2007 Oscars Recap
And the loser is: Ellen. I fell asleep well before all the big awards, though perhaps something subliminal woke me up in time for the classy Helen Mirren.
The winners: Jack Black and Will Ferrel.
And the awards:
Best Picture - I guess Marty carries the day.
Best Actor - Correct.
Best Actress - See above.
Supporting Actor - Lesson learned. When an older actor mysteriously appears here despite having 6 lines that could have been done better by anyone who was still willing to act, suspect the worst.
Best Actress - Right again.
Best Director - I'm so tired of being right.
Nothing else matters.
On to the all important "Wish I Would Have Seen" List. It's longer this year.
The Science of Sleep
Notes On A Scandal
Sherrybaby
Little Children
OK, so that was good for a laugh. But seriously:
We Are Marshall
The Good Shepherd
Volver
Stranger Than Fiction
Blood Diamond
Letters From Iwo
Monday, March 05, 2007
Saturday, February 24, 2007
2007 Annual Oscars Preview
So here we go with my annual completely false predictions and dead-on should-have-beens. First a recap of my reviews of the movies I wished I'd seen last year:
The Whale & The Squid - Overly overtly intellectual, tedious
Wallace&Gromit - What's with the stark sexual innuendos littered all over the last 15 minutes?
Grizzly Man - Cool bear footage. Solid film.
Corpse Bride - Eh.
Three Burials of Melky Estrada - Abominable preachy social issues film.
On to the predictions:
We'll be using my technique of totally disregarding the talent involved. Since I've not seen all the movies, I will nonetheless be issuing weighty pronouncements on which movies and performances are the best.
I'll then follow with my top 10 for the year and other awards including biggest snubs and most ridiculous nomination of the year. Stay tuned for my review of my embarrassingly bad predictions.
* Means Will Win
! Means Should Win (Of those nominated)
& Means Did Not See
BEST PICTURE
*& The Social Issues Ensemble Movie, aptly described by a friend as a globo-faux intellectual's wet dream. (Babel)
Semi-Annual Scorcese entry (The Departed)
&Annual Eastwood entry (Letters from Iwo)
Indy Social Issues Pic (Little Miss Sunshine)
! The Queen
The Departed winning wouldn't be a bad thing, but I figure Scorcese's going to get the award for director and the movie itself isn't that meaty, just entertaining. Eastwood wins too often; if he wins this time, they may rename the award after him and just start giving it to him every year, even if he doesn't make a movie. Given the rate at which he's churning movies out, he could be competing just against himself: "And now, the winner of best Clint Eastwood film..." That leaves the indy pic, which really isn't that good except for the last scene, and which suffers from being a comedy, even if it tries to play depression and failure for laughs. And finally The Queen, which happens to be a fantastic, taught, well-acted, well-written movie as lacking in political snobbery as it is chock full of depth. In short, it has no chance.
BIGGEST SNUBS: Since I realize my top 10 below has a lot of action and comedy, I will just include films that might actually fall under potential Oscar winning genres - United 93, The Prestige, Thank You For Smoking.
BEST ACTOR:
&!-Leonardo DiCaprio plays a funny accent social issues vagabond.
&-Ryan Gosling plays a crusading teacher and a drug addict
&-Peter O'Toole plays a retiring legend trotting out for a victory lap.
-Will Smith plays a man who wants to make a lot of money and who never plays the race card.
&-Forrest Whitaker plays the lovable last King of Scotland (A black king? Why not, it worked in Blazing Saddles.)
Leo apparently pissed on Speilberg while he was visiting Aushwitz or something and will never win anything ever. He also comes across as a weiner but hey, he's supposed to be good in this. I simply can't take Forrest Whitaker seriously. One of those hospital shows breathlessly introduced him as "one of the most respected actors of his generation," and I thought, "By whom? His mother? When did this take place." Was there some subtext to Panic Room I wasn't picking up on? Ryan Gosling is a nobody but really comes up big mixing 2 Oscar favorites - inspiring teacher AND drug addict. If Johnny Depp had taken this role he'd already have a speech ready. Peter O'Toole shouldn't win because I don't want him to die navigating the stairs. And Will Smith has no shot in hell. As he's sitting dejected in his little picture-in-picture screen, he'll be thinking, "I should have played the race card."
SNUBS: Aaron Eckhardt (TYFS), Christian Bale (Prestige), Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat), Several Individuals from The Departed who were apparently forgotten because no one could tell who was a lead and who was supporting except for Mark Wahlberg, and Daniel Craig (Casino Royale). In fact I would replace the entire nomination list. Eckhardt was brilliant, Bale is always brilliant and additionally really showed up Hugh Jackman, who is pretty darn good, Cohen freaking lived this ridiculous character but is hurt by the fact that he'd already created it, The Departed speaks for itself, Nicholson, Damon, Leo all deserved a nod, and Craig stepped to the Bond plate and knocked the role out of the park. Oh, and Keanu for A Scanner Darkly. Just kidding. He goes through the whole movie with that "Whoa" look on his face, just begging to drop it in.
Actress:
&Penelope Cruz is pretty (Volver)
&Dame Judi Dench annual nomination (Notes on a Scandal)
*!Helen Mirren plays The Queen
Meryl Streep annual nomination (Devil Wears Prada)
&Kate Winslet semi-annual indy pic nomination (Little Children)
I rarely care about this award because usually the roles are so weak. For purely aesthetic reasons, Penelope can win all the awards she wants, but she does do shampoo commercials. That's a real sticking point because so do Andie MacDowell and Lark Voories. Streep was very good in an otherwise dull movie. She and Dench deserve their annual re-up more than Eastwood does. Interestingly, the only non-star nominated is the one who should absolutely win. Here's hoping Ms. Mirren starts taking some of Dame Dench's roles so she can pace herself a bit. I can't get enough classy English ladies in my movies. I wonder if Ms. Mirren will be "damed" by the queen she played.
SUPPORTING ACTOR:
Alan Arkin has about 6 lines of dialogue (Little Miss Sunshine)
& Jackie Earl Haley is a complete unknown and may not have been informed yet of his nomination (Little Children)
&Djimon Hounsou is an aggrieved African (Blood Diamond - ever notice that this guy plays every African regardless of nationality. Africa has more genetic diversity than the rest of the world, from 7-foot Masais to pygmies but apparently everyone from Cote D'Voire to Lesotho looks exactly the same)
&!* Eddie Murphy is in a musical
Mark Wahlberg is here because he's the only actor in The Departed who couldn't possibly be considered a lead.
I'm sorry but Oscars just don't go to Mark Wahlberg. See Dillon, Matt 2006. Alan Arkin's character was well written, had little screen time, and honestly could have been better played by any number of old-timers, including several of my old neighbors. He's the most forgettable part of that cast. Eddie Murphy is the big name, has the race card in his pocket, and jumped out of comedy to do a musical. He even sang. He gets the spirit award.
SNUBS: Bill Nighy for Davey Jones in Pirates 2. That's an impressive creation. John C. Reilly for The Magic Man in The Ballad of Ricky Bobby - extra points for the ad libbing. Al Gore's political ambitions in An Inconvenient Truth - it was like a recurring cameo that made no sense with the rest of the movie. And boy was it a stretch.
SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
&Adriana Barraza is an aggrieved Mexican babysitter
&Cate Blanchett is a star playing a smaller role in an indy pic
!Abigail Breslin is the ubiquitous Jerry Maguire Kid, extra points for hysterical strip tease
*&Jennifer Hudson plays herself
&Rinko Kikuchi has no lines of dialogue (I think) but is likely an aggrieved Japanese mute.
I wonder what Simon Cowell thinks of Hudson's performance.
SNUBS: Eva Green as a great Bond dame, Vera Farmiga pulling off a poorly written character in The Departed, Mia Kirschner as Elizabeth Short in the atrocious The Black Dahlia.
Director
Basically Scorcese is going to win so there's no point in even looking at this category. His peers Speilberg, Coppola, and George Lucas (zuh?) have been selected as the presenters, which probably means that they're not giving the award to Paul Greengrass. I'd guess Eastwood would replace Lucas if he weren't bound by contractual obligations to be nominated for this category. Speilberg was nice enough not to force any schlock on us this year, perhaps in deference to Marty's chances. Coppola's an obvious choice since he's responsible for the 2 best movies ever. George Lucas was also chosen for his venerable career dedicated to the art of cinema. I couldn't write that line without a chuckle. Anyways, 3 makes it more important than 2, but who else is there? James Cameron was unavailable because he just stumbled on Jesus's tomb. I can picture him climbing a top it and yelling, "I'm the king of the world." And Kenneth Turan has already panned his discovery in several articles I'm sure.
Foreign Language Film
Pan's Labyrinth was way overhyped. The saddest thing is that it's so obvious while watching how the movie could have been made into something with depth (make the father/officer sympathetic) but oh well. And what's w/ Canada having a nomination? They don't talk that funny. Leo's Blood Diamond accent is more foreign than aboot.
Adapted Screenplay
What is Borat doing here? The movie was not an adaptation, nor did it have a screenplay.
Original Screenplay
This is probably where Sunshine gets its award but the Queen writer deserves it more.
Animated Feature
I'm so passionate about this category, I can't even comment.
Art Direction - Pirates 2 was such an aesthetic marvel that it'd be a crime if it didn't win. That said, I love the look that was cultivated in the Prestige. Naturally neither will win.
Cinematography - I actually say Children of Men on this one. The continuous shot sequences were astounding pieces of work. If only they'd told me why they weren't having babies.
Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Film Editing - Why are these categories not handled during the technical awards show the previous day? Anyways, I hope Apocalypto wins, opening the door for the breathless pause before the acceptance speeches, hoping for some reference to Mel. The anti-semitism is the easy route...I'm hoping for an "angel tits" reference.
Original Score - Pirates had a great one. A general plea - musical scores are some of the best music being created. That's how bad pop music is. I'd blame Cold Play, but they just took the whinier Radiohead and made it less avante guard.
Original Song - Ugh.
Costume - How can Devil Wears Prada not win? Wouldn't that be a total indictment of the film, if a movie about defining high fashion can't even have the best costumes?
Documentary Feature - I think the category title is unfair. Documentaries are now propaganda films. That's not necessarily a bad thing, propaganda is a form of art. But why keep pretending?
Makeup - Obviously a real shot for Apocalypto here. My question is that there are 3 nominations here, and one of them is Click. Click? The Adam Sandler remote control movie? I didn't see this movie. Does anyone know how this happened? Was it a prank write-in campaign?
Visual Effects - Again, Pirates 2 is a lock. Nothing else should have been nominated.
THIS YEAR'S SNUBS:
OVERHYPED BLOCKBUSTER DIVISION: In a tight race with Dreamgirls' Best Pic snub, I give it to Flags of Our Fathers. Oh it stank and Letters to Iwo gave them an out, but nonetheless, any loss for Eastwood is an upset.
SPIELBERG DIVISION: The New World. Terrence Malick's rambling nature films with some sort of plot going on in the foreground, occasionally spliced with empty voice over usually are golden for a nod. What happened? Colin Farrel?
SEQUEL DIVISION: Sly Stallone for anything in Rocky Balboa. The guy was trying to say good bye. Not even an Oscar nod for lifetime soundtrack achievement. Now he's going to make the nightmare real and do Shakespeare. I can sense it. Hey, if Keanu can not only do Shakespeare but also Philip K. Dick, Stallone can do anything. I personally am rooting for boxing announcer.
SOCIAL ISSUES DIVISION: Children of Men - you have to make the commentary more explicit if you're hoping to illicit a nomination. And tell us why they're not having babies.
ANTI-ANTI SEMITISM DIVISION: Mel Gibson. If a guy can't curse out the Jews and then call the arresting officer "angel tits" and still get his bizarre dead language film nominated then the terrorists have won.
MOST RIDICULOUS NOMINATION: Click for anything.
TOP TEN FILMS:
Honorable Mention: Dave Chappelle's Block Party - Even though the movie's not good, the concert got rained on, and Eric Badou's afro-wig came off, totally erasing her street cred, the man got the Fugees back together. Damn Lauryn Hill is good.
10. Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby - this film basically pisses excellence.
9. Inside Man
8. Pirates 2 - A very underrated film. I think it's because no one else knows how to play Liar's Dice.
7. Casino Royale - This was the best Bond movie I've seen.
6. United 93 - Get over the $ thing. Nobody called Michael Moore a war profiteer but he's far more guilty and doesn't have the decency to give 10% of the gate to the folks whose tragedy he's making $ off of.
5. The Prestige - Dark, original, complex. It reminds me of good Hitchcock with all of the tone shifts, the way it forces you to change your mind about characters.
4. The Departed - I know, I know. It's good. But there are several sections that drag and the Farmiga/DiCapprio relationship seems to lack something other than being a contrived plot device. Plus it was a relatively good year for movies.
3. The Queen
2. Thank You For Smoking
1. Borat
So here we go with my annual completely false predictions and dead-on should-have-beens. First a recap of my reviews of the movies I wished I'd seen last year:
The Whale & The Squid - Overly overtly intellectual, tedious
Wallace&Gromit - What's with the stark sexual innuendos littered all over the last 15 minutes?
Grizzly Man - Cool bear footage. Solid film.
Corpse Bride - Eh.
Three Burials of Melky Estrada - Abominable preachy social issues film.
On to the predictions:
We'll be using my technique of totally disregarding the talent involved. Since I've not seen all the movies, I will nonetheless be issuing weighty pronouncements on which movies and performances are the best.
I'll then follow with my top 10 for the year and other awards including biggest snubs and most ridiculous nomination of the year. Stay tuned for my review of my embarrassingly bad predictions.
* Means Will Win
! Means Should Win (Of those nominated)
& Means Did Not See
BEST PICTURE
*& The Social Issues Ensemble Movie, aptly described by a friend as a globo-faux intellectual's wet dream. (Babel)
Semi-Annual Scorcese entry (The Departed)
&Annual Eastwood entry (Letters from Iwo)
Indy Social Issues Pic (Little Miss Sunshine)
! The Queen
The Departed winning wouldn't be a bad thing, but I figure Scorcese's going to get the award for director and the movie itself isn't that meaty, just entertaining. Eastwood wins too often; if he wins this time, they may rename the award after him and just start giving it to him every year, even if he doesn't make a movie. Given the rate at which he's churning movies out, he could be competing just against himself: "And now, the winner of best Clint Eastwood film..." That leaves the indy pic, which really isn't that good except for the last scene, and which suffers from being a comedy, even if it tries to play depression and failure for laughs. And finally The Queen, which happens to be a fantastic, taught, well-acted, well-written movie as lacking in political snobbery as it is chock full of depth. In short, it has no chance.
BIGGEST SNUBS: Since I realize my top 10 below has a lot of action and comedy, I will just include films that might actually fall under potential Oscar winning genres - United 93, The Prestige, Thank You For Smoking.
BEST ACTOR:
&!-Leonardo DiCaprio plays a funny accent social issues vagabond.
&-Ryan Gosling plays a crusading teacher and a drug addict
&-Peter O'Toole plays a retiring legend trotting out for a victory lap.
-Will Smith plays a man who wants to make a lot of money and who never plays the race card.
&-Forrest Whitaker plays the lovable last King of Scotland (A black king? Why not, it worked in Blazing Saddles.)
Leo apparently pissed on Speilberg while he was visiting Aushwitz or something and will never win anything ever. He also comes across as a weiner but hey, he's supposed to be good in this. I simply can't take Forrest Whitaker seriously. One of those hospital shows breathlessly introduced him as "one of the most respected actors of his generation," and I thought, "By whom? His mother? When did this take place." Was there some subtext to Panic Room I wasn't picking up on? Ryan Gosling is a nobody but really comes up big mixing 2 Oscar favorites - inspiring teacher AND drug addict. If Johnny Depp had taken this role he'd already have a speech ready. Peter O'Toole shouldn't win because I don't want him to die navigating the stairs. And Will Smith has no shot in hell. As he's sitting dejected in his little picture-in-picture screen, he'll be thinking, "I should have played the race card."
SNUBS: Aaron Eckhardt (TYFS), Christian Bale (Prestige), Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat), Several Individuals from The Departed who were apparently forgotten because no one could tell who was a lead and who was supporting except for Mark Wahlberg, and Daniel Craig (Casino Royale). In fact I would replace the entire nomination list. Eckhardt was brilliant, Bale is always brilliant and additionally really showed up Hugh Jackman, who is pretty darn good, Cohen freaking lived this ridiculous character but is hurt by the fact that he'd already created it, The Departed speaks for itself, Nicholson, Damon, Leo all deserved a nod, and Craig stepped to the Bond plate and knocked the role out of the park. Oh, and Keanu for A Scanner Darkly. Just kidding. He goes through the whole movie with that "Whoa" look on his face, just begging to drop it in.
Actress:
&Penelope Cruz is pretty (Volver)
&Dame Judi Dench annual nomination (Notes on a Scandal)
*!Helen Mirren plays The Queen
Meryl Streep annual nomination (Devil Wears Prada)
&Kate Winslet semi-annual indy pic nomination (Little Children)
I rarely care about this award because usually the roles are so weak. For purely aesthetic reasons, Penelope can win all the awards she wants, but she does do shampoo commercials. That's a real sticking point because so do Andie MacDowell and Lark Voories. Streep was very good in an otherwise dull movie. She and Dench deserve their annual re-up more than Eastwood does. Interestingly, the only non-star nominated is the one who should absolutely win. Here's hoping Ms. Mirren starts taking some of Dame Dench's roles so she can pace herself a bit. I can't get enough classy English ladies in my movies. I wonder if Ms. Mirren will be "damed" by the queen she played.
SUPPORTING ACTOR:
Alan Arkin has about 6 lines of dialogue (Little Miss Sunshine)
& Jackie Earl Haley is a complete unknown and may not have been informed yet of his nomination (Little Children)
&Djimon Hounsou is an aggrieved African (Blood Diamond - ever notice that this guy plays every African regardless of nationality. Africa has more genetic diversity than the rest of the world, from 7-foot Masais to pygmies but apparently everyone from Cote D'Voire to Lesotho looks exactly the same)
&!* Eddie Murphy is in a musical
Mark Wahlberg is here because he's the only actor in The Departed who couldn't possibly be considered a lead.
I'm sorry but Oscars just don't go to Mark Wahlberg. See Dillon, Matt 2006. Alan Arkin's character was well written, had little screen time, and honestly could have been better played by any number of old-timers, including several of my old neighbors. He's the most forgettable part of that cast. Eddie Murphy is the big name, has the race card in his pocket, and jumped out of comedy to do a musical. He even sang. He gets the spirit award.
SNUBS: Bill Nighy for Davey Jones in Pirates 2. That's an impressive creation. John C. Reilly for The Magic Man in The Ballad of Ricky Bobby - extra points for the ad libbing. Al Gore's political ambitions in An Inconvenient Truth - it was like a recurring cameo that made no sense with the rest of the movie. And boy was it a stretch.
SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
&Adriana Barraza is an aggrieved Mexican babysitter
&Cate Blanchett is a star playing a smaller role in an indy pic
!Abigail Breslin is the ubiquitous Jerry Maguire Kid, extra points for hysterical strip tease
*&Jennifer Hudson plays herself
&Rinko Kikuchi has no lines of dialogue (I think) but is likely an aggrieved Japanese mute.
I wonder what Simon Cowell thinks of Hudson's performance.
SNUBS: Eva Green as a great Bond dame, Vera Farmiga pulling off a poorly written character in The Departed, Mia Kirschner as Elizabeth Short in the atrocious The Black Dahlia.
Director
Basically Scorcese is going to win so there's no point in even looking at this category. His peers Speilberg, Coppola, and George Lucas (zuh?) have been selected as the presenters, which probably means that they're not giving the award to Paul Greengrass. I'd guess Eastwood would replace Lucas if he weren't bound by contractual obligations to be nominated for this category. Speilberg was nice enough not to force any schlock on us this year, perhaps in deference to Marty's chances. Coppola's an obvious choice since he's responsible for the 2 best movies ever. George Lucas was also chosen for his venerable career dedicated to the art of cinema. I couldn't write that line without a chuckle. Anyways, 3 makes it more important than 2, but who else is there? James Cameron was unavailable because he just stumbled on Jesus's tomb. I can picture him climbing a top it and yelling, "I'm the king of the world." And Kenneth Turan has already panned his discovery in several articles I'm sure.
Foreign Language Film
Pan's Labyrinth was way overhyped. The saddest thing is that it's so obvious while watching how the movie could have been made into something with depth (make the father/officer sympathetic) but oh well. And what's w/ Canada having a nomination? They don't talk that funny. Leo's Blood Diamond accent is more foreign than aboot.
Adapted Screenplay
What is Borat doing here? The movie was not an adaptation, nor did it have a screenplay.
Original Screenplay
This is probably where Sunshine gets its award but the Queen writer deserves it more.
Animated Feature
I'm so passionate about this category, I can't even comment.
Art Direction - Pirates 2 was such an aesthetic marvel that it'd be a crime if it didn't win. That said, I love the look that was cultivated in the Prestige. Naturally neither will win.
Cinematography - I actually say Children of Men on this one. The continuous shot sequences were astounding pieces of work. If only they'd told me why they weren't having babies.
Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Film Editing - Why are these categories not handled during the technical awards show the previous day? Anyways, I hope Apocalypto wins, opening the door for the breathless pause before the acceptance speeches, hoping for some reference to Mel. The anti-semitism is the easy route...I'm hoping for an "angel tits" reference.
Original Score - Pirates had a great one. A general plea - musical scores are some of the best music being created. That's how bad pop music is. I'd blame Cold Play, but they just took the whinier Radiohead and made it less avante guard.
Original Song - Ugh.
Costume - How can Devil Wears Prada not win? Wouldn't that be a total indictment of the film, if a movie about defining high fashion can't even have the best costumes?
Documentary Feature - I think the category title is unfair. Documentaries are now propaganda films. That's not necessarily a bad thing, propaganda is a form of art. But why keep pretending?
Makeup - Obviously a real shot for Apocalypto here. My question is that there are 3 nominations here, and one of them is Click. Click? The Adam Sandler remote control movie? I didn't see this movie. Does anyone know how this happened? Was it a prank write-in campaign?
Visual Effects - Again, Pirates 2 is a lock. Nothing else should have been nominated.
THIS YEAR'S SNUBS:
OVERHYPED BLOCKBUSTER DIVISION: In a tight race with Dreamgirls' Best Pic snub, I give it to Flags of Our Fathers. Oh it stank and Letters to Iwo gave them an out, but nonetheless, any loss for Eastwood is an upset.
SPIELBERG DIVISION: The New World. Terrence Malick's rambling nature films with some sort of plot going on in the foreground, occasionally spliced with empty voice over usually are golden for a nod. What happened? Colin Farrel?
SEQUEL DIVISION: Sly Stallone for anything in Rocky Balboa. The guy was trying to say good bye. Not even an Oscar nod for lifetime soundtrack achievement. Now he's going to make the nightmare real and do Shakespeare. I can sense it. Hey, if Keanu can not only do Shakespeare but also Philip K. Dick, Stallone can do anything. I personally am rooting for boxing announcer.
SOCIAL ISSUES DIVISION: Children of Men - you have to make the commentary more explicit if you're hoping to illicit a nomination. And tell us why they're not having babies.
ANTI-ANTI SEMITISM DIVISION: Mel Gibson. If a guy can't curse out the Jews and then call the arresting officer "angel tits" and still get his bizarre dead language film nominated then the terrorists have won.
MOST RIDICULOUS NOMINATION: Click for anything.
TOP TEN FILMS:
Honorable Mention: Dave Chappelle's Block Party - Even though the movie's not good, the concert got rained on, and Eric Badou's afro-wig came off, totally erasing her street cred, the man got the Fugees back together. Damn Lauryn Hill is good.
10. Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby - this film basically pisses excellence.
9. Inside Man
8. Pirates 2 - A very underrated film. I think it's because no one else knows how to play Liar's Dice.
7. Casino Royale - This was the best Bond movie I've seen.
6. United 93 - Get over the $ thing. Nobody called Michael Moore a war profiteer but he's far more guilty and doesn't have the decency to give 10% of the gate to the folks whose tragedy he's making $ off of.
5. The Prestige - Dark, original, complex. It reminds me of good Hitchcock with all of the tone shifts, the way it forces you to change your mind about characters.
4. The Departed - I know, I know. It's good. But there are several sections that drag and the Farmiga/DiCapprio relationship seems to lack something other than being a contrived plot device. Plus it was a relatively good year for movies.
3. The Queen
2. Thank You For Smoking
1. Borat
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
The All-Star game is in Las Vegas this year. For those of you who don't follow the Kings closely, this is part of a multi-year effort by the NBA to shop the team with the most loyal fan base in the league to a mob town of alcoholics, compulsive gamblers, frat boys, prostitutes, and tourists. Hey, it's good business practice to tell your best customers that you'd rather throw away the last shreds of integrity that a sport has by maxing out the credit cards of America's least responsible spenders.
I'm just wondering, where's Sacramento's All-Star game? You know, like maybe the towns that actually have a team should get a crack at a game. Why not have them all in Las Vegas...better than deciding that every NBA town gets one except us. Charlotte got an all-star game...a year after they got their second financially failing team. You're telling me Charlotte has more hotel space, more claim to host an All-Star game than the state capital of California? You'd rather host a game in the murder capital, Detroit?
I'd be OK if it were in Vegas every year. Barkley could hold an annual trundle. Jordan would probably come play just to gamble. But instead, every other city in the league gets one except us...so now cities without teams start to get one. This is just part of an organized campaign to dump on Kings' fans.
I'm what you might call a Kings dead ender. I remember the 4 first round draft picks we had in one year...all of them busts. Joe Klein instead of Karl Malone. "Never Present" Pervis Ellison 1st overall. I called Grant Napear's show. I thought Gary St. Jean would be the answer. Wayman Tisdale was my favorite player. I witnessed Walt Williams airball a fast break dunk. I had a Bobby Hurley shirt...I wore it to games even after the car accident where Mike "The Other Guy in the Poster" Peplowski saved him...you know, the Bobby Hurley who couldn't break a full court press put on by Crazy George and Slamson, the human bakery Bobby Hurley that served up turnovers at a rate that would have made White Chocolate air-machine gun a line of fans in envy.
For a decade plus, the Kings sold out games without a single winning season. Then they got good and we were the loudest crowd in league history, an environment so intimidating, opposing coaches complained to the referees. We brought cow bells. Bobby Jackson got kisses on the head during games.
One would have thought, "Hey, that's a town that loves basketball. Heck, their minor league baseball team occasionally outdraws the major league team 2 hours away. That's a customer you want to keep." But you'd be of the mindset that wants people to watch basketball games and believe in the outcome...the sort of person that would take a few less dollars to have playoff games on network television rather than, say, the Outdoor Life Network.
You see, Commissioner Sternleone and his hatchet man Big City Knick Bavetta should have tipped us off when they decided to fix Game 6 of the Western Conference championships and thereby rob the city of its only legitimate championship. We're left to point despairingly at WNBA titles, World League football titles for the Sacramento Surge and washed-up QB David Archer.
Now the league is saying we can't have an all-star game, or even our team, if we don't pony up the dough for a 3rd arena in 25 years. I guess the image the league is going for is an aging chubby Mike Bibby squandering his fortune in the Maloof's hotel-casino.
In summary, if the team is stolen from us, Sternleone's contribution to Sacramento will have been 2 husky arenas out in the flood plain near the airport, a stolen championship, some ugly uniforms, and a legacy of hatred that could spawn kamikaze units. The Maloofs have been good to Sacramento, they might be able to sneak out of town under assumed identities until they got back to their mafioso liquor-running friends. But Stern...the man would need a Pope-mobile to drive past the capital.
I'm just wondering, where's Sacramento's All-Star game? You know, like maybe the towns that actually have a team should get a crack at a game. Why not have them all in Las Vegas...better than deciding that every NBA town gets one except us. Charlotte got an all-star game...a year after they got their second financially failing team. You're telling me Charlotte has more hotel space, more claim to host an All-Star game than the state capital of California? You'd rather host a game in the murder capital, Detroit?
I'd be OK if it were in Vegas every year. Barkley could hold an annual trundle. Jordan would probably come play just to gamble. But instead, every other city in the league gets one except us...so now cities without teams start to get one. This is just part of an organized campaign to dump on Kings' fans.
I'm what you might call a Kings dead ender. I remember the 4 first round draft picks we had in one year...all of them busts. Joe Klein instead of Karl Malone. "Never Present" Pervis Ellison 1st overall. I called Grant Napear's show. I thought Gary St. Jean would be the answer. Wayman Tisdale was my favorite player. I witnessed Walt Williams airball a fast break dunk. I had a Bobby Hurley shirt...I wore it to games even after the car accident where Mike "The Other Guy in the Poster" Peplowski saved him...you know, the Bobby Hurley who couldn't break a full court press put on by Crazy George and Slamson, the human bakery Bobby Hurley that served up turnovers at a rate that would have made White Chocolate air-machine gun a line of fans in envy.
For a decade plus, the Kings sold out games without a single winning season. Then they got good and we were the loudest crowd in league history, an environment so intimidating, opposing coaches complained to the referees. We brought cow bells. Bobby Jackson got kisses on the head during games.
One would have thought, "Hey, that's a town that loves basketball. Heck, their minor league baseball team occasionally outdraws the major league team 2 hours away. That's a customer you want to keep." But you'd be of the mindset that wants people to watch basketball games and believe in the outcome...the sort of person that would take a few less dollars to have playoff games on network television rather than, say, the Outdoor Life Network.
You see, Commissioner Sternleone and his hatchet man Big City Knick Bavetta should have tipped us off when they decided to fix Game 6 of the Western Conference championships and thereby rob the city of its only legitimate championship. We're left to point despairingly at WNBA titles, World League football titles for the Sacramento Surge and washed-up QB David Archer.
Now the league is saying we can't have an all-star game, or even our team, if we don't pony up the dough for a 3rd arena in 25 years. I guess the image the league is going for is an aging chubby Mike Bibby squandering his fortune in the Maloof's hotel-casino.
In summary, if the team is stolen from us, Sternleone's contribution to Sacramento will have been 2 husky arenas out in the flood plain near the airport, a stolen championship, some ugly uniforms, and a legacy of hatred that could spawn kamikaze units. The Maloofs have been good to Sacramento, they might be able to sneak out of town under assumed identities until they got back to their mafioso liquor-running friends. But Stern...the man would need a Pope-mobile to drive past the capital.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Dietary Changes
So I decided to eat less, eat less fat, and eat more fiber for no particular reason. A few strange things happen besides the obvious (namely always being hungrier).
1) Taking a dump is a lot more of a workout. Before all that junk would race right through me. Now it feels like I'm voiding a boa constrictor.
2) I'm less excited to eat. I think this is the key to 'healthy' foods leading to weight loss. When you think about eating, you think, "well, I'm not missing much anyways.'
3) Good food starts tasting bad. I put some sprite in my mouth, it tasted nasty. What gives? Is there no going back to the days of yore when food tasted good?
4) All that stuff about more energy, feeling lighter, etc. Especially when I'm done taking a dump.
So I decided to eat less, eat less fat, and eat more fiber for no particular reason. A few strange things happen besides the obvious (namely always being hungrier).
1) Taking a dump is a lot more of a workout. Before all that junk would race right through me. Now it feels like I'm voiding a boa constrictor.
2) I'm less excited to eat. I think this is the key to 'healthy' foods leading to weight loss. When you think about eating, you think, "well, I'm not missing much anyways.'
3) Good food starts tasting bad. I put some sprite in my mouth, it tasted nasty. What gives? Is there no going back to the days of yore when food tasted good?
4) All that stuff about more energy, feeling lighter, etc. Especially when I'm done taking a dump.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Travesty: The Wasted Career of Alicia Keyes
It is said that the Strativarius violin is an irreplicable instrument. It isn't the craftsmanship that makes it superior, it is the nature of the wood from that era. A unique combination of the age of the trees and the nature of the climate produced a particular sound well suited to the violin that is unlikely to be replicated.
Something similar took place in music in the first half and a little beyond of this century with black women's voices. The lack of video and the invention of the phonograph allowed the voice to take center-stage. The music was jazz and blues, and the combination of new black ambition and mobility combined with the ache of the Depression-era, war-era, and segregation-era childhood stilled weighed heavy in the voices of the greats, Nina Simone, Billie Holliday, Ella Fitzgerald, Odetta. It is a timber of true suffering perfectly matched to the music of the age from a larger framed female that created a musical style that today's singers cannot match.
Certainly Aretha Franklin, and later Whitney Houston have beautiful voices and not without sorrow. But it is not the same sorrow as that of the women above. It is a domesticized sorrow, tamed, and far more so in Whitney, commercialized. The same holds true today for Beonce and any number of talented singers. Lauryn Hill best epitomized what has become of black women and their suffering - it is a spiritual sorrow, not a material one. It is about religion in a secular age, about the loss of that true suffering, the hollowness of comfort. And it's also about a bit on anachronistic racism that doesn't speak to this generation. And hence, she's disappeared, to trying to be real to be commercialized, a deliberate anachronism to an audience quick to move to the next thing.
And then there's Alicia Keyes. Alicia Keyes is not a Strativarius. Alicia Keyes is a new instrument. That's how talented she is. Nobody knows how to play it, let alone include it into the music being put out. When you see her live, say on a music Awards show, you let her do her own thing w/ the other stars and everyone's mouth drops as soon as she opens hers. She puts everyone else to shame. She hits Mariah's notes with ease and flourish.
And yet her albums are fairly lame. She has a few great songs that she wrote for herself, but they are generally very simple melody-wise. Her production values, backbeats, everything is off. Does she get stuck w/ lousy producers because she's so good herself? Everything she does is better in its live version. That is generally pretty telling that the pros aren't doing their jobs.
Can we please fix this? You never know when a person's voice will change, when celebrity or alcohol or health will give way and snatch that talent away.
Can we please stop wasting this woman's career? Is she doing it to herself?
It is said that the Strativarius violin is an irreplicable instrument. It isn't the craftsmanship that makes it superior, it is the nature of the wood from that era. A unique combination of the age of the trees and the nature of the climate produced a particular sound well suited to the violin that is unlikely to be replicated.
Something similar took place in music in the first half and a little beyond of this century with black women's voices. The lack of video and the invention of the phonograph allowed the voice to take center-stage. The music was jazz and blues, and the combination of new black ambition and mobility combined with the ache of the Depression-era, war-era, and segregation-era childhood stilled weighed heavy in the voices of the greats, Nina Simone, Billie Holliday, Ella Fitzgerald, Odetta. It is a timber of true suffering perfectly matched to the music of the age from a larger framed female that created a musical style that today's singers cannot match.
Certainly Aretha Franklin, and later Whitney Houston have beautiful voices and not without sorrow. But it is not the same sorrow as that of the women above. It is a domesticized sorrow, tamed, and far more so in Whitney, commercialized. The same holds true today for Beonce and any number of talented singers. Lauryn Hill best epitomized what has become of black women and their suffering - it is a spiritual sorrow, not a material one. It is about religion in a secular age, about the loss of that true suffering, the hollowness of comfort. And it's also about a bit on anachronistic racism that doesn't speak to this generation. And hence, she's disappeared, to trying to be real to be commercialized, a deliberate anachronism to an audience quick to move to the next thing.
And then there's Alicia Keyes. Alicia Keyes is not a Strativarius. Alicia Keyes is a new instrument. That's how talented she is. Nobody knows how to play it, let alone include it into the music being put out. When you see her live, say on a music Awards show, you let her do her own thing w/ the other stars and everyone's mouth drops as soon as she opens hers. She puts everyone else to shame. She hits Mariah's notes with ease and flourish.
And yet her albums are fairly lame. She has a few great songs that she wrote for herself, but they are generally very simple melody-wise. Her production values, backbeats, everything is off. Does she get stuck w/ lousy producers because she's so good herself? Everything she does is better in its live version. That is generally pretty telling that the pros aren't doing their jobs.
Can we please fix this? You never know when a person's voice will change, when celebrity or alcohol or health will give way and snatch that talent away.
Can we please stop wasting this woman's career? Is she doing it to herself?
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Flags of Our Fathers: A Cinematic Hate Crime
This film made me want to urinate on Steven Spielberg.
Disclaimer: I'm not referring to the book. Indeed, the trials and travails of those who went on the War Bond tour may have been just as depicted in the film, but I doubt it. No one has such poor taste, and time, as to carve a desert in the form of six soldiers putting up a flag, and then pouring strawberry sauce on it. It is the most blunt, despicable sort of symbolism imaginable, which leads us to:
THE 5 CARDINAL SINS OF PRETENSION
1) Preachy. Oh my. I guess Spielberg had already covered this ground in 2-3 movies, the ground that no one fights for an idea, that no fights are noble, that all soldiers are noble just for being there but they are only in it for each other. And there are no heroes. So he handed this one to Eastwood. And instead of telling a story about soldiers fighting a great battle, we have a seemingly interminable lecture on the marketing of the war. The movie begins with a lecture, almost every line is a lecture, every moment is a lecture, with every ludicrous twist of fate to match a lecture line, the movie moves from pedantry to pedantry with almost no humor, no character development, heck, it takes a good 2 hours just to get a handle on whose name is whose because the movie does such a bad job of getting you to know the characters before killing them off or having them do important plot points for reasons that aren't truly discernible. Oh, and just to fill the cup of pedantry to overflowing, they poured in almost endless racism against Native Americans, besmirched the memory of President Truman, reduced the Japanese to comically faceless villains, and added some good old-fashioned ugly American tourism, just to make sure it was clear that everything is wrong w/ American life. Simply put, the preachiest movie I've ever seen. I hated being a Californian and seeing all of this hatred spewed into film, especially a film that, for about 1/4, has at least the hints of a good film about the Marine Corps and its most treasured battle.
2) Political. I know it's tough to separate out the two. So just to make sure, the film begins and ends w/ ludicrous Olympics-Lifetime background story lighting and makes sure you get the point, especially in the opening lecture, that it's important that a blanket statement about a current war be made in a movie about Iwo Jima.
3) Psychosexual. Luckily we weren't forced to suffer the sex is art phenomenon. Apparently there weren't a lot of babes on Iwo Jima. In fact, the brief character building scene (that's right, there's only one for all the faceless heroes the movie supposedly honors) has a cute sex joke that seems completely out of place in an otherwise wooden film.
4) Too Long. Nellly WAYYYYY TOOO LOOONNNGGGGG. We endure repeated repetitive emphasis of pedantic points repeatedly repeated through tedious way too long sections on the war bond campaign. Did I mention the repetition? Good. Because the whole time you're just sitting there thinking "COULD I WATCH THE F-ING BATTLE!!!???" You know, like the part where they won the freaking thing? The part where the other guys stopped shooting and the beachhead was secured? That part didn't warrant...6 seconds? Ryan Phillipe got at least an hour of standing awkwardly still while words came out of his mouth in mostly literate format. The winning the battle part isn't worth 1/100th of Ryan Phillipe? Or a little more testimony to Japanese courage? That wasn't worth Phillipe reiterating his concerns for the 5th time? Honestly, Ryan Freaking Phillipe??? Why not just suit up Laura Flyn Boyle and Elijah Wood and see how they look as Marines and Navy Corpsmen.
5) Whiny Hero. I guess to make up for the lack of psychosexual nonsense they went so overboard with the whining that Fran Drescher would blush. Every single character in the movie, supposedly stoic soldiers who refused to talk about their experiences, spends much of the film crying and blubbering and voicing their self-doubt to any who will listen. Do people in Hollywood ever think anything they don't say? Are they so surprised by the existence of real emotions that they have to talk about them? Or are they so unaccustomed to the phenomenon, and incapable of, you know, pretending, that they just blurt them out instead? The answer? Ryan Phillipe. I swear, at least 3 times in the movie he smirked to himself like, "What the hell am I doing pretending to be a Marine for Clint Eastwood? It's just preposterous!" Why even have a casting department?
As if that weren't enough, they put the book/script author in the movie!!!! This has to be Cardinal Sin #6 (Cardinal Sin 5.5 being the use of an Arab choral voice and violin to convey exoticism and gravitas). Do not put yourself in the movie. We'll call this the Tarantino Rule. I don't care about your freaking catharsis and your relationship with your father. I don't want to be reminded that you decided to turn that catharsis into cash in book format. I don't want to see you or know you. I came for a movie about Iwo Jima, not you. Your life is not interesting. You are a writer and a chump. Go away.
Just a note - yes, dipstick, there are real heroes. They win Medals of Honor. Audie Murphy and Alvin York were not made up for our sake. They rocked on the battlefield. I'm sorry that you don't want to distinguish between great soldiers, good soldiers and not-so-good soldiers. Yes everyone who didn't run away gets credit. But, dude, the guy everyone says was the best marine of the bunch gets no airtime until they're like, "Oh yeah, that dude rocked. Let's show him getting killed."
You want to make a good movie about Iwo Jima. MAKE IT ABOUT IWO JIMA!!!! How hard is that? Don't make it about Iraq, or about commercialism, or about your emotional catharsis about not knowing your father, or about all your petty Hollywood self-absorption. Make it about the freaking battle idiot. That whole, "Oh, and about the flag, funny story..." is the kicker to the soldier's story of the battle. It's not the story. The movie never felt like it was about the 40's, that it had people from the 40's in it. It looked like a bunch of Gen-Y punks feeling decidedly awkward trying to pretend to be the dudes on Iwo Jima. It felt like they took some extra footage from Jarhead and put it in this movie. Apparently hardly anyone looks like a soldier in Hollywood.
This was as dumb as making a movie about Alexander the Great that focuses on the fact that he, like a lot of Greek dudes at the time, was bi. Not the whole, conquer the world, strangely whiny, but immensely talented, wreckless ambition thing. No, it was the sex life that was important. Nobody would be dumb enough to do that, right?
Thanks to this repeated catastrophic stupidity, as it consistently leaches money from solid film ideas, let's just sum up the advise to avoid the cardinal sins of stupidity: 1) tell the story as it happened, not as it applies to your petty current events agenda. 2) Don't put yourself in the movie. don't put writers in the movie. 3) Don't use blunt symbolism to pretend you're an artist. 4) FREAKING A, FIRST RULE OF FILM SCHOOL: SHOW ME DON'T TELL ME.
I swear Spielberg, quite dodging me. I will pee on you the next time I see you.
This film made me want to urinate on Steven Spielberg.
Disclaimer: I'm not referring to the book. Indeed, the trials and travails of those who went on the War Bond tour may have been just as depicted in the film, but I doubt it. No one has such poor taste, and time, as to carve a desert in the form of six soldiers putting up a flag, and then pouring strawberry sauce on it. It is the most blunt, despicable sort of symbolism imaginable, which leads us to:
THE 5 CARDINAL SINS OF PRETENSION
1) Preachy. Oh my. I guess Spielberg had already covered this ground in 2-3 movies, the ground that no one fights for an idea, that no fights are noble, that all soldiers are noble just for being there but they are only in it for each other. And there are no heroes. So he handed this one to Eastwood. And instead of telling a story about soldiers fighting a great battle, we have a seemingly interminable lecture on the marketing of the war. The movie begins with a lecture, almost every line is a lecture, every moment is a lecture, with every ludicrous twist of fate to match a lecture line, the movie moves from pedantry to pedantry with almost no humor, no character development, heck, it takes a good 2 hours just to get a handle on whose name is whose because the movie does such a bad job of getting you to know the characters before killing them off or having them do important plot points for reasons that aren't truly discernible. Oh, and just to fill the cup of pedantry to overflowing, they poured in almost endless racism against Native Americans, besmirched the memory of President Truman, reduced the Japanese to comically faceless villains, and added some good old-fashioned ugly American tourism, just to make sure it was clear that everything is wrong w/ American life. Simply put, the preachiest movie I've ever seen. I hated being a Californian and seeing all of this hatred spewed into film, especially a film that, for about 1/4, has at least the hints of a good film about the Marine Corps and its most treasured battle.
2) Political. I know it's tough to separate out the two. So just to make sure, the film begins and ends w/ ludicrous Olympics-Lifetime background story lighting and makes sure you get the point, especially in the opening lecture, that it's important that a blanket statement about a current war be made in a movie about Iwo Jima.
3) Psychosexual. Luckily we weren't forced to suffer the sex is art phenomenon. Apparently there weren't a lot of babes on Iwo Jima. In fact, the brief character building scene (that's right, there's only one for all the faceless heroes the movie supposedly honors) has a cute sex joke that seems completely out of place in an otherwise wooden film.
4) Too Long. Nellly WAYYYYY TOOO LOOONNNGGGGG. We endure repeated repetitive emphasis of pedantic points repeatedly repeated through tedious way too long sections on the war bond campaign. Did I mention the repetition? Good. Because the whole time you're just sitting there thinking "COULD I WATCH THE F-ING BATTLE!!!???" You know, like the part where they won the freaking thing? The part where the other guys stopped shooting and the beachhead was secured? That part didn't warrant...6 seconds? Ryan Phillipe got at least an hour of standing awkwardly still while words came out of his mouth in mostly literate format. The winning the battle part isn't worth 1/100th of Ryan Phillipe? Or a little more testimony to Japanese courage? That wasn't worth Phillipe reiterating his concerns for the 5th time? Honestly, Ryan Freaking Phillipe??? Why not just suit up Laura Flyn Boyle and Elijah Wood and see how they look as Marines and Navy Corpsmen.
5) Whiny Hero. I guess to make up for the lack of psychosexual nonsense they went so overboard with the whining that Fran Drescher would blush. Every single character in the movie, supposedly stoic soldiers who refused to talk about their experiences, spends much of the film crying and blubbering and voicing their self-doubt to any who will listen. Do people in Hollywood ever think anything they don't say? Are they so surprised by the existence of real emotions that they have to talk about them? Or are they so unaccustomed to the phenomenon, and incapable of, you know, pretending, that they just blurt them out instead? The answer? Ryan Phillipe. I swear, at least 3 times in the movie he smirked to himself like, "What the hell am I doing pretending to be a Marine for Clint Eastwood? It's just preposterous!" Why even have a casting department?
As if that weren't enough, they put the book/script author in the movie!!!! This has to be Cardinal Sin #6 (Cardinal Sin 5.5 being the use of an Arab choral voice and violin to convey exoticism and gravitas). Do not put yourself in the movie. We'll call this the Tarantino Rule. I don't care about your freaking catharsis and your relationship with your father. I don't want to be reminded that you decided to turn that catharsis into cash in book format. I don't want to see you or know you. I came for a movie about Iwo Jima, not you. Your life is not interesting. You are a writer and a chump. Go away.
Just a note - yes, dipstick, there are real heroes. They win Medals of Honor. Audie Murphy and Alvin York were not made up for our sake. They rocked on the battlefield. I'm sorry that you don't want to distinguish between great soldiers, good soldiers and not-so-good soldiers. Yes everyone who didn't run away gets credit. But, dude, the guy everyone says was the best marine of the bunch gets no airtime until they're like, "Oh yeah, that dude rocked. Let's show him getting killed."
You want to make a good movie about Iwo Jima. MAKE IT ABOUT IWO JIMA!!!! How hard is that? Don't make it about Iraq, or about commercialism, or about your emotional catharsis about not knowing your father, or about all your petty Hollywood self-absorption. Make it about the freaking battle idiot. That whole, "Oh, and about the flag, funny story..." is the kicker to the soldier's story of the battle. It's not the story. The movie never felt like it was about the 40's, that it had people from the 40's in it. It looked like a bunch of Gen-Y punks feeling decidedly awkward trying to pretend to be the dudes on Iwo Jima. It felt like they took some extra footage from Jarhead and put it in this movie. Apparently hardly anyone looks like a soldier in Hollywood.
This was as dumb as making a movie about Alexander the Great that focuses on the fact that he, like a lot of Greek dudes at the time, was bi. Not the whole, conquer the world, strangely whiny, but immensely talented, wreckless ambition thing. No, it was the sex life that was important. Nobody would be dumb enough to do that, right?
Thanks to this repeated catastrophic stupidity, as it consistently leaches money from solid film ideas, let's just sum up the advise to avoid the cardinal sins of stupidity: 1) tell the story as it happened, not as it applies to your petty current events agenda. 2) Don't put yourself in the movie. don't put writers in the movie. 3) Don't use blunt symbolism to pretend you're an artist. 4) FREAKING A, FIRST RULE OF FILM SCHOOL: SHOW ME DON'T TELL ME.
I swear Spielberg, quite dodging me. I will pee on you the next time I see you.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Barry Bonds or Kenny Rogers?
So, who is the worse cheater?
On the one dirty hand, obviously, steroids are controlled by the law and cause longterm health damage. So they are worse for the game's image and worse for their influence on the kids. They cause medical and legal issues that far outreach anything pinetar does to you.
On the other dirty hand, at least steroids are a form of self-improvement. You still have to work out like crazy, and you are trying to better your internal skills. Doctoring the ball involves no skill. It is an external cheat, a quick fix.
Plus, if you take steroids, everyone can see you are cheating. You're practically boasting. The whole point of the pinetar graft is to pretend you are honest.
I don't buy that "everyone does it" line. Everyone takes steroids too. Friends in major college sports tell me everyone on the baseball team is dirty, either serially or for a onetime boost.
No one talks about 'greenies', amphetamines that improve gametime performance. These are the worst in my opinion - you are absolutely breaking the law, you are damaging your health, of course you are cheating, but no one can see it, and it is a quick fix.
But no one does a story on those things. Didn't anyone wonder, "Hey, why did Rick Ankiel have a complete meltdown and disappear from baseball?"
The real issue here is that steroids are new, new as in within the past 2 decades. Aging pitchers have been doctoring balls forever. That doesn't give it a pass in my book.
So I would say that it is probably worse for the game and it's image for Bonds-style cheating over Rogers-style cheating. But as far as sportsmanship goes, I'd feel less wronged by giving up a bomb to Bonds than whiffing on an oblong ball from Rogers.
So, who is the worse cheater?
On the one dirty hand, obviously, steroids are controlled by the law and cause longterm health damage. So they are worse for the game's image and worse for their influence on the kids. They cause medical and legal issues that far outreach anything pinetar does to you.
On the other dirty hand, at least steroids are a form of self-improvement. You still have to work out like crazy, and you are trying to better your internal skills. Doctoring the ball involves no skill. It is an external cheat, a quick fix.
Plus, if you take steroids, everyone can see you are cheating. You're practically boasting. The whole point of the pinetar graft is to pretend you are honest.
I don't buy that "everyone does it" line. Everyone takes steroids too. Friends in major college sports tell me everyone on the baseball team is dirty, either serially or for a onetime boost.
No one talks about 'greenies', amphetamines that improve gametime performance. These are the worst in my opinion - you are absolutely breaking the law, you are damaging your health, of course you are cheating, but no one can see it, and it is a quick fix.
But no one does a story on those things. Didn't anyone wonder, "Hey, why did Rick Ankiel have a complete meltdown and disappear from baseball?"
The real issue here is that steroids are new, new as in within the past 2 decades. Aging pitchers have been doctoring balls forever. That doesn't give it a pass in my book.
So I would say that it is probably worse for the game and it's image for Bonds-style cheating over Rogers-style cheating. But as far as sportsmanship goes, I'd feel less wronged by giving up a bomb to Bonds than whiffing on an oblong ball from Rogers.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Men's Underwear Options: The Definitive Study
The purpose: Most men wear boxers. Boxers are aesthetically the most comfortable option. No one sees anything untoward. But are they really the ideal?
Definition of Terms: To avoid offending youths who might need this guide, we will using a euphemism chosen at random for certain parts of the body: the Letter-to-the Editor and the Business Reply Mail.
FACTS: We have 4 real underwear options once we're potty trained. We started with the tighty-whitey. We graduated to boxers in Junior High and High School. Somewhere along the line, someone added the boxer-briefs to the mix. And then there's that enigmatic commando option. There is the exotic option, the banana hammock, which deserves little consideration because a) it looks ridiculous, b) it's horribly uncomfortable, and c) no one wants to look like a European guy at the beach...UNDER THEIR CLOTHES NO LESS!!!
This study proposes to look at our options and make the proper suggestions.
1. Tighty-whiteys. There are good reasons why we start with these - they absorb excess dripping, they provide support, guiding The Letter-to-the-Editor and the Business Reply Mail through that reckless phase when we don't realize their importance and we like to run into things. And indeed they remain the best option for athletics throughout life, keeping the Letter-to-the-Editor and the business reply mail safely in the mailbags. But we all realized their limitations - they make it hot and sweaty in there, and eventually smelly. They're like diapers, they hold the Letter-to-the-Editor's hand through the roughdrafts.
2. Boxers. These made us feel like men - yes, I am wearing shorts underneath my pants. They clean up, the weather is tolerable. I'm flipping, I'm flopping. I've got a Letter-to-the-Editor and it deserves notice. So does the Business Reply Mail. Heck, boxers are even fit for more frequent reuse than the old T-W...they don't get dirty as fast. Sports are a concern, yes. But we're ok.
Then slowly, damningly, the disadvantages set in. First there's the riding up, the rising in. The Letter-to-the-Editor and the Business Reply Mail voice some dismay. But then the laundry process sets in and you are slowly drawn in to an inevitable cycle of discomfort. The boxers folks realize that their item doesn't need replacing like a razor or even like a normal piece of clothing - who cares if the colors fade if you can't see them. Sure boxers aren't like jeans...no one's going for the 'pre-worn look' but a faded boxer never scared anyone off.
The boxers' makers really only have one item working in their favor - fast-food. The inevitability of a man's laziness, unwillingness to cook, and naturally slowing metabolism mean that the rear's growth is all but a foregone conclusion. We eat like we're at the training table long after they take high school football from us. The boxer must widen accordingly.
This may come as news to you. When I bought my first pair, I asked my dad about sizes. He said, "Just get your waste size." I had a strange look on my face - wasn't there 1-3 things that needed a little more consideration? So he laughed, "What did you think the sizes went by?" Laugh as he may, my concern was warranted. How can my Letter-to-the-Editor not get a little more consideration? You see, some of us are Asian, and some of us are Italian. And apparently, all the boxers' makers are Asian women. Because you would have to buy boxers whose elastic barely stretches around your waist to enough room for your Letter-to-the-Editor. Sure, it seems alright before you put your pants on. But once the pants go on, the mail gets sorted, and it needs to pick a direction. And in that choice, you're right back in tighty-whities.
To make matters worse, they make the elastic shrink. I swear they use sweater fabric on boxers because they shring WAY faster than normal clothes. The idea is simple - as the Letter-to-the-Editor gets choked off at the opening sentences and the Business Reply Mail piles up, we'll go out and buy more boxers. They've transplanted the idea behind the lightbulb business to our beloved postal business!
The Boxer-Brief - the boxer-brief is really supposed to be the beginning stages of phasing out the tighty-whitey. That's the idea. But I have grave concerns about this new contender. Yes it is more aesthetically pleasing and politically correct than the tighty-whitey. It still gives out hints about the contents of the Letter-to-the-Editor for the audience's sake. The idea seems to be - guys will be more comfortable walking around in these things in the lockerroom, and the ladies will get what they need. But it's one of those ideas like New Coke or the Hair Plugs that sounds great in theory but goes woefully awry in practice.
You see, as a man, you have a choice. You can go tight for support for your letter-to-the-editor, but then you're forcing yourself into a pair of underpants that are DESIGN TO RISE UP. Or you can go loose, and you're basically getting a pair of boxers with an ungodly vendetta against your business reply mail.
Commando - At first glance, it sounds crazy. No underwear? What substances are you inflicting on your poor pants! What if someone pantses you or, heaven forbid, an unfortunate XYZ situation lets everyone read both your letter-to-the-editor and your business reply mail when they are in no condition for public consumption. Indeed, commando is a wholly unsuitable option through any age in which a pantsing is a possibility. There's the occasional situation in which you will be taking off your pants...say a physical...when you'll obviously want something to keep matters under control.
But reexamine the possibilities - you get all the room you could need, there's no rising up, no riding in. Kramer may have grossed you out, but was he a genius? Your humble correspondent can say that, in the interests of this study, he tried it, and his letter-to-the-editor and his business reply mail couldn't be happier. However, don't go jogging in this condition...ever. Women are only human and you can cause a traffic accident.
Until the boxers makers employ some men, and I mean straight men, not gay men forcing us towards bizarre dreams of a legion of banana-hammock wearers, I must reccomend a multifold strategy based primarily on the Commando and the tighty-whitey or boxer brief. The commando for work and relaxing, the briefs for sports. Then you can keep a few pairs of boxers on hand for when you go to the doctor.
The purpose: Most men wear boxers. Boxers are aesthetically the most comfortable option. No one sees anything untoward. But are they really the ideal?
Definition of Terms: To avoid offending youths who might need this guide, we will using a euphemism chosen at random for certain parts of the body: the Letter-to-the Editor and the Business Reply Mail.
FACTS: We have 4 real underwear options once we're potty trained. We started with the tighty-whitey. We graduated to boxers in Junior High and High School. Somewhere along the line, someone added the boxer-briefs to the mix. And then there's that enigmatic commando option. There is the exotic option, the banana hammock, which deserves little consideration because a) it looks ridiculous, b) it's horribly uncomfortable, and c) no one wants to look like a European guy at the beach...UNDER THEIR CLOTHES NO LESS!!!
This study proposes to look at our options and make the proper suggestions.
1. Tighty-whiteys. There are good reasons why we start with these - they absorb excess dripping, they provide support, guiding The Letter-to-the-Editor and the Business Reply Mail through that reckless phase when we don't realize their importance and we like to run into things. And indeed they remain the best option for athletics throughout life, keeping the Letter-to-the-Editor and the business reply mail safely in the mailbags. But we all realized their limitations - they make it hot and sweaty in there, and eventually smelly. They're like diapers, they hold the Letter-to-the-Editor's hand through the roughdrafts.
2. Boxers. These made us feel like men - yes, I am wearing shorts underneath my pants. They clean up, the weather is tolerable. I'm flipping, I'm flopping. I've got a Letter-to-the-Editor and it deserves notice. So does the Business Reply Mail. Heck, boxers are even fit for more frequent reuse than the old T-W...they don't get dirty as fast. Sports are a concern, yes. But we're ok.
Then slowly, damningly, the disadvantages set in. First there's the riding up, the rising in. The Letter-to-the-Editor and the Business Reply Mail voice some dismay. But then the laundry process sets in and you are slowly drawn in to an inevitable cycle of discomfort. The boxers folks realize that their item doesn't need replacing like a razor or even like a normal piece of clothing - who cares if the colors fade if you can't see them. Sure boxers aren't like jeans...no one's going for the 'pre-worn look' but a faded boxer never scared anyone off.
The boxers' makers really only have one item working in their favor - fast-food. The inevitability of a man's laziness, unwillingness to cook, and naturally slowing metabolism mean that the rear's growth is all but a foregone conclusion. We eat like we're at the training table long after they take high school football from us. The boxer must widen accordingly.
This may come as news to you. When I bought my first pair, I asked my dad about sizes. He said, "Just get your waste size." I had a strange look on my face - wasn't there 1-3 things that needed a little more consideration? So he laughed, "What did you think the sizes went by?" Laugh as he may, my concern was warranted. How can my Letter-to-the-Editor not get a little more consideration? You see, some of us are Asian, and some of us are Italian. And apparently, all the boxers' makers are Asian women. Because you would have to buy boxers whose elastic barely stretches around your waist to enough room for your Letter-to-the-Editor. Sure, it seems alright before you put your pants on. But once the pants go on, the mail gets sorted, and it needs to pick a direction. And in that choice, you're right back in tighty-whities.
To make matters worse, they make the elastic shrink. I swear they use sweater fabric on boxers because they shring WAY faster than normal clothes. The idea is simple - as the Letter-to-the-Editor gets choked off at the opening sentences and the Business Reply Mail piles up, we'll go out and buy more boxers. They've transplanted the idea behind the lightbulb business to our beloved postal business!
The Boxer-Brief - the boxer-brief is really supposed to be the beginning stages of phasing out the tighty-whitey. That's the idea. But I have grave concerns about this new contender. Yes it is more aesthetically pleasing and politically correct than the tighty-whitey. It still gives out hints about the contents of the Letter-to-the-Editor for the audience's sake. The idea seems to be - guys will be more comfortable walking around in these things in the lockerroom, and the ladies will get what they need. But it's one of those ideas like New Coke or the Hair Plugs that sounds great in theory but goes woefully awry in practice.
You see, as a man, you have a choice. You can go tight for support for your letter-to-the-editor, but then you're forcing yourself into a pair of underpants that are DESIGN TO RISE UP. Or you can go loose, and you're basically getting a pair of boxers with an ungodly vendetta against your business reply mail.
Commando - At first glance, it sounds crazy. No underwear? What substances are you inflicting on your poor pants! What if someone pantses you or, heaven forbid, an unfortunate XYZ situation lets everyone read both your letter-to-the-editor and your business reply mail when they are in no condition for public consumption. Indeed, commando is a wholly unsuitable option through any age in which a pantsing is a possibility. There's the occasional situation in which you will be taking off your pants...say a physical...when you'll obviously want something to keep matters under control.
But reexamine the possibilities - you get all the room you could need, there's no rising up, no riding in. Kramer may have grossed you out, but was he a genius? Your humble correspondent can say that, in the interests of this study, he tried it, and his letter-to-the-editor and his business reply mail couldn't be happier. However, don't go jogging in this condition...ever. Women are only human and you can cause a traffic accident.
Until the boxers makers employ some men, and I mean straight men, not gay men forcing us towards bizarre dreams of a legion of banana-hammock wearers, I must reccomend a multifold strategy based primarily on the Commando and the tighty-whitey or boxer brief. The commando for work and relaxing, the briefs for sports. Then you can keep a few pairs of boxers on hand for when you go to the doctor.
Friday, September 01, 2006
The Reggie Bush Curse Begins
First off, perhaps it's better to call this the Football Jesus curse or in honor of the Big Easy, The Voodoo Football Jesus Curse.
The elements should be familiar to Red Sox and Sonics fans - drafting an overhyped oaf over Michael Jordan or passing Babe Ruth over to your rival.
It's clear now that a lone Katrina survivor who was relocated to Texas has hexed the Houston Texans for unspecified reasons. Perhaps sheer spite for Texas not catching much hurricane flack while New Orleans suffered.
The result: Reggie Bush goes to New Orleans. Next thing you know, steady running back starter for Houston Dominic Davis has knee bones grinding together. Out for a while? The year? Forever? I've only heard that description used for Terrell Davis and Curtis martin, both done for good. Watch out Houston RB's, your future is in jeopardy.
First off, perhaps it's better to call this the Football Jesus curse or in honor of the Big Easy, The Voodoo Football Jesus Curse.
The elements should be familiar to Red Sox and Sonics fans - drafting an overhyped oaf over Michael Jordan or passing Babe Ruth over to your rival.
It's clear now that a lone Katrina survivor who was relocated to Texas has hexed the Houston Texans for unspecified reasons. Perhaps sheer spite for Texas not catching much hurricane flack while New Orleans suffered.
The result: Reggie Bush goes to New Orleans. Next thing you know, steady running back starter for Houston Dominic Davis has knee bones grinding together. Out for a while? The year? Forever? I've only heard that description used for Terrell Davis and Curtis martin, both done for good. Watch out Houston RB's, your future is in jeopardy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)