20110512
Small follow-up on bin Laden
I suspect that, when all is said and done, outside of psychological effects, that the intelligence gathered when getting him will prove far more important than bin Laden himself.
20110511
Why is this legal?
I don't care who you are, or what party you're in. This sort of compromise of the democratic principles of this country should not be legal. That revolving door needs to close, or at least be slowed significantly. Anything less than five years delay between regulating a company, and working for that company, is absolutely unacceptable. And yes, that applies to Congressmen and Senators, as well.
A caller on one of the NPR shows earlier today called the US a plutocracy. I think he overstated the case a bit (sadly, not a huge amount), and he failed to mention how recent a phenomenon this is, but this is the sort of action that enables the transformation from democracy (or representational republic; it doesn't matter which term you prefer) to plutocracy to occur.
Now, to be clear on this particular issue, I don't think this particular issue is a big deal. I don't have any huge problems with comcast/nbc; frankly, I think they'll largely become irrelevant in the not-too-distant future. But this sort of back-room deal really frosts me. People like her were trusted to act as public servants, and she didn't just spit on the hand of that trust, but damned near bit it off.
A caller on one of the NPR shows earlier today called the US a plutocracy. I think he overstated the case a bit (sadly, not a huge amount), and he failed to mention how recent a phenomenon this is, but this is the sort of action that enables the transformation from democracy (or representational republic; it doesn't matter which term you prefer) to plutocracy to occur.
Now, to be clear on this particular issue, I don't think this particular issue is a big deal. I don't have any huge problems with comcast/nbc; frankly, I think they'll largely become irrelevant in the not-too-distant future. But this sort of back-room deal really frosts me. People like her were trusted to act as public servants, and she didn't just spit on the hand of that trust, but damned near bit it off.
An Angelic Idea
I've long been a fan of Luc Besson. I think Natalie Portman's debut in The Professional was the first time I encountered him. After seeing that and The Fifth Element (and maybe La Femme Nikita; I don't remember the ordering vis a vis that one), I was definitely sold. So I've seen a large percentage of his movies to date (which reminds me, I should go over his filmography to see what I've missed. In any event, I finally was able to watch Angel-A recently (well, probably a month or more ago). I hadn't written about it before now, because I kept thinking I'd have more to say about it than what'll come out here, but I give up.
(And now that I'm looking at it, I kept this in my cart for months, waiting for it to drop in price. It finally did, and I bought it, and now it's dropped almost 20% more since then. *sigh*)
I did enjoy watching it, but two things kept bothering me about the whole idea: why him, and why would an angel use such underworld tactics. It just doesn't fit. They did spend quite a while talking about the 'why him' part, but I just couldn't find it convincing. I think it was the disco scene that blew away any rationales they might have come up with. If he was such a great person as to deserve that sort of intervention, why did he allow her to do what he thought she was doing (or what she actually was doing, come to that)? Yes, he felt terrible about it, but he didn't actually do anything; he just sat and drank himself half-blind.
Plus, the way that they "resolved" his problems was really a huge cop-out. It was just him taking control of his "deus ex machina", and telling his creditors to piss off. I guess there's an element of him taking over, and not having her direct where things are going, but it was kind of... hollow, I guess.
And the underworld tactics bothered me, because if ethics apply, then they have to apply always to have any meaning. If they don't apply always, then they're just pretty words without force. I'm tempted to go off on a bit of a tangent here about political hypocrisy, particularly with respect to terrorism, but I think I'll hold off for now.
The part that I did like was that the interaction between Angela and Andre was very good. It was tense when it needed to be, and relaxed when appropriate. And the way he saved her at the end was very good. But that was only enough to stretch my enjoyment to the end of the movie. It didn't survive any significant analysis, I'm sad to say.
(And now that I'm looking at it, I kept this in my cart for months, waiting for it to drop in price. It finally did, and I bought it, and now it's dropped almost 20% more since then. *sigh*)
I did enjoy watching it, but two things kept bothering me about the whole idea: why him, and why would an angel use such underworld tactics. It just doesn't fit. They did spend quite a while talking about the 'why him' part, but I just couldn't find it convincing. I think it was the disco scene that blew away any rationales they might have come up with. If he was such a great person as to deserve that sort of intervention, why did he allow her to do what he thought she was doing (or what she actually was doing, come to that)? Yes, he felt terrible about it, but he didn't actually do anything; he just sat and drank himself half-blind.
Plus, the way that they "resolved" his problems was really a huge cop-out. It was just him taking control of his "deus ex machina", and telling his creditors to piss off. I guess there's an element of him taking over, and not having her direct where things are going, but it was kind of... hollow, I guess.
And the underworld tactics bothered me, because if ethics apply, then they have to apply always to have any meaning. If they don't apply always, then they're just pretty words without force. I'm tempted to go off on a bit of a tangent here about political hypocrisy, particularly with respect to terrorism, but I think I'll hold off for now.
The part that I did like was that the interaction between Angela and Andre was very good. It was tense when it needed to be, and relaxed when appropriate. And the way he saved her at the end was very good. But that was only enough to stretch my enjoyment to the end of the movie. It didn't survive any significant analysis, I'm sad to say.
20110506
Justice is a dish best served cold
I haven't really had a whole lot to say about bin Laden finally being captured. Just a few random thoughts, to be honest.
I'm glad he's gone. I'm not sure it'll really make any difference in terms of what happens with international terrorism, but I'm still glad he's not around. And I'm glad the pictures of him being dead aren't being distributed. It wouldn't have convinced anyone who wasn't already convinced, and it would greatly increase the chances of him being used as a martyr.
But it bothered me to hear Obama say that justice has been served. This is, for all intents and purposes, an assassination (which rang especially true after we heard that he was unarmed and that he wasn't using any human shield). Justice would have been bringing him over here, and trying him for his crimes. Frankly, I would have preferred that.
It would have been a circus, but we probably would have learned a great deal that we don't already know. I wonder if that idea was thrown out because of stuff that might have come out from his Mujahadeen (sp?) days. But I would have liked to see his reaction to seeing the families of many of those he killed, plus there would have been no question that, in fact, justice was served.
And it's possible, in the course of the trial, that we would have learned more about what went on in (and in the planning of) the attacks. That would certainly be my hope.
I'm glad he's gone. I'm not sure it'll really make any difference in terms of what happens with international terrorism, but I'm still glad he's not around. And I'm glad the pictures of him being dead aren't being distributed. It wouldn't have convinced anyone who wasn't already convinced, and it would greatly increase the chances of him being used as a martyr.
But it bothered me to hear Obama say that justice has been served. This is, for all intents and purposes, an assassination (which rang especially true after we heard that he was unarmed and that he wasn't using any human shield). Justice would have been bringing him over here, and trying him for his crimes. Frankly, I would have preferred that.
It would have been a circus, but we probably would have learned a great deal that we don't already know. I wonder if that idea was thrown out because of stuff that might have come out from his Mujahadeen (sp?) days. But I would have liked to see his reaction to seeing the families of many of those he killed, plus there would have been no question that, in fact, justice was served.
And it's possible, in the course of the trial, that we would have learned more about what went on in (and in the planning of) the attacks. That would certainly be my hope.
20110504
Or Not
Well, I thought the Caps would come out and take it to the Lightning tonight, but they pretty much laid a goose egg. I certainly wouldn't say they outplayed Tampa for any significant stretch of time (there were a few shifts, but that's about it), so they'll be coming home without fanfare. It was a disappointing end, though perhaps not terribly surprising after last night's game.
I feel even more sure than I did before tonight that Boudreau needs to go. If I was GM, I'd give him a week to watch video and whatnot, then give me a convincing presentation on how he'd beat what the Lightning did to win. If he can't (and I don't think he can), then he needs to go. Yes, he's been good in the regular season (to be fair, more than good), but he's been outcoached in every playoff series he's been in at the NHL level.
Also, he hasn't yet managed to instill discipline and accountability among the players, with the result that they're not playing enough like a team. I do think that the Caps were the better team, overall, but they sure didn't play like it. And all those bad line changes and too many men on the ice penalties? That's not getting it done.
Well, we've now arrived at another off-season too early. I think I'm going to try not to think about the Caps again for the next week. This is just entirely too depressing (and typical, for the Caps).
I feel even more sure than I did before tonight that Boudreau needs to go. If I was GM, I'd give him a week to watch video and whatnot, then give me a convincing presentation on how he'd beat what the Lightning did to win. If he can't (and I don't think he can), then he needs to go. Yes, he's been good in the regular season (to be fair, more than good), but he's been outcoached in every playoff series he's been in at the NHL level.
Also, he hasn't yet managed to instill discipline and accountability among the players, with the result that they're not playing enough like a team. I do think that the Caps were the better team, overall, but they sure didn't play like it. And all those bad line changes and too many men on the ice penalties? That's not getting it done.
Well, we've now arrived at another off-season too early. I think I'm going to try not to think about the Caps again for the next week. This is just entirely too depressing (and typical, for the Caps).
20110503
Over Before It Began
Or at least it seems that way. The Caps dropped another one tonight. The Caps have generally outplayed the Lightning pretty significantly in all three games. They blew it a couple of times in the second game with bad line changes (I think this is yet another example of Boudreau getting out-coached) that led to Lightning goals. And again, tonight, they outplayed the Lightning through two periods.
But they laid one of their worst goose-eggs of the season in the third period, allowing two more goals and a multitude of scoring chances while getting almost no chances of their own. If Neuvy hadn't played very well, they would have allowed two more goals, in fact. It was just butt-ugly.
Unfortunately, the memory of that has just about obliterated my memories of the excellent first two periods. OV was a beast through there, generating chances for himself and others. MarJo played very well also, and looked especially good on the PK. And again, Neuvy played very well.
But the end result is that their backs are hard up against the wall, and they need to win four in a row to advance (which would make them only the fourth team in NHL history to do so, I believe). I see no reason to believe they have it in them; Tampa just seems to want it much more. I do think the Caps will come out with a will, and win tomorrow night (a blowout wouldn't even surprise me) and maybe one more after that, but I think they're done. It's a very disappointing way to see them go; I really thought they'd handle the Bolts.
Boudreau made some good adjustments against the Lightning earlier in the season, but has not been able to handle Boucher's counter-adjustments. I don't know where we go from here.
In fact, despite his record in the regular season (really, it's a fabulous record; there's no question) I've got to wonder if Gabby has reached the limits of that of which he's capable. He made some good adjustments to his system this season, but I'm wondering if the results aren't as much due to better personnel as to those tactical changes.
McPhee... I've been pretty hard on him in the past (probably not in print) largely due to not drafting well until about five years ago. But he's learned, and drafted well recently (other than the Gustafsson debacle), and did a very good job with in-season trades this year. I'm not sure that we even want to bring back Arnott or Sturm, although I'm happy that Wideman will stick around for another year.
I do really like the look of the defense for next year. I hope we'll hold onto Hannan, although he'll have to take a pay cut to make that work. The rest of the corps is set, and solid. That's something on which to build.
Up front, there are a lot more question marks. I was skeptical of the idea of re-signing Knuble, but that ship has sailed. And, I suppose, at the salary agreed, it wasn't a bad deal.
I think we have to let one of Bradley or Hendricks go; Hendricsk being signed already kind of settles that issue, despite his post-season disappearing act. But the big question, as last year, is what to do down the middle. MarJo stays, obviously; the only question is whether he's 2C or 3C. Can he handle 2C? I'm not sure; give him another year, and I'm sure the answer's yes. But next year?
If the answer is yes, then it becomes pretty simple: slot him at 2C, and hand 3C to Matty P. Hopefully, with another offseason to bulk up (and maybe some improved effort, especially on back-checking) he can handle it. He's looked brilliant at times, but needs to look it far more often. And there is one more issue with this configuration; they're terrible on the dot, meaning that Nicky gets far more D-zone draws than we would like leading to far fewer scoring chances for him and OV.
But if the answer of MarJo at 2C is no, then you're pretty well stuck with a trade or free-agent signing. I hope Richards is out of the question, but I'm not sure who else you consider. I guess at that point you could think about bringing Arnott back for one more season, although I'm not sure that isn't a matter of "the Devil you know, rather than the one you don't".
There's also the question of Brooks Laich. You want to bring him back, but can that happen for a low enough salary to be feasible? I guess you could play at making him 3C, but I'm not sold on that idea.
I dunno... Time to stop this mental roster-bation, I think. Let's first see if we can win a game or two first. If not, then I can give this some more thought, and look up some of the available options.
But they laid one of their worst goose-eggs of the season in the third period, allowing two more goals and a multitude of scoring chances while getting almost no chances of their own. If Neuvy hadn't played very well, they would have allowed two more goals, in fact. It was just butt-ugly.
Unfortunately, the memory of that has just about obliterated my memories of the excellent first two periods. OV was a beast through there, generating chances for himself and others. MarJo played very well also, and looked especially good on the PK. And again, Neuvy played very well.
But the end result is that their backs are hard up against the wall, and they need to win four in a row to advance (which would make them only the fourth team in NHL history to do so, I believe). I see no reason to believe they have it in them; Tampa just seems to want it much more. I do think the Caps will come out with a will, and win tomorrow night (a blowout wouldn't even surprise me) and maybe one more after that, but I think they're done. It's a very disappointing way to see them go; I really thought they'd handle the Bolts.
Boudreau made some good adjustments against the Lightning earlier in the season, but has not been able to handle Boucher's counter-adjustments. I don't know where we go from here.
In fact, despite his record in the regular season (really, it's a fabulous record; there's no question) I've got to wonder if Gabby has reached the limits of that of which he's capable. He made some good adjustments to his system this season, but I'm wondering if the results aren't as much due to better personnel as to those tactical changes.
McPhee... I've been pretty hard on him in the past (probably not in print) largely due to not drafting well until about five years ago. But he's learned, and drafted well recently (other than the Gustafsson debacle), and did a very good job with in-season trades this year. I'm not sure that we even want to bring back Arnott or Sturm, although I'm happy that Wideman will stick around for another year.
I do really like the look of the defense for next year. I hope we'll hold onto Hannan, although he'll have to take a pay cut to make that work. The rest of the corps is set, and solid. That's something on which to build.
Up front, there are a lot more question marks. I was skeptical of the idea of re-signing Knuble, but that ship has sailed. And, I suppose, at the salary agreed, it wasn't a bad deal.
I think we have to let one of Bradley or Hendricks go; Hendricsk being signed already kind of settles that issue, despite his post-season disappearing act. But the big question, as last year, is what to do down the middle. MarJo stays, obviously; the only question is whether he's 2C or 3C. Can he handle 2C? I'm not sure; give him another year, and I'm sure the answer's yes. But next year?
If the answer is yes, then it becomes pretty simple: slot him at 2C, and hand 3C to Matty P. Hopefully, with another offseason to bulk up (and maybe some improved effort, especially on back-checking) he can handle it. He's looked brilliant at times, but needs to look it far more often. And there is one more issue with this configuration; they're terrible on the dot, meaning that Nicky gets far more D-zone draws than we would like leading to far fewer scoring chances for him and OV.
But if the answer of MarJo at 2C is no, then you're pretty well stuck with a trade or free-agent signing. I hope Richards is out of the question, but I'm not sure who else you consider. I guess at that point you could think about bringing Arnott back for one more season, although I'm not sure that isn't a matter of "the Devil you know, rather than the one you don't".
There's also the question of Brooks Laich. You want to bring him back, but can that happen for a low enough salary to be feasible? I guess you could play at making him 3C, but I'm not sold on that idea.
I dunno... Time to stop this mental roster-bation, I think. Let's first see if we can win a game or two first. If not, then I can give this some more thought, and look up some of the available options.
Showtime Has a Problem
I get my internet/tv/phone service via verizon (fios is nice, even if the monopoly nature of verizon bugs me). For reasons unknown, they decided to give me free access to the Showtime channels a couple of months ago. I mostly ignored it, other than saving a couple of movies on the DVR (which I really need to watch, I guess). Well, the free part was about to expire, so I called to cancel it.
Not too interesting, right? Well, they asked why I wanted to cancel it. Well, I never asked for it, what do you think? But to put it a bit more pointedly, it occurred to me right then that it wouldn't ever make sense to pay for it. So I answered, "If I really wanted the movies, I'd just subscribe to netflix". And, you know, I would.
But there's even more of a kicker to the whole thing. While talking, I asked about faster internet service, and agreed to pay $15 more per month for that. No big deal, right? Well, the kicker was that that faster internet service also came with more TV service, including the Showtime channels. Even sillier, the Showtime channels alone, that they were trying to sell me, were going to cost $25.
Showtime has a serious business model problem, as does HBO. I find myself doubting that their original programming is enough to make up the difference. All Netflix has to do is offer a better deal to make their own original programming (which I hear they're now working on), and it's pretty much game over.
(Now to go re-reconsider that Netflix subscription, which I've been mulling over for almost ten years, now.)
Not too interesting, right? Well, they asked why I wanted to cancel it. Well, I never asked for it, what do you think? But to put it a bit more pointedly, it occurred to me right then that it wouldn't ever make sense to pay for it. So I answered, "If I really wanted the movies, I'd just subscribe to netflix". And, you know, I would.
But there's even more of a kicker to the whole thing. While talking, I asked about faster internet service, and agreed to pay $15 more per month for that. No big deal, right? Well, the kicker was that that faster internet service also came with more TV service, including the Showtime channels. Even sillier, the Showtime channels alone, that they were trying to sell me, were going to cost $25.
Showtime has a serious business model problem, as does HBO. I find myself doubting that their original programming is enough to make up the difference. All Netflix has to do is offer a better deal to make their own original programming (which I hear they're now working on), and it's pretty much game over.
(Now to go re-reconsider that Netflix subscription, which I've been mulling over for almost ten years, now.)
Foxy Lady
Last week, one night, while my wife was feeding our daughter, I was walking around the living room with our son in my arms, when I looked out the window. Laying down on our patio was a huge fox. Since we don't get many wild animals, I was more than a bit surprised.
I went to get my camera, but she had gone back to her kits by the time I got back. On the plus side, her kits seemed to be living beneath the deck of our neighbors. I got a couple of pictures of the kits, but they didn't turn out well. However, I've been looking in the evenings, to see if they reappear, and they did last night. But mom took off when I opened the door, so here's a picture of three of the kits (I haven't seen all four since that first night) that I took from my deck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)