RobertR

A point that I think is being constantly overlooked. This isn't a line just connecting Milwaukee to Madison. It's part of a line connecting Chicago to Milwaukee to Madison to the Twin Cities. And I think that's part of what makes the ridership figures reasonable. You get not only Milwaukee / Madison ridership but also Chicago / Madison ridership on top of existing Chicago / Milwaukee ridership. Not to mention new stations in Brookfield, Oconomowoc, and Watertown which makes it more accessible instead of just a downtown station. (And I can see both Brookfield Square and Johnson Creek outlets running shuttles to the train stations.) I don't think the stations out in the suburbs are a coincidence at all. They're hubs. And a considerable part of the cost of the project. I think that's part of the key to the project. The people that drive to Chicago from Waukesha County, Jefferson County, and Dane County, paying for gas, tolls, and parking. Robert

Continuing 1987 Best Actor Michael Douglas - Wall Street William Hurt - Broadcast News Robin Williams - Good Morning, Vietnam Jack Nicholson - Ironweed Marcello Mastroianni - Dark Eyes Other Notables: John Lone - The Last Emperor, Nick Nolte - Weeds, Nicolas Cage - Moonstruck, Nicolas Cage - Raising Arizona, Kevin Costner - The Untouchables, Steve Martin - Roxanne, Peter Weller - Robocop My Pick of the Nominees and Overall - Michael Douglas - Wall Street Thoughts: Kind of a weak year, IMO. Of the nominees, Douglas's character at least lives on in the popular consciousness as an iconic representation of 80s corporate excess. I don't think it's in the ballpark of all time great performances or roles, but it's a very good one. I haven't seen Ironweed, although it has a good reputation. Robin Williams is fine in Good Morning, Vietnam, but he's done better acting outside of his radio schtick parts. Really, it's more that he's a good fit for the requirements of the role than anything else. I can't tell you how much I just love Nicolas Cage's turn in Raising Arizona. As far as his over-the-top performances go, I think it's perhaps his best. Arguably the second most iconic role of the year. I'd expect that there would be a good argument for him winning if the award was revoted today. Or at least getting a nomination. Best Actress Cher - Moonstruck Sally Kirkland - Anna Holly Hunter - Broadcast News Glen Close - Fatal Attraction Merly Streep - Ironweed Other notables: Diane Keaton - Baby Boom, Holly Hunter - Raising Arizona, Faye Dunaway - Barfly, Barbra Streisand - Nuts My Pick of the Nominees and Overall - Cher - Moonstruck A pretty top heavy year. If my memory serves me right, the only reason Sally Kirkland got a nomination was because of behind the scenes campaigning and sending out video copies of her film to the Academy. Hard to argue with much of the rest of the nominees. I almost tossed in Jennifer Grey for Dirty Dancing in other notables, but it really wasn't a very good year for actresses. Glenn Close's performance seems over-the-top in retrospect, but it definitely touched a chord at the time. Overall, I'm pretty satisfied with the choice of Cher. That's a good performance. And an entertaining one. And one of the few true female lead performances of the year. Robert

Just playing along, I'm wondering if ultimately they'll allow characters to live in both timelines. We could perhaps see John and Jack straightening each others lives out away from the island and Jack dieing in some sort of epic self sacrifice/redemption on the island, for instance. Kate could ultimately get gunned down in LA and live on the island. Etc. Basically combining tragedy and triumph for each character. They all, ultimately, find their way in the big plan. Robert

FYI, info on the project can be found at http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/recovery/railroad.htm Edit: I'll add that after looking over a bit of the documents, that I think it's a really good project for Madison when seen as part of a Madison-Chicago link and a Madison-Twin Cities link. Especially the Chicago connection. Less so from a Milwaukee-centric perspective since those links already exist and the Milwaukee-Madison benefit isn't as pronounced. Robert

It needs to be said, roads are not cheap to build. Especially not interstate roads. And adding a third lane calls for work on every bridge and structure. Land acquisition. And reevaluation of every on and off ramp. And perhaps rebuilding every bridge overpass. The I-94 expansion to the Illinois border has a budget of $1.9 billion and that's a much shorter stretch. I see no real benefit to adding a third lane between Milwaukee and Madison as the stretch as a whole doesn't suffer from congestion, except maybe during Badger football and the day before deer hunting. If the choice is between a rail line, part of a larger Chicago to Minneapolis project, or a third lane, with minimal benefits and more cost, I'll go with the rail line. That's not a realistic alternative. The realistic alternatives are to do nothing or build a rail line. I do want to read more on the plan though. Like where the train would end up in Madison. And what kind of connections there are from its depot. I most certainly could see an advantage if it's faster to get to the Capitol or UW. Heck, if you can divert some of the gameday traffic to rails, that would have added benefit of extending the life of the interstate. I think sticking the station out by the airport would undercut the project though. Robert

I'm in. And I love that they've found a new structure for Season 6. Alternative timelines indeed. Lost has been about playing with time from the beginning, right in their move forward/flashback structure at the beginning, and they've really embraced it in the later seasons for all its worth. Terry O'Quinn was on fire tonight. Especially in contrast with island "Locke" and 815 Locke. Also "I don't understand." is a chilling line in context. I'm excited to see where they're going with this. They've answered some mysteries already. And I think they have a direction and a definite ending in mind. Robert

See the only reason I think anyone gives Avatar good odds for Best Picture is because it won the Golden Globes, which are largely an excuse to fawn over stars and drink lots of booze. Avatar is popular, but it's not won anything of consequence. The Hurt Locker, with the critics, Director's guild, and Producer's guild, and Inglourious Basterds, with the Screen Actor's guild, have actually won awards from a large blocs of membership in the academy. What's going to change in the next month? Heck, much of the Academy ends up watching screeners at home. Hardly the best way to see Avatar. Robert

SherryBaby and Secretary seem to be the roles that she's gotten the most acclaim for, have you seen them? I tend to agree that she's hardly the greatest actress of her generation. That said, for the most part, I find her to be a solid performer. Robert

Might as well start a topic for this. A year after getting drilled for bypassing The Dark Knight in favor of a bunch of dramas that people just didn't go out and see in the theater, other than Slumdog Millionaire, this is one of the more populist years as far as Best Picture nominees in recent memory, with half the nominees already grossing more than $100 million and Up in the Air still standing a good chance of crawling to that. District 9, A Serious Man, Up, An Education, and The Blind Side were probably the beneficiaries of the expanded 10 nominations. FWIW, I don't have a big problem with them expanding, 10 is just as good an arbitrary number as 5, but there certainly appears to be two tiers of nominees this year and I think it might prove awkward in presentation. I do think it helps with adding variety of genre to the Best Picture category though. Not many surprises. Maggie Gyllenhaal being the biggest. It seems to be a good year for the Academy. Popular films and stars nominated for the big categories. And a horse race for Best Picture and perhaps director. Robert

Since new nominations are out today, I'll try to finish what I started. 1987 (As always, winners listed first.) Best Picture The Last Emperor Broadcast News Fatal Attraction Hope and Glory Moonstruck HM: Full Metal Jacket, Robocop, Wall Street, The Untouchables, Empire of the Sun, Ironweed, The Dead, Au Revoir les Enfants, My Life as a Dog, Raising Arizona, Lethal Weapon, Predator, Radio Days, Evil Dead II (ok, this would never have been nominated, but it's more influential than most of the actual nominees), Good Morning, Vietnam, Wings of Desire, House of Games, Matewan, Planes, Trains, & Automobiles, Dirty Dancing, La Bamba, Cry Freedom My choice overall: Robocop Thoughts: Fatal Attraction really sticks out like a sore thumb, doesn't it? The Academy went with a populist choice and that one really hasn't aged well. They'd have been much better off in the long run with Wall Street or The Untouchables. Hard to believe that Full Metal Jacket wasn't nominated. At a time when Kubrick was hailed as a reclusive genius. Empire of the Sun's reputation has grown with time. John Huston's last film also seems like it would have been a fine choice. There are some notable comedies, foreign films, and action films. The action films I lised above are three of the most iconic of the 80s, Robocop, Predator, and Lethal Weapon. I'm not joking about my choice of Robocop either. It's great social science fiction, maybe the greatest at actually predicting trends in media, corporate power, social trends such as the return of the gas suckers, and privatization. OK, we don't have cyborg and robot cops, but the world doesn't look a whole lot different than the vision of Robocop. (And I probably need to mention Howard Chaykin's American Flagg! comic book which Robocop was heavily influenced by.) It's worth noting that Robocop was nominated for 2 awards and won a special achievement Oscar for its special effects. I really need to see more of the best picture nominees. Moonstruck and Fatal Attraction are the only ones I've seen, although I've seen bits of Broadcast News. From what I hear, I'd probably really like The Last Emperor and it's reputation is such that I don't think it was a mistake that it won. But, I don't have a whole lot to add about it. More later. Robert

It's not all luck, but opportunity plays a huge role in RBIs. As does playing in the AL with the DH turning the lineup over. And 700+ PAs the last couple of seasons doesn't hurt. Cabrera was a good player, but I think it's fair to question how much he has left in the tank. And how much of an improvement he'll be. Robert

MLB isn't little league. You really have to pick your spots as, for the most part, teams field at a high quality. Most teams have better arms than a combination of Luis Gonzalez, Juan Pierre, and Johnny Damon in the outfield. Most catchers can throw. Most third basemen can field. Risk taking at the major league level often means getting thrown out. Robert

I wouldn't exactly be shocked if Starlin Castro is in the top half of NL Central shortstops by the end of the season. Robert

I think it is a fair point that the Brewers have struggled to develop pitching prospects. The first round isn't the only place that pitchers come from. And there was certainly more to the pitching problems last year than injuries. OTOH, I think Melvin perhaps draws too much flak for that. Zduriencik can't take credit for only the good parts of his drafting and none of the blame for the pitching failures. And it's clear to me that the development program has had trouble for a long time developing pitching, especially high school pitchers. Robert

I'll take the stats over the selective memory crowd. Which isn't to say that Cameron is a super amazing player guaranteed to keep playing as well as he had in the past, but we will take a hit in CF in 2010 offensively. Perhaps a big one. We're really going to need Gomez to do significantly better than his .246/.292/.346 career line. The Brewers era with Prince and crew isn't over. We don't have to bury them yet, especially since the division isn't that strong and they're bound to get better starting pitching this year. Heck, Bush wasn't pitching that badly (4.38 ERA through May) until he took a ball off his arm. I can't see how Parra could be any worse either. Combined with Wolf and Davis, it's not unreasonable to think 4 spots in the rotation will be better. I can't say whether they'll be better enough, that really depends on Bush and Parra, but if the marching orders were to improve run prevention this offseason, then they did a very reasonable job of it. Robert

The one guy on the planet that I think will be fascinating to watch the signing process is Yu Darvish. There are so many angles to take with him and I've very little doubt he could pitch in the majors in a hurry. Robert

Frankly, I think it's Leno's creative bankruptcy that's at the root of the problem. Doing something different in primetime isn't necessarily a bad idea, but blatantly recycling The Tonight Show in primetime and competing for guests with Conan is at the heart of the problem. Basically, Leno made sure that if he failed, Conan would fail too. There are plenty of people that could have done something original and interesting with the platform that Jay Leno got. Conan O'Brien for one. I'm sure Steve Allen could have made something of it too back in the day. Leno basically rode his one act into the ground and dragged everyone around him down with him. And he's getting rewarded for it. Robert

Admittedly, I live in Milwaukee and every major film goes through here. I could see living in Wausau and being frustrated with having to wait a month for The Hurt Locker or Moon, for example. Robert

Honestly, my queue is big enough and I see enough films in the theater so if I wasn't motivated enough to see it in the theater, I'm not sure how motivated I'd be to see a release in the first few weeks anyways. Robert

In 2007 he pushed Capuano late in the year while he was obviously wearing out in order to try to get him 20 wins. This is a year after he had arm surgery. You mean 2005. I'm having a tough time connecting Yost giving him a couple of unnecessary starts in September 2005, I agree they were unnecessary, to an injury suffered several years later, perhaps in Spring Training 2008. Care to make the linkage? For all we know, Capuano just threw a pitch with bad mechanics that caused the injury. Also, I'm not sure how relevant Manny Parra is. Sure, he wore down in 2008, however how much of that was due to the lack of options? The Brewers were in a pennant race that year after all despite a not particularly deep rotation. There was a reason they traded for Sabathia, after all. It's not like 166 IP is an extreme number. Or an extreme increase over the 133 IP he threw the previous year. And, considering Manny Parra has been healthy, I'm not sure that's relevant for Yost "abusing" pitchers. And, what about the rest? Aren't Doug Davis, Dave Bush, Suppan, and all of the rest of the guys that Yost had to run out relevant? What's his track record for "abuse"? Robert

Two pitchers, one who he rode hard deliberately in the last year of a contract during a year of contention, isn't much proof. Care to elaborate, specifically as to how Yost was at fault? Yost had dozens of pitchers under his and Maddux's control. And, as far as I can tell, those are the only two with injury issues. How much is coaching and how much is just the pitcher? And how does that compare to the average manager? Edit: After going over the game logs for Capuano, I think that statement that Yost "abused" Capuano needs refinement. You can make a case that Yost was a little heavy handed in 2005, with 10 games with between 111 and 120 pitches thrown, but in 2006 Yost dialed that down to 4 games over 110 pitches, pitch counts of 112, 118, 125, and 116, and in 2007, it was 2 games with pitch counts of 119 and 113. Otherwise, Capuano came out right around the 100 pitch mark. His pitches per game started was 104 in 2005, 99 in 2006, and 91 in 2007. Is it innings pitched that's the issue? Robert

I'm open to the idea that perhaps teams are a little overconservative these days. That said, I'm not at all convinced that a throwback to the old days is the answer. Personally, I see the big difference between todays pitchers and the previous generation as being velocity. Todays pitchers throw harder than ever. And that comes from force generated, which also means that pitchers are putting more stress on their arms than ever before. Frankly, I think the coaches that can somehow convince the pitchers that it's o.k. to take a little off your pitches if it means improved movement and control are the ones that are ahead in the game. I'd like to ban radar gun readings on scoreboards along with it. Tell pitchers to get people out and not tempt them to try to touch triple digits. Robert

I didn't get around to voting this year, but Lawrie would have gotten another first place vote if I had. I think the guy has star hitter potential and nothing I saw last year dissuaded me from that stance. I'd also have gone higher than the concensus on Jeffress and Cain. Yeah, there's a high bust potential with Jeffress, but if he makes it it's likely to be as much more than a fringe contributor. With Cain, I think perhaps a little too much emphasis has been put on an injury marred 2009. Yeah, he deserves to take a hit, but behind Mark Rogers? Robert

OTOH, it appears to be free and convenient to those that already own a Wii. More convenience over quality, for certain. How many people in this country have switched to Blu Ray players? I tend to think we're overthinking how the vast majority of people watch television and this will fit in. Heck, is this the time to pimp Netflix for having a bunch of the Criterion collection available for streaming? Robert

Honestly, I think people are forgetting Yost's good attributes. Patience. A positive attitude. Willing to stick with the young kids. At least a passing familiarity with the concept of OBP. Pretty decent at keeping pitchers healthy. Willing to work with the general manager on a long term plan. Those are all good attributes for a coach of a team that's going to have to rebuild from rock bottom. And his tactical deficiciencies will be minimized in the AL. I don't consider it a mistake to hire Ned Yost when the Brewers did. He helped get them from rock bottom to contention. I don't consider it a mistake to fire him at that point either, but he deserves credit for what he did accomplish. Robert