Tuesday, December 16, 2008

More albums, please

Time once again for "bands/artists who need to put out another album soon," as most recently organized here, since when four of the five bands/artists have put another album out and Snow Patrol have actually put out two. (God bless 'em, although I've gotten diminishing returns from the two.)

5. Green Day
Say what you will about Green Day, but American Idiot is a pretty great album by mainstream rock standards. And it came out in September 2004, which is a pretty long time ago by general music standards. The next album is scheduled for this coming summer, but that's still a ways off.

4. The Shins
This one's a little greedy since the last Shins album "only" came out a little less than two years ago (which is why they're only #4), but come on, Shins. It can't possibly take three and a half years every time, can it?

3. Doves
Some Cities came out in early 2005. They have a new album apparently coming out in the spring, which is great - but wow, four years. This in spite of the fact that Some Cities apparently went to #1 in the UK. But then, at least they have a new album scheduled, unlike #1 and #2 on this list.

2. The Essex Green
I forget how I stumbled upon them originally - it was via eMusic, I know, so it was probably a recommendation that they were similar to another band I liked and I found it hilarious that their name was the same as a shopping center I often went to in New Jersey. Their last album, Cannibal Sea, came out in March 2006, so they're not at three years yet, which is about the longest amount of time I find generally acceptable from an active band. The thing is, the band members all seem to have relatively new families that may be hampering any recording efforts. I thought I read recently that a new album was in the works, but their official site has nothing on it. Looks like I'm stuck listening to Cannibal Sea over and over for the foreseeable future (not exactly a bad thing, of course).

1. Sufjan Stevens
For a while, Stevens was actually quite prolific, releasing outstanding albums in 2003, 2004 and 2005 (the last of which, Illinois, remains his finest work to date). In 2006, he put out both The Avalanche, advertised as "outtakes and extras from the Illinois album," and Songs for Christmas. Both were great, but both were basically just compilations of older material, meaning that it's now been three and a half years with no new album from a guy who was able to put out three great ones in three years not that long ago. Perhaps he burned out a little. I'd love a new "state" album, but really I'd take just about anything from him at this point.

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

My Year of Bonds

Yeah, it probably won't take a whole year (although that partially depends on how long it takes From Russia with Love and You Only Live Twice to come off "short wait" on Netflix), but I couldn't resist the sound-vaguely-alike with "My Year of Flops," a quasi-inspiration for this sort of reviewing method. This is all going to be on the main site, since I prefer that layout for long-form reviewing and use of pictures; I'll probably put a link up on the right when I've written a couple more, but here's Volume One, for Dr. No.

Monday, December 01, 2008

Quantum of DVDs

This is an odd post to be making on the heels of announcing my engagement, given that it's the sort of thing you'd probably expect a single guy to do instead. But I plan to take time over the coming months to do two movie-viewing projects which in some respects have been a long time coming.

1. Every James Bond film in order
I've seen all the films of Brosnan and Craig, but that's just six out of 22 total (which doesn't even count Never Say Never Again) and ignores Connery entirely. Alma's father and brother-in-law are both big Bond fans (unless I'm completely misremembering, Tyler is as well), so it seems like an appropriate time to rectify this blind spot, and hey, I get to make a series of reviews out of it! Sounds like a plan to me.

2. Every DVD I own
Movies only, or this would take a lot longer. Thinking on it, I own quite a few films on DVD that I have never watched on DVD - films that I saw in the theater, liked a lot, bought, and then never looked at again. Whether or not I would still love all these films is a matter of debate. So I get to make a series of reviews that involves me revisiting films I loved in the past, and deciding whether or not I still like them enough to hang on to them. And if I don't, I can sell them on eBay and actually make a tiny, tiny dent in the pile of clutter that is my apartment.

Before anyone says anything, I fully expect these projects combined to take at least nine months to a year. That's 22 Bond films (probably by the time I near the end Quantum of Solace will be out on DVD, and yes, I just saw it, but the point is to go in order to see exactly how the franchise has evolved, since at present I'm ill equipped to answer that) and I forget exactly how many I own but it's gotta be at least three dozen and quite possibly over forty. The odds of me watching more than one movie a week with any regularity aren't great while I'm still doing both work and school, which I will be the entire time, so I'll try to hold to something approximating that schedule. In other words - especially since I'm about to leave the country for the best part of a month - if I'm done with the two projects by New Year's 2010 it'll be something of a minor miracle. Just think of me as a cut-rate Nathan Rabin.

Comments? Suggestions?

Sunday, November 30, 2008

A modest proposal

So, we're not really out to make a huge deal out of this. But I proposed to Alma on Friday and she said yes. There's still some way to go before we're actually planning on getting married - at least a couple years - but we're officially engaged, after almost five years of dating. Hooray!

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Why We Fight

I imagine some of you wonder why I get so annoyed by bad MVP votes and the like. It's for the same reason why I don't think intelligent design deserves to be taught in public schools alongside evolution. We have scientific methods and data that can tell us things we're not always capable of guessing or perceiving on our own - but some people actively disdain these methods. Saying that people who believe in the importance of stats don't like or can't adequately appreciate baseball, as many anti-stat types do, is really no more intellectually valid than saying that a belief in evolution means I don't like or can't adequately appreciate the majesty of the earth. It's ridiculous. And, more specifically, because sometimes there is an MVP ballot so monumentally dumb that it suggests that its associated voter should not only be stripped of his right to vote for postseason awards, but dragged out into the street and beaten like Carlo Rizzi. Ladies and gentlemen, Tom Haudricourt of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's ballot for 2008 NL MVP:

1. Ryan Howard, Phil
2. CC Sabathia, Mil
3. Manny Ramirez, LA
4. Carlos Delgado, NY
5. Aramis Ramirez, Chi
6. Prince Fielder, Mil
7. Albert Pujols, Stl
8. Ryan Ludwick, Stl
9. Ryan Braun, Mil
10. David Wright, NY

My first thought: Tom Haudricourt was awakened from a coma on July 1st.

1. Ryan Howard, Phil

I mostly went over this one yesterday. Ryan Howard is the MVP only if you believe one of the following three things:

(1) There is nothing more important than hitting a lot of home runs
(2) There is nothing more important than having a ton of RBIs
(3) There is nothing more important than getting hot in September

(3) is maybe, kinda, sorta true, although if you were absolute shit for the first three months of the season, and then again in August, I don't think a hot September should outweigh that. (1) and (2) are nonsense.

2. CC Sabathia, Mil

Sabathia pitched extremely well for the Brewers. He also did not pitch for them before July. Unless you put up full-season stats in half a season, you cannot be an MVP for half a season. There are no such things as extrapolation points.

3. Manny Ramirez, LA

See above. Ramirez played for the Dodgers for two months. He was a really, really good hitter during that time, but he still only played for them for two months. Mercifully, Ramirez finished "only" fourth in the balloting this year, suggesting that at least most writers were only so swayed by the "Manny has turned this team around!" narrative.

4. Carlos Delgado, NY

Remember the first half of the season, when Delgado was hitting .248 with a .328 OBP and everyone was talking about how washed up he was? Tom Haudricourt doesn't.

5. Aramis Ramirez, Chi

Dear God. At this point there can be no doubt that Haudricourt is focused primarily on team accomplishments; Ramirez had a nice season, of course, but it doesn't compare with Albert Pujols' even if you love counting stats.

6. Prince Fielder, Mil

Decent year. Better year than Albert Pujols?

7. Albert Pujols, Stl

And finally we get to the real MVP. The guy who Tom Haudricourt does not even think was a top five most valuable player candidate because his team was mediocre. Tom Haudricourt was voting for the MVPOATTAMTPOALGCTTCDBOEHCDGOHB Award, the Most Valuable Player on a Team That Also Made the Playoffs or At Least Got Closer Than the Cardinals Did Because Otherwise Explain How Carlos Delgado Got on His Ballot Award.

Who's ready for some stupid justification?

I had an MVP ballot and voted for Howard first because he almost single-handedly carried the Phillies to the playoffs by batting .352 with 11 homers and 32 RBI in September. I like to weight my voting to teams in the playoff hunt because I think that puts more pressure on players and separates the men from the boys. There's little pressure on players having big years if their teams aren't playing for anything at the end.

First of all: no. Okay, Howard had 32 RBI in September. Even if you give him full credit, as an individual, for driving in all of those important runs, the Phillies scored 138 runs. That's less than a quarter that were driven in by Howard. Maybe the other 77% of runs that were knocked in were also kind of important? Also, maybe if Howard hadn't been such a non-factor for four months, he wouldn't have needed to have such an enormous September just to "carry" the Phillies to the playoffs. Maybe?

With the Cardinals finishing fourth, I voted Pujols seventh on my ballot. I don't consider MVP to be "the most outstanding player" award and therefore don't just go by who had the best stats. I like to credit players for lifting their teams to the post-season or at least keeping them in the race until the very end.

At least he, unlike Thomas Boswell, admits that Pujols had the best stats. Then he goes ahead and ruins it by pretending that individual players are capable of "lifting" otherwise mediocre teams to the postseason. Remove Pujols from the Cardinals and they lose 13 wins if you just stick any AAA guy in his place; rather than finishing four out of the wild card - a respectable if not successful season given how low the team's expectations were in March - they finish seventeen out of the wild card and drift behind the Reds into fifth place in the Central. Why Pujols is to be punished because the rest of his team wasn't that good is beyond me. Certainly writers like Haudricourt do not seem to be able to grasp the idea that elevating any team's performance by 13 wins is "value," and it's not his fault that the Cardinals had a shitty bullpen that blew literally dozens of leads, and had it blown five fewer the Cardinals would have made the playoffs and guys like Haudricourt would be lining up to tell us how amazing a season Pujols had. But because Jason Isringhausen blew five saves that turned into losses, Pujols finishes seventh on Haudricourt's ballot. Are you capable of seeing why this makes no fucking sense? At all? Pushing the guy with the best stats to seventh on your ballot because his team's bullpen sucked is madness.

I understand that the Cardinals would not have been even close to the wild-card berth without Pujols, but I still like players who elevate their game in crunch time and lift their teams to new heights. And I thought Ryan Ludwick had just as much to do with keeping the Cards in the hunt as Pujols did. St. Louis did stay in the wild card race until mid-September, but mainly because the Brewers and Mets were gagging at the time.

I swear to God, if I ever run into Tom Haudricourt on the street, I am going to punch him in the face. Albert Pujols' on-base percentage was .462. With RISP he hit .339/.523/.678. In "late and close" situations he hit .314/.444/.600. In "high leverage" spots as defined by WPA, he hit .392/.492/.725. For the month of August, as the Cards were desperately trying to stay afloat in the playoff race, he hit .398/.491/.745. Oh, but I guess he only hit .321/.427/.702 in September. What a fucking choke artist. (Ryan Ludwick: Nice season, especially considering. But he gives up 87 points of OBP to Pujols, and was no doubt aided by the fact that he spent half the season hitting in front of Pujols, giving him better pitches to hit, and the other half hitting behind Pujols, boosting his RBI chances since Pujols was on base twice a game.)

Also, none of this explains why Carlos Delgado finished three spots above Pujols, considering that he was teammates with David Wright, Carlos Beltran and Jose Reyes, all of whom are at least as valuable as Ryan Fucking Ludwick, and his team also failed to make the playoffs. If Pujols didn't elevate his game in the last two months it's only because he played at a ridiculously high level all season. So what Tom Haudricourt is saying is: Playing great all year is less valuable than playing shitty for half the year and great for two, three months tops. And also, playing great for a team that doesn't have a lot of other great players is somehow less valuable than playing pretty well for a team that does have a lot of other great players. Jesus Christ. This is the dumbest shit ever. Tom Haudricourt wrote this down and thought, "This will make sense when people read it."

It's a subjective vote and every writer has his own preferences. That's why I voted for Sabathia second and Ramirez third because even though they played in the league only half a season they were primarily responsible for putting their teams in the playoffs.

Some preferences may be stupider than others. Like yours, for example. Also, don't lean on subjectivity as an excuse. The vote should not be nearly as subjective as you've made it. And when you put two other Brewers in your top ten, that damages the argument that Sabathia was "primarily" responsible for putting the Brewers into the playoffs. How many guys can be that valuable for a team that slipped in by the skin of its teeth (and then in large part because their final weekend opponent had long since clinched)?

I voted Fielder higher than Braun because Fielder had a much better September when the Brewers were clawing to get in the playoffs. Braun was ailing, as we discovered, and did have the homer that put the Brewers in the playoffs, but I just felt Fielder did more down the stretch.

I know in this last paragraph he's comparing Fielder and Braun. But remember that he voted Fielder 6th and Pujols 7th as well.

Prince Fielder, September 2008: .316/.398/.600
Albert Pujols, September 2008: .321/.427/.702

Prince Fielder's team, September 2008: 10-16
Albert Pujols' team, September 2008: 12-13

Prince Fielder: more valuable than Albert Pujols.

Tom Haudricourt: IQ of a can of garbanzo beans.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Fire Thomas Boswell

Although I haven't read much of Thomas Boswell's work, I know him by name as something of an authority figure among newspaper columnists who write about baseball. Then I saw a post he made on the Washington Post blog yesterday. Since the estimable Fire Joe Morgan has boarded up the windows, let's take a crack at this one.

MVPs: Howard & K-Rod, Not Pujols & Pedroia

Not off to a very good start here. Feel free to quibble with Pedroia, I guess, but Pujols was pretty much the hands-down selection in the NL, and anyway Boswell's alternate selections are kind of appalling.

Thirty years ago, I created the statistic Total Average. Now I'm almost ashamed to have been one of the original baseball geeks. Where did we go wrong?

Clearly your Total Average statistic didn't account nearly enough for "saves records."

This week, Albert Pujols won the NL MVP Award. Why? Mostly because he had a better OPS and VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) than Ryan Howard. Say what? Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Phils' first baseman had 48 homers and 146 RBI to Pujols' 37 homers and 116 RBI.

As "one of the original baseball geeks," shouldn't you be better than resorting to hoary clichés like "OPS and VORP? Those sound funny!"? Also, please note that your own statistic of Total Average does not take RBI into account (as it shouldn't), and furthermore that it favors Pujols by a margin of 1.278 to 0.885. This isn't even close! And you're going to lean your entire argument on home runs (Howard admittedly hit a lot of them, although he didn't hit much else) and RBI? Fucking RBI? Were you hit on the head on your way to the office yesterday?

Earth to my baseball writing buddies: We all love the new numbers, but lets not worship false idols. When I published my Total Average numbers, I'd always emphasize that while stats were wonderful, common sense was better. When stats WILDLY contradict common sense, always doubts the stats. In the case of the goofy gap between Pujols' VORP of 96.8 and Howard's 35.3, my reaction is "Time to revisit VORP. If it can be this wrong, it's not as good as I tought it was."

Several [sic]s in that paragraph. Anyway, no. When the stats wildly contradict a "common-sense" notion that most thinking people have already realized is bullshit - namely that RBI is the best judge of a player's individual value, which anyone with half a brain can realize is wrong simply by thinking about how much individual input a player has into whether or not there is a man in scoring position when he bats (that is to say: zero) - then it goes to show you even more that that "common-sense" notion is, in fact, incredible bullshit.

It's said that, to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a modern baseball writer, unfortunately, reality often looks like an excuse to apply statistics and then torque our opinions to fit them.

Ryan Howard is a fine player. He was also hitting under .200 as late as May 21, and under .230 as late as August 29. Average doesn't tell us much, of course - Howard's OBP on August 29, when he was hitting .229? Oh, it was .321. For most of the season, Ryan Howard was Mr. Three True Outcomes (homer, walk, or strikeout). This is a charge that is also frequently leveled at Adam Dunn, who was hitting just .241 on August 29. The difference? His OBP was .389. (Albert Pujols' BA and OBP on August 29, for good measure: .356 and .464.) All this is reality. Not reality: "Albert Pujols was a worse player than Ryan Howard because he had fewer at-bats with RISP."

All of the encompassing offensive stats __and there's little difference between Total Average, Runs Created, OPS and others__ run the risk of overvaluing walks and singles while undervaluing the bases-clearly game-changing power of extra base hits. So, sometimes, you have to underline the obvious; for example, a first baseman with 146 RBI is "more valuable," especially when he plays on a first-place team, than a first baseman (Pujols) with 116 RBI on a fourth-place team.

Siccity sic sock. This paragraph makes me sad, because it proves that Boswell does not even understand the statistics he's referencing. OPS, a raw addition of OBP and slugging percentage, is often criticized by statheads for overvaluing slugging. The Wikipedia entry for Total Average notes that it intentionally overemphasizes walks... and extra-base hits. You created that statistic, T-Boz. Also, feel free to look at the raw slugging number, which emphasizes the "game-changing power of extra base hits": Pujols .653, Howard .543. How about just a raw count of extra-base hits? Pujols had 81; Howard had 78. Oops! Honestly, you didn't look any of this up at all, did you? You saw the RBI number and you ran for a keyboard.

We then get into the whole "quality of team" idea, which is another mark for Pujols, who did not play with Jimmy Rollins or Chase Utley or Pat Burrell or Jayson Werth or Cole Hamels. In addition, the Cardinals had more blown saves than any team in baseball this year, while the Phillies had a closer who blew no saves. Give the Cardinals Brad Lidge and they might very well have made the playoffs, and then where's the argument? I guess it's Pujols' fault for not taking the mound in the late innings often enough. If you're the best player on that team you should be carrying them to the playoffs any way you can, goddammit!

Let's get another thing straight: Ryan Howard had a very good September, but that doesn't mean he carried the Phillies to the playoffs by himself. Chase Utley's enormous April and May - a period in which Ryan Howard was about as valuable to the Phillies as I was - were at least as important. How can sportswriters, especially those of Boswell's pedigree, get sucked so easily into such lazy decisions as wanting to call a guy an MVP because his one really big month happened to be the last, as though wins in September count double?

Oh, you've got more?

Don't analyze beyond that.

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

True, Howard can't field (19 errors). And Pujols outhit him by .357 to .251. Howard strikes out a ton while Pujols walks constantly. But none of it outweighs Howard's RBI total, built on his .320 average with runners in scoring position. For what it's worth, Howard wasn't even in the top half dozen in baseball in runners-on-base when he came to the plate. His 146 RBI wasn't a fluke. He's Mr. Multi-Run Homer.

Ryan Howard did, in fact, hit .320 with RISP. In all, he hit .309 with men on. He also hit .196 with the bases empty. Now, there are three possible reasons for this. One is that Ryan Howard actually walks to the plate when no one is on and says, "Shit, who cares what I do right now? If the bases aren't juiced I can't help the team effectively. I might as well strike out." Which he did 111 times with the bases empty, well over half his total Ks. And then, conversely, he comes up when people are on and says, "Now I'm going to hit a home run, to live up to the nickname that Thomas Boswell gives me in a mid-November column in the Washington Post." Reason #2 is that it just might be easier to hit when runners are on because most pitchers are not looking to put you on with a walk and have to throw more strikes. Reason #3 is that it's just statistical noise. For his career, Ryan Howard hits .266 with no one on and .282 with RISP, which is a pretty miniscule difference over 1658 at-bats.

Also, in an almost identical number of plate appearances for the year, Howard hit 22 home runs with no one on and 26 home runs with someone on. He's Mr. A Couple More Multi-Run Homers, By Chance. Also also, if you're going to give him credit for some sort of magical clutch gene that allows him to rocket balls out of the yard when runners are on, you should also consider that he hit .158 in "Late and Close" situations.

By the way, guess what Albert Pujols hit with RISP? .339. But clearly the lower RBI total is his fault, because he's the one who kept writing Skip Schumaker's name into the leadoff spot.

Ironically, Pujols complained two years ago when Howard won MVP ahead of him even though their team's positions in the standings were the opposite of this year. Maybe they should just meet quietly this winter and exchange MVP trophies. Who'd know?

Pujols was wrong to complain and came off like a whiner. Of course, he was more valuable that year (11.8 WARP3 to Howard's 9.7), but he was wrong about why, suggesting that players from non-playoff teams shouldn't win the award. It's odd that Boswell considers it okay if they exchanged trophies, though, since 2006 Ryan Howard had 58 home runs and 149 RBI, even more than 2008 Ryan Howard! And 2006 Ryan Howard actually hit .313, with a .425 OBP! Ryan Howard plays for a team that scores a lot of runs. Part of this is attributable to him, but not as large a part as Thomas Boswell wants to think.

As for Pedroia, I'd pick him over his main competitors --Justin Morneau and Joe Mauer of the Twins. Pedroia and Mauer won gold gloves at valuable defensive positions __second base and catcher. Morneau is just a first baseman. Besides, Pedroia's Red Sox made the playoffs, the Twins didn't.

And the only measure of value is your team making the playoffs. Ugh.

But in 30 years, nobody is going to remember anything Pedroia did this year. Howewver, Francisco Rodriguez saved 62 games for the first-place Angels may still be the MLB record. I know this argument is hopeless. The retort that almost always wins the debate is: "Relievers have their own award." They are not "players," as in MV"P". However, convention also holds that, if the best reliever's season utterly dominates the best season by any player, as Dennis Eckersley's did in '92, then he's the long-shot MVP.

Siccity doo. Frankie Rodriguez isn't the MVP not because he's a pitcher (Cliff Lee had a case), but because he wasn't even that valuable a pitcher. The save is an absurd stat that depends as much on context as on actual pitching performance. F-Rod had a good season, but in terms of his career it was actually right there with his worst - in his sixth full season as Angels closer, he recorded his lowest strikeout total and highest WHIP. Do you know why he saved 62 games? In large part, it's because he had 69 save opportunities. Second place in all of baseball was Jose Valverde of the Astros with 51, meaning that even 100% conversion would have left Valverde 6 shy of Thigpen and 11 shy of Rodriguez. Just like Howard's RBI totals, Boswell thinks that Rodriguez should be the MVP because of the fact that his team put him in a certain situation on a lot of occasions. I mean, obviously it's impressive that he came through all those times, but it's likely that most top-level closers (Lidge, Rivera, Soria, Nathan, Wood, Papelbon, Jenks, etc.) could get 58 saves - i.e., the record - if given 69 shots at it. There's a decent chance that Rodriguez's save record could still be standing in 30 years, but that's because 69 save opportunities is an enormous number of chances, not because Rodriguez is some kind of immortal being. I forget where I saw it, but there was some stat showing that only like four or five guys since Thigpen had even had as many as 58 save chances (i.e. enough to break the record had they converted all of them). 69 chances is a number we might not see for 30 years, hence 62 saves is a number we might not see for 30 years. That doesn't make 62 saves worthy of MVP status.

Even besides all that, the idea that a guy who pitches fewer than 70 innings is an MVP is ridiculous. It's just not enough of a contribution. I'm not even touching the idea that Rodriguez should have won because Dennis Eckersley won in 1992 (one previous vote that also might have been questionable counts as "convention" to Thomas Boswell, apparently).

I won't fuss about Pedroia over K-Rod.

"Except for just now, where I fussed about it."

But Pujols over Howard is nuts.

You are nuts. There are literally two stats in which Howard outperformed Pujols this year: home runs and RBI. And it's not like Pujols hit 15 home runs and knocked in 80. You're going to bitch about 37/116 when Pujols was such a comprehensively better player than Howard? Enormous edge in VORP, 98.7 to 36.6. Pujols was first in the majors by a long shot; Howard barely cracked the top 50. I'm sorry, I don't see that and think there's something wrong with the stat. Not when the difference is that significant. Anyway, don't like VORP? Too nerdy? How about Pujols' huge edge in batting average (106 points), OBP (123 points), slugging (110 points), his 34 more hits in 86 fewer at-bats, his 104/54 K/BB ratio (Howard's was 81/199), the fact that even with an 11-homer deficit Pujols had more total XBH than Howard? You cannot make a case for Howard that does not begin and end with "But, but, the RBIs!" And since RBIs have been thoroughly discredited as a way to seriously judge value, you are a moron.

At least Ryan got three homers in the World Series and a parade.

Which I'm guessing was more important to him than an MVP trophy, especially since he already has one anyway. Did you have a point?

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Time keeps on slipping into the future

I don't know what everyone else's experiences have been, but I'm not sure that age 26 is usually the time when people start feeling kind of weird about their lives. I don't mean weird in a bad way, here - it's just strange to think about, if not how old I'm getting, the fact that everything around me makes me feel old. Not everyone I know is married, but a pretty sizable percentage are at least engaged; Rudnik, who's just two years ahead of me, will be a father in a few months. Even the people who aren't engaged are often in long-term relationships that could well be headed in that direction, as Alma and I are. We've been together almost five years now - five years in January - which really is as long as I've ever done anything. I only spent four years at any given school, for example. She makes me happier than anything in the world, and I know I'm going to spend the rest of my life with her. I guess it's still just a little strange to think of myself as being ready for that step, but I do work a full-time job (even that has been more than three years now, although I wasn't officially full-time for all of that) and all that stuff. I'm pretty sure I'm more or less of a grown-up. And at any rate, we probably won't get married for another 2-3 years or so, at which point I'll be almost 30. Now that's old.

All of this was brought on by (what else?) something I saw in the elevator today, which is that the state quarter program is finally reaching its end with the release of the Hawaii quarter. Seems like an odd thing to trigger a quarter-life crisis, I know, but think about it - the first state quarters were released in 1999, when I was still a junior in high school. Think about how long ago that was! When the first state quarters were released on January 4, 1999, I:

* Was a year and a half away from going to Australia and New Zealand
* Was nine months or so away from applying to college
* Had not met almost any of the people with whom I regularly talk nowadays
* Had not ever had a serious girlfriend
* Was almost a year and a half away from converting BigFlax.com to a dated entry format
* Had never seen The Shawshank Redemption

That is a long fucking time ago. Bill Clinton was still two years away from leaving office. 9/11 was more than two and a half years in the future. Hell, George W. Bush was still five months from even declaring his candidacy for president, and was still known only as "that Texas governor who used to own the Rangers and whose father was president" to the nation at large. The Star Wars prequel trilogy was months from starting in theaters. The Daily Show had just been taken over by a young comedian named Jon Stewart previously known mostly for a string of failed late-night talk shows; his first show would air on January 11.

Ten years is a long time, but when you really think about it - at least when I really think about it - it's kind of amazing. I was already in college by the time Bush was "elected," but it virtually feels like he's been president my entire life (we only have had four presidents in 26 years, with Obama about to be the fifth), possibly because he's effectively been the president for my entire adult life - the first election I voted in was 2000. The idea of that not being true anymore is pretty appealing, to say the least.

I had originally intended to do a review of all 50 state quarters now that the program is coming to a close, but I think that's way more than anyone could possibly be interested in. So, instead, a few quick comments on what I thought were some particularly good and particularly lame ones:

Delaware

Photobucket

The first state; the first state quarter; also one of the lamest. Some dude on a horse? Well, it commemorates the ride of Caesar Rodney, a delegate to the Continental Congress who cast the deciding vote for independence in 1776 after riding 80 miles. This would be fine if not for the fact that the nation already has a pretty famous horse ride around that time, and who outside of Delaware has ever heard of Caesar Rodney? On the other hand, what else was Delaware going to put on a state quarter?

West Virginia

Photobucket

By contrast, here's West Virginia, accurately taking pretty much the only thing it's known for - and a pretty awesome feat of engineering at that - and slapping it on the quarter. It's not the single most exciting reverse I can think of, but it's a combination of attractiveness and simplicity that, really, a lot of these quarters just don't have. (There are quite a number which just cram way too much onto the back, though I don't address them specifically here.)

Kansas

Photobucket

"Dah-hurr, we got sunflowers... and a buffalo." Is Kansas known for its buffalo? It is known for its sunflowers, but the sunflower is kind of a second-class citizen. Again, of course, it's Kansas - they can't exactly show a majestic mountain profile.

Utah

Photobucket

Another good one. Look at that great golden spike driving right in between the trains! It may or may not be what Utah is most famous for, but it's not like you can just put a bunch of Mormons on the quarter. (One of the finalist designs was of the 2002 Winter Olympics. Yeah, that's real timeless.)

Arizona

Photobucket

Possibly the best quarter there is - nice image of the Grand Canyon (certainly the most famous thing in the state), pictures of the saguaros and prickly pears, and the sunset (or sunrise?) in the background. Classy all the way.

Montana

Photobucket

"Montana: Where Things Go To Die!" Really, Montana? Really? That's how we're doing this one? What came in second, a picture of the cabin that Ted Kaczynski lived in? A bunch of camo-clad militiamen?

Saturday, November 08, 2008

Post-election stats wonkery

I'm a big nerd. So here are some stats I found interesting relating to the election:

The most Democratic county in the nation was Prince George's County, Maryland. Fully 89.1% of the vote in PG went to Obama, beating even the 88.7% of Shannon County, South Dakota, which was the most Democratic county in the nation in the 2004 election. (92.9% of the District of Columbia voted for Obama, but that's not really a county since it's not a segment of a state.)

The only state without a Democratic county was Oklahoma. The New York Times, where I got the stats, doesn't have county-by-county breakdowns for Alaska, but among the lower 48 and Hawaii, only Oklahoma didn't have a single county turn blue. By contrast, six states - Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont and New Hampshire - didn't have any red counties.

The county map still shows mostly red, but that doesn't matter. After the 2004 election, I recall seeing a map showing how most of the counties in America were red and how this was somehow proof that the Republicans were dominating the country. While a look at the '92 and '96 electoral county maps does show that many more counties are red now than were red even just 12 years ago, it's kind of important to know which counties are red. And the fact is that most populous counties went to Obama. Of the 49 states for which the Times has county results, Obama won the most populous county in 40 of them, and often by huge margins: he won Los Angeles County by 40.5%, Denver County by 52.1%, Cook County by 53.2%, Orleans Parish by 60.1%, Kings County (Brooklyn) by 58.7%, and Philadelphia County by 66.7%. All told, of his 40, Obama won 25 of them by at least 20 points. McCain's nine were the biggest counties in Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming; only two of them he won by more than 20 points (Greenville County, SC and Laramie County, WY). Even in some of the states that Obama lost, he won the biggest counties by sizable margins, including Orleans in Louisiana; Hinds County, MS (which he won by more than 40 points); Shelby County, TN (27.6 points); St. Louis County, MO (almost 20 points); and Fulton County, GA (35 points).

What's more, of the 50 most populous counties in the entire country (which, oddly, is the same as the list of counties with 900,000 people or more), Obama won 46. The only four he didn't? Maricopa County, AZ (home to McCain's base of Phoenix), Orange County, CA (rich people), Tarrant County, TX, and Salt Lake County, UT (reliably Republican Mormons, although McCain won this county with less than 50% of the vote and by just 0.5 points). Obama also won many of the 46 quite handily, taking at least 60% of the vote in 25 of the 46 and more than 70% of the vote in ten of them. Even in McCain's most commanding win of his four, Tarrant County, he took just 55.6% of the vote.

And even besides that, Obama's most motivated counties were more populous than McCain's in most states. In fact, the county that gave Obama the highest percentage of its vote among the counties in its state was often the largest or one of the few largest in its state (this includes Cook in IL, Wayne in MI, Philadelphia in PA, Bronx in NY, Suffolk in MA, San Francisco in CA, Multnomah in OR, King in WA, Ramsey in MN, Essex in NJ, Cuyahoga in OH, and Shelby in TN), whereas McCain's most motivated supporters were usually found in more rural and/or less populated counties. In only seven states was McCain's most motivated county more populous than Obama's, and only in Hawaii - where the most "staunchly" McCain county, Honolulu, gave him a full 29% of the vote - was the county that gave its biggest percentage of the vote to McCain the biggest county in its state.

The greatest percentage of votes in one county was 93.2%, going to McCain in King County, Texas. I love this one mostly because of how few voters there were in King County (the third-smallest county by population in the US). 151 people voted for McCain, and eight voted for Obama. Eight??? I love it. Who are these eight people and why do they live there?

Nearly every state got more Democratic. Indiana went from +21 GOP to +1 for the Democrats, amazingly. And it's not just the ones that switched - already blue states got bluer. California, for example, went from +10 for Kerry in 2004 to +24 for Obama. Hawaii went from +9 for Kerry to +45 for Obama. Even Kerry's home state of Massachusetts went from +25 to +26. The only states that got redder? Arkansas (+10 to +20), Louisiana (+15 to +19), and Tennessee (+14 to +15). Oklahoma and West Virginia stayed the same.

Obama got 52.6% of the popular vote. It's the most of any candidate since Bush I in 1988, and the most for a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson in 1964, also the last time the Democrats won Indiana and Virginia. Of course, this part you probably already knew. I bring it up more to point out how hilarious it is that conservatives have jumped right on the "This isn't a mandate for the Democrats" wagon. This is the same party that bragged about Bush's "political capital" after he won 2% less of the popular vote and almost 80 fewer electoral votes than Obama got this year. (In case you didn't buy that the results of the election aren't a mandate for Obama, some conservatives have started to argue that he's "center-right" and that his policies resemble Dwight Eisenhower's. Anything to avoid the fact that this election was an absolute destruction of the Republican party.)

January 20 can't come soon enough.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

With apologies to Snow Patrol

Take back the country for yourself tonight
I'll take back the country for me
Take back the country for yourself tonight
Whoa oh oh

God knows you've put your life into its hands
And it's both cradled you and crushed
But now it's time to make your own demands
Whoa oh oh

It's a mess, it's a start, it's a flawed work of art
Your country, your call, every crack, every wall
Pick a side, pick a fight, but get your epitaph right
Or you can sing 'til you drop, 'cause the fun just never stops

I love this country tonight
I love this country always
It bares its teeth like a light
And spits me out after days
But we're all gluttons for it
We know it's wrong and it's right
For every time it's been hit
Take back the country tonight.


We did it. Now let's just look forward to four (or eight) years of governance that we can actually be proud of for a change.

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Monday, November 03, 2008

The Official BigFlax.com Presidential Endorsement

I know that a number of you have been waiting patiently to see which candidate this blog would endorse for President in the upcoming election. So here's your answer: Barack Obama.

I usually try not to be too political here, mostly because people get bored by that kind of stuff rather easily, and also because if you agree with me you don't need much preaching to, and if you don't you're probably not interested in my opinion. But I think we can all agree that after eight long years - emphasis on the long - it's time for a change.

John McCain might have been that change once. I know that some people who remember his 2000 campaign and his early opposition to the Bush tax cuts still think of him fondly as a maverick. But look at his record since then. He has drifted to the right on many issues, including now suddenly taking a hard line stance on abortion, his suggestion that he would extend the Bush tax cuts, and his selection of a far-right evangelical Christian with no national political experience as his running mate. 2000 John McCain wouldn't have won the Republican primaries, but 2008 John McCain can't win the general election. He's moved too far right at a time when that's clearly not what this country needs.

Even if you believe that McCain has only behaved this way to get elected, why should that be encouraging? Do you want a president who's willing to compromise everything he believes in just to win the office? Furthermore, his decision-making during the campaign has been severely questionable, and even if he were to turn back into Maverick McCain the second he was sworn in, it's unlikely that he would suddenly surround himself with better, smarter advisors, and Sarah Palin would still be a heartbeat away from the presidency, and I speak with no hesitation when I say that I find her the most unpleasant, least intelligent person to grace a presidential ticket in my lifetime.

By contrast, consider the case for Obama. While his enemies on the right charge that he is inexperienced, he has fashioned from nothing - with the help of talented advisors - possibly the greatest electoral machine this country has ever seen, one that swallowed up not one but two candidates who were sure the presidency was theirs for the taking. For all of Sarah Palin's posturing regarding executive experience, the mobilization of the Obama juggernaut is far more impressive to me than two years in charge of parceling out oil revenues. Throughout the entire campaign Obama has remained level-headed while McCain and Palin have increasingly frothed at the mouth; while he has misstated McCain's record at times to score points with supporters, he certainly has done nothing that has risen anywhere near the level of the far more personal attacks the right has leveled at him (and in fact many of his misstatements of McCain's record have later been corrected, suggesting that they may be misunderstandings rather than deliberate attempts to deceive in at least some cases). The right has run one of the dirtiest campaigns in history against Obama - and coming on the heels of two GEs with Karl Rove in charge of the GOP's sleaze machine, that's saying something - and Obama has not just weathered the storm but largely risen above it.

Obama's promises may seem to some like pie-in-the-sky, but most campaigns are like that. With a Congress that will be controlled by the Democrats (who still have a slim chance at a supermajority in the Senate), Obama certainly has a much better chance to enact his policies than a President McCain would. In that scenario, the only reason to vote for McCain is if you prefer inaction, but given the support Obama has been getting, it appears that much of the country prefers his plans to reverse the recession, fix health care, and deal with education, among others. Certainly I do - at the very least, considering how Republican policies have failed to do these things over the past eight years, what could be wrong with letting the Democrats have a turn? If they mess up, I'm sure people will be lining up to vote them out in 2012, if not sooner.

Finally, an Obama presidency ensures a Supreme Court that continues to have balance. A Republican president - even one with McCain's supposed moderate streak - is likely to nominate more conservative judges to fill the inevitable vacancies, and while the Senate will be in position to block any Robert Borks or Harriet Mierses after tomorrow, they'll have a tough time holding out forever. A Republican president means the Court is lost to the conservatives for a generation, legitimately putting Roe v. Wade at stake (while this is a decision that should probably have been left to state courts in the first place, it's become too important as a national issue to allow the decision to fall by the wayside).

Many of you have probably already voted, but for anyone left, I urge you to vote Barack Obama tomorrow. A vote for Obama is a vote against the fearmongering and divisive politics of the right, and a vote for a legitimate chance to save the country's reputation at home and abroad. If the future of the country genuinely means more to you than scare tactics and race-baiting, there's only one choice to make.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

You're doing it wrong, Part 2

Today on CNN.com they had a story about an ad the GOP was running in support of Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina, and an analyst wondered if it implied that the GOP was effectively conceding the White House to Barack Obama:

A new Republican ad appears to suggest that Barack Obama has all but won the presidential race, an argument several vulnerable Senate Republicans may have to reluctantly embrace with only days until Election Day, an expert in campaign advertising said.

Aimed at Kay Hagan, Sen. Elizabeth Dole's surprisingly strong Democratic challenger in North Carolina, the 30-second spot from the National Republican Senatorial Committee warns voters against Democrats holding the White House and Congress, and flatly states that if Hagan wins, the party will "get a blank check."

"These liberals want complete control of government in a time of crisis, all branches of government," the ad's narrator states. "No check and balances, no debate, no independence. That's the truth behind Kay Hagan. If she wins, they get a blank check."

So, that's one item of interest, I guess. But here's the part I found more interesting: The GOP apparently has nothing better with which to promote Elizabeth Dole than "Hey, you wouldn't want Democrats running both branches of government, would you?"

Really, GOP? Really? You expect people to vote for Elizabeth Dole solely because she isn't a Democrat? Or, more accurately, you expect people who are otherwise inclined to vote for Kay Hagan - presumably the targets of such an ad - to vote instead for Elizabeth Dole solely because she isn't a Democrat?

This is the truth of the GOP these days. They aren't winning the war on policy, so all they have are scare tactics, name-calling and advertising that damns their own Senate candidates with the faintest praise possible. Elizabeth Dole is a sitting senator; don't you have anything in her record to run on? Nothing but "I sure hope people like divided government so much they're willing to vote for someone they otherwise wouldn't just to prevent, maybe, a Democratic supermajority in the Senate?" All right then.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

You're doing it wrong

Ponte Fresco is a make-your-own-salad sort of place in my building, where you pick a green base (romaine, spring mix, spinach) and they mix in your choice of additional ingredients (vegetables, legumes, meats) and chop it all up for you. Here is what the woman behind me ordered today:

[she has a container of spinach selected]
Staffperson: What would you like on it?
Woman: Bacon, and two scoops of cheddar cheese.
Staffperson: And?
Woman: That's it.

Why even get a salad if that's what you're going to do to it?

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

The Politics of Division

In 1999, during the early part of his campaign for the White House, George W. Bush described himself as "a uniter, not a divider." This phrase was widely used for mockery when Bush turned into one of history's most partisan presidents, but compared to his successors as conservative-value standard bearers, Bush is starting to look like Gandhi. Sarah Palin and the far-right-wing cadre that John McCain never wanted a part of until he deemed it necessary to be a viable Republican candidate have amped up their rhetoric in recent weeks to a degree that McCain's campaign now looks like the most bitterly divisive since George Wallace took five Southern states in 1968.

Here are just some of the many recent examples:

* During a speech in North Carolina, Palin discussed how much she liked visiting "pro-America" parts of the country. Naturally, this implies that there are "anti-America" parts of the country. Her pro-small-town rhetoric during the RNC equally implied that urban areas - which tend to go heavy for Democrats at election time - were not full of the "good people" whose virtues she extolled. Then, of course, there's her use of inflammatory terms when referring to Obama, suggesting that his policies are little more than socialism and accusing him of "palling around with terrorists," as though he and Osama Bin Laden were playing Connect Four or something.

* McCain advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer saying the following on MSNBC: "I certainly agree that northern Virginia has gone more Democratic. As a proud resident of Oakton, Virginia, I can tell you that the Democrats have just come in from the District of Columbia and moved in to northern Virginia, and that's really what you see there. But the rest of the state, real Virginia if you will, I think will be very responsive to Senator McCain's message."

That's right: real Virginia. Not that ersatz, Virginia-like substance in the northern part of the state. Clearly Democrats have just been flooding in from DC, which explains why DC no longer has any people in it. What the fuck is she talking about? Guess what - it's yet more division. If you're not receptive to McCain's rhetoric, it must be because you're some sort of liberal carpetbagger. That's the only reason McCain could be losing ground in traditional Republican strongholds. I wonder what her excuse is for North Carolina and Colorado?

* The worst of them all comes from Minnesota representative Michele Bachmann:



Bachmann can't even be bothered to separate her talking points, which Matthews calls her on; Tony Rezko isn't exactly known as a "radical leftist." But the scariest part is the last minute or so of this, in which Bachmann asks the media to "do a penetrating expose" to find out which members of Congress are "pro-America or anti-America." If this sounds like McCarthyism, that's because it is.

If you think this all reeks of desperation, you're right. Because that's all the Republicans have left. Even fear tactics, which have dominated recent elections as Republicans insist that only they are equipped to defend America, haven't been working. Division is the only avenue even more extreme. People aren't swayed by the suggestion that Barack Obama is too liberal? Then call him anti-American. Districts aren't voting your way? That's not the real part of the state anyway.

The irony in all this is that the only thing that seems to qualify someone for the "anti-American" label is not being a flag-waving, jingoistic yahoo who supports the government no matter what it does. So, assuming Obama wins, is that going to make all the Republicans who hate him "anti-American"? (Of course not! Nothing can be negative if it's done by Republicans.)

It always reminds me of the quote from The American President, in which Sydney Wade asks liberal-minded president Andrew Shepherd how he's able to keep quiet in the face of mounting attacks on his character by his Republican challenger (not so ironically played by Richard Dreyfuss, who would go on to play Dick Cheney in W.). "How," she asks him, "do you have patience for people who claim to love America but clearly can't stand Americans?"

That's exactly how I feel. How can you take the McCain campaign seriously when it's talking out of both sides of its mouth? It's ready to label anyone who isn't voting for McCain as "fake," and people with liberal viewpoints as "anti-American." But what's more anti-American than slandering half the population like that? It doesn't even matter what McCain's policies are anymore, apparently - you're either for them or you're against them. Of course, if you're Palin - the nasty, mud-slinging attack dog who has lied about virtually every facet of her record as mayor and governor - that's the only reason you're here. She doesn't have the background that would lead her to have formulated any national or foreign policies. All she has is supposed blue-collar cred, enabling her to toss around words like "terrorist" and "pro-America" with no regard for the issues (never mind her connections to the Alaskan Independence Party, at least as solid as Obama's ties to William Ayers and about as "anti-American" as it gets).

Some people wonder how much of this ultra-right-wing attitude McCain really buys into, speculating that maybe he's just doing it because he thought it was the only way to win the presidency in what's clearly his last chance. I say it doesn't matter. Are you really willing to take the chance that McCain the Maverick would suddenly show up again on his first day in office, with a wingnut VP ready to step forward should anything happen? The Republicans would like you to believe you can judge a man by the company he keeps, but if it's true of Obama, it's true of McCain as well. And McCain has surrounded himself with people who clearly loathe more than half of the country. After eight years of failed Republican policies, why should we accept more leadership from a party that openly hates those of us who aren't willing to goose-step?

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Ben Folds' laundry

To this point, Ben Folds' entire solo career took place within the context of his third and (to date) longest marriage, to Frally Hynes. Folds' relationship with Hynes undoubtedly did much to shape aspects of his songwriting; "The Luckiest," from 2001's Rockin' the Suburbs, certainly seems to refer to her, and she also has writing and vocal credits on that album. Her voice pops up on "Dog," from the 2003 Speed Graphic EP, and she appears on the cover of 2004's Super D, which also includes a song called "Adelaide," a tribute of sorts to where Folds and Hynes lived at one time.

But in 2006, they separated, and officially divorced in 2007. Folds has since re-married, but one might rightly wonder if the after-effects of his divorce would come out on Way to Normal, Folds' new album, especially given the nearly three-and-a-half-year hiatus since the release of 2005's Songs for Silverman. Folds was quoted as saying that everything he wanted to say about the divorce in song was on Silverman, and looking back you can see how that might be the case; Silverman is a relatively melancholy album, and it has a number of songs that, in retrospect, could perhaps be read as early evidence that Folds' marriage was only going to last so much longer (and the separation did come the year after Silverman's release) - "You to Thank" is about a rushed-into marriage; "Landed" is about escaping a bad relationship; "Trusted" is about a fracturing relationship; "Give Judy My Notice" is about leaving a bad relationship; "Time" is about the immediate fallout of the end of a relationship. Seen in that light, it isn't necessarily that subtle, though at the time it just seemed like these songs could have been more abstract or drawn from moments in Folds' past (as he had already gone through two divorces).

But Way to Normal sort of has one foot in each aspect of Folds' recent history. On the one hand, it kicks off with some of Folds' most upbeat, up-tempo piano rock in years; on the other, there certainly seems to be lingering bitterness and sadness that comes out in several songs. Folds has never been afraid to write about personal issues - let's not forget that "Brick," the biggest hit spawned by Ben Folds Five, is about taking a girlfriend to get an abortion - and he certainly seems to have mined his life for yet more material here.

Track 1 - "Hiroshima (B B B Benny Hit His Head)"
The title of the track is an obvious reference to Elton John's "Bennie and the Jets," possibly because the main piano riff has some resemblance to the John song, as well as the use of concert audience noise (more prominently in "Hiroshima," which actually uses the crowd to sing the chorus hook later in the track). The story related in the song is a recounting of an actual moment on tour when Folds fell off the stage in Japan and ended up getting a concussion. It's all rather literal and straightforward, but then so is "Brick." The "oh-oh-oh-oh" and "They're watching me, watching me fall" of the chorus are almost ridiculously infectious, and when your goal is to engage a listener, it's hard to do much better for an opener than a song that virtually demands audience participation.

Track 2 - "Dr. Yang"
One of two straight "social commentary" tracks, in which Folds ridicules what he appears to consider a hypochondriac interest in alternative medicine. (One line goes "I might be dying / Or maybe I've got too much time," and the character singing tries out at least three different methods of finding out what's wrong with himself before eventually making his way from Dr. Yin, at the start of the song, to the titular Dr. Yang at the conclusion.) It comes off a bit glib, but the peppy, relentless melody and short running time (around 2:30) make it more than palatable.

Track 3 - "The Frown Song"
The same can't necessarily be said of "The Frown Song," one of the album's weaker tracks. Here Folds takes on the scowling rich people who wear grimaces like fashion accessories, but the song can be a bit of a chore - it contains almost no rhymes outside of the chorus, as though Folds jotted down a few notes and then just sang them. The opening image is evocatively sarcastic - "Tread slowly from the car to the spa like a weary, war-torn refugee / Crossing the border with your starving child; it's a struggle just to get to Shiatsu" - but things don't really improve, aside from the upbeat choruses, which are surely intended to completely shift the mood but sound no less jarring for that. At least they provide a welcome respite from the dentist's drill that accompanies the verses.

Track 4 - "You Don't Know Me"
Here's where Folds' personal life seems to kick in; he starts off by asking the addressee, "Do you ever sit and wonder, it's so strange that we could be together for so long and never know, never care what goes on in the other one's head?" The key moment is around the two-minute mark, when Folds asks, "If I'm the person that you think I am, the clueless chump you seem to think I am, so easily led astray, an errant dog who occasionally escapes and needs a shorter leash, then why the fuck would you want me back? Maybe it's because you don't know me at all." You don't get much more blunt than that, do you? I haven't heard Folds state that this song is about the demise of his marriage to Hynes, but knowing the context it's pretty hard to think of it any other way. As for the song itself, I had to listen to it a few times before it grew on me; the instrumentation isn't exactly classic Folds in the way it leans heavily on strings, but Regina Spektor's voice is a good addition.

Tracks 5 and 6 - "Before Cologne"/"Cologne"
If "You Don't Know Me" is the album's bitter pill, "Cologne" is the track that shows you the other side of a relationship's end. Folds may indeed have been bitter and angry, but surely he was also sad at times, and "Cologne" presents that side, with the singer holed up in a hotel room after walking his erstwhile love to the train, sending her on her way to the other side of the world. Again, whether or not it's 100% autobiographical can be debated, but the reference to the Lisa Nowak story dates the song's events to February 2007, two months before the divorce was finalized (according to Wikipedia). "Cologne" is a tender, aching song, with a typically beautiful piano melody and a good use of backing strings; the lyrics give a real sense of sadness and emptiness, as when Folds describes the Nowak story and then wonders if the woman he's singing to read it, and if "we both might be having the same imaginary conversation." Perhaps even more affecting is at the conclusion of the song's vocals, when Folds simply speaks "That's it." Whether this was an intentional metaphor or whether it was just him marking the end of the vocal track and it got left in, it works perfectly with the song's theme.

Track 7 - "Errant Dog"
Folds bounces back into wackiness with this track, which again seems like it might have some connection to reality given that the title can be found in the lyrics of "You Don't Know Me." It's not exactly a common expression, making one wonder if perhaps it's even something that Folds has actually heard used to describe himself. "Errant Dog" is told from the perspective of a woman who grouses about her husband or boyfriend, yet nonetheless always seems ready to take him back. In line with the question in "You Don't Know Me," "Errant Dog" seems to be somewhat sarcastic about its subject, with the female character unable to decide if "he's my everything, he means the world to me" or whether she should just give up and become a lesbian. As for the music, it's a bit less accessible than many of the other tracks.

Track 8 - "Free Coffee"
Probably the least of all the tracks on the album. It's another piece of social commentary, in which Folds comments on the absurdity of poor people always needing to come up with money for coffee while rich people just get it poured for free. It's a fair point, I guess, but it's not really all that meaningful in the context of the song (it's difficult to tell whether or not Folds sympathizes with the character singing), and while the idea to strap Altoids tins to the piano strings to create the unique sound in the song was an interesting one, it doesn't prove all that listenable in practice.

Track 9 - "Bitch Went Nuts"
"Free Coffee" ends with a disposable bit in which a Zen-master character describes the difference between what happens if you ask a bunch of different women why their relationship failed and what happens if you ask a bunch of men; Folds' theory, such as it is, is that all men just say, "Bitch went nuts." Needless to say, it's not as funny as he thinks it is. The actual "Bitch Went Nuts" track starts with the music, which is a relief. Again, it's perhaps a surprisingly peppy song considering the material; Folds swears the song isn't about Hynes in any way, but surely he must have drawn on past experiences to some degree in coming up with lines like "And then she burned a telepathic link into the brains of all her embittered drones." As such, it's another song that's upbeat enough to sing along to and yet comes off more than a little bitter in the lyrics.

Track 10 - "Brainwascht"
Speaking of which. "Brainwascht" is at least partly a true story, according to Folds; a friend (or former friend) wrote a song about him that he describes as very judgmental and mean, and which, if you trust the lyrics of this song, was based primarily on information from a former girlfriend or wife. Whether the unnamed woman in this song is Hynes is unknowable; it seems possible that Folds is actually referencing an earlier event, since late in the song he snorts at the addressed songwriter by asking if he remembers "in '94 getting blown in your basement while your wife slept," and Folds wasn't married in 1994. It's another pretty bitter track, in which Folds complains that the songwriter didn't bother getting his side of the story but simply was brainwashed by whichever ex-wife or girlfriend he's talking about, but another one that's pretty peppy and otherwise fun if you gloss over the lyrical content.

Track 11 - "Effington"
Presumably inspired by Effingham, Illinois, this is a difficult song to read. The piano part is nice, but do the lyrics actually suggest that Folds wants to settle down in a small town, or is it one big, straight-faced joke told by a sixth-grade sense of humor that finds "Effington" hilarious? Folds starts by musing that "Effington could be a wonderful effing place" and then wonders "Are they effing in their yards, effing in their cars, effing in the trailers and the back roads and the parking lots of Effington?" Droll, indeed. I'm willing to forgive this, because the piano is great and because Folds never cracks a lyrical smile during the track, giving the impression that he's actually serious about finding an appeal in small-town life.

Track 12 - "Kylie from Connecticut"
Way to Normal lacks many of Folds' traditional character sketches, but he ends with a strong one, and another that seems to give a bit of a suggestion as to his mindset: the main character is a woman in a 35-year marriage who sees a note that makes her worry that her husband might be having an affair - except that at the same time, she flashes back to an affair she had some 30 years ago. (At least this is how I interpret the lyrics, though there is some wiggle room.) This calls back to "Trusted" from Silverman and, given all the other veiled references to real or imagined infidelity on Folds' part on this album, may have some connection. Perhaps that's reading too much into it, but you could argue that I read too much into a lot of the songs, though I suspect that in most cases there's at least a grain of truth to those suspicions. Musically, this song could easily have come from pretty much any other album Folds has ever recorded, which is more of a compliment than it might sound.

When I first listened to Way to Normal, I was mostly underwhelmed, to put it charitably, although "Hiroshima" and "Cologne" were pretty much instant grabbers. Since listening to it a number of additional times - enough that I can sing along with virtually all of the songs already - I'd say I like it, although I can't say it's at the same level as Rockin' the Suburbs, Songs for Silverman, or even the combined Speed Graphic/Sunny 16/Super D. Even a lousy Ben Folds album is likely to be better than a lot of other stuff, though, and this isn't a lousy Ben Folds album in spite of the bitter or caustic edge on so many of the songs - even with as many as three tracks that are significantly missable (though that's probably being overly harsh on at least one of them), there's still enough good stuff on the album for it to be a good album, and there are at least two tracks that I'd rank among his best. Way to Normal may not have been worth a wait of almost three and a half years, but it'll do until the next one comes along.

Friday, October 03, 2008

They're watching me, watching me fall

Sure enough, right as October rolls around, the weather cools off precipitously. On one of the last warmish days, last Sunday, Alma and I went up to Elkhorn, WI, for the Apple Festival at the Apple Barn. It was probably nostalgia to some degree; I'm sure I haven't been apple picking in 15 years, and I can't remember going more than once, but it was something I had been thinking about doing.

There are closer places, but the Apple Barn had a few attractions besides merely apples, namely the Apple Festival's promise of cider donuts and a tree maze. Unfortunately, it turned out that cider donuts are either the hardest baked good to make in the world ever, or just the most popular. The Apple Barn was limiting orders to a dozen per person due to a problem with machinery, and the line showed no signs of moving. We actually ended up going to Apple Holler, just north of Kenosha, where they did have cider donuts - and it was still a 20-minute wait because of demand. As for the tree maze, it wasn't exactly that tough. You could see through all the trees inside the maze, and the whole thing was only about 30 or 40 feet on a side.



Picking apples itself was pretty fun. I got a bunch of Cortlands and Ida Reds, which are both supposed to be on the tart side. I've actually only eaten one so far, so I should probably get on that this weekend before they all go bad and I feel like an idiot. I have been enjoying the cider we got at Apple Holler, which is really nice and tart, which you rarely see in cider.

To continue the nostalgia back to a time I'm not even old enough to be nostalgic for, we went for dinner to a Dog 'n' Suds drive-in in Lake County. It was interesting, although it was a bit cold for keeping the windows open by that point (the last day for the drive-in is actually this Saturday; it finally occurs to me why Sonic doesn't have any serious penetration north of the Mason-Dixon Line) and they were having trouble with their eponymous root beer (Alma did manage to get it in diet). I settled for Green River, which isn't a bad second choice.

On the way back from the Apple Barn, we drove past a farm that touts itself as having Illinois' largest corn maze. We might go do that this weekend. We spend so little time outside, might as well get it in before it gets too cold to do it at all, and some walking (the corn maze apparently covers as much as 11 miles) couldn't hurt either.

Fall fever: catch it! (Don't bother catching Cubs fever, though; it's only a 24-hour bug anyway.)

Friday, September 19, 2008

Posting

Wow, it's been a month? It's amazing how little has been going on. I did have my 26th birthday, which was pretty non-noteworthy. I got Blue Planet DVDs from Alma to accompany the Planet Earth she got me last year, which was nice, and my parents got me both a subscription to The Economist and the Rosetta Stone software for Tagalog, which I really need to get started on. So I got everything I really wanted, which is always nice.

Class has started up for this quarter and my time is already running pretty short. I'm just praying that as few Cubs playoff games as possible are scheduled on Monday and Thursday nights, although I'm also praying, of course, that there are as many Cubs playoff games as necessary for a title. If the expense of that is me having to watch a couple on DVR, I could live with it. If a potential World Series clincher was on one of those days, maybe I could make an exception (we get one free skip).

Politics are making me ill. I really just need to avoid this garbage until Election Day. And no offense, but if you're voting for McCain you're probably an idiot.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

This report called in by Russian journalist Baba Booski

Okay, maybe I have the mind of a 12-year-old. But I found this hilarious.

So I'm listening to the BBC today and they're talking about Russian operations in Georgia. And they discuss what the Russian army did in Poti, a city on Georgia's Black Sea coast. (You can see it on this map.) In fact, it's not just a coastal city, it's a port city. And it's pronounced pot-tea. Or, if you like, potty. And that was what the BBC reporter kept saying.

The port of Poti.

Thank God he wasn't Irish, if you get my drift. I don't know what they call portable toilets in the UK - possibly "portable toilets" - but you have to love that the end result is this slipped right past the goalie. I mean, it sounds like something you'd get on some prank phone call, where someone calls CBS News and tells them he's in the port of Poti, and then they put him on air and he milks that joke for a while, then yells out something about Howard Stern's butt cheeks.

----------------------------------------------------------

Russians make pit stop in Georgian port of Poti

POTI (Reuters): A number of Russian soldiers, under orders to return to their country, have paused in this seaside city for what Russian president Dmitry Medvedev termed "a quick pit stop."

"Our soldiers merely need to make brief use of the port of Poti," Medvedev said. "I assure NATO and the Georgian people that our troops will move on once they have done their business."

Told that Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili had declared that "Russian soldiers have to go," Medvedev replied, "I agree completely," before lapsing into a brief giggling fit.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

That berry's not getting any pinker

If you live in New York City or Los Angeles and have any sense of the latest trends, you're probably aware of Pinkberry, the hip frozen yogurt joint. If you don't, like me, you're probably only aware of it via the many, many television shows on which it's been name-dropped, or perhaps via this American Express ad.

In the last few days, I've read several accounts of people complaining about how lousy Pinkberry is. Keith Law, professional baseball writer and amateur food writer, made a post on his blog in which he complained that "[t]he flavor made me feel like I was sitting inside a bottle of white vinegar, licking the sides and inhaling the fumes." The main gripes I've seen all seem to hinge on the fact that Pinkberry's frozen yogurt tastes like, well, frozen yogurt. In other words, this isn't TCBY; it's mildly sweetened frozen yogurt that otherwise tastes like a big spoonful of plain Dannon. I can't speak for Law, but at least one other person I heard complaining was clearly expecting TCBY or Colombo, and wondered who liked the taste of plain yogurt anyway.

Well, I like the taste of plain yogurt. There are no Pinkberries in Chicago, but there is one location of Red Mango in Evanston. Red Mango, as I understand it, is extremely similar to Pinkberry, right down to the "color+fruit" theme of the company name. The catch is that while Pinkberry has been open in the United States since 2005 and Red Mango only for about a year now, Red Mango is actually a stateside expansion of a South Korean chain which dates to 2002. (In what seems unlikely to be a coincidence, the founders of Pinkberry are Korean-American.) Frozen yogurt that tastes like actual yogurt seems to be all the rage, presumably because it seems healthier that way; in fact, looking at TCBY's nutrition facts, "standard" frozen yogurt really doesn't have many more calories. But the semblance of health value is usually enough to create a stir, and one trendy place usually begets ten others (think of all the Chipotle clones that popped up shortly thereafter). So now there's Pinkberry, Red Mango, Berry Chill (local to Chicago) and... well, just look at this list, which surely isn't even close to complete. It reminds me of the end of the Simpsons episode "Flaming Moe's," where the street is clogged with imitators (including "Famous Moe's" and "Flaming Meaux") once Homer reveals the secret ingredient.

Anyway, I like plain yogurt, and the idea of a dessert place with low-calorie (90 per serving) frozen yogurt and simple fruit topping (you can also get cereal of various types) had its appeal, so Alma and I decided to check it out. Quick review points:

The taste: Well, you have to like plain yogurt. If you're expecting vanilla soft serve, prepare to be sorely disappointed. You have to enjoy that tangy yogurt flavor; if not, you're going to leave scratching your head as to what the fuss is about. As I've said, I like the taste of plain yogurt, although this is sweeter than that, not surprisingly. It didn't change my life or anything, but I thought it wasn't bad. If I hadn't known what it was going in, I wonder if the unpreparedness for it would have bothered me even though I like tangy stuff and plain yogurt. Fortunately for me, I had that awareness ahead of time.

The fruit: I got raspberries and also granola. The raspberries were pretty great; they were extremely fresh and added an additional tartness to the tang of the yogurt which I liked. The granola was probably overkill, though it would have been good by itself. There were some nice chewy dried cranberries in it.

The value: Well, not so much. A medium is about a cup of yogurt; add two toppings and it ends up running you about five dollars, which is just a bit on the insane side. You're certainly paying for the "couture" aspect to some degree, but if you're like me you probably don't feel that need. I can throw together raspberries, granola and yogurt from the store for less than five bucks, and even if the yogurt isn't frozen, I'm not exactly losing a ton of the experience, personally. Your mileage may vary, but since the frozen yogurt is non-fat, it isn't terribly creamy, which means that trading it for regular plain yogurt may not be that big of a loss unless you actually prefer that somewhat icier consistency.

In summary, it wasn't too bad, but not something I'd do more than occasionally. I encourage the existence of relatively healthy dessert places - better people eat a large Red Mango yogurt than a "Gotta Have It" size Cold Stone Creamery offering with multiple mix-ins - but just like with most ice cream places, the cost is simply too high for me to justify going there with any kind of frequency. Which is certainly just as well when it comes to the ice cream. Red Mango at least removes a large percentage of the guilt associated with dessert, which probably has its upside and downside, but I suppose better this than most of its substitute goods.

Monday, August 11, 2008

Citius Altius Fortius

I always think I'm not a big Olympics guy, and then the Olympics actually start. I've never been the gung-ho patriot type, but I'll be damned if international competition doesn't bring out in me a fierce rooting interest in anything United States. Of course, it's one thing when it's the World Cup; soccer, that's a sport I follow on a regular basis. With the Olympics, by comparison, we're talking swimming, and track, and gymnastics. Like most people, I have no idea what's happening in the world of swimming at any point in the four years between Olympics. I knew what Michael Phelps did in Athens; I knew what he was trying to do in Beijing. I did not know, nor did I care, what he was doing from September 2004 to July 2008. But when Jason Lezak touched the wall a barely perceptible .08 seconds ahead of France's Alain Bernard - whose braggadocio I, no doubt like most American viewers, had been quietly seething over since being informed of it mere minutes earlier - I involuntarily yelled out of sheer excitement.

Lezak had entered the pool nearly a full body length behind Bernard, only one of the fastest sprinters in the world and the world record holder in the 100m free until it was broken by Australia's Eamon Sullivan on the relay's opening leg. (Because the 4x100 starts with a tone, as do regular races, the opening legs are eligible for world records; the later legs are not because their starts are not controlled by the tone.) A full body length is an eternity in Olympic swimming, especially against one of the world's best sprinters and especially after Lezak had failed to make up significant ground after the first 50 meters of the final leg. With only 30 or so meters to go and Lezak still at least 3/4 of a body length behind Bernard, the commentators began discussing how the United States would have to settle for holding onto the silver medal, with Australia charging hard to Lezak's left.

Then, suddenly, the atmosphere changed. Almost no sooner had the announcers written the U.S. off than they began to remark upon the fact that Lezak seemed to be gaining. Like a championship thoroughbred breaking free of the pack, everyone could see Lezak closing on Bernard, a man seven years his junior. The intensity in the Water Cube reached fever pitch, and when Lezak touched the wall after just 46.06 seconds in the pool (in a finish so close that replays showed Phelps checking the scoreboard before celebrating), there was sheer exuberance from the rest of the team, the announcers, and surely Americans just like me all over the world, suddenly glued to their sets not four minutes earlier, having no idea until it unfolded in front of them that they were about to witness one of the most dramatic moments in Olympic history - perhaps the most dramatic moment for an American athlete at any Games since the 1980 hockey team stunned the Soviets.

Once the XXIXth Olympiad fades into memory, I probably won't remember much about it. If Phelps does indeed eclipse Mark Spitz's record by tallying eight gold medals, I'm sure I'll remember that; if he falls short, I may remember the race he lost. I'll certainly remember his name, as he's already just one gold medal shy of becoming the most decorated Olympian in history, a record he's sure to obliterate this year and possibly put even further out of reach in London in 2012. And I'll probably remember what the basketball and soccer teams did, sports that I care about outside of an Olympic context. But no matter what else happens at these games, I'm sure I'll always remember Lezak's charge, the hair standing up on the back of my neck as the announcers' voices began to break, the scream erupting from my mouth before I could even think of holding it in. It's moments like this for which we watch sports, and with the added incentive of national pride on the line, it's especially moments like this for which we watch the Olympics. We're a jaded society when it comes to sports these days, but when Lezak touched that wall, he was a pulsing reminder of how athletic competition can really still matter.

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Apocalypse now

We had a pretty ridiculous storm here on Monday night. It had rained in the morning, so I took my umbrella into work (fortunately). When I left the office around 7, it wasn't raining, though things seemed a little ominous. By the time I got off the train, around 8, it had started to pour. I got into the car and started to drive towards Alma's house, thinking she was home, but I called her from the car and left a message saying that it was raining, but wasn't too bad at the moment, if she still needed to drive back down from school (which turned out to be the case).

Then I got about a mile from her house and things went crazy. The rain started coming down so heavily that I couldn't see ten feet in front of the car except for other car and building lights. I managed to get to Alma's driveway, where I called her apartment and told her not to drive back down if she hadn't left. It turns out that up at the school, it was barely doing anything! Meanwhile, lightning was striking within blocks of me; the sky was flashing constantly. I've never seen anything like it. It's what I imagine being in the middle of a military battle would look like. I turned on WGN to see what was happening with the Cubs game and there were tornado sirens going off at Wrigley. I'm not sure I can recall ever seeing a storm of comparable intensity.

Within an hour things had tapered off, but at around 11, it started up again, though by this time I was home in bed, trying to rest up for a doctor's appointment the next morning. Of course it turned out that the office lost power due to the storm, which I didn't find out until I got there at 8:30 am.

Probably not a very exciting post, in retrospect. So here's interesting news: there's a good chance I will be going to the Philippines with Alma and her family in late December/early January. It's not a cheap flight, but (even with a girlfriend of Filipino descent) how often do you get a chance to take a trip like that, especially when you wouldn't have to pay for hotels? Plus Asia is the last continent I've never been to, and with stopovers this would be a chance to add several countries to my list, aside from the fact that two weeks in the Philippines, especially in the middle of winter, would probably be crazy awesome.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Start me up

Recently I was reading a blog where "Welcome to the Jungle" was put forth as the best first album track-one of all time. It's not bad, but I don't think it would crack my top five. Which got me thinking about what I would put up there. Here are some nominees I had, in no particular order:

Led Zeppelin, "Good Times Bad Times"
Kick-ass. Possibly one of Zeppelin's ten best songs, period; for all the different styles they tried and as great as a lot of their more "experimental" stuff could be, for my money they were just drop-dead awesome at the basics of rocking. (See also: "Communication Breakdown.")

The Beatles, "I Saw Her Standing There"
"One two three fah!" In my rankings this is the best song the Beatles put on an album until 1965, and it was the opening track of their very first LP. And since it's a Beatles song, you know it's an all-time classic.

The Doors, "Break On Through (to the Other Side)"
Although they put out fully six studio LPs between 1967 and 1971, the Doors easily peaked in front-to-back quality with their first one, which contains probably three of their five most famous songs, including this one. There's really never been another band that sounded quite like the Doors did on their first album, and this was the song that introduced the world to it.

Boston, "More Than a Feeling"
You could argue this one, I suppose; Boston, to some degree, only has this one album, and while "More Than a Feeling" is a pretty good song, it may not be the all-time classic that some of these songs are. But it at least deserves a place in this narrow discussion.

Cream, "I Feel Free"
Perhaps an unfair comparison with many of the rest of these, as Cream was a fully-functioning supergroup even in 1966. All four of their albums have all-time classic songs on them, but "I Feel Free" is certainly one of the five best they did, and they had the sheer balls to open with it.

U2, "I Will Follow"
Not everyone loves U2, and Boy is a more forgettable album than stuff like The Unforgettable Fire and The Joshua Tree, but even those who think U2 is a really overrated band, particularly in the last decade, should be willing to admit that for a first song by a group that formed as a cover band in Dublin just four years earlier (famously, before most of the band members were particularly proficient with their chosen instruments), the driving rock of "I Will Follow" is pretty great.

It's also interesting to think about the songs that don't qualify because they came off a second album that just happened to be the first one the artist actually got known for. Take "Blowin' in the Wind," for example, which would be a strong contender for #1 on this list... except that The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan was Dylan's second album, following 1962's self-titled album which today is almost entirely forgotten (and not without reason; Dylan's two-disc "Essential" album, released late in his career, contains no tracks from that first album but two from Freewheelin'). 1970's Elton John leads with "Your Song," but his first solo album was 1969's Empty Sky, which, according to All Music Guide, contains no "forgotten gems." Other bands still put what turned out to be their first album's seminal song in a position other than the opener; "My Generation" is track six even though it gives The Who's first album its name, and "American Girl," which I always loved as the opener to Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers' Greatest Hits album, is the last track on Petty's debut.

Pull out "More Than a Feeling" and you might have my top five, though it's of course tempting to include personal favorites like The New Pornographers' "Mass Romantic," Ben Folds Five's "Jackson Cannery," Fountains of Wayne's "Radiation Vibe," and The Killers' "Jenny Was a Friend of Mine."

Did I leave out any supreme classics? What would be your top two or three or five?

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Stop the presses



Journalists gravitate towards the best story. It's not much of a surprise, therefore, that as Josh Hamilton - introduced by Chris Berman as "five of the best stories in baseball this year" - pounded 500-foot homer after 500-foot homer in the first round of last night's Home Run Derby, it wasn't just the crowd that immediately crowned Hamilton the new home run king before he'd actually won the Derby. And I mean, that's fine - Hamilton is a good story, a former #1 overall draft pick who threw his career away thanks to heroin addiction, then defied the odds to make it back to the major leagues and now, in what will be his first full big-league season assuming he doesn't get injured, leads baseball in RBIs at the All-Star break. He hit 28 home runs in the first round last night and 35 total; he has just 40 career home runs.

But he didn't actually win the Home Run Derby. Totals reset in the final round and Hamilton, probably worn out from hitting 28 moon shots in the first round, was able to crank out just three, falling to Justin Morneau. Morneau hit just 22 home runs in the entire Derby, but he hit more than Hamilton in the final round, and so he actually won.

Now. The Home Run Derby is a ridiculous exhibition, and it doesn't really matter who wins. And Hamilton's first-round barrage was, in fact, something to behold. But the morning after, and even right after it happened last night, people were ready to erase Morneau from the history books like he hadn't even been present, which seemed a little odd. Sure, it's not much of a story for a mild-mannered Canadian guy who already has an MVP trophy on his shelf to win the Derby with a mere 22 home runs. But it was the story. Don't tell that to people like Jayson Stark:

[H]ow will we explain that this was Josh Hamilton's night even though, technically speaking, somebody else won?

That somebody else was Twins first baseman
Justin Morneau, by the way. We'd probably better mention that now before we forget -- because it'll be, oh, about 20 minutes before everyone else forgets.

Again - yeah, okay. Hamilton had a really awesome first round. He had 50,000 people in Yankee Stadium chanting his last name. It was a pretty great moment. So great, apparently, that it proved the existence of God, at least if you ask new ESPN acquisition and unrepentant sapmeister Rick Reilly, who was quoted during the broadcast as saying, "It's a lousy night to be an atheist."

This because Hamilton apparently had a dream two years that he was competing in the Home Run Derby, at Yankee Stadium, and because Hamilton credits God with saving him from his drug addiction. Of course, as Junior at Fire Joe Morgan pointed out:

It already seemed weird at the time, but now it seems even weirder that God, if He does indeed exist, would shove it in the atheists' faces by having Hamilton break Bobby Abreu's hallowed first-round record of 24 home runs (was Abreu's night also a bad night for atheists?) and then come right back and force Josh to hit only 3 taters when the contest is on the line. Questionable storytelling sense, God.

In addition, Mike Davidson, the State Farm Insurance guy who presented the check to the Boys and Girls Club, called Morneau "Jason," inspiring a rather hilarious grimace-then-laugh from Erin Andrews, who didn't pronounce his last name very well either ("Mar-neau") but at least knew that his first name was Justin. Mike Davidson doesn't work in baseball, but I don't think it's unfair to expect him to know the guy's name, especially when it's been announced and flashed all around the stadium multiple times during the event. (Let's not cut Andrews too much slack; the only question she asked Morneau after the trophy presentation was, "How did you beat Josh Hamilton?") It may have been a lousy night to be an atheist, but in some ways it was an even lousier night to be Justin Morneau.

We all got it. Josh Hamilton is a good story. And we know that after that first round, everyone at ESPN desperately wanted him to win. But it seems like it could have been a little less transparent somehow. It's okay if the crowd was deflated after Hamilton lost (and they were), but I would have expected a little better from journalists, even at a non-event like the Home Run Derby. Would this happen at the World Series? Like say the Cubs and Red Sox played in the World Series this year - obviously at this point the Cubs winning would be the "better story." If the Cubs were to lose in seven games, and the very first person interviewed on the field at the conclusion of the seventh game were Lou Piniella, and then during the trophy presentation Bud Selig called Terry Francona "Tony," do you think Red Sox fans might be a little annoyed by that? Maybe at the Home Run Derby it doesn't matter so much, but it seems a bit problematic to let storylines completely dictate your coverage. That's the only reason I'm not looking forward to a Cubs postseason run - you know that during every game we're going to hear about Bartman and the goat and everything else that Cubs fans are sick of hearing about eight thousand times. Because that's where the "story" is, and God forbid we just watch some baseball games.