But if anyone was convincing enough using rational thought, I could be swayed to change every one of these beliefs. At some point, I read some article or had some conversation or watched some TV show that shaped these values, and I can just as easily be swayed back through the same mediums. This is the case because I am not emotionally attached to any one of these issues. I don’t know anyone killed on 9/11, I’ve never had to deal with a close family member or friend having an abortion, I don’t know anyone affected by oil spills, I haven’t been a victim of religious persecution, etcetera, insert white-male-middle-class life-experience here, etcetera.

But overzealous support of any one of these issues is usually accompanied by a personal anecdote: “you try to raise two kids on minimum wage,” or “I knew someone who was killed on 9/11,” or “my cousin is over in Iraq fighting for freedom.” These are emotionally driven arguments, not objectively driven. This includes the most common statement of anti-mosque proponents: “it’s insensitive to the families of victims of 9/11.” This argument appeals to the emotional aftershocks of 9/11 and only that.

But suddenly, with this mosque issue, votes can be won or lost based on something that people are virtually incapable of detaching themselves from emotionally. To my four blog readers, hear this: to vote with your emotions is playing into exactly what politicians are hoping for— that your vote can be won by appealing to your emotions and not to your intelligence.

As I mentioned earlier, I think people pick sides because they feel that they need to pick sides in order to uphold some intangible, inherited American duty of having opinions on tons of things we don’t know anything about. More often than not, it reflects the insecurities of people, not stances on the issues themselves. In order to fit in, we must choose a side: pro-mosque or anti-mosque, pro-life or pro-choice, republican or democrat… what’s worse is that, because of partisan politics, politicians are forced to take the same firm stances on these issues or they will lose votes. As an example, no democrat can EVER be pro-life. Even if he or she were, a democrat could not win a nomination campaigning on a pro-life platform. We are supposed to vote for a candidate based on how his or her beliefs align with our own, but instead our politicians simply campaign based on what they think we want to hear. But, unless we actively go out to learn about the issues, we form our beliefs based on our candidates’ stances.  So who is actually doing the thinking? With many of these issues, neither politicians nor voters are doing any thinking; we’re only thinking about what we are supposed to be thinking. It’s quite possible that a majority of the country’s views on these issues are simply formed based on what we feel we should think, not what we actually think. Admittedly, this goes for me as well. Because I am generally more liberal, I will likely believe climate change is real until someone proves otherwise, rather than vice versa.

A brief but somewhat related side note. After watching Rob Blagojevich embarrass himself on the Daily Show last night, I came back to an idealistic thought that has crossed my mind a few times: voting power based on education. PhDs get five votes, master’s graduates gets four votes, college grads get three votes, high school grads get two votes, and everyone else gets one vote. I don’t actually think this system would ever be implemented, and it no doubt would cause more problems than it would solve, but think about this for just a moment. What if politicians actively tried to appeal to the most educated people in the USA, not just the most people? Just think about it. How different would campaigning be?  Would the issues be the same? Would we really spend all this time arguing about the mosque? I doubt it. If you agree with me, then you understand that politicians aren’t backing what they believe the best ideas are; they are simply backing what they believe the post popular ideas are.  And with this mosque issue, they are actively targeting people who are most easily removed from rational thought and instead influenced by emotion.

Look at the conventional political issues that always pop up: abortion, war, taxes, oil, government spending, religion… these are issues where it’s very easy for someone who knows very little about an issue to have a very concrete opinion. You are pro-war or anti-war, pro-offshore drilling or anti, pro-life or pro-choice, and it’s incredibly easy to justify why you pick one side or another. How many times as a pro-life supporter simply used the justification “it’s murder,” and how many times has a pro-choice supporter used the justification “a women’s body is her own business”? If you use one of those explanations, a lot of people will agree with you solely on principle, regardless of how little you actually know about the issue. And the truth is that most people who are incredibly adamant on either side of this issue are emotionally attached to it. They are thinking based on emotional experiences, not based on objectivity.

So here is the point of this long-winded post…

Here is what the anti-mosque uproar doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean America is Islamophobic, the question posed by this week’s TIME magazine cover story. It doesn’t mean Americans are ignorant or racist. It means politicians think Americans are so emotionally attached to 9/11 that we can be swayed to vote for one candidate or another. If you’re thinking with your emotions, you’re not thinking with your brain, and it’s incredibly difficult for Americans not to think emotionally about anything pertaining to 9/11.  Therefore, fueling this as a political issue is a politician’s way of trying to deter you from thinking about the hundreds of other issues involved in backing a candidate, and instead only thinking about this one issue, an issue which you are almost incapable of thinking about objectively.

So when politicians hone in on emotional issues like war, abortion, or mosques, they’re not trying to save the world. They are trying to win your vote by detaching you from your common sense and appealing to the part of you that is incapable of thinking rationally. The truth is that people are now anti-Bloomberg or anti-Obama just because of this mosque, and that is exactly what opposing candidates hoped for. Winning your vote by making you feel anti-American and shameful for not feeling bad enough about victims of 9/11.  It’s a politician’s way of trying to make you dumber before you go to vote.

If you’re as smart as I hope you are, do your homework, read both sides of the issues, and check your emotions at the voting booths.

1.)  Scene must be able to stand on its own as good but work within the context of the movie. AND

Must satisfy one or more of the following requirements:

A.)  Incorporate witty dialogue or banter

B.)  Involve cycling and/or cycling icons

C.)  Incorporate some form of teleportation, regardless of scientific feasibility

D.)  Increase complexity of general concept of villainy

E.)  Blow lots of shit up

F.)   Motivate me to win the cold war via a boxing training montage

Apologies in advance for the plethora of Matt Damon on this list. Total coincidence.

10.) Breaking Away, “The Truck Scene.” The sleeper pick. I got into this movie when I started biking in college. This is far and away the best scene in the movie.

9.) Rocky IV, “Defeat Dolph Lundren, Win the Cold War.” Is there anything that makes me feel more patriotic aside from Glenn Beck?

8.)EuroTrip, “Scotty Doesn’t Know.” I don’t know why I find this scene hilarious, but I do.

7.) Princess Bridge,  “Battle of the Wits.” A classic go-to. Few would disagree.

6.) Dodgeball, “Lance Armstrong Cameo.” Classic Lance, in all his sarcastic, I’m better than you at everything, glory.

5.) Dark Night, “Prison Scene.” Just good ol’ fashioned acting. Fortunately, stuff blows up shortly after.

4.) Dogma, “Mobie the Golden Calf.” This scene never, ever, ever gets old.

3.) X-Men 2, “Nightcrawler.” Probably my favorite opening scene of all-time.

2.) Good Will Hunting,  “How do you like ‘dem apples?” Witty banter gets the girl. An inspiration to mediocre looking men everywhere.

And number 1…….

1.) Happy Gilmore vs Bob Barker. No movie scene will ever top this ever. Ever.

And there you have it. Feel free to add your own. But if you do, you have to write my policy paper too. Or my international management case. Or my accounting case. Really anything will suffice.

Schneider, out.

Favre has never been accused of using the juice. That being said, it would explain a lot.

Remember 4 years ago when everyone thought Favre was done, and we thought he was going to retire the first time. Then he came back the next year and had a huge comeback year. Since then, he had 3 solid seasons with the Packers, Jets, and especially this one with the Vikings.

If he were “retired” all summer, he could presumably be using PEDs all off season with no testing, show up at the end of August in peak shape ready to go with the stuff all but flushed from his system, right? Doesn’t his resurgence kind of mirror Roger Clemens’s?

Thoughts? Wouldn’t this be a hell of a story if it turned out to be true…

As with any championship system, you’ll never satisfy everyone; there will always be critics, and any system has inherent flaws that are easy to point out. Take the NFL Playoff system for example. As we are seeing first hand, that playoff system affects the course of other teams, like the Colts and Saints resting players, which has allowed the Jets to make the playoffs. Or March Madness, which I absolutely love, pretty much makes the entire regular season irrelevant. Once you make the tourney, it doesn’t matter what you’ve done in the 30 regular season games. My personal favorite of the playoff systems is the Henley Royal Regatta. I’ve long wished Collegiate Rowing would go to an all dual racing format. “May Madness.” It would be awesome. Instead we have a single race that renders the entire regular season pointless.

I’m not sold on a college football playoff. There are pros and cons, but the football pundits almost all have it wrong.

My most pressing criticism is one no one ever addresses: it’s COLLEGE, not professional sports. One great thing about the current bowl system is how much meaning each bowl game means to the schools, and even more, to the players. With the exception of all but a couple on each team, a bowl game is the last game for many players. It gives players an extra month of football, and it gives a lot of teams a chance to end their careers on winning notes. In hoops, only 2 teams end every postseason with a win, and one of those teams is the NIT champion, which doesn’t really count. The current bowl system is healthy for academic institutions. These ARE academic institutions, and we forget that a lot. A playoff would undermine the other bowl games much more so than the current system does. In this system, the bowl games all mean a lot, but with a playoff, the non-playoff bowl games would become as irrelevant as the NIT.

That’s just a personal issue of mine, and I could let that go (though I really wish someone would address it once in a while). Perhaps more big picture though, a playoff would make everything that sucks about the current system worse, and I don’t understand why everyone thinks it would fix things.

The complaint is, “we need a playoff so that teams like Boise St. and TCU can have a chance to prove themselves against major conference opponents.” I agree that would solve the problem immediately, but sports pundits can’t see more than 2 years in front of them. If there were a playoff, it would have 2 very serious long-term effects on college football: 1.) There would be NO incentive for a team to play in a good conference. Go undefeated and you can make the playoff every year, and 2.) No one would schedule big time out of conference games during the regular season for the same reason.

This would make the regular season very, very boring. It would lead teams to do things like rest starters and not run up scores: boring. Notre Dame would NEVER play USC in the regular season: boring. Teams like TCU and Boise State would be able to get into the playoff without playing ANY top 25 schools: boring.

Not to mention, everyone whines about who gets “a shot” to play for the national title. #3 always gets screwed. Do we really think people won’t whine about #9 in an eight team playoff? Has bracketlogy taught us nothing? People whine about #66 not getting in. Of course they are going to whine about #9. (and yes, I am aware of the irony that I am whining about people whining).

A playoff could work, but not under the current structure. In general, everyone needs to be in a major conference for it to work. If you take away the importance of schedule strength, the quality of football will go down (and it will be bad for ratings and bad for the sport). Boise State, TCU, Utah, and BYU need to be in major conferences or at least do what Notre Dame does where they play a real schedule. TCU’s schedule is appalling. If Clemson and Virginia are your two biggest out of conference wins, that makes you as good a middle of the pack ACC team, like Miami or BC, a good team, but not worthy of a top 5 ranking, and definitely not worthy of title talk.

Here’s the final point, and then I’ll let this go. Not playing in a major conference is a ridiculous mental advantage. Let’s look at Boise State this year. They’re win over Oregon was huge. But think about what Boise State had on the line in that game. If they won, that was their season. Every other game was against weak, non-major conference opponents. That was their bowl game. But major conferences have to get up for every game, every week, against very good teams. Playing in the SEC is so mentally and physically taxing for a team that you have to be on your game EVERY week. Only the strong can survive. They can never rest starters or have an off-day and still win because the teams are so strong top to bottom. Teams like Auburn or South Carolina or Tennessee are just as good as Boise St or TCU, but they have to play hard every week. If they can’t be at their best every week, they lose. Every game matters. In major conferences, especially the good ones, every game matters.  For Boise St and TCU, only a few games matter, and they are the underdogs for those few games. With that underdog status comes extra motivation and energy, which is hugely important in college football.

If you want to play in big time bowls, you need to play big times schedules or get in a big time conference. I could pick 15 schools from other conferences that could be playing for the Fiesta Bowl tonight if they had that schedule. Style points matter, and they should. Put TCU in even the weakest major conference like the Big East and there is no way they go undefeated. They are a Pitt or a WVU.

Boise St. and TCU are good teams, but they aren’t worthy of major bowl games or a playoff until they play real teams every week. A playoff would take away all incentive to go out and play these schedules.

Schneider, out.

Super Freakonomics, by Levitt and Dubner

The first Freakonomics was one of my favorites. This follow up started slowly, but, by the end, I was sold. The premise, as it is in the first book, is to make connections between things that don’t normally seem comparable, and it often feels like economic and statistical detective work.

No doubt the most intriguing chapter is the final one in which the self-proclaimed “rogue economist” explores global warming. Levitt doesn’t refute global warming as I had heard he did in initial reactions to the book, but he does try to expose some of the myths about it. I’ve heard that much of his research is very isolated, so I won’t get into that. Still, I really enjoyed an interesting irony he illuminates for me about the avid environmentalists and political figures who battle global warming so aggressively; it feels like a religion sometimes. I find this ironic because stereotypical leftist environmentalist who are often uninterested in religion seem to be at arms with right-wing conservatives, many of whom are fairly religious (yes, I’m simplifying). The major figures, like Al Gore, put a moral and sometimes apocalyptic spin on global warming, a “do good now or suffer the consequences later” that really echoes some of the most intense Christian credos. “Cut down on pollution or the world will be destroyed,” when you think about it in terms of morality, isn’t all that dissimilar from “believe in God so you go to Heaven.” I apologize for this being my second post in a row about religion and heaven and hell in places you don’t expect it. I think (and hope) it’s a coincidence, not a trend. However, my final grad paper in 2008 was about the depictions of Hell in literature in Homer, Vergil, Dante, Milton, and Joyce, so it is something that interests me (and Joyce might have dethroned Milton as my favorite).

The authors’ point was, at least what I took away from the chapter, that global warming is a scientific issue, not a moral issue. Yes, reducing consumption can help the problem, but it’s not the only way, and fifty years from now, we might have much better technology to combat the issue. Yeah, I still believe it’s a major issue that I care about, but maybe it’s not as urgent as I thought it was. Either way, I’m thinking about it more.

Yeah Levitt’s statistics are sometimes very subjective, leading to a lot of controversy, but regardless of accuracy, he gets you to think of things in unconventional ways, which I love.

Definitely worth the read.

Eating the Dinosaur, by Chuck Klosterman

Chuck did it again, and I think this might be his best. I love all of his books, but this one probably offers the most insight. My complaints with some of his previous books is that that some lack continuity because they are compilations, and they are  sometimes a bit over the top with obscure pop culture references. Still, I can usually follow most of it, and he often provides wisdom in places you wouldn’t expect, usually concerning human psychology and how we interact within the culture that has shaped in ways we often overlook.

Klosterman isn’t all that different from Levitt at times, comparing rock star Kurt Cobain to religious fanatic David Karesh or arguing that Pamela Anderson, and not Madonna, was the Marilyn Monroe of the 1990’s. He asks insightful questions like “did people dream the same way before and after the advent of television?” And he asks less insightful though provocative questions like “how would you feel about war if it was only fought with robots, not people?” or “If you could make a phone call to your 15 year-old self but you couldn’t say who it was and you only have 15 seconds to talk, what would you say?”

Eating the Dinosaur, as do other Klosterman books, has a lot of insight. It has more continuity than Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs, but the same depth. If you haven’t read any of his stuff, I’d start with that, then move to Killing Yourself to Live before reading the most recent one. They’re all great though, and Eating the Dinosaur is probably my favorite read of 2009.

Others I read in 2009:

Tom Friedman’s Hot, Flat, and Crowded: It’s very well-researched, and definitely highlights how climate change, economic globalization, and overpopulation are all interconnected, and are snowballing very quickly. Definitely worth the read, but you can skim parts of it. The major point I took from it is that China is changing everything. Stupid China.

Chelsea Handler’s Are you There Vodka? It’s Me, Chelsea: I did this one in book on tape. She’s very funny, and there are some great one-liners. The book definitely had some good moments. Still, I was a little disappointed. It made me laugh, but it was pretty much void of anything else. Worth the read if you want to laugh, but not much else.

Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons: I know I’m a bit behind on this one. I’m not a Brown enthusiast, nor am I an elitist who says he sucks. He writes page-turners, which is simply a style. His books read like a season of Lost. It’s not good or bad, it just is a style choice. Fun to read, and often insightful, but it’s all plot and suspense. I do enjoy the history stuff though, and I will read The Lost Symbol in 2010 at some point.

Randy Pausch’s The Last Lecture: I don’t know if I’m an asshole for saying the then terminal and now deceased author kind of sucked, but yeah, he kind of sucked. He had some nice moments, but on the whole, I was pretty disappointed. The book was a best seller because it was gimmicky; it had a great inside cover. I’d skip it.

Michael Lewis’s Moneyball: I was way behind on this one, but I finally got to it this year. I loved it, and it got me extremely interested in business in general, and especially the business of baseball. It reads well because it has good characters, heroes, villains, etc, but is informative as well. Definitely worth the read for anyone interested sports or business, and an essential for someone interested in both.

Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers: Better than Tipping Point, not quite as fun as Blink. As with much of his stuff, he tells me a lot of stuff I already know, but says it differently. Worth the read, but you can skim a lot of it and still get the point. I just started What the Dog Saw, a collection of his stuff from The New Yorker, and I’m enjoying the variety. His other books are sometimes repetitive, and the collection approach mixes it up.

Jon Krakauer’s Where Men Win Glory: I started it but haven’t finished it. It’s good though. That’s all I’ve got. As always, he’s a great writer tackling a controversial topic. I do love how he has evolved from being the outdoorsy guy though; his last two books have been about Mormon fundamentalists and this one is about the controversial death of Pat Tillman. It’ll be on the 2010 list as well.

Others I read for school that I approve of: Eliot’s Daniel Deronda, Hardy’s Tess of the D’Urbervilles, Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Statistics, Accouting, Economics, Financial Statement Analysis, and Sarbanes-Oxley for Dummies. Hell yeah.

Definitely don’t read: Tim Forte’s Profits, Prophets, and Peace.

To my four overzealous followers, see you next year. Schneider, out.

It all started while reading Dickens’s Great Expectations, a book I despise more and more with each subsequent reading. In the novel, we have the notoriously deceptive and manipulative Miss Havisham, who preys on poor susceptible Pip’s infatuation for Estella for the better part of the unnecessarily long Victorian text.

But one thing about the plot always sticks out to me. Right before the villainous Miss Havisham oddly and spontaneously catches on fire for no apparent reason, she has a moment of clarity in which she apologetically begs Pip for forgiveness. Then, in true Dickensian fashion, she dies.

So, why do I care? Well, I’m curious about what characters do in the waning moments of their paper lives, when an author or screenwriter has already decided the character’s grim fate. Usually they fall in to one of three categories: 1.) the bad guys who deserved to die, 2.) the good guys who are martyred, or 3.) the minor characters whose deaths help to propel the plot forward (the exception being virtually all deaths in Michael Bay and John Woo films via explosion).  But I’m interested in a fourth category, characters who are “not all bad.” They either start off as good characters and dally in evil, or reform themselves from evil to good over the course of the book. Good characters are good, bad characters are bad, but the tweeners often follow two trends: 1.) they have to have an epic revelation that brings them to the side of the good guys and 2.) they have to die immediately after said epic revelation.

So here are my examples: 1.) Darth Vader, 2.) Harry (James Franco) from the Spider-Man movies, 3.) James Knorrington (the commodore dude) from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Yes, it’s a limited group, and yes, they’re all from trilogies (which is either a coincidence or a future addendum to the STD).

Darth Vader starts off as good when he is Anakin Skywalker, becomes evil, saves Luke from the impending doom at the end of Return of the Jedi, and dies from injuries suffered while saving Luke. Harry is a good guy in the first Spider-Man movie, becomes the Green Goblin in the second movie, and becomes a good version of the Green Goblin who helps Spider-Man fight the evil black Spider-man and Sandman. In the final scenes of Spider-Man 3, Harry heaves himself in front of the rusty blade meant for Tobey Maguire, sacrificing himself. Commodore Knorrington is a good-ish guy in the first POTC movie (think about how he lets Jack Sparrow go at the end), becomes a vengeful scruffy hobo in the second movie, and then he literally “chooses a side” (his exact words) when he frees Elizabeth Swan from imprisonment in the third movie. Almost immediately after, he is stabbed by the squid-ish thing named Davey Jones.

Two questions: 1.) Why do they have to die, and 2.) Why do they always do something drastically good before they die?

Okay, here’s my idea, and it’s not really based on any evidence, just speculation. The Schneiderian Theory of Death argues that, the need to have the characters do something overtly good right before they die serves two functions, one literary and one moral. From a literary standpoint, these characters have to die because we don’t really trust them. They’ve dallied in both good and evil, and if they’re still a part of the plot, the audience can’t ever really trust them to do what’s right (and narratively, it actually distracts us from paying attention because we’re actually worried that the character could turn bad at any time and harm our hero). Even if the movie is ending, if the half-good half-evil characther doesn’t die, we assume that it is a loose end that will likely lead to a sequel. Fair enough; they have to die. But why does it have to be so epic? Why do they have to do something really good (or sometimes really bad) before they die?

My theory is that this need to classify characters right before they die is actually residual plot structure from Christian morality plays and novels. That’s right: Darth Vader saves Luke because of religion. Hear me out.

Lots of basic plot structures, even in 21^st century movies, are carbon copies of plays and books that go back hundreds, even thousands of years. There’s a reason so many Shakespeare plays are remade with modern spins: they work. They resonate with audiences (didn’t you know that The Lion King was based on Hamlet?). But these plays were written at times when there needed to be a moral to the story, and that moral was usually Christian (more than most modern audiences realize, especially with Shakespeare). Even if writers weren’t (or aren’t) trying to consciously preach Christian morals, most of western morality is derived from Christian values, and these values are all over English literature and modern film. Even if religion is the last thing on your mind, and even if you are an atheist or non-secular humanist, if you’re watching these films, you’ve been brought up in a culture that has been heavily influenced by Christian values.

So back to the point. Why do these characters need to do something drastically good right before they die? The STD argues that these writers, probably subconsciously, are thinking about where these fictitious characters will go after they die (or more literally, they are thinking about where audiences will subconsciously think these characters will go after they die). It is one of the most influential yet overlooked decisions writers make in scripting these deaths. Think about it… only in religion do we feel the need to dichotomize death so concretely; you go to heaven or you go to hell. There is no middle ground. There is nowhere else to go. And in order to go to hell, you need to really deserve it. So if you’re not really good or evil, and you need to die, this poses a problem. The only way to fix this problem is to have them do something really good, then get killed off. The audience thinks to themselves Oh man. That guy had some issues, but at least he came around and made the right choice in the end. Subconsciously, we the audience guard the pearly gates to fictitious heaven, and we get to be the judge of who goes where. When these characters act nobly right before they die, we can’t help but deem them worthy of entry.

So let’s assume for a minute that I’m completely and totally right. Does this matter? Well, in short, no, not really. I wrote about it because I find it interesting how some writers completely fail to innovate when they craft their work. I’m not saying it’s wrong to replicate what worked for Shakespeare or Dickens or Aeschylus, but it’s like going to war in the 21^st century with 16^th century tactics. We are much more complex audiences than we were even 10 or 15 years ago. We love irony, we are drawn to complicated characters, and we are starting to get bored with the same old same old (no matter how much you use explosions to mask the same old, Michael Bay).

I’m not saying most modern writers are bad. On the contrary, I think filmmaking has improved more in the past 10 years than it had in the previous 50, and I don’t just mean through technology. Audiences have gotten more complex, and writers have adapted. Planet of the Apes type irony is a dime a dozen now. Now, the best movies have incredibly complex characters, and incredibly complex characters can’t be dichotomized as just good or just evil. So hopefully, the STD will convince those still fighting 21^st century wars with 16^th century tactics to start evolving, and stop blowing shit up.

Actually, I realize the reason I was thinking about this was because I watched The Dark Knight for about the 10^th time yesterday. The more I watch this movie, the more I am convinced that it is one of the best movies I’ve ever seen, and that Heath Ledger as the Joker is probably the best villain of all time. Seriously. Yes, he blows a lot of shit up, but it’s different than when Michael Bay blows shit up. He’s an inadvertent proponent of the STD in all of his dialogue. He talks about how Gotham’s criminals (i.e. boring villains) are motivated by money or power or greed. They always are, and they always die in the end (and go to fictitious hell). But the Joker is complicated. He is motivated by the joy of entropy. Go and watch the scene where he is in the interrogation room with Christian Bale and the scene in the hospital with Aaron Eckhardt. Absolutely brilliant writing and even more brilliant acting.

Movies send different messages now, and they don’t always need to be moral anymore. They can be philosophical and conceptual. Movies that “really make you think” don’t make you think about what they used to. So while Darth Vader, Harry, and James Knorrington are all in fictional heaven having tea with Miss Havisham, we’ll be down here enjoying real heroes and villains that don’t feel the need to be molded into conventional stereotypical norms.

Stop saying “the Yankees bought a World Series.” Period.

Haters of the evil empire that is the New York Yankees have set up a nice little catch-22 to justify the ends of every MLB season: If the Yankees don’t win, they are poorly managed, prodigal, chokers, etc., and if they win, “they bought a title.” While this might bring solace to the average Yankee hater at the end of October, it’s a pretty stupid argument.

To those who say the Yankees bought a World Series, my response is succinct: “duh.”

The Yankees are a corporation. The goal of the owners is to make money. Fortunately, for fans, the best way to make money is to win championships.

First off, salary is not directly correlated to World Series titles. There are a lot of teams that spend a lot of money. The Mets spent 145 million on payroll and won 70 games. Detroit spent 119 million to win 86 games, one fewer than the Marlins who spend just 35 million.

To say “the Yankees bought a World Series,” is always a funny statement to me, because the helplessness with which fans proclaim this sentiment implies that money grows on the highest branches, and the Yankees are the only ones who can reach. If you want to claim that the Yanks bought a title, you must first ask, “where did the money to buy the title come from?” Winning games comes down to a lot of things: talent, team chemistry, coaching, avoiding injuries, and oftentimes luck. But when it comes to making money, the Yankees are a well-oiled machine. And that well-oiled machine makes it a lot easier to go out and get the necessary talent to win these games.

The Yankees are willing to pay more for top talent, and in many cases, pay more than anyone else; there is no way around it. But there is a method to this madness, and 20 million a year for Mark Teixera and 15 million a year for Sabathia is not money that disappears after it is paid out. Those players are not just a demonstrated commitment to win; they are investments.

Having top talent puts butts in the seats, and butts in the seats leads to more operating revenue, and more operating revenue leads to more money to go out and spend on talent. That 20 million on Teixera comes back to the Yankees in many forms, and Teixera, just like all the other overpaid Yankee studs (excluding Hideki Irabu?) pay for themselves. Let me explain

The Yankees averaged just under 46, 000 in attendance every home game this year. I want to take a minute to explain how incredible this number is. This number is equal to the average attendance of the Jacksonville Jaguars this season, a team that only plays 8 home games a year in beautiful Florida weather and only plays on Sundays when no one has work. The Yankees did it with an average ticket price marginally higher than anyone else in baseball, roughly $72 per ticket. Throw in a beer and a hot dog, and the average cost per consumer per home game is $103 and change. Not only did they do it, they did it in an economic downturn.  What does this number mean? (103 bucks per person, x 46,000 x 81 games) = 383 million just in operating revenue. This doesn’t include all of the extra cash brought in for the playoffs, and it doesn’t include miscellaneous revenue like cash brought in from jersey and apparel sales.

So what do these numbers mean?

Let’s compare it to a few other solid teams: Minnesota, Detroit and Florida. All were in the playoff race down to the wire and are solid ball clubs.

You want to tell me the Yankees are reckless in their spending? Their “absurd” payroll of 208 million is LESS than Marlins’ 35 million in comparison to their revenue. And look at the Tigers! Talk about spending money they don’t’ have!

There are a lot of reasons the Yankees have this money, but the bottom line is that their spending puts butts in the seats, butts that are willing to pay more than butts at any other stadium. Fan loyalty is huge here. Despite costing twice as much to go to the games, Yankees’ fans average attendance is 2.5 times more than the Marlins, so don’t argue that the fans only go to the games because they root for a good team. The Marlins were in the pennant race down the stretch and only averaged 18,770 a game. Embarrassing for them, but that’s why you can’t afford players like Josh Beckett.

The Yanks don’t win every year, but there’s a reason they’re always in the hunt. If you want to have the best team, you’re much more likely to get there if you’ve got the best players. If you want the best players, you need to have the most loyal fans.

Game. Set. Match. Yankees. Eat it Boston and Philly.

Schneider, out.

Time usually does a decent job at staying politically neutral and unbiased in its cover stories, but it definitely leans left from time to time. David Von Drehle actually didn’t add a ton of judgment on Beck though, but the quotations he chose to bold and highlight makes it pretty clear what he thinks about Beck.

But holy crap… Beck is a lot more nuts than I realized. And the article added some interesting factoids that I didn’t know about, specifically his mother’s suicide when he was a teenager. The article describes Beck as “tireless, funny, a recovering alcoholic, a convert to Mormonism, a libertarian and living with ADHD.” The article, comically, also quotes Steven King’s description of Beck as “Satan’s mentally challenged younger brother,” which made me pee myself a little. Apparently, his struggles with addiction and deep depression led him down his own dark path in which he too contemplated suicide. Some quick google searches about Beck’s mother yields conspirator theories about the inconsistencies in Beck’s story about his mother’s “suicide,” which further complicate Beck’s nutjobiness (it’s a word… look it up). Regardless, this guy has a really dark past, is visibly mentally unstable, and yet is one of the most influential media figures in the country. What the hell America?

Beck’s sound bites needn’t any political spin; he’s all over the place. My favorite snippet of the article is “I don’t trust a single weasel in Washington. I don’t care what party they’re from. But unless we trust each other, we’re not going to make it.” Beck actively tells every one of his 2.5 million viewers every day that no one can be trusted in Washington, that “Barack Obama has a deep-seeded hatred for white people,” and that “[everyone] should be afraid.” How can you say you want everyone to trust each other but spit that garbage out of 24-hour news networks? Not helping…

In actuality, though, this article doesn’t really do much in denouncing Beck; it’s more interested in highlighting the business of Beck and other high profile political media critics like Michael Moore and Al Franken. Beck is estimated to rake in a ballpark number of 23 million a year. As Von Drehle states, “we all can agree that, no matter where it comes from, rubbing the sore has become a lucrative business. The mutual contempt of the American extremes can fatten wallets at bookstores, cable-news departments, AM radio stations and documentary film fests.” And that’s maybe the most disappointing thing I took from this article. It might not even be about politics, opinions, or patriotism; it might just be about cash. It’s kind of ironic, actually. All of these guys were at the forefront of the media mob when AIG and Bear Stearns went down, raging about greed on Wall Street (which I’m not refuting… those were highly unethical). But isn’t it just as unethical to cash in on the “American extremes,” to pump all of this nonsense from a major news network, promoting things like the Tea Party a few weeks back? In some sense, it might be even more unethical. It’s one thing to pillage someone’s wallet like Madoff, but right (and left) extremists like Beck are cashing in people’s beliefs, and there’s something extremely unsettling about it.

The worst part about it, as Von Drehle writes, is that “the more the host is criticized, the more committed the original audience becomes” (hence the Glenn Beck for president signs). So I guess I’m not helping.

Anyways, the article is a good one, and Von Drehle is a really good writer. Maybe it’s because I’ve been reading accounting and stats textbooks for the past 6 weeks, but he had some great lines. I especially liked “trust is a toxic asset, sitting valueless on the national books.”

Give it a read… http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1924348,00.html

And if you didn’t see the Tea Party videos, check this one out. You see just how manipulated some extremists are. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y
]]> http://ahschneider1982.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/glenn-beck-satans-mentally-challenged-younger-brother/feed/ 0 ahschneider1982 http://ahschneider1982.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/is-it-time-to-trade-sabathia/ http://ahschneider1982.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/is-it-time-to-trade-sabathia/#comments Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:46:26 +0000 ahschneider1982 http://ahschneider1982.wordpress.com/?p=70 Continue reading →]]> I’m only kidding. But I’m wondering how many bad starts CC Sabathia would need to have before the papers started calling him a bust. I’m putting the over/under at 3 bad starts.

A few thoughts on yesterday’s opener for the Yanks…

First off, my prediction of the Yankees going 162-0 has unfortunately fallen by the wayside. The ’72 Dolphins reign supreme for another year.

I think the thing I’m most excited about after yesterday’s game is the versatility Brett Gardner is going to bring to bottom of the Yankees lineup. Our friends over at Rivera’s Cutter have been high on Gardner for a while, and I really hadn’t known much about him before this spring. But his speed at the bottom of the order is clearly a major weapon that is going to allow the Yankees to manufacture more with Jeter and Damon at the top of the order. I’m not entirely sold on Jeter batting lead off yet, but he’s a safe bet. If Gardner impresses for an extended period of time, I’d guess there will be some chatter about him moving to lead off. For now, I really like the lineup.

After 2 at-bats. I was ready to write off Matsui. He didn’t look like the same Matsui. There was a lot of writing in the offseason that made me wonder if writers were discussing Hideki Matsui or Hideki Irabu, and I was shocked. I had never thought of Matsui as a weak link, nor did I consider him to be another overpaid Yankee. But he looked weak yesterday in his first 2 at-bats, and I impulsively was ready to admit defeat. Then he took Chris Ray 410 feet into right center. Shows what I know. Hopefully Matsui will be a steady DH until he’s healthy enough to play the field again.

The most surprising part of yesterday– the booing of Teixera. What the hell? I get it, the Orioles were part of the bidding war and lost out. I get it, the Yankees pay big bucks to get high profile players. Is this really news? You’d think Teixera had slaughtered the first born of every family in Baltimore or something by the reaction he got (Happy Passover everyone).

The most disappointing part of yesterday– yeah, it was Sabathia. I had really hoped he would just crush his first start so that most of the pressure would dissipate around his monster contract. He was clearly nervous, and two wild pitches early on showed it. It makes him human. I’m not worried though. He’s going to be worth everyone penny. I’m more disappointed that the pressure got to him, not that he couldn’t get a W in his first start.

This lineup is going to be pretty scary though when you put A-Rod back in at clean-up. It did feel a little weak without him in there, going from Tex to Matsui. But Posada looked good, Cano looked good, and Swisher looked solid in his pinch hit appearance. There really aren’t any weak links, and I really like the depth they’ll have on a daily basis so that guys aren’t being overused. Even though the batters individually might not be as dangerous as previous lineups (i.e. maybe Abreu is more dangerous than Nady, and Sheffield more dangerous than Cano) I feel like this lineup has a rhythm to it. It flows more, complements itself more, if that makes any sense. The pitching is going to be there. The Yanks won’t give up 10 runs often this season. They’ve got innings-eaters and a solid bullpen that won’t be overused.

161-1 ain’t bad….

Lastly, let’s rank the great Yankee busts of the past 15 years. Here’s my list.

1.) Carl Pavano

2.) Hideki Irabu

3.) Randy Johnson

4.) Kenny Loften

5.) Kevin Brown

I know there’s worse, but I’m blanking. Bring back Danny Tartabull and Ruben Sierra!

Speaking of butt kicking, Jim Cramer was on the Daily Show tonight. I’ve always been pretty impressed with Jon Stewart, especially now that I understand more an 1/17 of the show’s jokes. I like the Daily Show a little more than the Colbert Report mostly because Stewart’s interviews are the best part of his show, and tonight’s interview was particularly impressive.

I think the Daily Show has really evolved over the past 5 or 6 years. Though Stewart consistently claims that he is just a comedian and has no obligation to report the truth, he and the show’s writers are clearly recognize themselves as a very politically persuasive influences.

Even with that in mind, I didn’t expect such a lopsided knockout of Jim Cramer that made Peter McNeeley look like Ivan Drago. Stewart definitely came prepared, and the show had dug up some pretty incriminating evidence that left Cramer like a deer in headlights. Still, I don’t even think he needed it. Cramer was apologetic, obsequious, and mostly concerned with trying to distance himself from CNBC as a whole. “People make mistakes” was pretty much Cramer’s best argument. Stewart was open about perhaps unjustly targeting Cramer for the assault on irresponsible financial reporting by CNBC. But Cramer was trying to make himself out to be the victim, as if the satanic CEO’s pulled the wool over his innocent, hedge fund-running eyes. It was bad acting, and Stewart wouldn’t let him off the hook. He twisted the knife, and twisted it hard.

As much as I’m sure Stewart prepared for the interview, when push comes to shove, it was still all him- no writers or scripts, and he knocked it out of the park. Cramer had nothing. I’m disappointed. A high profile like Cramer should have had more. At least Bill O’Reilly puts up a fight.

And my last kudos is because Stewart is often criticized for exchanging blows in solo segments but then not calling out his targets when they agree to interview on the show. He didn’t back down or sugarcoat it, and it was damn impressive.

But maybe Jim Cramer being speechless is akin to the day the music died (or something metaphorical like that). When one of the country’s foremost financial media personalities gets a verbal raping from a pseudo-political comedian, maybe we can understand just how big of a screw-up this financial crisis really is. The more I’m learning about it, the more I’m realizing that it really could have been avoided.

Glad I’m halfway through my first Accounting course. I think it’s a good time to start learning a little something about money.