Can't Buy My Love

After seeing it the day it came out, I made my feelings known regarding the movie "GI Joe: Retaliation" and those feelings were pretty easy to sum up - I hated it. Not only did I hate it because it was a bad movie but because I grew up playing with GI Joes as much as I did the low quality of the movie actually felt more like a personal betrayal. Since the film was originally supposed to be released in June and the studio pushed back the release date until March I guess it shouldn't have been too big of a surprise that it was not good, just like I shouldn't be surprised that it is already on sale on DVD. While the turnaround from theater to DVD is typically 6 months so the timing is about right, movie studios have been known to hold out on the home versions of really good films until the holiday season rolls around because that is when people buy the most movies. However, in this case good DVD sales may be the only way for the studio to make any more money off this movie and that means striking while the competition is low, because if you put "GI Joe: Retaliation" up against almost any other option as a present, people are going with the other movie. Shockingly that includes me because even though at the time I said I would probably buy a copy of the DVD out of some twisted sense of loyalty to the franchise, now that I have had a couple months to think about it I've decided there are definitely better ways for me to spend my money.

It is human nature to over-react in the moment and I expected my feelings of just how bad I thought this movie was would fade over time. After all, there were plenty of movies I didn't like the first time around but now I quite enjoy them. However, with this movie every time I see a commercial I think about how bad it was and start to hate it all over again. I think the movie studios sensed this residual anger may have been an issue with the Joes' loyal fans, because I keep seeing ads for the DVD on television and to get you to buy the movie they are offering one of the rarest things in the film industry today - a pretty good deal. Normally a brand-new DVD is going to run you $25 and that is for the standard version. But, according to the commercial you can get the Blu-Ray and digital copy of "GI Joe: Retaliation" for $15. I have seen more than a few used DVDs which cost more than that and I think I spent more to see it in theaters that afternoon. Of course, I am not naive enough to think they are doing this as some sort of apology for how bad the movie was - they had a group of accountants sit in a room and figure out what was the lowest number they could price this DVD at which would still make the studio a ridiculous amount of money and this was the figure they came up with. I have no doubt the studio will still be making millions even at this lower price and they could probably knock a few more bucks off and that would not change.

Not only is the DVD company trying to rope people in with a low-cost movie, they are going the extra step to that oldest of marketing ideas to entice people to buy a crappy product that they don't really need - they are throwing in a free toy. Yes, if you buy a copy of the movie inside you will find a form to fill out to send away for a free personalized set of dog tags. Movie studios are not in the business of giving things away so even when it is something as small as a dog tag it shows just how desperate they are to pump up their DVD sales for this movie by any means necessary. I honestly can't tell if this is more or less insulting than when McDonald's gives away a free toy with each Happy Meal. Considering this film was marketed at the early-30s man who watched the cartoon religiously growing up you wouldn't think something as cheap and silly as a dog tag (which you could get at your local Army-Navy store for $2 and those would be metal. I assume the free ones will be plastic) would be much of an incentive, but GI Joe fans do love our collectibles. (It doesn't get as much hype as ComicCon, but there is a yearly GI Joe convention and no, I haven't gone to it... yet.) On top of that there is no denying that most people become powerless to stop themselves whenever the word "free" appears in front of them, so I have no doubt it will pull in a few more buyers than it probably should.

Still, I won't be one of them (at least for now). While I can admit to myself that I will eventually cave and buy a copy of this movie I am going to wait for a few weeks before I do so. This represents a real change for me, because normally I am insistent on getting the special edition of every movie (as evidenced by the fact that I bought the special case edition (it was metal) from the last movie) and that means getting to them before they are out of the stores. The fact that I am willing to risk it says something, even though I have a sneaking suspicion that I will be able to find one of these special copies whenever I get around to it. Also, it is not like I don't own copies of movies I don't enjoy, even though in those cases they were part of a set and it was cheaper to buy the three-pack than two movies individually. But I simply refuse to show support for this terrible movie because I want the studio to know real GI Joe fans were not happy with the finished product and when they reboot the series (which they will because even this terrible movie made $370 million worldwide), we want a better result. My missing $15 won't make any kind of dent in the movie studio's books but it is the only means of protest I have to work with at this time, at least that I know of. And if I learned anything from GI Joe it is that knowing is half the battle.

Gearhead Gathering

I have long contended that when you live in this part of the country there are several things which you never want to own, but definitely want to be friends with a person who owns that item and allows you to have access to it. In my years of thinking about it I have come up with the following items for this list (not surprisingly, many of them are weather-dependent): pool, convertible, boat, beach house and country club membership. Basically, the list consists of items which are very nice, but very expensive to both buy and maintain and thus not worth it when you remember that you can only use them for a few days in the summer and the rest of the time they are just sitting around collecting dust and probably costing you even more money to pay for their upkeep. (This is where it needs to be pointed out that even though I know how silly owning these seasonal items are, between myself and the members of my family we have pretty much the whole list covered. I never said we took our own advice.) It is much easier to let your friends do the hard work and just hope they want to share the wealth (which they will because what is the point of having nice things if you can't show them off to your friends?). Well, this afternoon I was reminded you should add 'classic car' to that list.

In the last couple of years I have noticed that as soon as the weather gets nice car shows start popping up all over the place. Most of the time they do not appear to be very well-organized - a group of people just show up and take over a parking lot. I saw such a rag-tag operation this afternoon when I pulled into a parking lot near my house and out of the corner of my eye I noticed a very nice Corvette. I would say it was from the mid-1950s. It was definitely well-maintained and buffed enough to take a second look but that should have been it. However a couple of spots down there was another shiny Corvette, this one from the 1960s. Next to that was yet another classic Corvette. It was then that I noticed there were actually about a dozen Corvettes in this parking lot, covering styles from nearly 5 decades and there was a group of people sitting in folding chairs nearby. I didn't see any signs about a car show in the parking lot, but I think it is safe to assume they didn't all show up at the same time by coincidence. (By the way, the new Corvettes are pretty ugly when compared to the old style. Also, I seriously hope this groups shuns whomever owns the new Corvette because it really doesn't belong in a car show. It's not old enough to be important and the owner didn't have to restore it at all, which means they don't really belong in this club. It's like when a rich kid's parents buy his way into an Ivy League school and he starts to think he's actually smart. Go home, junior.) I didn't get close enough to hear their conversation, but I can offer a pretty good guess as to what they may have been talking about.

I'm not sure if these flash car shows are interesting or annoying. On the one hand there is something quite irritating about any group which feels like they can commandeer a public place and the rest of society should just be glad they showed up. But, I guess as long as they don't block the store no one can complain. Either way I totally understand why they would want to show them off, because I find the idea of owning a classic car to be very enticing. I happen to think cars from that period were just better. Not only were they made from higher-quality material and looked better, there is also something to be said for the fact that their engines were much less sophisticated than the engines of today. If an engine failed on a car from the 1970s and you were motivated enough to work on it yourself you could look under the hood and start working your way through its components until you found what was broken and replace it yourself. That is almost impossible for a car from today due to all the computers and electrical components attached. Hell, half the time the only way to know what is wrong is to hook the car up to a computer that only the dealer has access to. Beyond that there is something in every guy that likes the idea of having an old car to work on in their garage. But seeing as how I don't know anything about engines and don't have a garage, that dream never really got off the ground for me.

It is not like I would even drive a classic car if I ever rebuilt one anyway. I get nervous wearing nice clothes because I am afraid I'm going to spill something and stain them, so I can only imagine how nerve-wracking it would be to drive a car you put that much time, money and sweat into restoring. The whole point of owning something like that is to show off your work and enjoy it, but I doubt I would ever be able to relax enough to let that happen. There is simply too much out of my control to ever allow me to fully unwind because while I may be a great driver, I can't vouch for the rest of the idiots on the road out there. The odds of some under-insured teenager slamming into me while texting are high enough as it is, but put me behind the wheel of a car I spent years and thousands of dollars restoring and I can almost guarantee it will happen. And while it is true that insurance would probably cover the costs of the repairs, cars never quite drive the same after they have been in an accident and the idea of having to start again from scratch would probably be too daunting to even think about. So, unless you can promise I'll have every road to myself I think I will pass on buying a classic car. But if anyone out there wants to let me take theirs for a spin I have a beach house they can use for a week. Just don't ask which one is worth more, because I'm pretty sure your car would win.

Similarly Specific

They say these days 1 in 5 relationships have started online. I actually think that ratio is much higher but only 1 in 5 couples are willing to admit they met each other through the internet because even though people have no problem hiring workers whose relationships are just as intimate (like babysitters, contractors or financial planners) online, there is still a stigma attached to online dating. Personally, I feel like as long as a relationship is making both people happy and is working well, than who cares how they met? Besides, I think too many people who lie about how they met their significant other forget one key thing about all relationships - no one gives a shit how you met. Too many couple think they will be judged based on how their relationship started, when in reality people are going to forget your answer by the time you walk away because it doesn't matter in their life. Remember this key life lesson: people are never talking about you nearly as much as you think they are. Seriously, it's like when I ask a pregnant woman I don't really know if she knows the sex of the child she's about to have; I'm basically just making conversation because I don't know what other topics are safe to talk about yet. So, if someone is asking you how you met your significant other it is only because you have failed to provide them with a more interesting topic to take over the conversation.

The good news is that if the number of commercials I see of online dating websites are any indication, that stigma is starting to go away. It feels like I can't go a single commercial break without seeing an ad for a dating website and what is fascinating is that the number of sites are growing. Seriously, every week a new site starts up and they must be doing well to afford all this TV time. Apparently there are so many single people in the world that your more famous dating websites just can't handle the traffic. What I am less enthusiastic to see is just how focused these sites have started to get. It used to be that when you filled out an online dating profile they would ask you a lot of questions to help whittle down the prospective dates. Now you can cut out a big section by going to a site designed specifically for one section of the population. I guess it makes sense if that one aspect of your life is really important to you, which is why I was not surprised when the first niche dating sites to take off were religion-specific. I was even less surprised this afternoon when I saw an ad for an atheist dating site (always a step behind the organized religions, aren't you, atheists?). But then someone brought to my attention a website where farmers can sign up to mingle with other farmers. I think we have officially gotten a little too specific.

Look, I believe the foundation of any strong relationship is sharing a common interest. You'll never run out of things to talk about as long as you both have an opinion on something that both people in a relationship are passionate about. Couples don't even have to both like the same thing, but they have to at least be willing to understand why the other person may be so into it. That being said, a good amount of differing opinions in a relationship is also a very good thing. I know this one personally - one of the worst first dates I ever went on was with a girl who worked in the exact same industry as me. I thought we would have a lot in common to talk about and instead we spent the night complaining about our jobs. Not exactly the best way to get to know people. There is a reason the saying "opposites attract" has survived as long as it has and that is because it pushes people to step out of their comfort zones and experience new things. On top of that, there is something inherently wrong with individuals who only want to surround themselves with people who believe all the same things as they do. If all you want to do it sit around and be told that every single thing you think is right you're not going to grow up or learn to evolve. If that is your plan you may as well stay on the internet and not schedule any real dates.

It all just makes me fear that we have gotten too comfortable getting exactly what we want from the internet. This isn't like browsing a website until you find just the right pair of sneakers in your size and for the right price - no one will ever fit the exact mold of what you want from a person so you'd be better off not looking for it. I don't think it is a stretch to believe that the daters on these very specific sites have already exhausted the idea of dating everyone in their inner circle, which makes me wonder if the reason these people have had such a hard time finding someone to love is because their search has been too focused. Einstein always said the definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing and expecting a different result. If they are willing to expand the dating pool to include everyone with internet access, maybe they should also consider opening up other aspects of their search, such as the people not needing to work at the very same job as they do. Besides, if these daters want to find someone who knows how to operate very specific machinery there was already a website for that - Monster.com. (Honestly, I am not sure if that would be more or less embarrassing than telling people you hooked up after finding each other on a website for single Christians who are lactose intolerant, have birthdays in March and whose favorite color is red.) At least if a couple meets through that site they can fudge the truth a little and tell people they met at work.

Thought He Was With You

Outside of the Royal Family themselves, the face of the Royal Birth was probably the town crier who announced the child's arrival to the group of people waiting outside the hospital. Dressed like a cross between Captain Hook and a greeter at a fish-theme restaurant, this was the man who strolled out with a very ornate scroll, screamed some words about God saving the Queen while progressively turning redder and then rang a bell a few times. Everyone ate it up and his photograph quickly made its way around the globe as the symbol of pomp and circumstance. So, you can imagine everyone's surprise when a few days later it was revealed that he was in no way, shape or form aligned with anything having to do with the Royal Family. Apparently he is just a fan of the Royals, felt like being involved and already has the costume because he does these kinds of announcements for weddings and bar mitzvahs. Now, I'm not blaming anyone for assuming he was party of the official ceremony because, let's be honest, the idea of a guy roaming the streets of London with a scroll and a bell seems almost restrained when you compare it to the rest of the traditions surrounding this event. When you have 63 cannons going off and a golden easel holding the birth announcement it is not hard to assume there would be a guy in costume somewhere along the way.

But while this guy was harmless and probably nothing more than a shrewd businessman (seriously, try and book him for the next six months - I bet he's slammed with appearances), it does remind me of how much I can't stand party-crashers. I simply have never understood the logic behind people who show up where they are not wanted and begin to mooch off the people there. Seriously, if you have that much desire to be in a social setting, throw your own party. In some ways it is terribly sad that party crashers don't have any friends of their own to hang out with, but at the same time that is not my problem. Of course, there is a good chance my feelings towards these people come from the fact that I hate being in social settings in which I only know a few people, so I can't comprehend why anyone would want to go to a party where not only do they only know the people they came with, every second is filled with the chance someone is going to ask you what you are doing there or that you need to leave. Not exactly the makings of a fun evening in my book. It is also possible that I don't like party crashers because I know I could never pull it off since, as this fake town crier showed, if you act like you are supposed to be there everyone will just assume you belong and I just don't have that mentality. Besides, I have no idea where I would even get a hat that big.

Weekly Sporties

-Obviously the biggest story in all of sports this week was when Ryan Braun admitted to using steroids and was suspended for the rest of the season, forfeiting $4 million in salary. I don't think anyone was surprised that Braun used steorids, because even though he may not have failed any tests before everyone knew it was only on a technicality regarding how his sample was handled. But what was surprising it that given all the talk in the past couple of weeks regarding how poorly Major League Baseball was handling this entire affair I honestly didn't think they would be able to get a single player to admit to anything, especially when guys like Braun were refusing to talk to them. I can only assume this means all that evidence MLB wasn't supposed to have, they do. Also, I think the big moral of the story here is that if MLB wants to get you on something they are going to do it no matter what it takes. Reportedly they were very upset when Braun was able to be the first player to get his steroid suspension overturned on appeal and had made bringing him down a goal ever since. But to me a lot of this is stupid because it is baseball biting their own nose to spite their face. They may have saved the Brewers a little bit of money, but they forever ruined the reputation of a guy who has the personality and skills of a big-market player and yet was poised to be the face of baseball in a very small market - those kind of players are extremely rare. On top of that all this was unnecessary because I seriously think fans are tired of all this steroid talk and are ready to just move on with their lives, yet baseball is the one who keep bringing it up. I can understand why they would be so adamant about protecting their clean player, but I have some bad news for them - thanks to the steroid era casual fans are forever going to assume every player who has a good season is getting some kind of synthetic help. They can suspend every player involved in the Biogenesis probe and it won't stop people from wondering about a guy like Chris Davis, who topped his career-high in home runs before the All-Star break. Still, congrats on suspending a guy whose team wasn't going to make the playoffs anyway and who still get the majority of a contract which will pay him over $100 million. I'm sure that will deter anyone from ever taking steroids ever again.

-Now that Braun has the rest of the season off people are expecting more suspensions to be announced any second now and the biggest name left on the list is Yankee's third baseman Alex Rodriguez. This would obviously be great for the Yankees because they could then use his suspension to get out from under the rest of his contract and the team has made it pretty clear A-Rod is not in their future. Even though they are having major problems scoring runs this year they are making it pretty obvious they never want Alex Rodriguez to take the field for them ever again. This was made more apparent later in the week when Rodriguez announced his intentions to play this weekend and the Yankees countered by saying he was too hurt to play, which was news to Alex. Rodriguez had taken himself out a minor league rehab game with a pain in his quad, but he said it was precautionary while the Yankees said it was a major setback to his rehab schedule. To prove to the team that he was fine Rodriguez went out and found an independent doctor who said Alex was ready for action, even though he admitted he has only looked at the MRI and not examined Rodriguez personally. (And because A-Rod can't do anything right it was later revealed this doctor is actually also being investigated for distributing steroids. Also, Rodriguez failed to inform the Yankees he was getting a second opinion, which is required under the collective bargaining agreement. The team is expected to fine him for this.) Eventually, everyone agreed Alex would wait to come back until August 1 which I am sure is the date MLB told the Yankees they would hand out A-Rod's punishment. To say this story has become a soap opera would be a bit of an understatement. Now, as a Red Sox fan I am enjoying watching these two parties, who clearly deserve each other, squirm. But, as an ESPN watcher I am also quite tired of this taking up so much time on SportsCenter, especially when the solution to the whole thing is quite obvious: Alex wants his money and the Yankees have a lot of it. At this point they just need to sit down in a room and figure out what the number is which will allow these two to part company and never have to speak to each other ever again. I know baseball has a tradition of taking way too long to do anything, but if there was ever a time for them to work in the name of speed, this was it.

-Finally getting around to an on-the-field issue in baseball, last weekend Houston Astros pitcher Erik Bedard was on the verge of making history. He had a no-hitting going into the 7th inning again the Seattle Mariners, a feat which would undoubtedly be the highlight for an otherwise dismal Astros season. However, Bedard cut short any talk of a no-hitter when he took himself out of the game in the 7th inning after throwing 109 pitches. As you would expect, most people around baseball couldn't understand why he would do this, especially since we just saw the Giants' Tim Lincecum throw 149 pitches in his no-hitter last week. Bedard calmly explained that he was more worried about his long-term health than the outcome of one game, especially since he has had three shoulder surgeries, is 34 years-old and is pitching on a one-year deal for a very bad team. I mean, if you played it out to the end Bedard would have had to throw around 140 pitches to finish the game and even then would have required his teammates to make some great defensive plays behind him (considering the Astros only gave up 1 hit to the Mariners and yet still lost the game I think you can see how likely that was to happen). On top of that the last two guys who threw a silly amount of pitches while chasing a no-hitter were never quite the same after that (the jury is still out on Lincecum, but he was rocked in his next start). Bedard is an average pitcher with no resume to speak of, so if he got seriously hurt his career would essentially over. And here's the part no one really wants to talk about - no-hitters are becoming kind of routine. Honestly, unless it is happening in a game you were already watching than you just need to watch the final inning, so why destroy yourself for something everyone will forget in a few days anyway? That is why I totally applaud what Bedard did, but I have to admit I did not expect this kind of rational thinking to come from a baseball player. Still, this was pretty much the only time I could ever see an athlete putting himself ahead of the team and most people taking no issue with it so if Bedard signs a long-term contract after this season and finds himself in this position again, he had better see it through to the end. Once is smart and noble, but doing it twice it spitting in destiny's face.

-I know it may be a little early to start worrying about the 2016 Olympic games, but qualifying tournaments have already started and because of the way Olympic basketball roster has been structured for the last couple of years (team officials want the NBA players to understand it is a real commitment), that means players who want to be included have to make their commitments now. Most of the Gold Medal-winning squad from 2012 is expect to be back, but one large name appears to be missing: LeBron James. As of right now James is not on the roster and appears to be done playing Olympic basketball, because this week the team was talking about how Kevin Durant is now the face of the team. Now, because this is LeBron James there are plenty of people out there who think this is an awful, unpatriotic thing for James to do. However, I have absolutely no problem with this. I think a lot of people forget just how much time and effort these basketball player have to put into playing in the Olympics. It may not be as stressful or as taxing as playing in the NBA, but it is still certainly more effort than they would be putting into a summer workout and let's not forget this is supposed to be their offseason. On top of that players who play in the Olympics are almost penalized for having good NBA seasons because of how late the playoffs last. After a while you are almost playing a year-round schedule and I don't care how great of shape you may be, that is bound to wear you out eventually. This is why I was never upset when members of the Celtics were passed over. Also, let's not forget James has already won 2 Gold Medals and played in a third Summer Games, so it is not like he hasn't put his time in. He has earned the right to take opt out of any more International competition. But before we all start to question how we will ever be able to beat Argentina or Spain in a few years, let's also not forget another key piece of information - he could always change his mind. Seriously, if he is still playing at a high level in three years and goes to USA Basketball right before the games start saying that he wants to be on the squad do you really believe they won't immediately accommodate LeBron James? It's a wonderful ideal to insist these NBA superstars check their egos in the name of playing for their country, but not if it costs you a Gold Medal in the process.

-For as long as professional football has had a salary cap, there have been teams trying to work their way around that cap. One of the most common ways to skirt the rules is to offer up an incentives-rich contract where the escalators are easily reached. Give guys a low base salary and then tell them as long as they don't hit a teammate with their car their salary gets bumped up. The player gets more money and only the base salary counts against the cap. A lot of teams use voluntary workouts as the triggers for salary bonuses because the players are going to be working out anyway. Well, this week we were reminded that only works when the player knows about it. San Francisco 49ers cornerback Tarrell Brown didn't attend voluntary workouts in San Francisco, instead opting to workout in Texas and will miss out on a $2 million of salary because of his absence. When he found out about all this missing money (via Twitter), he promptly fired his agent. This set off the age-old debate of who should be responsible for knowing their contract better: the agent or the player. Of course, there is a very good argument to be made for personal responsibility. It's your signature on the contract and you should never sign anything without reading it beforehand. Personally, I think anyone who has ever clicked the iTunes agreement without reading every single line of it immediately loses that argument. Also, I don't know if you have ever seen a professional contract, but it is very long and filled with words the average person has no need to use in every day life. Much like a mortgage, there is a reason players hire lawyers to negotiate them. That is why I feel like this is the agent's fault. I mean, what are you taking 5% for if you aren't keeping track of this exact thing? All that being said, I have no sympathy for Brown and disagree with the people who think the 49ers should give him the bonus anyway. Not only would that violate league rules it would set a very bad precedent. Besides, if you aren't going to make players go through the motions to earn their easily-achieved bonuses than why even bother to put in the effort to have them in the contract in the first place? Otherwise it just makes the entire process seems stupid and the last thing we would want is for the reality of how childish this all is to enter the world of sports.

-I know July seems early to start thinking about college football since schools are still out for the summer, but the games will be here before you know and it that means it is time for coaches to have their conference-mandated media days. For the most part this means the coach has to stand in front of a few dozen media members, none of whom want or plan to ask hard questions because college football coaches are the kind of arrogant pricks that will take a hard question as a personal affront and have that person banned from campus for the next decade, and spout generic platitudes without actually saying anything of value. That is why it was the rare moment of honesty when someone asked Kansas head coach Charlie Weis about how he recruits to a school like Kansas where they prioritize basketball. Weis, whose Jayhawks went 1-11 last year, said his recruiting tactic is very simple: everyone wants to play right away so he points to the team says, "Have you seen that pile of crap out there?" and tells the kid that if they can't start here they won't be able to start anywhere. Almost immediately national media members, who don't like Weis anyway due to the way he restricts access to players and coaches (again, you can't act like mini-Bill Parcells until you've won like Bill Parcells), started calling for Weis to be publicly reprimanded by the school because he was referring to student-athletes in a derogatory way. I guess I would be able to see these sportswiters' point if it weren't for one small problem: most members of last year's Kansas football team agreed with him. Look, unless they are delusional, most athletes know when they aren't good enough. Also, Weis has a reputation of being brutally honest so I am willing to bet this was not the first time these players had heard his evaluation. Thus, this feels like a group of people are using a pre-existing opinion to get offended in the name of people who aren't actually offended. So, until I hear from a player I'm going to take Weis's evaluation at face value. Of course, I hope he realizes that he is the one who assembled this pile of crap, so that criticism reflects back on him as well. If he doesn't have a much better season this will be the last time he has to worry about saying the wrong thing in front of the media.

-If you asked two dozen golfers from various points on the globe to rank the four majors in the order they would want to win them you would probably get two dozen different answers. Some people like the US Open the best because they think it is the toughest test, others prefer the British because of its history while some would put the Masters first due to the course and its exclusive nature. The only thing I can pretty much assure you is that the PGA Championship would be the final spot on most of those lists. It's nothing personal, but one of them had to come in last and the PGA is the relatively newest major with the least amount of tradition. (At least they can take comfort in knowing they are still in every player's top-five list.) Now, for years the people who run this tournament have been adamant this is not the case, but this week I think we finally got an acknowledgement that they know they have to work a little harder to drum up fan interest. A few days ago the PGA announced that this year it is going to allow fans to vote for the Sunday pin position for the par-3 15th hole during next month's PGA Championship. (Sadly, they aren't letting fans place the pin anywhere like in a bunker, just pick from one of four locations.) While I like the idea of getting fans more involved, I have to say this is not the kind of thing which will add a ton of prestige to the event. I certainly can't see The Masters asking fans to vote on anything related to that tournament, so if the PGA wanted to climb its way out of the basement of major rankings they need to look in another direction. That is why I always like the idea of going to something like match-play. That used to be the format for several big tournaments but now it is only used once or twice a year. I know the argument against it is that there is too big a risk every big name will get knocked out early and kill all fan interested, but if you look at the PGA's history it has the reputation of producing the most random champions of all, so it is not like they are taking that much of a gamble. Besides, the reward if it turned out to be a match-up like Phil vs Tiger would be worth all the hours of worry. A couple years of that result and I can guarantee they would definitely not be any fans' fourth choice.

Down In Front!

I honestly can't tell if it is really hard or really easy to become an internet sensation. One the one hand it is very easy to put yourself out there on any number of internet sites and then let the masses do the work for you - passing it along to all their friends, family co-workers and people they haven't physically seen since the third grade until your 15 seconds of fame are over. There is very little legwork required, which is why it seems easy enough. However, I think the reason I am unwilling to fully commit to this side of the argument is that the people who become the most famous always seem like that was never their intent. For every aspiring musician who worked really hard in the studio to produce a good song and then get it put in front of the right people, there is a person who was just out for a fun night of karaoke but they were so bad the crowd wanted to capture it for posterity, uploads it and suddenly they have 100,000 YouTube views and that horrible singer is being asked to appear at the local minor league baseball game. I guess you could say this happens because there are so many jaded internet users who don't like being used and the person who produced a song in a studio is clearly trying to manipulate the internet to achieve fame, whereas the terrible karaoke singer was just out for a night of drunken singing and everyone likes how good-natured they are being about it. As long as you can laugh at yourself people are willing to give you some benefits for taking it all in stride.

Along those lines, this week we got a new unintended internet superstar when a photo began to circulate on various message boards of a man trying to propose to his girlfriend at Disney World while a member of their family captured the moment with their camera. The problem is there is another man walking through the frame at the same time and while he sees what is going on and is trying to quickly get out of the way, it is too late - he has planted himself smack in the middle of the picture. Honestly, he couldn't have been more in the way if he was trying. Social etiquette dictates that as long as you make an effort to get out of the way of the picture that is good enough, but let's be honest here - there is no graceful way to do this. This is when the internet took over and began doing one of my favorite things, which is photoshopping this guy into all sorts of famous photos throughout history. I love to see how creative people can get in these situations and it only took a couple of hours before this random man with an awkward expression on his face was seen trying to get out of the way of the Berlin Wall coming down and the next second he was standing in the way as people tried to watch the Moon Landing. Each one was a little more clever than the last and I was quite pleased with the internet's efforts.

[Sidebar: There is only one thing I don't like about this and that is comparing this one couple's engagement to all those important life-altering events. Look, I am sure these people are a perfectly nice couple but I happen to have a strict no-public-engagement policy. I find them rather tacky. And if this photo was originally uploaded by a member of this couple's family because they wanted to complain about this guy stepping into their picture I am suddenly glad he ruined their pictures, because they have no right to complain. In my opinion if you want to get engaged in one of the most public spots in the world than you should have no expectations when it comes to people who are not involved in what you are doing staying out of your shot. You can either have the public spectacle or great pictures of your moment, but you can't honestly expect to get both unless you plan on renting out Disney World for the afternoon. I simply can't shake the feeling that this picture only surfaced because either the couple of a member of their family put it online to complain about it and the people on the internet are the ones who turned it into this light-hearted moment. If that is the case, allow me to put a bit of a pin in their balloon - if you think getting engaged in front of a fake castle in Florida is the most romantic thing ever, you'd better get used to life ruining your ideas of a good time.]

But what I appreciated most was that none of the internet comments appeared to take the man to task for ruining this couple's special moment. I know that seems like such a low bar, but if you have ever read the internet comments underneath any story on the internet (and if you haven't pleased don't - be the one unspoiled person on the internet) than you know there is usually one person who can take offense to just about anything. I would like to think this is because we have all been there. I mean, who among us hasn't been in some public place on the way to look at an exhibit and noticed far too late that we are about to make ourselves part of another person's memory? There is no limit to the number of pictures you or I may have accidentally been a part of. (Just be happy we live in the time of digital photos so that they are easily erased. I'd feel much worse if I thought about how many rolls of film have been used up by people needing to take a picture a second or third time.) This guy just had the bad misfortune of being in the right place at the wrong time and having his photo uploaded when there was nothing else going on to distract all the users of Reddit. But the fact he hasn't contacted Reddit to have the picture taken down shows he can also laugh about the situation... or he doesn't know he's internet famous yet. Either way he's been getting credit for it so far to better to remain quiet than speak up and ruin a perfectly good thing.

Burning Man

It took almost until the end of July but last weekend I finally had myself a proper summer day. Thanks to a break in the humidity that wasn't filled with rain I was able to grill some burgers on the back deck for lunch, wash my truck for the first time in ages and spend some quality time in the back yard without it requiring an ice shower to get my body temperature back inside the normal range. These are the kinds of days which make me think (briefly) about moving to a warmer climate so I could do this all the time before I remember constant heat would make me more miserable than being able to sit outside in December would be able to make up for. I was beginning to fear I was never going to get one of these days this summer, not because of the weather but because my grill has been acting up. It started last fall when I tried to get one last night of grilling in but couldn't because the flame wouldn't get hot enough. It was a consistently low burn and the thermometer never got above 200 degrees. At the time I had chalked it up to the fact it was a very cold night but when the same thing happened a few weeks ago I finally came to grips with the fact that it was the grill. My first thought was that I was going to have to take the whole grill apart to clean it which I was willing to do but, given how many years of grease and ash have built up inside there, is something I would have rather avoided doing if I could. That was when I did some checking on the internet and discovered that low flame is a sign that the grill has an issue with its regulator and, thankfully, that is a much easier fix.

Basically, the regulator thinks there is a leak somewhere and restricts how much propane can go through. The solution is to turn off the gas, unscrew the tank from the grill and open up the burners for a minute. After letting it air out, close the taps, reattach the tank and turn the gas on slowly. Once it is all the way on as long as you don't smell gas (which would mean there really is a leak) everything should be back to normal. The first time I tried this it worked for a short while but not long enough for the ambitious meal I was trying to make. The good news is that hamburgers take a lot less time to grill and so far in the times I have used it since then the gas has stayed working long enough to get my burgers cooked. Now, since I have an obsessive personality it should come as no surprise that once I got my grill working and one successful barbecue under my belt I immediately wanted to have another one. That was why last night I went out and bought some more food to cook and was having a grand old time grilling it all out on the deck, enjoying weather which is much more in line with the summers I am used to. Even better, the grill was now humming along with all three burners producing healthy-sized flames that would never make you guess a couple weeks ago this grill would have taken two hours to cook a single hot dog. But unfortunately while my grill is back to acting like it did last summer, I am not quite back up to speed on my grilling skills.

You see, the best part about eating a burger off the grill instead of off a griddle is the flame-cooked taste. I have no data to back this up, but I think cooking over an open fire makes everything taste exponentially better, which is why I prefer Burger King to McDonald's. Meanwhile, the worst part about flames is that they are really fucking hot and really fucking unpredictable. But, the desire to cook over an open flame without our houses burning to the ground is exactly why someone in history invented the stove, so we could have a little more control over our fires. I mean, there is a reason advanced society has moved away from cooking with an open fire pit in the middle of the kitchens and that is because fire is going to do whatever it wants to. You would think cooking with propane would help regulate the fire a little bit, but even when you can control how big the flames can be there is no way to control how and when grease will drip off a cooking burger, onto a hot burner and produce a small fireball (which looks ever so dramatic and adds an element of danger to the meal). So I shouldn't have been too surprised when as I was nearly done (because this always happens near the end) and just putting the cheese on my burgers one of these flames jumped up and got my hand.

It's funny, but burning hair is one of those things which you forget how it smells until the second you smell it again. Fortunately I happen to be a tall lad and thus my hands weren't too close to the flame, but in the .003 seconds it took for my brain to react and pull my hand away it cost me most of the hair on the back of my knuckles and a small patch from the back of my hand. I ran my hand under some cold water for a few minutes and I don't appear any the worse for wear. (I'm sure every chef out there is scoffing at me for complaining about getting a little singed when they lost all the hair up to their elbows the first week of culinary school and never looked back.) I mean, it clearly couldn't have been too bad if my first concern was picking up the piece of cheese I had dropped and transferring it onto the burger before it completely melted through the grate. (Priorities, people. Priorities.) Plus, I am a hairy enough man that I could lose a few patches and still have more than enough to go around. Besides, I'm sure this exact thing is a new exotic hair removal treatment at an upscale spa. Still, I probably won't be organizing a big night of s'more making for the next couple of weeks because while I still think flame-cooked makes everything taste better, including a few burnt hairs definitely leaves a funky after taste.

Parcel Parasites

Last week I told you about the great deal I got on a golf sweater during a one-day flash sale. Well, because I decided to go for the lowest shipping rate possible (seemed silly to spend $15 on shipping when the item being shipped was only $19), it didn't get here until yesterday. And perhaps because the universe decided I shouldn't be too happy with this deal, it arrived at the worst possible time, smack dab in the middle of a downpour. I happened to be looking outside, watching my street turn into a river when I saw my mail lady jog up to my mailbox and try to shove my mail in as quickly as possible. Of course, that was made harder by the big bag which was holding the sweater and so she actually spent extra time in the rain. (I felt bad for her, but then again I figure you should expect to deal with some strange weather when you sign up work in mail delivery.) When I finally got out to my mailbox after the rain slowed down I saw why she was having such a hard time with it - the bag was a lot bigger than I expected it to be. But what I couldn't figure out was why this bag was so big in the first place. I mean, it's not like I ordered a stereo - clothes can be rolled up and made to fit almost any container, so why did this company decide to send this one piece of clothing in such an unnecessarily large bag? I finally got my answer after I opened it up.

The first thing I noticed was that this company clearly doesn't put a priority on folding because the sweater was only folded in half. That's fine for an in-store display, but not when you are shipping clothing anywhere. It feels like a lot of wasted space. As a person who can get 18 shirts in one drawer, I'm pretty sure if I were working there I could have fit three things in the same bag. I assume a couple of customers would complain about their new clothes showing up wrinkled, but can you honestly expect clothes to be ready to wear after a week on mail trucks? But the main reason this company needed to use a larger bag was that they had included a few extra items that I hadn't ordered. Before you get excited, it was nothing very interesting. (Don't make the mistake I did - when I first felt a bonus item in the bag I had momentarily talked myself into it being something cool, which only deepened the disappointment.) Since I had ordered it from a golf store I had hoped for some free golf balls or something - instead I got a free bottle of 5-Hour Energy, the mini-bottle which is supposed to provide you with enough energy to get you through any slow work day. Shaking the bad even further I had three pieces of paper come flying at me. The first was just my receipt (which thankfully I do not need) and then two postcards regarding Geico insurance. That's right - they had sent random ads along with my purchase.

Now, people having unwanted advertisements sent to them is nothing new. Anyone who has gotten a bill mailed to them in the last few years (before companies started going paperless without even letting you know), has usually opened up the envelope and discovered it also included a piece of paper advertising something completely random. I would have to say car insurance is the worst offender, as they will send 6 pieces of paper not including your bill and the return envelope. Often the advertised companies have nothing to do with the bill you have to pay, as it is usually something like gutter cleaners. (Checks are also a popular choice, which feels appropriate when you remember that the only time most people write checks anymore are when they are paying a bill for that one company who refuses to let them pay online.) Since this tactic shows a clear lack of original marketing ideas, this could be a company's only shot to get their product in front of people and given how desperate some companies are for business it makes sense for them to cut a deal for every package that goes out to include one of their postcards. In fact, you could argue it makes more sense for them to include ads with purchases instead of bills because no one feels like shopping after getting a bill. Seeing how much money you have to pay makes you feel like you should save every dollar you have, whereas a good online purchase could inspire more shopping, so best to be the first product a consumers sees while riding that high.

But while I know all that, for some reason this really bothered me. I think it is because I had already bought something from the one company that I didn't appreciate a company they happen to have a partnership with trying to sneak in with them. It is like when you go to the movies and sit through all the pre-show trivia and commercials you then have to sit through another commercial before the preview starts. You already got my money, can't I just enjoy the movie I paid for without trying to be upsold? [Sidebar: The fact we have all come to accept these commercials as part of the movie experience bums me out. Isn't the point of a movie that it's not supposed to have commercials in the first place?] I just didn't like this "Trojan Horse" approached to sales. Plus, the fact that these things were unsolicited bothered me. At least with a telemarketer you can hang up on them, but in this case there is no one I can talk to and make sure this never happens again. The only way I could do that now is to vow to never buy anything from the first company any more and I'm not going to do that as long as they offer good deals (I'm not that mad about this). Still, I wonder if I told them of my conclusion, would it cause them to reconsider their business deal? It is one thing trying to help out a business partner but once it starts to cause your own business to suffer it is time to reconsider that agreement. After all, you can't help them if you are both out of business.

Great Expectations

I should open this by admitting that I have never truly understood why so many people in this country are fascinated by England's Royal Family. I can only assume it is because of the drama which we assume goes on behind the palace walls or the fact that they have been around for so long people feel like they know them, but whatever the reason sometimes it seems like there are people in America who care more about what the royals do on a daily basis than most British people. But I bet even the most ardent royal-watcher would admit the media coverage of the birth of the Royal Baby was a tad too much. It is one thing to camp outside the hospital once the baby arrived, but showing up weeks beforehand with literally no news to report felt stupid and a waste of the money that news organizations are always claiming they don't have. All that being said, I can understand why the media would be so anxious to cover this story and that is because the news is usually so damned depressing. It's nothing but fires, fatal car accidents, wars in foreign countries where people are mad at the United States both for helping and simultaneously not helping, depressing unemployment numbers and a major American city declaring bankruptcy. Who wouldn't want to talk about a cute little bundle of joy instead of all that? But, here's the question I just can't shake - what if the kid turns out to be an asshole?

I've never had kids of my own but I have to assume raising your child to not be a complete tool is pretty much the main goal of every parent. Sure, they would like their kid to grow up and be the President of the United States but I'm sure just as many people wouldn't mind if the kid was much less successful but happy and the people at work didn't think he was a total douchebag. Well, this kid is already guaranteed to be the King of England, so William and Kate's main goal now is making sure the kid grows up to be mostly normal. That is certainly not going to be an easy job because, as many people pointed out yesterday, his birth will probably be the only labor he is ever involved in and absolute power corrupts absolutely. On top of all that there is the very scary reality that even the best, most caring parents in the world could do 99% of their parenting correctly and still produce a terrible adult. Nurture can only take you so far before nature rears its ugly head. Of course, most of the time this is a totally subjective issue. No child born in the world is ever going to be universally loved. I don't care who you are, at some point in your lifetime you are going to run into a person who just rubs you the wrong way and the feeling will be mutual. Plus, because of the family he is born into some people will just not like him on principle. Those aren't the people I worry about. Also, asshole is a relative term - some people throw it around to mean the guy who took the last bagel, but that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about becoming reviled the entire world over.

Given the amount of positive media coverage this child has already been given, what would happen if in 20 years he turns into a complete psychopath, killing his father to usurp the throne and then trying to restore the English empire through colonization - starting by trying to re-invade India and killing millions of people in the process before turning his eyes to the rest of Europe, trying to expand until the entire continent is under his rule? It certainly would seem weird that we were so happy he was born if the kid turned around and became a conqueror. It's not the most far-fetched scenario either - that kind of ambition seemed rather commonplace just 200 years ago and while the Royal Family obviously doesn't have the kind of power it did back then they still have enough money and sway that they could do some real damage if they felt like it. The only difference between then and now is that when terrible people came to power 200 years ago we hadn't spent the first 20 years of their life talking about what a great person they are - people just had to cross their fingers and hope for the best. Of course this is both the best and worst part about living at this period in time - thanks to social media we know everything which is going to happen in the short-term and it makes us think we know what will happen in the long-term, which is crazy. Better to focus on the present and forget trying to predict the future.

Also, we are so public with our convictions, which leads to more embarrassment. Do you think the media would appreciate the irony of touting this kid's arrival as a joyous occasion if he turned around and started reigning misery down on the world or would they just ignore it altogether - like when sportswriters praise a free agent signing the day it happens but when that guy turns out to be a giant waste of money and a roster spot everyone has a revisionist view and claims they were the lone voice who knew this was a bad idea? Sadly, I kind of think it will be the latter. Mankind may make some great strides in the next couple of decades but I am pretty sure the media thinking we are too stupid to go back and check the tapes is a tradition which will continue on. Now, I don't want you to think this is what I am rooting for. I hope the kid grows up to be a fair and beloved Monarch. But I just think we should let him grow into that role on his own, rather than immediately declare him the greatest thing which has ever happened to us mere mortals. Otherwise historians are going to view this period of time as being full of morons (you know, more than they already will.) Let his parents worry about treating the child's arrival like it was the first birth in history because that is their job and we can wait until the child has formed something of a personality before we decide his place in history. After all, you'd hate to have a houseful of commemorative "Royal Baby" plates and have it turn out they are nothing more than a good way to start your "Worst People of the 21st Century" collection.

Wrap Your Head Around This

Between the starter cord breaking last time I tried to use my lawnmower and the fact that July has been one of the hottest months on record for this area, I hadn't mowed my lawn in several weeks. As you can imagine, it was getting a little out of hand. The heat may have kept the lawn from growing at it's normal rate, but it was still quite lengthy in some parts. Because my lawnmower is not very wide I knew it was going to take me forever to cut the lawn, especially since I was going to have to do several sections more than once and I was really dreading getting out there. It was so bad I started doing that thing where you question the very existence of the chore you are facing. ("Why do we even grow grass anyway?) Still, with the forecast for the rest of this week looking full of rain and then more humidity I knew that today was going to be my best chance to finally make the yard look more respectable. The good news is that because my father loves a good infomercial and my mother doesn't want me to die of heat-stroke I was given a present a couple of days ago - a special high-tech towel/bandanna which claims that it will keep you cool for up to two hours. According to the packaging all you have to do is wet it down, wring out the excess water and then it should keep you feeling cool and refreshed for the foreseeable future. Sadly, it didn't work quite as well as advertised, but I don't know if that was because the idea itself is flawed or the package designer didn't think it through.

At first glance the technology seems pretty straight-forward: rather than using the moisture-wicking technology that everyone loves to use, this is moisture-capturing fabric. You hold the bandanna under cold water for a couple of minutes, ring out the excess, 'snap' the towel and then tie it around your head for hours of cool relief. The packaging literally had three steps to it. But as I was out there mowing away, I have to say that I wasn't really feeling all that cool. Sure, it felt very cold right when I put it on, but you could get the same results from a paper towel. I need something that is going to keep cooling me down after an hour. Now, it is entirely possible that this is all user error because, as we have talked about many times before, not many things in this world are designed with a Rakauskas in mind. Not only do I have a massive head which would probably require extra water to cool it I tend to run hot as it is. I seriously believe that while most people's bodies stay at 98.6 degree, my internal thermometer is probably over 99 at all times. Plus, it is entirely possible I tied the bandanna too tightly around my head because I was convinced it was going to come off, or I may have tied it the wrong way, because I should have used a headband configuration to make sure the top of my head was open to allow heat to escape. Really, there were several ways this could have been my fault, so I figured one or all of these things may have contributed to why I didn't feel like I was mowing a lawn located near the arctic circle.

So, I was willing to shoulder all the blame for this product not working as advertised, right up until I went to throw it into the laundry once I was done with my yardwork. I was checking the tag to get the correct washing instructions (it was one of those tags which forms a loop) when I noticed that there was another tag, inside the loop. On that tag were a few additional notes, the most important of which read, "Wash in cold water before first use." I'm sorry, but if they meant that I was supposed to put this towel through the washing machine before I ever used it, shouldn't that have been on the outside of the packaging? That seems like a pretty big step we just skipped. For all I know it is the run through a cold washing machine which really sets this product off. (I don't know how the technology works, so it is good a reason as any.) I just don't understand why this tag was located in that spot. I mean, if something should be done as the first step wouldn't you put those directions in a very obvious place? This is like putting directions which include the words, "but before opening the box" inside the box. Forgive me for not assuming I was on a scavenger hunt for instructions. Also, I'm pretty meticulous about washing clothes I bring home from the store before I buy them, but even I don't wash bandannas. Assuming everyone washes their new purchases before a first wear seems like a pretty big leap of faith by this company. Just because the package designer is paranoid about washing everything they own the second the buy it, that doesn't mean the rest of us share that phobia.

Of course I should probably remember that this product was offered on an infomercial for a reason, which means it most likely wouldn't work under any conditions. The problem is that at that point I wasn't about to take the rest of my clothes out of the washing machine just to wash this one towel (which seems like a waste of resources anyway) and simply washed it with the rest of my laundry, so I'll never find out how the towel would have worked under the manufacturer's ideal conditions. Of course, since we are talking about an infomercial product I can't dismiss the idea that the packaging was designed with this gigantic flaw in it for exactly that reason - you can't very well complain the product was faulty if you didn't follow the instructions from the very start. But despite already having washed it once I will give it a try the next time I head out to mow the lawn and try a few different tactics so see if the towel does a better job of lowering my core temperature. The good news if it doesn't work is that summer is now half-over, which means I could just avoid mowing my lawn for another couple of weeks after that and by then temperatures should be cool enough that I don't actually need the magic bandanna. Because never forget, the best way to guarantee a product will work better than advertised is to not need it in the first place.

Where The Rubber Meets The Road

Every year the state of Massachusetts releases a list of the worst intersections in the state. (Considering how bad the roads can be around here I pity the person who has to whittle the list down.) These are the places with the highest number of incidents and accidents and I've noticed that most of the intersections on the list are Y-shaped. That means you have two streets coming from the same direction and it can be really hard for the drivers to see one another, which is why there are so many problems. Honestly I think if most city planners could go back in time making sure they eliminated all of these type of intersections would be high on their to-do lists. No new road system would ever allow these things to be installed. Anyway, for most of my teen years one of these intersections was in the next town over. I nearly got into an accident there in my first couple months of driving and I admit it freaked me out enough that I spent the next few years avoiding this stretch of road whenever possible (and making damn sure it was always possible). It was a terrible intersection right up until a few years ago when the completely reconfigured it by adding lights and curbs. It completely changed the intersection for the better, but it took a lot of work. It is too bad another nearby town didn't call and ask them how they pulled it off.

I was reading a news article the other day about how this particular town had just spent over a million dollars to try and improve their problematic Y-shaped intersection. But, rather than go high-tech and add a light or curbs to force cars to merge a certain way, they went low-tech and just tried adding in a couple of lines and a stop sign. Shocker of shockers, that master plan didn't work. In fact, after watching the traffic patterns for a couple of weeks the town engineers discovered the new configuration was actually making traffic back-ups worse. (One of the town managers is quoted as saying she never like the plan. Thanks for speaking up.) Now, to the town's credit they hadn't paved the new road set-up yet and unlike a lot of government officials they were willing to admit they made a mistake. So, they will basically spend another few hundred thousand dollars to undo their changes and then re-pave the road. The problem is that by having to do this one section of road twice they will be out of money and not able to take another crack at fixing this troublesome intersection for another couple of years. Given how they handled it this time around I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. And who knows what could happen by then? Maybe if these town officers had simply told the taxpayers in this town that they were going to double-spend on this project everyone would have been a little nicer at that intersection and not made the project necessary in the first place.

Weekly Sporties

-Just last week I was talking about how amusing I found it that MLB was trying to act like the district attorney's office by threatening players with lengthy suspensions and then tempting them with shorter ones in exchange for providing information about the other players who visited reported steroid dealer Anthony Bosch. Since MLB doesn't really have the power to suspend them in the first place without any real proof it felt like Commissioner Bud Selig was watching too much "Law & Order". The only way this could possibly work is if there one was stupid, selfish player who screwed the deal up for the rest of the players accused. Enter Alex Rodriguez. According to various sources Alex is afraid MLB could hit him with an indefinite suspension which would cost him the remainder of his contract (worth over $100 million). Thus, A-Rod is reportedly ready to cut a deal with MLB to only be suspended for 50 games. While that would cost him a healthy chunk of his contract he would still get most of his money, provided the Yankees don't find a way to use his suspension to wriggle out of the remainder of the deal (which is very possible). Obviously, I am not rooting for any players who took steroids, but let me just say that of course A-Rod is going to be the one to screw this up. Someone needs to remind him that he has never actually failed a drug test and the only evidence MLB has against him is his name on a list and the word of a drug dealer. The only way they can prove anything is if they get a confession, so why would you ever think of providing them with one? For as long as Alex Rodriguez has been in the majors people have thought he was a phony who was too desperate to make everyone like him. Well, this is when someone close to Alex should pull him aside and remind him that baseball is only using him because no matter how much he tells them they will never be able to get him into the Hall of Fame or change the opinions of the people who view him as a cheater. With that in mind he may as well make sure he at least gets all the money he is supposed to have coming to him, because as long as Alex wants to keep up the illusion that everyone likes him he'd better keep the money rolling. People have a hard time tell you what they think of you as long as you keep picking up the check.

-Since losing Dwight Howard to Houston, the Lakers have made a few minor moves to patch up their roster, but they haven't been the aggressive transactions many people expected and this week we learned why: the Lakers's plan is to clear the deck and have no one under contract beyond next season so they can make a run at either LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony or both. This is a pretty common plan as next year is expected to have one of the biggest free agent crops since LeBron originally went to Miami but the difference here is that these are the Lakers. History has shown that while teams like Boston (hey, the truth hurts) and Detroit can have all the cap space in the world they still can't attract free agents unless they wildly over-pay for them, but when the Lakers have the money to spend they immediately become most free agents' preferred destination. Los Angeles offers the perfect combination of a glamour franchise, off-court endorsement opportunities and celebrity fans that NBA players seem to love - it's been this way since the Lakers moved from Minnesota. Still, I wouldn't start printing up those gold LeBron jerseys just yet. First off, reports are that while LeBron has certainly enjoyed his on-court time in Miami he is not a big fan of the club scene, so the Los Angeles limelight will not be a huge draw. But more importantly there is no way James will want to go back to what he had in Cleveland which was one great player surrounded by a bunch of role players so if the Lakers realistically want LeBron they need to make sure they have a plan to bring in several good players to build around him (ironically, like the Cavaliers have done). If they think they can simply go to LeBron and say, "But we're the Lakers!" they are in for a rude awakening (just ask the Knicks back in 2010 because this was their pitch to James and they ended up with Amar'e Stoudemire.) So, the real question facing the Lakers is whether or not Jimmy Buss knows what he is doing because as Dwight Howard has shown, players may like to play in Los Angeles but they automatically won't pick it over a team which has a better situation. Remember, those celebrity fans aren't going to come out and watch a loser.

-In a move which was totally expected, late this week the NHL announced it is going to allow its players to compete in the 2014 Olympics. I like how they are saying that like it was their choice. Honestly, did you think there was any way a guy like Alex Ovechkin was going to skip playing for Russia when the Olympics are being held in his home country? Last week I was telling you about Ilya Kovalchuk retiring from the NHL to play in his native Russia, walking away from $77 million in the name of being closer to home (as an aside, Kovalchuk signed his new contract this week and it turns out he is actually getting a raise, so never mind that aspect). But, the larger point was that the NHL is not the be-all and end-all for most hockey players, so of course almost all of them would want to play in international competition. On top of that you can't really blame anyone who wants to compete for their country - you can't put a price on National pride. Still, I can appreciate why the NHL would be against this because unlike the NBA the Winter Olympics take place during their regular season, so they have to shut the league down for two weeks after the NFL season has ended (pretty much the first time most of us remember hockey's season has started) to accommodate all the missing players. Taking two weeks off in the middle of your season to send your best players to a competition in which they can get seriously injured and miss significant time is probably not the most ideal situation, especially when you are one year removed from a lockout and desperate to get casual fans back to the sport but if the alternative is that all these wildly talented players don't come to your league in the first place than you are just going to have to deal with it. Instead what the NHL should do is embrace the Olympic style (which is often more open than the NHL's thanks to bigger rinks) and use it to showcase their talent. I mean, if Sydney Crosby scored another gold-medal-winning goal would that be a bad thing for the NHL? Of course it wouldn't. The bottom line is that this is happening whether the NHL wants it to or not, so they had been just embrace the opportunity because fighting it will only alienate their players and the NHL is not their only option.

-I can't remember anyone in recent memory who has enjoyed being "The Man" in college football as much as Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel. Of course, it is entirely possible someone has but they just benefited from doing it before cellphone cameras. Since becoming the first freshman to win the Heisman trophy, Manziel has photographed popping bottles in the club, throwing out the first pitch at a Padres game and sitting courtside at several NBA games. Some have questioned exactly how focused he was on school (Manziel is only taking online classes at A&M to "avoid being a distraction to the rest of his classmates") and preparing for another tough season in the SEC. While I may have my doubts about just how good Manziel really is I actually didn't have any problems with his antics because I figured he was a 20 year-old kid and he was just doing what anyone would do in his situation, so the media should back off and remember how they acted in college. But then came reports last weekend that Manziel left the prestigious Manning passing camp where he was a counselor early because he was hung-over. Despite lots of online accounts that Manziel was working his way up and down a strip of bars, Johnny contends he was not hung-over the next day but did admit to over-sleeping and missing a meeting, which is why he and the Mannings decided he should leave (despite the phrasing I am willing to bet that was not a mutual decision). I have to say that for the first time I have to side with the people who think Manziel needs to start reigning himself in because football season is fast approaching. When Rob Gronkowski was photographed without a shirt every other day during the Patriots offseason I said I didn't care as long as he was ready to go when the season started. Well, the same goes for Manziel. I understand that a passing camp for high schoolers run by Archie Manning and his kids is not exactly Aggie training camp, but it doesn't change the fact it was a football-related activity and Johnny didn't answer the bell. And if he thinks the scrutiny about his off-field activities is intense now, just wait until the first time he doesn't play well. He'll think facing the Alabama defense is easy compared to that.

-A few years ago former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon sued the NCAA regarding its deal with video game maker EA Sports. If you have never played a college video game before, none of the players in those games have names attached to them but their vital statistics are always very close to the actual players playing in college. Frankly, you'd have to be an idiot to not see that EA was doing their best to make the rosters as close to authentic as possible without using the players by name because if they did that they would have to pay them and that would violate the amateur rules. Instead EA made a deal directly with the NCAA, who happily sold out their student-athletes and kept all the money for themselves. As you would expect, the athletes were not happy about this but only O'Bannon took the initiative to hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit. This week he was joined by several active football players, the first time current players have spoken up regarding the issue. In response, the NCAA announced it is ending it's deal with EA Sports. Now, I'm not saying this makes the NCAA look guilty, but it certainly is not the action of an innocent organization. Honestly, for an organization which claims to want to teach children how to act like adults, this was as child-like an act as I can imagine. Frankly, I am glad this happened. I have never hid my feelings regarding the NCAA, which I think exploits college athletes under the guise of maintaining an idea of amateurism which was never there while negotiating television deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars and keeping all the money for themselves. I hope these players bleed the NCAA for every dollar they can. However, if you are looking to get sports fans on your side messing with their video games is not the way to go about it. Individual schools, bowls and conference also have deals with EA Sports, so hopefully this won't impact NCAA Football '15, but if it does there will be an army of annoyed 18-34 year old males who will be happy to pay for the NCAA's legal fees. I'm with you in spirit boys, but video games are the only way I can quarterback the Irish to a National Championship. You just can't put a price on that.

-I admit, I laugh almost every time a call is made during a basketball game which is so bad it ignites the crowd into a loud and prolonged chant of "Bullll-shit!" I don't know why but there is something amusing to me about public and shared vulgarity. And fans of the New York Red Bull team in the MLS apparently agree with me because every single time an opponent takes a ball out for a corner kick they begin to chant, "You suck, asshole" to try and distract them. Now, if this were just a few drunken fans it wouldn't be an issue but, just like in the Premier League, the teams in the MLS have dedicated rooting clubs who all come to the game together, fill an entire section and chant in unison. Thus, when the Red Bull fans are chanting they are loud and proud. The New York fans are not the only team which do this but the are one of the most organized and it is becoming an issue because the chants are loud enough to be heard clearly on TV. Thus, this has exposed the league's broadcast partners to fines from the FCC and the timing couldn't be worse because the MLS TV deals are about to expired and they are negotiating new ones. For a league which has had a hard time building a fanbase you would think they would simply appreciate having people in the stands no matter what they are chanting but I think by now we all recognize that TV is where the real money is made. So, the MLS is desperate for teams to figure out a way for teams to stop this. While franchises like New England and Real Salt Lake have tried asking nicely and the Red Bulls are relying on an old favorite to try and get their fans to be quiet - bribery. They have pledge $500 to each rooting club for every game they make it through without the YSA (as they call it) chant. But, here's the rub - they will only pay out the reward money in $2,000 clumps, which means the clubs have to make it through four games without chanting if they want to get paid. No word on how this is working yet, but if I know my hooligans I don't think it will work because they will get about three games before they forget and once the silence is broken they will simply make up for lost time. If they want to appease a TV network the MLS may have better luck just offering to pay the FCC fines themselves because that appears much more likely than getting a group of New Yorkers to stop swearing.

-Since we're on the subject of bribery, at this point I don't think anyone can be surprised when they hear there could be a judging scandal associated with the Olympics. Just like with the NCAA, even though the International Olympic Committee claims it strives to preserve amateur athletics, everything has a price attached to it. However, even I was surprised to read that there is a major scandal rocking the world of rhythmic gymnastics. A recent investigation uncovered major discrepancies in the testing procedures used by the IOC to find judges for the sport. Apparently tests taken by potential judges in Spain, Russia and Romania featured answered that were changed by proctors, had answered which appeared to be blatantly copied off one another and were given extra credit for things which did not exist. One test allegedly had multiple handwriting samples on it while the 'smart' cheaters just went old-school by writing answers on their hands. If you are wondering why people would go through all this trouble just to judge rhythmic gymnastics (because I know I was), there are two reasons - the first is the very obvious answer that it pays very well without being very hard. You have to know what you are looking at but it beats digging ditches. But the second is that it puts these people in the position of being able to influence the outcome for an Olympic event and even in a sport most people don't actually think should count in a sport that means you are in a position of power. After an Olympic game concludes all people want to look at is the overall medal count - they don't care what sports your country got their wins in, so if they can pad that medal total by cheating that is what they will do. But while I understand that I would ask you this - does anyone remember the medal count by the next games? A common theme of this weekly column is how often people make asses out of themselves in an effort to win a prize most people think aren't even worth trying for and I feel like this is just another example of that. Then again, considering no one pays attention to most Olympic sports for 3 years at a time I guess trying to rig judging assignments just fits in with the Olympic tradition.

Digital Distinction

This year's crop of Emmy nominees were announced yesterday and, just like with last year's awards, the main thing they proved is that the people who vote for such things and I do not see eye-to-eye as to what counts as great television. I didn't find any nominations for "Sons of Anarchy" or "Justified", which in my mind means the entire system is flawed. In fact, outside of "The Daily Show" none of the programs I watch religiously were nominated in a single category. The good news is that I don't take this as too much of an insult because many of the shows up for awards are now cancelled, so how good can they really be? I know popular doesn't automatically equal good (radio proves that on a 4-hour loop), but the entire award ceremony smacks of people who are using their votes to go against the grain and appear like they know something other people don't rather than just voting for the shows they may actually enjoy. Seriously, if this were a Presidential election all the Emmy voters would support the Libertarian party. What's even sadder is that this doesn't even make them original because this year's nominees features a lot of the usual suspects from the past couple of Emmys, so I can't help but wonder if some of these voters have begun to fill out their ballots like coaches do in pre-season polls - just pencil in the usual suspects and hope someone else is paying enough attention to come up with a list that doesn't look exactly like last year's.

The other thing I noticed that is just like last year - the nominations are dominated by HBO. The premium cable network has 108 nominations, more than double the next highest total (CBS and NBC had 53 each). I've said this a couple times before, but I can't help but wonder if HBO has an unfair competitive advantage. First off, they clearly don't have the restrictions that basic network shows have in that HBO can swear and show as much nudity as they want. But more importantly than they they can take their time and space out when a season actually starts and ends, which gives the show writers more time to polish and refine their scripts. People forget this, but "The Sopranos" was the first show to break up its final season and air it over two years. Could you imagine if a network show tried to pull that maneuver? The producer would be fired before he finished pitching the idea. On top of that their seasons are only have half as many episodes as your normal network show, which means they don't have to have the random dud episodes in the middle which seem to plague every show on the major networks. Lastly, they don't have to worry about ratings because HBO already has its money from subscribers, so it doesn't need to appease advertisers. That means they can take more risks, which is always going to get you notice come award season. I'm not saying the system is rigged, but it certainly appears to be slanted.

That is why I was fascinated to learn that two shows from Netflix, the online streaming service, had managed to get nominated for Emmys. I know award ceremonies have all sorts of funky categories which are handed out in advance and never get mentioned during the broadcast but I always assumed that to win an award for television excellence you had to, you know, be on television. Apparently this is a new rule in place for this year because Netflix has only been producing original content for a short while, but actors from both "House of Cards" and the resurrected "Arrested Development" garnered nominations, the first time shows which have never been broadcast anywhere are up for TV's most prestigious award. This has the potential to be a huge game-changer because if you thought HBO was working with the odds in their favor since they don't have to deal with Standards & Practices, you haven't seen anything yet. One of the best and worst things about the internet is it's lack of censors and I don't expect that to change anytime soon. These executives are going to be able to do whatever they want and make the shows exactly they have always dreamed up but have never been able to get approved. And just like with HBO, I can totally imagine a scenario in which a person writes a show specifically for the web (which already happens) but the difference is that they would have the backing and budget from a major production studio. This could really alter the way television shows are made.

Of course, there is always resistance to change so there will obviously be people who complain and never allow television to be pushed too far over the edge or across certain lines as they try and keep up. (I can see the Congressional hearings now.) This means unless something drastically changes to put the genie back in the bottle, the deck will always be stacked in favor of online or premium cable shows. On top of that if there is one thing Hollywood hates it is when one person is getting all the love, even if they deserve it. (I'm honestly convince that the reason we have so many award shows which essentially honor the same concepts is that so there are enough awards to go around for everyone.) That is why I figure it is only a matter of time before we see the Emmys split up even more. We already have the Daytime versus the Primetime Emmys, so why not add the Cable and Internet Emmys? Seriously, is anyone going to argue against another award show, especially if the new one contains all the best shows out there? (Not like I am watching any of them.) Fortunately we aren't there quite yet, so for now I will be satisfied to sit back and see how this little experiment ends. After all, it is one thing to get nominated for an award, it is an entirely different matter to win one and I don't see the voters anxious to reward the new kids on the block just yet. Besides, at this point I'm not even sure half of them even know which shows are on their ballots.

Judging Them By Their Cover

They are not doing as poorly as newspapers, but I think we all know the magazine industry is slowly dying. Most of them have gotten extremely specific with the kind of articles they write which is a good way to have a loyal audience, but when you only cover one topic you had better cover it better than anyone else and too often that is not the case - it's just article after article which could pass for a press release. People still have magazine subscriptions but these days it is much easier to get a look at an article online without having to pay for it, so the number of non-subscription sales are way down. That has caused more publications to take risks with their content under the age-old marketing premise that "there is no such thing as bad press." Like every Bostonian, I was extremely unnerved by the news that the cover of next month's Rolling Stone magazine is going to have Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover. Inside will contain a lengthy article investigating what causes a seemingly normal kid to go off the rails and suddenly become an extremist capable of attacking a crowd of innocent strangers. It's in interesting topic to be sure and worthy of examination, but that doesn't change the fact that there was no need to put a terrorist on the cover of a famous pop culture magazine photoshopped to look like a member of a boy band about to debut his first solo record.

Even though it is most famous for its music reviews and profiles, this is hardly the first time Rolling Stone has ventured into politics. And unlike a lot of people yesterday who were saying they should stick to reviewing albums, I actually have no problem if they want to weigh in on the issue. I happen to think good writing is good writing and just because Rolling Stone may be primarily a music magazine that does not mean it can't offer valid opinions on other topics. (On numerous occasions I have found sportswriters often give some of their most insightful perspectives on non-sports issues, so you never know where the best idea is going to come from.) I just don't agree with how they have decided to promote the issue. As you would imagine I am not alone in this because people in Boston are pretty pissed. They feel like it glorifies the wrong person (many people created their own fake covers online yesterday with the victims as the real story) and are calling for a boycott of the issue. Almost immediately CVS and Tedeschi's announced they would not carry this particular issue and many other businesses quickly followed, but I worry that is going to only serve to make this issue more popular as it is now a rare collector's item and as we know from people spending stupid amounts of money on Aaron Hernandez jerseys on eBay, people will buy just about anything if they think it could some day be worth either money or a laugh. I'm pretty sure those are the people Rolling Stone had in mind all along, which just goes to show you their focus is becoming too narrowed.

Of course, this magazine is going to be a big hit with a certain crowd and that is the people who think Tsarnaev is some kind of folk hero. Most people are convince of his guilt but as we saw last week when he was arraigned, there are people out there who are just as certain of his innocence, thinking he and his brother were victims of a vast government conspiracy. (I wouldn't want these people making up the core of my loyal subscribers, but their money is just as good as the next person's.) They will want to buy this issue in bulk and probably get it framed. I'm not as concerned with the people who say this will inspire other people to follow Tsarnaev's lead. I feel like fame is not most terrorists' motivation and you can't spend money from jail. My biggest fear is that it will lead to more people looking at a picture of a fresh-faced kid and thinking he could never be as evil as the rest of us know he is. I obviously haven't read the article yet, but the last thing I would want this major publication to do is paint Tsarnaev in a sympathetic light or as a puppet to his more authoritative brother, which is what his lawyers probably plan to use as his defense. Who knows how many people that could sway and if we have learned anything in the last week it is that anything can happen when you put justice in the hands of people too stupid to get out of jury duty. When the best thing for everyone involved would be for there to be fewer Tsarnaev sympathizes out there, this cover is not going to help.

Still, this is clearly nothing more than Rolling Stone's attempt to get attention and it is working. Everyone was talking about the cover yesterday and I couldn't tell you the last time Rolling Stone magazine was part of a national discussion. However, it is the wrong kind of attention. I mentioned that this feels like the magazine is targeting the people with morbid sense of humor or who collect things which they think will either be worth money down the line or a little gallows humor in the moment. Those people are fine if you need to fill up your bank account in the short term but they very rarely become repeat customers. If the magazine really wants to make sure it stays in circulation it needs to step up its game and rebuild its brand among young readers (who exist, I swear). The way to do that is to focus on a better web presence that keeps people engaged, not picking a controversial topic to shock people into looking at your magazine once. That was the kind of thing Rolling Stone used to do, back when people were foolish enough to actually believe that musicians could really be dangerous. But now we know even the 'controversial' stars are actually carefully crafted personas made by record executives so they aren't scary anymore. Without a controversial figure in the music industry to rely on Rolling Stone apparently felt the need to go extra shocking. But rather than blow us away with how daring they are it just seems tired, unoriginal and a little desperate, which feels strangely appropriate move for a magazine to pull. And the fact that a once-iconic magazine like Rolling Stone felt this was the only way to get back into the public discussion may be the biggest news item of them all.

Measuring Up

Like most people, every morning I open my email to discover the inbox has been filled up with email after email from companies advertising a one-day sale with items offered at extremely low prices (but never the items you would want). I normally find things things only slightly annoying because while I don't like the wasted time of feeling compelled to click through them all when deep down I know I will delete 99% of them, it is not like getting rid of them all is labor-intensive. After a quick skim most are dismissed with the push of a button. It is a no-harm, no-foul situation and I can honestly say that until this morning none of them ever inspired me to make an impulse purchase. I don't care how great a sale is, usually my distrust of the people who work in these online warehouses is enough to talk me out of buying anything because I am convinced they will either send the wrong version of the thing I want or the wrong item altogether. (I've had a few bad experiences.) But this morning when I saw an $80 sweater on sale for less than $20 I admit it caused me to re-think my online shopping policies. Without giving myself too much time to think about it I clicked through and started to see if they had any in my size and in a color I liked. Surprisingly, they still had quite a selection. Apparently, the middle of July when the entire country is suffering through a heatwave is not really a big time for sweater sales.

While I was trying to find one I liked I noticed something else, which I had only seen a few times before: statistics. When you clicked on a piece of clothing you were given the height and weight of the model wearing the clothes along with what size they were wearing. It was like the saddest back of a baseball card ever. (This also confirms anyone could be a model as you never saw any faces, just bodies.) I guess this makes sense given that one of the biggest problems taller people like me have is that most shirts I buy aren't nearly long enough, but this feels like a largely irrelevant issue because no two bodies are the same. Even if you find two people who have approximately the same height and weight the odds that their bodies will have the same frame are very low. (185 lbs of muscle will certainly look different from 185 lbs of fat. What they really needed to provide was body mass index because that would give you a better idea of how the person was structured. But, I'm sure if you did that the stat geeks would only start looking at that number and old schoolers would say you can't put a number on hustle while Joe Morgan would dismiss the entire debate while proudly claiming to have never read the material in the first place. Sorry, this just became a sabermetrics rant.) The point is while I found this a little interesting it wasn't about to motivate me to whip out my debit card.

They say the more information a person has when shopping the more likely they are to eventually make a purchase, because knowledge is power. This premise makes a lot of sense when you are looking into making a big purchase like a car or appliance, but now the idea apparently is spreading to include everything. But while I appreciate any company that wants to provide me with more details to make my decision easier, there is a point when they need to remember this is a piece of clothing and not a car - one size does not fit all. I really don't think they have given me the right information in this case. I dare say they have gone too specific. They only gave you the one option to look at, which is fine if the person modeling the clothing is close to you, but seeing where a shirt hangs on a guy who is 5'9" doesn't really help people like myself. It could look great on him, but that won't have anything to do with me. If that is all you are going to tell me I would much rather know whether or not the shirt I am looking at needs to be washed a certain way or else it will disintegrate after three trips through the laundry because that will actually impact me. I don't like third-party endorsements when it comes to movies or shows, so what makes anyone think how a shirt looks on a random person will make me want one of my own?

This all goes back to why I am so hesitant to buy clothing online in the first place - I know shopping online saves me time and gas, but I would much rather drive to a store and try something on to make sure it is loose where I want it to be loose on me or tight where I want things to be tight and not take a third party's word that it will fit me perfectly even though they have never met me. Buying anything online is a crap-shoot, but clothing may be the biggest gamble of them all due to how varied two people can find the same piece of clothing. So, thanks for trying, but if these companies want to really increase sales they should hire fewer models who are willing to reveal their personal information to the world and pass those savings along to us because despite all my hesitations, in the end there was no getting away from how good the deal was. It was the great price that made me keep shopping until I eventually found a sweater which was to my liking and purchased it. It should get here in a week or so (just under the wire for fall). Still, the first thing I am going to do when it gets here is try it on because the fact it fit a total stranger very well had nothing to do with my decision to buy it. And if I don't like the way it fits I can only hope this company is as forthcoming with the information on how to return things I bought online.