Blog to recommend

I want to post more often, rilly I do. Just seemed to have nothing to say this weekend.

But then I realized that I had nothing to say because I spent my intarweb time reading someone else's stuff. That would be Waiter Rant. Funny and interesting stuff if you're prone to patronize decent restaurants. It's very good for that. But his stories about the staff and patrons become more than that, as he keeps everyone's humanity in full view at all times. He's perceptive enough to find the heart of humanity in almost everyone -- and to point out the sheer beauty of people when he finds it.

And it's hella funny too.

It kept me occupied for a good chunk of the weekend, as I read through older posts. Time well spent. Check it out.

The new sport: F1 Blame Game

It's time to play finger pointing games.

FIA is calling the seven Michelin teams to account, asking them to report to a hearing on 29 June.

Of course, teams are turning around and blaming Max Mosley, the president of FIA.

And the newsies are predicting the demise of F1, trying to read the tea leaves on the politics behind it all.

It would seem that nobody is denying that Michelin failed to bring a safe tire to the race. That's a given. What's under debate is what happened after that. Each side is accusing the other of inflexibility and politics.

The most interesting statements I've seen has come from the teams. Said the manager for McLaren, Martin Whitmarsh: "We offered to let the Bridgestone runners start at the front, we offered everything but sadly for the fans it did not happen." Frank Williams, of the Williams team, said "The Michelin teams offered to race on a modified circuit with a chicane on the offending corner. We would have been happy to score no points and start at the back of the grid behind the Bridgestone cars."

This to me is the crux of the issue. If that's true -- and it sounds like it's at least consistent -- then that seems an honest compromise. The Michelin teams would agree to forfeit all standings points from the race, and start from the back of the grid, if only FIA would install a chicane. IMS was ready to do it. So there's no reason not to. FIA and Ferarri can't claim that it would be unfair to them; they would have been the only teams eligible to take points. The race would've still been a sham, but at least it would've been an entertaining sham. We would have seen a good show, and a safe race.

Instead, we saw a complete farce. Not only were there only six cars on the track, but those six weren't even racing hard. Ferarri knew that they could win first and second... and Jordan and Menardi knew they were guaranteed of taking more points than they had in years. All three teams knew that they could only beat themselves, and so they took things easy. Lap times were several seconds slower than qualifying times, and even Schumacher's idiotic charge past Barichello couldn't cover up the obvious cruise to victory.

So... for me, that means that blame starts with Michelin and ends with F1 and/or FIA. I suppose a 50/50 split is about right. The only difference is that Michelin admitted their problem and took the blame that was coming. FIA is pointing fingers at everyone except themselves.

Would I have been happy with an alternative race, where Ferarri took the points despite whatever position they finished in? I don't know... but I also would have enjoyed the racing on the day, as would my parents and their guests. Not to mention 150,000 other fans. Later on, we might have felt a bit hollow about it. Right now, though, I'd take it.

It will be vaguely interesting to see where this all leads. I'd put even money on this leading to a breakaway racing series. Even before Sunday, there's been talk of teams leaving to create a new series that would compete against F1 -- similar to what Tony George did with the IRL, but in reverse I guess. It's hard to see who Bernie could cajole into competing in a substantially reduced field; most of those who have the money and the interest are there already. At this point, it wouldn't surprise me to see Tony George sign IMS up for one of the first races in a competing series.

I suppose it's time for the backroom negotiations now. Perhaps we'll hear some more interesting public statements, between now and the 29 June hearing date. I don't know what I want to see happen -- other than a top-quality road-course race at Indy.

Hm. How about the 24 Hours of Indianapolis? I'd be there, I promise. And as long as I'm wishing, could we run a race with some of these or these or these? Thanks.

Formula None

What a travesty. Farcical... that's a good word.

My parents and I were three of the 150,000 watching. Dad buys tickets for the family every year. We had read online stories about the tire problems; BBC had covered some of the controversy (something the US news outlets missed or downplayed). There were also fans around us discussing the possibility of a cancellation. But even so, we were fairly certain that the race was a go. Otherwise, why bring in all these fans?

When the cars lined up and took the parade lap, we were all quite pumped, ready for the start. But as the lap completed, we watched the giant video screens to see the 14 cars pulling into the garage. At least among the fans in our section, it was pretty clear what that meant. Even so, nobody had truly expected things to come to this. Shock was followed by anger. We ended up staying until the 40th lap or so, but that really was only because we were stunned.

It was bad enough for us, who live in the area. (My brother's family didn't make the trip from Fairfax, thankfully.) But I can't imagine the reaction of fans who traveled to Indy. As a rough guess, I would estimate that 60+% of the fans traveled more than an hour to get here... and maybe 25% were from out of the country. How would I react if I'd come from Brazil or Italy? I'm surprised that there weren't riots.

So, who to blame. Sounds like the official F1 line is to pin it on Michelin, for failing to bring quality tires to the track. That's certainly part of it. A bigger issue though is the stupid F1 rule that mandates one set of tires for the whole weekend -- qualifying and race. This just floors me. This rule change is directly focused at lowering safety, rather than raising it. Changing tires is such an integral part of racing... and yet this race was killed because teams couldn't change tires.

The F1 leadership (Max Mosley, Bernie Eccelstone, I'm looking at you!) are also responsible because they couldn't figure a path out of this mess. The chicane option would have addressed the issue. F1 could also have allowed the Michelin teams to change tires, penalizing them perhaps with starting grid places (putting Ferarri, Jordan, and Menardi to the front) or by docking points from the drivers and teams that changed tires.

This was such a solvable problem. For all the reputed draconian authority wielded by FIA and F1, they stood aside and let the race die. Michelin carries blame too; they knew what their tires had to do and they couldn't make it happen. But in the end, F1 bears the lions' share of the blame.

So, what next? It remains to be seen. The local media are making some noise about ticket refunds, though I'd be shocked if that happened. The bigger questions are, will there be a USGP in Indy next year? And... will anyone come?

Movie Review: The Kingdom Of Heaven

I am tempted to review Revenge of the Sith, but that's been done to death. Suffice to say that it has its sucesses, despite itself. It's too bad that George Lucas can't write.

Instead, I'll review The Kingdom Of Heaven. This is Ridley Scott's take on the Crusaders, specifically the period leading up to the fall of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. But the story begins in France, where Godfrey of Ibelin (Liam Neeson, in another of his 20-minute specials) has come to look for his bastard son, Balian (Orlando Bloom). Balian's wife has just committed suicide, and Godfrey entices Balian to join him in returning to Jerusalem.

The story focuses on Balian's ascension to his father's lordship, the political strife within Jerusalem, and the relationship with the surrounding Muslim world. Balian inherits his father's estate, his friendship with King Baldwin IV (Edward Norton), and his enmity with both Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas) and Raynald of Chatillion (Brendan Gleeson). Eventually, Balian is charged with defence of Jerusalem against the Muslim army, led by Saladin (Ghassan Massoud), and must find a way to protect the people of the city.

There are some very good elements of the movie. For this type of film, it's fairly historically accurate. Balian is a composite character, and neither he nor his father match well against any single historical figure. But otherwise, the events depicted follow broadly the outline of history. Likewise, the depiction of life and combat in the 12th century seems to be relatively decent, at least no hideous clunkers for an attentive novice like myself.

The story itself has good and bad elements. The plot points surrounding the actual historic figures are most interesting, especially the relationships between Baldwin IV, Guy de Lusignan, and Raynald, as well as Saladin's behavior. In this sense, the historical accuracies contribute to the movie's strongest points. However, Balian's development is a bit stunted, and his relationship with the King's sister Sibylla (Eva Green) is particulary sketchy.

The movie suffers from a lack of understanding of the concept of an 'epic'. This story cries out for an epic treatment. Yet we're left with the impression that the events all take place within a couple months -- instead of twenty years. Another problem is Ridley Scott's annoying tendency to use a bizarre stuttery effect -- almost the opposite of slow motion -- in his action scenes. He did this to some extent in Gladiator, but here it's much worse.

So ultimately, the movie does OK. It's got some obvious flaws, but as a whole it's saved by an interesting history, backed by very good performances by Norton, Csokas, Gleeson, and Massoud. Its not difficult to ignore the bad parts and enjoy the good, which ultimately makes it worth watching.

Verdict: Flawed but Entertaining
Score: 6 of 10