Petre's Dish

NYT Crossword January 7, 2021

2021-01-07T21:46:00.001-06:00

A fun solve on a sad day.

January 7, 2021

Time: 7:13

The overall theme was a replacement, replacing X's (the proverbial 'strike') with that, as clued by 59A (Words of correction...or a hint to 16-, 20-, 36-, and 54- Across).

16A Cocktail specification: "WIXXXXWIST" (WITH A TWIST)
20A "Get your negative energy out of here": "DONXXXXE" (DON'T HATE)
36A 2007 black comedy directed by Frank Oz: "DEAXXXXAFUNERAL" (DEATH AT A FUNERAL)
54A Fedoras, e.g.: "FELXXXXS" (FELT HATS)

I give this puzzle 92 out of 99 senators who chose not to abdicate their duties in preserving our union. #ImpeachDonaldTrump

NYT Crossword January 6, 2021

2021-01-06T10:16:00.001-06:00

A uniclue puzzle! It doesn't play out as nicely on the app, so this would be a great one to do pen and paper. Basically, instead of cluing across or down, it just gives the number. If a number has an across and down solve, then the two are interconnected (in this case Across and Down).

January 6, 2021

Time: 5:20

The grouped uniclues were as follows:

1A/D Rubberneck: "STOP" and "STARE"
5A/D Stiffly formal: "PRIM" and "PROPER"
9A/D Old Glory: "STARS" and "STRIPES"
33A/D Kind of sauce in Chinese cuisine: "SWEET" and "SOUR"
41A/D Full from, as a place: "BORN" and "BRED"
43A/D Footwear fashion faux pas: "SOCKS" and "SANDALS"
45A/D Risk losing one's license, say: "DRINK" and "DRIVE"
56A/D Proven to be reliable: "TRIED" and "TRUE"

Not too many other clues of note, though I do love the clue for 29A (Second-level = "TIER TWO" is just such a funny solve in my mind). I give 1A over 1D.

NYT Crossword January 5, 2021

2021-01-05T08:43:00.007-06:00

Time of a Tuesday crossword! This one is okay. I didn't like it at first, but it grew on me as I thought through the solve a bit more.

Tuesday, January 5

Time: 6:18

The theme was basically actors who have verbs for names, finding phrases that use these verbs, and creating a different scenario in which the phrase makes sense (e.g., "pats down" -> "Pat's down"). It's an okay theme and because of the shorter length, it creates more opportunities to see this play out. While I wasn't a huge fan of the theme, I think it's awesome that we got 7 instances of it rather than the typical 3-4.

16A Singer Benatar feels blue: "PAT'S DOWN". References singer Pat Benatar, likely after singing "Hell is for Children".
20A Author Grafton has arrived for dinner: "SUE'S OVER". References mystery novelist Sue Grafton, in "D as in Dinner".
26A Actress Wells has just entered the scene: "DAWN'S ON". References actress Dawn Wells (RIP Mary Ann).
37A Actor Nicholson will bat next: "JACK'S UP". References actor Jack Nicholson, who creepily crept up the stairs in The Shining.
48A Baseball's Boggs has agreed to join us: "WADE'S IN". References third-baseman Wade Boggs, who's only in if he's getting fried chicken and beers.
53A Actor Norris got tagged: "CHUCK'S IT". References actor and martial artist Chuck Norris, who cannot legally be tagged. When Chuck Norris plays tag, the person who is "it" runs from him. (Sidenote - this fill also works for 8D Throws a lo-o-ong pass)
59A TV father Cleaver has just left the starting line: "WARD'S OFF". References Ward Cleaver from "Leave it to Beaver", I assume.

No real clues of note, though I did learn about CBGB, the Manhattan music club. I'd never heard of it before, but now I know it stands for country, bluegrass, and blues. I give it 7 out of 7 clues solved.

NYT Crossword January 4, 2021

2021-01-04T08:42:00.001-06:00

A wonderful (it'll make sense later) Monday start to the week! Let's get to it.

January 4, 2021

Time: 4:00

The theme is clued in 61A (Co-founder of the Justice League), and in a fitting tribute to WW1984, the theme is Wonder Woman!

17A Identity of 61-Across: "DIANA PRINCE"
30A Originator of 61-Across: "DC COMICS"
36A Television portrayer of 61-Across: "LYNDA CARTER"
44A Film portrayer of 61-Across: "GAL GODOT"

A fitting crossword tribute to Wonder Woman! Some other clues of note:

27A Overhaul, as a show: "REVAMP". I had initially put "REBOOT" before seeing the disastrous "OM" and "OE" in after cluing in "SEE ME". My knowledge of Amy Adams helped me realize that REBOOT could not have been correct.
49A Lead-in to "man" in superhero-dom: "AQUA". It was four letters so I had initially thought "IRON", but the heavy DC tilt of this puzzle made it easier to see it was AQUA
43D Easing of international tensions: "DETENTE". I don't know why, but I just like this word. Maybe it's the triple E's or the fun way to pronounce it.
53A Pain in the lower back: "LUMBAGO". I didn't know this word before this puzzle, but it is a much more interesting word than the phrase "lower back pain".

I give this 1984 stars (out of 2000).

WSJ Crossword Contest (12/31 - 1/3) "The Party Starts at 10"

2021-01-04T06:00:00.017-06:00

The Wall Street Journal has a fun series where each Friday (in this case, Thursday), they release a meta-puzzle with a phrase you need to find. This was the WSJ contest to begin the year.

"The Party Starts at 10"

The answer to this week's contest is a four-word phrase you might hear tonight (NYE).

Generally speaking, the way metas work is that there is a clue that highlights what answers are most likely to be useful for solving the meta puzzle. Additionally, the title of the puzzle will help, so something with a "10" may be helpful (whether it is an answer, a clue, or something else is still TBD). Lastly, we use the fact that this is a four-word solution on NYE. In this case, a combination of 66A and 67A give us the solution.

66A "Three...two...___..." (last words of the year, often): "ONE"
67A Some are ten letters long in this grid: "DOWNS"

66A clues us that we are likely looking for the last three of something given that it is a New Years Eve themed quiz. 67A highlights that we should look at the Down answers with 10 letters, of which there are 4:

3D Google co-founder: "SERGEY BRIN"
18D A candidate might win by it: "WIDE MARGIN"
22D Machinist's tool: "METAL LATHE"
30D Governor of Maryland in 1968: "SPIRO AGNEW"

I've bolded the last 3 letters as clued by 66A. But I actually realized this because of the NYE tilt. It seemed too perfect that 30D would end in "NEW", and after looking at the other 10 letter clues, I was able to get the groups of letters which in order will spell our answer "RING IN THE NEW".

The party may start at 10, but I'll give this WSJ only 9 out of 10 new years.

WaPo Crossword January 3, 2021 (And Cut!)

2021-01-03T17:21:00.002-06:00

I am a huge fan of Evan Birnholz's puzzles, and his last puzzle of 2020 is a must-solve for any crosswords fan. After a tour de force like that, one can be forgiven for a more modest, but still fun, Sunday solve.

January 3, 2021 ("And Cut!")

Time: ~10:55

The bubbles each spell out a move, but they are split across multiple clues. A fun one because you can either know the two parts separately or recognize the film.

24A / 25A Mascara site / 1953 western directed by George Stevens / Began ___ (started over): "LASH / ANEW" (SHANE)
30A / 33A Sister of Peter Rabbit / 1960 thriller set at the Bates Motel / Food, informally: "FLOPSY / CHOW" (PSYCHO)
35A / 36A Oslo Accords grp. / 1961 romantic drama starring Anouk Aimee / ___ Vegas: "PLO / LAS" (LOLA)
46A / 47A Author Munro / 2002 animated comedy featuring a woolly mammoth / Movie star's representative: "ALICE / AGENT" (ICE AGE)
49A / 50A Tiny tunneler / 1981 drama that follows a group of military trainees / See 80 Down [with 50 Across, dogs first brought as gifts from the Dalai Lama in the 1930s]: "ANT / [LHASA] APSOS" (TAPS) (Sidenote: what a mouthful)
66A / 69A Best director award / 1983 crime drama about the drug lord Tony Montana / Aspect: "OSCAR / FACET" (SCARFACE)
87A / 88A Parish priest / 2006 animated film with Piston Cup racers / Take a load off: "VICAR / SIT" (CARS)
89A / 90A Pulsate / 1995 historical drama set in 18th-century Scotland / Rolls-____: "THROB / ROYCE" (ROB ROY)
100A / 101A Hair goo / 2016 thriller for which Isabelle Huppert was nominated for an Academy Award / "My Name is Asher ___" (Chaim Potok novel): "GEL / LEV" (ELLE)
102A / 103A Blood fluids / 1996 action film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger / "All-Night Vigil" composer Rachmaninoff: "SERA / SERGEI" (ERASER)
112A / 113A Linux predecessor / 1995 historical drama that begins at the Watergate Hotel / Black gem: "UNIX / ONYX" (NIXON)
114A Film technique showing a divided frame...and what's spelled out by the first letters of this puzzle's 11 divided films "SPLITSCREEN"

At first, I was concerned that this was just about splitting movie titles apart. But Evan Birnholz never disappoints and of course, the movies all were connected. A terrific Sunday puzzle. Other clues and answers of note:

7D Deflect, as an epee: "PARRY". It's always fun to see a crossword favorite like "epee" show up in a clue.
58A "Frozen" freezer: "ELSA". I'm also a sucker for alliteration, especially when it clues Elsa in a different way.
70D Five-time Silver Slugger Award winner Robinson ___: "CANO". Those Silver Slugger Awards are quite blah when you realize he has multiple PED suspensions.

I give this puzzle 23 personalities out of 24 ("Split"...screen, gonna leave the Beast out of it).

NYT Crossword January 3, 2021 (Busting Moves)

2021-01-03T11:34:00.001-06:00

A wonderful Sunday puzzle from the NYT by one of the youngest constructors (as I found out on Twitter).

January 3, 2021

Time: 14:30

First things first, this is the first themed puzzle of the year for me. The theme is all about busting moves, which can only mean dancing! And not just dancing, but "busting" them up into two sections. With both circles and shades, we can more easily see both the theme and the nice mini-meta-message hidden in the clues.

23A Title for Iran's Ali Khamenei: "SUPREME LEADER". The dance is "REEL", a Scottish style. The shaded letter was "M"
25A Tailored blouse style: "SHIRTWAIST". The dance is "TWIST", popularized in the film Pulp Fiction. The shaded letter was "A".
43A Subject of some teen gossip sessions: "BOY PROBLEMS". The dance is "BOP", though thankfully not of the Kidz variety. The shaded letter was "Y".
47A Sure-footed alpine climber: "MOUNTAIN GOAT". The dance is "TANGO", of which it takes at least two. The shaded letter was "I".
68A Bakery item that's often messy: "CRUMB CAKE". The dance is "RUMBA", not the vacuum. The shaded letter was "C".
88A Caribbean capital: "PORT AU PRINCE". The dance is "TAP", which I'm aware of as a huge Dule Hill fan. The shaded letter was "U".
91A Kind of test question: "SHORT ANSWER". The dance is "HORA", the wonderful Jewish wedding dance. The shaded letter was "T".
114A Proceeds breezily: "SAILS ALONG". The dance is "SALSA", the source of this great Ben Stiller scene. The shaded letter was "I".
117A What a spike goes over: "VOLLEYBALL NET". The dance is "BALLET", as in the Joffrey. The shaded letter was "N".

When you put the shaded letters together, you get the message "MAY I CUT IN", both fitting for a dance and for the overall theme of a letter breaking up a dance. The idea is brilliant and comes with an amazing payoff with the mini-message. Some other clues of note:

6D Title nickname in a 1984 sports movie: "KARATE KID". Daniel LaRusso and Johnny Lawrence are back in Cobra Kai, but you really can't beat a classic.
50D Breaking or entering, say: "GERUND". Where my grammar nerds at?

Overall I give it a 5, a 6, a 5, 6, 7, 8 steps out of 8.

NYT Crossword January 2, 2021

2021-01-02T10:18:00.005-06:00

2 for 2 in 2021! A decently fun Saturday crossword.

Saturday January 2, 2021

Time: 14:32

Themeless Saturdays! Some fun clues of note:

13A It has wheels and flies: "ROLLER BAG". Road warrior mentality all the way.
12D ("HALF SIZES") and 60A ("BITE SIZED") both seem to have the mini-sizes involved. A bit unfortunate that there are two uses of the "size", but always great to see Z's in crosswords
33D Dance-based class in a pool: "AQUA ZUMBA". Can you do Zumba underwater? Apparently the answer is yes.
51A Milk, slangily: "MOO JUICE". Ew. Got Milk? didn't become one of the biggest milk campaigns to become equivalent to MOO JUICE.

I'd like to say I had the best take on this, but I'll leave it to WaPo's own Evan Birnholz:

Saturday #NYTXW: My third letter of 51A before I corrected it was M, please no one analyze what this wrong answer says about me, thanks in advance.
— Evan Birnholz (@evanbirnholz) January 2, 2021

Overall, I give it 3 and a half Moo's out of 5.

NYT Crossword January 1, 2021

2021-01-01T10:01:00.003-06:00

I decided this year to lean into my love for crosswords and start to review them. Going into 2021, I had solved 1,673 NYT crosswords (as well as a number of other ones), and I enter the year with a solid streak of 33 crosswords completed in a row. I'm fairly certain I wrote at least one of my college essays on the joys of crosswording. So without further ado, here it goes.

Friday Jan 1, 2021

Time: 8:43

Theme? It was a fitting start to 2021, as the central squares read out "2021". I liked 3 of the four solves here, though was slightly disappointed by "01ALUMS" for 38D ("First graduates of the new millennium, informally"). Some other interesting ones of note:

51A Passe: "SO LAST YEAR". Let's leave 2020 in the past now, shall we?
21A You might get a kick of this at a restaurant: "HOT SAUCE". Spicy tolerance set high today, and a fitting intersection with "SPICED UP".
57A Some instant breakfast packets: "OATMEALS". Can't go wrong with Quakers Instant Oats.

Overall, a fun solve. It falls short of the A-plus average, so I'll give it a solid B / B+.

Is the Phrase "Defund the Police" Hurting the Democrats?

2020-12-02T08:57:00.002-06:00

Former President Obama recently had an interview where had this to say about "Defund the Police":

"You lost a big audience the minute you say it [Defund the Police], which makes it a lot less likely that you're actually going to get the changes you want done..."

Obama also called "Defund the Police" a 'snappy slogan'. Now there are a lot of things that you can rightfully quibble with, from the reference of "Defund the Police" as a slogan (kind of belittling), bickering about audience (when actual people have died at the hands of the police), and complaining about losing power (where Obama was fairly derelict in maintaining the legislative branch as President). But if you want criticism, many people have already dragged Obama (including Rep.-elect Cori Bush who ran on a Defund the Police platform). But let's break down the idea a bit further. It boils down to one question: "How can you enact a progressive agenda without alienating the populace?"

The Statistics

Let's get it straight right away. Just because an idea is unpopular does not mean that the idea is inherently wrong. With that said, "Defund the Police" is an unpopular idea right now. According to Pew Research, only 25% of people polled supported reducing the budget for the police department while 31% of people polled supported increasing the budget. 42% supported no change. But let's go to Black Lives Matter, which is the organization tied closest to "Defund the Police". According to Civiqs data, in April 2017, only 38% of registered voters supported Black Lives Matter, a number that wavered throughout 2017 despite the Charlottesville Rally. However, in 2018, more registered voters supported Black Lives Matter than opposed (40% to 39%), but it stayed below a majority until this past summer. In the wake of protests over George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor's deaths, Black Lives Matter hit a peak of 53% supporting, which fell to 48% supporting by end of November.

Another corollary you could look at is healthcare. Let's start with Obamacare. In 2013, only 24% of those polled thought it had a net benefit to the country as a whole compared to 38% who said it didn't. In 2017 (7 years after Obamacare was initially passed), that opinion flipped where now 44% of those polled thinks it has a net benefit compared to 35% who said it didn't. That's a 23 point swing in opinion over 4 years!

What did we learn

Yes - Defund the Police is an unpopular phrase right now, and it arguably had some impact on Democrats, who lost very real seats in the House and lost key Senate races (most notably the Maine Senate race). Losing power does make it more difficult to enact these changes, but it also does not mean we should abandon these sentiments. Ideas that are unpopular today can only become more popular in the future if we continue to raise awareness and challenge leaders to do the same. We must also support towns and cities who are willing to try this approach and elevate their stories because people will believe it can be done if they see it for themselves. So sure, Obama may have been right about this election, but for change we can believe in, we cannot stop using these snappy slogans.

Irrelevant Questions: Are Professional Teams More Likely to Win a Championship if Their Home State Voted for the President?

2020-12-01T22:20:00.003-06:00

In an exercise of correlation not causation, I wanted to see if there were any presidents who acted as lucky charms or as jinxes for the states that voted for them. To narrow the analysis, I focused solely on champions in the National Football League (NFL), National Basketball Association (NBA), National Hockey League (NHL), and Major League Baseball (MLB). I also started with the first Super Bowl and based on it on the winner in a given year rather than for the season. For example, the first Super Bowl was in 1967 as part of the 1966-1967 season, so I assumed that the year in question is 1967. The following were the Presidents during that time:

Lyndon B. Johnson
Richard Nixon
Gerald Ford - Editor's note: Since Nixon resigned in 1974, I decided to say Ford was the active president for the 1975 and 1976 years, but used Nixon's electoral win in 1972 as the baseline. This is despite Ford not being on the Nixon ticket in 1972.
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George H.W. Bush
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush
Barack Obama
Donald Trump

Here were the results:

# of Champs in States that voted for the President of the given year

Before we highlight some clear gaps in this analysis, let's look at what we can find:

Barack Obama seemed to be a lucky charm for states that voted for him, as teams in those states won 27 out of the 32 possible titles (or 84.38% success rate). He was followed by Ford, Johnson (both 75%), and Reagan (71.88%). Obama is also the only president where teams across all sports wont more than 50% of the time.
Donald Trump seemed to be a jinx for states that voted for him, as teams in those states won 6 out of the possible 16 titles (or 37.25% success rate). He was followed by GW Bush (38.54%) and Nixon (41.67%)
Baseball teams seemed to benefit most from the boost, winning 35 out of the 53 possible titles (66.04%). Hockey seemed to benefit the least, winning only 28 out of the 53 possible titles (52.83%)
The Democrat vs. Republican spread is most pronounced in baseball (spread of 32.59%), where baseball teams in states that voted for the Democrat president won 18 out of 21 years (85.71%) vs. baseball teams in states that voted for the Republican president won 17 out of 32 years (53.13%). It is followed by hockey (27.56%), football (15.06%), and basketball (1.14%).

There are some obvious gaps:

The number of teams, the team locations, and the state's voting results change, so there's no clear normalization in this analysis.
Especially in more recent years (after 2000), there has become a clear urban vs. rural divide when it comes to voting. This means more states with major league teams would tend to vote for Democrats.
There are a significant number of Canadian teams in the NHL as well as smattering of Canadian teams in the NBA and MLB. Provinces in Canada obviously do not vote for Presidents.

I tried to normalize the results further by looking at the number of teams in any given year that are in a state that voted for the President vs. the total number of teams, giving everyone an equal chance of winning the championship. I also looked at the average number of votes received from the electoral college. Using these, I was tried to normalize the "luck" vs. the "charm".

% of champions vs. % of teams that voted for the President

This margin analysis provides some interesting insight.

Obama is the only president where the % of champions was higher than the % of teams (with a fairly significant margin of ~16%).
All other presidents saw underperformances, but GW Bush actually had the best underperformance (margin of -3%) as there were fewer teams in states that voted for him compared to other presidents. This likely coincides with the fact that GW Bush had the lowest average electoral college totals (excluding Ford) for the Presidents listed.
Nixon saw the greatest underperformance (margin of -17%).

Percentage points per Electoral College vote

Looking at the percentage points / electoral college votes, we see a similar trend. Obama had the highest performance for each Electoral College vote (24.2 points per electoral college vote) while Nixon had the worst (10.2 points per electoral college vote). Interestingly, Republicans had fewer electoral college points compared to the Democrats.

What does this mean under a Biden presidency?

Using the average margin vs. % of teams (and no changes in teams in the leagues) as well as the average percentage points per Electoral College vote for Democratic presidents, we would expect 9 of the eventual 16 champions to come from states that voted for Biden. Using Obama's margin (which seems fitting as Biden was Obama's VP) and his percentage points per Electoral College vote for Democratic presidents, that goes up to 12 out of 16 teams. Since baseball seems to be the Democrats strong suit, I'd expect a Democratic state to win the World Series next year (bad news Braves and Rays fans, good news Dodgers, Yankees, Padres, and White Sox fans!). Generally, the first year for Democrat presidents is the worst (both Carter and Clinton went 1-4 in their first year as President), but I'll give Biden a bit of an Obama boost and say that the NBA champ will also be from a Democratic state. I think the Super Bowl champ and the Stanley Cup champ in 2021 will be from a Republican state. Does this mean anything and should you gamble using this information? No! But if it works out...who knows.

A Tale of Two Emails Part II: Analyzing Joe Biden's Emails to His Supporters

2020-11-25T10:16:00.002-06:00

It's been a bit more than 2 weeks since news outlets called the presidential race for President-Elect Joe Biden, which as a Biden supporter and donor to his campaign, is a huge sigh of relief. While other members of the government have yet to accept the results of the election, many states are certifying results, and it's only a matter of time before President-Elect Biden becomes President Biden. But how did we get here? Similar to last week's post, we're going to analyze the Biden team's emails to its supporters to see what changed between the final Presidential Debate, Election Day, and a week after the race was called.

Before we get into it, just a couple of editor's notes:

I did donate to the Biden campaign, which may or may not have affected the number and type of emails I received
The Word Clouds were done using Power BI, and I didn't really learn much in the last week
I copied the data manually from my emails (110 from October 23 to November 15). So there is some inconsistency and potential human error.

Analyzing the Subject Lines

Here's a word cloud of the subjects of Biden emails from October 23 to November 3 (final presidential debate to Election Day):

Word Cloud from subjects of Biden emails: Oct 23 to Nov 3

Over these 11 days, Biden sent only 87 emails. The top 6 words in the subjects (excluding common words) are:

Last: 13 occurrences
Need: 8 occurrences
Ask and Time: 7 occurrences
Please and Today: 6 occurrences

Other than the irony of "Last" occurring the most times, there's nothing exception about the wording. There is a more soft and kind tone which is struck, maybe due to the fact that I've donated to the campaign previously.

Here's a word cloud of the subjects of Biden emails from November 4 to November 15 (same timing as the Trump emails analysis):

Word Cloud from subjects of Biden emails: Nov 4 to Nov 15

Over these 12 days, Biden sent only 33 emails (< 20% the number of Trump emails, which makes sense given that Biden was announced the winner in this span). Only 14 emails were sent after Nov 7, which was when nearly all news outlets named Biden the presumptive President-elect. The top 6 words in the subjects (excluding common words) are:

Biden, Fight, Fund, and Need: 4 occurrences
Asking and One: 3 occurrences

While unfortunate that Biden also created a fund to support the legal battles that Trump was waging (the Biden Fight Fund), there's no real surprises here either.

Analyzing the Bodies

Here's a word cloud of the bodies of Biden emails from October 23 to November 3:

Word Cloud from bodies of Biden emails: Oct 23 to Nov 3

The top 7 words in the bodies (excluding common words) are:

Final: 180 occurrences
Goal: 169 occurrences
Make and Need: 163 occurrences
More: 160 occurrences
Joe: 139 occurrences (for reference, Biden came up 82 times)
Election: 126 occurrences

As for names, Donald came up 54 times, Trump came up 89 times, Kamala came up 81 times, and Harris came up 50 times. Again - a fairly banal set of words in the body which are to be expected from any campaign donation. Anecdotally, the emails also read a lot more passively compared to the Trump campaign emails (again, highlighting the relatively boring quality of the Biden run for presidency - or the "return to normalcy and decency").

Here's a word cloud of the bodies of Biden emails from November 4 to November 15:

Word Cloud from bodies of Biden emails: Nov 4 to Nov 15

The top 6 words in the bodies (excluding common words) are:

Biden: 73 occurrences (the dynamic flipped from the previous set of emails as Joe showed up only 31 times)
Fight: 64 occurrences
Fund: 61 occurrences
Trump: 43 occurrences (both as "Trump" and "Trump's")
People: 42 occurrences (interestingly - Kamala Harris' presidential slogan was "For the People")
Democrats and election: 41 occurrences
Country: 39 occurrences

There's a clear highlight of the legal battles that were occurring at the time (legal came up 26 times and lawsuits came up 21 times), which was the primary use of the Biden Fight Fund. Biden's presidential win was also highlighted as victory occurred 18 times and president occurred 19 times.

What can we learn?

I think one of the biggest lessons here is that the Democrats ran a very vanilla campaign. There was nothing inspiring from Biden's emails, whereas Trump's emails showed a much clearer charisma. However, the Biden team also likely realized that the "return to boring politics" would be a benefit to his image as a uniting force in the country. It also showed the unprecedented legal challenges that had occurred over the past few weeks. There are still a number of Trump emails that come through regarding the election, and a number of lawsuits. The election is being litigated to a significantly more extreme degree than prior elections and it is laying the groundwork to undermine the legitimacy of our electoral process. As I said previously, we must continue to fight the misinformation that is coming from Trump's legal team and show that the election was legitimate.

A Tale of Two Emails - Analyzing Donald Trump's Emails to Supporters

2020-11-16T20:21:00.003-06:00

Through some tomfoolery, I somehow landed myself onto Team Trump's email list. While I largely ignored these emails prior to the election (having firmly decided to vote for Biden), I couldn't help but notice how his messaging became far more combative after the election had been decided. This comes as no surprise to those closely following US news; Trump has clearly sought to sow seeds of doubt in America's democratic process, having in all likelihood lost the election. He has done so on Twitter and in public settings. But one mode of communication that should not be lost is how he communicates directly to his base. Twitter and press conferences are almost theater for those who don't support Trump. But his emails to supporters echo the same sentiments.

Before we get in, just a couple of Editor's notes:

I did not donate to the Trump campaign, which may explain the number of emails received
I likely put in that I am an Illinois resident, which means I may not have received as many emails related to contested elections in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Georgia has residents of those states
The Word Clouds were done using Power BI, and I am new to the Word Cloud functionality. Hopefully, I'll get better at it :)
I copied the data manually from my emails (321 from October 23 to November 15). So there is some inconsistency and potential human error. But the overall story tracks. Also, unless you want to review the 321 emails I received, this is the best you'll get.

Analyzing the Subject Lines

If you're lazy like me, you decide to read emails based on the subject headers. So let's take a look at those first. Here's a word cloud of the subject headers before Election Day and after the final Presidential Debate:

Word Cloud from subjects of Trump emails: Oct 23 to Nov 3

Over these 11 days, the Trump team sent out a respectable 121 emails (or 11 a day). The top 8 words in the subjects (excluding some common words and weird omissions) are:

Trump and win: 10 occurrences
Vote: 9 occurrences
President: 8 occurrences
Deadline, Election, Tomorrow, Biden: 6 occurrences

Then comes the day after Election Day. Michigan and Wisconsin, which were looking to be Trump wins on Election night, were "red mirages" where the tallies of mail-in votes helped spur Biden to victories in those states. As that happened, the narrative Trump supporters received from the President drastically changed.

Word Cloud from subjects of Trump emails: Nov 4 - Nov 15

In these 12 days, the Trump team sent 200 emails, an astounding 16+ per day. The top 9 words in the subject lines were:

Election: 32 times
Defend: 14 times
Need: 12 times
News, Defense, Update: 7 times
Democrats, Help, President: 6 times

Trump used the word "Election" in his subject headers in a whopping 16% of his emails to his supporters. He also brought in words like "Defend" and "Defense", both in relation to "defending the election". It's clear that the message shifted away from casting a vote for President Trump to defending the sanctity of an election that, for all intents and purposes, did not need any defending.

Analyzing the Body of the Email

There's also a lot of messaging beyond the subject (obviously). Here's what the bodies of the emails look like between the final debate and Election Day. Editor's note: I copied these all from the emails in a fairly inconsistent manner, so terms like "Contribute" will be ignored:

Word Cloud from bodies of Trump emails: Oct 23 to Nov 3

The top 5 words in the bodies (excluding some common words and weird omissions) are:

President: 206 occurrences
Trump: 156 occurrences
Election: 143 occurrences
Day: 118 occurrences
America: 93 occurrences

Additionally, the bodies of the emails mentioned Biden 59 times and Kamala 26 times, though interestingly the word cloud does not include Joe or Harris (likely due to Trump's penchant for nicknames).

Now let's look at the bodies of the emails between the day after Election Day and November 15 (again with the analysis excluding terms like "Contribute"):

Word Cloud from bodies of Trump emails: Nov 4 to Nov 15

The top 6 words in the bodies (excluding some common words and weird omissions) are:

Election: 413 occurrences
Trump: 369 occurrences
President: 278 occurrences
Official: 159 occurrences
Defense: 155 occurrences
Fund: 148 occurrences

More troubling, the following words showed up an inordinate number of times:

Fight: 100 occurrences
Steal: 45 occurrences
Force: 36 occurrences
Undermine: 22 occurrences

The analysis of the body shows two things:

A frightening increase in aggressive rhetoric. While some may argue that "fights" or "force" can refer to upcoming legal battles, this language has arguably spurred violent actions well beyond the courts, especially when you look at some of the potential plots stopped in Philadelphia (link). Terms like "Steal" or "Undermine" attack the heart of democracy and the faith in the election system.
A clear fundraising effort. Donald Trump has established an Election Defense Fund, and for those of you who don't know, a lot of this money is not going to the legal battles related to the election, but rather the RNC and Trump's PAC (link). Trump appears to be actively undermining faith in our democracy to raise money for the Republicans and his PAC.

What can we learn?

Obviously, Trump's rhetoric to the public has been troubling, but it is reverberating even further in the echo chambers that his supporters are in. Beyond conservative media and conservative Twitter heads, Trump's direct messaging to his supporters is increasing in aggression and turnaround. Even on November 15, 12 days after the election, Trump was sending emails to his supporters at a pace of one every 90 minutes. And it is clear that the rhetoric will not simmer down as many hope, especially with recent news regarding Floyd County (link) where arguments of a "stolen election" will only be amplified. This is despite the fact that (1) this was only 2600 total votes resulting a shift of 800 votes in Trump's favor and (2) this is likely an isolated incident of human error (especially when considering the fact that Fulton county is already done with their hand count). We cannot expect Trump to tamper down his rhetoric, but we must continue to have diligence in reading the news, listening to our election experts, and trusting our democratic infrastructure. And more importantly, we must fight the misinformation that will only continue to increase.

I'll be working on a companion piece where I analyze Joe Biden's emails during the same timeframe. So please stay tuned for it!

Impact of Progressive Policies for Re-election

2020-11-10T20:47:00.004-06:00

For those following the elections (not just the Biden-Trump one), you'll see a common theme. The Democrats may have won the Presidency, but they didn't have the same success down-ballot. Representative Abigail Spanberger VA-7 was purported to have vehemently stated her concerns about the "socialist" tilt of the Democrat party. Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez NY-14 (AOC for her supporters, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez for her haters) tweeted the following:

Every single swing-seat House Democrat who endorsed #MedicareForAll won re-election or is on track to win re-election.

Every.👏🏽 Single.👏🏽 One.👏🏽
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 7, 2020

While this is factually true (the seven Democrat representatives in GOP-leaning districts who co-sponsored Medicare for All or HR 1384 won re-election), I wanted to see if there were additional measurables that captured the impact of M4A and the other big-ticket progressive bill (the Green New Deal) for the House of Representatives.

Medicare for All

There were seven Democrats that co-sponsored Medicare for All that were in GOP-leaning or toss-up districts (the Cook Partisan Voting Index in parentheses):

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick in AZ-02 (R+1)
Rep. Josh Harder in CA-10 (EVEN)
Rep. Katie Porter in CA-45 (R+3)
Rep. Mike Levin in CA-49 (R+1)
Rep. Jared Golden in ME-02 (R+2)
Rep. Peter DeFazio in OR-04 (EVEN)
Rep. Matt Cartwright in PA-08 (R+1)

All seven representatives won re-election and as-of now, no co-sponsor for Medicare for All has lost their re-election bid.

The eight seats that have been flipped so far on the Democrat side were all representatives who did not co-sponsor Medicare for All. While some seats were in Democrat-leaning districts (such as FL-26 and FL-27), the seats in GOP-leaning districts were much more heavily GOP-leaning. The districts as-of now were:

MN-07 (R+12)
NM-06 (R+6)
OK-05 (R+10)
SC-01 (R+10)

This leads to the question: did Medicare for All really help the candidates in these districts or were there other factors that supported these candidates' re-election campaigns?

To analyze this, I focused on the margins of victory for those who supported Medicare for All vs. those who did not, looking primarily at candidates in districts with a PVI of 0 or R+. I plotted the margin between the next closest competitor in 2018 vs. 2020 on a scatter plot. Everything to the left of the dotted line represented an improvement from 2018 to 2020:

The orange diamonds represent those that supported M4A. Four of the seven representatives (57%) that supported M4A saw an improvement in their margin between 2018 and 2020 compared to four of the thirty-four representatives (12%) saw an improvement in the margin.

I also looked at the change in margin between 2018 and 2020. The average change in margin between 2018 and 2020 for these representatives was -3.1 points (6.4 points in 2018 to 3.3 points in 2020). For those that supported M4A, the average change in margin was -0.3 points (. For those that did not support M4A, the average change in margin dropped to -3.7 points.

When weighting for the % of vote reporting per the New York Times, the weighted change in margin (change in margin * % of reported vote) is -2.8 points. For those that supported M4A, the weighted average change in margin was -0.6 points. For those that did not support M4A, the weighted average change in margin was -3.3 points.

Note that those that supported M4A did have a higher starting margin in 2018 by approximately 2 points, but overall, those that supported M4A performed significantly better than those that did not:

So what does this mean for the Green New Deal?

The Green New Deal is a significantly different matter. For one thing, two of the big pieces of the GOP plan coming into the primary revolved around the updated tax plan and, more relevantly, the attempted repeal of Obamacare. Many of the representatives in the blue wave may have been expected to deliver landmark healthcare for their constituents and the support, or perceived lack thereof, for nationalized healthcare may have buoyed or cratered the representatives' campaigns.

Additionally, polling for the two ideas have different levels. Per Figure 7 of the following link from the Kaiser Family Foundation, 56% of people surveyed have a favorable view to Medicare for All. The Kaiser Family Foundation also published a study on the Green New Deal (albeit in 2019), and for those who have heard of the Green New Deal, only 36% supported it. While this is only a single, unvetted data point, there is discrepancy on how popular each of these proposals are.

Practically, one co-sponsor of the Green New Deal (Rep. Debbi Murcarsel-Powell of FL-26) has already lost re-elction and another co-sponsor (Rep. Thomas Suozzi of NY-03) is facing a challenge from his GOP opponent. So the Green New Deal has not had the same effect as Medicare for All has had to-date. That does not mean the more progressive idea is inherently bad politically; an argument can be made that Sen. Ed Markey was able to fight off a primary challenge from Rep. Joe Kennedy in part for his sponsorship of the Green New Deal. But there may need to be more concrete benefits for constituents before the Green New Deal becomes a viable option up and down the Democratic party.

What can Democrats learn?

It is clear that the Democrats are at an impasse. With a loss of seats in the House and a Sen. McConnell-led Senate (unless both GA senate candidates win their runoff elections), Democrats will be hard-pressed to pass meaningful legislation even with a President-Elect Joe Biden at the helm. Making this even harder is the wide political spectrum in the Democratic party. In the Senate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) represents the leftists, while senators like Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. Joe Tester (D-MT) who are both in GOP-leaning states represent centrist views. And in the House, you have Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Spanberger on two differing sides of the argument. A strictly progressive agenda may be a pipe dream, but there are clearly progressive ideas that have support from the American people. If there's anything to take from this, it is this: Medicare for All can and in my opinion should be a centerpiece for the 2022 primaries, even if President-Elect Biden is able to get the public option passed.

Game Theory and the Philosphy of The Dark Knight

2014-03-26T21:09:00.000-05:00

One of the common misconceptions of The Dark Knight revolves around the boat scene. Two boats, one filled with Gotham's most notorious criminals and the other filled with citizens of Gotham, are filled with explosives by the Joker's henchmen. The Joker provides the two boats with an ultimatum: either destroy the other boat by a certain time or the Joker will destroy both boats. Often, this situation is compared to the Prisoner's Dilemma, one of the most well known and popular games in game theory. There are two prisoners who are accomplices to the other. They have two choices: either confess to the crime or stay silent. If both prisoners confess to the crime, they are sentenced to 5 years in prison. If one prisoner confesses (and thus implicates the other) but the other stays silent, the prisoner who confessed is released from custody and the prisoner who stayed silent is sentenced to 10 years. However, if neither prisoner confesses, they are sentenced to 1 year in prison. So, it would be appear that the best situation is that neither prisoner confesses. But if one prisoner stays silent, the other prisoner has the incentive to confess to the crime, relieving himself of any time in jail. Since confessing is the better option regardless of what choice the other prisoner makes, both prisoners would rationally confess, but by doing so, they end up with 5 years of prison time each as opposed to 1 year, which is the outcome they would have if they cooperated.

The fatal flaw in the comparison between the Prisoner's Dilemma and the scenario in The Dark Knight is that not all outcomes can have a payout because of the essential impossibilty of one of the outcomes. If we were to build out the game, we would see that there are 2 players (the two ships) and 2 options (blow up the other ship or do nothing). This should lead to four outcomes, but one of the outcomes is essentially impossible in the Prisoner's Dilemma game. I think that the outcome where both players decide to blow the other player up is not realistically probable (though not impossible). If you were playing this game, you would not consider both players deciding to blow the other player up as an option. Unlike the Prisoner's Dilemma, The Dark Knight ship problem introduces an element of time. So in this game, you would have 3 options: you blow the other player up, the other player blows you up, or neither player blows up the other. While the Prisoner's Dilemma may not apply, the understanding we get from that game (and game theory) does allow us to delve deeper into one of the main ideas from that movie.

If in the Prisoner's Dilemma it is always better to confess, then we should hypothesize that one of the ships should have detonated the other ship. A rational person would value their survival over their death and not detonating the other ship will always lead in one's death in this game (barring an otherworldly power like Batman). However, both sides believed that not detonating the other ship is the better option. Assume the one ship does not opt to detonate the other (I'm going to make this assumption because the situation where both ships decide to detonate at the same time is implausible). The other ship could detonate or not detonate. We see in the film that the other ship does not choose the detonation because it has the better payoff, so survival is trumped by some other cause. I theorize that a rational person would detonate the other ship, but a moral person would not. Rather than live with burden of having killed an entire ship full of people, we would die knowing that we did the right thing. This idea is reminiscent of an oft quoted line said by Harvey Dent: "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." This binary morality drives the actions of Batman, Harvey Dent (and later Two-Face), and even the people on that ship. They could have survived by killing people, taking the role as the villain. But they saw that it would be better to die, heroically standing against the Joker's maniacal game.

The Last Airbender Series: The Fortuneteller and the Expectation from Prophecy

2014-01-03T20:28:00.000-06:00

People love to know about their future. Many people want to know if they will live prosperous lives or fall in love. Others want to know if something bad will happen to them. But regardless of what the future holds for us, we want to know our future primarily because we now have a means to change it. The power of foresight is knowing exactly what will happen so that we can avoid it. But by knowing the future, it seems that we actively try to pursue this expectation of our future. We see this in The Fortuneteller.

One instance of this phenomenon is a throwaway joke. Sokka meets a man who had met with the fortune teller about when he will meet the love of his life. The fortune teller tells him that he will meet the love of his life while he is wearing red shoes. He subsequently always wears red shoes. Sokka, already skeptical of the mystical power of the fortune teller, laments that the prophecy will certainly come true if you will it so. This person forces his expected future to become his reality, showing that he is seemingly in control of his destiny. But here, this control is an illusion as the person already knows his destiny and changes his life according to it. The other instance is when the fortune teller predicts that the town will be safe from harm. Aang and Sokka realize that the volcano is going to erupt and that the fortune teller was incorrect. So Aang, Sokka, and Katara take it upon themselves to change the fortune teller's prediction. By doing so, they are able to avoid any catastrophe from the volcano. But, as one of the townspeople notes, the fortune teller was correct in stating that the town would be safe from harm. Here, there is no illusion of control. The Gaang were in control of their destiny and the destiny of the town.

The fortune teller makes a strong point near the end of the episode that captures this nicely. She tells Aang that he can shape his own destiny, much like he changed the clouds (thus altering her prediction). We are in as much control as we choose. We can force our fate upon ourselves, or we can fight against it, even if it is later revealed to be all for naught.

The Last Airbender Series: The Blue Spirit and the Value of Anonymity

2014-01-02T21:51:00.002-06:00

“Behind this mask there is more than just flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea... and ideas are bulletproof.” One of the most popular quotes from Alan Moore's graphic novel V for Vendetta, this quote defines V's intentions for the tyrannical dystopian British Parliament. But it is important to know that the anonymity of V, caused solely by his Guy Fawkes mask, creates a symbol for revolution. If V were not anonymous, the revolution would not take flight. So what does Zuko's anonymity create?

Zuko needs to be anonymous for more than his own safety. Obviously, if he were to reveal himself, he would branded as a traitor to the Fire Nation. But the Blue Spirit represents more than Zuko's alter ego. Much like Zuko's scar, it represents his conflict within himself. Zuko is hell-bent on finding the Avatar and regaining his honor after being banished by his father. But as the crown prince of the Fire Nation, he theoretically must also want the Avatar to be captured in order for the Fire Nation to win the war. But he doesn't want to capture the Avatar for the Fire Nation. He wants to capture the Avatar for himself. Does this mean that Zuko is against the Fire Nation? No, but it does affect Zuko's identity. If he were truly a royal member of the Fire Nation, he would gladly put aside his quest to capture the Avatar for the glory of the Fire Nation. But he cannot let that happen. So he puts on the mask and shows his inner conflict. He wants to rejoin the Fire Nation as their prince, but at the same time, he must act against the betterment of the Fire Nation.

The mask perfectly represents this conflict by giving Zuko anonymity. Within the mask, he can be anything he wants. The pseudonym for Zuko's alter ego is the Blue Spirit and he pits that against the Fire Nation, placing the fiery red of the Fire Nation army against the opposing blue of the Blue Spirit. Though this juxtaposition could be coincidental, I don't think it was accidental. If you want to show how Zuko has to betray the Fire Nation in order to be welcomed back into the Fire Nation, what better way to do that than by posing Zuko in the opposite color of the Fire Nation? By making Zuko anonymous, he is allowed to be a traitor to the Fire Nation while also advocating for the Fire Nation as their prince.

The Last Airbender Series: The Storm and the Societal Definition of Duty

2013-11-24T01:13:00.001-06:00

The episode "The Storm" provides very important backstory to two of the most intriguing characters in the film. First is Aang, who, due to the impending attack from the Fire Nation, is told that he is the Avatar well before he turns 16. While he is accepted as a stellar Airbender before this announcement, afterwards he finds himself alienated from his peers, forced into a much too rigid training regiment for a 12 year old, and torn apart from his mentor and friend Monk Gyatso. These changes pile up, and the young Aang realizes that is unready to take his place as Avatar and flees from the air temple. The other story is Zuko's, haunted by his physical and mental scars. His father invites him to a war meeting, where he is expected to listen and observe the Fire Nation's military leaders discuss strategy. But when a general proposes to use recruits as bait for more experienced soldiers, Zuko intercedes, saying that it is dishonorable to allow Fire Nation soldiers to die so unceremoniously. By doing so, Zuko angers his father, who challenges him to an Agni Kai (Firebending battle). Though he asks for mercy and had no intent of speaking against his father, his father teaches him a permanent lesson, by scarring his son's face and banishing him from the Fire Nation for his cowardice. This episode brilliantly portrays Aang and Zuko as outcasts, showing that the primary evil in the first season is no more different than primary good. But they are treated as outcasts for different reasons, and it revolves around their definition of duty. Aang shirks his responsibility as Avatar, thus not performing his duty. But by actively standing up for seeming injustice in the war room, Zuko oversteps his bounds of authority, despite being crown prince. Aang's story shows the typical notion of societal duty, stepping up and taking responsibility when necessary. But Zuko's story shows the twisted form of duty in the Fire Nation, which promotes subservience rather than standing up for what one believes to be right.

The Last Airbender Series: The Great Divide and What Went Wrong (and What Could’ve Been)

2013-04-06T21:58:00.001-05:00

Many ATLA fans would consider “The Great Divide” to be one of the worst episodes of the series. Whether it was the hackneyed story or the horrible twist ending, ATLA fans seem not to agree with it. I can completely understand these sentiments. The plot was over-the-top with its forced agenda of comparing the literal and figurative great divide. The stories, the legends of each tribe, which were also not creatively named, were not very original. I mean, hate derived from wrongful imprisonment because of a crazy ritual (I mean, some people juggle chickens). Of course, the *SPOILERS* tale that Aang made up to convince everyone that the ritual was a game was a complete sham of an ending. Yes, the inevitable alliance between the previously warring tribes was foreshadowed in the battle, but the reason for this peace was ridiculous. I know that the ATLA team has used deus ex machina to get out of some jams (haters of the LoK ending can certainly attest to that), but this story may be the most egregious case of this because it does absolutely zero in terms of character or plot development. But I think this is the largest problem of this episode. It had no bearing on any other episode. In the “The Ember Island Players”, the actors play at this idea by merely flying over the Great Divide, because any casual watcher of the series does not need this episode to understand the story. But what could they have done to make this episode important?

It is clear that this episode is removable. While it shows the gripes that Aang has to deal with as Avatar, it pushes them aside in an unremarkable way. This is a problem with ATLA because they are so limited with what they can reasonably do with Aang. While they have been given more reins and leniency throughout the series, there is no such thing as a “gritty” Aang. He cannot go about dispensing vigilante justice, nor can he impose divine judgment on anyone. His actions are limited in these scenarios, but what can he do? He can grow as a character. In the first season, he is still growing into his role as Avatar. He is reluctant to take charge and be decisive, something that contradicts his airbending nature. The great divide should not have been focused on two opposing tribes in the Earth nation, but rather on the struggle Aang faces to unite these tribes. If this were the case, we would not need any silly legends about the tribes or any wrapped-up ending. We could have Aang, fight within about which tribe is right and which is wrong. Maybe it could about whether either tribe is even morally obligated to be right or wrong. This forces Aang to become decisive…or it does not. They easily could have created an unsolvable problem that haunts Aang, something that causes him to be so indecisive that it ruins his entire psyche. The episode already has the scene set-up for something like this. The two tribes have very vague places where they derive their hate. This ambiguity could lead Aang to make a decision, whether it is wrong or right. He could doubt this decision to Katara or Sokka. It could harden his resolve. Creating a problem like this would have turned the Great Divide from a bad episode, into the turning point of the series.

Of course, the question is, how does this affect the rest of the series? Much of the first season is Aang growing into the role of Avatar. He realizes that his actions have resounding impacts. He learns that he no longer is a representative of the airbending nomads, but the world as a whole. He has to bear this responsibility. What better way to shape this idea than by giving him problems that the world will ask him to solve? Questions that he will have to solve, but is not capable of doing so. That type of episode would have unbelievable repercussions for the series as a whole. Of course, we have an episode, which forces the issue, which has its own agenda, which shows the growing pains of a new show. Now that shows a great divide.

The Last Airbender Series: Jet and the Value of the Innocent in War

2012-06-25T19:30:00.000-05:00

Jet represents the first truly guerrilla fighter in the War. He is the leader of the Freedom Fighters, the cliched group of ragtag soldiers doing what they can to make a dent into the Fire Nation. Rebellion groups like them are common in many movie and television wars. But it is so unbelievable how the ATLA creators incorporate such a extremist group into a kids show. There is no doubt that Jet is an extremist, and to the Fire Nation, an unquestionable terrorist, though we do sympathize with him because of what the Fire Nation did to him and his family. He attacks the innocent and will let nothing stop him from ending the Fire Nation. His most telling moment was his order to wipe out an entire village, filled with Fire Nation and Earth Kingdom folk alike. While the guilt of the Fire Nation warriors can be questioned to death, there is little question about the innocence of the other villagers. Why is Jet so willing to dispose of the innocent to achieve his goal?

You can easily go to Jet's violent relations with the Fire Nation to explain his complete indifference towards their safety. The Fire Nation army destroyed his village and killed his family. The Fire Nation as a whole is an evil entity. But his actions go beyond just stopping the Fire Nation. He will stop them at any cost. An innocent person is nothing compared to the greater goal of the annihilation of the Fire Nation. He shows this by threatening an old man dressed in Fire Nation garb and by attempting to flood an entire Earth Kingdom colony filled with Earth Kingdom and Fire Nation citizens alike. While his actions may seem extreme, there is no doubt that people have sacrificed innocent people in order to achieve bigger goals. Jet is merely trying to defeat the Fire Nation at any cost, and any life lost could get him closer to that goal.

It is impossible to determine whether Jet was doing the right thing. Should Sokka have stopped Jet from killing all of those people? At first glance, yes he should have. But sometimes in war, you have to match your opponent, eye-for-an-eye, life-for-a-life. This is how Jet operates. He is an unscrupulous guerrilla war leader. If you compare him to Sokka, another warrior who has lost a parent to the war, you could also see a sense of savagery in Jet compared to Sokka's civilized behavior. Jet has survived in the woods without a family, and only the Freedom Fighters to call his own. Sokka was protecting the tribe that he grew up with. The difference is not just in mindset. Jet is not protecting anything and is purely on the offensive. Sokka is a defensive minded person, more interested in protecting Katara, Aang and himself than destroying the Fire Nation. That is why an innocent person is not an obstacle to Sokka, but a person in need of protection.

The Last Airbender Series: The Waterbending Scroll and Iroh's "Proverb"

2012-06-09T01:32:00.002-05:00

"Are you so busy fighting you cannot see your own ship has set sail?" Uncle Iroh spits out this tremendous line, to which Zuko responds by bemoaning his uncle's use of trite and boring proverbs. Of course the interesting part of this is that this does not actually sound like a proverb. It may carry a sagacity because of Iroh's wise demeanor, but even if it was a proverb, what would it mean?

The backstory of this line is that the pirates and Zuko's crew are fighting each other because of a reneged agreement to trade the waterbending scroll that Katara stole for Aang. During the scuffle between the three groups, Katara, Sokka, and Aang were able to sneak away. In order to escape from the feud, Katara and Aang waterbend the pirate ship off the beach. As the pirate captain and Zuko are fighting, Iroh interrupts to deliver this line. The first implication of this line is that violence has some negative effect on your focus. But what are you focusing on i.e. what does the "ship" imply? An avid LOK fan would assume relationship, but let's think about this in ATLA terms. A ship is an important piece of property for a person. It actually may be a lifestyle in a way because of the technological importance of having a fast and able ship. But the obvious motion aspect of the ship likely makes the "ship" a metaphor for an event in life. It is something that you can see, but so much can affect you actually getting to the ship. The most telling part of this proverb is that this ship has "set sail". It passed by without you noticing, quite possibly one of the saddest and most indescribable feelings you could have. It describes this emotion that you have when you realize you missed out on something. So the proverb discusses the impact violence has on your way of life. If this were a proverb, it would be warning against the ill effects of violence, or more broadly malevolence toward another person, and how it actually detracts from your life and actually causes you to miss opportunities.

This proverb almost certainly has its real world counterparts. While it is difficult to put this in exact words, maybe an example would be a better demonstration. Consider Inigo Montoya's words at the end of The Princess Bride. He says that he had been in the revenge business for so long that he knows no other lifestyle. Having invested his entire life towards the demise of a single man, he missed out so many opportunities to do something else with his life. While it is a fulfilling experience, twenty years of his life are gone. So don't be so busy with the petty things that you miss out on a bigger opportunity. Don't let that ship sail because you were too busy fighting.

The Last Airbender Series: Avatar Roku and our Reaction to Magic

2012-06-08T02:40:00.001-05:00

Penn and Teller have a hilarious demonstration of magic in their show which tell the audience seven basic principles of magic. Palm, ditch, steal, load, simulation, misdirection, switch. In this episode of Avatar the Last Airbender, the Gaang utilize many of these tricks. They simulate the opening of the blast door. Zuko misdirects Zhao and his firebending fleet. They load Momo into the room only to (ideally) switch him with Aang. The magical moment demonstrates the ubiquity of these magical abilities.

The Gaang certainly understands the quintessentials of magic. Zuko discovers the questionable motives of Zhao and allows him to follow Iroh's smokescreen as he backdoors the fleet in another ship. Katara uses Sokka's failed experiment to convince the sages that Aang had successfully entered the solstice room. But the outcomes of these "magical acts" also demonstrate two reactions many people have when they witness magic. One is a feeling of success in understanding a trick. When you know what to expect from a magic trick, you immediately are wary of anything that seems out of place. When you keep your eyes open, magic tricks become less mystifying, but maintain their entertainment quality. However, when you are completely duped, there is a feeling of shock. You know that you have been deceived, and the only correct reaction is to freeze up. You are taken aback for just a moment, much like the sages were.

Many people believe that knowing how a magic trick works ruins the trick. One of the biggest rules of a magician is to never reveal any of his tricks. But there is a satisfaction people get when they experience magic. Even if they know what happened, understanding how the trick works does not make the trick any less impressive. But the best is not knowing how it works. While you may be frustrated or shocked, you cannot help be take in a moment of awe, as you see the magician represent your duped feelings.

Airball: The Inconceivability of the Ineptitude of the Charlotte Bobcats

2012-03-30T00:12:00.000-05:00

The Bobcats are the worst team in the NBA. Period. It was not like last year when there were a couple of teams that showed signs of ineptitude. The Bobcats just screamed inability, mediocrity. But where does it start? The answer: no one really knows.

You could blame their owner, Michael Jordan. While he was one of the greatest players to hold a basketball, he is one of the worst owners in league history. While many cite his falterings in the draft, it was primarily his love affair with Adam Morrison that gave him this reputation. While Morrison is almost equivalent to JaMarcus Russell, Jordan's draft history has not been awful when he has been the owner. We only have one year to look at, but he was able to get two solid players in a very weak draft. Bismarck Biyombo shows signs of offensive maturity as he maintained a strong defensive presence, and Kemba Walker has shown some offensive brilliance. The problem is his inability to find good players. He made an admittedly decent move by getting rid of Stephen Jackson, a decent, but problematic, player. But he got the ghost of Corey Maggette. The roster right now is just horrible. While there are talented players like D.J. Augustin, Biyombo, Walker, Byron Mullens, and Gerald Henderson (one of the few bright spots), you also have guys like Tyrus Thomas, DeSagana Diop, Derrick Brown, and Matt Carroll. I don't want to give up hope for MJ, but he has to get rid of a lot of these players. Hopefully he can rebuild around Augustin, Walker, Biyombo, Henderson, and Anthony Davis, as long as the Bobcats get the number 1 pick. But they have not created a winning nor rebuilding club.

The team is also just bad in most parts of the game. Defensively, they blow assignments, allow easy points, and get beat often. Offensively, they lack rhythm at times, force jump shots, and just shoot a very low percentage. The players are not that untalented, it just seems that way. This is a flaw of both the coaching staff and the players. Paul Silas has to get his team more motivated, especially defensively. It seems like a difficult task given the lack of attendance in Charlotte, but once the team starts winning, the fans will come. But they can't win without a good defensive strategy, which starts with Silas. With a growing defensive force like Biyombo, it should not be too difficult. But offensively, they need their players to make better decisions. They can't win by taking bad jump shots. Walker could turn out to be a viable offensive option, but he's gotta work on his field goal percentage. Fewer jump shots and more shots in the paint could do him very good. Biyombo has to mature offensively. He can not just rely on his ability to rebound and block. Adding one or two post moves will significantly help his game. Augustin has to be more assertive. He played well at the beginning, but he has to take command of the team once he is at complete strength. This team is still not a championship-caliber team, but at least they are respectable.

The Bobcats have been the doormat of the NBA for quite some time. It will not get any easier. Lottery picks can only help so much. They still lack the big name city that draws free agents. They still have some very useless players on the team. But they have hope in the Oklahoma City Thunder. It only takes one player to build a foundation for the team. Once that happens, they can find the role players in the draft. But it will require them to draft smartly and to find coaches and players who can function offensively and defensively. Unfortunately for the Bobcats, much like Diop's free throws, it looks like it is going to be an airball.

The Week Before the Oscars Predictions

2012-02-19T22:48:00.001-06:00

Best Adapted Screenplay: The Descendants
Best Original Screenplay: Midnight in Paris
Woody Allen has seemed like a surefire lock for Midnight in Paris, while Alexander Payne and his team seemed to be fighting off Moneyball and Hugo. But it looks like, after the Writer's Awards, we have our two Screenplay winners.
Best Foreign Language Film: A Separation
It got nominated for a high profile category (Screenplay) and won the Golden Globe. With The Skin I Live In not nominated, this seems to be the heavy favorite in this category.
Best Documentary Feature: Pina
There were certainly better documentaries this year, but given the death of subject Pina Bausch mid-filming, it seems only appropriate to dedicate this win for her legacy.
Best Supporting Actress: Octavia Spencer, The Help
She's been sweeping up through the major award ceremonies. It would take a miracle to beat her.
Best Supporting Actor: Christopher Plummer, The Help
See above.
Best Actress: Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
I will be wavering about this one for the next week or so. Streep somehow pulled off the BAFTA win, even though Viola Davis had a lot of momentum from her win at the SAGs. But if the British Academy can award Streep's controversial portrayal of former P.M. Margaret Thatcher, maybe the Academy can as well. The BAFTAs are also a better predictor for the Oscars given the overlap between voters in the British Academy and the Academy.
Best Actor: Jean Dujardin, The Artist
This is long from a foregone conclusion. But it seemed that George Clooney had this award all wrapped up. But after winning the SAG and the BAFTA, Dujardin is the clear favorite. Coupled with the tremendous momentum of The Artist along with the steady decline of The Descendants and Clooney's previous win for Syriana, it appears that Dujardin will be awarded the Oscar.
Best Director: Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
He won the Directors Guild Award. He won the BAFTA. The Artist is the most-awarded and talked about movie right now. Chalk up another win for The Artist.
Best Picture: The Artist
After taking home the BAFTA and gaining awards for its youthful director and charming lead actor along the way, The Artist looks like the silent movie that could. The Help, Hugo, and The Descendants still can upset The Artist, but it looks like silence is, well, golden.

Oscar Predictions Updated

2012-01-29T23:58:00.002-06:00

With the announcement of the SAGs, the Oscars face some new competition. The Help has elevated its chances with a Best Cast win, and one of its stars, Viola Davis, took the SAG award for Best Actress along with Octavia Spencer, winning a SAG for Best Supporting Actress. The biggest surprise was Jean Dujardin, getting noticed for his work in The Artist. Here are the updated predictions.

Best Adapted Screenplay: The Descendants
Best Original Screenplay: Midnight in Paris
Bridesmaids and The Artist deserve to get some serious cred, but I think that these two are locked in for now. Moneyball, and Aaron Sorkin, could spoil the Adapted Screenplay race.
Best Supporting Actress: Octavia Spencer, The Help
With the SAG award, Spencer is the one to beat. She will hear her name come Oscar night.
Best Supporting Actor: Christopher Plummer, Beginners
As is the usual, Best Supporting Actor and Actress are determined well before the Oscar ceremony. Plummer gets a deserving win for a long and illustrious career.
Best Actress: Viola Davis, The Help
Despite losing the Golden Globe, Davis bounced back with a SAG win. Meryl Streep always deserves to be recognized, but it's Davis' time right now.
Best Actor: Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Clooney seems to be unstoppable, but I learned that you should never go against the guild. The SAGs will go 4 for 4 at the Oscar ceremony.
Best Director: Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
Remember how David Fincher should have won last year? He lost to DGA winner Tom Hooper. Expect Hazanavicius to follow suit.
Best Picture: The Artist
They may have lost the SAG, but the SAG has never been the best decider of the Best Picture. With wins for Dujardin and Hazanavicius, The Artist caps a winning night with the top prize.