Collected Thoughts

A Game of Patience

Erik — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:22:00 GMT

Poker is a game of patience. But sometimes even my fairly deep reserve of patience is tested.

I have been playing a number of $2 or $3, 180+ player tournaments lately. I figure it makes sense for me to play these large, cheap tournaments because there's so much dead money in the prize pool and I have an advantage, knowing a thing or two about positional play, bet sizing, and hand versus pot odds.

Here's a hand from a 180 player $2 tournament at Full Tilt- where the top 18 players are paid. At this stage, 43 players remain and my stack ranked somewhere around 30th best.

I believe that, had I won this hand, I would have been in contention to win the tournament. As it turned out, I got eaten alive by a big stack luckbox. He had been pushing players around at my table and I thought I had succeeded in trapping him overplaying top pair or two pair.

Show Hand Hide Hand

Double Barrel Gutshot And A Flush Draw

Erik — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:30:00 GMT

I made a loose call on the flop and it worked out for me. Actually I shoved my stack rather than flat called. I would have been pot committed on the turn and I figured there was a chance that my opponent would fold if a spade came, so it was better to get my money in on the flop.

Show Hand Hide Hand

My opponent berated my play for the next few hands. I said nothing. It wasn't as terrible a play as he thought. With a double barrel gutshot straight draw plus a flush draw plus other unlikely scenarios I had a 40% chance of winning the pot. That's a 1.5 to 1 dog (60% to 40%). By betting the pot he offered me 2 to 1 odds. So actually my play was not loose. I was correct to shove all in because the pot offered me better odds than my draw.

Complicating the analysis, there was one player yet to act. Now, I couldn't calculate all this in real time, but I've looked into how the third player affected my implied odds. I'm drawing to a straight or a flush. Let's ignore unlikely scenarios like me hitting runner-runner cards for a better set than my opponents. If I assume both opponents hit sets on the flop, then I need to calculate two scenarios. 1) I complete my straight or flush. 2) The board pairs, making a full house or four of a kind for my opponents and counterfeiting my straight or flush. On the turn...

52 cards in the deck.
I know my cards (2), the flop (3), and assuming my opponents have sets, I know their cards (4).
That leaves 43 unknown cards.
I need an eight (4) or a queen (4) or any spade (9) to complete my hand.
15 of 43 cards give me the best hand. (I can't count the eight of spades and queen of spades twice.)

On the turn I have a 35% chance to improve to the best hand. On the river...

42 cards are unknown.
4 distinct cards are on the board.
2 cards in the deck make a four of a kind for one of my opponents.
6 cards in the deck pair the board, making a full house for both my opponents.
8 of 42 cards counterfeit my hand.
19% of the cards counterfeit. 81% do not.

To win the hand I must make a straight or flush (35%) and avoid counterfeiting (81%). 35% x 81% = 28% chance to win the hand. 28% = 2.5 to 1 against (72% to 28%).

If the player behind me had called my all in bet, there would have been $92.13 in the pot instead of $65.55. I'd have a 2.5 to 1 chance of winning a pot that offered me 3.5 to 1 odds ($92.13 / $26.58). These odds are slightly more favorable to me than heads up against a single opponent.

Analysis shows that I played the hand correctly. My opponent was steaming and none the wiser about what had transpired. Exactly the state of mind I'd like to play against. Poker, after all, is just a math test. Calm and analytical wins against mad and ignorant.

March Poker Report

Erik — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 04:00:00 GMT

March was a tale of two games. I played a lot of low limit, large tournaments. I went deep in almost every tournament I played. I felt like I made very few mistakes. However I did not cash, not even once. It was frustrating to play so well and have nothing to show for it.

I played one cash game at the end of the month. Over two hours at a loose table I made $56.04. All told I lost $4.52 for the month of March.

I lost $60.56 in 26 tournaments.
I won $56.04 in 1 session at a cash table.
I experimented with Omaha 8. I played 6 single table tournaments but only cashed once for a net loss of $4.40.

My play at the cash table was solid. I played a higher percentage of hands this month because I played at a 6-max table instead of full ring (9 players).

214 hands
VP$IP = 34.58%
PRF = 22.90%
W$SD = 62.50%
AF = 3.14
AFq = 54.32%
BB/100 = 130.93

My balance sheet is healthy.

$248.20

52%

52.33

32%

$151.68

Balance

Investment*

Finish

Hours

In the $

$51.68

Profit

$6.07

Max cash game & single table tourny buy in

21%

ROI†

$3.03

Max multi-table tourny buy in

$0.99

Hourly Wage

* = Sum of all tourny and cash game buy-ins.
† = Profit ÷ Investment

Blitz'n The Weak

Erik — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:30:00 GMT

I managed to figure out how to play against the Chess Master 10 engine in the Fritz GUI. It wasn't easy. But the struggle to resolve all the technical complications was worth the effort because the Fritz GUI is so much slicker than the Chess Master GUI. Plus, the Chess Master engine is a much better fit for a novice player. It comes with many personalities of varying strength (each with their own opening book) and it allows the user to create custom personalities. Piece value, center control, mobility, king safety, and other factors can be adjusted. I have not come across a chess engine that is as flexible as the Chess Master engine.

Once I got Chess Master running in Fritz, I played a fun blitz game against a weak opponent. Afterwards, I examined the game with a strong chess engine (Rybka) and annotated the game, noting my mistakes. I figure that spending time to annotate a game is just as valuable as playing a game, so far as it helps me improve my chess skills.

Erik versus CM10 / Duke

After 20... d3

Replay Game

Alien Abduction

Erik — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 03:00:00 GMT

I love this non sequitur from Seinfeld.

Jerry: Alright, how about this one. Let's say you're abducted by aliens. They haul you aboard the mother ship, take you back to their planet as a curiosity. Now, would you rather be in their zoo or their circus?

George: I gotta go zoo. I feel like I could set more of my own schedule.

Jerry: But in the circus you get to ride around on the train. See the whole planet.

George: I'm wearing a little hat. I'm jumping through fire. I'm putting little alien heads in my mouth. Nah.

Jerry: At least it's show business.

George: But in the zoo, you know, they might put a woman in there with me to uh... you know, get me to mate.

Jerry: What if she's got no interest in you?

George: Then I'm pretty much where I am right now. At least I got to take a ride on a spaceship.

Daily Minutia

Erik — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 03:20:00 GMT

Elaine mocks the entire premise of the Seinfeld show.

"I can't spend the rest of my life coming into this stinking apartment every ten minutes to pour over the excruciating minutia of every single daily event."

So funny!

She's Nineteen Years Old

Erik — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 03:40:00 GMT

Muddy Waters is the man.

I ask her where she's going.
She tells me where she's been.
She start a conversation that don't have no end.

She's nineteen years old.
Got ways just like a baby child.
Nothing I can do to please her,
To make this young woman feel satisfied.

Deadly Attack

Erik — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Positional struggles that lead into endgames with slightly unbalanced material have their own appeal. But it's the attack that appeals most to beginning players.

I played this blitz game online the other day. I slowly marshalled my forces then launched a deadly attack against the enemy king. Very satisfying.

chesstao versus Erik

After 23 Rb1

Replay Game

The Female Voice As An Instrument

Erik — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:45:00 GMT

In many ways my musical taste is stuck in the sixties and seventies. I find the music created then so full of life compared to most of today's market-tested trash. However, a few weeks back a contemporary band caught my attention with their performance on Stephen Colbert's show.

Now, maybe the reason I liked their performance is because it had elements common to great sixties music. It had a certain medieval Renaissance weirdness that annoyed me yet drew me in, similar to songs by Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young or Jethro Tull. Seriously, the harpsichord and Oedipus complex lyrics seem, well... altogether wussy. And yet I listen. Also echoing great sixties music, it featured a great female vocal solo.

It's the latter element that makes the song. In my opinion there really isn't much of a song here except for the vocal solo. Though I dig the Helter Skelter-like riff the band plays behind her as she belts it out. And boy does she belt it out! Reminiscent of Grace Slick or Janis Joplin.

Look closely at the beginning of the video. Do you see how tiny she is? How is such a big voice produced by such a tiny body? Also, near the end of the performance look for her spastic movements in the vein of Joe Cocker. I love watching a musician who is totally- and unpretentiously- lost in their music.

I don't know if this woman is in the band or is a session musician called in to help with backing vocals. But good lord can she sing! I'm a big fan of great rhythm guitarists such as Chuck Berry, Keith Richards, or James Hetfield. I love the guitar virtuosos too, like Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughan, or Jimmy Page. And I love the big band blues of Muddy Waters- and his voice too. But there simply is no comparing to the power and tone of the female voice. Especially when song in a bluesy, contralto style. It's the most evocative instrument I've ever heard.

The song is The Wanting Comes in Waves by The Decemberists.

That's Alright Mama

Erik — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:45:00 GMT

I love the young Elvis, back when he was singing black music and rockabilly. Hate the old Elvis, fat and drugged.

This clip is from Elvis Presley's 1968 Comeback Special. So he's not exactly young. He'd already wasted many years making corny movies. But he hasn't yet put on a jumpsuit and degenerated into a pathetic Vegas lounge singer.

He's in top form here, reunited with his old bandmates and singing slightly dirty songs.

Song For Sonny Liston

Erik — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:50:00 GMT

This song by Mark Knopfler has beautifully poetic lyrics and a badass vamp. I love it!

I've seen Martin Scorsese's Raging Bull and felt no sympathy for the protagonist. And yet this song about a similar character- a degenerate boxer- makes me feel for the guy.

The video was captured by a fan in the audience at a recent show in Amsterdam.

So many mouths
To feed on the farm.
Sonny was the second
To the last one born.
His mamma ran away
And his daddy beat him bad.
He grew up wild.
Good love he never had.

He had a left
Like Henry's hammer.
A right like Betty Bamalam.
Rode with the muggers
In the dark and dread.
And all them sluggers
Went down like lead.

Well he hung with the hoods,
He wouldn't stroke the fans.
But he had dynamite
In both his hands.
Boom bam
Like the slammer door.
The bell and the can
And the bodies on the floor.

Beware the Bear's in town.
Somebody's money says
The Bear's going down.
Yeah, the Bear never smiles.
Sonny's going down
For miles and miles.
Sonny's going down
For miles and miles.

The writers didn't like him,
Nor the fight game jocks.
With his lowlife backers
And his hands like rocks.
They didn't want to have
A bogey man.
They didn't like him
And he didn't like them.

Black Cadillac,
Alligator boots,
Money in the pockets
Of his sharkskin suits.
Some say the Bear
Took a flop.
They couldn't believe it
When they saw him drop.

He had a left
Like Henry's hammer.
A right like Betty Bamalam.
Rode with the muggers
In the dark and dread.
And all them sluggers
Went down like lead.

Joe Louis was his hero.
He tried to be the same.
But a criminal child
Wears a ball and chain.
So the civil rights people
Didn't want him on the throne.
And the hacks and the cops
Wouldn't leave him alone.

Beware, the Bear's in town.
Somebody's money says
The Bear's going down.
Yeah, the Bear never smiles.
Sonny's going down
For miles and miles.
Sonny's going down
For miles and miles.

At the foot of his bed
With his feet on the floor.
There was dope in his veins
And a pistol on the drawer.
There was no investigation
As such.
He hated needles
But he knew too much.

Criss-crossed
On his back.
Scars from his daddy
Like slavery tracks.
The second-last child
Was the second-last king.
Never again was it the same
In the ring.

He had a left
Like Henry's hammer.
A right like Betty Bamalam.
Rode with the muggers
In the dark and dread.
And all them sluggers
Went down like lead.

They never could be sure
About the day he was born.
A motherless child
Set to working on the farm.
And they never could be sure
About the day he died.
The Bear was the king
They cast aside.

Beware the Bear's in town
Somebody's money says
The Bear's going down.
Yeah, the Bear never smiles.
Sonny's going down
For miles and miles
Sonny's going down
For miles and miles.

Just Got Paid

Erik — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 03:30:00 GMT

Billy Gibbons is so freakin' cool. The man can play a mean boogie guitar.

I discovered ZZ Top in high school. That is, I discovered all their great albums from the 1970s. Back when they were playing boogie blues and low down blues. Back before they fused upbeat blues with dance on their Eliminator album.

Whether it's Eliminator or their early work, you know you're listening to ZZ Top when you hear that fat tone. I don't know how else to describe the sound Billy Gibbons gets from his guitar. It's so badass.

I just got paid today,
Got me a pocket full of change.
Said, I just got paid today,
Got me a pocket full of change.
If you believe like workin' hard all day,
Just step in my shoes and take my pay.

I was born my papa's son,
When I hit the ground I was on the run.
I had one glad hand and the other behind.
You can have yours, just give me mine.
When the hound dog barkin' in the black of the night,
Stick my hand in my pocket, everything's all right.

Jimi Hendrix Performs Voodoo Child in Atlanta, 1970

Erik — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 04:00:00 GMT

This defies description. The man was so far ahead of his time, and so talented, it's hard to comprehend.

Are you catching on to the theme of my latest posts? Badass guitar riffs. It doesn't get any badder than this. This song in my opinion is the best testosterone-infused, "don't fuck with me" guitar jam ever recorded.

Well, I stand up next to a mountain.
And I chop it down with the edge of my hand.
Well, I pick up all the pieces and make an island.
Might even raise a little sand!

In My Time Of Dying

Erik — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 04:15:00 GMT

Quite possibly my favorite Led Zeppelin song. Though ask me next week and I may have a different answer. They have so many stellar songs.

What's amazing about Led Zeppelin is the extraodinary level of talent of each musician. This song is a tour de force by Jimmy Page on electric slide guitar. Robert Plant uses his incredible voice to conjure up an image of a sinner pleading for his soul. But it doesn't really give John Paul Jones a chance to shine on bass guitar the way he does on The Lemon Song, for example. Or John Bonham on the drums in Whole Lotta Love. The band had too much talent to fit into one song.

July Poker Report

Erik — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Let's see how my poker experiment is doing now that six months have passed.

I lost $40.76 in 86 tournaments. Most of this loss came from medium or large tournaments, so this is not too bad. My goal in playing large tournaments is to win big. The profit will come all at once, not in a steady stream as is possible with single table tournaments or cash tables.
I won $121.82 in 20 sessions at cash tables.

My return on investment for no limit hold 'em games breaks down like this. (NLHE accounts for all but 8 games.)

Cash = +31%
Tourny = -10%
- Single Table = +15%
- Small (2 - 5 tables) = +13%
- Medium (6 - 20 tables) = -82%
- Large (> 20 tables) = -68%
All Games = +11%

My play at the cash tables is solid.

1,697 hands
VP$IP = 24.34%
PRF = 15.50%
W$SD = 57.52%
AF = 2.28
AFq = 50.09%
BB/100 = 24.55

I think I'm doing fairly well for a beginner. With some more experience I believe my tournament game will improve.

My balance sheet is healthy. My hourly wage is a joke. But hey, this is just for fun.

$753.58

46%

112.33

30%

$181.06

Balance

Investment*

Finish

Hours

In the $

$81.06

Profit

$7.24

Max cash game & single table tourny buy in

11%

ROI†

$3.62

Max multi-table tourny buy in

$0.72

Hourly Wage

* = Sum of all tourny and cash game buy-ins.
† = Profit ÷ Investment

The End Of The Experiment

Erik — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 02:15:00 GMT

My real money poker experiment came to a sudden end last night. I had played a couple hours of cash games each of the last few evenings with pitiful results. At the end of each night I would import the hand histories into Poker Tracker and review my play. Solid. Yet not winning. I guess the frustration got to me the last two evenings. I moved up from a $0.05/$0.10 game to a $0.10/$0.25 game and continued to watch my bankroll dwindle despite solid play. At the very end of the night I played a $0.50/$1 game in an effort to recoop my losses and... all gone.

After the emotional response wore off and my analytical mind reengaged I realized the loss of money only confirmed what I already knew: Real money adds little enjoyment to low stakes online poker. It has a calming effect on the game- less maniacs when real money is involved- but this also dampens the profit and the enjoyment.

Here's what I experienced:

It is possible to win big. Back in October I won a 20-table no limit hold 'em tournament. Outlasted 179 other players to win $388 on an $8 investment.
Poker sites will mail you a check. Banks will accept that check. Real money appears in your bank account.
It is much more common to win small. And lose small. And get bored with the tight play that is required to win at cash games.
The only players having fun, after all, are the losers. Because they're in on more of the action. The winning players fold, fold, fold, to get that 10% ROI.

So, after playing online poker for real money for half a year, I've reached these conclusions:

Poker is too simple of a game to gain much of an edge. After a few thousand hands online, everyone is good.
The hourly wage possible with a small edge, small investment, and disciplined bankroll management is not compelling. Consider what it takes just to make minimum wage, $6.55 per hour. One hour to win a single table tourny. An ROI of 15% (good) = $44 invested per hour. Buying in at 4% = $1,092 bankroll. With an ROI of 8% your bankroll must be $2,047 to make minimum wage. Too much for too little!

I like the game though. Poker is a fun and intellectually rewarding contest. So, in order to get some enjoyment out of it, I will make these adjustments:

I play chess for fun without involving money. I can do the same with poker. All of the major sites offer play money tables and tournaments for a variety of poker games.
I can still track my progress using Excel and Poker Tracker. I've written a program that converts play money hand histories into real money histories, allowing import into Poker Tracker.
I have written the beginnings of a Windows poker client- simulation software, if you will. I should pursue this project for the amusement it may provide. (Can I write a poker bot that's a stronger player than I? Isn't this how all sci-fi movies begin? The humans loose control over the robots.) Also, I should pursue the project as a chance to sharpen my professional programming skills.

Now it's time to beat up on some nitwits at the play money tables...

The Meta President

Erik — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:30:00 GMT

This video has been sitting on my computer for- I don't know, a year and a half. I saved it because Jon Stewart's commentary assured me that, despite all the signs the world has decided to toss intellectuals aside and embrace the simpleton, there still are people who are not willing to lower their standards and play along. I love Jon Stewart's attitude. He doesn't care if he comes across as a smartass or even as a snob. When someone acts like a moron- is a moron- he's going to call them a moron. Compare that to the attitude of, say, Bob Woodward, who was quite willing to cash in on the public's need to see more in George W. Bush than there actually is. How many times did we hear the "He's really quite impressive in private" line? Jon Stewart ain't buying that.

I don't think the word Schadenfreude is quite right. We're not exactly getting pleasure witnessing the misfortune of others. George W. Bush decided to run for the Presidency, a job whose responsibilities include managing crises. So there is no misfortune when a crisis inevitably occurs. Maybe it's my appreciation for black comedy that explains why I enjoy Jon Stewart's comments. Maybe it's snobbery plain and simple. If it is snobbery I don't give a damn. I am a snob and proud of it. To quote Gypsy Jones' conversation with the narrator, Jenkins, from Anthony's Powell's A Dance To The Music Of Time:

"Why are you so stuck up?" she asked, truculently.
"I'm just made that way."
"You ought to fight it."
"I can't see why."

Jon Stewart: "It was a classic President Bush move. Reassuring people by informing them he was there to reassure them. This is what this man does. He takes the subtext of a speech and he makes it... the text!"

The Troubled Music Industry, Or, How Conservatives Believe All Societal Ills Are Rooted In Personal Moral Failings

Erik — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:30:00 GMT

[I'm digging through some old e-mails I saved. I wrote this message to my father back in November 2007 after reading N.Y. Times columist David Brooks' assessment of the music industry.]

It’s been a while since I’ve written one of my missives. But it's a slow afternoon here and N.Y. Times columnist David Brooks is such a pinhead.

David Brooks plays cultural critic again, explaining how the troubles of the music industry are due to a cultural “pivot moment” that occurred in the early 80s, segmenting our society and spelling doom for popular music. While I agree with him that music is in a sorry state today, I can’t stomach his diagnosis. Also, he fails to acknowledge that it wasn’t too long ago that a lot of really good rock music was created- Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, hell even the Black Crowes. All from the early 90s.

“It’s considered inappropriate or even immoral for white musicians to appropriate African-American styles.”

The entire rock genre is an appropriation of black music by white musicians. Hello? Elvis, The British Invasion, Keith Richards playing Chuck Berry riffs. Entirely appropriate and beneficial to both parties. I know of Muddy Waters and Robert Johnson because of Led Zeppelin and Eric Clapton. I fail to see how some cultural schism has made this suddenly inappropriate. When he says “African-American styles” I think he means gangsta rap. Has he considered that one reason why so little of this music has been appropriated by musicians from other backgrounds is because there is so little value in it? This has nothing to do with “the temper of the times.” It has everything to do with the complete lack of melody and composition. The complete lack of musical content in diatribes pawned off as music.

“People who have built up cultural capital and pride themselves on their superior discernment are naturally going to cultivate ever more obscure musical tastes. I’m not sure they enjoy music more than the throngs who sat around listening to Led Zeppelin, but they can certainly feel more individualistic and special.”

Uh, and these people didn’t exist in the Sixties? Give me a break. Explain how Ravi Shankar became a music icon in the Sixties if not for people who crave to feel “individualistic and special.” Or even Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Joan Baez, or Bob Dylan. Besides, what’s wrong with feeling special? How does this negatively impact the music? Jimmy Buffet makes great music. Bob Dylan made great music. Jimmy isn’t trying to change your politics or make you feel superior. He’s just singing about good times and loves past and present. Bob Dylan was tying to change your politics and he was implicitly saying some of us are superior to others. So in David Brooks’ book that makes Jimmy Buffet a force for musical integration and Bob Dylan a force for musical segmentation. This Freudian psycho-analysis is worthless. Bob Dylan is the greater musician. He has forged more diverse musical traditions into a unique sound than has Jimmy Buffet, who has one sound. The cultural refinement of the two musicians is entirely irrelevant to the quality of their music. They aim for different targets and they both hit their marks.

“He [Steven Van Zandt] argues that if the Rolling Stones came along now, they wouldn’t be able to get mass airtime because there is no broadcast vehicle for all-purpose rock.”

Well, that’s because he’s an idiot. Is that analysis or jealousy? Sounds like he’s saying they’re successful because they came around at the right time. Yeah, playing black music to a tight-ass white crowd back in the mid Sixties was a calculated strategy to get air time. They’re successful because they’re talented. You don’t convince a million people to brave the crowds to see your band perform on the beaches of Rio de Janeiro- knowing full well they can buy the concert DVD later- unless you have some talent. OK, maybe the Brazilians are a bad example. You don’t convince 60-somethings to brave 35 degree temps on the windy shores of Lake Michigan to hear the Stones play unless the band has talent.

David Brooks’ analysis is so typical of social conservatives. I have noticed this at work in the attitude of a colleague who I would classify as a social conservative. They have this tendency to explain how all societal ills are rooted in personal moral failings. Music sucks today because people are so narcissistic. Not because the industry promotes bands beyond their talent for perceived financial gain- in other words, businessmen have made some very poor decisions. The economy is a wreck because people can’t check their impulse to buy unneeded material goods and spend way beyond their means. Not because large corporations and their political cronies have tilted the system in favor of immediate cash outs for the well heeled. Again- businessmen have made some very poor decisions. No, it’s all due to personal moral failings and our fragmented, narcissistic, decadent culture.

“Van Zandt has a way to counter all this, at least where music is concerned. He’s drawn up a high school music curriculum that tells American history through music.”

He’s going to resuscitate the music industry by confiscating it from youth and placing it in the hands of authority? Yes, says David Brooks, “he is trying to establish a canon.” I can see it now: Today’s lesson, Folsom Prison Blues by Johnny Cash. “In what waaaaaaayyyyy, does the singer’s use of the prison symbollllllllize…”

I’ve got a simpler solution for the ills of the music industry: Labels shouldn’t promote crappy music. And fans shouldn’t pirate good music. Probably the best course of action is to let the industry die. Let the large scale corporate interests move on to more profitable ventures. (I am reminded here of the Rolling Stone obituary of Ahmet Ertegun). Let the talentless hacks move on to self-produced Internet albums. Make room for real musicians who can make a name for themselves by virtue of their performance on stage. It can happen- it has happened. Metallica got practically zero radio play before their fifth album. And yet they were already a financial success by then. Lars made a point of saying this when the band finally won a Grammy for their black album. He was telling the industry to wake up and pay attention to the interests of fans that fall outside of the marketing charts.

BTW, Mr. Brooks, I wouldn’t take advice from a musician responsible for Tenth Avenue Freeze-Out. That song sucks! Every time I hear it at work I’m tempted to hack into the Muzak server and replace the playlist with my own.

George W. Bush Will Gladly Serve As An Idol For The Masses' Obeisance

Erik — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:00:00 GMT

[I sent this e-mail to my sister in September of 2004. My anger is directed not so much at those who vote for the wrong candidate as those who vote out of fear.]

I'm so angry, and I don't know what to do with my anger. I think I'm going to disappear temporarily into an intellectual hole and do a lot of reading, to remind myself that it's okay to dismiss the wider world and all its boorish demands, and spend some time with stimulating minds. Really, why do I need to concern myself with all these boring, unimaginative, and sheepish people? Because they exert great influence upon the governance of my country? You know, it's not worth the emotional energy it costs and the stress it induces. I now understand the elitism found in the British upper classes. I once despised it. I now understand it and wholeheartedly embrace it. I am an elitist and I make no apology for it because I am better than most people. Why should I mollify my opinions and analysis to protect the insecurities of people who have chosen to ignore the wider world and whose only response when that world threatens theirs is to fall back upon the role assigned them by their high school principal: to bark out patriotic rah, rah, cheerleader slogans at a nationalistic pep rally? Why should I change to accommodate their ignorance? They are the ones who must change or get out of the way.

Of course, that's not going to happen, it's a lost cause. Even if one succeeds in winning the allegiance of these cretins, it's for all the wrong reasons. Frank Rich makes excellent points about Kerry's missteps, how he often plays right into the hands of the present administration. But who's making him sidestep like this? I don't believe it's due to Kerry's failings, at least that's not the primary cause. The primary cause is people's stupidity and intellectual laziness in believing in a leader because of what he won't ask them to do or understand.

I watched the NBC news last night and found some pleasure in seeing a seventy year old lady shout down a bunch of Republican assholes that attempted to disrupt one of John Kerry's neighborhood meetings. She made me feel hopeful after much dismay. And by the way, is that their solution to national problems? To not let the other side speak? Morons. And do you think our government security services would have allowed such treatment of a sitting president? ... Anyhow, the old lady, by herself, took them on. The imagery was great: This seventy year old woman, back to the camera, facing off against a cadre of Young Republican Assholes. The septuagenarian points a finger at them and explains forcefully, "I don't hate you, I hate what you stand for. I hate what you support." Then she turns to the camera, smiles, and walks off. It was satisfying not only for what she said, but what her body language communicated. It was as if her posture declared, "You should know better. LET YOUR ELDERS SPEAK! I'm old and my legs don't work so well. I shouldn't have to come over here to shout you down, and remind you to keep mum and respect your elders. Let Mr. Kerry speak."

The problem is that George W. Bush is simply more appealing to the uninformed masses than John Kerry. Fundamentally, the masses like being obedient. And George W. Bush will gladly serve as an idol for their obeisance. It helps with his Freudian complex- more on that later. He will give them their marching orders. He will instruct them on what to believe and how to behave. And his commands will never offend the masses because a) they know he's one of them and b) he will never challenge them, at least not the civilian population.

Now, this ordering of humanity under the present administration is not in and of itself offensive. I mean, Dostoyevsky was right when he wrote that the vast majority of humanity serves as fodder for some mysterious genetic equation that justifies its often wasteful output by producing- very rarely- people of intelligence and ability who are capable of articulating a new thought within their time. The vast majority of people contribute little to society beyond devising their own amusements and passing along their feckless genes. The only reason this world is tolerable is because occasionally one meets, or reads, or listens to, or watches someone articulate a new and challenging idea. Dostoyevsky may have intended to warn the strong among men of the dangers of realizing this, and illustrated how such knowledge of human character can warp a man into a moral monster (in Crime and Punishment). But that is not to say his observation was incorrect.

No, what is offensive is not the ordering of humanity under the present administration. It is no more offensive than usual. What is really offensive is that today's Caesar is himself a dupe. Oh, the masses are being duped, but after all, that is their role. They play it with relish. The scary part is not the sheepishness of the masses- it would be no different under a liberal President- the scary part is that the leader himself is also being duped. George W. is so intellectually weak that he has completely fallen prey to the spells of his Machiavellian advisors. He is wholly under control of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and company. An article in this month's Atlantic Monthly quotes a senior military planner as stating, "There are only six or eight of them who make the decisions, and they only talk to each other."

Finally, and no less significantly, George W. Bush is captive to a poisonous Freudian complex, a kind of envy of the abilities of others, and a hatred, if not for his father, for his father's awareness that George is a bit of a disappointment. George W. may not hate his father, but he likely hates the opportunity he gave his father, through his sophomoric and boorish behavior, to feel some disappointment in his son. I mean, one cannot wander aimlessly through early life- living off his father's name and money- then abruptly shift gears to become a responsible adult pursuing a respectable career- and find that one is still living off his father's name and money- and not suffer some psychological consequences for it. I mean, you reap what you sow. George, to my mind, is reaping guilt sown as a young man, and is now sticking the world with the consequences of a Freudian struggle with his father. From the decision to run for President, unprepared as he was, to the decision to conquer Iraq, I see a Freudian impulse to prove himself to his father; to prove that he is not the wayward son but the unrecognized talent.

Granted, this is pure speculation on my part. But one has to guess at psychology if one is ever to understand people, because psychology is never overtly stated. I'd add that before one dismisses psychological explanations, consider the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. It cannot be explained without psycho-analyzing the Pope and his Church lieutenants. Lacking psychology, the explanation devolves into one of bureaucratic incompetence, which is simply not believable. So this is my guess regarding an inner motive of our President.

I still hold out hope that Kerry can win, because I believe that Bush is in some trouble. Not for the reasons stated above, but trouble nonetheless. Also, I don't believe the pollsters know what they're doing. But maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.

We can blame the Republicans all we want, or political miscalculations of Mr. Kerry, but in the end the blame lies with the ignorant and stupid masses. The blame lies squarely with their will to remain content with ignorance and mediocrity. I see it in politics, I see it here at work.

Once I felt a need to fend off misanthropy. Then I came to my senses. Misanthropy is what allows me to get pleasure and inspiration from Dostoevsky, Mark Twain, Anthony Powell (highly disguised in astringent English prose), Edvard Munch, The Office, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and Metallica. Though unwelcome by most of humanity, it is necessary for its advancement. To quote James Hetfield, "Energy derives from both the plus and negative."

Pretty damn relevant today!

Metallica Jams Backstage on Disposable Heroes

Erik — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:30:00 GMT

Metallica posts a video on their website from each live show. The video usually includes footage of the band meeting fan club members, warming up in the "tuning and attitude" room, and a song from that night's show.

I found this gem recently. It's one of the best live versions of Disposable Heroes I've ever heard. And it's from the tuning room!

This song has a special meaning for me. I associate it with the maturing of my musical tastes. I distinctly remember being in my high school gym at 6:00 in the morning, taking batting practice with the varsity baseball team before class started. I was a sophomore and had recently been called up to pitch for the varsity team. The coach let us play the radio while we practiced. The Deep Purple song Smoke on the Water came on and one of my teammates- a senior- started playing air guitar. He walked past me, jamming along with the simplistic intro chords, and said a bit too conspicuously, "This is the best!"

The day before a friend had lent me Metallica's Master of Puppets CD. I listened to the album that night in rapt attention from start to finish and was just blown away. It was the most amazing music I'd ever heard. So next morning when my teammate expressed his enthusiasm for Smoke on the Water I remember feeling disdainful and thought to myself, "What the hell am I doing with these people?"

Yes, a bit harsh. But it was the thought of a 16 year old kid who could not identify with the simple-minded testosterone of the jocks. Anyhow, there's so much to like about this video. I love how Kirk asks the band to play the song because he needs to practice the solo. Then knocks it out of the park. Just masterful. Also...

Love Lars' drums at the beginning. Punctuates the angry emotion of the song.
Love the camaraderie of the band. They look like they're having fun.
Love the thought that this is a "day at the office" for them. Like all professionals they have to work hard to be good at what they do.
Kirk is amazing, no doubt. But man, can James play rhythm guitar! The riff he plays at 2:15 just screams "Metal!" The gallop riff he plays at 2:32 just fucking rocks. It puts to shame all of the Emo shit infecting our music today.
Love the tone of the guitars. Heavy, threatening, ominous.

As a bonus, here's a video of Kirk and Lars jamming on Whitesnake's Here I Go Again. Metallica has the ability to take a song you'd scoff at and make it sound badass. What's the riff that Kirk plays at the end? Sounds like it could be from a Tool song.

Jimmy Stewart's Letter To My Great Grandmother

Erik — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:30:00 GMT

Jimmy Stewart grew up in the same county in Pennsylvania as my great grandmother.

I don't remember much about G.G. I do know she was a smart woman who followed current events, held strong political opinions, and wrote poetry. She labeled her efforts "poem-try" because she didn't think it was of the same caliber as poetry proper.

Years after Jimmy Stewart had become a hero in WWII and a movie star in Hollywood, my great grandmother wrote him a letter and enclosed some of her poetry.

Maybe because he noticed the return address was from Butler, PA, or maybe because he was such a nice man, he wrote her back. I can't read the date on the cancellation stamp. The value of the postage stamp is 20¢, so he must have written her sometime between 1981 and 1985.

The letter reads:

Dear Grace D. Vensel,

You were very kind to send me the birthday card- and I enjoyed your very nice letter and I think your poems are very good. All my thanks and best wishes.

Sincerely,
Jimmy Stewart

Or maybe he wrote her back out of sympathy for a fellow poem-try writer.

Company Policy

Erik — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:15:00 GMT

My grandmother passed away a few months ago. When cleaning out the house with her siblings, my mother found this poem written by my grandfather, who died in 1988.

I have fond memories of listening to my grandfather tell funny stories. I don't remember the details of his stories but I do remember how he took great care to describe the setting, the characters, and all the backstory that happened before he arrived at the scene. The majority of his stories, it seemed, was setup. This made an impression on me and I recognize it now as absolutely essential to storytelling. The audience doesn't live inside your head. It's up to you, the storyteller, to determine what the audience needs to know in order to find the tale amusing. My grandfather seemed to relive the stories as he told them, so the emotion on display in his face communicated as much as his words did.

Many of my grandfather's stories revolved around the incompetence or ill manners of shopkeepers, bureaucrats, and other petty clerks. People in positions of false authority, not really able to help but with immense power to aggravate and annoy. My grandfather had little ability to conceal his irritation with the idiocy of others. I'm sure it often took all his might to remain civil in the moment. But this repression only enhanced his narrative when he finally had an opportunity to relive the encounter in sympathetic company. For he could express himself fully, without regard for the feelings of the stupid clerk. This made for some really funny tales.

I'm sure my grandfather told stories about his sales job and office politics and all the frustrations of the workaday world. And I'm sure I didn't understand them, considering I was only thirteen years old when he died. Or perhaps he told them in the company of adults only. Nonetheless, having heard his tales of the incompetence and uncaring attitudes of petty clerks, and having worked myself in the corporate world for eleven years now, I'm sure I can guess his attitude towards corporate employment.

Reading my grandfather's poem confirmed his attitude was as wry and sarcastic as I suspected it might be. I give you Company Policy, by Roy Koeppel:

Company Policy

When things go wrong
As they usually will,
And your daily road
Seems all uphill;
When funds are low
And debts are high;
When you try to smile
And can only cry;
When you really feel
You'd like to quit:

Don't run to me-
I don't give a shit.

As I write this I'm drinking some 1970 Seagram's V.O. whisky found unopened in Grandpa's liquor cabinet. Probably a gift from a client. Or from an asshole boss.

Poker Is A Simple Game

Erik — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:00:00 GMT

[I posted this comment on a poker blog and thought I'd reprint it here. The author made a tortured analogy between tennis and poker and I called it a stretch.]

Hard Boiled Poker

It's a limited analogy. Really, poker is a very simple game. It doesn't take long to become a competent player. One of the most important aspects of being a successful professional card player is to overcome one's boredom and remain calm and analytical. Comparing this skill (personality?) to the skills required to master tennis or soccer or chess... I don't know. It seems an empty comparison to me. Those professional athletes and chess players are competing at a level so much higher than pro poker players- who are just marginally better than than rest of us.

Sorry, I don't mean to direct this criticism of poker at you. I really enjoy your blog mainly because you make it about more than just poker. My criticism is directed at the young poker players who tie so much of their manhood to the game. But that's just me- 34 years old and amused by 20 year olds beating their chest over their skill in a game that doesn't really allow much distinction between great and good.

Conservatives Are Big On Catch-Phrases. Short On Explanation.

Erik — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:10:00 GMT

"It's unconstitutional!" is among their favorites.

[Occassionally I'll read the Poker Grump. I find his misanthropic take on the poker world amusing. And it's always interesting to read about people who live very different lives from mine. Recently the Grump discussed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and betrayed his conservative, almost paranoid anti-government politics. Anti-government diatribes really make my blood boil so I had to say something. (I improved some grammar in my comments.)]

The Poker Grump's Other Side Of The Coin

I say:

"Online poker is not a legitimate concern of the federal government, which has neither constitutional authority nor any reason to be involved in the field at all."

That's patently absurd. We can argue the wisdom of government regulation of this particular industry, but you can't just pretend the Constitution doesn't exist or wish away relevant clauses. Have you read article 1, section 8?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ...
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clearly constitutional.

The Grump responds:

Glad constitutional law comes so effortlessly to you. You should get appointed to the Supreme Court.

Did you click the link to read my earlier post where I addressed this? I'm guessing not.

Have you done any reading into the history of what the words "regulate" and "commerce" meant to the writers of the Constitution? I'm guessing not.

I respond:

"First is the general principle. We should be free to play poker (or blackjack or anything else) with our own money from the privacy of our own homes. Period."

I don't know where this "should be" comes from. The whole thing seems reminiscent of the Napster argument a few years back. I don't see much of an justification beyond a) it's cool and b) it benefits me personally. I guess that pretending financial transactions between players and online casinos is not commerce is a necessary prerequisite to buy into your unconstitutional argument. Are you really banking your argument on the notion that the writers of the Constitution could not have envisioned the Internet? If the document cannot be applied to new technology and new social dilemmas then the whole thing is of no use.

Though I not convinced you're really interested in discussing the issue. Starting by quoting the Bible and declaring "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness" suggests that readers just back the hell off and let you suffer under your burden of wisdom.

Conan776 says:

Erik, so by your logic, what's to stop the Feds from tacking on an extra X% tax on software engineers, or roofers, or plumbers. Maybe every time I need to fix my roof, Uncle Sam has the right to tax off 10% right away based on the estimate? That's the current understanding vis a vis poker per the current bills floating around Congress -- poker players are sinful, immoral people, so Congress must skim off the top to discourage such horrid immoral behavior. And the so-called "Poker Player's Alliance", et al., are happy to go along with such a farce. Meh!

I respond:

@Conan

Democracy. If we don't like our government's priorities we should look in the mirror. Because we're responsible.

I agree with you that we need to take a good look at how the proposed legislation would affect the industry should it become law. My point is that this examination must begin with a recognition of the powers granted to Congress in the Constitution.

I mean we still could be answering to the British Monarchy. All of us could've had the misfortune of being born in a land ruled by a military junta. We weren't. We were born in the oldest democracy on the planet where we have the good fortune and responsibility of self-governance.

So denying the laws of the land as a starting point for your argument- I don't get it. What you're facing here is the fact that other people don't share your priorities. Their livelihoods are taxed and they're wondering why this industry- online poker, your livelihood- is exempt. It's a question of priorities that the people, through their representation in Congress, need to answer. It's not a Constitutional question.

I give the Grump credit for allowing my comments to stand. In the past they've been deleted by bloggers who dislike publishing dissenting opinion.

Chick Can Wail!

Erik — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:30:00 GMT

A while ago I posted a video clip of The Decemberists performing on the Colbert Show. Amazing performance by the vocalist, Shara Worden. Here's an even better performance. A fan shot this video of Shara and the band performing at the Hollywood Palladium back in May.

I believe Shara was hired by the band to perform vocals on their latest album, The Hazards of Love. She is touring with them now as they promote the album. In other words, she is not a permanent member of the band. Watching this video one has to imagine the lead singer thinking, "Shit! She's stealing the show. Maybe this wasn't such a great idea."

I would love to see Shara and the band perform this song live in concert. I'm not so sure I'd be interested in the rest of the show. But I'd gladly pay full price to hear this one song, considering it's so earth-shatteringly good. Shara just dominates the performance with her stage presence. You can tell she's living the music. And is there any disputing her voice? Chick can wail!

How I made you,
I wrought you, I pulled you.
From war I labored you.
From cancer I cradled you.
And now...
This is how I am repaid?!
This is how I am repaid?!
Remember when I found you?
The miseries that hounded you.
And I gave you motion,
Anointed with lotions.
And now...

This is how I am repaid?!
This is how I am repaid?!

There Will Be Blood

Erik — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:15:00 GMT

I think There Will Be Blood is a well made film. The cinematography is beautiful. The score is a bold choice. I thought it was brilliant to use spooky music. The score suggests a horror film- which, along with the title, serves to ratchet up the suspense and build a sense of foreboding. Something bad- very bad- is going to happen.

And that's where the film disappointed me. I have no problem with slow, plodding development. Though I did say out loud "Get on with it!" during the silent opening sequence, I did think it was well done. It established how terribly hard life was back then. In fact, I remember being chilled at one point- it might have been a little later in the film, when Daniel finally arrives at the Sunday ranch and asks if he can camp on their land. Anyhow, I remember being chilled and getting up to crank up the heat in my townhouse. The endless shots of desolate gray skies and a chill wind must have had a psychological effect on me. I said "well done" as a nod to the director as I realized the stark difference between my easy comfort and the pioneers hard work and misery.

But this slow, meandering plot, with all the requisite slow, lingering shots has got to lead somewhere. I alternated between frustration and anticipation as I watched. The peak of my attention in the film was the scene where Daniel is sitting on his porch with his brother- or the man who has presented himself as his brother- and confesses he is terribly competitive and wants every other man to fail. Then he adds, "I look at people and I see nothing worth liking." He asks his brother if he feels the same way and his brother says no, with all his trying and failing he doesn't see it like that- he just doesn't care any more. Daniel remarks, "Well, if it's in me then it's in you." Whoa! That line stood out. That's foreshadowing if I've ever seen it. That really piqued my interest and I thought OK, we may find out this brother is not the quiet, broken man we think he is. We are going to find out that neither man can escape their father's blood and an intense rivalry will develop.

Only it doesn't. A few scenes later Daniel's brother is unmasked as an impostor and impassively excised from the script. And for what? To make a point that traditional conflict-climax-resolution story arcs are passé? Daniel's son is handled in an even more careless manner. The director inserts a shot of the son, now an adult, marrying the Sunday girl only so he can set up the very next scene. With no exposition of a juvenile son's deteriorating relationship with his father, no backstory that carries beyond an eight year old kid, the director expects the audience suddenly to become emotionally invested in the confrontation between adult son and miserable, contemptuous father. When Daniel reveals to his son that he's an orphan ("lower than a bastard") adopted for the sole purpose of having a cute face present when swindling homesteaders out of their oil-rich land, I cried foul. Yes, the director inserted a few cues along the way- the most telling of which was Daniel refusing to answer his brother's question about the whereabouts of the boy's mother. Still, I thought it was cheap and hypocritical. How is the audience supposed to feel indignant when it's revealed that Daniel Plainview does not love his son, he merely feigned love in order to enrich himself financially? The director didn't tend to the boy's character either. He merely inserted him into the story in order to set up a nasty verbal denouement, hastily arranged and devoid of any lasting impact.

I had lost interest by the time we get to Eli Sunday's triumphant return as a well-dressed, successful holy man, visiting "such an old friend" Daniel, at Daniel's beautiful California mansion. A tradition story arc suggests Daniel will take vengeance for Eli having forced him to confess his sins in public. But the film has shown an interest in bucking trends. So will a drunk, declining Daniel summon up the will and strength to confront the ascendant Eli? Will blood be spilled as the film's title suggests? Oh wait, Eli is not successful. He's lost a fortune in the market. Will Daniel suddenly show some compassion? Do I care about these sudden revelations? Oh wait, it is traditional after all. A beat-down and the credits role.

A good attempt but ultimately disappointing in my opinion. If a film insists on departing from the traditional path, it must do so for a reason. I can't see what was accomplished by this film's journey.

My sister responds:

Thanks, as always, for sharing your thoughts on the film. I cannot be as sharp in my analysis, as it has been a while since I’ve seen it, but I will make one comment. I think the slow, plodding, anticipatory pace of the film is apt, at least in one sense. The flatness and pace of the movie echo the long wait/search for oil. (“There Will Be Blood” is the filmmaker’s title; Upton Sinclair’s book from which the film is adapted is called, simply, “Oil!”) For Daniel Plainview, it is the process of finding and extracting the oil that defines his character, more so than the payoff that oil-ownership brings. The opening scene encapsulates the meticulousness of the process, chipping away rock slowly slowly, alone, quietly, in the dry western dust.

Anyway, I enjoyed the film. And I do agree with some of your readings of the plot development. I’ve never read the book, but it would probably make an interesting comparison. I remember hearing that the screenwriter made significant changes.

I conclude:

Good point about the pacing. And you’re right, it is interesting to compare novels and screenplays. The only one I can think of at the moment that I have some expertise in is Lord of the Rings.

I know I can be argumentative about films, but that’s actually a good sign. It means the film provoked me in some way- which is what I want out of a film. It’s strange. Sometimes I let things slide. Like with Gran Torino. I guess I liked it because of Clint Eastwood’s brooding presence. At Thanksgiving when we discussed the film briefly, Mom and Uncle B. made some good points against the film, and I thought, they’re right, those really are weaknesses.

Maybe I’m more critical of the very good films because my expectations are higher? Or maybe I get aggravated when I feel like I’m watching filmmaking technique and not storytelling.

Winning The Endgame

Erik — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:00:00 GMT

I managed to win an endgame recently. This is a rare occurrence for two reasons:

As a beginner playing other beginners, often I or my opponent make a fatal mistake in the middlegame, leading to checkmate or significant loss of material.
I lose many endgames due to the time pressure of a blitz game.

Guest versus Erik

After 44 Kd5. Black to move and win.

Replay Game

Getting Better Positionally

Erik — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 02:00:00 GMT

I am managing the clock better and blundering less. Here I played a nice positional game against a ChessMaster 10 personality- Miguel, rated 1240.

CM10 / Miguel versus Erik

After 16... Nd7 Black Is Solid

Replay Game

Unnecessary

Erik — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:20:00 GMT

I saw this tonight at my local grocery store.

It's fucking oatmeal! It's healthy to begin with. We don't need a weight control variety.

Jesus Christ- not only do I have to look through twelve feet of shelf space to find maple brown sugar oatmeal, now I have to inspect the package closely to ensure it's not weight control formula.

The world has gone mad. Are you overweight? Yeah? Well eating weight control oatmeal is not going to shave off the pounds. Go for a fucking run!

It's unbelievable the bullshit people will talk themselves into. Think it over for a second. Eating puts mass into your body. Exercising requires converting mass into kinetic energy- motion in plain terms. Which is a more immediately effective way to lose mass? It's not complicated at all. There's a reason basketball coaches push their players to the point of exhaustion on the first day of practice. They don't hand out weight control oatmeal. For fuck's sake people!

The Comforts of Religion

Erik — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:30:00 GMT

A few months ago I received an e-mail from one of my best friends' mother, Helen. She has discovered the Internet in the past year and is at that early stage of online literacy where one forwards lots of e-mail. I'm on her mailing list.

Long before Helen got online, I decided that when I found anything offensive or intellectually lazy in forwared e-mail, I would respond to everyone on the mailing list. An e-mail blast accomplishes two things:

It lets people know that if they wish to engage me in a discussion they should expect a response. I will not remain silent when people talk nonsense.
If the sender is embarrassed by my response- that is, embarrassed by the contrast between their hitting the forward button versus me composing original thoughts- they will remove me from their e-mail list. Eventually an equilibrium is reached where only people interested in serious discussion will ever bother me with these kinds of messages.

When I received the following message from Helen, I found myself in a real dilemma. I wanted to respond with a scathing criticism of the we are the chosen ones religious message found in the e-mail, but I did not want to upset my friend by hurting his mother's feelings. I thought it over for a long time and decided that I would respond. I found courage when I recalled a passage from a Richard Feynman lecture. In the lecture Feynman advocates engaging the "faith healer" mind as a way of combating the unscientific culture of the modern world.

First, the e-mail forwarded by Helen:

It's very long so I'll summarize it as apple pie Americana, followed by a claim that the Americana somehow fostered innovative thinking, then a jarring segue into a religious message. Read the full message.

Next, the passage from Richard Feynman's lecture. This convinced me- excuse the delusion of grandeur- that it was my duty to respond.

The remark which I read somewhere, that science is all right so long as it doesn't attack religion, was the clue that I needed to understand the problem. As long as it doesn't attack religion it need not be paid attention to and nobody has to learn anything. So it can be cut off from modern society except for its applications, and thus be isolated. And then we have this terrible struggle to try to explain things to people who have no reason to want to know. But if they want to defend their own point of view, they will have to learn what yours is a little bit. So I suggest, maybe incorrectly and perhaps wrongly, that we are too polite. Full Quote

My response to Helen's e-mail:

Regarding the sentiment in Jay Leno’s statement: You do realize that if you believe God protected those who survived all these hazards, then you have to believe that God wanted others to be harmed and to suffer? And this implies of course that they somehow deserved to suffer- a vicious thought. Doesn’t it make more sense to support the science that attempts to understand the causes of these natural phenomenon so we may protect people before they are harmed? Rather than explaining one’s safe passage as due to one’s favorable standing in the eyes of God. I mean such a belief may help our self esteem, but how is it going to protect children in a poorly constructed school when an earthquake hits? Did the Chinese worship the wrong God, or did they fail to develop and enforce adequate engineering standards?

And finally, a response to my message. This was written by a lady on the e-mail list I do not know personally. She provides the believer's point of view:

You know, there is just no knowing the mind of God. We are all given free will. Bad things happen, and good things often grow out of those bad things. Whether it is the heart of another human who feels empathy for the injured and does something to help, or someone experiences the depth of their own humanity through the tragedy of their fellow human. Many of us have discovered that a deep faith in God has brought us comfort in troubling times that science and nature just cannot match. My heart goes out to all those who have never experienced the comfort of Faith.

As for science giving us the tools to understand nature so we can prevent natural disasters and protect people from harm; I just don't believe that is possible.

A very tender thought. I just don't understand what it has to do with belief in a Genesis theory, a divine will, or an afterlife. It is possible to empathize with your fellow man simply by being a good, kind, person. The believer may ask where this kindness comes from if not from God. And here's where we see the difference between the scientifically-minded and the religiously-minded: I don't need an answer to that question. I have learned to live with uncertainty and doubt. The believer, driven by the anxiety associated with ethical uncertainties, demands answers.

I saw my friend and his mother a few months later at my friend's wedding. Helen was very happy to see me and did not mention the e-mail exchange. Perhaps I underestimated her ability to separate intellectual criticism from personal criticism. Perhaps she figured "that's just Erik being Erik." All the same, it was a relief to find no hard feelings between us.

Selling Out America

Erik — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:10:00 GMT

[My boss forwarded an e-mail to me today. It's titled "Selling Out America" and has a link to an editorial in a suburban newspaper. In the past we've discussed Islam with regards to 9/11. And we've discussed the financial crisis. So this is not our first foray into these topics.]

GE Has Big Interests In Islam

Archived here in case link is broken.

[My Response]

The problem with this essay is that the author paints with too broad of a brush. For example, his claim that Exxon “helped the German war effort to kill American soldiers.” I don’t think it’s that simple. My understanding is that Standard Oil (as Exxon was known then) had made investments in Germany between the wars. I think there was a big scandal in 1941 when an investigation revealed that Standard Oil still maintained contacts with Germany. The U.S. did not enter the war until the attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th, 1941. Assuming that Standard Oil’s ties with Germany were severed in 1941 (I don’t know- I’m not an expert on the subject) it’s not like Standard Oil was fueling Hitler’s tanks in the Battle of the Bulge. My point is that none of this is made clear by the author.

Another example is the author’s claim that G.E. actively promotes Shariah law. I agree in general that we need to think about where our money goes and what it supports. We’ve talked about how Islamic fundamentalism is dangerous because its hostility to free speech and scientific inquiry prevents its people from making progress economically. Without science a country can’t advance industrially or technologically and the gap between it and those countries that have embraced science widens- catching a country in a vicious spiral where stricter religious beliefs makes it more difficult to compete economically, which creates poverty, which makes fundamentalist beliefs more attractive to a desperate population, which hurts science, etc...

But this is a problem common to organized religion in general. Yes, today our primary concern is with Islamic fundamentalism. But the author is not making a point about fundamentalism. He’s indicting the entire Islamic world and G.E. along with it. I have a problem with that. For example, consider all those brave young people in the streets of Iran after Ahmadinejad stole the election a few months ago. They are Muslim. They were not demonstrating for Shariah law. They were arguing for free and open political discussion and a fair democratic vote. These are values supported by the West. More than just because we see them as “unalienable rights”, “endowed by [our] Creator.” We believe they have a tempering effect on the hatreds spawned by ignorance and fundamentalism.

The problem with maligning an entire religion or culture is that our own religion and culture is also vulnerable to such a charge. For example, should we all think carefully about our investments in Fortune 500 companies? Most of the directors of these companies are Christian. And the Christian holy book justifies some oppressive behavior.

I guess my point is that I don’t think the author knows who the enemy is. He’s satisfied to cast a wide net knowing it won’t catch any of his family or friends.

Give Me One Of Those Vanilla Bullshit Drinks

Erik — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 01:00:00 GMT

[This story is from a few years ago. My sister J and I were in an airport, waiting at our gate to catch a flight back home after visiting our sister in California. I was tired and needed some caffeine. I asked J if she wanted anything to drink. She said no so I took off down the terminal in search of coffee.]

I found a Starbucks and queued up in line. After a few minutes I get to the front of the line. The customer in front of me steps aside and I step forward ready to place my order and get on with my life. No one behind the counter greets me. Two employees are busy squabbling over some personal issue, work grievance, God knows what. Their conversation is not discreet. They seem unconcerned that I can hear them argue.

Finally one of them steps up to the cash register. Makes no eye contact with me. Just stands there. I realize I'm expected to walk the employee through the order, rather than the other way around. I order my usual cup of coffee.

"What size?"

"Small."

The kid behind the counter mumbles something incoherent. He has refused to make eye contact with me and has not bothered to enunciate any of his words. Do you know how difficult it is to understand an unmotivated cashier who's mumbling at the ground?! I feel no obligation to ask him to pick the marbles out of his mouth and help the customer. Seriously, is it my job to ask him to look at me and speak clearly? No- that's a given. If the kid feels no need to make himself understood than I'm content not to understand.

"Your name?" I manage to hear.

"Erik," I respond. I see the total due on the cash register and voluntarily hand this to the kid behind the counter. I step to the side and join a group of discontented travelers staring blankly at the Starbucks counter, hoping for their beverages to appear.

I watch a Starbucks employee- not the cashier, a different employee, equally miserable and apathetic- place one, then two beverages on the counter without making eye contact with anyone in the crowd. She says not a word. I remember I was asked for my name when I ordered my beverage. The discontented, caffeine-deprived travelers exchange puzzled looks but make no inquiries. No one claims the beverages.

At this moment I decide I will take the next beverage placed on the counter. I don't care what it is; I don't care how long the other customers have been standing there, mute and timid; I'm taking the next drink. If this is Starbucks' system- to mumble incoherently, then ask a customer to say his name aloud only to place drinks anonymously on a counter- then this is what they get. I'm taking the next drink and walking away with a clear conscience.

A large beverage is placed silently on the counter. I step up, take the drink, and walk back to my gate.

My sister asks me what I ordered. I'm still steaming about the whole incident, mad at these Starbucks employees who fail to understand a very simple transaction: The customer hands over more money than a cup of coffee is worth for one reason: He expects service.

"What? Oh, I got a venti."

"A venti what?"

"What do you mean?"

"Venti is the size of the drink. What kind of drink did you order?"

"I don't remember. I just took the first drink they put on the counter."

I inspect the paper cup in my hands. I see a checkmark next to the word "Latte." I see the name "Andrew" written in red ink below the rim of the cup. "I guess I'm drinking Andrew's latte. Mmm, mmm, good."

[This story reminds me of a scene from Curb Your Enthusiasm.]

The Connection Between Thought, Speech, And Problem-Solving Ability

Erik — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 02:00:00 GMT

[An e-mail exchange between my sister J and I shortly after Barack Obama was elected President. We discuss the connection between thought, speech, and problem-solving ability. It began with an article by political satirist Andy Borowitz.]

J writes: Thought you might get a kick out of this...seems like an Onion article, but not sure it is... whatever, it's funny!

Obama's Use of Complete Sentences Stirs Controversy
Stunning Break with Last Eight Years

In the first two weeks since the election, President-elect Barack Obama has broken with a tradition established over the past eight years through his controversial use of complete sentences, political observers say.

Millions of Americans who watched Mr. Obama's appearance on CBS' "Sixty Minutes" on Sunday witnessed the president-elect's unorthodox verbal tick, which had Mr. Obama employing grammatically correct sentences virtually every time he opened his mouth.

But Mr. Obama's decision to use complete sentences in his public pronouncements carries with it certain risks, since after the last eight years many Americans may find his odd speaking style jarring.

According to presidential historian Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota, some Americans might find it "alienating" to have a President who speaks English as if it were his first language.

"Every time Obama opens his mouth, his subjects and verbs are in agreement," says Mr. Logsdon. "If he keeps it up, he is running the risk of sounding like an elitist."

The historian said that if Mr. Obama insists on using complete sentences in his speeches, the public may find itself saying, "Okay, subject, predicate, subject predicate - we get it, stop showing off."

The President-elect's stubborn insistence on using complete sentences has already attracted a rebuke from one of his harshest critics, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

"Talking with complete sentences there and also too talking in a way that ordinary Americans like Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder can't really do there, I think needing to do that isn't tapping into what Americans are needing also," she said.

I respond: So funny! And yet so sad. Neither Bush nor Palin can articulate their thoughts worth a damn. One is our current President and the other aspires to the office. The public is supposed to find this charming or cute, rather than frightening and disqualifying.

Though I deal with computer languages and not spoken languages, my job is to put thoughts into written words. That’s what programming is. All day, every day I hear from users of our software, “I thought it would work this way.” “I want it to do this for me.” “Yeah, it’s supposed to that, but in my case here it should really do this.” “Last week I did A and B and got C. This week I got D. What gives? (Completely ignoring X, Y, and Z.) Etc… Lots of isolated descriptions of how they thought the system would behave, or how they’d like the system to behave, with little regard for the conflicting demands of other users.

It is my job to extract the common patterns, reconcile the discrepancies, and codify a written set of instructions that solve the problem for all users and all business cases with satisfactory performance. The ability to think analytically is very important. But so is the ability to communicate verbally and in writing. Verbal and written communication is absolutely essential to understanding the business problem you’re asked to solve. Solving the wrong problem is no good, right? Neither is it any use to the business if I understand the problem perfectly but fail to write a coherent set of instructions to achieve a solution.

I’ve done this long enough that I can have a short conversation with a programmer and know within a few minutes how capable they are. Their skill with verbal communication is highly predictive of their ability to synthesize complex business and computer problems into functioning code. If you can’t think straight you won’t speak straight. If you can’t speak straight, you won’t code straight. As simple as that.

Is the President somehow exempt from this correlation between thought, speech, and problem-solving ability?

When George W. Bush was running for president back in 1999 there were very many talking heads telling the general population not to be concerned with the man’s stammering rhetoric. “Don’t worry, he’ll surround himself with good people. He’ll be the MBA president. He knows how to assemble a team of advisors.” I remember telling Dad

"Is the President somehow exempt from this correlation between thought, speech, and problem-solving ability?"

how utterly unconvinced I was when one experienced hand after another was quoted in the paper saying “He’s much different in private. He asks good questions. He communicates well.” Bullshit, I thought. Seems awfully suspicious that the man is coherent only when no one is watching. Muddled speech is indicative of a muddled mind. If you are smart, and have thought deeply about a topic, and organized your thoughts, you will find a way to express them. Through written words, speaking extemporaneously, through music or visual imagery- one way or another you will find a way to express your thoughts clearly. This has little to do with formal education. I’ve listened to many old school blues musicians who grew up in the Jim Crow South, were denied an education, and yet can paint a vibrant picture with words that indicates their eyes were open the whole time. They didn’t miss a thing and are able to convey their impression to the audience. Synthesizing experience into words and melody takes brains.

If a person isn’t able to express himself clearly in any forum, that indicates he hasn’t been paying attention or isn’t able or interested in understanding what is happening around him. And yet very many supposedly smart people told the nation eight years ago that George W. Bush was exempt from this rule. Fucking morons! These are the same people who now, having seen the destruction wrought by our President, express their disappointment in the man. Well call me an elitist, but I am very disappointed in them for their terrible judgment when evaluating the candidate.

OK, I feel better now.

J responds: When I replied to my boss I said the same thing: so funny. although, kinda sad it's so funny...

I couldn't agree with you more. You have no problem communicating your thoughts through words, written or spoken. In fact, you do it at such an exemplary level that I had to look up a word. Pffff! Can you guess which word?

But seriously, W has been a disaster of a president and an embarrassment to the nation. I don't think we could have elected a bigger idiot to represent us, let along "lead" us. I still think about that ridiculous "deal breaker" type question during the election 4 years ago: Who would you rather have a beer with? Bush or Kerry? Ummmm, I'm sorry what! This is the question you're basing your vote on? Can I vote you off the island or something? We're not electing our 5th grade student council president! This is for real. Like a real job, and an extremely important one for that matter! Talk about fucking morons!

The Wall Street Bailout

Erik — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 03:30:00 GMT

[From March 2009: An e-mail to a colleague with strong but borrowed political opinions. Years ago he sniffed out my politics. Now he sends me links to articles he finds on leftist and conspiracy-theory websites. Often I can't figure out what these articles say other than "Bad Things Are Happening!" and "The Mainstream Press Isn't Reporting It." What these bad things are and how they came to be are never explained. Anyhow, I took my colleague's mention of AIG as an excuse to say something about the Wall Street bailout.]

Colleague writes: And you thought that AIG was something. http://www.truthout.org/033109J

I respond: The real problem is not the bonuses. Though I’m as pissed as the next guy about them. Have you seen Matt Taibbi’s rant? He writes for Rolling Stone and a few websites. Completely agree with him here and love the tone.

But it’s easy to call for blood at such shameless greed and lack of responsibility. It’s much more difficult to push the ideologues aside, cut through the hysteria, and have an informed conversation about the policy mistakes that led to the collapse and the bailout and set the stage for the undeserved bonuses funded by the American taxpayer. Where are the adults in the room? Where is the American public when it comes time to discuss policy? We’re so easily cowed by the word “socialism” that we’re apt to believe any government oversight interferes with the smooth operation of the capitalist machinery. It’s the lack of oversight that allowed the AIG financial services division to invent black boxes full of liabilities and make them appear to be golden, AAA-rated investments.

The bonuses are a distraction. Classic political sleight of hand. Invent an enemy- the AIG employees receiving bonuses. Get in front of a camera and pantomime your best false indignation. Hold hearings and publicly condemn these people as scumbags who ruined the economy. Portray them as the cause of the whole problem. Publicly humiliate them, trump up some charges for a show trial, garnish their wages or modify the tax laws to retroactively collect the bonus money (like that will ever pass), and deliver some ready-made-for-TV justice.

"Get in front of a camera and pantomime your best false indignation."

And keep your seat in Congress. I’m not indicting every congressman and senator. And I do feel the Republicans deserve more of the blame for their ideological belief that any government scrutiny of business is unwarranted. I’m just saying the public better wise up to how it’s being duped into believing that punishing those who paid or took bonus money is somehow going to solve the problems affecting the economy.

Phil Gramm and the Republican Congress passed legislation explicitly deregulating credit default swaps in the year 2000- and President Clinton signed it. That’s the outrage! Not the bonuses. A $70 trillion market in credit default swaps sprang up overnight with no regulatory agency to force financial companies to prove they had the assets to cover their liabilities. Risk and profit were calculated to the nth degree by ambitious Wall Street traders looking to get ahead of their peers. The new financial instruments were reliable- the computer models proved it- and would make everyone in on the deal immensely rich. Where was the American public then when this bill of goods was being sold?

The Democrats need to stop acting like they are totally innocent and share no liability for this mess. They take plenty of money from the financial sector too- especially the ones on the East Coast. And the Republicans need to stop using the word “socialism” pejoratively, as if conjuring up a bogie man is going to solve this problem. And the American voter better wise up to the fact that poor policy decisions can backfire in his face, no matter if it appeals to his sense of American superiority or party loyalty.

That’s my two cents.

Pearl Jam At Soldier Field, 1995 Part 1

Erik — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 22:00:00 GMT

[An innocuous comment at my Super Bowl party spawned a trip down memory lane. Through a series of posts I'll tell the story of seeing Pearl Jam live in 1995 at Soldier Field, Chicago.]

The Return of Good Music

I was in high school when Pearl Jam released their first album, Ten. I remember seeing them perform Alive, from the album, on Saturday Night Live. I was blown away by the energy and the attitude- and most importantly, the music. It was so much better than what was on the radio at the time.

It was 1992 and I thought to myself, "Good music has returned." I'd developed some sense of music history over the last few years. I had become a huge Led Zeppelin fan. I was into the Stones. I liked the boogie blues albums ZZ Top did in the Seventies. I loved the Sixties music of my parents' generation. I could not find much to like in the Eighties.

I was beginning to delve into the music of Metallica- all of it from the Eighties. Among pop groups, I think INXS managed to make some good music. Beyond that? ... a real void. I felt that musicians in the Eighties had become mesmerized by new computer technology and fell victim to the "just because you can doesn't mean you should" vice of too much overdubbing, synthesizer keyboards, and electronic drumbeats.

Then Pearl Jam came along with their long hair, grunge clothes, "pissed at the world" teenage rage, layered and loud guitars, and supurb front-man Eddie Vedder, who wrote intelligent lyrics and could actually sing them. The whole band had a presence about them that made you stop what you were doing and listen or watch.

The radio stations insisted on calling their music "Alternative" - an alternative, I suppose, to the candy pop and androgynous disco music of the Eighties. But really, it was just fucking good rock 'n roll!

A Unique Olympic Event: Crying

Erik — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:00:00 GMT

[A recent e-mail exchange with my brother in law, J.]

Me: Great headline: After Skating, a Unique Olympic Event: Crying

Yeah, I’m not watching that.

J: The key line:

Some national skating federations put their skaters through training for the kiss-and-cry. Mark Ladwig, who skates with Amanda Evora in pairs, said he had attended a U.S. Figure Skating training program in which skaters participated in a mock kiss-and-cry.

Ironic, figure skating/ice dancing is the only winter sport in the games that doesn't involve protective gear (no hats, helmets, goggles, gloves), unless you want to count the protective sheathes they put on their skate blades after they leave the rink...

...even in curling they wear protective work gloves, but ok, even if I gave you that one, you still don't see them crying. That would be like crying in a bar after you lose a game of darts.

Me: "Like crying in a bar after you lose a game of darts." Ha ha! Exactly right.

The only good thing about ice skating are the hot skaters. I haven’t watched this year to know if there are any. Over the weekend NBC cut away from the games to go to Extra, or whatever their Hollywood gossip show is. I was about to turn it off but they were interviewing Lindsey Vonn, so I left it on. Then they do a "Where is she now?" segment on Katarina Witt, the German ice skater from way back when. Whenever I hear her name I think of my Uncle B.

"She can fall flat on her ass and she still gets a 10 from me."

They show some old film, show some censored Playboy photos, then cut to Katarina and the interviewer walking on the street. They stop in a bakery. The interviewer asks Katarina what she’d like. She asks for a cup of coffee and a muffin. They freeze the tape and draw a circle around the muffin. "Pay attention," the interviewer says in voice-over, "This will come into play later."

Yada, yada, yada, the interviewer asks her where her gold medals are. She says she’s not sure. Probably in a box with the rest of her trophies. Then she adds, "But I used to know where they were."

"Used to?"

"Sometimes, if I was out with a guy and I really liked him," she says in that sexy accent of hers, "I’d ask if he wanted to come back to my place to see my gold medals."

The interviewer starts laughing. "Did it work?"

"He never saw my medals."

At this the interviewer loses it. Laughs loudly, turns a shade red. Customers stare. Finally he composes himself, looks at the plate in front of Katarina, and asks "Can I have some of your muffin?"

She slaps his arm. "Shame! I understand the language well enough..."

Rahm Emanuel's "Apology"

Erik — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 01:30:00 GMT

The Democrats are a bunch of pussies. They cower at the mere threat of a filibuster. If you believe in a public option, I say, then put it to a fucking vote. Let the Republicans make asses of themselves reading from the telephone book or whatever the hell they'd do to block health care reform. "Oh no, they're going to filibuster." Horror of horrors! "Let's drop the subject."

The most liberal Democrats, ugh... When they realized they weren't going to get everything they wanted in the health care bill, they went crying to the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. Jesus Christ! Mommy has abandoned me. Who will protect me?

I bet Rahm Emanuel loves this Saturday Night Live sketch. He probably has it playing in a loop in his office. Brilliant.

What I should have called you are fucking babies. Stupid, fucking babies who can't keep their mouths shut. You went to the Wall Street Journal with this, you fucking turncoats?! The Wall Street Journal?

I'm trying to get shit done here. And I know we're not moving as fast as you want on health care, but maybe you've noticed the Republicans are trying to paint us as Soviet crack dealers. I've already got them crawling up my ass and now you want in too? I've got so many legislators in my colon I need sixty votes just to take a shit. So fuck you!

...

[To Sarah Palin]

So now I'm waiting for your apology you fucking harpy. Or do you forget saying my brother Zeke supports death panels and his philosophy was downright evil? Well, he's a fucking doctor who's dedicated his life to helping people, not a quitter who couldn't finish dinner. So why don't you stick to collecting checks for your stupid Tea Party speeches, you half a fuck politician.

Also, you come after me on Facebook? What are you, fourteen? Here's a status update: Grow the fuck up! Poke me again and I will write shit on your wall so obscene your computer will cry. Go back to the tundra you fucking gimmick!

In conclusion, boo-fucking-hoo. Get over it.

"Not a quitter who couldn't finish dinner." Ha ha, my favorite line. The Democrats need more politicians like Rahm Emanuel. With cojones.