I've been long on talking up the Phillies for how smart they've been in running their organization these last several years. I have made the point to more than one person about how shrewd the Phils have been in transforming themselves into the Yankees of the National League, about their recognition of the fact that--as New York has known almost since they came into the AL--the benefits of going the extra (spending) mile to get on top and stay on top far outweigh the downside of having to shell out major bucks to remain in contention year after year. The Phillies, at last, have "got it."
But even I am taken aback by their cagey maneuverings, which landed Cliff Lee back into the fold yesterday. It turns out there was a reason the Phils let Jayson Werth walk. I'm shocked that they pulled it off, but delighted nonetheless. That's the sort of ballsy move that I love, when I team makes it. The pitching's great, but the offense is having problems? Say "Fuck it" and double down on the rotation, signing another Cy Young winner and giving the competition a "Take that!" Great stuff. And you know, when they're still not scoring come June, there will be another big trade for the biggest bat available.
Because that's the way you do it: make it happen, spend what you need to spend, take the profits on the other side. Are you listening, rest of baseball?
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Recently Read
Dismantling The Empire
by Chalmers Johnson
Professor Johnson has finished his decade long career as America's scholarly Jeremiah; he passed away shortly after publication of his final book, Dismantling The Empire. Thus, he will never get to see if we follow through on his prescription and take the necessary steps to save our nation from financial and political ruin.
Dismantling The Empire, a collection of essays published variously throughout the last decade, focuses on the same ground as Johnson's "Blowback Trilogy"--namely the costs to the USA of militarism and imperialism, and the country's urgent need to rein in its "empire of bases" and restore true republicanism in its politics.
Not surprisingly, Johnson spends some time repeating himself; these essays draw heavily upon the Blowback books, and each other, to argue their case. Still, repetition helps to reinforce, and in this case Johnson's repetition solidifies his clearly argued points about the growth of militarism in American society and government, its costs in treasure, prestige, and lives, and the author's belief in the urgent need to reform our politics and reeducate our citizenry in what it means to live in a true democracy, before grim consequences such as bankruptcy, or even outright dictatorship, mark the end of the American experiment.
As with Johnson's other works, his background as a scholar and policy analyst--his academic focus centered on East Asian nations and their relationships with the USA--rather than a political ideologue lends crucial weight to his conclusions. Johnson's arguments are always logically consistent, forcefully clear, and strike the right balance between thoughtful reasoning and righteous outrage. (Two of the best, most entertaining reads in the book are an essay about disgraced ex-Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham--Johnson's own former home district Congressman--and a review of the film Charlie Wilson's War, which includes the author's acerbic censure of the filmmakers for the parts of the story they left out of the film.) It is difficult to imagine an honest reader picking up any of Johnson's recent works and not being convinced by his rhetoric that this nation is in serious trouble.
Thus, the only question left in the wake of the author's death is simply this: will Chalmers Johnson's legacy be as one of the intellectual founding fathers for a revived, re-democratized United States, or as a prophet of doom whose voice was tragically ignored? For the sake of this nation's future, let's hope it's the former.
by Chalmers Johnson
Professor Johnson has finished his decade long career as America's scholarly Jeremiah; he passed away shortly after publication of his final book, Dismantling The Empire. Thus, he will never get to see if we follow through on his prescription and take the necessary steps to save our nation from financial and political ruin.
Dismantling The Empire, a collection of essays published variously throughout the last decade, focuses on the same ground as Johnson's "Blowback Trilogy"--namely the costs to the USA of militarism and imperialism, and the country's urgent need to rein in its "empire of bases" and restore true republicanism in its politics.
Not surprisingly, Johnson spends some time repeating himself; these essays draw heavily upon the Blowback books, and each other, to argue their case. Still, repetition helps to reinforce, and in this case Johnson's repetition solidifies his clearly argued points about the growth of militarism in American society and government, its costs in treasure, prestige, and lives, and the author's belief in the urgent need to reform our politics and reeducate our citizenry in what it means to live in a true democracy, before grim consequences such as bankruptcy, or even outright dictatorship, mark the end of the American experiment.
As with Johnson's other works, his background as a scholar and policy analyst--his academic focus centered on East Asian nations and their relationships with the USA--rather than a political ideologue lends crucial weight to his conclusions. Johnson's arguments are always logically consistent, forcefully clear, and strike the right balance between thoughtful reasoning and righteous outrage. (Two of the best, most entertaining reads in the book are an essay about disgraced ex-Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham--Johnson's own former home district Congressman--and a review of the film Charlie Wilson's War, which includes the author's acerbic censure of the filmmakers for the parts of the story they left out of the film.) It is difficult to imagine an honest reader picking up any of Johnson's recent works and not being convinced by his rhetoric that this nation is in serious trouble.
Thus, the only question left in the wake of the author's death is simply this: will Chalmers Johnson's legacy be as one of the intellectual founding fathers for a revived, re-democratized United States, or as a prophet of doom whose voice was tragically ignored? For the sake of this nation's future, let's hope it's the former.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Recently Read
Outlaw Journalist: The Life and Times of Hunter S. Thompson
by William McKeon
A volume to be greeted with gratitude by Thompson's fans, for McKeon has finally delivered the clear, concise, balanced, and straightforward account of Thompson's life that has been largely missing till now, especially in the wake of his 2005 suicide. McKeon steers largely clear of the personal axes to grind that have burdened so many of the others who have written on the literary legend. There's no faux Gonzo, no misplaced literary experimentation, no hagiography here; the reader is treated to a simple and direct recounting of Thompson's life, one that makes a complex man a little more accessible to both his devoted readers and those with only a mild interest. Outlaw Journalist provides the clearest look I've yet to find at one of the 20th century's most influential voices; it's a must read for anyone with a serious interest about writers and writing--the elements that go into making a literary life and how that life makes the literary output. Bravo.
by William McKeon
A volume to be greeted with gratitude by Thompson's fans, for McKeon has finally delivered the clear, concise, balanced, and straightforward account of Thompson's life that has been largely missing till now, especially in the wake of his 2005 suicide. McKeon steers largely clear of the personal axes to grind that have burdened so many of the others who have written on the literary legend. There's no faux Gonzo, no misplaced literary experimentation, no hagiography here; the reader is treated to a simple and direct recounting of Thompson's life, one that makes a complex man a little more accessible to both his devoted readers and those with only a mild interest. Outlaw Journalist provides the clearest look I've yet to find at one of the 20th century's most influential voices; it's a must read for anyone with a serious interest about writers and writing--the elements that go into making a literary life and how that life makes the literary output. Bravo.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Recently Read
A Short History Of Nearly Everything
by Bill Bryson
A solid, comprehensive work of popular science, covering a great range of subjects from the full breadth of cosmology to the narrowest confines of atoms, molecules and living cells. It's best for pure novices; someone with a basic knowledge of the sciences will see a lot of this material as old news. And Bryson has one stylistic weakness, a tendency to rely a little too much on synthesizing the conclusions of others (i.e., "According to so-and-so, '...' "). But there's enough original thought here, conveyed with clarity, humor, and wisdom, to make A Short History a worthwhile read for any layman with an interest in the universe around us. Worth a look.
by Bill Bryson
A solid, comprehensive work of popular science, covering a great range of subjects from the full breadth of cosmology to the narrowest confines of atoms, molecules and living cells. It's best for pure novices; someone with a basic knowledge of the sciences will see a lot of this material as old news. And Bryson has one stylistic weakness, a tendency to rely a little too much on synthesizing the conclusions of others (i.e., "According to so-and-so, '...' "). But there's enough original thought here, conveyed with clarity, humor, and wisdom, to make A Short History a worthwhile read for any layman with an interest in the universe around us. Worth a look.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Decisions, Decisions
I will not comment on the NLCS just yet. I'm superstitious enough not to want to jinx anything there, so I'll keep my lips (fingers?) sealed for the moment.
But, having watched the Texas Rangers clinch the AL pennant tonight, I do want to mention a thing or two about Rangers manager Ron Washington.
First, a bit of cold water: the Rangers are getting a lot of credit for not firing Washington this past spring when the news came out that he failed a drug test and came up positive for cocaine use. While everything ultimately worked out very well for Texas, that credit is mostly misplaced. Really, what were they going to do? Fire Washington in the middle of spring training and blow up their season? Sure, maybe they could have hired a new manager who could have pulled the pieces together and kept that team on its upward arc. But the Rangers' options were few and far between at that point. This is especially true when you remember the uncertainty surrounding the franchise and its financial situation at that moment. It says here that Texas kept Washington not simply because he is a good manager (and man, from most accounts), nor out of patience and compassion, but because they had little other choice at that point. It worked out for him and them, and maybe there's a story about good karma in that, but had that crisis happened any time other than spring training, the actions taken might have been very different.
So that's that. On the other hand...
In 2006, the A's--my local nine, as they say--won the AL West and made it to the ALCS for the first time in 14 years. Despite that achievement, they--and specifically, GM Billy Beane--decided not to retain the services of manager Ken Macha.
In the ensuing off-season, Beane had a choice about whom to hire as manager. The options came down to the A's bench coach--and Billy Beane best buddy--Bob Geren, and the aforementioned Washington. Geren had had some success managing the Athletics Triple-A affiliate in Sacramento, had spent several seasons as bench coach on some very good A's teams, and had served as Beane's best man at the GM's wedding. Washington, meanwhile, had been on the A's coaching staff for a decade (part of that time alongside Geren), serving as third base coach and infield instructor. He was immensely popular with the players, many of whom credited him for their success in the field. (If memory serves right, Eric Chavez famously gave Washington one of his Gold Glove trophies in appreciation for the coach's positive influence on his fielding.) However, no reports can confirm Washington's participation in any matrimonial ceremonies during his stay with the A's. Taking this data into account, Beane chose Geren for the A's managerial position. Washington made do with his consolation prize: taking over as Texas Rangers manager.
Fast forward to today. Geren has been A's manager for four years, and this season they finally reached the .500 mark, finishing 81-81 after three losing seasons. They have a promising future, if their young pitching holds up and they can get a few more bats in the lineup.
And Washington just won the AL pennant with the Rangers.
Of course, the A's declining record can be chalked up to many reasons beyond the identity of the manager. And there are many reasons why the Rangers have shown steady improvement for four years, up to the point of clinching their first World Series appearance in franchise history this very evening. But it is conceivable that, back in 2006, when he had a crucial choice to make, Billy Beane may have gotten a best man...but maybe, just maybe, he didn't get the right man.
Something to think about, if you have any hiring to do.
But, having watched the Texas Rangers clinch the AL pennant tonight, I do want to mention a thing or two about Rangers manager Ron Washington.
First, a bit of cold water: the Rangers are getting a lot of credit for not firing Washington this past spring when the news came out that he failed a drug test and came up positive for cocaine use. While everything ultimately worked out very well for Texas, that credit is mostly misplaced. Really, what were they going to do? Fire Washington in the middle of spring training and blow up their season? Sure, maybe they could have hired a new manager who could have pulled the pieces together and kept that team on its upward arc. But the Rangers' options were few and far between at that point. This is especially true when you remember the uncertainty surrounding the franchise and its financial situation at that moment. It says here that Texas kept Washington not simply because he is a good manager (and man, from most accounts), nor out of patience and compassion, but because they had little other choice at that point. It worked out for him and them, and maybe there's a story about good karma in that, but had that crisis happened any time other than spring training, the actions taken might have been very different.
So that's that. On the other hand...
In 2006, the A's--my local nine, as they say--won the AL West and made it to the ALCS for the first time in 14 years. Despite that achievement, they--and specifically, GM Billy Beane--decided not to retain the services of manager Ken Macha.
In the ensuing off-season, Beane had a choice about whom to hire as manager. The options came down to the A's bench coach--and Billy Beane best buddy--Bob Geren, and the aforementioned Washington. Geren had had some success managing the Athletics Triple-A affiliate in Sacramento, had spent several seasons as bench coach on some very good A's teams, and had served as Beane's best man at the GM's wedding. Washington, meanwhile, had been on the A's coaching staff for a decade (part of that time alongside Geren), serving as third base coach and infield instructor. He was immensely popular with the players, many of whom credited him for their success in the field. (If memory serves right, Eric Chavez famously gave Washington one of his Gold Glove trophies in appreciation for the coach's positive influence on his fielding.) However, no reports can confirm Washington's participation in any matrimonial ceremonies during his stay with the A's. Taking this data into account, Beane chose Geren for the A's managerial position. Washington made do with his consolation prize: taking over as Texas Rangers manager.
Fast forward to today. Geren has been A's manager for four years, and this season they finally reached the .500 mark, finishing 81-81 after three losing seasons. They have a promising future, if their young pitching holds up and they can get a few more bats in the lineup.
And Washington just won the AL pennant with the Rangers.
Of course, the A's declining record can be chalked up to many reasons beyond the identity of the manager. And there are many reasons why the Rangers have shown steady improvement for four years, up to the point of clinching their first World Series appearance in franchise history this very evening. But it is conceivable that, back in 2006, when he had a crucial choice to make, Billy Beane may have gotten a best man...but maybe, just maybe, he didn't get the right man.
Something to think about, if you have any hiring to do.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Abysmal
Just want to make a quick hit post here to record for posterity the fact that the announcers on TBS's baseball playoff coverage are, in a word, abysmal. In fact, the whole coverage is abysmal. Technical gaffes, missed plays (no one--I mean NO ONE--said a word about the blown caught stealing call in the Giants-Braves game until at least four innings later), confused commentary--just a disaster. It must be nice, to be so unconcerned about the fate of your industry that you would place its showcase events in the hands of amateurs. Another fine call by The Idiot Selig.
Yeesh.
Yeesh.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Reel Reviews Archive
Capote (~)
Shopgirl (+)
Sin City (~)
The Wrestler (+)
Avatar (+)
Inglourious Basterds (+)
Frost/Nixon (+)
Slap Shot (~)
Big Fan (~)
Saturday Night Fever (+)
Shopgirl (+)
Sin City (~)
The Wrestler (+)
Avatar (+)
Inglourious Basterds (+)
Frost/Nixon (+)
Slap Shot (~)
Big Fan (~)
Saturday Night Fever (+)
I Need To Watch More Westerns
It's been a long time since Westerns were the dominant genre in the movie business. They have become somewhat forgotten now. But I just finished watching The Magnificent Seven, and I've decided that I need to watch more Westerns.
Perhaps it's because the genre has dropped so far outside the mainstream, but when viewed with today's perspective, a Western comes across as a remarkably refreshing experience. It is such a different world view contained in those horse operas; the stock and trade elements of the genre are so alien to modern viewers, the characterizations so foreign, the rituals so different from what we're used to, that watching these old films can come across as discovering something new and exciting. The best of them are delightful and engaging anachronisms, like visiting another time and place and relishing the experience of a country we used to know.
I doubt Westerns will ever catch on again and dominate the screen the way they once did. Our country--indeed, the world--has long since passed that time by. But folks could do worse than to step into that world for a couple of hours every once in a while. Viewers might, if ever so fleetingly, find something they may have otherwise lost forever.
Perhaps it's because the genre has dropped so far outside the mainstream, but when viewed with today's perspective, a Western comes across as a remarkably refreshing experience. It is such a different world view contained in those horse operas; the stock and trade elements of the genre are so alien to modern viewers, the characterizations so foreign, the rituals so different from what we're used to, that watching these old films can come across as discovering something new and exciting. The best of them are delightful and engaging anachronisms, like visiting another time and place and relishing the experience of a country we used to know.
I doubt Westerns will ever catch on again and dominate the screen the way they once did. Our country--indeed, the world--has long since passed that time by. But folks could do worse than to step into that world for a couple of hours every once in a while. Viewers might, if ever so fleetingly, find something they may have otherwise lost forever.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
As Expected
Phillies back in first place, by a game as of this post. Nice. Now they just need to carry through and bring the division home--no jinxing it. It will be nice to see at least a few of my preseason predictions actually come through; at the moment, only the East divisions have held form. But another trip to the World Series for the Phillies will help assuage my feelings of frustration, to be sure.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Human Again, Again
Today's reading on the scale came to 296.5 pounds--the first time in over 2 years I'm below 300 pounds. I am, for the moment at least, human again. Let's see how well I can build on this.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Momentous Occasion
It happened just short while ago, in my kitchen. As I walked past the open window, I caught the first distinct whiff of that certain flavor in the air that always says "Fall" to me. I don't know what it is exactly, what constitutes that scent and distinguishes the air of autumn from any other time of the year, but I've always been able to smell it, distinctly, and this evening proved to be the first time this year I met that welcome omen. Bring on the football, falling leaves, holidays, and crisp weather!
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Cinema, verité
I just got around to watching Avatar last week. I was pleasantly surprised, finding a better movie than I was expecting, with some decent character development and a story that was perhaps somewhat obvious, but not really "eye-roll" worthy. Then I finally got around to watching Inglourious Basterds tonight, and again I was pleasantly surprised. Tarantino delivered a tight, entertaining movie (even considering its running time [around 2:30]), not the sprawling mess of a film I thought I recognized at first glance. And just that quickly, Inglourious Basterds moved up the ladder, knocking Avatar down a peg on the list of best movies of last year.
That judgment led me to consider the long plight of special-effects-laden sci-fi epics--a class of film long on success and influence, but short on critical respect. Ever since Star Wars--you know the one I'm talking about; episode numbers be damned--changed movies in America (and around the world, really), received a Best Picture nomination, and then lost to Annie Hall, a string of wildly popular, commercially successful, and visually innovative films have come and gone without receiving much respect come awards season beyond some statues for their technical merits. Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T., Back to the Future, Jurassic Park, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and The Dark Knight spring to mind as examples of special effects spectaculars that hit the theaters as blockbusters, bringing new dimensions to movie-making that, taken with their financial successes and widespread cultural impacts, would have made any one of them arguably the film of the year at their respective times of release. Yet only The Return of the King actually won the Best Picture award. All the others came up short--some as nominees, others out the running entirely. Avatar is just the latest to join that list of big movies that couldn't.
This track record has always seemed unfair. Many of these films far outpaced their contemporary competition in any number of facets. One can certainly argue, for instance, that Jurassic Park, for all its flaws, was destined to have a far greater cultural impact than that other 1993 Spielberg film, the one that actually did win the Best Picture Oscar: Schindler's List. That Schindler's List is a fine movie and influential in its own right is undeniable. But by many a metric, one would be hard pressed to argue that Schindler's List had a greater impact than Jurassic Park. The latter represented a quantum leap forward in the art of special effects, bringing new technologies to the art of filmmaking that continue to evolve and change movies to this day. (Avatar is almost a direct descendant of Jurassic Park, in this sense.) And that comparison, between Jurassic Park and Schindler's List, is one of the narrower battles. Few people today would rank Gandhi ahead of E.T. on their list of favorite movies. And while Annie Hall is a fine movie and fondly remembered, any argument that its impact on movies and our culture outweighed Star Wars would be laughable.
Given these examples, the temptation may be great to view Avatar in a more favorable light than Inglourious Basterds. Its long term impact on film will likely be greater, given its advanced special effects and (perhaps) its 3D presentation. (I'm not sold on 3D as yet.) It is likely that sequels will be forthcoming, and future directors will be taking its cues when making big, blockbuster special effects entertainments. Inglourious Basterds will not have a similar impact. (The odds of it inspiring a string of violent, highly cinema-literate war movies are, shall we say, unlikely.) So why, then, do I rate Inglourious Basterds as a better movie than Avatar, having just watched them back to back?
Two reasons. One, Inglourious Basterds is simply a better overall movie. Better dialogue, better characters, better story. Avatar was fun to watch, but just not up to that snuff. Two--and here's the meat of the matter--Avatar's impact almost certainly will be bigger in the long term, for the reasons previously stated. Yet, taking the long view, that influence is not automatically destined to be positive. As with Star Wars, Avatar is likely to spawn a host of imitators and descendants, most if not all of which will be something much less than the original. (In the case of Star Wars, included among those poor imitators would be its own prequels.) The new technologies and techniques created by James Cameron will be bequeathed to a host of unworthy followers, whose ill-conceived offspring will assault our cinemas for years to come. How many bad movies will waste our viewing hours, annoy us with their saturation advertising, and clutter the shelves (or disk space) of our libraries in the future, all because someone tried to make the next Avatar? As likely as not, we'll suffer no such indignities thanks to Inglourious Basterds.
That, then, is the problem with special effects sci-fi spectaculars. The very thing they hang their hats on, the engine which drives their ascent from the middling ranks of genre up to the heights of movie-making, is the same thing that ultimately sullies their environment. Their very own innovations are what eventually drags the level of their genre back down into the abyss from whence it came--and thus makes the future climb that much steeper. In that way, what appears at first glance to be an unfair lack of respect may in fact be nothing more than justice served ahead of its time. And so, any filmmaker who wishes to rise to the top through the ranks of the sci-fi genre may find the effort leads to an ending which is ultimately--if you'll forgive me for indulging in le mot juste--inglorious.
That judgment led me to consider the long plight of special-effects-laden sci-fi epics--a class of film long on success and influence, but short on critical respect. Ever since Star Wars--you know the one I'm talking about; episode numbers be damned--changed movies in America (and around the world, really), received a Best Picture nomination, and then lost to Annie Hall, a string of wildly popular, commercially successful, and visually innovative films have come and gone without receiving much respect come awards season beyond some statues for their technical merits. Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T., Back to the Future, Jurassic Park, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and The Dark Knight spring to mind as examples of special effects spectaculars that hit the theaters as blockbusters, bringing new dimensions to movie-making that, taken with their financial successes and widespread cultural impacts, would have made any one of them arguably the film of the year at their respective times of release. Yet only The Return of the King actually won the Best Picture award. All the others came up short--some as nominees, others out the running entirely. Avatar is just the latest to join that list of big movies that couldn't.
This track record has always seemed unfair. Many of these films far outpaced their contemporary competition in any number of facets. One can certainly argue, for instance, that Jurassic Park, for all its flaws, was destined to have a far greater cultural impact than that other 1993 Spielberg film, the one that actually did win the Best Picture Oscar: Schindler's List. That Schindler's List is a fine movie and influential in its own right is undeniable. But by many a metric, one would be hard pressed to argue that Schindler's List had a greater impact than Jurassic Park. The latter represented a quantum leap forward in the art of special effects, bringing new technologies to the art of filmmaking that continue to evolve and change movies to this day. (Avatar is almost a direct descendant of Jurassic Park, in this sense.) And that comparison, between Jurassic Park and Schindler's List, is one of the narrower battles. Few people today would rank Gandhi ahead of E.T. on their list of favorite movies. And while Annie Hall is a fine movie and fondly remembered, any argument that its impact on movies and our culture outweighed Star Wars would be laughable.
Given these examples, the temptation may be great to view Avatar in a more favorable light than Inglourious Basterds. Its long term impact on film will likely be greater, given its advanced special effects and (perhaps) its 3D presentation. (I'm not sold on 3D as yet.) It is likely that sequels will be forthcoming, and future directors will be taking its cues when making big, blockbuster special effects entertainments. Inglourious Basterds will not have a similar impact. (The odds of it inspiring a string of violent, highly cinema-literate war movies are, shall we say, unlikely.) So why, then, do I rate Inglourious Basterds as a better movie than Avatar, having just watched them back to back?
Two reasons. One, Inglourious Basterds is simply a better overall movie. Better dialogue, better characters, better story. Avatar was fun to watch, but just not up to that snuff. Two--and here's the meat of the matter--Avatar's impact almost certainly will be bigger in the long term, for the reasons previously stated. Yet, taking the long view, that influence is not automatically destined to be positive. As with Star Wars, Avatar is likely to spawn a host of imitators and descendants, most if not all of which will be something much less than the original. (In the case of Star Wars, included among those poor imitators would be its own prequels.) The new technologies and techniques created by James Cameron will be bequeathed to a host of unworthy followers, whose ill-conceived offspring will assault our cinemas for years to come. How many bad movies will waste our viewing hours, annoy us with their saturation advertising, and clutter the shelves (or disk space) of our libraries in the future, all because someone tried to make the next Avatar? As likely as not, we'll suffer no such indignities thanks to Inglourious Basterds.
That, then, is the problem with special effects sci-fi spectaculars. The very thing they hang their hats on, the engine which drives their ascent from the middling ranks of genre up to the heights of movie-making, is the same thing that ultimately sullies their environment. Their very own innovations are what eventually drags the level of their genre back down into the abyss from whence it came--and thus makes the future climb that much steeper. In that way, what appears at first glance to be an unfair lack of respect may in fact be nothing more than justice served ahead of its time. And so, any filmmaker who wishes to rise to the top through the ranks of the sci-fi genre may find the effort leads to an ending which is ultimately--if you'll forgive me for indulging in le mot juste--inglorious.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
A New Equation
In response to this story, I'd like to propose a new equation:
E > mc^2s
Should be read as:
Einstein (is greater than) motherfucking conservative squares
Really, that about says it all.
E > mc
Should be read as:
Einstein (is greater than) motherfucking conservative squares
Really, that about says it all.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
crApple
I have an iPod. Two of them in fact. And I have long been an Apple partisan, having been the owner of a series of Macintosh desktop systems. But I'm getting fed up.
My iPod Touch is--or rather, was--a delightful piece of technology. But then it took a swan dive into the toilet, and this unscheduled dip had, shall we say, a negative effect on it. The screen turned dopey, and no longer displays everything in clear, sharp, vibrant tones. But it's still readable, for the most part. And the speaker/headphone interface wound up screwed up; the music being played would come out of the speaker even when the headphones were plugged in, thus decreasing the volume going into the ears and rendering the volume control non-operable. Not great, but the machine retained some measure of its functionality. Apps still worked, info kept being stored, the music would play, albeit in a crippled state.
Then Apple released an update to the system software. And ever since that update installed on the Touch, there have been issues. The music volume, already problematic, now has developed a habit of going schizo right in the middle of playing, with the usual result being the iPod stops playback by itself. This renders listening to the sounds frustrating, at best.
So I tried to perform a restore on my Touch. The panel in iTunes clearly says, if you're having problems with your iPod, try to restore it. So I did. Except, when I did, the computer informed me that "there was a problem." The upshot being, it couldn't restore my iPod to its last known settings. Hence, some of my personal info--app content and settings, mostly--got lost in the process. (Oddly, not all; just most of it.) Boom. Gone. Several months worth of checklists, high scores, bookmarks, etc. down the drain.
You may ask, well, what do you expect? You're Touch is broken. Yes, it is, but it was not functionally broken. It still worked, and showed no sign of not working before the software update. Being dinged up should not be a death sentence for a piece of tech. My old iPod mini--the one I now use for music listening--has gone through many a hell of knocks and drops, and it survives quite nicely and does what it always has done. And I've heard stories of other pieces of equipment that have been through a lot--some even through the washing machine--and still came out working. What's up with the Touch that it's so fragile?
Plus, remember, it wasn't the brief toilet swim that knocked it out of semi-working condition. It was limping along, but usable, before the update. It's a software issue, not a hardware issue. And it's further complicated by another software issue: those backups iTunes runs every time you link up your iPod apparently aren't worth shit. Because when the time comes to restore...oops, can't do it.
This episode--along with other recent news--only increases my sense that Apple more and more doesn't give a shit about the quality of its products. It only cares about getting them publicity and selling them.
And that has me thinking about the future. At some point, I may need to seriously reconsider my choice for a computer. And a personal music player. And whatever else the future has to offer. Because Apple is not making the grade. And now, for the first time ever, I'd have to say that if I were asked by someone on the fence, someone looking to buy a first computer or phone or whatever, I would not automatically recommend anything Steve Jobs has had his hands on.
Think different indeed.
My iPod Touch is--or rather, was--a delightful piece of technology. But then it took a swan dive into the toilet, and this unscheduled dip had, shall we say, a negative effect on it. The screen turned dopey, and no longer displays everything in clear, sharp, vibrant tones. But it's still readable, for the most part. And the speaker/headphone interface wound up screwed up; the music being played would come out of the speaker even when the headphones were plugged in, thus decreasing the volume going into the ears and rendering the volume control non-operable. Not great, but the machine retained some measure of its functionality. Apps still worked, info kept being stored, the music would play, albeit in a crippled state.
Then Apple released an update to the system software. And ever since that update installed on the Touch, there have been issues. The music volume, already problematic, now has developed a habit of going schizo right in the middle of playing, with the usual result being the iPod stops playback by itself. This renders listening to the sounds frustrating, at best.
So I tried to perform a restore on my Touch. The panel in iTunes clearly says, if you're having problems with your iPod, try to restore it. So I did. Except, when I did, the computer informed me that "there was a problem." The upshot being, it couldn't restore my iPod to its last known settings. Hence, some of my personal info--app content and settings, mostly--got lost in the process. (Oddly, not all; just most of it.) Boom. Gone. Several months worth of checklists, high scores, bookmarks, etc. down the drain.
You may ask, well, what do you expect? You're Touch is broken. Yes, it is, but it was not functionally broken. It still worked, and showed no sign of not working before the software update. Being dinged up should not be a death sentence for a piece of tech. My old iPod mini--the one I now use for music listening--has gone through many a hell of knocks and drops, and it survives quite nicely and does what it always has done. And I've heard stories of other pieces of equipment that have been through a lot--some even through the washing machine--and still came out working. What's up with the Touch that it's so fragile?
Plus, remember, it wasn't the brief toilet swim that knocked it out of semi-working condition. It was limping along, but usable, before the update. It's a software issue, not a hardware issue. And it's further complicated by another software issue: those backups iTunes runs every time you link up your iPod apparently aren't worth shit. Because when the time comes to restore...oops, can't do it.
This episode--along with other recent news--only increases my sense that Apple more and more doesn't give a shit about the quality of its products. It only cares about getting them publicity and selling them.
And that has me thinking about the future. At some point, I may need to seriously reconsider my choice for a computer. And a personal music player. And whatever else the future has to offer. Because Apple is not making the grade. And now, for the first time ever, I'd have to say that if I were asked by someone on the fence, someone looking to buy a first computer or phone or whatever, I would not automatically recommend anything Steve Jobs has had his hands on.
Think different indeed.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Unverbal
I realized today that it had been a while since I posted here. No matter, really, since no one reads this. But this does exist as a record of my thoughts in time and place, so I might as well write something. And then, as I sat here, hands hovering over the keyboard, I realized that I couldn't think of anything to write about. (Except one thing, which would be a screed about one more of the indignities that are routinely dumped upon my head by life, but at the moment I choose not to vent about it.) Really, nothing to say, either about life in general, specific instances, what's going on now--nothing--or even the most banal observation about the 'dog days' of Summer having firmly landed upon the world with an unceremonious 'thud.' ('Dog days' of Summer being the wretched opposite of the much more delightful 'Cat Days of Christmas,' a concept of which I am the author. Check the archive.)
I have nothing to say. I am Unverbal. I am, as Lisa Simpson once famously noted, losing my perspicacity.
Part of a larger trend? The result of monotony, unemployment, consistent disappointments in a number of minuscule venues? I don't know, but it's a bit disturbing.
Then again, I at least had enough language bouncing around the cranium to write this post, about no being able to write a post--so perhaps there's no real problem at all.
Shrug. So it goes.
I have nothing to say. I am Unverbal. I am, as Lisa Simpson once famously noted, losing my perspicacity.
Part of a larger trend? The result of monotony, unemployment, consistent disappointments in a number of minuscule venues? I don't know, but it's a bit disturbing.
Then again, I at least had enough language bouncing around the cranium to write this post, about no being able to write a post--so perhaps there's no real problem at all.
Shrug. So it goes.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Midseason Review
So we're at the All-Star break (or a day or two later--no difference), the traditional mid point of the baseball season, so let's take a look at my predictions made back in April.
In the AL, two of my three picks to win their divisions, New York and Chicago, are in first place as of the break. The third, Los Angeles, is in second place, a perfectly reasonable 4.5 games out. My choice for the wild card, Boston, trails Tampa Bay by 3.5 games--again, not an insurmountable lead. Most of the rest of the divisions play out about as I expected, with most teams within one slot of their predicted order of finish. The one wild hare (hair?) is Texas, who are far exceeding my expectations. I must admit, at this point, that the Rangers seem for real to me, and I don't expect them to fade away. That said, I reiterate as above, the Angels can still overtake them without extraordinary effort. Expect this to be close all the way to the end.
The NL looks quite a bit different. None of my predicted division winners hold first place at the moment. I had Atlanta as a wild card team, so I definitely knew they would make a move upward; I just didn't expect the disgracefully indifferent play of the Phillies, who should have a substantially better record right now, injuries or not. And San Diego and Cincinnati have played far above my expectations; I had both clubs in the bottom of their divisions, if not actually in last place. Nevertheless, I see the Phillies within striking distance (5.5 games out) if they would just get their shit together; I see St. Louis a mere whisker behind the Reds, at 0.5 GB; and Los Angeles, at 2.5 GB, breathing heavily upon the necks of the Padres (and the Rockies, just a half game ahead of the Dodgers). And the rest of each division stacks not too far away from what I predicted (indeed, with the exception of the Reds, the Central stacks exactly as I predicted--a decent trick even for half a season.
Put it all together, and I feel good about my prognostications. I'm definitely getting the hang of this. Not quite Stephen the Greek, perhaps, but moving ever closer to making this preseason prediction thing less a guess, more a science.
Selah.
In the AL, two of my three picks to win their divisions, New York and Chicago, are in first place as of the break. The third, Los Angeles, is in second place, a perfectly reasonable 4.5 games out. My choice for the wild card, Boston, trails Tampa Bay by 3.5 games--again, not an insurmountable lead. Most of the rest of the divisions play out about as I expected, with most teams within one slot of their predicted order of finish. The one wild hare (hair?) is Texas, who are far exceeding my expectations. I must admit, at this point, that the Rangers seem for real to me, and I don't expect them to fade away. That said, I reiterate as above, the Angels can still overtake them without extraordinary effort. Expect this to be close all the way to the end.
The NL looks quite a bit different. None of my predicted division winners hold first place at the moment. I had Atlanta as a wild card team, so I definitely knew they would make a move upward; I just didn't expect the disgracefully indifferent play of the Phillies, who should have a substantially better record right now, injuries or not. And San Diego and Cincinnati have played far above my expectations; I had both clubs in the bottom of their divisions, if not actually in last place. Nevertheless, I see the Phillies within striking distance (5.5 games out) if they would just get their shit together; I see St. Louis a mere whisker behind the Reds, at 0.5 GB; and Los Angeles, at 2.5 GB, breathing heavily upon the necks of the Padres (and the Rockies, just a half game ahead of the Dodgers). And the rest of each division stacks not too far away from what I predicted (indeed, with the exception of the Reds, the Central stacks exactly as I predicted--a decent trick even for half a season.
Put it all together, and I feel good about my prognostications. I'm definitely getting the hang of this. Not quite Stephen the Greek, perhaps, but moving ever closer to making this preseason prediction thing less a guess, more a science.
Selah.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Scientific Genius
I have lately been in the habit of taking the Periodic Table quiz over at Sporcle.com. I first took this test on 3/13/10, and scored a poor 71 out of 118 elements. Subsequent trials have seen my score improve again and again, until finally, this evening, I GOT ALL 118 ELEMENTS! Clearly, I'm on my way to becoming the next Seaborg.
Top that, bitches!
Top that, bitches!
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Stunning Similarity
I have a habit, something that developed during my years living in the relative remoteness of my last apartment, where there was little chance of being observed in my habit. Which is this: after I take a shower, I like to towel myself off, then lay down on my bed uncovered, usually with the fan on, blowing gentle breezes over me as any residual moisture is evaporated from my naked skin. I tend to indulge myself thus for perhaps a half an hour, sometimes longer, until I decide I've had enough of this particular pleasure.
Why do I mention this? Because I'm currently reading Doing Nothing by Tom Lutz, described by subtitle as "a history of loafers, loungers, slackers, and bums in America," and I came across this most germane passage:
Imagine that. Me, a modern Ben Franklin! Now if only I could invent a new stove or become Postmaster of someplace...
Why do I mention this? Because I'm currently reading Doing Nothing by Tom Lutz, described by subtitle as "a history of loafers, loungers, slackers, and bums in America," and I came across this most germane passage:
He [Benjamin Franklin] became notorious in London in the 1760s for his daily "airbath," which consisted of lying uncovered and naked on a bed for an hour, a practice he claimed was good for one's health.
Imagine that. Me, a modern Ben Franklin! Now if only I could invent a new stove or become Postmaster of someplace...
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
New Knowledge
I came to the conclusion tonight that the two most important substances in the universe are cheese and chocolate. That's all I have right now; if I develop this notion any further, I will report back later with details.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Just Not Good Enough
That is the sad verdict handed down upon the Philadelphia Flyers tonight. I'm disappointed, but the plain truth is they lost to a better team, and they got much further into the playoffs than I ever imagined they would back in February or March.
Early in the playoffs, my evaluation of the Flyers went like this: they need two more impact players, one on defense, one on offense, and they need to solidify their goaltending before they can legitimately contend. The team got within two games of the Cup, but I still think that analysis holds. Adding Pronger was not enough for their blue line; clearly, they need one more big, preferably fast defenseman to make their D rock solid. Can they get more out of the front line with maturation by young players like Leino and van Riemsdyk? Or do they really need to add another scorer? Not sure about that at this point, and I suppose it will have to wait to see who is available in the off-season via free agency or trade.
The goaltending is also a matter for deep thought. Clearly, neither Leighton nor Boucher is going to be the answer there, despite this year's success. Both were exposed against Chicago. They still have Emery (I think), and perhaps he can come back next season and be a solid number one goalie the whole way through. Perhaps.
Then again...perhaps the most galling part of this result lies in the fact that my two favorite teams went out in successive rounds to the same team. First the local team, the Sharks, laid an egg against Chicago, then the Flyers, the team of my youth, couldn't measure up to the Blackhawks. It's worth noting that Nabokov will be a free agent this summer. While he has taken a lot of heat around here for the Sharks' playoff failure, the plain fact is he's a cut above both Leighton and Boucher right now; Nabokov didn't give up 5 or 7 goals to the Blackhawks in any of those four games.
It's very possible, then, that the Flyers will go after Nabokov this summer. Would they have won the Cup with their current team, had Nabokov been in the net? There's no way of knowing, of course, but it is a scenario worth pondering. We will see what we will see.
So congratulations to Chicago, and thanks to the Flyers for a terrific run. I already can't wait for October.
Early in the playoffs, my evaluation of the Flyers went like this: they need two more impact players, one on defense, one on offense, and they need to solidify their goaltending before they can legitimately contend. The team got within two games of the Cup, but I still think that analysis holds. Adding Pronger was not enough for their blue line; clearly, they need one more big, preferably fast defenseman to make their D rock solid. Can they get more out of the front line with maturation by young players like Leino and van Riemsdyk? Or do they really need to add another scorer? Not sure about that at this point, and I suppose it will have to wait to see who is available in the off-season via free agency or trade.
The goaltending is also a matter for deep thought. Clearly, neither Leighton nor Boucher is going to be the answer there, despite this year's success. Both were exposed against Chicago. They still have Emery (I think), and perhaps he can come back next season and be a solid number one goalie the whole way through. Perhaps.
Then again...perhaps the most galling part of this result lies in the fact that my two favorite teams went out in successive rounds to the same team. First the local team, the Sharks, laid an egg against Chicago, then the Flyers, the team of my youth, couldn't measure up to the Blackhawks. It's worth noting that Nabokov will be a free agent this summer. While he has taken a lot of heat around here for the Sharks' playoff failure, the plain fact is he's a cut above both Leighton and Boucher right now; Nabokov didn't give up 5 or 7 goals to the Blackhawks in any of those four games.
It's very possible, then, that the Flyers will go after Nabokov this summer. Would they have won the Cup with their current team, had Nabokov been in the net? There's no way of knowing, of course, but it is a scenario worth pondering. We will see what we will see.
So congratulations to Chicago, and thanks to the Flyers for a terrific run. I already can't wait for October.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Insanity
This post is a few days past its sell by date, but...
I went to the A's game Monday night. The experience was typical; the nachos grande was delightful, the weather was cold (as always for night games at the Coliseum), the game was a dog (Angels 4, A's 2, and it wasn't that close), etc. But that's not what I have on my mind. No, I'm thinking about the thing that should be atypical about going to a ballgame: specifically, the price of attendance.
I often hear the argument about how prices for going to a major league baseball game have kept pace with inflation, it's still a good deal for a family, blah blah blah. I'm sure you can make that case, via either lies, damn lies, or statistics. But I think something else is going on there next to the Nimitz Freeway, and I think that because of the parking fee.
Now, I didn't drive to the Coliseum Monday night. I never do; I always take BART to the game, because of the cost of parking. So it had been a while since I actually knew how much parking at an A's game cost, and I had to ask a couple of folks I passed near the entry gate how much the A's and/or the Coliseum are charging for parking these days. That figure is--I'll pause here so you can put on a diaper, because you're about to shit yourself--that figure is $17.
Seventeen dollars. Just to park your car at the stadium. You don't even get in to watch the game for that; you just get to rest your vehicle somewhere in the lot.
Some reading this will shrug in indifference and say, "Well, sure, parking is expensive anywhere you go these days." That's true to a point. In congested areas where there is minimal space for maximum numbers of cars--downtown Oakland, along Park Street here in Alameda, anywhere in San Francisco--there is a premium on finding space to house your vehicle. It will cost you. No surprise there--that's just simple economics, the dismal science in its most fundamental equation: supply vs. demand. Where there is short supply and high demand, prices go up. Simple.
But that's not the situation at A's games. The Athletics are routinely drawing in the neighborhood of 10K paying customers to their games. Among those few who do show up, a sizable percentage take public transit (like I do) to get there. In other words, for most A's games, there are--and I mean this quite literally--acres of area available for parking cars. They're charging high prices where there is virtually no demand.
Worse still, as I mentioned before, that $17 doesn't even get you into the game. If you're a cheapskate, there are three choices of ticket that will get you into the stadium for less than you paid for parking: the bleachers ($13), "plaza reserved" (a section on "Mount Davis" that is above and beyond the bleachers) for $9 (the cheapest seat in the place), or the "value deck" in the nosebleed section behind home plate, where for $12 you get your seat and a $6 voucher you can spend on food or merchandise. (Of course, almost everything food or merch costs more than $6, so don't leave your wallet in the car.) Every other seat in the house costs even more money, from the $18 plaza outfield tickets all the way up to the $48 MVP box seats on the field behind home plate, where (one presumes) every one of your whims is catered to.
Put it all together, and you've got an expensive night out. For a loner like me, if I drove to the game, sat in the cheapest seat, and ate dinner there (rough estimate, $10 for sufficient food and beverage), that's $36 for one night's entertainment. The cost goes up a steep slope if you have a friend or (god forbid) a family; but at least you get to share that parking cost.
And what does this all mean in the great scheme of things? How has this pricing plan worked out for the A's? Just peachy, of course! For instance, we can see that the A's are currently 26th in attendance in MLB; they average 17,997 per game, selling 41.2% of available tickets. Basic math informs us that 58.8% of their tickets--way more than half--go unsold.
And those figures are probably not truly representative. For one thing, baseball teams are notorious liars about attendance figures; teams usually announce tickets sold, not bodies in the seats, for attendance figures. Nor would one be surprised to find that the numbers were fudged beyond that, just to make attendance look more robust for public consumption than it really is. Even if the numbers are wholly accurate, with the A's their attendance gets boosted by selling lots of discounted tickets. (Their "double play Wednesday" promotion always boosts the gate count; plus they engage in various other promotional giveaways and discounts). Most games, the MVP seats are filled, but the rest of the crowd is scattered throughout the wide open spaces of the Coliseum.
In sum: parking--low demand, high supply, high cost ($17). Tickets--low demand, high supply, high cost (most $18 and above). Simple economics would indicate that both the tickets and parking are set way above their price point. And this in the middle of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. What is going on here?
There are, I think, two possible answers to this seeming economic dilemma:
1) Everyone running the A's is insane. They (and their adjuncts with the city of Oakland and Alameda County, who have some input in running the Coliseum) are out of their fucking minds and completely devoid of any connection with economic reality. They should lower prices in order to boost attendance and gain the associated benefits of more bodies in the seats, but their derangement makes them unable to make sensible business decisions. Or,
2) This is not the product of insanity, but a calculated strategy to drive down attendance and make the A's seem to be not viable in their current location.
See, I'm leaning toward option 2. And it's the parking fee that gets me there. I can understand overpriced tickets. People will always want to go to the game; however they get there, when they arrive, they'll pay a few bucks (or much more than a few bucks) to get in the gate. You'll always find a few suckers who will pay top dollar. And no matter how you get there, be it driving or riding or just plain walking, you need to buy a ticket to get in. But $17 for parking? In a lot that, for most games, will never be more than 1/4 full? If the cost of the ticket is spitting in the customer's face, then that parking fee is kicking the customer in the groin. It is an expression of utter contempt for the people who, by any reckoning, should be the ones paying your way.
The next time someone argues that the A's simply can't make a go of it in their current location, in their current stadium, with their current karma, etc. etc. etc., I think that parking fee is the trump card to play against that argument. I think it shows that the current ownership simply doesn't give a damn about making the A's a legitimate and viable organization. They just want to cash their luxury tax checks from the real team owners and slink away into the night. The sooner they do that slinking, the better off baseball fans in the East Bay will be.
I went to the A's game Monday night. The experience was typical; the nachos grande was delightful, the weather was cold (as always for night games at the Coliseum), the game was a dog (Angels 4, A's 2, and it wasn't that close), etc. But that's not what I have on my mind. No, I'm thinking about the thing that should be atypical about going to a ballgame: specifically, the price of attendance.
I often hear the argument about how prices for going to a major league baseball game have kept pace with inflation, it's still a good deal for a family, blah blah blah. I'm sure you can make that case, via either lies, damn lies, or statistics. But I think something else is going on there next to the Nimitz Freeway, and I think that because of the parking fee.
Now, I didn't drive to the Coliseum Monday night. I never do; I always take BART to the game, because of the cost of parking. So it had been a while since I actually knew how much parking at an A's game cost, and I had to ask a couple of folks I passed near the entry gate how much the A's and/or the Coliseum are charging for parking these days. That figure is--I'll pause here so you can put on a diaper, because you're about to shit yourself--that figure is $17.
Seventeen dollars. Just to park your car at the stadium. You don't even get in to watch the game for that; you just get to rest your vehicle somewhere in the lot.
Some reading this will shrug in indifference and say, "Well, sure, parking is expensive anywhere you go these days." That's true to a point. In congested areas where there is minimal space for maximum numbers of cars--downtown Oakland, along Park Street here in Alameda, anywhere in San Francisco--there is a premium on finding space to house your vehicle. It will cost you. No surprise there--that's just simple economics, the dismal science in its most fundamental equation: supply vs. demand. Where there is short supply and high demand, prices go up. Simple.
But that's not the situation at A's games. The Athletics are routinely drawing in the neighborhood of 10K paying customers to their games. Among those few who do show up, a sizable percentage take public transit (like I do) to get there. In other words, for most A's games, there are--and I mean this quite literally--acres of area available for parking cars. They're charging high prices where there is virtually no demand.
Worse still, as I mentioned before, that $17 doesn't even get you into the game. If you're a cheapskate, there are three choices of ticket that will get you into the stadium for less than you paid for parking: the bleachers ($13), "plaza reserved" (a section on "Mount Davis" that is above and beyond the bleachers) for $9 (the cheapest seat in the place), or the "value deck" in the nosebleed section behind home plate, where for $12 you get your seat and a $6 voucher you can spend on food or merchandise. (Of course, almost everything food or merch costs more than $6, so don't leave your wallet in the car.) Every other seat in the house costs even more money, from the $18 plaza outfield tickets all the way up to the $48 MVP box seats on the field behind home plate, where (one presumes) every one of your whims is catered to.
Put it all together, and you've got an expensive night out. For a loner like me, if I drove to the game, sat in the cheapest seat, and ate dinner there (rough estimate, $10 for sufficient food and beverage), that's $36 for one night's entertainment. The cost goes up a steep slope if you have a friend or (god forbid) a family; but at least you get to share that parking cost.
And what does this all mean in the great scheme of things? How has this pricing plan worked out for the A's? Just peachy, of course! For instance, we can see that the A's are currently 26th in attendance in MLB; they average 17,997 per game, selling 41.2% of available tickets. Basic math informs us that 58.8% of their tickets--way more than half--go unsold.
And those figures are probably not truly representative. For one thing, baseball teams are notorious liars about attendance figures; teams usually announce tickets sold, not bodies in the seats, for attendance figures. Nor would one be surprised to find that the numbers were fudged beyond that, just to make attendance look more robust for public consumption than it really is. Even if the numbers are wholly accurate, with the A's their attendance gets boosted by selling lots of discounted tickets. (Their "double play Wednesday" promotion always boosts the gate count; plus they engage in various other promotional giveaways and discounts). Most games, the MVP seats are filled, but the rest of the crowd is scattered throughout the wide open spaces of the Coliseum.
In sum: parking--low demand, high supply, high cost ($17). Tickets--low demand, high supply, high cost (most $18 and above). Simple economics would indicate that both the tickets and parking are set way above their price point. And this in the middle of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. What is going on here?
There are, I think, two possible answers to this seeming economic dilemma:
1) Everyone running the A's is insane. They (and their adjuncts with the city of Oakland and Alameda County, who have some input in running the Coliseum) are out of their fucking minds and completely devoid of any connection with economic reality. They should lower prices in order to boost attendance and gain the associated benefits of more bodies in the seats, but their derangement makes them unable to make sensible business decisions. Or,
2) This is not the product of insanity, but a calculated strategy to drive down attendance and make the A's seem to be not viable in their current location.
See, I'm leaning toward option 2. And it's the parking fee that gets me there. I can understand overpriced tickets. People will always want to go to the game; however they get there, when they arrive, they'll pay a few bucks (or much more than a few bucks) to get in the gate. You'll always find a few suckers who will pay top dollar. And no matter how you get there, be it driving or riding or just plain walking, you need to buy a ticket to get in. But $17 for parking? In a lot that, for most games, will never be more than 1/4 full? If the cost of the ticket is spitting in the customer's face, then that parking fee is kicking the customer in the groin. It is an expression of utter contempt for the people who, by any reckoning, should be the ones paying your way.
The next time someone argues that the A's simply can't make a go of it in their current location, in their current stadium, with their current karma, etc. etc. etc., I think that parking fee is the trump card to play against that argument. I think it shows that the current ownership simply doesn't give a damn about making the A's a legitimate and viable organization. They just want to cash their luxury tax checks from the real team owners and slink away into the night. The sooner they do that slinking, the better off baseball fans in the East Bay will be.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Tough Situation
So, the Flyers are now down 0-2 to the Blackhawks in the Finals. Not a happy circumstance. Yet, I still feel vaguely hopeful. Chicago has certainly not blown out the Flyers by any stretch of the imagination. It is very easy to envision the next two games, nudged just slightly in the other direction by a home-ice boost in energy and confidence, going to Philadelphia. And I will be much more satisfied if that happens than I feel right now. Still, I feel mostly prepared for anything, come what may. The Flyers have already gotten way further down the road than I ever hoped they would this season, and winning the Cup would be a dream come true. Let's just hope they get it together and remember some dreams of their own.
Now if we can only teach the Phillies how to hit again. Yeesh.
Now if we can only teach the Phillies how to hit again. Yeesh.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Tasty
Around 3:45 this afternoon I ran over to Yo! Philly's to pick up a cheesesteak, and a package of Tastykake chocolate cup cakes, in anticipation of tonight's Game 7 between the Flyers and Bruins. It was delicious, except for the fact that the Flyers were down 3-0 by the time I finished my sandwich. Yet, I never panicked, and neither apparently did the Flyers, since it was 3-3 by the end of the second period. And now I just finished watching them complete the comeback and win 4-3, both game and series. Talk about a tasty treat indeed!
Thursday, May 13, 2010
I Come From The Land Of Pussycats
I just got back from a walk through my neighborhood. In 40 minutes of walking I had scratch-behind-the-ears encounters with 3 pussycats, plus visual meetings with at least 5 others. That's about a new cat every 5 minutes. And that is why I moved back to Alameda.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Publication Sensation
My essay The Champs/Chumps Ratio has been published in the new edition of the online 'zine teemings. Throw me a bone and click on over to take a look. I thank you in advance.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Writings
I've posted a couple of diary entries over at Daily Kos recently. In the interest of full access, here's a couple of links to those pieces:
Baseball the size of hail
Streets Paved With Zinc
There will also be a link here to my piece, "The Champs-Chumps Ratio," which will be in the upcoming issue of the e-zine teemings. I'll post a link to that when it is up and available.
Further cross-reference links will show up in the blog whenever I write something for another outlet.
Baseball the size of hail
Streets Paved With Zinc
There will also be a link here to my piece, "The Champs-Chumps Ratio," which will be in the upcoming issue of the e-zine teemings. I'll post a link to that when it is up and available.
Further cross-reference links will show up in the blog whenever I write something for another outlet.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Baseball 2010
To inaugurate Malchats Matters, my new home on the web, I am reproducing here my predictions for this year's baseball season. As always, it's a rich and savory chance to be dead wrong in public, and to put that chance on the record, or at least on someone else's server. So, enjoy. But please, as always, no wagering.
It's that time again: the budding cusp of a new baseball season, and another chance to be hideously wrong in a public forum. It's a chance I can never pass up, so here they are, my predictions for who will do what in Major League Baseball 2010:
AL East
New York 108-54
Boston 101-61
Tampa Bay 88-74
Toronto 77-85
Baltimore 74-88
AL Central
Chicago 92-70
Minnesota 90-72
Detroit 87-75
Kansas City 74-88
Cleveland 65-97
AL West
Los Angeles 106-86
Seattle 86-76
Oakland 78-84
Texas 74-88
NL East
Philadelphia 100-62
Atlanta 95-67
Florida 83-79
New York 79-83
Washington 72-90
NL Central
St. Louis 90-72
Milwaukee 85-77
Chicago 77-85
Houston 74-88
Cincinnati 72-90
Pittsburgh 57-105
NL West
Los Angeles 99-63
San Francisco 85-77
Colorado 83-79
San Diego 79-83
Arizona 75-87
You'll notice a lot of really gaudy records predicted in that table. I don't really expect, for instance, that the Yankees will win 108 games. And I don't think baseball has ever seen a season where four teams won 100 or more games. These inflated records are a product of my methodology for predicting teams' records. I introduced some new factors to my calculations this year, and there are obviously a few flaws in the system, kinks that need to be worked out in the coming years. Nevertheless, while the records may not prove precise, I stand by the relative strengths and weaknesses indicated by the predictions above. The strong teams do stand a substantial cut above the weaker teams throughout the leagues. And I expect, given the predicted records above, that this will be another season where strong AL teams feast upon an abundance of weaker NL teams.
As for individual division outlooks:
AL EAST -- This looks depressingly familiar. The plain truth is, New York looks to be better than last year, Boston has stepped up a notch...and the rest of the teams mostly stood pat. Noises have been made to the contrary, but the disgraceful truth remains that the other three teams in this division are simply not making the effort (spending the money?) to challenge the top two teams. Tampa Bay is a nice little team, but nice little teams don't cut it against the rapacious beasts who live above them. Toronto looks like a major backslide, and Baltimore still doesn't have a legitimate rotation.
AL CENTRAL -- Chicago finally looks like it has the team that can recapture the mid-decade magic that led to a title. They look just a hair better than the Twins, who look less impressive on paper--as always--yet seem to know how to get it done. Detroit has the look of a team with one hand tied behind its back, though whether that's an offensive or defensive hand is hard to tell; maybe it's both. Kansas City is just not there--not much pitching, not much offense, not much hope. At least they're not Cleveland; I foresee a major meltdown for the Tribe, who contended for a championship just a few years ago. It just goes to show, kids: be careful when you play with trading Cy Young Award winners.
AL WEST -- It is an absurdity to predict 100 wins for the Angels, after they lost both their #1 starter and biggest bat in the off season. Yet, they actually look better than last year's squad, which got no competition from the rest of the division. They may be the insider pick to win it all this year. Seattle is better, but not as much better as people think they are; this will be, essentially, a year of treading water for them. Oakland could make a jump up to a winning season, or even contend for a wild card spot if things get crazy...but I just don't trust their hitting or management to make that happen. Texas was a feel good story for a while, but I'm afraid there's backsliding going on, and last year's good showing will now disappear in a white, cloudy puff of...something.
NL EAST -- The best team got better; the other teams didn't. That's the short of it here, where the Phillies should comfortably cruise into the playoffs again. Better pitching overall, and simply the best lineup top to bottom in the league--and even improved over last season's juggernaut--should get them all the way to another championship series. Atlanta is coalescing into a fine team, one that could contend for it all in a year or two. But not now. Florida is Florida--lots of young talent, just not enough to take them very far (short of another lightning in a bottle championship, and I don't see that happening again soon). New York and Washington form the ugly underneath--one team on the way down, the other rising ever so slowly. There will be optimism in the Capital by the end of the season, and insanity in Queens by the same time.
NL CENTRAL -- St. Louis wins almost by default, as the best of an otherwise meager bunch. Lucky for them they have Pujols; otherwise they might be just another one of the Five Dwarves. Milwaukee gets to brag about being runner-up--generally not an enviable position but which makes them look fine compared to the rest of this division. You'll hear plenty of blather about Chicago this year, as always. The Cubs get lots of press; what they don't get are a lot of wins, which is how they determine who reaches the playoffs. Houston is the same as they ever were: an up and down team that will do a little of this, then a little of that, all of which will ultimately amount to nothing. Cincinnati should be better than this, yet they don't seem to be stepping up and getting the players they need to compete. They're a rudderless ship. Speaking of which, by now Pittsburgh has become the NL's Mary Celeste: a ghost ship, aimlessly drifting through empty seas, barely echoing with the memories of the vibrant, alive vessel it used to be. It's a crime that Pirate fans have had to endure this for so long.
NL WEST -- Here lives the one chance to stop the Philly machine in its tracks: the Dodgers. These guys pitch, they hit, they field, they light up the Jumbotron--Los Angeles is clearly the best team in this division, and may be the team that takes down the Phillies. San Francisco is continuing a nice resurgence, but they don't look like they've stepped up from last year--just held steady where they were. Another team treading water, as it were. Colorado is the chic pick in the NL this year, but don't get caught up; they may catch fire again, but not for the whole season, and you've got to sustain the good play over 162 to get invited to the party. It says here they'll hit a rut that will cost them enough to keep them out of it. San Diego is finally trying to tailor their team to their ballpark. Good idea, but the experiment must play out over a few seasons to get the blueprint down pat. Arizona is supposed to be loaded with pitching, but so are the other contenders in this division, and at least those guys can hit, too. Not much there in the desert to satisfy a skeptic.
Playoffs
It looks like we'll get LA vs. Boston in one division series. In the past this would have been a clear choice for Boston, but LA exorcised those demons last season. The Angels will take care of them again this year. The other side sees Chicago vs. New York in the other division series. The White Sox will put up a fight, but the Yankees will eventually overwhelm them. This sets up an LA vs. NY rematch. Last year's series was closer than it looked, which is why I think that this time I think LA will pull it out.
In the NL, form shows a Philadelphia vs. St. Louis series going to the Phillies, despite one or two good moments for the Cardinals. In the other series, LA vs. Atlanta, the Dodgers will quickly dispatch the upstart Braves. So, another rematch, LA vs. Philadelphia. This one goes seven games this time; good thing the Phillies have that last game in their home park; they pull it out, probably in their last at bat.
World Series
Los Angeles Angels vs. Philadelphia Phillies. This is scary for a Phillies fan. The Angels are no slouches, they can pitch with the best of them, and they have proven playoff performers in their lineup. But the Phillies will have Halladay, a revived Hamels, an improved Happ, and tough-in-a-corner Blanton to count on as starters. No slouches there, either. Plus anyone they might pickup during the season--and you can count on them to go after anyone who is quality and who is available. And they still have that ferocious lineup, which can wear down the Angels high quality arms. I see Phillies in 6 this time, and the mini-dynasty is made.
Hoo-rah.
It's that time again: the budding cusp of a new baseball season, and another chance to be hideously wrong in a public forum. It's a chance I can never pass up, so here they are, my predictions for who will do what in Major League Baseball 2010:
AL East
New York 108-54
Boston 101-61
Tampa Bay 88-74
Toronto 77-85
Baltimore 74-88
AL Central
Chicago 92-70
Minnesota 90-72
Detroit 87-75
Kansas City 74-88
Cleveland 65-97
AL West
Los Angeles 106-86
Seattle 86-76
Oakland 78-84
Texas 74-88
NL East
Philadelphia 100-62
Atlanta 95-67
Florida 83-79
New York 79-83
Washington 72-90
NL Central
St. Louis 90-72
Milwaukee 85-77
Chicago 77-85
Houston 74-88
Cincinnati 72-90
Pittsburgh 57-105
NL West
Los Angeles 99-63
San Francisco 85-77
Colorado 83-79
San Diego 79-83
Arizona 75-87
You'll notice a lot of really gaudy records predicted in that table. I don't really expect, for instance, that the Yankees will win 108 games. And I don't think baseball has ever seen a season where four teams won 100 or more games. These inflated records are a product of my methodology for predicting teams' records. I introduced some new factors to my calculations this year, and there are obviously a few flaws in the system, kinks that need to be worked out in the coming years. Nevertheless, while the records may not prove precise, I stand by the relative strengths and weaknesses indicated by the predictions above. The strong teams do stand a substantial cut above the weaker teams throughout the leagues. And I expect, given the predicted records above, that this will be another season where strong AL teams feast upon an abundance of weaker NL teams.
As for individual division outlooks:
AL EAST -- This looks depressingly familiar. The plain truth is, New York looks to be better than last year, Boston has stepped up a notch...and the rest of the teams mostly stood pat. Noises have been made to the contrary, but the disgraceful truth remains that the other three teams in this division are simply not making the effort (spending the money?) to challenge the top two teams. Tampa Bay is a nice little team, but nice little teams don't cut it against the rapacious beasts who live above them. Toronto looks like a major backslide, and Baltimore still doesn't have a legitimate rotation.
AL CENTRAL -- Chicago finally looks like it has the team that can recapture the mid-decade magic that led to a title. They look just a hair better than the Twins, who look less impressive on paper--as always--yet seem to know how to get it done. Detroit has the look of a team with one hand tied behind its back, though whether that's an offensive or defensive hand is hard to tell; maybe it's both. Kansas City is just not there--not much pitching, not much offense, not much hope. At least they're not Cleveland; I foresee a major meltdown for the Tribe, who contended for a championship just a few years ago. It just goes to show, kids: be careful when you play with trading Cy Young Award winners.
AL WEST -- It is an absurdity to predict 100 wins for the Angels, after they lost both their #1 starter and biggest bat in the off season. Yet, they actually look better than last year's squad, which got no competition from the rest of the division. They may be the insider pick to win it all this year. Seattle is better, but not as much better as people think they are; this will be, essentially, a year of treading water for them. Oakland could make a jump up to a winning season, or even contend for a wild card spot if things get crazy...but I just don't trust their hitting or management to make that happen. Texas was a feel good story for a while, but I'm afraid there's backsliding going on, and last year's good showing will now disappear in a white, cloudy puff of...something.
NL EAST -- The best team got better; the other teams didn't. That's the short of it here, where the Phillies should comfortably cruise into the playoffs again. Better pitching overall, and simply the best lineup top to bottom in the league--and even improved over last season's juggernaut--should get them all the way to another championship series. Atlanta is coalescing into a fine team, one that could contend for it all in a year or two. But not now. Florida is Florida--lots of young talent, just not enough to take them very far (short of another lightning in a bottle championship, and I don't see that happening again soon). New York and Washington form the ugly underneath--one team on the way down, the other rising ever so slowly. There will be optimism in the Capital by the end of the season, and insanity in Queens by the same time.
NL CENTRAL -- St. Louis wins almost by default, as the best of an otherwise meager bunch. Lucky for them they have Pujols; otherwise they might be just another one of the Five Dwarves. Milwaukee gets to brag about being runner-up--generally not an enviable position but which makes them look fine compared to the rest of this division. You'll hear plenty of blather about Chicago this year, as always. The Cubs get lots of press; what they don't get are a lot of wins, which is how they determine who reaches the playoffs. Houston is the same as they ever were: an up and down team that will do a little of this, then a little of that, all of which will ultimately amount to nothing. Cincinnati should be better than this, yet they don't seem to be stepping up and getting the players they need to compete. They're a rudderless ship. Speaking of which, by now Pittsburgh has become the NL's Mary Celeste: a ghost ship, aimlessly drifting through empty seas, barely echoing with the memories of the vibrant, alive vessel it used to be. It's a crime that Pirate fans have had to endure this for so long.
NL WEST -- Here lives the one chance to stop the Philly machine in its tracks: the Dodgers. These guys pitch, they hit, they field, they light up the Jumbotron--Los Angeles is clearly the best team in this division, and may be the team that takes down the Phillies. San Francisco is continuing a nice resurgence, but they don't look like they've stepped up from last year--just held steady where they were. Another team treading water, as it were. Colorado is the chic pick in the NL this year, but don't get caught up; they may catch fire again, but not for the whole season, and you've got to sustain the good play over 162 to get invited to the party. It says here they'll hit a rut that will cost them enough to keep them out of it. San Diego is finally trying to tailor their team to their ballpark. Good idea, but the experiment must play out over a few seasons to get the blueprint down pat. Arizona is supposed to be loaded with pitching, but so are the other contenders in this division, and at least those guys can hit, too. Not much there in the desert to satisfy a skeptic.
Playoffs
It looks like we'll get LA vs. Boston in one division series. In the past this would have been a clear choice for Boston, but LA exorcised those demons last season. The Angels will take care of them again this year. The other side sees Chicago vs. New York in the other division series. The White Sox will put up a fight, but the Yankees will eventually overwhelm them. This sets up an LA vs. NY rematch. Last year's series was closer than it looked, which is why I think that this time I think LA will pull it out.
In the NL, form shows a Philadelphia vs. St. Louis series going to the Phillies, despite one or two good moments for the Cardinals. In the other series, LA vs. Atlanta, the Dodgers will quickly dispatch the upstart Braves. So, another rematch, LA vs. Philadelphia. This one goes seven games this time; good thing the Phillies have that last game in their home park; they pull it out, probably in their last at bat.
World Series
Los Angeles Angels vs. Philadelphia Phillies. This is scary for a Phillies fan. The Angels are no slouches, they can pitch with the best of them, and they have proven playoff performers in their lineup. But the Phillies will have Halladay, a revived Hamels, an improved Happ, and tough-in-a-corner Blanton to count on as starters. No slouches there, either. Plus anyone they might pickup during the season--and you can count on them to go after anyone who is quality and who is available. And they still have that ferocious lineup, which can wear down the Angels high quality arms. I see Phillies in 6 this time, and the mini-dynasty is made.
Hoo-rah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
