Eli GierynaLook, a vanity domain!

I’ve been meaning to write a post about Josh Ritter for a while, but was hoping to connect it to an album release or some other actual event.  But, since he’s not scheduled to release a new album anytime soon, I thought I’d just plunge in and tell you about him anyway.

First, I have to give credit to Andrew Hershberger here, as he’s the one who initially brought Ritter to my attention.  I’m not exactly sure what it was that led Andrew to send me one of Ritter’s songs a few years ago, but he was spot-on in assessing my musical tastes.  Josh Ritter is about as good as it gets, and I now feel compelled to share his goodness with you.

Since fans and music critics alike are completely unable to describe an artist without referencing other artists (”Oh, the Fleet Foxes?  Simply put, they kind of sound like Crosby, Stills and Nash; but also Bon Iver, and maybe with a little bit of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir — nay, the San Francisco Symphony Chorus — thrown in for good measure.”), you’re probably looking for that kind of analysis.  The most frequent comparison for Josh Ritter is Bob Dylan, since they are both folksy singer-songwriters who use vivid imagery in their songs.

It works, I guess, on a basic level.  But Ritter is his own artist.  In his six albums, we hear a wide variety of musical styles that’s impressive for someone who is still relatively young (he’s only 31).  He mixes traditional folk music with blues, southern soul, bluegrass and about nine kinds of rock music.  And this stylistic diversity, combined with his uncanny ear for storytelling, makes him a totally unique act. He’s able to craft complex, interesting lyrics that remain relevant.  It’s easy to write quirky nonsense lyrics that seem interesting (Beck has perfected this), but Ritter actually manages to create depth with his words.

My goodness, I am just gushing here.  And I’m not even being paid for it.  Let me try to get things under control.

In terms of where you should start, my personal favorite album of his is The Animal Years, his fifth release.  It’s his most consistent work, and probably the most lyrically interesting, mostly focusing on America as it is torn between religion and war.

His most recent release, The Historical Conquests of Josh Ritter, is a bit more uptempo and rockable.  Is that even a word?  Rockable?  Whatever.  Writing music criticism makes my head hurt.

So that’s where you should start.  Get his two latest releases, and work backwards from there. I’ve even installed a nifty little widget at the bottom of the post that lets you preview one of his songs.  This song, Girl in the War, is among my favorite songs by Ritter.

For more previews, you can check out his MySpace page, which has a nice sampling of tunes.

There you go.  Now run along and have a nice weekend, fully equipped with the music of the greatest American songwriter since Bob Dylan!  Or Bruce Springsteen!  Or Buddy Holly!  Or Leonard Cohen!

What?  Leonhard Cohen was Canadian?  Scratch that.

Boomp3.com

1. Engage me:Be the first to add a reply.
2. Stay updated: Subscribe to RSS feed:

Jon Stewart with an awesome segment about the double standards we’re seeing from Republicans about Sarah Palin.  It’s well-done, as usual.  Watch!

1. Engage me:One Response
2. Stay updated: Subscribe to RSS feed:

Last night, I had a dream that I was at a party at a large house somewhere in California.  I didn’t know anyone there until Rainn Wilson showed up.  We got to talking (duh), and then he said he had to show me something in the basement.

Despite the ominous sounds of that, I went downstairs and found an electric guitar, a bass and two large amplifiers.

Rainn looked at me and said, “You ready?”

I nodded, and Rainn and I proceeded to jam out on “In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida” for 17 minutes.  I was on guitar, if you’re wondering.

It was pretty cool.

1. Engage me:Be the first to add a reply.
2. Stay updated: Subscribe to RSS feed:

Southwest Airlines is one of those interesting, polarizing companies.  People either swear to God that He himself would fly Southwest if he needed to travel somewhere, or they’ll invariably make an analogy about cattle and herding.  In terms of marketing, that’s sort of what you want.  It’s corporate death if your company is positioned as lukewarm in the public view.

In the past, I’ve generally enjoyed Southwest.  I didn’t even fly until I was out of college (yes, amazing; I know) and they had ridiculously cheap fares.  This was good.  Their website is easy-to-use, and they had a general air of carefree wackiness, or some other such appropriate nonsense.  All of these things still contribute to a really, really devoted fanbase.

There are, of course, downsides to flying Southwest.  The airplanes aren’t all that nice — they cram three seats into an aisle and there isn’t as much leg room as other airlines.  I don’t like scrounging for a seat once I get on board.  I really don’t like how their lines at the ticket counter are always eight times longer than any other airline.

But since Southwest always had such cheap fares, I was willing to deal with those inconveniences.  But, unfortunately, as the price of airline tickets has spiked in the last year, it seems that Southwest’s prices have gone up more than other airlines.  To the point where it’s not even cheaper to fly Southwest in a lot of cases.

I recently flew on another major airline for a trip out east.  The entire process was incredibly smooth.  I checked into the counter with very little wait time; I didn’t have to find my number in the boarding line like I was on my way to an elementary-school cafeteria; I found my assigned seat, which was roomy and comfortable since there were only two in each row.  And — best of all — the price was about the same as Southwest.

Southwest was great when it was cheap, when it was just a way to get from Point A to Point B without paying too much.  But now, round-trip fares on other major airlines are just as competitive, if not cheaper in some instances.  And even if Southwest is slightly cheaper, I think I’m done feeling stuffed into a plane just to save $30.

Now, for $50, I’ll do it.  But not $30!  No way, no how.

I do have principles, after all.

What about all of you?  Any particular airline loyalty?

1. Engage me:One Response
2. Stay updated: Subscribe to RSS feed:

Brief story:

Last night, Julie and I were getting ice cream at TCBY (umm, it’s healthy … ish) and were sitting outside.  Summer is slowly dying, so we are trying to soak up the last bits of warmth that we can.

[Side note: Why are people so excited for fall to get here?  I keep hearing that it's going to be nice to have "crisp" weather so we can all bundle up.  Guess what?  It's going to be cold from November until March.  There will be plenty of time for bundling.]

So anyway, we were sitting outside at a table and there were a few other families around.  One family nearby had a little boy who was probably about 20 months old.  Curly blond hair, little khaki shorts and a polo.  Cute kid.  He was wandering around and babbling to himself like most 20-month-olds.  Naturally, you couldn’t understand anything he said.

A few feet away from Julie and me was a USA Today stand with yesterday’s paper displayed in the window.  The kid — again, babbling — walked by the newstand and stopped in his tracks.  Then he walked up to the newstand and pointed at the front page of the paper, which was about eye-level for him.

“Bama!  Bama!” he said.

On the front cover of the USA Today was a photo of Barack Obama.  Again, he pointed his finger on Obama’s face.

“Bama!  Bama!”

We were, of course, surprised.  Pleasantly surprised, but even still.  His mom came over to get him and we asked her if he was really saying “Obama.”

Her reply was “Oh yeah.  He loves him.”

Someone get that kid a voter ID card.

1. Engage me:Be the first to add a reply.
2. Stay updated: Subscribe to RSS feed:

Zyrtec is an amazing wonder drug.  Thank goodness for it.

1. Engage me:2 Responses
2. Stay updated: Subscribe to RSS feed:

I’ve decided to create a blog registry of things that I want.  People have Amazon wish lists, wedding registries, baby registries, graduation registries, housewarming party registries, etc, etc, etc. So, why not a blog registry?

This also ties into my recent post about the silliness of fiscal/life minimalism.  I am sure that each of these items would make my life between 1 and 73 percent happier.

So, here is a bunch of crap that I want, along with links that allow you to purchase them for me.  If you ever want to buy me something, you can use this list.  I also take monetary donations via the form of check or cash.

Gimme, gimme, gimme.

What I Want

• Babolat AeroPro Drive Cortex Racquet: I already have one, I just need a backup (3% happiness increase)
• Adidas Barricade Tennis Shoes: I’m a size 12. (6% happiness increase)
• Babolat Tennis Bag: I need a place to put that racquet and shoes. (4% happiness increase)

• The Complete Seinfeld (6% happiness increase)
  
• Any Simpsons’ season DVD (3 through 8) (5 % happiness increase)
  
• Big Fish DVD (1 % HI)
  
• Shawshank Redemption DVD (1 % HI)
  

• Stainless Steel Cookware Set (8% HI)
  
• Cast-Iron Skillet (4 % HI)
  
• Pizza Stone (1 % HI)
  

• Bacon Salt (73 % HI)
  

• LG 42-inch flat panel television (72% HI)
  
• Sony Blu-Ray Player (12% HI)
  
• Bose Home Theater System (32% HI)
  
• Xbox 360 (28% HI)
• Nikon D40 camera (34% HI)

• A freaking Marriott bed (70% HI)
  

• A Chrysler 300 (71% HI)

There you go.  Make my life better via material possessions.  I’ll be sure to remove these items from this list as they are purchased for me.  Happy shopping!

1. Engage me:5 Responses
2. Stay updated: Subscribe to RSS feed:

Just spent four days in Oklahoma City for work.  Wasn’t expecting much, but it’s actually a pretty decent place. Bricktown is very cool and the city itself is pretty well laid-out.  In spite of this, I still don’t understand how it produced a band like The Flaming Lips.

1. Engage me:Be the first to add a reply.
2. Stay updated: Subscribe to RSS feed:

The other day, I was reading an article about the concept of voluntary simplicity.  That is, the practice of shunning materialism and only going with what is essential.  There are several proponents of the theory bouncing around, writing books about it and appearing on television to hawk their practices.

Aside from the irony of buying another possession to help you simplify your life, I’m not so sure I’m ready to embrace the practice.

One particular author talked about how he has no use for a big, fancy television.  He has no use for an expensive car.  He only owned a few basic clothing items which he, of course, washes by hand and dries in the open air.  He described an ideal evening where he picks vegetables from his garden and then cooks them for dinner.  Then, he reads a book checked out from the public library.  He says that not only does this help him simplify his life, it allows him to save an incredible amount of money.

How unquaint do you feel right now?

Oh, sure. I can appreciate the mindset.  I guess.  If you combine a sense of minimalism with strong fiscal responsibility, you’re going to save an awful lot of money in this life.  Which reminds me of this tale, which I just made up.

“There was once a wise man who decided that his main goal was to save for the future.  This man rid himself of his expensive television, cut down his wardrobe of designer suits and stopped eating out at fancy restaurants, which had been a several-times-per-week habit for him.  He got rid of his cable television and home Internet.  He saved obsessively.

Predictably, his savings began to pile up due to a lack of obligations and possessions.  Travel, which has once been an expensive luxury, was cut down to nothing.  He no longer bought frivolous gadgets and gizmos from Amazon.com and eBay.  He made smart investments and tucked away money into IRAs and high-yield savings accounts.

As the years grew, so did his savings.  His minimalist lifestyle caused him some headaches at times, but he rested comfortably (on an air mattress; why spend lots of cash on something you’re not awake to enjoy?) at night because he had his savings — nearly $700,000 after 15 years of his fiscal minimalism.

One day, he woke up and decided to go for his morning walk.  On that walk, he was hit by a speeding Lexus and died instantly from head trauma.

The end.”

So, guess what happened to all of his savings?  Well, I don’t know.  I didn’t get that far as I was making that story up to support my viewpoint.  His family probably squabbled over them and then used their portions to buy designer moonboots and spaceships.

You’re probably asking, “Eli, what’s your point in all of this?”  And I’m telling you that you should have known better than to expect that.

The point, dear readers, is that I kind of like my television.  In honor of me, I suggest you buy one frivolous item this week, whether that is splurging on a fancy meal for yourself, a new shirt or even just going all-out and Supersizing your next meal at McDonald’s.

Oh yeah.  Live a little.

1. Engage me:2 Responses
2. Stay updated: Subscribe to RSS feed:

Yesterday, I was reading an article the other day about baseball players who are struggling this year. You know, the standard mid-season type thing about guys who aren’t earning their paycheck and all that standard formulaic journalism.

In the article, a scout for the Royals spouted that standard line that even the best hitters in baseball fail 70 percent of the time and it’s a really hard game. We’ve all heard that statement before, and it’s even used as a metaphor for other aspects of life.

Unfortunately, it’s not true.

You might say that this borders on nitpicking, but the best hitters in baseball don’t fail 70 percent of the time. In fact, if a hitter is failing 70 percent of the time, he should be benched and not allowed to see the field.

What those people are referring to is that if you are getting a hit in 30 percent of your at bats (batting .300), you’re pretty good at baseball. And yet, you are still failing to get a hit in 70 percent of your at bats.

The problem with this line of thinking is that there are other ways to not fail when batting. As a hitter, the only real measure of failure is making an out. If you make an out as a hitter, you have failed at your job.

In order to not make an out, a hitter can do the following things:

• Get a hit
• Draw a walk
• Get hit by a pitch

When you add those things together, you end up calculating a hitter’s on-base percentage. This is the percentage of times a hitter has gotten on base instead of making an out. And therefore, has not failed.

The current major-league leader in on-base percentage is Chipper Jones, at .466. That means that Jones has only failed in about 53 percent of his at bats.  In Barry Bonds’ incredible 2002 season, his OBP was .582.  Granted, that number was almost unreal, but it did happen.

I realize that this is not a major distinction. However, it sounds far less impressive to turn to your buddy Hank down at the diner when he describes his latest life struggle and say, “Hell, damn it, even the best baseball players ever are up there flailing and failing 43 percent of the time! And those are the ones that are good! You’re doing OK, Hank.”

Hank is not doing OK, of course. And neither is Pedro Feliz, who actually does fail 70 percent of the time he goes to the plate.

While you’re here (if you’re still here), let’s go over one other common baseball conception that need to be killed. Again, if you follow baseball closely, you probably know these things. Although, as Fire Joe Morgan has proven, following baseball closely does not mean you know anything. So let’s move forward to another baseball misconception.

Pitcher wins mean something
All throughout the summer, we hear about pitchers who “aren’t getting it done” because they haven’t won as many games as some other pitchers. Often, the speaker will say something like, “The rest of his numbers look great, but the wins aren’t there. And that’s what matters the most.”

Except it isn’t.

A few summers ago, John Kruk was arguing with someone on Baseball Tonight about the Cy Young race between Johan Santana and Curt Schilling. At the time, Santana had 20 wins and Curt Schilling had 21 wins. Santana, however, had an ERA (earned-run average — the average number of runs given up per nine innings) that was almost a full run lower. On average, he gave up one run fewer than Schilling did every nine innings. That’s significant.

Old Krukky didn’t care about that. He firmly stated that Schilling should get the Cy Young award because of that one extra win. When Karl Ravech pointed to the ERA differences, Kruk said the only stat that mattered was helping your team win, and Schilling had done that better than Santana.

Let’s examine that idea closer. Here are two pitchers:

Frank Driziwisczki plays for the Montana Mopes. He has a 97 mph fastball and one of the best sliders in the league, along with pinpoint control. He has used these skills to compile a 2.15 ERA (very good) to go along with 220 strikeouts in 190 innings (anything above one strikeout per inning is great). Unfortunately, the rest of his team sucks at hitting. They truly are the type of hitters that fail 7 of 10 times. So despite his great number, Frank’s team loses a lot of 2-1 or 1-0 games when he pitches. So he only has 12 wins on the season.

Steven Marcatopolous plays for the Biloxi Bashers. He is 39 years old and has had five elbow surgeries. His fastball is only 84 mph and his curveball doesn’t curve anymore. But, since Biloxi spent their all of their money on hitters, they have to employ pitchers like Steven. Opposing hitters love batting against Steven, and he has an ERA of 5.85 (terrible). However, since Biloxi has a bunch of awesome hitters, they score a lot of runs. So even though Steven gives up 5 or 6 runs every start, Biloxi will sometimes score 8, 10 or 135 runs. Because of this, Steven technically wins a lot of games.

This does not mean he’s good. Make sense?

If it does make sense to you, and you can also grasp that on-base percentage is more important than batting average, congratulations, you’re smarter than Tim McCarver.

***Note****

If you’re totally new to baseball and looking for a general guideline about these stats – in case you see a game on TV, or you’re at a ballgame, here are some basic guidelines about numbers that are good and bad.

On-base percentage
Below .320: Awful
.320-.340: Needs work
.340-.370: Useful
.370-.399: Great
Above .400: Outstanding and awesome

ERA
Above 5.00: You suck
4.50-5.00: You still pretty much suck
4.25-4.50: The fringe of average, or worse
3.75-4.25: This is good-to-average production
3.25-3.75: Very good
Below 3.25: Pretty studly

I’m aware that ERA has its flaws, and OBP shouldn’t be used totally without context but this is supposed to be a basic intro to baseball stats.  Maybe in another installment we’ll dive into more stuff.  But for now, ERA and OBP are good things to know.

1. Engage me:One Response
2. Stay updated: Subscribe to RSS feed: