Number One

I stole this idea from another blog, but I have next to zero integrity, so theft doesn't bother me. I thought it was somewhat interesting - this guy listed what the number one song (as measured by Billboard) was every year on his birthday. So without any more exposition, here's the list - the number one song in the country every year, on September 24th. (Please note that these songs are NOT my favorite songs year-by-year).

1983 - Billy Joel - Tell Her About It
1984 - John Waite - Missing You
1985 - Dire Straits - Money for Nothing
1986 - Huey Lewis & The News - Stuck With You
1987 - Whitney Houston - Didn't We Almost Have It All
1988 - Bobby McFerrin - Don't Worry, Be Happy
1989 - Milli Vanilli - Girl I'm Gonna Miss You
1990 - Wilson Phillips - Release Me
1991 - Color Me Badd - I Adore Mi Amor
1992 - Boyz II Men - End Of The Road
1993 - Mariah Carey - Dreamlover
1994 - Boyz II Men - I'll Make Love To You
1995 - Coolio feat. L.V. - Gangsta's Paradise
1996 - Los Del Rio - Macarena
1997 - Mariah Carey - Honey
1998 - Aerosmith - I Don't Want To Miss A Thing
1999 - TLC - Unpretty
2000 - Madonna - Music
2001 - Jennifer Lopez feat. Ja Rule - I'm Real (Remix)
2002 - Nelly feat. Kelly Rowland - Dilemma
2003 - Nelly, P. Diddy and Murphy Lee - Shake Ya Tailfeather
2004 - Ciara feat. Petey Pablo - Goodies
2005 - Kanye West feat. Jamie Foxx - Gold Digger
2006 - Justin Timberlake - SexyBack

It's very possible that this is the least masculine list you could construct under this premise. Incredible. I have a lip-synching duo, Mariah Carey twice (back when she got played on light rock stations, before she revealed herself to be both slutty and insane), Whitney Houston (before she revealed herself to be insane - and maybe a cougar? I heard she was dating Ray J…), the worst Madonna song ever made (and I already don’t like her), the immortally badass Color Me Badd (we can make love until we both WAKE UP! oooooh ooh ooh ooh ooh), the raw sexuality of Wilson Phillips, Aerosmith's cheesiest light rock song ever, the Macarena, tough guys' guys like Billy Joel and Huey Lewis, Ja Rule and Nelly singing, and a TLC song about not getting plastic surgery or hair extensions just to get guys to like you more - true self esteem, after all, comes from within.

If you'd like to try this exercise for your birthday, or any other day that's important to you, just go here (it's surprisingly sort of fun): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number-one_hits_%28United_States%29

Serious Issues In Life

A question for the readers: is it weird if I use a bar soap that's marketed to women, like Caress or Olay or something? I have to say, my bet is that the actual chemical composition of the soap is extremely similar, they just dye it pink, cut it into a rounded oval (as opposed to a manly white rectangle) and change up the scent a bit. Clearly, women are supposed to be the ones buying those brands, much like I'm supposed to be buying Irish Spring or Zest. (Do they still make Zest? I kind of miss those super corny commercials - "Zest-Fully Clean!") But to me, soap is just soap, and unless something actively smelled bad, I would prefer to just use whatever is on sale. Yet, I find myself conflicted. What if the cashier laughs at me? What if people notice that I smell like a girl? So, when faced with the purchasing decision, I inevitably get something like Lever 2000, which feels very generic and acceptable to all.

I didn't have this problem growing up. My dad used to make all the purchasing decisions for these kinds of items, and he was motivated by one factor and one factor alone - price. Despite having one kid, no mortgage and no car loans (and both he and my mom worked) he loved scouring the Sunday paper for coupons, and then would only shop at a supermarket that then doubled the value of those coupons. So if there was a 75 cent coupon on Caress, he would cut it out, put it in his stack, go to the store, and buy it provided it was on sale or a reasonably low price. Sometimes the price was so low that after doubling the coupon to $1.50, we actually got the item for negative money. That's right - the supermarket would actually pay my dad 15 cents to take a bar of soap. If the price was high that week, he'd put the coupons in a drawer, presumably to be used later. (That never happened, and massive piles of coupons would accumulate until they all expired and we had to have a big cleaning session - in retrospect I think my dad liked the activity of hunting for and cutting coupons even more than he liked saving money.) One of the side effects of this methodology was that we always had disproportionate amounts of certain items, since we didn't buy paper towels or plastic wrap when we ran out - we bought something whenever there was a coupon and corresponding sale. There was one time when I searched through all the various cabinets in the house, and learned that we had 17 boxes of plastic wrap, one of which appeared to be from the 1980s. I made a big fuss at the time and no more plastic wrap was purchased for several years.

Anyways, I digress a bit, but the point is that our household had all kinds of soap, some of it "for women" and some "for men". I never paid much attention to it, and generally liked all the soaps the same. But now that I don't have the safety net of my dad's purchasing decision, I see how easily swayed I am by marketing to buy a bar of soap that maybe costs 20 cents more even though I don't like it any better. Am I just being completely irrational? I guess that's why they make "Nivea: For Men" and stuff like that. I bet I would buy those products too, except I don't shave often enough to need a lot of stuff for my face.

Senseless Death

Obviously, I talk about TV a lot. That's because I 1) watch a lot of TV and 2) think a lot about what I have watched. So to be fair, I'm biased with what I'm about to say, but hear me out, because I think I'm being pretty reasonable.

I always think it's crazy when someone with the financial means tells me, "I don't have cable" or even crazier, "I don't have a TV, I don't really watch TV." That's just crazy - and I say that not because you're not conforming to me - I would never ask people to do that. I say it because by not watching TV, you expose yourself to a shocking amount of risk. Life can get very boring without a TV. There's so much good stuff on it! And people talk about TV a lot. So you're likely to be very bored all the time, when people around you are talking about TV. So not only are you bored on your own, you're bored around friends. And what happens when you're bored? You smoke pot. And we've all heard that marijuana is a gateway drug that can easily lead to the use of harder, riskier drugs. So before you know it, you're using cocaine. And LSD. And PCP. Suddenly one day you overdose on heroin and die. All from not having a TV. I mean, you're going to DIE. It's amazing how some people don't take this very seriously.

Hopefully, if you are a non-TV owner, you take the time to read my thoughts. I assume afterwards, we can all agree that I am correct.

NEXT!

Confession: despite my better instincts, on occasion (think 3 or 4 am), I watch MTV's dating show "Next", which may or may not qualify me for automatic admission into level seven of hell. Alas, you are what you are, and I've seen at least 20 episodes of the show. Or 30. Man, I really hope it's not more than 30.

Like all MTV dating shows, it's substantially scripted - so I got to wondering who writes the copy for the show. I've already had experience writing large amounts of meaningless shit meant to blend in with the background (and no, I don't mean this blog). In my senior year of high school, I somehow got roped into being the copy editor for our yearbook, which was this 900-some page behemoth that I believe was the largest high school yearbook in the United States. All I really did was proof some stuff and write some vomit-inducing blurbs when text was needed. "Dedication. Discipline. Devotion. This year's Associated Student Body officers brought their passion and energy to great events like the Winter Formal and the Tricycle Karaoke Contest." Nothing too hard, never took more than 10 minutes to write, everyone seemed happy with the results. My one vivid memory is that I was asked to submit a writing sample, so, solely for the purposes of the sample, I invented a story where a bunch of people I wasn't really friends with got into some kind of water balloon and food fight - hilarity clearly ensues. The "teacher" liked the sample, so I became copy editor. To my horror, this 100% fake story somehow became the featured copy on page 5 of the yearbook, which I did not learn until the yearbook came out. No one ever said anything to me about it, which I suppose is proof positive that no one reads the copy in a yearbook in the first place.

The writing in "Next" is, much like the copy in my yearbook, both frequent and irrelevant. When daters first get introduced, they have to explain why they will win - there's a nice literalism to these encounters that I like. "I'm Lisa, I'm 22, and he'll pick me because I'm a southern sweetheart with some city cool" "I'm Tracy, I'm 23, and he's going to choose me because my breasts are so huge I have severe back problems! Whooo!" Then, I always like the rhyming the narrator has to do after the premise of the show is explained and the daters are presented. "Pablo is looking for a girl with the right stuff. These ladies hope Pablo's body is buff. But will one of them take the money, and leave Pablo in a huff? Find out, on NEXT!" Then a dater comes out of the bus, three "facts" come up, which are invariably the stupidest set of fake things you can think of. "Once ate a live cricket in Tanzania" "Is afraid of white tablecloths" "Collects underwear from old women". Now, armed with this incredible arsenal of knowledge all dreamed up by some copy writers and editors, the show can begin.

I think I might like to be a copy writer for "Next" - there literally seem to be no standards, you can just say anything since the kind of people who the show is intended for are probably listening to The Click Five and just have an eye on the TV to see if anyone will start making out. Seems like it could be a fun job to do with your friends. And it's not even THAT shameful - I think MTV has about 5 or 6 shows that are, almost unbelievably, considerably worse than "Next".

A Quick Rant

Reluctantly, I have joined the masses in text messaging - it's by no means a regular part of my day (having a phone with a full keyboard doesn't make me drip with excitement or anything - "oh man, you could type so fast!" - oh you can, can you? Faster than you can TALK?), but I guess it has its uses. If I'm at a bar, or some noisy place where I can't hear anything, it's useful. And on occasion it's useful for asking 20 people the same question at once ("Did I merely look handsome today, or did I look STRIKINGLY handsome today?"). That's about the only time I text anyone, but I get that a lot of people find actually speaking to people awkward, and find it simpler to just send text messages. I've got no issues with that. By definition, some of us need to be socially awkward to make the rest of us normal. Ha. Just kidding, don't spam with angry comments.

What does bother me, though, is that text messaging seems to have permeated the world in other, more horrendous ways. I feel like we're creating new reasons to send text messages just because we love doing it so much. Have you ever seen those commercials for new ringtones? Here's a 10-second clip of "Maneater". Wouldn't that be ridiculously awesome if that was your ringtone? Well, text *69842 now and it's yours! Who was today's player of the day? Text 38 to vote for Tom Brady. When the winner is announced, neither he nor you will have received anything, but isn't it fun to hit "send"?!?! Rich mentioned he saw this commercial the other day where you hear the noise of a fire siren (text 913!) and then birds chirping (text 914!). The absolute worst in my opinion are those "joke of the day" things. If I correctly understand how this works, I text some number, will pay something, but for doing so, someone will send me a hilarious joke I can use to make all my friends laugh! I'll be the life of the party! If I know you, and you use this service, we are officially not on speaking terms.

Admin: Comment Moderation

I switched to being able to moderate the comments on this blog because I was getting a bunch of spam comments. That seems to have stopped, though, so I'm switching back to unmoderated commenting. You should see a comment posted once you publish it.

Destiny Fulfilled

Evidently, the Seattle Seahawks were not, in fact, a "team of destiny", as claimed by Mack Strong before their playoff loss to the Chicago Bears. Unless, of course, their destiny was to be an underachieving team that barely won a wild-card game in an appallingly bad conference. In that case, Mack Strong, consider your destiny fulfilled.

No cliche in sports bothers me nearly as much as "team of destiny". There is no such thing - I repeat, there is NO SUCH THING, as a team of destiny. I'll refrain from the theological ramifications here, but suffice it to say, if you are in fact a team of destiny, and you can TELL if you're a team of destiny, then there is no reason for sports to exist. The outcome is never in doubt - sports would merely be a physical illustration of what is already fact.

Let's consider how one becomes a team of destiny. First, and foremost, you have to be mediocre. If you've already proven yourself to be good (by winning convincingly), then, clearly, destiny is not involved. Talent sure, destiny no. Could it be your destiny to assemble a talented team that wins easily? No, destiny doesn't work that way. Come on people, let's not be stupid here.

After being mediocre, you need to catch a few lucky breaks. Random chance, surprisingly, does not exist in this world and is not the explanation for anything. This is where destiny comes into the fold. Destiny explains everything. Again, unless you were already good to begin with. Then destiny could give a shit about your lame but talented ass.

And that's pretty much all it takes. The worst thing is that commentators are now in the habit of substituting real analysis with "team of destiny" stuff. "On the one hand, the Yankees have better pitching, hitting and fielding but you have to consider - since my aunt Jenny found a 5 dollar bill on the ground in downtown Denver, the Rockies have just felt like a team of destiny, and that's hard to counter sometimes."

Once upon a time, the Patriots were a team of destiny - because they seemed mediocre and lucky. How great is that - September 11th happens, and the PATRIOTS win the Super Bowl. Oh man. That is INSANE, SON! They are a team of destiny! At the time, I felt bad laughing about that, because the tragedy of September 11th was so recent.

I did, however, thoroughly laugh at the idea that the Pittsburgh Steelers were a team of destiny in 2006 because Jerome Bettis (Jerome Bettis!) had a chance to play in the Super Bowl in front of his hometown of Detroit. This is kind of what bothered me - team of destiny, a term I already vehemently despise, is now unbelievably commonplace. The Super Bowl being held in the hometown of (at best) the NFL's 20th best running back of all time* somehow prompted destiny to take over and do its thing.

I'm probably asking too much of ESPN to stop using "team of destiny", especially when you consider that their lead NFL analyst, Sean Salisbury, was suspended a week (only a week!) for taking cell phone pictures of his own...crotch...minus clothes or underwear...and showing it to female staffers. But we can do something on the individual front. If you personally have been using "team of destiny", please, please, please, please, please stop that. For me.

*In case you disagree about Bettis' historical standing, remember that he never won an MVP award, never led the league in rushing, and was a below-average receiver. He was a physical runner who rarely fumbled, but only marginal by the standards of all-time greatness. In his prime, he went to 5 Pro Bowls (plus one freak Pro Bowl in 2004 where he didn't start the first half of the season), two of which came with the Los Angeles Rams, games no one has ever really seen. So 13 seasons, 6 Pro Bowls. For perspective, Ricky Watters went to 5 Pro Bowls. Bettis' career wasn't shabby, but not worthy of the hype he received when he retired. A vital player to be sure, and a great clock killer if the Steelers were ahead, but useless if the Steelers got behind, due to lack of explosiveness and receiving and pass blocking ability. He had the benefit of playing with what was consistently one of the league's best defenses, allowing his strengths to come to the forefront.

I refuse to even debate whether he was better than any of the following backs (listed in no particular order): Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, Walter Payton, LaDainian Tominlinson, Jim Brown, OJ Simpson, Marshall Faulk, Gale Sayers, Eric Dickerson, Marcus Allen, Earl Campbell. That's already 11 guys. Because I value peak performance more than longevity (peak performance equals wins, longevity equals meaningless cumulative stats), I'd also much rather have Terrell Davis, Eddie George and Priest Holmes. Larry Johnson, barring injury, will almost certainly have a better career. After that, I'd still take Curtis Martin, Ricky Watters, Roger Craig, Edgerrin James, Thurman Thomas, Franco Harris (if you're making Bettis' case on the career stats), Tony Dorsett, Herschel Walker, Corey Dillon, Larry Csonka and Shaun Alexander. You might be able to make a case for Bettis against some of the guys in that last group, but it's not clearly obvious that he's better than the group as a whole. I'd probably finally take Bettis ahead of guys like James Brooks, Warrick Dunn and Stephen Davis. I think Bettis is probably about the 25th best back of all time. Destiny sure is generous these days.

Childhood Games

I never intend to watch "Deal or No Deal", but since it's on some network every moment of every day, I happen to catch small bits and pieces of the show. I've never seen one episode start-to-finish - it just doesn't hold my attention that long. But the show is unquestionably popular, which surprises me. After all, it's just watching other people play a completely random guessing game, spiced up only by hot women and money. Would you watch a show where I put either two or three fingers behind my back, and you guess, and if you guess right, you get $100? Maybe we could even get family members on stage too. "Think about this one Roger - $50 is a LOT of money, we can buy 3 or 4 Zagat guides with that kind of cash - don’t be reckless now!" "I know, I know! But I just have SUCH a good feeling about the number 3 - I have THREE sisters - my birthday is on October THIRD - I have THREE nipples - it just feels so right, I don’t know what to do!!!!" At least "Deal or No Deal" has hot chicks (but there are far better ways to see hot chicks) - I can't fathom why women would enjoy the show.

Anyways, in thinking about why this game show might be popular, I decided to go back to my roots, and explore some popular childhood classroom games - you know, investigate the core of what we want in our games. Really, I'm just talking about childhood games for the hell of it, but I wanted to get that "Deal or No Deal" thing off my chest too, and that's my best effort at tying the two together.

Heads Up, Seven Up

I never liked this game until I started cheating and looking down at the shoes of my thumb-tapper. Seems I'm not the only one. Yesterday, I logged on to Facebook, and learned that 5,278 people are members of a group that admits they cheated at Heads Up, Seven Up as kids. An identical (but somehow less successful group) has another 588 members. The "I Never Cheated at Heads Up, Seven Up" group? An astoundingly low 12 members. I could start a "I like to wear metallic gold body paint on my legs instead of wearing pants" group on Facebook and get 12 members in a few hours.

Of course, with so many people cheating, once you were a chooser, you had to work hard to avoid tapping the thumb of someone else who was cheating. Once you deduced who the sucker was, you were golden. Weird that I didn't learn to cheat earlier - I definitely enjoyed utter dominance better than helpless paranoia.

Red Rover

You remember this right? "Red Rover Red Rover have Jason come over!" And then Jason barrels into a line of kids who are holding hands, attempting to break through the line. What I think is interesting here is that ultimately, everyone winds up as part of the same line - so everyone wins, or, if you're a bit more cynical, no one wins. There was absolutely no sense of loyalty to your original team, which seems like a bad lesson for kids. If you couldn't break through and had to join the opposite line, you were expected to suddenly fight to hold that new line against your former teammate? Where is the trust? Where is the loyalty? You JUST held that guy's hand, united with a clear mission. Now at the first sign of things going wrong, you immediately betray everyone you were with before. Not the kind of game I want my kids playing one day.

Duck Duck Goose

Pretty much just rewarded the speedsters in the class. (Being a fast kid - huge advantage - tag, hide-and-go-seek, duck duck goose, steal the bacon - one of the best traits to have if you're a young kid is quickness) I wasn't a particularly fast kid, so if I wound up being the chaser, I normally picked a slow fattie, to eliminate the embarrassment of having to be the chaser several times in a row. But the fattie often couldn't catch anyone else, and it became a little awkward when they had to go over and over and over. I found that duck duck goose often ended poorly because of that.

Dodgeball

Not "Nation Ball", which is kind of what we called what most people call Dodgeball, with two opposing sides, as seen in the Ben Stiller-Vince Vaughn epic. In elementary school, we'd just stand in a huge circle, and people threw two red four-square balls at your feet, and you tried to dance and dodge and not have the ball hit you for as long as possible. Tons of fun. We should not have stopped playing this game as we got older. I suppose the whole problem is that when you're older, the temptation to just nail someone in the face is too strong.

Four Corners

Not four-square, with the ball. I'm talking about when it's a rainy day, and each corner is the classroom is designated with a number, 1 through 4. You'd stand in one corner, and hopefully the blindfolded "picker" didn't call out the corner you were in - if so, you were out. I used to LOVE this game. Thinking back on it, I have no idea why - it feels just like the random guessing of "Deal or No Deal". I somehow vaguely recall that I was excellent at Four Corners, even though I don't know what would cause someone to be good at the game. But winning feels good, and my Four Corners memories are lovely ones.

Actually, I Want To Write Better

I noticed today that I use the word "actually" way too much. I did a quick little Ctrl+F and found tons of instances of the word. It's not like in the meat post - I meant to use that word a lot because I just like how that word sounds - it has a funny sound to it when it's repeated a lot. Meat. On topic, though, I'm using the word "actually" all over the place.

I'm unclear if I should just consider this part of my "writing style" or if it's more indicative of a lack of vocabulary and my general inability to articulate my thoughts effectively. Or maybe I doubt my readers too much. "Well ACTUALLY..."

I don't know. I'll need to think about this one for a bit - it troubles me.

This All Actually Happened

Recently, I posted a description of my dad's Denzel Washington star vehicle about a rogue dog kidnapping gang and the intensely violent gang war that ensues. Some people have commented to me that this is not a plausible movie idea. Don't get me wrong, I don't pretend to believe that the kidnapping of rare but delicious dogs would lead to cinematic greatness (unless the dogs can talk, in which case, done deal). However, I take issue with the idea that it is somehow too absurd a story to be made into a feature-length Hollywood film. Consider the following sample, all movies that actually got made and were released in wide distribution. (Credit to imdb.com)

Chill Factor (1999)

Tagline: Keeping cool is a matter of life and death.

Description: Two mismatched men, Arlo (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) an ice cream truck driver, and Tim (Skeet Ulrich) a convenience store clerk, are forced to team up with each other, and get on each others nerves, when through a series of circumstances, they get possession of a top-secret, bio-warfare weapon, when heated to over 50 degrees, detonates and releases a lethal cloud of radioactivity which a disgruntled, former U.S. Army officer and his team of alienated, former Army soldiers-turned-terrorists want to use against the government for making them the scapegoats years earlier for their handling of the virus and covering up the existence of the weapon. With time running out, and the outdoor temperature rising, Arlo and Tim must outwit their pursuers and try to find a way to dispose of the weapon before they both become dead meat.

I remember when this movie came out, and thinking that Cuba Gooding, Jr.'s career was headed for disaster. Fortunately he made "Snow Dogs" and "Boat Trip" and proved me completely wrong.

Bicentennial Man (1999)

Tagline: One robot's 200 year journey to become an ordinary man.

Description: This film follows the 'life' and times of an android (Robin Williams) who is purchased as a household robot programmed to perform menial tasks. Within a few days the Martin family realizes that they don't have an ordinary droid as Andrew begins to experience emotions and creative thought. In a story that spans two centuries, Andrew learns the intricacies of humanity while trying to stop those who created him from destroying him.

Even though I was already 15 or 16 years old when this was released, the sight of Robin Williams' android character totally unsettled me. You might say he gave me the "heebie-jeebies". Here's the lovely trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5YMEwX2-88

Soldier (1998)

Tagline: Left for dead on a remote planet for obsolete machines and people, a fallen hero has one last battle to fight.

Description: In a futuristic society, some people are selected at birth to become soldiers, and trained in such a manner that they become inhuman killing machines. One of the most successful and experienced of these soldiers (Kurt Russell) is pitted against a new breed of soldiers, and after the confrontation is believed to be dead. His body is left behind in a semi-abandoned colonial planet, where everything is peaceful, and he is taught about the other aspects of life. But eventually he has to fight the new breed of soldiers again, this time to defend his new home...

I like asking people what the worst movie they've ever seen is - I think it makes for excellent conversation fodder. One of my cousins insists this is the worst movie he's ever seen in theaters. I think I've seen worse movies, but since I have literally zero desire to see this for myself, maybe he has a point.

North (1994)

Tagline: Ever wonder what your life would be like with different parents? A boy named North did.

Description: Eleven-year-old North (Elijah Wood) has had it with his parents. They are always busy with their careers and don't give North the attention he needs, so he files a lawsuit against them. The judge rules that North should either find new parents or return to his own parents within two months. Thus north starts off on an hilarious journey around the world to find the parents that really care about him.

This movie actually stars Jason Alexander and Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Elijah Wood's parents, an interesting bit of casting that increases my desire to see this movie by a factor of zero. This was actually a somewhat well-promoted movie, and I know a couple of people who saw it. Not only do they feel it was the worst movie they ever saw, they become furious when the movie is even brought up. I've never seen a movie inspire the kind of animosity that "North" does. Generally when someone sees a bad movie, they can laugh about it after a certain point. Not so with "North". This might be the most hated movie in the universe.

The Postman (1997)

Tagline: It is 2013. War has crippled the Earth. Technology has been erased. Our only hope is an unlikely hero.

Description: In the year 2013 civilization has all but destroyed itself. After a war that decimated the government and most of the population of the United States (possibly the world), people struggle to survive against starvation and rogue groups of armed men. One such group is called the Holnists. This group is bigger than any other and their leader, General Bethlehem, has delusions of ruling the country. A drifter (Kevin Costner) is captured by the group and forced to join. He escapes at the first chance and happens on a mail jeep with a skeleton in it. The skeleton is wearing a postal uniform and the drifter takes it to keep him warm. He also finds a mailbag and starts conning people with old letters. The hope he sees in the people he delivers to changes his plans and he decides that he must help bring the Holnists down.

If this premise seems ridiculous, you need to see the preview. The preview is almost mind-boggling in its horrificness. Apparently spellcheck doesn't think "horrificness" is a word.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl9_GXvNktI
I hope a lot of mailmen managed to see this movie. I think it's unlikely there will be another movie about post apocalyptic mailmen for some time.

'Roid Calm

"I don't go to a baseball game to see sacrifice bunts and 13-pitch walks. I go to see guys jack the ball 550 feet out of the park." - paraphrased from Brian Park.

The time has come (actually, it came a long, long time ago) to end our charade against steroids. For all the railing against steroids, gambling, cocaine use, gun possession and illegitimate fatherhood, an athlete can really only commit one sin: losing.

These are ugly words to type, but the truth is inescapable. Steroids make my experience as a sports fan better. I can't say it any simpler than that. My heart goes out to the families who have seen their children load up on steroids to achieve their impossible athletic dreams, only to suffer the negative physical and psychological consequences. But sympathy, however heartfelt, cannot change reality.

Why do we watch sports? One might paraphrase the late director Robert Altman and say, "to see something I've never seen before." Sports always offers that magical possibility - and steroids turn that into a more probable reality. As fans, we want records to fall. We want new levels of greatness to be attained. We want to see people run faster, lift more, jump higher, hit harder. As Brian says, we want to see someone hit a baseball 550 feet, back acne be damned.

Of course, it's still easy to enjoy sports without world records falling. Sports are still plenty of fun when your team wins. And make no mistake about it - we expect the guys on our team to do everything humanly and inhumanly possible to win. They must play with broken ribs, sprained ankles, concussions, and joints that have been dislocated so badly they would keep us out of our jobs for weeks. And if they don't, we call them soft. Bitch about all the money they make. How they don't love the game the way we would if only we had the chance. And did I mention he's soft. Hey maybe he's gay, that would explain why he's so damn pathetic. It's more than a tacit acceptance of steroids in sports - we pretty much demand that athletes inject themselves however often they need to in order to be ready to play come gametime.

I'm not crazy. I don't explicitly WANT steroids in sports. But I want to see athletic greatness - when the Olympics are on, I want records to fall. I want to see star NFL players compete every week, I don't want to see third-string backups. I want harder hitting on faster surfaces, not tamer games less likely to cause harm.

I'm really not crazy. Like you, I was raised to believe steroid use in sports was wrong. It was dangerous, it was unfair, and it was just wrong. For most of my generation, the seminal moment occurred during the 1988 Summer Olympics. Those games brought the much anticipated 100 meter dash showdown between American Carl Lewis and Canadian Ben Johnson. Americans always won the 100 meters, it was like part of the core of our national athletic being. And here comes this brash Canadian, who whipped the field with a 9.83 time in the 1987 Worlds. Afterwards, Lewis alleged Johnson was taking steroids. Then in the Olympics, Johnson runs a 9.79, and blows away the field, including Lewis. 9.79! He must be cheating. How could he run like that? There must be steroids. Please let him have cheated.

And what do you know? He was using steroids. It was as if some kind of fucking national victory had occurred. The big, bad steroid man was taken down. Gold medal for the USA. Steroids bad, USA good. Don't do drugs. Just say no. Americans have honor. All was right with the world.
I wasn't even 5 years old at the time. It would take me another decade-and-a-half to understand that the excitement had little to do with a cheater being caught and had everything to do with an American winning. Us winning.

Everything is about winning. Lance Armstrong is a winner, so we dismiss all claims he could be using steroids as jealousy from those loser European nations. We don’t even really bother to read the details of the allegations. We are, as a nation, 100% behind a guy literally everyone in the cycling world is convinced uses steroids. In San Francisco, they still root for Barry Bonds, even though he 1) obviously uses steroids and 2) already admitted to having used steroids. Hey, the guy can still get on-base. And the fans loved Sammy Sosa until he couldn't hit anymore. And we loved Mark McGwire until he retired and wasn't awing us with those jaw-dropping moonshots.

Then we come to the curious case of Shawne Merriman, who already tested positive for steroids, did not appeal the decision, yet was still named to the Pro Bowl and the All-Pro team. If he had murdered his girlfriend with 4 games to go, you can bet your ass he wouldn't be on the All-Pro team. Yet, at least as far as football is concerned, didn't Merriman do something worse? Didn't he cheat? It doesn't matter how many sacks he has - wouldn't he in theory have less sacks if he didn't cheat - he cheated, right? Evidently not. Either the assumption is that everyone is on steroids, so it's not cheating, or only some guys are on steroids, but it's still not cheating.

I can pinpoint the moment I decided I would never again listen to any of the sanctimonious bullshit about values in sports. It actually didn't have a thing to do with steroids. In the 2001 NBA playoffs, Vince Carter's Toronto Raptors were set to play Philadelphia in Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Semifinals. The game would occur that afternoon - Carter intended to attend his college graduation from the University of North Carolina with buddy Brendan Haywood. He would be there for about an hour, wouldn't change time zones, and would be back hours before the game. I figured he would be celebrated - a young black man who left school early and had all the money in the world but clearly still valued his education, studying in his spare time to obtain a degree and graduate. Showing kids everywhere on a national stage that even though he had NBA riches, going to school mattered. What a role model. But when Carter's plan was leaked, the man was roasted in the press. Every now and then someone brings it up again, and roasts him again. How dare he compromise his team's chances. He'll be tired when he gets back. Does he even care about winning? He's so soft. (Carter isn't a shining example, exactly - later events would indicate that he probably does lack the requisite competitive fire, but it was still ridiculous of people to call him out on this one.) After that, I didn't want to hear it anymore. Don't bother me with student-athletes, or graduation rates, or athletes frequenting strip clubs, or having 11 kids out of wedlock, or steroids, or tattoos, or gambling. Only one thing matters: winning.

Reality is unfortunate, but that doesn't make it less of a reality. Kids are sure to get hurt from steroids, but there's not a lot we can do unless we change our fundamental sports culture, and I don't see that one happening anytime soon. At least if we accept it, we can end the parade of hypocrisy that decries the very notion that Mark McGwire should be in the Hall of Fame, but openly celebrates and rewards the accomplishments of Shawne Merriman.

So you know what? I'm okay with steroids. I'm done thinking about it. Things are simpler this way - I don't need to reflect sports through some societal prism all the time and rise on my high horse or sink down in dismay. So put Mark McGwire in the Hall of Fame, go ahead and make Shawne Merriman an All-Pro. Call off the Congressional investigation, stop raiding BALCO. No more tell-all books, no more grand juries. I can just follow the games, root for my teams to win, and hope for the spectacular to happen.

And if that means steroids, so be it.

The End of a Kind of Brief Era

So "The O.C." has reached an inglorious end, and while I'm tempted to delve into my analysis of what went wrong, I'm not really qualified for extensive discourse. I didn't watch sizable portions of season 2, watched virtually none of season 3, and only recently resumed watching the show after Rich and Julius went on and on about how hot Autumn Reeser is. (She is very hot). I'm certain others will have plenty of great words on how the show lost its sense of humor, how much Mischa Barton sucks, how every plotline because implausible and absurd.

Random aside: I always thought the show would have been much more interesting (and believable) if Ryan Atwood had been black or Hispanic. For anyone who's from Southern California, the "Ew! He's from Chino!" scenes were so unrealistic as to threaten suspension of disbelief. But then again, a black or Hispanic Ryan Atwood might have meant the show wouldn't have become a teeny-bopper phenomenon. And maybe "The O.C." was never intended to be too serious. Alas, I digress.

As much as "The O.C." has struggled in recent times, it was culturally relevant - it really meant something in its first couple of seasons, and it's a show I'll remember in 25 years. Even though they might obtain double the ratings, the cold, clinical police procedural shows ("CSI", "Numbers", "NCIS") or moronic game shows like "Deal or No Deal" (do not even get me started on this one) are as fast food as television gets, and I'm unlikely to remember an episode the following week, much less 25 years. Have you ever been watching an episode of "CSI" or "Law and Order", and it takes like 20 minutes to figure out whether or not you've seen it before? Television never really "matters", but it's quite an accomplishment to make something memorable, however briefly "The O.C." achieved that feat. So I'll prefer to remember the good times and I'm enjoying the show's march to death right now. The show has regained its missing sense of humor, and has a refreshing lightness. Plus Taylor is hot.

If you're looking for an hour of television to fill the void, might I suggest NBC's Wednesday night offering, "Friday Night Lights". The show is as well-written and acted (save for a couple young stars who are working through some acting kinks) as anything I've ever seen on network, and it's not really a sports show, as many seem to fear. It's a sports show in the sense that "One Tree Hill" is about basketball (not that I've uh, ever seen that show...uh...) - the characters are independently compelling, and even if the show had no football scenes at all, the drama would still work. The show isn't breaking any new boundaries, but it's organic, heartfelt and earns its emotional scenes honestly. And it can be funny too, in case you're afraid of that after seeing the movie version. "Friday Night Lights" - the old episodes are on NBC's website. I can't recommend it enough.

Security Schmacurity

Last night I went online to pay my credit card bill, only to be confronted with some new screen that mandated I fill in a variety of new security questions to make my identity even more secure. I don't know about any of you, but I often have serious trouble choosing security questions from the defined list of questions, and then an even harder time answering them.

My first problem is that a lot of the questions don't even apply to me. "What was your son's first word?" "What is your spouse's nickname?" "Where did you go on your honeymoon?" "What was your younger brother's nickname as a child?" "What is your favorite flavor of Ensure?" Right off the bat, I can't even choose a third of the available questions. There are a lot of people out there who don't have kids or who aren't married or have no siblings. I am obviously one of them. This poses a problem.

Secondly, a lot of the questions are open to interpretation, and I don't have defined answers. "What is your most unique characteristic?" "What is the last name of the most famous person you've ever met?" "In 500 words or less, what is your opinion on Scientology?" The first two questions were actual security question options! Even the apparently simple ones like "What is your favorite song?" are tough for me to handle. I don't have ONE favorite song. If you force me to name one, it probably won't still be my favorite song when I have an account problem later. Dammit, new songs come out all the time! How the hell am I supposed to know? I haven't even heard all of the songs on Danity Kane's album yet! And don't even get me started on the "unique characteristic" question. If you can answer that question succinctly, maybe we should consider not being friends anymore.

Finally, they have all these semi-abstract questions that are easy to answer, but extremely hard to remember. "If you could control your height, how tall would you be?" "If you needed a new first name, what would it be?" I actually sometimes ask people in real life what they would change their names to if they could. Now I can't really have that discussion anymore because it's just too risky.

My absolute favorite option was "Who was your arch rival when you were growing up?" While this provided a good 5 minutes of fun as I pondered who my arch rival would be if I had to designate one, it was totally impractical for a security question. Ultimately, I had to choose three different security questions. I am not confident I will remember the answer to a single one. So please do not steal my identity. If you do, I am sure to have a very difficult time with customer service, and I would prefer not to go through the extra hassle.

Meat Sweats

The other day, I went with Ali and Rich to a barbeque restaurant. For reasons he claims were out of his control, Ali was very late, and ultimately we didn't sit down to eat lunch until 2 pm. We were all starving by then, and made the somewhat foolish choice of ordering the "Backyard Barbeque Family Feast" which consisted of slabs of St. Louis and baby back ribs, two barbeque chickens, biscuits, enormous bowls (I mean like, would hold three-quarters of a gallon) of baked beans, mac and cheese, collard greens, and peanut slaw. And watermelon. Can't forget the watermelon.

We made a valiant effort, and eventually finished all the meat (finishing the baked beans would have literally meant the end of my life, and thus the end of this blog). You know that feeling when you eat so much meat at one sitting that you have no desire to eat meat for days? And you feel like your mouth, your body, your whole being is just covered with meat? That's how I felt the last couple of days.

Ali mentioned that he was having an onset of "meat sweats". I'd heard the term before, but didn't use it myself. I went on Wikipedia to learn about them, and learned a couple of interesting points. First off, veggie burgers can also give you meat sweats, which is lame. Vegetarians ruin everything - now they are ruining cool terms like "meat sweats". I hope no one changes the term because of that. Secondly, I was excited to see there was a section of the article entitled, "Possible Cures". However, I was disappointed with the content: "There is no known remedy for meat sweats, besides, of course, not eating so much meat." That's not a possible cure, having a section like that is just plain deceiving.

Anyways, the way I felt the last couple days makes me wonder about competitive eaters. After Takeru Kobayashi goes through a competition, can he not eat meat for like a month? I'm a huge fan of seafood (shellfish especially) and I'll eat (and enjoy) nearly every vegetable out there, but if my job required me to go a month at a time without eating meat, (plus it would render me unable to enjoy the one time I actually get to eat meat), I would be so depressed. I'm not sure what the prize money is for competitive eating, but I'm sure it's not good enough to get me into the game.