My suggestion for a CFB playoff format

Early on during this season of college football, there was rampant speculation once again unfolding with Texas A&M's very public desire to leave the Big 12 Conference for the SEC. This started a chain reaction of sorts that led to another round of rumors surrounding the move towards a 16 team megaconference set up. I conceived the idea at the time about a possible move towards a solution to realistically determine the 'real' college football champion without the need for subjective assessment of one's strength of schedule, quality of victory and others that are often taken into account in the human poll.

When I conceived this idea, there was a pretty good odd that the Big 12 and Big East would disband, with the bulk of Big 12 moving to Pac-12 to form Pac-16 and the remaining joining Big 10 or SEC, and the Big East joining ACC to form 4 major 16 team megaconferences. I thought then, that the divisional champions of each school should get an automatic spot in a 8-12 team playoff, which is seeded according to the human polls or other ways in which conferences could win seeding by overall record against other conferences and such. The hosting and sponsors could be replacing some of the bowl games as the quarter and semi final games. Of course, the power conferences will no doubt have an issue with this set up as the only way to play in such a playoff would mean no at-large spots, which was why I added 4 extra play-in spots just like the opening round of the basketball tournament in which these at-large (and really the non AQ conference teams) would play an extra game to play the bigger seeds in the conference.

To be honest, I was drawing up what I was thinking could be the 4 megaconferences that will rule college football. If the whole expansion and moving had gone on, I imagine it would have looked something like this in 10 years time or so.

... or some other arrangement. Specifics are not my point here, but you get the big picture.

Unfortunately, I didn't have space for everyone, so TCU, Baylor and South Florida got shut off from these expansion talks and joins the newly formed conference resulting from the merger of MWC & WAC.)

This allocation for 4, 16 team megaconference sounded great until TCU broke their commitment to Big East and joined Big 12. So this plan goes out the door. But in any case, I wanted to highlight that a 8-12 team playoff structure could have been viable with this plan, where the 8 conference division champions will go on, while there could be 2-4 at-large teams could be included (so that Boise St and TCU could play) to a wild card round of sorts and make the 1 & 2 seeds have a first round bye or some other combination of tournament style play.

I'm personally against moving towards the 16 to sometimes talked about 24 megaconference style (like the newly announced 'alliance' of MWC and Conf. USA). I much preferred the older system in 10 team conferences where you play all 9 of the other conference members to determine a true champion. I understand the motives behind holding an extra game for a conference championship, but really, that is both a benefit (in increasing strength of schedule) and a disadvantage (the 2 best teams in all of college football could lie in the same conference, but only one will make it to National Championship because someone has to lose in the conference championship game, or in case of a 3 team tie, conference could lose any shot at NC because Team A beat Team B and Team B beat Team C and Team C beat Team A. Let's ask the Big 12 about it if it happens this season.)

If we're truly moving towards such a system, then all of the conferences should just merge into one big league like how the major leagues are set up, which will allow for better negotiating rights for TV and sponsorship. The league structure for NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL is what led me to conceive the system I described above.

But of course, talks have changed a bit recently. It looks like Big 12 won't disband. I still think Big East is in serious threat, but if they manage to poach some independent and Conference USA teams, they might survive after all.

Now it looks like MWC had a pretty nice suggestion for creating a 16 team playoff. I actually like that idea, because it gives the so-called power conferences a shot at sending 3 of their teams, which should minimize complaints and also a shot for teams not in AQ conferences to have a legitimate shot. I personally want to expand on this a little and possibly include 18-20 teams with the same format explained above in including conference champions of the non-AQ conferences into a play-in game. Hey, at least everyone has a shot this way. I was personally thinking that MWC and WAC should merge instead of MWC and Conference USA merging to create a 22 team league, but whatever it is, there will be 2 automatic qualifiers of the winners of the AQ conferences (currently I assume ACC, Big 10, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12, I still think Big East won't exist, but system can accomodate their expansion) with the winners of MWC/Conf. USA, WAC, MAC and Sun Belt playing each other for 2 'wild card' spots playing the remaining 2-4 at-large teams that are determined by polls.

The semi finals and the championship game will be at neutral sites, whereas like the MWC plan, the 4 quarter final games could be sponsored by Rose, Sugar, Fiesta and Orange Bowls, while the other Round of 16 and play-in games could be sponsored by the other bowl games. Conference title games can continue as per usual, but the only impact that will have (since conference division winners guaranteed themselves a spot in the playoffs) is which team will have the higher seeding.

So... theoretically speaking, the playoff system could end up as follows (given this season's record and my personal assumptions):

ACC: Georgia Tech vs Clemson (disclaimer - author is a Georgia Tech alum)

Big 10: Michigan St vs Penn St

Big 12: Oklahoma St vs TCU (in a theoretical expanded Big 12)

SEC: LSU vs South Carolina

Pac 12: Stanford vs Arizona State

Big East: West Virginia vs Louisville (in a theoretical expanded Big East with 2 divisions)

MWC/WAC: Boise St (In my world they merge)

MAC: Toledo

Conf. USA: Houston

Sun Belt: Arkansas St

At-large: Oklahoma

At-large: Arkansas

At-large: Virginia Tech

At-large: Oregon

So in this case, there are 4 play-in games, which are played between the non-AQ conference champions and the at-large teams for a berth in the Round of 16. The 8 teams will be seeded according to human polls, so presumably, this will go:

(13) Boise St vs (20) Arkansas St

(14) Oklahoma vs (19) Toledo

(15) Arkansas vs (18) Houston

(16) Oregon vs (17) Virginia Tech

Winners of the play-in games will continue on to play the other 12 divisional champions in the Round of 16 round where the higher seed acts as the host. For example, this could go:

(1) LSU vs Winner of Oregon vs Virginia Tech

(2) Oklahoma St vs Winner of Arkansas vs Houston

(3) Stanford vs Winner of OU vs Toledo

(4) Michigan St vs Winner of BSU vs Ark. St

(5) Clemson vs (12) Louisville

(6) West Virginia vs (11) GT

(7) Penn St vs (10) TCU

(8) Arizona St vs (9) South Carolina

This system will probably cause a lot of commotion seeing how some of the play-in winners seem to be 'better' teams, so perhaps after the conference championship games are played, the 20 teams all needs to be ranked appropriately before the 20 team playoff can kick off (likely some of the at-large spots will get seeded higher if the Big East or ACC doesn't put quality teams out there). In the revised situation, the playoffs could look like this (assuming BSU, OU, Arkansas and Oregon makes it through for this case):

(1) LSU vs (16) Louisville

(2) Oklahoma St vs (15) GT

(3) Stanford vs (14) TCU

(4) Michigan St vs (13) Arkansas

(5) Clemson vs (12) Arizona St

(6) Boise St vs (11) West Virginia

(7) Penn St vs (10) South Carolina

(8) Oregon vs (9) OU

Then the winner of 1 vs 16 plays winner of 8 vs 9, winner of 2 vs 15 plays winner of 7 vs 10, etc, etc just like the March Madness Tourney.

So, it could potentially shake up like this....

In any case, you see what I mean. My proposal isn't perfect either and needs to be tweaked. I added a bit in there that ensures that teams from the same conference won't meet until the semi finals at the earliest to promote inter conference play. The current system makes winning your conference a secondary priority of sorts and this system will bring back the emphasis placed on conference play since it will determine your path to the playoff and winning it means you can get a higher seed in the playoffs while in the current system winning the conference just means a path to a bowl, not necessarily a shot as the national championship play.

There was a lot of talk about the potential for a plus one game to the national game to make it between 4 teams, but that will continue to have some sort of an anti-trust feel to the system if teams like Boise St continue to get pushed to the side (though in all honestly, the fact that this system only allows one team from non-AQ conference still hints at anti-trust, but hey, it's better than now). I honestly think this system allows everyone at least a shot at possibly making an improbable run - wouldn't that make college football more exciting (if it isn't already) - and besides, if the question is about money, imagine how much more attention a playoff system will get in college football.

As I said, don't get bugged down by the specifics of what I outlined (like how I arbitrarily placed some teams in conference divisions that doesn't make a lot of sense or the seeding of some teams in the playoffs), I'm just trying to highlight the basic structure and convey the big picture idea of what I think should be done.

... So, readers, what do you think? Could this system be improved on and be made viable? I'm curious to see what people think of this format.

Stop the execution of Troy Davis

I’ve not blogged in a while, mainly because all the writing I needed to do for my intense summer class killed any desire to write any additional pieces. However, I’m making an exception for this, because I really need to express how I feel about a particular issue that I’ve followed for the past 5 years or so. The campaign against the execution of Georgia death row inmate Troy Davis.

I first heard of Troy’s case when I started attending the local Amnesty International meetings after watching the documentary ‘The Corporation’ where the then Secretary General Irene Khan made appearances speaking on the role of human rights being impeded by corporate interests around the world. Not going to delve into deeper discussion about that this time, but I had heard of Amnesty International before, but didn’t quite know what they did, so I signed up to receive newsletters via e-mail and just so happened that was when Larry Cox was appointed as the new executive director of the American branch and he was making his tour across the different regional offices, so the newsletter had an invite to drop by and meet other like-minded folks. So I went, met few people and got invited to attend one of their monthly meetings. That’s where I was introduced to the case of Troy Davis.

The case of Troy Davis. Troy is an African American man from Savannah, GA that was convicted of killing an off duty police officer back in 1989 and had been sentenced to death. I was a bit undecided on the whole for or against death penalty back then, so I wasn’t sure how to feel about this. I tended to think one should pay for their crime, so if you kill someone, you must be prepared for your life to be taken away too. So in that sense, I didn’t pay too much attention until I got curious and read a bit more about it.

Turns out Troy’s case was a bit different from other death penalty cases because the conviction was made without any physical evidence, no proof of gun that was used, no finger prints, no blood, no DNA and all the so called eye witness testimony was rather shaky. 7 of the 9 witnesses have later recanted their stories, alleging police coercion, while some said that they felt pressured by their parole officers to incriminate Troy. It’s even widely believed that the 2 that hasn’t recanted their story knows who did it and is covering for the real killer. It may even be that 1 of them, who was one of the first to report Troy, is the real killer. Members of the jury have even come forward and said that had they known that witnesses were coerced into making statements to incriminate Troy, they probably would still have convicted Troy of being guilty, but not make the recommendation for his death.

Of course, there are more details I’m omitting here, but since I’m not a legal expert, I’m not going to details about the proceedings, but do you really need to hear much more? I’m not expressing my support or opposition to the death penalty. If members of the jury decide to recommend the death penalty given there is unmistakable proof or witness for a crime, there’s not much we can do about it. After all, we have to respect the rules of the law, it’s the jury that decides, not public opinion. However, what grounds are there to sentence someone to death without any concrete proof? If death penalty is an option, it should only be exercised when there is absolutely no doubt about the guilty party. There have been too many reported cases in the last decade about innocent men being executed that were later proven to be innocent due to DNA mismatch, uncovering of planted evidence or worse, coercion by authorities in exchange for lesser penalties of an unrelated case. This is clear indication that the legal system isn’t perfect in order to continue using the death penalty as the ‘ultimate justice’, as Texas Governor Rick Perry says.

All these effort just to close a case so that the authorities can move on to the next? I understand and sympathize with the need for the victims to seek closure and nobody is denying that an innocent man died that fateful night in 1989. However, the death of an innocent man should not be used as an excuse to execute another potentially innocent man while the real killer roams unpunished.

Who knows, Troy could be lying about all this. Even if that’s the case, unless there is conclusive evidence, which there is none, a death penalty should not be given out just because of suspicion of guilt.

Why is this case so important? If such a set up can be used to sentence someone to death, which means that can potentially happen to any one of us if all that is needed are witnesses that will testify against you, who may be doing it because they need to have their own plea bargain and such. I don’t want to stress on the racial element here, but you can’t ignore the fact that Troy is an African American convicted of killing a white cop in a southern state of Georgia, in Savannah in 1989 which is reported to be pretty racist even by those living there. What glares at me are the politicians of the county that refuses to move the case along whenever there is another legal challenge and seems hell bent on making a political point. There is no doubt there are legal ramifications and motivations for this case, what could it mean for the career lawyers and politicians if they even give a hint of admission of guilt in that they could have been wrong in this case? There are clear external motivations driving this case here. But should it come at the cost of an innocent man’s life?

How about the fact that the state is using a new type of lethal injection that was imported so that they could continue executions? For a while, state executions were put on hold due to the state running out of one of the three chemicals used in executions. This new chemical pentobarbital (usually used to ‘destroy’ cats and dogs) has been reported to cause some unknown reaction when used, such as during the recent execution of Roy Blankenship. This is yet another indication that there are external interests in resuming executions at whatever cost possible, even if it results in a struggle. These chemicals are not supposed to cause any needless pain and suffering for the one being executed.

Why is this case so personal to me? Like Troy being a black man convicted of murdering a white cop in a southern state in the late 80s, I’m an adult male of Islamic descent in the era of the war against terrorists. I feel that if such a thing can happen to Troy, I could very well be arrested and put in prison (or Guantanamo) if all that is needed is suspicion to lock someone up and convict that person to death. I have said my share of controversial statements, but always vocal about my rejection of violence (though among friends who may or may not agree with me but understand where I’m coming from) and those statements can be twisted to make me look like a person with harmful intent if all that’s needed is to threaten someone with some legitimate cause for their concern to testify against me. No physical evidence required and the lawyers can design a jury of mistrusting, overly patriotic citizens to sway them to sentence me guilty. It’s that simple. It can happen to me, it can happen to anyone. Hence, you see people wearing the shirts ‘I am Troy Davis’ because that can happen to anyone. We are all potentially Troy Davis.

As I said, I’m not saying I’m for or against the death penalty. Just that we need to be certain of the person’s guilt before execution. An executed innocent man cannot be brought back to life. We shouldn’t be doing this because we want to close the case and move on and provide closure to the victim’s family while the real killer goes unpunished.

So, tell your friends, family, coworkers, neighbors, etc. There is too much doubt. Sign the petition asking for clemency. Call your representatives. Attend the rallies and the marches. Make your voice heard. This doesn’t just affect Troy, it affects all of us. This means legalized murder of a potentially innocent man. If you aren’t scared by that though and how it can and is abused, you should be. This sort of thing shouldn’t be happening in the country that touts freedom and justice for all.

For petition and other detailed info on Troy Davis, go to Amnesty International's page, click HERE. (http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/usa-troy-davis?id=1011343)

For more info on the topic, see this report in Democracy Now!, click HERE. (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/16/over_500_000_sign_petition_to)

Driving behaviors mirrors social behaviors?

I work in Sandy Springs, which is now its own city annexed from Atlanta. It's essentially considered a fringe city as it sits on the border of Atlanta city lines with Interstate 285 acting as a very obvious line. More often than not, the intersection points of I-285 to I-75, 85 and GA-400 in North Atlanta area is the target of many commuters' ires, as it is apparently one of the worst traffics in the US.

I try to leave a bit early, just leaving 5 or 10 minutes later can make a difference of about half an hour sometimes. On a good day, I can make the commute back home, about 12 mi or so, in about 20-25 mins. At other times, especially on rush hour Fridays, just covering the 0.25 mi or so from where I work to get on to GA-400S can take close t0 half an hour.

What makes it so bad is not that there are that many cars on the road. I can cover the topic of whether one should drive or not in another post, but to put it simply, bad public transportation in Atlanta doesn't help as an alternative. I've driven in many other parts of the country, but I don't think I've seen bad drivers make the traffic this bad in other cities across the country. I mean, Atlanta (and perhaps Georgia drivers in general?) are terrible. Terrible awareness of the road, poor judgment on lane changes, not using the proper traffic etiquettes, etc. I could go on and on.

I myself am very surprised and should consider myself fortunate that I've not gotten into an accident so far considering how many close calls I've encountered. I learnt how to drive in the suburbs of greater Chicago, but I didn't really drive in Atlanta during my college years (more so due to lack of a vehicle), but I started driving regularly when I moved to Western Massachusetts when I started working after graduation. Perhaps it was because of that, the 'MAsshole' got into me as I had to learn how to change lanes properly among aggressive drivers. That meant actually having to use my turning lights in advance (and even then, drivers will close the gap just so that you won't get to change lanes) and timing your lane change so as to not make those behind you slow down unnecessarily and such. It became even more crucial when it was snowing and the roads were slippery, having to leave enough gap in between cars in case your car slid on the snow and taking precautions to clear the snow off your car so that solidified ice chunks won't fall off or worse, fly off, into someone else's car. It was all the basic things you learn, it's not just your safety, but also those around you as well.

I'm sure I'm overgeneralizing some of the stuff I see around in Atlanta, but it's alarming (and honestly amusing at times) how other drivers seemingly think they can get away with ridiculous moves on the road. My biggest pet peeve on the road is someone coming in front of you without any notice. The point of turning lights is to notify the drivers around you that you are trying to change lanes. Preferably you should give them as much time, 2-3 seconds is good enough, but as I said, longer the better. What I see on almost all occasions is the driver changing lanes as soon as the turning lights are on as an after the fact indication. This doesn't give enough time for me to react and in turn, forces me to brake suddenly, which is obviously dangerous for me and the car behind me. If the said driver had given me enough warning, I may gradually slow down and leave enough space so that the said driver can change without much problem. If there are solid divider lines, it means don't change lanes. If I sense you trying to change lanes (and especially without turning lights), I'll intentionally close the gap so that drivers won't get to change lanes.

This brings me to the next issue in that drivers here tend to wait until really late to change lanes or to slow down to make an exit and such. Exits are marked clearly way earlier in advance, so it's not like drivers don't know when the exits are coming up. My general rule is to change into the exit lane about a mile before the exit. Or in the case of toll roads, there's ample signs that indicate that a toll booth is coming up and that the leftmost lanes are for those with wireless passes. What should otherwise be a smooth sailing drive on the leftmost lanes ends up being congested because drivers wait until the last 0.2 or even 0.1 mile to change into the cash toll booth lanes and holding the wireless pass drivers off.

Let me go off into the social context of these behaviors. Many a times, drivers' excuses will be that of 'Well, I don't have time to wait sitting in traffic' or 'I've got more important things to do.' Oh the audacity of that! How does one know if their time is more important or valuable than those who are patiently observing the rules of the road? It's not like you know who everyone else is on the road. To assume that your needs are above everyone else just is absurd. The worse ones are those that assumes that just because they drive a 'better' car (be it brand, type, etc) that others must acquiesce to their behavior. How does one assume that just because one affords to drive a sports car or a Benz, that others somehow can't? Other could very well do the same, but chooses not to for various reasons which are not important. It's essentially saying that because you chose to make decisions that are different from the decisions I've made, I've determined that you are lesser because your decision is poor or some other shit like that. Personally, I can afford a Benz or BMW if I want, but I see it as a sunk investment, the depreciation of the vehicle being higher than the utility value I place on driving and frankly I don't care so much about the driving experience, hence, I choose to drive a relatively cheap vehicle, but that's just me. Everyone has their own reasons and needs, but one should never assume that their needs and their decisions are above everyone elses. Some drivers are so selfish that they can't even sit in traffic for 5 more extra minutes? How much real difference can one really make in that 5 minutes or so?

This behavior is interesting precisely because these social behaviors are often reflected in person and not just in driving situations. I can't quite place if it's the X, Y or Millenia generation concept where individual values are placed above others and that it doesn't matter if others have to pay to benefit your decisions. If there are two lanes heading to an exit lane, the patient and obedient drivers will be in the exit lane long before, the supposedly 'superior' drivers will try to circumvent that by zipping past on the other lane and hoping to catch a gap to change lanes much later than sit in traffic. If there is a gap that one can legitimately turn into without causing inconvenience to other drivers, that's perfectly fine if you want to hedge on your chances. However, anyone can tell if that's a genuine possibility by just looking ahead to the road to determine how congested that lane is. If it's congested, chances are tougher and more than likely you're going to have to slow down somewhere to change lanes, holding those that are already on exit lanes to wait longer and possibly making the cars behind you to potentially slow down. It really irks me when cars literally come to a stop because they couldn't change lanes when they wanted to and holds the lane hostage. Worst is when in turning lanes the driver assumes that the lane will move along so that they can be accommodated when trying to beat a red light and ends up sitting in the traffic box or the driver gets to the very end and tries to sneak in to the ramp at the very last chance using whatever extra little space there is.

I apologize, I really needed to vent about this for a while and since I felt like blogging, this seemed like a good topic as I sat waiting to get on the highway.

Dumbing everything down

My last post ended up being an incoherent rant of sorts after starting out with some legitimate topics I wanted to address... Hopefully this one is more concrete.

I stopped listening to Top 40 stuff or 'mainstream' music when I got into college, thanks largely to the soundtrack to the movie 'Garden State' (that got me started into a whole new world of musical experience for me... so thanks, Zach Braff). I am however, not completely ignorant of what is going on, just because you can never quite escape the really popular tracks being played outdoors at festivals or fairs, at the bar and at parties, and many a times, being played on TV or the cinema. Now, I could go on and on about how generic music sounds these few years thanks to mass commercialization of the music industry, but let's leave that for next time.

However, I was dismayed recently, when talking with a colleague about a particular piece of song that's been making the rounds recently. The song in question is 'Look at Me Now' by Chris Brown, Busta Rhymes and Lil Wayne. As I said, I stopped listening to mainstream stuff, but some of these music are brought to my attention in various forms as explained above. What really struck me about this song was why people like this song. (OK, I'll admit, I've always enjoyed Busta Rhymes rapping really fast.) For someone like Chris Brown, the man who has been popular for a while, who brought hits (literally) such as 'Forever', 'Kiss Kiss', 'Run It!' and others, this song would be appropriate if this was his breakout song and a shout out to those who doubted his talent or never really gave him props. But he's been around for a while now, so what is he trying to say? Does he really need to reiterate the fact that now he's famous, rich and can be obnoxious about it?

Being obnoxious in hip hop is nothing new, so I won't pin the blame on Chris Brown. I'm sure I'm not the only one who came to that conclusion, so my question is, why do we as listeners or consumers, buy into songs like this that only propels him to feel entitled to be obnoxious? It's almost as if one's paying him to talk down to you (I don't judge if that's your thing), but when I raised this question, I was met with a hesitant admission of the situation, but ultimately dismissing the question because at the end of the day, it's a good song and they liked it.

The question about whether the song is good or not can be debated. The bigger question is that people recognize that they can like something that they fundamentally disagree with or even acknowledge the poor taste. I'm sure many others have met those that seemingly acknowledge watching their 'guilty pleasure' in watching trashy reality TV shows or liking trash music. Shouldn't everyone be alarmed that we're consciously lowering standards to meet some sort of a requirement or need to fulfill needs? When did we stop demanding artists to break new creative boundaries, push the limit of artistic achievement, seek various art forms that will cater to our enjoyment?

I myself have been guilty of this, though it was almost 10 years ago. My excuse is that I did not know to judge a quality of music, TV or film in a critical manner back then, but the point is, I have since learnt to do so (and still continuing), so I was able to recognize on my own. It's part of the experience to go through that, recognize what you went through and learn from it. When you're young, you can be excused since you don't know any better. The difference is, everyone grows, so that's another phase everyone should get past. It seems many have not completely grown out of that phase where music, TV shows, movies and even books are just shoved down our throats to be enjoyed.

Once I figured out that every form of entertainment I was seeking was rudimentary at best and pandering to those who lacks proper understanding of these art forms to meaningfully appreciate, I took a completely different approach to everything. I started paying more attention to lyrics - are they just reading out meaningless drivel or expressing something? Are the TV shows showing any generic setting or cross examining a particular topic? Are the books I'm reading just entertaining or is it expressing some idea that will stick with me?

My somewhat vague rule since then has been the question of longevity. Will the piece of music I'm listening to express something that still can be appreciated 5-10 years from now? Will the movie I watch stick with me down the years, instead of becoming irrelevant over time, will the books I read give me new perspective I'll internalize instead of being named Bestseller and being forgotten few years down the line? If it's not going to give any benefits like that, is it worth my time to 'consume' these forms?

I'll admit, I never learnt to play any instruments (though if I could, I'd love to play the drums), I don't claim to write well, considering English is the 3rd language I picked up. (Though I'm pretty proud of the fact that I got from not being able to converse in English at all to reading a 300+ page novel in about 3 years or so), I may sound like a pro in all these things, but I'm just an amateur appreciator of sorts, so I'm not in a position to be able to judge critically, but there are very basic things anyone can notice in inherent lack of quality or point to many things we 'consume.'

Acknowledging that something is bad, but yet enjoying it should be alarming to everyone. There are folks that are becoming 'artists' because of this and seriously undermining the true artists and creatives. It really doesn't say much about movies like 'Transformers' and such doing so well and being positively received by those who can't objectively and critically analyze what a movie should be. (Note: I maintain that a movie can be enjoyable while not compromising artistic integrity) I've heard some ridiculous excuses as to why some don't appreciate foreign movies, one of the best ones being that they don't want to read when enjoying a movie. When did reading become such a chore to do? Is it really hard to pay attention to what is going on in the movie and glance at the words below?

There's nothing wrong with enjoying these art forms to satisfy a short term need. The question becomes if it's something of worthy quality instead of a low level form that caters to the instincts.

All these talk often are received as being elitist or too demanding for everyone and that may or may not be true. I've also often heard complaints such as how one can't approach every art forms critically and that entertainment is not supposed to be taken so seriously. I do agree with all that, but since when did being entertained mean completely letting go of any standards and allowing yourself to be receptive to anything, be it good or bad? Why is 'thinking' regarded in such a negative light? What is the source of such attitude towards anti intellectualism?

I've said enough for the night, perhaps answering those will be for future posts...

Consider your sources

*** Gave this post a quick read through after I initially typed it... This is going to look more like a rant than anything. However, this is just an initial exploration into the oversimplification or snap judgments I am seeing at an alarmingly increasing rate that I felt compelled to start addressing. ***

Many a times, we talk to our peers regarding that brilliant TV show, movie, artist, etc. The usual exchange of such conversations tend to follow the lines of 'have you seen/heard of such and such?' after which, it is usually followed by 'no, what is it' or 'I heard about it, but tell me more.' It's often from such conversations with peers whose taste one trusts that allows for expansion of an experience, so as to say.

I know for myself, I would never have tried to listen to a certain type of music or artist/group had it not been for the trust that I have in some of my peer's music taste. Same goes for a different set of peers for whose taste in movies I trust. This goes on for many other things, such as editorials/op-eds, etc.

This taste or credibility will no doubt vary between person to person. For example, I look for solid character development and a complex, yet believable plot or a storyline in which values or a stance is conveyed in movies. I fully understand that not everyone shares that approach and instead is looking for something that purely provides entertainment and nothing more. It's not that I have anything against that (though in many cases, those who know me well have heard my rants about such approaches - this will be explored in a future post), as mentioned before, everyone has their preference.

Having said that, there's a particular group of people I'd like to point out. The type that for some reason values their own opinions above anyone else. Now, don't get me wrong, of course we'd like to think we're right in the decisions we make or the taste in something we've come to assume. However, I'm singling out the ones that has an opinion about something that they are not knowledgeable about.

A good example of such a person can be best described by the sample conversation.

Person A: "Have you watched 'The Thing'? It's quite possibly one of the most under-rated horror movies out there."

Person B: "No, and because I have never heard of it, it must not be good, because I like horror movies."

Many of us have encountered a conversation with Person B before. The very quick to judge types, how very convenient and easy for him or her to proclaim that just because they have never heard of it, it must not be good and thus not worth looking into it or bothering about it at all.

Most of the time, I honestly believe this is down to ignorance, be it pure or assumed. It is extremely interesting especially when this comes out of whose taste you don't trust. In many of my cases, it came from those who had a specific taste in movies and had no desire or interest in expanding or branching out.

Here's where my problem with this approach comes about. You're assuming that your taste is good, when in all honesty, that has to be verified. Is your view on movies valued by others? If so, are their views also valued by their peers? What I'm trying to get at is, do you have an authority or credibility in passing such judgment? If that is the case, then people will be coming to you to ask your views on which (in this case) movies to watch, what to look out for, etc. If one's skills are more refined, you'd be writing reviews, analysis, etc for your own blog, a contributing site, etc and getting comments about the quality of your insights and such.

What posses one to have the audacity to consider their own opinion on something so highly? There are so many bodies of work out there. It is almost impossible to dig through all movies or music unless your life is dedicated to a particular form. For one to simply blurt that just because one has never heard of it, it must be bad is a gross simplification of what could otherwise be an opportunity for one to judge a body of work for themselves. How many times have you been surprised or disappointed when giving a movie you've never heard of or watched with past knowledge a chance? Have you even considered a slight possibility that maybe the reason why you've never heard of it is because your sources may not be good? Where do you obtain your information from? What sort of authority do you have to back up the fact that your sources are good? Just because you get all of your sources from the same 5 sources for the past 3 years and you seem to be happy with what they provide are not necessarily compelling reasons why you came to such a judgment.

I find it extremely disrespectful especially when such comments come from those who have none or little background or knowledge on the work that goes behind a production of a TV show, movie, music, etc. I myself don't know a lot, but have seen bits and pieces to at least admit that I know very little and that it's a very complicated process putting a work of art, be it good or bad, together. I am at least willing to keep an open mind about something, which probably explains why I have been more liberal with regards to trying out a new genre or music, movie or something else, so that I can at least judge a body of work for myself and expand my knowledge or refine my taste.

And for folks to assume that their taste is what needs to be catered, that's what I have an issue with. If you're the author of a book that is being adapted to a movie, then you have reasonable assumption that your thoughts or view will be catered to. If you sold your rights for the adaptation, you may lose a little influence on the input, but nevertheless, you're a stakeholder in the decision. Majority of the time, folks making the derogatory comments are ones who have absolutely no influence at all and feel they are entitled to pass their opinion just because they paid for it. The decision to pay for a movie or performance was never forced, it was completely voluntary, and even then, that still doesn't allow one to make snap judgments about a body of work.

What am I really trying to say here? In short, one has to be able to recognize that there is a significant difference in saying that you don't like something and calling something bad. I can recognize a piece of music and say I don't like it, but can admit that it's a good piece of work, as opposed to calling it bad altogether. I personally feel that there's an increasing movement of thought towards 'if i don't like it, then it's bad.' It takes a lot to admit your dislike for something, but at the same time recognizing the merits of it. There's plenty of movies I disliked, sometimes even hated, but I was able to recognize that there's appeals that caters to others. You have to be able to to recognize that not all forms of work are catered specifically for your taste and as a result, you can dislike a movie you have been waiting to see. It may appeal to a broad set of interested folks, but you have to be mature enough to recognize that it wasn't catered specifically for your taste.

What really makes one think that it's their very interest that's being catered to? What makes one think so highly of their taste and preferences? I've gone on a bit of a rant here instead of this being a more structured post (which was my original intent), but I'll plan on exploring this topic in a future post.

Back for the first time

I've contemplated for a while about blogging again for various reasons, but never got around to it. I thought, maybe I'll have a blog post here and there, then the initial desire to consistently post thoughts, opinions and general feeling will dissipate. I've gone through it before, where I feel the non-existent pressure of having to post something on a regular basis and soon, the passion dies off. (As evident by the blog history... 4 total posts in 2007-2010, 24 in 2006)

I've decided to get over that and post whenever I have something to post instead of keeping up on a schedule of sorts. After all, this is for personal and not something I'm doing to get paid and all (though if this were to eventually evolve into something like that... I don't know).

In any case, many of the reasons why I decided to kick-start his again stems from the fact that there's so many events and issues that I feel the need to address constructively, as opposed to being limited to the occasional Facebook or Twitter updates.

I actually had created a shadow blog that was private only to me to record personal thoughts that I felt the need to preserve without public exposure. I might take some pointers from the several posts I had there here future posts here.

Looking back at the shit I used to post primarily as a high school student and somewhat sparsely as an undergraduate is fun at times, but just reminds me of how inconsistent and immature I was.

But then again, that was many years ago. I'm not exactly sure what point I'm trying to make here. That you can try to run or hide from your past, but it'll always be there? Isn't that a line from one of Goo Goo Dolls' songs? (Yes... From the song 'Name' - "Scars are souvenirs you never lose , the past is never far")

Simply put, I want to start on a blank slate. Let's see where this goes.