Here is a story I had to write for my Writing for Publication class. I hope you like it. Here is the prompt: Write a narrative explaining why [an attorney, physician, police officer, judge, teacher, professor, nurse] find themselves in a hall outside a courtroom.
“All rise for the honorable Judge Malloy,” the bailiff shouted, and the courtroom rose. Malloy entered the courtroom and urged the crowd to sit down. He shuffled through assorted papers on his desk to jog his memory about the case at hand: Porter vs. Potter. It was a mess of a situation for all parties involved – Mike Porter, a 34-year-old professor of English at the University of Southern California was accused of having an affair with one of his students. The girl’s parents, John and Elizabeth Potter, brought him to court on charges of rape, for there was no way their daughter could perform such a despicable act of disrespect. This lawsuit was much to the chagrin of their daughter.
The trial had reached its third day, and Porter’s lawyers were able to call their first witnesses to the stand. Porter’s attorneys opted for the “good character defense,” as they aimed not to necessarily acquit Porter of his crime but at least reduce the sentencing. They had two witnesses lined up – one of Porter’s lifelong friends, who was an active and respected teacher in the county’s high school system, while the other was the girl’s physician who had examined her after the incident and felt the act was consensual, not forcible.
The questioning period came and went with no real surprises; each key witness served as the instrument the defense team hoped they would, which eased Porter’s tensions considerably. The Potter family’s team of lawyers admirably cross-examined them, and by the end of the day, those in attendance had no idea how the jury would rule. With the day’s time running out, the judge deemed that the fourth and final day of questioning would occur the following Monday. His final gavel strike of the day sent the courtroom heading towards the exit. The crowds dispersed first, and each team of lawyers, the Potter family, and the day’s witnesses followed them out into the hallway. The bailiff then handcuffed Porter and handed him over to a county police officer, who escorted Porter through the courtroom and into the hallway once the crowds had cleared.
As Porter entered the hallway, he glanced to a bench on his left and saw himself sitting there. After doing a double-take, Mike Porter, not a professor of English at all but instead a 56-year-old county judge, woke up and realized he was still confined to the straitjacket he was in when he had fallen asleep. Nurse Rosings sat to his left, monitoring Porter’s demeanor, for she had to keep an eye on him as he was about to go on trial for murder.
1.30.2009
1.26.2009
Catching Up on the Classics
I’ve realized something after watching The Terminator, the first hour of Alien (don’t ask) and now The Exorcist, I’ve realized something. Regardless of how hard I try not to have movies spoiled for me, classics like these are always going to lose something when I watch them.
In each of these movies, I’ve seen clips or heard about the biggest / shocking / coolest elements, so watching these in the normal course of the movie loses something. Whether it’s the alien bursting out of the guy’s chest, Arnold saying, “I’ll be back” or Regan spewing green vomit all over priests, I’ve seen it all already, before ever watching the movie. It’s really one of the big downsides to this multimedia age, but is just something I need to accept.
Especially with regards to The Exorcist, it really takes away a lot of the movie’s shock factor. I mean, obviously, regardless of how well you describe the girl cursing doctors or viciously stabbing herself with a crucifix, it’s always going to be disturbing to see or hear. However, had I not know either of these things heading into the movie, it would have provided a much better experience. I think that The Exorcist was a good enough movie to overcome this fact, but I can’t imagine how good or cool it would have been had I know nothing going in.
The problem that I think The Terminator suffers from is the fact that special effects today have embarrassed older movies like this. Granted, most of the stories today don’t compare in any way, and many filmmakers use special effects as a way to mask a poor story, but it’s hard not to think today’s movies are at least “cooler” (not in any way better) than movies from the 80s or whenever.
The other problem that The Terminator suffers from (and lots of movies like it, I think) is that so many movies have copied the inherent story / plot points that it makes the movies that did it first seem less original. I’ve seen many time travel movies, so seeing that element in The Terminator didn’t do anything for me. I realize that at the time, it was probably revolutionary / completely awesome, but watching it 25 years later, it’s hard to fully appreciate it.
It varies in every movie, but I think I try to give each thing I watched a fair shot. I think it seems a bit daunting / overwhelming / prevalent now because I’ve been catching up on so many of these types of movies. That’s one thing I like about new movies – you only have to compare it to what has come before, not before and after. That’s a far easier challenge.
In each of these movies, I’ve seen clips or heard about the biggest / shocking / coolest elements, so watching these in the normal course of the movie loses something. Whether it’s the alien bursting out of the guy’s chest, Arnold saying, “I’ll be back” or Regan spewing green vomit all over priests, I’ve seen it all already, before ever watching the movie. It’s really one of the big downsides to this multimedia age, but is just something I need to accept.
Especially with regards to The Exorcist, it really takes away a lot of the movie’s shock factor. I mean, obviously, regardless of how well you describe the girl cursing doctors or viciously stabbing herself with a crucifix, it’s always going to be disturbing to see or hear. However, had I not know either of these things heading into the movie, it would have provided a much better experience. I think that The Exorcist was a good enough movie to overcome this fact, but I can’t imagine how good or cool it would have been had I know nothing going in.
The problem that I think The Terminator suffers from is the fact that special effects today have embarrassed older movies like this. Granted, most of the stories today don’t compare in any way, and many filmmakers use special effects as a way to mask a poor story, but it’s hard not to think today’s movies are at least “cooler” (not in any way better) than movies from the 80s or whenever.
The other problem that The Terminator suffers from (and lots of movies like it, I think) is that so many movies have copied the inherent story / plot points that it makes the movies that did it first seem less original. I’ve seen many time travel movies, so seeing that element in The Terminator didn’t do anything for me. I realize that at the time, it was probably revolutionary / completely awesome, but watching it 25 years later, it’s hard to fully appreciate it.
It varies in every movie, but I think I try to give each thing I watched a fair shot. I think it seems a bit daunting / overwhelming / prevalent now because I’ve been catching up on so many of these types of movies. That’s one thing I like about new movies – you only have to compare it to what has come before, not before and after. That’s a far easier challenge.
1.24.2009
LOST is Back!
I love LOST. It’s (I think) the only show that’s on right now that I watch. I don’t watch a whole lot of TV that’s on TV, and between The Life & Times of Tim and It’s Always Sunny ending, House making me lose interest and us not getting Showtime at school, LOST is all that’s really left. With that in mind, I don’t think that there was any question that I was looking forward to Thursday night’s premiere.
I’ve had a few friends tell me that they don’t like the way things are going – with time travel and all – and I have one friend who half-jokingly just wants the series to be over so that he can have his questions answered.
But I love it.
I love that they seemingly keep posing new questions without answering any others (though they slowed on that in the premiere and apparently are going to stop that entirely). I like LOST because they don’t spoonfeed me a plot and they really allow me lots and lots of time to come up with my own guesses as to why certain people are important or what exactly’s happening on the island.
I really want to re-watch season four, especially from the time they plant the seed of time travel, but I haven’t had the time yet. I wanted to do this before I saw the premiere of season five, but now that it’s very clear that it is THE main issue this year, I feel like I need to do, rather than just wanting to do it.
Anyway, my favorite moment from Thursday night was not, actually, Hurley throwing the Hot Pocket at Ben (though that was one of the funniest things I’ve seen lately); instead, it was another Hurley moment – where he was explaining the island to his mom. When I saw this, I said, “That’s exactly what it sounds like when you’re trying to explain LOST to someone who has never seen an episode.” There’s so much important stuff that is so seemingly unrelated and unbelievable that it’s hard to string it all together coherently. I loved watching Hurley try that.
I’ve had a few friends tell me that they don’t like the way things are going – with time travel and all – and I have one friend who half-jokingly just wants the series to be over so that he can have his questions answered.
But I love it.
I love that they seemingly keep posing new questions without answering any others (though they slowed on that in the premiere and apparently are going to stop that entirely). I like LOST because they don’t spoonfeed me a plot and they really allow me lots and lots of time to come up with my own guesses as to why certain people are important or what exactly’s happening on the island.
I really want to re-watch season four, especially from the time they plant the seed of time travel, but I haven’t had the time yet. I wanted to do this before I saw the premiere of season five, but now that it’s very clear that it is THE main issue this year, I feel like I need to do, rather than just wanting to do it.
Anyway, my favorite moment from Thursday night was not, actually, Hurley throwing the Hot Pocket at Ben (though that was one of the funniest things I’ve seen lately); instead, it was another Hurley moment – where he was explaining the island to his mom. When I saw this, I said, “That’s exactly what it sounds like when you’re trying to explain LOST to someone who has never seen an episode.” There’s so much important stuff that is so seemingly unrelated and unbelievable that it’s hard to string it all together coherently. I loved watching Hurley try that.
1.20.2009
Championship Analysis
I’m glad Arizona won. I thought they could, and I thought they would but I wouldn’t have bet the ranch on it. Things looked good for quite a while, then they looked really bad for quite a while, but then they ultimately ended up good.
It still boggles my mind how Larry Fitzgerald is seemingly always open on every play. I understand that a lot of that is the fact that he’s a fantastic route runner, but if you’re Philadelphia (or Carolina, or Atlanta), how do you NOT cover him?! You know the ball’s going to go to him when they need a play, yet he’s more often than not single-covered or there’s very weak safety help over the top / the safety isn’t close enough to actually impact a play. I don’t know how many times I counted that, near the goal line, he lined up in what appeared to be single coverage. All Kurt Warner would have to do is toss it up there and Fitz would bring it in. Why aren’t you double-covering him?!
I do have to give the Eagles credit, though. I think for the first time all postseason, a team went into halftime not playing well and came out playing far better. It seemed to me that a lot of times earlier in this postseason, there would be certain things that teams would need to think about at half, like ways to stop certain guys or ways to get other guys involved, but would come out and go back to the same routine they had been running in the first half. Not the Eagles. They were down big at the half (18?) and came back and scored three unanswered touchdowns. THAT’S a halftime adjustment! I think they had dug themselves into too deep a hole, though, and ran out of gas (or Arizona, as they rightfully should have been, decided not to lose a game they were leading by 18 in).
The Ravens / Steelers game was pretty much what I thought. I thought the Ravens could win, but I was surer of the Cards winning than them (if that makes any sense). The Steelers are, essentially, the Ravens with a more mature quarterback and (arguably) a weaker defense. I’m not saying the Steelers’ defense isn’t good, but if push came to shove, I’d take Ed Reed over any defensive player in the league.
The game was decided by the fact that Roethlisberger made no mistakes and Flacco did. That has a lot to do with the fact that Flacco’s a rookie and that he was bound to make those mistakes at some point this postseason. It’s not like he completely put the game out of reach, but when you’re facing a team as good as the Steelers, throwing two interceptions isn’t going to help much.
But boy, that was a fun game to watch! Those two teams really hate each other. It’s pretty awesome. I mean, there is the down side to this – just ask Willis McGahee – but seeing that kind of physical play is incredible to watch.
So now, it’s Steelers / Cardinals in the Super Bowl. I think you have to give the Steelers the edge here, since they were able to stop the all-offense Chargers with ease. The Cardinals have very surely proven, though, that they are not the team a lot of people (including myself) think of when they think of the Cardinals. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a close game – with somewhere in the neighborhood of 21-20 or something – but I think the Steelers have it.
It still boggles my mind how Larry Fitzgerald is seemingly always open on every play. I understand that a lot of that is the fact that he’s a fantastic route runner, but if you’re Philadelphia (or Carolina, or Atlanta), how do you NOT cover him?! You know the ball’s going to go to him when they need a play, yet he’s more often than not single-covered or there’s very weak safety help over the top / the safety isn’t close enough to actually impact a play. I don’t know how many times I counted that, near the goal line, he lined up in what appeared to be single coverage. All Kurt Warner would have to do is toss it up there and Fitz would bring it in. Why aren’t you double-covering him?!
I do have to give the Eagles credit, though. I think for the first time all postseason, a team went into halftime not playing well and came out playing far better. It seemed to me that a lot of times earlier in this postseason, there would be certain things that teams would need to think about at half, like ways to stop certain guys or ways to get other guys involved, but would come out and go back to the same routine they had been running in the first half. Not the Eagles. They were down big at the half (18?) and came back and scored three unanswered touchdowns. THAT’S a halftime adjustment! I think they had dug themselves into too deep a hole, though, and ran out of gas (or Arizona, as they rightfully should have been, decided not to lose a game they were leading by 18 in).
The Ravens / Steelers game was pretty much what I thought. I thought the Ravens could win, but I was surer of the Cards winning than them (if that makes any sense). The Steelers are, essentially, the Ravens with a more mature quarterback and (arguably) a weaker defense. I’m not saying the Steelers’ defense isn’t good, but if push came to shove, I’d take Ed Reed over any defensive player in the league.
The game was decided by the fact that Roethlisberger made no mistakes and Flacco did. That has a lot to do with the fact that Flacco’s a rookie and that he was bound to make those mistakes at some point this postseason. It’s not like he completely put the game out of reach, but when you’re facing a team as good as the Steelers, throwing two interceptions isn’t going to help much.
But boy, that was a fun game to watch! Those two teams really hate each other. It’s pretty awesome. I mean, there is the down side to this – just ask Willis McGahee – but seeing that kind of physical play is incredible to watch.
So now, it’s Steelers / Cardinals in the Super Bowl. I think you have to give the Steelers the edge here, since they were able to stop the all-offense Chargers with ease. The Cardinals have very surely proven, though, that they are not the team a lot of people (including myself) think of when they think of the Cardinals. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a close game – with somewhere in the neighborhood of 21-20 or something – but I think the Steelers have it.
1.18.2009
Championship Weekend
Things have not gone well for me this off-season, but that’s not going to keep me from picking just to pick and finally get another game right. I think I’m 2-6 this postseason in picks, and both right picks were the Ravens. That’s not the only reason why I’m picking them again this week, though.
I’m picking the Cardinals and the Ravens, which I guess means I’m picking both underdogs.
I really think that the Ravens are the team to beat right now. I’m not really sure why, considering the Titans very easily could have beaten them, but I think that they have the momentum. A lot has been made that Flacco is the new Roethlisberger, and a lot of the comparisons are justified. I think that RIGHT NOW, the Ravens defense is better. Also, I think that the Ravens running attack is better. I don’t know where Willie Parker was all year, but he showed up last week. I don’t know if he can two weeks in a row.
The Chargers also hung around with the Steelers last week, and if it wasn’t for the third quarter (which very well may be the worst / most unlucky 15 minutes of football I’ve ever seen a team play), it’s very possible that they’d be hosting the Ravens this week.
As for the NFC, I basically just don’t like the Eagles very much. They’re on a roll right now, and I think that they’re a justified favorite in this game. However, I don’t know if they have the tools to stop the Cardinals’ passing attack. Eli’s struggles with the wind last week was the big reason why the Giants couldn’t beat the Eagles, but playing in a dome and facing a far superior passing attack, it’ll be far harder for the Eagles to keep up with the passing game.
My track record hasn’t been stellar this postseason, so here’s to hoping I turn things around.
I’m picking the Cardinals and the Ravens, which I guess means I’m picking both underdogs.
I really think that the Ravens are the team to beat right now. I’m not really sure why, considering the Titans very easily could have beaten them, but I think that they have the momentum. A lot has been made that Flacco is the new Roethlisberger, and a lot of the comparisons are justified. I think that RIGHT NOW, the Ravens defense is better. Also, I think that the Ravens running attack is better. I don’t know where Willie Parker was all year, but he showed up last week. I don’t know if he can two weeks in a row.
The Chargers also hung around with the Steelers last week, and if it wasn’t for the third quarter (which very well may be the worst / most unlucky 15 minutes of football I’ve ever seen a team play), it’s very possible that they’d be hosting the Ravens this week.
As for the NFC, I basically just don’t like the Eagles very much. They’re on a roll right now, and I think that they’re a justified favorite in this game. However, I don’t know if they have the tools to stop the Cardinals’ passing attack. Eli’s struggles with the wind last week was the big reason why the Giants couldn’t beat the Eagles, but playing in a dome and facing a far superior passing attack, it’ll be far harder for the Eagles to keep up with the passing game.
My track record hasn’t been stellar this postseason, so here’s to hoping I turn things around.
1.16.2009
My Movie List
I haven’t blogged in a while. My internet was sketchy AT BEST this weekend, then I just kind of fell out of the habit. I really didn’t want to stop, though, because I knew that it’d be hard for me to get back into it. Well, here I am! Back, hopefully to stay.
Anyway, since November 2007 (or so), I’ve been watching movies off of a list of 160 that I made. There are so many movies that (understandably) I can’t see them all, and even though I’d watched many, many movies up to that point, there were tons of great ones that I hadn’t seen. I basically started the list by going through the movies I owned that I hadn’t seen, the movies my dad owned that I wanted to see, and then IMDb’s top 250. I also asked friends for suggestions and compiled the list.
I had set up a soft date to finish by (December 1st, 2008) but fell short of that. Yesterday I watched Apocalypse Now, which put me at 26 more to go. I hope to finish sometime in February or March. When I’m at school, I’m not sure why but I don’t watch a ton of movies. I think it’s a variety of factors, but it’s just not something that happens. Now that I’m nearing my goal, though, I think that I’ll be able to keep my nose to the grindstone. It’s much less daunting to deal with 26 movies than the 46 (or so) I had coming home for winter break.
I think this list was a great way for me to begin catching up on what I haven’t seen. Admittedly, watching movies is a never-ending process, so I’ll always be up for suggestions. I already have over 120 movies for the next list, plus a bunch of stuff on my Netflix queue that isn’t on the list.
I think when I’m all done with this, I’ll look back and reflect on what my favorite movies that I saw on this list were (so far, Shoot ‘em Up) and my least favorites (Brazil).
But that won’t be for a while.
Anyway, since November 2007 (or so), I’ve been watching movies off of a list of 160 that I made. There are so many movies that (understandably) I can’t see them all, and even though I’d watched many, many movies up to that point, there were tons of great ones that I hadn’t seen. I basically started the list by going through the movies I owned that I hadn’t seen, the movies my dad owned that I wanted to see, and then IMDb’s top 250. I also asked friends for suggestions and compiled the list.
I had set up a soft date to finish by (December 1st, 2008) but fell short of that. Yesterday I watched Apocalypse Now, which put me at 26 more to go. I hope to finish sometime in February or March. When I’m at school, I’m not sure why but I don’t watch a ton of movies. I think it’s a variety of factors, but it’s just not something that happens. Now that I’m nearing my goal, though, I think that I’ll be able to keep my nose to the grindstone. It’s much less daunting to deal with 26 movies than the 46 (or so) I had coming home for winter break.
I think this list was a great way for me to begin catching up on what I haven’t seen. Admittedly, watching movies is a never-ending process, so I’ll always be up for suggestions. I already have over 120 movies for the next list, plus a bunch of stuff on my Netflix queue that isn’t on the list.
I think when I’m all done with this, I’ll look back and reflect on what my favorite movies that I saw on this list were (so far, Shoot ‘em Up) and my least favorites (Brazil).
But that won’t be for a while.
1.10.2009
Joe Flacco
Dear Baltimore,
Do you see the good things that happen when you take the training wheels off of Joe Flacco? Maybe you should do that more next week if you want to make the Super Bowl.
Sincerely,
Me
Do you see the good things that happen when you take the training wheels off of Joe Flacco? Maybe you should do that more next week if you want to make the Super Bowl.
Sincerely,
Me
Divisional Playoffs
Okay, so really, things can’t go much worse than they did last weekend.
I went 1-3 in picks and in the only game I truly wanted one team to win, the Vikings managed to outplay the Eagles and still fell short. Awesome.
Today’s first game sees the Ravens dancing (literally, I just saw Ray Lewis dancing) into Tennessee to take on the last-to-be-defeated-in-the-NFL Titans. The Ravens were the only pick I got right last week, and I’m going to pick them again today. They pretty handily took care of the Dolphins last week (mostly behind Ed Reed) and I don’t see a huge difference in the offenses between the Titans and the Dolphins.
The only way that I think the Titans are going to have a chance to win is to get off to a quick start and make Flacco play from behind. That’s going to be hard to do against the Ravens’ defense, though. We’ll see.
Tonight’s game is the game I care the least about of the four this weekend. I didn’t think the Cardinals would be able to keep up with the Falcons last week. I think the Panthers are better than the Falcons. I’m picking the Panthers.
The Cards did, in fact, show up last week, but I don’t think if they have what it takes to stop Carolina. I was going to say, “I don’t think they have what it takes to stop DeAngelo Williams” but they did a great job on Turner last week. I don’t really understand the Cardinals. They’re so streaky, and they’re really only in the playoffs because their division is one of the worst amalgamations of teams I’ve seen in sports.
I’ll write up my picks for tomorrow’s game sometime before the Giants’ game tomorrow, but in case I don’t get a chance to, I’m picking the Giants and the Chargers (and that Chargers / Steelers game should be great).
I went 1-3 in picks and in the only game I truly wanted one team to win, the Vikings managed to outplay the Eagles and still fell short. Awesome.
Today’s first game sees the Ravens dancing (literally, I just saw Ray Lewis dancing) into Tennessee to take on the last-to-be-defeated-in-the-NFL Titans. The Ravens were the only pick I got right last week, and I’m going to pick them again today. They pretty handily took care of the Dolphins last week (mostly behind Ed Reed) and I don’t see a huge difference in the offenses between the Titans and the Dolphins.
The only way that I think the Titans are going to have a chance to win is to get off to a quick start and make Flacco play from behind. That’s going to be hard to do against the Ravens’ defense, though. We’ll see.
Tonight’s game is the game I care the least about of the four this weekend. I didn’t think the Cardinals would be able to keep up with the Falcons last week. I think the Panthers are better than the Falcons. I’m picking the Panthers.
The Cards did, in fact, show up last week, but I don’t think if they have what it takes to stop Carolina. I was going to say, “I don’t think they have what it takes to stop DeAngelo Williams” but they did a great job on Turner last week. I don’t really understand the Cardinals. They’re so streaky, and they’re really only in the playoffs because their division is one of the worst amalgamations of teams I’ve seen in sports.
I’ll write up my picks for tomorrow’s game sometime before the Giants’ game tomorrow, but in case I don’t get a chance to, I’m picking the Giants and the Chargers (and that Chargers / Steelers game should be great).
1.08.2009
Hell's Bells
Free agency in Major League Baseball is screwy. Maybe it’s just because I follow it more closely than I do other sports, but it seems that it’s very common for a player to be about to sign with one team and then sign with a team that wasn’t even necessarily in the mix.
As a Yankee fan, this has paid great dividends this off-season in the form of both CC Sabathia and Mark Teixiera. It seemed inevitable that CC would wind up on the West Coast and Tex looked destined to be a Red Sock. However, the Yankees added the extra cash needed and got the job done.
That’s old news, though. What prompted this train of thought is the Trevor Hoffman signing. Everyone knew he wasn’t going back to the Padres – not after they snubbed the all-time leader in saves – but it seemed like he was bound to land on the division rival Dodgers. However, I wake up this morning, and out of nowhere (or so it seems), he’s all of a sudden a Brewer.
What? Where’d that come from?
I don’t know if there are conflicting sources in the league or what, but whatever the reason, it makes tracking free agents far harder than necessary. Since when were the Brewers in the Hoffman sweepstakes? It’s definitely possible that they were there all along – I’m more interested right now in following the NFL playoffs than free agency anyway – but the signing seemed to come out of nowhere.
I can only hope that the same thing happens with Smoltz. I understand that he’s old, and if the Red Sox add him, it might even help the Yankees if he breaks down. However, I’m not looking forward to having to face a motivated Beckett-Smoltz-Schilling-DiceK-Lester rotation. That’s scary.
As a Yankee fan, this has paid great dividends this off-season in the form of both CC Sabathia and Mark Teixiera. It seemed inevitable that CC would wind up on the West Coast and Tex looked destined to be a Red Sock. However, the Yankees added the extra cash needed and got the job done.
That’s old news, though. What prompted this train of thought is the Trevor Hoffman signing. Everyone knew he wasn’t going back to the Padres – not after they snubbed the all-time leader in saves – but it seemed like he was bound to land on the division rival Dodgers. However, I wake up this morning, and out of nowhere (or so it seems), he’s all of a sudden a Brewer.
What? Where’d that come from?
I don’t know if there are conflicting sources in the league or what, but whatever the reason, it makes tracking free agents far harder than necessary. Since when were the Brewers in the Hoffman sweepstakes? It’s definitely possible that they were there all along – I’m more interested right now in following the NFL playoffs than free agency anyway – but the signing seemed to come out of nowhere.
I can only hope that the same thing happens with Smoltz. I understand that he’s old, and if the Red Sox add him, it might even help the Yankees if he breaks down. However, I’m not looking forward to having to face a motivated Beckett-Smoltz-Schilling-DiceK-Lester rotation. That’s scary.
1.07.2009
Overtime
I was originally planning on writing about something else today, but after seeing a short segment on Showtime’s “Inside the NFL,” I felt obligated to write about the whole overtime mess in the NFL.
I’m really not sure why so many people are against implementing the college football playoff system in NFL games. I guess it’s a matter of tradition and everything, but the way things are done now are just stupid. Jim Nantz was talking about how this upcoming off-season, he feels that they will in fact change the NFL rule to follow the way it’s done in college and it will be known as the “Peyton Manning rule.” I really hope he’s right.
It’s really not fair for a team to play all season long, all game long, show that they are, in fact, equal to the other team, and then not even get a chance to touch the ball. You’re telling me that in crunch time, Peyton Manning wouldn’t put together a scoring drive to win a game? It’s really not fair that he single-handedly saved the Colts season and put them into the playoffs, yet he doesn’t even get to take a single snap in overtime.
I’m not someone who really supports college football. I would say I watch no more than five games a year, unless I hear about someone (Reggie Bush, Ted Ginn) who I really want to see as many times as I can. In no way (except overtime, of course) do I feel that college football is better than (or, truly, can even rival) the NFL. However, when it comes to overtime, it isn’t even the same ballpark (or not even in the same league, a la Jules Winfield).
When I’m watching a college football game, unless I’m rooting for a certain team, I’m kind of hoping that the game goes into overtime because I know it’ll be exciting. Even if it’s only one overtime period, I know that it’ll be a really great five minutes of football. Compare that to the NFL, where I dread overtime. Both teams get too conservative or one team never even gets to touch the ball. It doesn’t seem fair.
How much fun would it have been if the Dolphins made it to a college-style overtime before truly unveiling the Wildcat offense? That would have been must-see TV… but then again, all college-style NFL overtimes would instantly become must-see. I remember watching the entirety of the Bengals-Eagles overtime period earlier this year, and I’d be hard-pressed to recall a more boring fifteen minutes of football I’ve ever seen.
It really wouldn’t be that hard, and aside from traditionalists who’d never want to see a thing in the league changed, I really don’t think there’d be a backlash. In fact, I’d even bet that after those traditionalists saw an new NFL overtime or two, they’d be hooked.
It’s gotta happen, and it’s gotta happen soon.
I’m really not sure why so many people are against implementing the college football playoff system in NFL games. I guess it’s a matter of tradition and everything, but the way things are done now are just stupid. Jim Nantz was talking about how this upcoming off-season, he feels that they will in fact change the NFL rule to follow the way it’s done in college and it will be known as the “Peyton Manning rule.” I really hope he’s right.
It’s really not fair for a team to play all season long, all game long, show that they are, in fact, equal to the other team, and then not even get a chance to touch the ball. You’re telling me that in crunch time, Peyton Manning wouldn’t put together a scoring drive to win a game? It’s really not fair that he single-handedly saved the Colts season and put them into the playoffs, yet he doesn’t even get to take a single snap in overtime.
I’m not someone who really supports college football. I would say I watch no more than five games a year, unless I hear about someone (Reggie Bush, Ted Ginn) who I really want to see as many times as I can. In no way (except overtime, of course) do I feel that college football is better than (or, truly, can even rival) the NFL. However, when it comes to overtime, it isn’t even the same ballpark (or not even in the same league, a la Jules Winfield).
When I’m watching a college football game, unless I’m rooting for a certain team, I’m kind of hoping that the game goes into overtime because I know it’ll be exciting. Even if it’s only one overtime period, I know that it’ll be a really great five minutes of football. Compare that to the NFL, where I dread overtime. Both teams get too conservative or one team never even gets to touch the ball. It doesn’t seem fair.
How much fun would it have been if the Dolphins made it to a college-style overtime before truly unveiling the Wildcat offense? That would have been must-see TV… but then again, all college-style NFL overtimes would instantly become must-see. I remember watching the entirety of the Bengals-Eagles overtime period earlier this year, and I’d be hard-pressed to recall a more boring fifteen minutes of football I’ve ever seen.
It really wouldn’t be that hard, and aside from traditionalists who’d never want to see a thing in the league changed, I really don’t think there’d be a backlash. In fact, I’d even bet that after those traditionalists saw an new NFL overtime or two, they’d be hooked.
It’s gotta happen, and it’s gotta happen soon.
1.06.2009
Stanley Kubrick
I saw Lolita for the first time today. It was the ninth Kubrick film I’ve seen (out of 12), and it prompted me to realize an overarching trend in Kubrick’s movies:
They’re a little bit too long.
I’m not saying that Lolita isn’t good. In fact, I really liked it. I wouldn’t say I loved it, but I am comfortable in saying that I really enjoyed watching it. However, it seemed that there was just too much downtime / repetition between major plot points.
I think Lolita and Barry Lyndon are the prime examples of his films that just seem to drag on a bit, but you could probably throw in 2001 and The Shining in there as well. Out of the four of these, though, Barry Lyndon is the only one I wouldn’t want to watch again. I think that’s a testament to his filmmaking, or at least his selectivity in the stories he tells.
I’m usually pretty patient when it comes to watching movies. At no point today did I think to myself, Man am I bored… I should turn this off and watch something else. I was immersed in the film throughout most of it, but it was that remaining bit of the film that just seemed to drag that kept me from loving it from start to finish.
I think that the plot was great as it was, and that adding more may have made it seem too eventful. I guess I just felt there was too much filler. I know that he wants to make it clear just how deep Professor Humbert’s affection for Lolita runs, but I thought that could have been accomplished in less time. Though he took his time to establish this, it didn’t tarnish the movie for me – it just made me a bit more hesitant to want to watch it again.
They’re a little bit too long.
I’m not saying that Lolita isn’t good. In fact, I really liked it. I wouldn’t say I loved it, but I am comfortable in saying that I really enjoyed watching it. However, it seemed that there was just too much downtime / repetition between major plot points.
I think Lolita and Barry Lyndon are the prime examples of his films that just seem to drag on a bit, but you could probably throw in 2001 and The Shining in there as well. Out of the four of these, though, Barry Lyndon is the only one I wouldn’t want to watch again. I think that’s a testament to his filmmaking, or at least his selectivity in the stories he tells.
I’m usually pretty patient when it comes to watching movies. At no point today did I think to myself, Man am I bored… I should turn this off and watch something else. I was immersed in the film throughout most of it, but it was that remaining bit of the film that just seemed to drag that kept me from loving it from start to finish.
I think that the plot was great as it was, and that adding more may have made it seem too eventful. I guess I just felt there was too much filler. I know that he wants to make it clear just how deep Professor Humbert’s affection for Lolita runs, but I thought that could have been accomplished in less time. Though he took his time to establish this, it didn’t tarnish the movie for me – it just made me a bit more hesitant to want to watch it again.
The Fool's Companion
So my friend created this weekly writing group, where each Monday he e-mails out a topic and everyone he sends it to has a week to come up with a story. This past week's topic was "a letter arrives from an old circus performer who has found an undiscovered island." Since I spent most of the day today writing that piece, when he publishes it to the site, I will edit this post and include a link to the story.
I'm not great at writing fiction, so I don't know if there's anything in worth reading.
EDIT: Here it is: http://www.adunai.com/week0/jl.html
I'm not great at writing fiction, so I don't know if there's anything in worth reading.
EDIT: Here it is: http://www.adunai.com/week0/jl.html
1.05.2009
Oh Well
In some ways, I’m kind of relieved that the Vikings lost.
Even though I’m a Vikings fan (and have been for over ten years now), I had very little confidence or belief in this team. I think it’d have been hard for them to challenge either team they’d face next week, and regardless of who they faced it probably wouldn’t have ended well for them.
To be honest, the Vikings probably outplayed the Eagles today. Their defense played extremely well (save for the Westbrook TD) and AP had an AP day running the ball (read: very good). However, the two problems that have plagued them all year (and the two problems that would have prevented serious contention this season) – special teams coverage and QB play – were glaring weaknesses.
Tavaris Jackson started off fairly well I think. The stats didn’t show that he was effective, but I remember seeing him be 3-7 for something like 40 yards and thinking that he was doing better than that. I’m not sure if it’s just my expectation for him to make costly mistake after costly mistake that would lead me to accept a mediocre game, but I felt that if he had continued to keep up that pace, they’d be in good shape. However, it wasn’t long after that he began to unravel, opting to throw difficult passes and trying to force things too much. Asante Samuel easily could have had a second pick-six on a pass to Sidney Rice in (I think) the third quarter after having one earlier. I really hope the team addresses the quarterback situation. I know it isn’t easy to find quarterbacks, but they seem to have no confidence in Gus Frerotte and I think that by now Tavaris has proven he’s not the answer (even though at times this season I thought he might be).
As for special teams, the Vikings always seem to have a really hard time covering punt returns. A major factor today was that the Eagles constantly pinned the Vikings deep in their own territory, and because of their sputtering offense, the Vikes were forced to punt from near their goal line or from within their end zone, leaving DeSean Jackson plenty of space to run amok.
Remember back on that MNF game when Reggie Bush ran in two punt returns? Yeah. DeSean seemed to be on Reggie’s level today. Everyone knows he’s an explosive, big-play guy, yet the Vikings had no answer to stopping him. I’m not even sure how you improve this kind of aspect of your team. I don’t think it’s Kluwe’s fault – his punts were more than adequate – it was more a matter of the rest of the team just not being able (or not knowing how) to contain or force DeSean to the sidelines.
Oh well. I don’t know if Brad Childress is the problem or if he just doesn’t have enough talent to turn in a solid performance against a playoff team. I think a major issue is the offensive playcalling, which reared its ugly head as the Eagles quickly learned how to contain the Vikings offense. Had AP not broken free on his first TD, the score would have been even more lopsided.
Here’s to next year.
Even though I’m a Vikings fan (and have been for over ten years now), I had very little confidence or belief in this team. I think it’d have been hard for them to challenge either team they’d face next week, and regardless of who they faced it probably wouldn’t have ended well for them.
To be honest, the Vikings probably outplayed the Eagles today. Their defense played extremely well (save for the Westbrook TD) and AP had an AP day running the ball (read: very good). However, the two problems that have plagued them all year (and the two problems that would have prevented serious contention this season) – special teams coverage and QB play – were glaring weaknesses.
Tavaris Jackson started off fairly well I think. The stats didn’t show that he was effective, but I remember seeing him be 3-7 for something like 40 yards and thinking that he was doing better than that. I’m not sure if it’s just my expectation for him to make costly mistake after costly mistake that would lead me to accept a mediocre game, but I felt that if he had continued to keep up that pace, they’d be in good shape. However, it wasn’t long after that he began to unravel, opting to throw difficult passes and trying to force things too much. Asante Samuel easily could have had a second pick-six on a pass to Sidney Rice in (I think) the third quarter after having one earlier. I really hope the team addresses the quarterback situation. I know it isn’t easy to find quarterbacks, but they seem to have no confidence in Gus Frerotte and I think that by now Tavaris has proven he’s not the answer (even though at times this season I thought he might be).
As for special teams, the Vikings always seem to have a really hard time covering punt returns. A major factor today was that the Eagles constantly pinned the Vikings deep in their own territory, and because of their sputtering offense, the Vikes were forced to punt from near their goal line or from within their end zone, leaving DeSean Jackson plenty of space to run amok.
Remember back on that MNF game when Reggie Bush ran in two punt returns? Yeah. DeSean seemed to be on Reggie’s level today. Everyone knows he’s an explosive, big-play guy, yet the Vikings had no answer to stopping him. I’m not even sure how you improve this kind of aspect of your team. I don’t think it’s Kluwe’s fault – his punts were more than adequate – it was more a matter of the rest of the team just not being able (or not knowing how) to contain or force DeSean to the sidelines.
Oh well. I don’t know if Brad Childress is the problem or if he just doesn’t have enough talent to turn in a solid performance against a playoff team. I think a major issue is the offensive playcalling, which reared its ugly head as the Eagles quickly learned how to contain the Vikings offense. Had AP not broken free on his first TD, the score would have been even more lopsided.
Here’s to next year.
1.03.2009
Two Down
I’m really glad that things went so well in my first (semi) publicized opinion / projections about sports.
Oops. So far, 0-2.
I picked the Falcons and the Colts to win, and both were completely outplayed all game. The Falcons / Cardinals game was not nearly as close as the score seemed to suggest, as the Cardinals stepped up and came ready to play while the Falcons didn’t look like they really belonged.
The Colts disappointed me too. The game shouldn’t have even gone into overtime; if it wasn’t for Sproles’s fumble on the goal line or Antonio Cromartie’s momentary cat nap that let Reggie Wayne spring free for his 62-yard score, the Chargers would have won handily in regulation.
Anyway, here’s to hoping tomorrow’s picks go better (especially the Vikings).
Oops. So far, 0-2.
I picked the Falcons and the Colts to win, and both were completely outplayed all game. The Falcons / Cardinals game was not nearly as close as the score seemed to suggest, as the Cardinals stepped up and came ready to play while the Falcons didn’t look like they really belonged.
The Colts disappointed me too. The game shouldn’t have even gone into overtime; if it wasn’t for Sproles’s fumble on the goal line or Antonio Cromartie’s momentary cat nap that let Reggie Wayne spring free for his 62-yard score, the Chargers would have won handily in regulation.
Anyway, here’s to hoping tomorrow’s picks go better (especially the Vikings).
Wildcard Weekend!
I really hope LT and Antonio Gates play tonight. The Colts-Chargers game could be the best game all postseason long, but if either of the Chargers’ biggest players miss it, it’ll make the game less special. I’m really interested to see if Peyton Manning can continue the nine-game winning streak that he’s led the Colts to, and if he’ll be enough to overcome the equally hot Chargers and Philip Rivers.
Seeing as how I think it could be the best game of the playoffs, it goes without saying that I’m looking forward to it more than the Cardinals-Falcons game. I don’t know if I’ve seen a Falcons game all year, so I do want to see how well Matt Ryan holds up under the pressures of the postseason. Other than that, though, the NFC game today is kind of lackluster for me.
Since the games are about to start, I figure I’ll cut this short and just post my picks for all four games:
- Falcons over Cardinals
- Colts over Chargers
- Ravens over Dolphins
- Vikings over Eagles
Seeing as how I think it could be the best game of the playoffs, it goes without saying that I’m looking forward to it more than the Cardinals-Falcons game. I don’t know if I’ve seen a Falcons game all year, so I do want to see how well Matt Ryan holds up under the pressures of the postseason. Other than that, though, the NFC game today is kind of lackluster for me.
Since the games are about to start, I figure I’ll cut this short and just post my picks for all four games:
- Falcons over Cardinals
- Colts over Chargers
- Ravens over Dolphins
- Vikings over Eagles
1.02.2009
Peyton Manning
Colin Cowherd is an idiot.
I was just driving and listening to ESPN Radio, and it really makes me wonder why such a global entity could allow such a biased fan to have his own radio show.
Cowherd makes no attempt to mask the fact that he’s a Giants fan. Today, he was talking about how he felt Peyton Manning did not deserve the MVP. He started listing players he felt were more qualified for the award – aside from Chad Pennington, he named Eli Manning, Brandon Jacobs and Justin Tuck. Three Giants? Seriously?
But that’s not even the worst part of it. He went on to say that if you asked 100 people right now, all 100 would rather have Eli in a pressure situation than Peyton. Now, I’ve heard of fanboyism before, but this one takes the cake. Seriously, no one wants a three-time regular season MVP and perhaps the greatest quarterback I’ve ever seen? Really? No one? Who are we asking, 100 Giants fans? I think that’s the only person who’d truly want Eli over Peyton. I’m not saying Eli’s bad – I’ve given him a hard time the last few years because he just does so many goofy things (like forcing up a bad throw while being sacked that’s easily returned for a pick-six) – but Peyton’s just better.
As for Peyton Manning, I felt that he deserved the MVP. I don’t know if it was as clear-cut as the voting made it seem, but there’s no doubt in my mind that if the Colts didn’t have Peyton, they would struggle to get to six wins. In a year where his go-to wide receiver was aging every week and his offensive line was depleted and his starting running back missed time, Peyton was the rock that kept the Colts’ offense together.
I think Chad Pennington deserved to garner more than four votes. I’m not saying he’s the reason the team improved by ten wins – it also had a great deal to do with Joey Porter’s incredibly improved season as well as Bill Parcells’s improvements (most notably his hiring of Tony Sparano). However, if you take Pennington away from the Dolphins, there’s no way they’re even sniffing the playoffs. He’s as important to his team as Peyton, which is why I’d have been fine if he had been the MVP.
Even though I don’t have a say in the matter, I’d have voted like this:
1. Peyton Manning
2. Chad Pennington
3. Adrian Peterson
I was just driving and listening to ESPN Radio, and it really makes me wonder why such a global entity could allow such a biased fan to have his own radio show.
Cowherd makes no attempt to mask the fact that he’s a Giants fan. Today, he was talking about how he felt Peyton Manning did not deserve the MVP. He started listing players he felt were more qualified for the award – aside from Chad Pennington, he named Eli Manning, Brandon Jacobs and Justin Tuck. Three Giants? Seriously?
But that’s not even the worst part of it. He went on to say that if you asked 100 people right now, all 100 would rather have Eli in a pressure situation than Peyton. Now, I’ve heard of fanboyism before, but this one takes the cake. Seriously, no one wants a three-time regular season MVP and perhaps the greatest quarterback I’ve ever seen? Really? No one? Who are we asking, 100 Giants fans? I think that’s the only person who’d truly want Eli over Peyton. I’m not saying Eli’s bad – I’ve given him a hard time the last few years because he just does so many goofy things (like forcing up a bad throw while being sacked that’s easily returned for a pick-six) – but Peyton’s just better.
As for Peyton Manning, I felt that he deserved the MVP. I don’t know if it was as clear-cut as the voting made it seem, but there’s no doubt in my mind that if the Colts didn’t have Peyton, they would struggle to get to six wins. In a year where his go-to wide receiver was aging every week and his offensive line was depleted and his starting running back missed time, Peyton was the rock that kept the Colts’ offense together.
I think Chad Pennington deserved to garner more than four votes. I’m not saying he’s the reason the team improved by ten wins – it also had a great deal to do with Joey Porter’s incredibly improved season as well as Bill Parcells’s improvements (most notably his hiring of Tony Sparano). However, if you take Pennington away from the Dolphins, there’s no way they’re even sniffing the playoffs. He’s as important to his team as Peyton, which is why I’d have been fine if he had been the MVP.
Even though I don’t have a say in the matter, I’d have voted like this:
1. Peyton Manning
2. Chad Pennington
3. Adrian Peterson
1.01.2009
Radiohead
So, I can't stop listening to "Kid A." I'm not really sure what it is about the album that keeps me so interested but I've heard it like 8-10 times in the past week.
I think a big part of it stems from Chuck Klosterman’s essay in Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs where he, in an admittedly far-fetched fashion, says that the album parallels the events of 9/11. With all the conspiracy theories out there, I think it’s easy to dismiss such a claim, but the points he makes (like the lyric, “Vultures circling the dead” or just the feelings that the different songs connote) create a pretty convincing argument.
It’s also easy to dismiss all comments as speculative, which is fine, but it’s kind of cool to look (or, listen, right?) at things from an unusual perspective.
I’ve really grown to like Radiohead lately. Things got off to a bit of a rocky start after hearing “Creep” in Rock Band (and hating it), but luckily I have several friends who kept telling me to listenlistenlisten to them and it finally stuck. I’ve really only heard each album once (and I haven’t even heard “Pablo Honey”) so I’m not really in a position to deem one album better than another. I don’t think “Kid A” is necessarily Radiohead’s best album. I started listening to the beginning of “Hail to the Thief” today and the songs are so cool. They’re upbeat and fun to listen to and unique from so much of the other stuff I’ve heard.
But I think that’s where “Kid A” separates itself.
Maybe it’s just because of Klosterman’s essay, but I think I’m taking this album as a whole thing as opposed to merely a series of tracks. I should probably do that more often. Unless it’s a distinct concept album, I think my first thought is to judge albums by individual songs, rather than as a whole product.
I’m able to take “Kid A” and its story of the alienated, lonely protagonist, and listen to it as a continuous story. Maybe it’s this unique element – or maybe it’s just the distinctly different feel to each song – that makes me love this album, but whatever it is, it works for me.
I think a big part of it stems from Chuck Klosterman’s essay in Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs where he, in an admittedly far-fetched fashion, says that the album parallels the events of 9/11. With all the conspiracy theories out there, I think it’s easy to dismiss such a claim, but the points he makes (like the lyric, “Vultures circling the dead” or just the feelings that the different songs connote) create a pretty convincing argument.
It’s also easy to dismiss all comments as speculative, which is fine, but it’s kind of cool to look (or, listen, right?) at things from an unusual perspective.
I’ve really grown to like Radiohead lately. Things got off to a bit of a rocky start after hearing “Creep” in Rock Band (and hating it), but luckily I have several friends who kept telling me to listenlistenlisten to them and it finally stuck. I’ve really only heard each album once (and I haven’t even heard “Pablo Honey”) so I’m not really in a position to deem one album better than another. I don’t think “Kid A” is necessarily Radiohead’s best album. I started listening to the beginning of “Hail to the Thief” today and the songs are so cool. They’re upbeat and fun to listen to and unique from so much of the other stuff I’ve heard.
But I think that’s where “Kid A” separates itself.
Maybe it’s just because of Klosterman’s essay, but I think I’m taking this album as a whole thing as opposed to merely a series of tracks. I should probably do that more often. Unless it’s a distinct concept album, I think my first thought is to judge albums by individual songs, rather than as a whole product.
I’m able to take “Kid A” and its story of the alienated, lonely protagonist, and listen to it as a continuous story. Maybe it’s this unique element – or maybe it’s just the distinctly different feel to each song – that makes me love this album, but whatever it is, it works for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)