are pitchers now better than you might think than the pitchers of the past because of smaller ballparks? could you find me some good article on this .

also, could i get a list of hitters ball parks in order 1 to 30 (or however many teams). colorado - ? - arizona - ... - san diego.


you ask the impossible of us. there's way too much "noise" to ever make such a comparision. since you mentioned park size, i'm going to try and list all the variations that exists in just the physics of the game (or at least things that involve stuff OTHER than the actual pitcher) first:

- the raising and the lowering of the mound in different eras
- defenses are better b/c of better gloves and more athletic players
- night games depress hitting if i remember correctly (or it increases hitting, either way it's noise)
- more teams = more stadium = less familarity with ballparks
- dh vs. non dh
- juiced balls?
- more hitters studying film
- more hitters being bigger
- more specialization of pitchers. including but not limited to more relief usage, LOOGY's, closers, etc.
- more pitchers getting better scouting reports on hitters
- pitchers have more pitches now than they did.
- pitchers have to face lineups that are solid 1-8. back in the day, there were defensive specialists who were easy outs
- (btw, that's why pitch counts are more important now...back in the day, pitchers could take it easy in the bottom of the lineup)
- mechanics of pitchers are much more analyzed. flaws are easier to find and correct.
- injuries are more preventable, and easier to treat.
- strikezone has probably shrunk
- astroturf has affected defense
- same with domes
- influx of foreign players has expanded the talent pool
(see my past email for all the arguments already addressed for the "expansion has hurt baseball")
- all the call in radio shows and media has made it tougher for pitchers not to choke more (that's for you steve)
- managers are less likely to implement small ball, which was unnaturally depressing offense (that's for me and pj)
- all stadiums now have a hitter's eye that's completely black / noiseless to let a hitter concentrate
- bats are more dangerous....physically. bigger barrel, narrower (word?) handle
- more hitters on steroids, less hitters on coke, less pitchers on greenies
- more pitchers on steroids, less pitchers on coke, less hitters on greenies
- 4 man vs. 5 man vs. 5 day rotations
- less double headers tiring players out
- expanding rosters to 40 in the month of september

So what exactly are you asking? are "average" pitchers today better or worse than "average" pitchers of yesteryear? I think that's as close to impossible as you can get. There can be no way to measure the "average" pitcher w/o using circular logic. By definition they are average to the era that they play in, and since their era is unique, it's impossible to judge.

If you are asking us to compare a Pedro Martinez vs. a Walter Johnson, that's only slightly less impossible. Clearly, it's easy to measure pedro vs. the era in which he plays. First, you adjust his performance by the park he plays in, the defense behind him, the offenses he faces, etc etc etc. Then, you measure that number as to the rest of the league. "he's x percentage better than an average pitcher, y percentage better than the top 25% pitchers in the league" etc etc.

then you do the same for walter johnson.

but after you get there, you have to ask yourself if you are judging more than just domination....do you want to know what pitcher you'd want to start an imaginary franchise with? Could Walter Johnson's 2 pitches (that could be factually wrong) survive in today's era? Would Pedro's lack of stamina kill him in an era where pitchers were expected to finish games? Are we talking their peak years or longevity of their career? VORP for their best year? or total winshares in their career? total winshares vs. the winshares that a league average pitcher (or combination of pitchers) would have gotten over the same span of years?

If you general question "are pitchers of today better than pitchers of yesterday", the only thing I can go wtih is my gut. Removing everything else, and putting up a robotic "average" hitter, I have to assume that today's pitchers would be able to get him out more consistently than older pitchers. Physically, today's athletes are superior. THey have more pitches. They are more specialized in their craft. And generally, in any athletic endeaver that's isolated and based on skill and/or athleticism, i HAVE to assume that today's athlete dominates. Sports are like natural selection, but sped up. Things get cloudier when you talk about team sports like basketball, b/c then factors such as ego and knowledge of the game come into play. But baseball is just a guy throwing a ball and a guy trying ot hit it with a stick. Both ends of that equation has to be increasing as T (for time) increases.

how's that for a non answer?

[oh, and ballparks aren't that easy to judge either. a park can increase homers but be pitcher friendly while keeping extra base hits neutral. and it can change from year to year. and month to month. there was always the theory that the new park in san diego would be more hitter friendly in the later months b/c the warmer air would come in off the coast or something. and some parks can probably differ drastically from day to night]

I dont' read cuban's posts anymore, especially when they are long but....

There was a post about putting ads on basketball jerseys. And some of the comments by readers afterwards said "uh, i don't really think that ticket prices would go down just b/c owners would generate more money from advertisements".

People aren't that retarded are they? do they believe that greedy owners are only x greedy, and that after they make y millions, they'll just stop wanting to make money? My god, if they were content with the money they are making, stuffing more advertisments into the game wouldn't even be an issue.

This is why i can't even discuss things like the salary cap with other people. Their ignorance angers me.

I had to do a double take yesterday while listening to a radio commercial from a republican running for govenor of NJ. He started out by saying that the party keeps putting out guys who can't win, and that he was going to be different. Then he went over his platform.

The first thing he talked about was eliminating the tax elderly have to pay for public schools.

wow.

Is this a pressing issue? Is this the most important issue facing NJ right now? Or could it be that the elderly, who are notorious for voting in blocks, are disgustingly greedy human beings that want to pinch every penny they have and don't care about society at all?

Now, i tried very very hard to justify the candidates position in my head...just to see if even the blindest sheep could fall for it? and the best i could think of is that they could spin it to say that the elderly don't have much money and that it's unfair that they have to pay for something that they no longer benefit from.

ha!

Republicans don't care about the poor...even if they are elderly to boot. This is a stance that will CLEARLY hurt society (uh, an educated population benefits a state), but since it benefits a special interest group, it's possible that a bill can be passed. Our government is such a joke. Every little group gets one thing passed in their favor, and in return, everyone else suffers a bit. I don't see any way out of this cycle, and I fear that special interest groups will eventually destroy democracy.

During my two month hiatus, i decided to boycott reality shows. Two things caused this: the finale of amazing race, and a show about how reality shows are fixed. I'm too far removed to rante about the amazing race, but i just remembered something about the 2nd reason. On the show "last comic standing", the finalists were predetermined b/c the the two guys' agent was the one in charge of the show. When the celebs in charge of judging (drew carey and that southern blonde woman who had a show on abc that was like roseanne) found out about it, they walked off the show.

have you read the fine print on the cheeseburger pizzas at dominoes? "note: this pizza includes bacon. bacon does not come with the cheesburger pizza. you have to order that as well" or something to that effect. They are afraid to show the cheeseburger pizza w/o extra stuff on it.

We are through the looking glass people.

in no particular order

1) "John olerud has hit the ball well all four times he has been up today. he has two hits, and twice he hit the pitcher and was eventually thrown out"
"yup, and if the pitcher wasn't there, they would have been hits too"

yeah, he was very unlucky that the pitcher was there....on the mound, like every other pitcher in the history of baseball. I know what tim mccarver was TRYING to say, but I'm still annoyed.

2) I'm starting to think it's a huge conspiracy by corporate america to mock Ricky Willams. Maybe they realize that if we start rejecting their their dogma of having to kill youself at work and wasting our lives their foundation will crumble. On the sportsreporters, Lupica set up the Ricky story by making a pot joke. Everyone got a chuckle. But then Bob Ryan gave a speech about how he thought, and continues to think, that Ricky's motives are more noble than that, and tha he's an individual that didn't crave the spotlight, but just so happened to be born with these natural talents. And how he respected him for giving "everything" up to go and do what he wanted to do.

and lupica laughed. and laughed. and said "wow, i need to sit down and think about everything that is wrong with those statements."

well, lupica, i'm waiting.

3) people are really in love with jeter. It's started to make me uncomfortable to even watch yankee games. Arod hits a homer, and they cut to Jeter sitting on the edge of the railing cheering.

On friday night, the yankees beat the sox, and all the stations show an interview with jeter, even though he didn't do anything.

and tonight, with bernie up, they cut to Jeter in the dugout being a great leader by starting to get ready to bat even though he'd be up 5th in that inning (and there's already one out). They are praising him and all he's doing is having a cup of water. but when he puts on his arm brace, look out.

that's all for now.

is b/c my computer at home is basically dead. Hopefully, I will be getting a new one soon, and when i do, the rants will be back.

I'll probably forget this by the time I get a chance to write, but i've discovered my own religion / philosphy, etc. It can all be summed up that humanity would best work in the classic "I cut, you pick" way of living. I developed this in my head for a very long time (while I should have been sleeping), and there are so many tangents that come out of it. It's perfect. It always works to explain any situation. Stephen Hawkins, eat your heart out, i found the T.O.E. first.

A team that's behind has one commodity that should be valued above all else: the time left in the game.

If you are down, you need to extend the game. Every second counts. But teams never do this. Up until the very end, they'll continue to play normal defense and hope for a missed shot. I don't get it. Kentucky was down by two point with the shot clock turned off. I understand they were hoping that the ball would go to someone who is bad at shooting freethrows, but you have to do a cost benefit analysis. They let the clock run down to 10 seconds before they finally fouled the guy. And, it turned out to be the best free throw shooter on the team!

They got the ball back down 4, drove to the basket and scored with 7 seconds left. Imagine if it was 27 seconds left instead. Perhaps they could have gone back and forth until MS finally missed a free throw. But no, with 7 seconds, MS only had to make one more set of free throws to effectivly end the game.

Pathetic.

And, can someone please explain to me the logic behind sitting a guy in foul trouble. "dang jethro, we better take this guy out of the game, b/c if he gets another foul, he's going to have to leave the game". "but wait, isn't it illogical to remove someone from a game b/c you don't want him to leave the game."

Apparently this guy on kentucky was pretty good. He got his 4th foul late in the 2nd half. they pulled him, just like CW tells you, and were hoping that the game would still be close when they brought him back in with 2:30 left. Now, riddle me this. If Kentucky lost by a basket, and this guy didn't foul out, wouldn't it stand to reason that they could have used this guy for at least one more possesion. Two? What if he played the whole 2nd half and never got that 5th foul.

They pulled this guy during the 2nd half, the beginning of OT, and the beginning of the 2nd OT. Maybe if he was in there, Kentucky could have ended it at any of those points.

If the guy fouls out, at least you know you played him as much as possible. When a guy ends the game with 4 fouls, any time he sat protecting against that 5th foul was wasted.

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

I apologize for the bait and switch, but this rant is not about sincere ignorance nor conscientious stupidity. While both are worthy of lengthy reflection, I want to discuss a third category…unfortunately, I don’t have a snappy catchphrase for it. Basically, it’s when someone believes in the right thing for the wrong reasons. Something about a broken clock or sun shining on a dog’s ass, perhaps?

Whatever the word is that I’m looking for, there is no better example of “it” than Howard Stern. Without getting into a political debate, Howard has pulled a complete 180 in politics (from evil and towards good), but has done so for the wrong reasons. His personal battles with the FCC have “changed” him. In other words, his extreme selfishness has led him to embrace an ideology based in having an objective, world view. A bit counter-intuitive, no?

So why should we care whether someone has a broken-clock ideology? On one hand, he’s spreading the correct message to a large audience that is now more likely to also embrace the belief. Taken to its logical conclusion, with more people believing the right thing, the world is a better place. However, there can be unforeseen consequences of the broken-clock syndrome. For instance, if someone points out that the clock is broken, then the message becomes dismissed as incorrect.

On an even more abstract level, what are we to think of Stern for just stumbling upon the correct answer? Is he commended for finally getting it right, scorned for still being driven by poor motives, or should we feel indifference? Because, truth be told, I don’t know how I feel, other than it is NOT indifference. I’m angered when I hear him talking about politics because I can see through him. I know why he believes what he believes, despite his claims. In essence, I can see that the clock is broken.

So where do we go from here? While “sincere ignorance” is in fact a dangerous evil, it’s not as all encompassing as I originally believed. Ignorance implies a lack of knowledge; to say Stern lacks knowledge is incorrect. Instead, it seems as though knowledge has no relevance in his decision. He comes to his conclusions first, and then stumbles into the knowledge after the fact.

I have no conclusion to this rant.

9:55 - I'm looking for something to watch at 10, and see chappelle's show is on. I think to myself: You know, I've seen so many of these repeats over and over again, but i've never seen the Rick James episode. This has to be statistically impossible. They must not show that episode for some reason. I mean, I've seen the skit with P-diddy and the Band about a dozen times already.

9:59 - Hmm, if i rant about this, a clever title could be "who's rick james"

10:00 - "this episode of chapelle is particularly offensive, viewer discretion is advised" me: oh man, it can't be, can it?

10:01 - time to think of a new topic for this rant.


I don't have enough energy to fully complain about Amazing Race, but, the extreme levels of luck involved in the show is mind boggling. I understand that luck plays a role in all reality shows (or in sports / playoffs, etc etc), but this is out of control. Would it kill the producers to make sure that all 8 of the rafts can actually work w/o breaking down and flooding. This is probably at least the 4th time that the form of transportation (whether it's raft, car, etc) has broken down and essentially eliminated a team. Stupid.

My obsession with Derek Jeter has reached unhealthy levels; I'm sitting here at 10 AM on a Sunday, fuming over an article I just read. In it, Jeter calls the '98 team the best ever, and even though the current Yankees have more talent, they wouldn't be able to compete with that "team". Reading between the not so subtle lines, this is what i get: "Arod sucks".

Throughout his 10 year career, and particularly in the past year (since Arod has been in pinstripes), Jeter has been the Teflon don when it comes to ball players. He is revered by both the fans and the media and literally can do no wrong. Excuses are made ("where is the PROOF that jeter refused to move from SS when they got arod?"), feats exaggerated, and shortcomings are ignored. Two questions remain: 1) What is going on here? and 2) why does it make me so angry?

1) I have no idea what's going on, but here are some factors that might be contributing.

When the Yankees first started winning championships in the late 90's, it had followed a long draught of mediocrity. Thus, the "evil empire" stigma had not yet been attached (or, more accurately, had been forgotten since their last dynasty). The Yankees finally winning after all those years was the feel good story of the year, and leading the way was the rookie, Derek Jeter.

Why Jeter and not the other home grown stars like Bernie, Posada, or Mo? Mo's ears, Posada's chin, and Bernie's challenges with the english language are my cynical answer to that. Jeter's multi-racial, but he's still not as ethnic as the other three. And his pretty boy good looks and winning smile made him a media darling. If you see a 14 year old girl at yankee stadium, there's a good chance she's got a #2 painted on her face.

Jeter had a monster 1999 and has been living off that reputation ever since. The fact of the matter is that he's a very good, but not great, offensive player. Defensively, he's just horrid. But his combination of poor range and strong arm makes him look better than he is. It's a rare talent (or lack there of), to make the routine play look memorable, but anyone who has seen Jeter's patented pivot-jump throw from deep in hole knows what i'm talking about.

Jeter is the personification of the "classy" Yankees. It's said that the current Yankees have the talent, but not the professionalism of the late 90's Yankees. Once again, this is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Let's take a look at some of the personalities on those yankee teams.

1) wade boggs - wife beater
2) david cone - remember his days with the mets and the accusations that came from the bulpen at shea?
3) cecil fielder - currently bankrupt from his huge gambling problem.
4) Darryl strawberry - yikes
5) Gooden - not sure if he was on the championship rosters, but he was part of the upswing of the Yankees
6) Roger Clemens - headhunter
7) Ruben Sierra - "lockeroom cancer"
8) Jeff Nelson - Redneck
9) Don Zimmer - A long history of inappropriate behavior (that's ignored b/c he's a lovable old white guy)
10) David Wells - A big fat drunk (but lovable b/c he's white)
11) Paul O'neil - A guy notorious for losing his temper and breaking stuff (but b/c he "cares so much"...i.e. he's white).

9, 10, and 11 are who really bother me. If David Wells was black and wore a lot of chains and was known for partying all the time, he would have been hated. But b/c he's the image of the white blue collar worker (facial hair, beer belly, hearty laugh) he's beloved.

Paul O'neil is the Rasheed Wallace w/o the tattoos, dreads, or dark skin pigmentation. That's a slight exaggeration as I'll admit that Paul's rage was more self-directed while Wallace would take it out on refs and even teamates, but they were both driven to succeed.

I'm going to cut this rant off for now, b/c this tangent is spiraling out of control. This was supposed to be about Jeter, but is turning into a rant on the myth of the late 90's Yankees. I will end though on the note that all the players i mentioned above, in addition to guys like knobloch, jimmy keys, tino martinez, etc etc, were NOT from the Yankees farm system. So, to claim that the Yankees NOW just buy their players is very very laughable.

like a classic novel, The Inferno is something that you have to see more than once to catch all the subtleties. Tonya was complaining that her team told her she wasn't going to win in this competition. She was upset by this b/c she lives in a fantasy world where she doesn't understand her limitations, or physics, or anything.

It was supersweet to see that she was in fact the first group eliminated in teh competition. Snap.

I think it’s funny that the people who most talk about luck and chance are the ones who least understand probability. And by funny, I mean tragically ironic and sad. I’m convinced that the majority can not wrap their tiny little minds around the concept of Expected Value. And because of that, they can’t separate the decision from the actual outcome.

The actual outcome of the cause-effect chain is completely irrelevant. Whenever a decision is made, there are an infinite amount of variables that are out of the person’s control. First and foremost on that list is random chance. You can never remove random chance from the equation. Thus, looking at the results instead of the decision is an exercise in futility.

The best decision is based on the accumulation of all of the obtainable knowledge and determining which one has the highest expected value. In the long run, this will net you the highest results. It boggles the mind, and pains the soul, to listen to people speak and realize they can’t understand expected values. People staying in on the off-chance that they’ll catch the flush when they only have 3 diamonds after the flop. “hey, you never know”. Fine, of course you don’t know. But more times than not, it’s not going to be worth the money you spent to find out.

This all ties in together when people will look at a result that was unexpected, and then rewrite their opinions regarding the original decision. “that was a smart decision, just look at how it turned out.” Stop talking. That was not a smart decision, he just got lucky.

Too often in our society, the outcomes overshadow the decision making. And by too often, I mean always, 100% of the time, w/o fail. Nobody is objective enough to understand the ramifications of chance. People can’t understand that a good decision can have a bad outcome. The next sportscaster who says “we’ll have to wait and see to determine if that trade was a good decision” is going to….well, nothing is going to happen, but I’ll get re-angry. A good trade can wind up having disasterous results. And a bad GM could get lucky in a trade. Only after looking at a large collection of trades can one determine whether, on average, the GM is making good moves. Because, in the long run, having a higher expected value will always (eventually) lead to positive results.

the first 5 minutes* of the 10'oclock news on fox 5 last night was about a dog that was running around on the highway. the news is 60 minutes less commercials (which is what around 20?). This is a network channel. from new york, the biggest city in the world. 1/8 to 1/12 of the news for ny city (and to a lesser extent, planet earth) was about a dog running around, according to the people of fox.

what, me worry?


* I'm assuming the news started right at 10. about 2 minutes into this leading story, i was so stunned that i looked at the clock. it said 10:02. I wasn't even half way into the segment.

just a reminder, his site is here


The method through which your company uses its towers is also paramount. Some companies have a "getting connection is more important" mentality vs a "staying connected is more important". The difference is... In the first instance, if you call in first to a tower at rush hour, and there is a big backup, and everyone starts hopping on the phone. As soon as that capacity is full, the next call will most likely kick you off the network, and you would have to call back...effectively knocking somone else off. They prioritize a NEW CALL as more important, and view a network busy signal as a bad thing. Conversely, the second company will tend to keep your call, but you will get more network busy signals... try calling from a sports game at halftime... And in most markets a 911 call will out prioritize either one, and bounce callers either way. So... with that in mind.... most companies worth their salt will offer reimbursement or credits for DROPPED CALLS. Its a pain, but the companies are able to see how many dropped calls you have. Also keep in mind, if you dont know, most companies offer phone software upgrades that can either be programmed over the air, or you take them into the store, and they upgrade things such as the tower locations, or your preferred roaming lists... and can increase the performance of your phones, especially if you have had them 9 months or more.

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