So recently MLB Commissioner Bud Selig said he "may not" be at the game when Barry Bonds breaks Hank Aaron's career homerun record of 755. There has then been some uproar by the media - even those members that outwardly have disapproved of Bonds - basically stating that Selig is wrong in possibly skipping this event. But if baseball - and not just the upper offices, but fans, players, teams, etc - are so scared of this event happening, I've always wondered why not do something about it:
Don't pitch to him.
Bonds sees his fair share of intentional walks anyway - why would this be so radical a change? If most people outside of the Bay area don't want to see baseball's most hallowed of records destroyed by a player who "allegedly" took steriods in the process, why not? I don't think people would mind if he held the single-season walk record - let the forehead have that! And I guarantee that every pitcher who "happens" to walk him will be a national hero the next day.
This obviously couldn't come down from the commissioner's office - that would admittedly look like baseball was trying to "fix" its own records. But this is a record that is unlike most in baseball - it seems, to most, to reflect upon the grand history and players of the game, and I know many see Bonds' potential ownership of that record as a loss all around for the sport and its traditions.
But who's stopping each individual pitcher, on a given night, from saying, "Well, I just didn't want to give up a homer on my watch," or, if this is done closer to the record, "I didn't want to be the guy in the record books that he hit the homer against"? They wouldn't even have to say what may really be on their minds: not on my watch, not in my park, not in my game.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Heavy Metal Thunder
Ok, I know we've gotten away from the lists you've all come to know and love. I promise there will be more to come soon. Oh yes, very soon, however, I feel the need to talk about a movie that rocked my world last night, Easy Rider.
I've never seen a more technically flawed movie that I loved so much. To dwell on it too much would be sacreligious, but I feel the need to at least mention some of its problems. The editing style, or lack thereof, is atrocious. These weird back and forth cuts during scene transitions are quite annoying, but are eventually abandoned, which kind of makes it more annoying. At least stick with it. The musical editing is a bit queer, with uneven cuts and such. Aside from that, there's nothing wrong with the plot, save for a very light plot.
*SPOILER WARNING*
Ok, all that said, there's a reason why this is one of the most influential films in American cinema. The cinematography in it is excellent, with many a beautiful shot of chopper riding through the great western deserts of the US. The soundtrack is awesome, and paired with the plot line, a great time capsule of counterculture, circa 1969. Peter Fonda is the essence of cool (Tao of Steve style), and Dennis Hopper gives a great Dennis Hopper performance. Jack Nicholson comes in about 45 minutes into the film and steals the show for the half-hour that he's in it. Which brings me to some spoilers.
I hate rednecks. Especially Louisiana Cajun-necks. The baseball bat beating death of Nicholson with about 20 minutes remaining is horrible enough, but watching Peter Fonda take a shotgun blast to the face, mid-cycle to end the film was gut-wrenching. American Chopper in flames.
A scene post Mardi-gras celebration, with acid-dropping in a New Orleans cemetary, that comes out of nowhere, makes the film. An avant-garde 10 minute moment that takes the movie to new levels. It's this scene that I think most makes the film so enjoyable.
If you like wanting to shoot yourself at the end of a movie, check it out.
I've never seen a more technically flawed movie that I loved so much. To dwell on it too much would be sacreligious, but I feel the need to at least mention some of its problems. The editing style, or lack thereof, is atrocious. These weird back and forth cuts during scene transitions are quite annoying, but are eventually abandoned, which kind of makes it more annoying. At least stick with it. The musical editing is a bit queer, with uneven cuts and such. Aside from that, there's nothing wrong with the plot, save for a very light plot.
*SPOILER WARNING*
Ok, all that said, there's a reason why this is one of the most influential films in American cinema. The cinematography in it is excellent, with many a beautiful shot of chopper riding through the great western deserts of the US. The soundtrack is awesome, and paired with the plot line, a great time capsule of counterculture, circa 1969. Peter Fonda is the essence of cool (Tao of Steve style), and Dennis Hopper gives a great Dennis Hopper performance. Jack Nicholson comes in about 45 minutes into the film and steals the show for the half-hour that he's in it. Which brings me to some spoilers.
I hate rednecks. Especially Louisiana Cajun-necks. The baseball bat beating death of Nicholson with about 20 minutes remaining is horrible enough, but watching Peter Fonda take a shotgun blast to the face, mid-cycle to end the film was gut-wrenching. American Chopper in flames.
A scene post Mardi-gras celebration, with acid-dropping in a New Orleans cemetary, that comes out of nowhere, makes the film. An avant-garde 10 minute moment that takes the movie to new levels. It's this scene that I think most makes the film so enjoyable.
If you like wanting to shoot yourself at the end of a movie, check it out.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
When Conservatives Cry . . .
So I have to chime in on this whole "OMG, Prince's silhouette with his guitar looks like a giant phallus!" debate.
Do I think that the silhouette of Prince's guitar at the Super Bowl halftime show looked phallus-like when he turned to one side . . . absolutely. Do I have a problem with it? Absolutely not.
When was the last time that you heard rock and roll being associated with sex? Like, maybe 5 seconds ago? Really, rock and sex have a loving relationship that's been going on long before Elvis shook his lovemaker on national television. So when people cry out at sexual innuendo entwined in a rock performance, I'm almost speechless. The guitar has often been seen as a phallic object, and sex has gone hand in hand with its primary popular genre of music.
But I have no problem with my child watching Prince's performance with this innuendo - why? Is it because I'm a horrible parent? A left wing nut that would just as quickly show him Debbie Does Dallas as Teletubbies? I don't think so - rather, I wouldn't mind him seeing this because he's not going to see what we see - he hasn't been trained to "hunt down" such images yet. Instead, he probably sees a silly man behind a bed-sheet, playing that guitar that looks kind of like the one his Grandparents got him for Christmas. And I highly doubt he cries himself to sleep at night, wondering why Grandma and Grandpa got him a phallus-like-object for Christmas.
Do I think that the silhouette of Prince's guitar at the Super Bowl halftime show looked phallus-like when he turned to one side . . . absolutely. Do I have a problem with it? Absolutely not.
When was the last time that you heard rock and roll being associated with sex? Like, maybe 5 seconds ago? Really, rock and sex have a loving relationship that's been going on long before Elvis shook his lovemaker on national television. So when people cry out at sexual innuendo entwined in a rock performance, I'm almost speechless. The guitar has often been seen as a phallic object, and sex has gone hand in hand with its primary popular genre of music.
But I have no problem with my child watching Prince's performance with this innuendo - why? Is it because I'm a horrible parent? A left wing nut that would just as quickly show him Debbie Does Dallas as Teletubbies? I don't think so - rather, I wouldn't mind him seeing this because he's not going to see what we see - he hasn't been trained to "hunt down" such images yet. Instead, he probably sees a silly man behind a bed-sheet, playing that guitar that looks kind of like the one his Grandparents got him for Christmas. And I highly doubt he cries himself to sleep at night, wondering why Grandma and Grandpa got him a phallus-like-object for Christmas.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Downtime
Ok, the Superbowl is over. Baseball hasn't begun yet. Hockey and Basketball aren't worth watching for different reasons. Basketball doesn't start til the playoffs, and the players really seem not to care until then. Hockey isn't watchable for several reasons. One of those is, it's incredibly hard to find what channel it's on (Yes, I know, Vs.). Another problem with it, is the regular season seems to mean almost as little in hockey as it does in basketball. No other sport offers the distinct possiblity of an 8 seed winning the championship the way hockey does. College basketball is insanely boring until March Madness, so we have a month and change to go for that. What to watch? My answer? Plain and simple, Most Xtreme Challenge.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
To compact...or not to compact
My 5 favorite trash novels....
What do I consider a trash novel? I think it's pretty evident, but basically anything on the New York Times bestseller list is a good start. Mass paperback fluff. Fun reads.
Good, but not in danger of making you think. Here we go.
1)Dark Rivers of the Heart - Dean Koontz. This book takes everything Koontz is famous for - great storytelling, a strong but conflicted and battered male lead, a too-smart dog, and romance, and takes it to its pinnacle. While Koontz's writing can get as tedious as a ditto sheet (especially after you've read 35 or so of his books), this book doesn't copy his other books too horrifically. It even throws in a not so happy ending.
2)Salem's Lot - Stephen King. By far the best vampire book I've ever read (that's not Dracula), Salem's lot has great characters, and great storytelling that doesn't bog down in it's 600 or so pages. Salem's lot is gory to the Nth degree, actually frightening, and bleak. With a villain to rival any, I would highly recommend Salem's Lot for some fun summer reading.
3)8 Million Ways to Die - Lawrence Block. I hesitate to put this on any trash list, because of it's noirish sensibilities and beautiful gritty writing, but I think it qualifies. If you haven't read any of Lawrence Block's books (especially the Matt Scudder stuff), they combine detective, crime, and personal philosphy in a way that's highly entertaining to read. The story follows an alcoholic ex-cop, ex-PI in the investigation of a murder of a prostitute trying to leave her pimp. Formulaic? Possibly in idea, but definitely not in execution.
4)Angel Fire East - Terry Brooks. Ouch, MIKE! Don't kick me. I'm not calling fantasy trash! That said, I don't typically get into fantasy (with the exception of Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Neil Gaiman and a certain Raymond Feist book entitled Faerie Tale), but this novel (the third in the Word and the Void trilogy) is a brilliant climax to a modern day fantasy series. Dark in a way usually not seen in fantasy, Angel Fire East has intensely great, deep characters that you can't help but pull for. What can I say? I'm a sucker for battle of dark and light over the souls of the world stories.
5)Runaway Jury - John Grisham. No trash novel list is quite complete without John Grisham. Right? Right? Yet another in a long line of John Grisham books written to be made into a movie, the whole plot of this was trashed on screen. Book = Suit against tobacco companies. Movie = Suit against gun manufacturers. Kinda lost the zip on screen, but I'm not talking about the movie here. Runaway Jury is full of fun twists, and a sickening description of what happens to the body on an inhalation of tobacco smoke (spasming intestines, increased pulse, etc.). The characters have purpose, and if nothing else, they cast the movie well.
Almost made it - The Andromeda Strain - Michael Crichton, Crackpot - John Waters.
What do I consider a trash novel? I think it's pretty evident, but basically anything on the New York Times bestseller list is a good start. Mass paperback fluff. Fun reads.
Good, but not in danger of making you think. Here we go.
1)Dark Rivers of the Heart - Dean Koontz. This book takes everything Koontz is famous for - great storytelling, a strong but conflicted and battered male lead, a too-smart dog, and romance, and takes it to its pinnacle. While Koontz's writing can get as tedious as a ditto sheet (especially after you've read 35 or so of his books), this book doesn't copy his other books too horrifically. It even throws in a not so happy ending.
2)Salem's Lot - Stephen King. By far the best vampire book I've ever read (that's not Dracula), Salem's lot has great characters, and great storytelling that doesn't bog down in it's 600 or so pages. Salem's lot is gory to the Nth degree, actually frightening, and bleak. With a villain to rival any, I would highly recommend Salem's Lot for some fun summer reading.
3)8 Million Ways to Die - Lawrence Block. I hesitate to put this on any trash list, because of it's noirish sensibilities and beautiful gritty writing, but I think it qualifies. If you haven't read any of Lawrence Block's books (especially the Matt Scudder stuff), they combine detective, crime, and personal philosphy in a way that's highly entertaining to read. The story follows an alcoholic ex-cop, ex-PI in the investigation of a murder of a prostitute trying to leave her pimp. Formulaic? Possibly in idea, but definitely not in execution.
4)Angel Fire East - Terry Brooks. Ouch, MIKE! Don't kick me. I'm not calling fantasy trash! That said, I don't typically get into fantasy (with the exception of Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Neil Gaiman and a certain Raymond Feist book entitled Faerie Tale), but this novel (the third in the Word and the Void trilogy) is a brilliant climax to a modern day fantasy series. Dark in a way usually not seen in fantasy, Angel Fire East has intensely great, deep characters that you can't help but pull for. What can I say? I'm a sucker for battle of dark and light over the souls of the world stories.
5)Runaway Jury - John Grisham. No trash novel list is quite complete without John Grisham. Right? Right? Yet another in a long line of John Grisham books written to be made into a movie, the whole plot of this was trashed on screen. Book = Suit against tobacco companies. Movie = Suit against gun manufacturers. Kinda lost the zip on screen, but I'm not talking about the movie here. Runaway Jury is full of fun twists, and a sickening description of what happens to the body on an inhalation of tobacco smoke (spasming intestines, increased pulse, etc.). The characters have purpose, and if nothing else, they cast the movie well.
Almost made it - The Andromeda Strain - Michael Crichton, Crackpot - John Waters.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Where Everybody Knows Your Name . . .
When did the Dallas Cowboys become Cheers'?? I mean really, all they seem to want to do now is have people come back in through that door that left some time ago - what loony-juice is Jones drinking, exactly? I am happy to see him consider Singletary and, hopefully, Rivera. Otherwise, expect more 7-9, 8-8 seasons before the 'boys have to make a coaching move again.
As far as the actual game happening this week - I agree with LLD that the Colts haven't faced a particularly great offense yet - nor will they on Sunday. Both teams should be able to run the ball, although I'd give the edge to Chi-town there. And I don't believe that Grossman will play all that badly (though if he does, this could quickly become a rout, barring miraculous play from Hester again - not an impossibility). But lets also be honest here - yes, Berrian has speed, but his big catch against the Saints that began to put them down for good was against one of the worst corners in the playoffs, Fred Thomas. The pass to Berrian was just a prayer, basically - although a great catch by him then. The Bears also seem to be at their best when they can look at the field, and Urlacher can play QB for the defense. The hurry-up O that the Colts run should keep them off-balance enough to make a few plays, and I also don't fully trust the Bears secondary - it has to get pressure up front to have much success, and it would have to be against a very good offensive line.
That said, I agree that Peyton gets happy-feet in the playoffs, and if he reverts to previous playoff performances, it will be a long day for him and the Colts. My guess? I think he holds up enough to score more points than the Bears defense, special teams, and several good plays from Grossman: Colts in a good game, 31-24.
As far as the actual game happening this week - I agree with LLD that the Colts haven't faced a particularly great offense yet - nor will they on Sunday. Both teams should be able to run the ball, although I'd give the edge to Chi-town there. And I don't believe that Grossman will play all that badly (though if he does, this could quickly become a rout, barring miraculous play from Hester again - not an impossibility). But lets also be honest here - yes, Berrian has speed, but his big catch against the Saints that began to put them down for good was against one of the worst corners in the playoffs, Fred Thomas. The pass to Berrian was just a prayer, basically - although a great catch by him then. The Bears also seem to be at their best when they can look at the field, and Urlacher can play QB for the defense. The hurry-up O that the Colts run should keep them off-balance enough to make a few plays, and I also don't fully trust the Bears secondary - it has to get pressure up front to have much success, and it would have to be against a very good offensive line.
That said, I agree that Peyton gets happy-feet in the playoffs, and if he reverts to previous playoff performances, it will be a long day for him and the Colts. My guess? I think he holds up enough to score more points than the Bears defense, special teams, and several good plays from Grossman: Colts in a good game, 31-24.
Superbowl XLFIEFY i dunno
Ok, so I'm gonna do the obligatory Superbowl pick. First off, lemme talk about something that at least indirectly has to do with the Bears. The Cowboys coaching vacancy. I am gonna laugh balls if they hire oft-failed pundit Norv Turner. Say goodbye to your next few seasons if he's your coach. On the off chance that Jerry Jones grows a brain, and hires ex-Bear linebacker Mike Singletary, they'll do well. On to the game. Much has been stated about Bears quarterback Rex Grossman. Guess what? Dude threw 5 less interceptions than Manning in the playoffs. 5! That's a few to say the least. Any mention that he's the worst quarterback in Superbowl history is just pure poppycock. Ok? Doug Williams of the Redskins 86ish? Tony Eason of the Patriots in 85? Quarterback dude for the Rams in 77? Horrible. Peyton Manning is a great quarterback, but dude has happy feet in the playoffs. He looks scared back there, eratic. Shifty. Like George W's eyes. Shifty. Urlacher in his face = bad for Peyton. Colts defense has looked good of late, but they haven't faced this Bears offense. Their opponents in the playoffs were the Chiefs (who insisted on running, even with 8 in the box) and the Patriots (who run a dink and dunk west coast offense.) The Bears have defense stretching recievers, and a quarterback, who, at times can get it to them. So with all that said, I think the game is going to be quite close. 21-17 Bears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)