Month: February 2014

“New” information that is hardly that

wilson_headerThere was this article in some news feed I was reading a while ago – oh, maybe this is it: 10 things from Grimms’ Fairy Tales you got wrong. I rather hate that title, and, if you’ve read Grimm, and I have, well, I didn’t get them wrong, Mister or Ms. Article Title Writer. A better one in this specific genre is 11 Fairytales You Loved As A Child That Are Actually Really Creepy, which does not assume how well the reader is informed on the topic.

It may be that people are not familiar with the late Tom Wilson (pictured), unless they are liner note readers, like I am, but The Greatest Music Producer You’ve Never Heard of Is… is annoying.

I rather like this article, BEATLE GEORGE HARRISON’S BRIEF JOURNEY INTO EXPERIMENTAL ELECTRONICS. It refers to the album Electronic Sounds and gives not only the information about it, but the actual album from Zapple Records. Yeah, I own it, but haven’t listened to it in a VERY long time. It IS obscure, but the title informs without gloating. BTW, either today (very late) or tomorrow would have been George’s 71st birthday.

I DO like articles that clear up common misconceptions. I suppose there are a lot of people who have misunderstood the context of the quote, “Nice guys finish last” from baseball manager Leo Durocher. Even the Baseball Almanac provides no insight.

Durocher, in this excerpt from his book Nice Guys Finish Last, explains:

The Nice Guys Finish Last line came about because of Eddie Stanky too. And wholly by accident. I’m not going to back away from it though. It has got me into Bartlett’s Quotations— page 1059, between John Betjeman and Wystan Hugh Auden—and will be remembered long after I have been forgotten.

This is the context:

It came about during batting practice at the Polo Grounds, while I was managing the Dodgers. I was sitting in the dugout with Frank Graham of the old Journal-American, and several other newspapermen, having one of those freewheeling bull sessions. Frankie pointed to Eddie Stanky in the batting cage and said, very quietly, “Leo, what makes you like this fellow so much? Why are you so crazy about this fellow?”

I started by quoting the famous Rickey statement: “He can’t hit, he can’t run, he can’t field, he can’t throw. He can’t do a …thing, Frank—but beat you.” He might not have as much ability as some of the other players, I said, but every day you got 100 percent from him and he was trying to give you 125 percent…. The Giants, led by Mel Ott, began to come out of their dugout to take their warm-up. Without missing a beat, I said, “Take a look at that Number Four there. A nicer guy never drew breath than that man there.” I called off his players’ names as they came marching up the steps behind him, “Walker Cooper, Mize, Marshall, Kerr, Gordon, Thomson. Take a look at them. All nice guys. They’ll finish last. Nice guys. Finish last.”

I appreciate when old information is clarified, but not in a way that I feel is condescending to the reader.

Proposed Arizona legislation supports Sharia law

ANY religion can be reason for taking a wide range of discriminatory actions against another.

It’s quite the irony: Arizona was one of the states that had introduced legislation banning Sharia law, which is the moral code and religious law of a prophetic religion; this usually understood to refer to Islam in our country.

Yet with the passage of Arizona Senate Bill 1062, passed by both houses of the AZ legislature, the legislature may have inadvertently opened the door for Sharia law in the state.

But conservative Arizonans should also remember that as there is no state-sanctioned religion in the United States, SB 1062 provides a foothold into Arizona of both Sharia law, and, yes, even Satanism. Believe it or not, “the Devil made me do it”… will become the law of the land in the Grand Canyon state.

Take a look at the bill. The items crossed out like so was in the original law. Items IN CAPS are the new regulations.

Sec. 2.  Section 41-1493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
41-1493.01.  Free exercise of religion protected; definition
A.  Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.
B.  Except as provided in subsection C, government OF THIS SECTION, STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
C.  Government STATE ACTION may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSON SEEKING THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE ACTION demonstrates that application of the burden to the person PERSON’S EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE is both:
1.  In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
2.  The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
D.  A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING.
E.  A PERSON THAT ASSERTS A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION MUST ESTABLISH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
1.  THAT THE PERSON’S ACTION OR REFUSAL TO ACT IS MOTIVATED BY A RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
2.  THAT THE PERSON’S RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS SINCERELY HELD.
3.  THAT THE STATE ACTION SUBSTANTIALLY BURDENS THE EXERCISE OF THE PERSON’S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
F.  THE PERSON ASSERTING A CLAIM OR DEFENSE UNDER SUBSECTION D OF THIS SECTION MAY OBTAIN INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF.  A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.
E.  G.  In FOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.
H.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, “STATE ACTION” MEANS ANY ACTION, EXCEPT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY SECTION 41-1493.04, BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.

Thus religion – ANY religion – can be the reason for taking a wide range of discriminatory actions against another. The law was supposedly “helping” people who did not want to serve gays. But might not a mixed-race couple be denied service because “MY religion” frowns on such things? That pregnant young woman does not appear to have a ring on her finger; throw her out! Talk about your slippery slope. The burden of proof is on the government to declare a compelling state need. This is not merely discriminatory, it is bad law.

The Oklahoma law considered back in 2010 was just as awful, but they had the good sense not to pass it. I would support a boycott of any state passing and signing into law, such a draconian measure, because only the loss of resources will have any effect on changing the tide.

Woody and Mia and Dylan

The allegations have not affected my enjoyment of Annie Hall or Hannah and Her Sisters or Purple Rose of Cairo or Blue Jasmine, or a number of other Woody Allen films.

WoodyAllenOn the sidebar of Facebook, there was this sponsored ad from The Ranking, with Woody Allen’s picture with the caption: “Should he get any awards?” “Dylan Farrow allegations have refueled the scandal. Does he deserve any award? Vote!”

But when you click through, the actual question is: “Do you think that Dylan Farrow´s statements will influence the Oscar Academy Awards?” That is quite the different thing. Should we separate the art from the artist?

Regardless, writer Mark Evanier, who writes one of those blogs that TIME magazine has rightly touted, has written, for me, the last words on this topic.

Many of you have sent me links to articles on the ‘net about the Woody/Mia/Dylan matter — some smart ones, some not-so-smart ones and, of course, a number that strain to link that matter to some unrelated issue so they can exploit the obvious emotion that comes with any allegation of child molestation.

Along with being saddened by the charges themselves, I’m saddened by the rush, not to judgement but to execution by one side or the other. I read a couple of comment threads that were filled with people who are absolutely, positively sure as to who did what and to whom, and who were eager to condemn anyone who said “I don’t know” and behead those who said, “You’re wrong.” I don’t buy into all that was in that Robert Weide piece but he was right that too many people discussing this are filled with and are spreading disinformation. An awful lot of folks who have their minds firmly made up think Mia and Woody were married, Soon-Yi was Woody’s daughter, etc….

I already feel myself reaching a certain level of burnout on the whole thing. That often happens with me when a serious issue turns into a spectator sport. When it gets to that level, too many people have a vested interest in not letting it be settled or buried…and some stake out silly positions mainly to get attention. How can you tell when we’re there? When Nancy Grace is weighing in.

Evanier also recommended this insightful article by Dahlia Lithwick in Slate about the court of public opinion.

I bring this up because someone asked me recently, and I said, “I don’t know what happened.” I did not say, but could have, “And neither do you.” All I KNOW is that there was an investigation by police and no charges were brought. Someone else suggested that if I felt as I do, I must not take child abuse seriously, when in fact, I do. I know someone who was abused by her stepfather. What I’m saying is that I don’t know that there WAS an act of child abuse in this case.

If Dylan Farrow were sexually abused by Woody Allen, I would find that extremely disturbing. I found this article very insightful: Woody Allen Is Not a Monster. He Is a Person. Like My Father.

Evanier keeps saying he’s done with the issue, but then he isn’t. It’s the same for me. I read the Daily Beast piece which makes Allen’s behavior at least suspicious, then Wallace Shawn’s defense of Woody, which leaves me where I started.

The allegations have not yet affected my enjoyment of Annie Hall or Hannah and Her Sisters or Purple Rose of Cairo or Blue Jasmine, or a number of other Woody Allen films I’ve seen over the years. I’ll admit, though, it has made Manhattan a lot less pleasant.

I DO wonder if the renewed allegations will take votes away from Cate Blanchette, nominated for Best Actress for Blue Jasmine. But I don’t think much about it because I CAN NEVER KNOW.

MOVIE REVIEW: Gravity

Kudos to director Alfonso Cuarón, who WILL deservedly win the Oscar for Best Director.

gravitySo much I hated about going to the movies that Sunday afternoon to see Gravity:

1) It was at Crossgates, a local mall I particularly loathe. Don’t believe I had seen a movie there since Presidents Day weekend 16 years ago, nearly to the day, when I saw L.A. Confidential and Mrs. Brown, both Oscar nominees. But it was the only place locally it was playing, and seeing it later on video seemed to be a much lesser experience. And SamuraiFrog was so fond of it.

2) The movie was only available in 3D. I tend to hate 3D. Indeed, the preview of the upcoming X-Men movie looked like looking through one of those old ViewMasters I had as a kid; boy, I hope the MOVIE doesn’t look that weird.

3) Saw this news piece on NBC “revealing” how they got Sandra Bullock’s character to appear to be in zero gravity, noting that if she REALLY were, her hair would stand up, just one of the scientific errors in the movie.

Yet, I really enjoyed the film, both as a technological marvel, despite its flaws, and as a reflection on life and death and rebirth, sorrow and release. This summary from Deadspin spoke to me: “You want to admire the technical achievement, except it never feels like a technical achievement. It just feels like you’re there. And desperately want to leave.” The Wife was on the edge of her seat, sometimes literally. There were moments I forgot to breathe.

Kudos to Bullock and George Clooney as the astronauts, the cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, and especially director Alfonso Cuarón, who WILL deservedly win the Oscar for Best Director.

The (alleged) JEOPARDY! sins of Arthur Chu

When I knew an answer, I clicked once, and I was immediately corrected: “No, you keep clicking until Alex calls on you.”

Arthur ChuSeriously, I had no idea. As a regular viewer of JEOPARDY!, there are contestants I like, ones that I don’t particularly care for, and most from whom I just want to see a good match.

Having viewed the four victories of one Arthur Chu, I did not realize that his reign, to be continued on February 24, was at all controversial until someone sent me an article and asked me to comment on it. Then a couple more people sent me other articles. This was a story on Yahoo!’s Finance page?

So what are his JEOPARDY! “sins”?

1. He jumps around the board. The first story I was sent was titled Jeopardy! Contestant Is Hated For Playing Like Nobody Else. This was untrue; several players over the years have utilized a strategy of “relentlessly hunt[ing] for the Daily Double clues in each round, clearing out the bottom three rows of the board so that he can get to them before anyone else.” It’s perfectly legal. Now it’s undoubtedly harder on Alex Trebek and the board operators, but that’s not Chu’s problem.

Moreover, his strategy doesn’t work if he gets in first but doesn’t know the answers. In looking at the pattern of topics picked in his first game, the other players would go to a more traditional pattern when they selected, so Chu would have been thwarted had the others beaten him on the buzzer.

2. He didn’t even try to answer a Daily Double, and said “I don’t know,” for which he only bet $5, which some considered unsporting. That was in his second game. The category was IN THE SPORT’S HALL OF FAME, the $1,000 question and the clues were Eddie Giacomin, Herb Brooks, Conn Smythe. Apparently, this was “easy” for most people, since Herb Brooks was the coach of the 1980 Olympics hockey team; doesn’t mean it was for Chu. He knows what he knows, and doesn’t.

3. He played for the tie, rather than the win, also in the second game; this was considered arrogant. Arthur Chu addressed this, correctly, in this interview:

Yeah, I mean, my decisions were motivated by the desire to win — I don’t think I need to apologize for that, that’s a lot of real money at stake with every game — but the other side of that is that the main thing I cared about was making my money and coming back to play again. There’s no reason to take money AWAY from other players unnecessarily, and that’s why I was puzzled that my bet for the tie somehow got everyone riled up, as though I’d somehow done something wrong.

It does make me feel good that Carolyn [Collins], who is a strong player whom I respect, went home with over $20k rather than with the $2k she would’ve ended up with had I bet the extra dollar. Or, for that matter, that Erik [Post], who was also a great player in our game, took home $2k for second instead of $1k for [third].

Former champion Keith Williams, who Chu studied, explains playing for the tie.

4. His very visible use of the buzzer is irritating. As this former player explains:

What, he shouldn’t buzz? Skill still plays a role: If you buzz in before Alex finishes reading a question, you are locked out for a crucial quarter-second or so; there is still timing to Chu’s thumbwork. His conspicuous digital athletics are merely bringing to light a facet of the game that not enough of its viewers appreciate: Buzzing well is part of winning, because most of the time more than one contestant knows the correct response.

I remember when I was at my JEOPARDY! tryout in Washington, DC in May 1998, and we played a mock game. When I knew an answer, I clicked once, and I was immediately corrected: “No, you keep clicking until Alex calls on you.” You might be temporarily locked out by clicking too early, but if no one else gets in, or if someone else responds incorrectly, repeated clicking is the way to go. In any case, I found it easier to do that than to watch the lights around the board go out before starting to click. Hey, it worked out, once.

Most people who click a lot do it at podium level, so it’s not as obvious to most.

Ken Jennings, who won 74 games in a row, defends Chu, and rightly so.

This is the 30th season of JEOPARDY! and they are bringing back former champions from the last three decades. Not only is this eliminating 30 or 40 players from participating during the season – far more than Chu’s tie game did – it weakens the field for the next Tournament of Champions. I believe the rule that allows for players to win six or more games does the latter as well.

Arthur Chu’s play does not bother me. If he wins a fifth game, I will actively root against him, but I ALWAYS root against five-plus day champions, for the reasons alluded to above.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial