#052 - Inception (2010)

Director: Christopher Nolan

Writer: Christopher Nolan & Jonathan Nolan

Runtime: 148 min

There's kind of a sadness in me. No, I was not disappointed with Inception. No, it's not a bad movie. And luckily this time around none of the bright young stars of the movie is tragically gone. It's a little bit different.

Five years ago, I would have said Christopher Nolan was one of my 20 favorite directors. At that point, I had seen Memento and Batman Begins and was pleased with both of them. But then came The Prestige. And then came The Dark Knight. And now Inception. What does this make me think now?

If I heard the title of a movie that's being made and nothing more than that, the one director that would make me most excited to hear pinned to the title is Nolan. Nobody else can eclipse him, at least not right now. And that's not to say I don't get beyond pumped for new movies by Wes Anderson or Darren Aronofsky or David Fincher or Michel Gondry or Paul Thomas Anderson or the Coen Brothers. They're just kind of a group of directors I like to put in section 1B.

1A is Nolan. And it's not because he makes movies with such a well-honed singular style that disregards all the conventions of modern cinema and blazes a path of his own, like the Coen Brothers. And it's not because he's an artist with the camera, like Gondry. And honestly it's not just because he's a wildly intelligent guy and his acumen bursts through all seams of his work and interviews. Really, it's because he's such a brilliant guy who wants to make people think and sort through all the details of his movies with a fine-tooth comb, yet he DOESN'T shun the concepts of the theater that bring people through the doors by the thousands. Michael Bay might be trite and overindulgent, but people still go to see his movies. Millions. Why? Because he embraces the screen. He fills the screen with images and fills the auditorium with sounds that get your heart racing, giving you the two-hour thrill ride you pay $7, $8, $10, $15, $20 for. And Nolan embraces this too. He's totally gung-ho about IMAX because he's positively giddy about the amount of detail he can fit into one frame. The little hairs on your neck? Got 'em. Paint chips on the wall? Got 'em. Drops of water beading on a glass? Got those, too. The "movie" experience is just as salient as the "film" experience, at least for me.

So why does this make me sad?

Here's why: Nolan has explicity stated in several interviews that Inception is his labor of love. The story that he's been working on since he was a teenager when he first got into writing, the idea that he's been hammering out for at least 9 years since he first pitched his script to the studio. In fact, he's said that he took the job directing the Batman movies so that he could learn how to operate on a large-scale movie with an enormous set and all the trappings of a big-budget movie. Those movies were so fantastic yet they were just PRACTICE for him? Insane. Essentially everything he's been doing for the last 15 years has been working towards making Inception. And Inception is a brilliant movie. Brilliant. Ridiculous. The opening is marvelous. And while it's not perfect for every second of its run, the last 25 minutes of the movie are better maybe than any other 25 minutes stretch I've ever seen. That's not a joke. I'm honestly a little bit confused at how people can get lost in this movie. Yes I know it's a complex concept with multiple worlds and dreams-within-dreams, but it's often said in writing that if you (as the author) know the world you're describing, your readers will too, without fail. And I'm quite certain that Nolan knows his world. Backwards and forwards. And the fact that he doesn't present the "rules" of the world in a step-by-step manual is his way of thanking the audience for paying attention. You don't need a list of rules to be able to understand what's going on, he reveals them alongside the story so that everything flows together. The first time I saw this movie, I was in the midst of a fit of vomit and yet I found the story understandable. (Seriously, I threw up 10 minutes in and was fading from some bad dehydration. So I saw it again.)

It's at a point like this, after gushing about the movie, that I kind of want to say it's the best I've ever seen. But you know what? It probably isn't. Movies are inherently limited. Limited by the story itself, limited by their length, limited by the screen they're displayed on. Inception, at least to me, completely maxed out all of its limits. The story is fantastic--but it's not the best story ever written. It'll end up being one of my favorite movies ever, sure. But ONE OF. Not the single best. And that's okay. To appreciate and be utterly impressed by it is enough for me, I don't need to immediately place it on a pedestal just two weeks in. It could grow on me, or it could fade. Either way, it won't change the fact that it floored me--twice in a week.

When I left the theater, other than the inevitable "did the top fall or did it keep spinning" questions (by the way, SICK ending. Very slick. Nolan has mastered the art of the last shot.), the one major thought that was swirling in my head was, "Is this it? Is this the apex?" Nolan is in my opinion the best we have right now, and from everything I've read, this was the best he has. I'm quite certain he'll put out more brilliant movies, but will he ever be able to top this? I know what it's like to have ideas, to have ideas for stories that you want to build, you have THE ONE that's always at the top, always the ideal scenario, you're always tweaking, and then below that you have THE OTHERS. They're good, sure, and you love them, but they're not the one. And from what I've been hearing, this is the one for Nolan. Will he become satisfied? Will he move to be more experimental? It kind of makes me worry. It kind of makes me sad.

It's a bizarre feeling to leave a movie that thrilled you from start to finish and feel sad.

In a way, I kind of hope to feel it again.

I know this wasn't a true review of the film. But I wanted to take the opportunity to talk about something that was on my mind. And no review of the film will do it any justice. So just know that I suggest you go see it. And if you don't like it, that's okay. But it will be more than worth it for those of you who do.

#051 - I'm In A Contest! Vote For Me!

So what if I copied this from the e-mail I sent out to just about everyone that reads this blog? I don't have time! I'm busy being in ridiculous online contests!

Hello all.

I've entered myself in this contest. It's kind of silly, but hey, if you win, you get a trip to Vegas. So... why not right?

Anyway, it's called Every Man Jack. It's some sort of male grooming products, like hair gel and aftershave and all that business. What, you've never heard of them? Well, me neither. But I stumbled across this contest and I figured I'd give it a shot.

You can vote for me to win on their website from now (July 21) to August 4th. Apparently you can vote once a day or something like that. Basically, it would be AWESOME if you could vote for me as often as possible between those dates. And if you could share this with people, that would be AWESOME as well. Because it costs you nothing, and it costs me nothing, and we can all bond together to screw over "the man" (or this company, either way).

Here's the link:

http://www.everymanjack.com/wanted/node/594/lightbox2?sms_ss=email

And if you get lost on the site, just go to www.everymanjack.com, click on gallery, search "Evan" and vote for me, not that crazy person next to me.

Thank you all greatly.

-Evan

#050 - LeBenedict Bronold?

Err... whoops.

There's a bunch wrong with this photo, but there is one thing correct--and it has nothing to do with "Cleveland", "23", "Nike", or the ridiculous pose. We indeed are ALL witnesses, witnesses to one of the stupidest, most self-important, pain-inflicting debacles of all time.

LeBron built us all up, scheduled a hokey press conference, waffled more than kids with these spray cans, and finally produced one of the lamest "Decisions" I've experienced. The whole time leading up to the one-hour special, I was thinking to myself, "This means he has to be picking Cleveland, right?"--even though scheduling it in Connecticut was a bizarre way to throw people off the scent. I figured, if you're going to leave Cleveland, leave the fans and the city and the state that depends on you so dearly, you have to do it in a quiet, respectful manner. Shake Dan Gilbert's hand, issue a heartfelt statement to your fans (and maybe a couple of your teammates), and sign your new contract with Chicago.

...Um?

Miami, of course.

See, the way I saw it going in, the only legitimate options for LeBron were Cleveland and Chicago. New York is just a mess, it's a basketball nightmare and has been for the last 8 years, and even though they've cleaned out Isiah Thomas and some of the bench-surfing garbage that has festered there, it was still about as ass-backwards as you could get from an organizational standpoint. New Jersey was never as legit as people thought, playing up the Jay-Z connection, but they weren't going to be able to bring in any other talent except through the draft. The Clippers were a joke. And now that Miami had gone for broke with Bosh and Wade and a supporting cast of Porky Pig, Bill Murray and Newman, they were going to be out of the running because it didn't present LeBron the chance to spread his wings.

That left Cleveland and Chicago, which from a basketball standpoint was always the best decision. They had great young talent, a great market, always the chance to expand in the future with more money to spend than most, and was still in the same region for a guy who claimed to be so hometown-centric. But I still couldn't imagine him not saying Cleveland. He was the King in Cleveland in more ways than one. Dan Gilbert basically said, "You don't like Mike Brown? Fired. You don't like Danny Ferry? Fired. You want Shaq? Done. Oh now you want Shaq gone? Done, too." They catered to his every whim, which is not necessarily the reason why I thought he would pick them, but now that I've seen the things that REALLY seem to interest LeBron, I think their willingness to defer would have been a big selling point.

I guess there were a few reasons why I thought he was going to end up in Cleveland. One, which I'm a little ashamed to say, is just that I wanted him to. It was projecting a little. I felt like if I was him, I would go there. (Well, I would go to OKC, but that was never in the running.) I saw a guy who seemed to be in his element, and it seemed right for him to stay. Two, I didn't think he would hold a big Broadway show just to stab the Cleveland fans in the back so gruesomely. It's a kick in the face. And a kick in the pants. And everything else. All they had was LeBron and they gave him everything he wanted. The other teams would be fine if he announced he was re-upping. They never really HAD him so it wasn't like he was deserting them. But to hold a staged ordeal like that just to say, "Hey Cleveland, you're my home and I love you, but f*** off!" seemed too low.

Three, from a "legendary" standpoint, I think the reality is, being part of this modern triumvirate in Miami is going to nix any chance LeBron has at being labeled "the greatest ever". Plenty of guys have won rings in their careers, plenty of guys have won multiple rings in their careers. It's not just winning rings that makes you the best ever. It's being the best guy on the best team. That's what gets you there. Michael Jordan suffered for a long time before he got to the pinnacle. The Pistons whupped his butt for three straight years, they owned him. LeBron only lost twice to the Celtics. Could you imagine if Jordan had said, "You know what, screw it, I'm going to go play with the Pistons instead of losing to them."? It would have been insane. And we certainly would not be talking about Jordan the same way--he wouldn't be Jordan. He's Jordan because he said, "You know what, screw it, I'm going to get better, and come back here next year and kick your ass." And he did. LeBron doesn't understand this. He thinks, "Hey, I've proven that I can dominate the league, now all I need is a ring to settle it." That's not really how it works. You need to EARN a championship if you're at that level. Unfortunately for Ray Bourque, who toiled for two decades in Boston before jumping ship and winning in Colorado, he didn't EARN that championship. The Avs won it for him, and he got to celebrate, but winning that Cup will always be a little tarnished for him. Before yesterday, I thought LeBron was capable of winning himself. Honestly, I feel that if he had Pau Gasol as Kobe does, he could have won this year and last. You need a lieutenant, not some weird three-general formation. I just can't see his legacy being any greater than it already is after this move. It's a lose-lose. Either they'll win and everyone will say it was manufactured, like the Yankees or USC football, or they'll lose and it will be the laughing stock of the sports world for years.

Four, I was duped into thinking that the last seven years, LeBron was being genuine. All the goofy antics with his teammates and their handshakes and pregame routines, holding press conferences in Akron with his teammates around, I thought it was all genuine. He always had the look of a little kid living out his dream. But the reality of it, now, after seeing all of this, is that he's got a business model in mind--how he can make the most out of his "brand", which is a concept people have been spewing for years. And being a loveable goof seemed to go with that brand. Kobe had his thing--cold hearted assassin, generally unpleasant, but a winner. And Bron had his--great teammate, vicious physique, talented choreographer, hometown hero.

Uh... scratch that last part.

Surprisingly enough, one of the people who I feel has captured the right mindset of this whole decision has been Mo Williams, LeBron's former #2 in command, and current medium-sized fish in a very tiny pond. Check out some of his tweets. Of all the players, maybe second to Boobie Gibson, he seemed to truly be LeBron's friend, and he can thank him for the incredible boost in production he's received over the last couple seasons since joining Cleveland. But now he realizes the team is left without direction. And I can side with his sentiments. He understands why LeBron did what he did, why he left, but he's not really a big fan of how it was done, and he's left in the dust as a result of it. It's honest. And it's a lot more level-headed than Dan Gilbert, who left a ridiculously scathing note for Cleveland fans (if you haven't seen it yet) in a ridiculously silly font, just bashing LeBron right and left for his decision making. It was low, it was angry, and it probably was driven by a lot of factors that we, the public, didn't experience, for instance, what it was actually LIKE to deal with him (or NOT deal with him, as the case may be). Dan Gilbert made himself out to be a seven year old kid playing fantasy basketball, but he must have been very aware of how polarizing his statements would be. I admire that. I don't necessarily admire running your mouth like a spoiled brat, but hey, he knew some people would hate it, and he knew some people would love it. And I think he agreed with himself that he only cared about the people who were going to love it--namely CLEVELAND fans, not LEBRON fans. Good for him. He got his point across, he did what he wanted to do, I don't necessarily care for it and I'm not going to be his number one fan all of the sudden, but he had his agenda and he's sticking to it.

I can't tell if that last sentence was about Gilbert or LeBron.

Probably both.

I understand why LeBron did what he did. It's an interesting experiment to join three of the league's best young players together and recreate the fun of Team USA. But I don't think LeBron really thought through how it was going to impact his legacy. In the NBA, it's either your team, or it's not. Miami's not his team. At least not yet. But Cleveland was. And they would have done anything to keep it that way. Unfortunately that didn't seem to matter that much to him. Not as much as being able to play his role in this Hollywood production. I don't have the same personal stake in this thing as those in Ohio, but I used to root for this guy.

I'm certainly not going to anymore.

#049 - Envisioning the Hall

In light of my recent post on Junior Griffey and his imminent bronzing in Cooperstown, and also in light of a recent article I read about Chipper Jones (link here) which I found to be unusually aggressive and iron-fisted, I wanted to start looking around the league and trying to determine what players currently suiting up will eventually mount their bodiless heads in the Hall of Fame.

At the beginning of the year, I read an article which claimed that this year was the first in over 15 seasons where we didn't start the season with a mortal-lock Hall of Fame starting pitcher. While it's quite obvious that Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera are already voted in (with 91% approval), I scoured team staffs to try and find and argument against this claim.

Turns out, he/she was right. (He or she, as in I don't remember, not that the writer's gender was questionable.) The closest thing we have is a bunch of guys who we project WILL end up as Hall of Famers, as long as they give it a couple more solid years. But let's face it, the time of the 300-game winner is probably gone, pitchers don't pitch long enough into games and don't get enough starts per year to get into that range, which would require one to average 20 wins a year for FIFTEEN YEARS to get there. Go back and look up how many pitchers won 20 games for just last year. Go ahead. None. Exactly. So to average 20? For that long? It's a fantasy. Guys will have to be evaluated on their performance versus their peers, which is fair, because baseball is a sport in which era matters greatly. Babe Ruth was downright immortal because he clubbed 714 home runs when nobody else had 400. Pedro Martinez's 1.74 ERA in 2000 was ludicrous because his closest competitors were in the 3.00s. And Brady Anderson's 50 home run season was insane--well, that is, until the Mitchell Report comes out.

Here we go.

SECTION 1: DONE AND DONE

These players have already accomplished enough in their careers that if it ended today, they'd make it to the Hall.


SP: Pedro Martinez. His run from 1997-2003 was godly: 118-36, 2.20 ERA, 0.94 WHIP, 1761 K in 1408 IP

RP: Trevor Hoffman, Mariano Rivera. You need longevity to make it as a relief pitcher. And you need to be consistently great to earn that longevity. Hoffman might be awful right now, but plenty of guys end their careers with clunkers.

C: Ivan Rodriguez. The greatest defensive catcher of his time, also not a bad offensive guy either.

1B: I don't think any. I'm not the world's foremost expert on who gets in the hall and who doesn't, but I'd say Todd Helton might be the closest, and he has largely underwhelming power numbers at a power position playing in a power ballpark. .326 lifetime average is pretty unreal, though. Thome is a real question mark. He hit a bunch of home runs but I'm not sure you could ever really call him a great player. Plus there's some steroid speculation with him.

2B: Probably none, again.

3B: Alex Rodriguez, for sure. Might be a little tarnished by the steroid scandal, but probably not enough. It wasn't as catastrophic as Bonds, and he benefited from coming late in the game and getting to see others ahead of him apologize quickly and be forgiven. The guy I was reading says Chipper Jones as well, which, I guess maybe does fit. 430 homers, .306 average. Those are pretty stellar. Plus a boatload of division titles (if that means anything). And one MVP award.

SS: Derek Jeter, which pains me to say. Very good chance for Omar Vizquel too, on the Ozzie Smith "Incomparable Defensively" reasoning--though technically I just compared both to each other. 2700 hits, too, though.

OF: Ken Griffey, Jr. (Come on.) Manny Ramirez. Headcase, and who knows where he landed on steroids, but he's one hell of a hitter. Oddly enough, I'm not sure anybody else really qualifies for this category. Well, possibly Vladimir Guerrero, the way he's playing this year.


SECTION 2: LOCK IT UP

These guys are about as good as gold when it comes to future Hall ballots, though they haven't exactly gotten there YET.


SP: Roy Halladay, Johan Santana, Andy Pettitte. It would help if Santana got to 200 wins and didn't divebomb in the next few years, but his pedigree is outstanding so far. People are saying Pettitte is for sure going to get in, and I think being a popular guy for the Yankees helps that.

RP: None. Maybe Billy Wagner? Closers are very new to the Hall, so I'm not sure how they value them so far.

C: Joe Mauer. How many batting titles will he win? All he needs to do is hit about .290 for the rest of his career and he's a dead-on lock.

1B: Albert Pujols. Seriously, he's almost in the "Done and Done" by now. Just inconceivable how good he is.

2B: Chase Utley. He's pretty much the best second baseman every year of his career. That has to earn you some mad props, and some high finishes in the MVP voting won't hurt.

3B: None that I can think of.

SS: None right now.

OF: Ichiro Suzuki. Don't sleep on his potential production. There's no reason he couldn't play til he is 40, and every year is another 200 hits for him, he could reasonably reach 3000 in less than 15 years of service. Already one of the 10 most efficient hitters of all time.


SECTION 3: PROJECTING

They're a long way aways, but I could totally foresee the future production of these guys resulting in a Hall-worthy career.


SP: Tim Lincecum, who already has two Cy Youngs. CC Sabathia. Roy Oswalt, only if he can regain form from a few years past. I'd love to say Felix Hernandez, who at 24 already has 63 wins, but he's a bit of a headcase and who knows how that will affect him. Stephen Strasburg--half kidding, but he's already disgustingly good.

RP: I'm not sure if closers will have the career longevity required to fit this bill. Possibly Francisco Rodriguez, but he's been very up and down. Closers seem to last about 3 seasons and then flame out, so it'll be hard to find others.

C: None.

1B: Ryan Howard could perhaps get there, with these filthy power numbers he continues to put up. Same could be said for Prince Fielder. Miguel Cabrera, though, tops both of them on consistent production so far, and he seems to only be getting better.

2B: Robinson Cano could win MVP this year. And if he secures some batting titles, like everyone has been predicting he will, he might get into range.

3B: Evan Longoria. It's VERY early for him. But let's hope he can keep it up.

SS: Hanley Ramirez. He's been the best shortstop in baseball for a few years, and at 26 is already 44th in Active Career WAR (wins above replacement). Very promising.

OF: It's all about sustained top-level production. There are plenty of great outfielders, but not enough of them are consistently in the top 3 at their position. A few more years down the road and this picture will come better into focus.

#048 - Farewell.

Hard to believe this guy is now retired.

There are very few words I could use at this point to elucidate my feelings on George Kenneth Griffey, Jr. He's been my favorite athlete in any sport, for my whole life. In my Google profile picture, you might be able to notice that I'm wearing a Seattle Mariners sweatshirt. Who can they thank for that? Griffey. I once tried out for the reality show ESPN Dream Job where you compete to become a Sportscenter anchor. What play did I recall during my "Favorite Play-by-Play Memory"? Edgar's double down the line against the Yankees, scoring Griffey from first. Anytime I pick up a baseball bat, I can't help but rock my hips back and forth a bit, emulating his timeless pose. Unfortunately, I was only able to see him play in person three times, something I'm already greatly regretting. I had hoped to travel out to the Chicago and catch a couple last games of him with the Mariners in July, but as this news has broken, it's clear that's not going to happen.

It's sad to see him go.

It's sad to see him go like this. He's batting .184, no home runs, scant contribution and relegated to designated hitter (or designated walker, most appropriately). He never was chiseled, he was lean with a thick waist that would generate locomotive power. Now one might say he's a bit paunchy, his belt size a few notches bigger, father time taking his toll. His quickness has been sapped, moving from center field to right a few years ago. His fluid, picture-perfect swing has been drained of its speed, making him an easy mark for even middle of the road pitchers. It's not the way you envision it happening when you're 10 years old. You envision him standing up to bat, last game of the season, perched at 755 career home runs. Of course it would make sense to walk him, but in your head, there's no room on the bases. They've gotta pitch to him, even though it's obvious to everyone in the park what's going to happen. A mistake middle-in, and there's no doubt. He's carried around the bases by his teammates, his smile as brilliant as ever, his eyes lit up to show the little kid inside of him. Hank Aaron's at home plate to congratulate him. Carried off into the sunset.

That's how you want it to go down. That's how the story was written.

Written by all of us 10 year olds, glued to our sets as he homered in 8 straight games, leaping from our seats as he dismantles the Yankees with one of the all-time great performances, raising our fists as he turns in back to back 57 HR / 140 RBI seasons.

Covering our eyes as he crashes head first into walls.

Hanging our heads as he changes allegiances.

And welcoming him back with open arms.

The old legend has it that children, who are always said to be innocent, can cut right through all the bullshit facades and see you for who you really are. So it's no wonder schoolyards in the early 90s were packed with Griffey impersonators, littered with Mariners caps. Griffey was my first hero, as I'm sure he was for others. He jumped out at you as a guy you wanted to emulate, and for a change, parents had no problem with that. The same things that made him such a great player, wonderful teammate, and jubilant personality are the same things that bring him to today, his cleats hung up, his number on its way up the flagpole. Griffey never shied from the spotlight, but it's without question that his smiles were the brightest at the bottom of a mob of teammates.

In his statement to the team, he told his GM that he didn't want to be a distraction. He didn't want to hurt the team. He didn't want to take up a roster spot without providing anything in return. Being a good teammate has led him to being no teammate at all. But the parallels don't end there. In his prime, he was explosive and fearless, crashed into walls, laid himself out onto the Kingdome turf, piled up injury after injury, ripped his hamstrings from the bone. He always impressed with his grace and fluidity, and the years of bodily harm added up. Being such a fantastic player for so long ended up doing him in. Physically, he's not the same. He had a long swing, one that is etched into my brain as history's prettiest home run producer, but old age unmasked giant holes in it. Genuine old age. Natural old age. If there's anything you can say about Junior, it's that he was genuine. He comes out with his true feelings, whether it's pure joy as he cranks a homer, disappointment as his team falls short year after year, or the sadness of accepting his declining skills and bowing out. He foolishly thought you could get an edge by being a good guy. While all his contemporaries turned to the needle (or "flaxseed oil") and debuted bulging muscles and screaming line drives late into their 30s, Griffey let the game go naturally. His weight went to his hips. His fly balls started dying at the track. Once destined to barrel through Aaron's 755 barrier, Griffey limped across the line with 630 home runs. To 99.99999% of people, 630 homers is unreal. But for Griffey, there's always going to be a lingering "what if?" in the back of everyone's heads. He's almost unfairly being criticized because he didn't reach the lofty goals that were set for him. While it's humbling to get to this point and have to accept that Griffey wasn't going to be the one to break all those records, I don't think it should diminish what he was able to accomplish at all. If anything, it should just stand to commend Hank Aaron on what a machine he was. From ages 31-36, Griffey played in 554 games and hit 125 homers, as compared to Hammerin' Hank, who played in an astonishing 920 games and hit 226 home runs. Junior just couldn't stay healthy when he hit the wrong side of 30, and too many people are going to slight him based on the games he missed as opposed to the games he played. He still hit 630 home runs. He still drove in 1836 runs. He still accumulated 2781 hits. Those numbers are dumbfounding. Especially when you add to it an MVP award, 13 all-star appearances and 10 gold gloves. In 1998 he was already a first-ballot Hall of Famer. What is he now?

Now, he's the owner of one of the most incredible resumes ever seen in any Ken James or SABR anthology. He's the curator of the league's Jackie Robinson Day, coming up with the idea that he wanted to honor Jackie's memory by wearing his number one day a year--just his number, without a name. He's the savior of one franchise, one that was in physical and financial ruin before he came along and starting tearing the cover off the ball. He's a family man, something we saw as early as 1990 playing side-by-side (and homering back-to-back) with his father, Ken Sr. It's something we've witnessed throughout the years playing with his kids (sometimes to his detriment) on the ballfield, just as he did when he was a kid. And it's something he's struggled with this year, having to spend long stretches of games away from his family. He's a prankster, known for his clubhouse gags and for coming in and lightening the mood of a downtrodden Seattle team on the verge of pushing away its franchise player in 2009. He's the force behind a tiny plaque on the wall of the B&O Warehouse at Camden Yards, a tribute to his mammoth blast during the 1993 Home Run Derby. He's the star of one of the most impressive highlight reels in all of sports, one that I'll enjoy watching again and again until the day I die. He's a legend, but even more than that, he's a person.

I think it'll take some more time for people to truly appreciate Griffey for the player that he was. Playing in the steroid era cost him. It cost him home run titles, MVPs, and his place in history. Of his generation, he'll be joined in the 600 home run club by Sosa, Bonds, and A-Rod. The catch? Those three have been under constant steroid suspicion, whether it be rumors, grand jury testimony, or failed drug tests. Griffey? Clean. In fact, I've stated on many occasions, that if he's ever found out to NOT be clean, I think it will officially end my relationship with baseball altogether. I can't face that. Luckily, I doubt I will ever have to. But once all the dust settles from this tarnished period of the game, the players will likely be dumped into two categories: those who did, and those who didn't. For all his achievements, I can say without hesitation that Griffey will stand at the front of the steroid-free class, and rightfully take his place in baseball history with Aaron, with Mays, with Clemente--not above or below them, but alongside them.

Maybe it makes no difference to you, but to me, baseball won't be the same without him.

(Thanks to user rkuehn24 for this video. It's fantastic.)

#047 - Joe Camel, eat your heart out.

Want to see something that is beyond wrong? Like, that will astonish you in every way possible, potentially to the point that your head will just explode and leave gooey debris all over your computer screen? Nice. I have just the thing:

(Video courtesy of Reuters. Not like they gave me permission or anything.)

This brings to mind so many questions. So, so many questions. But I'm not even sure where to start. Here goes--how does this even get filmed? How does someone hear about this, and have their first thought be, "Hey, let's take video of this for a new service!" and not, "Holy crap! This needs to stop!"? Seriously, this is absurd. I've never smoked, and am pretty much against it on all counts, so naturally I'm a biased observer, but I can at least admit that adults, when given the choice, sometimes choose to become addicted to this product, so there must be some benefit. But children? This kid looks about 15 pounds overweight to begin with, which is horrible, but add to it the endless list of life-enhancing health benefits of smoking, and I'm pretty sure he'll live only long enough to grow his first facial hair--a very thin, patchy mustache. And considering he'll stunt his growth at 3 feet 5 inches tall, he'll be one of the creepiest looking beings on the planet. But at least his voice will be nice and raspy, if he can even talk at all, so he has a future in radio.

I fear for his life. And the lives of everyone in his town. Because honestly, the more I watch this video, he looks totally badass. And reminds me a little bit of Oddjob. Okay, I'm a bad person.

#046 - Brutal? Yes. Deserved? Probably.

Now, I don't advocate animal killing, nor do I advocate human killing, but I randomly came across this picture and was instantly mind-warped.

If you're interested to know, the bullfighter did survive the attack. I'm not sure if the bull did, however, as my friend Dan and I were just commenting that there's an almost 0% chance the bull would make it out alive after something like that, which makes bullfighting--already a ridiculous event--simply unfair on all grounds. I countered with the argument that at least bulls can dish out the punishment, unlike in a similar dog-fighting scenario (or cock-fighting or snake-fighting or whatever sick animal quarreling you spend your free time on).

As much as I am physically pained by the photo, I think the reality is that this dude had it coming. If you step into the ring with a beast that outweighs you by two thousand pounds, and you intentionally provoke this creature--well, you better be ready to deal with the consequences. Luckily for him, his wounds were treatable and he'll suffer major but not life-threatening injuries.

For more information, including a video (which I haven't watched, and I don't suggest you do), follow this link: http://sportsbybrooks.com/photo-bullfighter-gored-in-neck-through-mouth-28405

#045 - The Last Cavs Fan on Earth Applies for Gun License

The mistake by the lake. The stink by the drink. The bleary by the Erie. The list goes on. Sources tell me that Cleveland has had some trouble with its professional sports teams recently. And what we experienced last night in a tiny New England town called Boston was no different, and to some people, no surprise at all.

Don't count me among those people. I was honestly surprised, and taken aback, and any number of synonyms for the concept. Here's a team that's been the best team in the league all season, has shown that it has a second and third gear to just shut teams down and obliterate their hopes, with the best basketball player on the planet, and they went down unceremoniously to a bunch of 35 year olds and a point guard with enormous hands. I honestly was surprised. I thought the Cavs would make a game of it, come out stomping on faces and send it back to a game seven in Cleveland, swiping back all the momentum and chest-beating bravado of the series. Instead, what transpired was one of the most indescribable tail-between-the-legs efforts you're ever likely to see in the playoffs.

By all accounts, the Cavs played hard in the first half. They came out with some purpose, had some good plays going, got some baskets, and Mo Williams finally was able to turn off the cruise control (damn Toyota) and play some crunch-time basketball. Then came halftime. Something happened at halftime. Either Don Vito Corleone strolled into the locker room and made the Cavs an offer they couldn't refuse, or Lebron was attacked by a rabid fan and stabbed in the elbow, or Knicks president Donnie Walsh sent them "complimentary" bottles of Gatorade laced with Valium. Their fire disappeared. Antawn Jamison channeled Antoine Walker and missed every shot he took. Shaq channeled George Burns. Mo Williams channeled Mo Williams, circa last week. The Celtics played well, well enough to win, but in my opinion, not well enough to beat the best team in the league. At times they appeared as if they couldn't believe how easy they were having it. All they had to do was stand still and Lebron would fumble the ball. Or relax on Williams as he missed another jumper. They'd get the ball on offense and sit on it, certainly thinking to themselves, "Whatever funk Cleveland is in won't last long, so we've got to milk this now."

Only the funk basically lasted the whole game. Only for a short moment did the Cavs show life, when Lebron hit back to back three pointers to cut the deficit to 4. But even thinking back on that, it was almost dumb luck, I mean he hit two jump shots, he could have missed two jump shots, from a gameplan standpoint it was nothing extraordinary. The Cavs just seemed to bail. ("When life hands you lemons, I say, f*** the lemons, and bail.") And for once I don't mean "wake up in the morning and see they lost and claim they bailed", I mean, if you watched the game, you literally thought to yourself, "What the HELL are they doing out there?" I'm leaning more towards the Donnie Walsh "gift" mentioned above--it seemed like Lebron was fighting off a bad haze. He could snap out of it for only moments at a time, but then would get caught right back up in it, like Jordan during tv timeouts of The Flu Game, only this was during gameplay. And forget the other players on the Cavs. They might as well have not existed, with the exception of Anderson Varejao, who, to his credit, constantly works hard and is one of the only players on court who seemed to recognize that his season was about to end. As an example, here's a photo of Lebron (courtesy of ESPN.com) toward the end of the fourth quarter:

"Oh, gosh, huh, well, I guess we're going to lose." Now, maybe I'm not fair, and maybe I'm being irrationally angry towards him, but you know what? If there's ONE thing people appreciate from athletes--the athletes who make millions of dollars a year to play a game that we can watch--it's giving your all. And I might really be treating him unfairly, since, after all, you can look at his box score and say, "He put up 27-19-10, how is that not giving his all?" Well, I watched. And yeah, he played hard for a good portion of the game, which is more than I can say for most of his teammates, and he even put on a superhuman display of rebounding to start the fourth quarter (check out this portion of the play-by-play:

But as soon as that flurry ended, it turned into a great display of tall men looking around and shrugging their shoulders. They gave up. And it angered me. Like, really, really angered me. I'm not a big Cavs fan or anything--I like them, I want to see them succeed (probably partially because they have yet to), and they're my de facto Eastern Conference rooting interest while the Suns and Thunder toil with the Lakers out West. But I feel kind of betrayed having rooted for them to win that series. They didn't seem to really want to do it themselves, so why should I have wanted it for them? Professional athletes talk a lot of big game about "team" and "championships" and "that's the only thing that matters", but the last five minutes of last night's game were those minutes that you want to shield little kids from forever. (You don't want to have to look into their eyes and answer the question, "But why are they giving up?") It left me with a sick feeling, like maybe there was something bigger at work, like maybe these guys are such good showmen that they've tricked everyone into thinking that they cared. The announcers even pin-pointed that fact during the game, with about 4 minutes left. They said, "The Cavs have been doing the dancing/laughing/joking act all season long, that's who they are, that's how they present themselves as teammates, why don't you keep that going now? If you're going to do that when you're winning, then you have to do that when you're losing as well." And the point was not that they should be dancing or laughing as their season came to an end, but that they should be losing together. With about 3 minutes left, the Cavaliers seemingly decided by way of osmosis that they were done, they stopped attacking on offense, they stopped boxing out, the poked aimlessly at balls trying to get easy steals but no longer moved their feet on defense. I've seen the act hundreds of times playing pickup ball--a team gets down in a hole, maybe they get down to game point, and unless the deficit is only a couple of points, they just sort of resign themselves to their fate. Well, to me, that's okay in the regular season, or in pickup ball, or the All-Star game, whatever. Don't risk injury for a 10% chance of winning. It's not worth it, in the economic sense. But it was an elimination game. If they sat down and rolled over, they'd have a 0% chance of forcing a Game 7, a 0% chance of advancing, a 0% chance of winning a championship--the thing they all claimed they wanted so badly. Why not go into full panic mode? Why not try to swarm on defense, go for steals, trap players, attack the basket, play at 200 MPH? At least that way you have a CHANCE of winning. You might end up exhausting yourselves or giving up easy buckets, but at that stage in time, it doesn't make a difference, you'd lose anyway. At the very least you'd make the Celtics work for it, and besides Ray Allen, their shooters were struggling from the free throw line.

I just didn't understand.

This was the same Lebron who scored the last 25 points for his team against Detroit in that Game 5 masterpiece? This was the same Lebron who exploded on the Bulls in the first round? The same Lebron who seemed to outduel Kobe in every regular season matchup in his career? Didn't seem like it. As much as you can say he was being childish after last year's season ending storm-off-the-court incident versus Orlando, looking back, I'd almost prefer that to this year. He was PISSED OFF. And rightly so. He put up triple doubles all over that series, a one-man wrecking crew, but still the Magic had answers at every other position. He left his mark as a man who was not satisfied. This year, he hugged all the opponents, barely acknowledged his teammates, and walked off as if it was February. If you're a die-hard Cavs fan, you know what? You'd probably take last year's reaction 10 times out of 10. And that highlights a big point of the athlete-fan relationship. The fan is almost never satisfied. Sometimes that's patently unfair. But sometimes, every once in a while, it's deserved.

There's so much speculation about Lebron's future and where is he going and how much will his movement impact the league. Well, that's all well and good when it gets here, but for now, all we have is the results of what happened. It's hard to imagine, given the media attention showered on this loss, that there are still two more rounds of playoffs to go. I admire the four teams who got there, they've really played their asses off and earned it (even though the Magic advanced by beating a Hawks team that was even LESS inspired than the Cavs were last night), but some of the games I've seen this postseason make me think that there should be some changes in the way the league is organized.

Pundits have argued back and forth about how teams should be penalized for tanking during the regular season to get higher draft picks, but to me, there's a pretty simple solution--players should be paid per win. Not entirely, of course, but there should definitely be some incentive there. Agents and players would never agree to this of course, and after all, what is basketball without the players? But you can't tell me you wouldn't see a better brand of basketball if players' paychecks depended on it.

Imagine this: the league and its teams only have a certain amount of money, M, to go around. No matter what happens, they're not going to mysteriously misplace or obtain a giant sum of money to be applied to players' salaries. It's pretty much known well before the season starts. So why not take 40% of that money and stash it in a separate pool. Players salaries are fixed at a minimum of 60% of what their face value is. You sign a contract for $10 million a year? Good, you're going to get $6 million of it, even if your team loses every game. Then, you take the remaining 40% of the salaries, divide each team's stash into 82 games, and then before each game, the teams ante it into a winner's purse. Let's say the Cavs have a yearly salary of $70 million and the Bulls $60 million. 40% x $70M = $28M / 82 G = $341,400 per game. The Bulls, likewise, have 40% x $60M = $24M / 82 G = $292,700 per game to offer. So when they play each other, $634,100 is at stake between them. If Bulls win, their players win back their team's contribution, divided in a proportional manner according to the players' contracts (i.e. if Derrick Rose is making 10% of his team's salary, he'll get 10% of the winnings), and the money earned from the Cavaliers would be split in two--half of the money is distributed according to that same proportional breakdown, and the other half is split evenly between the players who suited up. That way, if you're injured, you can still make back the money you "deserve" if your team wins, but there's an additional bonus awarded to players who suit up, albeit only half of the opponent's stake. And you can apply the same strategy to the postseason. That way, players won't have to lie anymore and tell us it's all about the championships. They'll really mean it. 16 more possible game checks? Yes, please. They'll play for that money, for sure.

It would be nice if it didn't have to come down to that, but from what I've seen this year, the players seem to have grown disinterested with the carrots that are already in front of them. They need new carrots, different carrots. They need the carrots they already have to be taken away. You can show a dog a toy, and he may or may not be interested. But if you take a toy from a dog's mouth, tell me he isn't going to fight you for it. The potential upside to this? Maybe games between the Wizards and Nets become heated affairs. Maybe players play out of their minds, maybe more fans come into see that, maybe the league generates some more buzz, some more revenue, and isn't that what everyone wants--revenue?

Who knows. I'm no expert, I know relatively little about the workings of the league's business, and I'm positive that this type of scenario would never play itself out in any major sport. But it's fun to speculate.

#044 - Iron Man 2 (2010)

Director: Jon Favreau
Writer: Justin Theroux
Runtime: 124 min.

Iron Man, the first, was by all accounts a blast, heavy on the repartee and CGI demolition, and established Robert Downey Jr. as the most likeable and fun super-/anti-hero and screen presence to date. I didn't think it was perfect and I didn't really understand people claiming it was the best comic book movie ever, but it was definitely a fun ride and had all the necessary elements.

Iron Man 2 picks up where that one left off to a great extent. Downey is once again a riot on screen, he talks so fast and has such a captivating persona--it's kind of hard to envision the divide between Downey, Stark, and Stark's ultra-ego. It all just blends. The movie is nothing without him, and his awareness of his importance is evident, as it bleeds over into the character--a character who sits in front of the United States government and tells it to bugger off, essentially, "You can't touch me because you need me too bad." It's believable, it follows accordingly from the actions of the first film, and it's one of the few not-excruciatingly-obvious plot devices for the rest of the film. Tony's narcissism is going to come back and bite him in the ass. It's clear, but it's his character.

The setup, I think, is fantastic. Mickey Rourke wastes no time making his presence felt as Ivan Vanko, the supposed villain of the story. In fact, I think his grand entrance is probably the best scene of the movie, even though it's ridiculous on so many levels (the rest of the drivers would continue to race even though cars are being blown up left and right? Isn't that why you have crew chiefs?). Rourke is pretty good. I was concerned his Russian accent was going to be garbage from the trailer, but it actually wasn't too bad--maybe because they limited him to only a handful of lines. But he was quite badass and a freaking genius to boot--which is actually one of the things I thought was problematic about the movie. Sure, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) is obviously the main villain. He wants to take down Stark and make him look like a little girl (in a little dress, little saddleshoes, little pigtails) at any cost, even though it seems like his villainy is forced. But that's besides the point. He's hateable. It makes sense. Vanko, though, isn't really hateable at all. His gripe with Stark is kind of legit (Stark's father banished Vanko's father to Russia after the two had been partners) and they only really address it with one line of dialogue, but in a rush to do everything else they're trying to do, don't really come back to it. So all we see is Vanko as a one-man wrecking crew, totally dismantling Hammer's entire software mainframe and fleet of drone soldiers. And he makes himself a kickin' Iron Man replica, complete with wickedly awesome electric tentacles (alright, I'm not sure how to describe it, but you know what I'm talking about). He's not even really that evil. He's just brilliant. He made all of his stuff without the resources of Stark, all on his own in this tiny shack in a frozen Russian town, and yet was able to compete. That gets more thumbs up than thumbs down in my book.

Most of that is forgivable, though. I think Favreau (and maybe more important, the Marvel suits behind the financing) had a bigger agenda--trying to cram all this Avengers stuff into the plot, trying to fit in a few too many plot points (Rhodes fighting Tony and stealing the War Machine suit is maybe the weakest moment in the movie, and ideally would have been skipped--but they needed to facilitate the War Machine storyline somehow) and the end result was a long movie with a million events happening inside of it. So you can't blame them for everything. The fight scenes were still cool, Iron Man zipped across the screen with as much flair as ever (even though I think they upped the CGI ante a little too much, everything was like the computers from Minority Report and Tony carries Iron Man around inside a briefcase), and most importantly, the characters were well done and had terrific interactions. That, I think, is the hallmark of the Iron Man movies--viciously quick banter between Stark and others, especially Pepper, that makes the movie a lot more fun and natural than other comic book films with hackneyed one-liners. That feature remains intact. And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Scarlett Johansson as Natalie/Natasha/Black Widow, who plays the part of sexy assistant quite dashingly, and then blows everyone's doors off when she whips into high gear (and a leather catsuit). Seriously, good for her. I think she'll just pull out a reel of this movie the next time some online gossip columnist rags on her for being thick in the thighs. All good, all the time.

The part I found to be not-so-all-good? Blah. The end. I think some other people out there have commented on the quick and painless nature of the final fight sequence, but it really was kind of a letdown for me. As devastating as Vanko was in the first encounter--quite nearly killing Stark--he came back with an even more powerful suit at the end, but was dismissed quite effortlessly. And the scene only took about 40 seconds. This was disappointing, and was not too different than how I felt about the ending of the first movie. The final victories just seem to come too easily for Iron Man. And when you've sifted through all the wheelings and dealings of the first 115 minutes, what would have really driven the stake home would have been a killer final battle--only the movie ended up going out with a whimper. And that's a shame, because based on the first matchup, it could have been a doozy.

#043 - 20 Questions on the MLB

The latest issue of ESPN The Magazine includes a feature on questionnaire results from 100 big leaguers (all answering anonymously, of course). I browsed the results and this is what I came up with:
(Note: About halfway through, I realized this post was dreadfully boring. Enjoy!)


1. The Best Player
Their answer: Albert Pujols 58%; Joe Mauer 21%
My take: Well, come on now, are you really going to argue with The Machine? Pujols. If there was one guy you wanted to plug into your lineup day in and day out, it'd be Pujols. And additionally, if there was one guy you needed to come through with a big hit in a clutch situation, it'd also be Pujols. (Just ask Brad Lidge.) You might be thinking to yourself, "Well, duh, those two are pretty much the same thing." But the reality is, they're not the same, and if you need any more proof, just look at Alex Rodriguez, 2001-2008.



1B. The Most Overrated
Their answer: Joba Chamberlain 17%; Alex Rodriguez 9%
My take: Yankees took home 4 of this poll's 5 top spots, which is not really a surprise. My gut reaction is to say a bunch of guys who, as it turns out, actually aren't really overrated anymore, because they've underperformed for a couple of years (David Ortiz, Alfonso Soriano). Chamberlain is a pretty good pick, I mean he's got this whole "Joba Rules" thing named after him and he's barely made a dent in the MLB surface. In no particular order: Francisco Rodriguez, Jose Reyes, Chamberlain, Josh Beckett, Rich Harden.


2. Which City has the Best Groupies?
Their answer: Chicago 21%; San Diego 9%
My take: I have absolutely no way of knowing how to approach this question. If so many of them say Chicago, then, sure, Chicago. However, if you want to talk about the percentage of a city's female population who would unabashedly jump the bones of a team's star player, then New York and Philadelphia have to be pretty high (just count the number of pink Derek Jeter or Chase Utley shirts next time you're at a game).


2B. Which City has the Worst Groupies?
Their answer: Oakland 14%; Cleveland 11%
My take: Come on, don't kid yourself, those were the first two cities to pop into your head, too.


3. How Many Games Should Teams Play?
Their answer: 162 57%; 150 10%
My take: Do we really need 162 games to figure these things out? (Someone points out the AL Central has been decided by a tiebreaking 163rd game each of the last two years.) That aside, I really don't think there's any value to having that many games. It's absurd. America's best league, the NFL, plays a 16-game schedule, 20 including playoffs. The only reason baseball needs to stick at 162 is because it has always used that amount, and it generates more profits for teams and gives players more games to accumulate stats. As a fan, I could live with a cut back to 120. That way World Series games won't be played in November in 35 degree weather.


4. Who will Win the World Series?
Their answer: Yankees 38%; Phillies 19%
My take: Players named the Mariners tied for third with 9%. Come on you silly players, get real. Tampa Bay over St. Louis in 6.


5. How Many Players Still Take PEDS?
Their answer: 0 per team 37%; 1 per team 19%
My take: Judging by the fact that 13% of respondents answered "No Comment", I'm willing to bet the number is above 0. Maybe 5-10% of the league is still doing it. So like, 2 guys per team.


6. Which Pitcher has the Nastiest Stuff?
Their answer: Roy Halladay 40%; Tim Lincecum 21%
My take: Ubaldo Jimenez was nowhere to be found in these results, which is a crime. Maybe not THE nastiest, but come on, he's nastier than Josh Beckett. Alas, I must remain true to my overwhelming bias: Felix Hernandez, Tim Lincecum, Ubaldo Jimenez, in that order.


7. What is the Best Franchise?
Their answer: New York Yankees 52%; Boston Red Sox 16%
My take: How is this measured? McDonald's is the biggest chain in the world, does that mean it's the best restaurant or has the best burgers? Come on. I think this answer should incorporate loyalty to fans and loyalty to players. My answer would probably be the Cardinals. It just seems like everyone loves each other there.


7B. Worst Franchise?
Their answer: Pittsburgh Pirates 23%; Kansas City Royals 18%
My take: The Pirates are a mess and trade away just about every likeable player they develop.


8. How Many Players Cheat on Their Wives?
Their answer: Half 9%; One Quarter 8%
My take: I have no idea. If you're a professional athlete and like messing around, why would you get married in the first place? I'll split the difference and say a third.


9. Should Barry Bonds be in the Hall of Fame?
Their answer: Yes 67%; No 29%
My take: The guy is an asshole and I think the overwhelming evidence points to his guilt in the steroid scandal. It's a shame, because he probably could have made it without it. His case is a little different than McGwire's. I don't want him to be in, but I think he should be. McGwire, however, shouldn't.


10. Would You Prefer a World Series or MVP?
Their answer: World Series 87%
My take: Depends. If you're a journeyman throw in on a World Series team, like Nick Swisher of the Yankees, then I think it means less. Baseball, moreso than any other sport, is individual. You can't really make your teammates better. You hit in your slot, you field in your position. Two guys win the MVP each year. 40 win a World Series. Really, the answer is the Hall of Fame, but it's not an option here. There's this weird rule surrounding every sport that says you have to want team success more than personal success. I don't know why that is really. You are guaranteed to EARN every MVP you win. Not true with a championship.


11. Do Language Barriers Affect Play?
Their answer: Yes 9%; No 91%
My take: I have no idea. I'll say yes if it's Pitcher-Catcher. No otherwise.


12. Most Overrated Stat?
Their answer: Batting Average 16%; ERA 13%
My take: ERA, really? It's probably the single most illustrative stat of a pitcher's effectiveness. I'm going to have to say Home Runs. It tells such a tiny piece of the picture. For pitchers, though, it's gotta be Win-Loss. Just ask Zack Greinke. 


12B. Most Underrated?
Their answer: On Base Percentage 14%; Runs, WHIP 10%
My take: Outside of all the newfangled sabermetric stats like Wins Above Replacement, it's probably OPS (On Base Plus Slugging Percentage). It should just replace Batting Average now. There's a reason Albert Pujols pretty much always leads the league in OPS. That reason is Question #1.


13. How Good of a Commissioner is Bud Selig?
Their answer: B 30%; C 24%
My take: It's hard to say. He just kind of always seems like he has no idea what he's doing. But it has to be an incredibly challenging job. I haven't experienced any other commissioners in my lifetime, so I have no comparison. I'll give him a B-.


14. Do People Try to Get Betting Info from You?
Their answer: No 88%; Yes 8%
My take: Yes, but they probably shouldn't, and they wouldn't if they could see my account summary. Egads.


15. DH or No DH?
Their answer: No DH 55%; DH 45%
My take: Either way it should be uniform. None of this one league has DH one doesn't bull. Imagine if the NFC allowed you to have a player to specialize in kicking (aka a kicker) and the AFC didn't. It's absurd. Pick one or the other. The DH is more modern and catered to the fans, but I would prefer to see them eliminate the DH. Pitchers are often times the best hitters on the team in high school and college.


16. Who is the Best Manager?
Their answer: Bobby Cox 23%; Mike Scioscia 16%
My take: Joe Maddon, Tampa Bay. I love that guy. He's not full of himself, he's able to handle all the young kids they have on the roster, and he's got those stylish black frame glasses. 


16B. Last Manager You'd Play for?
Their answer: Ozzie Guillen 30%; Lou Piniella 29%
My take: Hard to say. Ozzie is a nutcase, but he seems to protect his players. I'd say Dusty Baker probably. His history of destroying young talent is unmatched.


17. How Much Time Do You Spending Scoping Women in the Crowd?
Their answer: 5 minutes 16%; 0 minutes 14%
My take: 0 minutes? Come on buddy, who are you kidding? It all depends on where you are, what the weather is like, and what position you play. If you play shortstop or catcher, forget about it. If you're a left fielder? 20 minutes a game. Easy. If you're a left fielder and Tim Lincecum is pitching? An hour and a half.


18. Do You Own a Gun?
Their answer: No 56%; Yes 44%
My take: No. And this answer saddens me a little bit. To be fair, they didn't clarify what kind of gun. And I'm pretty sure Dustin Pedroia's answer was: "A gun? Heck no buddy. (Shows biceps) I'm certified to handle these two lethal weapons."

19. What Would the Reaction be to a Gay Teammate?
Their answer: Middle-of-the-road 19%; Apocalyptic 8%
My take: From the above question on guns, it's clear that baseball players are a little more on the conservative side than most. Ideally, the reaction would just be to support it and not make him feel like an outcast. But that's ideal. It probably varies city to city, player to player. But I get the feeling that teams aren't as closely knit as they used to be. So it wouldn't be like your trust was betrayed as much as it would have been in years past.


20. Who is the Last Guy You'd Fight on the Field?
Their answer: Kyle Farnsworth 23%; Carlos Zambrano 14%
My take: From what I've read, Farnsworth is one bad ass dude. But he seems like a caricature of a bad ass dude. Barb wire tattoos, Rick Wild Thing Vaughn glasses, a penchant for taking his shirt off. Elijah Dukes received 7% of the vote in this case. And I think if there was one guy who I'd be extra nice to, it'd probably be him. His father was convicted of second degree murder when he was 12 years old, and in no shortage of situations have his anger problems hurt him, both on field and off, resulting in a handful of suspensions and a general level of distrust from front offices.

#042 - Where to Land on Arizona?

The speculation and public outcry regarding Arizona's questionable new bill has reached critical mass. Just about every news outlet is covering it about 6 hours a day, and celebrities, athletes, tweeters, politicians, foreigners, Democrats, Republicans, and nobodies have been chiming in with their two cents about the recent decision. Frankly, I'm not sure how to feel. I'm also quite worried that not being sure immediately paints me as insensitive and race-biased. It seems like the overwhelming answer (especially for someone of my loose political ideals) is that this new law is wrong, wrong, wrong, and fringes on alienating people's civil liberties. It seems like what I should be doing is slamming this bill for all its worth.

But the more I think about it, the more I really don't think there IS a right answer. At least not right now. I watched an interview the other day with a local Arizona sheriff and a California state politician, and besides the fact that neither of them really addressed what the other person was saying, it seemed like only the sheriff had the clear cut intention of trying to tackle the problem. The politician said things like, "This is wrong, it's unconstitutional, and what we need to do is sit down and talk about a better way to approach the problem." I'm not saying he's wrong, but that response is one that I've really grown tired of over the years. When one side doesn't like the the solution the other side has come up with, instead of coming up with a solution of their own, their response is usually, "Let's sit down and really talk about this." Do you think the Arizona state senate didn't TALK about it? Do you think they didn't spend hours and days and weeks contemplating different proposals, trying to figure out how to deal with the problem? Of course they would love it if they could have ten thousand armed guards standing along the border protecting the country. It's just not possible. And everyone has admitted this, they've said point blank, the only reason they had to find themselves in this unenviable position is because the federal government hasn't provided them with any of the solutions they sought. While a lot of people don't appreciate what they've decided to do, and would prefer to get this going in some real serious Congressional debate, think of it this way--schools in bad neighborhoods constantly have issues with students bringing weapons to school. They need a solution, they need a long-term solution to this problem. But how long could that take? Months? Years? Right now, the first thing they can do is set up metal detectors and search the students on the way in. Sure, not every student is carrying a weapon. In fact, a huge percentage of them are not. But would you rather them let the students continue to do what they're doing until that long-term solution is established? No. Hell no. What you do is put those metal detectors up and get cracking right away on that long-term solution. You certainly don't want the short-term solution to be the long-term one. It's ugly, it slows things down, it stops people from doing other things that they should be doing, and it hinders the freedom of the 95% of people who aren't the cause of the problems. But right now? Imagine the following scenario:

1) Guard stops Student A and checks his bag. Finds nothing. Student A annoyed. Guard stops Student B and checks his bag, finds knife. Student B is detained.

2) Student A and Student B go into school undeterred. In the bathroom, Student B pulls knife on Student A.

It's not too hard to make the connection from that to:

1) Officer stops Worker A and asks for identification. Worker A produces state ID. Guard stops Worker B and asks for identification. Worker B can't produce legal documentation. Worker B is detained.

2) Worker A and Worker B both attend work undeterred. Worker B works for uncompetitive wages and Worker A loses out as a result.

Obviously, in both these scenarios, option 1 is not the ideal long-term solution. There needs to be a change in culture. Businesses (especially farms and blue-collar industries that are hiring illegal immigrants) need to be punished for practices that appeal to illegal workers. But those laws are already on the books. It just takes a lot of time and a lot of effort to figure out a way to prevent employers from undercutting their legal workers with illegal ones.

The part that's hard to address is the issue of profiling. As much as you can say that the officers won't employ profiling techniques (which is a new amendment they've added to the bill), the reality is it's going to happen. White guy in suit and tie sitting on a bench waiting for a bus. Probably not going to ID him. Hispanic guy in jeans and workboots sitting on a bench waiting for a bus. Hmmm... I know that that's unfair, and for legal Hispanic residents who have worked their asses off to come to this country and stay here, it's going to be a pain in the ass. They're going to be subjected to the same constant scrutiny that Middle Eastern descendants are subjected to at airports. What I'm sincerely hoping is that it's not nearly as intrusive, or assumptive. I think what the state has announced to its residents is that it wants everyone to be able to provide documentation of their legal status, to be ready to do that. They should absolutely not let this new law be interpreted as freedom to search and seize whatever they please. That's the WRONG approach. The more reasonable one? "Hey, there are a bunch of guys waiting on a corner to go out to the fields and work, maybe I'll just stop and ask them for ID."

Sadly, I know I'm being naive and idealistic when I think that maybe things will go in this nice, clean-cut way. I realize you're going to get all kinds of police intimidation across the board, and many times they will probably use their position to leverage things out of civilians (even legal citizens) in an underhanded manner. You kind of have to accept that in any circumstance where police officers are given an extra bump in power. And most likely it's going to end up hurting the Hispanic residents of the state, even the ones who have been there just as long if not longer than most white people. And there are ways, I think, to make it a little more even across the board, and to limit the direct influence of profiling on the state citizens. If they're serious about making this identification law stick, they could apply it to certain events that people might commonly do--for instance, at certain transactions, you must provide proof of legal residency. Driver's license, state ID, passport, whatever. At every point of sale for liquor or tobacco, maybe. Why not? You're already supposed to to prove your age, why not start doing it for everyone? States are making huge tax profits on the sale of liquor and tobacco, if they want to prove they're serious about trying to cut down on illegal residents (by pinpointing behavior, not race) they can do it at these times.

I'm not sure, I think I'm just rambling, and I haven't really thought these things through so thoroughly. I think the important thing is to limit the sort of imposing Big Brother figure that is going to loom over Hispanic residents, at least for the time being. American citizens are supposed to have certain rights, regardless of their ancestry or looks. It's important to maintain that staple of our country's political freedom, but the fact is, illegal immigrants don't really have those same rights. If you're here illegally, you shouldn't be here. I know our country was founded on an open door policy, but with the way things are now, there are too many people who would be risking their lives and livelihoods to let things continue the way they're going. Not to say that I would be one of those people--the truth is I wouldn't. I'm physically and mentally distanced from what's going on in Arizona, and so are a lot of the people who are spouting off about injustice this or unconstitutional that. It's hard for people outside of that situation to really understand what it's like. But I do know that here in Philadelphia, we have our own seemingly endless problems--including a big problem with violence. And I think that if I had to show my ID to police officers a little more often in order to ensure that the streets and sidewalks of the city would be a little safer, it's something I think I could live with--as long as I didn't become subject to hostile or abusive treatment. Maybe that's oversimplification. But violence is a problem here, and I'd give a couple minutes a day if the administration were trying to step up its efforts to crack down.

There's always a delicate balance that needs to be struck with these things. These days, keeping people safe and happy are usually two separate, opposing directives. Arizona seems to be crying out for help, just as a friend who is having some trouble might. Maybe they're doing things not everyone agrees with right now, but they don't seem to be left with much of a choice. And now that they're doing what they have to do, it's up to everyone else to pitch in and help out--that is, unless you want to see them go down a potentially destructive path.