The latest and greatest idea from the guys with narrow ties in the Fraters Libertas Marketing Department is braclets that say "WAWOK." The concept is a takeoff on the WWJD fad that swept the country some years ago. This time around we've updated the source of guidance and gotten a little more specific in the recommended action.
The next time you find yourself in a tricky situation and are unsure what to do next, simply consult the bracelet and ask yourself "Whose Ass Would Obama Kick?" under similar circumstances. The only drawback that might keep this idea from becoming the next pet rock is that as of yet there isn't much precedent in the area of ass kicking from President Obama. But we expect that to change any day now and when it does you can expect a gusher of demand for our WAWOK bracelets.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Calling It Like You See It
Been meaning to take a swing at last week's blown call by umpire Jim Joyce that cost Armando Galarraga (roll your rrrs) a perfect game, but haven't had a chance to step up to the plate until now. I've been amazed by much discussion the incident has generated and how hot a topic it continues to be.
For starters, when it comes to instant replay in baseball, I'm generally sympathetic to the views espoused by Atomizer on the matter. It's not that I'm a misty-eyed traditionalist worried that replay will somehow taint the glory (overrated as it may be) of the game. Baseball has already gone through a lot of changes over the years, some good and some bad. But the core appeal of the game remains largely intact to this day and if artificial turf, the DH, inter-league play, steroids, and the Toronto Blue Jays winning a couple of World Series didn't destroy America's past-time, than instant replay surely won't either.
My concerns are on a more practical level. Firstly, baseball already has instant replay for to determine whether home runs are fair or foul. This is something that's fairly objective to determine with the benefit of instant replay. It's also similar to what the NBA and the NHL use instant replay for. The NBA only uses replay to determine if there was enough time left on the clock for the shot to count or to determine whether a shooter was beyond the three-point line. Essentially, the NHL only uses replay to determine if the puck went in the net (crossing the line or hitting the back bar and coming out). Both sports leave all the subjective calls (penalties, off-sides, fouls, etc.) up to the discretion of the referees.
The sport that employs replay extensively is football. The NFL's use of replay has expanded over the years and it now covers a variety of calls made on the field. Some are of the more objective variety: did the receive get both feet in, did the runner step out of bounce, did the field goal go through the uprights. Most people watching at home can see what happened in slow motion and arrive at the same conclusion as the replay official. But the NFL also has puts a lot of subjective calls up for review: did the runner get a first down, was the quarterback's arm going forward when he dropped the ball, did the receive catch the ball or trap it. Anyone who's watched a fair amount of the NFL knows that the way these calls will be interpreted by the replay officials is notoriously difficult to predict. Just when you think you understand the rule or its most current interpretation, a situation comes up that proves you wrong. This often happens to the announcers and analysts too, the "experts who are supposed to know how these things should be decided. So now, instead of fans being ticked because we got screwed by the ref on the field, we're ticked because we got screwed by the guy in the booth. Replay is not a panacea.
The biggest problem with instant replay in baseball is that I don't think there are bright lines that you can draw around its use. Sure, everyone can now say it should have been used to overturn the blown call by Joyce because it would have been the last out of the game and the next batter got out. But what if that call happened in the third inning of a perfect game instead of the ninth? The same day that Galarraga (he's grrreattt!) got screwed by Joyce, the Twins were screwed by a bad call at second base on a force play. It was in the tenth inning with guys on first and second. The guy from second ended up scoring the winning run after the runner going from first to second was ruled safe. There were two outs in that situation too so overturning the call would have ended the inning and continued the game. But what if there were only one out? Does the runner from second not score then and have to go back to third? With runners in play on other bases, it isn't simply a matter of using replay to determine whether the ball beat the runner to first (or second, third, or home on force outs), you also have to decide how that reversal impacts the other runners. Talk about subjective.
And if you're going to use replay for plays at first and force outs, are you also going to use it for tag plays? If the ball reaches the base before the runner and the fielder handles it cleanly, the umpire will usually call the runner out. When you watch replays, it's not uncommon to see cases where it looks like runner got his foot or arm in before the tag. It looks like. But you can also watch these replays again and again from different angles and still not determine if the runner was safe or out. Do we really want this kind of subjective situation left to replay where the judgment of the off field official may be no better than the umpire who made the original call on the field? What about trapped balls in the outfield? Sometimes it's clear when watching the replay of a catch in the outfield that the ump either blew the call or nailed it. Sometimes.
My point is that I don't see how you're going to expand instant replay in baseball without either getting into a quagmire of making almost everything subject to it or limiting it to very specific situations that leave people demanding that it be expanded further. Neither outcome seems like a good one either for fans or baseball itself.
The one bright spot in this whole matter was the Commissioner Bud Selig did the right thing (never thought I'd say that) and refused to over the call post facto. I was shocked by how many people whose opinions I usually respect were dead wrong about wanting to see the call overturned. This has already been argued ad nasuem, but a couple of points bear repeating. First off, Galarraga's perfect game was an individual achievement that he was denied because of the blown call. And as much as baseball--more than other sports--is about individual stats and stories, the fact remains that it's a team game. The Tigers won the game. If you're ever going to overrule a call after the game--and open a big ol' can of worms in the process--it can't be because one guy lost out on a chance for personal success.
But the best thing about the correct decision not to overturn the call is that it may provide what JB likes to call a "teachable moment" (groan) for the kiddies out there. For in American society today the expectation that every mistake can be fixed, every injustice (real or imagined) can be rectified, every wrong made right is predominate.
Don't like the grade you received middle school, high school, or even college? Have your parents appeal to your teacher or professor. Don't like the suspension you got for breaking team rules? Have your parents sue the athletic association, school district, and anyone else tangentially involved.
The old adage is true: life is not fair. Sometimes through no fault of your own, you will end up on the short side of the stick because somebody else made a mistake. And neither you nor anyone else will be able to change it. That's life. Recognize it, accept it, and move on.
And while you're at it, get some perspective. Being punished for a crime you didn't commit is an injustice. As John Hinderaker pointed in a post at Power Line, losing a perfect game is not:
But what about the "injustice" (strange word to apply in this context to a sporting event, but one I heard several times this morning) to Galarraga? To be sure, he won't be on the list of official perfect games. However, his near-perfect game will be remembered long after most perfect games have been forgotton. For example, I've already forgotten who pitched the second perfect game of this season not long ago.
Finally, Galarranga experienced no more "injustice" by virtue of umpiring error than other pitchers experience when a fielding error spoils a perfect game. Of course, instant replay can correct umpire (but not player) error. I just don't think it's worth the damage such a change in the rules would inflict on the game.
There's more than enough real injustice in the world. Can we stop harping on faux injustices, creating victims who don't really exist, and righteously calling for redress in situations that neither merit nor require it? Remember that what Armando Galarrago was denied was a perfect game. A baseball game. And however noble and worthy the traditions of baseball may be, that's what it is and always will be. It's not life or death. It's just a game.
For starters, when it comes to instant replay in baseball, I'm generally sympathetic to the views espoused by Atomizer on the matter. It's not that I'm a misty-eyed traditionalist worried that replay will somehow taint the glory (overrated as it may be) of the game. Baseball has already gone through a lot of changes over the years, some good and some bad. But the core appeal of the game remains largely intact to this day and if artificial turf, the DH, inter-league play, steroids, and the Toronto Blue Jays winning a couple of World Series didn't destroy America's past-time, than instant replay surely won't either.
My concerns are on a more practical level. Firstly, baseball already has instant replay for to determine whether home runs are fair or foul. This is something that's fairly objective to determine with the benefit of instant replay. It's also similar to what the NBA and the NHL use instant replay for. The NBA only uses replay to determine if there was enough time left on the clock for the shot to count or to determine whether a shooter was beyond the three-point line. Essentially, the NHL only uses replay to determine if the puck went in the net (crossing the line or hitting the back bar and coming out). Both sports leave all the subjective calls (penalties, off-sides, fouls, etc.) up to the discretion of the referees.
The sport that employs replay extensively is football. The NFL's use of replay has expanded over the years and it now covers a variety of calls made on the field. Some are of the more objective variety: did the receive get both feet in, did the runner step out of bounce, did the field goal go through the uprights. Most people watching at home can see what happened in slow motion and arrive at the same conclusion as the replay official. But the NFL also has puts a lot of subjective calls up for review: did the runner get a first down, was the quarterback's arm going forward when he dropped the ball, did the receive catch the ball or trap it. Anyone who's watched a fair amount of the NFL knows that the way these calls will be interpreted by the replay officials is notoriously difficult to predict. Just when you think you understand the rule or its most current interpretation, a situation comes up that proves you wrong. This often happens to the announcers and analysts too, the "experts who are supposed to know how these things should be decided. So now, instead of fans being ticked because we got screwed by the ref on the field, we're ticked because we got screwed by the guy in the booth. Replay is not a panacea.
The biggest problem with instant replay in baseball is that I don't think there are bright lines that you can draw around its use. Sure, everyone can now say it should have been used to overturn the blown call by Joyce because it would have been the last out of the game and the next batter got out. But what if that call happened in the third inning of a perfect game instead of the ninth? The same day that Galarraga (he's grrreattt!) got screwed by Joyce, the Twins were screwed by a bad call at second base on a force play. It was in the tenth inning with guys on first and second. The guy from second ended up scoring the winning run after the runner going from first to second was ruled safe. There were two outs in that situation too so overturning the call would have ended the inning and continued the game. But what if there were only one out? Does the runner from second not score then and have to go back to third? With runners in play on other bases, it isn't simply a matter of using replay to determine whether the ball beat the runner to first (or second, third, or home on force outs), you also have to decide how that reversal impacts the other runners. Talk about subjective.
And if you're going to use replay for plays at first and force outs, are you also going to use it for tag plays? If the ball reaches the base before the runner and the fielder handles it cleanly, the umpire will usually call the runner out. When you watch replays, it's not uncommon to see cases where it looks like runner got his foot or arm in before the tag. It looks like. But you can also watch these replays again and again from different angles and still not determine if the runner was safe or out. Do we really want this kind of subjective situation left to replay where the judgment of the off field official may be no better than the umpire who made the original call on the field? What about trapped balls in the outfield? Sometimes it's clear when watching the replay of a catch in the outfield that the ump either blew the call or nailed it. Sometimes.
My point is that I don't see how you're going to expand instant replay in baseball without either getting into a quagmire of making almost everything subject to it or limiting it to very specific situations that leave people demanding that it be expanded further. Neither outcome seems like a good one either for fans or baseball itself.
The one bright spot in this whole matter was the Commissioner Bud Selig did the right thing (never thought I'd say that) and refused to over the call post facto. I was shocked by how many people whose opinions I usually respect were dead wrong about wanting to see the call overturned. This has already been argued ad nasuem, but a couple of points bear repeating. First off, Galarraga's perfect game was an individual achievement that he was denied because of the blown call. And as much as baseball--more than other sports--is about individual stats and stories, the fact remains that it's a team game. The Tigers won the game. If you're ever going to overrule a call after the game--and open a big ol' can of worms in the process--it can't be because one guy lost out on a chance for personal success.
But the best thing about the correct decision not to overturn the call is that it may provide what JB likes to call a "teachable moment" (groan) for the kiddies out there. For in American society today the expectation that every mistake can be fixed, every injustice (real or imagined) can be rectified, every wrong made right is predominate.
Don't like the grade you received middle school, high school, or even college? Have your parents appeal to your teacher or professor. Don't like the suspension you got for breaking team rules? Have your parents sue the athletic association, school district, and anyone else tangentially involved.
The old adage is true: life is not fair. Sometimes through no fault of your own, you will end up on the short side of the stick because somebody else made a mistake. And neither you nor anyone else will be able to change it. That's life. Recognize it, accept it, and move on.
And while you're at it, get some perspective. Being punished for a crime you didn't commit is an injustice. As John Hinderaker pointed in a post at Power Line, losing a perfect game is not:
But what about the "injustice" (strange word to apply in this context to a sporting event, but one I heard several times this morning) to Galarraga? To be sure, he won't be on the list of official perfect games. However, his near-perfect game will be remembered long after most perfect games have been forgotton. For example, I've already forgotten who pitched the second perfect game of this season not long ago.
Finally, Galarranga experienced no more "injustice" by virtue of umpiring error than other pitchers experience when a fielding error spoils a perfect game. Of course, instant replay can correct umpire (but not player) error. I just don't think it's worth the damage such a change in the rules would inflict on the game.
There's more than enough real injustice in the world. Can we stop harping on faux injustices, creating victims who don't really exist, and righteously calling for redress in situations that neither merit nor require it? Remember that what Armando Galarrago was denied was a perfect game. A baseball game. And however noble and worthy the traditions of baseball may be, that's what it is and always will be. It's not life or death. It's just a game.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Open the Bidding
An editorial in today's WSJ suggests a better approach than fining airlines would be Auctions for Overbooking:
In the first quarter of this year, some 23,380 passengers were forced to give up their seats, a 17% increase over last year and the highest rate in at least a decade as airlines try to serve passengers with fewer flights. Bumping only affects two of every 10,000 passengers, but that is small consolation for those who miss appointments or family obligations. Southwest was recently fined $200,000 for its bumping policies. The feds want to raise payments for those involuntarily bumped to $600 from $400 for short delays and to as high as $1,300 from $800 for lengthy delays.
Which brings us to Simon, who in 1977 on these pages proposed an auction system in which airlines would offer passengers on overbooked flights a gradually rising reward for giving up their seat. For example, if 115 passengers showed up for a flight with 100 seats, the airline would start to offer, say, a $300 voucher to passengers who agreed to take a later flight. If there weren't enough takers at $300, the airline would increase the offer to $400, then $500, a free round trip ticket, etc., until 15 passengers volunteered. Auctions like this are highly efficient ways of allocating a scarce resource.
Airlines resisted this idea at first, fretting about "administrative practicality" and arguing that passengers would collude. The latter seemed implausible since 115 passengers who have never met and have individual agendas are unlikely to form a spontaneous bidding cartel in an airport terminal. Starting with American Airlines in the late 1970s, a version of the proposal was widely adopted. Studies demonstrated that airlines saved money and the rate of bumping was reduced by more than 80%.
So why are there still so many involuntary bumpings? Because many airlines offer one take-it-or-leave-it deal—say, a $500 voucher—and if there are not enough takers, the random bumping begins. A real auction would prevent this and optimize the welfare of all parties. Those who take the payment for a later flight are better off because they have freely chosen this option. Passengers who cannot afford at nearly any price to miss the scheduled flight are guaranteed a seat.
The airlines also benefit because an auction may save them money over a set price or a government penalty. More importantly, United, American and the rest are assured that fewer passengers are unhappy at the end of the process. That's no small matter given the reputation for poor service that most airlines have with the public.
When I occasionally encounter an overbooked situtaion, I'm rarely in a position where taking a later flight is an option. However, if the airlines did employ an auction approach, the price might be right enough for me to consider changing my plans. Thsi would be much better method than bumping passenegers and while it might cost a bit more in the short run, the long term customer loyalty opportunity seems far more valuable.
In the first quarter of this year, some 23,380 passengers were forced to give up their seats, a 17% increase over last year and the highest rate in at least a decade as airlines try to serve passengers with fewer flights. Bumping only affects two of every 10,000 passengers, but that is small consolation for those who miss appointments or family obligations. Southwest was recently fined $200,000 for its bumping policies. The feds want to raise payments for those involuntarily bumped to $600 from $400 for short delays and to as high as $1,300 from $800 for lengthy delays.
Which brings us to Simon, who in 1977 on these pages proposed an auction system in which airlines would offer passengers on overbooked flights a gradually rising reward for giving up their seat. For example, if 115 passengers showed up for a flight with 100 seats, the airline would start to offer, say, a $300 voucher to passengers who agreed to take a later flight. If there weren't enough takers at $300, the airline would increase the offer to $400, then $500, a free round trip ticket, etc., until 15 passengers volunteered. Auctions like this are highly efficient ways of allocating a scarce resource.
Airlines resisted this idea at first, fretting about "administrative practicality" and arguing that passengers would collude. The latter seemed implausible since 115 passengers who have never met and have individual agendas are unlikely to form a spontaneous bidding cartel in an airport terminal. Starting with American Airlines in the late 1970s, a version of the proposal was widely adopted. Studies demonstrated that airlines saved money and the rate of bumping was reduced by more than 80%.
So why are there still so many involuntary bumpings? Because many airlines offer one take-it-or-leave-it deal—say, a $500 voucher—and if there are not enough takers, the random bumping begins. A real auction would prevent this and optimize the welfare of all parties. Those who take the payment for a later flight are better off because they have freely chosen this option. Passengers who cannot afford at nearly any price to miss the scheduled flight are guaranteed a seat.
The airlines also benefit because an auction may save them money over a set price or a government penalty. More importantly, United, American and the rest are assured that fewer passengers are unhappy at the end of the process. That's no small matter given the reputation for poor service that most airlines have with the public.
When I occasionally encounter an overbooked situtaion, I'm rarely in a position where taking a later flight is an option. However, if the airlines did employ an auction approach, the price might be right enough for me to consider changing my plans. Thsi would be much better method than bumping passenegers and while it might cost a bit more in the short run, the long term customer loyalty opportunity seems far more valuable.
Monday, June 07, 2010
Nuts!
There aren't many pleasures involved with traveling by air these days. Delayed flights, security hassles, crowded planes, surly customer service, and being nickel and dimed for every "extra" feature (like being able to bring luggage on your trip) is pretty much par for the course for airline passengers today. Given all the downsides of air travel, fliers must cling to the little things that bring them any measure of pleasure.
Like peanuts. While some airlines no longer offer even this meager amount of sustenance, peanuts are still available on most flights. One of the few benefits that I've been able to see from Delta's buyout of Northwest is that Delta almost always seems to have peanuts available. Northwest had seemed to move away from peanuts as their staple snack and replaced them with pretzels, definitely a level down in the salty snack hierarchy.
But now, even the small amount of satisfaction that passengers can get from enjoying the seven or eight peanuts that typically come in the tightly sealed foil bag seems to be in danger of being eliminated. All in the name of safety of course. U.S. Proposes Protections for Airline Passengers:
The DOT may even effectively ban peanuts from flights to protect travelers with peanut allergies. The agency said it would solicit comments on three options: banning peanuts from flights, requiring airlines to offer a "peanut free" flight if passengers on a particular flight request it, or creating "peanut-free zones" on flights for passengers with allergies.
I don't have a peanut allergy so I'm not familiar with the sufferings of those who do. The fact that my oldest son's pre-school has indoctrinated him to believe that exposure to peanuts is akin to exposure to plutonium means they must be fairly serious. And I don't want to make light of these sufferings or seek to downplay them. But I can't believe that they necessitate that the heavy hand of government step in and impose "solutions" that impact everyone who flies.
Consider the three options:
The first seems draconian. It would ban all peanuts on all flights, thus depriving the 99% plus of the population who don't have peanut allegories of the opportunity to enjoy a snack. Given the government proclivities in these matters, this seems like the most likely "answer" if they do decide to act.
The second seems ludicrous. Are we all going to vote before the flight whether we get peanuts or not? Will it be a majority decision or based on some threshold of passengers saying "no" (20% or 25%)? Will there be campaigning for or against peanuts before the vote? Will the FEC be monitoring these elections to see that campaign finance laws are not violated? Will I be offered a position in the Obama Administration in exchange for not campaigning on my pro-peanut platform?
The third seems unworkable. How big do these "peanut-free zones" have to be? If 1% or less of the population has peanut allergies, that shouldn't have to be large, but what if you end up with a lot of sufferers on a particular flight? Will the DPZ (de-peanutizied zone) be extended? What if there are no other seats available and I get stuck in the DPZ? Will the airline have to compensate me for not being able to enjoy peanuts? What if I bring my own peanuts (or peanut-based by-product) on board and sit in the DPZ? Will that land me a one-ticket to Gitmo?
It seems incredible to consider that it wasn't really all that long ago, when smoking--the evilest of all evils--was allowed on airplanes. Now, we're at a point where we may no longer be able to even eat peanuts during a flight.
Like peanuts. While some airlines no longer offer even this meager amount of sustenance, peanuts are still available on most flights. One of the few benefits that I've been able to see from Delta's buyout of Northwest is that Delta almost always seems to have peanuts available. Northwest had seemed to move away from peanuts as their staple snack and replaced them with pretzels, definitely a level down in the salty snack hierarchy.
But now, even the small amount of satisfaction that passengers can get from enjoying the seven or eight peanuts that typically come in the tightly sealed foil bag seems to be in danger of being eliminated. All in the name of safety of course. U.S. Proposes Protections for Airline Passengers:
The DOT may even effectively ban peanuts from flights to protect travelers with peanut allergies. The agency said it would solicit comments on three options: banning peanuts from flights, requiring airlines to offer a "peanut free" flight if passengers on a particular flight request it, or creating "peanut-free zones" on flights for passengers with allergies.
I don't have a peanut allergy so I'm not familiar with the sufferings of those who do. The fact that my oldest son's pre-school has indoctrinated him to believe that exposure to peanuts is akin to exposure to plutonium means they must be fairly serious. And I don't want to make light of these sufferings or seek to downplay them. But I can't believe that they necessitate that the heavy hand of government step in and impose "solutions" that impact everyone who flies.
Consider the three options:
The first seems draconian. It would ban all peanuts on all flights, thus depriving the 99% plus of the population who don't have peanut allegories of the opportunity to enjoy a snack. Given the government proclivities in these matters, this seems like the most likely "answer" if they do decide to act.
The second seems ludicrous. Are we all going to vote before the flight whether we get peanuts or not? Will it be a majority decision or based on some threshold of passengers saying "no" (20% or 25%)? Will there be campaigning for or against peanuts before the vote? Will the FEC be monitoring these elections to see that campaign finance laws are not violated? Will I be offered a position in the Obama Administration in exchange for not campaigning on my pro-peanut platform?
The third seems unworkable. How big do these "peanut-free zones" have to be? If 1% or less of the population has peanut allergies, that shouldn't have to be large, but what if you end up with a lot of sufferers on a particular flight? Will the DPZ (de-peanutizied zone) be extended? What if there are no other seats available and I get stuck in the DPZ? Will the airline have to compensate me for not being able to enjoy peanuts? What if I bring my own peanuts (or peanut-based by-product) on board and sit in the DPZ? Will that land me a one-ticket to Gitmo?
It seems incredible to consider that it wasn't really all that long ago, when smoking--the evilest of all evils--was allowed on airplanes. Now, we're at a point where we may no longer be able to even eat peanuts during a flight.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
They're Smart . . . And They Want Respect
As a cheapskate, I don't enjoy shelling out good money for an extra TV channel. However, HBO makes a strong case for itself. This season, the big TV event on HBO was "The Pacific," Tom Hanks and Stephen Spielberg's mini-series about four US Marines that fought the Japanese in World War II.
All in all, "The Pacific" was an entertaining but inferior companion piece to "Band of Brothers." In a way, it wasn't fair. The action in the Pacific was spread out in time and place in a way that kept most of the main characters apart for the the entire series. Throw in the fact that 90% of the cast consisted of twenty-something men in similar uniforms, and you end up with a storyline that's difficult to follow.
Overall, "The Pacific" was disappointing. "True Blood" is boring vampire crap, "Big Love" is just awful, and "Real Time With Bill Maher" is insufferably smug, arrogant, and wrongheaded. So why do I like HBO? This spring, I came across a couple of documentaries that were as well made as anything I've ever seen. The first chronicles what is in my opinion the best sports rivalry of my lifetime: "Magic and Bird: A Courtship of Rivals." As the Lakers and Celtics face off in yet another NBA Finals, this is a good time to revisit the Magic versus Bird era.
We all know the facts about the competition between Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. We know that they had different personalities, but shared an understanding of their game that few had. What we didn't know was the deep hatred that Bird had for Magic. We didn't know that Magic, despite being an athelete, wasn't used to being hated and decided to start hating back. Ultimately both men basically said, "I wanted to be the best there ever was, and I would have been if that guy wasn't in my way." The story chronicles their hatred turning to respect turning to friendship. Few people could understand what it was like to be Magic or Bird. But they both understood and that created a bond.
I'd highly recomend this documentary. It's the best sports documentary I've seen since . . . 2008's HBO's "Back Nine At Cherry Hills: Legends of the 1960 US Open." This documentary tells the story of three golf legends who fought for the Open title: the aged and crippled champion Ben Hogan, the amatuer phenomenon Jack Nicklaus, and the king of golf Arnold Palmer. Magic and Bird had nothing on this threesome, all of which had a chance for a late run at their nation's championship.
The common bond of these documentaries is that they feature men who were the best of the best. They were at odds with each other because that's what their craft demanded. Yesterday, I ran across a similar documentary about a man who was the best of the best at a different craft.
John Cazale's acting resume only includes five feature films. But what films they were: The Godfather, The Conversation, The Godfather Part II, Dog Day Afternoon, and The Deer Hunter. Lung cancer took him at age 42 (a sobering thought), depriving audiences of a great artist.
The documentary "I Knew It Was You: Rediscovering John Cazale," shows his contemporaries praising him. Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Gene Hackman and Meryl Streep all explain how working with Cazale made them better actors. Steve Buscemi and Philip Seymore Hoffman, who never worked with Cazale, explain how it's easier to play the leading man than the weakling.
Cazale was the master of playing complex characters. Fredo Corleone, his best known character knew he was weak. He felt shame and he wished things were different. Buscemi rightly opines that many actors could have played the tough and angry Sonny, but only Cazale could make Fredo credible. Without a credible Fredo, the Godfather saga isn't a masterpiece.
All in all, "The Pacific" was an entertaining but inferior companion piece to "Band of Brothers." In a way, it wasn't fair. The action in the Pacific was spread out in time and place in a way that kept most of the main characters apart for the the entire series. Throw in the fact that 90% of the cast consisted of twenty-something men in similar uniforms, and you end up with a storyline that's difficult to follow.
Overall, "The Pacific" was disappointing. "True Blood" is boring vampire crap, "Big Love" is just awful, and "Real Time With Bill Maher" is insufferably smug, arrogant, and wrongheaded. So why do I like HBO? This spring, I came across a couple of documentaries that were as well made as anything I've ever seen. The first chronicles what is in my opinion the best sports rivalry of my lifetime: "Magic and Bird: A Courtship of Rivals." As the Lakers and Celtics face off in yet another NBA Finals, this is a good time to revisit the Magic versus Bird era.
We all know the facts about the competition between Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. We know that they had different personalities, but shared an understanding of their game that few had. What we didn't know was the deep hatred that Bird had for Magic. We didn't know that Magic, despite being an athelete, wasn't used to being hated and decided to start hating back. Ultimately both men basically said, "I wanted to be the best there ever was, and I would have been if that guy wasn't in my way." The story chronicles their hatred turning to respect turning to friendship. Few people could understand what it was like to be Magic or Bird. But they both understood and that created a bond.
I'd highly recomend this documentary. It's the best sports documentary I've seen since . . . 2008's HBO's "Back Nine At Cherry Hills: Legends of the 1960 US Open." This documentary tells the story of three golf legends who fought for the Open title: the aged and crippled champion Ben Hogan, the amatuer phenomenon Jack Nicklaus, and the king of golf Arnold Palmer. Magic and Bird had nothing on this threesome, all of which had a chance for a late run at their nation's championship.
The common bond of these documentaries is that they feature men who were the best of the best. They were at odds with each other because that's what their craft demanded. Yesterday, I ran across a similar documentary about a man who was the best of the best at a different craft.
John Cazale's acting resume only includes five feature films. But what films they were: The Godfather, The Conversation, The Godfather Part II, Dog Day Afternoon, and The Deer Hunter. Lung cancer took him at age 42 (a sobering thought), depriving audiences of a great artist.
The documentary "I Knew It Was You: Rediscovering John Cazale," shows his contemporaries praising him. Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Gene Hackman and Meryl Streep all explain how working with Cazale made them better actors. Steve Buscemi and Philip Seymore Hoffman, who never worked with Cazale, explain how it's easier to play the leading man than the weakling.
Cazale was the master of playing complex characters. Fredo Corleone, his best known character knew he was weak. He felt shame and he wished things were different. Buscemi rightly opines that many actors could have played the tough and angry Sonny, but only Cazale could make Fredo credible. Without a credible Fredo, the Godfather saga isn't a masterpiece.
Instant Karma's Gonna Get You
I know that this whole baseball instant replay issue has been beaten within an inch of its life in the past few days but I feel the need to beat it just a little bit more simply because I haven't heard my point argued yet.
For you cave dwellers, and I know you're out there, the story goes as follows. Detroit pitcher Armando Galarraga was one out away from a throwing a perfect game against Cleveland this past Wednesday. Jim Joyce, a Major League Baseball umpire for the last 23 years, was minding first base when Indians shortstop Jason Donald hit a routine ground ball to Miguel Cabrera who tossed it to first for the apparent game ending and historic final out. Joyce erroneously called the runner safe putting an abrupt end to what should have been the 21st perfect game in MLB history.
After seeing the post-game replay Joyce admitted to making a mistake and, to use a tired old baseball cliche, nobody felt as bad about the play than Jim Joyce. I'm glad Jim Joyce feels like the bad guy in this situation because, frankly, he is. At that point in the game, Joyce's ONLY responsibility is to watch the play at first and call the runner safe or out. To say he blew the call would be a disservice to the word "blew".
If MLB had instant replay for plays like this the call would have been reversed and Galarraga would have his perfect game and Joyce would be forgotten as a historical footnote and everybody would be happy. My problem is, I don't want Joyce to be forgotten. I want Jim Joyce and every other umpire who makes an incredibly awful call to be forced to have the guts to actually make that incredibly awful call and then suffer the consequences when they are proven wrong.
If umpires have instant replay to fall back on we're going to see a dramatic increase in shoddy umpiring, something that has been all too prevalent in ballgames this year. Think about it...why would an umpire make the effort to get a call right when he knows that any bad call he makes will get reversed upon further review? These guys have proven themselves to be bad enough. Let's not give them another reason to be lazy and incompetent.
I know about blown calls all too well. The image of umpire Phil Cuzzi calling Joe Mauer's double up the left field line a foul ball in the 11th inning of game 2 in last years ALDS is still seared...seared... in my memory. In the moments following that call I would have given my left arm for an instant replay reversal. After my rage subsided (about four weeks later) I came to my senses.
Blown calls are an integral part of baseball. It's what separates the game from lesser sports like basketball, football and (sorry Elder and JB) hockey. Sure, referees screw things up in all sports, but no other game has an official directly involved in the outcome of every single play. There's a captivating mystique surrounding the game of baseball that makes one agonizing instant of a ballgame live on in fans' memories for decades. Mention the name of umpire Don Denkinger to any St. Louis Cardinals fan and you'll get a sense of what I mean.
Umpires are part of the game and when they are good, nobody notices them...and that's the way it should be. When they are bad, however (and Joyce was INCREDIBLY bad), they should be remembered for being bad.
If Red Sox first baseman Bill Buckner can be man enough to live with the fact that he handed game 6 of the 1986 World Series to the Mets then Jim Joyce should be man enough to live with the fact that he took a perfect game from Armando Galarraga.
Instant replay would give umpires the pass they need to avoid living with the calls they make, and that's just not good for baseball.
For you cave dwellers, and I know you're out there, the story goes as follows. Detroit pitcher Armando Galarraga was one out away from a throwing a perfect game against Cleveland this past Wednesday. Jim Joyce, a Major League Baseball umpire for the last 23 years, was minding first base when Indians shortstop Jason Donald hit a routine ground ball to Miguel Cabrera who tossed it to first for the apparent game ending and historic final out. Joyce erroneously called the runner safe putting an abrupt end to what should have been the 21st perfect game in MLB history.
After seeing the post-game replay Joyce admitted to making a mistake and, to use a tired old baseball cliche, nobody felt as bad about the play than Jim Joyce. I'm glad Jim Joyce feels like the bad guy in this situation because, frankly, he is. At that point in the game, Joyce's ONLY responsibility is to watch the play at first and call the runner safe or out. To say he blew the call would be a disservice to the word "blew".
If MLB had instant replay for plays like this the call would have been reversed and Galarraga would have his perfect game and Joyce would be forgotten as a historical footnote and everybody would be happy. My problem is, I don't want Joyce to be forgotten. I want Jim Joyce and every other umpire who makes an incredibly awful call to be forced to have the guts to actually make that incredibly awful call and then suffer the consequences when they are proven wrong.
If umpires have instant replay to fall back on we're going to see a dramatic increase in shoddy umpiring, something that has been all too prevalent in ballgames this year. Think about it...why would an umpire make the effort to get a call right when he knows that any bad call he makes will get reversed upon further review? These guys have proven themselves to be bad enough. Let's not give them another reason to be lazy and incompetent.
I know about blown calls all too well. The image of umpire Phil Cuzzi calling Joe Mauer's double up the left field line a foul ball in the 11th inning of game 2 in last years ALDS is still seared...seared... in my memory. In the moments following that call I would have given my left arm for an instant replay reversal. After my rage subsided (about four weeks later) I came to my senses.
Blown calls are an integral part of baseball. It's what separates the game from lesser sports like basketball, football and (sorry Elder and JB) hockey. Sure, referees screw things up in all sports, but no other game has an official directly involved in the outcome of every single play. There's a captivating mystique surrounding the game of baseball that makes one agonizing instant of a ballgame live on in fans' memories for decades. Mention the name of umpire Don Denkinger to any St. Louis Cardinals fan and you'll get a sense of what I mean.
Umpires are part of the game and when they are good, nobody notices them...and that's the way it should be. When they are bad, however (and Joyce was INCREDIBLY bad), they should be remembered for being bad.
If Red Sox first baseman Bill Buckner can be man enough to live with the fact that he handed game 6 of the 1986 World Series to the Mets then Jim Joyce should be man enough to live with the fact that he took a perfect game from Armando Galarraga.
Instant replay would give umpires the pass they need to avoid living with the calls they make, and that's just not good for baseball.
The Unbearable Being of Lightness
Most of you have no doubt come across the latest round of television ads from Miller Lite. You know, the ones where nebbish men are emasculated by impossibly hot female bartenders for asking for a light beer without caring about its taste (which "triple-hopped" Miller Lite supposedly has in abundance). The men without chests in these ads are the object of scorn and derision not only from the beauties behind the bar, but from all the other women in the bar as well. They're just the latest examples of the trend to portray men in ads as sackless wonders, a trend that really became noticeable during last year's Super Bowl advert extravaganza.
The clear message of these new ads is "Real men drink Miller Lite." That proposition is laughable on its surface and arguably wrong for so many reasons. The good news is that it appears that more and more men are recognizing this absurdity and no amount of television commercials touting the wonders of tasteless beer--and often insulting their intelligence in the process--will convince them otherwise.
Eric Felten explored the possible reasons why Light Beer Sales Are Sagging in yesterday's WSJ by sampling the product for himself:
So, at my local supermarket Wednesday evening, I grabbed up every domestic light beer I could find. They didn't have every brand, but the big boys were well represented.
P.T. Barnum would have admired the bunkum that goes into the packaging. Miller Lite is now presented in "vortex bottles." That is, the glass on the inside of the neck is rifled and this, they promise, improves the flavor of the beer. Coors Light brags of its "cold activated" bottles and cans: The mountains on the labels turn blue when the product has been chilled.
Who knew that Americans needed temperature-sensitive packaging to tell them when a beer is cold enough to drink? (It's always a bad sign when a company seems to think that its customers are morons.)
Taking notes in my blind tasting I quickly found myself running out of ways to describe vapid nothingness. Natural Light was "flavorless"; Michelob Ultra was simply "bland"; Coors Light was "blah"--though it did have the slightest hint of sweetness, as if an ounce of (bad) ginger ale had been diluted with pint of club soda. Miller Lite had a slightly foamier consistency (the Vortex bottle at work?) but no particular taste that could be discerned through the suds; Bud Light earned the honorific "least awful, but just barely."
Spending an afternoon tasting almost every domestic light beer out there? Talk about above and beyond the call of duty.
No wonder these beers are so heavily advertised. No one would think to drink them otherwise. And even if there are those who actually like the stuff, the different brews are virtually indistinguishable. Nothing begs for vigorous marketing like products that are otherwise undifferentiated.
All of which suggests that the great purveyors of industrial beer are likely to double down on the ad buys. For more than 30 years, they've pushed insipid suds with cartoonish spots celebrating the stupidity of men. Why change now?
Felten's right in not expecting the brewers of light beer to change their approach to pitching their swill. But what might have changed is the willingness of the beer buying public (especially men) to lap it up.
The clear message of these new ads is "Real men drink Miller Lite." That proposition is laughable on its surface and arguably wrong for so many reasons. The good news is that it appears that more and more men are recognizing this absurdity and no amount of television commercials touting the wonders of tasteless beer--and often insulting their intelligence in the process--will convince them otherwise.
Eric Felten explored the possible reasons why Light Beer Sales Are Sagging in yesterday's WSJ by sampling the product for himself:
So, at my local supermarket Wednesday evening, I grabbed up every domestic light beer I could find. They didn't have every brand, but the big boys were well represented.
P.T. Barnum would have admired the bunkum that goes into the packaging. Miller Lite is now presented in "vortex bottles." That is, the glass on the inside of the neck is rifled and this, they promise, improves the flavor of the beer. Coors Light brags of its "cold activated" bottles and cans: The mountains on the labels turn blue when the product has been chilled.
Who knew that Americans needed temperature-sensitive packaging to tell them when a beer is cold enough to drink? (It's always a bad sign when a company seems to think that its customers are morons.)
Taking notes in my blind tasting I quickly found myself running out of ways to describe vapid nothingness. Natural Light was "flavorless"; Michelob Ultra was simply "bland"; Coors Light was "blah"--though it did have the slightest hint of sweetness, as if an ounce of (bad) ginger ale had been diluted with pint of club soda. Miller Lite had a slightly foamier consistency (the Vortex bottle at work?) but no particular taste that could be discerned through the suds; Bud Light earned the honorific "least awful, but just barely."
Spending an afternoon tasting almost every domestic light beer out there? Talk about above and beyond the call of duty.
No wonder these beers are so heavily advertised. No one would think to drink them otherwise. And even if there are those who actually like the stuff, the different brews are virtually indistinguishable. Nothing begs for vigorous marketing like products that are otherwise undifferentiated.
All of which suggests that the great purveyors of industrial beer are likely to double down on the ad buys. For more than 30 years, they've pushed insipid suds with cartoonish spots celebrating the stupidity of men. Why change now?
Felten's right in not expecting the brewers of light beer to change their approach to pitching their swill. But what might have changed is the willingness of the beer buying public (especially men) to lap it up.
Friday, June 04, 2010
Beer of the Week (Vol. LVIII)
Another edition of Beer of the Week brought to you by the sunny folks at Glen Lake Wine & Spirits who can help welcome the summer wind that comes blowing in with the adult beverage most appropriate for your own particular idiom. Of the seasonal varieties of beer, the ones that seems to most divide beer lovers are the brews of summer. In general, most beer aficionados can agree on what makes for a good Oktoberfest beer or a tasty winter warmer. But there's much more of a divergence of opinion on what to quaff in the sweet summertime. For example, there's nothing better for me on a hot summer day than indulging in a cloudy hefeweizen. But I know quite a few folks--people whose taste in beer I usually respect--who want nothing to do with the sweet wheaty goodness of a good hefe. One man's summer treasure is another's trash.
Which bring us to this week's featured beer, Samuel Adam's Summer Ale. For some time, my good friend and blogging compatriot the Nihilist in Golf Pants has been extolling the virtues of this seasonal offering from Sam Adam's. And for some time, I've been meaning to find out whether it lives up to his hype. But the time had to be just right and with June now upon us, that time is now.
Standard brown bottle. Label follows the usual Sam Adam's style with a lemony yellow border surrounding the logo.
Style: American Wheat Ale Alcohol by Volume: 5.3%
COLOR (0-2): Golden and cloudy. 2
AROMA (0-2): Grassy with hints of citrus. 2
HEAD (0-2): White. Good volume off the pour that quickly fades. Not much lacing. 1
TASTE (0-5): Wheat and sweet malt flavors along with lemon and light spice. The finish is dry with a bit of a hop kick. Medium-bodied with a fair amount of carbonation. 3
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Has a somewhat sour and bitter (not in a good way) aftertaste. 1
OVERALL (0-6): A decent summer beer, but not one of my favorites. It has some nice individual components that for some reason don't come together all that well overall. The aftertaste is not very pleasant and for me was the beer's biggest flaw. There are plenty of other better wheat beers out there that I'd rather sip on during the lazy, hazy days of summer. 3
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 12
Thursday, June 03, 2010
No More Tears
Somewhere baseball manager Jimmie Dugan is spinning in his grave.
In the women's professional baseball league movie "A League of Their Own," Dugan (as played by Tom Hanks) was forced to educate one of his blubbering, girly-girl charges that "there's no crying in baseball!"
And he was correct. In America of the 1940's, when the movie was set, there was no crying in baseball. Or anywhere else in public, for that matter. Especially among men. Alas, in baseball in 2010, as in so many other areas of society, we've come a long way baby:
I'm not crazy about MLB umpires. Something about their casual, routine incompetence in calling balls and strikes and outs on the bases combined with the arrogance that accompanies a tenured-for-life union position rubs me the wrong way. The fact that one of these devils completely hosed the Twins on Wednesday night doesn't help matters.
Yet a new level of disrespect is reached when one of these men chooses to face the consequences of his flawed actions by bawling.
Yes, everyone makes mistakes. It is good of him to admit it, express regret, vow to do better. (Not that he had any choice, with irrefutable video evidence and an entire nation focused on the injustice of his call). But this resort to emotion in public indicates a problem. A lack of maturity and self-respect, ignorance of appropriate decorum. Also, something about the need to draw attention to his own plight and away from the problem he caused. Joyce's follow-up comments relate to this. It seems his tears weren't so much about regret over blowing the call. They were about how special he feels based on the reaction of his peers:
In other words: you like me, you really like me!
Inappropriate crying is not a phenomenon limited to baseball. Way too many politicians of late have been opening up the water works in public. Just last week, during a hearing on The Oil Spill, a Louisiana Rep. lost it:
It's hard not to sound like an uncaring jerk while criticizing someone affected by The Oil Spill. But …. get over yourself Congressman. We don't need sobbing self tributes about you and what you love. (Especially when the job you appear to be doing is preparing your colleagues for future requests of untold billions more of government spending to help your district out.) Stick to the facts, respect the institution, and maintain some dignity, man!
A few weeks ago, the closing of the 2010 Minnesota Legislative session was also the cause for much weeping. Not by the tax payers stuck with the consequences of billions of dollars in deficits mind you. No, the people crying were the ones who put us there, in honor of themselves:
A standing O! Too bad she and her fellow legislators didn't jack up the deficit $4 billion, she might have gotten carried around the room on their shoulders.
After MAK's tears for herself, there was more crying all night long. See if you can spot a common cause:
What these many examples may indicate is that getting verklempt over your own specialness is human nature. I pine for the old days when we had a culture that properly stigmatized it. For now, save us the spectacle and just go back and cry in your rooms you big babies!
In the women's professional baseball league movie "A League of Their Own," Dugan (as played by Tom Hanks) was forced to educate one of his blubbering, girly-girl charges that "there's no crying in baseball!"
And he was correct. In America of the 1940's, when the movie was set, there was no crying in baseball. Or anywhere else in public, for that matter. Especially among men. Alas, in baseball in 2010, as in so many other areas of society, we've come a long way baby:
Jim Joyce, whose blown call at first base with two outs in the ninth inning ruined Detroit pitcher's Armando Galarraga's perfect game Wednesday, worked Thursday's Detroit Tigers-Cleveland Indians game as the home-plate umpire.
Galarraga brought out the lineup card and shook hands with Joyce, who was wiping away tears, at the pregame home-plate meeting.
I'm not crazy about MLB umpires. Something about their casual, routine incompetence in calling balls and strikes and outs on the bases combined with the arrogance that accompanies a tenured-for-life union position rubs me the wrong way. The fact that one of these devils completely hosed the Twins on Wednesday night doesn't help matters.
Yet a new level of disrespect is reached when one of these men chooses to face the consequences of his flawed actions by bawling.
Yes, everyone makes mistakes. It is good of him to admit it, express regret, vow to do better. (Not that he had any choice, with irrefutable video evidence and an entire nation focused on the injustice of his call). But this resort to emotion in public indicates a problem. A lack of maturity and self-respect, ignorance of appropriate decorum. Also, something about the need to draw attention to his own plight and away from the problem he caused. Joyce's follow-up comments relate to this. It seems his tears weren't so much about regret over blowing the call. They were about how special he feels based on the reaction of his peers:
I cannot believe the outpouring of support I've gotten, not only from my fellow umpires but all my friends, my family and, frankly, you guys," Joyce said. "I can't thank you enough. I can't thank the people enough. I'm a big boy. I can handle this. It's probably the hardest thing I've ever had to go through in my professional career, without a doubt."
In other words: you like me, you really like me!
Inappropriate crying is not a phenomenon limited to baseball. Way too many politicians of late have been opening up the water works in public. Just last week, during a hearing on The Oil Spill, a Louisiana Rep. lost it:
In a House subcommittee meeting on the spill, Louisiana Rep. Charlie Melancon, who represents much of the coastal area being directly affected by the spill, broke down in tears while delivering his remarks.
"I'd like to remind my colleagues ... that the recovery phase is just as critical as the response phase," he read. "Everything that I know and love is at risk."
His lip quivering as he tried to maintain his composure, Melancon was unable to finish his statement.
It's hard not to sound like an uncaring jerk while criticizing someone affected by The Oil Spill. But …. get over yourself Congressman. We don't need sobbing self tributes about you and what you love. (Especially when the job you appear to be doing is preparing your colleagues for future requests of untold billions more of government spending to help your district out.) Stick to the facts, respect the institution, and maintain some dignity, man!
A few weeks ago, the closing of the 2010 Minnesota Legislative session was also the cause for much weeping. Not by the tax payers stuck with the consequences of billions of dollars in deficits mind you. No, the people crying were the ones who put us there, in honor of themselves:
... when Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, gaveled the House to order at 3:05 p.m., the representatives gave her a standing ovation that choked her up momentarily.
A standing O! Too bad she and her fellow legislators didn't jack up the deficit $4 billion, she might have gotten carried around the room on their shoulders.
After MAK's tears for herself, there was more crying all night long. See if you can spot a common cause:
Sen. Steve Murphy laughed and cried and urged his colleagues to carry on with good work as he made his retirement speech on the Senate floor Sunday night.
An emotional [Sen. Jim Vickerman] expressed pride in his work for veterans. He recalled deciding to run for the Senate at the State Fair several years ago, thinking it would be a great place to work. Through tears, told colleagues he was right.
[Rep. Marty Seifert] also got emotional talking about the friends he has from the House, both Republican and Democrat.
With tears flowing, [Rep. Karla Bigham] thanked family and colleagues for the opportunity to serve where she grew up. She said she tried to work across the aisle "because that's how you get things done."
What these many examples may indicate is that getting verklempt over your own specialness is human nature. I pine for the old days when we had a culture that properly stigmatized it. For now, save us the spectacle and just go back and cry in your rooms you big babies!
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
The Name Game
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title.
- Romeo and Juliet
I hate to argue with a guy like William Shakespeare, but I have to. The quote above refers to Juliet's assertion that Romeo would have been the same wonderful person whether or not his family were sworn enemies to the Capulets.
It's an interesting philosophical question, would Romeo be the same person if his name were different? Shakespeare and conventional wisdom say yes. While this may be true in life, in works of fiction it is most certainly false.
How many bad guys in TV and movies have been named Victor? Victor Maitland was the heavy in Beverly Hills Cop. Popular Soap operas Days of Our Lives and The Young and the Restless each feature a mafia boss named Victor. The video game series Resident Evil features a manipulative mastermind named Victor Darius. Film's most famous private eye is Sam Spade, Sam Malone is a handsome leading man in one of the most famous TV comedies, and even children's TV's Fireman Sam is an example of someone to be emulated.
Consider another name: Barney. Fictional Barneys are not crime bosses or leading men. The most famous Barneys in America today include:
- An annoying dinosaur that sings sappy songs to toddlers. Parents of young children find him incredibly annoying. He's big and soft and purple and he talks and sings in silly sappy manner.
- The best friend of a chauvinistic cartoon cave man. He's good natured, yet slow witted and he is completely derivative of Art Carney's brilliant portrayal of Ed Norton on the classic show "The Honeymooners".
- A bumbling and incompetent law enforcement officer, so incompetent that his boss routinely confiscates his ammunition to avoid an inevitable accident. He's skinny and bug-eyed and screws up everything he attempts. His deep southern accent adds to the perception of incompetence.
- The chair of the US House of Representatives Financial Services committee, known for causing the housing bubble that has brought our economy down. His manner is flamboyantly gay, including a serious lisp. Incredibly, he has been known to allow gay prostitutes to operate out of his home.
These Barneys are buffoonish and cartoonish. Fortunately, they are fictional. Can you imagine a world where these types of characters could be real? (Shudder!)
By any other name would smell as sweet.
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title.
- Romeo and Juliet
I hate to argue with a guy like William Shakespeare, but I have to. The quote above refers to Juliet's assertion that Romeo would have been the same wonderful person whether or not his family were sworn enemies to the Capulets.
It's an interesting philosophical question, would Romeo be the same person if his name were different? Shakespeare and conventional wisdom say yes. While this may be true in life, in works of fiction it is most certainly false.
How many bad guys in TV and movies have been named Victor? Victor Maitland was the heavy in Beverly Hills Cop. Popular Soap operas Days of Our Lives and The Young and the Restless each feature a mafia boss named Victor. The video game series Resident Evil features a manipulative mastermind named Victor Darius. Film's most famous private eye is Sam Spade, Sam Malone is a handsome leading man in one of the most famous TV comedies, and even children's TV's Fireman Sam is an example of someone to be emulated.
Consider another name: Barney. Fictional Barneys are not crime bosses or leading men. The most famous Barneys in America today include:
- An annoying dinosaur that sings sappy songs to toddlers. Parents of young children find him incredibly annoying. He's big and soft and purple and he talks and sings in silly sappy manner.
- The best friend of a chauvinistic cartoon cave man. He's good natured, yet slow witted and he is completely derivative of Art Carney's brilliant portrayal of Ed Norton on the classic show "The Honeymooners".
- A bumbling and incompetent law enforcement officer, so incompetent that his boss routinely confiscates his ammunition to avoid an inevitable accident. He's skinny and bug-eyed and screws up everything he attempts. His deep southern accent adds to the perception of incompetence.
- The chair of the US House of Representatives Financial Services committee, known for causing the housing bubble that has brought our economy down. His manner is flamboyantly gay, including a serious lisp. Incredibly, he has been known to allow gay prostitutes to operate out of his home.
These Barneys are buffoonish and cartoonish. Fortunately, they are fictional. Can you imagine a world where these types of characters could be real? (Shudder!)
Now I Wanna See My Dog
A week ago our family dog Sheppie ventured out of the open backyard gate and we haven't seen her since. I've made daily calls to all area pet hospitals and police stations to no avail so I'm turning to you people. If anyone in the Eagan/Inver Grove Heights/Rosemount area in Minnesota has any information on the location of our dog please email me, tweet me or call the number on the above poster. We miss her very much.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Peace In the Valley
Yesterday, the small city just west of Minneapolis that I call home had our first Memorial Day Parade. Well, at least the first in recent history. It was followed by a ceremony on the Golden Valley City Hall grounds. My dad drove his 1919 Model T in the parade with a POW/MIA flag draped on the seat next to him while my two oldest sons and I rode in the back. So we had a bird's-eye view of the crowd on hand.
I was impressed both by its size and makeup. While the Hugh Hewitt age cohort (sixty-plus) was well represented as they usually are at such events, there were a lot of young families with kids as well. It was encouraging to see so many come out to honor the fallen on a national holiday that for many has become more of a time to relax than remember. This bodes well both for our citizenry and for the future of this particular event, which we hope will become an annual affair. (Pictures of the parade available here.)
Matt Abe at North Star Liberty was also involved and has a good write up:
The program had all of the elements of a proper Memorial Day observance. The weather was perfect. The Armstrong High School band and choir played and sang. The mayor read a proclamation. Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion groups read the honor roll of their members who had passed away since Memorial Day last year. Many youth groups attended: the Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, ROTC groups. An Air Force brigadier general told a harrowing combat story to capture the importance of remembering those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. The dead were honored with a three-round volley, Taps, and a wreath was laid to the playing of bagpipes. The proceedings were opened with an invocation, the Pledge of Allegiance, and The Star Spangled Banner, and closed with a benediction. And in a truly small-town gesture, the grilled hot dogs, chips, and pop were free (take one of each please).
There was the usual panoply of elected officials and political candidates on the dais, but there was almost no campaign activity (save for a sole Emmer for Governor volunteer). The focus was on honoring the military dead, POW-MIAs, and active duty military and veterans, and expressing gratitude for their service.
The entire event was refreshing clear of politics of any kind. Well, at least serious politics of any kind. An attendee at the event sent me an e-mail about his close encounter of the third party kind:
Ken Pentel--candidate for Governor--was at the ceremony and asking people to sign his petition to file during TAPS. First Sergeant Chapman from Minnesota Transitions High School, confronted him at that moment and I did after I heard about it when all was said and done. We got into it on the street when he stated to me that, and I quote: "I don't celebrate the dead, I celebrate the living..."
This guy is nut and I told him he wasn't qualified to be my commander in chief as Governor because he lacked the wisdom of knowing how to present himself at a Memorial service. He later rode up on his bike and thanked me for my service, apologized for yelling at me, and stated we probably agree on more things than not. He has no business running for Governor.
And yet he is. Again:
Ken Pentel is used to running for governor. He did it in 1998, 2002 and 2006.
The bike-riding former Green Party leader is doing it again--this time with the brand-new "Ecology Democracy Party." He said the Green Party has a "great platform and beautiful people in it," but wasn't focused enough. He said he made a "clean break" from the former major party two years ago.
The new party, he said, was just established this month.
"It's going to be very bare bones grassroots," Pentel said. "I'm going to be biking and staying with friends and supporters along the way."
It's a campaign of ideas, not money, he said.
Yes, ideas. Like asking people to sign your political petition at a Memorial Day ceremony while Taps is playing. Fortunately for Ken Pentel, his right to behave like an ignorant jackass has been secured by generations of men willing to sacrifice secure our freedoms. Whether he wants to celebrate them or not is his choice. Based on the crowd on hand yesterday, he seems to be in a distinct minority. At least in the Valley.
UPDATE: I forget to mention how surprised I was not to see Brian "Saint Paul" Ward in attendance yesterday. While it's true that it's quite a haul from his stately Stillwater estate to Golden Valley, I've seen the man go to far greater lengths in his never-ending quest for FREE hot dogs.
I was impressed both by its size and makeup. While the Hugh Hewitt age cohort (sixty-plus) was well represented as they usually are at such events, there were a lot of young families with kids as well. It was encouraging to see so many come out to honor the fallen on a national holiday that for many has become more of a time to relax than remember. This bodes well both for our citizenry and for the future of this particular event, which we hope will become an annual affair. (Pictures of the parade available here.)
Matt Abe at North Star Liberty was also involved and has a good write up:
The program had all of the elements of a proper Memorial Day observance. The weather was perfect. The Armstrong High School band and choir played and sang. The mayor read a proclamation. Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion groups read the honor roll of their members who had passed away since Memorial Day last year. Many youth groups attended: the Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, ROTC groups. An Air Force brigadier general told a harrowing combat story to capture the importance of remembering those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. The dead were honored with a three-round volley, Taps, and a wreath was laid to the playing of bagpipes. The proceedings were opened with an invocation, the Pledge of Allegiance, and The Star Spangled Banner, and closed with a benediction. And in a truly small-town gesture, the grilled hot dogs, chips, and pop were free (take one of each please).
There was the usual panoply of elected officials and political candidates on the dais, but there was almost no campaign activity (save for a sole Emmer for Governor volunteer). The focus was on honoring the military dead, POW-MIAs, and active duty military and veterans, and expressing gratitude for their service.
The entire event was refreshing clear of politics of any kind. Well, at least serious politics of any kind. An attendee at the event sent me an e-mail about his close encounter of the third party kind:
Ken Pentel--candidate for Governor--was at the ceremony and asking people to sign his petition to file during TAPS. First Sergeant Chapman from Minnesota Transitions High School, confronted him at that moment and I did after I heard about it when all was said and done. We got into it on the street when he stated to me that, and I quote: "I don't celebrate the dead, I celebrate the living..."
This guy is nut and I told him he wasn't qualified to be my commander in chief as Governor because he lacked the wisdom of knowing how to present himself at a Memorial service. He later rode up on his bike and thanked me for my service, apologized for yelling at me, and stated we probably agree on more things than not. He has no business running for Governor.
And yet he is. Again:
Ken Pentel is used to running for governor. He did it in 1998, 2002 and 2006.
The bike-riding former Green Party leader is doing it again--this time with the brand-new "Ecology Democracy Party." He said the Green Party has a "great platform and beautiful people in it," but wasn't focused enough. He said he made a "clean break" from the former major party two years ago.
The new party, he said, was just established this month.
"It's going to be very bare bones grassroots," Pentel said. "I'm going to be biking and staying with friends and supporters along the way."
It's a campaign of ideas, not money, he said.
Yes, ideas. Like asking people to sign your political petition at a Memorial Day ceremony while Taps is playing. Fortunately for Ken Pentel, his right to behave like an ignorant jackass has been secured by generations of men willing to sacrifice secure our freedoms. Whether he wants to celebrate them or not is his choice. Based on the crowd on hand yesterday, he seems to be in a distinct minority. At least in the Valley.
UPDATE: I forget to mention how surprised I was not to see Brian "Saint Paul" Ward in attendance yesterday. While it's true that it's quite a haul from his stately Stillwater estate to Golden Valley, I've seen the man go to far greater lengths in his never-ending quest for FREE hot dogs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)