An intentionally overwrought homage to Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series

The following spoiler-free piece on The Wheel of Time series is directed at fellow blogger Mac and any other potential reader who refused to begin the series until it had an end.

(Note: please refrain from any comments that might spoil any volume of the series for the uninitiated)

Unsuspecting provincial finds himself swept up by an epic struggle between the forces of good and evil, which (only very recently) now threatens his home and everyone he loves. And, oh by the way, the fate of the entire world may or may not rest on his shoulders.

So begins nearly every modern fantasy tale since Tolkien penned the prototypical (and still the greatest) model in the mid twentieth century. No author should be faulted for attempting to follow the path beaten by a master storyteller, and the Wheel of Time is no exception to this rule.

Some fantasy authors focus on grand plot and narrative, others on political machinations and war, many on character development, and still more on world building. Rarely can an author pull all these categories together, and even the master (Tolkien) needed multiple volumes of backstory and appendices to pull it off. Jordan was no exception in this regard. His story spanned continents, pitted kingdoms against each other, and drew the unsuspecting into the treacherous ‘Game of Houses.’ There are occasional ‘quests’ that stand alone, yet work toward the eventual climax of the series that span multiple books, for better or worse. This can be either rewarding or frustrating for the reader, and occasionally both at the same time. Yet, more than any other author, Jordan possessed a knack for writing those last hundred pages of a book so gripping that school, work, or any concern are easily forgotten in the furious sweeping of pages.

Writing characters (particularly women) was never Jordan’s strength. Indeed, the reader will lose track of the myriad minor and occasionally forgettable characters that cross paths with our main hero(es). For that matter, Jordan himself seemingly misplaced some of the major ones at certain points. But you never stopped caring for them or wanting, waiting desperately for the next volume to discover their fates. This stemmed from Jordan’s major triumph- the building of a compelling world that draws in the reader.

A world armed only with steel and scientific magic confronted a very real, physical threat to its survival. The characters live in and fight for (or against) the world, and we the readers love them for it. Jordan carefully portrayed these characters in this world, lovingly devoting pages to the material elements of their surroundings. A source of some criticism for the length of each book, this thick description rather contextualized the plot and characters in a way that gives them meaning to readers, and makes us care whether they live or die, and in what manner.

The Eye of the World, first volume of the series, was published in 1990, and Jordan issued a new installment every few years until the eleventh, his last solely authored volume, Knife of Dreams, in 2005. Jordan was diagnosed with cardiac amyloidosis in 2006, and after treatment died tragically in 2007. Recently established fantasy author Brandon Sanderson took up the gargantuan task of co-authoring and completing the final volume of the series, which was released in three installments under the subtitle, A Memory of Light (also the proper title of the last installment). Sanderson impressively gathered the far-flung and loose ends of Jordan’s epic tale and wove a convincing and dramatic pattern that leaves the reader satisfied but wanting more.

“The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. In one Age, called the Third Age by some, an Age yet to come, an Age long past, a wind rose in the Mountains of Mist. The wind was not the beginning. There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning.” (EotW, 1)

Jordan and Sanderson’s ending was not what I expected, and it came more than a decade after I expected it, but (in their words) “it was an ending,” (AMoL, 909), one that I endorse wholeheartedly.

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess [A Review]

After a long absence from contributing to the VT, I figured I needed to tackle something I’m very passionate about to make an effective return. Anyone who knows me, knows ‘The Legend of Zelda’ series is one of my passions. What follows is the first videogame review for the VT, a review of ‘The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess’ for the Nintendo Wii.

Story: 7.5
At first ‘Twilight Princess’ starts off just like almost every other Zelda game; Link, a young boy on the verge of manhood, wakes up to a day that will change his life forever. The princess is in danger, he’s a hero chosen by the gods, and the Triforce will somehow be stuck in there in ways that might, or might not (likely not, in fact) be fully explained. Link will gradually become a man, travel to the remote areas of the world, and will be forced to stop Gannon(dorf), whether or not the story had anything to do with him when it first began. Add improvements, and repeat.
Let’s be honest, actual story telling is not the strength of this series; and no one cares. As ‘Twilight Princess’ advances, the story actually has a surprising amount of gravity to it; at least for a Zelda game. Link’s new companion, Midna, along with the inclusion of the Twilight realm creates a story with enough new twists to at least keep you interested between challenging puzzles and action sequences.

Gameplay: 10.0
This is where the Legend of Zelda has always shined; and the day that this changes is the day Nintendo needs to retire the series for good (may it never happen!). ‘Twilight Princess’ keeps intact the basic control scheme of targeting to handle difficulties involved with controlling a character in a 3-D world developed for ‘Ocarina of Time’, with only minor improvements. The changes are minor, but that’s fine because it’s still the best control scheme for a 3-D game ever developed.
The biggest change in control comes due to the fact that this game is played with a Wii-mote and Nunchuk attachment. The game designers have done an excellent job of transferring the controls to the modified button configuration, while greatly improving control aspects involving targeting, such as shooting a bow or aiming the hookshot. Oh yeah, and and when you swing the Wii-mote or Nunchuck, you swing your sword or shield, respectively. It’s not a 1:1 scheme, which has upset many people, and feels just slightly tacked-on (remember, this was originally a Gamecube game). However, it never detracts at all form the experience, and frequently adds to it.
The combat system has also evolved one step beyond ‘Wind Waker’, which implemented the “Parry” technique into combat. There are now 6 specialty attack techniques, which must be acquired throughout the course of the game. While not a revolutionary step, it’s a very nice addition to an already streamlined combat system.

Difficulty: 8.5
When ‘Wind Waker’ came out for the Gamecube, many people just couldn’t handle the dramatic graphical shift. My biggest complaint, however, with ‘Wind Waker’ was the difficulty of the game. The game had good length, and the puzzles were as mentally challenging as any Zelda game prior. The fighting, however, lacked any real challenge. I think the only time I actually had to continue in the game was when I playfully attacked an animal (I giant pig) until it back lashed enough to kill me; sadly, I wasn’t carrying a fairy in a bottle at the time.
This is a problem that ‘Twilight Princess’, for the most part, rectifies. The action sequences are significantly more challenging, even if a skilled player will rarely be in true danger of dying. The puzzles are also challenging, and fairly fresh. The one thing that seems to really hurt the challenge of the game is the unevenness off the difficulty level. One dungeon can be infinitely more difficult than another, and it has nothing to do with the sequence in which the dungeons are completed. On top of that, the end boss fight, while fairly long and creative, isn’t particularly difficult. As a result, the game ends on a bit of an anti-climax from an action-sense, which is really a shame.

Graphics: 8.0
The graphics in ‘Twilight Princess’ neither lead the gamer to be impressed nor leave him or her greatly disappointed. It’s pretty much a good looking, but not great looking game. No one will confuse it with an XBox360 or PS3 game, and most can easily see the game for the Gamecube port that it is. That being said, it’s a very good-looking Gamecube game. While some are sure to be disappointed by these facts, I never found the graphics distractingly poor, and enjoyed seeing a Zelda game that takes the more “realistic” graphical approach (as opposed to ‘Wind Waker’, which was an enjoyable shift in its own right) in action.

Value: 10.0
I’m a notoriously thorough gamer when it comes to the Zelda series. As a result, I’m quite slow when it comes to beating these games. I like to leave, literally, no stone unturned, no blade of grass uncut, and no pot unbroken. With two very minor side quests not quite completed (don’t worry, I’ll be going back to complete them!), I finished the game after a lengthy 83 hours of gameplay. If anyone can find a single-player game out there that provides that kind of longevity, please let me know what games it is, and if it’s any good!

Legacy: Everybody’s Second Favorite
Is it the best Zelda game ever? That was the hype surrounding the ‘Twilight Princess’ when it was released, and it’s high praise to have to live up to! Keep in mind that numerous publications gave ‘The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time’ not only a 10.0/10.0 ranking, but touted it as the best video game of all time when it came out for the N64 many years ago. Even those who disagreed couldn’t argue with the fact that many people thought that; it was just an exceptional game.
So where does ‘Twilight Princess’ fit in? Unfortunately, that is an answer I’m not sure I can fully give. The game is excellent. It fits right in the upper tier of all-time video games, just like ‘A Link to the Past’, ‘Ocarina of Time’, and ‘Wind Waker’ (many people would dispute the virtues of this game, but I would argue for it as the 2nd most enjoyable game in the series, after ‘A Link to the Past’, and the numerous Game of the Year awards it won would seem to support that). If I had to guess, when more time has passed and fans of the series can look back at ‘Twilight Princess’ more objectively, I see it become many people’s second favorite, but not many people’s favorite. It does everything well, it just doesn’t stand out in any way. ‘A Link to the Past’ is more fun, ‘Ocarina of Time was more ground-breaking (introducing 3-D graphics/controls, and expanding the scope of all video games to a new level), and ‘Wind Waker’ provided the most unique experience of them all. In the end it has many of the best aspects of the previous Zelda games wrapped into one complete package; it just doesn’t have any elements that it can stand on as its claim to glory all on its own.

The Next Elway?

When Peyton Manning entered the NFL draft, I was quick to anoint him the ‘next Elway’. People who heard me say this were quick to point out that we’d just have to wait and see. Maybe I was biased because of my love for the Tennessee Volunteers, but I knew then that Peyton was special. Not just special because he had the class and desire to come back to school for his senior year for a chance at a National Championship. Not just special because he was 6’5”, the son of an NFL great Quarterback, and had all the tools. Peyton was special because he was the most rare combination of physical tools, character, leadership, intelligence, desire to win, and work ethic ever to enter the league.

After becoming the #1 overall pick and going to the Indianapolis Colts (in spite of ludicrous suggestions by some publications that the Colts should take Ryan Leaf over Manning because of his stronger arm), Manning had an excellent start to his young career. After a few years there were some who questioned whether or not he could ever cut down on his interception rate; questioning that was answered soon thereafter when Manning fine-tuned his game to become one of the most efficient QB’s in the league. And yet, there were those who doubted.

When Manning followed up his Co-MVP year in 2003 with his record-breaking 2004 season, only to fall to the Patriots in the playoffs, the mumbling really picked up steam. ‘Not a winner’, ‘can’t get it done in the big games’, or ‘he’s just a good stats guy’ were the most popular descriptions I heard. People were comparing Manning to NFL Quarterbacks of old again, but they were comparisons now being made between Peyton and the two Dan’s; Marino and Fouts.

‘The next Elway’ is what I said in 1998. ‘The next Elway is what I say in 2007, on the eve of a matc-hup between the Colts and their arch-nemeses; Tom Brady and the Patriots. If the Patriots triumph over the Colts again this year, Manning’s legacy will be all but cemented in most people’s minds. He’ll be the greatest statistical QB of all time, but he’ll never be a winner. Can you guess how I would describe Manning, if given only three words, should he his team suffer yet another playoff defeat? ‘The next Elway’.

I’ll never cease to be amazed at how much emphasis Hall of Fame votes, and reputation in general in the NFL, are based on championships. Sure Terry Bradshaw won four championships, but would you really want him over Manning? Joe Theismann won a Lombardy Trophy, would you want him doing anything for you over Manning (including announcing an NFL game!)? Trent Dilfer won a ring, would… I’m done making this point. ‘Football is the ultimate team sport’ is a common phrase, used just yesterday by new Dolphins’ coach Cam Cameron. If it is (and it probably is), then why does one QB take all the blame for his team’s losses, and another QB, who couldn’t hold a candle up to him were their roles reversed, gets all the credit for guiding his team to three championships (you know who you are Brady)?

More than the emphasis on championships, there is something else that always amazes me. It amazes me how we incorporate revisionist history into the legacy of NFL quarterbacks who won a championship, and yet we’re so ready to label other players careers as busts, or disappointments, before they’ve had a chance to completely write their legacy. As soon as Brett Favre won a title all his interceptions and boneheaded plays that previously had fans wondering if they could ever win with this guy, were quickly disregarded as part of Favre’s gunslinger mentality, a part of his greatness, no less! Steve Young was a scrambling QB struggling to establish himself from underneath the shadow of Joe Montana until he played one of the best Super Bowl’s ever by a QB, and suddenly he was a guy who had always been a winner, and finally overcame the challenges he faced. Even Marino was the next great quarterback, going to the Super Bowl in just his second year. He had “it”, he was already a winner; and now he’s labeled as a guy who couldn’t win the big one in spite of his stats, and has to take jabs from far inferior former quarterbacks like Boomer Esiason.

And let’s not forget John Elway himself. Sure he had, “the drive”. He made several Super Bowls throughout his career. But he didn’t win one until his last two seasons, well past his prime. Now we look back at his entire career as historical, epic, and clutch.

Guy’s like Esiason should be polishing the shoes of Dan Marino. Guys like Brady and Roethlisberger should be standing in awe of the way Peyton Manning is taking their position to new heights. Instead, Peyton’s left eating humble pie. If he wins a Super Bowl this year (which I sincerely think he will), much of that stigma will go away. But it shouldn’t have to go away. It shouldn’t be there to begin with. His career is not over, his history is still unwritten. We shouldn’t be having to discuss this at all, but we are. In fact, I take some blame for comparing Manning to Elway to begin with. Maybe he isn’t the next Elway. I think when it’s all said and done, he’s an even better player. He should be allowed to just be the first Peyton Manning.

The playoffs are in action, baseball is as popular as it ever was pre-strike, and this summer I finally got to the point where I could stand watching the occasional baseball game (thank you fantasy sports, thank you): sounds like the perfect time to write another baseball article for the rejuvenated Village Tavern!

Last year at about this time, I wrote about how baseball had it all wrong when it came to individual awards. This year, I’ll tackles a different problem facing America’s Favorite Past-time. As the playoffs have started, one team has arisen as the over-whelming favorite to win it all. The New York Yankees. On top of that, the New York Mets are the odds-on favorite to win the pathetically weak National League. Once again, the larger the market team, the more likely they are to succeed.

It seems every year the Yankees or Red Sox are able to make an extra move at the trade deadline (which somehow passes, and 5 moves are still made in the following 3 weeks, could someone please explain this to me?) to put them over the top. This year, once again, it was the Yankees getting Bobby Abreau. The Yankees went from being in a tight race with the Red Sox, to the dominating Division Champs. They also went arrived as having the most dominating hitting lineup in baseball (history?), whereas before they were… well, still really freakin’ good! But still, it was a move that helped secure their spot as the odds-on favorite to win the World Series (which, by the way, happened before the MLB season began. It was called the World Baseball Classi, and Japan, not the US of A or any south American country, won it).

I’ve always hated the Yankees. Hate the New York hype, hate any team that seems to always win (unless it’s my team of course), and even before I had any other reason I always hated that stupid logo with the pin-striped top hat and baseball bat. It’s the most retarded logo in sports, at least until the 90’s hit and we were blessed with the Grizzlies, the Orlando Magic, and the Washington Wizards…


But don’t blame the Yankees for winning, and don’t blame them for the fact that when the MLB season starts, there are only a small handful of teams with a real chance of winning. In an age where parody has made the NFL far and away the most popular professional sports league in America, MLB is insulting its fans every year. Kansas City, Tampa Bay, Colorado and many others; what chance do they have? Why should their owners spend as much money as possible, to maybe, just maybe, finish around .500 and still out of the playoffs? Look at Toronto. They’re spending money, but does anyone really think they can outspend the Yankees or Red Sox? They might make the playoffs here or there one year (especially if the Red Sox don’t shape up), but it won’t be because they spent more money. If it happens, it’ll be because they got more bang for their buck.

If you were a major league team in a sport with no salary cap, would you pass up on a player you could pay a little extra to get at the trading deadline if it guaranteed you a playoff birth and World Series contention? I wouldn’t. If you’re honest with yourself, neither would you. Don’t blame the Yankees, this is Major League Baseball’s problem. They need a salary cap, revenue sharing, and regulations that require small market teams to spend a certain amount of money (I’m not oblivious to the fact that teams like Pittsburgh turn a huge profit every year and refuse to spend enough to be competitive). It’s not going to be an easy change, but it’s a necessary one. But until it happens, don’t blame the Yankees. Don’t hate the player, hate the game…

Consolation Closure

Perhaps the only thing more sad than the recent lack of posting on this site, is the fact that basically the entire World Cup has gone by without mention. One of the world’s greatest sporting events deserves better. But while a World Cup Preview, mid-season report, or a few team biographical articles were noticeably absent, I’m writing this article as a small consolation.

And ‘consolation’ also happens to be the subject at hand: in this case the World Cup Consolation game. There are many things that American major sports could learn from the world’s favorite tournament. Of course, there are many things I pray America never learns from the rest of the world’s sporting mentality: flopping, refereeing that threatened to make the “you breathed on Dwayne Wade, so it’s a shooting foul” job done by Joey Crawford, et al in the NBA Finals look like a flawless masterpiece, and fan outrage that at times amounts to nothing more than mob violence and makes the Pacers-Pistons brawl look like as innocent as a starring contest by comparison. These things have hurt, and threatened to ruin, a truly great sporting event. They’ve also turned off many casual viewers in the States, which really is a shame.

But the consolation game is something American sports, most notably the NCAA Basketball Tournament, could learn from. Instead of letting two teams play one last game to decide who was better between the two semi-final losers, we’ve decided to hype a team for making ‘The Final Four’, or the ‘Elite Eight’, etc. Making it to those rounds is a huge accomplishment, but since when do we praise a team for reaching an arbitrary round of a tournament. In sports it has always been about who wins: and due to the influence of the Olympics the top three finishers will always hold special significance.

Of course, there will always be nay-sayers who discredit the game for lack of motivation. Is it true that teams sometimes have trouble being motivated for such an event? Absolutely, and so would you. Think about the circumstances for a second. You just played your heart out through three group games, the first elimination game, and the quarterfinals; only to lose a heart-breaker in the semifinals. Wouldn’t you have a little trouble getting motivated to play a game that has no chance of helping you accomplish the goal which has been your motivation for four years.

Putting the motivation issues aside, after the first 10 or 15 minutes of play, it’s hard for the players not to be motivated. The competitive juices are flowing, and there’s no excuse not to go for it while you’re out there. And at the point, the true value of a consolation starts to show itself. It is a showcase of skill, national pride, and an excellent way to say good-bye. Because the World Cup is more than a competitive international tournament, more than an exhibition of excellent soccer talent: it is an event where legacy’s are both born and put to rest. For every Ronaldo or Micheal Owen who uses the World Cup to burst onto the scene, there is a player like Zinedine Zidane or Luis Figo who uses great play at his last World Cup to put his legacy to rest, or ensure it’s final resting place.


Was there any real soccer fan watching the Third Place Game who wasn’t appalled that Portugal’s Figo wasn’t in the starting lineup? Of Course not, it seemed like the perfect opportunity for one of the great players in the game to play his last game, to give us one last playmaking showcase. Upon entering the game in the second half, Figo immediately changed the game, getting the assist on Portugal’s lone goal. It was then, not after the devastating loss to France on a lone Penalty Kick, that Figo’s career ended. It was the third place game, where the end result wasn’t quit as important, where Figo, and all his fans around the world, found closure.

The same can be said for German Goalkeeper Oliver Khan. After almost single-handedly leading Germany to the World Cup Final four years ago, only to have his only sub-par performance in the second half against Brazil, Khan found himself on the bench in 2006. Four years ago he became the first goalkeeper ever to win the Golden Ball Award for the tournament’s most outstanding player, today he is a bench player.

But German Coach Jürgen Klinsmann seems to have a good understanding of the importance of closure, the value of a consolation game. He decided to put Khan in for the consolation game as the starting Goalkeeper, and team captain. He did this as a sign of respect. He had seen how Oliver Khan had never complained after his demotion, how he had still impacted the team for the better when he wasn’t on the field. This was his reward

In sports, occasionally there are times when it’s about more than the end result, when players deserve our respect, and an extra moment in the spotlight. Klinsmann instinctively understood this, and so should we…

Missing McNair

So long, so wrong, wasting my time
Trying to find the peace of mind…
-Proxemics

Steve McNair is gone. The center-piece of the Titans, the quarterback, the leader. With him goes the last memorable player from the Titans’ Super Bowl run. It is truly then end of an era. And I’m quickly realizing, as I attempt to deal with the loss of my favorite Titan, what that really means. It means that a new era is upon us (well, Titans fans anyways), what many have titled the “Vince Young Era” (or VYE). And, quite frankly, I’m not sure I’m ready for it…

Vince Young dominated the Rose Bowl (actually, the last two Rose Bowls) to a level rarely seen in high-level athletics. But he did it as an athlete, not as a football player. I don’t want to undermine the improvements that Vince made from his Freshman year to the impressive capstone game of his Junior season. He went from a raw, completely inaccurate thrower who couldn’t pass Chance Mock on the depth chart, to a classic double-threat quarterback. He developed enough as a passer to hit open receivers on intermediate and short routes, especially while using his scrambling ability to buy extra time.

But in the NFL, bigger, faster Defensive linemen will have him flat on his back before he can get those passes off. He’s only played out of the shot-gun. His footwork is iffy, to say the least. Don’t let me even get started on his throwing mechanics (let’s just put it this way, he’s a rotator cuff injury waiting to happen, and J-E-T-S fans know how unbearable that whole process can be). The fact of the matter is this: Vince Young has the tools, but so do Drew Henson, Kyle Boller, Patrick Ramsay, and David Carr. There are no guarantees. Everyone is trying to get the next Peyton Manning or the next Mike Vick (it’s true, I don’t know why, but it’s true), but as often as not you end up with the next Sean Salisbury. Which is why I have a feeling I’ll be wishing we were still in the BV (before Vince) era for the next few years, as much as the VYE holds a promising future.

Sing a new song, hold me near tonight
tell me that everything’s alright
-Proxemics

But as I sit here, already missing McNair, there is one thing that brings me some solace. The fact of the matter is that he hasn’t been the same quarterback since his “McMVP” year. His ability to play through injuries on his way to a co-MVP winning year won the respect of fans everywhere, and an irreplaceable spot in the heart of every die-hard Titans fan.

But the injuries took their toll. And his impressive ability to play through the pain and the injuries was surpassed only by his incomprehensible ability to develop new pains and injuries (who get hurt falling on a football? I’m not saying he was faking any of it, but it got to the point that you where you started to wonder if he was two people: the body of the softest player in football ever, combined with the heart of the toughest man on earth). And as the last two seasons unfolded McNair had finally had enough. He decided to start letting his injuries heal, even if it meant missing a game or two; and no one could blame him. But as he missed more games and his lost aura of invincibility, he seemed to lose some of his killer-instinct. The McNair of 2003 was gone, and in his place we were left with a quarterback who could no longer run over linebackers, and who now was as likely to throw the game-deciding interception as the game-winning touchdown.

I don’t want to bash McNair as he walks out the door, because he’ll always be a Titan to me. Furthermore, as a fan, I mostly blame the Titans organization for the handling of this situation (although it was a very tough situation). But as I’ve become accustomed to watching all of the Titans best players leave as free agents in recent years (George, Kearse, Mason, Rolle, and now McNair, with three of them going to the hated Baltimore Ravens), I’ve learned to move on. Call it a coping mechanism, a naive optimism, call it whatever you want.

And part of what’s helping me to move on is this: the Titans were never going to win a Super Bowl with McNair, and neither will the Ravens. Not that McNair. Not the McNair who looks, talks and leads like McNair but can no longer make the accurate throws or devastating runs that made him so special. And so I know that, while the Ravens are getting a great player and a great quarterback, they aren’t getting man who could carry a team, who was the heart and soul of an organization.

That man is gone, only to be seen again on ESPN Classic re-runs of the Titans 2003 season and the 2000 Super Bowl. He’s gone, and I already miss him. I’ll miss seeing him in a Titans jersey every Sunday. But he’s gone, and I’ve already been missing him, for quite some time now…

Florida Sucks

As most (okay, all) of our readers here at the Tavern know, i hate Florida. Well, I love Tennessee (for past articles about this, click here), which means I hate Florida, so i suppose there is a little bit of a difference. And so, this past march was a painful time for me. I had to watch my beloved Volunteers squander their best season of my life time by playing poorly in the Tourney.

After that, i had to endure watching our hated rivals, a team we had beaten twice during the regular season, go all the way to the Final Four, and the proceed to win the National Championship. To add insult to injury like salt in a newly-christened wound, they did it by being carried by the player i most hate, and by far the ugliest player in Tournament History. Joakim Noah (that might not even be spelled right, and i don't even care...). And so, it brings me great joy to present the Village Tavern with a picture i've been meaning to post on here for some time. Here it is:

Shaken, when Stirred

I went to the movies last Friday night for, I think, the third time in the past 12 months. Is it just me or are there just not as many good movies coming out anymore that make me want to pony up the $8-10 bucks it takes to be entertained (or not) for 2 hours?

Although I did miss about half of the previews, I did manage to see a preview for the new Bond flick, ‘Casino Royale’, I think it’s called. New movie, new Bond, and, of course, a new Bond chick. Is there any more reliable thing in the universe of movie sequels than a different Bond babe in every movie? I mean, how many movies have there been in this marathon-series? We’re easily into the twenties, aren’t we? There have been like eight or nine ‘007’s’, but there has always been a different chick in each installment.

While seeing the James Bond preview started me on that little tangent, it wasn’t the reason I went to the movies, and it isn’t the reason I’m writing this article (though it did, obviously, inspire the title). I went to see the film rendition of the popular bestseller “The DaVinci Code”. It’s a pretty good movie based on a controversial but very thought-provoking book.

The basic premise of the book, as everyone should know by now, is that Jesus Christ not only was a mere man who performed miracles (not the divine son of God), but was also married to Mary Magdalene. While the plot involves Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu’s attempts to solve the cryptic message left by her dying grandfather on the historic parquet floors of the Louvre art museum, the implications of the pretext reach much farther; especially for Christians.

So why should Christians care that a Hollywood story is depicting Christ in a very poor light? This is, after all, not terribly uncommon, is it? If ‘The Passion’ taught us anything about film making, it has to be that film has a loud, far-reaching voice. And whether we like it or not, people are influenced on some level by what they watch on Hollywood’s silver screens. While Christians generally poured into the theatres to support Mel Gibson’s controversial piece, we will probably take the opposite approach with “The DaVinci Code”. By not going to see it, we’ll say, we’re using our money to make a statement.

Boycotting a movie like “The Da Vinci Code” can definitely send a message, but it can also have more negative affects. While the Christian call is to be “in the world, but not of it”, we have to be careful to not to repeat the mistake of the Anabaptists by emphasizing one half of that statement over the other. Yes, we have a descript calling to set ourselves apart by our actions, but if we step out of the world altogether (as the Anabaptists did), how then can we influence it? We can’t expect the world to always come to our homes and churches when they want our perspectives on Jesus Christ. We have to be ready to take our beliefs to the workplace, and be ready, willing, and able to discuss tough topics.

Part of being “able”, involves a continuing education not only on the doctrines of Christianity, but also on the constitution of the non-Christian population towards Christianity. After all it is the degree of receptiveness to a message, as much (if not more) than the words we use to purvey that message, which will determine its reception. And pop-culture influences from music, to art, to literature will all have an effect on someone’s receptiveness, whether we like it or not. And we can’t celebrate the arrival of “The Passion” and then try to pretend that movies like “The DaVinci Code” never happened, or that we don’t support Hollywood with our money (that’s what’s commonly called wanting to “have you cake and eat it too”).

And so, if we can’t ignore the impact of the movie, we must prepare for it (even embrace it, in a sense). In order to do that, we have to be prepared to discuss the questions the movie will raise in a calm, educated manor while displaying that we care deeply about our faith, but without letting our emotional connection to the material affect our ability to use logical arguments. And so, after reading the book and watching the movie, I’ll present a few areas of contention, which Christians need to be prepared to confront as a response to Dan Brown’s bestseller. These are a few areas brought up by the book/movie that raised question marks for me (and the answers that I either knew off-hand or by revisiting things I had previously known). I’m sure there are many more, but here they are:

The council of Nicea
In Dan Brown’s portrayal of the story, the Council of Nicea was used by Constantine as a merely way to solidify power. And while the council was taking place the Bible was molded to fit the powers of the church. While it is probably true that Constantine’s conversion was embarked upon as a largely political scheme, he did not hand pick the Church Canon (the books that became the Bible).

All Bishops of the church were invited (about 300 attended) and they decided which texts about life of Christ were inspired, and which were either mere historical texts written by onlookers or, worse, by denouncers of Jesus. Church doctrine was also laid out and debated, which is where the conspiracy theorists have their field day.

There was indeed a debate about the nature of Christ’s existence, but it was not as simplistic or deceptive as “The DaVinci Code” makes it seem (on the left, believed to be a Priory picture of Mary Magdeline's heir). Never in the debate was Jesus considered a mere man. The debate had three factions: the Arians, Homoosians, and the Homoiosians (notice the ‘i’ or ‘iota’ in the middle). Those lead by Arius (Arians), who believed Jesus was God’s finest, most pure creation (but a creation), were put up against the intellectual powers of Athanasius, who adamantly defended the Homoosians. The very small Arian faction was eventually put down (and forced to recant or be excommunicated), and a debate between the Homoosians and Homoiosians continued.

The Homoosians contended that Christ, being the Son of God was of the SAME substance with the Father. The Homoiosians contended he was of SIMILAR substance, which would blatantly contradicted Jesus’ own statements that “The Father and I are one”. Eventually the Homoosians led by Athanasius of Alexandria won the day, and correct doctrine was maintained. Only a very small minority ever considered Christ to be a man, and even then, never MERELY a man, but rather a special creation by God for the defined purpose of doing miracles.

It is also unlikely that a religious group (the Catholic Church) that up to this point in History had been persecuted and scattered would have the foresight to carry out “the greatest cover up in history”, even if one was needed (which it wasn’t).

If he wasn’t God, why is he so important?
The story never explains this, even continually referring to him as Jesus ‘Christ’, rather than merely Jesus, or Jesus of Nazareth. What would life altering about a man who was merely a man? How could he be sacrificed in the place of man’s sin on the cross, which is the most important part of the Incarnation. Why such reverence to “the mother of the offspring of Jesus Christ”, when Jesus Christ is supposedly some mere man?

The Knights Templar have the Grail:
It should be noted that the Knights Templar were originally a band of criminals and rapist that were basically hired (“recruited”) for the First Crusade. Not exactly moral protectors whose sole goal was to protect “The Sacred Feminine”. It is more likely they found great treasures in the Holy Lands, which they kept for their wealth, than that they indeed found “the Holy Grail”.

Also much of the political, mystical, and supposed religious power assigned to the Knights Templar runs into a big problem later in History. The idea that they were nearly unbeatable in battle hits a serious roadblock when the Mongolians begin invading Europe and are left completely unchecked until the death of the Great Khan puts a halt to their advances. This concept comes to an even more abrupt end when they are routed on the final crusade they take part in, which opens the door for King Philip of France (NOT the Catholic church) to get rid of a political group that had come to have much sway.

Just because most Christian organizations never mention the Holy Grail, doesn’t mean they are trying to hide something: There’s not historical or biblical context for its importance, that’s why it’s ignored. Just how the government never mentioning an Area 51 leads to conspiracy theories claiming its existence. Silence breeds conspiracy.

The historical and linguistic roots of the female version Yahweh (who was later “covered up” when monotheism developed) are unfounded:
This is found only in the book, and is not mentioned in the movie, but is an important distinction. Dan Brown mentions a female deity Shekinah as the counterpart to the male Yahweh. Shekinah is in fact a Hebrew word concerning God, but is more of an attribute of God, or a presence than another being. It is similar to the concept of the Holy Spirit. However the root for such speculation comes form the word Shekinah being ‘feminine’ in origin, which is a huge linguistic stretch. It is very common in many languages for even inanimate objects to have a feminine or masculine tense, but it doesn’t mean they have gender. Also, Christian doctrine assigns no gender roles to God in the first place, and clearly has room for the different attributes of God (that whole thing called “the trinity” also discussed at the Nicean Council), so the existence of a term like Shekinah with a “female” root is of little consequence to the educated, and entirely non-threatening.

The mixing of symbols in religion, while intriguing, is not definitive of shared religious roots: The swastika was once a symbol used for loads of stuff, including some Jewish organizations (read the Great Gatsby, they have to add a footnote to make this make sense to the reader), before it became the Nazi symbol we know it as today. Does this mean the Nazi’s were a secretly led by a sect of elite Jews trying to cleanse themselves of untrue Jews? Wait maybe I’m on to something here…

Something Christians must be prepared to answer to:
Most of the stuff going on here was pre-Great Schism (church split, caused by the reformation), so Protestants cannot disregard it as a Catholic problem. Any questions regarding Jesus Christ, Judaism, or the universalist mixing of all religions, are a problem for all of Christianity, no matter what their context. They attack the roots of our beliefs, and cannot be avoided.

The sins of the church, from the Catholic Inquisition, to the mutual atrocities of the 30 years war, to the Great Crusades, Christians must admit that the church, while being the vessel of God, did not inherit his divinity or his perfection (the reason Protestants have a problem with a Pope or ‘Patriarch’). We must be willing to admit the faults of the church when it has mixed with political ambitions, while being prepared to explain that the Bible never claims to make men perfect (even “Holy” men).

The Race is Over (Before it Even Began)

I’m sure most of you remember one of the great advertising wars of our generation. The battle for dominance in the American brewing industry has had many incarnations, perhaps none of which were as memorable as the one started by Miller with their “President of Beers” campaign. The timing was right (the months leading up to the U.S. Presidential Election), the character was well chosen (the other, non-David Cross guy from ‘Mr. Show’, who also gives a masterful performance as the marriage counselor in ‘Arrested Development’, Season 1), and the script was great.

An unveiled jab at Budweiser’s “The King of Beer” moniker and image, the Miller campaign had many highlights. Shots ranged from the opening ad’s line, “I guess they never got the memo. America is a DEMOCRACY, break it down: ‘Demo… cracy’!”, to the not-so-veiled jabs at George W.’s occasional mixing of words when the President of Beers candidate declares Bud’s actions a “Traveshamockery”. This campaign made it impossible for even the most ardent Budweiser fan to hold back a snicker or two.

And then came the response. First of all, Budweiser routinely blows away all competition with their advertising. Whether it’s the Super Bowl or just run-of-the-mill prime-time programming, their presences is always felt, and their ads are almost always good. Because of this picking a fight with the Budweiser advertising agency probably wasn’t such a good idea (and possible a little bit of a desperate move by Miller). Especially considering the fact that they forgot to take into account one little detail.

“Ladies and gentlemen, the race for President of Beers has come to an abrupt end,” declared the Budweiser Donkey (his introduction to the Budweiser family was another great ad in a string of successful animal promoters). He goes on to describe his discussion with the Budweiser Clydesdales, where he learned that Miller had recently been purchased by South African Breweries. This, of course, makes them ineligible to become President of Beers. And as if these ads weren’t enough, Miller weakly filed a lawsuit against Budweiser, further incriminating themselves as the losers, in a campaign war they themselves had started.

The reason I bring this up is simple. Another race has “come to an abrupt end”. The race to be king (or President, if you will) of the next-generation home video gaming consoles. As you might remember, I wrote an article laying out the race for you all several months back, and I’m not only standing by my predictions that Nintendo’s newly re-christened “Wii” (formerly the ‘Revolution’) will change gaming as we know it, but is going to win the race for dominance in this generation of console gaming.

Why should we care that Nintendo will be the winner, and why are you so confident about this fact, you may ask? First of all, we should care because, well, Nintendo are the good guys. They all but invented video gaming, and they’ve also been the driving force behind innovation for over 20 years. Not only that, Microsoft and Sony (like their fathers before them, aka Sega and Turbo Graphics), are the bad guys. And by that I mean, they just jumped on the bandwagon and hoped that copying and maybe slightly improving things with their system, they could make some extra money. Never mind that in the cases of Sony and Microsoft their strategy basically is limited to using the raw power of resources at their disposal (read: lots and lots of money) to kill all competition: whether they make a profit right now or not. They’re the Wal-Mart of the gaming world: you get in the store, and it’s a nice easy shopping experience, but deep down you know you’re selling your soul (and the souls of every local small business) to save a few bucks. We all do it, but when/if we ever get to the point where money is no longer the only object, we start shopping at Target again…

And secondly, to answer why I am so confident Nintendo will come out on top. Anyone who was at, has read about, or watched any footage from the recent E3 convention must, at the very least, admit that it could turn out that way. Nintendo blew away the competition at E3. Their lines were backed up for as much as 4 hours wait time! They had more games to play than anyone thought possible, considering how short a time it’s been since they finally gave developers a kit to start programming for the new system (although some were merely demos to help people understand and get used to the controller, there were 27 playable games in all). From the latest Zelda game where you can use your off-hand to smash enemies in the mouth with your shield while swinging your sword (as well as literally pulling back the bow-string while aiming a deadly arrow), to ‘Excite Truck’ (sound familiar to the myriad of ‘Excite Bike’ fans out there?), where you hold the controller sideways in both ands and merely manipulate it in space to change directions and set your car up for a smooth landing after a larger-than-life jump, this system will be not only fun, but intuitive to play.

Another reason I’m so confident goes back to the Miller vs. Bud analogy. After the ads proclaiming Miller’s ineligibility for the “race”, Miller weakly filed a lawsuit (and lost). Sony has done the equivalent, by adding “tilt” functionality to their controller at the last minute. It’s clearly a last-ditch effort to damper some of the effect of Nintendo’s unveiling of their gyroscope controller several months back Before you even think this means they’re going to be able to offer the same game play, hold your collective Clydesdale horses. This is NOT the same as what the Nintendo “Wii-mote” has to offer.

First of all, the Sony controller only offers 6 direction tilting (forward-backward, left-right, and up-down). This is fine and dandy for some things (like flight similar, such as the game ‘Warhawk’ which Sony demoed this feature on), but does not offer near the same game-play options as the Wii’s control. Not only can the Wii-mote sense complete three-dimensional movement (different than tilting in that the system can sense when the controller actually moves in each direction, as well as when it tilts), allowing for complex functional activities such as swinging a tennis racquet, a golf club, or slicing with a sword). On top of that, the analog attachment, which can be plugged into the controller (this one is dubbed the “Nunchuk”) to provide for more game-play elements (allowing movement of a character while aiming with the Wii-mote, for instance), also has motion sensing capabilities. This allows for very integrated game play such as the Zelda example used earlier where the player controls movement with the left (nunchak) hand, while aiming or swinging with the right hand, while also performing accessory movements like blocking or hitting people with the shield.

The third and final reason I’m confident enough to guarantee Nintendo’s success is the price-point. The system is expected to debut at around $200, or possibly even less. The PS3, on the other hand, is expected to debut at a price similar to the XBox 360, or between $400-$600. This not only gives Nintendo a distinct advantage for people in the market for one gaming system, but (and possibly more importantly) opens it up to be everybody’s second favorite. Now I’m not saying this is Nintendo’s goal, or what will happen. I’m simply pointing out that anyone in the market to own two systems is more likely to buy the Nintendo Wii as one of those systems for the more diverse games it will bring to the table, as well as the fact that buying not one, but two $600 systems would be more than a little bit cost prohibitive (Pictured above and left, 'Red Steel').

So are you ready for a Revolution? As soon as I heard that ‘Zelda: Twilight Princess’ would be launched simultaneously on the Gamecube and Wii (of course with much added functionality on the Wii) as a launch-day title, I made up my mind that I will pre-order. Call me a Nintendo junkie, call me a blind follower, call me whatever you want. But I’m excited, and I think you gamers everywhere should be too!

Favre-able Odds?

The recent back-flipping of the Caesar’s Palace Fountains by Mike Metzger got me in the Vegas mood. After our Fantasy Football Draft there last summer, the gambling itch (which I always had) has been kept fairly dormant for almost a year now. But like I said I’ve got the itch, so I have to do something.

And so, in memory of the Annual Brett Favre retirement saga coming to a close recently, I’ve put together a list of possible outcomes for the NEXT (notice I’m not going to write last) for Brett in Green Bay, accompanied by the odds. Please feel free to place bets with the comments feature, and only time will tell, but you could be the lucky winner!

But before present my list of possibilities and their accompanying odds, let me sound off on Brett Favre a little bit (think of it as the equivalent of “The Burn” segment on Jim Rome’s show… ouch, I just made a Romey reference, and it wasn’t really negative…).

I still can’t get over the egotism Brett Favre has displayed over the past few months, and even, somewhat, over the past few seasons. Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoy watching Brett Favre play. I even kind of like him, from what I know of him. I love his passion, love his gunslinger mentality, love his toughness. And I’m one of the people in his camp as far as thinking he can still be successful for another couple of seasons. Think about it, the Packers traded or let go (via free agency) over half of their O-line before last season, lost their top three RB’s to injuries by mid season (over-rated as they may be), and lost their best weapon on offense in the first game of the season (don’t underestimate the fact that Javon Walker was THE PERFECT type of receiver for Brett Favre: fast, created separation, big, and one of the best in the league at making adjustments to slightly off-target balls). And they had a completely horrendous defense to boot.

All of that being said, Brett Favre hasn’t been a team player. He’s left his team in a precarious position by delaying his decision time and again. He’s blatantly balked at the idea of tutoring Aaron Rogers while he is around (which, from a veteran and supposed leader of your team, is disrespectful at the least). He recently made the off the cough remark, “What, are they gonna cut me?” when answering questions about when he would make his decision. Of course they aren’t, but what kind of leader says that? That comment alone shows that he puts himself above the team.

The above situations show his poor leadership for the franchise, but there is one more point I’d like to make about his poor leadership as a TEAMMATE. Last season, in the off-season Brett Farve decided that it was his business to comment on Javon Walker’s contract situation. Walker is GROSSLY underpaid (something like $600K, for a guy who had been a Top 5 reciever). And while it’s easy to side with the Packers after seeing what Drew Rosenhaus did to the T.O. situation, his case shouldn’t be disregarded because of the (deserved) stigma associated with Rosenhaus. But even the contract situation is besides the point, to some regard. Did Brett Favre offer to give pack part of his large salary after throwing 29 INT’s last season? Of course not. Has he ever signed a contract extension BEFORE his current contract was over? You bet ya’. So just because Javon, who basically wanted to do the same thing in order to get a large signing bonus, asked the Packers to do the same thing for him (rather than the other way around), Javon’s being selfish and hurting the team? Interesting… But my point is this, would a real team leader call out his teammate on national TV, instead of calling him and trying to influence personally? No. And as a result, Javon eventually caved, in order to help the team. The result? He tore his ACL in the first game of the season and lost MILLIONS of dollars. Thanks Brett.

And without further ado (if Rob ever reads this site, I just used ‘Ado’ in a sentence, proving once and for all that it is a legitimate word for Speed Scrabble), here are my odds on the each possibility for how Favre’s season will play out:

Another 4-12 Season: 3 To 2
Seems like a possibility. They still won’t have Walker (who got traded to Denver at the bargain basement price of a 2nd Round Draft pick), Ahman Green isn’t getting any younger, and the defense is relying on a rookie (AJ Hawk) to lead the defense’ resurgence.

The Flip Flop (Packers go 12-4): 50 To 1
Not looking good for this team. They just didn’t do enough to improve. On the flip side, the RB’s will be healthier, the schedule should be “BEAR-able”, playing in the very weak NFC-North, and, well, this is the NFL.

The Wash (8-8): 10 To 1
This would be a considerable improvement. Considering how many close games the Packers lost last year though, it’s not out of the realm of possibility to go .500 for the season.

The Cinderella Story (win the Super Bowl): 1,000,000,000 To 1
Yeah… well, you have to put odds on it. Anyone who takes the bet is an idiot, but that’s okay.

Favre Saves his Legacy (a Wild Card birth and a win in the playoffs): 100 To 1
I’m probably in the minority, but this is what I think it will take to erase the memories of this off-season for a lot of fans (not actual GB fans, who will love Favre till the day they die, not matter what he does). The misconception of this past year for Favre is that going 4-12 will taint his legacy, when in reality his foolish behavior this off-season is more likely to have tainted it. However, winning heals all wounds, so a playoff win would erase a lot of the negativity.

MEMphis Belle

This is a first for the Village Tavern. While it may seem to revolve around sports, we have other intersts at the Village Tavern as well. Like movies! And although Ek promised a 'Rambo' review quite some time ago, this is the "VT's" first movie review...

I picked up this little dandy on DVD recently while I was at Best Buy with J-Lew and my boy JoNo. It’s the 1990 Theatrical release, ‘The Memphis Belle’. It’s a movie I remember watching as a kid, and always loving. This was largely because I was so fascinated with World War II history, and also because the B-17 Flying Fortress was one of the sweetest aircraft ever invented (only surpassed by the Lockheed P-58 Chain Lightning). The viewing of this DVD was the first time I had watched the movie in years, so I tried to approach it somewhat objectively, in order to offer a solid review.

What it's about:

A B-17 bomber crew on their 25th and final mission is sent to Bremen, Germany. Surrounded by the likes of ‘Sweet Dreams’, ‘Mother and Country’, ‘Mama’s Boys’, and ‘The Scintillating Virgin’, the crew of ‘The Memphis Belle’ is trying to become the first team to complete a full tour of duty as a bomber unit in the European Theatre. After this, they’re on their way back to the States to be “wined, women-ed and song-ed” as they give speeches and tour the entire country as a moral-raising event. But they have to survive their 25th Mission before they’ll get that chance…

Who’s in it that you should care about:

Billy Zane: Although probably more remembered for his breathtaking performance as ‘The Phantom’, this is definitely a fine performance from the man who Hansel once describe by saying, “he’s a cool dude”.
Harry Connick Jr.: Harry is trying to break the record for most roles with a forced musical performance as he continues to try to have a “slashie” career as an actor/singer. Add this one to the list of movies that help him in his quest.
John Lithgow: What a great name! And let’s be honest, who WOULDN’T want to watch a performance from the dad from ‘Harry and the Hendersons’. And to top it all off, he’s had a successful career with ‘Third Rock from the Sun’, and did a fantastic job of voice acting as Lord Farquaad in ‘Shrek’.
Sean Astin: I place this performance right behind the Oscar-caliber acting in ‘Rudy’ and 'The Goonies', but ahead of Astin’s performances as Samwise Gamgee (in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy) and the steroid using brother (Doug) from ‘50 First Dates’. That’s right, this movie is THAT good.

Best Line:
“Hey fellas, the target’s clouded over, we’re delayed”
“S-N-A-F-U, Situation-normal, all-fucked-up”
*Does Hollywood make these things up? Don’t get me wrong, it’s funny and it’s catchy, but between SNAFU and FUBAR, you almost have to wonder if anyone from World War II actually said those things.

Best Character:

Jack, the navigator, who is convinced that their mission has been jinxed by all the press and hype that John Lithgow’s character is generating as the Army PR guy assigned to their crew. He’s determined that even if the ‘Belle’ makes it, he’s a dead man. As a result he spends most of the movie drinking, and trying to give away all of his personal belongings. By the time they’re over Germany he’s given away his father's watch, a nice pen ("It's the best pen money can buy!"), and all his best baseball cards. But as the mission continues he'll play a pivotal role in saving the life of one of his fellow crew members.

DVD Features:

Is there anything better than first-generation DVD releases!? The double-sided releases, with widescreen on one side, full-screen on the other. Then you have the cheap card-board cases; clearly they hadn't mastered the format at the time. But I think the best feature of any old-school DVD (this one included) is the "JUMP TO A SCENE!" feature. As if the smaller format, along with the improved visual and audio quality weren't enough, you can jump to any scene you like! It's not that it isn't a great benefit of the format, it's jus the way it's presented. Like on the back, how it will say under "Special Features": Dolby 5.1, Interactive Menus (boo-yah!), Subtitles, and JUMP TO A SCENE!!! Maybe I'm the only one amused by this..

'The Memphis Belle' DVD has one other feature that makes it really worth the purchase. In case you finish the movie, and it's just not enough. Maybe you're looking for another movie to watch. Well imagine that, get a recommendation from the DVD itself! Search by actor, Producer and Genre (of course, it only shows movies on DVD from the same studio, but who needs to know that...). Classic stuff.

Rating: B+

This is overall a well above-average movie. It’s got action aplenty, a good story line, good and mostly believable characters and it’s well acted. It’s even based on a true story to boot (not to mention the loaded extra features). If you like war movies, if you like action, this is definitely worth checking out.

Ball Park Dogs

I’m on my way to becoming a baseball fan (collective gasp). There are two primary factors involved in this sudden and unforeseen turn of events.

The first reason is this little thing called “Fantasy Baseball”, you may have heard of it before. A few people are playing it now. And if fantasy sports have taught us anything, it’s that they can turn even the most indifferent sports fan into an interested onlooker (at the very least). And a mere week and a half into my first Fantasy Baseball season, I’m already liking baseball more and more. And even if I still don’t really enjoy it all that much, I have to have SOMETHING to fill the void between the end of March Madness and the start of the College and NFL Football seasons (and to break up the monotonous eternity that becomes the NBA Playoffs).

The second reason is inspired by my experience the other night. I had the opportunity to attend a Double-A Minor League game. Chattanooga’s very own Lookouts, versus the Mudcats from… some other city not big enough to have an MLB or even a Triple-A team… Anyways, it was the first game I had been to in a while, and it was fun.




I should note that the quality of my experience was much aided by the fact that my tickets were A) Free, and B) for a Box-suite. These tickets were provided, most graciously, by our team Doc. And so, never being the group to turn down anything free, our little group of Athletic Training students headed to the park. And let’s be honest, there’s always something especially “gratis-fying” about enjoying entertainment or fine dining on someone else’s tab (although I must admit I’ve been on the other end of this coin one too many times). When it’s Box-seats, it’s taken to a whole ‘nother level. Personal service, free chips and salsa, and an air-conditioned room with bar stools and tables sitting next to a column of sliding doors. Nothing quite like sitting in the open air with an air-conditioned room at your back (only in America my friends).

There are just a few things about going to the Park that can’t be fully explained, but since I’m writing this article, I guess I’ll have to try.

First off, you’ve got the foul balls. In his book, ‘Now I Can Die in Peace’, Bill Simmons of ESPN’s Page 2 has a segment where he talks about his experiences with foul balls. His lack of luck in ever catching one, certain sections of Fenway that are ideal for catching fly balls, etc. I understood what he was talking about it, but now I KNOW what he means.

As soon as a ball starts flying foul, there is a kid-like desire awoken inside of anyone with a pulse that makes us all want to be the one to catch it. But with our suite being behind and to the right of home plate, and under the overhanging roof, I thought our chances were slim-to-none of seeing a foul ball. In fact, I explained to my boy JoNo that the angle between the roof and the net shielding the crowd made the chances almost incalculable small. “We’re not getting any foul balls up here (in our sweet-suite seats)”, I confidently explained.

Seconds later, a foul ball pops into the stands 10 fee to our left, at the same level as our seats. Luck.

I raise my eyebrows and pretend it never happened.

Two innings later the unthinkable happens. A ball comes slicing off a home-team bat and spins just over the netting and under the roofing directly for our suite. By the time we see it coming it’s too late. Disaster strikes! One of our friends, Erin, gets hit smack dab in the head by the foul ball. Thankfully it’s a glancing blow that is mostly absorbed by here sun-glasses. Irony.

Now the Dictionary in my Sweet-Mac defines irony as: ‘a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result’. Well, I define irony as: ‘A fly ball hitting a friend of mine in the head minutes after I explain how impossible the angle would have to be, and when the group of people in attendance happens to consist of 15 Athletic Training students and one Certified Athletic Trainer.’

Moments later a stadium worker comes up to make sure she’s okay, at this point we’ve given here five Cranial Nerve tests and 3 complete concussion evaluations, but thanks for asking…

There’s another thing about being at the park that makes it memorable, beyond the actual events of the game. There’s the camaraderie, and the enjoyment of recently created inside jokes (which may or may not be funny).

Like when the Lookouts hit a long, hard ball directly to center. The ball hits 2/3 of the way up the green wall at center field that inexplicably sits 8 Feet higher than the rest of the wall, and Rickie and I simultaneously exclaim, “Stopped by the Green-Monster!”

“The Green Monster” we echo ourselves… “Anywhere but Fenwa…. Er… BELL SOUTH PARK!” I add as we crack up at ourselves!


And then there’s always the personal attack on players. This is especially fun at a Minor-League game because no one knows any of the players before you get to the park. So all of your jokes are guaranteed to be original (even if they don’t even approach being truly funny) to the audience present.

“Votto, your BOY!” I joke with JoNo as the first batter comes to the plate (and yes, I got this habit from you, Lewis).

“What, just because his name ends in vowel, he’s my boy?!” says JoNo defensively, thinking I was making a joke about his Italian heritage, when in reality I just felt like saying something… (it should be noted that later Gary Patchett would become my boy because it sounded like a nice, white-christian name).

But my personal favorite player had to be Alex Sanchez (you know where this is going). Not afraid to approach the racial line, I immediately start to muse about the possibility of his nickname being Alex “Dirty” Sanchez. This of course evolves into “Deer-tay” (as in Joe Deer-tay) and the Legend is born. Every time we go to a Lookouts game this summer (and hopefully we’ll get a few more games in the box seats!), we’ll remember our boy Alex “Deer-tay” Sanchez. That’s just another day at the park for you.

And so what I have learned from this experience, which has produced an almost three-page article for this fine sports-forum? Sometimes you had to be there. And in baseball’s case, you USUALLY had to be there. But when you give it the opportunity (or when the opportunity is handed to you), it’s an experience worth having. So beg, burrow, buy or schmooze a ticket. Grab yourself a dog and even (gasp!) a beer, and take yourself out to the ball game…

A New Leaf

Anyone who knows my college roommate David Michael Yates, you are probably already familiar with one of his most pathetic, yet endearing habits. Yates, being the upright man of principle that he his… let me rephrase. Him imagining himself to be an upright man of principle, but instead being the weasel-ie inconsistent man that he is, he often has resolutions to “turn over a new leaf”. It’s a noble concept, one that everyone should partake of more often than simple the first two weeks after New Year’s every January. Unfortunately for Yates, he indefinitely fails in his new resolutions, and often in exceedingly short periods of times.

Take, for example, his diets. Like the time, I think it was Sophomore or Junior year, when he became a vegetarian. I’m not a big fan of vegetarianism. It’s just not for me. I tend to follow the “I didn’t climb all the way to the top of the food chain to NOT eat meat” line of thinking. But if you can pull it off, more power to you I guess. That is, if you have a good reason. In Yates’ case, it was to shed a few pounds (before a show). Not a good reason. The thing that made it even more ironic, was when on Day 2 of the diet, I see him in the cafeteria (ah, Saga) eating a salad, some fruit, and a chicken breast… Now I realize some people consider this okay on a vegetarian diet, but please explain to me how “not eating meat” is consistent with eating chicken? If you don’t want to eat beef, or fish, or pork, but you’re fine with eating chicken, that’s fine (whatever floats your boat). But, YOU ARE NOT A VEGETARIAN. You’re someone who eats primarily vegetables, some chicken, and doesn’t eat red meat (or fish, or pork).

So of course, Yates drops the “I’m allowing myself to eat chicken” line. Typical Yates. So much for that new leaf, especially when within another day I catch him eating a hamburger (“I was treating myself for being so good on my new diet” was his excuse this time). In other words Yates sucks at resolutions.

But doesn’t everybody? That’s my point. Without having an extremely strong will, some strong external motivation (i.e. you have high blood pressure, and you might die if you don’t lose weight), or divine intervention, it’s very hard to change something in your life. The only way you really stand a chance is having some accountability to make those changes. People need something like an accountability partner, a little thing that we like to call a “running partner” at Honey Rock Camp. Or as Yates like’s to call it, a “Running RP Partner”. And yes, the RP on that still stands for running partner (how did I live for 4 years with someone so thick-headed?).

So here’s the thing. The Village Tavern is in trouble. The last post was made on March 11th. The NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament wasn’t even enough to get us to write something. That’s sad. No, it’s pathetic. I know I’ve been busy (and I’ve also posted 4 out of the last 6 articles, not that anyone’s keeping count). I know Ekwall now has a girlfriend. And I know James is… between jobs, what the heck is your excuse Puta James?! Anyways…

We need to keep each other accountable. We have readers out there. At least 4 or 5 of them. And according to our hit-counter, there have been “2047 Readers who aren’t Sam Cassell, and therefore can’t do the testicle dance”. So, I’m challenging the writers of this fine blog. What’s keeping us from making one post every other week? That would give us a minimum of 6 posts a month. That should fit into our schedules, and also keep our small, though fiercely loyal, readership coming back. Come on guys, let’s turn over a new leaf, let’s keep the Village Tavern alive…

Where's the Love for Uncle Sam?

I feel as if the childhood concept of favorite players fades into a more nondescript state of admiration once we grow a little bit older. Whereas when we were kids we always had one or two players in each sport who were definitely our favorites, now we simply have a collection of guys who we like. In fact, I find myself just as likely to have a group of guys I adamantly dislike as a group I would call my favorites.

For instance, when I was in High School my favorite players were Tim Hardaway and Shawn Kemp (pre-lock-out, before he ballooned to like 350 lbs). I loved “the other Hardaway” for his killer cross-over, his knack for taking and hitting the big three point shot and in general, his “Skillz”. I loved Shawn Kemp for his emphatic dunks. Whether it was on the receiving end of a perfect alley-oop pass from Gary Payton, or going up over an entire defense, Kemp finished every dunk with the authority that earned him the moniker, “The Reign Man” (and if this often meant he grabbed his crotch while hanging on the rim, I was for it all the more...). He was, in my opinion, the most athletic big man of all time. I remember with clarity his segment of the “Superstars of the NBA 3” video, with Pearl Jam as the chosen band to accompany the video montage. It was so packed full of dunks, it energized me every time I watched it to the point that it used to be a part of my buddy Josh and I’s pre-game ritual.

But since High School, I haven’t really had many favorite players. There just haven’t been many guys that I watch play, and I feel as if I need to buy their jersey. I’d be more likely to buy a jersey to support my favorite team, but I always get hung up on the fact that I can’t decide on which player’s jersey I’d like to have.

There is, however, one NBA player today who I can honestly say is my favorite. He hasn’t’ always been my favorite, nor was there a distinct point in time where I could say a light switch went on for me. It has been more a body-of-work type of realization than a break-through performance. He is a player who has many nicknames. He is a man who is perceived with mixed impressions. His name is Sam Cassell. ‘Sam I am’, as he is now often referred to. My friends and I often make reference to his odd shaped head and call him ‘the Alien’. Sam will often remind listeners and readers alike that Cassell is spelled with ‘Two S’s, Two L’s’.

For all the good things he is, Sam Cassell isn’t sexy. He might be one of the ugliest men in the NBA since Patrick Ewing “graced” Madison Square Garden with his presence. His game isn’t sexy either. He shoots the mid-range jumper rather than the three most of the time, he dribbles out in front of his body, rather than cradling the ball at his side. He lays the ball up, instead of dunking (his ability to actually dunk could be questioned here, but that’s not the point). Sam Cassell plays the game his own way. It’s why he has always insisted he is a “Lead-guard”, not a point guard. He does what he needs to do to win, even if it’s not conventional.

One thing about Sam Cassell is that he will always be somewhat misunderstood. He’s bounced around the league, never quite finding a true home. He won two championships his first two years in the league with the Houston Rockets (making many clutch plays in the process), and has been an NBA vagabond ever since. He’s spent time (off the top of my head) with the Nets, Bucks, Timberwolves and now the Clippers since leaving Houston. He found a somewhat permanent home with the Milwaukee Bucks for a while, but contract issues and a team that started to quickly head in the wrong direction after almost making it to the finals had him heading out of town for almost nothing in return in a trade to the T-wolves.

What people don’t understand about Sam, is that he’s always wanted to be a part of the long-term solution. Yes, that kind of role also means he wants the kind of long-term, lucrative contract that a team gives to its franchise point guard. In Milwaukee, while unhappy with his contract, he was reported to have showed up at practice every day with his sweat pants pockets turned out to emphasize his point. But team after team has picked him up as a fill-in, or a quick-fix. No one has him embraced him as their ‘lead guard’ for now and the future.

Sure, he’s getting older, and that day may never come to full fruition, but Sam Cassell can still help teams win. He’s won at every stop of his NBA career. It started with the two championships, he helped turn around the Nets to the point where they were once considered one of the top up-and-coming teams in the East with a core of Cassell, Jayson Williams (the rebound king turned murderer) and Keith Van Horn. Look at the other two guys that were considered the core of the team and think about it for a second. CLEARLY, Cassell was doing something right to make people think those two guys were not just quality, but big-time players in the NBA.

His next stop was Milwaukee, which quickly became the best young team in the NBA. The three-headed monster of Ray Allen, Glenn Robinson and Sam Cassell was a scoring machine. Add the rising star Tim Thomas (isn’t the NBA ironic?), and this team was a matchup nightmare. After almost making the finals, the Bucks made a ridiculous trade of Ray Allen for an already too old Gary Payton and it was clear Sam I Am’s days in Milwaukee were numbered. Next stop, Minnesota…

In Minnesota Sam did nothing but lead the T-Wolves to their first ever (and still only) playoff series win. It was only a hip injury to Cassell that prevented the T-Wolves from having a great chance of going much further into the playoffs. The next year, things went sour as the T-Wolves failed to extend Cassell or Latrell Sprewell’s contracts (poor Latrell’s starving children). Once again, Sam wanted to made a part foreseeable future, but it was not to be.

All this brings us to this season. It brings us to Sam Cassell ending up with the laughing-stock of the NBA, the L.A. Clippers. A team that perennially spends high lottery pick after high lottery pick to not on young, talented players who never amount to anything. A franchise that has made the playoffs only once, and has always played little-brother to the Lakers. So what does ‘lead guard’ Sam Cassell do with a team of underachieving misfits? He makes them better, but not just better, he makes them good. 'Sam I Am', has played the role of Uncle Sam.

Currently Sam Cassell is averaging almost 18 points and almost 7 assists a game for the season. The Clippers are 11 games above .500, and ahead of the more highly touted Lakers. The Clippers aren’t just going to make the playoffs, I’m not sure anyone wants to play them in the First Round either.

So what has Sam Cassell gotten, as far acclaim goes for his remarkable career? With career averages over 16 pts/game and over 6 assists/game, Sam Cassell has one All-Star performance to show for it. After being the All-Star snub that no one talked about this year, he’s about to get snubbed for another award. Wherever you read, the NBA MVP voting is a race between defending MVP Steve Nash, Chauncey Billups, Kobe Bryant and Dwayne Wade. Where is Cassell, a guy who has single handedly turned the Clippers around from being losers to winners, and had a great statistical season to boot? Not mentioned, that’s where.

Do I think Sam Cassell is the NBA’s MVP? No, I think that honor goes to Steve Nash. But I sure as heck think he deserves to be on the list ahead of ball-hog Kobe Bryant, Chauncey Billups (who I love, but who might not be the most important player on his team), and Dwayne Wade (who stars with Shaq on an under-achieving Heat squad). Even teammate Elton Brand, who is having a career year by all measures, is getting more MVP hype than Cassell. How come Steve Nash gets credit for making his teammates better, but Sam Cassells teammates get all the credit for having career years, the year he (coincidentally) arrives?

Why doesn’t Sam Cassell get the credit he deserves? I’m not sure. Maybe it’s the cocky attitude. Maybe it’s the fact that he’s been a vagabond, bouncing from team to team for a large part of his career. Maybe all the sports writers out there just forgot how to spell his name. I’ll remind them: it’s spelt with “Two S’s, two L’s”…

Finally, and All-Star Game worth watching

I’m not a huge fan of All-Star games, I’ll be perfectly honest. I watched the Pro Bowl, and I enjoyed it simply because it was a game of football to watch. But it’s sloppy football, only salvaged by the fact that most of my favorite players were all playing in the same game (and that my Fantasy Football team filled out about half of the rosters!). The MLB All-Star game is even worse. In fact, even with the added weight of awarding home-field advantage to the side that wins for the World Series, it still is a sleeper of a game. I like what the NHL has done in recent years (well, not last year, but…) with the North America vs. the World teams. This seems to have added some flare and competitive spirit to the game. But few people care about NHL Hockey, as sad or wrong as that may be.

And then there’s the NBA All-Star Game. There’s something different about this one. Besides featuring most of the best players in the game, the NBA All Star game has the added benefit of it being a basketball game. Deep, I know… What I mean by that is that basketball, unlike any other sport has showmanship as a very intrinsic part of its appeal. This is the sole reason the And 1 Tour is so successful. It isn’t GOOD basketball, but it’s FUN basketball. The combination of dunks, fancy passes and one-on-one matchups not only make basketball great, but also make it possible for a game of basketball to be watched and enjoyed, even when the end result is insignificant.

It’s hard to watch a baseball game, or a football game, or a hockey game and not care about who wins. You probably really enjoy watching a monster homerun, a great one-timer or watching a 50 yard pass being thrown and caught by the best quarterbacks and receivers in the world, respectively. But while All-Star games in each of these sports may feature more of these things than your average, or even good game, the difference is not significant. You add a small amount of enjoyment (from the higher frequency of spectacular plays), but you take away a large amount of what makes the games great (the result).

The NBA All-Star game takes away the significance of the result (although by the fourth quarter players are usually playing to win, but that’s actually when the game becomes less entertaining), but it brings more than enough else to the table to make it worth watching, even memorable. I remember watching Eddie Jones be robbed of an All-Star Game MVP Award after he displace amazing around-the-back passes, alley-oop feeds and his own array of spectacular dunks: only to watch Glen Rice (what happened to your career Glen?) get the award for breaking the record for most points in a quarter. It wasn’t that Glen Rice’s accomplishment wasn’t amazing (he put on a great shooting display), but Eddie Jones’ performance was the epitome of what the All-Star game is about; showmanship. His passes, steals and dunks made the fans feel they got their money’s worth.

Who doesn’t remember Tracy McGrady’s off the backboard to himself “alley-oop” dunk a few years ago? And who can forget Vince Carter mirroring and even topping it with a similar, but even more spectacular version of the same dunk the next year. Who can forget a young Kobe Bryant waiving off a pick from Karl Malone while being guarded by Jordan. What about the time Jordan caught a missed free-throw, in mid air and immediately dunked it, all in one fluid motion. Or how about when Isiah Thomas froze Jordan out of the All-Star game, refusing to get him the ball as he ran the offense. How can we forget Jordan’s last All-Star game. He played a terrible game in most regards, as his team force-fed him the ball in the second half (even missing and easy dunk at one point). But then, he slowly started to heat up, hitting some classic turn-around jumpers that reminded us, if even for only a second, how great he had once been, and why a part of us was glad he had come back. In the end his efforts came up short, and we remembered why we were also sad to seem him back. We were sad because we could remember how great Jordan had been, and how his flair for the spectacular had made him great not just in the regular season, but at events like the All-Star game.

Now quick, try to remember at least one memorable event from any of the other All-Star games? The only one that comes to mind for me is Todd Helton hitting a walk-off homer, which I believe came in extra-innings. The fact of the matter is that there was nothing really spectacular about that home run, which didn’t clear the fences by very much. The only reason we remember it at all is because it was the first year the MLB All-Star Game’s decided which League would get home-field in the Series. All-Star games are about the great plays and the great players making them, not outcomes. That’s why I’ll tune into the NBA’s for reasons other than going through withdrawal from a sport in its off-season. Just remember while you’re playing to forget what the score is, and remember the plays and the players who made them.

"Mr. Clutch" vs. "Mr. Right Place at the right time"

The National Football League’s season finale, the Super Bowl, was less than a week ago and I still have football fever coursing through my veins. In fact, what the heck, I think it’s going through my arteries and lymphatics as well. My entire Cardiovascular system is still craving football. I realize that there is in fact “one last, final last game”, otherwise known as the Pro Bowl; but somehow this just doesn’t really satisfy the urge. Although I must admit, some of the Pro Bowl skills competitions always manage to intrigue me, but I can never figure out if they are truly entertaining or I’m just that desperate.

And so, in an effort to keep the feeling alive, I’ve decided to write “one last, final last” football article. As we have all sat through the last few weeks trying to fill the yearly void that the diminishing football schedule has left in our routines, there’s one person who must be feeling it even more than the most ardent of fans. Tom Brady. Well, to be exact, any member of the Patriots who was there for all the title runs; but I’m not writing an article about all of them (although someone should really write an article about the fact that Teddy Bruschi came back from a stroke to play this season). Where was I… oh yeah, Tom Brady really must be missing football right now.

I’m very aware that the Patriots, after their first Super Bowl win managed to miss the playoffs entirely the following season. However, in my opinion, Tom Brady barely missed football that off-season as he attempted to satisfy his urge to be in the spotlight and enjoy his fame. But Brady did learn something that off-season, something that drove him to work as hard as he could to not be left out of the playoffs the next two years: to not be left out of ANY PART of the playoffs.

I don’t buy into a lot of the hoopla that surrounds Mr. Brady. In fact, I think the Partriots run was as much due to the excellence of the entire “Brady Bunch” as it was due to Tom’s excellence at the games most pivotal position. They had a fantastic defense, a coaching STAFF that game-planned extremely well, and a Quarterback who kept you in games, and then always made the one big play you needed. That basically summed up Tom Brady during the Pats’ title runs. He made big plays. Over three Super Bowl runs (notice I won’t use the term dynasty in this article), Tom Brady was a clutch performer. In fact, he’s pretty much earned the right to occasionally borrow Jerry West’s nickname, “Mr. Clutch”.

Take a look at the newly christened champs, the Pittsburgh Steelers. All the same basic factors are there. Great defense (I realize that’s a stretch, but I use the term comparatively to their competition, not to the entire history of the NFL Bears fans)? Check. A coaching staff that game-plans extremely well? Did you watch the playoffs? They flustered the best QB in the NFL , Peyton Manning (it’s not even close, by the way). They made the Denver Broncos look like a very average team. Wait a second, the Broncos WERE a very average team that just took care of business. And in the Super Bowl they tricked the Seahawks into putting the game in Hasselbeck’s hands. I’m no huge Shaun Alexander fan, but he was their bread and butter the whole season, and then suddenly they want to put the entire load on the shoulders and balding head of Matt Hasselbeck? Who do you think the Steelers were more afraid of, Hasselbeck or Shaun Alexander? And no, Jeremy Stevens is not an appropriate answer here. All that to say, you can put a check next to the "game-plans well" section of the Steelers report card...

This leaves us with the one remaining comparative factor between the Patriots and the Steelers; Having a quarterback who keeps you in the game and then always makes the big play when you need it. Hmm… Ben Roethlisberger clutch? Not so much… Who would you take if you had one drive to win the Super Bowl? I’d take Adam Viniaterri, but if I had to choose between these two, I’d go Brady every time.

Don’t take this the wrong way, I like Big Ben. And by Big Ben I mean Big Ben Wallace of the Detroit Pistons. I love his game, and I love his ‘fro. But I like Roethlisberger too. He’s done an admirable job of leading a veteran team as a young QB. And he meets the first part of the criteria; he keeps his team in the game. USUALLY. Throughout the playoffs he actually did a great job of giving his team an early lead and then not giving the ball back to the opposing team. But come time for the big game, Roethlisberger tried to give the game away, just as he did a year ago against both the Jets and the Patriots games. He made bad throw after bad throw. In fact, he only made one really GOOD play the entire game. He made a great play when he acted as if he were going to run, and then stopped just short of the line of scrimmage to throw a huge completion to MVP Hines Ward. But even on that play he made a throw that very well could have been picked off.

Am I insinuating that Ben Roethlisberger is a choke artist? Not really, but can any one out there make a case that he’s a clutch performer? He’s the youngest Quarterback to ever win a Super Bowl, but how much of that had to do with him, instead of with the rest of his team? I mean, Antwan Randel El made the best throw of the Super Bowl, and he hasn’t played QB since his days at Indiana. In a game where someone usually has to play out of their mind to take the MVP award away from the winning QB, Ben’s level of performance made the common thought process go something like this: “Well, Bettis would be the sentimental favorite, but he didn’t do anything. Hines Ward had good yardage and a TD. Well, we CAN’T give it to Roethlisberger… Okay, let’s go Hines Ward, nice guy, hard worker, team player…”

Would the Steelers have won with Tom Brady behind center? You betcha. Would the Patriots have won three Super Bowls in four years with Ben Roethlisberger as their QB? I’m not sure they would have won any… The difference is simple this. With Tom Brady, all you have to do is keep the game close enough that the game is left in his hands come crunch time. With Ben Roethlisberger, you play to keep the fate of the game OUT of his hands.