Where the Battle of Algiers rages on ...Rick's Cafe Americain

After a long, bad stretch against out-of-conference opponents (0-2-3), Cornell finally got off the schneid this weekend.  The Big Red beat Notre Dame 4-0 in the opening round of the tournament and capped off the tournament with a 4-3 win over Ohio State.  No hosnnahs for i2sports this week because they only show Cornell’s home games - but the games were on CSTV!  Huge props to CSTV, even if their camerawork still needs a lot of improvement.

Dave McKee played a great game for the Red against Notre Dame, notching his second straight shutout.  I take back everything I ever said about him.  He is coming along quite nicely.  The Irish outshot Cornell, but quality shots were few and far between.  I caught this game on replay, so I don’t really have any comments.  I could break it down, but once you know the outcome it is hard to watch a game with enough attention to comment intelligently.  Mostly when you watch a game on tape, you just sit around waiting for the goals.  On to tOSU.

Cornell may have stolen one today.  First, tOSU’s best player, Dave Steckel, was out of the game with an injury.  But the first period was still almost all tOSU. The Buckeyes were able to move the puck very well and came out hitting hard. Actually, both teams were really banging today.  It made for a very exciting, if choppy, game.  Cornell’s passing was sloppy, but the AHA (Abbott-Hornby-Abbott) line was the exception.  They created a lot of near opportunities, but never a big one. Cornell had two good scoring chances in the period, but didn’t cash in on either. Ryan Vesce couldn’t squeeze one inside the post after sweeping in from the tOSU goalie’s right side on a very nice move and Betz got the best of Bitz when it looked like Bitz had a shot at an essentially empty net.  tOSU took a lead on the power play.

McKee didn’t have a chance on the first tOSU goal. Everyone was watching the puck while Kenny Bernard, a freshman playing in place of the injured Steckelskated right down the slot and put home a perfect pass from behind the net. Otherwise, didn’t generate many chances in the period despite outplaying Cornell and the period ended with tOSU up 1-0.

Cornell really controlled play in the 2d, scoring 3 goals. All three goals were the result of hard work around the net.  Mike Iggulden scored the first goal off of a pass from behind the net by Mark McCutcheon.  Iggulden’s second goal (of the game and the season) was a putback of a rebound off of a blistering shot from the point by Charlie Cook. Betz couldn’t control the rebound, and even though Iggulden didn’t get much of the puck, Betz was too far out of position to stop the dribbler from crossing the line to give Cornell a 2-1 lead. After tOSU tied the game at 2, Matt Moulson knocked in his own rebound (I think).

tOSU is at their best when they have a little space. They have had some very good 2-on-1 chances in the 2d that they didn’t convert on they keep missing the net - but the passing was crisp and confident. tOSU tied it at 2 on a spectacular goal by Paul Caponegri.  He carried the puck through the neutral zone, and straight through the Cornell defense.  He came across McKee’s left, held off his defender and just flat beat McKee top-shelf.  A real goal-scorer’s goal.  Cornell left the period up 3-2 and looking very good.  It was an illusion.

The third period was just dominated by tOSU. Cornell was content to just casually clear the puck, but they did a very poor job of it. They started the period by giving the puck away right in front of McKee three times, but managed to hold on to the lead.  McKee made a great save and tOSU flat missed the net twice. 12 minutes into the period, CU had only one shot.  It wasn’t a particularly good shot.  All that Cornell mediocrity finally caught up to them.  After a needless icing penalty, tOSU tied it up after winning the offensive zone draw.

Five minutes later, however, Caponegri committed the boner of the tournament. He apparently mouthed off to the ref after getting called for icing with 5:02 (he thought he was close enough to the red line for government work) and was given a 10 minute misconduct penalty - which effectively sidelined him the rest of the game and all of OT.  This appeared to take some of the wind out of the Buckeyes for a while, but Cornell couldn’t really do anything with it, and tOSU almost won the game, hitting the inside of the post and getting a very unlucky bounce.  And despite playing a terrible 20 minutes of hockey, Cornell still almost made it out of the game without going to OT.  Cam Abbott was all alone in front, but Betz made a spectacular save with 2:14 left to keep his team in the game.  As the clock ran out, Cornell did all it could to give away the game, but a level head by McKee and some good fortune sent the game to OT.  It was, without a doubt, the worst period I’ve seen this team play all year. But then ...

The OT started badly as Ryan O’Byrne handed the puck to Rod Pelley in the slot just 10 seconds into the period, but McKee saved O’Byrne’s bacon.

Finally, halfway through the OT, the Red got the puck in deep on tOSU.  Cam tapped it to Chris who fed it to a charging Hornby; Hornby beat Betz to the short side. A great finish by Hornby, and a great play by the AHA line.

As important, I bought a game-worn Cornell jersey on my trip to Ithaca earlier this year to watch the first game against tOSU.  It is the gear of choice for the serious Cornell hockey dork.  It is a white, #2 jersey formerly worn by Travis Bell. Yes, I wear it when watching the games in my apartment.  Like I said, serious Cornell hockey dork.  Since buying the jersey, Cornell had not won a game while I was wearing the jersey. By beating the Buckeyes - the team that first gave the jersey its bad vibe, the mojo has been restored. 

My first online experience was in simulated No Limit Texas Hold ‘em satellites. Everyone starts with $2000 in monopoly money and plays until one person is left standing.  I quickly learned that free satellites are the saddest of the freeplay jokes.  The first hand is inevitably a player going all in with 8-9o and getting 4 callers.  I can respect the nerve (if not the wisdom) of betting all-in with rags, but calling all-in with Doyle Brunson is just stupid.  And it happens all the time.  A new satellite starts every five minutes, so there is no consequence to losing. By the second hand of every satellite the table is six-seated and one guy has $10,000.  Feh.

Ring games are much closer to live game play than the satellites are to tournaments.  PokerPages gives you $1000 to play with, allows you to keep your winnings in the bank and only allows you to refill your bank every 24 hours.  If you lose all your money here, you can’t just start playing again. Still, are there many card rooms where people sit down to play a 10-25 game with $200,000?  I grant that these players earned their stacks starting with the same $1000 that I did, but it is also clear that they shrug and play drawing hands without account of pot odds because they aren’t risking real money.  I’m up to ~$20K and I feel like I am learning about how people play but the ersatz money is really corrupting of discipline (for both me and the opposition).

Tournaments are the best part of online poker; even the free ones have a realistic feel.  There is a lot of Satellite Syndrome early, but most of those players are cleaned out quickly.  If you don’t earn the table’s respect, a lot of all-in’s catch up to you right quick.  The better players want to win strictly for pride, so there is a lot of smart, disciplined play.  My initial forays into tournament play were met with quick dismissals, but I started playing much more disciplined and it paid off.  13th out of ~175 in limit 7-card stud and 11th out of ~250 in NL hold ‘em. 

As much as I wanted to win before, now I really have to play smart: my aforementioned friend in Islamabad, Mustardman, has registered with Poker Pages also.  In the two tournaments we have played in together, he finished 10th to my 26th out of ~180 at limit h/l omaha and 15th to my 14th out of ~180 in pot limit 7-card stud.  Mustard has good instincts for someone even more novice than I am, but he mostly lasts deep into tournaments by playing extra-tight and coasting. By the time he makes it to the final few tables he is so short-stacked the blinds eat him alive and he has no real chance to win.

My games have gone better than I would have expected.  I was chip leader for a long time in the Omaha tournament but I followed a bad beat (that didn’t even cost me all that much) by going on tilt.  In the space one cycle of the button I managed to blow all of my chips in a painful death spiral.  I have nobody to blame but myself.  On the other hand, I busted out of the last stud tournament on a hand that would only have happened without money on the line.  (Once again, the lack of financial consequence rears its head.) A big stack called my all-in raise (with jacks up) of +180,000 with nothing but a low pair, an ace and three cards to come.  He caught that ace on the river to win.  Frustrating, but the final placement was still a good feeling. 

Now I have to make a damn final table.  Then I can start playing strangers for money.

Peter Jackson’s trilogy was nothing short of remarkable.  The hurdles that Jackson faced were legion.  First, the story is long, detailed, intricate, complex and rich.  Second, the imagery Tolkien produced is enduring, challenging to recreate (and expensive) and often time consuming in movie terms.  Despite being over 1300 pages, the book is tightly written and, if anything, too short (Tolkien’s own criticism).  Many of the longer scenes in the movie do not take up many pages in the book because Tolkien could evoke amazing imagery in surprisingly few words.  Third, the book has many loyal devotees who simply would not tolerate any major juggling of the story line.  But, fourth, while those devotees would gladly watch a 25 hour epic mini-series rendition, for commercial success, the movies could not be much longer than three hours and it would have been tough to sell doing some number of movies other than three.

Consequently, I had more than a little trepidation when I heard that a big budget version of The Lord of the Rings was in production.  On the one hand, I had dreamed of this since I was a kid – I remember discussing with friends how we would make a truly proper movie version after we grew up and became rich and powerful enough to do so.  On the other hand, George Lucas’ atrocious Star Wars prequels (which cheapen and demean the original) demonstrated that things you dream for as a child can turn out to be nightmares.  Also, I cannot think of a single instance where a great Sci/fi/Fantasy book was made into a great movie (Blade Runner came from a (not that great anyway) short story and 2001 was written first as a movie) other than The Wizard of Oz.  But, needless to say, Jackson delivered and for that, he deserves all the praise in the world.  Sure, there were things cut that I would have liked to have seen in the movie and alterations and additions that I found to be unnecessary and detrimental (most of which were in the Two Towers).  But Tolkien’s world is too rich for there to be a single “correct” image of how to portray it in 10 hours of film.  What was surprising was not that that my vision and Jackson’s did not mesh at all times, but the frequency with which they did.  There were so many things that I thought Jackson got spot on that it would be pointless to try and name them.  Quite simply, the movies were better than I ever realistically hoped that they would be.

Of the three movies, I found The Fellowship of the Ring to easily be the best.  It enthralled me completely, which I never thought would be possible since I essentially knew everything (except for a few minor changes) that was going to happen and only did not know what would not happen (i.e., what story lines would be left out), but that does not build movie suspense.  Even in my wildest dreams, I did not think the movies could be anything more, for me, than a well-done visualization of a story I know by heart and that is what The Two Towers and The Return of the King essentially were.  Fellowship, however, sucked me in and entranced me; it often had me on the edge of my seat when I knew what was going to happen next. That is good movie making.

But despite all the praise I have Jackson’s movies, I am here to tell you the book is better.  In fact, it is not even close.  Tolkien was a true master and The Lord of the Rings deservingly belongs on the short list of great works of literature.  As for why, C.S. Lewis said it better than I ever could:

"No imaginary world has been projected which is at once as multifarious and as true to its own inner laws … none so relevant to the actual human situation yet so free from allegory … Here are beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron; here is a book that will break your heart … good beyond hope."

Tolkien, literally, created his own mythology, a mythology as rich and intricate as Greek, Roman or Norse mythology (Tolkien even created languages) and I am unaware of anything written by one person that could even come close enough to be placed in the same category – Tolkien’s broader universe is quite unique (and thankfully never has been, and hopefully never will be, corrupted by spin-offs telling side, future and past tales).  The Lord of the Rings is to Tolkien’s mythology what the Illiad and the Odyssey are to Greek mythology – except The Lord of the Rings is a better story. 

The book is also magnificent in that, as Lewis says, it is, despite being placed in a mythological land of wizards, magic swords, walking trees and ancient kings, very relevant to the human condition, but remains free of allegory (something that cannot be said of Lewis’ own works, but I digress).  Tolkien’s own thoughts on this point, set forth in a foreword, are relevant. 

"The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them . . . . As for any inner meaning or ‘message’, it has in the intention of the author none.  It is neither allegorical nor topical."

Some might say that a book that is simply a story, without a message or a political statement or a broader meaning should not be considered a seminal work of literature.  I disagree.  The Lord of the Rings is, in my opinion, simply the greatest story ever told.  It is a story that is universal and enduring and it has evoked dreams and spurred imagination in many a child (and many an adult).  The universal nature of the story is one of its greatest strengths and is something an allegorical story can never claim.  And, it is a story for adults that can be appreciated and loved by children (The Hobbit is a children’s story that adults can appreciate) and that is no easy task.

The story in the book is also different than the one in the movies, despite Jackson’s admirable faithfulness.  One thing that struck me while watching Return of the King is the way in which, not surprisingly, the action/fight/war scenes dominated the movie in many ways.  This makes perfect sense and it is not a criticism as, indeed, these are the visual representations that we dreamed about someday seeing in movie form and the movies did them phenomenal justice.  While there is an even greater emphasis in the book on magical swords and great leaders, the book is not as militaristic as the movies.  This harkens back to what I said about Tolkien’s ability to create images in few words.  The battle scenes are tightly described in the perfect balance that evokes amazing imagery without overloading on detail.  But they are not overly long and you can just imagine how many other stories are contained in the three-volume novel and how much more there is to some of the stories shown or hinted at in the movies.  Many brilliant stories are simply not in the movie – Tom Bombadil, Old Man Willow, the Barrow Wights and the true “final” battle – and there is more to the stories of Eowyn, Faramir, Merry & Pippen, Sam and the orcs, and Saurman, to name but a few. 

So, if you haven’t done so already, pick up the books, you’ll be glad you did.  And if you are someone who has not seen the movies or read the books (and are amazingly still reading this, for I do not have Tolkien’s gift), read the books first and then rent the (extended edition) DVDs.  And, if you have children down the road, or children not yet at an age to read or watch The Lord of the Rings, encourage them to read the book first.  Or, better yet, read it to them.

Peter Jackson’s trilogy was nothing short of remarkable.  The hurdles that Jackson faced were legion.  First, the story is long, detailed, intricate, complex and rich.  Second, the imagery Tolkien produced is enduring, challenging to recreate (and expensive) and often time consuming in movie terms.  Despite being over 1300 pages, the book is tightly written and, if anything, too short (Tolkien’s own criticism).  Many of the longer scenes in the movie do not take up many pages in the book because Tolkien could evoke amazing imagery in surprisingly few words.  Third, the book has many loyal devotees who simply would not tolerate any major juggling of the story line.  But, fourth, while those devotees would gladly watch a 25 hour epic mini-series rendition, for commercial success, the movies could not be much longer than three hours and it would have been tough to sell doing some number of movies other than three.

Consequently, I had more than a little trepidation when I heard that a big budget version of The Lord of the Rings was in production.  On the one hand, I had dreamed of this since I was a kid – I remember discussing with friends how we would make a truly proper movie version after we grew up and became rich and powerful enough to do so.  On the other hand, George Lucas’ atrocious Star Wars prequels (which cheapen and demean the original) demonstrated that things you dream for as a child can turn out to be nightmares.  Also, I cannot think of a single instance where a great Sci/fi/Fantasy book was made into a great movie (Blade Runner came from a (not that great anyway) short story and 2001 was written first as a movie) other than The Wizard of Oz.  But, needless to say, Jackson delivered and for that, he deserves all the praise in the world.  Sure, there were things cut that I would have liked to have seen in the movie and alterations and additions that I found to be unnecessary and detrimental (most of which were in the Two Towers).  But Tolkien’s world is too rich for there to be a single “correct” image of how to portray it in 10 hours of film.  What was surprising was not that that my vision and Jackson’s did not mesh at all times, but the frequency with which they did.  There were so many things that I thought Jackson got spot on that it would be pointless to try and name them.  Quite simply, the movies were better than I ever realistically hoped that they would be.

Of the three movies, I found The Fellowship of the Ring to easily be the best.  It enthralled me completely, which I never thought would be possible since I essentially knew everything (except for a few minor changes) that was going to happen and only did not know what would not happen (i.e., what story lines would be left out), but that does not build movie suspense.  Even in my wildest dreams, I did not think the movies could be anything more, for me, than a well-done visualization of a story I know by heart and that is what The Two Towers and The Return of the King essentially were.  Fellowship, however, sucked me in and entranced me; it often had me on the edge of my seat when I knew what was going to happen next. That is good movie making.

But despite all the praise I have Jackson’s movies, I am here to tell you the book is better.  In fact, it is not even close.  Tolkien was a true master and The Lord of the Rings deservingly belongs on the short list of great works of literature.  As for why, C.S. Lewis said it better than I ever could:

"No imaginary world has been projected which is at once as multifarious and as true to its own inner laws … none so relevant to the actual human situation yet so free from allegory … Here are beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron; here is a book that will break your heart … good beyond hope."

Tolkien, literally, created his own mythology, a mythology as rich and intricate as Greek, Roman or Norse mythology (Tolkien even created languages) and I am unaware of anything written by one person that could even come close enough to be placed in the same category – Tolkien’s broader universe is quite unique (and thankfully never has been, and hopefully never will be, corrupted by spin-offs telling side, future and past tales).  The Lord of the Rings is to Tolkien’s mythology what the Illiad and the Odyssey are to Greek mythology – except The Lord of the Rings is a better story. 

The book is also magnificent in that, as Lewis says, it is, despite being placed in a mythological land of wizards, magic swords, walking trees and ancient kings, very relevant to the human condition, but remains free of allegory (something that cannot be said of Lewis’ own works, but I digress).  Tolkien’s own thoughts on this point, set forth in a foreword, are relevant. 

"The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them . . . . As for any inner meaning or ‘message’, it has in the intention of the author none.  It is neither allegorical nor topical."

Some might say that a book that is simply a story, without a message or a political statement or a broader meaning should not be considered a seminal work of literature.  I disagree.  The Lord of the Rings is, in my opinion, simply the greatest story ever told.  It is a story that is universal and enduring and it has evoked dreams and spurred imagination in many a child (and many an adult).  The universal nature of the story is one of its greatest strengths and is something an allegorical story can never claim.  And, it is a story for adults that can be appreciated and loved by children (The Hobbit is a children’s story that adults can appreciate) and that is no easy task.

The story in the book is also different than the one in the movies, despite Jackson’s admirable faithfulness.  One thing that struck me while watching Return of the King is the way in which, not surprisingly, the action/fight/war scenes dominated the movie in many ways.  This makes perfect sense and it is not a criticism as, indeed, these are the visual representations that we dreamed about someday seeing in movie form and the movies did them phenomenal justice.  While there is an even greater emphasis in the book on magical swords and great leaders, the book is not as militaristic as the movies.  This harkens back to what I said about Tolkien’s ability to create images in few words.  The battle scenes are tightly described in the perfect balance that evokes amazing imagery without overloading on detail.  But they are not overly long and you can just imagine how many other stories are contained in the three-volume novel and how much more there is to some of the stories shown or hinted at in the movies.  Many brilliant stories are simply not in the movie – Tom Bombadil, Old Man Willow, the Barrow Wights and the true “final” battle – and there is more to the stories of Eowyn, Faramir, Merry & Pippen, Sam and the orcs, and Saurman, to name but a few. 

So, if you haven’t done so already, pick up the books, you’ll be glad you did.  And if you are someone who has not seen the movies or read the books (and are amazingly still reading this, for I do not have Tolkien’s gift), read the books first and then rent the (extended edition) DVDs.  And, if you have children down the road, or children not yet at an age to read or watch The Lord of the Rings, encourage them to read the book first.  Or, better yet, read it to them.

What is most appalling is that they get it wrong in at least four ways (let the record show that I keep retyping this number as the list grows longer).  First, they misanalyze Rodriguez’s worth.  Second, they misanalyze the effect Rodriguez’s contract has had on his current team.  Third, they misanalyze the merits of the trade.  Fourth, they misanalyze the good and bad guys as it now appears that the trade is going to fall apart.

Almost all of these errors can be found in a single article: the ESPN.com’s Writers Bloc on the trade, a roundtable discussion in which not an iota of non-cliched thought is brought to bear until the very end.  David Schoenfeld excepted, nearly everything that is wrong with sportswriting (there is no overwrought hero worship) can be found in this one column.  Reading it just gives me that Nate McCall feeling, and so holler I will.

Most of what I have to say has been said better, and with better support at Baseball Prospectus.  First, A-Rod, while overpaid, is certainly no more overpaid than half of the league is overpaid.  Yes, he signed a ten year, $252,000,000 deal, but it is worth remembering that, with the exception of the ageless Barry Bonds, he is the best player in baseball.  And Rodriguez is more than 10 years younger than Bonds, so if you are going to make a ten year investment, A-Rod is a better bet than Bonds.  This dovetails nicely into the next issue that everyone in the mainstream sports press gets wrong.  The Rangers’ problem isn’t that ARod was overpaid, even if he is.  Rodriguez performed as well as anyone expected that he would perform.  He did exactly what the Rangers expected when they signed him to the monster contract.  The problem lies with the rest of the Rangers were are not only grossly overpaid, but have not done (and will not do) anything to earn the money they have signed for. 

Third, the trade, from a purely baseball standpoint, is much better for the Red Sox than the Rangers.  ARod is younger and better than Ramirez.  He is also much better than the player he would replace at shortstop in Boston, Nomar Garciaparra.  He is a better hitter, a better fielder, younger and more durable.  Rodriguez would be an upgrade in 2004, and a far more significant improvement for 2005 and beyond.  Garciaparra is (or once was) reportedly going to be traded to the White Sox for Magglio Ordonez.  Ordonez isn’t the hitter that Ramirez is, but he is closer to Ramirez than Nomar is to ARod, two years younger than Manny, a not-horrible fielder or base runner and, unlike Manny, actually wants to play in Boston.  The deal makes sense for the Red Sox.  Nobody who isn’t responsible for paying the players’ salaries should see this deal for what it is: Boston is robbing Texas blind.

Finally, and most galling, the union is being criticized for failing to let the owners wriggle out of their contractual obligations.  ARod, because he wants to play for a winning team, was willing to give up some salary to make the deal work.  This is noble.  The Rangers and Red Sox want to use Rodriguez’s good will as a PR cudgel against the union.  This is deplorable.  Rodriguez signed his contract in good faith.  One would think that the Rangers did also.  A long time ago, baseball players got the owners to agree that all contracts are guaranteed. This is a significant improvement over the NFL, in which a four year contract is, in fact four one-year contracts in which only the signing bonus and first year (at most) are guaranteed.  Every off-season is a charade in which the owners put their collective foot on the collective throat of half the players in order to force them to take less than they signed for.  If A-Rod agrees to just give up some money, he becomes an example for the rest of the league and a standard for future behavior.  This can only hurt the players, not the owners, and there is no reason that the union should let it happen.

I would love, as a baseball fan, to see this trade go through (I would like it less as a New Yorker), but if the cost of this trade is a weaker union I thank the MLBPA for actually looking out for the non-superstars and ARod for respecting his colleagues enough that he agreed to abide by the union’s decision.

Thanks to Dave Pappas at BP for the link with all of the Rangers’ signing blunders. I’d give you a direct link, but the article is part of the Premium service.  Subscribe.  It is worth it.

Wednesday’s game was my monthly game. Most of the poker I play has its moments of frivolity, but the laughter is a facade.  Underneath the smiles, the game is sullen and competitive.  From the first deal until we go to collect our coats, I think we actually hate one another.  (Of course, we like it that way and keep going back.) But perhaps I am projecting.

My monthly game is a respite from that.  We take the poker seriously, but it is a relaxed affair involving various whiskeys and cigars and a lot of laughing.  The core of the game, Churchwarden and Sean, have been playing together since time immemorial.  Leo Bloom, another longtime player, invited me into the game a year ago.  I brought in Rick and Helmut when the game roster was the real casualty of an internecine squabble regarding the office space in which we play.  (No, I won’t give you the details.  But I will say that continuing to play puts me on the side of justice, truth and light.)

This game, despite the short table had all the marks of the usual cheer, bolstered by Helmut’s contribution of 12 year old bourbon and egg nog.  To egg nog, I say: the goyim can keep it.  To bourbon, I say: between the contributions of this and tobacco I think Kentucky gets a very bad rap. But we are here to discuss poker.

Today when the cards fell, they fell hard, and they fell hard primarily on the Churchwarden.  Tom was in the middle of a successful run, but he came down with a serious case of Second Best Hand, and it ended up costing him his whole stack.  Plus 50 cents.  It turns out that felt-burn is a frequent side effect of Second Best Hand.  He lost a lot of this money to Sean, who finally hit the big time after a year in which the game would only have been useful for him had we incorporated as a charitable foundation. I had a bad inverse-Rodney problem.  If I raised, the table folded, and while I am still winning, I’m running break-even after the cab to Brooklyn.

It has become clear that a river runs through Helmut.  Most of his success owed to some good old fashioned aggressiveness.  Churchwarden and Leo were playing uncharacteristically weak, calling Helmut on drawing hands all the way to the river and then folding when Helmut made the expected final bet.  And then Helmut nailed me good when he called me to the river.  My A-9 looked pretty good when the first four cards were 8-9-10-9, but Helmut hung in with his 7-x, got his J on the river, and took a decent pot.  I’m sure Helmut did his share of bluffing, but calling him Wednesday brought only pain.  The final reported tally (which somehow doesn’t add up):

Helmut +$64.75 US
Sean +$34.25
Ugarte +$13.25
Leo Bloom - $45.75 US
Churchwarden - $60.50 US

There is a tournament on Sunday, but I don’t think I am going to play. (Interesting.-ed.) I’ll report if I change my mind.

First a quote from Herbert’s editorial in the times that I found particularly thoughtful and sadly true “We might actually pay attention to problems like hunger, homelessness, housing and health costs, if only we could find a way to make them amusing.” Krugman’s editorial on the war and the 9/11 investigation is, as always, worth a read.

In lighter news sony has invented a robot capable of running, which from the articles I’ve read seems to be quite a feat. You can get the video here.

In other news I watched to Leone films this week and: Clint Eastwood Rocks! 

First a quote from Herbert’s editorial in the times that I found particularly thoughtful and sadly true “We might actually pay attention to problems like hunger, homelessness, housing and health costs, if only we could find a way to make them amusing.” Krugman’s editorial on the war and the 9/11 investigation is, as always, worth a read.

In lighter news sony has invented a robot capable of running, which from the articles I’ve read seems to be quite a feat. You can get the video here.

In other news I watched to Leone films this week and: Clint Eastwood Rocks! 

I think it might be a long time before I decide if I like the structure or not.  I still don’t have a “feel” for it.  When it was revealed this morning live on New York 1, the lighting on the 12 foot model was so bad that it was impossible to get much of sense of the design.  My immediate impression was that it looked like a rectangle with a pointy thing arising out of one corner (i.e., not so impressive); however, I think the bad lighting obscured the more subtle nature of the design.  For example, the building torques and tapers as it rises to the sky and much of the upper part of the building is lattice work that is supposed to have a cable that invokes the Brooklyn Bridge.  None of the models I have seen so far really demonstrates any of these features, however, so I wonder to what degree the actual building will.

Apparently, the building will incorporate wind turbines in the upper lattice work to capture the wind and create electricity for the building.  I think this is an excellent idea, I just hope that it is real and not a publicity stunt that will ultimately generate only a negligible amount of energy.

Anybody else think the name “Freedom Tower” is cheesy.  I don’t have a better suggestion, but I don’t like that name.

I heard on the radio that, rather than break ground on, oh let’s pick a random date, September 11, 2004, they will instead break ground a week-and-a-half earlier to coincide with the Republican National Convention.  I hope this is not true.  It was also suggested that Pataki wants the steel “topped off” by fall 2006, because that is when he will be running against Hilary for Senate.

On a personal note, when I was walking to work today and listening to a critic on the radio describe David Childs’ (one of the two designers) other two buildings in Manhattan, I realized I was looking at one of them – the pencil shaped building on 8th Ave. in the lower 50’s that most lawyers know as being the home of Cravath.  That was a great New York moment.  I agree with the commentator that it is not a particularly impressive building (Childs’ other Manhattan building is the new Time Warner Center).

I think it might be a long time before I decide if I like the structure or not.  I still don’t have a “feel” for it.  When it was revealed this morning live on New York 1, the lighting on the 12 foot model was so bad that it was impossible to get much of sense of the design.  My immediate impression was that it looked like a rectangle with a pointy thing arising out of one corner (i.e., not so impressive); however, I think the bad lighting obscured the more subtle nature of the design.  For example, the building torques and tapers as it rises to the sky and much of the upper part of the building is lattice work that is supposed to have a cable that invokes the Brooklyn Bridge.  None of the models I have seen so far really demonstrates any of these features, however, so I wonder to what degree the actual building will.

Apparently, the building will incorporate wind turbines in the upper lattice work to capture the wind and create electricity for the building.  I think this is an excellent idea, I just hope that it is real and not a publicity stunt that will ultimately generate only a negligible amount of energy.

Anybody else think the name “Freedom Tower” is cheesy.  I don’t have a better suggestion, but I don’t like that name.

I heard on the radio that, rather than break ground on, oh let’s pick a random date, September 11, 2004, they will instead break ground a week-and-a-half earlier to coincide with the Republican National Convention.  I hope this is not true.  It was also suggested that Pataki wants the steel “topped off” by fall 2006, because that is when he will be running against Hilary for Senate.

On a personal note, when I was walking to work today and listening to a critic on the radio describe David Childs’ (one of the two designers) other two buildings in Manhattan, I realized I was looking at one of them – the pencil shaped building on 8th Ave. in the lower 50’s that most lawyers know as being the home of Cravath.  That was a great New York moment.  I agree with the commentator that it is not a particularly impressive building (Childs’ other Manhattan building is the new Time Warner Center).