Lance Gets Action

Remember this commercial? I remember thinking when it first came out what a great commercial it was. I also remember thinking that it was a complete crock of shit.

My opinion that "everyone" is on steroids is well-documented, and even at the time, I felt Lance Armstrong had to be on steroids. Now, I'm 100% sure. Every single competitor Armstrong ever had has tested positive for steroid use, including his old teammates. If you believe that a guy who isn't on steroids could thoroughly dominate the world's most elite competitors who are themselves all on steroids, I don't know what to tell you. Marion Jones' case reminds us that it's much more plausible to think someone is on steroids than to assume someone is the greatest physical entity to ever grace Earth.

I think everyone cuts this guy a lot of slack because (well other than the entire sport being on steroids) he is perceived to be this "good guy". A family guy, who beat cancer, and has these cool yellow wristbands and yay for America. While I know he must have used steroids, I too cut him some slack, reasoning that if he was inspiring cancer patients, well, maybe we should just all join the charade.

On the plus side, Lance continues to inspire cancer patients everywhere. Recently, he's been showing them that even cancer patients can have Ashley Olsen sit on their laps and make out with them! It's like Lance himself always says (at his $50,000 speaking engagements): "If I can come back from the brink of death to make out with Michelle Tanner from Full House - just think of what you could do!"

It's one thing for Lance Armstrong to leave his wife for Sheryl Crow, but Ashley Olsen? Sara echoed my thoughts, saying, "that doesn't even feel legal to me". I don't think people who became famous as adults should hook up with people who because famous as little kids. Celebrity "statutory" relationships are probably too much for the general public to handle.

Quick Links

Some interesting links for those who are interested:

Lee Jenkins produced a very well-written story about life on the Detroit Lions practice squad.

"They look like NFL players. They hit like NFL players. They dress with NFL players and watch film with them. From Monday through Friday they are a crucial part of every NFL team. But come Sunday, the only day in the league that really matters, they wear jeans and polo shirts. They are the anti-Allen Iversons. They just practice."

I'm a little late to the party on this one, but the University of South Florida gained a lot of attention as it rose to #2 in the national football rankings this season. Doesn't come without a price though.

Did you get sent that spinning dancer image which purported to explain if you were right or left brained? If case you couldn't see if going clockwise and counterclockwise, check this out. Not that it matters in any case, because the "test" doesn't really test for anything.

Thanks to Rich for this one: pretty much any old Nintendo game you can think of: nothing to download, no confusing video players or anything. An NES emulator for dummies, and it's nonstop (possibly too much) fun. I personally have been playing lots of RBI Baseball.

Yum. Delicious.

Finally, if you're not on board the bandwagon yet, please head over to nbc.com and watch Friday Night Lights and 30 Rock. Best drama and best sitcom around these days.

Sweet Capitalism

You may have already seen this story making the rounds (thanks to Erica for sending this one along), a website called seekingarrangement.com, a site that aims to connect “prospective sugar daddies and the people who want them”. Depending on your perspective, this is either a disgusting form of prostitution or a remarkably elegant expression of capitalism. “Sugar daddies” have to categorize their net worth (the popular range seems to be somewhere between $10 and $50 million) and “sugar babies” (most of them pretty attractive models who don’t like to be weighed down with lots of heavy clothes) specify their expected monthly budget/allowance, in some cases over $20,000 a month. Gender roles go both ways, although I suspect the male sugar daddy/female sugar baby comprises the majority of the site, which you can partially browse for free.

Browsing the site is pretty funny – the girls mostly use modeling photos, and fill their profiles with lines like “You spoil me and I’ll spoil you”. Some are even more explicit than that, promising to take care of “manly needs”. A lot of these girls seem to be college students looking to make (a lot of) extra money, and ask that you pay their tuition in addition to vacations and shopping. Back in my college days, the socially taboo way to pay your tuition was to sell your eggs at a price commensurate with your SAT score and overall athleticism/blondness. Now you can cash in $15 grand a month without any invasive surgery! Times sure have changed in these last 3 years.

The men on the site are even funnier, declaring that “If you’re willing to play, I’m willing to pay.” They tend to take photos of themselves at charity fundraisers, on yachts, or in one notably hysterical example, shaking Bill Clinton’s hand. That creepy-looking dude has as his tagline “Handsome Safe Gentleman”. It’s my guess that he had to include the word “safe” because he looks so damn creepy. No one would advertise themselves as “safe” unless there was some serious risk that you would assume otherwise. Whereas the women tend to be ages 18-29 (“I may be 18, but I can carry a conversation like someone much older. I’m on the varsity pep squad!”) the men tend to be age 35-50. I didn’t see any dudes over 50, even though judging by the pictures, some of those guys are much older than 50. I guess they figure that grandpas get no love.

I imagine many of you think this is simply disgusting, and amounts to legalized prostitution. Well, “Michael”, a frequent site-user, has this eloquent reply. “Hookers for the most part don't go rollerblading with their clients like I just did last weekend with someone I met from the site.” That’s right guys – your monthly payments could potentially lead to rollerblading, the oldest profession of them all.

Is it just me, or is our society slowly embracing the concept of dating-as-economic-trade (like the well-known Craigslist girl)? When I was still living in New York, a few of my co-workers at the investment bank (male and female) received solicitations to join the “Natural Selection Speed Date”, a speed dating event where guys have to earn $300K+, have invested assets over a million, or a trust fund over $4 million to apply. For women to apply, they needed to submit 5 photographs, and in case you were unclear why they want that, the site explicitly stated “pictures are judged for beauty.” That clarification was helpful, I thought maybe they would be judged on resolution. Even better, the site explicitly tells women that “no additional information will be accepted” outside of the 5 photos. The event was $500 for men, $50 for women. I don’t think any of my co-workers ended up going to this thing, but you never know. I had some shady co-workers.

Japanese Brilliance

Japanese society has long been superior to America's in all the most important facets of life: automobiles, consumer electronics, preparation of fish. One area where they have far exceeded us for decades is game shows. Your typical American mocks Japanese game shows as a frenetic extravaganza of nonsensical enthusiasm, but beneath that lie some of the most creative ideas to hit television. American game shows have essentially been identical variations of the same crap, with shows like "Let's Make a Deal" reincarnating as "Deal or No Deal". When Americans can't think of new game shows, they just exactly remake the old ones, like "$25,000 Pyramid" or "To Tell The Truth". (Some shows have just never gone away, like "Wheel of Fortune" and "Jeopardy". When I was 8 years old, I used to always wonder at what point Vanna White would be replaced by someone young and hot. Now it appears she's going to do this job until she dies. The older she gets, the creepier it is that she's still doing it.)

Other times, we just straight up jack other country's shows, like "The Weakest Link". I would be in favor of this, if we stole from Japan. Here's a sampling of some great stuff.

Sasuke - Japan's ultimate obstacle course show. It's really just incredible. Here, you can see it on the G4 channel under the name "Ninja Warrior". Check out this clip of the great warrior/fisherman, Makoto Nagano.



Courtesy of Rich, check out this hysterical and incredibly suspenseful "Human Tetris" show, where people who stand on a moving conveyor belt attempt to fit their body in awkward human-shaped holes. You gotta see this, it's unbelievably stupid yet cool.





But if we're talking about unbelievably stupid yet cool - nothing could top this Japanese clip, courtesy of Mike. Be patient with this one - it starts a little slow, but if you don't laugh at this, I give up on you.

Steroids All-Stars

All the recent fuss over baseball provides me a nice opportunity to reiterate that everyone is on steroids. Well, maybe not David Eckstein. (You know what, though? He should start using steroids, it couldn’t hurt.) I thought I’d share with you my all-time Major League Baseball steroid team.

Catcher: Ivan Rodriguez
Steroid Use Probability: 97%
Comments: Jose Canseco claims to have injected Rafael Palmeiro, Juan Gonzalez, and Ivan Rodriguez “many times” while they were teammates in Texas. Since Canseco’s claim, both Palmeiro and Gonzalez have been conclusively shown to be users. And “Pudge” ain’t so Pudgy these days.

First Base: Mark McGwire
Steroid Use Probability: 642%
Comments: Chicks dig the long ball.

Second Base: Bret Boone
Steroid Use Probability: 99%
Comments: Is it weird that a guy who averaged 10 HRs a season until age 28 suddenly averaged 26 HRs for the next 7 seasons? I wonder if deca-durabolin makes you more likely to cry like a little bitch.

Shortstop: Miguel Tejada
Steroid Use Probability: 97%
Comments: Thanks to Miguel, I learned the importance of getting enough B12 vitamins, ensuring strong production of nerve cells. Gotta have those nerve cells.

Third Base: Ken Caminiti
Steroid Use Probability: 100%
Comments: I actually admire the guy – when he says 50% of players are on steroids, I see no reason not to believe him.

Left Field: Barry Bonds
Steroid Use Probability: 100,000%
Comments: Barry’s systematic use of “flaxseed oil” means he has a good level of omega-3 fatty acids. I wonder why he doesn’t just eat fish instead. Next time he comes over for dinner, I’m going to cook him some fish, like a nice seabass or something – maybe he likes fish and doesn’t even know it yet. Then, he could stop taking flaxseed oil!

Center Field: Gary Matthews, Jr.
Steroid Use Probability: 95%
Comments: He’s not on par with the other players on my team, but I needed someone who could play center field, so his purchase of Human Growth Hormone from an Alabama pharmacy will have to do.

Right Field: Gary Sheffield
Steroid Use Probability: 48,000%
Comments: I bet Sheffield has the worst ‘roid rage ever. I can only imagine what he did when he found out his wife made a sextape with R. Kelly as a minor. On the list of the worst secrets you could learn about your wife, “made a sextape with R.Kelly at age 15” has got to be in the top 5 at least.

Starting Pitcher: Roger Clemens
Steroid Use Probability: 99.99999%
Comments: That Cingular dropped call with him and his wife is the worst of all those ads. I like them all, except for that one.


Relief Pitcher: Guillermo Mota
Steroid Use Probability: 100%
Comments: Rafael Betancourt is probably a better choice, but I just wanted an excuse to link to this story about Mota. One time he threw at Mike Piazza's head, and was so scared of Piazza's attack that he threw his glove at Piazza and ran out of the stadium to his car. Hysterical.

In A While, Crocodile

As far as controversial decisions go, my purchase of two Lacoste polo shirts a couple weeks ago probably doesn't rank above my decision not to attend Caltech, but it was still an agonizing struggle for me. I received an excellent coupon (I would never pay full price for those shirts), but it still wasn't an easy decision.

I've long been anti-Lacoste, consciously deciding not to join my fellow yuppies in their adherence to this classic (uninteresting?) French brand. There were a number of reasons - first, in college, lots of hate-worthy people wore Lacoste shirts, and I (unfairly, because a lot of my friends wear Lacoste) associated the shirts and the logo to what scientists might call "being a douche". But mainly, I was under the impression that people bought them simply because they were more expensive. At least at first blush, I couldn't discern any meaningful quality difference between Lacoste polos and Ralph Lauren polos priced for $25 less. The proliferation of fake Lacoste shirts from Asia (and everyone's inability to tell the difference) only served to confirm this in my head. It wasn't that I was trying to be cheap - I just didn't feel like I would be getting premium quality for the premium price.

Nonetheless, the coupon eliminated my whole price gripe, so I decided to explore the possibility of breaking my Lacoste ban. A quick look at the website was not heartening: the models all look like complete idiots. A quick sampling:

http://shopapparel.lacoste.com/p/Short-Sleeve-Classic-Pique-Polo/B000PYBWY4
http://shopapparel.lacoste.com/p/MultiStripe-Pique-Polo/B000W19HYM


I asked some friends if I should buy a couple shirts. Interestingly, they were all completely sure that I should, which resonated strongly. Amanda and Stephanie even reached "adamant" territory that these shirts were legitimately $25 better than those of rival brands. They were "high-quality", "slightly retro", "better fabric", "more breathable". In particular, I was intrigued by the argument that Lacoste shirts are more durable, and hold their shape better over time.

So I bought a couple and with the coupon, I really didn't pay very much. When they came in the mail, I examined the products. The fabric and texture both appear and feel identical to this Ralph Lauren polo shirt I have. I tried one on, and can report that I started to feel like a more durable person immediately.

I wore both shirts this weekend. Hopefully nobody saw me both days, because then they would think that's all I wear. As far as being more breathable, it's tough for me to say. I'm not a very sweaty guy, and I didn't really push myself to the physical limit in these shirts. So I'm most intrigued by my friends' assessment of durability and shape-holding over time. I'm not going to take any better care of these shirts than any of my other clothes. I will be able to report the results of this controlled scientific experiment later on. You will all have to wait until then.

Who Wants To Be A Billionaire?

People.com had this absolutely fascinating article today about Spencer Pratt, “star” of MTV’s hit education show “The Hills”. I don’t watch the show, but everyone I know who does absolutely detests him in a completely uninhibited way. Like, if they saw him on the street, they would actually walk up to him and beat him senseless. I didn’t find anything particularly compelling about him, outside of rivaling Adolf Hitler for lowest popularity rating. But today, I saw that he delivered the following quote:

“Well, I'm trying to be a billionaire before 30. Once you find an open market, that's where you can make billions to trillions of dollars. Every big product, from Proactiv to the Internet—these were things that were just ideas. And I'm a free thinker. There is no box. I'm thinking about ideas that people might think are crazy, and I'm like, this world is crazy, where do you think we are? You want to tell me there's a planet and there's a universe, and gravity holding us down? It's like, okay, I'm crazy then.”

Gravity is so crazy. My favorite part of this quote is that when attempting to name two big products, he named the Internet, which is not precisely a product, and Proactiv, which I doubt is even among the world’s top 25,000 products. But what really caught my eye was his lofty goal: to be a billionaire by age 30.

Those of you who follow the NBA are no doubt aware of LeBron James’ stated goal of becoming a billionaire. Back in 2005, LeBron gave himself 15-20 years to do so, meaning he now has 13-18 years left. Spencer Pratt, on the other hand, has only 6 years left to achieve his goal, so he’s going to need to work really fast. Let’s break down the expected wealth of each man along his defined time horizon. For the purposes of analysis, I am going to presume no one murders Spencer before he turns 30, which is admittedly a rather large assumption.

Existing Wealth

LeBron James: He just finished his 4-year rookie NBA contract, earning $18.79 million. His Nike deal is widely reported to have had a $10 million signing bonus – in total, I would guess he’s cashed on about $50 million of the $90 million deal. Other endorsements likely add another $35-40 million (I’m guessing to date he’s made $10-$15 from Microsoft, $8-10 from Sprite, $3 from Upper Deck, plus a litany of other “small” deals). I’ll also add in another $1 million he presumably made in under-the-table cash payments while in high school. Net of tax, agent and lawyer fees and purchases of depreciating assets (like 28-inch spinning rims), and assuming a reasonable investment return on his money, I’m going to peg his current wealth around $65 million.

Spencer Pratt: My guess is $1 million.

Dollars left till a billion: LeBron - $935,000,000.00; Spencer - $999,000,000.00.

Future Income

LeBron James: He signed an extension which will pay him $60 million over the next 3 years – assuming the NBA doesn’t experience a massive increase in the total revenue pie, I estimate the pre-tax present value of his basketball earnings to be $150 million. I have him pegged for roughly another $20-$25 million annually in endorsements. I don’t think the endorsement projection has that much upside (in fact I think it’s overly optimistic) – while generally performing from a basketball standpoint, it’s apparent that he is not a compelling endorser versus the likes of Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods, largely because LeBron doesn’t come across with that much charisma. Endorsement pre-tax present value works out to about $100 million. Do some more number crunching from there, and I’m guessing by the year 2020, LeBron is worth in the neighborhood of $250-$300 million. I happen to disagree that if he were traded to New York, he would be worth a lot more money – the market seems pretty saturated with LeBron as it is. Maybe one of his investments hits it big (like suddenly everyone decides to ride bicycles), but I’m going to guess $300 million in the year 2020.

Spencer Pratt: I would guess that his going rate for parties is $25,000 – if he whores himself out (in this specific way) 30 times a year, he’s looking at $750k. If he has some savvy, he can probably get two-three good years of this type of income. If he leaks embarrassing photos or videos to the tabloids of either himself or his equally useless girlfriend, he can probably drum up another $250k. His own reality show should net him another $500k, and a subsequent appearance on “The Surreal Life” ought to bring in $200k more. I would ordinarily also think he could get another $300k out of stunt casting in B-movies, but he doesn’t seem to think too highly of movies.

"It's so much cooler to have people come up to me and be like, "Spencer Pratt!" and know my name, than to be Orlando Bloom, who's famous for being some pirate."

Anyways, if he manages his money wisely, I estimate he could be worth as much as $3 million by the time he’s 30.

Dollars left till a billion: LeBron - $700,000,000.00; Spencer - $997,000,000.00

Marrying Rich

LeBron James: There’s no way he marries a rich woman, he has too much ego.

Spencer Pratt: He’s already set to marry someone who doesn’t have all THAT much money, but that marriage should be finished within 10 months, leaving him a good 4-5 years to marry into some additional money. Unfortunately, he’s so widely regarded as a sleazebag that he probably won’t manage to marry a rich woman without a prenup. He may be able to siphon off some money, but it probably won’t exceed a million.

Dollars left till a billion: LeBron - $700,000,000.00; Spencer - $996,000,000.00

You may have read all of this, and thought that this whole entry was very superficial. After all, there’s a lot more to life than being a billionaire. Fortunately for us, Spencer has realized as much, and has set out life goals for himself that extend beyond becoming a billionaire.

"Well, I definitely want to go into politics later in my life. I plan to be governor at least, and president if possible."

And president if possible. It’s possible, Spencer. Be a free thinker. There is no box. Gravity is like, so crazy.

The Final Chuck Post

Earlier in this blog, I discussed "Good Luck, Chuck", the Dane Cook-Jessica Alba "romantic" "comedy" I was afraid I was going to watch at some point due to Jessica Alba's almost intolerable hotness. I had noticed that the movie must not have been tracking well pre-release, as the marketing did a 180 and attempted to pretend Dane Cook wasn't in the movie at all. Now that it's out, it appears to literally be the worst movie of all time.

You read that right. The worst movie of all time.


The movie scored a 3% at Rotten Tomatoes - for reference, that's HALF the score of "Gigli", often touted as the worst movie ever made. (It's not by the way - I saw it out of morbid curiosity, and it's at least an F+. Possibly even D-.) Rotten Tomatoes also has a "Cream of the Crop" list, which only compiles respected movie critics, excluding the kinds of critics who offer studio-fed lines like "An Adrenaline-Pumping Overdrive Bonanza!" as reviews in hopes of getting celebrity access. The "Cream of the Crop" results? ZERO percent. And just like that, the controversial career of Mr. Dane Cook is over.


I'm curious how Dane Cook will handle the end of his career. He might emulate Carrot Top, and continue to exist as a fringe comedian with a loyal (albeit idiotic) fan base. He could still book plenty of standup comedy gigs, and would probably have a decent life, as long as he's willing to be a complete mockery, like Carrot Top. (Who, by the way, stars in what I believe to be the worst movie ever made, 1998's "Chairman of the Board".) Of course, it's possible he'll just slink away into obscurity, never to be heard from again. I'll be happy either way, this one's a win-win.

Alumni Giving

Yesterday, I got tracked down by Princeton University Alumni Giving, the most dedicated and tenacious organization ever assembled in the history of the universe. Whenever people say that the government can run massive programs better than the private sector, I am tempted to point them to Princeton's Alumni Giving, an all-consuming phenomenal money-making machine with an endowment of roughly $15 billion. On my most recent call, the cheerful sophomore representative did not even ask for money. She introduced herself as a member of alumni giving and thanked me for my previous contribution. I prepared for her to try to hit me up for more cash, but instead she just offered to answer questions I had about Princeton. I didn't really have any questions, so it was sort of a short call.

(Disclaimer: After about 19 phone calls, 7 mailings to 3 addresses and untold email, I finally caved in and donated $20 last year. The reason I did this was because I fear that the university keeps a hit list of non-donors and then sends kids to egg their homes. And then adults to murder them. Murder the non-donors, not the egg kids.)


How many people work for the Alumni Giving office? In my time at Princeton, I can't think of any organization that attracted as many eager volunteers as Alumni Giving. Certainly Amnesty International or AIDS Awareness did not have the manpower to phone every single alumnus ever for the sole purpose of answering questions people may or may not have about unknown issues.

What exactly is the draw of working for Alumni Giving? Is it people's charitable desires? Princeton, like most well funded private school endowments, spends only about 4 to 5 percent of the principal value a year, despite investment returns over 16 percent. I'm personally unclear how most charitable foundations operate, but seeing as how doing good today is worth more than doing good tomorrow, I would speculate that your typical charity disburses or puts to work much more than 4 to 5 percent. And while Princeton's enormous endowment has enabled it to offer the nation's best financial aid packages, much of alumni giving funds of course go to benefit people who already range somewhere between well-off and MTV-Cribs-well-off.

If charity is the wrong answer, I'm left with school spirit as my only remaining explanation for this curiously high interest in telemarketing. I still find this surprising though. While Princeton students certainly have school pride, I never found it to be a particularly rah-rah place. There wasn't overwhelming demand to be a counselor or a residential advisor. Sports were poorly attended and barely followed, even popular sports we were competitive in. Maybe half the students read the school paper - and on and on the examples could go.

Ultimately, I understand the desire in some people to help give back to their school. Why so many people do it through these means though, (and I specifically mean calling me to ask for money) continues to confound.