More entertainment

I can't believe I'm going to blog on movies yet again. But I am.

I don't follow the movie news, but occasionally I somehow become aware of certain movies looming on the horizon. Strangely enough, right now there are movie versions (in the process of) being made of three of my favorite books.


The Time Traveler's Wife is set for release in June. I shudder at the thought of what they'll do to the best book I've read in several years. I'm not kidding. If you haven't read it, do so now!

Evidently The Mysteries of Pittsburgh has already been released, though I doubt it'll ever make it to my town. The reviews aren't very good, but I loved the book. Maybe it was a "time in my life" thing, but I thought it was much better than his later books -- even the Pulitzer winner.

Finally, The Risk Pool is in "pre-production", whatever that means. "This is one of my all-time favorite "funny novels". Again maybe it's just my contrarian nature, but I like it better than his more acclaimed later books. Yes, (again) even more than his Pulitzer winner. Normally I'd be very worried about how badly they'll butcher the book, but Lawrence Kasdan is directing and Tom Hanks is (supposedly) starring. While I think Tom Hanks can pull off just about any role, I cannot picture him as Sam Hall. It just doesn't work for me.

Anyway, I am cautiously eager to see all three. I'm going to keep my expectations low, so maybe they'll be exceeded. Now if Hollywood could just work out all the issues and get this book on the silver screen, I'd be very happy.

Give me a C, no wait a Z!

Spelling bees. Sigh.

I HATE spelling bees. I have since the 6th grade, when I misspelled a simple 4-letter word in the county-wide bee. I've never been a great speller, but I promise I knew how to spell my word. It's just that, at the time, I had a paralyzing fear of having to speak/perform in front of others. I don't know, but I'm willing to bet I'd have misspelled my own name that morning.

Needless to say, I have not taken to watching ESPN's broadcast of the Scripps national bee, nor did I watch that documetary about it. Nonetheless, this story out of Cullman caught my attention:

FAIRVIEW, Ala. (AP) — Krystian Doss says he knows how to spell "kudzu," and he's positive he got the word right during the Cullman County spelling bee. Just like in the NFL, though, the final call came down to a video replay.

Christiana Oanca was named the winner of the annual competition on Monday when judges determined Doss spelled "kudzu" with a "c" where the "z" should have been. After an initial protest they reviewed a video of the event — a byproduct of a past miscue.

Yes, they now have instant replay for spelling bees! Of course I wasn't there, but based on nothing more than uninformed opinion, I say the kid was robbed! C'mon, what Alabama kid does NOT know how to spell "kudzu"? Geesh!

Say what?

Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you likely know there's a big election coming up this fall. Unless your particular rock was in the deepest, darkest, most remote corner of an isolated cave, you've likely also heard that this year's Democratic nominee (almost certainly) will be "historic".

Given that AL joined the stampede of insanely early primary states, I now have to vote next week! I'm almost certain who I'm voting for, but I understand that some folks might not have put a lot of thought into it yet. In a nod to those "late deciders", my local newspaper recently published an editorial that might provide (Democratic) voters some guidance in choosing between their "historic" options:

Some people are struggling with their motivations for how they plan to vote.

Is it OK to vote for Sen. Obama because he is black?

It is OK to vote for Sen. Clinton because she is a woman?

The answers are the same — certainly.

That's it. No explanation for why this is okay; it just is. I guess one could invoke the "obvious theorem" and accept that no explanation is necessary. Immediately after this hard-edged political analysis, though, the DD continues with:

Is it OK to vote against Sen. Obama because he is black?

Is it OK to vote against Sen. Clinton because she is a woman?

The answers are the same — certainly not. To vote for those reasons is racist and gender biased.

Honestly, folks, I'm not making it up. It's okay to vote for a candidate because of race or gender, but it's not okay to vote against him or her for that reason -- that would be racist or gender biased. I honestly think the Daily's argument might have been stronger if they'd just (silently) invoked the "obvious theorem" for the second set of rhetorical questions too! Avoiding the culturally charged word, racist, I'd really like to write a letter to the DD and ask them just how they define "gender biased".

Now I've read a lot of opinions about why it IS okay to vote based on race/gender in this particular election. Though most have seemed a bit strained if taken too far, they have made good points and some of them have been quite persuasive. The DD's argument, though, baffles me. Maybe if they'd taken the time to explain why it is okay to vote FOR Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton because of race or gender, the piece might make more sense. As it is I can't see how anyone would have let this thing run without recognizing the inherent contradiction. It's just intellectually lazy.

Note: I intended to include a disclaimer here about which candidate I am supporting -- as protection from those who might question my motivation in this rant. In the end I realize it doesn't matter. The editorial is sloppy and flawed (in my opinion) independent of who I vote for.

Unintended consequences

It's a little simplistic and heavy on anecdotes, but this column by Dubner and Levitt (the Freakonomics guys) highlights one of my favorite economics topics -- the law of unintended consequences.

But before charging ahead with such plans, the new president might do well to first ask him- or herself the following question: What do a deaf woman in Los Angeles, a first-century Jewish sandal maker and a red-cockaded woodpecker have in common?

The answer is they all may have been harmed by government regulations designed to help them. The section on the ADA is kind of obvious -- and is likely subject to even more regulation today -- and the part about Jewish sabbatical law just made me go "huh?" The discussion of the Endangered Species Act, though, caught my attention.

I've always thought it incredibly stupid to designate a species "endangered" with such a long lag time before designating its protected habitat. OF COURSE property owners are going to act to clear/develop the land before it's "taken" (in a sense) from them. I guess I'd just never thought of it as a strategic decision.

In their paper, Lueck and Michael cite a 1996 developers’ guide from the National Association of Home Builders: “The highest level of assurance that a property owner will not face an E.S.A. [Endangered Species Act] issue is to maintain the property in a condition such that protected species cannot occupy the property.”

Now I certainly agree with Dubner and Levitt's endnote that not all regulation is bad. But I also agree that it's WAY TOO COMMON for us to fail to think through the incentives created by a new regulation -- especially when we're trying to "help" one group or another. Whenever I'm considering a new "twist" in my class grading or testing procedures I always ask myself, "Now how could I 'scam' this system?" I don't foresee all problems, but that approach has saved me from more than a few policy headaches.

An interesting market opportunity

This has been making the rounds of the econ blog sites, but in case you haven't seen it:

Randy Newsom, a Cleveland Indian relief pitching prospect, is selling himself. Well sort of.

RSI is currently offering 4% of his future major league salary at
the price of $50,000. RSI is selling shares of Randy Newsom for
$20/Share through 2/1/08. 2,500 total shares will be sold.
[...]
1 Share will lay claim to 0.0016% of Randy's future major league
earnings.

Thus, if the guy earns $1 million in MLB, a shareholder would collect $16.

I'm intrigued -- both by the baseball aspect and the "markets in everything" aspect. If the guy just makes a major league roster for three years, this would almost be a winning bet (the MLB minimum salary over the next couple of years is $400,000).

I mostly agree with the standard econ interpretation of this as a form of wage insurance for athletes, but I'm thinking of a twist that I might put on it to use in class. Why just offer 4% of your future salary? Why not offer up 50% or more of your earnings? I'm hoping my students would realize that doing so would greatly reduce a player's incentive to work hard and do his best (because he would only be getting half his "worth"). I can then segue from that into a discussion of the disincentive effect of income taxation in general! The only thing is, the disincentive effect of income taxation is not really one of my soapbox issues. Still, I think it might be interesting. Hmm, something to think about.

In the meantime I need to do some research into the question of whether Mr. Newsom is a legitimate MLB prospect.

Okay, okay

Yes, I do realize it's been a while since I've shared my thoughts. First there was the hustle of final exams. Next there was the joy of being off work for 3 weeks or so. Then there was the bustle of beginning the new semester. Further, it didn't appear that anyone was missing 3rd B. All I had was one er "odd" comment from my old pal Omar. I have, however, heard from 2 people in the past day, wanting to know what has become of my blog. Given that overwhelming appeal for me to continue sharing my thoughts: I'm back.

Let me see, where to begin? Christmas was good. Mostly just relaxing, though I did appreciate the loot I got. Oh, Caffeine Dad had rotator cuff surgery last week, so the family has been dealing with that. I did manage to go on a couple of day hikes, but no overnight adventures to share. I've also been trying to build an "MP3 download" album on Amazon. If you don't know, Amazon now has an "MP3 store" to, I assume, compete with iTunes. Seeing as how I have a good bit of Amazon credit built up, I figured I'd try to build me an Amazon album based on two criteria: 1) It has to be a song available from their MP3 store. 2) It (sort of) has to be on an album that I would not want to own in its entirety. I thought it would be easy to do using songs from my Pandora station, but I've run into some trouble. Here's what I've got so far (though it changes a bit from day-to-day):

City Hall -- Vienna Tang
A Thing Called Raw -- Jackie Greene
Hell Is An Open Door -- East River Pipe
Mercy -- Po Girl
Clear and Present Danger -- Eddie From Ohio
Overcome -- Live
Tulsa County -- Son Volt.

I'm still iffy on a few of those songs, but the most frustrating thing is that some of the "best songs in the world" I hear on my Pandora station are not available from Amazon's MP3 store (or anywhere else in some cases). For instance, I'd REALLY like to include The Indigo Girls' version of "Romeo and Juliet" and two obscure tunes (Streets of London by Sinead O'Connor and Dreams by Cat Power), but those are not to be. Hence, I'm still building my album. By the way, the Cat Power tune happens to be more easily available in the UK than here, so if any of you English readers happen to have it, well ...

In other news, I have been to THREE movies in recent weeks -- that has to be an all-time record for me. First the bad: Beowulf -- in 3D no less! It was horrible. Seriously, this movie rivaled You, Me, and Dupree or Triple X for all-time badness. The only potentially cool thing about the movie was the 3D aspect, but they only had one little 3D trick that they kept doing over and over. Honestly, it felt as if you were in a Nintendo game, running from level-to-level, slaying beasts along the way. I still cannot figure out how they convinced so many "name" actors to participate in this fiasco. Actually there was one redeeming feature to this film. It gave me an opportunity to adopt a new "tag line". For the past few weeks, when I'm around the folks I saw it with, I will say, with much seriousness, "My name (LONG pause) is BEOWULF!" Yes, one could make a great drinking game from this movie by imbibing every time that dolt screams that line. Other than that, it was pretty worthless.

Now for the good ... I did see No Country For Old Men and I thought it was every bit as good as the buzz. I had read the book and I'll admit I was a little underwhelmed by it. Don't get me wrong; it was good, just not THAT good. The movie, though, was excellent. The pacing was excellent, the characters were spot on, the dialog was crisp. [The weakest part of the movie was the Woody Harrelso character, and even he wasn't bad.] There were no wasted scenes in the whole film. Heck, even the silence was a character. I honestly don't think there was a score to the movie -- at least not one that I noticed. If I had a 3rd hand I'd give it 3 thumbs up. Now the disclaimers. It was bloody and violent. It wasn't "cheap thrill" violence, but it would have been rough if I were squeamish about that stuff. More importantly, if you haven't read the book you're going to hate the ending. No not the ending itself, but the "unsatisfactory" nature of the ending. I'll leave it at that.

Finally, just last night I finally got around to seeing Juno. Given the stratospheric praise this little "indie film" has generated, I was fully prepared to hate it -- or at the least be sorely disappointed. In actuality I really, really liked it. I won't go so far as to say I loved it, but it was very, very good. It was fast, witty, and intelligent. They mostly resisted the sentimentality trap that would have been oh so easy for this film to fall into. For the most part, I'd say the critics and the movie-going public got this one right. A couple of complaints, though. First, the movie does seem to suggest that teen pregnancy might not be such a bad thing as long as the girl is hip and witty enough. I realize it wasn't supposed to be a "message movie" about teen pregnancy, but still ...

What bugged me more, though, is that this movie essentially was an alternate history version of what would have happened on the Gilmore Girls if Rory had ever gotten pregnant. [Well it was that with a better actor than old Alexis Bledel.] I liked the Gilmores, so why is that a bad thing? Well it's not a bad thing, it's just that America is crazy about this movie, yet most of America ignored the Gilmores. Seriously, they were every bit as hip and "with it" as Juno, yet they never got this kind of response. True, the Gilmores were (I think) WB's most successful program for a while, but they never captured the wider audience Juno has. I just don't get it.

As for Juno itself, ... It's a really good movie and I recommend it highly. You'll laugh, you'll groan, you may even tear up (if you're a tear up at the movies kind of person). The story is good, the music is quirky, and the acting is really good. Honestly, the most disappointing performance was that of Michael Cera, but I think I only say that because he essentially played the same character, in the same way, as he did in the TV show Arrested Development. All-in-all I don't think it was as good as last year's indie darling, but it was very good. Actually I just remembered the movie it reminded me of. It was a lot like The Opposite of Sex, with a much more likeable main character.

So anyway, ... Avoid Beowulf at all cost -- even with the cool 3D glasses -- but do go see No Country and Juno. At least that's my opinion.

Well now you're sort of caught up with me. I'm sure I have things to say about steroids in baseball and all the books I've read since I'm last reported. I'll get to those. For now, however, I need to get back to work.