This week the team tackles Beth Kassab's take on recent ticket price news. News Wheel turns on umbrellas at Be Our Guest, Magic Bands and more.
Download Episode 109
Monday, June 24, 2013
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Friday, April 5, 2013
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Book Thoughts: Killer Show by John Barylick
This week marks the ten year anniversary of the Station Nightclub Fire. All Rhode Islanders were touched by the accident. Coverage of the anniversary and my interest as an attorney pushed me towards downloading and reading Killer Show by John Barylick, one of the lead plaintiffs attorneys.
1. My biggest takeaway from the book was how avoidable the catastrophe was. If any number of laws or ordinances were to have been followed the fire could have been avoided or slowed. The rub wasn't that there wasn't enough regulation, but that the regulations already on the book weren't enforced. This is something to probably consider for any debate on guns.
2. The Derderians were horrible people. I was most struck by how so much of their behavior was just bullying. With each business they purchased, they forced their employees to immediately work at least partially under the table. These were guys who were middle class to slightly wealthy forcing employees who were making people earning next to nothing work without protection. For example, one of the club's bartenders worked for $40/night and tips.
One of the more disgusting tricks used by the brothers was keeping a $20,000 "deposit" from a prospective buyer and refusing to return it. Even the foam insulation that ignited the firestorm was purchased from a neighbor who had complained about the club's noise. By purchasing the insulation at from the neighbor they were able to placate the neighbor with a sale and mitigate the noise problem.
I have to wonder what would have happened if someone had really pushed these bullies back? Would an employee reporting them to the Department of Labor and Training and the resulting sanction have helped them re-evaluate their fast and loose business practices? Ditto if the prospective buyers had called the police or Attorney General's office. If the neighbor hadn't been happy to make a foam sale and persisted in decreasing the noise at the Station would the club have been shut down or faced more scrutiny?
Twerps like these guys need brush back pitches.
3. I'm very glad that this book was written. A tragedy like this needs a thorough account of the events memorialized before time robs of us of the opportunity. I'm also glad that it was told with a viewpoint. It would have been very easy for a local reporter to put together an oral history.* My only wish is that the book had been written by a neutral and not a straight partisan.
4. Barylick is an excellent lawyer. The theories of liability** that the plaintiffs group were able to articulate is a testament to their skill, mental agility, and perseverance.
5. One section I didn't appreciate was Risky Business. In that chapter, Barylick lays out the rationale for why plaintiffs attorneys in the matter, or rather the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, deserved their fee.
My first issue is that Barylick paints with a very broad brush with regards to attorneys who advertise.*** At one point, he states that "many advertising 'personal injury attorneys' are either referral networks or settlement mills." He also goes on to state, without naming names, that several of these advertising attorneys screwed up victims' claims or free loaded on their group. Rhode Island has a small bar, that is allegedly a collegial. I guess not here. Also, why not name names? He has no problems meticulously outlining the mistakes of individuals involved with the catastrophe. Why not the same with bungling attorneys?****
Secondly, he also goes on to state that advertising attorneys have tarnished the reputation of the bar. Some have. Could one also say, however unfair or lacking nuance, that trying to hang liability on Anheuser-Busch, who was just selling beer, in one of the biggest tragedies in our state's history may have done equal harm? As someone who has sat on victims' couches and at kitchen tables, I did not appreciate the dig.
Finally, there were a couple of kicks at defense counsel for dragging in their heels, delaying justice, and running up big bills. Their duty to their clients were no less than Barylick's to his own. Painting defense counsel as money hungry to the detriment of their clients is unfair.
* Oral histories are the worst. Absolutely horrible. Even worse, they're taking over. Grantland did one on Cheers. There was even one on Bridesmaids. The movie.
** As I tell my clients, you need to have two things that are linked together to have a case: somebody has to do something wrong and injury. A rear end car accident often results in temporary (read: less valuable) injuries, but are easy since the party in the wrong is obviously wrong. With other accidents or slip and falls or products cases, it is tougher to prove the wrongdoing. It's almost like puzzle solving. The more severe (read: valuable) the injury the harder that your average plaintiff attorney will work to find a solution to the puzzle.
*** Before going solo, I worked for a firm that advertised moderately, but not with a serious tone. My firm did not represent any of the Station victims at any point and I was not admitted to practice until 2007.
**** Barylick alludes to two firms that are well known. He does not specifically tie them to early on bungles, but does give the impression that they were involved. The confusion was not appreciated by this reader.
1. My biggest takeaway from the book was how avoidable the catastrophe was. If any number of laws or ordinances were to have been followed the fire could have been avoided or slowed. The rub wasn't that there wasn't enough regulation, but that the regulations already on the book weren't enforced. This is something to probably consider for any debate on guns.
2. The Derderians were horrible people. I was most struck by how so much of their behavior was just bullying. With each business they purchased, they forced their employees to immediately work at least partially under the table. These were guys who were middle class to slightly wealthy forcing employees who were making people earning next to nothing work without protection. For example, one of the club's bartenders worked for $40/night and tips.
One of the more disgusting tricks used by the brothers was keeping a $20,000 "deposit" from a prospective buyer and refusing to return it. Even the foam insulation that ignited the firestorm was purchased from a neighbor who had complained about the club's noise. By purchasing the insulation at from the neighbor they were able to placate the neighbor with a sale and mitigate the noise problem.
I have to wonder what would have happened if someone had really pushed these bullies back? Would an employee reporting them to the Department of Labor and Training and the resulting sanction have helped them re-evaluate their fast and loose business practices? Ditto if the prospective buyers had called the police or Attorney General's office. If the neighbor hadn't been happy to make a foam sale and persisted in decreasing the noise at the Station would the club have been shut down or faced more scrutiny?
Twerps like these guys need brush back pitches.
3. I'm very glad that this book was written. A tragedy like this needs a thorough account of the events memorialized before time robs of us of the opportunity. I'm also glad that it was told with a viewpoint. It would have been very easy for a local reporter to put together an oral history.* My only wish is that the book had been written by a neutral and not a straight partisan.
4. Barylick is an excellent lawyer. The theories of liability** that the plaintiffs group were able to articulate is a testament to their skill, mental agility, and perseverance.
5. One section I didn't appreciate was Risky Business. In that chapter, Barylick lays out the rationale for why plaintiffs attorneys in the matter, or rather the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, deserved their fee.
My first issue is that Barylick paints with a very broad brush with regards to attorneys who advertise.*** At one point, he states that "many advertising 'personal injury attorneys' are either referral networks or settlement mills." He also goes on to state, without naming names, that several of these advertising attorneys screwed up victims' claims or free loaded on their group. Rhode Island has a small bar, that is allegedly a collegial. I guess not here. Also, why not name names? He has no problems meticulously outlining the mistakes of individuals involved with the catastrophe. Why not the same with bungling attorneys?****
Secondly, he also goes on to state that advertising attorneys have tarnished the reputation of the bar. Some have. Could one also say, however unfair or lacking nuance, that trying to hang liability on Anheuser-Busch, who was just selling beer, in one of the biggest tragedies in our state's history may have done equal harm? As someone who has sat on victims' couches and at kitchen tables, I did not appreciate the dig.
Finally, there were a couple of kicks at defense counsel for dragging in their heels, delaying justice, and running up big bills. Their duty to their clients were no less than Barylick's to his own. Painting defense counsel as money hungry to the detriment of their clients is unfair.
* Oral histories are the worst. Absolutely horrible. Even worse, they're taking over. Grantland did one on Cheers. There was even one on Bridesmaids. The movie.
** As I tell my clients, you need to have two things that are linked together to have a case: somebody has to do something wrong and injury. A rear end car accident often results in temporary (read: less valuable) injuries, but are easy since the party in the wrong is obviously wrong. With other accidents or slip and falls or products cases, it is tougher to prove the wrongdoing. It's almost like puzzle solving. The more severe (read: valuable) the injury the harder that your average plaintiff attorney will work to find a solution to the puzzle.
*** Before going solo, I worked for a firm that advertised moderately, but not with a serious tone. My firm did not represent any of the Station victims at any point and I was not admitted to practice until 2007.
**** Barylick alludes to two firms that are well known. He does not specifically tie them to early on bungles, but does give the impression that they were involved. The confusion was not appreciated by this reader.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Book Thoughts: The Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver
Only 12% deep on the Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver. Not too thrilled so far. Early on, Silver goes on at length that there are two types of analysts: foxes and hedgehogs. Hedgehogs are bullish, biased, and always looking to confirm what they believe. Foxes are always scavenging the world around them to pull in little bits of data or anything that will help them understand the problem. It is obvious which Silver thinks he is.
My thought: duh. Of course people who don't ignore relevant information are able to make more accurate predictions. I don't think you need to be a stats whiz to understand that being self-critical and empirical may be helpful traits. Silver took a lot of pages to say something that is fairly obvious.
This reminds me of criticism of Malcolm Gladwell's Blink. Blink focused on intuitive thinking and was well read going back a few years ago. Throughout the book, there are tons of anecdotes of how experts in their fields are able to quickly solve problems or defeat a sophisticated computer meant in a war game. The takeaway from the book is that people are able to process information very quickly and subconsciously, especially experts. D'uh.
The difference between Gladwell and Silver, so far, is that Gladwell is an excellent writer. His style is accessible. He is able to dazzle you so much with that style that you don't even notice that the substance isn't too impressive. So far, Silver hasn't said much and he hasn't said it well.
As a bonus, here's a fun and somewhat unfair thrashing of Gladwell by the Hon. Richard Posner.
My thought: duh. Of course people who don't ignore relevant information are able to make more accurate predictions. I don't think you need to be a stats whiz to understand that being self-critical and empirical may be helpful traits. Silver took a lot of pages to say something that is fairly obvious.
This reminds me of criticism of Malcolm Gladwell's Blink. Blink focused on intuitive thinking and was well read going back a few years ago. Throughout the book, there are tons of anecdotes of how experts in their fields are able to quickly solve problems or defeat a sophisticated computer meant in a war game. The takeaway from the book is that people are able to process information very quickly and subconsciously, especially experts. D'uh.
The difference between Gladwell and Silver, so far, is that Gladwell is an excellent writer. His style is accessible. He is able to dazzle you so much with that style that you don't even notice that the substance isn't too impressive. So far, Silver hasn't said much and he hasn't said it well.
As a bonus, here's a fun and somewhat unfair thrashing of Gladwell by the Hon. Richard Posner.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Book Thoughts: Francona: The Red Sox Years by Francona
"There is not limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." -- Ronald Reagan
1.) This is the second memoir that I've read since starting this project. Like W's, I came away realy liking Tito. He's the right mix of regular guy and arch competitor. He's got some great stories, like Mike Lowell telling Dustin Pedroia "Simmer down, Napolean," or driving down to spring training in 2005 and flipping off dejected Eagles fans driving back from Jacksonville after the Birds lost Super Bowl 39.* Francona can also have a bit of mean streak as well. When the media was in the process of fluffing Bobby V, Terry said "I wanted to put rings on both fingers and say, 'We were a little above average.'" Love it.
2.) If my son is half as awesome as Dustin Pedroia, I'll be happy. Even better, he's almost as tall.
3.) At one point in the book, Francona refers to Queer Eye for the Staight guy as "the TV show with the homosexuals."
4.) Francona only made $500K/year his first three years with the Sox. At the time he was hired, the Sox had recently been purchased for about $700M or so. It seems absolutely insane to me that ownership would turn over the car keys to a guy making that little compared to other managers. I also don't understand playing hardball with him on the salary. His salary would eventually get up into the $3.5M/year range.
5.) People in baseball are babies and weirdos. It is such an insular society and that fraternity makes people into loons. Whether it's guys like David Ortiz or Mike Lowell refusing to accept a smaller role commensurate with their declining skill or idiosyncrasies like Derek Jeter refusing to step in the batter's box until he got a nod from Francona, everyone is insane. I completely understand how a Manny Ramirez could exist in this world.
Francona is no better. He really loves everything about being in baseball's oddball universe. It must be the 162 games because his mind does seem addled at some points. He is incredibly protective of his routine and projects that love of routine on a lot of other actors. His morning routine is especially weird, but is grounded in his love of the clubhouse. Every morning he would pull up to Fenway and give his keys to the clubbies. He'd tell them that they could use the car, but not to tell him about it.
Tito also would get extremely frustrated with line up suggestions from baseball ops (read: stats guys). This one puzzled me. He wasn't given orders. He was given something to think about. More information is usually a good thing, especially if it is concise. I think he saw it as an affront to his role as manager.
Francona also had an "open wallet" policy that struck me as generous but odd. He would leave his wallet everyday on his desk and the clubbies woud be able to take a loan from it whenever they wanted. One of the attendants even bragged that he went into his wallet like once a day. Call me crazy, but that is absolutely insane. Is this is a baseball thing? I googled it and it doesn't look like it. I just wish that we had stats on this. How much was loaned? How much was paid back? How much did Manny take?
6.) Not to be too mean here, but being a baseball manager doesn't seem to be too difficult. I've read Halberstam's Belichick book and it seems like the difference in degree of difficulty between jobs is off the charts. I don't think that Belichick has a lot of time for cribbage with Julian Edelman. I do understand that there is a lot more personality management in baseball and it's obvious that Terry Francona has the perfect temperament for it.
7.) This is a follow up note to my thoughts on HGH. Simmons asked at the end of his podcast why players wouldn't consent to blood testing. Terry Francona's story is the best case against blood testing. When Francona went to the team doctor and through a MLB sponsored program, it was set up so that only four or five people would know about it. It was reported in a local paper just days after Francona left the team. The moral here is that leagues and/or player associations have not shown themselves to be trustworthy with confidential health information. Until we live in a world where this doesn't happen, blood tests can't happen.**
8.) It is bizarre that Tito and Theo Epstein attempt to deflect blame the September 2011 collapse from Francona's use of pain killers by pointing out that he used way more pain killers in 2004.
RECOMMENDATION: Must read for Red Sox fans regardless of hat color and Yankee fans. I'd also suggest it for anyone looking for a baseball fix waiting for spring training and fantasy baseball prep to start.
*Francona managed the Phillies during their lean years. He was not popular in Philadelphia. I went to law school in Philly and people were not happy when he won the World Series in 2004. Steve-o, friend of the MMOM, has often said that he would rather a hump on his back than Terry Francona. What most fairweather Phillies phans don't understand is that their team sucked in the late 90s and nothing any manager could do would fix that.
** If you had VD, would you want Larry Lucchino to have access to your blood samples? Would you trust Tom Werner to not have your blood genetically tested?
Friday, February 8, 2013
Sports Thoughts: Why HGH is Bad for Sports
Just finished listening to Chuck Klosterman on the Bill Simmons' podcast. Usual good discussion, but I have some thoughts on their steroid discussion. Klosterman asked Simmons why he had a problem with athletes taking HGH or blood doping or whatever*. Simmons had a couple of responses. Simmons' response ranged from fairness to curiosity about who is actually doing it. Here are my thoughts:
1.) Performance enhancing isn't bad. Proper nutrition and and weight training are performance enhancing. Ditto for Lasik and Tommy John surgery. One of Simmons' refrains is that he doesn't understand how moving tendons around or using bits from cadavers is any worse than using whatever A-Rod or Manny or Lance did. There is a difference.
2.) Steroids are banned not because they make you better at sports. They are banned because of the side effects that come with them. Per some article I googled, side effects to HGH can include heart disease, joint pain, and diabetes. It doesn't seem like the data on this is great and that work with this stuff is ongoing. Blood doping can also cause cardiovascular problems.
Generally speaking, I'm fine with people making their own choices and living with the consequences. If some doofus wants to drink or smoke too much (me) and wreck his (my) body, that's his (my) problem. This doesn't apply to sports though.
Banning this stuff makes sense because of the no-choice choice that players would be faced with. Cheaters force non-cheaters to consider steroids. What would you do if you were a marginal talent and were faced with the choice of taking steroids or losing your job? On the one hand, you're risking heart problems, diabetes, and God knows what. On the other, if your primary skill is throwing curveballs, you probably aren't good at many non-baseball things and still need to take care of your family. That is an unfair choice.
3.) Simmons also marveled that his BFF's 93 year old grandma was taking prescription HGH. The implication was that: if it's ok for her, why not good enough for athletes? This is wrong. In medicine, tradeoffs are made all the time. Consquences are weighed with the guidance of a doctor and patients make calls. For instance, my wife has been prescribed prednisone. The side effects are horrible, but not nearly as bad as her pre-existing joint pain.
I have no idea what the underlying condition was that lead to Dave Jacoby's grandma being prescribed HGH. I'm sure that the severity of that condition was weighed against possible long-term complications and side-effects. A big consideration was probably the likelihood that grammy wouldn't be around for any long-term problems. Because she is old.
It is very easy to differentiate Jacoby's probably-already-dead grandma and a thirty something athlete.
*For clarity, I will refer to all banned, performance enhancing substances as steroids unless otherwise noted. This will also include stuff like blood doping or amphetamines.
1.) Performance enhancing isn't bad. Proper nutrition and and weight training are performance enhancing. Ditto for Lasik and Tommy John surgery. One of Simmons' refrains is that he doesn't understand how moving tendons around or using bits from cadavers is any worse than using whatever A-Rod or Manny or Lance did. There is a difference.
2.) Steroids are banned not because they make you better at sports. They are banned because of the side effects that come with them. Per some article I googled, side effects to HGH can include heart disease, joint pain, and diabetes. It doesn't seem like the data on this is great and that work with this stuff is ongoing. Blood doping can also cause cardiovascular problems.
Generally speaking, I'm fine with people making their own choices and living with the consequences. If some doofus wants to drink or smoke too much (me) and wreck his (my) body, that's his (my) problem. This doesn't apply to sports though.
Banning this stuff makes sense because of the no-choice choice that players would be faced with. Cheaters force non-cheaters to consider steroids. What would you do if you were a marginal talent and were faced with the choice of taking steroids or losing your job? On the one hand, you're risking heart problems, diabetes, and God knows what. On the other, if your primary skill is throwing curveballs, you probably aren't good at many non-baseball things and still need to take care of your family. That is an unfair choice.
3.) Simmons also marveled that his BFF's 93 year old grandma was taking prescription HGH. The implication was that: if it's ok for her, why not good enough for athletes? This is wrong. In medicine, tradeoffs are made all the time. Consquences are weighed with the guidance of a doctor and patients make calls. For instance, my wife has been prescribed prednisone. The side effects are horrible, but not nearly as bad as her pre-existing joint pain.
I have no idea what the underlying condition was that lead to Dave Jacoby's grandma being prescribed HGH. I'm sure that the severity of that condition was weighed against possible long-term complications and side-effects. A big consideration was probably the likelihood that grammy wouldn't be around for any long-term problems. Because she is old.
It is very easy to differentiate Jacoby's probably-already-dead grandma and a thirty something athlete.
*For clarity, I will refer to all banned, performance enhancing substances as steroids unless otherwise noted. This will also include stuff like blood doping or amphetamines.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Wrestling Thoughts: Value Over Replacement Grappler
Recently listened to Wrestlespective's episode on Bash at the Beach 2000. Excellent as always, but I did have one note on the discussion. At one point, Jason referred to Jeff Jarrett as a "replacement level" wrestler. Jason went on to say that Jarrett was essentially an average wrestler. I agree with him that Jarrett was an average or mediocre wrestler, but I do think that it is important to distinguish between replacement level and average.
In baseball, replacement level is the point at which a player could be replaced with a minimum salary player at the minor league level. Wikipedia uses the term "freely available talent." Hardball Times aptly describes it as "the level of talent at which teams stop competing for your services, and you end up competing for the last handful of open roster spots." Luminaries who fit the bill in baseball can be found over at Fan Graphs.
In that sense, Jarrett isn't really a replacement level grappler. On the current WWE roster, Camacho or Jinder Mahal would be replacement level guys. If you don't factor in charisma or mic skills, a guy like Heath Slater would be there too. Bart Gunn or the Headbangers would be examples of Attitude Era replacement level guys. Dating back to my early days as a fan, Beau Beverly or Skinner.
Just to be clear, Jarrett remains incredibly annoying.
In baseball, replacement level is the point at which a player could be replaced with a minimum salary player at the minor league level. Wikipedia uses the term "freely available talent." Hardball Times aptly describes it as "the level of talent at which teams stop competing for your services, and you end up competing for the last handful of open roster spots." Luminaries who fit the bill in baseball can be found over at Fan Graphs.
In that sense, Jarrett isn't really a replacement level grappler. On the current WWE roster, Camacho or Jinder Mahal would be replacement level guys. If you don't factor in charisma or mic skills, a guy like Heath Slater would be there too. Bart Gunn or the Headbangers would be examples of Attitude Era replacement level guys. Dating back to my early days as a fan, Beau Beverly or Skinner.
Just to be clear, Jarrett remains incredibly annoying.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Rhodey Thoughts: When Economic Development isn't Economic Development
This morning I had a twitter exchange with Bob Plain of RIFutute.org (@bobplain). The conversation started with Bob tweeting: "Rocky Point State Park = way better for #RI economy than tax breaks for the rich and powerful. http://ow.ly/hqF9W". A fun back and forth ensued about whether or not the two are really related. I happily earned a precious follow and moved on. Some thoughts though:
1.) Why can't buying greenspace be its own end? I'm for the purchase of the Rocky Point, but my reasons for it have nothing to do economic development. It's a beautiful spot and historic-ish site. The price seems pretty reasonable considering the amount of land and the waterfront location. In a vacuum I'd rather see it as a park than condos. That should be enough.
2.) Saying it should be done because it will stimulate/help/massage the economy is a pretty weak argument. As a Hendricken grad and lover of Warwick, I find Bob's assertion that this purchase will embolden people to move to or visit RI by adding it our list of amenities pretty silly.
One, large groups of consumers aren't going to decide to visit Rhode Island because of Rocky Point Park.
Two, if the park does draw visitors, regardless of where they are from, it would be tough to argue that it would benefit anyone other than those visitors or neighbors of the park. I believe that the only business on Warwick Neck is a convenience store. I hope that those folks do well and benefit from there being a big beautiful park down the road. I don't think that a $9M investment can be justified on the back of Warwick Neck General Store selling more sundries.
Three, is anyone going to move to Rhode Island because of this park? Rhode Island already has beautiful parks. I had the privilege of living near Colt State Park and the bike path. It was amazing and I miss it. Goddard Park is a true treasure. In the aggregate, they make living in Rhode Island a better experience. Will a new greenspace at Rocky Point move the needle for anyone already thinking of moving to the state? Saying that economic development is nuanced and moving on without supporting it in any way isn't an argument.
Don't confuse these three points with saying that we shouldn't buy the land. Good price and opportunities for real estate like this don't pop up everyday. You buy the land because parks are beautiful and it makes the lives of residents better. Calling it economic development is a false way to bolster an argument for the acquisition.
3.) Is this a new trend? In the buildup of the recent passage of the marriage equality bill in the House, Governor Chafee claimed that passing the bill would be good for Rhode Island's economy. The Governor's logic was a wee bit tortured in my book. My question is: if it makes sense and is a civil rights issue, isn't that enough? That should be the end of your case. If denying marriage to same sex couples is discrimination, that should do it. No need to try to stretch yourself to make a point.
If citing the economy as a reason is this decade's new trend will it become last decade's "don't support the terrorists" argument? Remember when there was a commercial that said buying marijuana helped support the terrorists?
Drugs are a cancer on our society and that's why we should concerned about them. Our leaders shouldn't have needed to wave the terrorist flag to make their arguments. Same goes for policy today. It is sound or it is not. Lamely stating that it's good for the economy with no actual data or insight does nothing.
4.) Let's take Bob at face value and assume that the Rocky Point Park will be a factor in whether an individual or company decides to make her home in Rhode Island. Would it also be fair to say that an anti "tax breaks for the rich" policy might count as a strike against?
5. ) I disagree with just about everything Bob says, but he is worth reading. You can find him at RIFutute.org.
1.) Why can't buying greenspace be its own end? I'm for the purchase of the Rocky Point, but my reasons for it have nothing to do economic development. It's a beautiful spot and historic-ish site. The price seems pretty reasonable considering the amount of land and the waterfront location. In a vacuum I'd rather see it as a park than condos. That should be enough.
2.) Saying it should be done because it will stimulate/help/massage the economy is a pretty weak argument. As a Hendricken grad and lover of Warwick, I find Bob's assertion that this purchase will embolden people to move to or visit RI by adding it our list of amenities pretty silly.
One, large groups of consumers aren't going to decide to visit Rhode Island because of Rocky Point Park.
Two, if the park does draw visitors, regardless of where they are from, it would be tough to argue that it would benefit anyone other than those visitors or neighbors of the park. I believe that the only business on Warwick Neck is a convenience store. I hope that those folks do well and benefit from there being a big beautiful park down the road. I don't think that a $9M investment can be justified on the back of Warwick Neck General Store selling more sundries.
Three, is anyone going to move to Rhode Island because of this park? Rhode Island already has beautiful parks. I had the privilege of living near Colt State Park and the bike path. It was amazing and I miss it. Goddard Park is a true treasure. In the aggregate, they make living in Rhode Island a better experience. Will a new greenspace at Rocky Point move the needle for anyone already thinking of moving to the state? Saying that economic development is nuanced and moving on without supporting it in any way isn't an argument.
Don't confuse these three points with saying that we shouldn't buy the land. Good price and opportunities for real estate like this don't pop up everyday. You buy the land because parks are beautiful and it makes the lives of residents better. Calling it economic development is a false way to bolster an argument for the acquisition.
3.) Is this a new trend? In the buildup of the recent passage of the marriage equality bill in the House, Governor Chafee claimed that passing the bill would be good for Rhode Island's economy. The Governor's logic was a wee bit tortured in my book. My question is: if it makes sense and is a civil rights issue, isn't that enough? That should be the end of your case. If denying marriage to same sex couples is discrimination, that should do it. No need to try to stretch yourself to make a point.
If citing the economy as a reason is this decade's new trend will it become last decade's "don't support the terrorists" argument? Remember when there was a commercial that said buying marijuana helped support the terrorists?
4.) Let's take Bob at face value and assume that the Rocky Point Park will be a factor in whether an individual or company decides to make her home in Rhode Island. Would it also be fair to say that an anti "tax breaks for the rich" policy might count as a strike against?
5. ) I disagree with just about everything Bob says, but he is worth reading. You can find him at RIFutute.org.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Movie Thoughts: Zero Dark Thirty
1.) Really enjoyed the acting in this one. With the exception of Jessica Chastain, there isn't a ton of time spent developing other characters. The whole thing comes together really well. Even characters that we see a little bit of give us enough to have a sense of who they are. Remember the Fugitive with Harrison Ford. It's like that. The background/secondary characters aren't flat and they work.
2.) I cannot get enough of Chris Pratt. Pratt is best known for playing Andy on Parks and Rec. He's in this movie and is fantastic in the little bit that he's been given. This is the second movie inspired by a true story that he's killed it in. He was great as Scott Hatteberg in Moneyball as well.
3.) Book dovetails nicely with my recent reading of Decision Points which I reviewed. I felt much higher stakes having read W's memoirs.
4.) Zero Dark Thirty raised issues of the efficiency and ethics of torture that have been dormant since W turned the keys over to President Obama.* I'd like to take this opportunity to point you towards one of my favorite authors over at BaseballCrank.com, Dan McLaughlin. The first essay I'd suggest is titled With the Death of Osama bin Laden, We're All Hawks Now. I mainly agree with the whole essay. The only spot I think that Crank stretches is Point B RE: Iraq, which reeks of a proximate cause problem. The second essay is Inconvenient Facts About The Takedown of Osama bin Laden. Great essay about torture and the conversation about torture. He's a must follow at @BaseballCrank.
5.) Spoilers! Osama bin Laden is dead. In spite of knowing how the story ends, the final 25 minutes are tense and fantastic. Kind of reminds me of Apollo 13 in that respect.
6.) I'll always remember the morning I found out that bin Laden had been snuffed out. I got dressed to the following song:
RECOMMENDATION: Must see for everyone over the age of 14. Not much to be squemish about here. Great movie.
* Why am I so comfortable using "W" when referencing George W. Bush, but hesitant to short President Barack Obama? Must be some desire to make nice with my left-leaning friends.
2.) I cannot get enough of Chris Pratt. Pratt is best known for playing Andy on Parks and Rec. He's in this movie and is fantastic in the little bit that he's been given. This is the second movie inspired by a true story that he's killed it in. He was great as Scott Hatteberg in Moneyball as well.
3.) Book dovetails nicely with my recent reading of Decision Points which I reviewed. I felt much higher stakes having read W's memoirs.
4.) Zero Dark Thirty raised issues of the efficiency and ethics of torture that have been dormant since W turned the keys over to President Obama.* I'd like to take this opportunity to point you towards one of my favorite authors over at BaseballCrank.com, Dan McLaughlin. The first essay I'd suggest is titled With the Death of Osama bin Laden, We're All Hawks Now. I mainly agree with the whole essay. The only spot I think that Crank stretches is Point B RE: Iraq, which reeks of a proximate cause problem. The second essay is Inconvenient Facts About The Takedown of Osama bin Laden. Great essay about torture and the conversation about torture. He's a must follow at @BaseballCrank.
5.) Spoilers! Osama bin Laden is dead. In spite of knowing how the story ends, the final 25 minutes are tense and fantastic. Kind of reminds me of Apollo 13 in that respect.
6.) I'll always remember the morning I found out that bin Laden had been snuffed out. I got dressed to the following song:
RECOMMENDATION: Must see for everyone over the age of 14. Not much to be squemish about here. Great movie.
* Why am I so comfortable using "W" when referencing George W. Bush, but hesitant to short President Barack Obama? Must be some desire to make nice with my left-leaning friends.
Book Thoughts: Decision Points by George W. Bush
Inspired by the 2012 presidential elections, I decided to pick up Decision Points by W. Since I am not a professional reviewer, I will keep this brief and to a few points.
1.) Although I am sure that W had some help here, it is very much in his voice. I would turn to YouTube throughout the book to relive particular moments or speeches and it felt very in tune with voice.
2.) One of the big lessons from Romney's loss is that conservative's need to make voters know that we care about them. W understood this a long time ago. Many mocked compassionate conservatism, but it got results and was a policy priority. Major initiatives included AIDS relief in Africa and immigration reform that respected the place of hard-working illegal immigrants in the country.
3.) W is really likeable. He adores his mom. He gives a ton of credit to staffers for things that go well and takes responsibility for the administration's failures. At one point, he tells the story of a Yale professor, who made an impression on W in college, remarked that W was an unremarkable student and that he didn't leave an impression. W's reply was that irregardless of how the professor felt, W would never forget the professor. How could people hate this guy?
4.) The chapter on September 11th and W's connection with U.S. troops is heartbreaking. So human. Brought tears to my eyes more than once.
5.) My favorite picture in the book is a picture of W in his pickup with his dog and "buddy" Barney. RIP. See below.
RECOMMENDATION: Must read if you are interested interested contemporary politics, presidential history, September 11th and the war on terror, and politics generally. The book is very readable and won't anger friends on the Left.*
*Won't be using stars in my reviews of books or movies or whatever. Ratings will be something like "Must [consume] for everyone", "Must [consume] for everyone interested in X,Y,Z", "Only [consume] if you're interested in X,Y,Z", "Eh, whatever", and "You should probably just watch Man on Fire. Denzel is really good in that." Ratings are subject to revision.
1.) Although I am sure that W had some help here, it is very much in his voice. I would turn to YouTube throughout the book to relive particular moments or speeches and it felt very in tune with voice.
2.) One of the big lessons from Romney's loss is that conservative's need to make voters know that we care about them. W understood this a long time ago. Many mocked compassionate conservatism, but it got results and was a policy priority. Major initiatives included AIDS relief in Africa and immigration reform that respected the place of hard-working illegal immigrants in the country.
3.) W is really likeable. He adores his mom. He gives a ton of credit to staffers for things that go well and takes responsibility for the administration's failures. At one point, he tells the story of a Yale professor, who made an impression on W in college, remarked that W was an unremarkable student and that he didn't leave an impression. W's reply was that irregardless of how the professor felt, W would never forget the professor. How could people hate this guy?
4.) The chapter on September 11th and W's connection with U.S. troops is heartbreaking. So human. Brought tears to my eyes more than once.
5.) My favorite picture in the book is a picture of W in his pickup with his dog and "buddy" Barney. RIP. See below.
RECOMMENDATION: Must read if you are interested interested contemporary politics, presidential history, September 11th and the war on terror, and politics generally. The book is very readable and won't anger friends on the Left.*
*Won't be using stars in my reviews of books or movies or whatever. Ratings will be something like "Must [consume] for everyone", "Must [consume] for everyone interested in X,Y,Z", "Only [consume] if you're interested in X,Y,Z", "Eh, whatever", and "You should probably just watch Man on Fire. Denzel is really good in that." Ratings are subject to revision.
Why is Bret Hart so angry?
A recent episode of International Object got me thinking about Bret Hart. K. Sawyer Paul (@IntlObject) expressed a lot of discomfort with Bret Hart's attitude about his own legacy. I've had similar feelings and this essay will look to explore how the Hitman got there and look at his time as a singles competitor in the WWF.
Bret Hart winning the WWF title in 1992 was the first surprise that I experienced as a fan of pro wrestling.* Bret won the title in the fall that year by defeating Ric Flair. Flair had only been in my life for about a year as an active wrestler. I knew that he was a legend in WCW/NWA due to magazines like Pro Wrestling Illustrated, but I never saw a single match of his until he came to the WWF. I did know that he was a legend and that legends don't usually lose to guys like Bret Hart.
Bret Hart was different from previous World Champs. Guys like Hogan and Warrior were super human. They were also crazy and prone to say non-sense. Bret came across as a smart guy. I identified with him because of it. His cleverness set him apart. I first got hooked on the pink and black during Hart's match with Mr. Perfect at SummerSlam 1991. Hart won the Intercontinental Championship with a surprising counter that lead into the Sharpshooter, his finisher. It was out of nowhere and a stark contrast to Hulk Hogan's slow and predictable workup to the atomic leg drop.
There have been several suggestions on why Vince McMahon decided to go with Bret.** Some have suggested that it was because of McMahon's steroid trial a desire to showcase a less-muscled champion. There is also the possibility that Macho Man, Flair, and the Ultimate Warrior were not connecting enough with the fans to keep in the spotlight.*** Irregardless, he got the job as the guy and he would be tie together the next five years for the company.
After a year of being the work horse, Bret got the ball in 1992. Hart would main event Survivor Series 1992 as champion. Vince McMahon would spend the next 5 years trying to undo it. Vince would look away from Bret and towards a varied array of stars to be the focus of the WWF. Despite trying everything under the sun, he eventually would also come back around to the Hitman. The era crests with WrestleMania 10 and ends when with a final Bret/Shawn encounter in which Vince completely and totally ends the Hitman era.
Hart was undermined in a way that other centerpieces have never been since mid-1980s. Fittingly, it would be Hogan who would first steal the spotlight by defeating Yokozuna moments after he had defeated the Hitman. By the summer, Hogan would be gone and replaced with Lex Luger. Luger was a muscled up, recently turned good guy who looked more like the Ultimate Warrior and Hogan. Luger even copied Hogan's love of America and super posedown at the end of PPVs.
Luger would remain at the top of the card through Wrestlemania X. There is more to the art of wrestling than when matches occur on the card and Hart made the most of his feud with Jerry Lawler. Luger would fail to connect with the fans and Hart would reclaim the conch with a title victory over Yokozuna in 1994. This point represented the artistic highpoint of Hart's reign. He had fantastic matches with Owen Hart, Bob Backlund, and Diesel after he lost the title in early 1995.
The Hitman did not have a good 1995 into 1996. After finishing his feud with Backlund in a disappointing "I quit" match, Hart listed along competing against Hakushi, Isaac Yankem, DDS, and one of the Quebecers. Hart would win his third title at Survivor Series in a fantastic match, but then would knock around match-to-match biding time before he would drop the title to Shawn Michaels.
It is during this period that it became obvious that Vince McMahon was uncomfortable with Hart at the top of the card or as the focus of the show. Even as champion, the Hitman was really the fouth biggest thing on the program.**** Michaels' boyhood dream dominated pre-Rumble through Wrestlemania 12. Bret's PPV matches with Diesel and Undertaker existed to get that feud going. As the Diesel/Kevin Nash experience faltered, Hart would be used to showcase Shawn Michaels.
Hart would return to the ring at Survivor Series 1996 and ultimately find his voice as a heel. Through SummerSlam 97, he would have iconic matches against Stone Cold and Undertaker. Hart was able to pivot his character without changing the core of who that character was. Instead of being the tenacious competitor who outsmarted his opponents, he became the bitter veteran who couldn't understand that the game had changed around him.
In my reading and listening, people do not tend to look back too fondly on the early-to-mid 1990s in the WWF. When Hogan started to stale and eventually left, it created a vacuum in the product. Within months after Hogan's leaving, Bret Hart found himself briefly at the top of the mountain. He would have to step aside for Hogan, Luger, Diesel, and finally Michaels. From the fall of 1992 through the fall of 1997, he was the one character and performer that tied the period together. It is fitting that the start of the Attitude Era came with Vince permanently exiling Bret from the mountaintop with the Montreal Screw Job.
Today, Bret Hart comes across as pretty bitter. In his book, he spends an inordinate number of pages talking about how much fan mail he received compared to other performers or how impressed those other performers were with him. He even was upset that he didn't get the same championship perks that guys like Hogan or Warrior got. In the wonderful documentary produced by the WWE on his feud with Michaels, it is pretty obvious that Shawn has moved on while Bret continues to fight that battle.
My thesis is that the war Hart is waging is motivated by his need to justify his time at the top and his place in history. Since he was jerked around in away that few other immortals have been, it is fair to ask the question: Was Bret Hart actually an immortal? Bret thinks so and I agree with him. Either way, it is a shame that one of the most accomplished performers of his generation can't be at piece with his career.
SUGGESTED CONSUMPTION
International Object Episode 69: This is the show that got me thinking about Bret's thoughts on himself.
Hitman: My Life in the Cartoon World of Wrestling: Bret's book. Must read. Top two wrestling book.
Bret Hart bashing Triple H: Classic Hitman. One, he refers to Triple H as "Hunter." Brings back one of my favorite memories from the Wrestling in the Shadows doc. Bret's very Candadian ex wife tore into Triple H for a good three minutes and kept calling him "Hunter" in an extremely Canadian accent. Two, this came out in the middle of me writing this essay and it is on point.
Bret Hart Tribute Video: Worth it just to listen to his kick ass entrance music.
Wrestling with the Shadows: Documentary that captures Bret's 1997 and the Montreal Screwjob. Also available on Netflix streaming.
*My first sentence on this blog is a lie. The first surprise was Ultimate Warrior coming out at the end of Wrestlemania 8 to save Hulk Hogan. That makes the narrative less interesting so I will ignore it.
**Hulk Hogan "retired" in 1992 at Wrestlemania 8.
***A combination of these three would headline Wrestlemania 8, SummerSlam 1992, and Survivor Series 1992. Within a few months of ascending to the championship, Flair and Warrior would be out of the WWF. Macho Man would be pushed down the card and to the announcing booth.
****There is nothing wrong with being the fourth biggest character in any story. There is something wrong with the fourth biggest character not having a story. This is especially true if that guy is the champ and his only function is to be a catalyst that gets other stories going.
Background and History
Bret Hart winning the WWF title in 1992 was the first surprise that I experienced as a fan of pro wrestling.* Bret won the title in the fall that year by defeating Ric Flair. Flair had only been in my life for about a year as an active wrestler. I knew that he was a legend in WCW/NWA due to magazines like Pro Wrestling Illustrated, but I never saw a single match of his until he came to the WWF. I did know that he was a legend and that legends don't usually lose to guys like Bret Hart.
Bret Hart was different from previous World Champs. Guys like Hogan and Warrior were super human. They were also crazy and prone to say non-sense. Bret came across as a smart guy. I identified with him because of it. His cleverness set him apart. I first got hooked on the pink and black during Hart's match with Mr. Perfect at SummerSlam 1991. Hart won the Intercontinental Championship with a surprising counter that lead into the Sharpshooter, his finisher. It was out of nowhere and a stark contrast to Hulk Hogan's slow and predictable workup to the atomic leg drop.
There have been several suggestions on why Vince McMahon decided to go with Bret.** Some have suggested that it was because of McMahon's steroid trial a desire to showcase a less-muscled champion. There is also the possibility that Macho Man, Flair, and the Ultimate Warrior were not connecting enough with the fans to keep in the spotlight.*** Irregardless, he got the job as the guy and he would be tie together the next five years for the company.
Bret Hart: Main Event Hero
After a year of being the work horse, Bret got the ball in 1992. Hart would main event Survivor Series 1992 as champion. Vince McMahon would spend the next 5 years trying to undo it. Vince would look away from Bret and towards a varied array of stars to be the focus of the WWF. Despite trying everything under the sun, he eventually would also come back around to the Hitman. The era crests with WrestleMania 10 and ends when with a final Bret/Shawn encounter in which Vince completely and totally ends the Hitman era.
Hart was undermined in a way that other centerpieces have never been since mid-1980s. Fittingly, it would be Hogan who would first steal the spotlight by defeating Yokozuna moments after he had defeated the Hitman. By the summer, Hogan would be gone and replaced with Lex Luger. Luger was a muscled up, recently turned good guy who looked more like the Ultimate Warrior and Hogan. Luger even copied Hogan's love of America and super posedown at the end of PPVs.
Luger would remain at the top of the card through Wrestlemania X. There is more to the art of wrestling than when matches occur on the card and Hart made the most of his feud with Jerry Lawler. Luger would fail to connect with the fans and Hart would reclaim the conch with a title victory over Yokozuna in 1994. This point represented the artistic highpoint of Hart's reign. He had fantastic matches with Owen Hart, Bob Backlund, and Diesel after he lost the title in early 1995.
The Hitman did not have a good 1995 into 1996. After finishing his feud with Backlund in a disappointing "I quit" match, Hart listed along competing against Hakushi, Isaac Yankem, DDS, and one of the Quebecers. Hart would win his third title at Survivor Series in a fantastic match, but then would knock around match-to-match biding time before he would drop the title to Shawn Michaels.
It is during this period that it became obvious that Vince McMahon was uncomfortable with Hart at the top of the card or as the focus of the show. Even as champion, the Hitman was really the fouth biggest thing on the program.**** Michaels' boyhood dream dominated pre-Rumble through Wrestlemania 12. Bret's PPV matches with Diesel and Undertaker existed to get that feud going. As the Diesel/Kevin Nash experience faltered, Hart would be used to showcase Shawn Michaels.
End of Days and Perspective
Hart would return to the ring at Survivor Series 1996 and ultimately find his voice as a heel. Through SummerSlam 97, he would have iconic matches against Stone Cold and Undertaker. Hart was able to pivot his character without changing the core of who that character was. Instead of being the tenacious competitor who outsmarted his opponents, he became the bitter veteran who couldn't understand that the game had changed around him.
In my reading and listening, people do not tend to look back too fondly on the early-to-mid 1990s in the WWF. When Hogan started to stale and eventually left, it created a vacuum in the product. Within months after Hogan's leaving, Bret Hart found himself briefly at the top of the mountain. He would have to step aside for Hogan, Luger, Diesel, and finally Michaels. From the fall of 1992 through the fall of 1997, he was the one character and performer that tied the period together. It is fitting that the start of the Attitude Era came with Vince permanently exiling Bret from the mountaintop with the Montreal Screw Job.
Today, Bret Hart comes across as pretty bitter. In his book, he spends an inordinate number of pages talking about how much fan mail he received compared to other performers or how impressed those other performers were with him. He even was upset that he didn't get the same championship perks that guys like Hogan or Warrior got. In the wonderful documentary produced by the WWE on his feud with Michaels, it is pretty obvious that Shawn has moved on while Bret continues to fight that battle.
My thesis is that the war Hart is waging is motivated by his need to justify his time at the top and his place in history. Since he was jerked around in away that few other immortals have been, it is fair to ask the question: Was Bret Hart actually an immortal? Bret thinks so and I agree with him. Either way, it is a shame that one of the most accomplished performers of his generation can't be at piece with his career.
SUGGESTED CONSUMPTION
International Object Episode 69: This is the show that got me thinking about Bret's thoughts on himself.
Hitman: My Life in the Cartoon World of Wrestling: Bret's book. Must read. Top two wrestling book.
Bret Hart bashing Triple H: Classic Hitman. One, he refers to Triple H as "Hunter." Brings back one of my favorite memories from the Wrestling in the Shadows doc. Bret's very Candadian ex wife tore into Triple H for a good three minutes and kept calling him "Hunter" in an extremely Canadian accent. Two, this came out in the middle of me writing this essay and it is on point.
Bret Hart Tribute Video: Worth it just to listen to his kick ass entrance music.
Wrestling with the Shadows: Documentary that captures Bret's 1997 and the Montreal Screwjob. Also available on Netflix streaming.
*My first sentence on this blog is a lie. The first surprise was Ultimate Warrior coming out at the end of Wrestlemania 8 to save Hulk Hogan. That makes the narrative less interesting so I will ignore it.
**Hulk Hogan "retired" in 1992 at Wrestlemania 8.
***A combination of these three would headline Wrestlemania 8, SummerSlam 1992, and Survivor Series 1992. Within a few months of ascending to the championship, Flair and Warrior would be out of the WWF. Macho Man would be pushed down the card and to the announcing booth.
****There is nothing wrong with being the fourth biggest character in any story. There is something wrong with the fourth biggest character not having a story. This is especially true if that guy is the champ and his only function is to be a catalyst that gets other stories going.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Hello.
It is what it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)