Malicious Mischief

Next... hey stop that.

The perfect board game

The Settlers of Catan has taken the world by storm, and gets the Wired Magazine treatment (h/t Jason). While the awesomeness of the game is the point of the article -- and for anyone out there who hasn't played, you really should -- what I love about this article is the condescension and loathing directed toward Monopoly.

"Monopoly has you grinding your opponents into dust. It's a very negative experience. It's all about cackling when your opponent lands on your space and you get to take all their money." Monopoly, in fact, is a classic example of what economists call a zero-sum game. For me to gain $100, you have to lose $100. For me to win, you have to be bankrupt. Gouging and exploiting may be perfect for humiliating your siblings, but they're not so great for relaxing with friends.

Monopoly also fails with many adults because it requires almost no strategy. The only meaningful question in the game is: To buy or not to buy? Most of its interminable three- to four-hour average playing time (length being another maddening trait) is spent waiting for other players to roll the dice, move their pieces, build hotels, and collect rent. Board game enthusiasts disparagingly call this a "roll your dice, move your mice" format.

Unfortunately, Monopoly still dominates. "It's the Microsoft of our world," Solko says. "If I could wave a magic wand and replace all the copies of Monopoly out there with Settlers, I truly think the world would be a better place."

Monopoly is contrasted with the "German-style" board game, of which Settlers is a prime example:

Instead of direct conflict, German-style games tend to let players win without having to undercut or destroy their friends. This keeps the game fun, even for those who eventually fall behind. Designed with busy parents in mind, German games also tend to be fast, requiring anywhere from 15 minutes to a little more than an hour to complete. They are balanced, preventing one person from running away with the game while the others painfully play out their eventual defeat. And the best ones stay fresh and interesting game after game.

Although Settlers doesn't foster direct conflict, it's still highly competitive. The one element the article leaves out is something my friends like to call the "Catantrum" (Catan + tantrum), which occurs when one player becomes so frustrated with the game or the other players that they throw a small (or big) hissy fit (usually to the delight of the other players). Sometimes we give bonus points for provoking Catatrums in other players. Anyway, yes I'm a dork, but the game is awesome.

Fire and Brimstone!

Or, just ash. Whatever it is, we've got it in Anchorage now. A fine, dusty powder covering everything. Smells like sulfur.

We had been pretty lucky -- Mt. Redoubt has erupted about ten times in the past week, but the winds have spared Anchorage from ashfall each time. We were bound to get some ash eventually. Volcano experts say Redoubt could keep doing this for months. Ugh.

ADDED:

Fraud

Next in the series of stained glass. Faker.

The deal about the photo

You may have noticed some comments left on this blog, asking for license to use one of my photos; if you're curious, here's the deal. One of my photos showed up in the online version of the New York Daily News (it's photo #38). Some folks publishing a coffee table book about the election found it and wanted to include it:

That's my friend Becks, and her friend in the bear suit. I granted the license, so Becks and bear might soon be on a coffee table near you.

Something about the Mets

I have a lot of friends who love baseball, but only two who love baseball but abhor fantasy baseball. And they are both fans of the New York Mets. Coincidence?

It's enough proof for me. I say being a Mets fan makes you crazy.

Ski Train!

The annual party on rails was this weekend. As always, a great time.

Eruption

Mt. Redoubt finally goes. Not sure when ashfall will hit Anchorage... hoping it won't affect she-who-prefers-not-to-be-named-on-the-internet's flight early Monday morning.

UPDATE: She got out on time, so no worries there. Another friend of mine is stuck in Portland Monday night, his flight canceled because of ash. So far I've seen no ash in Anchorage, but north of here they're getting a dusting of gray.

Sports radio making you smarter

Last night I was driving around Anchorage, listening to ESPN Radio in hopes of getting some NCAA tournament coverage. The host reported that in the ESPN Bracket Challenge, 25,000 people still had perfect brackets after the first day, while only 4 people had gone 0-16. He then posed his brain-busting question: if you really tried, which would be harder to do: go 16-0, or 0-16?

He stressed the point -- if you really, really tried, is it harder to pick the winners, or the losers? I almost drove off the road as I banged my head into the steering wheel. It doesn't occur to him that by picking winners -- as we do normally -- we are by definition also picking losers.

He posited that it's more difficult to go 0-16, because you have to be able to identify the upsets and pick correctly. He explained that it's harder to determine which team will lose in an upset than it is to pick the winner of the upset. You may think I'm making this up, or dumbing down his argument, but I guarantee you this was exactly his position. And this wasn't a local host -- this is a national sports radio show. He opened the topic up for discussion, and the first caller dutifully agreed that it's harder to pick the losers than to pick the winners. I was enraged by this point, fearing for the future of our world. Luckily the next caller said that it's basically the same thing, but didn't express himself clearly enough to convince the host that the question was stupid. The third caller repeated that the task of picking losers is necessarily the same as picking winners -- that all you have to do is pick as you normally do and then "flip your bracket" -- and the host momentarily paused. He realized that "if you did it that way," it's the same thing. But then, upon further reflection, he announced forcefully that it is indeed harder to pick the losers if you evaluate each game individually. And then I lit myself on fire.

Answer: When you're more interested in running for president than being governor

Question: Why would you turn down free money?

So, yeah. That's what happens when your governor can't concentrate fully on governing, but must also worry about posturing in national politics. It's kind of depressing, actually.

Anecdotally (if that's a word), the reaction here has been unanimous disapproval. And not just among my liberal hippie friends. Some lifelong Republicans, former Palin-lovers, are downright pissed.

The rejected money includes $170 million for education. I mean, seriously. It makes no sense. Her stated rationale is that she doesn't want to accept money for programs that the state will have to sponsor when the federal money runs out. But treat me like a moron for a moment and explain why you can't just end the program in two years when the federal money is gone. And don't tell me you don't like federal dollars. We know that's not true.

Barack hates the Pac-10

Barack Obama's NCAA tournament bracket is here, and he sure seems upset that his brother-in-law's team (OSU) got beat up by everybody (except Stanford) this season. He has the Pac-10 teams going 1-5 in the first round, with only Washington escaping with a win. The Huskies then get knocked off by Purdue in the second round.

His Pac-10 aversion is especially apparent because he otherwise plays the chalk -- taking the favorite in almost every first-round game. The only real exceptions are for Pac-10 teams, where he has UCLA, Cal, and Arizona State all getting upset. What's up with that? According to ESPN:

He dove right into the first round, with only a few upsets here and there, notably No. 11 VCU over No. 6 UCLA in the East Regional in Philadelphia.

"VCU, I think, has been playing strong, and I hate to say this, because my brother-in-law is in the Pac-10 right now, but the Pac-10 has been looking pretty weak this year," Obama said. "I like that as an upset."

He picked No. 11 Temple over No. 6 Arizona State in the South, too.

Craig Robinson, Obama's brother-in-law, is the coach at Oregon State and led the Beavers to seven Pac-10 wins in his first season, after OSU went winless in the league a year ago. Obama picked against five of the six Pac-10 schools in the first round, selecting 4-seed Washington (over 13-seed Mississippi State) as the one league team to advance.

"I want him to have an incentive, knowing that I think the rest of the Pac-10 can be taken next year," Obama said of Robinson's team, which earned a berth in the College Basketball Invitational with a 13-17 record. "I think the Beavers are on their way."

Contrary to many brackets around the country, Obama went against a trendy 12-5 upset pick, selecting Utah over Arizona.

Did it have anything to do with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), whom he defeated in last year's presidential election?

"It has nothing to do with McCain," Obama said. "I think Arizona is a great state. I love playing golf there. But they just squeaked in."

Washington was pegged as a second-round loser to Purdue, a team Obama was high on because of its finish.

He's right that the Pac-10 is down this year. But not so far down as the Big Ten and the SEC, I think. Even the ACC isn't that great this year. Perhaps foolishly, I have the Pac-10 doing well in the tournament.

We'll see who's right, Barack. And next year, have the onions to pick some more upsets, will ya?

Sundries

Seattle loses one of its two newspapers tomorrow. After 140 years, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer stops printing, but will remain a web presence. The best Seattle sports columnist, Art Thiel, will stay on, but I worry that the P-I won't have enough resources to keep the Seattle Times honest. A town the size of Seattle needs two papers.

I like what the Seahawks are doing this offseason, even if I'm nervous about trading Julian Peterson. They wisely realized that the lineplay last year was terrible, so they're improving the D-line. I expect them to draft to improve the O-line. I like the T.J. pick-up, and I hope they also draft a running back in the 2nd round... maybe Beanie Wells?

I'm not ready to predict the Mariners season, but I'm thinking maybe 80 wins. I'm looking forward to watching the outfield play defense. I heard that opening day sold out in 55 minutes; I hope the fans' obsession for Griffey doesn't convince the team to play him when they shouldn't (i.e., against lefties, or playing in left field).

Lance Mackey is just a day away from winning his third straight Iditarod. That guy is amazing. He's a hero up here.

Pure Food

Next, one of the weirder windows in Hutchins Hall. I'm guessing it refers to the Pure Food and Drug Act, which was replaced in the '30s by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

A strange brew

Two stories from today's Alaska Newsreader showed why it seems so unlikely to me that an Alaska politician can run for national office.

First is that in the latest federal spending bill, Alaska secured more earmark dollars per capita than any other state in the union. There's nothing new about this -- it's the way it has always been, and the way it always shall be. In a world where an anti-earmark position is a big part of the Republican platform, you'd think this would be a knockout blow. Only a cult of personality like Sarah Palin can overcome the apparent hypocrisy of campaigning against earmarks while at the same time requesting more earmark dollars per resident than any other state.

The second is that the future of the PFD is, at the moment, a little shaky. We're likely to get around $1,500 this year, but the number may fall to $68 (!) by 2013. Two things about this. First, no Alaska governor will ever have high approval ratings if we're only getting $68 in PFD money, cult of personality or not. We demand our oil money. Second, read in conjunction with the earmark story, I don't know how the rest of the country doesn't despise Alaskans right now. Here we are in a recession, we're getting more earmark dollars per person than any other state, and at the same time every man, woman, and child is getting -- nay, demands -- at least $1,500 a year. Now, it's not exactly that simple -- the PFD money is not technically government money -- but I wouldn't expect people around the country to care about that. If I were a Michigander I would not be happy with Alaskans right now.

(I will admit that probably none of this applies to Sarah Palin on a national level. She defies most logical reasoning, and I've given up trying to understand her polarizing effect -- both positive and negative -- on so many people.)

Gambling

Next in the series. This kind of old-tymey gambling is too charming to be illegal.

Iditarod!

The Toughest Race on Earth started this weekend. Saturday was the ceremonial start in Anchorage, but Sunday was the official start, in Willow. And that's where I was, too.

They're out there right now, in the cold Alaskan wilderness, staring at dog butts 20 hours a day. I don't know if it gets any tougher. Find out where they are right now. Will Lance Mackey win his third in a row?

Pictures/videos:

The Osborne argument

A snowstorm hit Washington, D.C. the night before the oral argument in District Attorney's Office v. Osborne. I had planned to get to the court early, linger on the steps, and take some pictures. But it was 25 degrees and blustery when I arrived at 8:45 am, and I headed directly indoors as fast as I could. I was lucky; I had managed to plead my case to the Supreme Court Marshal (noting that I had worked on the case and that I was flying all the way from Alaska) and get a reserved seat for the argument. Others had to battle the elements; my friend Bill showed up at 7 am to wait in line in the cold and snow (but he did make it in).

The Supreme Court is, as you'd expect, a well-oiled machine. We were escorted in batches through several metal detectors and orderly filed into the Great Hall. The room is impressive; thick columns line each wall, stone carvings adorn the tops of the walls near the ceiling. An elevated dais with nine chairs looks out over 10 or 12 rows of benches. I was seated on the right side of the room (facing front), in the second row of general seating (behind the section for Supreme Court bar members, so about 5 rows behind the counsel's tables).

The argument started with Ken Rosenstein representing the State of Alaska. Ken started by stating that three factors were important in deciding the case, but before he could finish describing the first factor, Justice David Souter was grilling him about the state's position that Osborne's case wasn't procedurally proper.

There are two major issues in the case, and the first one is essentially this: the Civil Rights Act allows people to sue the government for violations of civil rights -- the section of code that provides that power is Section 1983. Osborne filed a 1983 action to obtain postconviction access to DNA testing. The state argues that 1983 is an improper avenue for this type of request because Osborne is actually just trying to get out of prison, and the Supreme Court has previously ruled that if a prisoner is trying to gain his freedom, the proper procedure is a habeas corpus petition, not a 1983 action.

Souter confronts Rosenstein with Osborne's counterargument: that his 1983 action is not necessarily for the purpose of exoneration. The purpose of his action is simply to gain access to the DNA; if the results are favorable, a second but distinct procedural maneuver will have to take place before Osborne is released from prison. That maneuver may be a claim of actual innocence, an appeal to the governor for clemency, a motion to vacate the sentence, etc. If the results are unfavorable, there will be no next steps. The 1983 action at issue here will not by itself get Osborne out of jail. The difference may seem like a trifle, but the Court has previously held that the difference is important. In my opinion Osborne has the clear advantage on this point; the Court would have to reverse its prior opinions to hold otherwise.

Justice Antonin Scalia seems more interested in talking about the second major issue -- whether there is a constitutional right to postconviction access to DNA evidence. He yawns while Souter and Rosenstein debate the 1983 issue. He then asks, helpfully to Rosenstein, why we should grant access when Osborne won't even say whether the testing will be helpful. Scalia then wonders how Osborne will argue a particular point, and Rosenstein begins to speculate, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cuts in to say that maybe they should just wait for Osborne to answer the quesion himself. Justice Stephen Breyer says 1983 is only applicable when there has been a violation of constitutional rights, so they really need to concentrate on whether there is a consitutional right to the testing.

Rosenstein throws the entire courtroom for a loop when he suggests that Alaska does indeed have procedure available to people like Osborne to access DNA testing. I had never heard about this before, and neither had the justices; it wasn't in the briefing. It took until the very end of the argument for everyone to find out from Rosenstein that it wasn't really true.

Representing the Obama administration is Neal Katyal. Lest anyone believe Obama's election would turn the country into a liberal Gomorrah, Obama is arguing on Alaska's side, against allowing access to DNA evidence. Go figure. Katyal is very polished, but his arguments aren't compelling (at least to my ears). He is mostly afraid that the federal DNA access statute will be torn apart by a broad constitutional right, but Osborne is not arguing for anything like that. Osborne merely seeks some form of access; the government may place whatever restrictions on it that it wishes. The government also worries about a "floodgates" issue -- the fear that a new right will inspire millions of criminals to flood the courts. But 44 states already have statutes allowing access to DNA evidence, and there are no reports of deluged courthouses. Justice John Paul Stevens points out that in Alaska only 7 criminals have ever requested access. "That's floodgates?" he asks, as the courtroom chuckles.

Representing Osborne is Peter Neufeld, one of the founders of the Innocence Project. Heretofore unheard from, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito start questioning, and Scalia ramps it up even more. (Justice Clarence Thomas does not speak.) Roberts and Alito have problems with the factual history of the case. Osborne confessed to the underlying crime at a parole hearing (because Alaska law requires parolees to take responsibility for their crimes), and says that if that wasn't true, Osborne perjured himself. They want Osborne to state now under penalty of perjury that he's innocent, and they wonder why he hasn't done so already. The reason is because neither Alaska law nor 1983 require it. But Neufeld says Osborne will sign that paper tomorrow if he needs to. Alito also worries that future defendants will "game the system" by refusing DNA testing at trial, and then later trying to access it. Neufeld: But who would choose to sit in jail for years to wait for postconviction DNA testing? It seems unlikely that any such "gaming" would ever happen.

When Rosenstein came back for rebuttal, he faced a question from Breyer that the state has been unable to answer from day 1: If Osborne is willing to pay for the test (which he is), then why won't you just open the evidence room door, and let him? We're still waiting for an answer.

From all appearances, it seemed that Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer were already in favor of the right to DNA access. Scalia seemed against it from the start, though it wasn't entirely clear why. Alito and Roberts seemed very skeptical about the factual and procedural history of the case -- my theory is that they would rather not agree that the constitution requires DNA access, so they'll try to find a way to avoid answering that question by finding factual or procedural problems that allow them to dismiss the claim. I haven't mentioned Justice Anthony Kennedy yet, who may have the deciding vote in the case; he was also skeptical of the factual history, but he seemed open-minded on the bigger legal issues.

My optimistic guess is that we gain Kennedy's vote and we win. My biggest worry comes simply from the fact that the Court took the case at all -- it takes four justices to agree to hear the case, but there were no splits among the circuit courts, so there was no conflicting law to clean up. For some reason, they just wanted to take this case, and I worry that they are eager to reverse the 9th circuit.

The decision should be out in the next couple months. I'm sure I'll have more to say about it then. For a veteran journalist's take on the argument, check out NPR's Nina Totenberg.

As a postscript, there was a story on 60 Minutes tonight reinforcing the need for DNA testing. The story explores the unreliability of eyewitness identifications, and the psychology behind it. Worth watching.

Eagle vs. Dog

The next example of Alaska's glorious, hilarious weirdness. Headline in The Homer Tribune: Small dog is prey for hungry eagle. Intrigued?

It starts like all classic tragedies do, with an 11-week old chihuahua named Kookie. And you know where this is going.

"It was a full-grown eagle, and it hit me on the head and shoulders, and knocked me down," Briggs said. "I looked up and saw that he had my puppy."

Surely the little guy will know enough to attempt escape?

"She was so small, when I looked up, it looked like the eagle had a mouse in its claws," Briggs explained. "She didn't even struggle. The way she was held by the eagle was the way I would pick her up."

Eagles are so clever! They masquerade as loving humans, emulating the tender way we pick up small pets when we don't intend to eat them.

And every tragic tale has a lesson:

"I want people to keep an eye out for their pets," she said. "Though, even if they are keeping an eye out, it could still happen."

We're never safe! Never.

DC pics

I'll have more about the DC trip soon, but here are the pictures.

Our long national nightmare is over

This is the last post about The Bachelor. Just for the record, I wanted to stop watching this after the first episode, but I am committed to you, dear reader, and once I start something, I finish it. Call it steadfastness, call it stubbornness, call it stupid. But it happened. And we survived.

Here, for the last time, are my uncontextualized impressions of the finale. If it seems long, it's because it is; this week's episodes lasted four hours.

The final bachelor. Mercy. This horrible experiment is almost over. A little piece of me has died each Monday since the beginning of January.
The Mesnick family is in New Zealand. That's nice. His parents look slightly familiar -- maybe they were at Rose Hill Junior High (go Royals) or LW (go Kangs) sporting events.
The girls meet Ty. Nothing like using a 3-year-old as a reality tv prop.
Girl with darker hair goes first. She seems to be natural around kids. The Mesnicks assume the role of inquisitors.
Girl with lighter hair goes next, and basically everything is the exact same. Can he really be split so 50/50? I find that unlikely.
Another "date." I so badly want this to end.
The other "date". Now I know why I got a text yesterday from she-who-prefers-not-to-be-named-on-the-internet that said "bachelor = vomit"
They finish the massage and go into the kitchen, and there's already chicken cooking on the stove. The hell? Was it on a very long simmer?
It's actually kind of hilarious how the girls openly talk about their feelings, and Mesnick just says nothing.
Come on dude, just marry them both. Do what Foley would do.
The producers have one last twist. The Bachelorette from last season is back. Why do they spring this on us now? Like she decided just yesterday that she made the wrong choice.
Jason's like, sorry yo, I've got two other girls now. If I had a nickel for every time I've said that.
The Deanna thing lasts about 10 seconds, after they teased it all season. Lame.
Here comes the interminable "which one do I choose" part of the program. Endless montages of good times gone by. Everyone loves everyone. And so on.
Did I mention it's interminable?
"Being in love with two women sucks." Ha!
Oh he looks so sad.
It makes sense that the first person who gets out of the car will be the one who loses. Let's see.
Lighter hair is first out. That probably spells doom.
She seems to know she's lost.
Yet she is amazing and amazing and amazing.
Yep, she loses. Jason is a bit at a loss for words, but kinda keeps staring at her weirdly.
Much crying.
And now the other one wins. There is much happiness, and passing helicopter shots.
The DVR malfunctions, and suddenly Jason is sitting on the couch telling the host that he made the wrong choice. Holy crap; I did not expect that.
The DVR malfunction makes this an especially shocking development... literally going from happily lolling in the pool to sitting and crying.
I'm giving props to the DVR for making this show better. Too bad it didn't cut out the whole season.
I feel bad for Jason, because he is a good guy, but really: duh. The show is a competition/game show, I don't know how you expect these people to be same on as off
Why break up with her on TV? This is weird.
"Okay, let's bring her out!"
And she's rightly pissed. She's making him look bad.
"You're such a bastard." Yowch.
He's coming off terribly here.
"I'm so mad at you!"
Host steps in for a commercial break! Oh the humanity.
And we're back. Host gives them some privacy. Heh. That's rich.
So to sum up, Jason loves both women, and so he hurts both of them. Maybe that is what Foley would do.
So darker hair girl is crying in the limo. Odds on her being the next Bachelorette? 50/50. It's either her or the Canadian girl Jillian. I am NOT watching.
Man, even the host is bummed out now.
Lighter hair girl is out there now. They're going to make her feel like she was the loser for as long as possible.
Weird -- all she's talking about is how she hopes he'll change his mind. Something's fishy. Maybe she's clued in by the lack of studio audience
She's rightly confused by everything. Touchingly concerned for the other girl. That's kinda nice.
Jason: "It's not the classiest or coolest thing in the world." That's our show.
Now entering Hour 4 of the Bachelor this week. This must be what waterboarding feels like.
Sweet. More recaps. I am about to pass out.
There are maybe 500 candles on that stage.
Jason inspires this report on Good Morning America tomorrow: "what do men and women really think when they see a man cry?"
Some of the rejected contestants come out and give their opinions. They are bitterly divided. Now the audience, who apparently have important opinions. This is creeping me out.
"Who's really mad?"
The audience is all female. I'm feeling terrible about myself for watching this. Oh here's a dude but he's rather odd. Somehow he made me feel worse about this.
There's an interview with Jason, but I really can't bring myself to care anymore so I'm surfing the Internet.
"Who will be the next Bachelorette?" I'll never watch, but I'm betting on Jillian.
Hey Dad, cheer up, Dancing With The Stars starts in 6 days.
I can't believe the crap you put yourself through, Mesnick. (And the crap I put myself through.)
Interminable and boring. Always a great combo.
Yep, Jillian is next. Why, after seeing the shitshow Mesnick went through, would you volunteer for this?
Oh please let this end.

Today's scary thing

I know that any news about George W. Bush is old news, but this is still news to me. The White House released 9 memos from the Bush Justice Department this week (memos providing legal analysis of executive powers during wartime). Among the conclusions are that the rights protected by the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution -- for U.S. citizens -- may be suspended. Gives me chills.

Home again

24 hours after I woke yesterday morning in DC, I'm back in AK. I'll have pictures, descriptions and accounts later this week. Meanwhile, recaps of the argument are in newspapers.

And I know why you're really here, but I haven't watched the Bachelor yet. More than one person has told me it's terrible, so I'm quite looking forward to it.