***

Cricket: 

(If you’re not familiar with the sport of cricket, here is a little primer I wrote a few months ago.  Or you can just scroll down to read my comments on other sports.) 

Rather than this specific tournament, my first comment is on Twenty20 cricket itself:
If you’re going to limit the overs, then why the hell don’t you limit the wickets along side of it?!

I understand that the whole point of Twenty20 is to speed up the game, make it more intense, more high-scoring, and thereby attract a new audience.  I’m cool with that; after all, I’m part of that new audience–I’m young, I’m a cricket neophyte, and I’m American.  I think cricket is a great game, but, while I’d be willing to give it a shot,  I’d be skeptical about actually spending a whole day at a match.  Twenty20, though, is something I’m dying to see.  I wish ProCricket was still around.

But while I’m keen on short-form cricket, I think the current version of Twenty20 sacrifices a too much of the integrity of the sport by essentially turning the game into a slog-out. 

How to fix it?  Limit the outs along with the overs.  Say, 5 or 6 wickets per side per match.  It would at least make the fielding and running count for something.   And even with only 5 or 6 wickets to sacrifice, the batsmen would still be far more agressive than in ODIs.

Downsides?  The only complaint I could think of with my idea is that it makes depth in the batting lineup less of a neccessity.  But how much much of a neccessity is it now, anyway?  Furthermore, if it’s that big of an issue, you could allow, or even require, teams to shuffle their batting lineups during the match.  Sure it’s unorthodox.  But so is the current form of Twenty20.

–

Now, as for this tournament, it’s going to be interesting.  From what I’ve read, the South Africans have done a *gasp* good job organizing the event.  That’s a good sign, especially condering the controversies about RSA’s preparations for the 2010 FIFA World Cup.  I’m looking forward to it.

That said, retirements (Lara, Inzamam, McGrath), scandals (Shoaib Akhtar), and miscellaneous absences (Dravid, Ganguly, Tendulkar, Panesar) do take away somewhat from the star power.

(Aside: Notice how most of those players are from South Asian teams?  If the Indian Cricket League really does take off, the PCB and BCCI will really have no one to blame but themselves.  Honestly, I think I’m pulling for the ICL to succeed where Packer failed.)

I’m going to try to follow it as best as I can.  And I’ll be cheering on my WIndies.

(I get good mileage out of this photo.)

Australia should take it without much trouble, although I’d be looking for an upset or two in this tournament thanks to the nature of Twenty20. 

***

Football:  I have mixed feelings on football.  I love following it, but actually sitting down and watching a full game can be brutal.  It’s not so bad on TV, but I just don’t like going to games.  Regardless, the season just started, and I’m excited about it.  A few comments:

1. Syracuse sucks.  I mean, we’re just plain awful.  How does a team fall that far, that fast?  And how did a new AD and new coach not change things at all?
2. The Philadelphia Eagles need to make Andy Reid aware that this is his last chance.  He’s 90% perfect, 10% terrible.  That’s great 90% of the time, but that’s not something we Eagles fans should settle for.  Today it was special teams.  Last game last year it was clock management/playcalling.  Same with the Super Bowl.  He’s just not getting it done.
3. My fantasy team is, once again, incredible.  Go White Hor*R*se Homebody!

***

Ice Hockey:  Stateside, rookie camps are underway, and training camps are opening very soon.  The Flyers’ rookies actually have a real scrimmage this Wednesday against the Washington Caps rookies just down the road for me!

The European pre-season is wrapping up, and the Swiss regular season opens on Friday!  I can’t wait.  I really have no idea how Fribourg-Gottéron will do this year, but I’m hoping for th best.  Their new website, by the way, sucks something fierce.

***

Soccer:  The Women’s World Cup opens this week in China.  I’m not sure I’ll be up early enough for the games, but I’ll be trying to follow it anyway.  They say group B is going to be damn near impossible. I’m certainly no expert, but I just can’t see the US having much of a problem.  Also, this is supposedly going to be China’s warm-up for the Olympics.  Let’s see how it goes.

The officiating today in the USA-Brazil men’s friendly was horrible. 
(Yep!  It was a FIFA weekend, the same weekend as NFL openers, and just a few days before the Women’s World Cup and the ICC World Twenty20.  See what I mean about it being a huge sports week?!)

Today’s Netflix Pick was Bend It Like Beckham.  (I figure that’s slightly more excusable than normal since my previous pick was a classic exestential drama).  The girls were cute, the message was good, and the movie was entertaining enough overall.  But the acting of Jess’ mom and sister was a little too over-the-top, and I hate movies where thing after thing after things goes wrong (Meet the Parents is one of my all-time least favorites). 
2.5 stars out of 5.  But I’m definitely not the target audience.

DC United just finished a stellar week.  It is absolutely killing me that I haven’t been able to see this team this year.  Hopefully I’ll get to see them at least once this year.  I’m also hoping to visit DC for the MLS Cup in early November.  I’m hoping I get to visit DC one more time before that, but it’s not looking too likely.  I miss it down there.

(If you’ve never heard of it, chances are you’re at least somewhat familiar anyway.  It’s the film with the iconic premise of a chess match with a personification of Death.)

I’m not really sure why I’m even bothering review it, because I really don’t have a heck of a lot to say.

They say that it’s almost sacrilege to watch a dubbed movie when subtitles are available.  Well, what can I say?  I’m lazy, so I opted for the dubbed version of the movie.  Unfortunately, I found the audio quality to be poor, so about two-thirds of the way into it, I set the audio back to the original Swedish and put the English subtitles on. 

I had a really hard time getting into the beginning of the movie, but that changed almost as soon as I turned on the subtitles.  I’m not sure if that’s a coincidence or not.  Regardless, I enjoyed the last half-hour.

A fair amount of the movie went over my head.  I think this is largely because I had a hard time telling the characters apart, and I think that was probably because the English audio was so poor.  However, after I began to catch on, I enjoyed most of the movie. 
After it ended, I watched the trailer, and that filled in some more of the gaps that I missed.

(I can be quite dense at times when I’m reading or watching something with literary/artistic merit.  I’m not proud of that, but I’ll admit to it.)

The Seventh Seal is an existential film about the meaning of life and the existance of God.  The film is not remarkable for the questions it asks, but for the humanity and emotion with which they are asked.  It doesn’t tackle new ground, but it treats universal ground well.  Otherwise, it wouldn’t be as iconic as it is.

3 stars out of 5, but I don’t think I fully appreciated it.

Maybe the Criterion commentary will help.  I’ll try to watch that tomorrow.

Here are some statistics:

5377 hours spent with my grandmom
256 days that either my mom or I have watched over her
140 miles I moved from my old home in Maryland
30 weight, in pounds, that I expected to gain.  Fortunately, I am somehow in better shape now than when I started.
22 movies I’ve watched to pass the time (I just finished Goodbye, Lenin! It was good-3 stars out of 5).
19 blog posts about my grandmom
9 months since I last worked
7 medications she’s currently taking
6 overnight trips
5 on a good day, my grandmom’s stage of Alzheimer’s. (Although 6 might be more like it.)
4 hospitalizations
3 falls
2 calls to 9-1-1
1 time when I lost my cool and yelled angrily at her.

I haven’t really given an update on my grandmom in a while, mostly because of the most recent hospitalization.

See, one pattern I have noticed is that, after coming home for the hospital, my grandmom’s mind and body both weaken for about four weeks.  That’s long enough for you to think “ok, she has completely lost it.”  But then you look at the trend and realize she’ll likely bounce back.  So, I held off blogging about her for a while.

July 18 was my grandmom’s most recent release from the hospital.
This time around, I really did think that the end was near.  No, not the end of her life, but the end of the time when me being here was a workable option to a difficult situation.

Nana: “When do I have to get up?”
Gary: “You can get up whenever you want.”
Nana: “I don’t understand.”

That conversation, and others, repeated about 25 times per morning for about 3 weeks, made me wonder if it was time to consider other options, like a nursing home.  Especially when she could barely walk for about 2 weeks.

My mom was sure that she was just deteriorating too quickly after that hospital visit. 

But you have to look at the trends.  And, I remembered, she was just like this when she came home from the hospital before.

Sure enough, a month after she’s been home, she is now back to the same base-line physical and mental state that she has established over the nine months that I’ve been here.

So, it continues…

Friday, I had a little bit of a break.  I got out of the house for a few hours to watch two movies.

The Simpsons Movie

(That is supposed to be me as a Simpsons character, courtesy of simpsonizeme.com)

First, I saw The Simpsons Movie. 
This is only about the third time that I’ve seen a movie on the day that it came out.  Fortunately, even though I saw it right away, I wasn’t chomping at the bit with sky-high expectations.

I’ve been watching The Simpsons on TV for years.  While it’s still an awesome show, I do think that, in recent years, it has had an increasing tendancy to be hit-or-miss.  Honestly, I think the writers are just running low on ideas (that’s only natural after 18 years), and plots that seem to revolve around finding a way to work a celebrity guest-star in the show or plots that take the Simpsons on an exotic trip are getting a little old, I think. 

That, coupled with the fact that I was working every time the show was on (both new episodes and reruns) for a while means that I got out of the habit of watching for a while.

Even though The Simpsons might not be at its peak, it’s still one of the better shows on TV.  So, I was eager to see the movie.  I was expecting something fun and that would earn about 3.5 stars out of 5 on the Gary scale.  And that’s exactly what I got!

Check it out!
Sicko

I am not a big Michael Moore fan.  Nevertheless, after The Simpsons Movie ended, I decided to make it a double feature and watch Sicko. 
(I missed the first 5-10 minutes, but I don’t think that’s too too big of a deal).

It had been over 3 years (time flies!) since I watched and reviewed the last of Michael’s Moore’s movies, Fahrenheit 9/11.  It had been even longer since I had watched his other films.  But I wasn’t that very impressed with any of the previous ones that I had seen.

If memory serves me correctly, Fahrenheit 9/11 initially struck me as a largely unreasoned anti-war screed.  Bowling for Columbine didn’t even answer the main question it raised (what is it with American culture the inspires gun violence?) and instead took a simplistic anti-gun tone.  I haven’t seen Roger and Me, and I remember pretty much nothing about The Big One aside from the fact that it was unmemorable.  And one-sided.

Still, I think it’s awesome that Moore has hit it big enough in the mainstream to bring big issues to broad debate, even though he’s just a wee-bit too far to the left for me.

I had heard that Sicko was Moore’s best film yet.  After watching it, I am inclined to agree.

That’s not to say the film is perfect.
Moore is a hard-core socialist, and, just like his other films, Sicko rails against the injustices brought about by more capitalist societies while upholding the ideals of the far-left.  If there are problems with social welfare regimes, Moore doesn’t see them.

After I left the theatre, while everything was still fresh in my mind, I sat in the car and made a list on a napkin of some comments and critiques–positive, negative, and neutral:

• Moore’s comments about being kept in an “economic chokehold” by a lack of of social welfare programs, and therefore choice and democracy suffering, is a good pro-left, pro-democracy arguement.
• The comparison of US and Canadian healthcare wasn’t fair.  Moore focused on chronic care in the US, but emergency care in Canada.  Apples and oranges, especially since the most common critcism I’ve heard of Canadian hospitals is their handling of chronic health problems.  I would have liked to see that allegation examined fairly.
• Of course the 9/11 rescue workers got good care in Cuba!  Brining them there is an incredible propoganda opportunity for the ruling party.  Castro must have been drooling.  Remember that Cuba’s healthcare is still ranked below the USA’s.
• The health and social welfare program of the European Union, including France, cost A LOT of money, and that has caused things such as unemployment and questions about the long-term financial solvency of these programs.  That’s not to say that it’s not a good program, but it’s not right to paint France as perfect.  We should learn from them, though.
• Everyone knows HMOs can suck, but I had no idea how ruthlessly they go after some people.  Dang!
• I agree that more preventative care is needed, but I do think such care is growing in the US.  The US does need to do a better job at thinking long-term.
• Yes, US prescription costs are high.  But isn’t that because US consumers are subsidizing the R&D costs of new drugs because Rx companies don’t make enough in foreign markets to do so?  This is an arguement I’ve heard in the past, and it would have been nice to see Moore tackle it.  I’ve always wondered if foreign countries may be doing more harm than good by regulating the price of drugs.
• Good point: we have public education, so why not public healthcare?
• But does Moore trust the US gov’t to run medical care when he seems to think it does such a poor job in so many other areas?
• I think Moore should have taken a look at the libertarian anti-Nanny-state arguement.  Does socialized medicine cause one?  Do we have one anyway?
• Likewise, I’ve seen it mentioned that the quality of care-per-dollar spent here is low.  Is that true?

Still, it’s not a bad film. 
In fact, I think Sicko works better than Moore’s other films simply because it examines multiple countries and therefore presents us with options. 

In the past, Moore’s movies seemed to make simplistic, exclusive statements like “Bush is bad,” “Guns are bad,” and “Downsizing is bad.”  Here, “the US Healthcare system is bad” is certainly at the core of the film, but a more positive ”socialized medicine is good” ties everything together.

Or rather, it doesn’t tie things together.  At least not all the way.  And I think that’s why this movie is better.  It gives us room to examine, think, and choose.

The US, UK, France, Cuba, etc., all have their own social welfare programs that, to different extents, subsidize the costs of healthcare.  All have positive aspects, and all have negative aspects.  And some do better jobs than others.

Moore makes a compelling case that the American healthcare system is not the best, and therefore there are better ways.  We should examine these.  After all, why shouldn’t the US strive to be the best?
He doesn’t tell us specifically what US healthcare policy should look like, but he does show us that it deserves another look.

Sicko opens a debate, but it doesn’t close it.  And that’s not such a bad thing.  For Moore, it’s his best.

3.5 stars out of 5.

A while ago, I wrote this post on the 2008 presidential race and global warming (yes, I should have made it two posts instead of awkwardly jamming two topics together).
The movie didn’t do much to change my views; I’m still mostly a believer in global warming.  It was a well-made movie, and Gore proved his point admirably, but some of the criticisms I’ve seen still leave doubts in my mind. 

(I have to say, I think the media have done a terrible job cutting through the controversy.  I’m still not entirely sure what the educated consensus really is. )

Regardless, I still think it’s only prudent to err on the side of caution in terms of the environment.

This leads me to what I consider a great political irony, and a also sad commentary on how our society frequently values labels of substance.

• Republicans are “conservative.”
• Democrats are “liberal.”

At least, that’s what they say.

Yet,

• Republicans generally seem more skeptical about global warming.
• Democrats seem more “green.”

Fair enough. 
But that doesn’t really mesh with their supposed “conservativism” and “liberalism,” does it?

The way I see it, “going green” is about as “conservative” as you can get. 
Not only are you practicing “conservation,” but you are also erring on the side of caution, preparing for the worst, being proactive about the territorial integrity of the US, and essentially working to prevent certain changes in the traditional American lifestyle.

Futhermore, for a green movement to really take hold, legislation will almost certainly be neccessary.  Whether it be in the form of a carbon tax, outlawing of plastic bags and incandescent bulbs, or whatever else, this sort of legislation restricts our freedom somewhat.  In the short-run, it curtails our liberties.  It is hardly “liberal.”

(Granted, as a social effort for our collective good, it does fit the Democratic/left platform, but only in that regard).

I can’t really fault either party for taking sides in this debate.  As far as I can tell, Global Warming is indeed a valid political issue.  Heck, I’ve taken a side myself.

But I find it ironic that the “liberal” party’s position is, to me, conservative, while the “conservative” party’s position is liberal.

I think this is largely symptomatic of the fact that the main parties don’t stand for all that much anymore; they exist mostly to oppose each other.  It bothers me that this is the case, and it bothers me that the public doesn’t really call the parties out on it.

It also bothers me that the words ”liberal” and “conservative” are hurled about by politicians, pundits, and the public as slurs, rather than as simply adjectives.

Of course, I think that “conservative” values in the US are, historically and etymologically, liberal.  But I suppose that’s a topic for a different day.

My Background

Junior year of high school was a pretty big year for me.
I was learning that I really enjoyed TV production, and my history teacher thought I had a real knack for the social sciences.  In fact, she was so impressed that she had my high school nominate me for the New Jersey Governor’s School of International Studies.  I didn’t get in, but “it’s an honor just to be nominated;” each high school only gets to nominate one or two students.  I didn’t really know anything “international” at that point, and I got into another special program that summer, anyway.  So all was well.

Madison County at American Legion Jersey Boys State--the program I attended in the summer of 2000. It probably ended up being less influential than the program I didn't attend!

For college, I knew that I wanted to do something with TV news.
Thinking back to those Governor’s School brochures, I thought that International Relations might be a good way to supplement journalism as a second major–you know, like international news.  Well, long story short (because you’ve probably already heard the long Newhouse story), things ended up going the other way: I landed primarily in International Relations, grew into that, and used my TV skills to supplement the IR.

As a new International Relations major, I knew embarassingly little about the world and embarassingly little about the field I was heading into.
But, as I said, I grew into it, and I grew to really like it.  I chose (or rather, my advisor steered my freshman self into) a concentration on modern Europe, and that worked out fine for me.  I got to travel, make some great friends, and see some incredible things in some incredible places.

In doing so, I came to believe that being able to work cross-culturally is only going to become more and more valuable as a skill as the world becomes increasingly interconnected (“globalized”).  I began to understand people, and the world, better.  I became more confident in my choice of a major that I picked semi-half-ass-edly.  I became more confident in myself as I learned how to handle situations that were once foreign to me.  And, believe it or not, I even began to get annoyed by some of my (often pedantic or inexperienced) IR peers who seemed to have a specific fetish for one specific country or culture*.  After all, I think the point of studying internationally is more to learn more about the whole world and its similiarities than it is just to learn about one or two countries and their differences.
But all I really knew was Europe.

So, I was somewhat surprised when, less than a year after college, I met an amazing girl (who happened to be from India) and landed a job producing a TV news program (that happened to air in Pakistan).

Much like International Relations and Europe did years before, South Asia landed in my lap.  And, honestly, I found it pretty intimidating at first.

Krores and lakhs and dosas and kurthas and cricket, theek-hai?  Chalta-hai?  Insha’Allah!
No matter how western-thinking my friends and coworkers were, little particles like that kind of made my head spin.

Fortunately, it didn’t take long at all for me to learn that I prefer my samosas without chutney.  And, when I saw The Namesake the day before yesterday, I couldn’t help but crack up when Gogol told his soon-to-be brother-in-law, “Just call everyone auntie and you’ll be fine.”
I guess I began to catch on.

The Movie

I read Maryland Macaca’s good post on The Namesake a while ago.  But, not having heard a peep about the movie beforehand, I unfortunately didn’t pay it all that much attention.  Oops!

But last week, when I paid a visit to my old office, one of my friends showed me the trailer; I re-read MD’s post, and it seemed like something I should see.
(Is it ironic or appropriate that the person who showed me the trailer was one of the only other white guys in the office–a Spanish-speaking Armenian-French Canadian who works for a Pakistani TV show in Washington?)

So, not being sure how much longer it would be out, I moved it to the top of my priority list.  Tuesday, even with my Netflix languising, I stuffed some Wendy’s cheeseburgers in my pockets (I was hungry and didn’t have time for dinner!) and made my way to the Ritz theatres in Voorhees.

ANYWAY!
In reviewing a movie about culture and self, I thought it might be appropriate for me to talk a little about myself and my intercultural experiences.  But how about the movie itself?

The Namesake was excellent.

In short, it’s about the US-born children (“ABCD”s) of Indian-born parents, and how both struggle to find themselves somewhere between East and West.  This conflict is largely shown as the main protagonist struggles in romantic relationships with both an American girl and a Bengali girl, and also as he struggles to come to terms with his two given names: “Nikhil” (an easily-Americanizable desi name) and “Gogol” (a name that come from his father’s past, but which is equally foreign to both Indians and Americans).
But it’s not just about him; it’s about his whole family.

I’d mostly agree with Maryland Macaca in that the film takes a nuanced view of things: it shows that cultural background alone is not a valid measure of compatibility.  It’s mostly free of oversimplifications and stereotypes, but I do have to say, a couple of times American characters’ actions made me cringe (calling Gogol’s parents by their first names, skimpy dress at a funeral, vandalization, etc.).  I hope us goras are mostly more sensitive than that, yo!

For me, though, the most thought-provoking theme in the film was also one of the most understated: the generational differences in the struggles faced by the parents and the children.
Note that I don’t just say “the generational differences between the parents and the children.”  This is certainly a HUGE, and interesting, theme throughout the film.  But if you look a little deeper and think about the characters and their struggles (especially the parents, because the struggles they faced in their 20s aren’t explored nearly as in-depth as those of their children) , there is a lot to think about.

While 20-somethings Gogol/Nikhil and Sonia both struggle with reconciling their own culture with that of their parents, the parents themselves spent their 20s dealing with the banal differences between life and culture in the US and life in India (I found the scene where Ashima is trying to make herself breakfast a touching, and slightly humourous, example of such).  Gogol suffers dealing with the freedom he has in chosing his partners, while we couldn’t help but feel for his mother while she was left alone in the early days of her arranged marriaged.  The children don’t always know how to communicate with their parents, while, for the parents, the logistics of communication to their homeland proved to be an isolating, and time-consuming challange.  As Americans, the kids struggle to keep in touch with their Indian heritage, while the parents struggled at acclimate themselves to the US.  Yes, the immigrant experience is multigenerational.

Both the parents and the kids struggled in their 20s, but in different ways.  And, most likely, when the children reach their parents age, they will struggle with different, but similiar, issues (aging, the loss of a spouse, how to spend retirement, etc).

I think it’s this aspect that really seals the films universality.
Yes, the characters are brown.  And yes, it’s mostly about intercultural issues.  But there’s more to it than that, existentially.  It’s also a movie about generational conflicts, family conflicts, and how we are ALWAYS still growing up.

(One of my favorite things about Gogol was that he really does mature.  He learns from his mistakes and works to fix them, something that should be so basic, but which so few of us actually do.)

If you were to spin this movie off into a sitcom series (which really wouldn’t be all that hard to do), I think it would resemble Rosanne.  So, even if you’re not brown and don’t know anyone who is, it is definitely worth seeing.  I wouldn’t exactly say it’s revolutionary, but it’s very relevant, surprisingly accessible, and very well done.

As a TV news producer, when I watch an artistic film, I can’t help but feel like the guy who paints the walls at the Louvre.
I more-of-less understand what the direction’s vision is, and in some ways I’m in awe.  This film definitely had artistic merit.

Particularly, I enjoyed the recurring train imagery.  Trains symbolize journeys, which represent life.  And each time we saw a train (the accident, Agra, Gogol’s marriage, the ending scene), we knew a big change was coming on that journey.
Combine that with the way the Howrah Bridge and George Washington Bridge are used to visually compare NYC to Kolkata, the way books are used to definine characters (Gogol, Ashoke, Ashima, and Moushumi), the holograms in the airport, a little Bollywood homage, and some other motifs that I’m sure I missed,  and WOW!  It’s really well-directed by a true auteur.

The character development was also well-done.  EVERYONE seemed so complex, and, aside from Ashima (whom I liked throughout), my opinion of each character changed at least once.
That’s a lot in two hours, but not too much.  It was great film-making.  And great acting.

The South Asian phase of my life may or may not be over with, but at the very least it’s on hiatus.  Still, I intend to visit India one day (possibly via an overland trip from Europe, possibly as soon as I finish caring for my grandmom), and I bet I’ll feel more at home there than I would in, say, Russia, where the people look more like me.  I’ve grown comfortable with the Indian culture, and how it, like others cultures, is becoming increasingly intertwined with that of the US.  Maybe that’s why I enjoyed the film so much.  But even if you haven’t grown that comfortable yet, you should see this to understand just how intertwined the world is becoming and how there are similiarities even in the different challanges we all face.

Four and a half stars out of five.

*People who say things like, “I like Asian girls,” or, “I wish I lived in Canada,” annoy me because, 9 times out of 10, they don’t really know a damn thing about what they’re talking about, and they frequently have nothing to compare it to.  They might even be basing things off a romanticised version of reality or a stereotype.  Yes, it’s ok to have specific interests, as I do, but, as I said, the world is a big place.  I hope you don’t see me as being hypocritial by being annoyed by this.  It’s hard to explain, but it makes sense to me!

1. Too wet.
2. Overpriced.
3. Over-hyped.

I’m not saying it’s bad, mind you; it’s just not the best.
So, I was VERY happy to see that Lena was giving out free water ice, as well; hers (like most of Rita’s competitors) are FAR superior, in taste, texture, and price.
But, believe it or not, there was no line. 

Sure, Lena doesn’t have as good of a location as Rita, nor does she have the advertising budget.  But still, people wouldn’t know quality if it bit them in the nose.
Fortunately, some people started pull up as I got back into the car to enjoy my free sugar.

With my two free water ices and my free coffee safely procured, and with people starting to line up at Lena’s, my faith in humanity was restored.

Yesterday’s Netflix was Y Tu Mama, Tambien.  4 stars out of 5.  See it!

That’s right, when I wake up in a few hours, the opening match of the World Cup will be under way in Jamaica, and, as you can see above:

1. I only own a toy cricket bat.
2. I really do need a shave.
3. I’ll be pulling for the West Indies. 
   (Why?  Well, the Leeward Islands are part of the WIndies, and the US Virgin Islands are part of the Leeward Islands, and the US Virgin Islands are part of the US.  Since the US doesn’t have a national team at the moment, the WIndies are the closest we have to an American team.  And I kind of met Brian Lara and a few WIndies other players.).
   

It’s not ice hockey, and it’s not baseball, but by now, I have to say that cricket is in the back of a four-way-race for being my 3rd favorite sport.

If you’re American (like me!), or if you otherwise don’t know much about the game, I HIGHLY recommend DangerMouse’s Explanation of Cricket.

I think he does a great job explaining it, but if you want the REALLY condensed version, and you understand baseball, here’s my quick rundown:

• The cricket field is an oval; in the middle is a long strip called a pitch.
• At each end of the pitch, there’s a crease (like a batter’s box). 
• One batsman stands in each crease/batter’s box.  When the ball is bowled to him (kind of like how it’s pitched in baseball), he can swing at it or let it pass.  If he hits the ball, he can run to the other crease if he wants to.  He doesn’t have to.  When he runs, the guy in the crease at the other end runs, too. 
• One run is scored every time the batsmen change places.
• If the ball rolls past the outter boundary, 4 runs are scored.  If it goes over the boundary in the air, that’s a 6.
• In baseball, when you’re in the field, your primary objective is to get the other team out.  It’s the same in cricket, but getting those outs is harder.
• In baseball, when you’re up to bat, your primary objective is to score runs.  Not getting out is a secondary concern.  LOTS of players will get out, but relatively few runs will be scored.
• In cricket, it’s the opposite.  LOTS of runs will be scored, and relatively few players will get out.
• There are a bunch of ways to get out, but one of the main ones is by knocking down the wicket–those sticks that are stacked up behind the crease.  More than scoring runs, the batsman wants to defend his wicket, by keeping the bowler from knocking it down, and by not running when someone else could knock it down.
• The team with more runs after everyone is out (10 on both sides) wins.
• It can take A LONG TIME for everyone to get out.  Test matches are generally played over 5 days, and a good portion of those end in draws beacuse they run out of time.
• The World Cup is limited overs cricket.  Basically, the inning ends after 300 balls (pitches) are thrown, even if everyone isn’t out.  These games shouldn’t last more than 7 hours or so.

So, now you know the VERY basics of cricket!
Now, as I was saying, the opening match kicks off in a few hours in Jamaica, and I’ll be wishing I were there.
I guess that’s what two years dating an Indian and a year and a half working with a bunch of Pakistanis will do to you!

I like cricket a lot, but even more than that, I LOVE big-time, weeks-long multinational sporting tournaments.  (I stay up until 4am watching curling during the winter Olympics).
I’ve always dreamed of competing in the Olympics.  I’ll never get to do that, and this year there won’t even be any to watch on TV.  But you can bet that I’ll be watching the Cricket World Cup!

You want to know what I think about it this year?
Well, I’m glad you asked!

Here are your teams, in their groupings and with their seeds (courtesy of Wikipedia), along with my comments on each of them.
(DISCLAIMER: I am not REMOTELY qualified to do this.  I barely know cricket!)

GROUP A

Australia (1) — Australia will go deep.  There’s no question about that.  But they struggled mightily in New Zealand last month.  And Brett Lee will have to let it be.  They deserve to be the favorite, but they’re far from a shoe-in.
(That Brett Lee link is really worth clicking, by the way).

South Africa (5) — Underrated?  Possibly.  They have smooth sailing to the Super 8s, where we’ll find out what the krugerrand is really worth.

Scotland (12) — I suppose this is an issue only an American would have, but I just don’t understand why Scotland doesn’t play with England/Wales.  Consolidating them would open up a valuable slot in the tournament for another country and encourage the development game there (ie, UAE until the USA gets its act together).  I just don’t ever see the Scots making great strides forward.  That said, they did win the ICC Trophy and the match against the Orange might be exciting.

Netherlands (16) — If a bat-and-ball sport ever takes off on the Continent, you’ll have the Dutch to thank.  While the Germans are playing baseball and Finnish baseball, the Dutch are the only European country serious about the two big bat-and-ball sports.  Their baseball and cricket programs are doing pretty well, as far as non-traditional nations go.  I’m glad to see them get the last seed.  I could see them advancing to the Super 8s sometime in my life, but not for a while.

GROUP B

Sri Lanka (2) – It’s hardly a surprise that Sri Lanka is not a media darling.  But that hardly means they don’t deserve to be.  A very well-balanced team might just turn some heads.  Finalists?  Don’t be surprised.

India (8) — Of all of the greats who will be looking to win their first World Cup in their last try this year, I think Sachin Tendulkar has the biggest chance to bring home the trophy.  Watch out for India.

Bangladesh (11) — The Bangladeshis (or are they “Banglas”?  I’m not sure.  BTW, I’ll put the question mark outside of the quotes because that’s the British style, and cricket is a British game) might be a Super 8 team if they were in Group C or D.  But this group is just too strong for the weakest of the South Asian teams.

Bermuda (15) — If I were Malcolm Speed, I’d find some way to incorporate Bermuda into the West Indies.  Of all the minnows, I don’t think you’ll find a more cricket-hungry nation than Bermuda.  The islanders even get excited about domestic matches!  Alas, I don’t know that there will ever be a way a nation this size can ever make a splash.  Not for a lack of heart, but for a lack of manpower.
If they can knock off Bangladesh, you’ll hear the island erupt, wherever you are.

GROUP C–THE GROUP TO WATCH

New Zealand (3) — I’ll be honest, I know even less about the Black Caps than I know about the rest of these teams.  I’ll just say that they feel a bit forgotten, and I’m not exactly sure what that means in a group that is ripe for an upset.

England (7) — Buy your Monty Panesar gear now before they run out!  If nothing else, he’ll be a favorite in the tournament.  (Assuming the pitches suit him).  It’s no surprise that England isn’t highly-regarded after their dismal performace at the Ashes, but they did beat New Zealand recently.  What kind of England team will we see this year?  One that can’t relax, for one.

Kenya (10) — If there is a big upset in the tournament, it will be from Kenya.  Fortunately, the seeding works out well for them: they have a group where such an upset is very possible.  But it won’t be easy.  This is Kenya’s time to sink or swim.  Yes, they turned some heads in last World Cup, and yes, they turned some more in the World Cricket League.  But both of those were on their home turf.  Not this time.  Normally, it would be OK if Kenya tried but just didn’t pull it off.  But with the precarious state of the Kenyan teams finances, a win here could give a little economic boost along with an incentive to schedule more matches against Test nations that could possibly send it on the fast track to Test status for itself.

Canada (14) — I’d be lying to you if I were to say that I wasn’t just a little bit jealous of our neighbors to the north (if they could get here, the US could do the same with a proper administration).  And I’d be lying if I weren’t pulling for them just a little bit, even though the US-Canada cricket rivalry is the oldest in international cricket.  But I’d be lying to myself if I thought they could move on the the Super 8s.  They have beaten Kenya in first-class and ODI cricket, and maybe their ODI team is due (they have to win again sometime, and they did scare Bangladesh a few weeks ago).  But it’s extremely unlikely that they’ll win a game.

GROUP D–Another one to watch

Pakistan (4) — Without Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammed Asif, with a captain who doesn’t score all that well in major ODIs, and with controversy around every corner, Pakistan might be a wee bit overrated coming into this. This is the shakiest of the two groups with three test nations, so they can’t relax, either. 
West Indies (6) — The home team could win the tournament, or they could implode, get a scare from Ireland, and fall to Zimbabwe.  They’ve got the bats, but do they have the bowling attack?  And do they have the composure to go the distance?  I’m not so sure; they sure didn’t look that way in the warm-up matches (but can you really use them to judge?).  However, it is a long tournament.  And the home turf should hold an advantage when other teams will be away for nearly two months.  The West Indies will likely never host an event like this again.  And Lara will never play in an event like this again.  That should serve to inspire.  Since they could go far or fall far short, I’ll take the middle and predict them to lose in the semis.
Zimbabwe (9) — Like everything in Zimbabwe, the cricket team isn’t what it should be.  Still, they’ll be breathing down the necks of the the favorites here.  While they don’t quite control their own destiny, they can be ready to pounce if either of the favorites in this group slip, which is entirely possible.
Ireland (13) — You could make the arguement that the very fact the Irish are here should make them a dark horse, ripe for an upset.  After all, cricket just seems so contrary to Ireland, and especially to Irish sports.  Gaelic games are prominent; some are even skeptical of soccer, with it big contracts and English influences.  You could argue that, with a Windies team capable of collapse and a Zimbabwe team that many think doesn’t deserve test status, they have the right group to catch on fire.  Me, though?  I’m not going to make those arguements.  I just don’t see it happening.

So, there you have it.  I might make some more concrete predictions as the World Cup wears on.  I’ll also revise this and fill in the blanks after I get up.  It’s late.

The World Cup runs until late April.  If you live in the US, you likely won’t have the opportunity to check it out.  But if you can, make yourself a Pimm’s cocktail, settle down for a few hours, and enjoy the action!  It only comes once every four years!

(And if you have a way to watch it, do let me know!  It’s not offered on regular cable, the official webcast is VERY expensive, I’m leary about paying $50 or more for a grey-market webcast that might get shut down, and I’m having no luck getting any P2P streaming softward working on this old computer).

Anyway, go West Indies!

(Failing them and the North American minnows, I’ll be pulling for India).

Today’s Netflix pick was Hotel Rwanda.  It is simply a must-see. 
Not only is it well done, not only does it shed light on an event that is embarassingly poorly-known to the public, not only does it shame the West’s lack of intervention and even attention, but, most importanly, it does a wonderful job  humanizing a continent and a people.  In addition to “not looking like us,” I believe that Africa spends so little time in the news because the culture is so different and so poorly understood, and therefore people and events there just seem less important, because they’re too different to understand.  This film’s very human portrait shows very well that we are all the same people, and that no place is “inhuman” enough to be ignored. 
Let’s again say “never again,” and, this time, mean it.
4.5 stars out of 5.

Link du jour:  Lawmakers Live in ‘Animal House.’
Watch the video if you can.  I saw this on the news this evening, and I found it funny and SO refreshing.  Four high-profile Senators just kick back like regular guys in a crappy, overpriced group house on the Hill, just like when I interned!  In an age with so many silver-spoon politicos, this down-to-earth portrait was just incredibly refreshing for me.  Edit: I originally posted this at around 3:30am this morning, but the time on the post changed when I edited it and added the last team profiles.  In the meantime, West Indies beat Pakistan in the opening match.  I did find a good, free video webcast.

Currently Watching Hotel Rwanda By Xolani Mali, Don Cheadle, Desmond Dube, Hakeem Kae-Kazim, Tony Kgoroge, Rosie Motene, Neil McCarthy (II), Mabutho ‘Kid’ Sithole, Nick Nolte, Fana Mokoena, Jeremiah Ndlovu, Sophie Okonedo, Lebo Mashile, Antonio David Lyons, Leleti Khumalo, Kgomotso Seitshohlo, Lerato Mokgotho, Mosa Kaiser, Mathabo Pieterson, Ofentse Modiselle see related

I’m very sorry.

Today’s Netflix was Dark Days, a documentary about homeless community living in an Amtrak tunnel in New York City.

It was ok.  On the plus side, it is absolutely the most human treatment of the homeless that I have ever seen.  Anyone who is remotely interested in Bumfights or any crap like that should be forced to see this, just to see miniscule the differences between “their” lives and “ours” really are.  I was really relieved to see a happy ending.  (I don’t think that gives anything away).

On the negative side, it was SLOW.  During the good scenes, I questioned whether or not I should give it a low rating.  But then another scene would just drag.  Also, it was WAY too reliant on dialogue.  Film is a visual medium, and this didn’t take advantage of that.  Not only was it too heavy with dialogue, but the black and white just didn’t work.  I get the idea conceptually (it’s dark in tunnels) and practically (the cameramen were homeless themselves, and, without much experience, they might have screwed up the white balance), but I just didn’t like it.  And the on-screen fonts were damn near impossible to read.

2.5 stars out of panj (5). 

Currently Watching Dark Days By Dark Days see related

I haven’t had a post about the banalities of of everyday life here in a while, so I thought it was about time.  After all, this blog is supposed to touch on my life with my Nana.

Today, I watched The Shawshank Redemption.  Excellent!  One of the best movies I’ve ever seen.  And to think that it came out at the same time as another of my favorites, Forrest Gump!  1994 must have been a good year.

As much as I enjoyed it, I have to admit that I was actually fairly upset by the movie.  More than I should have been.  See, I find prisons upsetting.  I’m not sure when it started, but it might have been when I took a class on social policy, taught by a human rights lawyer who is involved in monitoring prison conditions.  I dunno; prisons just bother me.

(I was also mildly upset by the parallels that I saw with my own current life in the movie, although even fleetingly feeling that kind of melodramaticaly maudlin self-pity REALLY pisses me off at myself.  I thought recently that my family relationship was similar to the father-son relationship in Night and that time, too, I got mad at myself.  I don’t have it that bad, yo!)

Regardless, I really enjoyed the movie.

I related to the existential thought that, “men will do anything to pass the time.”

My grandmom, and, by extension, I structure our days around what my grandmom likes to watch on TV.  As a television professional, I feel qualified to offer my comments.

Here’s how the day goes:
(print this off if you ever Nanasit.  It’s a useful guide!)

On the weekends, good luck!
(Although Emeril is usally on, and there’s usually golf and/or figure skating, and we get to add Lawrence Welk to the mix!)

I never wanted to be one of those parents who use the TV as a babysitter.  I still don’t want to, and I don’t think I will, but I certainly see the appeal!

What do I like to watch?  Well, I like The Simpsons, The Colbert Report, Jeopardy, BBC World News, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Rick Steves’ Europe, the Catholic channel’s Sunday Night Live (kidding! Although when I saw it listed, the name cracked me up), Seinfeld, Letterman, and sports.  Real sports, not the crap that ESPN fills time with.  But that’s another topic.
Honestly, I can do just fine without TV, so I let my grandmom have it most of the time.  If I’m bored with whatever she’s watching, I just hole up in the kitchen with the computer.  Or I watch DVDs.  She doesn’t have those luxuries.

Did you find this post more or less readable, typeface-wise.  I changed the font.
What do you think?  Leave a comment!  As my grandmom said (yes, “said;” she only said it once), “stay in touch!”

Currently Watching The Shawshank Redemption (Two-Disc Special Edition) By Tim Robbins, Morgan Freeman, Bob Gunton, William Sadler, Clancy Brown, Gil Bellows, Mark Rolston, James Whitmore, Jeffrey DeMunn, Larry Brandenburg, Neil Giuntoli, Brian Libby, David Proval, Joseph Ragno, Jude Ciccolella, Paul McCrane, Renee Blaine, Scott Mann, John Horton (II), Gordon Greene see related