The Self-Important Blog

You Can Buy a New Couch. Where Am I Going to Get New Legs?

2007-05-20T14:18:00.003-05:00

Last week, the New York Times had a fascinating article about a South African amputee-sprinter named Oscar Pistorius. He is attempting to qualify for the Beijing Olympics in 2008 despite resistance from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). His times are good enough to win gold in equivalent women’s races at the 2004 games in Athens. For men’s, they could possibly be good enough to qualify. But, as the article attempts to answer, do prosthetic limbs provide an unfair advantage?

On a purely prima facie level, the question seems absurd. However, there is no real science to prove one way or the other. As the article points out, Pistorius has never had legs, making it impossible to compare his running ability with human legs versus his times with the “Cheetah” legs. For more detail, I suggest you read the article.

I am not sure how I feel. It is tough to say he has an unfair advantage, but at the same time he is not on equal footing, so to speak, with the other competitors. It is a very gray area between human rights and fair play. Although, I don't think it is an inalienable right to compete in the Olympics.

It is one of those issues where I would completely understand if the IOC said he couldn't race. At the same time, I can't help thinking, "Why not?" One person says he should just stick to the Paralympics. But are the Paralympics meant to be the equivalent of the Olympics or a substitute for disabled people who aren't good enough to compete in the Olympics because of their handicap? I really believe it is the latter. If that is the case, then there is no reason he should be disallowed from competing.

I would be really interested to see some research related to the advantages v. the disadvantages of fake legs. I have to believe it is greater disadvantage.

Another aspect I thought of, which was actually addressed briefly in the article, is what happens if a man with no legs wins an Olympic track event. If someone with no legs competes and wins, do you think an able-bodied athlete would replace his/her natural legs with prosthetic ones? I hope there isn't a doctor in the world that would perform such an unnecessary and frivolous surgery. But given the athletes who will inject their bodies with anything to be on top, I am inclined to believe there is an athlete out there who would probably consider it. To quote the article, “Is it self-mutilation if the new legs are better?” I would say yes, but it isn’t my body.

In the end, I say let the guy run. Until someone can prove beyond all doubt that running on prosthetics provides an unfair advantage, there is no basis to prevent him from participating. If he can qualify, he deserves to be there.

Guilty of Crimes Against Baseball

2007-05-20T13:39:00.002-05:00

This is it. I can’t take it anymore. I have sat through six plus seasons of this yammering jackass. I have talked to enough people who agree with me on this topic. I have found a silent majority of baseball/Red Sox fans who know what good broadcasting should be. Quietly, while the front office is treating us to Fenway renovations, World Series rings and Japanese pitchers, they have also insulted our intelligence with their coverage on NESN. It starts with the guy who has one of the greatest jobs in sports, if not all the world. Don Orsillo has butchered the English language and insulted baseball fans throughout New England for too long. It has to stop now.

Simply put, the guy is terrible. He is a disgrace to Red Sox Nation. He shouldn’t be allowed to get water for the camera guys never mind possessing one of the marquee announcing jobs in baseball.

Where should I begin?

First, he is a moron. He just doesn’t understand baseball. Or, at least, he does an amazing job of playing rube to Remy’s insightful analysis. In a game against the Mariners, during a Richie Sexson at bat, Dice-K threw a hanging breaking ball that Richie missed. Remy, not once but twice, pointed out that V-Tek immediately told Dice-K to keep his shoulder in on the pitch. Remy had just finished explaining what was wrong with that hanging breaking ball (something that should have been apparent to any baseball fan) when Sexson strikes out on an almost identical pitch to the first hanger. Don’s immediate reaction: “Strike three. Nasty.” His ignorance shining through, Remy immediately said, “I wouldn’t call that nasty, Don.” Don’s reply, of course, “Oh, that was a hanger.” If you need someone to point out a hanging breaking ball to you, you shouldn’t be charged with calling the game.

This segues neatly to my next point. Don Orsillo’s only move is taking whatever Remy says and repeating it with different words. Here are real examples from the spring:

Remy: I like flipping around. I just like sitting in that chair and
flipping, flipping, flipping that way you catch a little of everything.
Don: Watching TV with you must be tough…I don’t think you hang on
anything too long I am guessing.

You’re guessing? He just said he doesn’t.

Remy: Well Don, neither team is playing all of their stars, but regardless, Sox-Yankees always generates excitement, even in Spring Training.
Don: Some of the marquee names may be absent, but even so, this rivalry generates keen interest, even in an exhibition.

And don’t forget his clutch go to: Chuckle like your life depended on it.

I could spend all day listing the various faults of Don Orsillo. As near as I can tell, his only positive attribute is having a good voice. Otherwise, the guy is an incompetent boob.

Another fatal flaw is his seeming need to develop catchphrases. Is there anything more tired than an announcer who needs to crowbar clichés into his game calling? The essence of great announcing is spontaneity. I understand he is doing games everyday and not every game warrants the excitement and drama of, “Do you believe in miracles?” And sure, it would be unreasonable to expect him not to have a phrase or two he repeats with occasional frequency. But, he only has one way to describe certain events. If you watch every NESN game, it becomes increasingly nauseating to hear this guy do his job.

Here is a list of some of his more severe crimes against baseball:

Dice-K’d – This is the greatest example of someone forcing canned lines down our throat. He did it once about a month ago. I hoped it would die a quick death. However, this weekend against the Braves, it reared its ugly head again. Imagine my uncontrollable rage, nearly launching a remote control through my parents’ TV, when I heard: “Chipper Jones, you’ve just been Dice-K’d.” Are you kidding me? What is next? “Manny Ramirez, boom goes the dynamite.”

Pitch counting – With Don, the viewer always knows the pitch count. From the first inning on, we know the total number of pitches thrown, the number of pitches thrown that inning, the number of pitchers thrown to that batter, the number of pitchers thrown since the last time Don told us the number of pitches thrown, etc, etc, etc, etc. Great, we get it. You know how to count and apparently like counting. I am sure we can find a place for you on Sesame Street.

Down by way of the K - Simply because it rhymes doesn’t make it right. In fact, as a general rule, if something rhymes, it is probably stupid.

In the midst of a meeting with himself - How do you know Don? Maybe he is just wiping crud off his cleats. Maybe he just wanted to adjust his cup.

In through the back door - This one makes no sense and is one of his more idiotic phrases. For those that don’t get how it would fit into a game, it is like this – runner on third and less than 2 outs: “Grounder to second base. Over to first for the out. And Manny comes in through the back door.” The only way this would ever make sense is if a guy was trying to score, he slid around the catcher and then reached back with his hand to tag the plate. In that situation, it might make sense.

He has struck out three different times today - In fairness, Orsillo isn’t alone on this one, but he does say it. Inherent in struck out three times is that they are different times. You can’t strike out three times at once.

It is high, it is far, it is gone - I don’t know about you, but I don’t need canned home run calls…period. Plus, this is a blatant rip-off of Michael Sterling from the YES network. Or is this just an homage?

Lugo is equidistant between second and third – This one is just a matter of TV v. radio. If Don were doing games for WRKO/WEEI this might be a worthwhile thing to say, but probably not. You can simply say Lugo is between second and third. Even on the radio people could figure out that image. But it is more ridiculous on TV. I don’t need Don to describe the action in painstaking detail. I am watching it too. I can see what is happening.

First base is open – I know. You are probably saying, "this is perfectly prescient and acceptable thing to say during a baseball game." You are right. It is. However, Don lets us know any time first base is open, no matter the batter, no matter the on-deck hitter. For instance, I just caught a replay of one of the Red Sox walk-off wins from 2005. Johnny Damon was on second with two outs. Edgar Renteria was at-bat with a 2-0 count, and David Ortiz waiting on-deck. Keep in mind that Ortiz had already tied the game with a home run off of then Orioles closer B.J. Ryan, and he is David FUCKING Ortiz. As the pitcher threw ball 3, Orsillo remarked, “First base is open.” Yeah, it is Don. But no one would ever pitch around Renteria in order to face Ortiz with the winning run in scoring position. It is a classic example of him not understanding the game or what he is saying.

Here is another more recent example of him just not getting it. In the first game of the Red Sox-A's series, Francona pinch hit Alex Cora. The A's intentionally walked him - runner on second less than two outs they needed to set up the double play. So the next night, Don in his I-think-I-am-asking-an-intelligent-question mode asks Remy, "Were you surprised they walked Cora?" Remy just said, "No." To most people, it should have been obvious why the answer was no, but Orsillo pushed forward. Remy then explained the percentages, needing to set-up a double, etc. The irony of this is Orsillo loves to tell us that first base is open in the most inappropriate times. For example, with Pedroia up and a 3-1 count on him, "First base is open." Yeah, Don it is, but that isn't relevant because they aren't pitching around Dustin. I feel like I am going to send myself to an early grave getting angry over his boobery.

Unfortunately, Don isn’t alone. The whole NESN broadcast is amateur hour (except when compared to the other hack jobs around the league). Tina Cervasio doesn’t have the slightest bit of baseball common sense. She actually asked a Boston College baseball player after facing Dice-K, “Do you think the strike zone Dice-K was getting tonight was similar to the one he got in Japan?” How the hell is a college kid supposed to know that? I know for a fact the BC baseball team does not spend any time playing games in the Pacific League. Her segments are regularly devoid of intelligence or useful information. She asks the world’s most idiotic questions and seemingly serves no purpose other than making me upset.

My suggestion? Fire Tina and Don. Send Hazel with them too. Move Dave O’Brien from the radio to TV. He is good enough to be the lead soccer announcer for ABC/ESPN, but has to share a booth with Castiglione in Boston. Scrap the whole sideline reporter altogether. Baseball doesn’t need it, and Tina usually contributes nothing anyway. Actually, if we had to have a sideline reporter, it should be Tina’s sister. She was on camera during a Spring Training game. She is like a hotter version of Tina. They might as well go as hot as possible; I know Tina wasn’t hired for her incredible “chest” of baseball knowledge.

Alas, too many people just don’t care. The fact that Orsillo and company are nice people is enough. I know Sean McDonough isn’t walking through that door. I know neither Curt Gowdy nor Ned Martin is walking through that door. But I am just tired of seeing baseball of the highest caliber sullied by broadcasting that wouldn’t pass muster on a college station.

Save the Red Sox; fire Don Orsillo.

MLS Making It Work

2007-04-04T21:20:00.002-05:00

We are going to aggressively put the emphasis on the game itself, providing fans what they want, where every game matters, every moment matters. We want to elevate the level of excitement and competition on the field and improve the level of access for our fans.Back in January I talked about the David Beckham deal and the MLS. In that piece, I discussed what I believed to be necessary steps for the MLS to become more important globally. Now as the MLS season is set to start, it seems they have made a few sincere steps to being a respectable league.

The first issue is the supposed David Beckham exception. The rule was instituted to allow teams to spend more money on talent thus making the league more competitive. Since the Beckham signing, there is little to no news of great new players coming to the league. In fact, only two teams have signed a player using the new exception. (One player being American Claudio Reyna - hardly the rules intended target.)

Two things are still inhibiting the signing of talented international players: Teams don’t see the need to spend the money. Players don’t see the incentive to leave Europe.

The question: How is MLS addressing this?

On the first count, at least publicly, they aren’t doing anything. They aren’t about to force the hand of owners by making them spend money. However, they are working to create incentive to play in America.

On Saturday, MLS will unveil another soccer-specific stadium (SSS). This is a great step towards legitimacy. Nothing makes the league look like a second-tier operation more than playing in football stadiums. The stadiums are too large for the attendance (average MLS attendance is 15,000; average NFL stadium holds between 50 and 60,000). Soccer is an intimate game that demands fan involvement. The atmosphere of a game is important. It is tough to create a loud, singing atmosphere in a cavernous stadium that is 80 percent empty. Secondly, the pitch on these fields can be absolutely dreadful. Look at Gillette Stadium last year or the Meadowlands with their Astroturf field. SSS provide the opportunity for the fans to become a part of the game and affords players a great surface to play the beautiful game.

By 2008, seven of the 13 teams should be playing in an SSS. The remaining teams are all in the process of trying to get a stadium built. Additionally, any expansion team needs to have plans to build an SSS. Another great move to ensure the league growth is strong and committed for the long haul.

Another initiative is the SuperLiga. This summer will see the inaugural SuperLiga, which is an MLS-La Primera División (Mexico) tournament based on the UEFA Champions League format. Along with the CONCACAF Champions Cup and Lamar Hunt Open Cup (the American FA Cup), MLS is involved with a growing number of club tournaments, which over time could add value to the entire MLS experience for the players.

Along with qualifying for international tournaments, the method for qualifying for the MLS Cup playoffs is slightly modified to more resemble the table format used around the world. The top two teams in each conference will qualify for the playoffs; however, the final four spots will be filled by the best teams, based on points, regardless of conference. I like this because it ensures the best eight teams are in the playoffs - better competition means better games.

The final thing the league will do this year is improve the game presentation. The MLS is unveiling their “Game First” initiatives. “Quality starts with the quality of the player pool,” deputy commissioner Ivan Gazidis said in announcing the initiative. “We are going to aggressively put the emphasis on the game itself, providing fans what they want, where every game matters, every moment matters. We want to elevate the level of excitement and competition on the field and improve the level of access for our fans.”

This involves looking like a top-flight football division rather than an American soccer league. One of the biggest changes will be the entrance into the stadiums. Much like the rest of the FIFA world, MLS teams will now be lead onto the field by the referees. According to deputy commissioner Ivan Gazidis, the players will come out to, “music recorded last week by an 80-piece orchestra in Prague; it speaks directly to the traditions of soccer and the piece will represent us well.”

Speaking of referees, the league has hired four full-time referees and limited the ref pool in order to create more uniform officiating – including emphasis on simulation (diving) and time killing tactics. Both are points of consternation for the average American wannabe fan.

Not to be greedy, but I have one more suggestion for the league. This year in Europe there has been a lot of hemming and hawing over offsides. One of the more difficult decisions to make in all of sports, the assistants have erred on the side of caution. It seems most tight decisions are going to the defense, which directly affects scoring. I have seen too many well-timed runs flagged this season. I would like to see the MLS institute a much looser interpretation of the rule. I would even be in favor of a daylight rule. Hey, for a ball to be ruled out of bounds the entire ball must cross the line. Why not require a player’s entire body to be offsides for it to be offsides? I think this would be particularly important for the league since the biggest complaint is about goal scoring.

At any rate, less than three days until the season starts. Joga Bonito!

Merde! Objet Volant Non Identifié là

2007-03-29T22:18:00.002-05:00

For anyone who still doubts the value of the French, I would like to direct your attention to Le GEIPAN (le groupe d'études et d'informations sur les phénomènes aérospatiaux non identifiés). Bringing it back to English, it is the group responsible for UFO reports in France (or/ou Objet Volant Non Identifié - ONVI). Last week, Le Centre National D'Études Spatiales (CNES - NASA France) unveiled a new Web site documenting every reported UFO sighting in France over the last 50 years. Of course, the combination of it being French and the intense fascination worldwide with UFOs caused the Web site to crash repeatedly. It is currently accessible, but slow and slightly stripped down.

How bad is it? The message on the homepage lacks proper accent markings. Clearly, CNES and GEIPAN were not prepared for the traffic a site about UFOs would bring.

Personally, along with TV shows about ghosts and Web sites in foreign languages, I absolutely love a good UFO story. It is extremely fantastic that a government has taken the steps to release this information to the public. The French have released 1,600 reported UFO sightings on the Web site dating back to 1954. Of those reports, 25% are class D: In spite of good data and witnesses, the mysterious sightings remain inexplicable. Only about 9% of all ONVI sightings have been explained.

I wish I could tell you that I have combed through all the records and found interesting information. Unfortunately, navigating the Web site is nearly impossible due to the amount of traffic. So far I have only been able to answer the most fundamental questions like "Qu'est-ce que c'est le GEIPAN?" For background information, readers can go to an English page on the CNES Web site. But even that page has slowed to a crawl.

The reason I mention this is twofold. First of all, I think the US should do the same thing. These stories have to be great reading. For those of you who have never spent much time watching shows about UFOs, imagine a bunch of reports where the key witness is the outgoing but borderline mentally-challenged kid from your high school. In short, endless entertainment.

Do I actually think we will find anything juicy such as the big Roswell revelation we have always wanted? Of course not. I just don't like cold cases. I don't like suspicion and conspiracy theories; I want to believe someone is right about who Jack the Ripper was (I am still holding out hope for Lewis Carroll), I want to know that D.B. Cooper was Duane Webber, and I want to know who the Zodiac Killer is. I need closure. Releasing these reports would be a step toward closure on UFOs.

Secondly, last week former Arizona Governor Fife Symington (awesome name) admitted, contrary to his statements at the time, that he had no idea what took place in the sky over Phoenix 10 years ago. Then Governor Symington not only unequivocally denied the reports of E.T. activity, but went so far as to dress his chief-of-staff as an alien at a press conference to mock the believers. Now, he says, he isn't sure what it was and doesn't believe the explanation given jibes with what he saw.

Of course, Fifey needed a presidential pardon to avoid going to jail on bank fraud charges a few years later. Not exactly a great character reference. However, in UFO terms, he is pretty damn good. Today, he is employed as a pastry chef. As a former Air Force captain, though, he says, "I'm a pilot, and I know just about every machine that flies. It was bigger than anything that I've ever seen. It remains a great mystery. Other people saw it, responsible people. I don't know why people would ridicule it."

I don't know either. Except for the fact that it was a perfectly explainable occurrence. At least according to astronomer James McGaha.

"It was clearly aircraft in formation, flying at two different times and then dropping flares, and it's clear to any rational person that's what it was," McGaha said. He continued, "[Symington] is not a trained observer and what he feels in his gut doesn't make any difference."

Well excuse us Admiral Nerdlington if we want to have a little fun. I don't think he should dismiss it so quickly. Hell, this is a much more relevant question for politicians than have you ever smoked pot. I don't care who has or hasn't smoked pot, but I will adjust my voting patterns based on who does and doesn't believe in UFOs or poltergeists. I mean, not on important elections like president or governor, but I would definitely vote for a city councilor if I thought he might go off on a rant about protecting Boston from aliens. Tell me you wouldn't want to see Barack Obama debate John McCain on the possibility of UFOs. There has to be at least a 90% chance that McCain believes in UFOs. I would also say there is probably a 60% chance he would rip out Obama's larynx for disagreeing with him.

I think it boils down to this: unless it is related to the beliefs of Scientology, everyone is allowed to believe UFOs regularly visit Earth. Personally, I believe in it because I want it to be true not because I actually think it is true. Life is stressful enough these days. Let's have a little fun with it.

To quote my new favorite former politician: "You guys are entirely too serious."

Tavarez Every Fifth Day

2007-03-22T21:11:00.002-05:00

Yes. Finally. Someone over on Yawkey Way must be listening. I have been asking for Julian Tavarez in the starting rotation all winter. I have many reasons. Most of which were based on the intangibles he brings. Not the least of which is the guy is absolutely bat-shit crazy. But also, the guy just has not been effective at all in the bullpen. This is the only logical place for a guy of Tavarez's "ability."

Now, I will admit I was pushing for Wakefield to be removed from the rotation. I still wish I didn't have to witness Tim Wakefield pitch every fifth day, however, the knuckleball will be an omen of the crazy the next day. Words cannot express how excited I am.

The Secret Double Negative

2007-03-13T23:59:00.002-05:00

Have you ever heard someone say something like, "I can't help but like baseball?" I am sure you have. Maybe you have even used this construction yourself. Can't help but is pervasive in our language. For some reason, people can't help but do a great many things. Now ask yourself this. Would you ever say, "I don't have nothing?" Of course not. Everyone knows that is a double negative. Every kid is trained to avoid double negatives. Yet, very few people are ever told to avoid the double negative can't help but.

First let's analyze what is literally being said in these constructions.

Sentence: I can't help but go swimming;
Intention: I can't stop myself from swimming;
Actual: The one thing I can stop myself from doing is
swimming.

Sentence: I can't help but think about him;
Intention: I keep thinking about him;
Actual: The one thing I am not thinking about is him.

The problem comes with not recognizing but is in fact a negative. When you use but you are presenting an exception. Therefore, whatever follows the but is in contradiction to what precedes it.

There is no doubt that literally this construction is incorrect.

Unfortunately, some people accept this structure by classifying it as an idiom. And, by definition, it could be considered an idiom. I take exception, however, with it being used in writing. Idioms are really bad metaphors. Clichés, to quote a friend, are life preservers for people who don't deserve to be saved.

I classify this under the "irregardless law." Persistent incorrect usage should not be accepted into the formal language. It is linguistic apathy which allows the language to erode to the point where people cannot identify the difference between your and you're or there, they're and their.

I will not give up the fight.

I Call Your Bluff And Raise You a Kid!

2007-02-15T00:29:00.003-05:00

By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself....At the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.Scanning the news around the country today, I happened across a couple of interesting stories related to homosexuality in America. The first thing was Tim Hardaway's ridiculously, moronic comments regarding gay players in the NBA. The second was from a story in Washington regarding a Modest Proposal of sorts from the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. While I would be remiss to ignore the Tim Hardaway topic, I want to focus on the other story since it is slightly more important than the rantings of one person.

I first became aware of this story on the Colbert Report this week. It is an interesting touché by gay rights advocates. So here is the story as I understand it.

In 2006, the Supreme Court in Washington State issued a ruling on marriage. The decision in Andersen v. King County stated that there is a "legitimate state interest" allowing the Legislature to restrict marriage to a man and woman: procreation and child-rearing.

"Under this standard, DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation,essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents."

I find this reasoning laughable for a few reasons. First of all, neither one of those objectives is affected by same-sex marriage. Secondly, I hardly think our species is in a position where procreation needs to be legislated. And even if it were, I think it should be left to some higher body than the Washington State Legislature. Thirdly, how does preventing same-sex marriage ensure that households are headed by biological parents? Did I miss something or when a same-sex couple gets married are they entitled to the child of an opposite-sex couple? Also, did I miss the study that said children are better off in orphanages than being raised by a gay couple?

When reading this opinion, I couldn't help feeling the logic was flimsy because the justices themselves didn't believe it was right, but they didn't want to be viewed as activists. Prior to her opinion, Justice Barbara Madsen delivered an extended recap of judicial purview. She goes out of her way to explain her decision must be based on whether the law is constitutional and not whether she thinks it is a good law. She even goes so far as to quote Justice John Paul Stevens who said of several noteworthy opinions with which he was involed that he was “convinced that the law compelled a result that [he] would have opposed if [he] were a legislator.” At the very least she was recusing herself from the debate over gay marriage itself. Though an argument could be made that she was making a veiled stance on behalf of gay marriage. It is difficult to accurately say without knowing her at all.

At any rate, this is where the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance became involved. Despite their deceiving name, they are in fact a pro-same-sex marriage organization. They have taken the words of the justices and used them to craft a rather creative retort to this legal decision.

As described by Greg Gadow, the 39-year old behind this initiative, the purpose is, "to shine a very bright light on the injustice and prejudice that underlie the Andersen decision by giving that decision the full force of law."

He refers to the initiative as "political street theater." And, needless to say, it has managed to get the expected rise out of conservatives.

Here is the initiative:

If passed by Washington voters, I-957 would:

add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
Require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
Require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
Establish a process for filing proof of procreation;
Make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

"Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric."

I admire Gadow for his approach. The debate against gay marriage is ridiculous. All argumentation I have read or heard is based on either bad logic or theologically-justified bigotry.

Some pundits view this as proof of the assault on marriage by the gay community. It isn't, it is an assault on stupidity. Some others see this as a negative waste of time and a foolish abuse of the political process. It isn't, it is the hallmark of political activism. I see Greg Gadow as a modern Jonathan Swift - minus the children eating.

And now briefly, Tim Hardaway.

First the guy is an ignorant moron. He should be treated no differently than someone who says s/he hates blacks or s/he hates Jews or s/he hates (fill in the group).

Secondly, to all the people who say he shouldn't be criticized or he has the right to free speech, listen up! Free speech allows you to say whatever you want. There is very limited prior restraint in this country. For the most part, if you can find a forum then you can let it rip. However, free speech does not shield you from the consequences of your speech. The country granted Tim Hardaway his free speech, now he has to suffer the consequence of his foolish remarks.

Washington Defense of Marriage

Today's Pet Peeve

2007-02-14T21:43:00.004-05:00

As much as I do not want to be viewed as a petty malcontent, I cannot help critiquing media. While I admit it may be a little unfair to pick on this particular outlet (it is a new baseball related blog), I must express my annoyance at a particular policy they have: citation abuse.

I have seen this in other places as well. Yahoo! is great at citing common facts. For instance, their fantasy sports section regularly contains info like this, "Manny Ramirez went 3 for 4 with a home run yesterday against the Orioles according to Gordon Edes of the Boston Globe."

I am not making that up. They source every statistical reference in their news and notes section no matter how insignificant. Not to take anything away from the scoop that Gordon Edes was able to get on that 3 for 4 game, there is no need to reference him. However, it is an institutional policy to do things this way.

For most people, this is most likely just odd. But for me, it completely ruins the next 30 minutes of my day. I don't know why it affects me in a such a negative way. It probably has something to do with my protective attitude for language. Or, it is my total objection to stupidity.

Anyone who made it to high school should know the basic reasons for citing sources. However, for the many people who either didn't pay attention or just didn't care, let's review.

1) Use a citation any time you quote directly from another source. If you took a passage directly from someone you must acknowledge the source.

2) Use a citation if you are paraphrasing someone else's opinion. This is important to protect you, the writer. It is a good idea to establish a clear line between presenting your opinion and someone else's, particularly if the opinion is contentious or controversial. This is important, for example, if you are writing about racism and are presenting the opinion of a particular Ku Klux Klan member. Likewise, it is important if you are writing about scientific research and there is a chance a "fact" could turn out false.

3) Here is the one that Yahoo! and other Web sites seem to ignore. Only cite facts if they are unique to a source or not common knowledge. For example, cite Elias Sports Bureau if you need to use a particular statistical fact only they provide and cannot be found anywhere else. Do not cite generic statistical information that could easily be found on any sports Web site.

4) Loosely related to number 3, cite only information if it is unique to a source. For the sake of argument, let's say I am working on a paper about George Washington. Let's also assume that I have consulted several biographies about the General. If I find in only one of those books that his dog's name was Rex then I would definitely need to cite that source. However, if every biography I read included a reference to his dog Rex, it would become unnecessary to cite that information.

From this brief review, it should become clear some of the reasons to cite. One through three seem pretty obvious. Number four can be a little more subjective, but it is not too difficult to decide if something is common knowledge. Yet, media outlets, specifically new media outlets (i.e., the Internet), continue to overuse citations for some reason. Or, they use them for the wrong reason.

This is from the Wikipedia style guide:

Biographies of living persons should be sourced with particular care, for legal and ethical reasons. All negative material about living persons must be sourced to a reliable source. Do not wait for another editor to request a source. If you find unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living person — whether in an article or on a talk page — remove it immediately! Do not leave it in the article and ask for a source. Do not move it to the talk page. This applies whether the material is in a biography or any other article.

Why the emphasis on negative material? If Wikipedia is seeking to be a legitimate encyclopedia, it should work to verify all information. Clearly, their concern is more for litigation than effective citing. Yes, I agree. Any negative information about a person put on the Web should be refereed. However, it is no less important from a technical standpoint to fact check positive or flattering remarks. Why? Who is any writer to decide what is or isn't positive? I could write that a particular celebrity was instrumental organizing blood drives for people after September 11th, even donating blood himself. Sounds like great PR for someone, right? Suppose it is not true. Suppose it is not true because said celebrity is a Jehovah's Witness. I am guessing the celebrity would not view the unchecked "positive" as such.

I am writing this diatribe because of a story I read earlier tonight on a site called Bugs and Cranks. The article is a relatively benign overview of the disappointing career of Josh Hamilton. My problem is with two specific citations. Both items are common facts. First the fact that Johan Santana, Scott Podsednik, George Bell, Bobby Bonilla, Dan Uggla and Roberto Clemente were selected in the Rule V draft does not need a citation. Secondly, the fact that Brien Taylor never made it above double A baseball is also a common, incontrovertible fact not needing citation. While those two citations are enough to bother me, it is not the worst part of the ordeal. Both these items were not only needlessly cited, but also attributed to Wikipedia. No person with any dignity and pride in their work should ever cite Wikipedia. This to me is like telling everyone, "Hey, not only am I a moron, but I have sex with my sister too!" You can disagree with me, but it's how I feel.

I think it is better to cite when in doubt. However, it is much better to know when to cite and only do it when necessary. A paper loaded with citations and notes can get confusing. Inline citations, the preference for many online sites, are ugly and get in the way of the writing. Why use them more than needed? I appreciate writers who are vigilant and do not get sloppy when citing. At the same time, I lose respect for writers who needlessly cite - especially if that citation is Wikipedia.

For the record, on more than one occasion I have questioned writers at Bugs and Cranks about their unnecessary references. They say it comes from the top - it is an institutional decision to inundate their writing with superfluous citations. Again, the fear of people getting litigious results in an abundance of overly cautious behavior.

I suppose in the end I should learn to live with things like this. Until then, I will keep coming here to complain.

English Killed in American Schools

2007-02-11T18:59:00.002-05:00

This was exciting because in addition to his other credits - expert grammarian, photographic memory for literature, jokingly keeping his shades drawn for fear of snipers (at least, I think he was joking) - he was also a narcoleptic. Today, I read a rather disturbing article on CNN about the state of the English language in American schools. Apparently, the future generation sees nothing wrong with using Internet language in formal papers. Teachers regularly confront abbreviations such as b4, u, dat and wit. To say I am appalled would be an understatement.

I didn’t grow up in the same culture. Internet language wasn’t as developed when I was in school - Prodigy and Compuserve anyone? But, I always had a solid understanding of the differences between formal writing and Internet etiquette or playground verbiage. I may have slipped in the occasional cliché or colloquialism, but it was an error of unrefined writing not an intentional style choice.

For some reason, kids think it is acceptable to utilize this language in any setting. (Let's be honest, it is not really a language so much as adopted laziness.) While my grammar is not always perfect, I do strive to make my language exact. At the very least, I care about the end product. Why don't these kids have the same pride in their writing? Why aren't the teachers drilling this into them? It is hard to not be concerned.

Language is already an area where Americans are severely lacking. Americans aren’t troubled by linguistic ignorance. Nearly every European child grows up at least bilingual, whereas American children are lucky to have an adequate grasp of their mother tongue. Why is this acceptable to so many people?

It’s not difficult to get kids to take notice of grammar. I know because I used to be a violent offender of language. For most of my life, I never had anyone force grammar on me. My schools didn't have any real lessons. I knew the very basics, but my writing abilities greatly suffered due to my disregard for the rules. That all changed rather abruptly, however, my junior year of high school.

That year I had one of the best teachers I ever encountered: Mr. Fredrick Newton. The man was old school. I am certain he would have beaten us if it were legal. In fact, in his younger days before the ravages of age set in, I am sure he did deliver one or two - perhaps an anthology of English plays to the back of someone's head.

He was a big, fat man with a red nose and busted capillaries in his cheeks, which contrasted nicely with his white mustache. He was one of those people that couldn't turn his head; he needed to turn his whole torso. He had a dry, borderline cruel sense of humor. At times, it certainly seemed as though this was not his chosen profession. He excelled nonetheless.

We spent the first month of the year learning proper grammar. Through rote memorization and countless exercises parsing sentences, we were expected to master the language.

It was boring. It was tedious. It was invaluable.

The rest of the year we read various plays and short stories. We read every play aloud in class. Mr. Newton handed out parts to everyone, always assuming the lead male role himself. This was exciting because in addition to his other credits - expert grammarian, photographic memory for literature, jokingly keeping his shades drawn for fear of snipers (at least, I think he was joking) - he was also a narcoleptic.

He would fall asleep any time it was quiet in the room for more than 30 seconds. Sometimes he would fall asleep while the class was reading a play. This would result in someone having to make a loud noise to wake him up when it was his line. Somehow he always awoke knowing exactly which line to read. However, the best would occur mid-sentence. These were more rare, but not as rare as you might think. Everyone would be reading along as he performed whatever voice he chose for that particular part, then...silence. One by one people would look up in disbelief, bemused faces abound. Then he would startle himself awake and continue to read where he left off as though it never happened. To this day, I have never enjoyed someone's disability so much.

At any rate, upon finishing our first play of the year (The Canterbury Tales I believe), Mr. Newton instructed us to create an outline to answer an essay question. We would be allowed to use the outline on the test as a guide for our essay.

The next day everyone received a blue book, and he instructed us to begin writing. There was one caveat: If someone committed one grammatical error then the highest grade that essay could receive was a C, two errors meant a D, and three errors meant an automatic F.

We thought it was a joke at first. He had an unbelievable deadpan. It was impossible at times to decipher sarcasm from serious with him. (Is it any wonder why I liked this guy so much?) Unfortunately, we found out, he was serious. Much to the dismay of a class used to As and Bs.

After the next play (A Farewell to Arms), we went through the same process, only this time he raised the stakes. Instead of one error equaling a C, it now meant a D, and two errors meant an F.

By the third play (Pygmalion), one mistake meant an F. But, by the third play something else had happened. We stopped making grammatical errors and started filling up blue books. In little more than three months, he managed to inflict grammar on a class without much fuss. He simply said, "Learn it or fail." We learned it and were better for it.

I am sure his insensitive teaching style isn't welcome in today's classroom, which is probably why he is retired. In all his time teaching various grade levels, he never relaxed his belief that above all else language must be used correctly. He cared more about the language than any one student's feelings. In the end, all it took was a little effort.

The point of this rather long and meandering story is if teachers don't force kids to speak and write properly, we will continue to produce barely literate kids who can't see the difference between your, you're and ur.

I am not bashful about correcting people when they make egregious mistakes with language. Some may think I get enjoyment from it (I don't). Yet, I do get tired of telling my parents or siblings to use well instead of good and other correct usages. But, I have to persevere. We all do. Sure, being insensitive will upset people; being corrected is not always appreciated. Sometimes I think, "Let it go. It's not a big deal." That is when I think of Mr. Newton and remember that it is important. How we use and abuse language is absolutely important. We must never convince ourselves otherwise.

If you have a problem with that maybe you should take it up with Mr. Laser

2007-02-01T09:18:00.002-05:00

And then the city and state officials, weaned on fear and paranoia, decided someone must pay for their overreaction. "People should not be allowed to trick us," sang the chorus. Meanwhile, they patted each other on the back for their expert handling of a dangerous situation. Officials and first responders all did as they were trained - treat everything as real, don't even ask questions later. Due to their zealous behavior, removing Lite-Brite after Lite-Brite, they never realized that these were in fact just ads. Not until someone responsible for them said, "It's just a cartoon." And with faces turned red, the Governor and Mayor wandered to the podium, the Police Commissioner in tow. "This is not funny," they yelled. Faces still brighter than any of those signs, "We are angry. This can't be allowed in our city. Not since that Tuesday in September five years ago."

And so ends a day long saga of chasing down children's toys. Somehow, not one member of the bomb squad could positively identify it as "not a bomb." In fact, they were so unsure, they actually blew one up in the early morning. I can imagine a lot of kids would want to see what it is like to blow up their Lite-Brite. I would expect a little more restraint from the police. I hope they taped it. It would probably be a top video on youtube. Yeah, kind of like this one.

People are outraged. The government has wasted a lot of time, resources and money trying to solve this bomb scare. It is a riddle solved by many bloggers and college students hours, days and weeks before the police. This whole event is a classic example of fear mongering. This time, the twenty-somethings forced to assure the "adults" that there is no Boogey Man here.

It is absolutely absurd that the media is still referring to this as a hoax and that two of the artists contracted for this job are facing charges. They do not deserve to be charged and possibly go to jail because the city of Boston lost its head. They did not create the hoax. The panic was perpetrated by those supposedly keeping us safe. They never expected experts would fall over themselves trying to declare an emergency. They obviously underestimated the amount of terror in the hearts of the people of Boston.

Let's look at the facts: These things were up for two to three weeks before anyone noticed them. That fact alone means the officials of Boston can stop patting themselves on the back. If they were real bombs, we would all be dead now. Nine other cities had similar advertising and nothing happened. This means one of two things. Either nine cities are even worse than Boston when it comes to identifying suspicious items or nine other cities are more level headed than Boston. I am going with the latter since Boston Police are so vain they actually thought the cartoon figure shooting the bird was a taunt directed at them (reported by a local Boston station).

Once again, the public officials of Massachusetts have wet the bed and they are looking to pass the buck. It is the same with the Big Dig. The number one sport in Massachusetts: finger pointing.

Mayor Menino, a veteran at the political pitbull game, said he is going to ask the FCC to pull TBS's broadcasting license for, "an outrageous act to gain publicity for their product." And why is Menino so upset? Because he never got a call from anyone important at TBS. He says he only received a call from a "low-ranking press official." I am sorry, Tommy. Let's waste even more money prosecuting people for your bruised ego.

Of course, all the actions of the media and officials are perfectly defensible. I mean, since 9/11 we can never be too careful, right? We must never forget the lessons learned on that day. But, we must stop allowing stupidity and fear mongering to be excused by invoking the words "since 9/11." We cannot allow paranoia to be justified by the fact that it is a post-9/11 world.

Sadly, I agree with Joshua Glenn at the Brainiac when he suggests that part of the overreaction is built on a secret desire of Boston to be like New York and be worthy of terrorist attack. Instead, we are just the ignorant fools who are too paranoid of being attacked or too hopeful to be attacked that we fear the most simple of contraptions.

Future Baseball Commissioner George W. Bush?

2007-01-20T12:51:00.002-05:00

In 2009, Bud Selig is supposedly retiring as commissioner of baseball. I cannot say I am too broken up about that. I have never been a fan of his. And surprisingly, it has little to do with his handling of the All Star game a few years back. But that is not really the point. I bring this up because I was reading an article by Jerry Crasnick at ESPN.com about who could be the next commissioner.

It is like his eyes follow you!

In fairness, I did not actually read the entire article. Frankly, I do not care. Except, I noticed a sidebar in the article suggesting Mr. Thirty Percent himself might be a candidate. I think this is a remote chance. I think it would be a PR nightmare for Major League Baseball. But, as a testament to my hatred of this man, the mere suggestion makes my blood boil.

Here is Crasnick's take:

After eight years of al-Qaida and Osama, Sunnis and Shiites, the Hurricane Katrina mess, declining approval ratings and sparring with the Democrats in Washington, George W. Bush might prefer to go home to Crawford, Texas, and relax rather than pursue an enterprise as taxing as the job of baseball commissioner. But you never know.

The president has a real affinity for baseball, and he reflects fondly on his tenure as owner of the Texas Rangers. Trading Sammy Sosa to the White Sox for Harold Baines and Fred Manrique wasn't such a great thing. But Bush did manage to turn a $600,000 investment into a $15 million windfall when Tom Hicks bought the club in 1998.

Fay Vincent wrote in his book that Bush was interested in becoming commissioner before running for governor of Texas, but that Bud Selig cut him off at the pass. While a Major League Baseball official privately denied the story to ESPN.com, it's not too farfetched to see Bush considering the post again down the road. A former chief executive can spend only so much time on the lecture circuit and serving on corporate boards before he starts looking for a new challenge.

In the first paragraph, Crasnick lists about 4 or 5 major, colossal, monumental failures during Bush's administration: The Al-Qaida/Bin Laden search, Iraq et al., Hurricane Katrina, etc. The guy is one of the worst presidents of the last century. He should be shunned and declared a nonperson like Khrushchev after his ousting. He should not be handed control over one of the most sacred cultural items in America.

In the second paragraph, Crasnick gives Bush credit for taking a $600,000 investment and turning it into $15 million. Fine, he bought a baseball team in the late 80's and sold it in the mid-90's. Two things about that point. One they built a new stadium in that time, which increases value. Two, and more importantly, he sold the team to Tom Hicks. Hicks is notorious for grossly overpaying for things (see Park, Chan Ho and Rodriguez, Alex).

Finally in the third 'graph, there is talk about getting bored with the lecture circuit and needing a new challenge. Before Bush moves on to a new challenge shouldn't he successfully complete at least one of his old challenges?

I think it is obvious without further detail how much of a train wreck this would be. By 2009, Bush will have finished one of the most disgraceful administrations in the history of the United States. While there may be some cachet having a former POTUS as your commissioner, let's wait for a more suitable ex-president.

How about: Commissioner Barack Obama?

Substitute 4 - An Unexpected Treat

2007-01-19T23:40:00.002-05:00

As an American male in his twenties, I have seen many Saturdays come and go from the comfort of the couch. "You know why I was discharged from the Army? I enjoyed killing too much."While some may see this as a slothful waste of life, it has allowed me to experience things that would be otherwise missed. Admittedly, these sessions often result in little more than passing hangovers as I mindlessly watch TV or play video games. But, occasionally, they result in momentous experiences, without which my life would be a little emptier. One experience I am glad not to have missed – The Substitute 4: Failure Is Not an Option.

For the uninitiated, the Substitute series first appeared in 1996 starring Tom Berenger as a professional mercenary who goes undercover as a substitute teacher. Along with his colleagues William Forsythe and Luis Guzmán, he is able to topple an inner city gang run by J-Lo’s Marc Anthony. An impressive cast which collectively boasts a plethora of top Hollywood movies: Looking for Mr. Goodbar, Once Upon a Time in America, Platoon, Raising Arizona, Major League, Carlito’s Way, Gettysburg, The Rock, Boogie Nights and Magnolia.

Flash forward five years…

The fourth installment is a straight to video classic released in 2001 starring Treat Williams. Yes, the Treat Williams. What’s that? Treat Williams isn’t enough? How about former Howard Stern girlfriend, the beautiful Angie Everhart? How about the would-be Jack Bauer assassin, Patrick Kilpatrick? How about a man with such films to his credit as Sister Act, Bulletproof and Candyman II: Farewell to Flesh, Bill Nunn? (He is also in some movie called Spider-Man.)

I know. It sounds like too much good for one movie, right?

Essentially, Karl Thomasson (Williams) is a professional mercenary who is contacted by an old friend. His friend has a nephew enrolled at an elite military academy. His nephew has been acting strangely ever since he joined the Werewolves, an elite unit within the academy run by the bigoted, yet politically correct, Colonel Brack (Kilpatrick). At his friend’s request, Thomasson agrees to go undercover as a teacher to find out what is going on – stop me if you have heard this before.

The Werewolves are an overly hardened group of academy soldiers. Their insignia appears to be a modified swastika, and their beliefs closely mirror those of the Nazis. Col. Brack is an angry racist still upset that his ex-wife is a “multiculturalist” engaged to a black man. He sends his cadets out to perform domestic terrorism against the “multiculturalists” of the world including one company called: Another Minority-Owned Industry – aren’t there just too many of these? One scene includes a debate over the reality of the Holocaust. Here the head Werewolf refers to those who died as having “bad luck," but not as victims of a holocaust. It is probably the only bigotry in the movie that isn’t tempered with euphemisms.

Thomasson is aided by his former platoon-mate Devlin (Tim Abbel) and a Vietnam vet with a few screws loose, Luther (Nunn). He is also aided, at least so he thinks, by the seductive academy nurse Jenny (Everhart). Luther is probably one of the best peripheral characters in movie history. He has great lines like, "You know why I was discharged from the Army? I enjoyed killing too much." After he says this, he punches one of the Werewolves in the face, ostensibly killing him. It is difficult to tell, however. In some scenes, people will be stabbed, but survive. In others, a single shot to the stomach from a 9mm is instantly fatal. In the next scene, several shots to the chest at close range takes minutes to even render the victim unconscious. It is these inconsistencies that make this movie so good.

All in all, it is a fantastic bad movie. It includes some good violence (an impaling), some horribly fantastic CGI explosions, and Everhart shows off her ta tas on more than one occasion. From what I have read, they made this entire movie in 18 days. When Hollywood spends that much time on a movie, it is guaranteed gold.

On a scale of one to five, Red Scorpion being a five, I give Substitute 4 a three and half. If you actually get the DVD and do not watch it on cable, it gets to a four because of Everhart’s boobs.

Quotes:

Thomasson: Your uncle's dead. Brack's responsible...Lim killed him.
Teague: How did he die?
Thomasson: The same way Lim kills everyone - No Mercy!

Col. Brack: The future belongs to real white men. [He is shot in the chest] It is just the Holocaust, get over it. [Shot in the chest]RACIAL PURITY! [Shot in the chest again]

Brack's Daughter: I am thinking of moving back in with mom.
Col. Brack: Your mother is a multiculturalist.

Werewolves: Slash, Burn, Bomb, Kill, Die, Werewolves' Glory!
Col. Brack: An army that believes in what it fights for is greater than its numbers. So never forget why we fight. Never forget that the atheists and multiculturalists will not rest until every white man, woman and child is bent before them.

Major League Soccer's Bold Experiment

2007-01-16T00:27:00.002-05:00

David Beckham is on his way to the United States. To anyone following soccer, this news is not a huge surprise. Beckham’s desire to play in America is well known. His reasons for this are not. Major League Soccer has bent over trying to make it possible for a player like Beckham to come here. (This past year they created an exception that allows teams an extra million to maintain and replenish talent previously out of their price range.) The theory behind remodeling the economic system is not merely to bring in high priced names to fill seats. The MLS seems smart enough to know that is not a long-term strategy. Rather, the extra capital is meant to replenish the league as it barrels toward a second decade.

MLS is about to begin its 12th season. Some still question the viability of a professional soccer league in America. Since 1996, attendance has remained at the same level (median attendance about 13,300). The median attendance has never been below 12,500 and never above 15,100. This would indicate the MLS has developed a reliable base. Granted, the 2006 total attendance number for the league of just fewer than 3 million for 192 games is about the equivalent of the Red Sox attendance numbers over 81 games. But the MLS is not trying to be MLB. A better comparison is the NHL and NBA – based on stadium size. For instance, the LA Galaxy, using average attendance numbers, outdraw the Boston Celtics.

One caveat to this comparison, however, is the price. In most cases, MLS is a cheap alternative to the other professional teams. The average Celtics ticket is three or four times the price of the average Revolution ticket. If the Revolution charged the same prices the Boston Celtics do, the attendance numbers probably wouldn't be close.

The fact is we may never see crowds equal in size and voice to those in Europe. Camp Nou and San Siro will never be matched in the States; but if the MLS can achieve NHL or NBA sized crowds, around 20,000 per game, while charging standard rates for a professional sport, it would be a tremendous boon to the sport in the US.

The ultimate point here is MLS does not want to be a gimmick league. It does not want to be a flash on the screen like the North American Soccer League (NASL). I think NASL proved soccer could be viable in the US for a period. MLS needs to remain proactive to avoid becoming a niche league, which survived for only a couple of decades.

Here is where the Beckham deal comes into play. First of all, it is insane money. (A large portion of that money is based on endorsement deals and potential royalties from ticket sales and other merchandise.) I cannot tell you how committed he would be to come to the US without a large sum of money. I know he has been talking about making the move for a long time, but he is still a top level player and was receiving consideration from top clubs (e.g., AC Milan). Did the Galaxy far exceed the price requirement or was it a necessary bid to attract Beckham here? It could be a situation where the MLS had to go way over the top to convince him to come here. It is interesting juxtaposed with the richest transfer fee for an American with MLS recently selling Revolution midfielder Clint Dempsey to Fulham FC for $4M. It is a minor discrepancy between top US talent and top European talent.

Here is what is good about this deal, and why they probably needed to spend a ridiculous sum. (Though I am sure they spent more than they had to.)

1. First off, David Beckham is only 31. While that is slightly old in soccer years, it is not over-the-hill by any means, especially when you consider Beckham's greatest skills are passing and set plays. It is not exactly as physically demanding as a player who depends on 1 v. 1 play to be successful.

2. Secondly, in comparison to the talent of other MLS players, it is not even close. He is immediately the best player in the league - this from a guy who is struggling to crack the starting lineup for Real Madrid. Granted, Madrid is kind of like the Yankees. It is difficult to play Sheffield, Matsui, Damon and Abreu all in the same outfield.

3. The third thing is this will hopefully lay the groundwork for other people. The MLS has always managed to get good players from the Americas, but the only European players that come here are either not good enough for Europe anymore or they are very young players who either came here for college and stayed or just couldn't hack it in England. The best players don't want to come for two reasons: They don't respect the MLS - it is not prestigious like Europe's leagues - and the MLS doesn't pay well. Clearly, this proves there is money to be had here. Yet, I would be hesitant to accept players only after a paycheck. A player like Ronaldo would be a big name and a top talent, but is he really the type of player MLS needs?

The problem is it will be a long time before players choose the MLS on its merits alone. Europe offers a lot more from the level of competition, the money and the opportunity to play in international tournaments. Money is all MLS has to lure people here. But if they can become a legitimate option for older players, like Beckham, who are no longer first team options for their club teams (Edgar Davids, a quality Dutch international, is supposedly in that position and talking with FC Dallas) then that is a good thing. Players who are trying to prove themselves, like Davids, would be great assets. They will probably never get players in their prime, at least not until they achieve higher standing and international club trophies worthy of pursuit. This is probably their best bet.

Now there are problems inherent in this deal. It is a ton of money that I do not think MLS can afford to lose. If they overestimate the impact of Beckham - if other players don't follow him, if soccer doesn't become more popular - they will be screwed. Beckham will help the Galaxy win, but the Galaxy also won the championship two years ago without him. They do not need to pay someone that much to win. The second thing is the salary of all the other players. Beckham will be making more than his entire team combined, a lot more. Taylor Twellman, the leagues top scorer since he came to MLS, only makes $181,000. I refuse to believe other players will not be resentful, especially if Beckham’s true interests are away from the pitch.

The other flaw I see is the assumption that if the MLS has superstars like Beckham, people will watch. I think that is a very short-term fix. Hey, when Pelé and company were here in the 70's, people watched soccer, but it did not last. The novelty wears off. They can get guys like Beckham, like Ronaldo, like Davids and Zidane, or any other elite player who want to come to America. Those players will provide great highlights for an unsophisticated soccer base in the US. They will probably even make Sportscenter on a regular basis. But for how long? MLS has a base, it should not risk that base for a short-term spike in interest. It can't overextend itself financially just for a handful of names.

The MLS has to do whatever it can to inject excitement without changing the rules. I am sorry, if they get rid of ties, it would be a step backward. The question is how popular can soccer be here? There are a lot of people who watched the World Cup. Was that because it was a one month, quadrennial event or is it because people enjoy soccer when it is played by the best athletes? If it is the former, the MLS has serious obstacles. But if it is the latter, then paying exorbitant fees to people like Beckham is a good move.

Zito...$18M? Huh?

2007-01-10T01:46:00.003-05:00

Barry Zito has signed a contract with the Giants for seven years at $126 million dollars or $18M a year. Are you kidding me? In what universe is Barry Zito worth that much? I understand he was the best pitcher on the market. I understand that the teams bidding on him were desperate for pitching. I understand that he is only 28, left handed and a former Cy Young winner. All this, however, does not add up to $18M a year. This is another ridiculous signing during a winter full of over-sized contracts.

Let me say this first: Barry Zito is a good pitcher. He is not great. He probably will put up solid numbers moving to the National League. He will probably win around 15 or 16 games a year. He is a pretty healthy guy and averages about seven innings a start with a sub 4 ERA. These are all good things. But none of those things means the most expensive pitcher in baseball.

Zito is not a power pitcher. Success in the majors is not predicated on being a power pitcher, far from it. Look at the successful careers people like Jamie Moyer and Tom Glavine have had. However, with the exception of Greg Maddux, the only pitchers who dominate and shutdown their opponents (i.e. they are aces) are power pitchers. Why? The ability to crank it up to 98mph+ will always be the great equalizer.

Here is another good test. List the top 5 pitchers in baseball right now. You probably will find yourself excluding Zito. It will probably look something like this: (in no particular order) Chris Carpenter, Roy Hallady, Johan Santana, Roy Oswalt and Justin Verlander. Depending on injury or willingness to play you might also add Francisco Liriano, Roger Clemens, Jason Schmidt etc etc. The point is, Zito’s name does not come immediately to the top of your head. This contract suggests he is the best pitcher in baseball. He isn’t.

Finally, unless we are talking about Pedro Martinez circa 1999, you should not be paying a pitcher almost 20 million dollars, especially if said pitcher isn’t the most dominant pitcher in the game. Period.

Doing It Fingerstyle

2006-12-21T18:25:00.001-05:00

I recently came across this video on College Humor. As a struggling guitar player myself, I was blown away by this guy's technique. The song, which is an original, is actually pretty good as well. I wouldn't be inclined to listen to an entire album of his songs, but I am not a fan of easy listening instrumentals as a general rule. Andy McKee has won several fingerstyle championships - once you see the video you will see why.

For those of you interested in more, Andy has several videos on YouTube. He even has a killer cover of Africa by Toto. In addition to the acoustic guitar, he does some finger work on the harp guitar.

Unfortunately for him, I don't know that there is a huge audience for this type of music. I for one, while impressed by his chops, would not buy an album of his. Perhaps if he teamed up with a talented vocalist he could find success on the contemporary charts.

At any rate, here is Andy McKee - Drifting:

Overdue - Video of the Week - Skeletor

2006-12-20T18:26:00.001-05:00

First of all, I apologize for neglecting the content side of this blog for over a month. I have been busy with...well, to be honest, I have mostly been busy with fruitlessly searching for a job and fantasy football. I am not going to make any promises to blog more faithfully, but I will try to try to be more attentive.

And now I present this week's video collection...

Question: What do you get when you combine an evil genius with reality TV?
Answer: The Skeletor Show.

That's right! Everyone's favorite exoskeleton is back, but this time he isn't playing second fiddle to Prince Adam.

The good people at Flying Squid Studios have remixed episodes of Masters of the Universe to create a slightly different show. Using a similar concept as Sealab 2021, The Skeletor Show follows the everyday happenings of the greatest villain in all of Eternia. Much like in the original Filmation cartoon series, Skeletor is a diabolical, but frustrated evil-doer. In this case, most of his frustration is due to being surrounded by his incompetent minions: Mer-man, Beast-Man, Evil-Lyn, Tri-Klops and Trap-Jaw. These videos are great for their nostalgic qualities.

Admittedly, some of these videos get by only on concept. And while they may not leave you in stitches, they are worth watching for the sake of sentimentality. To FSS’s credit, the overall production is pretty good even if the scripts are sometimes less than robust.

How could this show be better? Evil-Lyn/She-Ra lesbian action. Maybe they could work in She-Ra's pal Castaspella for some hot menage a trois action. I don't know - maybe Castaspella puts a spell on Evil-Lyn and She-Ra removing all their inhibitions. They fly on Swift back to the Crytsal Castle where it is unadulterated passion.

For now, I suppose, we will have to settle for the Skeletor show.

All the Skeletor episodes are available here. Flying Squid Studios - a reference to the floating, homoerotic magician Orko - also produces Super!, a Superman parody, and Star Trek: Split Infinitive. The Essentialist does not endorse either of those cartoons.

Daisuke Matsuzaka for a Mere $90M

2006-11-15T01:54:00.002-05:00

Daisuke Matsuzaka officially belongs to the Red Sox. While there is still the technicality of negotiating with Scott Boras over a contract, the Red Sox possess his exclusive rights and have already committed to spending $50 million on the 26-year old righty. What's another $40M? It seems certain that the Red Sox would know the price Boras would require to sign the latest baseball superstar from the country that brought us Ichiro and Hideki Matsui. But let's not forget that they also brought us Hideki Irabu and Kaz Matsui. As a Red Sox fan, I hope this kid becomes a stalwart at the top of the rotation for the next decade. However, I am not going to buy my Matsuzaka jersey just yet.

First, let's begin with a little history. Name one Japanese pitcher to pitch successfully in the US over an extended period of time. Hideo Nomo is closest followed by Kaz Sasaki. But both pitchers struggled mightily after early success. Nomo has managed to kick around, while Sasaki only stayed four seasons. This brief history does not mean that Matsuzaka can't enjoy a great career with the Red Sox. It simply suggests that there is an inherent difference between pitching success in Japan and the US - it is possibly no different than between the American League and the National League. The counter argument to this would be that eventually one pitcher will break through. Maybe it is Matsuzaka, but I am not going to get overly excited until I see him pitch here.

Secondly, he is only 26 by way of birth. That is pitching prime, however, there is some question as to how old he is in baseball years. He has had injuries to his arm, specifically his elbow. Also, he has completed over half the games he has started. While that is an impressive stat - 28 CG over the last 2 years - that is an increase in wear and tear, which suggests his arm is older than his birth certificate.

Finally, it is going to take some time to adjust. Look at this past season with Josh Beckett. He was expected to win 20 games right out of the gate. It didn't happen for a variety of reasons. One would imagine that every adjustment Beckett needed to make coming to the Sox in '06, Matsuzaka will similarly have to make coming here for '07. In the end, this kid could be great. It is difficult to spend $90M over 4 years on a guy and not expect him to immediately dominate. But he will most likely need time to adjust. How much time? One month? 3 months? A season? I would say if it takes longer than a season, the Red Sox have a problem. I suggest he has until the All-Star break before people can get on him for sucking.

On the flip-side of this coin, what if he is everything as advertised? Well then the Red Sox have a top of the rotation that consists of Beckett, Matsuzaka, Curt Schilling and Jonathan Papelbon. Throw in some combination of Tim Wakefield, Matt Clement, Jon Lester - and even Julian Tavarez - for the 5th spot and the rotation is pretty formidable. Actually, it is downright intimidating...assuming Schilling can pitch like he did in 2004 and 2006, that Papelbon can make the transition from closer to starter, and that Beckett regains his 2002 form and begins to dominate.

Speaking of the 5th spot in the rotation, why not let Tavarez have it? Who was the best starting pitcher for the Sox the last month of the season? How much more exciting is watching him pitch opposed to Wakefield?

In September, he started 5 games. He averaged over 6 innings a start including a one-hitter against the Blue Jays. His ERA for the month was 3.57. The team was 5-1 in games he started. Plus, getting back to the most important point, is there any pitcher since Bill Lee who is more entertaining to watch?

Of the choices for the 5th spot, Tavarez is the best. First, I hate seeing a knuckleball pitcher. I can't stand seeing Wakefield pitch. Any time I have tickets to the Red Sox and he is scheduled to start, I feel like scalping. Second, Clement is a stiff in Boston. He could benefit greatly from a change of scenery and leagues. If Lester is ready to pitch then I will acquiesce and agree that Lester should be the fifth starter. I don't know how long it will take him to come back.

Now let's look at everything Tavarez brings as a 5th starter. First of all, his contract is an albatross for a middle reliever, especially considering his effectiveness or lack thereof. However, you make that contract for a 5th starter, it suddenly becomes manageable. The guy performed as a starter last year. It was a short sample, but it was light years ahead of his performances out of the bullpen. Let's not forget nobody directs infielders turning a double play better than Tavarez. Also, Tavarez throws like El Tiante every once in while. That is worth something by itself. Plus, there is always the chance he will completely blow a gasket - every team needs at least one guy who could possibly destroy a dugout.

Schilling, Beckett, Matsuzaka, Papelbon, Tavarez - I would pay to see that rotation any day of the week.

How Should This End?

2006-11-09T16:14:00.002-05:00

As most anyone who knows me will tell you, I love online videos. As a frequent flier at Youtube, I am the guy who usually inundates your email box with funny videos. However, it can be difficult to find quality, original video online. Now don't get me wrong. I love video clips of an announcer calling himself gay or sketches from SNL as much as the next guy. But as much as I enjoy a clip of Chuck Norris telling Haley Joel Osment he has AIDS, my favorite videos come from the Youtube auteurs. Real gems can be difficult to find. When you do find one, you turn into a Mormon seeking to spread the word.

For every Lonelygirl15 there are 50 talentless people who think they have ability. With video hosting widely available, there is a glut of shit on the Internet. Sifting through this crap is difficult and tedious. There are some solid Web sites that aggregate a lot of this information - CollegeHumor being one of the best. Then there are email chains, which cut through most offices so that by the end of the week everyone has seen the picture of Bronson Arroyo with a Northeastern frosh on his lap.

Still, this only covers things you probably would have discovered anyway. If you want the real good material, you have to dig deep within libraries on Youtube. But I mean, who really has time for that?

That is where the Essentialist comes into play. Each week I will provide a collection of videos I believe to be particularly well done. I am open to suggestions, but ultimately I am the final arbiter of taste.

And now the first edition...

The first video library comes from the good people at How It Should Have Ended.com. While their videos can be found on Youtube, I highly recommend going to their site for two reasons: It is easier to find all the videos, and their website uses a DivX plug-in making the video quality a bit better.

The concept of their videos is simple. Take a movie like the Lord of the Rings and present it as it would have been minus all the Hollywood drama building. The average length of a movie is about 2 minutes, which makes them easily digestible. My favorites include their takes on Superman, LOTR, the Blair Witch Project and Star Wars:Episode IV.

In addition to videos, they also have comics on their page and movie reviews. However, I cannot recommend the comics. I did read through all of them...at one point I kind of made a "hmmpf" sound. But it could have just been air escaping quickly for another reason. As for their movie reviews, I only read one. It was for Borat and they gave it a negative review. Therefore, I actually recommend not reading their movie reviews.

See one of their videos below. For more of their stuff, you can visit them at How It Should Have Ended.com.

Next week we will be exploring the daily routine of one of the 80's greatest villains: Skeletor!

And now for your viewing pleasure - How It Should Have Ended:Sci-fi edition!

Elections - A Time for Change...for Hope

2006-11-07T19:09:00.003-05:00

Once again it is a special day for democracy. Many people I talked to said they were going to vote for Healey at the beginning of the race, but were too turned off from her negative campaign. Every two years, Americans get the privilege to choose which people will go to Washington to misconstrue their wishes. Every bit of "political capital" Bush thought he won in 2004 could be reclaimed in 2006. This election, as is the case with most midterms, is a referendum on the Administration. We need to rebuild a political landscape built on accountability and hope.

Of course, there are local elections as well. Here in Massachusetts, we have a gubernatorial race filled with enough vitriol to make Vince McMahon proud - albeit it is mostly one way. In fact, Kerry Healey has stooped so low to prove she is worthy that many people are voting against her based on the ads in support of her. In an entirely unscientific survey, many people I talked to today, some who voted entirely Democratic for the first time in their lives, said they were going to vote for Healey at the beginning of the race, but were too turned off from her negative campaign.

For those of you not living in the great state of Massachusetts, here is one of the best ads she put out. It stops just short of calling Deval Patrick a rapist.

As I write this, Kerry Healey is conceding the race to Patrick. Happier I could not be. And he has won with a message of hope. Maybe this is a sign that campaigning with fear will no longer work.

This is no different than when Bill Clinton campaigned as being from a place called Hope. A powerful narrative device and something Democrats are talented at providing. It is a resounding message that Democrats are spreading around the country. The Republican fear mongering has survived far too long. As an American, I am ashamed to have George W. Bush as our president. I have never nor would I ever vote for W. In fact, there are few Republicans for whom I would vote. John McCain being one exception, which immediately comes to mind (UPDATE: This is no longer true).

I try to have an open mind. I evaluate based on my beliefs and not party lines. However, I have never felt more obligated to be a Democrat in my life. Republicans have destroyed the very fabric of America and betrayed the American dream. Somehow Republicans have bamboozled the US to obtain offices. By purveying fear from the terrorists or cozying up to the religious sects, they have greased the right palms, begged, borrow and stole elections. Tonight, perhaps, God will finally bless America.

New and Improved Bats

2006-10-26T23:32:00.002-05:00

I just finished watching the Cardinals beat the Tigers in game four. I have to admit being a bit ambivalent about this year’s World Series. On the one hand, the Tigers make for a good story. On the other hand, both these teams are boring to watch. This game was no different than the others: not a lot of action and most of it involved sloppy play. Most of the playoffs have been pretty unentertaining. But beyond the lackluster games and typically horrible announcers, I have noticed something else this postseason, particularly when watching the Mets and the Tigers: a lot of players are using X-Bats.

As someone who plays in a wooden bat league and uses an X-Bat, this is very interesting. It almost reassures me about my decision to purchase them before last season – though I was admittedly extremely satisfied before I noticed Jose Valentin holding in his hands the same Model 73 that I use. Popularized by Bonds, this model is most identifiable by its oversized knob. According to X-Bat, this is the most popular model in the Major Leagues.

If you have never played baseball on a competitive level above the age of 12, you might be inclined to say, “A bat is a bat.” And, for the most part, metal bats do look and feel the same. Many of them hit the same as well. Essentially, if you buy an Easton, TPX or any other metal bat, you are getting the same ping. Another key point is that no matter which Louisville TPX Omaha you purchase, it will be identical to every other Omaha with rare exception. Here in lies the greatest idiosyncrasy of wooden bats. Since each one comes from a unique piece of wood, no two bats are exactly the same.

When it comes to picking out a wood bat, there are many factors involved. First, you have to properly assess your hitting style. Are you a power hitter or a contact hitter? Do you like to pull the ball or go the other way? Then you analyze your personal preferences. Do you want a thin handle or thick handle? How big of a barrel do you want? And on and on. In fact, often times the amateur puts so much thought into what model bat they want, they don’t even think about the company. In the end, they probably end up with a piece of garbage from Louisville.

Other than Louisville Slugger, most people can’t name another wood bat. And to be fair Louisville Slugger makes a great bat if you are a professional player, but for the guy going to City Sport, it just won’t cut it. It all comes down to grades of wood. For obvious reasons, bat companies use their best wood for professional players. Mass producers like Louisville don’t really have great wood left once they work through the minor leagues. The net result is weak wood that is likely to break at the first miss hit. The one exception to the amateurs-should-not-buy-Louisvilles theory is people who like their Pro Stock Lite series. As far as finding light wood bats, you won’t do any better than the Pro Stock Lite.

This is where I bring it back to the original point about X-Bats. Players talk. They share tips and share equipment. If you notice, when one guy is doing well with a bat, others usually follow. This is true of any quality bat company. If they consistently make a strong, durable, solid bat then other guys will pick it up. On the Red Sox this year Mike Lowell used a D-Bat. After a few weeks Alex Cora started using one and then Loretta and Gonzalez. The same can be said of the X-Bat. Usually, if you see one guy on the team using it at least three or four others will use it as well. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays are a great example. Just about every player on the team used an X-Bat this year (no seriously, I pay attention to this stuff).

I encourage anyone to try these alternative bats if they get the chance. If you are a serious player, you owe it to yourself to investigate. These bat companies (X-Bat, D-Bat, A-Bat, BBW, SBC) are to baseball what the micro-brewery is to beer. I know I am glad I made the switch. I know I will never use a Louisville Slugger again.