Something Requisitely Witty and Urbane

"Unimaginable"

Crooks and Liars has video and transcript of Olbermann Tuesday night in response to the Clinton brouhaha on Fox.

It's right in Keith's wheelhouse, and it's one of those things that you want to add to, but realize pretty quickly that there is no point.

Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

There is a distinct possibility that Aaron Sorkin is the name directly after George Clooney on the "See? Hollywood really is run by a bunch of liberals?" Republican talking points list.

And I'm pretty much cool with that.

After watching two episodes of his newest show, Studio 60, I got that feeling in my stomach that I sometimes get when I finish watching something that absolutely lives up to the potential you built into it. Where you just sort of look at the screen when it's over and say, "Hell yes!" before realizing there isn't anyone else in the room. It doesn't happen very often. I'm thinking the last 5 episodes of Six Feet Under, the last season of The Wire... The second and fourth seasons of The West Wing... yeah, that's about it.

And I had some trepidation about this show. First of all, I was worried about if Sorkin would devolve into a sort of frivolity in this particular setting. I mean, there's a lot to skewer in Hollywood, and Sorkin's been sort of hellbent towards skewering politics for so long that it was realistic to think that this show could lose something because it lacked the import of his previous subject matter.

But, what's happened here is that he's found the perfect mix of the sincerity and cutting edge, current events-laden banter of The West Wing with the silliness and fun of Sports Night (a show which I still wish was on the air, but in a "everything works in in the long run" twist would have denied us The West Wing). What comes out of it all is a a smart, biting satire in a setting that EVERYONE is familiar with (The 30-year-old SNL model).

That's a shrewd move on Sorkin's part. My dad remembers SNL when it was the most important satire on television. I remember SNL when I thought it was funny (but when my Dad probably didn't) and while The Daily Show may have replaced SNL as the important show, even people of the generation just after me have a knowledge of the show.

Within this are some standout performances. I always thought that Matt Perry's turn on The West Wing was underrated. He managed to be so understated that the charm that made people love Chandler Bing found a center, sort of like when PTA harnessed Adam Sandler's anger into a character we could identify with rather than just laugh at in Punch Drunk Love. That character has given birth to his Studio 60 character, and through two episodes he's really, really good.

Brad Whitford is, well, he's Brad Whitford. He's one of those guys that just does Shakespere the way it was meant to be played.

(Side note: I always thought that it would have been interesting if Richard Shiff and Brad Whitford had filled the Casey and Dan roles in Sports Night. Can't you just imagine Shiff scaring the shit out out of everyone while Whitford tries to hold it together before he finally blows his top? I'm just saying, it could have been interesting...)

Judd Hirsch's role in the first episode, as the show executive producer who blows his top and goes Network on live tv, was exceptional. I've heard people say things like, "What a great cameo he had," but surely Sorkin's got more plans for him.

The rest of the characters:

I like Amanda Peet. I really do. I don't normally like her, but I sort of like an impish quality in my major studio presidents. I know some people have disliked her so far, but I give her a thumbs up.

The girl that plays Harriet, the supposed star of the show who is Perry's former love interest (I'm too lazy to look up the actresses name)... I've heard it said that she is modeled after Kristen Chenowith and I'm just thinking, um, why not just get Kristen Chenowith. I'm not impressed thus far...

D.L. Hughley... I think this is his coming out party. Seriously... the boy's got chops.

Steven Weber... It just gives comfort to my soul that so many of the Wings alumni are finally getting roles. Although I'm pretty sure that I can do without a Crystal Bernard resurfacing.

Anyway... I'm glad Sorkin's back, I'm glad the show is good... because I missed things like this:

Matt: You know this thing is all over talk radio?
Danny: What do you expect?
Matt: A caller from Taluca Lake called us Barbra Streisand loving, Michael Moore worshiping jackasses.
Danny: What have I always told you about listening to showtunes?
Matt: Don't do it.
Danny: Don't do it.

Incidentally, with a Gilbert and Sullivan siting and a character named "Danny" out of the way, there are quite a few other things to watch for:

• The phrase, "I really am quite something."
• A character named "Tillinghouse"

T.O.

Alright... Time for the most talked about and most unexpected story in my fair berg today.

Terrell Owens attempted suicide last night.

You had to figure that, at some point, there would be some kind of controversial shake-up between T.O. and a reporter or a member of the team. But suicide? Seriously?

So, initially, the Cowboys tried to pass it off as "an adverse reaction to pain medication", and it all seemed like it was an overreaction by the press to a salacious story. But then the police report came out:

RP1 said that comp stated that he was depressed. RP noticed that comp's prescription pain medication was empty and observed comp putting 2 pills in his mouth. RP attempted to put her fingers in comp's mouth to retrieve the pills. RO/S were told by RP that the prescription of 40 pills was filled on the 18th of September, and that the comp had only taken 5 pills up to this date. During and interview of the comp, comp was asked if he took the remainder of the prescription, at which time he stated, "Yes." On further interview of the comp, comp was asked if he was attempting to harm himself, at which time the comp stated, "Yes."

It doesn't get much more clear than that... The "T.O. was just having an adverse reaction to the pills" excuse isn't going to fly.

On a side note, this is why I want to go into journalism. Not so I can cover overpaid athletes try to kill themselves an overzealous show of self-importance, but Maria Lobo of WFAA television scooped this story last night. I can just imagine getting a call from someone you know who works at the hospital, and then breaking the biggest local news story of the day. You are now a national figure that everyone wants to talk to. Kind of cool.

Arabic to English Translation please?

Ok, so this site has linked to my blog (which I think is way cool), but, seeing as it is in arabic (I think), I'm trying to figure out what it says:

דילן, בן 20, מסביר בבלוג שלו על ההתמכרות: "אנשים בסך הכל שואלים באתר שאלות ואנשים אחרים עונים להן. אבל עם הזמן, עם כל תשובה לשאלה, אתה צובר נקודות. הנקודות האלה לא נותנות לך דבר, אבל אתה ממשיך לעלות ברמות, שגם הן לא נותנות לך דבר, אבל באופן מוזר אתה מרגיש צורך להמשיך".

למרות הציניות, גם דילן מודה שקיימת תחושת סיפוק גדולה כשתשובה שהשיב לאחת השאלות נבחרה על ידי מי ששאל אותה כתשובה הטובה מכולן. בחירה כזאת לא רק מזכה את המשיב ב-10 נקודות, היא גם מבטיחה שלכל אותם מכורים לאתר תהיה סיבה טובה לחשוב היטב לפני שהם עונים.

The link is to me. Anyone have any ideas how I can figure out this mystery? None of the online translators seem to work for Arabic that I can find. The curiosity is driving me crazy. Ok, not really... I just really want to know.

UPDATE: Thanks to reader Ohad, we have a translation to my foriegn language link!

Turns out that it is not in arabic, but hebrew. It is, in fact, an online Hebrew newspaper, and they are referring to my post on the Yahoo! Answers website.  Here is what Ohad told me:

OK
Here is a translation:
I tried to translate The part which mention you in details and rest is just a brief

First it starts in a description of how Yahoo answers is addicting.
Then comes 'your part':
20 years old Dylan says in his blog:
"Basically, people ask questions, and people answer. Over time, by answering questions and voting on other people's answers, you earn points. These points gain you nothing, but you continue to climb to new "levels" which also gain you nothing but you feel strangely compelled to aim for anyway."

Despite the sarcasm Dylan admits that he felt great satisfaction when one of his answers was chosen by the asker as the best answer.
An answer like this not only gives 10 points to its owner, it also ensures that there will be a good reason for anyone who wants to answer to think before he will post his answer.

Next its just statistics about Yahoo answers:
More popular than Google answers
14.3 million users.
38 million questions.
etc.

The interesting part is the compression  to other knowledge bases like wikipedia.
They call services like Yahoo answers a 'social search'. Instead of browsing by yourself in ocean of knowledge you share your search with other people who helps you.

That's more or less what is written there.
Wow translation is harder than I thought and it's getting late over here.
Hope it helps. If you have any questions about the article I'll try to help you.
Bye.

A very special thanks to Ohad. You gotta love the internets. You have a question like this, and within a couple of days you've got it answered. Awesome.

Back...

Ok, Press Week really takes it out of me. Between Thursday and Friday, I spent 25 hours in front of my computer screen, designing the pages and laying out the text. By the time I'm done I don't want to look at the written word ever again.

I was talking to a friend at work the other day who invited me out for a drink after work which I had to decline because it was Press Week and I had to get up early. I mentioned that I don't know how editors at daily papers get their papers to press and still manage to go out for a drink, you know, ever again. "Are you kidding?" he said, "that's why they drink."

But a couple of days go by and you feel yourself starting to come out of the rhetorical coma, you get back to finding that you actually WANT to read and write again and that the mere act of putting out a community college newspaper did not, in fact, kill your motivation or your talent.

You also find, however, that you have 2000 or so unread posts in your Bloglines that you have to wade through to figure out what everyone's talking about. And this has led to some problems for me. There is a dual nature to the kinds of writing that I'm doing right now, on the paper and on the blog, and they are both a help and a hindrance to one another.

On the paper, I'm required to come up with stories ahead of time that are pertinent to our campus (in the case of a news story) or original thought for the campus (in the case of opinion or feature writing). On the blog, my writing has almost always been reactive to other people's writings or to other events that were happening with the very rare inclusion of an original idea. At the same time, the act of daily writing on the blog makes it easier to write for the paper and writing for the paper helps hone my writing style here on the blog (although I'm sure my journalism teachers would not approve of this post, journalistically speaking).

Most of the bloggers that I've read who also have careers that involve writing or publishing of some kind have expressed similar things. Blogging helps with keeping the tool sharp, but giving either one a sense of priority sort of hurts the other one.

So, I'm trying to find the new balance for it all. During the time that I laid off blogging, I not only missed it but I also felt my, I dunno, sharpness fade a bit in my writing. I've said it before, but this blog is one of the biggest reason why I went back to school and why I wanted it to be in journalism. So far, it has all seemed to be a good fit, but I don't want to abandon the blog either. I'm just going to have to find a new way of keeping both types of writing vibrant.

All of this is simply to say that, if the blog seems a bit uneven at times, that is why.

"The only question I ever thought was hard was do I like Captain Kirk or do I like Picard?"

I'm sorry... but I certainly thought we'd gotten past the point where Weird Al had anything to contribute, but here he is.

Or, as Veronica said, "That's what I'm saying! His career outlived Michael Jackson's!"

Press Week

Alright... It's press week, which means my week long, loudly celebrated, much anticipated return to blogging will most likely now go on hiatus.

In the meantime, check out The Blazer Online to see some additional stuff that we did in last months paper. Also, my friend Amanda is leaving for Rome tomorrow, and will be keeping an online travellogue for the school at The Blazer Abroad. I can't wait to see what she comes up with.

Little Drummer Boy

I generally like to avoid saying things like, "OMG. This is so cute! You have to see this."

But, OMG, this is so cute! You have to see this.

Blowing it Up...

So, after a Ranger's season that never really seemed to have a chance, but remained just close enough for you to say "Well, if they sweep Oakland this weekend, then maybe.....," things seem to be going from bad to worse.

In the past three years, Michael Young has become Texas' best kept secret to someone who is widely considered one of the 10 best hitters in the game. I'm not sure who I'd put above him... Pujols, Ichiro, and maybe Ryan "Remember my name, because you'll be asking your friends who the fuck I am later" Howard. He's been the quiet clubhouse leader, and the person that the media goes to find out what's going on in the room.

The Rangers have, for about a month now, expressed an interest in negotiating a contract extension. The kind of extension which would make him, most likely, a Ranger for the rest of his career. He would have approached Nolan Ryan and Rusty Greer status for a fan base who have had very few genuine sports stars to hold on to.

He's signed through 2007, and they wanted to lock him up for at least another 5 years.  Yesterday, however, he didn't really seem that interested. Young, as quoted on Lone Star Ball:

"My agent and I will listen to what they have to say, but at the same time, we're in no hurry," Young said before the Rangers' game with the Los Angeles Angels. "When I signed this contract, I expected to play it out and see what happens. After that, who knows?"

Then there's Gary Matthews Jr., who's career year may have made him a $10 million a year type player. Let's say they do manage to lock up Young, you gotta figure $15 million a year for at least 5 years for him. Then there's Texiera, who the club has been trying to lock up for a while, but who has also seemed unwilling to commit to an extension. But let's say you manage to lock him up too, that's another $20 million a year, easy.

So, to get the three best offensive players on this team, you'll spend $45 million a year. With that, you've yet to address Carlos Lee, the trade-deadline move that you made, but paid dearly for (Suddenly CoCo Cordero has regained his tops of the tops closer form), nor have you addressed the pitching, which always plagues the Rangers.

Why on earth would Tom Hicks, who has been gun-shy with his checkbook since the combination A-Rod/Chan Ho blow-ups, do that?

Then, there's this today, from Galloway's column about Showalter:

Don't think the bean-counters aren't currently in Hicks' ear. There are season tickets that must be sold in the off-season. How easy would Buck be to sell to the fans these days? Would, say, a Lou Piniella, or some other new manager, suddenly pump in fresh dollars this winter and next spring?

Nothing personal, Buck, but it's about the bucks. So goes the business doctrine.

Plus, Showalter should now really be concerned. Before Thursday night's game with the Angels he was a given a lukewarm, verbal butt-pat by Hicks and GM Jon Daniels.

But the real truth on Buck will come in October, once the bean-counters are finished munching on Hicks' ear.

But the worst news shows up here:

The rumblings out of Arlington, Texas, seem to indicate that the Rangers will make major changes this winter. Everyone, including Teixeira, is rumored to be available. According to various sources, manager Buck Showalter has alienated most of his roster this season -- Teixeira included -- and owner Tom Hicks is ready to blow it up and start over.

Shit.

The most frustrating thing about all of this is the feeling that we've come tantalizingly close. But this is a ballclub who never fully committed to either becoming a high-paying club or a rebuilding club. The half-in, half-out mentality has led to hamstringing the club financially on the one hand while simultaneously increasing expectations of the fanbase on the other hand so that they have to put a winner out there every to meet expectations while always failing to do so.

Blowing it up may not be the worst option, but it sure doesn't seem like the best.

Unfortunately, if Young, Texiera, GMJ, Carlos Lee... if they are all going to be gone, we may not have an option to begin with.

Am I the Only One...

... who leans forward in anticpation whenever a politician on television says the phrase, "JAG officer"?