The Captain of History

Arbirtrary Bowl Predictions: Alumni Face-Off- BCS Bowls

2012-01-02T14:15:00.000-05:00

The first year Clemson graduated students was also the first year they played a football game. Coincidence?

The biggest bowl games of the college football calendar deserve the best predictions I can muster. (Too bad I'm still pretty hung over from New Year's Eve.) So I have arbitrarily chosen to pick the games based on a comparison of alumni I arbitrarily select from all the schools involved and then analyze them based on my completely subjective opinions. After all of this I probably haven't offered any useful gambling advice, but hopefully I spurred some interesting conversations.

Rose Bowl- 5pm 1/2/2012
Rose Bowl, Pasadena CA
Wisconsin Badgers vs. Oregon Ducks (-6.5)
The Alumni:

John Muir

VS.

Phil Knight

Very few match-ups have featured alumni who would probably hate each other. John Muir was an early vocal advocate for environmental issues. He was a naturalist who founded the Sierra Club and helped to preserve Yosemite and other American National Parks. The state of California chose to honor John Muir when they printed their state's commemorative quarter. If here were around today he would likely spend his time challenging major companies for their practices that harm the environment. One company the Sierra Club has clashed with is Nike, founded by Phil Knight. Knight turned a small side-business selling shoes into the world's leading producer of sporting goods and apparel. He has been a tremendous booster of the University of Oregon, getting them uniforms, equipment, and even a new basketball arena. Nike has gained a reputation for controversial business practices. Knight would doubtlessly find activists like Muir a hindrance to his business.

The Prediction: These alumni indicate very different game plans by the teams. Wisconsin will try to stay "grounded" and run the ball hoping to preserve a small lead. Meanwhile the sleek and modern style of Oregon will show in their aggressive attacking style. Over time the Ducks will find an opening and gain a lead, and the Badgers won't be able to catch up
Oregon- 48 Wisconsin- 28.

Fiesta Bowl- 8:30pm 1/2/2012
University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale AZ
Stanford Cardinal vs. Oklahoma State Cowboys (-3.5)
The Alumni:

Herbert Hoover

VS.

T. Boone Pickens

You may not appreciate how tremendously successful both of these alumni are. Despite the common perception of Hoover as a terrible president, he actually had a fabulous career outside of his time in the Oval Office. He was a successful businessman. He organized humanitarian efforts surrounding World War I. As the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, he spearheaded a number of efforts to help modernize America. If the entire global economy didn't collapse during his time in office, we might remember Herbert Hoover in kinder terms. Similarly T. Boone Pickens has done more that just succeed at the oil business. He has become a powerful political player. He supported the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group that attacked John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. Lately he has been pushing for a radical shift in American energy policy toward petroleum alternatives.

The Prediction: I foresee a game that may appear to be disappointingly low scoring, but actually is very entertaining for football purists. The teams will both play a smash-mouth style and execute sharply. The defenses will look good keep the game moving at a quick clip. Overall the Cardinal will have a more flexible attack and scratch out a few more points than the Cowboys.
Stanford -19 Oklahoma State- 13

Sugar Bowl- 8:30pm 1/3/2012
Superdome, New Orleans LA

Michigan Wolverines (-1.5) vs. Virginia Tech Hokies
The Alumni:

President Gerald Ford

VS.

Homer Hickam

Usually when the other school can list a U.S. President as an alumnus the other school would have a hard time matching-up. In the case of Gerald Ford though, he may be a little vulnerable. After all he was never elected on a presidential ticket and he only finished out a term after Nixon's resignation. I also really admire Homer Hickam who has the inspiring story of rising from a small coal mining town to become a NASA scientist. The reason I give the edge to Ford is because he combines a notable life after graduating with a successful career as a football player when he was at Michigan.

The Prediction: You may not enjoy watching this game. Michigan will alternate between looking sharp and committing costly errors. The Hokies won't be able to capitalize on the numerous turnovers and penalties, and will only be able to keep the game close without ever really threatening.
Michigan- 20 Virginia Tech-16

Okay, in previous posts I have tried to disguise fake bowl games as the genuine article. Since this post only focuses on the BCS bowls, I knew it would be impossible to convince you some new high profile bowl had been created. So instead I have proposed an alternative game. Instead of controversially picking Michigan and Virginia Tech for the Sugar Bowl, they could have picked the two highest ranked teams eligible for BCS bowls, Boise State and Kansas State.
Aspartame Bowl- 8:30pm 1/3/2012
Superdome, New Orleans LA
Boise State Broncos (-6.5) vs. Kansas State Wildcats
The Alumni:

Frances Rogers one of the protagonists of the novel Little Lost River, attends Boise State

VS.

The hero of the film The Secret of My Success, played by Michael J. Fox, is fresh out of Kansas State

In honor of this clearly fictional bowl, I have selected two clearly fictional characters. Now I have neither read the book or watched the movie in which these characters appear, so I cannot give much of a description. In Little Lost River the character Frances Rogers attempts to bond with another young woman after a tragedy while she transitions from high school to college at Boise State. Michael J. Fox played Brantley Foster a recent college graduate who travels from Manhattan, Kansas to Manhattan, New York. He somehow becomes a success despite a comedic plot trying to get in the way. I have to assume the KSU grad had the more impressive fictional accomplishment.

The Prediction: Boise State will start slow and stay that way. Kansas State will have an awful start, but they'll use a trick play to gain momentum. After getting their spirits lifted by a surprise score, they will coast to a win.

Kansas State-17 Boise State-12

Orange Bowl- 8:30pm 1/4/2012
Sun Life Stadium, Miami FL
West Virginia Mountaineers vs. Clemson Tigers (-3.5)
The Alumni:

Jerry West

VS.

Jonathan Hickman at a comic book convention

Jerry West was a legend on the basketball court. He is even rumored to serve as the model for the NBA logo. After his playing days he became a very successful NBA general manager. He headed up multiple championship teams and won the NBA Executive of the Year award twice. That's all pretty impressive for a kid from the banks of Cabin Creek in West Virginia. Unfortunately for Clemson the only alumnus of theirs I likes is Jonathan Hickman. He has made hit independent comic books and written for the major superhero titles. I even had the pleasure of speaking to him once. However I don't think anyone is turning his silhouette into a logo anytime soon.

The Prediction: In a total route the Mountaineers dominate from beginning to end of this game. I would watch something else when this game is on.
West Virginia- 42 Clemson- 13

BCS Championship Game- 8:30pm 1/9/2012
Superdome, New Orleans LA
Alabama Crimson Tide vs. Louisiana State Tigers (-1)
The Alumni:

Bear Bryant

VS.

James Carville

I would have loved it if the championship game featured the most distinguished alumni, but since Harvard and Yale don't play top level football that's unlikely. Instead we have two people known for their incomprehensible accents and what they have on the top of their heads (for Bryant the famous houndstooth hat, for Carville his shiny bald dome). Paul "Bear" Bryant is THE face of Alabama football, as a former player he came back to Tuscaloosa to coach the team. His run as the leader of the Crimson Tide remains the stuff of legend. Carville was one of the key players in Bill Clinton's political team. Since helping win Clinton the 1992 presidential election, he has become a wildly entertaining TV personality. If you need someone to come on camera and argue the liberal position, or just say something outrageous, then Carville is your man.

The Prediction: LSU will try to pull off some crazy trick plays, and will fight all the way through the game, but Alabama will demonstrate a superior execution of football basics. It will be a close game and hotly contests from start to finish, but the Crimson Tide will never be at serious risk of losing. And I don't care because I think they should not have played this game at all.

I hope everyone enjoys the bowl season, and I hope to bring you more bowl predictions the next year I have a good idea and time to write.

2011 Arbirtrary Bowl Predictions: Alumni Face-Off Part 4

2012-01-01T22:30:00.000-05:00

The 1905 Pittsburgh football team (note: at the time of this photograph the University of Pittsburgh was named the Western University of Pennsylvania and football was still referred to as "hand-soccer")

A new year has begun (which for some means they resolved to stop gambling) and the bowl season will conclude soon (which means we have a great excuse to break that resolution already). I invite you to base your first wagers on 2012 on my arbitrary bowl selection method. As explained in earlier posts in this series, I have analyzed the bowls by comparing representative alumni of the schools involved in each game. I enjoy giving absurd gambling tips so much, that this year I have even created fictional bowls. While you read this post, try to guess which bowl is actually a fake.

TicketCity Bowl- 12pm 1/2/2012
Cotton Bowl, Dallas TX
Houston Cougars (-9) vs. Penn State Nittany Lions
The Alumni:

Matt Mullenweg

VS.

Herman Fisher

Since pretty much everything I do in life can be described as "derivative", I have to tip my cap to the innovators in life, such as these to alumni. Matt Mullenweg may not have had an award-winning movie made about his life, but he founded websites that reach a billion people every month. One of his creations, WordPress, is one of the most popular blogging platforms on the web. Herman Fisher is the "Fisher" in "Fisher-Price" toys, the toy company he founded during the Great Depression. This man created the term "preschool toys" and landed the first deal to produce licensed Disney toys. Odds our your childhood was shaped by the influence of Herman Fisher. In the end though I think I will favor Mullenweg, because we bloggers have to stick together

The Prediction: You can expect a real contrast of styles in this game (Do I use that phrase to much?). Penn State will play fundamental, "ground-and-pound" football to try to limit the wide-open Cougar spread attack. The Nittany Lions want to keep the Cougar's offense off the field and make it a physical contest. I foresee Houston making the most of every possession though and putting up enough points to win handily.
Houston- 35 Penn State-20

Gator Bowl- 1pm 1/2/2012
Everbank Field, Jacksonville FL
Ohio State Buckeyes vs. Florida Gators (-1.5)
The Alumni:

Jesse Owens

VS.

Erin Andrews

Major public universities provide large pools of alumni to select from, so I can usually find something interesting. In this case, I found two people who were national sensations 70 years apart. The Buckeyes produced track and field legend, Jesse Owens, who won four gold medals at the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin. The dominance of an African-American proved the falsehood of Hitler's claims of Aryan superiority. Former member of the University of Florida dance team, Erin Andrews reaffirms the superiority of pretty talented people. She has become one of the most popular personalities on ESPN and is such a hit online her nickname is "Erin Pageviews", because any pictures of her draw lots of hits (or at least I'm hoping that's the case). As excited as Erin Andres makes the masses, I think Jesse Owens has to be favored for performing one of the greatest athletic feats in history. At the 1935 Big Ten track meet he claimed 4 world records in 45 minutes.I'll give you a second to pick your jaws off the floor.

The Prediction: This game will be fast paced and exciting all the way through. Both alumni indicate football teams capable of scoring lots of points in a hurry. The decisive moment will come in the middle of the game when Ohio State will score multiple times in a few minutes of gametime, which will give them an insurmountable lead.
Ohio State- 45 Florida- 34

Outback Bowl- 1pm 1/2/2012
Raymond James Stadium, Tampa FL
Michigan State Spartans vs. Georgia Bulldogs (-2)
The Alumni:

Magic Johnson No. 32 (photo by S. Lipofsky)

VS.

Herschel Walker on a Sports Illustrated cover

We have some superstar athletes to compare in this match-up. Erving "Magic" Johnson starred in the most watched college basketball game of all time. Then he authored a Hall of Fame career as a professional basketball player, winning multiple championships. Then he brought new levels of attention to the HIV crisis, as the most famous HIV-positive person. Then he became a successful businessman generating hundreds of millions of dollars worth of net worth. Now he has become a popular basketball analyst on TV. Herschel Walker may be considered to be the greatest college football player ever, but that is a lot to overcome.

The Prediction: The Bulldogs will run the ball well, and that will be about all they have work for them. Otherwise the Spartans will dominate the game in all three phases. Michigan State will score just about every way they can (e.g. returning kickoffs and interceptions for touchdowns) to cruise to an easy victory.
Michigan State- 48 Georgia- 16

Capital One Bowl- 1pm 1/2/2012
Citrus Bowl, Orlando FL
Nebraska Cornhuskers (-1) vs. South Carolina Gamecocks
The Alumni:

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Johnny!

VS.

Darius "NOT Hootie" Rucker

As you may have noticed in my earlier posts, when entertainers meet I predict entertaining games. These alumni are especially entertaining. Johnny Carson hosted the Tonight Show for decades. Because millions dozed off watching his show year after year, he became the face of the late night television for multiple generations of Americans. Darius Rucker first gained fame as the lead singer for quintessential 1990's band Hootie and the Blowfish. They had a runaway hit album, then fell into obscurity. In recent years Rucker has risen to fame and fortune again as a solo artist performing, I kind you not, country western music.

The Prediction: The omens tell me that South Carolina will open strong take a big lead early. The Cornhuskers will just keep plugging away, to eventually take the lead. The Game Cocks will launch a furious comeback attempt in the closing minutes, but will ultimately fall just short.
Nebraska- 29 South Carolina- 28

North American Bowl- 8pm 1/5/2012
Rogers Centre, Toronto ON
Miami University RedHawks vs. Navy Midshipmen (-9)
The Alumni:

President Benjamin Harrison

VS.

President Jimmy Carter

Naturally the only bowl game played outside of the United States should involve two schools that produced Presidents of the United States. Neither of these men may be remembered as particularly great presidents, but I think you have to pick a POTUS over other alumni, especially since there aren't man times when two teams to produce presidents meet in bowl games. (Especially since Whittier College and Eureka College stink at football.) I think Navy has a big advantage in this game after comparing these two Commanders-in-Chief. President Harrison is the only president to lose a presidential election the someone who was voted out of the White House. President Carter has spent his time since leaving office as a leaded for humanitarian causes eventually earning a Nobel Peace Prize for his work. I think that might make him the greatest ex-president ever, with the possible exception of the dude who came back to beat Harrison.

The Prediction: The RedHawks may claim an early lead, but look for Navy to get stronger as the game goes on. The Midshipmen will look impressive after a slow start, and the RedHawks will deliver a thoroughly forgettable performance.
Navy- 42 Miami U.- 13

Cotton Bowl- 8pm 1/6/2012
Cowboys Stadium, Arlington TX
Kansas State Wildcats vs. Arkansas Razorbacks (-8.5)
The Alumni:

Taylor Mali

VS.

Pat Summerall pictured on the cover of his autobiography

Both of these representative alumni have earned their livings with their voices. Mali has become possibly the most famous slam poet in the world. He uses his performances to try to inspire others to become teachers. So he will represent the school where he first taught. For millions of Americans, when they imagine a play-by-play announcer calling a football game, the voice they hear in their head belongs to Pat Summerall. he spent years covering NFL games and had such a great voice it has been used to narrate everything from golf video games to Looney Tunes cartoons.

The Prediction: Both teams will play with a lot of passion. Kansas State will lean on their strength of running the ball. Arkansas will prove more versatile and will keep KSU off balance all game. The Razorbacks will wear out the Wildcats as the game goes on, giving them a comfortable lead to end the game.
Arkansas 30- Kansas State- 21

BBVA Compass Bowl- 1pm 1/7/2012
Legion Field, Birmingham AL
Southern Methodist Mustangs vs. Pittsburgh Panthers (-7)
The Alumni:

Lamar Hunt (photo from Bat for The Cure)

VS.

Gene Kelly smiling as his own name hover in front of him

You have to salute the audacity of Lamar Hunt who was a wealthy oilman that loved football. Since the NFL wouldn't let him join, he started the American Football League. He eventually forced the two teams to merge. His team still plays on as the Kansas City Chiefs. Gene Kelly had a remarkable career as a dancer and movie star. His film Singin' in the Rain, is generally considered one of the best movies ever made. Kelly was so iconic that when he died ABC didn't do the standard memorial. Instead they acknowledged his passing by playing his famous "Singin' in the Rain" sequence, an unprecedented tribute. I would love it if when I died my entire life could be perfectly summed up with a few minutes of film that I created.

The Prediction: I predict a bit of an ugly game at first. Both teams will need some time to get into the flow of the game. Once they do though it will be a fun match-up. The Mustangs will play aggressively and try for big gains every chance they get. The Panthers will execute flawlessly and use graceful play to gain leverage. Pitt wins the game with a well played 4th quarter to put SMU away.
Pitt- 30 SMU- 23

GoDaddy.Com Bowl- 9pm 1/8/2012
Ladd-Peebles Stadium. Mobile AL
Arkansas State Red Wolves (-1) vs. Norther Illinois Huskies
The Alumni:

Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe

VS.

Markos "Kos" Moulitsas

Political match-ups can be tricky. I worry that it will look like I am choosing the victor based on my politics. I try to make all these predictions based not personal preference, but on a fair assessment of the relative merits of the respective alumni. In this case I feel like winning the Arkansas gubernatorial election isn't as much of an accomplishment when compared to founding one of the most popular political websites, Daily Kos. I just know this post will draw Bill O'Reilly's ire, for supporting someone he considers to be a "left-wing extremist".

The Prediction: This game will be more of physical struggle. It won't be much fun to watch, as both teams will seem more intent on injuring the other team than scoring points. I expect NIU will carry a narrow lead throughout the game to win in "not as close as the score" fashion.
NIU-23 Arkansas State-20

The games are starting soon enough, so I'll let you stop reading now. I will have my prediction for the BCS Bowls in the next installment.

2011 Arbirtrary Bowl Predictions: Alumni Face-Off Part 3

2011-12-26T02:37:00.000-05:00

Above the graduation picture of the Princeton Class of 1879. Among that group was a future Congressman, a Supreme Court Justice, and a U.S. President, but not one notable football player.

Now that we have reached the midsection of this bowl season preview, I feel comfortable dispensing with the pleasantries. If you need more information about how this set of arbitrary predictions work, I invite you to visit my earlier posts in this series. I will try to make this brief since we have a lot of bowls concentrated before the New Year. So prepare yourself for a load of college football and a whole mess of alumni.

Armed Forces Bowl- 12pm 12/30/2011
Gerald J. Ford Stadium, University Park TX
Brigham Young Cougars (-1.5) vs. Tulsa Golden Hurricane
The Alumni:

Jeopardy!-Champion Ken Jennings

VS.

Author S. E. Hinton

As the largest religious university in the United States, Brigham Young has had a plethora of notable graduates. Contrast that with Tulsa, which has one sentence written under the section for "Alumni" on its Wikipedia page, "This section requires expansion." Still Tulsa produced S. E. Hinton who wrote novels like The Outsiders and That Was Then, This Is Now which every moody kid reads at some point growing up. Of all the BYU alumni, I chose Kenn Jennings because I am a trivia nerd just like he is. My second choice was Mitt Romney. (Man, will that guy every finish in 1st place?!)

The Prediction: I am getting visions of a face paced game with some pretty good offensive showings. The Cougars will have the craftier game plan and pile on the points just like Jennings built up insurmountable leads during his game show run.
BYU- 41 Tulsa- 31

Pinstripe Bowl- 3:20pm 12/30/2011
Yankee Stadium, New York NY
Rutgers Scarlet Knights (-2.5) vs. Iowa State Cyclones
The Alumni:

Toni Morrison

VS.

George Washington Carver

Comparing these two, comes down to a choice between comparing the full range of contributions they made to American life, or comparing the pigeonholes they have been forced into. Carver will forever be known as the man who invented peanut butter. A legacy that is both factually incorrect and ignorant of the sweeping contributions he made to agricultural life for poor Americans. Morrison is probably best known as Oprah's favorite author, but that doesn't do justice to the last American to earn the Nobel Prize for literature. Carver did more overall, but Morrison is at least known for work she actually did.

The Prediction: This game will start as an even match, low scoring and slow going. At some point in the second half, a blown call will give the Cyclones the lead. It will change the momentum of the game, but their margin of victory will be much larger, diminishing the importance of that one play.
Iowa State- 31 Rutgers- 20

Fandango Bowl- 5pm 12/30/2011
Angel Stadium, Anaheim CA
Hawai'i Warriors vs. Southern California Trojans (-12)
The Alumni:

Bette Middler

VS.

George Lucas

It only makes sense that the game once known as the Hollywood Bowl, should feature some serious star power in the alumni. George Lucas remains one of the most famous and successful film directors ever. He has created a multibillion dollar multimedia empire out of the Star Wars franchise, even if you and everyone you know hated the prequels. The Divine Miss M may not seem very Hawaiian in appearance or manner, but she has had the most celebrated life of anyone to attend the University of Hawai'i. This is a difficult choice for me between one of my favorite singers and the creator of one of my favorite movies.

The Prediction: Much like Lucas, USC will open huge racking up lots of points early only to collapse in the second half (RE: the aforementioned prequels). Much like Middler, the Warriors will triumph because of their durability and staying power, allowing them to sneak a victory out of a late score.
Hawai'i- 35 USC- 34

Music City Bowl- 6:40pm 12/30/2011
LP Field, Nashville TN
Mississippi State Bulldogs (-7) vs. Wake Forest Demon Deacons
The Alumni:

John Grisham (photo by S. Brenner)

VS.

Tim Duncan

If you could pick to have the life of either of these famous alumni, you couldn't make a bad selection. You could be the author of novels that made courtroom drama secy again and sold roughly 3.7 billion copies. Or you could be the greatest power forward in basketball history. (Yeah, that's right! You heard me Karl Malone.) They are both insanely rich, and being a 4 time NBA champion is probably about equal to having 11 movies and 2 TV shows adapted from your work. Still I have to give the slight edge to Duncan, because I think it would be pretty cool to be seven feet tall.

The Prediction: This will turn into one of the best bowl games of the 2011, with both teams executing sharply. They will both look impressive, and the deciding factor will be Wake Forest taking over in the trenches. This will give them the edge in the running game, which will allow them to control the clock and turn a narrow lead into a bowl game win.
Wake Forest- 24 Mississippi State- 20

Insight Bowl- 10pm 12/30/2011
Sun Devil Stadium, Tempe AZ
Iowa Hawkeyes vs. Oklahoma Sooners (-16)
The Alumni:

Nile Kinnick

VS.

Billy Sims featured on a Sports Illustrated cover

Two football greats were selected for this contest, because I appreciate what each of them represent. Billy Sims was the living embodiment of the Sooners' glory years. He was a powerful running back who dominated games. He remains a great representative for Oklahoma. After winning the Heisman Trophy himself, he always tries to start a "Boomer! Sooner!" chat at the presentation ceremony whenever a fellow Sooner wins the award. Kinnick was a terrific quarterback, and by all accounts one heckuva human being. When he won the Heisman he gave a fondly remembered speech noting the terrors of World War II, which was noteworthy because the United States hadn't yet entered the war. He would die not long after in an accident while serving in the military. Every time they flip a coin before a Big Ten football game, that coin bears Kinnick's image. Now that is a tribute I would love to earn.

The Prediction: The omens show a faltering Oklahoma team that will have to rely on the run to carry their offense. I foresee Iowa racking up lots of passing yards, but not a lot of points. The game will go to overtime and the Hawkeyes will win the toss allowing them to hold OU to a field goal before scoring a winning touchdown.
Iowa- 29 Oklahoma- 26 (OT)

Meineke Car Care Bowl- 12pm 12/31/2011
Reliant Stadium, Houston TX
Texas A&M Aggies (-11) vs. Northwestern Wildcats
The Alumni:

Neal Boortz (photo by E. Saulsberry)

VS.

Dr. Stephen T. Colbert D.F.A.

To set up an entertaining pairing, I skewed my selection criteria a bit. Loads of notable folks graduated from Northwestern, and I bet there have been Aggies more interesting than Neal Boortz -not that I could find any, but I assume they're out there somewhere. I just enjoyed the theater of pitting someone who has earned a living as an outspoken conservative pundit, and someone who has earned a living pretending to be an outspoken conservative pundit. Colbert may have a larger cult following, but I think for the purposes of predicting this game I have to favor the genuine article over the imitation.

The Prediction: The Aggies demonstrate a clear talent advantage in this game, and maximize that advantage. They grind out a convincing, if not especially pretty, victory.
Texas A&M- 24 Northwestern- 10

Sun Bowl- 2pm 12/31/2011
Sun Bowl, El Paso TX
Utah Utes vs. Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets (-3.5)
The Alumni:

J.Willard Marriott

VS.

Jeff Foxworthy

Between these two alumni there can be no doubt who has had more success -at least measure monetarily. However, I cannot give the edge to Marriott, despite no matter how many billions of dollars his hotel chains are worth. I spent my wedding night in a Marriott hotel, and I have determined that the accommodations must have been to blame for my, um, disappointing performance. You can ridicule Foxworthy for milking the redneck comedy angle for all he could get. I just know I have never felt impotent frustration after listening to his jokes.

The Prediction: I foresee the Utes hurting their chances several times with costly blunders. Georgia Tech will seem to depend to heavily on basic run plays, but they will get enough big plays to win.
Georgia Tech- 24 Utah- 16

Fight Hunger Bowl- 3:30pm 12/31/2011
AT&T Park, San Fransisco CA
UCLA Bruins vs. Illinois Fighting Illini (-1.5)
The Alumni:

Dr. Maulana Karenga (center) celebrating Kwanza

VS.

Dan Savage

Since this bowl is organized around a philanthropic purpose, I thought it appropriate to select alumni who have made an impact by trying to improve the lives of others. Dr. Maulana Karenga may not be a household name, but he founded Kwanza. Plenty of people mock Kwanza as an artificial celebration. After trying to turn the Michigan-Ohio State game into a national holiday, I can assure you that founding a new holiday is a hard thing to do. Savage has also had a tremendous influence on others by starting the It Gets Better project, which tries to comfort young people suffering bullying and persecution. As a former teacher, I know how important it can be to reach out to a young teenager before tragedy strikes. Overall, I feel inclined to favor the person who founded the holiday during which this bowl game will take place.

The Prediction: You should expect a real defensive slugfest. Both teams will play with great spirit and show terrific unit cohesion in all aspects of the game. They will protect their goal lines with their lives, but I expect the Bruins to force at least one touchdown to seal their margin of victory.
UCLA- 16 Illinois- 12

Liberty Bowl- 3:30pm 12/31/2011
Liberty Bowl, Memphis TN
Cincinnati Bearcats vs. Vanderbilt Commodores (-2)
The Alumni:

Sandy Koufax

VS.

James Patterson

We have a contest between quality and quantity in this match-up. The Bearcats have one of history's greatest baseball pitchers representing them, but he had to retire before he turned 32. Patterson has produced so many popular novel, he should just add "#1 New York Times Best Seller" to the end of his name. Too bad for him, that most literary critics consider his work dreck, and he has been accused of coasting on his co-authors' abilities.

The Prediction: I predict a lot of yards by Vanderbilt, but not a lot of points. They will run the ball a lot and dominate the time of possession. The Bearcats will stall at times, but they will make a few home run plays to score enough to win.
Cincinnati- 21 Vanderbilt- 15

Chick-fil-A Bowl- 7:30pm 12/31/2011
Georgia Dome, Atlanta GA
Virginia Cavaliers vs. Auburn Tigers (-1.5)
The Alumni:

Tina Fey (with donuts)

VS.

Charles Barkley (photo by S. Lipofsky)

Two very entertaining figures as the chosen alumni indicate a very entertaining game. Both Barkley and Fey actually have gotten better with time. After leaving Saturday Night Live Fey created the award winning show 30 Rock. After capping a great basketball career, Barkley became a legend as an commentator on TV. Oddly even Barkley's scandals have only endeared him more to the public.

The Prediction: This game will start slow but get better as it goes. Scoring will keep increasing until the 4th quarter. I predict the final margin will come when Auburn makes a risky play that looks like it will cost them, only to have it unexpectedly pay off with a late touchdown.
Auburn- 34 Virginia- 31

Happy New Year, and I'll see you all back here for Part 4.

2011 Arbitrary Bowl Predictions: Alumni Face-Off Part 2

2011-12-19T16:42:00.000-05:00

The 1910 Missouri Tigers football team were just a small fraction of the alumni considered for this piece.

Just as it sometimes snows in July and whales occasionally try to swim onto a beach, so too, can my readers rely on me to put out a new set of college football predictions every third or fourth bowl season. For this edition, I have once again chosen to forecast the outcome of football games by analyzing topics that have no connection whatsoever to the act of playing football. This year I start by selecting a representative alumni from each school involved then comparing them. This allows me to project the course of the game and the final result through a process that combines thoughtful contemplation and random guesswork. If you want a more detailed explanation -note I didn't promise anything more coherent just more detailed- check out my first set of predictions from this series.

To make this a little more interactive I have added several fake bowl games into my write-ups. I invite my readers to take a guess at which bowl games are fraudulent in the comments section. So try to stay alert for signs of deceit as you read my second round of arbitrary bowl predictions for 2011.

Hawai'i Bowl- 8pm 12/24/2011
Aloha Stadium, Honolulu HI
Nevada-Reno Wolf Pack vs. Southern Mississippi Golden Eagles (-5.5)
The Alumni:

Chris Ault

VS.

Brett Favre (Please don't sue me for using a fan's picture that includes the Packers' logo)

When picking the alumni for comparisons, I prefer to avoid football figures, as that seems a little close to non-arbitrary analysis. In this case though the football programs have produced some clear standouts, though for some pretty different reasons. Chris Ault played quarterback for the Wolf Pack back when LBJ was president. Since then he rose to become the head football coach at his alma mater, retired, returned to the head coach position, retired again, and become head coach for a third time. This has earned him a reputation for loyalty to Nevada. His official bio released by the university says, "Simply put, Chris Ault is University of Nevada football". It also makes him the only active Division I football coach who is already in the College Football Hall of Fame. Brett Favre could at one time claim a similarly positive reputation. I even argued once that he was the most beloved figure in American sport. As a former Southern Miss quarterback who became a huge success leading the Green Bay Packers, Favre was a living legend in the minds of most football fans. Now his legacy may well be permanently tarnished by some -oh, let's say "controversial" moves at the end of his career. A fall from grace by their most famous alumnus indicates serious trouble for the Golden Eagles.

The Prediction: Much like The Gunslinger Favre, the Golden Eagles will come out throwing the ball deep in a wide open attack. The Wolf Back will fall behind early and struggle to catch-up, only to have Southern Miss reclaim the lead every time. In the closing moments of the game watch for Southern Miss to give up a costly turnover -another hallmark of the Brett Favre quarterback experience- allowing the tenacious Wolf Pack to make the final clinching score.
Nevada- 34 Southern Miss- 31

Independence Bowl- 5pm 12/26/2011
Independence Bowl, Shreveport LA
North Carolin Tar Heels vs. Missouri Tigers (-3.5)
The Alumni:

Michael Jordan (photo by S.Lipofsky)

VS.

Sam Walton pictured on the cover of his autobiography

We have about thirty more bowl games to cover, and I doubt any of the other match-ups will include two alumni who both succeeded in their respective fields as much as these two. I can only hope that the actual game turns into the kind of high-powered slug fest alumni like these deserve. Let me try to explain how good these guys are. Picking the greatest graduate of UNC came down to, former President of the United States James K. Polk or a man who's biography on the NBA website starts by proclaiming, "By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time". Then I remembered this person would be representing the Tar Heels and that anyone who didn't play basketball couldn't make the cut. As good as Jordan ~~was~~ is at basketball, Sam Walton might have been even better as a retailer. Walton founded the retail chain Walmart, which has grown to bring in more revenues than any other company in the world. We can mock the Walmart culture as much as we please. It won't change the fact that Walton's surviving errors have as much wealth as the poorest 30% of Americans combined.

The Prediction: This contest will pit contrasting styles against each other. The Tar Heels will use a wide-open offense designed to make big plays, but prone to stalling. The Tigers will focus on an efficient West Coast-style attack that won't look flashy but will keep gathering up yards. Mizzou should dominate time of possession, getting a big share of the clock just like Sam Walton got a big share of the wealth. This will ultimately leave UNC with too little time to comeback as they desperately try to put together a final touchdown drive.
Missouri- 34 UNC- 26

Little Caesar's Pizza Bowl- 4:30pm 12/27/2011
Ford Field, Detroit MI
Western Michigan Broncos (-1) vs. Purdue Boilermakers
The Alumni:

Bruce Campbell and his chin

VS.

Neil Armstrong (photo by Buzz Aldrin)

This should be an obvious one-sided bout. You have a hammy actor against the first person to set foot on something other than planet Earth. One of these guys is known for starring in B-movies and cult TV shows, and the other once had 93% of the country watching him. Armstrong's name is enshrined on the Moon and Campbell can't even get a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. And yet . . . Please, just bear with me here. I know Neil Armstrong has been a hero to millions of people, but Bruce Campbell was my hero when I was young. I loved watching The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. when I was a kid. If you've ever seen Bubba Ho-Tep then you should realize just how fun it can be to watch Bruce Campbell take over a movie. And that chin. My God, that chin. If there's anything I've learned from every romantic comedy ever, it's that sometimes you have to go with your heart, and my hear belongs to Bruce Campbell.

The Prediction: My power of foresight see Purdue having this game completely in hand. There will be every reason to believe that they will walk to victory. Until disaster strikes that is. I can't be sure if it will be a game-breaking turnover, a costly error, or a devastating injury. I just know one moment in the game will allow WMU to seize the momentum and snatch a victory by the narrowest of margins.
Western Michigan- 22 Purdue- 21

Belk Bowl- 8pm 12/27/2011
Bank of America Stadium, Charlotte NC
Louisville Cardinals vs. North Carolina State Wolfpack (-2.5)
The Alumni:

Sue Grafton

VS.

John Tesh

The face-off between these two school will take place in the arena of Arts & Letters. When a best-selling author squares-off against a TV personality turned adult contemporary rock star, you can trust that mediocre football is on the way. Both Grafton and Tesh have been highly popular in their respective fields despite the fact that you may well have never read any of her books or listened to any of his albums. They are like the CBS prime time line-up in that respect. While I do have great admiration for Sue Grafton's success selling mystery novels about a female detective in alphabetical order, I have to tilt in favor of John Tesh. I do so solely on the basis of the fact that he composed a totally kicking theme song for NBC's coverage of the NBA.

The Prediction: In a pretty ugly game, both teams will make you openly question why either of them deserve a chance at post-season play. The signs point to lots of penalties, lots of three-and-outs, and at least a few moments where the head referee starts to announce a ruling, then pauses, turns off his microphone, consults with the other officials, and comes back to announce the exact opposite. It will all hinge on a big play by NC State that accounts for the margin of victory. Though something makes me think the only exciting play will happen early leaving us to sit through three quarter of mostly dull football.
NC State- 17 Louisville- 10

SunTrust Bank Bowl- 1pm 12/28/2011
Bright House Networks Stadium, Orlando FL
University of Miami Hurricanes (-7.5) vs. Eastern Michigan Eagles
The Alumni:

Drew Rosenhaus

VS.

J. H. Kellogg

Not everyone who sets out to serve others earns a respectable legacy, as proven by the lives of these two alumni. Because "Da U" is best known for its football program and all of the high profile players it has produced, I felt compelled to select an athlete. However with so many Hurricanes who became football greats and outspoken personalities, it was hard to pick just one. So I went with someone who has made a (very, very good) living as the voice for the modern sports star, super-agent Drew Rosenhaus. Like the players he represents, he has a reputation as a winner. Also like modern athletes, the public considers him an over-entitled diva who acts like a child when he can't get his way. No matter how much money he earns his clients, he will always be thought of as a joke. In a similar way, John Harvey Kellogg will probably be remembered as a quack doctor despite his sincere efforts to promote healthy living. Kellogg attended Michigan State Normal School for a time in 1872 before he went on to earn a medical degree and the Normal School became Eastern Michigan University. He became a popular advocate of the "wellness" movement of the 19th century, and tried to spread practices he thought would improve the quality of life for many people. Sadly for him, his legacy as a medical practitioner has been defined by his advocacy of enemas and his efforts to prevent masturbation. On the bright side the memory of his eccentricities pales in comparison to his much more popular legacy, the invention of corn flakes. Yes, he is that Kellogg.

The Prediction: My prognostication holds that the Hurricanes will have the superior game plan, but be constantly foiled by penalties and unforced errors. The Eagles will look out of sorts for most of the play, trying to rely on trick plays and gimmicks that fail more often than they succeed. A few plays will break for EMU though to give them a win.
Eastern Michigan- 17 U. Miami- 16

Military Bowl- 4:30pm 12/28/2011
RFK Stadium, Washington, DC
Toledo Rockets (-1) vs. Air Force Falcons
The Alumni:

The most famous invention of Fred Baur

VS.

Gregg Popovich

I'll start by acknowledging that lots of accomplished people graduated from the Air Force Academy, including astronauts, war heroes, and business executives. For me though, the most interesting alumnus was Gregg Popovich a four-time NBA champion coach with the third-best career winning percentage of any NBA coach. The most interesting graduate of Toledo was Fredric J. Baur, an organic chemist and food storage technician (I know I keep picking alumni from "sexy" professions, I'll try to be more diverse in the future). Growing up in Ohio, I remember representatives of Toledo's College of Engineering visiting my science classes and trying to convince us to study science there. That experience left me with a lifelong association between the University of Toledo and the kind of scientific achievement Fred Baur represents. (It also taught me the dark secret of the Mystery Flavor Dum Dum Pop.) Baur invented the Pringles can allowing millions of people to finally enjoy chips out of a tube. He was so proud of this that he asked for his remains to be buried in a Pringles container. He designed a popular food storage packaging system that could also serve as an urn. Now that is cool!

The Prediction: In a game defined by a defensively minded basketball coach and a scientist who protected food, I see a lot of defense. Look for Toledo to seal off their goal line like an airtight canister, and do just enough on offense to win.

Toledo- 13 Air Force- 9

Holiday Bowl- 8pm 12/28/2011
Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego CA
California Golden Bears vs.Texas Longhorns (-3)
The Alumni:

Chief Justice of the United States Earl Warren

VS.

Supreme newsman Walter Cronkite (photo from NASA)

They should rename this the Respectability Bowl on the basis of these two alumni. Earl Warren was elected governor of California three times before becoming one of the most influential Chief Justices in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court. Walter Cronkite was the most trusted TV news anchor in America for decades. You could orbit a planet around the gravitas these men radiated. I think I have to give the edge to Texas, because so many people took issue with the Warren Commission report on the Kennedy assassination.

The Prediction: We should see a real barnburner here. I forecast lots of back-and-forth scoring as two sharp offenses keep putting together successful drives. The tide will come when the Cal defense starts to grow wearing and Texas takes control in the 4th quarter. The Longhorns will secure the lead and burn out the clock.
Texas- 42 California 38

Champs Sports Bowl- 5:30pm 12/29/2011
Citrus Bowl, Orlando FL
Florida State Seminoles (-2.5) vs. Notre Dame Fighting Irish
The Alumni:

Lee Corso

VS.

Regis Philbin

Selecting the representative alumni for this comparison came down to the fact that I have a soft spot in my heart for irascible old men. Lee Corso stood out among other FSU grads for a couple of reasons (and I seriously considered picking former attending Hunter S. Thompson, but he dropped out and Corso got his degree). First Corso has a great back-story tied to his FSU days. He played for the football team and at one time held the school record for career interception. Plus he was Burt Reynolds roomate! Also, I like that as a TV personality Corso brings the same kind of flashy grandiose style to discussing college football that the Seminoles seem to bring to playing it. While Regis Philbin may not have been the most accomplished person to attend the University of Notre Dame, I believe he has become the visible. During his run on Live! he made a regular point of discussing the fortunes of his beloved Irish. At one point I suggested he could be the best recruiter for Notre Dame with his celebrity status and undying passion. So I have to figure his team will do well in this game.

The Prediction: These two teams will play very similar styles of football in this game. They will rely on the pass, try to bend but not break on defense, and make occasional costly errors. I predict Notre Dame will have a little more success and ride smoothly to triumph.
Notre Dame- 27 Florida State- 20

Alamo Bowl- 9pm 12/29/2011
Alamodome, San Antonio TX
Washington Huskies vs Baylor Bears (-10)
The Alumni:

Famed Artist Dale Chihuly

VS.

Willie Nelson

A face-off between two very creative alumni indicates some exciting things in the bowl itself. Washington lays claim to the most successful glass blowing artist every Dale Chihuly. Even if you don't recognize the man or the name (though he certainly does look a lot like a heavy Rooster Cogburn) you have probably seen his colorful curved glass sculptures decorating some room you've been in. Willie Nelson is of course a legend of country music. He attended Baylor only to drop out to deal with his personal life, but I have dubbed him an alumnus because he has been known to wear Baylor gear while performing. He has had an incredible career all his own, but he also wrote songs for others. The biggest jukebox hit of all time, Patsy Cline's "Crazy", was actually penned by Nelson. So he brings more than enough firepower to take out Chihuly.

The Prediction: You can expect lots and lots of points in this game. I expect creative game plans from both teams and exciting play from start to finish. The whole way through though it will be clear that Baylor has it well in hand.
Baylor- 56 Washington- 44

Please use these insights into the future responsibly, and enjoy your holiday season. Oh, and be sure to return again for Part 3.

2011 Arbitrary Bowl Predicitions: Alumni Face-Off Part 1

2011-12-16T14:00:00.000-05:00

Above: The class portrait of the first graduating class of Oregon State University. Yep, that's all 3 of 'em. Every alumni association has to start somewhere I suppose.

For the last few college football seasons, I have spared my blog audience from my foolish attempts to predict game results based on an entirely arbitrary criterion. The concept usually gave me something fun to research and write about, and I hoped to give people fun conversation fodder when discussing the bowl games during the holiday season. However, I didn't feel the same spark of inspiration when I returned to the concept after my first three attempts. None of my methods for comparing the two teams in a bowl game seemed interesting or amusing. Maybe the concept had gotten a little too stale for me to enjoy it as I had before. Readers may find it cute when I acted as though a game's outcome can be divined by studying the schools' fight songs, but if I did the same thing with alma maters that would just look ridiculous. Surely, I shouldn't force the gimmick if it would only be beating a dead horse (an act for which I have already been scolded by the organization, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal Corpses). So I shelved my quasi-annual Arbitrary Bowl Predictions thinking I might never return to them again.

Thankfully, I can announce that the muse has visited me once more. For this bowl season I have not just a new prediction method, but a new gimmick to mix things up a little. Finally, I feel engaged again and I hope the predictions that follow reflect the energy and excitement I get from the college football postseason.

In keeping with earlier versions of this feature, I will ~~guess~~ forecast the outcome of each bowl game based on a careful analysis of something only tangentially related to the two football teams (and completely unrelated to the teams' relevant abilities at, y'know, playing football). This season I have decided to compare the institutions represented by these football teams on the basis of the one alumnus I consider most impressive. These will usually not be former football players (so as to avoid any chance of looking like a comparison of the football programs history) and may sometimes be folks you never associated with the given school before. All representative alumni are selected solely on my mercurial preferences, and may not be graduates in all cases. Sometimes I may pick a former attendee over actual degree holders if I find a person sufficiently meritorious. The two alumni will then be compared to determine how the game will be played and who shall triumph (and, just as importantly for all you degenerate gamblers, if the favorite can cover the point spread ).

As an added feature this year I shall include several fake bowl games. I created a few extra bowl games, in part to satirize the overwhelming number of underwhelming games that now take place under the once respectable auspices of the bowl season. Also, I thought it would be a fun challenge for any readers to try to tell the true from the false without consulting a bowl schedule. I invite you to place your guesses on which are the fake bowl games in the comments section.

With the set up covered, let's predict some games . . . ARBITRARILY!!!!!

New Mexico Bowl- 2pm 12/17/2011
University Stadium, Albuquerque NM
Temple Owls (-6) vs. Wyoming Cowboys
The Alumni:

Bill Cosby

VS.

Dick Cheney

Our lead-off match gives us a great start to these alumni comparisons. You would have to search long and hard to find two people with more disparate reputations than Bill Cosby, former Temple student, and Dick Cheney, Wyoming Class of 1965. For a generation of Americans, Bill Cosby represents the ideal of loving fatherhood, and millions more know him as a legendary comedian and entertainer. Former Vice-President of the United States Dick Cheney gained a popular image as a ruthless, perhaps Machiavellian, politician. He left office with eighty-seven percent of the country not approving of his performance and will perhaps be remembered for shooting a friend in the face. Whatever the final score, I imagine any match-up between universities that could produce these two men will be a brutal clash of styles.

The Prediction: The Wyoming Cowboys will come out very aggressively playing a sort of maximalist football reminiscent of Dick Cheney's politics. Temple will have a softer approach, as non-threatening as Cosby's stand-up routines and sitcoms, but they will build successive drives off of each other to eventually outlast their opponent and win the day.

Temple- 28 Wyoming- 24

Idaho Potato Bowl- 5:30pm 12/17/2011

Broncos Stadium, Boise ID

Utah State Aggies (-2) vs. Ohio Bobcats

The Alumni:

Merlin Olsen

VS.

Roger Ailes

The two representatives selected for this bowl game both have a legacy as figures in the media. That may be short service to the memory of Merlin Olsen, Utah State class of 1962, who actually was a Hall of Fame football player before becoming an actor and sports broadcast personality. Similarly, Roger Ailes, Ohio University class of 1962, is most notorious for his editorial opinions that seem to be reflected in the FOX News channel that he runs, but he deserves more attention than he gets for crafting a cable news network into such a successful business. Roger Ailes has become a polemic figure in American media culture, to some representing what's wrong with modern corporate journalism and to others a man who has provided a response or the liberal bias many see in the media industry. Merlin Olsen has a much cheerier legacy as a friendly face we saw on TV either during NFL games or as Michael Landon's buddy on Little House on the Prairie. The warm regard Olsen is held in bodes well for the Aggies.

(I could have gone with a left vs. right political show-down here by selecting Democratic Senator Harry Reid for Utah State, but he's more associated with the state of Nevada. Also I liked pitting a powerful but controversial personality against a marginal media figure with a positive reputation.)

The Prediction: As Olsen defined his football career with outstanding play on the defensive line, look for Utah State to dominate the game when they're on defense. Also look for the Aggies to get more favorable calls from the officials maybe even some that seem highly questionable. Ohio will look great at times, but also become their own worst enemy at other points. Ailes has a habit of making public statements that cause trouble, which could be reflected in the Bobcats self-destructing during the game.

Utah State- 31 Ohio- 16

New Orleans Bowl- 9pm 12/17/2011

Superdome, New Orleans LA

San Diego State Aztecs (-4.5) vs. University of Louisiana- Lafayette Rajin' Cajuns

The Alumni:

Carl Weathers

VS.


Ali Landry

We get to enjoy some sizzling star power in the New Orleans Bowl between former Aztec linebacker Carl Weathers and former Miss USA Ali Landry. Both of them went on to careers as actors. Carl Weathers will forever be remembered by some as Apollo Creed from the Rocky film series and by others as the hilarious has-been actor in Arrested Development. This kind of range indicates a multifaceted attach by the SDSU offense. Ali Landry has a different set of gift in that she obviously has great perseverance. She rose from pageant queen, to acting in commercials, to landing roles in movies and TV shows, until now she stars in projects. The tenacity of this actress gives me reason to expect that the Ragin' Cajuns will find a way to stick around in this game up to the very end.

The Prediction: This will definitely turn into a back and forth shoot-out. Both offenses will be hot all game long. Look for the decisive play to come late in the game when San Diego State makes a great play on special teams. I can't guarantee this, but I think the Aztecs will block the game tying field goal attempt as time expires.

San Diego State- 45 Lousiana-Lafayette-42

Beef 'O' Brady's Bowl- 8pm 12/20/2011

Tropicana Field, St. Petersburg FL

Florida Internation Golden Panters (-5) vs. Marshal Thundering Herd

The Alumni:

Actor Andy Garcia (photo:D. Shankbone)

VS.

Senator Robert Byrd (with an unidentified mountain fiddle enthusiast)

Honestly, this doesn't look like much of contest. Sadly for Florida International University, they haven't really established many notable alumni. I selected famed actor Andy Garcia because his Cuban-American heritage and South Florida roots seem to represent the spirit of FIU well. He faces a daunting task though, because lining up on the other side of the field is the longest serving member of the United States Congress. Robert Byrd has an enviable record of accomplishments including an actual record of his fiddle music that somebody released. Half the public works in his home state of West Virginia bear Senator Byrd legislative fingerprints, and he came to be one of the world's leading experts on the history of senates. This is on top of being a Senate Majority leader and spending his last 20 years alive frequently in a position of being "three heartbeats away" from becoming the President of the United States. In short this doesn't look good for the Golden Panthers.

(I just want to add that this bowl game's title bothers me more than any other. Yes there are several bowl games named for sill sounding sponsors, but what bugs me about this one is the "O" in the middle. Why does it have punctuation on both sides? Are those single quotes? An apostrophe and it's mirror universe equivalent? What is going on with that "O"?)

The Prediction- This game is a route through and through. Don't worry if you fall asleep in front of the TV. You won't miss anything interesting.

Marshall- 33 FIU-7

Hospitality Bowl- 7pm 12/21/2011

Johnson Hagood Stadium, Charleston SC

Ball State Cardinals (-3) vs. Western Kentucky Hilltoppers

The Alumni:

David Letterman

VS.

Duncan Hines

Late night talk show host David Letterman has never made a secret of his Indiana roots. He even makes joking references to the Ball State Cardinals typically lousy performance in athletics. Ball State is looking to win their first bowl game in school history and with a major TV star on their side they may have a good chance. Good thing for Western Kentucky that they can claim a former student who has brought just as much pleasure to Americans if not more than Letterman. You probably recognize the name Duncan Hines from the line of cake mixes and other baked goods that were named for him. What you may not know is that the man himself was at one time the People's Guide to dining on the road. Hines was a traveling salesman who became a widely popular reviewer of restaurants back in the days before nationwide chains and Zagat guides. His recommendation brought respectability to an otherwise anonymous roadside diner. The credibility he established as a judge of food allowed he and some business partners to launch a line of food products. Plus, as far as I know he never lost a ratings war with Jay Leno.

The Prediction: The Cardinals will look pretty strong to start and will project a confident cheerful attitude. Then when WKU works their way back into the game with a few big plays, look for Ball State to become much more pessimistic as though they have had to suffer through major heart surgery and a sexual harassment scandal. In the end the Hilltoppers will find a second life using a new offensive scheme in the second half and score late to go ahead and eventually win.

Western Kentucky- 28 Ball State-27

Poinsettia Bowl- 8pm 12/21/2011

Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego CA

Texas Christian Horned Frogs (-12.5) vs. Louisiana Tech Bulldogs

The Alumni:

Sammy Baugh

VS.


Terry Bradshaw

While most of the alumni I selected never played football for their respective universities, the two schools playing in the Poinsettia Bowl both have iconic quarterbacks to their credit. Terry Bradshaw has been a very public persona as football commentator and occasional actor. Naturally many people alive today know that he won four Super Bowls -twice the game MVP- with the legendary Pittsburgh Steelers dynasty of the 1970's. Sammy Baugh fell out of limelight long ago. He had his glory days in the 1930's and 40's. Though his glory days where a key chapter in the history of football. As a multi-position star at TCU then in the NFL Baugh helped to evolve the quarterback position by using the forward pass as a reliably effective part of an offense. His legacy can be seen in all of football, not just on some Sunday NFL pregame show, which means the Horned Frogs a sizeable advantage.

The Prediction: In most other games, against most other opponents the Bulldogs might be respectable in their performance. They could probably beat several other teams in bowls this year. However against TCU they are going to get their clocks cleaned.

TCU- 48 Louisiana Tech-17

MAACO Bowl- 8pm 12/22/2011

Sam Boyd Stadium, Las Vegas NV

Boise State Broncos (-13.5) vs. Arizona State Sun Devils

The Alumni:

~~Tera Patrick Boise State Class of 1995~~

Idaho Governor Butch Otter

VS.

Corporal Pat Tillman

This was a tough one for me to write up. First I had to struggle with who should represent Boise State. The folks from Idaho may be sad to hear this, but the most well-known person to receive a degree from Boise St. is almost certainly Tera Patrick a star of *ahem* adult entertainments. Though when I thought about including her I just felt uncomfortable saying that she was the most impressive graduate, when plenty of people who went to Boise St. found work doing things you can talk about with polite company. So I settled on the current governor of Idaho, Butch Otter. I mean, he has a pretty rocking name, right? So when I pitted Gov. Otter against the ASU representative, famed football player turned solder Pat Tillman the comparison just felt one sided. It was as if Boise State had their Glock replaced with a Ginsu just before the gun fight. I don't mean to disparage Butch, but Tillman has become the most well-known face of courage and sacrifice for the War on Terror. So I am not expecting a great game here.

The Prediction: Watch out for some virulent disease or terrible pregame injury to knock out some key players for the Broncos. They well present as good a game as they can, but the Sun Devils will have more talent and psychological advantage. Arizona State will sense the weakness in Boise State and steel their wills to force a victory.

Arizona State- 20 Boise State- 16

That's all the games I have time for now. Come back for Part 2.

The Buckerine Files: It's the Game, Not the Teams

2011-12-01T22:18:00.013-05:00

Above: An action shot from a soon-to-be irrelevant game between the Alabama and LSU.

Every college football season produces a unique story. The tumult and chaos of dozens of teams playing hundreds of games accumulates into whirling narrative arch told in installments on autumnal Saturdays. The tale of a college football season inevitably changes and twists so many times that even on reflection the outcome can seem hard to believe. Sometimes the story features a series of upsets and the crowning of an unexpected champion. Other times the season becomes a legend for dominating teams and players. The 2011 season should be approaching its own dramatic climax with the final games before bowl season about to begin. However this season will likely end -to crib a line from Eliot- not with a bang but a whimper.

When the LSU Tigers faced the Alabama Crimson Tide on November 5, 2011, they were ranked Number One and Two respectively in pretty much every college football poll. After LSU won the game, they secured the top position in the rankings and had a clear path to the national championship. That's all to be expected given the number of high-profile wins the Tigers had accumulated during the season and the level of respect SEC teams receive from the poll voters. The story gets strange when you follow the Tide's role (Does that even count as a pun?) in this saga.

After Alabama lost at home to LSU in a game where two field goals accounted for the entirety of their scoring, the voters dropped them from second all they way down to third. This put just-defeated Alabama ahead of such then undefeated teams as Stanford, Boise State, and Houston, as well as all other one-loss teams, including Oregon and Virginia Tech. In the subsequent weeks, all credible candidates for the national championship besides the Tide and Tigers suffered a defeat or other setback allowing Alabama to return to the two-spot almost by default. This puts us back where we were on November 5th, except now when the two teams play, it won't be to determine the winner of the SEC West Division but the BCS National Championship.

With the polls shrugging their collective shoulders, college football fans have been asked to resign themselves to rematch in the championship game. Well, I have decided not to accept such a loathsome fate with making a stand. So I have written this blog post to present my arguments for why a rematch for the title is the least desirable outcome of a college football season. I cannot expect that some random blog post will change the course of events, but I will only be able to sleep peacefully if I know I have publicized my opinions. (Well that and if I find an effective treatment for my restless leg syndrome, but that's another story for another day.) Still, I encourage everyone who reads my arguments and finds them persuasive to share them with others. I fear the only hope we may have to avoid the worst of all possible title games is for public opinion to reject it so strongly the poll voters will have to take notice.

Above: The logo on the official BCS Twitter featuring a motto that a rematch would invalidate.

You can't find many people outside of Tuscaloosa arguing that there should be a rematch in the BCS Championship Game. More often you hear various members of the sports media framing LSU-'Bama II as an inevitability. Those who seek to rationalize the poll voters apparent absolution of the Tide make a fairly straightforward argument. They claim that any honest -albeit subjective- assessment of all the college football teams would judge LSU and Alabama to look like the two best overall teams this season. If you accept that -or at least concede no other team appears obviously better than Alabama- then you must give them the chance to play for the title, because they believe the championship game should be decided on the field between the two best teams. Certainly, it is hard to point to any team you would favor to win a game against either of these SEC goliaths. You'll have a hard time arguing against it, even if you claim the championship game should be for the most deserving teams instead of the two best teams. Almost no teams other than LSU have had a particularly meritorious season so far. So this simple argument looks fairly ironclad.

Unfortunately, I find fault with the baseline assumptions of the "two best teams" argument. I would contend that anyone who determines participants in a title game based on the evaluation of the teams, has missed something fundamental in the BCS structure. With all the complaints you hear about the lack of a playoff in college football, it is easy to forget that there is a playoff. It is unfortunately the worst kind of playoff, a one game, two team affair, that decides the championship. It may not look that different than the old "bowl and poll" system, but in fact a fundamental shift occurred with the creation of a BCS championship game. No longer do we have to determine a champion based solely on subjective judgements. Now we have a game that decides the issue. We have changed the fundamental unit used to determine national championships in college football. It is no longer about the teams. Now it is about the game. When you realize that the outcome of the game is meant to be the only factor dictating the title, you realize that the BCS should not be trying to determine which two teams are best, but which two teams will produce the best game.

When I say "best game", I don't mean to ask for the game that would provide the most entertainment, but the game that would provide the most evidence. I want to see whichever pairing of teams that will give the winner the strongest proof that they are the best team in the nation. In most years this would be the top two teams, as a win over one would improve the other's resume so much that their body of work would almost have to be better than any other team's. However in the case of LSU v. Alabama, and all other potential rematches, that is no longer relevant as one team has already beaten the other. A second win by the first game's victor does little to improve their resume, and a triumph by the earlier loser only creates an impossibly unclear comparison.

Therefore, I must assert that the college football world would be best served by seeing a national championship game between LSU and Oklahoma State, or Stanford, or Virginia Tech, or Boise State, or any other team that they have not already defeated. That means Alabama may well be the second best team in the country, but their participation in the title game does not produce a definitive result. (All of this also applies to the Oregon Ducks, another team that LSU defeated during the regular season, but practically no one seems to be claiming they deserve a rematch.)

Think of it this way, right now the general consensus holds that LSU is the best team in the country in the same way we used to determine the championship before the BCS. We can only think they are the best based on subjective evaluations. However when comparing them to Alabama we know they are better, because they already played a game and the Tigers won. If you want validation that the result of that game is empirical proof of LSU's superiority, then I direct you the Alabama and LSU's own conference the SEC. The SEC has placed LSU in their conference championship and has given them the chance to prove they are the best team in that conference. Alabama has no such chance. If the conference is satisfied by the outcome of November 5th, the voters in the polls should too.

There are other arguments I could bring against Alabama -pointing to the body of work or other team's, denying a team that didn't win its conference a chance to win the national title- but I do not believe those are necessary. The result of the earlier game has made any rematch unnecessary. The proponents of a college football playoff often say "prove it on the field". In this case that proof is already available, and we do not need to waste the BCS title game by retesting those results.

The tone of the media in this case has been largely resigned. The rematch is often called "inevitable", but that is not the case. The humans who vote in the opinion polls have the ability to determine who will participate in the BCS Championship Game. If enough people talk about why a rematch is unacceptable, maybe the scales will fall from their eyes, and they will vote for a different match-up. So once again I encourage anyone who agrees with this argument to share it with others. Let's give this college football season a finale worth watching.

Number Crunching the Oscars

2011-02-20T18:44:00.003-05:00

There are many things a person can do in anticipation of the annual Academy Awards telecast. Plenty of people make plans to hold or attend an event filled with fellow cinephiles and much merriment. Some will immerse themselves into the prediction game, reading magazines and blogs about all the behind the scenes politicking and buzz mongering. Hopefully, quite a few people will use the attention the Oscars shine on the nominees as an inspiration to take in some of the talked-about films. Then there is that tiny and bizarre minority -no, minority is too generous, splinter faction is probably more accurate- that decides the best way to celebrate the year in movies is to do a bunch of math.

In my defense, I blame the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences for my recent rush of calculations. They recently adopted a few changes in the Best Picture category that have greatly complicated matters. First they decided to double the number of movies nominated for the top prize from five to ten. Okay easy enough, just print bigger ballots. Then they noticed that a movie could garner as little as 10.01% of the vote and win the most coveted award in Hollywood. Put it in other words, given the Academy has about 6,000 members, 5,400 of them could hate one of the ten nominated movies, but if 601 people vote for it it would be recorded as the best film of the year.

Rather than allow a highly fractured vote lead to an embarrassing result, someone proposed a new kind of ballot called "preferential voting" or "instant runoff". This basically means the Academy members rank the ten nominated film from their number one choice down. (On a personal note, I recently participated in an instant runoff election, and I can say from experience it was fun, easy and seemed like it could work in more elections.) Once the ballots are collected, the fine folks at PriceWaterhouse Coopers -a barrel making firm if I understand the definition of cooper correctly- then check to see if any film got a majority of the first place votes. Unless a film is an instant winner (unlikely to happen unless one film has an overwhelming level of support), the tabulators start weeding out the nominees that received few first place votes and redistributing their votes among the remaining films.

Since this is all a little confusing, I think it might be best to walk through a simulation of how the vote might break down among this year's Best Picture nominees. The inimitable Nate Silver -the only other person on Internet I could find nerdy enough to mix math with the Oscars- performed a similar exercise already. However he crunched his numbers before the nominees were announced, though he did accurately predicted nine of the ten. Also he used critics rankings, because he could find reliable data for them, instead of attempting to gauge the opinion of the AMPAS voters, a much trickier proposition. Fortunately for you, I don't have Silver's commitment to accuracy to worry about or his stellar reputation for predictions to preserve, so I can make a foolhardy attempt to predict how members of the Academy might rank the films. I will combine my knowledge of past Oscar races, my understanding of the AMPAS membership, and a watchful eye to the current dynamics of the awards season to estimate the level of support each nominee can expect.

We can begin breaking down the vote distribution by breaking down the membership of the Academy. Between the 6,000 AMPAS members and the 15 branches within the Academy, I can identify 4 major voting blocs, each based on different definitions you can use to determine the Best Picture of the year.

First you have those voters who believe that the Best Picture award should go the grandest film of the year. They like seeing movies you could describe as "epic" winning the top prize, films like Gladiator and The Lord of the Rings. This group probably contains mostly producers and directors, with some cinematographers, writers and a few actors mixed in. I estimate these voters account for about 35% of the total number of Best Picture votes.

Balancing out the first group you have those who believe that "best picture" means "most moving". They want to reward the movies that have the strongest emotional impact. Recently these voters likely supported Best Picture winners like Million Dollar Baby and Slumdog Millionaire. I would say a lot of the actors in the Academy vote with this block along with some of the writers and directors, probably a fair number of the artistic members who do art direction, makeup, and costuming too. These voters seem to represent around 35% of the vote as well.

The third major group comes from the less famous branches of AMPAS, the ones who are nominated in the so called "artistic and technical categories". Since every member can vote in the Best Picture category this undervalued lot can have a powerful impact on the race. They tend to hold that the Oscar brand should fall to those films they deem the most well made or best crafted. The last two Best Pictures, The Hurt Locker and No Country For Old Men, seem to have had strong support from this bloc. All told they likely comprise 25% or so of the Academy.

Finally, you have a small group that can play a big role if there is ever a close race. These are producers, publicists, and studio executives who simply -some might say cynically- contend that the "best" movies are the one's that make the most money. So their rankings of the years films pretty much mirror the final box office earnings. Their support helped put Titanic over the top to earn a record number of Oscars. Last year they probably supported Avatar, but the other factions trumped them. They probably add up to no more than 5% of the votes available for Best Picture.

So if you divide the Academy into these four groups, you likely can guess which groups would vote for which nominees, and therefore how much support each nominee has. It is important to remember that each group will likely vote for more than one film, and many nominees will receive votes from more than one group. Also, I will assume that each group has a selection of movies that they all rank above the others. So you when a movie that had a share of the "most touching" vote is eliminated it's votes will probably go the other emotionally powerful movies before they go anywhere else. With all of that explained, I think we can begin breaking down the actual votes.

Grandest Picture Bloc- 35% of the total 1st place votes
- The King's Speech: 35% of the bloc vote = 12.25% of the total vote
- The Social Network: 30% bloc = 10.5% total
- Inception: 20% bloc = 7% total
- True Grit: 10% bloc = 3.5% total
- Winter's Bone: 5% bloc = 1.75% total
These are all the options from among the nominees which seem to portray a grand vision, or tell an ambitious story. In some cases this is because of the amount of work involved (for period pieces like True Grit or The King's Speech). Sometimes it its because of the level of technical sophistication that the filmmakers employed (such as in manking The Social Network or Inception). Also a film could just have overachieved and accomplished a lot with relatively meager means (as I believe some will argue Winter's Bone managed to do).

Most Powerful Movie Bloc- 35% of the total 1st place votes
- The King's Speech: 40% of the bloc vote = 14% of the total vote
- The Fighter: 20% bloc = 7% total
- Black Swan: 15% bloc = 5.25% total
- The Kids Are All Right: 10% bloc = 3.5% total
- Winter's Bone: 5% bloc = 1.75% total
- Toy Story 3: 5% bloc = 1.75% total
- 127 Hours: 5% bloc = 1.75% total
Among this group you can find the nominees that have been most praised for the emotional power the convey. Here you will notice some overlap with the first group, most notably The King's Speech. While other films from the first group have been left out. I am yet to hear anyone call either Inception or The Social Network "the most touching movie of the year".

Best Made Film Bloc- 25% of the total 1st place votes
- The Social Network: 30% of the bloc vote = 7.5% of the total vote
- The King's Speech: 20% bloc = 5% total
- The Fighter: 15% bloc = 3.75% total
- True Grit: 15% bloc = 3.75% total
- Inception: 10% bloc = 2.5% total
- Winter's Bone: 5% bloc = 1.25% total
- 127 Hours: 5% bloc = 1.25% total
Now all of the nominees have to have been well crafter movies to even be considered for an Oscar. However, I believe this list contains those pictures who derive the biggest chunk of their merit from their technical values. Each of these nominees has impressive filmmaking elements that made it stand out from the other movies released in 2010.

Biggest Hit Bloc- 5% of the total 1st place votes
- Inception: 60% of the bloc vote = 3% of the total vote
- Toy Story 3: 40% bloc = 2% total
Finally this group has only two movies with big box office earnings to vote for. In most years I would imagine the vote might be pretty monolithic -whichever nominee earned the most gets the most votes. However this year I think the voters will split between the highest grossing movie of the year, Toy Story 3, and the biggest money-maker among the live action films. I say this because some members of the Academy still believe that animated films should not be compared to live action films. They involve different kinds of filmmaking and they generally aim to accomplish different goals. Therefore any method of comparison, even total grosses, can't be easily evaluated between animated and live action films. Do you reward Toy Story 3 for selling so many tickets, especially when you earn less off a children's ticket? Do you support Inception for bringing droves of adults to the cinema, something Hollywood has struggled to do for years? There's no easy answer, so I predict a split vote here.

Let's put all that information into one chart, so you can see how much of the vote each nominee received.

Total Vote- Round 1
- The King's Speech: 31.25%
- The Social Network: 18%
- Inception: 12.5%
- The Fighter: 10.75%
- True Grit: 7.25%
- Black Swan: 5.25%
- Winter's Bone: 4.75%
- Toy Story 3: 3.75%
- The Kids Are All Right: 3.5%
- 127 Hours: 3%

None of the nominees have a majority, though The King's Speech has a huge lead over all the others. That means there is no instant winner and the voting no goes to multiple rounds. In each round the film with the lowest share of the 1st place vote is eliminated it's votes are then redistributed to those nominess that remain. The votes are spread out by going down the ballot to the highest ranked film still in contention and giving that film an additional 1st place vote.

The first film to go is 127 Hours. I know it feels like losing an arm to lose one of these nominees (rimshot!), but that is how the process works. We start by identifying where the votes for 127 Hours came from then determine which of the survivors profit from the departure of this film.

Some of the Most Powerful Movie vote, 5%, went to 127 Hours, so we can split that among some of the other touching films in contention. This is how I expect those votes to break down:

1st Place- 127 Hours
- Black Swan: 30%
- The Fighter: 30%
- The King's Speech: 20%
- Winter's Bone: 20%

To clarify what these numbers represent, I am dividing up just 1.75% of the total 1st place votes. When I say The King's Speech gets 20% of the votes from people who judged 127 Hours to be the emotionally touching movie of the year, I am say one-fifth of 1.75% of the Academy's 6,000 members, or about 21 people, would now have their 1st place vote go to The King's Speech instead of their original pick.

Of cour 127 Hours got some votes for being the best made film of the year as well. Here I have a different pool of films among which to divide the 1st place votes. I would predict the votes would spread out like:

1st Place- 127 Hours
- The Social Network: 30%
- The Fighter: 30%
- Winter's Bone: 20%
- The King's Speech: 10%
- Inception: 10%

After I calculate the effect these changes have on the total 1st place vote distribution, I can make an updated chart of the standings.

Total Vote- Round 2
- The King's Speech: 31.725%
- The Social Network: 18.375%
- Inception: 12.625%
- The Fighter: 11.65%
- True Grit: 7.25%
- Black Swan: 5.775%
- Winter's Bone: 5.35%
- Toy Story 3: 3.75%
- The Kids Are All Right: 3.5%
- ~~127 Hours~~

Since we still lack any nominee with over 50% of the total vote the process continues. Next on the chopping block we have the critically acclaimed dramedy, The Kids Are All Right. Since this fillm got all of it's support from one bloc of voters, the Most Powerful Movie crowd, it is pretty easy to divvy up the votes appropriately. I imagine that the supports of The Kids Are All Right, a largely comedic film with an indy vibe, will have ranked other films that are humorous or independent highly. Thus:

1st Place- The Kids Are All Right
- The King's Speech: 50%
- Toy Story 3: 30%
- Winter's Bone: 20%

That brings our updated standings to:

Total Vote- Round 3
- The King's Speech: 33.475%
- The Social Network: 18.375%
- Inception: 12.625%
- The Fighter: 11.65%
- True Grit: 7.25%
- Black Swan: 5.775%
- Winter's Bone: 6.05%
- Toy Story 3: 4.8%
- ~~The Kids Are All Right~~
- ~~127 Hours~~

Now we move on to Toy Story 3 and it's supporters. The folks who voted for it because it was the highest earning movie of the year are easy to account for. All of their 1st place votes would just go to the next big money maker, Inception. The people who held it as the most touching of the nominees will require a more involved breakdown. This block no longer represents just the 1.75% of the Academy that gave it a 1st place vote originally. Now we also have to spread out the votes it received as a result of other films getting dropped. That means we now have 2.8% of the vote to work with. (I know that's a staggering amount of change to deal with. You might want to take a second and catch your breath before you move on.) Here is how I would imagine the votes are divided among this group:

1st Place- Toy Story 3
- The King's Speech: 70%
- The Fighter: 10%
- Black Swab: 10%
- Winter's Bone: 10%

Factoring in those adjustments, and the earlier bump to Inception's standings, we have these updated standings:

Total Vote- Round 4
- The King's Speech: 35.435%
- The Social Network: 18.375%
- Inception: 14.625%
- The Fighter: 11.93%
- True Grit: 7.25%
- Black Swan: 6.055%
- Winter's Bone: 6.33%
- ~~Toy Story 3~~
- ~~The Kids Are All Right~~
- ~~127 Hours~~

In an interesting twist, Black Swan, which started with more of the 1st place vote share than Winter's Bone, is actually the next movie eliminated. Please note that all of this has been my speculation. I cannot actually know if more members of the Academy ranked Winter's Bone high on their ballot than did for Black Swan. I do however believe that this sort of change in the standings is possible, and even likely, once you start eliminating nominees and redistributing the vote. Having said that and remembering that only films still active can receive new 1st place votes, this is how I break down the vote:

1st Place- Black Swan
- The King's Speech: 60%
- The Fighter: 20%
- Winter's Bone: 20%

Those adjustments mean these are the new standings:

Total Vote- Round 5
- The King's Speech: 39.068%
- The Social Network: 18.375%
- Inception: 14.625%
- The Fighter: 13.141%
- True Grit: 7.25%
- ~~Black Swan~~
- Winter's Bone: 7.541%
- ~~Toy Story 3~~
- ~~The Kids Are All Right~~
- ~~127 Hours~~

The changing share of the votes bring another intriguing change. Winter's Bone has now lept True Grit as well. This is mostly because True Grit has not gained any new votes from the eliminated movies. Part of this is because a lot of the movies we've dumped drew their support from different sources than True Grit. Another factor is that some films may be widely liked, but not widely loved. This year True Grit seems to be a good example of that. Without many people outside of it's ardent supporters ranking it highly on their ballot, it doesn't stand much of a chance of winning Best Picture.

The voters who considered True Grit the biggest and most ambitious movie of the year probably split their other top votes like this:

1st Place- True Grit
- The King's Speech: 40%
- Inception: 30%
- The Social Network: 20%
- Winter's Bone: 10%

While those who rated True Grit as the best crafted film likely have their support spread like this:

1st Place- True Grit
- The King's Speech: 30%
- Inception: 30%
- The Social Network: 20%
- The Fighter: 10%
- Winter's Bone: 10%

I would like to note that in this round I assumed Inception would benefit strongly from the elimination of the only other film with strong action/adventure content. That means the new standings look like this:

Total Vote- Round 6
- The King's Speech: 41.593%
- The Social Network: 19.825%
- Inception: 16.8%
- The Fighter: 13.516%
- ~~True Grit~~
- ~~Black Swan~~
- Winter's Bone: 8.266%
- ~~Toy Story 3~~
- ~~The Kids Are All Right~~
- ~~127 Hours~~

Now we have to finally cast aside Winter's Bone. Since it is being removed that means we have a few points to consider when spreading out the ballots it had gained. First we can see that the Grandest Picture bloc has begun to shift. Because the people who rated Winter's Bone high likely are comfortable voting with a smaller skill picture that has a big vision, I predict The King's Speech will benefit more than Inception or The Social Network. Also I expect that the voters in the other corner will favor The King's Speech over The Fighter. I say this because I can look to the trends in the earlier vote distributions. Anytime group of voters that gave a boost to Winter's Bone tended to favor The King's Speech pretty strongly. That translates to a big boost The King's Speech compared to modest gains for the others.

The Grandest Picture vote would divide like this:
1st Place- Winter's Bone
- The King's Speech: 60%
- The Social Network: 30%
- Inception: 10%

The Most Powerful Movie vote would divide thusly:

1st Place- Winter's Bone
- The King's Speech: 70%
- The Fighter: 30%

This is what would happen with the Best Made Film vote:

1st Place- Winter's Bone
- The King's Speech: 40%
- The Social Network: 20%
- The Fighter: 20%
- Inception: 20%

Which means our updated standings would now be this:

Total Vote- Round 7
- The King's Speech: 46.6067%
- The Social Network: 20.83%
- Inception: 17.385%
- The Fighter: 15.1783%
- ~~True Grit~~
- ~~Black Swan~~
- ~~Winter's Bone~~
- ~~Toy Story 3~~
- ~~The Kids Are All Right~~
- ~~127 Hours~~

Finally we have reached a point where a movie is within easy striking distance of the 50% mark. That means this next round should be enough to give The King's Speech the golden man-shaped trophy. This is especially true when you acknowledge that The King's Speech is the only film left that had the support of the Most Powerful Movie Bloc, so it now has 35% of the 1st place votes all to itself.

Breaking down the votes from the people who named The Fighter the best crafter movie of the year, I estimate this is how things would stand:

1st Place- The Fighter
- The King's Speech: 40%
- The Social Network: 40%
- Inception: 20%

Add it all up and you finally have a clear winner.

Total Vote- Round 8
- The King's Speech: 58.86%
- The Social Network: 27.78%
- Inception: 18.36%
- ~~The Fighter~~
- ~~True Grit~~
- ~~Black Swan~~
- ~~Winter's Bone~~
- ~~Toy Story 3~~
- ~~The Kids Are All Right~~
- ~~127 Hours~~

What can we learn from any of this? (Other that I am a very odd duck to devote so much arithmetic to such a trivial matter) The first thing that strikes me is that asking one of ten nominees to get a majority of the vote means it is unlikely any movie will ear the Oscar after only a few rounds of voting. Further I find it interesting that the three films left standing, The King's Speech, The Social Network, and Inception, can each point to an area where they had a strong body of support, the Most Powerful vote, the Best Made vote and the Biggest Hit vote respectively. It would seem those campaigning for any of the nominees would be well served by targeting a demographic that can give you a solid block of votes, then hoping that as films get eliminated you will rise up. Also, I like the fact that in this exercise we saw how Winter's Bone was able to climb the standings by being broadly supported if not having the level of high profile support the others did. This suggest to me that any high quality film could wind up winning Best Picture even if it doesn't have the box office numbers or publicity of other movies.

So does any of this mean anything? Not really, it was mostly an exercise I came up with to amuse myself and hopefully my audience. The only way to know if I am correct in my estimations, and that The King's Speech will walk away as the big winner is to tun in and watch the Oscars on February 27th. I know I'll be watching, and I hope you do to.

Analyzing the Detective Genre: Part 5

2011-02-18T09:58:00.004-05:00

Defining the Detective-

Above: A stock photo of a stereotypical detective.

With the history of detective fiction sketched out, I would like to draw a few conclusions about the archetype of the detective character. I feel the identification of these tropes will become useful when I propose some new takes on the detective genre. Only through specific identification and analysis of any literary genre, can we best know how to utilize or undermine certain elements for our own purposes.

The most obvious feature of every detective throughout the history of the genre is their intelligence. They may not always be geniuses, but they do always display at least a relative intellectual advantage compared to the criminals they pursue. In the case of Joe Friday this meant he was often seen chasing an especially incompetent class of crooks, demonstrating that no sound thinking person would every take up a life of crime. Even the lowliest member of a C.S.I. squad knows an obscure fact or has access to an exotic device that allows them to collect evidence the perpetrator never knew they left behind. It makes sense for gifts of observation and mental acuity to define a genre based on the logical process of deductive reasoning. Yet in order to justify the story's focus on the protagonist, the detective character always holds some significant intellectual advantage which makes them a necessary part of the story's resolution.

Next, I notice that apparently every noteworthy fictional detective is, in one way or another, an outsider. This facet of the character can be expressed in any number of ways. Going back to the early days of the genre you had figures like Miss Marple and Father Brown who came from outside the traditional law enforcement fraternity. Holmes was an outsider because his mind worked on a level far beyond his contemporaries. Poirot was an outsider because of his nationality. Nero Wolfe was fat. Kojak was Greek. Alex Cross is black. Kinsey Millhone is a woman. On and on it goes. For every significant detective, you can find some reason why she is not a part of the standard justice system. In part, this recurring character trait gives the characters easy mystique, audiences love individuals who stand out. It also helps provide the sleuths a special perspective on the cases that can explain how they can find evidence and make connections when others could not. To a larger degree though, I feel it serves to demonstrate one of the fundamental assumptions of the detective genre as a whole: sometimes the legal systems that we know fail to produce the results we desire. We see this everyday in our real lives, so it would probably strike audiences as strangely false to see general issue police officers put away criminals using routine methods. The public wants to see a radical alternative to the status quo in fiction, because they are dissatisfied with it in reality.

Lastly (at least for now), I have found that detectives generally have a larger interest in solving crimes than the altruistic pursuit of justice. Often stories feature some personal stakes for the crime fighter -it reminds them of a case from their past, their partner dies working the case, they want revenge on the prime suspect. Even when the protagonist doesn't have skin in the game, she seems to derive something personal from seeing any crime solved. Holmes derived a peculiar intellectual pleasure from finding explanations. Many characters have a haunted past that compels them to find justice for others. At the very least, in examples like Law & Order or Dragnet, the cops take a personal pride in maintaining an orderly society and punishing wrongdoers. The audience needs to know their is something to gain from the story's resolution or else it rings hollow and they won't come back for more. The simplest way to achieve this is to give our hero a cause with which we can sympathize.

Now that we have identified the key components of a classic detective -namely, intelligence, outsider status, and a personal motive- I can start coming up with some new detective stories that play off the norms of the genre.

To be continued . . .

Analyzing the Detective Genre: Part 4

2011-02-17T11:02:00.007-05:00

The History of Detectives in Fiction-

Above: The cover to a collection of illustrations from the history of mystery and detective stories, found on Flickr.

All the discussion of variant detectives made me ponder what elements are essential to the archetype of the character and what traits have waxed and waned with the transitory phases of culture over. With the recent addition of a digital tuner to my television set, and Netflix vast "Instant Watch" library, I now have access to a large amount of old detective TV shows and movies. As I study sleuths, both modern and classic, I begin to gain a sense of the course the detective genre has taken over the years. In a way these decades-old characters can serve as data points which combine to chart a sort of evolutionary path for the modern American detective character. If examined in the proper manner the progress of fictional sleuths can provide some fascinating insights into both the essential elements of the detective archetype and our cultural development over the past-century or so. Consider the following:

Above: The cover of The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, supplied through Flickr.

1800's-1920's- Since the earliest detective fiction stories by Edgar Allen Poe, through Arthur Conan Doyle, and on to the early works of Agatha Christie, the detective was essentially a puzzle maven. While the protagonist always displayed brilliant intellectual acumen, either as a natural talent in the case of Holmes and C. Auguste Dupin, or as acquired knowledge as with Miss Marple or Father Brown- the cases usually didn't require a genius to solve them. Often all of the evidence was presented to both the detective and the reader, and the challenge lay only in interpreting the information. In most stories the hero steps in after traditional crime fighters have failed and manages to solve the case simply by noticing a crucial misinterpretation, or making a keen-eyed observation, or providing some obscure or arcane factoid, or by simply rearranging the information into a decipherable pattern. None of this seems fitting of a genius. However when the starring sleuth appears to pull answers from thin air, and the story disguises the facts to confound the reader, and stresses how terribly impressive the hero's deductions (if you can even call them that) are, the reader winds up getting a thrill out of the story's climactic revelation just the same. While the creators of these stories may not have been capable of crafting problems worthy of their detective creations, they did establish the central mythological elements and tropes that would define the detective genre through the present day.

Above: A cover to a typically racy pulp magazine featuring crime and detective stories, found on Flickr.

1930-40's- The next generation of crime fiction took a dramatic leap, branching it out to several different directions. Commonly referred to for the stylized mystery movies of the period both print and film detectives have been labeled as film noir in retrospect. The noir period was heavily influenced by the racy pulp magazines of the day and the underground, culturally subversive films that spawned a new sub-genre. As detective stories transitioned to new media, and the culture of the world seemed to spin out of control, the creators added new elements and explored new concepts. Now in the hands of pulp writers the stories took on a darker tone, the cases involved a seedier variety of crime, and the plots drifted away from straight-forward problems with simple solutions. Meanwhile filmmakers switched the focus onto action sequences instead of extensive sections of expository dialogue, and -to make sure the actors earned their paychecks- the characters became more fleshed out than the ciphers that preceded them. The changing tone of the art and the foreboding nature of contemporary events produced some significant changes in theme. Now the cases transcended from puzzles -that required collecting or organizing information- to true mysteries- that require investigating areas that resist comprehension, like human psychology, and require gathering new evidence or making deductive or intuitive leaps. Even more significantly the detectives themselves took on some new characteristics. No longer do their intellectual gifts separate them out as a special asset to the local authorities. In fact, the protagonists increasingly came from outside the traditional authority structure, most often as private investigators. In this era, their morality, their dogged pursuit of "justice" no mater what cost, often puts them in conflict with traditional authority figures. I would imagine the creators of these stories saw a world that seemed to be falling apart, where the authorities no longer could be trusted, and no simple solutions seemed possible, and they crafted heroes who fit that environment and had the skill to overcome it. Once this new generation of detectives rose to prominence, the detective genre would largely be defined by a dialectic between the original Holmes detectives and the new prototype of the noir-style.

Above: A photograph of Jack Webb the actor who portrayed Sgt. Joe Friday on Dragnet.

1950-60's- Detectives of this era were first and foremost social servants, almost always employees of a benevolent social institution, such as the local police force or the FBI. Now that the world was at peace these detectives represented an America returning to work. During this time frame, television became a popular source of crime stories. As TV filled a niche in the daily lives of the audience, the stories told came to reflect how the audience thought about their own private lives. So the detective stories of the days were filled with friendly functionaries, either blue-collar beat cops in TV shows like Adam-12 or white-collar detectives from Dragnet. These characters approached crime fighting with a workmanlike attitude, going about their jobs with gray flannel suits and stoic expressions. Once again they usually did not display special intellectual powers. In fact rarely did these characters encounter any cases that were difficult to solve. Usually the perpetrators were apprehended simply through persistent pursuit, and the cases were open and shut with all the evidence plain for all to see. (All cases were open and shut, because all situations involving crime were open and shut.) If anything made the detectives of this era distinct from other characters, it was their loyalty to their values and the system they served. Their strong morality made them servants to authority rather than rebels to it. If ever the detective stories represented the hopes and dreams of an era it was during this period. The crime fighter was just an average person with a good heart who brought order to the streets. In the same manner, Americans hoped that staying true to their values and doing their jobs in good faith would bring order to their lives and the world as a whole. Several popular TV series on the air today, such as the Law & Order franchise or the CSI family of shows, still bear many of the hallmarks of this period's detective stories.

Above: An artistic portrayal of the television detective Kojak, created by Lisa Brawn.

1970's- Here we come to an interesting little span, where I feel the detective genre reached a bit of a nadir. The focus almost entirely shifted away from the crimes and their solutions, and instead focused on the heroes and their personalities. If the stories had been about the deductive gifts or investigative prowess of the protagonists, we might still have had something to add to the genre. Instead we got a collection of TV shows like Kojak and The Rockford Files, which were more interested in creating lovable TV stars than exploring stories of crime. While the milieu of detective work still provides ample fodder for conflict and action sequences, the emphasis was definitely more on the leading roles eccentric character traits or individual charms. In a way I feel this was a reflection of the changing American middle class. No longer did people find comfort playing a role in building the great society, now they wanted to feel they were the star of their own story, no matter how mundane. The job you did became less important as people began to put more emphasis on how you did your job. I feel the legal and medical dramas of the time displayed similar sensibilities and represent part of a larger cultural shift that also involved crime shows. The content of the detective series did change in one interesting way. The problems confronting the sleuths became more like the seemingly insolvable mysteries of the noir period, with an increased focus on a criminal's motives or a lack of clear evidence. However since the detectives rarely had to think up a solution or explanation of a crime -usually a climactic gun fight would take care of that problem- this did not actually add new thematic depths to the genre. I think the mysteries were just easier to write than puzzles when all the writer's attention was going to character details. In some ways the star vehicles of today, like Monk and House, are the descendants of these shows.

Above: A painting illustrating the characters and scenery of the TV show Miami Vice, painted by Pepe Cardosa.

1980-90's- I would describe the detective fiction of this era as the progeny of two earlier strands of the genre. We have the obvious continuation of the 1970's, where the focus of the narratives had less to do with the unraveling of mysteries and more to do with character examinations of the featured detectives. In some cases (e.g. Miami Vice, Wiseguy, Homicide: Life on the Street), the purpose of the show was mostly about exploring the personal lives of the crime fighters and dissecting the ways in which their personal neuroses where caused by, or contributed to, their detective work. I feel this trend reached its apex with the first season of NYPD Blue where the show's creators successfully used soap-opera plot lines to overshadow the police procedural elements of the series. Accordingly the distinguishing characteristics of this new batch of gumshoes came from their ability to manage or endure personal crisis rather than overcome the challenges of crime fighting. Beneath this continuing trend, we find the dark undercurrent of a return to noir sensibilities. As the storylines reflected the hardships of our heroes, the subtext spoke to a world soaked in violence and amorality. American culture seemed to struggle with themes of societal collapse and moral decay. Perhaps not coincidentally these were also major themes of the Reagan revolution and rise of the religious right occurring contemporaneously. As with the 1930's and 40's the American public felt the world had spun out of control, and even traditional authority figures struggled against problems like gang-violence, drug abuse, and corruption. In an interesting evolution from the noir period, the morality of the characters no longer spurred the on to eventual victory, rather it provided a bulwark to help them stand against the ceaseless tide of chaos and injustice. Though any given story may show the hero surviving a particular crisis, the suggestion that eventually the dark nature of the world would erode away all the good in the character seemed to be applied universally. Concurrently in the world of detective literature, novels focused increasingly on characters from outside the traditional authority structure. Books found niche markets by featuring protagonists from minority perspectives who took an unconventional perspective on the institutions of law enforcement. Most notably female detectives rose to a new level of prominence and brought a new morality as well. Rather than reinforcing the 1950's imagery of white men imposing their version of order on society, these investigative women seemed more sympathetic to the victim. This theme resonated with the resurrected noir sentiment, here casting the victim as a casualty of the world's cruelty and the detective as the sole means for justice.

Above: A photograph of David Caruso as Horatio Caine from CSI: Miami, found on Flickr.

2000's- As the private-eyes of the 1940's gave way to the beat cops of the 1950's so to did a generational shift occur with the new millennium. The detectives at the end of the 20th century were grunts in the nationwide war on crime. In some cases they were stoic, in other cases neurotic, and in still others they were pathetic (in the Aristotelian sense). Generally though, their personalities and personal drama distinguished them from the standard crime fighter. The latest generation of detectives embodies a strong return to their Holmes-ian roots. Now the detectives are once again servants of traditional authorities. They prove their value through displays of intellectual sharpness rather than moral fortitude. Examine TV mystery series like House M.D., The Mentalist, and Bones, and you will find many echoes of Holmes. Like Holmes, the stars of these series frequently display demonstrably superior skills of observation and mental agility. Like Holmes, they find their intellect hinders their ability to interact with others. Also like Holmes, they are mostly domesticated creatures, whose occasional misbehavior masks that they perpetually preserve the status quo. Unlike Holmes, they are typically specialists with intensive knowledge of one area and occasional blind spots for other topics. They are the hedgehogs to Holmes' fox. I have come to think of this era as recasting the detective as a technocrat. Here I find this era is best typified by the C.S.I. franchise. Each show under the C.S.I. label presents a group of moderately attractive functionaries with hollow personalities. They sport a wide array of crime solving gizmos and casually toss scientific terminology (which may not always be realistic, but is always dumbed down to the audience's level). Once again the story element of true mystery -where complicated and ineffable variables are involved- has been superseded by the use puzzle plots- where all you need is the dedication to identify and arrange all the evidence.

Now, I will readily admit that this is in no way a complete history of detective fiction. I simply tried to assemble the most comprehensive analysis I could using my own relatively limited familiarity with the genre. Anyone who knows more about detectives in literature, especially more recent works, or has a better memory for classic TV shows, should please share any insights or wisdom you have in the comment section. For my part, I think I have gathered enough information here to draw some conclusions about the detective archetype in my next entry.

To be continued . . .

Analyzing the Detective Genre: Part 3

2011-02-16T10:19:00.009-05:00

Above: A stylized painting of The Joker and Batman created by Harold Smith, found on deviantART

The Natural Conflict Between Batman and The Joker-

As I continue my deconstruction of the detective story, I plan to go through a detailed and thorough study of the history of the genre. (Trust me it's going to be long and probably laborious to read. I'll try to spruce it up with some pictures just to give your eyes a rest.) Before I get to that, I would like to take a tangent into the underlying iconography of Batman. I feel this material is appropriate to raise here as Batman is almost certainly the most widely known detective character created in the 20th century, and this piece of symbolism directly pertains to his status as a detective. Further, my thoughts on this topic led me to some noteworthy conclusions that greatly influenced my perspective on the larger genre.

Since Bob Kane and Bill Finger created the character, Batman has evolved significantly. Starting out as a rogue vigilante of the pulp tradition, he eventually matured into a more conventional authority figure with a gift for deduction. Batman uses his limitless talents and resources to impose a structure and order onto Gotham. Though his goal may not always be to uphold something as politically variable as "the law", he does protect the basic tenets of the social contract that enjoy almost universal support. At the same time as creators toned down his agenda his methods also shifted. Instead of using firearms and violence to solve problems, the stories increasing featured Batman using his intellectual skills. Thus the "World's Greatest Detective" moniker became a vital component of his character. In fact even casual fans are aware of Batman's supposed strength as a detective, even though he hardly demonstrates it in most stories.

I submit that these two aspects of the Batman mythos, detective and authoritarian, are deeply linked and inseparable. In essence, deduction is the process of bringing order to knowledge. Through his sleuthing and analysis Batman solves crime by sorting through the facts, finding how the relate to each other, establishing the proper truth values for them, and determining where they belong in the larger structure of knowledge. As if in an unspoken allegory, whenever Batman is shown undertaking these microscopic acts of deduction he does so to serve the macroscopic purpose of bringing order to society. Thus his role as a superhero in which he maintains and improves the social structure is simply an extension of his identity as a detective. What he does defines who he is and vice versa.

From this conclusion we can also investigate a question about the Batman mythology that has defied explanation for generations: why is the Joker the archenemy of Batman? As Bruce Timm -who co-created and produced the iconic Batman: The Animated Series- noted, the Batman-Joker feud is a little confusing, because it's not as though you think of clowns and bats being natural adversaries.

Usually when we study comic book nemeses they display one of two obvious dichotomies. Either they are representatives of opposing ideologies/worldviews (Captain America vs. Red Skull, Superman vs. Lex Luthor), or they are characters with a common past drawn in separate directions by fate (Spider-Man vs. Green Goblin, Reed Richards vs. Victor Von Doom). On a surface level the Joker and Batman share neither of these relationships. Moreover the rouges gallery in the Batcave contains an obvious candidate for each type of archvillain.

The Riddler seems like a natural antithesis to the Dark Detective, with his penchant for presenting information in misleading or confusing manners. However, his essential function -posing questions- is really very complimentary to Bats' fundamental nature- finding answers. I can see Batman actually preferring the Big Question Mark to his other foes, because he always makes the job of stopping his crimes so straightforward. The Riddler, with his habitual clue dropping, is a puzzle -an incomplete or disorganized set of information that begs for the application of order. The Joker, with his impenetrable insanity, is a mystery -a set of information that contradicts or confuses your prior knowledge and defies efforts to organize it.

In the other category, you have Two-Face. Since Harvey Dent has history as an ally of Batman, his later battles with the Dark Knight have added dramatic poignancy. Even better you could argue that Two-Face represents a strong philosophical opposition to Batman. Because Two-Face has an obsession with chance, he confronts Bats attempts to create an orderly city with evidence that the universe is arbitrary and chaotic. Sadly this aspect of the character doesn't come up very often, and when it does, it is downplayed as part of his gimmick.

I read a comics blog that noted that there are only two (ha!) Two-Face stories worth telling: his origin; and any variation on him being healed, but ultimately returning to his duality inspired madness. I feel the power and repeated revisitations to these stories actually weaken the character's symbolic heft, because the change the underlying narrative of who Two-Face is. Instead of making him a good man pushed to madness by the injustice of random fate (as symbolized by him flipping a coin to make decisions), it turns him into a intrinsically flawed man who inevitably breaks down (as symbolized by his scars). The message that some people are naturally inclined to evil fits right in with the binary and objectivist view Batman often espouses.

Which brings us to the Joker. So much of what makes the Joker an effective villain is what we don't know about him. Who did he used to be? What motivates his crimes? What defines his madness? What goes on in his head? He is a mystery, and if there's anything Batman can't stand it's a mystery.

Also, while clowns may not be natural enemies of bats, they are the constant opponent of logicians. As Jimmy Carr and Lucy Greeves argued in the book The Naked Jape, all jokes are the same. By this I mean, they all seem predicated upon establishing a given story, or order, to the world of the joke. Then with the punchline they undermine the order, betraying the rules the joke created and leaving us drifting in a world of nonsense. For a detective like Batman, everything must fit into a structure of reliable empirical truth, organized by certain absolute rules. For a clown like the Joker, no truth is reliable, no structure is sacrosanct, and no rules can be enforced.

I believe the Joker could be said to be the most powerful character in comicbooks, because no one can ever force their will on him. To Batman, who tries to control all of Gotham City, this is not just anathema but intolerable to the very essence of his crusade. Just as an irresistible force could never meet an immovable object -for the existence of one logically negates the possibility of the other- Batman can never succeed in his mission if the Joker is what he appears to be, a person beyond control. Conversely the Joker's fundamental philosophy -that nothing makes sense, and therefore nothing means anything- would be refuted if Batman is what he appears to be, a person in total control of himself. Both of these characters represent something that cuts to the core of the other. This is why they both detest each other so deeply and yet neither can ever bring themselves to end the other. It is not sufficient that the threat posed by the other is removed, they each have a vested need to see the other one cast aside his very nature.

I can think of few conflicts in modern fiction that have been as prolific and as evocative as what I just described. Which is why generations of fans and writers have kept coming back to the undeniable truth, that as long as Batman is a detective he and the Joker must be archenemies.

To be continued . . .

Analyzing the Detective Genre: Part 2

2011-02-15T22:37:00.000-05:00

Above: The cover to the 1987 edition of Douglas Adams' novel Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

What's the Opposite of Sherlock Holmes?-

Before moving on to other topics, I wanted to make one last note on variations of the Holmes character. In my brother's e-mail, he suggested an über-Holmes. That led me to wonder what an anti-Holmes might look like. My brother offered a character who has Holmes' level of skill, but an opposite moral inclination (or at the very least a disinterest in solutions except for self-serving purposes). What I wanted was an investigator who took an approach to investigation that was diametrically opposed to Holmes' deductive methods. I wanted a detective who didn't use deductive reasoning, scientific methods of inquiry, or anything close to meticulous attention to detail.

After a few moments thought, it dawned on me that the best example of this I could think of was created by Douglas Adams. (No one who knows me well is surprised that I would turn to this example as I enjoy Adams so much I own many heavily worn copies of his novels.) For his science-fiction/mystery novel Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, Adams created a private eye named Dirk Gently who offered a rather particular kind of investigation service. Dirk's method, such as it was, assumed everything was connected and considered everything he encountered as possible evidence. This meant rather than narrowing his focus to only the most pertinent information and proceeding in a logical and scientific order, he would often proceed at random and get caught up in bizarre tangents. The BBC recently made a television adaptation of the character, and the trailer nicely demonstrates the sort of chaos this normally involved. While any reasonable person would expect Dirk to fail -in truth his approach was probably just an invention to cover for his laziness and shortcomings as a detective- he often succeed because within the finite fictional universe he inhabited everything was connected.

Adams even makes the clash between Dirk and Holmes explicit in his second Dirk Gently novel The Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul. Gently scoffs at Holmes axioms of deduction, after hearing of a young woman who recites changes in stock prices exactly 24 hours after they occur. His critique of Doyle's sleuth is laid out in the following interlude:

"What was the Sherlock Holmes principle? 'Once you have discounted the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.'"

"I reject that entirely," said Dirk sharply. "The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it which the merely improbable lacks. How often have you been presented with an apparently rational explanation of something that works in all respects other than one, which is just that it is hopelessly improbable? Your instinct is to say, 'Yes, but he or she simply wouldn't do that.'"

"Well, it happened to me today, in fact," replied Kate.

"Ah, yes," said Dirk, slapping the table and making the glasses jump. "Your girl in the wheelchair -- a perfect example. The idea that she is somehow receiving yesterday's stock market prices apparently out of thin air is merely impossible, and therefore must be the case, because the idea that she is maintaining an immensely complex and laborious hoax of no benefit to herself is hopelessly improbable. The first idea merely supposes that there is something we don't know about, and God knows there are enough of those. The second, however, runs contrary to something fundamental and human which we do know about. We should therefore be very suspicious of it and all its specious rationality."

I don't know if any of that comparison interests anyone, but at least it demonstrates how heavily the works of Douglas Adams influence my thinking on almost any subject. Perhaps someday I'll explain why his line, "the wrong lizard might get in", summarizes all of my complaints about modern politics.

To be continued . . .

Analyzing the Detective Genre: Part 1

2011-02-14T01:25:00.008-05:00

For about 22 months, I have been working on a side-project outside this blog. Inspired by an e-mail from one of my brothers, I undertook a lengthy review and analysis of the detective genre. (It should be noted that it took me so long to complete this work mostly due to inefficiency and sloth on my part, and not because I observed any scholarly practices of in-depth research.) Having at long last completed my work, I figure I should maximize the utility I get out of it, by sharing it through this blog. As with anything I write, or say, or even sometimes when I pantomime, I got pretty verbose with this. To protect your eyes from too much staring at a screen, I have broken up this piece into multiple sections over multiple post. So keep watching this space as I add on more entries to my highly involved ramblings (or, as I imagine they will say at my inevitable mental competency hearings, building up evidence of my derangement).

Introductory Material-

To give you the best understanding of what inspired my thoughts on detectives and how my thinking evolved, I will share with you the actual e-mail my brother sent me about two years ago. My brother wrote it as a fairly casual epistle, meant to spur a little dialogue, so please remember that you should hold him blameless for the madness that ensued.

He wrote:
Today [my] mind passed briefly onto the Promethean Sherlock Holmes, whose ability to examine only the necessary evidence gave him god-like powers of deduction. Of course, this is very infuriating to everyone who has a more difficult time choosing which details are important.

I was thinking of a less complex alternative to Sherlock: one who has perfect knowledge of a crime because one committed it. In the fictional sense, this is what is true for Arthur Conan Doyle. But this theme--criminal cum detective--has been tried out in the crime drama since then.

What I think is an interesting third alternative to both the supremely powerful Sherlock and the supremely evil Doyle would be a detective--given many of the flaws like pride, ambition, and greed that typify the pop culture detective criminals--who takes on seemingly uncrackable cases, then corrupts the evidence in order to land an easy-to-prosecute suspect with a Law & Order-type turn of events. I imagine that in some episodes this detective would be more motivated by ambition to peg a cold case, but in others s/he'd use it as an evidence dump for committing some personally motivated crimes. The thing writes itself! Lemme' know what you think of this character.

From that seed of inspiration, I begin to think long and hard about a variety of topics connected to the detective genre. Though honestly, I should say that my thoughts weren't so much long as intermittent, and the thinking probably wouldn't have been so hard if I hadn't been drinking so much. The first topic I wanted to address was the variations on the detective archetype he raised in his e-mail. From there I could springboard into a wide range of ideas and make my brother regret that he ever brought up the subject.

Variations on the Detective Character-

To begin the discussion with my brother's ideas, I enjoyed the concept of a Holmes-like detective whose powers of observation border on the supernatural or even divine. There is an undeniable attraction in watching anyone breeze through a seemingly impenetrable case with impossible ease. Audiences get a kick out of that thing, but they can also tire of it quickly. We desire conflict in our drama, something in short supply when no puzzle would truly challenge the hero. As you suggest the obvious solution is to generate conflict between the hero and the other characters as a result of her deductive prowess. This practice certainly can work well and several current crime series use it (e.g. Psych, Monk, and new for people who prefer handsome blond protagonists The Mentalist). I think you could draw more drama from going in a different direction, by pitting the Promethean Sherlock Holmes in conflict with her own powers.

In this scenario, I envision the detective character having some kind of supernatural power, wherein, she can ONLY see the evidence relevant to the mystery and is blind to everything else. Naturally this allows her to solve cases quite easily as she only considers the truly vital information. You could visualize this as the evidence standing out from everything else in its own super-reality, or by having every other detail of the world fade away and become insubstantial. The downside of the detective's powers is, of course, that they severely limit and, to a degree, control the sleuth in question. The supporting characters would be fascinated and awed by her abilities against which she constantly struggles. She might wish to avoid cases, or at least not be overwhelmed by her abilities when she becomes involved in them. This intrigues me as it takes the gift-and-a-curse trope to a new level and it could have some rather odd implications. What happens when the sleuth can't see a piece of evidence that everyone believes is crucial? What if she can see something that has no reasonable connection to the case at hand? What if she has a case with very little physical evidence, is she effectively blind? What if she starts investigating a wide reaching conspiracy and becomes overwhelmed with all of the items of evidence she starts seeing? I see this as a continuing story with more potential and a new way to play the super-detective as a wounded character.

My brother also proposes a character who can solve crimes through some kind of perfect knowledge of the crime, which certainly has potential. It seemed to me that he didn't have many ideas for the character, so with I decided to build off of that with some of my own ideas. I will expand on a possible version of this character later on.

Now this idea about a corrupt Holmes is definitely the best of the ideas my brother put forward. As soon as I read hid description, details began to take shape in my mind. I imagine not a police officer or P.I. but a rising young prosecutor in a very rough city. She has high political aims and step one is cleaning up a major metropolis. Of course, it turns out that the broken system is not ready to lay down and serve as her stepping stone. She doesn't have the resources she thinks she needs to solve her cases. She gets almost no institutional support from her fellow prosecutors and the local police department. When she tries to muscle her way into the circles of power, she gets pushed back and put down. Deciding that she doesn't want to wait for reform to save the city and her career, she sets out to carve her own path. Using her own gifts for deduction, she focuses her prosecution on the suspects she wants to bring in. When needed she can either spin her investigations to trap the suspect or manufacture the evidence or charges needed to get the conviction. She upsets the comfortable and causes all kinds of shock waves through the corridors of power, but the public loves her and that's what she wants. See, he was absolutely right. This character does write itself.

To be continued . . .

Tony's/NBA Live Blogging Pt. 4

2009-06-07T21:00:00.008-05:00

In a test to see if anyone else besides me cares about both pro-basketball and show tunes, I am live blogging about the Tony Awards and the NBA Finals. We have a close game heading into the 4th and some top awards still to be announced, so it should be an exciting end of an evening here. Let's get back to it . . .

10:00- Another award goes to God of Carnage. This time it's for Marcia Gay Harden's performance. It's nice that she has another award to accompany the Oscar she won and everybody forgot about.

10:03- Kobe makes some free throws to push the Lakers lead to 3. Of course with the way Orlando loves shooting from outside, a 3 point lead is essentially no lead at all.

10:05- Over on Broadway, the cast of Billy Elliot is putting on a dance number so psychedelic it makes me think I have been hitting my gin a little too hard. Either that or this is just some number from Hair that I don't recognize because I repressed the memory of it along with most of my memories of that musical.

10:09- I love that the Magic brought back their injured star point guard, Jameer Nelson, for the Finals after the back up point guard, Rafer Alston, got them this far by performing superbly in the playoffs. Now as Game 2 winds down and they trail L.A., they have neither of those players on the floor. Instead, Stan Van Gundy is playing chronic underperformer J. J. Redick at point. In Broadway terms this would be like if your star had to bow out half way through the show's engagement, then the understudy steps up admirably, then on closing night in the final act you send out some chorus member in the leading role.

10:14- Harvey Fierstein comes out to present an award and creep out Middle America.

10:15- The prize for revival of a play goes to The Norman Conquests, and it looks their producers account for half the people in the audience. I don't think there were that many people on stage for the opening number.

10:19- Sure enough God of Carnage takes the award for Best Play. They promptly ask the writer to say a few words in her humorous foreign accent.

10:20- Oooooh, a tough call goes against the Lakers and Jack Nicholson (The No. 1 celebrity Laker fan) looks like he's going to reenact the last half-hour of The Shining. Maybe the officials were told to make sure this series goes more than 4 games so the NBA can earn back the money they lost by not getting the LeBron v. Kobe match-up they wanted.

10:24- Well the player the Magic were using to defend Kobe Bryant just fouled out with 3 minutes left to play. I think Kobe is about to set a record for most points scored in 180-seconds to end this game. Right now he only has 20 points. How much you want to bet he'll end the game with at least 30?

10:26- Over at the Tonay Award they are presenting a life-time achievement award to Jerry Herman. This is the sort of thing that should come much earlier in the broadcast, but the producers put it off because they didn't what to weird out too many prime time viewers with an effeminate elderly man in an ill-fitting tuxedo.

10:30- As the NBA game hits 2:40 left, Kobe Bryan manage to turn slipping on his own feet into a trip to the free throw line.

10:32- Then the Magic make two good shots to regain the lead with less than 90 second to go. I'm so tense I might have to empty the gin bottle. Not because alcohol clams me down, but because I might need an empty vessel convenient so I don't pee my pants.

10:34 and 40 seconds- I flip back to the Tony's and see that the cast of Hair is putting on their showcase performance.

10:34 and 45 seconds- I flip back to the basketball game, even though I know they're at commercial right now.

10:36- After the Lakers tie the game, the Magic suffer for not having a true point guard on the court as players are forced to create their own shots and one of them winds up forcing up a bad attempt and effectively giving the ball back to the Lakers with the game tied.

10:38- Kobe goes for the game winner. It's blocked from behind! THEN THE MAGIC GRAB THE BALL AND CALL TIME OUT! THE BEST JUMP SHOOTING TEAM IN THE LEAGUE REGAINS POSSESSION WITH 0.6 SECONDS LEFT!!!! Uh, where's that bottle?

10:43- The Magic will try to inbound the ball to make a game winning shot. The ball is in . . . It's up . . . And it just barely rims out. We're going to overtime, but only because the fates have decided this game is too much fun to stop now.

10:45- David Hyde Pierce comes out to give the award for Lead Actress in a Musical and receives some gentle ribbing from Neil Patrick Harris. I imagine things have been tense between them ever since they Pierce stole Harris' whole "I go by my full name" gimmick.

10:46- The award goes to Alice Ripley and she starts bellowing into the mike for no good reason. I really think they should tell the nominees to limit the yelling during acceptance speeches, if only to protect unwary home viewers with powerful sound systems.

10:49- The prize for Actor in a Musical goes to the three kids that play Billy Elliot. Now I'm really confused first one person can get multiple nominations, then three people can share one nomination. This is getting confusing. As you might imagine the acceptance speech involving three boys starts pretty awkwardly then transforms into one of the most touching moments of the evening.

10:52- Now that the NBA game is in overtime, Derek Fisher decides it's about time to start playing like a veteran and makes a steal on a key play. Hey Fish, so nice of you to show up. I though Kobe was the only Laker that cared about winning a championship.

10:53- I check back in with the Tony's and discover that the cast of Jersey Boys is performing for the usual no good reason. I turn back just in time to watch Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol team up for a 3-point play. I'm really not sure why I'm not paying more attention to the basketball game.

10:56- Hedo Turkoglu who took the ball away from the Lakers at the end of regulation pulls another great defensive play. This gives J. J. Redick a chance to make his second field goal of the game. Again this guy is playing in overtime over any of their more experienced better qualified players.

10:59- Great timing! I turn back to the Tony Awards just in time to see Billy Elliot win the award for Best New Musical. It's so nice to see that the American Theater Wing have the courage to give a musical adapted from movie from 9 year ago a prize for being "new". Then again they could have given it to the musical version of Shrek (based on a movie that's 8 years old which was adapted from a kids book from 1990), or the jukebox musical that's pretty much a compilation of rock hits from the 80's. I guess what I'm saying is Next to Normal got robbed

11:00- Great timing part 2! I return to the b-ball in time to see the Magic nail a 3-pointer shot to get the game back to within three, which again for Orlando is pretty much like being tied.

11:03- While the refs endlessly review whether or not that shot was a three pointer I return to the Tony's and watch NPH finally get his chance to sing. He's singing a tribute to the winners to the tune of "Luck Be a Lady Tonight". I figure he demanded a chance to sing, and the producers were so desperate for any host other than Nathan Lane they gave in.

11:05- Free throw shooting down the closing stretch has given the Lakers a lead in the final seconds. The Magic's last second barrage fails to produce any points and the Lakers hold on to win Game 2, and continue their potential sweep. I was pleased to see that the Magic played well enough to at least make a game of it. Let's hope that they can take it up another level in the next couple games, and actually turn this into a competitive series.

11:11- Well the credits have run for the Tony's and the basketball players have given their post-game interviews. I guess that means it's time to go to bed before the local news sucks me in with some human interest story to video of a high-speed chase.

Thank you for reading this. Be you a drama fanatic who harbors a soft-spot for hoops, or a Kobe fan that likes to hum show tunes, I'm glad this blog offers some place where people with diverse passions can come together. If the Super Bowl and the Oscars are ever on the same night, we'll have to do this again.

Tony's/NBA Live Blogging Pt. 3

2009-06-07T20:13:00.005-05:00

I am attempting a live blog of both the NBA Finals and the Tony Awards, an unforgiving labor of delusion. Thankfully the Finals are at half-time, unfortunately the Tony's don't have a half-time (unless you count the performances from the revivals). So let's get back to it . . .

9:12- Liza beats out Will Ferrell for yet another award. She then proceeds to give an acceptance speech where she pretends that she wasn't a mortal lock to win any award that she's nominated for. Liza, these are your people they love you way more that Will Ferrell or those crazy kung fu performance artists.

9:16- Wow, the Tony producers do a terrific job of handling some technical problems during a live musical performance. I think the Orlando Magic's coach Stan Van Gundy should learn a thing or two from them, because the Magic aren't doing much to adjust their game plan.

9:21- In fairness to the folks at the NBA, their color commentators do a much better job of faking camaraderie than the people presenting Tony's do when they are forced to banter.

9:30- It looks like it's going to be a big evening for Billy Elliot. I'm pretty sure that if they could they would give a separate award to each of the Billies.

9:32- So far the Tony Awards are loading up on my childhood heroes. We've already had John Stamos (Uncle Jessie) and Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia). If they find some way to incorporate that kid that played Data in The Goonies and Short Round in Temple of Doom, they'll have hit my personal icons trifecta.

9:39- I have been a little distracted by a phone conversation with my parents, but that slam by Kobe would make anybody pay attention.

9:43- Back in Radio City Music Hall, I guess NPH just told an inside joke that I didn't get, then followed it up with a joke about being inside Jessica Lange that she didn't like.

9:44- Dammit! Jeff Daniels loses to Geoffrey Rush. I guess the voters had to give it to him, since, according to the reviews, he's about the only thing making that play worth watching. If only they decided who made the NBA Finals using that criteria, then LeBron James would definitely be in, if only just out of pity for having to carry the Cavaliers, and the entire economy of Cleveland.

9:47- Over in the Staples Center, the Magic have actually been guarding a narrow lead for a little while here. I guess the Lakers decided they shouldn't break up their streak of taking prolonged periods off during each playoff game this year.

9:50- The Tony's are trying one of those in memoriam tributes like they do at the Oscars. The problem here is that every year at least a few people in the Oscar tribute will be legitimately famous. I don't think anyone outside of Radio City Music Hall remembers who any of the people these people were. Sorry theater nerds, but it is a pretty insular community.

9:53- I flip back to the b-ball and find the Lakers took the lead back (despite the fact that the last play I saw was Lamar Odom making a stupid foul). Immediately the Magic hit some jump shots and get back in front. I really don't know what you can do to stop the Magic when their shooters are hot. I mean other than spiking their Gatorade.

9:54- Kobe misses a 3-pointer to end the 3rd quarter. Is there any doubt that if this were the end of the 4th he would make that shot.

This seems like a good time to publish this update and get geared up for the 4th quarter/major awards. I just hope my giant bottle of gin will last.

To be continued . . .

Tony's/NBA Live Blogging Pt. 2

2009-06-07T19:21:00.006-05:00

Let's keep this crazy experiment to merge the interests of Harlem and Greenwich Village. . .

8:23- Smart decision by the producers to front load the Shrek material before its target demographic's bedtime.

8:27- I get tossing in a jab at Wicked in the Shrek musical number, since Shrek is all about parodying fairy tales. I am just worried that might date the musical a little. It's going to be hard enough to revive the show once America turns on Eddie Murphy after he releases Norbit 2 and they have to completely rewrite all of Donkey's lines.

8:29- I know live bloggers aren't supposed to take sides, but I will go ahead and admit that I am rooting for Jeff Daniels over James Gandolfini tonight.

8:31- WOW! The legend Angela Lansbury wins it! I don't care what Tim Burton says; Ms. Lansbury will always be Mrs. Lovett to me.

8:34- The producers are obviously making an effort to cram as much popular material into the top of the broadcast as possible. I can't think of any other reason to include a performance from Mama Mia!, the musical that just had a hit movie spun out of it, when most of tonight's nominees haven't gotten much screen time yet.

8:38- Wait! I forgot I was also supposed to be watching the finals. Ack! I missed the first quarter already.

8:40- Okay I may not know everything about the Orland Magic's offensive game plan, but I am pretty sure that being tied at 15 after 12 minutes is not how they were hoping things would go, considering they need to seriously score a ton of points in a hurry to outpace the Lakers.

8:41- Checking back in with the Tony Awards, I notice Harris crediting Samantha Mathis as his first on-screen kiss. Does that also imply that mean she was responsible for his first thought of "Hmmm, something about this doesn't seem quite right."?

8:43- I have to say I am seriously disappointed that Will Ferrell didn't come out dressed ad President Bush in a flight suit.

8:45- America Theater Wing, you really want to nominate both Elton John and Dolly Parton for the same award then give it neither of them.

8:46- Since the NBA Finals are at commercia,l I will stick with the theater nerds and join my Mom in cheering the dude from In The Heights.

8:48- Back in the world of hoops, I just saw L.A.'s Andrew Bynum benefit from a foul that apparently was committed by someone on the grassy knoll. I would rate my surprise that the Lakers are getting favorable calls from the officials in L.A. as around a 0.00001 on a scale of 1 to 100.

8:51- Does it really benefit Orlando to try pushing the tempo at this point? It seems to me that just means they miss 3-pointers faster.

8:52- Well the NBA is taking a TV timeout with the score tied at 26. Something makes me think David Stern has sent in the order to keep this game close until at least 7pm Pacific so they can get all the west coast voters expecting a Laker's blowout to actually tune in.

8:55- Over on CBS, Susan Sarandon is giving Bernadette Peters a run as the leading lady in Broadway's "Over 50 and Looking Foxy" rankings.

8:57- Multiple nominations in one category for one person always leaves me confused. It seems to me that it is theoretically possible for one person to wrap up the win just by claiming every nomination. This is why I am going to write 5 brilliant plays then release them all in one year.

9:01- Sorry Tony's, but I am just not ready to put up with hair metal coming immediately after West Side Story. Note that I have no problem with it cleansing my musical palate after a sampling from Hair though. Draw your own conclusions from that.

9:05- Switching over to basketball again, I see the Magic have gone away from ~~rapidly jacking up 3's~~ pushing the temp and are now taking about two minutes to set up their bad shots.

9:08- After Rashard Lewis gets out the d-fib panels and revives Orlando's offense we go to the half Lakers- 40 magic- 35.

9:10- Since both channels are at commercial, I will use this time to publish this update and try calling my Mom (the person responsible for my enjoyment of live theater, so I guess she's partly to blame for this bizarre blogging experience).

To be continued . . .

Bold Live Blogging Event- Tony's/NBA

2009-06-07T18:42:00.006-05:00

Well, I finally got my computer out of the shop. I can't think of a better way to celebrate than to try a little live blogging. Since I am always trying to expand the demographic reach of this blog - my current audience is principally white men, ages 18-35, who are blood relatives of me- I decided to make a bold attempt to ensnare as many people as possible. Tonight I will be simultaneously blogging about the Tony Awards and the NBA Finals. Since I may be the only person on Earth highly interested in both events I am hoping this event might bring together people from some pretty diverse backgrounds. At the very least I expect to create one of the most confusing combination of stream of consciousness notes ever created on Internet. So let's make it happen . . .

7:52- My Totino's pizza is in the oven. I have my buffalo wings on the way, and a giant bottle of gin ready to go. I can't think of a better way to watch "A Few Minutes with Andy Rooney".

7:54- The proceedings are interrupted by a phone call from my wife, who is out of town for the evening and thus spared the awkward experience of watching me give myself the first blogging related hernia in medical history.

8:00- The Tony telecast opens with what I guess are the three Billy Elliots, on stage together. Soon we're cross-cutting into the various musicals up for awards. And half of the audience that was watching 60 Minutes just felt a little queasy.

8:04- And my stupid digital TV tuner just lost the signal. Does anyone else find the digital "skipping" that comes with DTV much more annoying than plane old static?

8:08- So far we've had Elton John, Stockard Channing, Bret Michaels, Dolly Parton, and Liza Minnelli have all crossed the same stage within the span of a few minutes. Yet somehow I imagine the most excited home audiences got was when the small children who are watching this with their mothers saw Shrek.

8:11- Neil Patrick Harris everybody! You have to give it up to a guy with a generation of girls crushing on him to take the risk of becoming the most prominent openly gay American actor. Doogie, you'll never know how many girls would have let you play doctor with them.

8:15- We have our first award of the night. I like to try guessing which nominees are most likely to win based on the level of applause in the audience when their name is announced. This doesn't work at the BET awards where a large posse can throw you off.

8:17- Someone just thanked their mother. Everybody take a shot!

8:18- First commercial. Seems like a good time to post the first update and snag a little chow.

To be continued . . .

History with the Cap'n- Doctor Assisted Assassination

2009-03-03T11:33:00.016-05:00

History has more rich and interesting stories than any one class can do justice. In your typical high school level U.S. History class, you have so many facts to digest in only a year of study that you have no hope of learning anything that might actually interest you. History class fails to engage most students because their teachers don't have the time to explore any thing of meaning or relevance to the students in any degree of depth. Just to demonstrate how intriguing and informative history can become when studied in detail, I like breaking down particular items down to the most obscure and surprising facets. Almost always I find we can learn something from nearly anything recorded in the annals of history.

For today's entry we will take a deeper look at the assassination of a U.S. President. Before I start bulleting out my points, I'd like you to reflect on how much you can actually recall about presidential assassinations in American history. If you find yourself drawing mostly a blank, don't feel bad because you are far from alone. With many surveys revealing how little Americans know about their history, I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of Americans couldn't name all four presidents who were assassinated. Yet when you consider that we are talking about the leader of the nation being violently murdered, it seems odd that we don't discuss them more beyond all those crazed JFK conspiracy theories. So let's leave behind the well remembered and often mourned Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy, and instead turn our attention to President James A. Garfield and his untimely death.

I'll get the basic facts out of the way first. James A. Garfield had won a close election on a platform of reforming government. In his first 119 days in office he took bold steps to strengthen the national government and end corrupt practices, such as filling high government offices with unqualified political supporters. Unfortunately on his 120th day as POTUS a mentally unstable man named Charles Guiteau shot Garfield at a railway station in Washington D.C, as the president was about to leave town on vacation. Guiteau had repeatedly requested, but never received, a diplomatic position from Garfield -possibly because Guiteau had no diplomatic or political experience to speak of- and he felt wronged by the president. After the shooting doctors rushed to aid the president, and that's where the story starts to get really interesting . . .

The first doctor to tend to the president tried to give him some on the spot medication, a combination of brandy and liquid ammonia. Garfield, as you might expect, vomited. I can't say for sure whether the doctor took that as a good sign or a bad sign. I only knew that it did nothing to discourage the rest of the president's caretakers from continuing to perform some very bad medicine.

Doctors focused their efforts on trying to locate and remove the bullet lodged into the president's body. Surgeon D. Willard Bliss offered the services of his "Nelaton Probe" to trace the path of the missile through Garfield's flesh. When jabbing the probe into the president's innards and wriggling it around for a few minutes failed to produce the slug, Dr. Bliss resorted to sticking his finger into the wound. Another doctor would later try inserting his hand into the wound up to his wrist, apparently working under the belief that Bliss just hadn't done enough damage. Eventually the area where the doctors had probed and fingered and fisted would become infected. Naturally they took this as evidence that the bullet must still be in that area.

Eventually scientific expert Alexander Graham Bell offered the services of his new invention, a rudimentary metal detector (The Cap'n told you he'd come back to this). The device used Bell's telephone technology in combination with a simple electrical system that caused a hum when pointed near metal. When Bell scanned Garfield with the metal detector they heard a hum where the doctors thought the bullet lie. So the medical men launched into a new series of surgeries by the end transforming a three-inch bullet wound into a twenty-inch tunnel of infected tissue.

In the end Garfield succumbed 80 days after being shot. Medical historians believe infections caused his death (and caused him a lot of pain along the way). Ultimately the bullet Guiteau had fired into the president failed in its intended purpose to kill the leader of the nation. An autopsy would find the bullet lodged ten inches away from the doctors' invasive tinkering, sealed by Garfield's body in a protective cyst. Fittingly the doctors became the subject of public scorn and ridicule for their apparent malpractice. Dr. Bliss would later apologize, but the damage had been done.

When the assassin faced trial, Guiteau tried to defend himself by claiming that he was not responsible for killing the president. "The doctors did that," he said "I simply shot at him." Not surprisingly the jury saw things otherwise, and he was hanged for his crimes. He may have been better off letting his attorney use the insanity defense (still a new concept at the time), instead of trying to defend himself by saying he had "divine authority" to shoot the country's leader.

Dr. Bliss holds the unenviable distinction of being the only doctor involved with two presidential assassinations (he was also on hand, as the head of a Washington D.C. area, hospital after Booth shot Lincoln). However one person has been involved with three of the four presidential assassination: Robert Todd Lincoln. Robert Lincoln was the son of Abraham Lincoln and the president's wife Mary Todd. He was invited to join Abe and Mary at Ford's Theater but declined as he was too tired. He went on to serve as Garfield's Secretary of War, and accepted Garfield's invitation to meet at the train station when Guiteau attacked. Year later President William McKinley would invite Robert Lincoln to the Pan-American Exposition of 1901. Lincoln came, and yet again a president was shot and killed. Though Robert Lincoln would live another 25 years after McKinley's assassination he apparently was never invited to another presidential event (perhaps wisely so).

The untimely death of Garfield did have some unexpectedly pleasant consequences. His vice-president, Chester A. Arthur, had to take on the presidency. Political bosses had put Arthur on the ticket to sooth concerns among corrupt party members that Garfield would reform them all out of a job. They thought Arthur, as an old-line party member in good standing, would make sure the political toadies still got their piece of the pie. When he took office, many feared Arthur would undo Garfield's reforms and go about politics as usual. However Arthur would defy those pessimistic expectations, and take great steps to change long standing political processes. He pushed legislation that would ensure government positions wouldn't go to political lackeys unless they could prove they at least met the minimum qualifications- a standard America still proudly holds its appointed officials to today.

If we look over the details of just this one incident from American history we can find plenty of important lessons. From the failings of the doctors we can see that even well-meaning experts can make grave mistakes when not armed with the right information. From the examples of Alexander Graham Bell and Chester A. Arthur we can support the old adage that past performance is no indicator of future success. From the story of Guiteau we can learn that no matter what heinous acts people do they can almost always defend their actions, if only to themselves. Overall we can tell that there are plenty of dangerous things out there besides the bullets of an assassin, a thought-provoking lesson as many worry about assassination today. Even Garfield himself said that "Assassination can no more be guarded against than death by lightning; and it is best not to worry about either." These may not necessarily be lessons unique to this moment in history, but the evidence they present toward any lesson has value. Certainly at least enough value to warrant more than just a passing mention in an over-stuffed history class.

History with the Cap'n- Ring my Bell

2009-03-02T19:40:00.008-05:00

Historians love studying the unique individual. The unusual and complex person who stands out from the crowd and lives an exceptional life certainly helps keep the history books interesting. In fact some have argued that unique individuals are the only thing worth studying in history. Unfortunately the more outstanding the individual the more likely he or she is to be a little to complex to easily categorize. One person who nicely exemplifies this was born 162 years ago tomorrow on March 3rd, 1847 CE, Alexander Graham Bell. Undoubtedly Bell had an incredible mind and he certainly did some amazing work in his life. Unfortunately, most people know Bell as the inventor of the telephone, an accomplishment for which he almost certainly received too much credit. Like his friend Thomas Edison, history should probably celebrate Alexander Graham Bell as a multifaceted genius who significantly helped advance the fields of technology in several ways. Yet, again like Edison, the popular imagination remembers him only as an inventor of a modern convenience. So, once again, the Cap'n will help out all you history buffs, by debunking some myths and revealing some truths about Alexander Graham Bell.

First, let's address the whole issue of who invented the telephone and when. According to a resolution of the U.S. Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives acknowledges Antonio Meucci for his work in the invention of the telephone. Meucci has a strong claim to fathering the telephone. He was a poor, struggling Italian immigrant who could have legally prevented Bell from patenting his telephone if he only had enough money to cover the proper fees. Meucci sued Bell over who had the proper legal claim to the invention. Attempting to prove his complaint Meucci sent his working models to the labs at Western Union. In what can only be described as the opposite of serendipity for Meucci, he sent his models to the very same lab where Bell worked. The models would later mysteriously disappear, sort of in the same way that the grass would mysteriously stay green. Critics of Meucci have derided his claims. They argue his design would not function if tested and appeared to defy the basic physics involved with telecommunications. Even if you dismiss Meucci, Elisha Gray can challenge Bell as father of the telephone. Gray had designed an apparatus which appears to have been technologically superior to Bell's. He went to the patent office to legally stake his claim the field of telephone technology, but would actually miss out because Bell had patented his telephone mere hours before. Gray sued Bell, who probably spent as much time litigating as he did inventing. The courts would name Bell the inventor of the telephone, but who wants to win like that.

Truthfully, the question of who invented the telephone is at best a nebulous issue with only debatable answers. Many people had worked on devices similar to Bell's invention. Bell simply had the luck to land the legal rights, the dedication to make the phone a practical tool, and the business sense to envision the telephone as a commercially viable item. In fact Bell was so confident in the telephone's chances of success, he boldly predicted that in the future there would be at least one telephone in every city in the U.S.

Bell had a life long interest in communication, which probably led him to experiment with telephone technology in the first place. He devised a very rudimentary telecommunications system as a child. He trained his dog to say the words (or at least a close approximation) "How are you, grandmama?" so he could greet his grandmother from a different room in the house. I haven't found any record of how his grandmother reacted to having a dog bound up and talk to her, but I just hope both she and the dog survived the first incident.

As I mentioned above, Bell was what you could call a polymath. He had a brilliant mind and he took an interest in a great variety of intellectual and scientific pursuits. He had an interest in aeronautics, so he designed a kite that could carry a person. He wanted to tinker with mechanical propulsion and he helped invent a hydrofoil that would set the world-water speed record at the time. He valued geography education and as president of the National Geographic Society, he encouraged the creation of the National Geographic Magazine. His constant improvements to the telephone established the basis for the phonograph and communicating with light rays. As an amateur geneticist, he tried to breed an especially prolific line of sheep and succeeding in producing sheep with superfluous nipples (okay, so that one didn't work out so well). He even created an early metal detector that completely failed to save the life of . . . actually, I'll save that item for a later entry.

Of all the things Bell did with his life beyond the phone, he took the most pride in the work he did for the deaf. Both his wife and mother were deaf. Even before he patented his telephone he opened a school for the deaf. Eventually he founded a society for the deaf that still exists today and now bears his name. He worked closely with Helen Keller and she even dedicated her autobiography to him. Bell dedicated a large part of his life to an segment of his population that at the time had no use for his most famous creation. Now almost no one hears about this side of him. Maybe that sad irony is just the karmic scales balancing out the good fortune he had in his work on the telephone.

The fame and accolades lauded onto Bell for supposedly inventing the telephone put him in a special class of hero. Though few people would ever learn of his other work he stands alone as the only person to be named one of the 100 greatest Britons, Americans, and Canadians of all time. Few other people rose to such a level of success that multiple nations would compete for the right to claim them as natives.

The Era of Big Nicknames is Over

2009-03-01T14:52:00.007-05:00

As your standard news junkie, I have kept checking into all the various presidential firsts that we've experienced since Barack Obama assumed the office. We all could have a lively debate about the merits of any of our new president's actions, or the efficacy of any of his varied public appearances and televised speeches. Thankfully, for our comment moderator (the Cap'n) we don't have to worry about that here. In part, because plenty of other sites already exist for exactly that purpose. Mostly though because I won't even mention anything political in this post.

With most of the reaction to President Obama's remarks focusing quite rightly on what effects his plans will have on the ongoing economic crisis, a minor point that signaled the President's efforts to shift the culture of Washington went by unnoticed. Given that Obama's promises to bring a new attitude to national politics made up the heart of his campaign before the recession really hit this fall, I thought someone ought to mention how the tone coming out of the White House changed in a subtle but possibly significant way. President Obama has established a business-like and solemn tone he uses when speaking with the press, when interacting with them from behind the Seal of the President for the first time, he made the choice -rather pointedly in my opinion- to address everyone by their full and proper names. With this he put an end to the George W. Bush Era of Nicknames.

During Bush-43's tenure in office theories abounded about why the Commander-in-Chief seemed to treat everyone with the casual familiarity of a fraternity brother. Some seemed to believe that it only represented the natural inclination of people to show friendliness and camaraderie. In a way, President Bush only wanted to invite the press corps into his circle of friends. It certainly seemed as though he would have appreciated more chums in the media toward the end of his term. Other looked for deeper psychological meanings to the President's practice. Some thought he wanted to rename people and things (like the "Axis of Evil") as a way of demonstrating his power and dominion over them. Keep in mind that many cultures believe that renaming anything changes it on a spiritual level, a power usually reserved to gods. Drawing from that interpretation some even implied that Bush issued his new designations not just to assure himself of his own authority, but to see who would acquiesce to the new titles he bestowed. In a smartly written essay playwright/screenwriter David Mamet, describes the sorrowful consequences for any who surrender to a nickname:

The assignment of nicknames, the application of jargon is an understood tool for the manipulation of behavior. We know the quote "charismatic" boss who is making up "cute" and idiosyncratic names for his or her employees. "I alone know and I alone will assign you your name." This is a powerful (and impolite) tool. It is an arrogation of power and a useful diagnostic. For those who grin and tilt their heads to have their ears rubbed at the new name have surrendered their personality to the oppressor; they have given up their soul.

While I greatly doubt that every member of George W. Bush's cabinet felt as though a nickname cost them their soul, Mamet does illuminate the fact that nicknaming is a social act, meant to include those knowledgeable of the appellation and exclude those ignorant of its meaning. Regardless of his motivations, President Bush drew attention to his habit of gregariously distributing nicknames by jumping right into them from the very beginning of his presidency.

Conversely Obam began his presidency in a much more formal manner. If you check the transcript, you won't find any instances of Obama referring to anyone with a jovial moniker. At only one point does he even come close when he refers to Vice-President Biden, as Joe. To me this nicely demonstrates how Obama's attitude differs from his predecessor. He doesn't feel opposed to having nicknames; he just feels they should result from a relationship that's had time to define itself, more cognomens than nicknames really. President Obama has only begun his time in office and he seems willing to let the relationship he has with the press mature before labeling the reporters that will make up a major part of his life. I think he does this in the hopes that they will grant him sometime to define his presidency before branding him in the press.

So far Obama's tactic appears effective. His approval ratings remain high as the government continues to wrestle with the enormous problems of the day. Moreover he does seem set on changing the culture of Washington and continuing to do things differently than his predecessor, with the use of proper names only a small part of this strategy. What's next? Ending controversial practices? Taking questions from opponents? Attending an NBA game? With President Obama, all we can say for certain is that it is a new era.

History with the Cap'n- An Eruption of Trivia

2009-02-27T17:12:00.018-05:00

For some people if they hear one catchy tune on the radio, they spend the rest of the day annoying people with their repetitious humming. Others find themselves at work getting all the itches and twitches of a rehab patient when they know they have a new gadget to tinker with at home. We all have our tiny obsessions that can dominate our thoughts when the right stimulus triggers them. For the Cap'n, I often find my mind picking up a stray reference to an unusual topic, and suddenly my brain starts craving arcane or trivial knowledge about that subject like a 5 year old craves the taste of paste.

The other day I listened to President Obama address Congress about some silly thing, then tuned in for the response from the Republican representative on behalf of the opposition party. Much to my later vexation, my ears picked up Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana mention something in his best "Kenneth the Page"-voice about "something called volcano monitoring". While others went on to bicker about the comparisons between the two speeches and the two yokels, I started to ponder whether history could provide any interesting stories of when volcanic activity was either monitored too little or too much. Well the historical record did not disappoint in the area of volcano related anecdotes. I share the results of my search below, along with some other intriguing factoids related to volcanoes.

If the general populace already knows about any volcanic eruption in history, they know that Mount Vesuvius unexpectedly blanketed Pompeii with volcanic ash and debris on August 24th in the year 79 CE (or as the Pompeians would have said LXXIX). Every school child gets to look at pictures of the bodies sealed in place by the volcano's spew and enjoy a macabre thrill. No wonder we all grow up so desensitized to violence and fascinated with the morbid. A few things the general populace may not now include the fact that Vesuvius wiped out two cities, famously Pompeii, which has petrified corpses, and the less well-known Herculaneum, which got slowly buried under fifty feet of mud. Actually, considering that, I can understand why Pompeii gets better publicity.

Pompeii actually stands out as a very strong example of people not paying enough attention to the local neighborhood volcano. Even before Vesuvius gradually built up to its main explosion over the course of a few days -shooting steam, causing tremors, and the like- the city of Pompeii had been evacuated just a few year earlier because of massive earthquake. In fact archaeologists found evidence that many people where still in the process of repairing and redecorating their homes when the volcano finally burst. That just proves that truisms of home ownership were as true during the Ancient Roman empire as they are today. As any homeowner knows, once you finally bring a contractor in to start fixing one problem, some new and completely unrelated thing goes wrong.

Excavation of Pompeii revealed more secrets than just buckets of plaster and stacks of tile. Apparently archaeologist uncovered so much erotic art in the remains of the city that they were able to open a special museum focusing on the pornography of Pompeii. If we included that in the history books half the high schoolers would graduate wanting to become archaeologists. I would take this as fairly convincing evidence that the Pompeians did not expect the eruption to strike so quickly. If I thought I was about to be buried in place by a cloud of super-heated pumice, I would not want to be caught holding a dirty magazine.

Pompeii also provided an excellent opportunity for someone to try investigating an eruption far too closely. Legendary Roman scholar Pliny the Elder heard about the eruption and felt overcome by his own curiosity and compassion. As the first natural historian, Pliny decided to inspect the volcano more closely and lead a rescue mission to go right into the middle of the outburst. Apparently feeling no reason to fear the ongoing flare up, Pliny spent the night with a friend who lived near Vesuvius. He ate, bathed and slept as fire rained from the sky, and the mountain spewed ash, rocks, and lava all around. Pliny seems to have developed a sense for the danger he faced, as history records that he had the members of his rescue crew strap pillows to their heads to protect them from falling rock. Unsurprisingly, Pliny died during his ill-planned mission, seemingly from a combination of the volcano's deadly fumes and his own underlying asthma. History would remember Pliny as one of the great minds of his age, all available evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. (I can safely mock Pliny the Elder without having to worry about appearing insensitive or offending anyone, right? It's not too soon is it?)

Now before you go thinking volcanoes are all bad. I should let you know that we get all our diamonds from volcanoes. I know you think of diamonds coming from mines dug into the Earth's crust. In truth, diamonds form several hundred miles beneath the surface of the Earth. It takes volcanic eruptions to drag them to where we can reach them. This is why most rich diamond mines are usually near sites of volcanic activity. Before you start filling your head with get-rich-quick schemes, go reread the section on Pliny the Elder, then reconsider messing around with anything volcanic.

You might look down on the case of Pompeii as an example of the ignorant people of the ancient world suffering because they lacked sophisticated scientific knowledge. You should know that humans have shown the same propensity to ignore the warning signs of an imminent eruption in modern times. In 1902, the island of Martinique began experiencing some early symptoms of an impending eruption of the island's Mount Pelee. Unfortunately for the residents of Martinique the local governor was more concerned about politics than safety. With his party facing a major election soon, he didn't want the voters getting all anxious and hung up on some minor thing like an impending eruption. If they overreacted to hearing the news that their lives were in grave danger, they might take it out on their elected officials. So instead of evacuating the island the governor suppressed any warnings of the danger, prevented people from leaving and assured people that the city at the foot of Mt. Pelee, Saint-Pierre, was the safest place to be. This led to thousands of people crowding into St. Pierre in the hopes of protecting themselves. When the eruption came in killed more than 28,000 people, including the governor, in about two minutes. One of the few survivors was a prisoner who lived because he had been sealed in the underground holding cell awaiting execution. The prisoner would be pardoned and later travel with the Barnum & Bailey Circus, because any rube would gladly part with two-bits just to see irony of that magnitude.

The nation of Iceland has actually found a way to turn volcanoes to their benefit in an unusual way. Since this nigh-Arctic island rests on a volcanic hotbed as overactive as Philip the Hyper-Hypo, it has found all sorts of uses for geothermic energy. In surely the most unexpected example of this, Iceland uses the geothermal heat to grow bananas. Botanists build greenhouses around hot springs which when controlled can provide ideal conditions for cultivating the tropical fruit. For a time Iceland produced more bananas than any other European nation and even grew enough to begin exporting them. Iceland made so much money from the banana trade, that even Greenland has tried to get into the act. If proper volcano monitoring can allow two nations known for their frigid conditions to become major producers of tropical fruit, then maybe it does merit more attention.

In all of this I should note that at times people have gotten carried away when watching volcanoes. Once in 1976 some scientists became very concerned about the signals they observed from the volcano on the island of Guadalupe, La Grande Soufrière. (That's French for "big sulfur outlet". Wait, really? C'mon France I thought you were supposed to be more poetic than that.) While some scientists thought any volcanic eruption would do little damage and didn't warrant alarm others suggested evacuating Guadalupe for fear of a Martinique level disaster. Caution won out and thousands of people had to relocate, except for those few individuals who resigned themselves to whatever fate the volcano dispensed. Famed German filmmaker Werner Herzog became fascinated with the idea of an impending catastrophe and took a crew to document the desolated island and the terrible detonation whenever it occurred. In the end La Grande Soufrière barely erupted at all, the geothermal equivalent of a burp. After all that trouble and worry, the ultimate result was a host of inconvenienced people from Guadalope and a very weird documentary. So it just may be the case that some people do take their volcano monitoring too seriously. Then again, maybe we should all read that passage about Pliny the Elder again.

History with the Cap'n- Buffalo!

2009-02-26T22:56:00.004-05:00

Happy Buffalo Bill Day everybody!

I'm not entirely clear on when or how William F. Cody a.k.a "Buffalo Bill" climbed high enough up the pantheon of American heroes to merit his own day. Seemingly indifferent to my questions, someone somewhere has declared that Americans should spend February 26th remembering and celebrating the life and works of Buffalo Bill. Since the man headed a traveling frontier themed show -dubbed Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, in a fit of humility- that popularized the romantic idea of the Wild West, and permanently etched a place of Cowboys and Indians into our popular culture, I cannot begrudge the man a little memorialization. So I will use today's blog post as an opportunity to regale you with historical trivia related to Buffalo the man and Buffalo the animal (though not Buffalo the city in New York, because I feel they have enough problems without some snarky blog taking cheap shots at them).

Buffalo Bill got his start riding for the Pony Express. He answered an ad that read "WANTED young skinny wiry fellows . . .Must be expert riders willing to risk death daily. Orphans preferred."

Since the Pony Express didn't even last two years as a long distance communication enterprise (and I bet you thought it was a long running institution of the Old West), Cody had to land a new job. He found work hunting food for railroad construction crews. Thus he began hunting American buffaloes, since they were the most plentiful source of good food (re: meat) around. Thus the moniker.

Actually, I must note for accuracy that Buffalo Bill never had any real contact with buffalo, because there are no wild buffaloes native to North America. Cody hunted and killed bison. You can find buffalo in Africa and Asia, just not the American west. Some might explain this mislabeling of bison as an honest mistake of identification on the part of some early settler. After all they sort of have a similar appearance and some similar attributes. I don't really agree with that -do you even know what a proper buffalo looks like?- and I would equate that kind of error to mistaking an opossum for a koala.

In fairness to Buffalo Bill, he was very successful at hunting and killing bison. Historians estimate that he killed about 4,280 bison in about a year and a half. Hunters had a variety of methods they employed in hunting bison. In fact the hunters has so much success rate that the bison population in North America has fallen from an estimated 60 million when Europeans began settling her to now only 50,000 bison roaming free today. That's actually improvement from the nineteenth century when the bison were down to a few hundred.

My younger brother once told me that you can make a complete gramatically correct sentence using only the word "buffalo". As in "Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." Some have claimed this is the longest English language sentence you can create with just one word. I cannot be certain this is true, but I would love to watch people try to top it. (NOTE: The link does not lead to anything my younger brother wrote, just an article on the same topic.)

Buffalo Bill would later go into acting alongside another famous Bill of the Old West, Wild Bill Hickok.

The only natural predator of an adult bison, or buffalo if you prefer, is a wolf pack. Just to clarify, I am not talking about a pack of wolves taking on a herd of bison. I mean to say that it takes several wolfs at once to have any shot of killing an adult bison.

When Buffalo Bill died he was honored by heads of state and then not buried where he had specified in his will. His wife claimed that he had changed his wishes on his death bed. A dispute arose between his proposed burial site (a town he founded) and his actual burial site (a place with a nice view), over who had the more legitimate claim to serve as Cody's eternal resting place. The feud would go on to involve a bounty for grave robbing and it would be settled when the two towns exchanged smoke signals. To give you the proper context for that I should mention that they were proposing grave robbery in 1948, and exchanging smoke signals in 1968.

So in case you have any social events planned for today and want to demonstrate your affinity for all things buffalo, I have hopefully left you well prepared to perpetuate the legends of Buffalo Bill and the Wild West.

History with the Cap'n- The unpredictable Edison

2009-02-25T15:04:00.010-05:00

As I rummage around the annals of history, my mind will occasionally collect a few odd tidbits of trivia that might suddenly alter my perspective on someone or something. This is an important lesson for any historian to learn. What may seem to be only an interesting factoid alone, may really be a piece of a puzzle describing some weird and wonderful pattern hidden just under the surface. A historian must have the ability to notice these patterns amongst all the clutter of the historical record. I recently had a moment like this when a few details about the life of Thomas Edison stood out from the rest of my research.

Most historians agree that Edison had one of the most brilliant minds of the last 200 years. He had a naturally prolific gift for invention and tenacious work ethic that kept him at the forefront of science for decades. Yet when looking at the man's life putting his missteps besides his successes, I can't help but notice some intriguing contradictions in his work and his personality.

Edison became known for his constant tinkering, working to improve on his inventions even after he patented and released them. He famously tested thousands of possible filaments for his light bulb until finding one that satisfied him. Of course if Edison wanted to sell everyone light bulbs, he first had to build an electrical grid to power them. Edison crafted a system around direct current. When Edison's rival in the power business George Westinghouse put up his own electrical system run on the superior alternating current, Edison obstinately stuck to his original system. Rather than adapting to the new technology, Edison tried to put his competitor out of business. Granted Edison made some pretty inspired attempts to ruin Westinghouse's reputation. He publicized and marketed an electric chair that utilized alternating current, declaring that anyone exposed to AC would suffer instantaneous death.

Because Edison worried that the telephone was too expensive for the average person to buy, he wanted to create a way that everyone could use the service affordably. He proposed a network of telephone stations where people could go to drop off and pick up messages, sort of like telegrams. Of course to take advantage of the telephone's main feature -the ability to hear a live human voice from a great distance- Edison tried inventing a "telephone repeater". His device would allow people to record the sound of their voice and then play it back later. He also called it a phonograph. Since no one else was trying to create a "telephone repeater", Edison had the only patent on a sound recording device. He had incredible foresight and a unique creation, but he apparently never gave the idea of recording and distributing music a moment's thought. Edison had a reputation as a shrewd business man, yet it took years before he believed that the phonograph had a commercial future. Of course he was mostly deaf, so maybe he just didn't have any musical appreciation.

In a similar episode, Edison directed the creation of an early motion picture device. He released the kinetoscope which could capture and display brief movies, and from which most modern filmmaking technology descends. Yet he thought it would only appeal to small children, a toy that would provide visual accompaniment to his phonograph (by this time he had learned that people liked music). His assistant Laurie Dickson had to convince him that people would watch movies that told a story. Edison eventually conceded that people might like educational films, though he insisted that creating a film projection device would kill public interest in motion pictures. Once again, Edison had a genius for identifying gaps in existing technology and developing gadgets to fill those gaps, but no sense of what people would find most useful about his apparatuses.

In a truly unexpected twist, Edison never earned a cent from his most frequently used invention. This creation he did intend for wide spread use and people used it in exactly the way he predicted, as well as in several other contexts. Almost no one who uses it daily in modern times has any idea Edison invented it. In fact if you asked most people where it came from, they probably wouldn't even think that at some point someone had invented it. It has become so common place its existence is take for granted. Edison invented the word "hello". He proposed it as the word people should use when answering the phone. The man we know of a s the inventor of the telephone, Alexander Graham Bell used "Ahoy-hoy" (a nautical expression I personally use when answering the phone). True there were other similar words to "hello", but they all had different meanings and never would have fit into the context in which Edison used "hello". Edison actually tried his hand at creating other words too. Reportedly it was Edison who first called for a word to describe death by electricity - a term he undoubtedly would have applied to alternating current. Edison's suggestions included "ampermort" and "dynamort". An assistant would land a little closer to the mark with "electrocide".

When you survey all those strange stories of Thomas Edison's life, you cannot resist the urge to label him a strange person. Certainly, his mind worked in a unique and wonderful fashion. His thinking process and occasionally odd behavior have led some to theorize that he had some kind of mental disability or disorder. I don't think any of Edison's oddities amount to a mental defect. In fact I think Edison nicely demonstrates that no individual can truly be all things. Edison may have had one of the most inventive minds humanity has ever seen. Despite that he lacked the imagination to fully realize the potential of some of his inventions or the insight to know what people wanted out of their technology. To put it simply, just because someone is a genius doesn't mean they're always going to be all that bright.

History with the Cap'n- Supreme Beginnings

2009-02-24T23:09:00.003-05:00

For any American who complains about activist judges or courts that interpret the U.S. Constitution as a "living document", today marks a dark anniversary. On the other side of the coin, anyone who feels the judicial branch should have a prominent role in the checks and balances of the U.S. government, today give cause to celebrate. On February 24th, 1803 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the case of Marbury v. Madison, the first Supreme Court case important enough to merit inclusion in a high school textbook. With this opinion, the high court actually proved they had a role to play in the national government by using their power to screw around with another branch of government and create a complicated mess. And they haven't stopped since.

For a summary of the actual legal case you can follow this link. Though for our purposes you don't need to know much more than you read in your high school text book. The case involved a complaint by civil servant, Marbury, against the U.S. Secretary of State James Madison, for not granting Marbury the commission previous president John Adams had promised him. He went to the Supreme Court -which up to this point hadn't really done much worth talking about- because Congress had passed a law giving the Supreme Court the power to issue a special kind of court orders. The Supreme Court ruled that Marbury had a right to the commission, but the Supreme Court would not be issuing the order forcing Madison's hands. At which point I imagine Marbury said "Ummmm . . . Thanks?". Chief Justice, John Marshall made clear it was not simply to uphold the Court's tradition of being useless, but because the law that Congress passed establishing the special court orders was illegitimate. The Court's opinion states that under the rules of the U.S. Constitution Congress does not have the authority to create special powers for the Supreme Court. This was an amazing bit of legal maneuvering, especially when you consider that no one had ever declared a law unconstitutional before. Faced with a court case that demanded the Supreme Court act as a referee for an intra-governmental squabble, Marshall found a way to elevate the Court to the level of the other branches. Rather than let Court become caught up in political bickering, Marshall used this case to declare that the Supreme Court was above messing with this sort of nonsense, that the ultimate standard for what was right and legal was the Constitution, and that the Court was the only body empowered with say whether or not something met the Constitutional standard. If you are a legal scholar, this case represents the kind of legal judo move that you dream about.

Everyone can find a very entertaining collection of backstories connected to this case, especially for the man in the middle of it all Chief Justice John Marshall.

A lot of strange twists to this story arise from the fact that during the early years of the United States the federal government was composed of a pretty small collection of people. For instance, when John Marshall joined the Supreme Court, all the Justices lived in the same house by themselves (none of them brought their wives). Apparently they didn't have much to do except discuss the cases and drink heavily. I think this sound like the basis for a great reality TV series.

In one of those touches so ironic it has to be true, John Marshall likely had only himself to blame for creating this mess. Before he was Chief Justice John Marshall he was Secretary of State John Marshall. That means when John Adams ordered for Marbury to receive the commission it was supposed to be John Marshall's responsibility to issue it. However, Marshall was busy at the time, and when he was appointed by Adams to become Chief Justice he passed along the responsibility for Marbury's commission to his successor. We can only guess if he would have done anything differently had he known what was coming.

Marshall was the cousin of Thomas Jefferson, yet repeatedly found himself angering his blood relative. President Jefferson did not care for the Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison. Not only was his administration chastised in the Court's opinion for mistreating Marbury, who got the commission because he was a supporter of Jefferson's longtime rival John Adams, but Jefferson was also opposed to the federal courts gaining any power. With this case the Supreme Court put itself in a position of power strong enough to directly challenge the actions of the president himself. Jefferson held such a grudge about this decision that he would try to appoint Supreme Court Justices loyal to him to undermine Marshall. Yet Marshall was such a persuasive legal debater that the other Justices kept backing Marshall's arguments in the Court's rulings. Apparently the relationship between these cousins got so bad that Jefferson later declared he would never agree with any position Marshall took, even if he was just saying it was daytime.

It had been widely believed that the last time the Liberty Bell rang before it irreparably cracked was to mark the death of John Marshall, after he had become the longest serving Chief Justice in the history of the Supreme Court. However current historical scholarship suggests that it rang at least a few more times before it was cracked sounding a celebratory chime in honor of George Washington's birthday.

History with the Cap'n- Thinkin' bout Lincoln

2009-02-23T09:41:00.010-05:00

While I run a blog under the name Cap'n History, I haven't actually written much about historical topics or the study of history itself. Well that changes starting with this post.

This year in the United States, many historians, professional and amateur alike, have taken up the legacy of Abraham Lincoln. The topic has risen in the public conscience mostly because 2009 marks the Lincoln Bicentennial, and many have caught Honest Abe Fever (which sounds like a mild, but persistently annoying disease). I also attribute some of this phenomenon to the recent election of the second president from Illinois, and all the legacies that represents. Since we are still in the month of Lincoln's birth, I thought some genuflection on my part to our tallest president might be in order.

Recently, I have become fascinated with one of Lincoln's central justifications for engaging in the U.S. Civil War. He spoke and wrote often an passionately about the absolute necessity of preserving "The Union". He held that the Union did not exist merely as a corporate entity composed of sovereign states. He argued instead that the concept of the Union stood beyond questions of politics, border, or sovereignty as an eternal ideal. Further he regarded an attempt at secession as a direct affront to the Union ideal, as grave a sin as any American could perpetrate. It seems he believed in the Union so fiercely that he would use the pursuit of its preservation as a justification for any number of transgressions. Clearly he felt the Union's continuation warranted the largest war the United States had yet seen and a staggering amount of bloodshed. He even went so far as to claim that he would not care if none of the slaves went free so long as the Union prevailed. Yet it remains a little unclear exactly what Lincoln meant when he spoke of "The Union".

Lincoln must have had very powerful vision in his own mind of what "The Union" was when he thought of it. Yet he had a hard time communicating exactly what he envisioned to others. Famed historical essayist and author of a novel about Lincoln, Gore Vidal described Lincoln's thinking as "mystical", suggesting an ephemeral or esoteric element to Lincoln's thinking. From this point of view Lincoln could never properly explain his position because his thoughts lacked a substantive core that others could grasp. We even have a hard time tracing what inspired Lincoln's concept of the Union. Many American conservatives point out that Lincoln apparently ignored the principles of the founders in arguing for a Union that existed independent of the states' consent. Some have even accused him of taking a revolutionary position -such as in the comments seen here- and replacing the union describes by the Constitution with his own ideal of the Union. So that leaves modern historians trying to comprehend an ideal without origin and without accurate description. Lincoln's Union remains the unique product of a unique mind.

Though there is a hole in the historical record, I feel we have just enough hints from Lincoln's own words to try to estimate some of Lincoln's thoughts. In his First Inaugural Address he claimed that the founders had designed the Union to exist perpetually regardless of the shifting relation between states. He held that since all states had entered into the Union together by ratifying the Constitution no one state, nor any group of states could leave it unilaterally. Taken along with later statements this attitude places the Union on the level of a sacred bond or covenant, a promise made to and overseen by a higher authority. In his famous Gettysburg Address, Lincoln would push the beginnings of the Union back beyond the Constitution, dating the origin of the Union to 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. To some degree he paints the Union as an ideal that will exist until the end of time and had existed since the beginning of time just waiting for the United States to arise and claim it. Also he connects the ideals of the nation to the concept of the Union itself. Lincoln was the first prominent U.S. politician to hold the concept of the Union as equivalent to a core American value.

I believe Lincoln, possessed of a unique minds and a unique perspective, sensed just how unique a nation the Unites State actually is. He knew that other nations had a clear reason for existing. The citizens shared a common ethnicity, or culture, or were all subjects of the same throne, or simply had occupied a particular piece of territory for as long as anyone could tell. The U.S. had none of those things. We were the only nation that tried to frame its sovereignty and right to existence on a thesis of political philosophy. Lincoln knew this. He realized that all of the authority the nation had to claim territory, pass laws, and even wage wars derived not from divine right, but from the social contract all citizens agreed to -if only implicitly- to belong to the Union. Once citizens abandoned the Union, the power of the Union diminished. Essentially if any state successfully seceded from the Union, the entire Union's authority and right to exist would be permanently undermined. My impression would be that Lincoln held "The Union" as sort of a Platonic ideal for the nation. It was both the primordial source of its power and the standard by which it was judged. For Lincoln the Union apparently stood for everything the nation had been and would be, and if any part of it were lost then the United States as the world knew it would never truly exist again. That could have been what drove Lincoln to do the unthinkable, to war against his fellow Americans. He had to uphold a sacred bond he had entered into -if only implicitly- to preserve the nation and its values for all of his fellow citizens and all of those who would come after.

Rolling out the Red Carpet- Completing your Oscar Ballot

2009-02-20T18:48:00.024-05:00

Let anyone who reads this blog know, The Cap'n is nothing if not helpful. I want those silly few who read this blog to gave the chance to reap some kind of benefit from it. Since, Oscar-watching is one of the few topic I can routinely focus on and have any form of expertise in I thought I should provide you with the best prediction advise about the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences I could muster to help you win your Oscar pools. Earlier this month, The Cap'n gave you a complete breakdown of the major categories with detailed explanations about who was favored and who could pull an upset in each one. In this entry I will provide you with information to help you predict the rest of the categories.

Often called the minor categories or the technical awards these prizes go to the people who actually do the bulk of the movie making. The nominees in these categories may not be as visible or tabloid-worthy as the actors. They may not be as identifiable and self-aggrandizing as the writers and directors. If they do their jobs well we never even think about them, but when the screw up the film is irreparably damaged. (Personally I felt Get Smart was ruined by awful lighting. And I seriously mean that.) So I feel that they deserved at least a fraction of the attention of the major categories.

If you want to use these predictions to help fill out your ballot at this Sunday's Oscar party, I suggest you go with the favorites (taken from the consensus of expert opinions available here) unless you have a special reason why you might suspect an upset. Since my previous entry on the Academy Awards took about 8,000 words, and we have about twice as many categories to get through in this round, I will try to address these categories in a more rapid fire manner. So get your pen and paper ready, because here we go . . .

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Current Favorite: Andrew Stanton for WALL-E- This is one of the easier picks, as WALL-E is the only nominee to receive support in other categories as well a sure sign that lots of voting members of the Academy loved this movie.

Tremendous Upset Potential: John Stevenson and Mark Osborne for Kung Fu Panda- There is almost no chance that WALL-E doesn't win this award, but if for some crazy reason the voters choose to pick another nominee they will likely pick the more financially successful Panda over Bolt.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FEATURE FILM
Current Favorite: Ari Folman (Israel) for Waltz with Bashir- This animated feature focusing on some of the attrocities of the Lebanese Civil War and Israel's precarious relations with its neighbors stands out as one of the most original pictures of the year. Critics love it and it has garnered many notable awards already.

Tremendous Upset Potential: Laurent Cantet (France) for The Class- If you fear that the animated movie that's also a pseudo-documentary about violence in the Middle East might be a little too esoteric for the voters, then you might want to consider The Class as an alternative pick. The French film is full of things the Academy traditionally loves, such as social commentary, powerful acting, and actual human people in live action. The Academy can be a conservative group at times, so it might be prudent to select the more traditional option in your prediction pool.

BEST ART DIRECTION
Current Favorite: Donald Graham Burt and Victor J. Zolfo for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button- Movies like Benjamin Button tend to have a heavy advantage in the "technical awards", because they cover such a wide scope of material. Films like this give the filmmakers a chance to show off how well they can create a variety of time periods and settings on the screen. The story of Button spans several decades, multiple nations, and visits such visually captivating cities as New Orleans and Paris. The voters eat up that sort of stuff with a spork.

Tremendous Upset Potential: Nathan Crowley and Peter Lando for The Dark Knight- Sometimes AMPAS likes to reward films that create their own world like Sleepy Hollow, Moulin Rouge, or Pan's Labyrinth. Even if the members aren't in love with super-hero movies in the major award the do like their visual splendor enough to give them the occasional craft award. Almost everyone has praised Dark Knight for the originality and grandeur of its vision. A lot of that grandeur comes from the successful forging of Gotham City into a believable and realistic metropolis (no not the Metropolis where Superman lives). Also Mr. Crowley has previously been nominated while folks from the Button team are Oscar newbies, sometimes having a pre-existing group of supporters can help tilt the voters away from a frontrunner.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Current Favorite: Anthony Dod Mantle for Slumdog Millionaire- The prize for the best director of photography usually goes to the DoP who draws the most attention to his work. In Slumdog you can't ignore the bright visuals or daring shot selection that gives that film its visual edge. Also this trophy often comes along with the winner of Best Picture or Best Director. Since, Slumdog is the favorite to win each of those major awards, you have to expect that the members respect the film enough to reward the person responsible for its distinctive look.

Tremendous Upset Potential: Wally Pfister for The Dark Knight- When it comes to creating eye-catching shots few this year could come close to the people who made Dark Knight. The film has numerous visual moments and sequences that had people buzzing ever since this summer. The Academy may see fit to acknowledge the person who made to fantastic images a reality. There is certainly a lot of love for The Dark Knight considering its numerous nominations, and this is one of the categories where the members might feel compelled to give it at least one trophy as a token of appreciation. Another advantage Pfister has over most of the other nominees is past nominations. The hive mind of AMPAS may decide that this is his year and leap frog him over first timer Mantle.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Current Favorite: Michael O'Connor for The Duchess- You can't do much more to appease the voters in this category than to put on a lavish period film and let your costumers dress up a star as widely ogled as Keira Knightley. As far as most members are concerned this award exists to reward people for putting beautiful actresses in elaborate outfits.

Tremendous Upset Potential: Jacqueline West for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button- Working on a movie like Benjamin Button allows the costumer to create a wide variety of different looks. The actors have to be dressed to reflect changing fashions over the extensive course of the story. You can reflect styles befitting everything from scrappy sailors, to elegant ballerinas, to freaked out beatniks. The voters may feel so overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of costumes that went into making Button that they'll feel forced to hand its fashion crew the trophy.

BEST MAKEUP
Current Favorite: Greg Cannom for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button- AMPAS has to reward the makeup department for this film. The whole reason Benjamin Button was made was to try and pull off the audacious makeup feat of aging a person in reverse. On top of that Cannom also had to do makeup on the characters befitting changing fashions. On top of that he managed to transform Cate Blanchett into an old woman so convincingly, the star was practically unrecognizable under all that goop. Most importantly of all though Cannom is one of the most respected makeup men in the business and after multiple previous nominations and past wins in this category he has a lot of long standing support among the voters.

Tremendous Upset Potential: John Caglione, Jr. and Conor O'Sullivan for The Dark Knight- While the makeup done creating the character of Benjamin Button may have been the grandest makeup work this year, the re-imagining of classic characters like the Joker and Two-Face, principally though makeup, may have been the most iconic. Both of the makeup men for Dark Knight have their own history with the Academy, so that could give them a foothold against the tide for Cannom. Also, given the luke warm response Button has received from many, I could easily imagine the voters turning against it, especially in the category where it should have been the most impressive.

BEST FILM EDITING
Current Favorite: Chris Dickens for Slumdog Millionaire- I know it will sound really weird to say this, and only absolute cinema nuts like me will have an opinion on the topic, but I thought this was a really great year in film editing. I don't know how to properly convey my sincerity about that through a blog, other than to say that I would be happy if any of these films won. All of them did a wonderful job of pacing the film, blending diverging elements, and keeping the shots coming at you in a engaging but organized manner. Dickens has to be considered the favorite since he's riding on the Slumdog coattails. Sometimes predicting the craft categories only requires you to find the film that has drawn lots of AMPAS love and bet on a sweep.

Tremendous Upset Potential: Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button- A corollary to betting on a sweep kicks in when you watch for an upset. When one film seems destined to win a ton of awards like Slumdog has been, but another film has gobbled up more nominations like Benjamin Button did you can usually expect the top-nom getter to break the grip of the awards darling in at least a few places. Given the way Button's editing kept an epic story moving along briskly -while containing several weird elements, like the backwards moving sequence, and the alternate time lines in Paris- I say it has the best chance of taking home the trophy of any of the other nominees in this category.

BEST SCORE
Current Favorite: A.R. Rahman for Slumdog Millionaire- If you want an easy way to tell which score will attract the voters, find the score that has the most unique sound. The Academy can't always distinguish between two scores that have well-done but traditional music. If a score has some kind of exotic musical flavors mixed in or uses an unusual set of instruments, then you know that will catch the ears of the members. They'll adore the combination of traditional Indian music and modern dance/hip-hop styles Rahman uses in the score. That's the sort of thing the Academy can label as bold or innovative and the feel proud of themselves for giving it an award.

Tremendous Upset Potential: Thomas Newman for WALL-E- Only one film has had as much success giving members of the Academy the warm and fuzzies as Slumdog, WALL-E. Newman may get the hat tip here for having to carry a lot of the emotional wait of the film that has very little proper dialogue in it. Also, Newman has had numerous nominations in the past, yet still hasn't taken home a trophy. If the voters feel Slumdog will receive enough love from other quarters, watch out for them to reward Newman because he's due.

BEST SONG
Current Favorite: "Jai Ho" by A.R. Rahman and Gulzar from Slumdog Millionaire- With two of the three nominees for Best Original Song this year, the songwriters from Slumdog seem to have the odds heavily in their favor to win. The fimmakers have decided to put all their backing behind just one song likely giving it a the support of fans of both songs. Indeed it seems as though most pundits expect the final musical number from Slumdog to win. (What you didn't know it closed on a big musical number? Don't you know anything about India cinema.)

Tremendous Upset Potential: "Down to Earth"byPeter Gabriel and Thomas Newman from WALL-E- In this category I really feel very strongly that the common wisdom has it wrong. The Academy may be the elites of Hollywood, but that doesn't mean their immune from brown-nosing celebrities from outside of the industry. This sycophantic side of AMPAS usually arises in the voters giving the songwriting award to the biggest music star that snags nomination. For Pete's sake Eminem has an Oscar because of this. Also the Academy has shown a strong tendency to associate the Best Original Song prize with animated films. Disney has a whole bunch of them for just this reason. If you think Slumdog is in for anything less than a total sweep of all the categories in which it has nominees, than you should definitely pick this as the one category where it will lose. The members all probably love Peter Gabriel and own lots of his albums. Because my guiding principle is that the members give trophies to the people they wish they could hang out with, I seriously believe Gabriel has good odds to win this award.

BEST SOUND EDITING
Current Favorite: Richard King for The Dark Knight- In recent years the sound awards have basically become consolation prizes for the summer blockbuster movies that are technically accomplished. Clearly Dark Knight best matches that criteria among these nominees. It was a film with a lot of big visuals and a big time audio experience to match.

Tremendous Upset Potential: Ben Burtt and Matthew Wood for WALL-E- The sound wizards behind WALL-E also worked on box office success, and they had to make a lot of characterization happen through only the sound effects. This actually might be a close call.

BEST SOUND MIXING
Current Favorite: Lora Hirschberg, Gary Rizzo and Ed Novick for The Dark Knight- Y'know what I don't know why these are seperate categories. Just copy everything I said above down here.

Tremendous Upset Potential: Tom Myers, Michael Semanick and Ben Burtt for WALL-E- And dittos again (jeez, I sound like a Limbaugh listener).

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Current Favorite: Eric Barba, Steve Preeg, Burt Dalton and Craig Barron for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button- With a film like Button, where the film primarily exists to accomplish a certain task the voters can have a hard time separating which elements of the film to credit for the central gimmick. In the case of Button, the praise ranged from the director, to the makeup, to Brad Pitt as an actor, and to the visual effects team. For as much as the makeup carried the scenes where Benjamin was played by Pitt, the visual effects carried the earlier scenes where child actors where made to look decrepit and Pitt's face was superimposed onto Benjamin's shriveled body. Just as the Academy would have to give Button an award for makeup if nothing else, they may feel compelled to reward the FX if only because they have almost as large a role in the picture. To whatever degree the film overall worked you have to acknowledge that the visual effects played a crucial role.

Tremendous Upset Potential: Nick Davis, Chris Corbould, Tim Webber and Paul Franklin for The Dark Knight- The visual effects category has traditionally served as only Oscar big action movies could hope to win. With two superhero movie vying to upend Button, bet on the voters leaning toward the film with the more sweeping vision and bigger box office. When the Academy deems fit to honor films made primarily for commercial reasons, they want the trophy to go for a film that did really well commercially. Also the wide-spread support Dark Knight has received for its visual wonders may find an outlet in this category where the voters won't feel as obliged to honor the more artistic craftsmen of other films.

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
Current Favorite: James Marsh and Simon Chinn for Man on Wire- One of the sad secrets of AMPAS always comes to the surface when they hand out the documentary awards. Truthfully, Academy members watch documentaries about as often as the average movie goer, which is to say hardly ever. You can usually pick the leader in the feature length documentary feature by think of the only documentary you've heard of this year. Man on Wire has had all the buzz. Critics gobbled it up. The filmmakers even got their subject, a famous high wire artist, out on the TV chat show circuit. Count on most of the voters just checking the box next to the one title they know

Tremendous Upset Potential: Werner Herzog and Henry Kaiser for Encounters at the End of the World- The only other documentary to receive much mainstream attention stand the best chance of pulling the upset. The film has gets neat concept and a lot of stunning visuals out of taking cameras to the Antarctic and recorded the diversity of life human and otherwise that survives in the extreme condition way down south. Also Herzog has long stood as one of the most respected and daring filmmakers around the world for decades, yet this is his first Oscar nomination. The voters may take this chance to recruit him into their elite circle, so they can brag about how they always honor the great filmmakers in some way.

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT
Current Favorite: Adam Pertofsky and Margaret Hyde for The Witness- From the Balcony of Room 306- Now we've delved into the territory where even the Cap'n and the pundits don't have a clear opinion on the categories. Since almost no one who doesn't get the Academy's special screening DVD's ever sees the nominated short films, we have only a vague sense of what might strike a chord with the voters. Members of the Academy like rewarding documentaries that address very serious social issues. With a focus on the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., this film may strike what few members actually cast a vote in this category as the kind of meaningful film approriate for the Year of Obama.

Tremendous Upset Potential: Steven Okazaki for The Conscience of Nhem En- While the history of racial politics in the United States certainly carries a lot of wait with the voters, they also tend to find themselves drawn to films about genocide (see also all of the nominations for The Reader). The story of a servant of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia sounds like the kind of tale that could really grab the members attention. Also the filmmaker has a history of earning Oscar nominations and wins, so he may have an advantage in playing to the Academy's preferences.

BEST SHORT FILM (ANIMATED)
Current Favorite: Doug Sweetland for Presto- Pixar has traditionally placed an animated short before each of their big time animated features. Since the features usually turn into big hits, that typically means most people only ever see their animated shorts -let alone admire another enough to grant it a prestigious award. So the Pixar short this year, Presto, automatically finds itself the heavy favorite.

Tremendous Upset Potential: Emud Mokhberi and Thierry Marchand for Oktapodi- The other animated shorts all seem to have some notable merit that would suggest an ability to sneak into a win. However Oktapodi stands alone as short for which I have heard a little positive buzz. While that may not give it enough ammunition to take on the Pixar powerhouse, it may give it the opening it needs to rise as the rebelious choice, if any anti-Pixar backlash forms among the voters.

BEST SHORT FILM (LIVE ACTION)
Current Favorite: Jochen Alexander Freydank for Spielzeugland (Toyland)- The short films from foreign countries usually seem to have a high success rate. I think that's mostly because they still treat short films seriously in other countries. Plus Toyland deals with the Holocaust. When in doubt count on the Academy to pick the film with most serious topic.

Tremendous Upset Potential: Steph Green and Tamara Anghie for The New Boy- If the voters want a film with a serious topic but feel a little worn out with the Holocaust as a topic, they may select New Boy. It deals with racial tensions in the microcosm of a classroom. With racial politics playing such a huge role in the U.S. over the last year-plus, the members may find this film especially timely and poignant.

Well that should cover all the categories (Wait, did I talk about art direction? Better go back and check . . .), again if you take all of the favorites in the categories for your prediction you should have a pretty good night. Best of luck to everyone in their Oscar pools. Let's all hope for an entertaining ceremony on Sunday. I always look forward to Oscar night so much that its almost like a holiday for me. Since I've written about 14 typed pages of material about it this year alone, you can tell I have some kind of strong feelings about it. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

Rolling out the Red Carpet- The Cap'n shares his early thoughts on the Oscars

2009-02-06T17:49:00.015-05:00

Conventional wisdom and routine observation of human behaviour tells us that no social grouping, however small and elite, can exist that will not develop internally a sub-group that promotes a select few group members into a position of prominence over their peers. (Many can speculate on the exact cause of this phenomenon. I can only conclude that the pleasures of exclusion don't diminish with repetition.) We could all tell who the cool kids in school were.

This tendency arises even amongst the supposedly elite members of the other-worldly culture of the Hollywood film industry. Naturally Hollywood's select few do stand out from other social elites in one important aspect: their sub-group has a name and an awards show. In the end the Academy Awards and all Oscar-related madness reduces down to the cool kids giving out invitations to their big party. As much as cineastes like myself would love to see the Oscars truly becoming a ceremony for rewarding artistic achievement in film, we have to settle for the Oscars as they are. Certainly, the ceremony showcases the greatness in movie making. Usually though the awards go to those who have made mainstream films well-enough that the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences want to be associated with them. Again think about the popular girl in school taking a sudden interest in the rising star of the basketball team. So in the end the Academy Awards tell us less about the honored films and more about the people handing out the accolades. Every golden trophy handed out helps define what kind of films the elites wish they were making, usually a combination of artistic accomplishment and commercial success. Imagine a room full of Hollywood elites socializing, what individuals and movies will they brag about having a hand in? Those are the people and pictures that walk away winners. One should never attempt to predict the Oscars without this rule at the front of their mind.

I tell you all this, because I am about to offer my own predictions about for the 81st Annual Academy Awards, and I have to earn your trust somehow. Now that all the ballots are out and most of the less famous award shows have had their say, Oscar fans now have a pretty firm grasp on which of the nominees have the best chance to claim a little golden man. While you can find many other websites with far more credibility, such as the savvy Carpetbagger, the beloved Gold Derby, or the vital Awards Daily. If you want to get the best guess by common consensus, you can even utilize charts that combine the opinions of many respected Oscar-watchers. However, I cannot guarantee that all of those prognosticators utilized my essential rule for Oscar-prediction that I outlined above. If you want the kind of prediction that treats a collection of about 6,000 of the most powerful and successful individuals in show business like they're a snooty high school clique, then you have to come to the Cap'n.

For your benefit I have written a preview of the 8 "major" categories (that is to say, the 8 categories that cover things the hoi polloi understand and have an opinion about)- Best Picture, Best Director, the 4 acting awards, and the screenplay awards. For each category I'll share the nominee generally considered favored to win -with an explanation as to why- and my own pick for a nominee that could potentially pull the upset. This is the Hollywood after all, where "No one knows anything," so you should always keep an eye out for something surprising.

BEST PICTURE
Current Favorite: Slumdog Millionaire- In some years the race of the top prize becomes a hotly contested race between several candidates of equal merits but diverging philosophies, pitting Academy members against each other in contests that sometimes help to define the very soul of cinema itself. This is not such a year. Slumdog has been gobbling up the awards this year, and seems to be on cruise control heading for a Best Picture win. This may be the easiest route a film has ever taken to winning Hollywood's most coveted prize. It seems that all you really need to do to make the Academy swoon is make a movie about poverty, love, and game shows, set in India. Oddly this may actually be the most traditional movie among the nominees (local boy does good, get girl, gets rich, puts on lavish musical number), which may explain why the voters are responding to it so strongly.

Tremendous Upset Potential: Milk- This movie may not seem like the sort of picture old-time industry insiders would want to embrace. Especially in light of the previous failure of Brokeback Mountain, another film featuring homosexual characters, to capture Best Picture. However underneath the surface it could resonate with the sort of themes voters want to see in a film. It concerns the struggle of a community activist who rises to a political position no one else in his minority group had ever attained. So it has a certain topical relevance. Plus it is more of an "actors' picture" where the actors' and their performances are the focus more than special effects wizardry or stylistically daring filmmaking techniques. That proved to be an advantage in the past for previous best pictures like Crash. Also Milk was an American film, about American characters, made by American filmmakers, starring American actors pumping more lifeblood into the tottering American film industry. In contrast, Slumdog was based on an Indian's novel, made by Brits, and filmed in India, whose native movie industry may be Hollywood's closest competitor on the global film market. The Academy might not be so keen on outsourcing Oscars to India too.

BEST DIRECTOR
Current Favorite: Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire- In much the same way that sports players who win Most Valuable Player awards tend to come from teams vying for the championship, the winners of Best Director tend to have directed the winner of Best Picture. While you and I can certainly imagine instances where a stellar athlete may be stuck on a weak team or an outstanding director being let down by other members of the production, the voters in AMPAS haven't seen it that way very often. They have rarely honored a film that was not directed by a nominee, and even less frequently have they honored a director that didn't helm a nominated film. Therefore you can safely assume that as goes Slumdog's Oscar glory so goes Danny Boyle's. As things stand right now that looks good for Mr. Boyle.

Tremendous Upset Potential: David Fincher for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button- True not all the critics have fallen in love with the film, and some in the audience may find it excessively long. In spite of all that Fincher has received nearly unanimous praise for the picture's polished look and technical splendor. Simply overseeing the movie's central conceit -a person "aging" from young to old- required a talented and experienced filmmaker like Fincher. The Academy members could feel that a craftsman like Fincher who turns a concept that by rights shouldn't fill more than a few pages and spins it into a feature length film that actually turns a profit. After a couple of years of nominating films with little box office success, the voters may wish to reward a filmmaker with proven commercial success to go with his artistic accomplishments.

BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
Current Favorite: Sean Penn for Milk/ Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler- Yes, it seems like a cheat to claim the race has two leaders. However these two actors really seem to be neck and neck coming into the home stretch. They have each won some of the less famous awards. They each have a strong reason why the voters should like them. The usually gruff and terse Penn embodies Harvey Milk's passion and gives him an effulgent effeminacy that, while not historically accurate, does endear him to the audience. Rourke takes on a role that comes a little close to autobiography as a beat up old soul trying to reclaim past fame and glory. You could even reinterpret the previous17 years of his life were like a massive exercise in method acting. Of course the Academy could also have some compelling (at least to them) reasons not to honor each of them. Penn won Best Actor not long ago, and the people at AMPAS like to spread the wealth and dole out multiple awards to the same person over the course of their career (Tatum O'Neal is due to get her second any year now). On the other hand the members usually like to reward fellow Hollywood insiders, and some like Rourke -who spent a long time away from or on the fringes of show business- may seem to strange and different for them. Any Oscar maven would have little confidence in predicting which of these two men stands the best chance to win at this moment. So I will list them both as favorites. It wouldn't be sporting of me to claim one as the favorite then claim the other as my upset pick. Instead I have a real dark horse candidate for you. . .

Tremendous Upset Potential: Frank Langella for Frost/Nixon- When the reviews came in for Frost/Nixon everyone seemed to be in awe of Langella's portrayal of a post-presidency Richard Nixon. Langella struck an amazing balance between resurrecting the popular image of Nixon we all remember -sweaty, manipulative, hungry for glory- and the more grounded character of history -cunning, charming, multifaceted. He also accomplished an impressive acting feat by translating a theatrical performance rightly acclaimed for its larger-than-life grandeur on the stage into a cinematic performance that captures wonderful subtlety and nuance on screen. While he hasn't garnered the buzz of the two leading nominees, Frankie boy seems to have widespread respect, especially among his fellow thespians. Remember the actors cast a large percentage of the ballots for the Oscars, and their respect can go a long way towards tilting the scales. Langella may yet join the exclusive club of actors to win both a Tony Award and an Academy Award for the same role.

BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Current Favorite: Kate Winslet for The Reader- You may have that critics were unimpressed with The Reader. You may have heard surprise that The Reader was even nominated for Best Picture. You may have even seen some of the backlash against the film on Internet. I want you to know that one of the most important lessons you can learn for predicting the Oscars is to ignore all of that. Ms. Winslet has something on her side that trumps all of that this year. She's due. The Academy clearly has a deep affection for her. She's only 33 and she's been nominated 6 times already. Yet, despite all the love and praise she still hasn't won once. As I've said before the voters like to spread the wealth around, so sometimes deserving individuals have to wait for "their turn". After all becoming an "ACADEMY AWARD WINNER" (imagine that's being read by the voice-over guy who does all the movie trailers) puts you in a pretty exclusive club, so AMPAS can be stingy when it comes to handing out those little golden dudes. The general consensus seems to be that Kate will finally be welcomed into the cool kids' circle this year. That means no matter what anyone else thinks about any other aspect of The Reader, you should still consider Winslet a near lock.

Tremendous Upset Potential: Meryl Streep for Doubt- Many people may find the idea of Meryl Streep being an underdog in any race of an acting award quite strange. After all, she's already won two Oscars. She seems to be nominated every year. Plus, if you were alive in the 1980's you remember when she was every critic's favorite actress. Yet it has been 25 years now since she last won an Academy Award. A lot of the Academy members respect that kind of consistent achievement without any encouragement from the Academy, maybe enough to reward a more veteran actress who they see as a peer. If enough voters have soured on The Reader and/or start to feel contrarian about the whole "It's Kate's year"-thing, then Streep seems to have the strongest credentials of any of the other nominees. The critics lauded her work in Doubt (as always). Her performance has garnered some trophies already. The film has more support from AMPAS than any of the films in which her competitors starred. If none of that helps, she could still get a boost because she has a lot of friends casting ballots. Never forget the old Hollywood adage "It's all about who you know."

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Current Favorite: Penelope Cruz for Vicky Cristina Barcelona- When utilizing my "AMPAS is the Cool Kids in school" principle, you have to incorporate a few other rules as corollaries. A very relevant rule arises when predicting awards for actresses. Male members of the academy will overwhelmingly vote in favor of an actress they want to sleep with. They seem to assume that by granting a beautiful woman entrance into the circle of Oscar winners, they will have more opportunities to socialize with her. If they meet her at a party after the ceremony, and mention they voted for her, they logically conclude that she will be so flattered by this kind gesture that she will immediately engage them in various intimate acts. So when a woman like Penelope Cruz, universally considered one of the most slobber-inducing beauties on the planet, earns a nomination, even if only for a film with less than stellar reviews and modest box office figures, you should consider her the front-runner by a large margin. When you understand this rule, the victories of certain actress, once considered unbelievable upsets, become almost obvious. Never underestimate what a group of powerful men will do for the company of a good looking woman.

Tremendous Upset Potential: Viola Davis for Doubt- Naturally any hive-mind as large as AMPAS will be driven by a variety of competing urges, of which the desire to cuddle with the new hotness is only one. Occasionally the Academy will also pursue more political agendas, such as righting our nation's cultural wrongs. Unfortunately for the fine people at AMPAS they tend to be a little slow to join a cause. By giving a Best Picture Oscar to In the Heat of the Night, they managed to proclaim their support for the civil rights movement just after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. After hearing complaints for decades that the Academy hadn't recognized enough minorities, they have recently taken more opportunities to share the love with African-American nominees. An elite clique like AMPAS doesn't survive this long without learning how to adapt, and when to freshen their membership with new blood. This category represents this year's only chance to give a major award to someone of non-European descent. Between Ms. Davis and Taraji P. Henson, Viola has the more talked about performance. Also Doubt has five nominations all in major categories. The voters clearly liked this film a lot, and might give the golden man to Viola as a way of honoring the film as a whole. None of this should be misconstrued to imply Ms. Davis doesn't deserve an Oscar, but, as you are beginning to learn, the Academy doesn't real base these things on merit.

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Current Favorite: Heath Ledger for The Dark Knight- Rarely does any canny and experienced Oscar-watcher call anything a sure thing. So it seems strange to me, that amongst all the Oscar chatter this year the pundits appear certain that Heath Ledger has a lock on the prize for Best Supporting Actor. Somehow, I find the assured nature of these predictions perplexing. To be sure, I loved his performance, and believe it warrants mention among the greatest examples of acting in film history. With that said though, you must realize that the Academy would break with a lot of traditions to honor Heath with this award. First the Supporting Actor trophy has had a bit of a legacy as a veteran's award, an honor reserved for those who have risen through the Hollywood system and after several years proven their worth. Young stars aren't usually rewarded with a big prize, especially if the voters don't feel they've seen the actor achieve his maximum potential yet. Much of the buzz for Ledger stems from the tragedy of his early death, and a sense that this gifted young thespian had a very promising career cut short. Yet, in the past outstanding talents have received posthumous nominations (albeit rarely) and very, very few of them have won. In fact only once has an acting prize gone to a non-living actor. The case of James Dean seems to bear the closest resemblance to the situation surrounding Ledger. He was also a promising young start who died young and was nominated after his death. He lost. Twice. On top of all that Heath had the misfortune of leaving his last, best performance in a super-hero movie. The academy likes genre pictures, like super-hero flicks, for awards like Best Sound Editing and Best Visual Effects, but they have resisted giving acting awards to these broad entertainments. Widely respected actors like Sirs Alec Guinness and Ian McKellen have both received nominations for their work in genre pictures, and both been denied. I still say that every indicator shows Heath Ledger winning this award. I just can't help but feel as if there's more room for an upset here than most pundits let on.

Tremendous Upset Potential: Josh Brolin for Milk- If you replaced Heath Ledger with any other actor in this year's list of nominees, then Josh Brolin would have, I believe the strongest case of any actor in this category. He has become a hot property in Hollywood lately, so the cool kids of AMPAS might see him as a rising star they should recruit into their clique. Like Gwyneth Paltrow before him, Brolin may "inherit" a spot among the Hollywood elite as the child of a major Hollywood family. In classic AMPAS fashion, this could be a "'make-up" award where the Academy gives him this year's prize after being snubbed last year. More importantly though Brolin belongs to a well supported film, apparently more liked by the voters than any of his competitor's films. In most years this type of resume would mean Brolin would be favored to win the award. It's just his bad luck that Heath Ledger appears to have become an award winning juggernaut this year.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Current Favorite: Simon Beaufoy for Slumdog Millionaire- If you try applying my "AMPAS = cool kids at high school" rule to the screenplay awards, you may have a hard time figuring out what to do. After all it's not like anyone wants to hang out with the writers anyways. To guide my judgement in these matters I adopt a principle that holds that the Academy rewards the screenplays that represent their perferred style of picture. Note in the Adapted Screenplay category that rarely means the script with the most original premise or cleverest dialouge. Usually the voters want a story with an epic scope and lots of juicy scenes for actors (remember the actors have the plurality in the membership). Also, you should notice the recent high correlation between Best Adapted Screenplay winners and Best Picture winners. The members have basically adopted the position that the only way to tell a good screenplay is if it leads to a Best Picture caliber film. For these reasons you should assume that Slumdog Millionaire will likely take the trophy. The film has a lot of merits that should appeal to voters. It takes a little known novel and spins it into an engaging story. The tale spans the pretty much all of the characters' young lives. Plus it twists and turns the plot in interesting ways. Simon Beaufoy appears to have a Midas touch in this case. Taking a story few in Hollywood would dare turn into a film, and crafting the basis for a successful and popular movie.

Tremendous Upset Potential: Eric Roth for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button- Of course the voters may feel that Eric Roth's screenplay better fits their preferences. After all it takes an eccentric short story from a bygone era with limited movie potential and expands into into an epic of Forrest Gump level proportions. It provides the kind of gristle actors love to chew up. It inspired a whole slew of technical accomplishments that garnered the film more nominations than any other movie this year. Unlike Slumdog, which has to take place in India, Button is set in principally in New Orleans which gives a boost to American filmmakers. If you don't believe the voters love Slumdog enough to give it all the major awards, than you should keep in mind that the script for Button shares more in common with previous winners than Slumdog. The Academy members have a proven habit of liking what they already know in movies and in stories.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Current Favorite: Dustin Lance Black for Milk- Once again the best bet for the screenplay award is the script belong to a perceived Best Picture contender. Much like their adapted cousins the scripts that win Best Original Screenplay tend to come with a large vision and a big stage for their actors. Milk offers up the kind of material most leading men dream of playing (unless they've got some deep seated problem with gay people) by showing Harvey Milk as everything from a latter-day hippie, to an effeminate dandy, to a cunning politician. The pciture makes great use of tying the characters' development to historical events we remember. Also, AMPAS has previously rewarded screenplays that bring a new perspective to the lives of well-known historical figures. Even if you worry that the voters may feel too uncomfortable with Milk's homosexual content to give it Best Picture, remember that they have deigned to award screenplay prizes to similarly-themed films before.

Tremendous Upset Potential: Andrew Stanton and Jim Reardon for WALL-E- Though the Academy's choice for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Picture have recently overlapped, the Original Screenplay award has actually gone to scripts that feature originality. The Oscar's for writing seem to be one of the few places the voters will reward works of inspired cinema. In this case the members may go for an animated feature that elevated the medium to new heights. In fact the critical praise and popular support for WALL-E was so strong, that many expected it to snag a nomination for Best Picture. While it may not win the big prize, it may still strike a blow for animated features by taking a trophy for writing. The voters may feel enough affection for the endearing tale of a robot in love that it could grant it a prize beyond the Best Animated Feature category. The film also breathes new life into the art of wordless-comedy, a big plus for Hollywood elites trying to export more movies around the globe. In the end though the best reason to pick WALL-E for the upset win is because it is the only nominee other than Milk to draw wide spread support from the Academy. When a film has multiple nominations the voters usually like to give it at least one or two.

That completes my coverage of the major awards. If you want to know who to pick in your Oscar pool, I would advise you to take all the favorites (and consult the various experts I linked to ofcourse). Only select an upset if you really agree with an argument I made or if you hear about an something brewing from one of the many Oscar pundits you'll see on TV between now and the ceremony. If you're very lucky I may also share my predictions for the other categories, but I make no promises. I may decide to save those tips for my own elite cricle.

If I ran Vegas-Proposition bets for Super Bowl XLIII

2009-02-01T16:25:00.004-05:00

My bizarre fascination with gambling seems to exhibit a certain infectious quality. For starters my posts on the topic have come to comprise a substantial chunk of this blog's content. I would contend that these posts tend to reflect my humorous outlook on sports betting more than they display the kind of half-baked, over-thought advice typical of degenerate gamblers. However it still may look a little suspicious that I type up so many words dissecting Vegas lines, even if just in jest.

Naturally my obsession with wagering and all the pseudo-science it entails has found other vectors along which to spread, victimizing not just unsuspecting Technorati users, but now my family as well. Over the past several years, my bad influence has started to steer conversations to the theory and practice of gambling, especially during the NFL play-offs. This slow moral decline of my family has prominently featured an annual ritual of exchanging possible proposition bets before each Super Bowl. As with my blog posts on the topic, these are principally tongue-in-cheek items meant to highlight some of the funnier storylines and odd quircks of the particular game. To help demonstrate what I mean, I'll share some examples from my own proposals of previous years.

From Super Bowl XLI:
-The number of Super Bowl commercials for beer that feature animals will be over the total number of Super Bowl commercials featuring Peyton Manning.
-Odds that a black coach will win the Super Bowl: Even
-Odds that no one outside of the sports punditry will care about this: Even

From Super Bowl XLII:
- Mentions of the Patriots possibly going undefeated: over/under 41.5
- Mentions of the Patriots using cameras to spy on opponents earlier in the season: over/under 98.5
- Uses of the word "history" and all variations during the broadcast (including "historic", "historical", and "histriatoric" by Terry Bradshaw): over/under 26

In order to share the fun and innanity of this tradition with those few random folks who will read this post, I decided to make my personal selections of proposition bets for Super Bowl XLIII publically available on this blog. If anyone had any ideas of their own they would like to share, I invite you to write them up in the comments section below.

Now, for your enjoyment, I present the proposition bets I would post if I ran my own Las Vegas casino.

-Total in game promotions of shows premeiring on NBC's primetime lineup mid-season: Over/Under 6.5

-Number of time a prickly Al Michaels will make a point of mentioning which college a player attended after they refuse to mention it in the starting lineup introduction: Over/Under 3.5

-Times John Madden mentions Brett Favre favored -3 over Times John Madden mentions Neil Rackers

-Odds of someone making a comment about Troy Polamalu's hair during the broadcast: 3-1

-Total fumbles committed by Kurt Warner favored -2 over Total fumbles by entire Steelers team

-Comments made by announcers concerning Hines Ward having to play through an injury favored -5 over Actual minutes played by Hines Ward in this game

-Number of commercials for NBC's Heroes favored -3 over Total non-offensive touchdowns scored by the Steelers

-Number of interceptions thrown by Kurt Warner favored -2.5 over Number of commercials for NBC's underappreciated and underpromoted Life

-Odds that Steeler fans will comprise a majority of the stadium audience: 1-2

- Total catches by Larry Fitzgerald: Over/Under 6.5

-Total catches by Larry Fitzgerald that go for more than 20 yards or a touchdown: Over/Under 6.5

-Total compliments payed to Mike Tomlin by the announcing crew: Over/Under 5.5

-Total times the announcing crew mentions how much Tomlin resembles actor Omar Epps: Over/Under 0.5

-Total compliments payed to the city of Tampa Bay by the announcing crew: Over/Under 0.5

-Number of highlight reels about the Steeler's history of greatness shown during the game favored -1 over the number of highlight reels about the Cardinal's history of ineptitude

-Odds that the Cardinals will beat the spread and impress the announcing crew: 5-1

-Odds the Cardinals will actually win: 10,000-1

-Odds that you will see someone wearing a piece of apparel related to the winning team tomorrow: Even

I hope you enjoy those propositions bets. Remember always gamble responsibly, and never trust me to get any of these close to right. Enjoy the game!

Google Paranoia? "This Site May Harm Your Computer" Everywhere

2009-01-31T10:16:00.003-05:00

This post is meant to be a message for any Google staff who happen to be trolling for reaction to this morning's overabundance of security. For anyone else who happens on this page, welcome and please join me in taunting Google for their Internet faux pas.
Google I say to you "HA! HA!"
I don't know a damn thing about computer coding or Internet security protocols. I have no idea what lead you to produce such an extreme over-reaction to Internet in general. Most of my theories would be rubbish anyways. I would guess that someone would have put Internet on Orange Alert and you just got carried away. Maybe you had just broken up with someone and were scared to get hurt again. I might even believe that you had a wild Friday night, and the fear was just a side effect of coming down. Like I said, none of those actually makes sense, so I will leave the theorizing to the many other blogs that have already posted about this. Eve
I can say that moments like this are the last thing you can afford. You are the hegemon of Internet search engines, and in a troubled global economy you need all the advantages you can get. Even if the problem is fixed by the time I finish typing this post (which it probably will be), I can still say that the few minutes of distrust you inspired in your users this moment certainly caused a few more people to turn to Yahoo! or Ask. Maybe some of them will decide they even prefer those search engines. I am certain some of the 24-hour news echo chamber will chat about your embarrasment and hurt your corporate profile with the public. Eventually you will find that when you are playing king of the hill any mistake while on top will be used by your competitors as a chance to knock you from your perch. No, I don't think this morning will be the moment that causes Google to loose its grip on Internet dominance. I just wanted to point out that it could be the start of a long slide down. Ironically, because Google was fearful of everything for just a moment, now they have cause to be fearful for a long time to come.
Just to reiterate: "HA! HA!"

The Buckerine Files: 2008 Arbitrary Bowl Predicitions- The BCS Bowls

2008-12-31T03:13:00.001-05:00

The Ohio State Buckeyes have gone through several uniform changes over the years. Are there current jerseys insufficient to win a high stakes game? We'll answer that question and more in the Capn's Arbitrary Bowl Predictions. Image swiped off of myteamprints.com.

Now we come to the grand finale of the college football post-season, the elite Bowl Championship Series. These are the games that get top pick of all the best teams, or at least the best teams they still have room for after loading up on mediocre conference champions. Of course the big one at the end determines who everyone will elect the national champion (or maybe not if any of them decide they care about defense and decide to pay attention to the Rose Bowl). For your entertainment and edification I am here to predict the outcome of each game by analyzing the uniforms of the teams involved. Just to prove that I really have lost my mind, I will then forecast the quality of the games based on the merits of the bowls' sponsors. The Cap'n has already previewed all the less notable bowl in some previous posts (follow these links for Part One, Part Two, Part Three, and Part Four in turn), but you can always count on the top level bowl games getting their own special post. The prospects of these match-ups have me so excited that I can literally feel a tingling in my toes . . . and my chest . . . and up and down my left arm. Hmmmm, that can't be god. Okay, we'll have to do this fast before the blurred vision and muscle spasms set in. Here are your BCS predictions . . .

Rose Bowl -1/1/2009
Penn State Nittany Lions v. Southern California Trojans
The Uniforms: Every year the Rose Bowl stands as its own special event. The contest in Pasadena always lives up to the hype though by bringing us some of the best that the tradition of college football has to offer. Penn State and Southern California certainly belong on any list of the most prestigious college football programs of all time. The Trojans wear that history of greatness on their sleeves. And their helmets. And their jerseys. And their pants. Not so much their cleats though. The cardinal and gold colors somehow appear bright and cheery but also bold and formidable. The accents and logos don't burden the smooth design and support the classic feeling these uniforms provoke. Penn State somehow gets away with the most basic kind of costuming that one could still call a football uniform. They start with a balnk white slate, inscribe what few numbers are necessary, add a blue stripe on the helmet, then call it quits. That's it. No logos. No flair. Nothing. I am almost stunned with who much these uniforms underwhelm the viewer. I would like to say I respect Penn State for their commitment to minimalism and simple design (maybe a hat tip to all of the Amish that reside in Pennsylvania?), however I have to predict a blowout win for the Trojans.

The Sponsor: The Rose Bowl is about the only bowl that has remained strong enough to not have the sponsor's name slapped in front of the name of the game. The Rose Bowl is presented by Citi Bank. Any other year I would take this as a side of strength. Given how weak banks have become in recent months though, any asssociation with a bank is enough to drag down the quality of the game. Watch out for one of the teams to put in a game that's as much of a disaster as the financial industry has been. This will be the first heavily one sided and ugly college football game of 2009.
The Prediction: Southern California- 42 Penn State- 21

FedEx Orange Bowl -1/1/2009
Cincinnati Bearcats v. Virginia Tech Hokies
The Uniforms: This bowl features some pretty nontraditional powers. Sure, the Hokies have become a real force over the past decade, but they were an unknown entity for most of college football history. While the University of Cincinnati has a storied basketball program, they have played in pretty much no notable football games. As you might expect both of these teams sport togs that reflect current success and modern sensibilities rather than classic style. Virginia Tech tries to bring a dynamic, active look with some well placed accent lines and a pretty spiffy logo. Unfortunately they selected a truly ugly color combination. During the regular season it almost works as an autumnal look with those seasonal oranges and browns. Now in the throes of winter those tones just seem inappropriate. The Bearcats are still wearing uniforms that belong on a mid-major team, even though they have recently moved into one of the elite conferences. Well at least the ostentatious chromatics and confounding logo of Cincinnati don't make me think of sweet potato casserole. I project a win by the Bearcats though not by an especially wide margin.

The Sponsor: For a lot of people, all means of delivering a package are pretty much the same. However I recently learned that FedEx was the company that pioneered connecting ground and air delivery systems. In keeping with that merging of transportation methods, I have a vision of a clash between different phases of the game. The outcome of the game will hinge on one team's ability to overcome crushing defense and phenomenal special teams with explosive offense. It promises to be an intersting contest.

The Prediction: Cincinnati- 27 Virginia Tech- 18

Allstate Sugar Bowl -1/2/2009
Utah Utes v. Alabam Crimson Tide
The Uniforms: I have to be honest this comparison inspires no real passion in me. I think Utah has an atrocious uniform. They tried to be modern and hip, but just wound up looking silly. The Alabama jerseys are a little bland and uninspiring. The Crimson Tide can at least pin their inadaquacies on tradition. The Crimson Tide will win easily, and I have nothing more to say.

The Sponsor: Allstate has never done much to distinguish themselves from other insurance companies in my mind. To me all insurance is a dull necessity. We all feel like we have to have it, but none of us really think about it that much. Thus I forecast a very dull game. Everyone will show up and go throw the motions as if it was really important, despite all the evidence to the contrary. There is some very small chance it will turn out to be an interesting game, but deep in you gut you don't believe it will.

The Prediction: Alabama- 36 Utah- 24

Tostitos Fiesta Bowl -1/5/2009
Ohio State Buckeyes v. Texas Longhorns
The Uniforms: Once again we are comparing two time-honored programs who have spent decades crafting some distinctive and impressive outfites. The Longhorns' football attire is practically an official symbol for the state of Texas. True, I may have some qualms with their preferred shade of orange -which still looks like pumpkin to me, no matter how many times they call it burnt. Everyone has to respect that logo, thought, that is iconography 101 slapped on the side of their helmets. The Buckeyes have some pretty iconic helmets of their own, especially when you start slapping the famous buckeye leaf stickers on the sides. As you can see above Ohio State, like any longstanding football team, has gone through a number of refinements. The most recent edition has significantly improved the Buckeye's design. Now their color scheme has an understated, unified look. The fashionable accents actually add some visual pop instead of just weighing down the eye. Unfortunately Ohio State's apparel still has a generally cluttered look. It will take a few more upgrades for the Buckeyes' style to match what the Longhorns' already have. This appears to be an impressive Texas win in the making.

The Sponsor: Tostitos has the unenviable task of trying to separate their tortilla chips from all the other salty corn-based snacks available to our obese nation. Somehow though they always seem to be one-step ahead. They created scoop shaped chips for easy dipping. They added a hint of lime flavoring incase you wanted to eat your chips while drinking Mexican beer. In a world on the verge of an epic case of nervous eating, Tostitos stands ready to serve our every gluttonous whim. We have ample evidence here that this will be an enjoyable game that we can devour in one sitting and not have to worry about in the morning.

The Prediction: Texas- 37 Ohio State- 24

BCS National Championship Game -1/8/2009
Florida Gators v. Oklahoma Sooners
The Uniforms: The national championship match-up provides us with two diverging philosophies on football apparel to analyze. On one hand you have Oklahoma's plain-spoken crimson and creme ensemble, which speaks to a certain rural humility and respect for tradition. Their logos and lettering appear functional yet impressive, like the work of a highly skilled craftsman. Never mind that the uniforms do nothing to tell you what a "sooner" is. The Florida outfits certainly do very little to remind you of an alligator. Whoever designed the Gators' look was obviously too concerned with other things, like making sure the uniforms stand out even from great distances or that there is plenty of pieces flair crammed onto the jerseys. If the Florida uniforms had truly taken on a modern look, with all the eccentricities and gimicks that involves. I might have pegged them for the win in a "future v. past" match-up. Since the Gators stopped short, they just look tacky by today's standards. I am left predicting a victory for Oklahoma and their loyalty to a traditional style.

The Sponsor: This year the FedEx company got its claws around the naming rights to this game. However they aren't really responsible for this game. This game exists as an extention of the entire bowl system. It represents the slow evolution of the sport from a diasporic post-season of mulitple bowl, to the inevitable unified play-off format. In a way this game is brought to us by the very sport itself. I can think of no better sponsor, and so I imagine there will be no better game.

The Prediction: Oklahoma- 45 Florida- 37

Since, that covers all the bowl games I can finally take a break. This much bloggin in a short span is just not the Capn's style. Fear not faithful reader (no, I did not intend to make that plural) as I will return to blogging again. So keep an eye out for the next release from the Buckerine Files.

The Buckerine Files: 2008 Arbitrary Bowl Predicitions- Part 4

2008-12-30T17:13:00.016-05:00

If you can already imagine yourself wearing one of these classic jerseys with your own name inscribed on the back, then you have what it takes to use the Capn's Arbitrary Bowl Prediction method. Image found at customauthenticjerseys.com.

We have already seen so many bowl games come and go and yet there are still so many remaining to be covered. In this edition of my Arbitrary Bowl Predictions -wherein I predict the outcomes of games by comparing the teams' uniforms, and I forecast the quality of the games based on the bowls' sponsors- I will only be covering bowls that occur on New Year's Day, the traditional home of the college football post season, and beyond. The very idea of their being bowls outside of January 1st is still a strange concept to many, let alone their being enough games to fill three further blog posts. So if you need to ease into it go back and review Part One, Part Two and Part Three. No let's get ready to ring in 2009 with some more ridiculous prognostication . . .

Outback Bowl -1/1/2009
South Carolina Gamecocks v. Iowa Hawkeyes
The Uniforms: We can begin by observing that these two teams clearly drawn even with each other in the area of mascots. Only an ornithologist would enjoy that comparison. So we'll step right past that and start critiquing the clothes on the players' backs. Iowa sports some powerful duds. The yellow and black combination is always a powerful visual stimulant (Why else would bees wear it so often?). The no-nonsense design commands the respect of anyone who sees it. This is a design so good it belongs on an NFL team with a tradition of greatness, like say the Pittsburgh Steelers. The Gamecocks managed to craft an outfit without needing to rip-off a storied pro franchise. They did however seem to find it necessary to use an impotent shade of red (I'm really not sure if that counts as a pun.), and a slew of useless accents to clash with their throwback logo. Despite the unoriginal motif, I still find the Hawkeyes look pretty damn impressive,and I'll peg them for a solid win.

The Sponsor: Among all the restaurants that sell booze and put a lot fo stupid crap on their walls, I would have to name Outback Steakhouse as one of my least favorite. In all my experience with Outback, I am overcome by two factors. All their restaurants seem to have too little light and give you way too much food. This makes me expect that this game will have too little defense and way too much defense for most viewers' taste.
The Prediction: Iowa- 21 South Carolina- 9

Konica Minolta Gator Bowl -1/1/2009
Nebraska Cornhuskers v. Clemson Tigers
The Uniforms: We find in Clemson yet another uniform selection that many college football fans revile. The Tigers' heavy use of fresh-carrot orange and bruised-fruit purple seem to offend the eyes of some college football afficianados. I actually like the brashness of the color scheme, and the cleverly inconic logo. These are outfits that require and inspire confidence. Of course most college football fans would list Nebraska's look among the classics of the sport. Their bare-bones red and white outfits with a minimalist capital "N" for a logo could be interpreted as the very ideal of midwestern modesty. In my eyes though these plain Jane affairs lack any true life and spark. I will ignore the haters and call for a rousing Clemson victory.
The Sponsor: I will put aside whatever residual anger I may have from years of paper jams and clogged toner cartirdges. We have all come to rely on printers for much of what we do in life. However most of us could care less about what brand of printer we use. There are certainly a few people who subscribe to Consumer Reports and comparison shop based on manufacturer. Most of us just what something inexpensive and effective, and we don't even know what printer we have in the home or at the office without looking. So I predict that this will be a fairly unexciting game resulting in a sadly generic score.

The Prediction: Clemson- 21 Nebraska- 17

Capital One Bowl -1/1/2009
Michigan State Spartans v. Georgia Bulldogs
The Uniforms: This contest provides us an intriguing opportunity to compare the unintended consequences that accumulate after a series of related decisions. In this case the Michigan State uniforms showcase a number of daring choices, including a chromatically unusual jersey, a subdued lettering scheme, and a slightly confusing logo. (If you didn't know their mascat, I doubt "helmet of a Spartan soldier" would be the first thing you thought of when you saw that shape.) Yet somehow all of those questionable selections produce a proud, up-standing ensemble. The Georgia uniforms are the very inversion of this. All of the elements that compose their outfits are generally safe, a solid palette, sturdy fonts, and a very *ahem* professional looking logo. Added together they somehow become less than the sum of their parts. The Bulldogs design lacks direction and, dare I pun, bite! When I look at the Spartans, I feel assured about their football prowess. When I look at the Bulldogs, I feel uninspired and underwhelmed. Expect the Spartans to win, but count on them to look like they should lose for most of the game.

The Sponsor: Since my credit history is so bad I can't even get an adjustable rate mortgage, I have very little experience with the major credit card companies. I have seen quite a few of Capital One's advertisements though, and they usually amuse me. Also they had the brilliant idea to pair the bowl with the Capitol One Mascot Challenge which is one of the most entertaining distractions associated with college football. That all but guarantees a highly entertaining and engaging game.

The Prediction: Michigan State- 29 Georgia- 26

AutoZone Liberty Bowl -1/2/2009
Kentucky Wildcats v. East Carolina Pirates
The Uniforms: East Carolina has the raw materials necessary to forge an amazing uniform. They have one of the greatest mascots available in the mascot in the pirate. The colors are brave and striking. I am baffled that they can take those ingredients and make such an unpleasant jersey. Their helmet logo is awful. The shade of purple they use is hideous. Worst of all they don't tap into the pirate motif at all! The Pirates are fortunate that they have drawn the very weak attire of the Kentucky Wildcats. The apparel of Kentucky utilizes a flat blue and white look and hopes that their clever old school logo is enough to spice it up. I feel sorry for Kentucky they had one of the easiest match-ups they could have drawn, and they were still too lame to win.

The Sponsor: Some personal experience of mine plays heavily in favor of the sponsor in this case. In the last few months I have needed to perform a handful of minor car repairs just to keep my ride in good working order. My local AutoZone has not only supplies the needed materials, but the staff also helped out with some much guidance and moral support. So in honor of all the service I received from AutoZone, I'll declare that this will be a top level game.

The Prediction: East Carolina- 27 Kentucky- 24

AT&T Cotton Bowl -1/2/2009
Ole Miss Rebels v. Texas Tech Red Raiders
The Uniforms: Texas Tech is a program trying to climb the ranks and join the elite programs. Toward that purpose they have chosen an assertive design that uses such strident coloring and self-assured lettering to create an aggressively intimidating look. You can tell how strident and ambitious this team is without even seeing them take a snap. The Ole Miss jerseys actually find a great deal of success using some cumbersome elements. I have seen plenty of other teams make a hash out of the red, white, and blue motif. The Rebels see there way through that challenge and come out looking classy. Throw in some old fashioned Southern charm and you have a rather pleasing outfit. Ultimately, I side with the raw dominating force of Texas Tech.

The Sponsor: Time used to be that AT&T had a monopolistic reign over the telecommunication industry. Now new technologies and more innovative companies have robbed AT&T of its dominant status and threatened to turn it into the relic of a by-gone era. That signifies a game where the more traditional team fights valiantly but is overcome by the more inventive teams' superior tactics.

The Prediction: Texas Tech- 43 Ole Miss- 35

International Bowl -1/3/2009
Connecticut Huskies v. Buffalo Bulls
The Uniforms: Of all the comparisons I have made for this piece, this definitely is the sorriest combination of uniforms I have seen. Apologies to all the Huskies and Bulls fans out there, but your teams' have some lame outfits. I've seen more daring attire on Benedictine monks. There's no wonder why we exported this contest to Canada. The Buffalo uniforms are just a mass of blue with little accent; it's practically nondescript. The apparel donned Connecticut does virtually nothing as well. I almost feel as if these good be the home/road jersey combo for some generic team from a bland sports movie. I suppose that the stripes on the Huskies' jerseys are micrometrically less generic, so I will project them to win by the smallest of edges.

The Sponsor: What this bowl lacked in fashion it more than makes up for with its classy backer: the city of Toronto, Ontario! (That's in Canada.) Like many other bleeding-heart liberals from the United States, I often fantasize of moving to the socialist paradise neighboring us to the north. If Canada is secretly envied by the rest of the world, then surely Toronto is secretly envied by the rest of Canada. The city is so impressive that Superman's creators modeled his fictional hometown of Metropolis after Toronto. No one could wish for a finer city to visit or in which to live. Accordingly I foresee that no one could wish to attend or watch a finer game. I predict it will have everything from unforgettable plays, to awe inspiring finishes, all wrapped up with a thrilling finish. If there is even a modicum of truth to this predictions (and of course, there isn't) you won't want to miss this game.

The Prediction: Connecticut- 29 Buffalo- 27 (UConn win by scoring a miracle touchdown as time expires)

GMAC Bowl -1/6/2009
Ball State Cardinals v. Tulsa Golden Hurricane
The Uniforms: Tulsa takes a pretty silly concept and makes it work wonderfully as gridiron fashion. I have no idea why a team landlocked in the middle of Oklahoma would name themselves off of a coastal weather system. If you just take that as a given though the design is very strong. They combine their titular gold with the colors of the hurricane warning flag and layer it over a shade of blue that could represent the prairie sky or the stormy sea. They keep all the lines smooth and sleek. This uniform is both clever and fun. At first glance I also enjoyed the Ball State jerseys. They use a modern design and incorporate some widely respected pigments. Then I saw the helmet and immediately felt disappointed. Ball State had such good potential, but is was pretty much ruined by the hideous drawing of a bird. I don't even think it looks much like a cardinal. To me it looks more like some kind of demon finch that chased Picasso in his nightmares. The Cardinals' helmet allow Tulsa to take this game with relative ease.

The Sponsor: I am surprised GMAC is still willing to sponsor a bowl. They are basically a financial service for General Motors. Given that the major automakers are in trouble and that the entire financial sector is one giant dumpster fire, I wouldn't be surprised if the check they wrote to cover the bowl's expenses didn't bounce. This is a sponsor in a bad place. As such I expect this game will be unwatchable, mostly because one of the teams will find themselves in a bad place. Maybe a star player will be injured or maybe they just will clearly be rusty and out of rhythm all game. In any case the side that already had the advantage will have no problems taking and holding a lead.

The Prediction: Tulsa- 33 Ball State- 14

With those bowls now forecasted, we only have the BCS bowls left to discuss. Join me then when I break out my last set of Arbitrary Bowl Predictions for the season.