Facebook’s alarming rise to prominence has already reached mythic proportions. In the world of technology, its story is told with a “Sword in the Stone” type of esteem; the same way one tells the story about the time they had sex with two roommates in one night. Launched in early 2004 by Harvard Sophomore Mark Zuckerburg and his three roommates, the site had 100,000 users by June of that year and, as of this November, claims to have over 50 million members. Their numbers catapulted when they altered the registration condition requiring users to have a school e-mail address to access the site. Beforehand, having Facebook meant a bit of pride. Users had had gotten into college and as a reward they had this online community where they could interact with other sophisticates devoid of the distraction of those undereducated brutes who plague the web. This was a source of minor outrage, mostly directed at the fact that high school kids could now use this privileged site.
The first change that threw the Facebook community into real turmoil was the introduction of the vaunted newsfeed. This feature compiled all moves made by users (profile changes, new friendships, acquisition of sexually transmitted diseases) and announced them for all to see on their friends’ homepages. People reacted like Facebook had started typing up their diary and sending it to their friends. It felt like Facebook was trying to teach a course in Stalking 101. The problem was that Zuckerburg didn’t phase in this new development by letting users choose what is displayed; he just threw up the new feature. This resulted in a backlash that was, presumably, unexpected. Or maybe it was. Maybe he was just taking the same approach that my landlords did when we moved into our apartment and found that our rug smelled like it had been used as a sewage transfer station. Sure they knew about the smell, I think people three towns over knew about it, but they didn’t replace it until we complained.
When Facebookers complained Zuckerburg quickly made the needed changes, installed a privacy control and issued a swift and genuine sounding apology. He defended the newsfeed as a tool with endless beneficial possibilities, but said that users should have the ability to control what is displayed. Everyone accepted his apology and actually quickly accepted the newsfeed because, well, everyone kind of likes to stalk their friends.
They apparently learned from their mistakes and their next significant augmentation, Applications, was a feature that users had to agree to use before installing. These independently developed programs can be loaded onto a person’s profile and range from various games to a declaration of fanhood for a team and there’s even one where users can anonymously disclose secrets. I’m sure the dirty rumor and embarrassing childhood story applications are in the works. Or maybe they’ll just have a feature where parents can upload pictures of their young kid naked in the bath tub.
Now it seems they are back to their old tricks, although this time it was much more subtle. At the beginning of November, Facebook launched a new feature called Beacon. Many probably haven’t heard of it because it was not an optional application, nor was it a visible one.
When a computer visits a webpage it downloads ‘cookies’ from that particular site. Facebook’s cookies are not warm and soft. No, they communicate with a third-party site that tracks all of the members’ personal online movements (purchases, tastes, preferences), through a partnership with about 40 other sites, and sends them to Facebook which uses this information to tailor its advertisements to appeal to each particular user. Also, until recently, it put the users’ online purchases into the newsfeed. A person could have bought something on eBay, in a completely separate transaction, and had it announced on the site. There was even a story of a guy buying a ring for his lady and having her find out about it because of this.
The reason Facebook is such a progressive and influential site is not because of its advancements in social networking but because of its advancements in the field of marketing. One of marketing’s main hurdles is reaching the target audience; it is a constant struggle and there is always collateral damage. Anti-marijuana ads aimed at dissuading current smokers inevitably cause some curious children to ask their parents what this weird, forbidden, Mexican sounding substance is. With Facebook, a company can be absolutely sure about who is seeing their ad because of the individual nature of the site.
Most people didn’t even know this was occurring. Obviously, it caused a minor outrage among those in the know. A petition was started, letters were written and finally Zuckerburg issued an apology and made the necessary changes, switching it to an opt-in program rather than an opt-out device.
While the apology again quelled the mob, the bravado with which Zuckerburg has marched around Silicon Valley is remarkable. His continued pattern of going too far and then apologizing has started to become reminiscent of an abusive father who always goes out to contritely get comic books for his son after savagely lashing him with his belt buckle for a couple hours. Their strategy now appears to be one of arrogantly confident risk. The site has become such an addiction that people are primed to forgive them, no matter how far they push the limits, as long as they rectify the mistake.
Facebook, like most other websites, is designed so people will spend as much time as possible on the site. It really is an advertisers dream. The concern with Facebook, and the thing to keep in mind, is that they do not have their user’s interests at heart. They don’t. They are truly and utterly motivated by the business of the internet. It’s the same reason that companies can pay a fee to look at prospective employee’s profiles and check their Facebook history. If it was really a network devoted to college students then this would not occur. I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. For lack of a better expression, this is just how the world works. Just remember, Facebook is not your friend.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Friday, November 9, 2007
Zen and The Art of Chivalry
The other day, a girl told me “chivalry is dead,” and it took all of my willpower to not step on her scattered papers as I pushed past her through the doorway. In all honesty, I probably should have helped her, or at least not opened the door into her head, but I’m sick of hearing that expression. When somebody articulates this view, I don’t know how to defend myself or my gender because I’m not exactly sure what this divine romantic standard entails.
Take opening doors for example. When approaching an entrance with a lady it is a very logical and prudent procedure to open the door for her and hold it while she walks through. It is a gracious indication of respect. But the opening-of-the-door practice confuses me in other instances. Say it is the beginning of a date. The male drives his car up to the house, apartment, or homeless shelter and the woman is waiting outside. Is it rude of the male to not open the door for her? Wouldn’t he look like an overzealous chauffeur scurrying around the perimeter of the car? Or when the woman is dropped off, should the young lad open the house door for her too? Should he go inside to see if there are any other doors that need opening? It’s understandable that when doors were very heavy and possibly made of large boulders it was a very valiant and cordial gesture to move that obstruction. Now that doors open so easily, some are even automatic, it would seem almost insulting to the woman to jump out and open up.
In reality, if social standards asserted that men were expected to open every door, drawer, cabinet and cupboard for women, most would do it. This is why the phrase “chivalry is dead” doesn’t make sense. Sure there will always be the rebellious faction, but for the most part, guys will do most anything to gain the affection of a woman. Seriously- anything.
Recently, I read a book called The Game. I know, congratulations, I read something; stop bragging. But while it’s amazing that I actually sat down and finished a piece of literature, the content was even more amazing. The writer, Neil Strauss, prefaces by explaining that, until the beginning of the book’s story, he was a fairly successful writer, but much less triumphant romantically. On one book assignment he went on tour with Motley Crue and couldn’t manage to obtain even a sympathetic hand job amid the drugs, sex and chaos of a true-blooded rock & roll environment. His book details his odyssey into the “pick-up artist community,” a bizarre and outlandish collection of otherwise socially inept individuals who have banded together to compare theories used in their quest for the opposite sex.
Strauss immersed himself in the “pick-up artist lifestyle” and began to study under one of the “gurus.” (For real, they are called gurus. Forget the Dalai Lama, he doesn’t get you laid.) Basically, these “artists” break down each social interaction with a female into a series of steps. There are established lines and actions to be used during each step and, much like poker, they have to “read” the cues of their “target” in order to react accordingly. They basically treat women like they are adversaries in a video game. One of the “steps” is to showcase their value as a potential mate. Somehow, they have settled on magic tricks as being the most effective method. I’m really not kidding. They would go out to clubs with little backpacks filled with “illusions” and all other goodies. When someone has a bag in which a condom is sitting next to a magic wand, it might be time to revaluate some life decisions.
Remarkably, due to Strauss’ natural intelligence and the apparently knowledgeable guidance of his instructor, he transformed himself into what the community termed a “master pick-up artist.” He was identified by his peers as the best in the world. Even though one can only go by what is detailed in the book, the majority of his story seems to ring true. Adding authenticity to the story was the show on VH-1 called “The Pick-Up Artist” that centered on a guru called Mystery. (Mystery, by the way, is his “pick up artist name,” and he apparently uses it in public. Imagine introducing your boyfriend Mystery to your parents.) This is the actual guru whom Strauss befriends and enumerates about for the majority of his book and was the person who came up with the magic trick idea. He has many other theories as well.
One of them is called “peacocking.” This involves wearing clothes that make one stand out from other men. His reasoning is that women have all types of fashion that they use to create a distinctive style while men are more restricted in this sense. There is a reason for this: we are men. Check out the show sometime to see how he peacocks. Often, he will wear a top hat, in the vein of Abraham Lincoln, except it is completely covered with fur, in the vein of Boy George. Other times he just wears a simple ski hat…with ski goggles nestled on top of his head. Inside. In California. They don’t even appear to be ski goggles that are for sale in any stores. I think they have to be specially ordered from some ski company in The Matrix.
The fact is that he dresses like this and uses all those funny words because he has found that it works with some women. As mentioned before, men will do anything they find effective. Women always talk about finding their “knight in shining armor.” I’m warning you right now, be careful what you wish for. Next thing you know, you’ll walk into a bar and see a table of men, dressed head to toe in silver alloys and metal mesh shirts, in the middle of July- with their lances stowed under the table.
Take opening doors for example. When approaching an entrance with a lady it is a very logical and prudent procedure to open the door for her and hold it while she walks through. It is a gracious indication of respect. But the opening-of-the-door practice confuses me in other instances. Say it is the beginning of a date. The male drives his car up to the house, apartment, or homeless shelter and the woman is waiting outside. Is it rude of the male to not open the door for her? Wouldn’t he look like an overzealous chauffeur scurrying around the perimeter of the car? Or when the woman is dropped off, should the young lad open the house door for her too? Should he go inside to see if there are any other doors that need opening? It’s understandable that when doors were very heavy and possibly made of large boulders it was a very valiant and cordial gesture to move that obstruction. Now that doors open so easily, some are even automatic, it would seem almost insulting to the woman to jump out and open up.
In reality, if social standards asserted that men were expected to open every door, drawer, cabinet and cupboard for women, most would do it. This is why the phrase “chivalry is dead” doesn’t make sense. Sure there will always be the rebellious faction, but for the most part, guys will do most anything to gain the affection of a woman. Seriously- anything.
Recently, I read a book called The Game. I know, congratulations, I read something; stop bragging. But while it’s amazing that I actually sat down and finished a piece of literature, the content was even more amazing. The writer, Neil Strauss, prefaces by explaining that, until the beginning of the book’s story, he was a fairly successful writer, but much less triumphant romantically. On one book assignment he went on tour with Motley Crue and couldn’t manage to obtain even a sympathetic hand job amid the drugs, sex and chaos of a true-blooded rock & roll environment. His book details his odyssey into the “pick-up artist community,” a bizarre and outlandish collection of otherwise socially inept individuals who have banded together to compare theories used in their quest for the opposite sex.
Strauss immersed himself in the “pick-up artist lifestyle” and began to study under one of the “gurus.” (For real, they are called gurus. Forget the Dalai Lama, he doesn’t get you laid.) Basically, these “artists” break down each social interaction with a female into a series of steps. There are established lines and actions to be used during each step and, much like poker, they have to “read” the cues of their “target” in order to react accordingly. They basically treat women like they are adversaries in a video game. One of the “steps” is to showcase their value as a potential mate. Somehow, they have settled on magic tricks as being the most effective method. I’m really not kidding. They would go out to clubs with little backpacks filled with “illusions” and all other goodies. When someone has a bag in which a condom is sitting next to a magic wand, it might be time to revaluate some life decisions.
Remarkably, due to Strauss’ natural intelligence and the apparently knowledgeable guidance of his instructor, he transformed himself into what the community termed a “master pick-up artist.” He was identified by his peers as the best in the world. Even though one can only go by what is detailed in the book, the majority of his story seems to ring true. Adding authenticity to the story was the show on VH-1 called “The Pick-Up Artist” that centered on a guru called Mystery. (Mystery, by the way, is his “pick up artist name,” and he apparently uses it in public. Imagine introducing your boyfriend Mystery to your parents.) This is the actual guru whom Strauss befriends and enumerates about for the majority of his book and was the person who came up with the magic trick idea. He has many other theories as well.
One of them is called “peacocking.” This involves wearing clothes that make one stand out from other men. His reasoning is that women have all types of fashion that they use to create a distinctive style while men are more restricted in this sense. There is a reason for this: we are men. Check out the show sometime to see how he peacocks. Often, he will wear a top hat, in the vein of Abraham Lincoln, except it is completely covered with fur, in the vein of Boy George. Other times he just wears a simple ski hat…with ski goggles nestled on top of his head. Inside. In California. They don’t even appear to be ski goggles that are for sale in any stores. I think they have to be specially ordered from some ski company in The Matrix.
The fact is that he dresses like this and uses all those funny words because he has found that it works with some women. As mentioned before, men will do anything they find effective. Women always talk about finding their “knight in shining armor.” I’m warning you right now, be careful what you wish for. Next thing you know, you’ll walk into a bar and see a table of men, dressed head to toe in silver alloys and metal mesh shirts, in the middle of July- with their lances stowed under the table.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Finally I Can Graduate
Here's the link to this article on the website, but the editors mangled it. The original version is posted below: http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2007/10/30/Commentary/Finally.I.Can.Graduate.In.Peace-3065167.shtml
This column is self-serving and essentially egotistical. I’m not writing about an important political issue or a valid campus concern. I’m writing because I got to rush the field Saturday at the football game and now my college experience is complete. Until now, the approaching completion of my 120 credits hung like a court date circled on the calendar. I felt I had not “done it all.” Now I am content, and can move onto whatever comes next.
During my college search, I narrowed my options down to UVM and UConn. My aversion towards attending my state school (I’m from the New Haven area) mirrored the reasoning used by anyone who had attended a marginally big high school: because ‘everybody’ goes there and I wanted something different- that and I didn’t like the notion of my parents popping in weekly if I was so close to home. It’s also the reason I didn’t go to Yale. The reality? Your parents are fired up to get rid of you. (The Opinion Staff has started to phase out the usage of the word ‘you’ because it insinuates what the reader is thinking and can thus offend people who don’t hold that viewpoint. I’m not asserting that all your parent’s hate you.) Their mock anguish exists only to saddle you with the obligation to buy them nice things when you become successful. (I just said ‘you’ were going to be successful, ‘you’ can’t be pissed about that.)
I went on my college visit to UVM with the latent intention of making it my final choice. Anything I found attractive about the school, I would have overrated. Any deficiencies, I would have depreciated. “Oh it’s overrun by smelly hippies?” “I heard they were easy-going people.” We arrived at the school, gave the town a cursory glance and started in search of the football stadium; a staple of every assessment. Upon being notified by a confused undergraduate that the football stadium we were trying to find didn’t exist, my college decision was made. It’s one of those deal-breakers that wasn’t dismissible, like a girl telling you she’s really into Saw III or a guy canceling a first date an hour before he’s supposed to cook for a girl because he “just doesn’t feel like it.”
So Storrs it was and it proved to be a good time to jump on the Huskies’ bandwagon. The team moved up to Division I in 2000 and one of the swiftest rises to prominence in recent memory. They attracted the interest of a major conference by 2002, had joined that conference by 2004 and were given a bowl invitation in their first year of eligibility, an impressively fast growth spurt on anyone’s charts. Still, while they hovered on the edge of college football’s upper echelon, they still hadn’t made that prized kill; they weren’t yet “Made Men.” As Hunter S. Thompson once professed “The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.”
The Huskies went over that edge when they toppled the No. 10 ranked team in the nation. I went over that edge when I vaulted ten feet over a three-hundred pound, steroid addled security guard who had a scared freshman in a full nelson. The energy in the stands was palpable. Strangers were high-fiving and cracking jokes and making sure their neighbor would give them a boost onto the goal posts. A heavy rain has a harmonious effect on a group and probably also accounts for part of the reason the squad pulled off these last two wins. In sports it’s said that weather is the great equalizer and it definitely did its part in minimizing the handicap caused by the team’s usually inferior speed. But the effect of the crowd also can’t be dismissed. These past two weeks were a statement. The Huskies, like true alpha-dogs, marked their territory. The Rent is officially a war zone, an unstable environment for opposing forces. (They also have a hunting store right on the property, which is convenient for those who wanted to go to a football game and then buy a fishing rod or thought tailgating with a rifle raised the level of excitement.)
The game ended in the fashion of all memorable upsets, with a conclusion that had fans delirious with anticipation and with a nervous, “what’s going to happen next?” feeling )similar to how Britney Spears’ supporters feel.) The crowd descended onto the field with a mob mentality. This was my moment. I started towards the front, shoving kids out of the way like a self-indulgent passenger of the Titanic trying to get to a life boat. The sight of the security guard opening a can of whoop-ass only reminded me to, in the words of Van Halen, “hit the ground running.”
Let’s face it: aside from capsizing the goal posts, the actual rushing of the field activity is just a glorified exercise in insanity. After about age six or seven it stops being socially acceptable to jump around screaming in joy. There’s only so many times you can slam a player on their shoulder pads or high five a 65 year-old before you realize you’re acting like you just traded a fourth round draft pick for Randy Moss.
But the sense of achievement doesn’t derive from the actual act but rather the significance of the occasion. The football team has finally stepped onto the national stage. They earned their first -ever ranking in the respected polls. (At least all that lobster those players are being fed at their fancy new facility now seems justified for the time being.) And I got to rush the field. Now I’m okay with wrapping up my stay on this farmland, although that’s probably only for the time being, as well- at least until I realize I’m going to need a job that pays more than ten dollars an article.
This column is self-serving and essentially egotistical. I’m not writing about an important political issue or a valid campus concern. I’m writing because I got to rush the field Saturday at the football game and now my college experience is complete. Until now, the approaching completion of my 120 credits hung like a court date circled on the calendar. I felt I had not “done it all.” Now I am content, and can move onto whatever comes next.
During my college search, I narrowed my options down to UVM and UConn. My aversion towards attending my state school (I’m from the New Haven area) mirrored the reasoning used by anyone who had attended a marginally big high school: because ‘everybody’ goes there and I wanted something different- that and I didn’t like the notion of my parents popping in weekly if I was so close to home. It’s also the reason I didn’t go to Yale. The reality? Your parents are fired up to get rid of you. (The Opinion Staff has started to phase out the usage of the word ‘you’ because it insinuates what the reader is thinking and can thus offend people who don’t hold that viewpoint. I’m not asserting that all your parent’s hate you.) Their mock anguish exists only to saddle you with the obligation to buy them nice things when you become successful. (I just said ‘you’ were going to be successful, ‘you’ can’t be pissed about that.)
I went on my college visit to UVM with the latent intention of making it my final choice. Anything I found attractive about the school, I would have overrated. Any deficiencies, I would have depreciated. “Oh it’s overrun by smelly hippies?” “I heard they were easy-going people.” We arrived at the school, gave the town a cursory glance and started in search of the football stadium; a staple of every assessment. Upon being notified by a confused undergraduate that the football stadium we were trying to find didn’t exist, my college decision was made. It’s one of those deal-breakers that wasn’t dismissible, like a girl telling you she’s really into Saw III or a guy canceling a first date an hour before he’s supposed to cook for a girl because he “just doesn’t feel like it.”
So Storrs it was and it proved to be a good time to jump on the Huskies’ bandwagon. The team moved up to Division I in 2000 and one of the swiftest rises to prominence in recent memory. They attracted the interest of a major conference by 2002, had joined that conference by 2004 and were given a bowl invitation in their first year of eligibility, an impressively fast growth spurt on anyone’s charts. Still, while they hovered on the edge of college football’s upper echelon, they still hadn’t made that prized kill; they weren’t yet “Made Men.” As Hunter S. Thompson once professed “The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.”
The Huskies went over that edge when they toppled the No. 10 ranked team in the nation. I went over that edge when I vaulted ten feet over a three-hundred pound, steroid addled security guard who had a scared freshman in a full nelson. The energy in the stands was palpable. Strangers were high-fiving and cracking jokes and making sure their neighbor would give them a boost onto the goal posts. A heavy rain has a harmonious effect on a group and probably also accounts for part of the reason the squad pulled off these last two wins. In sports it’s said that weather is the great equalizer and it definitely did its part in minimizing the handicap caused by the team’s usually inferior speed. But the effect of the crowd also can’t be dismissed. These past two weeks were a statement. The Huskies, like true alpha-dogs, marked their territory. The Rent is officially a war zone, an unstable environment for opposing forces. (They also have a hunting store right on the property, which is convenient for those who wanted to go to a football game and then buy a fishing rod or thought tailgating with a rifle raised the level of excitement.)
The game ended in the fashion of all memorable upsets, with a conclusion that had fans delirious with anticipation and with a nervous, “what’s going to happen next?” feeling )similar to how Britney Spears’ supporters feel.) The crowd descended onto the field with a mob mentality. This was my moment. I started towards the front, shoving kids out of the way like a self-indulgent passenger of the Titanic trying to get to a life boat. The sight of the security guard opening a can of whoop-ass only reminded me to, in the words of Van Halen, “hit the ground running.”
Let’s face it: aside from capsizing the goal posts, the actual rushing of the field activity is just a glorified exercise in insanity. After about age six or seven it stops being socially acceptable to jump around screaming in joy. There’s only so many times you can slam a player on their shoulder pads or high five a 65 year-old before you realize you’re acting like you just traded a fourth round draft pick for Randy Moss.
But the sense of achievement doesn’t derive from the actual act but rather the significance of the occasion. The football team has finally stepped onto the national stage. They earned their first -ever ranking in the respected polls. (At least all that lobster those players are being fed at their fancy new facility now seems justified for the time being.) And I got to rush the field. Now I’m okay with wrapping up my stay on this farmland, although that’s probably only for the time being, as well- at least until I realize I’m going to need a job that pays more than ten dollars an article.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Racism and Me
http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2007/10/18/Commentary/Societys.Racist.Values.Counterproductive-3041237.shtml
I don’t consider myself racist. I wish they sold a hat that said that. Even so, I amble through life with the explicit intention of being seen as a friend to all people. I don’t know why I do it. No one has ever told me I was acting like a bigot but then again I don’t have many friends that speak like feminists from the 1970’s. Our society is inveterately sensitive; every action is scrutinized for any semblance of racism or sexism or any other kind of ‘ism. Whatever the reason, when a homeless man of a different race accosts me on the street, cup in hand, I immediately launch into a charade of caring.
I never carry change with me. I think it’s because I don’t want to be that guy who walks around with the audible noise of coins clanging together. I also like to have the option to sneak up on someone if the situation requires it. Despite this, when I am approached on the street by a person who’s heritage traces back to Africa, I always reach my hands into my pockets, dig down deep, and look up with the most compassionate of frowns as I resentfully notify the ragged looking individual. If I happen to actually have change, I’ll give it to him. If I don’t have any pockets, I’ll pat my waist with my hands like there’s a chance I’ll have a quarter taped to my thigh and then give him or her the bad news.
When a white homeless person approaches me, they get a different response. Each time, I look the other way as I walk by his witty sign and mutter something under my breath about him getting a job, or at least a shower. Without fail this is how it happens. People of color get a sympathy act while white people get an economics lecture. Let me also clarify that I’m not just a snobby undergraduate. When I have money I am happy to donate to charity or the homeless but since I am currently a scholar, I don’t usually have a bale of cash lying around.
I was thinking about this other day and realized in my own twisted way, I might actually be acting racist, by not trying to be racist. When the citizen of Caucasia solicits me I think “this man can get a job. Instead he’s living the high life. He relaxes all day, maybe hollers at a girl or two and then he pumps unsuspecting strangers for change when he hungers for a Big Mac.” So I walk past him with no misgivings. When a black person approaches me my thought process is different. “Because of the unfortunately biased hiring practices that occur in this country this man has obviously had trouble obtaining a position of employment. I feel very badly about this and want to show this man concern. Also, for some reason, I feel that if I do not display some sympathy then I will be labeled a racist.” I subconsciously assumed that the white person is a screw up while the African-American is just disadvantaged.
At the time, this sounded even worse and made me sad but, as I thought about it more, I realized that rather than me being prejudiced, I was espousing social prejudices that unfortunately pervade. I thought I was being racist because in my admittedly sheltered and limited point of view I have not been exposed to overt and blatant forms of racism. The thought processes that influenced my actions were erudite perceptions that had been inherited from my environment. I personally was not withholding a job from this person. In fact, if I had a spare job I would have no problem giving it to him, as long as he took a shower. I was just unconsciously saying that his skin color probably impeded his search for employment.
So where does this leave me. I began this confessional with the purpose of reporting on my personal outlook on racism and its incidence in today’s society. I thought I could give a fair view because I am also a minority (Jewish), although it is one that’s had a much easier go in this country. But frankly, who am I to be talking about society in a prescriptive sense. I’m just a seventh semester accounting major with an apparently warped view of archaeologists. I’m not sure what made me think that in my short 21 years of existence I had actually gotten a fair sample of racism and its place in today’s order.
What’s interesting to note is that, in essence, my thought process espouses reverse racism. While not intending to demean the white people, I essentially slight them in order to appear more compassionate to the other races. It all comes down to the fundamental insecurity introduced at the beginning. The publics’ tendency to dissect every exploit and its motive has caused me to over compensate and, in effect, still act racist; except this time the victim is my race.
I don’t consider myself racist. I wish they sold a hat that said that. Even so, I amble through life with the explicit intention of being seen as a friend to all people. I don’t know why I do it. No one has ever told me I was acting like a bigot but then again I don’t have many friends that speak like feminists from the 1970’s. Our society is inveterately sensitive; every action is scrutinized for any semblance of racism or sexism or any other kind of ‘ism. Whatever the reason, when a homeless man of a different race accosts me on the street, cup in hand, I immediately launch into a charade of caring.
I never carry change with me. I think it’s because I don’t want to be that guy who walks around with the audible noise of coins clanging together. I also like to have the option to sneak up on someone if the situation requires it. Despite this, when I am approached on the street by a person who’s heritage traces back to Africa, I always reach my hands into my pockets, dig down deep, and look up with the most compassionate of frowns as I resentfully notify the ragged looking individual. If I happen to actually have change, I’ll give it to him. If I don’t have any pockets, I’ll pat my waist with my hands like there’s a chance I’ll have a quarter taped to my thigh and then give him or her the bad news.
When a white homeless person approaches me, they get a different response. Each time, I look the other way as I walk by his witty sign and mutter something under my breath about him getting a job, or at least a shower. Without fail this is how it happens. People of color get a sympathy act while white people get an economics lecture. Let me also clarify that I’m not just a snobby undergraduate. When I have money I am happy to donate to charity or the homeless but since I am currently a scholar, I don’t usually have a bale of cash lying around.
I was thinking about this other day and realized in my own twisted way, I might actually be acting racist, by not trying to be racist. When the citizen of Caucasia solicits me I think “this man can get a job. Instead he’s living the high life. He relaxes all day, maybe hollers at a girl or two and then he pumps unsuspecting strangers for change when he hungers for a Big Mac.” So I walk past him with no misgivings. When a black person approaches me my thought process is different. “Because of the unfortunately biased hiring practices that occur in this country this man has obviously had trouble obtaining a position of employment. I feel very badly about this and want to show this man concern. Also, for some reason, I feel that if I do not display some sympathy then I will be labeled a racist.” I subconsciously assumed that the white person is a screw up while the African-American is just disadvantaged.
At the time, this sounded even worse and made me sad but, as I thought about it more, I realized that rather than me being prejudiced, I was espousing social prejudices that unfortunately pervade. I thought I was being racist because in my admittedly sheltered and limited point of view I have not been exposed to overt and blatant forms of racism. The thought processes that influenced my actions were erudite perceptions that had been inherited from my environment. I personally was not withholding a job from this person. In fact, if I had a spare job I would have no problem giving it to him, as long as he took a shower. I was just unconsciously saying that his skin color probably impeded his search for employment.
So where does this leave me. I began this confessional with the purpose of reporting on my personal outlook on racism and its incidence in today’s society. I thought I could give a fair view because I am also a minority (Jewish), although it is one that’s had a much easier go in this country. But frankly, who am I to be talking about society in a prescriptive sense. I’m just a seventh semester accounting major with an apparently warped view of archaeologists. I’m not sure what made me think that in my short 21 years of existence I had actually gotten a fair sample of racism and its place in today’s order.
What’s interesting to note is that, in essence, my thought process espouses reverse racism. While not intending to demean the white people, I essentially slight them in order to appear more compassionate to the other races. It all comes down to the fundamental insecurity introduced at the beginning. The publics’ tendency to dissect every exploit and its motive has caused me to over compensate and, in effect, still act racist; except this time the victim is my race.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
The Internet is Important: Archaeologists Have No Credibility
I have an intense distrust of archeologists. These earth dusters enter a cave and see a drawing of a man killing a buffalo with a sharp object. Then take detailed notes, analyze the soil content, and then three years later they write a thesis paper stating that people who lived in caves, referred to as “cavemen,” killed their prey with a primitive weapon known as a spear. I guess I’m selling these scholars a bit short. The work they do is probably a little more complicated- I just didn’t want to do any research. Anyway, for the sake of this article, we are going to leave it at that.
My point is that while analyzing drawings is simple enough, how do we know that these drawings are indicative of what was actually happening. When I was younger I liked the Ninja Turtles so much that I used to draw myself as a one every time we were asked to sketch a self portrait; I even went as far as changing my name. It was a very awkward experience to walk around high school with a letter jacket that said Leonardo on the front. But imagine a couple thousand years down the road, an archeologist unearths a painting of a Ninja Turtle approaching a girl at the lunch line. They might think that, in the past, turtles could talk, as well as learn various types of martial arts and they were very unsuccessful with women.
Now the counter argument is that these drawings are verified by stories that have been inscribed and passed down through the generations. But again, I call into question the reliability of these narrations. I’m sure you’ve played the proverbial “telephone” before. A rumor is started, and then you end up finding out that what you were told is mostly fabricated. But imagine that this version is the only one that makes it through the centuries and suddenly it’s on record as being the accurate portrayal.
Additionally, most of these stories have been translated by many people over the course of many years. I was working in a restaurant this summer and I had to carry a large amount of lemons and limes from the kitchen to the bar. The head cook, a very redoubtable man, saw me carrying them very negligently and he instructed me to put them in a bucket so the customers didn’t get a bad impression of the place. The problem was that he was a Mexican and had a Spanish tongue and I thought he told me to put them in my pocket because I am extremely awful at understanding accents. I ambled out of the kitchen with a mass of fruit in my pants, and this guy was speaking English. I’m not saying that everyone is as impaired as I am, I’m just saying that mistakes could have been made.
Haters will reason that many artifacts are found that help piece together history. Many of these pieces corroborate with the ancient accounts to form an almost certain record. But just think about how many dainty little trinkets are found that archaeologists have to use scattered knowledge to determine their functions. And then think about how much artwork is churned out by our pre-schools- they are like little useless craft sweatshops. Now fast forward to the distant future where Al Gore is somehow wrong and we still have a planet. An archeologist beams down from his space pod and his telekinesis tells him that there is some sort of artifact buried under a certain hover-craft race course. This young scholar digs up a macaroni necklace and after analyzing it he sells it for a billion dollars (I’m adjusting for inflation). Now some 60-year old Jewish woman is walking around wearing it like it is some sort of garish priceless piece of jewelry when it really was made by some three-year old, attached to a refrigerator until he forgot about it and then tossed into the receptacle for burying.
In reality I’m not trying to knock archaeologists, although I basically just did, I’m just trying to illustrate the fact that there is an element of uncertainty regarding the fellows who have previously walked this globe. The interesting aspect about all these scenarios is that, starting with the internet age, there will never be this kind of ambiguity. This handy little invention stores everything, and I mean everything. If you take an embarrassing photo and it’s posted on the web, it’s going to be there forever. If you make a song about your pick up truck and it is posted on a file sharing network, students at your former University will be able to download it and enjoy its lyrical quality for years to come.
Now this is going to have good and bad consequences depending on how you look at it. Some job applicants have been hurt by the fact that companies can pay to look back at the last three years of their Facebook profile. Interviewers can see the picture of the botched keg stand you did freshman year and discern that you do not follow through on projects.
On the flip side, we will now have a permanent record of current events. No more disintegrating newspapers or indecipherable tablets of stone. The accuracy of an account can be verified by checking the many different sources available. Thousands of years from now our posterity will be able to sit down in front of a computer, or most likely, put on a headset, and tell the voice commanded motherboard to pull up pictures of their great-great-great grandparents. They will be able to see what their ancestors looked like, what their activities were and even their favorite movies. They will have such a wealth of knowledge regarding our lives. The scariest part is that they will be able to find a column written by their ancestor 3,000 years ago and realize that they descended from some sort of weirdo that thinks about very odd things.
(You might have found this article amusing but the most amusing part to me were the comments it recieved when it ran in The Daily Campus, UConn's student newspaper. Here's the link to the article on the papers site, comments are at the bottom:
http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2007/10/05/Commentary/Archaeologists.Have.No.Credibility-3014796.shtml)
My point is that while analyzing drawings is simple enough, how do we know that these drawings are indicative of what was actually happening. When I was younger I liked the Ninja Turtles so much that I used to draw myself as a one every time we were asked to sketch a self portrait; I even went as far as changing my name. It was a very awkward experience to walk around high school with a letter jacket that said Leonardo on the front. But imagine a couple thousand years down the road, an archeologist unearths a painting of a Ninja Turtle approaching a girl at the lunch line. They might think that, in the past, turtles could talk, as well as learn various types of martial arts and they were very unsuccessful with women.
Now the counter argument is that these drawings are verified by stories that have been inscribed and passed down through the generations. But again, I call into question the reliability of these narrations. I’m sure you’ve played the proverbial “telephone” before. A rumor is started, and then you end up finding out that what you were told is mostly fabricated. But imagine that this version is the only one that makes it through the centuries and suddenly it’s on record as being the accurate portrayal.
Additionally, most of these stories have been translated by many people over the course of many years. I was working in a restaurant this summer and I had to carry a large amount of lemons and limes from the kitchen to the bar. The head cook, a very redoubtable man, saw me carrying them very negligently and he instructed me to put them in a bucket so the customers didn’t get a bad impression of the place. The problem was that he was a Mexican and had a Spanish tongue and I thought he told me to put them in my pocket because I am extremely awful at understanding accents. I ambled out of the kitchen with a mass of fruit in my pants, and this guy was speaking English. I’m not saying that everyone is as impaired as I am, I’m just saying that mistakes could have been made.
Haters will reason that many artifacts are found that help piece together history. Many of these pieces corroborate with the ancient accounts to form an almost certain record. But just think about how many dainty little trinkets are found that archaeologists have to use scattered knowledge to determine their functions. And then think about how much artwork is churned out by our pre-schools- they are like little useless craft sweatshops. Now fast forward to the distant future where Al Gore is somehow wrong and we still have a planet. An archeologist beams down from his space pod and his telekinesis tells him that there is some sort of artifact buried under a certain hover-craft race course. This young scholar digs up a macaroni necklace and after analyzing it he sells it for a billion dollars (I’m adjusting for inflation). Now some 60-year old Jewish woman is walking around wearing it like it is some sort of garish priceless piece of jewelry when it really was made by some three-year old, attached to a refrigerator until he forgot about it and then tossed into the receptacle for burying.
In reality I’m not trying to knock archaeologists, although I basically just did, I’m just trying to illustrate the fact that there is an element of uncertainty regarding the fellows who have previously walked this globe. The interesting aspect about all these scenarios is that, starting with the internet age, there will never be this kind of ambiguity. This handy little invention stores everything, and I mean everything. If you take an embarrassing photo and it’s posted on the web, it’s going to be there forever. If you make a song about your pick up truck and it is posted on a file sharing network, students at your former University will be able to download it and enjoy its lyrical quality for years to come.
Now this is going to have good and bad consequences depending on how you look at it. Some job applicants have been hurt by the fact that companies can pay to look back at the last three years of their Facebook profile. Interviewers can see the picture of the botched keg stand you did freshman year and discern that you do not follow through on projects.
On the flip side, we will now have a permanent record of current events. No more disintegrating newspapers or indecipherable tablets of stone. The accuracy of an account can be verified by checking the many different sources available. Thousands of years from now our posterity will be able to sit down in front of a computer, or most likely, put on a headset, and tell the voice commanded motherboard to pull up pictures of their great-great-great grandparents. They will be able to see what their ancestors looked like, what their activities were and even their favorite movies. They will have such a wealth of knowledge regarding our lives. The scariest part is that they will be able to find a column written by their ancestor 3,000 years ago and realize that they descended from some sort of weirdo that thinks about very odd things.
(You might have found this article amusing but the most amusing part to me were the comments it recieved when it ran in The Daily Campus, UConn's student newspaper. Here's the link to the article on the papers site, comments are at the bottom:
http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2007/10/05/Commentary/Archaeologists.Have.No.Credibility-3014796.shtml)
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
About the Influence
In a recent anti-marijuana television commercial they show a teenaged girl grabbing some munchies out of the fridge as a friend calls out her name. She turns around with a very confused look on her face. Now the viewer is thinking, “Man, this young girl must be hopelessly stoned. She does have a problem. She doesn’t even recognize her own friends.” Then the camera pans to the friend; the issue is that the friend is actually her dog. “Lindsay, I wish you wouldn’t smoke weed. You’re not the same when you smoke.”
The first time I saw this ad I wasn’t even sure what the “friend” said because I was too busy meditating on that fact that the dog was speaking to her. What is the message here? Smoke weed and you can talk to animals? I guess it is touching that “man’s best friend” is pleading with her for a change but when doesn’t a dog find us humans a bit weird. We’re always going places to do work and eating with utensils and we refuse to catch Frisbees in our mouth. I also like that the dog uses the term “weed,” it shows that he is hip to the jive of today but honestly, how many ten year olds innocently approached their parents and asked how they could start smoking weed so they could talk to their pets? The problem here is that while trying to educate our young ones about the perils they will face in the real world, such as drugs, its done in an ineffective way.
The chief problem with anti-drug advertisements is that they depend too much on scare tactics to get their message across. They hammer home the alleged end result of using these substances without supplying the logic to reach the conclusions. “Smoke pot and you’ll be lazy.” “Smoke pot and you’ll be anti-social.” But if a kid sees this message, and still decides to experiment, and does not find these warnings to be applicable, as sometimes is the case, then he or she may disregard the underlying message of the ad, which is, in fact, true.
We live in a celebrity obsessed culture where Dr. Dre and Snoop smoke bongs in their videos and other personalities across the board openly admit to using the substances and it gives it appeal. If parents (who are naturally not cool- it’s a proven fact) instruct to just say no to drugs but then celebrities who get all the glamour are shown using the substances, who do you think is going to win out? “Say no because my parents say so,” or “Smoke weed, have (what appears to be) fun and party with scantily clad women.”
Now I’m not blaming the media or celebrities, they are both natural parts of society, it’s just that in all anti-drug attempts I’ve come across, they always seem to miss the point a little bit and leave me more confused than anything. They have the one ad where a friend is giving a testimonial about pot’s influence on her former friend. On the verge of tears and in an obvious fit of misery she explains, “Jody started smoking pot and…she started spending so much time by herself. She started staying home all the time and… wouldn’t hang out with us anymore.” This is very touching and I’m sure some can relate to parts of it but come on, really? Nobody gets into smoking pot by lighting up by themselves at their parents house. Maybe they were just bad friends. Maybe she never wanted to hang out with them in the first place and it took a few tokes for her to just say, in softer terms, screw it. That’s what authority figures say pot does. It just makes you start saying screw it to showers and haircuts and parents and condoms. Maybe she now had new friends who weren’t afraid to smoke a little cheeba with her once in a while and they weren’t constantly nagging her in a half-crying voice to come hang out.
That is why the anti-drug campaigns are always a little bit off; “Just say no” doesn’t work but the hard part about advocating a different course of action is that by doing so you are, to a certain extent, advocating the use of substances. This issue pertains to alcohol education too. CNN.com recently ran an article about Stanton Peele, the author of “Addiction-Proof Your Child.” His perspective is that “any program that tells kids flatly not to drink creates temptation.” It is a natural phenomenon that people want what they can’t have.
The Libertarian Party takes the issue even further. They are pushing for the end to all drug prohibition. They say that it does more harm than good and is the cause of a lot of unneeded violence. Just like all other pro-drug voices they use the example of alcohol prohibition and how there was a significantly elevated crime rate during that time. They say another facet of the problem is that since drugs are illegal the cost is inflated and this causes users to have to commit crimes in order to support their habits. This not only creates danger for citizens but means that a significant amount of police resources are devoted to alleviating the problem. While they represent an extreme and radical end of the spectrum, they do give food for thought.
I really don’t know what the overall solution is but what’s currently being done is not working. Look around you, drinking and smoking is everywhere and nothing that has been done to attempt to curb the use of these vices has worked with much effectiveness. All these ads talk about being, “above the influence” but I feel like that implies a general avoidance of the subject. Let’s talk about the influence and discuss the influence and reach a compromise regarding the influence that doesn’t involve taking advice from animals.
The first time I saw this ad I wasn’t even sure what the “friend” said because I was too busy meditating on that fact that the dog was speaking to her. What is the message here? Smoke weed and you can talk to animals? I guess it is touching that “man’s best friend” is pleading with her for a change but when doesn’t a dog find us humans a bit weird. We’re always going places to do work and eating with utensils and we refuse to catch Frisbees in our mouth. I also like that the dog uses the term “weed,” it shows that he is hip to the jive of today but honestly, how many ten year olds innocently approached their parents and asked how they could start smoking weed so they could talk to their pets? The problem here is that while trying to educate our young ones about the perils they will face in the real world, such as drugs, its done in an ineffective way.
The chief problem with anti-drug advertisements is that they depend too much on scare tactics to get their message across. They hammer home the alleged end result of using these substances without supplying the logic to reach the conclusions. “Smoke pot and you’ll be lazy.” “Smoke pot and you’ll be anti-social.” But if a kid sees this message, and still decides to experiment, and does not find these warnings to be applicable, as sometimes is the case, then he or she may disregard the underlying message of the ad, which is, in fact, true.
We live in a celebrity obsessed culture where Dr. Dre and Snoop smoke bongs in their videos and other personalities across the board openly admit to using the substances and it gives it appeal. If parents (who are naturally not cool- it’s a proven fact) instruct to just say no to drugs but then celebrities who get all the glamour are shown using the substances, who do you think is going to win out? “Say no because my parents say so,” or “Smoke weed, have (what appears to be) fun and party with scantily clad women.”
Now I’m not blaming the media or celebrities, they are both natural parts of society, it’s just that in all anti-drug attempts I’ve come across, they always seem to miss the point a little bit and leave me more confused than anything. They have the one ad where a friend is giving a testimonial about pot’s influence on her former friend. On the verge of tears and in an obvious fit of misery she explains, “Jody started smoking pot and…she started spending so much time by herself. She started staying home all the time and… wouldn’t hang out with us anymore.” This is very touching and I’m sure some can relate to parts of it but come on, really? Nobody gets into smoking pot by lighting up by themselves at their parents house. Maybe they were just bad friends. Maybe she never wanted to hang out with them in the first place and it took a few tokes for her to just say, in softer terms, screw it. That’s what authority figures say pot does. It just makes you start saying screw it to showers and haircuts and parents and condoms. Maybe she now had new friends who weren’t afraid to smoke a little cheeba with her once in a while and they weren’t constantly nagging her in a half-crying voice to come hang out.
That is why the anti-drug campaigns are always a little bit off; “Just say no” doesn’t work but the hard part about advocating a different course of action is that by doing so you are, to a certain extent, advocating the use of substances. This issue pertains to alcohol education too. CNN.com recently ran an article about Stanton Peele, the author of “Addiction-Proof Your Child.” His perspective is that “any program that tells kids flatly not to drink creates temptation.” It is a natural phenomenon that people want what they can’t have.
The Libertarian Party takes the issue even further. They are pushing for the end to all drug prohibition. They say that it does more harm than good and is the cause of a lot of unneeded violence. Just like all other pro-drug voices they use the example of alcohol prohibition and how there was a significantly elevated crime rate during that time. They say another facet of the problem is that since drugs are illegal the cost is inflated and this causes users to have to commit crimes in order to support their habits. This not only creates danger for citizens but means that a significant amount of police resources are devoted to alleviating the problem. While they represent an extreme and radical end of the spectrum, they do give food for thought.
I really don’t know what the overall solution is but what’s currently being done is not working. Look around you, drinking and smoking is everywhere and nothing that has been done to attempt to curb the use of these vices has worked with much effectiveness. All these ads talk about being, “above the influence” but I feel like that implies a general avoidance of the subject. Let’s talk about the influence and discuss the influence and reach a compromise regarding the influence that doesn’t involve taking advice from animals.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Sober Thoughts
Here’s a fun game: Use huskymail (UConn's e-mail service) to write a friend overseas and then go down to the post office and mail a letter to that same person and see which one arrives first.
I was in Walgreens and one of the medicines claimed to control the “symptoms” of diarrhea. What is a symptom of diarrhea- the presence of Mexican food?
While we’re on the subject, I’d like to mention that Taco Bell is very similar to child birth. Both inflict so much pain on your body but also bring so much joy to your life, or so I’ve heard. My mom probably prefers Taco Bell.
Do you think anybody goes to see the Oprah Show just for the free giveaways?
Do the UConn football players sit with bibs and lobster crackers trying to extract the meat from the shell of the lobster served at their new complex or does it come already prepared for them?
Has anyone seen the new Abercrombie “I just got in a severe accident with a paint truck” line of clothing? While we are on this subject, is there a machine whose specific purpose is ripping Abercrombie’s clothing but ripping it in a way that makes it look like it had been done through rigorous physical labor or a low level natural disaster?
Why do I hate the name Delilah?
Have you ever met anyone with the name Delilah?
An ad asked me yesterday if I was looking for a “fast, risk-free way to lose weight.” No, I’m looking for something a little more time consuming and preferably life-threatening.
What is the chain of events that leads someone to utter the words “I’m here for the male cheerleading tryouts?” I think the only thing worse than being on the male cheerleading team is getting cut from the male cheerleading team.
Rule Number 89: Your shirt can’t be wittier than you are.
Are exit signs in classrooms really necessary? If an individual can’t find the door in an emergency do we really WANT him or her to find the door?
I think text messaging officially became acceptable when Jack Nicholson was shown doing it in The Departed.
There is making sacrifices in the name of fashion and there is wearing jeans on an 80 degree day- some people just go that extra yard, even if that yard includes heat stroke.
I flipped by that Newport Beach show on MTV about the attractive high school kids who are all trying to have sex with each other and I was amused to note that I resembled one of the guys. How do you tell your friends that you think you kind of resemble someone that is said to be attractive with out looking like a narcissistic, self-absorbed loser. I guess the best answer is that I shouldn’t be watching the show to begin with.
I don’t know how to react to a wink.
I’m a senior and I still have not figured out what the proper “bus-stop-cord” etiquette is.
Is it weird that I want to take Viagra just to attempt to get a four hour erection?
It’s amazing that the three things that have had the most influence on the television industry in the last ten years have been TIVO, HDTV and Janet Jackson’s nipple.
Do you ever find yourself unintentionally wishing bad things on other people for personal gain? Such as, hoping your teacher gets in a horrible car accident that makes him unable to make it to class but that he does have a full recovery. Me neither.
Justin Timberlake is so Now.
Did anyone feel that when “Man vs. Wild’s” Bear Grylls was proven a phony it was like being told that Barry Bonds used steroids to hit 71 home runs at age 37. (Wait a second…You mean Bear didn’t really cut down dozens of trees with his pocket knife and then bind them together using only reeds in order to make a raft that would allow him to sail off a deserted island? Really?)
On a side not, it was too good to be true that the seemingly manliest human alive was named Bear. That was stretching it right there.
Ever have a teacher say to you, “You know back in my day we didn’t have these fancy computers to do all the work for us?” How are we supposed to respond to this? Hold them and rub their back while they quietly sob. Is their goal to remind us that technology tends to improve every once in a while? These are the times when I need my life coach with me for guidance.
A textbook costs me 160 dollars and then I stay up all night reading it to prepare for a test consequently making me all strung out and awful to be around and causing me to be afraid to call my parents because of the state I am in. I’ve heard that for much a much cheaper price, cocaine will have all the same effects except be a whole lot more fun.
What sort of thank you gift do you get for a friend who sucked venom from your snake bite?
Reason No. 437 why my roommates and I shouldn’t be living without a chaperone: the presence of paper towel next to the “oval office” because the toilet paper had run out.
People I’d like to meet in an empty room with a baseball bat: Norman Chad, Wendy Williams, Skip Bayless.
Finally, this weeks TV idea: I think that if there was a Wedding Channel that just played ceremonies of all different types women would flock to it like it was a free showing of “Sleepless in Seattle.” There could be commentators making catty observations about the bridesmaids and the general set up of the service. It would also have a sidebar that gives statistics so when the bride is walking down the aisle it would run the graphic showing that, at this point, brides only run about 2.3% of the time and the reason is usually the groom’s looks.
I was in Walgreens and one of the medicines claimed to control the “symptoms” of diarrhea. What is a symptom of diarrhea- the presence of Mexican food?
While we’re on the subject, I’d like to mention that Taco Bell is very similar to child birth. Both inflict so much pain on your body but also bring so much joy to your life, or so I’ve heard. My mom probably prefers Taco Bell.
Do you think anybody goes to see the Oprah Show just for the free giveaways?
Do the UConn football players sit with bibs and lobster crackers trying to extract the meat from the shell of the lobster served at their new complex or does it come already prepared for them?
Has anyone seen the new Abercrombie “I just got in a severe accident with a paint truck” line of clothing? While we are on this subject, is there a machine whose specific purpose is ripping Abercrombie’s clothing but ripping it in a way that makes it look like it had been done through rigorous physical labor or a low level natural disaster?
Why do I hate the name Delilah?
Have you ever met anyone with the name Delilah?
An ad asked me yesterday if I was looking for a “fast, risk-free way to lose weight.” No, I’m looking for something a little more time consuming and preferably life-threatening.
What is the chain of events that leads someone to utter the words “I’m here for the male cheerleading tryouts?” I think the only thing worse than being on the male cheerleading team is getting cut from the male cheerleading team.
Rule Number 89: Your shirt can’t be wittier than you are.
Are exit signs in classrooms really necessary? If an individual can’t find the door in an emergency do we really WANT him or her to find the door?
I think text messaging officially became acceptable when Jack Nicholson was shown doing it in The Departed.
There is making sacrifices in the name of fashion and there is wearing jeans on an 80 degree day- some people just go that extra yard, even if that yard includes heat stroke.
I flipped by that Newport Beach show on MTV about the attractive high school kids who are all trying to have sex with each other and I was amused to note that I resembled one of the guys. How do you tell your friends that you think you kind of resemble someone that is said to be attractive with out looking like a narcissistic, self-absorbed loser. I guess the best answer is that I shouldn’t be watching the show to begin with.
I don’t know how to react to a wink.
I’m a senior and I still have not figured out what the proper “bus-stop-cord” etiquette is.
Is it weird that I want to take Viagra just to attempt to get a four hour erection?
It’s amazing that the three things that have had the most influence on the television industry in the last ten years have been TIVO, HDTV and Janet Jackson’s nipple.
Do you ever find yourself unintentionally wishing bad things on other people for personal gain? Such as, hoping your teacher gets in a horrible car accident that makes him unable to make it to class but that he does have a full recovery. Me neither.
Justin Timberlake is so Now.
Did anyone feel that when “Man vs. Wild’s” Bear Grylls was proven a phony it was like being told that Barry Bonds used steroids to hit 71 home runs at age 37. (Wait a second…You mean Bear didn’t really cut down dozens of trees with his pocket knife and then bind them together using only reeds in order to make a raft that would allow him to sail off a deserted island? Really?)
On a side not, it was too good to be true that the seemingly manliest human alive was named Bear. That was stretching it right there.
Ever have a teacher say to you, “You know back in my day we didn’t have these fancy computers to do all the work for us?” How are we supposed to respond to this? Hold them and rub their back while they quietly sob. Is their goal to remind us that technology tends to improve every once in a while? These are the times when I need my life coach with me for guidance.
A textbook costs me 160 dollars and then I stay up all night reading it to prepare for a test consequently making me all strung out and awful to be around and causing me to be afraid to call my parents because of the state I am in. I’ve heard that for much a much cheaper price, cocaine will have all the same effects except be a whole lot more fun.
What sort of thank you gift do you get for a friend who sucked venom from your snake bite?
Reason No. 437 why my roommates and I shouldn’t be living without a chaperone: the presence of paper towel next to the “oval office” because the toilet paper had run out.
People I’d like to meet in an empty room with a baseball bat: Norman Chad, Wendy Williams, Skip Bayless.
Finally, this weeks TV idea: I think that if there was a Wedding Channel that just played ceremonies of all different types women would flock to it like it was a free showing of “Sleepless in Seattle.” There could be commentators making catty observations about the bridesmaids and the general set up of the service. It would also have a sidebar that gives statistics so when the bride is walking down the aisle it would run the graphic showing that, at this point, brides only run about 2.3% of the time and the reason is usually the groom’s looks.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Great Wall of Carriage Poorly Thought Out
(Non-UConn readers might be a little confused here, but they have been issuing harsh regulations at an off-campusing housing complex that is the main area for parties)
By now everyone has either seen or heard of the Great Wall of Carriage that’s been erected outside the off-campus apartments. (Personally, I like the touch of yellow across the top that makes it look like the outfield wall of a rudimentary baseball field.) Additionally, the owners of the complex, in cooperation with the school and local authorities, have enacted a slew of bylaws aimed at supervising the community in a more manageable way. These measures include, among others, the aforementioned fence, the issuing of ID’s to residents and hiring a CA-type person to patrol the area on various nights. They don’t yet have helicopters looking for underage drinkers but I’ll be bringing it up at the next meeting.
An air of controversy has arisen amid the student body as it’s debatable whether these actions go too far and violate rights. In reality it is hard to fault the police or the school- their overall objective is just to keep us safe. It’s just like when you’re living at home. Whether you’re going out for the night or going to get the mail, your parents worry about you. My mother would stay up until I returned home no matter what hour I walked through the door. Even if I felt she went too far sometimes and was a bit overbearing, I could never fault her for any of her actions because her basic aim was to keep me alive.
The authorities around here can be looked at in the same light. I assume they just want to provide a safe community where cars stay upright and couches are used as furniture rather than kindling. But while it is understandable that they want to keep the student body out of harm, it’s hard to discern what they envision as their end result.
It appears that Carriage is seen as an unfettered orgy of overindulgent drinking and acrimonious violence that rivals a Hell’s Angels motorcycle rally or Woodstock crossed with a prison riot. This general wickedness scares people and, combined with the unfortunate stories that have recently shook the community, has shaped the pressure to further regulate the area. The fact of the matter is that Carriage is where, as the kids say today, “it all goes down.” The issue is that when designing a system of restraint there needs to be a practical goal.
Right now it seems that the “adults” quixotic ambition is to curb all illegal drinking activities whether its underage kids imbibing or making a beer pong shot with their elbow over the table. I live in Celeron and right after school started an officer visited every apartment building accompanied by ambassadors from UConn’s Student Services Department in order to lay down some general guidelines. Along with the other common drivel, their main sentiment was that they wanted to convince the student body that Carriage and Celeron is not Party Central because right now the community compares its stability and volatility to the Baghdad region.
This is all good and fine but while some might like to deny it, or at least try to avoid it, the truth is that this is a University and college students are an interesting animal. So far, what we know about the species is that they react very favorably to alcoholic beverages. They also like to congregate with other members of their kind in order to look for potential mates and play certain games that involve both potential mates and alcoholic beverages. They refer to these gatherings as parties or, colloquially, as ragers. Furthermore, it has been proven that nothing will stop these get-togethers, be it CA’s, cops or class five hurricanes. Research shows that the location doesn’t matter either. They have been seen assembling on lawns, in dorm rooms, bars and even parking lots.
Those who frequent the Discovery Channel know that when an animal’s habitat is destroyed they attempt to find another place to live and go about their business. If the Celeron and Carriage area gets tranquillized then a new hot spot will develop. The school is not going to eliminate social gatherings- it’s an impractical proposal. This is where the serious problem arises. Carriage and Celeron are within walking distance to campus as students usually take the infamous trail out there to get their partying fix. If the festivities begin to take place in other areas they will invariably be farther away from campus. This adds a whole new dynamic as students will secure transportation and this brings drinking and driving in to the equation.
Right now the school is taking these measures because they want to protect us from ourselves. They realize that being young and immature we tend to make decisions that can have fatal impacts. So what is to say that we won’t make these decisions when the parties move farther away? The current actions will only magnify the situation rather than mediate it.
This all harks back to my main point that the overall goal needs to be feasible. Right now it seems like they are looking for the metaphorical equivalent to world peace. While that sounds enchanting and might win points at a beauty pageant, there has to be a more amicable solution. Spring weekend is always a free-for-all each year but the last couple has gotten rave reviews for the way they have played out. The law keeps a keen eye out for trouble, but lets the parties take their course for the majority of the night. They set up an assortment of road blocks to look for drunk drivers, but they leave walkers alone as long as they aren’t clubbing other undergraduates or taking naps in wooded areas. Sure they bus in a lot more cops, but that is also because there are a lot more people. I think we will find our solution closer to this scenario rather than turning the Carriage district into a detention facility.
By now everyone has either seen or heard of the Great Wall of Carriage that’s been erected outside the off-campus apartments. (Personally, I like the touch of yellow across the top that makes it look like the outfield wall of a rudimentary baseball field.) Additionally, the owners of the complex, in cooperation with the school and local authorities, have enacted a slew of bylaws aimed at supervising the community in a more manageable way. These measures include, among others, the aforementioned fence, the issuing of ID’s to residents and hiring a CA-type person to patrol the area on various nights. They don’t yet have helicopters looking for underage drinkers but I’ll be bringing it up at the next meeting.
An air of controversy has arisen amid the student body as it’s debatable whether these actions go too far and violate rights. In reality it is hard to fault the police or the school- their overall objective is just to keep us safe. It’s just like when you’re living at home. Whether you’re going out for the night or going to get the mail, your parents worry about you. My mother would stay up until I returned home no matter what hour I walked through the door. Even if I felt she went too far sometimes and was a bit overbearing, I could never fault her for any of her actions because her basic aim was to keep me alive.
The authorities around here can be looked at in the same light. I assume they just want to provide a safe community where cars stay upright and couches are used as furniture rather than kindling. But while it is understandable that they want to keep the student body out of harm, it’s hard to discern what they envision as their end result.
It appears that Carriage is seen as an unfettered orgy of overindulgent drinking and acrimonious violence that rivals a Hell’s Angels motorcycle rally or Woodstock crossed with a prison riot. This general wickedness scares people and, combined with the unfortunate stories that have recently shook the community, has shaped the pressure to further regulate the area. The fact of the matter is that Carriage is where, as the kids say today, “it all goes down.” The issue is that when designing a system of restraint there needs to be a practical goal.
Right now it seems that the “adults” quixotic ambition is to curb all illegal drinking activities whether its underage kids imbibing or making a beer pong shot with their elbow over the table. I live in Celeron and right after school started an officer visited every apartment building accompanied by ambassadors from UConn’s Student Services Department in order to lay down some general guidelines. Along with the other common drivel, their main sentiment was that they wanted to convince the student body that Carriage and Celeron is not Party Central because right now the community compares its stability and volatility to the Baghdad region.
This is all good and fine but while some might like to deny it, or at least try to avoid it, the truth is that this is a University and college students are an interesting animal. So far, what we know about the species is that they react very favorably to alcoholic beverages. They also like to congregate with other members of their kind in order to look for potential mates and play certain games that involve both potential mates and alcoholic beverages. They refer to these gatherings as parties or, colloquially, as ragers. Furthermore, it has been proven that nothing will stop these get-togethers, be it CA’s, cops or class five hurricanes. Research shows that the location doesn’t matter either. They have been seen assembling on lawns, in dorm rooms, bars and even parking lots.
Those who frequent the Discovery Channel know that when an animal’s habitat is destroyed they attempt to find another place to live and go about their business. If the Celeron and Carriage area gets tranquillized then a new hot spot will develop. The school is not going to eliminate social gatherings- it’s an impractical proposal. This is where the serious problem arises. Carriage and Celeron are within walking distance to campus as students usually take the infamous trail out there to get their partying fix. If the festivities begin to take place in other areas they will invariably be farther away from campus. This adds a whole new dynamic as students will secure transportation and this brings drinking and driving in to the equation.
Right now the school is taking these measures because they want to protect us from ourselves. They realize that being young and immature we tend to make decisions that can have fatal impacts. So what is to say that we won’t make these decisions when the parties move farther away? The current actions will only magnify the situation rather than mediate it.
This all harks back to my main point that the overall goal needs to be feasible. Right now it seems like they are looking for the metaphorical equivalent to world peace. While that sounds enchanting and might win points at a beauty pageant, there has to be a more amicable solution. Spring weekend is always a free-for-all each year but the last couple has gotten rave reviews for the way they have played out. The law keeps a keen eye out for trouble, but lets the parties take their course for the majority of the night. They set up an assortment of road blocks to look for drunk drivers, but they leave walkers alone as long as they aren’t clubbing other undergraduates or taking naps in wooded areas. Sure they bus in a lot more cops, but that is also because there are a lot more people. I think we will find our solution closer to this scenario rather than turning the Carriage district into a detention facility.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Perverse Times With Twisted Politicos
While watching CNN this morning I caught a fiery lecture by President Bush concerning the definition of evil. Apparently he had discovered a dictionary lying around and wanted to publicize the fact that he had opened it. “It can be used as an adjective, noun or even an adverb” he yelled. “And it has two syllables. No further questions.” The only issue was that he pronounced syllables like “cymbals.”
Well, I guess that isn’t exactly what he said. (In aim of honest journalism I will admit that everything but the first sentence in that paragraph was made up, but those of you who couldn’t realize that have other issues to deal with). It was early in the morning and I hadn’t had my coffee yet but the gist of his thesis on evil was that it was a bad thing and we needed to rid the world of “evildoers.” He really did say evildoers; that one I am not making up. But it then dawned on me- bush sees himself as a superhero. He really does. People say that he appears to have a child-like enthusiasm when he speaks and I think he has a child-like approach to his presidency. He’s fighting a war because of what “the bad men” did to his “daddy” and he imagines that he’s a superhero in doing so. Next thing we know he will be giving speeches in capes and running off to phone booths whenever the terror alert is elevated. I’m surprised he hasn’t started to wear glasses so that he could take them off when evil strikes.
Evil doesn’t scare me. Bush’s motivational orations given in the manner of William Wallace don’t scare me- as much as it does entertain me. What does send panic coursing through my veins are hormone crazed politicians running around the capitol without any self-control. The latest to be acknowledged publicly is Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, who recently pleaded guilty to a charge of lewd conduct. It finally caught the savage media’s eye that he readily admitted being accountable for the criminal activity he was accused of and he’s begun to attempt his swiftest back peddle but his whole situation is transparent.
He is now arguing that he only entered a guilty plea because he wanted to accelerate the process and put it behind him. Additionally, he claims that the officer got the wrong idea about his actions. He released a statement saying, “At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions. I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct. I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously.”
The alleged Lawmaker was arrested in a stall at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport by a police officer who was there checking out the validity behind claims that these lavatories were turning into the bath houses of the Midwest. Apparently they were a notorious meeting place for people whose sexual escapades must be conducted in public restrooms. The officer was sitting on the can, mid-stake out (which is not really how they portray it in the movies), as he watched Craig peek into his compartment and make several gestures indicating what he wanted to go down and then he sat on the throne next to him. Craig then tapped his foot underneath the divider separating the two and this astute member of the law enforcement agency referred to his handbook and recognized this “as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct.” As if the taping wasn’t enough, Craig then touched this brave soldier’s foot with his shoe and then "proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times.”
I’m not really sure what to say about this whole situation. On face it doesn’t seem like the Senator did too much. He was just looking for a little human contact while he relieved himself. He even said that "he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom." But while he very well may be a “gripper and ripper” the fact that he was in a place known for freak sexual acts and abnormal fetishes makes it just a bit suspicious. That he was making gestures normally used by those who would like to partake in such activities is even more condemning and then the fact that he actually plead guilty to the charge is, well, the definition of condemnation.
His motives behind not fighting the charge could vary. He could have been trying to just keep himself out of the limelight. If he had challenged the charges an investigation would have ensued that surely would have made headlines earlier than this story and at that point all the facts would have been marched through a courtroom. Instead he got his case quickly off the docket and now we are left with just reports to sift through for truth.
Maybe he really was innocent- as far from the truth as that sounds. The sentence was only a small fine but it’s still hard to get away from the reality that he had to have known this would have surfaced at some point and he was going to look bad no matter what came forward. Honestly, I don’t really care about the truth. I don’t know if I could handle the truth. What I do know is that guilty or not guilty, he was involved in a very sketchy situation that involved some very shady sexual intentions. What is even more distressing is that he is not the first national politician to be caught up in a scandal of this ilk.
More and more it seems like Congress is a brotherhood of sexual deviants and social miscreants with desires that can only be satiated in airport bathrooms and by young interns. This isn’t even the first time Craig has been fingered (no pun intended) as possibly having an unusual hobby. According to a New York Times article, in 1982, Craig had to deny rumors “that he was under investigation as part of a federal probe into allegations that lawmakers on Capitol Hill had sexual relationships with congressional pages.” The page theme carried through to the Mark Foley scandal that was the flavor of the month earlier this year. In a whole separate matter, Senator David Vitter was implicated when authorities turned up his phone number in the records of an escort service that is alleged to deliver more promiscuous ladies of the night.
This is what scares me- that we could have a government that is known for being a pack of sex freaks and weirdoes. These are the people who are making the decisions in our country and it’s going to get to the point where we are going to assume that when they are not filibustering or writing constitutions they are off at highway rest stops meeting friends. The stereotype of a politician being “dirty” has always been prevalent but this takes it to another level. I guess it’s only a matter of time before one of them appears on “To Catch a Predator.”
Well, I guess that isn’t exactly what he said. (In aim of honest journalism I will admit that everything but the first sentence in that paragraph was made up, but those of you who couldn’t realize that have other issues to deal with). It was early in the morning and I hadn’t had my coffee yet but the gist of his thesis on evil was that it was a bad thing and we needed to rid the world of “evildoers.” He really did say evildoers; that one I am not making up. But it then dawned on me- bush sees himself as a superhero. He really does. People say that he appears to have a child-like enthusiasm when he speaks and I think he has a child-like approach to his presidency. He’s fighting a war because of what “the bad men” did to his “daddy” and he imagines that he’s a superhero in doing so. Next thing we know he will be giving speeches in capes and running off to phone booths whenever the terror alert is elevated. I’m surprised he hasn’t started to wear glasses so that he could take them off when evil strikes.
Evil doesn’t scare me. Bush’s motivational orations given in the manner of William Wallace don’t scare me- as much as it does entertain me. What does send panic coursing through my veins are hormone crazed politicians running around the capitol without any self-control. The latest to be acknowledged publicly is Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, who recently pleaded guilty to a charge of lewd conduct. It finally caught the savage media’s eye that he readily admitted being accountable for the criminal activity he was accused of and he’s begun to attempt his swiftest back peddle but his whole situation is transparent.
He is now arguing that he only entered a guilty plea because he wanted to accelerate the process and put it behind him. Additionally, he claims that the officer got the wrong idea about his actions. He released a statement saying, “At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions. I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct. I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously.”
The alleged Lawmaker was arrested in a stall at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport by a police officer who was there checking out the validity behind claims that these lavatories were turning into the bath houses of the Midwest. Apparently they were a notorious meeting place for people whose sexual escapades must be conducted in public restrooms. The officer was sitting on the can, mid-stake out (which is not really how they portray it in the movies), as he watched Craig peek into his compartment and make several gestures indicating what he wanted to go down and then he sat on the throne next to him. Craig then tapped his foot underneath the divider separating the two and this astute member of the law enforcement agency referred to his handbook and recognized this “as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct.” As if the taping wasn’t enough, Craig then touched this brave soldier’s foot with his shoe and then "proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times.”
I’m not really sure what to say about this whole situation. On face it doesn’t seem like the Senator did too much. He was just looking for a little human contact while he relieved himself. He even said that "he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom." But while he very well may be a “gripper and ripper” the fact that he was in a place known for freak sexual acts and abnormal fetishes makes it just a bit suspicious. That he was making gestures normally used by those who would like to partake in such activities is even more condemning and then the fact that he actually plead guilty to the charge is, well, the definition of condemnation.
His motives behind not fighting the charge could vary. He could have been trying to just keep himself out of the limelight. If he had challenged the charges an investigation would have ensued that surely would have made headlines earlier than this story and at that point all the facts would have been marched through a courtroom. Instead he got his case quickly off the docket and now we are left with just reports to sift through for truth.
Maybe he really was innocent- as far from the truth as that sounds. The sentence was only a small fine but it’s still hard to get away from the reality that he had to have known this would have surfaced at some point and he was going to look bad no matter what came forward. Honestly, I don’t really care about the truth. I don’t know if I could handle the truth. What I do know is that guilty or not guilty, he was involved in a very sketchy situation that involved some very shady sexual intentions. What is even more distressing is that he is not the first national politician to be caught up in a scandal of this ilk.
More and more it seems like Congress is a brotherhood of sexual deviants and social miscreants with desires that can only be satiated in airport bathrooms and by young interns. This isn’t even the first time Craig has been fingered (no pun intended) as possibly having an unusual hobby. According to a New York Times article, in 1982, Craig had to deny rumors “that he was under investigation as part of a federal probe into allegations that lawmakers on Capitol Hill had sexual relationships with congressional pages.” The page theme carried through to the Mark Foley scandal that was the flavor of the month earlier this year. In a whole separate matter, Senator David Vitter was implicated when authorities turned up his phone number in the records of an escort service that is alleged to deliver more promiscuous ladies of the night.
This is what scares me- that we could have a government that is known for being a pack of sex freaks and weirdoes. These are the people who are making the decisions in our country and it’s going to get to the point where we are going to assume that when they are not filibustering or writing constitutions they are off at highway rest stops meeting friends. The stereotype of a politician being “dirty” has always been prevalent but this takes it to another level. I guess it’s only a matter of time before one of them appears on “To Catch a Predator.”
Monday, June 4, 2007
Hate, Hate, Hate
Two notable results stemming from me being home from school and without a full-time job:
1) I've made sure to catch up on my sleep-time which resulted in my dad giving me the sagely advice that I was, "missing out on a lot of life." Touching, really.
2) I've been reading a lot of blogs lately, mostly sports related, and I have observed an interesting if not slightly disturbing trend: it has become suddenly "en vogue" to hate on ESPN.
I have never been a big fan of blogs, it has always seemed like a flaky medium; most out there are written by people who have no idea what they are doing and have nothing interesting to say, including me. In fact, a lot of them make you feel like someone is forcing you to read their diary that is filled with awkward brooding and ill-advised opinions. The only reason these people are read is because they have found a free avenue to publish themselves and, again, this includes me. Once I saw that blogs had become somewhat "accepted" I decided to create one only because it was something to keep me busy and it was an outlet for writing everyday. I still cringe at the fact that I can call myself a blogger and trying to tell someone that I blog feels like trying to declare that I enjoy hanging out in the JCC shower room for long periods of time.
Now I'm not trying to give a history lesson on blogs, just what I've observed in my short time in the "blogosphere." (Yea, I felt creepy just typing that word- now would be Chris Hanson's cue to walk in the room.) Blogs, especially sports-related sites, have become the relative counterculture to the mainstream press. Newspapers and professional websites report on the facts and results of games and give their certified opinions on the relevant matters, while blogs tend to lean towards customarily comedic commentary (that's alliteration homes) that isn't normally or even able to be discussed in the national press. For example, Profootballtalk.com has a tally going on how long its been since the last player has been arrested and a certain amount of points is awarded to that player's team depending on if the crime was a felony or a misdemeanor. For a number of reasons this is a gimmick that a respected institution, like the New York Times, could never attempt. The simple explanation being that they see it as below them and generally disreputable.
Another function of blogs is that they serve as a forum for fans to air their complaints about anything having to do with sports. Again, national media habitually steers away from this type of gravely negative commentary because they don't like to burn bridges and lose their access. Bloggers don't usually have any access to begin with so they have no misgivings. One such site is Awful Announcing which deals with sports announcers and their general incompetence. Most other blogs' (good examples: Deadspin, Kissing Suzy Kolber) main objective is to present sports in an entertaining, humorous manner with the main through line being that they are uncensored, honest sites that don't shy away from sensitive material and don't pull any punches. It makes for very interesting reading and sometimes these unadulterated takes on the main stories are a refreshing change of pace.
What I'm getting at here is that in frequenting these sites I've seen a prevalence of criticism of ESPN and its writers. These sites have taken on everyone from their most popular online writer, Bill Simmons, to their on air talent, such as Chris Berman and Stuart Scott. Some of the criticism regards them being just unfunny, while others have accused them of "stealing" reports, or reporting on the break of a story as if it was their own or just flat-out degrading the network. Now I'm not saying this criticism is unwarranted or even incorrect. I agree with a good deal of the stuff written. Simmons can sound a bit like an egomaniac sometimes, Berman will pull a Dane Cook and just get downright annoying and too flamboyant and Stuart Scott does tend to venture in to Carlos Mencia territory and try to play up the race factor a bit too much, dawg. What I take issue with is that the criticism of ESPN has spilled into downright hate of the network. Not in some cases; a few sites do acknowledge their respect for the boys from Bristol and make sure to note that they are only offering objective assessments but there are those out there that have expressed genuine distaste for what they sarcastically refer to as the "Worldwide Leader," and this confuses me.
Growing up ESPN was like a sports-loving uncle that permanently lived in my basement. Back then I would be up early enough in the morning that I would occasionally see the sunrise and it wasn't because I had been up all night drinking or trying to catchup before a final. Rather, I had some sort of motivation (which doesn't exist anymore or has been beaten out of me) that caused me to pop out of bed at the break of dawn and run downstairs every weekend morning and deposit myself in front of the TV. While most kids watched Looney Toons or Animaniacs or Rugrats, I immediately tuned to Sportscenter. I would watch it over and over until I could either narrate the highlights myself, or some sort of fishing show came on and then I would finally switch over to cartoons. This was before the Internet; ESPN was my portal in to the sports world and it had an obsessive effect on me like inhabiting John Malkovich had on Cameron Diaz in "Being John Malkovich."
As I grew older ESPN always had a place reserved in my heart. Tom put up an ESPN Classic banner in our common room in our apartment at UConn and to me it was like hanging up a priceless work of art. In my view, it was comparable to putting up an original Picasso or the actual hand-painted portrait of Kramer from the Seinfeld episode. Sports coverage today is as diverse as ever, ESPN may still be the leader, but others are beginning to catch up. ESPN even had to create a sports magazine so they could compete with the one that is currently on HBO. So maybe they might have lost a step or gotten a tad boring sometimes but I just can't ever imagine harboring any hate towards the network. It baffles me that anyone could look at them as anything but a legendary institution in the same vein as Playboy and Jack Daniels. What they have done for sports deserves its own post in and of itself and is so evident that even me stating this seems rhetorical. But then again, I'm a blogger. Fuck.
1) I've made sure to catch up on my sleep-time which resulted in my dad giving me the sagely advice that I was, "missing out on a lot of life." Touching, really.
2) I've been reading a lot of blogs lately, mostly sports related, and I have observed an interesting if not slightly disturbing trend: it has become suddenly "en vogue" to hate on ESPN.
I have never been a big fan of blogs, it has always seemed like a flaky medium; most out there are written by people who have no idea what they are doing and have nothing interesting to say, including me. In fact, a lot of them make you feel like someone is forcing you to read their diary that is filled with awkward brooding and ill-advised opinions. The only reason these people are read is because they have found a free avenue to publish themselves and, again, this includes me. Once I saw that blogs had become somewhat "accepted" I decided to create one only because it was something to keep me busy and it was an outlet for writing everyday. I still cringe at the fact that I can call myself a blogger and trying to tell someone that I blog feels like trying to declare that I enjoy hanging out in the JCC shower room for long periods of time.
Now I'm not trying to give a history lesson on blogs, just what I've observed in my short time in the "blogosphere." (Yea, I felt creepy just typing that word- now would be Chris Hanson's cue to walk in the room.) Blogs, especially sports-related sites, have become the relative counterculture to the mainstream press. Newspapers and professional websites report on the facts and results of games and give their certified opinions on the relevant matters, while blogs tend to lean towards customarily comedic commentary (that's alliteration homes) that isn't normally or even able to be discussed in the national press. For example, Profootballtalk.com has a tally going on how long its been since the last player has been arrested and a certain amount of points is awarded to that player's team depending on if the crime was a felony or a misdemeanor. For a number of reasons this is a gimmick that a respected institution, like the New York Times, could never attempt. The simple explanation being that they see it as below them and generally disreputable.
Another function of blogs is that they serve as a forum for fans to air their complaints about anything having to do with sports. Again, national media habitually steers away from this type of gravely negative commentary because they don't like to burn bridges and lose their access. Bloggers don't usually have any access to begin with so they have no misgivings. One such site is Awful Announcing which deals with sports announcers and their general incompetence. Most other blogs' (good examples: Deadspin, Kissing Suzy Kolber) main objective is to present sports in an entertaining, humorous manner with the main through line being that they are uncensored, honest sites that don't shy away from sensitive material and don't pull any punches. It makes for very interesting reading and sometimes these unadulterated takes on the main stories are a refreshing change of pace.
What I'm getting at here is that in frequenting these sites I've seen a prevalence of criticism of ESPN and its writers. These sites have taken on everyone from their most popular online writer, Bill Simmons, to their on air talent, such as Chris Berman and Stuart Scott. Some of the criticism regards them being just unfunny, while others have accused them of "stealing" reports, or reporting on the break of a story as if it was their own or just flat-out degrading the network. Now I'm not saying this criticism is unwarranted or even incorrect. I agree with a good deal of the stuff written. Simmons can sound a bit like an egomaniac sometimes, Berman will pull a Dane Cook and just get downright annoying and too flamboyant and Stuart Scott does tend to venture in to Carlos Mencia territory and try to play up the race factor a bit too much, dawg. What I take issue with is that the criticism of ESPN has spilled into downright hate of the network. Not in some cases; a few sites do acknowledge their respect for the boys from Bristol and make sure to note that they are only offering objective assessments but there are those out there that have expressed genuine distaste for what they sarcastically refer to as the "Worldwide Leader," and this confuses me.
Growing up ESPN was like a sports-loving uncle that permanently lived in my basement. Back then I would be up early enough in the morning that I would occasionally see the sunrise and it wasn't because I had been up all night drinking or trying to catchup before a final. Rather, I had some sort of motivation (which doesn't exist anymore or has been beaten out of me) that caused me to pop out of bed at the break of dawn and run downstairs every weekend morning and deposit myself in front of the TV. While most kids watched Looney Toons or Animaniacs or Rugrats, I immediately tuned to Sportscenter. I would watch it over and over until I could either narrate the highlights myself, or some sort of fishing show came on and then I would finally switch over to cartoons. This was before the Internet; ESPN was my portal in to the sports world and it had an obsessive effect on me like inhabiting John Malkovich had on Cameron Diaz in "Being John Malkovich."
As I grew older ESPN always had a place reserved in my heart. Tom put up an ESPN Classic banner in our common room in our apartment at UConn and to me it was like hanging up a priceless work of art. In my view, it was comparable to putting up an original Picasso or the actual hand-painted portrait of Kramer from the Seinfeld episode. Sports coverage today is as diverse as ever, ESPN may still be the leader, but others are beginning to catch up. ESPN even had to create a sports magazine so they could compete with the one that is currently on HBO. So maybe they might have lost a step or gotten a tad boring sometimes but I just can't ever imagine harboring any hate towards the network. It baffles me that anyone could look at them as anything but a legendary institution in the same vein as Playboy and Jack Daniels. What they have done for sports deserves its own post in and of itself and is so evident that even me stating this seems rhetorical. But then again, I'm a blogger. Fuck.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Apologizzzze
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070531/slavery-apology/
Alabama officially apologized today for slavery; they expressed "profound regret." I don't really know what to say about this except that I think state legislatures have way too much time on their hands. Is this really necessary? Was this something that people were actively seeking? It seems pretty empty to have a group of elder folk manufacture an apology on behalf of some other older fellows who lived like 150 years ago. I just can't why this would have any significance. Are people sitting at the dinner table tonight with renewed joy in their lives uttering remarks such as:
Ultimately, I can't say too much about this because I don't descend from anyone who was enslaved in America- only in Egypt. Where is their apology? When will they express some "profound regret?"
Alabama officially apologized today for slavery; they expressed "profound regret." I don't really know what to say about this except that I think state legislatures have way too much time on their hands. Is this really necessary? Was this something that people were actively seeking? It seems pretty empty to have a group of elder folk manufacture an apology on behalf of some other older fellows who lived like 150 years ago. I just can't why this would have any significance. Are people sitting at the dinner table tonight with renewed joy in their lives uttering remarks such as:
"You know what, that Alabama apologizing really brings closure to this whole slavery issue"
or
"I'll tell you what, now that Alabama has apologized I can finally stop physically harassing the U. Bama fan who works in the cubicle next to me."
or
"Son, you see how Alabama apologized. Now that's owning up to your mistakes. Hopefully within the next 150 years you'll work up the courage to ask forgiveness from Ricky for breaking his bike."
Ultimately, I can't say too much about this because I don't descend from anyone who was enslaved in America- only in Egypt. Where is their apology? When will they express some "profound regret?"
Compete against the NFL?
http://www.blogmaverick.com/2007/05/30/competing-with-the-nfl/
Mark Cuban has proposed a new professional football league that would rival the NFL and compete with them for players. He concedes that the NFL will always be the top tier of football but he sees his league having the ability to lure away any player that is drafted in the second round on down. On the linked post above he lays out a few general reasons why he feels this is a feasible proposal on on the face of things, it seems pretty reasonable. Everything he says makes sense and I don't think you could find a better person to participate in a start-up league. He's been nothing but good for the Mavericks, he caters to their every whim and you can tell all he wants to do is win- he just wants the best product. He even cried when Dirk Nowitzki received the MVP trophy, even if his tears were a metaphorical flop, he still put in the effort to conjure up the water works and that shows dedication.
The problem with Cuban's proposal is that he is looking at this whole thing from a business standpoint. He can't be faulted for this, its what he does for a living. Thinking in the mindset of a football fan, is this really a good idea? Cuban writes, "Competition for top players, even if the UFL gets just a few, increases prices at the top end for all teams. Every star will get paid more, but still have to fit under the cap. That forces teams to use more low cost players, at the expense of signing the middle of the roster. That gives us access to quite a few very, very good NFL players. The downside is that it will significantly impact small market NFL teams and its unclear how the NFL would respond to that and what the impact would be on the UFL."
For one, what good comes out of watering down the talent? The NFL is arguably as popular as it's ever been- it has even eclipsed "America's Pastime"- and a large part of this is due to the fact that, across the board, the games are extremely entertaining to watch. The level of talent in the league makes everyone competitive, so why would we want to see a dip in that standard to allow for a more competitive business atmosphere?
The other issue is that no matter how successful this new league got, it would still play second fiddle to the NFL. Any player that achieved any type of success would still have to face the criticism that he was playing in the weaker league and anyone with any drive would move to the NFL so thy could prove themselves. So maybe the dilemma will work itself out, but why not propose a different solution.
I'm sure every fan will agree that there can never be too much football and that's why another league will always be slightly enticing. So why not designate this league as a sort of NBA DL type league- like minor league football. People would surely still watch and it would avoid weakening the NFL's rosters. The problem here is that Mark Cuban would probably never go for being a part of any second rate product, but hey, we'll just let him cry about it.
Mark Cuban has proposed a new professional football league that would rival the NFL and compete with them for players. He concedes that the NFL will always be the top tier of football but he sees his league having the ability to lure away any player that is drafted in the second round on down. On the linked post above he lays out a few general reasons why he feels this is a feasible proposal on on the face of things, it seems pretty reasonable. Everything he says makes sense and I don't think you could find a better person to participate in a start-up league. He's been nothing but good for the Mavericks, he caters to their every whim and you can tell all he wants to do is win- he just wants the best product. He even cried when Dirk Nowitzki received the MVP trophy, even if his tears were a metaphorical flop, he still put in the effort to conjure up the water works and that shows dedication.
The problem with Cuban's proposal is that he is looking at this whole thing from a business standpoint. He can't be faulted for this, its what he does for a living. Thinking in the mindset of a football fan, is this really a good idea? Cuban writes, "Competition for top players, even if the UFL gets just a few, increases prices at the top end for all teams. Every star will get paid more, but still have to fit under the cap. That forces teams to use more low cost players, at the expense of signing the middle of the roster. That gives us access to quite a few very, very good NFL players. The downside is that it will significantly impact small market NFL teams and its unclear how the NFL would respond to that and what the impact would be on the UFL."
For one, what good comes out of watering down the talent? The NFL is arguably as popular as it's ever been- it has even eclipsed "America's Pastime"- and a large part of this is due to the fact that, across the board, the games are extremely entertaining to watch. The level of talent in the league makes everyone competitive, so why would we want to see a dip in that standard to allow for a more competitive business atmosphere?
The other issue is that no matter how successful this new league got, it would still play second fiddle to the NFL. Any player that achieved any type of success would still have to face the criticism that he was playing in the weaker league and anyone with any drive would move to the NFL so thy could prove themselves. So maybe the dilemma will work itself out, but why not propose a different solution.
I'm sure every fan will agree that there can never be too much football and that's why another league will always be slightly enticing. So why not designate this league as a sort of NBA DL type league- like minor league football. People would surely still watch and it would avoid weakening the NFL's rosters. The problem here is that Mark Cuban would probably never go for being a part of any second rate product, but hey, we'll just let him cry about it.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Safeguards of Sanity
Flipping channels the other night I came across a special that NBC was running called "Saturday Night Live in the '90s: Pop Culture Nation." It was an awesome look back to the last "glory years" era of the show and it was a refreshing sight.
As soon as I was old enough to be allowed to stay up that late, SNL became a staple of my weekend TV lineup. No matter where I was, I made sure I didn't miss an episode. When we got replayTV (the cheaper knock-off of TIVO) the show was automatically recorded every weekend so that if I did miss it, I could watch it on Sunday. In fact, this became a routine. Replay TV was the perfect device for SNL. No commercials and the ability to fast-forward through the less entertaining sketches was the perfect viewing method.
Then, as I grew older, I began to realize a trend. I was continuously fast-forwarding through more and more of the show until it got to the point where I was watching the opening sketch and then maybe one or two others throughout the episode. The show had genuinely become unfunny to me. Finally, I stopped watching it altogether as I just found it to be a waste of my time. It went from an inventive, pioneering comedic institution to something that seemed contrived, like an awkward high school improv troupe performing at a pep rally to a less than enthused crowd.
This change of events always puzzled me. Naturally, like everything else that goes wrong in my life, I blamed myself. I came to the resolution that I had been young and impressionable and the evidently sophomoric humor had appealed to my immature mind and as I grew older I must have realized that it was just stupid comedy. I rationalized by looking at this as a good thing, an indication of my growth as a person.
While watching the aforementioned SNL special, I realized something I had suspected all along. I was certainly not more mature, by any means, SNL was just truly funny in the nineties. This is probably the reason this program was aired: to show the younger kids of today, the ones who do sit home on Saturday night and watch SNL, that it wasn't always this pitiful- it used to be good. Even my brother, who is thirteen, didn't really get this. Sure he knew that Adam Sandler and Chris Farley and others of that ilk were cast members on the show, but he knew their comedy from the movies they did after they left the cast, not from the ground-breaking comedy they were a part of while at NBC.
In the 90's Saturday Night Live was THE figurative social "ball busters." Since the show is written, rehearsed and finally filmed over the course of only one week, it was able to deal with any pertinent issue that the country was dealing with. Anytime there was a political blunder or a celebrity got a DUI or was arrested, you could look to Lorne Michaels and his crew to see what they had to say about it, how they were going to make light of the situation.
(On a side note: I was watching the special with my temporary Egyptian roommate and it was funny to see how he reacted to the humor. I watched him closely and he would laugh along with the audience, but it was questionable whether he got all of the jokes. At one point, during a weekend update clip, Norm Macdonald delivered a punchline that I cannot recall except that it centered around the word ' hockey.' My roommate laughed at it, uproariously if I may say so myself, and then turned to me and asked, "What is Hockey?" After attempting a rambling explanation of the sport, a little while later, a skit involving a certain president and his alleged oval office mistress came on and after a few minutes he turned to me and goes, "Ahh Bill and Monica?" and continued to laugh. This is wonderful. He had no idea what hockey was but he is aware of Clinton and his sexual escapades. America, Milkshakes all around.)
That was my one A.J. Soprano-type observation for the day, back to my point. What SNL became was the safeguards of sanity. When political figures seemed to be acting like monkeys and celebrities were running around like escaped convicts, the writers at SNL put them in their place. They were the gut check for our social conscious that helped us realize that we were the sane ones because we were able to laugh at what these public figures were doing while they kept that stern look on their face. Even if it didn't deal with an issue that was politically relevant, maybe it just made fun of an absurd show, it still played the part of that friend that you are careful not to do anything stupid around less you risk being made fun of; not in a mean spirited way, just enough to remind you not to take yourself too seriously. That's why the title of the show referred to the pop culture nature of the nineties and its increasing preponderance of opinions on all aspects of the country we were living in.
Then SNL lost that edge. I can't really put my finger on it, but i think it began when that strong core group of cast members left; Farley, Sandler, Mike Myers, Dana Carvey and even David Spade and then the current free fall probably really hit its stride with the departure of Will Ferrell. Today, we are kind of missing that sort of satirical social commentary that SNL used to offer. Chappelle Show carried the torch for a while but it was short lived. The Daily Show has picked up the political slack and does a good job of it too- they are one of the only consistently funny shows on right now but I think the show comes closest to filling the void that was left is South Park.
They have the same sort of production process as SNL that allows them to generate an episode in about a week's time which gives them the ability to talk about current events in a timely manner. They too are consistently funny and have had numerous episodes that elicit the "that's exactly what I was trying to say" response. While people of our generation get most of the humor and enjoy the show for what it is, I feel like it is still looked down upon by "mature adults" who still only see it as a cartoon. There have been a couple episodes that I thought my parents would enjoy and I've explained the crux of the reasoning to them and they have agreed that it seems like smart humor but getting them to sit down for a viewing is like trying to get a child to sit still for a tetanus shot.
(Another interesting aspect that was brought up during the special was Lorne's reliance on stand-up comics as the bulk of the cast during those wonder years. Stand-ups are always the most outspoken of critics and this had to have something to do with the socially perceptive voice of the show. Today, most of the cast is comprised of former comedy troupe students whose training is more in the acting and interpretation of comedy. I'm not saying this a problem, just maybe an explanation.)
That was the biggest impact that the special had on me. It made me realize how much I missed that cutting-edge criticism that was on display each weekend. I can't say I've seen too many recent episodes of the show, but I do hear this season was better. I've caught some of the digital shorts they've made; "Dick in a Box" was great and I loved the Peyton Manning one. Let's hope this a sign of good things to come and I'm crossing my fingers for another run of "glory years."
As soon as I was old enough to be allowed to stay up that late, SNL became a staple of my weekend TV lineup. No matter where I was, I made sure I didn't miss an episode. When we got replayTV (the cheaper knock-off of TIVO) the show was automatically recorded every weekend so that if I did miss it, I could watch it on Sunday. In fact, this became a routine. Replay TV was the perfect device for SNL. No commercials and the ability to fast-forward through the less entertaining sketches was the perfect viewing method.
Then, as I grew older, I began to realize a trend. I was continuously fast-forwarding through more and more of the show until it got to the point where I was watching the opening sketch and then maybe one or two others throughout the episode. The show had genuinely become unfunny to me. Finally, I stopped watching it altogether as I just found it to be a waste of my time. It went from an inventive, pioneering comedic institution to something that seemed contrived, like an awkward high school improv troupe performing at a pep rally to a less than enthused crowd.
This change of events always puzzled me. Naturally, like everything else that goes wrong in my life, I blamed myself. I came to the resolution that I had been young and impressionable and the evidently sophomoric humor had appealed to my immature mind and as I grew older I must have realized that it was just stupid comedy. I rationalized by looking at this as a good thing, an indication of my growth as a person.
While watching the aforementioned SNL special, I realized something I had suspected all along. I was certainly not more mature, by any means, SNL was just truly funny in the nineties. This is probably the reason this program was aired: to show the younger kids of today, the ones who do sit home on Saturday night and watch SNL, that it wasn't always this pitiful- it used to be good. Even my brother, who is thirteen, didn't really get this. Sure he knew that Adam Sandler and Chris Farley and others of that ilk were cast members on the show, but he knew their comedy from the movies they did after they left the cast, not from the ground-breaking comedy they were a part of while at NBC.
In the 90's Saturday Night Live was THE figurative social "ball busters." Since the show is written, rehearsed and finally filmed over the course of only one week, it was able to deal with any pertinent issue that the country was dealing with. Anytime there was a political blunder or a celebrity got a DUI or was arrested, you could look to Lorne Michaels and his crew to see what they had to say about it, how they were going to make light of the situation.
(On a side note: I was watching the special with my temporary Egyptian roommate and it was funny to see how he reacted to the humor. I watched him closely and he would laugh along with the audience, but it was questionable whether he got all of the jokes. At one point, during a weekend update clip, Norm Macdonald delivered a punchline that I cannot recall except that it centered around the word ' hockey.' My roommate laughed at it, uproariously if I may say so myself, and then turned to me and asked, "What is Hockey?" After attempting a rambling explanation of the sport, a little while later, a skit involving a certain president and his alleged oval office mistress came on and after a few minutes he turned to me and goes, "Ahh Bill and Monica?" and continued to laugh. This is wonderful. He had no idea what hockey was but he is aware of Clinton and his sexual escapades. America, Milkshakes all around.)
That was my one A.J. Soprano-type observation for the day, back to my point. What SNL became was the safeguards of sanity. When political figures seemed to be acting like monkeys and celebrities were running around like escaped convicts, the writers at SNL put them in their place. They were the gut check for our social conscious that helped us realize that we were the sane ones because we were able to laugh at what these public figures were doing while they kept that stern look on their face. Even if it didn't deal with an issue that was politically relevant, maybe it just made fun of an absurd show, it still played the part of that friend that you are careful not to do anything stupid around less you risk being made fun of; not in a mean spirited way, just enough to remind you not to take yourself too seriously. That's why the title of the show referred to the pop culture nature of the nineties and its increasing preponderance of opinions on all aspects of the country we were living in.
Then SNL lost that edge. I can't really put my finger on it, but i think it began when that strong core group of cast members left; Farley, Sandler, Mike Myers, Dana Carvey and even David Spade and then the current free fall probably really hit its stride with the departure of Will Ferrell. Today, we are kind of missing that sort of satirical social commentary that SNL used to offer. Chappelle Show carried the torch for a while but it was short lived. The Daily Show has picked up the political slack and does a good job of it too- they are one of the only consistently funny shows on right now but I think the show comes closest to filling the void that was left is South Park.
They have the same sort of production process as SNL that allows them to generate an episode in about a week's time which gives them the ability to talk about current events in a timely manner. They too are consistently funny and have had numerous episodes that elicit the "that's exactly what I was trying to say" response. While people of our generation get most of the humor and enjoy the show for what it is, I feel like it is still looked down upon by "mature adults" who still only see it as a cartoon. There have been a couple episodes that I thought my parents would enjoy and I've explained the crux of the reasoning to them and they have agreed that it seems like smart humor but getting them to sit down for a viewing is like trying to get a child to sit still for a tetanus shot.
(Another interesting aspect that was brought up during the special was Lorne's reliance on stand-up comics as the bulk of the cast during those wonder years. Stand-ups are always the most outspoken of critics and this had to have something to do with the socially perceptive voice of the show. Today, most of the cast is comprised of former comedy troupe students whose training is more in the acting and interpretation of comedy. I'm not saying this a problem, just maybe an explanation.)
That was the biggest impact that the special had on me. It made me realize how much I missed that cutting-edge criticism that was on display each weekend. I can't say I've seen too many recent episodes of the show, but I do hear this season was better. I've caught some of the digital shorts they've made; "Dick in a Box" was great and I loved the Peyton Manning one. Let's hope this a sign of good things to come and I'm crossing my fingers for another run of "glory years."
Monday, May 28, 2007
People I'd Like to Meet in an Empty Room With a Baseball Bat: Carlos Mencia
What can't be said about Carlos Mencia that hasn't already been said about Rosie O'Donnell- they are fat, loud, annoying, utterly-unfunny and dirty Mexicans. Except he's not even a real Mexican. This is discussed along with many other finer points in a great video provided to us by the very deceptively hilarious Joe Rogan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsq1uTLBHBc.
My big beef with Mencia boils down to the fact that he is thoroughly unentertaining. I've given his show a chance- many times actually- he is a hack. His only shtick is racial humor that he pummels you with like a two-year old throwing koosh balls at your knee and expecting it to hurt. I'm reminded of the scene in Will Ferrell's forgettable movie "Kicking and Screaming" where he returns from a mid-field conference with his dad and the ref and replies that all he heard was his dad saying, "pffffft" and the the ref saying, "pffffffft" and that was the extent of the discussion. This is how I feel about Mencia. All I hear is some fat guy screaming about accents and burritos for half an hour.
The problem is that people who like Mencia claim that he is pointing out the racial divide and making light of it- like Chappelle did on his show. No. What he does is beat you over the head with racial humor- it'd be like your mother trying to wake you up in the morning by bashing you across the back of your head with a 2x4. Chappelle did racial humor, but in a smart way. He had inventive skits that proved his point, but they were also generally funny and well-liked across the board. Take the "Mad, Real World" skit that he did. While that was trying to show how the black person on the show always got portrayed as the troublemaker, it could have been about any minority. He just chose black because he is black. The skit was based around a social phenomena, not the skin color or language spoken. Meanwhile Mencia just continues to hack away at proving that Mexicans are lazy because they come from Mexico.
Additionally, Dave wasn't only racial humor, he did other topics. He only did the racial stuff when the idea occured to him, when he had a good premise. Unlike Mencia who seems to just be forcing it out; I can't remember ever seeing a skit that didn't involve a joke about Mexicans, Latinos or Hispanics. Then again, maybe its the "pfffft" syndrome kicking in, all Mencia is to me is loud noise. Meet me in room 666 Carlos, I'll bring the Louisville Slugger.
My big beef with Mencia boils down to the fact that he is thoroughly unentertaining. I've given his show a chance- many times actually- he is a hack. His only shtick is racial humor that he pummels you with like a two-year old throwing koosh balls at your knee and expecting it to hurt. I'm reminded of the scene in Will Ferrell's forgettable movie "Kicking and Screaming" where he returns from a mid-field conference with his dad and the ref and replies that all he heard was his dad saying, "pffffft" and the the ref saying, "pffffffft" and that was the extent of the discussion. This is how I feel about Mencia. All I hear is some fat guy screaming about accents and burritos for half an hour.
The problem is that people who like Mencia claim that he is pointing out the racial divide and making light of it- like Chappelle did on his show. No. What he does is beat you over the head with racial humor- it'd be like your mother trying to wake you up in the morning by bashing you across the back of your head with a 2x4. Chappelle did racial humor, but in a smart way. He had inventive skits that proved his point, but they were also generally funny and well-liked across the board. Take the "Mad, Real World" skit that he did. While that was trying to show how the black person on the show always got portrayed as the troublemaker, it could have been about any minority. He just chose black because he is black. The skit was based around a social phenomena, not the skin color or language spoken. Meanwhile Mencia just continues to hack away at proving that Mexicans are lazy because they come from Mexico.
Additionally, Dave wasn't only racial humor, he did other topics. He only did the racial stuff when the idea occured to him, when he had a good premise. Unlike Mencia who seems to just be forcing it out; I can't remember ever seeing a skit that didn't involve a joke about Mexicans, Latinos or Hispanics. Then again, maybe its the "pfffft" syndrome kicking in, all Mencia is to me is loud noise. Meet me in room 666 Carlos, I'll bring the Louisville Slugger.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
A Few More Thoughts on Commercials
This is the last post I'll write about commercials- I promise- until the next one that makes me writhe in pain. If you don't want to read there's a funny video after all these words. Don't listen to the warning, it's appropriate for all.
Gambling commercials always make me laugh. I saw a familiar one the other day. A young man is watching a basketball game on his little cot in his upstairs bedroom. He is evidently tense because his knuckles are turning white as they clench the aluminum baseball bat that he is holding. (Apparently this is a common occurrence: watching televised sporting contests with a heavy metal object in hand. Not to mention the fact that he is watching basketball while holding baseball equipment- inconsistencies already abound.) It appears that this lad’s team is losing because his growling gets louder as the commercial progresses and sweat is pouring down his forehead like a melting glacier. The commercial warns against the perils of gambling as the sporting contest comes to a close. The boy’s team has lost, or maybe not covered the spread, or not reached the over- they don’t even specify what bet this kid has made. (For all we know it could have just been a bad bet, and they should be specifying that you should not gamble UNLESS you have done your research.) So the kid has lost, he jumps up in an act of superfluous frustration and in one fell swoop he comes down on his television set with the baseball bat- smashing the thing into oblivion. Freeze frame. The advertisers let that little ditty sink in as they deliver their final epitaph. I don’t remember what it was but it was something in the vain of, “gambling is bad,” I missed it because I was too busy looking at the lines for the night’s NBA games, the commercial had got me thinking.
While being a solid piece of film making- the lighting was good and they took the right angles to capture the kid’s rage- I did find a few holes in this little saga. As is apparent from his aggravation, this was not a once-in-a-blue-moon wager, this might have been the end of a gravely futile losing weekend, or the double down on a previous loss that he was hoping to drag him out of a rut. That’s why the smashing of the television just did not make sense. Everybody knows that if this kid was a serious gambler the first thing he would have done after losing that bet would be to pawn the television in order to pay off his bookie. He would not smash his only observable asset. If this was the case, and he is destroying his last thing of value, then this kid is just stupid to begin with and we should not be wasting our time with him.
Additionally, this kid appears to be about sixteen, at most. Now we will take a leap of faith and give the commercial the benefit of the doubt that this kid was able to find a bookie in the school yard that would cover his bets. If they are assuming that he’s going down to the local gentlemen’s club to lay down money then they are the ones that deserve the business end of a baseball bat. Given that this kid has a playground bookie, how much money can he be losing to begin with? How much “credit” is this kid giving him and if he doesn’t pay up what is going to happen to him? Maybe catch a bit of a beating? It’s not like he’s in deep with the mob and his life is at stake. He’s indebted to an 18 year-old, so why is he getting so upset? He didn’t just lose this month’s rent, his child support payments, or the money to buy gas in order to get to his job that provides for his rent and child support payments. Rather, what this kid really has is an anger problem with a gambling habit. He has been misdiagnosed, and they need to specify this. The moral of the commercial should be stated as, “If you have a serious and debilitating anger problem, don’t watch pivotal sporting events while holding weapons.”
In other commercial news, Sonic is continuing their break-neck advertising campaign and the logic of it still eludes me, but then again I’m not a marketing major. At least once a day some zany little Sonic commercial will come on and I’ll admit they are tolerable- not funny by any means, but they don’t make you scream in horror like some other ads. This is a consistent approximation, if you watch television, you will see at least one a day. I checked Sonics website and there is not a restaurant within 150 miles of any part of Connecticut. 150 miles, please explain this to me.
I can only think of one explanation. You know how an army will bomb a country and attempt to take out their defenses before sending in the ground troops? Well, this is what I believe Sonic is doing. They are going to bombard us with commercials until we are all salivating at the mere mention of the word Sonic or the sight of any hedgehog. Then stores will begin to spring up everywhere, like mutant Starbucks, and we will all be lining up outside them 24/7- sending our friends to get in lines at other Sonics so that we can scoot over there after getting out of the current line. Well, this is just what I think.
But what else could be their objective? My Dad posed the idea that they wanted us to be so overcome by the prospects of Sonic that we would call our relatives who lived near one and urge them to immediately go out there for a meal. Do they want us to be so moved by their commercials that we book a flight and embark on a pilgrimage to one? Are they trying to inspire a real life “Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle?” If this is the case then they should combine their advertisements with, say, Southwest Airlines. They could offer a round-trip, meal-for-two package.
I think too much about commercials.
Gambling commercials always make me laugh. I saw a familiar one the other day. A young man is watching a basketball game on his little cot in his upstairs bedroom. He is evidently tense because his knuckles are turning white as they clench the aluminum baseball bat that he is holding. (Apparently this is a common occurrence: watching televised sporting contests with a heavy metal object in hand. Not to mention the fact that he is watching basketball while holding baseball equipment- inconsistencies already abound.) It appears that this lad’s team is losing because his growling gets louder as the commercial progresses and sweat is pouring down his forehead like a melting glacier. The commercial warns against the perils of gambling as the sporting contest comes to a close. The boy’s team has lost, or maybe not covered the spread, or not reached the over- they don’t even specify what bet this kid has made. (For all we know it could have just been a bad bet, and they should be specifying that you should not gamble UNLESS you have done your research.) So the kid has lost, he jumps up in an act of superfluous frustration and in one fell swoop he comes down on his television set with the baseball bat- smashing the thing into oblivion. Freeze frame. The advertisers let that little ditty sink in as they deliver their final epitaph. I don’t remember what it was but it was something in the vain of, “gambling is bad,” I missed it because I was too busy looking at the lines for the night’s NBA games, the commercial had got me thinking.
While being a solid piece of film making- the lighting was good and they took the right angles to capture the kid’s rage- I did find a few holes in this little saga. As is apparent from his aggravation, this was not a once-in-a-blue-moon wager, this might have been the end of a gravely futile losing weekend, or the double down on a previous loss that he was hoping to drag him out of a rut. That’s why the smashing of the television just did not make sense. Everybody knows that if this kid was a serious gambler the first thing he would have done after losing that bet would be to pawn the television in order to pay off his bookie. He would not smash his only observable asset. If this was the case, and he is destroying his last thing of value, then this kid is just stupid to begin with and we should not be wasting our time with him.
Additionally, this kid appears to be about sixteen, at most. Now we will take a leap of faith and give the commercial the benefit of the doubt that this kid was able to find a bookie in the school yard that would cover his bets. If they are assuming that he’s going down to the local gentlemen’s club to lay down money then they are the ones that deserve the business end of a baseball bat. Given that this kid has a playground bookie, how much money can he be losing to begin with? How much “credit” is this kid giving him and if he doesn’t pay up what is going to happen to him? Maybe catch a bit of a beating? It’s not like he’s in deep with the mob and his life is at stake. He’s indebted to an 18 year-old, so why is he getting so upset? He didn’t just lose this month’s rent, his child support payments, or the money to buy gas in order to get to his job that provides for his rent and child support payments. Rather, what this kid really has is an anger problem with a gambling habit. He has been misdiagnosed, and they need to specify this. The moral of the commercial should be stated as, “If you have a serious and debilitating anger problem, don’t watch pivotal sporting events while holding weapons.”
In other commercial news, Sonic is continuing their break-neck advertising campaign and the logic of it still eludes me, but then again I’m not a marketing major. At least once a day some zany little Sonic commercial will come on and I’ll admit they are tolerable- not funny by any means, but they don’t make you scream in horror like some other ads. This is a consistent approximation, if you watch television, you will see at least one a day. I checked Sonics website and there is not a restaurant within 150 miles of any part of Connecticut. 150 miles, please explain this to me.
I can only think of one explanation. You know how an army will bomb a country and attempt to take out their defenses before sending in the ground troops? Well, this is what I believe Sonic is doing. They are going to bombard us with commercials until we are all salivating at the mere mention of the word Sonic or the sight of any hedgehog. Then stores will begin to spring up everywhere, like mutant Starbucks, and we will all be lining up outside them 24/7- sending our friends to get in lines at other Sonics so that we can scoot over there after getting out of the current line. Well, this is just what I think.
But what else could be their objective? My Dad posed the idea that they wanted us to be so overcome by the prospects of Sonic that we would call our relatives who lived near one and urge them to immediately go out there for a meal. Do they want us to be so moved by their commercials that we book a flight and embark on a pilgrimage to one? Are they trying to inspire a real life “Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle?” If this is the case then they should combine their advertisements with, say, Southwest Airlines. They could offer a round-trip, meal-for-two package.
I think too much about commercials.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Cheap Shot Rob
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2007/news/story?id=2871615
Regarding this issue, I want to bring up one point that I haven't read anywhere else. The suspensions resulting from the altercation at the end of Monday's Suns-Spurs game have been the popular media issue as of late, to the point that the Suns well-fought comeback has been pushed to the back of the forum. While the consensus is that the suspensions are excessive, the real point is that the NBA has rewarded Robert Horry for his aggressive actions.
Horry metaphorically threw the first punch, he initiated the fight. He knocked Nash to the floor and Diaw and Stoudemire jumped up instinctively to defend their comrade. They did not retaliate with contact, or even get close to using any force. In fact, they didn't even leave the "general bench area." In normal physical altercations in sports, be it football, basketball etc. the only time both sides are penalized is when the victim of the initial attack responds in turn with a violent act of his own. If a basketball player punches another player, he'll receive a technical and usually an ejection. If the player who is hit gets up and swings back, he'll normally get ejected too. He doesn't get penalized if he stands up and stares back at the guy. So why should Diaw and Stoudemire be penalized for innocent reactions? If they had responded with violence, in addition with having had to leave the bench to do so, then serious reprimands would be in order.
The whole argument about this not being a fair trade doesn't hold any water. It does not matter that the Spurs' player was a role player while the Suns' players are vital components. The only issue is who was actually causing trouble. Did Stoudemire or Diaw escalate the situation? Did their actions have any detrimental consequences at all? No, they did not.
In the end, the league did interpret their rule correctly. It is a "black or white" rule, not open to interpretation, but that is where the fault lays. Meanwhile David Stern has been reluctant to even admit that the rule needs some revisiting. Hopefully after all the fallout from this debacle he will change his mind.
Regarding this issue, I want to bring up one point that I haven't read anywhere else. The suspensions resulting from the altercation at the end of Monday's Suns-Spurs game have been the popular media issue as of late, to the point that the Suns well-fought comeback has been pushed to the back of the forum. While the consensus is that the suspensions are excessive, the real point is that the NBA has rewarded Robert Horry for his aggressive actions.
Horry metaphorically threw the first punch, he initiated the fight. He knocked Nash to the floor and Diaw and Stoudemire jumped up instinctively to defend their comrade. They did not retaliate with contact, or even get close to using any force. In fact, they didn't even leave the "general bench area." In normal physical altercations in sports, be it football, basketball etc. the only time both sides are penalized is when the victim of the initial attack responds in turn with a violent act of his own. If a basketball player punches another player, he'll receive a technical and usually an ejection. If the player who is hit gets up and swings back, he'll normally get ejected too. He doesn't get penalized if he stands up and stares back at the guy. So why should Diaw and Stoudemire be penalized for innocent reactions? If they had responded with violence, in addition with having had to leave the bench to do so, then serious reprimands would be in order.
The whole argument about this not being a fair trade doesn't hold any water. It does not matter that the Spurs' player was a role player while the Suns' players are vital components. The only issue is who was actually causing trouble. Did Stoudemire or Diaw escalate the situation? Did their actions have any detrimental consequences at all? No, they did not.
In the end, the league did interpret their rule correctly. It is a "black or white" rule, not open to interpretation, but that is where the fault lays. Meanwhile David Stern has been reluctant to even admit that the rule needs some revisiting. Hopefully after all the fallout from this debacle he will change his mind.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
There's Something About Brett
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6805790
Favre asked to be traded. I can’t say I’m the least bit surprised by this development. In fact, I would probably do the same thing if I was in his shoes. The Packers really need to evaluate what they are doing these days, and if Ted Thompson has been hanging around Matt Millen too much. I would gladly have given up a third or even second round pick for Moss, a fourth round pick was a crime, like a little kid trading away his Jerry Rice rookie card for a football signed by Joe Montana that the older kid had actually autographed himself. There were many reasons cited for why they didn’t pull the trigger on this deal. Favre’s explanation was that Moss wanted more guaranteed money if he came to Green Bay and he apparently wanted a one-year contract. He got the single season deal from New England but less guaranteed money, another point that Favre stressed. Moss’ behavior issues have also come up as an explanation, but the Pack’s signing of Koren Robinson and his docket of legal proceedings and Charles Woodson and his notorious mouth makes this point moot.
Character had nothing to do with this decision. I think Thompson is trying to prove that he can be the next Ron Wolf- by drafting smart, and making select veteran signings. The irony is that this is exactly how New England built their team and now they are the ones who actually made this trade. He has Brett Favre coming back and I think he’s determined to single-handedly ruin his career, or maybe he doesn't actually watch the regular season games. The only time Favre was a true winner was when he had a dominant running game. While I like his decision to build a great defense, the fact remains that we have Vernand Morency as our number one tailback. We might as well choose one lucky Piggly Wiggly shopper each week and give them the starting nod.
When analyzed, Thompson’s draft wasn’t even that good to begin with. It’s not like he passed on this trade because he roped in a stellar class of young guns. Every pick in our draft was either considered a reach for an over valued player or a pick of a weak player who has a chance at being a steal. There was not one selection that the analysts said was a solid pick that filled a hole. Their big running back pick, Brandon Jackson, was described as a shifty back that hits the hole well but is undersized and slow. Meaning, he plays the right position but on the downside he sucks. I did like their pick of Aaron Rouse, the safety out of Virginia Tech, but for the majority of their guys are “project players” who are not expected to make an impact this year. Truth be told, the reports coming out of camp have been cautiously optimistic so I will reserve my harsh criticism until the pre-season.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2869896
Now Favre says he is here to stay. Fine. At least his head will hopefully be in the right place for the season and his teammates won’t be standing around waiting for him to bail. You could hear the state of Wisconsin breath a collective sigh of relief when this story was released. The lingering issue is that we have not added one new legit offensive weapon to a unit that was carried by our defense last year. Then I read this story:
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6810106
Telling Packer fans that we would be better off getting rid of Favre is like telling a cripple that they should try getting around without the wheel chair. It sounds ludicrous. I was completely taken aback but after I got by my partisan ties the idea did seem to far fetched. We are in a division whose other three starting quarterbacks are Tarvaris Jackson, Rex Grossman and Jon Kitna; guys who wouldn't be able to run a consistant offense even if all three were allowed to confer before each on-field decision. Even though the only backups on our roster are Aaron Rodgers and Ingle Martin but what if we packaged Favre in a deal to a team that needed a quarterback in exchange for more offensive assets? The Chiefs come to mind. There has been talk of them parting ways with Larry Johnson and if we offered the right package, I think a deal for the two could be orchestrated. The ability to pick up a franchise running back would be a decisive move. Then, we sign Keyshawn Johnson for some added help at wideout. Sure we would enter the season with Rodgers directing the offense, a man whose moustache makes him look like he should be directing “Debbie Does Dallas V”, but I don’t see him as any worse than the other division contenders. We would have a solid defense, a dominant running back and if Rodge could keep the defense at bay with a couple well placed passes I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t be playing for an NFC North title.
Now I know I may have caused some irreparable family rifts with that last paragraph, and it felt like I was cutting myself in the bathroom, but I’m just trying to think of how our team could be the most competitive next year. I love watching Favre as much as the next Packer fan, and seeing him in different colors would be the equivilant of moving into a cave with Osama Bin Laden, but at this point we need to think of the best interests of team. Sure he says he’s committed to this team, but will his head really be in the right place? As soon as things begin to go the least bit sour I could see him just begin to throw up balls like a coach throwing pop-ups to his little league team. Maybe not. Maybe he has a renewed passion after this whole debacle, our draft choices will become integral parts of his arsenal and we will be poised to surpass the putrid clubs that made our division the worst in football last year. Either way, I just want to be competitive and if someone can tell me the name of club where Ted Thompson and Matt Millen discuss their business, I’ll promise not to give your name to the police.
One More Thought: Favre is stuck in a very tough position. On espn.com today Jemele Hill hill compared him to "dwindling diva" because of the drama that has surrounded his whole fiasco. While she's right about the characterization of the situation, she's missing the main point. Everyone keeps rehashing his stats from the past few seasons and explaining that he has lost it and is not an elite quarterback anymore. This is true. No longer can he carry a measly team like he could in his prime. In fact every expert is right, he might not even be one of the Top Ten quarterbacks in the league. But the fact remains that he still is a decent quarterback. He still has the skills to be better than half the other starters in the league and maybe on some days, better than 75% of the others. He without a doubt could not achieve the results that Tom Brady did last year with his receiving corps that consisted of bug-eyed washouts. But I think if he was in Brady's situation this year, with an arsenal of receivers and a solid running game, he could be successful. He still has the tools to lead a team to the playoffs, if not more. He's lost a step or too, his battery meter is depleted and his fastball only tops out in the low-nineties now, but he still could win football games.
This is why he is complaining.
The fans want their hero to return and lead them back to the promised land. He wants to come back and deliver on these wishes for the town he's become so attached to. But he also realizes that he will not win games unless he has help. He doesn't want to be seen as the hall of famer who wore out his welcome. So when the Packers go through an entire off season without giving him one upgrade on offense, while losing their starting running back, it only makes him panic. If he begins to lose, the critics will light up the barbecue. He knows that if given the right set of players he could be a force to be reckoned with. So he asks for a trade so that maybe he could go to team that has the right situation for him and he could prove that he can still produce at an exceptional level. He only wants to win, which is why comparing him to the recent slew of drama queen wide recievers is unfair. These players either wanted more money or more passes or attention. He just wants to deliver on the hopes and dreams of his fanbase. He's frustrated with Thompson's stubborness and, frankly, so am I.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)