Jo Walton is probably my favourite book reviewer right now. She's steered me to some old or oldish gems that I missed. Without her review, I would never have read Eva by Peter Dickinson, for example. A review of that is forthcoming when I get back into full-fledged blog-posting. Betcha you can figure out the general tone of it already.
Walton is reviewing at TOR.com right now. Back in March, she wrote this interesting post about the reason you DON'T see negative reviews all that much. I agree with much of what she says. But bluntly, she's nice and I'm not.
I've laced into Janet Evanovich for the drop off in quality in her last two Stephanie Plum books. Last year's Finger-Lickin' Fifteen didn't fare all that well with me. And I love Evanovich. But let's face it, the last two Plum books have dropped off badly. Guess it's time for Stephanie to make a choice between Joe and Ranger and see what happens next.
I enjoyed Carrie Asai's first Samurai Girl novel and then hated, REALLY, REALLY hated, the rest of the series. I said why here. And yeah, I went to town on the series. I made it to within 20 pages of finishing the fourth of the six books in the series before I came to my senses and stopped wasting my life. I'll never get back the hours wasted reading those 2.9 books and I needed to at least warn off potential readers.
But generally, the idea with a review is to point somebody to something worth their time. Something they might have overlooked. I know that when I read a book after a good review prompted its purchase (usually as a gift to me from somebody else), it's like winning the lottery. A whole new author to explore and enjoy some more. So that's why I usually put the good ones in the reviews I take my time to write. Maybe I can help somebody else.
On the other hand, I reserve the right to say that a book sucks. No namby-pamby pussy-footing around. Sucks big time. Some books just deserve it.
Just like my occasional posting here.
Friday, April 02, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
SOFTWARE: PDFs On Watch List
The best defence against viruses and the like (worms, becoming zombies, etc.) is not being idiotic and believing everything that comes across the transom. If you don't expect it, don't click on it. You will USUALLY be safe if you NEVER disobey that one directive. You'll be percentages safer if you never click on anything, but that probably means you're the type to put plastic all over the coach and STILL forbid the kids and dogs from sitting on it. There's only so much abstinance before crazy town sets in.
At any rate, one of the 'safe' things out there was PDF files. Portable Document Files. Invented by Adobe and just about ruined by Adobe's bloated software to read and create the things. Thankfully, several other companies have stepped in and started offering alternatives to the free Adobe Reader (aka Adobe Acrobat in its youth). For the last two or so years, my alternative of choice has been Foxit Reader. It's fast, small on resouce-chomping and isn't from Adobe, which might be reason enough to use it. It searches through the file quickly, both backward, forward and around the ends. I like it.
But now I am worried. Dider Stevens has found Foxit's rep as a 'secure' alternative to Adobe Reader is flawed. Badly flawed. A nasty person of dubious parentage, can run a program inside of a PDF opened in the latest version(s) of Foxit. The threat is lessoned to some degree by using Adobe thanks to a message system that might or might not let you catch yourself before getting futzed up. A little skill at writing replacement text for Adobe's warning message might let the thing through anyways, but at least there's a chance to stop calamity. Unfortunately, Stevens' article is now out in the wild and the bad guys will be inspecting his example and burrowing through the PDF language in the hopes of figuring out exactly how to deliver harm rather than Stevens' proof of concept.
Which means I must now cast a cautious eye towards everything PDF I collect. And I collect lots of PDF files. Being a roto player means mining various sites and I frequently get the data back in PDF file format. Now, I'll have to reconsider. It's not like the HTML stuff is a whole lot more palatable. But I might just react to the Foxit security hole by switching to PDF-XChange Viewer.
Now, PDF-XChange Viewer has more going on than Foxit. There's a LOT of commenting and marking tools available in the free version (I remain committed to using free software unless there is no alternative to a needed feature of a pro version of anything). But it has one thing that Foxit doesn't have. That's the ability to move a LOT of the command toolbars off to the side and onto the same level as the word menu. What that does is to restore MORE depth to the viewing window. And that means bigger magnification of text. And that's good.
Two months ago, when one of my Samsung 21in screens went a bit wonky and I decided to replace the twin screens with twin 23in monitors, I went from individual monitors displaying 1600x1200 to the individual monitors displaying 2000x1148. That 52 lost pixels in depth are mostly offset by the extra 400 pixels in width. Except in web browsing and in PDF viewing. It's four percent shorter and that means every letter seems a point smaller on the screen. It's noticeable. However, by moving anything that CAN move (and locking them down, don't forget to do that) in PDF-XChange Viewer, I was able to get roughly the same viewing area as I used to get on the old desktop. So, I am in the process of switching over to PDF-XChange Viewer as the default PDF viewer here at the Castle of Confusion.
Plus, it means I probably don't have to worry about PDF security for another while.
At any rate, one of the 'safe' things out there was PDF files. Portable Document Files. Invented by Adobe and just about ruined by Adobe's bloated software to read and create the things. Thankfully, several other companies have stepped in and started offering alternatives to the free Adobe Reader (aka Adobe Acrobat in its youth). For the last two or so years, my alternative of choice has been Foxit Reader. It's fast, small on resouce-chomping and isn't from Adobe, which might be reason enough to use it. It searches through the file quickly, both backward, forward and around the ends. I like it.
But now I am worried. Dider Stevens has found Foxit's rep as a 'secure' alternative to Adobe Reader is flawed. Badly flawed. A nasty person of dubious parentage, can run a program inside of a PDF opened in the latest version(s) of Foxit. The threat is lessoned to some degree by using Adobe thanks to a message system that might or might not let you catch yourself before getting futzed up. A little skill at writing replacement text for Adobe's warning message might let the thing through anyways, but at least there's a chance to stop calamity. Unfortunately, Stevens' article is now out in the wild and the bad guys will be inspecting his example and burrowing through the PDF language in the hopes of figuring out exactly how to deliver harm rather than Stevens' proof of concept.
Which means I must now cast a cautious eye towards everything PDF I collect. And I collect lots of PDF files. Being a roto player means mining various sites and I frequently get the data back in PDF file format. Now, I'll have to reconsider. It's not like the HTML stuff is a whole lot more palatable. But I might just react to the Foxit security hole by switching to PDF-XChange Viewer.
Now, PDF-XChange Viewer has more going on than Foxit. There's a LOT of commenting and marking tools available in the free version (I remain committed to using free software unless there is no alternative to a needed feature of a pro version of anything). But it has one thing that Foxit doesn't have. That's the ability to move a LOT of the command toolbars off to the side and onto the same level as the word menu. What that does is to restore MORE depth to the viewing window. And that means bigger magnification of text. And that's good.
Two months ago, when one of my Samsung 21in screens went a bit wonky and I decided to replace the twin screens with twin 23in monitors, I went from individual monitors displaying 1600x1200 to the individual monitors displaying 2000x1148. That 52 lost pixels in depth are mostly offset by the extra 400 pixels in width. Except in web browsing and in PDF viewing. It's four percent shorter and that means every letter seems a point smaller on the screen. It's noticeable. However, by moving anything that CAN move (and locking them down, don't forget to do that) in PDF-XChange Viewer, I was able to get roughly the same viewing area as I used to get on the old desktop. So, I am in the process of switching over to PDF-XChange Viewer as the default PDF viewer here at the Castle of Confusion.
Plus, it means I probably don't have to worry about PDF security for another while.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
INTERNET: I'm Divorcing TheStar.com
When I was ten, my parents made the decision that they weren't going to get the Toronto Star anymore. I looked forward to reading it every afternoon (Yes, newspapers came in morning and afternoon varieties back in the ancient mists of time). I decided I would subscribe with part of my allowance. Best decision I ever made.
Later, in high school, I got a really good grade for writing a paper called "The Toronto Star - The Best Bargain for 25 Cents," after I visited the printing plant (then downtown) on a school trip. Later, I started making money from the paper as a High School Reporter, phoning in scores from various games at Bramalea Secondary School. After graduating and after my ever-so-short sojourn at Ryerson Polytech, I started hustling the scores to The Star for ALL high schools in Peel region. Did it for the Sun and Globe, too. In fact, for a very brief period of time, getting three bucks times three for each score for each school made me one of the top ten paid non-columnist sports reporters in Toronto. The gig didn't last out a year, but it was fun while it lasted. Later, I covered the Toronto Tornados of the Continental Basketball Association (I was fired from that post) and wrote free-lance stories for the Star's Business section and for the regional inserts.
Through all of it, including the later-reversed firing, I continued to subscribe. My morning STARTED with the Star. I watched the paper wane from a marathon read to a 20-minute peruse. But I still kept getting the paper. Star blood ran through my veins. The decades passed. Unfortunately I frequently had an issue with the ever-changing delivery people. I will not accept a paper thrown on the stoop or shoved into the mail box. The paper must go into the space between the front door and the screen door. No danger of it getting wet or blown away. No danger of it holding the mailbox open to the mercies of the weather. Nope, it has to go into the inside of the door. This of course would require complaining once in a while. Rarely would I need more than one complaint to have the newest delivery person adjust to my conditions.
Then, late last year, the idiot delivering in my area ignored FIVE complaints. I told the dolts managing the idiot that that that was the last straw. CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION. For the first time in 43 years, I wasn't getting a daily newspaper delivered to my house. And I was a 15-year veteran of the sports journalism wars. BUT, I had the Internet to fall back on. In fact, I was reading most of what I would read in the morning around 4am every day. I was not happy, but I wasn't unhappy. You can't take the computer into the reading room (well, I could, but I don't). On the other hand, I didn't have to bundle up newspaper for the trash weekly anymore.
I could live with the Internet Star. And I knew it was only a matter of time before the decision to switch would have been forced upon me anyways. I got out of the newspaper game just ahead of the unionization of the paper I worked for. I wouldn't have handled that well (I worked waaaay more than 40 hours a week and didn't take a vacation at one point for a 30-month stretch, things not possible in a union-interfering world). The newspaper business I grew up in doesn't exist anymore. It was dying even back then. It's been bruited about that 2020 will largely be a newspaper-free year.
But an unfunny thing happened on the way to the future. The Star decided to redo its web-site. And myopic designers and COMMITTEES (aka groups of people who don't actually USE what they are making) managed to mangle my reading experience. Why? Because the designing dufuses doing this re-design decided merely to transport the hard-copy reading experience to the screen. Function defines form. I 'think' that comes from Marshall McLuhan, but I certainly could be wrong. That said, the same design that works on the screen doesn't work on a big broadsheet paper. And, more importantly, vice versa. And yet, that was EXACTLY what the re-design accomplished. Ignore function, retain form. The reason? Impossible to figure out.
The reading experience at www.thestar.com has deteriorated incredibly with this 'beta' design that is, in fact, the final product. The reason is INSERTS, sidebars that add information to the story you are reading. These inserts are supposed to add bite-sized informational morsels. In the paper, you can glance at them and read them in a second or two while between paragraphs. Or you can read them after perusing the whole story. Not much effort beyond shifting your eyes. Works well on the printed page.
On the screen .... not so much. Look I run high-end graphics on my computer. I can see a WHOLE lot of the length of any screen page. I even have AutoPager set up in Firefox and a very easy-to-use scroll wheel. But reading the Star story is arduous at best. First, the story stars in a minuscule-width column on the left to allow for a picture on the right. Then it snakes back to the right to allow for an OBLIGATORY INSERT, which means a more than a minuscule, but not much more, width column of story text. Finally, at the end of the insert, we get the the full width of the column to fill with story.
And let me say something here. I trundle through this, including having to scroll BACK UP to read the insert, because the quality of the writing in The Star has never wavered. It's the best written. It's the most complete. It's the most informed. (of the major Toronto dailies).
But today, the straw broke my back. In particular, the feature on Tom Tango, written by Robert Cribb. Well done. Informative. News to me, and I follow the Blue Jays again, these days. And a pain in the posterior to read. The reason? The insert went on for four screens on my 2000x1148 screen with very, very minimized headers in Firefox. I work hard, very hard, to maximize the amount of the page I can actually see at any given time.
Enough. I've complained TO the idiots (maybe the same group that foisted Buzz on we Google Mail users). I get back a platitude expressing thanks for my opinion. Nothing to address my complaints. I have friends amongst the writers and I've sent them begging requests and screeds to address the fools. And they have. And they universally report back to me the most incredible of all statements. "Every time I mention some of these problems to our web editors, I'm told there is no problem. They're quite happy with this, believe it or not," emailed back one of my old workmates who now has a prominent column. If that is the case, and I believe my guy, then Cyril Kornbluth's "Marching Morons" has become less science fiction and more fact.
The Star, to the best of my investigation, is the ONLY newspaper that uses this 'template.' EVERY other site I have visited runs the notes-kind of sidebar where it needs to be in a web-site. At the END of the story. EVERY other site allows me to read the story in the fewest key-clicks/scrolls as possible. They understand ticking off viewers is NOT the way to keep their eyeballs. And eyeballs is how you sell advertising. You know, the money-making machine BEHIND the continued jobs everybody has, writers and web-designers alike.
Also, finding stories on The Star's sports front page is pretty easy. There's ten, I think. Big headlines, easy to find by-lines. Now, if you want something that happened a few hours ago and is no longer among the top ten stories time-wise, well good bleepin' luck. You'll be clicking yourself into apoplexy or using the search box and hoping you get the keywords right that they index on. The Toronto Sun, nowhere near the quality of writing of The Star, gets it right. Show the headlines and then include that MORE at the bottom of the time-sorted list of stories. Sure, the tabloid newspaper's stories often only run a few paragraphs, but you can get the news if you are interested in something that isn't one of the BIG stories of the moments. In effect, The Sun is more of a newspaper while The Star has become a wretched artistic exercise in making me work.
No more. As of today, I will be reading the columnists I currently read. I mean, Doug Smith is the hardest working sports reporter in Canada. I'm not going to kick him out of my life just because his employers are myopic and totally ignorant of the mess their minions are creating for them. But for news, no more. The Sun and the TV will suffice.
After 44 years, this love affair is over.
Later, in high school, I got a really good grade for writing a paper called "The Toronto Star - The Best Bargain for 25 Cents," after I visited the printing plant (then downtown) on a school trip. Later, I started making money from the paper as a High School Reporter, phoning in scores from various games at Bramalea Secondary School. After graduating and after my ever-so-short sojourn at Ryerson Polytech, I started hustling the scores to The Star for ALL high schools in Peel region. Did it for the Sun and Globe, too. In fact, for a very brief period of time, getting three bucks times three for each score for each school made me one of the top ten paid non-columnist sports reporters in Toronto. The gig didn't last out a year, but it was fun while it lasted. Later, I covered the Toronto Tornados of the Continental Basketball Association (I was fired from that post) and wrote free-lance stories for the Star's Business section and for the regional inserts.
Through all of it, including the later-reversed firing, I continued to subscribe. My morning STARTED with the Star. I watched the paper wane from a marathon read to a 20-minute peruse. But I still kept getting the paper. Star blood ran through my veins. The decades passed. Unfortunately I frequently had an issue with the ever-changing delivery people. I will not accept a paper thrown on the stoop or shoved into the mail box. The paper must go into the space between the front door and the screen door. No danger of it getting wet or blown away. No danger of it holding the mailbox open to the mercies of the weather. Nope, it has to go into the inside of the door. This of course would require complaining once in a while. Rarely would I need more than one complaint to have the newest delivery person adjust to my conditions.
Then, late last year, the idiot delivering in my area ignored FIVE complaints. I told the dolts managing the idiot that that that was the last straw. CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION. For the first time in 43 years, I wasn't getting a daily newspaper delivered to my house. And I was a 15-year veteran of the sports journalism wars. BUT, I had the Internet to fall back on. In fact, I was reading most of what I would read in the morning around 4am every day. I was not happy, but I wasn't unhappy. You can't take the computer into the reading room (well, I could, but I don't). On the other hand, I didn't have to bundle up newspaper for the trash weekly anymore.
I could live with the Internet Star. And I knew it was only a matter of time before the decision to switch would have been forced upon me anyways. I got out of the newspaper game just ahead of the unionization of the paper I worked for. I wouldn't have handled that well (I worked waaaay more than 40 hours a week and didn't take a vacation at one point for a 30-month stretch, things not possible in a union-interfering world). The newspaper business I grew up in doesn't exist anymore. It was dying even back then. It's been bruited about that 2020 will largely be a newspaper-free year.
But an unfunny thing happened on the way to the future. The Star decided to redo its web-site. And myopic designers and COMMITTEES (aka groups of people who don't actually USE what they are making) managed to mangle my reading experience. Why? Because the designing dufuses doing this re-design decided merely to transport the hard-copy reading experience to the screen. Function defines form. I 'think' that comes from Marshall McLuhan, but I certainly could be wrong. That said, the same design that works on the screen doesn't work on a big broadsheet paper. And, more importantly, vice versa. And yet, that was EXACTLY what the re-design accomplished. Ignore function, retain form. The reason? Impossible to figure out.
The reading experience at www.thestar.com has deteriorated incredibly with this 'beta' design that is, in fact, the final product. The reason is INSERTS, sidebars that add information to the story you are reading. These inserts are supposed to add bite-sized informational morsels. In the paper, you can glance at them and read them in a second or two while between paragraphs. Or you can read them after perusing the whole story. Not much effort beyond shifting your eyes. Works well on the printed page.
On the screen .... not so much. Look I run high-end graphics on my computer. I can see a WHOLE lot of the length of any screen page. I even have AutoPager set up in Firefox and a very easy-to-use scroll wheel. But reading the Star story is arduous at best. First, the story stars in a minuscule-width column on the left to allow for a picture on the right. Then it snakes back to the right to allow for an OBLIGATORY INSERT, which means a more than a minuscule, but not much more, width column of story text. Finally, at the end of the insert, we get the the full width of the column to fill with story.
And let me say something here. I trundle through this, including having to scroll BACK UP to read the insert, because the quality of the writing in The Star has never wavered. It's the best written. It's the most complete. It's the most informed. (of the major Toronto dailies).
But today, the straw broke my back. In particular, the feature on Tom Tango, written by Robert Cribb. Well done. Informative. News to me, and I follow the Blue Jays again, these days. And a pain in the posterior to read. The reason? The insert went on for four screens on my 2000x1148 screen with very, very minimized headers in Firefox. I work hard, very hard, to maximize the amount of the page I can actually see at any given time.
Enough. I've complained TO the idiots (maybe the same group that foisted Buzz on we Google Mail users). I get back a platitude expressing thanks for my opinion. Nothing to address my complaints. I have friends amongst the writers and I've sent them begging requests and screeds to address the fools. And they have. And they universally report back to me the most incredible of all statements. "Every time I mention some of these problems to our web editors, I'm told there is no problem. They're quite happy with this, believe it or not," emailed back one of my old workmates who now has a prominent column. If that is the case, and I believe my guy, then Cyril Kornbluth's "Marching Morons" has become less science fiction and more fact.
The Star, to the best of my investigation, is the ONLY newspaper that uses this 'template.' EVERY other site I have visited runs the notes-kind of sidebar where it needs to be in a web-site. At the END of the story. EVERY other site allows me to read the story in the fewest key-clicks/scrolls as possible. They understand ticking off viewers is NOT the way to keep their eyeballs. And eyeballs is how you sell advertising. You know, the money-making machine BEHIND the continued jobs everybody has, writers and web-designers alike.
Also, finding stories on The Star's sports front page is pretty easy. There's ten, I think. Big headlines, easy to find by-lines. Now, if you want something that happened a few hours ago and is no longer among the top ten stories time-wise, well good bleepin' luck. You'll be clicking yourself into apoplexy or using the search box and hoping you get the keywords right that they index on. The Toronto Sun, nowhere near the quality of writing of The Star, gets it right. Show the headlines and then include that MORE at the bottom of the time-sorted list of stories. Sure, the tabloid newspaper's stories often only run a few paragraphs, but you can get the news if you are interested in something that isn't one of the BIG stories of the moments. In effect, The Sun is more of a newspaper while The Star has become a wretched artistic exercise in making me work.
No more. As of today, I will be reading the columnists I currently read. I mean, Doug Smith is the hardest working sports reporter in Canada. I'm not going to kick him out of my life just because his employers are myopic and totally ignorant of the mess their minions are creating for them. But for news, no more. The Sun and the TV will suffice.
After 44 years, this love affair is over.
Friday, March 19, 2010
HARDWARE: One LESS Thing Against the iPad
When the iPad was announced (officially), I was mostly not interested. Part of the issues I had with the device was its lack of support for Adobe Flash. In fact, if I remember correctly, in the list of things I didn't like about the iPad, Flash was mentioned multiple times. I thought it was important, if only for YouTube's sake.
Turns out, I was wrong. YouTube and HTML5 will make Flash a non-issue. In fact, if it helps make Adobe a non-issue, given my dislike for the company in general, that will be a good idea. But where I was really wrong was the technical reason Steve Jobs had for banishing Flash from all iDevices for all time. It just WON'T WORK ON THEM. Ever.
What convinced me of that was a link in Jeff Duntemann's Contrapositive Diary pointing to THIS entry from Daniel Dilger, who does a blog called RoughlyDrafted Magazine. Boiling down the issue, it's because Flash is very mouse-specific, very single-pointer location specific. Given the multi-touch interface on the Apple hardware, Flash would go ballistic. Even if Flash can be updated/changed to accommodate multi-touch, the fact is that it has always been a solution that barely worked and had no opposition. It's resource-consuming (read battery draining) and buggy. But we've all put up with it because it was, more or less, the only choice we had.
Now, HTML5 is coming onto the scene. It's not controlled (read patented) by one company and Jobs likes that, probably more than any other 'feature' of the would-be Flash killer. YouTube, Hulu and the ilk will be offering HTML5 alongside Flash well before iPad v2.0 comes out.
The real question is, will there even be a Flash to worry about by iPad v3.0?
Turns out, I was wrong. YouTube and HTML5 will make Flash a non-issue. In fact, if it helps make Adobe a non-issue, given my dislike for the company in general, that will be a good idea. But where I was really wrong was the technical reason Steve Jobs had for banishing Flash from all iDevices for all time. It just WON'T WORK ON THEM. Ever.
What convinced me of that was a link in Jeff Duntemann's Contrapositive Diary pointing to THIS entry from Daniel Dilger, who does a blog called RoughlyDrafted Magazine. Boiling down the issue, it's because Flash is very mouse-specific, very single-pointer location specific. Given the multi-touch interface on the Apple hardware, Flash would go ballistic. Even if Flash can be updated/changed to accommodate multi-touch, the fact is that it has always been a solution that barely worked and had no opposition. It's resource-consuming (read battery draining) and buggy. But we've all put up with it because it was, more or less, the only choice we had.
Now, HTML5 is coming onto the scene. It's not controlled (read patented) by one company and Jobs likes that, probably more than any other 'feature' of the would-be Flash killer. YouTube, Hulu and the ilk will be offering HTML5 alongside Flash well before iPad v2.0 comes out.
The real question is, will there even be a Flash to worry about by iPad v3.0?
SPORTS: The Best Since Not As Good
Just heard it again. A broadcaster on the tube said, "West Virginia's second seed is the school's best since it was a fifth seed in ..."
Drives me absolutely up the wall. Who CARES when West Virginia was a fifth seed? When was the last time the Mountaineers were a second seed? Or a first seed? Or is this the best ranking West Virginia's EVER had going into an NCAA tournament? I don't think so. WVU once had the wondrous Jerry West leading the charge and you have to think the selection committee was as impressed by him, as the Basketball Hall of Fame voters eventually were. But I digress.
First, statements like the one made by the announcer (who matters not), are true but are intellectually lazy. It's like the researcher said, "Well, I've looked far enough back. Time to call it a day (minute?) and just say it's the best since ..." Secondly, it's LESS impressive than it can be. If, for example, the last time West Virginia was second or better seeded was back in West's day, then it's been a HALF-CENTURY, or close to it, since people were this gaga about the Mountaineers. That's a heck of a lot more impressive than a fifth seed some (small) number of years ago.
Occasionally, these lazy historical comparatives are even bordering on the actual wrong side of accuracy. You've ALL heard announcers intone some current mark is the best since ... well the exact same mark. But sometimes those historical milestones occurred in less games or more games, less time or more time. And the same numbers don't reflect accurate relationships.
Me, when I hear the word 'since,' I want the number from the history to be better. Not the same. Not sort of the same, but better. Or worst (New Jersey Nets in the race with the sad sack Philadelphia Seventy-Sixers for the most futile NBA season of the modern era) That way I can evaluate the best/worst SINCE evaluation without wanting to reach through the TV screen and shake the announcer to the point he takes it out on the researcher.
The lazy researcher.
Drives me absolutely up the wall. Who CARES when West Virginia was a fifth seed? When was the last time the Mountaineers were a second seed? Or a first seed? Or is this the best ranking West Virginia's EVER had going into an NCAA tournament? I don't think so. WVU once had the wondrous Jerry West leading the charge and you have to think the selection committee was as impressed by him, as the Basketball Hall of Fame voters eventually were. But I digress.
First, statements like the one made by the announcer (who matters not), are true but are intellectually lazy. It's like the researcher said, "Well, I've looked far enough back. Time to call it a day (minute?) and just say it's the best since ..." Secondly, it's LESS impressive than it can be. If, for example, the last time West Virginia was second or better seeded was back in West's day, then it's been a HALF-CENTURY, or close to it, since people were this gaga about the Mountaineers. That's a heck of a lot more impressive than a fifth seed some (small) number of years ago.
Occasionally, these lazy historical comparatives are even bordering on the actual wrong side of accuracy. You've ALL heard announcers intone some current mark is the best since ... well the exact same mark. But sometimes those historical milestones occurred in less games or more games, less time or more time. And the same numbers don't reflect accurate relationships.
Me, when I hear the word 'since,' I want the number from the history to be better. Not the same. Not sort of the same, but better. Or worst (New Jersey Nets in the race with the sad sack Philadelphia Seventy-Sixers for the most futile NBA season of the modern era) That way I can evaluate the best/worst SINCE evaluation without wanting to reach through the TV screen and shake the announcer to the point he takes it out on the researcher.
The lazy researcher.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
SPORTS: You've Heard It Before, ROCK, CHALK JAYHAWK!
Rising my head above water for a nonce, it's time to get my March Madness picks made publicly, in order to bask in the afterglow of 'Told Ya So!'
Yes, I am wearing my Kansas Jayhawks Championship Tee-shirt as I proudly name this year's version of the Jayhawks as the national champion. I think I have something like eighty poolsheets going (some of them progressive, being made before each round) and Kansas wears the crown in, ohhhh, about 76 of them. That's despite arguably the most stacked region to tiptoe through, including the only two teams that have bested Kansas this year. Gotta admire the sense of humour demonstrated by the selection committee. I don't think it's much possible that Tennessee will earn a rematch, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility to see Oklahoma State make the regional final. Realistically, it'll be either Ohio State or Georgetown who will see Kansas cut the region nets for souvenirs. I actually like Georgetown here because I'm a big Greg Monroe fan.
Now, who will play Kansas in the final. I'm betting it won't be Kentucky, who has a minefield of chances to slip up before the big Monday night in Indy. In my voluminous pool sheets, I have Kentucky losing in the second round a couple of times, in the third round a bunch of times, in the fourth round a bunch more times, in the semi-finals a few times and not a all a couple of times. The Wildcats are a wild mix of talent and youthful inexperience. And somehow, that means I think Bobby Knight gets a laugh at John Calipari's expense.
Let's face it, when you have two of the top four picks in this summer's NBA draft, at least two other first round talents and a guy off the bench who might go in the draft too, you know Kentucky has championship level talent. But there is something to ponder. In anointing John Wall player of the year before we ever saw the best of Ohio State's Evan Turner, we also glossed over the warts on Kentucky. This is a team that runs and guns and depends on the other wonder frosh, Demarcus Cousins, and late lottery pick Patrick Patterson, to play volleyball with the offensive rebounds. But in their losses, and the near losses to a non-tourney team like Mississippi State, the formula for beating Kentucky became all too clear. They don't shoot threes all that well, are so-so at the charity stripe and don't retain focus all that well on defence when the other team stalls (the truer way of saying, patience on offence).
Remember that humour I mention the selection committee showed earlier. Well, they must all be Bobby Knight fan club members. Cuz look at this route to the title. After the opening round practice slash game for Kentucky, the Wildcats will likely get Texas, merely the top-ranked team in the country two months ago. If the Longhorns suddenly get serious and focus, it will be a heck of a game and no guarantees who wins. Assuming Kentucky does in Texas, next in line is Wisconsin, the defensive-minded demons coached by Bo Ryan. Well THAT's not going to be fun. Wisconsin doesn't make many mistakes. The Badgers will air the ball out and they've got the three-point threats and interior offence to make that work. Then on defence, the Badgers will pack the paint and dare Wall and company to hoist up shots (and make a few). Oh, and if Kentucky falls behind and has to foul Wisconsin, the Badgers will make their free throws. Kentucky doesn't get any breaks just getting by Wisconsin, as West Virginia will be MORE than happy to take a shot at ending Wall's collegiate career. The Mountaineers have their own potential draftees in Da'Sean Butler and Devin Ebanks and they might be playing the best ball in the best league in the country right now. Plus, coach Bob Huggins has that number two seed to fire up his club. Knowing the formula will make Huggins' game plan simple.
But let's say Kentucky walks the walk through the minefield. Come Final Four Saturday, who will Kentucky see wearing blue and white too? Yep, the Duke Blue Devils. Let's see how THEY fit the formula. Outside shooting? Check. Interior presence? Check, and the two Plumlee Brothers are in a race for most improved players from season start to season finish. Ability to work the clock? Check. Well-coached defensive schemes that will off-set the frontcourt Kentucky strongmen? Check. Experience? Check, what with most all the players having multiple NCAA's experience while the Wildcats are so young, if you add up ALL the years of experience their top six players have, it doesn't hit double-digits. And that doesn't include anything but a cup of coffee for Patterson as far as March Madness goes. Although getting that far will obviate another Kentucky peculiarity (the team didn't play all that many good teams, especially away from the friendly confines of Rupp Arena) so there will be some decent wins on their resume by then.
Give them the win over Duke (I'm actually betting mostly that West Virginia does them in, first), the Wildcats are met finally by an even more talented team in Kansas. I think Sherron Collins neutralizes Wall, the bigger Wildcats discover why Cole Aldrich is the best true collegiate center in the country and there is no shining moment for the bluegrass boys.
So, go ahead and pick where you think Kentucky loses, if at all. As I mentioned I think West Virginia gets them and then does in Duke in the national semi-final. A glorious season comes up short in losing to Kansas in the final, but that's what's going to happen.
The other Final Four participant? Syracuse, who really only needs to get by a second-round tripwire in Gonzaga. And that's only because of injury concerns. Syracuse has been the most cohesive unit in the country over the season and there just isn't anybody in their bracket who will give them the heebie jeebies. In fact, I think BYU might be their regional final opponent two weekends from now.
All in all, I'm expecting a rash of favourites winning. Sure, I've got some variety in my various sheets. Afterall, why repeat the same picks more than once, when a perfect sheet can be worth a million bucks. For the usual nine-eight mismatches (the nines win 54 per cent of the time), I like Northern Iowa and Louisville. The five-twelve to watch is UTEP beating a good Butler team, since there has to be one of those, or the tournament isn't complete. But that's the only one that appeals. A LOT of OTHER people like Utah State and especially Cornell to continue that odd five-twelve thing. But I don't. Texas A&M is good and Cornell has a bad match-up in their model, Temple. It'll be close in both games but the higher seeds will win. I like Saint Mary's to give the ten's a win and that's about it early. I didn't mention upset darlings Sienna, who have a badly wounded Purdue in a four-thirteen that a LOT of people are jumping all over, including me, until I looked at it more intently.
First, pre-Robbie Hummel injury, Purdue was a one-seed in the making. Sure, when another injury Saturday led to the Boilermakers finally giving up the ghost and getting pasted in the Big Ten semis, it appeared a four-seed might have been too high. I mean, come on, ELEVEN POINTS in the first half!! But as good as Hummel is/was, as problematical as a hobbling Lew Jackson will be, this is still a very talented and well-coached team. Yes, Sienna's good and has been to the second round as a double-digit seed the last two years. But the Saints have their OWN injury problems right now. And with that factor to take into account, I'm calling for Purdue over Sienna almost right across my boards. But I have them losing to Texas A&M right after that.
So that's the scoop three weeks in advance. It's Kansas over West Virgina for the title and Syracuse and Duke joining West Virgina one win short of a dream come true.
Yes, I am wearing my Kansas Jayhawks Championship Tee-shirt as I proudly name this year's version of the Jayhawks as the national champion. I think I have something like eighty poolsheets going (some of them progressive, being made before each round) and Kansas wears the crown in, ohhhh, about 76 of them. That's despite arguably the most stacked region to tiptoe through, including the only two teams that have bested Kansas this year. Gotta admire the sense of humour demonstrated by the selection committee. I don't think it's much possible that Tennessee will earn a rematch, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility to see Oklahoma State make the regional final. Realistically, it'll be either Ohio State or Georgetown who will see Kansas cut the region nets for souvenirs. I actually like Georgetown here because I'm a big Greg Monroe fan.
Now, who will play Kansas in the final. I'm betting it won't be Kentucky, who has a minefield of chances to slip up before the big Monday night in Indy. In my voluminous pool sheets, I have Kentucky losing in the second round a couple of times, in the third round a bunch of times, in the fourth round a bunch more times, in the semi-finals a few times and not a all a couple of times. The Wildcats are a wild mix of talent and youthful inexperience. And somehow, that means I think Bobby Knight gets a laugh at John Calipari's expense.
Let's face it, when you have two of the top four picks in this summer's NBA draft, at least two other first round talents and a guy off the bench who might go in the draft too, you know Kentucky has championship level talent. But there is something to ponder. In anointing John Wall player of the year before we ever saw the best of Ohio State's Evan Turner, we also glossed over the warts on Kentucky. This is a team that runs and guns and depends on the other wonder frosh, Demarcus Cousins, and late lottery pick Patrick Patterson, to play volleyball with the offensive rebounds. But in their losses, and the near losses to a non-tourney team like Mississippi State, the formula for beating Kentucky became all too clear. They don't shoot threes all that well, are so-so at the charity stripe and don't retain focus all that well on defence when the other team stalls (the truer way of saying, patience on offence).
Remember that humour I mention the selection committee showed earlier. Well, they must all be Bobby Knight fan club members. Cuz look at this route to the title. After the opening round practice slash game for Kentucky, the Wildcats will likely get Texas, merely the top-ranked team in the country two months ago. If the Longhorns suddenly get serious and focus, it will be a heck of a game and no guarantees who wins. Assuming Kentucky does in Texas, next in line is Wisconsin, the defensive-minded demons coached by Bo Ryan. Well THAT's not going to be fun. Wisconsin doesn't make many mistakes. The Badgers will air the ball out and they've got the three-point threats and interior offence to make that work. Then on defence, the Badgers will pack the paint and dare Wall and company to hoist up shots (and make a few). Oh, and if Kentucky falls behind and has to foul Wisconsin, the Badgers will make their free throws. Kentucky doesn't get any breaks just getting by Wisconsin, as West Virginia will be MORE than happy to take a shot at ending Wall's collegiate career. The Mountaineers have their own potential draftees in Da'Sean Butler and Devin Ebanks and they might be playing the best ball in the best league in the country right now. Plus, coach Bob Huggins has that number two seed to fire up his club. Knowing the formula will make Huggins' game plan simple.
But let's say Kentucky walks the walk through the minefield. Come Final Four Saturday, who will Kentucky see wearing blue and white too? Yep, the Duke Blue Devils. Let's see how THEY fit the formula. Outside shooting? Check. Interior presence? Check, and the two Plumlee Brothers are in a race for most improved players from season start to season finish. Ability to work the clock? Check. Well-coached defensive schemes that will off-set the frontcourt Kentucky strongmen? Check. Experience? Check, what with most all the players having multiple NCAA's experience while the Wildcats are so young, if you add up ALL the years of experience their top six players have, it doesn't hit double-digits. And that doesn't include anything but a cup of coffee for Patterson as far as March Madness goes. Although getting that far will obviate another Kentucky peculiarity (the team didn't play all that many good teams, especially away from the friendly confines of Rupp Arena) so there will be some decent wins on their resume by then.
Give them the win over Duke (I'm actually betting mostly that West Virginia does them in, first), the Wildcats are met finally by an even more talented team in Kansas. I think Sherron Collins neutralizes Wall, the bigger Wildcats discover why Cole Aldrich is the best true collegiate center in the country and there is no shining moment for the bluegrass boys.
So, go ahead and pick where you think Kentucky loses, if at all. As I mentioned I think West Virginia gets them and then does in Duke in the national semi-final. A glorious season comes up short in losing to Kansas in the final, but that's what's going to happen.
The other Final Four participant? Syracuse, who really only needs to get by a second-round tripwire in Gonzaga. And that's only because of injury concerns. Syracuse has been the most cohesive unit in the country over the season and there just isn't anybody in their bracket who will give them the heebie jeebies. In fact, I think BYU might be their regional final opponent two weekends from now.
All in all, I'm expecting a rash of favourites winning. Sure, I've got some variety in my various sheets. Afterall, why repeat the same picks more than once, when a perfect sheet can be worth a million bucks. For the usual nine-eight mismatches (the nines win 54 per cent of the time), I like Northern Iowa and Louisville. The five-twelve to watch is UTEP beating a good Butler team, since there has to be one of those, or the tournament isn't complete. But that's the only one that appeals. A LOT of OTHER people like Utah State and especially Cornell to continue that odd five-twelve thing. But I don't. Texas A&M is good and Cornell has a bad match-up in their model, Temple. It'll be close in both games but the higher seeds will win. I like Saint Mary's to give the ten's a win and that's about it early. I didn't mention upset darlings Sienna, who have a badly wounded Purdue in a four-thirteen that a LOT of people are jumping all over, including me, until I looked at it more intently.
First, pre-Robbie Hummel injury, Purdue was a one-seed in the making. Sure, when another injury Saturday led to the Boilermakers finally giving up the ghost and getting pasted in the Big Ten semis, it appeared a four-seed might have been too high. I mean, come on, ELEVEN POINTS in the first half!! But as good as Hummel is/was, as problematical as a hobbling Lew Jackson will be, this is still a very talented and well-coached team. Yes, Sienna's good and has been to the second round as a double-digit seed the last two years. But the Saints have their OWN injury problems right now. And with that factor to take into account, I'm calling for Purdue over Sienna almost right across my boards. But I have them losing to Texas A&M right after that.
So that's the scoop three weeks in advance. It's Kansas over West Virgina for the title and Syracuse and Duke joining West Virgina one win short of a dream come true.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
LIFE: Please and Thank You
I was reading Jeffrey Toobin's fine piece on American Supreme Court Justive John Paul Stevens in The New Yorker (You can read it on line here), when I came across Toobin's detailing of one of Stevens' habits. "Stevens tends to weigh in at oral argument at around the halfway point, and he does something that none of his colleagues do: he asks permission. 'May I ask you a question?' or 'May I ask you this?' "
My thoughts immediately turned back to the first boss I ever had. Ken Giles. The legendary, hall of famer Sports Editor of the Brampton Guardian (and of the Bramalea Guardian, which is where I started my sports writing career while in Grade Ten at Bramalea Secondary School). In the decade and a half that he was my boss, he NEVER, EVER told me to do anything! Not once. EVERY single command was put into the form of a question. Would you ... Can you ... Always a question that I never, of course, ever declined. But it was a matter of civility to a most civilized man. And he'd say please a lot too. And this from a man who the town named an arena after. And it's the Ken Giles Arena, NOT the Ken Giles Memorial Arena.
It shaped my professional life. I assumed all bosses behaved similarly. Heck, even the Boss's boss, tended to behave similarly. Robert King, the publisher through much of my Guardian years, also believed in the principle of not barking out commands. I can be forgiven if I thought business worked that way.
It doesn't, of course.
As a result, these two men are undoubtedly responsible for my inability to hang onto a job for much of the last three decades. Just kidding! I'm hardcore unemployable. Which is why I work for myself and only get into verbal battles with myself these days. But my professional upbringing has had an effect on how I do handle my interactions with fellow workers (the bosses still have 'issues' with me). As bellicose as I am, and trust me, I am, I try to say please and make the request a form of question. And I strain to remember to say thank you, even when, theoretically, I'm thanking them for doing their job. I don't always succeed.
Afterall, I'm not Ken Giles.
My thoughts immediately turned back to the first boss I ever had. Ken Giles. The legendary, hall of famer Sports Editor of the Brampton Guardian (and of the Bramalea Guardian, which is where I started my sports writing career while in Grade Ten at Bramalea Secondary School). In the decade and a half that he was my boss, he NEVER, EVER told me to do anything! Not once. EVERY single command was put into the form of a question. Would you ... Can you ... Always a question that I never, of course, ever declined. But it was a matter of civility to a most civilized man. And he'd say please a lot too. And this from a man who the town named an arena after. And it's the Ken Giles Arena, NOT the Ken Giles Memorial Arena.
It shaped my professional life. I assumed all bosses behaved similarly. Heck, even the Boss's boss, tended to behave similarly. Robert King, the publisher through much of my Guardian years, also believed in the principle of not barking out commands. I can be forgiven if I thought business worked that way.
It doesn't, of course.
As a result, these two men are undoubtedly responsible for my inability to hang onto a job for much of the last three decades. Just kidding! I'm hardcore unemployable. Which is why I work for myself and only get into verbal battles with myself these days. But my professional upbringing has had an effect on how I do handle my interactions with fellow workers (the bosses still have 'issues' with me). As bellicose as I am, and trust me, I am, I try to say please and make the request a form of question. And I strain to remember to say thank you, even when, theoretically, I'm thanking them for doing their job. I don't always succeed.
Afterall, I'm not Ken Giles.
Monday, March 15, 2010
BOOKS/MOVIES: Two of My Favourite Ladies
Kristine Katherine Rusch writes the great Retrieval Artist science fiction mysteries. She also writes a blog that is part personal journal and part an on-going book called, The Freelancer's Survival Guide. Stay for the personal anecdotes, but come for the Guide if you have the slightest urge to go out on your own, as a writer or what have you.
Sunday's entry was on Risk and mentioned Sandra Bullock prominently. I have been remiss in not expressing public congratulations to Sandy for her win last Sunday at the Oscars. I've seen The Blind Side and enjoyed it a lot. But then I'm pre-disposed to liking movies starring Bullock, having worked with her in the misty ancient ages of last century. It was only the once and only for the briefest of times. But I became a life-long fan and haven't felt the poorer for it. Heck, I even like a few of her bombs (and there have been a few). You could make the case that the statute was a lifetime achievement award because every single crew person on her movies loves her, but karma's not always a bitch. Nice women don't always finish last, Mr. Durocher. Occasionally they win the big prize.
Okay, I've digressed a bit. No apologies. Now, back to KK Rusch.
I've been unemployed now for closing in on 30 years. I haven't gotten rich, to the eternal unhappiness of some related minds. But I have been secure enough to turn down big-paying jobs. Twice, I've kicked away six-figure jobs because I didn't like working with the people I would have had to work with. I've fired clients for wasting my time. And the only time I ever regretted it was the time it took me away from Laura. Oh, and the original first quitting, that of my position as Assistant Sports Editor at the Brampton Guardian newspaper caused me a few wistful thoughts. But otherwise, I've been okay with being unemployed and underemployed.
And KK does a good job of revealing how okay she is currently with having turned down a high-paying gig because of working conditions and because she would have been ON somebody's payroll, in effect. And subject to their whims. Rather than give up her independence, she opted to turn down the gig with not much more than a passing thought or two. That's when you KNOW you've become a freelancer. And that realization is like winning an award. It's called freedom.
As I've said, these two ladies produce work I enjoy. Thanks and congratulations, ladies. Keep it up.
Sunday's entry was on Risk and mentioned Sandra Bullock prominently. I have been remiss in not expressing public congratulations to Sandy for her win last Sunday at the Oscars. I've seen The Blind Side and enjoyed it a lot. But then I'm pre-disposed to liking movies starring Bullock, having worked with her in the misty ancient ages of last century. It was only the once and only for the briefest of times. But I became a life-long fan and haven't felt the poorer for it. Heck, I even like a few of her bombs (and there have been a few). You could make the case that the statute was a lifetime achievement award because every single crew person on her movies loves her, but karma's not always a bitch. Nice women don't always finish last, Mr. Durocher. Occasionally they win the big prize.
Okay, I've digressed a bit. No apologies. Now, back to KK Rusch.
I've been unemployed now for closing in on 30 years. I haven't gotten rich, to the eternal unhappiness of some related minds. But I have been secure enough to turn down big-paying jobs. Twice, I've kicked away six-figure jobs because I didn't like working with the people I would have had to work with. I've fired clients for wasting my time. And the only time I ever regretted it was the time it took me away from Laura. Oh, and the original first quitting, that of my position as Assistant Sports Editor at the Brampton Guardian newspaper caused me a few wistful thoughts. But otherwise, I've been okay with being unemployed and underemployed.
And KK does a good job of revealing how okay she is currently with having turned down a high-paying gig because of working conditions and because she would have been ON somebody's payroll, in effect. And subject to their whims. Rather than give up her independence, she opted to turn down the gig with not much more than a passing thought or two. That's when you KNOW you've become a freelancer. And that realization is like winning an award. It's called freedom.
As I've said, these two ladies produce work I enjoy. Thanks and congratulations, ladies. Keep it up.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
BLOGGING: Other Changes I Discovered
There are some other changes to the blog I've just discovered. Comments will be a little less spam-filled. Yeah, there's been a LOT of crap from Anonymous ignoramuses. Ignoramusii? At any rate, you have to be identifiable and you have to answer one of those word picture thingies to post a comment. Given the dearth of actual real life comment, that won't be too much of an imposition.
BLOGGING: No, I'm NOT Dead
Earlier this year, I got phone calls wondering if I was dead. No, NOT because of inactivity in this blog, but because news of bridge player Gary Mugford's passing was going around. It was true. But it was the OTHER Gary Mugford who had recently died. A better man than I, Gary R. Mugford was a man who saved lives as a fireman and who happened to play a pretty good game of bridge. I met him at a tournament in Jordan and we actually did play in a Canadian Nationals one year as a lark. He will be sadly missed.
This blog has suffered from the recent spate of work-related tasks. In addition to my eons-long programming project at the main customer, we had to virtually re-do the whole network after a virus attack hit their network hard in early February. We had to replace 85 per cent of the network. And by we, I mean Patrick did most of it and I configured software after the fact. That was three weeks of 16-hour workdays with not much time for programming. Or for watching the Olympics. We were doing the last of the physical installs right about the time Sidney Crosby scored the winning goal in the Game That Mattered. Thus, this old sports reporter was one of the few Canadians not watching the gold medal game. Of course, I wouldn't have anyways. I vowed not to watch any Canadian team with that oaf Dany Heatley wearing the national colours and I was true to my word. And I WAS available to watch all but that gold medal game and chose not to. Good for Sid the Kid, Luongo and the rest, bad for that bozo who, I guess, will get his comeuppance come playoff time.
At any rate, I was stirred to make this quick (for me) post because of changes here at Blogger. I was, more or less, asked to 'freshen' up my site design. I did the least amount possible. But here it is. I DO like that I was able to switch the guides to the left. I think it's idiotic to place menus on the right due to differences in user screen dimensions. And the column now stretches to accommodate the width you have. In MOST cases, that should mean more text per line, more text per screen and less scrolling. Don't like the colours all that much, but fiddling around with things will have to wait. Otherwise, I don't hate the changes.
When will this blog pick up again? Don't know. I'm decompressing this week. Well three days. Then it's March Madness. But the programming project that will never end beckons with a new beta test target of the end of the month (training in it has to be finished by the end of April). Another client has been really, really great at putting off an update cuz both he and I hate the idiots forcing the update. And the old POS software is due for an upgrade, part of which is already written.
What's that Chinese curse? May you live in interesting times! Well....
This blog has suffered from the recent spate of work-related tasks. In addition to my eons-long programming project at the main customer, we had to virtually re-do the whole network after a virus attack hit their network hard in early February. We had to replace 85 per cent of the network. And by we, I mean Patrick did most of it and I configured software after the fact. That was three weeks of 16-hour workdays with not much time for programming. Or for watching the Olympics. We were doing the last of the physical installs right about the time Sidney Crosby scored the winning goal in the Game That Mattered. Thus, this old sports reporter was one of the few Canadians not watching the gold medal game. Of course, I wouldn't have anyways. I vowed not to watch any Canadian team with that oaf Dany Heatley wearing the national colours and I was true to my word. And I WAS available to watch all but that gold medal game and chose not to. Good for Sid the Kid, Luongo and the rest, bad for that bozo who, I guess, will get his comeuppance come playoff time.
At any rate, I was stirred to make this quick (for me) post because of changes here at Blogger. I was, more or less, asked to 'freshen' up my site design. I did the least amount possible. But here it is. I DO like that I was able to switch the guides to the left. I think it's idiotic to place menus on the right due to differences in user screen dimensions. And the column now stretches to accommodate the width you have. In MOST cases, that should mean more text per line, more text per screen and less scrolling. Don't like the colours all that much, but fiddling around with things will have to wait. Otherwise, I don't hate the changes.
When will this blog pick up again? Don't know. I'm decompressing this week. Well three days. Then it's March Madness. But the programming project that will never end beckons with a new beta test target of the end of the month (training in it has to be finished by the end of April). Another client has been really, really great at putting off an update cuz both he and I hate the idiots forcing the update. And the old POS software is due for an upgrade, part of which is already written.
What's that Chinese curse? May you live in interesting times! Well....
Thursday, February 18, 2010
SOFTWARE: More Buzz on Buzz
Okay, Google is getting it. Up one side and down the other side. And the company seems to be getting that the world, minus its own indentured employees, does not want Buzz. So, they've taken one more step in making it possible to make Buzz go away.
Now, when you click the Turn Buzz Off link at the very bottom of your GMail page, it gives you the ability to DISABLE Buzz, which is different than turning it off. GMail has been, bluntly, a little bit slow to respond of late. And as it turns out, although I'd turned Buzz off, that was just the Buzz display! So, I turned Buzz back on (the only choice now showing at the bottom) and then immediately turned it back off. THIS time, I got the brand new option to disable the sucker. Which I did. Ignored the various warnings and okayed the deletion forever of my Buzz info.
I feel less exposed than ever. And this for a guy who rants about all kinds of things here in this blog, which, by the way, wasn't hampered in any way by the decision to turn Buzz off permanently.
At least that's so, if your reading this.
Now, when you click the Turn Buzz Off link at the very bottom of your GMail page, it gives you the ability to DISABLE Buzz, which is different than turning it off. GMail has been, bluntly, a little bit slow to respond of late. And as it turns out, although I'd turned Buzz off, that was just the Buzz display! So, I turned Buzz back on (the only choice now showing at the bottom) and then immediately turned it back off. THIS time, I got the brand new option to disable the sucker. Which I did. Ignored the various warnings and okayed the deletion forever of my Buzz info.
I feel less exposed than ever. And this for a guy who rants about all kinds of things here in this blog, which, by the way, wasn't hampered in any way by the decision to turn Buzz off permanently.
At least that's so, if your reading this.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
SOFTWARE: Where IS That Bloat Coming From?
I'm paranoid. Proud to admit it. And one of the things bothering me lately was why my nightly backups of my C: Drive were so big. As it turns out, the guilty culprit was ZoneAlarm. It had created a debugging log that was eight GIGS in size. Not megabytes, GIGABYTES!
The fact of the matter is that I try to keep C: clean and tight. Nothing gets installed by choice on C:\. That doesn't mean that it doesn't grow like a weed, even running Crap Cleaner once a week. Every set of Microsoft Updates requires creating rollback points (which you MIGHT have had to use this past Tuesday when the Clumsy Empire managed to foul up many XP installations). There are temp files aplenty that don't seem all that temporary and print files and registry changes and ... well, it's all a Sisyphean task when you really think about it. But try I must.
Once I identified the culprit, while testing out Space Sniffer (freeware, here), I had to head back to the 'net to find out what the tvdebug.log file was. And I found information here, courtesy of WhitPhil of Whitby ON (good Canadian city). You can check it out, but here is the gist of the solution:
Then, when things have been righted, you know what to do. The only difference is that after deleting the ZoneAlarm-created TVdebug.log monster, you can just copy over the ersatz copy you made, renaming it in the process. No more notepad.
See there IS a method to my madness!
[PS] Oh, and the savings in my backups for having gotten rid of the file? Just 110 megs. Apparently the TVdebug.log file compresses down a lot. A LOT of lot! Not much in the scheme of things, but one that lets me put my C:\ backup on two DVDs, not two and a bit (read as THREE) DVDs.
The fact of the matter is that I try to keep C: clean and tight. Nothing gets installed by choice on C:\. That doesn't mean that it doesn't grow like a weed, even running Crap Cleaner once a week. Every set of Microsoft Updates requires creating rollback points (which you MIGHT have had to use this past Tuesday when the Clumsy Empire managed to foul up many XP installations). There are temp files aplenty that don't seem all that temporary and print files and registry changes and ... well, it's all a Sisyphean task when you really think about it. But try I must.
Once I identified the culprit, while testing out Space Sniffer (freeware, here), I had to head back to the 'net to find out what the tvdebug.log file was. And I found information here, courtesy of WhitPhil of Whitby ON (good Canadian city). You can check it out, but here is the gist of the solution:
- While holding down the Control and Shift keys together, right click on the ZA icon in your system tray.
- Choose Set Debug Level.
- Select OFF in the Debug Categories section and press OK.
- Now right click on the Zone Alarm icon and choose to shut it down.
- Now, use your File Explorer to go to C:\Windows\Internet Logs and locate the TVdebug.log on your computer.
- For a second, be amazed at how big the file is. Now, amazement over, delete it!
- Run Notepad.exe (you can use the Start|Run menu selection to type in notepad and hit enter)
- Write a few lines describing what this is and save the file to C:\Windows\Internet Logs as TVdebug.log
- Make a copy of the file by right clicking on it and selecting copy.
- Paste that copy into the folder by right clicking and choosing paste. (Paranoid, remember?)
- Select both files using whatever method you prefer.
- Right click and choose Properties.
- Click ON the box that says Read-Only and press OK.
- Now, go back to your start menu and restart ZoneAlarm. (actually, it's actually best you start the computer at this point, but it MIGHT work just restarting ZoneAlarm).
- And finally, because you are supposed to be as paranoid as I am, follow steps 1 and 2 to see if the debug level is, indeed, set to off. Click Cancel to get out of that window, happy in the knowledge you have saved your C:\ drive from bloat beyond belief.
Then, when things have been righted, you know what to do. The only difference is that after deleting the ZoneAlarm-created TVdebug.log monster, you can just copy over the ersatz copy you made, renaming it in the process. No more notepad.
See there IS a method to my madness!
[PS] Oh, and the savings in my backups for having gotten rid of the file? Just 110 megs. Apparently the TVdebug.log file compresses down a lot. A LOT of lot! Not much in the scheme of things, but one that lets me put my C:\ backup on two DVDs, not two and a bit (read as THREE) DVDs.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
SOFTWARE: Google ... Buzz OFF!
I need my attention diverted like I need massive dental surgery. It MIGHT be a good idea, but I kind of doubt it. So, it was with some annoyance this week that I got a notice when opening gmail.com that I was now the proud possessor of a new-fangled Buzz account.
[moments of crude language and rude noises follow]
I spent some minutes trying to extricate myself from this gift. Turned anything and everything private I could find and then went on about my business. Although I did take another minute or two to explore my vocabulary list of words my mother would wash my mouth with soap for uttering.
Today, I read in several places of the solution to my 'problem.' Appearing now at the bottom of your gmail page, you should see a link to TURN OFF BUZZ, conveniently located just above the link to the privacy policy that somehow allowed Google to trample ALL over my privacy this week. Click on that and your immediate concerns with Buzz are gone.
Obviously, Buzz has gone over like a lead balloon. It's been scorned and scorched by just about the whole internet community. The first words out of Google HQ is that there will be a separate spin-off of Buzz, it's Facebook/Twitter conglomerated anti-venom. But most people want the spin-off to be complete, allowing interested folk to link BACK to gmail, but not to use gmail as the linchpin of the new service. This is so very Microsoft of Google, don't you think? Just announcing the product and shoving it down my throat doesn't make me a very happy Googler.
Eventually, the 'do no evil' mantra will lead to Buzz, buzzing off. After all, shouldn't Google be spending more time fending off Chinese government hackers rather than OPENING UP my privacy to any random hacker, regardless of national affiliation?
Bah, humbug.
[moments of crude language and rude noises follow]
I spent some minutes trying to extricate myself from this gift. Turned anything and everything private I could find and then went on about my business. Although I did take another minute or two to explore my vocabulary list of words my mother would wash my mouth with soap for uttering.
Today, I read in several places of the solution to my 'problem.' Appearing now at the bottom of your gmail page, you should see a link to TURN OFF BUZZ, conveniently located just above the link to the privacy policy that somehow allowed Google to trample ALL over my privacy this week. Click on that and your immediate concerns with Buzz are gone.
Obviously, Buzz has gone over like a lead balloon. It's been scorned and scorched by just about the whole internet community. The first words out of Google HQ is that there will be a separate spin-off of Buzz, it's Facebook/Twitter conglomerated anti-venom. But most people want the spin-off to be complete, allowing interested folk to link BACK to gmail, but not to use gmail as the linchpin of the new service. This is so very Microsoft of Google, don't you think? Just announcing the product and shoving it down my throat doesn't make me a very happy Googler.
Eventually, the 'do no evil' mantra will lead to Buzz, buzzing off. After all, shouldn't Google be spending more time fending off Chinese government hackers rather than OPENING UP my privacy to any random hacker, regardless of national affiliation?
Bah, humbug.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
LIFE: An Obituary
Brendan Burke died in a car accident last night. The world isn't quite as good as it was 24 hours ago. My sympathies and sorrows to the Burke family. Let's hope the mental midgets out there don't try to associate his tragically early death with ...
Just promise if you hear anybody say such crap that you'll punch them in the face. Hard.
Boy this is a lousy way to start a day.
Just promise if you hear anybody say such crap that you'll punch them in the face. Hard.
Boy this is a lousy way to start a day.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
COMPUTERS: The iPad ... Meh!
Okay, after two nap-breaking phone calls and two emails, I'd best get this out of the way. There is no need for the iPad that I can think of. At least in my life.
In fact, Paul Thurrot savaged the product in his blog. Thurrot's a Windows guy but he certainly has more than his share of respect and support for Apple's various platforms. His Windows Weekly show on twit.tv can often be confused with an apple-centric show like macbreak weekly. And, if you look around, you'll see he's not in the minority on this point of view about the iPad. Technologically, it's just an oversized iPod Touch.
I don't own a mobile phone nor any 3G device that serves as a music/video player. Basically, I don't roam much, so I don't need one. And if I DO find myself somewhere outside the cave, my trusty Sony Clie PDA still does everything I need. I can read books on it (happily and even without leaving the house) and I have all kinds of databases that I access regularly ... shopping lists, company passwords, etc. So even if they gave me the high end iPad (which will hit $1200CDN when you add the accessories and service contracts ... before tax), I wouldn't use it. It offers me nothing I don't have here at the Castle of Confusion. And the low-end price-point version can be replaced by a 70 buck video player and a decent smart phone. That'll be about half the price of the entry-level iPad.
That said, and everybody agrees, the things will sell like hot cakes to the Apple Sheep. There's a cachet to having the latest niftiest bright shiny toy. And I'm okay with that.
There will be some benefits that will then accrue to me and mine. First, when v2 of the iPad comes out and corrects the lack of flash video, the lack of a camera, the idiotic non-16x9 ration display, the plan to make just about all the software an extra added cost and the current lack of software especially developed FOR the larger-than-iPod Touch screen (Doubling (really quadrupling) the smaller device's graphics will get old ... and complained about real quick), that's when the device will merit notice for buying. You can't have a v2 until after the first version has come out. Evolution needs time.
Also, the iPad's ability to be an eBook reader introduces more competition into THAT particular field. I was most interested in the iPad in the week's leading up to yesterday as a potential eReader for my mother. It's her turn for a decent birthday present this year and the family has ofted talked about getting her one. I was hoping that a colour-screened iPad would be just the right fit. Although I expected it would cost the better part of a grand to get one. Mom has an iPod Touch now, but finds the screen too small to read on. So, I had my dreams. I think at 1.5 pounds, it's a little heavy for her. So the iPad is out as a solution and we go back to deciding between a Sony product or the international Kindle. BUT, the best part is that pricing on those products will have to drop, albeit not dramatically, because of the new gorilla in the room.
A penny saved...
In fact, Paul Thurrot savaged the product in his blog. Thurrot's a Windows guy but he certainly has more than his share of respect and support for Apple's various platforms. His Windows Weekly show on twit.tv can often be confused with an apple-centric show like macbreak weekly. And, if you look around, you'll see he's not in the minority on this point of view about the iPad. Technologically, it's just an oversized iPod Touch.
I don't own a mobile phone nor any 3G device that serves as a music/video player. Basically, I don't roam much, so I don't need one. And if I DO find myself somewhere outside the cave, my trusty Sony Clie PDA still does everything I need. I can read books on it (happily and even without leaving the house) and I have all kinds of databases that I access regularly ... shopping lists, company passwords, etc. So even if they gave me the high end iPad (which will hit $1200CDN when you add the accessories and service contracts ... before tax), I wouldn't use it. It offers me nothing I don't have here at the Castle of Confusion. And the low-end price-point version can be replaced by a 70 buck video player and a decent smart phone. That'll be about half the price of the entry-level iPad.
That said, and everybody agrees, the things will sell like hot cakes to the Apple Sheep. There's a cachet to having the latest niftiest bright shiny toy. And I'm okay with that.
There will be some benefits that will then accrue to me and mine. First, when v2 of the iPad comes out and corrects the lack of flash video, the lack of a camera, the idiotic non-16x9 ration display, the plan to make just about all the software an extra added cost and the current lack of software especially developed FOR the larger-than-iPod Touch screen (Doubling (really quadrupling) the smaller device's graphics will get old ... and complained about real quick), that's when the device will merit notice for buying. You can't have a v2 until after the first version has come out. Evolution needs time.
Also, the iPad's ability to be an eBook reader introduces more competition into THAT particular field. I was most interested in the iPad in the week's leading up to yesterday as a potential eReader for my mother. It's her turn for a decent birthday present this year and the family has ofted talked about getting her one. I was hoping that a colour-screened iPad would be just the right fit. Although I expected it would cost the better part of a grand to get one. Mom has an iPod Touch now, but finds the screen too small to read on. So, I had my dreams. I think at 1.5 pounds, it's a little heavy for her. So the iPad is out as a solution and we go back to deciding between a Sony product or the international Kindle. BUT, the best part is that pricing on those products will have to drop, albeit not dramatically, because of the new gorilla in the room.
A penny saved...
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
SOFTWARE: Printliminator and Nuke Anything Enhanced
I've been called cheap. Penurious. Tight with a penny. Miserly. Compliments all.
Paper costs money and effort to trash. Really, it's the latter that gets to me, but the paper and laser printer toner also is something that adds up over the amount that I print. So, I go to SOME lengths to limit just how much printing I do. With Firefox, two of the greatest aids are Printliminator and Nuke Anything Enhanced.
I use Printliminator a LOT. It allows me to click on parts of the web page I am looking at and make them go away (not permanently, you can refresh/reload the page and you get everything back). I use the ALT key to delete everything BUT what the current red selection box shows. And then I can print quickly from a handy button right there. AND there's an Undo button for those moments when I move the mouse just a hair and it selects something other than what I wanted targeted JUST as I click the delete button.
Go to the web-site and follow the very simple instruction. Note that I didn't say instructions. It's THAT simple!
Now, Printliminator is good for getting rid of broad swatches of the page you are looking at. If you just want to delete a little something here, a little text there, then it's good to have the Nuke Anything Enhanced add-in loaded. Using the mouse, highlight text or simply point at an 'object' you want removed and right click. NAE will have available Remove This Object or Remove This Selection (and Remove Everything Else) available to you in the context menu. It's handy and if you are going to just do a little delete, this is the way to do it. Printliminator has to be loaded and that takes a second or two some nights. If you know what I mean.
In either case, stop printing out that extra page with the useless bottom footer of the web-page and the big menu on the left (or the right, GRRRRR!). Just chop out the text that you want to save and print to paper. Or, even better, a PDF file.
Your accountant will thank you. Oh, and however is responsible for hauling the recyclables to the curb.
Paper costs money and effort to trash. Really, it's the latter that gets to me, but the paper and laser printer toner also is something that adds up over the amount that I print. So, I go to SOME lengths to limit just how much printing I do. With Firefox, two of the greatest aids are Printliminator and Nuke Anything Enhanced.
I use Printliminator a LOT. It allows me to click on parts of the web page I am looking at and make them go away (not permanently, you can refresh/reload the page and you get everything back). I use the ALT key to delete everything BUT what the current red selection box shows. And then I can print quickly from a handy button right there. AND there's an Undo button for those moments when I move the mouse just a hair and it selects something other than what I wanted targeted JUST as I click the delete button.
Go to the web-site and follow the very simple instruction. Note that I didn't say instructions. It's THAT simple!
Now, Printliminator is good for getting rid of broad swatches of the page you are looking at. If you just want to delete a little something here, a little text there, then it's good to have the Nuke Anything Enhanced add-in loaded. Using the mouse, highlight text or simply point at an 'object' you want removed and right click. NAE will have available Remove This Object or Remove This Selection (and Remove Everything Else) available to you in the context menu. It's handy and if you are going to just do a little delete, this is the way to do it. Printliminator has to be loaded and that takes a second or two some nights. If you know what I mean.
In either case, stop printing out that extra page with the useless bottom footer of the web-page and the big menu on the left (or the right, GRRRRR!). Just chop out the text that you want to save and print to paper. Or, even better, a PDF file.
Your accountant will thank you. Oh, and however is responsible for hauling the recyclables to the curb.
Monday, January 18, 2010
TV: Jay Leno Vs. The Rest
I am a Jay Leno fan. I was a fan of Bob Hope, Johnny Carson and George Carlin. I still am a fan of Bill Maher, Jerry Seinfeld and, although he's largely gone from the public conscious these days, David Brenner. I enjoy Steven Wright, Lee Mack and I think Lewis Black is consistently funny, although not as funny as the funniest man alive, Billy Connolly. Those are my comedic sensibilities.
Not David Letterman. Not Conan O'Brien.
My comedy is verbal. Set-ups, punch-lines and jokes. I'm not big on sight gags and I think stupid (fill in the blank) tricks are ... stupid. And stupidity isn't funny. Now, I know YouTube has made a business (according to Mark Cuban, a bad business) out of videos of stupidity. And America's Funniest Videos have been going on forever, although fading now that people can get their acting-silly videos on YouTube anytime.
My theory about the popularity of Letterman and then O'Brien in the collegiate crowd is that a great number of collegians watching TV around the midnight hour are either drunk or buzzed or both. In that state, verbal comedy is wasted. But dropping watermelons off roofs? Sticking people in velcro suits against walls of velcro? Big-breasted women with metal bikinis running grinders against their, er, outstanding assets? Hilarious. In the sober light of the following day, Hunh?
Look, Leno is not perfect. At the best of times, Leno would fawn over the worst artistic excesses of actors and actresses out stumping for horrible work. He fell in love with his own brand of stupidity, showing American youth as completely clueless (although NOBODY could be as clueless as some of his putative university-educated Jaywalk All-Stars. Always thought some were bad thespians). But he did a monologue every night, two, three, five times longer than Letterman and twice as long as Conan. When he was yakking with somebody he shared interests with, he'd light up with joy at doing a job he really, really loved. He did great with kids and octogenarians. He was interested in his guests even when they didn't love cars or weren't long-time vets of the comedy circuit. Or at least he faked it.
Letterman wasn't. He wasn't interested enough in learning about what the guest was on to promote. Ever. Sure, there WERE guests he was interested in. And those made for good TV. But he knew he wasn't really much of a comic and he didn't let that stop him in any way. He created a show about other people doing comedic schtick. He was like a general manager of a successful sports franchise. He managed rather than performed. And if he gave the college crowd enough easy-for-besotten-brains pratfalls, he could be successful. And he was. But he has always been guest-driven watching. If the guest was somebody you wanted to watch, you did. Otherwise, why bother? He wasn't interested in the vast majority, why should you?
Conan took the Letterman model and ran with it. Unlike Letterman who had a decent stage act before coming to Late Night TV, Conan was a writer of cartoons. He thought visually and almost all of his comedic is visually-driven. Not all of stuff follows directly on the schtick model Letterman perfected. He was willing to go with clever lines ... providing they were given with some semblance of a visual cue. Cut to Conan for a shudder of the body and attempt to shake that great red shank of straw he calls hair. THEN the joke. In some ways, Conan tries to drive the middle lane between Letterman and Leno. That's cutting it awfully close and, in the final analysis, the fact that's Conan's not a comedian by training, is why he comes across as silly more often than funny. And silly is just a more polite way of saying stupid. And you know how I feel about that.
In a way, it's too bad Conan fails at being actually funny. He's the best interviewer of the three, although he has a limited range of who he can interview. Oddball celebrities outside the normal entertainment media spectrum are like black holes to Conan, whereas Leno loves them. And makes them entertaining interviews.
Leno's pre-news show was disappointing. First, he tried to break the Yogi-ism. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. He SHOULD have done the Tonight Show at ten, rather than trying to do a nightly Saturday Night Live. His name was on the show, he shouldn't have surrendered huge chunks of it to people not named Jay Leno. The "Earn Your Plug" segment was simply Stupid Actor Tricks and we ALL know how much I think of anything that starts, "Stupid..." And the car-race segment was the single worst use of TV time in history. Wasn't bad. Just wasn't... anything. A moving test pattern. Plus, there seemed to be a nasty edge to Leno that I didn't see before. Nothing overt, just a feeling. The interviews were more kvetching than interesting, bland when not kvetching. The only thing after the monologue and certain Tonight Show-retained bits that was successful was the ten@ten thing. It was awkward, but funny for being awkward, what with the delay in communicating, even if the quizzee was within spitting distance of the studio. I'd bet a lot of the responses were scripted, but some weren't and there were legitimate laughs each night.
I'm not displeased at all that Leno's headed back to familiar territory. I haven't been watching Conan except on nights where I want to see a specific guest. I'll record Leno schedule unseen, knowing I'll get a good half-hour, if not more. I think the various media people and the assembled Late Night community that has had the long knives out for Leno are wrong. Besides having agendas aplenty and most of the critics being former drunken university followers of Letterman, the Leno jihad is nauseating.
Mark Evanier has a very interesting essay on the whole thing at his blog today. He sums it up pretty well. I would have sent you there at the beginning of this, but there would have been a good chance you might not have come back. It's that good.
Not David Letterman. Not Conan O'Brien.
My comedy is verbal. Set-ups, punch-lines and jokes. I'm not big on sight gags and I think stupid (fill in the blank) tricks are ... stupid. And stupidity isn't funny. Now, I know YouTube has made a business (according to Mark Cuban, a bad business) out of videos of stupidity. And America's Funniest Videos have been going on forever, although fading now that people can get their acting-silly videos on YouTube anytime.
My theory about the popularity of Letterman and then O'Brien in the collegiate crowd is that a great number of collegians watching TV around the midnight hour are either drunk or buzzed or both. In that state, verbal comedy is wasted. But dropping watermelons off roofs? Sticking people in velcro suits against walls of velcro? Big-breasted women with metal bikinis running grinders against their, er, outstanding assets? Hilarious. In the sober light of the following day, Hunh?
Look, Leno is not perfect. At the best of times, Leno would fawn over the worst artistic excesses of actors and actresses out stumping for horrible work. He fell in love with his own brand of stupidity, showing American youth as completely clueless (although NOBODY could be as clueless as some of his putative university-educated Jaywalk All-Stars. Always thought some were bad thespians). But he did a monologue every night, two, three, five times longer than Letterman and twice as long as Conan. When he was yakking with somebody he shared interests with, he'd light up with joy at doing a job he really, really loved. He did great with kids and octogenarians. He was interested in his guests even when they didn't love cars or weren't long-time vets of the comedy circuit. Or at least he faked it.
Letterman wasn't. He wasn't interested enough in learning about what the guest was on to promote. Ever. Sure, there WERE guests he was interested in. And those made for good TV. But he knew he wasn't really much of a comic and he didn't let that stop him in any way. He created a show about other people doing comedic schtick. He was like a general manager of a successful sports franchise. He managed rather than performed. And if he gave the college crowd enough easy-for-besotten-brains pratfalls, he could be successful. And he was. But he has always been guest-driven watching. If the guest was somebody you wanted to watch, you did. Otherwise, why bother? He wasn't interested in the vast majority, why should you?
Conan took the Letterman model and ran with it. Unlike Letterman who had a decent stage act before coming to Late Night TV, Conan was a writer of cartoons. He thought visually and almost all of his comedic is visually-driven. Not all of stuff follows directly on the schtick model Letterman perfected. He was willing to go with clever lines ... providing they were given with some semblance of a visual cue. Cut to Conan for a shudder of the body and attempt to shake that great red shank of straw he calls hair. THEN the joke. In some ways, Conan tries to drive the middle lane between Letterman and Leno. That's cutting it awfully close and, in the final analysis, the fact that's Conan's not a comedian by training, is why he comes across as silly more often than funny. And silly is just a more polite way of saying stupid. And you know how I feel about that.
In a way, it's too bad Conan fails at being actually funny. He's the best interviewer of the three, although he has a limited range of who he can interview. Oddball celebrities outside the normal entertainment media spectrum are like black holes to Conan, whereas Leno loves them. And makes them entertaining interviews.
Leno's pre-news show was disappointing. First, he tried to break the Yogi-ism. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. He SHOULD have done the Tonight Show at ten, rather than trying to do a nightly Saturday Night Live. His name was on the show, he shouldn't have surrendered huge chunks of it to people not named Jay Leno. The "Earn Your Plug" segment was simply Stupid Actor Tricks and we ALL know how much I think of anything that starts, "Stupid..." And the car-race segment was the single worst use of TV time in history. Wasn't bad. Just wasn't... anything. A moving test pattern. Plus, there seemed to be a nasty edge to Leno that I didn't see before. Nothing overt, just a feeling. The interviews were more kvetching than interesting, bland when not kvetching. The only thing after the monologue and certain Tonight Show-retained bits that was successful was the ten@ten thing. It was awkward, but funny for being awkward, what with the delay in communicating, even if the quizzee was within spitting distance of the studio. I'd bet a lot of the responses were scripted, but some weren't and there were legitimate laughs each night.
I'm not displeased at all that Leno's headed back to familiar territory. I haven't been watching Conan except on nights where I want to see a specific guest. I'll record Leno schedule unseen, knowing I'll get a good half-hour, if not more. I think the various media people and the assembled Late Night community that has had the long knives out for Leno are wrong. Besides having agendas aplenty and most of the critics being former drunken university followers of Letterman, the Leno jihad is nauseating.
Mark Evanier has a very interesting essay on the whole thing at his blog today. He sums it up pretty well. I would have sent you there at the beginning of this, but there would have been a good chance you might not have come back. It's that good.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
SPORTS: Feschuck On the Turk
Usually, Dave Feschuk and Hedo Turkoglu irritate me. Feschuk because he's seems to be the unhappiest sports reporter I've ever read. And no, I've never talked to the man in person, ever. All I know is through his writing, which is forever gloomy. And Turkoglu, as we all now, is the underperforming Toronto Raptor small forward with the big contract.
I could write lots about Turkoglu, but Feschuk has used his gloomy force for good, detailing almost EXACTLY what I dislike about Turkoglu's approach to business here north of the border. Since he says it so well at the Toronto Star sports site, why bother repeating it? Worth a read.
About the only thing I would add is that I bet the Raptors' management would love it, if those pizza ads with the laconic Turk stretched out on a coach scarfing down pizza and pop could get pulled. It can't help that Hedo's shown mindlessly saying 'Yes, coach' as whatever Jay Triano is saying to him goes in one ear and out the other. Not a good image. And one that's too close to the truth for comfort.
Or so I've been told.
I could write lots about Turkoglu, but Feschuk has used his gloomy force for good, detailing almost EXACTLY what I dislike about Turkoglu's approach to business here north of the border. Since he says it so well at the Toronto Star sports site, why bother repeating it? Worth a read.
About the only thing I would add is that I bet the Raptors' management would love it, if those pizza ads with the laconic Turk stretched out on a coach scarfing down pizza and pop could get pulled. It can't help that Hedo's shown mindlessly saying 'Yes, coach' as whatever Jay Triano is saying to him goes in one ear and out the other. Not a good image. And one that's too close to the truth for comfort.
Or so I've been told.
INTERNET: Tracking My Random Postings
Okay, so I don't exactly post on schedule. Today's Thursday and yesterday was Wednesday and I 'could' post my promised Wednesday Fall TV review. But I'm busy, tired and cranky (what else is new?). On the other hand, I DO know one or two of you check in here semi-regularly and I'm doing you a disservice. So how about some service instead?
Copy the url link from the box above (the one that says http://mugfordmugshots.blogspot.com or just copy what you just read) and then go to www.changedetection.com. When you get there, you will have to set up an account for this first-time use. Easy as pie, just follow the instructions. Paste in the mugshots url into the field for it and then put in your email address. You will eventually have to verify that you want this service and you'll have to put in a password to log back in for further changes. Pick daily (I wish!), weekly (more realistic) or monthly (come on, I'm not THAT bad!). Based on what you pick, you'll get an email telling you it's worthwhile to come a-visitin' here at this blog. You might also want to set it up to ignore small changes. I tend to explode verbally, so small changes will be rare. BUT if I get spammed by a blog comment blogger, you won't get signaled if it only means a change from 0 comments to 1 comment.
This is a WHOLE lot easier than RSS Feeds. I've got 15 sites monitored now and have taken them off the daily list. I'll get one nice little email at my gmail account when any of them change and will only go see them if there's something new to go see. That cuts down my daily load list from 147 to 132.
And you can cut down fruitless, frustrating visits here when I've nothing to say in print.
Copy the url link from the box above (the one that says http://mugfordmugshots.blogspot.com or just copy what you just read) and then go to www.changedetection.com. When you get there, you will have to set up an account for this first-time use. Easy as pie, just follow the instructions. Paste in the mugshots url into the field for it and then put in your email address. You will eventually have to verify that you want this service and you'll have to put in a password to log back in for further changes. Pick daily (I wish!), weekly (more realistic) or monthly (come on, I'm not THAT bad!). Based on what you pick, you'll get an email telling you it's worthwhile to come a-visitin' here at this blog. You might also want to set it up to ignore small changes. I tend to explode verbally, so small changes will be rare. BUT if I get spammed by a blog comment blogger, you won't get signaled if it only means a change from 0 comments to 1 comment.
This is a WHOLE lot easier than RSS Feeds. I've got 15 sites monitored now and have taken them off the daily list. I'll get one nice little email at my gmail account when any of them change and will only go see them if there's something new to go see. That cuts down my daily load list from 147 to 132.
And you can cut down fruitless, frustrating visits here when I've nothing to say in print.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
SPORTS: Speaking of Kicking the Dog
In my post yesterday, I talked about kicking the dog, which is really a heinous thing to do. So, it comes as no surprise that I'm not working up a great big excoriation over Mark McGwire. Why bother? He's never getting into the Hall of Fame, no matter how much scheming Tony LaRussa and his 'support' group do.
First, let me say that pre-retirement Mark McGwire was an outstanding citizen off the field. A nice man with an understanding of civic responsibility. It's THAT aspect of him that has anybody with any moderate knowledge of baseball considering putting his name on the ballot. What keeps him off the ballot are the facts, the ones agreed to even before be bared his ever-lovin' steroid-fed soul.
He hit home runs (see Maris, Roger for what that's worth in Hall of Fame freebies). He had a year early in his career where he won a Gold Glove in a bad year for first basemen. After that, he ranged from adequate to really not adequate at all. His life time average of .263 included three years of walking the Mendoza Line pretty well. In fact, LaRussa once kept him out of a season finale for fear he would end up below .200 for the season. His on-base percentage was below .400, despite being a feared hitter worthy of intentional walking for much of the last decade of his career. He wasn't much on the basepaths, as attested to by his once every three years triple rate and less than a stolen base a year rate. Basically, he was a more successful Dave Kingman. But he had that magical year.
McGwire shouldn't be enshrined for that year anymore than Maris has been (and you can add Paul Henderson to the lot of good players with one starring moment, as passed over would-be hall-of-famers). He was a good player who hit prodigious taters. We all 'suspected' he was juiced, so our sense of awe and wonder has been cooled over the years. We know now that our suspicions were right.
Despite all of that desultory stats-repeating, the fact is that McGwire would be in the Hall today if he'd been a better man. Fact is, he might very well have equaled his feats juice-free. Even he understands today that his overly-muscular build, fueled by steroids, probably led to more injuries than he might otherwise have endured. Ironic, given his defense that he used steroids to get OVER injuries. A LOT of people think he had that capability. And even after the career was kaputsky, he could have solidified his reputation on that day in Washington when he had the chance to come clean. He could have blown the whole steroid era to pieces by telling the truth. He could have become the anti-steroid crusader that kids could believe in. He carried all of the baggage of Jose Canseco without the slime that stopped too many people from believing Canseco, the patient zero of the insidious infection that was steroid use in major league baseball.
So, Monday's self-serving statement does nothing to revise the facts. Mark McGwire was a deeply flawed man and baseball player. And Cooperstown will always be a place he can only visit.
First, let me say that pre-retirement Mark McGwire was an outstanding citizen off the field. A nice man with an understanding of civic responsibility. It's THAT aspect of him that has anybody with any moderate knowledge of baseball considering putting his name on the ballot. What keeps him off the ballot are the facts, the ones agreed to even before be bared his ever-lovin' steroid-fed soul.
He hit home runs (see Maris, Roger for what that's worth in Hall of Fame freebies). He had a year early in his career where he won a Gold Glove in a bad year for first basemen. After that, he ranged from adequate to really not adequate at all. His life time average of .263 included three years of walking the Mendoza Line pretty well. In fact, LaRussa once kept him out of a season finale for fear he would end up below .200 for the season. His on-base percentage was below .400, despite being a feared hitter worthy of intentional walking for much of the last decade of his career. He wasn't much on the basepaths, as attested to by his once every three years triple rate and less than a stolen base a year rate. Basically, he was a more successful Dave Kingman. But he had that magical year.
McGwire shouldn't be enshrined for that year anymore than Maris has been (and you can add Paul Henderson to the lot of good players with one starring moment, as passed over would-be hall-of-famers). He was a good player who hit prodigious taters. We all 'suspected' he was juiced, so our sense of awe and wonder has been cooled over the years. We know now that our suspicions were right.
Despite all of that desultory stats-repeating, the fact is that McGwire would be in the Hall today if he'd been a better man. Fact is, he might very well have equaled his feats juice-free. Even he understands today that his overly-muscular build, fueled by steroids, probably led to more injuries than he might otherwise have endured. Ironic, given his defense that he used steroids to get OVER injuries. A LOT of people think he had that capability. And even after the career was kaputsky, he could have solidified his reputation on that day in Washington when he had the chance to come clean. He could have blown the whole steroid era to pieces by telling the truth. He could have become the anti-steroid crusader that kids could believe in. He carried all of the baggage of Jose Canseco without the slime that stopped too many people from believing Canseco, the patient zero of the insidious infection that was steroid use in major league baseball.
So, Monday's self-serving statement does nothing to revise the facts. Mark McGwire was a deeply flawed man and baseball player. And Cooperstown will always be a place he can only visit.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
TV: The Tuesday Review for Fall 2009
Ever have that day where you feel like kicking the dog. That's been my day today. I love dogs and I love my job ... but every now and then, stupid people and stupid software get to me. So, here's me taking a break to continue my series of Fall TV mini-reviews. For the full preamble, check back to the Saturday review.
Okay, Tuesday is actually a good day to take your dog for a walk. If it wasn't for CBS and their NCIS-heavy sked, you might not turn on TV OR recorder at all!
NCIS, the original (actually a spin-off for you late joiners), continues to be rather above-average, It was the best hour on TV two seasons ago and wasn't bad last year. The puzzles this year have been good and the show will contend for a top-ten spot again. It IS actually, the most watched hour on TV now, I believe. At least until American Idol gets really going, not that I watch those early humiliation episodes of that show.
The spin-off's spin-off, NCIS: Los Angeles, isn't really following in the footsteps of its forebearer all that well. Linda Hunt's reasonably entertaining as the West coast Gibbs allegory. She's in full Billy Kwan/Yoda mode that's become her character part for the ages. She gives good, if rare, grin, as they say. Chris O'Donnell has the Tony equivalent part as the one-named Callan. Just doesn't quite have the same entertainment value. And neither does the usually good LL Cool J. And nobody else has enough quirk in their characters to make them memorable. Think of the NCIS cast and you get a group that is nothing BUT quirk. It's enough to make you think NCIS: LA might have been adopted. I record it because I watch NCIS and the night finale, The Good Wife.
I was quite prepared to not like The Good Wife. Julianna Margulies has always struck me as ... harsh. She's undeniably beautiful, but her face seems permanently frozen in frown-mode. She smiles occasionally, but that smile seems so rarely reaching the eyes, that you never believe it. At least in her TV characters. This show's no different. But there seems to be a reason for the stern facade. She's fighting upstream against a tide trying to take her down to the levels of her dirty pol husband, played with usual greatness by Chris Noth (and yes, I know I originally typed Mike Noth. One of these days I will get that one-time scourge of the sports reporting scene out of my memory bank). The kids are good and the hectoring mother-in-law (Mary Beth Peil) is outstanding. Which brings me to the workplace characters. I like pretty well all of them, especially investigator Kalinda, played by Archie Panjabi as one tough broad. Christine Baranski's an even tougher head of the firm. Interesting group of power women. Josh Charles and smarmy (as usual) Matt Czuchry try to hold the testosterone fort and succeed to a degree. So, while I rarely come down on the side of a Margulies show, this is the happy exception.
Law and Order: Special Victims Unit has been a Tuesday staple, but I think it's being shipped off to Wednesdays here in Canada. I like that Christopher Meloni is playing less crazed this year. It's still a show to record, because some episodes are about subject matter that I find too distasteful to watch, no matter how tasteful they make it. In losing SVU for the night, at least the evening is getting White Collar from Friday nights (to be discussed in the review series finale). Good trade. NBC's night concludes with Leno, as do the rest of the weeknights. That was discussed in the Monday review and no need to repeat it here.
ABC's night-capper is a surprise. Not appoint TV or anything, bu the forgotten works most weeks. Christian Slater hasn't had much luck on TV and the fact that the audience hasn't found this show is yet another indicator he'll be available again come pilot season, but he does good work here. The guest star is always dead, but the crowd trying to give the corpse an identity and some dignity all seem earnest and individualistic. All the shows come awfully close to being one-and-done's, so jumping in at any point is doable. But there have been slowly-evolving back-stories for the regulars that make the whole season worthwhile watching.
Speaking of back-story, the season's over for such stalwarts as CBC's Being Erica and the cable show Sons of Anarchy. I rather like biker drama Sons of Anarchy better this year than the angsty and frothy Being Erica. I KNEW a second season of Being Erica was going to be really, really difficult to maintain at the levels of the first season. But the producers seemed to think creating a romantical triangle and minimizing the screen time for Michael Riley's Dr. Tom was a good idea. They were wrong. I just never warmed to Sebastian Pigott's Kai at all. Ah well.
Science Fiction had good and average coverage of Tuesday's. BBC's Paradox was brilliant, if short, at five episodes. Looking forward to a second series. On the other hand, ABC's V seemed long and plodding at four episodes. Still, Morena Baccarin makes up for a LOT of not-good when it comes to doling out watching time. It'll be back in March to finish off the mini-series. The last pre-break episode gave me hope that investing a further four hours will be worthwhile.
Lastly, I normally download TWiT (This Week in Technology) on Tuesday's. This is the current platform to watch Leo LaPorte, who's been Mr. Computer to a lot of people for a looooooong time. The 90-minute (or so) show usually has entertaining guests. Wish the video feed didn't take so long to appear for downloading, but I'm used to the schedule now.
Okay, Tuesday is actually a good day to take your dog for a walk. If it wasn't for CBS and their NCIS-heavy sked, you might not turn on TV OR recorder at all!
NCIS, the original (actually a spin-off for you late joiners), continues to be rather above-average, It was the best hour on TV two seasons ago and wasn't bad last year. The puzzles this year have been good and the show will contend for a top-ten spot again. It IS actually, the most watched hour on TV now, I believe. At least until American Idol gets really going, not that I watch those early humiliation episodes of that show.
The spin-off's spin-off, NCIS: Los Angeles, isn't really following in the footsteps of its forebearer all that well. Linda Hunt's reasonably entertaining as the West coast Gibbs allegory. She's in full Billy Kwan/Yoda mode that's become her character part for the ages. She gives good, if rare, grin, as they say. Chris O'Donnell has the Tony equivalent part as the one-named Callan. Just doesn't quite have the same entertainment value. And neither does the usually good LL Cool J. And nobody else has enough quirk in their characters to make them memorable. Think of the NCIS cast and you get a group that is nothing BUT quirk. It's enough to make you think NCIS: LA might have been adopted. I record it because I watch NCIS and the night finale, The Good Wife.
I was quite prepared to not like The Good Wife. Julianna Margulies has always struck me as ... harsh. She's undeniably beautiful, but her face seems permanently frozen in frown-mode. She smiles occasionally, but that smile seems so rarely reaching the eyes, that you never believe it. At least in her TV characters. This show's no different. But there seems to be a reason for the stern facade. She's fighting upstream against a tide trying to take her down to the levels of her dirty pol husband, played with usual greatness by Chris Noth (and yes, I know I originally typed Mike Noth. One of these days I will get that one-time scourge of the sports reporting scene out of my memory bank). The kids are good and the hectoring mother-in-law (Mary Beth Peil) is outstanding. Which brings me to the workplace characters. I like pretty well all of them, especially investigator Kalinda, played by Archie Panjabi as one tough broad. Christine Baranski's an even tougher head of the firm. Interesting group of power women. Josh Charles and smarmy (as usual) Matt Czuchry try to hold the testosterone fort and succeed to a degree. So, while I rarely come down on the side of a Margulies show, this is the happy exception.
Law and Order: Special Victims Unit has been a Tuesday staple, but I think it's being shipped off to Wednesdays here in Canada. I like that Christopher Meloni is playing less crazed this year. It's still a show to record, because some episodes are about subject matter that I find too distasteful to watch, no matter how tasteful they make it. In losing SVU for the night, at least the evening is getting White Collar from Friday nights (to be discussed in the review series finale). Good trade. NBC's night concludes with Leno, as do the rest of the weeknights. That was discussed in the Monday review and no need to repeat it here.
ABC's night-capper is a surprise. Not appoint TV or anything, bu the forgotten works most weeks. Christian Slater hasn't had much luck on TV and the fact that the audience hasn't found this show is yet another indicator he'll be available again come pilot season, but he does good work here. The guest star is always dead, but the crowd trying to give the corpse an identity and some dignity all seem earnest and individualistic. All the shows come awfully close to being one-and-done's, so jumping in at any point is doable. But there have been slowly-evolving back-stories for the regulars that make the whole season worthwhile watching.
Speaking of back-story, the season's over for such stalwarts as CBC's Being Erica and the cable show Sons of Anarchy. I rather like biker drama Sons of Anarchy better this year than the angsty and frothy Being Erica. I KNEW a second season of Being Erica was going to be really, really difficult to maintain at the levels of the first season. But the producers seemed to think creating a romantical triangle and minimizing the screen time for Michael Riley's Dr. Tom was a good idea. They were wrong. I just never warmed to Sebastian Pigott's Kai at all. Ah well.
Science Fiction had good and average coverage of Tuesday's. BBC's Paradox was brilliant, if short, at five episodes. Looking forward to a second series. On the other hand, ABC's V seemed long and plodding at four episodes. Still, Morena Baccarin makes up for a LOT of not-good when it comes to doling out watching time. It'll be back in March to finish off the mini-series. The last pre-break episode gave me hope that investing a further four hours will be worthwhile.
Lastly, I normally download TWiT (This Week in Technology) on Tuesday's. This is the current platform to watch Leo LaPorte, who's been Mr. Computer to a lot of people for a looooooong time. The 90-minute (or so) show usually has entertaining guests. Wish the video feed didn't take so long to appear for downloading, but I'm used to the schedule now.
Monday, January 11, 2010
SPORTS: Just a Thought About Bosh
Chris Bosh has been one of the top dozen players in the NBA this year, the key player on a middling Toronto Raptor team. When he's completely on, he's the best power forward in the league. And the numbers suggest strongly that he's been on, on quite a few nights.
He's in the top ten in scoring and rebounding. He's improved immensely as an offensive rebounder and isn't too shabby under his own hoop either. He's stronger and takes less guff from the thugs that inhabit other teams' front lines this year.
And he's got walkaway rights at the end of this year. And a LOT of people think he will exercise them. That lot includes just about everybody south of the 49th Parallel. And there are a few of the believers in and about Toronto too. They KNOW that Bosh can maximize his NBA income by staying with the Raptors for a max contract. They KNOW he makes a fair bit of tucker off the court here, although it would be more in some American cities. They KNOW he likes Toronto, a city that didn't jump on him when stories about supposedly being a dead-beat dad surfaced last year. When all the facts were exposed, it turns out Bosh is what we think he is, a very good man, a great athlete and nowhere near being a 21st century Shawn Kemp. And they KNOW Bosh wants to be THE MAN on his NBA team.
All things that point to staying in T.O.
On the other hand, Bosh wants to win, and this collection of Raptors might not have being better than above-average in them. The Hedo Turkoglu experiment has been more REALLY bad than good. You can count on the fingers of one hand, the number of games were the Turk has been a positive difference maker. DeRozan is a kid and he's a year, maybe two from being a positive force. Bargnani has awoken lately, but we've seen these spurts before. Does the tow-headed Italian really get it? It's not hard to picture the three just-mentioned players suddenly playing to their potential and Toronto being a tough out against anybody but Boston (who's just plain tougher than Toronto). Or things can continue to plod along.
And speaking of plodding, let me point out the defensive effort of Bosh, who always escapes notice while the Raptor points, especially Calderon, are accused of being turnstiles. He's undeniably the best defender on the team. But he's frequently NOT. And that's not good from a max-paid Leader. Sure, he comes off his man to participate in the defence with decent regularity. But there's a lot of shots of Bosh watching some other big lay the ball up from waaaaay tooo close. Best standing room only seats in the house. Not that he's the only Raptor guilty of doing it. Nor is he the worst, although Bargnani's commitment to D over the last while is starting to show Bosh up a bit. And Bosh has been awfully casual with the ball and with passes the last little while. Is he tired? Looks like it. Nothing like last year's December swoon after an MVP-like November, but he's in better condition.
There are other things about Bosh that keeps GM Bryan Colangelo awake at nights. Bosh isn't the kind of guy who will take the contract that pays him the extra dime, no matter where that might be. He wants to win and will be willing to give up money to do so. Just when you need your star to be a typical NBA mercenary, he ends up having principles that don't have to start with the principal. It's unlikely he'll go somewhere to play second banana, but the Lakers and whoever ends up with LeBron James or Dwyane Wade DO have inducements. I think those two stay, as will the West Coast Smirk in Los Angeles. But New York might have enough bright lights and pay packages to combine Bosh with Joe Johnson. And, by New York, I mean Brooklyn. As in the Nets. They will have the top pick (John Wall?), more cap space, a RICH Russian owner, and Brook Lopez, Yi Jianglian and Devin Harris. Lopez, Bosh, Yi, Johnson and Harris, with Wall and a group of kids coming off the bench isn't a bad makeup of a team.
Previously, I've said I would deal Bosh in a second, if Golden State would give up Andris Biedrins, Anthony Randolph and another piece. Last year, that piece would have been Jamal Crawford, who had fallen out of favour in the Don Nelson leaky boat. There would have been other bits and pieces involved, to meet trade regs. I still think there might be a trade there, but I suspect Monta Ellis and Biedrins wouldn't work out for either team. Golden State has to move Ellis and possibly Anthony Morrow, too. But they would just have to know Bosh wouldn't re-sign. So the whole trade is moot.
BUT, and you knew there HAD to be a but, I've got an idea. A three-teamer yet. Toronto would hook up with Houston (so near to Bosh's Dallas home, but far enough away not to be a distraction) and Minnesota. Both teams have a surfeit of point guards, which is unfortunate, because it would be nice to divest the team of Marcus Banks, but I can only do so much plotting. Here's the key players and their end addresses:Houston ends up with Chris Bosh.
Houston ends up with Bosh. End of discussion. That's why they make the trade. Heck, they might even throw in money AND some second-round picks to do this deal. Pairing Bosh with a true centre like Yao Ming next year would take a lot of the beating off Bosh's body that he currently suffers. He can't hate that. He's going to be a quickie plane ride away from Mom's cooking. Happiness could very well ensue.
Toronto gets out from under the "will Bosh stay?" cloud. And Jefferson's a beast who does a LOT of what Bosh does and is signed for three more years. IF he can stay healthy. That's the rub. He's an injury risk. But then again, Bosh hasn't been a paragon of health over the last few years either. I think Jefferson's got another level, if playing on a good team. And the reduced scoring capability could be covered by the other four starters. Luis Scola gives them a complete front-court rotation of bigs, moving into the third slot, after Bargnani and Jefferson, ahead of Amir Johnson. He's on an expiring contract. So if the mix doesn't work, then he goes, to be replaced next year by somebody similar. He's also sooooo smart and that isn't something we've seen a lot of in Toronto. Besides I think Reggie Evans could be spun in a package for an upgrade on the wing. Budinger is cut-bait, although I AM intrigued by his capabilities as a passer and as a shooter. He's just too slow for small foward and not big enough to play in the frontcourt.
Which brings us to Minnesota, the team without the star attraction after the three-way. Well, it appears that Jefferson and last year's wunderkind rookie, Kevin Love, can't co-exist afterall. Is it better to try and play Love and/or Jefferson out of position, or to get a young, rising small forward in Ariza to pair with Love. Landry is a lot like Love too. But he's used to being a second banana and won't cause much trouble. Cook is strictly an expiring contract. But then there's that number one pick, ex of the Rockets. Will be somewhere around 22, which isn't a jewel in the making. But gems have come from that point. There are all kinds of big men projects available around them. Wouldn't Greg Monroe of Georgetown look good to the Wolves? In essence, this trade boils down to that draft pick and Ariza, who's got talent, youth and a financially sane long-term contract for Jefferson's big ticket and chemistry problems.
Anyway, just a thought I had. Truth be told, Colangelo is riding the Bosh Express to the end of the line. He'll hope to ink Bosh to a six-year contract and be done with the whisper campaign out of Miami and places south of the Mason-Dixon Line. If he can't keep Bosh, he'll hope for just the kind of trade I've outlined in a sign-and-trade.
But I can dream.
He's in the top ten in scoring and rebounding. He's improved immensely as an offensive rebounder and isn't too shabby under his own hoop either. He's stronger and takes less guff from the thugs that inhabit other teams' front lines this year.
And he's got walkaway rights at the end of this year. And a LOT of people think he will exercise them. That lot includes just about everybody south of the 49th Parallel. And there are a few of the believers in and about Toronto too. They KNOW that Bosh can maximize his NBA income by staying with the Raptors for a max contract. They KNOW he makes a fair bit of tucker off the court here, although it would be more in some American cities. They KNOW he likes Toronto, a city that didn't jump on him when stories about supposedly being a dead-beat dad surfaced last year. When all the facts were exposed, it turns out Bosh is what we think he is, a very good man, a great athlete and nowhere near being a 21st century Shawn Kemp. And they KNOW Bosh wants to be THE MAN on his NBA team.
All things that point to staying in T.O.
On the other hand, Bosh wants to win, and this collection of Raptors might not have being better than above-average in them. The Hedo Turkoglu experiment has been more REALLY bad than good. You can count on the fingers of one hand, the number of games were the Turk has been a positive difference maker. DeRozan is a kid and he's a year, maybe two from being a positive force. Bargnani has awoken lately, but we've seen these spurts before. Does the tow-headed Italian really get it? It's not hard to picture the three just-mentioned players suddenly playing to their potential and Toronto being a tough out against anybody but Boston (who's just plain tougher than Toronto). Or things can continue to plod along.
And speaking of plodding, let me point out the defensive effort of Bosh, who always escapes notice while the Raptor points, especially Calderon, are accused of being turnstiles. He's undeniably the best defender on the team. But he's frequently NOT. And that's not good from a max-paid Leader. Sure, he comes off his man to participate in the defence with decent regularity. But there's a lot of shots of Bosh watching some other big lay the ball up from waaaaay tooo close. Best standing room only seats in the house. Not that he's the only Raptor guilty of doing it. Nor is he the worst, although Bargnani's commitment to D over the last while is starting to show Bosh up a bit. And Bosh has been awfully casual with the ball and with passes the last little while. Is he tired? Looks like it. Nothing like last year's December swoon after an MVP-like November, but he's in better condition.
There are other things about Bosh that keeps GM Bryan Colangelo awake at nights. Bosh isn't the kind of guy who will take the contract that pays him the extra dime, no matter where that might be. He wants to win and will be willing to give up money to do so. Just when you need your star to be a typical NBA mercenary, he ends up having principles that don't have to start with the principal. It's unlikely he'll go somewhere to play second banana, but the Lakers and whoever ends up with LeBron James or Dwyane Wade DO have inducements. I think those two stay, as will the West Coast Smirk in Los Angeles. But New York might have enough bright lights and pay packages to combine Bosh with Joe Johnson. And, by New York, I mean Brooklyn. As in the Nets. They will have the top pick (John Wall?), more cap space, a RICH Russian owner, and Brook Lopez, Yi Jianglian and Devin Harris. Lopez, Bosh, Yi, Johnson and Harris, with Wall and a group of kids coming off the bench isn't a bad makeup of a team.
Previously, I've said I would deal Bosh in a second, if Golden State would give up Andris Biedrins, Anthony Randolph and another piece. Last year, that piece would have been Jamal Crawford, who had fallen out of favour in the Don Nelson leaky boat. There would have been other bits and pieces involved, to meet trade regs. I still think there might be a trade there, but I suspect Monta Ellis and Biedrins wouldn't work out for either team. Golden State has to move Ellis and possibly Anthony Morrow, too. But they would just have to know Bosh wouldn't re-sign. So the whole trade is moot.
BUT, and you knew there HAD to be a but, I've got an idea. A three-teamer yet. Toronto would hook up with Houston (so near to Bosh's Dallas home, but far enough away not to be a distraction) and Minnesota. Both teams have a surfeit of point guards, which is unfortunate, because it would be nice to divest the team of Marcus Banks, but I can only do so much plotting. Here's the key players and their end addresses:Houston ends up with Chris Bosh.
- Toronto ends up with Al Jefferson, Luis Scola and Chase Budinger.
- Minnesota ends up with Trevor Ariza, Carl Landry, Brian Cook and Houston's #1 pick in the 2010 draft.
Houston ends up with Bosh. End of discussion. That's why they make the trade. Heck, they might even throw in money AND some second-round picks to do this deal. Pairing Bosh with a true centre like Yao Ming next year would take a lot of the beating off Bosh's body that he currently suffers. He can't hate that. He's going to be a quickie plane ride away from Mom's cooking. Happiness could very well ensue.
Toronto gets out from under the "will Bosh stay?" cloud. And Jefferson's a beast who does a LOT of what Bosh does and is signed for three more years. IF he can stay healthy. That's the rub. He's an injury risk. But then again, Bosh hasn't been a paragon of health over the last few years either. I think Jefferson's got another level, if playing on a good team. And the reduced scoring capability could be covered by the other four starters. Luis Scola gives them a complete front-court rotation of bigs, moving into the third slot, after Bargnani and Jefferson, ahead of Amir Johnson. He's on an expiring contract. So if the mix doesn't work, then he goes, to be replaced next year by somebody similar. He's also sooooo smart and that isn't something we've seen a lot of in Toronto. Besides I think Reggie Evans could be spun in a package for an upgrade on the wing. Budinger is cut-bait, although I AM intrigued by his capabilities as a passer and as a shooter. He's just too slow for small foward and not big enough to play in the frontcourt.
Which brings us to Minnesota, the team without the star attraction after the three-way. Well, it appears that Jefferson and last year's wunderkind rookie, Kevin Love, can't co-exist afterall. Is it better to try and play Love and/or Jefferson out of position, or to get a young, rising small forward in Ariza to pair with Love. Landry is a lot like Love too. But he's used to being a second banana and won't cause much trouble. Cook is strictly an expiring contract. But then there's that number one pick, ex of the Rockets. Will be somewhere around 22, which isn't a jewel in the making. But gems have come from that point. There are all kinds of big men projects available around them. Wouldn't Greg Monroe of Georgetown look good to the Wolves? In essence, this trade boils down to that draft pick and Ariza, who's got talent, youth and a financially sane long-term contract for Jefferson's big ticket and chemistry problems.
Anyway, just a thought I had. Truth be told, Colangelo is riding the Bosh Express to the end of the line. He'll hope to ink Bosh to a six-year contract and be done with the whisper campaign out of Miami and places south of the Mason-Dixon Line. If he can't keep Bosh, he'll hope for just the kind of trade I've outlined in a sign-and-trade.
But I can dream.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
TV: The Monday Review for Fall 2009
A week late already. Oh well. Head back to the Saturday entry for the preamble.
CBS is winning everything and Monday nights aren't the exception. In fact, you can argue that CBS Monday night might be the strongest three-hour block from any network, any night. As usual, the boys at The Eye have decided not to be as strong as they could be, hummocking in Accidentally on Purpose between comedic heavyweights How I Met Your Mother and Two and a Half Men, but I still record and watch it, although more out of ennui than real interest. Jenna Elfman is usually comedic gold. And this show would work, if only they got rid of the cast of idiots around her. She plays pregnant (although she got pregnant in real life) with goofy charm. It's just that the baby's father, a younger man taking advantage of a cougar on the prowl, and all of his friends, are just plain stupid. Elfman's office environment is a tad bit better in the brain department, but she also has a dopey sister and a best friend, horribly under-used Ashley Jensen. Jensen's REALLY, REALLY pregnant and can hardly move around without the cameras catching it. Her physical comedic skills are canceled out as a result. Move this comedy anywhere else on the schedule and I'd give it the boot. Here. it is too easy to set the recorder to CBS, 8-11. NOTE: Accidentally IS switching nights. The sound you hear in the background is Bruce the Shark, from Jaws, getting ready.
How I Met Your Mother made the creative decision to break Robin and Barney up, so that the show can return to the old formula, but I wish they'd delayed it a bit longer. On the other hand, getting to the putative title idea is getting on my nerves. Still, the jokes remain ... wait for it ... awesome! Most nights. Not keeping pace with The Big Bang Theory, but most shows aren't either. The creators of that show are also having some wavering moments, giving Howard and Raj too much screen time for fear of burning out the star that is Jim Parsons' Sheldon. But you can never have enough Sheldon. Mathematically impossible. Going in the opposite direction, the decision to keep Leonard and Penny together has worked. The other comedy in the quartet of week starters is the venerable old Two and Half Men, which rarely surprises. It seems to be completely formulaic, but the reactions of Charlie Sheen et al still make me laugh. That Sheen's actual home life seems inspired by his comedy is just the note of tragedy that any comedy needs. As for the night-capper, CSI: Miami, things have changed very little on the junior edition of the CSI franchise. Out went Adam Rodriguez, in came Eddie Cibrian. But really, the most interesting newcomer is the technician Walter, played with smarter-than-you-think charm by Oliver Benson Miller. Looks like a walking mountain looking for a football game, but thinks like a nerd. An interesting, new character.
Fox, when they aren't out doing bad things to Josh Whedon, occasionally lets quirky shows grow and flourish. As evidence, I present House and Lie to Me. I don't think all Englishmen, whether paying faux Yank doctors (Hugh Laurie as Gregory House) or punks who've pulled themselves out of the muck (Tim Roth as Doc Cal Lightman) are all basically jerks. But the sheer in-your-face political incorrectness of both make their shows work. I'll be unhappy with the creative decision to drive Cameron (Jennifer Morrison) away from House, but at least the brought back PI Lucas Douglas, as played by Michael Weston. Lie to Me has ditched the cheating husband storyline for co-star Kelli Williamson's character and that's enriched the show immensely.
ABC's anti-Gregory House is Richard Castle and Castle, the show, is getting better as it moves along, despite a saccharine level too high for a diabetic like me. Yes, it's all Moonlighting-ish with sexual tension aplenty between Nathan Fillion's Castle and Stana Katic's hotter-than-hot police detective, but the key to turning this show into something more than a rehash is the smart-as-a-whip Castle kid, played by Molly Quinn and his loopy mother, played with hammy largesse by Susan Sullivan. (I'm old enough to remember Sullivan as a sexy young thing. And she still is). I'll slip an admission here at the end of the paragraph that I also record Gossip Girl, hoping you miss it. I don't understand the popularity of some of the young ladies in the show, but I just love watching Kelly Rutherford perform. It's a remote control on fast-forward kind of show, but I do record it.
Which brings me to NBC and the two most confounding shows on any night (and we still got Canada and cable still to go). Heroes and The Jay Leno Show. What to say? The first season of Heroes was brilliance that actually started to dim about the time Malcolm McDowell came on board. The decision to keep Sylar around was the wrong one, just about eliminating any actual character development. It was just the same old, same old. And the rot hasn't let up. We are in the last season for the show, but I still watch it. Because I have to. Not because I want to. But boy that first half season ... As for Leno, I still record and watch the monologue. There are some canned bits I watch too, Ten@Ten works mostly, with the delay in responses actually part of the comedic charm. Any bet whatsoever that the writers have fed the subjects to the people? Didn't think so. The car race thing might be the worst use of TV time ever. It's not infuriatingly bad, just totally irrelevant. I get more enjoyment out of that new cable channel that just shows a fireplace. The interviews are mostly miss than hits. And the nightly Saturday Night Live rejected ideas segments have generally been lacking in funny. Maybe one in four are worth watching to the end. Methinks Leno is also a little nastier in this incarnation and that doesn't wear well on him. Honestly, I wish he'd swap places with Conan and go back to doing the Tonight Show. I could record him there happily, while continuing to ignore O'Brien, who's talents I have never, ever appreciated. NOTE: And movement is afoot. The days of pre-nightly news Jay Leno is going, going soon to be gone. Whether he takes back the old slot or does a half-hour (my choice) before the midnight hour, Leno's going to be Late-Night Leno again. A qualified Yippee! depending on what NBC fills the five hours with.
Canadian content lets me point out the always funny Little Mosque on the Prairie continues strong through this, it's fourth season. And I'm already on board with the new comedy, 18 to Life, which started last week. Over across the pond, we've seen Life and Trinity come and go. I really liked Life because David Attenborough and gorgeous nature filming is an impossible to screw up combination.
The weblets that came and went during the time period include Greek, Rita Rocks and the final three episodes of The Closer. Greek still entertains me, but I do wonder where we are headed post graduation for everybody but Rusty. Hated the departure of Johanna Braddy who strikes me as this century's Cheryl Tiegs (take a closer look). But am glad the romantic triangle between Cappy and Rusty's big sis Casey and whoever she was trysting with has been resolved. At least I think it's been resolved. Rita Rocks is a traditional sitcom that's sort of the anti-Two and a Half Men. No smarm at all and a good dose of usually funny Nicole Sullivan. As for The Closer, three episodes to wrap stuff up was more a taste than a full meal, but the show continues to be great TV.
What's left? One Tree Hill, getting tired and ready for retirement. But after six seasons, it's hard to stop recording. Secret Life of an American Teenager. Still record it to compare with Degrassi. Makes me proud to be Canadian. And Men of a Certain Age. Not a Ray Romano fan, but Andre Braugher can do no wrong. So, I record and watch and cringe and then enjoy some of the other stuff.
And lastly, but actually firstly, I make sure to record At the Movies in the wee hours of the morn. The Ben-Ben Disaster that was last season has given way to two adults, Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott, talking movies. Each has a writing pedigree, a love of film, and entertaining personalities. A refreshing return to the days when both subbed frequently for Roger Ebert when the show was being co-hosted by Richard Roeper. Pros doing good prose on TV. Who'd a thunk it? Recommended. Again.
CBS is winning everything and Monday nights aren't the exception. In fact, you can argue that CBS Monday night might be the strongest three-hour block from any network, any night. As usual, the boys at The Eye have decided not to be as strong as they could be, hummocking in Accidentally on Purpose between comedic heavyweights How I Met Your Mother and Two and a Half Men, but I still record and watch it, although more out of ennui than real interest. Jenna Elfman is usually comedic gold. And this show would work, if only they got rid of the cast of idiots around her. She plays pregnant (although she got pregnant in real life) with goofy charm. It's just that the baby's father, a younger man taking advantage of a cougar on the prowl, and all of his friends, are just plain stupid. Elfman's office environment is a tad bit better in the brain department, but she also has a dopey sister and a best friend, horribly under-used Ashley Jensen. Jensen's REALLY, REALLY pregnant and can hardly move around without the cameras catching it. Her physical comedic skills are canceled out as a result. Move this comedy anywhere else on the schedule and I'd give it the boot. Here. it is too easy to set the recorder to CBS, 8-11. NOTE: Accidentally IS switching nights. The sound you hear in the background is Bruce the Shark, from Jaws, getting ready.
How I Met Your Mother made the creative decision to break Robin and Barney up, so that the show can return to the old formula, but I wish they'd delayed it a bit longer. On the other hand, getting to the putative title idea is getting on my nerves. Still, the jokes remain ... wait for it ... awesome! Most nights. Not keeping pace with The Big Bang Theory, but most shows aren't either. The creators of that show are also having some wavering moments, giving Howard and Raj too much screen time for fear of burning out the star that is Jim Parsons' Sheldon. But you can never have enough Sheldon. Mathematically impossible. Going in the opposite direction, the decision to keep Leonard and Penny together has worked. The other comedy in the quartet of week starters is the venerable old Two and Half Men, which rarely surprises. It seems to be completely formulaic, but the reactions of Charlie Sheen et al still make me laugh. That Sheen's actual home life seems inspired by his comedy is just the note of tragedy that any comedy needs. As for the night-capper, CSI: Miami, things have changed very little on the junior edition of the CSI franchise. Out went Adam Rodriguez, in came Eddie Cibrian. But really, the most interesting newcomer is the technician Walter, played with smarter-than-you-think charm by Oliver Benson Miller. Looks like a walking mountain looking for a football game, but thinks like a nerd. An interesting, new character.
Fox, when they aren't out doing bad things to Josh Whedon, occasionally lets quirky shows grow and flourish. As evidence, I present House and Lie to Me. I don't think all Englishmen, whether paying faux Yank doctors (Hugh Laurie as Gregory House) or punks who've pulled themselves out of the muck (Tim Roth as Doc Cal Lightman) are all basically jerks. But the sheer in-your-face political incorrectness of both make their shows work. I'll be unhappy with the creative decision to drive Cameron (Jennifer Morrison) away from House, but at least the brought back PI Lucas Douglas, as played by Michael Weston. Lie to Me has ditched the cheating husband storyline for co-star Kelli Williamson's character and that's enriched the show immensely.
ABC's anti-Gregory House is Richard Castle and Castle, the show, is getting better as it moves along, despite a saccharine level too high for a diabetic like me. Yes, it's all Moonlighting-ish with sexual tension aplenty between Nathan Fillion's Castle and Stana Katic's hotter-than-hot police detective, but the key to turning this show into something more than a rehash is the smart-as-a-whip Castle kid, played by Molly Quinn and his loopy mother, played with hammy largesse by Susan Sullivan. (I'm old enough to remember Sullivan as a sexy young thing. And she still is). I'll slip an admission here at the end of the paragraph that I also record Gossip Girl, hoping you miss it. I don't understand the popularity of some of the young ladies in the show, but I just love watching Kelly Rutherford perform. It's a remote control on fast-forward kind of show, but I do record it.
Which brings me to NBC and the two most confounding shows on any night (and we still got Canada and cable still to go). Heroes and The Jay Leno Show. What to say? The first season of Heroes was brilliance that actually started to dim about the time Malcolm McDowell came on board. The decision to keep Sylar around was the wrong one, just about eliminating any actual character development. It was just the same old, same old. And the rot hasn't let up. We are in the last season for the show, but I still watch it. Because I have to. Not because I want to. But boy that first half season ... As for Leno, I still record and watch the monologue. There are some canned bits I watch too, Ten@Ten works mostly, with the delay in responses actually part of the comedic charm. Any bet whatsoever that the writers have fed the subjects to the people? Didn't think so. The car race thing might be the worst use of TV time ever. It's not infuriatingly bad, just totally irrelevant. I get more enjoyment out of that new cable channel that just shows a fireplace. The interviews are mostly miss than hits. And the nightly Saturday Night Live rejected ideas segments have generally been lacking in funny. Maybe one in four are worth watching to the end. Methinks Leno is also a little nastier in this incarnation and that doesn't wear well on him. Honestly, I wish he'd swap places with Conan and go back to doing the Tonight Show. I could record him there happily, while continuing to ignore O'Brien, who's talents I have never, ever appreciated. NOTE: And movement is afoot. The days of pre-nightly news Jay Leno is going, going soon to be gone. Whether he takes back the old slot or does a half-hour (my choice) before the midnight hour, Leno's going to be Late-Night Leno again. A qualified Yippee! depending on what NBC fills the five hours with.
Canadian content lets me point out the always funny Little Mosque on the Prairie continues strong through this, it's fourth season. And I'm already on board with the new comedy, 18 to Life, which started last week. Over across the pond, we've seen Life and Trinity come and go. I really liked Life because David Attenborough and gorgeous nature filming is an impossible to screw up combination.
The weblets that came and went during the time period include Greek, Rita Rocks and the final three episodes of The Closer. Greek still entertains me, but I do wonder where we are headed post graduation for everybody but Rusty. Hated the departure of Johanna Braddy who strikes me as this century's Cheryl Tiegs (take a closer look). But am glad the romantic triangle between Cappy and Rusty's big sis Casey and whoever she was trysting with has been resolved. At least I think it's been resolved. Rita Rocks is a traditional sitcom that's sort of the anti-Two and a Half Men. No smarm at all and a good dose of usually funny Nicole Sullivan. As for The Closer, three episodes to wrap stuff up was more a taste than a full meal, but the show continues to be great TV.
What's left? One Tree Hill, getting tired and ready for retirement. But after six seasons, it's hard to stop recording. Secret Life of an American Teenager. Still record it to compare with Degrassi. Makes me proud to be Canadian. And Men of a Certain Age. Not a Ray Romano fan, but Andre Braugher can do no wrong. So, I record and watch and cringe and then enjoy some of the other stuff.
And lastly, but actually firstly, I make sure to record At the Movies in the wee hours of the morn. The Ben-Ben Disaster that was last season has given way to two adults, Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott, talking movies. Each has a writing pedigree, a love of film, and entertaining personalities. A refreshing return to the days when both subbed frequently for Roger Ebert when the show was being co-hosted by Richard Roeper. Pros doing good prose on TV. Who'd a thunk it? Recommended. Again.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
TV: The Sunday Review of Fall 2009
See the Saturday Review for all the preamble. No sense re-typing it.
Sunday is 60 Minutes. Even when football runs long on CBS, SunTV is showing it at 7pm in its entirety, which is a boon for those of us who record the show. Don Hewitt's legacy wasn't always a Sunday staple. Back in the last century when I was still a teenager, 60 Minutes cropped up during the week! Don't know if they were repeats or whether the show actually shifted mid-week (I think Tuesday's but I could be wrong), but this was the flagship show, not the late, unlamented 60 Minutes II. (Well except for introducing me to Charley Rose). I distinctly remember the segment that made me a 60 Minutes fan for life. It was on William Stephenson and the cracking of the Enigma Machine. I haven't stopped watching the show since. Although, to be honest, I'm usually watching the end of the football game, while the recorder does its duty.
The two new shows that joined 60 Minutes on the disks were Three Rivers, also from CBS and The Battle of the Blades from our own CBC. Three Rivers was a goner before it ever aired. In fact, I'm shocked I managed to get through even one episode about the Pittsburgh-based organ transplant team. But I did and it grew on me. Figures. A medical show I like and the rest of you hate it. I would have preferred somebody keep Alex O'Loughlin on the air with his vamp show, Moonlight, a one-and-done 2008 gem that people also didn't care for. Idiots. But he'll eventually find a vehicle you and I will agree should stay on the air.
The Battle of the Blades was one show I only watched on Sundays, the day of the actual competition. I skipped all the Monday shows AND forgot to record the finale, having to watch it over the net at the CBC site. I enjoyed watching some of the hockey B-listers make the switchover (eventually) to figure skates. But like all reality shows, the public voting was nonsensical. Thus Craig Simpson and Jamie Sale were rewarded for a season's worth of excellence rather than their performance in the denouement, where they were obviously third-best behind Claude Lemieux/Shae-Lynn Bourne and Stephane Richer/Marie-France Dubreil. Simpson, a CBC celebrity and non-francophone and reigning Olympic gold pairs medalist Sale were good, just not good enough. But it, like American Idol and others of the ilk, was a popularity contest. Ahhh well.
The recording centre is also busy Sundays recording CTV's seminal high school drama, Degrassi: The Next Generation (Two back-to-back episodes each week) as well as the early-morning sports reporter gab-fest The Reporters on TSN. I've had my personal differences with Dave Hodge over the years, but he runs a usually entertaining half-hour with regulars Damien Cox and Steve Simmons.
Which brings me to the Sunday-night cable hits. Dexter, Californication, Bored to Death and the end of the summer season of Drop Dead Diva. All are finished now, so nothing I'm going to say is going to affect your decisions to have watched them, or to go out and get the DVD set. You either like the killer in Dexter or not, the sex-addict in Californication or not or the obsessive dreamer in Bored to Death or not. I like all three. But I really loved all of Drop Dead Diva, surely one of my top 25 shows when my birthday rolls around in July. Brooke Elliott is a star. A plus-sized star for sure. But a star nonetheless. This is one DVD set worth getting. And the second season makes this summer something to look forward to.
Tomorrow (maybe), the problem (even with three recorders) that is making decisions on Monday night TV.
Sunday is 60 Minutes. Even when football runs long on CBS, SunTV is showing it at 7pm in its entirety, which is a boon for those of us who record the show. Don Hewitt's legacy wasn't always a Sunday staple. Back in the last century when I was still a teenager, 60 Minutes cropped up during the week! Don't know if they were repeats or whether the show actually shifted mid-week (I think Tuesday's but I could be wrong), but this was the flagship show, not the late, unlamented 60 Minutes II. (Well except for introducing me to Charley Rose). I distinctly remember the segment that made me a 60 Minutes fan for life. It was on William Stephenson and the cracking of the Enigma Machine. I haven't stopped watching the show since. Although, to be honest, I'm usually watching the end of the football game, while the recorder does its duty.
The two new shows that joined 60 Minutes on the disks were Three Rivers, also from CBS and The Battle of the Blades from our own CBC. Three Rivers was a goner before it ever aired. In fact, I'm shocked I managed to get through even one episode about the Pittsburgh-based organ transplant team. But I did and it grew on me. Figures. A medical show I like and the rest of you hate it. I would have preferred somebody keep Alex O'Loughlin on the air with his vamp show, Moonlight, a one-and-done 2008 gem that people also didn't care for. Idiots. But he'll eventually find a vehicle you and I will agree should stay on the air.
The Battle of the Blades was one show I only watched on Sundays, the day of the actual competition. I skipped all the Monday shows AND forgot to record the finale, having to watch it over the net at the CBC site. I enjoyed watching some of the hockey B-listers make the switchover (eventually) to figure skates. But like all reality shows, the public voting was nonsensical. Thus Craig Simpson and Jamie Sale were rewarded for a season's worth of excellence rather than their performance in the denouement, where they were obviously third-best behind Claude Lemieux/Shae-Lynn Bourne and Stephane Richer/Marie-France Dubreil. Simpson, a CBC celebrity and non-francophone and reigning Olympic gold pairs medalist Sale were good, just not good enough. But it, like American Idol and others of the ilk, was a popularity contest. Ahhh well.
The recording centre is also busy Sundays recording CTV's seminal high school drama, Degrassi: The Next Generation (Two back-to-back episodes each week) as well as the early-morning sports reporter gab-fest The Reporters on TSN. I've had my personal differences with Dave Hodge over the years, but he runs a usually entertaining half-hour with regulars Damien Cox and Steve Simmons.
Which brings me to the Sunday-night cable hits. Dexter, Californication, Bored to Death and the end of the summer season of Drop Dead Diva. All are finished now, so nothing I'm going to say is going to affect your decisions to have watched them, or to go out and get the DVD set. You either like the killer in Dexter or not, the sex-addict in Californication or not or the obsessive dreamer in Bored to Death or not. I like all three. But I really loved all of Drop Dead Diva, surely one of my top 25 shows when my birthday rolls around in July. Brooke Elliott is a star. A plus-sized star for sure. But a star nonetheless. This is one DVD set worth getting. And the second season makes this summer something to look forward to.
Tomorrow (maybe), the problem (even with three recorders) that is making decisions on Monday night TV.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
TV: The Saturday Review of Fall 2009
I'm going to attempt to do a TV review for each night of the week of the shows we were exposed to during the 2009 Fall season. I have two TVs in the TV room, a fair cable package, three DVD recorders working full-time and a connection to the internet. So, here's what I watched/recorded/whatever over the last four months. (I'll try to get each night covered over the next week, earning a week off after that)
The easy one, Saturday. Nothing new during primetime worth watching, save for Hockey Night in Canada as far network broadcast TV is concerned. Being a Canadian, HNC is a birthright and a requirement. On the other hand, it's often shunted to the smaller TV while I catch a basketball game on the main screen. Comes from not being a Toronto Maple Leaf fan. But I do tend to watch Don Cherry's segment in the first intermission and the Hot Stove Lounge in the second intermission. Just like a million or so Canadians. Even when the Leafs are stinking the joint out. Which is frequently these decades.
November saw something crop up in afterhours to join HNC. The Wanda Sykes Show on Fox makes one wonder if the news guys at that net actually watch the non-news shows on their own network. A black lesbian comedian with a decidedly liberal bent? If they so much as surfed ove there for five minutes, some Fox News natterers would die of apoplexy. Not that that's a bad thing. Regardless, Sykes is one of the funniest people on TV and her one hour late night show is different enough and funny enough to merit skipping the better known Saturday Night Live to watch. Do I record SNL? Depends on the host.
Syndicated TV does have a couple of Saturday keepers. Merlin from Britain just finished, but the teen take on the old Arthurian wizardry legend works. The second season is in the can, but you can pick up season DVD's at an electronics super-store near you. The other syndic show that makes the grade here is Legend of the Seeker, which I only caught the first season of, after the fact on DVD. Now, it's a weekly staple for recording myself. It's from the same folks that brought the sublimely sly Xena and Hercules shows to us in decades past. Gorgeous New Zealand scenery combined with an attractive bunch of actors makes this show rather better than the Xena/Herc rip-offs we've seen since those shows completed their runs. And there's always a chance creator Sam Raimi's brother Ted will pop up to add some tongue-in-cheek mirth to the occasion.
Lastly, I also admit to recording the early Saturday morning showing of Food TV's Diners, Drive-ins and Dives featuring Guy Fieri. Say, I think I need a snack.
The easy one, Saturday. Nothing new during primetime worth watching, save for Hockey Night in Canada as far network broadcast TV is concerned. Being a Canadian, HNC is a birthright and a requirement. On the other hand, it's often shunted to the smaller TV while I catch a basketball game on the main screen. Comes from not being a Toronto Maple Leaf fan. But I do tend to watch Don Cherry's segment in the first intermission and the Hot Stove Lounge in the second intermission. Just like a million or so Canadians. Even when the Leafs are stinking the joint out. Which is frequently these decades.
November saw something crop up in afterhours to join HNC. The Wanda Sykes Show on Fox makes one wonder if the news guys at that net actually watch the non-news shows on their own network. A black lesbian comedian with a decidedly liberal bent? If they so much as surfed ove there for five minutes, some Fox News natterers would die of apoplexy. Not that that's a bad thing. Regardless, Sykes is one of the funniest people on TV and her one hour late night show is different enough and funny enough to merit skipping the better known Saturday Night Live to watch. Do I record SNL? Depends on the host.
Syndicated TV does have a couple of Saturday keepers. Merlin from Britain just finished, but the teen take on the old Arthurian wizardry legend works. The second season is in the can, but you can pick up season DVD's at an electronics super-store near you. The other syndic show that makes the grade here is Legend of the Seeker, which I only caught the first season of, after the fact on DVD. Now, it's a weekly staple for recording myself. It's from the same folks that brought the sublimely sly Xena and Hercules shows to us in decades past. Gorgeous New Zealand scenery combined with an attractive bunch of actors makes this show rather better than the Xena/Herc rip-offs we've seen since those shows completed their runs. And there's always a chance creator Sam Raimi's brother Ted will pop up to add some tongue-in-cheek mirth to the occasion.
Lastly, I also admit to recording the early Saturday morning showing of Food TV's Diners, Drive-ins and Dives featuring Guy Fieri. Say, I think I need a snack.
Friday, January 01, 2010
LIFE: Happy New Year
Okay, the project from hell has descended to the fifth circle of Dante's favourite concentric construct. I think. Might be the eighth. Haven't read the book nor the Pournelle/Niven SF update(s) in years. So take my placement with a grain of salt.
At this point, meeting my latest deadline isn't going to happen and I've decided to stop stressing and admit I'm incapable of predicting when the project will be ready to go. That's my one and only resolution for this year. No more ego trips predicting I can churn out code fast enough to match my mouth. The client needs it. I want it done and out the door and get in some reading from a hefty reading list turned out during Christmas. And I am still watching TV recorded from the first week of November. That's a serious deficit.
I'd LIKE to announce here that I will be writing daily. That's a lie. Won't happen. But I think I can hit the once-promised three times weekly target. It's a goal, not a promise.
Thanks for stopping by. And you have a HAPPY NEW YEAR! ... starting now.
At this point, meeting my latest deadline isn't going to happen and I've decided to stop stressing and admit I'm incapable of predicting when the project will be ready to go. That's my one and only resolution for this year. No more ego trips predicting I can churn out code fast enough to match my mouth. The client needs it. I want it done and out the door and get in some reading from a hefty reading list turned out during Christmas. And I am still watching TV recorded from the first week of November. That's a serious deficit.
I'd LIKE to announce here that I will be writing daily. That's a lie. Won't happen. But I think I can hit the once-promised three times weekly target. It's a goal, not a promise.
Thanks for stopping by. And you have a HAPPY NEW YEAR! ... starting now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)