Jeff Van Gundy's Basketball Strategy

I was not planning on posting anything this evening, but I'm watching the end of game five of the NBA's Eastern Conference Finals and I heard Jeff Van Gundy say something that was incredibly stupid.  It was so stupid that it deserved a post.

So the situation was that Boston was leading 90-88 with 15.2 seconds left and preparing to inbound the ball.  Ray Allen caught the inbound pass close to the sideline and was quickly fouled by Miami's Shane Battier with 13.8 seconds remaining.  And then the fun started.

Here is the paraphrase from Van Gundy - If I was Miami I would have trapped Allen on the sideline there rather than foul because there's a chance that he may have turned the ball over like what happened last night in the Oklahoma City-San Antonio game.

And if you were Miami, you would have lost faster than they did tonight, Jeff.  Good work.

And just to add to that, here's a bonus one.  With forty or so seconds left, Boston led by I believe four points and had the ball.  Mike Breen asked Van Gundy whether Miami should foul right away.  Van Gundy said that they did not need to foul but just play solid defense.  Hey Jeff, I suppose you could just let the Celtics run off twenty something seconds leaving you with fewer than twenty seconds remaining to score four points.  Oh, that's what Miami did?!  And Miami lost partly by employing this incredibly stupid strategy?!  I am shocked.  It always amazes me that teams use a such a stupid strategy of allowing that much time to tick off the clock, thinking that they are going to be able to play outstanding defense, not foul, grab the rebound, and then make up (in this case especially) two possessions in less than twenty seconds.

Sometimes I sugarcoat things, but I cannot do so in this case.  This was incredibly stupid strategy espoused by Van Gundy.

Pacers-Heat: Game 5 - Morning After

So my cable reception ended up getting screwed up last night sometime in the third quarter and I did not see the end of last night's game five.  As a result, I did not see or hear about Miami's Dexter Pittman's hard foul on Indiana's Lance Stephenson in the closing moments of the game.  I have since watched the play and I wish that I could say that I was shocked at how the officials judged the play, but I'm not because they also judged the play a Flagrant "1".

This foul was even more absurdly called than the Udonis Haslem foul discussed in my previous post.  Stephenson was driving toward the basket and Pittman steps across the lane and throws an elbow at Stephenson's head/neck area, knocking him off balance.  You can see video of the play here, courtesy of NBAHighlight247.  (Additionally, here are the videos of the Hansbrough foul and the Haslem foul mentioned in the previous post, again courtesy of NBAHighlight247, which were not available at the time of my last post.)

What the officials did in calling those plays in last night's game was absolutely gutless.  If those referees are unable to judge the differences between those three plays, then they do not qualify to officiate basketball games of any level, and particularly not NBA games.  People can disagree about whether the Hansbrough foul should have been called a flagrant.  I thought it was borderline; I thought it could have been called either just a foul or a Flagrant "1".  And at halftime of the game, there was a disagreement in the Inside the NBA studio where at least Charles Barkley thought that the Hansbrough foul was not a flagrant foul, but it certainly was not a "borderline" Flagrant "2" foul as Steve Kerr had judged during the game.  However, the plays by Haslem and Pittman were clearly Flagrant "2" fouls and both should have been immediately ejected.  I am definitely at an absolute loss as to how Pittman was not ejected.

If the NBA has any spine, three things should happen.  First of all, the officials that worked last night's game should not be allowed to work any more games this postseason.  They have demonstrated an inability to judge the degree of severity of fouls and this cannot be allowed to persist in the NBA playoffs.  The second thing that the NBA should do is elevate Haslem's foul to a Flagrant "2" and suspend him from Game 6 of this series.  Had Haslem been charged appropriately during Game 5 and subsequently ejected, the suspension would not be necessary.  But since it seems clear to me that Haslem intentionally took a shot at Hansbrough's head, he should now be punished with a one game suspension.  Finally, Pittman should be suspended for multiple games.  I think that Tim Legler suggested three to four games, saying that it should not be as severe as Metta World Peace's seven game suspension for elbowing James Harden in the head due to World Peace's previous history.  That is a fair assessment, but I would disagree because at least in the case of World Peace it was a spur of the moment kind of thing and I do not think there was premeditation.  Pittman seemed to have time to think about what he was doing and decided to follow through with a dangerous elbow to another player's throat area.  I think that Pittman deserves a suspension at least as long as World Peace's seven games.

That is what the NBA should do if the organization has any spine.  However, as the NBA seems frequently to appear to try to protect their glamor teams and players, I'm highly skeptical as to whether they will level a stiff, but deserved penalty to their darling Miami Heat.

Pacers-Heat: Game 5

So I'm watching game five of the Pacers-Heat Eastern Conference semifinal series right now and decided I had to take issue with Steve Kerr's analysis.  There were a couple of incidences occurring relatively close to each other during the second period of the game where first Tyler Hansbrough of the Pacers was assessed a Flagrant "1" foul for a foul committed against Miami's Dwyane Wade and then the Heat's Udonis Haslem was assessed a Flagrant "1" foul for a foul committed against Hansbrough.  First of all, if you see replays of these two plays, it is pretty clear that there is absolutely no equivalence between these two fouls.  The referees screwed up in their assessments, as Kerr suggested, but Kerr's analysis seems absurd as well.

First of all, I'll provide the definitions of the two types of flagrant fouls as listed at NBA.com:

Flagrant "1" (FFP1) - unnecessary contact committed by a player against an opponent. The opposing team is awarded two (2) free throws and possession.

Flagrant "2" (FFP2) - unnecessary and excessive contact committed by a player against an opponent. The opposing team is awarded two (2) free throws and possession and the player committing the foul is automatically ejected.

Now Kerr explains that Hansbrough's foul was a borderline Flagrant "2" offense and Haslem's was definitely a Flagrant "2".  With Kerr's assessment of Haslem's foul, I wholeheartedly agree.  Haslem's foul on Hansbrough was unnecessary and excessive.  He made no pretense of trying to make a play on the ball, but instead chose to rake both of his hands across Hansbrough's face and head.  It seemed clear to me that this was a retaliatory play for Hansbrough's foul at the other end of the court.  However, Kerr's assessment of the Hansbrough foul is completely unsupported by what occurred, and I'm unsure of what he was actually viewing.

First of all, Hansbrough makes a clear attempt at blocking the ball on Wade's drive toward the basket.  So clear is this attempt by Hansbrough that he actually does make contact with the ball during the play.  And this was a more difficult thing for Hansbrough to do than Haslem considering that on Hansbrough's shot he went straight up in the air attempting the shot while Wade was attacking the basket when Hansbrough met him on his right side, with the ball shielded by his body.  Yet, Hansbrough was able to block the ball away with his right hand as the two met.  It so happened that Hansbrough collided with Wade lower with the body and then on the follow-through of blocking the ball, Hansbrough's hand hit Wade across the face, but this does not rise anywhere close to "unnecessary and excessive contact."  I'm not sure what Kerr was looking at, whether he was reacting just to the fact that Wade's face was bleeding and that he went to the floor, but it is absurd to say that was a "borderline" Flagrant "2".  If anything that was a borderline Flagrant "1".

2012 Kentucky Derby

I've been thinking a lot about the Kentucky Derby in the thirty or so hours since the race was run.  It is always an exciting event for me, but this year I was a bit lucky to catch the race as I was attending friends' Cinco de Mayo party and almost missed it as I arrived right about post time.  And so I did miss the opening of the starting gates, but the television was on in time for me to start watching while they were still in the first quarter of a mile.

As I said, I'm always excited about this race and when March comes around each year, I'm searching for information about prep races the horses have done to get an idea about what horses will truly be in contention for the victory.  I knew about Hansen, the horse that had won last fall's Breeders' Cup Juvenile and then went on to win the Eclipse Award as America's top two-year old colt.  I knew about Gemologist, the undefeated colt that had won the Wood Memorial .  And I had also heard about a few of the other horses such as Union Rags and Take Charge Indy.  But about a week or so out from when the Derby was to be run, I learned about a new horse that I had heard nothing about to this point.

And that horse was of course Bodemeister.  I was on ESPN's horse racing page and I saw a link to the story about the Arkansas Derby that had taken place on April 14, a Bodemeister win by 9-1/2 lengths.  I was stunned to read about this since the Arkansas Derby is considered a fairly important Kentucky Derby prep race, with the winner having a pretty good shot of qualifying for the early May race.  You just don't normally see horses winning this type of race by 9-1/2 lengths.  I remember back in 2008 watching Big Brown race and win the Florida Derby, another important Kentucky Derby prep race, before going on to convincing victories in the first two legs of the Triple Crown.  I was of course impressed by Big Brown in that Florida Derby, but I was far more impressed with Bodemeister's destruction of the field in the Arkansas Derby.  Bodemeister just seemed to get the job done far more easily than Big Brown, and the former's margin of victory was double that of the latter.  Of course a large part of this could be attributed to the competition each faced.  I have not gone back to compare the fields that the two colts faced in their final prep races.  But to get to the point, I was so extremely impressed with Bodemeister that I could not wait to see what he would do in the Kentucky Derby.

Bodemeister was installed as the morning line favorite for the race, as I thought that he should be because it was truly tough to find a performance by another colt in the field that rivaled that Arkansas Derby performance.  The lines changed of course, but I have read somewhere that Bodemeister remained the post time favorite.  As we joined the race shortly after the start, I saw the first quarter-mile fraction: 22.32 seconds, with Bodemeister in the lead.  Wow, I thought.  And then he continued through a half-mile of 45.39 seconds and three quarters of a mile in 1:09.80.  I was absolutely stunned seeing these times.  I don't think you generally see fractions this fast at the Breeders' Cup Classic when the best horses in the world are assembled.  When Bodemeister hit the three quarters mark in sub-1:10, I thought that there was no way he'd be able to hold on over the last half mile.

But Bodemeister kept pushing on, hit the mile in 1:35.19, and seemed to open up his largest lead of the race as he hit the quarter poll and started the run for home.  As Bodemeister ran down the stretch, you could see that the early fast fractions were catching up to him, as the other horses in the field started catching up to him.  That is, some of the other horses that did not follow closely to his torrid pace.  The horses that were close to him in through the middle of the race were not so as the race came to its conclusion.  And in the end, only I'll Have Another was able to pass by Bodemeister in the final sixteenth of a mile to win (2:01.83), having stayed away from the fast early pace.

I have read a few people's commentaries on the race and there are a number of them that seem to share my sentiments in being more impressed with the runner-up than the winner.  Yes, it is crazy to say this, but for me it is true.  The Preakness Stakes is coming up on May 19 and I more excited than I was going into Big Brown's 2008 Preakness (provided Bodemeister does go on to run, that is).  Generally I'm pulling for the Kentucky Derby winner to take the Preakness so that for once in my lifetime there will be a Triple Crown winner that I remember, since I was only a few months old in 1978 when Affirmed won the last Triple Crown.  But this year I've decided the Triple Crown can wait one more year.  I just want to see Bodemeister do something special in these last two races.

A Tribute to Mariano Rivera

It is amazing to me that I'm sitting here today writing a post titled A Tribute to Mariano Rivera, but on this morning I feel that I need to do just this.  My interest in baseball has fallen in a severely exponential way in the last decade.  Twenty to twenty-five years ago I could sit and watch baseball all day, but now I can rarely sit through an entire half inning of the sport.  The game bores me and certainly in the last decade or so I have found it comical that many people still refer to it as 'America's Pastime.'  But the biggest reason that this post might be surprising is that to the extent that anyone can still refer to me in any way as a fan to any degree of anything related to baseball, I am a fan of the New York Mets, and Mariano Rivera is the longtime closer of the New York Yankees, the team that I hate more than any other professional sports team.  But yesterday, prior to the Yankees' game against the Kansas City Royals, Rivera, while catching balls in the outfield during the Yankees' batting practice, went down with a torn ACL.  Such an injury means that he is done for this season and at forty-two years of age, he may have pitched his last ball in professional baseball.  I cannot think of a sadder turn of events for the sport of baseball.

I have not always been a fan of Rivera.  Indeed, for many years I hated everything Yankees-related.  True, while I was in college in Massachusetts I grudgingly rooted for the Yankees because I enjoyed playing the role of arrogant New Yorker and hated being immersed in New England fandom.  I hated having to hear about all the Boston sports teams non-stop, year-round.  I grew to hate the Celtics, Bruins, Patriots, and Red Sox, and so I could root for the Yankees (again, grudgingly) because of the angst that arose in the region each time the Yankees succeeded during those years.  (I was in college from 1996-2000.)

But things changed during the summer of 2000.  At the conclusion of the year, the Yankees would go on to defeat the Mets in the World Series, a fact which crystallized my eternal hatred for the Yankees.  However, it was in the summer of that year that my animosity started to build toward the team.  The Yankees and Mets were playing an interleague game at Yankees Stadium and the Mets' Mike Piazza was facing the Yankees' Roger Clemens.  Now Roger Clemens had struggled when pitching to Piazza in the past, and just like any professional athlete who is facing some difficulty and in need of a few tweaks to his game, Roger Clemens made some adjustments and threw a fastball that hit Piazza in the head.  A real tough guy that Roger Clemens was, throwing at people that he could not get out fairly because he knew he was protected by the American League designated hitter rule.  But then we fast-forward to the World Series and in Piazza's first at-bat versus Clemens since Clemens had hit him in the head, Piazza fouled off a pitch, causing the bat to break, with the barrel tumbling out to the left of the mound if you are facing home plate.  And of course Clemens, being the great guy that he is, picked up the bat barrel and threw it in Piazza's direction (and to this day I believe he threw it at Piazza), but seemed to mouth the excuse, "I thought it was the ball," as Piazza took exception and started walking toward the mound.  Of course no data was provided on how many times during Clemens's career when a ball came out toward the mound that he was roughly forty-five degrees off in the direction the ball should have been thrown (you know, toward first base), but maybe this is some research that the Elias Sports Bureau can do.

Yes, I digressed, but at least some of the digression was necessary to illustrate the extent of my antipathy for the Yankees.  The conclusions of the next four baseball seasons brought considerable enjoyment for me as the Yankees lost in excruciating fashion.  In 2001 it was to the Arizona Diamondbacks in the World Series, in 2002 it was to the California-Anaheim-Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in the division series, in 2003 it was to the Florida Marlins in the World Series, and then finally in 2004 it was the epic choke-job loss to the Boston Red Sox in the league championship series. Delicious.  But as I look back now, the loss to the Diamondbacks was the most amazing of those losses because in game seven of that series, the Diamondbacks beat the unbeatable Mariano Rivera when he was called on to do what he seems to have been born to do: slam the door at the end of big baseball games.

I have long hated baseball's seeming ever more liberal reliance on relief pitchers.  I hate the absurd amount of useless statistics that are developed for baseball like the 'quality start' and the 'hold.'  And I also think that the save statistic has been cheapened due to the fact that these days a pitcher can pitch six innings, give up three runs, and then get a pat on the back with a way to go with that quality start!  And then you have two or three pitchers come in and 'hold' the game, before finally the closer comes in and gets a save, many times surrendering more runs than innings pitched.  I respect the relief pitcher role less so than any other position in baseball and generally scoff anytime anyone even hints that one of these people deserve to be in the Cy Young Award conversation.  However, Mariano Rivera is different.

Mariano Rivera is different because when he came on to pitch, you believed that there was no chance he was going to blow a lead.  You almost felt you had a better chance of drowning in a lightning storm than to see Rivera blow a save, particularly in a big game.  And this is what makes that loss by Rivera in game seven of the 2001 World Series so amazing.  Rivera was not one of these relief pitchers who only recorded the easy save or would routinely pitch himself into trouble while in the course of hanging on by the fingertips at the end of games.  He came out to pitch in the tough situations and you knew it was lights out.  In game seven of the 2001 World Series, Rivera came in to start the eighth inning with the Yankees leading 2-1, and though I hoped for a Diamondbacks win, I knew it was not going to happen.

It is been more than ten years since that game took place, and my memory of all of the events of that game and World Series have faded a bit.  I confess, I did have to look up the information to be sure that Rivera came on in the eighth inning of a 2-1 game, even though I suspected that this was the case, but I do not want to look up and recount an entire play-by-play.  But I will never forget the final play of that game.  I remember sitting there in my apartment watching that game, stunned that finally after having won the last three World Series, the Yankees just might be on the verge of losing.  Rivera had already surrendered a run and the winning run was on third base with less than two outs.  I was getting excited, but still I left room for that inevitable disappointment that I thought was coming.  In the back of my mind, I just knew Rivera was somehow going to pull off some magic act in that ninth inning, the Yankees were going to win that World Series, and that blown save would largely be forgotten over the years.  But with a drawn-in infield, Luis Gonzalez blooped the feeblest of feeble hits just over shortstop Derek Jeter's head.  Had Jeter been in his normal fielding position, this would have been an easy catch and I believe those Yankees find a way to win again.  But it was not meant to be as that feebly hit ball landed on the ground and finally beat the unbeatable Rivera.

After years of reflection on those Yankees teams of the late 1990s and early 2000s, a few of those players I still truly despise (see Roger Clemens), a few I'm indifferent toward (see Andy Pettitte), a very few I have come to grudgingly respect (see Derek Jeter), but Mariano Rivera is the only one that I have come to like.  I still remember back to the 1990 ALCS that the Oakland A's swept the Red Sox 4-0.  I loved the A's teams of those years.  I loved the Bash Brothers.  I loved their swagger.  I still vividly remember during one of those games when A's legendary and Hall of Fame closer Dennis Eckersley mowed down Dwight Evans swinging and gave a gigantic fist pump out of exuberance of the important moment, but also with at least a little hint of taunting his vanquished opponent.  I have never been one to truly disdain taunting and showmanship, but it is because we never see a hint of either of these things out of Rivera that I respect and like him so much.  He always came out in a no-nonsense, business-like fashion.  And he almost always got the job done emotionlessly.

But there is one more reason why if the event of yesterday spells the end for Rivera, I will find it to be a truly sad day.  Mariano Rivera wears the number forty-two.  He is the last Major League Baseball player to wear the number 42 other than on Jackie Robinson Day when every Major League Baseball player wears the number 42.  Major League Baseball took the rare step of forever retiring the number 42 some years back in tribute to the important legacy of Jackie Robinson.  Now I was never alive when Jackie Robinson played, nor was I alive at any point while he lived.  I do not intend to compare the baseball or life achievements of Robinson and Rivera.  But I can think of no better person to be the last to wear the number 42.  I have always known that Rivera would one day leave the field, leaving Jackie Robinson's number 42 to be worn on that one special day each year by all, but I know now that I wish and hope that that one day was not yesterday.

Jalen Rose-Skip Bayless First Take Debate

I was able to catch just about all of the ESPN First Take debate that took place yesterday primarily between Jalen Rose and Skip Bayless, but with significant input from Stephen A. Smith and finally, late in the show, from Cris Carter.  The program was moderated as always by Jay Crawford, and this was an occasion where I thought that Crawford did an excellent job of letting the debate flow and interjecting as little as possible.  I think that this was especially important because I think that this was easily the most substantive debate that I have ever seen on this show.

I should state early on that I have never been the biggest fan in the world of Skip Bayless or for that matter, Stephen A. Smith.  In the case of Skip Bayless, my dislike of him precedes the revelation of what I believe is his irrational fanaticism with Tim Tebow.  Bayless is smug, unbelievably arrogant (it is perhaps impossible to count the number of times he chooses to remind everyone of some prediction he made, while patting himself on the back in the process), and a condescending bully.  And as for Stephen A. Smith, he's a bit too bombastic for my liking and there appears to be more than just a touch of arrogance in him as well.  But perhaps my biggest reason for my disdain for Smith derives from comments he made back in 2009 when Rush Limbaugh was attempting, as part of a group, to purchase the St. Louis Rams.  A link to an article in which Smith commented appears here, but I'll quote the lines that Smith said that infuriated me:

If he has the money, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, and those black ballplayers that are saying that, I'm here on national television telling you they're lying through their stinking teeth...Oh, you're going to pass up money because, oh, my God, I'm offended by Rush Limbaugh being the owner? Who are you fooling? They're liars.

Now, I have no problem with Smith's contention that Limbaugh should have the opportunity to bid for the Rams since he had the money to do so.  It just so turns out that the other NFL owners and I believe the league itself were required to vote on and approve the ownership bid and they chose not to allow the group to purchase the team.  My problem with Smith is that he had the gall to assert that all black NFL players who said that they would not play for a Limbaugh owned team, given controversial racial comments Limbaugh had made in the past, were liars.  Just that it appears that Smith either has no integrity or that money trumps his integrity, does not mean that such was the case with these black NFL players.  But I'll move on now to the actual debate that took place yesterday.

Generally speaking throughout the entirety of the debate, I agreed with Rose.  I think that in many cases Bayless has moved beyond primarily operating on the basis of facts (i.e., field goal percentage, rebounds, completion percentage, interceptions, etc.) and has formed his opinion first and then looked for those facts that support his preformed opinion.  Additionally, he doles out condescending nicknames to players in an attempt to get laughs, but Rose did point out, and I agree, that the nicknames are not really that funny.  But when Rose in the previous show came up with the nickname "Water Pistol Pete Junior" for Bayless based on Bayless's less than spectacular high school basketball career, Bayless took offense and did not appear to be able to handle it.  It seemed like the classic case of a habitual bully getting punched in the mouth and not being able to handle it.

At some point as the conversation was going on, Rose was accused of implying that a person without big-time professional sports experience was incapable of truly analyzing sports.  I was happy to see Rose dispute that claim, and I do not think that this was the point he was making at all.  I think that his point was that if you are looking first at factual evidence (the types of statistics that I mentioned earlier), you report these facts, and then base your commentary on these facts, that's completely appropriate.  However, if you are in the habit of trying to create these cutesy nicknames for players, you already have your opinions set about certain players, and then you go trolling for those facts that will support your opinions, then you should not be surprised and you should be able to take getting "punched in the face" or being called Water Pistol Pete Junior.

At some later point I might write another post dedicated completely to my feelings about Bayless, but this is all for now.  (And sorry I did not have more to say about Smith's involvement in the debate because I did think that he went way overboard in his attempt to defend Bayless.  But I also do think that he did have some fair points during his interchanges with Rose.  Alas, though, some of my memory of the program has faded at this point.)

Brooke Baldwin's Silly Question

I would much rather comment about happier things, or things that are more readily mocked, but yesterday I saw the exchange in the linked video between CNN's Brooke Baldwin and US Representative Corrine Brown.  See the video for yourself below.

Around the 5:55 mark, if you have not watched it, Baldwin asks, "would you, would your fellow African-American lawmakers be as concerned about this case if Trayvon wasn't black?"  This interview happened yesterday (March 28), but then earlier today, Baldwin was on her show and discussed briefly the responses she had received about the above exchange.  Forgive me, but I don't believe that video is available yet, but the gist of what Baldwin explained was that there had been mixed reaction to the question that I quoted above, and she then went on to detail the specific case that Representative Brown was citing, but then she also defended her question that I quoted as an appropriate question.  And it is with Baldwin saying that this question was appropriate to ask that I strongly disagree.

The simplest reason for why this question was completely absurd is that Baldwin did not just ask Brown whether she (Brown) would be as concerned if Trayvon Martin wasn't black, Baldwin asked whether Brown's fellow African-American lawmakers would be as concerned if Trayvon Martin wasn't black.  How is Representative Brown supposed to know whether her fellow African-American lawmakers would be as concerned if Trayvon Martin wasn't black?  As far as I can tell, Brown neither thinks nor speaks for all African-Americans in the House of Representatives.

But beyond this simple reason that this was a silly question if not inappropriate is that Baldwin's question seems to ignore a large part of the reason that there is such outrage in this case, namely that Martin was killed and there was no arrest and no criminal charge.  In those other cases that Baldwin cited earlier in the above video, as far as I know, there were arrests with criminal charges being assessed or there are ongoing criminal investigations.  One of the big problems with the Trayvon Martin case is that a competent investigation did not seem to have taken place at all.  It seems as if the Sanford police decided that they could not find evidence to dispute Zimmerman's claims of self-defense before taking the trouble to fully investigate the incident.  (Yes, it's strange that if you fail to actually investigate an incident that you would have trouble disputing someone's claim of self-defense.)  For instance, it seems absurd to me that the Sanford police evidently did not check Martin's cell phone records and interview his girlfriend, who was reportedly on the phone with him at the time this altercation began, because this information alone would seem to provide enough doubt about Zimmerman's self-defense claim to charge Zimmerman with some sort of crime.

And a last reason why this question seemed absurd is that the contention of many people, and not just Representative Brown and her fellow African-American lawmakers, is that Zimmerman only identified Martin as suspicious because he was black, and if Martin was not black, yet the same events transpired, then Zimmerman would not have likely gone without arrest.  Additionally, if the races of the individuals were reversed, it is the contention of many people, and not just Representative Brown and her fellow African-American lawmakers, that there is no chance that the black individual, being the shooter, would have gone without arrest by the Sanford Police Department.

But Representative Brown could have certainly done better in this exchange.  The information that she provided about the young girl in her district who had been killed was ultimately superfluous.  The easiest way to answer the stupid question as it was phrased by Baldwin would have been to say, "Well Brook, I cannot speak for my fellow African-American lawmakers, but yes."  And then she should have just left it with that.

The Trayvon Martin Case

I’m going to make a slight departure from the normal posts that I do, which are ostensibly comical and touch on a very serious topic.  And this topic is the mysterious and controversial death of Trayvon Martin.  There are countless online news articles about this subject at this point, almost exactly a month after the incident took place, that you can find out more detailed information on your own if you wish.  But I will try to give a brief synopsis of what supposedly took place in the next paragraph.  In the last couple of weeks, there has been increased national (and international) attention being paid to this story and with good reason as tensions in the Sanford, FL area where the incident occurred have heightened.  Indeed, in checking my computer’s history, I can see that the earliest that I became aware of the incident was on March 9.  But I will dispense with my introduction now and move on to my discussion.

The details of this story that as far as I know are not in dispute, follow.  On February 26, seventeen-year old Trayvon Martin was staying with his father at the home of his father’s fiancé or girlfriend in a gated community in Sanford, FL.  It seems clear from the reports available that Trayvon Martin’s younger brother was also present in the home at the time.  At halftime of that evening’s NBA All-Star game, reports suggest that Trayvon Martin left the home to walk to a nearby 7-Eleven to pick up a few items.  During Martin’s walk back, after entering the community, he was observed by twenty-eight-year old George Zimmerman from within Zimmerman’s vehicle.  Reports have suggested that Zimmerman was the captain of the community’s neighborhood watch, but the reports seem to be unclear as to whether or not this was an official position.  Upon seeing Martin walking within the community, Zimmerman called a police line.  Different reports that I have read differ as to whether this call was a 911 call or a non-emergency police line.  I will leave it to you to search for the recordings of the phone calls if you desire.  At some point after seeing Martin and reporting to the police, Zimmerman exits the vehicle and at some time later, a confrontation occurs between Martin and Zimmerman.  The end result of the confrontation was that Martin lay dead with a single gunshot wound to the chest while Zimmerman reportedly had a broken nose and an injury to the back of his head.  Various neighbors called 911 as they heard the noise from the encounter in the background, and I invite you to search for the recordings of these calls as well, if you wish.  A short time later, the police arrived, and the end result of that evening’s events was that Zimmerman was reportedly taken to the police station for questioning, buy ultimately released.

And now I’ll expand on a few of the details.  It seems impossible to me to believe that I am the first source from which you are learning the details of the story, but in case I am, I will inform you that Martin was African-American while Zimmerman has been described as White-Hispanic.  In a perfect world this would be irrelevant, and this is part of the reason that I chose to omit this information in the synopsis above, but anyone who believes that this is a perfect world is foolish and/or naïve.  I am going to leave to you to decide for yourself whether there was a racial bias motivation behind Zimmerman exiting his vehicle and allegedly pursuing Martin based on the phone calls to the police and character accounts by friends/acquaintances of Zimmerman (which again you can search for and the information is readily available online), but I think it is important to mention the races of the parties involved for a reason that I will come back to shortly.  But in addition to the added details that I just gave, in 2005 a so-called ‘Stand Your Ground’ law was passed in Florida that says, and I am certainly paraphrasing because I do not have the law in front of me, if a person is in a location in which he or she is legally able to be, and s/he reasonably believes that there is a person who is going to commit severe bodily harm to another or some other felony, then the person witnessing this or about to (in their mind) be harmed does not have a duty to retreat, but can meet this perceived threat with deadly force.  And apparently, from what I’ve read or heard in a couple of instances over the last couple of weeks, this law supposedly if claimed by a person (if they claim they shot someone in self-defense) provides immunity from standard arrest.  (I admit that I’m not 100% certain about this last part, but I’m almost positive that I heard this as part of the explanation for why Zimmerman wasn’t arrested.  I think it was perhaps during the panel discussion on this week’s ABC’s This Week.)

And now I’m going to move on from just providing the facts or facts as I’ve heard them in this case to providing my opinion.  The person who bears the most responsibility for this tragedy occurring is George Zimmerman.  I don’t care what explanation, excuse, or spin anyone gives you, but the simple fact is that if Zimmerman had listened to the police dispatcher who was on the phone with him who told him that the police did not need him to follow Martin, this tragedy almost certainly would not have occurred.  To me, any person looking at this incident objectively would come to the same conclusion.  And I’m torn as to where the second greatest responsibility lies, but let me absolutely assure you, in my mind, regardless of Martin’s actions, it does not belong with Trayvon Martin.  The second greatest responsibility lies with either the Florida legislature and the person who was governor at that time who signed into law this foolish so-called ‘Stand Your Ground’ law or the Sanford police department.  This seems obvious to me based on the reports that I’ve read.  It seems incredibly obvious to me based on reports that I have read that the investigation into the incident that the Sanford police conducted was sub-standard at best.  I have seen reports that Martin was tested for drugs and alcohol after he had died, but Zimmerman, the man who by all accounts was the one who shot and killed Martin was not.  I have heard from at least one report that I have seen over the last two and a half weeks that it is generally standard procedure after such a shooting to test the shooter for drugs and alcohol in his/her system.  But as I said shortly ago Zimmerman was reportedly not tested.  Now there is a chance that Zimmerman was on neither drugs nor alcohol on that evening, but the problem is that, if the reports that I’ve seen are correct, we will never be able to determine this.  If according to this absurd so-called ‘Stand Your Ground’ law, the Sanford police were not allowed to test Zimmerman if he claimed self-defense, then the responsibility rests with the Florida state legislature and the then governor for this atrocious law.  If, however, despite the claims of self-defense, the Sanford police were able to perform drug and alcohol tests on Zimmerman, but elected not to do so, then they are fully responsible for this shoddy investigation and borderline obstruction of justice.  It seems patently absurd to me that, again if the reports that I have heard are correct, that after such an altercation and shooting, they would test the person who has been shot, but not the shooter for drugs and alcohol.

So now, just over a month has passed since this incident took place.  What infuriates me more than anything is that this guy, George Zimmerman, had absolutely no legal authority to confront Trayvon Martin, but since he did not heed the instructions of the police dispatcher with whom he was speaking, a seventeen-year old child is now needlessly dead.  I have heard reports that according to friends, Zimmerman has been crying and inconsolable at times over the last month.  I wholeheartedly believe this, and I have sympathy for him.  I cannot imagine what it would feel like if I was responsible for taking someone else’s life, nor do I ever want to know that feeling.  I get this feeling that this will haunt Zimmerman for the rest of his life, and I cannot imagine the strength that it will take to endure that heavy load.  I don’t wish such emotional stress on anyone.  On April 10, I believe that the Florida State Attorney’s office will be convening a grand jury to decide whether charges will be brought in this case.  Additionally, based on some of the information heard on taped police calls from Zimmerman, the United States Justice Department is looking into whether or not federal charges can be brought against Zimmerman for violating Martin’s civil rights.  Only time will tell what becomes of this case, but I will certainly be paying attention.

Addendum: I left this out before, but one of the things that infuriates me the most about this case is that it seems completely unfathomable to me that if Trayvon Martin, being African-American, was the shooter that he would have been given the benefit of the doubt by the Sanford police and now, a month later, would have spent exactly zero days behind bars.  I estimate that probability to be zero.  The other thing that I wanted to mention is that the New Black Panther Party has apparently offered a reward for the citizen’s arrest of George Zimmerman.  I believe that it started at $10,000, but last I heard, the reward was up to $23,000, and they hope that eventually the reward gets up to $1,000,000.  This sort of involvement by the New Black Panther Party is precisely what is not needed in this situation.  They are helping the situation in no way, shape, or form.

Springtime at the Movies

Seeing as how this (we)blog is actually titled ‘Ramblings About Whatever,’ I decided that I would take the time to expand the subject matter of the posts since all of the more recent ones have been related to sports.  And so with that said, I’m going to now discuss a number of the movie commercials that I have seen in recent weeks.  (This should come as no surprise if you did take the time to read the title of the post.)

I should start off by disclosing that I very rarely go to see movies in theaters.  Since 2007, off of the top of my head, I can recall having seen Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, The Dark Knight, Quantum of Solace, Avatar, Fast Five, The Three Musketeers, Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows in the theater.  So, that’s nine movies that were released from 2007-2011.  There are a couple of points I should mention, however.  I know that Transformers was released in 2007, and I’m almost certain that I should have seen it in the theater, but I honestly cannot recall having done so.  A second point is that I saw four movies released in 2011 in the theater.  (Although to be exact, I saw Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows on January 2 of this year.)  To recap, in the last five years, I’ve seen nine, maybe ten, movies in theaters, and of those nine or ten, four were from 2011.

So enough rambling – you can clearly see that I don’t go to see movies in the theater with any sort of high frequency, though, last year could be considered an anomaly.  With that I will launch into my discussion about the various promos for movies that I have seen thus far this year and detail the likelihood that I’ll actually buy a ticket to watch said films.

John Carter

When I saw the commercials for this movie, I initially thought that it looked intriguing.  I did not read a lot about the movie (and still have not), but I seemed to remember it being mentioned in at least one commercial that the eponymous character was from Earth and was supposed to help save this world, or something along those lines.  And if this fact (or assumed fact) doesn’t intrigue you as well, I think there is something wrong with you.  Because I still long for the day when I’m transported to some other realm and I’m asked to rescue the native population, don’t you?  Of course, after I’ve rescued the native population I would have to decide what type of dictator I wished to be, but I suppose that decision can wait until after I have actually liberated my future subjects.

However, another advertisement that I saw for John Carter mentioned something along the lines of ‘critics have said that John Carter is the first blockbuster of the year!’  To me, this is one of the more asinine things that I’ve heard said in the promotion of a movie.  It is perfectly analogous to saying ‘critics say that a lot of people are buying/going to buy high priced tickets to watch John Carter!’  This line is not a critical review of the movie and thus it seems absurd to me to use this as a promoting point for the movie.  A lot of people go to see crappy movies.  (One could argue that if you look at some of the movies that I have listed that I’ve seen that this is proof of the point I made.  But that person would be wrong because all of those movies are awesome!)  So all together this movie falls between the categories of Maybe I’ll See It-Maybe I Won’t and I’m Somewhat Unlikely to See It.

21 Jump Street

I remember watching bits of the television program in the 1980s on which this movie is supposedly based when I was a kid.  However, whereas I seem to remember that the television program was a somewhat serious drama based on serious topics, the movie that was recently released is ostensibly a comedy, the commercials for which seem to belie this point.  The bottom line about this movie from what I have seen from the commercials is that it looks extremely stupid.  I have never been a fan of Jonah Hill; I don’t find him very funny.  And everything that I just said about Hill applies to Channing Tatum as well.

I don’t feel that I have to say that much more about this movie.  In the end I would say that it probably rates in the category Probably Still Wouldn’t Watch it Even if a Ridiculously Hot Girl Wanted to See It.  (Okay, obviously one key would have to be just how hot the girl was, but regardless of how hot she was, I would have to question whether such a relationship would have a long-term potential if the girl was interested in watching such a stupid movie.)

The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games, which was released this past weekend is another movie that looked very intriguing to me, perhaps even more so than John Carter.  I guess part of this reason is that I have always been a fan of stories about dystopian societies, the events that led to the states of being in those societies, and the actions the characters take to try to change their circumstances.  Additionally, the cast members who I could identify from the commercials were all fairly likeable.  There did not to seem to be anything other than pure laziness that should get in the way of me seeing this movie.

However, as the days counted down, drawing closer to the release date for The Hunger Games, I started seeing media reports on various channels about the excitement building for the opening, including seeing hoards of people, mostly teenagers, camped out in tents waiting for either the Hollywood premiere or to get tickets to initial screenings.  Just as I became suspicious a few years back when I initially thought that the promos for the movie Twilight looked intriguing without knowing anything about the books, but realized that something had to be wrong when both my sister and a friend with whom I have almost no similar taste in movies were discussing on Facebook their joint desire to see the movie since they had both read all of the books in the series, I became a little suspicious about The Hunger Games.  There is no way that a movie that elicits this much enthusiasm out of teenagers could be worth my while to see in a theater.

So whereas by all rights this movie should probably fall between the categories Leaning Toward Seeing It and Maybe I’ll See It-Maybe I Won’t, the fact that it is a huge draw for teenagers knocks it all the way down to Not a Chance, No Way.

American Reunion

I think that the first movie in this series, American Pie, was released while I was in college.  I did not see that one in the theater, but I never thought it was as good as most of friends claimed it was when I eventually did see it.  Most of the characters just were not that funny to me.  The only actors who I liked in the movie were Seann William Scott and Eugene Levy.  Most of the other actors I could not stand, and it still is difficult for me to watch them in other movies.  (Jennifer Coolidge is perhaps the lone exception.)

Needless to say, I did not watch either of the first two sequels to American Pie, in the theater or on television/video/DVD.  So, I can imagine that it should come as no surprise that there’s no chance that I’m watching American Reunion in the theater since I’m fairly certain that the American Pie type of humor has not grown on me in the twelve years since I graduated from college.  Just in case you missed it, American Reunion falls into the category of Not a Chance, No Way.

The Three Stooges

This is probably my favorite of the movies to discuss because the discussion will be the shortest.  Since the time I can remember being capable of rational thought, I have not found The Three Stooges to be funny.  The promo commercials look stupid for the movie, and I cannot imagine a scenario in which this movie is not stupid.  And so this movie falls into the category of Not a Chance, No Way.

Dark Shadows

And finally I come to Dark Shadows.  I’m aware that the movie is inspired by the soap opera of the same name from the 1960s, and this might have caused my interest in seeing it plummet just on sheer principle, but it is a Tim Burton movie and Johnny Depp does appear in the film.

I have enjoyed most Tim Burton movies that I have seen and believe that he does an outstanding job of creating movies in the comedy/horror genre.  I thought that Beetlejuice was a fantastic movie and watch it anytime that I have the opportunity.  I enjoyed Batman, Batman Returns, The Nightmare Before Christmas, Sleepy Hollow, and Alice in Wonderland.  Burton, better than anyone else, has the ability to present a story that while undoubtedly dark is also undeniably funny.

Additionally, I think that Depp is an outstanding actor.  No one does a better job of playing eccentric characters.  You can look at his performance as Edward Scissorhands, or his performance as Willy Wonka, his take as the Mad Hatter, and of course, his four performances as Jack Sparrow.  (I feel I must disclose that I have only seen the first three of these Jack Sparrow performances.)  He knows how to play the role of the lead actor who by all rights should be absolutely loathed, but somehow possesses an impossible-to-ignore charm.

And so with all of this said, Dark Shadows gets a rating of Likely to See It.  I should note, however, that seeing as how this movie is about a month and a half away from its premiere, this rating will undoubtedly drop as the release date gets closer due in no small part to my aforementioned laziness.  So please don’t be surprised if I provide an update a few weeks from now revealing that I have not actually seen this movie because there is a reason, after all, that I have only seen nine or ten movies in theaters in the last five years.  (Okay, let me clarify.  You should be extremely surprised if I update this post at all because I feel I have already written enough on this subject.  Perhaps I’ll write about other movies later on as the summer approaches.  But should the unlikely occur and I provide a proper update to this post, then you should not be surprised if I have not seen Dark Shadows.)

Addendum

Let me make it clear that this is actually an addendum and not an update.  There were a couple of other movies that could have appeared in this post that would lean toward the Likely to See It rating.  These are Casa de Mi Padre and Wrath of the Titans.  Casa de Mi Padre would probably suffer because it's in Spanish, my Spanish isn't all that great, and I certainly wouldn't feel like reading subtitles throughout the movie.  Wrath of the Titans probably would garner the rare I'm On Line for Tickets as I Type.  I don't think I need to explain this one further.

I sure am glad that I am not a movie critic and thus can avoid watching most of these crappy movies.

Penn-Princeton

So I'm watching the Pennsylvania-Princeton basketball game this evening, and I'm in the rare position where I'm actually pulling for Princeton to win at something.  I'm trying to think of the few times I can remember this happening off of the top of my head and I can only think of two occasions.  The first was when Princeton was playing against and upset UCLA in the NCAA tournament in 1996, I believe, when UCLA was defending its championship from the previous year.  (I think the score was 43-41, or something close, but I'm not actually going to do any research into this until after this post because these are ultimately minor details.)  And the second, if I remember correctly, was when Princeton played the University of Texas in the 2004 NCAA tournament, but ultimately lost.  (This second example could be wrong as it could have been Pennsylvania that played UT, but I think that it was Princeton.)

So you can clearly see that over the last decade and a half I have rarely actually hoped that Princeton won at anything.  And this is because I hate Princeton and have hated them for quite some time (roughly a decade and a half).  I pulled for Princeton in 1996 because I had yet to start at Harvard and had no reason to hate Princeton yet, and I pulled for (possibly) Princeton in 2004 because of a deep hatred of the University of Texas.  (It should be noted that my hatred of the University of Texas might not exceed my hatred of Princeton, but since I knew that there was virtually no chance of Princeton winning that championship, it was okay to pull for them on that occasion.)

And so here we are now with Princeton getting the job done, leading 17-6 with about seven minutes left in the first half.  Things are looking good so far.  I need Princeton to win this game because I need Pennsylvania to lose this game so that Harvard's basketball team will make the NCAA tournament without having to play Penn in a one game playoff later this week, which they would almost certainly lose.  I know there's a chance that Harvard could still make the tournament even if they were to lose to Penn in a playoff, but I've never been a fan of giving Ivy League teams at-large bids to the tournament and see no reason to change now.  So dear Princeton, please win this game tonight so that my Harvard Crimson can advance to the NCAA tournament for the first time sixty or whatever years and lose in the first round.