Somehow I have neglected to comment on the confirmed(!) film/television adaptations of Stephen King's Dark Tower series. Well, that's about to change right now. [SPOILER ALERT]
Having recently experienced the seven-book series in its entirety for the third time, and having read the first four books of the series twice before those complete readings, I feel confident enough to provide some worthwhile commentary on the upcoming adaptation. I have also recently read and reread all of the Marvel graphic novels on which Robin Furth (who quite possibly knows more about the series than Stephen King himself) and Peter David collaborated, all the while relishing every filled gap in the storyline and trying to keep myself from drooling on the masterful illustrations by Jae Lee and Richard Isanove.
I was excited when I heard J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelhof were in line to adapt King's magnum opus, feeling they were a good fit for the project. When I heard they were no longer working on it, I have to admit that I was a little crestfallen. It seemed as if my dream of seeing Roland of Gilead on the silver screen was too good to be true after all. Then I got wind that Ron Howard was set to direct it (with Brian Grazer and Akiva Goldsman producing and writing, respectively), and I was more than a little skeptical. It's not that I don't think Howard is a talented filmmaker or Goldsman is a good writer (let's forget about Batman Forever as well as the even more atrocious Batman and Robin), but the pairing didn't seem as natural as the one with the creators of Lost. For lack of a better term, it seemed to me that Howard et al were not geeky enough for the project. In hindsight, this is probably because I was praying for Joss Whedon or (more realistically) Frank Darabont to option a screenplay. However, after some consideration, I have changed my mind.
One of the main reasons for this shift in opinion is the fact that Howard et al have apparently been working on this project for more than a year in order to get "such an understanding of the material that [when approached] Stephen King would say, 'Yes, that's the way into this story.'" An understanding of the material is going to be quite necessary because they are not planning an exact page-to-the-screen adaptation. They will be pulling from the entire Dark Tower universe (including the graphic novels) in order to tell the story as thoroughly as possible, but (obviously) they cannot cover every minute detail. Omissions and additions will be made along with new scenes that convey the proper information without being pulled directly from the text. I think this is a good move, and if done properly (a la Furth and David), we can have a faithful adaptation that will entertain us and show us the series in a new--if not better--light rather than simply fulfill expectations and reproduce already-established scenes and dialogue.
This brings me to the second reason I am looking forward to Howard's adaptation. If Frank Darabont is not at the helm of this project, I feel that a veteran filmmaker such as Howard is necessary to do justice to the deep and intricate storyline while at the same time tugging on the heartstrings of the mass American public. By saying this, I am not advocating a watering down of the source material; I am actually promoting the opposite--an enrichment of an already-rich tale. Roland's lost love ("I can be discreet, Sai, but as for propriety, I'm amazed you know the word."); the battle of Jericho Hill (Cuthbert riddled with bullet wounds, one eye hanging from his socket, reloading, and laughing--always laughing); Roland's pursuit of Walter ("The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed."); Jake's descent into darkness ("Go then, there are other worlds than these."); the drawing of the three ("I'm still hoping for the stainless steel cookware."); the forming of a new ka-tet ("We are one from many."); the flight from the city of Lud ("Blaine is a pain, and that is the truth."); the eradication of the wolves ("Come, come, commala."); the breaking of the ka-tet ("All is forgotten in the stone halls of the dead. These are the rooms of ruin where the where the spiders spin and the great circuits fall quiet, one by one."); and the fields of Can Ka No Rey ("I come."). These and more are all memorable passages that have their own gravity. The fact that I pulled them all from memory without dragging out my copies of the novels is testament enough. Yes, I want to see these exact scenes and hear these exact quotes spoken from the lips of the characters, but I also want more than that. It is much more important for the filmmakers to get the feel for the work. I love direct book-to-film adaptations, but taking a bit of creative license--as long as one understands the source material--is welcome to those who have experienced and re-experienced the original literature. Also, this becomes necessary when the original is as large as the Dark Tower series.
Another necessity (and genius innovation) is the use of film and television as the mediums of delivery. NBC/Universal has picked up the rights to the series, and they have the pockets deep enough to fund such an epic endeavor. To begin with, Howard et al plan on releasing two feature films with a six-hour mini-series in between. The television aspect of the project will feature the same cast and crew but allow for the creators to get much deeper into the story. Howard has mentioned that he wants to "let the movies be adventure and action" while using the extra time allotted on television for more character development and such. I (and Stephen King, incidentally) find this to be the perfect option for bringing the series to life (if they can pull it off as Howard would like). This project simply could not be done with film alone; it is too large. Howard wants to use both mediums to be "as comprehensive as possible." I couldn't be happier about the decision.
Pages and pages could be devoted to casting choices, but I will leave you to your own pondering for now. Post some comments about your casting choices, and I will post mine shortly (within the week, I imagine). Here's a juicy tidbit: apparently Viggo Mortenson is at the top of the list to play Roland. Thoughts?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Changing Subway Trains As I Ride Through Eternal Life
I have loved comic books since I was first introduced to the medium, yet somehow I managed not to catch the collector bug. In retrospect, this is rather surprising considering my obsessive-compulsive proclivity for collecting other items such as sports memorabilia, action figures, books, movies, and music. I have sold many items in my collections (and much remains to be sold), but my collection of comic books is (and will remain) fairly limited.
Just as my collection of comics has been limited, my interest within the medium has been as well. Despite my love of all things Batman (excepting the awful movies in the nineties succeeding Tim Burton's adaptations), I have always been more intrigued by the lively characters of Marvel, many of whom were created by the legendary Stan Lee. I grew up desiring and admiring mutation, imagining myself with adamantium claws, psychic powers, spider sense, and an optic blast. However, now that I have grown up, my appreciation for comics and graphic novels has matured. I find myself gravitating towards the stories created by the talented writers at DC, particularly those adult-themed comics published by the Vertigo imprint of DC.
While I still love Marvel, my appreciation for the brand is often now more nostalgic than anything (excepting, of course, the wonderful adaptations of Stephen King stories they have done and are currently doing). Since my discovery of the Vertigo imprint, I have voraciously torn through Watchmen, Frank Miller's Batman revamps, V for Vendetta, A History of Violence, and I am currently flying through Neil Gaiman's Sandman series. All have been utterly fantastic pieces of literature, and I could write for days about each in turn. I have drafts discussing a few of them, so expect to see at least one to show up on here (probably Watchmen).
For those of you who say, "Comics are for kids," I hope you aren't buying your children some of the comics that I read. And for those of you who have never considered the graphic novel to be anywhere in the same league as the classic novel in regards to literary value, just read Watchmen and get back to me. That is, get back to me after you've fully absorbed your newly-enriched view of society and the human condition.
Just as my collection of comics has been limited, my interest within the medium has been as well. Despite my love of all things Batman (excepting the awful movies in the nineties succeeding Tim Burton's adaptations), I have always been more intrigued by the lively characters of Marvel, many of whom were created by the legendary Stan Lee. I grew up desiring and admiring mutation, imagining myself with adamantium claws, psychic powers, spider sense, and an optic blast. However, now that I have grown up, my appreciation for comics and graphic novels has matured. I find myself gravitating towards the stories created by the talented writers at DC, particularly those adult-themed comics published by the Vertigo imprint of DC.
While I still love Marvel, my appreciation for the brand is often now more nostalgic than anything (excepting, of course, the wonderful adaptations of Stephen King stories they have done and are currently doing). Since my discovery of the Vertigo imprint, I have voraciously torn through Watchmen, Frank Miller's Batman revamps, V for Vendetta, A History of Violence, and I am currently flying through Neil Gaiman's Sandman series. All have been utterly fantastic pieces of literature, and I could write for days about each in turn. I have drafts discussing a few of them, so expect to see at least one to show up on here (probably Watchmen).
For those of you who say, "Comics are for kids," I hope you aren't buying your children some of the comics that I read. And for those of you who have never considered the graphic novel to be anywhere in the same league as the classic novel in regards to literary value, just read Watchmen and get back to me. That is, get back to me after you've fully absorbed your newly-enriched view of society and the human condition.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
The Faces Always Stay the Same
Yesterday was the first day of a new semester for me at LCCC. I love teaching there, and I feel incredibly lucky to have a position while I complete my graduate studies. Disconcertingly, there are plenty of unemployed PhDs in the market for any position, even an adjunct position such as mine. The fact that I have a job (let alone three!) makes me feel luckier than I already do when I look at my beautiful family. I've been teaching for two years and going to graduate school for almost as long, so now that I have some perspective, however minimal, I feel that I can do a bit of pedagogical self-reflection.
Because I attended LCCC as a student and I am from the area, I often see a lot of familiar faces in my classroom. Be it old coworkers, people from one of my multiple social circles (that sounds a bit more pretentious than I mean it to, but it is worth noting, as you shall see), or brothers and sisters of former classmates/friends, I have a hard time being unrecognized. I have even had students recognize me because I have worked in the service industry for so long that I have waited on them one time or many. My previous familiarity with my students (or, rather, their familiarity with me) upon first entering the classroom is significant because it does not allow me to easily maintain the fragmentation of self often necessary to uphold an aura of professionalism (if not authority). While I am still the same person, my behavior in the classroom is almost dichotomous to my personality when tending bar or even just drinking at one. By the same token, I act differently depending on which group of friends/acquaintances I happen to be around.
This is the something of the same problem that I have with Facebook. Even though I keep up with Facebook (probably too much) and post often (but not as much as some people--you know who you are), I find the general concept of social networking problematic because it forces one to unify his or her fragmented self and enter into the same type of discourse with everyone. I don't talk to the Ev in the same manner that I talk to a good friend's wife or one of my professors (in fact, I often don't talk to the Ev in any way that could be deemed appropriate), but when I publish something online, I must take all of those who can see my profile into account. Some of you don't have this problem (again, you know who you are), and I envy your disregard. This is less of a complaint than a recognition that I celebrate the individual components of my personality that make up my entire self. I appreciate the fragmentation. This appreciation is evident if one looks at the multiple subjects of this blog. In its archive you have Zach the teacher, Zach the poker player, Zach the family man, etc. I don't want to get off on an internet rant, so in order to bring this back to education, let me outline (albeit briefly) my situatedness in composition pedagogy.
Not many would argue that the act of composing involves a process, no matter how involved or intricate. I have no qualms with this notion; however, what I do have a problem with is the assertion that any one type of composing process can simply be prescribed for every writer. For example, many in my field often teach the composing process as follows: prewrite (generate ideas), draft, revise, and edit. Granted, many recognize the recursive nature of such a process, teaching students not to follow the steps in that exact order and offering examples of when it might be necessary to revisit a step in the process; however, I want to take the writing process further in my classroom, which is why I find myself located in the currently ongoing post-process movement.
Post-process is a product of postmodernism. Postmodernism can be summed up as a skepticism if not disavowal of all grand narratives. It is the recognition that one cannot make everything fit into a certain structure. The postmodern scientist, for example, would have no problem with the platypus. He would appreciate its complexity without trying to give it a strict classification. Postmodernism is a much more complex theory than this simple explanation gives it credit. In fact, its very nature often defies explanation (an exceedingly frustrating characteristic for one in my position, as you can imagine). However, I hope my very brief description offers a glimpse of how it aid the evolution of composition pedagogy when it comes to teaching the writing process. Rather than simply providing my all of my students with the same series of "steps" to follow, I want to give them the perception necessary to recognize that their writing is situated, public, and interpretative.
By situated, public, and interpretative, I mean that I want my students to recognize their "place" in the communication of their ideas and how others will receive them. Students need to do some "hermeneutic guesswork," to borrow Thomas Kent's term, in order to interpret how their audience will perceive their compositions. Students also need to discover not only what they think but why they think it. They need to realize what factors (gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status, politics, religion, etc.) have allowed (or forced) them to come to the conclusions they have. Doing so can also help them to realize how their ideas are perceived by others who have been influenced by those same types of factors.
Communication is an inherently social act, but that does not mean that we cannot celebrate the individual within the social dynamic. In the post-process movement, there should be a celebration of difference and diversity in student writing (not just the acceptance or tolerance of it). All papers should not look the same. Students in higher education are responsible for their own educations, but it is the responsibility of the faculty to facilitate that learning by fostering the type of critical thinking mentioned above. During that process (yes, I recognize the implicit irony in my choice of that word), educators can relinquish a bit of authority, sheath our red pens, and celebrate the rough draft because that is where real idea generation occurs.
Because I attended LCCC as a student and I am from the area, I often see a lot of familiar faces in my classroom. Be it old coworkers, people from one of my multiple social circles (that sounds a bit more pretentious than I mean it to, but it is worth noting, as you shall see), or brothers and sisters of former classmates/friends, I have a hard time being unrecognized. I have even had students recognize me because I have worked in the service industry for so long that I have waited on them one time or many. My previous familiarity with my students (or, rather, their familiarity with me) upon first entering the classroom is significant because it does not allow me to easily maintain the fragmentation of self often necessary to uphold an aura of professionalism (if not authority). While I am still the same person, my behavior in the classroom is almost dichotomous to my personality when tending bar or even just drinking at one. By the same token, I act differently depending on which group of friends/acquaintances I happen to be around.
This is the something of the same problem that I have with Facebook. Even though I keep up with Facebook (probably too much) and post often (but not as much as some people--you know who you are), I find the general concept of social networking problematic because it forces one to unify his or her fragmented self and enter into the same type of discourse with everyone. I don't talk to the Ev in the same manner that I talk to a good friend's wife or one of my professors (in fact, I often don't talk to the Ev in any way that could be deemed appropriate), but when I publish something online, I must take all of those who can see my profile into account. Some of you don't have this problem (again, you know who you are), and I envy your disregard. This is less of a complaint than a recognition that I celebrate the individual components of my personality that make up my entire self. I appreciate the fragmentation. This appreciation is evident if one looks at the multiple subjects of this blog. In its archive you have Zach the teacher, Zach the poker player, Zach the family man, etc. I don't want to get off on an internet rant, so in order to bring this back to education, let me outline (albeit briefly) my situatedness in composition pedagogy.
Not many would argue that the act of composing involves a process, no matter how involved or intricate. I have no qualms with this notion; however, what I do have a problem with is the assertion that any one type of composing process can simply be prescribed for every writer. For example, many in my field often teach the composing process as follows: prewrite (generate ideas), draft, revise, and edit. Granted, many recognize the recursive nature of such a process, teaching students not to follow the steps in that exact order and offering examples of when it might be necessary to revisit a step in the process; however, I want to take the writing process further in my classroom, which is why I find myself located in the currently ongoing post-process movement.
Post-process is a product of postmodernism. Postmodernism can be summed up as a skepticism if not disavowal of all grand narratives. It is the recognition that one cannot make everything fit into a certain structure. The postmodern scientist, for example, would have no problem with the platypus. He would appreciate its complexity without trying to give it a strict classification. Postmodernism is a much more complex theory than this simple explanation gives it credit. In fact, its very nature often defies explanation (an exceedingly frustrating characteristic for one in my position, as you can imagine). However, I hope my very brief description offers a glimpse of how it aid the evolution of composition pedagogy when it comes to teaching the writing process. Rather than simply providing my all of my students with the same series of "steps" to follow, I want to give them the perception necessary to recognize that their writing is situated, public, and interpretative.
By situated, public, and interpretative, I mean that I want my students to recognize their "place" in the communication of their ideas and how others will receive them. Students need to do some "hermeneutic guesswork," to borrow Thomas Kent's term, in order to interpret how their audience will perceive their compositions. Students also need to discover not only what they think but why they think it. They need to realize what factors (gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status, politics, religion, etc.) have allowed (or forced) them to come to the conclusions they have. Doing so can also help them to realize how their ideas are perceived by others who have been influenced by those same types of factors.
Communication is an inherently social act, but that does not mean that we cannot celebrate the individual within the social dynamic. In the post-process movement, there should be a celebration of difference and diversity in student writing (not just the acceptance or tolerance of it). All papers should not look the same. Students in higher education are responsible for their own educations, but it is the responsibility of the faculty to facilitate that learning by fostering the type of critical thinking mentioned above. During that process (yes, I recognize the implicit irony in my choice of that word), educators can relinquish a bit of authority, sheath our red pens, and celebrate the rough draft because that is where real idea generation occurs.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Bank(roll)ing on Success
Now that I have returned to the online poker world, I have decided to do something I never have: practice good bankroll management. In previous years, I have always thrown a bit of money into one or more of my online accounts and played tournaments above my (bankroll) level in the attempt to cash in large tournaments. By doing so, I would quickly go "broke" and wait many weeks to reload my account, letting my poker game fall to the wayside. I was impatient, and I have realized the error of my ways. To keep improving my game, I need to be playing more than I have in the past. As the cliche goes, practice makes perfect. And in order to keep myself on track, I have decided to put my plans in writing. I hope this post can help to serve at least one of you, whether in poker or just as a general example of moderation, but if it does nothing else, I hope it serves my purpose of keeping myself in line.
Basically, bankroll management helps with the variance that happens in poker. Even though poker is a game of skill, there is chance involved. It is important to minimize the potential for losses if one desires to make money playing poker; after all, the cards don't always fall your way, and if they happen to fall the other way too many times in a row, you can go broke rather quickly if you are playing outside your limits. It is also important to note that bankroll management will only help minimize losses for winning players. If you are not a good poker player, you will most certainly not make money by managing your bankroll. It seems like an obvious statement, but to turn a profit, you must win more than you lose.
The example of worthwhile bankroll management that I will give is for NLHE (No Limit Hold 'Em) as it is my personal game of choice. The reason it is my game of choice was best expressed by the legendary Doyle Brunson in his milestone book Super System when he labeled it as "the Cadillac of poker." It is the poker game at which it takes the most skill to be successful because there is so much to consider in each hand, and every hand has the possibility of being for all of your chips. I enjoy Limit Hold 'Em and (especially) Stud, but they are much more mechanical. They are a bit more mathematical, and it seems easier to play those games correctly. NLHE is just right up my alley as the most cerebral and difficult of its kind. How could I seek to master any other game?
There are some variations of bankroll management for the many different varieties of poker, but the general rules are basically the same even if the numbers aren't exactly the same. For NLHE, there are different management guidelines depending on the type of game you play: cash or tournament. This makes sense when one considers the differing play styles and expected winnings of the two games.
For cash games, you never want to have more than 5% of your bankroll on the table at any given time. If you go to a casino and play the game with the lowest-level blinds, 1-2 or 1-3 depending on the casino, you will want to have twenty times the maximum buy-in for that game in your bankroll. This would come to $4000 for a 1-2 game and $6000 for a 1-3 game.
For tournament play, even one-table tournaments such as 9-ring or 6-max SNGs (Sit-'n'-Go), it is also important not to play above your bankroll level. When practicing good bankroll management, you should never buy into a tournament for more than 2.5% of your bankroll. In other words, you should have at least forty tournament entries in your bankroll. It is also important to remember the fees involved when entering a tournament (usually no more than 10% of the entry). You have to factor those into your management as well. If you want to play in a tournament that requires a $5 entry, you might think it okay if you have $200 in your bankroll; however, the fee for such a tournament is generally $.50, bringing the total buy-in up to $5.50, so you should have at least $220 in your bankroll for such an occasion.
When I decided to partake in my bankroll experiment, I wanted to start out playing in $1 tournaments online. I would love to start higher where the competition is better (and, paradoxically, easier to play against), but I don't have a lot of money to invest at the moment. Having been away from the online poker world for awhile, I also figured that I could probably use the practice, so I decided to make a time investment rather than a monetary one. To play in $1 with a fee of $.20, bringing the total buy-in up to $1.20, I needed to invest at least $48. I deposited $50, giving myself a tiny bit of a buffer. So far, after three nights of play, I am ahead but not by much. Even placing first in a 9-ring SNG only earns $4.50 (for a total profit of $3.30). I had a losing night last night (a bad beat on a flopped straight where my opponent made a bad call but rivered a full house and then a bad call on my part where I knew I was behind but was tired and felt like gambling), but by staying in my limits the previous nights, I kept myself out of trouble. In order to move on to the next level of my tournament career ($3+$.40), I need to build my bankroll up to $136. Like I said, it's a time investment.
Bankroll management, like poker itself, takes patience and conviction. You should never play tired, lest you make bad calls like the one I did last night, and you should never play drunk, unless you are playing against me. In that case, by all means, drink as much as you like! I like money. I have been known to drink whilst playing, but I never consume more than one every hour or so. I personally find that alcohol loosens up my live game and allows me to play my winning aggressive style when I'm not hiding behind a keyboard and pseudonym (deguasser19 on both Full Tilt and PokerStars for any who are interested).
All this talk about poker has me wanting to play, so it's time to crack open a Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale and get to enjoying my last night of pseudo-vacation. Until next time, I'm all in.
There are some variations of bankroll management for the many different varieties of poker, but the general rules are basically the same even if the numbers aren't exactly the same. For NLHE, there are different management guidelines depending on the type of game you play: cash or tournament. This makes sense when one considers the differing play styles and expected winnings of the two games.
For cash games, you never want to have more than 5% of your bankroll on the table at any given time. If you go to a casino and play the game with the lowest-level blinds, 1-2 or 1-3 depending on the casino, you will want to have twenty times the maximum buy-in for that game in your bankroll. This would come to $4000 for a 1-2 game and $6000 for a 1-3 game.
For tournament play, even one-table tournaments such as 9-ring or 6-max SNGs (Sit-'n'-Go), it is also important not to play above your bankroll level. When practicing good bankroll management, you should never buy into a tournament for more than 2.5% of your bankroll. In other words, you should have at least forty tournament entries in your bankroll. It is also important to remember the fees involved when entering a tournament (usually no more than 10% of the entry). You have to factor those into your management as well. If you want to play in a tournament that requires a $5 entry, you might think it okay if you have $200 in your bankroll; however, the fee for such a tournament is generally $.50, bringing the total buy-in up to $5.50, so you should have at least $220 in your bankroll for such an occasion.
When I decided to partake in my bankroll experiment, I wanted to start out playing in $1 tournaments online. I would love to start higher where the competition is better (and, paradoxically, easier to play against), but I don't have a lot of money to invest at the moment. Having been away from the online poker world for awhile, I also figured that I could probably use the practice, so I decided to make a time investment rather than a monetary one. To play in $1 with a fee of $.20, bringing the total buy-in up to $1.20, I needed to invest at least $48. I deposited $50, giving myself a tiny bit of a buffer. So far, after three nights of play, I am ahead but not by much. Even placing first in a 9-ring SNG only earns $4.50 (for a total profit of $3.30). I had a losing night last night (a bad beat on a flopped straight where my opponent made a bad call but rivered a full house and then a bad call on my part where I knew I was behind but was tired and felt like gambling), but by staying in my limits the previous nights, I kept myself out of trouble. In order to move on to the next level of my tournament career ($3+$.40), I need to build my bankroll up to $136. Like I said, it's a time investment.
Bankroll management, like poker itself, takes patience and conviction. You should never play tired, lest you make bad calls like the one I did last night, and you should never play drunk, unless you are playing against me. In that case, by all means, drink as much as you like! I like money. I have been known to drink whilst playing, but I never consume more than one every hour or so. I personally find that alcohol loosens up my live game and allows me to play my winning aggressive style when I'm not hiding behind a keyboard and pseudonym (deguasser19 on both Full Tilt and PokerStars for any who are interested).
All this talk about poker has me wanting to play, so it's time to crack open a Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale and get to enjoying my last night of pseudo-vacation. Until next time, I'm all in.
The World Exploded Into Love All Around Me
Last night, Tara and I attended the wake of her late great-aunt Edna Eberlin. Edna was a fantastic lady and has a large and loving family, so I expected quite a few people to show up and honor her memory. The turnout was more than expected; it was amazing. It seemed as if the entire population of southern Calhoun (and then some) was in attendance.
As we pulled up to the Brussels gymnasium fifteen minutes before the memorial, there was already a line out the door. Having arrived early (but after the prayer service), we thought perhaps they were waiting to let everyone in. We did not think that the gym could already be full--we were wrong. When we made it into the building nearly twenty minutes later, we were part of a line that snaked back and forth across the width of the basketball court many times over. Hundreds of people were already in attendance to remember Edna and offer their condolences to her family. Flowers covered all available seating on the home side of the gymnasium (yes, you read that correctly), save one lone spot which had been appropriately reserved for the "#1 Raiders Fan," Edna. Being an avid and talented quilter, Edna had crafted scores of quilts for friends and family, many of which were on display on the "away" side of the gym. The programs included many of the loving and well-written Facebook statuses of Edna's family, and the hundreds of pictures set up were a great tribute to her memory.
Altogether, it was an amazing service. After the names from the guest book were tallied, it was estimated that over one-thousand people had attended. One who did not know Edna might be inclined to ask how there could be such an overwhelming show of support for an ordinary lady, but the answer is simple: Edna was no ordinary lady. Her life and legacy, to so many people, exemplify the word extraordinary.
As we pulled up to the Brussels gymnasium fifteen minutes before the memorial, there was already a line out the door. Having arrived early (but after the prayer service), we thought perhaps they were waiting to let everyone in. We did not think that the gym could already be full--we were wrong. When we made it into the building nearly twenty minutes later, we were part of a line that snaked back and forth across the width of the basketball court many times over. Hundreds of people were already in attendance to remember Edna and offer their condolences to her family. Flowers covered all available seating on the home side of the gymnasium (yes, you read that correctly), save one lone spot which had been appropriately reserved for the "#1 Raiders Fan," Edna. Being an avid and talented quilter, Edna had crafted scores of quilts for friends and family, many of which were on display on the "away" side of the gym. The programs included many of the loving and well-written Facebook statuses of Edna's family, and the hundreds of pictures set up were a great tribute to her memory.
Altogether, it was an amazing service. After the names from the guest book were tallied, it was estimated that over one-thousand people had attended. One who did not know Edna might be inclined to ask how there could be such an overwhelming show of support for an ordinary lady, but the answer is simple: Edna was no ordinary lady. Her life and legacy, to so many people, exemplify the word extraordinary.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Cold Cash and Colder Hearts
After a rather lengthy hiatus from the poker table (online or otherwise), I have decided to return to regular play. I think, perhaps, my break was a bit too long, but I worked out quite a few kinks tonight and got back in the groove quickly enough.
There are two prerequisites for serious poker players: love of the game and aptitude for the game. Anyone that plays poker but says they don't care much about the game and do it just to have fun can come sit at my table. I will be happy to take their money. I love the mechanics of the game, the varied and large skill set it requires, and the fact that it has the potential to earn the diligent, patient individual quite a good living. Just as any form of gambling, poker can cause an individual to go broke if he or she is not responsible. What many don't understand about poker is that since it is a game requiring skill, the chance of losing your money is lessened quite substantially in the long run if you are good at it. It all comes down to smart play and bankroll management.
Tonight I played in two NLHE (No Limit Hold 'Em) tournaments on PokerStars, and both were 9-ring SnGs (Sit-'n'-Go). The first game I can't remember very well, and that's probably a good thing because I played really badly and didn't cash. The second went quite a bit better. Getting off to a good start, I doubled up on the first hand. The blinds were 10-20, and I limped in UTG (Under the Gun--immediate left of the big blind) with 66. UTG+1 (the player to my immediate left) raised it up to 60. Everyone else folded, and I called. The flop came 6-8-Q rainbow, giving me bottom set. I checked to the raiser (a standard move), and he made a pot-sized bet which I just called. The next card was a rag, and it went check-check. An ace came on the river which I thought might have hit my opponent. I knew I had the best hand, but I was hoping for a call. I made a value bet of around a third of the pot, and he moved all in. I was a bit concerned about the huge over-bet on the river, thinking he might have been holding AA, but I went with my first instinct and called anyway. He turned over AQ (two pair) right before leaving the table. That hand set the tone for the rest of the tournament, and I managed to keep up an aggressive style that led me to eventual victory. There were a few obstacles to overcome such as when I doubled up the same player two times with As-Js both times. I was down to 650 chips at one point (only about 5% of the chips in play), but the table had tightened up, and some solid short-stack play allowed me to steal four or five sets of blinds and then double up with KK when I finally got a caller; incidentally, the caller was the player to whom I had given my chips with the AsJs. I ended up with a commanding chip lead (about 60% of the chips in play) with five players left. The table had loosened up, so I adjusted my play (an ability all successful poker players have in their arsenal) until it was down to three. As I slowly whittled down the other two players' chip stacks, they both put all their chips in. I grudgingly laid down AT off-suit (not the greatest hand but pretty strong in short-handed play), and 77 beat out A-5 to make it heads up. The only two moves in my heads up opponent's arsenal were "fold" and "all-in," an exceedingly annoying trait that really devalues the heads up experience. I finally ended up calling with Td7d, and he turned up AA. He couldn't have had a hand every time he went all in, but I didn't make a very good call anyway. I like hands like T-7, especially suited, because they are deceiving and you can win some pretty big pots with them; however, they are not the types of hands one goes all in with when a tournament is on the line. This time, however, I ended up sucking out when the flop came T-7-9. An ace didn't come on the turn or the river, and I took down the majority of the prize pool with my two pair.
Basically, my reason for composing this post is the same one I give my students. I never feel more certain about something than after I write about it. Writing allows the author to recall and evaluate information at the same time; therefore, I find it only natural for me to write about my experiences at the poker table in order to become a more critical player.
Considering it's now 11:30 p.m. and I have to be at work in seven hours, I better go lay down. Until next time, I'm all in.
There are two prerequisites for serious poker players: love of the game and aptitude for the game. Anyone that plays poker but says they don't care much about the game and do it just to have fun can come sit at my table. I will be happy to take their money. I love the mechanics of the game, the varied and large skill set it requires, and the fact that it has the potential to earn the diligent, patient individual quite a good living. Just as any form of gambling, poker can cause an individual to go broke if he or she is not responsible. What many don't understand about poker is that since it is a game requiring skill, the chance of losing your money is lessened quite substantially in the long run if you are good at it. It all comes down to smart play and bankroll management.
Tonight I played in two NLHE (No Limit Hold 'Em) tournaments on PokerStars, and both were 9-ring SnGs (Sit-'n'-Go). The first game I can't remember very well, and that's probably a good thing because I played really badly and didn't cash. The second went quite a bit better. Getting off to a good start, I doubled up on the first hand. The blinds were 10-20, and I limped in UTG (Under the Gun--immediate left of the big blind) with 66. UTG+1 (the player to my immediate left) raised it up to 60. Everyone else folded, and I called. The flop came 6-8-Q rainbow, giving me bottom set. I checked to the raiser (a standard move), and he made a pot-sized bet which I just called. The next card was a rag, and it went check-check. An ace came on the river which I thought might have hit my opponent. I knew I had the best hand, but I was hoping for a call. I made a value bet of around a third of the pot, and he moved all in. I was a bit concerned about the huge over-bet on the river, thinking he might have been holding AA, but I went with my first instinct and called anyway. He turned over AQ (two pair) right before leaving the table. That hand set the tone for the rest of the tournament, and I managed to keep up an aggressive style that led me to eventual victory. There were a few obstacles to overcome such as when I doubled up the same player two times with As-Js both times. I was down to 650 chips at one point (only about 5% of the chips in play), but the table had tightened up, and some solid short-stack play allowed me to steal four or five sets of blinds and then double up with KK when I finally got a caller; incidentally, the caller was the player to whom I had given my chips with the AsJs. I ended up with a commanding chip lead (about 60% of the chips in play) with five players left. The table had loosened up, so I adjusted my play (an ability all successful poker players have in their arsenal) until it was down to three. As I slowly whittled down the other two players' chip stacks, they both put all their chips in. I grudgingly laid down AT off-suit (not the greatest hand but pretty strong in short-handed play), and 77 beat out A-5 to make it heads up. The only two moves in my heads up opponent's arsenal were "fold" and "all-in," an exceedingly annoying trait that really devalues the heads up experience. I finally ended up calling with Td7d, and he turned up AA. He couldn't have had a hand every time he went all in, but I didn't make a very good call anyway. I like hands like T-7, especially suited, because they are deceiving and you can win some pretty big pots with them; however, they are not the types of hands one goes all in with when a tournament is on the line. This time, however, I ended up sucking out when the flop came T-7-9. An ace didn't come on the turn or the river, and I took down the majority of the prize pool with my two pair.
Basically, my reason for composing this post is the same one I give my students. I never feel more certain about something than after I write about it. Writing allows the author to recall and evaluate information at the same time; therefore, I find it only natural for me to write about my experiences at the poker table in order to become a more critical player.
Considering it's now 11:30 p.m. and I have to be at work in seven hours, I better go lay down. Until next time, I'm all in.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Manna Is a Hell of a Drug
After hearing about their visit to Bethalto, I absolutely must express my distaste for groups like the Westboro Baptist Church. Thank God I'm a Catholic (yes, I recognize the implicit irony in that statement) and not a Baptist. I would be even more infuriated if they were to adopt my particular denomination for their hate-mongering. As it is, my level of contempt is high enough as they have chosen Christianity as a vehicle for their hate. I imagine this is the same feeling that good, peaceful Muslims have when malicious extremists (e.g. Jihadists) claim Islam for their malevolent purposes.
Groups such as the Westboro Baptists annoy me for a variety of reasons, but there are two major ones. The subjects of their hate are not what bothers me the most. Everyone focuses on the group's disdain for the homosexual community, but judging from their website's various sister sites such as jewskilledjesus.com and priestsrapeboys.com (just to name a few), they seem to be equal-opportunity hate-mongers. Rotten people tend to congregate and feed off of each other's hostility, and the advent of the internet has allowed greater communication and organization for groups of all kinds. Hate groups are always going to be around; that won't change.
The first major reason these vile people get under my skin is their complete lack of respect for anyone, especially those who sacrifice their lives to maintain the freedom of which these depreciators take full advantage. We all know the stories of their ignorant funeral protests, and I don't feel like recounting them. I feel badly enough devoting the small amount of time that I have to this composition; however, I believe they present a troubling problem (which I shall explain) on top of the individual instances of their frequent, disrespectful, and infuriating picketing.
The second reason--and the catalyst for this post--is the group's complete misrepresentation of religious conservatives. Their website reads like an extreme liberal atheist's far-fetched parody of the Christian Right. If it wasn't serious, it would almost be funny to someone with as twisted of a sense of humor as I have been known to have. Unfortunately, it's no joke. The group concerns me as a conservative Christian American, but I want to point out that this concern is not the only or even the primary one although it is what drove me to compose this post. I do not want to downplay the acute emotional harm the group is inflicting on innocent families and individuals; however, as a member of the societal group to which these villains allegedly belong, I feel obligated to resist this classification. They rank right up there with the crazies that bomb abortion clinics. I would feel the same obligation if I was a liberal atheist (which I was at one point, believe it or not) thrown in with a group of church burners (of which, incidentally, I have never been a part).
I recognize that open-minded, critically-thinking individuals do not automatically assume that all right-wing Christians share Fred Phelps and family's ludicrous stance, but I think you would be surprised at how many would. The media has a large influence on the views of the public, and the mass media leans overwhelmingly to the left. For those who don't deign to read the news, information is often gathered from television shows--an unfortunate, yet nevertheless true, circumstance. A good example of this problem and the detrimental effects it can have is the infamous Saturday Night Live skit featuring Tina Fey's parody of Sarah Palin. In the skit, Fey claims, "I can see Russia from my house!" This quote was attributed by a large number of the American public to Palin herself rather than the parody. The joke was a distortion of a factual statement that Palin made in an ABC interview with Charlie Gibson where she stated, "[Y]ou can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." This prevarication was a huge detriment to Palin's image at a crucial time in her political career. My point is not to defend Palin but to exemplify the type of dilemmas that arise when people accept what they see and/or at face value and don't think for themselves.
The Westboro Baptists absolutely do not represent conservative or Christian values. Conservatives seek to limit the power of the government over individuals and maintain traditional values, with societal changes happening gradually if necessary. Contrary to popular belief, we are not out to kill animals, pollute the environment, or keep minorities from achieving individual and/or collective success and happiness. True, many conservatives oppose gay marriage; then again, so does President Obama (who is definitely not a conservative). Although it is an easy habit to develop, it is unfair to label and stereotype anyone.
By the same token, Christianity is not epitomized by the persecution and suffering of others even if the Christian symbol epitomizes suffering and persecution. Read that sentence again while thinking about the death of Jesus, and it won't seem so contradictory. Jesus wouldn't be protesting the funeral of a gay soldier; he would be standing arm-in-arm with those blocking the demonstration or attempting to console the bereaved family. I don't picture my Jesus as a baby, in a tuxedo tee shirt, or rocking lead vocals for Lynyrd Skynyrd with a group of angels singing harmony, but I do picture him as a pretty agreeable dude--not some stiff, but the type of guy who could keep a party going. He would also be the type of guy from which you would seek advice, and once you received an answer, it would seem so simple and correct that you would wonder how you didn't arrive at the conclusion yourself.
WWJD might seem trite, cliche, or even downright irrelevant at times, but if more people (especially those who call themselves Christians) took time to consider the question it acronymizes, the world would undoubtedly be a better place.
Groups such as the Westboro Baptists annoy me for a variety of reasons, but there are two major ones. The subjects of their hate are not what bothers me the most. Everyone focuses on the group's disdain for the homosexual community, but judging from their website's various sister sites such as jewskilledjesus.com and priestsrapeboys.com (just to name a few), they seem to be equal-opportunity hate-mongers. Rotten people tend to congregate and feed off of each other's hostility, and the advent of the internet has allowed greater communication and organization for groups of all kinds. Hate groups are always going to be around; that won't change.
The first major reason these vile people get under my skin is their complete lack of respect for anyone, especially those who sacrifice their lives to maintain the freedom of which these depreciators take full advantage. We all know the stories of their ignorant funeral protests, and I don't feel like recounting them. I feel badly enough devoting the small amount of time that I have to this composition; however, I believe they present a troubling problem (which I shall explain) on top of the individual instances of their frequent, disrespectful, and infuriating picketing.
The second reason--and the catalyst for this post--is the group's complete misrepresentation of religious conservatives. Their website reads like an extreme liberal atheist's far-fetched parody of the Christian Right. If it wasn't serious, it would almost be funny to someone with as twisted of a sense of humor as I have been known to have. Unfortunately, it's no joke. The group concerns me as a conservative Christian American, but I want to point out that this concern is not the only or even the primary one although it is what drove me to compose this post. I do not want to downplay the acute emotional harm the group is inflicting on innocent families and individuals; however, as a member of the societal group to which these villains allegedly belong, I feel obligated to resist this classification. They rank right up there with the crazies that bomb abortion clinics. I would feel the same obligation if I was a liberal atheist (which I was at one point, believe it or not) thrown in with a group of church burners (of which, incidentally, I have never been a part).
I recognize that open-minded, critically-thinking individuals do not automatically assume that all right-wing Christians share Fred Phelps and family's ludicrous stance, but I think you would be surprised at how many would. The media has a large influence on the views of the public, and the mass media leans overwhelmingly to the left. For those who don't deign to read the news, information is often gathered from television shows--an unfortunate, yet nevertheless true, circumstance. A good example of this problem and the detrimental effects it can have is the infamous Saturday Night Live skit featuring Tina Fey's parody of Sarah Palin. In the skit, Fey claims, "I can see Russia from my house!" This quote was attributed by a large number of the American public to Palin herself rather than the parody. The joke was a distortion of a factual statement that Palin made in an ABC interview with Charlie Gibson where she stated, "[Y]ou can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." This prevarication was a huge detriment to Palin's image at a crucial time in her political career. My point is not to defend Palin but to exemplify the type of dilemmas that arise when people accept what they see and/or at face value and don't think for themselves.
The Westboro Baptists absolutely do not represent conservative or Christian values. Conservatives seek to limit the power of the government over individuals and maintain traditional values, with societal changes happening gradually if necessary. Contrary to popular belief, we are not out to kill animals, pollute the environment, or keep minorities from achieving individual and/or collective success and happiness. True, many conservatives oppose gay marriage; then again, so does President Obama (who is definitely not a conservative). Although it is an easy habit to develop, it is unfair to label and stereotype anyone.
By the same token, Christianity is not epitomized by the persecution and suffering of others even if the Christian symbol epitomizes suffering and persecution. Read that sentence again while thinking about the death of Jesus, and it won't seem so contradictory. Jesus wouldn't be protesting the funeral of a gay soldier; he would be standing arm-in-arm with those blocking the demonstration or attempting to console the bereaved family. I don't picture my Jesus as a baby, in a tuxedo tee shirt, or rocking lead vocals for Lynyrd Skynyrd with a group of angels singing harmony, but I do picture him as a pretty agreeable dude--not some stiff, but the type of guy who could keep a party going. He would also be the type of guy from which you would seek advice, and once you received an answer, it would seem so simple and correct that you would wonder how you didn't arrive at the conclusion yourself.
WWJD might seem trite, cliche, or even downright irrelevant at times, but if more people (especially those who call themselves Christians) took time to consider the question it acronymizes, the world would undoubtedly be a better place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)