mu2010

FWIW, I saw Chuck Klosterman speak in 2014, and with regards to the time he spent with The Browns during the draft he asserted that The Browns were a horribly run organization and that they used little to zero of their own scouting to make draft picks. He said they basically watched ESPN like fans. I believe you, I just also would think that Haslam is self aware enough to realize the problem and work to change it. Maybe I just want to have too much faith...

^ Yes, he is the guy from Moneyball. They changed his name for the movie because DePodesta wasn't into all the fame and attention. I still don't buy that Haslam is as dumb as everyone thinks he is. For as much firings as we've had, he has never had a chance to build from the ground up. It seems like he's talked to a lot of people and put a lot of thought into things. It's shaping up to 4 groups which report to the owner - 1. Alec Scheiner - Business 2. Sashi Brown - Personnel, roster, acquistions, GM 3. Paul DePodesta - Data. Does not make personnel decisions but instead provides info to be used in those decisions. 4. Coach I could see how you'd worry about infighting from this structure though.

What do you all think of the DePodesta hiring? I say why not.

It's not just here... Park n' Ride is a huge deal on commuter rail lines such as Long Island and Metro-North in NY, METRA in Chicago, etc, with people paying hundreds a month for spaces.

Not sure wtf he is talking about with the "slavers" remark, but other than that, even though I enjoyed the new movie, I see where he's coming from. But, if he didn't want to sell it, he shouldn't have sold it. George Lucas didn’t like ‘retro’ feel of new ‘Star Wars,’ says he sold franchise to ‘white slavers’ BY PETER SBLENDORIO / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS / Wednesday, December 30, 2015, 9:15 PM It wasn't the movie he was looking for. "Star Wars" creator George Lucas admits he was disappointed by how similar the franchise's latest installment, "The Force Awakens," is to his original trilogy — and even contended he sold his beloved sci-fi series to "white slavers." "They wanted to do a retro movie," Lucas said in an interview with Charlie Rose. "I don't like that." "Every movie, I work very hard to make them different," he continued. "I make them completely different, with different planets and different spaceships, to make it new." He also called the first six movies his "kids," saying he "sold them to white slavers that take these things and…," before halting the remark and laughing it off, presumably thinking better of it. More: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/george-lucas-didn-retro-feel-new-star-wars-article-1.2481449

Looks great. I need to get down there.

Do you guys have any ideas for inexpensive gifts that represent our culture for a European family with teenage boys? Anything that represents American culture but also anything with Ohio flavor would be ideal. The kids like basketball and of course know of Cleveland because of LeBron so I thought of some Cavs hats and maybe some candy buckeyes for the whole family.

I was wondering which campus the E 34th station supposedly services...

Senate is their version of Happy Dog, but kind of a high-end feel to it instead of the punk rock/hipster vibe. It's pretty tasty. Get the Poutine. OTR is all the rage now, and that's well deserved. Most of your time should probably be there. But make sure to also go up Mt Adams as it's gorgeous up there. Also the parks and museums next to Mt Adams are very cool. Other possible neighborhoods to check out are the Clifton/UC area, Hyde Park, and Walnut Hills. But I should let the people who actually live there chime in :D

After the flashback with the lightsaber, she has to either be his daughter or at the least, a former Jedi pupil hidden on that planet for safety. Somebody (Max von Sydow?) was there watching over her, kind of like how Obi-Wan was on Tattooine watching over Luke. Given that Star Wars loves to have different generations of the same families, I'm betting on Luke's daughter. She could be also be Ren's sister though. The only strange thing is, why wouldn't Han or Leia tell her who she is?

Well, I know Phantom Menace has its issues, but I don't like the idea of omitting it entirely. Phantom Menace is the only movie where we get to see the Republic, and the Jedi, in a somewhat normal state of affairs and I think that brings a lot to the table. We get to see exactly what was lost. I like watching it right after New Hope because, when Obi-Wan explains the history of the Jedi and the Republic, the Clone Wars to Luke in his hut on Tattooine, I enjoy seeing a flashback to those times immediately after. Obi-Wan stops just short of telling the truth about Vader, and watching I and II right after stops just short of showing Anakin's final downfall. You could do Clones after Empire instead of before, but I like seeing my two favorite films (V and III) back-to-back before the (former) happy ending in VI. There may actually be a longer break between New Hope and Empire than Empire and Jedi. It had to have taken a few years to set up the Hoth base.

I like to do IV, I, II, V, III, VI 4 contrasts well with 1 and 2. You hear obi wan talk about the glory days in 4, then you get to see it. Then you watch 5, get the vader reveal, and immediately get to watch it happen in 3. Then 3 contrasts well with 6. Flashback order.

I'm no good at Roman Numerals so I'll rank with acronyms: ESB (The best of them all, interestingly not well reviewed upon release) RotS (Anakin's fall and the Empire's rise are awesome) RotJ (Not sure why people rank this one relatively low, I like it for the ending) ANH (I could probably flip this one with RotJ depending on whatever way the wind blows that day) AotC (Good political backstory, but there are some plot holes and Anakin could have been handled better) TPM (Too childish, although I enjoyed the Naboo conflict storyline) TFA: Too soon for me to rank

That's what I'm hoping. I think the epic quality of the defeat of Palpatine and the Empire is somewhat diluted by the fact that apparently there was a Snoke waiting in the wings. If Snoke is Plagueis as you suggested above (I really liked your theory about Snoke eventually trying to whack Kylo), that would go a long way to me to suggest that we aren't just going to have an endless line of very similar dark lords to defeat (not to mention another generation of Skywalkers to fight them or join them). You can only have a few "final battles" before they all lose significance and that's where my concerns come from. I think we can get away with three more movies though. Agreed. I actually was not a prequel fan after I and II came out, but I really loved III, and that retroactively changed my opinion on the first two. One of the things I love about the six movies together is that they show Anakin and Luke both have a very similar story, up until a key fork in the road. Anakin makes choice A, and Luke chooses choice B, and we get to see the results of both choices. Overall, I just hope that they keep the narrative flow of the entire "saga" in mind when they write these last two movies, and not just the movie at hand. That was what Lucas always got right IMO, even if he got a lot of other things wrong. As long as they do that, it looks like we'll get some great movies.

I am conflicted on it. It was very well done, great characters, perfect pace, good humor. Successfully recaptures the feel of the original trilogy. I must admit though, I am still a bit skeptical of Disney and JJ. I enjoyed the political aspects of the prequels... Palpatine scheming and manipulating to become Emperor (almost like Frank Underwood in House of Cards), and the fall of Anakin, made the prequels enjoyable for me in spite of their flaws. I hope that backstory isn't all whitewashed and all political plotlines ignored in the new trilogy. Don't want them to dumb down Star Wars like they did Star Trek, and remove any deeper themes and meanings. Another negative to me was that by having the galaxy still fighting the same conflict 30 years later was a bit depressing and also took away from the achievements of beating the Empire in Return of the Jedi. It's like, why bother? You beat Vader and Palpatine and Death Star and new ones simply come out of nowhere in a few years? There's an argument to be made that this movie is more of a clandestine remake than a sequel. At least with the prequels, Lucas tried something different. His original idea years ago when he first came up with the idea of having 3 trilogies, was for the prequels to cover politics, the originals to cover family, redemption, and good vs evil, and the sequel trilogy to cover more spiritual themes. Each trilogy having separate themes and a clear beginning and end. Now with Disney I fear we will get the same formula forever. I would have loved if Lucas could have had his overarching ideas in the prequels and brought in other writers and directors to help him, instead of surrounding himself with yes-men like he did. Because I think his overarching ideas are some of the best. Is there ever going to be Star Peace? Will the good guys ever finally win? With Disney's plans of new movies every year into eternity, maybe not. And each new movie will take away from the significance of all the ones that came before it. Anyways, just some alternate viewpoints from the praise being given above. Like I said, overall I liked the movie, will be seeing it again soon. I probably take Star Wars too seriously.

My grandparents and even my mom still refer to Macy's as May Company from time to time, so it's very likely that's the same reason why the Penneys thing has stuck around still. I know I've always called it Penneys. Ha! Yeah I remember my mom and grandma ignoring the existance of Dillards and Kauffmans and all these stores, and instead referring to stores which no longer existed as of the early 90s. Kind of bizarre really. I don't know anyone who still refers to their at&t phone service as Cingular.

Where in CLE are you from? I find that makes a huge difference in this regional dialect conversation. East suburbs. Mayfield HS. Never noticed a big east side/west side difference in speech though, but then again I've never spent much time on the west side. The big thing I notice when I come home is the 'A' in words like "happy" and "accent." As in, "I'm from Cleveland so I don't have an AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAcent." Another thing some of my Cincinnati and Columbus friends have pointed out is that I say the word "both" as if I'm talking about a "bowl" of soup. Bowlth. Also, for some of you who were wondering why calling JCPenney "Penney's" is done everywhere, and not just in Cincinnati where where they call Kroger "Kroger's," it's because JCPenney used to call themselves Penney's until 1971.

I've definitely lost some of my CLE accent since spending 4 years in Oxford and 5 years in Columbus. Now when I go home to visit, I can really hear it.

I did not even think of UC but that's a very intriguing idea I will consider. You don't think St. Clair is too far from activity at night? I did just notice there is a Marriott Residence over by E. 4th, which is where he's stayed in Columbus on Gay St and it's nice. I've never been into a room at the Arcade either. Rereading your post, if the Residence has been recently redone I'll probably recommend that or maybe the 9.

What's the best hotel to show off Cleveland to somebody right now? He normally stays in Marriott properties, but Public Square is dead right now so I might suggest somewhere other than the Key Center Marriott. I want it to be clean because he's a little bit of a clean freak, and I want it to convey that Cleveland is 'happening' so hopefully a high foot traffic area. New-ness would be nice but not essential. He's a bit old school so I wasn't sure about the 9 or Aloft because of all the trendiness and naked women art, but the 9 is still in the running due to happening-ness and new-ness. Correct me if I'm wrong but I worry that all the hotels north of superior will be in deadzone areas. How is the Wyndham at Playhouse Square?

That probably had its intended effect, at least to an extent. I don't think it was necessary to prevent a Bolshevik revolution, but it probably did succeed in making middle and lower class Americans favor property rights to an extent they don't in other countries.

My great grandfather certainly had more space in his rural village in Sicily than he had in whatever boarding house he lived in on Orange Ave and E. 22nd St in 1914, that's for sure. There is truth to the fact that many immigrants wanted to get a nice plot of land after stabilizing, but that owes more to the fact that they came from rural areas. In other words, they left a rural area in Europe to come to a crowded area in America. So yeah, I think they came for economic opportunity, not space. When the immigrants stabilized and could rent or buy a house, they opted for a bit more space, but still those houses were usually located in urban neighborhoods. Cleveland and Cincinnati houses usually have pretty decent sized yards, enough room for gardens and chicken coops. But they could still get around on foot or on transit. There's a nice happy medium to be found here. Space and walkability are not mutually exclusive. Just stop building cul-de-sac's in neighborhoods with no sidewalks and no commercial areas within walking distance. Make blocks smaller. Edit - The situation does change if you're talking about early colonists who certainly came for farmland. There is a big difference between farming and suburbs, though.

Thanks. I totally agree about the 5 minute walk thing. I'm right by the giant eagle/cvs plaza on Neil Ave in Columbus, and I walk over regularly. There is easy bus service into downtown or up to OSU if you work in either of those areas. Anyways, I'm contemplating coming back to Cleveland (not sure), so it's good to hear about the best car light neighborhoods in town.

Assuming you're up near the Lake because of your reference to the CSU line, are you closer to Bunts or to 117th? Which is better for access to these amenities? If closer to Bunts it seems like there are more businesses but 117th is better for the Rapid, unless I'm mistaken.

To a point that's true. Look at Lakewood and University Heights, significantly denser than Cleveland but losing population at a much lower rate. Still, I think you're leaving out a couple important considerations: privacy, and elbow room. Americans seem to value those things more than others, many cultural indicators suggest that. With the density of central Paris you could put nine million people a 20 minute walk from the beach, but could you get that many Americans to want to live that way? To some degree people equate density with crowding, and many don't wish to live that way. Work, shop, eat, maybe....but not necessarily live. I don't think I'm leaving those considerations out. My point in the second paragraph is that a Collinwood or Glenville or pretty much any traditional Cleveland neighborhood as originally designed would provide the levels of privacy and elbow room most people are accustomed to. Many of the middle class subdivisions I've been to in Geauga County and elsewhere have houses no further apart than in those neighborhoods. They have small yards and they have zero trees (which provide privacy) because all the trees are mowed down to create the subdivisions. They're dense places. Just poorly designed. The only difference is that driving is the only viable transportation mode in those areas. Sprawl is less about houses being too far apart, and more about cul-de-sacs instead of street grids, no sidewalks, no business nearby due to antiquated zoning laws, antiquated ideas about separation of uses, giant parking lots, and poor transit options. If you create a multimodal neighborhood you have the same level of density with less traffic and noise. Then I don't think these people would dislike density so much... because I don't think it's [reasonable] density that they actually dislike. You'd always have the people who want a house on two acres in Munson, and that's fine. But if you look at the market right now, it's obvious that there is a surplus of sprawl while there is high demand and low supply in desirable urban neighborhoods. Take a look at home prices and rents. So whatever the natural preferences of Americans are, the real estate market is off balance, and tilted too much in favor of sprawl. Right now you're seeing the market shift to a new equilibrium.