You'll Be Back...

While I think we can all agree that everyone on TV is overpaid, I think the most overpaid people are the ones hosting the national news programs every night on the major networks. These people make tens of millions of dollars in salary per year because, apparently, the people in charge of these networks don't understand that most of us could not care less about who hosts the news. With the internet being what it is nightly news programs are pretty much irrelevant. I have a phone and internet access, so my guess is I already know what happened today. That is why the average viewer age of people who tune in to these shows is about 80. But, for the sake of argument, let's say I did need to watch the nightly national news to learn about the day's events: would it really matter who was reading the teleprompter? Of course it wouldn't. I just need to know what happened, I don't particularly care who the person is that's telling me. That is why I'm always amused when a fill-in anchor takes a second to tell us that the regular host is on assignment. I really wasn't worried where they were. Hell, I barely noticed it was someone new.

Still, news anchors are downright vital compared to TV show actors and actresses. CBS is really pushing the next new episodes of CSI, because Marg Helgenberger is leaving the show and her last few appearances are going to be airing in the coming weeks. First off, who knew CSI was even still making new shows? I thought it only existed in re-runs on 10 different basic cable channels. It has reached the same level as the Law & Order franchise - no one watches it the day it airs, but everyone has seen the last five seasons twice because of the marathons that run on the USA network on rainy days. Secondly, the promoting of her final episodes is getting a little ridiculous. Do TV executives actually think people care about cast turnover? Much like with the news we just want the show - who actually reads the script is secondary. Sure, we might like one character versus another, but if the show is well-written we'll get over a cast switch pretty quickly.

I'll grant you that some characters on TV are more essential to their shows than others. (It would be really hard to shoot a show like Justified without Timothy Olyphant.) But, science-heavy crime dramas like CSI are especially immune to cast change because the market is so saturated with them. Half the time you can't even remember which character is on which show. Plus, they've done so many crossover episodes you can hardly remember who came from what franchise. Which brings us to Ms. Helgenberger. I can only assume she is leaving the show due to some kind of contract dispute. (She certainly can't be leaving to go back to her thriving film career.) I remember when William Peterson left CSI and everyone thought it was going to be the end of the line for the franchise. Turns out the show barely missed a beat. Here's all you need to know about her exit: the promos aren't even saying that Marg Helgenberger is leaving - they say her character, Catherine, is the one who is exiting. Doesn't exactly sound as if the show is expecting to go off the air without her.

In the end, this will probably be a good thing for Marg. I assume that standing over fake dead bodies and reciting science-heavy dialog week after week gets tiring after a few years and a break to do something else could be refreshing. However, I also expect her to be back on the show in the not-too-distant future. Much like when an athlete retires a little too early, only to come back within a year when they find out it's impossible to make that kind of money in an other walk of life, I think Marg is going to find out that people aren't lining up to offer her starring roles in the next Oscar contender. But, sometimes you just need to try something new to realize you had it pretty good where you were, even if that somewhere was getting a little repetitive.

A Prickly Situation

It's a well-established fact that when it comes to my yard I can not grow the things I want to grow, but the stuff I am trying to kill grows at a rate which is normally only seen in a science-fiction story. This is why despite over-seeding, consistent watering, fertilizing, and using the high-end feeding products, there are large patches in my yard where grass refuses to grow. On the flip side, despite two different landscaping crews rolling through in the last couple of months which took whacks at them, the front of my yard features several plants which not only grow in seemingly overnight, but appear to get bigger when they come back. (It's like the myth about shaving your chest, only there are thorns involved.) Seriously, I think the weed-killers I've used on these things have done nothing but make them immune.

It's the thorns that really kill me. I could live with a rogue plant popping up here and there, because at the end of the day I'm not trying to win any landscape awards. But the plants that keep coming back are really nothing more than thorns on sticks. They look like normal enough tress, so you are tempted to leave them be. But a closer examination reveals that instead of leaves, these trees just produced nothing but large and razor-sharp thorns. At least with a rose bush you get some pretty flowers once a year. These things are just ugly and annoying. As an added bonus, the thorns are roughly at eye level, so they can really do some damage. Frankly I'm surprised they haven't clipped someone that was walking by. I don't know who would plant these things. Hell, I don't even know why nature would create them.

That was why this afternoon I decided to break out the trusty Gator and at least cut them down before winter gets here. I'm hoping that we have a cold enough season that the roots won't be able to survive a couple months buried under some snow. However, these particular trees weren't going down without a fight. I was at least smart enough to go with two layers of long-sleeves and a pair of jeans I wouldn't mind seeing get shredded. I quickly discovered that the key to the entire operation was cutting away the individual branches before going after the sapling itself. What really killed me was trying to shove the branches into the barrel where I could throw them away. Even though I was wearing gloves I still had to spend most of my time trying to avoid grabbing a handful of thorns. While it wasn't a perfect solution, it did cut way down on the small cuts.

The problem was that there isn't much I can do about massive thorns. They are going to get you no matter what. At one point, one particular thorn got through the gloves and got me in the finger. I didn't think much of it until about an hour later when I looked down and saw that I had been cut so deep I actually bled through the glove. I'm fairly convinced I could spend the day cutting away rusty barbed wire and I wouldn't have been pricked so many times. If anyone knows what these damn trees are (or more importantly, how I can make sure they don't grow back) I would appreciate the answers. I do not want to do this again in the spring.

Movie Reviews

Once again we've reached that time where I've caught up on enough cable movies to start offering some reviews. Again, most of these aren't reviews of the actual films, more stuff that caught my eyes while watching them.

Cedar Rapids I was excited to see this because it stars John C. Reilly and Ed Helms, who I both enjoy and I was expecting a laugh riot. It's definitely a comedy, but also not what I was expecting. It's less in the mold of Step Brothers and more in the way that Stranger Than Fiction was a comedy. Basically, the jokes aren't obvious and it has some serious parts to it. It's one of those comedies where a scene is funny because we've all had that experience and not because someone is falling down. Not saying it was bad, just saying it was not as light as I thought it was going to be. I do worry about Ed Helms, though. In this movie he's not very far removed from his roles in the Hangover or The Office - you know, the sort of awkward, bumbling do-gooder who means well. You can ride that train for a while, but then you can't get off that track. My advice is to jump off before you get locked in.

The Mechanic Jason Statham plays an brooding assassin, if you can believe it. (He's done this role so many times I'm slightly worried that Statham might begin to believe he actually is an assassin.) You know, when it comes to action movies like this I'm willing to go with the writers' premise that there is a secret organization out there murdering people on a nearly daily basis without anyone ever getting suspicious. I'm also willing to play along with the idea that you can have massive gunfights in the streets without a single police car showing up. I'll even go with you that it is possible to make a clean getaway after that massive gunfight in this day and age without being seen by a single person and their camera-phone. But there was one scene where they rolled into a gas station and the price at the pump was $2.69 - that's where I call bullshit. C'mon guys, at least try and base your movie on reality, just a little.

Faster This movie claims to star The Rock, but in actuality it's one of those movies where the muscle car is the star. The Rock plays a guy driving around killing all the people involved in the murder of his brother and that's about as deep as the plot gets. Here is all you need to know about this script - they didn't bother to name half the characters. Now, I get only referring to The Rock as "Driver" - you're trying to surround him with an air of mystery. But when the rest of the people in the movie are referred to by their occupation or some physical feature it tells me that either the script was never finished or it never really got started. Whichever the case, it just comes across as lazy. But, at least the cars are awesome.

Conviction This movie tells the true story of a Massachusetts woman who put herself through law school and became a lawyer with the sole intent of getting her brother, who was wrongly convicted of murder, out of jail. It is very well acted, but this is yet another movie where I bet the documentary of the true story featuring interviews with the real life-people involved, which is most likely included in the special features section of the DVD is way more interesting than the actual movie. But, that is not my point of contention with this film. Here's what bugs me: why do we continue to let people in movies butcher Boston accents? This movie stars Hillary Swank, who is a very good actress, and yet for this entire movie it sounds like she's doing her best Mayor Quimby impression. It really is not that hard of an accent to master. Memo to Hollywood: not everyone in Massachusetts is related to the Kennedys.

Time To Go

On Friday the City of Boston told the protesters of Occupy Boston that they had to leave Dewey Square, the park they had lived in for the last couple of months. If they weren't gone by midnight, they were going to be arrested. I know you may find this hard to believe, but many of the protesters didn't listen to the City and remained. So, Saturday morning around 50 of them were arrested and the park was finally cleared out. According to reports, all went smoothly, or at least as smoothly as a raid of that size can go. Occupy Boston has already said they would continue the fight elsewhere and even staged a rally Saturday night, though from the news reports I saw it wasn't very well-attended. I can't exactly say I'm surprised.

I don't know about you, but I was starting to get the feeling that a few of the occupiers were almost glad to have a reason to leave. I'm sure when they joined the movement they thought they would cause sweeping changes to move in quickly, but when that didn't happen I wonder just how many started to doubt if this was the best use of their time. At the very least it was taking a lot longer than they anticipated. Obviously they weren't going to leave because no one wants to abandon a movement, but it's getting colder and the holidays are coming, so I can't shake the feeling that more than a couple of them are grateful that the city gave them an out. Perhaps the next movement will take place somewhere a little warmer and with easier access to bathrooms.

Weekly Sporties

-The biggest name in free baseball free agency this year was that of Albert Pujols. The once-in-a-generation slugger was on the open market for the first time in his career and, despite getting a huge offer from the Miami Marlins, most people thought he would re-sign with the St. Louis Cardinals, the only baseball team he has ever played for. But, in a shocking early-morning signing, Pujols signed a 10-year, $254 million deal with the Anaheim Angels (I know that's not their proper name, but I don't care). Now, even though analysts seemed sad that he was leaving St. Louis, a lot of people thought this was a great signing for the Angels. Well, half a great signing, anyway. Eveyone sort of agrees that paying him that much money for that long is a losing proposition. Pujols will turn 32 in January, which means he'll be 41 in the final year of this deal and no one expects him to still be playing well at that age. That, of course, makes me wonder why they offered him that long of a contract. If you know a guy isn't going to keep playing at his current level for more than 5 years (6 tops), why not offer him a 7-year deal just to cover your bases? An addition 3 years at $25 million per seems a really bad idea, especially when you know in year 1 it's going to happen. A lot of people say it is because Albert wanted a 10-year deal. Well, he can't want lots of stuff, it doesn't mean you have to give it all to him. You're already giving him $25 million a year, I think he can make a few concessions going the other way.

-About a decade ago the biggest name in baseball free agency was Manny Ramirez. Well, things have certainly changed for Manny in the last couple of years. First he failed a drug test in Los Angeles and was suspended 50 games. Then he had a couple of lackluster years for the Dodgers, which led to him signing a one-year contract with the Tampa Bay Rays. But before the season even started Manny was informed he had failed a second drug test and was going to be suspended for 100 games, at which point he promptly retired. I remember writing when he announced his retirement that I wondered just how long he was going to be able to stay away from the game, considering Ramirez didn't strike me as the kind of guy who has a lot of hobbies outside baseball. Turns out I should have bet money on it, as this week Manny filed reinstatement papers with Major League Baseball stating he intends to come out of retirement. First off, I fully expect him to end up on the Marlins because that seems to be their move this year. Now Manny still has to serve a suspension for his second failed drug test, but the thing that caught my eye was that MLB announced Ramirez's suspension had been cut in half and he would only be suspended 50 games. How does that work? How does essentially taking your ball and going home get rewarded? Try that next time you get a speeding ticket: "That's a $200 fine." You know what, officer? I'm not even going to drive this car anymore... Wait, I need a car. "Good for you. It'll be a $100 fine then." I highly doubt that would work.

-One of my biggest pet peeves in sports is when people start to treat rumors as if they are facts. This week started off with sources inside the Lakers saying that they would like to add both Chris Paul and Dwight Howard to their team and they were willing to trade almost anyone on their roster to make it happen. Yeah, well so would the other 29 teams in the league. So, what exactly makes this news? Now, I will grant you that the Lakers did aquire Chris Paul for a few hours on Thursday (which we talked about yesterday), but there was little to no chance they were ever going to be able to get both Paul and Howard on their roster. It was the sports equivalent of me saying that I want to go on a date with Jessica Biel. Well, isn't it nice to want? Yet, for some reason ESPN spent half the week talking about how great the Lakers lineup would be if it had Kobe, Chris Paul and Dwight Howard. It would be great, but that doesn't make it true. I know that the Lakers usually manage to capture the sexy names in free agency, but how about from now on we at least wait until guys are actually on the team before we start talking about their crunch time rotations?

-A few days ago baseball announced that it was going to have a dress code. Not for its players, but for the media members who cover the teams. Apparently, people had decided that just because you work in sports it doesn't mean you get to dress like a slob. You can tell how bad some locker rooms had gotten by the items that were banished: muscle shirts, ripped jeans, mini-skirts, halter tops and flip-flops. Honestly, if you have to be told not to wear that stuff to work then I can only wonder how you got a press pass to begin with. But, there was one item that caught my eye: no clothing with team logos on it. Granted, when you are trying to act as though you are impartial, wearing a team-issued hoodie doesn't look so good. Still, this is going to kill most baseball writer's, because damn do they love their free shirts. When I was working in radio I once had a very popular local writer call me four times because I had mentioned getting him a free shirt from the station. For guys like that to have to go out and buy a logo-free polo is the equivalent of torture. I'm willing to bet the writer's in St. Louis took news of the new dress code harder than the Pujols decision.

-In a move that continues to show they are suddenly the most innovative sports league in North America, the NHL announced major changes to the league's playoff system. Instead of doing the standard two-conference, six-division alignment they have now, the league is going to a four-conference system that will be based more on geography than before and will feature a re-seeding for the four conference champions rather than the normal East vs West format. Basically, it means you could see teams like the Bruins and the Sharks meet in the semi-finals of the playoffs and the Bruins could face the Rangers in the Stanley Cup Finals. It's all very new and a little confusing, so instead of harping on that, I'm going to take a little umbrage with the conference the Bruins have been placed in. Currently they are slated to be with Montreal (good), Buffalo, Toronto, Tampa Bay, Florida and Ottawa. Meanwhile the other East Coast conference is the Islanders, the Rangers, the Penguins, the Flyers, the Devils, the Hurricane and the Capitals. Seriously? Why does it feel like the Bruins are in the 'leftover' conference despite being an Original 6 team? And if these conferences are supposed to be more based on geography I couldn't help but notice Boston is nowhere near Florida. I know I shouldn't be complaining because they are clearly in the easier conference, but when you consider the schedules will be weighed towards conference match-ups it feels like the fans are getting screwed here. I mean, would you rather see the Bruins play the Rangers 4 times a year or the Panthers? I rest my case.

-There was a strange story in college football this week. Tuesday night reports started to come out that June Jones, currently the head coach at SMU, had reached an agreement to become the new head man at Arizona State. All that was left to be hammered out were contract details. But, by Wednesday afternoon the deal was off. Reportedly the Sun Devils backed out after concerns from students and alumni. Alright, I'll ask: when did Arizona State get to be so choosy? Last time I checked the Sun Devils haven't exactly been a PAC-12 powerhouse - they only win the conference about once a decade. And I'll grant you that June Jones isn't exactly warm and fuzzy, but he's a very good college coach. He took Hawaii to a BCS bowl for heaven's sake. Also in two years he turned SMU into a winner and they hadn't been relevant in college football in almost 20 years. Sure, he may not be the sexy name other schools have been hiring lately, but he wins. Also he's never had an NCAA violations against him and it appears like he runs a clean program. So, here's what I would like to remind Arizona State fans: you don't have to hang out with him. We've all worked in an office with a prickly person before - as long as they can get the job done then it doesn't really matter if you don't want them to find out where everyone is going for drinks after work. I'm telling you, winning covers up a lot of personality defects.

-The last time I wrote about NASCAR's Kurt Busch he was complaining about how there was no sportsmanship in auto-racing. Since that time Busch was caught on camera screaming violently at a reporter in a video that became a YouTube sensation and his crew chief quit while basically saying he no longer wanted to put up with Busch's verbal abuse on a weekly basis. Busch said he intended to seek out a sports psychologist to deal with his anger issues, but it was too late. Early in the week he announced that he was leaving Penske racing after he and his team "mutually parted ways". No they didn't. This is like when someone gets dumped and then tries way too hard to convince all their friends it was a mutual decision. The reality is that NASCAR has slowly been shrinking over the past few years. As a sponsor-driven sport in a bad economy, funding has been harder to come by and teams go under almost every week. Busch was on a solid team with a major sponsor - you simply don't give that up voluntarily, even if you're a previous Cup Champion. There are only so many job openings for drivers and you certainly won't see a car like this come open under normal circumstances. Sounds to me like the first thing Busch and his sports therapist need to talk about are a few honesty issues.

Veto Power

Yesterday afternoon it was being reported that the New Orleans Hornets had traded their star player Chris Paul to the Los Angeles Lakers in a deal that included players coming and going through the Houston Rockets. While everyone focused on the Lakers getting the biggest star in the deal (because they always do), it was quite a coup for the Hornets. You see, Paul is in the last year of his deal and has basically said there is no way he will remain with the team beyond this season, so the Hornets were in a situation where they essentially had to trade Paul before the year ended otherwise he would leave and they would get nothing for him. Everyone knows this, so considering the lack of bargaining power they were dealing with, I actually thought they ended up with a pretty good collection of young, pretty good and cheap players along with some draft picks and a Kardashian's husband. It appears I was the only one who thought that.

Now, this is where it gets complicated: the Hornets are currently without an owner. The previous owner was losing so much money owning the team that he basically couldn't afford to make payroll anymore. And with the league staring down a lockout because small-market teams like New Orleans couldn't manage to be competitive and turn a profit, he couldn't find a buyer. So to try and keep the team going, the remaining NBA owners each ponied up a few millions dollars and the league took control of the Hornets with every owner having an equal share. If you've ever seen a sitcom episode where a group of friends buy an equal share of something valuable you probably know this wasn't going to end well. And when the group of buyers is made up of super-competitive billionaires who aren't used to not getting their way it's a recipe for a full-blown disaster, which is exactly what happened.

After the trade was announced people kept harping on the Lakers getting the biggest name and creating yet another super-team (again, it wasn't nearly as bad for New Orleans as people were making it out to be). But, apparently all this talk of another star leaving a small-market for a glamour team (which was what the lockout was supposed to prevent from happening) wasn't sitting well with the owners of the rest of the small-market teams, because they saw what happened to New Orleans and became convinced that their team was going to be the next one to have a superstar push his way to one of the marquee franchises. And since these people also own a stake of the Hornets, it suddenly occurred to several of them that they should have input on any trades that the Hornets make and let their opinions be known. A few hours later David Stern, the Commissioner of the NBA, vetoed the deal saying it was in the best interest of the team and the league that Paul remain with the Hornets.

This is of course sent professional basketball into a tailspin. How could the Commissioner veto a deal like this? Did he actually have that power? To me it comes down to a very simple question: if the Hornets were owned by one person or group, would he have allowed this deal to go through? Of course he would have, so it should have been approved now. That leads me to wonder just how much was he influenced by the other owners? I mean, it is crazy to think that he would let them have a say in a trade that sends a great player to one of their rivals, regardless of whether they own a stake in the Hornets or not. And at what point does trying to help one team just hurt the rest of the league? By not letting this trade go through Stern not only hurt the Hornets, but the Lakers and Rockets, two teams that actually make money.

I understand that Stern works for all the owners and not the players, but let's not fool ourselves: not every NBA owner is created equal. The League is better off when the Knicks, Lakers, Celtics and 76ers are doing well. It's one thing to say you don't play favorites, it's another to piss off your best money-makers to try and prove it. Now, during the lockout there was talk that New Orleans would be contracted. But considering that would mean all the other owners would lose the millions dollars they spent on their share of the team I can see why they would rather keep the Hornets going and try to sell them to a new owner instead. And there is no disputing a player like Chris Paul would certainly make the team a lot more attractive to a potential new owner. But, a situation like this certainly isn't going to help. At the moment I can't see why anyone would want to buy a stake in this mess.

Currently basketball fans should be super excited that the league is back and getting ready for a new season. Instead right now they are all talking about this debacle. Instead of talking about roster moves and schedules, there is talk of lawsuits and a lot of hurt feelings. Chris Paul is thinking about suing the NBA for blocking his ticket out of New Orleans while Lakers officials had to spend the day trying to explain to a couple of very sensitive power forwards that the trade was nothing personal, it was just business. Meanwhile David Stern has to deal with columnists and other media talking heads wondering if he's on some kind of super power trip. The smartest thing he could do would be to reverse field and allow the trade to go through, but I can't see a guy like David Stern ever admitting he was wrong, especially not about something so public. But, that doesn't change the fact that it's the right thing to do. First off, it might make Stern look a little more human. Secondly, it's not like he could look any worse.

Name That Tune

I watch a lot of the Golf Channel. Because the average age of people who watch this channel is about 55 and the median income of those people tends to be higher than most (meaning I fall outside not one but two of their key demographics), I end up seeing a lot of commercials for higher-end items. You could ask me all about retirement communities, investment opportunities or hover-round chairs and I could provide you with a lot of correct answers. But mostly the commercials are for luxury cars. I have seen more commercials for cars I am never going to be able to afford that one human should be subjected to in his lifetime. Lately the commercials I have seen the most have been for Lexus and I have to tell you they provoke a very strong reaction... to never want to buy one of these cars.

For those of you who haven't seen the newest campaign it unfolds as such: it's Christmas morning and spouses are going about surprising their trophy husbands and/or wives with a new car. To do this they have come up with (or, most likely, they have paid someone to come up) various creative ways to play the Lexus jingle, which tips off the person to run outside and admire their shiny new car under the over-sized Lexus bow which has become almost as famous as their front hood logo. So far the methods to sneak the jingle in during the commercials have included playing it as elevator muzak, as the tune in a music box and as a new cell-phone ring. It may seem a little far-fetched, but I guess when you are rich enough to buy someone a car for Christmas, paying a couple hundred extra to bribe the elevator guy isn't much of a stretch.

Now, advertising trying to sell products using people who I wouldn't want to ever hang out with is nothing new. (Currently AT&T is trying to sell phones by highlighting people who can't wait to tell everyone else how behind the times they are. I think I would rather have no cell phone than allow any of the people in these ads to call me.) I don't why it happened, because you would think that normally companies would want to be represented by people other people might value in society, but at some point in the last couple of years ads started to be filled up the worst kinds of stereotypes. I can only assume frat boys started taking more marketing classes when the financial bubble burst. Either way this marketing style has served to turn me away from more products than it has helped.

The general douche-ness that comes from a commercial like this aside, here's my biggest point of contention with these ads: who the hell knew Lexus had its own jingle? If these commercials weren't played so much I certainly wouldn't have known what I was supposed to be listening for. Also, it isn't like the music is particularly memorable. It's a few notes that do nothing to worm their way into your subconscious like other famous jingle in the past. It doesn't even have any words to memorize. Think about it like this: if I asked you to sing the Alka-Seltzer jingle, I'm willing to bet 80% of the population could come up with it in a heartbeat. If I played you the Lexus ditty and gave you 10 guesses I'd bet a large sum of money that same percentage of people would never come up with the right company. To assume people are that tuned in shows a level of arrogance you wouldn't expect from people who make cars that aren't much more than glorified Toyotas.