Weekly Sporties

-Once New Orleans Saints head coach Sean Payton was suspended for the upcoming season, people began to wonder how the team was going to handle the coaching situation. Then early in the week the name Bill Parcells came up. Now, Parcells and Payton have a long history, as Payton worked under Bill when both were with the Cowboys. This makes a tremendous amount of sense. Parcells is 71 years old and probably has an itch to coach again, but doesn't want to jump back all the way in. By taking over the Saints in an interim basis he can scratch that itch and not have to worry about burning himself out for years to come. Plus, unlike most head coaches, he isn't going in to a situation where he will be expected to rebuild the franchise from the ground up. The Saints were a playoff team last year and have most of their key pieces coming back, minus the players who have yet to be suspended for the bounty scandal, so Parcells will be walking in to a more stocked cabinet than ever before. But, as a bonus, no one is expecting much from the team this year because there was so much upheaval this offseason, so if Bill does any better than 8-8 he'll be seen as a savior. The only thing he has to worry about is the fact his Hall of Fame clock will be re-set, because you have to be retired for 5 years to be eligible. However, considering Bill was eligible this year and didn't make it I figure he has nothing to lose. I don't even care about the Saints and I want this to happen.

-Late in the week it was announced that the Los Angeles Dodgers were finally being sold to a group of investors, the most visible of whom was Magic Johnson. No one is sure how much of his own money Johnson put up, but he is not going to be involved in the day-to-day business of the team, just help with recruiting free agents. (Seeing how well that has worked out for the Nets with Jay-Z, considered me skeptical.) Anyway, everyone thought Magic's group had the best chance to get the team so that wasn't much a surprise, but the price tag was. The team was sold for nearly $2 billion. That number blows me away. First of all, even though they just signed a huge new TV deal in the lucrative Los Angeles market I have a hard time believing the team is worth that much. Secondly, I just can't believe that former owner Frank McCourt is going to come out of this smelling like roses. McCourt bought the Dodgers 8 years ago for $400 million and promptly ran them into the ground. He is reviled in Los Angeles and attendance at the stadium plummeted to historic lows. He did major damage to what should be one of the flagship franchises in baseball and is somehow, even after paying off all the debt he built up, is going to make over a billion dollars in profit. In sales they always say all you need is one sucker. Well, it appears McCourt found a whole group of them willing to pool their money.

-While we're talking about MLB, their season finally got underway the other morning, not that anyone noticed. The A's and Mariners played a two-game series in Japan to kick off the regular season Well, sort of. After playing the short series, the teams are back in the United States for more spring training games before starting the season for real next week, which just makes the whole situation that much stranger. Now, Major League Baseball is far from the only sports league which tries to elbow its way into foreign markets. Hockey also starts its season overseas and the NFL exports one game a year to London. But, just like with those other sports, I can't figure out why. Japan has a very good baseball league of their own, so it is not like they need or want our brand of baseball. If you want to send a few teams over early in the spring to play a couple of exhibition games that would be fine, but there is no need to take meaningful games away from the fans who actually live here and are your loyal customers. And it is not like anyone could actually watch the games, because they were on at 3 AM West Coast time. I understand it is important to have a global brand to increase revenues, but you shouldn't be doing it at the expense of the people who care about your team the other 98% of the time.

-Given new information which has come out regarding concussions in hockey, specifically the brain damage which is being done to NHL enforcers who get into fights all the time, Sports Illustrated recently conducted a poll of 202 NHL players asking whether or not the league should ban fighting in the game. 99.5% of the players said fighting should not be banned, with literally only one player in favor of it. The result is hardly surprising, considering the mentality most players have. It really doesn't matter the sport, when it comes to issues of safety, professional athletes pretty much have to be saved from themselves. That is why I would love to know who the one player in favor of banning fighting was. I'm sure the survey was conducted anonymously because it was also completely voluntary so we will probably never know, but you have to imagine whoever it was is currently very paranoid about all the other players finding out he is the only guy in favor of banning fighting. Just tells you all you need to know about hockey players when the one guy with some forward-thinking is worried about being outed as a pansy.

-As the Final Four gets ready to go, everyone is marveling at the talent on the University of Kentucky team. They have two great players who will most likely be among the top-five picks in the upcoming NBA draft with Anthony Davis probably being the first player taken. Because of this talent someone on radio this week wondered if the Wildcats could beat a bad NBA team, specifically the Washington Wizards. Gary Williams, who used to coach at Maryland, has said he thinks it could happen if the Wizards were playing their third game in three nights and the game was played on the Kentucky campus. Even then I don't see it happening. Yes, the Wizards are pretty bad and they would love to add Davis by winning the draft lottery. But with that said you have to remember a very simple thing: the Wildcats probably have 4 guys who will end up on NBA rosters. The Wizards have 13 guys who are already NBA players. Never forget, the last guy off the bench for the worst NBA team is still 1,000% better at basketball than you or I will ever be. People have been saying for a week they wouldn't be surprised to see Kentucky lose to Louisville and they have 1 marginal NBA guy, so color me skeptical they could take an actual NBA roster. The Wizards may be bad, but they would win that game by 25 points, easily.

-Anthony Davis will probably be another in the long line of basketball players who are only in college for one season. Joining him in the NBA draft is Austin Rivers, son of Celtics coach Doc Rivers. I have to say, I'm a little surprised to see Austin come out, because during all the Duke games I saw this year I did not see a guy ready to play at the next level and you would have thought his father would have advised him to stay at Duke. However, that is neither here nor there: what I wanted to comment on was Austin's conjecture in an interview this week that he would love to get drafted by the Celtics and have his dad coach him. This is a bad idea on every level. Seriously, I remember intramural teams in junior high where parents coached their kids and it rarely went well. You have no idea how many kids were begging to be on different teams by mid-season. Austin needs to find his own path and he's never going to do that in his father's shadow. Fortunately, Austin is expected to be long gone by the time the Celtics get around to picking in this April's draft, but even if he is there I really don't think Danny and the Celtics should take him. It will be the best for everyone involved.

-The Masters is coming up next week, which means we were about due for someone in the media to point out that Augusta National Golf Club still doesn't have any women members. And, right on cue at the end of the week came a story about how the CEO of IBM, one of the tournament's main sponsors, is always given automatic membership to the club and IBM's new CEO happens to be a woman. Now, there are very few things about which I would be considered conservative, but this issues happens to be one of them. There are plenty of women-only gym across the country and you don't see people up in arms about them every year, so the double-standard of insisting Augusta National must have women members drives me a little bit crazy. However, these are the precedents the club has set and to go back on them now would seem very hypocritical. But what makes Augusta National unique is that it probably is the only place in the world that has so much money they can get away with not giving a shit how hypocritical it looks. For example, when a woman's group wanted to organize a boycott of sponsors of the tournament, The Masters didn't skip a beat and just went ahead as scheduled, holding the tournament without any sponsors. Frankly, as a viewer it was kind of awesome because there were no commercials. So, yes, the club should probably join the 21st century and finally have women members. But, rest assured, telling them that they have to do it is the quickest way to make sure it never happens.

You've Already Won

The country is currently in the grips of lottery fever, as the Mega Millions jackpot is up to a record $640 million. The first four stories on this evening's national news were all about tonight's drawing - how the money gets distributed between the winner, the seller and the state, what various people on the street say they would do with it, the best way to ensure a victory and how long the waits were at various locations across the country. But I think the stories which are annoying me the most are the ones about people who are already rich buying tickets. All over the country celebrities have been snapped buying a tickets for their chance to win. Now, I get that even if you are already a millionaire the thought of getting a few hundred million dollars after taxes would be appealing. However, the idea of this money going to someone for whom it wouldn't actually change all that much about their day-to-day lives is downright annoying. Think about it, how would this money change the life of someone like one of the Jonas Brothers, who was seen buying a ticket? What, would it mean the mansion they bought last week was paid off this year instead of next? Look, you people already won at life - let someone else have a turn.

They say the odds of you winning tonight's drawing is roughly equivalent to getting a hold in one, being struck by lightning and then getting attacked by both a bear and a shark, all in one afternoon. So, the odds that some random celebrity will win are pretty low. But it is even the fact that they are playing which annoys me. I mean, how greedy can you be? For example, Washington Wizards forward Chris Singleton, who is currently in the first year of a 5-year deal which will pay him roughly $11 million, tweeted that he was going to buy $10,000 worth of lottery tickets, deeming it "an investment". Ok, I'm sure I don't have enough time to list all the ways this angers me, so I'll just hit the biggest ones. First off, considering Singleton was the 18th pick in the draft and is averaging a whopping 4.5 ppg on a team which will be lucky to win 20 games this year, maybe he shouldn't press his luck. Seriously, he's lucky he hasn't been arrested for stealing money. Secondly, if you really want to be richer, why not take that $10,000 and invest it? Even if you find the worst investment analyst in history he will turn you a larger profit than $0, which is what you will end up with when you don't win tonight's lottery.

I think it is the amount of money he is spending on tickets which flabbergasts me. If you have $10,000 to spend on lottery tickets, than you probably have too much money to begin with. Honestly, do you know how many people would be thrilled to win a $10,000 lottery drawing? That amount could help change some one else's life and Singleton is essentially wiping his butt with it. My guess is this lottery money would just be wasted on him. Of course, Singleton is not the only athlete who was seen buying tickets. The Dodgers' Matt Kemp, who just signed a contract for $160 million, took a picture holding a handful of lottery tickets. Really, dude? Kemp's contract will take him through age 34, at which point he will most likely sign another huge contract and earn well over $200 million playing baseball. That means $350 million wouldn't even be that big a deal for a guy like him, so why is he even bothering? He either wants to piss us off or he has no concept of how much people will hate him if he wins. Here is what I think the rule should be: if the amount of money being given away is seen as a staggering amount, but won't add any commas to your bank account total than you should not be allowed to buy a ticket. I feel like that is fair enough.

Before I get accused of hating on the rich or engaging in some kind of class warfare, just know that I'm not mad at these guys for being rich - I'm annoyed at them for being greedy. What ever happened to being happy with what you have? Celebrities already get paid a lot of money to not work very hard and should quit while they are ahead. I mean, it is not like they are digging ditches or curing cancer, so why not be thankful people want to give you a lot of money to do something which could probably be done by someone just as talented as you, but who simply never got the right break? Just by getting to where you are you've already won one kind of lottery. And on top of that a lot of the things celebrities buy end up being comped anyway, so what do they even need the money for? Besides, I feel as thought it is human nature to root for the underdogs in life. After all, this is what I do when I watch sports - if I don't have a horse in the race I root for the team which has been down on their luck recently. I mean, no one outside of the city where the team is located roots for dynasties, so why should I want someone who already has more money than they know what to do with to get even more money? Let someone else see how good the good life really is.

News Team, Assemble!

Yesterday Will Ferrell popped by the taping of "Conan" in character as Ron Burgundy to announce that a sequel to the 2004 smash "Anchorman" has finally been greenlit and the film will be coming out sometime next year. Now, on the surface this pleases me greatly, because "Anchorman" is solidly in the top-10 on my personal list of favorite films. However, I'm not as happy as I probably should be at this news, simply because I have been down this road often enough to know not to get my hopes up. I have been excited for sequels quite a few times only to be let down when I finally see it and discover it to be nothing more than the exact same movie from the last time around with the same recycled jokes but a few more celebrity cameos. Sometimes the first movie was just so well done it should just be left alone. Honestly, in the history of movie making you can count the number of great sequels on one hand, which is why doing them is always a little dangerous. Much like a musician who goes back on tour to support a new album, mixing in the new stuff with the greatest hits can be a very delicate balancing act. But unlike a musician where half the crowd is there just to hear the hits, no one want to go see a sequel and hear all the same old jokes.

The thing is, I think Will Ferrell knows this better than anyone. If you look at his IMDB page you will notice that Ferrell has never made a sequel out of any of his movies. I'm sure part of this comes from his days on "Saturday Night Live" where he was constantly changing up characters. I mean, it is one thing to play the same character a few times a month for five minutes at a time, but it is entirely another to play the same character for months and months on end. Once you get into a rhythm of not playing the same characters for long stretches of time it can be a hard habit to break. In fact, the closest Ferrell has come to repeating himself on the big screen is appearing in two "Austin Powers" films as the same guy. There must be something else to it, because I'm sure studio executives were desperate to do a second "Old School" movie, so you have to wonder if they either couldn't come up with a good script, couldn't agree on money or if the band simply didn't want to get back together because they thought there was nothing more to do with those characters.

I'm also slightly worried because one of the things which made the first "Anchorman" so great was that it came out of nowhere. Much like the first "Austin Powers" movie, it didn't cost much to make and didn't get much in the way of publicity, only taking off once it was already in the theaters through good word-of-mouth reviews. But, you know that isn't going to happen this time around. They are going to promote the hell out of this movie for months before it finally premieres. We're going to see Ron Burgundy at every turn and I think you guys know my policy regarding movie promotions. (Quick summary: the more places I see the stars of the film, the more convince I am the movie is going to suck.) All that is going to do is drive up the expectations, which also doesn't help. Of course, all of this kind of a moot point, because you know I'm still going to see the sequel the day it opens, even if it looks terrible. The good news for you is that I have a really good memory for movie quotes so if you think it could be awful I will be able to act the whole film out for you and you can judge for yourself.

Still, even as nervous as I am that a sequel has no chance to be as good as the original, I can be comforted by the knowledge that at least the script is in good hands, as it is being done by the same people who penned the original. There were a lot of ways they could have gone instead, like finding all new people and doing a straight-to-DVD prequel which would have been seen by 200 people, but thankfully that didn't happen. I'm not sure if the entire crew from the original is returning (though I'm pretty sure most of them would be happy to be back), but I think enough of them will be there to make it work. Not that I want to put down guys like Paul Rudd and Steve Carell, but as long as Ferrell is back that is the one who really counts. It would be like seeing the Bulls in the years after Jordan first retired - yes, they were still a good basketball team, but it just wasn't the same. As long as Will is there it should still have a few really funny parts. If it doesn't, I'm sure Ferrell will be willing to give me some money out of his wallet and that should help ease the pain.

Let's Duet

For the last couple of weeks I have repeatedly seen a commercial for a new album by Lionel Richie which was released on Monday. Actually, "new" is probably the wrong term for this situation. You see, while the album has never been released before, it doesn't actually consist of any new songs. Instead this record is made up of Richie singing all his old songs as duets with country stars. This is obviously not a new trick, as crooners as far back as Frank Sinatra have been pulling a similar stunt for a years now. For the time being we will ignore the question of whether or not Lionel Richie has strong enough credentials to try and pull of a move out of Frank Sinatra's playbook (short answer: nope). No, what kind of bothers me with this situation is how Richie is attempting to cram his way in to an entirely new music market with a minimal amount of effort put out. I'm sure that there will be plenty of country fans who will give the music a try, but for the rest of us it is kind of an insult. Country fans don't live in a vacuum - they will have heard these songs before and to assume they will buy the album just because you sang along with some big country stars is making a rather large presumption.

Of course, Lionel Richie is hardly the first person to try and resurrect a fading music career by adding a slide guitar to the background and calling it country music. Actually, this is a tried and true move for the music industry, which is why every one from Jessica Simpson to Jewel and Darius Rucker have tried to elbow their way back onto the radio by releasing a pop/country album which are always a lot more pop than anything else. It is also why most actors and actresses who are trying their hand at music for the first time often start out by putting out a country album - they assume a country album is a very simple formula: you find a few songs about  breaking up, another about drinking 'til dawn, add in a few lines about Jesus and you've got yourself a country album. (I'm not saying these people are right, but I'm also not saying they're wrong.) The point is to a lot of people, country music is just a music career set to the 'easy' setting. Plus, it probably doesn't help that most country artists don't write their own material, so if you have enough money banked away you can just pay someone else to write the music for you, making country the musical equivalent of a hack comedian who has other people write their jokes for them.

There is also a lot less pressure when you release a country album. You see, unless you are talking about the biggest artists, country albums don't usually sell as many units as the straight-up pop or rock stuff. By categorizing the music as country these one-famous artists can more easily explain lower sales figures. If they released a pop album that only sold 500,000 copies it would be seen as a flop. But if you move 500,000 country albums it is a moderate success. It is the same way cable TV programs get away with numbers which would get them cancelled on a major network and say it is for the art. I'll give you a recent example: "Mad Men", which normally averages about 2 million viewers, just debuted their 5th season with 3.5 million viewers. While that is great for AMC, on a major network where shows which get 3.5 million viewers every week are seen as a failure, it would get you cancelled. [Sidebar: what this means, Internet, is shut the hell up with the "Mad Men" frenzy. In a country of 300 million people, your show is watched by a little over 1% of the people. (Occupy "Mad Men"?) Stop making me feel like I'm the weird one for not watching this damn show already.]

In some respect I should give Lionel Richie credit, because at least he attempted for freshen up his personal catalog. Say what you want about a duets album, but at least he didn't pump out a boring "Greatest Hits" album, which is just all the songs you already own in one place. Sure, that may be more convenient, but you still don't feel like you have gotten your money's worth. On top of that, Richie did get some big names from country music to help him out (probably because they are the only country artists he has ever heard of, but still...). So, yes, he did more than the minimum, which is frankly more than I expect from musicians these days. Also, it should be noted that this was not his first foray into country music, as he wrote the song "Lady" for Kenny Rogers, which ended up being a huge hit. But, even with that slight amount of history in the genre, I still think the better idea would have been to get artists from a wide range of musical genres, because it doesn't give off the same appearance of trying to pull one over on the fans of just one kind of music. He had just better make sure the album doesn't suck, or else he will have no question who those people asking for a refund are looking for.

Lost Classics, Volume 2

Every now and again, the various movie channels near the top of my television's guide will stop showing the same five films on their regular three-hour rotations and throws in a random movie from back in the day. And I do mean random - we're not talking blockbuster or award-winners. I can only assume they were lumped in as a package deal for a cable channel getting the rights to a more famous movie. But, even though they might not have been box office gold, these movies still hold a special place in my memory banks. Occasionally, I feel like we should celebrate these obscure movies from my childhood, in what will be a who-knows-how-frequent feature: Rakauskas's Ramblings Lost Classics. Today's movie is 1989's "The Wizard." Believe me when I tell you they don't get any more random than this.

The film stars Fred Savage, smack in the middle of his time on "The Wonder Years" and well before his career was eclipsed by his younger brother and "Boy Meets World". He plays Corey, whose younger brother Jimmy is a catatonic video game wizard who only ever says the word "California". The two come from a broken home and the boys' mother and stepfather have just put Jimmy in an institution because, in the 80s, movie parents with difficult children were always looking for the easy way out. Corey breaks him out (after all what 14 year-old can't break someone out from a high-security hospital) and plans for the two boys to run away to California. After their escape they are chased by an evil child-hunter who is determined to return Jimmy to the institution as well their biological father and brother, played by Beau Bridges and Christian Slater, who probably would rather we forget they were in this movie. Along the way they meet a girl named Haley, who apparently has no parents of her own and is on her way to Reno. When she learns about Jimmy's video game prowess and tells the boys about a video game competition in California with a $50,000 prize.

As the trio hitches their way across the country (fantastic lesson for the children), they begin to scam people by wagering on video games with Jimmy as a ringer. (Another great lesson for the kids - use the mentally handicapped to your own advantage!) Seeing as how Jimmy is most likely autistic, this part feels as though the writers pretty much copy and pasted the script from "Rain Man", which came out just a year earlier. At some point during their shenanigans they come in contact with the typical 80s villain: blond-haired, rich and a douchebag, who absolutely would have been played by Billy Zabka if this movie had been made just 3 years earlier. The kid wows them with all his new toys, specifically the Nintendo "Power Glove" which was supposed to revolutionize how people played video games but is now much better known for popping into random movie whenever one of the characters needs to make a cheap robot costume. Anyway, he beats Jimmy at the game and takes their money, but eventually the kids make it to the tournament (again, no parents needed to sign up), Jimmy beats the preppy, evil kid while playing a brand new video game (Super Mario Bros #3 making its world-wide debut in graphics which were amazing at the time but now look incredibly simple) and everyone lives happily ever after.

"The Wizard" came out about the time Nintendo was starting to really move into America's consciousness. Now, movies based on video games had come out before, but what Nintendo decided to do with this film was scrap the idea of making what amounted to 90-minute commercials for one or two of their games and just made a 100-minute movie for their entire gaming system. I remember seeing the movie at the time and not thinking anything of it, but 32 year-old me couldn't help but notice the blatant product placement. From the kid making a big deal of revealing the Power Glove and the 10-15 video games which are given extended screen time to the huge show of debuting Super Mario Bros #3, the producers were not shy about the purpose of this movie. Honestly, with some age and wisdom I realize that this wasn't even a commercial in the form of a movie, it was straight-up propaganda. Think about it: if this movie to be believed, not only can playing video games well make you some money, it can spring you from a mental institution and reunite a broken family. According to this film there is no limit to the power of Nintendo.

Obviously, I didn't understand the concept of product placement at the time, because I was 9 when this movie came out. I just thought this was a movie about video games, which I enjoyed playing (and still do). What amuses me now is that in reading some old reviews from when the movie first came out, many professional critics blasted the movie as being too much of a commercial. What exactly were they expecting? I mean, it is one thing to go see what you think is going to be a normal a movie only to discover that there is a visible product in every single shot. However, this movie never promised to be anything like that - it was about video games, they are almost as much a star of the film as Fred Savage and we all knew that going in. This would be like screening a movie made by the creators of "Glee" and then being outraged when the characters on screen break in to song; at some point you just have to accept your fate. What is even more amazing to me is to see how far video games have come in such a short time. That is the real reason why "The Wizard", in all its awful-graphic glory, has become a lost classic.

Ants Marching

All last week temperatures around here were in the very un-Massachusetts-in-March-like range of the high 70s and low-80s. After we all got spoiled from a few days of wearing shorts and flaunting some very pale skin, the weekend temperatures were a snap back to reality as things got closer to the normal spring-like weather of days which are kind of warm, but not to the point it feels as though we skipped right into summer. Now, some people around here are saddened by this return to normalcy because they like the heat, but not me. First off, loyal readers know I am not a huge fan of extreme heat and am in no rush to get to the days of 90+ degrees. Secondly, I have ulterior motives - I'm kind of hoping this back and forth between unseasonable warm and cooler temperatures has the side effect of killing a lot of insects. Much like the flowers in the garden, the insects appear to have come out a little early due to being fooled by the heat and I'm hoping the shock back to the cold wipes many of them out for me. I'm just not in the mood to deal with them and right now it appears the fight is starting earlier than usual. My main opponent? Ants.

You should know that it is not so much the ants themselves which are bothering me as much as where they keep showing up - my bathroom. I haven't seen a single ant in the kitchen, were the actual food is and where you would think ants would want to go. Instead, for the last week or so every time I have gone in my bathroom for there will be three ants (always three) hanging out in the front of the toilet by the base. I have no idea what is so interesting to them about this particular spot of my bathroom, but as near as I can tell they start gathering there as soon as I leave. No matter how often I get rid of them they come back and gather in the same spot by the time I return. At first I thought it was because I had put down an ant trap and perhaps the ants were trying to get to water so they didn't die of thirst, which I have learned is how mouse poison works. That theory was shot down the second I realized the ants could crawl up the side if they really needed to. However that knowledge just makes their behavior even stranger. The only other thing I can think of is that these ants just like the pattern of tile in my bathroom.

Normally I am not one to go on a big ant-killing spree every spring because while I do not practice Hinduism and therefore do not believe that what you do in this life will have any impact on what you are reincarnated as in your next one, I do believe in hedging my bets just in case I backed the wrong religion. Also, I try not to be a jerk to smaller, weaker things just as a general rule of life. As such I would rather not to kill insects unless they have invaded my area, such as the spiders who insist on building their webs in or near my bedroom. So, what I had been doing the first couple of times was just swiping at the gathering with my foot, sending the ants flying under the heating grate and hoping they would get the message to move along. Even if they had simply stayed there until I left that could have been the end of the story. Sadly for them, it appears these particular ants have no concept of 'personal space'. They would come right back out to apparently check on my progress. Look, I don't ask for much during my time in the bathroom - I simply do not want to have my pants around my ankles and feel something crawling up my leg. I don't feel as though that is a particularly unreasonable request.

It appears the ants are coming up through a hole under the heating unit which has a pipe running through it, but still has just enough room for them to sneak in. While this still doesn't address why they are fascinated with the bathroom and especially that one particular spot, at least I know where they are getting in. I don't think I should fill the hole in because I'm pretty sure that pipe gets very hot in the winter and has a larger hole than necessary for a reason, but at least now I know where to set my ant traps. Also, I've decided to double up on my traps because while I haven't been crawled on very much, it still happened enough that I'm getting those heeby-jeeby moments where I think I can feel something crawling up my leg even though there is nothing there. Doesn't exactly make for a relaxing bathroom experience. Hopefully between a couple of chilly nights and the traps which are now in place these ants will stop showing up and I can do my business in peace. Honestly, if this is what I get for trying to to be nice to some insects than this will be the end of that, karmic reincarnation be damned.

Too Famous To Die

This morning I was reading an article about former Vice President Dick Cheney getting a heart transplant over the weekend. Now, the people on Twitter had lots of fun talking about this but I actually have a problem with it that, unlike most people's views, has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with fame. I long ago made my peace with the fact that people who are rich and famous get things they probably don't deserve just because of who they are. Even stranger is the fact that even though they could easily afford it, they also get these undeserved things for free. Hey, I'm not going to get too mad, because I'm sure I would do the exact same thing if I were ever put in that situation. However, I simply believe there is are some lines you shouldn't be able to jump, no matter how rich, famous or powerful you are and my standard  of where that line is starts and ends at getting vital organs.

Of course, Cheney is hardly the first famous person to use his name to get to the top of an organ donor list. Larry Hagman has something like five livers and Mickey Mantle was on the liver transplant list for a grand total of one day before getting his. But the simple truth is that if Cheney was a normal citizen and people just looked at his medical history without a name on the top of the chart he would never make it on the donor list, let alone get a heart. Honestly, do you think the 71 year-old man who has had five heart attacks and continues to operate in a high-stress environment is really the best candidate? I'm not going to hate on someone just because they have had a lot of success or made a lot of money, because I'm sure they worked very hard to get it and should be allowed to spend the money they have made any way they want. I'm just not sure you should be able to buy your way to the front of every line.

Weekly Sporties

-When Peyton Manning was signed by the Denver Broncos on Tuesday, it created a slight quarterback controversy because the Broncos already had fan favorite Tim Tebow. Well, Denver cleared that up quickly by trading Tebow to the New York Jets the very next day. Now, even though I am not a fan of the franchise, I was slightly disappointed in that move because I wanted to see Tebow end up with the Jacksonville Jaguars. I mean, he's from the area and played college in nearby Gainesville. He's probably the most popular athlete in Jacksonville history and, given the fact that the Jaguars are one of the few teams in the NFL which has to tarp large sections of seats to make sure they can claim a sell-out and are as close to irrelevant as you can be when you are still an NFL franchise, they could use a little excitement down there. Apparently, the Jacksonville coaching staff didn't want Tebow because they think he would just create a circus-atmosphere. Normally I am all for an owner staying out of his football personnel's way, but reportedly the Jaguars' owner wanted Tebow and I think he should have stepped in and over-ruled his staff. The simple fact is that when you own a sports teams sometimes you are in the winning games business and others you are in the selling tickets business. Jacksonville, you are a mediocre team with no pull to get quality free-agents - you are currently in the selling tickets business and you blew your chance to sell a lot of tickets.

-Some people might think the Tebow-to-the-Jets moves concerns me as a Patriots fan. Rest assured, it does not. First of all, I think the Patriots showed in their beat-down of the Broncos during the playoffs that they have a pretty good idea of how to handle Tim Tebow. But, secondly, I think this hurts the Jets a lot more than it helps them. After failing to get so much as a courtesy visit from Peyton Manning, the Jets tried to make amends with their current starter, Mark Sanchez, by giving him a large contract extension. Sanchez was happy with the new contract, saying it should serve as a reminder to everyone in the locker room that he is a leader on this team. (This is where I would like to point out that leaders don't usually have to remind people they are leaders, but we'll move on.) Yet, less than a week later the team traded for another quarterback and while they stated multiple times that Tebow was being brought in strictly as a back-up, they also said they were looking forward to his leadership off the field and his positive energy in what was reportedly a toxic locker room last season. You know, if you are looking for a 3rd year, back-up and trick-play quarterback who only plays a couple snaps a game to be the voice of your locker room, you have bigger problems than you know. You'd have been better off asking a kicker to be captain. At least we know why Rex Ryan wasn't promising any Super Bowl trips this year.

-The other huge news in the NFL this week also happened on Wednesday when the NFL brought the hammer down on the New Orleans Saints franchise following their involvement in a bounty scandal, where former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams admitted to giving player illegal bonuses for big hits which knocked opposing players out of games. Head Coach Sean Payton was suspended for the entire season, GM Mickey Loomis was suspended for half the season, various other coaches were suspended six game and Williams, now with the St. Louis Rams, was suspended indefinitely. I have to say, the harshness of the penalties really surprised the hell out of me. I thought Payton would get six games at most. Apparently, what really did him in was saying he had no knowledge of the bounty policy when the NFL had emails from Payton admitting the exact opposite. (As Richard Nixon learned the hard way - it's never the act that gets you into the most trouble, it's the attempt to cover it up.) It is a really tough hit for the Saints, as it effectively derails their 2012 season before it even starts, but I think everyone saying this is another hit to New Orleans along the lines of Hurricane Katrina need to throttle back the rhetoric a little. It's one year. The Saints were inept for 40 years before getting their act together in the last couple of years. Something tells me the fans are going to survive having to watch their team lose a few games again.

-On the other end of the punishment spectrum we have NASCAR's Jimmie Johnson. After his car failed a pre-race inspection at the Daytona 500 for illegal modifications, Johnson was docked 25 points while his crew chief, Chad Knaus, was suspended six races and fined a few hundred thousand dollars. Then this week, after a series of appeals, NASCAR reversed their decision and gave Johnson back his points and allowed Knaus to return to work, though they kept his money and he remains on probation for a few more races. I'm always surprised when suspensions are over-turned on appeal, because I just want to know what the defense could possibly be. You have to imagine NASCAR did a thorough investigation before handing out punishment. After all, this is Jimmie Johnson - a five-time champion and one of the most recognizable faces in the sport. (Never mind, I think think I just got my answer as to why the suspension was reduced.) Also, I think the fact that Johnson crashed on the second lap and finished 42 in the Daytona 500 probably helped his cause because that in and of itself was like a one-race suspension. They need Johnson around and contending at the end of the season, so no need to pile one.

-One of the reasons I think a lot of people don't like LeBron James is that, much like Alex Rodriguez, they don't feel like they have any idea what he is actually like. Everything he does feels scripted and thought-out (in the case of "The Decision" it would be poorly thought-out, but still...), so as to not take a side or offend anyone and therefore damage his brand in any way. Of course, James is far from the only high-profile athlete who does this. It is natural progression to the old story about Michael Jordan famously refusing to endorse a Democrat for Senate because, "Republicans buy sneakers too." But James is the biggest star in his sport, so anything he does takes on greater meaning. That was why I was happy to see James and his Miami Heat teammates all don hoodies and take a team photo in support of Florida shooting victim Treyvon Martin, an unarmed teen who was gunned down by a self-appointed neighbor watch captain who claimed the teen was suspicious-looking. Some in the media think the fact Martin was wearing a dark hoodie had something to do with him looking "suspicious", hence the team photo. Now, coming out and taking the opposite side of what is clearly an idiotic position might not be much of a risk, but I'm just happy to see James take a stand at all. Maybe he isn't just desperate to have everyone like him all the time.

-Another basketball player who could probably use some good publicity right about now would be Carmelo Anthony. You may remember last weekend when I wrote about the New York Knicks firing their head coach, Mike D'Antoni, in an attempt to save a slumping season. What I neglected to mention was that it was working, as the Knicks won six games in a row before losing last night. One the key players in that run was Anthony, who had famously had tension with his former coach and who seemed to come alive once D'Antoni was let go. Anthony even admitted as much this week when he said he was playing with more energy in the last week. See, this is the kind of stuff I hate about the NBA. Because the rosters are so small one superstar can half-ass his way for a couple games, stage a mutiny and get a coach fired, then start playing hard again once he has gotten his way. Fortunately there has been a little backlash towards Anthony, because some sports analysts were quick to point out that Anthony's paychecks were the same no matter what level of effort he had been giving so maybe he shouldn't be so quick to admit he wasn't trying his best because he didn't like his coach. Suddenly I can see why guys like James and Rodriguez are always careful with what they say.

-The baseball season hasn't even started yet and things are already getting testy between the Red Sox and the Yankees thanks to new manager Bobby Valentine. The two teams were playing in an exhibition game the other night when the Sox used a suicide squeeze in the bottom of the ninth to tie the game. That was when Yankees manager Joe Girardi went to the ump and told them he have any more pitchers available so the game ended in a tie. Valentine than accused Girardi of lying, saying the Yankees had more pitcher available but they just wanted to get the game over with because they had a long ride back to Tampa, adding he thought it was rude of the Yankee skipper to go to the umps instead of telling him directly because he has started warming up a pitcher for the next inning. Now, as a man who often wants baseball games to end sooner, I find myself strangely on Girardi's side in this one. Why are you playing for the tie in Spring Training? [Sidebar: The better question is why we need 30 spring training games to begin with, especially one between two teams who will play each other 19 times during the regular season, but that is a topic for another post.] Anyway, here's the main question I want to ask: why can't this happen during the regular season? Honestly, do we need 14 innings of the Royals and Orioles in the middle of August? Let them call it after 12 and everyone can go home. Really, there are already too many games on baseball's schedule, is anyone going to care if we occasionally cut one short?

You're Not Yelping!

I'm always fascinated by the human condition of sticking with something even after it has long-since served its purpose. It seems that having a hard time letting go of routines and familiarity is something which is common no matter what your walk of life is. Now, I'm as guilty of doing this as anyone. I will stitch, repair and clean something I have owned for years a dozen times instead of going out and getting a new one. It can be the same way with entertainment. I've known of people who continue to watch shows they haven't enjoyed in a couple of seasons simply because they have always watched the show and want to be there just in case it ever gets good again. (Spoiler alert: it is never going to get good again.) Lately I have started to see this trend with websites. While people are very quick to abandon blogs or other frivolous one-joke internet addresses, it can be a lot harder for people to walk away if the site actually served a purpose at one time or another. These people are the only reason sites like MySpace and Yahoo are still operational. Again, I do the same thing. The site I can't seem to get away from? Yelp.

For those of you who are not familiar, Yelp is a website where locals people can go to rate the restaurants, bars and other entertainment venues near them. On the surface it seems like a very good idea, after all who can give better reviews than people who spent their own money and actually went into a place with an open mind? They are going to be a lot more unbiased than some food critic who has been doing this for a dozen years and has become jaded by the process. It is supposed to be ratings by the people and for the people. And when it first started out that was exactly the kind of service it was providing. But lately I find myself going to the site and leaving unsatisfied every time. You see, the problem with this site is that it is like every other site on the Internet, which means it is nothing but the extremes of the world. The majority of people who visit don't leave any kind of review, which leaves the kind of people who either take their reviews way too seriously and compose a 4,000 word opus on a particular venue (as if this post will be the one which gets the discovered and leads them to be hired by Zagats), or not seriously enough and write two sentences, usually along the lines of, "Food was good, price was good." Turns out I'm going to need a few more details than that.

The other problem with the principle behind having reviews by regular, average citizens is that I don't know what kind of  background they are coming from. If you've ever read my movie reviews you know that I try not to tell people whether they should or should not rent a movie unless it is truly horrible because I don't have enough of an ego to think that everyone has the same tastes as me. Plus, I hate giving places bad marks based off of one experience, because I feel like we all have bad nights. Just because a waiter wasn't at the top of the game doesn't mean I want the place to be boycotted by everyone. (This is why I was a bad sportswriter, but why I also feel like a pretty decent human being.) Well, the people on this site don't have such an issue, as one woman railed against a particular restaurant because she suffered through a 45 minute wait before being seated. Wow, a 45 minute wait on a Saturday night in Boston? What are the odds of that happening? Oh, right, they are extremely normal and not something to get all excited about, but it was enough for this woman to only give the place 2 stars. Maybe I'm not picky enough, but I'm not about to get bent out of shape over waiting like everyone else.

Seeing reviews like that from a clearly snobby person is what has lead to my increased practice of not using the site for anything other than a map to let me know of restaurants in my general area that I haven't made it to yet. I don't even care how many stars Yelp has given a place because I no longer care what other people may think of them, I just need to know if they are within walking distance and if nothing else at least the site lets you zoom in to within a couple blocks of your house. Now, you're probably wondering why I still use the site at all. Well, it does help narrow the search down because you can eliminate the kind of restaurants you aren't interested in going to and sometimes that is all you really want to know. Plus, as I mentioned before, it is just where I normally go to check out restaurant options and without an alternative it is hard to break from the routine. As a creature of habit it can be really annoying to try and find another good site to use for finding local restaurants, even if it is ironic to habitually use the same website because you are trying to break a habit of eating at all the same locations.

Not Much Of A Deal

This morning I was listening to the radio when the DJ mentioned that the station would soon be offering a free concert for their listeners. That sounds like a great event until you found out the two bands playing were a couple of one-hit wonders from the mid-90s and while I recognized the band names, I couldn't tell you the names of those hits if there was a gun to my temple. They were just a couple of generic bands that tried really hard to be alternative, but didn't seem like they were fully committed and ended up in some kind of quasi-alternative/pop universe which  resulted in not making fans in either genre. Seriously, picture a terrible and cheap college trying to book a "senior weekend" band without spending too much money in 2004 when one of the RA's suddenly remembers a band which was huge their freshman year but will play for cheap money five years later. These are the kinds of bands which would be in that line-up. It would have been bad in 2004 and in 2012 it's downright sad. I guess I should commend these musicians for still hanging in there, but either way I wouldn't recommend opening with the one hit or else they are going to be playing to a mostly-empty theater by the time they started their third song. Remember, even a legendary band like Metallica knows not to open with "Enter Sandman".

Anyway, I suddenly got the impression that even thought it was going to be free, the concert hall might have a hard time filling up. I know that nothing brings people out of the woodwork better than the word 'free', but there is a point you reach at which even that isn't enough to tempt the moochers into making the effort. Because, let's be honest, there really is no such thing as 'free' these days. That is why, as much as I hated the people during my radio days who won tickets and then asked where the seats are, I can see understand why they wanted to know. At the end of the day, it still has to be worth your time because it will cost you some money. Sure, the tickets themselves might not take any cash out of your wallet, but every night out still requires you to get a sitter (an especially safe bet with this show as I bet there won't be a single person under the age of 34 there), find parking and then pay for things like dinner or drinks. Honestly, after a while of adding all those little extra up it isn't enough for a show to be free - you almost think they need to start paying you to come out.

Now, I don't want to pick on this station, because at least they are trying. I mean, they could always have not even bothered to do anything for their listeners and therefore should be given some points for effort. But this incident just seems to speak to a larger issue I have been notice recently - people offering things you wouldn't want even if they are free and then claiming it is a great deal for you. There is just a layer of sleaze which coats every offer that attempts to make it seem like they are doing you a favor when the reality is it helps the company most of all. For example, it seems like every time I open a newspaper or turn on a TV I see some company which tells me that if I order now not only will they give me a second one for free, but then they will throw in a barely-related item at no extra charge! All I have to do is pay the shipping and the handling which, in case you were wondering, is double what the company has to pay to ship it to you and also more than covers the cost to make the free item. But, don't think about that part - just think about the word "free". Look, I have no doubt the station is getting a cut of the concessions for the night and on top of that they are probably getting sponsors to pay for the hall rental to begin with. I'm not going to begrudge you for making some money out of this deal, but I will resent you for painting yourself as a martyr in this situation while you do.

Also, while times might still be tough, that doesn't mean you should dial-back the quality of your merchandise and still expect people to be happy they are getting anything to begin with. Just because the show is free that doesn't mean you should be booking k-level stars and acting as though we are all so lucky they decided to grace us with their presence. The old saying is that beggars can't be choosers, but that doesn't apply to the world of marketing.  I mean, the last thing you want to do is offend your loyal followers, because there will come a time when times aren't so tough and you don't want them going elsewhere with memories of your company cutting corners just because you could. Or, worse yet, going elsewhere because they think K-level stars are the best level of musical acts you can get to play at your venue. So, while it might have seemed like a good idea to throw a free concert for your listeners, I suggest you upgrade the bands the next time you try a marketing stunt like this. Because otherwise all you are offering is a free nostalgia trip to the summer of 1997 and I wouldn't go back there if you paid me.

Fifth Time Is The Charm

Yesterday I was fascinated to watch as nerds all over the internet had their heads collectively explode following the news that Micheal Bay, the director of the "Transformers" trilogy and a man who has never seen an explosion he didn't enjoy, was being hired to direct a new "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" movie. [Sidebar: On the world wide interwebs the series is known by the abbreviation TMNT. I just want you to know that at no point in this post will I be writing that. This is a blog, where there is no such thing as a character limit, so saying or typing something with a short name on a blog (or anywhere without a character limit) just makes you sound like a dick, along the same lines as the people who refer to "Curb Your Enthusiasm" as just "Curb". Also, typing the series name all the way out takes 6 seconds versus the 2 seconds the abbreviation takes. So it's not like it saves you all that much time, especially when you compare that time to how much damage it does to my opinion of the people who use it.] Apparently the die-hard fans of the Turtles do not think Bay is the right man to re-boot the franchise and worry he will destroy their childhood memories. (Funny, I didn't see this kind of outrage when Tim Burton wrecked several classic movies with re-makes. I guess it really is all about having the most tech-savvy fans.) I have another question entirely: why the hell is anyone making another "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle" movie in the first place?

This isn't to say that I wasn't a "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" fan back in the day like everyone else. Not only did I see the first couple of movies in the theaters (I may have even acquired the Vanilla Ice single which went with the second film), but I had also owned several videos from the cartoon series, once spent an entire afternoon at Chuck E. Cheese defeating the video game and even dressed up as Michelangelo for Halloween a year or two, as he was clearly the coolest Turtle (seriously, don't come at me with that Donatello shit). Even with all that I never got the impression the comic or the cartoon had reached the cult-like status which people in Hollywood clearly think it has. I know the original run of cartoons was unparalleled in the amount of toys the company pumped out for kids to buy, but I have yet to see any of them take on the collectible status of the "Star Trek" or "Star Wars" market. You simply don't get the impression there is a guy out there who eventually plans to retire on the money he makes from selling all the toys he was too disciplined to play with back in 1992. 

I guess my point is that there are just so many new and unblemished memories of childhood shows Hollywood could try and crush instead. I mean, can you believe there hasn't been a single "M.A.S.K." movie? (Actually, I kind of think that could be awesome.) And after what happened with "Transformers" you know the creators of "Voltron" are just begging to have their character re-booted and pillaged for every last conceivable dime. So why are movie studios so insistent on going back and trying to re-boot a franchise no one was all that interested in the last time they tried in 2007? Seriously, it is not like I'm asking these people to come up with a new and fresh idea (I know not to waste my time), I just want them to stop going back to the same four franchises every time they want to make another movie based on a cartoon. (Oh, while we're on the subject, the world has seen enough "SpiderMan" movies for the time being.) Then again, I just saw commercials for two different "Snow White" movies coming out within a couple weeks of one another, so I guess I should just be happy there is only one new "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle" movie on the way. 

A couple weeks ago I mentioned that for all the conventions, merchandise, movies, spin-offs and movies about the spin-offs, "Star Trek" was only on TV for three years and never got great ratings when it was. Well, you could easily make the case that the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" franchise has done even more with less. Yes, the original cartoon was on TV for 9 years (a statistic which totally blew my mind when I learned it four seconds ago), but I don't even think the creators of the characters expected to get an additional three animated series, four volumes of comics, a live-action series and four movies out of it. Honestly, how many jokes about loving pizza can you make? I mean, is there really a new and exciting direction to take this franchise? I think it is pretty clear that I don't see it. After all, it is not like they can mess with the names or the characters, because that defeats the purpose. So, at the end of the day you've still just got giant turtles who know martial arts. Not only have we already seen that movie, we've seen it four times. I know the main reason the hardcore fans are made is because they think Bay is going to ramp-up the pyrotechnics, but frankly a few large and well-timed explosions may be just what this movie franchise needs. 

Commercial Break-Down

Well, we have once again come a post where I have to pick apart a commercial I have seen too many times and now can spot all the problems with it, "Mystery Science Theater 3000"-style. This particular commercial is for Liberty Mutual Insurance. Now, the good people at Liberty Mutual shouldn't blame themselves for this. Hell, they shouldn't even blame me. They should blame the time-out system in college basketball. Honestly, why do college basketball coaches need something like 10 time-outs per half? You know what, if you can't give your players instructions with 1 minute to go (which would be about 3 possessions) and hope that they know what to do should the situation change, then you are just an awful coach who needs to work harder in practice. I know all coaches are control freaks, but needing to call a time-out after every possession in the last 1:30 of the game is ridiculous. You have no idea how large the wave of relief is that washes over me when I realize the losing team is out of time-outs, because it means the game might actually end in the next half an hour. I'm as big a sports fan as there is, so when even I want your game to be over you know it is taking too long.

Either way, because of how long the last 2 minutes of college basketball games take and how many commercial breaks are involved I have seen this particular ad, called "Doing the Right Thing" (apparently we name commercials now) approximately 4,000 in the last week. Before we go any further, you can view it for yourself.

:01. First off, why is a blind woman going on a train? I feel like this simple question should not be ignored.

:03 God, who makes out at a train station? More importantly, who does it 5 feet away from their baggage? Get a room or stop leaving unattended bags. Focus, people!

:04 Ok, if I saw someone grabbing for my luggage I am very likely to punch first and ask questions later. I know the old man was just trying to help, but apparently he never learned the lesson to keep your hands off other people's property. Also, the only time I did something similar for a blind person, he yelled at me. Ever since I have assumed no blind person ever wants assistance.

:12 Yeah, great that you helped that guy up, but how about you make your teammate, who just nearly broke a guy's ankle with a low tackle during a casual rec league soccer game, do that and say he's sorry while he is at it? It's the only way he's going to learn to cool off, because this isn't the Premier League. (You just know he's a frustrated college athlete who is pissed he ended up selling insurance.) Maybe a ass kicking is just what he needs.

:20 Seriously, that sucks for that guy, but if his papers were so damned important, why not put them in what appears to be a perfectly acceptable and working briefcase? I kind of believe that is the point of them. Also, if those were really important legal documents, I'm pretty sure you're just going to have to make new copies anyway. Nothing says 'professional' like a patent with a tire track on it.

:28 I will only accept this as an act of kindness provided that you are not letting her slide with extra items in a "10 Items Or Less" express lane. Her cart looks pretty empty, so I think she makes it. Good thing, too, because I highly doubt that guy was letting her go first if she had 50 items to ring up. And I feel like he's really doing the favor to the cashier by getting that crying baby out of her lane faster.

:35 This is undoubtedly the weakest pay-it-forward I have ever seen. The guy was already running and the raft blew into his path. You know what? I don't think that one should count.

:40 Woah, lady, you are going way above and beyond what is necessary given the act of kindness you witnessed. Unless all those leaves blew off your tree (possible, considering I don't see an actual tree in the other woman's yard) you are banking some serious karmic good will. I hate raking with every fabric of my being, so personally I would need something more akin to rescuing a busload of nuns before I raked a yard which was not my own.

:49 How lazy are the people in this office? I know it sucks to clean up a spill that you didn't cause, but how much effort does it actually take to get off your butt and wipe up some coffee? How about showing a little pride in your work space? Sitting there watching a spill makes you lazier than normal. I certainly don't want you handling my insurance claim.

:51 Again, not giving this woman a ton of credit for holding the door because I don't feel like she wanted to. I think the other guy just pushed his way in and she was left playing doorman for the next group, which is why three or four other people get through right after.

:54 So, it's the blind lady from the start of the commercial. Hold on, so now we're entering into some kind of time-warp morality vortex? That's a little heavy for insurance, isn't it?

Another Issue For Parents

I admit, I had stopped paying attention to the Super Bowl halftime show by the time rapper MIA flipped off the camera during her song. I thought the performance leading up to it had been terrible and I didn't need to see anymore, so I missed this apparently offensive moment. Still, I immediately caught wind of people talking about it on various social media platforms, so I  knew that it was going to cause some people to complain, because every thing on this planet has at least one person willing to complain about it. Then today Deadspin (via ESPN) released a sample of the letters the FCC received following the incident. As you would expect it is the usual calm and well-thought out reasoning from the kind of people who know not to blow a small issue out of proportion... I'm kidding of course. The letters are the spelling and grammar-challenged ravings of people who have nothing better to do than complain to the FCC because they have such inflated egos that they think anyone gives a crap about what they have to say and, even worse, they believe they represent 95% of the population. I can only hope that this time around the government is smart enough to realize that these people don't speak for anyone but themselves and doesn't over-react by enforcing several new and unnecessary restrictions on TV programming.

I've always wondered who the people who get angry enough to write complaint letters to the government actual are and today I got a glimpse. These letters came from all over the country, but with a common theme: "I'm pissed-off. Also, I don't know how to spell or turn off my Caps Lock button." I'll save you the time of going through them yourselves and simply let you know that they are mostly made up of the normal complaints about how the Super Bowl is supposed to be for families, but the night was ruined by this woman and her finger. This small act is just another sign that this country is going down the tubes and if this injustice is allowed to stand we as a nation will have lost our moral compass. I never would have thought a simple finger could carry this much weight, but it just goes to show you what I know. Surprisingly I didn't see any letters telling the world that this was somehow President Obama's fault, but there were a couple stating that Madonna's halftime show was nothing more than a pagan celebration of the Illuminati (nope, not even kidding). Still, even as I swam through that ocean full of crazy, there was one letter which caught my eye above all the rest:

"I am writing to complain about the Audi automotive ad that aired during the Super Bowl. The ad featured vampires being vaporized by the car's headlights. My four year old daughter was very frightened by this ad. She is only beginning to understand the concept of death and cannot easily differentiate between fantasy and reality when real actors (i.e. non-cartoons) are involved. I had to deflect several questions about the commercial, many of which were centered on "where the people went."

Wait. So, the middle finger didn't bother them, but the vampires dying did? It just seems like such a bizarre complaint from what appears (at least based on spelling and grammar) to be a fairly sane person. According to the report, the majority of the letters came in through the web and I think that is both the best and worst part of the internet age. On the one hand people can easily send in their complaint while they are still angry, which means their letter is much more likely to actually get sent (angry letters never seem quite as good of an idea once you have cooled off) and thus companies will know they have done something wrong and then hopefully improve customer service. On the other hand, by having a complaint box at your fingertips people don't have any filter. I think we've all been with someone who is angry enough to write a complaint letter. But what usually happens is someone asks them if they are sure that is a good idea and worth getting this worked up about it. Usually upon reflection the answer is no. I have no doubt this person was pissed and exasperated because their kid was screaming up a storm when all they wanted to do was watch the Super Bowl. I'm simply saying a five minute cooling off period would have been a good idea because not every bad experience is worth a complaint letter. I'm just left to wonder if at any point while composing this letter the writer stopped for a moment, took a step back and said to themselves, "Wait, I'm writing a letter to the government about vampires in a car commercial." I have a feeling they didn't.

As most of you know, I don't have any kids. But even without first-hand experience, I have no doubt there are a lot of difficult questions that parents worry about their kids asking and dread the day when they finally come up. I guess I just never imagined 'What happens to vampires when they die?' would be in the Top-10. And not that I would ever tell someone else how to raise their kid, but maybe if you spent a little more time thinking and a little less time composing pissed off emails which are only going to be ignored, you would have come up with a quick lie to tell your kid because 4 year-olds don't actually have to be told the truth about vampires and death. (I'm also wondering why this little girl has any concept of death, but that is another question for another post.) I would imagine that just telling her the people went home because they can teleport would have been much easier. Instead some 4 year-old now knows what a vampire is, thinks they are real and is aware people can die. I'm sure that little girl was loads of fun on the swings the next morning. I hope you are happy, "Twilight" fans - this is all your fault.

A Combo Interlude

I have to admit, I had a hard time picking which theme to go with for this week's interlude. After all, we had a couple of big events in the last couple of days. First there was March Madness which started on Thursday and then yesterday was St. Patrick's Day. While I never do anything special for St. Patrick's Day other than fly the Irish flag in front of the house and wear a little more green than normal, I do enjoy the music so I thought about putting up another playlist of Irish tunes. But, there are also so many songs with "dance" in the title I haven't yet gotten to which would have worked really well off the "big dance" nickname for the NCAA tournament. As you can imagine, it was a tough decision. That is why I did the thing I always try to do in these situations and find a song which kind of splits the difference - which in this case would be an Irish group singing about dancing. It's the best of both worlds.

Weekly Sporties

-Every single year the first two days of the NCAA Tournament remind me of a very simple fact: the people who watch basketball for a living are stealing money from their employers. Seriously, these are the supposed experts in their fields and yet they never have any more of an idea how things are going to play out than someone who doesn't watch a single game all year. I know they all have the built-in excuse of sports being unpredictable and that is what makes it so great, but the simple fact of the matter is that if you or I were as bad at our jobs as these people, we would have been fired years ago. I'm not annoyed because none of them predicted that a 15-seed would beat a 2-seed - that is an extremely rare occurrence and no one would expect it to happen, let alone twice. But, the thing is I didn't even hear any of them bring it up as a possibility. I mean, some of these "experts" had picked Missouri to win it all and the Tigers made it exactly as far as teams like Loyola and St. Bonaventure. If your expected champion can't even make it to the round of 32 you have no credibility in my book. Just be happy that the people in charge of hiring on-air talent are apparently as clueless as you are about picking games.

-It was a super-busy week in the NBA because the trading deadline was on Thursday. As a result, it was basically decision time for a lot of franchises concerning their season. Because the worst thing you can be in the NBA is mediocre, they had to decide whether to try and make a move which would get them to the next level or start selling off assets, bottom out and make sure they can come back stronger in the near future. One the of teams which was selling was the Portland Trailblazers, who traded away several good players without getting much back in return. However, they still had to release a couple guys to make room for their new players and one of the players let go was Greg Oden. Now, Oden is widely seen as a bust since he was the first pick in the 2007 NBA draft and has only played 82 games since then. But, there is a sympathy factor because Oden seems like a really nice kid whose body just betrayed him. Unlike Ryan Leaf, who thought he was too good for practice, Oden can't seem to catch a break. Now, Oden says he plans to keep trying to play, but he just had his third micro-fracture surgery and most guys don't come back from one of those. I have to be honest, Oden never seemed like he loved basketball, it was just something he had to do because he was 7 feet tall. I think this could be his 'get out of jail free' card. He's made some money, so here's hoping he invests well and find something which makes him happy.

-Another one of the guys who found himself on a new team at the trading deadline was former Lakers' captain Derek Fisher, who was sent to the Houston Rockets. This pleased me, because Derek Fisher was my least favorite Laker. Some of you may be confused and asking yourself why I would be annoyed by a man most people never even think about. Well, allow me to explain: as a Celtics fan it is no secret that I do not like the Lakers. But, much like with the Yankees, I have come to begrudgingly respect them and I no longer really hate every superstar who puts on the uniform. Instead the guys who annoy me more and more are the ones who don't actually have much talent, but hitch themselves to the superstar on the team, then ride his coattails to fame and fortune and at some point on this journey they begin to think that they are a superstar. I always got the vibe that Fisher thought he was a lot better than he was, which bugged me greatly because we actually have proof to the contrary. He spent three seasons between Golden State and Utah and accomplished a grand total of nothing. In a league where one great player should at least get you to the playoffs, Derek Fisher's teams went one time and he was a back-up. He is not as good as everyone keeps telling me he is. Allow me to put it another way: Derek Fisher was the Jorge Posada of basketball. He stuck around because he was Kobe's friend and not because of how good he is.

-Some NBA teams think they can spark their team not by making a trade, but by switching coaches. That is what the New York Knicks tried when they fired Mike D'Antoni on Wednesday. (Technically they claim D'Antoni resigned, but the organization has said they will stay pay him the rest of his salary - you don't usually get to keep receiving paychecks when you quit.) Reportedly, D'Antoni was mad because he wanted to trade forward Carmelo Anthony to the Nets for point guard Deron Williams and the rest of the organization didn't see the point. Considering the Knicks have both Jeremy Lin and Baron Davis, I have to side with them. You know, for a minute there I was starting to get concerned that the Knicks might be getting their act together. But when you are willing to let a shoot-first forward like Carmelo Anthony whose team actually played better when he was out of the line-up dictate the direction of your franchise, it is a pretty safe bet you are going to continue to circle the drain. The Knicks and their fans think they will be able to lure Phil Jackson out of retirement to take over next year. Frankly, if I'm Jackson I have to wonder if coaching this mess is worth it.

-The one big domino everyone expected to fall on the trade deadline was Orlando Magic center Dwight Howard. But, Howard surprised everyone by waiving the opt-out clause of his contract, meaning he will remain with the Magic through not only this year, but next year as well. (While that sounds like the end of it, all it really means is that he pushed the 'pause' button on the situation, because unless he signs an extension over the summer we're going to be right back in this spot next summer.) But the new wrinkle which came out early in the week was a report stating that the Magic told Howard if he remained with the club they would give him the power to decide the fates of coach Stan Van Gundy and GM Otis Smith. Remember how in the past I've written that they best way to be a first-class franchise is to act like you already are? Yeah, that is not the action of a first-class franchise. I'm not saying NBA teams haven't let NBA players fire coaches before - the Lakers have let both Magic Johnson and Kobe Bryant have this kind of power. But those guys are NBA champions multiple times over. It is entirely another thing to let a guy like Howard, who has never won anything more than the Eastern Conference in a down year, make this kind of call. All I'm saying is not all stars are created equally and if you let a low-level star run your team you are destined to always be a low-level franchise. I know the Magic were originally owned by Disney, but this brings the phrase "Mickey Mouse Franchise" to a whole other place.

-Moving to the NFL: on Monday it was revealed that both the Redskins and the Cowboys were going to suffer salary cap penalties. Apparently during the 2010 uncapped year both teams used some creative math when negotiating their contracts and front-loaded most of the deals they made. Basically, they paid the majority of the contracts in the first year, uncapped year which meant the totals would be decreased later, giving them more room to work with when the cap went back into place. If you think that just sounds like smart math, that's probably because it is, which is why just about every team did the same thing. But I guess the NFL thinks these two teams went a little too far, especially the Redskins, whose payroll would have been about $60 million over the cap had it been in place. As a result they are losing $18 million of cap space for the next two years and the Cowboys are losing $5 million. This is especially crippling to the Redskins who just traded a bunch of draft picks and planned to built through free agency. Now, I don't like either team, but to me this is complete bullshit. After all, the NFL approved these deals at the time. Not to mention it is total crap to go back and retroactively punish teams for rules that were not in place at the time, but are now. That would be like getting sent a ticket for talking on your cellphone while driving your car back in 2005 before the laws were on the books. I know the NFL is the most popular sport in the country, but that doesn't make it all-powerful. If the league isn't careful people are going to start to sour on them, no matter how enjoyable the games are.

-Even though they weren't going to get him anyway, the loss of that cap space officially eliminated the Redskins from the Peyton Manning sweepstakes, which rolls on. Allegedly Manning has narrowed his choices down to the Broncos, Titans and 49ers. We know this because we know all about his visits to each location thanks to local news crews following his car with their helicopters. This comes on the heels of a blimp-cam following Tiger Woods' every move as he made his way to his car and then drove out of the parking lot after he withdrew from a tournament on Sunday due to an injury. Frankly, all this following athletes around with cameras attached to flying machines makes me wonder if we're using this technology in the best ways possible. It used to be that we reserved this kind of attention to visits from the Pope, high-speed chases and victory parades. Now we use it whenever a high-profile person gets into a car. I guess I shouldn't get too worried until the day when I go to get into my car to make a trip to the store and there is a news helicopter hovering over my house. If that happens we will officially be wasting everyone's time.

Shake It Off

There are only about 6 things in the world about which I have firmly dug in my heels and refuse to budge. One of those issues is that I can not / will not participate in any Black Friday shenanigans. I do not like lines, I do not like crowds and I value sleep more than making sure I save $100 on a  new TV, so you can probably see why getting up at 3 AM, then waiting in line for the right to fight a crowd holds little appeal in my life. Also, that policy doesn't just apply to the morning after Thanksgiving - I do not wait in line for many things. Some lines are unavoidable in life and I stand in them when I must, but I will not volunteer to be in one unless there is no other alternative. Therefore, I will never be one of the people who camps out to see a movie or buy an iPad, nor will I be rioting because it is the first day the new Air Jordans are on sale (like they would even have a size 14 in stock anyway).

However, I am willing to acknowledge there are people out there who do not share my reservations. They think nothing of using a week's worth of vacation time to sleep on a sidewalk for the right to spend $900 on a piece of technology which will be obsolete by Christmas. At least with those people I can understand the fascination - it's new and shiny, so being able to say you got the first one on your block goes back to one of mankind's core desires: being able to look at your neighbor and know they are jealous of your stuff. But now people are starting to flip out and create an artificial fuss over much less important things and I think it is time we start to rein in this trend. This week I saw websites devoted to a product of limited release it and just confirmed to me that, as a society, we may have finally bottomed out. I'm talking about the people obsessed with McDonald's Shamrock Shakes.

At first I could kind of see the fascination. I mean, the quickest way to drive up demand is to tell people that something won't be around for long and the Shamrock Shakes are only around for a couple weeks leading up to St. Patrick's Day. McDonald's then took it another step by not having the shakes available at every location, knowing that most simple of marketing tools - scarcity is the mother of desire. (This is old hat for McDonald's who also pulls the, "You'd better buy it now because it won't be around for long and then we may never bring it back" card with another foodstuff I don't get the fascination with in the McRib.) Not to mention, as a man who wears a scary amount of green clothes, I can totally understand why people want more green in their lives. Honestly, who doesn't want to drink something green, just to see what it tastes like? (Spoiler alert: usually it is lime.) So, yes, I have had a Shamrock Shake in my life. Let's just say I found the entire experience under-whelming.

First off, when I had my shake it was a couple of years ago it - well before they started to make it abundantly clear that the shake was mint-flavored. Therefore without having had one I assumed it was nothing more than a normal vanilla shake with some food coloring thrown in for color. I happen to enjoy vanilla shakes. Things which are milt flavored? Not as much. I'm sure you are all familiar with the concept of trying some food or drink and coming into contact with a flavor for which you were not prepared. Now imagine that flavor was mint, that after discovering this flavor you weren't prepared for and did not want you still have an entire large cup of it to drink and you can begin to understand my level of disappointment. Let's just say I was not among those people updating the Shamrock Shake Tracker website, which tells people where the shakes are available.

Some people may think that I don't get the fascination with these Shamrock Shakes because I don't like them. No, I don't get the fascination with them because they are mint-flavored milkshakes. You could make one in your kitchen almost any day of the year if you wanted to. But suddenly McDonald's tell you they will only be around for a limited time and that is worthy of an internet countdown clock to when they will next be released? (At least this fact makes the iPad obsession a little more tolerable, because it's not like you can make one of those in your basement.) It just concerns me because if we freak out when things like Shamrock Shakes are only available on a limited basis, what is going to happen if we start running out of things we actually need? Hopefully, if in the future people start rioting because we've run out of medicine McDonald's will step up and make the McRib available earlier than normal. Not only will it distract us, but after eating one of those things I don't think people can stay awake, let alone riot.

Put A Stamp On It

Yup, it's a video mail-in post. Hey, the first day of March Madness brings offices across the world to a screeching halt and kills almost all production for that day, so why should my blog be any different? Plus, I figured this video is at least timely, though not overly funny. But what really makes it noteworthy is that it has all the earmarks of an ESPN short: pretty cute idea that never seemed to have been fully developed, lots of people you recognize but who are not so famous they wouldn't be available, one main joke which is driven into the ground and it ends rather unsatisfactorily. This all adds up to another piece of evidence for my theory that the people who write for "SportsCenter" are really failed comedy writers who never were good enough to get an audition to write for "Saturday Night Live".

The Tournament Challenge Challenged from Stan Verrett

Party-Pooper

Last Friday comedian Louis CK abruptly pulled out from his hosting duties at the Radio & Television Correspondents' Dinner this coming June. There are conflicting reports as to why CK is no longer the host - one says he simply no longer wanted the job while another says there was a push to have him replaced. Reportedly, the one leading that charge to get him out was Fox News' Greta Van Susteren. Apparently, Van Susteren thinks CK is too vulgar and specifically objected to how he talks about women in his act and a couple of Tweets he made about Sarah Palin. Now, if you've ever read this blog before it won't take a lot of guesses about whose side I'm in this one - I happen to think CK is the best comedian walking the planet and find him hilarious specifically because he is so vulgar. Meanwhile I don't watch any 24-hour cable channels because I can't stand the fear-mongering and the batteries in my remote control work, so I barely know who Van Susteren even is. All I know is if someone presented me with option of having Louie CK at my party, but told me that as a result Greta Van Susteren wasn't coming, it is a pretty safe bet that Greta would be free that night.

Now, I have very little doubt that CK was asked to host because he is so controversial. Which means I also have very little doubt that Louie probably dodged a bullet in this one - controversial picks don't usually work at the Correspondents' Dinner. The people at these dinners want light poking at one another, not a comedian who is bringing out the heavy artillery, which is the only thing CK knows how to work with. While there is nothing as great as a room full of people laughing at once, there is also nothing worse than one person telling jokes to a room full of people who aren't laughing and award shows and dinners are the perfect storm for that kind of thing to happen. Everyone is already trying to appear too cool for the room and act like they aren't internally geeking out over the celebrities who were invited, which is not a good environment for comedy. And here you've got the political aspect, which means both sides of the aisle will be represented at this thing and half the room already isn't going to be laughing at every single joke because they just got made fun of. On top of that these are politicians and no politician wants to be seen laughing at the really vulgar stuff because it could offend any number of voters. The whole thing is a perfect recipe for polite applause and uncomfortable silence. When you add it all up there was a high chance it would not go well, which is what makes the story that Louie pulled out on his own entirely possible.

While that might be the case, I'm still annoyed that they announced CK's departure so soon after Van Susteren's complaint, because it makes it appears as though the organizers of this event caved under outside pressure. And as much as I hate it when the people in charge of events like this pick controversial comedians and then act surprised when a couple of people don't agree with their choice, I really don't like that they let one or two negative voices influence their decisions after the fact. If you made a choice you should be ready and willing to defend it, otherwise make a different choice from the start. (Although, we are talking about an event in Washington, D.C., so I don't know why I was expecting anyone with a backbone to be involved.) Still, I feel like Van Susteren is the real annoying one in this scenario. Now, I'm not even going to get into the political side of this fight, other than to say I find Van Susteren's position rather ironic considering she works for an organization which spent last week defending Rush Limbaugh. Instead I take my biggest issue with what she did for a very simple reason - she didn't offer to host in his place or even come up with a suitable replacement. I hate people who do that kind of stuff.

There is nothing worse than the people who shoot down ideas without offering alternative ones of their own. We have all worked with someone like this at one time or another and they never fail to drive me crazy. Does Greta have any idea what goes in to putting together a Correspondents' Dinner? Of course she doesn't, because she's never organized one before. I can only assume it would be like planning a wedding and the Oscars rolled into one. Her comments mean the organizers have to go back and take care of an issue they thought was done by now. Well, if Van Susteren wants to have a say in who the host is going to be she had better be prepared to start chiming in on seating arrangements, centerpieces and seat covers. Either you are all in or all out - you don't get to cherry-pick the issues which matter to you, offer nothing but negative comments and then leave other people in charge of cleaning up the mess you just made. Because I have news for Ms. Van Susteren - if she thinks she carries enough weight that her not coming to the dinner would even be noticed, she has another thing coming. (Hell, people might appreciate having a party without so much complaining going on.) The way I see it, unless a suitable host can be found soon Van Susteren better start coming up with some new material.

Even More Bracket Advice

We've reached our third year of me giving really terrible advice for people about to fill out their NCAA brackets. I wasn't going to write this post again, but became inspired yesterday afternoon after hanging out with one of my nieces. She was picking teams based on which names are the most fun to say. Other than having Davidson and Mississippi go a lot farther than I would, she seemed to have come away with a fairly sound Final Four. I mean, I just heard a guy on ESPN tell the world he thought Vanderbilt was going to the Final Four, so how crazy could the picks of a three year-old truly be by comparison? Anyway here are a few things to keep in mind when filling out your brackets...

-First off, do it in pencil. I understand this has nothing to do with helping you determine who will win, I just think it is the best idea. Leave yourself a bit of wiggle room should you want to change your mind before the games start. It is much better than having to trudge back to the printer in front of the whole office because you had a change of heart about South Florida going on a VCU-like run. Besides, no one likes the people who have irrational levels of confidence. Filling out your bracket in pen is only slightly less-annoying than doing the crossword puzzle in pen. Oh, so there is no way it is even possible you could be wrong? When I see people who have done that I start pouring over their answers while rooting for spelling mistakes. Don't be that guy.

-If you aren't sure a team can win their bracket, don't make them the champion. Ever since the brackets were released Sunday afternoon, I have kept hearing people say the same thing, "Well, if this team makes it out of their region they will be the best team still standing." I understand the logic, but say the first part of that sentence again. There is something to be said for looking at the big picture. Sure, I think Kentucky is the best of the #1 seeds and if they get that far I would not be surprised to see them win the whole thing, but I also think they have the toughest bracket. As a result I am certainly not going to confidently have them as the champion. You can't hypothetically beat a team in the Final Four if you lost in the Sweet 16.

-Never underestimate the power off a pissed-off teenager. Every year there are a couple of teams left on the outside looking in. What inevitably follows are analysts talking about which teams should have been left at home instead. Even if they might be right, it is no fun to hear that someone on national TV tell you that you have been given something you don't deserve. That means in the case of a couple of these teams, they will have spent 4 or 5 days hearing how much they don't belong in this tournament. People tend to forget that most of the kids in this tournament are 18 or 19 years old and if all the child psychology books are to be believed, teenagers hate being told what to do. Now, with some of these kids it will break them and they will start to believe it, but with others it is just going to make them want to go out and prove all the 'experts' wrong. Don't be surprised when one of the 'Last Four In' is playing the second weekend.

-Make sure your eventual champion's best player is eligible to play. Here is a rather timely lesson. This afternoon Syracuse's Fab Melo, their sophomore center and best rebounder, was ruled academically ineligible for the second time this season. As a result he will not play at any point in the tournament and didn't even travel with the team. This is a big blow for Syracuse, because he controls a lot of the game, as evidenced by the fact that their only regular season loss during the season came when Melo missed three games earlier in the year. Going in a lot of people had Syracuse easily making the Final Four (including me), but this dramatically changes all that. (This is also why I made point #1.) Maybe we shouldn't all be in such a hurry to fill out brackets Sunday night.

-However, don't go overboard the other way. A lot of people began taking erasers to their brackets when news of Melo's ineligibility broke. Like I said, totally understandable given how many people had Syracuse cruising through. But now some people are circling the game saying this could be the time when a #16 seed finally takes down a #1. Let's not get carried away here. Syracuse still went 31-2 on the season and have very good players. Melo's suspension puts a serious hit on their National Championship dreams, but his absence doesn't suddenly make them incapable of winning a game in the NIT either. If you had the 'Cuse winning it all you may have to go back a round or two and rethink your strategy, but it doesn't mean you need to start over from scratch.

So, there are just a few things to keep in mind as you prepare for four of the greatest days on the sports calendar. Enjoy the games, everyone!