What's Next?

Bradley Whitford is Ridiculous.

2010-04-14T21:57:00.000-04:00

From Burn Notice creator and producer Matt Nix, comes a Fox action-comedy about a washed-up cop and his young, by the book partner, called The Good Guys. I mean, it sounds like so many other cop shows, but the trailer and the cast make this show must-see, right? At least I think so, if for no other reason than Bradley Whitford is hilarious and should fit perfectly into this role.

Giving Tiger a Break?

2010-04-07T21:24:00.000-04:00

Not only a break, but surely a monster payday, considering this ad is going to be repeated by idiots like me, the mainstream media (nod to Sarah Palin and bringing "MSM" to the "mainstream," if you will), and CBS/ESPN/ABC, etc. It's great marketing, or at least a great attempt at marketing, to both rehabilitate a brand (Nike Golf and Tiger) and a man, but does this really sooth the collective conscience of the golf community, the advertisers/sponsors, and the public? I don't think so.

I get the sentiment of the ad. Quiet, sincere, apologetic. But I don't think any of it matters. It's the voice of Tiger's father, Earl Woods, who died a few years ago, narrating a personal message to Tiger - "did you learn anything?" I don't think he did. Moreover, I don't think I care that he did. To me, addiction or not, 15-plus women in several cities and graphic sexual messages to each not only spells public martyrdom, but also prevents forgiveness.

You know, I hope he shoots 85 tomorrow and 90 on Friday. Eighteen majors and the title of "Golf's Greatest" belongs to one man, and forever will - Jack Nicklaus.

Major League Blunder

2008-06-05T21:23:00.003-04:00

Major League Baseball filed suit a while ago against CBC, an organization in St. Louis that sponsors a fantasy baseball league, for infringing on MLB's intellectual property. CBC predictably argued that it was a First Amendment issue and that the names and teams of the players was within their right to free speech. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with CBC and the Supreme Court turned down MLB's writ of certiorari, effectively affirming the Eighth Circuit's opinion and preventing MLB from collecting licensing fees from those companies that use its "intellectual property."

Can you imagine paying for the right to speak about baseball or paying for the right to refer to the players and the teams in fantasy baseball? Neither can the Eighth Circuit.

Does this make sense to anyone?

2008-05-29T07:43:00.003-04:00

Okay, so this is the best Oklahoma could do, right? They saw that THREE of their players took money one summer for work they did not do, so the university decided to limit the players that can be hired by the same employer to FIVE.

Sure, it sounds good on paper to limit the number of players that work somewhere, but how is that going to actively limit the amount of money that is taken in without working being done? The better solution for Oklahoma is what they said they had done last year - spot checks on employers and monitoring certain at-risk employers.

In any event, even if you limit the players working at a certain facility to five, those same three might still be out there working for the same employer, right? It just seems like this is one of those announcements that is much more bark than bite.

So much for the Kennedy Court...

2008-05-26T21:33:00.002-04:00

Last year, Justice Kennedy was the preeminent judicial figure in the country as he essentially cast the swing vote on all the important issues before the Court. He was the decisive vote in all 24 of the 5-4 votes in the 2007 term, but this term has not really been seen as having the same strength (see the roundup here).

It's interesting to see that Kennedy is playing less of a role, as are the ideological changes in the Court this year. There do not seem to be the same ideological lines as in the past, with Justices Souter siding with the more conservative Justices on occasion and all kinds of interesting pairings. The days of the Kennedy Court seem to be waning, but are they gone for good? I don't think so - I think we'll be hearing from Justice Kennedy on some of the new grants for next term.

Premature Babies - what about the health risks?

2008-05-10T17:25:00.002-04:00

A recent article on MSNBC suggests that medical advances over the last couple of years have done little, if anything to improve health and viability of infants born premature after only 22 or 23 weeks. The article notes that survival rates have not changed significantly in recent years.

My first thought about it is that there must be a type of cost-benefit trade off (not to sound callous) between ensuring the child survives and the quality of life that child will lead. More and more often premature babies can survive due to the marvels of modern medicine, but those premature births mean that the neurological, immunological, and autoimmune development has not fully taken place. As a result, infants tend to encounter significant medical challenges down the road. It's unlikely that children born so premature lead any semblance of a normal life (here is just one example).

Certainly there are moral issues with saving or not saving the infant, but there needs to at least be a consideration of those future problems, wouldn't you think?

Stevie Williams and Tiger Woods

2008-04-08T23:07:00.003-04:00

This is one of the best pieces I've seen in a while. It goes through the story of Stevie Williams in New Zealand and his rise to prominence as Tiger's caddie; but the story does much more. It shows Stevie Williams as more than just the guy that carries Tiger's clubs. Tiger's not the only one with a philanthropic streak - just wait to see what Stevie did for a childhood cancer hospital down under.

Traffic Tax in Manhattan

2008-04-08T00:42:00.005-04:00

Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, tried to find a solution to congestion and global warming issues in his own sphere by attempting to implement a "traffic fee" of $8 a day for entering lower Manhattan during peak driving hours.

It's about time someone took a stand on these sort of issues and tried to implement a wide scale program. I give major points to Mayor Bloomberg for trying to work through this, despite mixed success and attention. Not only does it support the environment by presumably lowering the greenhouse gas emissions in downtown NYC, but it also encourages use of public transportation, which Americans generally a loathe to use, compared to their European counterparts.

Beyond those implications, it serves several economic purposes by allocating the roadways to those who value them most during those hours of the day. The same theory applies to charging fees for use of certain lanes on the interstate - if you charge a fee for the faster lanes or the less congested lanes, then it allocates the traffic based on value (though some would also argue its based on wealth disparities as well). It's an interesting thought and is being considered and implemented in pilot programs across the country.

For some more in-depth economic analysis, check out Gary Becker's writings on the Becker-Posner blog.

Charlton Heston - Dead at 84

2008-04-06T17:16:00.002-04:00

Charlton Heston died today at age 84 after one of the most illustrious careers in film. I may not have agreed with (any of) his beliefs about conservative values and gun ownership, but you have to give him credit for his incredible accomplishments throughout his time as an actor and spokesman.

In one of his lesser known roles - and one of my favorite movie experiences with him - he played the Player King in Kenneth Brannaugh's full-length version of Hamlet. While one of the smaller roles he played, he truly brought the character to life and it embodies his ability to be a great show-stopping character, while also being a minor and role character. He helped inspire Brannaugh in the film and really demonstrated the importance of the players and their impact on the later events in the play.

He was a larger than life actor and certainly to what most young actors aspire.

Friday Night Lights is Back

2008-04-04T21:52:00.003-04:00

In a fantastic moment on Wednesday, NBC struck a bit of a bizarre deal with DirecTV and the "Friday Night Lights" team to come up with a third season. The first season will air on DirecTV, but more importantly, the show will air exclusively on Channel 101 on DirecTV in the fall, then return to NBC in the spring - meaning the first episodes of the third season will air on satellite before airing on network television.

It understandably helps spread the costs, but one of the key benefits is that even if ratings drop next year, which is a distinct possibility, it keeps the show profitable for the network and allows them to keep it running through the season and maybe into a fourth season.

I'm okay with this arrangement. I mean, I guess I have to be. As a huge fan of the show, it's a bittersweet kind of moment - I have to wait until the spring (when it is no longer football season, by the way) to see the new episodes (odds I spring for DirecTV are about 0%), but at least the show is coming back for a third season. It was great news to see that the critically-acclaimed show would be back again, so at least there's that.

My prediction, however, is that FNL is done after the third season unless they develop some new characters to succeed Saracen, Riggs, Landry, Smash, and the rest of the team. Coach Taylor can stay, but the high schoolers have to graduate, right?

Selling Organs??

2007-11-14T16:28:00.000-05:00

This morning, in the Freakonomics blog through the New York Times, Stephen Dubner discusses an article in the Wall Street Journal (found here) about kidney sales and potentially opening the donor market to include sales (Freakonomics post here). The idea sounds great - increasing the supply of kidneys to a market that seems to continually fail due to shortage. It would allow families to experience life with loved ones longer. It all seems like roses on a spring day.

Consider another perspective, which Dubner neglects to mention: these kidney sales creates a huge adverse selection problem. Not only in the fact that poorer people would be more susceptible to giving their kidneys to wealthy people, but also in that those who need the money, are less apt to have healthier kidneys. Consider this: a drug addict in an inner city looking for a fix and willing to earn several thousand dollars - as well as free prescription drugs for the healing process - just by selling their kidney. Odds are also pretty good that health care has not been a number one priority and so the quality of the kidney will also suffer.

Another example is the Red Cross's constant decision to not pay money for donations of blood for transfusions. Experiments and pilot programs at hospitals and other areas around the country have tried exactly this - cash incentives for blood donations, only to find that more of the pints of blood were required to be disposed of because they did not meet the requisite quality standards. In the same respect, open kidney markets will likely create the same lower qualities in kidneys across the market. It would also probably create more cases like when a recent organ recipients all contracted AIDS from a donor (see the story here).

While generally I support increasing kidneys to the market, the free market will only prove to damage the integrity of organ transplants across the country. If the government is able to heavily regulate the industry and test vigorously for quality, it is feasible.

2007-10-06T23:00:00.000-04:00

I've said it before, but I just love the serenity and perfection of flowers in pictures. Capturing the one moment makes it seem like the world is at such peace. A little flowery and emotional language, yes, but that doesn't make it any less true. Some days, it's the little things that help you get through.

The Magic Telescope

2007-09-12T01:11:00.000-04:00

In a remarkable discovery, physicists working with the MAGIC telescope (MAGIC standing for Major Atmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cherenkov Telescope) noted that higher energy gamma rays travel through space at a speed slower than their lower energy counterparts. In a potentially groundbreaking study of two gamma-ray flares from a black hole in the Markarian 501 galaxy, gamma rays in two different energy ranges came to Earth four minutes apart. The physicists at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) state that it is still possible that the low energy rays left the black hole at an earlier time, but that is yet to be fully explored.

The implications of these findings are hugely important. They affect the foundations of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, which stands on one assumption that radiation travels through space at the same speed regardless of energy levels. If these findings are accurate, then it shakes the foundations of most modern physics and may lead to further discoveries and innovations in the field.

To a better description of the issues and a more scientific approach, check out Scientific American. For a look at the foundations of physics, geology, chemistry, and biology, look at A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. It is a truly fascinating book and provides great insight into the development of the earth sciences.

Fight Against Cancer

2007-09-08T00:41:00.000-04:00

One cause that I’ve endorsed over the last several years is the fight against cancer. I know it’s a general cause and something that a ton of people are behind, but it’s something that I have a bit of a personal history with and it’s something that should be shared. Hundreds of thousands of families are affected by cancer each year – whether in winning or losing the battle – and it is something which will inevitably affect us all.

In my time at the College, I was fortunate enough to work with some great people at the American Cancer Society as well as with some fellow students in raising money through ACS’s Relay for Life. In 2005-2006, we raised over $50,000 in a College-wide effort. This year, we’re hoping to raise even more. To donate to the College of William & Mary’s event, check out the donation page.

It isn’t just about raising money for the research, but it’s also about raising awareness of the support for the families, friends, and sufferers. One of the most important ideas is to let those dealing with cancer know that there are ways that will help them, rather than the next generation of cancer fighters. Sure, there are breakthroughs in cancer research each year, but a cure for cancer is a while down the road. In the meantime, those in need of the support must be made aware that the support is out there – getting help, coping, and encouraging further research. To see what you can do to join the effort, check out the American Cancer Society.

Cancel This

2007-08-23T00:14:00.001-04:00

There are so many problems with television today that I couldn’t possibly begin to enumerate all of them here. Instead, I’m going to talk about the one that I find the most troubling – or rather, the most annoying – that is, why networks are so quick to pull the trigger on cancelling new shows.

I can understand the reasons behind it. Shows with low ratings or the wrong demographics for the network lead to fewer advertisers vying for the ad spots in those time blocks, which, in turn, leads to lower ad revenue for the network. The economics of it, though a bit course, make sense to me. Networks want to increase the revenue for their parent company and their shareholders benefit.

Each week there are ads for a new, and admittedly horrible, reality show staring some schmuck looking for his fifteen minutes of fame. It doesn’t cost the network much because they don’t need to pay out huge amounts to, say, the cast of Friends, to film one episode. Like in Age of Love, a new reality show that is, according to several publications, the “summer’s guiltiest pleasure,” they provide the house and the amenities, but they aren’t paying each individual hundreds of thousands of dollars per episode, in addition to an expensive crew, and more. It’s a reality show where the people are competing to essentially be on the show and so the competition reduces the cost to virtually nothing.

One problem with the cut and run technique is that advertisers are privy to these mindsets. Advertisers want to put their weight behind the premiere episode for new series, but then don’t want to touch the show until there is an established following. Sure the networks make a boatload of cash with the premieres, but there is more cash to be made by the established series that have consistently high advertising draw. Advertisers want to discover the demographics, find out whether the show’s morals line up with their corporate morals, and then determine whether it is reasonable to put their money into nationwide ads during that slot. With established shows, the data is more plentiful and makes these decisions easier.

In an age of “I want it now” attitudes and more short-term viewpoints, networks are jumping on the easiest, lowest cost, and highest revenue fads that hit the market rather than coming up with the long-run strategies to win the ratings game. New shows hit networks each season – or in some cases, it seems like each week – to try to appeal to the ever-changing consumer psyche. It’s understandable from the network’s point of view, but it’s annoying and frustrating as a viewer.

From a viewer’s perspective, we want quality shows over quantity of shows. I don’t want to sit through the gluttony of fifteen crappy shows when I can watch two or three excellent shows that are well thought out, well put together, and provide great entertainment. I want to see a show that brings you into the characters’ lives and makes you care about the characters rather than believing they are expendable. That is the sign of a quality show. If the network is cranking out mediocre television and new shows of the same quality each season, it makes the network look like an overpriced discount shoe store that can’t make up it’s mind whether it wants to be high-class or play to the lowest common denominator. It also shows that the network is looking more at filling its schedule with pointless drivel rather than putting any sort of effort into a new series.

Another point that isn’t stressed enough is that shows mature as they continue. The writers begin to notice the quirks of the actors and write those into the characters. The teams working on the project begin to meld and work together in ways that are just not possible during the first six or seven episodes of a series. In some rare instances, everything clicks and the show just works from the first moment (while I’m a little biased, I like to think that was the case with The West Wing). In those other cases, the first episodes get through the ratings game and are allowed to develop into stronger shows. Like in any office, you have the first few days when someone new starts, a new project begins with an eccentric group of people, or a new department is put together, where there are kinks that need to be worked through. A few weeks or a few months later, things start to click and the office runs smoother. The same can be said as a show matures. The show, typically, only gets better with age (no cheesy wine joke here).

As a corollary, viewers cannot get into shows if they think they are going to be cancelled (Bill Simmons, ESPN columnist has a great bit about this in his mailbag while talking about Friday Night Lights). I’m not going to start watching a show on, say, NBC that’s starting in the spring if I feel like it’s just filler until the fall schedule comes out. This was the main problem over the last few years with NBC – especially this past year. Heist, a show with an Ocean’s 11 feel, was on NBC in spring of 2006, but only ran for seven episodes. The show was created with an ending in site – the crew was going to rob a chain of jewelry stores in Hollywood at the same time – just before awards season. The first episodes dealt with a few minor thefts to get set up for the bigger heist. Unfortunately, the show was cancelled after seven episodes – or more accurately, was just taken off the air without much notice from NBC – so we never got to the jewelry theft. Similarly, Black Donnellys from this past spring ran for only a handful of episodes before being dethroned after strong reviews but low ratings.

I watched both shows and felt totally used at the end of each. It’s like dating a girl for the weeks leading up to prom, only to take her to prom and leave you sitting in the limo. You’re stuck. You want to start watching a show that’s going to require at least a season because of the longer term plotlines, but you don’t because odds are it is going to be cancelled. An interesting dichotomy, but more accurately, it’s the reason we don’t watch as much television. I’m hesitant to get into shows that build over more than one episode because I don’t want to be left in the limo again.

Another point about shows maturing is that people become more attached to the characters. The stories of the characters start to make more sense than the individual episodes that only give you a brief glimpse into their lives. This attachment leads to an almost insatiable desire to watch each week and follow the stories. For the networks, it leads to higher ratings and alas, higher revenue.

One other point that we’ve seen in recent years is the art of the spinoff. CBS and NBC have perfected it with their different flavors of CSI (Vegas, Miami, and New York) and Law & Order (The Original, SVU, and CI), respectively. ABC is working on it this season with a new take on Grey’s Anatomy, called Private Practice. These spinoffs not only lead to new plotlines, new character development, and new paths, but also allows the network to build on the strength of the already created brand. ABC describes Private Practice as a show with “exciting new faces in a sun-drenched new city to create a show with a whole new vibe” centered around Dr. Addison Montgomery from Grey’s. There is already a built-in audience awaiting the show’s arrival. There is little need to brand it initially, as the show will take on a life of it’s own and differentiate itself as the season progresses. Allowing a show to mature beyond six episodes can be a great addition to revenue.

Looking for the quick hit for ratings booms may be profitable in the short run, but letting shows mature can pay huge dividends. And after all, isn’t that what the network is looking for?

CSI: Miami Highlights

2007-08-13T00:35:00.000-04:00

I like CSI: Miami. Really, I do. It’s entertaining, there’s a different story with a twist each episode. It’s canned, it’s predictable, and it always tells a good story. Not the most thought provoking show, but it works. Also, it’s not that I enjoy the acting or the writing, it’s that I enjoy how awesomely bad (to borrow a VH1 phrase) Horatio (David Caruso) is with his one liners.

In one of the greatest YouTube posts, someone took the time to combine a plethora of the one-liners from the shows. It’s amazing to see the formula the writers use. Here’s the general structure:

Say the first part of the line while looking down at your shoes and fiddling with your sunglasses.
Slide on your sunglasses.
Put your hands on your hips and while doing so, push the bottom of your jacket aside to create the appearance of frustration and pomposity.
Look up and to either side.
Say the last part of the line.
Walk away in a dramatic fashion.
Cue theme music

It gets to the point where you just start laughing at how overdramatic and ridiculous the lines really are. Just imagine eight minutes of pure Horatio Caine, ending with a cut of the opening credits and only plays until his name is splashed across the scene. It’s awesome. Awesomely bad.

A Hong Kong Market

2007-08-09T01:24:00.000-04:00

This picture was taken in Hong Kong at one of the Fish Markets around the Wan Chai district. I went there on an economics exchange project for Spring Break of my senior year and we got to see all the sights and sound of this amazing place (the island, not just the fish market). It was cool to see the way that the local markets worked in the area. In the morning, they would wheel out their carts and open their little spaces in the alleyways and streets, they would sell from early morning through evening (this picture was from around 8pm) and then repeat the process the next day.

All of the catch are fresh - those containers held live shellfish, crustaceans, and some smaller fish. Whenever someone would order something, they would take the item of choice out of the bins and then kill it, clean it, and wrap it up in front of their eyes. I remember one man spoke something in Mandarin and the merchant picked up a handful of live crayfish and a live lobster, but them into a reinforced plastic bag, then handed them to the man, who then paid and walked away with a handful of live shellfish. It was a bit of a culture shock, but not too surprising I suppose.

The entire market experience was remarkable and gave you quite a flavor for the differences in culture. It's a huge part of their society and is unlikely to change anytime soon - which only adds an experiential character to the trip.

New Show: Burn Notice

2007-08-06T01:20:00.000-04:00

In one of the new shows this summer, USA has found an awesome mix of humor, action, and sex appeal in Burn Notice. Jeffrey Donovan stars as Michael Weston, a former CIA agent who was recently disowned by the agency because of certain unknown actions. Weston received a "burn notice," which means that he was fired by the CIA, but for reasons of which he is unaware. The underlying plot line through all the episodes (six thus far) is that Weston tries to discover who filed the burn notice and for what reasons. In the meantime, Weston uses his Special Ops training to the benefit of others - getting a former airport employee out of the grasp of a Lebanese arms dealer, protecting a woman who witnessed a mob killing, and defending his friend and his mother's recent love interest from a hit.

Not only does the show have intriguing commentary about his CIA training, reading people, and reacting to dangerous situations, but it also has a witty repartee between Weston and his main squeeze, co-star Gabrielle Anwar, who plays his former (and potential) love interest, Fiona. She seems to have similar Special Ops training, but it was through the IRA rather than the CIA. Fiona is gorgeous and also has the talent to take on any enemy and deal with any situation - with grace, poise, and beauty. It only increases the sexual tension with Michael, especially considering how alone he is in the world after being dropped so deliberately and suddenly by the CIA. It leads to hilarious moments and a developing connection between the two that extends well beyond their professional relationship.

Beyond the Law & Order type plot lines with a different situation each episode, the show carries through a continuing story about how Weston tries to discover those who burned him. It leads him to a friend - Sam, a current FBI informant - and to many dead ends and much frustration. It creates a running thought that plays into each episode, while leaving the door open to really expand the plot to make that the focus of the series as it continues. Weston could come up with some new leads, new discoveries, and new confrontations, which would only make the show that much more exhilarating.

The show offers non-stop action, intriguing plot lines, clever insight into the protection side of CIA training. From the first moment, it's an exciting thrill ride that does not stop. The roller coaster of intertwining plot lines creates the type of show that leaves you wanting more at the end of it. It makes for great entertainment and hopefully a show that goes on for a while.

Must Read: The Lovely Bones

2007-07-02T23:36:00.000-04:00

I just finished reading one of the best books I've ever read: The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold (or if you can't read the book, you can wait for the movie). It's first paragraph is intriguing and draws you into the book from the very first line. Ms. Sebold creates an incredible view of what heaven may be - a heaven to all of us - and takes liberty with what it offers to add to a climbing story. Beyond the perspective of heaven, the book layers the stories of the child's family, neighbors, schoolmates, and her killer. Ms. Sebold's writing style, brilliant story lines, and excellent imagery makes this one of the best books I've ever read.

The opening paragraph begins by saying that the main character, Susie Salmon, was murdered in 1973. Initially, Susie provides quite a bit of detail about her murder - including identifying the murderer for the readers, though she's unable to tell her family. From the opening paragraph and those pages, we find out how she was killed and the dilemma facing her as the book opens. The questions grow from those few, poignant pages - can she find a way to tell her family who killed her? how does her family survive after her murder? how does her death affect the people whose lives she touched? what is heaven like for Susie? The questions are persistent and open the floodgates of our mind to the endless possibilities.

Ms. Sebold then creates an incredible vision of heaven - one in which we each create our own. For Susie, heaven was seeing old friends that she remembered from years before who had died. Very shortly, it becomes about the gazebo in the center of her heavenly yard. From that gazebo, Susie can peer down on her friends, family, and neighbors to see how life is progressing on Earth. Though it remained largely undiscussed through the book, there is an underlying thought that staying focused on her earthly life has only caused her the unnecessary strain and has not allowed her to fully embrace her heaven. As she begins to let go of her family, her view of heaven expands to see her grandfather, her dog, and those who had gone before her. Ms. Sebold's intriguing view of heaven begs the question of what is heaven. Her writing style and her seamless layering creates the perfect heavenly image for the story.

As the story progresses, Susie remains perched on the bench in the gazebo, looking longingly at those she left behind, watching their lives unfold uninterrupted. Susie soars between her parents, her murderer, her sister, and her friends from high school. These stories intertwine and layer upon one another as the book matures. Each year, each chapter, and each story line grows on its own and come together while still remaining in their own spheres. In one instance, her sister's experience as "the dead girl's sister" becomes enmeshed in her father's handling of her death (namely that he has gone mad sulking and pointedly accusing a non-suspect as the murderer) and Susie's sister takes on her dad's view, believing the same person to be the murderer. The emotions layer upon one another and create powerful moments which develop rich characters, chock full of happiness, depression, love, hate, hope, hopelessness, and emotions drowning in the one event they each share: Susie's murder. The layering only furthers the emotional turmoil and brings the characters closer to our hearts.

Beyond the layering is the incredible style and talent with which Ms. Sebold's writing is infused. The perspective of a child shows the immaturity of Susie in her childish desires, but also her maturation as the story continues. From the gazebo throughout the story, Susie ponders the lives of those for which she cares - initially wishing she could be with them, wanting them to want her, talk to her, talk about her, and keep her as a part of her life. As the story continues, she matures to the point of realizing that life goes on after her death, that children grow up, and that she can only have so much from those she's left behind. Ms. Sebold's writing style gives Susie the great phrasing, the eloquence, all while still sounding natural - yet still sounding like a child at just the right moments.

Perhaps the most important message of the book is that tragedy may define who we are, but it doesn't prevent our lives from continuing. If anything, Ms. Sebold boldly declares that it is expected for people to mourn, to long, and to yearn for those who have gone, but that people have incredible capacity to remember those and take away the moments that were precious rather than dwelling on the moments that bring us down. The transitions are difficult - from mourning to celebrating - but they instill in us a sense that their lives have affected a change for the best in our own. Each relative, friend, and acquaintance dealt with the tragedy in their own way. Her father sought an answer; her mother sought fulfillment in an empty affair; her sister longed to break through being known as the "dead girl's sister"; and her brother grew into his own as a strong young man. Though they took their own paths, each arrived on the other side having grown as a result. Ms. Sebold shows us the strength of the human condition in getting past tragedy.

In perhaps one of the greatest novel in recent years, Alice Sebold intertwines impeccable stories with creativity to tell a great family story about tragedy. I have scarcely read a book that has surprised me with its fluidity, eloquence, and great story telling. If I can suggest one book to read this summer or ever in your life, The Lovely Bones is certainly that book.

A Worthless Interview

2007-06-18T23:49:00.000-04:00

There was all this hype about Matt Lauer's interview with William and Harry, the Princes of England. People were excited about what they would say, intrigued to hear what they thought of their mother and the ten year anniversary that is coming up this August 31, and wondering about how the public life has affected their personal lives. It was billed as a once in a lifetime interview and an exclusive interview to America - they were yet to publicly speak about their mother and about their relationships.

Despite all the hype, it was one of the most worthless interviews in all of television history. The questions were almost entirely focused on the media's influence on their lives and just what they thought about being famous. Certainly there was a question of whether they would serve in Iraq and what they thought of serving in the military and defending their country in Iraq. The question was well intentioned, but it was entirely about how being famous has affected their service, rather than their work in the military and their reasons for serving.

Don't get me wrong, Matt Lauer typically conducts a phenomenal interview. His discussion with Tom Cruise and his absolute grilling of Cruise's Scientology beliefs was pure genius. Putting the past interviews aside, Lauer's interview was severely hindered by what I'm sure was the direction of Buckingham Palace. Lauer is known for asking tough questions and being diplomatic about it - never attacking the subject but always getting the answers to his questions. In the interview, the questions were not even there. The focus became what the media was portraying as the lives these Princes lead. Each question was something similar to the following: "You're both in the public spotlight quite a bit as a result of your positions as Princes but also because of your mother's death - how has that affected ... " and then fill in the blank. Relationships, friendships, military, family. The question was never about the relationship itself, but always about the media's impact on the relationship. The topic of Camilla was entirely avoided - as were the topics of their relationships with their father, William's relationship with Kate, and Harry's indiscretions over the past year. At the very least, it was one of the most impotent interviews I've ever seen.

Going back to my point about Buckingham Palace, I'm positive that the scope of the interview and the individual questions were cleared with Buckingham Palace and the royal family's media circus before being put before the Princes. It rendered the interview entirely useless and just a way to bring attention to the royal family and evoke the memory of the former Princess of Wales. One interview question asked about their thoughts on books and public appearances from former staff to the Princess of Wales and their responses were that they hated to see such public manipulation. By dictating the questions and the focus of the interview, aren't they doing exactly the same manipulation? It renders the interview useless and just creates pointless hype that does not answer any real questions of any significance - those questions being about their roles in the British government, their thoughts on their mother's legacy, their roles in the military, and their thoughts on philanthropy and causes they support.

In all honesty, I have nothing but the utmost respect for the British Royal Family, having just had the honor of seeing her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth II at William & Mary this past month. I think they stand as a pillar of hope, strength, courage, and determination for a world that does not seem to have much conviction and belief. It makes all the more reason to see what the two Princes have to say - "candidly" as NBC and Matt Lauer billed the interview to be. If that was a candid and unscripted interview, then there is a new standard for broadcast journalism interviews. It was nice to see them speaking about their mother, but that doesn't make the interview any less toothless. I was interested to hear the two Princes speak, but severely disappointed in the narrow scope and avoidance of any sort of relatively controversial topic.

KY v. Davis

2007-06-12T17:11:00.000-04:00

The Supremes granted certiorari to a case coming out of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis, Docket No. 06-666. The basic facts are that the commonwealth of Kentucky imposed a taxation scheme such that it requires those owning out of state municipal bonds to pay taxes on those bonds, while exempting Kentucky municipal bond owners from state taxes on earnings derived from those Kentucky municipal bonds. Davis argued that it violated dormant Commerce Clause doctrine from previous Supreme Court decisions. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky agreed with Davis and found that it burdened interstate commerce.

Out of what is possibly one of the most boring sets of facts the Court has faced, arises one of the most significant cases of the upcoming October 2007 Term. The implications of upholding the Kentucky court's decision are devastating to cities and municipalities. It would greatly increase the cost of municipal financing and reduce the ability for localities to finance their own public projects.

When states issue bonds they are able to issue them at a lower interest rate because the tax exemption makes the yield on the bonds comparable to similar risk and similar return bonds. As a result, the lower interest rates result in a lower cost to the local cities and towns when they issue bonds to build new schools, finance public works projects, and to further city initiatives. If the Court upholds the Kentucky court's decision, it would raise those interest rates and raise the costs of public financing. By raising the interest rates, it causes the cost of public debt to rise and thus cities are required to put aside a greater amont of funds to pay for those bonds in the future.

On an even more micro level, these interest expenses would likely cause an increased tax burden on each resident of the city. For example, if we assume that the interest rate rises on $10 million in bonds by 2% (not wholly unreasonable), that would cause an increase in annual interest cost of $200,000. In a city of 25,000 people, assuming the taxes are spread evenly across each individual, individual taxes would increase by $8 per year, or $32 for a family of four. While not a prohibitively significant increase, it may be vastly different depending on the growth rate of an area. Northern Virginia, for example, is growing exponentially and is building schools, infrastructure, libraries, roads, public buildings, parks, and other government centers with public funds and bonds. If we assume that each project requires several million dollars for tens of thousands of people, the tax burden may increase significantly.

Though a boring case factually, it is important to consider the implications nationwide. The tax implications are incredibly important on their own, but also the idea that municipalities would not be able to feasibily pay for the interest rate increase and thus public works projects would likely suffer. Rural communities are most likely to be affected by this shift in policy. A rural community that relies on the lower interest rates would not be able to raise the funds to pay for the increased expense burden, causing public projects, police stations, fire stations, and schools - among other projects - to suffer greatly.

It certainly is one of the most boring cases of the upcoming term, but it is certain to be a case with far-reaching implications. More than 40 states have such taxation schemes

A Solution to Fuel Concerns?

2007-06-05T00:17:00.000-04:00

An article on MSNBC.com this week notes that physicists at the University of Utah have found a way to convert waste heat to electricity in an efficient manner. Click here for details. According to the article, cylindrically-shaped "resonators" that forces sound waves through the heat to cause pressure and that pressure produces an electric voltage. The physicists compared the voltage created by the resonators to the electrical nerve impulse generated when you hit your funnybone, which causes that pinging pain. The electrical impulse could be a way to reduce heat and may be used in laptops in the future, or at least the physicists hope.

I've always considered sound and heat to be two different essences. Sound seems to me to have little to do with heat or temperature at all. I'm fascinated by the interaction of the two. It's amazing to think that sound can create adequate pressure on the heat source to create an electric voltage. The implications are also significant. Imagine if we can scale this to larger sources to replace solar power cells and are more able to harness the power of the sun to provide a source of fuel for automobiles, houses, and other electrical uses. Maybe years down the road it could allow cars to drive without using gas, but only the resonating source. An impressive, but surely a far off thought.

A Moment in High School

2007-05-31T23:45:00.000-04:00

My sister graduates from high school tomorrow. It's the same high school that I went to five years ago (I can't believe it's been that long) and this whole experience in coming back to see her has been a ridiculous trip down memory lane. I was the designated photographer for her prom pictures at her friend's house before prom. I'm waiting for tomorrow to see her in cap and gown and walking across the stage. It's been strange to suddenly realize that she's grown up and gone off to college. When I left for college, she was just starting 8th grade, so I have this image of my sister as an eighth grader stuck in my mind - certainly not as a graduating senior.

Aside from her graduation, I've come to a few personal realizations. First, high school was not my shining moment. No matter how many different ways I think about high school, it was and will never be a great time in my life. Not to say that it was a bad four years, just that it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Second, most of the people you met in high school seem to think that everything they did in high school was the most important thing they would ever do. It's amazing to think that our prime was from ages 14-18, but many think that. They think the social structure is still the same, their friends are still the same, and the maturity level is the same. It's remarkable. Finally, I've outgrown Wilbraham. Or perhaps Wilbraham out grew me. In any event, the town doesn't suit me anymore. There aren't any challenges here. It's not the place for me, and I'm glad I've started to realize it.

Final word: congratulations to my sister for graduating and best of luck to her next year at UT.

Asexuality is In

2007-05-24T01:15:00.000-04:00

A Nebraska aquarium is home to new baby hammerhead shark - but it is one without a father. In something undocumented in sharks, a mother hammerhead shark had a child without having mated with a male shark. It is known as parthenogenesis and has been found in several other vertebrates, but this was the first time in sharks.

When I read this article, I couldn't help but focus on the background facts that hammerhead sharks could store sperm from the male sharks after mating and have the child years after having mated. It's mind boggling to think that a shark, or really any animal at all was evolutionarily evolved to a point where it could store sperm and spawn a child when it wanted. In this case, the researchers initially believed that was just the case, but they found there was no sperm or male DNA in the child. It is a remarkable anomaly in biology, but is slightly more common in smaller vertebrates.

Imagine if this was the case in humans. A woman could have a child simply through two eggs merging (obviously quite over-simplified). We would face a large population increase, of course. Also, it would result in greater birth defects, depletion of the gene pool, and slowing of evolution. The researchers suggest that there is a decrease in genetic diversity that would lead to more susceptibility to disease, illness, and injury. In the case of humans, there would likely be an increase in mortality rates of lesser diseases and viruses that are typically not fatal. In any event, the consequences would be far-reaching, but also interesting to consider.

Beyond Jack Bauer

2007-05-22T13:46:00.000-04:00

It's incredible what we can do with technology. For years I've been watching Jack Bauer on "24" and thought that we could only use cell phones, Bluetooth, and other technologies for blowing up cars, ships, airplanes, and buildings on a television show. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Jack Bauer and the constant explosions and technological ridiculousness of the show, but it sometimes seems that it's not being used for the right reasons.

There's hope for us yet though - just recently, state and local police used cellular tracking to find a woman and her son so the pair could be transported to a hospital because they had found a heart for the son. The hospital found out he was atop the list and contacted local police to try to find him. They finally worked with Sprint to track his mother's cell phone signal. They were at a local college concert and the police walked in, stopped the concert, and took them from the audience and to the hospital. Unbelievable and impressive what we can do. Check here for the story.

Though I love the story, I can't help but wonder what the possible implications of it could be. I like the idea of tracking people down for transplants or something similar, but there is a slippery slope here. Imagine if a mother needed to track down her husband for some reason, or to track down her son who skipped school, or even just to track her husband who she believed was having an affair, or to just follow someone's signal without suspicion. The implications are potentially boundless. It's hard to delineate the line. I'm thinking about it, but I'm not too worried about it.

Lincoln's Smallpox

2007-05-19T20:34:00.000-04:00

According to a recent study, Lincoln was apparently suffering from a mild case of smallpox while he delivered the Gettysburg Address. In perhaps one of the greatest speeches in American history, it appears the text outdistanced the speaker.

Research (found here) indicates that he was suffering from symptoms akin to smallpox. He felt weak and dizzy while on a train from Washington, D.C. to Gettysburg and then soon after he was suffering from a fever, headache, and backache. According to the researchers, this mild form of smallpox was quite common, especially in those that were inoculated. The medical historians also suggest that the seriousness was downplayed politically so as to further demonstrate his strength as a leader and President.

In all likelihood, it appears Lincoln was at least suffering mild symptoms of smallpox during the speech and the immediate aftermath. It's intriguing to find out that, during a 266-word speech that re-defined the course of the war, Lincoln was seriously ill. It's certainly something worse considering.

The Savvy Conductor

2007-05-18T01:35:00.000-04:00

This past Sunday was Jamestown's 400th Anniversary. President Bush made his scheduled appearance to talk about the founding of America and commemorate the events that began our nation's history. He spoke about the first settlers, the frontiers of exploration, while also managing to mention Iraq.

After his brief remarks, the President began to walk off the stage to raucous applause and the orchestra started to play. He shook hands with the dignitaries on stage, including Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine, former Supreme Court Justice and William & Mary's Chancellor Sandra Day O'Connor, and several others. After shaking hands, he walked over to the conductor, nudged her out of the way, and then took the baton and led the orchestra. Though he was not really in time, he was enthusiastic, personable, and certainly entertaining. This picture is of the jumbo screens which captured his conducting. The blue shirts are all of those in the 1,607 voice choir which accompanied the 400 piece orchestra in performances all afternoon and evening.

A Year Removed

2007-05-15T11:46:00.000-04:00

Last year, that was me. Walking through campus with the other students in my graduating class. Starting at Wren and weaving through campus, past the Sunken Gardens, over the Crim Dell Bridge, and on to William & Mary Hall, it was one of my prouder moments. This year's seniors are embarking on the same trek across campus in a little less than a week.

I'm a year removed from graduating college and I don't know where that's left me. Last year I had a plan - go to law school, graduate after three years, get a decent job for a few years and see what happened, see where it would lead. Now, I can't even say I have that plan. I don't know what the plan is, but it's certainly changed over the past year. Much has changed since last May, but I'd like to think that the bumps in the road will all be smoothed eventually.

This picture was taken as we walked across the Crim Dell Bridge on our way to the commencement exercises. It was hot as hell but we were in good company.

400 American Years

2007-05-10T22:30:00.000-04:00

This weekend, America celebrates its 400th Anniversary. Jamestown, Virginia, the site of the first permanent American settlement, will be hosting tens of thousands of tourists and dignitaries. The Godspeed, a replica of which is in this picture, was one of the ships taken by the original travelers to what they believed to be the West Indies. The site is truly incredible - historic replications of each of the ships, restored houses and town buildings, and recreated Indian settlements. For more (and for tickets), check out: http://www.jamestown2007.org/.

Stop and Smell the Roses

2007-05-07T13:26:00.000-04:00

Many people thing it's gay to take pictures of flowers. Regardless of what other people think, I like to take those pictures. There's just something tranquil about a picture of a flower that shows its beauty despite the chaos around it. Oddly enough, it relaxes me to go through and take some pictures of flowers. A bit ridiculous - perhaps, though definitely a great way to relieve some stress.

This picture was taken in Cambridge, England at the University of Cambridge Botanical Gardens. Aside from the gorgeous flowers, the gardens is also home to (allegedly) a tree whose ancestor was the apple tree which dropped an apple on Newton.

The Wren Courtyard

2007-05-06T22:58:00.000-04:00

Considering I have spent the last five years in Williamsburg at William & Mary, I suppose it is only fitting that I start with a picture of the Wren Building - the oldest academic building still in active use today. While it's the centerpiece of the College's rich history, it is also a source of inspiration for most of its students. This past weekend, over 6,000 people crowded this very area to get a glimpse of the newest honorary member of the College's Class of 2007 - Queen Elizabeth II, who was at the College after commemorating Jamestown's 400th Anniversary.

Adding a New Direction

2007-05-06T22:53:00.000-04:00

I know I haven't posted in quite a while, but I will say that most of it was due to a sheer lack of motivation after reading and studying for law school classes. It just sort of sucks all the air out of the room and leaves you without too much desire to do anything intellectual on your own.

I'm attempting to change that. In addition to my normal entries, I'm also going to be posting photos on occasion - either cities, landscapes, or really anything that I find to be a great picture. I'm adding a new direction and I hope you can handle it.

Are you lying to me?: A Brief Look at the Polygraph

2006-11-03T13:33:00.000-05:00

I’ve always been curious about my surroundings, pop culture, academia, and anything that would remotely pique my interests. I’m naturally a curious person and it has led me in numerous directions with possible career paths, undergraduate majors, and considerations about what I could be successful doing. My recent curiosity and experience led me to consider criminal justice. Taking Criminal Law this semester and watching endless reruns of Law & Order and similar crime dramas, I began to notice the prevalence of the polygraph. What makes such a machine work? How was it discovered? How accurate is it? Can it be defeated? All these questions buzzed through my mind and I couldn’t help but investigate the origins and use of the lie detector.

Detecting lies tends to be more of an art than a science, though there are relatively scientific methods to determining whether someone is telling the truth. Some cultures used to employ various methods based on beliefs in gods or naïve physiological understandings. One culture believed a person was lying when, after holding a handful of rice in their mouth, the rice remained dry. While based more on belief, the current polygraph test takes a much more scientific approach.

The modern polygraph has humble beginnings based on military necessity and personal curiosity. In World War I, both the U.S. and Italian armed forces were seeking ways to interrogate prisoners for information. Cesare Lombroso in 1895 developed a primitive solution with his “Lombroso’s Glove,” which measured changes in blood pressure. With interests in criminal forensics rather than lie detection, he abandoned his innovations. Personal curiosity led to William Marston, a student at Harvard in 1913, creating a systolic blood pressure test. Dr. John Larson, a psychiatrist at Berkeley, expanded upon these discoveries by adding a test of galvanic skin response. Larson’s test has since become the most accepted model for the modern polygraph.

The physiological basis for the polygraph depends upon fluctuations in systolic blood pressure and galvanic skin response. Measures of blood pressure include systolic and diastolic pressure. Systolic pressure is the maximum pressure exerted when your heart contracts whereas diastolic pressure is the pressure in your arteries when the heart is at rest. Polygraph tests measure systolic rather than diastolic because of its tendency to fluctuate more acutely due to outside forces. Galvanic skin response, the other main element of the modern test, measures the skin’s electrical resistance. Several studies establish the relationship between electrical conductivity and emotional arousal. Both measure physiological variations which tend to indicate deception. The tester sets up the test by placing two leads on the subject’s fingers, typically on the middle and ring finger on the right hand, measuring galvanic skin response.

Beyond the physiological nuance, the test consists of two main parts – the preliminary test to determine a baseline and the actual test to determine deception. The preliminary test includes basic questions to establish an “at-rest” measurement. The tester then conducts a “stim test” in which he asks the subject to lie in order to see that lie reflected in the measurements. Once the stim test is successfully completed, the actual test begins. It consists of relevant questions interspersed within control questions and irrelevant questions. This weaving of questions illustrates wider fluctuations in physiological measurements and provides a more determinative result. The tester interprets the results and the subject passes the test when the control question fluctuations are greater than those for relevant questions.

The question of admissibility came before the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, and the court decided against the test. At the time, the polygraph was a recent breakthrough in deception detection and the scientific community refused to accept it. The defendant in Frye took what was called a “systolic blood pressure test” that asserted the fluctuations in blood pressure indicated emotional changes. The court found the test had “not yet gained such standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities as would justify the courts in admitting expert testimony…” at 1014. The requisite standing in scientific circles became known as the Frye Test and several courts cite Frye in determining the viability of new technologies in expert testimony.

In more recent cases, the courts remain split on admissibility. In United States v. Stephens, 148 Fed. Appx. 385, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that it may be admissible in limited circumstances. The polygraph evidence must be deemed relevant, but fall within the Federal Rules of Evidence, at 389. Rule 403 provides the final test because it provides the court the power to deem relevant evidence inadmissible if it’s “probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” This ruling indicates that in certain circumstances, such as the defendant’s willingness to submit to the test and other considerations, that it may be admissible. In general, courts across the country provided local jurisdictions with the authority to consider the admissibility on a per case basis.

There are several methods used by people to try to defeat the polygraph, though it takes more than it appears to be successful. The first, and seemingly most simplistic, is to manipulate emotional response during the control questions in the preliminary test. This would cause higher initial levels of fluctuations and blend closer with the relevant questions. The second is extensive training to maintain normal levels regardless of the question. Military training typically uses this method for intelligence agents and those subject to interrogation. Other methods include artificial methods of manipulating measurements, though most are prevented through initial searches of the subject. While not impossible to defeat the polygraph, it is certainly not as simple as it may seem.

The lie detector evolved from a variety of basic physiological premises, though its scientific viability continues to be questioned. As a result, courts are unsure how to treat the test, leading to general inadmissibility with rare cases where it is accepted into evidence. Though it is still widely used in the terms of a convicted sex offender’s parole, in internal government investigations, and criminal cases, experts do not consider it conclusive. Despite the scientific uncertainty, it remains an important tool in detecting deception.

Annika vs. Michelle - More Rumor Than Truth

2006-10-17T12:22:00.000-04:00

Since Tiger’s incredible run to more than a handful of consecutive victories, including the British Open (or snobbier, The Open Championship) and the PGA Championship, the only golf story worth talking about is the continuing comparisons of Michelle Wie and Annika Sorenstam. Sportswriters, golfers, and anyone looking for a story perpetuates this potential rivalry rather than focusing on the achievements and potential of each golfer.

In an effort to increase viewers, ratings, and share in a greater effort to increase sponsorship, purses, and star power, the LPGA helped foster this notion of an epic battle between the proven star and the untested prodigy. Certainly it makes for great television, great stories, and even better publicity for a fledgling organization – but does that mean it is best for the game? Does that mean that they are the LPGA equivalent to Ali and Frazier? Does that even mean that it is true in any sense of the word? As certain as we are that it makes for great publicity, we can be equally certain that it not good for the game, they could not even fight in the undercard match, and it is most definitely not true.

First, it certainly is not good for the game. Initially, sure, it increases viewers to see the two alleged heavyweights slugging it out on a Sunday afternoon as they stroll through the back nine at the Kraft Nabisco Championship – which is a major championship for the ladies, by the way. It would help with the ratings and thus lead to greater sponsorship (who can forget Kraft and Nabisco?) and even better, higher purses. Is that what the LPGA thinks is best for the game, more money? Best for the game is maintaining the integrity of the game, fostering growth among golf’s best, and turning the profits from tournaments into charitable donations to help local causes. The LPGA should keep their focus on golf – not the sideshow created from this endless stream of petty news stories that funnel into an explosion of gossip surrounding a purposed rivalry.

Is it really good for the honesty, integrity, courage, character, and sportsmanship upon which the LPGA claims to be focused? No – it takes that honesty, integrity, courage, character, and sportsmanship to town by completely disregarding it in order to bring a few more viewers to their television sets every weekend. The jump in ratings coinciding with the LPGA should be about the collective talent, the sheer number of incredibly skilled female golfers that play the tour each week. Se Ri Pak, Lorena Ochoa, Cristie Kerr, Karrie Webb, Paula Creamer, Natalie Gulbis, and Juli Inkster are just a few of the great ladies competing. Golf is about challenging the course, challenging the field, and challenging yourself – not about the one on one competition that several sources wish would come from Annika and Michelle clashing each week.

Second, the alleged battle between Annika and Michelle could never approach the epic proportions of Ali-Frazier, though it is an interesting comparison. The seasoned veteran and perennial Player of the Year, Annika wins at least a handful of trophies, jugs, plaques, and assorted other accolades each year, while Michelle is yet to win her first tournament. Annika is the pillar of consistency – rarely slicing a shot into the woods, rarely leaving a long putt short or in “three-putt territory,” and very rarely making a serious miscue to take her out of contention on Sunday afternoon. Michelle, on the other hand, frequently makes such mistakes – which I suppose could be chalked up to both inexperience and her growth into her adult body – and she frequently takes chances that just scream Phil Mickelson on Sunday at the US Open.

To further demonstrate the ridiculousness of it all, I turn to Morgan Pressel, an upcoming star in the LPGA who is repeatedly faced with questions about Michelle Wie. Prior to a tournament hosted by Nancy Lopez, one reporter essentially asked if the LPGA world revolved around Michelle Wie. It is well-known on the PGA tour that when Tiger does not play in a tournament, it does not carry the same weight, so the reporter asked Morgan, “…is there a sense in your eyes that in the media sort of spotlight if Michelle is not playing in a tournament that it doesn’t reach that hype status?” Aside from the terrible sentence structure and diction, this question is exactly what is wrong with the LPGA and the media view on the supposed war being waged between Annika and Michelle. Yes, they represent different styles of play, but comparing Michelle to Tiger is even beyond comparing Annika-Michelle with Ali-Frazier. While each Ali-Frazier-esque match up requires diverging personalities and styles of play much like Michelle and Annika, it also requires tested, proven athletes at the top of their sport. Also, Annika-Michelle does not quite have the same ring to it as Ali-Frazier.

Third, the hype is nowhere close to the truth. Like any good competitors, Michelle and Annika play against the field, and if that happens to boil down to the two of them, then they will play each other. The goal each week is not for one to beat the other and demonstrate supremacy in this media-hyped match up, rather it is to win the tournament. Annika repeatedly remarks that the tour is becoming much younger, the players have different styles, and they are tough players who are making noise. Annika deftly and respectfully answered the question poised by Jay Leno just last week, acknowledging Michelle’s obvious talent but honestly saying that Annika goes out each week to win, nothing more, nothing less.

Michelle is also just looking to eventually win a tournament, join a tour, and fulfill even half of the potential the public expects. If Michelle was a member of the LPGA tour, she would barely crack the top fifteen in earnings, though somehow she barely squeaks in as number ten in the World Golf Rankings. She is yet to win a tournament against the ladies and continually competes against the men – which a futile attempt at this point, but is a topic I do not want to touch yet. When she wins a tournament, or is in serious contention on Sunday, it will be her chance to conquer her tournament demons, not to face off in a battle against the undisputed frontrunner of women’s golf. Reality has to catch up to the rumors before Annika-Michelle can be considered a healthy competition, and long before it can become a rivalry.

For years, people hyped a rivalry between Tiger and numerous players, including Mickelson most recently. Finally the media and others have realized Tiger does not care who plays each week – only that he plays against the best, and he beats the best. Should it really surprise us that a player who has won 11, 6, 8, and 10 tournaments in four straight years including six majors does not care about the competition? It certainly does not surprise me – and in case you were wondering, it was Annika.

Studio 60 Issues a Challenge

2006-10-11T22:19:00.000-04:00

Aaron Sorkin’s latest foray into television premiered this fall, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. A backstage look at a sketch-comedy show, strikingly similar to Saturday Night Live, Sorkin brings together comedy with elements of drama to create a realistic – though idealistic – off-camera world. With characters, dialogue, and stories eerily reminiscent to the golden age of The West Wing, Sorkin develops an ideological, politically charged, and thoroughly entertaining hour of television.

Danny Tripp and Matt Albie (Bradley Whitford and Matthew Perry, respectively) are the lead characters, a director and writer pair that had previously run Studio 60 before being cast out following political fallout from post-9/11 sketches. After four years and a handful of successful movies, Danny and Matt return to Studio 60 under less than ideal terms. The previous director and lead writer, Wes Mendell – played by a more than capable Judd Hirsch – spent 53 seconds on live air lambasting the network for their role in the downfall of television, especially the watering down of Studio 60. The network is facing increased scrutiny from advertisers and other media outlets. The ink was still dry on the new president of the network’s contract. The chairman and Matt have a long standing feud, dating back at least four years. To top it all off, Danny tested positive for cocaine two weeks before the meltdown – and news was leaked. It all leads to a precarious beginning with plenty of potential for drama.

In the wake of all these conflicting stories and facing a fierce media frenzy for their first episode, Danny and Matt bring back witty writing, clever political satire, and courage to address issues from which the show-within-the-show had been straying. Through the first two weeks, Danny and Matt overcome a “look-in” audience whose curiosity stems from the previously shelved sketch, “Crazy Christians,” and the emergence of a new director and writer following Wes’s tirade. The show brings old television to new heights by injecting intelligence, wit, charm, controversy, and politics into an otherwise unengaged network lineup.

Aside from the on-screen plots, the show carries plenty of off-screen baggage. Much like his departure following season four of The West Wing, Sorkin starts his new show with a virtual “screw you” to the management and production staff at NBC. Sorkin’s writing at the presidential drama came to a close with the President stepping down, the Vice President resigning, a Republican in the Oval Office, a nation in terror as the President’s daughter was kidnapped, and several political scandals lurking on the horizon. Studio 60 opens with a 53 second tear into the state of television with not-so-veiled references to the last four years of NBC’s productions.

The show continues the parallels to Sorkin’s life – both on and off-screen. Moreover, Sorkin’s return to NBC mirrors the return of Danny and Matt to Studio 60. With network ratings at record lows in recent years on both the fictional and actual networks, both Sorkin and his fictional counterparts return as the apparent saviors. After four years in exile for both, they return with thoughts of grandeur and returning the network to its former glory. Danny is marred by a positive test for cocaine, while Sorkin was similarly marked by positive tests for hallucinogenic mushrooms. Sorkin’s frequent deviations from network restrictions also find their way into Danny and Matt’s characters – demonstrating an unwillingness to compromise their standards and a desire to produce the show their own way.

Sorkin finds himself in much the way of his characters – as the David in an industry of Goliaths. It becomes a chess match featuring the creative, intelligent, and ideological directors or writers against the network executives, shareholders, and profiteering opportunists. Sorkin weaves his personal battles into Danny and Matt’s own struggles with the network hierarchy. The confrontation manifests itself in the third episode when Danny speaks with Jordan McDeere (Amanda Peet), network president, saying, that she “talks like one of them” but she “acts like one of us.” In his personal David and Goliath battle, for the second time in his career, Sorkin just may have himself a fair fight.

The show in many ways is an extension of The West Wing. Much like the interconnectedness within all of his scripts, Sorkin continues to explore religion through his characters. In the first episode of The West Wing, Josh, White House Deputy Chief of Staff, battled for his job after making a comment offended the Christian right. The first episode of Studio 60 includes a debate over the Christian-bashing sketch called “Crazy Christians” and continues his personal exploration and commentary through his characters. In what is sure to be the first of many ideological confrontations and debates, Sorkin addresses issues beyond Christianity, including censorship, political apathy, newsworthiness of personal lives, and how television and media should challenge the public rather than feed the gluttonous desire for mindless entertainment.

One running theme through most of Sorkin’s work has been the desire to stir debate, challenge his audience, and provoke thought. Rarely has there been a topic from which he has kept his distance. President Bartlet in The West Wing asks, “What will be the next thing that challenges us, Toby?” To Sorkin, the question has not changed – only the medium in which he asks it.

Serving as a commentary on both television and network politics, Sorkin creates a fictional world among a very real one – always showing the dark reality but searching and finding the optimistic solution. A wildly entertaining show, Studio 60 brings together elements of comedy, drama, political satire, and intellectual stimulation to create one of television’s most provocative new shows.

It's Only the Beginning.

2006-10-10T14:53:00.000-04:00

Inspired by the great Mike Insler, I have decided to start my own blog. I generally consider blogs to be a ridiculous notion only serving to allow people to stand on their soapboxes and proclaim all of the vast injustices that our world suffers. My opinion changes and realizes the virtues of a blog in discerning the finer points in life – the entertainment, the random musings, and the personal opinions on relatively meaningless topics we all consider important.

Most people take their blogs altogether too seriously. It becomes a place to discuss the problems with the world – injustices halfway across the globe, greater problems with democracy and communism, world hunger – all of which are remote and readers are typically disinterested. This blog will hopefully be different. It will be musings about various topics – from golf to television, movies to music, politics to sports. I vow to do my best to stay off of my soapbox whenever possible, which will hopefully keep any and all who read this happy.