I caught the last 10 minutes of "matrix reloaded", and all my anger towards that horrible movie came flowing back. I debated searching for a comprehensive "this is everything that's wrong with the movie" type of rant, but i knew that i'd get lost in a sea of rants that only covered 85% of the problems. and i can't have that. so i'm not even going to search.
should anyone paste me a link here, however, i'd be very happy.
Ever have so many tasks that need to be accomplished in a certain time frame that it becomes completely overwhelming? Because I work six days a week, I have to pack in every single chore and leisure activity in the span of a day. It’s overwhelming. This morning was a no brainer; X-men: The Last Stand had to be viewed. But then I started to panic when I thought about how many clothes need to be ironed, how long it’s been since I’ve washed the floor, and how good a nap would be right now.
Left with too many choices, the human mind becomes overwhelmed. So I took the path of least resistence: a bowl of cereal. A man can do a lot of thinking while eating a bowl of cheerios, and here are my thoughts from the past 10 minutes…
I’ve been in the mood for sleater-kinney today, but I’m continuously faced with a dilemma when listening to them. In an interview, the lead singer [sidenote: how bizarre is it that I still don’t know the names of the members of my favorite band of all time? I like to think that it’s because I care more about the music than the people behind it, but in reality, I think it’s just because I’m bad with names] was discussing the fact that “The Woods” was a departure from their usual work. I don’t remember the exact quote, but her point was that it was not meant to appease the people who were “used” to their older albums. I specifically remember her saying that she didn’t want people listening to the album while vacuuming. Needless to say, this makes me very uncomfortable because I always put albums on that I’m familiar with while I’m vacuuming. Have I been unfaithful to the music that I love because I treat it as “background” music? Must all music be appreciated at its highest level? Must I only listen to music in the dark and with headphones on? “Can’t people have coffee anymore” [connect the dots to that Seinfeld reference].
Fine, I’ll eat my cheerios to Biggie. Biggie would have no qualms when or where I listened to his music, as long as I paid for the album. So I’m eating my cheerios, with Biggie in the background, and my mind starts wandering. Today I read an article about animals that was discussing whether or not they are conscious. Here’s a quote:
A key ingredient of consciousness is having a sense of self, a feeling that there's a "you" inside your brain. One sign of that is being able to imagine yourself in a different time and place.
I tried very hard to try and think like a dog. How smart can the smartest dog be? Is it aware that there is a species that is much smarter than it? Does it understand the master/slave relationship? Can an animal dislike my personality?
What’s more unsettling? Knowing that lesser species are still capable of a consciousness, or having two species of equal intelligence in the same planet? How different would homo sapiens existence be if there was another species that shared our level of intellect? I assume that there would such animosity between the two species, just as each ethnicity conflicts with each other as a self preservation mechanism. If early settlers were upset with the Irish coming in and taking all their jobs, can you imagine how much we’d hate another species? It would both be a uniting and dividing phenomenon to have another species to compete with.
This then segued into my ever continuing quest to try and understand the mindset of a slave owner. Did white people REALLY believe that they were better than black people? How does that start? I can understand being born into a culture of racism, and just going along for the ride, but there had to be a premiere generation that started it all, right? I just can’t imagine seeing something that had two arms, two legs, a head, and could (or eventually would learn) how to speak English and think that was more “property” than “man”. Seriously, can you imagine treating a human being like a garden tool? And yet, we can’t just dismiss the entire society as “evil”. There had to be theoretically “good” people who were slave owners. That, had they been born in a different era, would have been completely ok with racial equality.
Is all morality relative? Is there something that we are doing right now that will be looked upon as bad as slavery? Maybe the fact that we don’t fix the homeless problem in our country. I barely acknowledge homeless people when they ask me for money. Am I 21st century slave owner? Great now I’m not going to be able to sleep tonight. I hate people who can fall asleep easily. Why aren’t they worrying whether or not future societies will deem them to be slave owners?
Cereal is done. Time to vacuum.
Obviously, I knew the WWE was bad, but I didn't realize how bad until last night. Somewhere in ECW's last year or two of existence, i basically gave up on professional wrestling. The downward spiral was pretty steady, so it's hard to pinpoint when i stopped watching. Towards the end, i remember watching JUST so i could fully appreciate Netcop's scathing recaps.
In the past couple of months, I've attempted to rekindle my interest, but the exercise had been futile. Raw is now on the level of "SNL bad" in that it's so proactively annoying that i can't even have it on the TV in the background. Just the very sound of the show makes me cringe with annoyance.
Despite my distaste for professional wrestling, I looked forward to the trip this weekend to see the wXw tourny in Allentown PA. If nothing else, it was going to be a good nostalgia trip and an excuse to eat Chik Fila. However, I never expected the show to spark a revival in my enjoyment of professional wrestling. Basically, when the show ended, I was already planning my next trip to an indy show.
Booking a quality show seems pretty simple. There were no Russo swerves or Sportz Entertaiment during the card. Just the simple "good vs. evil" battle between heels and faces that have been entertaining crowds for decades. The wrestlers were a bit on the unseasoned in their execution at times, but that was completely overshadowed by their youthful exerbance and dedication. Several of the wrestlers were definitely well rounded enough to "make it".
Ugh, it's a lot harder to write a "rave" compared to a "rant". Let's just leave it as i had an absolutely great time at the show, and i look forward to the next road trip in the near future.
Baseball is not a team sport. Few people really understand this. Yes, 25 people (more when you include coaches, replacements, trainers, etc) have to interact with each other for eight months every year, but that doesn’t make it a “team” sport. Not only is baseball not a team sport, but it’s not even a sport of continuous action but rather distinct, isolated events. If soccer is an example of an analog sport, baseball is its digital equivalent.
In basketball, a defense is only as strong as its weakest player. When a player gets beat, it’s up to his teammates to rotate over and help him out. A pointguard needs to be completely in tune with the players he’s trying to get the ball to. They need to think with one collective conscious. In football, if a receiver and quarterback sense a blitz, they will both independently (yet collectively) change the receiver’s route. Taking a great receiver and placing him with an equally great quarterback will not automatically lead to great results. It is only through “teamwork” and cohesiveness that they will become a strong unit together.
Baseball is not like that. When a player comes up to bat, he is alone. There isn’t a zone defense, or westcoast offense, but rather only a pitcher, a defense, and a ball. And perhaps an equally isolated teammate on a basepath or two. The only players who exhibit any type of “teamwork” in the traditional sense are the pitcher and catcher, and perhaps the two middle infielders in terms of turning double plays.
Say what you will about “team chemistry”, but it’s hard to believe that it really exists in a sport where the idea of “team” is as fragile as it is in baseball. A baseball team is a glorified company and the rules of chemistry are no different than if they worked in an office instead of a diamond.
The believers in team chemistry (and you know who you are) will argue that a work environment that lacks “chemistry” will suffer just as a team would. This is an overly simplistic analysis. If I worked at a job that actually had a team oriented goal and where I actually had to work with other people, perhaps I could buy that. But how many people actually have such jobs? Being annoyed by the person in the cubicle next to you is not an example of suffering from poor chemistry. I have worked in environments where I absolutely cannot stand my coworkers. However, once I turn my head and attention towards the work in front of me, it becomes only about the work. I might despise my peers, or be annoyed by the incompetence of people who work above me [not direct supervisors per se, but rather the people I have to deal with in order to get my job done], but at the end of the day, my work is my own. And, maybe I’m just more professional than other people (or perhaps I just lack certain human emotions), but I just don’t comprehend how a lack of “chemistry” could alter my ability to perform an isolated event.
It’s unfortunate that simple minds need nice simple “stories” to explain random events. The Yankees went 1-3 this week, and we need some type of “story” to explain why. Perhaps the fact that their offense consists of “paid mercenaries” explains the fact that Abreu’s line drive in game 2 wound up hitting the top of the wall for a single instead of going over for a home run. Perhaps Arod’s surliness is the reason that Captain Intangibles wasn’t able to inject him full of mystique and aura. Or maybe when two very good teams play each other four times, the better team can lose three times.
at imdb.com, everytime you click on a message board page (or even to nest a thread), you get an advertisement page inbetween. it's now unusable.
thanks alot.
on my last day on the job, i had absolutely nothing to watch. i mean NOTHING. so i borrowed "fat girlz" starring monique. it was as bad as you would assume. but, they let us go early, so i don't know how it ends. why do i want to know? i shouldn't care, but i do.
sad.
That was actually one of the first lines of a dvd audio commentary. Obviously, i turned it right off. How arrogant is hollywood that they think the audience will spend two hours listening to actors or directors mindlessly banter about w/o any structure? I prefer a commentary that is informative over entertaining (though backstage stories can be interesting).
The best audio commentary ever is Resevoir Dogs. They took clips from multiple sources, including actors, QT, critics, and other people who worked on the film. It worked very well.
Hollywood, take note.
http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/optimus/
it even beats my theoretical one where you just move your fingers and the keyboard "knows" what you meant.
They are now releasing Star Wars DVDs that come as 2 discs each. one disc is the original version of the movie, w/o all the added affects (and perhaps w/o greedo shooting first) . Of course, if he had originally released these versions, nobody would have bought the "other" version. But, by selling the crap first, he gets to double dip.
why do people complain about the price of gas per gallon, when it's less than basically every other liquid that is sold to mankind? because their minds aren't capable of grasping the concept that the reason we spend so much money on gas is because we are using it in great quantities. If the automobile industry put in a little effort, they could probably create a process that extracted more energy from the burning of gasoline. If "filling up" for the week only required 5-10 gallons, then 3 bucks per gallon would seem like a steal.
- I never saw a purple cow
- But if I were to see one
- Would the probability ravens are black
- Have a better chance to be one?
this doesn't seem appropriate at all
Manny Ramirez (BOS - LF)
News: Manny Ramirez returned to the starting lineup on Saturday and went 0-for-3 with an intentional walk.
Impact: Ramirez's sore knee caused a problem in the eighth, when he was wrongly called out at third by umpire Ron Kulpa. Ramirez was going from first to third on Mike Lowell's tiebreaking single with two outs and was tagged after choosing not to slide. The tag, though, knocked the ball out Adrian Beltre's glove, which meant it wasn't truly a tag at all. Kulpa called him out anyway, apparently because Beltre was able to grab the ball before it hit the ground (as if it mattered), and none of other umpires could be bothered to get the call right. It was an especially big play after the Red Sox lost 4-3.
Is FJM correct in saying that "clogging up the bases" is the dumbest thing ever said about baseball?
Posted
When i first saw that comment i thought "well, it's really really stupid, but there's gotta be something more offensive, right?" I tried to get inside Dusty's head to see if there is any defensible excuse for making such a comment. There isn't.
I guess the type of player that Dusty is talking about is a Giambi w/o power. Imagine someone as slow as Giambi who has as good an eye as Giambi, but who doesn't hit that many homers.
So Giambi* (*that's what we'll call him) leads off with a walk. He's now "clogging the bases" for the guy after him. I'm picturing someone that Dusty really likes, like say Tony Womack.
What are the options for Tony Womack?
Giambi doesn't "clog the base paths" if Womack homers, strikes out, flies out, pops up, walks, or hits a regular single.
If Womack hits a ground ball and Giambi is forced out, then at least Womack, the speedster gets on base for free and is the antithesis of "clogging".
If womack hits into a double play, then Giambi doesn't get a chance to "clog".
If womack hits a long single that could have been a double, then yes Giambi has clogged the paths by not being able to get all the way to third. So instead of womack on 2nd, you get Giambi on second and Womack on first. The latter is much more valuable, unless you are playing for just one run and the next guy singles.
If womack hits a potential triple, but only gets to 2nd b/c of Giambi clogging, then you have 2nd and 3rd instead of just 3rd. Again, having two guys on is much more valuable.
I can't really think of any other examples of this alleged "clogging". So yes, i guess it is the dumbest thing ever. Dusty is just assuming that his speedsters are hitting triples and inside the park home runs, but are forced to just settle for singles b/c of the runners ahead of them.
mind you, i wasn't even "watching" SNL; instead, i just had it on in the background. SNL is so bad, that i couldn't stomach having a TV w/ it on, even if it was over my shoulder w/ the volume turned low. This second skit is with the actor doing a press conference or something with a punch of pirates. The pirates keep getting excited when the actor says a word that has "argh" in it. They all "argh".
it's like nails on a chaulkboard. The only standard they have to meet is to "not be so annoying that i have to physically get up and shut off a tv i'm not even watching". and they FAILED!
This seems like a no brainer, but i'm not really sure how much i like food. I know that sounds like an odd thing to say, but I've seen the way other people enjoy food, and I don't think i'm on that level. Here is a list of people and their food tendencies:
Friend A: chooses not to eat 90% of the time, but goes to great lengths to prepare his meals that other 10% of the time. He painstakingly chews each bite the medically approved 33 times before swallowing and can make an egg sandwich from Dunkin Donuts last an hour. He refuses to reheat pizza in the microwave and will even make an oil and seasoning dip for his bread when he's eating alone. Picture Ruth Fischer eating by herself in that dark scene from Six Feet Under, but more depressing.
Friend B: Lives for the perfect combo meal. It's very important to him to have different things in each meal. The easiest way to make his day is to suggest to order two things from take out and then split it. Spending an entire evening with him is disturbing, as he will space out the smallest of snacks every couple of hours. My theory on his eating habbits, however, was completely destroyed when he said that he finds a salad dressing that he likes, and sticks with it until he gets sick of it.
Friend C: Lives to eat. Will actually call me to tell me what he had for lunch, and what he's planning for dinner. Probably the 2nd most unhealthy eater i know in terms of quality of food. Is able to maintain a low quantity of food intake though, probably b/c he's now middle aged :)
Me: I love the act of eating, and "full" is a very satisfying feeling, but i don't know if i actually enjoy food. I get an hour at lunch, but even when i'm trying to stretch it out, i've ordered, eaten, and cleaned up within 30 minutes. I don't like too many choices, and would basically be satisfied with the exact same 3-squares for the rest of my life (bagel w/ cream cheese for breakfast, pizza for lunch, and pasta for dinner). I can't imagine ever getting bored of that.
In fact, I've now been working downtown for over a months, and have had less than a handful of types of meals. #1 in the rotation is a burrito w/ free chips at burritosville. It's always exactly the same. I order a burrito (ok, i admit that i vary the type of burrito up), then get a plate of chips w/ their fresh salsa. I get the burrito and eat half. Then, i get up and get more chips, but with their spicey green sauce. The timing is very important. If i eat too much of the burrito, i feel self conscious about going up for more chips b/c 1) it looks like i'm mooching free chips and 2) it's admitting that the burrito isn't enough to fill me up (it's a huge burito). If i get the 2nd round too early, the spicy green salsa is going to make my mouth too hot, too early, and i'm going to fly through my soda. I'm not sure if refills are free, and i'm not about to ask. I get a paper while i'm there and pretend to read, but that's only b/c i don't like eating meals alone.
#2 in the rotation is Chicken fingers and fries from the cafeteria. I get this when i want to feel full, but feel guilty about spending 10 bucks on lunch. It comes out to only 3.90 and it's 7 big fingers with a full plate of fries. It does the job. I don't necessarily love the taste of this meal, but fries always has a warm spot in my heart. They are a perfect compliment for someone as socially awkward as me. When i'm eating with someone, fries allow me to pace myself with the speed by which they eat. When i'm alone, i can look down and focus on the dipping of the fries and pretend like i'm actually doing something. If we ever go to a diner, make a mental note that i will inevitably order something with fries. (exception: if they have a really big breakfast combo).
#3 make your own salad at the cafeteria. This is my "goal" every day at lunch. The problem is that, in order for me to make a salad worthy of my lunch, it winds up costing 7 bucks. At that point, i'm 3 away from a burrito, so what's the point?
#4 fancy burger in the cafeteria. I've had it twice. And yet that's #4 on my list.
#5 and #6: The two times i ate with my friend from lawschool. She picked both places. I enjoyed each meal, but the idea of having more choices has actually made me uncomfortable. Everyday i think "hmm, i should go get that gyro i had w/ elaine the other week, but....". I almost wish i didn't know of these other two places.
So, as you can see, i'm clearly not taking advantage of all the amazing choices for food in the city. People think i'm against trying new foods, as I've had indian and sushi for the first time w/in the past year. But, i think it's more than that. I just don't enjoy the taste of food enough to go through the efforts of discovering new things. I eat to get full. Sure, i like some meals more than others, but I can't remember ever crazing anything. If i ever get tired of the chicken fingers, i'm sure i'll be capable of moving on. But, for now, it's "good enough".
When I cook, i put absolutely no effort into the preperation of my meals. Microwaves are used instead of ovens, pasta is thrown into the pot before the water is boiled, and generally any and all shortcuts are taken. I think to myself "come on, there's no way i'll be able to taste the difference". And to be honest, i THINK i'm right. When the hell's kitchen chefs didn't realize that the fancy patte was really chopped up hotdogs and that the cheese sauce was actually cheese whiz, it got me thinking that palletes aren't as refined as people claim.
All of that being said, the act of eating is where it's at for me. I can still remember meals from decades ago and look back fondly. To piggyback poppasquat's post, here's my list of memorable meals.
- The turkey sandwiches during survivor series intermissions were particularly fun for me b/c it was fun watching/admiring Tony being in charge of something so adult. He'd confidently take the turkey out of the fridge and hack away with reckless abandon. I spent many a night on the floors of his bedrooms, but survivor series nights were probably the best.
- he remembers the "sack of cheese" from the turnpike, but for me, the better mcdonalds moments were when his mom (the once legendary Ma Z) would bring back a "pile" of mcdonalds food and just put it on top of the stove. You see, with three boys of various growing rates, and all of their friends hanging out, it would have been a futile attempt to figure out exactly how much to get. So, she'd just buy a little of everything and let it be a free for all. The best thing about a free for all is that, if you are shifty enough, you can get quite a good number of burgers in you w/o people keeping track. Hiding one wrapper inside another before you ball it is always the key.
- MV Deli: I don't know what was worse, discovering 40's or 3 dollar subs in our last month at Rutgers. Both discoveries changed my life. The sub was great though, b/c it was right around the block, and tucked away in a shady little convenience store. It was our little secret. The 40's were pretty much known to the world after all of the debauchery it caused.
There are more, but i'm blanking. I"m pretty tired. TBC.
*btw, her definiton of "living" consists of napping on the couch with tons of blankets and the heat turned on, but to each his own.
I'm so tired of bands of blaming a decision on the fact that it's in their contract w/ the label. Well, technically, the first time, it was actually Steve defending Pearl Jam's greatest hits album by saying they probably just did it b/c it's in their contract. Now, DMB is doing it as well.
Unless you are dealing with Don Corleone, contracts aren't signed with guns to your head. The bands bargained for, and received, a benefit in exchange for their promises. You can't have it both ways.
Blech.
