Yesterday on Mike & Mike, they mentioned something that was very interesting. Apparently, their back room guys had gone over the past 20 years of NCAA basketball winners looking for commonalities. They came up with a fairly impressive list of 9 or 10 things, all legitimate statistics to look for in a basketball team. I can't remember all of them, but the ones I do remember are noted below:
1. A team will have more assists than turnovers (low turnover total)
2. The coach must have been to at least the Sweet 16 (Michigan St.'s coach was an assistant on the team the year before they won when they went to the Sweet Sixteen and took over at the end of the regular season, the season they won)
3. The team had a winning record the previous season
4. During the regular season, the team had at least two wins vs. the Top 25
5. The team cannot be the only representative from their conference in the tournament
There are more, but these are the ones I could remember off the top of my head. So the backroom guys applied this criteria to all the teams in this year's tournament and it eliminated all but two teams: North Carolina and Louisville. Interestingly, I've seen a couple of brackets that have these two playing against each other for the title. But if I were a betting man, I would certainly lean on one of these two teams winning it all.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Kings
So Mrs. X and I watched the pilot episode of Kings last night. It actually aired on Sunday but we recorded it and watched it last night. It wasn’t bad. It wasn’t great either. It’s a bit slow, but I think that’s because of set up and character establishment and I have hopes that it will pick up in later episodes. It also is not subtle in the least. In addition to using all the standard TV clichés, the writers go over the top in trying to make sure the ordinary person gets their references.
For those of you who haven’t seen it or even the previews for it, Kings is a modern retelling of the second half of the book of 1 Samuel, telling the story of David’s rise from a humble shepherd to king of Israel. Of course, the show doesn’t go so far in calling it Israel, but they do everything but. Below is a list of the various references that I caught in my watching:
King Saul – The king in the show is called Silas Benjamin. Silas is not the same as Saul, but it looks similar. However, Saul was of the tribe of Benjamin, hence the use of the last name Benjamin.
Shiloh – At the beginning of the episode, Silas is shown dedicating the new capital of Shiloh, which had been built up from a ruined city during the previous wars. Shiloh was actually the town where the Ark of the Covenant was kept prior to David’s successful capture of Jerusalem. Saul actually kept court at his home in Gibeah with Mizpah and Gilgal being the sites of great assembly for the Israelites.
Gilboa – This is the name of the Israelite country in the show. In actuality, it was a mountain in northern Israel, overlooking the Jezreel Valley, where Israel was defeated in battle by the Philistines. During the battle, three of Saul’s sons were killed and Saul himself was severely wounded. Saul was overtaken by the Philistines and fell on his sword rather than be killed in battle.
Gath – In the show, Gath is the neighboring country that Gilboa is fighting. Gath was one of the five Philistine city-states that fought Israel in alliance. It was also the hometown of Goliath.
Goliath – Goliath was the giant whom David kills with a single stone from his slingshot. In the show, it is a class of tank that looks a lot like the Abrams variety in the US Army. This is actually one part of the show that disappointed me. First, it downgraded David’s triumph as Goliath was a singular champion for the Philistines in the Bible. Turning him into just one of many tanks takes away any specialness of the victory. Second, it seems rather absurd that a country as seemingly advanced as Gilboa is shown to be would not have any armor of their own and would be facing a tank battalion with only infantry. Any country that has an army of any consequence has some armor to put into the field, outclassed as it may be.
David – In the show, David is given the name of David Shepherd and is shown to live on a farm with an aptitude for fixing things. David’s father was Jesse, but in the show, they switched this around a bit by having David’s father be killed in a previous war and making his mother’s name Jessie. He is shown being an adept piano player rather than a harp player as in the Bible. At the beginning of the show, David is shown fixing the car of the Reverend Samuels, who then anoints David in a very subtle way.
Samuel – Samuel was the priest who led Israel prior to Saul becoming king. He anointed Saul and later David as kings of Israel. Saul’s great undoing was to summon Samuel’s spirit from the dead by using the power of the witch of Endor. Samuel then proclaimed that Saul would die in the upcoming battle. In the show, Samuel is shown as a late-forties black man, growing increasingly opposed to the king’s choices. He eventually rejects Silas as king, though he has yet shown that David will succeed Silas as king.
Michal – Michal was the second daughter of Saul. She was given to David in marriage as a reward for slaying Goliath and later helps him escape Saul’s plan to kill David. In the show, her name is given as Michelle and she is shown as the only daughter of Silas. She is not given as a reward per say, though David is rewarded by being allowed to dance with her during the banquet held in his honor. David and Michelle are shown to develop something of a romance later in the episode.
Abner – Abner is shown as the head military commander and (it seems) head of the secret service (including assassinations). In the Bible, Abner was Saul’s principle commander and supported his one surviving son (Ish-Bosheth) against David for king until Ish-Bosheth insulted Abner. Abner defected to David but was murdered by David’s commander Joab.
Probably the two biggest deviations in the show from the Bible are Silas’ son Jack and the elevation of the Queen and her family. Saul had four sons and his eldest, Jonathan, was David’s closest friend, even thwarting his father to protect David’s life. In the show, Silas is only given one (legitimate) son and he is shown to be a drunken playboy, despised by his father because of his homosexual tendencies.
The use of the Queen and her brother are the other interesting twist. In the Bible, Saul is anointed by God and that is enough. In the show, Silas divorced his wife and married the sister of the wealthiest man in the country. This family of bankers provides the gold necessary to keep economic stability which allows Silas to sieze the monarchy. Essentially, they give a twist on the conspiracy theory of the cabal of global bankers who manipulate the global economy to ensure that modern leaders do as they please. The pilot episode ended with the brother-in-law withdrawing gold from the treasury and then offering the kingdom to Silas’ son Jack (his nephew).
I look forward to seeing how they do things in the remaining episodes. NBC went out on a limb and seems to have committed to a full 13-episode season. Initial ratings were low enough that I expect that the show will not be renewed for a second season. I suspect that they will burn through the rest of Silas’ kingship and the show will end with David being proclaimed king while Jack is proclaimed king-in-exile and civil war looming between the two sides. If a second season were to ever emerge, it would probably cover the civil war and David’s conquests to stabilize the region. I would be curious to see how they would treat the conquest of Jerusalem or if that would be a part left on the cutting room floor. Given that there probably won’t be a second season, that’s a moot point anyway.
For those of you who haven’t seen it or even the previews for it, Kings is a modern retelling of the second half of the book of 1 Samuel, telling the story of David’s rise from a humble shepherd to king of Israel. Of course, the show doesn’t go so far in calling it Israel, but they do everything but. Below is a list of the various references that I caught in my watching:
King Saul – The king in the show is called Silas Benjamin. Silas is not the same as Saul, but it looks similar. However, Saul was of the tribe of Benjamin, hence the use of the last name Benjamin.
Shiloh – At the beginning of the episode, Silas is shown dedicating the new capital of Shiloh, which had been built up from a ruined city during the previous wars. Shiloh was actually the town where the Ark of the Covenant was kept prior to David’s successful capture of Jerusalem. Saul actually kept court at his home in Gibeah with Mizpah and Gilgal being the sites of great assembly for the Israelites.
Gilboa – This is the name of the Israelite country in the show. In actuality, it was a mountain in northern Israel, overlooking the Jezreel Valley, where Israel was defeated in battle by the Philistines. During the battle, three of Saul’s sons were killed and Saul himself was severely wounded. Saul was overtaken by the Philistines and fell on his sword rather than be killed in battle.
Gath – In the show, Gath is the neighboring country that Gilboa is fighting. Gath was one of the five Philistine city-states that fought Israel in alliance. It was also the hometown of Goliath.
Goliath – Goliath was the giant whom David kills with a single stone from his slingshot. In the show, it is a class of tank that looks a lot like the Abrams variety in the US Army. This is actually one part of the show that disappointed me. First, it downgraded David’s triumph as Goliath was a singular champion for the Philistines in the Bible. Turning him into just one of many tanks takes away any specialness of the victory. Second, it seems rather absurd that a country as seemingly advanced as Gilboa is shown to be would not have any armor of their own and would be facing a tank battalion with only infantry. Any country that has an army of any consequence has some armor to put into the field, outclassed as it may be.
David – In the show, David is given the name of David Shepherd and is shown to live on a farm with an aptitude for fixing things. David’s father was Jesse, but in the show, they switched this around a bit by having David’s father be killed in a previous war and making his mother’s name Jessie. He is shown being an adept piano player rather than a harp player as in the Bible. At the beginning of the show, David is shown fixing the car of the Reverend Samuels, who then anoints David in a very subtle way.
Samuel – Samuel was the priest who led Israel prior to Saul becoming king. He anointed Saul and later David as kings of Israel. Saul’s great undoing was to summon Samuel’s spirit from the dead by using the power of the witch of Endor. Samuel then proclaimed that Saul would die in the upcoming battle. In the show, Samuel is shown as a late-forties black man, growing increasingly opposed to the king’s choices. He eventually rejects Silas as king, though he has yet shown that David will succeed Silas as king.
Michal – Michal was the second daughter of Saul. She was given to David in marriage as a reward for slaying Goliath and later helps him escape Saul’s plan to kill David. In the show, her name is given as Michelle and she is shown as the only daughter of Silas. She is not given as a reward per say, though David is rewarded by being allowed to dance with her during the banquet held in his honor. David and Michelle are shown to develop something of a romance later in the episode.
Abner – Abner is shown as the head military commander and (it seems) head of the secret service (including assassinations). In the Bible, Abner was Saul’s principle commander and supported his one surviving son (Ish-Bosheth) against David for king until Ish-Bosheth insulted Abner. Abner defected to David but was murdered by David’s commander Joab.
Probably the two biggest deviations in the show from the Bible are Silas’ son Jack and the elevation of the Queen and her family. Saul had four sons and his eldest, Jonathan, was David’s closest friend, even thwarting his father to protect David’s life. In the show, Silas is only given one (legitimate) son and he is shown to be a drunken playboy, despised by his father because of his homosexual tendencies.
The use of the Queen and her brother are the other interesting twist. In the Bible, Saul is anointed by God and that is enough. In the show, Silas divorced his wife and married the sister of the wealthiest man in the country. This family of bankers provides the gold necessary to keep economic stability which allows Silas to sieze the monarchy. Essentially, they give a twist on the conspiracy theory of the cabal of global bankers who manipulate the global economy to ensure that modern leaders do as they please. The pilot episode ended with the brother-in-law withdrawing gold from the treasury and then offering the kingdom to Silas’ son Jack (his nephew).
I look forward to seeing how they do things in the remaining episodes. NBC went out on a limb and seems to have committed to a full 13-episode season. Initial ratings were low enough that I expect that the show will not be renewed for a second season. I suspect that they will burn through the rest of Silas’ kingship and the show will end with David being proclaimed king while Jack is proclaimed king-in-exile and civil war looming between the two sides. If a second season were to ever emerge, it would probably cover the civil war and David’s conquests to stabilize the region. I would be curious to see how they would treat the conquest of Jerusalem or if that would be a part left on the cutting room floor. Given that there probably won’t be a second season, that’s a moot point anyway.
Friday, March 13, 2009
The Game of Kings
Chess is not a noble sport. When you play chess, your object is to crush the opponent's mind. In today's world, a man's mind is his most precious commodity. Proving to your opponent that his most precious commodity is useless can be devastating for him.
-Unknown
-Unknown
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The Legal Implications of Marriage
California Attorney General Jerry Brown is submitting a referendum to eliminate the state government's recognition of marriage and reclassify unions as "domestic-partner contracts."
Essentially, this is a way to try and get around the nastiness that has been brought up by Prop 8. From a Libertarian stand point (and to a degree from a small government standpoint) I can appreciate the merits of this idea. I wonder however what this will mean in terms of other laws usually tied to marriage (domestic violence, child support, alimony, community property, etc.)? Will all these laws have to be re-written and will the state of California still have to issue licences codifying the domestic partner contract (giving the anti-homosexual marriage side another point of attack)?
One of the main reasons the DOMA was opposed a little heavier in Ohio rather than other places was because it opened loopholes for domestic violence perpetrators to avoid being charged with the more severe options if they committed their abuse on a partner outside the traditional marriage construct. I am curious as to what kind of loopholes and other problems would be created by California actually enacting this referendum.
Of course it may not pass, but it does give one a forum to conduct a legal analysis of the various pros and cons of the possibility. I look forward to Mrs. X's take on the potential ramifications (at least if this were attempted in Ohio).
Essentially, this is a way to try and get around the nastiness that has been brought up by Prop 8. From a Libertarian stand point (and to a degree from a small government standpoint) I can appreciate the merits of this idea. I wonder however what this will mean in terms of other laws usually tied to marriage (domestic violence, child support, alimony, community property, etc.)? Will all these laws have to be re-written and will the state of California still have to issue licences codifying the domestic partner contract (giving the anti-homosexual marriage side another point of attack)?
One of the main reasons the DOMA was opposed a little heavier in Ohio rather than other places was because it opened loopholes for domestic violence perpetrators to avoid being charged with the more severe options if they committed their abuse on a partner outside the traditional marriage construct. I am curious as to what kind of loopholes and other problems would be created by California actually enacting this referendum.
Of course it may not pass, but it does give one a forum to conduct a legal analysis of the various pros and cons of the possibility. I look forward to Mrs. X's take on the potential ramifications (at least if this were attempted in Ohio).
Monday, March 02, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
God is Watching
The Helix Nebula (nicknamed "The Eye of God") located in the constellation Aquarius.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Coming Refund Adjustment
Ahhh, nice to know why prices of consumable goods and gas will be jacked through the roof in 2011.
Monday, February 23, 2009
The Dark Knight of Oscars
Mrs. X and I sort of watched the Oscars last night. I say sort of, because we turned it off about halfway through and the first half, she was working on stuff on the computer and I was working on the taxes, so it was more background noise at many points.
Still, we did see some of the more interesting points. Honestly, we were really only interested in seeing if Heath Ledger would win for the Joker. I seem to be a real late comer to this party and I still stand by my original statement that as good as his performance was, I don’t think he would have actually won the award had he not died. Nothing against the performance but it has more to do with the Academy’s view of the superhero genre: these types of movies are allowed to win technical awards, but to treat them on the same level as the arthouse fare that generally wins would be beneath one’s dignity. Now, I must say that I haven’t seen any of the other performances, but my gut tells me that if Ledger had not died, the award may well have gone to Josh Brolin given how his performance in Milk was talked up at various points. But that is just my opinion.
Now, while I’m on the subject, I actually watched The Dark Knight for the first time on Friday. It was okay but in my opinion it was not the tour-de-force that many people seemed to make it out to be. It had great promise to start out. Unlike your traditional comic book movie, DK seemed to be trying to get back to its detective roots and not just make Batman some guy who beats up other people with neat gadgets for two hours. Even the introduction of the Joker with no worries about his backstory but just as a new player on the scene felt more authentic.
However, the movie tried to do too much. The introduction of Two-Face didn’t help and detracted from the confrontation with the Joker at the end of the movie. In fact, trying to maintain Harvey Dent’s profile and push the love triangle made the rest of the movie feel rushed. There should have been a lot less of this aspect and more savoring of reign of terror unleashed by the Joker. In many ways, this movie would have been well served to have been expanded into an HBO type miniseries. This format would have given a lot more time to appreciate some of the nuances of the overarching story.
There was only one other little aspect of the movie that I didn’t like and that was the whole “man is a noble creature” aspect that came up when the two ferries refused to blow each other up. I have a hard time believing that in the face of terror and death not a single person would give in and panic. Usually it only takes one person to start a panic and in that panic, someone would have detonated the bomb on the other boat. Perhaps I’m just overly cynical, but I’m still more inclined toward Tommy Lee Jones’ Agent K outlook that while a single person may be intelligent and well-grounded, people as a whole are panicky, fearful, and irrational. It’s one of the reasons that the ship sinking scenes in Titanic are so believable: it shows how people will act in a true crisis. But that is a small nitpick in an otherwise acceptable movie.
Getting back to the Oscars, I believe Mrs. X has already put Slumdog Millionaire on our Netflix queue. It seems like it is a good movie and it would be the first Best Picture winner that I’m interested in seeing since Return of the King. I don’t know if she plans on putting any of the other nominees on the queue. I don’t really have an opinion of the rest and I’m not going to put any effort into seeing them, but I’m not going to say that I won’t watch them.
And at least, most of the political rhetoric was limited to Sean Penn and I had long since gone to bed by that point. Score one for me.
Still, we did see some of the more interesting points. Honestly, we were really only interested in seeing if Heath Ledger would win for the Joker. I seem to be a real late comer to this party and I still stand by my original statement that as good as his performance was, I don’t think he would have actually won the award had he not died. Nothing against the performance but it has more to do with the Academy’s view of the superhero genre: these types of movies are allowed to win technical awards, but to treat them on the same level as the arthouse fare that generally wins would be beneath one’s dignity. Now, I must say that I haven’t seen any of the other performances, but my gut tells me that if Ledger had not died, the award may well have gone to Josh Brolin given how his performance in Milk was talked up at various points. But that is just my opinion.
Now, while I’m on the subject, I actually watched The Dark Knight for the first time on Friday. It was okay but in my opinion it was not the tour-de-force that many people seemed to make it out to be. It had great promise to start out. Unlike your traditional comic book movie, DK seemed to be trying to get back to its detective roots and not just make Batman some guy who beats up other people with neat gadgets for two hours. Even the introduction of the Joker with no worries about his backstory but just as a new player on the scene felt more authentic.
However, the movie tried to do too much. The introduction of Two-Face didn’t help and detracted from the confrontation with the Joker at the end of the movie. In fact, trying to maintain Harvey Dent’s profile and push the love triangle made the rest of the movie feel rushed. There should have been a lot less of this aspect and more savoring of reign of terror unleashed by the Joker. In many ways, this movie would have been well served to have been expanded into an HBO type miniseries. This format would have given a lot more time to appreciate some of the nuances of the overarching story.
There was only one other little aspect of the movie that I didn’t like and that was the whole “man is a noble creature” aspect that came up when the two ferries refused to blow each other up. I have a hard time believing that in the face of terror and death not a single person would give in and panic. Usually it only takes one person to start a panic and in that panic, someone would have detonated the bomb on the other boat. Perhaps I’m just overly cynical, but I’m still more inclined toward Tommy Lee Jones’ Agent K outlook that while a single person may be intelligent and well-grounded, people as a whole are panicky, fearful, and irrational. It’s one of the reasons that the ship sinking scenes in Titanic are so believable: it shows how people will act in a true crisis. But that is a small nitpick in an otherwise acceptable movie.
Getting back to the Oscars, I believe Mrs. X has already put Slumdog Millionaire on our Netflix queue. It seems like it is a good movie and it would be the first Best Picture winner that I’m interested in seeing since Return of the King. I don’t know if she plans on putting any of the other nominees on the queue. I don’t really have an opinion of the rest and I’m not going to put any effort into seeing them, but I’m not going to say that I won’t watch them.
And at least, most of the political rhetoric was limited to Sean Penn and I had long since gone to bed by that point. Score one for me.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Danger in the Air
Mr. Obama gave a speech on his mortgage plan at an advanced placement high school in Arizona yesterday.
One student watched the speech from his classroom on TV and said that he didn't agree with the way Mr. Obama was going about this. He also wore a T-shirt with Mr. Obama's picture on it with the phrase "Hitler gave good speeches too."
The crowd is starting to get a little testy.
One student watched the speech from his classroom on TV and said that he didn't agree with the way Mr. Obama was going about this. He also wore a T-shirt with Mr. Obama's picture on it with the phrase "Hitler gave good speeches too."
The crowd is starting to get a little testy.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Work Intellegence
I keep a Bible at my desk to remind me a few things about work now and again:
Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.
A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own 0pinions.
Proverbs 17:28, 18:2
Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.
A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own 0pinions.
Proverbs 17:28, 18:2
Monday, February 16, 2009
Fuzzy Molech
Pioneers of Tomorrow gained fame with their theft of Mickey Mouse to create Farfour the Mouse. Typically, Farfour created more stir because of the theft of intellectual property rather than the death and hate that he spewed. Hamas turned this into an opportunity by having Farfour killed by Jewish settlers.
He was then replaced by Nahoul the Bee. Nahoul died due to the Jewish "blockade" denying him medicines. Then came Assud the Rabbit who actually spoke of eating Jewish flesh. Assud was killed during Operation: Cast Lead.
The latest iteration of the Hamas cute character of death is Nassur the Bear. Feel the hate.
He was then replaced by Nahoul the Bee. Nahoul died due to the Jewish "blockade" denying him medicines. Then came Assud the Rabbit who actually spoke of eating Jewish flesh. Assud was killed during Operation: Cast Lead.
The latest iteration of the Hamas cute character of death is Nassur the Bear. Feel the hate.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
A Long Way from Schindler
I was reading an article and in the comments someone posted some interesting comments regarding The Reader. This comes up as both the movie and Kate Winslet have been nominated for Oscars, with Winslet being favored to win Best Actress.
The plot involves the main character having to deal with his feelings upon finding out that a woman (Winslet) who cared for him as a teenager (and with whom he had a sexual relationship) did a lot of terrible things while working for the Nazis. That in itself isn't bad and makes for good drama. However, the commenter pointed out that Winslet's character is portrayed in a very sympathetic light and he felt that the director was working hard to make you feel sorry for her in the fact that she can't read, which drives a portion of the story.
What irritated him though was the fact that this character was treated in this light and the fact that she is technically a pedophile and that while working for the Nazi's she sent hundreds of people to be gassed is rather glossed over. To give it a contrast, in Schindler's List Amon Göth is never given a sympathetic moment. He is given a moment to repent of his crimes (though he declines it), but even with that we are never put in to a position where we it is suggested that we feel sorry that he is an alcoholic psychopath.
I would like to believe that Hollywood would never get to the point where they put out a movie suggesting that the Jews deserved what happened to them. However, as the survivors and perpetrators of the Holocaust die off, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a lot more of this nuanced storytelling where characters previously portrayed as evil are given a more sympathetic light.
The plot involves the main character having to deal with his feelings upon finding out that a woman (Winslet) who cared for him as a teenager (and with whom he had a sexual relationship) did a lot of terrible things while working for the Nazis. That in itself isn't bad and makes for good drama. However, the commenter pointed out that Winslet's character is portrayed in a very sympathetic light and he felt that the director was working hard to make you feel sorry for her in the fact that she can't read, which drives a portion of the story.
What irritated him though was the fact that this character was treated in this light and the fact that she is technically a pedophile and that while working for the Nazi's she sent hundreds of people to be gassed is rather glossed over. To give it a contrast, in Schindler's List Amon Göth is never given a sympathetic moment. He is given a moment to repent of his crimes (though he declines it), but even with that we are never put in to a position where we it is suggested that we feel sorry that he is an alcoholic psychopath.
I would like to believe that Hollywood would never get to the point where they put out a movie suggesting that the Jews deserved what happened to them. However, as the survivors and perpetrators of the Holocaust die off, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a lot more of this nuanced storytelling where characters previously portrayed as evil are given a more sympathetic light.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Israeli Follow-up
With 99% of the vote counted, Kadima has about a 30,000 vote lead, which equates to a one-seat victory over Likud (28-27). However, the soldier vote has not been counted yet so that could narrow Kadima's lead to the point that Likud could pull into a tie.
Either way, it's pretty much certain that the right-wing parties beat out the left-wing parties by about 10 seats. This means that even though Kadima might have the largest single bloc, a majority of the Knesset will recommend to Shimon Peres (President of the Knesset) that Likud be given the first opportunity to form the government. Likud will probably not be able to do that unless it pulls in at least one left party and Kadima would be the most logical choice. However, if Likud can get Shas (11) and Israel, Our Home (14) to play ball, they could pull Labor (13) into the government to make up the difference.
There will be some gymnastics yet to come.
Either way, it's pretty much certain that the right-wing parties beat out the left-wing parties by about 10 seats. This means that even though Kadima might have the largest single bloc, a majority of the Knesset will recommend to Shimon Peres (President of the Knesset) that Likud be given the first opportunity to form the government. Likud will probably not be able to do that unless it pulls in at least one left party and Kadima would be the most logical choice. However, if Likud can get Shas (11) and Israel, Our Home (14) to play ball, they could pull Labor (13) into the government to make up the difference.
There will be some gymnastics yet to come.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Election Day
- in Israel.
At the time of this post, it's about 7 PM. Israeli polls close at 10 PM, although they may stay open a little later due to some severe storms that have rolled through during the day. Overall turnout is estimated to be around 70-75%.
Word has it that Likud and Kadima are running neck and neck with several of the smaller right-wing partys picking up seats, especially at the expense of the Arab parties. I'll try and update again when I can see some exit polling data (should be around 3 PM EST).
UPDATE:
Exit polls indicate that Kadima leads Likud by 2 seats, but that right-wing parties in general beat the left 65-55. Full results will probably not be available until the wee hours, Israel time. Early talk is about a possible National Unity government. We'll see when we have full results tomorrow.
At the time of this post, it's about 7 PM. Israeli polls close at 10 PM, although they may stay open a little later due to some severe storms that have rolled through during the day. Overall turnout is estimated to be around 70-75%.
Word has it that Likud and Kadima are running neck and neck with several of the smaller right-wing partys picking up seats, especially at the expense of the Arab parties. I'll try and update again when I can see some exit polling data (should be around 3 PM EST).
UPDATE:
Exit polls indicate that Kadima leads Likud by 2 seats, but that right-wing parties in general beat the left 65-55. Full results will probably not be available until the wee hours, Israel time. Early talk is about a possible National Unity government. We'll see when we have full results tomorrow.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Presidential Trivia
I know it's way too early to discuss Mr. Obama's reelection, but I saw a very interesting bit of trivia as it relates to his potential situation.
In the 220 years of the presidency, only once have we had three two-term presidents serve in a row: Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. So if Mr. Obama wins reelection in 2012, he can set another bit of history.
In the 220 years of the presidency, only once have we had three two-term presidents serve in a row: Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. So if Mr. Obama wins reelection in 2012, he can set another bit of history.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Paging Mr. Gore
It would appear that I will be shovelling more Global Warming off the driveway in the near future. Not only did Phil (and Chuck) see their shadows, but volcanoes in Alaska and Japan are currently expelling ash and sulphur-dioxide into the air. This will further screen out heat from the sun and drop us down a degree or two over the next few months.
Gonna be cold for a bit yet.
Gonna be cold for a bit yet.
Meh
I’ve seen a couple of reviews trying to describe this as the best Super Bowl ever. In that, they are woefully mistaken. The 100-yard touchdown return was interesting, mostly for the incompetence that the Cardinals showed in their ability to knock Harrison even out of bounds and going to the locker room down 10-7. But the rest of the game stank until the fourth quarter. Usually there is some ebb and flow in a good game. This game was all one-sided with no rhythm until the tail end of the third quarter and into the fourth quarter. Then it got good.
I don’t like the Steelers and I can’t say that I’m happy that they won, but unlike three years ago, there is no question that they won this game straight up. I still don’t think they should have won Super Bowl XL but that’s the past. In this one, they legitimately earned everything and there were no phantom penalties on the last drive to aid them. The only penalty that I saw that I disagreed with was the roughing the passer penalty that was called mid-way through the third quarter on Arizona. Even then, some might argue that the defender shouldn’t have shoved Roethlesburger with a blow in the back like he did. It’s quarterbacks in dresses to me, but we’ve seen it before at least. But the Steelers won this one fair and square.
Now to the ads. I think I’ve mentioned every year how the ads don’t live up to expectations and seem to get worse every year. This year seemed particularly bad. The highest rated ads as I heard them coming in were the two Doritos ads, two of the Budweiser Clydesdales ads (lovers and stick retrieval), and something else, perhaps one of the talking baby ads. Of all of these, only the Doritos crystal ball ad was any good and even that only because of the hitting the boss in the stomach at the end. Budweiser shot complete blanks this year in my opinion.
Mrs. X liked the Bob Dylan Pepsi ad, but she has a great affinity for the song they used. I don’t and thought the ad was a little dry. It was better than a lot of the other ads, but I can’t say that it was particularly entertaining for me either. For me personally, the only two ads that I liked were the Potato Head Bridgestone ad and the Career Builder ad, though I would qualify that the Career Builder ad went on a little long, losing a little power of the joke.
So it was thoroughly Meh Super Bowl, made even more meh by the fact that Toddler X chose this night to throw a total temper tantrum by refusing to put her toys away and then getting even madder when we meted out punishment in the form of no bedtime story or songs. We did get her calmed down eventually and she went to sleep almost instantly, but it made for an unhappy bedtime. Hopefully tonight will be a little better.
I don’t like the Steelers and I can’t say that I’m happy that they won, but unlike three years ago, there is no question that they won this game straight up. I still don’t think they should have won Super Bowl XL but that’s the past. In this one, they legitimately earned everything and there were no phantom penalties on the last drive to aid them. The only penalty that I saw that I disagreed with was the roughing the passer penalty that was called mid-way through the third quarter on Arizona. Even then, some might argue that the defender shouldn’t have shoved Roethlesburger with a blow in the back like he did. It’s quarterbacks in dresses to me, but we’ve seen it before at least. But the Steelers won this one fair and square.
Now to the ads. I think I’ve mentioned every year how the ads don’t live up to expectations and seem to get worse every year. This year seemed particularly bad. The highest rated ads as I heard them coming in were the two Doritos ads, two of the Budweiser Clydesdales ads (lovers and stick retrieval), and something else, perhaps one of the talking baby ads. Of all of these, only the Doritos crystal ball ad was any good and even that only because of the hitting the boss in the stomach at the end. Budweiser shot complete blanks this year in my opinion.
Mrs. X liked the Bob Dylan Pepsi ad, but she has a great affinity for the song they used. I don’t and thought the ad was a little dry. It was better than a lot of the other ads, but I can’t say that it was particularly entertaining for me either. For me personally, the only two ads that I liked were the Potato Head Bridgestone ad and the Career Builder ad, though I would qualify that the Career Builder ad went on a little long, losing a little power of the joke.
So it was thoroughly Meh Super Bowl, made even more meh by the fact that Toddler X chose this night to throw a total temper tantrum by refusing to put her toys away and then getting even madder when we meted out punishment in the form of no bedtime story or songs. We did get her calmed down eventually and she went to sleep almost instantly, but it made for an unhappy bedtime. Hopefully tonight will be a little better.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Travels with Desmond
Want something to make your head hurt? Try this:
Mrs. X and I have been big fans of Lost since the beginning. At the moment, the storyline is engrossed in a big time travel arc. The particular theory of time travel that the producers seem to have embraced is one that this sometimes called the Flowing Forward model. In this theory, time is completely set and if a person travels to the past, they cannot change anything because the point at which they came from has already been influenced by their decision to go into the past.
As an example, let’s say tomorrow I gained the power to travel into the past and decide to try and stop the murder of Abraham Lincoln. No matter what I did, I would be unable to stop the murder because even though I haven’t travelled back yet, all the actions I have taken already exist in the past. Time has recorded my future decision to travel back and the past is set with the actions I have performed, even though it’s my future self doing those things.
On Lost, this is shown and done well, although the matter of Desmond needs some additional explaining. Unlike the rest of the Losties, Desmond has not bodily travelled in time, only his consciousness. In his first trip back, Desmond tried to change things in the past, but he was thwarted by universal correction and instructed in this by a character known as Ms. Hawking. In his second trip, Desmond’s mind goes back to 1996 where he meets Daniel Faraday and get’s some help in managing his shifting consciousness.
A question that has popped up among viewers is that given that the past is set, why doesn’t Desmond recognize Faraday either when he comes out of the Swan station or when he comes to the helicopter for the first time if he had lengthy conversations with him in 1996? I’ll warn you that this is where your brain will hurt.
Even though Desmond did all these things in the 1990’s, they were overseen by his 2004 consciousness. Effectively his 1990’s mind was turned off during these periods, and his 2004 mind was running his 1990’s body. We know these events actually happened in the past and that Desmond is not changing anything because Faraday remembers all of this and has written it down. He knows how to react in every situation and can give Desmond proper instructions and uses Desmond’s information to help his own research.
Now, Desmond’s 1990’s mind cannot process the invasion of his future mind. Some of these periods might simply remain as blanks in his memory, but, and especially in the first instance of time travel, Desmond’s mind crafted events in a way that did not involve his future consciousness. For example, when Desmond goes to buy an engagement ring for Penny, rather than process the fact that Mrs. Hawking tells him that he doesn’t buy it and ends up going to the island, Desmond’s 1990’s mind justifies things by accepting the suggestion that he simply chickens out. Essentially, Desmond is creating a false memory to preserve his sanity. He is not changing the past when his 2004 mind intrudes, he is simply breaking the false memory his 1990’s mind created to protect itself. Does your head hurt yet?
The violent nature of Desmond’s swings in his second time travel trip would suggest that the entire trip to Oxford and his conversation with Penny would not have been recorded at all. Unlike the first trip, which was a gentle overriding of several days of memory, Desmond’s consciousness was ripped back and forth. To preserve itself, Desmond’s 1996 mind completely shut down and could not even record passively. This is demonstrated in the fact that when Desmond’s mind went back to his 2004 self, his 1996 body simply turned off and he passed out. Think of it like The Matrix when several people died because their minds were disconnected from their bodies by being left in the matrix. Desmond doesn’t die because a channel is still open, but the stress of the jumps would have eventually destroyed his 2004 body unless he could anchor himself (hence the need for a constant). Once the jumps were over, Desmond’s 1996 mind would have uncocooned itself and his entire leave would have just been a blank spot. This could have been justified by assuming that he had been drinking heavily or done something else to wipe himself out, again creating a false memory to justify the blank spot.
So, in a nutshell, Desmond is not changing the past. The past is what it is. The only thing Desmond is changing is his own false assumptions about what happened in the past. I think that is enough brain stress for one day.
Mrs. X and I have been big fans of Lost since the beginning. At the moment, the storyline is engrossed in a big time travel arc. The particular theory of time travel that the producers seem to have embraced is one that this sometimes called the Flowing Forward model. In this theory, time is completely set and if a person travels to the past, they cannot change anything because the point at which they came from has already been influenced by their decision to go into the past.
As an example, let’s say tomorrow I gained the power to travel into the past and decide to try and stop the murder of Abraham Lincoln. No matter what I did, I would be unable to stop the murder because even though I haven’t travelled back yet, all the actions I have taken already exist in the past. Time has recorded my future decision to travel back and the past is set with the actions I have performed, even though it’s my future self doing those things.
On Lost, this is shown and done well, although the matter of Desmond needs some additional explaining. Unlike the rest of the Losties, Desmond has not bodily travelled in time, only his consciousness. In his first trip back, Desmond tried to change things in the past, but he was thwarted by universal correction and instructed in this by a character known as Ms. Hawking. In his second trip, Desmond’s mind goes back to 1996 where he meets Daniel Faraday and get’s some help in managing his shifting consciousness.
A question that has popped up among viewers is that given that the past is set, why doesn’t Desmond recognize Faraday either when he comes out of the Swan station or when he comes to the helicopter for the first time if he had lengthy conversations with him in 1996? I’ll warn you that this is where your brain will hurt.
Even though Desmond did all these things in the 1990’s, they were overseen by his 2004 consciousness. Effectively his 1990’s mind was turned off during these periods, and his 2004 mind was running his 1990’s body. We know these events actually happened in the past and that Desmond is not changing anything because Faraday remembers all of this and has written it down. He knows how to react in every situation and can give Desmond proper instructions and uses Desmond’s information to help his own research.
Now, Desmond’s 1990’s mind cannot process the invasion of his future mind. Some of these periods might simply remain as blanks in his memory, but, and especially in the first instance of time travel, Desmond’s mind crafted events in a way that did not involve his future consciousness. For example, when Desmond goes to buy an engagement ring for Penny, rather than process the fact that Mrs. Hawking tells him that he doesn’t buy it and ends up going to the island, Desmond’s 1990’s mind justifies things by accepting the suggestion that he simply chickens out. Essentially, Desmond is creating a false memory to preserve his sanity. He is not changing the past when his 2004 mind intrudes, he is simply breaking the false memory his 1990’s mind created to protect itself. Does your head hurt yet?
The violent nature of Desmond’s swings in his second time travel trip would suggest that the entire trip to Oxford and his conversation with Penny would not have been recorded at all. Unlike the first trip, which was a gentle overriding of several days of memory, Desmond’s consciousness was ripped back and forth. To preserve itself, Desmond’s 1996 mind completely shut down and could not even record passively. This is demonstrated in the fact that when Desmond’s mind went back to his 2004 self, his 1996 body simply turned off and he passed out. Think of it like The Matrix when several people died because their minds were disconnected from their bodies by being left in the matrix. Desmond doesn’t die because a channel is still open, but the stress of the jumps would have eventually destroyed his 2004 body unless he could anchor himself (hence the need for a constant). Once the jumps were over, Desmond’s 1996 mind would have uncocooned itself and his entire leave would have just been a blank spot. This could have been justified by assuming that he had been drinking heavily or done something else to wipe himself out, again creating a false memory to justify the blank spot.
So, in a nutshell, Desmond is not changing the past. The past is what it is. The only thing Desmond is changing is his own false assumptions about what happened in the past. I think that is enough brain stress for one day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
