March Madness: it seems to start earlier every year

Reading ESPN on-line, I was pleasantly surprised to see the Big Ten listed as "what looks like the best conference in the country". Finally, the Big Ten is started to get some respect from all those ACC lovers out there. And why shouldn't we with Illinois, Michigan St., and a resurgent Indiana.

While I am pleased with the Big Ten love, I do have doubts. Yesterday, Michigan St. played Tennessee Tech in what might have been their most piss-poor performance to date. Actually scratch that. The worst game was in Hawaii where Izzo apparently let the starters booze up and dehydrate themselves before the game so they had to be pulled out with leg cramps. Anyway back to the point. Michigan St. went over 6:00minutes without scoring in the Tennessee Tech game. That's just shameful and to top it off State's defense was half-ass at best. Personally, I think it was crap-ass. This kind of nonchalant, we're entitled to win type play might work against teams with lesser talent, but how they plan to beat Illinois like this on the 5th is beyond me.

But I have an even bigger concern. Princeton is 2-8 this year. With losses to Monmouth where they scored 21 points (or something equally pathetic) and Carnegie Mellon (which I don't think is even a D-I school). I never thought I'd see the day my alma mater crumbled like this (ok, maybe in football, but surely not in basketball). I remember the 1996 win over UCLA (then defending champs) in the NCAA tournament, watching them clean-up the league in 1997, seeing the Tigers get ranked (really ranked! Top 25) in 1998, and beating Big John Thompson's team in the NIT in 1999. I miss those days. Sure it's a rebuilding year, but wasn't last year too?

As a side, non-basketball related note. I am thrilled by the fact that UMich lost in the Alamo Bowl. After all the oohing-and-aahing sports commentators have been givinh Henne and the team in general, it was nice to see their predictions fall flat. All the more special since Nebraska hasn't really been much of anything since Crouch won the Heisman and the "it's okay to beat on your girlfriend" Coach Osborne left. Interestingly, he [Coach Osborne] is/was also in the US House as... gasp... a Republican? Surprised much.

Tyra Banks is SO Sensitive

Don't ask me why, but today I decided to watch the Tyra Banks Show. I must confess to being an occasional watcher of America's Next Top Model. But who doesn't like to see pretty, stupid girls being taken down a notch or two. Plus its just so comical and absurd you can't help yourself. The Tyra Banks Show however, is a bit different. This is Tyra trying to channel Oprah and being the Earth Mother Goddess type. On today's rerun she was all about sympathizing with fat people (or to be PC - the morbidly obese). This is totally Oprah territory and girlfriend better know what she's doing.

In today's episode, Tyra donned a fat suit that turned her into a 350lbs. big woman. She rode mass transit and lived as the little people do and was shocked, horrified, and in tears to discover not everyone would bow down to her when she was in a fat suit. Poor Tyra was so distraught that her overweight guests had to console. Then Tyra and her fat suit went on a bunch of blind dates. These were the blind dates from hell. Partially because in her fat suit she was towering over the men and atleast 3 times there size. But more nightmarish because any comment she made was about her fatness. WHO DOES THAT? Apparently Tyra Banks. One can only imagine that when she is her fine skinny self she spends the entire date talking about her skinniness. I felt sorry for the clowns she went out with in her fat suit. They didn't seem all that bad. And honestly. Tyra. Inquiring minds want to know. Have YOU ever dated a 350lbs man (no. you cannot count any professional atheletes here.)? Or even better, because this would prove your saintliness, have you ever dated a poor AND fat man before?

Brokeback Mountain: my second movie review

So I must say that I was a little disappointed in Brokeback Mountain. Part of it was that I just could not get into the story and relate to it. The fact that I am not a gay cowboy could have been part of the problem. Also I am not sure why there is all this Oscar buzz for Heath Ledger. Sure he had to simulate sex with a guy and kiss Jake Gyllenhal, but other than that he basically mumbled a lot and had that quiet, stoic, American West attitude about him. Other interesting things I learned from the movie...

1. There is life after Dawson's Creek that doesn't involve snogging stars twice your age. Michelle Williams had a small role in the movie, but she also had some really pivotal scenes (e.g., discovery, confrontation) and some superb facial expressions.

2. Anne Hathaway is cute, but makes a horrible blonde. Yikes! No wonder her husband was picking up men. She should stick to being a brunette.

3. The all denim look just really doesn't work for me. But apparently for cowboys in love its hot.

4. Guys having sex isn't sexy or romantic. At least not in this movie. But then again I am not a gay man so I don't really understand...

5. When do people ever name their daughters after their mom with Jr. at the end. (yes, I know they do in Gilmore Girls, but here it was just weird)

So seriously, the movie was for the most part very tastefully done, and I think can appear to a broad audience because scenes are not very explicit. Also the scenery is beautiful. Most of the time when they show Ennis and Jack they are outside together sitting by a fire with whiskey or riding their horses. In these scenes, there is almost a chasteness to their love that really is sweet.

The Resurgence of Michigan Basketball??

Come again? When since the days of the Fab Five (the lying, cheating, NCAA violating Fab Five) has UMich ever been considered a contender? Well apparently ESPN, showing the bias sports reports always show to the Wolverines, believes they are back. In the past two days, news of a revitalized Michigan program has been papered all over their web pages. And today in Michigan made their Power 16 rankings. Sure regular season hasn't started, but other very worthy, very proven teams (e.g., Indiana - close game with Duke, beat Kentucky) were bumped from the list. So what exactly is it that makes UMich so very special?

• Having a former Duke, Coach K protege as their coach? Well Quinn Synder hasn't been doing all that well at Missouri perhaps Tommy is overhyped as well.
• Perhaps it was their super fab win over Boston University (yup, that's BU not BC, the ranked team)
• Perhaps it's their awesome long, yellow, saggy shorts (Fab Five fashions still rule in AA)
• Their win over Notre Dame is worthy of mention, but today's Notre Dame team isn't like teams of old (remember the team that made a tournament run way back when?)

As far as I am concerned all these "so-called experts" are reaching for the next new "it" team, and in this case, it's way too much of a stretch!

Robber Barons

Most people consider Big Tobacco to be at the bottom of the heap when it comes to corporate citizenship. Everyone (myself included) takes a certain pleasure at pointing out the flaws of Walmart (and there are many). But what does it really take for an industry to be relegated to the selfish, greedy, and just plain foul?

In my mind, there are two businesses that exemplify a lot of what is wrong with America today - Big Pharma and Credit Card companies.

Sure Big Pharma saves lives everyday. Their motto is "We'll save your life, but you won't like what you have left." With record profits and sky-rocketing costs for prescription drugs (why else would seniors go to Canada - presumably it's not to ski), Big Pharma can easily drive families into bankruptcy. Costs for certain cancer drugs can run $2000/dose. At 20 doses per treatment, the total is pretty close to the U.S. annual median income before taxes. So sure, your cancer is gone (at least for now), but what do you have left besides mounds of debt (and a piss poor credit rating thanks in no small measure to the latest bills passed by Bush & Co.) and no job? Well,l this is where the benevolent Credit Card companies step in.

Most companies want clients who have money. With Credit Card companies, it is just the opposite. They want customers who cannot pay their bills. Credit Card companies actually lose money when people pay their bills on time. When consumers do not pay their bills on time, Credit Card companies can levy astronomical interest payments (potentially exceeding 20% compounded monthly! which can turn an anthill into a Mt. Everest) against them. The most attractive market for these companies are people who have recently filed for bankruptcy or lost everything (e.g., Katrina victims). These people need money to rebuild their lives, but likely don't have the cash on hand to make on-time payments, resulting in a huge windfall for the Credit Card companies. Since these people recently filed for bankruptcy and had their debts wiped clean, they will not be allowed to have any new debt forgiven (at least not until they are old, wizened, and hunchbacked from carrying years worth of credit card debt on their backs).

Although both Big Pharma and Credit Card companies provide valuable services (arguably Big Pharma more so), they both take advantage of people in weak positions whether it be for health or financial reasons. What makes it all the more worse is these companies have yet to be truly unmasked for what they are. Big Tobacco was unmasked years ago, and anyone who sues cigarette manufacturers should have an reading, IQ, and deaf/dumb/blind test. But with these other businesses, it is still possible to dupe the consumer and that is what is happening today.

Dr. Torture

Is it strange that a man who took the Hippocratic oath has no problem standing by torture legislation? Sure there are all kinds of disclaimers he put on it - example, it only applies to terrorists, not to prisoners of war. The problem is torture is a slippery slope. Inflicting that kind of pain on people seems like something inhuman. Do we as Americans want our personnel engaging in such activities that must eat the soul and blur the lines between black and white. Not to mention, with what degree of clarity do we know if someone is a terrorist? Look at all the failed renditions. As a medical doctor, I would sincerely like to understand how Dr. Frist does not find any conflict between his views on torture and his learnings from Medical School.

When Frist was first elected to the Senate, I remember being optimistic. Sure he is a Republican from Texas. But he was also well-educated, articulate, and seemed to make reasoned and measured arguments. But apparently, I was wrong. Frist was the Republican wolf in a moderate's clothing. He has consistently, in my opinion, come down on the wrong side of issues...

1. Alito deserves an up and down vote you say? Well what about Harriet Miers? Were the founding fathers rolling in their graves when you along with the Republican leadership colluded to deny her a vote let a lone a hearing.
2. She's alive! The whole Terri Schaivo debacle. I believe in life as much as the next person, but if that wasn't a gamble to win more of the CC vote, then your medical license should certainly be revoked. Diagnosing from grainy videos - shameful.
3. The Martha effect. Frist is still under SEC investigation for alleged inside trading.

My Favorite Cabinet Members

Donald Rumsfeld - fellow Princeton grad, Class of '54 - is leaving office?

It is a day many of us, myself included, have been hoping and praying for, but now that their appears to me actual momentum, I find myself rather distressed. Word on the Hill is that people are gunning for his job, namely Joe Lieberman. Now I am not a huge fan of Rummy, but this is ridiculous. As a former opponent of the Bush-Cheney consortium in 2000, how can Lieberman even consider being their Secretary of War? (Dumb question seeing as how he actually wanted to create a Department of War.) Although one shouldn't be too surprised given the drivel that is coming out of his mouth these days, case in point,

"It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

If the president and his administration were more open and upfront about their rationale for war, among other things, one would not be forced to question his motives/credibility. Lieberman should start acting like a Democrat and leave the Democrat-bashing to his friend the roach killer (Tom DeLay). Otherwise, I say hit the road Jack, it looks like the Gov. is gunning for your job anyway.

Condoleezza (I have a gap between my two front teeth) Rice - former professor of International Relations at Stanford and current agitator for rendition - planning a run for president?

So this isn't actually new news. But when Dr. Rice said,

"The US does not permit, tolerate or condone torture under any circumstances."

It made me wonder if she was (1) dim, after all the whole point of rendition is to outsource terror or (2) brainwashed - remember this is the woman who once referred to GW as her husband. In either case, she is not presidential material.

However, in defense of her Ferragamo wearing self, I think Bush-Cheney, Gonzales, and Ashcroft so thoroughly blurred the lines of what torture is that under current law what happened to John McCain would probably no longer be considered torture. And that my friends is just plain dirty.

















I took this picture from the Slate political cartoon website.

Random Musings on Harry Potter

So I have to admit that I am not a Harry Potter fan, but before you starting booing and hissing and hitting the back button, let me explain. Generally, I still do not think J.K.Rowlings books are as phenomenal as her sales have been. But that being said, I really liked book six (Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince) and the latest movie.

I feel compelled to write tonight, because I just finished watching The Goblet of Fire for the 1.5th time. I had seen it first over Thanksgiving at the IMAX. It was all very exciting until the power went out in the last ten minutes and I was forced to wonder what happened. Well I found out today, and let me tell you I didn't miss much. But Ralph Fiennes is cool as Voldemort. They can't make The Half Blood Prince into a movie soon enough for my taste. Because then we can see the pretty Ralph Fiennes before his nose disappeared and he became the Lord of Darkness.

So I am at a loss for why I am suddenly infatuate with Harry Potter (the books not the boy mind you). Perhaps it is because the books have finally grown more dark? they are a little more grown-up? there is some real symbolism? (the latter was probably a stretch.) Or perhaps it is because I grew up on The Chronicles of Narnia and the Harry Potter novels are only now finally reaching the show down of good vs. evil that came in the first Narnia book: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

It seems that there are several theories on what will happen in book seven:

1. Harry is a horcrux (or so says my sister). But then to kill Voldemort, wouldn't Harry have to kill himself? And wouldn't that be too sad for a children's book?
2. Snape will be redeemed. I feel kind of bad for Snape. He was bullied as a child and now wears all black. He clearly isn't a very happy individual. Maybe Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him.
3. Harry will have to work with Regulus Black who he hates (I guess because he was a death eater) to destroy all the horcruxes. (My friend told me that. I didn't even realize there was a Regulus - clearly I wasn't that into the early books)
4. Ron and Hermoine will get married? Ew. Gross. Ron was clearly going through his awkward phase during The Goblet of Fire movie.
5. Bellatrix LeStrange will get a beat down.

What do Michael Crichton and George Bush have in common?

Global warming. It's what Michael Crichton and George Bush have in common.

After the Jurassic Park series, biologically flawed as it was, one might ostensibly have assumed that Michael Crichton understood science and facts to some vague degree. After all he is a Harvard educated medical doctor. Perhaps this suggests that Harvard doctors, or even doctors in general, are not all that they are cracked up to be. In his latest science "thriller", State of Fear, Crichton explores the world of environmental terrorism. Furthermore, he supposes that global warming doesn't exist and was in fact invented by liberal scientists as opposed to being based in any sort of scientific reality. Next thing you know he'll be writing a biblical thriller, Adam and His Eve, suggesting that evolution was a figment of Wallace and Darwin's imagination.
If the book alone was not egregious enough, Crichton was actually requested to testify in front of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works by Senator Inhofe (R-Ok). Crichton a fiction novelist was asked to provide testimony on how global warming and other environmental concerns are mere "hoaxes". So Inhofe is a Republican from Oklahoma (note: Oklahoma is right next to Kansas where they don't believe in evolution - as such one may deem Inhofe worthy of some slack) and may be forgiven his foolishness for this very reason. But Crichton deserves no such forgiveness.

Like Crichton, Bush disregards global warming as smoke-and-mirror parlor tricks developed by scientists. It's worth checking out his record on Kyoto and other international environmental agreements. More generally consider Bush's record on the environment from the Clean Air Act to drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to key governmental appointments. It is apparent that Bush the down on the farm, one with nature guy is nothing but a phony just like Michael Crichton.

For some laughs at Bush's expense check out this video clip thanks to Will Ferrell and AOL.

I am well aware that this is old news, but I feel compelled to mention it again, lest more of my unsuspecting friends end up buying Crichton's utterly baseless and propaganda-rich novels.

The Perennial Shaming

Another great week of college basketball and another great shaming for the Big Ten... for the 5th straight year the ACC beat the Big Ten to win the Commissioner's Cup. Which leads me to ask the very same question I ask about the PAC-10 during football season, is the ACC really a legitimate athletic conference.

To be fair, it is hard to argue with success. And I willing to admit that the ACC is a preeminent conference when it comes to basketball with it's power houses, Duke and Chapel Hill. However, when it comes to football they are certainly much more suspect. Florida State football is by no means what it once was. And watching Duke play football is like watching your high school football team run around in circles. If the South wants to school us Yankees in football, then the ACC is probably not the best example. ACC football is so generally lacking in talent that they had to pilfer teams from the Big East to prop them up - Miami, VTech, and Boston College. So while the ACC's got the basketball game, I can't give them much respect for stolen top 10 football programs...

And while I'm slamming other conferences how about the PAC-10. Having pretty boy quarterbacks does not signify having a legitimate program. Sure USC has a good team, but they have one of the easiest conference schedules in the country... Washington? Cal? Arizona? I wonder how long they would survive in the SEC. And in terms of basketball, nothing good besides the Arizona Wildcats has come out of the PAC-10 since John Wooden.

So if you want to talk about real conferences. Let's talk. The Big Ten. The Big 12. The SEC. And now, I'll end my rant against all things ACC and PAC-10 for fear of jinxing the teams I love.

PS. Duke fans beware. I love you not.