Friday, April 29, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
What the Redskins can learn from the WWE Draft
Last night was my first time watching the annual WWE Draft on Monday Night Raw. Of course, it's not really a "draft" in the traditional sense of the word. The WWE's two shows, Raw and SmackDown, basically just move people back and forth between the two while the assembled rosters of both shows' wrestlers are backstage, cheering or looking shocked, and pretending to give a damn whether Rey Mysterio appears on USA or Syfy each week. The draft didn't affect the vast majorities of either show's roster--after all, trading people like Yoshi Tatsu wouldn't be worth even the minimal effort it would take to update the WWE's website to reflect such a move--but there were a couple of surprising moments, and in the end, it was good, goofy fun, and aside from the half-hour I fell asleep on the couch, I greatly enjoyed it.
The NFL Draft is this week also. It's a decent bet that the Redskins will take a quarterback in the first round. Not even one of the top quarterbacks. Just whoever happens to be left over by the tenth pick. Or later, if they trade down. But who knows? According to a tweet I saw this week, Mike Shanahan is "intrigued" by a couple of the wide receiver prospects. Or he could take a nose tackle to compliment the 3-4 defense he's so insistent on. Or, in a moment of extreme indecision, he could call Vinny Cerrato for advice and end up taking a tight end.
There are a lot of reasons why no sane person in the Redskins organization (should one exist) look to the WWE for inspiration for draft day strategy. One's a sport, the other is sports entertainment. One is real, the other one is scripted. One features athletes with human being names like Tom Brady, Adrian Peterson and Julius Peppers, the other features athletes named Big Show, The Miz and Kelly Kelly. But given that there's no "must haves" in the draft this year, and given that no one, even local sports pundits, seem to agree on what needs the Redskins actually have, why not just write off 2011 as a wacky experiment and have fun by applying WWE logic to the draft?
Here's how:
1) Draft personality over skill
With its first two draft picks, SmackDown chose John Cena and Randy Orton, arguably the two most popular members of the Raw roster. Neither one is an especially exciting wrestler, but fans really dig their schtick, and that's why they keep winning championships. Sure, the Redskins could follow one of the two "conventional" draft strategies: Filling positions of need or taking the best player currently on the board. But instead, why not go for a character?
Let's be honest. It's not like the Redskins are going to be contenders anytime soon. In fact, under Dan Snyder, it's questionable whether the Redskins will be contenders ever again. After one or two more losing seasons, Snyder will fire Shanahan and Bruce Allen, and hire a new coach and GM who will likely just blow up the team again. So if we don't have a Super Bowl in our future, why not draft a player with a delightful personality, whose shenanigans will distract us even as the team finishes under .500 for the next ten consecutive seasons? Not Haynesworth-type shenanigans, mind you. To paraphrase Super Troopers, we need someone whose shenanigans are cheeky and fun, not cruel and tragic. Think about Clinton Portis's propensity for putting on costumes, and how much better the past few years would have been if he'd kept doing that instead of becoming a whiny diva.
2) Think outside the box. Like, way outside.
Except for one, all the picks last night made sense on some level, as the wrestlers drafted from one brand to another were either popular with fans (Cena, Orton), fun to watch in the ring (Big Show, Rey Mysterio, Sin Cara), or deserving of a promotion from SmackDown to Raw (Alberto Del Rio). The one that didn't make sense was Mark Henry.
Being a very large man even by WWE standards and having no tangible assests aside from that, Mark Henry basically serves one purpose: To be beaten by up-and-coming wrestlers, thus proving that they're capable of defeating a very large man and should be taken as legit threats. So there's really no reason why they'd bother sending him from Raw to SmackDown, except maybe that The Great Kali serves more or less the same purpose he does, and so it made sense to move Henry to SmackDown and also give that brand's up-and-coming wrestlers the chance to beat him up.
But in the absurd context of the WWE Draft, where we're supposed to play along and pretend the whole thing is real and that it's all about each brand attempting to strengthen itself, it was a surprising pick given that there were roughly 40 other Superstars and Divas to pick from on Raw, and therefore, roughly 40 better options than Mark Henry. The Redskins could do something similar. If there isn't a good quarterback to take, and none of the other options really jump out at Shanahan, do something unpredictable and crazy.
Take a running back from a Division III school that no one's ever heard of, and who may not have even bothered declaring for the draft. but who has lots of heart and pluck.
Draft a kicker and count on the fact that being the first ever kicker taken in the first round will pressure him to become the best kicker in the history of the NFL. Where he's making, like 70-yard field goals on a regular basis. Frankly, it all seems so simple, I don't see how this plan could fail.
Hell, just draft Mark Henry. The dude may not be a great wrestler, but he is fucking huge and can probably contribute to the offensive line.
3) Don't let a little thing like another team drafting the player you want, get in the way
The first pick of the WWE Draft saw John Cena going from Raw to SmackDown. As Cena happily put on his new Team SmackDown shirt, fans were shocked. Was the WWE really going to send its biggest star, its most popular wrestler, its biggest cash cow, from its premiere brand to its...I mean, I don't want to use the word "ghetto," but, well...
As it turned out, the answer was, "No. What are you, retarded?" Because with the last pick of the WWE Draft, Raw stole Cena back from SmackDown! If the whole thing wasn't fixed, you undoubtedly would have seen a palpable look of relief on Cena's face, as he realized he wouldn't be slumming it with the likes of Drew McIntyre and Kofi Kingston on Friday nights on Syfy, after all.
So if the Redskins want, say, Cam Newton or Blaine Gabbert, but other teams beat them to it, no big deal. Just draft him anyway. Sure, the other team will likely object, and maybe attempt to cite rules that say once a player has been drafted, another team can't swoop in and steal him. But I would ask, is there actually such a rule? Or is it more of an understanding among gentlemen? And even if there are rules to that effect, once Newton or Gabbert have had some time to contemplate whether he'd be happier in Charlotte or Buffalo or wherever, or a vibrant football city like D.C., where Dan Snyder is anxious for the opportunity to throw millions of dollars at him, he'll soon get word to his agent that it's suddenly his lifelong dream to be a Washington Redskin and refuses to play for Charlotte or Buffalo or wherever, and the two teams will just have to work something out.
The NFL Draft is this week also. It's a decent bet that the Redskins will take a quarterback in the first round. Not even one of the top quarterbacks. Just whoever happens to be left over by the tenth pick. Or later, if they trade down. But who knows? According to a tweet I saw this week, Mike Shanahan is "intrigued" by a couple of the wide receiver prospects. Or he could take a nose tackle to compliment the 3-4 defense he's so insistent on. Or, in a moment of extreme indecision, he could call Vinny Cerrato for advice and end up taking a tight end.
There are a lot of reasons why no sane person in the Redskins organization (should one exist) look to the WWE for inspiration for draft day strategy. One's a sport, the other is sports entertainment. One is real, the other one is scripted. One features athletes with human being names like Tom Brady, Adrian Peterson and Julius Peppers, the other features athletes named Big Show, The Miz and Kelly Kelly. But given that there's no "must haves" in the draft this year, and given that no one, even local sports pundits, seem to agree on what needs the Redskins actually have, why not just write off 2011 as a wacky experiment and have fun by applying WWE logic to the draft?
Here's how:
1) Draft personality over skill
With its first two draft picks, SmackDown chose John Cena and Randy Orton, arguably the two most popular members of the Raw roster. Neither one is an especially exciting wrestler, but fans really dig their schtick, and that's why they keep winning championships. Sure, the Redskins could follow one of the two "conventional" draft strategies: Filling positions of need or taking the best player currently on the board. But instead, why not go for a character?
Let's be honest. It's not like the Redskins are going to be contenders anytime soon. In fact, under Dan Snyder, it's questionable whether the Redskins will be contenders ever again. After one or two more losing seasons, Snyder will fire Shanahan and Bruce Allen, and hire a new coach and GM who will likely just blow up the team again. So if we don't have a Super Bowl in our future, why not draft a player with a delightful personality, whose shenanigans will distract us even as the team finishes under .500 for the next ten consecutive seasons? Not Haynesworth-type shenanigans, mind you. To paraphrase Super Troopers, we need someone whose shenanigans are cheeky and fun, not cruel and tragic. Think about Clinton Portis's propensity for putting on costumes, and how much better the past few years would have been if he'd kept doing that instead of becoming a whiny diva.
2) Think outside the box. Like, way outside.
Except for one, all the picks last night made sense on some level, as the wrestlers drafted from one brand to another were either popular with fans (Cena, Orton), fun to watch in the ring (Big Show, Rey Mysterio, Sin Cara), or deserving of a promotion from SmackDown to Raw (Alberto Del Rio). The one that didn't make sense was Mark Henry.
Being a very large man even by WWE standards and having no tangible assests aside from that, Mark Henry basically serves one purpose: To be beaten by up-and-coming wrestlers, thus proving that they're capable of defeating a very large man and should be taken as legit threats. So there's really no reason why they'd bother sending him from Raw to SmackDown, except maybe that The Great Kali serves more or less the same purpose he does, and so it made sense to move Henry to SmackDown and also give that brand's up-and-coming wrestlers the chance to beat him up.
But in the absurd context of the WWE Draft, where we're supposed to play along and pretend the whole thing is real and that it's all about each brand attempting to strengthen itself, it was a surprising pick given that there were roughly 40 other Superstars and Divas to pick from on Raw, and therefore, roughly 40 better options than Mark Henry. The Redskins could do something similar. If there isn't a good quarterback to take, and none of the other options really jump out at Shanahan, do something unpredictable and crazy.
Take a running back from a Division III school that no one's ever heard of, and who may not have even bothered declaring for the draft. but who has lots of heart and pluck.
Draft a kicker and count on the fact that being the first ever kicker taken in the first round will pressure him to become the best kicker in the history of the NFL. Where he's making, like 70-yard field goals on a regular basis. Frankly, it all seems so simple, I don't see how this plan could fail.
Hell, just draft Mark Henry. The dude may not be a great wrestler, but he is fucking huge and can probably contribute to the offensive line.
3) Don't let a little thing like another team drafting the player you want, get in the way
The first pick of the WWE Draft saw John Cena going from Raw to SmackDown. As Cena happily put on his new Team SmackDown shirt, fans were shocked. Was the WWE really going to send its biggest star, its most popular wrestler, its biggest cash cow, from its premiere brand to its...I mean, I don't want to use the word "ghetto," but, well...
As it turned out, the answer was, "No. What are you, retarded?" Because with the last pick of the WWE Draft, Raw stole Cena back from SmackDown! If the whole thing wasn't fixed, you undoubtedly would have seen a palpable look of relief on Cena's face, as he realized he wouldn't be slumming it with the likes of Drew McIntyre and Kofi Kingston on Friday nights on Syfy, after all.
So if the Redskins want, say, Cam Newton or Blaine Gabbert, but other teams beat them to it, no big deal. Just draft him anyway. Sure, the other team will likely object, and maybe attempt to cite rules that say once a player has been drafted, another team can't swoop in and steal him. But I would ask, is there actually such a rule? Or is it more of an understanding among gentlemen? And even if there are rules to that effect, once Newton or Gabbert have had some time to contemplate whether he'd be happier in Charlotte or Buffalo or wherever, or a vibrant football city like D.C., where Dan Snyder is anxious for the opportunity to throw millions of dollars at him, he'll soon get word to his agent that it's suddenly his lifelong dream to be a Washington Redskin and refuses to play for Charlotte or Buffalo or wherever, and the two teams will just have to work something out.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Watching Bryce Harper
It was a lot of fun, especially if, as I do, you tend to enjoy minor league games more than major league ones. If you have time to go to Hagerstown one weekend (or possibly Woodbridge, if he goes there before he heads up to Harrisburg), I'd recommend making the trek. I mean, tickets in the VIP section are $10. At Nats Park, $10 puts you in section 405.
The Suns team store has essentially been reconfigured as the Bryce Harper Store. If you wanted a shirt or a jersey featuring other Suns players, this is not currently the store for you.
The girl manning the cash register assured people in the store that the Suns do in fact have other players. If I hadn't actually seen them, I'm not sure I would have believed her.
One of the nice things about minor league baseball is how approachable the players are. Before the game started, several of them went up and down the fence, talking to fans and signing autographs. Harper was a noticeable exception. And it's not like the fans were only interested in Harper's autograph, but his was clearly the most coveted. But they were SOL both before the game and between games, as Harper not only didn't sign anything for the crowd gathered along the first base line, but purposely wouldn't even make eye contact or in any way acknowledge their existence.
I didn't want an autograph, but I could empathize with those who did. The kids, anyway. Not so much the adults who'd brought binders full of baseball cards. So Harper's avoidance sort of came off as, at best, aloof, and at worst, a bit douchey. I maybe understood him not signing stuff before the game for whatever reason--getting mentally prepared, letting the other players enjoy the spotlight, etc.--but when people are shouting out your name ten feet away from you, smile...wave...let them know you'll sign stuff after the game...do something other than completely ignore them.
Here's one instance that did seem to fall squarely into the douchey category: Harper grounded out to first to end an inning. Instead of going back to the dugout, he took off his helmet, tossed it at the feet of the player who was serving as first base coach, and headed to the outfield, leaving the player to pick up the helmet, take it in, get Harper's cap, glove and sunglasses, and run out to center field to deliver them. After the half-inning was over, the Suns' manager stopped Harper on his way into the dugout with a hand on his chest and words were briefly exchanged. I couldn't hear what was said, so I can't be certain the two events were connected, but the manager didn't seem especially happy. Nearby fan reaction to the helmet tossing included, "What a tool," and "Oh, Bryce." Hopefully, this isn't an early warning sign of diva behavior.
But if Harper was a tool yesterday, he had plenty of company in the stands. At the start of the game, several fans would walk up to the fence to watch the game or take photos or try and get Harper's attention, blocking the views of the people in the seats. Eventually, an usher had to rope that section off. Later, one fan literally reached out and grabbed a player walking into the dugout and tried to hand him a ball to give Harper to sign. The player politely declined. Another fan whined at Harper to sign an autograph during the game. "He's working!" some woman snapped at him.
The worst Harper fan was also the one most likely to be planning to make a Bryce Harper skin suit. He was in his 40s or 50s, wore a hoodie, and would often lean over the fence and stare right into the dugout at Harper. He recorded him coming on and off the field every inning on his phone. And when he wasn't being weird, he was being a jerk. At one point, a couple of little kids right next to him begged one of the players to toss them a foul ball that had landed on the field. The player did so, and the asshole actually stood up, moved in front of them, and snatched it out of the air. Incredulous fans who witnessed this had to publicly shame him before he reluctantly gave the ball to the kids. And then a minute later, he asked for it back so he could take a picture of it. What the fuck? Later, he creepily said to a woman behind him, "But if number 34 had been the one who'd tossed it, it would have been another story." I'm telling you: Skin. Suit. Watch your back, Bryce, and don't help any strangers load stuff into vans.
The day had a happy ending: The creepy fan left early, the Suns won both games, and Harper finally signed autographs.
I can't even imagine what kind of pressure Harper is under. Being 18 years old, having the hopes of a losing franchise resting on your shoulders, and maybe scariest of all, having fans to please. I'm not saying I'd be handling it any better than he is, but Jesus, kid, the world's your oyster. Lighten up a bit and enjoy it.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Scream 4
It's a sign you're getting old when only half the young actresses making cameos in Scream 4 (of whom there are a lot), you think you recognize, but later have to go to the IMDB to confirm who they are, and the other half, you've never seen or heard of in your life, because they're famous for being on shows called Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide or Life Unexpected. Are these actual TV shows? They can't possibly be.
Remember Scream 2? Sarah Michelle Gellar? Jada Pinkett? Heather Graham? Those were cameos! Everyone knew who they were! Julie Taylor from Friday Night Lights? Meh.
Anyway, Scream 4. I had problems with the beginning and the end, but everything in the middle is pretty great. And honestly, even the beginning and the end weren't dealbreakers. This would be a really great place to end the franchise--or at least wait another decade for new events from which to mine social commentary--but if the rumors about this being the start of a new trilogy are true, this isn't a bad place to start.
Spoilers below...
Meta humor is incredibly difficult to pull off, and the beginning of the movie, revealed to be a film-within-a-film-within-a-film, including a couple of cheap shots at the Saw franchise, doesn't quite pull it off. The part with Kristin Bell and Anna Paquin, especially, felt really forced. And while I'm usually willing to suspend disbelief when it comes to these sorts of films, the characters conveniently watching Stab 7 just before the killer strikes, was a bit much.
After that, though, it's a fun ride. One of the things I've always dug about the Elm Street, Friday the 13th and Halloween films is how their respective settings--Springwood, Crystal Lake and Haddonfield--almost become characters themselves, and we get to see how they evolve and react to all the horrible shit that goes on with each new installment. So it was fun to see Woodsboro again, especially since Scream 2 and Scream 3 took place elsewhere. I'm one of those people who could never live in a sleepy small town, but for some reason, I think I'd really enjoy it if a killer struck every few years. I'm not sure what that says about me.
The returning characters are a different story, though. I was kind of hoping at least one out of Sydney, Dewey or Gale would get killed off, and I was somewhat disappointed they all survived. Gale, in particular, seemed especially expendable this time around. Sydney dying would have also given the franchise a fresh start. In fact, for most of the film, I thought that the ultimate goal of Scream 4 was to transition Emma Roberts in as the new heroine, so it seemed like there was a decent shot that Sydney would end up as either a victim or--and this would have been really cool--the killer.
In regards to the reveal of the killers, I thought the film handled it as well as it reasonably could have. It didn't have nearly the punch of the reveal in the original, given that by now we're fully expecting two killers in each film, and there were only a few suspects left alive by the end, and I think we all knew it wasn't Jill's ex-boyfriend or Marley Shelton's character (another reason I wanted Gale to die: she and Dewey would have been adorable together). But at least it wasn't like Scream 2, where Timothy Olyphant conveniently disappeared for the entire last hour, and the only real surprise was who Laurie Metcalf's character really was.
So while the Jill/Charlie team-up wasn't exactly a shock when we found out about it, I thought the logic behind it was insanely clever: Their attempting to rewrite the original story, only with Sydney and Randy ending up together. Well, at least, that's what Charlie thought. I was disappointed Jill was just stringing him along. Once again, the film geek doesn't get the girl.
But that's not what really irritated me about the ending. What irritated me is that Jill should have gotten away with it. A recent trend in horror films is that these days, the bad guy often wins in the end. How great would it have been if that had been reflected here, given that the Scream films have always served as a commentary on the horror genre? And are we really supposed to believe Jill wouldn't have even checked to see if Sydney had a pulse, given how meticulous she was about everything else, including beating the shit out of herself? Come on. I also wasn't wild about the film relying on the old, tired "killer reveals a piece of information he/she couldn't possibly have had" bit as what tipped Dewey off.
But other than none of the heroes dying and the killer getting caught, I had a lot of fun. In the very least, it wiped the bad taste of Scream 3 out of my mouth, Hayden Panettiere looks totally hot with short hair, and Anthony Anderson's death scene is one of my favorite in recent memory. Can't ask for too much more than that.
Script: B+
Acting: B+
Gore: B
Overall: B+
Friday, April 15, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Tilting D.C.
I missed the heyday of the online poker boom, where Americans could make deposits from their checking accounts and gamble with real money. It wasn't until a couple of years after Bill Frist snuck the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act into a complete unrelated security bill, making it illegal for U.S. financial institutions to transfer funds to sites like Pokerstars or Full Tilt and effectively killing online poker in the U.S., that I got into it. It's hard to express how repugnant it is that the Land of the Free is one of the few countries in the world where adults aren't allowed to play poker with their own money. But that's modern conservatism for you. Everyone's morality needs to be regulated, except for the CEOs getting rich by breaking the backs of the middle class or Republican congressmen trying to fuck underage pages.
Anyway, because I can't deposit money into my Pokerstars or Full Tilt accounts via my bank account, and because I'm wary of trusting the shady sites that will still transfer money (most of which seem to be based either in Russia or various east European countries I've never heard of), I'm stuck playing in the free sections of both sites. And it's not always bad. Sometimes, I'll find a game where the players know what they're doing, and get in some good practice. Much more often, though, I'll enter a freeroll tournament or a sit and go and some jackass will go all-in on the very first hand. Betting $15,000 to win $45 is hardly good EV, so it's not something you'd ever see happen where real money is at stake. But it's an annoyingly regular occurrence when nothing's actually at risk. Even when you don't encounter donks like that, free poker is still a poor simulation of the real thing. My play is no different. I'm a lot more likely to call a big raise with a marginal hand like two pair or a straight draw than I would if making a terrible read would actually cost me something.
So as someone who wants to play poker for real money, but not have to drive to Charles Town to do it--or for that matter, Atlantic City or Vegas--this was interesting news:
The timing of this was odd. Less than a week after Republicans in Congress told D.C. that it couldn't use its own funds for abortions and needle exchange programs, those same Republicans were going to turn around and let D.C. become an online den of iniquity? The always-entertaining Michael Brown seems to think so.
I find his naivite adorable. There's no way this is going to happen.
Republicans would probably try and kill D.C.'s online gambling plan regardless, but Brown all but jumping up and down in front of them, shouting, "Ha, ha, we tricked you! Too late to do anything about it!" is only going to make them more determined to do so. Ideally, this whole thing would have waited until Democrats controlled the House again, but in the very least, not openly taunting people who have demonstrated they have no respect for the concept of D.C. home rule, seems like it would be the prudent approach.
From the Washington Times:
Yeah, I dunno. That doesn't exactly scream, "Online poker? Sure, go for it, guys," to me. If Congress can't block the new law outright, I'm sure they'll find some other creative way of doing it. Lots of municipalities are interested in legalizing online poker, but in absence of a federal law, no one seems to want to go first. Not even Nevada. If D.C. does, that'll open the floodgates nationwide, leading to much conservative teeth gnashing about the evils of gambling, and how it would be just another tax on the American people, and what about the children, and so on. So I expect this to be killed fairly quickly.
The sad thing is, this plan really would bring in millions to the city. I think it'd actually exceed the projections of $13 million in revenue by 2014. Yes, some of that revenue would be made off of District residents who would lose money that they can't afford to lose. Most likely the same people you see at convenience stores blowing $20 on DC-5 tickets every day. But because non-D.C. residents would be allowed to play so long as they were inside the city limits, there'd also be tons of Virginia and Maryland residents who would make the trek in every weekend. Hell, every weeknight, too. Imagine empty storefronts somewhere in D.C. Now imagine them full of tables and internet routers, and people paying by the hour (so also, more jobs and tax revenue! Yay!) to sit down with their laptops, contributing rake after rake to the city's coffers. And don't forget about the tourists, who would come for business trips or sight-seeing and leave behind a lot more money than they'd planned.
I'd very much love to be proven wrong on this, and by the end of the year, supplementing my income via fish who have no poker acumen whatsoever. I'd actually just settle for some real competition. But I don't have a whole lot of faith in that happening. In other words, I better get used to playing freerolls.
Anyway, because I can't deposit money into my Pokerstars or Full Tilt accounts via my bank account, and because I'm wary of trusting the shady sites that will still transfer money (most of which seem to be based either in Russia or various east European countries I've never heard of), I'm stuck playing in the free sections of both sites. And it's not always bad. Sometimes, I'll find a game where the players know what they're doing, and get in some good practice. Much more often, though, I'll enter a freeroll tournament or a sit and go and some jackass will go all-in on the very first hand. Betting $15,000 to win $45 is hardly good EV, so it's not something you'd ever see happen where real money is at stake. But it's an annoyingly regular occurrence when nothing's actually at risk. Even when you don't encounter donks like that, free poker is still a poor simulation of the real thing. My play is no different. I'm a lot more likely to call a big raise with a marginal hand like two pair or a straight draw than I would if making a terrible read would actually cost me something.
So as someone who wants to play poker for real money, but not have to drive to Charles Town to do it--or for that matter, Atlantic City or Vegas--this was interesting news:
The District is becoming the first U.S. jurisdiction to allow Internet gambling, trying to raise millions of dollars from the habits of online poker buffs and acting ahead of traditional gambling meccas like New Jersey and Nevada.
Permitting the online games was part of the 2011 budget and a 30-day period for Congress to object expired last week, said D.C. Council member Michael A. Brown, who authored the provision.
The gaming would be operated by Intralot, a Greek company, and would be available only to gamblers within the borders of the District. (The Washington Post)
The timing of this was odd. Less than a week after Republicans in Congress told D.C. that it couldn't use its own funds for abortions and needle exchange programs, those same Republicans were going to turn around and let D.C. become an online den of iniquity? The always-entertaining Michael Brown seems to think so.
I find his naivite adorable. There's no way this is going to happen.
Republicans would probably try and kill D.C.'s online gambling plan regardless, but Brown all but jumping up and down in front of them, shouting, "Ha, ha, we tricked you! Too late to do anything about it!" is only going to make them more determined to do so. Ideally, this whole thing would have waited until Democrats controlled the House again, but in the very least, not openly taunting people who have demonstrated they have no respect for the concept of D.C. home rule, seems like it would be the prudent approach.
From the Washington Times:
But a spokesman for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said Wednesday that the 30-day time period cited by Mr. Brown was merely symbolic and does not bar future action.
"That's not how Congress reviews controversial legislation passed by the District of Columbia," committee spokesman Frederick Hill said. "In practice, that is done through the normal legislative process or through spending bills or riders that restrict federal funds based on the implementation of certain laws."
Despite Mr. Brown's announcement, made to the Associated Press, Mr. Hill said the issue has not yet come up in Congress in the form of a hearing or a bill that would require action. Until it does, he said, "There is no specific plan to block the legislation."
Yeah, I dunno. That doesn't exactly scream, "Online poker? Sure, go for it, guys," to me. If Congress can't block the new law outright, I'm sure they'll find some other creative way of doing it. Lots of municipalities are interested in legalizing online poker, but in absence of a federal law, no one seems to want to go first. Not even Nevada. If D.C. does, that'll open the floodgates nationwide, leading to much conservative teeth gnashing about the evils of gambling, and how it would be just another tax on the American people, and what about the children, and so on. So I expect this to be killed fairly quickly.
The sad thing is, this plan really would bring in millions to the city. I think it'd actually exceed the projections of $13 million in revenue by 2014. Yes, some of that revenue would be made off of District residents who would lose money that they can't afford to lose. Most likely the same people you see at convenience stores blowing $20 on DC-5 tickets every day. But because non-D.C. residents would be allowed to play so long as they were inside the city limits, there'd also be tons of Virginia and Maryland residents who would make the trek in every weekend. Hell, every weeknight, too. Imagine empty storefronts somewhere in D.C. Now imagine them full of tables and internet routers, and people paying by the hour (so also, more jobs and tax revenue! Yay!) to sit down with their laptops, contributing rake after rake to the city's coffers. And don't forget about the tourists, who would come for business trips or sight-seeing and leave behind a lot more money than they'd planned.
I'd very much love to be proven wrong on this, and by the end of the year, supplementing my income via fish who have no poker acumen whatsoever. I'd actually just settle for some real competition. But I don't have a whole lot of faith in that happening. In other words, I better get used to playing freerolls.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Protests and pundits
In general, I hate protests. They hardly ever seem to actually accomplish anything, and the protests around here have an annoying habit of inconveniencing me when I'm simply trying to get from Point A to Point B.
Mayor Gray's and the city council's protest on Monday in front of the Dirksen Senate Office Building against the riders in the budget bill that infringe upon D.C.'s rights, is no different. The odds of their actions changing the mind of even one person in Congress were less than the odds of every D.C. sports team winning a championship this year. But I think you have to respect Gray and company's willingness to get themselves arrested for something they believe in. Was it largely a political stunt? Yeah, maybe. But they could have just given a speech in front of the Wilson Building and called it night. Instead, they went and got arrested, which, I don't care who you are or what the circumstances are, isn't a fun experience.
So this tweet from Matt Yglesias, who I generally like, rubs me the wrong way:
What smug, sanctimonious bullshit. Civil disobedience only counts if there's the possibility of a lengthy jail sentence or getting knocked around by the cops? Did I miss where Gray compared himself to Martin Luther King Jr. or something? And how many times has Yglesias himself practiced "real civil disobedience"?
Gray and Yglesias are both D.C. residents. Gray and Yglesias are both progressives. Gray and Yglesias share similar irritation about Congress's actions. So their interests are clearly aligned. Yet Gray actually got up and did something to achieve those interests. A futile and largely symbolic something, sure. But it was something. Yglesias simply advocates for those interests on his blog. And while that serves an important function, it doesn't give him the standing to sneer from the safety of his keyboard, either.
I've never been arrested for civil disobedience. But even if I had, I doubt I'd take it upon myself to try and separate the "real" from the "faux." Especially if those committing it were doing so in support of an issue I supported. I'm not saying Yglesias had an obligation to be out there with Gray, or even cheer him on from the sidelines, but it seems like while someone's getting arrested and going to jail for a cause that you believe in, the very least you could do is refrain from making snide comments on Twitter before going out for happy hour.
Mayor Gray's and the city council's protest on Monday in front of the Dirksen Senate Office Building against the riders in the budget bill that infringe upon D.C.'s rights, is no different. The odds of their actions changing the mind of even one person in Congress were less than the odds of every D.C. sports team winning a championship this year. But I think you have to respect Gray and company's willingness to get themselves arrested for something they believe in. Was it largely a political stunt? Yeah, maybe. But they could have just given a speech in front of the Wilson Building and called it night. Instead, they went and got arrested, which, I don't care who you are or what the circumstances are, isn't a fun experience.
So this tweet from Matt Yglesias, who I generally like, rubs me the wrong way:
What smug, sanctimonious bullshit. Civil disobedience only counts if there's the possibility of a lengthy jail sentence or getting knocked around by the cops? Did I miss where Gray compared himself to Martin Luther King Jr. or something? And how many times has Yglesias himself practiced "real civil disobedience"?
Gray and Yglesias are both D.C. residents. Gray and Yglesias are both progressives. Gray and Yglesias share similar irritation about Congress's actions. So their interests are clearly aligned. Yet Gray actually got up and did something to achieve those interests. A futile and largely symbolic something, sure. But it was something. Yglesias simply advocates for those interests on his blog. And while that serves an important function, it doesn't give him the standing to sneer from the safety of his keyboard, either.
I've never been arrested for civil disobedience. But even if I had, I doubt I'd take it upon myself to try and separate the "real" from the "faux." Especially if those committing it were doing so in support of an issue I supported. I'm not saying Yglesias had an obligation to be out there with Gray, or even cheer him on from the sidelines, but it seems like while someone's getting arrested and going to jail for a cause that you believe in, the very least you could do is refrain from making snide comments on Twitter before going out for happy hour.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
RIP PC Gaming
My first experience with video games came from arcades and my Atari 2600, but it wasn't until my family got an Apple IIc that I really got into them. I was living outside the U.S. at this point, and there was this small store in a sketchy part of the city that sold computers and parts, but also had a huge catalogue of pretty much every computer game ever released, with the copy protections cracked. If you brought your own blank 5 1/4-inch floppy disk, they'd copy any game for you for only $5 each. Luckily, it never occurred to my parents that this sort of blatant piracy was wrong, so we made frequent trips.
My friends would come over and we'd play Phantasie or The Bard's Tale, each of us taking responsibility for the decisions of one of the members of our party of adventurers. Alone, I struggled through Infocom's text games like Zork and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. And when a new King's Quest or Space Quest game came out, it was the high point of my year. (Sadly, if a new King's Quest or Space Quest game came out today, it would still be the high point of my year.)
The mid-90s were a great time to be a gamer. Dark Forces, Betrayal at Krondor, Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, Civilization II, Warcraft, Jagged Alliance, etc. were all amazing games. I barely touched my Super Nintendo, and never even owned a Nintendo 64 or a Playstation. I didn't need one. Before Kotaku or Joystiq, there was PC Gamer magazine, which was not only the best place to find out about upcoming games, but had an incredible collection of columnists.
Then technology fucked everything up.
Publishers started focusing on graphics over gameplay, and the whole industry began tilting towards multiplayer games, which weren't really my thing. Don't get me wrong, I logged in plenty of hours of Doom II and Warcraft over my 14.4K modem, but I always preferred games with good stories that I could play leisurely, as opposed to ones with non-stop action. Unfortunately, I was in a minority, and the adventure game genre, which had been so prevalent in the '80s and '90s, slowly vanished.
There's a famous article on Old Man Murray about why adventure games deserved to die. It's pretty spot on. In my case, it's especially telling that after years of burning through various adventure games, I played the game featured in the article, Gabriel Knight III, and not once did it ever occur to me that constructing a fake moustache using a packet of syrup and cat fur was in any way strange. It was just the kind of crap you did. On the whole, Gabriel Knight III wasn't bad, but it's impossible to excuse awful details like that once you become aware of them. That was probably the last adventure game I ever played. I got the last King's Quest game, but that was as much action as adventure, and worse, it really sucked.
The demands of new graphic-heavy games became an issue, too. It used to be that when you purchased a game, you could be certain that it would work on your computer. That was no longer the case by the late '90s/early '00s. Sure, they listed the system requirements on the package, but for people like me who never bothered to learn more about computers than how to turn them on, that didn't mean much. All I knew is that a month after getting a brand new Compaq, I bought Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, only to get home and find that my system couldn't handle it. You shouldn't have to have a top of the line processor or video card just to get a computer game to work.
I was in Best Buy a couple of weeks ago, and in a moment of nostalgia, decided to check out the PC games section. It was pathetic. Most of the titles on the handful of shelves were World of Warcraft-related, with a few other MMORPGs and games aimed at young kids there also. There were other random games, but nothing that really caught my interest. Except for one:
Art of Murder? Great title! Three games for $20? What looked like some good, old-fashioned adventure gaming? Sold!
Before I bought it, it occurred to me that I should probably check out reviews for this game on my phone, just in case it turned out that you couldn't actually judge how good a game was simply by it having a cool title and a low price. But I didn't.
So I got home, installed it on my computer, and started playing. Ten minutes later, I'd quit and had gone back to Dead Rising 2 on my Xbox. The game exemplified everything that's horrible and tedious and contrived about adventure games.
It begins in the least-convincing FBI field office ever (the fact that only three people are currently working in it is explained by it not "officially" opening for a few more days). The voice acting is sub par. But I could overlook both of those. What I couldn't overlook, though, was the horrible gameplay. The excitement begins with you having to find your partner's cell phone number and call him, and then print off a report for your boss. You'd think both these tasks would be easy. So easy, in fact, that it wouldn't even be worth putting in the game. But no. The former requires you to find the number on a bulletin board, dial it, realize it's the wrong number, and have a secretary email you the correct one. The latter is complicated by the office printer being out of paper, at which point you get to go into the supply room to look for more.
Needless to say, this stretches the definition of "adventure."
Don't get me wrong, it's a great, realistic portrayal of office life. But no one fucking buys a game called Art of Murder in the hopes that it's accurate simulation of working in an office. I'm sure the game gets better later on--although, going by those reviews I didn't read when I should have, maybe not--and I'll probably give it another shot when I'm really just super fucking bored. But I'm never buying another PC game. Ne. Ver.
RIP Adventure Gaming. You gave me a lot of great years. But now I guess it's all about killing Nazis and zombies and Nazi zombies on consoles. Actually, that doesn't sound so bad.
My friends would come over and we'd play Phantasie or The Bard's Tale, each of us taking responsibility for the decisions of one of the members of our party of adventurers. Alone, I struggled through Infocom's text games like Zork and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. And when a new King's Quest or Space Quest game came out, it was the high point of my year. (Sadly, if a new King's Quest or Space Quest game came out today, it would still be the high point of my year.)
The mid-90s were a great time to be a gamer. Dark Forces, Betrayal at Krondor, Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, Civilization II, Warcraft, Jagged Alliance, etc. were all amazing games. I barely touched my Super Nintendo, and never even owned a Nintendo 64 or a Playstation. I didn't need one. Before Kotaku or Joystiq, there was PC Gamer magazine, which was not only the best place to find out about upcoming games, but had an incredible collection of columnists.
Then technology fucked everything up.
Publishers started focusing on graphics over gameplay, and the whole industry began tilting towards multiplayer games, which weren't really my thing. Don't get me wrong, I logged in plenty of hours of Doom II and Warcraft over my 14.4K modem, but I always preferred games with good stories that I could play leisurely, as opposed to ones with non-stop action. Unfortunately, I was in a minority, and the adventure game genre, which had been so prevalent in the '80s and '90s, slowly vanished.
There's a famous article on Old Man Murray about why adventure games deserved to die. It's pretty spot on. In my case, it's especially telling that after years of burning through various adventure games, I played the game featured in the article, Gabriel Knight III, and not once did it ever occur to me that constructing a fake moustache using a packet of syrup and cat fur was in any way strange. It was just the kind of crap you did. On the whole, Gabriel Knight III wasn't bad, but it's impossible to excuse awful details like that once you become aware of them. That was probably the last adventure game I ever played. I got the last King's Quest game, but that was as much action as adventure, and worse, it really sucked.
The demands of new graphic-heavy games became an issue, too. It used to be that when you purchased a game, you could be certain that it would work on your computer. That was no longer the case by the late '90s/early '00s. Sure, they listed the system requirements on the package, but for people like me who never bothered to learn more about computers than how to turn them on, that didn't mean much. All I knew is that a month after getting a brand new Compaq, I bought Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, only to get home and find that my system couldn't handle it. You shouldn't have to have a top of the line processor or video card just to get a computer game to work.
I was in Best Buy a couple of weeks ago, and in a moment of nostalgia, decided to check out the PC games section. It was pathetic. Most of the titles on the handful of shelves were World of Warcraft-related, with a few other MMORPGs and games aimed at young kids there also. There were other random games, but nothing that really caught my interest. Except for one:
Art of Murder? Great title! Three games for $20? What looked like some good, old-fashioned adventure gaming? Sold!
Before I bought it, it occurred to me that I should probably check out reviews for this game on my phone, just in case it turned out that you couldn't actually judge how good a game was simply by it having a cool title and a low price. But I didn't.
So I got home, installed it on my computer, and started playing. Ten minutes later, I'd quit and had gone back to Dead Rising 2 on my Xbox. The game exemplified everything that's horrible and tedious and contrived about adventure games.
It begins in the least-convincing FBI field office ever (the fact that only three people are currently working in it is explained by it not "officially" opening for a few more days). The voice acting is sub par. But I could overlook both of those. What I couldn't overlook, though, was the horrible gameplay. The excitement begins with you having to find your partner's cell phone number and call him, and then print off a report for your boss. You'd think both these tasks would be easy. So easy, in fact, that it wouldn't even be worth putting in the game. But no. The former requires you to find the number on a bulletin board, dial it, realize it's the wrong number, and have a secretary email you the correct one. The latter is complicated by the office printer being out of paper, at which point you get to go into the supply room to look for more.
Needless to say, this stretches the definition of "adventure."
Don't get me wrong, it's a great, realistic portrayal of office life. But no one fucking buys a game called Art of Murder in the hopes that it's accurate simulation of working in an office. I'm sure the game gets better later on--although, going by those reviews I didn't read when I should have, maybe not--and I'll probably give it another shot when I'm really just super fucking bored. But I'm never buying another PC game. Ne. Ver.
RIP Adventure Gaming. You gave me a lot of great years. But now I guess it's all about killing Nazis and zombies and Nazi zombies on consoles. Actually, that doesn't sound so bad.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Friday, April 01, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)