Res Ipsa Loquitur

Master of Orion, 18 Years Later

2011-10-30T13:05:00.001-07:00

Absolutely not recommended. Seriously. You will regret reading this. If you think this is sarcasm, you are wrong.

Back when mom bought our first real computer (it ran Windows 3.1 but did not have a CD-ROM or a sound card), I played "Master of Orion," a 1993 game described as "4X": explore, expand, exploit, exterminate. It is a space strategy game where you build an empire of star systems, build a fleet, interact with other races, create alliances, go to war, research technology, etc. etc. You win by earning 2/3 votes of the population (which is made far easier if your empire constitutes 2/3 of the vote) or by destroying your competition.

I start playing this again after I stumbled upon a community of people that still play and have taken it to the extreme, so to speak. They've played this game so many times, they can usually beat this game on the "Impossible" setting, they know certain exploits (and some refuse to use them even when others think their use is fair game), and they keep playing not necessarily to win but to see how the computer's AI works with each race of aliens. There are a handful that are creating an unofficial patch that will correct some of the computer's AI issues.

So, like a fool, I thought it would be fun to play again. I have no interest in joining this little community--one video game addiction at a time, if I can help it--but I found it all fascinating and wanted to reminisce by playing the game.

Here is where this post takes a turn for the worse. Non-gamers, avert your eyes.

I started small, literally: I played in a Small galaxy on the lowest difficulty setting against four opponents. I played as the Psilons, who research technology at a much faster rate than any other race, and are largely considered to be the best if not overpowered alien race. This game ended quickly with a win.

My second game was a Large galaxy, average difficulty, five opponents, still as Psilons. I learned from the few posts I read on this website that early expansion is the biggest key to survival, let alone winning. I encountered a few races with larger empires but much lower technology. They chose to go to war with me, I usually got the better of them and my empire expanded. That was a win also, but the large galaxy took much longer to conquer--not just because of the amount of systems necessary to take over, but because the game still moves slower when you have such a big galaxy (you have to run this game in a DOS emulator; if there is a way to speed the game up, I haven't figured it out yet).

Next, I tried a Small galaxy, average difficulty, five opponents. Because space is limited here, this presents a different kind of challenge: get out there fast, fortify what you've got, because at least one race if not several are wanting to expand right away. I played as the Meklars, a cyborg/gecko race known for increased factory controls (more production). The Klackons, an ant-like race with their own form of increased production, quickly stole my third system without even a declaration of war (and bringing their total to six). Knowing I misplayed my opening, I admitted defeat and started a new game.

...I played as the Klackons. Fleets were built, wars were waged; in the end, I owned seven systems to my next closest opponents six. A total conquest victory was not in sight when voting time came; of the 19 total votes available, 6 were cast for my opponent and 5 for me before accounting for my 8 votes (two other empires disliked the Silicoids more than they disliked me). With a race built for more production, I expected a bloody ending. Not so, it seemed--the game ended in 2474, or 174 turns.

With this in mind, my next game was the same except I played as Humans. Their advantage is in treaties and trading--I fully expected a peaceful "council" end (council means a winner by vote). And I played to the Human strengths: I expanded to three systems to make contact with other races. I entered into trade agreements with four other races, and our relations were slowly getting better. Things were very even: each race was close in size, population, fleet strength, technology, etc. At one point, I had four systems, the Darloks (a spy-like race whose advantage is, you guessed it, sabotage and espionage) had four systems, and everyone else had three except for the lizard-like Sakkra, isolated to one planet (and whom I did not even have contact with, our systems were so distant). I was friends with everyone and expected a diplomatic victory very soon.

The problem was, everyone else was friends with everyone, also. No one was at war, which was fine while everything was balanced. However, the balance soon teetered when 1) the Darloks came within a vote of winning the game by council vote, and 2) the Darloks researched or stole the technology for building colonies on radiated planets, three of which were available. They quickly expanded from four to six systems with a seventh in sight when I knew I had to take action or risk losing at the next vote.

I implored two other alien races to declare war on the Darloks. The Psilons with their advanced technology were eager to do so. The Meklars agreed only after I gave them some new technology for their ground troops.

The three empires--my Humans, the Psilons and Meklars--began to tear apart the Darlok empire. War inspires war, it seems; soon the Psilons and Meklars were at war with each other. Then the Meklars wanted to war with me. I destroyed the newest Darlok colonies (that I couldn't take over without their technology) and finally their homeworld, leaving them with a handful of underdeveloped colonies. At some point, they were down to one colony when the other races laid off and let them be. As I found out (and then reloaded my game at an earlier point), finishing off an alien race--genocide--is a major faux paux in intergalactic war.

So far, this "peaceful" game was far bloodier than the last. What started out as a sure victory by vote was turning into a race to conquer systems. My empire far outstripped the others at the next vote, but the other empires feared my power and voted against me (except for my lone Psilon allies).

The Mrrshans--the cat-like race of superior gunners--tried to make a system grab then pretend everything was OK. I responded by taking two of their three systems while occupying their third, preventing them from doing anything else but not landing a killing blow. Out of desperation, it seems, the Mrrshans invaded the last Darlok system, committing the dreaded genocide. But now that the Mrrshans had two planets, I could take the one I already occupied without committing genocide and alienating the other empires.

Not so. My allies, the Psilons, attacked their new planet on the same turn. Apparently their attack went through first, so when I took over the planet I was already at, it was their last and I was the one "guilty" of committing genocide. The Psilons ended our alliance and tensions rose.

Four empires left: my Humans, the Psilons, and finally the Meklars and Sakkras, each with one planet and each at war with me. Since everything was a complete and utter mess diplomatically, I turned my sights to destroying the Meklars and Sakkras (more importantly, their votes) so my empire would by itself have the required 2/3 vote necessary to win. A cosmic space crystal destroyed the Meklars last planet, though it appears as though the game will not let an empire die this way, so I when I sent some ships to merely occupy the planet, the colony was destroyed and I got credit for another genocide. Next turn, the vote came and I elected myself the new Galactic Emperor of this tiny galaxy, winning the game in 2674--374 turns, or more than twice as long as my Klackon victory.

...How did all of this happen? How do the militaristic Klackons get enough support from other empires to get an early diplomatic win, while the diplomatic Humans had to slug it out, committing two accidental genocides and forcing a third (the Mrrshans ending the Darloks)? How was this story created--either in the game or in my mind--from actions and reactions from five computer AIs attempting to act in their own best interest?

But is that really how it happened? In the Klackon game, I merely responded to provocation and only attacked when others declared war against me. In the Human game, I urged others to destroy my main competitor when it appeared I would lose at the next diplomatic juncture. I created war where there was none, because I wanted to win.

Does this say something about me in general (I hope not)? Does it say something about the way I play games (my wife would say yes, definitely yes)? Does this mean anything at all? Probably not. It's just a game, two different playthroughs of the game (so a small sample size) and there are a lot of other variables to consider.

Still, it's fascinating (to some, maybe just me) and it's why I get sucked into this and other games. But it doesn't seem like it would make a lot of sense to most people, which is a large part of why this article is absolutely not recommended. It's bad enough I think of all this stuff with this ancient computer game; it's worse that I was compelled to sit down three different times (because I didn't have enough consecutive minutes available to write this all at once) and write a stupid post about it.

Ghost writer for Twitter!

2011-10-03T23:25:00.003-07:00

I think it would be fun to ghost write for someone's Twitter account. Here are some samples:

Learning to play guitar but will not play for you. sx2bu

Mmm... Sushi!

Yuck, sushi.

Sushi... meh.

You are FOOLS to have come here!

Kid with runny nose. Ew boogers are gross.

Ran out of stamps. Gonna try stickers.

No stickers either. Gonna draw a stamp.

I suck at art.

Past due? How about let me pay through twitter.

What is a mailbox? Why do we still have them?

Whoa I am up late LOLOLOL

Baking cookies but you can't have any. sx2bu

Ate a lot of cookies today. Mmm... cookies!

Ate too many cookies today.

...Nevermind, I don't think this would be fun after all.

My Job and My Faith

2011-08-09T06:42:00.002-07:00

NOTE: The following content is deserving of several careful edits. But that's not how I'm rolling this morning; I'm working against two clocks and I want to get these ideas down before I lose my chance. Perhaps I will edit later. As always, not recommended.

God is all-powerful. In my Spanish-English Parallel Bible, the term for this is "todo poderoso," and based on my limited Spanish, that seems to mean or come from something like "able to do all things."

That God is all-powerful seems like an easy concept, yet sometimes we struggle with this. It is easy to say God is more powerful than the Quran, especially if one does not believe the Quran is anything special. The same can be said if one said God is more powerful than the Book of Mormon.

But what about saying God is more powerful than the Bible? Of course he is, yet to some I am all of a sudden comparing two very similar things. They're not. One is all-powerful; the other is a book, though God-breathed, that is still a thing and not a sentient being. That the Bible is, to me and some others, the primary written authority on who God is does not change that God is ultimately more powerful. Some might say that the Bible defines God, and how else can we learn about him? But clearly God exists even if there wasn't a Bible, simply because God existed before there was a Bible. I mean, he is the subject matter, clearly he predates it.

What does it mean to say that God is more powerful than the Quran, the Book of Mormon, or the Bible? In the very primal sense, it means God will conquer those things, overcome them. More than that, however, it means that God is stronger than the intents and passions of the writers of those books or documents. Meaning, even if the writer meant to convey one thing, God can make it so the reader learns a completely different thing.

Since God is more powerful than these epic tomes, clearly he is also more powerful than a novel, a book written by a Christian author, or a book written by someone who definitely sought truth even if it is unclear if ultimately she found truth.

I use that last strange description because I can't think of a more significant way to describe Simone Weil and her book that God used to change my outlook on one of his most important commandments.

I learned about Simone Weil in a Christian Mysticism class in college, taught by a professor who I felt possessed a clear distaste for modern Christians. Yet, he still had a passion, even if only academically, for Christian mystics, and I learned a lot even if I didn't know how to apply it.

Simone Weil was a compelling individual, and I'm typing this from memory of a course I took almost ten years ago so I apologize if I mess up her short bio. I believe she authored several books, including "Waiting for God" which was required reading in my course. From what I remember, she embraced Jesus but had difficulty accepting that the God of the Old Testament were one and the same. She rejected baptism. She dabbled in and/or embraced Marxism, though not the antireligious aspects of it--what I mean is, I think she believed that Marxism was a better way to run a Godly community... I can't remember. The point is, she is a controversial individual for a number of reasons.

Regardless of what you think about Weil, she wrote a book that I was required to read, though I only read portions. One of the portions so compelled me you would think I would read the rest of it, but that wasn't the way I worked then and I can't say it's the way I work now.

She wrote about what it means to love your neighbor as yourself, and I am paraphrasing from memory, but this is what I remember. When you see a homeless man, and you remember to love your neighbor as yourself, you are compelled to help the man. Some would think "I offer food to this man because I love God." Others might say "I offer food to this man because I love him." Weil said "I offer food to this man because I love myself," and when I am hungry I do not hesitate to feed myself because I love myself. If I am to love this homeless man as myself, I will feed him because he is hungry, period. Because that's what it means to love him as I love myself. That's how you fulfill God's commandment.

(She says it a million times better than that and probably considerably less heavy handed. I'm shooting for a concept here, the one that latched on to me and hasn't let go, though admittedly more in my head than in practice.)

I can't remember much about Weil, as my convoluted paragraph above proves. I don't know if she has any "authority" when speaking about God (I use quotes because I disagree with the concept of someone having authority to speak about God--either God is using that person or he isn't, it has nothing to do with how good they are or how much they have studied or even if they have any idea what they are talking about, which is really my point with all of this); what I do know is what she wrote spoke to me and I believe it was a message from God that I needed to hear.

God can use books that are written by strangers or even enemies to reveal his truths. Yet God does not even have to use a book. God is more powerful than literacy; he can reveal himself to someone who can't read. He can do it in any way, but one of those ways is through their life experience.

The lesson God taught me through Simone Weil's words, as well as the belief that God can use any situation to reveal himself to a person, are just two of the reasons why I work as a public defender.

Several people have asked me, Christian and non-Christian alike, how I can defend someone I know to be guilty. I don't have an answer memorized but it is something like this: I am guilty. I have sinned against God and deserve nothing but punishment. There is nothing I can do to earn my way out of that situation, no amount of good that will cover over my sin. Yet, my sin is forgiven through Jesus Christ, who in spite of my shortcomings and my sin still wants to save me from eternal punishment. These guilty people I defend, I am one of them. If I am to love my neighbor as myself, I must defend them. Not because love God, not because I love them, but because I love myself, and God has commanded me to love my client as I love myself. Which means I must defend them from accusation regardless of their guilt.

In doing so, I hope that they receive less punishment than what they were facing at the outset, and thought the parallel is imperfect, I hope whatever portion of forgiveness they receive only leads them to the ultimate forgiveness that Christ offers. Even if that doesn't happen, I know that God is working in a person's legal situation in ways that I cannot understand. God placed me here to do this work and I am his tool to be used for his purposes. So even if I strive mightily to get my client an acquittal or an incredibly favorable plea agreement, it still might be God's goal to have me fail because of a greater lesson he wants to impart upon my client. Because God is more powerful than this defense attorney, and though I walk away frustrated with a case where it seems I had no impact whatsoever on the outcome, I have to believe that God has a purpose for that, maybe for me, maybe for my client, maybe for all of us or someone else entirely.

Just so it is clear (especially to those who know me in the legal community), it would be unethical from a professional standpoint and incredibly belligerent and assuming from a faith standpoint for me to think that I know what God wants to happen in a particular case or for a particular client. My goal with any case is always the same: get the best outcome for my client, period. For me to act in any other way is unethical and unprofessional, and it means I am placing limits on God because if I were to act that way, it means I don't believe he is more powerful than my own efforts for my client. For this reason, my beliefs do not and will not affect my duties to my client. My actions in my case will always have that one goal in mind: get the best result for my client.

Man, I thought I was going to get out of this without a legal disclaimer, but I think that last paragraph was necessary in the end.

MLB All-Star "Vacation"!

2011-07-13T20:43:00.002-07:00

Huge thanks to my mother-in-law, Kerry, who gave Katie and I tickets to all the MLB All-Star events! Here's a rundown of what went on:

MLB Fanfest: I couldn't go but Katie went with Kerry, Isabelle, and a former student studying to be a sports journalist. Lots of good stuff. I'll let her talk about that on her blog (link on the side there, somewhere).

The Celebrity/Legends Game: I haven't watched this in the past because following celebrities is not one of my hobbies, but we had tickets and the spare time so we decided to check it out. Having never seen one, I can't compare the quality of celebs in past years. But this year's batch didn't do much for me. Nick Jonas may have been the biggest celebrity there. I was happy to see Chord Overstreet (Sam from Glee) and he made a pretty awesome play, but I don't think he's a celeb. Jennie Finch "pitched" (slow pitch softball) but despite her gold medal in Olympic Softball, she's still just a local celeb. There were some random dudes I liked (Matt from Heroes) but no celebrities, really, save Jonas.

The Legends were pretty good, though. Of course there was Luis Gonzalez and Mark Grace, and Matt Williams made an appearance. Probably best of all was Rickey Henderson, who had a leadoff home run off of Jennie Finch. He played hard and brought personality.

There was a mini-homerun derby that pitted Jonas and Henderson against some dude and Gonzo. Jonas and Henderson each hit one HR, some dude hit two, so Gonzo only had to hit one to win it all.

The whole thing took maybe 65 minutes. Given the price of admission (which I won't list), I don't think the fans got their money's worth. But it was a gift to Katie and I and we enjoyed it. Like I said, I can't say if there are usually bigger names there and I can't say if SB 1070 played a role in keeping other celebs away.

MLB Home Run Derby: !!!!! This. Was. Awesome.

Katie and I are NL fans, mostly because of the Diamondbacks but also because we don't care for the DH position (I'm more ambivalent than Katie is but I tend to lean against the DH). So our natural inclination in all things, even exhibitions like the HR Derby, is to cheer for NL.

However, Prince Fielder made that nearly impossible. This year, for the first time ever, the HR Derby had "captains" that chose three teammates from their league to try and outscore the other league (even though there is only one winner in the end). The captains were the previous two winners, Prince Fielder for the NL and David Ortiz for the AL.

Prince Fielder, a 275 lb. vegetarian, weighed his options for power on his NL team, and he came up with Matt Holliday (good choice), Matt Kemp (meh) and... Rickie Weeks, a teammate of his on the Brewers, not known for his power but whatever. Why is this horrible? He did not choose Justin Upton, an Arizona Diamondback who hits long home runs in the same field on which the HR Derby would occur. Nevermind any home field advantage, nevermind getting the fans on your side... let's choose Rickie Weeks cuz he's my homeboy.

Arizona fans were not amused. Fielder was booed all night, Weeks (who didn't deserve it) was booed too, only hit 3 HRs in the first round and was summarily eliminated. After Round 1, it was 3 AL players against one, Fielder. He was eliminated in Round 2.

But you know what? That only added some story to a night that would have been spectacular without it, because this HR Derby was quite the show, thanks to Robinson Cano and Adrian Gonzalez. They were hitting bombs all over right field. I can't figure out how to describe it. It was so steady and consistent that you expected the home run, yet you were in awe that they were able to keep doing it over and over and over again.

The ESPN article about the HR Derby captured part of it: one guy nearly went over a wall trying to catch... his fourth HR ball. Another guy made the catch of the year: he caught a HR ball, landed in the pool with bikini-clad hotties... and didn't spill his beer. Um, how can it get any better than that (and I don't even drink)?!

The HR Derby was absolutely worth the price of admission. Katie and I watch this every year so we're somewhat biased, but if this wasn't the best one we've seen, it was at least on par with the Abreu and Hamilton derbies, and even better than the Tejada/Berkman derby because we got to see it live.

My only complaint: there needed to be an extra charity boost for hitting a home run into the pool, and it's a tremendous oversight by MLB and all charitable organizations that that no such portion of the contest was included.

MLB All-Star Game: It's amazing because the best players play against the best players... right?

Except they didn't: Sunday's starting pitchers couldn't play, and Jeter is a wussbag, and A-Rod is hurt or getting surgery, and Jeter is a wussbag, and Chipper Jones couldn't go, and Jeter is a wussbag.

There was still plenty of star power, but then there are the guys I'd never heard of from teams in last place. Even so, they surprise you: Starlin Castro from the Cubs stole second then third, and Hunter Pence threw out a guy at home with a perfect toss from left field.

The score wasn't close and there weren't enough "OH MY!" plays, but it was great to be there and see all the fans from all over enjoying the game. That was really the best part: cheering with other fans instead of against them.

All in all, a good experience. There's plenty more I could say; maybe I'll add more later.

Excerpts from Encyclopaedia Herbnostica

2011-03-09T00:04:00.004-07:00

Foreword: These excerpts, like the rest of the Encyclopaedia Herbnostica, were composed when the author(s) were supposed to be sleeping.

Horny Captain Bearded King: Captain of the Pirate Ship A242, known for his adoration of the fairer sex, his beard, his pirate hat/crown, and his way with words.

First Mate Ocho the Committed: First Mate of the Pirate Ship A242, so named because 5 and 3 are 8, and because he was engaged to be married during his service aboard the ship. Others have speculated that he was "committed" in another sense, but whatever.

Dopplar, the Mutant-Ribbed Cabin Boy: Cabin Boy aboard the Pirate Ship A242, named for his love of science and his mutant rib that jutted out worse than the glacier that sunk the Titanic.

Half-Beard the Chaste: Held no official title on the Pirate Ship A242, leading some to speculate that he inhabited the Crow's Nest, or was a passenger, or a prisoner, or a combination of the three. Though clearly Half-Beard lent credibility to the rest of the crew by virtue of having "beard" in his name, unlike the others... except for Horny Captain Bearded King, so nevermind. Named because he could only grow a beard on one side of his face, and because unlike the others aboard, held no special affection for women (or men, for that matter).

Herb F. Garcia: A curmudgeon known to live in spacious hallway closets, sneaking out at night to post mediocre scores on N64 games like Hydro Thunder. Is rumored to be quite amorous with the ladies despite living in a hallway closet, though none of those rumors were ever confirmed, or even widely circulated. Not to be confused with Herb D. Garcia; it is important that you ask which one you are talking to should a "Herb" answer the phone.

This Post Is Boring and Irrelevant

2011-03-05T13:11:00.002-07:00

You have been warned. As always, not recommended.

No, seriously. This is going to be like most people's posts, random thoughts about stuff that doesn't matter. And the thoughts are not even original or interesting. They're just things I wanted to put down on paper, but I don't want to waste paper, so I'll "waste" internet space.

"The King's Speech" lives up to the hype. Must see.

1998 was a very loaded Oscar year, but I didn't realize this at the time. This doesn't change how Jim Carrey deserved a nomination (not necessarily a win) for his performance in The Truman Show.

For instance, I didn't realize/remember until looking at 1998 at filmsite.org that "Saving Private Ryan" did NOT win Best Picture that year. Neither did "Life is Beautiful." No, that honor goes to "Shakespeare in Love." ...Really? Either of the World War II era films I just mentioned would have beaten Gladiator hands down, but I'm not so sure that "Shakespeare in Love" can do that. Loaded year, right?

(I really enjoy Gladiator but I don't regard it as a "Best Picture" quality film. It wasn't as good as Braveheart, though it drew comparisons to that film. It won in a weak year (he says without looking at the actual evidence...).)

Roberto Benigni won Best Actor for "Life is Beautiful," edging out Tom Hanks (Ryan) and Edward Norton in American History X.

Steven Spielberg won Best Director for "Saving Private Ryan," beating the directors of "Life is Beautiful," "Shakespeare in Love" and "The Truman Show."

Anyway.

I don't know what to think about BYU dismissing a star player in a year in which it could make the Final Four. On one hand, BYU showed integrity in making the move. On the other hand, I'm really interested to know when this transgression occurred and for how long BYU knew about it. Does it matter in the long run? Yes and no. Mostly no.

Will the NFL owners lockout the players? It does not seem as inevitable as we first thought. I think I understand the issues at play and I tend to favor the players in this disagreement, but how much of that is media spin? Arguably, ESPN.com and other sources are not nearly as overtly biased as we can imagine media sources were during the last baseball strike, when there was "no doubt" the blame for the strike was the fault of the players. Even so, how can we decide without knowing more information, specifically the information withheld by the owners--how much money is each team bringing in, what are their actual expenses for which they are asking for an additional billion dollars out of the $9 billion pot split between players and owners?

Will Arizona have even an illusion of rational leadership, ever? I'm so jaded by their perpetual failure that I will even consider joining the Start Our State movement if only they promise to observe Daylight Savings Time. Why? So I don't have to reschedule my World of Warcraft playing time every six months. That's how apathetic I've become about politics in Arizona: you can't really help me when it comes to the stuff that matters, so placate me with stuff that doesn't. Ultimately, I think they know it too, which is why the legislature wasted their time on choosing a state gun and creating a license plate for the tea party.

Well, from the Original Tea Party, I leave you with this final thought: A Very Merry Unbirthday To You!

Jordan, Magic Serving Their Legacies In Dissing LeBron

2010-07-20T18:19:00.004-07:00

It doesn't get much simpler than that. Jordan, Magic, and Bird (if he follows suit) have nothing to lose and everything to gain by calling out LeBron for taking less money to play with another superstar teammate in Dwyane Wade.

First of all, let's not give them points for originality. The talking heads of sports were saying it days before Jordan parroted the comments, and Magic said it days after Jordan.

Second, making a comment at all puts their names on websites, blogs, maybe papers, etc. and makes them more relevant. Of course, those names will never go out of style, but still, it's free press.

Third, coming out and saying they would never do what LBJ did, that they were only trying to beat each other, is self-serving. The statements mean "we were so good that we didn't need each other to win championships." While that may be true, the statement ignores and belittles the contributions of those they played with.

Now let me interject and state that I'm not an NBA fan and I certainly didn't watch Magic and Bird play in the primes, if at all. I did see Jordan. And I know all of these guys had good support. Jordan had Pippen and Phil Jackson. Magic had Kareem. Bird had some good guys, I just don't know their names.

OK, so none of their teammates were as good as Jordan, Magic or Bird (except Kareem, though I know he was past his prime at that point). But they were still good, really good.

Who did LeBron have? Guys playing out of their minds at just the right time, sometimes? He was stuck in a perpetually bad franchise in a city beset with perpetually bad franchises. His team wasn't doing everything it could to help it win, either because they didn't know what that was, or because they weren't working hard enough. If there was a Pippen available, they weren't getting him.

And Shaq doesn't count. He pushed Kobe to greatness, he did the same for Wade, he couldn't do it for Nash, and he doesn't have enough gas in the tank for LeBron.

I'm losing my point here, but it's this: Jordan, Magic and Bird played for franchises who knew what they were doing, who surrounded their stars with talent, albeit not on the level of another (current) superstar. That wasn't happening in Cleveland. LBJ gave them seven years but they couldn't bring it together.

His options were to go to New York (because they have a great track record with winning...), New Jersey (same, arguably worse), Chicago (possibly viable, hard to say), and some other places. Or, he could go to Miami where established stars are playing. If we follow the "wisdom" of Jordan and Magic, LeBron should have stayed in Cleveland, OR gone to a lesser franchise, all in the name of greatness? There are other terms for that: arrogance, selfishness, egotistical, etc. To believe that you have to be THE guy on a franchise or it doesn't have the same value is simply ridiculous.

Finally, a question out into the void, because I'm not an NBA fan and don't know the answer: Were these two making the same comments about Shaq and Kobe? Didn't they do exactly the same thing, only they brought it together with Phil Jackson? Did Kobe somehow get out of their sights by winning with Pao Gasol? If so, how much of a discredit is that to Pao? The biggest difference between Pao and Shaq is Pao is not a me-first hog. He's smart, he's European, he flops, and after trying to be a superstar in his own right, he knows where his meals and his money come from. Is he as good as Shaq was? Maybe not, but maybe he's better because he knows how to play his role and shut his mouth (most of the time, anyway).

Anyway, the long story is that Jordan's and Magic's comments only serve to increase their legacy, and it comes at the price of the reputations of their supporting teammates and coaches. Shame on them.

EDIT: My brother Nick chimed in on Facebook:

The NBA is about the individual marketing the individual (Jordan created this phenomenon). LeBron was setting himself up to be the talk of the summer. It is genius for his personal Brand and the Association as a whole. The NBA needs this type of hype during the off-season. When is the last time ESPN has ran multiple days worth of NBA coverage in July? Stern knows that any publicity is good publicity in the summer, and that the superstars run the Association. Stern knows he can't attack the hype before the hype is ignited into a frenzy.

Jordan and now Magic are both trying to serve themselves up to the public as the quintessential superstars that stuck through the good times and the bad times to create winning franchises. They were in great markets with great coaches and had team owners that spent the money to win. If Jordan went to Portland as the first pick in the draft we all know that he would have got out as soon as possible to go to a team where he had a chance to win.

I have to agree for several reasons, but mostly because Nick knows more about basketball and the NBA than I do.

Not Guilty!

2010-05-19T18:55:00.002-07:00

I've done a total of two trials so far, and I won my second trial! My client was accused of six counts in total. One was dismissed per a Rule 20 motion after the state rested. The jury found my client not guilty of the remaining five counts at the conclusion of the case. Those counts were Aggravated DUI x 4, and Criminal Damage (a misdemeanor).

I never expected to win a trial so soon in my career, especially an Aggravated DUI trial. But this is very exciting and very emotionally rewarding. I already felt like my decision to attend law school was validated when I got this job, but this reaffirmed that.

Banned Books and Advanced Placement

2010-05-09T10:00:00.004-07:00

Not recommended (and note that the quality of writing goes down when passions are up and time is short).

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/censored/Content?oid=1092825

That's old news. What's changed? "Another Country" was on the 2010 Advanced Placement (AP) exam again, a year and a half after Empire High School* pulled the book from its curriculum.

I don't practice Education Law, and I only took one course in the subject area. So at the time this happened, I believed that the Pico decision controlled this issue, and that the district failed to contact their lawyer before taking action.

Well, I was probably wrong about both things. What happened in Vail School District is distinguishable from Pico, and probably only because the district sought legal counsel, who advised them to make changes to keep them nominally distinguishable from Pico. In Pico, the school board yanked the book out of libraries. In Vail School District, the principal* yanked the book out of the curriculum, but it was still available in the library.

Not being an Education Law scholar or practitioner, I don't know if that difference is meaningful. And anyway, this happens all the time: only 20% of books pulled for the wrong reason are ever challenged. This most likely occurs because one must have constitutional standing to bring a claim, only students have standing on these issues, and no one educates them about their rights.

Does it matter that the banned book appeared on the AP test this year? Probably not, but it should. The book already appeared on an AP test before, and it didn't matter when this decision was made. It didn't matter because the decision was not made based on the educational value of the book, per the standard set in Pico. In fact, the decision was made for the reasons expressly forbidden in Pico. Google Pico, 457 U.S. 853, and look at some of the passages from books that were banned but that were found to have educational value.

What's the point, Herb? The point is, if I were a student who was kept from reading and discussing "Another Country," and I was unprepared for the AP Exam as a result, I would feel robbed of the fruits of my education. The responsible parties should make amends for future generations.

Things I Learned Off Facebook Today

2010-04-06T22:32:00.004-07:00

Not an ongoing series, and definitely not recommended.

Thing 1: Being a lawyer is hard. That's not new information, but I got several reminders today (and yesterday). Unfortunately I cannot go into too much detail about what actually occurred, but I can say how I felt. During two hearings, I felt small and foolish, even though I was sure my argument was correct. In fact, I received confirmation that I was correct from a moderately unlikely source. My boss reminded me that the outcome of the hearings was next to null; even if I'd won the argument, it wouldn't make a meaningful difference to my clients. Still, it's strange to feel right, but foolish at the same time.

Those feelings may have stemmed from a meeting that occurred just before the hearings. I wasn't fully prepared for the meeting, in part because I didn't realize I needed to be, in part because the agenda for the meeting was not formalized ahead of time. I allowed a comment to cloud my vision and judgment, which deprived me of the full benefit of the meeting. My condition was apparent to at least two of my colleagues and the matter was addressed, but it had a dramatic effect on my day.

There were really good moments in the morning, but I can't relate them, except to say that they were unexpected and a good way to start the day.

Anyway, my career is hard, and it should be. Not bragging that my career is harder than yours, by any stretch. I have a tendency to show off but I do my utmost to suppress it. I fail often. But anyway, take my word for it: I don't believe I'm better than you, because of my job or for any other reason.

Thing 2: Star Trek: The Next Generation managed to write a compelling episode about homosexuality... without actually using or referring to homosexuality. And they did it all in 1992.

Now, I couldn't watch Star Trek: The Next Generation when I was growing up, because it didn't air until after my bedtime. I was able to watch reruns if they ran earlier or on the weekend, and sometimes my stepdad would record an episode. When I did watch it, I usually enjoyed it, even if I didn't understand it. The long term effect of this is, there are a lot of episodes I haven't seen, and I'm generally unaware of the quality of the show, especially since I didn't watch them as an adult.

So I was quite surprised to watch "The Outcast." The episode features a humanoid race that is androgynous. The main representative explains that its race used to have gender--male and female, of course--but they have evolved. In fact, they see races with gender as primitive, unevolved. Later, this character reveals that some members of its race are still born with predisposition as male or female, that these members are ridiculed and even beaten, and that her race puts them through some kind of "psychotectic" treatment to "fix" this "sickness". Later still, it tells Riker that "she" is predisposed to being a she, that she doesn't see it as a sickness, that she's felt this way all her life, and that she is attracted to Riker.

Throughout this dialogue, the language and rhetoric she uses is very similar to descriptions of homosexuality: that a person is born with it, that it's not a disease or illness (ok, that language is definitely dated, but the episode is almost 20 years old now), that it's perfectly natural, etc.

I'm doing a horrible job of describing it; the Wikipedia page does a better job (just Google "Star Trek The Outcast" to find it). It also confirms what I felt: the episode, while pretty good, didn't go far enough. All the actors of the androgynous race were played by women. Jonathan Frakes (Riker) stated, and I agree, that the main representative who falls in love with Riker should have been more masculine, even played by a man, to further drive the point of the episode.

I won't tell you how the episode ends; you should watch it.

Anyway, I found the episode interesting and compelling, mostly because of the air date. And I stayed up too late to watch it.

Thing 3: There's an episode of Food Wars with El Guero Canelo! I'm recording it.

Thing 4: The Star Trek episode made me forget Thing 4. I don't think it was that there should be a National (or International) Fart Day, the day when we can all fart as loudly as possible and not be ridiculed, etc. It would be a celebration of farts. I imagine there could be a contest with multiple categories. I don't think that was the thing I was going to share, mostly because I haven't done the proper research to see if there is already a National Fart Day. I don't want to take credit for someone else's idea, and something as brilliant as this has to have been thought up before now. I guess the real research is why this either didn't take off, or why it exists but remains relatively unknown.

Thing 5: Something's wrong with my appreciation for sports. The normal "sports me" would hate that Duke and UConn just won national titles in NCAA basketball. Yet, I found a way to rationalize their wins, even though their sports empires are akin to that of the Yankees (ok, not really, because they didn't spend their way to victory) or anyone else who dominates for too long.

With Duke, it's the respect for Coach K and his job with a less-than-talented Duke squad that wouldn't be favored if the remaining #1 seeds were still around. There is either one or zero future NBA first round draft picks on this team, yet they won the title. Also, Coach K took some heat for coaching Team USA in the Olympics because it distracted him from coaching the Duke team. But he managed to win gold (that's why they're called "The Redeem Team"), and two years later he won his fourth title. Like him or not, you can't deny his credentials, especially considering the stark contrast between his current Duke squad and Team USA. Some like to argue it takes a completely different mindset and coaching style to coach college vs. a team of superstars (partly how Phil Jackson gets credit for coaching his Jordan/Kobe star-studded teams--others haven't been able to pull it off with nearly as much success, even though one would think it would be simple). Coach K can do both.

With UConn, I have no rational reason. I don't really care for basketball, I care even less for women's basketball, but whenever a person or team is dominating the rest of the competition, it's compelling, even if it's negative publicity. I don't care about tennis, but I felt I should watch the end of the match where what's his face passed Sampras on the grand slam victory list. Why? I guess it's quasi-historical (every stat in sports is vulnerable and it's going to be beat later (if its even possible, some aren't, like Cy Youngs win total), so whether a moment is "historical" is subjective), so I feel obligated to watch. UConn just won a billion games in a row and had two undefeated seasons in a row, which includes two titles. I didn't watch a second of one game in those two seasons. Yet, their undefeated streak caused me to think about women's basketball for 10 minutes more than I would have under any other circumstance (which would be not at all). So, I suppose if a win streak can make me think about a team and a sport that I would otherwise ignore, that must be somewhat compelling.

Of course, if Butler or Stanford won, that might have equally caused me to think about basketball. But a hero is only as compelling as his villain. Without villains like Duke and UConn--if indeed they are villains, and let's face it, they probably are--no one would care about even a potential Butler or Stanford victory (except their students and alum, of course). If that's the case, I'm OK with my happiness/respect/whatever towards Duke and UConn, in just the same way that it's OK to like Magneto and the Joker.

Well, now it's definitely time for bed.

The Civic and the Citadel

2010-04-04T23:18:00.002-07:00

Not recommended.

I own a 1994 Civic VX hatchback, teal in color. My good friend Tedd is helping me maintain and tinker with it. So far we've added a rear sway bar and rear lower control arms, though I've bought parts to do more. I managed to install a front tower bar, Del Sol seats, speakers and a radio by myself. No credit to me--that's how easy it is to work on a Civic.

Anyway, I have plans to do more. I have a front sway bar and a power steering system to add; it's just a matter of finding time to do it. I also want to buy new tires. The tires I have now are the correct size for all Civic hatchbacks made this year except for the VX, which uses smaller tires to achieve it's ridiculous MPG--it should get between 45 and 50! Right now it's been 40 and 42. It needs the tires and probably the correct spark plugs before I can try and figure out what else can change. Of course, in AZ I use the air conditioner 7 months out of the year so I can't expect to get 50 MPG then.

I digress. Tires--the tires I have are still good, but they're the wrong tires. Katie finally pseudo-agreed to allow me to buy tires, and even though she wasn't totally on board, I got a coupon for $50 off a set of four and decided to act. Long story short, Discount Tire didn't follow through like it said it would, so I have no tires and the coupon is expired. Maybe that's for the best, but still.

Another goal is to get a new gas tank. The stock gas tank holds 10 gallons. At 50 MPG, that's plenty; at 40 MPG, it's definitely good enough. The aftermarket tank, however, holds 13.5 gallons! So even if I'm stuck at 40 MPG, that's still over 500 miles of range, which is probably enough to get from Tucson to Anaheim without stopping for gas. Is this important? It depends on your perspective. On one hand, if I'm ever driving to California, I'll have Katie with me, and we're going to have to stop to pee. On the other hand, if I don't have to worry about finding a gas station, we can stop anywhere, including the super fast food complex in or near Indio (?) that DOESN'T have a gas station. Anyway, that's why I want a bigger gas tank.

Today I was poking around and discovered I can replace my old filament lights with LED lights. I thought it would be more complex, like I would have to rig something myself to keep the OEM lights with LED bulbs, but there are more than a few companies that sell LED lights that fit in the normal sockets. There's a lot of crap out there, though, and unfortunately I don't have the tech skills to tell the crap from the good stuff. However, there's at least one brand that seems to be trusted by everyone who has gone through them (so far), so I'm considering changing over all my car lights (except for the headlights, cluster lights, and dome light) to LEDs. Why? Practically speaking, they can be brighter and use less power, which converts to more efficiency and safety. But really, it's because it's a modification I can probably do myself that will be fun.

Finally, the Citadel. Sadly, I am speaking of Icecrown Citadel, the final raid zone in the current World of Warcraft expansion. Ten of us in my guild managed to beat the Lich King and complete the zone this past week, which is sort of like beating the game, if such a thing were actually possible. Even so, it's a big deal for me, because I wasn't playing WoW before the first expansion, and I came nowhere near to beating the "last boss" in the first expansion. It made me happy. OK? Fine then.

Things I Learned On Facebook Today #2

2010-03-31T18:53:00.005-07:00

Part Two in an ad infinitum series. As always, not recommended.

Thing 1: It can be misconstrued if you "like" that Jaime Escalante passed away. Mr. Escalante is the real person portrayed by Edward James Olmos in "Stand and Deliver." Probably people mean that they like Mr. Escalante, but you know, context and whatnot.

Thing 2: The radical right is more likely to create domestic terrorists than the radical left.

Thing 3: No one takes you seriously when your status is "Dying. Please help."

Thing 4: People tend to post a lot about their children. Will this cause anti-Facebook backlash in the next generation? "I refuse to take part in social networking--or society at all--because my parents subjected my entire life to the entire Internet."

Things I Learned On Facebook Today #1

2010-03-22T17:04:00.004-07:00

Part One in an ad infinitum series. As always, not recommended.

Thing 1: Picking up hitchhikers can be fun, exciting, and rewarding. However, if there is one fear that most people seem to cling to, it's the fear of picking up hitchhikers. A casual "this is what happened to me today" status update turned into a torrent of harsh scoldings with short breaks of praise for the original poster (hereafter, "OP"). The OP stuck to her guns, which I found inspiring. Will I pick up a hitchhiker any time soon? Probably not. But I'll at least consider it more than I did before.

And in general I agree that hitchhikers get a bad rap. I mean, I've watched an unknown number of Criminal Minds episodes, and there are tons of creepy dudes out there, but very few of them have been hitchhikers. And since art is holding the mirror up to life, it must be that there are very few hitchhikers who are also serial killers/rapists.

Might I remind you that analysis like this is why you either came here in the first place, or ignore this website like hitchhikers. Please reread the warning before you proceed.

Thing 2: It's OK to argue the Wal-Mart broadcaster's right to free speech should bar him from arrest, then join a group that is petitioning to get another group kicked off of Facebook for exercising their free speech rights. If you can do it in the same session, kudos to you.

Thing 3: Health care: people care about it. There are all these... um, opinions, or something, floating around. I don't even know what's going on. I can't tell if it's one more thing to throw on the pile of evidence that proves "Obama is evil, he will destroy this nation, he eats shakes composed of children for breakfast and lunch, then has a hearty child for dinner, and I swear I saw some stray hairs form the mark of the beast on his forehead," or if it's something I should seriously be concerned about.

(Sidenote: it's ok to hate Obama with the fire of a thousand suns, for the same reason it was ok to hate Bush with just as much intensity. But you should know that your hatred muddies the real message (if any) and you lose credibility. I think I've posted about this before, though I don't know if that was here or elsewhere.)

Thing 4: Nancy Pelosi is a zombie, and it's always ok to make fun of zombies, especially if they hold political office.

Thing 5: There is some uncertainty as to the true definition of MILF. I didn't check Urban Dictionary to verify; I can only imagine it will only make the issue worse. Anyway, don't just go throwing around the term MILF and expect everyone to know precisely what you mean. I guess there are variables to consider.

I guess those are all the things I learned on Facebook today.

But don't take my word for it!

"Jesus Thinks Farts Are Funny"

2010-03-08T07:26:00.002-07:00

I am not the theologian behind this statement, but I subscribe to it. More later.

(Incomplete thoughts and incomplete posts, all part of the new Res Ipsa Loquitur!)

Lowering Quality, Increasing Quantity

2010-03-08T07:00:00.002-07:00

My posts on this blog are too sparse. I am so demanding of myself; I only allow perfect posts to slip through here. So, from now on, I'm lowering the quality of my posts so that I can increase quantity. More posts! More drivel! Less thought! Less editing! Which means, more opportunities to offend others and embarrass myself!

Everyone wins.

OK, obviously quality was never the issue, and it would probably take more work and thought to make the posts worse than they are. Ending sentences with "are," however, is a good start and foreshadows what's to come. Nevertheless, expect more.

Yearbooks, Memories, Etc.

2010-02-21T22:43:00.003-07:00

Last night, I looked through my senior year yearbook, reading what people wrote. The messages varied dramatically: profound, bland, seemingly insightful, definitely forced, passive, bored, inspired, flirty (!), heavy-handed, and in one case, illustrative (thanks Kevin). I did get an anagram of my name, describing how promiscuous I am (was).

I realized a few things. First, I am in contact with only a handful of the people who wrote in my yearbook. Yet, somehow most of us were aware of the fact that we weren't going to see each other again. Did we really know? Did we really believe it? I did, but only because I was going away from Mesa for college, and maybe that's why I got those kinds of comments in my yearbook.

Next, reading through these comments made me wonder what I wrote in others' yearbooks. Mostly, I'm afraid of what I might have written, that it did not truly reflect how I felt about that person, that I was more concerned with what they were going to write about me that I did not truly focus on how great they are. I can recall at least two yearbook messages of which I am deeply ashamed. As far as that goes, I have to remind myself that I was a desperate love fool, only eighteen years old, and I took advantage of having the last word. Thankfully, I haven't seen either of those people since then, and I don't expect that, once I do, they will remember my awkward messages. Or perhaps they will remember, have a quick laugh, and move on. Anyway, I can't live in fear of any of that, it won't do any good.

I mentioned the varying levels of quality of the messages, and I don't want to spend too much time in case some of those authors are wondering if I'm referring to their message. Don't worry; even if I am, anything I say is unfair judgment on a number of levels. You should properly ignore me and move along.

Some messages were direct and revealed truths that, like my awkward messages, would not have come out in any other way but in this final message of all messages. One girl thanked me for reminding her (through my intense crush on her, though this was not stated directly) that she was valuable after she endured a rough breakup. That had actually occurred more than a year ago, but there's no way we would have ever discussed it. In fact, we didn't discuss it--she left it as a final goodbye, something she wanted out in the nether, but not something to converse over.

I'm pretty sure whatever I wrote in her yearbook was not as insightful, and if it was, it probably is a message I don't want to remember. Let's put the total to three awkward, regrettable messages (and counting).

Another guy wrote a lot of "final message" truths, but I expected to see him on a regular basis after. His motivation was not to say things he was too embarrassed to say if we were to see each other again. Rather, he wanted those awkward truths memoralized for years to come as a testimony to his state of mind at the time. I got a couple of those, that I recall. I don't think I did as good a job as they did, but I wish I had, if only so they knew how much I appreciated them.

Another guy, anticipating future contact, wrote nothing of substance. In fact, he shaped his paragraph into a penis. Perhaps that was a more telling truth than anything else he could have written.

Some girls wrote quasi-flirty messages. I have to imagine they did that because it's fun, not because they meant it. One may have meant it. Several decidedly did not. The most promising flirty message was given to me by a complete stranger, not in my yearbook, but in a note I found buried in a box of junk. She meant it. I followed up. I failed miserably. I'm really glad I didn't follow up on others.

One guy wrote a message that made me laugh out loud nearly eleven years after the fact. And it wouldn't make sense to anyone else, or at least, it wouldn't make them laugh.

A couple of folks I barely knew wrote very nice things about me. I wish I had taken the time to get to know them better, because I'm sure they were very nice people who deserved such nice things written in return.

Some folks I knew a little bit better didn't have much to say. One in particular was quite morbid, especially regarding our chances of seeing each other again.

I guess that's all the insight I have. In any event, reading through these messages made me wonder what I wrote to others, and it gave me the idea for a silly Facebook status trend (the annoying ones that go around like "post a memory of us LOL", etc.) (yeah, I'm going to be one of THOSE.). So, I'm going to post that in my status and see what happens.

I'm sure I'll regret it. But here I go anyway.

Simmons on the Broncos Week 1 win

2009-09-18T20:53:00.001-07:00

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonsnflpicks/090918

After you pick a 2009 sleeper, you want them to win in Week 1 like this …

"Orton in the gun, Buckhalter right next to him. Orton, pumps again, to the sidelinnnnnnne … batted up, OH MY!!!!!!! STOKLEY!!!!!! DOWN THE SIDELINE!!!!!!!!!! CAN HE CATCH HIM? STOKLEY!!!!!!!!!!!! WOWWWWWWWWW!!!!! (pause) TOUCHDOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DENVER!!!!!!!!! UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!! OH MY GOOD-NESS WHAT A PLAY!!!!!!!!!!!!! EIGHTY-SEVEN YARDS!!!!!!!!!!! (Long pause) WHOOOOOOOOA!!!!!!!!!!!!"

(That was Gus Johnson's call of the miracle Stokley play. Obviously. By the way, I'd like to thank Stokley for helping me realize a lifelong dream: seeing a real NFL player try the "Madden" strategy of not running into the end zone right away to kill a few extra seconds of clock. I was more excited about that than the play itself.)

Obama Reaches Out?

2009-03-29T13:56:00.003-07:00

Note: I am not a political person, by any stretch of the imagination. I am registered to vote, but I am not a member of any party--that designation on my card reads "NOP", for "no party." My old Maricopa voting card read "PND", which means "party not designated," but I think what they really meant was "party pending." In any event, it's still pending.

That said, please do not read this as dripping, falling-in-love support for President Obama. I studied history and I grew accustomed to looking at things past from an outside perspective. In many ways, I look at current events in that same way. It's a bad habit; I should know better that occurrances in D.C. do affect me (and I already know this, if for no other reason, because I'm receiving an incentive for being a first-time home buyer). So I'm examining this situation from an odd perspective and appreciating it for what it is, without taking a lot of other things into account. I'm dissecting someone who is a historical figure by default (all presidents are), even though he's still around to change who he is, his legacy, his policies, etc. It's not a done deal. And yet, I'm sort of writing about it like it is.

In any event, keep that in mind. Not an Obama lover. Not a hater either, just making an observation (that you're free to disagree with, of course).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_online

I'm not an Obama fan, necessarily. I don't think the nation is doomed as a result of his election, either. Rather, I'm waiting to see if he is worth the hype--or at least part of it (I don't think anyone can actually live up to the hype he receives).

That was a negative start, but keep reading. Juxtapose that with what I'm about to say.

The day after Obama was elected, I told my wife and several others who asked my opinion: for Obama to be as successful as everyone wants him to be, he has to go in there like FDR, in the first 100 days, and lay down dramatic new policy that actually reshapes the nation in a positive way (whether FDR actually did that, I'm not going to argue with you about that right now).

In at least one way, Obama has followed FDR's footsteps. FDR started the "fireside chats" where he addressed the nation on the radio on a regular basis. This was unprecedented, in part because the technology was new, in part because no one prior tried to use the technology in that way. Note that using the radio was not new; it was the President connecting with the people via the radio that was the bright and shiny idea.

Obama has done the same thing with the Internet. Rather than merely take questions from media and other officials, Obama took questions from the general public (perhaps that's giving Internet surfers too much credit on several levels, just go with it for now). He even briefly discussed legalizing marijuana. His first response wondered about the Internet crowd in general (see?), then he responded seriously by saying he doesn't think that's a good plan to help the economy.

This isn't the first time Obama has tried to "connect" with the people at large. The night before the election, both Obama and McCain were interviewed by Chris Berman of SportsCenter fame. McCain talked about steroids in professional sports and getting rid of them, which is a fine but tired answer. Obama said he wanted a playoff in college football. That's not a new idea, but it is a fun idea. It's controversial and heatedly discussed, unlike steroids, which is not controversial (generally we either don't care or we want them gone; few are arguing for more steroid use) and while passionate, not heated (again, no real argument for keeping steroid use).

(Moreover, both Katie and I noted that the steroid argument probably appeals to liberals and Democrats who seek equality (even in sports), while the college football argument was designed to endear Southerners to Obama. So these arguments were likely last-minute efforts to sway undecided voters. But still.)

Additionally, if you didn't know already, Obama filled out a March Madness bracket... and showed it to the rest of us (forgive me for not linking it). Is that dangerous because of it's ties to gambling? Maybe, but everyone fills out a bracket, right? (OK, not everyone; I didn't this year, but I usually do even though I don't follow college basketball--everyone likes to get lucky and pick the right "thing", and more points for lucky picks than educated ones.)

So here's what I'm saying: Is Obama going to sweep in like FDR's New Deal? Probably not. Is he a perfect leader. By no means. But he's already started a legacy in that he's made steps to connect with a more diverse group of people, in several ways. Is he (still) an elitist? Maybe, and those questions will never fade with Columbia and Harvard on his resume. But if that's the case, he's at least a smart elitist. Maybe it's a facade, but it's one that I don't mind for the moment, because people still have the opportunity to get involved, regardless of whether Obama really cares about their involvement.

I hope, however, that he's genuine in trying to get more people involved in government. If he does nothing else useful, that's a powerful legacy... if he continues to do it.

Journey's End, Tier 7.5, and Other Nerd Speak

2009-03-29T13:49:00.002-07:00

When I play games, I try to win. Whether and to what degree one believes I "try" is subject to interpretation. If you ask Katie, I always want to win and I will do whatever it takes to do so. If you ask me, I'm merely playing to the best of my ability and not giving anything up to be nice--no one wants to win because another person went easy on them.

In World of Warcraft, there is no real way to "win" (with the common exception that people who stop playing WoW (as it is commonly refered to) state that they "won" or they "beat WoW." I can't argue with this concept, but that's not what I'm talking about). The game progresses indefinitely, even if you beat the "last boss," which also changes as new expansions are released. Thus, the point is not necessarily to win; it is to enjoy the journey and continue to have fun engaging in various activities peripheral to beating the "last boss."

(It should be noted that it is commonly preached to enjoy the journey on the way to the result. Yet, this concept is not necessarily accepted as applied to video games--if there is no way to "win," what's the point, right? Perhaps the absence of an end point frustrates this concept. If so, I should buy into that, based on my other viewpoints of things with no end point: I didn't learn to drive until I had somewhere to go, and I generally don't take walks if there is no destination. But that's a conversation for another time.)

When I started playing WoW, the endgame raid zone known as Black Temple was either just released or released soon after. BT was supposed to be the "final" raid zone, containing the "last boss" until the next expansion (as it turns out, this wasn't the case, but that's not important either). BT is a Tier 6 raid, meaning that's the quality of loot that drops from enemies contained within, and because loot quality increases based on difficulty, BT was the most difficult raid.

I never set foot in BT. Nor did I see the Tier 5 raids, and my experience with the "high end" Tier 4 raids was limited (lower tier raids were part of the original game and rarely visited; again, not important, except to say that Tier 4 was the "entry level" raid when I started playing). See, because I joined the game at a later stage of the game, I was not well-equipped to see the higher tier stuff--the groups who did that had been together longer and didn't need new players. So, I did what I did, had a lot of fun, acquired new gear, but was never among the "best" or even the "best geared" in my class (which is not necessarily an attainable thing either).

Fast forward to the new expansion: I started playing at the outset of the newest expansion, collected some good gear in Tier 7 content, then through a cooperative agreement with another 10-man guild, collected some great gear in Tier 7.5 content. In fact, my character is very well geared and only missing a handful of pieces that would make him "best geared." Yet, I know and everyone knows that new bosses and raids are on the horizon, and that the current expansion will go until at least Tier 9 or higher. So while I'm on top now, so to speak, that will change swiftly once more difficult raids are available.

Is this a problem? Now that I'm, at the moment, "winning," is it terrible that my "winning" status will no longer apply once new content is available?

I say no, for a number of reasons. First, having great gear, while somewhat telling about what a player has experienced, is in no way determinative of anything more significant. If anything, it means I had the opportunity to be present when the gear happened to drop, and I managed to win the gear ahead of others who might also have used it. In other words, I could have been the most useless player--getting myself and others killed, not doing my job in damaging the boss, etc.--and I still could have "achieved" all this gear by virtue of my schedule and my ability to permit my friends to keep letting me raid with them despite my apparent incompetence. So, just because my gear is great doesn't mean I'm "winning."

Second, I have not really "won" in any sense of the term--though my guild has beat the current "last boss" once, I wasn't there when it happened, and we haven't duplicated the feat since. Plus, with the addition of "hard mode" bosses, the real "last boss" is no longer the most difficult feat in the game.

Finally, winning in this game is not really possible in terms we usually see it--it's about the journey, not the destination. In that sense--enjoying the journey--I have never stopped winning. I am enjoying the journey with friends and other players, meeting new people and sharing new experiences, and generally having a good time while progressing--slowly or rapidly--towards various "ends." I "win" every day, even when I lose.

Thus, though from a gear perspective, I am near the top--the Journey's End, so to speak (which is, funnily enough (or not), the name of the best melee weapon I can equip at the moment), as long as I'm enjoying the journey with good friends and good players, I am always on top. New content only allows us to continue the journey further. Thus, new content means more winning for everyone.

Cardinals Win!

2009-01-19T11:57:00.003-07:00

EDIT: I removed the pictures because they were too big for the viewing panel, and I think it's easier to see all of them on Facebook. So here's the link:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/album.php?aid=2357066&id=10123559

On a final note, it is no secret that I am a Broncos fan first. My first game at UoP Stadium was Broncos at Cardinals, and I wore my orange and blue Plummer jersey and cheered for Jay Cutler's offense. I enjoyed that game, though it was bittersweet--it was supposed to be the "Jake Plummer Revenge Tour," finally playing the Cards in the regular season after leaving the team... only at that point, Plummer had been benched for Cutler (the timing of the decision I still do not defend--Plummer may have got past that Seattle team where Cutler wasn't quite ready). As if that wasn't bad enough, Leinart passed Jake's rookie Cardinal passing record in that game.

I digress. Anyway, I admire Kurt Warner tremendously, as a man and as a player. When I first saw Fitzgerald play in person when Aaron Mertz took me to the Patriots/Cardinals game, I was impressed. He was instantly my favorite receiver in the league, with apologies to Hines Ward. I also enjoyed the tenacity of the then-no-name defense. I liked watching the Cardinals play. Clearly Whisenhunt knows what he's doing as a coach--he's done more than any other Cards coach, and in only two seasons. I liked Denny Green too, and the decision to bring him here (as well as Warner and Emmitt Smith), especially his soundbytes about the Bears, who we thought they were and where we can crown them. I've been paying attention to the Cardinals--not as much as the Broncos, but more than any other team besides.

Whether this makes me a Cardinals fan, you decide. I don't want to take anything away from those that have been following this team since their first season in Arizona (or before). Doubtless the Cardinals will have plenty of bandwagon fans claiming they always believed or they've been following from day one (trying to dig up an old Phoenix Cardinals shirt or buy one on Ebay). I'm not one of those. I wasn't even a football fan when the Cards came to Arizona--I didn't start liking football until I was in high school, and I chose the Broncos because my dad had always followed them AND they happened to be fun to watch at the time.

So take my "status" with the Cards for what you will. But if it's any consolation to those true fans who couldn't get tickets to the game, I made as much noise as I could for four quarters whenever the Eagles had the ball. I did as much as I could to affect the outcome of the game. So despite the status of my fanhood, I tried to play the part--in the good, non-self-serving way--the best that I could, without diminishing the fanhood of those who have been here longer than me.

Herbnosis, Esq.

2008-12-29T21:21:00.001-07:00

This happened Nov. 24th, 2008, when the Supreme Court of Arizona sent me a certificate stating that I am licensed to practice law in Arizona.

Unfortunately, I am still working as a law clerk. Two recent openings in my office were given to others. I would like to stick around and interview for additional openings, but I have loans to repay and a new mortgage to work with, so I must consider other options. Thankfully there are many people in my office that do believe I will be a good attorney, and I'm certain their recommendations will be very helpful.

Guitar Hero 4 Commercial (!)

2008-10-28T22:04:00.004-07:00

So, a great number of things are going on in my life:

1. Katie just went to the ER on Friday
2. On Saturday, I attended a wedding of someone I only knew through World of Warcraft
3. I passed the bar
4. Katie and I are in the process of buying a house
5. Many, many, other more important things

...But the thing that's going to get me to blog: I just saw a commercial for Guitar Hero 4.

This advertisement blew my mind. Whether it reaches the target audience, I have no idea, but it made my jaw drop.

First, Alex Rodriguez, in a dress shirt and underwear (a la Tom Cruise), slides into the room holding a guitar, while the opening riffs of the Chuck Berry classic play in the background. Next, Tony Hawk, similarly clad, enters the scene with a drum set. Michael Phelps quickly joins them. Finally, as the vocals come in on the song, Kobe Bryant slides in with a microphone, "singing" the vocals of the song. Then it cuts to a flat-screen television playing Guitar Hero 4.

Now, before I get to the nitty-gritty, the first thing my wife pointed out: "Who are they trying to reach with this ad?" My first reaction: I don't care; LOOK AT WHO THEY PUT IN THE COMMERCIAL?!?! But she has a good point. It's obviously aimed at sports fans, and there is a huge segment of sports fans who play Madden, so that seems the likely draw. Yet, this commercial fails to include an NFL player! So maybe it falls short for that reason. At the same time, I can't imagine who that NFL player might be, based on the current group. See, all four are the "rock stars" of their sports. I don't know that such a standout player exists this season. And I don't know that Peyton Manning fits here--I think that would detract from awesomeness of the ad since Manning is in so many. Though, perhaps Brett Favre...

Anyway, I digress. The point: my jaw dropped. The ad instantly grabbed my attention, then it delivered by showing four incredily talented and successful athletes playing pretend guitar, bass, drums and vocals. Do I want to buy the game? No; I don't have the systems it requires, and I'm loyal to the Rock Band genre for the time being. But was the ad incredibly exciting? You betcha.

EDIT: Yeah, I'm not too bright: for the first eight or so hours this post was up, it was referring to "Rock Band 4," when no such game yet exists. My apologies.

Mac vs. PC: Microsoft bites back...?

2008-09-23T07:22:00.003-07:00

Alright, since I fancy myself a guru of television commercials, it feels appropriate to comment about this.

The new "I'm a PC" commercials put out by Microsoft are an interesting step. They're well-made and intriguing, and the people that appear in the commercial appeal to many walks of life. Additionally, they highlight all of the biggest and best reason to buy a PC: the network.

Networks get their value by the number of users of the network. This is like the cell phone plan that gives you free calling to everyone else who is with the same cell phone company. If you're whole family is with Jerkizon, you save on minutes, which means you may be able to get a cheaper plan and still talk to the people that are most important to you. But if not many people you know use Jerkizon, the ability to call anyone on their network is far less appealing.

It's no surprise that Windows and Microsoft have the largest network (by far) when it comes to computers. While it's not quite the same as the cell phone situation, it's similar: more users on one network mean more software companies willing to make software for that operating system, meaning more software to draw in users, etc.

So showing the quantity and diversity of the PC network is useful and arguably effective. However, it's not a new argument from Microsoft--actually, it's pretty much the same thing we've seen from them: we're big, we're established, and that means we're awesome. Buy our stuff. That's fine; it's old but it works.

So what is my problem with these ads?

...How long has Apple been playing the Mac vs. PC ads? And Microsoft just NOW responds? And their response, while somewhat clever, is just a rehashing of what we've heard before?

Perhaps it's a little unfair to assume that, if you wait a long time to respond, you're going to unveil the big stick that blows your competition away. Even so, I'm making that assumption anyway. Microsoft's new ad is too late and it's delivery doesn't make up for that lateness. In light of this, Mac is still ahead in the television ad debate.

Note: this has no bearing on which is the superior product (if any) or which I prefer. I own a PC but that decision was made five years ago and largely for gaming reasons. My "drug of choice" when it comes to gaming is World of Warcraft, which works on both Mac and PC, so when the time to upgrade comes around, who knows which way I'll buy? In any event, this is just about who is winning the ad war, and right now, it has to be Mac.

Game-Winning Two-Point Conversion

2008-09-15T07:07:00.002-07:00

On Sunday, the Denver Broncos defeated the San Diego Chargers by going for a two-point conversion with less than a minute to play while only trailing by one. Of course, it was a gutsy call, but one that paid off.

There is little else in sports that is exciting as a two-point conversion for the win. A walk-off home run arguably comes close, but the truth is you'll take a home run anytime, whereas the two-point conversion always comes with risk, and there are many circumstances where it is not appropriate.

Seeing my beloved Broncos hand a two-pointer to the rival Chargers, who have defeated us four straight times over the past two seasons, was very exciting indeed.

The last "walk off" two-point conversion I witnessed was also thrilling--it was by another set of Broncos who hail from Boise State, going for two in the second overtime period during the Fiesta Bowl (in college, you have to go for two following a touchdown in the third OT period--such is not the case in the second OT). After all the other mind-blowing performances Boise State showed the world that day--the revival of the hook-and-ladder as well as the Statute of Liberty play--it was the perfect way to cap a shocking victory. Boise State was so good that day, and so fun to watch, that I don't think a single Oklahoma Sooner feels bad about that loss. They were fun to watch because of their talent, but this was enhanced by the creative and risky playcalling and execution of those plays.

Taking risks is always... risky. But the rewards can be great.

I Am The Swing Vote

2008-09-06T15:18:00.003-07:00

Let me drop some knowledge on the collective bums owned by hardcore Dems and GOPers: your blanket trashing of each others sides do not convince the voters you need to support your cause.

I'm not talking about the candidates. I haven't heard a whole lot of what they have to say, if for no other reason that the most vocal propagandists are shouting so loudly that I'd rather read about the new, cheap XBox 360 and figure out how that candidate stacks up to my long-time frontrunner Nintendo Wii.

No, this call is to the idiots in charge of the campaigns, and the loudest supporters blinded by the light of their candidate that they have no litmus test for how to speak to someone outside of their party--or worse, to someone unaffiliated with a party.

Um, I don't care how loud you shout that Sarah Palin is a liar, or a bordello madam, or any of the other monickers you want to throw on her. Because they're all a bunch of liars and ne'er-do-wells, not because they're politicians, but because they're PEOPLE. Shut up and give me something useful with which to make this weighty decision.

Nor do I care about generalizations about Reaganomics. Clearly one side thinks they work and the other says it doesn't work. Truth be told? Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't. If that's not the case, show me definitive numbers (that I can understand, because I'm not an economist) to prove the outcome one way or the other.

Maybe the information is out there to prove definitively that Palin is unfit for office or that there is one, true functioning standard for who to pass the money to, only I can't hear it or see it over the din of overzealous extremists trying to scratch each other's eyes out. Do us all a favor and lobby for the people who can help you achieve those goals--swing voters like me. Otherwise, I'll make the decision based on what sounds better (Obama/Biden doesn't look too different from Osama Bin Laden), what my wife wants me to do, or old loyalties based on my lifelong residence.

Shut up and get to work.

Addendum to Commercials as Art

2008-08-21T17:30:00.006-07:00

This occurred to me several weeks ago, but I forgot to post it:

It is important to keep in mind that some forms of art are meaningless to a person regardless of the quality of the art when compared to other pieces in that format. In other words, some people just don't get it. I don't get dance as a performance art. This isn't to say it isn't beautiful or difficult, or that it's not a valid art form--it just means that the beauty and difficulty of dance are wasted on me, because that art form doesn't speak to me.

Commercials, on the other hand, do. And I'm sure my wife wishes they did less so, less often, and that I responded with less enthusiasm.

In any event, I say that to say this: it's OK for someone to dislike commercials because it's just not a form of art that means anything to them. But if they try to raise other arguments, particularly the arguments I addressed earlier, they're going to get an earful. Keep it simple--just say you don't get it, and I'll say "that's cool, I don't get dance" and we can move on to some other topic.

Additionally, here is a commercial starring my best friend, Garrett:

Olympic Teasers and Why Yahoo! Beats MSN, Hotmail

2008-08-19T09:41:00.006-07:00

Teasers are those things news people do to get you to come back after the commercial break. As Brian Regan put it, "There was a huge fire downtown ...maybe!" They're annoying like those reality TV shows that wait an unnecessarily long time to reveal who is "going home" that week. It's withholding information you want to know so that you'll stay sucked in longer. It's just plain mean.

However, Yahoo! has found the right way to use teasers during these 2008 Summer Olympics. Simultaneously, MSN.com and Hotmail have failed on a massive scale.

When my wife Katie logs out from Hotmail, the browser brings her to the MSN.com page, which has the most recent Olympic results displayed. However, because the U.S. televises the events after they happen (we're on the West Coast, so we've seen ZERO live events; thanks for nothing, NBC), she's seeing Olympic outcomes sometimes more than twelve hours before she'll have the chance to watch the contest on TV. And since we both love the Olympics, it's really frustrating to have the outcome spoiled. She saw the results of the 100m Butterfly just minutes before the race started thanks to MSN.com, and she already knows the outcome of the balance beam that will air tonight. All this because she wants to check her email.

Some might argue that, now that she is aware of this, she should stop checking her email, or she should close her browser rather than sign out. I think that is a ridiculous requirement; she shouldn't have to think "Am I going to spoil my Olympic viewing by checking my email?" No one should have to think about that--it would be like making sure not to answer your phone because someone might blurt out Olympics results as they're saying goodbye: "I love you sweetie, have a good day tomorrow, OMG DID YOU SEE THE U.S. SWEPT THE FENCING PODIUM??"

This is where Yahoo! gets it right. When I go to my Yahoo! home page, I see what events are coming up, and a hint at a potential outcome--basically, it's a teaser. For instance, today's headline read "Shawn Johnson's last chance for gold." I see that, and I remember "Oooh! I'll make sure to watch that!" AND if I want to know the result right now, I can click on it and find out whether she won already. Two days ago, the headline read something like "Controversy for Liukin on the Uneven Bars." It didn't tell me what the controversy was--it reminded me to watch. It's the best of both worlds, really.

Keep this in mind as well--Yahoo! has no vested interest in getting me to watch the Olympics, at least not on the same level as MSN.com, who is broadcasting some events on MSNBC. Doesn't it make more financial sense for MSN.com to use teasers instead of actual outcomes so people will watch their coverage? Yet Yahoo! knows not to spoil the Olympics for potential viewers, while MSN.com has no problem with spoiling the outcome for my wife.

Kudos to Yahoo! and shame on MSN.com and Hotmail.

Television Commercials as Art

2008-07-27T09:27:00.011-07:00

What a ridiculous premise. Well, it wouldn't be the first time.

I record television on a TiVo-like device. It's great to be unhinged from the arbitrary schedules of the broadcasters and cable channel moguls. I watch TV when I want to watch, and I record enough content on a daily basis that there is always something to watch.

One popular reason people record television is to skip through commercials. I tend to skip through commercials only because I want to save time, not because I am annoyed by commercials. Quite the opposite in fact: I find commercials entertaining. Not all commercials--that would be as bad as finding all television entertaining, when a large amount of T.V. programming is not entertaining at all. But I don't write off the whole class of commercial advertising as boring.

I will be so bold as to say that some commercials... are art.

Before I explain why I can espouse such an outlandish idea, let me quell some arguments against the idea:

1. Commercials are advertisements and are designed solely to sell products!

First, this isn't true in every respect--I think the anti-tobacco ads speak for themselves here, unless they were funded by other bad habits in anticipation of luring you from one to the other. "Cigarettes? Cigarettes are for wusses! Brought to you by Fingernail Chewers United." But they're not; they're funded by government agencies or the tobacco companies themselves.

Secondly, and far more importantly: every other form of art is trying to sell something--itself! Books, movies, music, paintings--these are all created in anticipation that someone will pay money for the right to possess or view/listen to the piece of art. If anything, commercials are more honest about it. The idea that commercials should be excluded as art because of its association to sales is false.

2. Commercials are stupid, stupid, stupid.

Yes, many commercials are stupid--they're poorly made, not appealing, and completely fail to either entertain or persuade me to buy the product. How is this different from other art? There plenty of bad movies, bad songs, bad books and bad paintings that are created, bought and sold every day. Yet, people fall in love with certain types of art because they've seen the good versions of art and are delighted to discover more good art. Sometimes the search for good art means you necessarily see bad art. Anyway, I digress--the point is, there is more bad art than good art, we just don't see or remember the bad art.

Commercials are no different--there are more bad commercials than good commercials. In my opinion, 95% of all car commercials are awful. The few exceptions are usually not stellar--think of the "Da, da, da" Volkswagen commercial nearly a decade ago. It was OK, caught our attention, and even made the performer of that simple, CASIO keyboard melody a pretty penny for about a month. Then it just got annoying. That may be the ceiling for car commercials--good for a little bit but not classic. Other car examples are the Mitsubishi commercials from the early 2000s that featured "Days Go By" by Dirty Vegas and that "Get Up Put The Body In Motion" (not the actual title) by someone else who completely disappeared afterwards. In other words, a car commercial can be art if it creates a one-hit pop wonder. Maybe--there are no hard and fast rules in commercials as art; otherwise people would follow the rules and they'd all be art (and we know they're not).

Gold Bond--bad commercials. Any medical commercial--bad. They're not evil as far as commercials go, they're just not art. Any commercial where you have to explain how it works, then explain the side effects... you get points for making me forget that you're talking about reasons NOT to buy your product, but it will never rise to the point of art. Pills designed to help ED are sometimes clever but the description of the side effects will always kill it.

But, just as there are bad commercials, there are bad movies, books, etc. Any painting you see in a hotel is bad art. The Postman, Waterworld, Snake Eyes, any movie in the American Pie series, any movie in the Scary Movie series, any movie inspired by a video game (I want to say there is an exception here but it's not coming to me at the moment)... pretty much any movie released between February and April or September and October: BAD MOVIES--Hollywood is saving the good stuff for summer or the end of the year Oscar consideration. Anything good that comes out in the aforementioned time periods is an accident or any indy film that managed to capture our interest. Bad music--surely any genre you don't listen to is bad music, and if you claim you like all music, that's like saying you like all commercials. Please watch several hours of car commercials and get back to me about liking everything created in a specific medium of art. Thanks. Bad books--of course there are bad books. I'm done thinking about this.

Having exhausted you (and myself) with reasons why commercials are not NOT art, let me give you a few reasons why they can be art.

First, they can illuminate new ideas and new concepts. One recent example is the insurance commercial of the elderly gentleman who owns a giant umbrella, which he uses in a variety of ways to help several groups of people. Um, I don't have a desire to go make an umbrella-shaped boat or try to build an umbrella that flies, but the commercial was at least as clever as a painting or a book that encapsulates the same concept.

To use a ridiculous example, the GEICO commercials involving cavemen illustrate (more for comedic effect) that one shouldn't make fun of groups of people, regardless of whether such groups actually exist--or whether they have access to the object used to poke fun. For example, it's generally safe to make fun of the Amish because there is no chance they will find out about it--they don't use electricity and can never see or hear any televised or radio criticism of their beliefs or their way of life. But if Wisconsin v. Yoder is any indication, the Amish know how to take care of themselves and are very well represented; if by some chance they alter their centuries-held cherished faith and decide to start suing people, you don't want to be in the way of that. In much the same way, you don't want to be making fun of cavemen because you never know when one of these scientists is going to revive a frozen one and raise all sorts of legal chaos.

Those are very extreme examples and arguably not intended by GEICO. However, artists are always making points they didn't intend to, because art is subject to interpretation. If someone can interpret a caveman commercial as advocating tolerance, the world is a better place, and that commercial deserves some recognition for its artistic qualities.

Second, they can involve images that are just as beautiful and meaningful as images in a movie, painting, or those described in a book. Let's take a break to have a feminine moment.

The oreo commercial with the dad and the kid eating oreos together, only at the end we discover they're continents apart and communicating via webcam, the son is about to go to bed and dad is about to leave for work. That's touching. The commercial where the little girls slips the rabbit in the suitcase, so dad takes pictures of the rabbit in the places he visits and sends them as mementos to his daughter. That's touching.

These are the kinds of relationships and situations that books and movies take hours to set up, and the commercial brought me the best and most meaningful part in mere seconds.

There are other kinds of ideas that are passed along within a short time frame that are very effective. Everyone remembers the anti-drug commercial--"This is drugs. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?" If you saw the "sequel" to that commercial, you'd probably remember that too. A young woman (unknown at the time, but for the sake of completeness, it was Rachael Leigh Cook of "She's All That" fame... I don't think "fame" is the right term there. Let's just move along.) begins with the "This is your brain. This is heroin. This is what happens to your brain after snorting heroin. This is what your body goes through. It's not over yet." She proceeds to destroy the kitchen with the frying pan, yelling things like "This is your family! These are your friends! These are your hopes, your dreams, everything you cared about before!" Then she throws down the frying pan and says "Any questions?"

Look at the ideas that were passed along in mere seconds! The first commercial had a huge impact on a lot of people because it focused on the damage that drugs do to the most important part of the human body. But it failed to address the people who were OK with mutilating themselves with drugs under the notion that it is their own body and they're not hurting anybody else. The second commercial destroys that argument, quite literally.

The commercial, if done right, has the ability to send a message in a matter of seconds. The ability to communicate that clearly is a very valuable skill in all walks of life, and those that do it better than most are highly regarded. If a commercial can show me how to be a better dad despite my career path or vividly show me why I should avoid a certain lifestyle, it has passed along a valuable message in a unique and inspiring way. And I think that's artistic.

Finally (for now), commercials can be clever, witty and funny. GEICO commercials are usually good (and it's been that way since at least 1999, when they were running hand-drawn ads during Diamondbacks games), though the caveman thing went a little too far (check out a few of them though, they still hold up). AM/PM commercials are hit or miss, but when they hit, it's usually good. The same goes for Sonic commercials. Jack in the Box commercials used to be great but they've tapered off significantly.

Beer ads are all over the place, which I assume is the product of trying to hit on every person using every method. Every now and then I see a beer ad that makes me laugh out loud, and I want to yell "Just STOP whatever else you are doing and hire those guys!" Unfortunately, they never listen to me, and we get the stupid Love Train ad nauseum.

"This is SportsCenter" are probably the funniest and most clever commercials, even if they only appeal to sports fans. If you've never seen a SportsCenter commercial, it usually involves ESPN employees casually interacting with sports celebrities in an office setting. In one ad, LeBron James (in uniform, always in uniform) enters and sits in his cubicle, but something about the chair isn't right. He looks over at the guy in the next cubicle, who is sitting in a golden throne with the name "KING JAMES" inscribed on it. LeBron says "Hey Scott, did you switch chairs with me?" "Uh, no, uh, this was already here when I sat down man... sorry." LeBron sits down in his crappy chair, dejected by the whole experience.

In an older ad, it's late at night and an ESPN employee is working when the power goes out. He grabs a flashlight, walks down to the maintenance closet where we assume the fuses are located, and opens the door to reveal Lance Armstrong wiping his forehead, sitting on a bike attached to an electric generator.
"Hey Lance, is everything OK?"
"Oh, sure, yeah, I just thought everyone had gone home. I'm fine," and starts pedaling the bike, which restores power to the building.
"Are you sure, you want me to get you a water or something?"
"No thanks, I'm good."
The ESPN employee then closes the door and heads back to his cubicle.

Mark McGwire acting like an animal in a Y2K scare.
Scott Van Pelt finding a new nickname for the Celtics Trio.
The Philly Phanatic messing with the teleprompter.
Andy Roddick's frustration that Stu Scott will not refer to him as "A-Rod" on SportsCenter.
Danica Patrick's open-wheel car towed away from the parking spot reserved for "D. Patrick" (which refers to Dan Patrick, the radio host, anchor, etc.).
Any commercial involving Dan Patrick in the locker room, talking about SportsCenter the way an athlete would talk about his latest game.

The list goes on. This is SportsCenter. This is art.

Anyway, that's about all the steam I have on this topic, for the time being. It's long and disorganized, but in case you didn't read the disclaimer before you started reading any articles in this blog... it's generally not recommended.

But to summarize this (until I edit it later with a real conclusion (read: never)), commercials are good for all the same reasons that other art is good, and they're bad for the same reasons other art is bad. Their attachment to sales, while more overt, is not significantly different from other forms of art. Finally, commercials are effective at delivering a powerful message in ways that other art forms cannot comparably achieve, especially where time used to the convey the message is involved. For these and other reasons, I submit that commercials are an art form that should not be relegated to being skipped through in all instances.

Six Years

2008-05-30T13:59:00.004-07:00

Six years ago, my best friend Garrett married the love of his life, Lauryn, an Australian by birth. Lauryn moved to the United States and immediately applied for residency, citizenship, etc. and began the naturalization process.

Six years and who knows how much money later, the United States government finally deemed it appropriate to grant Lauryn citizenship as an American. Six years after she married a U.S. citizen, and six years of living in the U.S. and abiding by the laws that govern this country--not even a speeding or parking ticket.

Six years.

Six years for someone who looks like the majority of U.S. citizens. Six years for someone associated with a peaceful religion. Six years for someone who already "speaks the language."

Now, none of those factors should be considered when determining whether an applicant should become a U.S. citizen. And yet, people exist who consider those factors important, and arguably, a few of them work in the agencies responsible for immigration and naturalization. Even so, none of those reasons apply to Lauryn.

It took six years for someone with no red flags--legitimate or illegitimate--to become a U.S. citizen. Nevermind she was married to a U.S. citizen at the time she applied for citizenship.

...Does this seem right to you?

Do not take this to mean that, because the legal process of becoming a citizen takes too long that I approve wholeheartedly of illegal residency. Instead, I suggest that one possible way to reduce illegal residency in the U.S. is to streamline the process and shrink the time it takes to become a citizen.

What is a reasonable time? I'm not sure; how long does it take to do a background check? To apply for my character and fitness portion of the bar application, I must submit a list of everywhere I've worked, every traffic ticket I've ever received, a record of every time I have been fingerprinted, etc. It takes the state bar between seven and nine months to determine if I am of proper "character and fitness" to be licensed as an attorney. Of course, there are fewer applicants for the bar than there are applicants for naturalization, but isn't the turnaround more a function of resources than applicants? In other words, shouldn't the ratio of applicants to funding/manpower be the same?

Perhaps getting an attorney licensed is more important than naturalizing citizens, but is 9 months vs. 6 years (72 months) the right ratio?

In any event, I would argue arbitrarily that we can cut this in half, and reduce the time for naturalization to three years. That should be enough time for us to discover the skeletons in a particular persons closet. If there are red flags, it should take longer. If not, move the process along.

Six years, married to a U.S. citizen, law-abiding throughout that entire time. I think that's too long to wait, and I think reducing this time will encourage more people to go through the process legally.

Herbnosis, J.D.

2008-05-30T13:53:00.002-07:00

I graduated. I thought you all should know.

2008-03-08T00:39:00.001-07:00

Forum Trash: Disneyland as a World of Warcraft Battleground

2008-03-06T12:01:00.004-07:00

NOTE: No one is going to get this. You have to be an avid World of Warcraft player who participates in Player versus Player events (PvP), AND a Disneyland fan. There's only one other person I know who is into both, and he doesn't do PvP.

So, having said that, here is the post that no one will understand:

If there's anything I know more about than Hunters, it's Disneyland.

Disneyland is a PvP battleground, but it's like AV where the objectives are more important than melting faces (in fact, you can get thrown out for this).

Have a plan, and go to the nearest objective. If you try to zerg to Small World, you're going to waste a lot of time that you could have used riding Space Mountain and Buzz Lightyear Astro Blasters. You'll notice I left out the Nemo Subs. Nemo is the Snowfall Graveyard of AV: don't take it, it's not worth it, it just leads to a three hour wait.

If the rest of your raid refuses to listen to you about zerging to Small World, here's an exploit you can use: take their tickets and get Fast Passes to Space Mountain. While the allies are waiting in line to cap, you'll quickly bypass them about two hours later FTW.

That's not really an exploit per se, so here is one: the Fast Pass has a time period in which you can return. You can't use it before the first time period, but you can use it anytime after that point, even after the end point. Why? It's the happiest place on earth! The CM (Cast Member) isn't going to penalize you for doing this, though they might gently remind you to try to come back earlier next time.

Badges: There are a ton of them, you don't have to collect all of them (or any of them). However, CMs have to trade with you as long as they don't have the badge you want to trade them. They'll even trade you epic badges (more commonly referred to as "hidden Mickeys")! This is the only way to get epic badges (that and ebay), so take advantage.

Some CMs have a backwards badge, and you can only see what it is by trading for it sight unseen. If the CM is a woman, it's probably an epic or something else good. If it's a male, watch out! It's probably gray quality or some other piece of junk.

Fantasmic!: This can be as difficult and tedious as summoning Lokholar, but it's very, very easy if you stop fighting in the road and take the high road! During the first show, take the train from Main Street to New Orleans Square. You'll bypass the first crowd (which is full of nubs who capped Nemo and came straight here to wait three hours for the first show) and be able to snag a great seat while they're clammering to get out. The alternative is to fight the crowd from the front and be forced to stand behind a tree for the second show.

Some final thoughts:

Don't try to pug DL, even as tempting as the single rider line is. Get a premade to maximize your fun.

DL PvP gear is optional, but can enhance your fun if you have the spare money lying around. But it comes enchanted, so that's something to consider.

Mickey evocates during Fantasmic! but watch out: his sword is a ranged weapon and his Power of Imagination is OP, IMO (you'll see). His loot table does not match the difficulty.

If the queue for DL BG is too long, head to California Adventure. It's not as rewarding but there are some great aspects to it. Plus, better chances for epic badges.

Avoid Nemo. Fastpass Space Mountain as often as possible, especially if you can't think of what ride you would want to do later.

Pirates and Haunted Mansion are required at some point during the BG. Teacups is highly recommended.

Indiana Jones with "well fed" food effects is not a good idea.

Peter Pan is surprisingly good. Mr. Toad is not. Neither are worth waiting in queue for two hours.

Madden Curse Update

2008-02-26T15:25:00.004-07:00

One of my first posts here was who we should slap with the next Madden Curse. It's time to take a look and see what happened with those folks, none of which made the Madden cover.

(First, I'm not going to link the original article in this post. There are like four posts on the entire blog. Scroll down.)

(Second, I'm not going to research who was on the 2008 cover. I think it was Vince Young. I don't care enough about him to discuss that, at least for now.)

Al Davis: Still alive. Still ruining the Raiders. Only the alive part is unfortunate, but if it means the Raiders still stink, I'm fine with that.

Peyton Manning: Won a Super Bowl! I should have said as much before now. Definitely not touched by the Madden Curse.

Terrell Owens: Hard to say here. Definitely not Madden Curse-esque, but perhaps a slowly unfolding disaster, like getting him within sight of the Lombardi Trophy only to continually fall short. That sort of thing can cause long term psychological damage. Perhaps the Madden Curse is more powerful than we think.

The East Coast Bias: Stronger than ever, no thanks to the Rockies. Enjoyed a brief hiatus during an Indy/Chicago Super Bowl, but rebounded quickly.

Golf: Same as ever. Tiger is still dominating, but I would rather him pitch or return kickoffs for touchdowns than have to endure golf just because that's the sport at which he chose to excel.

Tom Cruise: Analysis here will be awful, as I don't follow this sort of sludge. But I don't remember the last movie he was in--did the Samurai movie come out before or after War of the Worlds? I didn't see either of them. Based on grocery store tabloid covers, Katie Holmes appears to be doing OK, but that's all relative to how badly everyone else seems to be doing (and perhaps Cruise as well, only hiding behind the moderate success (read: no significant drug/eating disorder YET) of his... baby's mama (I don't know the status of their relationship beyond that)). On a final note, he definitely used his clout to get her a role in that awful concept of a film "Mad Money." My only question is why Queen Latifah got involved--we know Diane Keaton is spending money in droves trying to look 55 instead of 95. Isn't "Mad Money" a direct-to-video release that should star Steve Guttenberg's and Ted Danson's daughters?

(Why did I spend so much webspace on that?)

Steve Smith: Not doing so well. The Panthers didn't look good and don't seem to be getting any better soon. I feel bad; I wanted him to break the curse, not suffer for no good reason.

Randy Moss: Career turnaround with the Patriots. This is funny only because it shows how Terrell Owens is not as good, which is awful on so many levels. Both of them cause drama, but T.O. works hard and Moss doesn't. While Moss was with the Raiders, the notion that "hard work pays off" was absolutely true. Maybe this is still true--Moss arguably worked hard in New England--but the reward for taking a two-year vacation in Oakland shouldn't be flirting with an undefeated season. I'm not making sense with a lot of this, but try to focus on the fact that T.O. works and Moss didn't/doesn't, and one of them is (arguably) in a much better situation, when perhaps they should be flipflopped.

Houston Texans: (sigh) Are they getting better? I like Kubiak, but I'd much rather him be back in Denver when we were winning and at least making the playoffs. Still, I hope his team turns things around, because I like the guy.

Priest Holmes: Done. Huge bummer. But I don't care too much for KC or it's RB and coach, so whatever. Lamar Hunt deserved better than those two.

Jamal Lewis: I have a lot more respect for the guy now that he's in Cleveland. I'm not really sure why. I'm even ashamed of the things I wrote in the original post. I'm not thrilled that he diminished 2000, but I can't really blame that on him (I can blame it on Cleveland). Anyway, he's definitely turned it around in a good way.

Well, that's the breakdown. Not very informative. But hey, you get what you pay for.

More drivel that wasn't good enough for the forums: Who is the best Batman?

2008-01-14T17:15:00.002-07:00

I need to see the first one again to see what I think of Keaton.

Clooney was the only Bruce Wayne that really showed us his "international playboy" (whatever that means) side--there was no doubt in anyone's mind that Clooney was just having a good time with whatever supermodel he was attached to, and that no one was going to be falling in love. I prefer that to "let's fall in love then hurriedly explain why the chick left between movies."

Having said that, and even though I said I need to see it again, Keaton was the best Batman, and Clooney was the best Bruce Wayne.

Bale is in a different class because his movie fully develops the Batman and Bruce Wayne characters as they were forming. Bruce Wayne insulting the party guests to keep them safe is something "older" Bruce Wayne wouldn't do--he'd find a classier way to do it. Rough, unrefined Bruce Wayne is practically a different character that can't be compared to the others. His enthusiasm for the gadgets is also different--he's not used to them like "older" Batman is, so at times he's almost giddy about doing stuff that later becomes pretty routine. So I'm going to exclude Bale in my determination of whose best, except to say that he did a great job with it.

----

Incidentally, I ended up posting this on the forums after some editing (and coming to a conclusion).

Well, it's been almost a year, and...

2008-01-08T10:52:00.001-07:00

...my adoring fanbase deserves an update.

Uh, the Chargers won a playoff game! But Norv Turner still sucks, and some of the Chargers are classless (LT obviously being the exception to any bad thing I ever say about the Chargers... LT, please come to Denver).

But I didn't come here to tell you about that.

I post in several forums, very often. I post in a place called Barry's World, which is a collection of Counter-Strike clan rejects who found their own little corner of the Internet and crafted perhaps the next phase of Internet evolution: the "No being offended" rule. Seriously, once every forum figures this out, flamewars and trolling are over (or, more importantly, reduced to their comedic value without the venom).

I post on the World of Warcraft forums, the value of which, heh, is only for trolling and starting flamewars. Sometimes, it's fun to be childish, you just have to pick the right places and moments.

I post on my World of Warcraft guild forums, coordinating raid times, arena times, and sharing new tips on how to progress further into game content. If you don't know, with games like World of Warcraft, you can't beat the game by yourself like you could with Super Mario Bros. Arguably, you can't beat the game at all, but for the sake of comparison, to beat the WoW version of King Koopa, you need 24 other people to come with you and know what they're doing. Additionally, there are no warp pipes: these 24 needed to (essentially) be with you through levels 6-1 through 8-3, without skipping a step in between. SOOOO, communication is invaluable to "beat the game," and talking while you are actually playing doesn't always further that goal. So, I post on those forums too.

By the way, I split infinitives. Always. So does Jean-Luc Picard before every episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. If you can find a better way to say "to boldly go" and still make it sound as cool without causing confusion with the meaning, please, instruct me. You will fail. But hopefully you will also learn to split your infinitives. Don't limit your language the way others have limited theirs. "To" is seperate. Use it to your advantage.

Back to the convoluted point: Oftentimes, I will post something rather lengthy on one of these forums, edit it a few times, then realize that no one who reads it is going to give two poops about what I wrote. Or, to be a little more clear, the content and style of my post is inappropriate for the maturity or attention span of the forum audience.

At the same time, I have this blog I haven't touched for a year.

So, I decided in the last ten minutes that, rather than simply erase those lengthy forums posts (or worse, post them in hopes of vibrant response), I will post them here for all of you (all two of you) to read. The content will not always be decipherable, but I tend to use analogies when I can, so maybe there will be something there that's worth reading. And maybe not. If nothing else, it will be a depository of thoughts I had on varied subjects... which is somewhat what a blog is supposed to be.

Did you get all that?

So, here's the most recent lengthy post that I decided NOT to post (cut short somewhat, once I realized I had no intention of actually posting this):

I played EQ2 for six months and raided the high end content (back when level 50 was the cap).

I loved the crafting. It was a lot of fun, but kind of broken because no one wanted to buy anything of the first three quality levels, and it was easy to make the best quality item, so those other items were sort of fluff. I'm generalizing, because quality level 2 items served a purpose, albeit a force-fed, unnecessary purpose.

Raiding was sort of bleh, with one exception: the Darathar fight. The rest of it, as I understood it, didn't require much coordination. I know Shade of Aran is an easy fight, but consider the stuff you have to know and do to stay alive. I don't remember anything as complicated as that in EQ2--and if it was, it was to compensate for glaring BUGS in the fight and not intended obstacles. Even Darathar is like a dumbed-down Nightbane: Stand behind his right foot, don't draw agro, heal up when he flies away (and Darathar didn't drop any adds on you). Having never played EQ1, but hearing about how complex it is, Darathar is an example of dumbed-down content.

Again, before you bash me, remember this was level 50 content. So much might have changed by now (for instance, there was NO pvp at that point).

The reason I left is my version of how SOE is basically beta-testing their live content through paid subscriptions and screwing the player over without good reason. I played a Troubadour, and I didn't know when I started, but basically I was a physical DPS buffbot. Everyone loved me and if I was on at the starting time, I was always selected for raids, because Rangers (who suck, btw) love to see their DPS go through the roof when a Troubadour is in the party.

Then the SOE "big change nerf" hit. Basically, SOE changed my character completely--instead of buffing physical DPS, I was buffing magic DPS. But Troubadours aren't casters, so I had no idea which of my new, revamped buffs were most beneficial to casters and which, though sounding cool, were broken and useless. Also, because I wasn't a caster, my buffs didn't do anything to buff ME, which killed my solo ability--I could still get some stuff done, but not nearly as easily as before. Put simply, it was like starting from zero, having to learn my character all over again. MY character, that I leveled to 50, starting out with zero knowledge. I might as well have just bought the character off of Ebay for how much I knew how to use it at that point.

So, I quit and didn't play anything else for a year and a half until TBC came out.

Maybe EQ2 has fixed the issues that made me quit, but I'm having way more fun in WoW than I ever did in EQ2. I'm not really going to analyze why, either.

Anti-Martyball?

2007-01-14T19:52:00.002-07:00

Marty Schottenheimer had a new trick this season, a trick that would silence the Martyball critics and lead his team to playoff victory. Schottenheimer is known for becoming too conservative with play calling once his team gets to the playoffs. This season, however, Marty handed the play calling to his offensive coordinator, even during the regular season.

The difference was immediately noticeable. LaDanian Tomlinson broke several records as the play calls took the handcuffs off of him and the rest of the team. Even on nights when the dominant defense collapsed, the supercharged offensive found a way to win.

Enter Week Two of the playoffs. This is the time when old Marty would call conservative plays and ruin the game. Instead, the play calling was perhaps too gutsy, and probably lost the game for San Diego. A few examples:

Going for it on 4th and 11: In what realm does this make sense? I understand the Chargers were at that tricky spot where punting isn't a great option, but 4th and 11? It wasn't even 4th and 7, to show that the offense had made SOME progress: they had three downs to get progress and they LOST a yard.

The possession right after the Patriots tied the game: First down: Tomlinson, 6 yards. Second and Third downs: Incomplete pass. Conservative Marty would have run the ball two more times, and with the NFL MVP as your running back, you can't really blame him. If the Patriots had been able to stop LT--and that's a very big if--you say good effort by the Pats and move along. No one would criticize Marty for trying to use his best player to get the first down and move the ball. Instead, the Anti-Marty calls for two pass plays that STOP THE CLOCK and punt the ball away. Boo.

On the other hand, there were some player errors that come back to nerves or training, and that is a reflection on Marty (specifically, Parker trying to grab the muffed punt instead of fall on it). Brady's third INT that got them a new set of downs was a very strange situation, but all that needed to happen was for the player to either swat the ball away, or hold onto it. In both these situations, the conservative play--falling on the ball, swatting it away--would have been the better play.

Still, look at the two playcalling situations--the non-field goal, and the two passing calls on the last possession--and this game came down to two non-conservative calls that cost the Chargers the game.

Sometimes a little Marty goes a long way. But more importantly:

Just give the ball to LaDanian. Especially when you need the big play.

State of the Gamer: Final Fantasy III (DS)

2007-01-03T16:01:00.003-07:00

Christmas came, and I received two Final Fantasy games: FF3 (Nintendo DS) and FF5 (GBA). Since FF3 was only my second game for the DS, I played that one first.

SquareEnix recreated an old 2D Japanese-only classic into a 3D stylus-enabled adventure. Since I mentioned it: the stylus. Again, this is only my second DS game, but the use of the stylus in this game is pretty... useful. I could easily see somebody using the stylus for the entire game. However, it's not required, and the basic controls still function the same way as any FF game.

The 3D feature is nice. It appeared a bit blocky at first, but still preferable to the normal 2D stuff. Plus, it probably looks better than an FF7 port would.

The game has a WiFi feature that allows you to send mail to other FF3 players as well as NPCs in the game. All of these are required to open up some of the games secrets. The only frustrating thing about this are that you have to start mailing early, or you may find yourself tinkering with your DS clock to overcome the "1 mailing per hour" rule. Also, the button for the spacebar is NOT on the same page with the alphabet, but fortunately no one sends real messages to each other--they just post their Friend Code on a website and send nearly blank messages to get the unlocks. On the other hand, the game allows you to send weapons to your friends as well, though only at a certain point, and only the master weapons and armors. Still, pretty nifty function!

The story is good, if not choppy, but I can't really complain about this since it is only the third installment. The story is much more involved and much better than FF1 (and I haven't touched FF2, despite having it on PSone and GBA).

The gameplay is really intriguing. Your character can take on around 20 jobs, meaning you have the ultimate freedom to choose whatever you want for your characters. I took one character to Job level 99 Thief... and then realized there is only one worthwhile thing to steal in the entire game, and I probably wasn't going to use it. The variety is great and adds to replayability.

My biggest complaint is that the characters are not very personalized. Because they can have any job, you never get a sense of what they REALLY are. Great for playability, bad for character development. But worse than all of that... the first character you control is a dude who looks like a chick. Maybe this is to make up for the fact that there is only one female playable character, but I wish they had simply made it two girls and two guys, rather than two guys, one girl and "Pat."

Overall, this game is a lot of fun. Beyond what I have already mentioned, I especially enjoyed three different types of airships and the limitations imposed on each. If you're a fan of Final Fantasy, this is a must-have. But aren't they all? (Remember, Mystic Quest, just like Rocky V, DID NOT HAPPEN).

Bill Simmons on McGwire and the Hall of Fame

2007-01-03T16:00:00.002-07:00

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070103

Great article.

Darrent Williams and Ebay

2007-01-03T15:19:00.002-07:00

If you are a Broncos fan, or an avid reader of ESPN.com, you are likely aware that CB Darrent Williams died in a drive-by shooting on New Year's Eve, hours after losing to the 49ers in overtime and missing the playoffs.

Before his passing, a search of Darrent Williams on Ebay yielded maybe five entries, all jersey cards for very little money. Afterwards? Six pages of memorabilia.

There are (at least) three reasons why this is bothersome:

1. Darrent Williams only means something to Broncos fans. He doesn't have the universal appeal of a Reggie White, where non-Eagles/Packers/Panthers fans also love the player. The Ebayers are not providing a service--making jerseys available to those outside of Denver--they are simply making a buck. I understand both sets of Ebayers are interested in the money and NOT in providing a service, but our attitude about it is different (see below).

2. The violent nature of Darrent Williams's death makes the Ebayers more like vultures than when an athlete dies of natural causes. When Reggie White died, Ebay was flooded with his memorabilia as well. But Reggie was out of football four years, and health-related deaths are easier to understand (though potentially just as surprising and tragic). Our attitude is different. With Reggie, it was a feeling of loss and sympathy, but with Darrent we have those plus anger and frustration, maybe insecurity. Then we see someone hawking his stuff, and it's not the same. It's opportunistic and disgusting, especially because...

3. Darrent Williams's memorabilia is not going to be worth anything ten years from now, while Reggie White's definitely will be. So sellers are targetting emotional buyers right now and selling them a product that will only go down in value. Of course, plenty of sellers do this all the time, but in those instances, the reason for the increased demand in the product is not caused by a homicide.

The selling is OK, it's the gouging that is atrocious. Of course, if the price is too high, no one will buy. Is this a sick of example of "the market working itself out?" Maybe.

A Link from TheOnion

2006-11-16T15:18:00.000-07:00

Tampa Bay Buccaneers Take Chance On Long-Lost Fourth Manning Brother

Farewell to Gonzo

2006-10-02T15:56:00.002-07:00

On Sunday, October 1, 2006, Luis "Gonzo" Gonzalez played his final baseball game as an Arizona Diamondback. The club informed Gonzo and the media nearly a month ago that it would not exercise it's option to retain Gonzo for another year. The Diamondbacks claim they are going for a "youth movement," but I think they meant to say "bowel movement."

Gonzo's Skills Have Declined, But...
Luis Gonzalez is not the player he used to be. At 39 years old, he has come a long way since his 2001 season when he hit 57 home runs, won the Home Run Derby, and scored the winning hit in the 2001 World Series that ended the Yankee dynasty (from which they have still not recovered). Having said all this, letting Gonzo go was not the right move, especially for a new front office that has no fan support.

In addition to sending Gonzo packing, the club axed Craig Counsell and Miguel Batista, the last three players left from the 2001 World Series team (Bob Melvin and Jay Bell remain as manager and bench coach, respectively). Of course, both Batista and Counsell have left the team before but were called back to Arizona. Counsell is currently in the Top Five Diamondbacks of All Time list (that's not an official list, but just ask any Diamondbacks fan), but it is his time to go with the early emergence of Stephen Drew at shortstop. Miguel Batista has never been a dominant pitcher, but he also hasn't declined since 2001 either. On top of being one of the nicest guys in baseball--the nicest according to Sports Illustrated, who bestowed him that honor after learning of his extensive charity work--Batista is a solid third or fourth starter that can still contribute on a young team. Batista could and should stay, but the front office has other things in mind.

The New Front Office Ditches Purple and Colangelo
Starting next season, the Diamondbacks will play in red and brown instead of their original purple, copper and teal. This is another new choice by the Diamondbacks front office, and a choice that remains wildly unpopular with the fanbase. The color change--along with the personnel change--is one more step in the new direction of the new Diamondbacks front office: as far away from Jerry Colangelo as possible.

Colangelo brought sports to the Valley with the Phoenix Suns. Since then, he brought us the Coyotes, Rattlers and Diamondbacks. Over the years, Colangelo assembled winning teams and never assembled lackluster rosters like another Arizona franchise I know. Colangelo brought Arizona it's first and only professional sports championship with the 2001 World Series victory. But for some reason, the Diamondbacks hotshots shoved Colangelo out the back door. That "reason" is probably along the lines of greed and glory, but that doesn't give anyone the excuse to kick your founding father in the teeth. Whoever these dimwits are--I don't know their names, because they're not important--they seem to fancy themselves as Stalin to Colangelo's Trotsky, only Mexico is a lot closer to Arizona than it is to Mother Russia.

What does all of this have to do with Gonzo's final game?
After the game, the new president of the Diamondbacks--again, I don't know his name--hosted a "Farewell to Gonzo and Counsell" ceremony. The whole affair was bittersweet: here we are saying goodbye to two of the greatest Diamondbacks in the club's short history, and we're totally ignoring the fact that the two still want to play, and still want to play for this team. We're totally ignoring the fact that the person responsible for them leaving at all is standing right next to them, pretending to be their friend, even offering them their own replica of the World Series trophy as belated hush money to atone for his sins. He gave those same trophies to Jerry Colangelo, former general manager Joe Garagiola, Jr., and outgoing Diamondbacks president Rich Dozer. These five men stood together, fully knowledgeable of the snow job the new guy was putting on, but so calloused against the new management that they hardly cared about the farcical display.

Gonzo momentarily addressed the crowd in a farewell address, but his words rang hollow: his heart wasn't in it. He was too honest to lie, and too honorable to bash the organization that shut the door in his face. When you can't lie and you can't tell the truth, you're left with nothing.

The fans who stayed around for Gonzo's farewell enjoyed their last opportunity to see him as a Diamondback, but it was unfulfilling because every fan knew that it didn't have to be this way. Yet, Gonzo deserved for his fans to support him, so we stayed to show him that support, with tearful eyes of loss and bitterness for the new organization instead of tears of joy and nostalgia for the tremendous gifts Gonzo gave Arizona with athletic play and community leadership.

State of the Gamer: Battlefield 2

2006-10-02T15:42:00.001-07:00

So I finally get into the 21st century by dropping one of my text-based Internet games (too involving for a text game) and picking up a copy of Battlefield 2. I like to wait for the first price cut or a sale before buying a game, and it only took about 18 months for BF2 to go for less than $50. Needless to say, I'm a bit behind the current wave, but I'm enjoying the game nonetheless.

Battlefield 2 is a first-person shooter (FPS) with a modern warfare theme. The object is to make the opponent lose all his "tickets." To accomplish this, players interact as a team to take over capture points (flags) and, of course, kill each other.

My favorite role is the medic, who predictably is armed with med packs he can distribute to his teammates for points. The medic is also armed with a defibrillator, used to bring fallen teammates back from the dead! Since I did extensive work with defibrillators (read: changed their batteries) when I worked for the American Red Cross, I rightly assumed the role of medic would suit me perfectly.

The game keeps track of your stats, so you can brag to all the 15-year-olds how "1337" you are and how much you "pwnzor" with the "noob tube." I don't do any of that, mostly because I am not "1337" (or "elite," for those who read English and not morontype). Above are my stats in the form of a forum signature. Some of those stats must be broken; most significantly, kill streak. I've barely killed 20 people in one round (to win my silver Veteran Medic Combat Badge), and I died at least 10 times in that run. So where did I get 30? Not like I'm going to have them fix this glitch anytime soon, though. It's my only potential link to "1337ness".

Battlefield 2 is a lot of fun and it holds my attention. That's all I ask for, really.

The Madden Curse: Who's Next?

2006-09-26T08:51:00.001-07:00

Now that Shaun Alexander's broken foot reaffirmed the power of the Madden Curse, I feel it's our duty as sports fans and concerned world citizens to come up with the next Madden cover person. We have almost a year to figure this out, but it never hurts to start thinking of candidates, especially since there is no current device to "elect" the next Madden Curse victim.

Here's my list of Madden Curse hopefuls:

Al Davis: The Raiders are horrible and Al Davis has been sucking from the unholy teat of inexplicable undeath for far too long. If the Madden Curse can keep the Raiders horrible or somehow cause Al Davis' death... YES.

Peyton Manning: This beloved commercial star and superior quarterback graced the cover of every OTHER football video game except Madden, and all he's had is success (well, in the regular season). I'm sure plenty of people would love to see him carted off in a gurney or throwing 30 INTs in a season. I don't really care either way, but it seems like it needs to happen.

Terrell Owens: He's thrown so many teammates, teams and coaches under the bus over the years. Physical injury is too predictable, and Kobe proved that the rape allegation doesn't have the same power it used to. How about a cocaine habit coming to light? He's in Dallas; after all, Michael Irvin experienced problems with coke and he's still not in the Hall of Fame. It seems fitting, so coke it is. Madden Curse, please make this happen.

The East Coast Bias: If we can shove all the New York and Boston athletes onto one cover, not so that each of them will be individually cursed but so that collectively they will receive less attention--even just for one year--the rest of the nation would be grateful. Tom Brady, Derek Jeter, David Ortiz, Tiki Barber, Eli Manning--these are all great athletes, but I'm tired of hearing about them and their teams.

Golf: Since I've already deviated (briefly?) from people who might actually make the Madden cover, let's go ahead and throw golf in there. It's boring, it excludes those who can't afford it, and it only features one true athlete: Tiger Woods. I do love that the one true athlete dominates all the pudgy players, but that does that mean we should keep golf? It's like keeping the XFL just because we love the mysterious player name "He Hate Me." Slap golf on the Madden cover, insert Tiger into a different sport, and let's be done with the whole thing.

Tom Cruise: This guy is nuts, we all know he's nuts, yet people still follow his every move and pay way too much to see his movies. Put Cruise on the Madden cover so we can expose the ultimate dirty secret that will lead to his imprisonment, banishment or murder spree (although let's hope he doesn't actually murder anybody so much as just try really hard and make a fool of himself).

Steve Smith: This move I actually favor for the opposite reason: Smith is the kind of guy that gets fired up in the face of adversity. Give him a Madden cover and he will fight the curse with vigor. The chip on his shoulder will carry him and the Panthers to an undefeated season and a Super Bowl victory. I'm not a Panthers fan by any means, but I would love to see Steve Smith as that kind of force, and I would really love someone besides the Dolphins having an undefeated season.

Players who have seemingly already been hit by the Madden Curse:

Randy Moss: Exiled to Raiders hell. Does he deserve it? Probably. Still, it's a drag to be hit by the Madden Curse without the actual thrill of being on the cover of the game.

Houston Texans: 'nuff said.

Priest Holmes: If there was any player who deserved to make the Madden cover, it's Priest Holmes. Now he may never return at all, much less to his former NFL glory.

Jamal Lewis: The Anti-Holmes in many respects, this guy got what he deserved. First, he racked up a 2,000+ yard season, and everyone thought that he was IT. Did everyone ignore the fact he racked up 600+ yards in two games against an atrocious Cleveland Browns team? His 2,000 yard season tarnished Terrell Davis's similar record AND reaffirmed what the pundits like to repeat from time to time: O.J. Simpson, the first 2,000 yard rusher, did it in just 14 games. Anytime you can contribute to making O.J. Simpson look better, you need to contemplate your actions and reconsider your direction in life. Of course, Jamal Lewis went to prison for his role in a cocaine deal, and hasn't been the same since. [Insert random prison/sexual orientation joke here.]

If you're not familiar with the Madden Curse, read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madden_NFL#The_.22Madden_Curse.22

Post your suggestions!

Law and Video Games

2006-08-08T00:07:00.000-07:00

The correct answer to the most important things in my life are God, my wife, my family and my friends, in that order.

The next two foci, however, are law and video games, and those two compete for time and importance on a daily basis.

Usually, the law wins out, by virtue of the time requirement and the costly investment made towards my education. However, when the law becomes too tedious, I must "win" at something else to restore some confidence and learn to approach the problem in new ways. When that happens, I turn to video games for a quick ego boost. Right now, I'm playing two internet TEXT-BASED games (not totally unlike "Thy Dungeonman" but with other foolish "real-life" souls involved to bask in our collaborative desperation) and a GameBoy Advance game (Fire Emblem: Sacred Stones).

The point in telling you all this: most of these posts will be about the law or video games (or both). If you want warm fuzzy things, maybe my wife will make one of these and I'll link to her page.