Up to this point, I have been pretty satisfied by NBC's coverage of the London Olympics. Other than the hosts narrating the Opening Ceremony like it was the Rose Bowl Parade and producers cutting out a tribute to victims of terrorist attacks because they weren't Americans, then adding insult to injury by replacing it with Ryan Seacrest, I don't have any real complaints. I've actually found the coverage spread out on other NBC Universal channels to be quite thorough. However, I am clearly in the minority, because every day you can go on most social media outlets and read comment after comment from people who are unhappy with the way NBC has decided to tape-delay sports such as gymnastics and swimming, which viewers are always interested in, for their prime-time hours. (I'll be honest with you, the fact that I don't actually care about these sports goes a long way in keeping my emotions in check. If they were tape-delaying something important I would be up in arms. But, because they are holding back on showing me things I wouldn't watch under normal circumstances and therefore don't watch in prime-time, my ire towards the peacock network is running pretty low at the moment.) Also, if these people think their complaints are going to bring a change in policy, they shouldn't get their hopes up because NBC has continued to pull in strong ratings, even for the events which have been over for almost 7 hours.
Still, I do wonder about this policy going forward. As I have said many time before in this space, this is an on-demand world now and things are only going to keep heading in that direction in the future. Depriving your customers of the things they want to see at the time they want to see it is not a recipe for building viewer loyalty. (And it is not like NBC is in the position to dictate terms to viewers anymore. The days of "Cheers", "Seinfeld", "Friends" and "Frasier" seem as though they were a lifetime ago.) In this day and age where even the most amateurish of internet users can find their way to a site circumventing broadcast rights if they put their mind to it, people are going to find a way to watch things live, so the more you can give them the better. I know people on the internet are going to find something to complain about regardless of how much access NBC gives its viewers, because that is what people on the internet do. But, if those people are going to forgo watching your programming through the normal routes than you should at least make sure they are going to still watch your programming through a method you control. Why pay all this money for broadcasting rights if we all know people are just going to end up watching the online feed of an international channel? If you're willing to let all those viewers go (and I do wonder if NBC has any idea of just how many of them there are) you may as well have let ESPN win the broadcasting rights.
I also think NBC is focusing on the wrong thing. They point out that the tape-delayed games are still pulling in good ratings numbers, but that just feels short-sighted to me. Deep down they have to know that this is only happening because it is the summer and they are against reruns. If they were against fresh programming they might not be winning so handily. It also helps that the swimming and gymnastics competitions have been full of drama. I don't think they would have this success if they were trying to talk the American public into watching a rowing competition in which the United States doesn't have anyone in the medal round. On top of all that, I'm starting to have questions about how much ratings still matter to people outside the entertainment industry. (I contend this is why viewers who only watch their shows online are so shocked to find out their favorite sitcoms are about to be cancelled for low ratings.) It might not be too long before having the highest Nielsen ratings is like having the highest circulation among newspapers. Congratulations, you're the most successful company in a dying industry. I know you can only measure success by the standards of the moment, but at some point NBC (and all these other networks) are going to have to start figuring out a way to measure how many actual eyeballs are watching, not guessing based on one or two ratings boxes every 500 miles.
The good news for NBC is that I don't think this will be as much of a problem for the 2014 Sochi Games, because Russia is so many time zones ahead of us that I question how many people will be awake to watch events live anyway. However, by the time games get to Rio in 2016 they need to have this problem sorted out, because people are not going tolerate being asked to hold off on finding results for an event which is only one time zone ahead of the East Coast. I don't know if the answer is saying "forget the ratings", airing everything as it happens and sorting out the results with advertisers later or offering some kind of program which would allow people to control more of which sports they get in real time through the internet, but I just know the current plan is not going to hold up for another four years. People are simply too plugged in and impatient to wait for several hours to watch something where they already know the ending and that trend shows no signs of reversing as we head into the future. Newspapers are finally starting to figure this out, I just wonder how long it will take TV networks to do the same.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
I Go, You Go, We All Go
It took until I had been driving for a few years before it finally dawned on me that not all traffic laws are created equally. There are some which should never be broken and those that can be worked around in regards to the situation at the time. That is not to say people should pick and choose which ones they want to follow, just that a couple come with some built-in leeway. The one with the most wiggle room is of course the speed limit, which everyone agrees has a few miles an hour built in as a buffer. The only cops who are going to pull you over for going 31 in a 30 are either bored, have a quota to meet, are looking for an excuse to check in your vehicle or are jerks. The rest of them respect that you probably are going a little fast because you have things to do that day. Don't be obvious about it and you'll be fine. The remaining traffic laws do not possess nearly as much gray area to them. I mean, you can still fudge them depending on the elements around you but, much like back in high school when the class clown felt like messing with the substitute teacher, you are only going to get away with breaking them if everyone around you agrees to play along.
The traffic law which probably gets ignored the second-most is the "No Turn On Red" signs at intersections. I feel like a lot of people who want to take the right will pause for a moment or two, but if no one is coming the other way they move along. I'm starting to feel as though most lawmakers see how unnecessary this law has become, because I'm beginning to notice more conditional "No Turn On Red" signs. Some have time restrictions, but others are even less strict. For example, I have seen several "Turn on Red After Stop" meaning you can go as long as you have taken the required moment to make sure no cars are coming from the opposite direction. (I actually get really mad at the people who can't even pause, instead rolling through without a complete stop. Seriously, that is the kind of attitude which is going to get this leeway taken away from the rest of us.) The other one you see out in the suburbs is the "No Turn On Red When Pedestrians At Crosswalk". While I appreciate the attempt at increased specificity, because I never understood why we feel like all traffic signs can only be three words, this does bring in the dilemma of whether people standing within a few feet of the crosswalk at technically 'at' them. However, it appears most people think "at crosswalk" really means "in front of your bumper", because they go as soon as they have enough room to squeeze their car through without clipping anyone.
Either way, all it takes is one car going to open the floodgates for every car behind them at that light to take the turn as well. (Of course, this is a temporary measure, as the next time the light goes red all the pressure goes back on that first car to once again decide for the group if they will be ignoring that law.) Still, the whole group has to be involved. The other night I was heading home fairly late when I came to a four-way intersection and a "No Turn On Red" sign. Now, I'm at this intersection all the time and I know that most people just take the turn with no problems. Hell, the first time I was at this intersection I took the turn despite the red light because I never saw the sign. There was a Brookline police officer behind me and nothing happened - it wasn't until I was there the next time and the person in the first car at the light didn't turn that I finally spotted the "No Turn" sign on the other side of the intersection. (In my defense, it is in a weird location.) In other words, I think most people ignore this one. So once I made sure no one was coming, I took the right and headed up the street, same as I usually do. However, the second car in line didn't follow after me, content to wait for the light to turn green to make a legal turn. I don't know how the third car in line felt about this, but suddenly I felt very hung out to dry.
Whenever you bend any rule, no matter how minor, it helps to do it in a group setting. That way you can always claim group ignorance and if you get caught the trouble doesn't seem as personal. Not to mention, one person breaking a rule is a crime. Five or six people willfully ignoring that rule at the same time might make people wonder if there is something wrong with the rule. (I guess it goes back to the whole, "safety in numbers" thing.) But if you can't do your rule ignoring in a group, the last thing you want is for someone else to call attention to it. So by watching me going and then patiently waiting for the light to turn this driver was bringing attention onto the fact that I should have still been sitting there. Not cool. Now, the good news is that there were no cops around at the time. I'm not sure how motivated they would have been to pull me over at that hour, but I would rather not have risked it. But, despite this close call I'll have to admit that if on another occasion I find myself at this intersection late at night (which I 100% will) I'll do things pretty much the same. The only change is that next time I'll make sure the car behind me is going to follow my lead.
The traffic law which probably gets ignored the second-most is the "No Turn On Red" signs at intersections. I feel like a lot of people who want to take the right will pause for a moment or two, but if no one is coming the other way they move along. I'm starting to feel as though most lawmakers see how unnecessary this law has become, because I'm beginning to notice more conditional "No Turn On Red" signs. Some have time restrictions, but others are even less strict. For example, I have seen several "Turn on Red After Stop" meaning you can go as long as you have taken the required moment to make sure no cars are coming from the opposite direction. (I actually get really mad at the people who can't even pause, instead rolling through without a complete stop. Seriously, that is the kind of attitude which is going to get this leeway taken away from the rest of us.) The other one you see out in the suburbs is the "No Turn On Red When Pedestrians At Crosswalk". While I appreciate the attempt at increased specificity, because I never understood why we feel like all traffic signs can only be three words, this does bring in the dilemma of whether people standing within a few feet of the crosswalk at technically 'at' them. However, it appears most people think "at crosswalk" really means "in front of your bumper", because they go as soon as they have enough room to squeeze their car through without clipping anyone.
Either way, all it takes is one car going to open the floodgates for every car behind them at that light to take the turn as well. (Of course, this is a temporary measure, as the next time the light goes red all the pressure goes back on that first car to once again decide for the group if they will be ignoring that law.) Still, the whole group has to be involved. The other night I was heading home fairly late when I came to a four-way intersection and a "No Turn On Red" sign. Now, I'm at this intersection all the time and I know that most people just take the turn with no problems. Hell, the first time I was at this intersection I took the turn despite the red light because I never saw the sign. There was a Brookline police officer behind me and nothing happened - it wasn't until I was there the next time and the person in the first car at the light didn't turn that I finally spotted the "No Turn" sign on the other side of the intersection. (In my defense, it is in a weird location.) In other words, I think most people ignore this one. So once I made sure no one was coming, I took the right and headed up the street, same as I usually do. However, the second car in line didn't follow after me, content to wait for the light to turn green to make a legal turn. I don't know how the third car in line felt about this, but suddenly I felt very hung out to dry.
Whenever you bend any rule, no matter how minor, it helps to do it in a group setting. That way you can always claim group ignorance and if you get caught the trouble doesn't seem as personal. Not to mention, one person breaking a rule is a crime. Five or six people willfully ignoring that rule at the same time might make people wonder if there is something wrong with the rule. (I guess it goes back to the whole, "safety in numbers" thing.) But if you can't do your rule ignoring in a group, the last thing you want is for someone else to call attention to it. So by watching me going and then patiently waiting for the light to turn this driver was bringing attention onto the fact that I should have still been sitting there. Not cool. Now, the good news is that there were no cops around at the time. I'm not sure how motivated they would have been to pull me over at that hour, but I would rather not have risked it. But, despite this close call I'll have to admit that if on another occasion I find myself at this intersection late at night (which I 100% will) I'll do things pretty much the same. The only change is that next time I'll make sure the car behind me is going to follow my lead.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Made For Walking
The other day I went out to run a few errands. When I got to the bottom of my street I couldn't turn right away, as I had to wait for a jogger to run passed. Once I made the turn I had to slow down again because the guy was still in the street. After I was finally able to go around him I had to slow down a second time because some kids were riding their bikes down the street. Then, as I got to the end of that road I had to pause a third time because a man was pushing a double stroller down the street. This got me to thinking: when did everyone stop using the sidewalk? When I was young rode your bike on the sidewalk because you weren't supposed to play in the street. The only time you went there was if someone was walking, but even then as soon as they passed you, you got back up onto the sidewalk before going any further. I don't know when that changed, but it clearly has. Now everyone is already in the street, almost as though they are attempting to be polite in advance. I'm all for manners, but there is a time and place for them and in this case that time doesn't come until there is actually another person on the sidewalk trying to get around you.
I can almost understand why people want riders on bikes to be in the street, because they can really get moving and some people might not react quick enough, resulting in a painful collision. I assume this is why most roads now have a dedicated bike lane. However, that probably shouldn't apply to kids just out for a ride around the block. I could also see why a runner would want to be in the street if he is trying to run through the city, because those sidewalks can get crowded with people who are going at their own pace and I know how annoying it can be when you want to move fast and are stick behind slow walkers. Still, this was the 'burbs - there was no crowd to worry about. However, it was the guy with the double strollers which almost made me pull over and yell at him. Seriously, you shouldn't have a stroller in the street any longer than you have to. In fact, I'm like 90% sure people with baby strollers and the elderly are the reason we have sidewalks to begin with. And if the elderly start walking in the street, considering how fast they move, you may see a lot of people opting to drive on the sidewalks.
I can almost understand why people want riders on bikes to be in the street, because they can really get moving and some people might not react quick enough, resulting in a painful collision. I assume this is why most roads now have a dedicated bike lane. However, that probably shouldn't apply to kids just out for a ride around the block. I could also see why a runner would want to be in the street if he is trying to run through the city, because those sidewalks can get crowded with people who are going at their own pace and I know how annoying it can be when you want to move fast and are stick behind slow walkers. Still, this was the 'burbs - there was no crowd to worry about. However, it was the guy with the double strollers which almost made me pull over and yell at him. Seriously, you shouldn't have a stroller in the street any longer than you have to. In fact, I'm like 90% sure people with baby strollers and the elderly are the reason we have sidewalks to begin with. And if the elderly start walking in the street, considering how fast they move, you may see a lot of people opting to drive on the sidewalks.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Opening Ceremony Ramblings
As a man who loves both pomp and circumstance, especially when mixed with irrational national pride, there is really no better event for me than the Opening Ceremony for the Olympic Games. I love everything about them, almost as much as I love sitting back and making smart-ass remarks, "Mystery Science Theater 3000"-style. With that combination, you can probably figure out why this is one of my favorite posts to write every two years. Now, normally I would have just Tweeted all these observations, but I have a policy regarding over-tweeting in one day. Also, since the games are in London I would be watching the proceedings on tape-delay, which meant I would be talking about things which happened hours ago and saying jokes which had probably already been said. With that in mind, I figured I would save them for here...
-Going in, everyone was wondering how this ceremony will compare to the Beijing Olympics, which kind of confuses me. So, are we just pretending that the Vancouver Games didn't happen or is there some kind of unwritten rule which states you can only compare the Summer Games to other Summer Games? Because in my mind London only has to out-do Vancouver and provided there are no beat poets or appearances by Avril Lavigne they should be in the clear.
-NBC did the highly annoying maneuver of telling me the ceremony would start at 7:30, when in reality they didn't start until 8. Instead I was treated to a half-hour of useless banter to kill time. If I wanted updates on security and the Olympic gymnastics team I would have watched the news. Also, I want less Ryan Seacrest in my life, not more. To me, this constitutes false advertising, which put NBC on my shit list. This would be a common theme throughout the evening.
-The opening video montage traced the River Thames from its source all the way to the city. Along the way there were clips of great moments in British sport, none of which meant a thing to me. Honestly, I don't even know what sport I was looking at half the time. (It might have been rugby.) Also, the video showed great British citizens through history, but I noticed they went from Sir Isaac Newton to John Lennon. Seems like a bit of a jump to me. I'm not sure if that was intended to save time, or point out the Empire had a bit of a lull there.
-When we got to live action it opened with what appeared to be The Shire from "Lord of the Rings". Probably would have worked better for the Sydney games, but no matter. It was very elaborate with kids playing games, people dancing, livestock and even a live cricket match (where, once again, I don't think even the participants knew all the rules.) That transformed into a darker, more mechanical time as director Danny Boyle was trying to tell the story of England's transformation with the Industrial Revolution. I'm sure it was supposed to be an indictment of the world's policy of destroying natural beauty in the name of progress, but A) it took too long and B) all I could think as I watched these performers pantomime working at machines is that British people have terrible rhythm.
-Speaking of rhythm, there were hundreds, if not thousands, of volunteers playing the drums for the majority of the ceremony. While I applaud their stamina, I do question how many of them actually know how to play the drums. I guess some of them could have learned in the months leading up to the event, but watching them I couldn't help but get this sinking suspicion that most of them were hitting and no sound was coming out.
-While we're on the subject of volunteers and learning, there was a segment designed to celebrate England's National Health Service. (At first I assumed the giant NHS in the middle of the stadium was a tribute to my high school, but apparently not.) This was followed by doctors and nurses dancing around - not people dressed as doctors and nurses but actual, licensed doctors and nurses. This got me thinking - how much time did they take away from work to learn the choreography? I would hate it if I showed up to my doctor's office with a serious illness and was told to come back tomorrow because my doctor was out taking swing lessons.
-It was about this time that Merideth Vieira and Matt Lauer started to get on my nerves. It was almost as though they couldn't wait to hear the sound of their own voices, because they just kept telling us what we were looking at. After a while it began to take on a feel similar to their coverage of the Thanksgiving Day Parade. Well, I don't watch that for exactly this reason. If I can't tell what I'm watching to the point someone has to explain it to me as it is happening, than you're doing a shitty job of telling your story.
-Next there was the arrival of the Queen, set up by video of James Bond (Daniel Craig) escorting her to the games, where both "jumped" out of helicopters. Here is where my annoyance of Vieira and Lauer stepped up a notch, because they kept acting as though it was the Queen herself who jumped from the helicopter, when everyone on the planet knew that wasn't happening. Please, stop talking to us as though we're children. Also, they kept insisting this was going to be the moment which went viral. Actually, no it won't, because newscasters telling us something should go viral is the quickest way for a moment to not become an internet sensation. Lastly, I think Daniel Craig is a fine James Bond, but I still would rather they used Connery. I know at this point he's in his 80s, but so is the Queen. It is not like there were any stunts involved.
-I think the organizers also missed a chance for star power during the next segment, which was a tribute to all the great literary characters created by British authors. At one point a 100-foot tall Voldemort was fought by a swarm of flying Mary Poppins (as you do). How do you not get Julie Andrews for this moment? Honestly, she seems like she would be game for anything. Also, because of this ceremony, I am now convinced anyone under the age of 10 in the UK is required to wear pajamas at all times.
-Next came a tribute to all the great music which has come out of the UK in the last few decades. It would have been my favorite part, but they really zoomed past a few major acts because they were trying to advance some love story involving two characters they introduced us to 5 minutes earlier. I would have ditched the story and just focused on the music. Also, it feels like they skipped a couple of musicians, specifically Oasis. How do you not have any music from Oasis during this entire ceremony?
-Seriously, that question needs its own bullet point: How do you forget to include Oasis in the UK music section?
-Finally we got to the parade of nations, my biennial reminder of how much I suck at world geography. It's especially bad during the Summer Games because there are even more nations participating, which is just a nice way to be reminded that I don't know where 70% of these nations are. I was amused by how Matt Lauer and Bob Costas had to read through a fun-fact about each nation, like they were giving some kind of geography report in the fifth grade. Also, much like a fifth grade report, I'm fairly convinced most of these facts came straight from Wikipedia.
-Here was my last problem with NBC - they added way too many commercial breaks during this part. Knowing how TV works I would have been fine with it, except they would then come back and zoom through a few nations. This was on tape delay - they could have spaced out the breaks any way they wanted to. Hell, remember that 30 minutes of killing time I talked about at the top of the show? Why not eliminate that instead? Breezing past a country just because you want to show us another Cadillac ad is rather disrespectful to that nation. And, yes, all this anger stems from the fact Lithuania got 4 seconds of screen time.
-The US flag was being carried by fencer Mariel Zagunis. Now, she's a Notre Dame girl, so good for her. I like the idea of having the flag bearer be one of the lesser-known athletes, because it is not like LeBron James needs more airtime. That being said... really? I know the swimmers were unavailable because they were competing early the next day, but fencing may be a little too far into the bag.
-I couldn't help but notice that while Chris Paul, LeBron James and a couple other basketball players were walking together, Kobe Bryant was by himself. Draw your own conclusions on that one...
-There was a small controversy when it was revealed that the US uniforms were made in China. [Sidebar: I can tell whether or not I would vote for a politician by their response to the uniform gaff. If they said burn the uniforms and start over, regardless of cost, I want them gone.] Personally, I am much more offended by the ugly berets the team was asked to wear. This is what happens when you involve companies like Ralph Lauren, who don't make clothes for athletes to actually wear, just clothes for people who want to look as though they might trick you into thinking they could be an athlete.
-For some reason I feel like I am extra aware of the more obscure sports for these games. That is probably why as I watched the US team file in, it occurred to me that no horses were included. Honestly, behind the basketball teams, Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte, Ann Romney's horse Rafalca might be the most talked about Olympian the US sent over (as evidenced by the fact I spent several minutes Googling to see if the horse's name should be spelled Rafalca or Rafalka). So the fact he didn't get to participate feels kind of unfair. His rider is the one who will get the medal, so you should let the horse have a little fun at some point, right? If you think he would be scared by the crowd, I would respond by telling you that if he couldn't be controlled than it would seems his jockey isn't Olympic-quality. And they already had live animals on the stage, so don't tell me a little waste was going to scare them away. Seriously, dressage seems like it is a raw deal for the horse.
-The buzz in the early afternoon was that Roger Bannister, the first man to break the 4-minute mile barrier, was getting the most action in the betting parlors as the person who would light the Olympic torch. That turned out to be incorrect, as the cauldron was lit by some kids who are supposed to be future Olympians (no pressure gang, but we did just let you light the Olympic torch). Frankly, I'm glad all the speculation was wrong, because earlier in the day I had been kind of bummed me out when it appeared the secret had been revealed. It is almost impossible to keep a secret these days, so I was glad the organizers pulled it off. It would have been unfortunate to keep a secret this long only to have the world find out who would receive this great honor based mostly on the fact that the oddsmakers had taken Bannister off the board.
-After the torch was lit, NBC came back to tell us the upcoming schedule of events and on which channels I could watch them. It was at this point I remembered that I really don't care about 97% of this stuff. The Olympics sort of encapsulate how I feel about baseball - I'm really excited for Opening Day, I periodically check in during the season for one or two games and then start paying attention again right at the end. So, other than the occasional Phelps race and when Lithuania plays the US in basketball, London, I will see you for the Closing Ceremonies.
-Going in, everyone was wondering how this ceremony will compare to the Beijing Olympics, which kind of confuses me. So, are we just pretending that the Vancouver Games didn't happen or is there some kind of unwritten rule which states you can only compare the Summer Games to other Summer Games? Because in my mind London only has to out-do Vancouver and provided there are no beat poets or appearances by Avril Lavigne they should be in the clear.
-NBC did the highly annoying maneuver of telling me the ceremony would start at 7:30, when in reality they didn't start until 8. Instead I was treated to a half-hour of useless banter to kill time. If I wanted updates on security and the Olympic gymnastics team I would have watched the news. Also, I want less Ryan Seacrest in my life, not more. To me, this constitutes false advertising, which put NBC on my shit list. This would be a common theme throughout the evening.
-The opening video montage traced the River Thames from its source all the way to the city. Along the way there were clips of great moments in British sport, none of which meant a thing to me. Honestly, I don't even know what sport I was looking at half the time. (It might have been rugby.) Also, the video showed great British citizens through history, but I noticed they went from Sir Isaac Newton to John Lennon. Seems like a bit of a jump to me. I'm not sure if that was intended to save time, or point out the Empire had a bit of a lull there.
-When we got to live action it opened with what appeared to be The Shire from "Lord of the Rings". Probably would have worked better for the Sydney games, but no matter. It was very elaborate with kids playing games, people dancing, livestock and even a live cricket match (where, once again, I don't think even the participants knew all the rules.) That transformed into a darker, more mechanical time as director Danny Boyle was trying to tell the story of England's transformation with the Industrial Revolution. I'm sure it was supposed to be an indictment of the world's policy of destroying natural beauty in the name of progress, but A) it took too long and B) all I could think as I watched these performers pantomime working at machines is that British people have terrible rhythm.
-Speaking of rhythm, there were hundreds, if not thousands, of volunteers playing the drums for the majority of the ceremony. While I applaud their stamina, I do question how many of them actually know how to play the drums. I guess some of them could have learned in the months leading up to the event, but watching them I couldn't help but get this sinking suspicion that most of them were hitting and no sound was coming out.
-While we're on the subject of volunteers and learning, there was a segment designed to celebrate England's National Health Service. (At first I assumed the giant NHS in the middle of the stadium was a tribute to my high school, but apparently not.) This was followed by doctors and nurses dancing around - not people dressed as doctors and nurses but actual, licensed doctors and nurses. This got me thinking - how much time did they take away from work to learn the choreography? I would hate it if I showed up to my doctor's office with a serious illness and was told to come back tomorrow because my doctor was out taking swing lessons.
-It was about this time that Merideth Vieira and Matt Lauer started to get on my nerves. It was almost as though they couldn't wait to hear the sound of their own voices, because they just kept telling us what we were looking at. After a while it began to take on a feel similar to their coverage of the Thanksgiving Day Parade. Well, I don't watch that for exactly this reason. If I can't tell what I'm watching to the point someone has to explain it to me as it is happening, than you're doing a shitty job of telling your story.
-Next there was the arrival of the Queen, set up by video of James Bond (Daniel Craig) escorting her to the games, where both "jumped" out of helicopters. Here is where my annoyance of Vieira and Lauer stepped up a notch, because they kept acting as though it was the Queen herself who jumped from the helicopter, when everyone on the planet knew that wasn't happening. Please, stop talking to us as though we're children. Also, they kept insisting this was going to be the moment which went viral. Actually, no it won't, because newscasters telling us something should go viral is the quickest way for a moment to not become an internet sensation. Lastly, I think Daniel Craig is a fine James Bond, but I still would rather they used Connery. I know at this point he's in his 80s, but so is the Queen. It is not like there were any stunts involved.
-I think the organizers also missed a chance for star power during the next segment, which was a tribute to all the great literary characters created by British authors. At one point a 100-foot tall Voldemort was fought by a swarm of flying Mary Poppins (as you do). How do you not get Julie Andrews for this moment? Honestly, she seems like she would be game for anything. Also, because of this ceremony, I am now convinced anyone under the age of 10 in the UK is required to wear pajamas at all times.
-Next came a tribute to all the great music which has come out of the UK in the last few decades. It would have been my favorite part, but they really zoomed past a few major acts because they were trying to advance some love story involving two characters they introduced us to 5 minutes earlier. I would have ditched the story and just focused on the music. Also, it feels like they skipped a couple of musicians, specifically Oasis. How do you not have any music from Oasis during this entire ceremony?
-Seriously, that question needs its own bullet point: How do you forget to include Oasis in the UK music section?
-Finally we got to the parade of nations, my biennial reminder of how much I suck at world geography. It's especially bad during the Summer Games because there are even more nations participating, which is just a nice way to be reminded that I don't know where 70% of these nations are. I was amused by how Matt Lauer and Bob Costas had to read through a fun-fact about each nation, like they were giving some kind of geography report in the fifth grade. Also, much like a fifth grade report, I'm fairly convinced most of these facts came straight from Wikipedia.
-Here was my last problem with NBC - they added way too many commercial breaks during this part. Knowing how TV works I would have been fine with it, except they would then come back and zoom through a few nations. This was on tape delay - they could have spaced out the breaks any way they wanted to. Hell, remember that 30 minutes of killing time I talked about at the top of the show? Why not eliminate that instead? Breezing past a country just because you want to show us another Cadillac ad is rather disrespectful to that nation. And, yes, all this anger stems from the fact Lithuania got 4 seconds of screen time.
-The US flag was being carried by fencer Mariel Zagunis. Now, she's a Notre Dame girl, so good for her. I like the idea of having the flag bearer be one of the lesser-known athletes, because it is not like LeBron James needs more airtime. That being said... really? I know the swimmers were unavailable because they were competing early the next day, but fencing may be a little too far into the bag.
-I couldn't help but notice that while Chris Paul, LeBron James and a couple other basketball players were walking together, Kobe Bryant was by himself. Draw your own conclusions on that one...
-There was a small controversy when it was revealed that the US uniforms were made in China. [Sidebar: I can tell whether or not I would vote for a politician by their response to the uniform gaff. If they said burn the uniforms and start over, regardless of cost, I want them gone.] Personally, I am much more offended by the ugly berets the team was asked to wear. This is what happens when you involve companies like Ralph Lauren, who don't make clothes for athletes to actually wear, just clothes for people who want to look as though they might trick you into thinking they could be an athlete.
-For some reason I feel like I am extra aware of the more obscure sports for these games. That is probably why as I watched the US team file in, it occurred to me that no horses were included. Honestly, behind the basketball teams, Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte, Ann Romney's horse Rafalca might be the most talked about Olympian the US sent over (as evidenced by the fact I spent several minutes Googling to see if the horse's name should be spelled Rafalca or Rafalka). So the fact he didn't get to participate feels kind of unfair. His rider is the one who will get the medal, so you should let the horse have a little fun at some point, right? If you think he would be scared by the crowd, I would respond by telling you that if he couldn't be controlled than it would seems his jockey isn't Olympic-quality. And they already had live animals on the stage, so don't tell me a little waste was going to scare them away. Seriously, dressage seems like it is a raw deal for the horse.
-The buzz in the early afternoon was that Roger Bannister, the first man to break the 4-minute mile barrier, was getting the most action in the betting parlors as the person who would light the Olympic torch. That turned out to be incorrect, as the cauldron was lit by some kids who are supposed to be future Olympians (no pressure gang, but we did just let you light the Olympic torch). Frankly, I'm glad all the speculation was wrong, because earlier in the day I had been kind of bummed me out when it appeared the secret had been revealed. It is almost impossible to keep a secret these days, so I was glad the organizers pulled it off. It would have been unfortunate to keep a secret this long only to have the world find out who would receive this great honor based mostly on the fact that the oddsmakers had taken Bannister off the board.
-After the torch was lit, NBC came back to tell us the upcoming schedule of events and on which channels I could watch them. It was at this point I remembered that I really don't care about 97% of this stuff. The Olympics sort of encapsulate how I feel about baseball - I'm really excited for Opening Day, I periodically check in during the season for one or two games and then start paying attention again right at the end. So, other than the occasional Phelps race and when Lithuania plays the US in basketball, London, I will see you for the Closing Ceremonies.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Weekly Sporties
-On Monday the NCAA dropped the hammer on Penn State for "lack of institutional control" regarding their handling of the Jerry Sandusky scandal. Among the penalties are $60 million in fines which will be given to charities benefiting victims of sexual abuse, a four-year bowl ban and loss of scholarships for those same four years (which kind of makes the bowl ban redundant). The penalties were pretty unprecedented, but in some minds they didn't go far enough, because Penn State is still playing football. There were some people who wanted the NCAA to institute the so-called "Death Penalty" and shut the program down for a couple of years. Whether you think they should have done that or not is a separate issue - all we're dealing with here is that I would like to ask is that going forward we stop suggesting that as an option because if the NCAA didn't do it here, they are never going to do it again. If you watch the "Pony Express" documentary about the one and only time a program was given the death penalty, everyone made it clear that in the aftermath the NCAA thought it was too harsh and never wanted to use it again. Not to mention, with the way schools sign contracts to play one another and TV deal are structured around those games, I don't even think it could be done. It would create more problems for schools which weren't involved in any shenanigans than it would for the team which is suspended. The NCAA obviously like to have the specter of the death penalty to keep programs in line, but I think this makes it fairly clear it will never actually get used, so let's stop pretending it's a possibility.
-I could also use a little less grandstanding by the NCAA regarding these penalties, because while they stood up there and claimed these measures were designed to send a message to every school that football shouldn't be bigger than academics or preparing kids for the future, they also declared that any Penn State player who wished to transfer could do so without having to sit out the normally required year. That year of being ineligible to play was designed to keep coaches from poaching off other rosters and by removing it they basically declared Penn State open for college football's version of free agency. Within a couple days opposing coaches were hanging out in Penn State's parking lot, trying to talk to players. And while coaches from Wisconsin and Northwestern has said they have no plans to actively try and recruit players away from Penn State, other schools don't seem to have a problem with it. For example, USC is supposedly going hard after Penn State's best player, running back Silas Redd. (Considering USC just completed its own bowl ban for the same lack of institutional control, let's all step back and appreciate the irony.) So, the NCAA may want to take the moral high ground here, but in the same breath they also put the emphasis right back on the field of play. Not only that, but they made it slightly worse because now the bidding war for these players, normally done in back rooms, is taking place for everyone to see. If the NCAA really wanted to take the focus away from football this sure was a funny way of showing it.
-Taking the (increasingly) short jump to pro football, the Patriots reported for training camp this week. And while there may be one or two veterans who aren't in shape or ready to play, for the most part it is all quiet up in Foxboro. In fact, you could make the case that the biggest news of the week was the revelation that wide receiver Wes Welker got a hair transplant during the offseason and is so pleased with the results that he plans to do commercials for the doctor in the future. Now, obviously Welker is not the first athlete to get hair transplants nor is he the most vocal about it. However, the difference is that most of the athletes who have done commercials for products like this in the past, such as Wade Boggs, waited until after they had retired. The reason is quite simple: they knew the opposing crowds were going to be searching for anything they could to use to get under their skin with creative heckling and saw no reason to help them by providing material. By announcing this now, Welker is in for a long year of balding jokes. But, if he can live with it than I don't see what the problem is. I know that Patriot fans are willing to overlook stuff like this as long as the team is winning. (Don't forget, for a few years our quarterback played with hair long enough it could have been braided and no one said a peep.) Not to mention, the team and Welker are reportedly far apart on a contract extension, so Wes could probably use some extra cash wherever he can get it. And thanks to this hair transplant, think of all the money he will save on hats!
-A couple days ago Carolina Panthers Pro Bowl center Ryan Kalil took out a full-page ad in the Charlotte Observer in which he guaranteed that not only would the Panthers be going to the Super Bowl this year, they were going to win it. This caused quite stir when it came out, but I don't really understand why. First off, you have to like his enthusiasm and it is warranted. Any outside observer would tell you there is a lot to like about the Panthers this year. Cam Newton set all kinds of records in his first year in the league and that was without the benefit of a full training camp, so expecting him to be even better this coming season is not out of the question. Everyone seems to think Carolina is a team on the rise. (Though maybe not that much of a rise. The flip side of that coin is now the league has a year of tape to learn how to defend against Newton.) Secondly, I never understand why people are surprised when players expect to have a good season. To me it is never news when a player or coach guarantees a good year - the news would be if a player had a press conference to declare he thought the team was going to stink. The only troublesome part of this to me was the revelation that Kalil took out this ad with his own money and without telling anyone in the Panthers organization. If I were a Panthers fan (not just related to one), the fact that the team's center is the one with the lofty expectations would concern me, but the fact he didn't want to run it passed anyone first would make me downright nervous. Just what kind of marketing department do they have over there? I'm left to wonder if all the previous promotional items were along the lines of "Panthers Football: Be Realistic!" or "9 and 7 is still technically winning season!" Don't be afraid of greatness, guys.
-Early in the week Seattle Mariners superstar Ichiro Suzuki was traded to the New York Yankees in exchange for some minor league players. Naturally, ESPN was all abuzz with the news, because Ichiro has been one of the biggest names in the game for the last decade. The only problem is that his game hasn't lived up to his name for many years now. However, that didn't stop analysts from dissecting this trade from every angle for several hours. Now, I can't totally blame them - this is a big-name player going to one of the most famous franchises on the planet. Also, it is possible that Ichiro's lackluster play has been a direct result of being mired in a losing situation. He certainly wouldn't be the first guy to see his career get rejuvenated by playing for the Yankees. Still, this got me thinking about how athletes, but especially baseball players, seem to be allowed to coast off their past accomplishments for a lot longer than they probably should. I think the main reason ESPN got their knickers in a twist is that people actually know the principle player involved in this trade, whereas more often than not baseball trades involve a lot of names people don't know, because they are prospects for the future. It isn't until they have made it big in the majors that people remember they were once part of a deal for a bigger name. Last week I mentioned that Bud Selig wanted to protect the sanctity of baseball uniforms by not allowing teams to sell advertisements on them, feeling as though certain jerseys were too special, no matter who was wearing them. Well, if all this buzz over a guy hitting .260 does nothing else, it should remind Selig that every once in a while the name on the back can be just as important as the one on the front.
-Last night the NBA released its schedule for the upcoming year. This made me think about how in the last few years people have made a bigger and bigger deal out of schedule release day and I don't know why. You can marginally understand it with football, because there are only 16 games and people need to know if they have any prime-time games to schedule around. But, the NBA had a countdown going to their schedule release, which just confused me because there might not be a more meaningless regular season than the NBA. I could tell you right now which 16 teams were going to make the playoffs and, barring some kind of landscape-shifting injury, I would probably be right about 14 of them, so why does the order in which they play one another honestly matter? I guess some people care about the Christmas Day lineup, but considering I don't like that the NBA plays on Christmas I am not one of them. Honestly, there are only a handful of games to get genuinely excited about during the months of November - May and the rest of the time they are surrounded by mostly mundane contests, so why should I get excited about being able to see when the Celtics are playing the Suns, a team which is not a rival of any kind? Give me a couple weeks notice, tops. On top of that, the games don't start for another three and a half months, which is way too much time to get me excited. I don't even like movie trailers if the films they are promoting aren't coming out for more than two weeks. Wake me when the teams get to training camp, then I will start looking at when the games will be played.
-So, the 2012 London Olympics are starting tonight (which is why we're doing the Sporties a day early, just in case you were wondering), but the games are already over for one member of the Greek contingent. Triple jumper Voula Papachristou was left at home after she sent out a racist tweet concerning the number of African immigrants in her home country. You can argue whether the penalty fit the crime some other time but to me the bigger issue is that once again, we are reminded that Twitter should really only be left in the hands of professionals (there is also a conspiracy theory that she was suspended for backing the wrong political party, which is why athletes should never discuss politics either). Honestly, I have yet to hear one positive story about something an athlete said through social media. Usually it is something terrible or offensive, which is quickly deleted and followed by the standard defense of "That wasn't me - my account was hacked!" There is really nothing to be gained from these athletes being on Twitter and especially not this close to the Games. This woman probably trained her entire life for this moment and now she has basically wasted all that time. Admittedly, she probably wasn't a favorite to win a medal, but her odds were much better a week ago than they are now. All her hard work down the drain because of an attempt to be funny. Maybe next Olympics she'll know to keep her thoughts to herself until after the race. The good news is that she has another four years to figure out a way to really nail that punchline.
-I could also use a little less grandstanding by the NCAA regarding these penalties, because while they stood up there and claimed these measures were designed to send a message to every school that football shouldn't be bigger than academics or preparing kids for the future, they also declared that any Penn State player who wished to transfer could do so without having to sit out the normally required year. That year of being ineligible to play was designed to keep coaches from poaching off other rosters and by removing it they basically declared Penn State open for college football's version of free agency. Within a couple days opposing coaches were hanging out in Penn State's parking lot, trying to talk to players. And while coaches from Wisconsin and Northwestern has said they have no plans to actively try and recruit players away from Penn State, other schools don't seem to have a problem with it. For example, USC is supposedly going hard after Penn State's best player, running back Silas Redd. (Considering USC just completed its own bowl ban for the same lack of institutional control, let's all step back and appreciate the irony.) So, the NCAA may want to take the moral high ground here, but in the same breath they also put the emphasis right back on the field of play. Not only that, but they made it slightly worse because now the bidding war for these players, normally done in back rooms, is taking place for everyone to see. If the NCAA really wanted to take the focus away from football this sure was a funny way of showing it.
-Taking the (increasingly) short jump to pro football, the Patriots reported for training camp this week. And while there may be one or two veterans who aren't in shape or ready to play, for the most part it is all quiet up in Foxboro. In fact, you could make the case that the biggest news of the week was the revelation that wide receiver Wes Welker got a hair transplant during the offseason and is so pleased with the results that he plans to do commercials for the doctor in the future. Now, obviously Welker is not the first athlete to get hair transplants nor is he the most vocal about it. However, the difference is that most of the athletes who have done commercials for products like this in the past, such as Wade Boggs, waited until after they had retired. The reason is quite simple: they knew the opposing crowds were going to be searching for anything they could to use to get under their skin with creative heckling and saw no reason to help them by providing material. By announcing this now, Welker is in for a long year of balding jokes. But, if he can live with it than I don't see what the problem is. I know that Patriot fans are willing to overlook stuff like this as long as the team is winning. (Don't forget, for a few years our quarterback played with hair long enough it could have been braided and no one said a peep.) Not to mention, the team and Welker are reportedly far apart on a contract extension, so Wes could probably use some extra cash wherever he can get it. And thanks to this hair transplant, think of all the money he will save on hats!
-A couple days ago Carolina Panthers Pro Bowl center Ryan Kalil took out a full-page ad in the Charlotte Observer in which he guaranteed that not only would the Panthers be going to the Super Bowl this year, they were going to win it. This caused quite stir when it came out, but I don't really understand why. First off, you have to like his enthusiasm and it is warranted. Any outside observer would tell you there is a lot to like about the Panthers this year. Cam Newton set all kinds of records in his first year in the league and that was without the benefit of a full training camp, so expecting him to be even better this coming season is not out of the question. Everyone seems to think Carolina is a team on the rise. (Though maybe not that much of a rise. The flip side of that coin is now the league has a year of tape to learn how to defend against Newton.) Secondly, I never understand why people are surprised when players expect to have a good season. To me it is never news when a player or coach guarantees a good year - the news would be if a player had a press conference to declare he thought the team was going to stink. The only troublesome part of this to me was the revelation that Kalil took out this ad with his own money and without telling anyone in the Panthers organization. If I were a Panthers fan (not just related to one), the fact that the team's center is the one with the lofty expectations would concern me, but the fact he didn't want to run it passed anyone first would make me downright nervous. Just what kind of marketing department do they have over there? I'm left to wonder if all the previous promotional items were along the lines of "Panthers Football: Be Realistic!" or "9 and 7 is still technically winning season!" Don't be afraid of greatness, guys.
-Early in the week Seattle Mariners superstar Ichiro Suzuki was traded to the New York Yankees in exchange for some minor league players. Naturally, ESPN was all abuzz with the news, because Ichiro has been one of the biggest names in the game for the last decade. The only problem is that his game hasn't lived up to his name for many years now. However, that didn't stop analysts from dissecting this trade from every angle for several hours. Now, I can't totally blame them - this is a big-name player going to one of the most famous franchises on the planet. Also, it is possible that Ichiro's lackluster play has been a direct result of being mired in a losing situation. He certainly wouldn't be the first guy to see his career get rejuvenated by playing for the Yankees. Still, this got me thinking about how athletes, but especially baseball players, seem to be allowed to coast off their past accomplishments for a lot longer than they probably should. I think the main reason ESPN got their knickers in a twist is that people actually know the principle player involved in this trade, whereas more often than not baseball trades involve a lot of names people don't know, because they are prospects for the future. It isn't until they have made it big in the majors that people remember they were once part of a deal for a bigger name. Last week I mentioned that Bud Selig wanted to protect the sanctity of baseball uniforms by not allowing teams to sell advertisements on them, feeling as though certain jerseys were too special, no matter who was wearing them. Well, if all this buzz over a guy hitting .260 does nothing else, it should remind Selig that every once in a while the name on the back can be just as important as the one on the front.
-Last night the NBA released its schedule for the upcoming year. This made me think about how in the last few years people have made a bigger and bigger deal out of schedule release day and I don't know why. You can marginally understand it with football, because there are only 16 games and people need to know if they have any prime-time games to schedule around. But, the NBA had a countdown going to their schedule release, which just confused me because there might not be a more meaningless regular season than the NBA. I could tell you right now which 16 teams were going to make the playoffs and, barring some kind of landscape-shifting injury, I would probably be right about 14 of them, so why does the order in which they play one another honestly matter? I guess some people care about the Christmas Day lineup, but considering I don't like that the NBA plays on Christmas I am not one of them. Honestly, there are only a handful of games to get genuinely excited about during the months of November - May and the rest of the time they are surrounded by mostly mundane contests, so why should I get excited about being able to see when the Celtics are playing the Suns, a team which is not a rival of any kind? Give me a couple weeks notice, tops. On top of that, the games don't start for another three and a half months, which is way too much time to get me excited. I don't even like movie trailers if the films they are promoting aren't coming out for more than two weeks. Wake me when the teams get to training camp, then I will start looking at when the games will be played.
-So, the 2012 London Olympics are starting tonight (which is why we're doing the Sporties a day early, just in case you were wondering), but the games are already over for one member of the Greek contingent. Triple jumper Voula Papachristou was left at home after she sent out a racist tweet concerning the number of African immigrants in her home country. You can argue whether the penalty fit the crime some other time but to me the bigger issue is that once again, we are reminded that Twitter should really only be left in the hands of professionals (there is also a conspiracy theory that she was suspended for backing the wrong political party, which is why athletes should never discuss politics either). Honestly, I have yet to hear one positive story about something an athlete said through social media. Usually it is something terrible or offensive, which is quickly deleted and followed by the standard defense of "That wasn't me - my account was hacked!" There is really nothing to be gained from these athletes being on Twitter and especially not this close to the Games. This woman probably trained her entire life for this moment and now she has basically wasted all that time. Admittedly, she probably wasn't a favorite to win a medal, but her odds were much better a week ago than they are now. All her hard work down the drain because of an attempt to be funny. Maybe next Olympics she'll know to keep her thoughts to herself until after the race. The good news is that she has another four years to figure out a way to really nail that punchline.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Naturally Annoying
In the last couple of days we finally got a break in the recent wave of humidity, which meant a chance to turn off the air conditioning and open up the windows to let some fresh air flow in. I know I like to say that air conditioning is one of the five greatest inventions of all time (because it is), but that doesn't change the fact that every now and again it is nice to open up the windows and let some real air circulate through the house, just to remember what that feels like and it removes the stale feeling which comes from too much A/C. However, opening up the windows during the summer months has one consequence which I am not very fond of, namely all the insects which up to this point have stayed outside and who now make a break for inside the house. Whenever I sleep with the windows open during the summer, it never fails that I will be dealing with a hoard of new insects to get rid of the next day. I don't know how they managed to get in considering all the windows have screens in them, but it is almost enough to make me wish for another heatwave, just so I have a reason to keep my windows closed and locked.
Waking up this morning it appeared that a new group of spiders had been very busy in the corners of my bedroom. As you know I have a policy regarding spiders, which is that I don't kill them as long as they remain outside of a few key areas, with my bedroom being the most key area of them all. I actually didn't find any spiders to dispose of to send this message in person, but needless to say I spent a few minutes tearing down their new homes in hopes they would get the hint this is not the place to set up shop. I can deal with spiders, though. The insects which really freak me out are the ones which I can't tell what the hell they are. This morning I went in to brush my teeth and out of the corner of my eye saw movement on the ceiling near the light. A second look revealed a creature about 5 inches in length quickly skittering across the ceiling. I have no idea what the heck this thing was, I just know it had a lot of legs. It looked like it was half-caterpillar, half-spider and all-the-way creepy. (You can check my Twitter account for the picture I took before squashing it.) It was the kind of squashing which produces not only a quite loud popping noise, but also a lot of fluid flying in every direction. It was pretty gross and not the best way to start my morning.
The other problem with sleeping with open windows is that it turns out nature gets pretty loud when there is no humming of an air conditioner to drown it out. One of the reasons I like where my house is located so much is that there is some space between me and the neighbors, which means unless they are throwing a party I don't have to listen to their personal conversations on quiet nights. However, the various nocturnal animals in the neighborhood are not nearly as conscientious regarding noise after a certain hour. Late last night I started to hear some serious screeching outside my window. At first I thought it was some neighborhood pet or one of the random cats on my street coming to an unfortunate end at the hands of a larger animal, but I have since learned it was a couple of huge raccoons fighting it out up in a tree behind my house. No idea what the problem between them was, but they were going to settle it last night and they didn't care who they bothered in the process. But if you have heard what happened the last time I called animal control regarding a raccoon, you know those guys would be wise to keep it down from now on.
The good news is that I live in Massachusetts, which means I have an ace in the hole - fall. Bugs don't like cold weather, so once the temperatures drop that will wipe many insects off the landscape. One good overnight frost warning in September and this will all be a memory (for a few months, anyway). And even though it will only be a temporary solution, it is better than the alternative. I have friends who live down South and they report back that with no cold months to hit the biological reset button, the bugs not only work their way inside all year-round, but they get bigger every time they do. In my opinion that sounds pretty horrible. I don't care how annoying a problem may be, only dealing with it for a couple of months a year beats a less annoying problem which is around all the time. (I'm sure there is a math formula to confirm this.) The fact that everyone apparently get used to it sounds even worse. I just know that if I walked into my bathroom and saw that same kind of insect on the ceiling every single morning I would move. I hear Alaska is lovely this time of year.
Waking up this morning it appeared that a new group of spiders had been very busy in the corners of my bedroom. As you know I have a policy regarding spiders, which is that I don't kill them as long as they remain outside of a few key areas, with my bedroom being the most key area of them all. I actually didn't find any spiders to dispose of to send this message in person, but needless to say I spent a few minutes tearing down their new homes in hopes they would get the hint this is not the place to set up shop. I can deal with spiders, though. The insects which really freak me out are the ones which I can't tell what the hell they are. This morning I went in to brush my teeth and out of the corner of my eye saw movement on the ceiling near the light. A second look revealed a creature about 5 inches in length quickly skittering across the ceiling. I have no idea what the heck this thing was, I just know it had a lot of legs. It looked like it was half-caterpillar, half-spider and all-the-way creepy. (You can check my Twitter account for the picture I took before squashing it.) It was the kind of squashing which produces not only a quite loud popping noise, but also a lot of fluid flying in every direction. It was pretty gross and not the best way to start my morning.
The other problem with sleeping with open windows is that it turns out nature gets pretty loud when there is no humming of an air conditioner to drown it out. One of the reasons I like where my house is located so much is that there is some space between me and the neighbors, which means unless they are throwing a party I don't have to listen to their personal conversations on quiet nights. However, the various nocturnal animals in the neighborhood are not nearly as conscientious regarding noise after a certain hour. Late last night I started to hear some serious screeching outside my window. At first I thought it was some neighborhood pet or one of the random cats on my street coming to an unfortunate end at the hands of a larger animal, but I have since learned it was a couple of huge raccoons fighting it out up in a tree behind my house. No idea what the problem between them was, but they were going to settle it last night and they didn't care who they bothered in the process. But if you have heard what happened the last time I called animal control regarding a raccoon, you know those guys would be wise to keep it down from now on.
The good news is that I live in Massachusetts, which means I have an ace in the hole - fall. Bugs don't like cold weather, so once the temperatures drop that will wipe many insects off the landscape. One good overnight frost warning in September and this will all be a memory (for a few months, anyway). And even though it will only be a temporary solution, it is better than the alternative. I have friends who live down South and they report back that with no cold months to hit the biological reset button, the bugs not only work their way inside all year-round, but they get bigger every time they do. In my opinion that sounds pretty horrible. I don't care how annoying a problem may be, only dealing with it for a couple of months a year beats a less annoying problem which is around all the time. (I'm sure there is a math formula to confirm this.) The fact that everyone apparently get used to it sounds even worse. I just know that if I walked into my bathroom and saw that same kind of insect on the ceiling every single morning I would move. I hear Alaska is lovely this time of year.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Chik-fil-No
A couple of weeks ago the President of Chik-fil-A gave an interview in which he expressed his belief that gay marriage is both illegal and immoral. Now, Chik-fil-A has always been a Christian company, to the point it is not open on Sundays, so this stance probably wasn't shocking to anyone who had been paying attention. However, this not-very-surprising political statement didn't stop people in all corners of the internet from calling for a boycott of the fast food chain. Since we don't have one around here to ignore, Boston May Tom Menino took the extra step of writing a letter which said the company is not welcome in the city limits and various Chicago officials have said the company will not be allowed to move into their city until they show proof that the company doesn't discriminate against anyone during their hiring practices. Now, I've made it clear that I fully support a person's right to get married to whomever they want, but that doesn't mean I will ignore any company that doesn't share this opinion. I'm able to compartmentalize the two issues as being complete unrelated to one another. (Seriously, I'm way more offended that they are teaching a generation of kids to be terrible spellers.) Even if we really don't need another fast food chain in this town, writing a letter telling Chik-fil-A they can't come send an equally bad message.
For some reason this particular election year it feels as though more people are taking it upon themselves to find out which companies give campaign contributions to which political party, which I do not get. First of all, it is hardly shocking to find that most company CEOs, whose salaries are usually 10 figures, are conservatives. After all, regulations are bad for business and they are that 1% we heard so much about this last year. But, secondly (and more importantly), who cares what the guy in charge thinks? Just because the guy at the top of the pyramid feels one way that doesn't mean every one in line behind him agrees with that stance. Think about it like this: how many of you have had a job where the boss's boss has shown up, told everyone how they think their jobs should be done and then when that person leaves everyone just kept doing things the way they have always been done because they know what is best, damn what that person said? I'm sure that is exactly the way Chik-fil-A works as well. For all we know 90% of the employees roll their eyes every time the President of the company comes in and give a speech about the moral values of this restaurant. The workers just want to get paid and go home, while hopefully doing as little work as possible in between. They are not invested in this company's mission statement and we shouldn't refuse new jobs in this state assuming Chik-fil-A makes them take some kind of blood oath of loyalty. It's just a job.
Honestly, I like Tom Menino and would vote for him if I could, but I live outside the city limits. (This is a common feeling, as Menino is very popular. You'll notice most of the people complaining about him don't actually live here.) But even with those feelings, I think he may have over-stepped his power a little on this one. I know that Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage, but that doesn't mean every single person in the state agrees with that stance. So to say that no one in the city of Boston would support this company if they were here is a bit of a reach. Since the chain isn't in these parts it is a pretty safe guess most people were unaware of the controversy before this and those even now that they are, most of them have too many other things to worry about in their day-to-day life. Seriously, if someone has 20 minutes for lunch and Chik-fil-A was the most convenient place near them they would probably go, regardless of political beliefs. Also, I hate to break it to the people doing all this research so going forward they will only buy products from companies who support all the same things they believe in, but you're never going to succeed. Seriously, the odds of you finding one person on this planet who believes every single thing the exact same way as you is about 1,000,000,000 to 1. And the odds that that person just so happens to also run a major corporation are even more astronomical. If you want to only own products made by people who share your belief system you had better get very good at making your own paper and growing your own food. (And be ready to get stares, because you are one typewriter away from having a manifesto.)
Still, I think the main reason this story irks me so much is that it makes Boston look like is it full of the same kind of my-way-or-else people Menino is trying to keep out. People around here like to think of themselves as more tolerant than people in other place and yet here is the Mayor demanding everyone be as open-minded as possible, which in and of itself is just as close-minded a way of thinking. After all, people have the right to be stupid and wrong. Not to mention, people who only want to hang out with other people who think all the same things are assholes. If a person can't be around someone who will challenge some of the things they think it means they are too weak in mind and spirit to stand up to a good debate. Personally, I'm not scared of a different opinion - hell, I think a heated verbal sparring is good for the mind every now and again. So, I say give the citizens of Boston the choice and we'll decide if Chik-fil-A sinks or swims. (Don't forget, this is New England - we're not very keen on change in these parts. If you don't believe me, try and find a Krispy Kreme.) They may not last too long if they open a franchise here but whatever happens should depend solely on the quality of their food and not what one person thinks - and that goes in both directions.
For some reason this particular election year it feels as though more people are taking it upon themselves to find out which companies give campaign contributions to which political party, which I do not get. First of all, it is hardly shocking to find that most company CEOs, whose salaries are usually 10 figures, are conservatives. After all, regulations are bad for business and they are that 1% we heard so much about this last year. But, secondly (and more importantly), who cares what the guy in charge thinks? Just because the guy at the top of the pyramid feels one way that doesn't mean every one in line behind him agrees with that stance. Think about it like this: how many of you have had a job where the boss's boss has shown up, told everyone how they think their jobs should be done and then when that person leaves everyone just kept doing things the way they have always been done because they know what is best, damn what that person said? I'm sure that is exactly the way Chik-fil-A works as well. For all we know 90% of the employees roll their eyes every time the President of the company comes in and give a speech about the moral values of this restaurant. The workers just want to get paid and go home, while hopefully doing as little work as possible in between. They are not invested in this company's mission statement and we shouldn't refuse new jobs in this state assuming Chik-fil-A makes them take some kind of blood oath of loyalty. It's just a job.
Honestly, I like Tom Menino and would vote for him if I could, but I live outside the city limits. (This is a common feeling, as Menino is very popular. You'll notice most of the people complaining about him don't actually live here.) But even with those feelings, I think he may have over-stepped his power a little on this one. I know that Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage, but that doesn't mean every single person in the state agrees with that stance. So to say that no one in the city of Boston would support this company if they were here is a bit of a reach. Since the chain isn't in these parts it is a pretty safe guess most people were unaware of the controversy before this and those even now that they are, most of them have too many other things to worry about in their day-to-day life. Seriously, if someone has 20 minutes for lunch and Chik-fil-A was the most convenient place near them they would probably go, regardless of political beliefs. Also, I hate to break it to the people doing all this research so going forward they will only buy products from companies who support all the same things they believe in, but you're never going to succeed. Seriously, the odds of you finding one person on this planet who believes every single thing the exact same way as you is about 1,000,000,000 to 1. And the odds that that person just so happens to also run a major corporation are even more astronomical. If you want to only own products made by people who share your belief system you had better get very good at making your own paper and growing your own food. (And be ready to get stares, because you are one typewriter away from having a manifesto.)
Still, I think the main reason this story irks me so much is that it makes Boston look like is it full of the same kind of my-way-or-else people Menino is trying to keep out. People around here like to think of themselves as more tolerant than people in other place and yet here is the Mayor demanding everyone be as open-minded as possible, which in and of itself is just as close-minded a way of thinking. After all, people have the right to be stupid and wrong. Not to mention, people who only want to hang out with other people who think all the same things are assholes. If a person can't be around someone who will challenge some of the things they think it means they are too weak in mind and spirit to stand up to a good debate. Personally, I'm not scared of a different opinion - hell, I think a heated verbal sparring is good for the mind every now and again. So, I say give the citizens of Boston the choice and we'll decide if Chik-fil-A sinks or swims. (Don't forget, this is New England - we're not very keen on change in these parts. If you don't believe me, try and find a Krispy Kreme.) They may not last too long if they open a franchise here but whatever happens should depend solely on the quality of their food and not what one person thinks - and that goes in both directions.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Commercial Breakdown
Last week I mentioned that I was watching a lot of coverage of the British Open on ESPN. Now, loyal readers know that when I watch a lot of the same sporting event and it's taking place over several hours, or in this case days, I start to see the same ads over and over again because these networks only have so many sponsors to go around and those sponsors can only make so many commercials at time. This repetition has an unwanted side effect, which is my brain starts to pick apart each commercial and before too long one starts to annoy me more than the rest. Well, this time it was no different. I must have seen the following commercial several dozen times, which means it is time for another commercial breakdown. Before we go any further, the advertisement in question:
:01 As you can see, these people are at a Speed Dating event. This raises my first question: does anyone know a single person who has ever participated in this kind of event? I certainly don't. I feel like speed dating, much like flash mobs, were something which were actually around in society for all of 10 minutes but the idea of them has been kept alive much longer by advertisers and people in the entertainment industry just as a way to advance a plot. I'm pretty sure they no longer exist in real life. So, before we're even a second in I feel like this commercial is built upon a falls premise.
:03 I've been on a few first dates in my time, so I know that jumping right in with the "I want to get married and have kids" thing is creepy. The stereotype is that only guys are freaked out by this approach and it is everything girls want to hear, but rest assured it actually freaks girls out just as much (go ahead and try it on your next first date if you don't believe me). In normal circumstance you should wait until at least the fifth date to bring this kind of stuff up, so I will say that in a speed dating situation that means waiting until at least minute 5.
:05 What is this website she is looking at? Aren't these things supposed to allow a certain level on anonymity unless you want to share your contact information with the other person? This woman doesn't have a really fast phone, she either has a stalking problem or is a hacker. Neither one is a good sign, but at least we have a reason as to why this woman needed to try speed dating.
:13 This is where the guy goes wrong. When confronted with a crazy woman who has been doing way too much digging into your business, you don't stammer your way through another lie - you should go on the defensive. Snooping women are like sharks - once they smell blood in the water they go in for the kill. He should have hit back with, "Why don't you put your iPhone down and try talking to people, since that is the purpose of this?" Not the nicest thing to say in the world, but I think we can all agree the chances for a second date were pretty slim to begin with.
:23 You see the creepy smile she breaks out when she catches him in a second lie? That's a woman who would rather be right and win the argument than be in a relationship. We've all worked with people like this and it is the main reason I hate iPhones. Also, the fact she is the only person on her phone shows she could probably stand to unplug for a few minutes. I'm sure this is the moment where I'm supposed to be taking delight in the guy's squirming, but honestly at this point I don't think I like either of these characters. I kind of hope they end up together, because I feel like they deserve one another.
:28 Oh, AT&T, I want to believe you and your promises of fast downloads, but that is far too much fine print down at the bottom of the screen in dim lettering which leads me to think you are qualifying the hell out of your previous statements about the quality of your network. Also, I have yet to meet one person who has your service for their iPhone and is happy with it, so I simply can't. I'll put it to you another way: I'll believe you have the fastest network as soon as I meet one couple who met while speed dating.
:01 As you can see, these people are at a Speed Dating event. This raises my first question: does anyone know a single person who has ever participated in this kind of event? I certainly don't. I feel like speed dating, much like flash mobs, were something which were actually around in society for all of 10 minutes but the idea of them has been kept alive much longer by advertisers and people in the entertainment industry just as a way to advance a plot. I'm pretty sure they no longer exist in real life. So, before we're even a second in I feel like this commercial is built upon a falls premise.
:03 I've been on a few first dates in my time, so I know that jumping right in with the "I want to get married and have kids" thing is creepy. The stereotype is that only guys are freaked out by this approach and it is everything girls want to hear, but rest assured it actually freaks girls out just as much (go ahead and try it on your next first date if you don't believe me). In normal circumstance you should wait until at least the fifth date to bring this kind of stuff up, so I will say that in a speed dating situation that means waiting until at least minute 5.
:05 What is this website she is looking at? Aren't these things supposed to allow a certain level on anonymity unless you want to share your contact information with the other person? This woman doesn't have a really fast phone, she either has a stalking problem or is a hacker. Neither one is a good sign, but at least we have a reason as to why this woman needed to try speed dating.
:13 This is where the guy goes wrong. When confronted with a crazy woman who has been doing way too much digging into your business, you don't stammer your way through another lie - you should go on the defensive. Snooping women are like sharks - once they smell blood in the water they go in for the kill. He should have hit back with, "Why don't you put your iPhone down and try talking to people, since that is the purpose of this?" Not the nicest thing to say in the world, but I think we can all agree the chances for a second date were pretty slim to begin with.
:23 You see the creepy smile she breaks out when she catches him in a second lie? That's a woman who would rather be right and win the argument than be in a relationship. We've all worked with people like this and it is the main reason I hate iPhones. Also, the fact she is the only person on her phone shows she could probably stand to unplug for a few minutes. I'm sure this is the moment where I'm supposed to be taking delight in the guy's squirming, but honestly at this point I don't think I like either of these characters. I kind of hope they end up together, because I feel like they deserve one another.
:28 Oh, AT&T, I want to believe you and your promises of fast downloads, but that is far too much fine print down at the bottom of the screen in dim lettering which leads me to think you are qualifying the hell out of your previous statements about the quality of your network. Also, I have yet to meet one person who has your service for their iPhone and is happy with it, so I simply can't. I'll put it to you another way: I'll believe you have the fastest network as soon as I meet one couple who met while speed dating.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Puppy Power
I've always been amused by the people who train their dogs to be competitive dock jumpers. For those of you who may have never caught this on ESPN2 or some other channel, what these promoters do is set up a pool attached to a 40-foot long dock at one end and then owners train their dogs to run down the dock, usually after a favorite toy, and jump into the water as far as they can with the furthest dog winning. That's pretty much all there is to it. (One tweak I would make would be style points for things like biggest splash.) Some of the better dogs can manage to go quite a long way. Now, I've always wanted to do this but the dogs in my life tend to be averse to things such as running, fetching, jumping and water. (Most of my throws are met with a look which says, "That was dumb of you. Now you have to go get that.") That combination leaves me as a spectator. So, when I heard there was an exhibition of these jumping dogs up at the Bass Pro Shops in Foxboro over the weekend I decided to head up and check it out. These are just a few thought I collected while I watched....
-First off, I couldn't tell what level of competition I was watching because there didn't seem to be any consistency in the quality of the jumps. The first dog would jump 20 feet, the next one would fall into the water. Then a dog would jump 18 feet, the one after that would jump 7 feet and the third dog wouldn't jump at all. And while there were a few dogs which had clearly been doing this for a while, mostly it looked like anyone who had their dog with them and wanted to give it a try was allowed to take a run at it. It really took some of the luster off the competitions I saw on TV. Now, I understand the ones which make it that far are not only the highest level but the jumps have probably been edited for TV. Still, if you had a dog and were thinking about training your dog to start dock jumping, I saw nothing which would indicate it is a hard sport to break into.
-Honestly, I think it is all about having the right kind of dog and that starts with size. For example, there was one young lady who was trying to get her tiny French Poodle to jump. The master of ceremonies informed the crowd that they had been trying to get her to jump all day. Well, after ten seconds of looking at this dog I could have told you she was never going to jump. Hell, I'm willing to bet it hated taking baths (at least it didn't have the usual Poodle haircut). I'm not saying one breed is better for this than another, because the only consistent trait in the dogs which had the best distance was they seemed to like jumping but that told me you need an energetic dog to succeed in this sport and this dog was not enthusiastic about jumping. She sauntered to the edge, looked down and pretty much decided she didn't like any toy that much. I don't even blame her, because it may have been only three feet down into the water, but when you've got tiny legs like this dog had it probably felt like much farther. The bigger dogs had no fear.
-It probably also helps to own a stupid dog. Now, I don't think dogs have to be stupid to try this, what I mean by that is you don't want a dog which is going to think the situation through too much. There was one girl with a young Golden Retriever who wanted to jump almost immediately, only the dog couldn't quite get the form right. Just before launching herself into the water the Golden would try and get extra a little extra "oomph" at take-off, which would instead cause her back legs to slip a bit and kill all her momentum. This resulted in the equivalent to a doggy belly-flop (under my format she would have easily won biggest splash). But, that Golden got out of the water and tried to get right back on the dock to jump again. Contrast that with another dog who wasn't keen about jumping, saw that the gate behind his handler was open, shot around him and walked down the ramp into the water - all the while looking quite pleased with himself. Basically, you want a dog which takes the first option given without questioning. I'll put it to you in human context: there is a reason none of the "Jackass" boys are in MENSA.
-The dogs who weren't sure about jumping were actually more amusing, though I'm sure their owners didn't find it quite so funny. Each dog only got a minute to jump, but you could tell the ones which weren't ever going to take the plunge within a few seconds. There were a couple dogs which I think would have eventually gotten to it (or their owners would have shoved them in), but ran out of time. Also, I don't think the crowd helped. Any time a dog started hesitating the MC would ask us to make noise and encourage the dog, which many people were only too happy to do, because I have to say this was a very friendly and pro-dog crowd. [Sidebar: Also, I appreciate that no one went crazy with their dog's name. There were some solid dog names (Scout, Sadie, Bruno), but nothing out of the ordinary. I can't stand it when people try to get overly-cutesy or obscure when it is time to name the family pet.] That sounds good in theory, but more than a couple of the dogs were clearly confused at what all the sudden noise was about and how did all these people know their name? Perhaps silence would have worked better.
-I have to say the set-up of this place worked well because you could watch for a bit, wander into Bass Pro, check out the price of a kayak (still cheaper to rent) and then wander back for some more dog jumping. I've often talked about how price can go a long way in determining how people feel about something and since this was free, I had a blast. After 20 to 25 minutes (at the most) not only could you consider yourself an expert in the sport, but you've pretty much seen all the dog jumping you need to see in one day and you can leave, comfortable in the knowledge that you won't miss anything amazing if you head for home. I'm not sure if or when they will be coming around again, but if you happen to hear that they will be in the area it's a fun way to kill an hour or so. Heck, you can even bring your dog and have them give it a go. (Believe me, you couldn't do any worse than a few of the dogs I saw.) But, never forget - even the worst dog is still better than the best cat.
-First off, I couldn't tell what level of competition I was watching because there didn't seem to be any consistency in the quality of the jumps. The first dog would jump 20 feet, the next one would fall into the water. Then a dog would jump 18 feet, the one after that would jump 7 feet and the third dog wouldn't jump at all. And while there were a few dogs which had clearly been doing this for a while, mostly it looked like anyone who had their dog with them and wanted to give it a try was allowed to take a run at it. It really took some of the luster off the competitions I saw on TV. Now, I understand the ones which make it that far are not only the highest level but the jumps have probably been edited for TV. Still, if you had a dog and were thinking about training your dog to start dock jumping, I saw nothing which would indicate it is a hard sport to break into.
-Honestly, I think it is all about having the right kind of dog and that starts with size. For example, there was one young lady who was trying to get her tiny French Poodle to jump. The master of ceremonies informed the crowd that they had been trying to get her to jump all day. Well, after ten seconds of looking at this dog I could have told you she was never going to jump. Hell, I'm willing to bet it hated taking baths (at least it didn't have the usual Poodle haircut). I'm not saying one breed is better for this than another, because the only consistent trait in the dogs which had the best distance was they seemed to like jumping but that told me you need an energetic dog to succeed in this sport and this dog was not enthusiastic about jumping. She sauntered to the edge, looked down and pretty much decided she didn't like any toy that much. I don't even blame her, because it may have been only three feet down into the water, but when you've got tiny legs like this dog had it probably felt like much farther. The bigger dogs had no fear.
-It probably also helps to own a stupid dog. Now, I don't think dogs have to be stupid to try this, what I mean by that is you don't want a dog which is going to think the situation through too much. There was one girl with a young Golden Retriever who wanted to jump almost immediately, only the dog couldn't quite get the form right. Just before launching herself into the water the Golden would try and get extra a little extra "oomph" at take-off, which would instead cause her back legs to slip a bit and kill all her momentum. This resulted in the equivalent to a doggy belly-flop (under my format she would have easily won biggest splash). But, that Golden got out of the water and tried to get right back on the dock to jump again. Contrast that with another dog who wasn't keen about jumping, saw that the gate behind his handler was open, shot around him and walked down the ramp into the water - all the while looking quite pleased with himself. Basically, you want a dog which takes the first option given without questioning. I'll put it to you in human context: there is a reason none of the "Jackass" boys are in MENSA.
-The dogs who weren't sure about jumping were actually more amusing, though I'm sure their owners didn't find it quite so funny. Each dog only got a minute to jump, but you could tell the ones which weren't ever going to take the plunge within a few seconds. There were a couple dogs which I think would have eventually gotten to it (or their owners would have shoved them in), but ran out of time. Also, I don't think the crowd helped. Any time a dog started hesitating the MC would ask us to make noise and encourage the dog, which many people were only too happy to do, because I have to say this was a very friendly and pro-dog crowd. [Sidebar: Also, I appreciate that no one went crazy with their dog's name. There were some solid dog names (Scout, Sadie, Bruno), but nothing out of the ordinary. I can't stand it when people try to get overly-cutesy or obscure when it is time to name the family pet.] That sounds good in theory, but more than a couple of the dogs were clearly confused at what all the sudden noise was about and how did all these people know their name? Perhaps silence would have worked better.
-I have to say the set-up of this place worked well because you could watch for a bit, wander into Bass Pro, check out the price of a kayak (still cheaper to rent) and then wander back for some more dog jumping. I've often talked about how price can go a long way in determining how people feel about something and since this was free, I had a blast. After 20 to 25 minutes (at the most) not only could you consider yourself an expert in the sport, but you've pretty much seen all the dog jumping you need to see in one day and you can leave, comfortable in the knowledge that you won't miss anything amazing if you head for home. I'm not sure if or when they will be coming around again, but if you happen to hear that they will be in the area it's a fun way to kill an hour or so. Heck, you can even bring your dog and have them give it a go. (Believe me, you couldn't do any worse than a few of the dogs I saw.) But, never forget - even the worst dog is still better than the best cat.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Stuck In The Past
When comedian Fred Willard was arrested the other day with his pants around his ankles at an adult movie theater, we all had a lot of laughs at his expense. Now, I think Willard is a talented comedian but I'm not about to defends his actions in this instance, so you can all stop holding your breath if that is what you are worried about. (However, I will say this: much like when I read that Willlie Nelson was caught with marijuana, I feel like this is one of those situations where police could go and make a few arrests anytime they get bored or have a quota to meet. I mean, why else would people be at a theater like that? I'm willing to bet it is not for the well-written plots of the films.) Seriously, after Pee Wee Herman got busted and set his career back for years, why would any actor with even a slight amount of recognition risk this kind of embarrassment? Still, I thought the most amazing part of this story was that there are still adult movie theaters in this world. Do the patrons of these places not know how the internet works? If you Google just about any word in any language and you'll get a link to adult website in the first 3 pages. Honestly, sometimes it feels like you can't get away from it if you wanted to. They say that there are only three industries which are recession proof: the lottery, alcohol and pornography but ever since the internet came along that mantra had changed. Even publishing institutions like Playboy Magazine record losses just about every year. With that in mind, I would have expect this kind of business to be long-gone and yet it's apparently hanging on. I can only assume they serve tremendous popcorn.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Weekly Sporties
-When Jeremy Lin hit restricted free agency, everyone assumed it was nothing more than a formality - a way for the Knicks to let another team decide how much he would get paid before they matched the offer sheet. But, a funny thing happened to those plans as Lin signed a complicated deal with the Rockets which would have cost the Knicks a lot more money over the life of the contract due to their being over the luxury tax threshold. Since the Knicks haven't shown any problem spending money in the past people still thought Lin would end up back in New York, but a couple days ago the Knicks changed their thinking and he was allowed to leave for Houston. As always happens when players change teams, reports are being leaked that Lin was unwilling to play hurt and the Knicks owner James Dolan was annoyed Lin signed the deal with Houston considering it was structured to make his return difficult, because Dolan felt as though Lin owed him more than that since the Knicks gave him his big break. Even Knicks fans are turning on him, pointing out he only played 26 games and was probably over-rated by the media compared to his actual skill level (ironically, if you had said any of this to them in March they would have punched you). Frankly, I think Lin has to be measured as much for his off-court impact as for what he can do on the court (and, like most New York athletes, he is not as good as first believed, but not as bad as they are now saying). Reports are the Knicks made $600 million based on marketing Lin and their stock has gone down almost $100 million since he left for Houston. Considering they will try and fill his void with 39 year-old Jason Kidd and an out-of-shape Raymond Felton, I fully expect that number to sink even lower. But, there is a silver lining for Knicks fans - at least James Dolan still has his pride.
-As the USA men's Olympic basketball team continues to get ready for this month's games in London, people have been impressed with the play of some of the younger players. NBA Commissioner David Stern has been so impressed that he has floated the idea of an age limit of 23 for the Olympic roster going forward. Stern has the backing of several NBA owners who feel as though the extra wear and tear on the players during International competition is too much, especially for the veterans and risks the chance of these guys getting seriously hurt while playing for someone else. Kobe Bryant for one thinks it's a stupid idea, saying that players are going to play basketball in the summer either way, so you may as well have them play against good competition and in a controlled environment. Bryant makes a tremendous amount of sense, but the other thing I think David Stern doesn't realize is that the USA would get crushed if we sent a team of nothing but young players. First off, it isn't like other teams would suddenly change their mind and start sending young players - they would keep sending teams of grown men. On top of that, Stern may be a little too wrapped up in this team's youth to see the big picture. There are four players on the roster at or under the age of 23, but one of those players (Anthony Davis) is seen as the team's weak link, only on the roster due to injuries, and Kevin Durant is a once-in-a-generation talent, so it is not like we can count of sending players of his caliber every four years. Plus, wouldn't you want to market your best players to an International market more than one time, which is all this age limit would allow? I'm sure there are plenty of people who would rather see the Olympics going back to having only amateurs, but that cat is out of the bag and there is no turning back now. And if the US is going to send pros, we may as well send the best ones we have.
-In last Sunday's Boston Globe there was a small note about how the Patriots have gone to star tight end Rob Gronkowski and told him to end the "Summer of Gronk", which has seen Gronkowski partying from coast to coast and show up at all sorts of events - usually shirtless. Now, I'm all for a young football player having a little fun in the offseason and since the average NFL career lasts for 3 seasons I would tell Gronk to get while the getting is good because the doors which are open to him now are not going to be open for very long. Some people seem to think this is just the Patriots trying to crush individuality in the name of the "Patriot Way". However, I think the Patriots have let Gronkowski go on long enough. We are quickly approaching training camp, so asking him to be mentally ready when football activities start doesn't sound like a particularly insane request. Plus, when every sports gossip site has a plethora of pictures of a shirtless Gronkowski to choose from when writing their latest story, it is probably a sign he could use a few quiet nights indoors. On top of that the Patriots just made Gronk the highest-paid tight end in history, so they have every right to try and protect that investment. Lastly, people need to remember that Gronk has set a very high bar for himself in respect to a standard of play. If he has even a slightly down year many people will point to the "Summer of Gronk" as the reason why. Better to remove that as an excuse as early as possible. And the good news is that if he replicates last season on the field the Patriots will be only to happy to let the "Summer of Gronk" go for as long as he wants next offseason. But for this year, I think it's time to settle down.
-In light of the Freeh Report released last week, there are still some people who are calling for Penn State to suspend their football program for a couple of seasons. While that debate probably has a long way to go, what the university has to deal with in the short term is what to do with the statue of Joe Paterno outside the football stadium. Many people think of the statue as a lighting rod for the controversy - a literal monument to a man who it turns out may have been covering up what Jerry Sandusky was doing for years. Early in the week a plan flew over the campus pulling a banner with a rather ominous message: "Take down the statue or we will." Now, normally I hate it when people who didn't go to a school tell people at that school how they should behave but I'm breaking my own rule for this one. Even if Penn State officials don't want to tear down the statue, they should at least move it (after the plane flew over Penn State students began guarding the statue themselves, which should tell you where they fall on the issue). Perhaps they could temporarily put it in front of the library which bears Paterno's name to try and remind people of some of the good he did in his 60 years there. The reality is Penn State can't afford to guard the thing 24 hours a day and leaving it in front of the football stadium is asking for every visiting fanbase to either vandalize or take mocking photos with this thing. And if it's not the fans it will be the media, as you can pretty much guarantee one shot of the statue as B-roll during every nationally televised game, which is just going to lead to more discussion about the scandal. Penn State may have brought these problems on themselves through inaction, but there is no need to help people keep it in the news - by leaving the statue front and center that is exactly what they would be doing.
-Freeh and his team of investigators haven't been hitting all homeruns lately, though. Recently they were hired by FIFA to investigate bribery charges against one of their officials, Mohammed bin Hammam. (I admit to not being a particularly large soccer fan, but I imagine it can't be a good sign when the first thing most casual fans know about your organization is that is it unbelievably corrupt.) A native of Qatar, it is widely speculated that bin Hammam bribed everyone he could think of to bring the World Cup there in 2022. (Hey, give him credit, because at least it worked. You'd hate to spend all that money and then not get the World Cup.) Also, it has been established that bin Hammam later tried to bribe his was into the Presidency of FIFA, literally sending envelopes full of money to various voting members (this time he fell short). After his failed bid to buy the position, FIFA banned him from the sport for life. But then this week something called the Court of Arbitration for Sport overturned the ban, effective immediately. It is not that they think bin Hammam is innocent of all this bribing, it is just that Freeh and his team didn't do a very good job of proving it. Though, it probably fitting that even when a FIFA official is cleared of charges like this it is not because he is innocent as much as he is simply not guilty (and for all we know he bought that decision as well). I know I tend to complain about a lot of things which go on in professional sports in this country, but every now and again I like to read stories like this because they remind me to be thankful for what I've got, because things could easily be much worse.
-Whenever there is a largely-hyped rookie in any sport, you can expect the veterans to take it upon themselves to mess with the kid a little and take him down a notch, even when he isn't on their team. Early in the year Washington Nationals' phenom Bryce Harper was plunked in the back by Phillies pitcher Cole Hamels, who admitted it was a 'Welcome to the Majors' message. When Harper stole home following the plunking, most people thought that would end his league-wide hazing. However, last weekend Miami Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen interrupted one of Harper's at-bat to complain about the amount of pine tar on the bat and later flipped out during Harper's next at-bat when he thought the rookie pointed that bat in his direction. I've seen the replay dozens of times and I have to say I didn't see anything close to an act worthy of Guillen's tirade. Again, the kid handled it well, as the Nationals later sending Guillen an autographed bat slathered in pine tar. (Lucky for them Guillen thought it was funny or Harper could have been in for another beanball next time the two teams played.) Honestly, I can't tell if this was supposed to be some kind of hazing to break Harper's rhythm or just Guillen being crazy. I'm all for a little gamesmanship but I think Ozzie, who already got into trouble for making some pro-Fidel Castro remarks before the season and whose team is now kind of floundering despite adding a lot of payroll during the offseason, should probably keep his mind on what is going on in his own dugout, otherwise he might not be around long enough to haze the next group of over-hyped rookies who enter the league.
-There was a strange story in boxing this week. A part-time fighter named Martin Tucker was arrested after his DNA, taken from a swab which had been used to stop a bloody nose during his latest fight, matched the DNA found on a hat left by a man who robbed a bank back in 2009. Obviously Martin had to be a suspect, otherwise no one would have gone through all this trouble to collect a bloody Q-tip. (Also, the report didn't say who did the collecting, but I would imagine that was not the high point of that person's day.) It sounds rather shady, but every expert asked said the practice was totally legal by police. If you think about it, this type of elaborate planning sounds more like something which would only happen during some crime drama on the USA Network where they were trying to capture a super-crafty cat burglar, not a one-time bank robber. Apparently, police are stepping up their game a bit. So, to any criminals who are reading this: if you are trying to avoid being arrested for a crime where the police have DNA evidence, I recommend not having a hobby which can lead to you leaving blood in random locations where anyone can come along and collect it. I mean, you don't have to make it that easy for police to capture you. You would think this guy would have thought of that, but considering he is (allegedly) a criminal who chooses to get punched in the face for fun (because he clearly isn't a good fighter), I guess I shouldn't be surprised that he isn't much of a thinker. The good news is that at least Martin, who had been 0-6 in his six previous fights, won the fight where he got the bloody nose. I'm sure that makes the entire night worth it.
-As the USA men's Olympic basketball team continues to get ready for this month's games in London, people have been impressed with the play of some of the younger players. NBA Commissioner David Stern has been so impressed that he has floated the idea of an age limit of 23 for the Olympic roster going forward. Stern has the backing of several NBA owners who feel as though the extra wear and tear on the players during International competition is too much, especially for the veterans and risks the chance of these guys getting seriously hurt while playing for someone else. Kobe Bryant for one thinks it's a stupid idea, saying that players are going to play basketball in the summer either way, so you may as well have them play against good competition and in a controlled environment. Bryant makes a tremendous amount of sense, but the other thing I think David Stern doesn't realize is that the USA would get crushed if we sent a team of nothing but young players. First off, it isn't like other teams would suddenly change their mind and start sending young players - they would keep sending teams of grown men. On top of that, Stern may be a little too wrapped up in this team's youth to see the big picture. There are four players on the roster at or under the age of 23, but one of those players (Anthony Davis) is seen as the team's weak link, only on the roster due to injuries, and Kevin Durant is a once-in-a-generation talent, so it is not like we can count of sending players of his caliber every four years. Plus, wouldn't you want to market your best players to an International market more than one time, which is all this age limit would allow? I'm sure there are plenty of people who would rather see the Olympics going back to having only amateurs, but that cat is out of the bag and there is no turning back now. And if the US is going to send pros, we may as well send the best ones we have.
-In last Sunday's Boston Globe there was a small note about how the Patriots have gone to star tight end Rob Gronkowski and told him to end the "Summer of Gronk", which has seen Gronkowski partying from coast to coast and show up at all sorts of events - usually shirtless. Now, I'm all for a young football player having a little fun in the offseason and since the average NFL career lasts for 3 seasons I would tell Gronk to get while the getting is good because the doors which are open to him now are not going to be open for very long. Some people seem to think this is just the Patriots trying to crush individuality in the name of the "Patriot Way". However, I think the Patriots have let Gronkowski go on long enough. We are quickly approaching training camp, so asking him to be mentally ready when football activities start doesn't sound like a particularly insane request. Plus, when every sports gossip site has a plethora of pictures of a shirtless Gronkowski to choose from when writing their latest story, it is probably a sign he could use a few quiet nights indoors. On top of that the Patriots just made Gronk the highest-paid tight end in history, so they have every right to try and protect that investment. Lastly, people need to remember that Gronk has set a very high bar for himself in respect to a standard of play. If he has even a slightly down year many people will point to the "Summer of Gronk" as the reason why. Better to remove that as an excuse as early as possible. And the good news is that if he replicates last season on the field the Patriots will be only to happy to let the "Summer of Gronk" go for as long as he wants next offseason. But for this year, I think it's time to settle down.
-In light of the Freeh Report released last week, there are still some people who are calling for Penn State to suspend their football program for a couple of seasons. While that debate probably has a long way to go, what the university has to deal with in the short term is what to do with the statue of Joe Paterno outside the football stadium. Many people think of the statue as a lighting rod for the controversy - a literal monument to a man who it turns out may have been covering up what Jerry Sandusky was doing for years. Early in the week a plan flew over the campus pulling a banner with a rather ominous message: "Take down the statue or we will." Now, normally I hate it when people who didn't go to a school tell people at that school how they should behave but I'm breaking my own rule for this one. Even if Penn State officials don't want to tear down the statue, they should at least move it (after the plane flew over Penn State students began guarding the statue themselves, which should tell you where they fall on the issue). Perhaps they could temporarily put it in front of the library which bears Paterno's name to try and remind people of some of the good he did in his 60 years there. The reality is Penn State can't afford to guard the thing 24 hours a day and leaving it in front of the football stadium is asking for every visiting fanbase to either vandalize or take mocking photos with this thing. And if it's not the fans it will be the media, as you can pretty much guarantee one shot of the statue as B-roll during every nationally televised game, which is just going to lead to more discussion about the scandal. Penn State may have brought these problems on themselves through inaction, but there is no need to help people keep it in the news - by leaving the statue front and center that is exactly what they would be doing.
-Freeh and his team of investigators haven't been hitting all homeruns lately, though. Recently they were hired by FIFA to investigate bribery charges against one of their officials, Mohammed bin Hammam. (I admit to not being a particularly large soccer fan, but I imagine it can't be a good sign when the first thing most casual fans know about your organization is that is it unbelievably corrupt.) A native of Qatar, it is widely speculated that bin Hammam bribed everyone he could think of to bring the World Cup there in 2022. (Hey, give him credit, because at least it worked. You'd hate to spend all that money and then not get the World Cup.) Also, it has been established that bin Hammam later tried to bribe his was into the Presidency of FIFA, literally sending envelopes full of money to various voting members (this time he fell short). After his failed bid to buy the position, FIFA banned him from the sport for life. But then this week something called the Court of Arbitration for Sport overturned the ban, effective immediately. It is not that they think bin Hammam is innocent of all this bribing, it is just that Freeh and his team didn't do a very good job of proving it. Though, it probably fitting that even when a FIFA official is cleared of charges like this it is not because he is innocent as much as he is simply not guilty (and for all we know he bought that decision as well). I know I tend to complain about a lot of things which go on in professional sports in this country, but every now and again I like to read stories like this because they remind me to be thankful for what I've got, because things could easily be much worse.
-Whenever there is a largely-hyped rookie in any sport, you can expect the veterans to take it upon themselves to mess with the kid a little and take him down a notch, even when he isn't on their team. Early in the year Washington Nationals' phenom Bryce Harper was plunked in the back by Phillies pitcher Cole Hamels, who admitted it was a 'Welcome to the Majors' message. When Harper stole home following the plunking, most people thought that would end his league-wide hazing. However, last weekend Miami Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen interrupted one of Harper's at-bat to complain about the amount of pine tar on the bat and later flipped out during Harper's next at-bat when he thought the rookie pointed that bat in his direction. I've seen the replay dozens of times and I have to say I didn't see anything close to an act worthy of Guillen's tirade. Again, the kid handled it well, as the Nationals later sending Guillen an autographed bat slathered in pine tar. (Lucky for them Guillen thought it was funny or Harper could have been in for another beanball next time the two teams played.) Honestly, I can't tell if this was supposed to be some kind of hazing to break Harper's rhythm or just Guillen being crazy. I'm all for a little gamesmanship but I think Ozzie, who already got into trouble for making some pro-Fidel Castro remarks before the season and whose team is now kind of floundering despite adding a lot of payroll during the offseason, should probably keep his mind on what is going on in his own dugout, otherwise he might not be around long enough to haze the next group of over-hyped rookies who enter the league.
-There was a strange story in boxing this week. A part-time fighter named Martin Tucker was arrested after his DNA, taken from a swab which had been used to stop a bloody nose during his latest fight, matched the DNA found on a hat left by a man who robbed a bank back in 2009. Obviously Martin had to be a suspect, otherwise no one would have gone through all this trouble to collect a bloody Q-tip. (Also, the report didn't say who did the collecting, but I would imagine that was not the high point of that person's day.) It sounds rather shady, but every expert asked said the practice was totally legal by police. If you think about it, this type of elaborate planning sounds more like something which would only happen during some crime drama on the USA Network where they were trying to capture a super-crafty cat burglar, not a one-time bank robber. Apparently, police are stepping up their game a bit. So, to any criminals who are reading this: if you are trying to avoid being arrested for a crime where the police have DNA evidence, I recommend not having a hobby which can lead to you leaving blood in random locations where anyone can come along and collect it. I mean, you don't have to make it that easy for police to capture you. You would think this guy would have thought of that, but considering he is (allegedly) a criminal who chooses to get punched in the face for fun (because he clearly isn't a good fighter), I guess I shouldn't be surprised that he isn't much of a thinker. The good news is that at least Martin, who had been 0-6 in his six previous fights, won the fight where he got the bloody nose. I'm sure that makes the entire night worth it.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Your Ad Here
I was going to save this one for a mention in tomorrow's "Weekly Sporties" but discovered I just had too much to say about the topic, so it's getting its own post...
During the week the NBA had its annual meetings where among the other business such as expanding replay the league announced individual teams would be allowed to sell advertising on their jerseys, potentially as soon as next season. These ads will be in the form a two-inch by two-inch patch on the upper corners of the jerseys, across from the NBA logos. In some respects, this announcement had to be considered inevitable. While the "Big 4" of American sports (Major League Baseball, the NHL, NFL and NBA) had thus far been willing to leave the jerseys alone, pretty much every thing else concerning professional sports in America was already for sale and to the point where no one notices it anymore. When stadiums started selling naming rights everyone thought that was somehow bad for the game but now people watch the NBA Finals presented by KIA, featuring the Sprint halftime show and coming to you live from American Airlines Arena without even blink an eye. Anyone who thought that jerseys would somehow remain above the fray was at best guilty of wishful thinking and at worst being extremely naive. But even though I am a realist concerning the situation, that doesn't mean I have to like it.
First off, I think advertising on jerseys makes the players look unprofessional. Yes, the patches are starting out small, but I think we all know that within a few years, once the owners find out how much money they can make, the logos will be covering the entire front of these jerseys. Normally being sponsored by a local business is something most teams stop doing once they get above the little or bar league level. It also doesn't help that the current leagues which allow full-sized ads on the front of their jerseys are truly niche leagues such as the WNBA and Major League Soccer. You would expect the Big 4 to be above this kind of thing. (I know the Premier League also has company sponsored jerseys and they are the most popular professional sports league in the world but they get credibility points deducted for 1. playing soccer and 2. being European.) But the main reason this bothers me so much is that for years sports fans have been told we are only rooting for the laundry, as the names on the back of the jerseys constantly change due to a lack of loyalty from either management or the players themselves. Well, now they want to start messing with the laundry and I just can't get behind that idea.
It is entirely possible that I am simply holding on to an idea whose time has passed. After all, there are sports such as NASCAR and professional golf which are built almost entirely on sponsorship deals. Some racecar drivers aren't even identifiable to causal fans unless they are wearing a shirt matching the brand logo on their hoods and professional golfers make far more money from sponsorships than they do from winning golf tournaments. Why shouldn't professional basketball players or teams be allowed to get in on that? You could make the case that there already are advertisements on pro jerseys, they just happen to be for the people who make them. Every iconic sports picture from the NBA in the last 20 years has either a Nike, Reebok or Adidas logo in there somewhere, so what is the difference between that and some insurance company who wants to be associated with a sports team? Besides, maybe this could be fun, figuring out which teams will be sponsored by which companies. (Already Twitter is buzzing with jokes about the Sacramento Kings being sponsored by U-Haul.) On top of all that, having your team sponsored by a great company while your rival is wearing the logo of some random business no one has ever heard of is just another thing sports fans can fight over.
Obviously teams like the Knicks, Heat and Lakers are going to command the most money for their jersey space. This makes me wonder if this revenue is going to somehow into a collective pool or is this just another case of the rich getting richer? Also, I am curious as to how this money will be allowed to be spent. It is strictly for private profit or can it be applied to league business? The NBA is already facing a competitive balance issue, the last thing they need are big-market teams raking in enough advertising money from corporations that they don't need to worry about paying the luxury tax. I mean, wasn't that the point of last seasons luxury tax? If you're going to allow individual teams to keep this money you may as well contract a few teams and abolish the salary cap. And what about the companies these billionaire owners run? Can they sponsor the team as well, which could lead to some creative accounting procedures? Not to mention, there is the chance for tremendous embarrassment if you are sponsored by a company which has a scandal. Did we learn nothing of the various stadium deals which have gone poorly in the past? Whether it was CMGI here in Foxboro, Enron in Houston or CitiBank with the Mets, there are plenty of examples in which being associated with a business has resulted in more problems than the checks they have sent your way may be worth. For example, given their current scandal concerning money laundering, would you want an HSBC logo on your favorite team's jersey right about now?
According to reports not a single owner was against this idea, which I should have expected. There has been an influx of new ownership in the NBA over the past few years and most of these guys aren't from the city where the team plays and as such they don't really care about them, they are more concerned with being able to say they own a professional franchise and getting a return on their investment. Old-school owners would care about making sure the jersey still represents the old days well, new-school owners probably already had a spreadsheet telling them the most profitable companies to contact about sponsorship. If this turns out be a money-making idea for the NBA (and there is no reason to think it won't), you won't have to wait long to see it show up in the other leagues. We like to say sports are full of copycats, but that is especially true when it is concerns ways to make money. You know the cash-strapped NHL will be in favor and the NFL is never going to turn down the chance to make any money, especially when they can probably make the most. The lone holdout appears to be baseball, where old-school Commissioner Bud Selig says he wouldn't be in favor of ads on uniforms. This leaves me in the unusual position of agreeing with Bud Selig. I guess when you are fighting a losing battle you'll take any help you can get. Which reminds me, if any company out there wanted to sponsor my crusade, I have no such qualms about logos on this blog...
During the week the NBA had its annual meetings where among the other business such as expanding replay the league announced individual teams would be allowed to sell advertising on their jerseys, potentially as soon as next season. These ads will be in the form a two-inch by two-inch patch on the upper corners of the jerseys, across from the NBA logos. In some respects, this announcement had to be considered inevitable. While the "Big 4" of American sports (Major League Baseball, the NHL, NFL and NBA) had thus far been willing to leave the jerseys alone, pretty much every thing else concerning professional sports in America was already for sale and to the point where no one notices it anymore. When stadiums started selling naming rights everyone thought that was somehow bad for the game but now people watch the NBA Finals presented by KIA, featuring the Sprint halftime show and coming to you live from American Airlines Arena without even blink an eye. Anyone who thought that jerseys would somehow remain above the fray was at best guilty of wishful thinking and at worst being extremely naive. But even though I am a realist concerning the situation, that doesn't mean I have to like it.
First off, I think advertising on jerseys makes the players look unprofessional. Yes, the patches are starting out small, but I think we all know that within a few years, once the owners find out how much money they can make, the logos will be covering the entire front of these jerseys. Normally being sponsored by a local business is something most teams stop doing once they get above the little or bar league level. It also doesn't help that the current leagues which allow full-sized ads on the front of their jerseys are truly niche leagues such as the WNBA and Major League Soccer. You would expect the Big 4 to be above this kind of thing. (I know the Premier League also has company sponsored jerseys and they are the most popular professional sports league in the world but they get credibility points deducted for 1. playing soccer and 2. being European.) But the main reason this bothers me so much is that for years sports fans have been told we are only rooting for the laundry, as the names on the back of the jerseys constantly change due to a lack of loyalty from either management or the players themselves. Well, now they want to start messing with the laundry and I just can't get behind that idea.
It is entirely possible that I am simply holding on to an idea whose time has passed. After all, there are sports such as NASCAR and professional golf which are built almost entirely on sponsorship deals. Some racecar drivers aren't even identifiable to causal fans unless they are wearing a shirt matching the brand logo on their hoods and professional golfers make far more money from sponsorships than they do from winning golf tournaments. Why shouldn't professional basketball players or teams be allowed to get in on that? You could make the case that there already are advertisements on pro jerseys, they just happen to be for the people who make them. Every iconic sports picture from the NBA in the last 20 years has either a Nike, Reebok or Adidas logo in there somewhere, so what is the difference between that and some insurance company who wants to be associated with a sports team? Besides, maybe this could be fun, figuring out which teams will be sponsored by which companies. (Already Twitter is buzzing with jokes about the Sacramento Kings being sponsored by U-Haul.) On top of all that, having your team sponsored by a great company while your rival is wearing the logo of some random business no one has ever heard of is just another thing sports fans can fight over.
Obviously teams like the Knicks, Heat and Lakers are going to command the most money for their jersey space. This makes me wonder if this revenue is going to somehow into a collective pool or is this just another case of the rich getting richer? Also, I am curious as to how this money will be allowed to be spent. It is strictly for private profit or can it be applied to league business? The NBA is already facing a competitive balance issue, the last thing they need are big-market teams raking in enough advertising money from corporations that they don't need to worry about paying the luxury tax. I mean, wasn't that the point of last seasons luxury tax? If you're going to allow individual teams to keep this money you may as well contract a few teams and abolish the salary cap. And what about the companies these billionaire owners run? Can they sponsor the team as well, which could lead to some creative accounting procedures? Not to mention, there is the chance for tremendous embarrassment if you are sponsored by a company which has a scandal. Did we learn nothing of the various stadium deals which have gone poorly in the past? Whether it was CMGI here in Foxboro, Enron in Houston or CitiBank with the Mets, there are plenty of examples in which being associated with a business has resulted in more problems than the checks they have sent your way may be worth. For example, given their current scandal concerning money laundering, would you want an HSBC logo on your favorite team's jersey right about now?
According to reports not a single owner was against this idea, which I should have expected. There has been an influx of new ownership in the NBA over the past few years and most of these guys aren't from the city where the team plays and as such they don't really care about them, they are more concerned with being able to say they own a professional franchise and getting a return on their investment. Old-school owners would care about making sure the jersey still represents the old days well, new-school owners probably already had a spreadsheet telling them the most profitable companies to contact about sponsorship. If this turns out be a money-making idea for the NBA (and there is no reason to think it won't), you won't have to wait long to see it show up in the other leagues. We like to say sports are full of copycats, but that is especially true when it is concerns ways to make money. You know the cash-strapped NHL will be in favor and the NFL is never going to turn down the chance to make any money, especially when they can probably make the most. The lone holdout appears to be baseball, where old-school Commissioner Bud Selig says he wouldn't be in favor of ads on uniforms. This leaves me in the unusual position of agreeing with Bud Selig. I guess when you are fighting a losing battle you'll take any help you can get. Which reminds me, if any company out there wanted to sponsor my crusade, I have no such qualms about logos on this blog...
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Something Is Missing
Every year April brings with it a few traditions: birds come back from a winter down South, flowers bloom for the first time in ages and I will complain about the coverage of The Masters on television. You see, the people in charge of the tournament don't want it or the club to be over-exposed and because of this they really fight to control how many hours of TV the networks are allowed to have. To make sure the math works and they don't miss anything which happens that day, the networks are forced to pretty much ignore the first few hours of play every day. What viewers end up with instead is nothing but a lot of leader board graphic updates, which helps no one. On previous occasions I have compared it to the feeling of watching a pre-game show which is still on the air after the game has started. You appreciate their effort to keep you informed, but most of us really would just rather see the event with our own eyes. Every single year it is an exercise in frustration. Fortunately, The Masters is the only tournament which has this kind of policy, as the people in charge of the rest of golf's majors are only to happy to let the networks carry as much golf as they want (ESPN had roughly 17 hours of coverage today). The problem is that hasn't stopped some of the other networks from continuing with the extra-long pre-game show.
I feel bad for the Golf Channel, really I do. They are the GOLF channel, yet they don't have any broadcasting rights to the four majors of the year, also known as the highest-rated tournaments on the calendar. All season they bring you exclusive coverage of just about every tournament on just about every tour, but when it comes time for the national spotlight, the big boys like ESPN and TNT come in and steal their thunder. (The fact that TNT has the rights has to especially hurt. You can pretty much expect to lose the bidding for the broadcast rights to a sporting event to ESPN, because sports is all they do. But to lose the chance to show a golf major to the network which is normally best known for showing "Road House" every other day has got to sting.) Even when their parent company, NBC, has a tournament they don't always let the Golf Channel show the early wave of players, splitting it with other networks under the NBC umbrella. The Golf Channel loves to tell you they are the best place for everything you need during major tournaments... except for, you know, the actual tournament. That tends to be a rather large hole in coverage.
There is a show on the Golf Channel called "Morning Drive". Normally as I go through my normal morning routine, I like to have the Golf Channel on in the background, specifically this show. Most people may prefer to start their day with actual news, but I pretty much just want sports and since I usually watch SportsCenter right before bed, there isn't much new for me to learn from them in the morning. Also, unlike national shows such as "Mike & Mike", I know with this show I don't have to worry about a 20 minutes discussion concerning the Kansas City Royals trade options hijacking my morning. (I'm the typical provincial New Englander. If the team isn't from here I don't care about them.) "Morning Drive" is a nice alternative of guys sitting around and talking about golf, giving a few tips and having some laughs. Seriously, hosting this show would pretty much be my dream job. That being said, this morning I just felt bad for them. Coverage of the British Open started on ESPN at about 4:30 in the morning and they didn't come on until 6. That meant they were over an hour behind and were expected to spend the next four hours talking about what was happening on another network, one most golf fans could and had already flipped over to.
From my time in college radio I know a little something about what it is like to do a show while being very aware that no one is paying attention. You feel both annoyed that the world is ignoring your hard work, but strangely relieved that no one is going to call you on your screw-ups. It's a very odd mix of emotions. I eventually made my peace with doing shows pretty much for my own entertainment, but it has to sting for these guys, especially since they normally have an audience. (In my case you can't miss what you never had.) The few times I flipped over during commercial breaks you could almost see behind their eyes the hosts were thinking, "There is no one paying attention to this. We could say anything right now. I bet I could start swearing and no one would even complain." But, no one ever did as they dutifully went back to trying to describe the amazing shot I had just seen before I changed the channel. Mercifully, when I switched back later in the afternoon the Golf Channel had switched away from their live coverage and started showing some original programming instead. I can only hope that they have the good sense to make the switch a little earlier in the day tomorrow.
I feel bad for the Golf Channel, really I do. They are the GOLF channel, yet they don't have any broadcasting rights to the four majors of the year, also known as the highest-rated tournaments on the calendar. All season they bring you exclusive coverage of just about every tournament on just about every tour, but when it comes time for the national spotlight, the big boys like ESPN and TNT come in and steal their thunder. (The fact that TNT has the rights has to especially hurt. You can pretty much expect to lose the bidding for the broadcast rights to a sporting event to ESPN, because sports is all they do. But to lose the chance to show a golf major to the network which is normally best known for showing "Road House" every other day has got to sting.) Even when their parent company, NBC, has a tournament they don't always let the Golf Channel show the early wave of players, splitting it with other networks under the NBC umbrella. The Golf Channel loves to tell you they are the best place for everything you need during major tournaments... except for, you know, the actual tournament. That tends to be a rather large hole in coverage.
There is a show on the Golf Channel called "Morning Drive". Normally as I go through my normal morning routine, I like to have the Golf Channel on in the background, specifically this show. Most people may prefer to start their day with actual news, but I pretty much just want sports and since I usually watch SportsCenter right before bed, there isn't much new for me to learn from them in the morning. Also, unlike national shows such as "Mike & Mike", I know with this show I don't have to worry about a 20 minutes discussion concerning the Kansas City Royals trade options hijacking my morning. (I'm the typical provincial New Englander. If the team isn't from here I don't care about them.) "Morning Drive" is a nice alternative of guys sitting around and talking about golf, giving a few tips and having some laughs. Seriously, hosting this show would pretty much be my dream job. That being said, this morning I just felt bad for them. Coverage of the British Open started on ESPN at about 4:30 in the morning and they didn't come on until 6. That meant they were over an hour behind and were expected to spend the next four hours talking about what was happening on another network, one most golf fans could and had already flipped over to.
From my time in college radio I know a little something about what it is like to do a show while being very aware that no one is paying attention. You feel both annoyed that the world is ignoring your hard work, but strangely relieved that no one is going to call you on your screw-ups. It's a very odd mix of emotions. I eventually made my peace with doing shows pretty much for my own entertainment, but it has to sting for these guys, especially since they normally have an audience. (In my case you can't miss what you never had.) The few times I flipped over during commercial breaks you could almost see behind their eyes the hosts were thinking, "There is no one paying attention to this. We could say anything right now. I bet I could start swearing and no one would even complain." But, no one ever did as they dutifully went back to trying to describe the amazing shot I had just seen before I changed the channel. Mercifully, when I switched back later in the afternoon the Golf Channel had switched away from their live coverage and started showing some original programming instead. I can only hope that they have the good sense to make the switch a little earlier in the day tomorrow.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Missed My Chance
After months of anticipation, on Sunday AMC's critically-acclaimed show "Breaking Bad" debuted to record-high ratings for the network. Before you get too excited, I would like to point out that it was only about 3 million viewers. That is about half of what a rerun of "The Big Bang Theory" gets on any given night. Also, this is a country of 300 million people, meaning literally 1% of the population cared enough to tune in. With those numbers in mind feel free to back off, everyone who thinks they are better than me because I don't watch this show. (As you can probably tell, "Breaking Bad" fans have taken up the throne as most insufferable fans of a marginally-watched and therefore disproportionately-talked about show. Everyone claims they love this show, but if that were the case the ratings should be much better.) Anyway, annoying fans of a television show talking down to every non-watcher of that show is usually enough to make me ignore a program on spite alone, but that is not the case this time around. What is keeping me from being part of the 1% watching "Breaking Bad" is actually a much simpler reason - I haven't been watching the show from the beginning and now I feel as though it is too late to start tuning in.
This is a fairly common problem among the cable-channel dramas. Most of these shows are very involved, with a lot of characters and multiple, linear story lines, meaning there are a lot of names and plots to keep track of and it could take all season to resolve one or two issues as dozens more pop up along the way. So, unlike your typical dramas such as a "Law & Order", if you miss a show in the middle, suddenly you are totally lost about what is happening going forward. Even worse, some shows ask you to hang in for a couple of seasons before they resolve their main issue. That means if you want to start watching you have to track down the previous seasons and catch up on everything which has happened up to this point. Considering that feels an awful lot like homework (which is the exact opposite of what TV is supposed to be feel like), you can imagine my reluctance to go back and start from the beginning. Basically, what you have to do is be in on a show early enough to catch up within one or two weeks or wait for the season to end and do all your viewing in one sweep. It's a little like trying to jump into a moving vehicle: you can do it if you move early enough, but if you hesitate even a little bit all you're going to see are the taillights fading into the distance.
Believe me, I appreciate the delicate position this puts the person recommending the show in. Whenever I tell people how much I really enjoy shows like "Justified" or "Sons of Anarchy" they will inevitably ask me if they should start watching them. While my initial reaction is to say "Why, yes, of course you should", I've toned down answering that way because the next question is always "Well, catch me up on what I've missed and I'll start watching this week." Catching up on the last four seasons of a show like "Sons of Anarchy" requires flow charts, a timeline and a power-point presentation on all the characters who drift in and out. Honestly, there is no way to quickly catch-up without missing some key plot line which will invariable be mentioned on the next show. After a while you just want to tell them to go back and rent the DVDs for the first couple of seasons, but that can be a time-consuming request. What if they don't like the show? And even if they do, casually requesting a person to spend several nights of their lives to catch up on a few seasons of a show seems like a large hassle just so the two of you have something to talk about at lunch. At this point I try to only talk about it with people who I already know are watching.
I'll give credit to networks like AMC, because they will try and keep last season's run of episodes On-Demand for as long as possible to give everyone the chance to see what they may have missed. Usually they aren't pulled until that season is about to be on sale, so while you missed your chance to watch for free, at least you can still catch up by the time the next season starts. Also, many of these cable dramas have long pauses in between seasons, so if you really wanted to catch up you have the time. Still, I think most of the time people are quick to give up on a show they haven't seen, resigning themselves to waiting until the entire series is out on DVD so they can watch everything at their own pace. (This happens in real-life as well. Have you ever been running so late to a party that you just say "forget it" and decide you'll stay home and hear all the details tomorrow? This is the same principle, only with a remote control involved.) Admittedly, this tactic won't do you much good in the short term (It would be like if someone just watched the Harry Potter movies this week and wanted to talk about them. The nerds have moved on.), but at least when people are sitting around talking about the show 10 years from now you can seamlessly work yourself into the conversation without anyone suspecting you hadn't heard a thing about "The Wire" until it had been off the air for 5 years.
This is a fairly common problem among the cable-channel dramas. Most of these shows are very involved, with a lot of characters and multiple, linear story lines, meaning there are a lot of names and plots to keep track of and it could take all season to resolve one or two issues as dozens more pop up along the way. So, unlike your typical dramas such as a "Law & Order", if you miss a show in the middle, suddenly you are totally lost about what is happening going forward. Even worse, some shows ask you to hang in for a couple of seasons before they resolve their main issue. That means if you want to start watching you have to track down the previous seasons and catch up on everything which has happened up to this point. Considering that feels an awful lot like homework (which is the exact opposite of what TV is supposed to be feel like), you can imagine my reluctance to go back and start from the beginning. Basically, what you have to do is be in on a show early enough to catch up within one or two weeks or wait for the season to end and do all your viewing in one sweep. It's a little like trying to jump into a moving vehicle: you can do it if you move early enough, but if you hesitate even a little bit all you're going to see are the taillights fading into the distance.
Believe me, I appreciate the delicate position this puts the person recommending the show in. Whenever I tell people how much I really enjoy shows like "Justified" or "Sons of Anarchy" they will inevitably ask me if they should start watching them. While my initial reaction is to say "Why, yes, of course you should", I've toned down answering that way because the next question is always "Well, catch me up on what I've missed and I'll start watching this week." Catching up on the last four seasons of a show like "Sons of Anarchy" requires flow charts, a timeline and a power-point presentation on all the characters who drift in and out. Honestly, there is no way to quickly catch-up without missing some key plot line which will invariable be mentioned on the next show. After a while you just want to tell them to go back and rent the DVDs for the first couple of seasons, but that can be a time-consuming request. What if they don't like the show? And even if they do, casually requesting a person to spend several nights of their lives to catch up on a few seasons of a show seems like a large hassle just so the two of you have something to talk about at lunch. At this point I try to only talk about it with people who I already know are watching.
I'll give credit to networks like AMC, because they will try and keep last season's run of episodes On-Demand for as long as possible to give everyone the chance to see what they may have missed. Usually they aren't pulled until that season is about to be on sale, so while you missed your chance to watch for free, at least you can still catch up by the time the next season starts. Also, many of these cable dramas have long pauses in between seasons, so if you really wanted to catch up you have the time. Still, I think most of the time people are quick to give up on a show they haven't seen, resigning themselves to waiting until the entire series is out on DVD so they can watch everything at their own pace. (This happens in real-life as well. Have you ever been running so late to a party that you just say "forget it" and decide you'll stay home and hear all the details tomorrow? This is the same principle, only with a remote control involved.) Admittedly, this tactic won't do you much good in the short term (It would be like if someone just watched the Harry Potter movies this week and wanted to talk about them. The nerds have moved on.), but at least when people are sitting around talking about the show 10 years from now you can seamlessly work yourself into the conversation without anyone suspecting you hadn't heard a thing about "The Wire" until it had been off the air for 5 years.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Before It's Too Late
There are few things in life which bring people as much internal shame as their personal 'to-do' list. Having a long 'to-do' list of home tasks is a little like having homework, only there is no teacher waiting for you to turn it in and the only person who will grade how quickly you complete these tasks is yourself. Since humans tend to be much tougher on themselves than strangers, a lot of people see a long list of tasks they have yet to complete as a sign they are slacking. I think the real problem is that the list never stops growing so you never actually make up any ground. I know that for me it seems like every day something catches my eye and I think to myself, "Oh, I should fix/replace that... tomorrow." But even as I am thinking that deep down I know that tomorrow will come and go without that task being accomplished. The problem is that I apparently have no short-term memory when it comes to these projects and, because I don't have a physical list where I keep track of all the things to be done around the house, they get replaces by more pressing matters. However, the worst situations are the ones where I vow to repair something and then completely forget about it until the next time that situation comes up, only to discover by that point it is too late to get to it.
The last few days have been what I like to call 'stupid hot'. I know it is supposed to get warm in the summer, but I think even the hot months should have a limit. Today it was almost 100 degrees in the greater Boston area, which is a ridiculous number. As you can imagine, I have been hiding in air conditioning as much as possible and only venturing outside if no other alternative can be found. (Here's how hot it has been - I was outside earlier this evening and thinking to myself how much more pleasant it was than this morning. I told myself the temperature had to have dropped 10-15 degrees. I checked the thermometer, which revealed that it was 90 degrees outside. When 90 degrees feels refreshing, it has been too damn hot.) It is the kind of hot where you can feel heat seeping in even through closed windows. In my case that means I can also feel heat coming in through the ceiling because my house has one of those pull-down ladders to get up to the attic. The ladder sits on a piece of wood which doesn't perfectly fit the entrance and the heat comes in through every crevice. The gap around the opening may be small, but when it is this hot that entrance is big enough to let me know it is there. You can tell the days when it is really bad because even in a fully air-conditioned house as you walk by you feel the hot air hit you in the face. It's like standing in cold ocean water and suddenly your legs get hit by a random warm patch of water - there is pretty much no circumstance under which that can be a good thing.
The annoying part is that they make covers for these kinds of pull-down ladders which are meant specifically to seal the entrance and keep air in or out, depending on what you want to accomplish. So, I could have bought one of these covers months ago and been done with it. However, I convinced myself they wouldn't fit right and instead got the materials to build a custom-sized weather-proof cover. That would be fine except buying the material is step 1 of a roughly 5-step process and I stopped after that first step. I know I should really take care of this, if for no other reason than to cut down on wasted cold air but I never remember to get around to it and the point when it finally comes back to me is when I am walking under the hatch and it feels like someone is blowing their breath in my face. Let me tell you, July is a really bad time to remember you have a task which requires you to go up into an attic. At that point you should just forget about whatever it was or go buy a new one, because the general rule of thumb when it comes to find out how toasty it is in your typical attic during the summer months it to take whatever temperature it is outside, multiply it by a factor of 1,000 and that should give you a pretty good idea of hot it is up there. In other words, I'm certainly not about to begin construction on this cover now.
What's weird is that normally I am very organized about this kind of stuff, which is only serving to make this situation all the more frustrating. In the short term this leaves me with two options: hoping the heat breaks, then crossing my fingers the rest of the summer isn't as hot and I get the cover built in the fall, or sucking it up and building the cover now while sweating enough to fill a fish tank. Honestly, neither one of those sounds very appealing (or likely to happen). Instead, I think the long-term answer to my problem is to break down and admit that I actually need to start keeping a physical list of all the things I want to fix, replace, paint, move or buy. That may be the only way I know to sit down and prioritize the projects, because if this heatwave reminded me of anything it is that sometimes knowing when do to something is just as important as knowing how to do it. The good news is that whenever I eventually do remember to get around to making this cover I've already got the materials, which means step 1 is done. Apparently I just need to write down the rest of the steps and I'll be done in no time.
The last few days have been what I like to call 'stupid hot'. I know it is supposed to get warm in the summer, but I think even the hot months should have a limit. Today it was almost 100 degrees in the greater Boston area, which is a ridiculous number. As you can imagine, I have been hiding in air conditioning as much as possible and only venturing outside if no other alternative can be found. (Here's how hot it has been - I was outside earlier this evening and thinking to myself how much more pleasant it was than this morning. I told myself the temperature had to have dropped 10-15 degrees. I checked the thermometer, which revealed that it was 90 degrees outside. When 90 degrees feels refreshing, it has been too damn hot.) It is the kind of hot where you can feel heat seeping in even through closed windows. In my case that means I can also feel heat coming in through the ceiling because my house has one of those pull-down ladders to get up to the attic. The ladder sits on a piece of wood which doesn't perfectly fit the entrance and the heat comes in through every crevice. The gap around the opening may be small, but when it is this hot that entrance is big enough to let me know it is there. You can tell the days when it is really bad because even in a fully air-conditioned house as you walk by you feel the hot air hit you in the face. It's like standing in cold ocean water and suddenly your legs get hit by a random warm patch of water - there is pretty much no circumstance under which that can be a good thing.
The annoying part is that they make covers for these kinds of pull-down ladders which are meant specifically to seal the entrance and keep air in or out, depending on what you want to accomplish. So, I could have bought one of these covers months ago and been done with it. However, I convinced myself they wouldn't fit right and instead got the materials to build a custom-sized weather-proof cover. That would be fine except buying the material is step 1 of a roughly 5-step process and I stopped after that first step. I know I should really take care of this, if for no other reason than to cut down on wasted cold air but I never remember to get around to it and the point when it finally comes back to me is when I am walking under the hatch and it feels like someone is blowing their breath in my face. Let me tell you, July is a really bad time to remember you have a task which requires you to go up into an attic. At that point you should just forget about whatever it was or go buy a new one, because the general rule of thumb when it comes to find out how toasty it is in your typical attic during the summer months it to take whatever temperature it is outside, multiply it by a factor of 1,000 and that should give you a pretty good idea of hot it is up there. In other words, I'm certainly not about to begin construction on this cover now.
What's weird is that normally I am very organized about this kind of stuff, which is only serving to make this situation all the more frustrating. In the short term this leaves me with two options: hoping the heat breaks, then crossing my fingers the rest of the summer isn't as hot and I get the cover built in the fall, or sucking it up and building the cover now while sweating enough to fill a fish tank. Honestly, neither one of those sounds very appealing (or likely to happen). Instead, I think the long-term answer to my problem is to break down and admit that I actually need to start keeping a physical list of all the things I want to fix, replace, paint, move or buy. That may be the only way I know to sit down and prioritize the projects, because if this heatwave reminded me of anything it is that sometimes knowing when do to something is just as important as knowing how to do it. The good news is that whenever I eventually do remember to get around to making this cover I've already got the materials, which means step 1 is done. Apparently I just need to write down the rest of the steps and I'll be done in no time.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Money To Burn
As we slowly inch closer to election day in November, it appears as though one of the recurring themes of this elections is going to be the massive amounts of money being donated to both sides of the aisles by the so-called "Super PACs (Political Action Committees)". These organizations are technically not affiliated with the candidates and therefore can work around the campaign finance issues, spending as much money as they feel like on things like attack ads. (If you believe some of the doom-and-gloom stories which are coming out every single day, it sounds as though by October we won't even have actual commercials anymore, as all the spots are being bought up for political ads. As a man who pretty much loathes politics, I am not looking forward to that.) Now, I don't really know enough about the Super PACs to comment on whether or not they should be so involved in the election process, so we'll leave that for a day when I've done a little more research. Instead I want to focus on the people who are giving all this money to these organizations, because to me they are totally fascinating.
Recently I was reading an article about a fundraiser for Republican nominee Mitt Romney. It was a VIP party for every donor who had either given or raised $250,000 for his campaign. In this day and age where it is regularly reported actors, musicians, athletes and CEOs are being given salaries worth millions of dollars I think sometimes people get a little numb to the numbers and forget that is still a lot of money. But, it wasn't the amount donated by each person which caught by eye, it was the number of attendees - 750. That is a lot of people who have given a lot of money. (Before we go any further, yes, I am well aware President Obama has the exact same kind of fundraisers. I just saw the Romney article more recently and that is why I'm using it as the example. Save yourself the time of emailing.) On top of that you hear of these various billionaires who donated tens of millions of dollars like it is nothing. I'm just really curious to know who these people are that have made so much money they are willing to throw it away like this. I often think about what it would be like to be that rich and I imagine that at some point you just run out of things to buy. However, that doesn't mean donating it to a political campaign is all that much smarter than spending it to get three of every item in the Hammacher Schlemmer catalog.
I know you get a tax break for political donations, but it ain't that great of a tax break. Outside of a fancy dinner where the food probably isn't that good, all you really get when you donate to any political cause is placed on a list of people that organization should call the next time they want more money. Basically, you're paying for the right to be hounded for money later. It is human nature to want to associate with winners and some of these big-spending donors might think this is the best way to influence the election. After all, what good is money if it doesn't buy you any power? Also, I'll grant you that it probably feel damn cool to write a check that large, but I can't imagine you will be getting that much influence for getting one man elected, even if it is to the most powerful job in the land. In that respect it seems like bad return on your investment. For tens of millions of dollars of campaign contributions I would want half a dozen Congressmen at my beck and call, not one President. (How did these people make so much money, yet make such poor business decisions?) Seriously, if you have that much money to throw away you either need a hobby or to start a charity.
Recently, some of these groups have started calling me looking for donations which I find hysterical because, wow, are those guys barking up the wrong tree. While those around me are pretty well aware of my politics, I try to keep my thoughts private to the outside world, which is probably another reason I don't see the sense in giving money to politicians. I don't try to talk undecided people into voting one way or the other and appreciate it if they would pay me the same courtesy. Also, unless I am directly related to a candidate, you won't see me sticking signs on my front lawn. I happen to think those signs are useless, because even the most easily-manipulated person isn't going to be swayed by finding out their neighbor is voting for one guy over another. (Actually, given how well most neighbors get along, I would dare say finding out which way my neighbor is leaning would be more of a hindrance than a help to that particular candidate.) Mostly, I feel like the front-yard political sign is ego-driven, because it means the person in that house has such an inflated opinion of themselves that they actual think the people around them care who they are voting for.
It is the same ego-maniacal thinking with the political-themed bumper-stickers, only bumper stickers are worse because the message is intended to reach more people and they last much longer. I still see stickers for elections which happened years ago; a fact that blows my mind. Even if the bumper sticker supported the guy who won I'm not impressed. Instead, I'm sitting behind them in traffic thinking "It was 6 years ago, let it go. Have you not had a personal victory since then?" And if it is for the candidate that loses, not only does that bumper sticker hurts your car's resale value but I know it makes me devalue the driver, because now I know they make bad choices in life. Not only that, but since the sticker is still there that means they haven't let it go yet and if we engage in a conversation they are probably going to start complaining about an election from 2007. In other words, the only message your bumper political sticker is sending out is that we shouldn't hang out, ever. (In that regard it is like every other bumper sticker in the world.) The only difference is that at least with the "My Child Is An Honor Student" sticker I will pretend to care what you are saying.
Recently I was reading an article about a fundraiser for Republican nominee Mitt Romney. It was a VIP party for every donor who had either given or raised $250,000 for his campaign. In this day and age where it is regularly reported actors, musicians, athletes and CEOs are being given salaries worth millions of dollars I think sometimes people get a little numb to the numbers and forget that is still a lot of money. But, it wasn't the amount donated by each person which caught by eye, it was the number of attendees - 750. That is a lot of people who have given a lot of money. (Before we go any further, yes, I am well aware President Obama has the exact same kind of fundraisers. I just saw the Romney article more recently and that is why I'm using it as the example. Save yourself the time of emailing.) On top of that you hear of these various billionaires who donated tens of millions of dollars like it is nothing. I'm just really curious to know who these people are that have made so much money they are willing to throw it away like this. I often think about what it would be like to be that rich and I imagine that at some point you just run out of things to buy. However, that doesn't mean donating it to a political campaign is all that much smarter than spending it to get three of every item in the Hammacher Schlemmer catalog.
I know you get a tax break for political donations, but it ain't that great of a tax break. Outside of a fancy dinner where the food probably isn't that good, all you really get when you donate to any political cause is placed on a list of people that organization should call the next time they want more money. Basically, you're paying for the right to be hounded for money later. It is human nature to want to associate with winners and some of these big-spending donors might think this is the best way to influence the election. After all, what good is money if it doesn't buy you any power? Also, I'll grant you that it probably feel damn cool to write a check that large, but I can't imagine you will be getting that much influence for getting one man elected, even if it is to the most powerful job in the land. In that respect it seems like bad return on your investment. For tens of millions of dollars of campaign contributions I would want half a dozen Congressmen at my beck and call, not one President. (How did these people make so much money, yet make such poor business decisions?) Seriously, if you have that much money to throw away you either need a hobby or to start a charity.
Recently, some of these groups have started calling me looking for donations which I find hysterical because, wow, are those guys barking up the wrong tree. While those around me are pretty well aware of my politics, I try to keep my thoughts private to the outside world, which is probably another reason I don't see the sense in giving money to politicians. I don't try to talk undecided people into voting one way or the other and appreciate it if they would pay me the same courtesy. Also, unless I am directly related to a candidate, you won't see me sticking signs on my front lawn. I happen to think those signs are useless, because even the most easily-manipulated person isn't going to be swayed by finding out their neighbor is voting for one guy over another. (Actually, given how well most neighbors get along, I would dare say finding out which way my neighbor is leaning would be more of a hindrance than a help to that particular candidate.) Mostly, I feel like the front-yard political sign is ego-driven, because it means the person in that house has such an inflated opinion of themselves that they actual think the people around them care who they are voting for.
It is the same ego-maniacal thinking with the political-themed bumper-stickers, only bumper stickers are worse because the message is intended to reach more people and they last much longer. I still see stickers for elections which happened years ago; a fact that blows my mind. Even if the bumper sticker supported the guy who won I'm not impressed. Instead, I'm sitting behind them in traffic thinking "It was 6 years ago, let it go. Have you not had a personal victory since then?" And if it is for the candidate that loses, not only does that bumper sticker hurts your car's resale value but I know it makes me devalue the driver, because now I know they make bad choices in life. Not only that, but since the sticker is still there that means they haven't let it go yet and if we engage in a conversation they are probably going to start complaining about an election from 2007. In other words, the only message your bumper political sticker is sending out is that we shouldn't hang out, ever. (In that regard it is like every other bumper sticker in the world.) The only difference is that at least with the "My Child Is An Honor Student" sticker I will pretend to care what you are saying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)