Competitive Me

I am the eldest of five siblings. My three youngest siblings, two brothers and a sister, all competed in varsity-level high school athletics in at least two sports. I've written about my own athletic experiences before.

In the past two years, two family friends have joined the ranks of Division I NCAA athletics. At least one of my brothers could have played football at the Div. IAA level (probably). When we were visiting with one of these student-athletes, The Boss was singing the athletic praises of his progeny.

At a certain point, The Boss pointed at me and said that I was a pretty good athlete. We both knew that this wasn't the case. I was a pudgy kid growing up and didn't really come out of it until my mid-20s. Even then, in the greatest physical condition of my life, I was not a good athlete. What I was great at was a competitor. I've always been a great competitor.

It's not easy being a competitor without talent. It makes you a terrible teammate. In graduate school I left a shattered Ultimate Frisbee team in my wake. I'll never understand people who like to practice, who want to go out and kick a ball around or have a catch without preparation for anything. You have to practice if you want to be good. If you want to compete, you have to have a certain amount of skill.

But when you're a competitor, losing is not fun. Practicing twice a week in order to get thumped 21-3 isn't fun. I've never understood my teammates who liked to go out there and just run around. If you're not interesting in winning, then why are you playing? Playing a close match and then losing isn't fun, but it's rewarding in the moment. Being non-competitive isn't fun.

A couple of weeks ago, a good friend invited me to play indoor soccer with him. My wife did not think that was a good idea. When we were in college, we all played co-ed intramural soccer on another team that lacked talent and skill. In that league, I got so frustrated on game that I semi-accidentally laid out a opposing player while playing defense. This wouldn't have been such a big deal if that player hadn't have been a girl.

I'm approaching middle age, now. My competitive juices are still high, but the outlets for that competitive drive are reducing. I do not want to be that sad 35-year-old at the YMCA trying to run with guys in their early 20s in pickup basketball games. I'm sure that I'm not alone in this. The drive to compete always outpaces our ability to do so. This explains why golf is so popular with men of a certain age, the free Texas Hold'em tournaments at many bars on Monday or Tuesday nights, and the aged gentlemen who populate so many racquetball courts.

I think this also explains the sudden, runaway popularity of on-line gaming. It's not just college students who are gobbling up copies of Madden 10. A commercial in regular rotation features men in their early 30s unpacking Madden shortly after the game becomes available at midnight (and, interestingly, denying it to one another). One of the features of the last two editions of Madden has been expanded on-line game play. For a small fee, content providers will match you with players of similar skill set for a competitive game. The providers track your ranking and your record. Some services even allow you to taunt your opponent over an add-on microphone headset.

Playing Madden on-line is a fun and frustrating experience. But it doesn't replace being able to actually compete. I just don't think that I'm really ready to hang it up yet. I'll see you on the court at the Y.

Summer Movie Reviews: Bruno

It's difficult to categorize Sacha Baron Cohen. With his combination of completely developed characters and surprise arrivals in real situations, he's been compared to Andy Kaufman. His comedic roles in fictional movies such as Sweeney Todd and Talladega Nights: The Legend of Ricky Bobby suggests that he's a gifted comic actor as well as a gifted, fearless improvisationalist.

The lucky ones among you knew about Cohen from his three-season run on HBO's Da Ali G Show, where he portrayed a variety of clueless characters in white-boy hip-hopper Ali G, Kazakh reporter Borat, and gay Austrian fashionista Bruno. All three have transitioned into feature films, but while Ali G's feature-length 2002 outing was quickly forgotten and remains unseen by this reviewer, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan was an enormous success, making over $26 million in its opening weekend, over $128 million in American box office, and making a gigantic star out of the chameleon in the title role.

The reasons for the success of Borat is a little difficult to describe. Without question, Bruno was a hilarious character, but the most memorable moments in that film aren't the things that Bruno does, but the things that Bruno somehow convinces his victims to do. The genius of Cohen's work here is to hold up a mirror not only to the ridiculousness and close-mindedness of rural, red-state America, but also to turn the same lens on the liberal elites and their seeming willingness to smooth over awkward cultural differences. Borat came out at a perfect time. In late 2006, America had largely turned on the swaggering cowboy image of American foreign policy under the Bush Administration, and Borat seemed to satirize some of those assumptions. Bruno comes out in a very different atmosphere.

While Borat seemed backward, he was largely harmless. He comes from a foreign country that most Americans have never heard of (and possibly assume is made up), and his views seem quaint, like something a particularly senile great-uncle would express. Bruno is, instead, in his late 20s and seems largely economically empowered. He's also very, very upfront about his sexuality.

As with Borat, the plot of Bruno is largely unneccessary and uninteresting. One wonders why Cohen and his collaborators even bother putting together a narrative at all. It would seem just as useful to use the more episodic logic of the Jackass series of films. But, there is a plot, so let me summarize it: After an incident at Milan Fashion Week, Bruno is fired from his job as a gay fashion icon in his beloved Austria. As a reaction, he decides that his best option is to go to America and become a celebrity. This leads him on various adventures, from being an extra on NBC's Medium, to trying to trick former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul into making a sex tape, to brokering peace in the Middle East. Along the way, he learns an important lesson about life and love.

If you are afraid of the male organ, this is not the movie for you. The first 10 minutes of the film are some of the most provocative and offensive that I have seen in a mainstream picture. Or any picture. It's difficult to get a bead on the politics of Bruno. Bruno is a charicature of the right-wing's view of homosexuality and what gay sex is. If Bruno had been a bigger hit, this question probably would have been discussed more in the popular culture.

When I went to see this film in a local cinema, my ID was checked at the door and again when I entered the theatre. This movie is not appropriate for any children, and it's difficult to understand how this walked away with an R rating instead of an NC-17. Despite the difficulty getting in, my Friday afternoon screening was packed with people. There was laughter in the audience, but it's difficult to tell how much of it was genuine. Bruno is such an in-your-face experience that frequently the only response is laughter, but I found myself checking the reactions of members of the audience more than I have in almost any movie.

Which isn't to say that Bruno isn't a very, very funny movie. The film is at its funniest when Cohen takes aim at those who broker in celebrity or desperately seek celebrity for themselves or others. The standout moments for me were when Bruno speaks to a couple of celebrity consultants on what will be the next big issue ("George Clooney has Darfur. I'm looking for Dar-five."), and a hilarious sequence when Bruno asks parents what their children would be willing to do to get cast in a photo shoot.

My feeling is that America responded with some ambivalence to Bruno. This has something to do with the rank sexuality on display in the movie; something with which Americans continue to struggle with. While America is currently engaged in a deep debate about health care, it's certainly true that it wasn't long ago that the status of America's gays were at the forefront of the debate. Ultimately, Bruno seems much more unfocused than Borat, which seemed to have a clear thesis. Despite this lack of focus, Bruno is a successful, funny movie, that you'll never, ever, ever seen re-run on USA. What's more interesting is what Cohen will do next. His star has risen to such an extent that it's difficult to believe that he'll continue to find willing patsies for his stunts. Lets hope that he continues to find projects, because ultimately Sacha Baron Cohen is a fresh voice in American comedy.

Final Verdict: Better than Pineapple Express but not as good as Hellboy 2: The Golden Army.

Summer Movie Reviews: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

It's not clear whether Michael Bay set out to destroy cinema with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen or if it was merely a happy accident.

It's become popular sport to fix Michael Bay in critical crosshairs and fire away. There's no question that Bad Boys and Bad Boys II are terrible, terrible movies. And that The Island and Pearl Harbor are bloated abmominations. But when Bay makes contact, he can hit the ball out of the park. Both The Rock and Armageddon are incredibly successful summer action movies. When these films come on cable, their light diversions with humor and action in equal measure. They're successful in small doses, just not at the 136 (The Rock) and 150 minute (Armageddon) doses they're originally measured in. Break those tablets in half.

When the first Transformers movie came out in 2007, I made the conscious decision that I was going to avoid paying eight bucks for a movie about giant fighting robots and watch it when it came out on DVD. When I finally got around to screening it, my ultimate reaction was to be deeply underwhelmed. It was deeply... all right. After all the critical response, I wasn't surprised that the robots looked like indistinguishable piles of wadded garbage. What I was surprised about was that the movie, despite the title, wasn't about Transformers at all. It seems an odd decision for a director to take up a project that focuses on giant fighting robots when his clear interest has nothing to do with the giant fighting robots.

So what to make of this sequel? If you liked what you got in Transformers, then you'll probably like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. If you were lukewarm about the first film, then there are probably some questions that you want to ask yourself:

Are you interested in the Tranformers themselves? If your answer is yes, then this is not the film for you. Yes, this film has transformers in them, but they're almost always in the background doing something indistinguishable. The robots have no personalities and no features that make them unique. This movie could feature 10 different sentient, alien robots or 50 and I couldn't really argue with you one way or the other. Michael Bay cares not for giant fighting alien robots.

Are you interested in Shia LaBeouf's Sam Witwicky? If so, then welcome to your dream. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is almost exclusively about Sam's adventures. The camera is almost exclusively concerned with him. Why anyone should care about Sam is never made exclusively clear, but he talks to a lot of people. If you're interested in how many hot coeds at Princeton University (and every woman at Princeton is seven hundred times hotter than any Pac 10 or SEC coed) are consumed with getting into Sam's britches, you've found your movie.

Are you interested in movies with plot? Then stay away from this film. Even by standards of summer action flicks, this movie lacks anything that resembles a sensible plot. There are a couple of Maguffins that have to be found for some reason, and there's a lot of running around, but there's not much rhyme or reason to it. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is the kind of movie that shows a Kosher deli that features an icebox full of frozen pigs. A Kosher deli!

What Michael Bay is able to do is put together arresting, beautiful images. Any screen capture that you'll see from this film is remarkable. This is true of most of his other films, as well. But Bay doesn't care to use his images for any larger purpose. They don't build toward emotion or meaning. They are a sequence of arresting images without a reason for being. It's difficult to tell whether Bay hates his audience, or merely doesn't really care that they exist.

There's a lot to hate about this movie, whether it's the regressive gender and racial stereotypes, the lack of any kind of logical story, the loud stupidity of it, the crass attempts at humor (why would a giant composite robot need testicles?), the horrifying spectacle of nameless soldiers drowning, or the 150 minute run time. What there is to like is that... well, Megan Fox is easy on the eyes and filmed in the most explotatitve way possible, and there are two or three generally entertaining moments scattered among the intiminable 150 minute run time.

Final Verdict: (Much, much) worse than Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull but (maybe) better than having your eyes consumed by a swarm of carnivorous termites.

R.I.P. Daisy Miller Buchanan Feneck Kamper

We will miss you very, very, very much. Heaven doesn't know the kind of trouble they're in for.

My Top 10 Favorite Movies of All Time

On the eve of my family's annual vacation to California (which I'm sorry to say I am not able to attend this year), I thought I'd join in on their project of ranking everyone's Top 10 movies of all time. Here is my personal, subjective list. The list is submitted for entertainment purposes only and should not be used as a guide for what are or are not "good movies." You're reading a guy who in all likelihood is going to be seeing Year One this weekend, non-ironically.

1. Pulp Fiction (1994) Quentin Tarantino's breakthrough film entered the pop cultural mainstream quickly, and its images remain indelible fifteen years later. While in memory this movie seems schizophrenic in its execution, the real mastery of the film is how well it fits together in practice. There are few cooler characters in cinema than Samuel L. Jackson's Jules Winnfield. Also one of the best soundtracks from any movie ever.
   
2. Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) Of all of Stanley Kubrick's fantastic movies, I think that Strangelove remains the most approachable. One hundred and fifty years from now, when students wonder what the Cold War was like, I hope that they turn to this movie. It's incredible that this movie was made in 1964, when the Cold War was still thirty-five years from coming to an end. Deeply, darkly funny, with a fantastic early appearance by James Earl Jones.
   
3. Almost Famous (2000) I saw this movie with a good friend when he was going through a troubled weekend. This was one of the first movies where I felt that the filmmaker was really speaking to my own experience. In Almost Famous, Cameron Crowe made a movie that I think perfectly described the experience of being a bright young man. This is a special, special movie to me. Another film with a remarkable soundtrack.
   
4. Aliens (1986) There are great science fiction movies, and great action movies, but James Cameron here made a great science fiction action movie. Ridley Scott's Alien feels a little slow and dated today, but this sequel holds up excellently. Heroine Ellen Ripley remains one of the most powerful female figures in cinema, and it's a shame that there haven't been more characters to carry her tradition forward into the 21st Century.
   
5. Jaws (1975) Another nearly perfect film. I've seen this movie maybe fifteen times in the past five years, and I find more things to enjoy about it every year. Spielberg brought a television aesthetic to the big screen, and the techniques he brought remain salient nearly thirty-five years later. Robert Shaw's Quint is a fantastic character that has few peers.
   
6. Goodfellas (1990) Few movies are as quotable as this Martin Scorcese classic. Another movie with a fantastic soundtrack, Goodfellas presents an apotheosis of the Scorcese method that combines the best parts of his earlier work in The Color of Money (a lost classic) and Raging Bull (which is better in memory perhaps than it is in fact).
   
7. Silence of the Lambs (1991) This is a film that constant re-airing on cable has not ruined. Every time it comes on, no matter how recently I've seen it, this Jonathan Demme film is riveting. Too much credit is perhaps given today to the admittedly great performance by Anthony Hopkins, when the script is excellently put together and the rest of the cast is well-utilized.
   
8. Say Anything (1989) I first saw this film when I was a very young man trying to figure out how I should operate in the world I was growing into. John Cusack's Lloyd Dobler gave me a kind of framework for the man that I wanted to become. Yes, he's a little bit of a doormat, and yes, Cusack's Dobler has ruined a generation of women on what a man should be like (if you haven't ever read Chuck Klosterman's "This Is Emo" on the subject, you really should). But anyone who says that this movie isn't good needs to re-watch the dinner scene with John Mahoney, Ione Skye, and Cusack.
   
9. Heat (1995) A great thriller from Michael Mann. A movie with one of the all-time great ensemble casts (Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino, Val Kilmer, Jon Voight, Amy Brenneman, Ashley Judd, Natalie Portman, etc., etc), it really described "cool" to me for a really long time. The dialogue crackles, even if Pacino's Detective Hanna hasn't aged as well as maybe we could have hoped.
   
10. The Princess Bride (1987) Not loving The Princess Bride says more about the person who doesn't love it than it does about the film. This is a movie that any person, of any age, should find something to love inside. The William Goldman novel is a pleasure to read, but the addition of the framing device of a grandfather reading to his sick, fiesty grandson really takes this film over the top. I've never really been able to understand why Carey Elwes and Robin Wright never became bigger movie stars.
    

Honorable Mentions: Unforgiven (1992), The Incredibles (2004), Moulin Rouge! (2001), Se7en (1995), Field of Dreams (1989).

Looking at my list, a couple of things occur to me. One is that apparently it's true that things are never as good as they were when the individual was growing up. Seven of the ten movies on my list were released between my seventh and fifteenth birthdays. I want to say that this is because the years of 1987 and 1995 were a Second Golden Age for films, but I think that this is because these are movies that I associate with a certain time in my life. They were movies that really taught me how to love movies, and they happen to be ones I return to.

I also think that I'm especially attacted to movies with excellent pop soundtracks. I'm one of the few people I know who regularly buy movie soundtracks, and Goodfells and Pulp Fiction especially are movies that take advantage of their soundtracks, making certain songs impossible to hear without imagining their associated scenes. The two Cameron Crowe movies are very similar for me.

Finally, I'm going to admit that I'm a blatant apologist for Cameron Crowe. While I haven't seen Singles (and can't get anyone to watch it with me), I will make excuses for every single one of his films and how they're underappreciated. Yes, even Vanilla Sky and Elizabethtown.

Super Summer Movie Reviews: Up, Land of the Lost, Drag Me To Hell

Let me begin by saying that afternoon television during the summer is some dire, dire straits. Terrible. And the prime-time viewing isn't much better. Surprisingly, it's better at the end of the week (with Top Chef Masters, Burn Notice, and Harper's Island on Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday), which means that we can skip the cinema during the weekend and pick up with the much lighter crowds during the week, when I should really be working, but Leah gets bored.

Leah and I did make it out to the AMC Mesa Grand Cinemas on opening weekend to see the new Pixar outing Up. We are running out of superlatives to lay on Pixar movies. It would be hard to surpass a movie that was as excellent as last summer's masterpiece, WallE. So Pixar didn't really bother to try. Instead of a cosmic love story, Pixar brings us an intimate portrait of a man dealing with his grief.

The movie begins with 10 of the most affecting minutes in recent memory. A young man who fancies himself an adventurer runs into a young woman named Ellie, who immediately forge a friendship that, we discover in montage, develops into a romance, then a thirty-plus year marraige. And then the Carl Fredrickson, now old and voiced by Ed Asner, is left a widower. He becomes largely a shut-in in his own home, mourning his life partner and the great adventure they never took: to an unexpored South American wilderness.

The crotchety man eventually finds his home surrounded by the encroaching city, in images that evoke the children's story The Little Red House. When Carl assaults a worker on a neighboring construction site (the sight of blood in a cartoon is striking), he is compelled to abandon his home (to whom he speaks as an avatar for his lost wife) and is moved into an assistated living facility. But before the sentence can be carried out, Fredrickson tethers several thousand balloons to his house and releases them, sending him and a certain stowaway on their adventure, which features a pack of talking dogs, an eight-foot tropical bird, and an eighty-foot dirigible.

Visually, Up reminds me of The Incredibles, which was anoter fantastic Pixar film, but I think that this is a movie that makes fewer compromises than any of the Pixar movies other than WallE. It would have been easy for a lesser studio to allow the house to become the emotional stand-in for Ellie, but the filmmakers here resist that urge. When Carl speaks to the house, it remains simply a house to us, which makes his loneliness that much more effecting for the audience.

Up leads to a fairly predictible final act, but, as with most of the best Pixar movies, the first two acts are well-observed enough to redeem the ultimate sop thrown to the kids, who are (ostensibly) the target audience for the film.

Final Verdict: Better than Iron Man, not quite as good as The Dark Knight.

I have no memory of the (un?)intentionally cheesy television series Land of the Lost. To the best of my knowledge, I've never seen it. But I've heard enough from others to have some idea what a "Sleestak" was before I walked into the theatre. I'd also seen enough Will Farrell comedies to understand that Farrell is very much like pizza: even when he's bad, he's still pretty good.

The plot of the film is largely beside the point. It's kind of a shaggy dog, but here it is: Farrell is Dr. Rick Marshall, who has an outre theory about alternate universes. After he shares his theory on the Today show with Matt Lauer, his career goes down in flames (although he gains YouTube immortality). Marshall ends up performing science demonstrations for children at the museum at the LaBrea Tar Pits, until a comely PhD student (Anna Friel) convinces him that there is evidence supporting his theory. They travel to a roadside attraction, where they accidentially bring the attraction huckster (Danny McBride) to the titular Land of the Lost. Hijinks ensue.

The issue with Will Farrell movies is that it's difficult to ascertain whether the preview represents merely the hilarity that isn't seen (such as in Anchorman or Talledega Nights) or whether there is very little there there after the ten good minutes that you get from assembling the different clips from the preivews together (Stepbrothers, Semi-Pro, Blades of Glory, etc., etc.). Land of the Lost falls firmly into this latter camp. The previews suckered our $14 out of our pockets, but we left feeling rather empty and disappointed. Not a terrible way to spend a Monday mid-day, but probably not the best way, either.

Final Verdict: Not as good as The Incredible Hulk, and maybe slightly better than Stepbrothers.

The Sam Raimi cult has escaped me for nearly 30 years now. I've seen Army of Darkness, and thought it was pretty funny and interestingly chaotic. The Spiderman movies were fun for what they were and kind of went off the rails with the third entry. 2000's The Gift, with Cate Blanchett, is a really quality movie. But I've never really understood the hipster obsession with the guy. Maybe I need to break down an evenually rent the Evil Dead movies. I'll do that... next weekend. Are people so forgiving of the guy who brought America The Quick and the Dead and For the Love of the Game?

Raimi's latest effort returns him to the horror genre. Drag Me To Hell stars Alison Lohman (who has one of those faces that constantly tickles the back of my mind and makes me wonder where I've seen her before. She's appeared as the younger princess [I think] in Beowulf, but I may instead remember her as the young love interest in Big Fish. I have no idea.) as Christine Brown. Christine is an ambitious bank clerk whose boss believes that she might not be quite tough enough to take over as Assistant Manager. To prove her backbone, she denies a mortgage extension to a pathetic Gypsy woman. In revenge, the Gypsy woman places a curse on Brown that will last three days before she is... well, the title will give you the idea.

Raimi seems at his best when he's daring his audience to believe what is actually happening on screen. I am not a horror movie afficionado, but this film seems to occupy a different space than more traditional horror movies like the Halloween series or the torture porn series like Saw. I'm told that Raimi is the master of horror comedy, but this movie doesn't offer a lot of scares, or a lot of laughs. There are moments (like when characters refer to Christine's past as a heavy farm girl) that seem undeveloped and make me wonder whether a director's cut of this movie might be more successful. Lohman is an appealing presence as far as she goes, as is her professor boyfriend Justin Long.

Ultimately, Drag Me To Hell is the kind of likeable, forgettable movie that you probably won't regret seeing, but won't stay with you in any meaningful way. It seems like the kind of movie that was really, really difficult to market. This will make a fine rental for millions of Americans in six months.

Final Verdict: Better than Pineapple Express, but not as good as Hellboy 2: The Golden Army.

Summer Movie Reviews: Terminator: Salvation

The new McG movie Terminator:Salvation doesn't really have a reason to exist. It suffers from the same irrelevance that Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines suffered from. Viewers who have seen the first two Terminators (which are among the best of the sci-fi action genre and directed by James Cameron) know that Skynet eventually becomes self-aware and brings about Judgement Day, pre-emtively launching nuclear strikes against humanity, or something.

Terminator: Salvation picks up some time after Judgement Day happens. The Resistance has been fromed, but John Connor (Christian Bale) is not the prophesied leader of the resistence. He leads only a band of freedom fighters somewhere in the American southwest (ostensibly), taking his orders from a submarine hiding beneath the Pacific and issuing orders across the world (apparently). The bulk of the movie follows Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), who wakes suddenly in the Los Angeles area after we had seen him executed by leathal injection sometime in the 1990s in the film's prologue.

If none of this makes sense, it is not for my lack of trying as much as the filmmaker's. Whether you'll like this movie really will depend on how much you liked Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. If you go to a Terminator movie looking to watch fighting robots and humans trying to fight largely indestructable robots, and to see the fighting humans/robots destroy block upon city block, you'll likely be entertained. If you're interested in caring about these characters, you're probably out of luck.

CHUD.com has a great write-up of what happened with the development of Terminator:Salvation and some theories about why the film ultimately went so far off the rails. What is really original and interesting about this film is this is the first glance we really get of Skynet. It's telling that Skynet, visiged in part by Helena Bonham Carter, is probably the most human presence in the movie's run-time. It definitely had the best screen presence and the most insightful ideas about how humanity functions.

The biggest failing of the film is that, ultimately, McG and his collaborators don't really make the argument for why the audience should cheer for John Connor & Co. over Skynet.

Final Verdict: Better than Stepbrothers, but not as good as The Incredible Hulk.

Man, I'm missing me some comic book movies.

Teaching Talk: Designing a Syllabus

The first assignment I ask my ENG 101 students to write is a two-page brochure on the topic of "So You've Decided to Teach Me English." It's a fun assignment for the students to perform, I think. I have them write a column on their personal biography, their interests, and their writing experiences.

One thing that almost always comes up is that students will invariably say, "I am good at writing about things that I'm interested in, but too often I get frustrated when teachers assign me work that I don't care about." As an instructor, this is challenging, because there's no way that I can tailor a classroom experience to 26 different students and their varying interests.

Not that I haven't tried in the past. When I first started teaching, I let the students write about whatever they desired, as long as the essays were of the type that I'd defined by the syllabus. Paradoxically, the students tended to be paralyzed by indecision. Without having some limit on their field of vision, they ultimately procrastinated on choosing a topic until they selected whatever seemed to be in front of them at the time. Once, I had a compare & contrast essay submitted to me on the difference between shell-toe sneakers and some other kind.

More recently, I've decided that I'd narrow their options some. It's hard. My dad is driven crazy by what I ask my students to do because I'm not asking anyone to write about Shakespeare or something. He doesn't understand that ENG 101 is not, really, an English class. It's definitely not a literature class. Among my one hundred students, maybe five are interested in pursuing English as a major. These students have also been discouraged for the last five-plus years by thinking that the essay is a chore that you write in response to a text that they didn't care about and likely didn't even read. They can put together a five-paragraph essay that you describe to them, but that's not the kind of person that I want to create when they leave my classroom.

So I've given them larger topics for discussion for each essay. The last two years, students have written on sports (with examples from Chuck Klosterman and David Foster Wallace), education, gender issues, and something political that I'm generally deciding at the last possible moment (this year it was evaluating Obama's first 100 days). There are still students who resist, but there's not much I can do about that. My general hope is that I can limit their options, and then allow my own promiscuous interests ("Promiscuous Boy" was nearly the name for this very blog) and my enthusiasm to carry them along the road.

I'm also teaching a summer session of ENG 101, beginning June 1. In the past, I've focused on movies during the summer (for reasons that readers of this blog should find obvious). After doing that for two years, I've come to the conclusion that it's a little much to ask students to focus on movies for five straight weeks and 20-30 pages of writing.

This summer, I'm going to try letting their first two essays be about movies. The first one is about an experience of going to the cinema. The second is one of my favorites: comparing Jaws to a summer blockbuster of their choice. Then I'm going to try something new. I think I'm going to ask them to evaluate their experience as a tourist. I'm not sure what I'll have them read as an example, but I'm thinking I'll give them one of David Foster Wallace's essays, either "Ticket to the Fair" or "Consider the Lobster." Finally, I'm going to ask them to critique an album released in the last two years, adding research as they go.

I'm pretty excited. It's always fun to vary the syllabus. A five-week summer session is pretty grueling for students who have been educated for (likely) the past 14 years. The students really don't have a chance to process what they're learning like they are more able to do in a traditional semester.

I think all teachers design (or should design) their courses to appeal to the students that they were (or they remember themselves being). I think this leads me to challenge my students more than they really expect. But I think the 18 year old me would like the amount of independent work that I ask students to do, even if he would have loathed the peer review process that the college environment requires.

Summer Movie Reviews: Angels and Demons

It's refreshing to go and see a movie that isn't made with people like myself in mind.

I am a 29-year-old, white, upper-middle class male. For over ten years, almost every film and television series has been specially calibrated to appeal to me, or at least, someone like me. When I was in college, I'd occasionally take free movie passes for films that were in post production and the studio would want to preview for test audiences. I saw Pitch Black, Gone in 60 Seconds, Payback, and a couple other movies this way. They were all fine, but the one thing that I noticed that separated me from the studios' ideal moviegoer was that I see upwards of thirty first-run movies a year. I'm guessing this puts me well above the average.

Angels and Demons is the follow-up to The DaVinci Code, and while the original Dan Brown novel takes place before the events of The DaVinci Code, A&D is set a couple of years later, which is alluded to through a handful of knowing glances between the hero Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and a handful of Vatican officials (Stellan Skarsgard and Armin Mueller-Stahl). The plot is pretty stupid: the pope has died, and as the College of Cardinals convenes to nominate a new pope, an ancient group called the Illuminati have kidnapped the four most likely successors, as well as a canister of anti-matter, which has the capability of vaporizing Vatican City "in light" (get it? They're the "Illuminati"? Light? This is the level that Angels and Demons functions on). Tom Hanks and a comely physicist (Ayelet Zurer) are enlisted by the Vatican police to locate the missing Cardinals as well as to recover the antimatter before it is released at midnight.

The DaVinci Code worked like a solid puzzle videogame, like Myst. There were puzzles to be solved, unlocking doors and solving riddles to get to the next level of the story. Where The DaVinci Code probably failed was in underestimating the intelligence of their audience. In case you didn't understand that a "V" was the cup, and the "A" was the arrow, director Ron Howard would helpfully(?) highlight the solutions for you. Thanks, Ron.

Angels and Demons is for people who found the puzzles and solutions in DaVinci too confusing. The puzzles are totally absent, replaced with angels who point the way to every solution. The dramatic moments in Angels and Demons is exclusively people standing in various locales around Rome, looking around for the next arrow to point the way. Because the threats only come every hour on the hour, after one puzzle is solved, the heroes stand around for 45 minutes until panickingly deciding that they better go get the next clue.

Leah and I were the youngest adults in the theatre at our 3:30 screening on Sunday. The group in front of us was four women in their late 60s or early 70s. This is a movie designed for them. It's in many ways a big-screen version of CSI: the characters are largely ciphers, but there is an urgent mystery in a foreign locale. These are the kinds of mystery novels that my grandmother adores.

Also like CSI, Angels and Demons is incredibly violent. People are branded, burned alive, drowned, shot, an eye is removed from a corpse's head. It's shocking that this movie earned a PG-13 rating. Apparently you can brand four elderly men and it's okay for the kids to see, but if you use the F-word or show a booby, then that's only safe for adults.

For performances, Tom Hanks brings less to Robert Langdon in this film than he did in the previous one. I wonder, after failing to show interest in adorable Audrey Tatou in the first film and not giving Ms. Zurer a second glance in this one, whether Langdon is supposed to be gay. Perhaps he's just studious? The most enjoyable performances come from Skarsgard and Mueller-Stahl, although Ewan MacGregor is also enjoyable as a young priest invested with the administrative powers of the pope until a new one is found.

If you haven't seen Angels and Demons by now, there's really no reason to. Go see the new Terminator movie.

Final Verdict: Not as good as Stepbrothers, but (probably) better than Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

NFL Pre-Camp Power Rankings

The NFL Draft is over, and teams are beginning their offseason Organized Training Activities (OTAs). These are largely voluntary, but there will be a handful of players who are lost for the season during this time, and there will be some stories about players who are staying away because they have contract squabbles (like the Arizona Cardinals' own Anquan Boldin and Darnell Dockett).

But, this little lull between the draft and training camps/rookie contract holdouts gives a good time to put together a little unnecessary, uninformative, premature NFL Power Rankings.

1. New England Patriots - Got younger on defense and return the best player in the NFL in quaterback Tom Brady.
   
2. New York Giants - Did an excellent job in adding to their strength along the defensive line through free agency. The only question is whether Eli Manning can make the big play when he needs to, and whether the weapons are there on the outside for him to be able to.
   
3. Pittsburgh Steelers - The defending champs added depth through the draft, but are beginning a transition on the defensive side of the football. Ben Roethlisberger will continue to present matchup problems to defensive coordinators.
   
4. San Diego Chargers - I'm still not a big believer in Phillip Rivers, but their defense gets better with the return of Shawne Merriman and the addition of Larry English. They will likely get fat off of a down division, as well.
   
5. Indianapolis Colts - Turmoil on the sidelines is mitigated by the calming influence of their Hall of Fame quarterback. Their defense has to get better this season, as well.
   
6. Arizona Cardinals - The Cards should enter the season as the second-best team in their conference. The offense gets better with the addition of RB Beanie Wells, and the defense gets better with the subtraction of DC Clancy Pendergast.
   
7. Philadelphia Eagles - With perhaps the most talented offensive line in the NFL and a great tandem of running backs, Donovan McNabb is running out of excuses to win. If Jim Johnson does not return to his defensive coordinator duties, this ranking could drop.
   
8. Minnesota Vikings - I like the addition of Percy Harvin, and I think the Vikings' defense will remain the best in their division. It shouldn't matter who their quarterback is, because Adrian Peterson should contend for NFL MVP honors in his third season.
   
9. Tennessee Titans - Losing DT Albert Haynesworth will hurt, but this team is too well-coached and well-prepared to slip too much.
   
10. Dallas Cowboys - Cutting WR Terrell Owens should help the Cowboys become a better team by allowing them to get the ball out of the hands of Tony Romo and into the hands of Marion Barber. Whether that actually happens is an open question.
    
11. Baltimore Ravens - I expect QB Joe Flacco to regress some in his second season as teams work to figure him out. I wonder if they have the playmaking ability on offense to make up for the departure of Rex Ryan.
    
12. Miami Dolphins - This is another team that isn't going to surprise anyone. It's possible that winning last season sets this team back in the long term. I'm not sure you can win in the AFC East with Ted Ginn, Jr. and Greg Camarillo as your starting wideouts.
    
13. Carolina Panthers - I like John Fox, I like Steve Smith, and I like the Carolina Panthers. But it's not clear that this defense is ready for prime time, and it's possible that Franchise Player Julius Peppers burns this team to the ground.
    
14. Washington Redskins - This should be the sleeper team of the 2009 season. I like Jason Campbell, and I like Clinton Portis. They have a solid defense and very good cornerbacks. The question is whether this team has the mental toughness to overcome adversity.
    
15. Houston Texans - This is the team that again will be the well-publicized sleeper of the 2009 offseason. They can be very good, but it's asking a lot for quarterback Matt Schaub to stay healthy for 16 games to lead the team.
    
16. Atlanta Falcons - I expect Matt Ryan to experience a slight sophomore slump and for Michael Turner not to be the dynamic back he was the year before. More than that, I don't think that the Falcons' defense is going to be able to keep them competitive as they transition to a youth movement.
    
17. Green Bay Packers - Aaron Rogers can get the job done for the Packers, but it takes a couple years to transition to a 3-4 defense unless you have a very creative coordinator. Another question is whether Ryan Grant is really the runner that can lead the Packers back to consistent achievement.
    
18. Chicago Bears - Jay Cutler isn't going to see anywhere near the kind of protection he got in Denver, either from the running game or the offensive line. The bigger question is whether this aging defense can locate the fountain of youth.
    
19. New Orleans Saints - The offense is there, although they still lack a power runner (New Orleans would make a great landing place for Edgerrin James). The defense remains a work in progress, and may not take the pressure off the O this season until it's too late.
    
20. New York Jets - The pieces are in place. The offensive personnel are largely there (although they could use a more consistent outside playmaker), and the defenive personnel are there. The only question is whether this team will be able to assimilate new systems quickly enough, and how fast Kellen Clemens or Mark Sanchez can mature.
    
21. Jacksonville Jaguars - The Jackonville Jaguars secured their long-term future through their 2009 NFL draft. Unfortunately, I don't think that Jack Del Rio will be around to reap the rewards.
    
22. San Francisco 49ers - I am not a believer in Mike Singletary, because I saw his earlier iteration as Dave McGinnis.
    
23. Seattle Seahawks - This team is just too old right now to succeed. I don't like their defensive personnel, and I don't think they have the running back to close out games.
    
24. Cincinnati Bengals - The departure of T.J. Houshmanzadeh will hurt them more than people expect, and I don't think the defense is going to be there to staunch the bleeding.
    
25. Oakland Raiders - JaMarcus Russell may end up a good NFL quarterback, but I don't think the coaching staff has the wherewithal to let him develop by not passing the ball as often.
    
26. Buffalo Bills - I really want to like this team, but their offensive line is not good enough, and their division is too good.
    
27. Denver Broncos - The Denver defense is going to be a work in progress, as will Josh McDaniels. Knowshon Moreno is going to be very good, but I think this team is a year away.
    
28. Kansas City Chiefs - What about the Kansas City Chiefs is going to scare anyone? This team is going to have to purge their veteran leadership and hope that some of their young players are going to be willing to step up.
    
29. Cleveland Browns - Teams very rarely succeed when they go into the season with a quarterback controversy.
    
30. Detroit Lions - Bold prediction: the Lions will win at least one game this season. Tony Sparano will turn this team around, but the defense just is not good enough to carry the team.
    
31. St. Louis Rams - It's difficult to understand what the plan is with the Rams. They have a terrible defense and a terrible offense.
    
32. Tampa Bay Buccaneers - It's been a long time since the Bucs were the class of the NFL. It's almost impossible to guess who the best player on this team is right now. If your best player was in the Canadian Football League a year ago, you're probably not very good.
    

Summer Movies: Star Trek

On the Saturday when I saw the new J.J. Abrams reboot of the beleaguered Star Trek franchise, Paul Verhoevens's 1997 Starship Troopers was playing on the television at my gym. When I first saw Troopers, I didn't really get it. In part, this could have been because I was 17 and took everything way too seriously at the time. I couldn't get over the fact that all the characters happily accepted fascism and the form of the movie (it's presented in a kind of 129 min. recruitment film) seemed over the top.

Watched today, Starship Troopers seems a masterpiece of prescient satire, not only of the sci-fi military films like Aliens, but also of what cable news would become in the decade that follows. The characters in Troopers are all easily-recognized tropes, and easy to look at. But the movie features a number of excellent action setpieces strung together with rather silly character work by young actors like Neil Patrick Harris, Dina Meyer, Denise Richards, and Casper Van Diem. The movie doesn't beg for deeper analysis; it just exists as fun, escapist entertainment.

Star Trek wasn't originally conceived as escapist entertainment. The original television show and the many, many offspring of it (including the original movies) sought to explore the clash of cultures and responsibilities that come as man explores deeper into the world. There's a self-seriousness about the original series (and cast) that became easy to parody and has become more and more ridiculous as America's horizon became more and more reduced.

J.J. Abrams was presented with a challenge when he was asked to retool the franchise. In part, his goal was obviously to open the appeal to a larger and younger generation. Star Trek certainly has some appeal to the same types of science geeks that have always loved it, but if it going to return to the mainstream zeitgeist, it would have to find a way to speak to a generation of Americans whose parents may not even have been born when the original series aired in 1966. There's some question about whether the Star Trek universe can even be relevant after it was fully deconstructed in the very, very good Galaxy Quest (1999).

What comes to the screen is closer to Starship Troopers than it is to what Gene Roddenberry originally conceived.

The plot is largely a boondoggle for all that gets set up for later: The film begins with the birth of James Tiberius Kirk. His father and mother are on a science mission for Starfleet (Mom is already in labor) when an enormous Romluan vessel appears out of a strange phoneomenon. The Romulan vessel requests an audience with Ambassador Spock, who is unknown to the crew. The Romulan captain (played by Eric Bana in another thankless, almost unrecognizable role) destroys the ship, but not before Kirk's father is able to allow the crew to escape, sacrificing himself in the process. Later, the young Kirk is an Iowa farmboy with a rebellious streak, who eventually is convinced to join Starfleet, where he may be about to graduate in three years. He meets up with the crew that the fans have come to love: Spock, Dr. McCoy (whose presence has really been missed from the Star Trek universe), Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, and, eventually, Scotty.

The movie is beautifully composed. Abrams puts together some incredible images. The Romulan vessel is fantastic looking, and the image of the U.S.S. Enterprise being built atop the vast plains of the American midwest is breathtaking (although nonsensical when you think about it). The U.S.S. Enterprise of the new series looks more futuristic though grounded in a kind of mechanical reality. The bridge looks not unlike the FBI office in Minority Report, but deeper on the engineering decks, the ship looks like the interior of a present-day aircraft carrier, with a maze of piping and stairwells.

Most of the cast members are interesting to spend time with. Chris Pine probably has the greatest burden in playing Captain Kirk, but he resists the urge to do an impression of William Shatner. Of all the cast members, Pine comes off as having the most fun, and can be a successful axis for the franchise to spin. Zachary Quinto is excellent as Spock, although some may be waiting for him to turn into Sylar from the television show Heroes and begin eating brains. Simon Pegg is a pleasant mid-screening surprise as Scotty.

There are tons of inside jokes for casual fans or followers of the originial series or movies to note and enjoy, although this is not a movie that will alienate newcomers. Never don the red jersey, guys.

J.J. Abrams's style here is often hard to follow. Some of the fight scense are choreographed in a way that is difficult to follow for the viewer. The geography of the landscapes is hard to ascertain (personally, I'm perplexed about the scale of the Enterprise, although this has long been difficult to cobble together). The movie in itself is dynamic, but it's hard to tell sometimes what all the motion is getting us toward.

Ultimately, what the audience is left with is an attractive, interesting cast of characters that feel familiar. Abrams moves the pieces into place, but it feels like the game is just beginning. Star Trek probably feels most like (though is inferior to) Bryan Singer's 2000 film X-Men. Everything is ready to go, but there isn't really time left to get the journey started.

The primary cast is reportedly signed for at least two movies after this one. Star Trek is a good summer movie, but it won't leave anyone thinking about its deeper meanings or implications. It's possible that the existential scifi genre has been relegated to small, indie films like Sunshine, but I hold out hope that these characters can give us more to think about in the summers to come.

Just, please, stay away from the whales.

Final Verdict: Not as good as Hellboy 2: The Golden Army, but better than Pineapple Express.

Summer Project: Blockbuster Review!

Summer is here. It was 100-plus degrees in the Valley of the Sun this weekend, and I've given up hope that the heat is going to go away again until after Halloween (when the monsoon always ends).

The best way that Leah and I have made to escape the heat is to go see movies. I love to go to the theater during the summer blockbuster season and see these huge event movies with a bunch of people who I'd usually hate if I saw them in almost any other context. But I enjoy going to the movies with them.

Last summer, Leah and I went to almost every big movie that came out. The season started last May 2 with Iron Man and ran through the August 6 release of Pineapple Express. In those 97 days, I saw 12 movies in the theatre (at the time, it seemed like much more--I think it must have been a pretty crappy season). We caught up on some later on DVD (like the acceptable Tropic Thunder, the seizure-tastic Speed Racer, and the really disappointing Hamlet 2), but if we're not motivated to go to the theatre, then it's probably not going to be that good.

In the final analysis, I would have ranked the Summer Movies of 2008 thusly:

Tier I: Buy it on DVD and You'll Never Regret It

1. Wall-E

2. The Dark Knight

3. Iron Man

Tier II: Won't Change the Channel When It Comes on TNT in Three Years

4. Kung Fu Panda

5. Hellboy 2: The Golden Army

6. Pineapple Express

7. Hancock

8. Wanted

Tier III: Already Forgot I Paid $25 Dollars to See

9. Get Smart

10. The Incredible Hulk

11. Stepbrothers

Tier IV: Can't We All Just Pretend This Never Happened?

12. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

It's worth mentioning the movies that seemed like noted misfires that weren't seen during the summer of 2008, and were never caught up to. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, Sex and the City, The Strangers, You Don't Mess With the Zohan, The Happening, The Love Guru, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Meet Dave, Mamma Mia!, and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor were all flicks that We couldn't even garner the interest to go out and see, or even rent.

The project for this summer is to take the blockbusters of this season and see how they'd stack up against the above-average movies of 2008. I'll probably be seeing a movie every two weeks this summer, so after I have a chance to digest the latest summer blockbuster, I'll be giving my thoughts and a final ranking on the film.

My early feeling is that there are going to be a lot more Tier II and III movies this year, and not very likely to be the remarkable number of fantastic movies as there were last year (I hope that The Dark Knight and Wall-E will be remembered as great movies decades from now, and that Iron Man will remain a fun diversion into the future).

The summer blockbuster season really began May 1, with the release of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. While I loved the first 2 movies in the X-Men series, I was so disappointed with X-Men 3: X-Men United and the poor reviews (a 43 on Metacritc currently) of the Wolverine movie that I decided to stay away and hope that enough women see it that full chest hair comes back into style (finally!).

So, the Blockbuster Reviews will begin this week with the new J.J. Abrams reboot of the original Star Trek franchise. I'm going to try and stay away from reviews of these movies so that I'm only subject to the advertising hype but not the criticism until I've had a chance to put together my own thoughts.

Just to give you an idea of how busy this summer is looking for me, here are the other films that I'm looking forward to checking out just based on early buzz and what I've seen or movies that I'm going to endure based on the interior negotiations of my marriage:

Angels & Demons (May 15)

Terminator Salvation (May 21)

Up (May 29)

Year One (June 19)

Public Enemies (July 1)

Bruno (July 10)

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (July 15)

Funny People (July 31)

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (August 7)

District 9 (August 14)

Inglourious Basterds (August 21)

Very exciting. Other movies that we might end up seeing if it's too hot outside or we're really bored include The Hangover, Land of the Lost, The Taking of Pelham 123, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, I Love You Beth Cooper, (500) Days of Summer, and When In Rome (I have a weakness for Kristen Bell).

It's going to be a busy summer.

The Kampmobile

Presently I drive a 1997 Toyota Corolla. I inherited it when I moved back to Phoenix and my wife and I tried to share it once I got a couple of jobs. One job was in Paradise Valley (some 30 miles from our home), and it became clear that we weren't going to be able to share the car. Leah bought a 2006 Honda CR-V, which she loves and I appreciate.

The Corolla has seen better days. When Leah was driving down the US 60 freeway one afternoon, an asshole in an SUV (he was probably wearing an Ed Hardy t-shirt) drove over a section of tire track and threw it into the hood of the car, making a large dent on the passenger side. When Leah was teaching at a Christian summer school in Scottsdale, another asshole in an SUV sideswiped her car in the church parking lot, so the rear driver's side wheel well is a little dented. I tried to change the battery one weekend and I did something to the positive battery connection. Now every few times I need to get the ol' girl running I have to pop the hood and twist the cable tightly in to place. The driver's side safety belt has a jam, so it takes a few minutes to unspool.

Still, the car gets me where I need to go. I am not a recreational driver. I prefer to be able to stretch my legs, and I don't like wasting gas. I try and combine my trips and take care of as much as I can when I leave the house. When I do go out, though, I drive carefully, coasting into red lights and stop signs, trying to idle as little as possible, keeping the engine below 60 miles per hour.

My favorite thing to do in the car is measure my gas mileage and see how far I can go on a single tank. Since it just started getting hot (99 degrees right now at 3:00 p.m., but it feels like 104), I have been able to go through most of the spring without using the air conditioner, driving instead with the windows cracked and the vents open. It's mostly comfortable.

In the last two and a half weeks or so, I've been able to get 369.55 miles on a tank of gas. When I refilled today, I put in 11.682 gallons. That works out to 31.63 miles per gallon! That exceeds the government-stated gas mileage of the car for the same year, which is listed at 23 city, 31 highway. I am super-excited about this new record. I usually am able to get 340 miles or so on a tank of gas.

My mileage was better than a 2009 Honda Civic and only 9 mpg higher than a 2009 Civic Hybrid. I love my little car.

Congratulations to the Boss

Christopher Edward Kamper today scored his first two "real" pars of his retirement. Congratulations to The Boss for the first real accomplishment of his sunset years.

It should be noted, though, that both pars came on Par 3s and were completed with a 7 Wood off the tee.

I think I speak for everyone when I give best wishes on actually being able to hit a 6, 7, or 8 iron the 162 yards in the coming years.

On the Perfection of Self

I've been thinking quite a bit lately about the interesting and thoughtful post that MLC put together recently over at a handsome little sum. I've been trying to formulate a response to what he's been talking about, and I think I'm ready to put some ideas down in a committed way.

The biggest issue that MLC and his partner have been undertaking lately is veganism. I am aggressively not vegan, and not simply because it is one of the many things that White People Like. I think that there are good reasons that people have for going vegan. Reasons that are defensible in many ways. For me, those are the ways that vegans are uncomfortable with the byproducts that their putting into their bodies when they eat meat or other foods that contain meat byproducts. I am not one to question these beliefs any more than I feel comfortable being anti-choice. To me, the same moral and ethical issues apply. But this is not the reason that MLC is suggesting here. He says that he's committing to veganism because he feels that meat, in all its myriad forms, is in some way bad.

There are a couple things that I'm uncomfortable with here. The first is that the best way that we define ourselves as individuals in society is as consumers. Really? I like to look at my role in the greater landscape and impact through what I create and return to the society in which I live. I do far more as a teacher and an artist than I can as someone who only buys tofu and chickpeas week after week. It's only when one fully gives up on the commitment to return to society does one begin to believe that their greatest impact is in what they can take from it.

My second real departure from MLC is the impact that he apparently believes his decision has on the marketplace. If the heart of this decision is the commitment to a more ethical lifestyle, isn't the more impactful decision to commit to pay a little more (and then consume a little less) for responsible, sustainable products? I understand this isn't a commitment that everyone in the world can make, but that's one of the great virtues we have being born into positions of privilege. If we are really committed to examining our impact on the demand side of the chart, surely the impact would be greater not to remove ourselves from the marketplace, but instead to shift our purchasing priorities to those products that we feel are ethical. Although the marketplace has supported ethical farming and ranching enough so that there's national (largely) distribution for these products, any decreased market share for industrial meat production will be felt more if there's a corresponding uptick for sustainable production. The economy only feels shifts in market share; there's no pressure for change if the consumer just removes themselves from the equation altogether.

My final issue with veganism has to do with the moral qualms that many vegans express with using these animals as "means to an end." I'm not sure I totally understand the underlying assumption of this argument. There's no question that animals used for industrial production have no hope of existing in a natural environment. 21st Century cows, chickens, and pigs are as much a creation of humans as the Prius, frisbees, or hemp shorts. It's the same with corn or soybeans. I'm not sure that I understand the moral or ethical imperative here. I understand that cows and pigs would prefer to be alive, but so would the mold that creates penicillin. Should we forgo antibiotics?

My really final issue with the outward-looking veganism of MLC is that in order to be serious, it must be evangelical. If one truly believes that eating meat or using animal products is so detrimental to the human experience that it must become taboo, it is not possible not to try to impress these views on others. Just as it's impossible for someone who truly believes that abortion is murder to abide a single instance (even in cases of rape and incesnt), so also must the philosophically serious vegan be unable to abide those around them eating meat or wearing leather in their presence. Even if the vegan is able to watch a companion devour a delicious kobe beef burger, the implication to the companion is obvious: you are not as pure and uncompromised as I.

What I found particularly interesting in MLC's post though was the latter part, in which he describes his and his partner's living philosophy as being "radical decency." I'm not going to critique this philosophy right now, because I feel like I've already kind of taken a dump on their beliefs too much already (although it's meant in love and to challege the seriousness of one's intentions). But it has gotten me thinking about my own governing assumptions.

I think that what I have been living under for the past few years has been the philosophy of the title of this post. And I don't mean this is any Ayn Rand bullshit. That kind of philosophy leads to alienation and distrust. I know, because my mother-in-law is a scary fundamentalist libertarian.

What I generally mean is that over the past year or so I've become more aware of the limits of my own body and mind and genetics. That being said, I have been living in the hope of reaching the limits of the material with which I've been provided. The human mind only has the capacity to focus on three or four things at a time. But we are also creatures of habit. As I work to perfect one part of my life, that becomes habit, and integrated into my everyday experience. Once that goal is maximized (although never achieved) it becomes part of the lifestyle, and the mind has space to move on to the next project.

My current projects are generally rolling. Every year I work to become a more perfect teacher, whether it is through greater discipline in grading essays in a timely manner, or becoming more forward-looking in planning, or (most lately) in becoming more involved in the campus community and working for students outside the classroom. I'm always interested in pursing perfection in the body, and part of this was making the decision that I will commit to working out six days a week. That's a committment that I've been able to keep, and has allowed me to continue to push my physical limits. I've worked to become a more perfect member of the ecosystem by taking small steps like bringing bags to the grocery store to limit the amount of waste that we use. In a step that drives Leah crazy, I have maximized my fuel efficiency by coasting into red lights and making sure that I'm stopped as little as possible when I'm driving.

Is part of this meant to be a role model for others? Of course, but that's not the focus. The understanding is that when everyone is constantly striving toward their own perfection, then the goals, because we are all members of a society, begin to diverge creating a better world. This is the idea that I try and pass on to my students.

The funny thing about working with 18- and 19-year-olds with modest ambitions is that they're more than happy living with the status quo. There is an inertia that has been built up by at least the last four years of high school and maybe more. I try and teach them that nothing of value comes without struggle, and then requre them to struggle in order to succeed. There's virtue and value in that struggle.

As long as I'm struggling, I feel like I'm moving toward the perfection of self.

Arizona Cardinals Draft Recap

I plopped down on the couch Saturday for six or seven hours to watch the NFL draft, and I couldn't be happier with the results for the Arizona Cardinals. General Manager Rod Graves continued his successful run of letting the draft come to him and not wheeling and dealing. Graves (I think) has learned his lesson that he's not a fantastic draft manager or deal maker after trading down to take OLB/DE Calvin Pace and WR Bryant Johnson in 2002 and trading up in the second round to select DT Alan Branch (who has yet to start a single NFL game) two years ago.

Rod Graves doesn't seem to have a good feel for the draft, and perhaps doesn't trust his ability to gauge the league when it comes to deals. I would still prefer that the Cardinals replace Graves with someone who has a track record of success in the league, but Graves did build the current NFC Champion roster, so who am I to really complain?

In the first round, the Cardinals selected Ohio State running back Chris "Beanie" Wells. Of course, I predicted this on ESPN.com, but more importantly, I think this is good news for the franchise. I think that Wells should be motivated by his low draft position, and the possibility of a much larger second contract. I think that the Cardinals' exposure with Wells is relatively small, considering that his contract shouldn't be prohibitive should Wells underperform. I expect that Wells will enter the season at #2 on the depth chart, but should still get the bulk of the carries (like the way the Cards managed the Edgerrin James/Tim Hightower tandem last season). Hopefully, James will get his release from the Cards' roster this week, and be allowed to find other work.

It's possible that the Cards should have traded out of this pick in order to garner multiple picks later in the draft, or perhaps a 1st round pick in 2010. But I don't trust Rod Graves to make a good deal with a team trading up, and I don't really like the prospects of Shonn Greene or LeSean McCoy to be an every-down back in the NFL. The Cardinals needed a starting-caliber running back, and got one with the 31st pick in the NFL draft. There were no compelling players to fit their other need at this position, and so I think they made the correct choice.

Beanie gives the Cards a physical running back with home-run ability. He will able to be physical across the line of scrimmage, and doesn't need wide holes to break through to reach his highest gear. The bust potential for Wells is relatively low, especially as the Cardinals manage the transition from a wide-open passing attack utilizing the abilities of Kurt Warner to more of a power-running offense after Warner's inevitable retirement.

In the second round, the Cardinals addressed their second primary need by adding defensive end/outside linebacker Cody Brown from the University of Connecticut. Last season Cody Brown notched 11 sacks and 16.5 tackles for loss for the Huskies as well as eight pass deflections. Brown will begin his career as a situational pass rusher for the Redbirds while he adjusts to the NFL game and his new position as a 3-4 outside linebacker instead of the 4-3 defensive end he was in college.

This pick is a good one because it infuses the Cardinals' outside linebacking corps with youth that had been absent since Calvin Pace departed. Starting OLBs Bertrand Berry and Chike Okeafor are on the downside of their careers, and 2008 free agent signee Travis LaBoy underperformed his first season before suffering a leg injury that limited him for much of the second half and playoff run.

The Cards had to have been sweating that Brown would remain on the board after similar prospects like Conor Barwin, David Veikune, and Paul Kruger went off the board in the middle of the second round. Brown was the last promising OLB prospect who could make an immediate impact, and the Cards should feel satisfied with his potential. Had Brown gone off the board, it's possible that the Cards would have added TE Richard Quinn from North Carolina, who would have been the blocking tight end the franchise has been looking for since Ken Whisenhut arrived in Arizona.

In the third round, the Cardinals drafted safety Rashad Johnson from the University of Alabama. Crimson Tide coach Mike Saban reportedly told Arizona scouts that Johnson is the smartest player he's ever coached. Johnson is on the small side at 5'11", 203 lbs, but he should find a role in the Cards' nickle and dime packages early in his career. The Cards love to play three safeties in nickel coverages (though whether this continues with the addition of Bryant McFadden in free agency and the departure of Clancy Pendergast remains to be seen), and this addition will allow the Cardinals to have a more "true" free safety on the field, freeing up Pro Bowl player Adrian Wilson to play closer to the line of scrimmage and free safety Antrel Rolle to be more instinctive in the intermediate zones.

What the addition of Johnson does most is create intense competition between 2008 holdovers Matt Ware and Aaron Francisco as well as free agent addition Keith Lewis (San Francisco). All three of these players are a liability in defensive packages, although each makes contributions on special teams units. Francisco was once believed to have a ton of promise, but the former undrafted free agent has had a hard time progressing after ending the 2007 season on injured reserve. Francisco likely makes the final roster because he is an excellent special teams player, but will possibly see his role in defensive packages reduced.

It's difficult to say whom the Cards might have liked had Johnson been off the board, but it's possible they would have drafted South Florida OLB Tyrone McKenzie, who was chosen two picks later by the New England Patriots. McKenzie would be an inside linebacker in the Cardinals' 3-4 defense, and would have provided an insurance policy behind franchise player Karlos Dansby and core middle linebacker Gerald Hayes.

In the fourth round, the Cardinals rolled the dice on St. Paul's cornerback Greg Toler. Toler was not invited to the NFL Combine, but impressed a lot of scouts during his on-campus workout. He has great speed, although not the other special abilities of another small-school cornerback on the Cards' roster, Dominique Rogers-Cromartie. Toler will have to compete for a place on a suddenly croweded defensive back depth chart, but should find an early role as a gunner on special teams units.

An interesting note on Toler is that there are a lot of questions about his ability to handle zone responsibilities. A feature of Clancy Pendergast's defense was three- or four-deep zone converages behind his inventive blitz schemes. The selection of Toler may mean that the Cardinals are going to move to more traditional Pittsburg defenses. The Steelers frequently use more cover-1 or -2 alignments in the secondary, leaving cornerbacks more alone in man-to-man coverage.

In the fifth round, the Cards acquired a mountain of a man in 6'8", 364 lbs offensive tackle Herman Johnson from LSU. That 364 lbs. number is probably charitable, but this is the biggest player the Cards have had on their roster since the departure of Leonard Davis. Johnson projects to offensive guard in the NFL and again suggests that the Cards are undergoing a slow transition in their offensive philosophy. Johnson is a powerful drive blocker who may struggle in his pass sets. When Johnson sees the field in a year or two, he's not going to be playing a lot of snaps in shotgun.

In the sixth round, the Arizona Cardinals selected defensive end/outside linebacker Will Davis. Davis effectively replaces 2009 draftee Chris Harrington, also drafted in the sixth round. Harrington was cut in training camp and signed to the Cardinals' practice squad before being signed by the Cincinnatti Bengals mid-season. Davis will be asked to cut some weight from his current 261 lbs and transition to the outside linebacker position. Davis will face a battle for a roster spot, but should find a place on the practice squad. It will be interesting to see whether the Cards try and hide him during the preseason to keep other teams from claiming the prospect.

In the seventh stanza, the Cards drafted a pair of players in tiny (5'8", 180 lbs) Pittsburgh running back LaRod Stephens-Howling and Cincinnatti Bearcat offensive guard Trevor Cantfield. Both players will likely face a steep climb to make the final roster. Stephens-Howling will be competing with 2009 free agent signee Jason Wright (Cleveland). Stephens-Howling's best chance to reach the NFL is as a gunner on special teams and a returner in the kicking game (a hole left with the departure of J.J. Arrington). He has good speed, but his size really limits his ability to play at this level. Cantfield could compete for the final offensive line roster spot, but more likely will land on the practice squad, where he'll bide his time before the departure of Elton Brown in 2010 free agency.

Overall, the Cardinals had a fairly solid draft. They've managed to keep their core group of players together through free agency, and now have added to the future transition of the franchise. It's imperative now that GM Rod Graves keep working to extend the contracts of Karlos Dansby and Adrian Wilson to free up space for the very large free agent class of 2010. This is very much a transitional group. I don't think that the Cardinals' competition in the NFC West has improved greatly through free agency or the draft, and barring injury the Cardinals should be in favorites to win the division again. Hopefully, they'll be able to win the division with a record closer to 11-5 than the 9-7 which which they finished 2008.

New Readings

Leah and I went over to Changing Hands Bookstore this weekend while we were running some errands. I think we showed remarkable restraint while we were there in making sure that we only got books that we felt like we really needed.

Leah got Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, by Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith. I picked up Geek Love, the novel currently under consideration for the AV Club Book Club, which I'm pretty excited about. I still have maybe 45 pages left in Arabian Nights, but I'm really not sure if I have it in me. The last narrative is pretty boring and repetitive.

Also, I really want to read Stephen Fatsis's 7 Second of Panic, but it hasn't come out in paperback yet and I don't want to pay $25. I gave it to my brother Paulie for Christmas last year, so I'll probably borrow it from him.

I am the Most Famous Person You Know

I promise not to let this go to my head. ESPN.com hasn't put the link up on their front page yet, but ESPN.com will come up now when my name is Google searched, and that's pretty fantastic. It's worth listening to the podcast as well. I'm going to have to defend my title this summer, but I'm not very worried about it right now.

Since we're a week away from the NFL draft, I thought I'd provide my first round projection as of this moment. I'm going to assume that the pending trade of OT Jason Peters from the Buffalo Bills to the Philadelphia Eagles goes through. I think that's a good trade for both teams.

Pretty much every team in the Top 10 will want to trade down for better value, but I don't think that's going to happen because no one wants to trade up for any of these players. I actually think there will be a lot of trades around the first round of this draft, but they're going to be unpredictable. I'll put teams that would prefer to trade out, but I'm going to assume that every team is going to be stuck picking where they are.

1. Detroit Lions - Matthew Stafford, QB, Georgia. The Lions need some direction as a franchise and need someone for their fans to believe in. Because this draft is deep in offensive tackle talent, they'll pass on two players who I think teams will have questions about.
2. St. Louis Rams - Jason Smith, OT, Baylor. The Rams need to rebuild their offense, and that starts at offensive tackle. They will start Alex Barron and this pick, but training camp will decide who will be the anchor on the left side.
3. Kansas City Chiefs - Michael Crabtree, WR, Texas Tech. New coach Todd Haley knows that you can win with the passing game, as does new quarterback Matt Cassell. They have the linebackers to take a stab at the flex packages of new DC Clancy Pendergast, but Crabtree will the the dynamic threat that will make Bobby Engram and Dwayne Bowe even better.
4. Seattle Seahawks - Eugene Monroe, OT, Virginia. It's funny that high draft picks from Virginia rarely become more than solid players at the next level. I think that the Seahawks would like to trade down a little bit and get Mark Sanchez. They'll use this pick as the heir apparent to Walter Jones.
5. Cleveland Browns - Brian Orakpo, DE/OLB, Texas. Rarely is there as good a fit between a prospect and a team than we have here. Orakpo will be able to begin his career as a situational pass rusher as he gets used to his other linebacker responsibilities.
6. Cincinnati Bengals - Andre Smith, OT, Alabama. Smith can be an All-Pro right tackle as a rookie for the Bengals, who need to jump-start their offense and protect their franchise quarterback.
7. Oakland Raiders - Jeremy Maclin, WR, Missouri. Owner Al Davis loves skill position players and loves speed even more.
8. Jacksonville Jaguars - Aaron Curry, LB, Wake Forest. Linebackers always, always, always slip down draft boards. There has been a lot of chatter that the Jags would like to draft QB Mark Sanchez with this pick, but they gave a big extension to David Garrard just last season. They thought they might trade out of this pick to a quarterback-needy team, but they sprint to the podium when they find a rare player like Curry still on their board.
9. Green Bay Packers - Everette Brown, DE/OLB, Florida State. The Packers are transitioning to a base 3-4 defense. This gives the Packers much greater flexibility with their pass rush packages.
10. San Francisco 49ers - Malcolm Jenkins, CB/S, Ohio State. Jenkins will be a free safety at the beginning of his career, and then perhaps transition to cornerback if the 49ers transition to a Cover-2 defense. If the draft breaks this way, San Francisco could get a nice yield for Mark Sanchez, or draft him themselves.
11. Buffalo Bills - Tyson Jackson, DE, LSU. Jackson gives the Bills a meaty presence at defensive end, and a two-way player who never has to leave the field.
12. Denver Broncos - B.J. Raji, DT, Boston College. Players of Raji's size and speed are rare in the NFL. He will immediately upgrade the Broncos' defense agains the pass and the run.
13. Washington Redskins - Mark Sanchez, QB, Southern Cal. Dan Snyder gets to make a spalsh and make headlines through the rest of the offseason while talking heads discuss the QB controversy in the Capitol. Sanchez remains in a West Coast offense and gets to be part of a premire NFL franchise.
14. New Orleans Saints - Chris "Beanie" Wells, RB, Ohio State. The Saints are crazy for drafting offense again, but there are no exceptional defensive players on the board. The Saints would love to trade down for a team that wants an OT or linebacker, but they'll end up happy with the second coming of Deuce McAllister.
15. Houston Texans - Brian Cushing, LB, Southern Cal. The Texans are trying to build the best front-seven in the NFL, and they're well on their way if the coaches can get all the pieces working together. Houston would definitely be able to trade out of this pick to a team looking for an OT or the last quality QB in this draft.
16. San Diego Chargers - Michael Oher, OT, Mississippi. Oher solidifies the right tackle position for the San Diego Chargers and would make all the skill positions even better. The Chargers looked long and hard at Rey-Rey, but Oher was too good a prospect to pass up.
17. New York Jets - Josh Freeman, QB, Kansas St. The New York Jets are actually a pretty solid team except for the guy who touches the ball on every offensive play. The Jets would be wise to take the Miami Dolphins route and aquire a veteran presence to compete for the starting job with Freeman and Kellen Clemens.
18. Denver Broncos (via Chicago Bears) - Rey Maualuga, LB, Southern Cal. The Denver Broncos are thrilled with the first round of their draft after this selection is made. Rey-Rey is a playmaker and a leader.
19. Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Peria Jerry, DT, Mississippi. The Tampa-2 defense runs because of a quick, penetrating defenisve tackle just like Jerry. If the draft breaks down like this, the Bucs would love to trade out of this position.
20. Detroit Lions (via Dallas Cowboys) - Vontae Davis, CB, Illinois. The Lions effectively have no starting-caliber cornerbacks. This pick makes them better.
21. Philadelphia Eagles - Aaron Maybin, DE, Penn St. The Eagles love taking defensive linemen with thier early picks, and this gives genius DC Jim Johnson another weapon to work with.
22. Minnesota Vikings - Brandon Pettigrew, TE, Oklahoma St. The Vikes would love to trade out of this position, and would likely find a partner. Instead, they add to their ability to block from their exceptional running back tandem and gives whoever is their quarterback a quality safety valve.
23. New England Patriots - Knowshon Moreno, RB, Georgia. It's impossible to understand how Bill Belichek ends up in the situation where incredible players fall to him. Someone will almost certainly trade up to this point to grab a talent like Moreno.
24. Atlanta Falcons - Robert Ayers, DE, Tennessee. Ayers will anchor the strong side of the Falcons' defensive line and push Jamaal Anderson closer to being a complete bust.
25. Miami Dolphins - Clay Matthews, LB, Southern Cal. Gives the Dolphins an excellent character player and a pass rushing presence on the outside of their 3-4 defense.
26. Baltimore Ravens - Darrious Heyward-Bey, WR, Maryland. The Ravens would like to trade this pick to the Arizona Cardinals for Anquan Boldin, but they will be happy adding another weapon for Joe Flacco to develop with.
27. Indianapolis Colts - Percy Harvin, WR, Florida. The Colts hate drafting in the first round, and would likely trade back to the 2nd. But Harvin gives them a dynamic slot WR and return specialist.
28. Buffalo Bills (via Carolina Panthers through Philadelphia Eagles) - Eben Britton, OT, Arizona. The Bills now need a left tackle to block for Marshawn Lynch and Trent Edwards. Britton will work for them and probably not hold out all of training camp. Also, since Britton went to college in Tucson, Buffalo will feel like Manhattan.
29. New York Giants - Hakeem Nicks, WR, North Carolina. Nicks isn't the home-run threat or has the rare size to replace Plaxico Burress, but does give Eli Manning a reliable target on third-and-six.
30. Tennessee Titans - James Laurinitis, LB, Ohio State. Laurinitis goes into an excellent situation because the Titans are excellent at protecting their linebackers. He'll also provide excellent leadership to this unit.
31. Arizona Cardinals - Donald Brown, RB, Connecticut. Brown is a complete running back. The Cards look hard at LB Larry English, but they look at their board and see that there will probably be a hybrid pass-rusher available where they pick in the second round (like Clint Sintim, Michael Johnson, Conor Barwin, or Paul Kruger). Brown immediately becomes the starting rusher and allows Edgerrin James to get his long-desired release.
32. Pittsburgh Steelers - Alex Mack, OC, California. This seems like the most logical pick in the draft; all of the experts are picking Mack to Pittsburg. This essentially assures that it will not happen.

That's the way I see it. Actually, I expect that fewer linebackers and more wide receivers will come out in the first round, but I have a hard time putting it together. Also, I think that more cornerbacks will come out.