Memoirs of an Unemployed Man, Part 1: The Legend of Gainful Employment

Being unemployed is old hat for me. I've been lucky enough to find a way to stay "successfully unemployed" for long stretches in my life. When I was a kid, my mom didn't really make me work, and she was generous when I graduated college, and drifted from job to job aimlessly, with sizable gaps in between. When I first came out to LA, I did a lot of short-time work which paid nice chunks -- focus groups, PA work, helping people move, etc. And though I haven't had a ton of success in screenwriting, it has allowed me two long stretches of leisure in recent years.

But what I am not used to is being involuntarily unemployed, as I am now. I've been looking for a job, but unable to land one, which has never been a problem before. Of course, I'm not alone. There are lots of folks out there who are job-searching right now -- many much more desperately than myself. I'm lucky enough to have had some money still squirreled away from the script sale, and my wife just got a promotion/raise/office, so I'm not going to begging you for spare change outside the 7-11 anytime soon. But in these troubled economic times, I can't wait until the very last moment to get a job, so I'm out pounding the pavement internet looking for work.

This has led me to find out a few, very alarming things, chiefly that a huge portion of the ad listings fall into two categories: spammers and scammers. The spammers are just trying to get you to go to their site, fill out their survey, or join their site. The scammers are a whole different breed of scum. They run all manner of fake listings in an attempt to squeeze a few dollars out of you before you realize there is no money coming back. Many offer you a great income from the comfort of your home, or in your spare time -- always a red flag. Some ask for a small upfront fee, others offer pyramid schemes dressed up as corporations. One actually sends you checks which you can cash before you have to send out a percentage of it from your account -- only later do you find out the check bounced and you're out the money.*

After you steer through all that crap, you find the few actual jobs out there to find the pickings pretty slim. Many aren't worth applying for, and the best ones are flooded with so many it's hard to get through. But recently I did have a couple of interviews, which led to one short-lived, but very eventful job. It was a bad match, but a good story: The Ballad of Crazy Flower Lady. I've been wanting to write about it, and urged to by others, but I'm afraid it might end up being a novel. Only one way to find out, so I might as well give it a shot. Look for it in Part 2, coming tomorrow soon whenever I damn well please.

* I think in this way, one could argue, the internet has made the job market a worse place. Yes, there are advantages -- speed being chief among them -- but what was so wrong about searching the want ads in the paper? At least they were real. Mostly. I did run into a couple of pyramid schemes in my day, but nothing like there is now.

Random Rant & Video: Baseball vs. Football

Over at Niners Nation, Fooch wrote a post about pitchers and catchers reporting, and opening up the discussion about baseball vs. football. One guy (at least, I think he was a guy. Aw, who am I kidding? He was on a football blog, of course, he's a guy) who was new to baseball made a case in favor of football based on the oldest argument in the book -- "baseball is boring".

I responded, in long-winded fashion (as is my custom), to debate him. I thought I'd re-print it here. Because my comment was filled with misspellings and typos (as is also my custom), I've cleaned it up a bit:

Baseball's boring when you don't truly understand it.

I don’t know of anyone who’s new to baseball who doesn’t think it’s boring. Why? Because it’s a game which needs to be understood to be loved. And I don’t just mean the rules — strikes/balls, force plays, etc. — but also the ever-present strategy. What pitch will he throw? Does the hitter have the green light? Should they bunt? Is the pitcher getting tired? These are all key components experienced baseball fans are constantly thinking about during a game, often while there is no “action” on the field. It’s a game of the mind, and if you’re spending the time between each pitch bored because nothing’s happening, then it’s probably because you’re ignoring all the inherent strategy of the situation. It’s built for thinkers.

Most people love football from the moment they start watching because you don’t need to know anything to enjoy it. You can put a little kid in front of the TV and they’ll immediately take to it, because you don’t even have to know the rules to enjoy the athletic ballet of hitting, throwing, tackling, etc. You can enjoy a game even if you have no idea what a zone blitz or a pulling guard is. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot more a thoughtful, knowledgeable fan can pick up during a game, but it’s built for the masses to enjoy easily.

Think of it like food — every kid loves a McDonald’s hamburger, or mac and cheese, or something easy and simple like that, but it takes a more mature pallet to enjoy the nuance of something like a fine wine, or pate, or something complicated like that. That doesn’t mean those complicated things are for everybody — many adults still prefer burgers and fries to gazpacho and quail, just as many people who know both sports prefer football — but you can’t say for sure until you’re at least able to recognize the many subtleties and nuances of baseball.

For me, it might be too close to call. Football was my first love, and like many, I thought baseball was boring as a kid. But now that I feel I have a good understanding of both sports, I think they’re about equal. Of course, I love them for completely different reasons — baseball for its intricacy (the best idea for a game I know of, and also the most perfect rules (notice how they’ve barely changed in 100 years), its strategy, the razor-thin difference between a hanging slider and an unhittable one, and the fact that each side has a completely equal chance at scoring (no clock or field position to hinder their efforts). I love football for its brutality, acrobatics, and pace, its many moving parts, the race against the clock, the gladiator-like specatcle, its immense preparation necessary to succeed (game-planning, film-watching, scout teams, etc.), and the fact the athletes are so good they literally have to change major rules every year just to keep the game fair.

So that’s my long-winded way of saying: it’s a draw.

Since that wasn't very funny, please allow me to make that up to by closing with a much more entertaining take on the Baseball vs. Football debate -- the all-time classic bit by the late, great George Carlin:

Always Skype & stay off the pipe

I'm entering the final preparations before leaving for Boulder, and getting a little queasy/antsy like I always do before a big change in my life. One thing that has eased my worries, however, is the fact I've been successfully writing over the Internet for a couple of months now, and it hasn't changed a thing about our process. Well, except for make it much, much easier. No more commutes, no more parking, no not having the food or drink I might want handy, no more trying to find a comfortable place to sit which didn't hurt my cranky back.

Now I just get into my most comfortable position/clothes/beverage-wise and write -- my partner in the corner of my screen looking back at me. We can talk -- it works with speaker, headphones, or no attachment -- and both work at the same time. Sometimes, we use this to get two scenes done at once. We use Skype, which is absolutely free when we use it between computers (they charge you if you call a phone). The set-up is also free and takes about five minutes total. My writing partner, Barry, uses it to talk to his sister. While I'm in Boulder next month giving my new J-O-B a test drive to make sure I like it well enough, my wife and I can use it -- if she gets her hands on a webcam, that is.

The service is great -- good picture and sound, streaming without much if any delay (this PC setup is different than my Mac, but it gives you the idea). We had a few glitches early, like getting kicked off now and again, freezing up, and losing the picture, some of that may have been due to with WiFi or computer issues. Either way, the problems have all but disappeared recently. Sometimes work for more than four hours without any interruption.

Because one of us always had to drive 20-30 minutes each way to the other's place, we can now add that time to our sessions and not lose any quality time with our significant others -- my wife often walks throughor joins in the conversation for a moment. And we're always just a few step away from our own bathroom when nature calls. There's not forgetting of materials, or cords for computers, etc. In the old days, if one of us was sick at all the other wouldn't want to go over -- no problem now.

So that makes me fel better about going to Colorado. I still have that odd nagging thought that I'll lose touch with my contacts and won't have anybody to send a script to, or that I'll lose the will to write, or something bad I can't even think of (Joaquin Andujar said his favorite word in baseball was "youneverknow"), but I know I've been thinking about this too long not to give it a shot. At least now, I know I won't stop writing because the long distance process made it too difficult. Because of Skype, it might actually make it easier.

This has not been a paid endorsement, but if the good folks at Skype want to pay me for my spokemanship, I'd like them to know that I am currently listening to offers.

PROGRAMMING NOTE: So, because of other demands, I haven't yet gotten to my Top 10 lists. I have the lists, just haven't written the, you know, actual post about them yet. I know, you can't wait. All three of you. But I promised them this week, and dammit, that's what I'm going to deliver. Check back later.

Rant & Link Dump

Quick detour before I get back to the movie reviews. A TV heads-up and some links:

'I SURVIVED...'

I wanted tell everybody (anybody?) out there about a great show on TV which nobody knows about. You won't see many ads for 'I Survived...'. And since it's on BIO (Channel 266 on DirecTv), you probably don't stumble onto it much. But it's good, real good. It features people who have survived unbelievably dire circumstances -- being shot in the head, or stabbed in the throat, stranded in shark-infested waters for hours on end, trapped under ice, arm caught in farm equipment, huge metal hook stuck in your throat (that was a good one). People have been kidnapped, raped, left for dead, and yet everyone on the show found some way to stay alive.

In this week's episode, there was a guy who had a female stalker pay someone to shoot him -- six times -- and after he somehow recovered, she poisoned him -- three times -- and still, there he was to tell his story to the cameras. Almost without fail, it is an amazing, inspiring hour of television. There is on occasion, however, a story so gruesome, that the payoff doesn't really make it worth the ride. Some are stories where most people involved died, limbs are sometimes lost, and in one truly unbelievable story, a woman was splashed in the face with battery acid -- on two separate occasions -- and was badly disfigured.

Even in the worst cases, though, it shows the unthinkable limits humans can go through to survive. The unbelievable resiliency of the human spirit. It's really quite a show.

LINKS

--Some dude in Jersey named his kid "Adolf Hitler" and wonders why he can't get a birthday cake with his name on it.

--John Woo is ahead of his time, but only by 11 years: The nation's first face transplant just happened.

--This story seems depressing -- because it is -- but there's one redeeming element that saves it for me: This little girl wrote a letter to Santa, and got exactly what she wanted this Christmas. In this fucked-up world we live in, sometimes you have to look pretty hard for a silver lining.

--Ever wonder what it takes to work for the CIA? Here's a primer.

Random Video & Rant: Happy Endings

I thought I'd post clips from two of my favorite movies. Which just happen to have two of the best endings I know of. Coincidence? Not if remember Josh's Equation For Movie Enjoyment (or JEFME):

(Movie Quality + Ending) / Expectation = Enjoyment

When I previously talked about the equation in this post, it was in the context of how expectations color judgment, but endings are huge. As you can see in the equation, I rate a movie's ending as carrying equal weight to the overall quality. Part of that is because no A movie could ever have an F ending, just as no F movie could have an A ending.

But part of that is the fact I feel the lasting taste in a viewer's mouth is crucial to the moviegoing experience. If you've seen what could've been an A movie turn into a B because of a D ending, you're enjoyment is not a B. It's a C (depending on expectations) because although you just saw a B movie, your deflation at what might have been drags your enjoyment level down a notch.

And that's why it's no surprise two of all-time favorite -- arguably my top two -- are movies with terrific endings. It not only fits JEFME, it's the basis for it. I usually say 'The Shawshank Redemption' over 'Seven' when asked about my favorite movie because the moviegoing experience I had seeing it the first time was the best I've ever had. 'Seven' comes in a close second. The difference? Expectations, of course. The movies came out with a year of each other, but I saw them with completely different mentalities.

I saw 'Shawshank' upon it's re-release in 1995 after being nominated for an Oscar for 1994 (I'd been so lukewarm about it, I'd never even considered seeing it the first time around). It was a Sunday night, I was depressed, and had no expectations at all. For 'Seven', I'd waited for it for it for weeks, and saw it on opening day in the afternoon. I had tremendous expectations. They both were great, but the fact that 'Shawshank' surprised me as well as touched me, and inspired me when I needed it, makes the idea of it just a notch above 'Seven', which wowed me, but also depressed me, and left me feeling like I'd been punched in the gut. A great experience, no doubt, but still a slightly less positive and uplifting experience.

So, after all that blathering, here they are the ending of both movies. On more similarity between them: Morgan Freeman playing the second lead, and narrator, and speaking both film's magical lines -- in one heartening and hopeful, in the other heartbreaking and haunting. First 'Shawshank':



"I hope to make it across the border, I hope to see my friend and shake his hand, I hope the pacific is as blue as it's been in my dreams. I hope." That says it all man, maybe my favorite final line of all time.* If not, it might be this one...



"Ernest Hemingway once wrote 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'. I agree with the second part." Poetry. It helps when you have Morgan Freeman elegantly uttering your words, but you've got to tip your hat to Frank Darabont and Stephen King for the amazing words in 'Shawshank' and Andrew Kevin Walker for the stunning work in 'Seven'.**


* Most people don't know this, but the script actually has a lot more dialogue after that line -- there was a whole scene between Andy and Red on the beach written. I know because I have a copy of the script. The scene was a good cut. So good I doubt they even shot it that way for safety (especially because it didn't involve that helicopter shot in the final cut. I was planning on writing something about this someday and posting that never used last scene. Now that I've mentioned it, I'll probably just throw that up as a short post tomorrow. That should give you a reason to get out of bed in the morning.

** I also have a script for this with a different ending, but it's more complicated -- a totally different feel to the work, with Morgan freeman's character ending up in the hospital. Long story.

Random Rant: "Just when I thought I was out..."

The Niners suck this year, so I put a lot less thought into the team than I'm used to. Don't get me wrong, I still spend an ungodly amount of time watching their games, reading about them online, even posting about them. But growing up in the 80's and 90's, I was used to spending most of my waking hours thinking about them. Now, because of their record and recent history, I care whether they win or lose, but more of my thought goes toward the future -- how are the young players progressing, do they have the right coaches, is the ownership holding them back, etc. Back then, the next week's game was always foremost in my mind, as was the playoff picture. Those are two things I never think about anymore.

But still, come Sunday morning -- or this week, Monday afternoon -- I start thinking about the game, the match-ups, the team's chances. And once the game starts, the competitive juices really start to flow. If the Niners keep it close, I get into it and want to see them win. That's why Monday night's game was so painful. It was a Michael Corleone/Godfather III Special: Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.

I had low expectations going in, but then Rossum returns the opening kickoff for a TD, Morgan makes a circus catch for a TD, the Niners lead 14-3 and suddenly my hopes are raised. By the time the Cards had pulled within 14-13, I was pretty sure we'd seen the best the Niners had and the Cards were just warming up, but then Vernon Davis makes a circus catch for a TD, and I'm feeling hopeful again. When Shaun Hill turned from "effective game manager" to "JTO-like turnover machine" and the Niners lost the lead with 4:16 left (after leading for 55+ minutes), I was ready to throw in the towel, but then Hill drove them down to the Arizona 20 yard line.

After Hill's "Look at me, I'm Brett Favre! Wait, check that -- I'm not" interception, I thought for sure the game was over, but once the Niners stopped the Cards and got the ball back, drove to the 2 yard line and had a 1st and goal with 40+ seconds remaining, I thought for sure we'd win. Unfortunately, that's when the Niners finally decided to go ahead and cut to the chase by crapping the bed. The mistakes came in rapid succession:

1) After Jason Hill went down on the 2 yard line, the Niners were confused whether they should just spike the ball or put in their goal line package first (when there is absolutely no reason to). Because of this, and their inability to line up correctly, it took them 24 seconds to finally kill the clock.

2) Instead of doing the obvious -- and smart -- by calling at least one pass play (and probably two), they ran the ball. Quick passes, like a fade or quick slant for instance, take only 4 or 5 seconds, meaning the Niners could've easily fit in two before finding themselves in a 4th down situation. Even one pass before a run wouldn't have changed the situation much. As close as Frank Gore came from staying on his feet and getting in, his run for no gain changed everything -- by the time the Niners ran another play they only had time for one.

3) Having mismanaged their time so badly they changed a 4 down opportunity into a 2 play opportunity, the Niners used their last play -- their one chance to win the game -- to hand the ball to a backup RB. If this was from the 1 yard line, I still would complain about the ball not going to Gore. But the ball was on the 2 1/2 yard line. Any run from there is misguided. Especially given how the Cards had stacked the middle of their line. Double-especially when considering offensive coordinator Mike Martz and head coach Mike Singletary had extra time to think up/discuss this because officials were reviewing the previous play.

The bottom line: The Niners ran out of time with one down left despite having 44 seconds to play with. They gained 50+ yards on the first three plays of the drive (all passes to emerging star Jason Hill) in just 22 seconds, then proceeded to run only two real plays (if you can even call them that) in the final 44 seconds. That's inexcusable. Still, despite these mistakes, this was one of the Niners most exciting games, which only made the hurt worse, but it is a good sign. Considering the Cards were at home, it was Monday night, and some arizona players had made comments about this being a statement game, this would've been a tough test for a new coach, even if Singletary hadn't had a crazy debut two weeks ago. Everything considered, it was a impressive performance by Singletary's squad -- if a bitterly anti-climactic finish.

"We have to learn how to finish", Coach Sing said after the game, and he was right. It seems the team believes in him. A tough loss like this will be a good test. So will next weeks game against a very beatable Rams team. If the Niners win that in front of the home crowd, he may suddenly find himself with a following -- and some momentum he needs to retain the job next season. If he loses, not so much. And right now, just as I most want to completely give up on the team, I can't wait to see how they play next week.

Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.

Random Rant: Zen & The Art Of Football Viewing

This is where I rant. About random stuff. You might've guessed that from the title.

The gift of modern technology has blessed football fans in many ways over the years, from the original TV broadcasts which brought the games into homes in a way radio never could, to instant replay, and right on down the line. The ridiculous creature comforts of today -– tiny, omnipresent on-screen scoreboard boxes, first down lines, even streaming fantasy stats -– make it easy to forget what is arguably the greatest leap of all time -- the advent of NFL Sunday Ticket in 1994.

Before that time, if you lived out of the area where your favorite team played (as I have since 1989), you had three choices if you wanted to see them play: 1) Pray they were lucky/good enough to be in either a nationally televised game or that they game happened to be shown in your area, 2) Go to a sports bar with a satellite dish to watch the game, or 3) Be disappointed.

I was actually lucky, because during the time I was in Boston at college and in Boulder after graduation, the Niners were such a good/popular team they were often on anyway. In fact, you knew going into each year they were good for three Monday night games, two Sunday night games, and plenty of late afternoon national games. It helped they played the late games, where’s there less competition, and also that NBC/CBS (whichever was covering the AFC) always used a NIner game -– of which they had two per year -– to jack up ratings by making it a national game. In short, I was spoiled.

Most other fans who lived out of town had to suffer the indignity of calling 1-800 numbers or staring at the Headline Sports ticker for score updates. So when it arrived, Sunday Ticket might as well have been the Holy Grail to football fans. Suddenly, it didn’t matter what game the stupid network chose to put on in your area. It didn’t matter if they played some crappy local matchup over a classic game going on at the same time (I dealt with this a lot growing up -– the Raiders were always on 1pm PDT even if their game sucked while Elway and Fouts were in a shootout at Mile High). Hell, it didn’t even matter if there several great games on at once -– you could watch them all.

But that’s the thing -– you can’t. There’s only so much you can swallow at once. Of course, we didn’t know that in those giddy early days. Like teens discovering the joys of a box of wine, we didn’t just get tipsy on our new delight, we gulped it down until our heads were splitting. Soon, it became clear there were limits (aren’t there always?) -- you have to know when to say when, or risk ruining a good thing. Thus, The Theory was born.

The core belief of The Theory is this: Two football games is the most you can watch and still have a clear idea what is going on in both at all times. The jump button is a big part of this (and the two-tuner receivers have added to that*), but the same is true at a sports bar – watching three games at once is the point when things become disjointed. You start to lose key bits of narrative – an injury update, a measurement, a key play here or there. But that’s not to say you can’t follow more than two games played at the same time. It takes a thoughtful, methodical approach, but I’m just the kind of lazy, underachieving loser who takes non-valuable time out my schedule to come up with approaches to these types of things.

See, while you can only truly follow two games at any one moment, games last much longer than a moment. They last over three hours, and each has its own unique rhythm and pace. Teams get out to big leads, allowing you to drop them from the rotation -– if the score tightens up later, they may re-join it. Some games move along more rapidly than others –- particularly quick games go to halftime early and may be dropped from the rotation temporarily, particularly slow games can be saved until later because the opportunity will still be available.

This brings up one of the key tenets of The Theory: Games which are closer to ending should be given rotation priority over games with more time left. Often this can be the overriding factor –- If three games are tied in 4th quarter, watch two with the least time left. This can change with the score, however. If one of those three hypothetical games was a one-point game (and therefore less like to go to OT), it should be given slight preference over a tie-game with about the same amount of time left.

The Theory is really like a constantly shifting organism –- Game A and B are in the rotation until Game B turns into a blowout and it is replaced with Game C. Soon after, the pace of Game A begins to slow down and it is replaced by Game D, which is speeding to a conclusion. By the time it’s done, Game A is a blowout, but Game B is tightening up, so that jumps in. And so on, and so on. It actually sounds like a lot of work written out like that. And maybe it is. But it’s a labor love.

New Stars:

While we're talking about football on TV, here are a couple of thoughts I've had this week on that subject:

--Sometime 'Inside the NFL' correspondent Jenn Brown -- on the show this week with a piece on the game in London last week -- is suddenly in the argument for "Who's the world's hottest female sportscaster. While I think she's certainly the kind of change we can believe in, this election season I'm still casting my vote for Erin Andrews. It comes down to the big issues: experience, and bigger tits.

--Speaking of sportscasters whose previous TV experience came outside of the sports world, there's a bright new star on the football color commentating landscape: Jesse Palmer, late of 'The Bachelor' and a former 3rd string QB in the NFL (including a brief stint with the Niners). Late last season, he did a few NFL games for FOX and displayed a lot of skill. This year, he's at ESPN, covering college football as both a studio analyst and color commentator on the Thursday night games with Chris Fowler. He's smart, funny, and makes his points without droning on or repeating himself unnecessarily.

----Osi Umenyura did a guest spot on 'Inside the NFL' this week, and while I know he has a whole lot of good football left in him, he already appears a better fit in the studio than former teammate and current NBC studio analyst Tiki Barber, who retired early just so he could announce. Umenyura was brutally honest, handled tough question deftly, showed uncommon insight, and a million dollar smile. You haven't seen the last of him on TV -- although you may have to wait 10+ years until you see him.


* Now you can switch away from a game and know that even if you “miss” something big while watching the other game, you’re still recording on the other tuner and can rewind the see what you’ve missed.

Random Rant: Bud Selig, Midwestern Man of Mystery

I thought I had Bud Selig all figured out. Wishy-washy, ineffectual, sniveling, dishonest. Totally uninspiring. That just about sums it up.

Then Saturday came. In Philly before Game 4 of the World Series, with tons of rain on the horizon for Sunday and Monday, Selig did what all great commissioners do: He made a bold, long overdue decision, going against all rules and regulations in order to adhere to what's right. He announced that no World Series game would end in less than 9 innings, despite rules which specifically that they could if suspended with one team ahead after 5 innings -- rules which have been on the books for over 100 years.

That would be a dynamic, ballsy move by any commissioner, even Roger Goodell, the toughest sheriff outside of Arizona. But for weaselly little Allen "Bud" Selig (Who gets nicknamed "Bud", anyway?) it was a tour de force, a career-defining moment. The Washington Post's Thomas Boswell called it "The Bud Doctrine". I saw ol' Bud in a whole new light.

Then Monday came. Game 5 was potentially the final game of the season, the Phillies with a chance to wrap up their first title in 28 years in front of the home crows, with their dominating ace Cole Hamels on the mound. I understand why the game was started -- it wasn't raining, at least not very hard -- and I can't fins any fault with taking a shot. If you don't, and it doesn't rain the way it's supposed to and you look like an idiot.

Once the game got going, it looked like the right call, too. The Phillies put two runs on the board right off the bat, and Hamels looked to be his usual dominating self. The game was traveling by quickly and the rain was still falling at a manageable rate. Although it had increased, it appeared the game could be gotten in.

Then the 4th inning came. The rains came down harder, and the Rays closed within a run. This were not necessarily unrelated events. With two outs in the inning, Jason Werth misjudged Carlos Pena's deep fly ball to the wall. Although it hit near the top, it appeared it was reachable by Werth -- the first of several flyballs fielders would struggle mightily to find among the raindrops. Pena's double was his first hit of the series, and was immediately followed by Evan Longoria's first hit of the series, and RBI single.

The rains keep steadily increasing, and the field became waterlogged. It seemed an excellent time to stop. But Selig didn't call for it. He claims now he had weather reports which claimed the rain would only get worse -- this now seems true, as the game has been postponed for 48 hours -- and thought they could squeeze it in. That was a bad idea. Correction, a Bud idea.

The field became a joke, which may have led to the rays tying the game in the 6th -- an error by Jimmy Rollins allowed BJ Upton to reach. Upton stole 2nd base in a quagmire, and scored on a base hit ahead of a weak throw (and probably wet ball) by Pat Burrell. When the inning was over, and the game tied, the game was called. This seemed to be quite convenient -- had the Phils led, there would've been an outcry for the rules to be upheld and the game (and series) ceded to Philly. With a tie game, there is no other option than to play it out.

Needless to say, the City of Brother Love is none too pleased. Fans are angry. Hamels claimed after the game that he couldn't throw with his usual velocity due to the rain. Matt Stairs even said that "the big guy (presumably Selig, not God) got what he wanted". That, and a full day (at least) without baseball for the nation sports media to gnaw on this juicy bone of a story, makes for an ugly spectacle for baseball. Or, in other words, standard operating procedure under Selig.

I thought I had Bud Selig all figured out. Turns out, I was right.