This very good article on Jason Giambi accurately describes the situation as not black or white, but rather a mixed shade of gray. Yes, he "cheated", but his over vilianization is out of control. In the article, there's a paragraph blasting the yankees for being against Giambi only b/c he had a poor season. That, if he had a Sheff like season last year, he would be embraced. And, if he regains some level of sucess, George will "forgive" him.

so what? I have no problem with the Yankees being selfish. If the yankees could, in theory, get out of contracts if those players used steroids, OF COURSE, they'd try to get out of Giambi's, but not Sheff's. The yankees have to be concerned with putting the best team out there (which leads to making the biggest profit). They aren't there to make friends. I fully believe a team should "use" their players just like players should "use" teams.

I don't believe in the hometown discount just like i don't believe that players (like Biggio) are "owed" something. You sign a contract, and you live out the terms of that contract. If you wind up overachieving, you don't hold out for more money. And if you tank, the team can't ask you to pay them back. End of story.

As great a movie as Roger and Me is, it's based on a faulty premise. General Motors never owed Flint Michigan anything. General Motors has the right to hire whoever they want for their company. It's unfortunate that there is cheap human labor in countries such as mexico and even more unfortunate that our country allows companies to exploit this labor. And while there is a moral question as to whether GM is "wrong" for using this labor, the brunt of the responsibility falls on the government. If the ONLY goal of a corporation is to maximize profits, then how can you really fault a company for doing this in a LEGAL way.

The documentary does a great job at making GM out to be bad guys. That they abandoned the town and put an entire city out of work.

But, would an indivual employee, who left GM for (uh, is Ford a different company?) Ford be considered a deserter? Does he "lack loyality" for taking a new job that pays more and gives better benefits? Why is it ok for the worker to break the agreement, but not the company?

And yes, i see the logical answer of "gm won't be crippled if/when an employee leaves, they'll just hire someone else". But this isn't enough for me. If the only difference is the severity of the consequences, then the CAUSE shouldn't be judged any more or less harshly.

I need to think about this more.

A commercial caught my eye today. it seemed local, but i don't think Direct TV has local commercials. So, my only conclusion is that it's cheap. Anyway, it's for bob's furniture and bob and his wife are talking about their mattresses that they sell. Bob did most of the talking, but i noticed that the wife had a lot of facial expressions. It was almost as though she couldn't just stand still and HAD to be doing something at all times. I thought it was pretty humerous. In that i could see right through her.

Then, about 30 minutes later, she had a commercial by herself. the hand gestures were out of control. Like a deaf italian guy. She actually acted out "hand wood carved".

That made my day. So sad.

someone had to go and steal my thunder. this post is awesome

if i had to choose one man to pitch a game to save michael kay's life, i would take lt. daniel kaffee every day of the week and twice on sunday.

Michael Kay: You want answers?

Lt. Kaffee: I think I'm entitled to them.

Michael Kay: You want answers?

Lt. Kaffee: I want the truth!

Michael Kay: You can't handle the truth!

Son, we live in a world that has rings. And those rings have to be won by men with heart. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Szymborski? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Athletics and you curse the Yankees. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Billy Beane's shît not working in the playoffs probably saved the game. And my writing and playcalling, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves this game...

You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about on nerd forums, you want me on the radio. You need me on the radio.

We use words like intangibles, mystique, aura...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent winning something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the pennants of the glorious franchise I promote, then questions the manner in which I promote it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a bat and play the game. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Lt. Kaffee: Are you a snivelling Yankee homer?

Michael Kay: I did the job they pay me to do.

Lt. Kaffee: Are you a snivelling Yankee homer?

Michael Kay: You're goddamn right I am!!

That's all amazing race is. I wasn't really watching this week, but i don't think i needed to. a bunch of people are running around in a big rush. i get it. They are taking this "race" term a little too litterally. You can have a race where you aren't sprinting the whole time. It's called a marathon. I would much rather watch a show where the teams have to plot out a strategy and then impliment it. That would be compelling television. This is not. Probably won't be watching the rest of the season. or at the very least, i'm not going to make an "effort" to watch it.

The big labowski was almost as good as steve claimed. which is saying something. I already have a desire to watch it again. and, if anyone can watch it and not crave a white russian, they are stronger than me.

also, the correct answer is "steve bushemi's character is the best".

as a sidenote, someone who's movie opinion i respect was outraged that i liked i heart huckabees. He likened it to a bunch of college kids who just walked out of a philosophy 101 course and wax poetic about real issues.

I can see where he's getting that from, but i don't think huckabees was taking themselves that seriously. i think it was all done tongue in cheek. of course, i saw it with ross and when i told him i liked it he said "really? i didn't think you'd allow yourself to address those type of issues", so maybe it WAS meant to be serious. or, ross is just nuts :)

i heard advertisements for this blind justice show over and over again on stern. and unlike stubhub, i was NOT hooked. every cliche was thrown out there: "in the blink of an eye, his life changed", his partner doesn't trust him, he develops a super sense of smell b/c he's been blind for a few months, etc etc.

are you the blind detective? "no, i'm a homicide detective who happens to be blind".

how long do they expect to be able to roll out episodes for this? how many cases are going to turn on his super ability to smell? This isn't the little guy trying to make good. He's not fighting unfair stereotypes. he's BLIND. blind people can not be homicide detectives. they can't be cops. end of story.

this is worse than the thundercat who was blind, but didn't act it b/c he used his hearing (and taste?) to walk about like he wasn't blind.

I'm going to pitch a show where i play center field for the Yankees. It's about as realistic as this garbage.

" In the stands, someone held a sign that read: "Jason Do You Have Milk." The word "Milk" was crossed out and followed by "Juice?" "

First, the owner of Mexicali Rose dismisses my scathing review b/c i'm a lawyer (or possibly a competitor in the area?) and laughes off my complaints. He even goes as far as saying i'm a liar and that the chips weren't 7 dollars.

Now, my post (along with a post that was thanking me for my post) has been deleted.

Does this guy know who he's dealing with? I have no other reason to get up in the morning, except to take this guy down. He will be destroyed.

Just when you think fox can't get any worse, i see this lead in for their 10 pm news:

"this hot teacher had sex with one of her students. now we have tape of the phone calls she made to him. tune in at 10."

Hmm, i wonder if they are airing this segment b/c it's newsworthy and to enlighten on the situation, or if they like the sensationalism aspect of it. I mean, seriously, who cares if she's "hot".

"a woman was raped in central park last night, tune in at 11 to see his rippling muscles and rugged good looks."

yikes.

but i don't have the time now to rant about it.

http://www.hoopshype.com/columns/kobe_friedman.htm

usually, i'll try and build a team of superstars with their 104 million payroll. but today, i noticed that if you combine the two teams in the middle of payroll (#15 and #16 out of 30), they equal 109 million!

The knicks are out of control.

You could put the spurs and suns together for less than 90 million.

i wanted to write "plaque" for that first monument in the title, but i'm not sure how to spell it. anyway, here's my rant...

"I think if I ever got to talk to him, he would be all for it. This is like God, Mother and the Fourth of July. Who would be against it?"

To me, that speaks volumes of why it SHOULDN'T be done. I'm tired of people doing PC things just b/c they are PC. Of course everyone would be for it. But that doesn't make it "right". If the monuments are supposed to be about the YANKEES, then it should be exclusive of all other things, regardless of their importance.

So what if they played in yankee stadium? So did a lot of bands. Should they get a monument as well? I bet the redsox have played more games in yankee stadium over the years. Let's put up a statue of Pedro.

I have the tv on, but on mute (i'm listening to music, doing work, etc etc). Meet the press is on, and i THINK they are talking about Iran. They keep showing clips of bush talking and i'm getting so angry.

He says something, pauses, and does his patented "I just said something so obviously simple and true" smirk. This is government at its lowest. Bush: "listen, i believe evil is bad, ok?" [smirks]. That's what i imagine he's saying. Instead of wasting his breath stating the complex issues of foreign policy in ONE sentence, he should just pass out colored bracelets during his state of the union address. Then we can all be on the same page.

I would like you to address the issue that there's a good percentage of players on each team who don't even speak english. A whopping 37% of the dodgers roster hail from latin america (of course, some or most of them must speak english).

If you believe so much in the intangibles of a player, and team chemistry, and lockerroom cancers, would you be ok with a GM/owner saying "we don't want player x b/c he doesn't speak english and it would ruin our chemistry"

oh, snap.

wow, who's left? larry david is out b/c that latest season of Curb was so sitcommy. Neyer is out for obvious reasons (he's a borderline mark at this point). Maynerd is still in. there's really only a need for one Saber guy, but i can't decide between Billy Beane or Bill James. Netcop is out (he's a one trick pony).

Horatio Sanz?

1) pictures and explanations of every tattoo in the NBA
2) an explanation of all the fueds in rap. History of, songs documenting, etc etc. something written by someone older than 15 would be nice.
3) that's it for now. I just wanted to make sure steve got started on those two things.

first, answering your question:

I have no idea what i'm talking about when it comes to business, but my guess would be that Apple's goal is to dominate the market that involves, but doesn't include, computers. They've lost the computer war (even though they make better computers), but have made a nice little niche or themselves with the Ipod. With Tivo, they'll get their foot in the door with the living room / entertainment center revolution. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that in 20 years, the very idea of a "computer" is outdated.

Now, onto the bigger issue. This might be the first time in human history that technology is actually going backwards. Businesses are spending an unusual amount of time trying to protect their assets instead of creating new ones. The next generation for Tivo doesn't look promising: they are going to superimpose their own commercials on top of the commercials that we now skip through.

CBS is attempting to put something forward called a Flagship _____ (can't think of the word now). Basically, tv programs will have codes embedded in them that will prevent copying.

What's going on here? Big business is so worried about losing any of their profits, that they are spending all their R/D on defense instead of offense. There will be a time in the near future where we can't even tape a tv program. We will long for the days of 1985. Everything on the net is becoming "premium". We'll never have another Napster again.

Not since NHL '96 has something "new" looked so bad compared to its predecesor. The future is not bright.

if they actually did things like list all the trades that happened today all in one nice chart. Now, maybe they've done that by now, but i wont know, b/c i'm boycotting them for the rest of the week. I got an email at work that was two words: Malik Rose?!?! I feared the worst, but had to confirm it at espn.com. There were 3 or 4 articles on NBA trades. and they were all worded so awkwardly. I don't need two paragraphs on a trade. Well, a well-thought-out analysis would be ok AFTER you list the players. A and B for C, D, and E. that's it. One line. Then discuss away. This does me no good: Team 1, looking to get younger and longer, was shipping around A to anyone who would listen. Team 2 decided to take a chance, but are giving up two younger players in C and D. But along with A, team 1 will be throwing in B, who might be the steal of the trade. Player E will also be going to team 1 to balance out the contracts.

huh?

1) limp bizkit comment - clearly you missed the point. the fact that they always sucked (as you say), makes their rise and fall even more interesting. Why did they fall, how fast was the fall, and so on and so forth. It seems like all their fans turned at once. I want to know why.

2) shoes - why did my left shoe become untied 4 times, but not my right shoe at all? whenever a shoe becomes untied, i know i'm going to have a problem all day. There's gotta be somethign i'm missing

3) pop culture / females. there's going to be a follow up rant on this, b/c i want to explore it further. Ever notice that women tend not to be as passionate about any long term hobbies? I don't know where i'm going with that, but we'll see.

2 months ago, i got into a pretty heated debate regarding the yellow braclets. It's a running joke now....and someone, to get my goat, sent me an article from SI. I'm going to paste the entire thing, but bold the important stuff. my comments will be in italics and blocked off.

Lance Armstrong will return to the Alps and the Pyrenees this summer in an attempt to win a seventh consecutive Tour de France title. You know what that means, right? Another six months of people wearing those yellow LiveStrong bracelets. And you know what? I couldn't be happier.

The bracelets, which debuted last May, quickly became a fashion trend rivaled only by Von Dutch hats and Ugg boots.

[fashion trend? that's like the word soggy; there is no good way to use it. Fashion is disgustingly shallow. Trend indicates a temporary interest but no staying power. So a fashion trend is just a tempoary interest by the sheep towards something regarding fashion.]

But like all trends it has garnered the backlash of trend-haters who despise anything that creeps into the mainstream.

[Already, you can see this guy is biased. Being wary of mainstream appeal does not mean that I depise any and all things that are mainstream. Refusing to just assume something is good b/c it's popular is very different than hating anything that is popular. People who automatically reject anything popular are just as big conformists as those who they try to mock. ]

We all know at least one. This is the person that brags about an underground band or an unknown clothing line but quickly labels it "dead" when it goes public because it's now been "tainted" by the masses.

[Yes, there is something gratifying about discovering something great before the masses figure it out. I'll grant the author that. The process of going "dead" when something becomes popular isn't that unique a phenomenon. By definition, if you want to appeal to the most people, you need to regress to the mean. The most popular comedians are the ones who are bland enough to not offend anyone. Cult followings develop b/c the art form appeals to a narrow, but devoted audience. When the artist wants to open the net to pull in more viewers, it becomes less focused. Less pure. it becomes "dead".

Unknown clothing lines? No comment, other than I don't think counterculture people are that shallow.]

I guess that thought process would make sense if you were egomaniacal, but I would follow the road less traveled with the LiveStrong bracelets.

[The road less travel being that which is the current fashion trend? w-o-w.]

The difference between LiveStrong and other chic fashion trends is that the bracelets stand for something.

[why, b/c you say so? Yes, the original concept was to stand for something, but there's no denying that the message has been diluted by the public. Once you put something out there, it no longer remains yours. An artist can't retain complete control of their art. When society turned it into a fashion trend, that became the new meaning of the bracelet. End of story]

I first found out about them while I was volunteering at the USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center and Hospital in Los Angeles last year. I was told by one of the receptionists that Nike was hoping to sell 5 million of the yellow bracelets to help the Lance Armstrong Foundation. As of today, it has sold close to 35 million, making it arguably the greatest trend in fashion history, not for how it looks but for what it has done to fund cancer research and awareness

[fashion trends are completely insignificant. to call this the biggest and best insignificant thing in history doesn't do it for me]
It's an amazing idea on so many fronts. Not only do the bracelets raise money for a great cause, but they are a way of showing support for Armstrong and other cancer patients and survivors. And, unlike other chic fashion accessories, it's cheap -- $1 per bracelet. It's a cause everyone can support and be a part of, no matter what your income is.

[well, aint that mighty generous of them... to allow us common folk to be like them.]

I went home from the hospital that night and bought 100 bracelets for my friends, family and classmates. At the time they were just being released and no one knew much about them but I hoped that would change when Nike began running ads about the bracelets prior to the Tour de France.

[doesn't the fact that Nike is involved set off even the feintest of signals. What does nike care about more? setting trends to make their athletes popular, or curing disease. Why don't you ask some of their slave labor to find out]

Sure enough, the popularity of the bracelets swept the country in the coming weeks and months as celebrities from John Kerry to Lindsay Lohan began flaunting their yellow bling-bling.

[wow, he mentioned a politician wearing it w/o even a drop of irony (at least intended irony). and yellow bling bling is his cute way of pointing out that this fashion trend can even be copied by the poor suckers.]

The streets were filled with people wearing the rubber bracelets. Somewhere along the way, however, the meaning of the bracelets got lost. Whether it was by people who resold the bracelets for $20 a pop on eBay or others who sold knockoff versions or alternative wristbands with slogans like "LiveWrong."

[case closed]

This is the best example of a trend jumping the shark: when the streets are littered with knockoffs and when everyone from grade schoolers to grandparents are flaunting the once-popular item as if it's still cool.

so i guess the person that this author knows who rejects things when they become popualar is the person who looks himself in the mirror. oh, this is so fight-club-ish.

But LiveStrong is much more than a fad. Every time I see someone wearing a legitimate LiveStrong bracelet, I know at least $1 went towards cancer research and that someone is showing their support for cancer patients and survivors by wearing yellow, the color of the Tour de France leader's jersey that Armstrong has made his own the past six years. Unlike other trendy fashion items that do nothing but benefit big companies and feed individual egos, the bracelets serve a purpose.

[yes, and that's what makes the issue more grey. You have to balance the negatives of trends and conformist thinking with the benefit of cancer research]

Although it's about as cliché to knock the rubber yellow circles these days as it is to knock Paris Hilton, people who criticize the bracelets or laugh at others who wear them fail to realize how much they have helped those affected by cancer. The day hospital at the Norris Center, along with thousands of other facilities around the country that treat cancer patients, is filled with people wearing these bracelets today. It might seem vain or foolish to think these bracelets make a difference, but they do.

Sit with a kid undergoing chemotherapy with her parents besides her, all of them wearing LiveStrong bracelets, and tell them the bracelets are a joke, that they don't mean anything, that they're just a fad. To them the bracelets aren't fashion statements, but survival statements. As tacky as it may seem to others, when cancer patients, especially younger ones, see celebrities and people they respect wearing LiveStrong bracelets, they know they aren't alone in their fight.

[well, what does it say of our society that a kid dying of cancer focuses on a celebrity instead of his family? And what do the parents tell their kid when the celebrities stop wearing them? Sorry johnny, but nobody cares about you anymore. so go ahead and die. IT'S A TREND!]

The look on the patients' faces when they see Armstrong demolish the competition year after year has proven to me that Armstrong's accomplishments have been the best medicine hospitals have had to offer patients for the past six years. It's a living, breathing inspiration to see Armstrong do what he does. It shows them that there is not only life after cancer, but that it can be better than anything they had experienced before. In a time when cancer is still the cause of 548,000 American deaths per year, according to the National Cancer Institute, watching Armstrong win the most grueling event in sports year in and year out continues to inspire people to "Live Strong."

[so Lance now represents everyone with cancer? well played Lance. Way to trick an entire population into becoming your fans. But i thought it wasn't about Lance....I thought it was about cancer]

While trends and fads may come and go, supporting cancer research and those affected by the disease is one that, like watching Armstrong win the Tour de France annually, will never get old.

[and remember, kids get their strength from this trend. so when the fad "goes"...]

I'm sure you meant to say he's #3 on the list. Regardless, a lot of Bonds' issues with the media stem from when he was a kid. His father, Bobby, was an alcoholic and apparently the media was pretty hard on him. That's one of the reasons that Bonds has been so reserved and distrustful of the media.

And honestly, there is a grain of truth to the issue of race. It might be on a subconscious level, but when fans drool over Ruth, and the "good old days", one has to note that the good old days didn't involve black players. People are quick to point to the steroids, smaller parks, juiced balls, diluted talent pool, etc, but they never mention that Ruth didn't have to travel to the west coast, play in many night games, or face pitchers with more than 2 pitches (usually). And nobody had in depth scouting reports on how to pitch to Ruth.

I'm not saying that it's all about race. Of course there is the human tendency to just think that your generation was the best and that everything that comes after it is tainted. But to fully dismiss the issue of race is a bit naive as well. Barry Bonds has put up 3 of the most amazing seasons of all time. His numbers blow anything that Ruth was ever able to do. Is that recognized? Nope.

The cause cause/effect debate over whether Bonds is the media is negative towards him b/c he's a jerk to them, or if he's a jerk to them b/c they are negative towards him is unanswerable. When the media is against someone, that person will be unfairly labeled. Ewing, Murray, etc etc. I wouldn't trust anything the media has to say....or at the very least, i'd be aware of the fact that they are only painting half a picture.

I accidently started watching "growing up gotti" last night (flipped to the wrong channel, then didn't have the remote next to me). The one scene that blew my mind was when the three sons made an appearence to sign shirts or something and there were tons of teenyboppers screaming for them. Think about that for a second. 13-15 year old girls who are groupies for the grandsons of a mob boss. While these guys are good looking in the extreme guido sense, there's no reason for the girls to like them. They are horrible horrible people on the show.

I tried to come up with an alternative, but i just don't see a situation where 13-15 year old guys would be as stupid. This level of ignorance is specific to women only. The whole thing was just embarassing.

my left shoe became untied no less than 4 times today. I don't know what i'm doing wrong. Are you supposed to make the original X tight to the tongue, or give it some leeway? which way prvents undoing better? I've tried both, and neither seem to work.

I really can't believe that we are just too cool for velcro. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

[note to self: don't forget the yellow bracelet rant...i've already forgotten twice]

I dont like how the WB calls new episodes "Fresh".

The new york post has an article about this new gadget people are buying that can scramble cellphones within a certain radius. here's the link if you want it, but it's not THAT interesting.

I'm just bothered that these people think they are fighting a crusade against rude people. There's nobody who hates cellphone abuse more than me (i don't think that's an exageration), but that still doesn't excuse people using these new instruments. If you were comparing degrees of rudeness, i think it's pretty clear that "being loud" takes a backseat to "ending a strangers conversation by pressing a button".

The fact that people are so selfcentered is a two fold problem: 1) They don't notice when they are annoying others (read: the loud person on the phone) and 2) They think they are entitled to not being annoyed or inconvenienced in anway (read: the person sitting there complaining about the person on the phone).

Thus, a person who buys a machine is equally inconsiderate as the person on the phone in the first place. And on top of that, they don't even have enough self respect to solve the problem in a less passive-agressive manner. Could asking someone to be quiet create a confrontation? Perhaps, but if you aren't willing to be placed in such a situation, then maybe you don't care enough about the issue. Maybe you should just shut up, and put some headphones on instead of trying to play james bond with your scrambler.

Forgive me if my facts are a little distorted, as i wasn't sober when i was told this story, but the general gist is this:

At the other end of the galaxy, a star did what all stars eventually do; it burned out and imploded onto itself creating a super dense mass (you know the deal, black holes, and such and such). Anyway, the thing that was created was only 10 kilometers in length, but created such a force that in 1/8 the of a second it created the same amount of energy that our sun gives off in thousands of years (if i remember the numbers correctly). This explosion was observable from here. Furthermore, experts agree that any planet/life within 10 light years of this object was instantly destroyed. It was if the death star was getting tested out.

Now, assuming there is life out there (which there has to be just based on the law of averages), the question is: should we care that entire worlds were just destroyed? The answer is no. If you run the numbers, there is a huge number of planets with life. HUGE. And thus, there is almost an infinite number of deaths occuring on a "daily" (for lack of a more objective measure of time) basis. As such, a whole planet being wiped out really doesn't skew the numbers as much as you would think. And, figuring that all these lives died instantly and w/o pain or the knowledge of what was coming, then the horror of the situation is even lessened.

So, if an alien from a planet who was destroyed happened to survive b/c they were on vacation or something, and are now reading this blog, I just want to let them know that I don't care that they died. I better not be seeing any green bracelets for relief funds!

I didn't catch the movie from the beginning, nor did watch it straight through, but all i can say is "wow". I suppose they think they were doing something noble by openingly addressing racial stereotypes, but they failed miserably. This movie was bad. And it had that annoying SNL guy in it....the sidekick from night at the rocksberries (sp).

And as a side note, there was a commerical for an air spray (sort of like lysol or something). Nothing of note, until the very end when the woman holds up the can and says the catchphrase. I'll never learn the answer to this, but for some reason they had to computer generate her hand and the can. It was so fake looking. I can't imagine why they did this.

Fell asleep while watching an all-star game marathon on ESPN classic. I was really impressed with the rosters for the 1987 team (combine the lakers/celtics of the 80's, and throw in Dr. J, Jordan, Olajawan, etc, and you get an idea of what was going on). I've tried to find a link that has all the rosters archived. I can't find it.

I've had this problem before....trying to find something from the past that has too many current links. Any ideas?

some three point contest shooter was wearing "the jersey from the syracuse nationals...one of the original teams". This jersey was bright red and orange, with a fancy script that said "nats". I'm pretty sure that the Nationals did not wear this jersey.

How far can the NBA take it? All these teams are wearing jerseys that I don't recognize. When were the hawks bright yellow?

I hope a team goes all the way, and comes up with 82 different jerseys. Why not?

Man, that looked bad. 19 as the highest score in any round? Single digit scores? Who were these guys, I've never heard of them. Is the NBA really that bad? How can the talent be declining so rapidly? It's so embarrassing. An obstacle course that involves making a bounce pass? P-U.

When last we left it, Amazing Race was becoming more X-Treme to the Max....Since people liked couples that fought, the producers gave them more bickering. Of course, these heel characters were so one dimensional, that they made the evil foreigner heel from the mid 80's WWF look complex by comarision. There's only so much you can discuss and analyze about a woman who is constantly yelling at her boyfriend.

Along the same lines, it's impossible to truly develop a character when you limit their experience to a high stress, but non diverse, setting. The high stress of the race actually hurts the show, instead of helping it (assuming that character develop is the reason you are watching. If you aren't, then the other issues will be discussed later). To a certain degree, you'll be able to see if the characters crumble under the pressure or if they are "clutch", but that's about it. That, and whether they own up to their own mistakes or take out their frustrations on others is all there is to the show. It's like how Real World now only shows you how people act when they are drunk. Yeah, it's fun for awhile, but it's unsatisfying.

If character development isn't your cup of tea, then I suppose you can actually be into the race. This is something that i would find interesting if the contests inolved some type of skill. Strategy, ingenuity, ability to adapt to new surroundings, ability to communicate w/ foreign people, etc. The race however tends to consist of thing such as finding the right key to go with the right lock. Or rolling bails of hay until you happen to stumble upon the next clue. The race is 90% a boring combination of luch, endurance, and physical prowless. Why should i care about watching which team gets lucky? One event involved driving cars that were on the brink of breaking down. Through no fault of hteir own, some teams had cars that broke down and had to wait on the side of the road until a tow truck came. Woo hoo, what fun.

and the absolute worst part of the show is that 55%-70% of it is pointless. The first legs of the race don't matter b/c they'll have a checkpoint halway through the show (or later) where everyone matches back up (oh, look the store doesn't open for another 12 hours). This might be a necessary evil to a race show....but I'm sure it can be done in a less offensive manner. For example, maybe not necessarily having the eliminations at the end of the tv hour would make things more interesting. but, as it stands now, there's really no reason to watch the 35 minutes of the episode.

And finally, if you watch the show b/c you are into seeing the exotic locations, you need help. Watch National Geographic on the discovery channel or something.

It's not that I don't get the appeal of the show..... I like it, and watch it. What i don't get is why it's so critically aclaimed. It's not really that much different than any of the other reality shows. It's dressed up in a nicer package b/c it rewards success instead of punishing failure, and takes place around the world, but that's it.

but this is pretty fun. http://www.planearium2.de/flash/spstudio.html

regression to the mean isn't just a statistical phenomenom that relates to sports.... all things regress to medicority. Such is the case with Amazing Race.

I jumped on board a little late in the game (i ignored a suggestion to start watching a few years ago b/c i thought the person said "amazing grace"). But, what i saw i liked, and i eventually became pretty hooked. However, stepping back after this season, i realize that i don't really like the show. Instead, i like the show inside my head. the show that it could be. But it is not. And here's why.

By definition, reality shows jump their respective sharks at a faster rate than normal shows. It's too easy to streamline the things that make a reality show popular. Last season, the heel team got a lot of face time. So this season, there were multiple heel teams, each more dastardly (word?) than the next.

[oh man, i have to add this in right now before i forget. Jordan refused to endorse a black democrat for senator against a really conservative republican. quote: "republicans buy shoes too". and of course bryant gumble says it's unfair that Jordan is asked to be this leader just b/c he happens to be black. yeah, boo hoo for jordan. who cares about all the oppression that could be challenged by his presence. ugh

oh this is too much. he refused to be a 6th man in his last season with the wizzards. and he apparently threatened to make personel decisions based on who got him the ball! and he was a lazy executive.

it's really sad that even a person's character is based on results. I.E. jordan succeeded in basketball, so let's spin the facts to make him a "strong willed, competitive individual". If he was just a nobody, he'd be labeled a jerk.

Uh, since this rant is no longer about amazing race, i'm just going to bed. I'll finish tomm]

ESPN Classic - michael jordan. They are just gushing about how competitive he is and they tell a story about him cheating at goldfish against a teamate's mom. This guy really has the wool over everyone's eyes. what's next? gushing over how he stole his friend's wife just to see if he can?

After telling a story of jordan punching steve kerr b/c kerr was getting the better of him in practice, bj armstrong says: "he always apologized after a fight"

And they are talking how good he was at playing the good guy in the media. How he never took a stand on anything controversal. How he always said the right things. There are only two reasons he would do this and neither is noble. Either he was driven by endorsement deals (cha ching), or his ego is so out of control that he needed everyone to like him.

He boycotts SI to this day b/c they wrote an article telling him to quit baseball (which he should have)!

update: Magic was talking about the dream team and how michael would stay up all night playing cards. Magic was able to hang with him the first two nights, but on the third night he wanted to rest. Michael is busting his chops and Magic says "Mike, i'm not like you. I need my rest. I can't be doing this...."

i would have given anything, ANYTHING for him to finish that thought with "I have AIDS, for crying out loud!"

Why was their fall from grace so extreme? I never liked them, but they had some mainstream appeal. I remember them being pretty popular as of their latest album (the one that had the method man song). Then what happened? Are they hated now? or are people indifferent? I think they are mocked on some level, but what was the turning point? did they have a bad album? did they fade slowly?

Someone remind me what their 16th minute looked like, b/c i don't remember it. Good riddance though.

late last night, i tried posting about Tuna. My computer froze. So, i wrote the one below tonight. Obviously, they are very repetitive. Anyone who has had yahoo eat one of their emails knows how annoying it is to have to write something over.

They are exactly equal in quality, which the purchaser knows. Product A is the same as Product B in every way, except it's not a brand name. Product B costs a lot more than product A.

Why does the majority of society pick product B?

The answer is a complex multi-layer analysis of people needing to fit in, of status symbols, and of materialism.

Tuna's analysis of the question a year ago was "people won't know that they are equal."

People who don't understand the basic concept of hypotheticals drive me crazy. The purpose of a hypothetical is to eliminate the variables you aren't concerned with in order to gather information on the variable you are. So, obviously in society a guchi bag probably is of higher quality than some random knock off on the street. But i wasn't concerned with that issue when i posed tuna the question. B/c whatever extra value a guchi bag might have, it's not the 500x it would have to be to justify the difference in prices. Instead of getting into an impossible balancing of apples vs oranges to determine how much of the purchase price is determined by quality, I tried to eliminate the issue.

And of course he didn't get it.

No real point to this post. Re-including Tuna in the political emails got me thinking about just how frustrating it was to try and pin him down on issues.

Cheers.

Update:

cheeser50: I'm,sticking to my original argument that people aren't sheep

If something funny happens, and a mentally handicapped person is involved, am i not allowed to tell the story? I'm not laughing at him per se, but rather the humerous situation i was put in. Well, I don't care if it's wrong to tell, it's pretty funny if you ask me.

I'm sitting at my desk, closing in on 6:30, and I don't hear the janitor come in b/c i had my ipod on. When i finally see him picking up the newspapers in the other office, i say "hey, how's it going". He immediately staggers back, clutches his heart, and screams "you scared me". But it wasn't in the playful tone you'd expect. This guy was upset. He then goes on a tirade about how he thought i had left already and that i shouldn't have scared him like that. I tried apologizing but he was having none of it. He said he didn't need anymore trouble since he just had to talk to his boss this morning.

I try some playful banter, while franctically shutting down my computer and packing up. He doesn't like anyone in the room when he cleans, so i'm trying to get out of there as fast as possible. Then he tells me how he's been in a bad mood b/c his mother was in the hospital. He goes to leave and i tell him that he doesn't have to, b/c i'll get out of his way. "listen sir, right now i'm going to take out the recyling. Then i will come back to this office to clean."

he leaves, i catch my breath, and think i just survived pretty unscaved. but, when i'm walking to the elevator he sees me and screams "sir, come over here, i want to talk to you". he even did the come hither finger point. Then he says "listen, i just want to say that i accept your apology 100%. i just don't want anymore trouble. have a good day."

the elevator door opens and i step in. just as the door was closing, he pulls the door open. "and i just want to tell you, i'm friends with the judge, so i'll be seeing you!"

yikes.

The new son of the mask commercial is a list of things that make a comedy funny. they actually admit to being paint by numbers. 1) an oblivious mom, 2) a stressed out dad. and so on and so forth. I can't tell if the commercial was done tongue in cheek. But then again, i still can't tell if Horathio (sp) Sanz is the next Andy Kaufman.

no, he was worse.

Recently re-including tuna in the political emails, i wondered "Was tuna really that bad, or has time distorted my perception." Then i was washed over by memories of the idiotic things he would say.

One of my favorites was our debate over whether people buy stuff as a status symbol. I specifically remember pointing to a girl all the way down in the first row who had a coach bag. He swore that the reason that coach can sell for such a high price was b/c it was a quality item. By his logic, the bag would have to be about 500x as good as a normal bag, considering the price difference.

The best thing about the argument was that the bag was ugly. It just had that stupid C logo over and over and over again. or maybe i'm thinking of guchie and there were tons of G's. whatever, the point is that it proved that it was a status symbol. Nobody would be a brand named product if the logo wasn't visible.

Oh, now i remember the argument. there is a choice between two items: product A was of higher quality, but had no label. product b was slightly inferior, but had a logo on it that was known for being good. The buyer would know the exact level of quality of each item. He refused to accept that most people would buy prdouct B. Oh, i'm upset all over again. Maybe i need to retake Tuna off the list.

ABC is liberal! haha!!!

Hi, my name is *************and while I don’t live in Montclair, I do frequent many of the fine establishments that your town has to offer. I’m writing because last night several friends and I went to dinner at Mexicali Rose. I’m saddened to inform you that this restaurant goes out of its way to swindle their customers. As soon as we sat down, the waiter asked if our group would “like some chips”. I do not think we were naïve in thinking that such a request would be the equivalent of an Italian restaurant putting bread on the table. Thus, needless to say, we were stunned when the bill came and we learned that these three little baskets of chips, with an even small dish of guacamole and salsa, were an outlandish 7 dollars each.

Now, my complaint isn’t just a case of finding something overpriced. It’s the dishonesty of the situation that needs to be addressed. There isn’t a doubt in my mind that the waiters are told to phrase the question in such a way so the customer assumes they are complimentary. He didn’t say “would you like to try our home made guacamole as an appetizer?” At least if it was phrased like that, the customer would at least be suspicious about the nature of this question and could inquire as to what the cost was. Instead, “do you want some chips” clearly is meant to confuse and misguide. The question is asked right as you sit down, and not after you get the menu (note: I’m not even sure if they are on the menu, as their “real” nacho appetizer comes with cheese and is around 5 dollars). I refuse to believe that there is a single person in the entire town of Montclair who would knowingly and willing pay 7 dollars for a small basket of plain chips. It’s also worth noting that they brought us three baskets at once without ever asking how many we would like.

This practice is an outrageous scam to basically steal money from their customers.

I’ve asked around, and other people I know have also been the victim of this scam. One person actually had the “nerve” to ask the waiter about the bill, and was eventually told by the manager to never come back to the restaurant. In another situation, a friend innocently asked if he could have some sour cream on the side of his entre, only to later find out that it was an additional $2.50

I, for one, will never go back to the Mexicali Rose. I hope that this letter will protect other hard working people in the Montclair Area from being the victim of this vicious practice.

Sincerely,

**************, esq.

About a month or so, i got dragged to a corporate american lunch at TGI Fridays (is that it's name?). While it pained me to sell out, the free apeitizer coupon that my mom had could not be overlooked. So, when we got there it was pretty empty, but then this gathering of soccer moms starts trickling into the table behind us. This was going to get ugly....

First, the very idea of soccer moms annoys me to no end. The excitement in their eyes made me nauscious. I could only imagine how they all discussed on the phone that it's been too long since they had their last "lunch with the girls".

Overly made up, overly bubbly, and with little kids in tow, these soccer moms exchanged pleasentries (sp, word?) and sat down. I was dreading even the idea that I might overhear some of their conversations. I looked for a sharp object to gouge out my ear drums if they even began talking about politics. There was one topic that i absolutely, under no circumstances, was going to tolerate though. God help them if they bring up desperate housewives.

Well, sure enough, halfway through their lunch (which included the "oh, let's be bad and get the chicken strip apeitizers" {real quote}), they did it. They crossed the line. They didn't just bring up desperate housewives, but actually had the audacity to pose the question as such: "which character on desperate housewives do you think you are most like?"

I woke up 2 hours later in a state of confusion thankful that my body shut down and protected itself by blacking out.

Every day that passes is one day closer to opening day. While this has gotten me excited, I had a moment of clarity just now thinking that Bernie Williams is going to be our opening day centerfielder. [shudder]

The yankees will most likely win around 95 games, and that should be good enough to make the playoffs, but is it really that hard to envision a collapse? How can the organization with the most resources (double or triple some teams), not have a smart person running the ship? I don't think all blame can be tossed George's way. As big of an egomaniac as he is, I don't think he's dumb enough to not be able to see the light if someone had the conviction to actually stand up to him. This team is a trainwreck, and ther was absolutely no reason for it.

This collapse is going to be swift and severe. My only hope is that they plan on moving Jeter to CF next year. With some money coming off the books, and Mel retiring, it might be possible to delay the inevitable for awhile.

Now that I've figured out how to add pictures, I might really start to take this thing seriously. I should just walk around with my camera and capture all the stupid stuff that goes with my pointless stories.

test

i was skimming through my posts b/c i'm debating opening this blog to the public (as of now, i think only 3 people read it and since none of said 3 ever post comments, i'm starting to think it's a big waste of time), but was worried that i may be offending some people with my rants. I noticed that my first rant on gilmore girls doesn't have the link that i tried posting. the "almost what i was looking for" was referring to a link by a writer who was complaining about the style of "talk fast to sound smart". it was a decent article, but not as angry as i wanted it to be. I'm not going to go back and find the link, but if there was any confusion over the title of that post, that's why.

that is all.

This post is really three seperate rants/issues all converging into one general theory. I don't really know how I'm going to go about organizing my thoughts. Hopefully, in a future form of blogging, we'll be able to incorporate the Matrix way of learning and just be able to instantly absorb all information. Because, really, these thoughts don't lend themselves to a nice and neat A-to-B-to-C way of thinking.

Starting from (what i believe to be) the top, I think human existence is dominated by a feeling of insignicance. The fear of mortality, of being alone, of not mattering all creates an overwhelming feeling of insecurity. Insecurity may be the only real feeling that one can possess. It might be the driving force in all of human action. The only difference is how each individual deals with their insecurity. The defense mechanisms that one develops, the vices that control them, and so on and so forth.

Now, from what I understand about Carl Jung's theory on the counter-ego / shadow generally only comes from the lyrics of a song. Granted, it's the greatest song of all time and people's interpretation of the song has litterally changed my life, but still, take everything I'm about to say with a huge grain of salt. Perhaps some day i'll have the time to read more about Jung's theory, but today is not that day. But, that being said, I think that his counter-ego only addresses the negative things about one's pysche. The negative stuff that we have to hide from our conscious to protect ourselves. Thus, the idea that people are self-destructive in an attempt to deal with their own securities is a pretty unoriginal theory. The girl who dates a lot of guys in order to make herself feel pretty, the person who intentionally treats people poorly b/c he fears being rejected, it's all textbook and cliched.

What I want to examine is whether any of the non-self-destructive (read: good) things about our daily lives are also a defense-mechanism to deal with our own insecurities. Thus, the ulimate question is posed as this: Is there anything "real" in human nature other than our counter-ego? Does anything cast Jung's shadow, or is the shadow the end all, be all, of all existence? Is it impossible to find meaning in anything?

Ok, so technically it's not an "ultimate" question b/c there are many subparts.

The seinfeld episode where the old lady, with the pony, dies was on yesterday. The gang (ugh, i hate referring to Kramer, George, Elaine, and Jerry as the gang, but i was too lazy to type out their names) was at the coffee shop, doing what everyone does when faced with death. "are we wasting our lives, what should we be doing, etc etc." Elaine asks if having coffee is wasting life. "can't people have coffee?" And of course, as was Larry and Jerry's intention, this scene got me to thinking along the Nietshce way of thinking.

If you start with the assumption that nothing really has meaning other than as a defense mechanism, then it's easier to explain why humans spend so much time focused on the insignificant. For example, I spend an extrodiary amount of time focused on Baseball. I derive great pleasure from it, and it's more of an obsession than a hobby. But, rationally speaking, i know it's insignificant. I was "destroyed" when the yankees lost to the redsox, but obviously i'm logical enough to know that it really had absolutely zero impact on my life or the world around me.

And i'm also rational enough to understand why i care so much about baseball. B/c in the end, i know it's just a diversion that i use to get away from the real problems of society. Being liberal is a very tasking existence. I know most of you will think that i go overboard w/ the emails, rants, etc etc but trust me when i say that how much I care vs. how much i SHOULD care are two hugely different quantities. Of course I get riled up when I learn of more injustices that plague us daily and how this country (and world) is in a downward spiral. but boy, aint that Jeter overated defensively?

And while it's easy to realize that my passion for sports isn't "real", the next question is whether any hobby/passion/interest that anyone feels is equally unreal. Is wanting to get married, have 2.4 kids, and the white fence real? Or is what people trick themselves into thinking what's important to them. How many people marry b/c they've really found their soul mate compared to how many people get married b/c their in their 20's and it's the thing to do? I forget the numbers, but it's something like 60% of married men and 40% of married women cheat. So, if i'm understanding things correctly, people view marriage as the institution that completes their existence and gives their life meaning, and then use infidelity as the way to fill the void that their empty marriage leaves.

Take any interest that you think is geniune, whether it's in music, someone else, having kids, sports, friends, knowledge, etc etc and ask if it's "really" important. There are extreme examples of course (someone with a huge stamp collection, someone with 20 cats, whatever), but our our interests any less absurd? So you like to listen to great music, and go to shows in the city where you discover original music? Does that really matter? And why does it matter? b/c during those 3 hours you are at the show you are happy? Is that really happiness or just the absence of misery?

I guess what i'm asking is, in order for happiness to be geniune, does it have to be based on something that is real (read: significant). B/c, in the long run, i don't find any real significance in anything. So, if it comes down to a "but it makes me happy" argument, isn't that the definition of superfical and insignifcant? And even if the thing that makes you happy is more _____ (can't think of the word. not 'complex'....hmm, maybe 'meaty') like raising a family, or being an activist, i'm still hestitant to make the next connection that it's important.

I'm starting to really believe in the cliche that there's no such thing as a selfless act. I think that some people are better at distorting their own selfishness. The person who spends so much time caring about something "noble" is still, when push comes to shove, spending their time and energy focused on something. And, getting back to my original theory, i think focusing on something, ANYTHING, is just a defense mechanism so one doesn't focus on their own insignifcance. B/c, and maybe this is just my own ego out of control, i really think that that's the ONLY thing that people really care about.

But what do i know?

i have a long post forthcoming, but i was preparing a salad before i got started. i just cracked open a new bag of cheddar cheese croutons.

they are like cheese curls.

let the good times roll.

Remember that song? You probably don't. but there was an argument several years ago over what was a better song, "it takes two" or "peaches 'n Cream". The logical argument was that the fact that It takes two is still relevant, over a decade later, means that it has legs while PnC would probably fade out (the argument took place during that two week period where PnC was 'hot').

Well, years later, I'm listening to a internet radio station, and that song pops up. It was the first time I had heard it since that argument. While I didn't change to a different station, I didn't exactly jump for joy either.

So, that being said, I think we win.

Perhaps I'm not allowed to speak on this issue b/c i don't drive (just like i'm not allowed to think that randomly following a highway on the side streets is a bad idea), but I absolutely loathe the fact that people think they can reserve their street spots just b/c they shoveled their cars out. Remember the big blizzard from a few years ago? The spot in front of my house that was, at the time, occupied by PJ's car was the ONLY spot in the entire neighborhood that was "open to the public" after we dug it out. Litterally, and i use the word litterally litterally, every other spot had a chair in the middle of it during the day.

Why? Why do people think they are entitled to PUBLIC PROPERTY just b/c they happened to clear the spot out. Now, if they had shoveled out of the goodness of their heart, then i could ALMOST see how they think they should have first dibs on it, but, there is no goodness in the hearts of Newark'ers. These people dug their own cars out of necessity. They were FORCED to dig them out, b/c otherwise, they, uh, wouldn't be able to get their cars out (duh).

So, for anyone who thinks they can lay claim to a spot for all eternity just b/c it happened to be the location of their car when a storm hit, you are wrong. I can't believe they can go to work all day and honestly think that at 1 pm, it would be "wrong" for someone to come park in that spot.

And let's not forget the fact that when they dug their cars out, they piled the snow either right behind, or right in front, of "their" spot, thus making it impossible for cars to park their either.

that's a bold statement, considering the unrealistic things we are forced to believe in order for sitcoms to "make sense", but this was just that far out there.

I'm talking about last week's episode of gilmore girls*

*(and yes, i've now started watching that show ONLY b/c it gets me so angry).

So, i've already ranted on the "dang jethro, they must be smart b/c they talk so fast" nature of the dialogue. But, beyond that absurdity, last week's episode involved the daughter (who i guess is now in college and writing for some paper or something) going to this underground club thing that other Harvard (i think that's the school) socialites attend.

Now, you may be wondering why i find college people going to an underground club so unrealistic. Well, it's not a club in the city where people rave and do drugs....Oh no, this took place in the woods, while people were wearing white tuxedos and those fancy dresses from the 30's. And they were carrying those umbrellas for the sun that people would hold in paintings (remember that famous picture called "middle class" or something). Is this stuff making sense yet?

Then what about the group of 5 or 6 guys who refused to speak a word that happened to contain the letter "E". There was a brief gag in the simpsons where Burns (and Bart, who was training to be his heir) would make the workers do this or else get fired. Lenny's "I am a good work....guy" was about 100x more realistic then these guys rapid firing long paragraphs of "fast = smart" conversation. So help me if even one soccer-mom saw this scene and was "impressed" by it. I will kill each and every one of them, plain and simple.

So, this club's annual _______ (not sure what they were calling it), consisted of random things like human target practice (the guy with the paint ball gun would say 'pull' and a kid would jump off a trampoline to get shot). There was of course the mandatory guy running around in a tuxedo AND gorrilla mask to add to "oh man, now i've seen everything" mentality of the show.

I just want to know how these kids got all this food and tents, etc into the middle of the woods. i didn't see a car in sight.

Oh, and the event ended with 6 people jumping off a 4 story high tower (made by these kids mind you) with an elaberate pully (sp) system. They all were holding umbrellas and it was meant to look like they were floating. They laughed, the viewers laughed, and i died a little inside.

This show is really really bad.

Picture this: a receiver is in the process of making a 40+ yard reception, and at about the 2 yard line, looks like he might come up just short of the touchdown. He then stretches out to just get over the pile-on. He fumbles the ball, it trickles into the endzone, touchback for the other team.

What is going on here? first and goal from the 1 has to result in a touchdown in probably 90% of the cases (i'm not looking up the numbers). Why risk such a costly turnover? Is it just to get the TD for your fantasy owners? It makes no sense, but EVERY receiver seems to do it. It's selfish and counter productive. No wonder it's CW.

let's see if this works.

nope, too much effort, so just go here

oh, i don't even have the link anymore. forget it.

it's not just the extra invites, that bother me, but the delay in rsvp'ing. how can people just wait and wait to rsvp. do the supplies buy themselves? are they waiting for a better option to present itself? it's shocking.

Does anyone really believe that starting a sentence with "no offense" absolves someone from the risk of offending? What the person is really saying is "i know i'm going to offend you, but i just don't care."

That's a poor lead in to this rant, but i really don't know how to express my anger and displeasure with the recent turn of events regarding the now-cancelled championship game party. Year after year i've expressed my desire to keep the numbers to a minimum. I have a 27 inch tv one ghetto couch from the 70's and a handful of other random chairs. I also have an interest in actually watching the games....that's why i don't throw superbowl parties.

Short of "you are not allowed to bring anyone", i don't know what else i could say to express my desire. But I guess my feelings don't count even though it's my apartment, my effort, and oh yeah, my money that's supporting this party. I guess it's not enough, as guests feel compelled to invite others just to make sure their enjoyment of day is improved. I suppose i should be thankful that they are gracing me with their presence and allowing me to feed them.

This isn't the first instance of selfish behavior that sickens me, nor will it be the last. But the thing that really heightens my anger is the fact that these people pretend to actually respect my wishes. "i understand that you are worried about keeping the numbers down, but is it ok if....."

well, if you understand that i don't want more people, then why are you asking to bring more people? you KNOW i'm not going to say "no, you can't bring this person". so, just come out and say it..."i'm not going to respect your wishes." That's what it comes down to.

You want a big party where everyone is hanging out and the game is just a pretense? fine, host the party yourself. That's not what i wanted. I wanted to have fun while watching the game. And you all ruined that. Being ungrateful disgusts me.

Let me get this straight: In order to make it in my profession, you need to work at a firm during the summers. You do this for no money. You do the grunt work that the "real" lawyers don't want to do. This isn't optional; if you don't do it, then you'll be way behind when you come out of lawschool. These firms rely on this cheap (read: free) labor, and probably couldn't exist w/o it. Now, how is this different than slavery?

Yes, we trick ourselves into thinking that the interns are gaining valuable experience and thus it's a give take relationship. However, i seriously doubt that experience and money are mutually exclusive entitites.

How did we get to this point? how did they trick us into this system of slavery? why are we trapped into working for no money when the fat cats get fatter?

What a shame.

primer may not be as brainy as bp, but i still think it's better. Reading dozens of real baseball fans discuss issues in an evolving way (though posting) is very rewarding. and their combination of genius and humor is by far unmatched.

when there is an article, they usually quote a blurb, and then have a little intro by the poster who found the article. here's today's gem

So far, the Carlos Beltran negotiations are only business for George Steinbrenner. And unless it gets personal, the Yankees will not compete with the Mets for a player who would fit their long-term needs as well as any free agent that has hit the market in recent years.

Levine: You’re taking this very personal. Brian, this is business and this man is taking it very very personal.

Steinbrenner: Where does it say you have to sign Beltran?

Cashman: Come on, Georgie…

Steinbrenner: Brian, wait a minute. I’m talking about a player that’s represented by Scott Boras. I’m talking about a greedy player that hooked up with a slimy agent and demanded too much money. That’s a terrific story. And we have newspaper people on the payroll, don’t we Brian? And they might like a story like that.

Cashman: They might. They just might.

Steinbrenner: It’s not personal, Randy. It’s strictly business

i want someone to really explain to me why a show like gilmore girls talks so fast and why people equate that to being a "smart" show. They say NOTHING quickly. does that make it witty? I flipped by it while Amazing Race was on commercial, and in the two minutes, i got so re-angry at it. The bantering back and forth was so forced and unrealistic. But i bet the writers patted themselves on their collective backs.

I've already commented on how much i love Carlos Delgado for sticking up for what he believes in and not standing for god bless america. That's why it pains me to read that Delagdo, though his agent, has told the O's (and other suitors), that, if asked by the team, he would stand for the song. I can't decide how much this bothers me. One one hand, at least i know he's politically aware and has beliefs that are unselfish. On the other hand, he's really selling out on those beliefs, litterally. As in, "I want a bigger contract, so i have to conform".

Should I hate delgaldo now? Or just chalk it up to yet another example of how having a minority view is not allowed in this country? I'm torn.

And since when do the Baltimore Orioles represent american ideals? From shouting "o's" at the end of the national athem, to trying to block the move of the expos b/c they don't want competition, the o's seem to be pretty hypocritical.

Oh, and reading the primates thread on this issue, i was SHOCKED to see yet another great example of why it's "noble" to refuse to salute the song. I can't believe i missed "seperation of chruch and state". I'll have to make sure to add that to the laundry list.

"worrying about your kids is sanity. and sometimes being that sane can make you nuts."

mind you, this is the quote that they think will suck people in to see their movie. Everytime i hear it, i get angry.

I was fiddling around with Firefox and found some pretty sweet extensions (plug ins). One of them is called mouse gestures. Basically, you can assign whatever you want to a "gesture" of your mouse. For example, while in firefox, you can have it where a right click plus moving to the left means "back".

we've gotten to the point where the old way to use a mouse is too much work. Fan-Tastic

1) The article that set me off:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?page=katcher/sports_seinfeld

[note, it used to say "no bread for you". After my email, he must have changed it to the correct "no soup for you"]

2) my email: wow, you butchered the most overused and cliched seinfeld line of all time!

Way to exploit the current renewed interest in

Seinfeld (b/c of the dvds) for your own personal gain.

While this article has nothing to do with sports, at

least you'll get a lot of hits riding on their

coattails.



Next time, though, you may want to take your head out

of your ass and get the quote right.  Seriously, even

the biggest mark knows it's "No soup for you".  I

believe even my retarded 4 year old nephew can walk

around and say that.



Page 3 is a joke, and you are at the forefront

throwing around screwed up punchlines.  Your mom must

be proud.



Happy Thanksgiving,



Dennis



http://www.seinfeldscripts.com/TheSoupNazi.htm



3) His Response:



Congratulations! You, the anonymous Dennis J., known around the world

as

"krofatigue," as are officially the winner of the Rudest E-mail Ever.

(And,

trust me, you beat some stiff competition over the years.)



The reason? It's Thanksgiving, dude. I missed a word. How bad is your

life

that things like this inspire such a reaction from you?



My mom must be proud, you say. She is. She raised a son who doesn't

send out

insulting e-mails on Thankgiving because someone made an honest mistake

--

botching one word out of 3,500. Can't speak for all moms on that,

though,

huh?



Paul



P.S. C'mon, you're not old enough to have a 4-year-old nephew, are you?

I'm guessing you've got the day off from high school today.



4) My retort

Paul,

You dismissed my earlier email as a juvenile and unjustified attack of your work; being overly critical of one incorrect word in 35,000. I suppose such a dismissal isn’t to be unexpected as I wasn’t going to go into the depths of why your article is worthy of such ire. However, now that I know you actually read your emails, let me explain:

First, a general assessment of espn.com and page 3.

I think it’s a great danger to view things such as your article in isolation. To do so would be to allow virtually anything to seep into society as anything can be justified as “hey, it’s not the end of the world.” However, your article is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with espn.com and page 3 (and, to a larger extent, society).

The ONLY motivating factor in society is money. Corporations exist only to generate money. There is no appreciation of the arts, general interest in benefiting society, or even an attempt to put out a quality product. ESPN is clearly the most “important” sports website because it’s the most popular. However, its content is two notches below mediocre. My appreciation of sports has not been increased in the slightest by espn.com. I can’t even stomach sportscenter. In fact, in an informal poll of “real” sports fans, I have been unable to find a SINGLE PERSON who watches sportscenter on any consistent basis.

Any freshmen who has taken an intro to microeconomics course would argue that if espn isn’t satisfying the demand for sports fans, then another company will step up. However, that is not the case. The hardcore sports fans, of which I am one, will ALWAYS be there. We’ll grumble and complain, but in the end, our love of sports will force us to keep coming back for more. Thus, unfortunately, ESPN is doing the “business appropriate” thing by catering to the casual fair-weather fans. Ratings and revenue are generated by drawing in as many people as possible. Thus, all genres are plagued by the desire of the corporations to suck in the casual fans. Sportscenter has less to do with sports now and more in common with MTV (which doesn’t even play music anymore!).

I can’t even tell you how many times I’ve been “tricked” into clicking on an article at espn.com only to be bait-and-switched. I can honestly say that I’ve learned absolutely nothing about sports from either the website or the channel. Have you tried watching the NBA show (I forget the name, something about Fastbreak) with Steven A. Smith. It’s a disgrace to sports.

Page 3 is by far the most shockingly blatant example of such exploitation of the “art” of sports. If espn.com is insulting to real sports fans, at least Page 3 is upfront with their “screw you, we don’t care what you want” promotion of the “entertainment” side of it.

Page 3 exists SOLELY to keep people “stuck” on espn.com as long as possible. It’s all about generating revenue and getting those big bucks from advertisers. It both exploits average people and is insulting to real sports fans who wish to enjoy their hobby and become more intelligent on the subject.

Now, an assessment of your article in particular.

Your article was one of the “most sent stories” for several days. I resisted as long as I could, but in the end, my enjoyment of Seinfeld forced me to click on the link. As soon as I saw “no bread for you”, I realized that my initial reservations were correct. Your “article” (and I use that term loosely) isn’t so much a “writing” as it is a trick to sell advertisements.

Was there an original thought in your article? If so, please point me towards it. All I saw was you riding the coattails of the success of Seinfeld. Here is how your thought process must have went: “hmm, people like Seinfeld. If I write about Seinfeld, people will click on my article.” Well, if your mom is in fact proud of such “work”, then I’m happy both for her and you. But, I refuse to believe that she or you can objectively say that what you do is noble or even something to be proud of. You are a corporate sellout, pure and simple. It requires no intelligence or skill to do what you do. No original thought at all.

I’m sure you consider yourself a “writer”. You are not (well, at least not based on this one article. Perhaps you do real work on the side or something). You collect words and ideas from other people and create money for big business. You are one step above writing out hallmark cards.

I doubt you went to college with the aspirations of writing such mediocre work. Reread your article about Seinfeld and sincerely ask yourself if you are “proud” of it. In your defense of your mistake, you didn’t say “one wrong word in an otherwise intelligent article.” Instead, you pointed to the volume of the article, 35,000 words. Is that how you define your work? By quantity over quality? If so, that’s a shame. And, in addition to its mediocrity and pointlessness, you should also be ashamed of the fact that you exploited someone else’s work. You had nothing to do with Seinfeld, and yet you felt completely comfortable with exploiting it for your own profit. If you had written a review of the show, or somehow had an original thought, then it would have been ok to reference it. However, simply collecting the funny moments under the guise of being sports related and slapping together a nice little bullet point list is NOT original. It’s not even writing.

And seriously, “no bread for you” is more than just a one word mistake. Not all words are created equally in a real writing (that has originality and thought). It’s practically the title of your article, and you butchered it. Yikes.

Ok, I look forward to your defense of your article and/or profession (should you take the time out to actually respond). I’m curious as to how you can justify your work. Perhaps there is something I am missing. And, as for anonymity, my name is Dennis J*********, and I’m far from a High school student.

Have a great day,

Dennis

"I loved playing football, but the reasons I loved football were just to feed my ego," Williams said. "And any time you feed your ego, it's a one-way street."

What an intelligent thing to say. Unfortunately, it's completly lost on the sports world. That quote gets drowned out by the macho "he let us down", "he's a pot head who is a quitter", "what a flake", etc etc.

This guy is better than you (sports fans). He's above you, and football is beneath him. You need sports to fill a void in your life, but he doesn't.

If i quit my job to do something else, am i "letting everyone down"? Should i choose to come back, i don't see why i would need to "apologize to everyone". Uh, it's my life, i'll come and go as i please. and don't give me a "he left right before training camp". He was talking about leaving for a LONG time and people, selfish people who want to exploit his life for their own perosnal gain, kept trying to convince him to stay.

I wish there was a way to root for Ricky Williams on something other than the football field. I respect him as a human being.

I just got out of bed to write a rant, that's how much that opening line got to me. The amazing race is all about internal conflict among the teams of two, probably to the point of overkill. It may be a little too early to tell, but i'm thinking this show has jumped the shark. Having one heel team yell at each other the whole show is entertaining, having ALL the teams do it is boring.

But anyway, one of the nagging women actually told the guy (i think their team is called "formerly dating") to take off his glasses before a cannoing (sp) competiton so he can see better. Step back and think about that one for a second. She's so presumptuous (sp again) to think that she's in a better position to judge his vision than himself (grammar?) Has anyone had that done to them? I get it all the time and it's the textbook definition of "mind boggling".

You need a coat, it's cold = I'm cold therefore you must be cold.
You need two heaters in your apartment, not one = It was cold when i came into your apartment today. Even though i've never been in your apartment at night when the space heater is running, i'm going to just assume you need two.

oh i wish i could think of the dozens and dozens of examples that I've had to endure. It would make this post more coherent. Needless to say, the line "take off your sunglasses" will forever be embedded in my head now. For a moment, i felt that guy's pain. I knew exactly how he felt. She thought so little of him that she couldn't even trust him to judge his own eyesight!

http://www.bikerfox.com/foxphotos2/

i don't think for one second that artest's actions could be considered "self defense" from a legal standpoint. in theory, he probably broke the law. But i still don't think he should be prosecuted. (and yes, this will open a whole new can of worms since i tend to argue for full enforement of the law)

I must have watched the replays of the pacers/pistons fight a dozen times at the bar last night (on mute). While I strongly believe the Pacers were in the "right" as much as anyone can be who's involved in a fight, i was expecting the media reaction to be "there goes artest again". Well, much to my relief, the espn crew (i don't know their trademarked name, but the one with steve s. smith), were all in agreement....the fans were the ones out of line.

I'm not sure what the proper reaction is to having a beer/cup/bottle thrown in your face. I don't think i would react by punching the person, but i do know that i'm on the far end of the spectrum. I would expect that the vast majority of people, if that was done on the street, would react the same way Artest did.

The only question, then, becomes whether as a professional athlete, his actions must be judged at a higher standard. I don't think that they do. There's a line when it comes to fans vs. players. As an avid heckler, I DO think it's apart of the game. I know announcers discredit this theory, but i DO think that buying a ticket entitles me to certain liberties at the expense of the players. If all i cared about was watching the game, i could do that at home (for free). When you are in the arena/stadium, you are apart of the game. There's a level of interaction and participation there that warrants some level of heckling.

But here is where the line is drawn: No swearing, no personal references (there are exception to that limitation), and CLEARLY nothing physical.

These athletes are huge celebrities. In what other area of entertainment can you get that close to a celebrity? They allow themselves to be vulnerable to thousands of fanatic, sometimes drunken, fans. At any moment, they can be attacked. And somehow, we ask them to forget about all that and entertain us for 3 hours a night.

If and when a fan crosses a line, the player has the absolute right to defend themselves. And not just on the immediate/direct level. If artest doesn't defend himself against that one detroit fan, perhaps other fans in other arenas will take that as a cue to push the envelope even more.

Security should have done a better job to stop the situation immediately. Artest lacked faith in the security and took it upon himself. Of course there were numerous consequences of going into the stands that Artest didn't account for. And yes, he probably made the situation worse in the immediate (can i end that part of the sentence w/ that word? i can't think of what should follow immediate), but I still don't blame him.

He did what he believed what was right, he did what many others in his situation would do, and most importantly, i think that his actions will have a long term benefit on his, and his peers, safety.

Oh, and detroit is off the list of possible places for our new capital. They deserve their reputation.

- I also didn't like the piston's CEO sayign it all started b/c artest was laying on the table and thus didn't keep the table as a barrior between him in the fans. Like a bottle wouldn't be able to cross that imaginary line.

- I'm officially a pacers fan after this. I can't believe i rooted for the pistons last year.

When an actor is promoting a movie, they'll do something called a junket (i think that's the name, but i could be wrong). Basically, he sits in a chair and gets mini interviews with TONS of local stations all in rapid fire sucession. They all ask the same generic, boring questions, but it's "unique" b/c local reporter johnny lunchpail is asking them.

I would lose my mind within 15 minutes.

I'm dealing with something similar now that i'm "estranged" from my lawschool friends. Instead of seeing these people on a daily basis, it's now much less frequent. In fact, there were some people on saturday that i haven't seen since the bar. Every conversation went like this:

A) what have you been up to for the past two months? How is your job?
B) my job is _____. I do this ______. how about you?
A) my job is also ______. I've been up to _____.
B) [turns to c] So, what have you been up to?

rinse and repeat.

I can't take it. You want to know what i'm up to? try staying in touch with me. My job isn't my life. I'm not going to give 4 recaps a year of my life and still hold onto the pretense that we are still friends. Let it go, it's over.

What a hero. He gave up EVERYTHING to defend freedom. He gave up his life for what he believed in. Now, i seriously doubt he spent the time necessary in researching an issue to make sure it was worthy of such a sacrafice, but that doesn't matter. Oh no, with reckless abandon, he grabbed the nearest gun and said "point me in the right direction, sarge."

And of course, the complexity surrounding the issue warrants deep reflection and analysis. All of which can now be captured in a RED BRACELET. Wow, what am i supposed to do with my yellow one now? My mind hurts.

Lastly, i know there were a bunch of other people that gave up their lives for what THEY believed in...but i just can't put my finger on it. Tip of my tongue....something about flying planes....were they heroes?

this space heater i have is very strong. But, it's about a foot high. If it was pointed up at an angle, the warmth would at least be directed towards me. As it is now, i'm burning my ankles trying to get close to the heat.

I'm sure these people were thinking "well, heat rises, so it doesn't matter", but clearly this heater is small enough where it can only be effective if it's directly on you. I don't understand why it's not pointed up. Was it designed for midgets?

I've always been anti-english muffin. I've recently come to the realization that my disdain for them is based entirely on my love affair of bagels. Bagels are the greatest food on earth, and if i could have a bagel a day for the rest of my life, i'd die a happy person. But they are an endangered species now, as the bagel place by my grandmother went out business and i haven't found a suitable replacement. So, in an attempt to fill the void, i try to get into english muffins.

Comparing an english muffin to a bagel is unfair. However, they aren't half bad. Compare them to the lowly piece of toast or even a dry roll, and they are almost "good".

of course, making pizza-english muffins when they raisins in them probably wasn't the best idea in the world.

I wanted to watch a dvd, but couldn't decide which one. Then i thought "every week, i wind up watching a movie on tv that i own on dvd. It's not as good on tv with the commericals and editing, but i do it anyway just b/c i get sucked in." So, i thought i'd let TNT (or whatever channel i watch movies on), pick the movie for me. Just my luck, they were playing donnie brasco.

Then i got sucked into it (halfway through), and never bothered to put the dvd in.

god i'm lazy.

Why wont the yellow bracelets go away? I can see through people.

The bracelet is the unique status symbol that is intentionally cheap. It's a "look at me, i'm going to wear something cheap b/c i care about the issue." The average person would not feel comfortable wearing this with a real outfit (uh, lawyers at work) if they hadn't first seen celebrites do it. Come on, a yellow bracelet 24/7? Why?

And don't for one second tell me you care about cancer. Do something about it like Race for the cure. Those things actually contribute to fighting the problem. Donating a dollar does not. And, if the bracelet wasn't involved, would you even have donated that dollar? Nope.

The only good thing about the bracelet is that i can immediately spot the marks. It's like they are tagged as conformists. They'll continue to wear these bracelets for a few months and then move onto the next tickle me elmo, beanie baby or other fad.

I don't really have anything to add regarding the yellow magnets currently on cars that "support the troops". It's the same type of thinking, but obviously more dangerous.