Posted in June 2012 …

Jun 29 2012
2 Comments
Politics

“Why should I vote for Obama?”

This article is directed at other liberals, not conservatives. I have noticed a strain of frustration and impatience for President Obama among many liberals. He isn’t doing enough, or he isn’t doing it fast enough, or he is doing things that some liberals actively oppose. I have had my own complicated history with my support for the President, but after changing my mind about him close to a dozen times, I think I’ve finally settled on a predominantly positive view of the 44th President of the United States.

There are a lot of unconvincing arguments for why liberals should vote for President Obama, or Democrats in general. One probably accurate (but utlimately unsatisfying) argument is that Mitt Romney would be much worse, and that there is simply too much at stake to sit this one out. I happen to believe that is 100% accurate, but it also isn’t an argument that I find especially swaying when I have big problems with a Democratic candidate. Another is that President Obama has accomplished quite a bit in his administration and has proved himself to be a great President. Again, I believe this is accurate, but I doubt it would be swaying for anyone still asking why they should vote to reelect the President, because they obviously feel otherwise.

So, after the failure of these and other arguments, I submit to you the following: yesterday’s narrow 5-4 ruling in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, colloquially known as “Obamacare.” This narrow decision was made possible only because Chief Justice John Roberts, a President Bush appointee, broke ranks and ruled in favor of the act. It was absolutely stunning.

And it’s unlikely to happen again.

Don’t get me wrong, if Chief Justice Roberts is faced with a similar situation, he might act similarly. But it might not be like this next time. Because the Supreme Court isn’t just there to decide on how the scope of the government’s power, it’s there to safeguard the civil rights of its citizens as it did in cases like Brown vs. Board of Education, or Miranda vs. Arizona.

Do not for a moment believe that we don’t need that protection. All kinds of basic freedoms are still open to debate in this country. Do you believe in affirmative action? John Roberts doesn’t. How about the Voting Rights Act, which protects minorities from discrimination in the most basic exercise of democracy? John Roberts doesn’t.

How do you think a conservative-dominated court will rule on the right to privacy? On the right not to be tortured? On gay rights?

Very few things a President does last much longer than their four or eight years in office. In political terms, Supreme Court nominations last longer than anything else they do. President Obama’s judicial nominees have been of impeccable character and sound legal judgment. And he has made good on his promise to nominate women and minorities, who have historically been underrepresented in this branch of government.

So if you’re liberal, and you care about civil liberties, please vote for President Obama for reelection in 2012. And continue voting Democrat until the Supreme Court has a clear majority of young, liberal justices. We need you on this one.

P.S. Please stop being mean to conservatives about the Supreme Court’s decision. If they want to be negative, let them. We don’t have to. We won.

Tagged , , ,
Jun 27 2012
1 Comment
Sports

My ESPY Award Votes

Since 1993, ESPN has hosted the sports world’s equivalent of the Oscars: the ESPY Awards. It has its problems. There have been many years where the nominees (and winners) have been infuriating, and having fans vote for the final winners doesn’t seem like very good selection criteria to me at all, but we have a pretty good candidate pool this year, and since this is the only awards show we get as sports fans, I may as well weigh in.

(Note: I’m skipping the individual sport categories like “Best NBA Athlete” that they don’t show on television anyway.)

Best Male Athlete
LeBron James, Miami Heat, NBA
Two of the other competitors (Aaron Rodgers, Justin Verlander) experienced a similar level of dominance in their respective sports, but were missing one thing: a ring to show for it at the end. I came the closest to voting for Justin Verlander because he won the American League Pitching Triple Crown, Cy Young Award, and MVP Award, but LeBron James won the NBA’s regular season Most Valuable Player and Finals Most Valuable Player awards. But the biggest reason to pick James? It isn’t often that the best player in his sport so dramatically rewrites the narrative of their career in a single season. When we look back on this sports year decades from now, we might not remember the regular season brilliance of Rodgers and Verlander, but we will definitely remember what LeBron James did.

Best Female Athlete
Brittney Griner, Baylor University, NCAA Basketball
Griner was dominant as she led her team to a perfect season and national championship and won pretty much every individual trophy there is to win in NCAA Basketball, making her the easy choice here. (I have to say, I’m a little frustrated that the candidate pool here didn’t include WNBA or NFPS professional athletes.)

Best Championship Performance
LeBron James, Miami Heat, NBA
With all due respect to David Freese of the St. Louis Cardinals for his heroics in the NLCS and World Series, LeBron James took over the Miami Heat and the NBA by finally cashing in on his nearly limitless potential. This is the first time in his career that LeBron has indisputably been not only the most talented player in the NBA, but the best player in the NBA. His performance in the 2012 NBA Playoffs and (especially) 2012 NBA Finals erased any doubt.

Best Breakthrough Athlete
Rob Gronkowski, New England Patriots, NFL
Another easy choice. Anthony Davis is going to be the first pick in the NBA draft and Robert Griffin III was the second round pick of the NFL draft, but they haven’t done anything against professional competition. Jeremy Lin was a Twitter sensation, but it’s questionable whether he’s going to continue to be a star with the Knicks if the team can’t play at a high level with him, Carmelo Anthony, and Amar’e Stoudamire on the court together. Gronk’s emergence as one of the best tight ends in football was key to the New England Patriots’ return to the Super Bowl, and there’s no reason to think he’s going to disappear anytime soon.

Best Record-Breaking Performance
Drew Brees, New Orleans Saints, NFL
I haven’t exactly hidden my feelings about the New Orleans Saints in light of the Bountygate scandal, and Drew Brees has been embarrassingly vocal in his coach and team’s defense, so you have to believe I would’ve picked anyone else here if I could justify it. But Brees’ breaking Dan Marino’s “unbreakable” single-season passing record is not only one of the most impressive record-breaking performances in recent years, it’s the only actual athletic feat on this list. The other three all deal with age (two career milestones and one “youngest winner” status), which don’t impress me nearly as much.

Best Upset
Los Angeles Kings win the Stanley Cup, NHL
I badly wanted to pick Lehigh over Duke, but can we really count Duke getting bounced in the early rounds of the NCAA tournament as a “huge” upset anymore? Does it really surprise people? It seems to happen more often than not. The Kings, on the other hand, aren’t on this list because of one upset. They’re on this list because of four upsets, in seven-game series, in the playoffs. The entire reason every sport but football has multi-game series in the playoffs is to dramatically increase the odds of the best team winning. So how do you explain the 8th-seeded Los Angeles defeating the Western Conference’s #1, #2, and #3 seeded teams one after another and then hoisting the Stanley Cup? Let’s be honest: this is insane.

Don’t tell me I should vote for one of the two NCAA Tournament upsets (which we have dozens of every year) or the equally obligatory regular season college football upset over this. Just don’t.

Best Game
World Series Game 6, St. Louis Cardinals 10, Texas Rangers 9, MLB
This is easily the best candidate pool on the entire ballot (you can tell because they only bothered picking three games), and quite possibly the best “Best Game” candidate pool you’ll ever see. In addition to a great comeback by Kansas over rival Missouri in the last regular season conference play game the two will ever play, you have two games I recently described (here and here) as being sports-film worthy. The San Francisco 49ers divisional round win over New Orleans was easily one of the best NFL playoff games in years, but Game 6 of the 2011 World Series might well go down as the greatest World Series game of all time.

Best Moment
MLB Regular Season Ends
In a portent of the drama of the World Series, the old Wild Card format went out with a bang by delivering the most dramatic final day of regular season baseball ever. Four games decided two Wild Card races. Three of the four were decided in the ninth inning or extra innings. Two went into extra innings. Two were won by walk-off hits. One featured a seven-run comeback highlighted by A) a grand slam, B) a two-out, two-strike ninth inning game-tying home run, and C) a two-out, two-strike, extra innings walk-off home run. When the dust settled, the two largest regular season collapses (or comebacks, depending on your perspective) in baseball history were complete.

Best Coach/Manager
Tom Coughlin, New York Giants, NFL
Don’t laugh. Who are you going to pick? Erik Soelstra? Consider this: Coughlin has won both of his Super Bowls (two in five years) against Bill Belichick.

Best Comeback Athlete
 Matthew Stafford, Detroit Lions, NFL
This was pretty easily the most difficult decision on the ballot. Sidney Crosby missed 10 months due to concussions but came back as the most dominant player in the NHL. (More success in the postseason easily could’ve put this one over the top.) Maria Sharapova came back from a near career-ending injury to win the 2012 French Open (making her only the 10th woman to have at least one career victory in all four Grand Slam events) and regain her ranking as the number one tennis player in the world. Johan Santana came back from Tommy John Surgery to reestablish himself as one of the most dominant pitchers in the game, and pitched the first no-hitter in New York Mets history.

But Matthew Stafford came back from injury-plagued seasons to pass for over 5,000 yards and 40 touchdowns, and lead the Detroit Lions (yeah, those Detroit Lions) to the playoffs for the first time since 1999. His comeback year was a double-wammy, because it was also a comeback (and breakthrough) year for what had been one of the most maligned franchises in professional sports.

Best Male College Athlete
Anthony Davis, University of Kentucky, NCAA Basketball
Andrew Luck might be the best NFL prospect since Peyton Manning, but Anthony Davis won the Wooden and Naismith Awards as Player of the Year in the regular season as well as the NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding Player award en route to leading Kentucky to the National Championship.

Best Female College Athlete
Brittney Griner, Baylor University, NCAA Basketball
As already stated, Griner won every individual award there was to win en route to leading her team to a perfect season and national championship.

Best Team
Baylor Women’s Basketball
Was anyone else undefeated? Okay then.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jun 26 2012
Leave a comment
Music

They’re Back

Let’s start with some context. Linkin Park has been my favorite band since the beginning of high school. Aside from a Rush concert I was entirely too young to appreciate, Linkin Park’s Meteora tour is the only concert I’ve ever been to in my life. The latter was the result of being given two tickets for Christmas, which absolutely blew away every other gift I got that year. I don’t even remember what else I got that year. How can you blame me? I had two tickets to see Linkin Park at the Allstate Arena, with Story of the Year, P.O.D., and Hoobastank opening for them. (Yes: this was a real concert. Look it up. I was there, and I’m still not entirely sure I believe it happened.)

I have to admit, despite my overwhelming affection for them, I always imagined Linkin Park wasn’t a band that would be especially great live. Their style of music just didn’t seem like it would “translate” well. When someone introduces a reaction that way, you can pretty much take it for granted that their next sentence will be about how very, very, very, very, incredibly, very wrong they were. Guess what? I was very, very, very, very, incredibly, very wrong.

I actually came away from the experience fairly convinced that Linkin Park was better live. It might’ve had something to do with the fact that every single person in the crowd was singing along to every song like it was a Greatest Hits album, which is pretty remarkable when you consider the fact that this band only had two (two) non-remix albums out at the time.

But they were two great albums. Hybrid Theory (2000) and Meteora (2003) are still two of my favorite albums of all time. Despite seeming to release studio albums at a much slower pace than most bands, Linkin Park remained my favorite band by a pretty wide margin on the strength of those two albums for years.

In 2007, they finally released their next studio album, Minutes to Midnight. Unlike many fans, I didn’t completely hate the album, but I was certainly not impressed. They righted the ship three years later for the concept album A Thousand Suns. Though it received mixed reviews and polarized fans just as much as Minutes to Midnight, I was solidly in the “pro” camp. The album did things, stylistically and thematically, Linkin Park had never done before. I actually think it’s pretty clearly on the same level as Hybrid Theory and Meteora.

Still… A Thousand Suns was a concept album. Living Things is Linkin Park’s first conventional studio album since Minutes to Midnight. I have to admit, I was extremely nervous. Was Linkin Park still capable of bringing their “A” game for a conventional studio album?

Yes.

Is it as good as Hybrid Theory or Meteora? No. Is it as good as A Thousand Suns? Well, I’m one of the few people who thinks A Thousand Suns is as good as Hybrid Theory and Meteora, so there’s your answer there. But it’s on a similar level to those three albums in ways that Minutes to Midnight clearly wasn’t. It isn’t as thematically bold as A Thousand Suns, and it isn’t quite on the same iconic level as Hybrid Theory or Meteora, but it’s a step back in the direction of those albums.

I don’t know what they did differently in producing the content for this album compared to Minutes to Midnight, but whatever it was, they should keep doing it. There really aren’t any weak tracks on this album, and there are quite a few strong ones. The complexity of each song reveals the sort of passion and perfectionism that Linkin Park has always prided themselves on, and the diversity of tone and style throughout is much more in line with what we’ve come to expect from them.

By and large, my favorite tracks are the introductory tracks, “Lost in the Echo” and “In My Remains.” In all likelihood it’s because these two sound the most like the overall sound of A Thousand Suns (at least I own my biases), and the overall energy of the songs is a blend of mellow and intense that I think works quite well for Linkin Park. The repetition toward the end of “In My Remains” of the line, “Like an army falling one by one by one” is one of my favorite moments of the album.

“Burn It Down” is the radio single you’ve probably heard by now, which uses a similar overall sound to the previous two tracks but strikes a more directly upbeat tone. It was used during advertisements for and leading into and out of commercial breaks during this year’s NBA Playoffs, and it’s not difficult to understand why when you considering the competitive spirit embodied in both the lyrics and musical aspects of the song.

The bridge to “Lies, Greed, Misery” initially makes it sound like it’s going to be similar to the first three tracks but quickly transitions into a heavy rap from Mike Shinoda and throatier singing from Chester which later in the song devolves into yelling. I can’t criticize this from any objective standpoint because it’s been a part of Linkin Park’s repertoire since Hybrid Theory, but I have to say I’m not as enamored with it as some fans are.

We next transition into two much more mellow tracks I enjoy quite a bit more (though I definitely prefer the blend we saw in the first three tracks). “I’ll Be Gone” is a Chester-centric track , followed by “Castle of Glass,” which features extremely strong instrumentals and vocals.

“Victimized” is the only track that opens with a non-musical audio sample with an instrumental behind it (a device I enjoyed quite a bit in A Thousand Suns.) I have to admit I’m really not a fan of Chester’s yelling here (again, that’s much more my personal bias than actual analysis), but Mike’s rapping has an awesome energy in this extremely brief track which leads right into “Roads Untraveled,” a completely different track both thematically and musically. The track features a much slower pace than most of the album, sweeping vocals, and the entreaty to, “Weep not for roads untraveled, weep not for sights unseen. May your love never end, and if you need a friend, there’s a seat here alongside me,” and there are two powerful guitar bridges (something otherwise absent for the most part) featuring wordless singing. It’s one of the more unique tracks on the album.

“Skin to Bone,” is the inevitable “everyone else is probably going to like this one better than I do” song on this album, and I have to admit I really don’t have much to say about it. I’m fairly ambivalent to Mike’s parts in “Until It Breaks,” but I enjoy Chester’s quite a bit. Most Linkin Park albums feature a completely instrumental track, and this time around it’s “Tinfoil.” I really would’ve liked to see the band play around a bit more with their refined sound here, as this track isn’t really that much to write home about. It does lead into “Powerless,” the album’s final track, pretty well if nothing else. The mellow tone of “Powerless” reminds me of “My December” (Hybrid Theory bonus track) quite a bit. I love the heavy piano in this song, and the return of the sweeping vocals ala “Roads Untraveled.” Overall, the track ends the album on a high note.

As I listened to each track, I found myself breathing a sigh of relief. Whether or not I loved a given track to death, this was Linkin Park. This was the passionate group of artists that lived and breathed their art, that refined their sound with each new album, but also took risks and tried new things. The lyrics give us the familiar blend of emotion and intellect which has always been the core of this group’s hybrid identity. I can happily recommend that you pick this one up today when the retailer of your choice opens their doors.

Tagged , ,
Jun 24 2012
Leave a comment
Film

Pixar Still Knows How to Make Non-Sequels

Alright, let me get this out of the way first. Pixar: teasing me with a Finding Nemo trailer that turned out to just be for the 3D theatrical rerelease? Not cool. Okay, yes: the rational part of my brain should’ve taken over and gone, “Hey, Kat? If there were a Finding Nemo sequel in any stage of production, you would’ve heard about it long before there was a teaser for it. You know they’re rereleasing the film in 3D, so that’s pretty clearly what this is for.” Yes, okay, but what you’re doing there is assuming that I can think rationally when a trailer comes on, and I immediately recognize a scene from Finding Nemo. Just saying.

Contrastingly, having a prominently displayed dedication to “friend and mentor” Steve Jobs toward the beginning of the ending credits? Awesome, awesome, all kinds of awesome. I teared up a little, I’m not going to lie.

Now that that’s out of the way, Brave is Pixar’s newest effort to grace the big screen. After a pair of sequels (Toy Story 3 and Cars 2), it was sort of a breath of fresh air to see Pixar doing something different again. (Oh, their next film is a prequel to Monsters Inc.? Sigh.) The rendering in this film is just absolutely gorgeous, especially the landscapes. The very first thing you see is a snow-covered mountain that just absolutely looks photo realistic. I love that Pixar’s movies, while nearly always excellent movies in their own right, almost always also seem to have this secondary quality of, “Look what we can do!” It really makes you feel like the studio feels joy about what they’re doing.

The film’s characters certainly fit certain archetypes (the rebellious daughter, the demanding mother, the friendly father), but not uncomplicatedly. The mother’s motivations are much kinder than they might initially seem. The daughter, though certainly right to want to determine her own destiny, doesn’t go about it in a very good way and escalates the conflict. We see a relationship in which both mother and daughter fail to communicate with each other. The film finds a dramatic way of showing this when the two have separate conversations–the mother with the father, the daughter with her horse–and the film cuts back and forth between the two conversations so that they answer each other. They argue with each other while physically separated in completely separate conversations. The only characters who come anywhere close to being one-dimensional are the male characters, and, honestly? I’m kind of okay with that. There wasn’t any huge reason for them to be explored more, and there are plenty of beloved films where the opposite happens, so you guys can afford to take one for the team.

The film’s first act reaches its emotional climax in the competition for the princess’s hand in marriage. After the three suitors have had their turn, she defiantly shoots for her own hand in marriage. The iconic moment here is when she literally has to rip her dress in order to draw back an arrow. She then proceeds to hit the bullseye on all three targets, and splits the arrow on the third target. The third is done with her pulling back the arrow and releasing it in slow motion. The entire scene is just a sort of, “Oh, wow,” moment that you don’t see in films every day. My only complaint is that I’m not sure there was enough buildup to it. If you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve basically seen the entire buildup to this scene. Nevertheless, it was brilliant.

The film also features a transformation scene which is pretty incredible. A human turns into an animal, but retains all of their human faculties. This character has great difficulty adjusting to their animal body, which is something you don’t really see often enough in film’s that depict transformation.

The heart of the story is that the conflict between mother and daughter must be solved from both sides. The two come to understand each other and step back from their conflict, rediscovering the special relationship they once had and coming to an understanding about the future.

Though I can’t describe it in any detail without completely spoiling the rest of the story leading up to it, the film’s climax features an unbelievably epic rescue/battle scene in which the daughter rides in on horseback, leaps into battle, uses arrows, swords, and in general fights with incredible intensity.

This film is about the mending of relationships, about the tension between tradition and an individual’s needs, and about self-determination. It’s nice to see Pixar playing with big themes in a unique way again, rather than another prequel or sequel. Hopefully they’ll get back to that after Monsters University. Or (and I own my hypocrisy here) at least their next sequel will actually be for Finding Nemo, since they teased me with that.

Tagged , , , ,
Jun 23 2012
Leave a comment
Film

The 80s in High Definition

My biggest problem with Rock of Ages is that it lacked substance. To make a good film you need a story to tell, a point to make, or both. This film was really about sex, drugs, and rock and roll, just without the drugs. There was plenty of alcohol, and it was pretty clear that Tom Cruise’s character was indulging a bit too heavily in this, but examining the consequences of that really wasn’t somewhere this film wanted to go. And that’s not to say they should’ve gone there, as you really only have time for a painfully superficial exploration of that subject if you don’t want your movie to be “about” that.

I have a few more minor quibbles with the film. The use of rebellion anthem “We’re Not Going to Take it” by the pro-censorship forces, while it actually worked pretty well for the confrontational mashup they were going for, is nevertheless an odd context for that song. And, without getting into too much detail, on rare occasions when films portray sexually submissive men, why do they always have to be such negative images? It wasn’t a huge part of the film, and it actually worked pretty well with the whole morality/guilt angle for the censorship folks, but it still made me sigh due to the representational problem. And speaking of representation problems, why is it that the pro-censorship forces are composed nearly entirely of women? And for that matter, the only times we see large groups of women they’re either the censorship prudes, strippers, or groupies.

The aesthetic of the film was pretty fantastic in capturing the feel of the decade they were going for, and the song selection was spectacular. Tom Cruise was absolutely hilarious as a caricature of a rock and roll “god.” What little plot there was didn’t take any real twists and turns, and didn’t make you think a whole lot. It was mostly just a convenient excuse to string together a series of big setpiece musical performances and take you on a guided tour of 80s aesthetics. One unfortunate side effect of having a plot designed almost exclusively for convenience was that characters frequently made maddeningly idiotic decisions. (“Wait, you just went through a montage of quitting waitress jobs because male customers kept sexually harassing you, so you went to work for a strip club?”)

This film is ultimately all style and no substance, but that doesn’t stop it from being a lot of fun. There are some genuinely great performances by the aforementioned Cruise, Alec Baldwin, and Paul Giamatti (has he ever been bad in anything?) I barely noticed anything about the two leads, despite the film ostensibly being about them. They’re both very pretty, and dressed and groomed to fit right in with the 80s aesthetic of the film. They don’t get in the way of the much more interesting secondary characters, so good for them I guess. In a way, that’s sort of a microcosm of the film as a whole. Just don’t go in expecting too much, and you should be fine.

Tagged , , , ,
Jun 23 2012
Leave a comment
Sports

The Best Pitcher in Chicago Sports History

In honor of Title IX’s fortieth birthday, I’ve decided to take a controversial swing at one of the most contentious questions in Chicago sports: Who is the most dominant Chicago pitcher ever?

Well that sure seems like a daunting question. But what does it have to do with Title IX? (You’ll see.) Okay, let’s take a swing at some of the candidates.

You’ve got Hall of Famers Mordecai “Three-Finger” Brown, Fergie Jenkins, and Bruce Sutter. Brown led the Cubs to their only two World Series in franchise history in 1907 and 1908 without allowing a single run against Ty Cobb’s Detroit Tigers in either one. Jenkins won the Cy Young once during his six consecutive 20-win seasons, and was an important part of the “cursed” 1969 team that might be the best Cubs team to not win the World Series. Sutter won a Cy Young as a reliever back when that was something that just didn’t happen.

Let’s not limit this to Hall of Famers. How about Lee Smith, one of the most glaring Hall of Fame snubs, whose record for career saves was only recently broken? How about Greg Maddux, a sure fire Hall of Famer and the best pitcher of his generation? (Though he is likely to be remembered as a Brave more than a Cub.) How about Mark Prior and Kerry Wood, who teamed up to be the most dominant one-two punch this town (or most others) has ever seen, and likely would’ve blown everyone on this list away if it weren’t for injuries?

Oh, yeah: I hear tell there’s another baseball team in Chicago. How about Mark Buerhle, who’s tossed two career no-hitters (one of which was a perfect game) and won a World Series with the most dominant starting rotation the White Sox may have ever had? Or Eddie Cicotte, who would surely be a Hall of Famer if it weren’t for his role in the “Black Sox” scandal of 1919?

With a contentious debate like this, you’d think I’d have to put a great deal of thought into my answer. This list is absolutely overflowing. Actually, though, it’s a no-brainer.

In addition to playing for USA’s national team in international competition, Jennie Finch played her pro ball for the NFPS’s Chicago Bandits. In high school, she tossed 13 no-hitters and 6 perfect games. She played her college ball for the University of Arizona, where she hurled an eye-popping three no-hitters in a row in the Regional Finals, and shattered the NCAA record for consecutive wins (50) with a 60-win streak. Although statistics are surprisingly difficult to find on this, she threw at least one no-hitter in international play and two perfect games for Chicago. Unbelievable.

She was scary-dominant for her entire career, often holding opponents to below a .100 average with a ridiculous number of strikeouts. (Context: softball is generally known for being very hitter-friendly, with averages well into the .400s not uncommon.) One of the most dramatic examples of her dominance came in the 2004 Pepsi All-Star Softball Game, in which she faced Major League Baseball hitters. Finch struck out Albert Pujols, Mike Piazza, and Brian Giles, not allowing a single hit.

Finch was part of USA’s only real “Dream Team” in recent Olympic memory: the 2004 softball team. They didn’t allow a single run until the Gold Medal game against the second best team in the world. She pitched for the Chicago Bandits, at times quite possibly the best professional softball team in the world. They consistently beat not only other Pro Fastpitch teams, but national teams. Making them almost, but not quite, as dominant as Finch herself.

The only thing that eluded Finch during her career? A NPFS championship. I guess she’ll just have to live with an NCAA Championship and a Gold Medal, and possibly being the most dominant softball pitcher ever.

Tagged , , , , ,
Jun 22 2012
3 Comments
Sports

We Were All Witnesses

LeBron James might be the most polarizing athlete alive.

Think about that for a moment. Kobe Bryant and Ben Roethlisberger (two of the highest profile athletes in their respective sports) have been accused of sexual assault. Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds used performance enhancing drugs. Michael Vick ran an illegal dogfighting ring. These are just some of the most high profile examples of athletes with huge public relations nightmares.

LeBron James exercised his right as a free agent to sign a contract with a new team and did so in a manner that was an example of pretty poorly conceived public relations.

That’s it. That’s really what all of this is about. Really. No laws were broken. No NBA rules were broken. No one cheated. No one was harmed.  The competitive integrity of the game wasn’t jeopardized (unless you were a pundit who desperately needed to fill a few minutes.) No one did anything wrong.

Let me repeat that: no one did anything wrong.

Was what LeBron James did a bad idea? If you mean signing with the Miami Heat, absolutely not. I would’ve done the same thing in a heartbeat. If you mean doing it the way he did it, with that one-hour-long announcement on national television, well, do I really need to answer that? Of course it was a bad idea. It was such a bad idea that, when I heard he was having a live special on ESPN, I thought, “Well, he’s definitely going back to Cleveland.” The idea that anyone would go on national television to announce they were leaving one of the longest-suffering fanbases in the country was inconceivable.

Then the backlash started. Jerseys were burned. Death threats were mailed. (Really.)

My reaction was predictable. I started rooting for them. When someone is met with an enormous amount of hostility for transparently stupid reasons, I’m going to tend to end up in their corner. When you’re sending someone death threats because of the game of basketball,  something very serious has gone wrong.

The thing is, basketball doesn’t happen in a vacuum. In the same season, Derrick Rose (more or less confirmed to be motivated by James and Wade spurning Chicago) exploded into one of the best players in the NBA, winning the league MVP Award. On missing out on LeBron James and Dwayne Wade, the Bulls General Manager remarked that they had missed out on two Top 5 players, but they had gained one with Rose’s sudden rise.

Not only that, Rose was a clear contrast to James. He let his game do his talking for him, he shied away from the limelight (actually admitting that it made him uncomfortable), and (and this is the best part) he showed every indication that he was going to stay with his hometown team for a very, very long time. (Yes: his hometown is a big market city and has always surrounded him with an exceptional supporting cast… but I ignored that part. I’ll get into why later.) It was such a great narrative, it was such a clear example of good versus evil, I bought it hook, line, and sinker.

The final straw was what happened in the 2011 Eastern Conference Finals.

The Chicago Bulls blew the Miami Heat out of the building in Game 1, and gave us every reason to believe the entire series was going to look like that. They were just too deep. Miami’s bench wasn’t good enough. Miami was too one-dimensional. We were going to the Finals, and we were going to win. Chicago was back on top.

After that high, Miami swept the next four games in close contests. But the narrative of the series for Chicago fans became Dwayne Wade drawing an absurd amount of fouls and Derrick Rose not being able to buy a call despite being hacked to death. That’s how I’ll always remember the 2011 Eastern Conference Finals. I’m a Bulls fan. It’s how it is.

So, naturally, I did something that is ruinous to objectivity: I got angry.

I honestly don’t know how sportswriters do it. Sports have these allegiances, these narratives. It sucks you in. When I look back at what I said when LeBron James first went to the Heat and faced this outpouring of hate, I realize that I was right back then. My initial reaction was the right one. But when the team you root for gets involved, when emotions get involved, objectivity goes out the window if you’re not careful. How do you maintain interest and passion for sports and not have that happen? More and more, I’ve been appreciating the game itself rather than my own narrow rooting interests, I’ve been able to appreciate stories and performances by teams I had no allegiance to… but I couldn’t stop myself from getting sucked in by the anti-Heat hype.

The 2011 Eastern Conference Finals are when my dislike of the Miami Heat really matured. None of it directed at James, mind you. In casual conversations at work, on Twitter, on Facebook, and elsewhere, I would continue to point out that though the Decision was ill-conceived, Dwayne Wade is the one player on the Heat I truly can’t stand. LeBron James plays with integrity, isn’t afraid to yell at his teammates when they’re being idiots, and all around doesn’t seem like a giant toolbox.

I’ve never really disliked LeBron James. There. I said it.

The thing is… I’m a Bulls fan, and I’m surrounded by Celtics fans. I happen to like the Celtics quite a bit.  (A direct contrast to my opinion of other Boston teams.) I started taking it for granted that the Miami Heat were a team you just had to hate. Then this funny thing happened. Someone who doesn’t follow sports very much asked me what should be a really simple question.

“Why?”

When you’re defending an opinion that is, by its very nature, pretty irrational, “Why?” is a question that throws everything off-balance. You hate the Miami Heat because… they’re the Miami Heat! But as you try to explain why, you realize there’s really no way to say it without sounding silly. “Well, LeBron had this special on TV when he moved, and it was really painfully awkward, and they had this victory party when they didn’t really win anything…”

Oh. That… that doesn’t actually sound like a very big deal when you say it aloud. At this point, you kind of have the choice to either admit you’re being pretty irrational (this is a very difficult option to choose), get defensive, exaggerate so you sound less irrational, or weasel out.

I opted to weasel out. Then I watched the 2012 NBA Playoffs unfold. I knew what was going to happen: LeBron was going to fold. LeBron always folded when it mattered most. He folded against Boston in his final year with the Cavaliers. He folded against Dallas in his first year with the Heat.

He was on the ropes against Indiana, and he torched them when it mattered most. He was on the ropes against Boston, and he torched them when it mattered most. Twice. He was never really on the ropes against Oklahoma City, because he just kept torching them.

Every criticism anyone has ever had of LeBron James? Gone. That near-triple double he always averaged in the regular season and playoffs with the huge asterisk of “until it mattered”? He did it when it mattered. His seeming unwillingness to be the Alpha Dog on a team that included his best friend, Dwayne Wade, one of the few players almost a match for him? He finally decided “almost a match” wasn’t good enough, and took over. His infuriating tendency to turn into a perimeter player in the postseason instead of taking it to the basket? He started taking it to the basket.

He imposed his will on other teams. He played like he was the best player on the court (which he always has been) and knew it (which it really seems like he hasn’t always.)

He did everything we have ever asked, and more. And he put together the kind of complete performances that no one else in the NBA can match. Let me repeat that, because it’s very important: no one else currently in the NBA can do what LeBron James can do.

So here I am, un-weaseling out.

LeBron James might be the most polarizing athlete alive.

LeBron James is an NBA Champion, the reigning regular season Most Valuable Player (for the third time), and the reigning NBA Finals MVP. He is, without possibility of argument, the best active professional basketball player on the planet. If you can’t appreciate what he did in the 2012 NBA Playoffs and the 2012 NBA Finals, you are not a fan of basketball. You don’t have to like him, but you need to appreciate his performance.

We were all witnesses. Finally.

Tagged , , , , ,
Jun 21 2012
Leave a comment
Fandom, Film

Amazon Woman Who Eventually Becomes Wonder Woman, Later, Offscreen

Wonder Woman (2009) is a pretty interesting movie about reclusive Amazon warrior women and their struggle against the Greek god Ares. It’s a rather fascinating reinterpretation of Greek mythology, including the creative decision to make the struggle reach even into the modern day, and have their separate world interact with the more familiar one.

Oh, one odd thing: for some reason one of the women wears a costume that looks remarkably like Wonder Woman’s.

Okay, you caught me. From what I can tell, Wonder Woman’s origin story is retold pretty faithfully in this film. The thing is… that’s the entirety of the film. While I realize that was probably the intent, it’s a really frustrating creative choice, because we never really get to see Wonder Woman being Wonder Woman, except for about thirty seconds at the end of the film, which teased a fight between her and one of my favorite antagonists (Cheetah.) It really seems like about half of the film should’ve been that, considering it’s called Wonder Woman, not Amazon Woman Who Eventually Becomes Wonder Woman, Later, Offscreen.

Even in the story the writers/producers/director did decide to tell, something felt more than a little “off.” The final battle in particular felt very out of place, with the President randomly being shown ordering the military to defend Washington, D.C. despite not having appeared in the rest of the film. (Protip: don’t bring the President of the United States into a movie he hasn’t appeared in at all just so you can show him ordering the military to defend the nation’s capital. When the military shows up, we’ll figure out someone ordered them to show up. And no, we don’t need to cut back to him to show some advisor telling him the battle isn’t going well. You can also establish that by showing the battle not going well.)

Before I get into more bad, this is a DC Universe animated feature, so you know you’re getting high production values. The art and sound were excellent, and the voice acting was strong. I truly believe you can never go wrong having Nathan Fillion involved in any production. Christopher Drake’s soundtrack was, of course, a strength as well. This is a small thing, but I’m pretty disappointed there were no opening credits, as Drake was not afforded the opportunity to shine with a sweeping theme song ala Batman: Under the Red Hood or Justice League: Doom. I think Wonder Woman is iconic enough that she deserves an iconic theme, right?

Alright, now I guess I have to talk about the elephant in the room. Being a Wonder Woman film, you know this film has to deal with the whole gender “thing.” I’d like to blame the fact that any film about a female superhero will inevitably be forced to address gender in ways that no male superhero film ever is, but I will admit that Wonder Woman in particular is a hero who was conceived in such a way that any adaptation of her story is going to have to address gender issues.

Faithfully adapting Wonder Woman for a general audience requires a certain amount of bravery. I mean, this is a character who was originally conceived not with female equality in mind, but female supremacy. On the other hand, that idea was never portrayed by making her openly hostile toward men. She was simply better. Obviously this film had to tread very carefully, balancing the character’s spirit with the issues she brings out.

What? Oh, they did the opposite of that? I guess that’s cool, too.

There’s a rather clumsy attempt to portray Wonder Woman as being confronted with sexism (“You don’t have your women lift desks over their heads with one hand when they have to move them? You sexist pigs!”) and reacting negatively to it, but it’s jarringly out of place and it makes Steve Trevor come off as the more reasonable of the two. He’s portrayed as a fairly egalitarian man, and there’s really nothing shown to give any of Diana’s complaints any real weight. If you’re going to bring gender issues into a superhero film (especially, especially Wonder Woman), I feel you have a responsibility to handle them much less clumsily than this film did.

The last thirty seconds of the film (the part where Wonder Woman actually was Wonder Woman…) were pretty promising, and seemed not so much to suggest there might be a sequel as hit you over the head with the fact that there would absolutely, definitely be a sequel. Thus far, however, D.C. has not announced any sequel to this film, which is deeply frustrating to me. Because if this movie had to be the way it was, the upside very easily could’ve been, “Oh well, now that that’s out of the way they can actually make a Wonder Woman movie.” Instead, the payoff was about thirty seconds of what I was hoping the entire film would be like.

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jun 19 2012
Leave a comment
Television

Doctor WHO?

A number of years ago, a very good friend of mine insisted that I watch Doctor Who. She had me watch several episodes of series 1 (2005.) What I had been promised (rather aggressively) was a show that was “better than Star Trek and Star Wars combined!” Although I had little doubt I would find this claim to be wild exaggeration, I did imagine that the show would be at least passably good.

Instead, I saw several episodes of what seemed to be a pretty terrible show. The writing unwisely made the show’s cheesy special effects more or less the centerpiece of the show, but you could hardly blame them as the alternative was focusing on the incredibly awkward actors. I also never quite got over the fact that the music sounded like a bad porn groove. Defenders of the show describe all of this as “cheesy.”

Yeah, no. “Cheesy” I can handle. This wasn’t cheesy. It was bad. There’s a huge difference. So, of course, I figured my experience with Doctor Who was over, and I could relegate it to the realm of things that other people liked and I didn’t. (Note: I don’t spend a lot of time complaining or caring about what other people like and I don’t. What’s the point?)

That was indeed the case until quite recently. A very good friend of mine insisted that I watch Doctor Who. He had me watch the first episode of series 5 (2010.) After doing so, I find myself with a very simple question.

Is this the same show?

The first, most immediately apparent difference was the music. I’m not going to try to argue that it’s great by any general standard, but it’s definitely at least reasonably good. It goes from being a major distraction to being exactly what a television soundtrack is supposed to be if it’s not spectacular: something in the background that enhances the overall viewing experience.

But the real difference was the writing and acting. I was absolutely astonished by how much better the acting is here than in what I saw of series 1. The special effects are still (pardon the pun) nothing special, but that’s not a huge concern when the writing wisely focuses its attention on the characters.

Obviously I have a long way to go with this series, and series 6, and 7 when it comes out if it continues with its current cast. (I am obviously avoiding spoilers, so I have no idea.) In any case, this is a very promising start that I really didn’t anticipate.

Tagged , , , , ,
Jun 18 2012
Leave a comment
Politics, Sports

Ignoratio Elenchi

No, it’s not a Harry Potter spell. (The reason you think it’s a Harry Potter spell, incidentally, is because J.K. Rowling used Latin for her spell names. Which is, frankly, unbelievably awesome.) It’s my favorite logical fallacy. Wikipedia describes it as “the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. Arguments which shift the focus of debate to ‘safer’ but less relevant ground fall into this category.”

Although it is a common error in academic arguments, we see a rudimentary form of it in the media quite frequently. No doubt you’ve heard the opinion posed that the government is “wasting their time” on an issue when there are “more important things going on.”

One of the best examples I can think of is when Congress decided to investigate steroid use in baseball. Outraged Americans claimed that they were “wasting their time.” This seemed odd to me, because one of Congress’s responsibilities is to regulate American business. And sports is… let me check… one of the biggest businesses in the country. If there’s something seriously wrong with a business, it is Congress’s responsibility to investigate it. I don’t remember hearing anyone say otherwise during the Enron scandal.

Then this funny thing happened where Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens lied under oath. Naturally, both were tried for perjury. Naturally, Bonds was found guilty and Clemens was found innocent (pay no attention to the color of their skin.) But here’s the crazy part: people stubbornly repeated the assertion that it was a “waste of time” when there were “more important things going on.”

Wait, what?  Explain this one to me. These individuals often carefully avoided mentioning where these proceedings took place (a court of law, which has… let me check… nothing to do with wars or financial crises), opting instead to generalize that “they” were wasting “their” time. Suppose we allowed that to pass without comment, and allowed that some monolithic representation of “the government” was involved here. There are two basic problems with this “wasting their time” argument.

1) We do not, we do not, we do not stop trying people for high crimes because “other things are going on.”

2) Even if Congress were directly involved in either of these trials, what should they be doing that investigating this would in any way prevent them from doing? Does the government generally do one thing at a time? (Hint: the answer is no.)

Considering how transparently silly these arguments are, I’m really astonished how popular they are both among people paid to disseminate their opinion for public consumption, and in casual conversations on the subject. (Admittedly, the latter likely derives somewhat directly from the former.)

I probably shouldn’t be wasting my time pointing this out when there are other things going on, though.

← Older posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers