Jeremy Blachman's Weblog: 2009

Citi Field

Somehow I forgot to blog about the Mets game I saw this past Sunday at their brand new stadium, Citi Field.  I never really understood all the hate for Shea Stadium, the previous ballpark -- sure, it was gray and dirty, but so's the rest of the city.  And the sightlines at Shea were good, the seating area relatively comfortable, the concourses wide, lots of bathrooms... I enjoyed watching a game there, I didn't really think it was so terrible, even compared with the newer places like Citizens Bank in Philadelphia and Camden Yards in Baltimore.  Citi Field is definitely cleaner, at least right now, in week one of its existence.  And the entrance is pretty cool -- the Jackie Robinson rotunda, with a bunch of displays about Robinson and pictures on the walls.  It feels almost like a museum entrance, instead of a stadium.  Even though it seats about twelve thousand fewer people, the place actually felt a lot bigger than Shea.  I think the concourses were wider, and also because the ramps have been replaced with staircases it feels like more of a hike to get between levels.  And because the seats go all the way around the outfield, there's farther to walk to get to the good food areas than there used to be.  Overall an improvement over Shea for sure, but I don't know if it's worth the hike in ticket prices.

There's a Shake Shack in the stadium, but the line was longer than the Shake Shack in Manhattan, so it didn't seem even remotely worth the wait.  Also a big line for the "Box Frites" french fries stand and the Blue Smoke barbeque stand.  The tacos looked good, but I ended up with a fried flounder sandwich and cup of clam and corn chowder from the "Catch of the Day" stand run by David Pasternack of the restaurant Esca.  The sandwich was good -- fish seemed fresh, and the breading was crisp, not too greasy at all.  It was $8.50, I think.  Slightly high for what it was, but not unreasonable at all, and in a ballpark context, a much better value than the $5.75 Nathan's hot dog.  The soup was $4.75 and actually really delicious.  I think for the portion size, it was a dollar too expensive, but still not crazy like a lot of ballpark food can be, and, really, I'd order that in a restaurant and be pretty happy with it.

The upper deck seats we had were surprisingly good -- much closer to the field than the ones at Shea, good vantage point onto the field, could see everything pretty clearly.  I was in section 508, 4th row.  Would happily sit around there again, and wouldn't feel like I was sacrificing for price at all.  

Game would have been better if the Mets won, but overall no complaints about the stadium, and had a really nice time.  Hopefully later in the year I'll get a chance to compare it to the new Yankee Stadium, although I imagine I'll be lucky if I can find $30 seats as good as what I had for the Mets game.

eBooks / WSJ

Steven Johnson has an article in the WSJ about the Amazon Kindle and why e-books are awesome.  Here.

It's hard not to agree that e-books are only going to grow in market share, and that the ability to buy instantly, and to search text, are of real value.

But I can't get myself quite as excited as he does, at least not in the short term, and not with the current generation of e-readers.

Fundamentally, I think I don't buy the comparison of the e-book to e-music.  Some of the commenters made these points, but: we listen to music over and over again; most books are read once.  And music, before the iPod, really did lack portability.  No one's running with a Discman (or at least not very quickly).  And certainly no one was running with a 100-CD Discman.  But books?  Pretty portable as they are, unless you're trying to carry a couple dozen at a time.

The three problems for me with something like the Kindle:

1. I read too much to buy -- I get most of my books from the library, and the Kindle wouldn't let me do that.  At $9.95/book, I wouldn't buy many.  Johnson treats potential book spending like it's unlimited, but for most people I don't think it is.  He says the Kindle makes it possible to start books and never finish, to jump from book to book to book.  At 99 cents, maybe.  At $9.95, not unless you're rich.  But this is a pricing problems more than a technology problem.  Throw the Netflix model on this -- rent the books for a certain amount of time, unlimited rentals for some monthly cost -- and suddenly I'm a little more interested.  Tell me I can have whatever I want to read for $14.95 a month and I'm suddenly thinking about the trips to the library and the 3-month wait for new books, and I'm getting tempted.  (That is, if I wanted to read books on a screen... but we'll get there....)

2. I hate the idea of carrying around another device.  Books are easy.  You drop a book, it doesn't break.  You lose a book, it's okay.  You lend a book to a friend, great.  On the subway, I'm not worried someone's going to steal my book, I'm not worried about scratching my book, I don't have to treat my book with kid gloves.  I'm already carrying around a cell phone, I don't want something else I have to deal with.  But this is a platform problem more than a problem inherent to e-books.  Merge a phone and an e-book reader into something with readable text... which I'm sure will happen a few generations of e-readers from now... and I'm thinking about it.

3. You can't skim an electronic device.  I flip pages, I skim, I interact with a book in a different way than I interact with a screen.  This problem is the one I can't get past, but it's also the one that the next generation probably won't have.  And even though somehow I've seamlessly moved from reading newspapers in paper to online without any struggle at all, I don't feel like I can do that with books.  To have it in my hand, to turn the pages... this is a Luddite's reasoning and it won't keep the e-books away and yet... it's real for me.

Bottom line, for me, is that, right now, e-books fill a need that I'm not convinced is there.  I hardly ever need to be carrying more books with me than I want to carry, and I hardly ever want to make an impulse buy that Amazon is too slow to fulfill.  I like the physical interaction with books, in a way we never had to deal with as far as music or movies -- CDs aren't the same as books, you're using a machine anyway, it's not nearly as big a transition.

Where I think e-readers would really make an impact -- let me rent them in the airport or on a plane.  Pre-loaded with a library of books, or the rental price includes the ability to rent two books, additional books cost $1, you rent it at the airport when you leave, you put down a hefty refundable deposit, and you return it when you get back from your trip -- bring an entire bookstore on vacation with you and it costs $14.95 for the privilege.  That I would do.  And if the e-reader really did make my life easier on vacation, and I got hooked?  Then they'd have a new customer.

So why aren't they doing that?  Why isn't Sony setting up e-reader kiosks at airports and trying to hook travelers on the product with a cheap taste of it?  I don't know.  I think they should be.  

Interesting interview with literary agents re: fiction writing

Really interesting, here.

And an NPR piece about book deals, here.

Elizabeth Warren on The Daily Show

Watch this.  It's Part 2 of Jon Stewart's interview last night with Elizabeth Warren on The Daily Show.  She's head of the Congressional Oversight Panel on TARP and my favorite professor from law school.  She talks about why the banking crisis has happened, and where we go from here.  I've linked to Part 2 because it's the meatier half of the interview.  It's interesting, having seen Prof. Warren command a law school class, and knowing how good she is -- it must be really, really nervewracking to be a guest on The Daily Show.  I think the commercial break helped -- Part 2 she seemed really in command -- but watching Part 1, I was kind of surprised how nervous she seemed.  Understandable, of course -- and actually kind of reassuring.  I don't know how you trust someone who *isn't* nervous doing that sort of stuff.  Anyway, I thought it was a really nice interview, check it out.

Anon Lawyer

Three days, three new posts.  I'm hoping that by posting about the posts, I put pressure on myself to continue the streak.  So spread the word, Anonymous Lawyer is back and laying people off like it's 1929.  Or 2009, I guess.

.....I haven't done enough thinking yet about whether blogging -- and what makes for a "successful" blog --- has changed with the growth of RSS readers.  It used to be that my biggest advice for new bloggers who e-mailed me to ask was that they really need to post consistently, every day if they can, because if people visit and don't see something new, they're going to forget about you and stop coming back, and you need to get people into a routine where they visit regularly or you're never going to build an audience.  But now that more and more people are using RSS readers and not necessarily checking in at all to see what's new, does it matter?  If someone posts once a week but the blog's on your feed already, does it matter?  So is the key getting people to sign up for your feed, and wowing them with a couple of great posts that sell them on the blog as opposed to worrying so much about daily content?  I don't know.  I expect RSS readers really have changed the requirements.  But I'd welcome any thoughts on that.....

In unrelated news, in the spirit of trying to use my blog as my very own Stubhub, I bought 2 tickets to the Tribeca Film Festival's showing of the movie "Team Qatar" on Monday April 27th at 7:15PM.  I really want to see the film -- it's a documentary about Qatar's first national high school debate team, click the link for more details -- but I forgot I have somewhere else I have to be at 7.  So, on the off chance anyone reading this thinks that sounds cool and wants my tickets, e-mail me and I'll knock a couple bucks off the price I paid.  

Sworn In

It's three and a half years since I passed the Bar Exam, but I was finally sworn in today as a member of the New York State Bar.  (EDITED TO ADD: Not because of any character and fitness issues.)  I waited close to the three-year deadline to file my papers, mostly because I'd convinced myself that filling out the forms and getting all the letters of reference and signed affidavits would be a huge hassle (it actually wasn't), and a little bit because I didn't want to pay more years of fees without having to, and probably a tiny bit because without filing all the paperwork I still wasn't a lawyer and therefore couldn't even entertain the suggestion that I could have a consistent income stream and stability and all that jazz if only I would just take a job at a law firm (although what's been happening with law firm layoffs makes all that pretty crazy now anyway, so it's not like I need an excuse anymore for not getting a law firm job).  But it would have been stupid to let my eligibility expire without filling out the silly paperwork and jumping through the small hoops of the 90-second character and fitness interview and the three-hour "introduction to the profession" class.  So I did all that, and then got my notice in the mail telling me to go get sworn in last month, but I was still in California, so I called them and moved my date to April... and I did it this morning, at the Supreme Court, State of New York Appellate Division in Brooklyn, along with a hundred other folks in suits.

Was hoping there'd be enough fun to turn it into an article I could try and sell to the Wall Street Journal Law page, but I don't really think there was.  It's a pretty brief affair -- 25 minutes of waiting in a holding room, then 20 minutes of standing in rows in the courtroom while they take attendance, then 20 minutes of a Justice reading an oath and reciting a speech about why being a lawyer is awesome, and then signing your name in a big book.

But there were a few funny things:

1. You're able to purchase, for $25, a "scroll" with your name on it, suitable for framing -- I assume the thing looks like a diploma and says you're a member of the bar.  The court officer spent most of our time in the holding pen talking about the scroll -- you need to write your name and address on an index card, you need to listen when they tell you what page number in the book you're signing your name on so you can write it on the index card, and you need to go to the cash register (in the courtroom -- a cash register, right in the courtroom) on your way out to pay for it.  She said we must put down an address where someone will be there to receive it, the post office will require a signature, they will not leave it, so please use an address where you are certain someone will be there, can be a family member or a place of employment, but someone must be there....  Someone asked when it will arrive, so they know what address to put, knowing someone will be there.  "Our printers are currently backed up," the court officer said, "so the scroll will arrive in 6-9 months."  Oh.  I think my mom will be home in 6-9 months, let me just check her schedule.  Or, maybe the hypothetical me will have it sent to a workplace... except is there anyone who's confident that they'll be in the same workplace in 6-9 months?  I didn't order a scroll, because I don't need another thing that looks like a diploma still sitting in its original packaging in my parents' house somewhere.

2. The other thing the court officer kept telling us was that we needed to make sure not to lock our knees when standing in the courtroom.  "Some people think they have to stand up really straight, and they lock their knees, and then they start to feel a little lightheaded, and we've had people faint in the courtroom.  Please bend one knee, or sway from side to side, or keep adjusting your balance.  We do not want anyone fainting in the courtroom today.  It will get hot in there from all the body heat, and you will be standing for a while.  If you start to feel faint, call a court officer over and he or she will assist you."  Weird the first time, sort of crazy once they went through this for the third time.  And then once we were in the courtroom, a different court officer said, into the microphone, "Don't lock your knees.  We don't want anyone passing out."  And then the Justice, at the beginning of his speech, told a story: "The first time I did this, after I told everyone that listening to my speech was the last hurdle toward becoming a lawyer, and that it wouldn't be so bad, just a minute after that I saw someone in the back row pass out.  So don't do that, please."  This is an obsession over in the Brooklyn Supreme Court.  Seemed like it had to have been some sort of epidemic.  Very strange.

3. For $5 you can purchase (why does everything cost money?) a letter of good standing.  "But these are only good for 30 days, so don't buy a lot of them, you're just wasting your money."  Who's buying a lot of these?  Why?

4. I think this was the first time I said the pledge of allegiance since grade school.

Seriously, I guess it's sort of cool that I'm now actually permitted to practice law in the State of New York.  Not that I would hire me for anything if I needed a lawyer -- some actual practical experience would be necessary first -- but nice to know that in an emergency (or on the phone with the cable company), I can accurately claim to be a licensed attorney.

Being Erica

A Canadian friend insisted I check out the new CBC drama, "Being Erica," about a 32-year-old woman who's transported back in time to revisit the moments in her life where she regrets acting as she did, only to discover that doing things differently wouldn't have really changed anything, and there might have been more to each circumstance that she realized at the time.  That's a lousy summary.  Let me try again.  Erica's a 32-year-old woman who starts out single, unemployed, and sad.  She meets a mysterious psychiatrist.  He tells her to make a list of her biggest regrets in life.  She does.  And then each episode, he sends her back to fix one of them.  And when she comes back to the present, she realizes nothing really changed.

I'm still making it sound hokey -- but somehow it's not.  My friend sent me all 13 first-season episodes on DVD, and I ended up getting hooked and watching them all over the course of about 10 days.  It's really surprisingly good.  Surprising because the premise is stupid and the logic is completely ridiculous -- what's happening in the time travels makes no sense, the psychiatrist appears out of nowhere, and her multi-day journeys into the past end up taking no actual time in the present... yet other people see the psychiatrist, so he can't just be a figment of her imagination, and some details of the present (along with other characters' memories) do in fact change, so there's something going on... but it doesn't make any sense to try and puzzle it out because it's gobbledygook and makes Journeyman and Quantum Leap look like they were written by scientists.

But here's why it's awesome -- the characters seem real, the relationships seem real, the life problems seem authentic, and the solutions don't seem as easy as 90% of what ends up happening most of the time on TV.  The fact that it's a comedy-ish but played over an hour means that the characters have some space to breathe and things can unfold at a leisurely pace.  The supporting cast is all made reasonably three-dimensional and isn't just comic relief.  The characters are generally smart and making reasonable choices and written as semi-intelligent beings.  Not every episode, and not all the time.  There's some inconsistency episode to episode, sure.  But, overall, I really liked.

The creators of the show would probably find this opinion baffling, but the time-travel gimmick, for me, is by far the weakest element of the show, and the scenes I'm tempted to fast-forward through.  I actually think the show is strongest when it's in the present, playing the character's real-life problems -- and that the characters and writing are strong enough that the show could live in that Brothers and Sisters kind of world without needing to resort to the gimmick, and deal with the illogical flashbacks and complications presented by the time travel.

But that's just my opinion.

The show's apparently now airing in the US on Soapnet, which is apparently a channel on cable, although I've never heard of it until now.

Interview with the creators on another blog here, and some more about it here.  It beats a lot of what's on US television, for sure.

Anonymous Lawyer Has A New Post???

Indeed he does.  Over here, inspired by today's NY Times article about Skadden throwing money at associates to get them to stay home.

A bolder me would promise more to come.  But let's see if I can get a few more up there before I make that promise.  For now, let's just say I feel like his voice is coming back to me a little, and we'll see what happens.

The Office

On the second of last night's two episodes of The Office, there was a new receptionist introduced at Dunder-Mifflin -- played by Ellie Kemper, who I was in a theater group with at Princeton.  Pretty cool to see -- Ellie's a talented, very very funny performer, and unusually good at not only finding and executing whatever funny the writer thought he was writing, but also finding some funny the writer didn't even realize was there.  Very very cool -- and pretty comforting if you perhaps worry whether success in the entertainment world is based on luck alone with no regard for talent -- to see her skills recognized by people with TV shows to cast.  Can't wait to see her in more episodes.

Happy Passover

Tonight's the first night of Passover.  I'll be spending tonight at my fiancee's parents' house, where we'll have an actual seder, and then tomorrow at my own relatives, where we'll have "seder-lite: brief highlights from the passover haggadah," and both will be enjoyable I'm sure.  A few random things I've learned over the past few days: (1) moving cross-country is relatively easy if you don't have any furniture -- all 3 of my UPS boxes arrived in good order, along with the postal service media mail box of books (media mail is really cheap... but seemed perfectly effective); (2) it in fact takes less time to set lineups for three fantasy baseball teams than the seven I had last year; (3) even though I feel like I don't like the new NBC show "Kings," I still find myself watching all the episodes, at least so far.

None of those things are particularly extraordinary, but I'm groping for post topics, just a bit.

More to say soon, I think.

Happy holidays...