#also I know I��m biased towards Tim

[happilylovingchaos]

Post-ep Thoughts: This was late, along with my 1x04 post. But I think this is the first time I’ve had to rewatch an episode during a rewatch period. And I already left a whole-ass live-comment stream (sorry for the clutter, Lemon). And also, this is where I admit to inserting my biases and experiences with the show becoming more relatable for me. Perhaps not only for me.

This episode really leaned into the theme of “pride” and how easy it is for one person to think another suffers from too much of it, but it being way more complicated than that— even prideful people can put their ego aside at low points or with prompting (by choice, of course), and people who don’t consider themselves prideful have moments where they crack and show that their humble-bragging leans more towards “bragging” and less towards humility.

I’ll just cover probably the least-liked (presumably) plot segment first— I like that Michelle and Dustin’s grudge wasn’t that dragged out, even if Dustin took some… coaxing from a third party to get the two of them to just sit down and listen to each other. Like, really listen.

Can the missing moments include some moments between Iris and Dustin? It seems like on some level he may have taken her for granted and he’s definitely just as vindictive as Michelle, but he clearly cared for her sister and didn’t want to see her put herself in unneeded danger.

This did seem like a good twist in Michelle’s mystery, hearing about Iris’ sudden change in personality (“You didn’t know her, and neither did I.”). That’s always hard to hear about, regardless of how much mental health is part of a loved one/ friend’s drastic change.

Future Owen: “Hey Past Me, you wanna confront this perceived dickhead, let’s at least do it smart.” Honestly, I found Owen kinda badass in the moment as much as anyone (I mean, showing up drunk at your friend’s enemy’s doorstep, puking on their shoes, pivoting to beating them up righteously and leaving with grace and an apology for the mess? What a dad move), but Michelle and Owen are supremely lucky that Dustin didn’t file a restraining order to Owen as well. Plus, foreshadowing anger and righteousness issues…

As for the featured emergencies, starting with the steak call:

*gestures everywhere to everything in the bar* This. ALL of this. Is part why I HATE eating contests and question why the hell we as humans and Americans consider it an idea of “fun.” Just divvy up those steak portions, give them to actual starving people in your area of Texas (or for that matter if it can be managed, take it statewide), and save yourself the gastrointestinal/ urinary pains. That’s literally one of the few doable win-wins anyone can do to cut down on nationwide food waste and nutritional issues in increments.

Tangent: Agents of SHIELD gave me an unexpected and relevant (????) scientific tidbit: MNT is the first compound created to make TNT. So Michelle + Nancy + Tim? MNT? Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. *wink wink nudge nudge* (Sorry, Tim.)

From what I can infer, I headcanon Tim to be the grounder/ voice of reason on this team when Michelle starts thinking steps ahead in a call. In a different procedural series like Code Black or M*A*S*H, I could def see her as a lowkey-cowgirl (turned former if dishonorably discharged) corpswoman/ combat surgeon.

To the yoga girl: I’d feel bad for her, but… I only feel bad that she got hurt at all, and that it only took one decision to leave her crippled.

The corn silo call had me the most on edge from start to end. Personally, Judd for the most part was kinda right to be mad with TK about potentially putting himself and Marjan in danger, just wrong to automatically assume TK had it easy in firefighting because of Owen.

Marjan could still have gotten sucked in then sucked out of the silo with the guy, and with/ without TK diving in to try pull her out. That said, I liked seeing Judd as incident commander even if he didn’t handle his anger at TK disobeying… in the most level way.

Besides the workings of Ramadan and the choices to wear a hijab or not, I don’t know anything else about Islam. That said, I wonder if the hijab is something that sets Natacha apart from her character? Otherwise, she does have very pretty hair. And, well, maybe there’s another (slightly less conservative) mosque or Muslim group in Texas if Zara gets to be more of an alpha bitch. (Later, there’s not a lot of accurate Muslim portrayal, or Marjan following her religion in-series, which… I get. I also think the writers’ room should both do some more research, and allow a Muslim-versed or Middle-Eastern writer onto the team if the overall goal is inclusivity.)*

I wish Marjan and Paul’s conversation had more time to continue. This was her first test of her integrity until seasons 2 and 4, and… hindsight sucks whenever there are missed opportunities. But, I like their friendship development and how Paul’s Strickland Sense plays off Marjan.

TSP: Late February (post-Valentine’s Day) to early March 2019, takes place over 9 days at least, I think 13 days at most (b/c pretty sure TK isn’t gonna heal that fast from the bar fight). General timeline: days 1-2: corn silo call —> Judd and TK fight —> brawl at The Trap —> police station scene. Day… 4-8: yoga malfunction —> 🥩 call —> Marjan and Zara —> 126 bar hangout —> Owen confronts Dustin. Day 9-10: make-ups btwn Dustin and Michelle + Judd and TK —> Day 13: tornado stinger.

TK’s timeline: days 1-2: corn silo call —> Judd and TK fight —> brawl at The Trap —> police station scene. Day 8: 126 bar hangout. Days 9-10: makes up w/ Judd.

Owen’s timeline: days 1-2: corn silo call —> day 3-8: yoga malfunction —> 126 bar hangout —> Owen confronts Dustin.

Michelle’s timeline: days 1-2: corn silo call. Day 3-8: yoga malfunction —> 🥩 call —> 126 bar hangout. Day 9-10: making up with Dustin.

Marjan’s timeline: days 1-2: corn silo call. Days 3-8: hijab fallout —> Zara —> yoga malfunction —> 126 bar hangout.

Episode 1x03 Texas Proud Discussion Thread

Please feel free to use the comment thread and tags of this post throughout the week as a place to liveblog while watching the episode, discuss with friends, post your metas and thoughts etc. Anything you’d like to discuss while watching the episode is welcome!!

Please reblog this post for visibility!! 

[figure-skating-watch-party]

NHK 2020

II have to admit I’ll be screaming here “I’ve never seen him/her before but I like it” a lot. (Of course it doesn’t apply to ice dance). But the reasons are simple. 1) I’m more interested in European skaters because European comps feel so comfy and homey 2) I don’t speak Japanese. Well, it doesn’t seem like a reason but.... I’ve learnt Russian alphabet recently and I can see how much has my interest in Russian skaters skyrocketed. The fact that I can read the entry list and don’t have to wait for translations, that I can read some shorter comments on youtube, the fact that Channel 1 is very generously streaming events on youtube. And I don’t feel any connection to Japan in this respect so maybe I’ve been paying less attention to Japanese skaters - though I’ve liked Shoma and Kaori for a very long time. 

The format of the Grand Prix series this year is, obviously, very unusual; but still there were so many amazing programs to see. 

Ice dance

Rikako Fukase/Eichu Cho - La La Land / My funny Valentine You can do no wrong with La La Land (at least in my opinion). Both the dances were so beautiful, in one flow. I was looking forward to My funny Valentine since I saw it in the Montreal broadcast. 

Misato Komatsubara/Tim Koleto - Dreamgirls / Une histoire d’amour I may not like the RD much but it really is a fun and energetic program. And their, espeically Misato’s, commitment to performance is amazing. Their FD is so light, they are almost flying over the ice and the connection between them is clearly visible.

Kana Muramoto/Daisuke Takahashi  - The Mask / La Bayadere It’s happening! It’s really happening! Daisuke Takahashi, the ice dancer. I love how diverse their programs are! The RD was really entertaining and expressive. Of course, the lack of ice dance experience was noticeable in the lift but they did it! And the lift in the FD went better. It was a beautiful dance with so much charisma.

Men

I almost wanted to say “no Shoma and no Mitsuki = no men” but I was proved wrong! 

Yuma Kagiyama - Vocussion / Avatar Time to chant: “I haven’t seen him but I like it” I love it. He’s amazing!!! I probably wouldn’t listen to his SP music on my own, but he’s so good that I enjoy it a lot. The choreography is so creative. Both programs were choreographed by Lori Nichol and she, indeed, is a genious. I can’t even describe how amazed I was by Yuma.

Shun Sato - Pirates of the Caribbean / Battle of the kings The only impression from his skates I have is that his POTC is not POTC but that he’s portraying some fight from the middle ages...

Keiji Tanaka - Hip hip chin chin / Sherlock Holmes I don’t know... So many people love him, the SP is fun and energetic but I don’t feel it. The same goes for the free. Also poor Keiji in the FP.

Kazuki Tomono - The hardest button to button / Moulin Rouge I’ll scream again  “I haven’t seen him that often but I like it”. So much energy, lightness, even more energetic towards the end. Kazuki is a born performer and Misha Ge’s choreography is so fitting!  I really don’t like Moulin Rouge (and that’s an understatement of the year, the trauma caused by V/M program is real) but Kazuki made me forget that. I liked his program so much, he’s just so wonderfully over the top dramatic ;)

Sota Yamamoto - Dark Eyes / Dragon I liked his costume and step sequence in the SP.

Lucas Honda - S.O.S / James Bond Okay, again  “I haven’t seen him but I like it”. The SP didn’t catch my attentioin that much but the James Bond FP was amazing. (Also, who needs axels, go away.)

Ladies

Okay, I feel like I’m repeating this every time, but I really don’t watch ladies very often. Here I watched some ladies and was amazed. Just in  general, by their skating, their costumes, the details in their choreography.

Wakaba Higuchi - Bird set free / Flamenco passion and soul I liked her free program. Wakaba’s jumps are so powerful. Also, her FP was choreographed by one of my favourite Italians, Massimo Scali ;)

Marin Honda - The giving / La La Land No specific comment, her skating is just so beautiful to watch.

Mai Mihara - It’s magic / Fairy of the forest For the lyrics, feelings she transmits and her skating in the SP I have only one word: beautiful. And I have to admit I cried. Because she deserved this comeback so much. I liked her combination spin and forward and backward spiral in the free.

Kaori Sakamoto - Bach ala jazz / The Matrix Kaori can skate so powerfully and softly at the same time.  I’m pretty sure that her Kaorix is iconic by now. (not only thanks to the I-will-slash-the-judges-spiral)

Mako Yamashita - Una voce poco fa / A thousand years I love her! And love how expressive and lively she is the the short.

Young You - Asterix and Obelix / Lord of the rings I don’t know why, yes I was biased, but I was surprised how great her interpretation and performance was! (and also such a beautiful costume and hair decoration}. But poor her, two falls in the short. She came back in the free, though! What a redemption skate that was. 3A! And such varied music, with powerful and then calmer parts and she was so great.

Yuhana Yokoi - Nandemonaiya / Tom and Jerry (We don’t care about jumps here.) I loved her FP. It was a chaplinesque performance in the best sense of the word! So much fun. 

Rino Matsuike - The color purple / Perhaps love Aren’t you tired of this: “I haven’t seen her but I like it”  I loved loved loved everything. Her SP, her FP, her costumes, her interpretation, her choreo slide. 

[gaylebon]

Critical Thinking in Social Media News

What we believe shapes the way we live, think, act, feel, emote, share, relate and exist! When it comes to media that we consume, the facts are important and when we don’t have the ability (or perhaps do not realize the need) to filter fact from fiction we become victims and participants with propagandists and liars. We have a responsibility to ourselves to consume news with understanding, knowledge, and wisdom if we seek to be credible individuals. Also, our responsibility to others extends much farther than we think; a single shared story on a social media platform can reach thousands in a short time, thereby informing or misleading.

Differences Among Misinformation, Propaganda, and "Fake News" on Social Media.

Misinformation spreads faster than true information in some social media contexts. For instance, after the Toronto attack in 2019, Natasha Fatah published two accounts of the attacker, saying in one report that the attacker was “middle eastern and angry” and in another report that he was “white” (Meserole, 2018).. The fake version (middle eastern and angry) went viral, this is apparently due to confirmation bias, and the author of the article says that Twitter is like a confirmation bias machine (Meserole, 2018). Our closely held views drive our responses on social media, which then triggers the algorithms to promote tweets or posts with the higher number of responses (Meserole, 2018). In this case, and in most cases, following the crowd is no guarantee of being right.

Fake news is defined by Trend Micro Inc. as, “the promotion and propagation of news articles via social media. These articles are promoted in such a way that they appear to be spread by other users, as opposed to being paid-for advertising. The news stories distributed are designed to influence or manipulate users’ opinions on a certain topic towards certain objectives” (Trend Micro, Incorporated, 2017). So, not only are lies being promoted, they are being promoted in a sneaky and deceitful way. Their site says that three things create a triangle to promote fake news, here is the diagram:

Furthermore, the tools and services to promote various kinds of fake news are listed in this article, with prices attached, and include “Create a celebrity”, “Institute a Street Protest”, and “Discredit a Journalist” (Trend Micro, Incorporated, 2017). An example of a fake news story found on the Business Insider website is "Democrats Vote To Enhance Med Care for Illegals Now, Vote Down Vets Waiting 10 Years for Same Service" (Gilbert, 2019), this is one that I can see many of my friends falling for, it was fake news

Propaganda is used to spread the views of those who use it; whether this is done with a good or bad motive, it seeks to influence audiences toward a certain view. One article online lists seven different kinds of propaganda (Masud, 2019):

Bandwagon-relies on people’s desire to be like everyone else.

Card Stacking-relies on withholding some facts while promoting others.

Plain Folks-relies on using ordinary folks to promote products/services instead of celebrities.

Testimonial-relies on well-known celebrities or highly respected figures (such as doctors).

Glittering Generalities-relies on emotional appeal and/or vague statements.

Name Calling-relies on ridicule or bad-mouthing the competition (such as Burger King ad that ridicules MacDonalds-see below).

Transfer-relies on benefitting from negative or positive qualities of others (product, person, ideology) (Masud, 2019).

           One example of advertising propaganda used the transfer propaganda method; when major soft drink companies were under scrutiny for reported pesticide content in their drinks, juice companies and other drink companies benefitted as a healthy alternative (Masud, 2019).

           Another example, this time of political propaganda, is fake Russian social media accounts used to influence North American’s in the presidential election (PBS News Hour, 2017, October 31). 

Which Of These Three Categories Is Most Difficult To Detect And Why?

           Most of us are savvy enough to recognize certain kinds of advertisements that use propaganda (such as Burger King’s ridiculing McDonald’s ad).

However, it is a little more difficult to spot misinformation, which is basically just a lie dressed as the truth. Therefore, it is most beneficial to have a high amount of curiosity combined with a healthy dose of skepticism that will motivate you to look for more corroborating evidence.

Furthermore, propaganda can be difficult to spot, especially if we are not using critical thinking, asking lots of questions, and looking at sources and other views.

How Can Users Of Social Media Detect And Avoid Repeating Misinformation Or "Fake News"?

Standards of critical thinking are important steps or markers of intelligent consumption of social media, they are clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, significance, and fairness (Meegan, n.d.). By understanding and implementing these standards we are less likely to fall for fake news and more likely to spot genuine, factual content. Take breadth for example; breadth expresses all sides of the story, giving us enough information for at least a start in understanding motivation and facts that would be hidden if only one side was represented (Meegan, n.d.). I personally make it a habit to only post stories that are factual (as far as I can determine); I search for opposing views and if I inadvertently post fake news or misinformation, I post a retraction and remove the original post. In this way I feel that I am being as responsible as possible.

Additionally, check out any sources that are provided and look for opposing views, or even just different perspectives. You may still not be able to determine all the facts, but you will be better armed to resist fake news, propaganda, and misinformation. Revealing the source of propaganda goes a long way toward providing the information needed to determine the credibility of stories on mass media or social media (Farkas, 2018).

Credibility: a Critical Aspect of Social Media.

           Social media as a source of news, opinion, entertainment, and advertisement is a fact; most people use SoMe (social media) this way. Credibility still follows known name brands and news sources; this is important in knowing who we are allowing to shape our views. Everyone is on SoMe and this is something we must keep in mind; anyone, and everyone, can have a presence there and not everyone is credible. Furthermore, purposely choosing known, credible sources may eliminate the chances of falling for fake news (Storehaug, 2019). Though we may be more likely to receive factual information from credible sources, be aware that our personal views and biases determine which sources we believe are credible.

Distinguishing Credibility in Social Media Versus Mass Media.

           Revealing sources is key in discovering the credibility of information intended to influence the public politically or otherwise. It seems that social media is uniquely positioned and equipped to influence the public, whether for good or evil. Because of this ability, the public should always question every source about any important subject. While mass media is not immune from this issue, it is less far-reaching (Farkas, 2018).

Moreover, propaganda is not new, nor is it only used for lying and misinformation. Propaganda theory looks at propaganda as being “grey”, “black”, or “white”; white propaganda displays “clear and overt sources” (Farkas, 2018) while black and grey propaganda do not (Farkas, 2018). Farkas (2018) says this about understanding “black” or “white” forms of propaganda “we have to investigate their underlying technological and political conditions and causes: Why are they there? What purposes do they serve? And what are their modes of operation?” (Farkas, 2018).

Gayle

                                                 References

Farkas, J. (2018). Disguised propaganda on social media: Addressing democratic dangers and solutions. Brown Journal of World Affairs, 25(1), 1–16.

Masud, M. (2019). 7 Types & examples of propaganda techniques to blow your mind.

Retrieved from https://advergize.com/advertising/examples-of-propaganda/

Meegan, G. (n.d.). The intellectual standards [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://theelementsofthought.org/the-intellectual-standards/

Meserole, C. (2018). How misinformation spreads on social media—And what to do about it. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/09/how-misinformation-spreads-on-social-media-and-what-to-do-about-it/

PBS News Hour. (2017, October 31). Social media giants are vulnerable to foreign propaganda. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/MKfThgvFAG8

Storehaug, P. (2019). Social media marketing influence versus mass media. Retrieved from https://cloudnames.com/en/blog/social-media-marketing-influence/

Trend Micro, Incorporated (2017). The fake news machine; How propagandists abuse the internet and manipulate the public. Retrieved from https://documents.trendmicro.com/assets/white_papers/wp-fake-news-machine-how-propagandists-abuse-the-internet.pdf

Gilbert, B. (2019). The 10 most-viewed fake-news stories on Facebook in 2019 were just revealed in a new report. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/most-viewed-fake-news-stories-shared-on-facebook-2019-2019-11#8-tim-allen-quote-trumps-wall-costs-less-than-the-obamacare-website-3

[bioware-meta]

Companion Study: Jacob Taylor

I know, I know. Jacob Taylor? You’re writing an essay about Jacob Taylor? It’s fairly uncontroversial that he’s the least interesting of Mass Effect 2’s otherwise stellar cast. Even the Shadow Broker doesn’t seem to think he’s very valuable (if you haven’t brought him along on Lair of the Shadow Broker, the difference between the comments on him and everyone else are astonishing). But that’s why I wanted to write about him – almost no one has. But I think there’s a lot of value in analyzing why this particular character fell flat with the majority of the player base, and if you’ll bear with me for a few paragraphs, I think you’ll agree.

While doing research for this essay, I discovered that Jacob Taylor was a pretty major character in a couple of the Mass Effect books. I grappled for a bit about whether or not to consider his actions and characterization in those books in my analysis here, but ultimately decided against it. For one thing, I don’t own and haven’t read the books, and there’s only so much insight you can get out of summaries. More importantly, though, I had no idea these books existed when I played ME2, and neither did most players. A video game series that prides itself on storytelling can’t rely on external media to support its story, so I will analyze Jacob Taylor in the form that the majority of the player base experienced him.

 So, with the limits of this analysis established, let’s dive right in to the problem of Jacob Taylor. I want to briefly note what an honest-to-God shame it is that this character fell so flat. He’s one of the only people of color on Shepard’s squad, and one of the only significant black characters in the game. As a white person, it’s not my place to analyze Bioware’s issues with race in detail, but it felt important to touch on. He’s also a major contributor to fem!Shep’s lack of romance options. He’s a thoroughly unappealing option to most players anyway, but to also have him cheat on Shepard and break off their romance in ME3 is a real slap in the face to the few people who were interested. Having characters whose lives don’t revolve around the protagonist and whose romantic relationships don’t work out is an interesting idea, but it’s a problem that it only happens to female protagonists, who also have a romance option unavoidably die. M!Shep, on the other hand, can always steer their romances to happy endings. That’s a problem.

 So what caused this character to fail so utterly? To understand that, let’s take a look at what the developers were hoping to achieve with this character. We’re introduced to Jacob Taylor as a friendly face in a confusing environment, a casual and collected man who offers up the truth of the situation to Shepard out of moral conviction. That’s a decent introduction. Between that and the first few conversations Shepard has with him on the Normandy, I think we can piece together pretty clearly what Jacob’s character is supposed to be. First and foremost, he’s supposed to be a sympathetic voice. He defends Shepard against Miranda, commiserates with them over Cerberus’s spotty track record, and talks about his service with the Alliance. He’s presented as the voice of reason relative to Miranda and TIM. He’s like Shepard, working with Cerberus because he doesn’t see a better option. And that’s the second thing – he’s like Shepard. He shares a similar career path and went through a similar arc of disillusionment and frustration. He’s supposed to be relatable. Third, he’s a good soldier. He’s dutiful, professional, shows great respect for the chain of command, and a solid combatant. And finally, he’s presented as a voice of reason. He frequently advocates for the “logical” and “morally upstanding” choices. His biases show through rarely. The information he provides to Shepard about the galaxy is meant to be very reliable.

 However, this collection of traits fails to make him interesting, for a variety of reasons. Let’s examine why one at a time. He fails as a character sympathetic to Shepard primarily because he’s set up in opposition to Miranda’s fervent belief in Cerberus. The dichotomy between the two makes plenty of sense in the first mission – one pro-Cerberus, one anti. But this falls apart very quickly thereafter, because absolutely no one else you recruit likes Cerberus. The best you get is indifference from people like Zaeed and Kasumi, and far more often you get burning hatred. The deep vendettas of Jack and Tali against Cerberus burn brightly, and Jacob’s mild dislike for them fades out in comparison. This is especially bad for him because his character concept is grounded in the contrast between his reluctant partnership with Cerberus and Miranda’s conviction in their methods. It’s simply uninteresting when compared to the rivalry and outright hatred between Miranda and Jack.

 His failure as a sympathetic ear for Shepard is, surprisingly, almost completely unrelated to why he fails as a target for Shepard’s empathy. This failure boils down primarily to a failure in the writing of his one-on-one conversations. He’s given a backstory that somewhat mirror’s Shepard’s, but there’s no emotion or color attached to it. We know very little about his feelings about his time with the Corsairs, or the names of his fellow servicemen, or any of the conflicts they engaged in, or the hardships they overcame. Compare to Garrus, who talks at length about the team of vigilantes he put together and the tight scrapes he fought his way out of and the burning sense of purpose that sustained him through his ordeals. Jacob was instead written to be almost completely impassive, private, cutting off any conversation as soon as it ventures anywhere potentially emotional. This can be interesting, done correctly. The majority of the companions begin somewhat emotionally closed-off. But Jacob never opens up. The writer’s attempted to make Jacob seem professional and controlled, but instead they robbed him of interiority. This is especially apparent with his personal mission, which fails to advance any central conflict in his personality or resolve an issue that has clearly been affecting him personally. Even the climax of that mission barely brings any of his emotions or character traits into the limelight, and when Shepard tries to dig into his feelings after the mission, Jacob completely shuts down that line of inquiry, never to be reopened.

 Jacob isn’t helped by the fact that he’s also basically the most ordinary combatant to ever be a permanent member of Shepard’s squad. Mechanically, his powerset is very bland, with only Pull and Incendiary Ammo to start off with, and his unique power is functionally interchangeable with two other unique powers, simply extending the user’s shields. And within the game’s story, his abilities are just as ordinary. He’s not a vigilante sniper, a dying assassin, a genetic experiment, or a biotic engineered into the ultimate weapon. He’s just a security officer who happened to not die in the opening level. Simple competence as a combatant looks a lot less valuable when everyone else on the team was recruited because they were extraordinary. In ME1, Kaiden and Ashley had each other to bounce off of, keeping either from looking like the weakest link in a party consisting of fascinating alien experts, and by ME3 neither of them could be considered ordinary soldiers by any stretch of the imagination. But Jacob is just clearly the weakest link of ME2.

 His final and weakest central character trait, acting as a general voice of reason, actually works the best out of any of these. It simply fails to be impactful because the previous three failed so significantly that the player has no real interest in him, so his opinion is unimpactful.

 Having laid bare the flaws in Jacob’s character design, what have we learned? What was the primary factor that created such an uncompelling character, and how could he have been done better? In my opinion, the prime cause of the failure of Jacob Taylor comes from what role the writers wanted him to serve. They intended him to be Shepard’s number one, the friend and confidante that Shepard sees themself in. This was an ill-conceived idea for two reasons. First, there’s player behind the character of Shepard, and that means there is no one-size-fits-all most sympathetic best friend and supporter character. Everyone is going to see it differently. Second, this was a bad idea because there’s already a character returning from a previous game who had this effect on the majority of the player base with astonishing effectiveness, and that’s Garrus Vakarian. Other have written more and better than I could ever hope to on what makes Garrus such a great character, so I’ll leave that alone for now. Instead, let’s talk about what Jacob should have been, instead of trying to fight for Garrus’s role.

 First, I would make Jacob a true believer in Cerberus. As it was, Miranda was the only one who really backed Cerberus – for good reason, the organization was completely mistrusted by outsiders. Making Jacob a true believer would go a long way towards making the presence of the shadowy group feel more immediate, rather than confined to Miranda’s room and TIM’s video calls. This would also open up more avenues to compare and contrast him with Miranda in ways that aren’t better filled by other characters. Preserve Jacob’s general friendliness and moral conviction but put him in control of it. Make him the honey to Miranda’s vinegar, doing his best to gain Shepard’s confidence and exert Cerberus’s agenda over them. Don’t necessarily make him good at it – he’s not a spy – but put that barrier of distrust up that justifies his emotional distance from Shepard. Make him a professional – but this time, he’s not working for Shepard, he’s working on Shepard.

 Naturally, this substantially shifts the nature of his interactions with Shepard. Now Shepard has to not just assess him as a person, but try to shift his loyalties away from Cerberus, just as they must do with Miranda. Likewise, Jacob would have pressure to open up a little more, to try to earn Shepard’s trust through emotional intimacy. This allows us to maintain Jacob as a deeply private person while still letting the audience get to know him through those anecdotes and emotional drives that are so sorely missing from his actual conversations. I’d also consider moving him from the Corsairs to N7. This would shave off a bit of exposition on an element that never seemed to go anywhere, as we never directly interact with or are influenced by the Corsairs in the games. And of course, his personal mission needs to be much more grounded in his issues. We could even preserve most of the basic structure of the mission that appears in game if we provide some crucial background. Have Jacob early and often credit his father with his morality and dedication and, position his disappearance as something that Jacob blames the Alliance for. Don’t make this the inciting incident for Jacob’s defection, we should avoid reducing his morality to a product of his personal suffering, but certainly make it a bitter mark against the Alliance. This allows Jacob’s euphoria and subsequent disillusionment with his father’s survival to have a much more profound impact on his beliefs as it throws him into a crisis over whether his choices and moral compass have come from a worthwhile place – and with the previously established emotional intimacy between him and Shepard, the player can actually see this crisis, unlike in the actual game. I can see a few different trajectories that that could send his character on that could have a substantial impact on ME3, but that would basically be an essay in itself, so we’ll leave it alone for now.

 Next, make him more than just an average soldier. Give the player a reason to think he’d be a good person to have on the team. Maybe instead of being station security, he could be a military expert there to evaluate Shepard’s mental faculties once the Project is finished. Or maybe he could be positioned by TIM to watch Shepard and assassinate them if they go off the rails. The specifics don’t necessarily matter – just present him as being someone who could be taken seriously as a choice for your team when you could pick an ancient asari warrior or the greatest master thief in the galaxy instead.

 Finally, drop the only sane man angle entirely. ME2 is entirely about Shepard corralling dysfunctional superpowered idiots into a workable team. Let Jacob express strong opinions and clear biases for the player to consider and grapple with. Let some personality through the professionalism.

 Maybe you disagree with me. Maybe you think Jacob Taylor is fine as is and I’m going on a ridiculous rant. Maybe you’re right. But to me, and to many others, Jacob Taylor failed as a companion, which is a damn shame, because there was so much that could’ve been done with him instead.

[thesinglesjukebox]

BILLIE EILISH - BAD GUY

[6.93]

The Jukebox has thoughts on Billie Eilish? Well, duh.

Andy Hutchins: Nothing clicked for me with Billie Eilish until "Bad Guy." I understood the appeal intellectually, because it has sometimes been my wheelhouse: "Prodigy-cast makes off-kilter pop music from a perspective with more than a little precociousness and possibly a feminine spin that serves to disrupt rather than reify" is my jam for months at a time, sometimes. But some combination of prodigy and precociousness sometimes striking me as preciousness -- something that I've occasionally found issue with in the work of Sky Ferreira and Solange and Lorde and Cher Lloyd and fka twigs and Haim and Kacey Musgraves and Lana Del Rey and so many women who have occupied this same treacherous lane where deviating from delivering what is expected from a young woman making pop music can offend the sensibilities (or engage the biases) of even someone who has strained to stave off the stupidity of dismissing music made by young women and largely intended for young women -- and what I read as a deliberately dark and standoffish aesthetic put me off of Eilish, whose stuff just didn't compel me. Everything clicks for me with Billie Eilish now that I've heard "Bad Guy," which I reckon is pathetic on my part, because so much of the DNA of "Bad Guy" is in other work she's done that the things that differentiate it as The Hit and The Breakthrough come down to tempo and a kooky synth run in the hook that every third YouTube commenter thinks is stolen from Plants vs. Zombies. But "Bad Guy" is also an unassailable pop song and has come along at a time when bulletproof ones are not occupying the charts -- the closest competition in the current top 40 by my sight is, like, a Katy Perry song whose verses let down its magnificent hook, a bunch of drowsy-to-dire Khalid and Halsey tunes, a C- effort from Taylor Swift, and a microwaved Lizzo track that I've known of for a while and don't consider her best stuff -- and so it stands out even more from the pop metagame than the larger Eilish oeuvre does from a host of less realized tunes. And I'm a sucker for an unassailable pop song, especially one with a vocal initially delivered so low that it demands attention to the dial in the car but that is by turns brightly funny ("...duh!") and world-weary and campy to the hilt (the titular phrase being stretched to a titanium crocodile's rasp), a relentless bass line that sounds like a monster's heartbeat echoing in a cave, and lyrics that constitute a semi-sincere embrace of some Lolita tropes and a more powerful sarcastic destruction of them while somehow also being fully ready for Instagram captions and Twitter display names and ... well, no one's on Tumblr anymore. But that's hardly Billie's fault, and I'm not docking points for only barely failing to raise the dead with a virtuosic song that makes me this glad to be alive. [10]

Alfred Soto: There's a reason this song has become the breakout hit besides its insidious keyboard hook: Billie Eilish sings not mumbles the gender bending hook. Otherwise a ditty that the top 40 could use more of; its quietness is a tonic. [8]

Joshua Copperman: Sounds great, looks great (if possibly plagarized), memes great. The deadpan anti-sexuality of "might-seduce-your-dad type" is "Guys My Age" done right. The delivery of "my soul, so cynical" like even that is too earnest of a statement. The only weak part is the ending switch-up. But you knew all that already. Duh. Besides the cries of "industry plant!" there's also the ongoing sense that Eilish is a music writers' idea of what a 17-year-old Tumblr-born pop star would sound like. And sure, she's a young music writers' dream; I have a byline at Billboard because of her. But also, it's genuinely smart music that is mostly set to age well, even if it's hard to tell if it m a t t e r s. Who knows what 17-year-olds of any predilection towards seducing dads are actually listening to; I'm 21 and finding that out is only getting more difficult, if maybe not more necessary. If teens still control popular culture, if anyone does, who knows if this really does reflect them, or if its bottomless angst is mocked like Limp Bizkit? Is "Bad Guy" just "Heathens" for the late-2010s? Does this really represent the next generation? And which next generation; the shit-talking saviors, or the ones just like their parents and the radicalized alt-right kids? There's no easy answer to any of these, no "duh" to shrug them off. But there is Eilish and co. applying the daily grind of apocalyptic dread to smaller-scale topics. Processing death on "Bury a Friend," processing one's own body image on "idontwannabeyouanymore," processing changing gender roles here. Finding your place in 2019 is a lot for anyone. No one is getting it right. What Eilish does instead is turn that uncertainty to playfulness, confidently existing within the mess instead of trying to find her spot. [8]

Leah Isobel: I was on Tumblr in 2011, so "might seduce your dad type" doesn't feel as provocative as she might intend. (Also, Halsey did the exact same thing.) Besides, pop is a space for fantasy and role-playing, and she's not the first 16-year old bad girl to make adults freak out a little. What gets me is that the song itself is a brilliant production piece in search of an equally compelling melody; the biggest hooks here are an audible eye-roll and a Tim Burton rip. I love the idea of Billie as a goth-teen-pop star, and the choice to swerve into a spooky outro instead of a more traditional structure is genuinely a lot of fun, but this all feels like so much posturing -- normal for a teenager, but not that compelling to listen to on its own. [6]

Katherine St Asaph: If Billie Eilish is the Gen Z Fiona Apple, which I've heard from about three separate people even before the Discourse started, then "Bad Guy" is her "Criminal," down to it being creep flypaper. Everyone quotes that one dad line a bit too eagerly, like they're subconsciously thinking that if they have the pithiest take they just might get to be the dad. (It isn't even the most suggestive line.) There's a strong case for the dad being the bad guy, if only because he's, well, the guy. But "Bad Guy" lives in the world of teenage politics, where the guys just are and the girls get their badness thrust upon them, and their choices are to shrink away or play along. Duh. ("Bad Guy" : "duh" :: "Your Love Is My Drug" : "I like your beard.") But all this is pretty serious analysis for a fundamentally trolly song: half-mumbling the melody to a beat I'm pretty sure I made in a high school to go with a video project; rhyming bad/mad/sad/dad like a Mavis Beacon keyboarding tutorial (or whatever the kids have now; maybe they're just born typing); crooning an exceedingly Lana Del Rey-ish "I'm only good at being bad" then immediately cutting that crap for a bassy, fuck-off breakdown; filling only about 60% of the song with, like, song. [6]

Joshua Minsoo Kim: Not the most impressive or cohesive Billie Eilish song, but it is the one most likely to remind you of how fun her music can be (that she included the Invisalign skit in the video helps). The coda is fine, but the best reversal is found elsewhere: the nonchalant cries of duh followed by a cartoonish synth melody, underlining just how playful the song's darker elements are. [6]

Josh Langhoff: Eilish sometimes sounds like the Cardigans if they only did Black Sabbath covers, "evil" squeezed between an extra set of scare quotes, and sometimes she's Nellie McKay on downers, ennui shaped like wit but without the laughs. Sometimes she's good and sometimes she sings ballads. And somehow that combination produced "Bad Guy," the elusive Somehow Perfect Pop Song That Sounds Like Nothing Else On The Radio. I can't say I love it, but all her murmuring and posturing makes Top 40 radio seem, after too many years, like a playground of endless possibility. What'd we do to deserve this and "Old Town Road"? [8]

Jessica Doyle: Yes. Some are red, and some are blue. Some are old, and some are new. Some are sad, and some are glad, and some are very, very bad. Why are they sad and glad and bad? I do not know. Go ask why that menacing bass and Eilish's whisper didn't deserve better lyrics. [4]

Tobi Tella: Billie Eilish's artistic direction and style of music makes it seem almost impossible for her to make a legitimate banger, but this fits in perfectly with the rest of her album tone-wise and also completely slaps. The simplicity of the production, literally created in a bedroom just adds to the perfect low-key vibe. The lyrics do make Billie sound a little like a teenager who will cringe reading them in 10 years, but as an 18 year old, sometimes doing stupid stuff you know is destructive and immature is FUN, and this completely captures that feeling. [8]

Will Adams: I love love love the idea of this shifty, close mic'd oddball dancepop song being as big of a mainstream hit as it is, even if it's one of the more slight offerings from the album. Extra point for the coda, where Billie drops the coy and reminds you how quick she is to put her foot on your neck. [7]

Pedro João Santos: The coda lamentably inverts the light heart of "Bad Guy": the colourful, whispered titillation conjugated with what's left unsaid, a sort of puerile pleasure dutifully translated by the Theremin-esque synths; not the heady, overlong consummation that it unfolds onto by the end. I must say I'm exhilarated that someone knew how to ape "Las de La Intuición" nearly 15 years on, although startled by the fact that it was Billie Eilish the one to do it. [7]

Scott Mildenhall: Done well, it's enjoyable to hear a musician having such fun, but especially so when one unexpected element of a song comes in to underline just how much fun they're having. In this case, it's the gloopy searchlight noise, playing out like the theme tune to a 1970s cop show set in space, in a way that cannot be anything but gleefully goofy. Such bold and playful invention is something pop music would suffer without. Extra points for the consideration to leave a gap before the outro so that radio stations can cut it out. [8]

Iris Xie: I still think this song should've been cut off at the 2:14 mark, because it said everything it needed to say. [5]

Katie Gill: That purposefully obnoxious "duh" sums up what Eilish wants to say more than the rest of the song combined (and is currently in the running for my favorite 2 seconds of 2019 pop music). This image of her as the bad guy isn't serious. It's bratty and playful, more her creating something she can have fun with instead of taking herself seriously. Unfortunately, that something interesting here is buried in a three minute piece that somehow manages to be three completely different songs which never actually coheres to a single whole. [6]

[Read, comment and vote on The Singles Jukebox]

[daresplaining]

Do you think Matt is better suited as a prosecutor, or a defence attorney, as he seems to have been most of the time? Which, in your opinion, does he seem to prefer?

    This actually doesn’t come up as much as you might think, so it’s hard to point to a specific panel and say “Hah! Yes, Matt prefers ____”. There’s also not a ton of consistency, and he will occasionally jump from defense to prosecution from one case to another without explanation. But his general trend is toward defense, and since that’s the type of law he’s practiced for most of his career, we can assume that’s what he’s most comfortable with. He hasn’t shown a particular talent for one over the other either. He’s a good lawyer no matter which side he’s on, but overall, he’d rather spend his professional life keeping innocents from going to jail than throwing bad guys in jail– which is part of the reason why he does the Daredevil thing in his off-hours. That way, he is able to balance out the occasional instance of defending people he knows are guilty. And that leads right into your other question, so we hope you don’t mind if we go ahead and answer that here too…

    All the time. There’s a reason he’s been disbarred so many times. (Actually, there are two reasons, but we’ll leave the Kingpin out of this for now. The problem is mostly Matt.)

Judge: “Our issue is less with your sabotage of the Ogilvy case than with Nelson & Murdock’s now-disclosed history of ethics violations. Your past activities as a vigilante, as well as the questionable actions you and your partner have taken to preserve that identity, leave us no flexibility. With a heavy heart, this court hereby disbars Matthew M. Murdock and Franklin P. Nelson.”

Daredevil vol. 3 #36 by Mark Waid, Chris Samnee, and Javier Rodriguez 

    Matt is a moral guy but a very unethical lawyer, simply because he does operate on both sides of the law. Every single case he takes on is tainted in this way, because he nearly always uses his Daredevil identity and powers to gather evidence and determine guilt. At this late point in the Marvel universe (and with the exception of the period when the Superhero Registration Act was being enforced), being a vigilante doesn’t seem to be quite as illegal as it is in our world, simply because there have been so many dang superheroes around for so long. However, Matt is put on trial for vigilante activity– which we’ll be talking about later in the post– and it’s still a clear breach of legal protocol, and not what a lawyer should be doing. There’s also the factor of his powers, which he uses on a regular basis to give himself an edge, and on which he relies to an unwise degree. He hates defending guilty clients, and has gotten himself into trouble before by trying to determine guilt via heartbeat. All of this isn’t just a Matt problem, by the way– though it does tend to come up more with him than with other superhero lawyers. There’s a great issue of She-Hulk, for example, (She-Hulk (2004) #1, to be specific) where Jen loses a winning verdict because she saves the world while the trial is going on, and the judge rules that this biased the jury in her favor.    

   But Matt is the Unethical Lawyer poster child when it comes to this sort of thing, and this conflict has been a major theme in Daredevil comics, particularly within the last decade-or-so. With this in mind, we’re going to be providing just a few examples, rather than a comprehensive list of offenses.  

   The “Worlds Collide” story from volume 4 #15.1 focuses specifically on this dichotomy of legal work versus superhero work. Early in both his legal and… extralegal careers, Matt is assigned to defend a man who he apprehended as Daredevil. While spending his nights trying to ascertain whether his client is actually guilty, in court he is put in the position of arguing against the concept of superheroes.  

Matt: “What are his motives? What does he want? I want to know who this man, this ‘Daredevil’– who is, essentially, accusing my client of murder– I want to know who he is. Other than a criminal. We know he’s at least guilty of assault… and, in the case of the defendant, involuntary imprisonment. Consider the facts… An unknown man in a disguise attacks someone… tackles him to the ground… and yet it’s the person who was assaulted who gets arrested? This isn’t justice. And it’s not how the justice system is supposed to work.”

Daredevil vol. 4 #15.1, “Worlds Collide” by Marc Guggenheim, Peter Krause, and Matt Wilson  

   Matt is fully aware of the irony of making this argument and yet continuing to try and determine his client’s guilt as Daredevil. He knows what he’s doing is wrong, and he cares deeply about his career as a lawyer. That’s an important point that we want to make clear. It’s not just a cover/source of intel for his secret life, as jobs occasionally are for superheroes– he genuinely loves being a lawyer and cares about the legal system. But even in this story, at this early point in his career, he feels justified in taking massive liberties with the law for the sake of ensuring that justice is actually done. He’s a self-assured enough person to believe that he knows best, and that his interventions as Daredevil are fair and necessary. That doesn’t mean they are– but that’s his mindset, and it always has been.

Matt: “A man murders. He leaves clues. He did it. He’s guilty. He’ll pay for the crime. Simple. That’s the beauty of justice. Daredevil tracks him, Matt Murdock makes him pay. Simple, gorgeous justice. When I’m poor, blind Matt Murdock, it’s easy to believe in the law, in the courts. Why is it, soon as I put on this suit– I feel that belief cracking? Doesn’t matter. Tonight will be different. I’ll reel the killer in, and the courts’ll get him locked up for life. Pure, beautiful justice.”

Daredevil vol. 1 #251 by Ann Nocenti, John Romita, Jr., and Christie Scheele

    (By the way, this is a good example of what we were referring to in response to your first question. Matt is thinking like a prosecutor here.)

    To explain his willingness to cross these lines– if not to necessarily justify it– we need to look back at his origin story. A key part of his decision to become Daredevil in the first places was the fact that his father’s killers didn’t go to jail for their crime– and I’m partial to renditions of his origin that make clear that he only goes after the Fixer and friends himself after they’ve been put on trial.

Matt: “We did it all by the book. The police weren’t surprised that Sweeney and Slade were involved and it wasn’t long before they were arrested. But, on the day of the bail hearing, suddenly, they had some Park Avenue attorney. His hair gel cost more than what Foggy and I were wearing.”

Daredevil: Yellow #1 by Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale   

   He sees justice fail, and so steps in to pick up the slack. Whether this was a good move on his part is up for debate. He unintentionally causes the Fixer to die of a heart attack long before he has a chance to go to jail, for instance, which is a moral issue all on its own. But with this inciting, highly personal incident always in the back of his mind, and as his legal career continues to show him the gaps and weaknesses in the system, he feels continually justified in filling in the cracks with his own brand of crimefighting.

    But credit where credit is due– right now, at this very moment in the current run (spoiler alert!), Matt is taking steps to address this issue. He and the D.A.’s office are attempting to set precedent for allowing superheroes to legally contribute their skills and testimony to criminal investigations, without being forced to reveal their identities.  

Matt: “Slug’s gang escaped, but we got him, and I picked up plenty of evidence with my super-senses. If the judge lets me testify, I can put him away, and maybe get him to turn over on his crew. It is legal. I’m sure of it. And if I can pull this off… if I can testify without taking off my mask, then we all can. Any secret identity hero. Spider-Man… even Blindspot. […] It could change everything. Our powers let us gather evidence the cops just can’t. If we can present it in court, legally… no more tying up bad guys, leaving them for the police and praying the system can get a conviction. We can be part of the process from start to finish.”

Daredevil vol. 5 #22 by Charles Soule, Goran Sudzuka, and Matt Milla

    This still doesn’t seem to address the fact that Matt is both a superhero and a lawyer, and is still free and willing to interfere in questionable ways in his own cases with no oversight– but hey, it’s still a big deal.  

    Generally, the instances of Matt behaving unethically that are emphasized within the narrative specially for being unethical, involve Matt trying to protect his life as Daredevil. His identity has been leaked to the press twice. The first time, fortunately, the journalist was discredited before the story got too far or Matt had to make any big moves. But the second time, when his secret identity is printed on the front page of the Daily Globe (not to be confused with the Daily Bugle) during Bendis’s run, he is forced to choose between accepting the charges or lying, both in public and in court. He opts for lying (with Foggy’s full-if-uncomfortable support), and the two of them even go so far as to sue the Globe for libel.

Foggy: “Working either side of the law? This means Matt Murdock defrauded the American justice system by faking a trial against Daredevil. And that’s just the most recent example. Matt– you can’t. You can’t come clean. You can’t come out. First? You’ll get disbarred. And then… then you go to jail. You know I’m right, pal. So the thing we do? We fight this. […] We get up on the highest tree and we scream: liars! We sue everyone in sight until their heads spin off their bodies.”

Daredevil vol. 2 #33 by Brian Michael Bendis, Alex Maleev, and Matt Hollingsworth

    When he is put on trial for operating as a vigilante, Matt contemplates fighting his way out of the courtroom and just running away, before deciding to plead not guilty. He does, notably, feel bad about all this later, and reflects on it in volume 3 #36 when he finally decides to out himself as Daredevil. But that certainly hasn’t stopped him from lying and playing with the law since.

    Arguably the most egregious– and certainly the most memorable– example of Matt’s shaky legal ethics (which Foggy references in the excerpt above) is the “Playing to the Camera” arc (DD vol. 2 #20-25). This plotline centers around Matt and Foggy getting hired to sue Daredevil, allegedly for causing some major property damage. Matt knows he didn’t do it, and is affronted that his honor is being impinged by some troublemaker pretending to be Daredevil. Despite the obvious immorality such a thing would involve, and Foggy’s protestations, Matt takes the case to keep control of it and prevent other lawyers from snooping around in Daredevil’s business.    

Matt: “Foggy, if we don’t take the case, Griggs’ll keep at it until he finds someone who will. Like Claude Unger. And the last thing Daredevil needs is Claude Unger poking around in his life.”

Foggy: “We can’t do it, Matt! It’s insane! To say nothing of the ethics! Allowing yourself to be hired to sue yourself– it’s illegal! You could be disbarred!”

Matt: “It’ll die on the vine. Remember, the case has no merit. Once we investigate and I find this imposter, it falls apart, end of story. It’ll be over inside of a week.”

Daredevil vol. 2 #20 by Bob Gale, Phil Winslade, James Hodgkins, et al.

   Surprise– it’s not over inside of a week, and it does go to court, and Matt finds himself in the position of having to sue himself. He manages to be in two places at once by convincing Peter Parker to pretend to be Daredevil, going behind his (DD’s) lawyer’s back in the process. It’s a hilarious, utterly unethical mess– and one Matt is perfectly willing to undertake for the sake of protecting his identity.  

    In short: lawbreaking is inherent in the superhero genre, and Matt’s position as a lawyer and devotion to the proper functioning of the justice system in no way prevents him from bending legal ethics to their absolute limit.   

[cwsdjt]

MLB Predictions - 2018

AL East

1. New York Yankees – I hate this but the Empire is BACK. Baseball has been desperate for its villain to come back, and the Yankees did that last year. With the additional of NL MVP Giancarlo Stanton, they will be one of the most powerful lineups in the league. Look for them to run the AL East this season.

2. Boston Red Sox – Outside of J.D. Martinez the BoSawx didn’t acquire anyone else. They also have a very powerful lineup, but I cannot bet against a tandem of Judge and Stanton at the top of the order. Boston has a strong top of the rotation, though, with this guy named Chris Sale.

3. Tampa Bay Rays – With the injury to their top pitching prospect, Brett Honeywell, the Rays have a little trouble in the back end of their rotation. They did add Carlos Gomez, C.J. Cron, and Adeiny Hechavarria, but they will be competing for the AL crown with the White Sox in 2019.

4. Toronto Blue Jays – Josh Donaldson will not be a free agent until next season. This is a very random team with the acquisitions of washed players like Randall Grichuk and Curtis Granderson. Their rotation is still solid, and they bolstered it with Jaime Garcia at the back end. This is a very average to poor team.

5. Baltimore Orioles – This team isn’t good. They got Alex Cobb for a nice 4-year deal, but they have one of the weakest ‘pens in the league. Their lineup isn’t bad, especially if Mancini mashes and Trumbo returns to 2016 form. I don’t see both of these happening, though.

AL Central

1. Cleveland Indians – The Tribe are still in their prime. That rotation is filthy. Yonder Alonso is a nice plus at first base, and the bullpen is always reliable. I bet they run the AL Central wire to wire.

2. Minnesota Twins – The Twins overachieved last year, but the AL Central is going to be really bad this season, so they’ll probably squeak into 2nd place. Logan Morrison adds some much-needed pop, and Byron Buxton has the best glove in baseball, behind Andrelton Simmons. This is a solid team, but they aren’t incredible.

3. Chicago White Sox – The Sox are going to have a sneaky good ‘pen. I’ve mentioned this before in a separate blog post, but their bullpen WILL make or break them. Their team is compiled of fillers and young’uns, essentially, outside of Jose Abreu, who is one of the most underrated ballplayers. I see the Sox season going either way, and that is OK. They are still in only the second season of the rebuild.

4. Kansas City Royals – LOL the Royals suck again. They’re going to be bad. They signed Mike Moustakas, who is quite overrated. Their rotation is anchored by Danny Duffy, and Lucas Duda was a decent acquisition at first base. Jon Jay is the best player in the outfield. Their pitching is too weak for this team to succeed, though.

5. Detroit Tigers – They will have the worst record in the MLB. Michael Fulmer is going to either waste away or be traded, but it’s nice to have a team at the bottom of the barrel in the Central.

AL West

1. Houston Astros – The reigning champs got better, but I do not see them winning another Series because that is just hard. They have the best infield in the league and so much pop in that lineup. Gerrit Cole is going to deal for them, as well.

2. Los Angeles Angels – The Angels are looking sharp, but their rotation still needs some help. Ohtani was a great add, and hopefully, he can hit and pitch. I just want to see that. Any baseball fan should. Hopefully, they succeed for Trout because we need to see that stud in the playoffs.

3. Seattle Mariners – The M’s added Ichiro. That’s all that matters. JK, but I do see them having a solid hitting season with the additions of Dee Gordon and Ryon Healy. They still have some bullpen questions, but Nicasio and Rzepczynski will be mid-inning regulars.

4. Oakland A’s – I am not sure why, but I can see the A’s surprising. It feels like a Moneyball year. Their rotation is sneaky, and the addition of A.J. Puk in a couple months will make it better. Piscotty will improve and Dustin Fowler has a nice axe. This team is not that bad.

5. Texas Rangers – They’re going to be the cellar dwellers in the West. This is probably the strongest division in baseball because every team is trying to win. They also haven’t improved. I also don’t think Tim Lincecum will lead them to the promise land.

NL East

1. Washington Nationals – This division is bad. The Nats will run the table, and this is their year. Eaton will be back from his injury. Their lineup is stacked and they added to their bullpen late last year. They’re going to be good, and since baseball is a crap shoot in the playoffs sometimes, they’re my winner.

2. New York Mets – Their rotation will be solid, as long as their training staff doesn’t literally rip off Noah Syndergaard’s arm. This is the only reason why they get 2nd in the East.

3. Philadelphia Phillies – The Phillies have a solid rotation with the addition of Arrieta, whom I hate. He’s still solid. He’s just not as good as Chris Sale, and Cubs fans used to say he was, so I will leave it at that.

4. Atlanta Braves – The Braves are still rebuilding, like the Rays and White Sox. Look for them to have another subpar season, but also look for Ronald Acuna to have a BIG impact when he is brought to the MLB.

5. Miami Marlins – They were the joke of the offseason. Jeter is almost as bad of an owner as he was as a shortstop. Poor Starlin Castro always ends up on rebuilding teams. Lewis Brinson will be a decent add, if he pans out. They’re going to be competing for the worst record in baseball with Detroit.

NL Central

1. Chicago Cubs – I always hate to say it, but they Cubs are good. Joe Madden is an idiot, but they’re good. Yu Darvish is a stud and the best pitcher in the rotation when healthy. Yes, I think he’s better than Q, and I am biased towards Q. Brandon Morrow is a great add to the back end of the ‘pen, and we know how good their lineup is already. I hear enough about it in Chicago.

2. Milwaukee Brewers – The Crew did the most work in the offseason, adding Christian Yelich and Lorenzo Cain. They might need one more rotation piece, but the NL Central is kind of weak, so they will get 2nd.

3. St. Louis Cardinals – The Birds’ time is almost up. They’ve been teetering the last few years and are fizzling out of the top of the NL Central with a relatively weak farm system. Look for them to stay in the middle of the pack, even with the addition of Marcell Ozuna from the Marlins.

4. Cincinnati Reds – The Reds are rebuilding, like the Rays, White Sox, and Braves, and they will be in a similar spot. Do I really need to analyze them?

5. Pittsburgh Pirates – They got rid of their heart and soul, Andrew McCutchen and Gerrit Cole. Stick a fork in them, Jerry, they’re done.

NL West

1. Los Angeles Dodgers – The Dodgers are going to be good again. They have the best pitcher in baseball, and they will probably have like 96 wins.

2. Colorado Rockies – The Rockies have the best ‘pen in baseball now. Wade Davis is an ace at the back end. Bryan Shaw, Jake McGee, and Adam Ottavino are other great ‘pen options. Kyle Freeland will mature, too.

3. Arizona Diamondbacks – I just expect the D-Backs to regress a little bit. I don’t see them at the level of the Rockies or Dodgers, but they could snag a Wild Card slot. They did lose J.D. Martinez, though.

4. San Francisco Giants – The Giants added some geezers (McCutchen and Evan Longoria), so they can win 76 games. Cool.

5. San Diego Padres – The Padres added Eric Hosmer, and I don’t like him. He’s not better than Abreu, and his hair is stupid. Go Sox!

AL Playoffs: Yankees, Indians, Astros, Angels (WC), Red Sox (WC)

NL Playoffs: Dodgers, Nationals, Cubs, Brewers (WC), Rockies (WC)

World Series: Yankees vs. Nationals, Nationals = Champions