In The Big Inning...

I'm still here. I have a good excuse for slacking. Well, actually, I'm not "here", I'm in North Carolina. "Here" is normally Bethesda. At any rate, I'll post a nice, long tale soon. In the meantime, here's a pretty cool link, if you're following the upcoming election. (It's not for or against any side.) Electoral Vote Link

Over the past few years, as our technological savvy as a society has increased, I keep hearing more and more about protection of privacy. In many cases, this is a valid concern. I'm not naive enough to ignore the multitude of ways that hustlers, thieves, and bored MIT students can exploit security loopholes to wreak havoc. I know that if someone gets your social security number, they can essentially steal your identity, take over your house, sell your children into slavery, etc. And you certainly don't have to lecture me about the ramifications of someone getting your credit card number: Let's just say that I'm still paying off those mail-order brides that some guy (definitely not me - I buy them locally, down at the docks) ordered over the internet when he found my card.

Sadly, most people, when talking about privacy, aren't talking about these issues. They're basically talking about not wanting their medical records being read by file clerks, which to me, isn't really that disturbing of a prospect. Frankly, it bothers me that all of those customer service folks at my credit card company know my mother's maiden name. It's embarrassing, okay?! But, seriously, what's the big deal? Why are people so concerned with what people they don't know, and will never meet, know about their history? There are many reasons to hate the Patriot Act, but the ability of the FBI to figure out what library books I check out is not one of them. I just can't get worked up about the possibility of a group of government operatives with too much free time sitting around a table in some dark warehouse, laughing about the fact that I had a hernia operation when I was 4. (That's true! Really!)

Now, I can understand why the terrorist lobby might have a problem with this - clearly, it's going to affect their ability to terrorize effectively. That's a legitimate concern. But, for the few of us that aren't terrorists, who cares? I know you could conceive of some situation where you're running for public office, and all of a sudden it gets out that back in 1998, you checked out a couple of romance novels cuz you were "curious about them", and your political career is over. And, I suppose you ought to be able to live your life without fear of some little misstep possibly being exposed through some ridiculously unlikely chain of events, where your ex-girlfriend's snooping half-sister works as a librarian, and meticulously combs through the now publicly available records, finds your dirty little romance novel secret, and spreads it like wildfire. But to me, these concerns really border on paranoia. Find something more realistic to freak out about, like how your cell phones are slowly giving you brain cancer.

In the past few years, I've become a much better typist. This was not something that I ever tried to do, which is kind of strange. In fact, even though I've always been enamored of computers, I never really gave much thought to typing properly. I remember at a young age, on my Apple IIc, there was a typing program. I tried it a couple of times and quickly became bored with it. Eventually, I became fairly proficient at the "hunt-and-peck" method, never really using the "ASDF" and "JKL;" hand position. I figured it was stupid to type without looking at the keyboard - was there ever going to be a computer that had an invisible keyboard I couldn't take a peek at?

Of course, it's apparent to me now that the reason you shouldn't be looking at the keyboard when you type is that you should be looking at the screen to catch typos. Silly me. What's strange is that my typing skill progressed pretty naturally, and before long I could hunt-and-peck quite rapidly. Eventually, I would still look at the keyboard for help, but I would just start intuitively knowing when I had erroneously typed a key. So, I could still cheat and catch typos at the same time.

It wasn't until I started working full-time that I think I became a good typist. It's strange, too, because a significant part of what I write is C code, which involves a lot less rapid typing of text, and a lot of punctuation marks, indentation, etc. In an odd twist, whereas usually you have to use proper form in order to develop a skill properly, as I've gotten faster, I've just naturally migrated to the proper hand position. I think if you were to watch me type (and believe me, you should - it's simply mesmerizing), you would find that I do use the proper form. I guess it's the sign of a good system, if it's naturally the most efficient way to do things anyways.

I never realized I was getting to be a fast typist until a co-worker (a non-programmer) came into my office and I was typing us changes to a web page as he was making suggestions. He was impressed by my typing, and wished that he could type that fast. I imagine that compared to a lot of programmers, I'm not that fast - I remember feeling the same sense of awe a few years ago when I was watching my current boss type out code - but it's still nice to know that I can impress someone with my typing. Hey, it may not be as innately impressive as running blazingly fast, or having a photographic memory, but at least it's something. Those stupid Microsoft keyboards are still for shit, though.

I'm gonna write yet again about my TiVo. If you don't like it, get your own blog to complain on, and write about how you don't like stupid other bloggers and how they only write about their TiVos. Link to me if you want. That'll teach me!

So, my TiVo is clinging to life. Last week, apparently a thunderstorm caused a power surge and knocked out the modem on my TiVo. That's my best guess. Maybe evil gnomes (the same ones that put dings in your car) snuck into my house and broke my TiVo's modem, but I'm sticking with my original theory.

Now, the only reason I knew the modem was out is because when TiVo can't make its nightly call to headquarters to get its battle plans (remember, it's really out to conquer the Earth, first by creating an incredible human dependence on it), it starts to complain and tell you that it doesn't have enough information to provide guide data for future programs. TiVo can still operate without that guide data, but then it becomes much more like a normal VCR that doesn't know when any shows are on. To give you an idea of how incapacitated the TiVo without this guide data, take yourself, an intelligent human with impeccable taste in blogs, and hit yourself in the head with a hammer forty to fifty times. Now let's see what kind of blogs you enjoy.

So, this had happened before. I fixed it by running "Guided Setup", which basically involved setting all the original preference again. The last time this happened, either the dial-in number had changed, or TiVo just forgot it (this seems unlikely - TiVo meticulously is tracking every little single piece of data it can possibly compile about me - how hard I push the buttons, what outfits I wear when I watch TV, etc. I think it actually tried to cotton swab my ear the last time I got to close, to add to its DNA database) so running the setup allowed it to get this information back together. Because the modem wasn't broken then, it had no problem communicating with the mothership and getting the updated data. Problem solved.

Being a relatively logical being, I figured that running Guided Setup would fix the problem this time. Silly me. TiVo started to dial in (I think it dials an 800 number to get the list of local numbers it should use), but the modem failed. I tried again, and it failed. At this point, I became apoplectic. I cried, I threw things, tore out my hair, and after sleeping for thirty-six hours, I settled down. I resolved to fix this problem. TiVo wasn't dead, just a little sick.

First, I called Customer Support. What a waste of time. They had no suggestions, other than to take the TiVo for service. Well, that was going to cost $150 dollars or so, and while TiVo may be more important to me than life itself, $150 dollars is a lot of money. (This is why my children will likely have health insurance, but as far as I know, you can't get health insurance for TiVos. Maybe I should look into that, though. I probably would have considered a $10 co-pay.)

I then looked online, at TiVo Community. If you think I'm nuts for my TiVo, then this people will certainly frighten the crap out of you. I really think TiVoism is some sort of religion. At any rate, these zealots soon referred me to a thread talking about using an external modem to connect. Apparently, unknown to me, TiVo has a serial port that you can connect to a modem. Of course, the port on the TiVo looks like a headphone jack, but TiVo comes with a cord that is a headphone plug on one end, and a serial port on another. Score! My only task now was to find a modem.

Finding a modem was easier said than done. I emailed my co-workers, asking if anyone had a modem, figuring that they were the most likely collection of dorks that would have an external dialup, serial port modem sitting around. Unfortunately, I wasn't specific in my email, and was inundated with internal modems, USB modems, etc. This wouldn't do. I went to CompUSA to see what they had. There was a serial to USB adapter, but it was $30. There was a serial modem for $50. That might have been worth it, but there was no guarantee that any of these solutions would work. Finally, one of my co-workers responded with an external, serial modem. I quickly brought it home and began surgery.

I looked online and found what I was supposed to do. I found my TiVo box, buried deep within my basement, and lo and behold, there was the headphone-serial adapter. I hooked the modem up to my laptop's serial port, and launched "Hyperterminal". It connected, and I was able to enter cryptic commands to set up the modem. I followed precisely what the thread said, and it seemed to receive the commands. I then plugged in the modem to the TiVo, and continued with Guided Setup. I had to enter a top secret code into the phone dialing commands, and then I told it to dial. I heard the familiar funky modem connecting sounds (shhhhhh...bwadong...bing..bing..eeeee...errr....thwang....sshsHsshhshhsh..........) (No, no, please no applause. I'm here all week.) and then it said it was downloading data! Woohoo! It was alive! Aliiiiiive!

So, I continued Guided Setup and eventually it completed. All of my shows were there. It seemed to all be fine. Boy, was I wrong.

A little later, I try to look at shows that have been recorded recently. It turns out that nothing is being recorded because now my TV tuner wasn't working. Apparently the surge, or gnome invasion, was more damaging than I originally thought, and had taken out the tuner as well. Now, I couldn't get any channels through the RF cable. The component video worked, but that doesn't allow TV to change channels.

I basically spent my afternoon reconfiguring everything. I had to go through Guided Setup again (still with the modem, which hasn't yet failed), and now TiVo is running off of my cable box, controlling it through infrared. It's amazing how as its capabilities degrade, its control of appliances in my house expands. It's kind of like a Hydra.

At any rate, TiVo's still running. Frankly, it can't be killed. But I don't want it to die. You might think it's time to just let it go gracefully into the night, and replace it with a newer model. You would be wrong. Would you replace your sickly firstborn child just by having another child, even if that child might change channels faster, or not make weird beeping noises nightly? I thought so. Heathens.

I do try and avoid commenting on sports and politics directly in this blog, and I'll continue to do so. I'm also going to avoid writing this silly disclaimer every time I write anything remotely attached to sports or politics.

At any rate, I watched the Baseball All-Star Game last night and found it quite dull. However, I did enjoy watching Roger Clemens get shelled in the first inning. I've never been a big Clemens fan, but when he left the Yankees, I lost a significant amount of seething hatred for him. I didn't really care if he did well in the All-Star Game because of his personally, but it was nice to see all of the ridiculous hype from before the game backfire.

I probably watch and read more about baseball than most people, but it seemed like since Clemens un-retired (I refuse to call him the "Rocket") and was pitching well, they've been talking about his career "coming full circle", and pitching at home in the All-Star Game in Houston. It's been nonstop about how fantastic a competitor he is, how he really wants to do well for the Houston fans, how amazing his career is, how incredible it is that he's 41 and pitching so well, blah blah blah. I'm trying to stop myself from vomiting right now as I write this. Maybe if it was Cal Ripken I'd feel differently, but we don't even know if this is Clemens' last season. Of course, with Cal, he hit a homer in his last All-Star Game. And he never un-retired. And he was the best ball player to ever exist, included Roy Hobbes.

So, to see Clemens get rocked was very nice. I wonder if all of the reporters had their fawning pieces pre-written, assuming he was going to be lights out, and then had to throw them away. People were writing how awesome it was going to be to see him strike out six Hall of Famers in a row. Well, stow it. The story didn't work out perfectly. That's fine, because it was so manufactured in the first place. But there only part they couldn't artificially create, him actually pitching well in front of 60,000 cloying fans, didn't happen. Fate's a cruel bitch of a master. I guess the Rocket plans backfired. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Not funny, but I don't care.

I've never been as vehemently opposed to "list shows" as some people. You know, the shows that countdown the top 10 or 25 of something or other, and seem to be multiplying in recent years like horny bunnies on crack. I find them usually trashy, arbitrary, and mostly harmless, and sometimes they're insightful or nostalgic.

I figured that ESPN, which has been celebrating its 25th anniversary for what already seems like 3 years, would be on the insightful side of the scale when it presented its multiple top 25 shows. They're basically running things like "top 25 sports personalities", "top 25 teams", "top 25 plays", etc... all over the past 25 years. So, I saw the "top 25 sports blunders" and figured I would record it. At the very least, I figured it would be amusing. I would have been more accurate if I asserted that there were WMD in Iraq.

I don't think I've ever seen a list show quite as bad as this one. I won't really debate the items on the list, although it's tough to believe that Bill Buckner's boot in the 1986 World Series wasn't on there. But that glaring flaw was relatively minor. The show was a full hour long. It had about 5 commercial breaks. After each commercial break, they reviewed the entire list. Is our memory that short? We couldn't remember items presented 10 minutes ago? Review them once, at the end. Sheesh. So, between the commercials and the repetition of the list, we're down to less than 40 actual minutes of programming.

By far, though, the worst part was the announcement of the numbers. For every single stinking number, they had edited together this horrible seizure-inducing montage consisting of weird clips of billboards and a couple circus-type performers and opera singers announcing the numbers. It was so violently editing and jarring that I actually had to look away from the screen because it was giving me a headache. I think each number clip lasted at least thirty seconds. They'd edit so quickly that one person would say "fif", and the other would say "teen". They'd show the number of a chalkboard, then on some posterboard, then on a phone. It had NOTHING to do with sports. 30 seconds times 25 numbers is another 12.5 minutes. We're down to like 27.5 minutes of programming.

As if that wasn't enough, a full fifty percent of the items on the list weren't even shown live. For some of them, they had still photos of the event (or newspaper coverage of the event) attached to posterboard and shown on the screen. Remember, these all happened in the past 25 years, so most, if not all, should have the footage available. I don't know if they didn't want to pay for the rights or what, but they didn't even show #3 or #2 (both Leon Lett-related). They barely even showed pictures of them occurring. It was disgraceful.

What they should have done was take those 12 items they had footage for and edited a top 12 list over half an hour. I should claim I had (or got) epilepsy from this stupid show. It really was shameless. I refuse to watch ESPN ever again. Well, except for Baseball Tonight. And Sunday Night Football. And Monday and Wednesday Night Baseball. And Beg, Borrow, and Deal if it ever comes on. Damn, I'm a seizure-loving sucker.

So, my Virginia softball team just won the Championship. It was pretty awesome. We've never done that before. In fact, the only other time we made the playoffs, we weren't able to field a team, which was kind of frustrating. It was pretty sweet to win, but for the preceding three-four days, I felt like a yo-yo. Let me explain:

- The top two teams in our division make the playoffs. We had been fighting for second the whole season.

- We fall into third place.

- I'm informed by the first place team, which ends up going 20-0, that they were placed in the wrong division, and as such may get bumped up when the playoffs start. This might mean that two additional teams (2nd and 3rd) will make the playoffs.

- We play the second place team in a doubleheader, needing a sweep to make the playoffs. We split against them, meaning that we finish tied for third.

- I call the league office, who informs us that they will be bumping up the first place team, but will not be taking two additional teams from our division, and therefore our season is over.

- On the Wednesday before the playoffs (which are on a Saturday), at 2:30 pm, I get a call from the league office, informing me that a team from a lower division did drop out, and therefore they will be taking an additional team from our division. If we can get a team together, we can play, but I have to let them know by 4pm.

- I frantically call the players on the roster to see if they can make it. In the playoffs, the monitor the roster like hawks, to make sure that teams don't bring in non-rostered "ringers" just for the playoffs. About seven of our typical players say they can make it. A couple don't respond immediately, including Justin, who is in a meeting until 4.

- At 4pm, we find Justin, and he says he can play.

- I call the league office and tell them we're in, even though we only have about 8 players committed.

- I look at the roster and realize that Justin's not on it.

- I tell Justin that he can't play, and he's very understanding about it. However, that leaves us with only about seven people committed. A couple people say they can play after 3pm, but since our first game is at 9:50 AM, that doesn't help very much, especially since it's a double-elimination tournament.

- On Thursday and Friday, a couple people finally call me back and say they can make it, giving us enough (10 players) for the first couple of games. However, a couple of them will have to leave early, but I figure I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

- I go to Modell's on Friday, looking for softballs. We need new ones, and have run out. They don't have the kind I need.

- I leave work on Friday, and bring my copy of the roster, just in case. I get a ride to a different softball game that evening with Justin, so I bring my copy of the roster into his car, as well as a lot of other stuff.

- After the softball game on Friday, I move my stuff into Sam's car and we head home. As I'm going to sleep, I realize that I don't have the roster, but I figure it's no big deal.

- I wake up in the middle of the night, realizing that the playoff rules might specify that I have to have my copy of the roster.

- I basically don't sleep the second half of the night, and wake up early. I check the rules on the web, and it says that I am responsible for bringing my copy of the roster.

- I get in my car at 8:30 (for a 9:50 game in Virginia), intending to head to work, where I assume I've leave the roster.

- In my car, I can't find my badge to get me into my office. I head back into the house.

- I look in my pants that I wore Friday night, trying to find my badge. It's not there.

- I go back to my car and scour it, searching for the badge. It's in between the seat and the armrest.

- I head to work at 8:45. I run up to my office. The roster is nowhere to be found.

- I conclude that the roster must be in Justin's car. I give him a call. Not surprisingly, he doesn't answer, and I figure he's asleep.

- I haul ass to Justin's house, and look in his car. The roster's there.

- I bang on his door for a minute or two, and he finally answers. I've clearly woken him up. I explain the situation and he gives me his car keys. I get the roster, thank him profusely, and get back in my car. It's now 9:00.

- On the way, I decide I have enough time to stop at the Sports Authority in Virginia, in an attempt to find softballs.

- I get to Sports Authority and run in. They don't have the right kind of softballs. I run back out.

- I speed to the field. I get there with 5 minutes to spare. Remember, the tournament is double-elimination.

- We start the game. Everyone's there but Doug. We start the game with 9 guys, but our opponents have 8 guys, so we're in good shape.

- A league official comes around to check that all of our players are legal. He has his own copy of our roster, and says I didn't need to bring my own. Dammit.

- Doug shows up in the bottom of the first inning. No one shows up for their team, and we go on to win 32-13. (It's not that impressive - with 8 guys, it's really tough to play.)

- Charlie says he can stay for the whole day. That's one less person I have to worry about leaving early.

- We wait for an hour to play. It's pretty hot out.

- We win the second game 18-3. We just clobber the other team.

- We go to lunch, since we have two hours to wait before the next game. I find a Modell's, which finally has the right kind of softball. 12 balls cost 68 bucks. Yikes!

- We play our third game. It's really tight. We go into the 7th tied 2-2. This is incredibly low-scoring for softball. We win in the bottom of the 7th, 3-2.

- We now have to wait for another two hours. One guy has to leave, but we get a replacement for him.

- We play out last game of the day at 6:30. We win 13-9, as with two outs, Doug hits a triple in the bottom of the 6th to break a 9-9 tie.

- We plan to continue the tournament Sunday, having played 4 softballs games over a 10 hour period.

- We all show up Sunday, and it turns out that we're facing the team we had just beaten on Saturday night. Remember, it's double-elimination. They've lost once (to us), and we haven't lost at all. So, if we win, it's over. If we lose, we play again to determine the champs.

- We play as poorly as we have the whole tournament. We don't hit very well, and screw up a couple of plays in the field. We go into the bottom of 5th down by 5. I assume we're likely to lose, but I'm ready to win the next one.

- Doug hits yet another triple, driving in two. We score four in the inning, finishing it down by one.

- We enter the bottom of the 7th down by one run. The last two batters in our order get on, Chang with a single, and Mike H. with a walk. Karl flies out, so we have runners on 1st and 3rd with one out.

- Doug hits a triple, scoring Chang and Mike H. from first. We win.

- We win! Did I say that already? Everyone played some great softball. Justin comes to the last game to cheer us on, even though he isn't allowed to play, good sport that he is. If I were him, I would call me bad names.

- I finish the tourney 13 for 17, having played some pretty solid ball. Really, though, it was a great set of team victories. I'm proud of everyone. We won 5 games in a row! It was a lot of fun, and it's nice to win. If you're nice to me, I'll let you see our trophy sometime.

Just added #13!

I decided that I'm just going to re-post this list every time, in order to maintain "reverse order integrity". Sorry about making you scroll.

25. L.A. Confidential

To me, the first thing that stands out about this movie is its incredible cast: Kevin Spacey (my favorite), Guy Pearce, Russell Crowe (before he got sucky), David Straithairn, James Cromwell, Danny DeVito, and Kim Basinger. Basinger won the Oscar, but I don't think she was the best aspect of the movie at all. The movie takes the tone of a Film Noir in Hollywood in the '50s, and completely immerses you in its world. The heart of the story is a mystery, but to be honest, the characters themselves are so compelling that you never get a chance to stop and think about what is going on, which makes it work even better when the truth is revealed. Almost all of the characters are nuanced and deep, revealing more about themselves as the story unfolds, and therefore appearing more human as time goes on, not less so, as is too often the case in movies. It might be a little low on the originality scale, but it's an entertaining, compelling story, flawlessly acted and sharply executed. It will definitely stand the test of time as a great period piece and an excellent crime thriller.

24. Memento

Hey, Guy Pearce again! I promise that the next movie on this list is not "Ravenous". (The Guy Pearce movie about cannibals.) Clearly, this movie gets bonus points for originality and cleverness. But there are plenty of movies that are clever or have nice twists at the end - this one makes the list because of how brilliantly conceived it is, and how it is amazingly well-executed. A movie shown in reverse chronological order could have just been a gimmick, but instead it's a critical component of the movie that gets you to empathize with the main character. A strong supporting case (Carrie-Anne Moss and Joe Pantoliano) help take what could have just been another silly "surprise ending" movie and turn it into a legitimate character study. There are a few logical holes, but Memento still falls into the rare category of movies that have a twist at the end that will justifiably cause you to think about the movie for days afterwards. It's a shame that so many movies have now resorted to the twist ending as a way to compensate for their other deficiencies, because it takes away from those few that do it the right way.


23. Hamlet

Let me be very explicit about this - this is the Kenneth Branaugh version. The Lawrence Olivier version is positively horrible, and the Mel Gibson one is decent, but forgettable. What about the Ethan Hawke version, you say? Don't make me sock you in the face, buddy! So, any version of Hamlet clearly has a leg up on other movies, given that it's, in my opinion, the best play in history. But its superior qualities as a play don't necessarily translate into a great movie. That said, Branaugh's version is a superior, nuanced, interesting film. You might think that the combination of a story that really revolves around a hero whose problem is thinking too much and acting too little, and a running time of four hours, would make for a dreary, dull movie. You would, however, be wrong. Unlike so many before him (Olivier to note, but also the Gibson version), Elsinore is not a gray, lifeless place. Rather, it's full of color and pomp and circumstance - and Hamlet himself is sometimes a frenzy of activity and a jumble of thoughts, unable to focus on the task at hand due to his conflicting emotions and philosophies. The expert cast (Derek Jacobi, Kate Winslet, Julie Christie, Jack Lemmon, but not Robin Williams, who is, in fact, the worst part of the movie) keeps you focused on the characters, and the magnificent cinematography serves as a lush and interesting background. This is the best take on Shakespeare that I have ever seen.

22. Clerks

From high to low, eh? If Hamlet was the peak of Shakespeare's writing, then Clerks is Kevin Smith's Hamlet. It's surprising that it was the first movie he ever made, but because it was such a small movie (rumor is he basically got a lot of credit cards in order to finance the equipment he needed to make the movie), it has a very bare-bones feel. This turns out to be a good thing for Smith, because as his success has grown, and therefore the accompanying production value has increased, his movies have become bloated and distracting. This is a black-and-white movie that essentially has two different sets, and must therefore excel in its characters and dialogue to keep you enthralled. And, that it does. It is consistently funny, completely irreverent, and sometimes, a bit forced or flawed, as you might expect from a first-time writer/director. For me, it's very tough to find a better comic duo than Dante and Randall.

21. Notting Hill

This is the only true romantic comedy (a couple others might be romantic and funny, but aren't really only romantic comedies) you will find on this list, and that's no accident. Romcoms are frequently predictable and cloying, and feed some idealized notion of love that is completely unrealistic. Furthermore, the reasons of how and why characters fall in love are never explored - they just have "chemistry". Well, Notting Hill doesn't really explore this explicitly, but as you watch the movie, you can feel Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts being drawn to each other. You understand why they would be attracted to one another, but neither one is an idealized shell of a person. Both are flawed, and both do illogical things at times, but it makes them much more human. I normally not a Julia Roberts fan, but she fits perfectly here, as does Hugh Grant in the role he's played a thousand times by now. But the writing is note-perfect, and the supporting cast (playing Grant's family and roommate) form a complete picture of Grant's character and life. You feel sorrow when things tear the characters apart (and one of my favorite scenes of all-time is when Grant is walking down the street as the seasons change over the course of a year), and elation when they're brought back together. It's hilarious at times, and sweet at others, but never trite.

20. Hard Boiled

I've been good so far, but now I'm going to cheat a bit. Hard Boiled is my favorite movie by John Woo, one of my favorite directors. (Hmmm...maybe that's good for another list - top directors.) However, since I'm only putting one Woo movie on the list, this movie actually represents all of Woo's fantastic work, most of which was made in Hong Kong. He's definitely lost a bit after coming to Hollywood. At his best, his work is visual poetry - sometimes described as a "ballet of violence". His recent work, I feel, has been subverted a bit by the Hollywood machine - Hard Target, starring Van Damme, is his first American movie, and it's just abysmal. I enjoyed Face/Off a lot, and I'm one of the few people who liked Mission:Impossible 2, mostly because I went into it planning to watch a John Woo movie, and that's exactly what I got. But, as much as I like these two movies, they pale in comparison to his best Hong Kong work - namely, A Better Tomorrow (his first film), The Killer, and, my favorite, Hard Boiled. All of his HK movies star Chow Yun-Fat, who has an incredible amount of charisma and screen presence. They all have recurring themes - revenge, martyrdom, the juxtaposition of innocence and violence, loyalty - almost like modern-day samurai or cowboy movies. He has also defined a kind of visual grammar that is constantly ripped off - slow-motion gunfire, birds flying away right before extreme violence, two-fisted gunmen, etc. Hard Boiled is actually pretty simplistic in plot - a tough cop is trying avenge his murdered partner. But the simple plot allows Woo to focus on important thematic elements and his brilliant style. Yeah, some of it is cliche and melodramatic, but that's the point - John Woo gives you raw emotion and raw violence at its best.

19. Rushmore

Technically a comedy, Rushmore defies easy categorization. It's part romance, part drama, and large part comedy, but really, something great than all of those genres. It is drop-dead funny, but the humor is ALL character-based. No cheap laughs, and honestly, few gigantic guffaws. It's the type of movie that makes you chuckle and smirk the whole way through. One of its strengths is the acting of Jason Schwartzman and Bill Murray. Schwartzman plays a kid who takes himself way too seriously, and doesn't miss a note. Bill Murray is essentially a kid in an adult's body, and gives a performance that convinced the world to take him seriously as an actor. One criticism of this movie might be that it doesn't really have a climax - it's basically more of a character study, but it really didn't leave me disappointed. Every time I watch it, I finish with a smile on my face, and that's worth a lot. It's original, sweet, funny, and touching - but never sappy. Just go watch it.


18. Big Lebowski

This one's a tough call. My second instance of "cheating" on this list, since really I'm putting this here to express my affinity for the work of the Coen Brothers. After much deliberation, I've decided that the Big Lebowski is my favorite Coen Brothers movie, but there were quite a few legitimate contenders, include O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Fargo, and Raising Arizona. Basically, when you see a Coen Brothers movie, you know you're going to see something interesting and clever. It's almost always off-kilter, and sometimes they're a bit too strange for their own good, but very frequently you'll see something you've never seen before, which goes a long way for me. Even their misses (Intolerable Cruelty, The Ladykillers) contain characters that stick in your mind as memorable and endearing, even if they're completely evil or absurd or stupid. As for the Big Lebowski itself, it stars Jeff Bridges, which is usually a big minus for me, but he's perfect for this role. I hesitate to describe the plot, since that's not really the point - mostly, they take some great actors, give them ridiculous roles (John Goodman as a Jewish Vietnam veteran with anger management problems, Steve Buscemi as a moronic third wheel, John Turturro as an registered sex offender who bowls through intimidation, etc.) and throw them into a situation and see what happens. In the case of the Big Lebowski, it's pretty much nonstop humor, with tons of fantastic lines and scenes - and it all centers on bowling! (Don't think Kingpin.) With the Coens, you may not always like what you see, but you will almost always be entertained and satisfied with their effort.

17. There's Something About Mary

In subsequent years, this movie has been often imitation, but never duplicated. It basically re-invented the gross-out comedy, but in a manner that was always charming and never insulting. Even American Pie, a movie I'd consider to be the runner-up for this "genre" (if you can call it that), doesn't even come close to the level of humor and execution that this film does. It's easy to dismiss this movie, but it works because it has endearing characters at its heart - Ben Stiller's not-quite-awkward-enough to be inhuman, and due to his, um, bathroom issues told in flashback at the beginning of the movie, you simulataneously develop great sympathy for him while laughing hysterically at him, which is a great testament to his comic abilities. Cameron Diaz, who can usually be very hit or miss, seems like a genuine All-American girl that any normal guy would definitely develop a serious crush on. Even Matt Dillon, playing a private eye with no morals, is just goofy enough that you can't wholeheartedly hate them. The Farrellys take these characters and put them in absurd situations, abusing them, but with a clear affection for them. They hit all of the right notes, and the result of one of the winningest, most hilarous, irreverent comedies I've seen in a long time.

16. A Fish Called Wanda

Wow. This is the fourth comedy in a row. Don't worry - I get more serious later. Did I say that There's Something About Mary was one of the most hilarious comedies I've seen in a long time? Well, it is, but I had to use "one of", but A Fish Called Wanda is just as funny, but in a very different way. Most of the characters aren't likeable at all, and so we have freedom to laugh at them with impunity. What's telling about this movie is that Kevin Kline won an Oscar for it...in a comedy! You just don't see that very often. And it's completely well-deserved. There are tons of memorable lines in this movie, but I won't degrade them by repeating them here. Just go see it and laugh your butt off. It's pretty clear, though, that they captured lightning in a bottle - the follow-up, using the same cast (Fierce Creatures) was dreadful.



15. Being John Malkovich

More comedy! Trust me, I get more serious later. This comedy is different than all the others, though. It's a completely unique and original movie. I'd like to compare it to some other movie, but I can't. It does an excellent job of creating it's own reality in which, you can go into John Malkovich's head for about 15 minutes, and then get dropped out onto the side of the New Jersey Turnpike. C'mon, doesn't just reading about that make you laugh? Now imagine seeing it happen on screen. One critical component of moviemaking is creating a believable world. Sometimes this involves accepting certain premises when going into the movie. What's nice about this movie is that, despite the absurd premise, what follows seems completely reasonable, given the way the characters are drawn - basically, all completely self-absorbed. It allows us to laugh at them, and how they deal with these ridiculous situations. It helps that the casting and acting is perfect - John Cusack is pathetic, Cameron Diaz looks and acts like no Cameron Diaz you've ever seen before, and John Malkovich basically destroys his public image in the name of humor. See this movie - at the very least, it'll be unlike anything you've ever seen before, and at the best, you'll laugh your butt off.

14. Fight Club

Fight Club usually evokes strong reactions from people - they either love it or hate it. Clearly, I'm in the former group, but I think any movie that can cause such visceral reactions usually has something worthwhile to offer. Many people try to label Fight Club as a movie of ideas - and I think it does have some, but what's fantastic about it is that its consistent style is always reinforcing those ideas. It's truly a movie that can (and should) be appreciated on multiple levels. The simplistic analysis is that it's an action movie, trying to be cool, with two guys leading this revolution, and an interesting twist thrown in. While I think it's enjoyable at that level, that's way too simplistic a reading. It's a nuanced movie, about frustration, dissatisfaction, rebellion, self-loating, consumerism, and many more topics. I think people often read it way too literally, even after witnessing the "twist" ending that clearly implies the entire movie should be viewed in a different light. This movie is funny, it's bitter, it's shocking, and somewhat disturbing. David Fincher's direction is fantastic, and his style always makes you feel a bit unclean, both physically (in the dirt sense) and emotionally (in the prurient sense) - which is precisely what he wants. Additionally, Edward Norton and Brad Pitt are amazing in this movie. I think a lot of people don't like this movie because of what it's saying and how it makes them feel, but if they look deeper, and put aside their own biases, they'd see it for the masterpiece it truly is.

13. Bull Durham

People think this is a baseball movie, but it's really not. Now, an appreciation of baseball helps a little, but really, this is a movie about relationships. Oh yeah - it's funny as hell. Tim Robbins is amazingly goofy, and Kevin Costner (wait, keep reading!) is perfect as a jaded, smug, aging catcher in the minor leagues. Even Susan Sarandon is tolerable. The supporting cast is excellent as well. I think this movie works on a couple of levels. As a comedy, it's full of amazingly memorable scenes - the coach's "Lollygaggers" speech, when Crash tells the batter what pitch is coming, when Nuke beans the mascot, or the meeting at the mound where they can't decide what to get one of the players for his upcoming wedding - and that's just to name a few. On a deeper level, it's a pretty impressive romance, as the relationship between Crash and Annie develops and then, well, let's just say that "Sixty Minute Man" is one of my favorite romantic scenes in any movie - funny, sexy, sweet, baseball - it's all there.

I think I'm becoming addicted to poker. One of the things that bothers me about this is that everyone else seems to becoming a fan of it too. Usually, a sure sign for me that something isn't that worthwhile is when EVERYONE is doing it. See the Atkins diet for an example. Now, I'm not really a counter-culture guy, but I also don't like to easily buy into the generally accepted mentality. In this case, though, it seems that the growing fascination with poker is completely warranted. In particular, tournament Hold 'Em is fascinating, compelling, challenging, and different every time. I don't think it's a game that you can ever completely figure out. I like the fact that I could learn and continually get better at it for the next 5 years, but that I will win often enough that I won't get frustrated. Maybe 50 million poker fans can't be wrong. But the 50 million Backstreet Boys fans sure were.

Wow, was my grammar bad on that last post. Actually, they were just typos, as a flail away in a stream of consciousness at my keyboard, but given that one of my pet peeves is poor grammar, I'm going to fix it right this minute...

If you haven't figured it out by now, I generally enjoy media. I love movies, watch a decent amount of TV, and buy a lot of music. Some people see these as silly endeavors, while others are reasonable human beings that enjoy life and all that it has to offer.

For the most part, what I really appreciate is good storytelling. Usually, a critical part of a good story, at least for me, is one that is not predictable. Now, this is not the be all, end all. Clearly, for some movies, like Apollo 13, everyone knows what is going to happen. (Well, almost everyone, but that's an amusing story for another time.) The story is so well told, though, that it's fun just watching it unfold. Regardless, for many stories, it's valuable not to know what's going to happen, so that the events occur for you just as they occur for the characters.

In movies, everything is usually self-contained. That doesn't stop a lot of reviewers for giving away the endings, or key plot points, though, does it? No, sirree. When you're a fine connoisseur of films, such as myself, you cannot just watch every movie, willy-nilly. Rather, you need to pick and choose your fare, as a gourmand would select fine wines from a list. "Lethal Weapon 4" or "American Pie 2" ? "Glitter" or "You Got Served" ? "Return to the Planet of the Apes" or "Beyond the Planet of the Apes" ? These are not decisions that one takes lightly, my friends. In most cases, reviews help one make informed decisions. But, from time to time, they just blurt out key plot points, ruining the whole damn thing. This makes me angry. Probably more than reason permits. Trailers are pretty bad about it too. I've never seen "A Beautiful Mind", but I figured out the whole damn thing from the trailer. I know, you're saying, "Well, Dave, you're just too damn smart for your own good." Heh, I know.

However, when a movie gets ruined, then fine, I don't have to see it. And, even if I chose to see it, it's just two hours I'm losing. But serial TV shows take things to a whole different level. And, if there is a detriment to TiVo (please don't tell my player I uttered those words), it's that sometimes it allows you to be lax in your TV watching. Yes, that does seem like a contradiction, but basically, by twisting the space-time continuum, and allowing you to watch TV shows whenever the hell you feel like it, TiVo can breed a sense of self-importance in people, convincing them that the network schedule actually revolves around their life. In the meantime, while you're watching 24 or the Sopranos, or Sesame Street, the News or whenever you want, the rest of the world has to conform, and watch the shows when they come on. Then, magazines, or even other people, completely ignore the TiVo-devotees, and assume they can just blather on about who was killed on 24, or who was killed on the Sopranos, or who was killed on Sesame Street, or who was elected President of the United States, as if I have the time to keep up with those things as they actually happen.

This blatant disregard for a small, but growing, portion of the population infuriates me. When I commit to a show, I have implicitly established a contract, committing an hour (or at least a TiVo-accelerated 44 minutes) per week to a story. Then, some uncultured moron decides to start a discussion on a show I haven't yet watched, and destroyed that contract as if it were nothing.

Therefore, I make this impassioned plea: No more talking about anything around me. No news, no sports, no television. I may not have seen it occur yet. Don't even ask if I've seen something yet - to my razor-sharp mind, that's already giving something away. Feel free to talk about your own life, though, unless you're on some sort of reality show that I may eventually see, or if your life story is so exciting that it might be eventually made into some biopic, then hold off on that too.

// posted by Dave @ 7/06/2004 10:26:00 PM (4) comments

This actually happened like a month and a half ago, but it's taken me a while to write up. It's long, but hopefully entertaining:

So, as many of you know, I'm an avid softball player. I played baseball all through high school and college, but then the time came where playing baseball frequently just wasn't feasible. Fortunately, softball leagues are quite popular in the DC area, and so once I started working, I joined a couple of leagues. I've been the manager of two teams for probably about 4 years now, and those games are quite often the highlight of my week. It's been enjoyable playing with the same group of guys for a while now, and it's cool to see us improve as a team and have a good time together while we're doing it. The leagues aren't ultra-competitive, but rather a pretty nice mix of skills, with most guys playing hard and trying to win, but not going completely balls out insane. Sometimes that can get frustrating, when we blow a close game because of stupid reasons, but for the most part, it allows everyone to have a good time, and scratch their competitive itch.

With that as a backdrop, let me tell you a story. First, for those of you not familiar with some of the more details rules of softball/baseball, I'll give you a little background, even if you know virtually nothing about the sport. If you are familiar with the rules, then just bear with me, or skip ahead to "STORY STARTS HERE".

Basically, in softball, there are two different types of balls that a batter can hit in play: A fly ball, and a ground ball. Let's take them one at a time. First, the ground ball: When the batter hits a ground ball - one that hits the ground before a fielder catches it, then the fielder has to pick up the ball and throw it to first base before the batter gets there. If the fielder does so, then the batter is out. If the batter gets there before the ball is thrown to the first baseman (standing on first), then he's safe.

Now, what if there's already someone on first base when the batter hits a ground ball? Well, then that person on first has to run to second: They're forced. A fielder that fields the ground ball can throw the ball to second base, and if the ball gets there (well, is caught by a fielder that's standing on the base) before the runner going from first to second does, then the runner is out. Meanwhile, the batter that hit the ground ball is running to first, as he could be out as well (or instead) of the ball is thrown to first base. A double play can occur if there's a runner on first, and a batter hits a ground ball. A fielder gets the ball, throws it to second before the runner gets there, causing the runner from first to second to be out. Then, the fielder on second throws the ball to first, before the batter gets there, causing him to be out as well. Two outs - a double play. Double plays can occur all sorts of ways, but this is the most common way. If there are runners at first and second, then there's a force play at third base as well - the fielder can throw the ball there to get the runner out running from second.

Ok, so that's the deal with ground balls. Now we deal with fly balls - when the ball is hit in the air, and a fielder catches it before it hits the ground. It's pretty simple - in this case, the batter who hit the fly ball is out when the fielder catches it. If it hits the ground before a fielder catches it, then it becomes a ground ball, and the rules above apply. So, what happens to the runners when a fly ball is hit? Well, basically, a runner cannot leave the base he was one until a fly ball is caught. After a fly ball is caught, the runner can run to the next case if he choose to (although he might be thrown out there, but that's a different story.) If the runner has already left the base when the fly ball is caught, he must return to touch the base before proceeding to the next base. (This process is called tagging up.) If, for some reason, the fielder who caught the fly ball throws the ball back to the base that the runner had left from before the runner can get back to that base, then the runner is out. This last line is important, so read it again.

So, once you understand these rules, and you watch enough games, you realize there's more to being a base runner than just running around the bases as fast as possible. In particular, what happens if you're on first and there's a ball that's hit and you're not sure if it's going to be caught on the fly or not? In this case, as a runner, you're kind of screwed. If it's going to hit the ground first, then you better get to second base as fast as possible so that you can try and beat the throw there. But, if it's caught before it hits the ground, then you better get back to first so you don't get thrown out there. Basically, you have to use your best judgment when running. Usually, it's pretty straightforward: Ground balls roll towards the infielders, and you book it to second. Fly balls go up in the air, and if it's a fly ball to the outfield, you usually go about halfway to second base, just in case the outfielder drops the ball and you need to run to second. If it's a fly ball to the infielder, you usually stay closer to the base, because it's pretty easy to throw the ball to first from the infield.

There are a couple of cases that can be really tough on the runner. One is a ball that's hit hard on a line: a line drive. Because, as runner, you usually want to start running once the ball is hit, if the ball is hit on a line right to an infielder, sometimes, if the ball gets there fast enough, the infielder can catch the ball and throw it to first really quickly, before the runner can get back. In this case, the runner's pretty screwed, but it takes a pretty quick infielder to do it. But, what if the infielder decides to be deceptive? Let's say there's a fly ball hit to an infielder. We know that the runner is likely going to stay close to first base, because the infielder could catch the ball and throw it quickly to first if the runner strays too far. However, the infielder can decide to intentionally drop the ball, turning it into a ground ball. If that's the case. the runner's pretty screwed - the infielder can then pick up the ball, throw it to second to force the runner out, and then, they can throw the ball to first, to try and get the batter.

So, they've invented a rule to avoid situations like this in which the infielders can exploit loopholes in the rules: It's called the infield fly rule, frequently cited as one of the things about baseball that's too complicated, but really, it's necessary, and not that tricky. It's explicitly designed to avoid screwing the runners if there's a fly ball to an infielder. So, here's the deal: First, there has to be less than 2 outs in the inning. (Remember, if an infielder exploits a fly ball as described above, he'll get a double play. If there are already two outs, there's no way the infielder can get the double play, since the inning will end at 3 outs.) Second, there has to be either runners on first AND second, or runners on first AND second AND third. If both those conditions are met, and there's a fly ball hit that's easily catchable by an infielder ("easily catchable" is up to the discretion of the umpire), then the infielder fly rule goes into effect. Basically, this means that regardless of if the infielder catches the ball, the batter is out, and it's as if the infielder did catch the ball. This means that the runners aren't forced, so the infielders can get a double play through trickery. However, if you're astute, you'll notice that this rule DOES NOT apply if there is only a runner on first. Why is that? Earlier, I mentioned that even in this case, the infielder could drop the ball, throw to second, and then they could throw the ball to first. Well, that's not really the case, IF the batter is running as soon as he hits the ball, and he always should be. Basically, a fly ball takes a while to get to the infielder. There's no reason that the runner shouldn't be able to get to first base before the ball could be dropped, thrown to second, and then over to first. So, the infield fly rule does not apply in this case. In the other cases I mentioned (runners at 1st and 2nd, or 1st, 2nd, and 3rd), even if the batter is running, clever fielders could still drop the ball and force the runners out at 3rd and 2nd, since they can't start running until the ball hits the ground.) Ok, now that you've gotten all in your head, I can start my enchanted tale:

----------------------- STORY STARTS HERE -----------------------------

Alright, so I play in two recreational softball leagues: One in Virginia, and one in Maryland. In both leagues we play doubleheaders once a week. We've been playing in both leagues for quite a few years now, and they're decently competitive, but also good fun. Basically, everyone tries hard to win, and there are umpires and playoffs and the whole deal, but if you lose, it's usually not that big a deal. People rarely get hurt, and it's unusual that there's a big argument.

About three weeks ago, we had a game in Virginia, and an interesting situation arose: There was a runner on first, with one out. I was playing shortstop. It was the middle of a relatively close game. The batter hit a pop fly to me. I noticed that he wasn't running - he just kinda started strolling towards first. As I settled under the ball, I decided that maybe it would be worth trying to drop it and turn a double play. But my brain had to fight with my instincts to catch the ball, and so as I caught the ball, I let it fall out of my glove. I then threw the ball to second base, to force the runner out, but we weren't able to throw it to first in time to get the batter out, as he started running as soon as I dropped the ball. That's when things got confusing.

At that game, we had the best umpire we have had in a long time. His name was Bob. Usually, umpire quality in these leagues is a crapshoot, but this guy was solid. As soon as he saw the play, he called for a "dead ball". He called that I wasn't allowed to intentionally drop a ball, and as soon as I did, it was as if I had caught it - the batter was out, and the runner who had been forced out at second had to go back to first. I didn't argue, because I actually knew he was right. See, a couple years ago, in a different league, I had tried the same play, and a similar thing happened. When that happened, I actually went and did some research and read the American Softball Association rule book. It basically states that you cannot intentionally drop a ball, but I talked to a couple umpires and there's a distinction between dropping a ball that's in your glove, and just letting a ball drop. The former isn't allowed, but the latter is. I screwed up by not being able to just let the ball drop.

So, ultimately, there was no harm done. A couple of the guys we were playing seemed a bit annoyed, but the guy who was running to second actually told me that I had made a smart play. Myself, when we have guys who don't run out popups, I usually warn them that one time, someone will "drop it and turn two". Generally, it annoys me when people are lazy. It's not the major leagues, but still, there's no reason not to hustle - it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to just do things right.

At any rate, as the umpire set things right, I didn't argue at all, cuz I knew he was right. But, after the inning ended, I went up to him and asked him if I had let the ball hit the ground, then would the play be legit? Well, he told me that, no, it still would have ended up the same way. I told him that I disagreed, having read the rule book a couple years ago. He told me to read it again, and that the next time he saw me (since he umped every week at the same park, if not at the same exact field) we'd talk about it.

Well, the following week, I saw him, but hadn't actually looked over the rule book. He came up to me before the game, and said "Did you do your homework?" I said that I hadn't, but I would the following week. He was very genial about it. So, the next day, I read the book, and it was worded precisely as I said - that a fielder wasn't allowed to intentionally drop a ball, but it said nothing about letting the ball drop without touching it.

So, we're finally at the week during which the story takes place. I get to the field, and we're getting ready to start playing, and Bob the umpire wanders over. (We had a different ump assigned to us that day.) He asks again if I did my homework, and I say that I did, and tell him my findings. Well, he agrees with me, and states that I'm right - if I let the ball drop before turning a double play, then it's ok. I don't really mention that he said this wasn't ok the last time we talked, but whatever. Now we're both on the same page, and it's all cool.

The games start. We're playing a team that we've played many times before. Friendly guys, and the games are usually pretty even with them. The first game we win, but it's pretty close. The second game is a bit closer, but going into the top of the 7th (we only play 7 innings), we're up by about 7 runs. This is by no means a comfortable lead. In fact, the previous night, we had blown a 9 run lead.

I'm playing shortstop again. There's a guy on first base. This really fat, jiggly guys comes to the plate. Now, like I said, we're not professionals, but this guy was fat and immobile enough to make you wonder what he was doing out there. I'm all for people trying their best to play, but this guy was borderline silly. Still, it's his (or rather his team's) choice to have him play, and if he's having a good time, then great. He just shouldn't expect any special treatment.

So, this guy hits a shallow pop fly behind second base, and I get there very easily. This time, though, I take a look at the batter, and he's not really running at all. The guy who was on first base is just a few steps off of first base. I figure that it's worth a shot, and I let the ball drop on the ground, without touching it. It bounces up, and actually almost slips out of my hand, but the runners are both dumbfounded. The guy who was on first has basically stopped running. I throw the ball to second, and they start yelling already about how the play isn't legal. The batter doesn't even try to run, even after I drop the ball, and so after a long pause, the second baseman throws the ball to first to get him out. The umpire initially calls both runners out - a double play.

Well, then all hell breaks loose. The entire dugout of this team goes nuts, yelling about how my play is bullshit, and that it's not fair, and that I should learn the rules, and what the hell was I pulling. I certainly didn't anticipate this, but decide that in this case, discretion is the better part of valor, and I don't say anything - I just stand at shortstop. Well, their coach goes over to the umpire, and starts to explain his version of the rules. All the while, their team is shouting at us from the dugout: "You don't know the rules!", "Both those guys should be safe!", "What kind of a play is that?!". My only rebut to them is a low-key, "I just had this play occur recently and talked to the umpire - I know what the rule is." Of course the reply is, "Go read the rule book! You can't do that!" Ironic, wasn't it?

At any rate, the umpire, after talking to their coach, decides to rule it exactly as the previous umpire did - the batter is out, but the runner goes back to first. Remember, this is the incorrect call - because I let the ball drop, it should be legal to do what I did, and we should have gotten two out. But, that wasn't really the point, and seeing how pissed they already were, I decided to just let it go, rather than protest and raise their ire more. Unfortunately, it seemed their ire had already been raised.

Later on in that inning, the guy who had been on first when I made (or didn't make) that play has made it to second. Doug, the left-centerfielder, and Mike, the pitcher, are giving me a hard time about that play. Doug says something like next time, I need to do a better acting job so they won't think I can catch the ball. I say, "What, should I pretend to trip?" Mike says, "Yeah, fall down or something." Well, the guy on second base has seemingly had enough, and shouts, to no one in particular, "Just shut up and play ball!"

Well, Doug decides that no one in particular is actually particularly himself, and retorts, shouting from the outfield, "Just be quiet and take care of your own team." That mostly ends it for the confrontation during the game, but apparently that was just lighting the pilot light...

The game ends shortly thereafter, as the inning ends and we win. As we always do, we line up to shake their hands, and for the most part, it's going fine. I'm near the front, and basically am apologizing pretty vocally, saying "Sorry about that play. Didn't mean anything by it. Good game.", over and over again. Doug is near the back of the line. One particular guy (who wasn't involved in the play at all), apparently has taken particular offense, and when he gets to Doug, says something like, "It's just a game. You guys don't need to pull that crap." Well, Doug, who really had nothing to do with what occurred, says, pretty rudely, "What? Why are you talking to me?" This guy takes it as an invitation to become more aggressive, and just starts threatening him, eventually saying, "You wanna meet me in the parking lot?" Doug is pretty incredulous, and finally starts to walk away, but by this time, both teams are jawing at each other, as we've both come back onto the field to protect our own. They're shouting at us about how they've played in the league for so long, and that play was bullshit, etc, etc, and we're for the most part, just trying to calm things down, but pretty pissed that it was made into such a big deal. Doug finally goes back into the dugout, but not before waving to the aggressive guy, and snidely says, "Bye-bye." This just makes them more pissed, but they finally retreat as well.

As we're clearing out of the dugout, the other coach (who was probably the most restrained of the bunch) comes over to our dugout. Apparently, Bob, my umpire friend, had completed his duties for the game he was calling, has seen the commotion, and came over to the other dugout to explain the rules to the other team. The other coach had come over to apologize for getting the call wrong, and basically wanted to shake hands and make up. I apologized for us getting a little riled up too, but then he added a line like, "Just make sure to keep control of your players, and I'll keep control of mine." Of course, Doug had to mention that it was his players that had asked to start a fight, but nevertheless, he seemed to part relatively amicable. Operative word there is "seemed"...

Our team heads toward the parking lot, and splits up, everyone heading to their own individual cars. As I'm taking off my cleats, the loudmouth who had requested a confrontation in the parking lot passes by. I give him a little nod, trying to let him know there are no hard feelings. But, as he gets to his car (which is two spots from mine), he starts to let me have it.

"We'll face you guys again!", he growls. I tell him that look, we really meant no harm by it. He then says, "What was that bullshit? Trying to pick a fight. We've been in this league for 30 years, longer than most you guys have been alive. There's no need for that shit." I say, "Trying to pick a fight? Who wanted to meet us out in the parking lot?" In the meantime, Mike Hassan, another team member, is getting in his car, on the other side of Mr. Asshole. I don't quite hear what he says to this guy, but it's something like "Who cares how long you've been in the league?" Well, this guy now gets really angry, and points at him, shouting "You shut up! Get in your car!" I say to him, "Now who's being aggressive and picking fights?" The guy continues to yell at Mike, "Get in your car, pussy!" I shake my head, incredulously, as he starts back to yelling at me, "I wasn't picking fights..." As I climb into my car, having had enough of this absurdity, I mutter, "Yeah, whatever. Let me know when you grow up." I drive away. For all I know, he's still standing there yelling.

Moral of the story? Well, I suppose there are many: Always run to first. Don't humiliate lazy base runners. People who live in Virginia for a long time become crazed rednecks. Oh, and...it's just a game.

I find fewer things satisfying than finding a good deal on some piece of merchandise. Getting a promotion at work, helping a friend in need, saving the life of a child...sure, they're up there, but getting a good price on an cool electronic device? Really, there are plenty of children all around. But when am I going to get a complete set of knives for $40?

For those of you callous enough to share my feelings (and even those of you with a little perspective, but also enjoy a good deal), I'd like to point you to a couple website I've found that have been immensely helpful in contributing to my deal-finding-related fulfillment.

First, is Slick Deals. Sounds pretty crappy, doesn't it? Well, go to it, and then shut your purty mouth! Don't you ever insult Slick Deals again, here me? It's a pretty ridiculous site. They (the users of this site, I guess) post a few deals a day, but as long as I've been looking, they've had great prices, and the links are always valid. As long as you're not averse to mail-in rebates (translation: as long as you're not lazy), you can find some amazing stuff. Oh, sure, they might not post stuff you NEED, but "need" is really a loosely defined term. For instance, could you live with yourself if you went through life knowing that you passed up an EPSON All-in-One Printer for $35 after rebate? I thought not. I sure couldn't: My new printer is sitting on my desk as I type this. Just go check it out. You have to visit it fairly often, because sometimes the deals expire rather quickly. You can thank my by naming one of your children after me. Maybe you will even have obtained said child at a discounted price from this very website!

Second is All of MP3. This site isn't quite as cool as Slick Deals, but it's pretty snazzy. It seems to be run out of Russia, and it sells legit MP3s for 1 cent per MB. You don't have to waste your time downloading crappy versions off of Kazaa. Just ante up 10 bucks and you can download a gig of music. You can choose the format and everything. Now, they don't have every song that exists, but their library is quite extensive. You can also download their special browser, which is far better than the web interface, and select songs directly from it. It's quick, cheap, and simple.

While you're taking shopping advice from me, I suggest that before you buy anything, you search online for coupons. Shopping at "The Lobster Depot" ? Search on Google for "Lobster Depot coupons". Maybe you'll find something that saves you money. Or, spend that time curing cancer. Who am I to judge?