All-Star Game Management

No topic in baseball is as hotly debated as the All-Star game. Before the fans select the starters there are the questions of who should or should not be an all star (see: Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez this year). Then after the fans choose, the players choose, and the managers choose the all-stars there’s the questions about who got left out (see: Yovani Gallardo and Derek Lee’s June statistics). Strangely after all this, the fans get to vote again – effectively re-doing the first debate. Finally, we get to the game (after a pre-game ceremony that rivals the superbowl’s in length and pomp) and we begin talking about the game itself and what we can change about it.

We attempt to answer: whether or not home-field advantage in the world series should be tied to the out come of the game. How can the NL lose for that long? Et cetera. There are good arguments on all of these questions. One point I thought of last night is that the requirement that each team have a representative in the game is certainly a drag on the quality of players that the National League gets. With two more teams and a requirement that the NL have representatives from the D-Backs, Nationals, and Pirates; it’s some what understandable why the NL hasn’t won since 1996. Even the teams that are way out of a pennant race in the AL (Baltimore, Kansas City) have really good players in Adam Jones and Zack Grinke. And then factor in the significantly higher payroll that the AL clubs have and the AL is at talent advantage as a league. The reason that the NL wins world series more often than this is simply that all of these factors are not likely to effect an entire club.

Claims about the fairness of the game’s setup aside, I think the NL should have won last night and I’m willing to blame Charlie Manuel’s non-creative management of the game. Consider his best moves of the night: having Prince Fielder pinch hit for Tim Lincecum. This gave the NL the lead, but limited the home run derby champion to one at bat. A more creative management would have allowed fielder to stay in the game and gave the NL another power bat in the line-up. Manuel could have double-switched Fielder for Lincecum and Victorino. This means that you would stick Prince at first and move Pujols to the outfield. This isn’t an ideal situation defensively because your collection of outfielders after the switch: Braun, Pujols, Ibanez leaves you without a strong defensive center fielder. It also puts Fielder in a shitty spot in the lineup. But in game where you’re going to make lots of substitutions, the defensive alignment really shouldn’t be a concern and who cares if good bats are in poor spots in the lineup so long as they are in the lineup.

Managing the All-Star game requires juggling conflicting goals: you don’t want to over use another team’s player and at the same time you’d like to get as many people in the game as possible, and you’d like to win the game. Normal baseball conventions (you need a strong defensive center fielder) would dictate that you avoid strange moves and defensive alignments, but the National League’s situation last night required some management trickery and odd defensive alignments. Using Prince Fielder and Ryan Howard as pinch hitters only, meets some goals, but not others. And the NL was in a rough spot with Prince, Howard, Gonzalez and Pujols all first basemen and on the NL Roster. In order to use all of those good hitters, you’d have to get creative. I’m not sure how I would personally juggle the conflicting objectives, but I am certain that my approach beyond the first two innings would be unconventional. A strange situation seems to mandate one to defy conventions.

Similarly, I don’t think I would let players from non-contending clubs (save Adrian Gonzalez) bat against the AL’s best relievers. This is a spot where you’d like to use your best hitters and the NL strategy was to use some of their less than great ones. But this means that earlier in the game, the NL wouldn’t have been able to sub in players just so they can get an appearance – which is a difficult move in an exhibition game for the entire sport.

I am interested to hear other opinions. How would you manage the game? Do you get tricky with the defense to put in better bats hoping for double and home runs? Do you let Justin Upton face Mariano Rivera?

Northwoods League Stats unveiled

I am a season ticket holder for the Madison Mallards and have become a large fan of the Northwoods league. Particularly this year, when the Mallards have the best offensive team they have had since I’ve been going to the Duck Pond. As a baseball fan in general, I seek out statistics. Stats are an inseparable part of baseball, so much of the game is played around numbers. The problem is that the Northwoods League home site misses important information that mlb.com makes easily available.

On the Northwoods League site there is no elimination number. While not immediately important for MLB clubs (sans the Nationals), this number is important for the Northwoods League. We are heading into our last week of the first half and the winner of the first half makes the playoffs. Given that the south division has a pretty decent playoff race between three teams – you’d think you’d want an indication of where teams stand in that race. The elimination number is that measure for Major League Teams.

The other number that would be nice to know is the expected win/loss record of each of the teams. That is the calculation of a teams win/loss record based on the number of runs scored and the number of runs allowed. This provides some insight into how a teams offensive and defensive performance has contributed to their actual wins and losses. If a team has more wins than you’d expect, that means a team is “over-preforming.” Conversely, a team with less wins than you’d expect is performing below their talent level. Knowing this is crucial during a playoff race (for a fan). If you’re team is under-preforming and is only a few games back – its entirely possible that if you’re team plays at its potential, it could win the race.

Annoyed with the lack of these stats calculated for me, I calculated them myself. Here they are.

If you’re wondering, the elimination number for the Mallards is 4. (A combination of four Mallard losses and Eau Claire Wins eliminate the Mallards from the first season crown). Madison has hope though, Eau Claire has 10 games to go to reach the 33 game mark. I am not really sure how that works when a rain out game from the “first half” is rescheduled later. Do you count the first 33 games? Or do you count the games that are supposed to be made up later? If some one could enlighten me, that would be great. For now, with the information calculated, I can just wonder contently.

The summer air travel license plate game

As a vacationing child, I was prone to play the “license plate” game – especially on long, interstate travel. If your are not fimilar with the game, here’s how it’s played: you try to observe cars from with license plates from all 50 states. The first one to fifty wins or if non one reaches 50 (usually the case) – the person with the most wins. If you’re not competitive; the game can also be a collaborative effort.

The Holy Grail of the game is Hawaii. Because there is no highway that connects the islands to the continental US. DC and Canadian providences are usually fair substitutes, but no one gets all 50 anyway.

Vacationing this week by air travel has left me without my usual road trip distraction. No cars, no license plates, no game. That is until I realized that it’s summer and baseball season is in full swing. Finding caps, tshirts, and jerseys from all 30 teams (one from each) became the new game.

The hardest teams to find thus far have been the AL West teams. I’ve found the Rangers, but no one else. Come to think of it, the AL teams in general have been quite difficult to find. The NL teams on the other hand have been quite easy to find. On this trip, I am only missing three (Dodgers, Marlins, and Pirates). Atlanta was a virtual goldmine of team support – Raliegh-Durham was the least helpful. Although I think some went ran by with an oriels hat on, but without a full viewing if stands as unconfirmed. Even La Gaurdia was no help. In case you were wondering, the nine MLB teams with no support on my trip were: Dodgers, Marlins, Pirates, A’s, Mariners, Tigers, Royals, Blue Jays, and Oriels.

Memorial Forensics Honored; Others don’t compete

The Madison Common Council honored the James Madison Memorial Forensics team for claiming its sixth state championship earlier tonight. I found the proclamation fitting, giving special credit for the assistant coaches who are as dedicated to the activity as their/our head coach – Tom Hardin. (Check out the following Isthmus article illustrating all that Hardin does.) Here’s the text of that document, emphasis is mine:

WHEREAS, the James Madison Memorial High School Spartans forensics team finished the 2008-2009 season undefeated for the second consecutive year in the Wisconsin Forensic Coaches Association tournament season; and,
WHEREAS, the Spartan team is comprised of over 70 students from 9th through 12th grade, and the students prepare for the competition throughout the school year, and the team sent their top 25 events to the State tournament with 29 students including 19 Seniors representing the Spartans, and after 3 preliminary morning rounds; and,
WHEREAS, 6 individual students were declared State Champions and 7 more were awarded second place, and the Spartan team placed first with 332 team points, while the second place team had 285 points which is the largest margin in WFCA State history; and,
WHEREAS, Coach Thomas Hardin with the assistance of Tim Schefler, Beth LeMay, Andrew Gordan, and David Olson helped the team and individual members achieve excellence; and,
WHEREAS, the Madison community is proud of the teamwork, dedication and spirit shown by the students of the Spartan Forensics team; and,
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council recognizes the support of the parents, student body, faculty, staff and all Spartan fans,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Common Council congratulates Coach Hardin, his assistant coaches and the entire Forensics Team on their successful season and 2009 State Championship.

One thing to point out: JMM hasn’t lost a forensics tournament in two years. The last time they lost was at the 2007 WFCA State tournament, where they took second. And even during that year, they had not lost a tournament. To find the last regular season tournament that JMM has lost, you’d have to go back to the 2006 Brookfield East tournament. That is much, much more impressive than what that sentence makes it sound.

Finding this online, I was curious to see how many other proclamations I could dig up online. I could only find the 2008 and the 2006 (2002, 2003, and 2004 are all displayed next to the championship plaques in the school). Again the emphasis is mine.

In 2008:

WHEREAS, Madison Memorial High School’s forensics team once again claimed first prize this year in the Wisconsin Forensic Coaches Association State Tournament; and
WHEREAS, the team scored 331 points to triumph over a field of 64 other teams; and
WHEREAS, individual team members won first place honors in six different categories: four-minute speaking, oratory, play acting, poetry, public address and storytelling; and
WHEREAS, this latest triumph is the school’s fifth state championship in eight years, continuing a tradition of forensics excellence;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor and Common Council recognize the great achievements of the Madison Memorial High School forensics team and their talented coach, Tom Hardin

In 2006:

WHEREAS, Madison Metropolitan Public Schools have high standards for excellence; and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2006, the James Madison Memorial Forensics Team fulfilled and exceeded that charge by competing with 89 teams and winning the overall team competition (tying Appleton East, with a team score of 325 points out of a possible 375) and the 36th Annual High School State Tournament at Ripon College; and
WHEREAS, James Madison Memorial place 1st in Division 1 for the fourth time in the past five years; and
WHEREAS, forensics teams from around the state have prepared students for competitive events in dramatic and language arts for many years; and
WHEREAS, head coach Tom Hardin and other coaches view forensics as a way to make learning the arts fun and devote great energy to the program along with all members of the club, many of whom competed in the state tournament; and
WHEREAS, James Madison Memorial students captured first in 8 of the twenty-two events; and
WHEREAS, the team’s accomplishment has brought much well-deserved attention to Memorial’s arts program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Common Council of the City of Madison applaud the Madison Memorial Forensics Team and its achievement in winning the state tournament.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that we hope their accomplishments inspire their peers at Madison Memorial and elsewhere to emulate the team’s high standards of excellence and to learn and use these skills that will serve them for a lifetime.

A couple points: In every year that Memorial has won, the city has emphasized the importance of this extracurricular activity. The common council has gone so far as to say that community is proud of these accomplishments. At best this seems shallow. Of course we are proud of our students accomplishments, but will we invest in successful programs and teachers?

Madison West and Madison Memorial are the only ones from the Madison Metropolitan school district that has attended the WFCA State tournament within the last seven years. Come to think of it – I’m appalled that over the long time that JMM has won state championships no one on the common council has asked how the high school that is in their district could replicate their success. If any would have asked, we might have suggested that going to the state tournament might be a step in the right direction. Unlike sports, everyone can attend the State Forensics Tournament. Yet, no one seems to ask the question why East and LaFollette are not participating in these activities. The Common Council has said that it hopes Memorial’s example will inspire others. It seems that the MMSD has not been inspired enough to field credible programs at East and LaFollette and it seems that no one is inspired enough to ensure that this important activity endures.

As someone who has worked with the Memorial Forensics team for years, I appreciate the sentiment the Common Council makes in every year Memorial is successful. But the time for proclamations is over. Forensics and debate in Wisconsin has been on the edge of a feather for the last few years. It is this kind of all talk, no action that will prevent future generations of students from participating in these activities. I understand that the Common Council has no direct influence over school districts, but it doesn’t sound unreasonable to assume they might have a passing interest. Do we want more inspirational teachers and coaches like Tom Hardin? Or is the MMSD content with giving some one a pay check without offering much educational advancement?

Thoughts on the Smoking Ban

Alternative Title: “a post to prove I really was paying attention in economics”

The Governor passed the statewide smoking ban today (with the support of the Tavern League, no less). The exact ban that was passed was pretty much the “Madison” version of the smoking ban – as opposed to other, stricter versions of the ban. Cigar bars, hookah lounges, and similar establishments are exempted from the ban. The man concession was a delay in implementation – which was a compromise that was made for the City of Madison ban. For a full discussion of the news, check out the Wisconsin State Journal’s coverage.

I posted the news of this and my strong support of the legislation on facebook. To which I received a negative reaction from some of my friends. I think part of their negative reaction to the ban is that they haven’t heard a decent argument for the ban. While my argument probably isn’t prefect it probably is better than “cigarettes are bad” argument.

Initially, I was very sympathetic to smoker’s arguments. I am a debate coach and many of my debate friends are smokers – though not all of them are. I can certainly understand that it seems like you’re constantly getting picked on – U.S. taxes on tobacco are going up, Wisconsin taxes on tobacco are going up, and now the Governor has restricted the up until now only place you could engage in your activity without fear of persecution. That sounds a bit scary, but it’s not. Let’s explain the reason for taxation first.

Taxes raise the price of a good. At higher prices, people generally demand less of a good. That is, unless the demand for the good is inelastic. Because smoking is a very addictive activity, its demand is highly inelastic. Those who are hooked are going to want to continue. Given the difficulty of quitting, this is very true. From a public policy perspective, you want to tax goods that are inelastic because those items maximize the amount of revenue you’ll receive from the tax. As far as excise taxes go, cigarette taxes are about as efficient as you can get. In a world where both our state and federal government are hurting for revenues, it makes sense to maximize the amount of revenue that governments can collect. I will concede that excise taxes do not make a large portion of either governments’ budget – but as long as money is needed, how can we turn down a source of revenue? Also, as a society we want to discourage you from smoking (for social cost reasons I’ll explain later). A good way to discourage an activity is to tax it back to the stone age.

My justification for the smoking ban follows similar public policy reasons. From the outset, I will acknowledge that individuals are free to choose to visit smoke-laden establishments and that people are free to work at the same establishments. Many smoking-advocates define themselves as freedom advocates and similarly advocate the free market approach. The problem with their argument is that the free market fails when it comes to bars. Few tavern owners correctly guess the demand for smoke-free drinking, especially for those taverns that exist outside of a college town. In places like Sheboygan, there should be multiple non-smoking taverns to meet the demand. There are currently two – in a town that has approximately 50 to 75 bars. In state that loves its booze, it seems silly that this is an accurate approximation of the number of people who would prefer a non-smoking establishment. Perhaps this is a bad example (maybe people in Sheboygan love smoking). Madison, before its ban is a better one. Given that all of the state street/university avenue bars previously allowed smoking and now don’t and still do high volumes a business, should serve as an example that the demand for non-smoking establishments is significantly higher than what tavern owners estimate.

The problem (prior to the ban) lied within current law and its incentive structure. Tavern owners need to attract people to their bar. They get more people to their establishments by offering as few disincentives to come as possible – this means that it’s unlikely for any reasonable tavern owner to prohibit smoking because they may be turning away customers. This market leaves people who prefer non-smoking bars little place to go. And this is where the problem of second-hand smoke becomes really important: those who want to avoid second hand smoke have no option to do so in a world where no government regulation occurs. Return to a statement I made earlier – this state is booze crazy. The large number of people who prefer to drink in Wisconsin outweigh the number of people that like to smoke. This means the large majority of drinks are constantly exposed to the negative effects of second hand smoke. Exposure to second hand smoke creates a large social cost because we not only have to pay for the health care of those who smoke, but those who are around those who smoke. In Wisconsin – this is everyone who’s ever been to a bar, which I’m sure is everyone.

Granted my Sheboygan example (remember, I said there are two non-smoking bars) serves to prove that it’s possible that non-smoking establishments can exist – so it’s entirely possible that I’m wrong. I generally don’t think that is true because the ones in Sheboygan by and large survive because they also conceive of themselves as “high-class/upscale” establishments. (This is fine by me, but then I can’t drink with people who want their $1 Miller Lite.) In light of the large cost of second hand smoke, it seems risky and poor public policy for us to put the incentive structure in favor of smoking. Rarely, if ever, do you hear people argue that the common sense compromise (go smoke outside) is unfeasible. Those who smoke are free to do so outside, without harming the health of everyone else.

I’ve always been in favor of the ban because it seemed to be about promoting workplace safety for waiters/waitresses/bartenders. These individuals are at particularly high risk for second hand smoke, and they have few options to choose from in a society where the incentive structure prefers to allow smoking. Smoking advocates tend to be very existential about these individuals, claiming that they chose their profession and therefore chose the risks. In general, I have a hard time buying this claim for two reasons. First, because I’m way too much of Rawls-ian. It’s hard for me to think that a rational person would want this job – knowing all of the potential disadvantages. It seems unjust to create a person in society that is doomed to cancer.

Second, just because that you choose a profession, doesn’t mean that you accept 100% of the risk. Rather, it means that you will follow regulations/safety procedures to ensure that your personal risk is lowered. Think about people that work at a chemical plant or other hazardous material – they have specific procedures they follow in order to make sure that their work is conducted safely. What safety measures do we provide those that work in a bar? Again, I return to the common sense solution: smoke outside.

At this point, I’m almost wondering why my common sense solution isn’t more pervasive in the status quo. If you engage in an activity that’s unwanted by others/harmful to others, simply as a matter of being polite, wouldn’t you do the activity such that you wouldn’t offend/harm others? What’s so bad about being polite and using common sense?

Clarification before Backlash

This morning I was covering the Breakfast of Champions at the 2009 University of Kentucky’s Tournament of Champions for high school debate. My internet connection was spotty at best and so I had to work using a word document. When we got to the Julia Burke award, I wanted to use the language from the foundation – because in terms of capturing what the award means their language is just better. Due to my spotty internet connection, I was not able to get that language and so I left a placeholder “(whatever)”. When I finally got a connection, I was only able to email Jeff the document without editing it first. In the interest of posting the information quickly, Jeff threw it on the website and we’ve been working backwards to correct the misspelled names and missing information.

In no way do I mean for this to be a slight against the Julia Burke foundation or its award. On the other hand, I believe that it is important. I made sure that my debaters were at the award ceremony so that they could honor those that have excelled. Additionally, it is imperative for our activity that debaters be good members of the community. No one wants to reward smart, hardworking, selfish, jerks. We can’t improve the world if we cannot relate to it and the people that inhabit it.

Beer-ginning to post again

So I downloaded the wordpress iPhone app. This is a test post. I’ve been feeling pretty regretful about my lack posts – in particular my inability to follow through on the film festival coverage. Perhaps this app can help change that.

Enough writing to complain about not writing.

Alissa and I gave up beer for lent. While we don’t really do that kind of thing, we thought that if our friend Pat could then we definately could. Since Easter ended, I’ve enjoyed drinking good beer again. Recently I’ve had new brews from new glarus (stone soup and cracked wheat) and the great Dane (among others).

This and all the beer commercials during baseball games have had me thinking about beer. In particular, have you ever noticed that budweiser’s ad campaigns are attempts to convince you that it actually is beer. Consider their recent campaigns:

This is budweiser. This is beer. (because you couldn’t tell by drinking it)
Drinkability. (this beer does have qualities that you might possibly consider consuming – maybe)

Shouldn’t beer be like porn? That we know it when we see/drink it? And shouldn’t beer be more than drinkable? Water is drinkable. I want wheat/hops/barley/oats and non-water like flavor.

In fact the existience of the ad campaign implies that bud is neither drinkable, nor beer.

Film Festival Ends, Baseball Begins

My efforts to post my thoughts to all the movies I attened at the 2009 Wisconsin Film Festival fell short. I’ve been sick since Sunday with some weird sinus infection/cold. In the mean time, ultimate spring season and baseball began. And between fighting infection and other demands for my time, little has been left in the world of writing about the film fest. Here are my non-film specific thoughts, and hopefully, by the end of this week I will get all of my reactions written to the shows I saw.

In the end, I went to nine films. A good amount, but not nearly as hardcore as some of the attendees. (Perhaps, we could make a documentary about the people who go to see a record number of films?) I saw, in chronological order: Anvil: the Story of Anvil, Milk in the Land: Ballad of an American Drink, Illegal Use of Joe Zopp, British Television Ad Awards, Between the Folds (and two accompanying animation shorts), Chef’s Special, Paper or Plastic?, Visual Acoustics: The Modernism of Julius Schulman, and Mermaid. This year’s experience for me was much better compared to last year’s. Last year, I saw seven films, but four of those came on Saturday. This year, I wasn’t trying to do too much on any given day and I felt like I saw a lot of shows. I am more of a film – drink – film – coffee – drink – film – drink person. Being social in between shows makes for a much more enjoyable festival experience. One needs a little socialization to spruce up the individual experience of watching film. I’m a bit disappointed that I didn’t gut out the rain on Thursday night to get rush tickets to Rockafire. Regardless, I’m happy the way things worked out.

Meg Hammel and the volunteers deserve a lot of credit. They gracefully handled issues that would have made the rest us panic in a heart beat. A film not in Madison on the day it’s supposed to show up? Not a problem – we have a driver intercepting it on the route back from the Chicago airport. A show canceling the week of the festival? Never fear, we found a backup on an incredibly short notice. On top of it, everyone was extremely polite and helpful.

As soon as the festival ended – like many of the Madison blogs – my attention quickly turned to the next thing. Which is, apparently, baseball. And with the beginning of baseball season, come the usual questions about why I’m a Cubs fan. The Brewers-Cubs rivalry has gotten a bit intense over the last few years, mainly because the Brewers have slowly built a good team. And so, I get some hatred from people who have recently discovered they are baseball fans. For those of you who aren’t sports fans, think of how recently converted evangelicals feel about atheists/Muslims/Jews/liberals/city-folk/gay-people/and well anyone not like them; it’s irrational and makes little sense.

A couple of days ago, Madison’s Decider decided to fan the flames. I found a couple of responses to be extremely identical to how I feel about this kind of garbage.

User Wallrock wrote:

I’ve been a life-long Cubs fan from the Madison area and I’ve never quite understood the rise of the virulent hate directed my way in the last five years. Three reasons:
1) when I grew up I was kind of a secondary Brewers fan, and since the likelihood of both teams meeting in the World Series was minuscule this went unchecked until ‘98 when the Brewers switched over from the Junior Circuit. Now I obviously can’t really support two teams in the same division but 18 years of Brewers-like doesn’t just go away despite the fact that everyone seems to hate me now.

2) When the switch first happened I was actually kind of happy since it meant an easier trip to Milwaukee to see the Cubs. But back in the seasons following the ‘03 collapse both teams were fucking terrible, so it was a bragging rights 5th place in the Central-type game. You’d sit out in the parking lot and maybe talk a little shit but it was an overall friendly affair punctuated by the sharing of many beers. Of course at that time it was like 3/4 Cub fans in the place, but it’s not exactly like those tickets were stolen from Brewer fans – they weren’t showing up anyways. But I got used to the easy-going nature of those kind of games at Miller Park, so I was not expecting what I experienced the last two years. And let’s be honest – douchebags are douchebags no matter who they’re supporting. My experience with the Marquette fratboys last year may have been due to either my blue hat or red hoodie but it doesn’t change how I saw the Brewer fans afterwards.

3) It pains me to make this comparison, but the whole rivalry comes off like the UW-Michigan one, in that beating Michigan (and hating Michigan fans) is a big part of the Badger psyche, but Michigan is always going to have bigger rivals than Wisconsin. Last year was definitely heated between the Cubs and the Brewers, but I can attest to the fact that as a Cubs fan my sports-hate is directed to the Cardinals and the White Sox more so than the Brewers. And I’m guessing that knowing that your rival doesn’t hate you as much as you hate him, well it probably makes you hate him even more.

Oh yeah, 3.5 – I’m from Madison. I don’t hate Chicago, I hate Milwaukee. I can’t stand anything about that goddamn hole. But that’s the way it works – you hate upward. Madison hates Milwaukee, Milwaukee hates Chicago, and Chicago NY or LA.

And user Klik writes:

Let me preface the following by stating that I am, like Wallrock, a lifelong Cubs fan (also currently residing in Madison), so I grant that a certain amount of my objectivity was lost after reading the article title and certainly after discovering that this laughable attempt at sportswriting was crafted by a hardcore (aka post-2005) Brewers “fan”.

I’m quite glad that you mentioned that your magnificent insights (thanks Rmarshall) are a couple of years old, as this highlights the timeline on the growth of your Cubs hatred. You’ve only been a Brewers fan since 2006, yet you developed an intense hatred for the Cubs by 2007? Despite the hilarious bandwagoning aspect of this admission, rest assured, you’re not the only one. All of the other Brewers fans which I’ve met seemed to share this same sentiment…starting in 2007. Now it’s easy to see why – as a perennial bottom dweller, Milwaukee gained boatloads of new fans by building a team worthy of walking onto the field, and they’ve definitely been an exciting team to watch for the past couple of years. The fact that this anger was born towards the past two years’ division winner is no surprise, and Chicago’s close proximity to Milwaukee doesn’t hurt either.

Klik then takes to task all of the reasoning in the article. It’s almost more amusing than the article itself. You can check out the article and all of the other comments at the link above.

Root for your team. Who ever that is. Rag on the opponent when appropriate, but don’t provide reasons or additional opportunities to hate on others without thinking about why you are doing so. It’d be like if I found reasons to rag on films that didn’t get the same success/participation/acclaim as others. It does little good and doesn’t contribute.

Oh.

And Go Cubs.

(FYI: I’m going to Saturday’s Cubs game @ Wrigley Field North)

This blog needs a new title

Please forgive how amatuerish this sounds. But, after seeing people links to my posts on Dane101, WisOpinion, School Information System, and the Illegal Use of Joe Zopp, I think I really need a new title. Something that is a bit more explanatory or something that, at least, wouldn’t look completely retarded when someone else refers people here.

That would be good. I have been talking to my friend, Chad Kruger, about the fact that I can’t seem to develop an editorial vision. A month ago, all I wanted to write about was basketball. This week, it’s the film festival. Who knows where it will be next week. At some point, I’m sure I will want to turn my attention to baseball before focusing on something else. If anything, my current title seems to suggest that I can’t tune into a particular subject. While this is true, it certainly doesn’t define what my writing is about (in fact, it defines what it’s not about – something). Nor does it help people return for a second or third visit.

Any suggestions?

I’ll back later tonight/early tomorrow with reviews of The Illegal Use of Joe Zopp and Milk in the Land.

Review of Anvil: What I thought of Anvil

After participating in forensics and debate for ten years, Anvil had a unique connection with me. For many coaches, Debate and Forensics is a job, but it’s also a labor of love. There’s a certain disconnect from reality that comes with it. We (coaches) give up our weekends to travel long distances to instruct high school students in an abstract competition. Many of our friends don’t understand it. Many of parents didn’t understand why we were involved. And many of our spouses/significant others don’t understand it either. And in some way, we are always pursuing an unobtainable goal – qualifying for state, winning state, qualifying for nationals, winning nationals, making the college team, qualifying for college nationals… and so on.

Playing Metal music into your 50’s is a strikingly similar. These guys love to play, but the shows are not their real jobs. They have to travel to the shows and there’s a set of unique individuals who are religious to metal concerts. The quest to “make it” in the music business (whatever that success may be), is relatively undefined and hard to obtain. There is a greater goal in entertaining, as there is in educating students in debate and forensics, but sometimes it’s hard to see the big picture.

Lips and Reiner face similar challenges. To persevere for thirty years, and see the toll that it extracts on one’s family was quite revealing. I do hope they “make it” in the end, what ever that may mean. The alternative is that they become a modern day Sisyphus, always trying to roll the ball up the hill. And I’d fear for the destruction that ball would wreak on their families.

On the same note, I felt the first question asked to the UW-Madion alum editor who was at the show, was quite apt: how do you react to people laughing at sad moments? I was quite frustrated that people would laugh at the sad realization that one may not live up to their dreams. After all, these were real people puring their hearts out, and you think it’s funny? Yes, I know, their choice of words may not be poetic. They are, nonetheless, their words and they are real. Perhaps these individuals didn’t get the film. It was  only clear to me until after doing further research that this was not a Christopher Guest film and that this was not a mockumentary. Maybe they were just mislead. I hope so, because I wouldn’t want to live in a society without empathy.