tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55017937153306354662024-03-08T03:45:11.435-05:00harsh and unrefinedsports and other musingsSchaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-50643935838417168322008-02-14T12:00:00.000-05:002008-02-18T01:30:25.628-05:00MLB's Dog-and-Pony Show Solves Nothing<a href="http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2008/02/14/Commentary/Mlbs-DogAndPony.Show.Solves.Nothing-3210567.shtml">http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2008/02/14/Commentary/Mlbs-DogAndPony.Show.Solves.Nothing-3210567.shtml</a><br /><br />The Mitchell Report, baseball’s commissioned investigation into the sport’s steroid problem, read like a steamy novel written just for sports fanatics. I pored through it with the intensity of a love starved woman reading a Danielle Steel book. One of the more depressing aspects of the report’s release was that it was anticipated with a "Who Got Caught" type of buzz rather than "Who Used." Even so, the inclusion of Roger Clemens' (an All-Star pitcher and certain Hall of Famer) surprised many. His continued success had always been attributed to his intensely superior training regimen. Players descended on his house for workouts like individuals journeying to study with the Dalai Lama. <br /><br />Clemens’ initially reacted with ferocious defiance, but with good reason. The only evidence against him was verbal testimony given by his former trainer Brian McNamee, essentially heresy. McNamee said he injected Roger with steroids repeatedly during the 1998, 2000 and 2001 seasons. Also paramount to the trainers story was his assertion that Clemens was introduced to the idea of using steroids by Jose Canseco (baseball’s crowned “Mr. Steroids”) while attending a party at Canseco’s house.<br /><br />Now, as their hearing before House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform comes to a close, there still looks to be a measure of ambiguity to this soap opera.<br /> <br />I watched Wednesday’s hearings. It was in effect an angry mob of geriatrics closing in on a victim- except, they were not sure yet who that victim would be. In an effort to discover the truth, both individuals have been scrutinized under the brightest of lights. Frankly, McNamee comes off as anything but an upstanding individual. He used Clemens image to advertise his services as a trainer, without consulting the pitcher. He claimed to be a doctor after receiving a P.H.D. from a college that didn’t even have a campus. He took his courses through the mail making it, essentially, a diploma mill. <br /><br />Roger’s legal team’s main offensive against McNamee involved disproving his story about Canseco’s party. They produced game footage in which the announcers discuss Clemens absence from that certain weekend’s festivities. Clemens also brought forward a receipt from the golf round that he claims to have played the morning that the steroids barbecue was taking place. This almost hindered his case as it seemed both ludicrous and downright humorous that he would keep accounting records as meticulously as he conducts his workouts. <br /><br />But as disreputable as McNamee appeared, Clemens was even harder to believe. To combat Clemens claims of absence from the party, McNamee cited that the Clemens’ nanny was at the party and would agree with McNamee’s claims. He recommended that Congress find her and they requested her information from Clemens’ and his lawyers. Congress reiterated Wednesday that they repeatedly asked Clemens for her information throughout this past weekend but were only provided with the necessary contact info at the end of the weekend. When they talked to her, they were very startled to find out that she had been a visitor at Clemens’ house the previous day. She told them that he had implored her to “tell the truth.” While she said he might not have been at the party, he was at Conseco’s house at some point during that time period.<br /><br />While this appears to be a smoking gun, the party really means nothing to the overall actions being scrutinized. For the time being, it is just speculation. But the strongest catalyst of the rampant speculation is the testimony of Andy Pettitte, Clemens’ former teammate and best friend. McNamee also claimed he had given Pettitte steroids, as well as former Yankee Chuck Knoblach. And both corroborated his story. It seems strange that McNamee would tell the truth about two players, but lie about another. <br /><br />Pettitte also gave congress a deposition and he went as far as implicating Roger. He said that Clemens had explicitly told him about his steroids use. While it might seem shameful to rat on a friend, Pettitte is a religious man who answers to a higher authority and he has no reason to tell anything but the truth. Roger maintains that Pettitte misunderstood him, but this is not a matter of semantics. <br /><br />This biggest piece of hard evidence is the syringes that McNamee finally handed over to congress last week. He claims he used them to inject Clemens with steroids. That’s right. He handed over syringes that he had, for some inexplicable reason, held onto for over five years. He kept dirty needles in his home for half a decade. One wonders how many times he moved during this time and had to go about packing up and unpacking his traveling virus collection. In any case, these could prove to be the smoking gun, but DNA and other tests are still pending.<br /> If the tests don’t return conclusive proof of Clemens culpability then, ultimately it seems like this is going to amount to a glorified shouting match. It’s a vicious game of tug-of-war but neither side has the hard evidence to pull the other into the center. Perjury charges have been threatened against the loser, but since all the evidence is verbal testimony, each side has been proven to have massive holes in their stories and neither would hold up in court.<br /><br />Both appear tarnished but are legally spotless, meanwhile, Major League Baseball is the real one being dragged through the mud. This continued drama only serves to keep twisting the knife in the wound that the Mitchell Report opened. It’s the reason that naming names was in reality, a bad decision. Rather than drag up past grievances both sides should have just admitted that grave mistakes were made and moved forward amicably to clean up the game.Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-25777310612698557322008-02-08T00:00:00.001-05:002008-02-18T01:27:25.793-05:00When UFOs and the Bible Belt Collide<a href="http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2008/02/08/Commentary/When-Ufos.And.The.Bible.Belt.Collide-3197798.shtml">http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2008/02/08/Commentary/When-Ufos.And.The.Bible.Belt.Collide-3197798.shtml</a><br /><br />In mid-January, news crews flocked to the Bible Belt town of Stephenville, Texas as reports of local UFO sightings filtered through the airwaves. The former “dairy capital of Texas” now had a new calling card. ABC news reported that more than 30 residents reported seeing a flying object “described as a mile-wide, silent object with bright lights, flying low and fast.” City Councilman Mark Murphy said “A lot of folks aren't used to this kind of thing.” Which I guess is a good thing because then Stephenville, Texas might have been known as the first case of an entire town being admitted for mental evaluation.<br /> <br />A solitary sighting is never reported because those instances are usually filed away as deranged mental cases. The newsworthy cases are when there is a cluster of sightings. Most likely, initially one person reports their vision and then others to corroborate the story. I imagine it’s akin to being at a social gathering where someone says that they think they just heard a train. And then another person concurs with them. And then another. And soon everyone starts nodding their head in agreement and saying that they too heard some sort of noise and that it must have been a train. Then everyone realizes that there isn’t a train station within 20 miles…but they do happen to be really stoned and they laugh a lot and then go back to playing guitar hero. That’s what it’s like to be a part of a UFO sighting. Except the stoned friends don’t start calling news crews and reporting lost trains.<br /> <br />The other great aspect of a spaceship encounter, is that the so called “UFO Experts” come rushing onto the scene. It’s amazing that someone could call themselves an expert in a field that has no evidence backing up its existence. It’s like claiming to be an authority on ghosts or in using “the force.” Now, some of these individuals only study the general possibility of extra-terrestrial life. This is at least a reasonable field of study. They are looking for uncharted territories containing living beings and their research helps us learn about our surrounding universe. The crazies I’m talking about are the ones who stand firm in their belief that there is life in outer space that continually is trying to make contact with us even though they lack any discernable proof. They are merely rabid conspiracy theorists. Many of these people spent years studying to be historians or scientists only to suddenly and fervently begin to preach the existence of aliens. It is essentially a conversion to insanity; equivalent to being a science fiction writer for many years and then suddenly deciding to base an actual and allegedly legitimized religion around your fantastical writings.<br /> <br />While I stand behind my ardent cynicism I do concede the possibility that I am wrong. Maybe these are actually extraterrestrial visitors stopping by for a brief glimpse of our planet. Maybe they just don’t think it’s an appropriate time for a stop and chat, or maybe they saw Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and the threat of global warming makes landing too risky of an enterprise. <br /> <br />I can only imagine how the parents of these alien historians reacted when told of their new scholarly pursuits. It must have been like going to a well respected educational institution to study accounting for four years and at the end telling mom and dad that you’ve decided to become a stand-up comedian. While parents are supposed to show undying support, this would surely test their limits. <br /> <br />This is why it seems pretty ironic that many of these occurrences happen within the Bible Belt- the ardently religious epicenter of the south. I say this because the way I react to the thought of UFO’s must have been just how Abraham’s wife reacted when he returned with stories of his long discussions with his so called “god.” <br /><br /><br /><blockquote>“I just talked to God”<br />“Really, what did he look like?”<br />“Well, I didn’t<br />see him”<br />“Huh?”<br />“Yea he just talked to me. From the<br />clouds”<br />“Listen Abe, maybe you should lay down for a while.”<br />“No I’m<br />serious. And he told me that he wanted me to sacrifice our son Isaac to<br />him.”<br /></blockquote><br /> <br />I’m not doubting the bible; I was raised a good little Jewish boy. I’m just saying that I bet he wasn’t greeted with backslaps and high fives. I could just see this scene going down in my house. My mom would have my dad in a straight jacket before he could say the word “exodus.” <br /> <br />How could you face your friends after reporting that you saw an alien spaceship? If one of my friends confessed this to me my first question would be if it was a good or bad acid trip. He might as well put on a cape, walk around with a wand and ask me to call him a magic wizard. But UFO reporting’s will never stop and they are not anything new either. Christopher Columbus reported seeing strange lights that intermittently appeared and disappeared in the sky during his various voyages. But remember, he also thought the world was flat.Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-22802158820637101692008-01-31T12:00:00.000-05:002008-02-18T01:34:27.035-05:00The Beasts of the EastUConn's student lottery determines who gets season tickets and which seats they get - consequently, at the Monday night men's basketball game against Louisville I found myself sitting three rows from the ceiling, essentially hanging from the rafters. The term 'nosebleed section' seems a little outdated - I've sat in many upper rows and never seen an outbreak of nasal hemorrhaging - but if you took one faulty step at this height, a nosebleed would have been the least of your worries. The school's seven national championship banners were hanging straight ahead of me, a sobering reminder of our programs' past successes in comparison to the men's recent struggles.<br />I’m probably being a bit melodramatic. It’s been less than two years since UConn was in the Sweet Sixteen with their sights locked in on a title. But that round’s crushing loss to George Mason sent the program into a vicious downward spiral. It was one of the biggest upsets in recent men’s basketball history. A scarily talented team that seemed a lock for the finals was knocked off by a mid-major. That just doesn’t happen, and coupled with the loss of the Huskies' top six players, it left them as shell-shocked as a man having his house robbed immediately followed by his wife leaving him.<br /><br /><strong>Continue reading at </strong><a href="http://www.thecampusword.com/content/view/2121/592/"><strong>The Campus Word</strong></a><strong>.</strong>Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-84703402202722668762008-01-25T12:00:00.000-05:002008-02-18T01:37:01.103-05:00Reggie Bush is Not AloneA book released last week called “Tarnished Heisman” decries New Orleans Saints running back Reggie Bush as a cheater. Around the time Bush was shopping for his draft suit, allegations first surfaced claiming he had been living the life of a professional superstar during the 2004 and 2005 seasons while he was still only an amateur at the University of Southern California. <br /><br />His benefactor, and the book’s primary source, was a sports marketing agent who provided Bush and his family with hotel stays, cash for shopping sprees, and money to buy and customize a car. This was all in pursuit of getting the 20-year old to sign with his company once he left school for the NFL. <br /><br />The NCAA is very strict about players maintaining their amateur status. Collecting any sort of benefit while still a student is one of the cardinal sins in the world of college sports; it’s the equivalent of plagiarism in the academic world. They wouldn’t even allow University of Colorado football player Jeremy Bloom to collect endorsement money from his professional ski racing career, even though it was his only way of staying competitive in the alpine sport. If the accusations about Bush are proven true, he would lose his Heisman Trophy and the Trojans would have to retroactively forfeit all wins from his era, including the national championship they won. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.thecampusword.com/content/view/2073/592/">Click Here </a>to continue reading at <a href="http://thecampusword.com/">The Campus Word</a>.Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-30074823718852279112007-12-07T13:03:00.000-05:002007-12-07T13:05:37.455-05:00Facebook is not Your FriendFacebook’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.<br /> <br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />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. <br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /> <br />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.<br /> <br />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.Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-90826979201850710122007-11-09T17:15:00.000-05:002007-11-09T17:18:49.621-05:00Zen and The Art of ChivalryThe 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.<br /><br />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.<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-85369481626797650512007-10-30T12:09:00.000-04:002007-10-30T12:12:19.825-04:00Finally I Can GraduateHere's the link to this article on the website, but the editors mangled it. The original version is posted below: <a href="http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2007/10/30/Commentary/Finally.I.Can.Graduate.In.Peace-3065167.shtml">http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2007/10/30/Commentary/Finally.I.Can.Graduate.In.Peace-3065167.shtml</a><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.” <br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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.” <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-7014043525578389952007-10-29T15:23:00.000-04:002007-10-29T15:25:31.787-04:00Racism and Me<a href="http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2007/10/18/Commentary/Societys.Racist.Values.Counterproductive-3041237.shtml">http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2007/10/18/Commentary/Societys.Racist.Values.Counterproductive-3041237.shtml</a><br /><br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />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.Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-89489007555746534312007-10-06T11:16:00.000-04:002007-10-06T11:37:01.553-04:00The Internet is Important: Archaeologists Have No Credibility<span style="font-family:arial;">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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />(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:<br /></span><a href="http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2007/10/05/Commentary/Archaeologists.Have.No.Credibility-3014796.shtml"><span style="font-family:arial;">http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2007/10/05/Commentary/Archaeologists.Have.No.Credibility-3014796.shtml</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">)</span>Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-29236906296646212402007-10-03T13:02:00.000-04:002007-10-03T13:04:49.670-04:00About the InfluenceIn 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.” <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.” <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /> <br />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.<br /> <br />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.Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-28323932039983100552007-10-01T14:50:00.000-04:002007-10-03T13:05:50.160-04:00Sober ThoughtsHere’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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Do you think anybody goes to see the Oprah Show just for the free giveaways?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Why do I hate the name Delilah?<br /><br />Have you ever met anyone with the name Delilah?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Rule Number 89: Your shirt can’t be wittier than you are.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />I think text messaging officially became acceptable when Jack Nicholson was shown doing it in The Departed.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I don’t know how to react to a wink.<br /><br />I’m a senior and I still have not figured out what the proper “bus-stop-cord” etiquette is.<br /><br />Is it weird that I want to take Viagra just to attempt to get a four hour erection?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Justin Timberlake is so Now.<br /><br />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?)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />What sort of thank you gift do you get for a friend who sucked venom from your snake bite?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />People I’d like to meet in an empty room with a baseball bat: Norman Chad, Wendy Williams, Skip Bayless.<br /><br />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.Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-38969069775200492432007-09-13T14:44:00.000-04:002007-10-01T14:47:35.435-04:00Great 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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br />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.<br /><br />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.<br />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.<br /><br />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.Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-76237082121210413462007-09-04T14:47:00.000-04:002007-10-01T14:49:59.846-04:00Perverse Times With Twisted PoliticosWhile 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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a title="More articles about David Vitter." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/v/david_vitter/index.html?inline=nyt-per">David Vitter</a> 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.<br /><br />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.”Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-19084845439718317042007-06-04T20:26:00.000-04:002007-06-07T21:15:48.879-04:00Hate, Hate, HateTwo notable results stemming from me being home from school and without a full-time job:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">JCC</span></span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">shower room for long periods of time</span>.<br /><br />Now I'm not trying to give a history lesson on blogs, just what I've observed in my short time in the "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">blogosphere</span>." (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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">alliteration</span> homes) that isn't normally or even able to be discussed in the national press. For example, <a href="http://www.profootballtalk.com/"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Profootballtalk</span></span>.com</a> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">felony</span> or a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">misdemeanor</span>. For a number of reasons this is a gimmick that a respected <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">institution</span>, like the New York Times, could never attempt. The simple explanation being that they see it as below them and generally disreputable.<br /><br />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. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Bloggers</span></span> don't usually have any access to begin with so they have no misgivings. One such site is <a href="http://awfulannouncing.blogspot.com/">Awful Announcing</a> which deals with sports announcers and their general <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">incompetence</span>. Most other blogs' (good examples: <a href="http://www.deadspin.com/"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Deadspin</span></span></a>, <a href="http://kissmesuzy.blogspot.com/">Kissing Suzy <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Kolber</span></span></a>) main objective is to present sports in an entertaining, humorous manner with the main <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">through line</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">being that</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">unadulterated</span> takes on the main stories are a refreshing change of pace.<br /><br />What I'm getting at here is that in frequenting these sites I've seen a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">prevalence</span> of criticism of ESPN and its writers. These sites have taken on everyone from their most <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">popular</span> online writer, Bill Simmons, to their on air talent, such as Chris <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Berman</span></span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">egomaniac</span> sometimes, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Berman</span></span> will pull a Dane Cook and just get downright annoying and too flamboyant and Stuart Scott does tend to venture in to Carlos <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Mencia</span></span> territory and try to play up the race factor a bit too much, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">dawg</span></span>. 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">assessments</span> 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.<br /><br />Growing up ESPN was like a sports-loving uncle that <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">permanently</span> 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 (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">which doesn't</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">TV</span>. While most kids watched L<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">ooney</span></span> T<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">oons</span></span> or A<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">nimaniacs</span></span> or <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Rugrats</span></span>, I <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">immediately</span> tuned to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Sportscenter</span></span>. 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">Internet</span>; ESPN was my portal in to the sports world and it had an obsessive effect on me like <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">inhabiting</span> John <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Malkovich</span></span> had on Cameron <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Diaz</span> in "Being John <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Malkovich</span></span>."<br /><br />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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">UConn</span></span> and to me it was like hanging up a priceless work of art. In my view, it was <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">comparable</span> to putting up an original Picasso or the actual hand-painted <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">portrait</span> of Kramer from the Seinfeld episode. Sports coverage today is as diverse as ever, ESPN may still be the leader, but others are <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">beginning</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">institution in the same vein as Playboy and Jack Daniels</span>. 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.Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-11567045563625738192007-05-31T20:31:00.000-04:002007-06-01T12:07:06.968-04:00Apologizzzze<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070531/slavery-apology/">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070531/slavery-apology/</a><br /><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/05/31/alabama-officially-apolog_n_50228.html"></a><br />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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">actively</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">remarks</span> such as:<br /><br /><blockquote>"You know what, that Alabama apologizing really brings closure to this whole slavery issue"<br /></blockquote><br /><div align="center">or</div><br /><blockquote>"I'll tell you what, now that Alabama has apologized I can finally stop physically <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">harassing</span> the U. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Bama</span> fan who works in the cubicle next to me."<br /></blockquote><br /><div align="center">or</div><br /><blockquote>"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."</blockquote><br /><br />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?"Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-57113959466668299752007-05-31T11:53:00.000-04:002007-05-31T11:32:28.629-04:00Compete against the NFL?<a href="http://www.blogmaverick.com/2007/05/30/competing-with-the-nfl/">http://www.blogmaverick.com/2007/05/30/competing-with-the-nfl/</a><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-51235445912844024542007-05-30T11:34:00.000-04:002007-06-11T16:49:30.868-04:00Safeguards of SanityFlipping 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />(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.)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />(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.)<br /><br />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; "<a href="http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/uncensored.shtml">Dick in a Box</a>" was great and I loved the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZpPf-q2_es">Peyton Manning</a> one. Let's hope this a sign of good things to come and I'm crossing my fingers for another run of "glory years."Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-17615157093022038622007-05-28T23:05:00.000-04:002007-05-28T23:07:32.546-04:00People I'd Like to Meet in an Empty Room With a Baseball Bat: Carlos MenciaWhat 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: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsq1uTLBHBc">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsq1uTLBHBc</a>.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-91204810943658367542007-05-23T13:39:00.000-04:002007-05-24T15:42:07.204-04:00A Few More Thoughts on CommercialsThis 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I think too much about commercials.<br /><br /><object height="350" width="400"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="movie" value="http://www.superdeluxe.com/static/swf/share_vidplayer.swf"><param name="FlashVars" value="id=D81F2344BF5AC7BBD917FB4661B09BBCEA59B3DF4FD7443D"><embed src="http://www.superdeluxe.com/static/swf/share_vidplayer.swf" flashvars="id=D81F2344BF5AC7BBD917FB4661B09BBCEA59B3DF4FD7443D" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400" height="350" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-61467550868101570542007-05-16T11:09:00.000-04:002007-05-23T13:59:32.934-04:00Cheap Shot Rob<a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2007/news/story?id=2871615">http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2007/news/story?id=2871615</a><br /><br />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-<span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">fought</span> comeback has been pushed to the back of the forum. While the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">consensus</span> is that the suspensions are excessive, the real point is that the NBA has rewarded Robert <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Horry</span></span> for his aggressive actions.<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Horry</span></span> metaphorically threw the first punch, he initiated the fight. He knocked Nash to the floor and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Diaw</span></span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Stoudemire</span></span> jumped up <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">instinctively</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">violent</span> act of his own. If a basketball player punches another player, he'll <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">receive</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Diaw</span></span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Stoudemire</span></span> be penalized for innocent reactions? If they had responded with violence, in <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">addition</span> with having had to leave the bench to do so, then serious reprimands would be in order.<br />The whole <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">argument</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">components</span>. The only issue is who was actually causing trouble. Did <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Stoudemire</span> or <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Diaw</span> escalate the situation? Did their actions have any detrimental consequences at all? No, they did not.<br /><br />In the end, the league did <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">interpret</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">revisiting</span>. <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Hopefully</span> after all the fallout from this debacle he will change his mind.Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-47561254595117865202007-05-15T10:48:00.000-04:002007-05-16T22:58:56.415-04:00There's Something About Brett<div align="left"><blockquote><a href="http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6805790" target="_blank">http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6805790</a><a href="http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6805790" target="_blank"></blockquote></a><br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Favre</span></span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Millen</span></span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">didn</span></span>’t pull the trigger on this deal. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Favre</span></span>’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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Favre</span></span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Woodson</span></span> and his notorious mouth makes this point moot.<br /><br />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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Favre</span></span> coming back and I think he’s determined to single-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">handedly</span></span> ruin his career, or maybe he doesn't actually watch the regular season games. The only time <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Favre</span></span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Vernand</span></span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Morency</span></span> as our number one tailback. We might as well choose one lucky <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Piggly</span></span> Wiggly shopper each week and give them the starting nod.<br /><br />When analyzed, Thompson’s draft <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">wasn</span></span>’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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">pre</span></span>-season.<br /><br /><blockquote><a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2869896">http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2869896</a></blockquote><br /><br />Now <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Favre</span></span> 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:<br /><br /><blockquote><a href="http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6810106">http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6810106</a></blockquote></div><p><br />Telling Packer fans that we would be better off getting rid of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Favre</span></span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Tarvaris</span></span> Jackson, Rex <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Grossman</span></span> and Jon <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Kitna</span></span>; guys who wouldn't be able to run a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">consistant</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Ingle</span></span> Martin but what if we packaged <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Favre</span></span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Keyshawn</span></span> Johnson for some added help at <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">wideout</span></span>. 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">couldn</span></span>’t be playing for an NFC North title.<br /><br />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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">Favre</span></span> as much as the next Packer fan, and seeing him in different colors would be the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">equivilant</span> of moving into a cave with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">Osama</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">Millen</span></span> discuss their business, I’ll promise not to give your name to the police. </p><p>One More Thought: <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">Favre</span> is stuck in a very tough position. On <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">espn</span>.com today <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">Jemele</span> Hill hill compared him to "dwindling diva" because of the drama that has surrounded his whole fiasco. While she's right about the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">characterization</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">receiving</span> corps that consisted of bug-eyed washouts. But I think if <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">he</span> 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. </p><p>This is why he is complaining. </p><p>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.</p>Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-86268433232490935212007-05-10T00:30:00.000-04:002007-05-10T11:17:48.635-04:00Once Upon a Time in AmericaWe’d spent weeks trying to get our apartment subleased for the summer. We put an ad in the school paper. None of the students read the paper so that was as beneficial as buying commercial time on C-Span. We put ads up in classrooms around campus. No one goes to class so that was as productive as hanging flyers in a mortuary.<br /><br />I finally harassed our landlady into finding us someone and she called me on a Friday morning after a particularly heavy Thursday night. I was in bed rehabbing and ignored her call so I wouldn’t have to interact with real humans at the ungodly hour of ten in the morning. She was kind enough to leave me a message telling me that she would come by in five minutes with the prospective renter. “Excellent,” I thought as I laid my head back down on my pillow, “the place is rented out.”<br /><br />The good times ended when I jumped out of bed realizing that the apartment was a few empty beer bottles short of the Bonnaroo fairgrounds. Let us also not forget that the numerous holes in the wall were not exactly giving off the welcoming, “please pay us to live here” atmosphere that we were going for. We shoveled as many empties as we could into the trash bin and finished putting posters up over the holes just as we heard a knock on the door.<br /><br />Tom opened up the door and ushered in our prospective Lessee and the landlord. By the way, I'm against the term ‘landlord'- It's a little strong of a categorization. <br /><br />Lessee - we will call him this for now on- was an Egyptian who now lives in Italy. He was overly nice and seemed like a good person to rent to.<br /><br />As they entered the establishment one of the posters took a very opportunistic drop. As it fell to the floor it revealed the two fist holes that we were hiding; a great first impression. I could just imagine what was going through this kids head as he stood in the couch room.<br /><br /><br /><em><blockquote><em>The place doesn’t smell; that’s good. Whoa, are those holes. Wait, there are more of them. How did they get one over there? Someone had to have kicked that one in. Why are there so many empty bottles? There’s more on top of the counter, it looks like they are displaying that trash for everyone to see. Look at all those liquor bottles on the fridge. That’s just downright dangerous.</em></blockquote></em><br /><br />You get the picture. It ended up that Lessee was just looking to rent one room, and we were happy enough to get any sort of payment at all. We assured them that the holes would be fixed and the garbage picked up by the beginning of next week- when he wanted to move in. We also guaranteed that the bathroom would be restored to “normal-human-being” living conditions, since it hadn’t been cleaned at any point in recent memory.<br /><br />The Sunday before he was supposed to move in we spent the entire day fixing the holes in the wall and making the place presentable. Being that he was an exchange student, I cleaned that bathroom like it was going to be our ambassador to other nations. I scrubbed it like my citizenship depended on it. On a side note, we thought it would be a fun idea to paint the opposing walls in the coach room bright red and orange.<br /><br />Lessee moved in on Monday, with no visible signs of astonishment from the “Pee Wee’s Playhouse” appearance of the TV room. Probably because the U.S. didn’t allow Pee Wee to be exported to other countries after that whole hands in the pants ordeal.<br /><br />“This is your room,” I instructed as I led him to Swirsky’s room- the one in the middle.<br />“I can put my stuff in here now?”<br />“Yea, it’s all set. You can move right in”<br />“So I can bring my bag in now?” He looked at me questioningly, with an awkward glance, like I was leaving something out.<br />“You can do whatever you need; this is your place now.”<br />We walked back into the other room, by the kitchen, and he looked back at me.<br />“The refrigerator, I can use it?”<br />“Yea, definitely. There should be room in there.”<br />“I have a chicken. I can put it in there?” Again that same look.<br />“You do what you have to do man. As long as you pay the rent, you have the run of the place.”<br />“So it is ok for me to put my chicken in there?” He was just being nice, trying to not cross any boundaries. Apparently he forgot that we had numerous holes in the wall just days before and that the digs currently resembled a dilapidated McDonalds.<br />“We don’t really have too many rules here. You’re free to do whatever you have to do.”<br /><br />He seemed all set at that point. As Tom and I left the place we were pretty content with our situation except we wondered aloud about one thing. We were just hoping that the chicken he was talking about was not a live one. We didn’t mean this in a barbaric kind of way, we were just hoping that we wouldn’t return to the apartment to see feathers scattered all over the place as he was hacking away at the neck of a screaming chicken. I guess we all have our pet peeves.<br /><br />Lessee returned that night as we were barbecuing and enjoying a few beers with the afternoon sun. As spring begins to show its true colors it feels like a crime to not have a beer or two with those first warm days of the year. It would be like peanut butter without jelly. We offered him a beer but he told us that he did not drink.<br /><br />As it began to get chilly and dark outside the party migrated in. Not a party in the raucous set-couches-on-fire sense, but party in the restaurant meaning of the word, as in, “Henderson, party of five.” I went back to his room tell him to come get me if we got bothersome.<br /><br />“Oh, why? You have party tonight?”<br />“No, we are just going to watch TV, but let me know if it is loud. Feel free to come sit down.”<br />“Ok, well I change. I coming over there.”<br /><br />He came and sat down just as, “Deal or No Deal” was coming on. Everyone got along great. The girls quizzed him on every dirty word that he could translate into Egyptian and everyone else was interested in his studies of mechanical engineering. I can’t say that we were interested in what he was actually learning, more the fact that we wouldn’t be able to define what his subject was if we had a gun to our heads. The show came back on so everybody turned their attention back to the television and all energy was centered on the game show.<br /><br />As everyone leered and jeered at the screen, I fixed my attention on Lessee to see what he was picking up. He looked genuinely interested in the action but I could tell that he was pretty lost when it came to what exactly was happening. During a commercial I asked him if he understood what the program was about.<br /><br />“It is like lottery right?”<br /><br />A very perceptive observation by him. The show returned and as the contestant got into the thick of things, the cheers in the room got louder. Suddenly people had feelings about what they hoped should would happen to the hopeless man standing center stage. Personally, I’m afraid this show brings out the worst in me. Maybe it is because of the completely arbitrary manner of the game, but I always find myself rooting for the worst things to happen to the competitor. I am always crossing my fingers for the highest amount to be held in the next briefcase he picks. Maybe it is because no skill is involved so I just get mad because I think anyone could be successful. I’m not sure, sometimes I don’t understand myself.<br /><br />While we are discussing the game I think there are a few amendments that could be made to make the show more enjoyable for everyone. First of all, Howie is a little weird to begin with. Between his OCD and his overall borderline-sketchy demeanor, he is no Bob Barker. I think Howie should have an earpiece telling him what amounts are in each briefcase so that the contestant could try and read his reactions- adding even a modicum of skill to the game.<br /><br />I also think they need to do away with the part where they let the models react to the opening of each briefcase. Each one of them seems to think that they need to offer some divine insight. The problem is most of them are just barely able to conjure up some words that pass for a sentence and react to the amounts by attempting to contort their faces into some semblance of an expression but the abundance of botox impedes this exercise. I’m starting to realize I might think about this show too much, let’s get back to the story.<br /><br />As the cheers got louder, the scene dawned on me. This exchange student was sitting on a couch in a random, oddly decorated apartment with some half-drunk Americans who are screaming their heads off at a screen that was showing a program about briefcases with money in them. That’s all the glorified spectacle was, random metal briefcases with different money values inside.<br /><br />It was so American of us- booze and money. All that was left was for us to start doing drugs and erupt into an orgy and the scene would have been complete. Hopefully that’s coming tonight.<br /><br />I’ll be back with more updates on how the living situation is working out- if only because Swirsky asks me hourly if his room is still intact.Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-4287233734626040252007-05-08T16:38:00.000-04:002007-05-09T00:50:00.601-04:00Steinbrenner prints his own moneyRoger Clemens announced his return to the Yankees as Andy Pettitte giggled like a girl who has just been ushered into her surprise sweet-sixteen party. Clemens, meanwhile, looked like Steve Carrel in "The Office" announcing something that he thinks should get everyone into a state of ecstatic bedlam except he has a creepy smile on his face and everyone is a little less than enthused. How can any fan be genuinely excited about a 45 year-old pitcher joining your basement dwelling team. Sure he is a needed shot of adrenaline, but who can honestly see him being the catalyst for a playoff run. The best the Yankees can hope for here is that he becomes a solid piece of a staff that will pitch productively across the board. He is definitely an exciting player to have on your side and he will bring an intensity to the pitching crew that seems to be absent form this year's club.<br /><br />The biggest issue that stands out here is that his signing is sure to launch the merry-go-round of criticism about the Yankees’ spending habits and Steinbrenner’s tactics. We’ll hear the same sly jokes and then be reminded that their bank-busting payroll hasn’t done shit lately. Steinbrenner will be personally called out again as a spoiled brat walking through a toy store pointing at things that he wants and throwing a tantrum when he doesn’t get what he wants. In fact, I could just see him standing in Clemens’ agent’s office acting out Isla Fisher’s (the redhead) performance in “Wedding Crashers” when she was asking her dad if she could bring the boys back to their lake house.<br /><br />Next we will begin to rehash the whole argument that the Yankee’s are what is wrong with baseball, there should be a salary cap, etc. This could all be true, but in the purely competitive sense of the sport, what is wrong with what he is doing as an owner? His spending, for the most part, has always been for the pursuit of a championship. His present motives might not be for a win in the pure baseball fanatic sense of the word, but rather to uphold his reputation, either way, all he wants to do is win, no matter the cost. What is so wrong about this if it’s done within the parameters of the leagues rules? Why shouldn’t an owner do whatever he can for the team to win? Sure it might be bad for baseball, and prove that a salary cap is needed, but while this is the case, why shouldn’t he spend like Pacman Jones at a strip club.<br /><br />If he has the resources how can you fault him for working the system?Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-54523578124378513392007-05-01T15:00:00.000-04:002007-05-08T15:44:00.581-04:00Sobering ThoughtsMy first time through Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 cannot fairly be classified as a reading. It was more like the first time you got a glimpse of pornographic material- you don’t really remember what you saw and you didn’t exactly understand what you had just seen but it was pretty damn intoxicating and you couldn’t believe something like that existed. For those of you who are a little lost here, you need to know Hunter Thompson was a journalist and a substance addict whose paths were eternally linked. His reports were not merely recants of certain events but rather tales of his exploits trying to cover whatever story he was assigned to. He was a brilliant madman, and that wasn’t hard to witness from his prose.<br /><br />That’s why this book, or any of his writing for that matter, is a little mesmerizing at first glance. It’s like a trip inside a political funhouse, where fact and fiction is blended and the line between them is blurred.<br /><br />This is why I had to sit down a second time with this book. I needed to get past all the smoke and mirrors and see what he really had to say, what he really was talking about on all those pages. After all, Frank Mankiewicz, the campaign director for eventual Democratic nominee George McGovern, stated that this book was the “most accurate and least factual account of the campaign." That statement is confusing too but a prime example of this logic is when Thompson attributed one of the candidate’s erratic behaviors to a secret drug addiction. When describing the politician’s actions he would explain why they were out of sorts and point out where the drug was affecting him. While the addiction part was not true, the questionable decision-making was occurring; Thompson just decided to put his comedic twist on it. That is what distinguished his work from the bland recounts that the regular reporters filed each day in the newspapers.<br /><br />Now I’ve explained all this nonsense because I’m trying to get somewhere and the funny part is it isn’t even something Thompson wrote. See, due to his questionable lifestyle decisions, he sometimes did not make his writing deadlines. In fact, he was notorious for this but what he did manage to produce was so captivating that the editors would put up with his shenanigans. In one section of the text, he explains that he is just plain exhausted and he lets his fellow correspondent at Rolling Stone (the magazine had sent them to cover the campaign) finish the rehash of that month’s events and outcomes. The writer, Tim Crouse, filed a more traditional story. Absent were the absurdities and personal opinions that Thompson littered his pages with, and it was definitely less entertaining. It dealt with McGovern’s win in the Wisconsin primary and included a section where he had interviewed all the young volunteers who had been vital to the grassroots effort that boosted the candidate to victory.<br /><br />The kids, all college age, were riding an evident high that was partly due to the victory-party booze and partly due to the realization that they had just made a difference. McGovern was an underdog in the state, in the entire race in general, and Wisconsin became a turning point for him that eventually propelled him into the National Election.<br /><br />When asked about their reasons for participating the consensus was that most of them were unhappy with the country’s current leadership and wanted a change; Nixon was in the White House at the time, in the thick of the Vietnam conflict. How many of us today have ever said to each other that we are unhappy with the current leadership, and we fervently want a change. Sure a lot of people agree that George Bush would without a doubt lose on “Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader,” and that he is a pawn for the political powers in control, but how many times have you been sitting around with your friends discussing what needs to be done in this country. I know I have never done that, and I can only speak for myself, but I feel that this is something that is generally missing from our generation. We are completely detached from the political picture.<br /><br />Some people want to say that it was the drugs, and those surely played a part, but back in “the day” there was an audible voice coming from college campuses all around. They had something to say about the current situation and they set out to make statements. They protested. Sure there was violence back then, but it had a purpose. Now we overturn cars in the parking lot just for pure enjoyment- each other’s cars. I mean if your intent on flipping something, at least have a reason for it. If you don’t like the way your university is handling an issue, go overturn all the cars at the Dean's office. Now that’s not a suggestion, just an example that is probably going to come back to haunt me.<br /><br />Now before this gets too depressing and downright critical of our generation, we have to also talk about how this is not completely all our fault. Rolling Stone’s 40th anniversary edition recently hit newsstands and its core consisted of interviews with the feature players from the generation of the magazine’s emergence as a socially relevant voice. Rather than just a piece of entertainment, it became a vehicle for the liberal, sometimes radical, section of society to get some airtime. Some of it was relevant, and some of it was just the gibberish of the times.<br /><br />George McGovern, Hunter’s old friend, was interviewed and he made a very interesting observation.<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>Interviewer: “You spend a lot of time speaking on college campuses. Are students different today than they were in the sixties?”</blockquote><br /><br /><blockquote>McGovern: “They have less faith in the political system changing<br />things, no matter how hard they work. In the sixties young people genuinely thought they could change the direction of the country- and to some extent were vindicated in that. But after the shooting of all these great leaders, the two Kennedys and Martin Luther King, and the overwhelming loss that I suffered in 1972, it became harder for young people to believe that intelligent political action can make a difference. But I still think it’s worth doing. At the very least, it keeps things from getting worse.”</blockquote><br /><br />We as students are continually bombarded with the idea that we are going to enter the real world, and it’s going to be a drag, so live it up in college. Go to spring weekend and get fall down drunk because come graduation time you’re going to hit that ground and you better start walking fast or find a sturdy card board box for shelter. We are basically told it is a tough world so deal with it, end of story. There doesn’t seem to be a visible window for change, to make a difference and make it a better place for ourselves.<br /><br />Sure there are young people out there that are organizing, but I think on the broader picture, the voices in the magazine agree that the world has become stagnant; we have lost grasp with the possibility that the country could be the place that we want it to be. And why should we, after the re-election of a president that had the lowest approval ratings in history.<br /><br />Now this thing is getting mighty preachy when all I set out to do was make an observation, so let’s try to wrap this up nice so we can all go home. To tell you the truth, I don’t really know what we should do, if it’s our fault, or who to blame. All I know is we need to look at our situation. “Question authority,” as all those aging hippies say.<br /><br />Maybe what we lack is passion, that gut feeling of utter care for something, anything. Sure when the basketball team wins a championship we celebrate like uncaged animals- and it’s a hell of a good time- but that kind of energy should translate to anything in life that you care about. It’s just a matter of finding that object, that idea that strikes a chord.<br /><br />Now I’m not saying you should set fire to your couch after acing your chemistry exam, I’m just saying that our generation just needs to keep thinking, talking, and discussing. Never get caught in that rut where the only thing that matters is getting that paycheck. Michael Moore, the gorilla with a video camera who seems to just set up his equipment wherever he can find controversy, actually makes a very interesting point. He explains, “There’s a reason credit-card companies are so prevalent on college campuses today. They hook students as early as possible. The more you’re in debt, the more you’re going to have to work at a job you don’t like to pay off your debt. It becomes a freedom-of-speech issue. You don’t dare organize on the job, because you need that job to pay off your debts. So you learn to look the other way and not say anything.”<br /><br />While that’s another depressing thought, and I’m beginning to get myself depressed just writing about this, it also bears thinking about. It’s just a mindset that you never want to fall into. Looking the other way and not doing anything is just a step away from bondage. At that point we are just wage-slaves, there to make sure the country runs the way that the “appointed” leaders intend.<br /><br />This brings me to my conclusion- fuck whitey. To clarify, I’m speaking of the old white haired men and women who amble their way through the doors of congress each day. To think that these people know what we as a youth group want for our future is like saying that every order Jack Bauer has received from headquarters is a correct one- breaking protocol is always wrong. We need to always have a visible opinion; sitting on the couch in front of the TV for the rest of our lives is just not an option. In the words of Buzz Lightyear, “Never give up, never surrender.”Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5501793715330635466.post-18827277338453935492006-12-01T15:46:00.000-05:002007-05-08T15:49:18.963-04:00Marc's SentraAs s Sunday football couch potato I am bombarded with a fair share of commercials that make me want to hurl sharp objects at my television set. Congress and old people everywhere have argued vehemently against the violent video games and loud music that is apparently tearing this country to shreds but they have looked past these crass advertisements that I think are doing as much damage as anything else. Aside from the Chevrolet commercial where John Mellencamp reminds us that “this is our country” and that Chevy Trucks embody all the ideals of “our country,” the commercial that really catches my eye is the one for the new Nissan Sentra. The marketers at Nissan have evidently decided that people will forget to buy their cars if the commercial is not shown 767 times daily so I’m sure you’ve seen it at least once. In case you don’t own a television set, the series of commercials depicts an evidently troubled young man named “Marc Horowitz” who has decided to live in his new Nissan Sentra for seven days. He spells out the rules to his endeavor and then proceeds to film his exploits during this “experiment.”<br /><br />His first rule is that he cannot return to his apartment. Now this rule is laughable and almost insulting as it is evident that this man definitely does not own any sort of living area. He has decided to live in a car the size of a commercial washing machine. Anyone that makes this move is either mentally unstable, or homeless. Now some may argue that maybe Nissan has paid him to live in the car for seven days, and afterwards he will go back to his comfortable home. First of all, he does not mention this anywhere in the commercial and his attitude and general demeanor give off the vibe that this is something more personal than just a ploy for money, but I will entertain this suggestion for a moment. If this is indeed true, then the people at Nissan are the delusional ones. What would be their purpose in proving that someone could live in this car for seven days and who would they be advertising this to? What percentage of the market is looking for cars they can sleep in? I always thought that the people who are currently living out of or are making the move to live out of their car, are not in the market for a new vehicle. Also, if you are actually basing your car buying decisions on whether you could live out of the automobile or not, I suggest taking a step back and maybe evaluating a few more life decisions. Even if they still are directing their advertising towards people who want to inhabit their rides, maybe this isn’t the best message to send to America. Maybe it’s just me but when I see people living in their cars, the word freedom doesn’t immediately come to mind. Let’s move on.<br /><br />The second regulation Marc must abide by is that he must continue to work his job during his week in the Sentra. Again, this rule seems like an attack on America’s intelligence. To think that this man, who is currently living out of his car, could hold down a steady job is ludicrous. His shaggy haircut and unkempt appearance would not fly in any workplace other than a 7-11. At one point in the commercial it does show him working on a laptop, suggesting that he works from “home”, but the commercial does not explain where he stole this laptop from or whose wireless internet he is pirating in order to get his daily dose of porn. If he does indeed have a job, why can’t he drive to it during the day and work, and then sleep in his car? Did he tell his boss that he could not come in for the week because he has to dwell in his coupe? Did he also tell his boss that he had to do this because he is now homeless, and if so, why did his boss not let him sleep in the office? For those that say that Nissan is paying him, why would he accept the offer if he already has a job that he apparently can do from home? There are too many inconsistencies and unanswered questions, but I digress.<br /><br />Now his next rule may be an attempt at comedy but it comes off more pitiful than anything. He says that he must go on one date during this week. Any women out there looking to date a homeless, jobless man living out of his car…anyone? That’s what I thought. Now this is compounded by the fact that since he is a vagrant he probably has very little money to use for this date and it will probably just come down to him making awkward advances on her in the back of his Sentra. The commercial actually does show him picking up a woman for a date, but they don’t mention how much she is being paid. As she gets into the car she is immediately a bit confused and asks him if he lives in the car, to which he replies, “yes and no.” Parents, is this how you want your children to learn how to treat women, by lying to them just to get in their pants. Marc sickens me.<br /><br />He also states, a little too proudly, that he has to sleep at a different location each night. This one comes more out of necessity than anything else as who is going to let a social miscreant sleep in his car on their property. He would be in jail by the second night, and that would not make a great Nissan commercial. He also says that he has to find a different place to shower each day and then it shows him using various methods, involving sprinklers, and bottles of water. Does this man not have any friends? Are all his cohorts homeless too? Why is Nissan making him videotape evidence of his lack of friends? If this man ever does manage to have children I’m sure they will love the video of daddy bathing himself on someone’s front lawn<br /><br />His last rule is that he must host at least one social function in his “residence”. Come on Nissan, this man has no money, no home, no job, and not even any friends to invite over. What sort of function is going to take place if he does lure three strangers into his car? You might as well call the car the Nissan Sex Crime. Something needs to be done about this atrocious, misuse of television advertising. I’d help out, but I’m too busy moving all my belongings into my new Sentra.Schaefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11459339420385161935noreply@blogger.com0