Remote Control

Any time people in the media get the urge to feel superior, they conduct a quick survey about how uniformed the average American is and then get on TV to scold us about not paying enough attention to world events. Obviously, this disappoints me because I would like everyone to be more informed and make their own opinions on issues rather than just agree with what someone told them. The world would be a better place if we all had a better grasp on current events, because I think the only way things problems ever get solved is when enough people join a cause and affect change. However, the other thing surveys like this do is annoy the hell out of me, because when they are asking these questions the media somehow believes they are blameless in all this, forgetting that a lot of people only learn through what the media decides to tell us. They are the ones who waste airtime acting as though "American Idol" results should count as real news and then scold us for not being up-to-date on what is happening with Syria. It's like a teacher failing her students for not knowing the answers regarding a bunch of subjects she never covered in her lesson plan. It's also frustrating because I think if given the option most people would actually appreciate more real news. At least one station is trying to find out.

Because Google thinks she is still relevant, this morning my "Entertainment" headlines included several stories about Lindsay Lohan getting arrested again. (I don't know for what because I've lost track and I don't care enough to click on the stories. Honestly, does it even matter at this point?) Like most people, I am quite tired of stories about this woman and feel the amount of coverage she gets far outweighs her actual talent. At this point she is just like any other Hilton, Kardashian or reality-star - famous not for having any real skill, but for lacking even the faintest hint of shame. The only saving grace about these kind of people is that if you tolerate them for a couple of years whoever is in charge of this kind of stuff eventually gets sick of them and we move on as a people. Now, I would love it if I could stop hearing about this woman under any circumstances, but no matter how much I mess with my Google News settings, I still don't have control over the local TV news who use her arrests as fluff pieces to fill in the gaps. I know filling in 22 minutes of air time (minus 5 for weather and another 5 for sports) without mentioning Lindsay Lohan seems like it should be easy, but I guess it is not. The thing is, she gets arrested so much I'm not totally sure it even counts as news anymore. I mean, do anchors start every day by telling you the sun came up? No, you just assume it did. After a while even the worst producer knows things which happen ever day don't count as news.

This morning a DC-area news director for a CBS affiliate openly wondered if Lindsay getting arrested had reached this point. He sent out a Tweet, asking his followers if Lohan's latest arrest was newsworthy. The question was quickly picked up by the station's official Twitter feed, who left it up to their viewers to decided whether they would report on the story. They never revealed the polling numbers, but they called it pretty quickly - within 45 minutes he reported that the people had spoken and the story would be ignored. I can only assume this means the votes were heavily leaning in the 'not news' direction. Now, the station did not offer a second poll as to what kind of news the people would hear instead, so I can only hope it was something a little more productive. After all, it kind of defeats the purpose to ignore Lindsay Lohan if you're just going to replace that time with a story about a Kardashian. Don't mistake my amusement at this story as me saying that I want all news to be left up to voting by the general population. They made the right choice in this matter, but I'm well aware that if you left programming the news up to most people the weather would be 5 minutes, sports would be 10 and the rest of the time would be filled in with other entertainment news. People have simply reached their breaking point with Lohan updates - if they were given the choice most people would simply pick other celebrity news to fill the void (and God help us if there is another Royal Wedding).

These news stations can't leave it up to us - the only way we're going to watch news about a war in a foreign country which 99% of the population never plans to visit or have family in is if the stations force us to. Besides, internet voting is too easily manipulated and between the political fracture that exists at the moment and the fact that 90% of internet voting is done 'ironically' nothing would ever make it to air. The 24 hour cable networks try this method out occasionally and those segments never go well. Not to mention there is a big difference between a 24-hour channel with all that time to fill versus a show which is only on in half-hour stretches. No, these news programs should air real news whether we like it or not and hope at least a couple of us are paying attention and the rest learn something by accident. Ratings may go down at first, but after a while they will probably get bumped up higher than they are now as people start tuning in for no other reason than they don't want to be the least-informed person in their office. (I don't care why people are paying attention, just that they are.) At least acknowledging that Lindsey Lohan is no longer newsworthy is a step in the right direction. Now, if we can get affiliates to stop treating what happens on game shows as actual news we could start making real progress.

Boy Meets Reboot

It is not uncommon for shows to use the summer break as a way to artificially move the dates on their program forwards. After all, trying to cram several season into what is only supposed to be a few months of a person's life can get rather tricky, as people still age at normal rates no matter how highly-rated a show they are on. Plus, it gives the writers freedom to start a few things over. For example, one offseason "Desperate Housewives" jumped their stories ahead five years to move the plot along and it appeared to be rather popular. Now it appears some shows are insisting their time lapses to be more natural. The other day the internet started buzzing with news the Disney Channel was planning to relaunch the popular early-90s show, "Boy Meets World." Now, I was never a big fan of this show when it was originally on, but apparently I was the only one. Bring it up to most people my age and they practically have a fit. Running from 1993-2000, it starred Ben Savage and followed his character Cory through the many trials and tribulations of adolescence. This new version, entitled "Girl Meets World" (they clearly spent a lot of time working on a title), would actually be about the now-grown Cory character's daughter. They were even able to rope the majority of the original cast into coming back to be part of the new show. (I know, I'm just as shocked as you are that they were available.) If this show becomes a hit it could very well mark the start of a trend.

The television reboot is quite popular at the moment. Just last year they brought back "Dallas" under a very similar principle - rather than focused on people like Patrick Duffy and Larry Hagman (RIP), the show is centered around the people playing their children. In some ways it makes a tremendous amount of sense. People are already familiar with the characters and the setting, so while you may have to spend an episode introducing new people, the script writers can spend the majority of their efforts into trying to move stories along, which is a huge advantage over a fresh show trying to introduce all-new people. Plus, you've got a built-in audience ready to go. If the internet buzz over "Girl Meets World" and the solid ratings of "Dallas" are any indication, there are plenty of people out there who would love to find out what some familiar characters have been up to. I'll tell you one thing - it appears to work a hell of a lot better than starting an entirely new show and simply giving it the same name as a once-famous show from a few decades ago ("Charlie's Angels" and "Knight Rider" spring to mind). With that concept in my head I did some thinking and came up with five shows they should think about rebooting in one form or another. All I ask in return is an executive producing credit.

Deadwood: The most recently-cancelled show on the list, HBO really should bring this program back. As an added bonus they never actually finished it the last time (the writers thought they were getting another season and wrote the storylines with that in mind, meaning there were lots of plots left open and a proposed two-hour movie to wrap everything up never happened). That means they can choose to either deal with all the stuff left unfinished or they could go in a totally different direction. Either way, I'm pretty sure most of their fans would come back as soon as they do.

Punky Brewster: Don't we all want to know how this eternally-optimistic orphan turned out? The show has been gone for so long you could actually take in any direction you wanted - Punky could have taken any number of careers and the show could even be a drama. It's pretty much a blank slate with infinite possibilities.

The Simpsons: Hear me out on this one. I am aware the show is still on the air, but I think even the most die-hard of Simpson fans would admit the show has lost its fastball in the last couple of years. With that in mind, why not finally age the characters a few years and be introduced to an entirely new world? Bart and Lisa could be in high school or even old enough to have their own kids. They have a done a few flash-forward episodes in the past and they seem to be fairly interesting, so why not fully take the plunge and explore those ideas more?

The Cosby Show: I know this show was on for a long time in its original run and has been around almost as long in syndication, which means it feels like it never went away. However, in reality the show has been gone for 20 years. I know that syndication deal also means all its stars have banked enough money they don't need to do it again. But, I'm fairly certain that actor's paychecks on a sitcom are bigger than residual checks and the Cosby kids didn't all cash in. I'm pretty sure they would be available to come back. Besides, we need to get Bill away from Twitter. Every now and again he goes a little too, "Get off my lawn!" for his own good.

Friends: I know what you're thinking - "These people are too famous to go back to that well." But, ask yourself - are they really? How many shows have Lisa Kudrow, Matthew Perry, Matt LeBlanc and Courtney Cox had cancelled between them? I think it has to be close to double-digits. And when was the last time you actually saw David Schwimmer? Sure, he does a lot of voice-over work, but I hardly think it would keep him busy enough to turn down a return to network TV. The only hard get would be Jennifer Aniston, but she's one more box-office flop away from having to return to TV anyway. I'm telling you - they may have been sick of playing these characters a few years ago, but after 8 years of failing to stick in new roles, I bet most of them would relish the thought of getting a job they know is going to last for at least a couple of years - certainly more than anything they have worked on lately.

A Tasty Challenge

Despite thinking "The War for Late Night" was one of the best books I had read in a while, I actually don't bother to watch any of the talk shows which follow the local news. To me there is just no benefit in watching celebrities try (and usually fail) be be funny off the cuff while promoting a movie I have no interest in seeing. Personally, I can't fault actors for not knowing how to act like humans - their main skill is reading words other people have written, so they are probably terrified at having to come up with sentences on their own. If I do watch any of these shows I tend to just watch the bits at the beginning and then bail right before the first guest comes out (this is why, for as much as I love "The Daily Show" I never watch the interview segments). Now, the really smart shows recognize that most people are doing the same thing as me and put most of their energy into this first act. Additionally, I'm noticing that the best at it are the two guys who have been doing it the shortest amount of time, Jimmy Kimmel and Conan O'Brien. (The fact they are seen as the 'young guns' of late night talk show hosts when both are well into their 40s should tell you all you need to know about the demographics of the people who still watch these programs.) They may be taping more bits, but at least they are funnier than another interview.

The other night Kimmel did a brilliant spot about one of my least-favorite companies, Starbucks. I completely understand if people want to spend a little extra to buy themselves a higher-quality item - we all have something we are snobby about and I see nothing wrong with it. I'm just not sure coffee is the place you want to be spending your disposable income. I'm sure the fact that I don't drink coffee of any kind has clouded my judgement on the matter, but I simply don't see the point of spending that much money on a drink. Most of the time I feel like people are buying Starbucks because it is a bit of a status symbol - something people are trying to use to tell the world that if they can spend this kind of money on something as trivial as a cup of coffee than they must be doing really well. And Starbucks totally takes advantage of that, which is why they keep raising the price of a cup of coffee without batting an eyelash. Recently, they decided to introduce their most expensive cup ever - some $7 concoction with a too-fancy name in an attempt to cover up the fact that it is still just a cup of coffee. Apparently, Kimmel feels the same way I do about the people who aren't drinking something because it is actually better but because they think it makes them look as though they are.

Poor Little Tink-Tink

The other night I was watching a comedy special on Showtime. It featured a comedian I was quite familiar with, even if I haven't always found him funny. However, since I am always willing to give comedians a second chance, I sat through it. The thing is that while 90% of the special was new material, there was one entire segment which was exactly the same as the last comedy special I had seen him perform almost 10 years ago. Now, I'll grant you some comedians have to repeat aspects of their show or risk annoying their fans. For example, I am sure that Jeff Foxworthy would love to take one night off from telling "You might be a redneck..." jokes, but knows that will lose him more fans than he would gain by trying to be original. However, this particular repeated bit was not exactly famous, which is why I suspect this comedian thought he could sneak it passed most of his audience. I would never get on a comedian for repeating the same jokes if I saw them twice in one year, but these two specials were filmed years apart - you would think enough things would have happened in that time that he could gotten 10 original minutes from, but apparently not. Personally, I think there is nothing worse than seeing a comedian perform the same jokes as the last time you saw them. Actually, I take that back, because there is something worse - a comedian telling no jokes at all.

A couple weeks ago Katt Williams was performing in Oakland. For those of you who may not be familiar with Williams, the pint-sized comedian is very filthy but can also be very funny. He does a great bit about runny Oscar Pistorius you should look up if you don't mind a lot of swearing. Additionally, has a very colorful past off-stage, getting arrested numerous times. In fact, he had been arrested just a couple days before he was scheduled to perform in Oakland. And while he come out to start his act, he didn't stay there for very long. After rambling on for a few minutes, Williams stripped down and started challenging audience members to a fight. Katt has always been kind of out there, but never in an Andy Kaufman kind of way, so it didn't take people very long to figure out this wasn't part of the show. His bodyguards pulled him off stage and the show was over after about 10 minutes. Now he and Ticketmaster are being sued by several audience members in a class action suit. Clearly, someone needs to get a hold of this man and remind him that while he has some very funny bits, he is not at a level where he can do this kind of thing. Comedy was around before him and if he doesn't treat his fans better they will find another comedian's show to attend instead. The train will keep rolling along whether he is on it or not.

But beyond all that I am fascinated to see how this lawsuit goes. You would like to assume there is a little good faith between the promoters, the artist and the venue, but I think expecting any type of protection for the fans is rather naive. These companies proved a long time ago they are in it to make money - not to bring people the best entertainment experience. If you look at the large amount of very small print on the back of almost every ticket these days you will see all sorts of legalese to protect the ticket seller and the venue while warning people about the penalties of scalping their tickets - there is nothing on there about whether or not the show will last longer than it took you to complete your order through the website. Ticketmaster's lawyers could easily argue that, given Williams unstable nature, the fans knew exactly what they were getting into when they bought tickets to see him. Also, your average comedian in a club only does about 10 minutes, so why should the venue change the length of the show? We all know that it is implied, but the problem with things which are implied is that they are damned hard to prove. Now, if he knows what is good for him Williams will offer to refund the price of the tickets out of his own pocket or reschedule the show for another night (and actually go through with it this time), but if you are expecting Ticketmaster to foot any of the bill you probably have a long wait ahead of you.

I'm sure, given the lengthy legal document people have to agree to finish their transaction (and often do so without actually reading any of it - it probably contains a clause about this very kind of incident), this lawsuit doesn't have much of a leg to stand on and will be dismissed before it actually gets going. Still, it would be pretty amazing if this suit resulted in some real change. Obviously, most people would have expected the performance to last a lot longer than it did. But technically you could argue that Williams did take the stage which means he did give a performance so what the fans are really mad about is the quality of the show. If they win this lawsuit it could open up a whole new set of standards regarding what constitutes a quality performance. Artist doesn't sing your favorite song? Refund. The acoustics in the arena were awful? Refund. Comedian isn't funny enough? Refund. Given how expensive things like concert tickets can be (and that is without all the stuff around it like dinner, parking and such), it would be nice to have some kind of insurance against this kind of stuff. After all, if a movie cuts out after a few minutes the theater would give you a rain check to see it another time. I know a live show is a different circumstance from a movie, but the idea behind them is roughly the same. If fans don't start getting some kind of guarantee about the show they are supposed to see, many of them are going to start staying home and watching old comedy specials on TV. It won't be the same energy, but at least they know the show will actually happen. And, given the way some comedians apparently operate, the jokes won't even be all that different.

Down In Front!

As I mentioned in yesterday's post, on Friday we went to see Ray LaMontagne in concert. The show was at the Orpheum Theater and acoustically it was a great show - everything sounded amazing. Also, visually the show was good - we were up in the balcony and while there wasn't much to see, we had perfect sight-lines in case something came up. However, spatially, the theater left quite a bit to be desired. Like Fenway Park, the Orpheum was built a very long time ago, back when the average person was much smaller. That also means, like Fenway Park, I outgrew the Orpheum when I was about 12. I was totally crammed into my seat. I can't even say my knees were in the back of the chair in front of me, because that would imply I could sit with my legs in front of me. The reality is that I had to spread them to either side of the chair in front of me and fold my legs under my chair with my knees next to the ears of the guy sitting in front of me. Even worse, we were in the middle of the row and I swear the aisle got narrower the closer you got to the middle. It wouldn't have been a big deal at most concerts because I would have simply opted to stand the entire time. Alas, an acoustic evening with Ray LaMontagne is not exactly the kind of show which lends itself to standing and rocking out - I was left with hoping he would take his time before coming out for the encore. Still, a lack of legroom was not the biggest annoyance I had at the show. That distinction was reserved for the rest of the crowd.

Admittedly, I'm not the biggest concert goer, probably because I do not really enjoying listening to music in a big crowd. This reluctance to share my listening experience is not a result of the fans around me usually try to sing louder than the speakers, even though I like to quote Matt Damon when he hosted "Saturday Night Live": "I came here to hear Bruce Springsteen, not the shipping department of Circuit City." It has more to do with me just having a very low tolerance for drunk people and concerts are teeming with them. Again, you wouldn't think an acoustic evening with Ray LaMontagne would lead to a night of drunken debauchery and I'm sure the number of drunks in the crowd was much lower than the average show at the Orpheum, but what they lacked in numbers they made up for in annoyance. For example, these drunk people loved to yell out requests. Now, I know how disappointing it is to go see a musician only to have them not play the your favorite song. However, if you want to have that much control over the playlist, I would suggest staying home and listening to your iPod because this was an actual musician and not a DJ - at no point did he ask for suggestions. Also, the least the drunks could do was pay attention to the music because at one point LaMontagne did play "Trouble" (his biggest hit), only to have a very drunk girl request it a couple songs later. [Sidebar: his response was great - "I already played it. Were you getting a beer? I have bad news for you - I sang the hell out of it."] Apparently, no one told her concerts don't feature a repeat button. Even worse are the drunks who were trying to be funny, because no one told them no one came to hear their thoughts on the playlist.

Another thing the drunks love is taking pictures. The ticket said no flash photography, but it was clear the Orpheum was going to let it slide. I don't blame them - in this day and age you can't people to turn off their phones for 2 hours and every phone is also a camera, so fighting that battle is a lost cause. I only wish camera phones came with picture limits because a few of these people were way too excited to be breaking the rules. Honestly, on more than one occasion there were so many flashes going off from the woman behind me I was afraid I had accidentally wandered into a rave. The thing is it was a very simple set and concert. What, exactly, are you taking so many pictures of? If nothing has changed since the last picture than why don't you put the camera down and actually listen to the music for a minute or two? You may discover it increases the concert experience by leaps and bounds. But, more than that I couldn't get over the constant moving. Admittedly, I probably treat shows such as this like going to a movie - once I find my seat I am there until the show ends. However, the section in front of me clearly didn't feel the same because after every song at least 10 people got up to head elsewhere. I'll grant you that maybe they needed a beer or to go to the bathroom, but several people seemed to get up every other song. Why did you buy tickets if you aren't planning to actually watch the show?

I seriously don't want this post to sound like a had a bad time, because I really didn't. The music was great and for the most part the crowd was well-behaved. But, as you know I have a habit of people-watching and the people who are acting out of the ordinary tend to draw my eye, which naturally made them the second show of the night. I guess my confusion regarding their actions also stems from the fact I simply don't see the appeal of getting so drunk you forget you were at a show. I remember back in high school I was working security at a Dave Matthews Concert and as the crowd was filing out after the show I ran into a very drunk classmate of mine. I asked him what he thought and said, "It sucked! They never played 'Ants Marching'." It would have been a fair complaint... if the band hadn't finished that very song not 10 minutes earlier. Seriously, if you plan to spend the night getting black-out drunk, why even go to a concert? Stay home and tell everyone you went, because you will apparently be able to get the exact same amount of details correct. At least by staying home the only person whose night will get impacted is you. Trust me, the rest of us won't even notice you're gone.

Do Your Thing

Friday night I went to see Ray LaMontagne in concert. I'll have more on that experience tomorrow, but before the show we went to Downtown Crossing to see the lighting of the Christmas tree outside Macy's. Having never gone before I was expecting it to be a 5-minute ceremony, but it turns out there was a whole show with a few musical acts before the lighting. The first was a children's choir, then an imminently forgettable wannabe boy band, followed by another group of children singing and finally, former Destiny's Child singer Michelle Williams. (Nope, not that one. I know the one you are thinking of and she's the other one.) Anyway, at first she got up to sing her new single and the crowd just wasn't having it. No matter how much she prodded, they were just not in the mood to clap or sway along to the music. I felt kind of bad for her, but the song choice was just wrong - it was too poppy and synthesized for what was going on. Plus, I'm willing to bet 95% of the crowd had never heard it before, which cuts down on the chances of people singing along. However, after that she started to sing a medley of Christmas songs, a cappella, and she crushed it. It was amazingly good and totally got the crowd into her performance. This is what she should have been doing the whole time.

I couldn't help but think about Williams later when we were watching LaMontagne perform. The show was solo acoustic - just LaMontange on guitar and one guy playing bass in front of a very simple set. How well the show went was going to based entirely on Ray's voice and playing ability. He was fantastic. It just goes back to something I have been saying for years - the less the music is produced, the better the artist is going to have to be. Whenever I see a concert with an elaborate set-up and 10 costume changes I can't help but assume the artist is doing all that to cover up the fact their music is terrible. Clearly, Michelle Williams had plenty of vocal talent, she just isn't using it correctly. Now, you can easily make the case that Williams was at a disadvantage because not many people were there to see her, whereas everyone at the concert was there specifically to see LaMontange but good music is an amazing equalizer. If Williams had been good from the start I'm convinced the crowd would have gotten into it. Is she ever wants to get back to the level of fame she had during her Destiny's Child days she needs to strip down her tracks, stop trying to be Beyonce and use her pipes better. She's got the voice, now she just has to stop hiding it. And if she needs a reminder of what that might sound like, I've got her covered.

Weekly Sporties

-The fallout from last week's mega salary dump from the Miami Marlins continues, as now there are reports that before Jose Reyes and Mark Buerhle signed with the team they had requested full no-traded clauses and were told by the Marlins that while they couldn't put it into the contracts, the players had their word they wouldn't be traded. Well, cut to a year later and those players are on their way to Toronto where taxes are significantly higher than in Florida (which I'm willing to bet is the only reason they are annoyed at being moved). Now, I have no sympathy for either player because they have both been in the majors for several years which means they should have known better than to trust anything a front office says. That should go double for a team like Marlins, which has a history of trading their best players as soon as times get tough. However, I do wonder what news like this will do for the Marlins going forward. As I said last week I was going to hold off on judgement regarding this trade until I saw whether or not the Marlins used the salary flexibility to bring in a new crop of free agents. But now you have to question whether or not they will even be able to bring in any new free agents, because who is going to sign with a team that won't keep its word? Sure, there are always going to be middle-of-the-road guys and aging vets who will be willing to take any job they can find just to stay in the majors, but no marquee free agents are going to seriously consider signing with the Marlins, even if they are willing to significantly overpay them. Once again, it appears that if they ever want to get a consistently solid baseball team on the field, the biggest trade the Marlins have to make is in the owner's box.

-After a couple years of teams shifting conferences with no regard for geography or math, there hadn't been any movement for a couple months so I thought we had reached a sort of uneasy peace within the college ranks. Apparently that was naive of me, because on Monday the University of Maryland announced they will be moving to the Big Ten starting in 2014 and were followed in by Rutgers on Tuesday, bringing the conference to 14 teams (still no word on a conference name change, but I wouldn't count on it). Normally, I would be numb to this kind of stuff - I think we are all starting to realize that everything we thought we knew about college conferences is irrelevant and inevitability there will be 4 super-conferences. Rutgers leaving the Big East isn't the story here - they weren't one of the first-generation programs, so they had no real loyalty to it and that conference is slowly being picked apart. But I am shocked that Maryland is leaving the ACC, which they have been in for over 50 years. I know lately they hadn't had the success of schools like Duke or UNC, but I still considered them one of the flagships of the conference. And unlike Rutgers, which is most likely moving to guarantee they will play in a conference with an automatic qualifier, it feels as though Maryland is making more of a lateral move than anything. I can only assume there is more going on behind the scenes. Normally, I leave the final word on stuff like this up to alumni, but I can't really tell what they think because reaction, as it always is, has been mixed. Some think it is time to leave the shadow of Duke and UNC while others are lamenting the loss of traditional rivals. Personally I think it time we all start realizing that things like rivalries are way behind the true meaning of college athletics - making as much money as you can.

-Of course, the big fear about Maryland and Rutger switching conferences is that it will set off yet another round of program musical chairs. You know the ACC will have to bring it at least one member to fill the void or risk appearing weak and ripe for further poaching. (Reportedly, they already have an eye on UConn.) Plus, the Big 12 is still trying to find enough teams so they actually match their conference name (they currently only have 10 teams). But I think my favorite story about conference realignment came in the middle of the week, when reports started to come out that Boise State, San Diego State and BYU had talked to the Mountain West Conference about possible re-joining the league. When all this realignment first started BYU went Independent while San Diego and Boise planned to join the Big East next season to try and get in the best position for a major bowl bid. But at this point the Big East is a shell of itself and if UConn follows through on its plan to leave the conference may very well become basketball-only. Plus, under the new playoff format which was announced after Boise and San Diego committed to the Big East the BCS no longer guarantees an automatic bid to the Big East champion - it goes to the highest-ranked conference champion from a pool of the five "other" conferences. I guess these schools figure that if they can get the same deal and not have to travel as much it would be worth it to buy out of their Big East agreements and go back to the way things were. The thing is, if I were running the MWC I wouldn't be in such a hurry to take them back. I would make them pay a pretty hefty penalty in addition to the money they have to pay to the Big East to break an agreement which hasn't actually started yet. After all, they wanted to leave to make the most money, so the MWC should remind them they aren't running this conference for the fun of it either.

-Last week's thumping of the Indianapolis Colts did not come without a cost for the New England Patriots. Star tight end Rob Gronkowski broke his forearm late in the game and is expected to miss several weeks as a result. Of course, this started the debate of whether or not Gronkowski should have still been playing that late in a blowout. This is a common talking point whenever the Patriots win by a large margin. (Though, and I'm sure this is just a coincidence, it never seems to come up when another team appears to be piling on the points. Also, my feelings on this are quite simple: there is no such thing as running up the score in professional football. These guys do this for a living and it is not like Florida taking on some low-level team trying to get a paycheck.) Besides, it is not like Gronkowski got hurt while catching a pass - he broke him arm while blocking on an extra point, something which could have just as easily happened at any time, regardless of the score. Of course, not about to let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good talking point, that was ignored by some analysts, who then started to question why Gronkowski was on the field goal team. Again, the answer was pretty simple: he's the best blocking tight end the Patriots have and tight ends are almost always on the field goal team. Additionally, two of the Patriots tight ends were inactive for the game, so even if Belichick wanted to to take him out he didn't have the personnel to do it. It just goes to show that no matter what he does, some people are going to question coach Belichick's decisions. But as long as he keeps winning most of the criticism will fall on deaf ears. And if their Thanksgiving day drubbing of the Jets was any indication of how the offense is going to be moving forward then the Patriots should be just fine.

-The other interesting NFL moment which happened on Thanksgiving came during the first game between Houston and Detroit. In the middle of the third quarter and with Houston down by 10, Texans running back Justin Forsett spun off a tackle and ran 81 yards for a touchdown. However, replays showed that while Forsett's knee never came down during the play, at one point his elbow was touching the ground. In the NFL an elbow is just as good as a knee and the play should have been stopped there. The good news for Lions fans should have been that since it was a scoring play it was automatically going to be reviewed and would have been overturned. The problem for those same Lions fans is that head coach Jim Schwartz is an impatient man. Schwartz threw the challenge flag anyway, which is against the rules. When the NFL implemented the policy of automatic reviews of scoring plays and turn-overs it was half to make sure the play was right, but also because they didn't want the refs to be shown up by the coaches. To make sure they didn't do that, they included a clause which stated that if a head coach throws a challenge flag on a play which is already being reviewed it negates the review and the team is hit with an unsportsmanlike penalty. So, thanks to Schwartz the play was allowed to stand even though everyone knew it was wrong and the Lions eventually lost in overtime. Now, I'll agree that Jim Schwartz is a bad coach, but that doesn't change the fact that they need to fix this rule and fast. It is one thing to give out an unsportsmanlike penalty, it is entirely another to then not review a play we can all see needs to be reversed. I appreciate what the NFL was trying to do with this clause but they need to amend it right away, because trying to right one wrong by creating another doesn't help anyone in the long run.

-With every passing day the NHL finds itself closer to the zero-hour - the point at which they won't have time to pull everything together and will have to call off the entire season. Already this week the league was forced to cancel games through the middle of December and the All-Star game. They continue to call off games in two week chunks and if they don't have an agreement in place to have games started by February than there probably won't be any professional hockey until next October. That is why Commissioner Gary Bettman's idea of a two-week "cooling off period" after a tense negotiating session was so idiotic when it was suggested - these people don't have two weeks to waste. However, this week I saw a bright spot when Donald Fehr, the executive director of the NHL Players' Union, said that the last proposal exchanged had the two sides $182 million dollars apart. Now, I know a difference of almost $200 million doesn't sound like an optimistic sign, but I'm looking at it as progress because just a few weeks ago these two sides were even further away from one another. Now that there is a number in place they can start to whittle it down even more. I'm not saying an agreement is imminent, but at least now there is hope they have established a few of the ground-rules and at this point all that remains is to haggle over a price. On top of that, you would imagine that $182 million is the kind of money the sides would be able to make up if they got back to the business of playing hockey, so it would be in their best interests to get back to work and actually have that money to divide between themselves rather than fight each other until the profits they are fighting to divvy up become nothing more than hypothetical.

-At this point most sports fans acknowledge that Division III athletics aren't much more than a minor step above high school athletics. You give the kids credit for playing without the benefits of scholarships, but these schools also have to realize they are getting what they paid for. So, if you want to get national attention playing at one of these schools you are going to have to do something really amazing or really embarrassing. Fortunately for Grinnell College basketball player Jack Taylor he fell into the amazing category, as he scored 138 points, by far the record for most points scored by one player in a single game at any level. Now, I'm not about to crap all over the kid because I wouldn't score that many points if you let me stretch it out over several games, but it needs to be pointed out that he didn't exactly get there easily. Taylor needed 108 shots (71 one of them from 3-point range) and his team was passing up much closer shots to get him the ball so he could try score more. Also, they don't play much in the way of defense, as a kid on the other team scored 70 points. Apparently, this is simply Grinnell's style of play, as last year a player scored 89 points. If anything, that should give Taylor more credit because numerous kids have had the opportunity to score like this and only he has. I'm just trying to figure out how they decide who will do all the shooting that day (Taylor is not the coach's kid, I checked). I can only imagine they do some kind of game during the shoot-around to see who has the hottest hand that day. I'm just wondering why the coach on the other sideline was willing to play along. Unless he wants to be coaching at this level for the rest of his life he may want to go back and read a manual about defense. Honestly, switch to zone or a box-and-1. You have to try something, because man-on-man obviously wasn't working.

Fade To Black (Friday)

While I am not a fan of hearing Christmas music and seeing signs about holiday shopping before Halloween, I have come to accept that stores are increasingly dependent on this season to make money, so they are desperate to get people mentally in the holiday spirit as soon as possible. That is why for the last three weeks my mail has consisted of more catalogs than actual letters and is the past two weeks I have seen more Christmas trees in parking lots than I ever will in nature. But despite this holiday spirit creeping earlier and earlier on the calendar, we still have Christmas tradition people are sticking with and that is Black Friday. I can not tell you how much this confuses me, because of all the things wrong with holidays that we should be in a hurry to change, Black Friday would come in very high on that list. Everything else about Christmas is encroaching on the rest of the calendar, so why are we so beholden to this concept which some marketing person only came up with a few years ago? Clearly, people are willing to show up at any time as long as the deal is good enough, so why are we so tied to waiting until Friday to kick off the sales?

I've made my feelings on the situation quite clear in previous posts, but to recap: I don't do Black Friday. To me no amount of savings are worth standing in line at 4 AM and nearly getting trampled just to find out I probably bought the wrong size anyway. Plus, I value sleep more than almost any product in the world. Third, I usually have a bad time coming up with gift ideas and have found Black Friday is not the time to wander stores and hope inspiration strikes. Lastly, I have found that you could get pretty good deals at any point this week. That means this entire thing comes down to a math problem in which 30% off + 1/25 of the crowds + a full night's sleep > 60% off. But beyond that, I actually think Black Friday is the clearest picture of what is wrong with us as a people. I get really bummed seeing alleged adults fighting over a toy they have to know their kid will only play with for 20 minutes before moving on to the next fad. The fact people are numb to stories about people getting injured or sprayed with pepper spray should tell you all you need to know about whether or not we have let this get out of hand. This morning I saw a story about a woman essentially getting arrested for cutting in line. Sure, we want to do that the rest of the year, but the fact that it is actually a crime one day of the year is a pretty clear sign that we may be taking this day a little too seriously.

Also, I am starting to question just how good some of these deals actually are. Sure, there are some big name electronics up for grabs at prices you probably won't see ever again, but for every 100" TV available for a song, are we sure they aren't jacking up the prices of all the components you need to actually make it work? Let's not forget, these are big companies whose job is to make money and they aren't inclined to give you a sweet deal out of the kindness of their hearts. They have to pay all those employees who at at work in the middle of the night (some are even getting holiday pay), and these corporations need to make that money back somewhere. I feel like even if you start shopping in a couple weeks you will get comparable prices. On top of that, I think some of these people would be well-served to do a little math. No doubt the savings on big items can be substantial, but if you are waiting to buy something which is $10, than a few extra percentage points won't make that big of a difference. This is the same theory I have about the people who hold off buying things until that sales tax holiday. Sometimes paying a little extra is worth knowing the item you want will actually be there when you go to buy it.

I guess the only reason Black Friday still exists is because there are still traditionalist who are still hanging on to the idea that you should finish one holiday before starting another. And I will grant you that for every person like me who understands seeing Christmas decorations come out after Memorial Day, there are probably just as many people who get really angry about it. And while I respect that stance, I just can't figure out why this is the one place where stores are willing to stick to traditions. (Still, it is the flimsiest of concessions because at some point, aren't you just shopping on Thanksgiving anyway? Sure, 12:01 is technically Friday, but if anyone asked when you are heading to the store you would tell them Thursday night.) Is there really that big a difference from putting out the decorations and offering the holiday prices? Next year I would love it if a store decided to either give Black Friday savings starting on the Monday before Thanksgiving or declare the savings are going to be there on Friday, but they will be opening their store at a reasonable hour. I know holiday shopping can sometimes feel like a competition, but there is a ton of time left before Christmas (even more with Thanksgiving so early this year) and you actually don't get anything for finishing first. Save your sanity and let the other guys fight over the last Playstation game.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Want to wish everyone 
out there a safe and 
Happy Thanksgiving.

Enjoy the day of football, 

food and family!

Remember to schedule a nap -

Tryptohan is a hell of a drug!

Here We Go Again

Some of you may remember a couple years ago when I had a small issue with some outdoor Christmas lights. For those of you who may not have been readers at the time, I'll sum it up for you - I wanted to upgrade to bigger lights on a couple of trees in the yard but only scanned the box which contained the lights, which said that while the lights only came in strands of 25, they could handle up to 60. I assumed that meant 60 strands, because what good would a 60 light-limit do when that isn't a multiple of 25? Well, it turns out it was just 60 lights and the fuses in the strands kept blowing after about 30 seconds. It was pretty frustrating. Getting enough lights to cover the tree resulted in multiple trips to the hardware store, after which I was forced to jerry-rig a system with an outdoor power strip with no more than two connected strands heading out from it. As you can imagine, it did not come out looking nearly as professional as I had imagined in my head. The results had bothered me for a couple of years, so as soon as the strands started to show signs of wear, with the blue bulbs fading to the point they were essentially clear (Shocking, I know. Who would have thought these lights, which came in a poorly-designed box would have also been pretty unreliable?), I decided it was time for an upgrade. This time I made sure I could string multiple strands together if it came to it. Unfortunately, this time that wasn't my problem.

Now, you may be thinking that this is awfully early to be worrying about Christmas lights. Normally I would agree with you, but this came as a special request. Additionally, these back lights are the only ones I will be doing for a couple more weeks. This time I bought a strand of 100 lights on a 99-foot cord. At first glance, both of those numbers sounds like a lot. After all the tree isn't that big. The plan was to go all the way up and back down, eliminating the need for the power strip by connecting directly to the extension cord over to the next tree and I thought I would make it quite easily. However, as I was pulling the old lights off the tree, I noticed there were 6, 25-foot strands. That's 50 more feet of lights than I now had and suddenly I was worried I was going to come up short. Still, I told myself that wasn't a real problem, because the old strands had to go back to the power cord at the bottom of the tree, which mean I wasn't able to spread them out as I wanted. Since this was just going to be one long strand, by my calculations I should be able to spread the lights out more efficiently to cover all the space. Turns out, I'm still not a math major because I didn't even make it all the way to the top of the tree.

[Sidebar: Finding out the hard way that 99 feet doesn't cover nearly as much as you think it does, I headed back to the hardware store. I know that sounds bad, but this turned out to be one of those moments when the universe was looking out for me. As I had been unrolling that first strand of lights I noticed that it didn't come with the spare bulbs which had been promised. While not a big deal at the time, I still would have liked to know they were around in case of an emergency. In going back to get the second strand I was at least smart enough to go back to the same store and to make sure I wouldn't have more of the compatibility problems which you really don't expect to have with something as simple as Christmas lights, I also wanted to get more of the same brand of lights. In the same box as where I bought the first strand yesterday was a pack of extra lights, which I can only assume were from my strand and had fallen out. So, while going back to the hardware store was not in the original plan, at least by having to do it I got the spare lights and fuses should anything happen. I'm going to chalk it up to karma, because it is easier than admitting I'm really awful at judging distances.]

Now that I knew I had enough lights to make it back down the tree I set about finishing hanging my new lights. Because of the limited nature of the previous light set-up I never made it to the top branches of the tree, and I wanted to make damn sure I got the new ones around those branches, as putting up a strand of lights I could leave while the tree grew was pretty much the whole point of this entire experiment. Well, I may not know math but I do know trees, because this tree is definitely taller than when I hung these lights up 3 years ago. Whereas last time I was able to just hang them with a ladder and tossing the lights over a couple of branches, this time became a process that featured me breaking out not only a ladder, but two grabber arm extender and walking stick to make sure I could actually get the lights up on the highest of branches. (I hate heights. Seriously, what has gotten into me this year?) I gave the lights a quick trial and so far, so good. Believe me, no one is happier about the thought of not having to get back up a ladder than me. I can only hope these lights last a lot longer than the ones I just took off, because at the rate that tree is growing the only way I'll be touching those top branches again with a cherry-picker or a chainsaw.

Voice of Change

Last week a man came forward alleging an inappropriate relationship with Elmo puppeteer Kevin Clash. However the accuser, who is described as a 'struggling model', later recanted his statement after reportedly coming to a settlement. At that point most people were willing to look the other way and chalked the incident up to the price of fame. But then a second man came forward with similar claims. Since once may be an accident but twice is a trend that was enough for Disney and PBS, and today Clash 'resigned' from "Sesame Street". It's been kind of strange to see the mixed reaction on the internet. Of course, there are fans out there who see this incident as nothing more than people trying to get rich through a frivolous lawsuit. But in the wake of the Penn State scandal people have begun to look at accusations like this with a much more serious eye. In their minds where there is smoke there is fire and the police should get involved, not just civil lawyers. As I so often do when these type of news stories break my personal plan is to slowly back away from anyone who wants to talk about it, because I don't know the people involved and don't want to rush to judgement until more of the facts roll in. It makes me a bad editorial writer, but I feel like it makes me a better man.

So, leaving that part of the story alone, the other aspect of this story people have been talking about is what affect this is going to have on the children. In the time between when I stopped watching "Sesame Street" back in the early '80s and the next generation of my family came along in the late '00s the show became all about Elmo. (I still think his name is a result of hours of testing to see what name kids could say from the earliest age. There are kids who can't say 'hi' who know how to say 'Elmo'.) Those kids won't understand what happened - all they know is they love Elmo and are worried he is going away. I saw several websites today which had articles about how parents should approach this subject with their kids. As you would expect from the internet, the advice ranged from being completely honest to totally ignoring the situation. Well, I have good news for those parents who were dreading that talk: I really don't think they will have to have that conversation. Much like last week's story which claimed Hostess was going to be shut down only to have it come out that the recipe would be sold to another company and Twinkie production would most likely continue, I highly doubt Elmo is going anywhere.

There is no doubt that Elmo is a beloved character to children across the world. But, everyone needs to remember he is just a collection of felt and wire that can be operated by any human and voice actors are incredibly replaceable. Unlike when trying to cast a live actor to fill a role which forces you to find a person who closely resembles the previous actor, when attempting to switch voice actors all you have to do is sound like the character. I'm willing to bet that until all these allegations started flying around most people wouldn't have had the slightest idea what the person behind Elmo's voice looked like. Heck, sometimes you don't even need to sounds that much like them. You show me a beloved children's character that has been around for more than 10 years and I will show you a character which has been played by multiple voice actors. Even Big Bird, who held down the spot as most popular character on "Sesame Street" until Elmo came along, had his voice change along the way. Mickey Mouse, Porky Pig, Kermit the Frog - all of them are currently being played by people who didn't originally have the role. They sound a little off at first, but before too long it goes the other way and hearing the original actor sounds strange.

If you need any more proof that Elmo is probably sticking around, look to the case of Gilbert Gottfried - he was fired as the voice of the Aflac duck after Tweeting some inappropriate jokes following the Japanese tsunami and the company decided to distance themselves from him by bringing in someone who was essentially doing a Gilbert Gottfried impression. That was their chance to go in a totally different direction and they didn't do it. If a company like Aflac thought it was that important to maintain one voice for a character who just says one word and which hasn't had 1/100th the impact of a children's start like Elmo than it is a pretty safe bet that auditions are already underway to find a suitable replacement to keep "Elmo's World" chugging along. Not to mention this will be a business decision. There is too much money left to be made and I just can't see Disney letting it go to waste. Even if Kevin Clash is the one holding the copyrights to Elmo it would be in his best interest to let the character keep stamping his name on toys. At this point if they could find someone who sounded enough like Elmo they would train them on how to be a puppeteer. I'm always saying that people in Hollywood need to remember that people are rarely tuning in to see them - they want the characters. Actors leave shows all the time and the show just keep chugging along. Why should the guys behind the puppets be exempt from that?

A Singular Sensation

If the dozens of commercials I saw this week are to be believed, the American Music Awards took place last night (I certainly wasn't about to flip over and check). That means this afternoon I heard about a ton of musical acts taking home awards, none of whom I could pick out of a police line-up or hum the song they are most famous for. Also, I'm pretty sure that I will never hear from them again, because by this time next year they will have been replaced by another cluster of interchangeable acts. I don't blame the American Music Awards, though. (Still, we really should cut the number of entertainment award shows down to 4 - Tonys, Emmys, Grammys, Oscars. I feel that pretty much covers everyone.) The problem is that the music industry has such short memories that within two weeks of an artist releasing an album people want to start filming the "Where Are They Now?" segment for their biography. It is with that phenomenon in mind I began to wonder why musicians are in such a hurry to release full albums anymore. If you think about it, every thing else about the music industry has changed, so why are we still insisting musicians put out new songs in blocks of 10-12? Since most songs are purchased individually anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to release them individually?

The way I see it, anticipation is often the key element in any promotional campaign. This is why movies typically make the most money their opening weekend and season premieres get the highest ratings on the television calendar. It goes back to that most basic of human instincts: wanting is always more fun than having. So, why not try and string that anticipation out as long as you can by releasing a new song a week? I mean, it is not like you couldn't still tour with the new music once it was all out. Not to mention, it would just be more data for musicians to work with. For example, with these single-specific sales numbers you could really pinpoint which songs are hits and which one only the loyalist of fans are going to learn the words for. Believe me, nothing brings a concert to a halt faster then a musician destroying the vibe by bringing up a song only 30% of the audience is familiar with. (Seriously, it is not like we need the bathroom break.) It would help artists figure out what songs are going to get the best reaction and help them mold a playlist, enhancing the entire concert experience. Also, if you are one of these soulless, engineered pop stars (also known as most of the popular musical acts today) you could figure out what sounds people are most drawn to and create more music that sounds just like it. Trust me, some artists have been able to carve out very lengthy careers using no more than 10 chords.

I know some people are going to argue that making fans buy the entire album is the only way to get them to listen songs which aren't getting a lot of radio airplay, but considering the state of the radio industry I'm not sure that principle even applies anymore. Pop radio essentially plays the same 15 songs on a 4-hour rotation, which means if you want to hear new music you have to go hunting for it anyway. Also, that argument feels like something you would have argued a couple years ago, back when people still had to buy CDs. It is the same flawed starting point that leads to record companies setting it up that if you want to buy the hit single on iTunes you have to buy the entire album. Well, that may work for the people who like the artist and were planning to check out the rest of their songs anyway, but the remainder of us are going to do one of two things: 1. decided we don't like the song that much or 2. find a way to illegally download it. I'm no math major, but I'm pretty sure $1 is more than $0. Don't believe what family comedies about people getting unwanted dogs have been telling us for years - forcing someone to own something is not the way to make them eventually love it. So, congratulations, you've annoyed someone who was a casual fan and could have grown into a full-fledged one into most likely hating that artist and made no money.

The fact that record companies still produce albums the same way as they did 10 years ago is rather scary, because any industry which doesn't know enough to adapt is doomed to fail. Considering how fast it felt like the way we listen to music changed I can't say I blame the music industry for being unprepared, but the continued lack of a plan is disturbing. I can only assume they keep up these practices either because they have always done it this way and don't want to change or they simply don't have a better idea to replace it with. Honestly, I'm not sure which is scarier for the future of the music business. Considering the overnight ratings show the AMAs got the lowest ratings in the shows history, it is clear they have a problem. You can crow all you want about that being a product of too many award shows, going up against a good football game or people having too many other entertainment options, but the simple fact is that if there was a big enough draw more people would have tuned in. Even if they didn't tune in for the whole show they would keep clicking over to catch a performance. A bleaker truth is that there simply aren't any act in music right now which are talented enough to get people to make a long-term invested in them - no one expects this current group of pop acts to be making quality music two years from now, never mind ten. That's why releasing one song at a time may be the way to go - let's aim for making 10 weeks worth of good music and see who is still standing.

Snack Time

As I mentioned on Friday, Hostess has decided to declare bankruptcy and lay off its entire workforce. This not only resulted in people on the internet lamenting the loss of the company, but a mad rush to begin hoarding the various snacks the company made for the future (ignoring the fact that they might still be made in one form or another). At the time I wasn't particularly upset because I have never been the biggest Twinkie fan. However, a little bit later I learned that Hostess also owns Drake's, which is the company that makes Yodels and that their production would be shut down as well. Suddenly, shit got real. I happen to have quite the affinity for Yodels and the thought those could be going away as well is quite disturbing. I know we should all be eating healthier and fewer chocolate snacks at our fingertips would probably benefit us all in the long run, but every now and again a treat does a world of good. It is starting to look like this shut down will have wider ramifications than first thought. This is the problem with allowing companies to get too big and allowing them to buy up all the competition - when they fail an entire industry goes down. Sure, Congress gets all pissy if they see Microsoft trying to corner the computer market and telecommunication mergers are shut down if it looks like it will make one super-company to dwarf all the rest, but apparently you can buy up all the snack cake makers and they won't raise a finger. I'm willing to let a lot of things in Washington slide, but when I hear stories like this it just reminds me they really don't have our best interest in mind.

Weekly Sporties

-Last week I told you that the Los Angeles Lakers job was probably going to come down to former coach Phil Jackson or former Knicks coach Mike D'Antoni. Well, all weekend it looked like the job was Phil's if he wanted it and the only thing left was for some details to be ironed out on Monday. However, in a sudden change of heart, apparently the Lakers called in the middle of the night on Sunday to let Jackson know they had hired D'Antoni instead. A lot of Laker fans are not happy because they think Jackson was the obvious choice given his history with the team. What this move proves is that while Jimmy Buss may not have total say over the team (he was the one who hired Mike Brown, after all, so I doubt he was keen to fire him so quickly), he clearly has plenty of influence on basketball decisions. Jimmy Buss wanted to distance the franchise from Jackson, which is why a perfect candidate like Brian Shaw was ignored and multiple stories about demands Jackson had made to the team regarding salary, personnel decisions and travel restrictions was leaked to the media. As I wrote last week, I have my doubts about whether D'Antoni's style of play will work with this current Laker team. He has coached Steve Nash before, but that was several years ago and I have a feeling coaching Kobe Bryant in the Olympics is not the same as coaching him during the playoffs. At least D'Antoni is realistic, saying that if the team didn't at least make the Conference Finals he should be considered a failure. Well, the Laers front office had better hope this decision works out because I'm pretty sure the team has burned the last remnants of the Phil Jackson bridge. I can't see him ever coming back to their bench now.

-Perhaps inspired by the Lakers's decision to fire Mike Brown after 5 games, this week the Miami Marlins traded Jose Reyes, Mark Buerhle and Josh Johnson to the Toronto Blue Jays for a couple of players and prospects. What this means is that, one year after promising that if the state built them a new stadium the team would have increased revenue to spend on players and adding almost $200 million to their payroll, the Marlins have now fired their high-profile manager and traded away about $190 million of those contracts. A lot of people are extremely pissed at the Marlins owner, Jeff Loria, because it appears they gave him this sweet stadium deal and he reneged on his end the bargain after just one year. This is not the first time the Marlins have participated in a major salary dump, but at least in the previous instances they had the common courtesy to win the World Series first - this team lost nearly 100 games. Now, the offseason has just begun, so it is entirely possible we have all jumped the gun and the team is going to turn all this uncommitted money into a slew of new players. However, the evidence would suggest what is actually going to happen is the team is going to lose even more games next year while playing in front of 400 fans, all of whom were given tickets to the game, while Jeff Loria rakes in money from a stadium he didn't have to pay to build. (The only good thing to come out of this is that at least it should end the practice of states using public funds to build stadiums for billionaires.) You know, I'm pretty down on Red Sox ownership over how they have handled the team the last year and a half, but it is nice to be reminded that no matter how bad you think your situation is, you should be thankful because there is always someone out there who has it worse.

-Before the NBA draft the most intriguing prospect was Royce White. He has the rare combination of good size to go with a nice shooting touch. The issue is that he also has a serious fear of flying, which is a problem in today's NBA. At the time I wrote that it probably stopped him from being a higher lottery pick and I wasn't sure this was going to work out between White and the Rockets, who took him 16th overall. Well, turns out I was wrong, but only about the part where I said this would rear its ugly head eventually. Less than 10 games into his NBA career White stopped showing up for team-scheduled therapist sessions and was going to be demoted to the D-League, so he stopped showing up to practices and games and now is saying he may leave basketball. Even worse, he has taken to airing his dirty laundry on Twitter, where he is saying the Rockets have not been honest with him about their plans and are not working with him as much as they said they would. Some in the organization have fired back, saying White's real problem is not his fear of flying as much as his lack of playing time and this is his way to fight his demotion. The two sides need to be careful with the public sniping or else this could get very ugly, very quickly. Also, someone should remind them that they need each other right now. If they eventually want to go their separate ways they would be wise to make it work in the short term, otherwise White will never get a contract extension from another team and the Rockets will never get back the value of the draft pick the used to get him in the first place. I think both sides already know this isn't going to work, now they need to be smart about how this gets settled.

-After the New York Jets lost last weekend to the Seattle Seahawks to fall to 3-6, several people wondered if it was finally going to be Tebow-time in New York. Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez hasn't been able to lead the offense and while the group of receivers he has to work with are not all-world, they are still in the NFL for a reason. The thought has been floated that Tim Tebow could spark the team the same way he sparked the Broncos last year. What's kind of crazy is that usually on a bad team the back-up quarterback is the most popular guy in town, but even among Jets fans the opinion on Tebow is split. Well, on Wednesday the Jet players let their feelings on the matter be known, as several players anonymously spoke to the media and labelled Tebow as 'terrible'. (For their parts, the Jets who spoke on the record later all say that anonymous is essentially code for 'made-up' and while they like Tim very much, Mark is their guy.) Personally, at this point I don't know what you are waiting for. The Jets are about 3 losses away from officially not making the playoffs and if you aren't planning to use Tebow, than why the hell did you trade for him? I don't think he is a good quarterback, but given that Rex Ryan was willing to use him in the Wildcat formation as well as do things like trot out defensive backs at the wide receiver position, I am stunned the Jets appear willing to go down without firing off the biggest bullet left in their gun. I can only assume it comes down to what the coaches see in practice everyday and since every person in that organization is essentially fighting for their NFL future right now, the fact that they still think Sanchez is the best option they have should tell you all you need to know about Tim Tebow's pro quarterback prospects.

-In a race which wasn't nearly as close as most people predicted, Detroit Tigers' third baseman Miguel Cabrera won AL MVP over Los Angeles Angles centerfielder Mike Trout. Now, many of you know my policy when it comes to my baseball provincialism: if it doesn't involved the Red Sox, I really couldn't care less. However, I was interested in how this race turned out for the simple reason that it had sparked a baseball debate about the role of new sabermetrics in baseball: the old-schoolers argued that Cabrera won the Triple Crown, which hadn't been done in 45 years and got his team to the playoffs. The new-schoolers argued that stats like RBIs aren't as important these days and put more emphasis on things like WAR (wins above replacement) and various defensive stats, all of which contend Trout had the better year. Also, his team won more games, while the Tigers had the fortune of playing in a lesser division than the Angels. Personally, while I think advanced stats have their place in baseball due to the nature of individuals playing a team game, I think Cabrera winning the Triple Crown counts for something and I don't discount things like RBIs nearly as much as some do, so I would have voted him for MVP. That being said, what the old-schoolers need to realize is that their argument against these new stats, which boils down to "math is for nerds!" isn't going to win them any fans. Considering baseball is quickly fading from the public spotlight, they would be wise to cultivate any interest they can find out there, even if those baseball fans don't look at the game in the same way.

-During last weekend's NASCAR race in Phoenix, Jeff Gordon had his tire cut down by Clint Bowyer. It essentially ended Gordon's chances for the day, so with two laps to go he decided to return the favor, slowing down until Bowyer was about to pass him and then turned Bowyer into the wall. At the time Bowyer was third in the Championship point standings and having a good day, but the wreck effectively ended any chance Bowyer would have had to contend going forward. The 'accident' sparked a huge brawl in the pits between the two teams. (Which was more like a baseball brawl, with a lot of pushing, but very few actual punches thrown. So much for the theory that the sport is full of a bunch of tough, good 'ol boys.) For a four-time series champion like Gordon, it was seen as a truly punk move (also you would have thought a guy with his resume would know how to wreck a guy without taking himself out as well). You know, every time there is a major fight in a sport like hockey people try to point out that if the same thing happened off-ice it would have resulted in criminal charges. Well, intentionally causing an accident at 200 mph seem much more dangerous for a lot of people, yet I didn't hear any of that here. All Gordon was hit with was a $100,00 fine, docked 25 chase points and places on probation until the end of the year, which is like ejecting a guy with :10 seconds left in the last game of the year. Honestly, it is less than a slap on the wrist. Even worse, with one more race to go, I'm pretty sure this isn't over. That's why they probably should have parked Gordon for this week's race. I know NASCAR told the drivers to "have at it, boys" at the start of the year, but it seems like if it was anyone else they would have been penalized a lot worse than this. I think NASCAR should remember that while the drivers inside the car may be safer than ever, the fans in the stands are just as exposed as ever. They're lucky the damage was contained on the track.

-In its ongoing attempt to convince the world it is doing something about player safety (pay no attention to replacement refs, Thursday Night games or talks to increase the schedule to 18 games) the NFL continues to trot out new idea for people to think about. This week's proposed tweak would limit the maximum the guys covering kick-offs could weigh. Kick-offs continue to be the most common time for injuries and the league is arguing that smaller players would create smaller collisions. At first the theory seems sound, until you remember that these smaller guys would be running into one another faster than the current larger players are. It would really be trading big hits for faster ones, which I'm not sure actually makes anyone safer. What they really need to do is go the other way and have a weight minimum - you have to be at least 300 to be on special teams. That way, kick-offs be a kicker and 10 lineman. By the time those guys reached the tackling point they would be so winded they would be trotting. That would really cut down on big hits. Either way, I don't see it happening because the teams would need to expand their rosters for all these little guys, who wouldn't be any help in regular game situations and I can't see owners paying more money for guys that are only on the field for 10 plays a game. Also, the players would never go for it because too many of them use special-teams as a way to make a roster while they learn the position they would rather play. I think this is especially good news to Raiders fans, because if the NFL declares that you have to weigh less than 200 lbs to be on the kick-off team, what would they do about Sebastian Janikowski?

A Recipe For Success

This morning Hostess, the company which makes Wonder Bread, Twinkies, Ding Dongs and various other treats, announced that due to an ongoing nation-wide strike of the bakers' union, they would have to declare bankruptcy and shut down operations. Considering the company reported over $2 billion in earnings last year this news came as a bit of a shock. Obviously, this is a terrible development for the nearly 20,000 workers who are going to lose their jobs. Needless to say the internet, as it has a tendency to do, freaked the hell out. However, no one seemed to be voicing any concern about the workers because they were too focused on the possibility of going forward in a world which doesn't have any more Twinkies (I hear they have a factory in Natick...). For years people have been joking the only things to survive a nuclear blast were going to be Twinkies and cockroaches and now it looks as though Twinkies are going to be brought down way before that by a business decision. Before too long people started Tweeting pictures of empty shelves as people started hoarding the Twinkies which were already in stores. Even as a sweets lover, I found their behavior a bit extreme.

The only good news for Twinkie lovers is that all hope is not lost. The product has such name recognition that Hostess plans to sell of the rights and recipe to the foodstuff in hopes of getting some money to pay off their debts. Personally, I expect the bidding on that recipe to get fast and furious. Sure, there are Twinkie substitutes on the market, but I think we all know they aren't as good as the original. They are usually pretty good about getting it half-right, but something always tastes like it is missing. As anyone who has tried to bake from an old family recipe can tell you, close just isn't good enough. Few things in life are quite as disappointing as soiling an old memory of "how grandma used to make it" by your attempt coming out with a funky taste. People don't like it when the flavors of their foods change, especially when it comes to specific brand name items, which is why those substitutes never pose a real threat to the originals. The only thing that keeps those companies going is that the majority of consumers simply don't have the equipment to make their own versions. Whichever company could step in and fill the void would be looking at some huge profits.

Anyway, it got me to thinking about what other recipes would fetch quite a pretty penny if they were ever up for auction. Here are just a few of the ones I came up with. (Also, please note the theme that all these things are wildly unhealthy. I assume this means people don't feel it is as bad to eat this way as long as someone else makes it for them.)

Budweiser: Yes, there are plenty of home-brew kits available where people can come up with their own concoction. And, sure, beer snobs thumb their nose at Budweiser, claiming it doesn't have enough flavor, aroma, texture, that it isn't sophisticated enough or some other phrase which makes it sounds more like a quilt than a beer. Well, those snobs should also look at a few sales numbers every once in a while - Bud Lite is the highest-selling beer in America and it isn't even close. You can brew in all the flavor you want, but I'd rather have the best-selling beer than the one everyone speaks very highly of before they order something else.

Coca-Cola: There are all kinds of products for sale which claim to allow you to make soda in your own home and it will taste the same as the stuff you can buy in the store. I've tried a couple of home-made sodas in my life and not only do they not taste right, they taste flat. I don't know what the magical chemical Coca-Cola puts in their product (and I'm positive is is a chemical), but no one else has mastered it yet. Hell, even they screwed up the formula once and tried to pass it off as New Coke, to disastrous results. That recipe is probably guarded as well as some countries' nuclear codes. Anyone who could consistently pump out the taste America is familiar could sit back and watch the money just roll in.

Doritos: It shouldn't be this hard to figure out a cheese-covered nacho chip, but as anyone who has tried a bag of the generic "Nacho Chip" will attest, it is clearly harder than they think it is going to be. They either don't have enough flavoring or too much. So far, I have never tasted anything which comes close to the originals. It's like trying to play with a bag of Legos and discovering Duplo Blocks are mixed in. Also, the bidding will double if the Cool Ranch flavor ever goes up for auction.

Oreos: If you ever need to know why this recipe would be so profitable, just go check out the Hydrox Wikipedia page.

McDonald's Fries: I'm not sure if it is the potatoes they use, the salt or the fact that they probably never change the oil in the fryer, but there is a reason these have been America's best-selling French Fries for so long. No matter how much Burger King changes their recipe they can't surpass McDonald's popularity, despite the fact their burgers are much better. If BK could ever get a hold of the fries recipe it could tilt the balance of power in the fast food wars. If they ever get their hands on the Shamrock Shake formula, they would be unstoppable.

What A Tease

I'm a pretty firm believer that the most important moment in any movie's promotion is the airing of the very first teaser trailer. People these days have so many options for entertainment that if you can't hook them with that first look, they will most likely forget about the movie entirely. Best case scenario is that they might wait until the movie is out and first hear some word-of-mouth reviews. But given how disappointing the majority of movies turn out to be and the increase in snarky reviews on the internet, that's a risky proposition. However, if those same people are interested after that initial viewing than there is a better-than-average chance they will be lined up to see your film as soon as it opens. For example, I have long believed that the very first teaser for the film "Pearl Harbor" was the best use of editing in the history of cinema. There was almost no sign of Ben Affleck or any hints that the first hour and a half would be about a sappy love triangle - it was just action. Watching that my friend and I were mesmerized to the point there was zero chance we wouldn't be in line to see that movie as soon as it opened. Even though subsequent trailers should have given us a heads-up we were walking in to a chick-flick trap, we stuck to the belief the first trailer had given us that this was going to be a solid action movie (clearly, we were wrong). As you can tell, there is a lot riding on the trailer.

However, even with the belief that getting people interested as early as possible is the best way to ensure they show up on opening night, the latest practice of premiering trailers for highly-anticipated movies before the showing of other highly-anticipated movies confuses me. For example, this week it was announced that the first few minutes of the next installment of the "Star Trek" reboot was going to be shown on screens across America before the new "Hobbit" movie. Now, I have no doubt that Trekkies are a passionate bunch, but I doubt even they would pay $10-$15 just to see a few minutes of a movie trailer unless they also wanted to see the actual movie which was coming after it. In fact, given how quickly things make it onto the web, I can't think of a single fanbase who would be so impatient to get a glimpse of a movie they won't be able to see more of for half a year that they would buy a ticket to a movie just to watch the trailers. In other words, if the plan here was to use the "Star Trek" trailer a means to sway even more people to see "The Hobbit" (which I honestly don't think needs any more help), I don't think it is going to work.

[Sidebar: Worse yet, I am slightly worried that these movie studios are starting to paint all sci-fi fans with the same broad brush. Just because someone is a fan of the "Lord of the Rings" doesn't automatically mean they also spend nights trying to figure out how to perform a Vulcan neck pinch. I am starting to believe that the people in charge of promotions aren't really sure of who they are selling this movie to. I once worked with a guy whose job was to market sports apparel and he couldn't tell you who half the teams in the NFL were. I wonder if a similar thing is happening here - just a bunch of advertising majors who think Spock flew the Millennium Falcon with the rest of the Avengers on his way to Mordor to fight Megatron. These people need to know that not all nerds are created equally. In fact, often these factions are at odds with one another and their fandom is only equaled by their memories. If you insult them once they will never come back. Seriously, these guys have message boards galore at their fingertips and they know how to use them. All I'm saying is that these marketing professionals shouldn't assume nerds all come from the same big pool of potential customers.]

But, lets say for the sake of argument there was a hobbit-loving Trekkie in the audience. Isn't he pretty much already guaranteed to see the next "Star Trek" movie? Wouldn't the smarter idea be to try and show the movie to people who are on the fence about it? For example, show it in front of the people who are seeing "Lincoln". I'm not saying history and sci-fi are exclusive from one another, I'm just saying that I know people like my parents are planning to see Lincoln, yet I'm pretty sure my mom never got around to watching the latest "Star Trek." Who knows if a well-placed trailer could have changed her mind? For all we know this could lead to an entire new kind of marketing, one where trailers are edited especially for the type of movie it is about to be played in front of. Based on going to the movies with a couple of my nieces I already think trailers should be age-appropriate, so why not genre-appropriate? Some people (read: me), often find the trailers to be the best part of the movie experience, so why not give people a little extra motivation to make it to the theaters early enough to see the special "drama edition" of the "Expendables 3" movie trailer? (I imagine it would focus on Sly's dramatic reading of a ransom note and Jet Li would be in a period costume.) It probably isn't the most honest way to market a movie, but if I learned anything from sitting through an action-less hour of "Pearl Harbor" it was that there is rarely truth in advertising.

Opinions Vary

For the last couple of days, a particularly harsh restaurant critique has been making the rounds on the internet. It comes from the "New York Times" food critic, Pete Wells, and essentially skewers celebrity chef Guy Fieri's new restaurant, Guy's American Kitchen and Bar in Times Square. For those of you who may not have seen it yet, allow me to sum it up for you: Wells was not a fan. Now, I don't really have an opinion on Fieri one way or another. I find him no more or less annoying than any other celebrity chef and whether or not I will watch his show that day has very little to do with him and everything to do with whether or not I want to attempt to cook whatever recipe he has on his show that episode. That being said, I found the article pretty amusing because the entire review was written in the form of snarky questions and, let's face it, I love snark. A lot of people are wondering if Wells went too far, but I understand it is his job to give his opinion on the place. Still, I couldn't help coming away from reading it with two thoughts on a loop in my head: Who the hell is Pete Wells and why should I care what he thinks?

I admit that I have never understood the world of the critic. I don't know how we got to the point of raising one person's opinion above all the rest, especially when they are so often pretentious. I certainly don't remembering voting on this one person speaking for the rest of society. Also, they never seem to have the proper perspective. I can't stand it when film critics go to see the latest explosion-filled summer blockbuster and then essentially get away without reviewing it because they dismiss the entire genre as mindless action movies. Yeah, well, every now and again all people want to watch are car chases, explosions and catch phrases. Not everything is made to try and win an Oscar. I know, "Hey, I didn't like it, but maybe you will" isn't the strongest article in the world, but at least it would be more honest. (If you have ever read my movie reviews you know this is exactly what I usually say.) The problem is these critics could never write something like that, because it would cut into their cushy gig. These guys probably realize how sweet a deal it is to get paid to watch movies and figure the least they could do is try to act as though they honestly believe people need to know what they think.

But food critics are even worse. The only thing I think that is more personal than a person's taste in movies is their taste in food. This may be the most subjective topic in the world, thus making the food critic among the most useless professions in the world. It is entirely possible that the chef was just a little heavy-handed with the garlic that night and while Wells hates garlic, if you happen to love it than Guy's new restaurant could be the best place for you. Besides, critics are often at these establishments soon after they are open, when the staff is still trying to get their feet, which anyone who has worked in food services knows is a tough time. According to his New York Times bio, Mr. Wells has a very impressive writing career, winning multiple journalism awards throughout the years. However, in reading that bio I couldn't help but notice a few holes in his resume - most notably anything having to do with food. As near as I can tell this guy has never tried to open a restaurant or graduated from any level of culinary institute. Hell, for all we know he's never even taking a cooking class. I'm not saying you should only be allowed to review restaurants if you are also a world-class chef, but I certainly wouldn't listen to a car review from a man who can't tell me anything about what is under the hood.

A few months ago I wrote about James Cameron taking over a panel discussion about the Titanic even though he was probably the least-qualified person in the room. At the time I argued that just because he was an enthusiast, it didn't mean his opinion was more valid than the salvage expert or naval engineer. The same premise applies here. Just because Mr. Wells has been writing about food for a long time, that doesn't actually make him an expert on the subject. If the job was based on number of meals consumed than there is probably some 80 year-old in Manhattan who has pushed himself away from the table more than Mr. Wells and would love to tell the world what he thinks. (Old people do love to share their unsolicited opinions.) If nothing else, Yelp! has shown us that while it may not be done as elegantly or as grammatically correct, pretty much anyone with a mouth and a keyboard can review a restaurant. So, I applaud Mr. Wells for his writing style, but completely dismiss the content of his article. I don't care how large his circulation, he's just like any blogger with an opinion. And if he doesn't like my criticism than Mr. Wells can take solace in the fact that I understand I'm just a guy with a blog who doesn't actually think my opinions should influence how anyone feels about him or his work. Too bad he doesn't have enough perspective to feel the same way.

Guilt By Association

This afternoon I was reading an article about John McAfee, wanted in Belize on the suspicion he had murdered his neighbor. If that last name sounds familiar it means you have owned a computer in the last decade, as John McAfee was the creator of McAfee Anti-Virus Software. McAfee has been living in Belize for the last few years while apparently also slowly going out of his mind. Reportedly he had been very active on drug message boards about trying to figure out a way to purify various hallucinogenic drugs while also becoming increasingly withdrawn from the outside world, mostly mingling with local, barely-legal young ladies and employing multiple armed criminals for security purposes. Now he is refusing to turn himself in because he is convinced the police will kill him as soon as he is taken into custody and saying he had nothing to do with the murder. In fact, he claims the people probably intended to kill him and just went to the wrong house because he has be mingling with some bad gangsters. Not exactly the kind of company you would expect a guy who used to work for NASA and once had a personal fortune approaching $100 million to be keeping. I can't tell if the guy is crazy or legitimately right be paranoid, but either way the entire time I was reading the reports I couldn't shake one thought from my head, "I bet he's guilty, because his product sucks."

I can't speak for anyone else, but I find McAfee Virus Software to be somehow both annoying and useless. The problem comes from the fact that their programmers are probably developing this software using computers which have endless supplies of memory, which is not something your average computer users has at their finger tips. Thus, every time the program wants to either scan my computer for viruses or download more programs to ward off harmful programs, it pretty much brings all other business on my computer to a halt. I have tried my best to clean up any unwanted programs and files from my computer to help speed up this process, but considering there I can run multiple other programs at the same time and it doesn't cause my computer to crash, it really can't be anything but this stupid anti-virus software which, oh by the way, does a really crappy job of stopping viruses before they infect my computer. I could forgive it taking up all this memory if it at least worked, but it does not. (For those of you wondering why I don't simply delete it, I often wonder that myself. I guess it is because no one has come to me with anything which works better and part of my brain thinks crappy anti-virus software is better than leaving my computer totally exposed.) The point is, I have not enjoyed this product and lay my lack of satisfaction at the feet of its creator.

Now, you may be wondering what crappy software has to do with a person's guilt in a murder investigation. Well, I like to think that I am the type of person who doesn't randomly judge people until I have had a personal experience with them, but at the same time I am willing to admit that once I have come to a decision on you, there is almost no chance you will be able to go change my mind. Also, I have the bad habit of basing my opinion on things which could very easily be seen as petty and that decision will extend to anything associated with you. This is the same reason I am hesitant to see movies made by certain actors or directors whose previous movies were terrible. This type of bias is exactly why I am always writing posts about how companies should be very careful who they choose as their celebrity endorser, because for every 3 people who are convinced to use a product just because an actor tells them to, there are probably 2 more who will never touch that product because that actor was in a movie they hated. The point is, humans are capable of forming fully-formed opinions based on partial information. Thus, in my mind it is totally plausible that a person who could knowingly sell such a terrible product could also lose his mind while taking drugs and kill his neighbor.

The good part is that I can take some level of comfort from knowing I am far from the only person who does this kind of thing, even though usually this kind of name recognition is a positive. Mostly, it comes in the form of sports fans who refuse to believe that someone who once starred for their favorite team could have gone so far off the rails in their post-playing days. It also appears in the entertainment industry, as seen by all the people who ignored years of evidence and instead thought Michael Jackson was the victim of a global conspiracy. But it can even appear in lower forms of entertainment, as everyone gets their 15 minutes of fame. That is where I see this kind of instant opinion-forming to be really dangerous. This country's judicial system is supposed to be based on the principle that all people are innocent until proven guilty, but as more and more people achieve varying levels of fame, it will only get harder to find jurors who won't go into situations without already having a form an opinion on the defendant. This is why I would never go on a reality show - you would hate to spend years in prison because a couple of the jurors thought you were a jerk after you gave the team they were rooting for a detour during an episode of "Amazing Race". So, I guess the moral of the story is this: while you should always avoid committing a crime, if you have ever been on TV you really need to be on your best behavior. And if you name a product after yourself, make sure it doesn't suck.