The Arbitrary ChuckJerry

The New York Mets are talking about trading Ty Wigginton and Matt Peterson, a pitching prospect, to the Pirates for Kris Benson, a guy who's been great for all of six weeks in the major leagues and has already had a Tommy John surgery.

Trade Wigginton, fine.  There's no room for him anyway with David Wright coming up and Eric Valent playing well at first base.   But this move really makes no sense if they're trading away anyone else.  Benson is in the last year of his contract and could be a free agent at the end of the season unless the Mets would simultaneously trade for him and sign him to a contract extension. Signing him wouldn't be wholly bad since the Mets pitchers have an average age of 53, but they would be giving up a prospect at the same time.  It really leaves them in the same position, only they'd have to pay more for Benson than for Peterson, and they'd be minus Wigginton, who would be a much better utility guy than Joe McEwing.

Do the Mets think that they are still in the pennant race?  They are 3 games under .500 and they are 6 games out of first place.  They're behind 6 other teams for the wild card race and they have lost 7 of their last 10 games.  It's over.  Don't trade away guys you could build on for a short term answer to a question that's not even being asked.

Mets, no trades.  Keep your guys in case something miraculous happens, but don't try and get better by trading away the future.  It's not worth it.

John Kerry gave a pretty good speech last night.  So that's good.

The thing is, who cares if he speaks well or not, shouldn't we vote for a guy's policies?  I mean, there's no better example of that than George W., so I guess the public isn't all that beholden to the political pundits.

I just hate when those guys get up and talk about what a particular candidate needs to do and it doesn't involve talking about their policies.  Does someone really need to go out and 'look presidential' or 'endear himself to middle America', or whatever ridiculous thing these guys say?

I'm really in a couple of different boats in terms of this election.  "Anyone but Bush" really sums up my feelings pretty well.  On top of that, there's a very small likelihood that I would vote outside the Democratic party for something as big as the presidential election. 

But given that, I like Kerry.  Someone who came home from Vietnam and then protested the war can't really be labeled a flip-flopper, I don't think.  Kerry does do a little bit more pandering to his core than I'd like to see, but who doesn't?  And certainly there's not a bigger 'pander bear' than Dubya.

I was watching the Democratic convention last night, as were all good Americans.  Hillary's speech was uneventful, except for when she said, "I know a thing or two about health care".  It's always funny to make fun of yourself, I guess.

Bill Clinton's speech, on the other hand was awesome.  I forgot how much I love to hear him speak.  I've seen the "I have a dream" speech, but never in the context of the times, obviously, and we've heard of other great speakers in history, but I don't recall ever being so rapt as when Bill is giving a speech.  Not just last night, necessarily, though he was great, but any time he speaks in a public forum.

That's why I love Bill Clinton, and that's why I think he was a great president.  Granted, he took actions to back up his words, which is what actually made him great, but we all believed him when he did it because of his way with words.

Is Bill Clinton a moral pillar? Clearly, no.  Should we strive to be like Clinton in every way? Obviously not.  But the faith I had in Clinton because of his words backing actions that I also agreed with is the exact opposite of what I feel for Bush who does things I don't agree with and doesn't even explain them well when he does.

Bill Clinton also favorably juxtaposed with Michael Moore, who I agree with, but who makes me look silly sometimes.  Clinton doesn't use hyperbole or gimmicks or lies, he's just a damn persuasive guy.  Stupid term limits.

Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore's new film surpassed the $100 million mark over the weekend, the first 'documentary' ever to do so.  I guess that's a good thing, since people are going to see it and maybe he's making some people think.

I would bet, though, that  a lot of people who've seen the movie already agree with him, and are just looking for more reasons to dislike Bush.  Maybe some open-minded folks are going to see it without having preconceived hatred for Bush, and that's an interesting notion.

The thing is, Michael Moore stretches the truth way farther than it should be stretched.  Here's one example of some misrepresentations in the movie. Here's another one.

Moore makes it look like the only way you can make these arguments is by lying, which isn't true.  One can easily make arguments against George Bush and his administration without stretching the truth, yet Moore chooses not to.  He's got a history of this, too.  There are many examples of Moore taking liberties with the facts in Bowling for Columbine, as well.  When he does shit like this, it makes the people who agree with him look stupid.  I don't like looking stupid, and that's why Moore makes me nervous.  Moore is a talented enough film-maker to make these movies, represent his point of view, and NOT stretch the truth, and I don't know why he chooses not to.

This movie was commendable because, for the most part, he doesn't resort to the silly gimmicks, like trying to interview the CEO of GM, or ambushing Charlton Heston.  There is the small section where he tries to enlist congressmen's children, but it's small, and we can put it to the side.

So I'm trying to lower my choesterol, as discussed earlier.  The thing is, I don't know what I should eat.  I looked it up, and everything that I like to eat is what I'm not supposed to. 

Clearly that's how my cholesterol got so high, but if I can't eat beef, chicken, eggs, and dairy products (not with any regularity anyway), then what should I eat?  Breakfast is easy since I can eat oatmeal and cheerios, both of which actually help to lower cholesterol, but after that I have to eat lunch and/or dinner.  Pasta, salad, beans, my chioces are sortof limited, I feel.

I know that vegetarians and vegans do this shit for a living, but I'm clearly not used to this yet.  It's easy to not eat what I'm not supposed to, but what should I eat instead?

Yesterday on my birthday, Kathy and I went to see Wicked, a broadway show about the witches from Oz.  It was really great.  It's way up there in terms of broadway shows I've seen.

I wonder if I can remember all the shows I've seen. 

Les Miserables - still awesome, still love it.

Wicked - really incredible, very clever, good show.

Avenue Q - also awesome.  anyone between 20 and 30 must see it.

The Lion King - really good.  The story is the same as the movie, but the sets and costumes and everything were really well done.

Freak - John Leguizamo one man show.  Good, but most of it is about sex.  Not a complaint, but an observation.

Rent - good, engaging, but not nearly as good the second time around.

The Iceman Cometh - very good, very serious, no singing.  Though we had awesome seats and got to see Kevin Spacey, Tony Danza, and Paul Giamatti.

Beauty and the Beast - pretty good.  More for the younger crowd.

Grease - the version I saw was pretty uninspired, though Dominique Dawes and Joe Piscopo lead the (ahem) all-star cast.

Cats - dumb, no story, just singing cats.

Phantom of the Opera - didn't like it, though other folks seem to.

Starlight Express - it was cool when I was 12, but seems silly in retrospect.

I'm not sure if I missed any.  I remembered two of them just as I was about to stop the first time.  I think this is a pretty comprehensive list, though.

So today is my 26th birthday.  I'm officially in my late twenties, and to go along with that, I got an old people type of surprise.

I got a check up earlier in the week, and today my doctor called to inform me that my cholesterol is 256.  High cholesterol is 200, and I'm 25% above that.  So, you gotta go big or go home, I guess.  I gotta stop eating eggs and steak and cheese, I'm told.  There goes the cheeseburger with fried egg lunches.

I'll have to eat more Cheerios and salmon.  I don't think it will be all that hard to change my diet, but I wonder how long it takes for cholesterol to go down.  Clearly I'll have to research it a bit.  Next time I check in, hopefully it'll be a bit lower.

I went to the Dave Matthews Band concert in Camden, NJ last night.  As I write this post, I'm listening to Howard Stern go on and on about how Dave Matthews is gay music and just the other day I was chatting with some friends who were making fun of me for a similar issue.

I really don't care.  Dave Matthews rocks the house and if you don't think so, then that's fine, but you're missing out.  So there.

This year's olympic games seem to be wimpering away before they een start. First of all, the buildings aren't even built yet. What's up with the Greek people? Aren't they the people who invented civilization? They can't build a freaking stadium?

Secondly, thanks to all these security concerns, and maybe because they heard that the buildings weren't built yet, most of the tickets to the events aren't even sold yet. Freaking terrorists are ruining the olympics. In fact, they think that they'll have fewer tourists in Greece this year than they had last year. That's some ill shiznit.

Could I say 'freaking' some more?

This is a matter of pure conjecture, but I would guess that Hilary Clinton is not routing for John Kerry this election season.  The reason is that she's probably eyeing and election bid of her own in 2008.
 
If John Kerry wins this year, then he'll obviously get the incumbent nomination in 2008.  Hilary wants to run in '08, I'm betting. If she loses her senate seat, which is definitely a possibility if Giuliani decides to run against her, then she'll be irrelevant by 2012, or at least less relevant than she'd like unless she moves somewhere else and becomes a senator.
 
Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud, but isn't that the point of this blog to begin with?

Shaq is gone, Phil Jackson is gone, and now Derek Fisher is gone. The Lakers are going nowhere next year. Kobe, Gary Payton, Karl Malone, Lamar Odom, and Brian Grant as your starters don't exactly strike fear into your heart. Caron Butler and Slava Medvedenko off the bench along with Karim Rush, Luke Walton, Rick Fox and Devean George I guess are ok. I'll bet Kobe turns into a McGrady and just takes all the damn shots and doesn't try to win.

San Antonio is actually improved with the signing of Brent Barry. Sacramento and Minnesota are just as good. Dallas is not as good, but is still better than the Lakers. The Suns have a court leader in Steve Nash who is more of a team player than Marbury is to go along with all that talent in Marion and Stoudemire. Houston might get their act together with McGrady and Yao Ming if they can play defense.

I think al of those teams will potentially finish in front of the Lakers. Which is good, since I don't like the Lakers.

Kenyon Martin is officially a Net no longer. He was traded to the Denver Nuggets for three first round draft picks.

A few thoughts on this. I really like Kenyon's game. He plays with abandon an tenacity and he made the Nets legitimate. I suppose if you had to choose between K-Mart and Richard Jefferson, then you choose RJ, because he has more of an upside, but you need an inside presence like K-Mart proides to be successful, especially in the East.

I'm not sure why Denver was in such a hurry to pay Martin all that money. They certainly have the cap space, but they must be planning on building around Anthony and him. They'll need to pay Carmelo the max in a couple years, and they'll have Martin under contract for 4 or 5 years after that. Certainly they won't go over the cap and pay the luxury tax.

The Nets are not committed to winning in the next couple years. They've taken a huge step back here, and they are no longer contenders in the East. Their new owner, Bruce Ratner, doesn't want to pay the luxury tax and is more concerned with getting the team to Brooklyn that having them be winners. Since he's given up on the fans in New Jersey, the New Jersey fans should gie up on him and the Nets.

Not that the Knicks are much better. In fact they're much worse.

I've been rethinking the roulette odds I posted.  I was talking with Joe and he seemed certain that my logic was wrong, so I crunched a couple more numbers.
 
If you bet $10, the odds vs. payoff rate are 26.32% and 28.57% respectively.  $15 and the odds to payoff are 39.47% and 42.86%.  $20 and the odds are 52.63% and 57.14%.
 
If you divide the odds over the payoff for each one (26.32/28.57 and 39.47/42.86 and 52.63/57.14) then you get 92.11%.  So now I'm thinking that it doesn't matter how much you bet.  Unless you get on an unlucky streak and lose all your money, I'm guessing you have a 92.11% chance of breaking even.
 
Now I'm confused.  I'm pretty sure this second post is right, though.  I'll have to think about it a little more.  Maybe I'll actually just research it.

I was in Atlantic City this week and I went to the relatively new Borgatta casino with my homeboy Chris Hall and his wife, Becky. I played roulette for an hour and I broke even. For all intents and purposes, I got an hour of enjoyment for free (except for the $2.95 I got charged to use the ATM).

I like roulette because you can play for a while and bet relatively small amounts so that you don't spend your money too fast. It's not all that hard to break even either.

I thought about it for a while and was motivated to crunch some numbers in order to explain why roulette is dope. Let's assume you bet $1 on one number on every spin of the wheel. Most tables have a $10 minimum bet, which means you'll bet $1 on 10 different numbers each spin. If you do that, then your chances of winning are 10 in 38 (26.32%) and you'll need to win 2 out of every 7 spins (28.57%) in order to break even. Those are pretty good odds since the difference between the two is only 2.26%.

The interesting part, however, is coming up. If you bet $15 every spin, then your chances increase to 15 in 38 (39.47%), but you have to win 3 of 7 spins (42.86%) to break even. The difference between those odds has increased to 3.38%. Bet $20 per spin and your odds are 20 in 38 (52.63%) while you must win 4 of 7 spins (57.14%) to break even. The difference there is 4.51%.

So, by betting less money on each spin, you're actually increasing your total outcome by reducing the difference between your odds and the house odds. With each $5 increase in your bet, you're actually lessening your chance of winning by 1.13% in the long run. That's how the house makes money off of roulette, by letting you bet as much as you want. Their odds increase every dollar over the minimum that you bet.

The moral of the story is that you should play roulette because the odds are good and you should bet the bare minimum to have the best odds of breaking even. If you don't break even, then at least you'll have enjoyed the action over a longer period of time, rather than losing all at once.

I'm stealing a post directly from Joe, but you have to check out the Election Projection for up to date predictions on who will win the presidency.

This site is maintained by a staunch Bush supporter, who manages to be intelligent in spite of that one character flaw. That was unfair, I take it back. Despite his leanings, however, the data is unbiased and provides an accurate picture.

I'm writing this post from my living room because today I just hooked up my new wireless router. Now I can use my laptop to post to the blog and surf the internet and so on and so forth.

Give it up for wireless technologies and wireless routers because they are badass. Now I'm gonna cook dinner and surf the net at the same time, biotch.

The Mets limped into the all-star break today with a loss to the Marlins. They've played well this year against the Phillies, but can't seem to get past the Marlins for whatever reason. Even though they're currently in fourth place in the division, they're only 2 games out of first place. As much as I'd love to see them win that division, I think everyone is too bunched together for the Mets to rise out of that division. Hopefully they'll make a trade before the deadline.

The Yankees, on the other hand, swept the Devil Rays heading into the break and are currently 7 games ahead of the Red Sox in their division. They'll win that easy, but they've still got to shore up their rotation. El Duque pitched relatively well today, so that's good, but he'll need to do that consistently. Kevin Brown needs to get healthy, Mussina needs to be out there, Vazquez has to stop giving up home runs, because he's brilliant otherwise, Lieber needs to be consistent, as does Contreras. They need to cut Felix Heredia, because I would be a better left-handed option out of the bullpen at this point. If the Yankees don't win the world series this year, it will be because of their pitching.

If the purpose of a marriage is create a family, then old people shouldn't be allowed to get married, and people who can't have babies shouldn't be allowed to get married. Since these people are allowed to get married, then clearly the purpose of marriage is something other than creating families.

That being said, gay couples should be allowed to get married because, as best I can tell, marriage is simply an expression that you love that person enough to commit to him or her forever. Or at least until the divorce is final.

Also something that doesn't fly is the argument that gay couples would ruin the institution of marriage. If J-Lo, Elzabeth Taylor, Larry King, and the other 52% of married people who've gotten divorced haven't alreay ruined said institution, then it simply cannot be ruined.

Today is Old Timers' Day at Yankee Stadium so it's fun to see the Yankees trot out all the old school Yankees that we all remember. The introductions are somewhat funny, though becuase they also invite a lot of the guys that we don't remember.

The first 15 or so guys you either don't recognize, or just don't care. For example, at his first old timers day was the guy who had the greatest half season in history, Kevin Maas. Also some guy named Kevin Lapointe. It's still great to see all those guys, though, not to mention Reggie Jackson, Donnie Baseball, Yogi, Scooter, Wille Randolph, and a special treat today, Lou Piniella, who was in town with the visiting Devil Rays and participated in the tribute to Thurman Munson.

I could have gone to the game today, which would have been cool for a couple hours until you realize that you've been at the stadium since 2pm and the game is still going on at 7:30. Maybe next time.

I saw Napoleon Dynamite the other day in the movie theater. It's sortof a shame that no one has heard of this movie. I thought it was hysterical. The only reason I'd seen it was because my brother in law, who's seen every movie released since 1987, told me to go see it. Otherwise I never would have heard of it.

The kid has an exuberance about him that is not immediately recognizable as such. One who doesn't identify with this kid on any level would say that he has no self esteem, when actually the exact opposite is true. Even if he doesn't have num chuck skills.

Since I've had this computer the amount of junk that has been inadvertently downloaded onto it and impeded on its performance has twice gotten me to the point of frustration. After trying to delete any programs and files I wasn't using and condensing the hard drive and so forth with less than desired results, I have twice decided to simply reformat the hard drive.

It has worked out pretty well with Windows XP, because you can restore the programs to their original settings without destroying any of the data files. I can therefore keep all my Word and Excel documents and simply reinstall Office once the reformat is done.

This is a rash step, but it does the trick and returns the computer to essentially peak performance as best I can tell. I have to make sure to never lose my Office CD-Rom or the product key, but other than that, I can download anything else I need.

I saw The Phantom of the Opera today for the first time. I must say, I didn't really like it. I didn't care about any of the characters and I didn't really feel like they should be motivated to do whatever it is they were doing.

I've heard about this show for years and finally I got to see it and it was dumb. I guess that's what you get from Andrew Lloyd Webber. Cats, another Webber show, was even worse than this one. In fact, Cats was just a waste of time and money at the theater.

I'll take Les Miserables over any musical any day of the week.

In response to Max's comment, I would even take Les Miz over Avenue Q, though Ave. Q was very good and runs a respectable second. Also a must see.

The first Spider-Man movie was pretty corny and about what everyone was expecting from a movie of that genre. The dialogue was lame, and the story was silly and overbearing, but the action was moderately cool and everyone went to see it.

Spider-Man 2, which I saw over the weekend, was actually very good. The plot was engaging, the comedy was heartfelt, the action was good, the villain was cool. All in all, this was a brilliant film. I didn't believe I'd ever see myself say that, but I just can't help it. It was a damn good movie.

There were corny moments. Mary Jane dating an astronaut, for God's sake. And when did NASA start enlisting 23 year old astronauts? Also Mary Jane running through the park in her wedding dress with a goofy smile. On the whole, however, the movie was dope and I recommend it.

We all knew that the Post was a poor excuse for a newspaper, but this is the worst ever. On information from some poorly informed sources, the Post had to be first to announce that John Kerry had chosen a running mate, which he did, and that the running mate was Dick Gephardt, which it isn't.

This is as egregious the Dewey defeats Truman error in that Chicago newspaper back in the '40s. The Post should be ashmed of themselves, though I doubt they are, and they should issue apology after apology for looking like the idiots that they are.

I wonder if Kerry heard about this report, and then changed his mind, just to make the paper look dumb. That would be funny, but I doubt it. Long live the Daily News.

John Kerry picked John Edwards to be his vice presidential running mate. I can't say I'm very surprised, though I think he had some better choices out there.

I was a fan of Dick Gephart from the begining of the primary season and I would have voted for him if I had the opportunity. Alas, Kerry had already sewn up the nomination by the time the primaries rolled around to New York. Also Bob Graham is enormously popular in Florida, which would have seemingly tied up the most important of swing states.

It's all good, though, because Edwards is popular and has that Southern charm, and won't stick his foot in his mouth. He'll look a thousand times smoother than Dick Cheney in the debate, which will be interesting.

It's interesting how Edwards roswe so quickly through the ranks of Democrats. He's only been in the Senate since 1998, if I'm not mistaken, and he's already way up there. I guess it doesn't hurt that he's filthy rich.

Mike Krzyzewski is going to stay with Duke and give up $40 million in order to do so. That is a man of character, and that is the reason I am a Duke fan. Too bad none of the good players can stay in college for four years any more. I think it's really ruining the game.

Happy Independence Day to all you Americans out there. This is a purely American holiday that falls in the perfect time of year. I know the founding fathers didn't really plan it this way, but this holiday really couldn't fall in a better place on the calendar. It really starts off the summer on the right foot.

I love the reflection on our history along with the general laid back attitude that goes along with what's typically a lazy summer day. Also seeing fireworks is still as breathtaking as it was when I was a little kid. Give it up for Independence, Freedom, Life, Liberty, and Happiness (as well as the pursuit thereof).

I've read all of John Grisham's legal books. I haven't read his books that don't have lawyers in them like "A Painted House".

Anyhow, I really enjoy reading John Grisham for one reason: his books do not require any thinking on a higher level. They are pure plot and don't generally have any symbolism, deeper themes, or anything that generally makes reading challenging to the mind. I enjoy reading, and I enjoy reading challenging books, but when you're in the mood for a break, at the beginning of a vacation for example, then Grisham is the way to go. No one does it better.

The issue I have with John Grisham is that his endings are generally very bad. Let's go title by title. "A Time to Kill" simply ended with the jury verdict, too abrupt.

"The Firm" had the opposite issue. The ending had nothing to do with the rest of the book and went on for way too long.

"The Pelican Brief" had an obligatory romance and not much substance to it at the end.

"The Client" was anti-climactic to say the least.

"The Chamber" had an ending you could see from page 15.

"The Rainmaker" was formulaic, but moderately satisfying.

"The Runaway Jury" actually had a great story to the very end, only the last couple pages were disappointing.

"The Partner" was one of his better books along with one of his better endings.

"The Street Lawyer" was disappointing from beginning to end, so isn't worth singling out just the ending.

"The Testament" was Grisham's best book and far and away his best ending.

"The Brethren" was an interesting concept and I enjoyed reading it. The whole thing was odd, along with the ending, but enjoyable.

"The Summons" had a red herring suspect and sort of a twist ending that wasn't very satisfying. It also ends rather abruptly.

"The King of Torts", which I just finished reading 20 minutes ago, was one of his better stories, along with the disappointing ending. He doesn't give any closure to the story and we're not really sure how the main character comes out in the end.

I really enjoyed having the character of Patton French appear semi-prominently in both "The Summons" and "The King of Torts", especially since I read them both back to back. It tied both stories together really well.

Reports of Mike Krzyzewski talking with the Lakers about their vacant coaching position leaves me in a quandary. Alas, I love Duke and Krzyzewski, and I hate the Lakers.

If Krzyzewski left, where would that leave Duke? And would I find myself routing for the Lakers? That would be awful. Who would replace the legendary coach? Clearly it would have to be assistant coach Steve Wojciechowski, the only name that could rival the outgoing Krzyzewski.