Passengers: 2/5

As part of my quest to see all of Anne Hathaway's* movies, I watched Rodrigo Garcia's Passengers last night.  It had a neat---but poorly executed---premise.  Extremely well acted, rather well written, very poorly put together.

*All the most beautiful actresses are brown-eyed brunettes.

Ms. Hathaway plays Claire Summers (the name sounds meaningful but isn't), a therapist (who is either seeking a Ph.D. or already has one) trying to help the survivors of a plane crash deal with their guilt.  There's a twist, but I won't ruin it for you because the movie depends so heavily on it.*  Basically, it's a confusing 92 minutes that are supposed to be cleared up in the last 3.

*I read a great article recently about how it's the How of a story and not the If that keeps us coming back, but I can't seem to find it.  Something to think about when you're writing your next graphic novel.

And that's fine.  It worked for Shyamalan and countless others, so I don't begrudge Garcia going for it.  I do, however, begrudge the poor editing.  It's a bit like a brilliant philosopher who finds the meaning of life but can't put a sentence together in a meaningful way.  No matter how brilliant he or his ideas are, I'll spend so much time figuring out the trees that I'll miss the forest.

I don't want to lambast Thom Noble too much, but he's been doing this since 1966.  He ought to know that when I see two people talking in a car followed by a cut to what looks and sounds like a car driving on a street, I expect it to be the same car.  Or that I need some kind of visual clue about where I'm at (i.e., is this Claire's apartment or Shannon's or Eric's?).  Or that I get really confused when Shot 1---a daylight shot of one character saying to another "Hey, come check this out"---cuts to Shot 2, a nighttime shot of the same two characters getting on a motorcycle.  Is the motorcycle what she was supposed to check out?  Or is the director keeping something hidden from us?

It's not that my expectations ought to rule the movie.  Instead, when little expectations---like a noun coming at the beginning of a sentence---aren't met, I have to stop and think about what's being said.  I have to translate the visual sentence into something meaningful.  I spent so much of this movie translating the trees that I would have missed the forest if Garcia hadn't burned the whole thing down in a Shyamalanian bonfire.

And I felt played at the end.  What began as a mystery thriller turned into a paranormal thriller in the last act before phasing into a family drama for the epilogue.  I'm just saying.

Definitely Penny's Boat

One of the greatest challenges of filmmaking must be casting.  Whoever picked these two deserves an award.

Just look at the way they share a boat seat. 

All I know is that every time those two are together on screen, it reminds me how lucky I am that The Universe didn't conspire to keep me and The Missus apart.

I have

This is, quite possibly, my favorite commercial ever.



If you can find a better one, drop a comment.

It Was HIs Sled

SPOILER ALERT

Jekyll is Hyde.  Norman did it.  I see dead people.

When I first read The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, I already knew the twist. Since then, I've re-read it at least twice and watched several film adaptations.

When I first saw Psycho, I already knew the twist.  Since then, I've watched it a few times, and I'm actually watching it right now.  (Dadgummit, Arbogast, don't go up the stairs.)  I asked for (and got) the DVD for my birthday.

When I first saw The Sixth Sense, I already knew the twist.  I watched it to see the little tricks Shyamalan pulled to keep the twist secret.  I haven't sat down and watched it since.

Another weird pattern.  I enjoy each Stevenson book as its own piece of art.  I enjoy each Hitchcock film as its own piece of art.  But I watch each Shyamalan movie hoping to recapture the magic of The Sixth Sense.*

*For my money, The Village came closest.

Rachel Getting Married: 2/5

Directed by Jonathan Demme, screenplay by Jenny Lumet, cinematography by Declan Quinn.

I confess: I am a big fan of Anne Hathaway.  It began with Ella Enchanted, then the mountains of Genovia, and finally Agent 99.  But not even the muse of the Bard could save Rachel Getting Married for me.  Her acting---heck, all the acting---was superb; I really cared for and believed in the characters.  And the cinematography really tore down that fourth wall.  But . . . too little plot, too much confusion, and not enough communication.  I spent half the running time trying to figure out what I was missing.

Ms. Hathaway: You did extremely well.  Ms. Lumet: not so much.

Web 2.0 for movies

So I've been active on this website, Flickchart.com, for a few weeks, and I thoroughly enjoy it.  Except for one thing.

According to my profile, I have watched 426 movies, consuming 29 days, 23 hours, and 24 minutes of my life, and picked a favorite 1,818 times.  But that same profile has been viewed once.  And it tells me this depressing fact:

You've got no friends!

Dang.  Exclamation point and all.

So if you like movies and you like talking about them, sign up.  We can be friends, compare our lists, and have pillow fights.

Or just talk about movies.

So Sideways I'm Lost

SPOILER ALERT

From C.S. Lewis's The Voyage of the Dawn Treader:

"Child," said Aslan, "did I not explain to you once before that no one is ever told what would have happened?"

In this, the final the season of Lost, the creators have caught some flack for their new experiment, "flash sideways," explorations of what would have happened in a World Without the Island.  Ben sacrifices his ambitions for Alex's good; Sayid kills his brother's creditors; Jack works through his daddy issues; Locke comes to terms with his handicap; Kate lets Claire keep her baby.  Some people think this is lame.

A friend of mine suggests that he can't decide whether Jacob or The Man in Black is the real bad guy of the series.  I'm firmly on Team Jacob, but I am keeping my mind open.  Consider this, on the nature of literary tragedy:

After all is said and done, the audience should not feel impotent rage, denial, confusion or having been cheated. They should feel that the ending is a natural outcome to the hero's actions, and that in having faced punishment for those actions they [the audience] are purged of anxiety and worry. The world does make sense, the guilty are punished.

Is't possible that the purpose of the flash-sideways is to give us, the audience, a chance to see what would have happened if Jacob hadn't interfered with everybody?  Maybe the flash sideways are meant to telegraph the end of the series, to explain to us that the world does make sense and the guilty are punished.

Don Quixote and Lady Macbeth

From Stephen King's Firestarter:

Andy moved slowly away from the van.  The other fellow . . . had his gun out now.  He pointed it at Andy.  He was less than fifty feet away.  "I advise you very sincerely not to move," he said in a low voice.  "This is a Colt forty-five and it makes a giant hole."

The young guy with his wife and baby at the picnic table got up.  He was wearing rimless glasses and he looked severe.  "What exactly is going on here?" he asked in the carrying, enunciated tones of a college instructor.

The man with Charlie turned toward him.  The muzzle of his gun floated slightly away from her so that the young man could see it.  "Government business," he said.  "Stay right where you are; everything is fine."

The young man's wife grabbed his arm and pulled him down.

Query: Between the young guy and the wife, who is being practical and who is being romantic?  Who is being reasonable and who is being irrational?  Who is really trying to save lives and who is merely pretending?

Surprise, based on the blog Alico Dreams by Jeremy Masten

Out of the mouths of multinational corporations:

The Sandra Bullock win really surprised me. Not to say she didn’t deserve to win, but she was going up against Meryl Streep as Julia Child and an awesome performance by Gabourey Sidibe in Precious, which I believe is based on a book or something. It’s hard to tell, because nobody ever mentioned what it’s based on. I guess it will remain a mystery.

Scooby dooby doo---where are you?  We've got a job for you, now.

Spoiler Alert

One of my favorite things about movies is that, if done right, they end with a question you have to ask yourself.  Everything is done to build up to that question.  The greatest movie of all time asks a question that every successful suitor faces, and what some movies might call the 6-month question:

Now that I got the girl, what do I do?

Similarly, the best movie of 2009 asks a very difficult, very ubiquitous question.  For centuries, war has asked women one question (What if my son/brother/husband doesn't come back?) and men another question (What if I don't come back?).  We always assume that, if you make it back, society will wrap you in its arms, build you a statue, and try to make it worth your while.

But since the Vietnam fallout, war has asked us a different question, one that has taken us a few decades to work out:

What if my son/brother/husband/I make it back, but he/I can't handle the real world anymore?

The movie doesn't give us the answer, but it asks it very beautifully:



There's also a Russian (or something) dubbed, longer version on YouTube, but this one works.

According to Screenwriter Boal himself:

Both of those scenes, and the juxtaposition between them, sum up the film. . . . The supermarket scene is one that veterans in particular have pointed out to me - it's probably the single scene that they talk about the most, which is surprising to me. It really seems to ring true to a lot of them in the sense of capturing that feeling of being lost when you come back to a normal life.

So that's my two cents.

Stranger in a Strange Land: 3/5

Today, I finished Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land.*  The book has two versions, between which I alternated.  The 1961 publication ran for 160,067 words and won the Hugo Award.  In 1991, the Widow Heinlein published an expanded, original version, which weighed in at 220,000 words.

*I also discovered a new and interesting website.

Since learning to read circa 1988, I have read over 230 books, including 11 in 2010; seen at least 350 movies, including 19 in 2010; read a bazillion cases and statutes; and heard probably over 1,000 sermons and lectures.  Perhaps hypocritically, I appreciate brevity.  I believe that books longer than 500 pages and movies longer than 2 hours should have a blankity blank good reason for the surplus.*  There comes a point where thoroughness gives way to self-indulgence.  I simply don't have patience for that.

*Interesting note: Shakespeare never wrote anything longer than 5 acts.  I'm just sayin.

And I'm afraid that self-indulgence marred an otherwise good story here.  I began in the 1991 version but ran out of steam about three-fourths of the way through.  I got tired of reading extended "conversations" between characters that served little more than to either (a) set the table for something coming or (b) give the author a soapbox.  So I switched over to the 1961 version and still waded through the last 50 or 60 pages.  By "waded," I don't mean to say that those pages were boring or uninteresting; I mean to say that they began as interesting and just went on a little too far.  Even the very last page went one sentence too far.

UPDATE: Just ran across Niven's 4th Law for Writers: "It is a sin to waste the reader's time."

Balto, the STL, and the KC

Yesterday, I noticed that Baltimore has been abandoned in three of the four major North American sports.  After some quick research, I learned that no other city has been abandoned four times, but St. Louis and Kansas City each have lost a team in three sports.

First, what you already know.

The New York Yankees were founded as the Baltimore Orioles in 1901, but left after the 1902 season to meet their destiny.  This year's Super Bowl runner-up joined the NFL as the Baltimore Colts in 1953, won three NFL championships and Super Bowl V, and left in Mayflower trucks in 1984 after stadium renovation talks fell through.  And the Washington Wizards played ten seasons in Baltimore (as the Bullets) before moving a little west in 1973.

Now for what you might not know.

The (second*) Milwaukee Brewers moved to St. Louis for the 1902 season and began play as the Browns.  Fifty-one years and a pennant later, they moved to Baltimore for the 1954 season, reviving the old Orioles nickname.  Angry about that loss, the City of St. Louis responded by luring the NBA's Hawks away from Milwaukee for the 1955-56 season.**  The St. Louis Hawks won the 1958 NBA championship, but couldn't take Mid-American winters.  They skipped town in 1968.***  Finally, the Chicago Cardinals moved to St. Louis in 1960, piddled around for almost three decades, then moved to the desert of Arizona in 1987.

*The first Milwaukee Brewers played 36 games in the American Association in 1891 after Kelly's Killers folded.

**Milwaukee and St. Louis should have bitter rivalries.  What kind of town steals from another town twice?

***Atlanta must have been the place to be in the late '60s and early '70s.  The MLB's Braves moved there (from Milwaukee, believe it or not) in 1966, the NFL's Falcons were founded the same year, the NBA's Hawks moved there in 1968, and the Atlanta (now Calgary) Flames came along in 1972.  To recap: in 1965, Georgians had no local teams; less than 10 years later, they were represented in all four major sports.  Los Angeles is jealous.

And . . .

The Philadelphia Athletics, trying to push Connie Mack into the grave, moved to Kansas City in 1955.  After serving as the Yankees' farm team for 13 seasons, they headed west in 1967.  Five years later, the Cincinnati Royals moved to Kansas City, played their 13 seasons (including 1979, when they won the Midwest Division) and headed for Sacramento in 1985.  The Kansas City Scouts didn't get the 13-year memo.  They joined the NHL in 1974 and moved to Colorado in 1976.  Eventually, they would win a hat trick of Stanley Cups as the New Jersey Devils.

Who will be the next thrice-abandoned city?  Five American cities have been abandoned twice:

• Philadelphia: Athletics (1954) and Warriors (1962)
• Minneapolis: Lakers (1960) and North Stars (1993)
• Seattle: Brewers (née Pilots) (1969) and Thunder (née Supersonics) (2008)
• Chicago: NFL Cardinals (1959) and Packers Zephyrs Bullets Wizards (1963)
• Milwaukee: Brewers (1901) and Hawks (1955)

I think it's high time St. Louis stole another team from Milwaukee.  It's been a half-century or so.*

*Or I suppose a team from Philadelphia could make its way west to Oakland, but that would involve making a new joke, and Mrs. Moak always told me never to introduce new material in the last paragraph.  That probably includes a footnote to the last paragraph.  Aw snap.

When in Baltimore

Yesterday, I bought one of the coolest baseball caps I know:

Now, I know that you say, "Jeremy---you grew up two hours south of Nolan Ryan's 5,000th strikeout and sixth and seventh no-hitters; there is only one 'Pudge' in your vocabulary; you believe strongly in waiting till next year; Rickey Henderson is your favorite player of all time."  Yes, that is all true.

But I also hate the Yankees.*  And I live in Baltimore.  And I love Camden Yards.

*Few cities have a greater claim for hating the Yankees than Baltimore.  Now that I think about it, Baltimoreans have been abandoned in three of the four major North American sports.  The Colts left in the middle of the night in March 1984, and the Wiz left town in 1973.  Interesting question: Have any other cities been abandoned at least 3 times?  Does a Baltimore-to-Washington move count as "abandonment"?  Post may follow.

Sports are about uniting friends and neighbors against a common enemy, so it doesn't make sense for me to cling exclusively to my Rangers fandom.*  It's OK for me to put on an O's cap when I'm in Baltimore and an A's cap when I'm in Oakland and an R's cap when I'm in Dallas.**  I know the time will come when I can't have it all three ways, and I will be forced to decide.

*Especially since August 22, 2007.  Oh no he didn't.  Yes he did, Peter!  Yes he did!  I just saw him!

**Why don't any National League teams inspire loyalty in me?

But let's face it: October 2010 will not be that time.

Why the Sky is Blue

Why I think a lot about chemistry:

Chemistry has the power to explain everything in this world, from the ordinary to the bizarre. . . . Understanding chemistry is the key to understanding the world as we know it.

That's also why I think a lot about jurisprudence.

Adventureland: 4/5

For all of my readers out there with a spec script for a rom-com, this is a key ingredient you must have in your script:

[Y]ou can totally see why James would subject himself to the things that he does in pursuit of Stewart’s Em.

There should be reasons for Guy and Girl to get together.  Don't expect your audience to just buy into the old syllogism:

+ Guy is Lead Actor

+ Girl is Lead Actress

> Guy and Girl should fall in love

Life doesn't work that way, and neither should your plot.

The Representative from California

I am tired of hearing "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" and "When September Ends" and acting like they're anything but boring songs I've heard too many times.  AltNation should play lots and lots more "Jesus of Suburbia."  Or at least "Basketcase."  Sheesh o meesh.

Pirate Latitudes: 3/5

Pirate Latitudes by Michael Crichton


My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Michael Crichton writes three kinds of books: (1) thrilling blockbusters (or at least wannabe blockbusters), like Jurassic Park or Sphere; (2) contemplations on science and the human condition, like State of Fear or The Lost World; and (3) simply fun historical novels, like The Great Train Robbery, Eaters of the Dead, and, now, Pirate Latitudes. So if you only like Crichton for his Jurassic Park-like thrillers, stay away. If you only like Crichton for his Prey-like contemplations, stay away. But if you like lightweight, easy reading that's fun, give it a chance. It's not his best work, but it's not his worst either. (Sphere and Congo, respectively, get my votes.)

Maybe the best I can do is quote Robert Louis Stevenson's prologue to Treasure Island:

If sailor tales to sailor tunes,
Storm and adventure, heat and cold,
If schooners, islands, and maroons,
And buccaneers, and buried gold,
And all the old romance, retold
Exactly in the ancient way,
Can please, as me they pleased of old,
The wiser youngsters of today:
--So be it, and fall on! If not,
If studious youth no longer crave,
His ancient appetites forgot,
Kingston, or Ballantyne the brave,
Or Cooper of the wood and wave:
So be it, also! And may I
And all my pirates share the grave
Where these and their creations lie!

To paraphrase: If you think boats/pirates/sea adventure are cool, you'll probably like this book. If not, you probably won't.

First Law Job

Because I want to shout it from the rooftops, I'll post it on my blog.

As of this morning, I accepted a position with The Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos.  I'll be doing my part to make the world safe to drink groundwater in.

Thank you and good night.

Eye Spy

Have you ever noticed how you can tell a person's gender by just their voice?  And it's not just pitch.  When you listen to the artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as Prince, you never think "Is that a fello or a fella?"*

*I guess I should admit that Coheed and Cambria always throw me for a loop.

But here's something interesting: you can usually pick a girl out by her eyes, even if she's trying to look masculine.  Case in point:

 

No matter how you try to disguise yourself as a manly giant-radioactive-ant-fighting entomologist, Ms. Weldon, we can see the truth in your eyes.

Moon: 4.5/5

I don't often get excited about movies, but two movies in the past year have gotten me really excited.  (2009 was an exciting year for movies.)  I haven't seen one yet (Sherlock Holmes), and I just saw one last night (Moon).  I've seen a lot of movies in the past 12 months, but these are the only two I've been really excited about.

 

I loved Moon; The Missus hated it.  To be fair, this is not the kind of movie you can half-watch and enjoy.  Rather, it's the kind of movie where you immerse yourself, float around in it for a while, and never really get your bearings but never really get bored either.  (Think: 2001.)  Some things can be more important than plot.

Maybe that's what I love about science fiction.  One of my favorite reviewers described it this way:

[Science fiction] geeks love clockwork stories full of hidden messages and structural tricks, so much so that the puzzle-solving nature of the narrative is as much a draw as the subject or ideas.

For my money, the plot of Moon (how Sam escapes) is less intriguing than the clockwork nature of the story, its hidden messages, or its structural tricks.  Tack on brilliant acting by Sam Rockwell, a phenomenally atmospheric score, beautiful story-reinforcing imagery,* and an interesting play on the how-far-is-too-far theme, and you've got a movie well worth your rental.

*One of my favorite tricks/imagery: the base seems decently roomy, but Sam sleeps in a cramped twin-size bed.  That, my friends, is showing-not-telling.

In the interest of full disclosure, I feel I should disclose two things.  First, the Moon is my favorite celestial object.  Second, I guessed the twist around the 1:07 mark, and you know you always like a movie better when you guess the twist.

By the way, Sherlock Holmes is in my queue for delivery as soon as it comes out on DVD.  If you feel bad for me, please donate $20 so The Missus and I can make a date to see it in the comfort of a dark theater.

NFL Predix III: Let's try that again

To recap the NFL Postseason so far: Jeremy was right about the Cowboys beating the Eagles, the Jets beating the Bengals, and the Ravens beating the Patriots.  He picked the Packers, Cardinals, Ravens, Cowboys, and Chargers and lost.  So after a sterling 3-1 start, I dropped to 3-5 after the Divisional Playoff Round.

But I am not one to lie in the dust after getting thrown by this bronckin buck.  So let's try this again.

Lamar Hunt Bowl XL

The Indianapolis Colts will host the New York Jets in the battle for the Lamar Hunt Trophy.  This is the first time these two teams have fought for control of the AFC.  The Colts are making their sixth appearance (2-3 overall, 2-1 home), and the Jets are making their third appearance (0-2 overall, 0-2 road).  History favors the Colts.  I also told my oldest friend back in September that the Jets would make it to the Super Bowl.  But my father-in-law is from Indiana, so I'm going to go with the Colts.

George Halas Bowl XL

The New Orleans Saints will host the Minnesota Vikings in the battle for the George Halas Trophy.  These teams have never fought for the Halas either.  The Saints are making their second appearance (0-1 overall, 0-0 home); the Vikings are making their eighth appearance (3-4 overall, 1-3 road).  The Vikings haven't won since 1976.  I told my oldest friend back in September that the Saints would make it to the Super Bowl, so I'm picking them.

Super Bowl XLIV 

The New Orleans Saints will be making their very first Super Bowl appearance.*  The Indianapolis Colts will be making their fourth appearance (second as a midwestern team).  The Colts are 2-1, including 1-0 since moving to Indianapolis.  I'm a little torn, but I gotta pick the team that beat the team that beat my team.  I'm picking the Saints.

*This is ironic because New Orleans has hosted more super bowls than any other city except Miami.

There you have it, folks.  Let's hope that I can break even after this week.

Big Shot Brob

I hate the Lakers, but I love this play:




Kobe misses the short jumper.  Shaq misses the put back.  Horry nails the 3.

NFL Predix II

I did pretty well the last go'round: 3/4.  But really, was it so daring to pick the Cowboys over the Eagles, the Ravens over the Patriots, and the Jets over the Bengals?  I think not.  Now we get into the nitty gritty: the NFL Divisional Playoffs.  Since I missed one of my games, I decided to re-examine my predictions.

Divisional Playoffs

Ravens at Indianapolis - The Colts beat the Ravens in Baltimore during Week 11, 17-15.  This go'round, the Colts are on a 2-game losing streak, and the Ravens are on a 2-game winning streak.  I believe in momentum, and I still believe the Ravens win.

Jets at San Diego - The Jets and Chargers meet for the first time since Week 3 of 2008, which the Chargers won in San Diego 48-29.  The Jets won their third in a row yesterday, but the Chargers have an 11-game win streak going.  All momentum points west.  I'm still picking the Chargers.

Cardinals at New Orleans - Last time, I picked the Packers over the Saints.  Too bad the Packers lost to the Cardinals, so now I have to re-think my predictions.  The Cardinals have won 3 of their last 4, and the Saints have lost their last 3.  The friend of my enemy is my friend, so the Cardinals take it.

Cowboys at Minnesota - The last time these two met in the playoffs was during Wild Card Week 1999 in Minnesota.  The Vikings won that contest, 27-10.  But three years earlier, the Cowboys beat the Vikings during Wild Card Week in Dallas, 40-15.  All-time, the two are even, with 10 wins each.  But the Cowboys are riding a 4-game winning streak, and the Vikings have lost 3 of their last 5.  I still pick the Cowboys.

Conference Championships

Ravens at San Diego - I stand by my prior decision.  Chargers win.

Cowboys at Cardinals - The names have changed, but the results are the same.  Cowboys win this one by 87.

Super Bowl XLI

Cowboys v. San Diego at Paul Tyson Field - Still no contest.  Cowboys all the way.

Current Record: 3-1

The Graduate: 4.5/5

The Graduate is brilliant and funny in so many ways.  And it's the first movie I've ever seen where I actually sat back and thought: "Wow.  That was an amazing shot.  Incredible."

Here's the scene: Benjamin is telling Elaine the truth before Mrs. Robinson can.  He says, "Remember that older woman?  Well, it wasn't just any woman."  Then Mrs. Robinson opens the door, and Elaine turns around.  She looks back at Benjamin, who has a funny look on his face.  At first, Elaine is blurry, but slowly she comes into focus.

At just about the speed it takes her to figure out what the look on Benjamin's face means.

I sat back and thought: "Wow.  That was an amazing shot.  Incredible."

NFL Predix

The NFL season ended last weekend, and now it's time for you to indulge me by reading my football predictions.  Three important qualifications:

1. I know a little less than the average bear about the NFL.
2. I grew up in a distant suburb of Dallas.
3. I'm a big fan of momentum in football.
   

 That said, here are my predictions:

The Wild Card Round

(5) New York* v. (4) Cincinnati - The Jets have won 5 of their last 6, and the Bengals have lost 3 of the last 4.  Jets by 17.

*Isn't it great that I only have to type

"New York" and not "New York Jets"?

(6) Eagles v. (3) Cowboys - The Eagles have won 6 of their last 7, but the Cowboys have won 3 in a row, two by shutout (including last week against the Eagles) and one against the then-undefeated Saints.  Cowboys by 146.

(6) Ravens v. (3) Patriots - Both the Ravens and the Patriots have won 3 of their last 4.  The Ravens won their last game, beating the Raiders when they had to.  The Patriots lost their last game, giving the Texans their first ever winning season.  Ravens by a safety.

(5) Packers v. (4) Cardinals - The Packers have won 7 of their last 8, and the Cardinals lost half of their last 6 games.  The Packers beat the Cardinals in Week 17.  Packers by 6.

Odd note: Jets-Bengals, Eagles-Cowboys, and Packers-Cardinals are all repeats of Week 17.  I wonder how often that's happened.

The Divisional Round

(1) Saints v. (5) Packers - The Saints won their first 13 games, then lost their last 3.  The Packers will be riding a streak of 3 in a row and 8 of their last 9.  Packers will brees by.

(2) Vikings v. (3) Cowboys - The Vikings have lost 3 of their last 5.  The Cowboys will be running a 4-game winning streak.  Cowboys by 4.

(1) Colts v. (6) Ravens - The Colts won their first 14 and lost their last 2.  The Ravens will have won 4 of their last 5, including 2 in a row.  Ravens by a feather.

(2) Chargers v. (5) New York - The Chargers have won 11 in a row.  I don't think the Jets have anything for that.  Chargers win it at Waco High Stadium.

Conference Championship Round

(5) Packers v. (3) Cowboys - I got nothing.  Cowboys by 87.

(6) Ravens v. (2) Chargers - Chargers will have won 12 in a row.  And we all want to see a Super Bowl at Waco High Stadium.  Chargers by 12.

Super Bowl XLIV at Waco High Stadium

It would be even cooler if it were at Paul Tyson Field. Cowboys crush Chargers and embarrass L.T.II.

You heard it hear first, folks.

Elle Eye Vee Eye Inn

I grew up on the wisdom of David Wooderson, so maybe that explains much of my Weltanschauung.  But I've also read a bit of Descartes, Locke, Kant, and Wittgenstein (my personal favorite), as well as King, Asimov, Dickens, and Blatty.  Oh, and I can't forget Stevenson, Fleming, Crichton, and Fitzgerald.  I have even read an essay or two by Russell and Lewis.  And here is my conclusion: We are all at least a little bit wrong.  The guy who knows he's wrong is a little closer to being right than the guy who doesn't.  But the guy who thinks he's right about knowing that he's wrong, well, maybe he's wrong about being right about being wrong, and that makes him a little less right and a little more wrong.*

*Now you see the Wooderson coming out.

Science, like law, works best in an adversarial system.  Holmes called it "the marketplace of ideas."  The foundation of the scientific method is the systematic observation of reproducible phenomena.  If it ain't reproducible, it ain't science.  You hypothesize an explanation, experiment, observe, and adjust.  Then you write up a lab report and get it published.  If I don't like your explanation, I can repeat your procedure and see what happens. No matter how much I hate using your explanation to connect the observable cause with the observable result, it's hard to argue with my own observations.

But what if your explanation covers something that's not reproducible?  What if you refer to an unobservable cause, for example?  How can I dispute your explanation?  Since I can't reproduce it, my best bet is an ad hominem attack.  I'll call you stupid or biased or incompetent, and you'll call me lazy or backward or illegitimate, and we'll be three steps closer to Truth.*

*After all, under the Masten Theory of the Universe, 

you are in fact stupid, biased, and incompetent, and I

am in fact lazy, backward, and illegitimate.

When you step out of the realm of reproducibility, you step into the realm of logical (or illogical) conclusions.  And the rules of logic may yet, like the laws of physics, prove not entirely dependable.

What's the point of all this rant?  Simply this: reproducibility and truthiness are not synonyms, nor should passionate belief be confused with knowledge.  Too many unthinking, close-minded scientists make the first blunder, and too many unthinking, close-minded religious zealots make the second.

Home is where the heart is

This, amigos, is my place of abode.

Amazing, I know.

Response does not compute

Today, I was reading a two-day-old article about the manhunt for the guy who killed four police outside Seattle last Sunday, when I ran across this:

Police later learned he may have been in a house in Seattle. After an all-night siege in which they tried to get him out using loudspeakers, explosions and a robot sent into the house, a SWAT team stormed the place and discovered he was not there.

Wait, what?  They sent a robot into the house??  What is this, Robocop?  They should have sent this guy:

He'd have gotten the job done, unless he tripped on the stairs.

Two Triolets

Two triolets for my loyal readers.  The first is one written by Gail White called "Worker Bees":

Staring at fluorescent screens,
letting life pass by unheeded,
little better than machines
staring at fluorescent screens,
we’ll pass on our altered genes
to generations who’ll be seated
staring at fluorescent screens,
letting life pass by unheeded.

True story.  The second is my very amateur attempt at triolet poetry.  I call it "Loyalty":

I sit next to you,
And you sit next to me.
When storms are all a-brew
I just sit next to you.
We don't need the lee;
We enjoy the breeze
When I sit next to you
And you sit next to me.

 And there you have it.  I hope you enjoyed our little excursion into medieval French poetry.

Renewed Lease on Life

My computer is a couple of years old and can run very slowly at times.  I had to shut it down with difficulty several times in the past couple of weeks.  Rather than lament the state of the economy and my computer, I took charge.  I installed Xubuntu.  In fact, I'm typing this post from within Xubuntu right now.  So far, my only complaints are (1) no iTunes (so I have to borrow The Missus's computer for that) and (2) no Chrome.  Of course, the most important nice thing is that I am having (so far) super performance.  Who knew my old computer could go this fast?

I'll keep you posted, now that I can.

2 out of 2 ain’t bad

The results are as yet unofficial, but the Baylor University School of Law is, so far as I know, batting 1.000 on the July 2009 Maryland General Bar Examination.  Congratulations are particularly in order for Mr. Dylan Q. Springmann, who rocked the sports law essay so hard they gave him a 7 on a scale of 6 and then counted it three times instead of the more typical two.

If you pass him in the hall, be sure to give him a high five.

The World Has Turned and Left Me Here

Once again, truth, justice, and the American way give way to lies, favoritism, and the American way.  The Yankees won World Series CV, giving them a record 816 banners in their rafters.  Therefore, I present to you this beautiful poem by Robert S. Wieder, titled “Baseball”:

If this terse rhyme, about our pastime
Seems a little cranky,
It’s possibly because the writer
Hates the F&$%ing Yankees.

Soulmates: A Sestina

©2009 by Jeremy Masten

At six o'clock, I wake up to alarms
Wanting me to get up on my legs.
I'm missing one; I reach out for my crutch.
Aluminum is all the latest fancy.
I hobble to the bathroom, pull the cord
That lights the room, awaking and frustrating.

I hobble to my closet.  How frustrating
That all my clothes don't fit.  That fire alarm
That doused my clothes: it shrunk up all my cord's.
They once were long enough inside the leg
But now are short and ratty.  Stupid crutch
That makes me hobble keeps me free of fancies.

I used to think a woman was a fancy
Way to keep a man in line, frustrating
His ideas, acting like a crutch
When all he needs is truth, a rough alarm
To wake him up and put him on his legs.
She’s like, I thought, a pretty minor chord.

But women aren't instruments whose chords
Can be predicted.  No, they're much too fancy
For that.  I met a woman on her legs
Who found that I could be a bit frustrating.
The day we met, outside the school, alarms
Were blaring, answering my lifelong crush.

She probably wouldn't like me as a crutch;
She's probably good enough to find accord;
She wakes up on her own, with no alarm
And leads a life of art, of something fancy;
She probably never finds herself frustrated;
She knows exactly what keeps her on her legs.

And I'm afraid that I do, too.  Her legs,
So perfect that she doesn't need a crutch.
And what am I?  A burden, a frustration.
She knows this song and dance; she’s played the chords.
I've grown attached to her, I think I fancy
That she's what keeps me waking sine alarm.

So when I say that I don't need alarms,
And when you notice that I have both my legs,
And when you wonder whether I'm too fancy,
Remember I am just a man.  My crutch
Is she who keeps me walking, playing chords
That soothe and vent and cut off all frustration.

She's on her legs, she pulls the cords
That drag my crutch into my fancy.
No more frustration, no more alarm.

So much to live for

I read this today and thought you might like it.

A Ballade of Suicide, by G.K. Chesterton

The gallows in my garden, people say,
Is new and neat and adequately tall;
I tie the noose on in a knowing way
As one that knots his necktie for a ball;
But just as all the neighbours---on the wall---
Are drawing a long breath to shout “Hurray!”
The strangest whim has seized me. . . . After all
I think I will not hang myself to-day.

To-morrow is the time I get my pay---
My uncle’s sword is hanging in the hall---
I see a little cloud all pink and grey---
Perhaps the rector’s mother will not call---
I fancy that I heard from Mr. Gall
That mushrooms could be cooked another way---
I never read the works of Juvenal---
I think I will not hang myself to-day.

The world will have another washing-day;
The decadents decay; the pedants pall;
And H.G. Wells has found that children play,
And Bernard Shaw discovered that they squall,
Rationalists are growing rational---
And through thick woods one finds a stream astray
So secret that the very sky seems small---
I think I will not hang myself to-day.

Envoi

Prince, I can hear the trumpet of Germinal,
The tumbrels toiling up the terrible way;
Even to-day your royal head may fall,
I think I will not hang myself to-day.

Pack up your things and go

When I was in high school, I made sandwiches for Subway Sandwiches and Salads.  I started my career in sandwich art at Store 10882, but I really shined at Store 3035.  I transferred there as part of a reorganization of that store.  They were slowly eliminating some terrible workers one by one, as just (enough) cause arose, and replacing them mostly with workers from other stores.  I came over about halfway through the transition.

One of my eliminated coworkers was a girl named Robin.  She got in trouble for cursing at a customer.  One week she was on the schedule; the next week, she wasn’t.  She called me at work the day the schedule came out and asked what her hours were.  I told her she wasn’t on the schedule, and she asked me, rather politely, “Why the f--- not??”  I told her she should probably call our district manager, Dwight Schrute.

The next time I saw her was payday.  When Robin asked for her paycheck, I informed her of Subway’s policy of holding the final paycheck until the entire uniform had been returned.  She asked me why in three words that start with w, t, and f, respectively, and I confessed ignorance.  “Whatever,” she agreed and promised to bring her uniform back.  I held on to her $67-check.

A few minutes later, Robin returned with a green Subway shirt crumpled up like a snowball with a rock inside.  She pegged me with it, explaining, “There’s your f---ing piece of s--- uni-f---ing-form.  G--d--- I hate this f---ing s---hole.  Gimme my f---ing paycheck.”  I complied with her request and wished her happy trails.

Before today, that was my only real experience with existential process of termination.

NBA 2009-10 = a w e s o m e

If you are unconvinced of the NBA’s greatness, please read Mark Heisler’s column in the Baltimore Sun.  You now know why 2009-10 could be one of the most competitive and exciting years in NBA history.  Everybody has this one shot to make it count.  But I tend to agree with Bill Simmons: 2010 is the Year of the Spur.

That is all.

Ain’t Nothin but a 1950 Party

Because I like baseball, I’m going to post twice tonight.  With the Yankees’ 10-1 trouncing of the Angels, it looks like we’re going to see a rematch of the unforgettable 1950 World Series, which the Yankees swept.  While doing research to see how many times these two teams have met in the World Series I discovered something neat.

In 1914 and 1915, back when five cities had dual representation*, two cities presaged the patriotic Super Bowl XXXIX.  In 1914, the Boston Braves swept the Philadelphia Athletics in the World Series.  Then, in 1915, the Boston Red Sox charged past the Philadelphia Phillies in five games.  So, Boston beat Philadelphia twice in a row, but with different teams.  I wonder how many times that kind of thing has happened.

 

*New York, Chicago, St. Louis, Boston, and Philadelphia.

Life Imitates Me

A couple of years ago, I took a bus from Manhattan to D.C.  As we were just about to go under the Hudson River, I noticed that all the cars around us were like us: taxis, buses, delivery trucks.  There were no private cars.  At that moment, I had a brilliant idea: What if you closed off a city to all traffic except for certain licensed vehicles, like public transportation or taxis and delivery trucks?

I still think about the idea, most commonly when I’m commuting home from work.  (I imagine the press conference, with an almost-chic young reporter standing on the steps of city hall, “Thanks, Tom.  I’m here at Baltimore City Hall where---just today---the city council voted . . . “)  Tonight, I opened up my Baltimore Sun and saw some evidence that other people have had the same idea: “D.C.-area planners crack down on parking: Capacity cut, costs raised to get people out of cars.”  The article concludes by noting that Federal City has reduced its minimum parking requirements in recent years from 4 spots for every 1,000 square feet of retail space to just 1 spot.

I’m generally a fan of public transportation, but I think there are two things to keep in mind.  First, public transportation is either really good (e.g., New York City subway system) or really limited (e.g., Waco, Texas, bus system), and it takes a lot of time and money to get a really good system.  And second, like the right to own property, the right to physically move about (mostly) freely is one of the cornerstones of liberty.  I’m just saying.

Hater of Earths

I just did the math.  It costs me less money to drive to work than take public transportation.  The proofs:

Driving = 30.6 miles round trip / 20 mpg* x $2.50/gallon** = $3.83 per day

Light rail = 7.4 miles round trip / 20 mpg x $2.50/gallon + $3.20 fare = $4.13 per day

It should be noted that I get free parking downtown.  Otherwise, light rail would win by as much as fifteen dollars.  I will further grant that taking the light rail would give me about two hours’ reading time each day and that the earth would love me more.  But at this point in my career---newly printed J.D. still smells like the calligrapher’s cologne---I sell out the earth for just 30 cents a day.

 

 

*I actually get a little better (usually around 23), but I wanted to give public transportation as much help as I could.

**Last night, I bought gas for $2.31 per.

Let’s Try This Again

Last week, I made my baseball playoffs predictions.  I was right about the Twins beating the Tigers, the Dodgers beating the Cardinals, and the Phillies beating the Rockies.  I was wrong about the two teams I hate more than any other in baseball: the Angels and the Yankees.  That makes me an unhappy 3-2 by my count.

Since I was right about the Dodgers and Phillies, my prediction as to them stands: I still pick the Dodgers.

Between the Yankees and the Angels . . . can I pick them both to lose?  I find that I hate both teams too much to want either one to win.  I am ashamed that the American League couldn’t come up with any one capable of beating either of those teams.  Ugh.  Yet choose I must, and I pick the Yankees.  Here’s why.

First, I hate the Angels more than I hate the Yankees.  I will catch some flak for that, but what is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular.  I’m taking a stand for individualism right here.

Second, statistically, the Yankees dominated the Twins just a little more than the Angels dominated the Red Sox.  The Yankees come into the ALCS with a Pythagorean win-expectation of 5.90 compared to the Angels’ 5.74, based on their respective divisional series.*

Third, the Dodgers and Yankees have a classic rivalry.  They haven’t met in the World Series since 1981, but before that, they met twice in the 1970s (1977 and 1978), once in the 1960s (1963), four times in the 1950s (1952, 1953, 1955, and 1956), and three times in the 1940s (1941, 1947, and 1949).  That means these guys have played each other for the world championship eleven times.  I’d be willing to bet that’s more than any other two teams in baseball.  The Dodgers have only won three times (1959, 1963, and 1981), but I think momentum can stretch 28 years.

The Dodgers and Yankees are the Cowboys and Steelers or the Lakers and Celtics of baseball.**  Given our options, it’d be nice to see that rivalry renewed.

And fourth, nobody wants a Staples Center Series.  That’d be waaaaaaay too lame.

 

 

 

*If you’re interested in where I came up with those numbers, ask me in a comment and I’ll let you know.

**Somehow I doubt Bud Selig is peeing in his pants for a Dodgers-Yankees championship as much as David Stern was for a Celtics-Lakers NBA Finals back in 2008.

Quarantine: 4/5

Tonight, The Missus and I watched our third movie of the weekend, Quarantine.  Shot in the style of The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield, Quarantine tells the tale of a late-night reporter (Jennifer Carpenter of Emily Rose fame) and her cameraman as they shadow Los Angeles firefighters one night.  The firefighters answer a call at an apartment building where, it turns out, there is some kinda crazy version of rabies going around.  The apartment complex is quarantined off, and the scares begin.

First, let me say that I liked the premise of this movie.  I've said before, and I'll say again, that I'm not a big fan of you'll-be-scared-after-you-think-about-it horror.  I think the scariest premises are those that scare you now and scare you later.  Here, we have some crazy mutation of rabies running amok in an apartment building.  This is scary now because we've got these crazy rabid killers trying to get at our heroine.  It's scary later because we live in a time when genetic research on diseases just might be creating crazy strains of rabies and we don't even know it.  Plus, the film gets the nightmare bonus for some pretty stick-with-you visuals.  That said, the film does rely a lot on jumpy scares.  Still, three points for the premise.

Second, I liked the characters in this movie.  I liked Angela Vidal (Carpenter's character---really, I'm becoming a Jennifer Carpenter fan); I liked the cameraman, I liked Firefighter Jay, and the cop we got to know.  I even liked the landlord, the British opera teacher, and the vet.  I think the actors did a great job of bringing these characters to life and making them someone I cared about.  Each time someone died, I felt sad.  That, I think, might be the key to good horror, making the audience care when something horrible happens.  So five points for characters I liked.

Third, I'm not the biggest fan of realistic-style, first-person camera work.  Maybe it's your thing, maybe it added to the realism (which all horror needs to some extent), maybe it even added to the horror.  But I started the movie with a headache, and the shaky camera only added to my queasiness.  That said, the fact that we could only see what the camera picked up made the last fifteen minutes or so ten times scarier than it could have been.  So, break even points for camera work.

Finally, I love that this film is only 89 minutes long and that it tells a story 89 minutes long.  I hate bloat.  Every scene should either (a) advance the plot or (b) develop the characters meaningfully, and each scene should only last as long as necessary to do either of those.  Maybe that's demanding, but I don't care.  I don't have time to waste watching your self-indulgence.

If I leave here tomorrow

. . . would you still remember me?

I'm thinking of migrating over to Wordpress.  I've been playing around with it a little bit, and I might prefer its interface.  I also have an app on my iPod Touch that would let me draft posts without connecting to the internet. Big disadvantage: I don't think Wordpress lets commenters get notification of later comments without having a Wordpress account.

Any thoughts?

Scary Book 2009, Take 2

Well, The Dead Zone was a bust.  It's a decent novel with an interesting premise and maybe a few too many pop culture references,* but it just plain wasn't scary.**  At least not in the way that I wanted to be scared.  I want the kind of book that makes me scared to turn the light off.  Why?  I don't know.  Maybe just because it's Halloween.  Ray Bradbury has pulled it off, and Stephen King has pulled it off before.  But I'm not going to either of them for Jeremy's Halloween 2009 Scary Book Extravaganza.  No, sirs and ma'ams, that honor goes to golden-age-of-science-fiction author Richard Matheson.  I really enjoyed What Dreams May Come last summer, though I can't remember if it made me scared to turn the light off.  I do recall the movie having some chilling scenes.

OK, OK.  Without further ado, here is Second Chance Sam's Second Try at Being Scared for Halloween 2009:



Sure looks scary, eh?  One early edition touted it as the scariest science fiction tale you'll ever read.  I shall be the judge of that, my friends.


*While I firmly believe in looking up words I don't know, I get annoyed having to look up a pop culture reference---for the eighty-third time---because I'm reading the book thirty years after it was published.  We sometimes forget that people down the road might not know everything we know as intimately as we know it.  If you want proof, play any version of Trivial Pursuit from before 2000.  And . . . 5 points for anybody who knows who Arthur Bremer is.


**Some might argue that it would be scary to be in Johnny's position.  Meh.  I hate it when people say things like, "The scariest part of 'Salem's Lot was how everybody knew something terrible was happening but nobody did anything but run away."  Bah, humbug.  The scariest part of 'Salem's Lot was when Jimmy, Ben, and Mark go vampire-hunting.  Well, really, any Mark-centric passage.

Baseball Playoffs Predictions 2009

The 2009 Major League Baseball season ends today.  The once mighty and foreign stRangers were eliminated a few days ago despite having the best record in baseball at one point in May or June.  That said, here's how I think things will fall out in the next few weeks:

American League Central One-Game Playoff

The Detroit Tigers and Minnesota Twins will engage in a one-game playoff in Minnesota on Tuesday.  These two teams have been playing each other since 1901, and the Tigers lead the all-time series by 75 games (1032-957).  But the Twins have won the last two years, both 11-7.  Finally, the Twins have won 8 of their last 10, while the Tigers have won only 4 of their last 10.  Ergo, I pick the Twins.

American League Division Series

One of these series will involves two thieves: the Boston Red Sox and Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.  The Angels stole the AL West, and the Red Sox stole the AL Wild Card, both from the Rangers.  But let's get past that and look at the history.  The Red Sox lead the all-time series by 35 games (312-277), but the Angels squeaked by this season, winning the season series 5-4.  These teams have some serious recent post-season history: this will be the third year in a row they've faced each other in the ALDS.  Boston won the first two, 3-0 and 3-1.  The Red Sox also swept the Angels in the 2004 ALDS.  And, because the Red Sox won the 1986 ALCS 4-3, it should be noted the Angels have never beaten the Red Sox in a post-season series.  So either they're due for a win, or they're doomed.  Because I like the Red Sox marginally better than the Angels, I pick the Red Sox.

In the other ALDS, the New York Yankees will take on the Minnesota Twins.  These teams' history goes back to the founding of the American League in 1901, back when they were known as the Baltimore Orioles and Washington Senators, respectively.  For those two years, the Orioles won 22, and the Senators 17.  The Yankees swept this season's series (7-0) and haven't lost the season series since 2001,* although the teams split 2005 and 2006.  In their mutual playoffs histories, the Yankees beat the Twins 3-1 in both the 2003 and 2004 ALDS.  Those are the only times the two have met in the post-season.  But in the name of Kirby Puckett and all that is right with the world, I pick the Twins.

National League Division Series

The Colorado Rockies and Philadelphia Phillies meet again.  These two have only been playing each other since 1993, and the Phillies lead the all-time series by 15 games (73-58).  The Phillies won the 2009 series 4-2 and swept the 2008 series.  In their only post-season match-up, the Rockies swept the Phillies in the 2007 NLDS.**  The Rockies have been hot lately, and the Phillies have been cold, but I like Cliff Lee (who, also, has been cold lately).  So pick the Phillies.

And in the other NLDS, the Los Angeles Dodgers of Los Angeles play the best-of-five against the St. Louis Cardinals.  These teams probably go back to 1883, but I only have stats to 1901: the Cardinals have won 32 more games between the two: 951-919.  The Cardinals won this year's series (5-2) and haven't lost the series since 2003.  Their last post-season match-up was the 2004 NLDS, which the Cardinals won 3-1, on their way to being swept by the Red Sox in the World Series.  Before that, the Cardinals won the 1985 NLCS (on their way to losing the I-70 Showdown).  Because I am a closet Dodgers fan and I don't particularly care for the Cardinals (except Lou Brock), I pick the Dodgers.

American League Championship Series

The Twins and the Red Sox have never faced each other in the playoffs.***  Do I think the Twins can ride their current wave of success like the 2007 Rockies until they crash into the Green Monster?  Absolutely.  I'll do one better: I pick the Twins as the 2009 AL Champions.

National League Championship Series

For the second year in a row, the Dodgers have the Phillies standing between them and their first world championship since the 1980s.  Last year, the Phillies won the NLCS in five games.  Back in the year of my birth, the Phillies took the pennant from the Dodgers, 3-1.  The Dodgers haven't beaten the Phillies in October since 1978, when they won 3-1.  The Dodgers also took the pennant over the Phillies in 1977, also 3 games to 1.****  It's hard for me to pick which of these two teams I prefer.  They both have that lovable long-term underdog charisma.  Since the Phillies popped the cork last year, I pick the Dodgers as the 2009 NL Champions.

The Laker Series*****

The Twins and Dodgers have only faced each other in the post-season once: the 1965 World Series.  The Twins took the first two games in Minnesota before dropping Games 3, 4, and 5 in Los Angeles.  The Twins won Game 6, but then couldn't score a run in any of the nine innings they swung a bat against Sandy Koufax in Game 7.  Can the Dodgers party like it's 1965?  I'm saying it: Go Dodgers.







*Ironically, the second-to-last time they made it to the World Series.


**That was part of their remarkable run at the end of the 2007 season.  They swept the Phillies, then the Diamondbacks, then got swept by the Red Sox.


***How weird is it that that's weird this year?  Every other match-up has at least one post-season series between them.


****1977 and 1978 were twins of each other.  The Yankees, Royals, Dodgers, and Phillies all won their respective divisions both years.  The Yankees beat the Royals 3-2 and 3-1, while the Dodgers beat the Phillies 3-1 both years.  Then, the Yankees won both world series 4-2.


*****Five points to anybody who gets my obscure reference.

Carry on my wayward son

Because you come here to read thoughts you won't read anywhere else, I want you to know that the heads of us bloggers swell every time somebody does something like comment or link or even bring up the blog in conversation.  We like to feel that, in our own small way, we are contributing to the marketplace of ideas.

That is all.

The towels are kinda scratchy

It's that time of year again: time for me to read a scary book for Halloween.  It all started on Columbus Day 2005.  I had the dark, rainy day off, but The Missus didn't.  By coincidence, I had finished a book just the night before.  The mood was perfect for a classic tale of horror, so I pulled Bram Stoker's Dracula off the shelf.  For the next few weeks, I buried myself in Stoker's masterpiece.  When I turned the last page, I had been more scared and more satisfied than since I saw The Exorcist.  I read Stephen King's It in 2006 and Insomnia in 2007.  In 2008, I read The Shining.  Now, my friends, I burst forth with a new scary book for 2009:



That's right.  I'm entering The Dead Zone.

Stephenie Meyer self-deprecates

Periodically, I like to put quotes that I've written down up on Goodreads.com.  (That's where the quotes you see to your right come from.)  Today, I was looking through those quotes, and I noticed this one from Stephenie Meyer's Eclipse:

[Edward:] "I still think it would be a better story if either of them had one redeeming quality."
[Bella:] "I think that may be the point," . . . "Their love IS their only redeeming quality."

For my part, the Edwardobellan romance did less to redeem the saga than did all the interesting trivia associated with vampires.  Those of you who know both me and the saga well know that there was one romance that would have made the saga compelling for me . . .

Summaries

After publishing my last post, I realized that it was very, very long.  Here is the poetic gist---iambic pentameter!---of my statistical harangue:

I've given up on baseball for the year.
The Rangers disappoint me every time.
I should have seen it coming back in June.

Thank you and goodnight.

Save the Wettelands

Warning: baseball post.

The closer is under attack.  His main stat---the save---they call illegitimate.  They say he's overpaid, overglorified, and underqualified.  But I say he's the missing piece of your 2009 Texas Rangers.

A pitcher is credited with a save when he obtains at least one out to finish a game won by his team.  He cannot be the pitcher credited with the win, and he must have entered the game with at least three innings left or with the potential tying run on base, at bat, or on deck.*  You can see the value of a stolid closer---a fireman in the mold of the fabled Goose Gossage---by looking at conversion rate.  The conversion rate is the percentage of times a closer records a save when he has the opportunity to.  Mathematically:

Saves / (Saves + Blown Saves)

A pitcher blows a save when he gives up the lead, regardless of the end result of the game.  The value of the conversion rate lies in its measure of a closer's reliability, of his ability to do what he's supposed to do.  To illustrate, we'll compare a pitcher who recorded a high number of saves to the closers for recently successful teams and the closers of one of the most consistently dominant teams in recent history.

In 2008, Francisco Rodriguez saved a record-breaking 62 games for the Angels, helping them win the AL West for the fourth time in five years.  But he also blew 7 saves.  His conversion rate was only 90 percent.  In Game 2 of the ALDS against the Red Sox, he came on in the top of the 9th to keep the game tied at 5.  Instead, he gave up a two-run home run to J.D. Drew.  The Angels lost 7-5 and fell behind two games to none as the series headed to Boston.  The Angels won Game 3, despite Rodriguez's nerve-wracking, six-batter 10th inning, only to lose the series in Game 4 on Jed Lowrie's walk-off single.  You'll notice who they didn't bring on in the bottom of the 9th to keep the tie.  Rodriguez signed with the Mets in the off-season, and the Angels didn't much care.**

Now let's look at recently successful teams.  Philadelphia's Brad Lidge converted all 41 of his save opportunities in 2008.  At the same time, Tampa Bay's Troy Percival and Dan Wheeler combined to convert only 41 of their 50 save opportunities---a paltry 82 percent.  The Phillies won the World Series in 5 games.

In 2007, Boston's Jonathan Papelbon converted 37 of his 40 save opportunities (93 percent), and Colorado's two closers combined for 7 relief losses and 10 blown saves---a conversion rate of only 80 percent.  The Red Sox swept the Rockies, and Papelbon is credited saving three of those games.  (To be fair, Colorado never presented its closers with a save opportunity.)

What about the 2007 Cleveland Indians?  Their rotation included CC Sabbathia, Fausto Carmona, Paul Byrd, and an up-and-coming Cliff Lee.  They started games just fine.  But when they needed somebody to hold onto a close game, they could only turn to Joe Borowski.  His 5 relief losses and 8 blown saves limited his conversion rate to only 85 percent.  The Indians slipped past the Yankees with two blowouts in the ALDS, then fought Boston to the bitter end in the ALCS.  Borowski finished Games 1, 2, 3, and 6 against the Red Sox, racking up a 4.50 ERA while giving up 6 hits and 3 walks and striking out only 1 batter in 4 innings.  It's hard to say how much his performance mattered.  He didn't blow any saves, but Game 3, for which he earned the save, was the only close one.

Finally, let's talk about America's team: the Atlanta Braves.  From 1991 until 2005, they won their division every year except 1994.***  The 1991 Braves won the pennant but lost the World Series.  Three relievers were presented with at least 10 save opportunities, and their combined conversion rate was 90 percent.  The 1992 Braves tried the same tri-closer strategy.  The trio combined to convert 74 percent of the time, and the Braves lost to the Blue Jays in the World Series.  In 1993, they dropped one of their closers, converted only 85 percent of their opportunities, and lost the NLCS to the Phillies.  In 1994, Greg McMichael was their ninth-inning guy, and he converted only 68 percent of the time.  (That's the year they finished second in the NL East.)  In 1995, Mark Wohlers took over closing duties, but he only converted 86 percent of his opportunities.****  Over the next decade or so, their closers, on average, converted only 85 percent of their save opportunities.  The best three years came when an aging John Smoltz took over ninth-inning duties. Even he, however, could convert only 91 percent of the time from 2002 to 2004.

The lesson: If you don't have a reliable closer, you probably won't win the World Series.  That is why, my friends who have held on this long, the Rangers will probably not win either the AL West or the AL Wild Card.  Even if they did, they would probably not survive the ALDS, much less the ALCS or the World Series.  C.J. Wilson and Frank Francisco have combined to convert only 38 of their 46 save opportunities, a lame 83 percent conversion rate.  I like C.J., and I like Frank, but without a stolid closer, we lose too many heartbreakers.  Like tonight's 7-6 tear-jerker against the Devil Rays.

But there's always next year.

--------------------
* This explains the traditional rule of thumb, i.e., that the pitcher pitches at least one inning and the lead was no bigger than 3 runs.
** Nor have they much noticed his absence.  Brian Fuentes has converted 44 of 51 save opportunities (a rate of 86 percent), and they will (hopefully not) win the AL West by a comfortable margin.  Sounds like the same old song and dance to me.
*** I think it's worth noting that the Expos were only up by 6 games with almost 50 left to play when the players struck.  It's not unreasonable to think that the Braves might have caught on fire or the Expos fallen asleep during those six weeks.
****Admittedly, they beat the Indians in the World Series.  The Indians closer, Jose Mesa, converted 46 of 48 saves that year, a highly respectable 96 percent.

Percolation

The stRangers have revealed their identities, and we knew them better than we hoped. Maybe that's not fair. Two or three key players got hurt pretty late in the season, and Emperor Palpatine Jon Daniels didn't plan contingently. As The Missus told me tonight: There's always next year. Ah, that too familiar September elegy. So now, I sit tight until October 28, when Los Spurs start their unprecedented even-season domination in SA against the Hornets.

What was I talking about?

Oh, right. Why I blog. I blog because I like writing. I enjoy the process of pushing the thoughts in my head through the filter of my fingertips. I enjoy the feeling of my fingers in position on the home row and ready to light the world on fire with prose. I even enjoy the muffled sound of my keyboard doing its thing. So that's why I blog. I hope you read my stuff, and I hope you enjoy reading my stuff. And I enjoy your comments, but really, this is a very selfish thing. There are no themes---except me. I write about what I want to write about when I want to write about it. You're welcome to read whatever and whenever you want, but, of course, you don't have to. I'll be here either way, putting my thoughts out into the indelible ether of the interwebs.

Oscar Wilde once complained about the growing lack of useless information. I'm just trying to make a dead man happy.

A Dab of Paint

One sunny Saturday summer afternoon a few years ago, I pulled out the Strathern classic, Wittgenstein in 90 Minutes and plopped down in a lawn chair next to my tanning wife. I sat down excited about thinking deep thoughts; I stood up ninety minutes later in a different world. Philosophy, I now believed, had become nothing more than a battle of dictionaries. I had become a dab of paint on a canvas trying to interpret the painting around me. From that day until this, I hadn't read two sentences of philosophy since Wittgenstein played Dorian Grey to my portrait.

This morning, I read the prologue to Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy. He advises the reader that

the philosopher is not content to describe the fact; he wishes to ascertain its relation to experience in general, and thereby get at its meaning and its worth; . . . he tries to put together, better than before, that great universe-watch which the inquisitive scientist has anlytically taken apart.

That hot summer day, Wittgenstein took my universe-watch apart. I hope that Durant can put it back together, better than before, over the next 530 pages. Maybe I can't interpret the whole painting, but I can at least get an idea of what's around me.

Twilight (movie): 7/10

After reading all four books in the Twilight Saga and watching the first movie, I have a new theory about Stephenie Meyer. She's a science-fiction fanboygirl who got tired of being the only girl at sci-fi conventions. In this, she is like Matthew Fox, who got tired of being the only cool guy at sci-fi conventions.

I also want to note that Stephenie Meyer and I have similar taste in music. (Ergo, she is also like Matthew Fox in that she is cool.) She credits Muse with inspiring the entire saga. Muse is an incredible band, whom you should listen to. The great songs "Invincible" and "Knights of Cydonia" are my favorites, as well as "Starlight" and most---but not all---the others on their debut album are well worth the investment.