Why 'Bold Predictions' Need To Go

Sorry for the prolonged absence...

Every day, at one point or another, my TV is turned on to ESPN. Whether it's Monday Night Football, Sunday Night Baseball, or watching the latest highlights, on Sportscenter, my life revolves around mostly sports these days. Why not? I'm still looking for jobs, but the Chargers have Super Bowl aspirations, the Dodgers likely will enter the playoffs with the best record in the National League, and the Lakers will soon begin their NBA Title defense. It's hard not to pay attention to sports in Southern California right now, so what better place to catch up on everything than an all-sports network?

Incidentally, I wish there were a better place to do so on TV. These days you find more insight and analysis from your local blogger than you do on national television, especially ESPN. As an avid Dodger fan, I find myself on the LA Times' dodgerthoughts blog or SBNation's TrueBlueLA more than any other news source. But living in San Diego doesn't exactly grant you access to Los Angeles sports on TV, so ESPN is the best source with no alternative. But aside from the Red Sox-Yankees-Brett Favre-Patriots news that takes up half their Sportscenter broadcasts every night (not much of an exaggeration), one thing that really irks me about the so-called analysts on ESPN is the trendy action of making "Bold Predictions." You see them on TV, and often I will read about them on ESPN.com. These predictions are bold but not bold at the same time. One talking head will make an unlikely claim about a player or team, and sometimes back it up with some stats or facts. The problem with them is that there is absolutely no consequence if the bold prediction is wrong. But if the unlikely event they predict happens, they're heralded as a genius. It boggles the mind.

When I think bold, I can't help but think of Star Trek: "To boldly go where no man has gone before." You knew that what the Enterprise was doing was bold, because you knew that going into the unknown reaches of space is going to get Kirk in some deep shit, and in the process he'll have to seduce green women and fight giant lizard men, while Spock does some Vulcan thing and that one ensign guy nobody knows ends up dying like he always does. There were consequences. Even if you knew Kirk would survive he was still put in life-threatening situations because of his bold actions. What happens to the self-proclaimed experts if their "Bold Predictions" are wrong? Nothing. They never mention it again, no one points it out, and they're back on the air everyday. Let's just say that they have less accountability than Wall Street and Washington has during this financial crisis.

While Sportscenter and corresponding analysis shows like NFL Live and Baseball Tonight (both of which have much of the culprits) dominate the schedule on ESPN everyday, the programs on ESPN I enjoy most are on between 2 and 3 p.m. in the form of Around The Horn and Pardon The Interruption. ATH is operated like a game show between sports writers from different parts of the country. The point system involved is somewhat arbitrary and there's no real prize other than 'Face Time' where for 30 seconds the winner can freely say what's on their mind. However, it's the enigmatic host and moderator, Tony Reali, that keeps this show the best. He calls out participants when they make errors, has the power to deduct points when an argument fails and can mute someone when they contradict something they said earlier, interrupt someone else, or take too long to explain a point. And since all the writers appear on the show frequently, Reali deducts points on later dates if their bold predictions fall through. PTI is different since the structure is just two guys debating, but there is still carry-over from day to day, week to week, etc. to keep each other in check when one makes outrageous claims.

It seems a little silly to be talking about these shows like they have imminent importance on everyone's lives, but I've wrapped myself in sports knowledge the past few months. When I want to watch an ESPN program, I don't want to feel like I could be doing a better job than the 'experts' that analyze the sports, but I really could. Newspapers are in decline for more than just the fact you can get the news online. The Dodger-themed blogs I mentioned above are just a small sample of the types of sites that are making sports columns across the country obsolete. You can gather more knowledge, statistical and logical analysis to back up claims, with just as good a writing style mixed with actual passionate fandom from blogs than you can from the newspaper, TV, or their corresponding websites. As for their accountability, if they make a faulty article, you can be sure that their fellow bloggers will be quick to point it out its flaws (and then some).

Why You Can't Hurry Love Pt.1

Damn, what a great song. It's so great that thinking about the song has spawned ideas for three separate blog posts. I'm not sure why this song is so good. I mean, I know it's good, I know it's really really good. Perhaps it's because it's a example of when music was simpler, still in transition as the influences of The Beatles had not quite taken over the music industry yet. Perhaps it's because what Diana sings is so true. True and simple is best. For me personally it could be all these things, but it could also be that it takes me back to a simpler time in my own life.

Some of you may know this, but I didn't venture out into the modern day music scene until I was 16. I got my first CDs for Christmas in 2003 when I received Welcome Interstate Managers by Fountains of Wayne and Fallen by Evanescence. Needless to say I learned quickly therein after. Fountains of Wayne has consistently been one of my favorite bands since and I have no idea where that Evanescence CD is now. Before Christmas of 2003 most of my exposure to modern day music was minimal KROQ time in the car (before I started driving) and the constant Weezer and Cake my sister would play at home. I love Weezer and Cake by the way. But the majority of music in general I listened to came from KRTH, known affectionately by many as K-Earth 101. If you know the station then you've just heard the jingle in your head.

K-Earth was the oldies station, and as such was a large reason why most of the music I listened to in my formative years was much much older than me. It was the music my parents were listening to in their formative years. But that didn't matter to me. It was the music I listened to as a kid. The Beatles, Rolling Stones, and Beach Boys were my rock music (that and some 70's and 80's rock. Arrow 93.1, where have you gone?) But the 60's featured another type of music, the type Miss Diana Ross and her Supremes fell into: Motown. I may be a skinny white boy who has lived in Southern California his whole life, but Motown is one of my favorite types of music. Smokey Robinson, The Temptations, Marvin Gaye, Martha Reeves, The Four Tops, The Contours (Do you love me now that I can dance?)

It's my assertion that Motown is continually overshadowed due to the fact that the height of its popularity was shared by The Beatles and other rock bands, when music really started to shift and shape, and that Motown is arguably be one of the greatest music movements of the 20th century. This is a pretty good lead into Pt. 2, which may turn out to be pretty meaty, so while you think about my bold statement and form your own stubborn opinion take a look at the live video up top of Diana Ross and The Supremes performing* the namesake of the post. An absolutely great performance. Enjoy!

*My apologies for the audio not quite syncing up, but YouTube had no other live performances of this song by them.

Why Health Care Needs a Different Reform

At the onset of deciding to write about this, I knew that it would either end up incredibly long or kinda short. I tried to opt for the "short" version to spare you all, but then I realized that it would be nearly impossible to make it short. I've done my best. First, some relevant things about me:

I studied Economics for four years in college, including a crash course on the health care systems of the world in a Public Policy class. The previous statement pretty much establishes many of the other things I want to point out: I'm smarter than average, I have a general sense of how taxes and policies work, I've paid attention to the happenings of this reform, and I feel I have a correct solution. Some of the facts I put on here may not be directly cited, but they are facts. If you feel you need a citation, I will be able to provide one.

However, some disclaimers. If you find something wrong in my case or disagree with me, just refer back here.

I'm not a genius [close though ;)]. There is a lot I (and most others) don't know about this whole reform, and I may be wrong on some things I say here. I'm not a politician or a lobbyist. I'm not a professional economist. I'm not any sort of advisor. Although I am officially in the Democratic party, I don't find myself always agreeing with the left side. My argument is very basic and simple. I don't know what hidden effects could happen if they did what I suggested. This blog is probably the closest I'll ever come to being any sort of a media outlet. And most importantly, this is all just my opinion, maybe shared by others, maybe not.

My opinion on health care reform is that I don't care. That is, I don't care whether health care in this country stays completely privatized or goes completely public or provides a public alternative to private companies. But I do know it needs to change. This is the opinion I have as an economist (not professional). I want change for efficiency's sake, and really that's what's wrong with health care in the US. It's not efficient. The US spends nearly twice as much on health care than the average industrialized country, yet it consistently underperforms. One of every six dollars that we the people spend goes to health care, and yet we have one of the lowest life expectancies of industrialized countries. BUT it is not because we have at this point completely privatized health care. It's not the private sector, but really the fact that the insurance market is not acting like a free market is what is hampering us, being tied mostly to the job you have, it's a very restrictive market.

Now for some basic but idealized economics. A free private market (which we don't have) creates competition. Competition in a market drives companies to better their products (provided no collusion) to get more customers. This means simply better health care. It does also mean higher prices, though through labor economics (something I know a lot about) if companies don't pay for health insurance they are more inclined to raise wages which means employees can more easily afford it. They get higher wages and pay lower taxes since the government doesn't cover their insurance, they pay for it out of pocket. The competition also means that customers of able to pick and choose the type of coverage that fits them best (an *efficient* outcome).

[An Aside: One reason for high health care costs may come from one of our basic rights in the Constitution, our right to sue. Since we can sue our doctors, they more often than not settle out of court for large sums. They must also pay for their own malpractice insurance. By increasing their costs and hospital costs, they in turn are forced to raise costs for all the services they provide, which gives incentive to patients to sue doctors because they can't pay their medical bills and they realize they can get some money if they sue. One vicious cycle.]

In a completely public health care system, it's about the complete opposite. The prices are much lower and everyone is covered. Good thing? Yes, but having a universal health care system is a monopsony (one provider of a good or service) and restricts the amount of coverage an individual can get. And if run by the government which they all are, the government gets to pay for it. To pay for health care, government needs taxes, and it needs to raise them. Look at the countries with completely government run health care and then look at how much their citizens pay in taxes. We would all love to be covered, but it definitely would take money from your paycheck, and for some stupid reason people don't seem to comprehend this. However, the higher taxes and greater government spending mean this is also an *efficient* outcome.

We have in this country right now is a mixed market system, with a very restrictive private health insurance market and no free public option, despite the government accounting for 45% of health expenditures. That's why 50 million Americans are uninsured. Obama wants to include the free public option for insurance. Two teensy weency problems: he doesn't want to raise taxes (most politicians don't because it looks bad) and we are over 11 trillion dollars in debt and counting. How he intends to pay for a public option is beyond me. In fact, a hillbilly-sounding mustache-sporting NRA-member from Montana asked him that very question over the weekend. Bravo to him. I only wish I had actually heard his answer but an actual accredited news source The Daily Show is not. I love it, but it's not news, it's comedy, damn good comedy.

What Obama appears to intend to do is provide a public option alongside the private insurance companies, and move us closer to the two-tiered system that the UK has. That's fine, but in order to do so Obama needs to raise taxes. That's the price we as citizens pay. I'm OK with it. I don't care if we drive insurance companies out of business and everything is provided by the government, as long as the government taxes the shit out of us to pay for it. I don't care if we stay privatized to leave taxes alone, but a free market needs to be created and we don't have that. I don't care as long as we are being efficient because that is our biggest problem.

I've always been a person to want to get things done efficiently, so it almost seems like economics was made for me. Much of it is ideologies, and it does dishearten me at times that some theories can't be put into practice. I know it's not easy to change health care. Historical evidence suggests that health care reform is mostly evolutionary, not revolutionary, meaning it may be very hard to change the system we run through force, which seems to be what we are trying to do. However, I hope whatever the government tries to push through gets passed, preferably if it conforms to some standards of efficiency, because whatever we have now isn't working.

Why You Should Watch the Little League World Series

As you may know, I am a big baseball fan. In fact, I'm fairly positive you know. Anyway, during summer months of my more youthful youth, I would watch ESPN's Baseball Tonight for around-the-country baseball highlights. One of the analysts on the show was a man by the name of Harold Reynolds, whom no one outside of baseball fans will recognize. Reynolds played second base for several seasons in the 80's and early 90's, primarily with the Seattle Mariners. In addition to his analysis in ESPN's Bristol, CT studios, he would travel down the road to Williamsport, PA to be the color commentator for the Little League World Series, the championship game of which has been televised since 1963. The LLWS has seen its coverage expand since 1963, as for the third straight year, all games will be telecast, and in more recent years the tournament has expanded to actually be a global competition, unlike its big league counterpart.

As for Reynolds, I didn't particularly care for him as a commentator. I didn't agree with everything he said and he has had some especially asinine comments at times. He has since been unceremoniously fired from ESPN amid a sexual harassment complaint, something he has vehemently denied and sued ESPN for. He later took a job with MLB.com and eventually went back to being on TV covering baseball since the launch of MLB Network last January. Lucky me, I just can't shake him, but the one thing I did always like about him was that he loved the game of baseball so much, so it was something I could resonate with him. One thing in particular he loved was the Little League World Series, which I'm sure he requested to cover every summer he was working at ESPN. It escapes me to find or remember a direct quote, but about every game he covered he probably made a phrase to the effect of "This is what Baseball is all about."

Take whatever literal meaning you want out of that statement, but my interpretation is that at the LLWS, baseball is at its purest form. You could tell he really loved baseball, and so I believe that's what makes him drawn to the LLWS. I love the game and I've never played it competitively, and I've always been drawn to it. Outside of seeing the Dodgers in the playoffs, the LLWS is my favorite baseball event. Greater than the Home Run Derby or All-Star Game, greater than the still young World Baseball Classic (though that is probably third), and greater than the pennant races and playoff series that don't involve the Dodgers. The difference on the outside is that these are just 12 year old kids playing baseball instead of 30 year old adults. But it is much more than that.

I believe that the LLWS is baseball, nay all sports, at its finest and purest, because kids are playing. The kids don't care about multi-million dollar contracts. They don't have agents or scouts watching their every move (yet). There aren't and have never been steroids, amphetamines, or spitballs running rampant through the sport. Except for the Danny Almonte age-scandal in 2001, problems are hard to come by in this event. Many of the kids may want to grow up to be baseball players for their careers, and though several participants have, many will also not pick up a glove past high school, and not necessarily for a lack of ability. The point is, there is never a question about their motives. All they want to do is play baseball and win. And while you can say the same about some professional athletes, you never truly know whether or not they're fighting for that extra dollar or a new sponsorship. In fact, last offseason helped separate those who were, as many free agents were forced to accept much lesser deals than they wanted or expected just for a chance to play baseball, thanks to the impending recession. Some sat out and didn't take any deals because they were chasing the money, and some had money thrown at them (thank you very much, New York Yankees).

It's fun watching the LLWS because the kids that play really love that game. They want to succeed and play so badly that some cry after a loss, and sometimes even a strikeout. And I think you see more joy in the winner of the Little League World Series than you do the Major League World Series, because that's all the kids ever wanted. The whole thing is more emotional for them, and it makes it more emotional for the viewer. It's good that they have rules in place where every player must play a certain number of innings or have at least one at-bat, and it does teach good sportsmanship by the teams exchanging high fives afterwards, but it's the emotion and motivation that make it so great to watch.

::::::::::::::::::::::::

Two final thoughts: The LLWS is more than a baseball event because of the age of competition. So I don't particularly care if you don't like baseball or even sports, it is still fun to watch the kids compete, and I suggest you find a way to do so. It will harken you back to your more youthful youth in one way or another, I guarantee it. Also, I believe the coverage of the LLWS reaffirms baseball as the national past-time (as if it needs it [read:1920's]). It may not be the most popular sport now, but what other sport airs competition of pre-teens competing in it? I don't ever remember seeing pee-wee football on ESPN, or 12 year old basketball players. Baseball is the sport that most easily connects generations of this country together, and the LLWS is part of that reason.

Why the Debate Between Macs and PCs Is Just Plain Stupid

Macs are not better than PCs, and PCs are not better than Macs. There are advantages to buying and owning both. But if you have a Mac, need a new computer and can't afford another Mac, or want to ditch your compatibility problems with other technologies, or need specific hard drive, RAM, and processor requirements, then don't be afraid of adjusting to PC life. And if you are a lifetime PC owner who has money to spend, wants a sleek, efficient computer, or if you're just plain tired of dealing with ad/malware and Anti-Virus programs, then don't be afraid of joining the Mac community.

I can speak from personal experience as I have been an exclusive PC user all my life until June when I bought a new MacBook Pro as a graduation gift to myself (with the help of a $5000 check from my grandfather). While I will never know the reverse, the principles of switching one way or the other are largely the same. I bought a MacBook Pro over a new PC laptop for three main reasons: I had money to spare, I was tired of dealing with viruses and Anti-virus programs, and I thought it would be a good idea to essentially increase my own human capital by familiarizing myself with Macs. I have to say that I've enjoyed the transition even with a few gripes. One pro is obviously not having to buy Norton, MacAfee, etc. (or deal with them slowing your computer), but a 7 hour battery life and fancy tools like Dashboard, Exposé, and a newly designed trackpad that senses the number of fingers you're using to perform different tasks makes my new toy follow Apple's status quo of creating user-friendly, fancy, trendy, hip (and expensive) technology.

The cons of Macs do however extend beyond the hefty price tag, though it does play a big part. You can get a comparable Hewlett Packard or Dell laptop for nearly half the price of a Mac, and desktops can be even cheaper. Macs also come with preset specs, so unless you buy from the online Apple store, you're stuck with 1GB RAM, 160GB hard drive, and other specs that PC nerds will scoff at. I bought mine online to have the option to bump it up a notch (and to save $100 through the education discount) and it still came at a premium of $1250 for a 13" screen. I personally didn't require a larger screen, so it was a non-issue. But if I had, you could have easily tacked on a couple hundred more wing-wangs to that price. With all the competition within the PC markets you get a much wider range of specs at a significantly smaller price, something Windows makes sure you know in their ads.

While PCs tend to seamlessly blend in with other technologies of the day, Macs are notorious for requiring all that is Apple to connect. Yes, there are some Windows software versions for Mac and vice-versa, but I have had my PC desktop hooked up to my LCD TV for the past year without having to do anything but plug it in (there is an RGB connection built in). I've looked into it, and for my Mac to do the same, I would have to buy a series of cords that total around $80, or I could buy Apple TV for well over $100. You can't even plug in an iPod into a wall socket anymore without spending an extra $30 for an adapter (something they used to include with iPods, and it even took Apple awhile to include a USB cord with one, as it was solely Firewire use). Apple (and its fuck-buddy AT&T) continue to piss off their own customers when it comes to applications and service on the iPhone and iPod Touch. Despite talks, I've had a relatively easy time with Dell Customer Service years after buying my PC and without having to pay, whereas you must spend over $100 to receive Apple Care Support beyond 1 year (which is also conveniently when many Apple products tend to being having problems). It's as if you buy Apple software products you're stuck with Apple products, and high prices on accessories continue to build. Even when Apple software shows up on PCs it takes up an insane amount of RAM to the point where most computers not built from scratch buy saavy computer geeks will slow down horrendously if iTunes and Quicktime are left running beyond 30 minutes.

It's amazing that what gets lost in the ad campaign wars between Macs and PCs is the fact that many people fear adjusting to different technology. They're comfortable with where they are, and would rather not change. It's easy to fear getting attacked by viruses if you've never dealt with them before, and it's easy to fear paying hundreds of dollars extra when you can deal with what you have. But I've witnessed many comments essentially concerning the structure of the operating system, and having to adjust to using Mac OSX or Windows. I would say that navigating through a Mac and through Windows is practically the same, and most differences are pretty negligible. They have tutorials on the Apple website tailored to converts like myself explaining the differences. I thought at first that these could prove helpful. How wrong I was. I watched one video and it didn't tell me anything I couldn't have figured out by myself within two minutes of turning on my Mac. Sure enough, anything and everything I've learned about a Mac has been learned through my experiences on a PC for the last 20 years, by 2-second trial and error processes, or my intuition. Incidentally, my intuition helped me navigate DOS when I was 2 (my mom has told me the story often. My dad freaked because he thought I would erase all his files, but I was merely observing my older sister enter in DOS commands earlier and I copied what she did in order to play this one game. I figured out DOS when I was 2 - born to be a nerd, was I).

The Mac's equivalent "Start" menu is called the "Finder," the Apple logo at the top right is like "My Computer" on PCs. Individual page menus (stuff like File, Edit, and View) are separate from the open applications and instead are at the top of the screen. Instead of MS Word, it's Pages, instead of Internet Explorer, it's Safari, Recycle Bin is instead Trash (oh snap, PCs are more green!), Windows Media Player is Quicktime. If you had locked someone in a room and along with life essentials only exposed him to PC/Windows products and nothing Apple, I just listed everything that guy would need to know to be competent working on a Mac. If that guy happened to have the IQ of a fifth grader, I would have just wasted my time telling him this information, because by the time I would have he would have figured it out. And you know what? Reverse everything I just said, and the same rules apply to someone who would not have previously known Windows if Bill Gates came up and grabbed him by the balls. It's just not that difficult to run a Mac OS or a Windows OS, despite what you've been exposed to.

There are many good reasons to switch from one type of computer to another, but if I had to offer only one piece of advice on shopping for a new computer, it is this: do some fucking research. Don't listen to Windows ads or the annoying-as-hell Mac ads on your television screen (obviously because a person rambling on the internet is much more qualified to tell you what to do). I would advise, unless you already have substantial knowledge of computers, to even go beyond reading those little cards in the stores that have the specs on them. Go to Cnet.com, which reviews electronics, or try reading a few Consumer Reports, and really pick a computer based on what you specifically need or want, not on names, ads, or operating systems. I have a PC desktop and a Mac laptop. Next time I buy a computer, I'm doing the really smart thing, and building my own computer and installing Linux, because it's way cheaper and safer than anything, as long as you know what you're doing ;)

Why Hockey Will Rise Once Again, and the NBA Will Fall

I recently had a mini-argument over Facebook with someone about the popularity order of professional sports. It's pretty clear what the Big Four of American sports are, but this guy was arguing that baseball was a distant third in the sports world, with the NFL and NBA going 1-2 (leaving the NHL in the cellar). Now, I could be suffering from some bias here with baseball as my far and away favorite professional sport, but I believe that MLB is second with the NBA at third. After apparently agreeing to disagree and leaving the topic alone for awhile, my brain revisited it and started to wonder what makes a particular sport popular in this country. Certainly there are plenty of factors, but it seems that the basic rule has to do with the team element more than anything.

I'm not exactly claiming that one sport is more of a team sport than another. In football a QB can't throw a touchdown without receivers and a running back can't run for one without some blocking. Baseball players can't drive in many runs without their teammates on base, and even then you need to rely on the pitchers and each other to keep the other team from scoring. In the NBA and NHL, successful plays, defenses, and formations require the whole unit working together. But the popularity of the NBA and NHL is much more heavily dependent on the popularity of the individual, whereas the NFL and MLB is more dependent on team popularity. Do you really think half the people interested in the NBA now would be if LeBron or Kobe weren't playing? Shaq's closer and closer to retiring, Kobe is aging, and LeBron has been worked to the bone the last couple years to the point where he could have his incredible career cut prematurely by injury. Popularity will still suffer if Kobe leaves and LeBron stays healthy because that individual rivalry will be lost.

Now look at the sports superstars in the NFL and MLB... hm... well the problem with that is that there isn't quite the separation of popularity between the first tier and second tier of superstars in these sports. I've been racking my brain trying to figure out who in the NFL and MLB world really separates themselves from the pack. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning? Albert Pujols and David Ortiz? There's still some questionability in claiming those players the most popular. Anyone who follows either sport could easily make a case that a third player is more popular than the choices I presented. In the NBA there's no question, absolutely no doubt, that LeBron and Kobe are the most popular players. They have their own stupid Nike puppet commercials, for shit's sake!

I mentioned the player rivalry of Kobe-LeBron, but player rivalries don't exist in the NFL or MLB. Players have tiffs and confrontations and arguments, but no real rivalries. That's left to the teams: Red Sox-Yankees, Cowboys-Giants, Cardinals-Cubs, Packers-Bears, Dodgers-Giants, Chargers-Raiders. That's just the top of the heap though. In the NBA there's not much I hear beyond Celtics-Lakers, and even then only recently has it been revived, and only in the Finals does it matter. The NFL and MLB have compelling rivalries that will always garner interest and will forever garner interest because the teams aren't going anywhere. Players' playing careers come and go, along with their rivalries, so say goodbye to Kobe-LeBron in a few years, and the popularity of the NBA with it.

The NBA and NHL rely on individual star power, and that's why they're subject to swings in popularity. So as Kobe-LeBron we will say goodbye to before you know it, a more interesting player rivalry from the NHL will take center stage: Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin. Not since Mario Lemieux has there really been as captivating a player as either Crosby or Ovechkin, and it escapes my very marginal knowledge of the sport of hockey to come up with another interesting player rivalry as this one. Crosby is by some hailed as the next Wayne Gretzky. He just won his first Stanley Cup with the Pittsburgh Penguins this year, and has a Golden-Boy image about him. Ovechkin by direct contrast to Crosby has been labeled as the bad boy, and the two have already had an epic 7-game playoff matchup this year. In addition to this rivalry, the pickup of games by the VS. channel and its transition to basic cable, rule changes since the 2004-05 lockout that help increase scoring, and an affluent fan base have helped the NHL reach a record number of sponsors and viewers in 2009. The NHL is definitely on the upswing, and even I was interested in this year's Stanley Cup Playoffs after years of neglect, and the more I watch Hockey the more I enjoy it. I will be paying attention when the new season starts, and I bet many more will join me.

The NBA will enter a sport's recession. It's happened before all around. Baseball's players' strike in 1994 crippled the sport until division realignment and the 1998 season (and by ironic proxy steroids) saved it. The NBA reached an all-time high in ratings in the 1997-98 season, but a lockdown following said season caused wild fluctuations in popularity and led to an all-time low in ratings in 2005. The NHL had its 2004-05 season entirely cancelled, but has come roaring back in the last season. Avoiding such player salary complications is probably a large reason why the NFL has constantly stayed the most popular sport in the country. Baseball has been in some turmoil for the past 6 years once this whole steroid thing started coming out, and while there are some lingering stories left in this saga, the MLB has reformed and has come out of this intact thanks to the wild-card format, expansion, and thus increasing parity. Despite a decade-low rating for the 2008 World Series (one that did feature a smaller composite market), 8 different teams have won a World Series since 1999, keeping fans from all around interested.

Team sports will always remain more popular than individual sports. Popularity with individuals sports come and go with the individual. Where would golf currently be without Tiger Woods? Swimming without Michael Phelps? Snowboarding without Shaun White? That's why it's interesting that the guy I was discussing this topic with said he believed that the UFC will overtake Hockey in popularity. It won't happen. I understand that the UFC has a growing, select, and very loyal fan base, enough to last, but it is still an individual sport, and those sports will never carry the same weight that team sports do. It's the individual focus in the NBA and NHL that allows it to suffer. What happens when everyone's favorite player retires? People stop watching basketball and hockey, but fans are more concerned with their team in football and baseball. Who knows why that is? Maybe we like the idea of overpaid millionaire athletes working together to win a trophy. Maybe it's easier to attach yourself to a team because of the city you live in, but how do you choose a person who plays golf or bowls or swims? Because they're the best? That's what creates douchebags and represents all the wrong things about routing for a team.

My favorite sport is and always will be baseball. But now that I'm living in a city with an NFL team, and now the NBA team from my hometown has once again become champions, and now after actually watching Hockey and enjoying it, I keep at least a moderate interest in all four major American sports. Right now I'm wrapped up with the best team in baseball, so at this moment it's all baseball all the time. All sports seems to converge sometime in October, so check back with me then.

Edit: One more thing I should mention is the fact the NBA salary cap is going to decrease the next couple seasons. With the decrease of the salary cap and luxury tax levels, the growing recession and the impending free agency of some of the game's premiere players that will demand top dollar, unless something is changed it looks like we're going to be heading into another player lockout. Hopefully it won't come to that (unless, of course, it is required for me to be right :) ).

Why Prisoner of Azkaban Is Still the Best Harry Potter Movie

So, like everyone and their mothers in the past couple of weeks, I saw the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in theaters. I enjoyed it, though there were some flaws, and it received generally positive reviews. A lot of critics were contending that this was the best Potter film yet, but I have to whole-heartedly disagree with them. I'm not going so far as to call it a bad movie as my sister did, but there shouldn't be a question that Prisoner of Azkaban is the best Harry Potter film made so far.

The Prisoner of Azkaban is a fantastic story that also made significant contributions to the rest of the series movie wise. I believe that the first two films were too similar to the book in the sense that they didn't adapt well to the screen. The Sorcerer's Stone is more excusable considering it serves more as an introduction to the entire world of magic and such. But the first two films really dragged on as it tried to squeeze as much of the books as it could into the screen. After re-watching the first two, there also seemed to be too many moments where there was a pause for dramatic, suspenseful effect. I don't know if this can all be blamed on director Chris Columbus, but the movie series definitely took a different direction (pun intended) when Alfonso Cuarón took over for the third film. It flowed very smoothly and the paced was picked up a little. I'm not upset about anything specific that was left out because it needs to happen for the film to work. However, minor details were the only thing really missing and the film length was cut down from the first two by about 15 minutes, even though the third book is significantly longer than the first two.

There is one other thing that always bothered me about the first two films. I wouldn't know who to place blame on really, and I never noticed it until the third because it was so different, but who the hell designed the Hogwarts grounds in the first two films? Not the castle itself, but the surrounding area. Anyone else notice that the scenes taking place outside in the first films were shot on entirely flat ground on clear days or nights? Way to stimulate my visual senses. Beginning with the third film, the grounds designs were changed dramatically. There were cliffs and mountains/hills/terrain and bridges and actual scenery that suddenly appeared in Prisoner of Azkaban that were largely absent from the previous installments. They never were part of any scenes, more for just pull-back shots and scene changes. Before, Hogwarts was there, and then there were surroundings. The third film showed Hogwarts as a place built into its surroundings rather than a place that existed alongside them. Perhaps the most noticeable difference was the location of the Whomping Willow, which characteristically appeared on its own on a flat patch of grass outside the castle in the second film. The next film had it along the edge of a hillside, outside the walls of the castle, and actually seeming like part of the scenery. With that inclusion, along with the overall darker tones of Dementors and Werewolves made the third film a clear visual upgrade. The template for the grounds has been used in every Potter film since, which is nice to see, but it also hasn't been exceeded, at least not obviously.

I remember a few years ago when Facebook was still a place for only people who had a college e-mail account. There was I group I saw that proclaimed that Richard Harris was a much better Dumbledore than Michael Gambon. These people are morons. I'm not glad that Richard Harris had to pass away for Gambon to land the part, but as the books progressed it became increasingly clear that Dumbledore was a commanding force to be reckoned with, and Harris' portrayal was one that was too grandfatherly to be that force. I won't claim that this recasting, which was clearly not intended, made this movie better, but Gambon has been a better Dumbledore. In fact, as far as role casting goes, whoever is in charge of it in these movies receives as A. Whether or not the actors chosen fit the exact physical description of their characters in the book (ahem, Alan Rickman), they have played their parts excellently. Helen Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange? Beautiful. Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart? Delightful. But my personal favorite is Gary Oldman as Sirius Black, who makes his first appearance in the series in Prisoner of Azkaban. The man who would become Commissioner Gordon in the new Batman series, and the man who foolishly tried to take over a plane that Harrison Ford was on plays a damn good Sirius Black, which was essential for the best story of the whole series. This doesn't take away from the great casting in other films, but rather bolsters Prisoner of Azakaban's credentials.

I've mostly pointed out the flaws of the first films, and it is true that the more recent movies are generally better. However I take a few issues with the fourth and the sixth and most recent film. Goblet of Fire was probably the most anticipated. A Triwizard Tournament, the return of Voldemort and the Death Eaters. I don't think it completely flopped, but there was a lot missing. They had even thought of splitting this movie into two like the final book, but felt it didn't fit. It's not that specific plot elements were missing, as their inclusion would've created a Return of the King-ending-type feeling for 3+ hours, it was a matter of what was included compared to what wasn't. The addition of Barty Crouch Jr. into the opening scene actually eliminated the twist at the end, and could've been accomplished more subtilely otherwise. And the buildup to the Quidditch World Cup yet its exclusion in film probably pissed off everyone who has ever read the book, including me, and it quite possibly could've been the most anticipated scene in the movie from book fans. It could be compared with Spiderman 3, a film that was solid, but tried to put too much into the film, but found it impossible to leave things out.

With the sixth and most recent film, I felt it was rather anti-climactic in multiple regards. I understand the exclusion of a battle scene at the castle to avoid repetitiveness in the fifth and the final films, but the confrontation between Harry and Snape at the end fizzled. I don't know whether to put blame on director David Yates or Rickman but Snape should have been way more passionately outraged at Harry using his homemade spells, like the book. The love story between Harry and Ginny was also lacking. What was in the book a surprising, somewhat climactic embrace after a Quidditch Cup victory was completely changed into a half kiss, and the story wasn't picked up and just presumed afterward. Not such a big deal had there also not been the buildup. Most everything else missing or lacking in the film can be attributed to it being a "transitional" film.

I actually found nothing wrong with the fifth film, which I watched again recently before the sixth appeared in theaters. I think that Order of the Phoenix is actually a close second to Prison of Azkaban in terms of its presentation on film. More excellent casting (Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge), and a great first big good vs. evil magic fight scene, but I always felt that Prisoner of Azkaban was a better story. They were both more darker tones with a light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel endings. However, Prisoner of Azkaban contains one of my favorite scenes in all the cinema I've seen, when Harry takes Buckbeak for a cruise over the lake. It's hard not to enjoy that scene. The story, not that scene, gives it the edge, but it's nice to have a memorable movie moment, something I don't think was quite given in Order of the Phoenix. In conclusion, Prisoner of Azkaban ftw.

Why Family Guy Is No Longer Funny

A funny thing happened to me nearly every day for the past 7 months. That would be me going through all the seasons I own on DVD of The Simpsons. That would be 1-9 and 11. I don't know why I don't own Season 10. It made me appreciate the heyday of this series all over again, and since I've recently gone through my Futurama DVDs with the commentary on, I will go through all those Simpsons DVDs with that commentary on. Who knows what jewels I can find. With all the TV I've been watching recently, I've had a lot of time to think about all the comedy I've absorbed over the years. I've watched a lot, so I feel like I have a good understanding of what is funny, and let me tell you something: Family Guy isn't funny anymore.

Family Guy may be the most interesting TV show if one were to do a comedy exposé (as I am now thinking of doing). For one, it was off-the-air for THREE FULL YEARS, then came roaring back after insanely strong DVD sales. To think about how astonishing that is, you can look no further than it's return debut, where Peter in a clever gag ends up listing nearly every show on FOX that was cancelled during those three years. Unfortunately, that one gag ended up being a prelude to a large part of the show's humor. It existed before at times, as when Peter trips, falls, and hits his shin. Maybe it went on a little long, but when was the last time you got kicked or hit in the shins really hard? That's really what it feels like! The first time I got hit in the shins hard after seeing that, I couldn't stop laughing, and I was in a bit of pain. But that was the old Family Guy.

It was, before its three year hiatus, quite hilarious. One of the reasons why is, believe it or not, it was actually sort of grounded. At least, grounded enough. Stewie's homosexual tendencies, Brian's alcoholism and love for Lois, and even Peter's escapades were all moderately kept in check, and really let loose only once in awhile. Now, you can't go five minutes without something "outrageous" and "barrier breaking" happening. But it's not just that, it's the in-your-face approach that Family Guy fails at. It tries to do too much with being unconventional or fighting the man or whatever you want to call it, and it takes too much away from the story line. Then at the end of the main story line, the lesson is learned and then forgotten about within about 8 seconds, like the lesson learned is nothing more than obligatory to include as part of the episode.

Nonetheless, the return of Family Guy was initially met with praise from my peers and me. We had loved it, and I felt it left right when it was really hitting a stride. It's first episode back was a good sign, but almost immediately after came a clunker, then a so-so episode, then another clunker, and then a really good episode. Family Guy in short, became hit-or-miss. It would shine one week, but then deflate the next. And it became enough where I quickly stopped watching new episodes on Sundays. The inconsistency, in part stemming from it's supposedly outlandish content, probably hurt it the most.

Family Guy also suffers from dragging its good gags along too far. For example, this. I found myself watching this on TV for the first time thinking it was pretty clever then it got to about 0:38 left (in the linked clip) where I thought "just end it already." It plum wiped the smile I had straight off my face. And it's more of the same. I could spew off 100 more recent clips of this show with a solid bet that barely anyone finds it actually funny. It's just random fillings. It's almost precisely why my favorite episode from South Park is "Cartoon Wars," where the writers of Family Guy are portrayed as manatees who write jokes by pushing random rubber "idea balls" into a bin together.

It's really quite sad, because Family Guy was one of my favorite shows and one of the funniest. It just seems that after it came back it started to become drunk with power. It makes me concerned about the quality of Futurama when it returns next year, and not just because the voice talent may not return. At this point I can only hope.

Tracking My Expenses

Yesterday I bought Wii Sports Resort, and it was one of three purchases I've made on my credit card in the last MONTH that you couldn't file under food/rent/utilities/gas purchases. Also, since I'm still under the beneficiary of my parents for one more guaranteed month, not too many dents have been made in my bank account despite being unemployed since the end of March.

This isn't an excuse for not finding a job. I certainly could have been a little more diligent. It's also not exactly like the economy is just spewing out jobs for me, but I have been able to steadily survive with a small surplus while receiving pseudo-paychecks. Since my employment ended 4 months ago, I have had the last paycheck from my job, a government tax rebate, and various graduation checks deposited into my account, including a generous $5000 check from my grandfather which I partially used to buy myself a fancy new MacBook Pro. And that's not all. Sure enough, sometime this week I expect two more checks to arrive: a rebate check from buying an iPod Touch with the new laptop, and a check from the investment company that controls the retirement savings from UCSD employees (there was only my money in there due to one summer which I worked full-time hours on a part-time job so a small part of the paycheck was transferred to said investment company). The two checks come close to $400, another pseudo-paycheck.

It's the difference in Account Balances (or lack there-of) that strike this all as very interesting to me, because aside from maybe a video game or two more, I don't have any pressing needs or wants to buy that I wouldn't think twice about if I had a job. You'd think I would want something, but at this point I can easily live comfortably. I realize this is all subject to change once I am cut off from my parents, but if I can make enough to cover rent/utilities/food I could survive handily. I've already made all the big purchases I've wanted to, which include a nice LCD TV, a Nintendo Wii... and hell I can't really think of another. I don't exactly want to set the job bar low for myself, but considering the state of the economy I may not have much of a choice anyway.

It's getting closer and closer to the point where I may have to settle for a job that I would consider beneath me. That's something my ego and pride with have to swallow, but I have always come through when it has counted most, so all I need is the confidence to succeed in whatever I end up doing.

Ugh, that was a terribly cheesy ending...

My Top 5 Simpsons Episodes

So, let me explain my train of thought on this one, because it's mildly interesting. It all starts with me not currently having a job. This creates loads of free time for me, as you can imagine. Now, things I think of to do only exhausts so much time each day. Thank the gods it's baseball season, or I'd really be in trouble.

In addition to watching all three seasons of Arrested Development again, I realized that for how many times I've seen all the Futurama episodes, and for how many years I've owned the DVDs, I've never listened to the audio commentary, which is practically blasphemy. I've now watched most of Volume 3 with the commentary on, which includes many great episodes including mine and IGN's consensus #1 (A link to IGN's tops 25 Futurama episodes here), "Amazon Women in the Mood." If you know me on Facebook, you can look at what I chose for my top 10. This led me to a much arduous task: picking my top 5 Simpsons episodes. Even if you eliminate the last 10 (forgettable anyway) years of the show's existence, this is still a tall order.

Entertainment Weekly has a pretty solid top 25 Simpsons episodes here. If you do a quick rundown of the list, you see that at least 20, probably more, of those episodes are on the other side of the millennium, and understandably so. If you want me to get to my picks already, you should know that most of the time spent typing this has really been buying me time to actually pick the episodes. It's tough!

A note: I don't know if I can possibly pick a definitive top 5, much less a #1, so these are all subject to change. This is also why I have 5 honorable mentions (which effectively makes this a top 10 list). Remember, this is also MY top 5, not what I think THE top 5 is.

#5. The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson - The premiere season 9 and the most recent of my personal faves, NY v. Homer is probably pushing itself up the list because now it's considered taboo. If you don't know or haven't guessed why, this is because a large portion of this episode involves the Twin Towers, so FOX pulled it from its rerun rotation after 9/11. I won't bore you with plot summaries, so I'll stick with reasons why these episodes make the list.

#4. Homer at the Bat - A late season 3 episode, this one makes it partially because I'm a baseball fan, so little jokes seem funnier to me. Don't mistake that for blind judgement though, this one does have a bit of everything. It also showed the power of this show by getting a full roster of major league superstars at the time to play themselves: Wade Boggs, Jose Canseco, Roger Clemens, Ken Griffey Jr., Don Mattingly, Steve Sax, Mike Scioscia, Ozzie Smith, and Darryl Strawberry.

#3. 22 Short Films About Springfield - If only this one could be made an hour long. It was quite enjoyable to see many of the minor characters of the show get some limelight without devoting a normally tiresome episode to them. Secondary characters get some love, but it is a stretch when third tier characters normally known for one line/joke/stereotype are given serious screen time. They know who they are.

#2. Bart Gets an F - The premiere of Season 2, the first full season of this show. This was back when The Simpsons had more believable, character driven stories, and even jerked a tear or two from me near the end when I watched it most recently. Even in such great seasons as the 6th and 7th, you could feel The Simpsons of old slipping away into what is now mostly zany antics. It seems to me that Groening wanted a do-over and created Futurama, which throughout its existence has consistently produced excellent characters and memorable jokes and gags. Also, holding a show 1000 years in the future gives better excuse for zany antics, as one of their better credit gag lines read "You Can't Prove It Won't Happen." This episode also contains a wonderful quote from Lisa, combining her impeccable intellect and reasoning and her containment in a child's world: "I'm no theologian. I don't know who or what God is exactly. All I know is He's a force more powerful than Mom and Dad put together, and you owe him big."

#1. Bart Sells His Soul - I've mentioned this before as my possible favorite episode, and no matter how many times I make a list like this, this episode will consistently show up on it. It is the struggle I face as a scientific-minded yet intrigued agnostic put on screen for 23 minutes. I've even attempted, on more than one occasion, to buy someone's soul a la Milhouse as a social experiment (too afraid to try and sell mine). Both deals fell through. Nonetheless, a lesson is learned, jokes were made, but never before have the two been so perfect together in my mind.

Honorable Mentions (no particular order)

Homer's Barbershop Quartet - Once again flashing the power of the show, this one featured the voice talent of former Beatle George Harrison. In fact, Ringo Starr, Paul McCartney, and Harrison have all lent their voices to the show at one point.

Separate Vocations - One of the great Bart-and-Lisa-centric episodes, this one has a great reversal of fortunes and personal sacrifice. Something this compelling I think has been missing from the show for awhile.

Marge vs. The Monorail - A consensus top episode, this one holds close to me because of The Music Man undertone. Also present I believe is the first of several Leonard Nimoy appearances on Groening related programming.

Homer Goes To College - Written by now Tonight Show Host Conan O'Brien (yes, that Conan) this one gets up there purely for the Animal House parodies, much like "Mars University" from Futurama.

King-Size Homer - Perhaps if this episode were made 8 years later, Homer may have faced a few more consequences after the "sudden" emergence that we have a serious obesity problem in the country. Regardless, this episode is just too funny to leave off any list.

The Itch, The Scratch, and The Body

How come anti-itch cream never seems to work when we need it to? It must be because we're always focused on the itch and it going away. Once we focus on it, the mind takes over the body, and the itch sometimes even feels worse. We've never learned to just leave the itch alone so it can just pass and go away.

Last week I miraculously contracted shingles. I say miraculously because shingles mostly occurs in people over 50 years old, or with a suppressed immune system, or mucho stress-o, or all three. I'm a laid back, 22 year old recent college graduate who has gotten the flu once in ten years without ever getting a flu shot in those 10 years. Hard to see where I fit in.

For those of you who don't know what shingles is, read Wikipedia. I'm not a professor. But I do know that it causes some itching. Interesting how the majority of the itching I feel is not associated with the large rash on my back, but the small set to the left of my belly button. It's really quite annoying. I wish I could trade back the itching to feel the pain I had earlier, because I could at least pop some Aleve to help with that.

You're probably wondering where this is all going, so let me assure you that there is one badass politically colored metaphor coming. My views on metaphors are mostly expressed in this article I wrote on LJ a couple years back, but even I didn't expect the upcoming one to work so well when I first thought of it:

The Gay Community (& Friends) is The Itch "Itchy"

The Anti-Gay Community is The Scratch "Scratchy"

So we're clear, I am not saying anything specific about what's wrong or right, or who should win, or anything of that nature. People who know me know what I think about it. I'm merely using this topic as a surprisingly fitting piece in my Itch analogy. I like how it fits. Also, I hope I don't get sued by Matt Groening.

So assume that everything is all hunky-dory at the beginning. But then, the body, America, contracts shingles. Nerve inflammation with a lot of pain on one side, a large rash on the back, and one small spot on the front that itches like hell. Always something wrong in America, but we're focusing on this itch, because we can see it in front of us and see that it is not just going to go away. We know that if we leave Itchy alone, it will eventually resolve itself and everyone is happy (read: Gays get rights, Anti-Gays deal with it until eventual harmony; Not Gays go away and never come back). But Itchy doesn't control the body, Scratchy does (at least one of the arms anyway), and Scratchy thinks that by just scratching the itch, Itchy will go away. For some reason, he hasn't figured out that this isn't true.

Scratching the itch only makes Itchy mad. Itchy starts to bring in its Friends, and the itch becomes worse as a result. As the itch gets worse, the body America gets distracted from the excruciating pain (Economy/Recession) and the large rash on the back (hm... let's say Iraq War) and starts focusing more on this itch that never should have been (read: Gay marriage should not even be an issue). It starts applying anti-itch creams (Propositions/State Laws) to where it is bothered, and while it works to some degree (CT, VT, MA etc.) it won't stop and only seems to get worse (CA).

I wish I could trade back the itching to feel the pain I had earlier, because I could at least pop some Aleve to help with that.

So I wish America would stop trying to deal with Itchy, because really it's just a matter of time before the itch is resolved and it can live with the body unperturbed again. Anti-itch creams may help, but because it draws attention to it, you're too focused on it to worry about the bigger problems in your body, which you can do something about (Aleve) and should be worried about more (because of the PAIN). Unfortunately for America, Scratchy exists, and will keep scratching and hoping for Itchy to go away. Itchy ain't going away as long as you keep scratching, folks.

Welcoming Myself Back To Blogging

Hello, Blogosphere. It has been awhile. Let's start anew, shall we?

Throughout my life I've had a Xanga and Livejournal for my blog, but for whatever reason I feel I've outgrown those particular sites. Regardless of the demographic for those sites, using them reminds of a less cool time in my life: High School. So I've moved on. I've become immersed in Twitter, which for better or worse, I love, but most my thoughts are hard to be expressed in 140 characters or less. I'm very deliberate and thorough when I speak, Twitter isn't exactly the place for that.

So, I now have this. No particular reason for choosing this blog site, so as my former co-workers license plate says, DNWRBDT (decipher that, I give you a cookie).

That's mostly all I have to say for now, but I do want to say that I highly encourage discussion and debate, and I don't care whether you are someone I am close to, someone I barely know, or a random person who just clicked Stumble in Safari, tell me what you think. Unlike most, I can take criticism gracefully and respond without attacking.