Where you left your keys ...Rick's Cafe Americain

Pretend you’re Barbara Walters or the news person of your choice. You’re planning an upcoming special interview that millions of people are expected to watch. You can interview anyone you want. Who do you choose, what one question do you want answered, and why?

Read More...

Who does the aptly named Irritable Blog Syndrome want to interview?  Why, it’s Mohammed!  Why?  Nothing less than World Peace, my friends.  How, you may ask?  Well, by asking one question: “Is this the path that you envisioned your faith taking?”.  That’s right.  See, if the answer is “no”, well then all those billions of evil Mohammedans will die of shame—but if the answer is “yes”, well, then its open season on Muslims, baby!!  Look for next week’s interview, in which Bull asks Jesus Christ, “Does The Passion get it right?” (of course it does).  2.

For her Chosen Post, Bull offers up a paean to blogging that is long on nostrums and short on analytic thought.  Here’s a taste:

I have to admit I liked the Renaissance line, which is surprisingly clever considering the rest of the piece, but Bull completely ignores the dark side of blogging—that it can be used to obfuscate as well as to illuminate, and that it brings out the worst in some of us (like those malicious trolls who waste bandwidth making ad hominem attacks on other bloggers).  5.

Next up is Lobowalk, whose interview with Osama is very short, and includes the phrase “Down on my DICK, ASS NUGGET!!”, which I believe is a mixed metaphor.  1.

Compared to his Challenge Post, Daniel Medley’s Chosen Post is a thoughtful, well-reasoned analysis of George W. Bush’s position on gay marriage.  Here’s a sampling:

As I said, compared to his Challenge Post.  2.

We turn now to Ecumenical Insanity, whose Challenge Post interview (which is apparently not posted on his blog) would be with Moammar Qaddafi, of whom he woud ask: “What is the real reason you decided to give up Libya’s weapons of mass destruction programs?” Let’s put aside the fact that I don’t know anyone who doesn’t think that the reason ol’ Mo’ decided to give it up is b/c he didn’t want Libya to become the next Iraq, so why waste your one interview on that.  I’m truly disappointed that Athanasius decided to cash in his golden opportunity for a relatively worthless political gambit that wouldn’t have worked anyway.  Also, points off for aggravating my pet peeve: talking about “rogue states that support mass murder” and leaving out Saudi Arabia. 2

Before I get to Anathasius’ Chosen Post, let me say to him what anyone who just tried to click on the previous link already knows:

There, don’t we all feel better now?
Now, I won’t get into the substance of Anathasius’ views on gay marriage, with which I disagree, but I will take issue with the following: rampant spelling errors and making up facts and statistics (i.e., “GM, particularly in men, is not likely to result in any greater degree of sexual fidelity and will probably produce significantly higher rates of divorce, given that the average gay male relationship only lasts three years.” and “gay marriage--an opportunity that would likely be grasped by less than .01% of the American population"). Kinda fun to read in the same way it is kinda fun to watch monkeys masturbate.  4.

Miniluv chose Jesus, and asked three questions (the Challenge specifies “one question").  Points for trying to be funny, points off for failing. 5.

In his Chosen Post, Miniluv announces his candidacy for President.  If the link doesn’t work, you can find the same level of discourse here. 2.

Blog Supplement‘s interviewee of choice is Mikey, the Life Cereal kid.  And all I can say is, despite myself, kids swearing is funny.  8.

As for the Chosen Post, well, that’s actually kinda funny too. 7.

Saving the best for last (not that that would be difficult here), the reigning Blog King himself, Walloworld:

Challenge: He asks Kim Jong Il about his favorite movie!!  Nice.  Clever, subtle humor with some nice jabs at Chris Matthews and himself. 8.

Chosen Post:  Triggerman makes a well-reasoned, well-written argument for imposing certain limitations on advertising directed at kids and/or aired during “family time”.  I like it.  8.

Learn from the King, people.  Learn from the King.

Read Less...

Read More...

Read the whole thing here.

Read Less...

Read More...

Read the whole thing here.

Read Less...

Read More...

Best Picture
For Best Picture, I think The Return of the King will win and should win, see comments on the movies below (in order of rank).

The Return of the King (ROTK): (****)
Of the three Lord of the Rings movies, I thought Fellowship of the Ring was by far the best and ROTK second best.  Further, the extended editions of both Fellowship and the Two Towers were superior to the theatrical renditions and I am certain it will be the same for ROTK (it was pretty obvious at times where scenes were chopped or cut).  Also, ROTK seemed a little long (or perhaps drawn out) at times, even for a devoted Tolkienite like myself, though think the extended version will, counter intuitively, diminish this effect as the story is smoothed out.  All that being said, ROTK was a visual tour-de-force and a true epic.  While I don’t think ROTK standing alone is a clear Oscar winner in any given year (though against this years competition it is), the three movies together (which really are “one” movie, just as the book was) will go down as one of the most impressive accomplishments in movie history and The Lord of the Rings in toto absolutely deserves a best picture victory.  Also, ROTK blows away previous Oscar winning war like epics like Gladiator and Braveheart.

Lost in Translation: (***)
I found Lost in Translation to be a good to very good movie.  I did not think it was a clear cut Oscar nominee when I saw it, but I am not disappointed that it garnered a nomination compared to what else was 2003 had to offer.  However, I have to disagree with those who found this to be a transcendent film.  It was original and interesting and demonstrated that Sophie Coppola has great potential, but ultimately is not that sophisticated or daring.  Hopefully, we’ll look back on this movie some day as one of Coppola’s early works that showed the promise of future greatness.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (***)
This is another movie that I did not think was clear cut Oscar material, but I am not disappointed it has been nominated.  The movie was very well done, did not over dramatize the combat scenes and, from all accounts, was very accurate in historical detail.  It also was a little slow at times and the characters were not particularly memorable, which prevents it from making a serious run at ROTK.  However, I do hope that they make more in this series.

Mystic River (**½)
Mystic River is a decent to good movie.  It is not an Oscar caliber movie.  There is nothing “wrong” with the movie, but it did not do anything original, had a fairly generic story line (as in we’ve seen all this stuff before) and the twist ending was not particularly satisfying.  The acting performances were good (not great), but were not enough to justify the critical acclaim this movie has received.  To compare it to 21 Grams – which was also an ok movie carried by a very strong cast with very strong performances – 21 Grams had a more original and more interesting story.  In addition to City of God, I would swap Mystic River with 21 Grams, Bad Santa and Elf – even though I don’t think any of those were Oscar worthy either.

Seabiscuit (**½)
Again, Seabiscuit is a good to decent movie, but is absolutely not an Oscar caliber movie.  First, the movie did not even scratch the surface of the book, which was much better (a must read).  Perhaps it is unfair to compare the movie to its source, but I did not like the creative choices made.  The movie emphasized the human characters and stories too much and did not place enough emphasis on the horse and the amazing effect the Biscuit had on the country – which is what the book focuses on.  Seabiscuit’s owner, trainer and jockey were minor celebrities in their time, but only because Seabiscuit was a major celebrity.  The movie short changed Seabiscuit’s story to make a more generic human interest story.  Blah!

Best Director
Same list as Best Picture, with the substitution of Fernando Meirelles for City of God instead of Seabiscuit (which should have been swapped in Best Picture as well).  This category is a no brainer.  Adapting The Lord of the Rings as impressively as Peter Jackson did is one of the more impressive feats in movie making history.  While Best Picture can be argued about, I think Jackson clearly deserved best director for Fellowship and ROTK and arguably the Two Towers as well.  None of the other nominated movies this year come close to having the challenges that Jackson had to overcome.

Adapted Screenplay
Nominees, American Splendor, City of God, Return of the King, Mystic River and Seabiscuit.  I did not see American Splendor, but this one is a no brainer as well.  ROTK by a mile.  If you don’t believe me, read the book – then try to think about making it into a movie.

Best Actor
I did not see House of Sand and Fog or Cold Mountain, so I cannot comment on Kingsley or Law, but all indications are that this is a three horse race between Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean), Bill Murray (Lost in Translation) and Sean Penn (Mystic River), with Penn as the slight favorite.  Again, I don’t see what was so special about Mystic River.  All of the acting performances were impressive, but I did not find Sean Penn’s performance earth shattering in any way.  Similarly, while Johnny Depp was good, as always, he often plays this somewhat quirky character and his I don’t think his pirate performance was Oscar worthy.  I would give the Oscar to Bill Murray.  One could easily sub in any number of actors to Sean Penn’s role in Mystic River and, while that perhaps cannot be said for Depp’s role, Pirates would have rolled along just fine with a less stellar performance.  However, Lost in Translation would have fallen flat on its face without a great performance from Murray and I cannot think of another actor to easily substitute for him.

Beyond the above categories, I either did not see enough of the movies nominated, or don’t enough technical knowledge (or don’t care enough) to comment on.  Please comment on where you agree and, more importantly, disagree.

Read Less...

Read More...

Best Picture
For Best Picture, I think The Return of the King will win and should win, see comments on the movies below (in order of rank).

The Return of the King (ROTK): (****)
Of the three Lord of the Rings movies, I thought Fellowship of the Ring was by far the best and ROTK second best.  Further, the extended editions of both Fellowship and the Two Towers were superior to the theatrical renditions and I am certain it will be the same for ROTK (it was pretty obvious at times where scenes were chopped or cut).  Also, ROTK seemed a little long (or perhaps drawn out) at times, even for a devoted Tolkienite like myself, though think the extended version will, counter intuitively, diminish this effect as the story is smoothed out.  All that being said, ROTK was a visual tour-de-force and a true epic.  While I don’t think ROTK standing alone is a clear Oscar winner in any given year (though against this years competition it is), the three movies together (which really are “one” movie, just as the book was) will go down as one of the most impressive accomplishments in movie history and The Lord of the Rings in toto absolutely deserves a best picture victory.  Also, ROTK blows away previous Oscar winning war like epics like Gladiator and Braveheart.

Lost in Translation: (***)
I found Lost in Translation to be a good to very good movie.  I did not think it was a clear cut Oscar nominee when I saw it, but I am not disappointed that it garnered a nomination compared to what else was 2003 had to offer.  However, I have to disagree with those who found this to be a transcendent film.  It was original and interesting and demonstrated that Sophie Coppola has great potential, but ultimately is not that sophisticated or daring.  Hopefully, we’ll look back on this movie some day as one of Coppola’s early works that showed the promise of future greatness.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (***)
This is another movie that I did not think was clear cut Oscar material, but I am not disappointed it has been nominated.  The movie was very well done, did not over dramatize the combat scenes and, from all accounts, was very accurate in historical detail.  It also was a little slow at times and the characters were not particularly memorable, which prevents it from making a serious run at ROTK.  However, I do hope that they make more in this series.

Mystic River (**½)
Mystic River is a decent to good movie.  It is not an Oscar caliber movie.  There is nothing “wrong” with the movie, but it did not do anything original, had a fairly generic story line (as in we’ve seen all this stuff before) and the twist ending was not particularly satisfying.  The acting performances were good (not great), but were not enough to justify the critical acclaim this movie has received.  To compare it to 21 Grams – which was also an ok movie carried by a very strong cast with very strong performances – 21 Grams had a more original and more interesting story.  In addition to City of God, I would swap Mystic River with 21 Grams, Bad Santa and Elf – even though I don’t think any of those were Oscar worthy either.

Seabiscuit (**½)
Again, Seabiscuit is a good to decent movie, but is absolutely not an Oscar caliber movie.  First, the movie did not even scratch the surface of the book, which was much better (a must read).  Perhaps it is unfair to compare the movie to its source, but I did not like the creative choices made.  The movie emphasized the human characters and stories too much and did not place enough emphasis on the horse and the amazing effect the Biscuit had on the country – which is what the book focuses on.  Seabiscuit’s owner, trainer and jockey were minor celebrities in their time, but only because Seabiscuit was a major celebrity.  The movie short changed Seabiscuit’s story to make a more generic human interest story.  Blah!

Best Director
Same list as Best Picture, with the substitution of Fernando Meirelles for City of God instead of Seabiscuit (which should have been swapped in Best Picture as well).  This category is a no brainer.  Adapting The Lord of the Rings as impressively as Peter Jackson did is one of the more impressive feats in movie making history.  While Best Picture can be argued about, I think Jackson clearly deserved best director for Fellowship and ROTK and arguably the Two Towers as well.  None of the other nominated movies this year come close to having the challenges that Jackson had to overcome.

Adapted Screenplay
Nominees, American Splendor, City of God, Return of the King, Mystic River and Seabiscuit.  I did not see American Splendor, but this one is a no brainer as well.  ROTK by a mile.  If you don’t believe me, read the book – then try to think about making it into a movie.

Best Actor
I did not see House of Sand and Fog or Cold Mountain, so I cannot comment on Kingsley or Law, but all indications are that this is a three horse race between Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean), Bill Murray (Lost in Translation) and Sean Penn (Mystic River), with Penn as the slight favorite.  Again, I don’t see what was so special about Mystic River.  All of the acting performances were impressive, but I did not find Sean Penn’s performance earth shattering in any way.  Similarly, while Johnny Depp was good, as always, he often plays this somewhat quirky character and his I don’t think his pirate performance was Oscar worthy.  I would give the Oscar to Bill Murray.  One could easily sub in any number of actors to Sean Penn’s role in Mystic River and, while that perhaps cannot be said for Depp’s role, Pirates would have rolled along just fine with a less stellar performance.  However, Lost in Translation would have fallen flat on its face without a great performance from Murray and I cannot think of another actor to easily substitute for him.

Beyond the above categories, I either did not see enough of the movies nominated, or don’t enough technical knowledge (or don’t care enough) to comment on.  Please comment on where you agree and, more importantly, disagree.

Read Less...

Read More...

Arnold Friedman, a well respected school teacher, was caught with a large stash of man-boy child pornography.  When the police discovered that he ran computer classes for young boys in his home, they launched an investigation (it appeared the classes were just for boys, but the movie never proffers an explanation).  Going house to house and interviewing, and often re-interviewing suggestively until they got what they wanted, the police built a case of child molestation against Arnold and his 19 year-old son Jesse.  Arnold and Jesse were arrested and charged with hundreds of counts of sodomy and other acts of molestation.

Arnold had many home movies of his family and, just before the crisis started, the oldest son, David Friedman, purchased a home video camera and recorded family discussions, debates and break downs, allowing us to be a fly on the wall of this quite dysfunctional family.  Additionally, the filmmakers interviewed, modern day, the police who investigated the case, the judge, David and Jesse, the mother and wife Edina Friedman, children who recalled being molested, children who swore nothing ever happened and other bit players.  Interestingly, the dominant character in the movie was probably David who, I kid you not, is the #1 Birthday Clown in NYC (though I seriously wonder if he has kept that title after this movie).  David clearly has some serious issues and comes across like someone who believes that if he tells himself, and everyone else, that it isn’t true long enough that it won’t be.

I was surprised, in that, based on what I knew of the movie before watching it, I expected that I would come away with more questions about Arnold and Jesse’s guilt.  I hesitate to attempt to draw any conclusions because, as a lawyer, I have had direct experience in how one person or entities’ (especially a movie or T.V. production) rendition of events can tell a tale far removed from the truth; however, just based on the movie and the bonus material, my take would be that (1) Arnold, and probably Jesse, were probably guilty of something; (2) the gruesome horror story told by the police almost certainly was exaggerated and (3) the Friedmans are one fucked up family.

The bonus material on the second DVD is a great addition because the story continued after the movie was released.  When you see a controversial documentary like this, you often wonder what the people in the documentary thought about it.  Here, you get to find out.  The bonus DVD includes:  (1) the judge speaking out (and be spoken out at) at the Great Neck debut of the movie; (2) confrontations between many of the principles during an open discussion at the NYC debut at the Tribecca Film Festival; (3) additional elements to the story left out because of time constraints; (4) Jesse’s life today free and out of jail – and dating a doctor.  So, if you rent the DVD, definitely check out disc 2, you’ll be glad you did.  You can also check out the website for interesting things too. 

Read Less...

Read More...

Arnold Friedman, a well respected school teacher, was caught with a large stash of man-boy child pornography.  When the police discovered that he ran computer classes for young boys in his home, they launched an investigation (it appeared the classes were just for boys, but the movie never proffers an explanation).  Going house to house and interviewing, and often re-interviewing suggestively until they got what they wanted, the police built a case of child molestation against Arnold and his 19 year-old son Jesse.  Arnold and Jesse were arrested and charged with hundreds of counts of sodomy and other acts of molestation.

Arnold had many home movies of his family and, just before the crisis started, the oldest son, David Friedman, purchased a home video camera and recorded family discussions, debates and break downs, allowing us to be a fly on the wall of this quite dysfunctional family.  Additionally, the filmmakers interviewed, modern day, the police who investigated the case, the judge, David and Jesse, the mother and wife Edina Friedman, children who recalled being molested, children who swore nothing ever happened and other bit players.  Interestingly, the dominant character in the movie was probably David who, I kid you not, is the #1 Birthday Clown in NYC (though I seriously wonder if he has kept that title after this movie).  David clearly has some serious issues and comes across like someone who believes that if he tells himself, and everyone else, that it isn’t true long enough that it won’t be.

I was surprised, in that, based on what I knew of the movie before watching it, I expected that I would come away with more questions about Arnold and Jesse’s guilt.  I hesitate to attempt to draw any conclusions because, as a lawyer, I have had direct experience in how one person or entities’ (especially a movie or T.V. production) rendition of events can tell a tale far removed from the truth; however, just based on the movie and the bonus material, my take would be that (1) Arnold, and probably Jesse, were probably guilty of something; (2) the gruesome horror story told by the police almost certainly was exaggerated and (3) the Friedmans are one fucked up family.

The bonus material on the second DVD is a great addition because the story continued after the movie was released.  When you see a controversial documentary like this, you often wonder what the people in the documentary thought about it.  Here, you get to find out.  The bonus DVD includes:  (1) the judge speaking out (and be spoken out at) at the Great Neck debut of the movie; (2) confrontations between many of the principles during an open discussion at the NYC debut at the Tribecca Film Festival; (3) additional elements to the story left out because of time constraints; (4) Jesse’s life today free and out of jail – and dating a doctor.  So, if you rent the DVD, definitely check out disc 2, you’ll be glad you did.  You can also check out the website for interesting things too. 

Read Less...

Read More...

The movie comprises excerpts from a 20-hour interview of McNamara (JFK and Johnson’s Secretary of Defense) focusing on his role in World War II, the Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam.  In addition to the interview with McNamara, we are shown images of what is being described and we also often hear tape recorded exchanges between McNamara and Kennedy or Johnson.  The contemporary exchanges alone make the movie worth seeing. 

McNamara’s recollections, insights and conclusions are fascinating and the filmmakers do an excellent job of blending themes.  One example is the discussion of proportionality in war, a doctrine McNamara loosely endorses.  During World War II McNamara analyzed the efficiency of bombing raids in Germany and Japan and helping to develop America’s crushing air superiority.  He discusses the devastating pre-Hiroshima fire bombing of Japan led by General Curtis LeMay (which was far more extensive than I had ever realized) and admits that the architects of the bombing raids, himself included, probably would have been tried as war criminals if we had lost the war.  He asks the question, without answering it, whether the killing of hundreds of thousands (if not more) Japanese civilians was justified in order to save American troops.  The filmmakers subtly compare this approach, with the U.S.’s approach in Vietnam, where the debate continues today as to whether we put in too many or too few troops.  (McNamara maintains that he wanted to scale back the conflict and refers to a memorandum he wrote to Johnson just before he “resigned”/was fired where he advocated scaling back operations; however, other statements by McNamara don’t seem entirely consistent with that position and McNamara’s comments on Vietnam were not as straightforward as his comments on WWII or the Cuban Missile Crisis.) Neither the movie, nor McNamara attempt to give a definitive answer, but the contrasts in approach and tactics are though provoking.

Many other aspects of the movie that could be commented on, such as an insider’s chilling recollections, aided by hindsight and additional information, of how close we came to nuclear devastation in the Cuban missile crisis, but a full discussion could fill a book.  Go see this movie or, perhaps better yet, catch it on DVD.  An extended edition version is due out soon and if it is like the extra material on the 2 disk Capturing the Friedmans DVD, waiting for (or seeing it again on) the DVD will be well worth it.  While there are some excellent visuals in the movie, you won’t lose much viewing it on DVD as long as you can watch it in letterbox.  Also, it is an excellent movie to stop and discuss at times as a lot of ground covered in less than two hours.

Fog of War was directed by Errol Morris, who also did The Thin Blue Line and A Brief History of Time, both of which I highly recommend.

The website for Fog of War is quite interesting and has excerpts from the film.

Read Less...

Read More...

The movie comprises excerpts from a 20-hour interview of McNamara (JFK and Johnson’s Secretary of Defense) focusing on his role in World War II, the Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam.  In addition to the interview with McNamara, we are shown images of what is being described and we also often hear tape recorded exchanges between McNamara and Kennedy or Johnson.  The contemporary exchanges alone make the movie worth seeing. 

McNamara’s recollections, insights and conclusions are fascinating and the filmmakers do an excellent job of blending themes.  One example is the discussion of proportionality in war, a doctrine McNamara loosely endorses.  During World War II McNamara analyzed the efficiency of bombing raids in Germany and Japan and helping to develop America’s crushing air superiority.  He discusses the devastating pre-Hiroshima fire bombing of Japan led by General Curtis LeMay (which was far more extensive than I had ever realized) and admits that the architects of the bombing raids, himself included, probably would have been tried as war criminals if we had lost the war.  He asks the question, without answering it, whether the killing of hundreds of thousands (if not more) Japanese civilians was justified in order to save American troops.  The filmmakers subtly compare this approach, with the U.S.’s approach in Vietnam, where the debate continues today as to whether we put in too many or too few troops.  (McNamara maintains that he wanted to scale back the conflict and refers to a memorandum he wrote to Johnson just before he “resigned”/was fired where he advocated scaling back operations; however, other statements by McNamara don’t seem entirely consistent with that position and McNamara’s comments on Vietnam were not as straightforward as his comments on WWII or the Cuban Missile Crisis.) Neither the movie, nor McNamara attempt to give a definitive answer, but the contrasts in approach and tactics are though provoking.

Many other aspects of the movie that could be commented on, such as an insider’s chilling recollections, aided by hindsight and additional information, of how close we came to nuclear devastation in the Cuban missile crisis, but a full discussion could fill a book.  Go see this movie or, perhaps better yet, catch it on DVD.  An extended edition version is due out soon and if it is like the extra material on the 2 disk Capturing the Friedmans DVD, waiting for (or seeing it again on) the DVD will be well worth it.  While there are some excellent visuals in the movie, you won’t lose much viewing it on DVD as long as you can watch it in letterbox.  Also, it is an excellent movie to stop and discuss at times as a lot of ground covered in less than two hours.

Fog of War was directed by Errol Morris, who also did The Thin Blue Line and A Brief History of Time, both of which I highly recommend.

The website for Fog of War is quite interesting and has excerpts from the film.

Read Less...

Read More...

First of all, huge kudos to grubby for putting together a terrific event, full of fun prizes and—for the few minutes I was with them—what seemed like a great group of folks.  Congratulations to Mean Gene, whose play was aggressive and whose cards were near-perfect even in those protean moments when I was still at the table.  Congratulations also to Liquid Swords, who burned faster than I but brighter by far, and who took home the free poker lessons.  Honorable mentions go also to the top 7 semi-finalists, all of whom took home some swag:

The Fat Guy
anisotropy
Poker Code
Grubby
The Poker Penguin
Felicia Lee
Jeremy CJ (who took home the Hammer T-Shirt, as a reminder of how Jeremy cracked his AA with the mighty 72o.)

But most of all, apologies to Ugarte, whose seat I so ineptly and inadequately sought to fill at last night’s game, since he was traveling and couldn’t make it himself.  Because, in case you are particularly dense or inexplicably started reading at this sentence, I played poorly, finishing second-to-last (appropriate, as the first player to get knocked out actually got a consolation prize, which my play did not deserve).  I won’t bore you with the details, primarily because there aren’t any, and I’ll update with a link if and when a hand history gets posted (I sure as heck ain’t requesting one), but let me tell you what I remember . . .

My discipline cracked almost immediately.  I’m pretty sure I raised on the first hand with something vaguely crappy, like Q-10 offsuit, and that was probably my best play all night.  In the six or seven hands I played (out of maybe a dozen or 15—that right there should tellyou something, because the best hand I got dealt, or close to it, was the hand I went out on: 99), I overplayed the crap and underplayed anything that might have had a shot at winning.  The whole thing (all --what—7 minutes of it?) was like an out of body experience.  I had just finished, the night before, lecturing my brother about playing too many hands and staying in with unimproved dominated hands.  So what did I do?  Here’s how I remember it:

In early position, I get 99.  My play so far has been sufficiently maniacal that everyone at the table has got a pretty good feel for my raises.  So I raise.  Most of the players behind me fold, but (at least) one guy stays in for the flop.  I think he re-raised me, a lot, and I called.  Here’s the flop, as I recall: 7♦ 8♦ 9♦.  Not sure about the suit.
So what do I do?  I’m pretty sure I bet.  Not terribly surprisingly, he raises.
I call.
I think at this point I’m down to about 400 bucks (out of 1200).  The turn comes, and though I can barely see it through the deepening haze imposed by my memory’s own self-protective filter, it looks like it was a 10.
It may have been at that point that some part of my rational brain pushed through long enough to make me check.  But when he bet, that rational part got slingshotted back to wherever it was being pinned down, and I went all-in.

If memory serves, the river was a K, and he took me down with the king-high straight.  Which leaves me wondering, how could he have been so sure I didn’t have the flush?  Could it have been the way I’d been playing?

Read Less...

Read More...

I am very much in favor of the green party movement and I do not like America’s two party system.  But the two party system in America is strongly entrenched (largely because of the way we elect our leaders) and it will be very difficult for a strong third (or fourth) party movement to emerge.  I do believe that there is a space for a third party since neither party advocates what I think a large percentage of Americans really want/believe in, which is a government that is fairly hands off on social issues and the economy (of course, this might also be why Clinton was so popular as he came close to that).  I also think that a viable green party is, unfortunately, largely impossible because of the way our electoral system is set-up, but I still strongly advocate a viable green party and, generally speaking, would support it in the hopes that it could buck the structure of our electoral system and emerge as a real party.

But this is not the year for such a stand.  Liberals—and even those who are more mainstream—are strongly united that Bush has got to go.  Nader can crow all he wants about the similarities of the two parties, but the Bush administration has marked a strong shift towards conservatism in the Republican party and democrats and liberals and greens and those who consciously would favor a third party along the lines of the one I describe in the paragraph above (as opposed to what I believe are a large percentage of people who would support that if given such a vialbe option, but don’t think enough about politics to help such a party form) are nearly universally united towards knocking Bush off this year.  Consequently, the timing for another Nader Presidential bid is awful (it was awful in the last election as well, but hindsight is 20/20—which is exactly the point). 

Nader has a point, that such an argument can often be made and that the importance building a viable third party movement is bigger than any one election, but Nader also has to recognize reality.  And that reality is that his running for President will create resentment among many people who, in another election, would consider voting for him in order to support either the idea of either a viable third party and/or a viable green party (I view a green party as more of a fourth party).  That reality will potentially hurt the movement, as Nader will probably gather fewer votes this time around. 

Hopefully, people will recognize that Nader’s run in this election is more about personal hubris than third party politics.  Thus, I hope that he run will not hurt the movement (and hopefully won’t throw the election to Bush—again) and will simply serve to marginalize Nader, who has not emerged as an ideal leader in the movement for a third party. 

Read Less...

Read More...

I am very much in favor of the green party movement and I do not like America’s two party system.  But the two party system in America is strongly entrenched (largely because of the way we elect our leaders) and it will be very difficult for a strong third (or fourth) party movement to emerge.  I do believe that there is a space for a third party since neither party advocates what I think a large percentage of Americans really want/believe in, which is a government that is fairly hands off on social issues and the economy (of course, this might also be why Clinton was so popular as he came close to that).  I also think that a viable green party is, unfortunately, largely impossible because of the way our electoral system is set-up, but I still strongly advocate a viable green party and, generally speaking, would support it in the hopes that it could buck the structure of our electoral system and emerge as a real party.

But this is not the year for such a stand.  Liberals—and even those who are more mainstream—are strongly united that Bush has got to go.  Nader can crow all he wants about the similarities of the two parties, but the Bush administration has marked a strong shift towards conservatism in the Republican party and democrats and liberals and greens and those who consciously would favor a third party along the lines of the one I describe in the paragraph above (as opposed to what I believe are a large percentage of people who would support that if given such a vialbe option, but don’t think enough about politics to help such a party form) are nearly universally united towards knocking Bush off this year.  Consequently, the timing for another Nader Presidential bid is awful (it was awful in the last election as well, but hindsight is 20/20—which is exactly the point). 

Nader has a point, that such an argument can often be made and that the importance building a viable third party movement is bigger than any one election, but Nader also has to recognize reality.  And that reality is that his running for President will create resentment among many people who, in another election, would consider voting for him in order to support either the idea of either a viable third party and/or a viable green party (I view a green party as more of a fourth party).  That reality will potentially hurt the movement, as Nader will probably gather fewer votes this time around. 

Hopefully, people will recognize that Nader’s run in this election is more about personal hubris than third party politics.  Thus, I hope that he run will not hurt the movement (and hopefully won’t throw the election to Bush—again) and will simply serve to marginalize Nader, who has not emerged as an ideal leader in the movement for a third party. 

Read Less...