Silencing the Crickets, At Least for Awhile
By Dan on Mar 8, 2009 in Blog, Family, Local, Movies, Music, News, Politics, Trivia
I Am Complete
For some, it’s scaling a mountain summit; for others it’s kicking heroine. As for me, I conquered one of my life’s goals by completing a Sunday New York Times Crossword Puzzle. I’ve come close many times, even completing it once, only to discover an error. But this time, I was perfect. Granted, it was fairly easy for a Sunday puzzle. There was only one word I’d never heard of (Ypres – a city in Belgium), and the theme was pretty straight-forward. But none of this distracts from my feeling of triumph. Does this make me a nerd?
As Sure as the Moss Grows in Killarney
Enjoy the warm weather while you can. Next Saturday is the St. Pat’s Day parade, an event that annually lures cold fronts down from Canada and sends temperatures plummeting. We always have temps in the 50s and 60s during the week leading up to the parade, only to have them pulled out from under us by the time we take our place on the 5th Street curb. So predictable is this phenomena that my dad is making a batch of chilli next Saturday, a dish he only makes in chilly weather.
Lights That Flash in the Evening
The weather outside will be inconsequential after the parade, as Justin Townes Earle (Steve’s boy) and Jason Ringenberg take the stage at the Hoogland as part of the Bedrock 66 concert series. You may be familiar with Ringenberg from his Jason and the Scorchers days. I’m less familiar with Earle, but I’ve been listening to songs on his MySpace page and he does a mandolin-accompanied cover of the Replacement’s “I Can’t Hardly Wait,” of which I highly approve.
Speaking of hot shows at the Hoogland, Sarah Borges and the Broken Singles released their first single and two non-album tracks as an EP on iTunes last week. The album will be released later this month. It’s more indie-rockier than previous cuts. Their supporting tour hasn’t been announced yet, but I’ll post when they get near to thee.
A Plea of Redemption/A Call for Justice
Last week I was rightly taken to task by Yellowdog for being part of a team that purchased mulligans* at a trivia contest. I defended myself by stating, correctly mind you, that it simply isn’t possible to win without them if they are offered. That doesn’t mean I don’t feel dirty about it.
Mulligans, even more than vague or inaccurate questions/answers, are threatening the sport that I love. Organizers simply must find another way of raising additional funds without sullying the sanctity of the contest. I may have to resort to the most radical form of protest against social ill currently available to us. That’s right, I’m starting a Facebook group: Citizens For the Purity of Trivia Nights. Join the fight, won’t you.
Krauthammer
While I remain liberal on many social issues, this is why my fiscality tends to be conservativy.**
I Am So Not Unconflicted Over Jennifer Aniston
I’ve not been a Jennifer Aniston fan. Most of this stems from her association with the show, Friends, which I abhorred for its one-note characters, base sexual innuendo and the gross cliche-ing of the word "so." She also ended up on the wrong side of a tiff with Angelina. I am nothing if not loyal to Angelina.
Yet my Aniston aversion has softened as of late. She appeared in two movies that I really like, Office Space and The Good Girl, and although she wasn’t really the reason I like those movies, she did bring something to her roles.
The other reason I’ve come to admire her more is because she is popping up quite frequently in magazines and on Web sites and, quite frankly, she looks amazing. The problem is, that seems to be the entire point of her celebrity at this point.
I don’t recall accolades for any recent performances, but the press is relentless in telling us how incredible she looks. There’s that, and her courage in the face of being perhaps the most celebrated female cuckold of all time.
It’s pretty amazing how her publicist has been able to keep her on the A list and the covers of supermarket tabloids.
Saturday Chore Watch
Hats off to my kids for picking up twigs and pieces of bark from the yard and putting them in a yard waste bag. Then pouring the bag into the wagon. Then dumping the wagon into the yard. Thanks for the effort.***
*For those not familiar with this practice, teams are allowed to purchase a set number of mulligans (usually ten) which are used in lieu of correct answers to win points on difficult questions. As I posted on Facebook: "they’re bullcrap. Imagine facing fourth and long on your on 25 and being able to buy yourself a first down. Or if your worst free-throw shooter gets fouled in the waning seconds of the game and you can decide to just purchase the winning buckets. Who could be proud of that. It’s a g-d travesty. Pure, unadulterated greed and it’s ruining trivia nights across the country."****
**Our previous administration wasn’t good at this either, so offering up their record as a defense for the current is no defense.
***Victor did go on to put in a good day’s work and earned five points towards the 30 needed for a new DS game.
****You know you’re important when you can quote yourself.
Loading ...
I didn’t think Krauthammer had it in him. I have a little more respect for him now. Of course Obama can’t really state the reasons why the economy is in the toilet. Because Obama and his party are knee deep in culpability. Not to say that the other side of the aisle doesn’t share some of the blame but the housing collapse is exclusively owned by the jackasses and their asinine policies.
Mulligans suck.
Aniston in “Marley and Me” was a comfort to the eyes and didn’t hurt her reputation in her craft either.
M.B. | Mar 8, 2009 | Reply
Mulligans are the bane of the trivia world. I’m considering a city-wide ban.
Russ | Mar 8, 2009 | Reply
If you loathe mulligans too, go register that hate in the poll at SpringfieldTrivia.com. Maybe if enough trivia night organizers see how unpopular they are, the practice will die off.
Russ | Mar 10, 2009 | Reply
Wow, Danny – please tell me you don’t believe a word Krauthammer writes. He’s a well established partisan BS artist in the classic mold of Rush, et al. Anyone who believes him is a . . .
His whole argument rests on a quote made out of context from Rahm. He didn’t mean that the crisis was an opportunity to engage in dirty tricks. He meant it was an opportunity to break the nations bad habits – aka how we “largely squandered the opportunity the oil shocks of the 1970s presented to make serious, long-term changes in its energy habits — a failure that has returned to haunt the nation today.” But that’s the rest of the quote that Krauthammer left off, so you would have never read it.
And can you, Dan, really expect this administration to fix – in a few weeks – the global catastrophe that has been in the works for 8 years?
Rock-Robster | Mar 11, 2009 | Reply
First off, the comparison of Krauthammer to Rush is way off base. I know that it’s popular among Democrats to connect all consenting views to Rush, but if you look at Krauthammer’s background (working under Carter and for Mondale), his positions (pro-choice and anti-intelligent design) and his accolades (Pulitzer Prize winner)the comparison is ridiculous.
The way I read the article, he isn’t saying that the White House is engaging in dirty tricks, but they are selling reforms on healthcare, education and the environment as a response to the current economic situation, when those things aren’t what caused the economic downturn, the banking and credit crisis are.
Even Thomas Friedman is being critical of Obama for “deliberately keeping his distance from the banking crisis, while pressing ahead on other popular initiatives.” Now, are you going to tell me that Friedman is a partisan BS artist in the mold of Ann Coulter?
Dan at BFS | Mar 11, 2009 | Reply
Krauthammer is a partisan BS artist in the mold of Ann Coulter . . .
And Reagan also did a fantastic job of utilizing the recession to push through his tax cuts in 1981. But why? The tax rate didn’t cause the recession . . . If we only address the simplest cause we’ll never solve the root problems of our economy. Krauthammer and his ilk know this full well, but they are just practicing politics and hoping this administration fails (cue: “My City Was Gone” by the Pretenders).
rock-robster | Mar 11, 2009 | Reply
Another example of partisanship influencing how one interprets information.
I could be wrong but I thought Krauthammer bashed Bush on a regular basis, which if that is the case makes him pretty objective.
Hmmm, maybe I don’t read his stuff close enough because I don’t like his picture.
By the way Rock, I recall that the economy was in a strong downturn at the end of Clinton’s administration and rallied tremendously in Bush’s first term. So maybe our current economic state was in the making for the last 12-16 years.
M.B. | Mar 12, 2009 | Reply
MB_
nope – it was the last 8 years that did this economy in . . but thanks for playing . . !
Rock-Robster | Mar 13, 2009 | Reply
Dan, Russ, et all
I think I may have a reasonable suggestion for how to deal with the mulligan issue. As one of the trivia purists (I’m still willing to go to the mat over that question about when Lincoln was buried!)I have to confess that the idea of using a mulligan is complete hogwash to me…but I do recognize the needs of the various organizations that host trivia events and their need to raise cash by any (reasonable) means possible. Hence, my suggestion:
1. Each trivia team may purchase up to X number of mulligans, for whatever going rate the host chooses (I suggest a max of 3 or maybe 5).
2. Said Mulligans may be used in any trivia question round to essentially “cancel out” a wrong answer (if the team correctly answers 8 out of 10, but uses a Mulligan in the round, the group score for that round is 9).
3. Only one Mulligan can be used per group of questions.
4. Each round’s score will be displayed on the overhead scoreboard with an * to reflect when a team uses a Mulligan in that round (I like the shame aspect of this rule). Teams not using a Mulligan will have their score appear without the tainted *.
5. At the end of Round 10, there will be a bonus round. The bonus round will consist of 3 questions (or 5 – whatever the max # of Mulligans was for that game). Teams will be able to answer up to the number of available Mulligans that they still have in their possession. If a team used all of their Mulligans, then they are SOL in the bonus round. If they used none, then they get a crack at all the bonus round questions.
This approach will promote the purchase of the max # of Mulligans (which will benefit the trivia host) and will also offer a level of redemption/equalization for teams not using Mulligans along the way.
This will require the trivia question writer to draft a few additional questions for each event, but I know you all and you can handle the burden.
Ok all…what say you to my suggestion?
Case
CaseyMay | Mar 13, 2009 | Reply
Case,
I’m intrigued by your bonus round plan.
I think the asterisk idea should be implemented immediately.
Dan
Dan at BFS | Mar 14, 2009 | Reply
If mulligans MUST be used, this is the way to do it. I’ll add it to the bylaws.
Russ | Mar 14, 2009 | Reply
I’ll wait to see what yellowdog says…he’ll have an opinion.
I like the idea of the Non Mulligan users getting a chance to “even the score” at the end, and I like the idea of everyone paying a little more to help the host agency – I like Dan’s idea of the $11 entry fee…but that doesn’t alleviate the possibility of Mulligans. My approach may do that…
CaseyMay | Mar 15, 2009 | Reply
But if you didn’t buy any Mulligans (because you are a trivia purest, and it’s against your faith to purchase such heretic trinkets) then you cannot participate in the extra round . . . correct? So that would FORCE Dan and his ilk to make these misbegotten purchases part of their routine . . . correct? But, I guess the purchase then just becomes a de facto additional surcharge on the price of admission – as the righteous team would not deem to use any of them during the actual contest . . .
Rock-Robster | Mar 16, 2009 | Reply
Now that I think about it, the bonus round probably wouldn’t work. In any given match there are at least ten questions that a team has absolutely no clue what the answer is. There would be no reason to take a stab in the dark just to save a mulligan and qualify for the bonus round where you may or may not get more points when you can use the mulligan in regulation and be assured of getting the points.
The only solution is to ban mulligans, just as baseball has banned steroids so that players don’t have to subject themselves to ethically suspect behavior in order to stay competitive with their morally bankrupt competitors.
Dan at BFS | Mar 16, 2009 | Reply
Hang on Dan…the point of the bonus round would be to allow all the teams to compete for the final 3 or 5 questions, Minus whatever mulligans they used in regulation play. If a team takes a stab in the dark during rounds 1-10 and doesn’t get the answer right, their score reflects that; if they do get the answer right their score reflects that too. If a team uses a Mulligan in regulation play, then that Reduces their available Mulligans at the bonus round. So, conceivably a team would need to decide, round by round, whether using a Mulligan is worthwhile for that round or whether to save them for the final round…where the question topic may (OR may not) be more favorable to the team.
CaseyMay | Mar 18, 2009 | Reply
I been reading ur blog for around three days. really like what you posted. by the way i will be doing a research about this subject. do you happen to know any other good sites or perhaps online forums where I might get more info? thanks in advance.
Craig Texeira | Jan 3, 2012 | Reply