From comic/magician/author Brad Stine: "I want to see political correctness die during my lifetime, but I want to see it suffer first."
From tmz.com - lead to a story announcing a Criss Angel/Britney Spears pairing (http://www.tmz.com/2007/08/16/britney-gets-her-freak-on-with-new-dude/) : "If you thought Britney was scrapting the bottom of the douche barrel when she was with K-Fed, you were wrong."
Friday, August 17, 2007
Thursday, July 5, 2007
IRAC IRAC IRAC
So, bar examiners really love the ol' IRAC for essays. For those of you fortunate enough to have avoided law school, "IRAC" is an acronym for Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion; it's a popular structure for writing law essay answer. For example:
Q. Does preparing for the bar suck? Discuss.
A. The issue is whether preparing for the bar sucks. As a general rule, things that take a great deal of time and are not fun suck. Preparing for the bar exam requires spending many hours each day for several weeks reading law outlines, writing sample essays, taking sample multiple choice questions, and listening to lectures that are generally not interesting. Writing sample essays, answering sample multiple choice questions, reading law outlines, and listening to lectures that are generally not interesting are not fun. Therefore, unless preparing for the bar falls under an acknowledged exception to the general rule, preparing for the bar sucks. Although there may be exceptions to the general rule that things that take a great deal of time and are not fun suck, I cannot think of any right now, and even if I could, things that take AS MUCH time as preparing for the bar, and are AS LITTLE fun as preparing for the bar would doubtless not fall under the exception. Therefore, preparing for the bar sucks.
I've color coded the sample answer so you can move easily from ISSUE (blue) through RULE (red) and ANALYSIS (green) to CONCLUSION (purple).
Q. Does preparing for the bar suck? Discuss.
A. The issue is whether preparing for the bar sucks. As a general rule, things that take a great deal of time and are not fun suck. Preparing for the bar exam requires spending many hours each day for several weeks reading law outlines, writing sample essays, taking sample multiple choice questions, and listening to lectures that are generally not interesting. Writing sample essays, answering sample multiple choice questions, reading law outlines, and listening to lectures that are generally not interesting are not fun. Therefore, unless preparing for the bar falls under an acknowledged exception to the general rule, preparing for the bar sucks. Although there may be exceptions to the general rule that things that take a great deal of time and are not fun suck, I cannot think of any right now, and even if I could, things that take AS MUCH time as preparing for the bar, and are AS LITTLE fun as preparing for the bar would doubtless not fall under the exception. Therefore, preparing for the bar sucks.
I've color coded the sample answer so you can move easily from ISSUE (blue) through RULE (red) and ANALYSIS (green) to CONCLUSION (purple).
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Ah, Harold
"Culturally, I totally reject this horrible political correctness, this hideous notion that people should read and study any work of literature, of imagination, on the basis of the ethnic origin, the agenda, the sexual orientation or skin pigmentation of the writer. That strikes me as real fascism."
-Harold Bloom (May he live forever).
-Harold Bloom (May he live forever).
Sunday, June 3, 2007
ok, ok
Look, I've been busy...graduated from law school a couple of weeks ago, and studying for the bar like a madman.
However, the movie "In the Line of Fire" was on a couple of nights ago, and since I didn't want my blog to just rust away from inactivity, I thought I'd take this moment to mention that John Malkovich got ROBBED for Best Supporting Actor that year. Tommy Lee Jones won for The Fugitive, probably based on a huge Pre-Oscar publicity blitz. I mean, serious...The Fugitive got nominated for Best Picture, and Shadowlands didn't?! Nobody walked out of The Fugitive thinking nomination for Jones, let alone award. Not to take away from Jones in general; he's a very good actor. The really funny thing is that I wouldn't have put Jones in second, or even third that year, let alone first. Leonardo DiCaprio (of whom I'm not a particularly big fan) was outstanding in What's Eating Gilbert Grape? Ralph Fiennes in Schindler's List...enough said. But if I'm picking one guy from that year, it's Malkovich for In the Line of Fire.
However, the movie "In the Line of Fire" was on a couple of nights ago, and since I didn't want my blog to just rust away from inactivity, I thought I'd take this moment to mention that John Malkovich got ROBBED for Best Supporting Actor that year. Tommy Lee Jones won for The Fugitive, probably based on a huge Pre-Oscar publicity blitz. I mean, serious...The Fugitive got nominated for Best Picture, and Shadowlands didn't?! Nobody walked out of The Fugitive thinking nomination for Jones, let alone award. Not to take away from Jones in general; he's a very good actor. The really funny thing is that I wouldn't have put Jones in second, or even third that year, let alone first. Leonardo DiCaprio (of whom I'm not a particularly big fan) was outstanding in What's Eating Gilbert Grape? Ralph Fiennes in Schindler's List...enough said. But if I'm picking one guy from that year, it's Malkovich for In the Line of Fire.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Mel Gibson's Hamlet
Something brought this one to mind the other day... Two things I've heard quite frequently when discussing this movie are:
1) "Mel Gibson did a good job as Hamlet," and
2) "I was surprised that Mel Gibson did a good job as Hamlet."
I agree that Gibson was good; it's the surprise part that amuses me. Maybe nobody who's made that comment has seen Lethal Weapon? It's probably his definitive role, though, along with Mad Max. So how could anyone who's seen Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon be SURPRISED that he might do a decent job portraying a brooding, suicidal loner?! I mean, you pop Prince Hamlet out of Denmark and give him a 20th century LAPD job, and he'd BE Martin Riggs. Where's the surprise come in?
Amusing side note: My former Shakespeare professor, Wallace Cleaves (great teacher), said that they should have called the version Mel starred in "My Favorite Scenes from Hamlet, in No Particular Order."
1) "Mel Gibson did a good job as Hamlet," and
2) "I was surprised that Mel Gibson did a good job as Hamlet."
I agree that Gibson was good; it's the surprise part that amuses me. Maybe nobody who's made that comment has seen Lethal Weapon? It's probably his definitive role, though, along with Mad Max. So how could anyone who's seen Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon be SURPRISED that he might do a decent job portraying a brooding, suicidal loner?! I mean, you pop Prince Hamlet out of Denmark and give him a 20th century LAPD job, and he'd BE Martin Riggs. Where's the surprise come in?
Amusing side note: My former Shakespeare professor, Wallace Cleaves (great teacher), said that they should have called the version Mel starred in "My Favorite Scenes from Hamlet, in No Particular Order."
Quote of the Day
So, it's the big pro-illegal-immigration rally today...I think a quotation from one protestor really caught the flavor of it:
"I've been here illegally for twenty years, and I want justice!"
"I've been here illegally for twenty years, and I want justice!"
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Boxing...great opportunity for the sports bettor
The following is a cut & paste of a post I published at a sports gambling website on the upcoming De La Hoya-Mayweather fight. Since the fight is finally just a week away...here's a reprise:
This one ties up a bit of bankroll for 4 months, but I can't believe the line will stay this friendly. Mayweather-De La Hoya in May...the most likely outcome is Mayweather by decision, and it's getting +126 (Pinny). That's close to a 45% chance...should be more like 65%, and I can't imagine that at fight time you'll be getting as much as even money. What are the alternatives?1) Mayweather by stoppage. In the last 3 years, Mayweather has stopped 3 of his 6 opponents. Those were the badly outmatched Henry Bruseles, Sharmba Mitchell (who has been knocked out in 3 of his last 5 fights), and the once-great Arturo Gatti who had finally seen a war or two too many and has been stopped 4 times. In Mayweather's fights against quality opposition (Zab Judah, DeMarcus Corley, and Carlos Baldomir), Mayweather takes no chances and wins easy decisions. De La Hoya has lost 4 fights, but only one of those went short of the distance, and that was to Bernard Hopkins, a much bigger natural fighter than Mayweather, and one who fights much more aggressively. No reason to think that De La Hoya wouldn't make the final bell.2) De La Hoya wins. More likely than his getting stopped, but still unlikely. De La Hoya's popularity is probably what's keeping the Mayweather-by-decision price high...for now. Mayweather is at the very top of the fight game. He heads just about everyone's pound-for-pound list, and hasn't come close to losing a fight in several years, since he beat top 140-pounder Jose Luis Castillo (for the second time) by "only" 2, 2, and 3 points. In contrast, De La Hoya, who is 4 years older than Mayweather, has lost 4 fights now. Admittedly, they were all to top fighters (Hopkins, Trinidad, and Mosely (twice)). But that's what Mayweather is - THE top fighter in the game today. He is also "just" a boxer, while Oscar is now a businessman, with his "Golden Boy Promotions." Even if Oscar keeps his promise to train harder for this fight than he ever has before (which he probably will), there's no reason to think that he will be the one, at 34 years old, to break Mayweather's unbeaten streak. This ain't Hagler-Leonard; Mayweather's style scores points. Mayweather is faster and better at defense.I think an accurate price for this would be somewhere between-150 and -200. I don't think it will go that low, partly because of De La Hoya's popularity, but I also don't think, as the fight moves to the forefront of the schedule, that you'll be getting +125, either. It probably drops to about -120, which will still be an overlay...but take the +125 while it's there.YTD: 1-0; +250If you want to take a flyer, the draw is +1621 at Pinnacle. Some of De La Hoya's recent fights have been close decisions (close & unanimous, split, and majority), and his popularity may swing a couple of close rounds his way. I expect Mayweather will win too many rounds clearly for this to swing, but at better than 16-1, for a fight between two good fighters that will probably go the distance and in which the lesser fighter is the more popular, it might be worth an action bet.
Current (April 28) postscript: I'd say the odds on a Mayweather decision are more like 75% (not the 65% I originally posted). The odds have dropped (at least at www.bodog.com, one of the last online books that's American-friendly) to even money, but that's still quite an overlay. If a Mayweather decision is a 75% result, then your expected value at even money is 1/2 of all money wagered. (If you're unused to calculating expected value, it's pretty straightforward. On the assumption that Mayweather by decision is a 75% outcome, then if you bet $25 on that result 4 times, you'd win 3. So 3 times, you'd win $25 (total: +$75), and once you'd lose $25. So you'd have $100 wagered ($25 four times), and you'd be up $50 ($75-$25). An expected value of 50 cents back for every dollar wagered is huge...this is a fight you should really bet. My prediction: 116-113, Mayweather. That's 7 rounds to 4, 1 round even, assuming no 10-8 rounds, which is a very good assumption. That also assumes that the judges will be friendly to De La Hoya based on reputation and marketability; look for most ringsiders to have a card more like 117-112 (8 rounds to 3, 1 even).
This one ties up a bit of bankroll for 4 months, but I can't believe the line will stay this friendly. Mayweather-De La Hoya in May...the most likely outcome is Mayweather by decision, and it's getting +126 (Pinny). That's close to a 45% chance...should be more like 65%, and I can't imagine that at fight time you'll be getting as much as even money. What are the alternatives?1) Mayweather by stoppage. In the last 3 years, Mayweather has stopped 3 of his 6 opponents. Those were the badly outmatched Henry Bruseles, Sharmba Mitchell (who has been knocked out in 3 of his last 5 fights), and the once-great Arturo Gatti who had finally seen a war or two too many and has been stopped 4 times. In Mayweather's fights against quality opposition (Zab Judah, DeMarcus Corley, and Carlos Baldomir), Mayweather takes no chances and wins easy decisions. De La Hoya has lost 4 fights, but only one of those went short of the distance, and that was to Bernard Hopkins, a much bigger natural fighter than Mayweather, and one who fights much more aggressively. No reason to think that De La Hoya wouldn't make the final bell.2) De La Hoya wins. More likely than his getting stopped, but still unlikely. De La Hoya's popularity is probably what's keeping the Mayweather-by-decision price high...for now. Mayweather is at the very top of the fight game. He heads just about everyone's pound-for-pound list, and hasn't come close to losing a fight in several years, since he beat top 140-pounder Jose Luis Castillo (for the second time) by "only" 2, 2, and 3 points. In contrast, De La Hoya, who is 4 years older than Mayweather, has lost 4 fights now. Admittedly, they were all to top fighters (Hopkins, Trinidad, and Mosely (twice)). But that's what Mayweather is - THE top fighter in the game today. He is also "just" a boxer, while Oscar is now a businessman, with his "Golden Boy Promotions." Even if Oscar keeps his promise to train harder for this fight than he ever has before (which he probably will), there's no reason to think that he will be the one, at 34 years old, to break Mayweather's unbeaten streak. This ain't Hagler-Leonard; Mayweather's style scores points. Mayweather is faster and better at defense.I think an accurate price for this would be somewhere between-150 and -200. I don't think it will go that low, partly because of De La Hoya's popularity, but I also don't think, as the fight moves to the forefront of the schedule, that you'll be getting +125, either. It probably drops to about -120, which will still be an overlay...but take the +125 while it's there.YTD: 1-0; +250If you want to take a flyer, the draw is +1621 at Pinnacle. Some of De La Hoya's recent fights have been close decisions (close & unanimous, split, and majority), and his popularity may swing a couple of close rounds his way. I expect Mayweather will win too many rounds clearly for this to swing, but at better than 16-1, for a fight between two good fighters that will probably go the distance and in which the lesser fighter is the more popular, it might be worth an action bet.
Current (April 28) postscript: I'd say the odds on a Mayweather decision are more like 75% (not the 65% I originally posted). The odds have dropped (at least at www.bodog.com, one of the last online books that's American-friendly) to even money, but that's still quite an overlay. If a Mayweather decision is a 75% result, then your expected value at even money is 1/2 of all money wagered. (If you're unused to calculating expected value, it's pretty straightforward. On the assumption that Mayweather by decision is a 75% outcome, then if you bet $25 on that result 4 times, you'd win 3. So 3 times, you'd win $25 (total: +$75), and once you'd lose $25. So you'd have $100 wagered ($25 four times), and you'd be up $50 ($75-$25). An expected value of 50 cents back for every dollar wagered is huge...this is a fight you should really bet. My prediction: 116-113, Mayweather. That's 7 rounds to 4, 1 round even, assuming no 10-8 rounds, which is a very good assumption. That also assumes that the judges will be friendly to De La Hoya based on reputation and marketability; look for most ringsiders to have a card more like 117-112 (8 rounds to 3, 1 even).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)