was the prom queen who was really wishing to be more free, the jock who didn't fear anything, and the geeky guy who got to die. None of them had any sort of backstory. Usually what horror tries to do is bury you in the hero's life so you feel apart of it, so when it gets scared, you get scared. This movie does the exact opposite. It humanizes the villains...to a degree. It's not a horror movie like Seven which is based in realism, the world in this movie is still cartoonish, as most horror. But this time the horror isn't the cartoon, the heroes are.
The purpose for this becomes incredibly clear near the end, when a mysterious black car drives up to the house. A french man gets out, walks in, and tries to calm down Rene Zellwegger. Then he berates and beats McConaughey for "not being scary enough." It's vague and ridiculous, but not absurd. He tells McConaughey to really scare her, he wants her to know what real fear is, and that he is just being a "silly boy." Then he leaves. Then there's a brutal killing, which I'll spare the details for the weaker of the readers, but trust me, it was pretty cruel. Then there's a big chase scene, Rene gets out and eventually McConaughey dies, in a ridiculous fashion. And Leatherface, remember, this is a Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie, as a complete cross dresser (which he always was, but by the end of the movie is in full on wacky attire). After McConaughey dies, the black car is there, and Rene gets in to have a final conversation with the French guy. He explains that his intent was to really scare people into having a spiritual experience. That he really tried to scare people for good. And that now, the people he hires are so far out of whack and so far gone with gore and needless violence that they have forgotten what they were supposed to do in the first place.
I don't know if Henkel was trying to say anything about the horror industry or not. I don't know if he was calling out everyone who sold out and made a copy of a movie that hurt a genre that was finally making progress. I don't know if Henkel was just bitter that what he tried to create spawned awful sequels (one of which stars Viggo Mortenson, I gotta find that one) that ultimately set horror back at least 10-20 years. I don't know Kim Henkel. I do like his movies though.
Directed by Kim Henkel. Less importantly starring Mathew McCounahay who gets to be in the scariest role you will ever see him in, Rene Zellwegger in a strange role and a few other B actors. More importantly Kim Henkel was the co-writer for the original 1974 Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
So it came on, and as there is little to watch on a Saturday night, I figured a bad horror movie could always be fun. Usually I give a movie I forsee as going to be "bad" about 15 minutes to see if theres some hook. It doesn't have to be a good one, just some reason not to change the channel to Sportscenter repeats, just some reason why this movie was made.
It starts off very on the nose and boring and 70s, but it was made in '94 so there had to be some reason? Was it motif or just bad film making? I dunno, kept watching 10 minutes in. Still very scripted, but it's getting more obvious. Maybe it will be campy? 94 wasn't really into campy horror though, the late 80s and early 90s were much more about sequels and serialized horror. The Jasons, Freddys, Hellraisers, were all sequelized in the 90s. So this remake could just as easily be...really bad horror...and then there's this turn.
There had been one jump scare so far, the rest was all ambiance fear, setting mood and what not. A female character, the dumb prom queen one, waits in the front of the creepy house while her boyfriend, the obnoxious jock, goes around the back. In frame is simply the girl on a porch bench and then slowly, with no jump, a large figure enters the frame. He moves his way over, but is too tall for the screen. We can only see him from the waist down, so we know he's huge. And he just stands behind her. He very slowly waves at her hair with a few fingers. She bats it away. Again. A few times. Then it just cuts away. Nice, light, simple. This was not a 90s movie.
From there it makes a lot of really interesting choices in terms of horror and gore, who gets killed, how, how someone escapes and all that. McConaughey plays an incredibly creepy sadistic lunatic with a robotic leg, for some reason. The interesting choice made here is what they did with McConaughey and the other villains. Our heroes were stereotyped action figures. There was the heroine who was shy and quiet and everyone made fun of her, there was the prom queen who was really wishing to be more free, the jock who didn't fear anything, and the geeky guy who got to die. None of them had any sort of backstory. Usually what horror tries to do is bury you in the hero's life so you feel apart of it, so when it gets scared, you get scared. This movie does the exact opposite. It humanizes the villains...to a degree. It's not a horror movie like Seven which is based in realism, the world in this movie is still cartoonish, as most horror. But this time the horror isn't the cartoon, the heroes are.
The purpose for this becomes incredibly clear near the end, when a mysterious black car drives up to the house. A french man gets out, walks in, and tries to calm down Rene Zellwegger. Then he berates and beats McConaughey for "not being scary enough." It's vague and ridiculous, but not absurd. He tells McConaughey to really scare her, he wants her to know what real fear is, and that he is just being a "silly boy." Then he leaves. Then there's a brutal killing, which I'll spare the details for the weaker of the readers, but trust me, it was pretty cruel. Then there's a big chase scene, Rene gets out and eventually McConaughey dies, in a ridiculous fashion. And Leatherface, remember, this is a Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie, as a complete cross dresser (which he always was, but by the end of the movie is in full on wacky attire). After McConaughey dies, the black car is there, and Rene gets in to have a final conversation with the French guy. He explains that his intent was to really scare people into having a spiritual experience. That he really tried to scare people for good. And that now, the people he hires are so far out of whack and so far gone with gore and needless violence that they have forgotten what they were supposed to do in the first place.
I don't know if Henkel was trying to say anything about the horror industry or not. I don't know if he was calling out everyone who sold out and made a copy of a movie that hurt a genre that was finally making progress. I don't know if Henkel was just bitter that what he tried to create spawned awful sequels (one of which stars Viggo Mortenson, I gotta find that one) that ultimately set horror back at least 10-20 years. I don't know Kim Henkel. I do like his movies though.
5.14.2009
The way to act in the NBA
In case any of you don't keep up with NBA news, tonight the Dallas Mavericks lost to the Denver Nuggets, in Denver, advancing Denver to their first trip to the conference finals in 20 some odd years. Aside from always being happy when Dallas exits the playoffs, this year has a little more sugar on top.
Here's the story regarding the Mavericks, Mark Cuban, Keyon Martin's mother and the city of Dallas:
So Denver was the far superior team, talent wise. This was evident by the first few games not being close. In game 3, the Nuggets were down by 2 with 3 seconds left. The Mavs had a foul to give, which means they could foul someone without that person shooting free throws. The strategy here is to foul someone because it takes time off the clock and prevents a shot from the Nuggets. Without getting into the philosophy of whether or not this tactic is ethical or not, what happened was the Mavs player "tried" to foul Carmello Anthony (out of...championship winning Syracuse), but the foul wasn't called and Mello hit a 3, giving them the lead with about a second to go. This was cause for controversy because the Mavs player "tried" to foul him, but whether or not a foul is called is up to the refs, and they didn't call the foul.
After the game, Mark Cuban, the Mavs owner, was so irate that as he was leaving the stadium he walked past Kenyon Martin (big center for Denver)'s mother and to her face, called her son a reckless thug, and proceeded to heckle her further. A defenseless mother, sitting in the stands, just happy to see her son playing basketball, was yelled at because Mark Cuban has the temper of a 5 year old. The entire Denver team called out Dallas saying they needed an apology. They never received one.
Game 4 was played in Dallas, and Mark Cuban's actions riled up the fans to the point where they heckled Martin's mother and Carmello's fiance in the crowd. A lack of an apology or any real recognition of fault on the organization's part lead to even more unnecessary taunting. Dallas overcame a deficit in the game, and won.
It wasn't until yesterday that Mark Cuban apologized. Via his blog. Now, I'm all for blogging, and Cuban keeps up a decent blog, as idiotic and juvenile as it is. But that's how you apologize? On the blog, Cuban said, "I apologize for my actions and the next time Martin's family is in Dallas they can stay with me and my family in my suite."
Chauncey Billups, Denver point guard, said, "We still feel like Mark needs to apologize in person. And we don't plan on coming back to Dallas." Billups was implying that they wouldn't need to play a game 6, meaning they would take care of Dallas tonight in Denver. And they did, handily, thank God.
Mark Cuban is a pain in the side of the NBA, and sports in general. For a while I thought that his antics were fun and innocent, but after a point, you have to grow up. The entire organization is a joke, from the ground up. These are people that have an influence on the way people feel, and to ignore tact and respect is just absurd.
To emphasize my point, I want to point out this "situation" with Glen Davis and the little kid he shoved. Here's what happened there: Glen Davis hits a game winning jump shot with 2 seconds to go and in his moment of elation and celebration, he sprints down the court and inadvertently pushes a little kid who was standing court side. After the game, the kid's father called Davis, "a reckless animal." From watching it, it was obviously apparent Davis didn't see the kid, seeing as how Davis is plus 6 feet and 250 pounds, and the kid was about 3 feet tall. Davis, however, did publicly apologize saying, "I'm a big guy and sometimes I can't even feel when I sit on the remote. I didn't see the kid, I didn't mean to cause anyone harm and if I caused anyone pain I apologize."
How's that for the way to act? He didn't owe anyone an apology. But he comes out, makes sure everyone is ok, and handles himself with poise and humor. The father of the kid has even since come out and apologized for his harsh behavior. So everyone has apologized and everyone is happy.
This is just the difference between a caliber team like the Celtics versus the caliber of a team like the Mavericks. From the players to coaches to the owners, everyone makes a difference on a sports team and it's about time some people realized that.
There are sports figures who can be heroes. There are sports figures who can lift spirits and bring people together. There are sports figures who can make people feel elation and joy and pride. Then there are sports figures who curse out old ladies.
Thank God we don't have to put up with Mark Cuban anymore, at least until next basketball season.
Here's the story regarding the Mavericks, Mark Cuban, Keyon Martin's mother and the city of Dallas:
So Denver was the far superior team, talent wise. This was evident by the first few games not being close. In game 3, the Nuggets were down by 2 with 3 seconds left. The Mavs had a foul to give, which means they could foul someone without that person shooting free throws. The strategy here is to foul someone because it takes time off the clock and prevents a shot from the Nuggets. Without getting into the philosophy of whether or not this tactic is ethical or not, what happened was the Mavs player "tried" to foul Carmello Anthony (out of...championship winning Syracuse), but the foul wasn't called and Mello hit a 3, giving them the lead with about a second to go. This was cause for controversy because the Mavs player "tried" to foul him, but whether or not a foul is called is up to the refs, and they didn't call the foul.
After the game, Mark Cuban, the Mavs owner, was so irate that as he was leaving the stadium he walked past Kenyon Martin (big center for Denver)'s mother and to her face, called her son a reckless thug, and proceeded to heckle her further. A defenseless mother, sitting in the stands, just happy to see her son playing basketball, was yelled at because Mark Cuban has the temper of a 5 year old. The entire Denver team called out Dallas saying they needed an apology. They never received one.
Game 4 was played in Dallas, and Mark Cuban's actions riled up the fans to the point where they heckled Martin's mother and Carmello's fiance in the crowd. A lack of an apology or any real recognition of fault on the organization's part lead to even more unnecessary taunting. Dallas overcame a deficit in the game, and won.
It wasn't until yesterday that Mark Cuban apologized. Via his blog. Now, I'm all for blogging, and Cuban keeps up a decent blog, as idiotic and juvenile as it is. But that's how you apologize? On the blog, Cuban said, "I apologize for my actions and the next time Martin's family is in Dallas they can stay with me and my family in my suite."
Chauncey Billups, Denver point guard, said, "We still feel like Mark needs to apologize in person. And we don't plan on coming back to Dallas." Billups was implying that they wouldn't need to play a game 6, meaning they would take care of Dallas tonight in Denver. And they did, handily, thank God.
Mark Cuban is a pain in the side of the NBA, and sports in general. For a while I thought that his antics were fun and innocent, but after a point, you have to grow up. The entire organization is a joke, from the ground up. These are people that have an influence on the way people feel, and to ignore tact and respect is just absurd.
To emphasize my point, I want to point out this "situation" with Glen Davis and the little kid he shoved. Here's what happened there: Glen Davis hits a game winning jump shot with 2 seconds to go and in his moment of elation and celebration, he sprints down the court and inadvertently pushes a little kid who was standing court side. After the game, the kid's father called Davis, "a reckless animal." From watching it, it was obviously apparent Davis didn't see the kid, seeing as how Davis is plus 6 feet and 250 pounds, and the kid was about 3 feet tall. Davis, however, did publicly apologize saying, "I'm a big guy and sometimes I can't even feel when I sit on the remote. I didn't see the kid, I didn't mean to cause anyone harm and if I caused anyone pain I apologize."
How's that for the way to act? He didn't owe anyone an apology. But he comes out, makes sure everyone is ok, and handles himself with poise and humor. The father of the kid has even since come out and apologized for his harsh behavior. So everyone has apologized and everyone is happy.
This is just the difference between a caliber team like the Celtics versus the caliber of a team like the Mavericks. From the players to coaches to the owners, everyone makes a difference on a sports team and it's about time some people realized that.
There are sports figures who can be heroes. There are sports figures who can lift spirits and bring people together. There are sports figures who can make people feel elation and joy and pride. Then there are sports figures who curse out old ladies.
Thank God we don't have to put up with Mark Cuban anymore, at least until next basketball season.
5.12.2009
Because everyone needs to know
Tonight marks the tallest pitching match up in baseball history. Meaning tonight there was a match up of pitchers whose combined height is the tallest in recorded history.
It was Randy Johnson 6"10 vs. Daniel Cabrera 6"9
That's all. You just needed to know that.
It was Randy Johnson 6"10 vs. Daniel Cabrera 6"9
That's all. You just needed to know that.
4.24.2009
Another Year
Daily Overview: April 24, 2009
You don't always feel comfortable offering criticism, preferring to let things and people be who they are. Today, though, you have to speak out about something that doesn't sit well with you.
You don't always feel comfortable offering criticism, preferring to let things and people be who they are. Today, though, you have to speak out about something that doesn't sit well with you.
4.15.2009
Happy #42 Day
I never cared as much about acceptance as much as I cared about respect
-- Jackie Robinson
Today marks the anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking the race barrier in baseball.
One news reporter said, "it's amazing what Jackie did for the game of baseball, considering that it was his 4th best sport. He was better at football, basketball and track and field."
-- Jackie Robinson
Today marks the anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking the race barrier in baseball.
One news reporter said, "it's amazing what Jackie did for the game of baseball, considering that it was his 4th best sport. He was better at football, basketball and track and field."
4.01.2009
This just in...my parents are more savvy than any of you
So I sent out a text message today to many of my friends. The text read, "I have refound religion. I will be entering JTS to become a rabbi"
I received responses, including:
"Cool" (x2 of you)
"What's JTS" (Jewish Theological Seminary, located uptown)
Alex asked me why this was special news for today
Linda said she supported me as long as I grew out a beard
And I had one of you going for longer than I thought I would.
In fact only one of my friends actually caught on to the joke.
My parents, however, are more clever than any of you.
Dad's response: Mazal tov! Happy April 1st!
Mom's response: Do they have rabbis in antarctica?
Happy April Fools Day everyone. You're mostly all fools!
I received responses, including:
"Cool" (x2 of you)
"What's JTS" (Jewish Theological Seminary, located uptown)
Alex asked me why this was special news for today
Linda said she supported me as long as I grew out a beard
And I had one of you going for longer than I thought I would.
In fact only one of my friends actually caught on to the joke.
My parents, however, are more clever than any of you.
Dad's response: Mazal tov! Happy April 1st!
Mom's response: Do they have rabbis in antarctica?
Happy April Fools Day everyone. You're mostly all fools!
3.24.2009
The World Baseball Classic and Curt Schilling
The 2nd World Baseball Classic just finished, in particularly fitting fashion, with an Ichiro single up the middle in the top of the 10th to score 2 to seal Japan's 2nd win.
Here's the deal with the WBC: It was organized a few years ago by Bud Selig (current MLB commishioner) decided that baseball needed to be popularized and televised all over the world, and that baseball should be recognized on an international level. Plus, he gets the political points for creating an event that brings nations together and raises potential income and revenue to smaller countries like Cuba. Either way, the tournement is meant to build prestige and for the world to see players it would normally not see, which is a great idea.
The problem we run in to is, well, it's the American spirit. To the US, baseball is still a job to most players. They play for their paycheck and that's that. I don't look down on that, but when given the chance to represent something bigger than your team or even yourself, that being your country, it would be nice to see our team put their best foot forward. The problem America runs in to is that the WBC comes roughly 4-5 weeks before the beginning of the MLB season. So many players won't play because they want to get in shape with their teams, they want to spend time with their families and they don't want to risk any serious injury before the season. While this is completely understandable, you look at other countries (like Japan, Korea or Cuba) and you can see the energy in their eyes and in their play.
Baseball is a sport unlike all other sports in that it requires heart and a full desire to win more than the other team. I'm not saying that you don't need that energy to take the ball in the 4th quarter and lead your team down the field and throw a winning touchdown in the corner of the endzone to a receiver who catches it over 2 defenders with his toes gliding over the tips of the corner grass blades in the endzone for the winning Super Bowl catch. But baseball is a game that requires you to play with 100% effort the entire game. Baseball only ends when it ends, there's no clock. You can't have a great first half and then play a sloppy second half and still win by 12 points. In any given inning you can implode and lose a 10 run lead. If the other team wants it more, they'll take it.
You could tell in the eyes of the US players that they weren't in it to win it. They were there to put in a good showing, to get amped up a little bit, to be exciting a little bit against Puerto Rico, but then when facing a team that they could beat but would really need to try hard, eh, Brian Roberts will let a few grounders by, Adam Dunn won't chase down a routine single, Derek Jeter won't throw off his feet and Roy Oswalt will just throw it over the plate. Chipper Jones won't play because his thigh hurts, Dustin Pedrioa didn't want to play because of a sore abdomen, not to mention all the guys that just didn't want to play. Ichiro starts the season the same time as the rest of these guys, and you can tell he's already playing in midseason form. That may be because Ichiro is always in midseason form, nevertheless, they wanted the win more. Korea put up a hell of a show taking it into 10 innings, and they played with a ton of heart.
So what's the problem? The problem is that this competition is a new competition, and will only gain respect if it is played with respect. If the WBC will ever mean anything to anyone inside the US, we have to take it seriously. You can be sure that Japan is celebrating right now. Korea is mourning their loss. Puerto Rico can't wait to face us again. And we couldn't really care less. We just show up to work. This is a competition that can really mean something, it can really bring out the best in players and in the game, but until we give it some credit, it never will. Granted, it is in its second round and should take a few more to build up prestige. But if you wanted to buy a WBC shirt or hat, I"m sure that would help out some.
In other news, Curt Schilling retired today. Curt happened to be my favorite player, ever since I learned the game, had him on my fantasy team, watched him pitch in person, watched him win a World Series, watched him pitch through pain, watched him win another world series, watched him care more about the game and his team than himself, and listened to his animated blog. Curt became my favorite player when I learned with a complete game was. When a pitcher pitches the entire game, when he tells his coach that he's going to finish what he started, that he doesn't care if he's winning or losing he's going to be the only one who pitched in this game, that's a complete game.
Karl Ravech, ESPN baseball analyst said this," Seriously, think about some of the most memorable moments in baseball history. Joe Carter's walk-off home run in Game 6 of the 1993 World Series to give the title to the Blue Jays. Yes, it broke the Phillies. But without Curt Schilling throwing a five-hit, 147-pitch complete game shutout in Game 5, the Phillies wouldn't have seen Game 6. So without that effort from Schilling in Game 5, there is no Joe Carter moment in Game 6. Also keep this in mind: That Game 5 gem came a night after a Phillies implosion. They wasted a 14-9, seventh-inning lead against the Blue Jays. The Phillies were crushed. But here came Schilling, the very next night, with the wound still fresh, and he put the Phils on his back to keep their postseason alive."
147 pitches is almost unheard of. Your arm feels like it's going to fall off after about 80-90 pitches. Topping 100 is a big deal these days. 147 is running on literal fumes.
So a tip of the hat to Curt. I can only hope that his future involves coaching or managing, or at the very least a talk show on ESPN.
Here's the deal with the WBC: It was organized a few years ago by Bud Selig (current MLB commishioner) decided that baseball needed to be popularized and televised all over the world, and that baseball should be recognized on an international level. Plus, he gets the political points for creating an event that brings nations together and raises potential income and revenue to smaller countries like Cuba. Either way, the tournement is meant to build prestige and for the world to see players it would normally not see, which is a great idea.
The problem we run in to is, well, it's the American spirit. To the US, baseball is still a job to most players. They play for their paycheck and that's that. I don't look down on that, but when given the chance to represent something bigger than your team or even yourself, that being your country, it would be nice to see our team put their best foot forward. The problem America runs in to is that the WBC comes roughly 4-5 weeks before the beginning of the MLB season. So many players won't play because they want to get in shape with their teams, they want to spend time with their families and they don't want to risk any serious injury before the season. While this is completely understandable, you look at other countries (like Japan, Korea or Cuba) and you can see the energy in their eyes and in their play.
Baseball is a sport unlike all other sports in that it requires heart and a full desire to win more than the other team. I'm not saying that you don't need that energy to take the ball in the 4th quarter and lead your team down the field and throw a winning touchdown in the corner of the endzone to a receiver who catches it over 2 defenders with his toes gliding over the tips of the corner grass blades in the endzone for the winning Super Bowl catch. But baseball is a game that requires you to play with 100% effort the entire game. Baseball only ends when it ends, there's no clock. You can't have a great first half and then play a sloppy second half and still win by 12 points. In any given inning you can implode and lose a 10 run lead. If the other team wants it more, they'll take it.
You could tell in the eyes of the US players that they weren't in it to win it. They were there to put in a good showing, to get amped up a little bit, to be exciting a little bit against Puerto Rico, but then when facing a team that they could beat but would really need to try hard, eh, Brian Roberts will let a few grounders by, Adam Dunn won't chase down a routine single, Derek Jeter won't throw off his feet and Roy Oswalt will just throw it over the plate. Chipper Jones won't play because his thigh hurts, Dustin Pedrioa didn't want to play because of a sore abdomen, not to mention all the guys that just didn't want to play. Ichiro starts the season the same time as the rest of these guys, and you can tell he's already playing in midseason form. That may be because Ichiro is always in midseason form, nevertheless, they wanted the win more. Korea put up a hell of a show taking it into 10 innings, and they played with a ton of heart.
So what's the problem? The problem is that this competition is a new competition, and will only gain respect if it is played with respect. If the WBC will ever mean anything to anyone inside the US, we have to take it seriously. You can be sure that Japan is celebrating right now. Korea is mourning their loss. Puerto Rico can't wait to face us again. And we couldn't really care less. We just show up to work. This is a competition that can really mean something, it can really bring out the best in players and in the game, but until we give it some credit, it never will. Granted, it is in its second round and should take a few more to build up prestige. But if you wanted to buy a WBC shirt or hat, I"m sure that would help out some.
In other news, Curt Schilling retired today. Curt happened to be my favorite player, ever since I learned the game, had him on my fantasy team, watched him pitch in person, watched him win a World Series, watched him pitch through pain, watched him win another world series, watched him care more about the game and his team than himself, and listened to his animated blog. Curt became my favorite player when I learned with a complete game was. When a pitcher pitches the entire game, when he tells his coach that he's going to finish what he started, that he doesn't care if he's winning or losing he's going to be the only one who pitched in this game, that's a complete game.
Karl Ravech, ESPN baseball analyst said this," Seriously, think about some of the most memorable moments in baseball history. Joe Carter's walk-off home run in Game 6 of the 1993 World Series to give the title to the Blue Jays. Yes, it broke the Phillies. But without Curt Schilling throwing a five-hit, 147-pitch complete game shutout in Game 5, the Phillies wouldn't have seen Game 6. So without that effort from Schilling in Game 5, there is no Joe Carter moment in Game 6. Also keep this in mind: That Game 5 gem came a night after a Phillies implosion. They wasted a 14-9, seventh-inning lead against the Blue Jays. The Phillies were crushed. But here came Schilling, the very next night, with the wound still fresh, and he put the Phils on his back to keep their postseason alive."
147 pitches is almost unheard of. Your arm feels like it's going to fall off after about 80-90 pitches. Topping 100 is a big deal these days. 147 is running on literal fumes.
So a tip of the hat to Curt. I can only hope that his future involves coaching or managing, or at the very least a talk show on ESPN.
3.12.2009
Is it March already?
So in the past few weeks/months I have:
Managed a restaurant
Been offered many drugs, out in public, at said restaurant
Started ghost writing a book
Left the restaurant
Won at poker
Lost at poker
Starting writing a book of my own
Started writing slam poetry
Finished the entire series of Friends
Fallen in love with Abraham Lincoln
Grown out my beard
Shaved my beard
Danced through a blizzard
Figured out that my chemical make up is such that I am actually happier in the cold
Came up with a title for my abroad project
Started writing letters for my abroad project
Started adding people to my abroad project
I am now currently a freelance PA/writer/whatever you'll pay me for. It has been pointed out to me on several occasions the striking resemblance this title has to the title of prostitutes, to which I can only say that prostitutes make a lot more money than I do.
I also recently decided that I want to buy a Go board. I then realized that it is absurd to buy a Go board. I then came to the conclusion that I should carve a Go board myself. So now I have to find out how to do that.
Be well
Managed a restaurant
Been offered many drugs, out in public, at said restaurant
Started ghost writing a book
Left the restaurant
Won at poker
Lost at poker
Starting writing a book of my own
Started writing slam poetry
Finished the entire series of Friends
Fallen in love with Abraham Lincoln
Grown out my beard
Shaved my beard
Danced through a blizzard
Figured out that my chemical make up is such that I am actually happier in the cold
Came up with a title for my abroad project
Started writing letters for my abroad project
Started adding people to my abroad project
I am now currently a freelance PA/writer/whatever you'll pay me for. It has been pointed out to me on several occasions the striking resemblance this title has to the title of prostitutes, to which I can only say that prostitutes make a lot more money than I do.
I also recently decided that I want to buy a Go board. I then realized that it is absurd to buy a Go board. I then came to the conclusion that I should carve a Go board myself. So now I have to find out how to do that.
Be well
2.17.2009
Normally I'm not a huge basketball person...
But I do love a good storyline. A couple years ago I loved watching Alen Iverson go from being the one man show in Phillie to part of being a team and not wanting such a strong responsibility load in Denver.
This year, the story is this. This is an open invitation from the NBA:
The NBA has written it's letter to LeBron James
Dear Lebron,
You have said that you will stop at nothing to get a championship to Cleveland. This is your time to show everyone if you can do it. Have a fun second half.
Love,
The NBA
Now there's even a reason to watch the playoffs.
This year, the story is this. This is an open invitation from the NBA:
The NBA has written it's letter to LeBron James
Dear Lebron,
You have said that you will stop at nothing to get a championship to Cleveland. This is your time to show everyone if you can do it. Have a fun second half.
Love,
The NBA
Now there's even a reason to watch the playoffs.
2.11.2009
The Sport of Yoga
Where we value sports these days is a gray area in society I think we need to look at with more focus. Sports stars are seen as role models, heroes even. But are we giving them too much value? Don’t get me wrong; you’ll be hard pressed to find a bigger fan of sports than I. Competition, building your character, testing your mental and physical limits, learning to control your emotions, understanding being part of something larger than you are just scratch the surface of what sports can do. But what should we call something that goes farther than that, and still involves all the physical attributes of a “sport?”
I’ll be perfectly honest with you; I’ve never actually done yoga before. All I knew about yoga before I wrote this was what I had seen on TV. I never knew about the spiritual aspect of yoga, or what a community it can build. I was introduced to Tari Prinster, a local New York yoga instructor, and I quickly found out how much more yoga can be.
Tari was diagnosed with breast cancer, and after several treatments and recoveries, she is alive and well. More than that, Tari found mental peace in her yoga. “I was doing yoga for all the ‘wrong’ reasons. It made me buff and strong. . . what happened after [my diagnosis] was a BIG surprise…there was a change. I began to understand the meditative aspects, the power of breath to calm my mind and the need to relax as part of a healing process…cancer gave me enlightenment to use yoga as more than exercise and toning.”
But this wasn’t where Tari drew the line. In 2002 she founded Yoga for Women Cancer Survivors at OM Yoga, a program specifically for women cancer survivors. Since 2002 her program has grown from 3-5 women a week to a full 24 classes a week. I asked Tari if she could talk about the before and after class experiences, asking about the community feeling. She said, “they feel safe. And they come for the experience of ‘well-being’ that a yoga class can give. There is nothing in their lives that give them the time and space to just BE. They feel stronger, normal and hopeful.” What started out as just exercise has become something personal, something communal, something giving.
So would we consider Tari a “sports star?” I think we can make the analogy that Tari is a head coach, teaching and inspiring, but she has gone farther than modern sport. When something takes the next step; when something takes that step beyond competition; when something takes that step into the realm of helping other people, it goes beyond sport. It goes beyond a combination of fitness and entertainment and it becomes larger. In a time where our athletic role models are only seen in the news for scandals, drugs, crime, contract hold outs, it is refreshing to hear about a woman like Tari. A woman who should be a hero to everyone, sports fan or not.
I’ll be perfectly honest with you; I’ve never actually done yoga before. All I knew about yoga before I wrote this was what I had seen on TV. I never knew about the spiritual aspect of yoga, or what a community it can build. I was introduced to Tari Prinster, a local New York yoga instructor, and I quickly found out how much more yoga can be.
Tari was diagnosed with breast cancer, and after several treatments and recoveries, she is alive and well. More than that, Tari found mental peace in her yoga. “I was doing yoga for all the ‘wrong’ reasons. It made me buff and strong. . . what happened after [my diagnosis] was a BIG surprise…there was a change. I began to understand the meditative aspects, the power of breath to calm my mind and the need to relax as part of a healing process…cancer gave me enlightenment to use yoga as more than exercise and toning.”
But this wasn’t where Tari drew the line. In 2002 she founded Yoga for Women Cancer Survivors at OM Yoga, a program specifically for women cancer survivors. Since 2002 her program has grown from 3-5 women a week to a full 24 classes a week. I asked Tari if she could talk about the before and after class experiences, asking about the community feeling. She said, “they feel safe. And they come for the experience of ‘well-being’ that a yoga class can give. There is nothing in their lives that give them the time and space to just BE. They feel stronger, normal and hopeful.” What started out as just exercise has become something personal, something communal, something giving.
So would we consider Tari a “sports star?” I think we can make the analogy that Tari is a head coach, teaching and inspiring, but she has gone farther than modern sport. When something takes the next step; when something takes that step beyond competition; when something takes that step into the realm of helping other people, it goes beyond sport. It goes beyond a combination of fitness and entertainment and it becomes larger. In a time where our athletic role models are only seen in the news for scandals, drugs, crime, contract hold outs, it is refreshing to hear about a woman like Tari. A woman who should be a hero to everyone, sports fan or not.
1.30.2009
Some morning math
Being on the train with all the men and women going home at 6:30 AM after a long night's work > being on the other train
1.28.2009
A little experiment
I want to play a little game with anyone who's willing to try it.
Last night I watched "Hard Eight" without knowing anything about it. Brandon just turned it on and we watched it and couldn't stop watching it. We had no expectations, no idea what it was, just recognized some of the actors and director and went with it.
For anyone out there who hasn't seen this movie, DON'T IMDB IT yet. I have an idea to make this movie an even greater experience. If you haven't heard about it, or know anything about it, get it off Netflix or whatever and just watch it. Don't read about it. Don't read reviews. Don't read a synopsis that gives away what happens. Don't do any of that. Just put it on TV and watch it. I am 100% sure that it will enhance your experience ten fold.
I've noticed this a lot recently with any movie. We watched the movie "23" starring Jim Carrey the other day, and despite what you may have heard, it didn't suck. It was actually quite interesting, a little over done, but really interesting. Brandon and I tried to figure out why it got canned so bad, and is even listed as a top 100 worst movies of all time. Think back to how it was marketed, and even a bit how it's filmed. It was projected as a horror movie. It's not a horror movie. It's really even a thriller. It's sort of a psychological crime drama. Sort of. It deals with a man's obsession and basically how he loses his mind. It's not about ghosts and cheap jumps. But that's how it was marketed, and thus that's how it will be remembered.
It's all about expectations. You go to the movies expecting something great or something not so great, and the movie itself suffers. Either it's not as good as you thought it would be, or it's far better than you thought it would be, but not actually better.
I think back to a few times I saw a movie not knowing anything about it. I saw Michael Clayton not knowing anything about it other than it had George Clooney, thoroughly enjoyed it. I saw Tell No One without knowing anything about it other than it was French, one of the greatest viewing experiences I've had. Watched Danny Boyle's Shallow Grave the first time without knowing anything about it other than it was his first feature, and it's still one of my favorite movies.
The next movie you see, try to just see it. Don't have all these pre-made expectations that cloud the movie. If not "Hard Eight" then for something else. "Hard Eight" just happens to be a movie that will be enhanced by not knowing anything about it, and just letting the movie take you where it's going to take you.
Last night I watched "Hard Eight" without knowing anything about it. Brandon just turned it on and we watched it and couldn't stop watching it. We had no expectations, no idea what it was, just recognized some of the actors and director and went with it.
For anyone out there who hasn't seen this movie, DON'T IMDB IT yet. I have an idea to make this movie an even greater experience. If you haven't heard about it, or know anything about it, get it off Netflix or whatever and just watch it. Don't read about it. Don't read reviews. Don't read a synopsis that gives away what happens. Don't do any of that. Just put it on TV and watch it. I am 100% sure that it will enhance your experience ten fold.
I've noticed this a lot recently with any movie. We watched the movie "23" starring Jim Carrey the other day, and despite what you may have heard, it didn't suck. It was actually quite interesting, a little over done, but really interesting. Brandon and I tried to figure out why it got canned so bad, and is even listed as a top 100 worst movies of all time. Think back to how it was marketed, and even a bit how it's filmed. It was projected as a horror movie. It's not a horror movie. It's really even a thriller. It's sort of a psychological crime drama. Sort of. It deals with a man's obsession and basically how he loses his mind. It's not about ghosts and cheap jumps. But that's how it was marketed, and thus that's how it will be remembered.
It's all about expectations. You go to the movies expecting something great or something not so great, and the movie itself suffers. Either it's not as good as you thought it would be, or it's far better than you thought it would be, but not actually better.
I think back to a few times I saw a movie not knowing anything about it. I saw Michael Clayton not knowing anything about it other than it had George Clooney, thoroughly enjoyed it. I saw Tell No One without knowing anything about it other than it was French, one of the greatest viewing experiences I've had. Watched Danny Boyle's Shallow Grave the first time without knowing anything about it other than it was his first feature, and it's still one of my favorite movies.
The next movie you see, try to just see it. Don't have all these pre-made expectations that cloud the movie. If not "Hard Eight" then for something else. "Hard Eight" just happens to be a movie that will be enhanced by not knowing anything about it, and just letting the movie take you where it's going to take you.
1.27.2009
Learning is fun!
I've tried to find a link to this show, but I can't find it, which is just as well. Either way, the Discovery Channel had a show on the other day about scientists that have basically thought of a new world and what new organisms could live there. At first it seemed like a joke, but they were really serious about it. We argued whether or not these guys were full of it or not, and couldn't really conclude anything other than they probably were.
Last night I went to a book signing for Neil deGasse Tyson, who's written many awesome books about space and black holes. He was also apparently the leader of the panel that renamed Pluto. He's basically a genius, awesome human being, and a really great public speaker.
Anyway, when he signed my book I asked him about those guys that make their own worlds and create their own potential animals and life forms. Here was his response:
"Those guys aren't scientists. Let's just pretend that we don't call that "science." It just sort of passes over for science, but it's not real."
Thank you for that Neil.
Last night I went to a book signing for Neil deGasse Tyson, who's written many awesome books about space and black holes. He was also apparently the leader of the panel that renamed Pluto. He's basically a genius, awesome human being, and a really great public speaker.
Anyway, when he signed my book I asked him about those guys that make their own worlds and create their own potential animals and life forms. Here was his response:
"Those guys aren't scientists. Let's just pretend that we don't call that "science." It just sort of passes over for science, but it's not real."
Thank you for that Neil.
1.22.2009
Hollywood is political? Get the F out
So Oscar noms came out today. I've been throwing around a theory the past few weeks about who will win and why, and these noms for Best Picture really do solidify it. The Oscars are regarded as the top award for American entertainment, and since we like to think that everyone else values our entertainment as high as we do, the top awards for the world's entertainment. What movie wins can have a huge impact on what values are important to Americans. So let's see who wants what to win:
Doubt - On Christmas, at the midnight mass held in the Vatican, the Pope talked about two main issues in the world. 1) War in the Middle East. 2) Pedophilia in the Church. I think this movie gets the Catholic vote.
Frost/Nixon - I like to think that the government has an idea of the power the Oscars have, so I would like to think they can see that Frost/Nixon is a good kind of movie to have win. It depicts a president being evil, something most Americans have felt they've been facing the past 8 years, so watching this, could be the catharsis we need to move on. It could. That's why I think the government will be pulling for this.
Milk - But what about the homosexual politicians? Well, ok, they're pulling for Milk. Probably most of the Gay community too.
Slumdog Millionaire - Well what about the lower class, shouldn't they get a catharsis movie too? With unemployment so high, people are so worried about becoming homeless and poor, here we see a movie about hope and free will. Could be a real pick me up for lots of people. And, you know, it has India pulling for it too.
Benjamin Button - I mean, Forest Gump won so many Oscars, what made you think that this wouldn't? Just see this for proof
So what's it gonna be America? What's our next big topic? Sexual preference? Societal oversight? Pedophilia? Poverty? What's more important than the other? Who deserves the attention? Gay people? Children? Lower class? Politicians? Or...guys that grow backwards?
You know, I can solve all of these problems with 1 movie. There is 1 person who doesn't focus on 1 group, but aids everyone he can with the best and greatest of abilities.
Doubt - On Christmas, at the midnight mass held in the Vatican, the Pope talked about two main issues in the world. 1) War in the Middle East. 2) Pedophilia in the Church. I think this movie gets the Catholic vote.
Frost/Nixon - I like to think that the government has an idea of the power the Oscars have, so I would like to think they can see that Frost/Nixon is a good kind of movie to have win. It depicts a president being evil, something most Americans have felt they've been facing the past 8 years, so watching this, could be the catharsis we need to move on. It could. That's why I think the government will be pulling for this.
Milk - But what about the homosexual politicians? Well, ok, they're pulling for Milk. Probably most of the Gay community too.
Slumdog Millionaire - Well what about the lower class, shouldn't they get a catharsis movie too? With unemployment so high, people are so worried about becoming homeless and poor, here we see a movie about hope and free will. Could be a real pick me up for lots of people. And, you know, it has India pulling for it too.
Benjamin Button - I mean, Forest Gump won so many Oscars, what made you think that this wouldn't? Just see this for proof
So what's it gonna be America? What's our next big topic? Sexual preference? Societal oversight? Pedophilia? Poverty? What's more important than the other? Who deserves the attention? Gay people? Children? Lower class? Politicians? Or...guys that grow backwards?
You know, I can solve all of these problems with 1 movie. There is 1 person who doesn't focus on 1 group, but aids everyone he can with the best and greatest of abilities.
Poker, in a nutshell
Most of you should know I love the game of poker, I think it's a fascinating sport, a way to see deep inside a person's soul, and for now it's a way that I can pay my rent. I'm a member of this online forum called 2+2, and it's a strategy forum where you post hands and ask advice sort of thing. Well, I just wrote my 1,000th post there, and I wrote a little milestone post, so to speak, and I figured I'd post it here too.
There is most likely terminology some of you may not understand. Feel free to ask questions. There are no stupid questions.
Enjoy:
(Just a little background about myself, in case any one is curious: I'm 22, currently unemployed, graduated with a degree in Film and Writing, started playing poker when I was 15 with AMT in my basement, we taught other high school kids how to play then took their money, played online a bit in college, then Alex went pro so I started to take it a bit more seriously, then Alex staked me for the $5s and here I am. Hope you enjoy what I have to say)
Looking at poker in perspective.
There was a theory I was reading about, this guy ran a study trying to see how people think about the future and the present and using money as a need. So if I asked you if you wanted 50 dollars or 60 dollars, you would obviously say 60. Where it gets fun is putting in time as a way to measure value. Would you rather have 50 dollars now or 60 dollars in a month. People generally tend to want the 50 dollars now because now is usually seen as better than in the future. But what if I said 50 dollars in 12 months or 60 dollars in 13 months. The man's study found that people were willing to wait the extra month and hold out for the 60. It's an interesting phenomenon, really. Look at what we value and time, you can see the obvious contradiction we have. The average person is willing to wait 13 months for 60 dollars as opposed to 12 months for 50, but imagine that actually happening, and then getting to the now vs. in 1 month from now, people will want the 50 dollars now.
Now I want to apply this to poker. This is the exact rationale behind playing tight early on and loose later in a SnG. If I gave you this situation:
1st hand of the game, 1500 chips, UTG with KK. Would you shove? Absolutely not. That would be seen as a vast overexageration and most of the time (you'll still get called a lot by junk in lower levels obviously) you're losing value by doing this.
But let's say we're 4 handed, at the bubble and we have 1500 UTG/CO, blinds at 100/200 with KK. This is a clear shove (I guess you can make the case that sometimes you want to vary it up and limp or whatever, but it's a relatively clear shove). We have the same hand, in the same (relatively) position and the same stack. But what's happened? Because the blinds got higher, we can now shove effeciently.
This concept was one of the hardest I had to accept getting through SnGs, and that's the value of a chip. I was trying to explain to my room mate once about blinds, and how the % of your stack is "forced money" in the pot and that amount rises over time. Since that % rises, we have to be willing to play more hands in order to win more hands and now get blinded out. Then explaining this further to the same room mate, applying it to % of total chips in the game. So there only become X number of blinds in the game, and when that value decreases, which it does as the blinds increase, then the value of the chips in play, or "forced money" become more valuable.
n00b training
I wanna go over a few tendencies I know I fell into early on in my poker playing career, and hopefully some of you can see them and stop them from happening before it's too late.
1) Reaching the 3000 chip milestone: What I love about SnGs that most people don't really get is that they are completely structured. There are only 13,500 chips in play that you can get, regardless of blinds, and sometimes we let our chip stacks get in the way of making +EV plays. Take for example, what's happened to all of us at every buy in level at least once in our careers: You get AA on the FIRST HAND! Someone raises, someone else reraises and you're just like, HELL YEAH, I SHOVE. You shove in so emphatically and then BAM, someone calls with KK. Now after just the 1st hand you've reached the illustrious 3,000 chip mark. Something happens to us at this point. We either think, "well I can coast to the money" or "now I can be a bully." Both of these thoughts are true, but thinking them and not taking perspective into play will get us in a lot of trouble.
2) Having 3000 chips does NOT prove anything. I can't tell you how many I've been too cocky with a big chip stack and then bubbled. All you can do is think back to how you were either too stingy or too lenient with your chips. I've snuck into the money with 2,000 chips before, gotten heads up and won before. I've also had 7,000 chips on the bubble and not made the money. You have to NOT think ahead. Think about each hand as it plays out. Every single hand should have its own thought process. Each hand where you're faced to either put in chips or not put in chips should require you to look at everyone elses stack, the blinds, assigned set of ranges for each player and then a decision, hopefully before you time out.
3) "Well he sucks, I MUST have him beat!" This mentality is for those of us who like to bang our heads against the walls of our homes and hope that money comes out, aka playing $2-$10 SnGs. Then playing turbos just means banging your head against the wall harder and faster. I can't tell you how many times I have a note on someone that reads "sux die" and then somehow he gets Kings. It just happens. Even idiots get big hands. DON'T LET IT TILT YOU. It's going to happen. You just have to take reassurance in the fact that at the end of the day, he's taking edges that are -eV. But Asher, the fish keep beating me! I know. But there's math to this game too, which is something that every donk doesn't understand. QQ will beat JJ 90% of the time, but it will also lose 10% of the time. It just seems that the 10% happens more because it hurts so damn much. I guarantee that you're winning 90% of the time, you just don't realize it. This isn't a variance thing, this is a mentality thing, you can't doubt yourself into thinking that you have to loosen up or start playing garbage just because they are. Keep playing your game. You'll beat them long run. At least, we have to keep telling ourselves that in order to not commit sepaku.
4) Every little chip counts -- One big problem I think you can run in to a lot is the "well it's not for much of my stack, so I'll just call this small raise with nothing" mentality. You have to be able to look ahead past the hand. Here's a hand I played, that in the grand scheme of the SnG didn't mean much or do anything, but I wanna use it as an example.
Full Tilt Poker $6 + $0.50 No Limit Hold'em Tournament - t20/t40 Blinds - 9 players - View hand 14341
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com
MP2: t1530 M = 25.50
CO: t1380 M = 23
BTN: t1755 M = 29.25
Hero (SB): t1695 M = 28.25
BB: t1470 M = 24.50
UTG: t1500 M = 25
UTG+1: t1320 M = 22
UTG+2: t1500 M = 25
MP1: t1350 M = 22.50
Pre Flop: (t60) Hero is SB with 9 T
1 fold, UTG+1 calls t40, 5 folds, Hero calls t20, BB checks
Flop: (t120) 3 K T (3 players)
Hero checks, BB checks, UTG+1 checks
Turn: (t120) 3 (3 players)
Hero bets t100, BB folds, UTG+1 calls t100
River: (t320) J (2 players)
Hero checks, UTG+1 checks
Random, pretty early, I figured I'd stab at the turn and see if my pair held by the river. For some reason, he called me with A high. Ok, not huge, but look at where we are after the hand. I have 1875 and he has 1180. At this blind level, he's fine, but in a turbo, blinds are going to be raising to 25/50, where a standard 3x raise will be more than 10% of his stack. Then he starts getting himself into tougher situations. Meanwhile, I'm sitting with a nice 1800+ stack and ready for the higher blinds. It's a small change, but if he hadn't limped the hand at all to begin with, (which is a CLEAR fold pf, with A6o in MP) he'd be in a better situation to progress in the SnG. It's a little thing, but if you find hands like this on a consistent basis, they add up.
5) "Oh, I know what tilting means, I'm ok to play": This is probably the worst kind of mentality I'm going to talk about. The psychology of poker is something I could probably go on and on about, but knowing when NOT to play is the hardest thing to learn. Knowing when you play optimally takes a lot of practice, and it takes a lot of downswings. Figuring out time of day, how many tables, what music to listen to, what chair to sit in, what shorts to wear, what to drink, what to eat, how to sit, to be on AIM, to have 2+2 open, to have any internet open at all, watch a movie, watch some TV. I'm sure you don't think about all these things on a day to day, hour to hour or minute by minute basis, but at some point in time you should take into consideration every single possible distraction you can have and look at literally every aspect of what your game is. I have literally thought about every single one of those things, and have different routines for different flows. I can have a TV show on to keep me focused, sometimes I need music, sometimes I have 2+2 open, it all depends on how I'm feeling.
Getting to understand your emotions how they relate to poker is the key. Getting frustrated about poker and then being in a bad mood will almost certainly lead to more bad poker playing. Knowing when to stop, take a break, refocus, and then get back is the hardest part. And really truthfully, you won't learn how to do it until you fail at it. It takes a big downswing to make you question your routine and question your ability to control your emotions before you can really take a step back and say, "ok, this is what I'm doing wrong and this is how I'm going to correct it."
What to do with emotion
That first big downswing is going to hurt. It's going to feel like you forgot how to play poker. But everyone goes through it (except Tatta, but whatever). Look at my graph (movieman2g) and you'll see my November. I'm gonna tell you how I got out of it, and I haven't told anyone else this before, but at one point, I was literally down to $7 in my account. I said, F it, let's play one more. So I played a $6, cashed, then said, well you know what, let's see if this works out. So I played an $11. Cashed again. So I played a $22. Cashed again. At this point, I said, ok, time to stop, and I grinded the 2s until I built up my roll to play the 6s and now my roll is healthy and steady. But I had to hit rock bottom before I could question every part of my game in order to know that I had weaknesses. Poker isn't a game just about luck or reads or math. It's more of a self-mental game than any other sport. Understanding that you will fail most of the time and learning to deal with it is part of the game.
Take everything I have to say with perspective. These are things that I've noticed from myself, my room mate (blouk), my friends (AMT) and from posting on the forum. 2+2 is probably the best guide you can use to improve your game, so if you're wondering about making a commitment to the forum, and you have the time, do it.
I'll end my post with a quote from Anthony Holden, a poker old timer. This quote got me through a lot of hard times, not just in poker, and is a big reason I've pursued poker as much as I have in my life so far.
"Whether he likes it or not, a man's character is stripped at the poker table; if the other players read him better than he does, he has only himself to blame. Unless he is both able and prepared to see himself as others do, flaws and all, he will be a loser in cards, as in life."
There is most likely terminology some of you may not understand. Feel free to ask questions. There are no stupid questions.
Enjoy:
(Just a little background about myself, in case any one is curious: I'm 22, currently unemployed, graduated with a degree in Film and Writing, started playing poker when I was 15 with AMT in my basement, we taught other high school kids how to play then took their money, played online a bit in college, then Alex went pro so I started to take it a bit more seriously, then Alex staked me for the $5s and here I am. Hope you enjoy what I have to say)
Looking at poker in perspective.
There was a theory I was reading about, this guy ran a study trying to see how people think about the future and the present and using money as a need. So if I asked you if you wanted 50 dollars or 60 dollars, you would obviously say 60. Where it gets fun is putting in time as a way to measure value. Would you rather have 50 dollars now or 60 dollars in a month. People generally tend to want the 50 dollars now because now is usually seen as better than in the future. But what if I said 50 dollars in 12 months or 60 dollars in 13 months. The man's study found that people were willing to wait the extra month and hold out for the 60. It's an interesting phenomenon, really. Look at what we value and time, you can see the obvious contradiction we have. The average person is willing to wait 13 months for 60 dollars as opposed to 12 months for 50, but imagine that actually happening, and then getting to the now vs. in 1 month from now, people will want the 50 dollars now.
Now I want to apply this to poker. This is the exact rationale behind playing tight early on and loose later in a SnG. If I gave you this situation:
1st hand of the game, 1500 chips, UTG with KK. Would you shove? Absolutely not. That would be seen as a vast overexageration and most of the time (you'll still get called a lot by junk in lower levels obviously) you're losing value by doing this.
But let's say we're 4 handed, at the bubble and we have 1500 UTG/CO, blinds at 100/200 with KK. This is a clear shove (I guess you can make the case that sometimes you want to vary it up and limp or whatever, but it's a relatively clear shove). We have the same hand, in the same (relatively) position and the same stack. But what's happened? Because the blinds got higher, we can now shove effeciently.
This concept was one of the hardest I had to accept getting through SnGs, and that's the value of a chip. I was trying to explain to my room mate once about blinds, and how the % of your stack is "forced money" in the pot and that amount rises over time. Since that % rises, we have to be willing to play more hands in order to win more hands and now get blinded out. Then explaining this further to the same room mate, applying it to % of total chips in the game. So there only become X number of blinds in the game, and when that value decreases, which it does as the blinds increase, then the value of the chips in play, or "forced money" become more valuable.
n00b training
I wanna go over a few tendencies I know I fell into early on in my poker playing career, and hopefully some of you can see them and stop them from happening before it's too late.
1) Reaching the 3000 chip milestone: What I love about SnGs that most people don't really get is that they are completely structured. There are only 13,500 chips in play that you can get, regardless of blinds, and sometimes we let our chip stacks get in the way of making +EV plays. Take for example, what's happened to all of us at every buy in level at least once in our careers: You get AA on the FIRST HAND! Someone raises, someone else reraises and you're just like, HELL YEAH, I SHOVE. You shove in so emphatically and then BAM, someone calls with KK. Now after just the 1st hand you've reached the illustrious 3,000 chip mark. Something happens to us at this point. We either think, "well I can coast to the money" or "now I can be a bully." Both of these thoughts are true, but thinking them and not taking perspective into play will get us in a lot of trouble.
2) Having 3000 chips does NOT prove anything. I can't tell you how many I've been too cocky with a big chip stack and then bubbled. All you can do is think back to how you were either too stingy or too lenient with your chips. I've snuck into the money with 2,000 chips before, gotten heads up and won before. I've also had 7,000 chips on the bubble and not made the money. You have to NOT think ahead. Think about each hand as it plays out. Every single hand should have its own thought process. Each hand where you're faced to either put in chips or not put in chips should require you to look at everyone elses stack, the blinds, assigned set of ranges for each player and then a decision, hopefully before you time out.
3) "Well he sucks, I MUST have him beat!" This mentality is for those of us who like to bang our heads against the walls of our homes and hope that money comes out, aka playing $2-$10 SnGs. Then playing turbos just means banging your head against the wall harder and faster. I can't tell you how many times I have a note on someone that reads "sux die" and then somehow he gets Kings. It just happens. Even idiots get big hands. DON'T LET IT TILT YOU. It's going to happen. You just have to take reassurance in the fact that at the end of the day, he's taking edges that are -eV. But Asher, the fish keep beating me! I know. But there's math to this game too, which is something that every donk doesn't understand. QQ will beat JJ 90% of the time, but it will also lose 10% of the time. It just seems that the 10% happens more because it hurts so damn much. I guarantee that you're winning 90% of the time, you just don't realize it. This isn't a variance thing, this is a mentality thing, you can't doubt yourself into thinking that you have to loosen up or start playing garbage just because they are. Keep playing your game. You'll beat them long run. At least, we have to keep telling ourselves that in order to not commit sepaku.
4) Every little chip counts -- One big problem I think you can run in to a lot is the "well it's not for much of my stack, so I'll just call this small raise with nothing" mentality. You have to be able to look ahead past the hand. Here's a hand I played, that in the grand scheme of the SnG didn't mean much or do anything, but I wanna use it as an example.
Full Tilt Poker $6 + $0.50 No Limit Hold'em Tournament - t20/t40 Blinds - 9 players - View hand 14341
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com
MP2: t1530 M = 25.50
CO: t1380 M = 23
BTN: t1755 M = 29.25
Hero (SB): t1695 M = 28.25
BB: t1470 M = 24.50
UTG: t1500 M = 25
UTG+1: t1320 M = 22
UTG+2: t1500 M = 25
MP1: t1350 M = 22.50
Pre Flop: (t60) Hero is SB with 9 T
1 fold, UTG+1 calls t40, 5 folds, Hero calls t20, BB checks
Flop: (t120) 3 K T (3 players)
Hero checks, BB checks, UTG+1 checks
Turn: (t120) 3 (3 players)
Hero bets t100, BB folds, UTG+1 calls t100
River: (t320) J (2 players)
Hero checks, UTG+1 checks
Random, pretty early, I figured I'd stab at the turn and see if my pair held by the river. For some reason, he called me with A high. Ok, not huge, but look at where we are after the hand. I have 1875 and he has 1180. At this blind level, he's fine, but in a turbo, blinds are going to be raising to 25/50, where a standard 3x raise will be more than 10% of his stack. Then he starts getting himself into tougher situations. Meanwhile, I'm sitting with a nice 1800+ stack and ready for the higher blinds. It's a small change, but if he hadn't limped the hand at all to begin with, (which is a CLEAR fold pf, with A6o in MP) he'd be in a better situation to progress in the SnG. It's a little thing, but if you find hands like this on a consistent basis, they add up.
5) "Oh, I know what tilting means, I'm ok to play": This is probably the worst kind of mentality I'm going to talk about. The psychology of poker is something I could probably go on and on about, but knowing when NOT to play is the hardest thing to learn. Knowing when you play optimally takes a lot of practice, and it takes a lot of downswings. Figuring out time of day, how many tables, what music to listen to, what chair to sit in, what shorts to wear, what to drink, what to eat, how to sit, to be on AIM, to have 2+2 open, to have any internet open at all, watch a movie, watch some TV. I'm sure you don't think about all these things on a day to day, hour to hour or minute by minute basis, but at some point in time you should take into consideration every single possible distraction you can have and look at literally every aspect of what your game is. I have literally thought about every single one of those things, and have different routines for different flows. I can have a TV show on to keep me focused, sometimes I need music, sometimes I have 2+2 open, it all depends on how I'm feeling.
Getting to understand your emotions how they relate to poker is the key. Getting frustrated about poker and then being in a bad mood will almost certainly lead to more bad poker playing. Knowing when to stop, take a break, refocus, and then get back is the hardest part. And really truthfully, you won't learn how to do it until you fail at it. It takes a big downswing to make you question your routine and question your ability to control your emotions before you can really take a step back and say, "ok, this is what I'm doing wrong and this is how I'm going to correct it."
What to do with emotion
That first big downswing is going to hurt. It's going to feel like you forgot how to play poker. But everyone goes through it (except Tatta, but whatever). Look at my graph (movieman2g) and you'll see my November. I'm gonna tell you how I got out of it, and I haven't told anyone else this before, but at one point, I was literally down to $7 in my account. I said, F it, let's play one more. So I played a $6, cashed, then said, well you know what, let's see if this works out. So I played an $11. Cashed again. So I played a $22. Cashed again. At this point, I said, ok, time to stop, and I grinded the 2s until I built up my roll to play the 6s and now my roll is healthy and steady. But I had to hit rock bottom before I could question every part of my game in order to know that I had weaknesses. Poker isn't a game just about luck or reads or math. It's more of a self-mental game than any other sport. Understanding that you will fail most of the time and learning to deal with it is part of the game.
Take everything I have to say with perspective. These are things that I've noticed from myself, my room mate (blouk), my friends (AMT) and from posting on the forum. 2+2 is probably the best guide you can use to improve your game, so if you're wondering about making a commitment to the forum, and you have the time, do it.
I'll end my post with a quote from Anthony Holden, a poker old timer. This quote got me through a lot of hard times, not just in poker, and is a big reason I've pursued poker as much as I have in my life so far.
"Whether he likes it or not, a man's character is stripped at the poker table; if the other players read him better than he does, he has only himself to blame. Unless he is both able and prepared to see himself as others do, flaws and all, he will be a loser in cards, as in life."
1.15.2009
Hmm...
I just wanted to take the time to express the following thought: Dancing is probably the most awesomely absurd acts of animalistic nature. Think about how we try to attract mates for the survival of your species, and decided by which one can move their body in odd ways the best.
Am I missing something, or is that notion just really cool? And a very strange thing to say about evolution.
Am I missing something, or is that notion just really cool? And a very strange thing to say about evolution.
1.07.2009
So I had this dream
I'm not really a violent person, as portrayed by this dream I had last night.
So I was me, which sometimes I'm not in my dreams, and I walked into a police station, waited in line patiently, walked up to an office who asked what my business was. I said, "I'd like to turn myself in for a second degree murder." He didn't flinch, he just led me into a big empty room, much like an empty convenience store, and said to wait. We stood around for a little while, and I said, "do you want to know what happened?" He said, "No, don't tell me anything." So I waited there for a while, and then someone else came in, for some reason I seem to think he was a judge, and he said, "did you mean to do what you did?" At which point I sort of had a flashback to being in a car and thinking that I had killed this woman with my car, knowing that's what I was turning myself in for, but also seeing a flashback of someone else I had killed that no one else knew about. So I said, "I never meant to kill her." I didn't mention the other flashback, and they seemed to think I was ok and let me go. The next part of my dream I can remember is getting ready to go to the airport, and my Swedish exchange student Kevin was driving a truck on my lawn, then I had to pee so I woke up.
I guess the moral of the story is that murder isn't that hard to get away with. Or it could be to just not mess with me. I'm not sure yet. Either way, most vivid dream of 2009 so far.
So I was me, which sometimes I'm not in my dreams, and I walked into a police station, waited in line patiently, walked up to an office who asked what my business was. I said, "I'd like to turn myself in for a second degree murder." He didn't flinch, he just led me into a big empty room, much like an empty convenience store, and said to wait. We stood around for a little while, and I said, "do you want to know what happened?" He said, "No, don't tell me anything." So I waited there for a while, and then someone else came in, for some reason I seem to think he was a judge, and he said, "did you mean to do what you did?" At which point I sort of had a flashback to being in a car and thinking that I had killed this woman with my car, knowing that's what I was turning myself in for, but also seeing a flashback of someone else I had killed that no one else knew about. So I said, "I never meant to kill her." I didn't mention the other flashback, and they seemed to think I was ok and let me go. The next part of my dream I can remember is getting ready to go to the airport, and my Swedish exchange student Kevin was driving a truck on my lawn, then I had to pee so I woke up.
I guess the moral of the story is that murder isn't that hard to get away with. Or it could be to just not mess with me. I'm not sure yet. Either way, most vivid dream of 2009 so far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)