Saturday, February 28, 2004
If you had told me 170 going in, I would have said fine, since that at least makes me considerable for my top 3 law schools. But after taking it, if you told me 170, I would have said that I'd take the over. So I feel a bit disappointed, but I guess I should be content that I'm considerable and that its done with.
Friday, February 27, 2004
"The Phillies are now the best team, on paper, in the National League. As they're saying in Clearwater, now is the time. Given that, you could argue that Ed Wade should have risked some future breakdowns and gotten the absolute best talent he could have, instead of a short-term risk like Milton. But this team is young enough and good enough that now can be the time for the next five years. Who wants to risk that? The Phillies didn't, and they're still in great position for 2004. " - Baseball Prospectus
Evan's potential dangers for the Phightin Phils this year
1) Larry Bowa idiotically making it a competition between Marlon Byrd and Doug Glanville
Doug Glanville is probably the worst hitting center fielder in baseball today. That is really no exaggeration. Meanwhile, Marlon Byrd has a huge upside and has been one of the top prospects in the farm system for the past few years. In his first season, Byrd his a very respectable .303 with a fair amount of pop, speed, and plate discipline. Doug Glanville swings at everything and has a career OBP of .318 and an OBP (on base plus slugging) that has failed to crack .700 the last four years. Folks, I don't care how badly Byrd slumps - Glanville should be carrying his glove out to him in CF
2) Billy Wagner's middle finger
Its inflamed. Wagner has the potential to be the biggest thing in Philly since Thome. A fireballing left handed closer who routinely hits 100 mph on the radar gun, he has the ability to electrify crowds while slamming the door. He replaces senor suck (Jose Mesa), so he doesn't have to do much to make us happy. Just throw heat and stay healthy. While we have Tim Worrell waiting too in case of injury, lets just stick with the short guy who throws nasty.
3) Larry Bowa's idiocy
This is a man who kept Travis Lee in the lineup over Jeremy Giambi, apparently refusing to attempt the strategy of outscoring the opponent. So anything is really possible with Mr. Bowa. This refers to #1 also. If he tries to play Glanville instead of Byrd, he should be impeached immediately.
4) Pat Burrell's battle with .200
Last year's season for Burrell was a 162 game nightmare of epic proportions. He went into the season as a dark horse MVP candidate. He left it as a left fielder who was below replacement value. A .206 batting average and 142 strikeouts will do that for you. I remember a quote by an unnamed Phillie from last year - "We moved him down in the lineup. The only result of that was he was now coming to the plate with the bases loaded."
A productive Burrell is essential to this years Phillies team. Pitchers were able to avoid Thome last year - and he still had a monster season. With the 2002 Burrell backing him up, and Abreu lurking in there too, this could be a monster lineup in the NL.
5) David Bell's suckiness
It is said that injuries last year prevented David Bell from being the great contributor to a team that he usually is. The fact is, he never has been a real quality baseball player. Sure, he's a little above average with the glove, and can be counted on for 15-20 homers and .260 avg, but we can get the same thing from Chase Utley at a fraction of the cost. That being said, it is doubtful Bell will sit the bench with his 4 million dollar contract. Its a shame really, since Polanco and Utley would both be superior options. Sunk costs anyone?
Evan's potential dangers for the Phightin Phils this year
1) Larry Bowa idiotically making it a competition between Marlon Byrd and Doug Glanville
Doug Glanville is probably the worst hitting center fielder in baseball today. That is really no exaggeration. Meanwhile, Marlon Byrd has a huge upside and has been one of the top prospects in the farm system for the past few years. In his first season, Byrd his a very respectable .303 with a fair amount of pop, speed, and plate discipline. Doug Glanville swings at everything and has a career OBP of .318 and an OBP (on base plus slugging) that has failed to crack .700 the last four years. Folks, I don't care how badly Byrd slumps - Glanville should be carrying his glove out to him in CF
2) Billy Wagner's middle finger
Its inflamed. Wagner has the potential to be the biggest thing in Philly since Thome. A fireballing left handed closer who routinely hits 100 mph on the radar gun, he has the ability to electrify crowds while slamming the door. He replaces senor suck (Jose Mesa), so he doesn't have to do much to make us happy. Just throw heat and stay healthy. While we have Tim Worrell waiting too in case of injury, lets just stick with the short guy who throws nasty.
3) Larry Bowa's idiocy
This is a man who kept Travis Lee in the lineup over Jeremy Giambi, apparently refusing to attempt the strategy of outscoring the opponent. So anything is really possible with Mr. Bowa. This refers to #1 also. If he tries to play Glanville instead of Byrd, he should be impeached immediately.
4) Pat Burrell's battle with .200
Last year's season for Burrell was a 162 game nightmare of epic proportions. He went into the season as a dark horse MVP candidate. He left it as a left fielder who was below replacement value. A .206 batting average and 142 strikeouts will do that for you. I remember a quote by an unnamed Phillie from last year - "We moved him down in the lineup. The only result of that was he was now coming to the plate with the bases loaded."
A productive Burrell is essential to this years Phillies team. Pitchers were able to avoid Thome last year - and he still had a monster season. With the 2002 Burrell backing him up, and Abreu lurking in there too, this could be a monster lineup in the NL.
5) David Bell's suckiness
It is said that injuries last year prevented David Bell from being the great contributor to a team that he usually is. The fact is, he never has been a real quality baseball player. Sure, he's a little above average with the glove, and can be counted on for 15-20 homers and .260 avg, but we can get the same thing from Chase Utley at a fraction of the cost. That being said, it is doubtful Bell will sit the bench with his 4 million dollar contract. Its a shame really, since Polanco and Utley would both be superior options. Sunk costs anyone?
Thursday, February 26, 2004
My LSAT scores are quickly approaching. They are supposed to come on Monday but sources tell me they'll come earlier than that.
Its funny how this is more or less going to determine what law schools I can apply to have and have a reasonable shot of being accepted. One little email that links to one little pdf that has one little number typed on it somewhere.
When I was picking a college, my SAT scores were of little concern really. Sure, they were helpful, but we were told so many times over that it was your extracurriculars, class rank, etc that played so much of a role that SAT scores, while not something to be ignored, were not nearly as important as they seemed. And even if I screwed up (like I did the first time I took the SATs), I could take them again with no repercussions, aside from the agony of sitting in a room for four hours on a Saturday morning. Just one little test, one factor among many that goes into you being accepted or rejected from the schools you apply to.
That isn't the case for the LSAT. Most schools use a selection index which is (GPA x Y + your LSAT x Z), and then cut off most people below a certain level. Some schools release their formula, but of course don't tell you the required selection index.
My GPA isn't helping. Kind of makes me wish I didn't take perceived easy classes like Cultural Anthropology and BAA (both Bs) and took harder classes in which I actually did well in. Although when I think about it, the only classes I did consistenly well in were the Calcs - 31,32,103. I doubt I would have been able to continue along that path and get GPA raising grades.
I've had some emails in my life that have made me nervous to open - at work I now have a certain amount of apprehension with opening emails from certain teachers - are they going to back out of teaching their class tomorrow? Did they teach the wrong lesson? Who knows what plague is awaiting me for when I open that email. But its pretty much my job to take care of this.
Still it doesn't have me any more prepared for when I sort through my inbox this weekend. Amidst the slew of emails telling me how to "get so big she'll scream," "earn my degree online", or Allister yelling at me to come to play poker next weekend, I'll see an email from the LSAC. And a slight chill will run up my body.
Berkeley, NYU, UVA?
Or maybe a lower tier school?
Or maybe no law school at all.
Its funny how this is more or less going to determine what law schools I can apply to have and have a reasonable shot of being accepted. One little email that links to one little pdf that has one little number typed on it somewhere.
When I was picking a college, my SAT scores were of little concern really. Sure, they were helpful, but we were told so many times over that it was your extracurriculars, class rank, etc that played so much of a role that SAT scores, while not something to be ignored, were not nearly as important as they seemed. And even if I screwed up (like I did the first time I took the SATs), I could take them again with no repercussions, aside from the agony of sitting in a room for four hours on a Saturday morning. Just one little test, one factor among many that goes into you being accepted or rejected from the schools you apply to.
That isn't the case for the LSAT. Most schools use a selection index which is (GPA x Y + your LSAT x Z), and then cut off most people below a certain level. Some schools release their formula, but of course don't tell you the required selection index.
My GPA isn't helping. Kind of makes me wish I didn't take perceived easy classes like Cultural Anthropology and BAA (both Bs) and took harder classes in which I actually did well in. Although when I think about it, the only classes I did consistenly well in were the Calcs - 31,32,103. I doubt I would have been able to continue along that path and get GPA raising grades.
I've had some emails in my life that have made me nervous to open - at work I now have a certain amount of apprehension with opening emails from certain teachers - are they going to back out of teaching their class tomorrow? Did they teach the wrong lesson? Who knows what plague is awaiting me for when I open that email. But its pretty much my job to take care of this.
Still it doesn't have me any more prepared for when I sort through my inbox this weekend. Amidst the slew of emails telling me how to "get so big she'll scream," "earn my degree online", or Allister yelling at me to come to play poker next weekend, I'll see an email from the LSAC. And a slight chill will run up my body.
Berkeley, NYU, UVA?
Or maybe a lower tier school?
Or maybe no law school at all.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
We're having a wine and cheese party at my house this Saturday. For those of you who will be in the area (read: none of you), you're invited. Dress nice, as I think its a dressy thing.
I remember various wine and cheese functions at Duke. Of course, they varied wildly in their successfulness.
There was the wine class that I went to and got super beliggerantly drunk. That was an odd night. I remember three things.
1) I was sitting at the bus stop at around 9 PM, waiting for a central bus, and hoping that some random person would drive by and pick me up. Oddly enough, this girl who I had UWC with freshman year drove by, and asked if I wanted a ride to West. It was really weird, but cool also.
2) I gave a drunken rant about the Chronicle.
3) I stumbled to Janelle's room and asked her to drive me home.
I remember nothing else. Although I'm told I gave a leg massage to some girl after smashing a cracker into her head, and also I think I was quite nasty to some DSG girl.
There was the wine and cheese thing we tried to throw after we went to the Durham Bulls game. That one sucked, and I think I've blocked it out of my memory because of that. Did any of the girls even show up for that?
And there was the final wine class party, where we sat in rooms so hot that the cheese melted in the plates into puddles of white and orange sludge. Well maybe not quite that hot, but still pretty damn warm. I also have little recollection of that night.
All in all, I can't make a real good judgment on whether or not a "wine hangover" is worse than any other hangover. The times when I've gotten stupid drunk and thrown up I've felt pretty crappy the next day; but probably no crappier than if I had just done carbombs and beer.
I would like to try Chaser at some point this weekend. Anyone try this yet? I wonder if the directions read like "Take with 3 glasses of water before you go to bed." That would be a pretty sneaky ploy. Actually, makes me regret I didn't think of that earlier.
Enjoy Europe Chris.
I remember various wine and cheese functions at Duke. Of course, they varied wildly in their successfulness.
There was the wine class that I went to and got super beliggerantly drunk. That was an odd night. I remember three things.
1) I was sitting at the bus stop at around 9 PM, waiting for a central bus, and hoping that some random person would drive by and pick me up. Oddly enough, this girl who I had UWC with freshman year drove by, and asked if I wanted a ride to West. It was really weird, but cool also.
2) I gave a drunken rant about the Chronicle.
3) I stumbled to Janelle's room and asked her to drive me home.
I remember nothing else. Although I'm told I gave a leg massage to some girl after smashing a cracker into her head, and also I think I was quite nasty to some DSG girl.
There was the wine and cheese thing we tried to throw after we went to the Durham Bulls game. That one sucked, and I think I've blocked it out of my memory because of that. Did any of the girls even show up for that?
And there was the final wine class party, where we sat in rooms so hot that the cheese melted in the plates into puddles of white and orange sludge. Well maybe not quite that hot, but still pretty damn warm. I also have little recollection of that night.
All in all, I can't make a real good judgment on whether or not a "wine hangover" is worse than any other hangover. The times when I've gotten stupid drunk and thrown up I've felt pretty crappy the next day; but probably no crappier than if I had just done carbombs and beer.
I would like to try Chaser at some point this weekend. Anyone try this yet? I wonder if the directions read like "Take with 3 glasses of water before you go to bed." That would be a pretty sneaky ploy. Actually, makes me regret I didn't think of that earlier.
Enjoy Europe Chris.
Monday, February 23, 2004
Evan's Baseball Predictions Part 1
NL Cy Young Award Winner - Brandon Webb, SP, Diamondbacks
Who the heck is Brandon Webb?
Brandon Webb was the second best SP in the NL last year behind Jason Schmidt. As a rookie.
However he didn't even win the ROY award. He lost that race to Marlins phenom Dontrelle Willis, whose inability to get people out relegated him to a reliever position in the postseason. Webb lost that race because his win/loss record wasn't as gaudy as Dontrelle, and because Dontrelle got a lot more publicity on ESPN and magazines like Sports Illustrated.
Most people (exception: idiot Joe Morgan) are beginning to realize that wins/losses is not the best indicator as to how well you've pitched. A primer on this is located here, thanks to Baseball Prospectus. If you don't feel like hitting the link, consider this - who pitched better, a guy who gives up 1 run in 8 IPs and loses, or a guy who gives up 5 runs in 5 IPs but wins, because his offense scored 10 runs that game? Its pretty clear that the first guy pitched a much better game.
Anyway, Webb gave up more than 3 runs I think once in around 180 IPs of work. He is one of the rarest of rarities in baseball. An extreme ground ball pitcher who strikes out a lot of guys. Ground balls are important because a low percentage of them turn into home runs. He's a bit of a hick bumpkin who doensn't like publicity. Tough for him, cause he's going to get a lot of it this year.
Dark Horse Candidate for NL Cy Young - Jeff Weaver, SP, Los Angeles Dodgers
Yes you read that right. Mark my words. Big season for Weaver coming up.
AL Cy Young Award Winner - Tim Hudson, SP, Oakland Athletics
The member of the big three in Oakland who probably gets the least publicity. Mulder is left handed and throws a ton of complete games. Zito is left handed, has an insane curve ball, and is weird. Hudson is short, right handed, and gets a ton of people out. He ranked second last year in support neutral record to Pedro Martinez. He got a little hit lucky last year (he gave up fewer hits than you would expect, which is almost always a function of luck), but with an improved Oakland offense (yes, even though they lost Tejada its better that last years), Hudson will be able to get the wins to go along with his gaudy numbers.
Dark Horse Candidate for AL Cy Young - Johan Santana, SP, Minnesota Twins
A bit of a cop out - but Santana is the real deal. High K/BB ratio and a nasty demeanor - a stathead's dream at SP. Look for him to be absolutely huge this year.
NL Cy Young Award Winner - Brandon Webb, SP, Diamondbacks
Who the heck is Brandon Webb?
Brandon Webb was the second best SP in the NL last year behind Jason Schmidt. As a rookie.
However he didn't even win the ROY award. He lost that race to Marlins phenom Dontrelle Willis, whose inability to get people out relegated him to a reliever position in the postseason. Webb lost that race because his win/loss record wasn't as gaudy as Dontrelle, and because Dontrelle got a lot more publicity on ESPN and magazines like Sports Illustrated.
Most people (exception: idiot Joe Morgan) are beginning to realize that wins/losses is not the best indicator as to how well you've pitched. A primer on this is located here, thanks to Baseball Prospectus. If you don't feel like hitting the link, consider this - who pitched better, a guy who gives up 1 run in 8 IPs and loses, or a guy who gives up 5 runs in 5 IPs but wins, because his offense scored 10 runs that game? Its pretty clear that the first guy pitched a much better game.
Anyway, Webb gave up more than 3 runs I think once in around 180 IPs of work. He is one of the rarest of rarities in baseball. An extreme ground ball pitcher who strikes out a lot of guys. Ground balls are important because a low percentage of them turn into home runs. He's a bit of a hick bumpkin who doensn't like publicity. Tough for him, cause he's going to get a lot of it this year.
Dark Horse Candidate for NL Cy Young - Jeff Weaver, SP, Los Angeles Dodgers
Yes you read that right. Mark my words. Big season for Weaver coming up.
AL Cy Young Award Winner - Tim Hudson, SP, Oakland Athletics
The member of the big three in Oakland who probably gets the least publicity. Mulder is left handed and throws a ton of complete games. Zito is left handed, has an insane curve ball, and is weird. Hudson is short, right handed, and gets a ton of people out. He ranked second last year in support neutral record to Pedro Martinez. He got a little hit lucky last year (he gave up fewer hits than you would expect, which is almost always a function of luck), but with an improved Oakland offense (yes, even though they lost Tejada its better that last years), Hudson will be able to get the wins to go along with his gaudy numbers.
Dark Horse Candidate for AL Cy Young - Johan Santana, SP, Minnesota Twins
A bit of a cop out - but Santana is the real deal. High K/BB ratio and a nasty demeanor - a stathead's dream at SP. Look for him to be absolutely huge this year.
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Analysis - Elisha Cuthbert
My first introduction to her came when I was addicted to watching the first season of 24 that fateful weekend. I suppose it would be most people's since she didn't do much before then aside from some things when she was a child. Elisha plays the part of Jack Bauer's at times helpless but every now and then comes through in the clutch daughter. You couldn't help but hate her. She was the reason Jack got into the predicament in the first place, because she was stupid enough to sneak out and meet up with those random guys.
She would follow up that act with even more stupidity and whining. Again, you couldn't help but hate her. You didn't even know if she was supposed to be cute or what. At times she would look downright awful, and other times she would look pretty alright. One of my roommates at one point stated, "Alright, we KNOW you have breasts!" during a scene with Elisha running away from some kidnappers in a shirt that probably wasn't designed for running. It almost seemed like the writers didn't know quite how to portray her - as a ditzy bimbo who needs to be rescued or a resourceful but quietly attractive girl - the combination doesn't work so well.
Elisha in 24 as Kim Bauer
Whether or not it is her acting that makes you hate her, or simply great character development, is hard to say. She is featured in Maxim Magazine this month, which I think is timed to publicize her role in The Girl Next Door. I imagine she'll look more like this:
As the "girl next door", some guy is amazed to learn that this seemingly shy girl living next door was in fact a one time porn star. Whether this movie is a good career move for her is, of course, debatable. It will most likely determine whether or not she goes on to bigger and better movies... or pawning herself off for a spread in Playboy.
I may have to give the movie a look though. To analyze her acting ability.
My first introduction to her came when I was addicted to watching the first season of 24 that fateful weekend. I suppose it would be most people's since she didn't do much before then aside from some things when she was a child. Elisha plays the part of Jack Bauer's at times helpless but every now and then comes through in the clutch daughter. You couldn't help but hate her. She was the reason Jack got into the predicament in the first place, because she was stupid enough to sneak out and meet up with those random guys.
She would follow up that act with even more stupidity and whining. Again, you couldn't help but hate her. You didn't even know if she was supposed to be cute or what. At times she would look downright awful, and other times she would look pretty alright. One of my roommates at one point stated, "Alright, we KNOW you have breasts!" during a scene with Elisha running away from some kidnappers in a shirt that probably wasn't designed for running. It almost seemed like the writers didn't know quite how to portray her - as a ditzy bimbo who needs to be rescued or a resourceful but quietly attractive girl - the combination doesn't work so well.
Elisha in 24 as Kim Bauer
Whether or not it is her acting that makes you hate her, or simply great character development, is hard to say. She is featured in Maxim Magazine this month, which I think is timed to publicize her role in The Girl Next Door. I imagine she'll look more like this:
As the "girl next door", some guy is amazed to learn that this seemingly shy girl living next door was in fact a one time porn star. Whether this movie is a good career move for her is, of course, debatable. It will most likely determine whether or not she goes on to bigger and better movies... or pawning herself off for a spread in Playboy.
I may have to give the movie a look though. To analyze her acting ability.
Thursday, February 19, 2004
"The Rangers have always spent their money stupidly. Park and Greer are not exceptions. ARod is the prime example." - An ex-Rangers fan.
Chan Ho Park's record and obvious statistics last year do not do his season justice.
Chan Ho Park's SNWAR for 2003 was -.3. Allow me to translate. SNWAR is his Support Neutral Wins Above Replacement. Replacement value is a term used a lot in sabermetrically inclined baseball circles. Replacement refers to someone who you could get for free - major league minimum salary, a journeyman, someone who is really a AAAA player, whoever.
Park's value was -.3 wins compared to a replacement level pitcher. Allow me to illuminate this statistic for those not following. He was worse than a pitcher you could find on the street begging for crumbs. He actually hurt his team. All for the low cost of 13 million a years. It doesn't take a math major to realize that if you are trying to buy, say 50 wins over replacement level (a team made up entirely of replacement level players would win around 44 or so games), paying 13 million a year for someone worse than replacement is not a very sound strategy.
Now lets look at Alex Rodriguez. The AL MVP, but more importantly, the leader in many significant categories, including win shares. Win shares is a relatively new statistic, but essentially each win share is equal to 1/3 of a win. Alex Rodriguez's 32.51 win shares ranked first in the league. While 25 million dollars is a lot for 11 extra wins, its not as bad as say, a negative ratio. And when you consider that a lot of season ticket holders and other fans come to the game to see superstars like Alex Rodriguez, gate receipts and merchandise sales go up, so its kind of hard to quantify his real cost, but its probably less than 25 million dollars a year.
So what is the point of all this? Well, lets reexamine the above data and see which signing was worse, the "prime example of the Rangers bad spending", if you will. 13 million for ZERO value (and thats literally a generous extimate), or 25 million for positive value?
Whats the big picture here? The Rangers could have won with ARod. Indeed, he would help more than any single player in the game. Instead, the Rangers have decided to trade the best player in order to make it easier to work around the horrific other contracts they offered to stiffs like Park and Greer.
If this was my home team, I'd probably disown them too.
Chan Ho Park's record and obvious statistics last year do not do his season justice.
Chan Ho Park's SNWAR for 2003 was -.3. Allow me to translate. SNWAR is his Support Neutral Wins Above Replacement. Replacement value is a term used a lot in sabermetrically inclined baseball circles. Replacement refers to someone who you could get for free - major league minimum salary, a journeyman, someone who is really a AAAA player, whoever.
Park's value was -.3 wins compared to a replacement level pitcher. Allow me to illuminate this statistic for those not following. He was worse than a pitcher you could find on the street begging for crumbs. He actually hurt his team. All for the low cost of 13 million a years. It doesn't take a math major to realize that if you are trying to buy, say 50 wins over replacement level (a team made up entirely of replacement level players would win around 44 or so games), paying 13 million a year for someone worse than replacement is not a very sound strategy.
Now lets look at Alex Rodriguez. The AL MVP, but more importantly, the leader in many significant categories, including win shares. Win shares is a relatively new statistic, but essentially each win share is equal to 1/3 of a win. Alex Rodriguez's 32.51 win shares ranked first in the league. While 25 million dollars is a lot for 11 extra wins, its not as bad as say, a negative ratio. And when you consider that a lot of season ticket holders and other fans come to the game to see superstars like Alex Rodriguez, gate receipts and merchandise sales go up, so its kind of hard to quantify his real cost, but its probably less than 25 million dollars a year.
So what is the point of all this? Well, lets reexamine the above data and see which signing was worse, the "prime example of the Rangers bad spending", if you will. 13 million for ZERO value (and thats literally a generous extimate), or 25 million for positive value?
Whats the big picture here? The Rangers could have won with ARod. Indeed, he would help more than any single player in the game. Instead, the Rangers have decided to trade the best player in order to make it easier to work around the horrific other contracts they offered to stiffs like Park and Greer.
If this was my home team, I'd probably disown them too.
I got a seemingly innocuous question yesterday about an issue of The New Republic that was lying around downstairs, a political type magazine that I subscribe to.
I was asked: So what is it? Conservative? Liberal?
I replied, its pretty down the middle. Conservatives call it liberal and liberals call it conservative, so that to me is the best judge that its pretty unbiased and gives insightful commentaries on all sorts of issues. So she asked for the issue pictured, the one about Bush Hatred. I gave it to her.
But is this question one that should be asked? If I had said its conservative (or liberal) would that mean its suddenly unreadable and the arguments and points lose all credibility? Obviously not, but I think thats the way most people feel: If I'm contemplating reading something that is going to challenge the way I think, then I'm not going to read it! Again, it sounds stupid in theory, but I bet we'd all be surprised at how much it happens in practice.
The issue in question had two columns on Bush Hatred - an appreciation, and a critique. Is the critique even going to be read by her? I hope so. Because I read both and understand I think the other side a little better.
I was asked: So what is it? Conservative? Liberal?
I replied, its pretty down the middle. Conservatives call it liberal and liberals call it conservative, so that to me is the best judge that its pretty unbiased and gives insightful commentaries on all sorts of issues. So she asked for the issue pictured, the one about Bush Hatred. I gave it to her.
But is this question one that should be asked? If I had said its conservative (or liberal) would that mean its suddenly unreadable and the arguments and points lose all credibility? Obviously not, but I think thats the way most people feel: If I'm contemplating reading something that is going to challenge the way I think, then I'm not going to read it! Again, it sounds stupid in theory, but I bet we'd all be surprised at how much it happens in practice.
The issue in question had two columns on Bush Hatred - an appreciation, and a critique. Is the critique even going to be read by her? I hope so. Because I read both and understand I think the other side a little better.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Thanks to Burton:
http://www.theonion.com/opinion.php?i=1&o=1
Haven't laughed that hard at something I read in awhile.
http://www.theonion.com/opinion.php?i=1&o=1
Haven't laughed that hard at something I read in awhile.
Movie Review - The 25th Hour, starring Ed Norton
The premise is simple enough. Monty Brogan (Ed Norton) was recently pinched by the DEA for having a large amount of drugs and cash hidden in his sofa. The day of the movie is his last day of freedom before he goes off to jail for seven years.
For the past few years, Monty has been living large in NYC with his drug dealing for the Russian mob. He has an incredibly hot spanish girlfriend who he met when she was 18, but he is beginning to wonder if she was the one who turned him in. Someone had to, because its not like the DEA just goes randomly searching through your sofa every other day.
The movie takes you through his final day in the free world. He meets up with a couple friends, his recovering alcoholic father (who owns a bar oddly enough), the Russian mob people who throw him a going away party, and a few others. His friends think they will never see him again (well not the teacher, but the other one), his girlfriend wants to spend time with him alone, and Tony Sirgausa, who horribly portrays a Russian goon, just wants him to see the head honcho.
The movie, as a whole, is well done. However, parts of the movie, especially the scene in the club, seem thrown together and done for no real reason. The teacher gets hit on by one of his students, and then for some reason there is this weird cinematography done with the two of them - at first you think the girl is simply rolling, but then the teacher has the same thing happen to him as he's walking away from their little incident. Its weird for weirdness sake I think. Spike Lee just trying to be "innovative" when just straightforward story telling would do. Candy when all you are looking for is bread.
The ending leaves something for the imagination, and I suppose is acceptable in an annoying kind of way. But it really comes out of right field, where maybe some build up would have been better. Consequences aren't really broached for any of the incidents of the previous day, plot lines are just left unfinished, etc. Whether this was done intentionally or not, it takes away something from the movie.
If you have cinemax or whatever channel I watched it on this past Saturday afternoon, its worth a watch. I wouldn't rank it as one of Norton's best performances, but its certainly not one of his worst. You have to watch the movie from the beginning, as it bounces back and forth in time to show you preceding events, which is neat and all if you can concentrate, but annoying if you are being pestered by housemates and cats.
Evan rating: 2.5 thumbs up.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
"It isn't the high price of stars that is expensive, it's the high price of mediocrity." - Bill Veeck
There is a lot of hubub about Alex Rodriguez lately and his trade to the New York Yankees. Some people talk about the enormity of his contract (252 million dollars over 10 years, if memory serves me correctly) and how the Texas Rangers needed to get away from that in order to compete. Owner Tom Hicks needed "financial flexibility."
Bullshit.
The Rangers need financial flexibility because of four contracts in particular.
Chan Ho Park was signed to a 5 year, 65 million dollar deal in 2001. "Utter and complete failure" doesn't do justice to describing just how bad Park has been since coming to Texas. This isn't particularly surprising, since he had pitched in Los Angeles for every year before coming to Texas. Los Angeles plays in an extreme pitchers park - meaning ERAs are deflated. Over two seasons, Park has been 10-11 for the Rangers with an ERA hovering around five. This is costing the Rangers 13 million dollars a year.
Rusty Greer made 7 million dollars in 2003, and is signed for this year with a club option for 2005. In the 113 games he has played in the last two seasons, he has hit 8 home runs while batting at around a .270 clip. 7 million dollars for that?
And then there are other disasters. Todd Van Poppel at 3 million. Jeff Zimmerman at 3.3 million. It all adds up.
Alex Rodriguez's contract isn't to blame for the Rangers performance in the last few years. Sure, it is a bit overpriced, but you pay a premium for the best SS in history since Honus Wagner. The horrendous signings of Park, Greer, Van Poppel, and Zimmerman, signings that someone with even a rudimentary, cooper-level understanding of fantasy baseball would avoid at all costs, have crippled the Rangers for years to come.
As stated earlier, its not the high price of stars that cause the problems. Its the high price of mediocrity (think David Bell) and in Texas, the high price of suck.
Girls, don't ignore this post. While it seems like it may not apply to you at all, you may have a boyfriend. Or you may meet one in the near future. Or hell, you may have a guy friend. And chances are, they own an XBox or a Playstation 2. And they may see a commerical for this new game, called NFL Street. They maybe have played NBA Street, which is a phenomenal game and a hoot to play.
Don't let them buy the football one at all costs.
I rented NFL Street this Saturday, since I had, like a lot of people, throughly enjoyed my experience with NBA Street 2. Whether its because the street series doesn't apply very well to football, or just because it was done poorly, NFL Street does not measure up to its basketball counterpart in any category: design, graphics, or just level of fun.
While NBA Street allows you to do insane off the wall dunks, throw the ball off your opponents head, and other neat things to rack up style points (which in turn powers up your gamebreaker), NFL allows you to... uh switch the ball between your legs while running, and your quarterback has two, count em two, stylish ways to throw the football. Additionally, if you are even so much as brushed (and note, I said you, the computer has no such issues) while doing one of these style moves, you pretty much automatically fumble. The biggest flaw in the game might be here, and it lies in the concept. In basketball, bouncing the ball off the guys head, or doing a special dribble, will enable you to get to the basket while at the same time embarassing your foe. Running for a TD in football while spinning the ball on your finger doesn't help you at all - you're already scoring the TD. Its a very forced part of the gameplay; think NFL Blitz with more taunting.
Do enough of these utterly worthless style moves and you power up your gamebreaker. In NBA Street, the gamebreaker allowed you to do a special move that added points to you while subracting them from your foe. It was possible to get a gamebreaker in one move if you comboed enough dribbles, passes, and finished it with a crippler dunk. Gamebreakers meant that if you didn't do enough stylish slams and passes, you would probably lose. However, they were balanced pretty well - if you took too much time to use your gamebreaker, or your opponent stole the ball, you'd probably lose it.
Gamebrakers in NFL Street result in an automatic turnover or TD. Oh sure, you have to run the play, but if the defense has a gamebreaker, there is absolutely no chance you will score a TD on your drive. If any of the opposing players so much as comes within five feet of your player he will fumble. Try to throw a pass and it will magically deflect off of any player and into the opponent's hands for an interception. Frusturating? No doubt. But each game works out so that no matter how much styling and profiling you do, both teams get a gamebreaker (except in really high scoring games). Pointless? You said it. Why even bother with the concept? It doesn't make the game any more fun - only more annoying.
Why can the computer run for 90 yard TDs without any of my players coming close to them, and yet when my fastest character gets into the open field, he is run down by a 350 pound lineman? Why is it that when I hit the computer while he's spinning the ball on his finger, it still doesn't fumble? Incidents like these that happen every play serve to frustrate the gamer to the poing of turning off the system.
In case you couldn't tell, I played the game for a couple hours tonight. I won't be playing it again. It was a waste of not only the 6 bucks I spent to rent it, but every development dollar that EA Sports put into it. NBA Street was a great game. Taking that concept into the NFL was a unique idea. Whether it was the idea that really sucked, or the execution, is a question for the ages.
NFL Street Rating: Blow
Don't let them buy the football one at all costs.
I rented NFL Street this Saturday, since I had, like a lot of people, throughly enjoyed my experience with NBA Street 2. Whether its because the street series doesn't apply very well to football, or just because it was done poorly, NFL Street does not measure up to its basketball counterpart in any category: design, graphics, or just level of fun.
While NBA Street allows you to do insane off the wall dunks, throw the ball off your opponents head, and other neat things to rack up style points (which in turn powers up your gamebreaker), NFL allows you to... uh switch the ball between your legs while running, and your quarterback has two, count em two, stylish ways to throw the football. Additionally, if you are even so much as brushed (and note, I said you, the computer has no such issues) while doing one of these style moves, you pretty much automatically fumble. The biggest flaw in the game might be here, and it lies in the concept. In basketball, bouncing the ball off the guys head, or doing a special dribble, will enable you to get to the basket while at the same time embarassing your foe. Running for a TD in football while spinning the ball on your finger doesn't help you at all - you're already scoring the TD. Its a very forced part of the gameplay; think NFL Blitz with more taunting.
Do enough of these utterly worthless style moves and you power up your gamebreaker. In NBA Street, the gamebreaker allowed you to do a special move that added points to you while subracting them from your foe. It was possible to get a gamebreaker in one move if you comboed enough dribbles, passes, and finished it with a crippler dunk. Gamebreakers meant that if you didn't do enough stylish slams and passes, you would probably lose. However, they were balanced pretty well - if you took too much time to use your gamebreaker, or your opponent stole the ball, you'd probably lose it.
Gamebrakers in NFL Street result in an automatic turnover or TD. Oh sure, you have to run the play, but if the defense has a gamebreaker, there is absolutely no chance you will score a TD on your drive. If any of the opposing players so much as comes within five feet of your player he will fumble. Try to throw a pass and it will magically deflect off of any player and into the opponent's hands for an interception. Frusturating? No doubt. But each game works out so that no matter how much styling and profiling you do, both teams get a gamebreaker (except in really high scoring games). Pointless? You said it. Why even bother with the concept? It doesn't make the game any more fun - only more annoying.
Why can the computer run for 90 yard TDs without any of my players coming close to them, and yet when my fastest character gets into the open field, he is run down by a 350 pound lineman? Why is it that when I hit the computer while he's spinning the ball on his finger, it still doesn't fumble? Incidents like these that happen every play serve to frustrate the gamer to the poing of turning off the system.
In case you couldn't tell, I played the game for a couple hours tonight. I won't be playing it again. It was a waste of not only the 6 bucks I spent to rent it, but every development dollar that EA Sports put into it. NBA Street was a great game. Taking that concept into the NFL was a unique idea. Whether it was the idea that really sucked, or the execution, is a question for the ages.
NFL Street Rating: Blow
Monday, February 16, 2004
John Daly was born on April 28th, 1966 in Carmichael, California.
His bio on PGA TOUR.com says he is 5'11" and 220 pounds. He looks closer to 300 pounds.
He has had four wives, numerous bouts with alcohol and drug addiction, and from the looks of things, he probably eats too much. He is prone to just walking off the course when having a particularly bad round. Of course, these bad rounds (usually in the 80s) are horrific creatures that would send lesser players out of the game for good.
Daly smokes cigarettes in between shots.
He burst on the scene in 1991. He was the ninth alternate for the PGA Championship, one of the four majors championships of golf. He fired a 69 in the first round without even a practice round. Three rounds later he had enthralled the golfing community with the win. Daly donated $30K of the $230K winnings from the PGA Championship to the children of a spectator who was struck and killed by lightning during the tournament. Five years later he won the British Open on perhaps the most famous golf course in the world.
In between those two wins and this one that came yesterday, John has fought with his demons. He tries valiantly to not drink. However, he's been drinking since he was age 9. He's tried not to gamble and smoke. Obviously its a tough fight.
Clearly there is some wasted potential here. He drives the ball further than anyone. He has a decent short game and seems to be above average with the putter. But his mental game... its clearly off at times.
And that I think is why everyone loves him. He is every golfer and hack out on the course with you on a Sunday afternoon. When you're out there, you don't think you could ever be Tiger Woods. He isn't anything you could become or even want to become; he is some sort of golfing machine who likes Stanford and has no vices or virtues.
Meanwhile, here is John Daly. He swings as hard as he humanly can on every swing. He has a temper, gets depressed, drinks, smokes, and gambles. He picks up the ball and quits if things are getting unbearable.
He's a human being. Thats why we root for him.
Friday, February 13, 2004
It has been asked what my plans are for this Valentine's Day.
I'm going to get stupid ass wasted. I mean wasted. Think my Valentine's Day party senior year at Duke, and multiply it by approximately 10. Well maybe not that bad. I don't want to go to the hospital.
Working in a Hallmark as I grew up, Valentine's Day always increased my bitterness by an exponential factor. Cute girls would walk in and buy VD cards for their boyfriends. Idiot oafs would walk in and try to find cards to buy their girlfriends (hey stupid, there is a whole aisle of cards. Stop asking me where to go). And then good old Evan would be there, ringing up the people who were stupid/fortunate enough to find a significant other. There has been exactly one of these in my life where I was involved with someone. It was okay.
Dinner reservations fill up so its impossible to go out to eat anywhere. My teachers disappear and thus it becomes impossible to find a sub. And me?
Well there's always a chance. Hey, I just watched Miracle. Anything can happen.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
The latest problem to appear at Duke (aside from all of the liberal professors brushing aside the DCU ad with ignorant comments about the general intelligence of conservatives, but thats another topic for another day) is the fact that 100 student section seats were given to the graduate student section. This occured because the student section was not full for the game against Clemson, a Sunday night game against the worst team in the league.
Staff editorial on the issue can be found here.
Everyone and their mother is throwing up a huge fuss over this (except the grad students), but is there a right to? The main excuse here is that it midterms were coming up and people had to study. Bullshit. Anyone could have walked right in 10 minutes before tip and then spent the next 2 hours at the game. And anyway... we don't have a midterm week. We have the middle of the semester. Are we really to believe that every single class had midterms scheduled for the Monday following the game? Please.
Another argument is made about how students use that Sunday to prepare for their busy weeks. I don't have any numbers handy, but I'd be willing to bet that previous Sunday games in the year had full student sections.
If you don't want to go to the game, just don't. I wouldn't have gone to this game probably, midterms or not. The reason would be simple: Clemson sucks and I'd rather watch the game in my apartment with some beer. But people shouldn't make up lame ass excuses about studying on a Sunday night. Just tell the truth and get over it. The seats will be back soon enough.
Staff editorial on the issue can be found here.
Everyone and their mother is throwing up a huge fuss over this (except the grad students), but is there a right to? The main excuse here is that it midterms were coming up and people had to study. Bullshit. Anyone could have walked right in 10 minutes before tip and then spent the next 2 hours at the game. And anyway... we don't have a midterm week. We have the middle of the semester. Are we really to believe that every single class had midterms scheduled for the Monday following the game? Please.
Another argument is made about how students use that Sunday to prepare for their busy weeks. I don't have any numbers handy, but I'd be willing to bet that previous Sunday games in the year had full student sections.
If you don't want to go to the game, just don't. I wouldn't have gone to this game probably, midterms or not. The reason would be simple: Clemson sucks and I'd rather watch the game in my apartment with some beer. But people shouldn't make up lame ass excuses about studying on a Sunday night. Just tell the truth and get over it. The seats will be back soon enough.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Top 5 Funniest Moments at Duke - Labor Economics
Labor economics was quite possibly the easiest class ever at Duke. And only me, Pooja, Ben, and Gibbs were lucky enough to find our way into it. It was taught by Jeremy Bray, and we never were quite sure about what he actually did - whether he was a professor or maybe just worked in an economic think tank. Regardless, it was a great class for the following moments/reasons:
1) There was virtually no work. There was no homework, one midterm, one final, and one labor economics 3 minute short speech you had to make at the end. Additionally, you had to have some sort of current event ready for each class that somehow related to labor economics. Your penalty for not having it ready was a joke and then he would move on to the next person. Still, you tried to have something ready if he called on you. One particular exchange that I remember:
Bray: So what do you have for our current event relating to labor econ today?
Girl: Uhhhhhh, I heard that Southwest Airlines is the only airline hiring more people.
Bray: Relate it to labor economics. How are they doing so well?
Girl: Cause they're nice?
Bray: Ummm... well maybe...
2) There were enemies in the class. After our first easy ass midterm, we went over the exam in class. This stupid track girl then said to Bray, "This exam was too easy. It was like a high school exam!" Instantly everyone in the class hated her. The funny thing - she got like an 83 on the exam.
3) Bon. Many of you have heard the story, but for those of you who haven't, Ben never came to class. Ever. He came for the midterm and then came to the class when we got it back. Ben's handwriting is also atrocious. Its like if a third grader broke his hand and had to write with his off one. So as Bray is returning the exams, he states "Bon? Bon Elliott?" And Ben sheepishly raises his hand and then takes the exam, neglecting to correct him for whatever reason. Man I'm cracking up just thinking about it.
4) Along the same lines as 1) but also funnier. There were no wrong answers in the class. Usually. On that first midterm, there was a 20 point essay question. It was essentially a yes or no, and justify what you decided. The answer was obviously yes. And it was easy to justify in like 21 different ways. However, we learned that some people wrote no, and still got points for it! And the topper: Gibbs wrote "yes", but justified it in such a bad way that he got zero points on it. Hilarity.
This class has to be right up there with Professional Ethics or Intro to Jazz for the amount of work I did, and similar to Corporate Finance for sheer hilarity. Combine those two and you have the greatest class ever.
Labor economics was quite possibly the easiest class ever at Duke. And only me, Pooja, Ben, and Gibbs were lucky enough to find our way into it. It was taught by Jeremy Bray, and we never were quite sure about what he actually did - whether he was a professor or maybe just worked in an economic think tank. Regardless, it was a great class for the following moments/reasons:
1) There was virtually no work. There was no homework, one midterm, one final, and one labor economics 3 minute short speech you had to make at the end. Additionally, you had to have some sort of current event ready for each class that somehow related to labor economics. Your penalty for not having it ready was a joke and then he would move on to the next person. Still, you tried to have something ready if he called on you. One particular exchange that I remember:
Bray: So what do you have for our current event relating to labor econ today?
Girl: Uhhhhhh, I heard that Southwest Airlines is the only airline hiring more people.
Bray: Relate it to labor economics. How are they doing so well?
Girl: Cause they're nice?
Bray: Ummm... well maybe...
2) There were enemies in the class. After our first easy ass midterm, we went over the exam in class. This stupid track girl then said to Bray, "This exam was too easy. It was like a high school exam!" Instantly everyone in the class hated her. The funny thing - she got like an 83 on the exam.
3) Bon. Many of you have heard the story, but for those of you who haven't, Ben never came to class. Ever. He came for the midterm and then came to the class when we got it back. Ben's handwriting is also atrocious. Its like if a third grader broke his hand and had to write with his off one. So as Bray is returning the exams, he states "Bon? Bon Elliott?" And Ben sheepishly raises his hand and then takes the exam, neglecting to correct him for whatever reason. Man I'm cracking up just thinking about it.
4) Along the same lines as 1) but also funnier. There were no wrong answers in the class. Usually. On that first midterm, there was a 20 point essay question. It was essentially a yes or no, and justify what you decided. The answer was obviously yes. And it was easy to justify in like 21 different ways. However, we learned that some people wrote no, and still got points for it! And the topper: Gibbs wrote "yes", but justified it in such a bad way that he got zero points on it. Hilarity.
This class has to be right up there with Professional Ethics or Intro to Jazz for the amount of work I did, and similar to Corporate Finance for sheer hilarity. Combine those two and you have the greatest class ever.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Our girl of the day is Amy Taylor
Amy is a member of the Australian national women's soccer team, with 22 caps to her name. Why Anna Kournikova is so popular, as a loser, is beyond me, especially when we have girls like Amy running around kicking the old soccer ball.
I have been waiting for this day for two weeks or so. It has finally come to pass.
The place two doors down had the soup I was looking for - cream of potato with bacon.
I then purchased chicken fingers from Burger King and dipped them into it.
Oh boy that was awesome.
Amy is a member of the Australian national women's soccer team, with 22 caps to her name. Why Anna Kournikova is so popular, as a loser, is beyond me, especially when we have girls like Amy running around kicking the old soccer ball.
I have been waiting for this day for two weeks or so. It has finally come to pass.
The place two doors down had the soup I was looking for - cream of potato with bacon.
I then purchased chicken fingers from Burger King and dipped them into it.
Oh boy that was awesome.
Monday, February 09, 2004
A lot of people believe in all these intangibles about players who are "winners." Players who do a lot of intangible things that do not show up in the stat sheet. They claim that these guys do a lot of the little things right that contribute to winning, or else they are just real clutch and for some reason save their best for when the game is on the line (maybe if they did their best when the game was in its earlier stages, it wouldn't be so close at the end, but I digress).
As a primer, please read the following blog entry from Aaron Gleeman about Derek Jeter.
http://www.aarongleeman.com/2003_10_26_baseballblog_archive.html#106732099586322001
Which brings us to Chris Duhon.
Now you can talk about how "stats don't matter" when it comes to winning, but that is just idiotic. The team with the most points wins, and pretty much every statistic relates to points in some way. An assist means two points (although it of course varies how much you contributed to it). A rebound means you have either prevented the other team from getting an additional opportunity to score points, or given your team an additional one on the same possession. A steal and blocked shot go along the same lines.
Chris Duhon is currently scoring 10 points a game to go with 7 assists. 47 percent shooting from the field, 28 percent from three. Not bad numbers at all, and certainly a remarkable improvement over that horrid 2003 season, but nothing to really write home about. Certainly nothing to indicate that Duhon is anything but an average point guard.
I don't want to reiterate what I wrote before in the comments to the post from last week, but it is very hard to believe that Duhon is anything more than a Mateen Cleaves. Cleaves, if you recall, "led" his team (which included Jason Richardson, Morris Peterson, AJ Granger, and Charlie Bell) to a championship over Florida in 2000. Mateen's line was eerily similiar to Duhon's current one. 12 points, 7 assists, but with slightly better shooting. However, Mateen was credited with lots of intangibles - his ballhanding, senior leadership, whatever. Just like Duhon.
Now do any of you believe that Mateen Cleaves was really better than a lot of the PGs in America at that time? No. He was simply in the right place at the right time surrounded by a lot of talent. And I'd have to say the same thing about Duhon. He is a slightly above average player on a team with an enormous amount of talent. Come draft time, NBA execs would do well to remember that.
As a primer, please read the following blog entry from Aaron Gleeman about Derek Jeter.
http://www.aarongleeman.com/2003_10_26_baseballblog_archive.html#106732099586322001
Which brings us to Chris Duhon.
Now you can talk about how "stats don't matter" when it comes to winning, but that is just idiotic. The team with the most points wins, and pretty much every statistic relates to points in some way. An assist means two points (although it of course varies how much you contributed to it). A rebound means you have either prevented the other team from getting an additional opportunity to score points, or given your team an additional one on the same possession. A steal and blocked shot go along the same lines.
Chris Duhon is currently scoring 10 points a game to go with 7 assists. 47 percent shooting from the field, 28 percent from three. Not bad numbers at all, and certainly a remarkable improvement over that horrid 2003 season, but nothing to really write home about. Certainly nothing to indicate that Duhon is anything but an average point guard.
I don't want to reiterate what I wrote before in the comments to the post from last week, but it is very hard to believe that Duhon is anything more than a Mateen Cleaves. Cleaves, if you recall, "led" his team (which included Jason Richardson, Morris Peterson, AJ Granger, and Charlie Bell) to a championship over Florida in 2000. Mateen's line was eerily similiar to Duhon's current one. 12 points, 7 assists, but with slightly better shooting. However, Mateen was credited with lots of intangibles - his ballhanding, senior leadership, whatever. Just like Duhon.
Now do any of you believe that Mateen Cleaves was really better than a lot of the PGs in America at that time? No. He was simply in the right place at the right time surrounded by a lot of talent. And I'd have to say the same thing about Duhon. He is a slightly above average player on a team with an enormous amount of talent. Come draft time, NBA execs would do well to remember that.
Friday, February 06, 2004
As soon as I saw Chris Duhon driving to the basket last night at the end of the first overtime, I thought one thing:
"Here comes double OT."
I don't know why I have such little faith in Duhon. It might be that his shooting has gotten progressively worse year after year. It might be because I don't believe in any such thing as senior leadership or veteran leadership (Yup, Syracuse sure had a lot of it last year, and Kansas sure didn't). It might be because he only takes three types of shots - three pointers from NBA range, floaters, floaters, and layups.
I know, he's been proving me wrong lately. That three pointer against Florida State. And now this layup that Coach K for some reason is calling one of the greatest plays ever. Sorry Coach K. The Laettner shot was one of the greatest ever. The other Laettner shot against UConn was one of the greatest ever. The Jason Williams four point play that wasn't would have been one of the greatest ever. Bryce Drew's three pointer to give Valpo the win in that tourney game was one of the greatest ever. This was not. Its a good play, and I'll savor the win, but lets not go insane here.
Anyone watching Sportscenter and UNC alum Stuart Scott after the game was treated to some hilarity. As they were going through the highlights, a clearly distraught Stu was trying to go through the highlights. He got halfway through the OT highlights (a Deng jumper to put Duke up), and he said "And Duke holds on for the..." And the next highlight was the McCants three pointer to tie it. He either was trying to get through the highlights as quickly and painlessly as possible, or just didn't know what was going on really, so he quickly changed tunes and butchered the commentary of the last 15 seconds of the game.
BOOYAH!
"Here comes double OT."
I don't know why I have such little faith in Duhon. It might be that his shooting has gotten progressively worse year after year. It might be because I don't believe in any such thing as senior leadership or veteran leadership (Yup, Syracuse sure had a lot of it last year, and Kansas sure didn't). It might be because he only takes three types of shots - three pointers from NBA range, floaters, floaters, and layups.
I know, he's been proving me wrong lately. That three pointer against Florida State. And now this layup that Coach K for some reason is calling one of the greatest plays ever. Sorry Coach K. The Laettner shot was one of the greatest ever. The other Laettner shot against UConn was one of the greatest ever. The Jason Williams four point play that wasn't would have been one of the greatest ever. Bryce Drew's three pointer to give Valpo the win in that tourney game was one of the greatest ever. This was not. Its a good play, and I'll savor the win, but lets not go insane here.
Anyone watching Sportscenter and UNC alum Stuart Scott after the game was treated to some hilarity. As they were going through the highlights, a clearly distraught Stu was trying to go through the highlights. He got halfway through the OT highlights (a Deng jumper to put Duke up), and he said "And Duke holds on for the..." And the next highlight was the McCants three pointer to tie it. He either was trying to get through the highlights as quickly and painlessly as possible, or just didn't know what was going on really, so he quickly changed tunes and butchered the commentary of the last 15 seconds of the game.
BOOYAH!
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Ah The Miracle. When I think of three sports events in history that I could be at, they are:
1) Miracle on Ice, 1980
2) Duke vs. Kentucky, the Laettner Game, 1992
3) Mike Tyson vs. Buster Douglas, Japan, 1990
A column from the Sports Guy about the Miracle.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=1727178
Ah, and now, another top five funny moment from Duke, Maier on the Sigma Chi bench.
So its me, Ben, Maier, and Janelle, and I think that three of us are drunk. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which one of us isn't. I think we were at a party somewhere at West, and we end up on the Sigma Chi bench, just chilling and sitting. Maier is sitting on top of the bench and cuddling with ben's hair or something.
This is the point at Duke where Amy is transitioning from James to Ben. There haven't been any talks yet between James and Ben, or anything like that, but its becoming apparent where this leading - Amy going to KA getaways, beer pong in KA, etc.
So we're sitting there, and drunken Amy blurts out:
"Oh James..."
"Thats it!" Ben exclaims.
"Ha hahhaahahhahahha." I laugh.
"Time for bed for you," Janelle chimes in.
And Janelle takes Amy back to Nottingham.
Ben: "Did that really just happen?"
Evan: "Hahhahahhahahahhaha."
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
"Analyzing Common Plot Themes in 1980s Situation Comedies and Family Centered Comic Strips"
A common plot in many comic strips and sit coms of the 1980s is when some bratty little kid sister starts reading her big brother's blog, I mean journal, which he doesn't want her reading. Its just sitting on his bed or something, or maybe hidden in a drawer, and the little sister reasons that since she can get at it, it is fair game. Never mind that those are personal thoughts, or thoughts to be shared with a select few, or even a group of friends. The girl gets at it, reads things she shouldn't read, and then invariably causes a lot of trouble for the writer. The kid is eventually reprimanded by the parents for invading the privacy of his brother. The parents then state that she shouldn't be so nosy, getting into things that do not concern her. The bratty sister replies, "He left it out! Its his own fault!" The parents reply, "It doesn't concern you at all. Its bad that you read it, since it doesn't concern you, but understandable because curiosity leads us down wrong paths at times. However, its even worse that you told the people he talked about what he wrote! Why would you do that? What possible good could it do?" Silence ensues...
Eventually the sister apologizes to the brother, and things become normal by the end of the episode. Sometimes by the end they've joined together to fight a common foe. Case closed.
A common plot in many comic strips and sit coms of the 1980s is when some bratty little kid sister starts reading her big brother's blog, I mean journal, which he doesn't want her reading. Its just sitting on his bed or something, or maybe hidden in a drawer, and the little sister reasons that since she can get at it, it is fair game. Never mind that those are personal thoughts, or thoughts to be shared with a select few, or even a group of friends. The girl gets at it, reads things she shouldn't read, and then invariably causes a lot of trouble for the writer. The kid is eventually reprimanded by the parents for invading the privacy of his brother. The parents then state that she shouldn't be so nosy, getting into things that do not concern her. The bratty sister replies, "He left it out! Its his own fault!" The parents reply, "It doesn't concern you at all. Its bad that you read it, since it doesn't concern you, but understandable because curiosity leads us down wrong paths at times. However, its even worse that you told the people he talked about what he wrote! Why would you do that? What possible good could it do?" Silence ensues...
Eventually the sister apologizes to the brother, and things become normal by the end of the episode. Sometimes by the end they've joined together to fight a common foe. Case closed.
Once the club duffer challenged the local golf pro to a match, with a $100 bet on the side. "But," said the duffer, "since you're obviously much better then I, to even it a bit you have to spot me two 'gotchas.'"
The golf pro didn't know what a "gotcha" was, but he went along with it.
And off they went. Coming back to the 19th hole, the rest of the club members were amazed to see the golf pro paying the duffer $100.
"What happened?" asked one of the members.
"Well, "said the pro. "l was teeing up for the first hole, and as l brought the club down, the jerk stuck his hand between my legs and grabbed my balls while yelling "Gotcha!"
Have you ever tried to play 18 holes of golf waiting for the second 'gotcha?'"
The golf pro didn't know what a "gotcha" was, but he went along with it.
And off they went. Coming back to the 19th hole, the rest of the club members were amazed to see the golf pro paying the duffer $100.
"What happened?" asked one of the members.
"Well, "said the pro. "l was teeing up for the first hole, and as l brought the club down, the jerk stuck his hand between my legs and grabbed my balls while yelling "Gotcha!"
Have you ever tried to play 18 holes of golf waiting for the second 'gotcha?'"
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
You lazy bums! Nobody is writing me a blog entry. Fine I'll write one now.
Five funniest moments at Duke: a series of blog entries in no particular order
So its sophomore year, and me, Ben, and Roth are walking from Edens to Wannamaker through the ocean. Ben and Roth are pretty drunk, and I'm sober for whatever reason. But we run into this girl, Caroline, and this oafy guy, Anupam (I know him from a philosophy class I had with him, but otherwise nobody else has any clue who he is).
Caroline was this girl who visited when we were freshmen and she was a senior in high school. She went to the same high school as evil Jenny, so she hung out with us when she came and eventually I think got on Cracky. Caroline is a very attractive girl, and Ben always had some sort of thing for her.
So we run into them, and Ben instantly perks up in his drunken buffoon way and starts trying to talk to Caroline. At this point, Anupam I believe is a little annoyed and wants to get her alone somewhere, so me, Ben, and Roth try to act menacingly towards him. You know, crowding around her so he can't like be next to her, whatever. Trying to make him feel awkward while Ben hits on her. This doesn't work out so well, and then out of nowhere Ben says to Anupam:
"So, how much you bench?"
In a very beliggerant tone.
Anupam responds with "260" or some number in that vicinity. Drunken Ben flexes, points to his bicep (all the funnier since you don't bench with your bicep), and says triumphantly, "300."
Me and Roth completely lose it and I walk away cracking up.
Next entry: Maier's confusion on the Sigma Chi bench
Five funniest moments at Duke: a series of blog entries in no particular order
So its sophomore year, and me, Ben, and Roth are walking from Edens to Wannamaker through the ocean. Ben and Roth are pretty drunk, and I'm sober for whatever reason. But we run into this girl, Caroline, and this oafy guy, Anupam (I know him from a philosophy class I had with him, but otherwise nobody else has any clue who he is).
Caroline was this girl who visited when we were freshmen and she was a senior in high school. She went to the same high school as evil Jenny, so she hung out with us when she came and eventually I think got on Cracky. Caroline is a very attractive girl, and Ben always had some sort of thing for her.
So we run into them, and Ben instantly perks up in his drunken buffoon way and starts trying to talk to Caroline. At this point, Anupam I believe is a little annoyed and wants to get her alone somewhere, so me, Ben, and Roth try to act menacingly towards him. You know, crowding around her so he can't like be next to her, whatever. Trying to make him feel awkward while Ben hits on her. This doesn't work out so well, and then out of nowhere Ben says to Anupam:
"So, how much you bench?"
In a very beliggerant tone.
Anupam responds with "260" or some number in that vicinity. Drunken Ben flexes, points to his bicep (all the funnier since you don't bench with your bicep), and says triumphantly, "300."
Me and Roth completely lose it and I walk away cracking up.
Next entry: Maier's confusion on the Sigma Chi bench
Monday, February 02, 2004
A short political tangent from this otherwise pointless blog:
The goal of the Iraq war, from anyone's perspective, was to get Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime out of power? Don't believe me? Okay lets look.
Person A: The war was over oil. We just wanted their oil!
Evan: Okay but if that was true, we still need to get Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime out of power.
Person B: The war is just to get Bush elected!
Evan: Okay, but if that was true, we'd still need to get Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime out of power in order for Bush to be victorious.
Person C: War is never the answer! Everyone should make the same amount of money! Down with sweatshops!
Evan: Anyway...
So no matter what you think Bush's intentions were with the war, the first thing that had to happen was getting Hussein away from there, which would make life better for the Iraqi people. Therefore, the objective of the war (remove Hussein and his followers from power, thanks for following along) was a very good thing. A great thing for the Iraqi people. Something that everyone should be in support of no matter what. Now lets go back in a time machine to before the war started.
Bush comes out and says there are WMDs hiding in Iraq. Why he does this is fairly apparent. Even though every human being on earth should want Hussein out of power, this is not the case. So Bush bullies the CIA into some reports about WMD that are favorable to his position. At this point in time, these WMD claims are credible to public. So lets recap... remember we are before the war right now.
1) Getting rid of Saddam = great thing
2) WMD threat = credible to public
AND STILL PEOPLE WERE AGAINST THE WAR!!
Even if you didn't believe 2 was credible, why would you be against 1? Did you not want the Iraqi people to be freed from facism?
I suppose it all comes down to philosophy. Here is a situation I like to think about.
Imagine that George Bush has somehow come up with a great health care plan for Americans. Its not universal, but it would drastically reduce the amount of people who are uninsured, and this could happen with little utility loss, no tax raising, whatever. In short, a great benefit to a lot of people with minimal expenditures. But lets say that the only reason Bush came up with this and wanted to implement it was for evil / selfish concerns. Lets say... that he only wanted his hobo cousin to get better health care. Or that Satan told him to do it. Whatever. Would you be against the plan?
A lot of people think that if the United States benefits in any way, we should avoid it at all costs. If the war was over oil, and we stood to benefit from it greatly... shouldn't we have supported it anyway for the good of humanity?
The goal of the Iraq war, from anyone's perspective, was to get Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime out of power? Don't believe me? Okay lets look.
Person A: The war was over oil. We just wanted their oil!
Evan: Okay but if that was true, we still need to get Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime out of power.
Person B: The war is just to get Bush elected!
Evan: Okay, but if that was true, we'd still need to get Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime out of power in order for Bush to be victorious.
Person C: War is never the answer! Everyone should make the same amount of money! Down with sweatshops!
Evan: Anyway...
So no matter what you think Bush's intentions were with the war, the first thing that had to happen was getting Hussein away from there, which would make life better for the Iraqi people. Therefore, the objective of the war (remove Hussein and his followers from power, thanks for following along) was a very good thing. A great thing for the Iraqi people. Something that everyone should be in support of no matter what. Now lets go back in a time machine to before the war started.
Bush comes out and says there are WMDs hiding in Iraq. Why he does this is fairly apparent. Even though every human being on earth should want Hussein out of power, this is not the case. So Bush bullies the CIA into some reports about WMD that are favorable to his position. At this point in time, these WMD claims are credible to public. So lets recap... remember we are before the war right now.
1) Getting rid of Saddam = great thing
2) WMD threat = credible to public
AND STILL PEOPLE WERE AGAINST THE WAR!!
Even if you didn't believe 2 was credible, why would you be against 1? Did you not want the Iraqi people to be freed from facism?
I suppose it all comes down to philosophy. Here is a situation I like to think about.
Imagine that George Bush has somehow come up with a great health care plan for Americans. Its not universal, but it would drastically reduce the amount of people who are uninsured, and this could happen with little utility loss, no tax raising, whatever. In short, a great benefit to a lot of people with minimal expenditures. But lets say that the only reason Bush came up with this and wanted to implement it was for evil / selfish concerns. Lets say... that he only wanted his hobo cousin to get better health care. Or that Satan told him to do it. Whatever. Would you be against the plan?
A lot of people think that if the United States benefits in any way, we should avoid it at all costs. If the war was over oil, and we stood to benefit from it greatly... shouldn't we have supported it anyway for the good of humanity?
"This is an exciting day for me," he said. "I know they had a bad season last year, but I think this is going to be a completely different season." - Ivan Rodriguez, after signing a four year, forty million dollar contract with the Detroit Tigers.
The Detroit Tigers had a bad year last year.
Thats sort of like saying the Super Bowl commercials yesterday were below average in quality.
The Tigers won 43 games and lost 119 last year. They finished strong, winning 5 of their last 6, in order to avoid tying the post 1900 league record of losses, 120, set by the mets one year.
They play in a cavernous ballpark that limits offensive productivity. Their farm system is a mess. Heck their current team is a mess. I pride myself on being able to name pretty much the starting 9 on every baseball team. You need to in order to compete well in fantasy baseball. I can name three Tigers right now.
Jeremy Bonderman (SP)
Bob Higginson (OF)
Dmitry Young (OF)
Now lets say you are a very wealthy baseball player who just came off of winning a championship. You probably like the taste of winning, and money isn't an object. Why in the world would you go to the worst team in baseball? Doesn't losing kind of get annoying after awhile?
I guess money makes people do strange things.
The Detroit Tigers had a bad year last year.
Thats sort of like saying the Super Bowl commercials yesterday were below average in quality.
The Tigers won 43 games and lost 119 last year. They finished strong, winning 5 of their last 6, in order to avoid tying the post 1900 league record of losses, 120, set by the mets one year.
They play in a cavernous ballpark that limits offensive productivity. Their farm system is a mess. Heck their current team is a mess. I pride myself on being able to name pretty much the starting 9 on every baseball team. You need to in order to compete well in fantasy baseball. I can name three Tigers right now.
Jeremy Bonderman (SP)
Bob Higginson (OF)
Dmitry Young (OF)
Now lets say you are a very wealthy baseball player who just came off of winning a championship. You probably like the taste of winning, and money isn't an object. Why in the world would you go to the worst team in baseball? Doesn't losing kind of get annoying after awhile?
I guess money makes people do strange things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)