Apologizzzze

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070531/slavery-apology/

Alabama officially apologized today for slavery; they expressed "profound regret." I don't really know what to say about this except that I think state legislatures have way too much time on their hands. Is this really necessary? Was this something that people were actively seeking? It seems pretty empty to have a group of elder folk manufacture an apology on behalf of some other older fellows who lived like 150 years ago. I just can't why this would have any significance. Are people sitting at the dinner table tonight with renewed joy in their lives uttering remarks such as:

"You know what, that Alabama apologizing really brings closure to this whole slavery issue"

or

"I'll tell you what, now that Alabama has apologized I can finally stop physically harassing the U. Bama fan who works in the cubicle next to me."

or

"Son, you see how Alabama apologized. Now that's owning up to your mistakes. Hopefully within the next 150 years you'll work up the courage to ask forgiveness from Ricky for breaking his bike."

Ultimately, I can't say too much about this because I don't descend from anyone who was enslaved in America- only in Egypt. Where is their apology? When will they express some "profound regret?"

Compete against the NFL?

http://www.blogmaverick.com/2007/05/30/competing-with-the-nfl/

Mark Cuban has proposed a new professional football league that would rival the NFL and compete with them for players. He concedes that the NFL will always be the top tier of football but he sees his league having the ability to lure away any player that is drafted in the second round on down. On the linked post above he lays out a few general reasons why he feels this is a feasible proposal on on the face of things, it seems pretty reasonable. Everything he says makes sense and I don't think you could find a better person to participate in a start-up league. He's been nothing but good for the Mavericks, he caters to their every whim and you can tell all he wants to do is win- he just wants the best product. He even cried when Dirk Nowitzki received the MVP trophy, even if his tears were a metaphorical flop, he still put in the effort to conjure up the water works and that shows dedication.

The problem with Cuban's proposal is that he is looking at this whole thing from a business standpoint. He can't be faulted for this, its what he does for a living. Thinking in the mindset of a football fan, is this really a good idea? Cuban writes, "Competition for top players, even if the UFL gets just a few, increases prices at the top end for all teams. Every star will get paid more, but still have to fit under the cap. That forces teams to use more low cost players, at the expense of signing the middle of the roster. That gives us access to quite a few very, very good NFL players. The downside is that it will significantly impact small market NFL teams and its unclear how the NFL would respond to that and what the impact would be on the UFL."

For one, what good comes out of watering down the talent? The NFL is arguably as popular as it's ever been- it has even eclipsed "America's Pastime"- and a large part of this is due to the fact that, across the board, the games are extremely entertaining to watch. The level of talent in the league makes everyone competitive, so why would we want to see a dip in that standard to allow for a more competitive business atmosphere?

The other issue is that no matter how successful this new league got, it would still play second fiddle to the NFL. Any player that achieved any type of success would still have to face the criticism that he was playing in the weaker league and anyone with any drive would move to the NFL so thy could prove themselves. So maybe the dilemma will work itself out, but why not propose a different solution.

I'm sure every fan will agree that there can never be too much football and that's why another league will always be slightly enticing. So why not designate this league as a sort of NBA DL type league- like minor league football. People would surely still watch and it would avoid weakening the NFL's rosters. The problem here is that Mark Cuban would probably never go for being a part of any second rate product, but hey, we'll just let him cry about it.

Safeguards of Sanity

Flipping channels the other night I came across a special that NBC was running called "Saturday Night Live in the '90s: Pop Culture Nation." It was an awesome look back to the last "glory years" era of the show and it was a refreshing sight.

As soon as I was old enough to be allowed to stay up that late, SNL became a staple of my weekend TV lineup. No matter where I was, I made sure I didn't miss an episode. When we got replayTV (the cheaper knock-off of TIVO) the show was automatically recorded every weekend so that if I did miss it, I could watch it on Sunday. In fact, this became a routine. Replay TV was the perfect device for SNL. No commercials and the ability to fast-forward through the less entertaining sketches was the perfect viewing method.

Then, as I grew older, I began to realize a trend. I was continuously fast-forwarding through more and more of the show until it got to the point where I was watching the opening sketch and then maybe one or two others throughout the episode. The show had genuinely become unfunny to me. Finally, I stopped watching it altogether as I just found it to be a waste of my time. It went from an inventive, pioneering comedic institution to something that seemed contrived, like an awkward high school improv troupe performing at a pep rally to a less than enthused crowd.

This change of events always puzzled me. Naturally, like everything else that goes wrong in my life, I blamed myself. I came to the resolution that I had been young and impressionable and the evidently sophomoric humor had appealed to my immature mind and as I grew older I must have realized that it was just stupid comedy. I rationalized by looking at this as a good thing, an indication of my growth as a person.

While watching the aforementioned SNL special, I realized something I had suspected all along. I was certainly not more mature, by any means, SNL was just truly funny in the nineties. This is probably the reason this program was aired: to show the younger kids of today, the ones who do sit home on Saturday night and watch SNL, that it wasn't always this pitiful- it used to be good. Even my brother, who is thirteen, didn't really get this. Sure he knew that Adam Sandler and Chris Farley and others of that ilk were cast members on the show, but he knew their comedy from the movies they did after they left the cast, not from the ground-breaking comedy they were a part of while at NBC.

In the 90's Saturday Night Live was THE figurative social "ball busters." Since the show is written, rehearsed and finally filmed over the course of only one week, it was able to deal with any pertinent issue that the country was dealing with. Anytime there was a political blunder or a celebrity got a DUI or was arrested, you could look to Lorne Michaels and his crew to see what they had to say about it, how they were going to make light of the situation.

(On a side note: I was watching the special with my temporary Egyptian roommate and it was funny to see how he reacted to the humor. I watched him closely and he would laugh along with the audience, but it was questionable whether he got all of the jokes. At one point, during a weekend update clip, Norm Macdonald delivered a punchline that I cannot recall except that it centered around the word ' hockey.' My roommate laughed at it, uproariously if I may say so myself, and then turned to me and asked, "What is Hockey?" After attempting a rambling explanation of the sport, a little while later, a skit involving a certain president and his alleged oval office mistress came on and after a few minutes he turned to me and goes, "Ahh Bill and Monica?" and continued to laugh. This is wonderful. He had no idea what hockey was but he is aware of Clinton and his sexual escapades. America, Milkshakes all around.)

That was my one A.J. Soprano-type observation for the day, back to my point. What SNL became was the safeguards of sanity. When political figures seemed to be acting like monkeys and celebrities were running around like escaped convicts, the writers at SNL put them in their place. They were the gut check for our social conscious that helped us realize that we were the sane ones because we were able to laugh at what these public figures were doing while they kept that stern look on their face. Even if it didn't deal with an issue that was politically relevant, maybe it just made fun of an absurd show, it still played the part of that friend that you are careful not to do anything stupid around less you risk being made fun of; not in a mean spirited way, just enough to remind you not to take yourself too seriously. That's why the title of the show referred to the pop culture nature of the nineties and its increasing preponderance of opinions on all aspects of the country we were living in.

Then SNL lost that edge. I can't really put my finger on it, but i think it began when that strong core group of cast members left; Farley, Sandler, Mike Myers, Dana Carvey and even David Spade and then the current free fall probably really hit its stride with the departure of Will Ferrell. Today, we are kind of missing that sort of satirical social commentary that SNL used to offer. Chappelle Show carried the torch for a while but it was short lived. The Daily Show has picked up the political slack and does a good job of it too- they are one of the only consistently funny shows on right now but I think the show comes closest to filling the void that was left is South Park.

They have the same sort of production process as SNL that allows them to generate an episode in about a week's time which gives them the ability to talk about current events in a timely manner. They too are consistently funny and have had numerous episodes that elicit the "that's exactly what I was trying to say" response. While people of our generation get most of the humor and enjoy the show for what it is, I feel like it is still looked down upon by "mature adults" who still only see it as a cartoon. There have been a couple episodes that I thought my parents would enjoy and I've explained the crux of the reasoning to them and they have agreed that it seems like smart humor but getting them to sit down for a viewing is like trying to get a child to sit still for a tetanus shot.

(Another interesting aspect that was brought up during the special was Lorne's reliance on stand-up comics as the bulk of the cast during those wonder years. Stand-ups are always the most outspoken of critics and this had to have something to do with the socially perceptive voice of the show. Today, most of the cast is comprised of former comedy troupe students whose training is more in the acting and interpretation of comedy. I'm not saying this a problem, just maybe an explanation.)

That was the biggest impact that the special had on me. It made me realize how much I missed that cutting-edge criticism that was on display each weekend. I can't say I've seen too many recent episodes of the show, but I do hear this season was better. I've caught some of the digital shorts they've made; "Dick in a Box" was great and I loved the Peyton Manning one. Let's hope this a sign of good things to come and I'm crossing my fingers for another run of "glory years."

People I'd Like to Meet in an Empty Room With a Baseball Bat: Carlos Mencia

What can't be said about Carlos Mencia that hasn't already been said about Rosie O'Donnell- they are fat, loud, annoying, utterly-unfunny and dirty Mexicans. Except he's not even a real Mexican. This is discussed along with many other finer points in a great video provided to us by the very deceptively hilarious Joe Rogan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsq1uTLBHBc.

My big beef with Mencia boils down to the fact that he is thoroughly unentertaining. I've given his show a chance- many times actually- he is a hack. His only shtick is racial humor that he pummels you with like a two-year old throwing koosh balls at your knee and expecting it to hurt. I'm reminded of the scene in Will Ferrell's forgettable movie "Kicking and Screaming" where he returns from a mid-field conference with his dad and the ref and replies that all he heard was his dad saying, "pffffft" and the the ref saying, "pffffffft" and that was the extent of the discussion. This is how I feel about Mencia. All I hear is some fat guy screaming about accents and burritos for half an hour.

The problem is that people who like Mencia claim that he is pointing out the racial divide and making light of it- like Chappelle did on his show. No. What he does is beat you over the head with racial humor- it'd be like your mother trying to wake you up in the morning by bashing you across the back of your head with a 2x4. Chappelle did racial humor, but in a smart way. He had inventive skits that proved his point, but they were also generally funny and well-liked across the board. Take the "Mad, Real World" skit that he did. While that was trying to show how the black person on the show always got portrayed as the troublemaker, it could have been about any minority. He just chose black because he is black. The skit was based around a social phenomena, not the skin color or language spoken. Meanwhile Mencia just continues to hack away at proving that Mexicans are lazy because they come from Mexico.

Additionally, Dave wasn't only racial humor, he did other topics. He only did the racial stuff when the idea occured to him, when he had a good premise. Unlike Mencia who seems to just be forcing it out; I can't remember ever seeing a skit that didn't involve a joke about Mexicans, Latinos or Hispanics. Then again, maybe its the "pfffft" syndrome kicking in, all Mencia is to me is loud noise. Meet me in room 666 Carlos, I'll bring the Louisville Slugger.

A Few More Thoughts on Commercials

This is the last post I'll write about commercials- I promise- until the next one that makes me writhe in pain. If you don't want to read there's a funny video after all these words. Don't listen to the warning, it's appropriate for all.

Gambling commercials always make me laugh. I saw a familiar one the other day. A young man is watching a basketball game on his little cot in his upstairs bedroom. He is evidently tense because his knuckles are turning white as they clench the aluminum baseball bat that he is holding. (Apparently this is a common occurrence: watching televised sporting contests with a heavy metal object in hand. Not to mention the fact that he is watching basketball while holding baseball equipment- inconsistencies already abound.) It appears that this lad’s team is losing because his growling gets louder as the commercial progresses and sweat is pouring down his forehead like a melting glacier. The commercial warns against the perils of gambling as the sporting contest comes to a close. The boy’s team has lost, or maybe not covered the spread, or not reached the over- they don’t even specify what bet this kid has made. (For all we know it could have just been a bad bet, and they should be specifying that you should not gamble UNLESS you have done your research.) So the kid has lost, he jumps up in an act of superfluous frustration and in one fell swoop he comes down on his television set with the baseball bat- smashing the thing into oblivion. Freeze frame. The advertisers let that little ditty sink in as they deliver their final epitaph. I don’t remember what it was but it was something in the vain of, “gambling is bad,” I missed it because I was too busy looking at the lines for the night’s NBA games, the commercial had got me thinking.

While being a solid piece of film making- the lighting was good and they took the right angles to capture the kid’s rage- I did find a few holes in this little saga. As is apparent from his aggravation, this was not a once-in-a-blue-moon wager, this might have been the end of a gravely futile losing weekend, or the double down on a previous loss that he was hoping to drag him out of a rut. That’s why the smashing of the television just did not make sense. Everybody knows that if this kid was a serious gambler the first thing he would have done after losing that bet would be to pawn the television in order to pay off his bookie. He would not smash his only observable asset. If this was the case, and he is destroying his last thing of value, then this kid is just stupid to begin with and we should not be wasting our time with him.

Additionally, this kid appears to be about sixteen, at most. Now we will take a leap of faith and give the commercial the benefit of the doubt that this kid was able to find a bookie in the school yard that would cover his bets. If they are assuming that he’s going down to the local gentlemen’s club to lay down money then they are the ones that deserve the business end of a baseball bat. Given that this kid has a playground bookie, how much money can he be losing to begin with? How much “credit” is this kid giving him and if he doesn’t pay up what is going to happen to him? Maybe catch a bit of a beating? It’s not like he’s in deep with the mob and his life is at stake. He’s indebted to an 18 year-old, so why is he getting so upset? He didn’t just lose this month’s rent, his child support payments, or the money to buy gas in order to get to his job that provides for his rent and child support payments. Rather, what this kid really has is an anger problem with a gambling habit. He has been misdiagnosed, and they need to specify this. The moral of the commercial should be stated as, “If you have a serious and debilitating anger problem, don’t watch pivotal sporting events while holding weapons.”

In other commercial news, Sonic is continuing their break-neck advertising campaign and the logic of it still eludes me, but then again I’m not a marketing major. At least once a day some zany little Sonic commercial will come on and I’ll admit they are tolerable- not funny by any means, but they don’t make you scream in horror like some other ads. This is a consistent approximation, if you watch television, you will see at least one a day. I checked Sonics website and there is not a restaurant within 150 miles of any part of Connecticut. 150 miles, please explain this to me.

I can only think of one explanation. You know how an army will bomb a country and attempt to take out their defenses before sending in the ground troops? Well, this is what I believe Sonic is doing. They are going to bombard us with commercials until we are all salivating at the mere mention of the word Sonic or the sight of any hedgehog. Then stores will begin to spring up everywhere, like mutant Starbucks, and we will all be lining up outside them 24/7- sending our friends to get in lines at other Sonics so that we can scoot over there after getting out of the current line. Well, this is just what I think.

But what else could be their objective? My Dad posed the idea that they wanted us to be so overcome by the prospects of Sonic that we would call our relatives who lived near one and urge them to immediately go out there for a meal. Do they want us to be so moved by their commercials that we book a flight and embark on a pilgrimage to one? Are they trying to inspire a real life “Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle?” If this is the case then they should combine their advertisements with, say, Southwest Airlines. They could offer a round-trip, meal-for-two package.

I think too much about commercials.

Cheap Shot Rob

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2007/news/story?id=2871615

Regarding this issue, I want to bring up one point that I haven't read anywhere else. The suspensions resulting from the altercation at the end of Monday's Suns-Spurs game have been the popular media issue as of late, to the point that the Suns well-fought comeback has been pushed to the back of the forum. While the consensus is that the suspensions are excessive, the real point is that the NBA has rewarded Robert Horry for his aggressive actions.

Horry metaphorically threw the first punch, he initiated the fight. He knocked Nash to the floor and Diaw and Stoudemire jumped up instinctively to defend their comrade. They did not retaliate with contact, or even get close to using any force. In fact, they didn't even leave the "general bench area." In normal physical altercations in sports, be it football, basketball etc. the only time both sides are penalized is when the victim of the initial attack responds in turn with a violent act of his own. If a basketball player punches another player, he'll receive a technical and usually an ejection. If the player who is hit gets up and swings back, he'll normally get ejected too. He doesn't get penalized if he stands up and stares back at the guy. So why should Diaw and Stoudemire be penalized for innocent reactions? If they had responded with violence, in addition with having had to leave the bench to do so, then serious reprimands would be in order.
The whole argument about this not being a fair trade doesn't hold any water. It does not matter that the Spurs' player was a role player while the Suns' players are vital components. The only issue is who was actually causing trouble. Did Stoudemire or Diaw escalate the situation? Did their actions have any detrimental consequences at all? No, they did not.

In the end, the league did interpret their rule correctly. It is a "black or white" rule, not open to interpretation, but that is where the fault lays. Meanwhile David Stern has been reluctant to even admit that the rule needs some revisiting. Hopefully after all the fallout from this debacle he will change his mind.

There's Something About Brett

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6805790

Favre asked to be traded. I can’t say I’m the least bit surprised by this development. In fact, I would probably do the same thing if I was in his shoes. The Packers really need to evaluate what they are doing these days, and if Ted Thompson has been hanging around Matt Millen too much. I would gladly have given up a third or even second round pick for Moss, a fourth round pick was a crime, like a little kid trading away his Jerry Rice rookie card for a football signed by Joe Montana that the older kid had actually autographed himself. There were many reasons cited for why they didn’t pull the trigger on this deal. Favre’s explanation was that Moss wanted more guaranteed money if he came to Green Bay and he apparently wanted a one-year contract. He got the single season deal from New England but less guaranteed money, another point that Favre stressed. Moss’ behavior issues have also come up as an explanation, but the Pack’s signing of Koren Robinson and his docket of legal proceedings and Charles Woodson and his notorious mouth makes this point moot.

Character had nothing to do with this decision. I think Thompson is trying to prove that he can be the next Ron Wolf- by drafting smart, and making select veteran signings. The irony is that this is exactly how New England built their team and now they are the ones who actually made this trade. He has Brett Favre coming back and I think he’s determined to single-handedly ruin his career, or maybe he doesn't actually watch the regular season games. The only time Favre was a true winner was when he had a dominant running game. While I like his decision to build a great defense, the fact remains that we have Vernand Morency as our number one tailback. We might as well choose one lucky Piggly Wiggly shopper each week and give them the starting nod.

When analyzed, Thompson’s draft wasn’t even that good to begin with. It’s not like he passed on this trade because he roped in a stellar class of young guns. Every pick in our draft was either considered a reach for an over valued player or a pick of a weak player who has a chance at being a steal. There was not one selection that the analysts said was a solid pick that filled a hole. Their big running back pick, Brandon Jackson, was described as a shifty back that hits the hole well but is undersized and slow. Meaning, he plays the right position but on the downside he sucks. I did like their pick of Aaron Rouse, the safety out of Virginia Tech, but for the majority of their guys are “project players” who are not expected to make an impact this year. Truth be told, the reports coming out of camp have been cautiously optimistic so I will reserve my harsh criticism until the pre-season.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2869896

Now Favre says he is here to stay. Fine. At least his head will hopefully be in the right place for the season and his teammates won’t be standing around waiting for him to bail. You could hear the state of Wisconsin breath a collective sigh of relief when this story was released. The lingering issue is that we have not added one new legit offensive weapon to a unit that was carried by our defense last year. Then I read this story:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6810106

Telling Packer fans that we would be better off getting rid of Favre is like telling a cripple that they should try getting around without the wheel chair. It sounds ludicrous. I was completely taken aback but after I got by my partisan ties the idea did seem to far fetched. We are in a division whose other three starting quarterbacks are Tarvaris Jackson, Rex Grossman and Jon Kitna; guys who wouldn't be able to run a consistant offense even if all three were allowed to confer before each on-field decision. Even though the only backups on our roster are Aaron Rodgers and Ingle Martin but what if we packaged Favre in a deal to a team that needed a quarterback in exchange for more offensive assets? The Chiefs come to mind. There has been talk of them parting ways with Larry Johnson and if we offered the right package, I think a deal for the two could be orchestrated. The ability to pick up a franchise running back would be a decisive move. Then, we sign Keyshawn Johnson for some added help at wideout. Sure we would enter the season with Rodgers directing the offense, a man whose moustache makes him look like he should be directing “Debbie Does Dallas V”, but I don’t see him as any worse than the other division contenders. We would have a solid defense, a dominant running back and if Rodge could keep the defense at bay with a couple well placed passes I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t be playing for an NFC North title.

Now I know I may have caused some irreparable family rifts with that last paragraph, and it felt like I was cutting myself in the bathroom, but I’m just trying to think of how our team could be the most competitive next year. I love watching Favre as much as the next Packer fan, and seeing him in different colors would be the equivilant of moving into a cave with Osama Bin Laden, but at this point we need to think of the best interests of team. Sure he says he’s committed to this team, but will his head really be in the right place? As soon as things begin to go the least bit sour I could see him just begin to throw up balls like a coach throwing pop-ups to his little league team. Maybe not. Maybe he has a renewed passion after this whole debacle, our draft choices will become integral parts of his arsenal and we will be poised to surpass the putrid clubs that made our division the worst in football last year. Either way, I just want to be competitive and if someone can tell me the name of club where Ted Thompson and Matt Millen discuss their business, I’ll promise not to give your name to the police.

One More Thought: Favre is stuck in a very tough position. On espn.com today Jemele Hill hill compared him to "dwindling diva" because of the drama that has surrounded his whole fiasco. While she's right about the characterization of the situation, she's missing the main point. Everyone keeps rehashing his stats from the past few seasons and explaining that he has lost it and is not an elite quarterback anymore. This is true. No longer can he carry a measly team like he could in his prime. In fact every expert is right, he might not even be one of the Top Ten quarterbacks in the league. But the fact remains that he still is a decent quarterback. He still has the skills to be better than half the other starters in the league and maybe on some days, better than 75% of the others. He without a doubt could not achieve the results that Tom Brady did last year with his receiving corps that consisted of bug-eyed washouts. But I think if he was in Brady's situation this year, with an arsenal of receivers and a solid running game, he could be successful. He still has the tools to lead a team to the playoffs, if not more. He's lost a step or too, his battery meter is depleted and his fastball only tops out in the low-nineties now, but he still could win football games.

This is why he is complaining.

The fans want their hero to return and lead them back to the promised land. He wants to come back and deliver on these wishes for the town he's become so attached to. But he also realizes that he will not win games unless he has help. He doesn't want to be seen as the hall of famer who wore out his welcome. So when the Packers go through an entire off season without giving him one upgrade on offense, while losing their starting running back, it only makes him panic. If he begins to lose, the critics will light up the barbecue. He knows that if given the right set of players he could be a force to be reckoned with. So he asks for a trade so that maybe he could go to team that has the right situation for him and he could prove that he can still produce at an exceptional level. He only wants to win, which is why comparing him to the recent slew of drama queen wide recievers is unfair. These players either wanted more money or more passes or attention. He just wants to deliver on the hopes and dreams of his fanbase. He's frustrated with Thompson's stubborness and, frankly, so am I.

Once Upon a Time in America

We’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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“This is your room,” I instructed as I led him to Swirsky’s room- the one in the middle.
“I can put my stuff in here now?”
“Yea, it’s all set. You can move right in”
“So I can bring my bag in now?” He looked at me questioningly, with an awkward glance, like I was leaving something out.
“You can do whatever you need; this is your place now.”
We walked back into the other room, by the kitchen, and he looked back at me.
“The refrigerator, I can use it?”
“Yea, definitely. There should be room in there.”
“I have a chicken. I can put it in there?” Again that same look.
“You do what you have to do man. As long as you pay the rent, you have the run of the place.”
“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.
“We don’t really have too many rules here. You’re free to do whatever you have to do.”

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.

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.

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.

“Oh, why? You have party tonight?”
“No, we are just going to watch TV, but let me know if it is loud. Feel free to come sit down.”
“Ok, well I change. I coming over there.”

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.

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.

“It is like lottery right?”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Steinbrenner prints his own money

Roger 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.

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.

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.

If he has the resources how can you fault him for working the system?

Sobering Thoughts

My 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

George McGovern, Hunter’s old friend, was interviewed and he made a very interesting observation.

Interviewer: “You spend a lot of time speaking on college campuses. Are students different today than they were in the sixties?”

McGovern: “They have less faith in the political system changing
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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.”