It Looks Like Sports

To many of you, all of these subjects may resemble sports posts. While "sports" is an aspect of each topic below, it is far more peripheral than it is central. With this in mind, I'll order the following rants such that sports moves from the minor subject to the major. I'll also be titling each portion with the non-sports topic. Happy reading!

The above was my original intention for this post. But then word came down from on high that the worst possible situation had happened: Manny would now serve under Joe Torre! (Oh, wait. That would have been the worst possible situation had it been last year... but now they're both Dodgers.) So if this doesn't interest you, skip to the second heading.

Manny being a Dodger? : One of Boston's Icons is now dressed in blue. At the midnight hour before the trade deadline, Theo pulled the trigger on a three team deal to send Manny to the Dodgers. There is mixed emotion in Beantown. Some are happy to see Manny "the cancer" go. "He's someone else's problem now," they say. Others are not as thrilled. "It doesn't matter who we get, we aren't going to be able to replace his production in the line=up." Where do I stand? I'm not terribly upset that Manny is gone. I enjoyed his occasional comical slides in left. I'll miss his infectious smile. He was the cause of much seemingly innocuous controversy for the Boston faithful. What I am terribly upset about is the price we paid for Jason Bay. Here is the equation that made sense to Theo Epstein: Manny Ramirez + $7million (to the Dodgers to pay for the rest of his contract for the year) + Craig Hansen + Brandon Moss = Jason Bay. Not only that, but the Dodgers agreed not to take Manny's club option. That means that the Dodgers are paying $0 to their new acquisition, they sent third baseman Andy LaRoche and 1st Round Draft pick pitcher Bryan Morris to the Pittsburgh Pirates and they got Manny Ramirez. Steal! The supposed upside of this is Bay isn't in a contract year. Manny, Teixeira, and Rodriquez are and could fly their respective coops at the end of the year. So, we got Jason Bay for a ton vs Manny walking at the end of the year and we get nothing. (Of course, we tried to waive Manny almost every year [had someone picked him up we wouldn't have gotten anything] so I don't really know what's changed!) Although, when I think back to the last time we traded a "superstar" it was Nomar and that turned out alright. I mean, we did win our first World Series in 86 years and all... I guess trading him was the better way to go rather than letting him walk (possibly to NYY) at the end of the year. (Final thought: Even though we've traded him doesn't mean he won't end up with the NYY... but my prediction is that he signs with the Mets. The Yankees have seen the err of their ways in hiring too many aging A-listers and Omar loves the big names. Manny and Pedro reunited!) Update: Jason Bay hit a two out triple in the bottom of the twelfth and then scored the game winning run when Lowry beat out an in-field hit up the middle. Welcome to Boston, Jason.

Justice: Former NBA Referee Tim Donaghy was recently sentenced to 15 months in jail for betting on games that he officiated. Thus, obviously calling into question the objectivity of his work. While I find his actions to be unfathomable, I find his punishment to be unfitting. Prison? Really? Is this man violent that he needs to be removed from society? Is he a danger to himself or others? No. Was he dishonest? Underhanded? Greedy? Yes. Should we pay to house and feed him for 15 months? No. This is just an example of our justice department always resorting to the same punishment regardless of the crime! His offense was monetary, so should his punishment. Fines. Community service. Banishment from his chosen profession. House arrest without the possibility of ESPN. This man has no business being in jail. I felt the same way about Martha Stewart. Make her sell her stock at some discounted rate. Demand she not appear on TV for so many months. But prison? I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If we are going to continue to throw people behind bars haphazardly, we need to hearken back to the days of the Puritans when you had to pay for your own room and board while you were serving your time. Not only is this a deterrent to crime, but it's relief to the already over-taxed American family. We don't need to be paying to remove people from society who've done so very little to require it.

Work Ethic: As always, there is a rumor that Manny may be traded. The team to which he's going always changes but never the player. This was going to be a rant on how if I acted like Manny does where I work, regardless of my performance, I'd be gone, not making millions. Now Manny's gone... I guess I'll just move on.

Socialism: The Los Angeles Angles of Anaheim just acquired 1B Mark Teixeira from the Braves for 1B Casey Kotchman and a minor league prospect. The New York Yankees just traded Kyle "Let 'em on, let 'em score" Farnsworth for Ivan "Pudge" Rodriguez from the Tigers. My first act is to balk at the sheer stupidity of these deals by the teams who gave up the superstars. Both "selling" teams got totally ripped off. And the buying teams (logically) practically stole these players from their former teams. Granted, both are in a contract year and would have to be resigned but neither buying team gave much up to acquire these players. Then I look at the Angels and Yankees (and Red Sox) and think I get so annoyed that these teams think they can buy a championship. Baseball needs a salary cap like the NFL. But, what is a salary cap if not a "level playing field?" Does capitalism promote a level playing field? I don't think so! Isn't baseball the very picture of capitalism as represented in sport? Players are traded and signed based on the supply and demand for talent at their position. There is not limit to what a team can spend. (For convenience sake we'll choose to ignore the luxury tax that is charged to those teams that spend over a certain amount and given to the teams that spend the least). But let this also be a lesson to capitalists, he who spends most does not always win (The Yankees, far and away the deepest pockets in MLB haven't been to the series since 2003 and haven't won it since 2000) it's the one who spends smartest! All this is to say that with the Angels and the Yankees potentially standing between the Red Sox and a repeat championship, I'm pretty peeved at the Braves and the Tigers for basically giving away the aforementioned players. Especially now, as I see what the Red Sox paid for Jason Bay!

So, mostly not about sports, and all Just my opinion.

Voting Booth, Volume V

Back to the drawing board

If John McCain wants to have a National League team's chance in the All Star Game of winning the election (The NL has lost the last 11 All Star games) he needs to get someone working on his campaign signs... fast!

Not that his sign is terrible:


Simple. Legible. Boring. Forgettable!

You see, Obama thought outside the box. He didn't go with a run-of-the-mill campaign sign. He obviously hired a graphic designer. He clearly gave them parameters (I want it uber-American. Incorporate the flag if you can. I want it to say "Middle America" and have a sense of hope.) Bulls-eye:
Simple. Memorable. Recognizable. Iconic!

When I juxtapose these two signs I feel like McCain might as well inscribe "I'm really old" on his and Obama "I'm the candidate of the future" on his. This is a huge advantage very early on for the Obama campaign and if McCain wants to keep this close he'd better answer with an image of his own!

I'm not claiming to be an artist, but here is my view of something that might balance the yard sign scales:


Readable. Not Stodgy. Eye Catching. Unexpected!

Just as the "O" from Obama has been singled out as an image for signs and buttons, so the "C" from this sign. Both signs are patriotic, forward thinking, yet respectable and trustworthy.

Feel free to copy any image here posted and display them in support of your candidate. Perhaps if enough people create buttons for my image it will be accepted as the official grass roots image of John McCain.

I wouldn't mind that at all.

The Voting Booth, Volume IV

Durations

I must admit, I was slightly bothered by Barack's recent trip to Iraq. He met with the Prime Minister to discuss a "horizon" for US troop withdrawal. Um, Senator? You're still just a Senator. You are not yet the leader of the free world nor should you be conducting yourself as such.

Of course, this was a political move on both of their parts. The Prime Minister is up for re-election and he needs to look like he's taking steps to usher the Americans out and Barack needs to look like he has some foreign affairs and Commander in Chief experience.

Anyone want to take a stab at how long Barack has been an acting US Senator as of today?
1295 days.
I spent more time in college than he's spent as a US Senator.

Barack: 185 weeks.
College: 194+ weeks.
Which is really begin generous because that's as of today and he's been campaigning now for quite some time. Can we really consider that an acting US Senator?

How about this statistic: Anyone want to guess how long McCain was in the Prisoner of War camp in Hanoi?
1967 Days.
John McCain spent more time as a POW than Barack has spent as a US Senator!
Barack in Congress: 3 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days
McCain in Vietnam: 5 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days
What's the difference? Just a few days more than my little Full House has been breathing.
2 years 1 month.
I don't know about you, but I'm having difficulty envisioning a freshman Senator who hasn't even served a full term yet who has spent less time in his current position than his opponent did as a POW as a viable Presidential Candidate. I'm also having problems favoring a man who was 21 years old when his opponent was first elected to Congress. Wouldn't this be like a freshman transfer student running for Student Council President?

Yeah, it is.

But, apart from the facts, it's all just my opinion.

World Premiere!

Ladies and Gentleman!

It gives me great pleasure to announce to my readership the commencement of a long awaited arrival!

My beautiful wife has joined the ranks of the bloggers!


It's Called Guilt

That's right, the Queen of Hearts has started a blog! I'd like to preempt your suggestions that this was done under duress or prodding from her husband. Nothing could be further from that truth! In fact, she surprised me with a nearly completed blog one day, asking for just my opinion on it!

So be sure to link it, put it in your favorites, attach it to your facebook, myspace, blogspot, wordpress (McNutt!), blackberry, write it on your forehead, don't miss this blog!

Here it is again just in case you forgot: It's Called Guilt (itscalledguilt.blogspot.com)

Newsflash

This just in:

Newsflash: We do not live in a Democracy! So, please stop complaining that we don't run our government like one. The government that was established by our founding fathers is a Representational Republic. We vote for representatives who vote on our behalf. This is true for the appointing of judges, passing of laws, and electing of Presidents. The "hiatus-ed" lead singer for System of a Down, Serj Tankian, has set up a website calling for the abolition of the electoral college saying that when the popular vote is "overruled" by the electoral college "that's not a Democracy." Well, Mr. Tankian, you are absolutely right. It's not a Democracy. Truth be told: I don't have time to vote on every bill, every law, and every budget. I'm glad we don't live in a Democracy. With just a hint of hyperbole, this is akin to saying "Why do we have a Congress balancing what the President does? That's not a Dictatorship!" So, please write this down: The government of the United States of America is a Representative Republic!

Newsflash: The electoral college was not "a convenient way of reversing the popular votes of earlier immigrant settlers who were in lots of cases indentured servants and laborers" as Mr. Tankian's website claims. Our forefathers reversed the votes of such people by simply making it a law that one had to be a white male land-owner in order to cast a vote. (All non-land-owning white males had the vote by 1850, African Americans legally in 1870 but not without discrimination until 1965, women got the vote in 1920, Native Americans were allowed citizenship and the vote in 1924, and residents of DC were finally allowed to vote in Presidential Elections in 1961.). So when the electoral college was designed only 10%-18% of the US population could vote! The electoral college was instituted to give fair election power to smaller states as well as larger so that Virginia, New York, and Pennsylvania (at the time; Texas and California now) didn't pick the President every four years. The hurdles put in place to prevent the immigrants from voting were literacy tests (first put in place by those wonderfully tolerant states of CT and MA in 1855 and 1857 respectively). The electoral college is a useful and brilliant solution to the debate that raged during the construction of the Constitution. Some signers wanted the popular election to decide who resided in the Oval Office (which is an anachronism because there was no Oval Office when they were debating this.) Others wanted only the State Legislatures to cast their vote. How upset would we be if the latter won? This call for the abolition of the electoral college is simply because people feel that their vote didn't count. It doesn't matter what method we use, a large number of voters will feel that they cast their vote to the wind because their candidate didn't win.

This was originally going to be a multi-subject post but after checking Mr. Tankian's website I couldn't let him spew his false information. Thanks for reading!

Review: The Prestige

2006/PG-13/Drama

"Are you watching closely?"

You'll need to when watching this masterpiece. Christopher Nolan has yet again set himself apart when it comes to the new breed of directors. While this film is reminiscent of M. Night Shyamalan, it would be an insult to Nolan to compare the two. After exploding on the scene with his time shifting Memento, Nolan proved he wasn't a flash in the pan with Insomnia which earned him the honor of directing everyone's favorite version of the Dark Knight: Batman Begins. While not quite attaining a Hitchcockian or Spielburgian level, Nolan isn't many rungs away on the ladder of directors.

I'm going to do my best to review this film without giving away any spoilers. It is that worth it. In interviews, Nolan claimed this film didn't really have a genre. He couldn't be more wrong [and frankly, it made me a little disappointed that he didn't recognize the bullseye he'd struck when so many other directors miss the target entirely when aiming for this genre (Yours truly included)] The Prestige is a fantastic example of a Film Noir.

Set in turn of the century London, two rival magicians attempt to make each other disappear. So, what makes this a Film Noir? The Anti-Hero is a requirement for a Film Noir. Nolan executed this aspect so perfectly that it's nearly impossible to determine which magician is our hero! Is it the one bent on revenge? Or the one who mistakenly wronged him? Is it the one setting London a-buzz with his impossible new trick? Or the one spending all he has trying to steal it? Is it the one who's dead? Or the one accused of his murder? (Trust me, I've given nothing away that we don't learn in the first 2 minutes of the film). During the course of the film I found it difficult to empathize with either character. Only one other author has told a story where I was unable to root for one side or the other: Shakespeare.

A Film Noir is characterized by plot twists, changes in alliances, and mistaken identity. The Prestige has all of these. Not only that, but the film manages to weave them into the story in such a way that they aren't forced, unbelievable, or contrived. This is the hardest thing to do with these types of plot points.

The Femme Fatale is a staple of the Film Noir. Scarlett Johansson portrays the woman caught between these to masters of illusion. Whose side is she on? With most Film Noirs the Femme Fatale is out for her own interests. No spoilers here.

Nolan is partially forgiven for the "written and directed by" status that he allowed for two reasons: It's an adaptation from a book. Because it is not his original story it isn't a pure "W&DB." Second, he had a co-writer. Two heads are better than one. In actuality, this film had three: The original author, the co-writer, and the director.

Part of the beauty of this film is the changes in time, like most of Nolan's films this story is not told in a linear fashion. However, unlike Nolan's independent movie Following, where the non-linear timeline was pointless and contrived, his use of the technique in The Prestige adds another level of tension, drama, and insight. Don't confuse what I'm praising as flashbacks. There is a difference between non-linear storytelling and inserting a moment from the past in a linear narrative.

One of the major themes of the movie is said very early on:

"Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called "The Pledge". The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man... The second act is called "The Turn". The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige"."

There are a few faults in this film. Several times we are asked if we are "watching closely." We are told that we "don't want to find the secret." We are fooled right along with most of the other characters (only three know one "truth," only 2 know the other). The problem is that Nolan, unlike Shyamalyn (Sixth Sense? Figured it out. The Village? Got it from the previews.), does not give enough clues for the audience to decipher what the "Prestige" of the movie is. Truth be told, there were a few hidden elements that were unveiled at the end of the film, but one was the catalyst to the story and that one was not sufficiently revealed throughout the story.

The other difficulty that I had revolved around the specifics of the trick "The Transported Man." I'm not going to go into it because it'll ruin that aspect of the film. Just take my word for it: there wasn't enough thought put in to certain discontinuities, let's call them.

As soon as this movie was over, I wanted to watch it again. With more twists than taffy and fantastic performances by Jackman, Bale, Johansson and Caine, (Even David Bowie put forth a commendable effort) The Prestige ranks right up there with The Usual Suspects and Twelve Monkeys.

The second viewing was lacking, however, because of the sheer lack of nods to the major twist of the movie.

Overall, though:

4.75 out of 5.