Serving It Up

As we approach the Super Bowl on Sunday, I have been searching the internet trying to figure out what dip or other concoction I may attempt to make before the game. I don't know what it is about the Super Bowl which makes me want to try something new because I'm normally not the kind of person who usually needs a lot of snacks to watch football (and this year I don't have any rooting interest in the game), but for the last couple of days I have been searching high and low for a new snack recipe to attempt in its honor. I was thinking homemade Twinkies, but after trying a few imitations I have decided to leave that up to the professionals. Now, whenever you tell experienced chefs about a new recipe they always tell you how it should be treated as nothing more than a guideline and that you should feel free to add or subtract as you see fit. I disagree. The way I figure it the people handing out these recipes have put a lot of time and effort into crafting them and used a lot of trial and error to make sure everything is exactly as it should be. To start messing with it on your first try is rather disrespectful. That is why I pretty much stick to the script (unless it has to do with onions, because screw those terrible bastards). In fact, there is only one area where I tend to completely disagree with the recipes as they are written down - serving sizes.

Whenever I make a new dish for the first time I never fail to be surprised at how many people they expect it to feed... and not in a good way. I have never looked at a bowl and thought, "How are 2-4 people supposed to eat all this?" Instead I find myself wondering if I made enough for 2. Of course, the experience bakers among us are thinking, "Simply double the ingredients and make twice as much." You could do that, but then you have to wonder how that will alter baking time. Every change, especially when it is an unfamiliar recipe, could just as easily wreck the dish as improve it. Of course, these types of deviations wouldn't be necessary if we would just come up with a definitive measurement for what counts as a serving. (I'm sure it is out there, but it's probably on the metric system, making it useless.) Making matters more complicated than it should be is the fact that some of these food companies appear just as confused as the rest of us civilians. Have you ever bought an individual package of a food and it tells you it contains two servings? How, exactly, does that work?

I have always wondered if there is a mathematical formula to calculate serving sizes, or if it just another one of those things which started out as an informal guide (the baker's grandmother used to make it and it fed all her kids, but no one remembers if they were healthy eaters or not) and somewhere along the way a random package maker decided to put it on the side of the box, inadvertently making it law. I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle, in which a marketing person looked and told these snack companies that they couldn't tell consumers the exact calories in each snack because then healthy people wouldn't eat them so instead they figured out what number didn't look as bad when in the context of a 'serving size' and then finagled the number for how many serving sizes are in a package. Sure, when you add it all together it is as bad as ever, but who does math in the middle of dinner? (I have done the math before and if you hear your spoon scraping the bottom of a package believe me when I tell you a calculator is not your friend at that moment.) I can only assume at some point it became a regulation that these companies must list this information on their packaging, because I am sure a vast majority of fast-food makers would rather not let their customers have access to those numbers.

I'm sure I am hyper-aware of this simply because I spent most of my life discovering the majority of the world is not Rakauskas-grade. When the phrase "One size fits all" doesn't apply to your massive head, assuming the rest of the world shouldn't conform to a set of guidelines we had no say in compiling is a pretty easy leap to make. Unfortunately, since I don't see that changing any time soon, this is just another one of those things were we have to take it on a case-by-case basis. You just have to try recipes and hope the person who wrote it out was a healthy specimen and not some 85 lb waif who thinks two crackers is filling. The good news for those of us who would rather not think about this kind of stuff is that Super Bowl Sunday has become another one of those holidays, like the 4th of July or Thanksgiving (please note - all American-only events), where you are obligated to pig out and not think too much about it. If you have a lot of leftovers than you know you made too much. Unless, of course, you decided to play around with the recipe as you were making it, in which case it may just be awful and no one has the heart to tell you.

Big Screen Bump

The other day, while doing press for his latest movie, Mark Wahlberg let it slip that there are indeed plans for a movie version of the TV show, "Entourage." For those of you who may not have watched the show, "Entourage" was said to be based on Wahlberg's life and followed an actor and group of his friends as they tried to keep his career moving in an upward direction while simultaneously following their own dreams of stardom. I'm told hijinks would then ensue. I'm going to admit to never having watched an episode so this news had literally no impact on my day. Please note, it is not that I made a conscious effort to avoid the show or hated it for one reason or another, I simply didn't have HBO at that time... and still don't. (Honestly, I don't think not having the channel has affected my life in one way or another.) I'm sure I could have tracked some episodes down eventually but the word of mouth was not great and killed my motivation. (Someone once told me I 'seemed like the kind of person who would watch "Entourage"'. I immediately felt insulted and I don't know why.) But regardless of my feelings of apathy towards this particular show I am aware this is obviously not an unprecedented move, as "Sex and The City" got the movie treatment and was so successful that they made a sequel. Sure, the second one killed the franchise, but at least they got two movies out of it. Often that is all that matters with movies - quantity, not quality.

Using a TV show as a basis for a movie makes a lot of sense. There is something to be said for being able to tap into an already-established audience and being able to write a script without wasting time introducing characters and their quirks. (If shows like "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" taught us anything it is that is is certainly easier than trying to go the other way.) The thing is that I didn't exactly hear desperate cries for this movie and it is not like I bury my head in the sand regarding programs I am not a viewer of. There have been plenty of shows I have avoided, yet would be willing to acknowledge if they have a rabid and loyal fanbase which needed to be satisfied with an update of their favorite characters current whereabouts. (The previously-mentioned "Sex and the City" comes to mind.) Just because I don't like a show that doesn't mean I expect the whole world to hate it - I just don't have that much of an ego. (After all, I'm not a TV critic.) I actually think the desire for a movie version of a show is only going to be greater if that show ended on some kind of cliffhanger, where the writers thought they were getting another season and let a lot of unanswered questions. I have no problem believing there are people out there willing to pay good money just to have a few lingering plot holes filled. The "Firefly" movie, while not perfect or a blockbuster, was a lot better than nothing, especially in the eyes of its fans. Anyway this news, as it so often does, got me to thinking - what now-cancelled show would make for the best movie? Here are a couple I came up with.

Las Vegas. Not to be confused with the current show, "Vegas" (Hollywood is not so good with original names), this show ran in the early-00s and ended with one of the most bizarre cliffhangers of all-time. I think the final episode included something like two weddings, a baby, a murder, a robbery and a fake plane crash. The writers clearly thought they were getting another season to dive into all these things, but it never happened. Now, you may be saying to yourself that this show wasn't nearly popular enough to warrant getting pushed to the big-screen, but remember it was a network show and even the worst network show gets better ratings than the best premium cable number. Maybe it would be better as a made-for-TV special, but either way I bet it would do better than most people expect.

Deadwood. Another show which was cancelled before a lot of the questions could be answered, for some reason this show has some of the most loyal fans I have ever seen. Again, I never watched it (upon reflection, maybe not having HBO was a bigger deal than I first thought), but that wasn't for lack of trying by its fans. I couldn't start talking about TV shows I enjoyed between 2004-2006 without someone telling me I should drop what I was doing and immediately start watching "Deadwood." The fans of this show should be rewarded for their loyalty, because if you sucked me in for three seasons and then left me with more questions than answers I would spend all day condemning you to anyone with ears, not telling total strangers how great you are.

The Sopranos. Clearly, HBO has no problem killing a show before it is done (see above) or reviving a show even though everyone thought it was tied into a neat little bow. The good news is they could finally answer one of TV's greatest riddles (whether or not Tony got killed) and no matter which way they decide to take this little choose-your-own-adventure, it would be interesting. They could check in with Tony as the aging mobster who has to deal with constantly younger and more violent competition, or they could say he was killed in the finale and spend two hours watching people fight for his power and territory. It would be like an entire movie based on the last hour of "The Godfather". The good news is that, after seeing him in a recent movie, James Gandolfini wouldn't have to put on any weight to reprise the role.

Freaks & Geeks. Admittedly, this show was not a big hit and I haven't heard any fanboys demanding a movie version to see what is up with all the characters now. In fact, the hipsters who revere the show are pretty insufferable. However, the reason I want to see this show made into a movie is just because of the cast. Honestly, look at its' IMDB page some time - the number of people involved in this show who have gone on to have very solid movie careers is quite staggering. (It's like the opposite of the original "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.") I would just like to see what the budget would be. The only thing working in their favor is that Judd Apatow is on such a roll that he would likely get some studio to agree to whatever price he wanted. The only challenging part would be creating a role for his wife and kids, because apparently he is incapable of making a movie without them.

The Big Annoyance

As I mentioned during Saturday's post, the two weeks between the Conference Championships and the Super Bowl are some of the longest, more boring days on the sports calendar. At some point every story has been looked into, every player and coach has been interviewed and every second of game film has been broken down. After all that it's still only Tuesday... of the first week. I don't care how anticipated the game may be, waiting this long for anything is going to seem interminable. If you've read this blog before you also know what happens when I have that long to stare at something - I'm going to start nit-picking every aspect of it. Now, the NFL has gotten a little better at trying to keep smart asses like myself at bay by releasing a few of the Super Bowl ads the week before the game to distract us. However, that move has only prompted people who can't afford Super Bowl ads (which are about $3 million for 30 seconds) from trying to get in on the action by also releasing new commercials this week, hoping most people won't be able to tell them apart. The only problem is you can tell whose ads are official versus the ones that aren't by one simple difference - the official ones get to call the game "The Super Bowl" while the unofficial ones resort to calling it "The Big Game".

I can not tell you how annoying this tactic is to me. I know it seems silly, but that one simple world change makes a ton of difference in the world of copyright infringement. One means you are an official partner of the NFL, the other means you watch a lot of sports, but have no real connection to the game. (I have to say, I don't know why people are still paying all that money to be official partners of anything, because it is not like it makes a difference to most consumers. I want the best deal and whether the product is connect to a league makes literally no difference to me. Especially when the product has nothing to do with the sport. Seriously, has anyone ever been watching the Super Bowl and wondered which truck as the official vehicle of the NFL?) But the main reason it bothers me is that the NFL and their lawyers are forcing people to make a switch in the meekest way possible. Let's be honest, it is not like most people won't be able to see through that amazingly difficult code of calling the "Super Bowl" the "Big Game." It is like telling people they can't go through the one half of a double door while leaving the other side wide open. At some point you look like the idiot for enforcing such an easily-circumvented idea.

I completely understand why someone would want to protect a valuable name or brand against just anyone using it. If you aren't careful some random company could be slapping your logo on a product which is cheaply made or offensive in some way. A company's image is pretty much all they have and they have every right to go after someone who is harming their reputation. I know I would be thoroughly pissed if I found out someone was reprinting this stuff on another blog and claiming it as their own. However, that isn't what the NFL is doing here. They aren't mad because someone is making bootleg jerseys and selling them as the real thing, they are doing all this because one chip company wasn't willing to pay them as much as the next chip company. Their moral stance about wanting to only be associated with brands which meet their standards takes a pretty severe hit when you remember that on Sunday we are going to see ads from Coke and Pepsi, most likely back-to-back. If they really cared they would only deal with one of them, but instead they gladly take money from anyone willing to pay the asking price. That kind of talking out of both sides of their mouth makes it hard to feel bad for the NFL if someone uses their logo without expressed, written consent.

I'm pretty sure just about anyone could use the term Super Bowl... if they paid enough. As long as the check clears, at this point I feel like the NFL would be able to talk themselves into allowing their shield onto any product. That is why I don't understand this constant blocking of companies from using the term Super Bowl. Let them call the game by its official name and then charge them for it. The game gets a little more publicity (not that it needs it) and the NFL makes even more money (not that they need it). Plus, it would stop insulting our intelligence by insisting companies avoid a specific two-words phrase in favor of the most-easily broken code ever and assuming the average person is too stupid to tell the difference. Believe me, even non-football fans know what event you mean when you say "The Big Game." What is the NFL afraid of, that we would get sick of hearing about the Super Bowl if it was branded onto every possible package? I've got news for them - that pretty much already happens. If anything, that fatigue may be lessened if it leads to better deals on the products we actually use and the more products that applies to the better. Plenty of stores are having "Big Game" sales this week and they are not limited to NFL-licensed products. The NFL may not want to acknowledge non-sponsor products actually exist, but as someone with zero brand loyalty and whose team is not playing the game, whether the official Super Bowl logo is on the packaging makes no difference to me. Honestly, I think the league is acting like a bully for no reason on this issue and that could do more damage to their brand than being associated with the wrong car company ever would.

A Chill In The Air

Every summer people will remind you that, "it's not the heat, it's the humidity" which really makes a day insufferable. Well, a phrase which is just as repeated though probably less well-known is that in the winter, "it's not the cold, it's the wind." Meteorologists are always making a point to let you know about the wind chill and the people you pass on the street can't wait to tell you how cold it is going to be when the wind blows. This emphasis also makes you suddenly very aware that the wind is pretty much constantly blowing - it is just a matter of how fast. If you think about it, the weather predictors may as well just tell us the windchill temperature as if that is the real temperature, because that is the only one I am worried about. Anyway, it is because of this biting wind that the most prized real estate in New England for the last few days has been any spot that is blocked from the wind. I'm clearly not an aerodynamics expert, but when everyone is fighting to stand in the same 3 ft X 2 ft area next to a building it is pretty easy to tell that is the one spot which is sheltered from the breeze.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that as I was pulling into a train station the other night there were about a dozen people huddled in the kiosk where you buy tickets and add money to your Charlie Card. The structure is only about 6 ft wide and 20 ft long and with three card machines there isn't a ton of room to spare, so those people were packed in like sardines. As I drove passed looking for a parking spot I couldn't stop the thought which said, "Look at all those pansies. It's just a little wind!" from flashing through my head. I was also glad that a train was pulling up as I was parking so I didn't have to share the same train as they did. So, naturally after I had completed my transaction (and before you ask, damn right I gave the MBTA back some of those stupid Sacajawea coins) I stepped out of the booth, perfectly willing to wait for the next train in the cold. But after a few minutes of standing in constant wind (would it kill the MBTA to increase the frequency of trains on the Green Line?) and I could no longer feel the tips of my ears, a second thought kept flashing in my head, "Go inside - you're being an asshole."

I have no idea why it is such a guy thing that we can not admit when we are cold. I can only assume it is a testosterone issue, deeply embedded in our brains since the caveman days. Whatever the reason, it is a serious problem. I can not tell you the number of times I didn't bring a jacket with me when I was going out in college because I was trying to appear tough. As a group, guys in their 20s can not wait to ditch their jackets. Honestly, all it takes is one person to point out that they will not need one once they are inside for the entire group to go along with that logic, as if coats take up three times as much room once you bring them inside a bar. It's a pride thing - as soon as one guy announces his is leaving his jacket in the car every other guy in that circle would rather catch pneumonia than be caught with a coat on. (Ladies, before you get too high and mighty about this point, I would like it pointed out that while you are more willing to admit you are cold, you also did things in your 20s like wear skirts to clubs in the middle of January when you knew you were going to be waiting in line to get in. We're equally dumb on this one.) I'm just happy I was never friends with anyone who thought going shirtless to a sub-zero football game was the ultimate sign of machismo.

I guess it should be taken as a sign of maturity that I was willing to admit I am not actually part polar bear, slink into the card kiosk and close the door behind me. (It was a lot easier to swallow my pride because, thankfully, I hadn't made my original feelings about the people who were waiting in there public. That would have made it too awkward.) And I'm glad I did, because it was lovely in there - there were space heaters and everything. Considering I still had to walk a small distance exposed to the wind once my train reached its destination those few minutes I gave my ears to thaw may have saved them from frostbite. I'm just surprised it took me so long to get to this point, because I have always thought the aforementioned 'shirtless guy at the football game' was an idiot. Trust me on this one - no one is inspired by your effort and we are laughing at you, not with you. But the thing is that while the shirtless guy at the football game is the extreme example, it is the same premise as not wearing a jacket at any point in the winter. So, in the words of Val Kilmer from "Tombstone", "My hypocrisy goes only so far." It is just sad that it took single-digit windchills to make me have this revelation.

Every Last Dime

The other day I was forwarded an article which billed itself as a guide to when the best time of year was to buy every item imaginable. Basically, this site claims that everything goes on sale eventually and if you waited until the exact right month you could get some amazing deals. Some of them were pretty easy to guess for yourself, such as Christmas decorations in January and patio furniture in September. But, there were some slightly stranger ones to figure out, such as why March is the best time to buy a new TV (I think it has to do with anticipated tax returns jacking the prices up in April). The point is that certain things tend to happen at specific times of the year, whether we are aware of it or not. Along those lines, apparently January is the month for reunion tours to be announced, because just a couple of days after Destiny's Child announced they would be releasing new music, 80s boy band New Kids on the Block, 90s R&B group Boyz II Men and 90s boy Band 98 Degrees announced they would collaborating on a tour. (First of all, I'm not sure the New Kids can really claim to be 'New' anymore. Joey McIntyre, the 'young' one, is 40.) And all across the Twitterverse, women in their 30s began rejoicing and reserving babysitters.

While I admit that neither the New Kids or Boyz II Men were my band of choice, I will concede that both could claim to be the top acts in their musical genres for a time. This makes me wonder just what the hell 98 Degrees is doing on this tour. Honestly, they were the group you booked if the Backstreet Boys and N*Sync both cancelled on you. I can only assume they were included because when three acts are touring together you can make sure one is a step lower than the other two so that neither of the headlining act has to resort to being referred to as "the opener." Still, there is no other way to look at this whole thing other than it just being kind of sad. If reunion tours are what happen when everyone has burned through their royalty checks, collaboration tours are what happen when the royalties have run out, but the act isn't enough of a draw to fill a venue on their own. As near as I can tell a mega-concert where each act could headline their own tour has only happened once, when Metallica, Guns 'n Roses and Faith No More went out in the summer of '92. This will clearly not be the stadium tour that one was. But, no musical act can stay at the top of the charts forever, so as long as people are willing to pay to hear you perform I guess it beats doing something else.

Weekly Sporties

-As a diehard Celtics fan, you can probably understand why I am experiencing a fair amount of joy from the Los Angeles Lakers' struggles this season (after all, misery loves company). For those of you who do not follow the NBA, the Lakers spent this offseason acquiring All-Star players and built a starting line-up that many thought had eclipsed the Miami Heat in terms of star power. Several analysts predicted they would cruise to at least the Western Conference Finals. Instead they currently several games under .500 and if the playoffs started today they would be watching them from home. If you go back and read my posts at the time of all these signings I had my concerns about how all these egos would mesh together, but even I didn't see this coming. The main problem has been the lack of chemistry between Kobe Bryant and center Dwight Howard. Howard has always been more of a fun-loving guy than someone who will step on you to win, which was fine when he was in Orlando. However, that simply does not fly with guys who have mindsets like Bryant and the two have reportedly been at odds the entire season. It has gotten so bad that the Lakers are reportedly already shopping Howard, convinced he will not re-sign with the team this summer and they won't get anything in return for their investment in him. (Personally, despite any on-court issues, I see Howard staying in LA. He wants to be a big star more than a champion and the Lakers are the best chance for him to do both.) So far the team has been saying all the right things about needing to improve focus and getting back on track, but at this point their words haven't done anything to change the results. I guess this once again proves something we all should remember the next time a team spends the summer assembling a supposed juggernaut - you don't win Championships in August.

-For the last two season the University of Miami was dealing with a self-imposed bowl ban while they waited for the NCAA to finish an investigation into booster Nevin Shapiro, who reportedly wined and dined players and recruits for years with expensive gifts. Teams always self-impose bans like these (conveniently when the program isn't expected to contend anyway) in an effort to lessen the penalties when the NCAA finally reaches its verdict. The Miami program has always had a reputation for pushing the NCAA's limits and doing so with pride, so the feeling was the Hurricanes had to know they had done something seriously wrong this time, otherwise they would have fought the NCAA a lot harder than they did. Well, it turns out they shouldn't have been so quick to fall on the sword because the this week the NCAA had to suspend its investigation of misconduct by the University of Miami because they obtained some of their evidence illegally. Apparently, they hired Shapiro's bankruptcy lawyer in an effort to gain access to his financial records, which included his donations to the University. Once again, this just shows how the organization which claims to exist to fight to keep college athletics clean may be the most corrupt thing of all. (The fact that anyone, for even a second, thought that was a good idea proves just how messed up the NCAA is.) Honestly, at this point even if the NCAA does conclude Miami did something wrong, why should the Hurricanes listen? It's pretty clear that the NCAA was determined to find something to charge the school with and they didn't care if they broke rules to do so. It is the ultimate case of "do as we say, not as we do." People are always saying that the NCAA is the only thing keeping college sports from turning into the wild west. If this is their idea of law and order then I seriously think I would rather have the anarchy.

-The two weeks between the conference championships and the Super Bowl are some of the most insufferable in all of sports. Honestly, every storyline for the game has already been beaten into the ground by now and the teams haven't even gotten to New Orleans yet. In an effort to make the time go a little faster, a couple years ago the NFL moved the Pro Bowl from it's traditional place of the Sunday after the Super Bowl to the week before it. Unfortunately, all that move managed to do was shine a light on just how sloppy the level of play in that game really is. After weeks of playoff games which are usually some of the best contests of the year, the Pro Bowl is played at half speed by guys who are more worried about not getting hurt than making the tackle. The contrast in styles is staggering. As such the NFL has tried a few new tactics in the last couple of years to improve play, but none have worked and now the future of the game is in doubt. This weekend's edition could determine if the Pro Bowl continues as currently formatted and it all hinges on how much effort the players put out. This will be kind of a tricky answer, because you can't really measure effort. Peyton Manning is promising the players will be more up for this game, but that is easy to say when no one hits you (no one blitzes during the Pro Bowl). On the other hand Texans running back Arian Foster, who gets whacked every time he carries the ball no matter how intense guys are playing, won't make the same promise. Personally, I don't care if they never play this game again and I don't think the players do either. So many guys fake injuries to get out of the game that it hardly matters anymore. Players want the bonus checks and that is it. If they decided to never have the Pro Bowl again I think there would be an initial outcry, but in two years people would forget all about it, which should tell the NFL all they need to know about whether to keep the game alive or not.

-There seems to be some weird phenomenon that when players become finalists for the football Hall of Fame they use the opportunity to air long-held grievances. Last year it was Richard Dent saying Mike Ditka held the Bears back and was the reason a team with an historic defense only won one Super Bowl. This year it is Tim Brown saying that Raiders' coach Bill Callahan sabotaged the team during the Super Bowl game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers by scrapping their entire game plan two days before the game, opting to throw the ball more rather than run it. Brown contends Callahan did this because he hated the Raiders organization and only came to the team because of previous coach Jon Gruden, who at this point was now the Bucs head coach. Brown also contended that Callahan was more interested in letting his friend Gruden win than adding another trophy to the Raiders' legacy. Brown has been backed up by Jerry Rice, who is a good person to have in your corner on any matter concerning the NFL, but several Raiders have come out and said that while Callahan did change the game plan it was not to sabotage the team. I will say that I always thought Tampa Bay's Super Bowl victory was less impressive than most, due to Gruden's familiarity with the Raiders' personnel, but this accusations seem far-fetched. I simply can't see any coach, no matter how much he may hate his boss, sabotaging his chance to win the Super Bowl. Gruden rode that Super Bowl win right into the Monday Night Football booth and the chance to become this generation's John Madden. Callahan was a mediocre coach for Nebraska and hasn't come close to a head coaching job since. That is a lot to give up in the name of friendship. Either way, if Brown had this much of a problem with Callahan he probably should have brought it up, oh, I don't know, before the game and not 11 years later.

-Speaking of the Raiders, one of the worst draft picks in their history is attempting a comeback. JaMarcus Russell, the first overall pick in the 2007 draft, who was never able to live up to the hype of his big arm coming out of LSU, fought weight and motivation problems while in the league and hasn't thrown a pass in the NFL since 2009, is determined to give the game one more shot. He has even gone so far as to hire a team of life coaches, trainers and nutritionists to get him back into shape. He claims to weigh 308 lbs, down from the 320 he weighed in September. (12 pounds in 3 months? I hope he isn't paying this team too much, because they don't seem to be very good at their jobs.) While I admire his desire and the fact he is motivated to remove the stain of the 'bust' tag from his name, I do not see this working out for Russell. Besides the issues with weight (he played at 260, which means he has another 40 lbs to lose), there was the simple fact that he just wasn't very good. I know there is some part of every coach which makes them think they will be the one genius who can bring out talent where all others have failed, but I'm not sure Russell ever showed enough to be worth the effort. The simple fact of the matter is that there are plenty of quarterbacks on the street who could bring you just as much upside and won't have nearly as much baggage. Hell, even if you are looking for a redemption project you could sign Vince Young, because at least he got his team to the playoffs. I know we are in an era where big quarterbacks like Ben Roethlisberger and Cam Newton are the same size as linemen from the 60s, but those two have more mobility than Russell ever did. Also working against Russell is that fact that the team who usually gives second chances to reclamation projects is the Raiders and I don't think even they are dumb enough to try that experiment a second time.

-If there is one thing which is universal to sports, regardless of what professional level or activity we are talking about, it is that no one wants to hear professional athletes complain about money... ever. Golfer Phil Mickelson was the latest to be reminded about this after catching a lot of flack for his comments stating he may make 'significant changes' to his playing schedule due to the tax rates of California, which he said would take around 60% of his earnings. (By the way, if that number is accurate Phil needs to hire a new team of financial advisers, because his current team are idiots.) Mickelson was never clear on what those changes might be, so speculation ran from simply moving to a state with no income tax like Florida or Texas to severely reducing his schedule in a form of semi-retirement. I don't know if Phil was trying to rally some sort of fan support to his cause or thought the idea of less Mickelson in our lives was going to cause America to revolt, but mostly he was met with scorn and the sentiment that if he wanted to quit he shouldn't let the door hit him on the way out, a sentiment which grew louder once it was revealed that Mickelson made $48 million last year. (No athlete should ever try the "Well, I may just quit!" routine. Not only are people prepared to call their bluff, we won't miss a beat if they do actually go through with it. Golf, like any sport, is bigger than any one person.) Now, you can argue whether or not it is fair that Mickelson has to pay such high taxes, especially when he is essentially an independent contractor with no guarantees or union to protect him should he suffer an injury. But, this is one of those things where the messenger is drowning out the message. Now, Phil is media-savvy enough that he quickly backed away from the comments and being a fan favorite will allow him to side-step this with minimal ramifications. Which is a good move because previous fan-favorite Arnold Palmer made around $35 million last year and he hasn't been an active member of the tour for decades, so something tells me that unless Mickelson continues to say stupid things he won't have to worry about money any time soon.

-With the Daytona 500 still a few weeks away, there hasn't been much news from the racing world to get people talking. At least, that was the case until Friday, when lighting rod driver Danica Patrick revealed she is dating fellow NASCAR rookie Ricky Stenhouse, Jr. Other than a few jokes about wrecking him if he forgets their anniversary, the good news for Danica is that so far people are only wondering how this will affect things on the track, such as whether the two will work together more easily. Personally, I don't see how this is any different from the countless brothers or father/son teams who have raced at the same time throughout the sport's history. It isn't even uncommon for drivers from different race teams to form tight bonds. (For example, Earnhardt Jr and Tony Stewart have quite the bromance.) Still, Danica needs to be careful here, because she is starting to approach that danger zone of being more famous for what she does off the track than on it. Before this people didn't really know much about her personal life and it was probably for the best. They could complain that she got a lot of attention for a driver who had never won anything, but at least their beef was centered around her ability to do her job. Now that this window has been opened she needs to make sure she can control how much personal information people are allowed to have, otherwise they are going to start focusing on that and her career will be more of a publicity stunt than anything else. It's a fine line for an athlete between the amount of attention they get and the level of talent they have proven they have (ask a guy like Kris Humphries how much fun that kind of publicity is). Still, they say winning cures everything, so the sooner Danica gets that first win the sooner people won't care who she is going home with.

Fire In The Hole

A few years ago I wrote a blog post about a new show on the Discovery Channel called, "The Colony". The basic premise of the show was that a group of strangers came together after the apocalypse and tried to rebuild a small sliver of modern society. Unfortunately for the people working on that program, I remember my blog post a hell of a lot better than anything which happened on the actual show. You see, it strained reality from the very start when the colonists were almost exclusively doctors, engineers and construction workers. There wasn't a superfluous job in the mix, which bothered me because if they wanted to conduct this as a real experiment they should have picked more average citizens. Anyway, the "convenient" nature of the show only got worse from there as they just so happened to find a warehouse that had all the things they would need to fill their space with creature comforts. (As you can tell, I originally wrote this back in the days when we expected channels like Discovery to be above the stunts regular reality shows pulled. Reading it now my naivety is almost quaint.) The main thing I took away from watching this show is that every producer of a post-apocalyptic show must also be a fan of "Mad Max", as every series contains bands of marauders driving old school buses. I only made it about three episodes before the entire thing annoyed me too much and I never did find out if the colonist made it out.

[Sidebar: I'm willing to admit that most people probably wouldn't have gotten so hung up on the lack of career diversity on the show, which begs the question of why wasn't it a bigger hit? I feel like the real problem with this show was that it was simply ahead of its time. It came around before the whole "Zombie Apocalypse" fad which spawned shows like "Doomsday Preppers." If you think about it those are the people who need to work on survival skills, because collecting a bunch of canned goods and then burying a tube with beds, running water and a flatscreen TV underground isn't exactly a 'skill' either. It just means you have a lot of money and no hobbies to spend it on. It would be like complimenting a person in an RV on their camping skills. Also, I don't think it is a coincidence that the people on these shows are exactly the kind of people you would hate to be trapped in a confined space with. They may have 70 years worth of food, but I'm pretty sure their families are going to take them out within a month. It is shows like that which have stopped me from learning more about this kind of thing, as they make me slightly worried about going too far the other way and suddenly finding myself digging a hole in my backyard.]

The only good thing to come out of this show is the cold slap of reality I got back in 2009 when I realized I am pretty much useless in disaster situations. The world may love a clown, but they aren't much good when you're trying to figure out a way to make water clean enough for drinking. Also, I really doubt editors are going to be in high demand once the country loses all power, as there will be no way to transmit messages. My only comfort is that my chosen profession is hardly alone in having a less than desirable skillset when it comes to post-disaster life. Rather than film a show about doctors and engineers, let's see how well basic society rebounds when left in the hands of an accountant, a car salesman and the people who invented Instagram. We'd never make it passed the second week, but at least when the people who eventually find our bodies figure out a way to recharge our phones (because they will be so far ahead of us they will have gotten that far down the to-do list by this point) they will find plenty of ironic photos and snarky comments to amuse them.

Anyway, the reason this is on my mind is the same one which paints this most recent cold spell around the northeast as a bit of a blessing in disguise - it reminded me I do have one survival skill that might come in handy, which is I'm really good at starting fires. Admittedly, that doesn't sound positive. In fact, it sounds like something a pyromaniac might say. However, it is not that I enjoy starting fires at random, just that if you need to get one going I can build and maintain them with ease. It is pretty much the only skill I remember from Cub Scouts. Yesterday my house was freezing before I got a large fire going with one match that lasted the rest of the afternoon and took all the chill out of the house. I understand this skill won't win me any "Survivalist of the Year" awards (which I assume is a real thing), but it is better than nothing. Humanity wouldn't be where we are today if someone didn't figure out fire at some point. Also, keeping this skill sharp seems like enough knowledge to have without going anywhere near the tipping point, which would cause me to hoard canned goods and dig a fallout shelter in my basement. Which is a good thing, because even with my limited survival skills I know a fire in a confined space is a bad idea.

Giving Them Lip

As you probably know, I have watched a lot of sports in my time. And for as long as I have been watching sports and hearing people calling the games, one thing which I have never understood is the announcers who feel the need to apologize when one of the ambient microphones networks use to enhance things like crowd noise accidentally picks up someone swearing during a game. First of all, as someone who has never been very offended by language, I simply fail to see the big deal. They are just words and their ability to offend is only as powerful as the person listening gives them. At this point in my life my shock value is pretty high, so the random f-bomb doesn't even cause me to bat an eyelash and I'm pretty sure everyone watching the game was swearing at one player or another a couple minutes ago. Also, these mics exist to try and people closer to the game and - I hate to be the one to have to tell you this - people swear while playing sports. Like, a lot. If the swearing wasn't part of the broadcast it would be nearly as authentic. Honestly, it is just the cost of doing business.

The main reason I actually find the apology more annoying than the swearing itself is that the announcer is apologizing for something they didn't do and for someone who didn't know they were miked up in the first place. I get thoroughly annoyed when people apologize for another person's actions. If an announcer lets a swear slip during a game than they probably should say they are sorry because it just sounds unprofessional. But no one is holding announcers accountable for everything that goes out over the air - they are no more responsible for what a player on a sideline says than you or I are for what a random stranger says on the train and I certainly won't say I'm sorry to the people around me when someone outside of my group swears into their phone, as if I am the spokesman for the train. That is the action of a crazy person. And if you asked a player about getting caught on camera swearing they would (rightfully) point out that these networks are essentially eavesdropping and as such they shouldn't be expected to sensor what are normally private conversations.

With that in mind you can imagine my latest pet peeve, which is when networks such as ESPN feel the need to go back and show a slow-motion replay of an athlete swearing, but then blur the person's mouth. This feels really stupid on a lot of levels, the first of which is all ESPN is doing is creating more work for themselves because they don't have to show us that clip to prove the player was mad about something. They could show us the moments before or after the swear and I'm pretty sure we would still be able to correctly read their body language. Plus, if you actively try and read someone's lips when you have a pretty good idea that they are not wishing their opponent a Happy New Year then you are doing so at your own peril. (You want to talk about the actions of a crazy person.) I've certainly never heard of a rational person who complained about this kind of thing before. Thus, I can only assume the network does this to try and make itself look better - some kind of moral stance against swearing which no one asked them to take. It is also unnecessary because if this clip which has been floating around the internet for a couple weeks proves anything, it is that lip-reading isn't as easy as they may think it is.

Spark Of Science

If you have been outside in Massachusetts lately you know that the temperature has taken a dramatic dip in the last couple of days. (I am slightly comforted by the fact that most of the country is experiencing some kind of freeze at the moment so we are all in this together... but only slightly. At least we haven't been getting the snow other places have.) Temps have been staying in the teens and low-20s during the day before dropping into the single digits during the evening. It is the kind of cold which makes you question just how badly you need to go outside and if you simply can't help but venture out you make sure to think long and hard about exactly where you need to go and then map out the most efficient route to minimize the time spent exposed to the elements. (Seriously, we should all be this focused all the time - we'd get a lot more done.) The thing is that I'm not complaining because I know it is part of the drill and, having lived in Massachusetts all my life, at this point I have a large collection of winter clothes to pick through. Also, I am aware that in a couple months I'll be dying of heat and begging for cold again. Clearly, I know how this works. But, I will tell you what I could do without - the constant static electricity shocks.

I'm sure I am not the only person who has had this happen to them, but for the last couple of days every time I put on my coat I would hear the crackle of energy in the air and had to think about how to open the door without touching the knob and getting shocked. The shocks are never painful, just annoying. I'm sure part of it is by hearing the electricity and knowing my hair is standing up in every direction I am aware the shock is coming and that anticipation makes it worse. I mean, it is not like one of these shocks has ever erased my cellphone memory, so there can't be too much power in them. Still, worse than the shocks you can sense are coming are the ones which happen when you didn't know they were even possible. This afternoon I went to pick up a remote, which I'm pretty sure is 98% plastic. Unfortunately, my hand was close enough to the one screw which holds the entire thing together that the electricity was able to jump and complete the circuit, audible pop and all, causing me to drop the remote like it was on fire. (Seriously, I burned my hand the other day and my reaction time was slower.) But, that was just the most dramatic of what turned out to be a day full of mini-shocks every time I touched metal.

I used to think the idea of getting shocked more during the cold winter months was one of those times where my mind was playing tricks on me - I was building up just as much static electricity during the summer months, my brain had just forgotten about the frequency of getting shocked in the last couple of months and made it feel like it was happening more lately. However, after one too many mini-shocks this afternoon I decided to do a little bit of research and discovered it wasn't all in my head. **Warning - science ahead... even worse, it's internet science, so you know it must be true.** As you probably know, their are small electrical currents running through your body constantly. During the summer months the air is more humid and the moisture in the air allows the electricity to be passed off with ease. But, in the cold, dry air of winter the electricity has nowhere to go, so it sticks around your body, eventually building up to a large enough charge that it sparks off when you get close to metal. So according to this website, you really do get more static electricity shocks during the winter than in the summer months. Content with that answer, I went about the rest of my day.

The only thing I would have liked more was if the site had suggested ways I could combat the build-up of static electricity during these cold months, because the idea of staying lathered up from now to May in an effort to make it easier for the energy to pass on through isn't very appealing. Plus, I watch a lot of "SurvivorMan" and know that sweat leads to hypothermia. That's a pretty terrible trade-off. (Of course, it should be noted that I'm taking the information at face value from a website and if the last week of people coming forward to tell their own Manti T'eo-inspired tales of getting duped by people on the internet should have taught me anything it is that pretty much no one tells the truth on the internet. For all I know that site is just one kid who wants someone to fail a science project for his own amusement and is really good at search engine optimization.) The only good news is that despite this particular slap of cold weather, we've had a string of really mild winters and should be back in the mild temperatures before too long. Which is a good thing, because you really forget how much metal there is around you until you are making an effort not to touch it and failing miserably. You could even say the amount is... shocking.

Lip Service

Yesterday President Obama was sworn in for his second term in office. You would think that since I am usually such a fan of both pomp and circumstance that I would have been glued to my TV, but I must admit that while I checked on the ceremony here and there and had it on in the background during the day, I never gave the inauguration my undivided attention. However, unlike the people who refused to watch on some kind of moral stance about the government spending money on a party when the economy is still so tough (I would respect this stance more if I ever heard the people whose party won the election saying it. Coming from Republicans yesterday it just sounded like sour grapes.), the reason I didn't watch it was because I know sequels never live up to the original. Plus, it combined three of my least-favorite things: beat poets, politics when there isn't an election going on and newsreaders trying desperately to fill time by telling us who we are looking at and reading us the graphics which are on the screen. It's that third one which really made me stay away. I understand that budgeting 6 hours of coverage for an event which will only have an hour of actual action can make for some tough moments for the on-camera talent, but I contend the easier solution would just be to not have as much coverage rather than forcing these people to think on their feet.

It is that level of desperation to have any new thing to talk about which resulted in the mini-controversy that everyone going overboard this afternoon - Beyonce Knowles' rendition of the National Anthem which everyone was blown away by... right up to the moment it was revealed that she had been lip-syncing. In some circles this is being treated as though it is treason of the highest order. (Personally, after finding out Whitney Houston lip-synced her mind-blowing version of the Anthem at the Super Bowl, nothing surprises me anymore. That moment ruined my ability to trust live performances for the rest of time.) Some people are upset because they felt it was disrespectful to the gravity of the moment and the honor of being asked to perform should have trumped her personal need to sound good. I think others are mad because they couldn't tell she wasn't singing live and this shows how easily they are tricked. As for the rest? After a week of being bombarded with Lance Armstrong's weak apology and Manti T'eo's fake girlfriend, it may just be they are sick of being lied to. Whichever side they fell on, some people were so mad about it you would think their inauguration was the one being sullied.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of lip-syncing. I happen to think the excuse that certain performers have to use pre-recorded music due to all the dancing and other stage antics they do is crap because what they are really trying to do is cover up how awful their music actually is. No one who is confident in their song catalog has ever worried about dance steps. Give me a stage, a singer and a guitar over pyrotechnics any day of the week. But even with that bias I can concede why no rational person would have a problem with the fact that Beyonce may have felt the need to lip-sync - it was cold out, she may have been nervous (all you ever hear from musicians is how hard a song the Anthem is to sing), worried about the lyrics (ask Christina Aguilera how much fun it is to mess them up in front of an audience of tens of millions) and I'm going to guess the front steps of the Capitol Building aren't exactly known for their acoustics. (Still, it should be pointed out that Kelly Clarkson didn't appear to have any issue.) Also, it is not like we have never heard Beyonce sing acoustically before, so whether or not she has the pipes to pull if off is not in question. She probably didn't need to do it, but I can see why she would rather be safe than sorry.

I think the main problem is that ever since Milli Vanilli, lip-syncing is seen as a dirty word. It adds an air of deception to the proceedings, even if the performer has a sterling resume. It's a little like a baseball pitcher who doctors a ball. Certain guys do it on occasion and while people don't like it, they accept it as part of the game. It is when those pitchers start to do it excessively and to the point where you don't know if they would still be playing if they were forced to stick to the same rules as everyone else that the opposing manager comes out and asks the umpire to take a look at the game ball. I just found the entire 'controversy' ironic because with all the forced banter and terrible cutaways the inauguration coverage reminded me a lot of watching a parade on TV and every performance you see on those telecasts is lip-synced. Funny how no one has a problem with it on those days. I guess the moral of the story is the following: if you are going to artificially enhance your performance, do it on a day when the news networks don't have hours of coverage to fill, because eventually they are going to examine every last detail. No one cares what you do if it's a busy news day.

Waste Not, Want Not

There are two habits in my life which I know make me stand out among people my own age - I still prefer to pay for things with actual money and I like to read real books. It feels like most people in my age bracket are perfectly content to use their debit card, no matter how small the transaction and want to use their iPad/Kindle/Nook to get all their entertainment. Not me, though. I've covered the cash thing on more than a few occasions, so we're just going to talk about books this time around. I understand every argument there is to be made for an eReader - they are small, light, you can adjust the size of the print to make reading easier and even the cheapest version has enough memory to carry every book that has or will ever be written. Yet, I don't care. To me there is just something about being able to turn actual pages and use actual bookmarks to remember what part of the story I was in. Besides, I get too easily distracted. If I can click out after a few pages to play "Angry Birds" I'm likely to do that, so if I ever want to finish a book I need to stick with the traditional format. Everyone has their own piece of technology they refuse to embrace and this one happens to be mine.

However, I can at least concede that there is still an insane mark-up on books, especially the hardcover editions. I don't care how great a read a book may be, it can be difficult to justify spending $25 on something you will only look at once in your life before lending it to a friend who won't return it for years on end. I won't spend that kind of money on a DVD even though I'll watch certain movies dozens of times throughout the course of my life. That is why I think the sales crunch you always hear book companies complaining about is all of their own doing. It is true that several chain stores have closed in the last few years due to the rise of eReaders, but I would find it easier to believe companies were desperate to sell books if they lowered the prices on them. However, the exact opposite is happening - books are more expensive than ever. Even the discount rack books (which are typically a couple years old) will still cost you more than the newest eReader versions. I'm no economics major and only understand the very basics of supply and demand, but continuing to raise prices of an item while not cutting production numbers do not sound like the moves of a company sitting on warehouses full of product.

The other reason I know book stores can't be in too rough of shape is that they have done nothing to curb their wasteful ways. The first place they could look to trim some costs could be at the registers. I know register tape isn't exactly going to break the bank, but if a company was really looking to cut down on some spending that would be a good place to start and instead receipts are only getting longer. For example the other day I bought two books and the receipt I got in exchange was as long as my arm. The lines going over the transaction were only a few lines, so what made the receipt so lengthy was the writing at the bottom which requested that I go online and fill out a survey to help improve their customer service and if I did that I would have my email address sold and my inbox flooded with spam mail. (They phrased it as "Entered to win a gift certificate" but I know the truth.) While I appreciate the offer, I don't think it is the best use of paper, because pretty much every store does this now and I don't think I have ever followed through and filled out a survey. You can't cry poverty and then turn around print out these volume-sized receipts which seem very wasteful, as it sends a very mixed message.

If that wasn't bad enough, I then got an extra piece of paper in addition to my lengthy sales slip which gave me a list of book recommendations based on what I has just purchased. Like most people I just have the cashier put the receipt in the bag, so I didn't even see the recommendations until I got home, which doesn't help. They could be the best book ideas in history but what are the odds I'm going to hold on to that piece of paper until the next time I go shopping? (I like the thought behind it, but the execution needs work.) The point is, I have worked at more than a few businesses which were nearing the end, so I know the subtle perks (for both customers and employees) are usually the first to go. The fact these stores are still printing out recipes which have more books than the children's book they just sold you for $28 should tell you all you need to know about how much the eBook is really killing their paper counterparts. Just remember that the next time someone starts talking to you about how the book industry is going the way of the dodo bird. To paraphrase a famous literary quote, their demise has been greatly exaggerated.

Deep Space da Vinci

On Friday, NASA announced that they had successfully beamed an image of the famed Mona Lisa to a satellite orbiting the moon. This was a major break-through because traditionally they have used radio waves to communicate with objects in outer space and those don't get there quite as fast. Being able to use lasers going forward could exponentially increase the amount of data scientists can collect, not to mention being able to send and receive information from greater distances. Also, laser transmitters require less power than their radio counterparts, so they can transmit information for longer periods of time. Scientist used the Mona Lisa because they needed an image to see just how complex a message they could send before it was garbled by the trip through the cosmos. After running it through a program designed to correct any errors, the familiar half-smirk was there for everyone to see. (I have to say, I appreciate the irony of using the latest technology just to send an old picture.) I guess my only question is why they felt it had to be the Mona Lisa? I get why it couldn't be a Jackson Pollock painting, but of all the images in the world, why did they go with that one?

I'm going to confess something right now: I don't get the worldwide fascination with that painting. I will grant you that it is better than anything I could ever draw, because I can't draw a straight line with a ruler. However, if we're trying to decide whether or not something is beautiful, that feels like a particularly low bar. Also, I'm not saying it is bad, just that it is no better than hundreds of other paintings throughout history. I simply feel like it the only reason it is so famous is because it is old enough that by now everyone has been told it is famous and have just accepted that as the truth. Normally I would hold off on judging something like this until I had seen it for myself, but I don't have any problem with it in this case since I've heard from several sources that seeing it in the Louvre is actually underwhelming because it is so much smaller than you expect. I'm just worried because who knows who may be intercepting these transmissions? If we are trying to impress other beings, is a 500 year-old painting the first impression we want to make? They are going to think this is the best we can do and fly right on by. It would be a shame if we missed out on first contact because no one working on the project had ever taken a single art history class.

Weekly Sporties

-I know that it feels like the only sports news this week involved Manti T'eo or Lance Armstrong, but I promised other things did actually happen. For example, early in the week we got the first couple of excerpts from Terry Francona's new book. Now, so far we don't know if it delves into his exit from Boston in 2011 and the subsequent character assassination by ownership but a few interesting tidbits have come out. One such item is that Francona contends Red Sox ownership is more concerned with the image of the team than the actual baseball product. According to Terry, once the team won their second World Series the Sox owners only cared about local TV ratings and whether or not the players were 'interesting' enough. This has been a common complaint in Boston over the last two years - fans wonder if the team was put together for style over substance and that is why they have under-performed. To me this is a bit of revisionist history. No one seemed to be complaining when the team went out and signed all those big names. It was only after they collapsed at the end of the 2011 season that people started to wonder if the players weren't the right fit for one another. Still, it does raise the oldest and worst kind of fear if you are a sports fan: is the owner of your team in it to win championships or make money? So far you would have to admit that Sox ownership has done a pretty good job of doing both. They won more Championships than the previous 80+ years worth of owners, so if they wanted to make some money on top of that shouldn't Sox fans just be happy they won a championship before they started to be all about the money? I understand not wanting them to rest too much on their laurels, because otherwise that is going to lead to another extended championship drought, but I feel like these owners have earned a little more leeway than they are getting. While I have no doubt Francona is telling the truth, I am still going to give Sox ownership the benefit of the doubt on this one... for now.

-Every now and again a professional sports league will announce a new rule and the only thing you can think is, "Wait, wasn't that already a rule?" I know that was going through my mind when I read that starting this season Major League Baseball will allow managers to bring interpreters to the mound to communicate with pitchers more easily. I know that baseball has not had the best history when it comes to integration, but considering how many players now come from overseas to play in the best baseball league in the world, I guess I just assumed this adopted along the way. After all, interpreters are allowed in the dugout and baseball usually treats that area as though it is more restricted than the FBI building. But what this rule really does is make me question just how important pitching coaches really are. If they needed interpreters this whole time, what exactly were they saying during all those mound visits? Was it just a lot of hand gestures and pointing? Here we assumed they were going over strategy and the reality may have been closer to the pitching coach saying things like, "Throw... more... strikes" and the pitcher responding with the two or three English phrases he knew. This also confirms my suspicions that pitchers are never actually listening to what anyone says, they just throw what they feel like. You know, I used to think bullpen coach was the easiest job in sports - all you do is pick up the phone and tell the correct guy to start warming up (ironically, bullpen coaches are also the subject of a new rule, as they will be allowed to carry cellphones instead of using landlines - given the cellphone reception in a lot of stadiums there is no way that ends well), but now I see that almost every job on a baseball coaching staff is pretty easy. If they didn't require watching so much baseball I may have thought about making a career change.

-About a week after turning down several offers from the NFL and vowing to stay in college, Oregon coach Chip Kelly changed his mind and decided to take the job as head coach of the Philadelphia Eagles. I'm not totally surprised Kelly made the jump, because I thought he would have done it the first time around. After all, there were many teams who felt spurned by the way Kelly seemed to drag out making a decision last year before ultimately going back to Oregon and there was a feeling around the league that if he didn't take a job this time he may not get asked again. Plus, you have to remember that just a few years ago this guy was the offensive coordinator at New Hampshire. To make it to as lofty a job as he had from where he started showed tremendous ambition and guys with that much ambition simply don't stop at the college level. To cap it off there are rumors the NCAA could be about to hit Oregon with sanctions after uncovering some rules violations. That may have been the thing which finally forced Kelly to pull a Pete Carroll and get out before the posse. The good news for Oregon is that they already have an in-house replacement and the smooth transition should lessen the number of recruits they lose. The question now is how will Kelly's run-and-gun style of play work in the NFL? Well, the Patriots have adopted some of it this season and it has worked very well, but it probably helps that they have Tom Brady, which the Eagles do not. They do have a lot of fast receivers and running backs, but need the right guy to get them the ball. And they play in a tough division with a lot of solid defenses. I know several college coaches have had immediate impacts lately, but count me among those who think Kelly's transition to the big leagues is not going to be a smooth one.

-Speaking of NFL hires, when Bruce Arians was named the newest head coach of the Arizona Cardinals on Friday, it meant that every open head coaching vacancy in the league had officially been filled. I guess that means it is time to figure out which team made the best hire. Here's a sentence you aren't going to see in print too often - I really like what the Cleveland Browns did. First, they brought in Rob Chudzinski as their new head coach, who grew up in the area and rooted for the Browns as a kid, so you know he wants to win very badly. Also, he was a position coach there a few years ago and should be familiar with some of the personnel. But the bigger get for them was hiring former San Diego Chargers head coach Norv Turner to be the offensive coordinator. Say what you want about Norv's coaching style (and I have), but there is no question he makes a much better offensive coordinator than head coach. Let him just worry about grooming Brandon Weeden (or whomever the team brings in as his eventual successor (Alex Smith, who had one of his best seasons under Norv?)) and concentrate on building up the defense. As for the worst hire? I'd have to say Jacksonville. I don't know much about Gus Bradley, except that he is a defensive-oriented coach. I simply have doubts that those kinds of coaches will succeed in today's offense-first NFL. They simply get too conservative when the games get close. I'm not saying you want a coach who goes for it on every 4th down, but you do want a guy who will try to get some field position with :30 seconds and 2 time-outs (looking at you, John Fox). If you aren't going to stop anyone (which Jacksonville won't) you'd better at least try to match points with them and you can't do that if you are taking all the air out of the ball. Usually there is something to be said for going against the crowd but when your business is as copy-cat and cliched as the NFL, sometimes it is better to remember that if you can't beat them, you should join them.

-Last week I told you how Kevin Garnett and Knicks forward Carmelo Anthony had gotten into a war of words during a game and that Anthony had become so enraged about what was said that he tried to get to get to the Celtic's team bus after the game (should make starting line-ups for the All-Star game kind of interesting). Perhaps in relation to this, a story came out the other day which claimed that James Dolan, who owns the Knicks, had two audio technicians with long-range microphones record every word said to and by Carmelo Anthony during last Friday's game against the Bulls. No one is quite sure of Dolan's intentions on this one. Either he is making the recording to send to the league to prove how much abuse Carmelo takes from other players, or he wants to see if Carmelo is bringing all this trouble down upon himself. (While a giant invasion of privacy, especially if Carmelo didn't know Dolan was going to do this, the NBA weighed in and said that as long as Dolan didn't record the other team's coaches there was no violation of rules.) For Carmelo's sake, I really hope Dolan acted alone in this one and was planning on using the recording to show Anthony how much he needs to reign himself in. As I mentioned last week some people around the league feel like Carmelo is too sensitive for his own good and need to toughen up if he is going to lead the Knicks to any kind of success. Well, having your owner make a tape to bring to the league office to show how much everyone has been picking on you is not exactly a great first step in that direction. Dolan has a reputation as kind of a weird guy, so passing the buck onto him shouldn't be hard to do. All I know is that if Carmelo ever plans to leave the Knicks he had better make damn sure those tapes are destroyed first. There is no telling what people say when they don't think anyone can hear them.

-I know if feels far too early for golf around here, but on the never-ending calendar of professional golf this is actually the third week of the season. And while many pros are playing in California this week, the real money is being made across the sea as the biggest names play in Abu Dhabi. That is where World #1 (Rory McIlroy) and #2 (Tiger Woods) started their weeks and for their sake let's hope the first tournament isn't a precursor for the rest of their years. After a laser-light show announcing his move to Nike on Monday, Rory played poorly in the first two rounds (even ditching his new putter after a day) and missed the cut by several strokes. For a while it looked like Tiger would sneak into the weekend by a shot, but late in his second round he was hit with a two-stroke penalty that landed him one shot over the line. Apparently, he had hit his ball into a clump of vines and assumed he could take a free drop, as per usual. What he forgot was that the entire course was built on a desert and so pretty much every place that isn't green is considered one giant sand trap. A spectator walking with Woods' group noticed a rule violation and alerted an official, who gave Tiger the bad news. As you know, I'm pretty much against the people who call in rules violations, because I feel it is unfair to penalize a player just because he is on TV more. There are dozens of rules people may be a little hazy on and break by accident and if the network never shows them they complete their round none the wiser. It is a little better when it is done by someone on the course, but it still feels like this kind of thing only happens to popular players for a reason. At some point, the governing bodies of golf are going to have to figure out whether or not they will keep taking these amateur rules officials' calls. Something tells me the people running the tournament this week, who just lost their two biggest attractions, would be in favor of people keeping their rules violations to themselves.

-However, the more interesting Tiger Woods news, as it so often has for the last couple of years, is coming from what Woods is doing off the course. It appears that Tiger has never quite gotten over his ex-wife, Elin and recently re-proposed when the family reunited to celebrate Christmas together. Elin, who received over $100 million in a divorce settlement from Woods, is reportedly leaning towards accepting his proposal... with a few stipulations. First of all, she wants a much more favorable prenuptial agreement this time around (funny, I thought $100 million was pretty damn favorable) - one which would include a cheating clause that would award her $350 million if Tiger strays again. Allegedly Woods is ready to sign the papers against the advice of his lawyers. You ever see a total stranger about to make a huge mistake and you aren't sure if you should intervene or butt out since you don't know them and they didn't ask for your opinion? This is where I find myself. Normally I hate unsolicited advice, but I'm not sure I can keep quiet on this one. Look, I'm all for giving love a second chance, but it is not like Tiger made one or two tiny indiscretions. If you remember, he had enough mistresses to fill out a basketball roster. To me that doesn't sound like the kind of guy who will ever be able to settle down with just one woman. If I know that you have to assume the people closest to Tiger do as well. Look, I'm obviously in favor of people staying together or reconciling, especially when children are involved. However, at some point you need to take a good look in the mirror and be honest with yourself. This just feels like a bad idea for everyone involved, with the possible exception of Elin's financial planner. If Tiger is in such a hurry to give away half his fortune, there must be easier ways to do it.

Zero Dark Disagreement

Last night I went to see the new movie "Zero Dark Thirty", about the CIA's ten-year hunt for Osama Bin Laden. Directed by Oscar-winner Kathryn Bigelow, the movie has been generating a lot of Oscar buzz, so I was excited to see it. [Quick review: I thought it was really well done. There were a couple of parts where the movie felt like it was dragging (understandable since the movie is 2.5 hours), but the rest of the movie was so tense those boring parts were almost a relief. The last thirty minutes are especially suspenseful, even though you know how it ends. At one point I could hear the woman behind me mutter, "I'm so nervous!" to the person she was sitting with. If had been the first time she had talked all night I would have turned around and agreed with her. (It wasn't, so I went with shooting her a dirty look.) I tweeted this last night, but it was the first movie I have seen in a while that when the credits started rolling the entire audience audibly let out an exhale because we had all been holding our breath. I don't want to spoil too much of it, but let me just also say there were some creative casting choices and they worked really well. Don't know if it is the best picture of the year, but it deserves to be in the conversation.] However, the chance this movie could win an award are not what most people were talking about.

In the weeks leading up to its release, many people had begun to rail against the movie as being pro-torture. Critics say Bigelow had made the scenes where interrogators were trying to get information from detainees through methods like sleep deprivation and humiliation too central to the story and made it appear as though they were the key to the entire operation. This has raised objections from both sides of the aisle, with conservatives saying it makes America look bad and liberals saying it glorifies techniques America shouldn't have been doing in the first place. (So, ironically, these groups agree, the just don't agree on why.) There was even some talk that the pro-torture slant of this movie was the main reason Bigelow was not a finalist for Best Director this year, something a lot of people figured she was a shoo-in for just a couple weeks ago. For her part Bigelow recently wrote an op-ed piece in which she pointed out that portraying something in a film should not be misconstrued as endorsing it. With all the controversy swirling around, I was very interested to see whether or not all the fuss was warranted. I have to say that from my point of view I did not get a pro-torture vibe at all.

[**Spoiler Alert: I'm going to talk about something from the movie now, so feel free to skip ahead to the next paragraph if you don't want to know anything. I don't reveal too much, but if you plan on seeing the movie for yourself, better safe than sorry.** Here's the main reason I feel this way - in the movie the torture techniques didn't even work. According to the movie it led to one piece of information, but that information was worthless without several other facts on top of it which were uncovered through a variety of other methods of interrogation, such as bluffing, extended surveillance and good old-fashioned bribery. In other words, it was just one piece of a very large puzzle, which I can only assume is how it was in the real operation. If Bigelow was intending to make this movie portray torture was the best thing ever, wouldn't she have made it more effective? For example, one guy would have cracked in the first 10 minutes, instead of taking months to give interrogators anything to work with. Also, the characters administering the torture also appeared to be conflicted over whether or not what they were doing was right. I'm just saying that if you are for something you don't usually raise a moral dilemma. This movie clearly acknowledge that detainees were tortured and that occasionally it worked, but I never felt like it endorsed that behavior in the slightest.]

Still, the main thing I walked away from this movie was the reminder of just how easy it is for two people to watch the exact same thing and come away with totally different reviews. We all bring our own biases to everything we read, watch or hear. I'm no different - because of the controversy I probably paid more attention to the torture scenes than I normally would have, which may have built up my expectations of how graphic there were going to be. Thus, anything short of how bad I had imagined they were going to be would be a letdown. However, the person I saw the movie with didn't know about the debate surrounding the film and he also didn't come away thinking the movie endorsed torture. So, this could be one of those situations where the people doing the objecting are actually revealing more about themselves than what they really have a problem with. If you want to complain about something just say it and don't try to shoehorn it into a conversation about a movie. I know certain people feel the need to insert their own agenda no matter what everyone else is talking about, but the people whose noses are all out of whack over this movie need to remember it's a movie and if they want to watch something less controversial they can always go see "Les Mis". But considering some people will be on TV the next day complaining about an anti-rich message in the film that no one else saw, maybe they should just stay home and read.

Fishing For Answers

Like the rest of the world, I have spent the last day trying to wrap my head around this Manti T'eo/imaginary girlfriend story. For those of you who may have missed it, allow me to sum it up: T'eo, the star linebacker for the Fighting Irish, had spent most of the season drawing inspiration from adversity he was facing off the field. First, his grandmother died and then a couple hours later his girlfriend was said to also have passed away after fighting leukemia. T'eo went on to play very well against Michigan State that following weekend and many saw his will to play for his team despite his personal heartache as just the sort of thing college football needs more of. As the Irish continued to win the legend of Manti only grew, culminating in a second-place finish for the Heisman Trophy. Even though Notre Dame couldn't finish the season with a win over Alabama, it was still seen as a great season with Manti being the inspirational force. Then yesterday the website Deadspin (which I link to on the sidebar), published a report that the entire thing was a hoax. Not only had Manti's girlfriend never died of leukemia, she had never existed in the first place. There was no record of her anywhere. Now people are trying to figure out of Manti was the victim of some kind of elaborate scheme or had concocted the entire thing himself to help gain publicity.

Turns out the idea that this could just be someone on the internet who created an intricate online identity to mess with people for their own amusement is quite possible. (As an aside - good luck, parents.) There is even a term for it "Catfishing" and it happens so frequently MTV even has a show about it. [Sidebar: The fact that I had never heard of this show until yesterday saddened me. Not because it shows just how many messed up people are out there, but because it makes me feel old. I was thinking about it after this story came out and I realized I haven't watched MTV in like 8 years. Seriously, I couldn't even wager a guess as to where MTV is on my channel guide anymore. I'm so uncool.] Reportedly T'eo found out about the hoax in early December and told school officials about it a couple weeks later, which would explain his poor play in the National Championship Game (which is really the only thing from this story I actually care about). However, that particular narrative gets a little harder to believe given the number of times T'eo gave interviews in which he talked about this girlfriend and their deep love. Also, he references talking to her for hours on the phone as well as initially meeting her at a game. That sort of blows the 'innocent rube' theory into little pieces.

Anyway, Notre Dame officials are totally backing Manti, going so far as to hire their own private investigators to look into the matter and they are satisfied with the finding, saying the kid's only crime was being too trusting. I'm not really sure that helps him because it makes him look super naive, which is not what you want people to be talking about in the months leading up to the NFL Draft, as it could drop him a few dozen spots and cost him millions of dollars. (But, on the bright side, it lessens the chances he has to play for a terrible franchise.) Admittedly, I'd rather be naive than a sociopath, which is what a person who would make up and then killed an imaginary girlfriend just to try and win a Heisman would be. I'm going to guess that the answer to this particular riddle will be found (as it always is), somewhere in the middle. I'm thinking T'eo may have met this "girl" online, sent a lot of emails back and forth and then when he heard she died figured it would get him some attention and sympathy if he played up the "dead girlfriend" angle. He did it a little too much and now he is paying the price for it. It doesn't make him innocent in all of it but it doesn't make him a criminal mastermind, either.

Obviously, the internet has been having a lot of fun with T'eo for the last 24 hours and you can't turn in any direction without reading a new theory, such as T'eo is gay and created the fake girlfriend to throw people off the scent. (I can only assume the happiest person on the planet is Lance Armstrong, because no one has been talking about his upcoming tell-all doping interview with Oprah since the T'eo story broke.) The only good news for him is that for as much of a beating as he is taking at the moment, it will pass fairly quickly. He is hardly the first high-profile athlete to engage in some bizarre behavior and they all seem to come out the other side (and he didn't actually break any laws). For example, Dirk Nowitzki was 'engaged' to a woman with a history of scamming other professional athletes who faked a pregnancy and as soon as he won a championship no one was talking about that any more. Fortunately, for T'eo he is only about to begin his pro career, which means he has a decade to change public perception about him. I would just advise that going forward he keep his private life private and only talk about the things which happen on the field, where everyone can see that they are real.

A Very Special Post

Early this afternoon news broke that actor Conrad Bain, most famous for his work on the TV show "Diff'rent Strokes" had died. (To be honest, I would have lost if were playing the 'dead or alive' game and his name came up as I assumed he had already passed away.) That show had long been part of a Hollywood legend which contended the set was cursed due to the drug and alcohol problems that everyone else on the show suffered from, but Bain appeared to have died of natural causes. Anyway, as so often happens after an actor dies, people started discussing the impact of the show and the most famous episode. Well, when discussing "Diff'rent Strokes" only one episode ever comes up - the infamous 'Bike Shop.' For those of you who didn't watch the show, this episode was one of those 'very special episodes' which was supposed to teach you about life instead of entertaining you (there was even a PSA at the end) and featured a nice old man who worked in a bike shop and was friendly with Gary Coleman's character and his buddy Dudley... right up to the part where he tried to molest the boys. It is as uncomfortable a moment as has ever been captured on TV. Watching it 30 years later is still incredibly cringe-worthy. But, it was just one in a long line of 'very special episodes' the show did as it covered everything from racism to eating disorders.

The show was hardly alone, though - "very special episodes" were a staple of 80s TV. (There is a good chance every show might have been contractually obligated to work one in each season as a way to placate the FCC, like how radio stations have to play a certain number of PSAs a month.) I think what made these "very special episodes" work so well is that they came out of nowhere. You expect a serious drama to address a tough or controversial issue every now and again because that is what makes them dramas. However, it doesn't make them memorable. Has anyone ever been shocked by a topic covered on "Law and Order: SVU"? Of course not, because that is what you watch that show to see. The more surprising the messenger the more infamous the episode, so when the comedy show takes the dark turn it is the one which everyone remembers. Ask anyone in their early-30s which episode springs to mind first when you say the words "Saved By The Bell" and I can almost guarantee they will start reciting dialog from the one where Jesse gets addicted to caffeine pills. (I would like to think if the "Saved By The Bell" people knew it was going to be the most famous moment from their show they would have worked on some better dialog.) The thing is no one else seems to do episodes like this anymore and I can't figure out if that is a good or bad thing. I mean, the writing on TV appears to be much better these days, yet they don't do anything with it. Feels like a missed opportunity.

First off, I have no doubt an episode like the 'Bike Shop' would never, ever get made today. I don't care how well-written or important the lesson, there is no way a network would ever put that on their air in prime-time. But, I do wonder how come shows never take the random less-controversial-but-still-serious turn anymore. I admit that when I was a kid the "very special episodes" were always a bummer because they weren't funny but as an adult I can appreciate that a dash of serious in my funny every now and again is not only a good thing, it is pretty much mandatory. If nothing else it is at least more realistic, because the world is not all one way or another all the time. I can only assume the end of the very special episodes are because too many people complained that they have to deal with difficult situations all day long and having to have a difficult conversation with your children on a random Tuesday night because some guy who normally writes comedy decided he wanted to troll for an Emmy is not an ideal situations. (This is exactly why I never watch "How I Met Your Mother" with significant others. There is no need to have serious relationship conversations on a Monday night. I sincerely think that show has caused thousands of couples to fight in the 8 seasons it has been on the air.) With that in mind I can understand the people who say that if they're going to argue about a TV show they would prefer it over which character will make it through the next season of "Sons of Anarchy", not if video games cause violent tendencies.

Still, there is certainly no denying that certain episodes of TV shows get people talking, something which we are too quick to avoid in this country. No one wants to argue about the hard stuff, so we ignore it and focus on the lighter side. These shows have a powerful platform and I don't think it would be the worst thing in the world if every now and again they decided to use that platform to raise a serious issue in front of a large audience. I know we all take TV for granted because there are so many channels and other ways to be entertained, but it can still be a vehicle for change. And if you doubt the impact of television I would tell you to look no further than shows like "Will and Grace" or "Glee" which probably did more for gay rights than anyone in Washington. They put openly gay characters on TV and showed a lot of normally-conservative people that they aren't the devil. Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to inflate their importance and say TV shows are the only thing which advanced the discussion in this country, but they definitely softened the ground for a lot of people. I will concede that no one wants to be lectured to by the cast of "Modern Family", but if the show writers are careful it is possible to raise a social question without also forcing what you think the answer to that problem is on people. They used to do it all the time and since there are plenty of issues we should be talking about they should give it another try now. Just stay out of the bike shop, because seeing that once was more than enough.

Talk Ain't Cheap

When it comes to spam email there are two ways you can deal with it. The first and most common way is to simply scan it to make sure nothing important accidentally found its way into your junk folder and then empty that folder. It takes about a second and cleans it all out, but doesn't do anything to address the real problem, which means you will face the same issue the next time you check your email. That is why I take the far more aggressive approach, which is to mark the emails as a phishing scam, block the sender and if the spam is coming from a personalized email address, go so far as to block the entire network so I won't be getting any more emails from anyone with an @Lawyers.com address. Given the amount of spam I still get you can argue whether or not my methods are working, but I like to think it beats doing nothing. If I knew how to do more I would, which is why I was very interested in the article I saw the other day in which a person tried to email Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and was told that since they were not friends with Zuckerberg their email was not going to get to Mark... unless they paid a fee. Turns out this reporter had stumbled onto the fact that Facebook is experimenting with putting in a price scale which would allow people to spend anywhere from $1 to $100 to bypass the spam folder and have their email placed in a person's inbox, even if that person is not 'Friends' with the recipient.

Facebook says they are doing this to cut down on spam. I can only assume they are thinking people are a lot less likely to send out crap when it is costing them money to do so. On the surface it makes a lot of sense - if your trying to cheat people out of their money than you probably aren't the kind of person who will be willing to spend any of your own. So, yes, this idea would likely eliminate your everyday, garden-variety spam about the African Prince who has an exciting opportunity he wants to share with you. However, I worry this system will actually create something much worse - super-targeted spam. In other words, emails which are just as worthless to you only now, just because the person has a couple extra dollars laying around, is powerless against any junk filter. This probably wouldn't apply to you or me, but I have to assume every celebrity currently on Facebook wouldn't be able to delete their profiles fast enough or risk getting creepy emails from deranged fans. But, successful non-celebrities would probably have it the worst. Honestly, if you were a young developer and had an idea for a killer game, is there really any price they could put up which would not be worth it to know your game was seen by the founder of Facebook? It is every web-marketer's dream to have this kind of direct access to an investor. If anything, Facebook is missing an opportunity here. They could charge even more if they guaranteed whomever got the email was actually going to read it.

I guess there is nothing wrong with a company looking to make more money, but the entire thing does feel rather shady. And considering Facebook's reputation for doing slightly questionable things with the personal data they have collected, I can't help but wonder if they are going to turn around and tell their users that (for a small fee) they will have the option of making sure no one outside of their friend list can email them, regardless of price. People are always willing to pay for something which can make them feel superior. (For example, the girl in your office who can look cute in the right light but still isn't nearly as attractive as she thinks she is will be the first person to sign herself up for this.) Also, this program seems like a more complicated solution than is necessary. Every other email service offers some kind of spam filter, so how hard can it be to ramp the parameters of an existing program up a few notches? Wouldn't it just be easier to work on a way to cut down on the number of people creating fake profiles and sending out spam? It doesn't appear that Twitter has any problems, because the number of followers I have fluctuates wildly as spam accounts are created and quickly deleted every day. If they can figure it out it seems as though it should be easy for the much larger social network.

The only good news for Facebook is that they could also play on people's egos to make sure they stick around. Currently, the site is saying they are just experimenting and there are no set prices as of yet. Once they do figure out a scale with the more desirable email addresses costing more, it would probably take a week before every user was listed with the price of their email next to their name and you just know the people at the top of that list will be humble bragging the crap out of their ranking. Introducing a game which raises the price of your email the more time you spend on the site would rapidly increase the amount of time people spend on the site (and the amount Facebook could charge advertisers). Of course, this does lead to one final question: will the person getting the email get a cut of the charge? After all, they are the person whose time is going to be wasted. Even if it is only a minute that is still an inconvenience, so giving them even 10% of the intake seems perfectly reasonable. (Then again - this is Facebook, so it is hard to imagine reasonable things happening.) Wouldn't it be nice to have a way to actually make money off all those imaginary friends of yours? The most ironic part of it all is the fact that most spam mails have a subject line about working from home and making money off Facebook.