Enjoying the Orioles

Greeting Santander after his walk-off HR vs. the Yankees

As I type, the Orioles just beat the Yankees 9-3 to take the series from them. This unexpected result mirrors the season as a whole for Baltimore. Allow me to enjoy this for a moment.

Just last year, I mentioned (in passing) how pathetic the Orioles were. And they had been! Consider their records since 2017:

From baseballreference

The 2018-21 teams were particularly terrible. But in 2022, a glimmer of hope: they finished the season strong and ended above .500. And in 2023? They are (currently) second-best in all of Major League Baseball. How?

Basically, they've turned it around through drafting well, trading players, and patience. Their core is young, they have several rising stars, and one of the strongest farm systems in baseball (8 of the top 100 prospects across the MLB are in the Orioles' farm system). Their roster as of a week ago:

The O's have great hitting and fielding, an outstanding bullpen, and so-so starting pitching. It is clear that Adley Rutschman, Gunnar Henderson, Anthony Santander, Ryan O'Hearn, Austin Hays, and more have bright futures.

The Orioles' success is especially pleasing when you consider they have the second-lowest payroll in baseball. The top 3—Mets ($345M), Yankees ($278M), and Padres ($246M)—make the Orioles' $69M payroll seem laughable. But those O's are better than them all.

This year, I've made it to two games so far at Camden Yards (both wins). Tip: Sit in section 332 or 334 (the upper deck, behind home plate). The seats are in the shade, have a great view of the field, are some of the cheaper tickets, and the concessions on the upper level are much less crowded. Below is one picture I took from that area.

The only things that bother me about the O's this year:

- Their "city connect" uniforms (see top picture), debuting this season, annoyed me at first. They have since grown on me, but I had hoped for more.

- Can they keep their stars? As a small-market team, that is always the concern in Baltimore. If they cannot, it means the window is small; they must ride their success this year before their players get too expensive to retain. That has me worried.

But concerns aside, it's a great time to be an Orioles fan. Go see a game at the Yard.

All the Light We Cannot See (Anthony Doerr)

Marie-Laure LeBlanc, blind since childhood, lives with her father in Paris. In 1940, as the Germans advance on Paris, they flee to family in Saint-Malo, a quaint town on the Brittany coast. They will live there until they can return home. 

Daniel LeBlanc, Marie-Laure's father, is a locksmith for a museum. Scrambling to keep the best of its collection from the Nazis, museum authorities make replicas of a priceless jewel called the Sea of Flames and distributes them. Daniel carries one as he flees west; he is not told if it is a replica or genuine. And he does not know that a noted Nazi gemologist, Sergeant Major Reinhold Von Rumpel, will stop at nothing to find the real one.

Werner Pfennig, orphan, lives with his sister in an orphanage in the Ruhr valley. They love listening to a radio that Werner has found and fixed. Gifted in technical fields, he earns a spot in a prestigious school, where he works with a professor to develop radio transmitter detection units. He "is succeeding. He is being loyal. He is being what everybody agrees is good. And yet every time he wakes and buttons his tunic, he feels he is betraying something."

Etienne LeBlanc, Marie-Laure's great-uncle, lives in Saint-Malo as he battles fits of insanity triggered by World War I. Eventually, he agrees to transmit messages for the resistance from a secret antenna in his roof. The Germans know someone in the area is doing so . . . and are sending a unit in to find where.

The stories of all will come together in All the Light we Cannot See, as each wrestle with navigating what it means to love each other during a war that has brought terror and atrocities to all.

-----

I've read many books about World War II, but this historical fiction account is the first I've read that portrays the 'daze' of the early times, when Paris was evacuating as the Nazis approached. The communication technology of the time made for harrowing situations, as families were separated with sparse methods to reunify. So many didn't. I can't imagine.

This story is hauntingly beautiful. I love how Doerr moves the story along (well, back and forth in time), what he says, and what he skips. The brokenness and unknowns are heartbreaking. The inner battles of the main characters are absorbing. Overall, this is an outstanding read, well worth the Pulitzer it won.

Rating: A

A Wordle Strategy

Last year, I blogged about Wordle and its spinoffs. This "guess a 5-letter word in six tries" game is going strong. I just played my 500th tracked game (I wasn't tracking it for the first few months that I played). Today's post is my strategy.

Since you have only six tries in Wordle, it is important to choose words at the beginning that contain vowels and common consonants. Statistically, this will give you a high probability of having most of the letters known (yellow) or locked in (green) after you've guessed three words (that contain varied letters). The question: which words to try?

Here are the three words I choose, in order, 95% of the time, regardless of the green/yellow letter count:

• ALERT
• SOUND
• CHIMP

These three words cover all the vowels (AEIOU) and the most common consonants (RTNSLC, plus DHMP for good measure). No letters are repeated, meaning I've tested 58% of the English alphabet (15/26) as this point.

How does my strategy fare? Decently well:

Through 500 tracked plays, I win 98% of the time, and usually on the fourth word. I very occasionally deviate from my strategy if the first one or two words reveals a sizable portion of the puzzle (I got today's in two tries). But for the most part, I stick with this, and it works.

I have found one problem: I consistently flail on _O_ER words. If that is the pattern, and I've done my typical first three, it means I have three guesses, and the choices are too many. The remaining 11 letters are BFGJKQVWXYZ. Look at all the words _O_ER can be:

• BOXER
• FOYER
• JOKER
• BOWER
• VOWER
• ROWER (I include this because R could appear twice)

There are probably more options. My point: that is more than three, and the first three words have no overlapping letters. I've had more than one streak end due to a _O_ER word. Still, my strategy is successful enough that I'm keeping to it—unless someone shows me a better one.

Gloomhaven

Today's review is of the 2017 release, Gloomhaven. For 1-4 players, it takes 60-120 minutes per scenario. One full campaign can involve many scenarios. I played one scenario mid-campaign, substituting in for a friend.

Overview

In Gloomhaven, you are a hero who will gain abilities and items as you explore and overcome various scenarios. This is a cooperative and persistent game where decisions you make in one scenario affect later ones. Items and abilities you gain (or lose) persist. Each scenario has an objective and monsters or other obstacles that you must overcome to meet the objective. A scenario may also have decisions points where the group will decide which 'path' to take, leading to branching storylines.

One example setup; image from here

Each player starts with a deck of cards and ability sheet. (Note: since I subbed in to an ongoing campaign, a friend prepared all this for me.) On your turn, you choose two cards secretly with one on the top. Each has two abilities (top and bottom, generally to battle and move, respectively), special effects, and an initiative number. Everyone flips their cards, and the one whose top card has the lowest initiative goes first. The round proceeds in initiative order (and monsters have initiative numbers, too) until all players and monsters have gone. Then you choose two new cards and the next round begins.

On a player's turn, they must choose one top and one bottom action on their cards. If they use the top action of card 'A,' they must select the bottom action of card 'B.' Since the cards are chosen secretly and initiative order is unknown, what you had planned to do might not make sense by the time your turn comes around, so you may have to adjust plans and be locked into non-ideal choices. Some cards are discarded once played; others are trashed (they cannot be used again in that scenario). When you run out of cards, you may take a 'long rest,' effectively losing a turn to get your discard pile back. But beware—each time you do that, you must trash a card, so your hand will diminish as the game progresses.

Monsters deal and receive damage based on combat numbers (shown on monster cards or the cards players use each turn) plus a modifier based on drawing cards from a combat deck. Each player has a custom combat deck, and they can spend their resources over the course of a campaign to increase the odds of a successful strike by adding to or trashing cards from it. (The monsters have a common combat deck.)

Over the course a scenario, players may gain gold, experience, items, or other things. Relevant things are added to their ability sheet and saved for the next scenario. If you win (or lose) a scenario, you follow the instructions and make the choices shown to indicate what happens next time.

Review

This game is wide regarded as one of the best ever, currently ranking third on boardgamegeek. It is impressive in scope and content (the box is huge). It may be unfair to rate this based on playing one scenario—and mid-campaign at that—but I thought it was solid, though not spectacular. 

I liked the card choice/initiative-based mechanic; though it was annoying to have to choose with little to no information about other players' choices, it does create interesting scenarios and imitates the 'fog of war.' That was cool. The thing that gave me pause is similar to what I thought of Sleeping Gods: once games reach a certain complexity level (or 'activity' level, with a lot of things going on), it becomes more appropriate to make it a video game. There were a few times we forgot to add things to a monster's card, or take a given effect into account, simply because there was a lot going on. 

Overall, Gloomhaven is worth a look, but I prefer campaign games like Journeys in Middle Earth, where the app-assisted attribute can help players focus on their choices vs. tracking everything themselves.

Rating: B

We the Fallen People (Robert Tracy McKenzie)

In We the Fallen People, Robert Tracy McKenzie outlines the view of human nature held by the Founders of America, how it all shifted during the Jacksonian era, the thoughts of Alexis de Tocqueville (a Frenchman who toured America in 1831-2 and whose resultant work Democracy in America some consider the best work on either topic), and why it all matters (how we should remember and respond). My summary follows; all quotes are from the author unless otherwise indicated.

--------------

McKenzie starts by asking the questions "What were the Framers' views on human nature? How did their views inform the document they bequeathed to us? To what degree were their beliefs about human nautre consistent with Christian teaching?" 

The Founders

The Founders did not believe humans were inherently good; far from it. "The core problem . . . was that neither state governments nor private citizens could be trusted to promote the common good without compulsion." George Washington said "we must take human nature as we find it." And how did they find it? James Madison summarizes: "As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence." In other words, we reflect both the image of God and the reality of the fall. 

More on human nature: "Our overriding motives from birth are to rule ourselves and please ourselves." "To deny ourselves in order to promote the good of others is a contradiction of the willful self-interest that naturally propels us through life." This is true of all—not just those in power. "The present moral character of the citizens of the United States proves too plainly that the people are as much disposed to vice as their rulers." (Benjamin Rush)

With human nature in mind, "the U.S. Constitution emerged from a crisis of virtue." (Thomas S. Kidd) The Framers' "recognition that we are self-interested by nature informs every article, every section, every line of the document that they created. It explains their ambiguity toward governmental power, their preoccupation with checks and balances, and above all, their distrust of democracy." 

You read that last phrase correctly: democracy cannot be intrinsically trusted—because individuals cannot be. Sometimes our "true interest" will be "at variance with [our] inclinations." (Madison or Hamilton) Even a majority can arrive at a wrong conclusion and support terrible wrongs. "Because none of us is reliably good, a majority with interests at odds with the rest of society poses a threat to the minority. Because none of us is reliably good, a government with power independent of the majority poses a threat to everyone." Thus the Framers sought to create a structure "to protect the people from the government and to protect the people from themselves." That was the attitude in 1787. It wouldn't last.

The Jacksonian Era

Just four decades later, Andrew Jackson insisted that "most men and women are naturally virtuous." The idea of government started to change. Whereas "the Framers thought of government officials as trustees charged with the solemn obligation to promote the common welfare, by the 1820s, Americans increasingly thought of government officeholders as public agents, hired representatives whose primary function was to impement the wishes of the taxpayers who paid their salaries." 

"The Framers had grounded their convictions about government on their fundamental belief that humans are essentially selfish and prone to passion. By the 1820s, Jacksonian rhetoric frequently assumed exactly the opposite. As it emerged in Jacksonian America, the gospel of democracy is that men and women individually are basically good, and collectively they are reliably wise, with the result that the will of the majority is infused with an unassailable moral authority." This was the rise of a democratic faith—a belief that democracy will intrinsically produce just outcomes.

There is a difference between democratic philosophy and democratic faith. The latter concludes that "a democratic process will reliably deliver ideal social outcomes." That's false; let's look at the former. For this, we turn to Tocqueville, a Frenchman who came to America in the 1830s to observe democracy.

What Tocqueville Observed

Tocqueville claims that democracy is morally indeterminate. He insisted that "democracy can undermine liberty as well as expand it." It can result in "servitude or liberty, enlightenment or barbarism, prosperity or misery." (Tocqueville) Therefore, "the output of a purely democratic process would simply be whatever the majority advocates, condones, or tolerates, and precisely because we are not naturally virtuous, the range of possible outcomes is vast." Hence the possibility of a "tyranny of the majority." We obviously see this in our past, from slavery, the displacement of the Indians, and more. And we see it in our present: things like 'cancel culture' are predictable. 'Agree with us or be ostracized.' "The potential for popular majorities to inflict oppression and injustice—on other or on themselves—will ever remain one of democracy's features."

Though democracy is morally indeterminate, that is not to say we are without hope. Not all is dire. Tocqueville had both fears and hopes. A certain mindset can protect against the dangers. He "discovered that Americans frequently lived by the maxim that short-term self-denial leads to long-term gain." He called this an 'enlightened' self-interest. This can promote "the common good, even though their primary motivation may be expectation of personal benefit." This was tied to religion. "Democracy needs religion to flourish." How? Because when a population is rightly focused on a higher authority (and the immortality of the soul), "it reduces the likelihood that the majority will abuse its power and promote injustice." 

"To sum up, democracy isn't intrinsically intolerant and authoritarian, but it can be. The question for us is, Will it be?"

Where to from here?

"The Scripture does not describe us as basically good beings who occasionally "let ourselves down" by making "Poor choices." It teaches instead that we come into the world bearing not only the image of God but also the imprint of the fall, propelled through life by the determination to govern ourselves and please ourselves." 

"The delegates who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 knew that their constituents could be misled by ambitious leaders, follow passion rather than reason, and pursue self-interest at the price of justice. The Framers knew that there would be no angels in the government, and no angels in th electorate, and they planned accordingly. They designed a Consitution for fallen people. Its genius lay in how it held in tension two seemingly incompatible beliefs: first, that the majority must generally prevail; and second, that the majority is predisposed to seek personal advantage above the common good.

"Two generations later, Jacksonian politicians resolved this tention by denying the second premise. They preached a democratic gospel, insisteing that we are naturally virtuous. They proclaimed a democratic faith, insisting that our collective will is reliably just." We're still of that mindset today, and that needs to change. We disagree with the Founding Fathers we supposedly revere. 

What do we do moving forward? The author suggests the truth of our fallenness should affect how we think and act.

For thinking, we must take sin seriously and be "more alert to the false assumptions about human nature, implicit and explicit, that are intertwined with democracy as we practice it and experience it." Among other things, that means rejecting "democratic faith" (democracy is not intrinsically just) and "nurture instead a democratic philosophy, conceiving of democracy simply as a process of self-government that is inevitably imperfect, like all human institutions, and learning to measure its strengths and weaknesses against our more fundamental commitments and convictions." 

For acting, the author makes three points:

1) "[W]e must run from every effort to meld Christianity with a particular political party, movement, or leader." "We reveal much about ourselves in our political transactions, for implicit in each is a declaration about what we desire and how much we are willing to pay for it." What do our votes proclaim "about the body of Christ," and what are we proclaiming "to the world about God?" These questions must be ever before us.

2) We must "confess the allure of power, acknowledge the danger of power, and work proactively to mitigate the abuse of power." "Among other things, "this means that we should jealously protect what remains of the constitutional structure that the Framers designed for a fallen people."" We must acknowledge "that power is dangerous whoever wields it, not just when it is controlled by our political rivals. We will know what we can be the agents of oppression, just as we can be the authors of our own subjugation." So let's "be fearful of any leader unwilling to question his own virtue and wisdom . . . " Let's remember that "liberty is not freedom to do what we want. It's the freedom to do what we ought." 

3) We must insist "that rhetoric matters." "Our words reveal who we are, Jesus proclaimed in the Sermon on the Mount, for they flow 'out of the abundance of the heart.'" (Luke 6:45)

-------------

Profound. Insightful. Transformative. Eloquent. Fair. Convicting. I could keep going. This book is a must-read. How we understand the two most basic truths in the world (who God is and who humans are) is the lens through which we see everything else—and we act accordingly. This book focuses on the latter, to great effect. I will be recommending this for a long time. Run, don't walk, to your local bookstore and buy this today.

Rating: A+

Sully

In January 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 took off from LaGuardia airport. Shortly thereafter, the aircraft collided with a flock of birds, damaging both engines. At low altitude and with no thrust, Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger faced a terrible choice: should he return to LaGuardia, land at another airport, or take another option? Convinced airports were unreachable, he put the plane down in the Hudson river. All 155 people on-board were saved. Sully became a hero, but when the National Transporation Safety Board (NTSB) opens their investigation, their doubts about his actions place Sully in a fresh dilemma: did he act appropriately? Or could he have in fact landed somewhere safely?

Based on the true story (I remember when this happened), this short and straightforward retelling of the situation and aftermath was solid. The film does a good job protraying the PTSD Sully and others experienced; his anguish continued even after everyone proved safe. The only thing I didn't like was the villainous attitude of the NTSB; rather than conduct an impartial investigation, they were portrayed (probably unfairly) as being out to prove Sully erred. Thankfully, he didn't, but more importantly, everyone survived.

Rating: A-

Black Panther: Wakanda Forever

King T'Challa is dead, lost to a mysterious illness. As his mother assumes the throne as queen, Wakanda is left without a Black Panther to protect it. And the nations notice, pressuring the country to trade its vibranium and advanced technology. As the Queen struggles with that, another menace arises . . . vibranium has also been found in the ocean, and a blue-skinned aquatic superhuman race, led by Namor, fear its discovery will mean their own. Blaming Wakanda, the two nations are destined for conflict . . . who will prevail?

I enjoyed the first Black Panther, and this installment started out as promising. It diminished as it progressed, largely because (in my opinion) it tried to incorporate two stories into one: the nations pressuring Wakanda for its tech, and the Wakandans fight with Namor. It had good elements (acting, effects), but tried to do too much, with predictably insufficient plot development. By introducing yet another enemy, it also highlighted that the post-Endgame MCU has yet to coalesce around an overarching vision.

Rating: B-

The Scarlet Letter (Nathaniel Hawthorne)

Hester Prynne committed adultery in seventeenth century New England. As part of a Puritan community, she is forced to wear a scarlet letter 'A' for the rest of her life. Ostracized and outcast, she lives with her daughter on the outskirts of town and spends her days producing top-quality sewing, showing deference to all detractors, and dedicated to good works. But who was the man in this terrible affair? Hester refuses to reveal the secret, but all will become plain in time. For the man is himself tortured by his sin, and cannot bear the weight of such guilt. In either case, how long must one suffer for sin?

-----------

Hawthorne published this in 1850 as an account of Puritan America from 200 years prior. If there is any accuracy in his portrayal, the community's reaction to Hester's sin is a horrible distortion of the gospel. There is no forgiveness, no faith, no future. Only a works-based righteousness that denies a grim reality: all fall far short of the glory of God. We all sin grievously and need forgiveness. We rest alone on Christ and His work—not our own. No amount of good works can earn us heaven, but in Christ, no amount of sin can estrange us from His love.

Hawthorne's portrayal is heartbreaking for the reason I expound above. It is hard to look upon a society claiming Christ by creed but denying Him by deed. It seems woefully akin to the Pharisees of Jesus' day, whose dispositions were so soundly condemned that one would thinks the Puritans, knowing Scripture well, would know better than to imitate such madness. And yet, it is the human tendency to  put up a front. I guess I'm ranting . . . back to the story. 

Hawthorne seems to have two points here:

1) "Be true! Be true! Be true! Show freely to the world, if not your worst, yet some trait whereby the worst may be inferred!" Alongside other truths of the gospel, this is correct. We are free (and commanded) to confess our sins because our righteousness is in Christ. The man in the novel who lives under the burden of unconfessed sin for years would have done better to confess outright.

2) Don't linger on the past. There are many sins, and some bearing the same (or greater) weight than adultery. This is also true, so long as true restoration has happened, which needs forgiveness (from the offended) and confession/repentance (from the offender). There may be an implication here, however: some commentators argue that Hawthorne is implying that sin isn't that bad (or that you can save yourself with good works). If that is the implication, then that is a false conclusion and stains an otherwise commendable work. I couldn't tell (see the next paragraph).

The story was solid; the delivery was difficult. Hawthorne writes in paragraph-long sentences. Though eloquent and skilled, the meandering style incorporates far too any asides or qualifications for me to fully follow. I could have teased it out (had I given it more thought); as it stands, I tried to get the gist and move on. I liked it better than The House of Seven Gables, but only just. Ultimately, the worth of this work hangs on my point 2 above: if there is an implication that sin is okay, the work is diminished in my mind. But if the focus is on confession and repentance and restoration, then the work is to be highly esteemed. 

Rating: B

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark

It is 1936. Hitler rules Nazi Germany; obsessed with the supernatural, he sends teams of archaeologists across the world to discover religious artifacts said to possess incredible powers. And they just discovered the location of the Biblical Ark of the Covenant. The only one who stands in their way is Indiana Jones, the professor/archaeologist/adventurer who has also traveled the world in search of relics, but for their historical value (and worth to the museum). Can Indy stop the Nazis?

This 1981 classic film, made by some of the same people involved in Star Wars, was a hit and is considered one of the top movies of all time. Having seen (and enjoyed) it decades ago, I re-watched it with my children. As an adult, and watching in 2023, the movie was okay. Some of the iconic scenes have held up surprisingly well, but in other places, the plot, dialogue, action, and effects were underwhelming and cheesy. The movie was at once rushed (some plot elements were entirely undeveloped and presented without explanation) and boring (towards the end, we were all looking at the clock and hoping for a swift conclusion). It was okay overall, but didn't hold up as well as it did in my mind.

Rating: B-

Coup

 

Today's review is of the 2012 release, Coup. For 2-6 players, it takes 15 minutes.

Overview

You have two secret roles as you vie for influence in a world of intrigue. Your goal is to be the last person standing with at least one role card . . . can you prevail?

In Coup, each player is dealt two role cards (kept secretly, placed face-down in front of you) and given 2 coins. Remaining role cards are placed in the center of the table as the "court deck."

The roles (Duke, Assassin, Captain, Ambassador, Contessa) grant special abilities:

• Duke: take 3 coins from the treasury
• Assassin: pay 3 coins to kill another player's role card
  
• Captain: steal 2 coins from another player. Also blocks stealing.
• Ambassador: exchange cards (draw 2 role cards from the court deck, keep two roles and put the other two back in the court deck, shuffling afterwards). Also blocks stealing
• Contessa: block an assassination attempt

On your turn, you take one of the following actions:

• General actions (available to all players):
• Income (take 1 coin from the treasury; cannot be blocked or challenged)
• Foreign Aid (take 2 coins from the treasury; can be blocked by the duke)
• Coup (pay 7 coins to kill another player's role card; cannot be blocked)
• Character actions (available to players claiming to be a given role):
• see above explanations for the Duke, Assassin, Captain, and Ambassador.

If you ever exceed 10 coins, you  must take the "Coup" action to kill another player's role card.

The core of the game is social deduction. Since your role is hidden, if you take a character action, you can be challenged. Example: on my turn, I could say "I am a Duke, so I am taking 3 coins from the treasury." If nobody challenges me, I get the 3 coins. If somebody does, I must flip over my Duke role card. If I have it, that person kills one of their role cards, and I shuffle my Duke role into the court deck and draw another secret role. If I don't have it, I kill one of my role cards. Once a player has both role cards killed, they are out, and play proceeds without them until there is a winner.

Review

This is a decent game. It says it can accommodate 6 players, but we played with 8 and enjoyed it well enough. It plays quickly and is a nice opener or closer to a game night.

Rating: B