Not So Funny

You know those things that other people find funny, but you don't? Here's a list of mine.

1. Walking into walls
I don't begrudge the physical humor, but it doesn't make me laugh. Wife on the other hand, sees two people run into eachother on TV and can't contain herself. May be a result of her mom watching excessive amounts of 3 Stooges while wife was in utero.

2. Negative for the sake of being negative
Cynicism, sarcasm, even the occasional outright meanness, I can get into. But people whose only joke is being contrarian, really get to me. This is a current pet peeve of mine since twice in the last month I ordered a beer at a bar and the the bartender responded, "No." And then laughed and got me one. Why did they think this was funny? Could they even use an ounce of creativity or intelligence in making a joke? I mean, literally, a 4-year old could make that joke (and probably does often).

3. Curb Your Enthusiasm
I could probably grow to like this, but of the few I've seen, I just feel vaguely uncomfortable the whole time.

4. John Stewart
I can't really explain this. Smart liberal political humor from a guy who doesn't take himself too seriously- what is there not to love? But I just don't think he's that funny. I actually even feel kind of sorry for him when he's making a joke, like maybe I should laugh to make him feel better. Which is particulalry strange, considering he's a multimillionaire who everyone else loves. I do like Colbert, but just can't get into Mr. Stewart.

The Baseball Playoffs Are Stupid

It's time to go back to the two teams a league format. Yeah, maybe it's nice to have your team in it for longer, but the Series is too often not the best teams . Detroit and St Louis? And St Louis is winning? Who guessed that and who cares? Every prognosticator I heard said the Yankees were going to destroy. Then after they lost it was the American League was going to kick whatever ass made it up from the National. Well, guess what. No one knows what they're talking about and you can't blame them, it's just that baseball's totally random.

Compare it to basketball or football. The Yankees were the best team in the league by winning 60% of their games. Just over half. In basketball it was 78% and football it was 88%. In those leagues the best teams really are much better and it shows in the playoffs, where the team that usually wins is one of the top 4 teams. Not so in the sport where the best team wins 3 out of every 5 and their best hitter only gets a hit every 3 times they bat. Getting to the post season is tough, but if you do it seems to pretty much a flip of the coin who wins. That's why we'd rather talk about the latest methods of cheating. Go Tigers!!! Go Pine Tar!!!

Are The Beatles Overated?

Received an e-mail from Michael5000 last week in which he referred to John Lennon as, "The most overrated member of history's most overrated rock band."

Now, I'm not even sure if I should be part of this debate. Rationally discussing whether the Beatles are great is tantamount to discussing whether my mom's meatloaf is good. Of course it is and OF COURSE THEY ARE! Besides being a life-long fan, my bias-filled resume includes having hosted a Beatles Birthday Party when I was 13 and attending 3 consecutive Beatlesfests (Where I purchased such neccessities as a Beatles' wig, Beatles' spoons, and a Beatles' icon that played Yesterday when I pushed a button on Ringo's butt).

Impartial or not, I cannot ignore this call to come to their defense. The two arguments I often hear against the Beatles' greatness are that (A) Their early songs are cheesey and (B) The White Album is too long. The White Album was what it was, a messy experimental album that has great songs and probably could have been shortened. But it was also so them to be messy after the crisp perfection that was Sergeant Peppers. In those two albums, they showed both sides of the creative process, the perfectly put together product and the brainstorm. Both are valuable and inspirational.

About the early songs, it is easy to now look back and say you think Please Please Me or I Want To Hold Your Hand are stupid and trite. But, that overlooks that these songs did catapult them to ridiculous levels of fame and popularity (5 songs in the top ten in 1964). The story of the Beatles was their combining of popularity and artistic genious. That no band has reached that and never will certainly means they are great. And John Lennon being overrated? @#!$ Michael 5000 you're an $#@# and can go *&%$ my !@#.

The Movie Formula

This week's New Yorker had an interesting article by Malcolm Gladwell called The Formula. In it, he looks at the way data analysis is being used to predict things once thought pretty unpredictable: like movies and music. For instance, Mike McCready has come up with a way of finding music hits. He claims that after analyzing various factors of a song, he can then see it if the song falls into 1 of the 4 hit clusters he has discovered. He claims that hits from Beethoven to Gnarls Barkley will fall into 1 of the 4.

With movies the key seems to be on how much weight you put on the factors. An example of how this can work is illustrated by how some mathematicians outperformed the dog experts at Greyhound Races. It wasn't that the mathematicians discovered a new variable, it was that the dog experts weren't giving all the variables their proper weight. The experts knew about "race grade" (when a dog has been dropped or raised a class), but didn't realize just how important it was. This hinted at how a movie formula would work. It's not that anyone has to recreate the wheel, but perhaps the studios overrate some factors and underrate others.

All very interesting, but here was my only problem with the article. We never find out what the formula is. I guess this makes sense, the data analysis superstars want to make their money, but it was kind of disappointing.

It did make me wonder though. Is there a formula that predicts a total movie bomb? Here's my attempt. (Pauly Shore + Sinbad) * (number of sequels greater than 2) and then you square it all if it's NC-17. Which would be a really strange movie if you think about it.

Northwest Division Preview

Atlantic Division
Central Divison
Southeast Division

The worst division in the NBA last year looks a little better...

1. Denver Nuggets
Last Year: Kind of a downer year. After a torrid end to the 04-05 season, Denver spent 05-06 at the top of their pathetic divison while suffering through massive injuries. They got the three seed, but were actually the 6th best team in the West. The year ended with them getting their asses kicked while Kenyon fought with George.
This Year: I'm not that sold on the Nuggets, but they won their division last year pretty handidly at half-strength, they have to be the favorites this year. Carmelo also looks ready to reach the superstar status Lebron and Wade beat him to. The big questions will be what are they going to do with the unhappy overpaid Kenyon and will this be the year that everyone gets sick of Karl?


2. Minnesota Timberwolves
Last Year: Major disappointment. Just 2 years removed from the Sprewell-Cassell-Garnet #1 Western seed, they were really a pretty bad team. It didn't help that they made probably the worst trade of last year's off-season (Cassell for Jaric).
This Year: I think the Timberwolves will return to the playoffs. They definitely have some extra firepower, with Ricky Davis returning and the signing of Mike James. They also have the frontrunner for Rookie of the Year with Randy Foye. He tore up the summer leagues and looks to majorly benefit from the (anti) handchecking rules. Garnett's the type of superstar that needs some players around him and he has that again.

3. Utah Jazz
Last Year: Even without Boozer and missing Kirilkenko for some time, Utah made a playoff run and finished at .500.
This Year: A lot of people are up on the Jazz. I'm not so sure. I see no reason to see why they AK-47 won't get hurt again and I really don't see anyone being all that great outside of him. I realize that the the Okur, AK, Boozer frontline has some serious potential, but I'll believe it when I see it last for a year.

4. Seattle Supersonics
Last Year: Great shooting, but one of the worst defenses ever. Can Bob Hill get these guys to hunker down on D?
This Year: Could have an outside shot at the playoffs if everything goes right. Unlikely though. And there's some serious potential for major distractions with the team possibly moving and Rashard being able to opt out soon.

5. Portland Trailblazer
Last Year: Awful terrible worthless type of year
This Year: There's at least some potential here now. I really like Brandon Roy and Webster, Jack, and Outlaw are a year older. Who knows? Word out is that Randolph has been practicing up a storm, but can he jump again? Is looking like a team that at least has a future, but that the present is still not too bright.

Confessions From a Portland Driver

I'm not really sure how it happened. Even now, it feels as if someone else inhabited my body for a moment. There I was, at an intersection. Nothing special about it. But when the left-turn light turned green, the car in front of me remained, well, immobile. I wanted to just give them a gentle reminder, a little nudge, but there is no soft-mute in a car, so the next thing I knew was I'm letting out this huge startling honk. It worked, it did the job as they say, but at what price? Was my need to make it through that intersection worth the panic that driver must have felt while I blurted behind them? Would it have really been such a big deal to wait a little?

To make ammends, I plan to stop on busy streets so that pedestrians can cross in front of me and to continue waving politely everytime anyone lets me in.

Graphic Novels

There's a lot to like about graphic novels (defined as, in my opinion, serious comic books). Probably my favorite part about them is how much information can be passed on with the combo of pictures and stories. For those of you whom have never read one, here are three of my favorites.

1. Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi
A historical novel about a young girl growing up in Iran. It spans the revolution and the ensuing religious/political repression. Really interesting to see these events from the perspective of a girl whole family pushed for a democratic revolution instead of a religious one. There was a follow-up called Persepolis 2 which seemed unnecessary to me at the time, and didn't add much.

2. Palestine by Joe Sacco
Incredible incredible incredible. Joe Sacco (who resides in Portland at times) is truly a graphic journalist. In Palestine he goes to, well, Palestine during the infitada of 1991-1992 to report on how miserable life is under Israeli occupation. For obvious reasons, the book still resonates today. Since then he's gone to Bosnia and wrote Safe Area Gorazde, also very good.

3. Optic Nerve by Adrian Tomine
I'm not quite sure how to describe these stories. Each comic book has about three little vignettes of people's lives. They all feel very realistic, are dark, and end suddenly leaving much unanswered. Kind of like if Short Cuts was made into a comic book.

I thought of doing this blog after reading about some hoopla over Alan Moore's new book Lost Girls- which is a turn-of the century (porno)graphic novel starring Alice in Wonderland, Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz, and Wendy from Peter Pan. Think I'll skip that one...

Southeast Division

Atlantic Division
Central Divison


Don't see a whole lot of changes here this year. The competitions will be whether Orlando can pass Washington and who will win the battle of the losers.

1. Miami Heat
Last Year: Did all right
This Year: I don't think Miami deserved to win the championship last year and I think this is an unbiased opinion since I'm not really a Mavericks fan. In my opinion, the refs were told to call the playoffs as tight as the regular season, and then went one step further by calling touch hand-checking fouls. Come on, Wade went to the line more than anyone else in NBA history (many more times than Jordan ever did). He's good but... ANYWAY, I think the Heat will not have trouble in this divisions and might even return to the finals again, since there's no powerhouses in the East anymore. But it also wouldn't surprise me to see them struggle with the expected Shaq absences and an always possible Wade one.

2. Washington Wizards
Last Year: Hey, they're making the playoffs their regular hang out now. GO WIZARDS! And they even gave Lebron a run for his money...
This Year: They proved to be a saavy with money last year when they avoided overpaying Larry Hughes and did the same, on a lesser scale, with Jeffries this summer. In the end they are basically just your ordinary everyday non-defense-Gilbert-based b-ball team. Look for another low play-off seed.

3. Orlando Magic
Last Year: Came on strong last year after they dumped Francis and made a playoff run that finished 4 games shy of post-seasoness.
This Year: A lot of people are predicitng big things for them this year and they could be the young team that makes the big jump. Howard is a man-child, Jameer appears to be an able leader, and even Darko's starting to show promise. They still might be a little ways away though. Howard has no offensive skills other than put-backs, Hill remain hobbled, and I think JJ Redick is drunk right now. Should be an interesting team to watch though.

4. Charlotte Bobcats
Last Year: Considering they lost the reigning rookie of the year and one of their lottery picks, Charlotte didn't do all that bad for a second-year expansion team (Hey, at least they tied the Hawks!).
This Year: Felton ended the year strong and Morrison looks like he's going to put up some points. If Okafor can return to form and last the season, this could be a promising year. Promising in the way of, on the right-track promising, not actually good.

5. Atlanta Hawks
Last Year: Managed to make themselves even more of a laughing stock, by watching Boris Diaw blossom in Phoenix and Chris Paul (whom them passed in the draft even though he would have been a great fit) have a stellar rookie campaign.
This Year: There actually is some things to like about the Hawks for once. Joe Johnson played all-star-level basketball in the second half of the season and Marvin Williams dominated in summer league. But they also lost Harrington for nothing, picked oft-injured journey man Speedy Claxton to be their point guard (and he just got injured), and one year too late drafted for need and, judging by his summer league performance, picked a lottery dud with Shelden Williams. Watch Marvin Williams, but my feeling is he'll have a good stat year, but not really help his team until next year (like many do in their rookie year).

Are The Oscars Racist?

So often people just accept the above statement as fact. We all know it used to be true, but is it anymore? I thought it might be interesting to test it out by looking at the races of Best Actor/Actress nominations since 1990. Theoretically, if our society and the Academy were truly race-blind, the percentages should be close to those race's percentage in our society. I expected to find most racial groups still underrepresented, but wondered if blacks actually might be overrepresented of late.

In my results I was kind of right and kind of wrong, but was overall surprised at how white the nominees were. Blacks have received 7% of the nominations (while being 12% of the population), Latinos 1% (while at 14%), and Asians 0% (while at 4%). Black males are doing the best, having 11% of the nominations and 12.5% of the awards (although 33% of their nominations and 50% of the awards were for Denzel). They are also doing better lately, with 17% of the nominations and 33% of the awards in the new millenium. Black women are not doing so hot though, having only been nominated 2.5 % of the time. Which means Tom Hanks has as many nominations and one more Oscar than black women.

Hispanics and Asians though are really being left behind. The Hispanic population has been changing recently, so you can't fully expect their number to be equal, but it still surprised me that they've only had 2 nominations and no victories over the last 16 years (and one of the nominations was for a foreign movie, so I'm not even sure if that really counts in what I'm looking at). I also did not expect to see Asians at zero.

I was also curious how racial stereotypes affected acting roles. In particular, if black males were more likely to be cast as criminals. This became more complicated than I expected. I mean, Malcolm X had been in jail, but that's not really why he was famous. And although the Hurricane was incarcerated, the whole movie was about how that was unjust; so it seemed strange to use it as evidence to prove racism. I also didn't want to have to go through all the white roles and decide who was really a "criminal". So I gave up on that venture even though I'm sure there was some truth to what I was looking for. But what I did notice in the beginings of that search, was that almost all of the black nominees were based on famous people. When I counted them up (Malcolm X, Ike, Tina, Hotel Rwanda Guy, Ali, Ray, Hurricane) it came out to 64% of the black nominees. This was compared to 19% of whites. I'm not sure exactly what that meant (lack of interest in regular minorities? Lack of black writers writing real characters), but thought it was notable.