2 movies: one i have seen, one i have not

1) last night, i saw an advanced screening of sunshine. danny boyle (the director of 'trainspotting' and 'the beach') did an amazing job, and the cinematography was incredible.

overall, the movie was a borderline masterpiece. the only thing holding it back from elite status is one of boyle's choices i disagreed with in terms of the movie's plot. still, i still might go so far as to say that this is a great film.

it is without a doubt a great, great thriller.

it is also sci-fi, a genre i do not care for in general, but i was really into this one. in large part, i believe, because of the depth of the acting. without going into the astronauts' prior lives whatsoever, and without doing it in a sappy or artificial way, the movie really makes you care about the lives of these colleagues and friends during this trying expedition.

i do not want to say too much, but the basic plot-line is outlined below. it did not sound too interesting to me beforehand, and i just went because the tickets were free and i was pretty bored last night. needless to say, i was surprised by how good this movie was.

i am pretty sure most people would like it as well. let me know if you go see it so we can discuss:

50 years into the future, the Sun begins to die, and Earth is dying as a result. A team of astronauts are sent to revive the Sun - but the mission fails. Seven years later, a new team are sent to finish the mission as they are Earth's last hope.

trailer:



2) a movie i have not seen but am really looking forward to is no end in sight. it sounds like a more intelligent, thoughtful, and truthful version of fahrenheit 9/11:

trains in america

the plan was to drive to new york this past weekend. instead, my car broke down before i even got out of town (new alternator needed), and my girlfriend and i took amtrak instead. more specifically, we took the express train from union station in DC to penn station in NYC. i've made the trip to and from our nation's capital to the big apple many, many times over the past 3-4 years, and i'd taken this train a few times before. but for the most part, i've usually either taken the bus, rented a car, or flown.

the ONLY downside to this train trip was the expense - $150/person for a one-way ticket. given the fact that my car had broken down, there was no alternative unless we cancelled the weekend trip, which was not an option.

but i'm almost glad my car broke down because i was reminded once again of how much i love trains. even in the united states of america. yes, by and large, american trains are second-rate, and it's sad. it's such a shame how much better the trains are in western europe, japan, and other parts of the world, especially since we had the best trains in the world at the beginning of the 20th century. i understand the economics (amtrak, despite significant government subsidies, just is not profitable because of low public demand) and demographics (americans usually need a car whenever they arrive at their destination because we do not have great public transportation in most cities and our cities are very spread out).

the express train between new york and DC is an exception to the rule. this route is fast - instead of the trip taking around 5 hours, as it would by car, or 4 hours, as it would taking the non-express train, the trip took 2 hours and 45 minutes. the snack car is very good and serves beer and wine, and the prices are reasonable. beers were $4, which is reasonable for places like new york and DC. the seats are large and comfortable, and there are even plugs underneath each seat so that you can charge your computer, ipod, or cell phone.

in terms of travelling between 2 large cities, the train is soooooooo much more convenient, less stressful, and more relaxing than the bus, car, or plane. if only more americans felt the same way so that the prices could come down, and it would make more sense to travel between smaller cities.

the downfall of trains in this country is truly regrettable.

one year down, two to go

so i guess it's about time for me to discuss what has been the most dominant feature of my life for the past year or so: law school. this past may, i finished my first year at the fine institution known as the university of south carolina school of law.

as the cliche goes for american law schools: "in the first year of law school, they scare you to death. in the second year, they work you to death. and in the third year, they bore you to death."

despite thinking that i was ready for the fire after working at law firms in new york and DC for a couple of years, and hearing all about what to anticipate once i went to law school, i must concede that i was pretty scared at times this past year.

in property class, especially. by the middle of my second semester with professor burkhard, however, i grew to think of him as the best professor i had had during my first year and felt comfortable going to class. but it took about five months of fear and panic before i could fully appreciate the maestro that he is. a more serious teacher than he i have not had. by "serious," i mean that he seems to approach class like an award-winning actor approaches a play on broadway. his level of preparedness for a one-hour class is astonishing. it seems as if every minute of the class is laid out in advance, and he certainly knows who he is going to call on before class begins. almost all professors i know use notes from years past and probably improve upon the "script" and delivery of the information they seek to convey and abstract from their students. professor burkhard's script, delivery, and abstractions just seem to be better than any other professor i have had so far.

and this level of preparation is also expected from each and every student. on the syllabus that he handed out on the first day of class, he stated: "for each hour of class, i expect students to prepare approximately three hours outside of class." he means it. his assignments were actually not that long compared to some other classes, but the level of understanding that professor burkhard expected out of the reading was at a higher level than anything i had ever participated in in my higher education learning experience. there were times i came to class having read a case three times through, thinking there was nothing he could ask that i did not know about in that particular case. and, yet, somehow i would still often not have appreciated a major point of the case, at least based upon professor burkhard's expectations of what it means to understand the legal significance of a certain opinion of the court.

i do not recall being humiliated in class, and professor burkhard, to my recollection, did not intentionally humiliate a single student all year (as you will often hear is done by some other law school professors, both at usc and at other schools). but there were definitely times when i felt that i or other students let the class down by not being fully prepared for the burkhard interrogation process. i do not anticipate being an attorney who deals to a large degree in property law, but i am certainly grateful for having had such a great professor, who, by the way, is a pretty big ohio state buckeyes fan.

in a few weeks, i guess i will begin to see if my second year teachers are going to work me to death...

was the u.s.a. founded as a christian nation?

i've had some very interesting debates over the past few weeks as to whether the united states of america was founded as a christian nation. below is a recent, fascinating discussion that took place on my favorite show on television on this very point, shedding light on both sides of the debate:

The McLaughlin Group, May 25, 2007 -

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: "The United States was not, repeat not, founded as a Christian nation. This was stated early and unmistakably in a treaty drafted under George Washington in 1796 and signed by John Adams in 1797."

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - John Adams

The Founding Fathers were insistent that the state remain neutral towards organized religion. "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" -- Thomas Jefferson.

"During almost 15 centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruit? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

Question: James Madison is considered the author of the Constitution. Why was he so skeptical, even cynical, about Christianity? Clarence Page.

MR. PAGE: Well, because he was a man who knew from the European experience of what religion could do when it had state power behind it.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You mean the Inquisition.

MR. PAGE: I mean the Inquisition. I mean, the kind of religious conflicts we've seen in the United Kingdom, even today between --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What about witch-burning right in our own country?

MR. PAGE: Right. You could go on and on.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: They were closer to that in time than we are.

MR. BUCHANAN: John, Jefferson and Adams were anti-Catholic, anti-papist. One of the causes of the Revolutionary War is the Brits turned the Ohio Valley over to the French Canadians and all these Catholics.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What's the point? What's the point? Catholics are Christians.

MR. BUCHANAN: What I'm talking about, you're talking 15 centuries, Madison said. He's talking about the Catholic Church. He's not talking about Protestant Christianity. We are a Christian country, or were. We are a secular nation under the Constitution. The two are not in conflict.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you care to comment on this?

MR. WALKER: Well, yes. I mean --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Are you a U.S. citizen, by the way?

MR. WALKER: No, but I'm a legal alien. (Laughter.) I hasten to say that.

MR. BUCHANAN: I think we ought to have a look at that. (Laughs.)

MR. PAGE: You'd better show that green card to Pat here.

MR. WALKER: American presidential elections have been fought and won on the slogan of warning against the perils of rum, Romanism and --


(Cross talk.)

MR. BUCHANAN: That was a losing election. (Laughs.

MR. WALKER: Well, nonetheless, this is the most religious country, outside of the Middle East --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: (Religiose ?).

MR. WALKER: -- (religiose ?) country outside -- the most church- attending country, outside the Islamic world. In Britain, in Europe, we're almost post-Christian societies; 3, 4, 5 percent go to church. In this country, it's 40-odd percent. Seventy percent of Americans say they believe in angels.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What would the framers have thought of the religious right today, were the framers alive?

MR. WALKER: They would have thought they were a complete menace and a threat to the good order and dignity of the U.S. Constitution and the American well-being. And I think they would have been right.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think that --

MR. BUCHANAN: (Inaudible) -- they are, I mean, militant evangelicals.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Was the revolution as much about overthrowing an official religion as it was overthrowing the king?

MR. PAGE: Was there any separation between king -- between God and country there?

MR. WALKER: The king was the head of the established church --

MR. PAGE: That's right.

MR. WALKER: -- as indeed Prince Charles will be.

MS. CLIFT: You don't want to be told what to believe.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Were the Founding Fathers afraid that an official religion might take root? Were they worried more about religion affecting statecraft or statecraft offending religion?

MS. CLIFT: If an official religion takes root, what else official can take root? I just think there is an independence of spirit and thought that belonged to the founders of this country that we want to continue. We don't want religious dogma exercising power over our laws.

MR. BUCHANAN: But Eleanor, the purpose of the Constitution was to separate the national government from church. However, nine state governments had church religions, John, when the Constitution was established. It was at the federal government they were not to have any established church. But nine states had established churches.

MS. CLIFT: Yeah, but they wilted on their own. (Laughs.)

MR. WALKER: But they were good Bible-reading people, because what they understood was to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's.

MS. CLIFT: They didn't have Amazon.com. They didn't get enough variety in their reading.

MR. PAGE: The irony of this is, when you've got a country that's got religious freedom, then religion is stronger than in those countries where they try to dictate it through the state.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Can Buchanan bring himself to say that it's better for the United States to remain secularist, as was intended by the Founding Fathers, and by the documents, since there is nothing in the "under God" phrase that requires a religion -- you understand? You can have God-given rights through the natural law.

MR. BUCHANAN: But what we want --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: What I'm saying is, can you bring yourself to say that this society should be a secular society?

MR. BUCHANAN: No, I do agree the government should be neutral as between religions, no doubt about it -- Catholic, Protestant --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is that secularism?

MR. BUCHANAN: No, here's the thing.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is that secularism?

MR. BUCHANAN: It should be supportive of religion. And if the country is predominantly Christian, it should not be at war with the country.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Secularism does not mean anti-religious, Patrick.

MR. BUCHANAN: Well, militant secularism that came out of the '60s has de-Christianized the country. That's what --

(Cross-talk.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Martin, you study with the Oxford English Dictionary. Define secular as what, religion-free?

MR. WALKER: Absolutely. Religion-neutral, in effect.

MS. CLIFT: The militancy you're talking about is about opening up society, having women have more rights, having gay people have more rights, having minorities take their place in the society.

MR. BUCHANAN: It is about throwing the Bible and the Ten Commandments out of the schools and out of the public square.

MS. CLIFT: You can be a good person without --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: We need the Ten Commandments in order to have a religious group.

MR. BUCHANAN: Let the people vote and decide. Don't have the courts decide. That's all conservatives ask.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But you don't see the danger that the Constitution --

MR. BUCHANAN: I don't see a bit of danger from us having an established religion. It's way down the list, John. (Laughs.)

MR. WALKER: Ah, now we have it.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Exit question --

MR. WALKER: Bring back King George III, says Pat Buchanan.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You can understand how they have the power to insert something into public policy which may not be good in public policy.

MR. BUCHANAN: It may be good. They've got a right to act on their beliefs, just as you do.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The alliance between the religious right and the GOP is a holy alliance, or is the alliance between religion and the GOP an unholy alliance?

MR. BUCHANAN: It's a natural alliance. Conservative Christians and conservative Republicans is a natural alliance.

MS. CLIFT: They overdid it. The country is rebelling. And I must say, this show can count as going to church this Sunday. (Laughter.) MR. WALKER: It's become a dance of death between the two of them. It's really damaging both.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Damaging both. An unholy alliance?

MR. PAGE: It's not a holy alliance. It's a political alliance, just as all the other factions of the Republican Party or any other party. For mutual benefit they come together. And that's why we're seeing such a withdrawal now of so many Christian conservatives, because they're seeing so little payoff and they see how much decadence there was in other sectors of the party. And now I think they're regrouping.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I think what you're saying is that it's a dying, unholy alliance. Welcome that.

julio

one of my favorite sports figures of all time (is he really 48 years old? or older? he genuinely does not know his age) is returning to where he belongs.

exchange rate paradox

i majored in economics in college. i even took some international trade and international monetary policy classes with very good professors. by and large, i understand that macroeconomic factors dictate as to how this currency over here is valued against that currency over there; that the more america BUYS from foreign countries relative to how much it SELLS to foreign countries, the lower the dollar will be valued against those foreign currencies. i also know that from a free market perspective, a pegged rate (such as what the chinese had against the dollar until 2005) is not fair and should be discouraged. currency exchange is a huge industry, and many people (and governments) make and lose a ton of money based on the future performance of certain exchange rates in forward exchange markets.

on a practical level, however, besides having forgotten much of what i learned in college, all i really care about is that there is an inherent paradox involving how the exchange rates affect me as: 1) an american citizen who wants our economy to do well (which to a larger and larger degree is a function of how cheaply american goods can be sold vis-a-vis those of other countries) and 2) a semi-frequent traveler to europe who wants to be able to eat dinner at restaurants in paris and london without feeling like i'm wasting money because the dollar has lost so much value since the late 90's.

the tradeoff just isn't fair! either the economy is going to suffer (because the dollar is worth a lot) because our goods are relatively expensive, or my summer vacation to the mediterranean is not going to be as much fun (because the dollar is so cheap). i mean, where else am i going to 'summer?' cape cod?!? please, that little trend is over.....

the reason i got to thinking about exchange rates is because of my recent trip to london, paris, and barcelona. london, especially, was so prohibitively expensive that it really affected my outlook on that fine city. the new record low the dollar recently reached against both the pound and the euro only makes it even more expensive for americans to travel to europe.

i guess i should quit whining and just be happy for american manufacturers and workers.

but what about me???

rugby players are tough

i had a friend when i was in 7th or 8th grade whose dad was a professional rugby player. he told me his dad would break a finger, on average, about every other week. of course, breaking his finger would not prevent him from playing or practicing. that's not how rugby players think. another case in point:

BRISBANE, Australia — Rugby player Ben Czislowski kept competing for more than three months despite the headaches that started after a clash with an opponent.Czislowski was playing for Brisbane team Wynnum during the April 1 incident involving Tweed Heads forward Matt Austin. He had a head wound stitched up afterward, the Australian Associated Press reported Tuesday.Czislowski later suffered an eye infection and complained of lethargy and shooting pains in his head.Then last week, his doctor found a tooth imbedded in Czislowski's head."I can laugh about it now, but the doctor told me it could have been serious, with teeth carrying germs," Czislowski said."I've got the tooth at home, sitting on the bedside table," he said. "If he (Austin) wants it back he can have it. I'm keeping it at the moment as proof that it actually happened."

a few of my favorite youtubes

here are 4 of my favorite youtube videos from the past few years.

(warning: there are a few cuss words in a few of the following videos but nothing too vulgar.)

when mike says: "spinal," i lose it every time...




bill o'reilly loses an argument to a 16 year old:

"he didn't say that at all. i actually have the exact quote right here."

"i know what you pinheads do."

"i have read it, bill."




"where did the air come from?"




buffalo, lions, and crocodiles. this is an 8 minute long video, but i promise it is worth your while:

how do kids do this?

i apologize for the extremely disturbing nature of this story from west palm beach, florida but thought this story is worth pointing out. the 3 kids arrested so far are aged 14, 15, and 16. we all hear about horrible crimes almost every day, but the physical and psychological damage done to this mother and son is about as appalling as anything i've ever heard:

According to the victims and police, there was a knock on the door at the victim's home around 10 p.m. on June 18. Police said a "male" at the door told her the tires on her car were flat. When she went outside to check, masked gunmen rushed her and forced their way inside. She was raped by about 10 men or boys, according to the report. She was forced to have sex with her son. He was beaten and had cleaning liquid poured into his eyes. The suspects fled after about 20 minutes, according to the report.

in or out (of iraq)?

as many people know (and are probably annoyed at hearing me say this), i'm about as big of a thomas l. friedman fan as there is. i've read 3 of his books and have probably read 99.7% of his twice-weekly columns in the new york times for the past 5-6 years. ( as a side note, i'm extremely jealous of the friendship my friend garrett graff has struck up with mr. friedman. when can i meet him, garrett? :) )

in addition to the terrific moustache, the man, in my humble opinion, is one of the greatest thinkers of our time, especially when it comes to middle east affairs and globalization.

another case in point of the man's clear thinking on the middle east is today's column on where we are in the situation in iraq (sorry for the wacky formatting below):

In Or Out

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

When it comes to Iraq, September will be coming early this year -- like now. Democrats, and a growing number of Republicans, are determined not to wait until September for the president to report on whether the surge is working. The American people have had enough. They want out. As we move into the endgame, though, the public needs to understand that neither Republicans nor Democrats are presenting them with a realistic strategy. Obviously, President Bush's stay-the-course approach is bankrupt. It shows no signs of producing any self-sustaining -- and that is the metric -- unified, stable Iraq. But the various gradual, partial withdrawal proposals by many Democrats and dissident Republicans are not realistic either. The passions that have been unleashed in Iraq are not going to accommodate some partial withdrawal plan, where we just draw down troops, do less patrolling, more training and fight Al Qaeda types. It's a fantasy. The minute we start to withdraw, all hell will break loose in the areas we leave, and there will be a no-holds-barred contest for power among Iraqi factions. Our staying there with, say, half as many troops, will not be sustainable. Look at the British in Basra. The British forces there have slowly receded into a single base at Basra airport. And what has happened? The void has been filled by a vicious contest for power among Shiite warlords, gangs and clans, and British troops are still being killed whenever they venture out. As the International Crisis Group recently reported from Basra: ''Basra's political arena is in the hands of actors engaged in bloody competition for resources, undermining what is left of governorate institutions and coercively enforcing their rule. Far from being a model to replicate, Basra is an example of what to avoid. With renewed violence and instability, Basra illustrates the pitfalls of a transitional process that has led to the collapse of the state apparatus.'' We must not kid ourselves: our real choices in Iraq are either all in or all out -- with the exception of Kurdistan. If those are our only real choices, then we need to look clearly at each. Staying in means simply containing the Iraqi civil war, but at the price of Americans and Iraqis continuing to die, and at the price of the U.S. having no real leverage on the parties inside or outside of Iraq to negotiate a settlement, because everyone knows we're staying so they can dither. Today, U.S. soldiers are making the maximum sacrifice so Iraqi politicians can hold to their maximum positions. Getting out, on the other hand, means more ethnic, religious and tribal killings all across Iraq. It will be one of the most morally ugly scenes you can imagine -- no less than Darfur. You will see U.S. troops withdrawing and Iraqi civilians and soldiers who have supported us clinging to our tanks for protection as we rumble out the door. We need to take with us everyone who helped us and wants out, and give green cards to as many Iraqis as possible. But getting out has at least four advantages. First, no more Americans will be dying while refereeing a civil war. Second, the fear of an all-out civil war, as we do prepare to leave, may be the last best hope for getting the Iraqis to reach an 11th-hour political agreement. Third, as the civil war in Iraq plays out, it could, painfully, force the realignment of communities on the ground that may create a more stable foundation upon which to build a federal settlement. Fourth, we will restore our deterrence with Iran. Tehran will no longer be able to bleed us through its proxies in Iraq, and we will be much freer to hit Iran -- should we ever need to -- once we're out. Moreover, Iran will by default inherit management of the mess in southern Iraq, which, in time, will be an enormous problem for Tehran. For all these reasons, I prefer setting a withdrawal date, but accompanying it with a last-ditch U.N.-led -- not U.S. -- diplomatic effort to get the Iraqi parties to resolve their political differences. If they can, then any withdrawal can be postponed. If they can't agree -- even with a gun to their heads about to go off -- then staying is truly pointless and leaving by a set date is the only option. ''It is one thing to try to break up a fight between two people who disagree; it is another thing to try to break up a riot,'' said Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy expert at Johns Hopkins. ''You just get sucked into the middle.'' We need to determine -- now, today -- whether this is a fight that can be resolved or a riot that we need to build a wall around and wait until it exhausts itself.

andrew sullivan, another favorite of mine, weighs in on friedman's article and the kurds.

replace july 4th with independence day weekend?

this was the first year in my life, i believe, in which i was both in the working world AND had july 4th fall on a wednesday, with no other day off during the week besides that wednesday. this post is an argument for how much that sucked and what we should do to avoid this from ever happening again.

july 4th is my second favorite holiday of the year behind thanksgiving. being with friends and family and having good food is the name of the game for both holidays, and that's what i love about both of them.

so i was listening to a sports talk show on monday morning (mike and mike in the morning on espn2), and greenberg made the following argument upon which i am now going to coopt and improve.

first off, i realize this only comes up every so often. in fact, the issue only arises when july 4th falls on a wednesday. if july 4 is monday or friday, you already have a long weekend, and if it's a tuesday or thursday, it's not only tolerated but it's pretty much socially acceptable to take off on the monday or friday, and many employers will even give you these days off as freebies.

greenberg's argument was that we make "independence day" the first thursday of the month of july every year and let people take the friday off as well. that is almost perfect, and i'm going to improve upon it just a little bit more. the point is to make sure we can expect a 4 day weekend to celebrate the birth of our nation, see our friends and family, and have great cookouts with corn, burgers, dogs, and fireworks EACH AND EVERY YEAR.

yes, in my mind, the actual day of july 4th on the calendar is a very special day, but most years, this would fall within this new 4 day holiday weekend where the first thursday of july starts off the independence day weekend. if someone could come up with some kind of statistics for this, that would be great. i would venture to say that july 4th would fall on this new 4 day holiday weekend 90 % of the time. my alternative to greenberg's idea is that if july 1st falls on a thursday, making july 4th on the sunday, we could change it up so that we have friday and monday off.

that is the new rule that georgie is proposing: "independence day weekend" starts the first thursday of the month of july except when july 1 is a thursday, in which case friday and monday become national holidays.

who's on board?

spoiled and spilt: a sunday to remember

so i hosted my first annual breakfast at wimbledon party today (more about the party in a second). any tennis fan who watched this match must have felt as spoiled as i did. what a great, great match we witnessed. roger federer is the best tennis player of all time. the case in point: rafael nadal outplayed him today for four sets (on roger's best surface) and played the best match i've ever seen him play. and still could not beat roger.

congrats to roger for tying bjorn borg's record of 5 straight titles at wimbledon. both players played unbelievable tennis today. for those who don't follow tennis too closely or know tennis statistics, it's usually a sign of very good play for a player to have a one-to-one ratio of winners to unforced errors. in over 3 hours of tennis and 5 long, tight sets, federer had 65 winners to only 34 unforced errors and nadal had 50 winners and 24 unforced errors. that is amazing tennis, just in case you didn't watch the match and blatantly see just how good these two were playing. the only difference between the 2 players was federer's serve. roger had 24 aces, and nadal only had 1. that was too many easy service games for roger, and it ended up biting nadal in the final set.

overall, though, i think this match may have been the turning point in nadal's career when he realized that he can beat roger, even on grass, even when roger is at the top of his game. sure, nadal lost the match, but the next 5 years should be awesome to watch. this rivalry is already up there with some of the great duels of all time. i think it's already more intriguing than sampras-agassi (even though agassi is my favorite player of all time), and is getting close to the borg-mcenroe-connors era in terms of talent, consistency, and skill. if nadal can slightly improve his serve and go for more aces, especially on grass, i think nadal is going to win some of these matches in the near future. sure, nadal has proven he owns roger on clay. but i think he can translate that success on the other surfaces as well. he's mastered grass-court tennis and is already one of the best of all time on clay. let's see if he can take his solid play at the french and wimbledon into the hard court season in north america the rest of the summer. the past couple of years, it seems as if nadal's play has dipped going into the u.s. open, and he's also suffered a few injuries that have held him back. roger is close to being the best of all time on grass. and nadal is close to being the best of all time on clay. the scary thing is that they both are the second best on the surface that the other one dominates. it's great to see them play in their primes at the same time!

as for the party itself, it was a complete success (with traditional strawberries and cream, of course, as well as some bacon, a potato-based frittata dish that georgie's girlfriend made that was delicious, and some banana nut bread a guest brought that must have been really good b/c i didn't even get to try it before it was gone).

but most importantly, i discovered a new drink. in addition to the bloody marys and mimosas that were served, the same guest who made the banana nut bread brought an english drink i had never encountered before called pimm's. we mixed it with sprite, mint, lemons, limes, and ice. you can also mix it with just tonic water, but i think the sprite did very well. the concoction tastes a little bit like sweet tea and is delicious. i highly recommend it!

after an afternoon nap, i went to see a very good band, built to spill, at the 930 club. they are a very talented band whose albums i recommend anyone to buy. go see them live if you have a chance b/c they certainly take their craft very seriously. a little too seriously, in fact, if you ask me. in stark contrast to the polyphonic spree show i went to last weekend, this band is not very energetic at all. they are highly talented musicians, but da%n it, guys, show a little emotion! your music is too good not to get the crowd into it a little. although the lead singer did have one funny comment, delivered in a dead serious tone of voice:

"i want to thank the stay-lows for opening up tonight. we've been fortunate enough to play with them three times so far. [pause]. although, they really are dicks. [pause]. but their music is so good it doesn't really matter."

i'm assuming he was joking, but it was close to sounding as if he meant what he was saying literally....

the setlist, for those BTS groupies out there, was:

Liar
Nowhere Nothing Fuc%up
In The Morning
Velvet Waltz
Time Trap
Mess With Time
Car
Third Uncle (Eno)
The Source
Wherever You Go
Fly Around My Pretty Little Miss
Else
You Were Right
Carry The Zero

Encore: Randy Described Eternity

falafel, kebabs, doners, and shawarmas

it doesn't get much better than a good falafel. there's a terrific strictly-falafel-and-fries place near where i'm currently living in d.c. this summer called amsterdam falafel. i've been going to this place for over 2 years, and the falafel is consistently great, the toppings for the pita are extremely fresh and tasty, and the fries are as good as any i've ever had. my only beef with this place is a complaint i have against many good restaurants in d.c. and new york: cash only (although they now have an a.t.m. in the restaurant).

when i lived in new york a few years ago, i would often go to a little restaurant in the east village called chickpea that has excellent falafel, kebab, and shawarma (beef, lamb, turkey, and chicken). there are two chickpea locations in manhattan (both on or just off of 3rd avenue - at st. marks and at east 14th street).



i urge anybody who is a kebab/falafel/shawarma/doner fan to submit their favorite spots anywhere in the world.

i like these hollywood sellouts

so i went to see ocean's 13 last night by myself. (call me weird if you will, but i think i may even prefer to see movies by myself.)

SPOILER ALERT:

to my supreme surprise, the good guys won, and the bad guys were made to look life fools. i just didn't see it coming this time!

seriously, though, i really did like this movie and thought it was better than the second one and just as good as the first one. i think this trilogy is quite well done. the visuals in this one are as sharp as the first two, if not better. i've never been to las vegas, but the helicopter scenes overlooking the city are pretty incredible, and soderbergh's lighting is as smooth and pleasing as anything he's ever done, including 'traffic.' the tone is once again light-hearted, funny, and smart. i was trying to think to myself as i left the movie last night whether there is any part of me that says: "clooney, soderbergh, pitt, damon, and pacino (to a lesser degree since he was only in this last one) are just sellouts by making these movies. they just wanted to make some easy money and hang out w/ each other."

every single one of us has had that (often lame) conversation with other people where we bitch about some actor or director whose work from the past we respected a lot and were let down when we saw them (apparently) doing a movie just for the cash (think samuel l. jackson in 'deep blue sea':

- in case you missed this classic, here is the plotline: "Searching for a cure to Alzheimer's disease a group of scientists on an isolated research facility become the bait as a trio of intelligent sharks fight back.")

after a few minutes thought, i think this movie (and this trilogy) are too good to qualify as anything close to "sellout flics" for any of the parties involved. matt damon is great (i think his acting is VERY underated - man, was he good in 'the departed'!), george and brad are witty and have the great timing they have always had, and soderbergh is still on top of his game. just b/c the subject matter is not as deep or impressive as 'traffic,' 'sex lies and videotapes,' 'good night, and good luck,' 'babel,' 'fight club', 'sleepers,' 'a river runs through it,' 'good will hunting,' 'the good shepherd,' or 'syriana,' (damn, the quartet of pitt/damon/clooney/soderbergh have crossed paths a lot in the past 5 years!!!) doesn't mean that these guys don't excel in the heist genre. so what if these movies also pay very well (the first two have netted almost a half a billion $ a piece so far)?

at the end of the day, all 3 movies are not only well-written, well-cast, well-acted, and well-directed, but they're also smart enough to make fun of themselves and the genre in general, which is always a plus in action movies.

brad, matt, george, and steven, keep on keepin' on....

favorite philip seymour hoffman role?

so psh is my favorite actor around. i've been saying it for years, and he's only recently been getting the acclaim he deserves. and it's still not enough.

i'm seeking suggestions as to what his best character has ever been. it's somewhat hard since he's had so many great minor characters and only a handful of leading parts, but try to put that issue aside and focus on which role was the most outstanding in terms of the context of the movie and how he brought his talent to that role.

without putting much thought into it, i would have to go w/ these as his top five roles:

1) george willis, jr. in scent of a woman - this is when i first discovered the greatness of this actor -when he shakes off george willis, sr.'s hand from his head, as senior is trying to give him some advice at the end of the movie when they're both on stage in front of the entire school; his condescending laughter every time he talks to charlie; his sweet-talking to the old plump teacher of his to distract her from his friends getting caught vandalizing the principal's car; i could go on and on.....

2) scotty j. in boogie nights - "i'm an idiot. a effin' idiot........."

3) freddie miles in the talented mr. ripley - his loyalty (dare i say attraction to) to jude law's character and perception of damon's character's mistruths were subtle and brilliant, as psh usually always is

4) lester bangs in almost famous - he made this already good movie just that much better

5) truman capote in capote - i thought this movie was slightly overrated, but the voice alone that psh did was unbelievable. i did not notice the obnoxiousness of the voice one single time after the first 5 minutes of the movie b/c he nailed it so well.

his roles in owning mahoney, magnolia, and punch-drunk love barely missed the cut....

the best movie he was in, in my humble opinion, was the big lebowski, but i did not think that that role was that impressive, although he did make me laugh a few times. especially when he was talking about bunny or reacting to something the dude or bunny said.

college sports

so i like college sports, especially univ. of kentucky basketball and univ. of south carolina football. it's the time of the year when the only thing to pay attention to in sports is major league baseball, and that's fine. for a while. i am also a big fan of the atlanta braves, but when it boils down to it, i'm realistically only going to be watching the majority of about one braves games every couple of weeks, so i guess i'm not as big of a baseball fan as some people are...

so back to kentucky basketball and south carolina football. i could not be more excited about either one.

uk's new coach, billy gillispie, has been better than advertised. how is that possible, considering he has yet to coach a single game at rupp arena as our new coach? one word: recruiting. gillispie has been on fire in the one area that tubby smith proved to be so inadequate at during his otherwise great tenure in lexington. the biggest accomplishment was the signing of 5-star recruit patrick patterson within weeks of landing the job. add that to the written or oral commitments of 5 other highly-recruited players for this coming year or the next two or three years in his first 3 months on the job, and i give billy a 12 out of 10 in terms of fitting into his new role as king of kentucky basketball.

prediction: the wildcats finish 2nd in the s.e.c. east behind tennessee, get a #3 ranking in the ncaa tourney and lose in the elite 8. billy's got some serious talent to coach with this year, but not quite enough to challenge the north carolina's, georgetown's, and kansas' of the world this season.

usc obviously has the most brilliant offensive mind in college football in sir steven orr spurrier (or "sos," as the message board's refer to him). if you need any proof of the previous sentence, ponder these statistics: the florida gators prior to s.o.s NEVER won more than 10 games in a season. he AVERAGED that many wins in 12 seasons. prior to his arrival, the gators NEVER won a s.e.c. championship. under him, they won 6. yes, his defenses were pretty darn good as well, but anybody who knows college football knows that sos revolutionized not only SEC offenses but those in all of college football.

although last year ended on a high note for the gamecocks, with wins at rival clemson and in the bowl game against univ. of houston, the whole season must be considered only slightly above average b/c of a 3-5 record in the mighty s-e-c. the gamecocks beat EVERY team they were supposed to beat and lost to EVERY team they were supposed to lose to. yes, 4 of those 5 losses were by a touchdown or less, and yes, we did outplay and really should have beaten the national champion florida gators in gainesville (3 blocked kicks will do that to you), and yes, all 5 losses were to teams with GREAT talent (florida, arkansas, georgia, tennessee, and auburn). but you have to win some of those games to have a good year in the eastern division of the s.e.c. b/c the schedule only gets harder this year. with games at lsu, at georgia, at tennessee, and at arkansas, and with florida and clemson coming to columbia this year, and add in a "tricky" game in chapel hill against new coach butch davis and the unc tarheels, many experts are (accurately) ranking our schedule as the toughest or second toughest in college football for 2007.

the good news: there is a lot. we have the #1 rated recruiting class of wide receivers coming in, and a well-rounded class in general, with position needs filled across the board. there are so many good wide receivers, in fact, that a few good ones will have to redshirt, but look for jason barnes, chris culliver, mark barnes, and joseph hills to contribute this year. we have 2 very good-to-great running backs in mike davis and cory boyd (boyd being the possibly "great" back) behind a young but very talented offensive line. the defense should be improved, especially along the defensive line and with linebacker twins "the brinkley boys." teams will not often be scoring more than 4 touchdowns against us this year. when you combine that with a 5th year starting quarterback in blake mitchell, and the ball coach calling the plays, history would predict a very good season for the 'cocks.

if i were a betting man, i would say that the gamecocks will go 9-3, with losses to lsu, tennessee, and arkansas. that would mean that the gamecocks would beat georgia, florida, clemson, and unc. that would be a fine, fine season by gamecock standards, and if that happens as i predict, that will be the best 9-3 team in the country. here's to you, steve spurrier, for bringing hope to the gamecock nation that this program can finally consistently win. i'm not guaranteeing continual success, but it certainly seems within the realm of possibility, especially if steve stays for another five years and keeps on recruiting like he did this past season.

the end of an era

so we all love july 4th. what's not to love? the day off work. the cookouts. the fireworks. the national anthem. the friends and family. for me, i was fortunate enough today to have great tickets to see the game starting at noon between the nationals and cubs at r.f.k. stadium. the nats won, all-star dmitri young hit a grand slam, there were over 40,000 fans in attendance, and the weather was great.

but most of all, on this patriotic of patriotic holidays, the most important event of the day was the nathan's hot dog eating contest at coney island.

i'd like to take a moment to appreciate the historic run that ended yesterday when the great kobayashi lost for the first time in 6 years at this event. i was unable to see the event on t.v., and i'm kinda glad i did not witness the vomiting that took place.

if you've never seen the episode of m.t.v.'s 'true life' profiling kobayashi, (i promise it's the only true life i've ever watched), you really haven't lived. it's great, great stuff and probably merits its own post on this blog. the man is a true professional who i try to think about at least once a day:

as an american on july 4th, i guess i also have to be happy for joey chesnut.

(i must also add a quick i-told-you-so to all those people i told before the event that kobayashi would go down this year. when you know as much about competitive eating as i do, it's pretty easy to make such bold predictions.... here's another prediction: kobayashi will come back next year and not only beat chestnut but once again break the record that was set today.)

commutation to be commuted to a pardon?

per tony snow:

'There is always a possibility or there’s an avenue open for anybody to petition for consideration of a pardon,' Snow told reporters. 'As far as we know, that’s not been done, and we don’t know if it’s contemplated by Scooter Libby or his defense team. The reason I will say I’m not going to close the door on a pardon is simply this: that Scooter Libby may petition for one. But the president has done what he thinks is appropriate to resolve this case,' Snow said.

you're right, tony, i'm sure neither libby nor his defense team would want to take away that $250,000 fine, two years probation, and the guilty sentence of perjury that could lead to libby being disbarred.

the lies are just to easy to spot these days. as andrew sullivan has been saying for days now, you have the rule of law, and the rule of law for your friends.

on another political note, i think mitt romney should be praised for not ever having issued one single pardon while he was governor of massachusetts.

(i also like the mandatory private health insurance plan that romney implemented for his home state and think that a system like that could probably work at the federal level as well.)

the libby commutation

here are my basic thoughts on what president bush did last night:

i'm not at all surprised that libby is not going to jail. i'm surprised (pleasantly so) that libby was not granted a full pardon. if bush was going to do anything, i would have thought he would have granted libby the ability to keep his law license. as far as i understand it, libby will probably now be disbarred for committing perjury. i'm assuming the "libby defense fund" will probably take care of the $250,000 fine that libby must pay. 2 years probation is still a big deal, and i'm glad that libby is still being marginally punished for this serious crime.

presidential pardons and commutations are wrong and should be eliminated from our political system. they're wrong now, as they were when bush I, reagan, and ford (despite the recent revisionist history that says that ford did the right thing in pardonning nixon) did them. and they were equally wrong when bill clinton, jimmy carter, and lyndon johnson did them. we need to get the executive branch out of the judicial branch on this issue (and my other issues, in my humble opinion). this incident once again proves that there is the law, and there is the law for the well-connected. it sure must be nice to know that your actions will be excused as long as you are good friends or a significant campaign contributor with the president of the united states.

the polyphonic spree

so i went to see this pretty wild dallas-based band this past saturday night at the 930 club. i highly recommend going to see them at least once, if not for their musical talent (which is, to be fair, about average, although the horns/sax/trumpet players are pretty darn good) then for their sense of what it means to be entertainers. i don't necessarily recommend buying every polyphonic spree album, but this band is definitely a concept band worth seeing live.

the spree purposely portray themselves as a large fun-loving cult. the lead singer literally has his own pedestal/podium that he walks onto when he's singing, and the entire band is dressed in the same outfits. usually, the outfit is composed of white angelic robes for everybody (which they did appear in on saturday but only for the encore), but lately the garb has been what appears to me to be black red-cross uniforms:

the band has over 20 members on stage at the same time. i was highly entertained with the 8 or so "choir" singers/dancers at the back and by the lead singer who really does a pretty good job as the head of the "symphony." the music is somewhat of a mix between classic rock, folksy jazz, and new-age pop. the performance lasted about an hour and a half, which was about a perfect amount of time to see them. their gig is certainly as energetic as any band i've ever seen.

apparently, there's a volkswagen ad that's currently running on national t.v. that plays one of their songs, but i'm not sure which one it is.

and then i started a blog....

feel free to comment on/argue with/soundly refute/make suggestions about anything i say or do on here.