She Was Asking For It

So the other day I was reading a blog written by women. The bloggers were discussing a woman who had experienced quite a bit of on-the-job harassment - from men and women alike - much of which was sexual in nature. I suppose some folks would call that sexual harassment. I assumed that these women would line up with support for the harassed woman, but that wasn't necessarily the case. One of the bloggers was understandably disquieted by the behavior toward this woman. However, another blogger's response was somewhat unsettling. Response has been edited for "clarity."

I think that when you've used your sexuality as a tool as much as she has, you're fair game for that kind of behavior. When I think of that woman, I kept coming back to the interview and her behavior. For days after that, I kept thinking that if she had been meeting with another woman who wasn't using the same tactics of using sex appeal, she would have looked ridiculous. As it was, she was meeting with a man, and even if you don't agree with the tactic (since it sends the message that sexuality is one of the tools that women need to use to get ahead), it's her prerogative to use it, and I'm sure it does work for some people. I just think once you go down that road in front of everybody, you're fair game to how people react. Heck, when your own friend describes you—proudly—as a "direct counterpoint to the stodgy women of old" do you really even want the protection that other women seem willing to afford you from being ogled? Whether women should extend it is another question. I think she pretty well set herself up for the ogling—and the "harassment" that ensued.

Basically, regardless of how vile the harassment may have been, it's her own fault because her behavior was tinged with sex appeal. In other words, she was asking for it. I suppose one could argue with the blogger's description of the situation - contend that there is a fine line between sex appeal and charm - but I'm not sure that is really the point. Even given the premise that sex appeal was the modus operandi for this woman, are ogling and harassment really considered acceptable responses? Are women, in particular, are okay with this kind of harassment? It would seem so.




Here is the orignal posting. See if your reaction changes when reading it in the original context.

To Protect and Serve...and Put Your Grandma In Jail

When I first saw the headline stating, 89-year-old charged with keeping kids' ball, I thought Yahoo accidentally posted an Onion article. As best I can tell, it is not a phony story.

BLUE ASH, Ohio – Police in Ohio say an 89-year-old woman is facing a charge of petty theft because neighborhood children accuse her of refusing to give back their football.

Edna Jester was arrested last week in the Cincinnati suburb of Blue Ash.

Police say one child's father complained that Jester kept the youngsters' ball after it landed in her yard. Police Capt. James Schaffer says there has been an ongoing dispute in the neighborhood over kids' balls landing in the woman's yard.

Jester said Monday she has received many calls and didn't have time to discuss the matter any more.

Jester is to appear in court next month. The maximum penalty for a petty theft conviction in Ohio is six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

~Yahoo

I think we can all relate to being kids whose ball was lost over the fence, but I can't say it happened to me very often. Regardless, I don't recall whining to my parents if the ball wasn't returned. If anything, one kid would just have to be brave enough to try and get it back without being caught. However, this was risky as it increased the likelihood that your parents would find out and get on to you for being irresponsible. Still, kids today are whiners so I guess it's not unforeseeable that they'd go crying to their parents when the old lady kept the ball. Kids being whiny isn't all that terrible, but there are some pretty bothersome things about this story.

First of all, the woman was 89 years old and the cops arrested her. 89! This lady is clearly hardcore. How many 89-year-olds do you know that live at home, as opposed to a nursing home or assisted living center? (I'm pretty sure those things are the same and they just say assisted living so kids won't feel as bad about putting their parents in a nursing home.) When she was a kid there was a little thing going on called the Great Depression so throwing the ball into her neighbor's yard probably isn't something she got to experience very often. I don't think a little time in the pokey is going to bother her much, but you can't tell me there wasn't a better way for the po-po to handle the matter.

And secondofly, what kind of lesson is the parent teaching his kids by calling the cops on the old lady? Instead of telling the kids to, you know, stop throwing the ball into the old lady's yard, the dad calls the police? I think the dad was just ashamed that his kids were such bad athletes that their balls routinely landed in unintended locations. He must have known that telling them to stop throwing the ball into the yard would be a futile endeavor. So in order for the kids to keep feeling like beautiful and unique snowflakes he called the cops on the old lady. Now the kids can act as retarded as they want without having to worry about the consequences. I expect this will serve them well in 30 years when they're members of Congress.

Personally, I hope the old lady pops all the balls she's collected from the kids and then drops them in a heap on their lawns. Or better yet, she should stand on the sidewalk and rifle a couple balls at the windows of the kids' houses. As far as I'm concerned, they've got it coming.

White People are Being Defamed!

Evidently some people are upset about a recent episode of South Park (warning: foul language). Why? It depicts people they relate to in a negative light. In an attempt to poke fun at the most recent Indiana Jones movie for basically being terrible (at least according to the show; I haven't seen the movie), South Park depicts Director Steven Speilberg and Executive Producer/"Story Creator" George Lucas actually raping Harrison Ford. They also show Lucas go after a storm trooper (Episodes I, II, and III were quite bad), but there's no mention of that. A graphic, unnecessary metaphor for making a bad movie? Yeah, I'd say so. An affront to Jewish people? Wait, what?

"It's racist," said Chaim Noiman, 22. He added that show creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone should "go to hell."

"I'm not Jewish, but I think it's offensive. Raping someone is anti-religion. It's anti-anything," said Berkeley student Ekansh Arora, 21.

"This episode is not necessarily anti-Jewish," conceded Myrna Shinbaum of the Anti-Defamation League. "If anything, it's more about Chinese-American stereotypes...[but]'South Park' has been offensive and has had very anti-Jewish pieces in the past," she said. "We understand that the show is trying to satirize, but it may get lost on those who are haters."

New York Daily News

Ekansh Arora seems to be the only one who is focusing on a real issue (rape is being used as a comedic device). The others? Not so much. Apparently vengeance belongs not to the Lord, but to Chaim Noiman. Good to know.

Let's ignore that the statement issued by the Anti-Defamation League referred to "haters" (this is a professional organization?) and just focus on the merits.

Not once in the entire episode is there any mention of any of the characters being Jewish. Steven Spielberg is Jewish, but George Lucas is not. However, both men are White. But the episode aired on Yom Kippur. Shinbaum seems to basically be saying that people who hate Jews won't understand it's satire, but part of the offense comes from the timing of the show. Does she think people who hate Jews will hate them more because a "defamatory" show aires on a Jewish holiday? How many Non-Jews were aware that October 9 was Yom Kippur? I suppose hard-core anti-Semites would be aware of the holiday, but they're already haters, so it seems unlikely that South Park's depiction of a Jewish director would influence them. This offense seems tenuous at best.

The ADL's mission statement is "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people, to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike." Yet, the depiction of Chinese as plotting to take over America receives only a passing mention. Her argument basically comes down to, "It's really offensive to Chinese, but South Park normally hates Jews so let's not forget that." I'm sure South Park co-creator Matt Stone, a Jew himself, will keep that in mind next time he depicts someone in a negative light.

This whole thing reminds me of a news blurb I read this summer.

NBC Olympics President Gary Zenkel has apologized to Australian gold-medal winner Matthew Mitcham for not profiling the openly gay diver during the network's coverage or showing his partner in the stands at the time of his victory. "We regret that we missed the opportunity to tell Matthew Mitcham's story. We apologize for this unintentional omission," Zenkel said.
imdb.com

I have no idea how many hours of programming there were during the Olympics, but I'm pretty sure at least half of those were devoted to Michael Phelps. The other half seemed to be divided between discussion of whether or not Chinese Gymnasts were really pre-schoolers and trying to figure out how fast Usain Bolt would be if he wasn't such a show-boat. And the ratings were pretty big. Sounds like NBC made sound programming decisions. Well, except for failing tape-delaying events. Now, that warrants an apology.

There were over 10,000 Olympians competing in China, but Mr. Zenkel chooses to apologize for not profiling an Australian diver, that no one has ever heard of, who likes dudes. Seriously? Was there a clamoring for this story? If so, I certainly missed it. They regret that they unintentionally omitted telling a story? How many stories did NBC unintentionally omit to tell? Where are the apologies for the 10,000 other athletes whose stories NBC unintentionally omitted to tell? Sounds like Zenkel has a lot of work to do. Basically the dude got upset so NBC tried to cover itself because one person was upset and they feared making more people angry. What a joke.

Let's see if we can stop being offended by every little thing that doesn't happen to line up with our point of view. It's a wonder this country survives its elections (although this year is still up in the air). I realize that refusing to take offense would likely result in folks like Myrna Shinbaum needing to find a new place to work, but I'm okay with that. Surely the ADL can stand to trim some of it's $50 million budget or at least use it more efficiently. In conclusion, if you do happen to see something that upsets you, my advice is, as always, "Butch up, cupcake!"


p.s. I regret that I missed the opportunity to say nice things about White people during this post. It was an unintentional omission.

Baseball Owns, Soccer is for Socialists and Golf is not a Sport

So I'm reading this article over at ESPN.com about awards and trophies in sports. The author, Jim Caple, provides his list of the championships and awards he would most like to win. In perusing some of the comments I came upon A LOT of whining.

Some of the more retarded comments are below.

WSOP Main Event Bracelet

Green Jacket or the Claret Jug.

World Cup...Soccer...I'm a socialist!

Okay, so that last one isn't a direct quote, but I think it pretty much captures the comments of the soccer lovers.

There were, however, a couple good suggestions:

What about a glowing piece of the Aggro Crag from Nickelodeon's GUTS?

Well, I guess that's actually only one good suggestion. At any rate, I figured I'd feed my need for attention by sharing with you my list. I've only included the items on Caple's list (with one exception), which unfortunately means the Aggro Crag will not be featured. If it was included, it would probably be somewhere in the teens. It's a rock that glows, people. How cool is that? Oh, and neither will the World's Strongest Man title, which would probably be Top 5. Sorry Magnús Ver Magnússon. I've also omitted some items from the list because I'm lazy. Still, I think you'll like it. Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back.


The List

1. Baseball Hall of Fame Plaque - there are 278 members (196 players) of the Baseball Hall of Fame. There have been over 16,000 individuals who have played in the Major Leagues. Therefore, 1.2% (a conservative estimate) of baseball players make the Hall of Fame. I'm not sure anything that prestigious is as selective. All little boys want to be a Major League Baseball players when they grow up (well, unless they're Canadian). This is the pinnacle and if you put it anywhere other than at #1, I'd appreciate you depart from my presence before I punch you in the throat.*

2. World Series Ring - there's no better sport than baseball. And there's no better baseball than October baseball. Win one of these and you'll never take it off.

3. Stanley Cup - if you win the Cup, you get your name etched in the Cup. That's cool, eh?

4. Baseball Triple Crown - only 16 players have achieved this feat, and no one since 1967. What other award has gone 41 years and counting without anyone receiving it?

5. Olympic Gold Medal - probably the most universally recognizable of sporting awards, but most people are going to laugh at you if you wear it for more than a week or two after you win it. It makes for a nice coaster in a pinch, though. Still, the fact that you can win one for rhythmic gymnastics (or any gymnastics, for that matter) keeps it from getting any higher on this list.

6. Heavyweight Championship Belt - people might be tempted to laugh at you for wearing this thing out in public. However, you can easily beat those people up. You can probably easily beat up pretty much anyone, for that matter.

7. Retired Jersey - getting a professional jersey is cool enough. Being as only 1.2% of baseball players make the Hall of Fame, having your jersey retired by a team is a pretty nice consolation prize. I realize they retire jerseys in other sports too, but I don't care.

8. Gold Glove - chicks dig the long ball, but defense is the new hotness. Plus, it's a glove made out of gold.

9. Heisman Trophy - great looking trophy, but now-a-days, if you win this thing you've pretty much peaked. And no one likes to peak at age 22.

10. Cy Young - this would've been higher if Roger Clemens didn't have so many of them - dirty cheater.

11. Baseball MVP - this would've been higher if Barry Bonds didn't have so many of them - dirty cheater.

12. Super Bowl Ring - winning a Super Bowl is undoubtedly great. But there are 53 guys on an active NFL roster and that number can balloon to 80 depending on the circumstance. When you're handing out at least 50 awards each year, the luster starts to wear off a little bit.

13. NBA Championship Ring - much smaller rosters in the NBA, but that also means there are more great players without one (sorry, Barkley). And Mark Madsen has two of these.

14. NBA MVP - Steve Nash has as many MVPs as Tim Duncan and more than Kobe Bryant. What a crock.

15. Bobblehead - unfortunately anyone can have their own bobblehead these days. The CEO of my old company has one. Lame.

16. Silver Slugger - you're the best hitter at your position. That's nice.

17. Wife-Carrying Trophy - real men support their wives.

18. Wheaties Box - would be higher if multiple gymnasts hadn't graced it.

19. NFL MVP - quickly name the last 5 NFL MVPs. Do it! Uh, yeah, I couldn't do it either.

20. Naismith Award - James Naismith invented basketball. I assume this award is for some sort of basketball achievement.

21. Final Four Net - true or false: I could buy a net at the store, cut it up, put a piece in a frame and you'd never know the difference. True. As we all know, the big prize in college athletics don't go to the players anyway.

22. Tour de France Yellow Jersey - they give this thing out every day during the event. Plus, anything given by the French is bound to suck (Statue of Liberty, excluded).

23. Little League World Series Trophy - cool when you're twelve, but by the time you reach college no one cares.

24. College World Series - unfortunately, I think even fewer people care about the College World Series than the Little League World Series.

25. BCS Championship - the BCS is a fraud. A real championship would easily jump up 10 spots on the list.

26. Frozen Four Championship - hockey is fun, but I don't think these guys get their name etched on a cup.

27. Pro Football Hall of Fame Bust - these things are just creepy. Plus, the voting system is a joke. Lynn Swann played for the Steelers in the 70's and made a couple spectacular catches, so he gets in. But Bob Hayes isn't in and Art Monk didn't make it until this year. Huh? Oh, and who was the moron who decided not to put a hat on Tom Landry's bust?

28. Wimbledon Cup and Platter - all we need from the British, we've already taken.


The rest of these aren't worthy of being included on any reputable list of sports accomplishments. In no particular order:

Soccer World Cup - I'm an American. I'm not a raving lunatic. I don't enjoy starting fires during games. I don't enjoy riots in the stands or in the streets. Look at those rioters running away. Cowards. I don't care about soccer. I will never care about soccer. Just because Europeans go nuts over it, doesn't mean it's great.

Cover of Sports Illustrated - Doesn't this usually portend failure?

Madden Video Game Cover - Doesn't this usually portend injury…or imprisonment?

WNBA Championship - I'm not a woman.

Fantasy League Championship - I prefer to root for teams, as opposed to some inconsequential cobble of players. Plus, I don't live in my parents' basement.

Sprint Cup - NASCAR isn't a sport. Even if it was, this is just a stupid trophy that has a sponsor's name on it. In 5 years this thing will be named after Viagra.

Indy 500 Milk Bottle - Indycar isn't a sport either, but at least these guys drive as fast as possible. Either way, this thing is just a regular bottle of milk with some lame label on it.


Golf-related awards:

Masters Green Jacket - I'm not a big fan of winning things in places that don't like Black people or women. But I think Happy Gilmore said it best, "Gold jacket, green jacket, who gives a s**t?"

British Open's Claret Jug - it's an ugly cup. And it's golf (also not a sport).

U.S. Open (golf) - still golf - and another cup!

Wanamaker Trophy (Golf) - another golf cup that looks just like every other golf cup. Yawn

Ryder Cup - a reeeeeally stupid looking trophy.


And finally, the stupidest of the non-sports awards:

World Series of Poker Bracelet - Aside from the fact that poker isn't anywhere close to being a sport; this is a bracelet. A bracelet. I suppose I could understand a woman wanting to win a nice bracelet, but what self-respecting man wants to wear a bracelet?


*Throat punch, Copyright © 2008 by Wealth of Nations, All rights reserved.

M&Ms (Or When I Can't Think of Anything Original to Write About)

It's been a while since I posted anything on here, though I've gone much longer in between posts before. Even so, I'm sure y'all are upset at the lack of new content on Rowrbazzle. I'm sure by now most of you have reread my previous posts so many times you could recite them from memory. Unfortunately, this post probably won't really do much to assuage your Rowrbazzle withdrawals, as yours truly is serving only as a conduit of content.

Here's a absurdly funny (I hope that description doesn't get your hopes up too high) anecdote about M&Ms.

Whenever I get a package of plain M&Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. To this end, I hold M&M duels...

Continued at RogerEbert.com

Enjoy.

Too Much Baseball? Perish the Thought!

So I was reading a baseball chat over at espn.com and noticed this little bit of information

...the Tigers are nine under -- and only one team in the wild-card era has been more than seven under heading into June and made it to the postseason...

~ Jason Stark

I thought for about 2 seconds and decided that the team he was referring to was the Houston Astros of 2005. I did a little fact checking and sure enough, it was the 2005 Astros. Now, I am not an Astros fan. I am a Cubs fan. So why did I know that bit of inconsequential baseball trivia?

The Cubs and Astros are in the same division, but the Cubs were decidedly mediocre in 2005 (big surprise, I know) so it's not like the Astros kept the Cubs out of the postseason or anything. I am a Texan (Dear Lord, thank you for the blessing You have bestowed upon me), but again, not an Astros fan. I have attended many Astros games in my lifetime and have proudly rooted against them in every game. I went to a Phillies game in Philadelphia where they happened to be playing the Astros. I rooted for the Phillies. That was a pretty cool game actually. It featured an around the horn triple play, performed by the Astros, with help from an incredibly slow catcher for the Phillies. That's not as rare as an unassisted triple play, but it's not exactly common either.

Speaking of unassisted triple plays and the Phillies, Mickey Morandini once pulled off the feat while playing for the Phillies. Morandini also played for the Cubs for a couple seasons and even finished 24th in MVP voting in 1998. And, no, I did not actually know about Morandini's MVP finish, I just happened to see it on baseballreference.com (great website). The Astros actually won that game in Philadelphia, despite being down big. The Phillies had a pretty bad bullpen. But seriously, who gave Morandini an MVP vote? He was a serviceable 2nd baseman, but I'm pretty sure there were more than 23 players who were more valuable to their teams' success than Mickey.

No, there was no good reason for me to know this factoid about the Astros coming back from an abysmal start to make the postseason. There is no reason for me to know that Mickey Morandini performed an unassisted triple play. I'm wondering if maybe I have too much baseball in my life. I know, I know. That's lunacy. It can't be true. After all, I did have to look up the information about how Morandini finished in the MVP voting in '98. If I had too much baseball in my life, then I would've known that bit of information without needing baseball reference. Hmmm. Sounds like I need more baseball in my life.

NCAA = Frauds Part II

A quote from a previous post had me intrigued so I did a little bit of research.

Roughly 95 cents of every dollar pocketed by NCAA will go to member institutions in support of student-athletes, says Greg Shaheen [the NCAA's senior vice president for basketball and business strategies]. USA Today

According to ESPN, CBS currently pays the NCAA $545 million a year for the rights to broadcast the Mens College Basketball Tournament. According to Shaheen the vast majority of those funds goes to the universities. The NCAA has an exceptionally convoluted method of allocating those funds. I don't fully understand it, but I can read Wikipedia, which has a nice summary. After the NCAA finishes with their fancy math they arrive at about $145 million in projected distribution across all the schools in the participating conferences.

Setting aside the fact that the schools that do better get more money, basically ensuring that the rich get richer, I just want to look at the actual numbers. I'm not certain if the $145 million refers to the entire distribution from NCAA tournament funds or just the 50% that is said to be distributed based on conference performance. Being the nice guy that I am, I'll give the NCAA the benefit of the doubt and say that $145 million is 50% of the total distribution. That would mean that the total distribution is $290 million.

Let's see. The NCAA gets $545 million each year from CBS and pays out $290 million total to all the schools. 95% of $545 million is about $518 million. $290 million < $518 million. $290 million is 95% of about $306 million. So where exactly is the rest of the money going? There is between $228 and $255 million ($518-$290 and $545-$290) unaccounted for in these numbers. If the $145 million value is taken as the entire distribution the numbers get even worse. Under that scenario we'd be looking at $370 to $400 million of missing money. Regardless of whether it's $400 million or just $228 million we're looking at some large stacks of cash.* It makes you wonder.

Hey, how much do you think a senior vice president of basketball and business strategies makes each year?

*Stacks of Cash, Copyright © 2003 by Señor Entropy, All rights reserved.

Touch 'Em All

Sports at its finest.

Follow the Leader?

I was perusing the comments section of ESPN's recap of the San Antonio Spurs' victory over the Phoenix Suns in game 1 of their opening round series. For those of you who didn't watch the game, you can check out the highlights here. Given the NBA's television ratings (especially ratings when the Spurs are playing), I'm pretty sure most folks did not tune into the game. That's a shame because it was a classic. Anyway, back to the comments. There are way too many comments to read, but I came across one that was especially insightful into the psyche of a what seems to be a typical Suns fan:

The refs were horrible and decided the game against the Suns....AGAIN!

Looking at the box score, you can see that the Spurs were called for 3 more fouls than the Suns. They also attempted 7 more free throws and made a higher percentage of those free throws than the Spurs made of their free throws. It was an exciting game that could have gone either way. I'd like to think (for the sake of competitive fairness) that the Suns themselves wouldn't be given to such hysterical reactions. Then I remembered that this guy is their leader and that thought was quickly extinguished. And the fans' reactions made perfect sense.

Assessing Value: School is Great, So Shut Up About Your Debt

I've been hearing people complain recently about the cost of a higher education and that many students are going into quite a bit of debt in order to pay for their schooling. Never mind that there are places (Tennessee and Georgia, for example) where all in-state students receive free tuition at state schools, provided they maintain a certain GPA. In Tennessee, I believe the required level is 3.0 (that's a B). There are also prestigious universities (Stanford and Harvard, for example) that are using their massive endowments to ensure that students whose parents make less than a certain amount ($150k, I think) will leave school debt free.

That being said, the majority of students probably must still rely on some sort of financial aid. For those people fortunate enough to have their parents pay for everything, well that's nice. For everyone who is relying on student loans, it's not as bad as you think. Yours truly has attended 9 years of school, the first 6 of which relied almost exclusively on loans. I have had little to no help from the parents and inconsequential amounts of scholarships (until these last 3 years). As a result, I'm looking at about $70,000 in debt. Whoa is me. Whooooooaaaa is me!

Whatever. Consolidate that debt at a low rate and pay it off over 30 years. 30 years? Wait a second. That's like a house payment, except with a lower interest rate. People think of houses not only as places to live, but also as an investment. It's one of the few things you purchase that will usually increase in value over the years. Most people realize that. What most people fail to realize is that an education will as well.

Your house will make you money when you move out of it...and then you spend money on a new house. In the mean time you get to pay for your house and also pay taxes on it. Sign me up. Oh, and if someone could explain to me why you have to pay taxes on your home every year I'd appreciate it. I'm not paying taxes on the value of my car every year. Why should I have to pay every year for owning a home? If Ron Paul was President this probably wouldn't be happening. Hmmm, maybe we can get him to run as an Independent... Sorry, got sidetracked.

Your education is better than a house. Yes, your education will make you money as soon as you complete it. It will continue to make you money for as long as you're employed. $70,000 in school debt, at 4% interest, paid off over 30 years is about $335/month. 5% will put you at $375/month. People will spend that much a month on a car note. They'll spend $100 a month for cable (gotta have HBO). Eating out isn't cheap. Neither are cell phones, especially if you like to text. None of these things pay you back. People don't really complain about the cost of them either.

I'm guessing that most people don't have $70,000 in debt. Those that do have probably gone to graduate school (e.g., Rowrbazzle), medical school (e.g., Señor Entropy) or law school (e.g., uh, lawyers). Those folks are expecting to make more money than their friends with Bachelors degrees so their added debt will be offset. Of course there are some people who just went to some crazy-expensive private school and therefore have a lot of debt. Yeah, that probably wasn't worth it. Unless you're talking Ivy League, you're probably not going to get a better job than someone who did equally well at a state school. That's just my opinion, though.

Another option would of course be Military service. But, but, I don't wanna fight in a war, you say. Don't worry, you'll have plenty of time between now and when you're put on active duty so you probably won't have to. And even if you are called up you can just get religion to get out of it. Once that happens you won't have to go to war. Yeah, you might have to pay back that money, but I'd say it's a risk worth taking. You were going to have to pay it back anyway if you hadn't joined up.

The moral of this story is, of course, quit complaining. School is worth it. Also, U.S. tax laws are stupid. And Ron Paul is the voice of the people, but he'll never be elected because he's probably crazy. And appellate court judges are completely gullible.

NCAA = Fraud

From USA Today

[The NCAA] is having its official ticket package provider, RazorGator, move large blocks of prime tickets online at markups of hundreds, even thousands, of dollars...

The tickets sold to RazorGator come from allocations reserved for public sale (22% of the tickets) and the association's use (10%). Tickets are also allotted to participating schools (35%), the local host committee (10%), the national basketball coaches' association (8%), college athletics directors (8%) and CBS and corporate sponsors (6%)...

Much of the public-sale allocation was distributed through a lottery for which prospective customers could purchase a maximum of two tickets. They could submit a maximum of 10 applications and be selected once.

Under a partnership that began last year, the NCAA allows RazorGator to purchase an undisclosed number of tickets...

The "much" in paragraph three is nonsense. I applied and was randomly selected to purchase two tickets for each of the Final Four games. According to the letter the NCAA sent me with my tickets the seating capacity of the Alamodome is 43,500. If 22% of seats were allocated to the general public, that is 9,570 tickets. However, in the letter it also says plainly that 4,600 tickets were allocated through the lottery. 4600/9570 = 48%. Less than half of the 22% does not constitute "much" in my mind. The rest of 22% is seemingly sold directly to RazorGator so they can resell them and split the profits with the NCAA. 22% to the general public is bunk. Selling only 10.5% of the total capacity to the public and 35% to the schools isn't commensurate with a collegiate sporting event. It's a corporate function.

Does the NCAA not make enough money off of the TV contracts as it is? Get rid of all the VIP (nonsense) allocations. In my opinion the allocation numbers should be more like 75% for the schools, 20% to the public and 5% to whoever else (prize winners, foreign dignitaries, make-a-wish kids).

For that matter, basketball games aren't meant to be played in domes. Move them back to actual basketball arenas. Yes, they probably won't make as much money and fewer State Farm Senior VPs will be able to go to the game, but at least the players will be able to play a game in a more natural environment.

Plus, given the NCAA's deal with RazorGator, they could play it in a real basketball arena and still make plenty of money. Just sell all the tickets to RazorGator and watch the profit roll in.

Finally...

Roughly 95 cents of every dollar pocketed by NCAA will go to member institutions in support of student-athletes, says Greg Shaheen [the NCAA's senior vice president for basketball and business strategies].

Really? Do the athletic programs really need the money? Wouldn't all this profit be better served in a general scholarship fund? I wish the Social Sciences program had a 43,000 seat tournament. Maybe then my student loans would be so outrageous.

Hit.Them.Hard

Apparently there are some folks out there who don't realize that putting periods after every word isn't clever. Really, it was never clever and no amount of persisting in this annoying style will make it clever.

If I ever meet the person who started this ridiculousness I will punch him or her in the face while speaking really slowly. I implore you all to do the same to anyone you encounter who types like that. I realize this is a difficult task, being as this kind of behavior generally exists only in virtual environments. Thus, the onus has to be on friends and families.

If you see someone in your family engaging in such bothersome behavior, hit them hard. The same goes for friends. If you have a friend who has fallen into the trap of singular word punctuation, do the right thing and hit them hard. Speaking slowly while you are pummeling them is optional, but doing so will really drive home the point.

I hope that soon the perpetrators of this phenomenon will learn their lesson and this irritation that plagues so many of us will be eradicated. Together, I think we can make it happen.

One final note: it is important that the beatings occur as close in time to the offending behavior as possible. If too much time has passed they might not be able to adequately pair the pain they're receiving with the appropriate problematic behavior. Let's face it; these people probably engage in numerous behaviors worthy of a beating. Then again, random beatings could very well result in some of their other repulsive behaviors being stamped out, though not necessarily this particular behavior. Hmmm. I suppose I'll leave it up to you.

The 23rd

In the past couple weeks I've seen quite a few movies. Two in particular piqued my interest as a study in contrasts.

Both films deal with the death of a woman. Film 1 proceeds as a courtroom procedural, wherein an attorney seeks to bring a known killer to justice. Film 2 proceeds as a mosaic and examines the lives that are affected by the dead woman. The actors of Film 1 are bigger stars than those of Film 2, but both films feature easily recognizable performers. The director of Film 1 has previously made more well-known films than the director of Film 2, although neither is in any way an household name.

Still, what is more interesting than the actors in each film or even the approaches the films take, although that could be dissected at length, is the startling difference of the films post-release.

Film 1 received generally favorable reviews, with most of the praise going to the actors. This is understandable given that it featured actors who have combined for 6 Oscar nominations, with 1 win. Personally, I found the performances to be overpraised, but still the strongest part of the otherwise pedestrian film. It opened in over 2,000 theaters and grossed about $39 million in the US. You've no doubt heard of it, quite possibly seen it, and there's a decent chance you'll consider picking it up next time you're at Blockbuster.

Film 2 received generally favorable reviews, with most of the praise going to the actors. This is understandable given that it featured actors who have combined for 8 Oscar nominations, with 2 wins. Personally, I found the performances to be worthy of the praise given and the film far superior to Film 1. It opened in 2 theaters and grossed about $19,000 in the US. You've probably never heard of it, haven't seen it, and there's a decent chance you won't even find it next time you're at Blockbuster.

But the contrast I found most interesting is an incredibly simple one. If I told you that one film primarily featured male actors and the other film primarily featured female actors, would you have difficulty guessing which film was which?

Powder Blue? More like Powder Blow!

"...the San Diego powder blues are universally considered among the sweetest-looking sports uniforms ever"
~Gregg Easterbrook

No, no, no, one thousand times no. Powder blue is a weak, wussy color. Granted, the powder blue Charger unis aren't nearly as bad as those worn by the Denver Nuggets but they are still pretty bad.

This

is so much better than this

and it's not even close as far as I'm concerned.

Powder blue has thankfully been banished from other fashion realms,

if only our sports teams would do the same.

Be Advised.

I will be posting on this thing again. Content and frequency are as yet determined, but rest assured it's going to be brilliant.

You may begin anticipating a real post..............now!

Alternative Sources

I suppose it's possible that some of you might not get anything out of the list I made earlier, being as some of you have different tastes in movies than I. However, you might get more out of a different list. In light of that, here are two additional movie lists from two quality movie reviewers. You're welcome.

From the Balcony
Guys named Bill Clark can be found at various places on this here internet and a couple of them are even the same Bill Clark who runs From the Balcony. Bill's perspective is probably similar to most movie watchers. He doesn't review movies for a living and doesn't have time to see every movie released. Consequently, Bill's Top 10 list consists mainly of movies that tend to be more mainstream (not that Bill doesn't appreciate quality smaller films). If you're looking for good movies that you've actually heard of, here's a good place to look. He's also been so kind as to share a Bottom 10 list. If a movie you were thinking about renting shows up on that list, you might want to think again. Even though he's never been published on rogerebert.com, Bill's website is still worth a look. Bill appreciates the brilliance that is Tom Wilkinson and that's reason enough to read him.

Roger Ebert
Everyone knows Roger Ebert. He's the preeminent film critic in the US so it's not suprising that he has the be-all and end-all of movie lists. He provides a traditional Top 10, along with a host of additional movies that he finds worthy of a mention. As much as I try to see a variety of films, I've got nothing on Ebert. He doesn't see everything, but he sees more movies than any other reviewer out there. If you're looking for high-quality movies that range from major studio productions to the smallest indie films, this list is a great resource.

Okay, I've now provided you with three sources of information for finding great movies. Being as most of the films on these lists can be found on DVD it should be very easy for you to see them. So go ahead and add them to you NetFlix queue now and you can enjoy them without ever having to leave your home. Again, you're welcome.

The Best Films of 2005

Yeah, so this is very delayed, but I figured I would go ahead and share anyway. I'm going to guess that most of you haven't seen but two or maybe three of these movies. If you've seen them all, then 100 cool points to you. These are, in my opinion, the 10 best movies that I saw in 2005. Okay, I saw a couple of them in 2006, but that's what happens when movies don't make it to theaters where I live until a month or two after they're released.

1. Junebug

Junebug is a small movie. (It played on fewer than 150 screens in the US). However, it's the most truthful portrayal of life in smaller towns that I've ever seen. The movie deftly and subtly displays the differeneces between traditional big city and small town mentalities. Furthermore, it brings to light how behavior varies from one situation to the next. The characters have depth and the reasonings behind their actions are not explicitly explained. Isn't that true of most of our actions in real life? In the end, you're left with the feeling that you know so much about these characters, but that you also might not know anything at all. Amy Adams shines as Ashley, delivering the best performance in any movie this year. Junebug is the best film of 2005.

Buy Junebug on DVD

2. Crash

If you live in the US, then I'm sure you've heard of Crash. It was released way back in May and it still has people talking. I think that says something about the movie's power. The easiest way to describe Crash is to say it is a movie about racial issues that takes place over about 36 hours in Los Angeles. However, that doesn't convey just how far-reaching this movie is. It is a 2-hour parable. Crash presents you with one point of view and just when you think you have it figured out, it turns everything on its head and makes you think again. Crash will make you examine yourself and your own prejudices, which you probably didn't even know were there.

Buy Crash on DVD

3. Oldboy

Oldboy is an incredibly violent movie, or at least you think it is after you're finished watching it. In reality, much of the violence is off-camera and only a few characters actually die onscreen. The implied violence is brutal at times, which is reason enough to remember the movie, but it's the underlying reasons for the violence that make the movie so memorable. Director Chan-Wook Park tells a tale of a man who is locked up for 15 years, by who and for what reason, he does not know. The bulk of the story is about this man's search for answers. At its peak, Oldboy played on 28 screens in the US, so it's no surprise that very few had the opportunity to see it. That's a shame. Oldboy is not for the faint of heart, but it's an ingenius story told masterfully.

Buy Oldboy on DVD

4. Capote

Capote is a movie that I think validates me (and my friend Ricky) and our appreciation for the incredible talent of Philip Seymour Hoffman. Capote tells the story of real-life author Truman Capote and his attempt to write a book based on a murder in Kansas. Hoffman has rightfully receieved critical acclaim for his performance in the movie and without him I'm sure the movie would be far less powerful. However, we musn't ignore the story. The story of Capote's attempt to write his book is compelling and Hoffman portrays brilliantly a man torn between his desire to finish his story and his affection for the killers that form the subject of the book. I think Hoffman deserved an Oscar for his performance in Owning Mahowny so it's nice to finally see him getting the recognition he deserves.

Buy Capote on DVD

5. Proof

Gwyneth Paltrow and Anthony Hopkins headline this small-budget flick that is based on a play. Maybe that's why the dialogue is so well-written. Paltrow stars as the daughter of Hopkins - a brilliant, but literally crazy mathematician. Hopkins shows yet again what a fine actor he is. Solid supporting performances are also turned in by Jake Gyllenhaal and Hope Davis, but this is Paltrow's movie. Paltrow is magnetic even as her character tries to push others away and her simple reading of a piece of paper will break your heart. The bulk of the film is devoted to her character as she tries to make sense of her father as well as her own brilliance and possible insanity.

Buy Proof on DVD

6. The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada

Tommy Lee Jones makes his directorial debut in this tale of friendship on the Texas/Mexico border. The story is unique and powerful. Of course, I would expect nothing less from Guillermo Arriaga, the man who wrote Amores Perros and 21 Grams. Jones stars as a cowboy whose best friend is Melquiades Estrada, an illegal immigrant from Mexico. Melquiades is killed and Jones wants justice. However, this is more than just a revenge movie. The story is one of isolation. All the characters in the film suffer from isolation and loneliness and when Jones loses his best friend he is overcome by it. Jones is outstanding in his portrayal of the old cowboy as is Barry Pepper as a border patrol officer.

Buy The Three Burials on DVD

7. Munich

Munich is the latest offering from acclaimed director Steven Spielberg. Spielberg, perhaps like no other director of my time, is able to skillfully make a wide variety of movies. The same man that made Jurassic Park and E.T. also made Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan and now Munich. Munich is based on the true-life story of a group of Israeli "soliders" who go about exacting revenge on the Palestinian terrorists who killed 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics. Eric Bana plays Avner, the leader of the group, and the man through which we experience the retribution and the consequences of said retribution. The consequences are, of course, on both a personal and societal level and Spielberg is wise to take us but so far before allowing us to figure out the rest for ourselves. Political and religious opinions aren't something that you can be assigned. They are personal and deeply held and how we try to rectify the differences we have with others in those respects is what Munich is all about.

Buy Munich on DVD

8. Sin City

Sin City is the other incredibly violent flick on the list. However, unlike Oldboy, Sin City's violence takes place right in front of the camera. Sin City is essentially a twisted live-action cartoon so instead of red blood, we get white blood. Actors and actresses undergo physical transformations and there is even a character who is completely yellow. Yes, yellow. Of all the movies on this list, Sin City is probably the most well-known and the one that most of you will have seen. The story (or stories, as it were) of the movie is almost inconsequential. This is a movie for Robert Rodriguez to do his thing and he does it well. Sin City is a treat for the eye and imagination and I look forward to the sequel.

Buy Sin City on DVD or Buy it on Super-Duper Special Edition DVD

9. Palindromes

Todd Solondz's latest movie makes you about as uncomfortable as his previous movies. If you've seen any of those, then you pretty much know what to expect here. Palindromes tells the story of a young girl named Aviva. The details of her life can't adequately be explained in one paragraph. Plus, to try and explain what happens in the movie would betray what I think is the point of the movie. The character of Aviva is played by 8 different actresses and 1 actor. Like Crash, Palindromes shows you a point-of-view and convinces you of its correctness only to turn around a few minutes later and show you that a completely different point-of-view might be just as correct. At least that's what I think is happening. It's never easy to tell with Solondz. If you're interested in truly unique movies, then put Palindromes at the top of your list.

Buy Palindromes on DVD

10. The Upside of Anger

I read a column in the Chicago Tribune the other day, which said that this year female roles have basically been relegated to "nurturing friends, neglected wives, pregnant helpmeets, and objects of lust." Clearly the author didn't see The Upside of Anger (or Proof for that matter). The Upside of Anger is all about a strong woman. Joan Allen stars as a mother of 4 daughters (Look, more strong women!) who is abandoned by her husband. How does she deal with this? She gets angry and drinks a lot. She makes friends with a nice man who lives around the corner (Kevin Costner, surprisingly not annoying us) who is also kind of angry and likes to drink a lot. Writer/Director Mike Bender created the movie for Joan Allen and she doesn't let him down. Allen gives us a strong woman who is trying her level best to keep her family together even though she can barely keep herself together. The Upside of Anger edges out Match Point and Me and You and Everyone We Know to round out this year's Top 10 List.

Buy The Upside of Anger on DVD

Insert "Cheney Shoots People" Joke Here

Instead of talking about how Dick Cheney accidently shot someone while hunting, couldn't we find a more important topic? I'm thinking, I dunno, maybe we could talk about people that are purposely shooting other people. Last I checked there was still quite a bit of that stuff going on. Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't that more important than an hunting accident on some ranch?

Pondering the Imponderables

What is the opposite of sandwich?

About a year ago I was approached by an acquaintance and asked a simple question. Actually that's not true. The structure of the question was simple, however the question itself was anything but. I was told it was a question that was meant to make them think and basically stump them. So after thinking about the question for a bit I gave my response. I then inquired as to whether or not my answer was correct.

I was informed that the questioner, in fact, did not know the answer to the question. As I said, the purpose of the question was to stump people and make them think. Although the lack of certainty in the question and its missing answer initially frustrated me, I soon grew to embrace it. I had an answer to the question and I was pretty confident in its correctness. At least, I thought it was clever and about as correct as anyone was going to get. The fact that my inquiring cohort could not tell me whether or not I was actually correct did not matter anymore.

What is self-esteem squared?

Now, just two days ago, I encountered a similar question. This question was not posed to stump its audience, but was posed to make a point. Regardless, it got me thinking. The bottom line was simple. If one is going to raise questions, analyze data (of whatever kind) and draw conclusions, one must be clear in what is actually being studied. If we measure something we must base our conclusions on what we've measured. This was a topic-specific idea, but I think the underlying thesis is applicable to our everyday experiences as well.

At times it is cumbersome, if not impossible, to analyze and draw conclusions from a certain set of observations. In order to counter this, we've developed accepted ways of twisting and transforming our observations to allow for easier analysis. We banish the abstrusity, allowing ourselves to reach some measure of closure. But at this point, after we've twisted and transformed our experiences, how much substance can we actually draw from them? I don't have the answer. I don't think there is an exact answer. I guess that's what makes it an imponderable.

United in Division

Okay, I'm gonna try something different here. Well, it's not really different, as I've seen plenty of other places that do it. However, this is the first time I've done it so it's different for me. Here's an excerpt from the Washington Post.

The party-line vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee to confirm Judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, presaging a similar outcome in the full Senate, certifies the depth of the division between Republicans and Democrats on basic national policy.

That reality shadows the start of this session of Congress and raises doubt about the government's ability to address any of the major challenges facing the country.

David S. Broder

Broder lays it out pretty well. Democrats and Republicans have spent the past year bitterly disagreeing on one matter after another. Yet they almost universally state agreement with those in their own party. A good amount of agreement is to be expected, of course. I mean, politicians aren't randomly assigned to political parties. They choose their affiliation and people vote for them. I think they probably choose their positions too, perhaps too often.

However, there's a reason members of the House and Senate are referred to as representatives. They're supposed to represent their constituents. CNN is saying that only 30 percent of Americans oppose the Senate confirming Samuel Alito. However, the Senate vote is shaping up to fall right down party lines. Sounds like poor representation to me. On the other hand, if one took a sampling of the country and asked their opinions on The Patriot Act or the Iraq War, you're likely to find a big divide. So on some issues it seems the representatives are doing a good job of representing their constituents.

Still, if no one agrees, then what purpose are our representatives serving? Our representatives are supposed to stand up for our interests, but what happens when we all disagree? What should our representatives do now? Maybe they should be working to bring those with differing opinions to a common accord. I mean, if they're just going to be bitterly divided, we could pretty well just scrap the whole thing and do it ourselves.