Logging
Film: The Usual Suspects
Started watching last night, got sucked in and finished in the morning. Effortless movie to watch. Doesn't get talked about as much as it used to. Still the best movie for the main creative forces behind it - Singer, McQuarrie, etc. In hindsight and with more film education, movie is not as powerful or as well crafted as I remember it, but there is a smooth functioning narrative, great ensemble of characters, and a well constructed mystery at the core of the movie. A pleasurable re-watch on a Sunday morning.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Friday, June 15, 2012
Logging
Film: Your Sister's Sister
Can I have my money back? God, $15 for this type of film plus $6 popcorn should be criminalized. I'm such a sucker. I just couldn't stand to see Snow White and the Huntsmen again and this was playing at the same time. I figured - how bad can it be? These kind of mumblecore films are so contemptuous of story and so incredibly self indulgent, in pains me to think or talk about them. I thought maybe Rosmarie DeWitt (one of my favorite actresses) could be watchable for 90 minutes. But, when you have to suffer through characters doing nonsensical things, it just bores one to death. This is a films that generates drama through characters withholding information from one another for no reason. Why is Duplass spying on DeWitt when he arrives? Why do they lie about sleeping with one another. Really - what is the big deal? In the end, everyone finds out anyway and then they'll apologize to one another. That's what these films always end up being about - apologizing. Come to think about it, so do Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes. All this improv ends up in the same place.
Film: Your Sister's Sister
Can I have my money back? God, $15 for this type of film plus $6 popcorn should be criminalized. I'm such a sucker. I just couldn't stand to see Snow White and the Huntsmen again and this was playing at the same time. I figured - how bad can it be? These kind of mumblecore films are so contemptuous of story and so incredibly self indulgent, in pains me to think or talk about them. I thought maybe Rosmarie DeWitt (one of my favorite actresses) could be watchable for 90 minutes. But, when you have to suffer through characters doing nonsensical things, it just bores one to death. This is a films that generates drama through characters withholding information from one another for no reason. Why is Duplass spying on DeWitt when he arrives? Why do they lie about sleeping with one another. Really - what is the big deal? In the end, everyone finds out anyway and then they'll apologize to one another. That's what these films always end up being about - apologizing. Come to think about it, so do Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes. All this improv ends up in the same place.
Euro 2012: England 3 - Sweden 2
My favorite game so far in the tournament. Not terribly great soccer, but competitive, almost old fashioned, like a game from 20 years ago. I don't understand why England doesn't play Chamberlin and Walcott all the time...maybe they are afraid of what afflicts the Dutch. Who knows. But obviously, Walcott comes on, scores a goal and then assists another. Both pretty amazing, borderline lucky style of goals. More instinct than design.
If you didn't see it - this game was back and forth. England went up 1-0 before half. Then Sweden comes out and scores 2 to go up 2-1 and it looks like England is going to collapse. They sub Walcott and he scores a long distance goal. Then England goes ahead for good. Fun game.
My favorite game so far in the tournament. Not terribly great soccer, but competitive, almost old fashioned, like a game from 20 years ago. I don't understand why England doesn't play Chamberlin and Walcott all the time...maybe they are afraid of what afflicts the Dutch. Who knows. But obviously, Walcott comes on, scores a goal and then assists another. Both pretty amazing, borderline lucky style of goals. More instinct than design.
If you didn't see it - this game was back and forth. England went up 1-0 before half. Then Sweden comes out and scores 2 to go up 2-1 and it looks like England is going to collapse. They sub Walcott and he scores a long distance goal. Then England goes ahead for good. Fun game.
Facebook
On the unprecedented amount of information collected.
On the unprecedented amount of information collected.
But Facebook might eventually be able to guess what people want or don't want even before they realize it.I believe Big Brother did the same.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Good Idea For Arts Schools
Film school ought to adopt this - income contingent loans - where colleges are invested in their students via equity rather than debt.
Of course, this would put the schools out of business, but no one wants to actually hear that.
Film school ought to adopt this - income contingent loans - where colleges are invested in their students via equity rather than debt.
Of course, this would put the schools out of business, but no one wants to actually hear that.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
NBA Finals: OKC Wins Game 1
Boy, this is one of the best match ups in recent memory. I don't even know who to root for. I just want to watch close games. The stakes are huge. Miami wins and it totally validates the Big 3 and meets the basic expectations of coming together. Losing in the finals their first year together and then buckling down and winning in their 2nd year...all things would be on schedule. If OKC wins? A new dynasty is born right in front of our eyes. The pressure would weigh heavy on Miami. Dfish has 6 rings. The Western Conference would be worried sick.
What I noticed in Game 1? The match ups are favoring OKC. Why is Battier guarding Durant so much? Miami will lose if Battier guards Durant the majority of the time. He is too slow, too short, and can do nothing to disrupt the guy. The only time Miami was actually winning the game was when Battier and Chalmers were hitting 3s at a 50% clip. I don't see it continuing for a full game, much less the series.
Wade and James played well, although James didn't shoot well. I imagine that'll change at home a little bit. Bosh concerns me. The guy is probably injured and wasn't getting into the tussle when Miami needed to get rebounds and loose balls. OKC beat them at the 50/50 balls tonight.
I don't like the Westbrook-Wade match up if I'm Miami. Wade played well tonight, but given his performances during the playoffs, Westbrook is going to be too athletic for him, I think. Still, Wade can probably play him to a draw for at least 4 games and outplay him in 1 or 2.
How can Miami win? James can have a monster game (1 or 2). Wade can have a monster game (1, if lucky). Bosh can go for 20/10 (1, if lucky). Or the other players, Battier, Chalmers, Haslem whoever can put together a full game like they played in the 1st quarter (1, if lucky). Don't know if it'll happen before OKC wins 4.
I'm very happy if I'm OKC. They didn't even get much from Harden tonight and they still won handily (especially considering the 1st quarter deficit). I was wary last year of the Westbrook-Durant combo. They looked off sync and like Westbrook didn't get it...I've totally come around. I think they work great together now. Durant is a smoother, more confident outside shooter than before and this opens up lots of lanes for Westbrook to use his slashing ability and strength to get to the basket. Plus, Westbrook improved his jumper and is making better overall decisions.
My favorite moments of the game - James takes Durant off the dribble one point, driving right past him all the way to the hoop and scores and gets fouled. There was a shot of Durant shaking his head that was like - holy shit - that dude is a beast. My other two favorite moments of the game were when James blocked out a guy so well, the rebound hit the ground and another time he blocked someone out from under the basket and pushed them all the way back to the free throw line.
LeBron, I think, is the best all around basketball player I've ever seen. I suppose he doesn't have the scoring chops and hasn't yet displayed the mental fortitude of great champions, but if I'm playing 5 on 5 and I get first pick and there's LeBron, Jordan, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, all the great players I've seen play...man...I think I'm taking LeBron 1st. Is that ridiculous?
I have no predictions, but after seeing them play, it looked like OKC has the match up advantages. If I'm Miami I consider trying something else - LeBron on Durant more, or even LeBron on Westbrook. I don't know. LeBron was working super hard for his points tonight and OKC has to be happy with that. They can throw Durant on him and taunt him to make outside shot or Sefologia (sp?) if they want to buckle down. Good options.
Boy, this is one of the best match ups in recent memory. I don't even know who to root for. I just want to watch close games. The stakes are huge. Miami wins and it totally validates the Big 3 and meets the basic expectations of coming together. Losing in the finals their first year together and then buckling down and winning in their 2nd year...all things would be on schedule. If OKC wins? A new dynasty is born right in front of our eyes. The pressure would weigh heavy on Miami. Dfish has 6 rings. The Western Conference would be worried sick.
What I noticed in Game 1? The match ups are favoring OKC. Why is Battier guarding Durant so much? Miami will lose if Battier guards Durant the majority of the time. He is too slow, too short, and can do nothing to disrupt the guy. The only time Miami was actually winning the game was when Battier and Chalmers were hitting 3s at a 50% clip. I don't see it continuing for a full game, much less the series.
Wade and James played well, although James didn't shoot well. I imagine that'll change at home a little bit. Bosh concerns me. The guy is probably injured and wasn't getting into the tussle when Miami needed to get rebounds and loose balls. OKC beat them at the 50/50 balls tonight.
I don't like the Westbrook-Wade match up if I'm Miami. Wade played well tonight, but given his performances during the playoffs, Westbrook is going to be too athletic for him, I think. Still, Wade can probably play him to a draw for at least 4 games and outplay him in 1 or 2.
How can Miami win? James can have a monster game (1 or 2). Wade can have a monster game (1, if lucky). Bosh can go for 20/10 (1, if lucky). Or the other players, Battier, Chalmers, Haslem whoever can put together a full game like they played in the 1st quarter (1, if lucky). Don't know if it'll happen before OKC wins 4.
I'm very happy if I'm OKC. They didn't even get much from Harden tonight and they still won handily (especially considering the 1st quarter deficit). I was wary last year of the Westbrook-Durant combo. They looked off sync and like Westbrook didn't get it...I've totally come around. I think they work great together now. Durant is a smoother, more confident outside shooter than before and this opens up lots of lanes for Westbrook to use his slashing ability and strength to get to the basket. Plus, Westbrook improved his jumper and is making better overall decisions.
My favorite moments of the game - James takes Durant off the dribble one point, driving right past him all the way to the hoop and scores and gets fouled. There was a shot of Durant shaking his head that was like - holy shit - that dude is a beast. My other two favorite moments of the game were when James blocked out a guy so well, the rebound hit the ground and another time he blocked someone out from under the basket and pushed them all the way back to the free throw line.
LeBron, I think, is the best all around basketball player I've ever seen. I suppose he doesn't have the scoring chops and hasn't yet displayed the mental fortitude of great champions, but if I'm playing 5 on 5 and I get first pick and there's LeBron, Jordan, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, all the great players I've seen play...man...I think I'm taking LeBron 1st. Is that ridiculous?
I have no predictions, but after seeing them play, it looked like OKC has the match up advantages. If I'm Miami I consider trying something else - LeBron on Durant more, or even LeBron on Westbrook. I don't know. LeBron was working super hard for his points tonight and OKC has to be happy with that. They can throw Durant on him and taunt him to make outside shot or Sefologia (sp?) if they want to buckle down. Good options.
More on Plunging Wealth
American have as much wealth today as in 1990. Talk about stagnation!
Man, these geniuses like the Clintons, Greenspan, Bernanke really got some explaining to do.
American have as much wealth today as in 1990. Talk about stagnation!
Man, these geniuses like the Clintons, Greenspan, Bernanke really got some explaining to do.
Tough Call
Sometimes I like to think I wouldn't prostitute myself out. But $110 million? A lot of scrilla.
Sometimes I like to think I wouldn't prostitute myself out. But $110 million? A lot of scrilla.
The Everything Bagel
Listening to Good Food the other day on NPR and some famous restaurateur claimed he invented the everything bagel as a teenager. He worked at a bagel shop and would do all the sprinkling of poppy seed, onion, garlic, etc onto the bagels, but about 75% of the sprinkle stuff was wasted in the pan below. So in an attempt at thrift, he used the throwaway mix to make an "everything" bagel. It is my favorite bagel. I like stories like this.
Listening to Good Food the other day on NPR and some famous restaurateur claimed he invented the everything bagel as a teenager. He worked at a bagel shop and would do all the sprinkling of poppy seed, onion, garlic, etc onto the bagels, but about 75% of the sprinkle stuff was wasted in the pan below. So in an attempt at thrift, he used the throwaway mix to make an "everything" bagel. It is my favorite bagel. I like stories like this.
Logging
Film: Snow White and the Huntsman
See the problem with choosing style over substance, idea over story, and hip trends over the timeless truth's is you end up with films like this. I suppose it isn't that bad...but it's one of those films when you leave the theater, you just feel eehhh.
And the style and world feels like a simple Game of Thrones rip off, without nearly the complexity of character. My favorite parts were seeing the CGI Dwarves played by Ian McShane, Bob Hoskins, Ray Winstone, and a host of other cool aging British vets. Their improv was the best dialog written in the movie.
Ultimately, this will make a lot of money and I imagine be quite forgettable, like many of the movies of the summer.
Film: Snow White and the Huntsman
See the problem with choosing style over substance, idea over story, and hip trends over the timeless truth's is you end up with films like this. I suppose it isn't that bad...but it's one of those films when you leave the theater, you just feel eehhh.
And the style and world feels like a simple Game of Thrones rip off, without nearly the complexity of character. My favorite parts were seeing the CGI Dwarves played by Ian McShane, Bob Hoskins, Ray Winstone, and a host of other cool aging British vets. Their improv was the best dialog written in the movie.
Ultimately, this will make a lot of money and I imagine be quite forgettable, like many of the movies of the summer.
Monday, June 11, 2012
How Did I Stumble Upon This?
An weird interview with David Foster Wallace and Charlie Rose from 1997. Oh, I know, I was reading about David Webb Peoples and DFW says in this interview when Charlie asks him about writing screenplays, he said it didn't really interest him unless he could do it like Peoples. Anyhow, I like this little bit about what DFW will do after getting a fellowship for a year:
An weird interview with David Foster Wallace and Charlie Rose from 1997. Oh, I know, I was reading about David Webb Peoples and DFW says in this interview when Charlie asks him about writing screenplays, he said it didn't really interest him unless he could do it like Peoples. Anyhow, I like this little bit about what DFW will do after getting a fellowship for a year:
I will -- if past -- if past experience holds true, I will probably write an hour a day and spend eight hours a day biting my knuckle and worrying about not writing.Nice to know he suffers like the rest of us. Although I guess it doesn't totally bode well because he later killed himself, too.
Euro 2012: England 1, France 1 / Netherlands 0, Denmark 1
Many of these games I unfortunately won't be able to watch live due to work and not wanting to be a total jerk off.
I watched the first half of each of these games. Both scores remained the same. Netherlands looked to be the better team, but missed opportunities and were a bit soft in the back. Denmark played smart. Netherlands, I hope will make it through, because their front 5 guys are fun to watch play.
France has some skilled players in the front - Nasri, Ribery, and a few other guys, but they all seem in the same mold - small, flair players. It looks to me like they could use a stronger presence up front - a Gomez, or a Rooney, or a Zidane. It works for Spain because they have 8 guys like this, but if you only have 3, you can't play the style of Spain and wear the opponent down.
I love Welbeck for England. Guy has some superior athletic ability. Not rooting for England like I have in the past. Getting tired of the Gerrard, Terry, Lampard group and their general tightening up on the big stage.
Many of these games I unfortunately won't be able to watch live due to work and not wanting to be a total jerk off.
I watched the first half of each of these games. Both scores remained the same. Netherlands looked to be the better team, but missed opportunities and were a bit soft in the back. Denmark played smart. Netherlands, I hope will make it through, because their front 5 guys are fun to watch play.
France has some skilled players in the front - Nasri, Ribery, and a few other guys, but they all seem in the same mold - small, flair players. It looks to me like they could use a stronger presence up front - a Gomez, or a Rooney, or a Zidane. It works for Spain because they have 8 guys like this, but if you only have 3, you can't play the style of Spain and wear the opponent down.
I love Welbeck for England. Guy has some superior athletic ability. Not rooting for England like I have in the past. Getting tired of the Gerrard, Terry, Lampard group and their general tightening up on the big stage.
Logging
Film: Prometheus
Do the screenwriters get paid half their salary if only half the movie makes any sense? Should customers get 50% of the ticket price back? What happened? This movie made about as much sense as Tree of Life.
To dismiss it, however, would be a bit too easy. There was some super cool visual shit and actually found the 3D to be used really well. Something about the dark palette, the big exteriors, and cave stuff (Ridley smartly used Cave of Forgotten Dreams as a template more than Avatar). I can't say I regret seeing the movie, but was among the many in the theater trying to piece together w-t-f the story was and what the characters were trying to accomplish. I'll need to go re-watch the original just to remember how simple storytelling works so much better.
UPDATE: Here is a really accurate review summing up the problems nicely.
Film: Prometheus
Do the screenwriters get paid half their salary if only half the movie makes any sense? Should customers get 50% of the ticket price back? What happened? This movie made about as much sense as Tree of Life.
To dismiss it, however, would be a bit too easy. There was some super cool visual shit and actually found the 3D to be used really well. Something about the dark palette, the big exteriors, and cave stuff (Ridley smartly used Cave of Forgotten Dreams as a template more than Avatar). I can't say I regret seeing the movie, but was among the many in the theater trying to piece together w-t-f the story was and what the characters were trying to accomplish. I'll need to go re-watch the original just to remember how simple storytelling works so much better.
UPDATE: Here is a really accurate review summing up the problems nicely.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Euro Report: Italy 1, Spain 1
Spain played lackluster and Italy took advantage. Spain did not attack enough, even though their side is the more talented. They possessed, but did not dominate with possession. Italy, as can be expected, had tight defense in the box. Torres could have scored several goals in the end to notch a victory, but Italy too, had some opportunities. Overall, a very fun game to watch, I thought. Spain looked a little slow at times - Italy seemed to beat them to the ball on 50/50s.
Buffon made a very clever 1 on 1 stop against Torres, where he just guessed Torres would try and dribble him right and was correct. I'm sure neither team is too disappointed, as they both will still have the opportunity to advance to the next round.
Spain played lackluster and Italy took advantage. Spain did not attack enough, even though their side is the more talented. They possessed, but did not dominate with possession. Italy, as can be expected, had tight defense in the box. Torres could have scored several goals in the end to notch a victory, but Italy too, had some opportunities. Overall, a very fun game to watch, I thought. Spain looked a little slow at times - Italy seemed to beat them to the ball on 50/50s.
Buffon made a very clever 1 on 1 stop against Torres, where he just guessed Torres would try and dribble him right and was correct. I'm sure neither team is too disappointed, as they both will still have the opportunity to advance to the next round.
Saturday, June 09, 2012
Euro Report: Germany 1, Portugal 0
Not a terribly exciting or well played game. I was thinking this German team might pose the greatest threat to Spain - young, skilled, dangerous - and they still might. But I was unimpressed with their overall attack and especially with Gomez until he scored the goal. It was a nice header. They got the result. Ronaldo is fun to watch and root against. Kobe fans would love Ronaldo. He's like Kobe, but better. When he was getting the ball around the box, 3 German were guarding him. And he made some plays. There were several balls he played to his teammates who could have finished. And like Kobe, you can tell he is eternally disappointed by his teammates failures.
Ozil is my favorite player to watch. He is so smooth and plays these balls that are works of art.
Not a terribly exciting or well played game. I was thinking this German team might pose the greatest threat to Spain - young, skilled, dangerous - and they still might. But I was unimpressed with their overall attack and especially with Gomez until he scored the goal. It was a nice header. They got the result. Ronaldo is fun to watch and root against. Kobe fans would love Ronaldo. He's like Kobe, but better. When he was getting the ball around the box, 3 German were guarding him. And he made some plays. There were several balls he played to his teammates who could have finished. And like Kobe, you can tell he is eternally disappointed by his teammates failures.
Ozil is my favorite player to watch. He is so smooth and plays these balls that are works of art.
Minority Studies
The trap of minority studies.
The trap of minority studies.
as they walked through the school gates they were not met by people intent on luring them into Irish or Italian Studies programs whose purpose was to keep them in a state of permanent resentment over past wrongs at the hands of either Europeans or establishment America. Instead, they could give their full attention to learning. They took courses that informed them about their new land’s folkways and history, which gave them both the ability and the confidence needed to grasp the opportunities it offered them.Then again, didn't Obama major in something like this?
Friday, June 08, 2012
The Canary
Porn is sort of the canary in the coal mine for entertainment and apparently the internet is killing the porn star.
Porn is sort of the canary in the coal mine for entertainment and apparently the internet is killing the porn star.
It’s an open secret in the porn world that many female performers are supplementing their income by “hooking on the side”…For many female performers nowadays, the movies are merely a sideline, a kind of advertising for their real business of prostitution.Not exactly encouraging for the screenwriter who does not have as marketable skill set.
Vacation
Americans need to take more vacation.
I agree. I've never been impressed by the output of people who work ungodly hours. And technology isn't helping.
Americans need to take more vacation.
I agree. I've never been impressed by the output of people who work ungodly hours. And technology isn't helping.
Logging
Book: The Lonely Men by Louis L'Amour
I became interested in this writer during my trip to North Carolina. In a pawn shop there was a box with literally hundreds of used L'Amour books. I couldn't believe this guy had written so many books. Maybe it is my own ignorance, or a geographical thing, because I can't remember anyone every mentioning or talking about L'Amour books to me.
So when I got back home, I stopped by my local used book stores and bought one by the title. The titles are great. They all like "Law of the Desert is Born," "May There be a Road, "The Lonely Men," "Ride the Dark Trail," this kind of stuff.
He is not a good writer. As much as I wanted to enjoy a book about men on a mission titled "The Lonely Men," I had to stop reading. I mean, there isn't much of a point. Larry McMurtry blows the guy out of the water and after reading the entire Lonesome Dove series, it's tough to go to something like this and get much enjoyment out of it.
Book: The Lonely Men by Louis L'Amour
I became interested in this writer during my trip to North Carolina. In a pawn shop there was a box with literally hundreds of used L'Amour books. I couldn't believe this guy had written so many books. Maybe it is my own ignorance, or a geographical thing, because I can't remember anyone every mentioning or talking about L'Amour books to me.
So when I got back home, I stopped by my local used book stores and bought one by the title. The titles are great. They all like "Law of the Desert is Born," "May There be a Road, "The Lonely Men," "Ride the Dark Trail," this kind of stuff.
He is not a good writer. As much as I wanted to enjoy a book about men on a mission titled "The Lonely Men," I had to stop reading. I mean, there isn't much of a point. Larry McMurtry blows the guy out of the water and after reading the entire Lonesome Dove series, it's tough to go to something like this and get much enjoyment out of it.
I Support Quitting
In the case of Eastern European soccer fans yelling racist taunts.
The players should walk off the field if this occurs. The tribalism and racism in soccer refuses to die. It's not like we recently crossed the color barrier or something in the sport and fans need to come around. This is the resurfacing of ugly, reactionary impulses, and in the recent past was used as inspiration to genocide in Yugoslavia. Especially in Europe right now, where the economic collapse is threatening social stability, there should be zero tolerance for this type of extreme behavior, especially in a publicly accepted forum. If fans cannot regulate the "few bad apples" and instead become hotbeds of racism, the players should walk off the field together.
I'm reading In The Garden of Beasts. It is about Nazi Germany during the period of 1933-1934. The behavior of ordinary German's is so repulsive and disgusting, it literally makes me dislike German people of today -- that in their blood -- they could accept such day to day petty meanness. Many American individuals in Germany at the time were beaten up by "bad apples" when they refused to heil hitler. They said they were rouge young punks or overzealous storm troopers. Any attempt at finding justice was laughed off and spun and dismissed. Slowly, the Americans who refused to heil would leave Germany, the ones who begrudgingly did it, stayed. Small things. Everyone knows the rest of the story.
In the case of Eastern European soccer fans yelling racist taunts.
The players should walk off the field if this occurs. The tribalism and racism in soccer refuses to die. It's not like we recently crossed the color barrier or something in the sport and fans need to come around. This is the resurfacing of ugly, reactionary impulses, and in the recent past was used as inspiration to genocide in Yugoslavia. Especially in Europe right now, where the economic collapse is threatening social stability, there should be zero tolerance for this type of extreme behavior, especially in a publicly accepted forum. If fans cannot regulate the "few bad apples" and instead become hotbeds of racism, the players should walk off the field together.
I'm reading In The Garden of Beasts. It is about Nazi Germany during the period of 1933-1934. The behavior of ordinary German's is so repulsive and disgusting, it literally makes me dislike German people of today -- that in their blood -- they could accept such day to day petty meanness. Many American individuals in Germany at the time were beaten up by "bad apples" when they refused to heil hitler. They said they were rouge young punks or overzealous storm troopers. Any attempt at finding justice was laughed off and spun and dismissed. Slowly, the Americans who refused to heil would leave Germany, the ones who begrudgingly did it, stayed. Small things. Everyone knows the rest of the story.
Thursday, June 07, 2012
Logging
Book: The Catcher in the Rye
Haven't read since high school. Fun, easy read. More is made of this book than is probably warranted, but I suppose American culture needs something to hang our hat on, and there are worse choices. My favorite quote in the book is a quote within the book "The mark of an immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants live humbly for one." And then the pervert who says it makes a weird move on Holden. Not bad stuff.
Book: The Catcher in the Rye
Haven't read since high school. Fun, easy read. More is made of this book than is probably warranted, but I suppose American culture needs something to hang our hat on, and there are worse choices. My favorite quote in the book is a quote within the book "The mark of an immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants live humbly for one." And then the pervert who says it makes a weird move on Holden. Not bad stuff.
OKC Is Good, Really Good
Durant is as good or better as expected. Harden is just a straight baller, clutch, ballsy, good decision maker, easily the best 6 man in the world. Westbrook is still a wildcard, but less so than in previous years.
They plowed by the Spurs and the Spurs were no joke. They weren't athletic, but they were good. It seems like they may have peaked a tad early. Or, another way to look at it, they played a super weakened Clippers team and an inferior Utah team which made them look better than they were. But still, in those first two games, they were working the Thunder. But the Thunder are so good, they improved right before our eyes during the series.
Funny tid bit on Inside the NBA last night - Barkley mentioned all the teams who were hesitant about drafting Durant because he could bench press only 125lbs during his workout were now regretting it. Durant had a funny retort "basketball don't weight that much." True dat.
Durant is as good or better as expected. Harden is just a straight baller, clutch, ballsy, good decision maker, easily the best 6 man in the world. Westbrook is still a wildcard, but less so than in previous years.
They plowed by the Spurs and the Spurs were no joke. They weren't athletic, but they were good. It seems like they may have peaked a tad early. Or, another way to look at it, they played a super weakened Clippers team and an inferior Utah team which made them look better than they were. But still, in those first two games, they were working the Thunder. But the Thunder are so good, they improved right before our eyes during the series.
Funny tid bit on Inside the NBA last night - Barkley mentioned all the teams who were hesitant about drafting Durant because he could bench press only 125lbs during his workout were now regretting it. Durant had a funny retort "basketball don't weight that much." True dat.
Fresh Air Podcast Re: Canne
Excellent podcast about Canne, but also about movies in general, how critics are feeling, what Canne represents in the world of cinema, and how a disappointing year can still be invigorating.
Excellent podcast about Canne, but also about movies in general, how critics are feeling, what Canne represents in the world of cinema, and how a disappointing year can still be invigorating.
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
Money Quote From Gladwell-Simmons
On Kobe:
On Kobe:
Kobe's ideal teammate is a ball boy.Best thing Gladwell's ever written. And that's saying a lot.
KG
I'd watch a reality show of this guy.
I'd watch a reality show of this guy.
Asked what fuels him, Garnett said: "The competition, the naysayers, the owners who talk too much. The people who don't think a 36-year-old can do what I do. I take a lot of pride in my craft, I work really hard at my craft everyday, and I'm a true professional.""Go to bed boo-boo."
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
Bloomberg
A response to his burger and fry/fat people tax.
He might as well tax poor people to discourage poverty while he's at it.
A response to his burger and fry/fat people tax.
He might as well tax poor people to discourage poverty while he's at it.
Good Point
Do women have the right to expect chivalry from men? Instapundit says:
Do women have the right to expect chivalry from men? Instapundit says:
Chivalry, after all, was a system that involved expected behavior from women, too.
No There There
Facebook's unpopularity grows because of it's stock price drop.
Facebook's unpopularity grows because of it's stock price drop.
The oddest result to come out of the poll, although it may be the most telling, is that nearly half of the respondents now have less favorable opinion of Facebook than they used to simply because the IPO has been such a disappointment. Even thought the declining share price and frustrating technical troubles had zero affect on most Americans (or even the average investor) simply giving off the impression of a bumbling, unpopular company can change the customer's perception of it.I suppose that can happen when your business is perception/religion/way of life, as opposed to a product.
Monday, June 04, 2012
Logging
TV: Game of Thrones Season 2 Finale
I didn't care for the zombies - the magic elements are not for me. One of the reasons I liked Season 1 so much was the lack of supernatural crap. But I'm still incredibly excited about all the character stuff. I went back last night and watched some season 1 scenes. Some lingering questions from way back when:
1. What happened to Barristan Selmy - supposedly one of the best knights in the kingdom - the guy who Joffery fired and tried to pay off, who rejected the offer and tossed off all his gear and left?
2. What happened to Ned Stark's man who he sent after Gregor Clegane in Season 1? This, remember, was one of the reason Stark was short on muscle when all the shit goes down.
3. What is Varys the Spider up to? I just re-watched the scene when Arya overhears him talking to a "foreigner" about Danerys and Drogo and seemingly plotting the return of the Targaryens. Is that is overall goal? Why?
I particularly liked the detail about the King of Quarth having nothing in his safe. Good choice.
I want to see another Tywin/Tyrion scene. What is Tywin's deal? What does he want? Does he know about Jamie and Cersi? He must - and that is strange.
I went back and watched for when Bron was introduced in season 1 because I only remembered him from when he kills the knight and frees Tyrion. But he was introduced in the bar when Catlyn Stark takes Tyrion hostage - he is the one who offers up Tyrion his room for money and then he goes along with them on the road.
TV: Game of Thrones Season 2 Finale
I didn't care for the zombies - the magic elements are not for me. One of the reasons I liked Season 1 so much was the lack of supernatural crap. But I'm still incredibly excited about all the character stuff. I went back last night and watched some season 1 scenes. Some lingering questions from way back when:
1. What happened to Barristan Selmy - supposedly one of the best knights in the kingdom - the guy who Joffery fired and tried to pay off, who rejected the offer and tossed off all his gear and left?
2. What happened to Ned Stark's man who he sent after Gregor Clegane in Season 1? This, remember, was one of the reason Stark was short on muscle when all the shit goes down.
3. What is Varys the Spider up to? I just re-watched the scene when Arya overhears him talking to a "foreigner" about Danerys and Drogo and seemingly plotting the return of the Targaryens. Is that is overall goal? Why?
I particularly liked the detail about the King of Quarth having nothing in his safe. Good choice.
I want to see another Tywin/Tyrion scene. What is Tywin's deal? What does he want? Does he know about Jamie and Cersi? He must - and that is strange.
I went back and watched for when Bron was introduced in season 1 because I only remembered him from when he kills the knight and frees Tyrion. But he was introduced in the bar when Catlyn Stark takes Tyrion hostage - he is the one who offers up Tyrion his room for money and then he goes along with them on the road.
Very Interesting
On why quitters win.
On why quitters win.
At the heart of strategic thinking is the ability to focus on one strategy while consciously quitting the pursuit of others. Choosing what we want to do is easy. It's choosing what else we want to do that we are nonetheless going to quit doing that is the hard part—to build the school by stripping funding from the hospital; to develop this product while shutting down production of that one. As David Packard (of Hewlett-Packard fame) once said “more companies die from overeating than starvation.” The same truth applies to our careers and personal lives.I also particularly like their observation about RSVPing:
University of Michigan psychologist Georges Potworowski has discovered that people who score low on many of these same traits are also more prone to indecisiveness. For example, let’s imagine your friend Paul is having a party. Paul’s more indecisive friends (not you, of course) probably won’t RSVP because they are afraid that the second they respond “yes,” Peter or Mary will announce an even cooler party on the same day (the horror!). But they don’t want to respond “no” either, since Paul’s party might turn out to be the cat’s meow after all. But really, who cares? Although failing to RSVP like I often do might send extra conscientious people like my wife to an early grave due to unmitigated frustration, in the grand scheme of things it isn’t a big deal, is it? No, if all we are talking about is a cocktail party with unconditionally loving friends. But the inability to make what Harvard ethics professor, Joseph Badaracco calls “right vs. right” decisions can be a fatal strategic flaw. An otherwise talented manager who can’t bring himself to focus on one customer segment at the expense of others (but what if they want to buy, too!?!) winds up taking his team in circles, and his career into a rut.
Sunday, June 03, 2012
Twilight
Not the vampire books, but of Western civilization. Pretty glum.
Not the vampire books, but of Western civilization. Pretty glum.
That’s to say, the unsustainable “bubble” is not student debt or subprime mortgages or anything else. The bubble is us, and the assumptions of entitlement. Too many citizens of advanced Western democracies live a life they have not earned, and are not willing to earn.
Logging
TV Movie: Game Change
By no means great, I still kind of enjoyed it. It was a total Sarah Palin hit job, I mean they really try to make her look bad. But do they? Among the things she is accused of not knowing: What the Fed is; a single Supreme Court case; Who fought in World War 2; whether Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11. These were the bad-dum-de-dum moments of the movie when we were supposed to be like "holy fucking shit, can you believe someone this stupid was almost the Vice President of the United States?"
But let's think about the assumptions underlying this premise. Is a vital qualification of being President or Vice President the equivalent of scoring well on an AP Government test? It would seem so -- after all everyone watching HBO and all the political operatives that populate the movie are just so-fucking-smart, I'm sure they all could beat Sarah Palin at trivial pursuit and if they studied really hard, could brush up on their American government knowledge. So what happens when all these geniuses run the country? Only the biggest recession since the Great Depression. Only the 9/11 attacks. Only the war in Iraq and going back a little further, the war in Vietnam. The decade long war in Afghanistan with no clear victory in sight. The Pakistani's making nuclear weapons and housing Bin Laden. The North Koreans developing nukes. The Iranians trying to. Only the stock market turning into a massive pyramid scheme. Only student loan debt crippling the next generation of young Americans. Only the housing market bubble. And all of this without a single internal rival, a single existential threat, and our economy and military being by far the biggest on the entire planet.
I think a lot of Americans are confused by things. I think they think to themselves - I'm not the brightest person in the world, but it sure seems like these quick thinking fast talkers like Hillary Clinton and Lawrence Summers and Barack Obama, and all their ivy league folks with their AP test scores and advanced degrees - they really must know what they are doing. They are the folks who ought to run the country. And so they let them and then what happens? All the connected people get rich and get a golden parachute when they screw up. And all the stupid, public school, unconnected regular folks who just try to mind their own business and be good citizens and gets their kids through school and pay their mortgage get their 401ks ravaged, they can't afford college, they get stagnant wages at work, their send their kids to war, and so they get frustrated and think - maybe they're getting bamboozled. They can't quite put their fingers on it, or how, but they see what clothes these people wear, how they talk about the world, and how their concerns don't seem to be the same. These people don't spend their time memorizing who the President of Georgia is, or how the Fed's quantitative easing works, or the history of Ayman Al Zawahiri. They know their saving accounts get no interest, they know Putin looks and acts like a thug, and they know some nutjobs from halfway across the world flew planes into the World Trade Center.
It doesn't surprise me someone like Palin holds a folksy appeal. And look, I'm not defending her idiocy. I'm not fan of idiots and I don't think she knows very much. But I would like to point out, these other folks - the alternatives - the Hillary Clintons and Lawrence Summers and all these "the best and the brightest" -- they don't really know all that much either. Sure, they know Marbury vs. Madison and Brown vs. the Board of Education. They know the different between Arabs and Persians (maybe). They might even know some interesting stuff in history about the Mexican-American war, or the how the Bank of the United States was formed, or details of Sherman's march through the South. But they don't know as much as they'd like us all to think they know. They don't know how to fix the economy. They don't know how to win the wars we're in. They don't know how to stop the crazies from getting nukes and they don't know how the middle class can be strong and confident again and where the jobs will come from.
And so where do they get this smug confidence? Where do they get the presumption that they - and people with similar backgrounds to they - should be the ones to rule? Where does it say the people who score the best on AP Tests are the best decision makers? The most fair? The most just? The most wise? Why is so supposed to be so pathetic that Palin manages to simply remember her lines for the debate - as opposed to memorizing the the different schools of thought in American foreign policy or memorizing entire dissenting opinions written by Felix Frankfurter?
As to the movie - Ed Harris was very good as John McCain.
TV Movie: Game Change
By no means great, I still kind of enjoyed it. It was a total Sarah Palin hit job, I mean they really try to make her look bad. But do they? Among the things she is accused of not knowing: What the Fed is; a single Supreme Court case; Who fought in World War 2; whether Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11. These were the bad-dum-de-dum moments of the movie when we were supposed to be like "holy fucking shit, can you believe someone this stupid was almost the Vice President of the United States?"
But let's think about the assumptions underlying this premise. Is a vital qualification of being President or Vice President the equivalent of scoring well on an AP Government test? It would seem so -- after all everyone watching HBO and all the political operatives that populate the movie are just so-fucking-smart, I'm sure they all could beat Sarah Palin at trivial pursuit and if they studied really hard, could brush up on their American government knowledge. So what happens when all these geniuses run the country? Only the biggest recession since the Great Depression. Only the 9/11 attacks. Only the war in Iraq and going back a little further, the war in Vietnam. The decade long war in Afghanistan with no clear victory in sight. The Pakistani's making nuclear weapons and housing Bin Laden. The North Koreans developing nukes. The Iranians trying to. Only the stock market turning into a massive pyramid scheme. Only student loan debt crippling the next generation of young Americans. Only the housing market bubble. And all of this without a single internal rival, a single existential threat, and our economy and military being by far the biggest on the entire planet.
I think a lot of Americans are confused by things. I think they think to themselves - I'm not the brightest person in the world, but it sure seems like these quick thinking fast talkers like Hillary Clinton and Lawrence Summers and Barack Obama, and all their ivy league folks with their AP test scores and advanced degrees - they really must know what they are doing. They are the folks who ought to run the country. And so they let them and then what happens? All the connected people get rich and get a golden parachute when they screw up. And all the stupid, public school, unconnected regular folks who just try to mind their own business and be good citizens and gets their kids through school and pay their mortgage get their 401ks ravaged, they can't afford college, they get stagnant wages at work, their send their kids to war, and so they get frustrated and think - maybe they're getting bamboozled. They can't quite put their fingers on it, or how, but they see what clothes these people wear, how they talk about the world, and how their concerns don't seem to be the same. These people don't spend their time memorizing who the President of Georgia is, or how the Fed's quantitative easing works, or the history of Ayman Al Zawahiri. They know their saving accounts get no interest, they know Putin looks and acts like a thug, and they know some nutjobs from halfway across the world flew planes into the World Trade Center.
It doesn't surprise me someone like Palin holds a folksy appeal. And look, I'm not defending her idiocy. I'm not fan of idiots and I don't think she knows very much. But I would like to point out, these other folks - the alternatives - the Hillary Clintons and Lawrence Summers and all these "the best and the brightest" -- they don't really know all that much either. Sure, they know Marbury vs. Madison and Brown vs. the Board of Education. They know the different between Arabs and Persians (maybe). They might even know some interesting stuff in history about the Mexican-American war, or the how the Bank of the United States was formed, or details of Sherman's march through the South. But they don't know as much as they'd like us all to think they know. They don't know how to fix the economy. They don't know how to win the wars we're in. They don't know how to stop the crazies from getting nukes and they don't know how the middle class can be strong and confident again and where the jobs will come from.
And so where do they get this smug confidence? Where do they get the presumption that they - and people with similar backgrounds to they - should be the ones to rule? Where does it say the people who score the best on AP Tests are the best decision makers? The most fair? The most just? The most wise? Why is so supposed to be so pathetic that Palin manages to simply remember her lines for the debate - as opposed to memorizing the the different schools of thought in American foreign policy or memorizing entire dissenting opinions written by Felix Frankfurter?
As to the movie - Ed Harris was very good as John McCain.
Saturday, June 02, 2012
Kobe - A Retort
Many people still think Kobe Bryant is the best player in basketball. But let's do a little thought experiment. Of the teams left, ie the best four teams in the league (basically), what would Kobe do in lieu of their top player(s)?
Miami. It should be obvious, if Kobe and LeBron swapped positions in Miami, the Heat would not be as good as presently constructed. Therefore, LeBron is a better and more valuable player than Kobe. If you applied the vice versa and imagined the Lakers with LeBron instead of Kobe? NBA champs, no question.
A more interesting question - imagine Miami with Kobe rather than Wade. Or the Lakers with Wade rather than Kobe. To be honest, I think it is basically a toss up. Therefore, Wade and Kobe are about of equal value. Wade is younger, but Kobe is healthier.
Boston. Imagine Kobe on Boston instead of Pierce. Are they a better team? This is actually a really tough question. Kobe is probably a better all around player than Pierce at this point, but there is something Pierce gives to Boston -- you kind of can't imagine the team without him. He is the soul. So I'm not sure they are better with Kobe. Are the Lakers better with Pierce? Let me say this - they'd probably get bounced in the second round by a team like OKC in about 5-6 games.
Kobe for Ray Allen makes Boston better. We can safely say Kobe is better than Ray-Ray. Kobe for Rondo or Garnett does not make Boston better, but that is because of position, not really skill or bball talent, so it is probably an inappropriate form of analysis...
OKC. No way Kobe makes OKC better if you swapped him for Durant. Durant on the Lakers. True Laker fans just creamed their pants. Durant is better than Kobe.
Kobe for Westbrook is actually an interesting question. Kobe is a better player today than Westbrook, but I think Westbrook fits for OKC and doesn't make them better. Another positional conundrum - it almost doesn't quite make sense.
Spurs. You wouldn't swap Kobe for Parker or Duncan at this point. It would make the Spurs worse. Kobe for Manu straight up would be interesting, but it would throw off the entire Spurs chemistry. Kobe wouldn't work there - not how he plays now. He simply would not improve their team if it required any major subtraction. Which sort of makes my point about Kobe - how he is a difficult teammate and player to build around.
So here is my conclusion. Durant and LeBron are head and shoulders above Kobe in terms of value to their team. They are the two elite players (perhaps throw in Dwight Howard when he isn't injured), who any team would take for any single player. They are blue chips. Chris Paul isn't quite there, as much as I love the guy. Because you throw in Durant, LeBron, and Dwight and your team is a threat to go to the finals. Period.
The players who their team would not obviously trade for Kobe or at the very least, it would be about a wash: Pierce, Wade, Westbrook, Parker, Duncan, Ginobli
Therefore, I put Kobe in terms of NBA value in this second group and clearly not in the first group. But of all the second group guys, the only one who gets continually put in the first group is Kobe. Duncan belonged in the first group for many years, but the guy is 36 for chrissake.
Many people still think Kobe Bryant is the best player in basketball. But let's do a little thought experiment. Of the teams left, ie the best four teams in the league (basically), what would Kobe do in lieu of their top player(s)?
Miami. It should be obvious, if Kobe and LeBron swapped positions in Miami, the Heat would not be as good as presently constructed. Therefore, LeBron is a better and more valuable player than Kobe. If you applied the vice versa and imagined the Lakers with LeBron instead of Kobe? NBA champs, no question.
A more interesting question - imagine Miami with Kobe rather than Wade. Or the Lakers with Wade rather than Kobe. To be honest, I think it is basically a toss up. Therefore, Wade and Kobe are about of equal value. Wade is younger, but Kobe is healthier.
Boston. Imagine Kobe on Boston instead of Pierce. Are they a better team? This is actually a really tough question. Kobe is probably a better all around player than Pierce at this point, but there is something Pierce gives to Boston -- you kind of can't imagine the team without him. He is the soul. So I'm not sure they are better with Kobe. Are the Lakers better with Pierce? Let me say this - they'd probably get bounced in the second round by a team like OKC in about 5-6 games.
Kobe for Ray Allen makes Boston better. We can safely say Kobe is better than Ray-Ray. Kobe for Rondo or Garnett does not make Boston better, but that is because of position, not really skill or bball talent, so it is probably an inappropriate form of analysis...
OKC. No way Kobe makes OKC better if you swapped him for Durant. Durant on the Lakers. True Laker fans just creamed their pants. Durant is better than Kobe.
Kobe for Westbrook is actually an interesting question. Kobe is a better player today than Westbrook, but I think Westbrook fits for OKC and doesn't make them better. Another positional conundrum - it almost doesn't quite make sense.
Spurs. You wouldn't swap Kobe for Parker or Duncan at this point. It would make the Spurs worse. Kobe for Manu straight up would be interesting, but it would throw off the entire Spurs chemistry. Kobe wouldn't work there - not how he plays now. He simply would not improve their team if it required any major subtraction. Which sort of makes my point about Kobe - how he is a difficult teammate and player to build around.
So here is my conclusion. Durant and LeBron are head and shoulders above Kobe in terms of value to their team. They are the two elite players (perhaps throw in Dwight Howard when he isn't injured), who any team would take for any single player. They are blue chips. Chris Paul isn't quite there, as much as I love the guy. Because you throw in Durant, LeBron, and Dwight and your team is a threat to go to the finals. Period.
The players who their team would not obviously trade for Kobe or at the very least, it would be about a wash: Pierce, Wade, Westbrook, Parker, Duncan, Ginobli
Therefore, I put Kobe in terms of NBA value in this second group and clearly not in the first group. But of all the second group guys, the only one who gets continually put in the first group is Kobe. Duncan belonged in the first group for many years, but the guy is 36 for chrissake.
Friday, June 01, 2012
Garnett Matters
In today's game the Celtics are +27 when he is in the game.
Note: Another one of those incredible Rondo plays in the 3rd quarter. James is trying to start a break, has a wide open Wade streaking down the court. Rondo is really the last man back, he glances over his shoulder and sees Wade's angle and just guesses the moment James will try and lead him and steps right into the passing lane and makes the steal. A really incredible play.
In today's game the Celtics are +27 when he is in the game.
Note: Another one of those incredible Rondo plays in the 3rd quarter. James is trying to start a break, has a wide open Wade streaking down the court. Rondo is really the last man back, he glances over his shoulder and sees Wade's angle and just guesses the moment James will try and lead him and steps right into the passing lane and makes the steal. A really incredible play.
Klosterman
Is it just me or is Klosterman a really douche-y writer?
Is it just me or is Klosterman a really douche-y writer?
If football's ever-rising popularity was directly tied to its ever-increasing violence, something might collapse upon itself: Either the controversy would fade over time, or it would become a terminal anchor on its expansion. But that's not how it's unfolding. These two worlds will never collide. They'll just continue to intensify, each in its own vacuum. This column can run today, or it can run in 2022. The future is the present is the future.Really? Someone at their office needs to be mocking this guy for writing shit that makes no sense.
I've Noticed
Hating on millennials.
And ps - I said this about Social Network, the movie, when it came out.
UPDATE: A video rant on the stupidity of youth and how it is unhealthy for society. I'm in the movie biz, so yeah, I've noticed.
Hating on millennials.
And ps - I said this about Social Network, the movie, when it came out.
UPDATE: A video rant on the stupidity of youth and how it is unhealthy for society. I'm in the movie biz, so yeah, I've noticed.
How To Be Happy
A short little video. His basic advice, although he doesn't put it this way, is to lower expectations. Which, incidentally, is the theme of my yet to be written movie entitled "Ugly Chicks."
A short little video. His basic advice, although he doesn't put it this way, is to lower expectations. Which, incidentally, is the theme of my yet to be written movie entitled "Ugly Chicks."
I Sympathize with Mary-Kate Olsen
She claims guys her own age are immature. They probably watch and behave like the guys in Girls - who can blame her?
She claims guys her own age are immature. They probably watch and behave like the guys in Girls - who can blame her?
Interesting Spin
Higher unemployment might reflect economic optimism.
Higher unemployment might reflect economic optimism.
Recently, the Fed attributed the nearly 1 percentage point fall in the unemployment rate since August 2011 with the decline in labor force participation. Today's news that the rate rose reflected a glimmer of positive news: More unemployed people are returning to the job hunt, suggesting economic optimism.Uhhhh...yeah...so what you're saying is...I don't even think this needs analysis. I feel like one just needs to go read Orwell again. Do these numbers and statistics have any meaning or are they all just tools to spin?
Ugly Employment Figures
See here. The other factor no one talks about is job security. I would guess at least half of the people I know, in LA at least, don't have what I would consider basic job security. That is to say, they are vulnerable for unemployment in the next 1-6 months due to job-to-job contract renewals, freelance lifestyle, companies in bad shape, or underpayment/low wages (also called underemployment).
People talk about the psychological aspects to unemployment - especially long term unemployment - it would not surprise me to find similar problems with poor job security. It makes things like buying big purchases and family planning difficult.
See here. The other factor no one talks about is job security. I would guess at least half of the people I know, in LA at least, don't have what I would consider basic job security. That is to say, they are vulnerable for unemployment in the next 1-6 months due to job-to-job contract renewals, freelance lifestyle, companies in bad shape, or underpayment/low wages (also called underemployment).
People talk about the psychological aspects to unemployment - especially long term unemployment - it would not surprise me to find similar problems with poor job security. It makes things like buying big purchases and family planning difficult.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Blowing Shit Up on Facebook
A girl arrested for blowing up toilets in the woods.
I want to hang out with this girl. But look - she's got arrested for putting shit up on Facebook. Why is anyone surprised by this? People can see it. It is evidence. Don't use Facebook for anything, must less cool shit, and much, much less illegal cool shit.
A girl arrested for blowing up toilets in the woods.
I want to hang out with this girl. But look - she's got arrested for putting shit up on Facebook. Why is anyone surprised by this? People can see it. It is evidence. Don't use Facebook for anything, must less cool shit, and much, much less illegal cool shit.
"Diversity"
A case in front of the Supreme Court about affirmative action gets a friend of the court brief from an Asian American group citing U of Texas under-admitting Asian applicants. Money quote:
A case in front of the Supreme Court about affirmative action gets a friend of the court brief from an Asian American group citing U of Texas under-admitting Asian applicants. Money quote:
To avoid misunderstanding, I should reiterate that I have some sympathy for the compensatory justice rationale for affirmative action, and do not believe that such policies are categorically unconstitutional.
I also have significant reservations about the Fisher case in particular. My general position is the exact opposite of current Supreme Court precedent, which holds that racial preferences can be used to promote “diversity” but not compensatory justice for minority groups that have been the victims of massive “societal” discrimination.
That said, many current affirmative action policies are a travesty from the standpoint of either compensatory justice or promoting diversity. The University of Texas policy is no exception.Diversity is just an end around for colleges to make their guidebook and campuses look like stylish Benetton advertisement. They are not about social justice, addressing past wrongs, or fairness. "Diversity" as presently used, is about image. The word has a purposely elusive meaning, expanding and contracting categories as institutions and government see fit.
Growing Concentration of Education
In certain cities/areas. Memo to the other places: you could attract college grads with half decent jobs and affordable housing -- find a way to drag even just medium interesting companies to your area -- people will follow. Also - hot chicks would help.
In certain cities/areas. Memo to the other places: you could attract college grads with half decent jobs and affordable housing -- find a way to drag even just medium interesting companies to your area -- people will follow. Also - hot chicks would help.
Clutch?
An analysis of last nights game and how awesome Rondo played and how quietly LeBron James puts up 34-10-7.
The more you watch LeBron, the more you can understand how unbelievable the guy is. He makes all these little tiny plays. He doesn't have a sense of "the moment" and I think that is why people get on him for not being clutch. He doesn't save himself. Kobe saves himself. Kobe doesn't take charges, doesn't play defense unless he has to, takes ample breaks, all so he can have his legs in the last 2 minutes (and he still sucks in those because he's too predictable). LeBron "wastes" his energy trying to win the game in the first 3 quarters, because in case you haven't noticed, it's easier to win a blowout than a close game. We, as spectators, like the close games because it is inherently more dramatic. As player, I wouldn't seek out close games, like Kobe does, but I would prepare for them. I don't think LeBron prepares for them. Chris Paul seems to manage it best.
I think the theory about LeBron being worn down and tired towards the end in the past two seasons makes a lot of sense. A good coach would save him a little bit. Spoelstra plays the guy 40 plus minutes for months at a time -- and this guy is big. He isn't Ray Allen who looks like he could run forever. LeBron looks like he is overused. I hope he doesn't figure it out, because if he ever does, boy it's going to be scary.
An analysis of last nights game and how awesome Rondo played and how quietly LeBron James puts up 34-10-7.
The more you watch LeBron, the more you can understand how unbelievable the guy is. He makes all these little tiny plays. He doesn't have a sense of "the moment" and I think that is why people get on him for not being clutch. He doesn't save himself. Kobe saves himself. Kobe doesn't take charges, doesn't play defense unless he has to, takes ample breaks, all so he can have his legs in the last 2 minutes (and he still sucks in those because he's too predictable). LeBron "wastes" his energy trying to win the game in the first 3 quarters, because in case you haven't noticed, it's easier to win a blowout than a close game. We, as spectators, like the close games because it is inherently more dramatic. As player, I wouldn't seek out close games, like Kobe does, but I would prepare for them. I don't think LeBron prepares for them. Chris Paul seems to manage it best.
I think the theory about LeBron being worn down and tired towards the end in the past two seasons makes a lot of sense. A good coach would save him a little bit. Spoelstra plays the guy 40 plus minutes for months at a time -- and this guy is big. He isn't Ray Allen who looks like he could run forever. LeBron looks like he is overused. I hope he doesn't figure it out, because if he ever does, boy it's going to be scary.
Less Gay Than We Think
Americans vastly overestimate how many gay people there are.
The article says this is evidence of the success of the LGBT agenda. I'd say it is evidence of identity group politics spin over-inflating the importance of their agenda. The fact is, gay marriage is given way too much importance in our national discussion for how much and how many people it actually effects.
To put in perspective, why is gay marriage considered a Civil Rights issue whereas student loan indebtedness is not? The massive student loan debt has created a form of lifelong indentured servitude impossible for a huge number of people to escape. What's worse - it is a gigantic scam perpetrated on young folks supposedly "for their own good." It is, at best, a government sponsored pyramid scheme to funnel money to colleges at the expense of students and at worst, a political scheme to make generations of young people dependent on the government for loan forgiveness (a form of servitude).
As for the practical differences between a civil union and gay marriage -- I couldn't even tell you -- other than this vague notion of "acceptance" in society. And I support gay marriage, because I don't give a shit, but not because I think it is an important civil rights issue. Likewise, I don't think it ruins the institution of marriage (certainly not more than say, divorce).
Americans vastly overestimate how many gay people there are.
The article says this is evidence of the success of the LGBT agenda. I'd say it is evidence of identity group politics spin over-inflating the importance of their agenda. The fact is, gay marriage is given way too much importance in our national discussion for how much and how many people it actually effects.
To put in perspective, why is gay marriage considered a Civil Rights issue whereas student loan indebtedness is not? The massive student loan debt has created a form of lifelong indentured servitude impossible for a huge number of people to escape. What's worse - it is a gigantic scam perpetrated on young folks supposedly "for their own good." It is, at best, a government sponsored pyramid scheme to funnel money to colleges at the expense of students and at worst, a political scheme to make generations of young people dependent on the government for loan forgiveness (a form of servitude).
As for the practical differences between a civil union and gay marriage -- I couldn't even tell you -- other than this vague notion of "acceptance" in society. And I support gay marriage, because I don't give a shit, but not because I think it is an important civil rights issue. Likewise, I don't think it ruins the institution of marriage (certainly not more than say, divorce).
Yeah, But What Do the Parents Think?
A new spin on living with your parents at 30 -- it's awesome!
The article is more evidence that the under 30 crowd is the most narcissistic group of spoiled entitled kids ever to grace the planet. They don't seem to even consider that perhaps mom and dad don't want to be footing the bill for their kids forever or that perhaps they would like to have their own space or to you know, see their kids grow up into real, self sufficient adults. Jesus. All you need to do is read the internet, watch HBO's Girls, or listen to 20-somethings talk these days and it's enough to make one want to vomit.
Of course, it isn't all their fault. The colleges ripped them off, their boomer parents spoiled them, and the economy stinks. But still. They suck.
A new spin on living with your parents at 30 -- it's awesome!
The article is more evidence that the under 30 crowd is the most narcissistic group of spoiled entitled kids ever to grace the planet. They don't seem to even consider that perhaps mom and dad don't want to be footing the bill for their kids forever or that perhaps they would like to have their own space or to you know, see their kids grow up into real, self sufficient adults. Jesus. All you need to do is read the internet, watch HBO's Girls, or listen to 20-somethings talk these days and it's enough to make one want to vomit.
Of course, it isn't all their fault. The colleges ripped them off, their boomer parents spoiled them, and the economy stinks. But still. They suck.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
If Bush Had Done This...
US President Barack Obama’s description of a Nazi German Holocaust site as a “Polish death camp” shocked Poland, whose leaders insist the record be set straight 67 years after World War II. Obama on Tuesday labeled the Nazi facility used to process Jews for extermination as a “Polish death camp.” The White House later said the president “misspoke” and expressed “regret”. The linguistic faux pas overshadowed Obama’s posthumous award of the highest US civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, to Jan Karski, a former Polish underground officer who provided early eyewitness accounts of Nazi Germany’s genocide of European Jews....it would be evidence of...something sinister and bad. Obama doing it, well, it is just a common mistake anyone could make.
She Should Go To Jail
Ex-athlete exonerated in false rape claim.
The man served 5 years in jail and another 5 under house arrest as a registered sex offender. The woman received $750,000 from the school in a settlement. She recently sent the guy a facebook request because "she wanted to get back together."
She should have to give the money back and go to jail. This is completely insane.
Ex-athlete exonerated in false rape claim.
The man served 5 years in jail and another 5 under house arrest as a registered sex offender. The woman received $750,000 from the school in a settlement. She recently sent the guy a facebook request because "she wanted to get back together."
She should have to give the money back and go to jail. This is completely insane.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
My Lord
Watched the Spurs-OKC tonight. OKC played with heart in the 4th quarter, but prior to that, the Spurs were completely molesting them. Their baskets seemed effortless while OKC was using all the energy of their young legs to get points. Harden played incredible -- and the game wasn't even close by the end.
I haven't watched the Spurs play much since they've gotten on fire -- but if tonight is any indication, this is one of the best teams I can remember in recent memory. And by the way, this is a much different style of play than back in the old Duncan days. This is a spread them out, dribble penetration, pick and roll, 3 point shooting team. They are legitimately fun to watch...easily the best passing team in the league.
Watched the Spurs-OKC tonight. OKC played with heart in the 4th quarter, but prior to that, the Spurs were completely molesting them. Their baskets seemed effortless while OKC was using all the energy of their young legs to get points. Harden played incredible -- and the game wasn't even close by the end.
I haven't watched the Spurs play much since they've gotten on fire -- but if tonight is any indication, this is one of the best teams I can remember in recent memory. And by the way, this is a much different style of play than back in the old Duncan days. This is a spread them out, dribble penetration, pick and roll, 3 point shooting team. They are legitimately fun to watch...easily the best passing team in the league.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Logging
Film: Horrible Bosses
Only watched the first act. It should be called Horrible Movie. The reason Jason Bateman still looks 26 years old is the effortless way he works. The guy treats acting the way I treat throwing a baseball around on Sunday afternoons. I bet he just memorizes lines the night before, shows up to set, does his thing, is out by 4 for his spin class, eats a nice dinner, and preps for the next day. Probably watches LA sports teams on Tivo. I can't imagine any of his takes are better or worse than any other. Guy must have one of the best lives on the planet. The guy is just going to play Michael Bluth the rest of the his life. Goddamn, what an easy life. I'm not really complimenting him or insulting him, but it is what it is. I think he likes working, having a place to go. I bet gets along with most of his co-workers. Guy is never going to pull a hamstring - he reminds me of those old dudes who play soccer - who just stand around in center mid, collecting the ball and dishing it around. They never make runs, don't play defense, just grab the ball when it is around them and make nice passes.
Film: Horrible Bosses
Only watched the first act. It should be called Horrible Movie. The reason Jason Bateman still looks 26 years old is the effortless way he works. The guy treats acting the way I treat throwing a baseball around on Sunday afternoons. I bet he just memorizes lines the night before, shows up to set, does his thing, is out by 4 for his spin class, eats a nice dinner, and preps for the next day. Probably watches LA sports teams on Tivo. I can't imagine any of his takes are better or worse than any other. Guy must have one of the best lives on the planet. The guy is just going to play Michael Bluth the rest of the his life. Goddamn, what an easy life. I'm not really complimenting him or insulting him, but it is what it is. I think he likes working, having a place to go. I bet gets along with most of his co-workers. Guy is never going to pull a hamstring - he reminds me of those old dudes who play soccer - who just stand around in center mid, collecting the ball and dishing it around. They never make runs, don't play defense, just grab the ball when it is around them and make nice passes.
Clinton Era
Just spinning off the last post...the three biggest issues of today are the economy, healthcare, and Islamic Terrorism. If we look back on the Clinton era, his administration dealt with all those issues similarly - by pushing the can down the road and leaving someone else to deal with the mess. In a time of economic prosperity, Clinton loosened regulation on the banking industry and incentivized higher risk mortgage lending, both of which propped the economy up in the short run only to cause the collapse in 2007. With respect to Islamic Terrorism, Clinton was quite passive, in retrospect, about the danger posed by Bin Laden which ultimately lead to 9/11 and the last 10 years of war fighting, which may historically be viewed as an overreaction. With respect to healthcare, Clinton didn't make any changes at the time, but tried to unsuccessfully. Healthcare costs increased and now Obama has tackled the issue.
I gave Clinton a pass on the Bin Laden thing because the American public was not fully aware of the threat he posed and were not in a war fighting mood. Of course, the job of the President and his administration to know and understand the world better than the public and to educate them about the danger. I can't give him a pass on the economic stuff, but that caused real damage and was a blatant choice. Healthcare is a boondoggle either way.
In Clinton's defense, the issues where he failed are the issues that became relevant today. Had he killed Bin Laden, perhaps 9/11 never happens and we'd never know what we avoided. But still...it the present doesn't seem to vindicate Clinton's policy choices.
Just spinning off the last post...the three biggest issues of today are the economy, healthcare, and Islamic Terrorism. If we look back on the Clinton era, his administration dealt with all those issues similarly - by pushing the can down the road and leaving someone else to deal with the mess. In a time of economic prosperity, Clinton loosened regulation on the banking industry and incentivized higher risk mortgage lending, both of which propped the economy up in the short run only to cause the collapse in 2007. With respect to Islamic Terrorism, Clinton was quite passive, in retrospect, about the danger posed by Bin Laden which ultimately lead to 9/11 and the last 10 years of war fighting, which may historically be viewed as an overreaction. With respect to healthcare, Clinton didn't make any changes at the time, but tried to unsuccessfully. Healthcare costs increased and now Obama has tackled the issue.
I gave Clinton a pass on the Bin Laden thing because the American public was not fully aware of the threat he posed and were not in a war fighting mood. Of course, the job of the President and his administration to know and understand the world better than the public and to educate them about the danger. I can't give him a pass on the economic stuff, but that caused real damage and was a blatant choice. Healthcare is a boondoggle either way.
In Clinton's defense, the issues where he failed are the issues that became relevant today. Had he killed Bin Laden, perhaps 9/11 never happens and we'd never know what we avoided. But still...it the present doesn't seem to vindicate Clinton's policy choices.
Welfare Reform
Did Clinton-era welfare reform solve problems or just obscure them from view?
Seems like a lot of Clinton era policies look worse and worse in the long term.
And an interesting bit on employment insurance and how it may cause as much as a 2% increase in unemployment because of the disincentive to work. It baffles me how many people in LA collect unemployment as a matter of course -- I don't understand who pays for it all.
Did Clinton-era welfare reform solve problems or just obscure them from view?
Seems like a lot of Clinton era policies look worse and worse in the long term.
And an interesting bit on employment insurance and how it may cause as much as a 2% increase in unemployment because of the disincentive to work. It baffles me how many people in LA collect unemployment as a matter of course -- I don't understand who pays for it all.
Logging
Non-Fiction: The Blooding by Joseph Wambaugh
True crime story about the first case ever to use DNA evidence to catch a killer in a small English village. Interesting storytelling. To talk about it would ruin a twist in the middle that was quite unique. Not that anyone is in danger of reading this book other than me, but still, for some reason don't want to publish the twist.
Non-Fiction: The Blooding by Joseph Wambaugh
True crime story about the first case ever to use DNA evidence to catch a killer in a small English village. Interesting storytelling. To talk about it would ruin a twist in the middle that was quite unique. Not that anyone is in danger of reading this book other than me, but still, for some reason don't want to publish the twist.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
So This Is Kinda Funny
Harvard University alumni, attending their 50th class reunion this week are getting updates on classmates, but one person stands out among those sharing news about career moves, retirements and grandkids — Unabomber Ted Kaczynski. Kaczynski graduated in 1962 and is locked up in the federal Supermax prison in Colorado for killing three people and injuring 23 during a nationwide bombing spree between 1978 and 1995. In an alumni directory, he lists his occupation as “prisoner” and says his awards are “Eight life sentences, issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 1998.
Logging
Film: Battleship
Saw it at a screening. Screenings are always a different experience because you don't pay for the movie and you are around people who were somehow involved with the film. So you aren't as hard on the movie, I would say, but they have this unreal quality to them, which in a way makes it harder to enjoy.
The movie is far from good. It feels like a Michael Bay rip off, actually, so if you're a superfan of Michael Bay, you actually might be a bit peeved. I'm sure they used the same special effects people as Transformers. But what the hell, I don't need to gripe about every single studio movie as if the world is coming to an end because of them. I was entertained in a few moments. The Q&A with the screenwriter afterwards was one of the best Q&A's I've ever heard - he was appropriately cynical and practical and very aware of what the movie is. He seemed to have a good time working on it and outlined pretty much why the plot was never going to make much sense -- and I'm paraphrasing him "we have aliens...who somehow are genius enough to to manage interstellar travel, but in the end, we have to beat them. So how do figure that out?" He was candid about the impossibility of it all, so they do the best they can. They're working off a board game, for crissake. And he had the attitude, of yeah, I want to work. I pitched the job because I write screenplays.
Film: Battleship
Saw it at a screening. Screenings are always a different experience because you don't pay for the movie and you are around people who were somehow involved with the film. So you aren't as hard on the movie, I would say, but they have this unreal quality to them, which in a way makes it harder to enjoy.
The movie is far from good. It feels like a Michael Bay rip off, actually, so if you're a superfan of Michael Bay, you actually might be a bit peeved. I'm sure they used the same special effects people as Transformers. But what the hell, I don't need to gripe about every single studio movie as if the world is coming to an end because of them. I was entertained in a few moments. The Q&A with the screenwriter afterwards was one of the best Q&A's I've ever heard - he was appropriately cynical and practical and very aware of what the movie is. He seemed to have a good time working on it and outlined pretty much why the plot was never going to make much sense -- and I'm paraphrasing him "we have aliens...who somehow are genius enough to to manage interstellar travel, but in the end, we have to beat them. So how do figure that out?" He was candid about the impossibility of it all, so they do the best they can. They're working off a board game, for crissake. And he had the attitude, of yeah, I want to work. I pitched the job because I write screenplays.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Logging
Film: Knight and Day
It's been a long time since I was so surprised and delighted by a film. I had heard from several people that the movie was surprisingly good, so it was on my list to see. But I never brought myself to watch it, the whole enterprise seemed a bit flaccid. The marketing campaign was a turnoff - "Cruise and Diaz" - like that would get me to got see a movie. So I turn it on during lunchtime yesterday because it was on HBO and started watching. I was laughing my ass off. The movie is a screwball comedy action film - and an incredibly well done one at that. Any fan of screwball comedy will love the first half of the movie. I paused it because believe it or not, I shouldn't just sit around and watch movies all day, and finished it up before I went to bed last night. I admit, I enjoyed the first half more than the second half, but there was still some good moments. And almost all of the best parts were these tiny throwaway lines throughout the movie like "That was weird" or "June, you've got skills." I suppose you need to see the movie to appreciate the lines, but the deadpan deliveries and timing of these moments are incredibly enjoyable.
I was planning on seeing the Avengers yesterday - this is part of my job - seeing the action movies and I just can't seem to bring myself to go to the theater. No one is talking about the Avengers anymore. I can just tell it's going to be "product." Maybe good product, but ultimately, just product. Knight and Day convinced me to watch itself versus going to see the Avengers - I was looking forward to completing the movie - and not looking forward to dragging myself to the theater to see Avengers.
In any case, I can't quite remember the last time a studio movie was such a delightful surprise. I highly recommend the movie. It would have been on my list of top 10 for last year if I had seen it. Also, if I ever teach a script analysis class, this would be on the syllabus. Really easy and clear delineation of acts and sequences - part of the charm of this movie is the awareness of the studio-ness and movie-ness of it's existence. And the casting of Cruise and Diaz with their exaggerated faces and almost dated movie-starness helps lend itself to the overall effect. Really a joy to watch. Preston Sturges would have really enjoyed this movie.
Film: Knight and Day
It's been a long time since I was so surprised and delighted by a film. I had heard from several people that the movie was surprisingly good, so it was on my list to see. But I never brought myself to watch it, the whole enterprise seemed a bit flaccid. The marketing campaign was a turnoff - "Cruise and Diaz" - like that would get me to got see a movie. So I turn it on during lunchtime yesterday because it was on HBO and started watching. I was laughing my ass off. The movie is a screwball comedy action film - and an incredibly well done one at that. Any fan of screwball comedy will love the first half of the movie. I paused it because believe it or not, I shouldn't just sit around and watch movies all day, and finished it up before I went to bed last night. I admit, I enjoyed the first half more than the second half, but there was still some good moments. And almost all of the best parts were these tiny throwaway lines throughout the movie like "That was weird" or "June, you've got skills." I suppose you need to see the movie to appreciate the lines, but the deadpan deliveries and timing of these moments are incredibly enjoyable.
I was planning on seeing the Avengers yesterday - this is part of my job - seeing the action movies and I just can't seem to bring myself to go to the theater. No one is talking about the Avengers anymore. I can just tell it's going to be "product." Maybe good product, but ultimately, just product. Knight and Day convinced me to watch itself versus going to see the Avengers - I was looking forward to completing the movie - and not looking forward to dragging myself to the theater to see Avengers.
In any case, I can't quite remember the last time a studio movie was such a delightful surprise. I highly recommend the movie. It would have been on my list of top 10 for last year if I had seen it. Also, if I ever teach a script analysis class, this would be on the syllabus. Really easy and clear delineation of acts and sequences - part of the charm of this movie is the awareness of the studio-ness and movie-ness of it's existence. And the casting of Cruise and Diaz with their exaggerated faces and almost dated movie-starness helps lend itself to the overall effect. Really a joy to watch. Preston Sturges would have really enjoyed this movie.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Good Points
Why is the American taxpayer subsidizing Harvard tuition when the institution is incredibly wealthy.
Seeing what the Federal Student loan program has done for college cost ought to make one worry about what the individual mandate will do for healthcare costs.
Why is the American taxpayer subsidizing Harvard tuition when the institution is incredibly wealthy.
Seeing what the Federal Student loan program has done for college cost ought to make one worry about what the individual mandate will do for healthcare costs.
Severe
Penn Jillette goes nuts on Obama for his causal, cool guy attitude about his past drug use in contrast to his policies to have the Feds raid California medical marijuana spots and putting away people in prison for marijuana crimes.
He says something like, "can you imagine what it would be like if you had a kid in prison...prison...for pot use, and then you have the President on Jimmy Fallon joking about it smugly?"
Rich people don't go to jail for drug related crimes, only poor people do.
Penn Jillette goes nuts on Obama for his causal, cool guy attitude about his past drug use in contrast to his policies to have the Feds raid California medical marijuana spots and putting away people in prison for marijuana crimes.
He says something like, "can you imagine what it would be like if you had a kid in prison...prison...for pot use, and then you have the President on Jimmy Fallon joking about it smugly?"
Rich people don't go to jail for drug related crimes, only poor people do.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Game 5
I suppose we should quickly revisit the narrative post from a couple days ago now that OKC handily beat the Lakers in Game 5. Kobe didn't get a chance to choke in the clutch, since his team was down by too many points. He did manage to score 42 points and collect 0 assists. And in the first half when he "went off," his plus minus was -7 points, meaning the Lakers were doing better with him out of the game than when he was in the game. Gasol played well in the first half with 10 points and 10 boards, but then faded down the stretch. Gasol didn't play soft - certainly not softer than Andrew Bynum and Ramon Sessions, who both had terrible games. Bynum for getting into early foul trouble and not doing much and Sessions for just being an absolute disaster. That guy may have worked himself out of a job.
But let's give credit where credit is due. In the second half, it was Westbrook who crushed the Lakers. They had no answer for him and he extended the lead in the 3rd and then they went on that little run at the beginning of the 4th to put the game away. Westbrook made Blake and Sessions look like boys playing against men.
**side bar: of course, I'm sure the thought never crossed Kobe's mind to guard Westbrook and shut him down, like Jordan or LeBron would have done. Because it would not help to reinforce the "hero" narrative Kobe is trying to construct with the consent of the media and his cult followers. And if you were watching the game, Kobe didn't play much defense at all because he was trying to save himself to be the hero instead of trying to win the game, as per usual.
I used to be suspicious of Westbrook's weird attitude and propensity to turn the ball over, but he's gotten a lot better. He seems to have calmed down after signing that big contract. He lost his cool once in the game, when he practically tackled Kobe in the 3rd quarter, but I liked that play. Kobe trip fouled him running down the court (for the 3rd foul against Kobe that went uncalled as the NBA officials had been alerted not to allow Kobe to get into foul trouble) and Westbrook did a hard foul on him back. Right there, he told Kobe he wasn't afraid of him and if the refs wouldn't protect him, he would protect himself. Great play.
Also gotta give a bunch of credit to Scott Brooks coaching decision to go for the kill at the beginning of the 4th, leaving in Harden, Durant, and Westbrook. He could smell blood. They were up 7 or something and knew if his guys had a burst in them, they could extend the lead to 14-16, before the Lakers main rotation got back in, and by then, would be demoralized. It worked exactly as planned and probably saved OKC legs in the long run by not having to play the last 4 minutes.
The last thing I'll say to Kobe-defenders...to believe their narrative...that Kobe is one of the all time greats...you would have to believe Kobe has been cursed with some terrible luck in the teammates he's drawn. A Kobe defender takes Kobe's side in his battle to oust Shaq from LA. They argue this was necessary because Shaq was lazy. Okay. Say that is correct. Then for the 3 years before Gasol, Kobe must have had terrible teammates considering they usually went out in the first round or didn't even make the playoffs (in contrast, LeBron took a lousy Cavs team to the Finals and Conference Finals 2 times). Now, we are asked to believe that Gasol is "soft" and not aggressive enough. Bynum is weird and immature, the bench is terrible, etc. In short, any success is due to Kobe and any failure is due to his teammates. Why do no other "great" players seem to have this problem? Would Magic have won more with better teammates? Would Bird have won more with better teammates? Would Hakeen? Would Jordan? People don't even seem to ask this question about the other great players, and yet it is a problem that has plagued Kobe his entire career.
It is a puzzling thing to consider how Kobe, of all the greats, was seemingly blessed with such terrible teammates. The one exception is Derek Fisher, who may, if the ball breaks the right way the next couple weeks, surpass Kobe in rings.
I suppose we should quickly revisit the narrative post from a couple days ago now that OKC handily beat the Lakers in Game 5. Kobe didn't get a chance to choke in the clutch, since his team was down by too many points. He did manage to score 42 points and collect 0 assists. And in the first half when he "went off," his plus minus was -7 points, meaning the Lakers were doing better with him out of the game than when he was in the game. Gasol played well in the first half with 10 points and 10 boards, but then faded down the stretch. Gasol didn't play soft - certainly not softer than Andrew Bynum and Ramon Sessions, who both had terrible games. Bynum for getting into early foul trouble and not doing much and Sessions for just being an absolute disaster. That guy may have worked himself out of a job.
But let's give credit where credit is due. In the second half, it was Westbrook who crushed the Lakers. They had no answer for him and he extended the lead in the 3rd and then they went on that little run at the beginning of the 4th to put the game away. Westbrook made Blake and Sessions look like boys playing against men.
**side bar: of course, I'm sure the thought never crossed Kobe's mind to guard Westbrook and shut him down, like Jordan or LeBron would have done. Because it would not help to reinforce the "hero" narrative Kobe is trying to construct with the consent of the media and his cult followers. And if you were watching the game, Kobe didn't play much defense at all because he was trying to save himself to be the hero instead of trying to win the game, as per usual.
I used to be suspicious of Westbrook's weird attitude and propensity to turn the ball over, but he's gotten a lot better. He seems to have calmed down after signing that big contract. He lost his cool once in the game, when he practically tackled Kobe in the 3rd quarter, but I liked that play. Kobe trip fouled him running down the court (for the 3rd foul against Kobe that went uncalled as the NBA officials had been alerted not to allow Kobe to get into foul trouble) and Westbrook did a hard foul on him back. Right there, he told Kobe he wasn't afraid of him and if the refs wouldn't protect him, he would protect himself. Great play.
Also gotta give a bunch of credit to Scott Brooks coaching decision to go for the kill at the beginning of the 4th, leaving in Harden, Durant, and Westbrook. He could smell blood. They were up 7 or something and knew if his guys had a burst in them, they could extend the lead to 14-16, before the Lakers main rotation got back in, and by then, would be demoralized. It worked exactly as planned and probably saved OKC legs in the long run by not having to play the last 4 minutes.
The last thing I'll say to Kobe-defenders...to believe their narrative...that Kobe is one of the all time greats...you would have to believe Kobe has been cursed with some terrible luck in the teammates he's drawn. A Kobe defender takes Kobe's side in his battle to oust Shaq from LA. They argue this was necessary because Shaq was lazy. Okay. Say that is correct. Then for the 3 years before Gasol, Kobe must have had terrible teammates considering they usually went out in the first round or didn't even make the playoffs (in contrast, LeBron took a lousy Cavs team to the Finals and Conference Finals 2 times). Now, we are asked to believe that Gasol is "soft" and not aggressive enough. Bynum is weird and immature, the bench is terrible, etc. In short, any success is due to Kobe and any failure is due to his teammates. Why do no other "great" players seem to have this problem? Would Magic have won more with better teammates? Would Bird have won more with better teammates? Would Hakeen? Would Jordan? People don't even seem to ask this question about the other great players, and yet it is a problem that has plagued Kobe his entire career.
It is a puzzling thing to consider how Kobe, of all the greats, was seemingly blessed with such terrible teammates. The one exception is Derek Fisher, who may, if the ball breaks the right way the next couple weeks, surpass Kobe in rings.
What Is Social Media?
Is it technology? Business? Advertising? A picture album? A religion?
Many people are talking about Facebook losing stock value at the moment. Some salient points:
The moment I realized this was many years ago, but I was only able to put it into words recently. When I was first invited to join Friendster and later Facebook and turned it down, the reactions of other people were very bizarre. In normal circumstances, if someone offers you a piece of chocolate and you turn it down, no one says anything or thinks anything of it. They assume you aren't hungry or don't like chocolate and everyone moves on. Or when someone says "do you want to see a movie on friday night," it might be filled with subtext and innuendo because it is asking someone out on a date, and you still might respond "no thanks" and there might be all sorts of neurosis and explanations - "could they be seeing someone else?" "maybe if I asked differently" blah, blah, blah. The exchange could be quite complex, actually, but people still accept the answer as meaning what was said, although the reasons might be varied. But when it comes to saying "no thanks" to Facebook the reactions are stunned disbelief "Why not?" or a deterministic "Oh, you'll join eventually, everyone does it" or like you are trying to make some sort of rebellious political point "Oh, I get it, you're one of those people." When actually, on the surface, it is a pretty uncomplicated decision. So why is it such a big deal to so many people? Because not participating in Facebook is sacrilege, because it is saying "I don't believe in Facebook." There is no neutral. You either believe or you are a heretic to be distrusted. Well, count me as a heretic. I wear the badge proudly. I'm not a Scientologist either.
Is it technology? Business? Advertising? A picture album? A religion?
Many people are talking about Facebook losing stock value at the moment. Some salient points:
See, there's another selfish thing about the social network: It doesn't add much of anything to the world. Facebook claims its mission is to connect people. But, as Haislip notes (and as The Atlantic's Alexis Madrigal noted before him), boiled down, it just sells advertising.and not very well, either:
"The problem with Facebook and other social media is that they were not designed to carry advertising," writes Ad Age's Rance Crain, explaining that businesses don't see Facebook's utility in ad buys. General Motors, for example, pulled its $10 million ad campaign because it didn't really see Facebook as an advertising platform.Social media is a religion. You don't buy anything via it. It does not make life any easier. It gives you a sense of belonging and comfort. You exchange self selected private information for others self selected private information in some sort of blind faith that this process will make you happier and perhaps even a better, well-connected person. It isn't something you buy or sell. It isn't a tool one uses to say, transport from one place to another, or to cool your drinks, or write a paper. It isn't really even entertainment in the way books or movies or tv. Utterances and pictures are not acts of creation. No one pays for it in the way people pay for books, movies, and tv. People "belong" to it, in the way you belong to a church. You "join" Facebook like you would join Scientology. It makes you feel connected and gives you solace in a lonely world. And if it doesn't achieve it, well, at least 900 million aren't achieving it also.
The moment I realized this was many years ago, but I was only able to put it into words recently. When I was first invited to join Friendster and later Facebook and turned it down, the reactions of other people were very bizarre. In normal circumstances, if someone offers you a piece of chocolate and you turn it down, no one says anything or thinks anything of it. They assume you aren't hungry or don't like chocolate and everyone moves on. Or when someone says "do you want to see a movie on friday night," it might be filled with subtext and innuendo because it is asking someone out on a date, and you still might respond "no thanks" and there might be all sorts of neurosis and explanations - "could they be seeing someone else?" "maybe if I asked differently" blah, blah, blah. The exchange could be quite complex, actually, but people still accept the answer as meaning what was said, although the reasons might be varied. But when it comes to saying "no thanks" to Facebook the reactions are stunned disbelief "Why not?" or a deterministic "Oh, you'll join eventually, everyone does it" or like you are trying to make some sort of rebellious political point "Oh, I get it, you're one of those people." When actually, on the surface, it is a pretty uncomplicated decision. So why is it such a big deal to so many people? Because not participating in Facebook is sacrilege, because it is saying "I don't believe in Facebook." There is no neutral. You either believe or you are a heretic to be distrusted. Well, count me as a heretic. I wear the badge proudly. I'm not a Scientologist either.
Logging
Film: Psycho
Haven't seen this since I was young. Really interesting film in a formal sense. Establishes common horror movie cliches of characters getting knocked off one-by-one or at least the fear of it. Also fascinating in the changes of POV. The movie is known for the killing of the protagonist at the end of the 1st act and then becoming an investigation. But the 2nd and 3rd acts vary from being from Norman's POV, the detectives's POV, and finally the sister and boyfriend's POV, so it really abolishes the idea of a protagonist completely. In the end, the essence of the movie is the psychology of Norman, and explores it without completely taking his POV.
Film: Psycho
Haven't seen this since I was young. Really interesting film in a formal sense. Establishes common horror movie cliches of characters getting knocked off one-by-one or at least the fear of it. Also fascinating in the changes of POV. The movie is known for the killing of the protagonist at the end of the 1st act and then becoming an investigation. But the 2nd and 3rd acts vary from being from Norman's POV, the detectives's POV, and finally the sister and boyfriend's POV, so it really abolishes the idea of a protagonist completely. In the end, the essence of the movie is the psychology of Norman, and explores it without completely taking his POV.
Giant Cash Out
Even a dope like me could see the Facebook IPO for what it was: a giant cash out for the early investors.
The stock is already dropping.
Even a dope like me could see the Facebook IPO for what it was: a giant cash out for the early investors.
The stock is already dropping.
West Ho Crime Wave
A woman randomly attacks 4 shoppers with a knife.
Bus driver shot dead yesterday.
And apparently there is a rapist and a burglar operating in the neighborhood.
A woman randomly attacks 4 shoppers with a knife.
Bus driver shot dead yesterday.
And apparently there is a rapist and a burglar operating in the neighborhood.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Narratives
The power of dominant narratives to shape our understanding of events are on full display during the NBA Playoffs. For the Lakers, Kobe is known as a "closer" and Gasol is known as "soft." We interpret what we see in the games through this lens and cherry pick moments to reinforce these narratives - whether they be true or not. The media reinforces these narratives by repeating them over and over ad nauseum.
The Lakers-OKC series provides a perfect example. Last night's game 4, Gasol makes a costly turnover at the end of the game, costing the Lakers the game. Lakers fans are irate - simply more evidence of Gasol's "softness." Kobe goes so far as call out Gasol in his press conference. He doesn't use the term "soft," but he may as well have. Nevermind the fact that Kobe did the exact same thing in game 2, costing the Lakers the game and then credited Durant for a "risky steal."
Also nevermind Kobe shot 2-10 in the fourth quarter taking terrible shot after terrible shot. Perhaps if he passed the ball to Gasol and yelled at him to shoot during the game, one could believe what he said in the press conference after the game about Gasol needing to shoot more. We all know Kobe doesn't believe Gasol should shoot more. Had Kobe made some of those ridiculously poor shots, he wouldn't be calling out Gasol. No, the plan for Kobe is to take bad shots, if he makes them, it reinforces the narrative of him as a closer and if he misses them, it reinforces the narrative that his teammates are "soft." It pays well to be Kobe.
You can't blame Kobe entirely for this situation. The media plays into it. You can't tell me these guys aren't aware of the constant evaluation of their decisions. Durant himself said after the game, he knew he would be criticized for his 3 pointer at the end of the game had he missed. They know. They read the papers.
Kobe is not a good closer and Gasol is not soft. These are completely untrue narratives and I know, because I've been watching the Lakers for a long time. Kobe is subpar in the clutch. The stats prove it. Now that the Kobe-defenders can no longer deny the stats (or point to a single game winning shot in the past 4 years of playoffs), they cite that "everybody's stats go down in the clutch." Well, not Chris Paul's. Not Michael Jordan's. Not, you know, "clutch" players, which they steadfastly claim Kobe is.
Kobe is a great player. A great competitor with incredible endurance, work ethic, a perfect basketball 2 guard body, a great streak scorer, and the best bad shot maker I've ever seen. He can play good defense when he decides to. You know which other guys are similar? Paul Pierce and Dwayne Wade. But neither of them are considered Kobe level because of two reasons: the carefully constructed narrative and the 5 rings. (and Wade's injuries) But you know who else has 5 rings? Derek Fisher. Robert Horry. The first 3 rings were Kobe playing second fiddle to Shaq and the last 2 rings were because of Mr. Soft, Pau Gasol.
Kobe is a great player, but not one the greats because he's a bad teammate, a bad passer, and does not play well in the clutch. He makes bad, selfish decisions. I would argue the big shots he's made throughout his career are simply from statistical volume. If you take 100 potential game winning shots, you are going to hit some - maybe even 30-40 - although that would be a low percentage. In fact, in the end, the most impressive thing about Kobe will be simply volume. In the same way Cal Ripken is known mostly just for the hitting streak, Kobe will be known mostly just for the volume. Because this is his real achievement. Not being clutch, not being a killer, even though everyone insists this to be the case.
Let's look at the last two championships, because it is this time period which created the idea of Kobe as a killer and one of the greats and somehow created the idea of Gasol as this soft player, despite him being the reason for the Lakers winning.
In 2006-7, Kobe was the leading scorer in the league and the Lakers were a 7th seed in the playoffs, losing in the first round to the Phoenix Suns 4-1. This is what Kobe had built by forcing Shaq out of town after their humiliating defeat to Detroit in the Finals a couple years before. In mid 2007, the Lakers got the gift that helped cement Kobe's legacy and made them relevant again: Pau Gasol, a top 15 player in the league to compliment Kobe. That year, 2007-2008, they went to the finals against the Celtics, who had put together the "big 3." Kobe got outplayed by Pierce and Gasol got beat up down low and the Celtics blew them out in Game 6. For some reason, this is where Gasol got the soft label, by taking a 7th seed caliber team to the NBA finals and getting pushed around by Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins - guys who make their money pushing around dudes. But no one called Kobe soft by being outplayed by Pierce in these finals. See, the thing that real leaders do is shoulder the blame and share the credit. The thing that "heroes" and politicians and hucksters do is take the credit and lay off the blame elsewhere.
The next year, with Garnett injured, Lamar Odom playing better and Andrew Bynum becoming a decent player, the Lakers were far and away the best team in the playoffs and won the championship without much competition. In fact, their only really tough series was against a Yao-less Rockets team with Artest and Aaron Brooks. They easily defeated a Magic team that got hot in the series against Cleveland. This was hardly a case of Kobe dominating in the clutch or Gasol being soft. It was a case of technically superior basketball team to their opponents winning handily, much like the Shaq-Kobe wins of years ago.
Now the next year, the 5th ring, 2009-2010, is where Kobe starts to become a legend. This was an epic rubber match, the aging Celtics vs. the Lakers. Game 7, if I remember, came down to the Celtics losing their starting center - Perkins - and Gasol and Bynum dominating the paint while Kobe shot 6 for 24. Gasol beating Garnett, essentially, to seal what? Kobe's fate as being clutch and Gasol's fate of being soft? How does that make any sense whatsoever? I just looked up the stats: Gasol averaged more points than anyone else on either team in the entire series, except for Kobe. He averaged 11 rebounds a game and no else in the entire series averaged over 8. Bynum averaged 7 points and 6 rebounds a game. This is soft? Showing up in the NBA finals after being beat up two years ago and avenging the loss and winning 2 rings? Isn't that what Jordan did to the Pistons? What Magic and Bird did to each other? Did I miss something here?
And then there was last year, with the disappointing sweep by the Mavericks. Let's not kid ourselves what happened last year, the Mavs played out of their minds. They made everyone look stupid. Looking at the stats - Gasol underperformed - 12.5 points, 9 rebounds, 4 assists a game. Kobe underperformed as well - 23 points, 3 rebounds, 2 assists. Of course, I imagine Gasol was matched up against Chandler or Dirk whereas Kobe was matched up against Jason Kidd or Caron Butler. I think I'd take the latter, wouldn't you? But is this really evidence of Gasol being soft or Kobe being clutch? It seems like neither.
So I guess what I'm challenging is ANY reasonable evidence pointing to Kobe being clutch or Gasol being soft in the past 4-5 years - and there just isn't much. Is anyone considering Dirk or Jason Kidd soft for their performances in the playoffs this year? It has to be equally disappointing to Gasol's last year. But everyone says "they won a ring." Well guess what? Gasol has two. Yes, he won them playing 2nd fiddle to Kobe. There is no question Kobe decided to take the alpha dog spot because he knew no one would consider his rings as relevant as Jordan's so long as he was under the Shaq shadow. But no one talks about Pippen going soft when he didn't win without Jordan or when he later joined Portland. It just seems insane to think about Gasol as this guy who is soft or doesn't show up. It is bias against European players. If I were the coach of the Lakers, I would run plays for Gasol in the 4th quarter. But the coach of the Lakers can't do it because Kobe won't listen and will simply demand the ball for himself. Otherwise, how can he reinforce the narrative?
UPDATE: In one of the most preposterous developments of the reinforcing the "Kobe is a closer narrative," now the talk radio folks give Kobe credit for "having the guts to take the shots." So it actually doesn't matter whether Kobe makes shots to cement his tag as a "closer," now Laker fans celebrate Kobe for simply taking them. Think of this illogic...it would be like celebrating Joe Montana for throwing incomplete passes at the end of games because "he tried," or celebrating Derek Jeter for striking out because "at least he went up there swinging." When I bring these things up, people call me a "Kobe-hater" to imply I am irrational for disliking Kobe's shot selection and decision making.
UPDATE 2: Luckily, this is only basketball, so on a certain level who cares about the narrative. But I think it's important to remember how the media constructs and reinforces narratives for more important things, like wars and elections and news and other things that you know, actually effect our lives. Stories get highlight when they reinforce a narrative and disregarded when they contradict the narrative. We are seeing this now with the Trayvon Martin case. We obviously saw it in the Duke Lacrosse case. We saw it in the congressman Giffords shooting where folks were blaming Palin, we still to this day see it when talking about the War on Terror and George Bush and Iraq. It's actually quite scary and enough to make one quite cynical about the news in general. The recent JP Morgan case seems to an attempt to reinforce this idea that we need more regulation -- which perhaps we do -- but I actually see no problem with a company taking a big risk and losing $2 billion dollars. That is their prerogative. I would recommend firing the people involved and not letting them work in the biz again and look at JP's risk management systems. And I wouldn't put my money with them, although I'm sure they're not sweating that possibly.
The power of dominant narratives to shape our understanding of events are on full display during the NBA Playoffs. For the Lakers, Kobe is known as a "closer" and Gasol is known as "soft." We interpret what we see in the games through this lens and cherry pick moments to reinforce these narratives - whether they be true or not. The media reinforces these narratives by repeating them over and over ad nauseum.
The Lakers-OKC series provides a perfect example. Last night's game 4, Gasol makes a costly turnover at the end of the game, costing the Lakers the game. Lakers fans are irate - simply more evidence of Gasol's "softness." Kobe goes so far as call out Gasol in his press conference. He doesn't use the term "soft," but he may as well have. Nevermind the fact that Kobe did the exact same thing in game 2, costing the Lakers the game and then credited Durant for a "risky steal."
Also nevermind Kobe shot 2-10 in the fourth quarter taking terrible shot after terrible shot. Perhaps if he passed the ball to Gasol and yelled at him to shoot during the game, one could believe what he said in the press conference after the game about Gasol needing to shoot more. We all know Kobe doesn't believe Gasol should shoot more. Had Kobe made some of those ridiculously poor shots, he wouldn't be calling out Gasol. No, the plan for Kobe is to take bad shots, if he makes them, it reinforces the narrative of him as a closer and if he misses them, it reinforces the narrative that his teammates are "soft." It pays well to be Kobe.
You can't blame Kobe entirely for this situation. The media plays into it. You can't tell me these guys aren't aware of the constant evaluation of their decisions. Durant himself said after the game, he knew he would be criticized for his 3 pointer at the end of the game had he missed. They know. They read the papers.
Kobe is not a good closer and Gasol is not soft. These are completely untrue narratives and I know, because I've been watching the Lakers for a long time. Kobe is subpar in the clutch. The stats prove it. Now that the Kobe-defenders can no longer deny the stats (or point to a single game winning shot in the past 4 years of playoffs), they cite that "everybody's stats go down in the clutch." Well, not Chris Paul's. Not Michael Jordan's. Not, you know, "clutch" players, which they steadfastly claim Kobe is.
Kobe is a great player. A great competitor with incredible endurance, work ethic, a perfect basketball 2 guard body, a great streak scorer, and the best bad shot maker I've ever seen. He can play good defense when he decides to. You know which other guys are similar? Paul Pierce and Dwayne Wade. But neither of them are considered Kobe level because of two reasons: the carefully constructed narrative and the 5 rings. (and Wade's injuries) But you know who else has 5 rings? Derek Fisher. Robert Horry. The first 3 rings were Kobe playing second fiddle to Shaq and the last 2 rings were because of Mr. Soft, Pau Gasol.
Kobe is a great player, but not one the greats because he's a bad teammate, a bad passer, and does not play well in the clutch. He makes bad, selfish decisions. I would argue the big shots he's made throughout his career are simply from statistical volume. If you take 100 potential game winning shots, you are going to hit some - maybe even 30-40 - although that would be a low percentage. In fact, in the end, the most impressive thing about Kobe will be simply volume. In the same way Cal Ripken is known mostly just for the hitting streak, Kobe will be known mostly just for the volume. Because this is his real achievement. Not being clutch, not being a killer, even though everyone insists this to be the case.
Let's look at the last two championships, because it is this time period which created the idea of Kobe as a killer and one of the greats and somehow created the idea of Gasol as this soft player, despite him being the reason for the Lakers winning.
In 2006-7, Kobe was the leading scorer in the league and the Lakers were a 7th seed in the playoffs, losing in the first round to the Phoenix Suns 4-1. This is what Kobe had built by forcing Shaq out of town after their humiliating defeat to Detroit in the Finals a couple years before. In mid 2007, the Lakers got the gift that helped cement Kobe's legacy and made them relevant again: Pau Gasol, a top 15 player in the league to compliment Kobe. That year, 2007-2008, they went to the finals against the Celtics, who had put together the "big 3." Kobe got outplayed by Pierce and Gasol got beat up down low and the Celtics blew them out in Game 6. For some reason, this is where Gasol got the soft label, by taking a 7th seed caliber team to the NBA finals and getting pushed around by Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins - guys who make their money pushing around dudes. But no one called Kobe soft by being outplayed by Pierce in these finals. See, the thing that real leaders do is shoulder the blame and share the credit. The thing that "heroes" and politicians and hucksters do is take the credit and lay off the blame elsewhere.
The next year, with Garnett injured, Lamar Odom playing better and Andrew Bynum becoming a decent player, the Lakers were far and away the best team in the playoffs and won the championship without much competition. In fact, their only really tough series was against a Yao-less Rockets team with Artest and Aaron Brooks. They easily defeated a Magic team that got hot in the series against Cleveland. This was hardly a case of Kobe dominating in the clutch or Gasol being soft. It was a case of technically superior basketball team to their opponents winning handily, much like the Shaq-Kobe wins of years ago.
Now the next year, the 5th ring, 2009-2010, is where Kobe starts to become a legend. This was an epic rubber match, the aging Celtics vs. the Lakers. Game 7, if I remember, came down to the Celtics losing their starting center - Perkins - and Gasol and Bynum dominating the paint while Kobe shot 6 for 24. Gasol beating Garnett, essentially, to seal what? Kobe's fate as being clutch and Gasol's fate of being soft? How does that make any sense whatsoever? I just looked up the stats: Gasol averaged more points than anyone else on either team in the entire series, except for Kobe. He averaged 11 rebounds a game and no else in the entire series averaged over 8. Bynum averaged 7 points and 6 rebounds a game. This is soft? Showing up in the NBA finals after being beat up two years ago and avenging the loss and winning 2 rings? Isn't that what Jordan did to the Pistons? What Magic and Bird did to each other? Did I miss something here?
And then there was last year, with the disappointing sweep by the Mavericks. Let's not kid ourselves what happened last year, the Mavs played out of their minds. They made everyone look stupid. Looking at the stats - Gasol underperformed - 12.5 points, 9 rebounds, 4 assists a game. Kobe underperformed as well - 23 points, 3 rebounds, 2 assists. Of course, I imagine Gasol was matched up against Chandler or Dirk whereas Kobe was matched up against Jason Kidd or Caron Butler. I think I'd take the latter, wouldn't you? But is this really evidence of Gasol being soft or Kobe being clutch? It seems like neither.
So I guess what I'm challenging is ANY reasonable evidence pointing to Kobe being clutch or Gasol being soft in the past 4-5 years - and there just isn't much. Is anyone considering Dirk or Jason Kidd soft for their performances in the playoffs this year? It has to be equally disappointing to Gasol's last year. But everyone says "they won a ring." Well guess what? Gasol has two. Yes, he won them playing 2nd fiddle to Kobe. There is no question Kobe decided to take the alpha dog spot because he knew no one would consider his rings as relevant as Jordan's so long as he was under the Shaq shadow. But no one talks about Pippen going soft when he didn't win without Jordan or when he later joined Portland. It just seems insane to think about Gasol as this guy who is soft or doesn't show up. It is bias against European players. If I were the coach of the Lakers, I would run plays for Gasol in the 4th quarter. But the coach of the Lakers can't do it because Kobe won't listen and will simply demand the ball for himself. Otherwise, how can he reinforce the narrative?
UPDATE: In one of the most preposterous developments of the reinforcing the "Kobe is a closer narrative," now the talk radio folks give Kobe credit for "having the guts to take the shots." So it actually doesn't matter whether Kobe makes shots to cement his tag as a "closer," now Laker fans celebrate Kobe for simply taking them. Think of this illogic...it would be like celebrating Joe Montana for throwing incomplete passes at the end of games because "he tried," or celebrating Derek Jeter for striking out because "at least he went up there swinging." When I bring these things up, people call me a "Kobe-hater" to imply I am irrational for disliking Kobe's shot selection and decision making.
UPDATE 2: Luckily, this is only basketball, so on a certain level who cares about the narrative. But I think it's important to remember how the media constructs and reinforces narratives for more important things, like wars and elections and news and other things that you know, actually effect our lives. Stories get highlight when they reinforce a narrative and disregarded when they contradict the narrative. We are seeing this now with the Trayvon Martin case. We obviously saw it in the Duke Lacrosse case. We saw it in the congressman Giffords shooting where folks were blaming Palin, we still to this day see it when talking about the War on Terror and George Bush and Iraq. It's actually quite scary and enough to make one quite cynical about the news in general. The recent JP Morgan case seems to an attempt to reinforce this idea that we need more regulation -- which perhaps we do -- but I actually see no problem with a company taking a big risk and losing $2 billion dollars. That is their prerogative. I would recommend firing the people involved and not letting them work in the biz again and look at JP's risk management systems. And I wouldn't put my money with them, although I'm sure they're not sweating that possibly.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
The Clippers
Boy, the Clippers are a dumb team. They remind me a bit of my dog, Magic, from growing up. He was a lovable, energetic, fun dog, but very stupid. He would do things like eat corn cobs and need to get surgery because it stopped his digestive track. He was in no control over his impulses to eat whatever was in front of him and chase after any other animals in the nearby vicinity.
Other than Chris Paul, this is how the Clippers play. I don't think a single other player on the team possesses an above average basketball IQ. Blake is super talented and looks like a world beater at times. But he does dumb things a lot. Why pass up open 20 footers? Just take the goddamn shot. Even if you miss, follow for the rebound. You aren't going to get a better look in the 4th quarter of a playoff game. CP3 or Mo Williams driving against 3 people and trying to flick up a shot is not a better shot than an open 20 footer for Blake. Also, Blake comes down with some offensive rebounds and otherwise gets balls in the paint and gets blocked a surprisingly number of times for a guy of his size and athleticism. The guy needs to use fakes to get guys up in the air and take fouls and go for 3 point plays. His fear of free throw shooting prevents him from doing this and he tries too hard to lay it in or dunk it on people and use his strength rather than guile. This is why he gets blocked a lot. And then he always looks at the refs like it's their fault for him not knowing how to take a foul or put a move on a guy at the post.
DeAndre Jordan is the most useless offensive basketball player in the world. I can't stand these big guys who can't catch a pass and dunk. Totally ridiculous. The guy is 7 foot 2 or something - what is he afraid of? He needs to study how Tyson Chandler plays. Chandler cannot make a shot for shit and still manages 10-12 points a game and shoots like 65% fg's because the guy can catch the ball and dunk.
Nick Young is a lame basketball player. He is good for one thing and one thing only: getting hot. If he isn't hot, he's useless. He can't play defense, he can't score, he can't pass, he can't do anything except get hot and knock down shots when he's hot. Mo Williams is a similar player, although Mo, to his credit, is more of a scorer. A second rate scorer, but still a scorer, a guy who you can generally rely upon to get his own basket, by making a shot or driving to the hoop. He doesn't give you much more than that.
Caron Butler just totally disappears. He and Mo are the perfect example of mid-level journeyman players who playoff level ballers look forward to seeing on the other side of the court knowing they are going to find a way to beat them.
Who else? Bledsoe is totally out of control. Him and Reggie Evans try really hard and I give them props for that, but jesus, they are not good basketball players. Bledsoe rarely makes a smart play and often just forces it. Evans was the key to beating Memphis, but there's no way you're making it out of the 2nd round if Reggie Evans is playing significant minutes for you. All he can do is defend big guys and grab rebounds. He is the type of guy you should put in for a few minutes when you need energy, but if he's playing at the end of the game all time, you aren't really putting yourself in a good position to win.
Kenyon Martin is again just like Caron Butler and Mo Williams. Very in the middle. At least he'll catch it and dunk it. Too bad the Clips can't merge Kenyon and DeAndre into one guy, that would be a serviceable NBA center.
Who else? Foye? It seems like Foye only does stuff in the 1st quarter of games. I think everyone was more right than they knew about this team needing Chauncey. If Chauncey was playing there is no way they get blow out in a must win game 3 when they are up 22 points. No way. How is that even possible? The Spurs make them look like boys playing against men.
Boy, the Clippers are a dumb team. They remind me a bit of my dog, Magic, from growing up. He was a lovable, energetic, fun dog, but very stupid. He would do things like eat corn cobs and need to get surgery because it stopped his digestive track. He was in no control over his impulses to eat whatever was in front of him and chase after any other animals in the nearby vicinity.
Other than Chris Paul, this is how the Clippers play. I don't think a single other player on the team possesses an above average basketball IQ. Blake is super talented and looks like a world beater at times. But he does dumb things a lot. Why pass up open 20 footers? Just take the goddamn shot. Even if you miss, follow for the rebound. You aren't going to get a better look in the 4th quarter of a playoff game. CP3 or Mo Williams driving against 3 people and trying to flick up a shot is not a better shot than an open 20 footer for Blake. Also, Blake comes down with some offensive rebounds and otherwise gets balls in the paint and gets blocked a surprisingly number of times for a guy of his size and athleticism. The guy needs to use fakes to get guys up in the air and take fouls and go for 3 point plays. His fear of free throw shooting prevents him from doing this and he tries too hard to lay it in or dunk it on people and use his strength rather than guile. This is why he gets blocked a lot. And then he always looks at the refs like it's their fault for him not knowing how to take a foul or put a move on a guy at the post.
DeAndre Jordan is the most useless offensive basketball player in the world. I can't stand these big guys who can't catch a pass and dunk. Totally ridiculous. The guy is 7 foot 2 or something - what is he afraid of? He needs to study how Tyson Chandler plays. Chandler cannot make a shot for shit and still manages 10-12 points a game and shoots like 65% fg's because the guy can catch the ball and dunk.
Nick Young is a lame basketball player. He is good for one thing and one thing only: getting hot. If he isn't hot, he's useless. He can't play defense, he can't score, he can't pass, he can't do anything except get hot and knock down shots when he's hot. Mo Williams is a similar player, although Mo, to his credit, is more of a scorer. A second rate scorer, but still a scorer, a guy who you can generally rely upon to get his own basket, by making a shot or driving to the hoop. He doesn't give you much more than that.
Caron Butler just totally disappears. He and Mo are the perfect example of mid-level journeyman players who playoff level ballers look forward to seeing on the other side of the court knowing they are going to find a way to beat them.
Who else? Bledsoe is totally out of control. Him and Reggie Evans try really hard and I give them props for that, but jesus, they are not good basketball players. Bledsoe rarely makes a smart play and often just forces it. Evans was the key to beating Memphis, but there's no way you're making it out of the 2nd round if Reggie Evans is playing significant minutes for you. All he can do is defend big guys and grab rebounds. He is the type of guy you should put in for a few minutes when you need energy, but if he's playing at the end of the game all time, you aren't really putting yourself in a good position to win.
Kenyon Martin is again just like Caron Butler and Mo Williams. Very in the middle. At least he'll catch it and dunk it. Too bad the Clips can't merge Kenyon and DeAndre into one guy, that would be a serviceable NBA center.
Who else? Foye? It seems like Foye only does stuff in the 1st quarter of games. I think everyone was more right than they knew about this team needing Chauncey. If Chauncey was playing there is no way they get blow out in a must win game 3 when they are up 22 points. No way. How is that even possible? The Spurs make them look like boys playing against men.
Huge Play
If the Clippers are able to win game 3, I would point to a big defensive play at the end of the 1st half orchestrated by Paul. Mo Williams just got a lucky roll on a 3 to put the Clippers up by 10 after being way ahead and the Spurs had muscled back into the game.
Parker with the ball was setting up a pick and roll with Duncan for the final shot. Paul saw this and pointed to Griffin to come up in front of Duncan and cut off the space Parker wanted to get to prior to pick being set. Parker got confused and went out wide and Griffin and Paul double teamed him as he tried to adjust and flip it to Duncan on the high post. But because time was running down, he didn't have much time to make this pass, Paul knew this, and jump into the passing lane and knocked the ball away.
The Clips needed to go into halftime up 10 at least. If the Spurs cut the lead to under 10 after being down 22 in the first quarter, they would have all the momentum. That play keeps the Clippers in this game.
Another side note, since I don't watch the Spurs play much. You forget how tall Ginobli is. I always think of him as a slashing, Sharunas Marchulenis type of player, but he is a lot more than that. Without injuries, he is more comparable to Kobe Bryant, without the ability to turn it on defensively like Kobe.
Also, Duncan is listed at 6'11" and Blake at 6'10," but when you see Blake guarding Duncan, Duncan looks 3 inches taller than him.
If the Clippers are able to win game 3, I would point to a big defensive play at the end of the 1st half orchestrated by Paul. Mo Williams just got a lucky roll on a 3 to put the Clippers up by 10 after being way ahead and the Spurs had muscled back into the game.
Parker with the ball was setting up a pick and roll with Duncan for the final shot. Paul saw this and pointed to Griffin to come up in front of Duncan and cut off the space Parker wanted to get to prior to pick being set. Parker got confused and went out wide and Griffin and Paul double teamed him as he tried to adjust and flip it to Duncan on the high post. But because time was running down, he didn't have much time to make this pass, Paul knew this, and jump into the passing lane and knocked the ball away.
The Clips needed to go into halftime up 10 at least. If the Spurs cut the lead to under 10 after being down 22 in the first quarter, they would have all the momentum. That play keeps the Clippers in this game.
Another side note, since I don't watch the Spurs play much. You forget how tall Ginobli is. I always think of him as a slashing, Sharunas Marchulenis type of player, but he is a lot more than that. Without injuries, he is more comparable to Kobe Bryant, without the ability to turn it on defensively like Kobe.
Also, Duncan is listed at 6'11" and Blake at 6'10," but when you see Blake guarding Duncan, Duncan looks 3 inches taller than him.
What A Joke
Small rural libraries get $22,000 internet routers as part of the federal stimulus.
Who has any incentive to see things like this don't happen? The inherent problem with government spending...
Small rural libraries get $22,000 internet routers as part of the federal stimulus.
Who has any incentive to see things like this don't happen? The inherent problem with government spending...
Friday, May 18, 2012
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Logging
Film: Gone Baby Gone
Some good scenes mask a pretty bad movie at the core. One easy way to judge a movie is whether the bad guy motivation makes any sense. In this case, the reveal is completely preposterous. Cops risk their entire careers to kidnap a child and steal a piddly sum of money. Really? Isn't there about twenty easier ways? Like calling social services or adoption?
Also, Ben Affleck as a director really needs to watch the speeches. Jesus, in every movie this Baaaston tough guys give four minute speeches. Although it isn't entirely his fault, the Affleck, Damon, Graham King, Bill Monahan, Dennis Lehane would have us believe Boston must be the toughest city in the whole world. If we just sent some Baaastoners over to Afghanistan, we would've beat those Taaalibaners in like two months. Christ almighty.
Film: Gone Baby Gone
Some good scenes mask a pretty bad movie at the core. One easy way to judge a movie is whether the bad guy motivation makes any sense. In this case, the reveal is completely preposterous. Cops risk their entire careers to kidnap a child and steal a piddly sum of money. Really? Isn't there about twenty easier ways? Like calling social services or adoption?
Also, Ben Affleck as a director really needs to watch the speeches. Jesus, in every movie this Baaaston tough guys give four minute speeches. Although it isn't entirely his fault, the Affleck, Damon, Graham King, Bill Monahan, Dennis Lehane would have us believe Boston must be the toughest city in the whole world. If we just sent some Baaastoners over to Afghanistan, we would've beat those Taaalibaners in like two months. Christ almighty.
Logging
Film: Picnic at Hanging Rock
Peter Weir's first film, I believe. An interesting style of film, like Zodiac and The Onion Field, where a certain incident (or in the case of Zodiac, a set of incidents) has long term consequences to the lives of many people who are effected by it. Not as good as either Zodiac or The Onion Field, worth watching on an academic level.
Film: Picnic at Hanging Rock
Peter Weir's first film, I believe. An interesting style of film, like Zodiac and The Onion Field, where a certain incident (or in the case of Zodiac, a set of incidents) has long term consequences to the lives of many people who are effected by it. Not as good as either Zodiac or The Onion Field, worth watching on an academic level.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Logging
Film: The Godfather
You can always learn from the classics. I have no clue how many times I've watched the movie, but it's obviously a lot. This has been said elsewhere, but I noticed it clearly for the first time, the Godfather is structured in quite an amazing way. It is two movies. The Michael story and the Vito story. And they are interwoven seamlessly. People talk about Godfather 2 being a superior movie, but the structure is more transparent in 2. There are literally two different stories, told in different time frames. In fact, 2 only serves to illuminate what was achieved in part 1, but part 1 is so elegant, so perfectly linked, you don't even notice how they pull it off, in a way, until after watching 2 and after thinking about it.
I don't know if Godfather has officially taken the mantle from Citizen Kane as the greatest movie of all time, but it will.
Film: The Godfather
You can always learn from the classics. I have no clue how many times I've watched the movie, but it's obviously a lot. This has been said elsewhere, but I noticed it clearly for the first time, the Godfather is structured in quite an amazing way. It is two movies. The Michael story and the Vito story. And they are interwoven seamlessly. People talk about Godfather 2 being a superior movie, but the structure is more transparent in 2. There are literally two different stories, told in different time frames. In fact, 2 only serves to illuminate what was achieved in part 1, but part 1 is so elegant, so perfectly linked, you don't even notice how they pull it off, in a way, until after watching 2 and after thinking about it.
I don't know if Godfather has officially taken the mantle from Citizen Kane as the greatest movie of all time, but it will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)