Weekly Sporties

-As a Celtic fan, I was heartbroken when the team traded Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett to Brooklyn. I was especially upset about Pierce, who had played his entire career in Boston and seemed to really understand what it meant to be a Celtic. However, the pure basketball side of my brain totally understood the decision. Pierce is getting older and that money should probably be spent on players who will help the team in the long-run (Brooklyn's slow start this year is making it look smarter by the second). That is why, with no emotional connect to get in the way, I was baffled from the start when it was announced that the Los Angeles Lakers had signed Kobe Bryant to a 2-year, $48 million extension. Sure, this contract guarantees that Bryant will be one of the handful of players to spend their entire career with one franchise but taking an unbiased view of things it does not seem like a particularly good deal for the Lakers. First off, Bryant is 35 and coming off an Achilles injury which ends up derailing most careers (for a while it appeared that Bryant was getting closer to resuming basketball activities but just a couple days after signing this deal he announced he was still weeks away from returning). Until he starts playing again there is no way to know what kind of player he is going to be. But it's not really the years which have me scratching my head - it's the money. This new extension will keep Bryant among the highest-paid players in the game. Now, I am not about to begrudge someone for taking an amazing deal when it is offered to them just saying it certainly shows where Bryant's priorities really lie. In the last couple of years you saw a guy like Tim Duncan take a massive paycut so that the Spurs could spread that money around and keep a Championship-caliber team intact. Meanwhile Bryant's new deal will make it almost impossible for the Lakers to add the two superstars which would be necessary to return to being a title contender (I don't care how attractive a free-agent destination Los Angles may be, that doesn't change the math) unless they renounced just about everyone else on the roster and since you still need 12 guys on a team that doesn't sound possible. Bryant has always said he values winning more than money but this contract certainly doesn't seem to follow that narrative. But what would be scarier if I were a Lakers fan is the direction this team is taking. New owner Jim Buss seems to be making many questionable decisions and fans have to start wondering if he knows what he is doing. The history of children inheriting teams from parents has more failures than successes and if people think Buss doesn't know how to run this team this contract could set the Lakers back beyond the life of this contract.

-Of course, the only thing worse for a sports fan than rooting for a team with no direction and no structure is rooting for one which seems to have a solid plan, only to have that plan completely undone by the one of the aspects of sports which no one can control, like injures. That is how fans of the Chicago Bulls have to feel after this week, when it was announced that Derrick Rose tore a meniscus in his right knee and will miss the rest of this season. For those of you who may not follow the Bulls, Rose tore the ACL in his left knee in the playoffs two season ago and missed all of last season as he slowly rehabbed. The length of his absence had caused some in basketball circles to question his toughness and when his brother released a series of public statements regarding his availability those people started to wonder just who was in charge over there. However, even though he started this season slowly (as you would expect from a guy who hadn't played in 500 days) Rose was still the hometown hero and once he returned all was forgiven. He had even shown signs of rounding back into form, which is what makes this injury, which occurred without any contact as Rose was just turning to run back up court, just that much sadder. Now the Bulls are faced with a rather serious dilemma: do they simply play out this season, hope Rose can come back next year and try to start again, or do they give up and try a new rebuilding plan? If this were Rose's first injury than of course you would wait for him as he is only 25 and, when healthy, one of the best players in the league. However, this is his second knee injury (once is an accident, twice is a trend) meaning he now has had issues with both of his knees, so you can't be sure he will ever be health again. After all, knees tend to come in handy when you are playing basketball. It is enough for rational people to wonder if Rose has to be labeled as injury-prone. Also, it is fair to ask if Rose will be able to still be an effective guard when his playing style of driving to the basket and absorbing contact will clearly have to change going forward. On top of that the Bulls have some key players approaching free agency and others players with specialized skills who you love to have on your roster if you are on the cusp of competing for a title but who don't do you much good when you are out of the playoffs by March. All of this means the Bulls are at a crossroads and, even worse, they really can't make a decision about which direction to head in until they have a better picture of what Rose's future is going to look like. It is a terrible place to be in for any sports fan and even worse when you are there for the second time in as many seasons.

-Back in October there was a big discussion about whether or not Detroit Tigers' shortstop Jhonny Peralta should have been allowed to be eligible for the postseason after being banned 50 regular season games for his involvement in the Biogenesis scandal. Ultimately Peralta not only played, he played quite well and this week he was rewarded for his postseason play with a 4-year, $52 deal from the St. Louis Cardinals. As you would imagine this has many in the baseball community questioning just what the point of the whole scandal was and I have to agreed that it does send something of a mixed message. I mean, if these suspended players are going to be given large contracts as though nothing happened, why should we spend any time worrying about what they put into their bodies? I expected that kind of hand-wringing from the sportswriters of the world but I was quite surprised when many players voiced their displeasure as well. They contend that they play the game the right way and baseball shouldn't be rewarding players who are known to cheat. (I do find it rather ironic that the "we play the game the right way" Cardinals were the ones to sign Peralta, proving that morality only goes so far when your shortstop has a bad World Series.) Still, the entire thing does shine a rather bright light on just how hypocritical many of these baseball executives are. They say they want the game to be clean, yet they are really the ones with the power to clean it up and they refuse to actually do so. All they would have to do is not sign these players but they are so scared of another GM taking a chance and having it pay off that they jump in and over-pay like they do with all the other free agents. Also, I think it is pretty clear that baseball needs to implement tougher penalties for failing drug tests when the "penalty" ends up to be that you skip 50 games of a baseball season which is too long to begin with, get to play in the World Series and then get a huge raise. Doesn't exactly sound like the kind of thing which is going to talk guys on the fringe into putting down the needle and doing a a few extra reps. Plus, the signing of Peralta or any of the guys who have failed drug tests before can't help but make me think about a guy like Alex Rodriguez. I've always said that Rodriguez was getting hit harder because he continued to proclaim his innocence even though we all know he failed tests in the past. Now more than ever I am convinced that if A-Rod has simply shut his mouth and taken his first suspension he wouldn't be involved in such a circus now. It certainly seems like baseball is only too happy to let you back into the game if you do your time and at least act as though you are sorry. Remember, baseball is called "The Show" for a reason.

-But even if you think there are no consequences for failing a drug test in baseball, you have to at least give Major League Baseball credit for acknowledging when there is an issue, which is more than I can say for America's favorite sport of football. Over the last two seasons the Seattle Seahawks have been one of the best teams in the NFL. Unfortunately they are also getting a bad reputation as one of the dirtiest, as multiple players on that team have failed drug tests. The other day there was the unique situation of two different player getting suspended in one week as Walter Thurmond was suspended for four games and Brandon Browner is facing a year-long suspension after failing a second test in less than a year. Now, like most fans I barely notice when a football player fails a drug test, but if you remember that star cornerback Richard Sherman has also initially failed a drug test before having it overturned on appeal then this is officially a trend in Seattle. But what is even more amazing is that for all the positive tests they don't get much media scrutiny. Some say it is because of how remote Seattle is compared to the rest of the NFL, but considering what it took for this to become an issue, I would say it has more to do with the fact the NFL would rather not talk about drugs in football. All of these suspensions are just the kind of thing to make me wonder if Seattle really has what it takes to win a Super Bowl. Reportedly these suspensions are for recreational drugs, not performance enhancing ones but it still seems like a dangerous precedent is being set. This kind of thing doesn't happen on teams which are serious about doing their jobs. Now, you may be expecting me to lay this at the feet of Pete Carroll due to his happy-go-lucky and player-friendly nature. And sure, you could make the case that these guys are only doing this stuff because they think they can get away with it and that sort of attitude starts and stops with the head coach. However, while I thought Carroll let the inmates run the asylum in college and that was a terrible way to operate a college program, things are different at the professional level. Thurmond and Browner are adults who are getting paid a lot of money and are the only ones to be held responsible for their actions. It would be completely fair to question Carroll when it comes to talent evaluation because he ultimately has say over who is on his team but he can't be asked to police these adults when they go home for the night. I'll just say this - even though I am pretty sure this wouldn't be a big story anywhere because the NFL has deals with so many media outlets, right about now geography appears to be on the Seahawks' side.

-Of course, if we want to know where these players learned these habits we should just look down the sidelines. They say players only get away with what a coach allows them to and this week we had two example of a head coach setting a bad example. The first came in Brooklyn when the Nets were losing to the Lakers and were out of time-outs. As players were wandering to the sidelines after a foul one of the Nets players ran into head coach Jason Kidd and knocked his drink to the ground. This took a couple of extra minutes for the crew to mop-up the spill, which gave the Nets time to work up a play on the sideline. It appeared to be a lucky break, right up to the moment the NBA reviewed the tape in which it appears Kidd mouths the words, "Hit me" to the player who ultimately runs into him (many have quipped this was the best coaching Kidd has done all season long) and quickly fined him $50,000. However, that move appears to be nothing but gamesmanship compared to what Pittsburgh Steeler's coach Mike Tomlin did on Thanksgiving when he "accidentally" interfered with a punt return in the third quarter. Even though he appears to be watching the run on the JumboTron and shouldn't have been standing that close to the field in the first place, Tomlin stepped in the wrong direction before retreating to the sideline and ultimately cause Ravens punt returner Jacoby Jones to slow down and get tackled despite the fact he had a clear field ahead of him. Even worse, Tomlin had a rather large grin on his face once the play was over. (No word on his fine yet, but I would imagine it is coming and it will be rather large. Some are saying six-figures and the team could lose draft picks. And if you don't think I am appreciating the irony considering Tomlin was the strongest voice against the Patriots during the Spygate scandal and here he is doing something which is far worse in my opinion, than you are fooling yourself.) I know the saying is that if you aren't cheating than you aren't trying but I feel like that should only apply to players, not coaches. I know both the Steelers and Nets have not had the seasons they were expecting but you can't let the frustration get the better of you. Coaches should be held to a higher standard and these guys have failed. I can almost excuse Kidd because he has only been a coach for a couple of months and may still be working with a player's mentality, but Tomlin has to know better. Fortunately for Tomlin he has an impressive resume to fall back on which should get him through this rough patch. If it doesn't he could go back to coaching special teams because he clearly hasn't forgotten about angle or using the sideline to his advantage.

-It is not uncommon to browse an internet auction site and see a Championship ring. People tend to think that every athlete who has won a Championship must be set for life, forgetting that athletes who played professional sports before they became the juggernaut that they are today got paid very little money and selling that ring could very well equal the money they made their entire playing career. Even today, for every star player who will get a huge endorsement contract there are three or four guys at the end of the bench who never played and thus don't feel like they earned a ring. It is no more valuable to them than it is to the equipment manager. That goes double if the ring is for a rather dubious achievement, such as winning a Conference Championship. All a Conference Championship ring does is remind you that you didn't finish the job and win the Super Bowl, so why would you ever want to hold on to that? I guess that is why no one should have been all that surprised when a Final Four ring from Louisville's 2012 run came up for auction. There is just one problem with this - the ring has a name on it (Chane Behanan) and he is still playing for the Cardinals. Selling game memorabilia is obviously a violation of NCAA rules. Behanan says he gave the ring to his grandmother and she didn't know it was missing until he texted her about it being up for auction. I'm not totally sure I believe that story but here is the bigger issue - I don't care whether or not it is true. As I said, there are plenty of athletes who have been given rings for accomplishments that they never intended to wear. (I still wonder where the idea of championship rings come from to begin with, as I have never been a jewelry wearing kind of guy.) If Behanan needs money, wouldn't the NCAA rather see him get it this way than have his hand out to some shady booster or worse, some bookie who wants him to shave a few points from the final score? To me this has less to do with the NCAA and more to do with the question of etiquette. No one likes it when they give a person a gift and then finds out that person has either returned or re-gifted that item but I still think it is better for them to wind up with something they may actually use instead of that unwanted item sitting on a shelf collecting dust for years to come. College athletics still claim that they exist to teach kids about how to be adults - well, one of the most uncomfortable parts of being an adult is dealing with awkward gift situations. It's probably not how they saw it happening, but I think the NCAA could use this as a teaching moment. It would certainly come in more useful than a ring celebrating the time you tied for third while playing for a sub-.500 team .

-One of the things I will always appreciate from a fanbase, even if it is the one my team is currently up against at that moment, is when they are clever. Nothing makes me happier than when a fanbase either comes up with the perfect witty new tradition in the spur of the moment and without having to have it pre-approved by the people running the scoreboard. For example, fans counting how long it takes for a player to shoot a free throw even though they are only supposed to get 10 seconds. That shows a great knowledge and respect for the game but also gets in a player's head. Conversely, I become rather frustrated when they just repeat the same thing which has been done in every stadium across the country simply because the JumboTron told them it was time to get loud and they couldn't be bothered to put four seconds of thought into it. But the absolute worst is when a fanbase is not only unoriginal but mean-spirited. That is why I was so disappointed to learn that a student cheering section at the University of Missouri has been kicked out of two different games for saying vulgar and disrespectful things to opposing players. Now, this should not be confused with the "official" cheering section of students, apparently this is a smaller group that likes to do their own thing and take the chanting up a notch. (I don't particularly remember Missouri's basketball team being so good it needed two different cheering factions.) Now, I have a long-standing policy which states fans can yell just about anything as long as they leave moms, wives and children out of it and they stay in their seats. But reportedly this cheering section went below the belt, going so far as to cheer when one of players on the other team got hurt. If that wasn't bad enough, the player in question was playing for South East Louisiana. Hiding up in the stands and saying idiotic things are bad enough, but talking trash to a small school that Missouri was crushing by 40 point? That's cowardly. At first the cheer organizers tried to defend their actions by saying it was just competitive trash talk and nothing personal. Then they (ironically) tried to act as though they were being unfairly targeted by the Mizzou athletic department. The good thing is that they quickly realized that the only thing worse than being an asshole is then trying to defend why you are acting like an asshole because no one is going to be on your side. Instead they announced they would be taking a few games off to think of better, more supportive things to say to their own team rather than try and intimidate the visitors. If nothing else I hope they can at least learn that you need to save the good material for rivalry week, when you can say anything and no one will care.

Movie Reviews

Once again I have seen enough movies on my cable movie channels that it is time to offer up some more reviews. Just as a reminder, for the most part these reviews aren't intended to be taken as endorsements or criticisms because I would never presume to know what kind of movie you would enjoy. That is why these reviews very rarely mention the quality of the movie and tend to focus on random things which caught my eye while watching them. The goods news is that if something I said intrigues you, these movies are old enough that by now they should either on your cable movie channels On-Demand feature, NetFlix or available for rent on the cheap using whichever system you prefer (to be honest you could probably pirate this particular crop of movies and no one would blame you because they have made all the money they were ever going to make by now). The good news is that if you see any of these and then hate it, at least you didn't have to pay $12 to be disappointed. Let's get to it...

Hyde Park On Hudson: Going in I thought this movie was going to consist mostly of Bill Murray over-acting as he blatantly trolled for an Oscar. After all he would be playing former President Franklin Roosevelt and telling the story of when the King of England came to America seeking help for the upcoming war with Germany. It's just the kind of role Oscar voters love to reward. However it quickly became apparent that Murray couldn't have been too intent on winning an Academy Award because if he had he would have been willing to sit in the make-up chair for a couple of hours and at least look a little like FDR. Instead, he looked like Bill Murray wearing glasses and nothing more. If Jon Voight can do it for a bad movie like "Pearl Harbor" (his performance was the best thing in that movie) than Murray could have done it here. The other problem this movie faced was that the character of King George VI was just played by Colin Firth a couple years ago and he did win an Academy Award for his performance. When an audience has just seen the same character done better that recently it throws the whole movie off. No wonder they had to settle for Golden Globe nominations.

Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters: When "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" was being released in theaters I thought that even though the movie looked bad, at least the writer could claim it was something different. Anyone could tell the same old "President Lincoln was a great man" story, but it took some guts to take at a familiar character in a completely different direction. Obviously, once I saw 10 minutes of that movie my opinion on the matter changed drastically but I still contended the principle made sense. This movie just goes to prove that I was ultimately right because it was everything "Vampire Hunter" was not. This takes the familiar tale of Hansel and Gretel and turns it on its head by advancing the story 20 years and making them the hunters, not the ones in need of rescue. On top of the the character twist it had good special effects and a fun plot, which made for a very entertaining couple of hours. It was never going to win any awards but there was enough action, comedy and gore to appeal to a wide-ranging audience. It just goes to remind us all that sometimes having a really good idea isn't enough - you have to follow through when it comes time to execute.

Warm Bodies: If anyone was ever going to describe a zombie movie as a "cute", this film is probably what they will be talking about. While the premise that zombies could turn back into humans if we just gave them some compassion probably turned off any of the hardcore horror buffs, I thought it made for a pretty good flick. My only issue with it was the naming of the two central characters - the boy zombie was named "R" and the human girl was named Julie. I think you can see what the director was going for and just in case you couldn't, he even threw in a scene when Julie was out on a balcony just to drive the point home (don't know why I was expecting subtlety in a zombie movie). Now, I get that every writer ultimately wants their work to be measured up against Shakespeare because he is the standard bearer. However, at the same time you can't force anyone to make that comparison (and when you are working with a horror story I am not sure you would want that to happen anyway). Let the movie goers worry about making that connection and if people can't see it than it's probably because it shouldn't be made. Not every teen romance has to be quite that dramatic.

Gangster Squad: This was another one of those films about take-no-prisoner cops in 1950s Los Angeles. Now, I both love and loathe this film noir kind of movie. I love it because they look cool and the stories are always well-written, plus sometimes it is just nice to see the bad guy get roughed up without any repercussions even though in the back of your mind you are thinking, "Today, any of this stuff would get the case dismissed." However I also hate them because they tend to glorify LA as if it was the only town which was a little out-of-control trying to deal with organized crime. I contend that there were just as many stories (and probably better ones) going on in Chicago or New York at the same time but these filmmakers either didn't want to travel or want to make the place they now have to call home seem that much cooler, so it feels slightly lazy. And that sloppy work is a problem for this particular movie because it just isn't as good as previous movies such as "Mulholland Falls" or "LA Confidential". If you're going to make this kind of movie you have to know those lines are going to be drawn - it would be like making a western and not expecting it to be measured against recent entries such as "Tombstone". Maybe if they had moved it to another city that wouldn't have been in my mind, so I guess the moral is that sacrificing location for convenience can end up hurting your movie in ways you probably never expected.

Jack Reacher: Normally I hate the people who tell you that the book was better than the movie because it is such a snobby thing to say. Half the time I don't even think they mean it, they just want to sound better than your average movie-goer by pointing out they read. There is only one area in which I am happy to let them complain, which is when it comes to casting. There is nothing worse than seeing the absolute wrong person get a role that you care deeply about and even though I have no great affection for the character of Jack Reacher, even I knew this movie was doomed from the beginning. You see, in the books Reacher is described as a 6'4", blond-haired, blue-eyed intimidating former Army investigator. All of that makes the casting of Tom Cruise in the role look as though the casting director either never read the book or ignored it all just to get the biggest name they could. I understand big stars make a movie easier to sell but they shouldn't be handed just any old part. In this case it completely ruined the movie before it ever started, which is too bad because the script was still pretty great. I'm not quite sure how this movie did but I would love to see a sequel with a different actor in the title role because I think it would make for a completely improved experience.

Happy Thanksgiving!

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

Enjoy the day of family, 

food and mediocre football!

Remember to schedule a nap -

Tryptohan is a hell of a drug!

Now, per tradition, enjoy this video of the greatest Thanksgiving episode of any show, ever: "WKRP in Cincinnati - Turkeys Away!"

One Day Can't Hurt

Behavioral experts say that it takes eight weeks for an activity to become a routine. I guess that means that after two months of gym membership I am right on schedule because I have been going frequently enough that if I skip a day it feels as though I failed to accomplish all my goals for the week. I suppose that is a good thing, but at the same time I don't want to become one of those people who becomes obsessed with working out, which is why I am just as happy that I haven't reached the point where I feel the need to workout on what would otherwise be a holiday. After all, I am not training for anything special so I don't view taking a day off once a month as the worst thing in the world. (In reality, every word of this post so far is just me trying to justify why I plan to skip out on Friday's trip to the gym in favor of sleeping late.) The good new for me is that, judging by how crowded the place was this morning, I am obviously I am not alone with this plan. It seemed to be extra-busy this morning, as everyone was working out very hard to earn tomorrow's second plate of turkey and a Friday of doing anything but going to the gym first thing in the morning.. But for every gym member who figured they had earned an extra helping of pie there are those people who will never skip out on their workout regiment, no matter what the date happens to be. It is most likely because of those people that as I as leaving I noticed a sign which stated that the gym is going to be open tomorrow from 6 AM to noon. I couldn't help but feel a little sad for everyone that statement involved.

Now, I'm not going to sit here and crap on people who are dedicated to staying in shape - it is a very admirable trait to have. If I had been a little more enthusiastic in the past maybe I wouldn't have to go to the gym as often now. ("Working out now so I don't have to work out later" probably won't be the next big sports marketing slogan.) Still, even the most ardent supporters of physical activity will tell you that skipping one day won't undo all the hard work you have done leading up to it. In fact, your muscles might even appreciate the extra rest and respond better the next time you work out. I know every body responds differently but every physical fitness expert can agree that there is such a thing as too much exercise. But the main reason this really bothers me is the same reason I get annoyed at professional sports teams when they schedule games on holidays - the people really who are getting screwed over in this deal are the ones who have to work that shift. While I will enjoy watching football tomorrow at least a small part of my brain won't be able to stop thinking about all the stadium workers who would much rather be at home with their families but need the job and can't get the day off. They don't want to be working there but they probably need the money. Also, the NFL makes so much money for that team that it is worth it to inconvenience their workers because they turn over half their crew every year to begin with. I am just not sure it is how I would run a business if I were in charge.

It is entirely possible that I feel this way because I am not a fan of Black Friday and plan to avoid shopping this weekend at all costs. Still, I am not that naive - I know time is money and the days of every store being closed on Thanksgiving are over (which isn't the worst thing in the world because many people will wake up in the morning and realize they forgot something). Obviously, if you get a job in food services or retail you can't very well expect Thanksgiving off. The holidays are when these stores make most of their money and you have to know that going in. The thing is we aren't talking about the typical busy Thanksgiving or Black Friday retail establishment here. This isn't a jewelry store or small market who needs to provide a valuable service to the community while making every last dollar to make sure they can stay open next week - this is a small, local gym which isn't even part of a bigger franchise. They could close the gym for one day and it wouldn't end up costing them too much money. In fact, I feel like the place will be mostly empty (if anyone even shows up at all), so between the electrical bill from having all the lights and TVs on for six hours and paying the poor employee who has to sit through that unproductive shift (because you know damn well the boss won't be the one who works tomorrow), I'm actually assuming the company won't be able to break even. Now, you may think that most gym employees are personal trainers who would be working out anyway or other health nuts who only work at the gym so they can get paid to workout. To that I would reply that you clearly haven't been to my gym. It's just a job and not a lifestyle, which could be why I actually like this gym more than any of the ones I have been a member of before.

I think the larger, cultural problem here is that thanks to the advent of 24-hour gyms the workout nuts have come to expect to be able to workout whenever the mood strikes and actually get angry when they learn that there may be people out there who want to enjoy a day off with their families rather than watch them do lunges. It all just seems so unnecessary because if these people are so determined to not gain any weight tomorrow they can always go for a run or do some simple exercises in their own home (as I have said more than a few times, all the gym really does is give you the opportunity to perform the activities you avoid doing in real life). The home stretches may not be the elaborate exercises they normally do but beggars can't be choosers. At least this way no one else is inconvenienced simply because you don't have anything better to do. Ultimately, that is probably why this bothers me so much: I spend most of my life trying not to mess up anyone else's plans and here are these people who are going out of their way to do so. That is always a dickheaded thing to do but especially on Thanksgiving. Honestly, not screwing over your fellow man should be the most easily-attained of all your holiday goals. So, hopefully when I go back next Monday I'll discover the owner changed their minds and kept the place closed. I'll even allow these workout nuts to consider it their Christmas present to the people who work at the gym (even though they will probably expect those people to be at work on Christmas).

I Feel So Cheap

Black Friday is just a couple of days away and after that comes what I think is the most ridiculous of ideas - Cyber Monday. It is not that I don't like the concept of many retailers getting together to offer deals through their websites as a way to reel in the people who decided to skip Black Friday - what annoys me is when people act as though Cyber Monday is a real thing and not something which was invented about 3 years ago by some advertising executive. I understand that a big part of working in television is doing what advertisers tell you to do but there is a way to do it without insulting our intelligence quite so blatantly. Anyway, before many people decide to indulge in those online savings first they need to find the items they want to buy. In an age where there are hundreds of thousands of random, tiny websites selling knickknacks it can be kind of hard to stand out in a Google search. Ironically what many stores have figured out as the best way to get their products out there is still the old-fashioned system of mailing out catalogs. If your mailbox looks anything like mine has for the past week than you have probably been over-run with catalogs, many from stores you have never heard of before, let alone shopped at. Now, I think we are all adult enough to know how this happened - some store you actually bought something from once upon a time got an offer from a smaller retailer about buying their client list and they sold you out. Hey, it was just business. What I think I was unprepared for was finding out just how little worth my information actually has.

The website Gawker recently uncovered documents from a pending lawsuit between the State of New Jersey and a company which has been accused of shady business practices. In that lawsuit it was revealed that this company bought their client list, some 400,000 names, from another equally shady company which brands itself as a "data collection agency". So far nothing about this story seems that interesting because, as I previously said, this is how I generally assumed shady companies operated. They certainly didn't get their clients through their wonderful customer service and probably can't count on repeat business to stay afloat. The amazing part of the story was finding out that the 400,000 names on that list - which also included phone numbers, email addresses and browsing history on a car-buying website - sold for just $2,500. That works out to be roughly .16 cents a file. Didn't you think that number would be much higher? Personally I was expecting at least a $1 per name because it had to take a little effort just to input those names into a database and data entry temps are expensive. At that low price there is no telling who could be buying that kind of list or what they could be using it for. At least it explains why these tiny companies are only too happy to print up and mail you a catalog just in the hope you will find something you like - even if the printing company charges them .55 per mailing all you have to do is buy one item and they have easily covered their costs. It would be a great business model if it didn't make my skin crawl.

Perhaps the reason this issue is bothering me so much is that earlier this week I started to sign up for a "deal of the day" website. I had previously seen a few of the items they had offered and was impressed with the prices they claimed they could get me. Therefore I was willing to sell out the junk email folder on my throw-away email address that I keep for just such occasions. Everything was going fine until I got to the page when they asked for a credit card number, which they never told me was going to be required. I can deal with that kind of bait-and-switch if the site feels secure but while there are plenty of websites I am willing to trust with something like that for some reason this particular one gave me the creeps. I decided not to fill out the rest of the form and closed the window, expecting that to be the end of it. Unfortunately one of the boxes I had filled out was the one for my cellphone. Considering I never hit submit I thought I would be in the clear but apparently this site recorded my information even without signing up for the service. Since that afternoon my phone has been ringing twice a day as these people call me to ask why I didn't want to join their service (and seem genuinely surprised when I get angry that they are calling me on a number I don't think they should have in the first place). It really feels like a violation of trust. At least I can hang my hat on the fact my internet 'Spidey sense' is working just fine because of these guys are calling my phone twice a day I can only imagine what they would have done with my credit card number.

I will admit that as an SEO nerd it is kind of interesting to see that for all the times we have been told our personal information is sacred and valuable (users get up in arms every time Facebook announces a change to their privacy policy), at the end of the day to these companies it is just another string to add to the net they throw out hoping to catch a few extra sales. I guess in some ways it should be comforting to know that my email is so invaluable because it means I am probably not worth targeting, the way same way many people decide picking up a penny is not worth the effort of bending over. It is sort of a similar argument to the one for the recent NSA spying scandal - you know damn well the government wasn't listening in on your calls because even they know you have nothing important to say. Still, I can't help but wonder if this story should remind us all the internet is really just a big scam. I mean, how can companies like Facebook and Twitter be valued in the billions of dollars when the personal contact information of the average person on those sites (which should be gold to advertisers) is only worth three nickles and a penny? Adding to that, a recent Time magazine came up with a formula to determine the value of Twitter feeds and while some celebrities feeds are worth a few thousand dollars, surprise, many of your average Twitter pages were worthless. If I had stock I would seriously consider getting out of the tech market and putting it all in a company which prints catalogs. It certainly doesn't seem like those will be going away anytime soon.

Don't Eat With Your Eyes

One of the most confusing things about the internet these days is trying to keep up with what I am supposed to be angry about. Obviously I know not to take a cue from every editorial on the internet because there is always going to be at least one person who is annoyed about an issue and if I tried to agree with every single position I would go insane after 20 minutes of browsing. I'm talking more about discovering which issue, which has been going on for months if not years, the world has finally gotten around to noticing and taking exception to until another issue comes along that we can notice and take exception to. (The good news is that if you miss the opportunity to be outraged about this topic another one will be coming around in a couple of days.) The other thing we love to do is drag up the same issue every couple of weeks during a slow news cycle even though no one has anything new to say about it. For example, lately I have noticed that a lot of people are back on the issue of people gracing magazine covers while being heavily airbrushed. They think it sets an unattainable standard, gives people a warped sense of body image, perpetuates a lie and all sorts of other claims that are surprisingly similar to the ones we have been hearing since PhotoShop was invented. While I agree with everything the protesters are saying, my heart really isn't in it. It's not just because they have already won the argument (who is in favor of heavily PhotoShopped pictures?) yet keep talking, but because I can't take these people seriously until they become a little more consistent.

Sure, there are times when models or celebrities are photographically edited to the point they don't even look human anymore. However, I would say that happens pretty rarely as most of the time the cropping is done to eliminate dark circles under eyes and the occasional wrinkle. It is reality? No. But it is certainly closer to the real thing than the "reality" TV many of these same people watch without complaint. Meanwhile, there is a hell of a lot more deception going on which no one raises a peep about and it is happening in your average food magazine. If you open up just about any food magazine this Thanksgiving inside you'll see plenty of recipes with accompanying pictures of food which looks perfect. That is what these magazines are telling you dish should end up looking like but the odds of that happening are pretty damn slim when you remember that what you are looking at isn't even really food. A couple years ago I remember seeing a television report about all the tricks photographers use to make food look so delicious. Thanks to the hot lights most food would wilt, melt or burn before the picture was captured so after a while the photographers figured out the easiest way to do this was to eliminate the "food" part of that equation. 70% of the things you see pictured are plastic and the remaining 30% are other household items made to look like food. (One of the ones that stuck with me is they love to use Elmer's Glue for milk.) Every single picture snapped is a lie and yet you never hear of anyone writing a pissed off letter to the editor about their food pictures. It just seems like an odd double-standard.

Now, you may be thinking the reason no one complains about pictures of fake food as much as the issue of people being PhotoShopped is because there are no real consequences to having really nice pictures of food out there. It is not like striving to achieve the lofty goal of having your concoction come out looking like a masterpiece would be a bad thing. I would reply the people who say things like that have clearly never waited until the last minute to make a new recipe for the first time and then start freaking out when what comes out of the oven looks nothing like the pictures in the recipe said they would. That can be quite the strain on people who aren't very confident in the kitchen and are perhaps working out of their comfort zone in an effort to impress a boss or members of a significant other's family. I would contend that probably messes up more people on any given day than an overly-altered picture on the cover of some woman we all know doesn't really look like that does in a week. Sure, there are some people out there who are complaining about this but so far if you want to show the "realistic" side of cooking you have to go to smaller sites like PinterestFail. When a cooking magazine starts putting photos of bread that never rose on the cover and everyone starts talking about how 'brave' the baker was for doing that like they do when some actress agrees to appear on a magazine without any make-up on, then I will know the idea of overly-produced food has finally come to an end.

As you probably guessed, I brought this up because this weekend I tried make a couple of new desserts and while things ultimately ended up deliciously they did not end up as well photogenically. Not only did the end result come out looking more than a little off, my attempts looked very different on several steps which is not good when you are visual learner like myself. I find the entire thing quite annoying, especially when you consider that cooking is something which should never be uniform. The entire concept is about putting your own spin on things and if that weren't the case than we would only have one giant restaurant chain for the whole world. I guess the solution would be to just bake strictly off the words and not have the visual to go along with it (it certainly worked for the first dozen or so generations of society. Look in any old cookbook and you'll get one picture for every 10 recipes). The problem is that we are now in a digital world and even the crappiest of websites can easily upload pictures. That means the genie is out of the bottle and there is no going back. All I can hope for instead is that enough people finally start to get annoyed by how all the food looks a little too-perfect and it sparks a rebellion against the very concept. The thing is it shouldn't even be all that hard because cameras are taking better pictures and everyone has them on their phones so catching food during those couple of minutes when it is at its peak should be easier than ever (if you don't believe me go on Instagram sometimes - it's almost exclusively pictures of people's food). Honestly, this should be a pretty easy thing to get people to rally behind, which is good because when you remember how quickly we bounce between causes we'll only have a couple hours to work with anyways.

Next Time For Sure

For all the attention politics attracts at the national level I contend the real fun happens during local elections. You see, while the laws adopted by Congress may eventually trickle down and impact your life, the stuff the local politicians rule on can start to mess with you the next day. For example, have you ever seen a local town meeting when one guy wants to build a fence but the town won't give him a permit? From his impassioned reaction you would think we were back at the Salem Witch Trials. But the main reason local politics messes with us so bad is that while 95% of average Americans will never have the opportunity to meet the President, the people involved in local government are neighbors. Since you never see members of Congress shopping for toilet paper they almost seem to be other-worldly and they may as well be operating in another country. Meanwhile your local city council member is shopping in the same stores and bring their kids to the same schools, so you just see them around. In every other way they are the exact same as you or me, but they oddly have the power to mess with your life and that throws off the dynamic. That makes the political process at the local level extremely personal and why I contend the motivation behind many local campaigns is spite. (My mother always reminds me not to complain about the way my town does something because otherwise I will find myself in charge of that event next year.) Of course, for that to happen the town has to remember to actually hold the elections.

A Utah Mayor and four members of the town council will remain in office until 2015 after their town "forgot" to hold elections. They were supposed to have a vote back in November but this week someone finally noticed that they never got around to it. Now, it is not like this happened in Salt Lake City - the town has a population of around 275 people (with that knowledge a Mayor and Town Council actually seems like a lot of government for such a small place). Also, reports are that it was very likely the Mayor would have run unopposed anyway. Still, the fact you can forget to have an election is rather mind-blowing in a country where the right to vote is sacred. (The Mayor claims this isn't being done on purpose as a way to make sure he remains in office but how much do you want to bet Rob Ford is planning to try this same maneuver when his term is up?) The Mayor and the town have promised to remember to have them next time. The thing is, I wouldn't hold my breath as this is the second time this happened. You read that correctly - they forgot to hold elections back in 2011 as well. I guess in some ways this is smart because the town has to give small stipends to anyone running so they can create signs, so by not holding elections they are saving money and if no one raised a stink about forgetting this last time it sounds like that money is better spent elsewhere. Still, you never know what can happen in an election so someone at the city clerk's office needs to set-up a Google Alert for 2015 to make sure winning the 2009 campaign doesn't turn into a lifetime appointment.

Weekly Sporties

-I spent all week hoping enough sports news would happen so that I wouldn't have to address the Jameis Winston story but unfortunately that didn't happen. For those of you who may not follow college football, Winston is the freshman phenom on Florida State and the odds-on-favorite to win this year's Heisman Trophy as he is leading the Seminoles to an undefeated season and a shot at the National Championship. A couple weeks ago a report surfaced which said Winston was named as a person of interest in a sexual assault case last December. At the time many people dismissed the story because the suspect was reportedly 5'11" and Winston is closer to 6'4", so they chalked it up to rival schools looking to sabotage Winston's Heisman campaign (the fact that seemed perfectly plausible in and of itself should show you how messed up people's priorities are). Also, the Tallahassee Police had said the case had gone cold because the victim had refused to cooperate with authorities. That was quickly met with a denial from the victim's attorney who said the reason the case went cold is that local police had essentially tried to scare the girl off by reminding her that Tallahassee loves the Seminoles and many people would be angry with her. Meanwhile, late in the week a lab report came back which confirmed Winston's DNA was found in his accuser's underwear, pretty much putting to rest any idea that this was simply a case of mistaken identity. I just want to go on record as saying I hate this story. It exemplifies everything which is wrong with college football, such as the players and teams being put on too high of a pedestal, allowed to act like they are above the rules and the school and local officials look the other way because they don't want to "hurt the program". Now, I am not automatically assuming Winston attacked this girl, but the presence of his DNA (especially where it was found), pretty much confirms that at the very least he was with this girl and can no longer claim ignorance of the situation. But, mostly I am worried about this girl who is reportedly also a student at Florida State. The fact she was made to feel like she should remain quiet about being attacked just because the football team in on a roll makes me sick. FSU has an equal obligation to both her and Winston to investigate this in a timely manner and yet here we are nearly a year later and it is just coming to light. I can't help but feel like we would have heard about this months ago if the Seminoles were in the middle of a 6-3 season, which serves as a reminder that sometimes we all take sports too seriously.

-On a much, much lighter note, last year's Heisman Trophy winner Johnny Manziel has announced that out of respect for Texas A&M he will not leave the school hanging and make sure to announce his draft plans after the season ends but before the team's bowl game. Considering he was tweeting about not being able to wait to leave college before this season even started, I don't think it is a stretch to assume he will be declaring himself eligible for the NFL in February. The only question now is about his future. Opinions on Manziel's ability to thrive at the next level are a source of heated debate. Some think his height (listed at 6'1", most think he's probably closer to 5'11") will make it too difficult to work around lineman who typically stand around 6'4". But the fans of Manziel point out that he's around the same size as a guy like Drew Brees and Brees certainly doesn't have any issues passing from the pocket. In addition Manziel is much more mobile than Brees, so he could always roll out to one side or the other and throw from there. Then there are the issues of his attitude. Between engaging in Twitter feuds with random fans or getting suspended for half a game after the NCAA had a strong suspicion he took money for his autograph and then taunting the NCAA by making the universal sign for money after scoring a touchdown, more than a few scouts wonder about his maturity level. Personally, I think those questions will hurt him a lot more than the physical ones because NFL teams hate the idea of giving millions of dollars to a kid and expecting him to be the face of the franchise, only to be embarrassed by his continued immaturity. Basically, no one wants to draft the next Ryan Leaf and this kid has a few of those tendencies. I'm not saying Manziel is that bad but when you have plenty of other quarterback options in this draft (as many as 9 are expected to go in the first two rounds), teams won't need many reasons to pass over Johnny Football for a guy who may not have as high a ceiling but certainly won't come with the baggage or the higher chance of flaming out. (I actually don't see the big deal about this year's class. There doesn't appear to be a sure-fire quarterback in the group.) Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he'll fall to the middle of the third round or anything, just that if Manziel is expecting to be the first player with his named called at next year's draft he could be in for a long wait. How he responds to that will go a long way in determining whether he builds on his football legend or simply fades into the distance. I know this much - I'm glad my team doesn't need a quarterback.

-As I said when it was announced, I would have loved it if cameras were allowed inside the Alex Rodriguez arbitration hearing as he appeals his 211 game suspension from baseball for his use of performance enhancing drugs. That desire only went up on Wednesday when Rodriguez reportedly got so fed up with the proceedings he threw up his hands, fired a few expletives at the people in the room and stormed out, vowing never to return. What has Rodriguez so heated is that the arbitrator ruled Commissioner Bud Selig would not be required to come in and testify about why Rodriguez was given a more lengthy suspension than all the other players names in the Biogenesis scandal (the next-longest suspension was Ryan Braun at 65 games). Alex later went on radio and again denied he did any of the things he was accused of while condemning Selig for being on a witch hunt simply because he doesn't like Rodriguez and wants him out of baseball as well as questioning how fair it was that the man who was in charge of the Biogenesis investigation was also one of the people hearing his appeal. (As messed up as that sounds, you have to remember the baseball players' union, which is one of the strongest in sports, agreed to that format.) Now, normally my standard move is to wait and see what side of the issue Alex Rodriguez is standing on before quickly moving to the other side but in this instance I agree that he is kind of getting railroaded. I understand this isn't a court of law, but when you want to suspend a man for a season and half, costing him nearly $35 million dollars and ruin his career you should have to look him in the eye when you do it. That's the other thing: Commissioner Bud Selig may be the only man in baseball who has a worse reputation among baseball fans than Alex Rodriguez, so this little publicity stunt (and make no mistake about it, that is all this was. I mean, why else would Rodriguez's legal team have a statement ready so quickly?) may have gotten a little momentum on Alex's side. Still, I ultimately expect Rodriguez to miss some time next season and I think he expects it as well. The only question now is how much time because I think this was all about getting his suspension reduced. Now, normally I would expect Selig to cave but not in this case. I think he suspended Alex for that many games because he had a lot of proof to bury him and he doesn't want to budge. But no matter how much he may hate the man this is bad PR for baseball so Selig probably wants it out of the news. That is why I suspect they may ultimately agree to lower the suspension to 100 games. If that happens I think Rodriguez should take it and leave before they change their minds. He certainly can't expect another win in the court of public opinion.

-The baseball offseason has been going on for a couple weeks now and even though most people didn't expect the action to pick up until the end of December and the Winter Meetings, things started off with an early bang as Detroit slugger Prince Fielder was traded straight-up for Texas second baseman Ian Kinsler. Now, on paper this trade looks great for both teams: Detroit can move Miguel Cabrera back to first to lessen the wear and tear on his body, they save money they can later use to re-sign Cy Young winner Max Scherzer and they have a good infield prospect they can now move to third. Meanwhile the Rangers replace some of the production they lost when Josh Hamilton moved to the Angels and they can bring up their infielder of the future, not to mention calm the fears of fans who are worried the team may be regressing after losing in the World Series, then the first round and then missing the playoffs altogether. Now, there is nothing interesting about the fact both teams are happy with the trade - they kind of have to be, if you want to be honest. No GM is ever going to make a trade and then trudge to the podium while saying things like, "Damn, I didn't want to do that. I knew I was getting hosed as soon as I picked up the phone." That's a recipe to be fired. But what I kind of find fascinating is that both fanbases are pretty happy as well. You would expect Texas to be pleased because they are the ones getting the bigger name and the guy who will put up gaudy numbers. However, the Tigers fans are just as pleased, which normally never happens when you trade a big bopper for a middle infielder with limited power. Instead they are looking at the big picture, which I wasn't sure many fans were willing to do. Most of us are terribly irrational people when it comes to our favorite teams, so the fact the Tigers fans were willing to sacrifice a little exciting offense in the name of boring pitching is just another example of why I think this is the golden age of fandom. I honestly think sports are riding a very exciting wave at the moment, one in which most of their fans are willing to sacrifice one ok season for a long stretch of competing for championship. The only thing I can't decide is if this is good or bad for GMs. On the one hand it must be nice to be able to admit you're making a move for the future but on the other, smarter fans means more people telling you why the thing you just did is wrong and what they would have done instead. I guess it doesn't really matter since GMs probably get that no matter how smart or dumb the fans are but I still would imagine it would be nice to be heckled by someone with a valid point every now and again.

-Despite owner James Dolan's proclamation the New York Knicks were ready to compete for a championship, the team has gotten off to a sluggish start. Turns out not doing anything to improve your roster other than allowing the team to get a year older doesn't actually make you better. (Who knew NBA players weren't like wine?) Anyway, there is a small number of people who contend the only way the season can be salvaged is if the team fired coach Mike Woodson. While that group is currently in the minority, the group of people who want to wait things out and immediately make a coaching change after the season is much larger. And, because these are the Knicks we are talking about, the man many fans want the team to hire is current Kentucky coach John Calipari. There are many reasons why I don't expect this to happen, the first of which is that I am not sure Calipari wants to take that kind of paycut. He's making plenty of money at one of the few schools where basketball is still king and reportedly he is enjoying being the big man on campus. Secondly, I am not sure how appealing the Knicks job really is. Sure, you would get to coach a famous team in a major market in the most famous basketball arena in the world but the team is fundamentally flawed, it is debatable just how talented their biggest star really is (or if he will even be with the team next season) and their owner has a reputation of having high expectations and a knack for micro-managing. Meanwhile, thanks to their ability to bring in a fresh crop of new highly-rated freshmen every season, Kentucky is set up to compete for championships year-in and year-out for the foreseeable future. Even if the team stinks one season because the scouts missed on a class they can just bring in new freshmen next year and not miss a beat. The only reason I am not totally dismissing this idea is that Coach Cal has always had a little Pete Carroll to him, by which I mean his poor record coaching the Nets is a very large stain on an otherwise impeccable record. Now that he has won an NCAA title there really is nothing left for him to prove in college, so there is a chance he would take another shot at the NBA just to prove he can win at every level. Plus, Calipari has already turned down numerous overtures from the pros and he has to know that if he says no too many times eventually NBA teams are going to stop asking. Still, Cal is only 54 and probably wants to go to a team which is more ready to compete than the Knicks will be next year. But, hey, it wouldn't be the James Dolan Knicks if they didn't have irrational expectations.

-As we saw on Monday night, NFL officials are not infallible. In fact, a recent study revealed the full-time officials aren't all that much better at getting the calls right than the replacement refs everyone screamed about last season. Here's the thing, though: I don't care if you get the call wrong nearly as much as I care about how you conduct yourself on the field. One of my biggest problems with NBA referees and Major League Baseball umpires is that too many of them seem to think we came to see them. They say no one really knows the good officials because we never have to talk about them, so the fact that I can identify multiple NBA refs and MLB umps just by looking at them speaks volumes. Even worse half of them engage the players in some kind of back-and-forth, which seems like the kind of thing they would warn you against on the first day of referee school. Now, one thing the NFL has going for it is that while their officials may occasionally be wrong, very few of them are confrontational. Apparently that doesn't apply to umpire Roy Ellison. Last weekend Ellison was working a game featuring the Washington Redskins and got into a heated debate with offensive lineman Trent Williams. Williams claims he was just engaging Ellison in the normal, everyday player complaining (telling an official you were held, regardless of whether or not you were, is something linemen do after every play out of habit) when Ellison took it up several notches by cussing out Williams. (If you watch the video Ellison clearly said something to get Williams's attention as several member of the Redskins whirled around and stared at him.) Normally you would believe the ref over the player but this was not the first time Ellison was accused of being confrontational, which is why this time the NFL stepped in and suspended him a game. I have to say even though I think being a referee in any sport is a thankless job, I am quite pleased the NFL took this step. Beyond the fact no one comes to see the refs, it is also a tough spot to put players in because the refs have the ability to toss them from the game, which makes the balance of power totally shift in one direction. These players are amped up on testosterone and adrenaline, so you can't very well expect them to make rational decision if they think a ref is challenging their manhood, which is why refs have to be held to a higher standard. I'm sure Ellison is a fine ref but he must have crossed a line and needed to take a week off to chill. But I am also certain this won't happen with Ellison ever again because if anyone should be  able to gain perspective and start respecting the rules, it's an official.

-Throughout the golf season the concept of viewers calling in penalties was a hot-button issue. Sure, the biggest goal in all sports is to get things right, but the application of these penalties seemed to lean quite heavily in one direction. Specifically, it seemed like most people were only calling in to tattle on what they thought were rules violations by Tiger Woods. This is not exactly shocking - Tiger is golf's lightning rod and for all the people who love him there are just as many who hope he never wins again and want to help him fail. Regardless of how you feel about Woods, I am against these called-in penalties because I have always contended it was an unfair issue of air time. Every shot Woods takes from the pro-am on Wednesday to the 18th green on Sunday is going to be on camera. Meanwhile, some middle-to-back-of-the-pack golfer could unknowingly be committing three penalties a hole and no one will be the wiser because he is never on TV. Many people thought the PGA was going to address this issue during the offseason but they have decided to punt the issue of called-in penalties down the road for another day. What they did instead was clarify exactly what could be penalized by replay. Quite plainly, the new rules states that if you can't see it with the naked eye it's not a penalty. I think this is a great rule. Too many times last year we were left staring at replays 10 or 15 times trying to determine if a ball moved one half of one dimple and then rolled back to the same spot. Honestly, when we're talking about a matter of .001 of an inch, does it really matter that much? The new rule more closely resembles something akin to the NFL replay - you have to see clear, indisputable video evidence before you can overturn a call. While it won't shut up the people who spend all day looking for a violation they can call in on every golfer who appears on-screen (I assume these people have this kind of time because no one wants to go to the actual course with them), this should help speed up the entire process should they find one. Also, I like that this puts golf back in the hands of the people playing the game. If a player tells an official that they didn't think the ball moved than those officials will have to take that player at their word, as it should be. When your main initiative last season was in regards to speeding up the game anything which will get debates about rules discussions and incorrect scorecards will be welcome. The amateur rules officials will simply have to find something else to nitpick about in the future. Something tells me they will manage just fine.

What A Twist!

At this point in my life I pretty much ignore any health warnings I hear about on my local news. It is not that I don't want to remain healthy, only that I have finally caught on to the fact the medical "experts" these channels hire to appear on-screen have no idea if something is actually good for us or not. Sure, they can say with conviction that eating too much of one kind of food is bad for us today, but by this time next year that same doctor will be on TV telling us that as a society we aren't eating enough of it. For example, is water good for us? I don't know either. When I was growing up they told you to drink 6 glasses a day (and I always found it frustrating that they never told you what amount equaled a glass). Now experts say that is probably way too much water and I fully expect them to change that position shortly. That is why my policy is just eat the stuff I like but try not indulge to the point of excess. The good news is that the food retailers tend not to overreact so when these doctors reverse their findings the items are still on the shelves waiting for us. It gets a little trickier when it comes to objects around the home because when the news declares those things bad for us they just disappear from the planet. You couldn't buy lead paint right now if you tried (though, admittedly, I don't know why you would want to). It is always discerning to learn you've unknowingly been using an unhealthy object all your life which is why I was stunned yesterday to learn that up in Canada they have begun to ban something I use everyday without even thinking about it - door knobs.

I know it sounds like something which would appear in The Onion but apparently this story is true: Vancouver recently adopted a provision banning door knobs in all new construction, including private homes, in favor of levers. They contend these levers will be easier for elderly people to open. (Jees, it must be nice to live in a place where all the other problems in the world have already been taken care of.) First off, I find this to be terribly condescending to the elderly. If there is one thing the senior citizens in my life have taught me is that they hate being treated like they are elderly. Passing a law which essentially states you no longer think that majority of your senior citizens have the upper body strength or mental capacity to figure out how to use a door knob - something they have been using literally their entire lives - is, at best, patronizing. (This really feels like a law which was thought up because one member of Vancouver's planning board has an elderly parent and they couldn't bring themselves to change their parent's locks on their own, then figured out it would be easier to do it if they hid it under the guise of a new law.) We're not asking them to upload a retina scan to the internet - it's a door knob. Besides this is Vancouver, Canada. Not only does that mean the place has universal health care it also has a very relaxed policy regarding marijuana. If any of those old people are having arthritis issues I would image they are taken care of before they leave their house. A house, I would point out, which probably has a door knob on the front door. If they can figure out the one in their home it is safe to assume the real world one won't present much of a challenge and if it does maybe they should be staying home anyway.

Now, as insane as this story sounds at first, second and 15th glance, there is a case to be made that this won't actually be too much of a change. I mean, when was the last time you were going to enter a newer building and had to turn a door knob to do so? Most public places already have handles or automatic doors, so in some ways this is like making a law which says all new buildings must have two fire exits even though most already do. You could also argue this new law will make the city much more sanitary. Even when there is nothing going around your average door knob is covered in germs you have to get on your hand if you want to leave but doors equipped with these easy levers could be pushed open with a couple fingers or even an elbow during cold and flu season. A version of this law is already in place in Ottawa and no one there seems to have any complaints. (Although, again, this is Canada, which means even the complaints would be done in a polite matter.) The big difference this time around is the fact you can't have door knobs on your own home if it is a new construction. That seems awfully invasive to me. Canadians always like to point at Americans and say we aren't as free as we think we are (with New York putting limits on our sodas they may have a point) but even with all our country's flaws at least no one comes in and tells me what kind of door handles I can or can't have. I'm not arguing people put a lot of thought into their door knobs when building a new house but they should have the option.

Look, I'm not going to sit here and say something crazy like door knobs are even in the top-15 for all-time inventions. My bedroom door has this very odd habit of unlocking itself randomly and causing the door swing open (and this is not even the first time I have had a door with this issue) so clearly there are some flaws with the design which is why they have never been popular in high-traffic areas. Also, it is not like door knobs are very cool - there was a reason when I was growing up I wanted the door to my house to be like the revolving ones you see in skyscrapers. But what I will defend is the right for people to put a poorly-designed item in their house if that is what they want to do, especially when that item is not dangerous. You want to ban me from putting a fire pit in my living room I can see why but a door knob is not in danger of burning down mine or my neighbor's houses. A creaky door knob is, on its worst day, inconvenient and even if were were going to start creating laws to get rid of inconvenient items door knobs would be pretty far down the list. I guess I am also surprised that this law came from such a large city. You would expect this kind of absurd law to come from a small place, not one with half a million citizens. Either way I will be fascinated to see if there is any kind of backlash from the doorknob enthusiast (there is already outrage from the people who sell them) or if this law starts to take hold. Because even though today this law only applies to Vancouver if all goes well I have to imagine it is only a matter of time before it becomes law in places like Toronto, because it totally sounds like a law someone would think of while they are smoking crack.

A Kitchen Nightmare

It was with a large amount of glee that I recently read a story regarding the fact major TV networks have begun cutting back on the number of nights they air singing competitions as well as slimming their "results shows" down from an hour to 30 minutes. Since networks would never do this if these shows were still getting huge rating numbers I can only hope this signals the beginning of the end for these shows or at least some of them. The fact these studio executives believe they could be bringing in more eyeballs (and thus more advertising dollars) showing something else is slowly restoring my faith in humanity, as I would like to think the American viewing public has finally reached the breaking point. I always knew this would happen eventually - TV goes in waves so it was only a matter of time before people wanted to see something different - it is just that this particular wave was taking quite a long time to crest. I understand people love to think their opinion matters, which is why they get so wrapped up in the voting process, but at some point you just can't keep track of them all anymore. I know I have always had the option of going elsewhere for my entertainment (and I have) but at some point it is about the principle of not hogging all the network airtime. That is why I don't care if it is because people have begun to realize these shows are nothing more than glorified karaoke competitions or because the winners disappear as soon as the next season begins (which is about a month after the previous season ends) - whatever stops clogging my TV with these repetitive shows is fine with me.

Now, I don't hate all "reality" show competitions. I continue to be a fan of shows like "Big Break" on Golf Channel, in which 12 golfers on the outskirts of the professional tour compete in a series of challenges and the winner is given an invitation to participate in one Tour event and what they do with that opportunity is up to them. That show may not have a better track record of producing household names, but at least you know the winner of that show earned it and didn't win simply because 13 year-old girls with unlimited texting on their cellphones thought he was the cutest. Also, the people who compete on that show but don't win often continue to try and break into the professional ranks and have sustained careers, not just try and extend their 15 minutes of fame while doing as little work as possible. I also like "Big Break" because it is the only show of its kind. That is probably the biggest problem with all these reality singing shows - there are dozens of them and by having so churning out so many contestants per year they create entire generations of quasi-celebrities who are famous enough to get recognized but not famous or talented enough to make a career out their recognition. I have long contented "American Idol" has done more for minor league baseball than for the recording industry because now small teams have the ability to book a 'star' to sing the National Anthem that night while music companies continue to slowly fade away. Considering there are just as many cooking competition shows as there are singing shows I guess I shouldn't have been surprised to learn there is a new service for people who flamed out on television but aren't quite ready to hang up their knives just yet.

The other day I saw an article for a new chef rental agency. Now, the ability to hire a chef to come to your house and cook for you is not a new idea. The difference with this company is, depending on what city you live in, the chefs they will provide have appeared on a cooking show of some kind. If you want you can set up some kind of competition for them to work through or you can just let them make their specialty dish. I think this is a really good idea because the biggest flaw with these cooking shows is that the viewer doesn't get to try the food for themselves. We can all hear people sing and decide who is the best but since they have yet to develop a way for people to try the food made on television we are relying on the palates of the judges, which I feel is a mistake. Like all situations when decisions are left up to judges, there have been plenty of times when I have watched one of these shows and vehemently disagreed with who was picked as the winner. Just because the person on the panel that day wasn't a fan of how a dish was prepared that doesn't mean it was awful. The ability to have them come to your house and let you decide for yourself has to be wildly appealing to most foodies. What was even crazier is that the price wasn't even all that crazy as prices start at just a couple hundred dollars. While I assume the bottom-rung gets you the people who were eliminated in the first round because they forgot to use a key ingredient, it still seems fairly reasonable for a chef who was good enough to be invited on a cooking show. I mean, you'd probably pay more than that if you went to the restaurant the winner ended up working at.

I'm sure that all these chefs expected to be handed their own restaurants as soon as their show ended whether they won or not. That kind of disappointment can be hard to deal with, which is why I appreciate that these reality show failures are at least trying to do something with their skill set rather than sit around and wait for a shot at redemption on "Dancing With the Stars" or "Celebrity Fit Club." I just see two major flaws in this plan. The first is that your average kitchen is not going to be equipped to handle this level of cooking. If you have ever watched a cooking show you know that these chefs are unleashed in a kitchen featuring some appliances you and I have never heard of and certainly wouldn't have in our houses. I have visions of them asking the homeowner where the $600 blender is and instead being handed an egg beater. It would be like asking a racecar driver to use a minivan for the day. Secondly, the very concept of having someone come to your house and cook is kind of creepy. One of the best parts of eating at a restaurant is that the chef doesn't then sit there and watch you eat. Not only would the chef still be there, they'll probably expect to join you which would be extra awkward if you didn't like what they made or they spent all night complaining about losing the show. Doesn't exactly sound like the kind of experience I would want to pay for. I may find awkward situations funny, but only when they are happening to someone else. I wonder if I can end the night simply by telling someone, "pack your knives and go."

How I Met Boredom

Admittedly, I think I stopped expecting originality from Hollywood right around the time I saw they were going to make a fourth detective show where the main character's power was simply being very good at remembering things. This came on the heels that the third "CSI" franchise was going to be scheduled to lead-in to the second "NCIS" to form a block which could compete with the fourth "Law & Order" in the ratings. At that point I started to assume TV executives didn't have pitch meetings to decide what pilots would make for the best show, they would were trying to pick which projects to green-light based on whether or not they would be able to launch a couple extra spin-offs and make their future jobs in programming that much easier. Look, I can't blame these people - getting paid millions of dollars to do as little original work as possible is one of the America Dreams. Also, it is as much our fault as theirs because we keep watching these shows which are just copies of stuff we have already seen. Still, there is something to be said for at least putting in enough effort to not have it be so blatantly obvious. I thought they least they could do was lie to us a little by spending a couple hours to come up with a new name and not make it quite so obvious. However, thanks to recent news I have begun to wonder if my anger was misplaced and it was the writers and producers who couldn't come up with any fresh ideas and these studio executives were just doing the best with what they were given.

This is the last season of the television show "How I Met Your Mother" (or HIMYM, as the cool kids refer to it on the internet as a way to save space in a place where saving space is unnecessary). Now, when the show first started out nine years ago I thought it was a cute, occasionally clever bit of harmless television which I never expected to last this long, but was pleasantly surprised when it did. Still, I think even the most ardent supporters of the show would admit it had reached its expiration date. (You can tell a cast is starting to get bored when they start appearing in movies, which all the cast has been doing lately. I'll put it to you like this - people in healthy relationships don't keep going out cruising the bars with their single friends. If the cast wasn't under contract they may not have been able to get this season in.) Anyway, when it was announced this would be the final season I expected the producers of the show to be as relieved as anyone because dealing with the same characters for a decade had to be getting stale and I would have thought they would have appreciated the chance to do something new and different. Plus, thanks to the long-running success of the show and what I can only imagine was a very solid syndication deal which would give them a nice chunk of money steadily rolling it, I would think they would be living every producers dream - having no pressure and thus being able to take their time to find the right project to work on and refrain from pitching an idea until it was perfect. I guess I should have known better.

The other day it was announced that these same producers had reached a deal for a new CBS pilot called "How I Met Your Dad." No, really, that is the title. It will follow a quirky group of friends around New York City as the main character attempts to find the love of her life. Hearing this news I couldn't help but think of an old "Saturday Night Live" episode when Jerry Seinfeld was the main host and in one sketch he was supposed to be the host of a game show for comedians where they were given the premise and had to provide the punchline. One young comedian (played by Adam Sandler), got an early correct answer with one punchline and then spent the rest of the sketch saying that punchline over and over, regardless of the set-up. I guess these producers have a similar mindset. Now, there was a small chance I would have accepted this premise if the show was starring the girl we have now figured out is the "Mother" from the first series as it would have filled in a few blanks from the original series, but that won't be the case. It will have nothing to do with "How I Met Your Mother" other than the producers, the location and a title which is a strained attempt to piggy-back off a successful show, making it just as silly of an idea as the recently-announced "Murder, She Wrote" relaunch. (Angela Lansbury recently came out against that show but I would imagine the cast of "How I Met Your Mother" aren't as invested since they all have other things to work on.) I'm starting to wonder if this show is going to start having a revolving cast with new characters every year, like "American Horror Story." (I'm certainly scared by that thought.)

Look, I understand that at it's core there are only so many ways to sell the same story but maybe that kind of writer's block should be interpreted as the universe's way of telling you to find a new premise. The old saying is if something isn't broken there is no need to try and fix it but I firmly believe that adage was meant to apply to the creative process, not the actual product which is being created. Also, at some point these TV executives have to know we are going to get sick of seeing the same thing every week. Sure, there are plenty of people willing to watch a story which is very similar to something they have seen in the past, but there is a fine line between similar and blatant rip-off. Besides, if fans of a show are really missing their favorite writing style they can go online and watch old episodes, rather than try and get attached to new characters who they will never really like as much as the old ones. When you add it all up I can only assume this show will eventually go the way of shows like "Joey" - close to the program people loved but not close enough to keep them watching. I'm sure these producers are freaking out at the thought they will never have the same success again, but someone just needs to remind them it is like graduating from high school (I'm going to assume they all did this) - every kid worries it will signal the end of the good times but after one semester of college they can't believe they had to wait four year to get there. Basically, I just think these guys need to try something else because lightning simply doesn't strike twice, even if you are standing in the same place and holding up the same piece of metal.

Not The Brightest Bulb

Since Christmas is a little more than a month away we are firmly entrenched in the middle of catalog season. If you have ever bought anything online, you know exactly what I am talking about - a company you actually did business with figured out they could make more money by selling your mailing address to a bunch of companies you have never heard of before and now you are getting all their mailings. For some reason I seem to be getting an awful lot of furniture-related catalogs this year. Now, I don't mind these for the most part but I have always been a little uneasy with the idea of a totally matching rooms. If I ever go into a person's house and all their furniture is from one store I think I would be more freaked out than impressed. It's why I think we should be encouraging a little bit of personal flair and is the reason why I like to recommend randomly lighting up someone's day by complimenting their furniture next time you are in their house. As humans we are always quick with a favorable commentary about our friends' cars, clothes or haircuts but I honestly don't think enough people remember to take a second and admire their friends' taste in furniture. This is kind of crazy because not only can furniture be among the highest-cost items in the home the choices we make have to last for years because it is not like most people have the disposable income to buy new couches every year. It is not a decision people take lightly (it is also how interior decorating is a legitimate career) and good choices should be rewarded, yet even when we like another person's taste in seating we usually forget to say anything. Of course, there is a chance you could always slip up and compliment the oddball, which would just make things extra weird. Allow me to explain.

It's one thing to have eccentric, mis-matched furniture but I contend that in every home across the country there is at least one piece of furniture which gets used every day, despite the fact the home owner hates it. That would be the oddball. Usually the oddball is something which the owner bought back when they had to put price over style or it could be something they used to think looked really cool but have since come to their senses but they can't throw it out because they have yet to find a suitable replacement. They probably wanted to get rid of it a long time ago but vowed they would keep it until the item broke and, as with all things in life, the things we want to get rid of are the ones which won't die. You pointing it out and making it seem like it totally brings the room together is just going to annoy the owner, hence the awkwardness. I'm currently sensitive to this kind of thing because I'm at the age when my friends have finally started to get rid of their "first apartment" living room sets and have begun coordinating their furniture a little bit rather than just buying whatever was the cheapest/most comfortable option. But even though the oddball is usually a hideous couch or chair (even hidden under a slip-cover you can still remember how ugly it is), it can be just about anything. For example, my piece of oddball furniture is a lamp. It is this random white lamp (nothing else I own is white) - one of the stand-alone lamps which are banned in every dorm room across the country because they are a fire hazard. I don't know where it came from and I've never liked it but it still works very well so I can't get rid of it. But I came pretty close last night when I thought it was about to get me killed.

Late last night, as I was watching the bullshit ending to the Patriots/Panthers game (if the refs didn't think it was pass interference it had to be at least defensive holding), I thought I could smell something burning. Since it was warm yesterday my windows were open so at first I thought it could be someone in my neighborhood getting rid of their leaves or having a barbecue. Of course, that was unlikely since it was almost midnight so I started checking around my bedroom to figure out where it could be coming from, concerned it was something electrical which was about to set my curtains on fire. I was just about to check behind my computer when the riddle was solved as the bulb in the oddball lamp blew and plunged my room into darkness. Now, I don't like this lamp but I have to admit the bulb inside has lasted for years (told you, the oddball won't die) so I can't say the fact it finally went out was all that surprising. However I have had plenty of other bulbs go out on me in the past and none of them were accompanied by the smell of something burning, so I had to figure out if it was the fancy, spiral halogen bulb or if was an issue with the wiring inside the lamp and it was finally time for me to go shopping for a new light fixture. Of course the only way I could think to test this theory was to replace the bulb and then see if the burning smell came back. Not exactly the way to have a restful night's sleep so I waited until the morning to try it out, though I did unplug the light just to be on the safe side.

Obviously, I survived the night which means the lamp had no real issues and it was just an issue with the bulb. [Sidebar: There remains a big debate with halogen bulbs because some states have begun outlawing the standard bulbs we all used growing up due to how much power they use and, as you would expect, there are some people who have an issue with being forced to go green. They would rather buy cheap bulbs and then spend more money on next month's electrical bill, arguing it saves them more money than buying a $5 light bulb would. Where I come down on the issue is not important but if I were working with the people who want to keep using the old bulbs I would stop focusing on cost and start focusing on the fact that before the expensive bulbs burn out they produce a smell which leave you with a fear you are about to die in a fire. That would be a much more convincing argument.] I guess I should be pleased because replacing the bulb is the easier solution and certainly cheaper, not to mention it is comforting to know nothing will randomly burst into flames. Besides with the holidays coming up I should be saving money where I can (and, no, I don't want one for Christmas) and the list of things I would rather spend money on than a new lighting fixture is as long as you would expect. So, I will continue to use this lamp even though every time I turn it on I have that moment when I say to myself, "Oh yeah, I still hate that lamp." But, who knows, maybe tomorrow a catalog will arrive with a light fixture I just have to have. It is certainly a more likely purchase than anything I would find in the Acorn catalog which keeps showing up.

Save Yourself The Trouble

Even though they continue to be quite popular, I just can't bring myself to watch any of these 'picker' shows on television. There are plenty to choose from, so my guess is you've seen one before but if you haven't the premise is always the same: the hosts of the show up at the homes of people who have an abundance of junk, wander around grabbing things they think they can either restore or resell, lie to the homeowners about how valuable the items are, shortchange them and then make a tidy profit selling it to some sucker. I find the entire idea unsavory. I mean, it would be one thing if they put some work into making these items as good as new or just had no idea what they could be worth, but these pickers know exactly what they are buying and how much they can make so it feels very dishonest. I just think you should be trying to help out their fellow man, not screwing them over. (The fact I am a terrible haggler and always feel like I am getting ripped off when it comes time to negotiate probably doesn't help my feelings.) However, I have no such qualms about everyone getting a fair deal when it comes to corporations, even the ones which are there to help people who are down on their luck, which is why I found myself at my local Savers the other day. Savers is a lot like the Salvation Army in that they take donations and then sell them at great discounts so people who don't have a lot of money can still afford nice items. I was there with one item in mind - golf clubs. Every day on Reddit Golf someone posts a picture of some $300 driver or super-rare but rusty club they found at their local Salvation Army center that was for sale for $5. I was hoping to have a little of the same luck but didn't even come close, because all they had was a dented sand wedge.

The good news for me is that I still managed to find something because my local Savers has a wonderful selection of used books. I know that some people look down on the word used but, while there are certain items I will always insist on buying new, I don't think books fall into that category (and if you have seen how much time I can spend in Newbury Comics used DVD section you know that doesn't apply to movies either). I may disagree with the book publishing community when it comes to the price of new hardcover editions, but the people who price the used books are clearly people after my own heart. In fact, I think if the price for a used book prices was how expensive a new book sold for then we would all read more. Browsing through the sports books I found two golf books for $1.99 each, which would be a deal at twice the price considering both were in nearly-new condition. It wasn't until I got the books home that I remembered the only problem with buying used is that sometimes you get more story than you bargained for, as inside one of the jackets was the following note:

And yet, a third book.
I expect you to read this cover to cover.
No excuses. You will have a quiz later.
:) Enjoy!!
Love, Heather.

First off, I hate to be the bearer of bad news for Heather, but there is no way the person she gave this book to ever read it. The binding was so tight I think the only time it was ever opened was when she wrote her note. As you can imagine finding this had me full of questions, such as what Heather's relationship was to the intended reader when she wrote that note versus what it is now. Also, did the person she gave this book to read the first two or give them away as well? For a half-second the part of my brain that loves a good mystery thought about how I could track Heather down and find out who she gave the book to but quickly decided against it because a) it would be a lot of work b) the story would undoubtedly not live up to all the time I put in and c) if Heather didn't know her gift had been donated the knowledge may have ruined her afternoon and I was in no hurry to do that. I don't care how long ago someone gives you a gift, they are never going to be pleased to find out it is no longer in your possession.

As I walked around the other parts of Savers the idea that this store is where well-intentioned gifts go to die seemed to be a common theme which kept popping up. In the clothes section I saw a lot of sports jerseys from teams which are not popular enough to have fans in this area, meaning they were bought by accident when a well-meaning grandparent mistook the Marquette Golden Eagles for the Philadelphia Eagles and then lost the receipt. Also, lots of shirts which had apparently been made for some special event that not everyone found so special. (I couldn't find any golf polos with logos for courses I have never played at, but if you are into that kind of thing there were plenty of shirts for bachelor parties or destination weddings you would have your pick of. This is just further proof that no one enjoys destination weddings, even if they tell you otherwise.) Don't get me wrong here, I know many people have more stuff than they know what to do with and it is not like I expect people to hang on to every single thing they have been given since they day they were born - that is how hoarders come to be. It's better to give something to a person who will use it than have it sitting in your house collecting dust. Also, donating your used items is certainly better than trashing them because you never know who could end up needing that item and will truly appreciate your generosity. Lastly, donating it to a store is better than selling it at a yard sale, where chances are quite high that the person who gave you the item could stop by, see you are selling a thing they gave you and that creates a whole other issue. As long as you drive a couple towns over no one should be the wiser.

If nothing else I am going to appreciate the timing of all this and take a life lesson away from it. We're about two weeks away from Thanksgiving and the unofficial start to holiday shopping, which can be a very stressful time for people. Like most shoppers I usually spend hours agonizing about what to get the people on my list, passing over what would be perfectly acceptable gifts in favor of trying to find one that will blow the recipient's socks off. This trip to a store which is filled to the brim with items, 90% of which were probably gifted to someone at one time or another (I'm making that statistic up but it feels right when you remember people usually lean towards selling something they bought with their own money to try and get a return on their investment. It is easier to give away something which was given to you for free.), was a good reminder that eventually even the best gift becomes clutter and therefore I should not kill myself in the pursuit of an unattainable goal - the "perfect" holiday present. If there is an item a person really had to have than chances are they found a way to get it before you came along. Besides, giving someone a gift only to gauge their reaction to is a very bad idea because that adds unnecessary pressure to the occasion, especially if that person tends to be mellow. It is the thought that counts, though perhaps the real moral to this story is that if someone asks you not to get them a gift maybe you should listen to them. Also, if you get someone a book leave the jacket note-free so that the next person to put it in their bookcase doesn't have to spend time wondering about the previous owners.