A few weekends ago, Mrs. The Jim and I went to an all-day childbirth class at the hospital. I had a feeling it would be either incredibly boring, inherently ridiculous, or some combination thereof. Given this assessment, I decided to take notes throughout just in case.
So, I now present to you My Running Commentary of Childbirth Class:
8:50 AM: We arrive in the hospital parking lot. I grab the prerequisite pillows and blankets and we head inside. I already feel like a cliché.
8:55 AM: We hit the classroom, and there are already 7 couples. One guy has come in wearing a visor, cargo shorts, and flip flops. Apparently, we interrupted his golf game ... or maybe a booze cruise.
8:56 AM: The guy who just sat down at the front of the classroom literally has more product in his hair than all of the women put together.
9:18 AM: We're forced to go around the room and "tell a little about ourselves". I really hate things like this.
9:25 AM: We've gone around the room. Out of 20 couples, only 1 group refused to find out the gender of the baby. Seriously? Birth of a child isn't enough of a big event, you also need the surprise of "guess the genitalia"? I already distrust those people!
9:45 AM: The nurse teaching the class suggests salmon as an excellent source of nutrients for expectant mothers. This peaks my attention, only because it gives me an excuse to find some new grilling recipes for fish.
9:55 AM: The nurse tells us she's "half hippie and half clinician." I hate to tell her, but we all knew that the moment she walked in.
10:02 AM: Half-Hippie-Nurse pulls out a model of a uterus, and it's ... some sort-of knitted, striped, woolen bag-thing. If that's medically accurate, that would explain why my wife is always so hot - her internal organs are comprised of sweaters!
10:21 AM: We all have to close our eyes for a "relaxation exercise." This doesn't sound good.
10:25 AM: "Visualize your vertebrae separating." "Let out a heavy sigh - almost with an emphasis on the letter H." (I have NO idea how to do either one of these things.)
10:40 am: I blame my wife for this. Not because she's pregnant, but because this is HER hospital that is subjecting me to this!
10:43 AM: Nurse/hippie compares a woman in labor to an athlete. She specifically mentions Dirk Nowitzki. I don't have an issue with comparing labor to athletics ... I just find the image of a skinny, 7-foot German dude giving birth to be a funny visual.
10:55 AM: We've identified the Teacher's Suck-Up for the class. The woman at the very front makes sure to let the teacher know that she's experienced every one of these pre-labor symptoms ... as if she's better at pregnancy than the rest of the group!
11:08 AM: When Nurse Hippie turns the lights back on, Visor Boy makes sure to put his little hat back on too. I guess the florescent lights were getting in his eyes.
11:43 AM: Movie Time! And even though this is a state-of-the-art facility, they're still using VHS tapes for their classes. Do they even make VHS tapes any more?
11:44 AM: The first woman they show is wearing some sort of headband/tiara. This is the only thing I will get out of this entire movie.
12:10 PM: Time for lunch. Since this is Mrs. The Jim's hospital, we get the employee discount. A Chicken Cordon Bleu sandwich never tasted so good!
1:34 PM: The following was uttered by Nurse Hippie and is offered without comment: "I'm proud to say - we have the balls!"
1:36 PM: I can't really read my notes here, but it looks like, "Pre turf sound. Soft warm soup." This may be the stretch when the entire class was tripping on acid.
1:41 PM: We're in the midst of another relaxation exercise. She tells us, "Notice how that relaxes your jaw." I don't. Somehow, I can't even relax correctly.
1:45 PM: She tells us to "make it tight & stiff." It takes every fiber of my being to not shout out, "That's what she said!"
1:54 PM: Nurse Hippie gives half of the couples a bunch of Pool Noodles, and the other half some paint rollers. Essentially, we are paying a woman to make us look like buffoons.
2:41 PM: Movie time #2. I've just realized that the narrator sounds like the woman who narrated my safety training videos at work. This woman either has a great voice, or just knows a lot about multiple topics.
2:50 PM: My flu-ridden wife just turned, faced me, and coughed directly into my face. Beyond having the stress of becoming a father, I now also have the plague!
3:23 PM: We FINALLY get to go on the tour of the maternity section. I now know where to park. Thus concludes the only bit of information I really wanted to obtain.
3:32 PM: Nurse Hippie is shaking a pregnant woman. I'm sure there's a good reason ... but don't people go to prison for this?
4:10 PM: And we're finally dismissed. Now we apparently know everything required to endure labor. Fortunately, we're paying a bunch of doctors to keep things straight, because I clearly am out of my element.
Actually, I'm sure the people who are going to deal with labor got a lot out of this. As we're going straight to C-Section, though, it was probably more entertainment than anything else.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Angry Letter #1: Ivan Maisel
I love to write. I have a tendency to be an incredibly sarcastic ass.These elements often lead me to write angry or hostile letters. Typically, they are in relation to some sort of customer service conflict that I want to bring to light.
As I've decided to expand my horizons, I thought I'd share these with my scant listeners as a new regular item.
...
I went to Texas A&M University for BS and Master's degrees. As some of you may be aware, Texas A&M recently decided to make a big change athletically, as they will now be playing in the Southeastern Conference. Many consider this to be a major step up in competition, and there's every chance that A&M will get beaten down for a while until they get adjusted.
Regardless, A&M has received a considerable amount of criticism for this move. Far more, I might add, then other schools who have made conference switches in recent years.
One of these other schools was Texas Christian University (TCU). They recently made plans to move into A&M's soon-to-be former conference, the Big 12.
Well, after reading coverage on that event, one particular columnist perturbed me to an abnormal level. So, I thought I'd shoot him an e-mail. The following is a word-for-word duplication. Please enjoy.
To: ivan.maisel@espn.com
Subject: TCU's great new conference move!
This is a bit long, so I apologize in advance ...
On September 26, Texas A&M announced they were moving to the SEC. The 3 main reasons stated were conference stability, better exposure, and greater financial opportunities.
On October 10, TCU announces a move to the Big 12. They seemingly have made this move for greater exposure, better conference stability, and greater financial opportunities.
Texas A&M had made a commitment to the Big 12 one year earlier. When the powers-that-be felt the conference arrangement had changed unacceptably, they rescinded.
TCU made a commitment to the Big East one year ago (after ditching the Mountain West). When their powers-that-be felt the conference arrangement had changed unacceptably, they rescinded.
Texas A&M will reestablish long-standing, historic rivalries with Arkansas and LSU (and has firmly held a desire to keep the rivalry game with Texas going out of conference.)
TCU will reestablish long-standing, historic rivalries with Texas, Texas Tech, and Baylor.
On Sep 8, you made sure to take a shot at Texas A&M in your "3 Point Stance":Texas A&M president R. Bowen Loftin didn’t need to wrap himself in the American flag Wednesday. “We're being told that, ‘You must stay here against your will,’” Loftin said, “and we think that really flies in the face of what makes us Americans…and makes us free people.” Loftin might think twice about extolling patriotic attributes when A&M is turning its back on a league it pledged to support a year ago. You want to leave? Fine. But Americans like people who stand by their friends through thick and thin, too.
On September 25, you published a rant / hatchet job claiming that Texas A&M. Some of your lines:- The Aggies are McFly in "Back to the Future," Private Pyle in "Full Metal Jacket.
- Never has one school combined an indomitable spirit with such a domitable football team.
- Them being so full of themselves may have made Aggie jokes resonate to the rest of us.
- All this because Texas A&M decided pride in being an Aggie wasn't enough.
- Regional rivalries, the lifeblood of the sport, are tossed aside like the unsold items in a tag sale.
- Texas A&M traded in 117 years of tradition because it didn't think Texas played fair. Talk about not playing fair -- all of us are paying a price, too.
On October 10, you gushed over the greatness of TCU ditching the Big East for the Big 12. Some of your lines:- TCU has dreamed of this day ever since the Big Eight and four of the Horned Frogs' Southwest Conference brethren left the Horned Frogs at the curb in 1994.
- Unlike the other schools that have brought realignment into the headlines this year, TCU is joining a new conference because of geography, tradition and history, rather than in spite of them.They must be feeling very satisfied in Fort Worth today.
Let's not forget that Syracuse and Pittsburgh are bolting the Big East for the ACC. In a chat you had the following exchange (http://m.espn.go.com/general/chat/chat?eventId=40354&page=1&wjb=):Q: Do you see either Pitt/Syracuse or more probably the ACC backtracking on their decision now? I realize that's a PR nightmare, but really do those schools really add that much to the pie?
A: They add TV footprint to the ACC. They add basketball value to a league that has a lot of basketball tradition (and value). I think it's a smart play by the ACC.
Now, I'm sure you have a list of reasons that will show how much smarter you are than me, and that I just don't get the differences between these situations. Maybe you're right, and Texas A&M is the Evil Empire who acted to destroy all of college sports (seeing as there have only been a scant 61 conference moves since 1940 (http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/conference-realignment-isnt-evil-its-evolution/). This one move by this one school surely will destroy the universe.
And I guess the ACC and Syracuse/Pitt are just making good business decisions, as I don't see them getting ridiculed by a national columnist.
Or maybe TCU is such a heart-warming, fluffy kitten of a story that it is exempt from any and all criticism.
I mean, it's certainly not possible that your complete lack of consistency isn't editorially directed. Not when your employer has a contractual agreement to strengthen one Big 12 conference member over another. Not when your employer has been INSTRUCTING CONFERENCES WHICH SCHOOLS TO PILLAGE FROM OTHER CONFERENCES: http://www.businessinsider.com/scandal-espn-told-acc-which-teams-to-take-from-big-east-conference-2011-10
I was just curious if you were going to address your complete lack of consistency and your employer's lack of credibility on this issue, or if you'd brush it aside and assume no one would notice. I don't expect a response ... like I said, I'm sure I'm just too stupid to see the nuance.
Maybe it can come up in one of your droll tweets, or your little 3 Point Stance column. That'd be fun.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
I Disappoint Again!
Yes, I clearly suck! You know what I've figured out, though?
1. When I had nothing to do at work, it was a whole lot easier to write regularly. While it's nice to be actually needed and appreciated, it doesn't really help me continue my non-paying writing career. I mean, my 2+ readers are quite demanding!
2. If you're not committed to something, it's hard to stay at it. I never really loved the whole "review everything" idea - I just couldn't think of a better format or overriding topic. You've all seen how well that's turned out.
3. Getting ready for your 1st child is time consuming. We're constantly doing things like registries, cleaning out rooms, looking for furniture, etc. Of course, I'll have all the time in the world once the baby's born, right?
So here's the deal: I've changed my mind once again.
The last blog died out, and I felt I needed a new start. So, I'm scrapping the "reviews only" theme. I'll occasionally put out shorter posts (although it's not that easy for me to not ramble that long.
As soon as I put this up, I'm going to put up another something pretty soon. By taking some restrictions off of me, my hope is I get back in the swing and get better at this.
The whole reason I started was because I love to write. It's about time I got back to it!
1. When I had nothing to do at work, it was a whole lot easier to write regularly. While it's nice to be actually needed and appreciated, it doesn't really help me continue my non-paying writing career. I mean, my 2+ readers are quite demanding!
2. If you're not committed to something, it's hard to stay at it. I never really loved the whole "review everything" idea - I just couldn't think of a better format or overriding topic. You've all seen how well that's turned out.
3. Getting ready for your 1st child is time consuming. We're constantly doing things like registries, cleaning out rooms, looking for furniture, etc. Of course, I'll have all the time in the world once the baby's born, right?
So here's the deal: I've changed my mind once again.
The last blog died out, and I felt I needed a new start. So, I'm scrapping the "reviews only" theme. I'll occasionally put out shorter posts (although it's not that easy for me to not ramble that long.
As soon as I put this up, I'm going to put up another something pretty soon. By taking some restrictions off of me, my hope is I get back in the swing and get better at this.
The whole reason I started was because I love to write. It's about time I got back to it!
Monday, September 5, 2011
The Street Lawyer
Let's get all literary! We're looking at 1998's The Street Lawyer by John Grisham.
BACKGROUND
Anybody who was kicking around during the 90's was hit over the head with John Grisham. He was one of the biggest authors during the decade, and he was especially beloved by Hollywood given the string of book-to-film adaptions he had.
Now most of my "reading" includes pictures of robots, aliens, or ultra-rich orphans who battle evil with punching. I will, however, occasionally stray into the realm of the "word book". One of those times is when I'm traveling, especially by air. I have no idea when I actually bought The Street Lawyer, but I feel pretty confident this was one of those times. I also feel pretty confident that the flight was pretty quick, because I never read this thing at all.
I started cleaning out my bookcase a few months ago, and I found a number of books that I had never gotten around to reading. And, because my life is just that exciting, I decided to finally crack this bad boy open.
THE RUNDOWN
The story is similar to other Grisham novels ... only in that it involves a lawyer. The similarities pretty much end there.
The story resolves around a DC attorney named Michael Brock. We begin as some random homeless guy (called "Mister") waltzes in and takes a conference room full of attorneys hostage. When SWAT eventually puts a few rounds through Mister's head, the entire roomful of lawyers is saved. Brock, however, is deeply affected and decides to track down who this guy really was.
Once he learns about the plight of the homeless, he decides that he'll throw it all away and become a volunteer attorney/advocate for them. As a complete side story, he starts looking into Mister's past, and determines he may have been unlawfully evicted. After some research and digging, he ... you know what? I'm getting bored just writing this. Let's just say things happen that you won't care about, and we'll move on.
THE GOOD PARTS
It wasn't horrible. That's about the best thing I can say for this. I've tried to get through some dreadful books before, and this wasn't really one of them.
I guess Grisham also managed to make me somewhat care about minor, boring legal crap. Legal rules of eviction? Methods to ensure receipt of VA benefits? These are not exactly pulse-pounding subjects, and yet I was mildly interested in them as the story progressed.
THE CRAP PARTS
Most of Grisham's stories transcend the law. The Firm involves the mob. The Pelican Brief includes assassination, political corruption, and a crazy billionaire. The Chamber and A Time to Kill have the KKK. These are legal thrillers in the truest sense of the word. The law is a backdrop, but not the crucial element. You could have made those stories about journalists or cops and probably not lost a beat.
The Street Lawyer completely left the "thriller" part out of the "legal thriller." The story involves proving whether or not an eviction was legal. Seriously. That's it! While I'm sure an illegal eviction is horrible when it happens in real life, it's not exactly about to elicit a high speed chase.
The key "defendants"? They're all dead. There's a giant lawsuit planned, but none of the victims will likely get any money. Again, why should I care?
The other major plot point is that Brock gets the evidence by stealing a file from his old firm. This isn't a new concept, as The Firm had something similar. However, the lawyer in The Firm was concerned about getting killed. The lawyer in The Street Lawyer is trying to avoid getting disbarred and possible jail time. That's it! There's no bomb to defuse, no daughter who needs an operation, nothing. Just some rich lawyer in DC who may have to get another job and do some time FOR A CRIME HE COMMITTED! My apathy was palpable towards this guy.
FINAL JUDGEMENT
Grisham is pretty well-established as a bleeding-heart type, which is fine. He weaves anti-racisim, environmental concern, and opposition to the death penalty into his novels, and they still work. He's typically not too preachy - it's just an element of the story.
The Street Lawyer was apparently written after he was exposed to some homeless legal defense centers. The story is maybe a little more preachy than normal, but not so much that it's annoying. The bigger problem, though, is that Grisham forgot to actually write a plot.
Listen, the man's books aren't fine literature. My children aren't going to be reading these for a Fine Arts class, and no one is going to confuse these with Hemingway or Steinbeck. Still, they're amusing. I'm not going to mistake Captain America for Casablanca, but that doesn't mean Captain America was a bad movie. (Side note: it's pretty awesome!)
Grisham managed to leave the parts of the story that were uninteresting (the law) and took out the good stuff (the action or suspense). What's even more frustrating is that it didn't have to be like this. Are you telling me he couldn't mold a story where some homeless guy is being hunted down because he witnessed a crime, or he used to be a hitman, or something like that? When I read John Grisham, I have a certain expectation. This thing did NOT meet it.
Overall, I'm pretty ambivalent about this book. My suggestion would be don't bother to buy it, but if you're bored, and it's the only book around, it might be worth your time. That's probably about all I can say for it - it allows you to waste some time!
(Maybe they should put that quote on the cover for the next printing.)
Well, that's it for now. I know I'm behind schedule, so I'll try to get another post soon in order to catch up.
Later!
BACKGROUND
Anybody who was kicking around during the 90's was hit over the head with John Grisham. He was one of the biggest authors during the decade, and he was especially beloved by Hollywood given the string of book-to-film adaptions he had.
Now most of my "reading" includes pictures of robots, aliens, or ultra-rich orphans who battle evil with punching. I will, however, occasionally stray into the realm of the "word book". One of those times is when I'm traveling, especially by air. I have no idea when I actually bought The Street Lawyer, but I feel pretty confident this was one of those times. I also feel pretty confident that the flight was pretty quick, because I never read this thing at all.
I started cleaning out my bookcase a few months ago, and I found a number of books that I had never gotten around to reading. And, because my life is just that exciting, I decided to finally crack this bad boy open.
THE RUNDOWN
The story is similar to other Grisham novels ... only in that it involves a lawyer. The similarities pretty much end there.
The story resolves around a DC attorney named Michael Brock. We begin as some random homeless guy (called "Mister") waltzes in and takes a conference room full of attorneys hostage. When SWAT eventually puts a few rounds through Mister's head, the entire roomful of lawyers is saved. Brock, however, is deeply affected and decides to track down who this guy really was.
Once he learns about the plight of the homeless, he decides that he'll throw it all away and become a volunteer attorney/advocate for them. As a complete side story, he starts looking into Mister's past, and determines he may have been unlawfully evicted. After some research and digging, he ... you know what? I'm getting bored just writing this. Let's just say things happen that you won't care about, and we'll move on.
THE GOOD PARTS
It wasn't horrible. That's about the best thing I can say for this. I've tried to get through some dreadful books before, and this wasn't really one of them.
I guess Grisham also managed to make me somewhat care about minor, boring legal crap. Legal rules of eviction? Methods to ensure receipt of VA benefits? These are not exactly pulse-pounding subjects, and yet I was mildly interested in them as the story progressed.
THE CRAP PARTS
Most of Grisham's stories transcend the law. The Firm involves the mob. The Pelican Brief includes assassination, political corruption, and a crazy billionaire. The Chamber and A Time to Kill have the KKK. These are legal thrillers in the truest sense of the word. The law is a backdrop, but not the crucial element. You could have made those stories about journalists or cops and probably not lost a beat.
The Street Lawyer completely left the "thriller" part out of the "legal thriller." The story involves proving whether or not an eviction was legal. Seriously. That's it! While I'm sure an illegal eviction is horrible when it happens in real life, it's not exactly about to elicit a high speed chase.
The key "defendants"? They're all dead. There's a giant lawsuit planned, but none of the victims will likely get any money. Again, why should I care?
The other major plot point is that Brock gets the evidence by stealing a file from his old firm. This isn't a new concept, as The Firm had something similar. However, the lawyer in The Firm was concerned about getting killed. The lawyer in The Street Lawyer is trying to avoid getting disbarred and possible jail time. That's it! There's no bomb to defuse, no daughter who needs an operation, nothing. Just some rich lawyer in DC who may have to get another job and do some time FOR A CRIME HE COMMITTED! My apathy was palpable towards this guy.
FINAL JUDGEMENT
Grisham is pretty well-established as a bleeding-heart type, which is fine. He weaves anti-racisim, environmental concern, and opposition to the death penalty into his novels, and they still work. He's typically not too preachy - it's just an element of the story.
The Street Lawyer was apparently written after he was exposed to some homeless legal defense centers. The story is maybe a little more preachy than normal, but not so much that it's annoying. The bigger problem, though, is that Grisham forgot to actually write a plot.
Listen, the man's books aren't fine literature. My children aren't going to be reading these for a Fine Arts class, and no one is going to confuse these with Hemingway or Steinbeck. Still, they're amusing. I'm not going to mistake Captain America for Casablanca, but that doesn't mean Captain America was a bad movie. (Side note: it's pretty awesome!)
Grisham managed to leave the parts of the story that were uninteresting (the law) and took out the good stuff (the action or suspense). What's even more frustrating is that it didn't have to be like this. Are you telling me he couldn't mold a story where some homeless guy is being hunted down because he witnessed a crime, or he used to be a hitman, or something like that? When I read John Grisham, I have a certain expectation. This thing did NOT meet it.
Overall, I'm pretty ambivalent about this book. My suggestion would be don't bother to buy it, but if you're bored, and it's the only book around, it might be worth your time. That's probably about all I can say for it - it allows you to waste some time!
(Maybe they should put that quote on the cover for the next printing.)
Well, that's it for now. I know I'm behind schedule, so I'll try to get another post soon in order to catch up.
Later!
Sunday, August 21, 2011
The Lottery
This week, let's go out of the norm. I'll be reviewing The Lottery today. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the Shirley Jackson story (although I will say that the woman TOTALLY had that stoning coming to her.). I'm also not talking about a specific state's lottery or anything like that. No, this is a review of The Lottery as a concept.
BACKGROUND
Let's just say that the background on this one will be pretty self-evident as we proceed.
THE RUNDOWN
Lotteries took off in this country around the mid-to-late 1980's. For decades, America generally kept gambling to select areas and completely out of sight. Then a movement swept across this land to legalize gambling wherever possible. It was a great way to increase government revenues without increasing taxes, and usually some sort of promise to give money to education was thrown in. Of course, nobody realized that the people who were selling states on gambling were the same people who MAKE A LIVING CONVINCING PEOPLE TO GIVE UP THEIR MONEY FOR NOTHING.
Personally, I don't gamble. Even when I go to a casino, my limit may be $200 bucks. I have no delusions that someone will just hand me money because I saw some guy on TV get a huge cardboard check. I also hear about a guy who fell from an airplane without a parachute and lived - that doesn't mean I'm about to go jump from an 747 because I'll just bounce harmlessly off the ground.
While I don't gamble, plenty of people do. Generally, those people who partake in the lottery aren't exactly mutual fund managers either. I'm not sure who first called the lottery "a tax on stupid people", but they definitely had something.
If I'm stopping in a 7-Eleven, I'm probably just there to pick up something quick ... that's why they call it a "convenience store." There's a good chance I just need to pay for my gas, or pick up a drink, or grab some chips or something to tide me over as I skip lunch. If it's 7:15, I'm on my way to work, as are 95% of the people in the store.
That being said, why is there ALWAYS somebody holding us all up so they can buy 10 new scratch-off tickets with the $10 they just won? It's ALWAYS apparent that these people aren't on their way to work. Either they clearly don't work at all, or they're retired, or nobody would even care if they managed to show up to whatever joke they consider their "job". I'll be stuck in a line of 10 people waiting on one guy so he can let the machine tell them if his Powerball tickets won (because looking up that information and figuring it out would be too complicated).
When I go to buy my 2 Diet Dr. Peppers and a bag of Baked Lays, it literally takes me 45 seconds or less to complete the transaction. Hell, if I go to buy a basket full of stuff at the grocery store, it may take me 5 minutes at most to check out. Why, then, does it take the average scratch-off person 30 hours to buy their stupid tickets? I'm running late to get to work, but I have to wait 3 years while some brain-dead moron tries to decide which brightly colored piece of cardboard will make her rich, and which one is worthless. (Just a tip, ma'am - they're ALL worthless.) And then they'll sit there and scratch off the dumb things at the counter, oblivious of the endless line of people behind them. Actually, that's the most accurate description for most of these people ... OBLIVIOUS.
But don't worry, dear reader ... my occasional conflicts won't influence my standard, impartial review.
THE GOOD PARTS
Well, there's the obvious. If you're blindly lucky, you'll be given an opportunity to be financially secure for life. Of course, it's an opportunity - that's all. If you spend it all on pick-ups and Moon Pies, you'll be just as broke as when you started.
Now if we focus on just those scratch-off games, there's another positive that I just recently discovered. Joan Ginther, a woman here in the Lone Star State, has won a total of $20.4 million in scratch-offs over roughly 15 years. You might think she's the luckiest person ever, or the worst ever at covering up her deal with Satan. Then again, it helps that she's a former mathematics professor with a PhD in statistics.
You see, games with the ping pong balls like Powerball are truly random. The results from yesterday have zero impact on today. You could theoretically have the exact same numbers drawn 15 days in a row. Truly random events have no discernible pattern.
Scratch-off tickets, though, are different. There's a certain number that are printed which win the big bucks. That number isn't random ... it's a set percentage. The Texas lottery people also make the mistake of trying to replicate random behavior without recognizing some of the pitfalls.
You see, if I ask you for 5 random numbers, you'll try to select 5 numbers that "seem" random. You'd never pick 1-1-2-2-1 or 1-2-3-4-5 ... you'd look like an idiot. True random behavior, though, has this all the time ... that's why casinos are made with so much gold and marble. I've made the mistake of assuming that the roulette ball MUST come up black, because it's been red the last 30 times. Sure, eventually it will hit black, but that may be 2 weeks from now.
Computers aren't any better at coming up with random numbers either. A computer, at its most basic, just performs math. There's no math operation that "makes things random." Any kind of randomizing program is merely a long formula that starts with the date, or the position of Jupiter, or some digit of Pi. The key word in that long rambling, by the way, was "formula".
That's right - the State of Texas spent who knows how much money to generate a program that told them when to print the big money tickets, where to send them, etc. If you're REALLY good at math and have enough data (like, for instance, a decade worth of news stories on lottery winners), you can reverse engineer that formula. Then, all you have to do is enter the new information, and WHAMMY ... you'll have a road map that tells you when and where to get your lottery on! Frankly, that's a more stable investment than real estate or mutual funds right now.
THE CRAP PARTS
The problems with the lottery are easy to spot. First of all, let's go back to the reason the lottery exists in most places ... education. When was the last time you went to a public school? Did you see the rocket cars or monorails or teleporters? How about a mass spectrometer for the chemistry lab, or a music studio for the band? Yeah, I didn't see one either.
If legalized gambling provided what it promised, you wouldn't be buying textbooks or paying lab fees after you've already paid taxes to cover that crap. Based on my completely unscientific sampling, a large chunk of lottery players are retirees or people who receive some form of government financial assistance. So, whatever money 1 government agency makes gets immediately spit back to the same people by another agency. If these citizens weren't throwing away money on worthless tickets, maybe they wouldn't need as much governmental help to live. Once that happens, maybe my school could finally get a jet pack or two.
Apparently, it's not even that great to win the lottery. Sure, we've all heard stories about lottery winners who burn through all of it. The bigger headache, though, is that every person you've ever met comes out of the woodwork to get a piece of the pie. If you give everyone what they want, you'll be more broke than you were when you started. If you don't, feel free to have all of your friends completely turn against you - or even worse, try to steal from you. Your run-of-the-mill rich guy doesn't have to deal with this, because they've always been rich - his friends have always known him as rich, so there's no change to the relationship. Besides, his friends are probably just as wealthy as he is.
But when you've never been rich - maybe you're even coming from poverty - then it's a completely new dynamic. You didn't know your cousin Beth was a complete gold digger because she never had an opportunity. You always thought you could trust your friend from across the street, but that's because you never had anything worth stealing. As a certain Mr. Wallace would tell you, you're supposed winfall has given you "mo problems."
FINAL JUDGEMENT
Yes, the lottery sucks. Obviously, no other possible review that makes since. The more interesting point, I think, is why it sucks. Specifically, it doesn't go far enough.
Most of the time, I'm more libertarian than anything else. If people want to spend money on stupid things, that's there problem - so long as they actually have to deal with the consequences. And if this thing is a way to reduce taxes, so be it. My point is, we need a better lottery. In fact, we need the Optimized Lottery.
Picking numbers is an unnecessary step. If the whole things is random, why are we bothering to let people get involved at all? If you want to play the lottery, just send us a form. Then, just make a weekly or monthly payment (If you have a governmental check from which you want to debit, we can do that as well.) Then, if we determine you won, we'll just send you a check.
But what if you like scratch-off games? That's easy too. We'll just send you a selection of those to scratch in the privacy of your own home. If you win, don't worry about redeeming it. A phone number is included (toll free of course) that you can call with your special code from your winning ticket. We'll then immediately send you out an equivalent number of free tickets for you to scratch off as well. By eliminating the redemption step, we simplify the whole process. I mean, we all know she would just spend it on more lottery tickets anyway.
Think this is stupid? Well, right now, the odds of winning only $100 at Powerball are about 1:13,644. Contrast that with the fact that the odds of a randomly selected individual being able to speak Cherokee is 1:15,000. Essentially, if I bet you $100 that the next person who walks through your door speaks a dying Native American language, that's only a slightly worse bet than if I buy a Powerball ticket. Clearly the people who support the lottery aren't real astute at making financial decisions, so you can't convince me that the Optimized Lottery won't work. Look at all the overhead I just eliminated. The revenue stream just grew, because we've made it easier and easier for dumb people to send us money. And most importantly (for me, anyway) it gets a public nuissance out of the way of the general 7-Eleven shopping public. Seems like a win-win-win to me!
Anyway, my final verdict is: real lottery - a blight on our landscape. Optimized Lottery - serious potential!
Another announcement ...
I've had a change of heart. I'm going to go on a regular weekly schedule instead of bi-weekly. I just realized that the long layoff made it too easy for me and the rest of the world to forget.
Also, I still haven't received any suggestions for reviews. If you have something that requires my keen eye and attention to detail, shoot me an e-mail at TheLowestExpectations [at] gmail.com.
BACKGROUND
Let's just say that the background on this one will be pretty self-evident as we proceed.
THE RUNDOWN
Lotteries took off in this country around the mid-to-late 1980's. For decades, America generally kept gambling to select areas and completely out of sight. Then a movement swept across this land to legalize gambling wherever possible. It was a great way to increase government revenues without increasing taxes, and usually some sort of promise to give money to education was thrown in. Of course, nobody realized that the people who were selling states on gambling were the same people who MAKE A LIVING CONVINCING PEOPLE TO GIVE UP THEIR MONEY FOR NOTHING.
Personally, I don't gamble. Even when I go to a casino, my limit may be $200 bucks. I have no delusions that someone will just hand me money because I saw some guy on TV get a huge cardboard check. I also hear about a guy who fell from an airplane without a parachute and lived - that doesn't mean I'm about to go jump from an 747 because I'll just bounce harmlessly off the ground.
While I don't gamble, plenty of people do. Generally, those people who partake in the lottery aren't exactly mutual fund managers either. I'm not sure who first called the lottery "a tax on stupid people", but they definitely had something.
If I'm stopping in a 7-Eleven, I'm probably just there to pick up something quick ... that's why they call it a "convenience store." There's a good chance I just need to pay for my gas, or pick up a drink, or grab some chips or something to tide me over as I skip lunch. If it's 7:15, I'm on my way to work, as are 95% of the people in the store.
That being said, why is there ALWAYS somebody holding us all up so they can buy 10 new scratch-off tickets with the $10 they just won? It's ALWAYS apparent that these people aren't on their way to work. Either they clearly don't work at all, or they're retired, or nobody would even care if they managed to show up to whatever joke they consider their "job". I'll be stuck in a line of 10 people waiting on one guy so he can let the machine tell them if his Powerball tickets won (because looking up that information and figuring it out would be too complicated).
When I go to buy my 2 Diet Dr. Peppers and a bag of Baked Lays, it literally takes me 45 seconds or less to complete the transaction. Hell, if I go to buy a basket full of stuff at the grocery store, it may take me 5 minutes at most to check out. Why, then, does it take the average scratch-off person 30 hours to buy their stupid tickets? I'm running late to get to work, but I have to wait 3 years while some brain-dead moron tries to decide which brightly colored piece of cardboard will make her rich, and which one is worthless. (Just a tip, ma'am - they're ALL worthless.) And then they'll sit there and scratch off the dumb things at the counter, oblivious of the endless line of people behind them. Actually, that's the most accurate description for most of these people ... OBLIVIOUS.
But don't worry, dear reader ... my occasional conflicts won't influence my standard, impartial review.
THE GOOD PARTS
Well, there's the obvious. If you're blindly lucky, you'll be given an opportunity to be financially secure for life. Of course, it's an opportunity - that's all. If you spend it all on pick-ups and Moon Pies, you'll be just as broke as when you started.
Now if we focus on just those scratch-off games, there's another positive that I just recently discovered. Joan Ginther, a woman here in the Lone Star State, has won a total of $20.4 million in scratch-offs over roughly 15 years. You might think she's the luckiest person ever, or the worst ever at covering up her deal with Satan. Then again, it helps that she's a former mathematics professor with a PhD in statistics.
You see, games with the ping pong balls like Powerball are truly random. The results from yesterday have zero impact on today. You could theoretically have the exact same numbers drawn 15 days in a row. Truly random events have no discernible pattern.
Scratch-off tickets, though, are different. There's a certain number that are printed which win the big bucks. That number isn't random ... it's a set percentage. The Texas lottery people also make the mistake of trying to replicate random behavior without recognizing some of the pitfalls.
You see, if I ask you for 5 random numbers, you'll try to select 5 numbers that "seem" random. You'd never pick 1-1-2-2-1 or 1-2-3-4-5 ... you'd look like an idiot. True random behavior, though, has this all the time ... that's why casinos are made with so much gold and marble. I've made the mistake of assuming that the roulette ball MUST come up black, because it's been red the last 30 times. Sure, eventually it will hit black, but that may be 2 weeks from now.
Computers aren't any better at coming up with random numbers either. A computer, at its most basic, just performs math. There's no math operation that "makes things random." Any kind of randomizing program is merely a long formula that starts with the date, or the position of Jupiter, or some digit of Pi. The key word in that long rambling, by the way, was "formula".
That's right - the State of Texas spent who knows how much money to generate a program that told them when to print the big money tickets, where to send them, etc. If you're REALLY good at math and have enough data (like, for instance, a decade worth of news stories on lottery winners), you can reverse engineer that formula. Then, all you have to do is enter the new information, and WHAMMY ... you'll have a road map that tells you when and where to get your lottery on! Frankly, that's a more stable investment than real estate or mutual funds right now.
THE CRAP PARTS
The problems with the lottery are easy to spot. First of all, let's go back to the reason the lottery exists in most places ... education. When was the last time you went to a public school? Did you see the rocket cars or monorails or teleporters? How about a mass spectrometer for the chemistry lab, or a music studio for the band? Yeah, I didn't see one either.
If legalized gambling provided what it promised, you wouldn't be buying textbooks or paying lab fees after you've already paid taxes to cover that crap. Based on my completely unscientific sampling, a large chunk of lottery players are retirees or people who receive some form of government financial assistance. So, whatever money 1 government agency makes gets immediately spit back to the same people by another agency. If these citizens weren't throwing away money on worthless tickets, maybe they wouldn't need as much governmental help to live. Once that happens, maybe my school could finally get a jet pack or two.
Apparently, it's not even that great to win the lottery. Sure, we've all heard stories about lottery winners who burn through all of it. The bigger headache, though, is that every person you've ever met comes out of the woodwork to get a piece of the pie. If you give everyone what they want, you'll be more broke than you were when you started. If you don't, feel free to have all of your friends completely turn against you - or even worse, try to steal from you. Your run-of-the-mill rich guy doesn't have to deal with this, because they've always been rich - his friends have always known him as rich, so there's no change to the relationship. Besides, his friends are probably just as wealthy as he is.
But when you've never been rich - maybe you're even coming from poverty - then it's a completely new dynamic. You didn't know your cousin Beth was a complete gold digger because she never had an opportunity. You always thought you could trust your friend from across the street, but that's because you never had anything worth stealing. As a certain Mr. Wallace would tell you, you're supposed winfall has given you "mo problems."
FINAL JUDGEMENT
Yes, the lottery sucks. Obviously, no other possible review that makes since. The more interesting point, I think, is why it sucks. Specifically, it doesn't go far enough.
Most of the time, I'm more libertarian than anything else. If people want to spend money on stupid things, that's there problem - so long as they actually have to deal with the consequences. And if this thing is a way to reduce taxes, so be it. My point is, we need a better lottery. In fact, we need the Optimized Lottery.
Picking numbers is an unnecessary step. If the whole things is random, why are we bothering to let people get involved at all? If you want to play the lottery, just send us a form. Then, just make a weekly or monthly payment (If you have a governmental check from which you want to debit, we can do that as well.) Then, if we determine you won, we'll just send you a check.
But what if you like scratch-off games? That's easy too. We'll just send you a selection of those to scratch in the privacy of your own home. If you win, don't worry about redeeming it. A phone number is included (toll free of course) that you can call with your special code from your winning ticket. We'll then immediately send you out an equivalent number of free tickets for you to scratch off as well. By eliminating the redemption step, we simplify the whole process. I mean, we all know she would just spend it on more lottery tickets anyway.
Think this is stupid? Well, right now, the odds of winning only $100 at Powerball are about 1:13,644. Contrast that with the fact that the odds of a randomly selected individual being able to speak Cherokee is 1:15,000. Essentially, if I bet you $100 that the next person who walks through your door speaks a dying Native American language, that's only a slightly worse bet than if I buy a Powerball ticket. Clearly the people who support the lottery aren't real astute at making financial decisions, so you can't convince me that the Optimized Lottery won't work. Look at all the overhead I just eliminated. The revenue stream just grew, because we've made it easier and easier for dumb people to send us money. And most importantly (for me, anyway) it gets a public nuissance out of the way of the general 7-Eleven shopping public. Seems like a win-win-win to me!
Anyway, my final verdict is: real lottery - a blight on our landscape. Optimized Lottery - serious potential!
Another announcement ...
I've had a change of heart. I'm going to go on a regular weekly schedule instead of bi-weekly. I just realized that the long layoff made it too easy for me and the rest of the world to forget.
Also, I still haven't received any suggestions for reviews. If you have something that requires my keen eye and attention to detail, shoot me an e-mail at TheLowestExpectations [at] gmail.com.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
To start this endeavor, let’s begin with a review of a film so disappointing that it’s hard to even put forth the effort to discuss it - 2007’s Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. It stars Marissa Tomei, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, and Albert Finney. If you’re counting, that’s 2 Academy Award winners, and 2 other nominees. It actually was named by the American Film Institute as one of 2007’s Ten Most Influential Films. Ebert called it “superb,” and gave it four stars. Given all of this, the question can be raised: How have I never heard of this thing? Well, the answer is simple … it’s DREADFUL!BACKGROUND
As part of their big corporate restructuring, Blockbuster has closed at least 2 stores right by our house. At a “Going Out of Business” sale, I picked up something like 10 DVD’s for $1 each. Of course, the great films were long since picked over by the early birds, but there were still some things that seemed worthwhile. Seeing the cast and critical acclaim, I decided to take a flyer and spend a $1 on this one. Blockbuster clearly came out better on this deal!
THE RUNDOWN
The first thing the viewer sees is a title card with the old Irish saying from which the title is taken. My first thought was ... really? Was this necessary? Who are the 14 people left on the planet who haven’t seen that saying at a bar or hanging on some little plaque somewhere? Seriously, we understand the title. It’s not that clever. Little did I know this would be the most well-written part of the script.
The film then takes a significant upswing, as there’s a rather “frisky” scene between a topless Tomei and Hoffman. True, you’re getting a lot of mostly-naked Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and that’s not good for anybody. Still, though, things seemed promising. Alas, this was the last time I cared about anything on screen.
Then … that’s about it. There’s a ridiculous plot about some slimeball brothers who try to rob their parents’ jewelry store. It’s edited so that it skips back and forth in time, so you have to fight through that. Hoffman's character is a prick who does cocaine and heroine in his free time, although we aren't sure why. Hawke is his loser brother who can’t pull together enough money to pay his child support. Tomei is … well, I’m not sure what we're supposed to think of her. That lack of certainty, by the way, is the calling card of this film. Motivations, insight, anything approaching a realistic personality … these are the things that were deemed unnecessary. Hoffman's man-boobs ... let's get plenty of those!
THE GOOD PARTS
Marissa Tomei always looks good, so there’s that.
Seriously, though … there was some really good acting in this mess, I guess. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is incredibly convincing as a conflicted, narcissistic jackass. Ethan Hawke is great in portraying the struggling loser who’s just trying to do what he can, but can’t do anything right. Albert Finney is always a commanding presence.
The individual greatness of the performers is too strong to be completely disguised. If these performances were isolated or scenes somewhere else, maybe they would work.
THE CRAP PARTS
The problem is, the whole is MUCH weaker than the sum of its parts. Somebody just took a bunch of good actors, threw them together, and then went to Applebee's for a Pomegranate Margarita. Do scenes need to be united by a cogent plot? Nah! What about a narrative that makes sense, or is at least relatable? Nope. How about the slightest reason to care about these people? No thanks ... too much work!
As I mentioned earlier, you also have to fight through the editing. Not that long ago, filmmakers would occasionally use nonlinear timelines to augment the narrative. In Memento, it helps give you the same sensation of constant confusion as Leonard experiences. Tarrantino uses it all the time to bring a whodunit feel to what are essentially straight-forward action flicks. Even Lost went back and forth in time to great effect.
Narrative device, however, is not a substitute for narrative! Remember how M. Night thought that The Sixth Sense was great because of the twist ending instead of just understanding that he had made a fantastic ghost story. Now every M. Night movie is supposed to have some contrived ending, and 98% of the movie is irrelevant.
Memento, Annie Hall, Kill Bill, Lost ... those stories are really great no matter how they're told. The nonlinear storytelling just augments what's there. I feel like the makers of Before the Devil realized they had a big sack of nothing, and decided to hide it with jump cuts and confusing editing.
FINAL JUDGEMENT
AWFUL! It’s an artsy, character film that has zero characters. That is to say, I guess it was a character study ... the writing is so weak that I have no idea what the point was for any of it. They didn’t even bother to create ONE character that could elicit one emotion - love, hate, anything - from the audience.So why the critical praise? Uber-artistic but-kissing, that’s why! It just feels like an artsy movie, with all of these supposed "deep" emotions and “real” people. When you make a movie like that, and then fill it with A-list stars, critics eat it up. Look at the praise for Magnolia – then go watch that piece of crap and tell me how it was released to the public without some sort of public health warning.
Often, movie critics are like NBA refs. True, they try their best to be impartial, but they’re only human. While a ref can get swayed by the home crowd, the majority of critics will follow the torrent of opinion, regardless of how wrong that opinion may be.
Here's a better analogy ... it's The Emperor's New Clothes. No smart, sophisticated critic wants to be the guy who didn't understand the smart, edgy movie, so they decide they better love it or else be found out as a brainless hack.
Or maybe I was just in a bad mood when I saw this. Who knows?
My final judgment – AVOID THIS LIKE THE PLAGUE.
Just a couple of announcements before we close this out.
First of all, I’m going to post every other week until I get back into writing regularly, or until I get considerably better at this. Let's go with Sundays as my deadline.
Also, if you have anything in particular you’d like to see reviewed on the site, shoot me an e-mail at TheLowestExpectations@gmail.com. I’m bound to run out of ideas almost immediately, so keep ‘em coming.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Begin the Begin
As the initial post, I suppose I'm obligated to provide an introduction. I took a stab at a web site once before, and it pretty much failed. It was aimless and sufficiently bad, so I ran out of steam and interest. Fortunately, this was not much of an issue, as only three or four people ever cared to read it.
After an extended hiatus, I decided to try again with a definite theme and hard schedule. The problem with finding a theme, though, is that it requires imagination and depth. That's apparently too much work for me. Then I realized ... reviews! Why develop something original when you can just pick apart the life's work of others?
And that's where we are. I'll be reviewing ... well, whatever I want, I guess. Movies, TV, books, sporting events, a birthday cake at my office ... it's all fair game.
I'm planning on a weekly schedule. I would hope I can stick to that.
Well, that's about it. We'll get cranked up in earnest next week, and we'll see how underwhelming this all becomes.
After an extended hiatus, I decided to try again with a definite theme and hard schedule. The problem with finding a theme, though, is that it requires imagination and depth. That's apparently too much work for me. Then I realized ... reviews! Why develop something original when you can just pick apart the life's work of others?
And that's where we are. I'll be reviewing ... well, whatever I want, I guess. Movies, TV, books, sporting events, a birthday cake at my office ... it's all fair game.
I'm planning on a weekly schedule. I would hope I can stick to that.
Well, that's about it. We'll get cranked up in earnest next week, and we'll see how underwhelming this all becomes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)