NY Has a Gay New Time

I don't have actual statistics on this, but if you saw a CNN poll (seeing as this would be a fairer representation of the national electorate than MSNBC or Fox News) around 2004 around your opinion of gay marriage, it would be around split, possibly with a lean towards no.  Something to the extent of 45% voting support of gay marriage and 55% opposing it (or maybe one of those weird polls where 53% vote opposition and 2% vote not sure, presumably due to not knowing what the words "gay" or "marriage" mean).  Today, in light of New York becoming the sixth state to legalize gay marriage, it splits 62% yes and 38% no.

It doesn't seem like society has changed that radically in the last seven years, but nearly one-sixth of the country has changed its opinion from opposition to gay marriage (my personal compromise: I'll say gay marriage as opposed to same-sex marriage, but I will never refer to opposing gay marriage as "supporting traditional marriage", for the obvious reason that it's an absurd phrase) to support of it.

This is a bit on the peculiar side if you think about it.  Noticeable changes have occurred on many issues, many more blatantly than with gay marriage (Iraq War support would be a good example).  But with Iraq, new facts have come through which have affected peoples' opinions--a lack of discovered WMDs, a lack of exit plan, etc.  In terms of gay marriage, what has really changed about the issue?  More openly gay celebrities maybe?

I suspect the reason that peoples' opinions of gay marriage have changed is because over time, people take more and more liberal positions on issues in which there is no harm done.  For some asinine reason, gay marriage is often considered a twin issue with abortion--but given that abortion opponents view abortion as akin to murder and gay marriage opponents view gay marriage as a poor lifestyle choice, the comparison isn't particularly valid.

Often, a major argument with gay marriage is that people once viewed homosexuality as a choice and now view it as natural.  As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't particularly matter whether homosexuality is by choice or natural.  Rather than compare it to, say, the civil rights movement of the 1960s, I prefer to compare it to the sexual revolution of the same era.  Nobody is arguing that increased sexuality in society is "natural" per se--it's pretty damn easy to control sexual activity, but attitudes have changed radically in the last half century because it's really a no harm, no foul situation.  Most Americans would agree in the legality of pornography (assuming the people consent/are of age/etc.) but would not have fifty years ago because nobody is being hurt.  With gay marriage, nobody is being hurt.

Because nobody is being hurt by gay marriage, you might as well get used to it.  I can't tell you in thirty years whether taxes will be higher or lower than they are now, but I can guarantee you beyond a reasonable doubt that gay marriage is legal in more than six states.

10 Movies I Probably Should Have Seen By Now

Inspired by the Post-Dispatch's Life Sherpa, a personal role model in that he gets paid to write worthless BS for columns, here is my list of ten movies I probably should have seen by now.

10. Twelve Monkeys: Time travel movies are kind of hit or miss, and in my estimation, the odds of it hitting are greatly reduced when the star is Bruce Willis.  I also don't know that I trust the Monty Python guy to direct it.

9. Once Upon a Time in the West: A western that's three hours long and doesn't include Clint Eastwood?  Seems like a waste of my precious time, which could instead be used to write pointless blog entries which will likely not be read by anyone.

8. Aliens: The first one was okay, what with being a somewhat new idea and being helmed by a genuinely inventive director in Ridley Scott.  A sequel which is said to be more action-packed which is directed by James Cameron, whose quality of work tends to correlate in reverse with budget size, does not have much appeal for me.

7. Bonnie and Clyde: I'm fond of a good old fashioned crime drama, but old fashioned should not be taken so literally.  They say that The Godfather reinvented the genre five years later, and as a result I have a hard time watching a crime drama from before 1972 (even 1971's French Connection seems very dated) without imagining a bunch of poor acting James Cagney and Edward G. Robinson clones.  I also don't recall ever watching a Warren Beatty movie and thinking "You know what, this movie deserves the acclaim it received."

6. Monty Python and the Holy Grail: I must confess I've never quite enjoyed the Pythons, though I refuse to say I don't "get" them because then there will be a chorus (if anyone indeed reads this) of people saying I'm an idiot because I don't get the subtlety of a style of humor which revolves primarily around name-dropping specific British counties and dressing in drag.  Maybe if it's on TV sometime.

5. The Empire Strikes Back: Saw the first Star Wars; can't say I was a huge fan, though I can appreciate it for its innovation.  And given that its whole appeal was originality for me, it seems like a gigantic waste of time to watch what is, by definition, a rehashing of a previously original idea (Note: Even good sequels are indisputably owing a huge debt to the original).

4. Lord of the Rings Return of the King: Basically, it would require me to watch like six hours of movie just to understand what the hell is going on.  And I've never been too big on fantasy elements in my movies.

3. 2001 A Space Odyssey: Kubrick doesn't really exceed good for me (I enjoy Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket but I can't say that I consider either an all-time great film), but the main thing that scares me about 2001 is that I have absolutely no idea what it's about.  I know it takes place in 2001 and there's astronauts and a computer named HAL, but I have no clue as to the plot.  Because all anyone talks about is how innovative it is, not how good it is.  Kind of like Citizen Kane or the Velvet Underground.

2. Lawrence of Arabia: Now, I've never seen this one, but I have seen other David Lean movies.  They were pretty damn boring, which makes me really afraid to watch a movie whose backdrop is a vast, sandy area.

1. Gone With The Wind: A nearly four hour Civil War epic which is not primarily about soldiers but the spoiled aristocrats of the South, a movie which treats the antebellum period as glorious and wonderful (even if you were, you know, property), one whose major innovations in 1939 were being in color and having a swear word (not exactly territory that I haven't seen covered)?  No thank you.

Moneyball is Still Money

In the early 2000s, Michael Lewis wrote Moneyball, an admittedly sycophantic tome about Billy Beane and the front office of the Oakland Athletics.  Lewis wrote about how the Athletics, a historic but struggling club who had very few financial resources to compete with the likes of the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox on an annual basis for pennants, managed to succeed well beyond their payroll.

For those who are not as large of baseball statistical nerds as I am, I'll try to break down the overarching premise of Moneyball--Billy Beane, ironically not a man who fits the standard profile of a nerd (unlike most MLB General Managers, Beane is himself a former baseball player, and interestingly enough not necessarily the type of player that he as a GM would be enamored by), made extensive use of the science of sabermetrics.  Sabermetrics ostensibly refers to the analysis of statistics, but the type of statistical analysis which was used by the Athletics front office was one which emphasized run production.  For instance, while old-fashioned statistical analysis will evaluate basestealing ability based on number of steals, the sabermetric focus recognizes that being caught stealing is more detrimental (since it eliminates run potential and creates a pivotal out) than successfully stealing is positive.  RBIs are also given less weight, since the number is almost entirely contingent on the success of other players.  The focus allowed the Athletics to get maximum bang for their buck in the early 2000s.

Moneyball is the most influential book Michael Lewis ever wrote, and that includes the one that got Sandra Bullock her Oscar.  And now, just as The Blind Side did, Moneyball is being made into a movie.  Now, who is it playing Billy Beane, the man who brought statistical analysis and mathematics to MLB front offices?  Maybe Jesse Eisenberg or Michael Cera?  Naa, too young.  He had a bit of a Seth MacFarlane resemblance in his playing days.  Nope.  Billy Beane is going to be portrayed by Brad Pitt.

Don't believe me?  Watch the trailer.  The movie actually appears to have rather high production values.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiAHlZVgXjk

The thing is, the Athletics haven't been quite the same over the last five years.  And everyone wants to argue that this is an indictment of Billy Beane and his methods.  But if you look at what has actually happened since the release of Moneyball, it becomes abundantly obvious that Billy Beane was too influential for his own good.

First, it's important to remember that focus on "new" statistics was not Billy Beane's idea.  He was just the first jock to truly pay attention to the nerds.  Bill James has been writing about sabermetric principles since the Nixon administration.  In addition, the principles are not that different from what baseball has been used to--sabermetricians generally agree that the best hitter of all-time is Babe Ruth.  And it's not as though you must take a vow of poverty to adhere to sabermetrics.  Just look at Theo Epstein.

The death knell of Billy Beane being revered as the superstar general manager of Major League Baseball came when Theo Epstein, essentially a Beane clone (he even hired Bill James to work in his front office), was hired by the Boston Red Sox.  And the Red Sox won.  For the first time, a major-market team was caring about OPS and runs created and win shares.  And it worked.  All of a sudden, teams were wisening up.  Pretty much every team now utilizes sabermetrics to at least some degree (most agree that traditional scouting should play at least some role in a strong organization).  And then there was Billy Beane.

Now, he's the GM for the Oakland Athletics, who aren't making the playoffs too much.  With that said, they are still doing better than their payroll would indicate.  Allegedly, this shows that maybe he's just a decent GM but not the Svengali he was alleged to be.  But now I'm going to use an analogy.

In the 1960s, The Who were a revolutionary and exciting band--"My Generation" was one of the most raw songs anyone had ever heard and its speed and working class angst were revered.  By 1977, The Who were considered washed up or has-beens compared to the more aggressive, more loud, and more angst-riddled punk movement, with the Sex Pistols and Clash leading the way.  But the fact of the matter is, if it hadn't been for Keith Moon's lunacy or Pete Townshend's songwriting manifestation, punk would never have existed.  Yet in 1977, the members of The Who were in their mid-thirties and were no longer capable of evoking youthful exuberance.  The world caught up.  The Who were still a good band but they were no longer unique.

Of course, in 2011 most people realize that The Who were a vital and great band.  So maybe eventually people are going to give Billy Beane the recognition that he deserves.