Now, like all things on the internet, this is most likely a tremendous amount of crap. The person who wrote the caption probably thought he was being funny and provocative, never imagining it would amount to much. Here's the problem for this kid: this is the internet in 2013 and while he was original enough to think of this 'funny' idea for a caption, he wasn't funny enough to think of several usernames for his various internet activities. A Google search quickly led people things like his old MySpace page (told you to erase them). Plus, this is Reddit, where the serious gamers and internet addicts hang out. It was a matter of a few hours before people had tracked down his real name, address and sent his contact information along to local authorities, who would now like to have a conversation with the young man about his claim. Now, while I hope the story of him killing someone is not true, I do hope this scares the crap out a few internet trolls. Nothing annoys me more than the people who do obnoxious things strictly because they are sure they will be able to get away with them. This story proves that the age of total anonymity is starting to come to a close and someday in the near future you won't be able to say whatever random lies on the internet without facing a few consequences. And from now on stick to harmless stuff, like lying about having a girlfriend.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
It Wasn't Even That Funny
I long ago gave up visiting things like message boards. For those of you who never have been to one, a message board is essentially a website where people can throw out an idea or share some news and then everyone who is a member of that site can comment. (You know, when you put it in writing like that it sounds like a truly horrible idea.) Anyway, the problem is that while I wanted to use the sites as a place to exchange ideas with like-minded individuals, most people on these sites just wanted to anonymously tell lies, insult people and spread rumors. Despite the frustration with the format, every now and again I find myself on the website Reddit, which is like a message board with even lower standards. One of the reasons I can't help but visit the site so often is that people share very creative memes there. (Again, for those of you who aren't familiar, a meme is basically just a picture and then people write funny comments out of context. It's like a caption contest on sarcastic steroids.) Most of them are harmless and one of the most popular is known as the "Confession Bear" which features a picture of a bear in the wilderness with a guilty expression and then people use it to admit bad things they've done, like the father who used a break in to throw out one of his kids particularly annoying toys, blaming it on the robbers. Well, this week the confession bear stepped it up a notch when someone used the meme to confess to murder.
Now, like all things on the internet, this is most likely a tremendous amount of crap. The person who wrote the caption probably thought he was being funny and provocative, never imagining it would amount to much. Here's the problem for this kid: this is the internet in 2013 and while he was original enough to think of this 'funny' idea for a caption, he wasn't funny enough to think of several usernames for his various internet activities. A Google search quickly led people things like his old MySpace page (told you to erase them). Plus, this is Reddit, where the serious gamers and internet addicts hang out. It was a matter of a few hours before people had tracked down his real name, address and sent his contact information along to local authorities, who would now like to have a conversation with the young man about his claim. Now, while I hope the story of him killing someone is not true, I do hope this scares the crap out a few internet trolls. Nothing annoys me more than the people who do obnoxious things strictly because they are sure they will be able to get away with them. This story proves that the age of total anonymity is starting to come to a close and someday in the near future you won't be able to say whatever random lies on the internet without facing a few consequences. And from now on stick to harmless stuff, like lying about having a girlfriend.
Now, like all things on the internet, this is most likely a tremendous amount of crap. The person who wrote the caption probably thought he was being funny and provocative, never imagining it would amount to much. Here's the problem for this kid: this is the internet in 2013 and while he was original enough to think of this 'funny' idea for a caption, he wasn't funny enough to think of several usernames for his various internet activities. A Google search quickly led people things like his old MySpace page (told you to erase them). Plus, this is Reddit, where the serious gamers and internet addicts hang out. It was a matter of a few hours before people had tracked down his real name, address and sent his contact information along to local authorities, who would now like to have a conversation with the young man about his claim. Now, while I hope the story of him killing someone is not true, I do hope this scares the crap out a few internet trolls. Nothing annoys me more than the people who do obnoxious things strictly because they are sure they will be able to get away with them. This story proves that the age of total anonymity is starting to come to a close and someday in the near future you won't be able to say whatever random lies on the internet without facing a few consequences. And from now on stick to harmless stuff, like lying about having a girlfriend.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Weekly Sporties
-As much as I want to see golf rise in popularity, that will be hard to accomplish when the people who run the sport can't seem to get out of their own way. Through two days of the Masters the biggest story had been that of Tianlang Guan, the 14 year-old who won the Asian Amateur to earn a spot at the Masters. A slight kid who doesn't hit it nearly as far as the pros, everyone expected him to come in, shoot in the 80s on both days, miss the cut and gain some valuable experience. But, as is so often the case with kids today, Guan didn't feel like taking it slow and was playing well enough to make the cut going into Friday afternoon. However, his chances of doing that took a big hit when he was assessed a slow-play penalty on the 17th hole. Apparently his group had fallen behind on 10, been warned on 12 and he had been warned a second time on 14. Now, I'm not disagreeing that the kid broke the rule, but it is the application of it which bugs me. Everyone complains about slow play, but no rules officials ever do anything about it. To prove this point, look at the fact the last person to have a slow-play penalty called on them happened in 1995, four years before Guan was born. Plus, everyone was taking forever to play yesterday and therefore the entire incident felt like selective enforcement. Honestly, this is like a cop watching 70 cars break the speed limit and then picking one car out of the bunch to give a ticket. Since Guan is an amateur who can't profit from his good play, it also makes the PGA look like they are interested in cracking down on this problem without reaching into a player's wallet, which is really the best way to get their attention. Basically, they want to look tough, but not piss off anyone who could do something about it or has enough stature in the game to make it into a major issue. I agree that slow play is one of the biggest problems facing golf today, but if you want to fix it appearing to pick on the kid not the way to attack the issue, especially when he is exactly the age when most kids are trying to decide which game they want to play in high school.
-On a cold and drizzly night the Red Sox home sellout "streak" ended Wednesday after 10 years and 820 games. The streak was impressive and a source of pride for the Red Sox, even though the reality is that it probably never got close to that number. Teams are allowed to play with the attendance numbers as they see fit and people had been speculating for a while that the Sox were manipulating the numbers to keep the streak alive by doing thing such as counting tickets which had been given away as tickets sold and calling any game with 90% of the seats filled as a sell-out. However, no amount of creative math towards the end of last season's dreadful run was going to help the Sox to come up with ways to explain away all the empty seats and the streak had started to turn from something impressive to a running joke among rival fans. So, after one more sell-out on Opening Day the Sox gave up the fuzzy math and conceded the streak was over. First off, I am not one of those people who think the sell-out streak ending is a sign that Boston is not the baseball town it once was. I think what this really does is show Boston sports fans have a lot of sports options at this time of year and they are not going to spend money to watch a team which is not trying to contend for a championship. It's demanding a good product and that is never a bad thing. That aside, I actually think the admission that not every game is sold out between now and June of 2020 is going to help the Red Sox. There have been many times when I have found myself with no plans for a weekend and thought about going in town to catch a random Red Sox game, only I didn't because I thought there were no ticket available and I didn't feel like paying a scalper 150% of the price on the ticket. The ability to decide to go to a game at the last minute is going to make guys like me much more inclined to see what's available on any given night rather than automatically rule it out as an option. Ironically, having plenty of good seats available may be the best way to build another sell-out streak.
-When a report broke at the beginning of Spring Training which contended that there was a link between several famous baseball players and a notorious Miami lab known for supplying steroids called Biogenesis, the news was met with a collective shrug from people around the game. It's not that baseball fans condone cheating, it is just that the idea of a baseball player taking performance enhancing drugs is old hat for us by now. At this point it is like hearing a Tour de France winner was juicing - we've become too desensitized to the idea for it to get a big reaction anymore. Thus, once all the names leaked out the scandal was assured to go away within a couple of weeks, provided no one did anything laughably stupid to keep it in the news. Cue Major League Baseball. You see, MLB wanted to see the documents which had been supplied to the newspaper to know which players had been shipped which substances. Unfortunately for them, while they may get to hang out with Congress all the time, MLB doesn't actually have power of subpoena so they couldn't force anyone to turn over any documents. Apparently this made them desperate because on Friday we learned lawyers for MLB paid a Biogenesis lab employee for a copy of their records to get the names of all the baseball players who visited the clinic. If that sounds super-shady, that is because is it. I'm no lawyer (and it's questionable just how much of one they are), but it even sounds illegal. Even worse it reignites people's interest in the story because now we all want to know what is so damned important that MLB would do something which (at best) seems unethical just to get their hands on these records. Reporters are now wondering if there was something they missed and thinking they'd better all take another look at this story. MLB's involvement gave an embarrassing story which was on the way out the door new life. All in all, it just goes to prove the oldest of sayings - no matter how bad the crime is, the cover-up is what always makes it seem that much worse.
-Really, baseball should want to make sure their players aren't on steroids because the last thing they need is these guys having 'roid rage. Not because it looks bad or sets a bad example, but because they are awful at fighting. Take Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Zack Greinke, who beaned San Diego Padres first baseman Carlos Quentin with a pitch on Thursday night in retaliation for a pitch thrown over the head of Matt Kemp earlier in the game (one of those classic 'unwritten' rules of baseball) and then when Quentin charged the mound the two collided like sumo wrestlers. Greinke came away from the scrum with a broken collarbone and is expected to miss a couple of months of the season. First off, I am not sure if I should applaud Greinke for not throwing a punch with his pitching hand, which was really smart, or call him an idiot for leading with this throwing shoulder, which was really stupid. Mostly, I blame his catcher for not getting out there to intercept Quentin before he ever got that far. (Dodgers' manager Don Mattingly thinks Quentin should be suspended for however long Greinke is out with his injury. Good luck with that one. When you are the one who starts the fight with a beanball you can't blame other people for the consequences.) Still, this just proves that baseball fights are the stupidest thing ever. People can talk all they want about how bad basketball players look because their 'brawls' consist of a lot of pushing, shoving and someone yelling, "Let me at 'em" as soon as they are sure their teammates have a good hold of them, but at least no one is stupid enough to get themselves hurt in the process. The only good thing to come out of this is that after years of players going on baseball's disabled list with injuries suffered while falling asleep in a tanning booth, getting stung by a bee or a tattoo being too detailed (all of those are true, by the way), someone is finally going on the DL with an injury sustained in a legitimate way.
-Early Monday afternoon it was announced that Louisville head coach Rick Pitino had been elected to the Basketball Hall of Fame. What was rather ironic about the timing is that until his team won the National Championship about seven hours later I didn't think he was worthy of enshrinement. My Celtics bias aside, there has never been any doubt that Rick Pitino is a hell of a college basketball coach. However, despite the high number of wins and the fact that he had taken three different programs to the Final Four, the simple truth of the matter is that he had only one National Championship to show for it. So to me this was part of larger debate about whether or not a guy who simply wins a lot of games is really a Hall of Famer, or does he need to have titles to be worthy? Several people defended the decision the next day saying that if Pitino had never spent six season in the NBA he would much higher on the win chart and may even have a few extra titles, but that feels almost like you are downgrading the people who stayed in college and kept their programs chugging along. After all, this is a sport where winning the last game of the season is the ultimate goal and before Monday Pitino had the same number of championships as a guy like Gary Williams, who is not in the Hall of Fame and who took just as many programs to the NCAA Tournament. (While Williams will probably get there eventually, I am also curious what the rush to put Pitino in was all about, especially given that Williams has retired while Pitino is still active.) It is impressive that he is the only man in history to win two National Championships at two different schools, but it is not like two titles makes him elite. I guess the Hall of Fame voters should just be really happy Louisville was able to stage that large second-half comeback, otherwise his selection would have raised even more eyebrows than it did. My point is this - the Hall of Fame is supposed to be for the absolute best of the best and if I had the pick of any coach in history to start my program Pitino would not be in my top ten selections.
-A couple weeks ago New York Yankees second baseman Robinson Cano fired his agent and signed with a new firm spearheaded by rapper Jay-Z. Not happy to just have clients in baseball, Jay-Z has set his sights on a few basketball player and will probably get them due to his cultural influence. (As an aside, Jay-Z will have to sell his shares of the Brooklyn Nets if he start representing NBA players. Considering he was never more than a vanity owner whose shares total up to about .067% of the team, I really don't think it will take too long to sell them off. Seriously, has there ever been a person more disproportionally associated with a franchise in relation to the amount of the team he actually owned?) Putting that aside, I still have to advise against players signing with Jay-Z's firm. I have no doubt being linked to him will automatically make any athlete cooler and raise their profile, but I can't say it would be worth it for them. This is not the first time a rapper has tried to get into the agent game, it makes sense since athletes and entertainers often run in the same circles, most famously when rapper Master P became running back Ricky Williams's agent out of college and then negotiated one of the worst contracts in history. It would have paid William a king's ransom if he hit all the incentive clauses, but the numbers to trigger those clauses were too high. I'm not sure if the way the contract was done was based on hubris or lack of experience, but Williams would have made far more money if he had signed a more traditional pact. I think there is an ego that comes naturally with the hip-hop industry and I'm not sure you want your agent to be more famous than you, because they will always try to keep you one step below them. So, if I were a professional athlete in need of new representation I'd be more than happy to be invited to one of Jay-Z's parties, I am just not sure I would let him manage my life savings in return.
-I don't care who you are or what your line of work is, everyone has fantasized about a Hollywood producer making a movie about their life and begun to think about who would play them in that movie. Well, it turns out the tough job of casting someone's life story is no longer being left in the hands of the producers, because everyone is going to have a say. Later this summer production will start on a new movie about the life of Baltimore Colts quarterback Johnny Unitas. For the football scenes the film's producers are turning to Baltimore's current NFL quarterback, Joe Flacco. While Unitas's son from his second marriage is pleased with that decision, Johnny's sons from his first marriage do not agree with the choice. They think the throwing motion is all wrong and would rather have someone like Peyton Manning play Unitas. I have to say, given the number of commercial Manning shoots in any given offseason I'm not sure the movie could afford him. Still, this issue has provided a fascinating insight to the mindset of Baltimore football fans because for as much success as the Ravens have had in recent years, there are still some diehards who consider the Colts to be their team and would dump the Ravens in a heartbeat if the Colts wanted to come back. They are like the oldest of New England football fans who still consider the Giants their team because they were the only game in town before the Patriots existed. Still, I don't think Flacco should take this too personally, because from reading the story it sounds like the two factions of this family wouldn't agree on what color the sky is. But if I were the Unitas family I would be far more concerned about the idea that a professional football player will be doing all the acting, rather than the producers casting an actor and teaching him how to throw because I don't care how authentic the football scenes are, I've seen what happens when athletes try to act. I'm pretty sure this movie is going to suck and that will be far more damaging to their father's legacy.
-On a cold and drizzly night the Red Sox home sellout "streak" ended Wednesday after 10 years and 820 games. The streak was impressive and a source of pride for the Red Sox, even though the reality is that it probably never got close to that number. Teams are allowed to play with the attendance numbers as they see fit and people had been speculating for a while that the Sox were manipulating the numbers to keep the streak alive by doing thing such as counting tickets which had been given away as tickets sold and calling any game with 90% of the seats filled as a sell-out. However, no amount of creative math towards the end of last season's dreadful run was going to help the Sox to come up with ways to explain away all the empty seats and the streak had started to turn from something impressive to a running joke among rival fans. So, after one more sell-out on Opening Day the Sox gave up the fuzzy math and conceded the streak was over. First off, I am not one of those people who think the sell-out streak ending is a sign that Boston is not the baseball town it once was. I think what this really does is show Boston sports fans have a lot of sports options at this time of year and they are not going to spend money to watch a team which is not trying to contend for a championship. It's demanding a good product and that is never a bad thing. That aside, I actually think the admission that not every game is sold out between now and June of 2020 is going to help the Red Sox. There have been many times when I have found myself with no plans for a weekend and thought about going in town to catch a random Red Sox game, only I didn't because I thought there were no ticket available and I didn't feel like paying a scalper 150% of the price on the ticket. The ability to decide to go to a game at the last minute is going to make guys like me much more inclined to see what's available on any given night rather than automatically rule it out as an option. Ironically, having plenty of good seats available may be the best way to build another sell-out streak.
-When a report broke at the beginning of Spring Training which contended that there was a link between several famous baseball players and a notorious Miami lab known for supplying steroids called Biogenesis, the news was met with a collective shrug from people around the game. It's not that baseball fans condone cheating, it is just that the idea of a baseball player taking performance enhancing drugs is old hat for us by now. At this point it is like hearing a Tour de France winner was juicing - we've become too desensitized to the idea for it to get a big reaction anymore. Thus, once all the names leaked out the scandal was assured to go away within a couple of weeks, provided no one did anything laughably stupid to keep it in the news. Cue Major League Baseball. You see, MLB wanted to see the documents which had been supplied to the newspaper to know which players had been shipped which substances. Unfortunately for them, while they may get to hang out with Congress all the time, MLB doesn't actually have power of subpoena so they couldn't force anyone to turn over any documents. Apparently this made them desperate because on Friday we learned lawyers for MLB paid a Biogenesis lab employee for a copy of their records to get the names of all the baseball players who visited the clinic. If that sounds super-shady, that is because is it. I'm no lawyer (and it's questionable just how much of one they are), but it even sounds illegal. Even worse it reignites people's interest in the story because now we all want to know what is so damned important that MLB would do something which (at best) seems unethical just to get their hands on these records. Reporters are now wondering if there was something they missed and thinking they'd better all take another look at this story. MLB's involvement gave an embarrassing story which was on the way out the door new life. All in all, it just goes to prove the oldest of sayings - no matter how bad the crime is, the cover-up is what always makes it seem that much worse.
-Really, baseball should want to make sure their players aren't on steroids because the last thing they need is these guys having 'roid rage. Not because it looks bad or sets a bad example, but because they are awful at fighting. Take Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Zack Greinke, who beaned San Diego Padres first baseman Carlos Quentin with a pitch on Thursday night in retaliation for a pitch thrown over the head of Matt Kemp earlier in the game (one of those classic 'unwritten' rules of baseball) and then when Quentin charged the mound the two collided like sumo wrestlers. Greinke came away from the scrum with a broken collarbone and is expected to miss a couple of months of the season. First off, I am not sure if I should applaud Greinke for not throwing a punch with his pitching hand, which was really smart, or call him an idiot for leading with this throwing shoulder, which was really stupid. Mostly, I blame his catcher for not getting out there to intercept Quentin before he ever got that far. (Dodgers' manager Don Mattingly thinks Quentin should be suspended for however long Greinke is out with his injury. Good luck with that one. When you are the one who starts the fight with a beanball you can't blame other people for the consequences.) Still, this just proves that baseball fights are the stupidest thing ever. People can talk all they want about how bad basketball players look because their 'brawls' consist of a lot of pushing, shoving and someone yelling, "Let me at 'em" as soon as they are sure their teammates have a good hold of them, but at least no one is stupid enough to get themselves hurt in the process. The only good thing to come out of this is that after years of players going on baseball's disabled list with injuries suffered while falling asleep in a tanning booth, getting stung by a bee or a tattoo being too detailed (all of those are true, by the way), someone is finally going on the DL with an injury sustained in a legitimate way.
-Early Monday afternoon it was announced that Louisville head coach Rick Pitino had been elected to the Basketball Hall of Fame. What was rather ironic about the timing is that until his team won the National Championship about seven hours later I didn't think he was worthy of enshrinement. My Celtics bias aside, there has never been any doubt that Rick Pitino is a hell of a college basketball coach. However, despite the high number of wins and the fact that he had taken three different programs to the Final Four, the simple truth of the matter is that he had only one National Championship to show for it. So to me this was part of larger debate about whether or not a guy who simply wins a lot of games is really a Hall of Famer, or does he need to have titles to be worthy? Several people defended the decision the next day saying that if Pitino had never spent six season in the NBA he would much higher on the win chart and may even have a few extra titles, but that feels almost like you are downgrading the people who stayed in college and kept their programs chugging along. After all, this is a sport where winning the last game of the season is the ultimate goal and before Monday Pitino had the same number of championships as a guy like Gary Williams, who is not in the Hall of Fame and who took just as many programs to the NCAA Tournament. (While Williams will probably get there eventually, I am also curious what the rush to put Pitino in was all about, especially given that Williams has retired while Pitino is still active.) It is impressive that he is the only man in history to win two National Championships at two different schools, but it is not like two titles makes him elite. I guess the Hall of Fame voters should just be really happy Louisville was able to stage that large second-half comeback, otherwise his selection would have raised even more eyebrows than it did. My point is this - the Hall of Fame is supposed to be for the absolute best of the best and if I had the pick of any coach in history to start my program Pitino would not be in my top ten selections.
-A couple weeks ago New York Yankees second baseman Robinson Cano fired his agent and signed with a new firm spearheaded by rapper Jay-Z. Not happy to just have clients in baseball, Jay-Z has set his sights on a few basketball player and will probably get them due to his cultural influence. (As an aside, Jay-Z will have to sell his shares of the Brooklyn Nets if he start representing NBA players. Considering he was never more than a vanity owner whose shares total up to about .067% of the team, I really don't think it will take too long to sell them off. Seriously, has there ever been a person more disproportionally associated with a franchise in relation to the amount of the team he actually owned?) Putting that aside, I still have to advise against players signing with Jay-Z's firm. I have no doubt being linked to him will automatically make any athlete cooler and raise their profile, but I can't say it would be worth it for them. This is not the first time a rapper has tried to get into the agent game, it makes sense since athletes and entertainers often run in the same circles, most famously when rapper Master P became running back Ricky Williams's agent out of college and then negotiated one of the worst contracts in history. It would have paid William a king's ransom if he hit all the incentive clauses, but the numbers to trigger those clauses were too high. I'm not sure if the way the contract was done was based on hubris or lack of experience, but Williams would have made far more money if he had signed a more traditional pact. I think there is an ego that comes naturally with the hip-hop industry and I'm not sure you want your agent to be more famous than you, because they will always try to keep you one step below them. So, if I were a professional athlete in need of new representation I'd be more than happy to be invited to one of Jay-Z's parties, I am just not sure I would let him manage my life savings in return.
-I don't care who you are or what your line of work is, everyone has fantasized about a Hollywood producer making a movie about their life and begun to think about who would play them in that movie. Well, it turns out the tough job of casting someone's life story is no longer being left in the hands of the producers, because everyone is going to have a say. Later this summer production will start on a new movie about the life of Baltimore Colts quarterback Johnny Unitas. For the football scenes the film's producers are turning to Baltimore's current NFL quarterback, Joe Flacco. While Unitas's son from his second marriage is pleased with that decision, Johnny's sons from his first marriage do not agree with the choice. They think the throwing motion is all wrong and would rather have someone like Peyton Manning play Unitas. I have to say, given the number of commercial Manning shoots in any given offseason I'm not sure the movie could afford him. Still, this issue has provided a fascinating insight to the mindset of Baltimore football fans because for as much success as the Ravens have had in recent years, there are still some diehards who consider the Colts to be their team and would dump the Ravens in a heartbeat if the Colts wanted to come back. They are like the oldest of New England football fans who still consider the Giants their team because they were the only game in town before the Patriots existed. Still, I don't think Flacco should take this too personally, because from reading the story it sounds like the two factions of this family wouldn't agree on what color the sky is. But if I were the Unitas family I would be far more concerned about the idea that a professional football player will be doing all the acting, rather than the producers casting an actor and teaching him how to throw because I don't care how authentic the football scenes are, I've seen what happens when athletes try to act. I'm pretty sure this movie is going to suck and that will be far more damaging to their father's legacy.
Friday, April 12, 2013
The Wrong Kind Of Attention
While I have never been the kind of person to get star-struck, I can readily admit that I understand why clothing companies are willing to pay so much money to have famous people wear their clothes. Besides the fact that there are people out there who are happy to base their purchases on what they see reality stars wearing, it is simple economics. Even though you or I may not care less where movie stars eat lunch, there are people out there who do nothing but try to take pictures of celebrities (even minor ones) all day long in the hopes that 1 shot in 1,000 will be good enough that they can sell the pictures to a magazine. If that photo actually gets published the clothing line will get their stuff on display in every news stand in America and they didn't even have to do anything to make it happen when normally that would cost them tens of thousands of dollars and hours of work. In terms of advertising it is as close to free money as you are going to get. The key thing is to pick the right celebrity. On Thursday athletic shoe company Reebok ended its endorsement deal with rapper Rick Ross after lyrics to his new song came out which appeared to endorse drugging a girl and having sex with her while she is passed out (charming fellow).
Reebok, who endorse many athletes through the years and thus is quite adept at quickly putting distance between them and someone who exhibits bad behavior, was quick to say they don't agree with anything in the song and would be ending their association with Ross effective immediately. Obviously, I don't condone Ross or his lyrics so I think Reebok was right to give him the heave-ho, but at the same time I don't feel Reebok should be getting a free pass on this one like ending his deal makes the whole thing go away because honestly, they never should have signed him in the first place. If you go back and read the lyrics to any Rick Ross song (here's where I get old by saying reading them is really the only way you will be able to understand them), this is hardly the first questionable topic he has decided to rap about. Happily rapping about things most of us would rather not talk about is kind of what he does, so Reebok acting shocked and aghast gives me the same feeling I get when I hear about the people who keep wild animals as house pets and then can't understand why they suddenly became violent. Four seconds of research would have told them this was a bad idea.
I get what Reebok was going for because they are slowly fading in the sneaker game and are desperate to stay relevant. Once a big player in the athletic apparel game, now they need exposure where ever they can get it, so I'm sure the idea of having their newest sneakers appear in a big-time music video sounded like a really good idea at the time. (Admittedly, I do this with random stuff myself. I was watching a movie the other night and saw they were using the same printer as I do. Seeing this I said, out loud and no one in particular, "Hey, I have that printer." It was almost a reflex. This is why product placement works.) And no where do sneakers play a bigger role than a rap video, because rap videos seem to shape style better than any other musical genre. I think Nelly has three songs just about favorite shoes. (I never went to the backwards clothes like Kriss Kross, but Ice-Cube videos are pretty much the only reason I owned an Oakland Raiders jersey.) Also, a lot of the edge surrounding rappers has softened in the last few years, what with formerly hardcore guys like Ice-T appearing on Law & Order and Ice Cube selling us Coors Light. So, you can understand why Reebok would think they had a good idea on their hands, but that doesn't excuse their lack of judgement.
The thing is you can give entertainers free stuff to wear while they are going out without making any type of formal endorsement agreement with them. Believe me, clothing companies do it all the time and most people are never the wiser, assuming the clothes are a personal choice and not being worn because they arrived in a box that afternoon. (I don't really have an desire to be famous, but I will concede it must be nice to just have free stuff showing up at your house all the time.) In some ways I feel it is a better way to go because unlike, say, Shaq and his Buick, I tend to appreciate an endorsement when I think the person would actually use a product whether they were getting paid for it or not and that deception is easier to pull of when that celebrity is seen wearing your shoes to run to the store rather than glammed up for an expensive photo-shoot. So in that regard I would almost prefer the under-the-table deal. It is also better for both side because it makes it easier to separate from each other should the other side be caught doing something illegal or immoral. And when a musician has a song entitled, "I Love My Bitches" you know it is only going to be a matter of time before it happens.
Reebok, who endorse many athletes through the years and thus is quite adept at quickly putting distance between them and someone who exhibits bad behavior, was quick to say they don't agree with anything in the song and would be ending their association with Ross effective immediately. Obviously, I don't condone Ross or his lyrics so I think Reebok was right to give him the heave-ho, but at the same time I don't feel Reebok should be getting a free pass on this one like ending his deal makes the whole thing go away because honestly, they never should have signed him in the first place. If you go back and read the lyrics to any Rick Ross song (here's where I get old by saying reading them is really the only way you will be able to understand them), this is hardly the first questionable topic he has decided to rap about. Happily rapping about things most of us would rather not talk about is kind of what he does, so Reebok acting shocked and aghast gives me the same feeling I get when I hear about the people who keep wild animals as house pets and then can't understand why they suddenly became violent. Four seconds of research would have told them this was a bad idea.
I get what Reebok was going for because they are slowly fading in the sneaker game and are desperate to stay relevant. Once a big player in the athletic apparel game, now they need exposure where ever they can get it, so I'm sure the idea of having their newest sneakers appear in a big-time music video sounded like a really good idea at the time. (Admittedly, I do this with random stuff myself. I was watching a movie the other night and saw they were using the same printer as I do. Seeing this I said, out loud and no one in particular, "Hey, I have that printer." It was almost a reflex. This is why product placement works.) And no where do sneakers play a bigger role than a rap video, because rap videos seem to shape style better than any other musical genre. I think Nelly has three songs just about favorite shoes. (I never went to the backwards clothes like Kriss Kross, but Ice-Cube videos are pretty much the only reason I owned an Oakland Raiders jersey.) Also, a lot of the edge surrounding rappers has softened in the last few years, what with formerly hardcore guys like Ice-T appearing on Law & Order and Ice Cube selling us Coors Light. So, you can understand why Reebok would think they had a good idea on their hands, but that doesn't excuse their lack of judgement.
The thing is you can give entertainers free stuff to wear while they are going out without making any type of formal endorsement agreement with them. Believe me, clothing companies do it all the time and most people are never the wiser, assuming the clothes are a personal choice and not being worn because they arrived in a box that afternoon. (I don't really have an desire to be famous, but I will concede it must be nice to just have free stuff showing up at your house all the time.) In some ways I feel it is a better way to go because unlike, say, Shaq and his Buick, I tend to appreciate an endorsement when I think the person would actually use a product whether they were getting paid for it or not and that deception is easier to pull of when that celebrity is seen wearing your shoes to run to the store rather than glammed up for an expensive photo-shoot. So in that regard I would almost prefer the under-the-table deal. It is also better for both side because it makes it easier to separate from each other should the other side be caught doing something illegal or immoral. And when a musician has a song entitled, "I Love My Bitches" you know it is only going to be a matter of time before it happens.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
What Am I Watching?
Because I never listen to the radio anymore I have a hard time discovering new music. (Not that the radio would be a big help if I were listening. Mainstream radio does a horrible job of playing new music. It's the same 14 popular artists on rotation and then it's just whichever of their songs is the most popular for that week. Even the 'underground' station which is supposed to help get people discovered plays the same few musicians every couple of hours. There is almost no variety anymore.) Ironically I have found the best place to hear new music from obscure musical acts is television. It used to be that having a pop star was the best thing for a television show, but as people came to recognize how many of them are terrible actors that trend has cooled and been replaced by shows (especially on non-networks such as FX) closing their show with some song you are most likely unfamiliar with but instantly want to hear a second time as the chorus manages to worm its way into your brain. What's convenient is that in this day and age all you need to remember is one lyric for a Google search and that is usually enough to track down the band's name and a song title. Most of the time their music video will even come up on YouTube, even though it would probably be better for them if it didn't.
Bands used to make music videos as a way to promote themselves to record labels. It was a way for the executives to see what the band looked like (can't say music changes too much because that will always be as important as what they sound like) and gave them a chance to show off some personality. Then someone got the brilliant idea to put all these videos no one was ever going to watch again on one channel, which gave us MTV. At first it worked out well for everyone as the channel became immensely popular and the bands got exposure they never dreamed of before. Once the concept took off it evolved into a competition for musicians to produce the most exotic video they could dream up, with a couple of the video shoots taking on budgets large enough to produce an independent film. The problem is that the high cost of these mini-epics ultimately began pushing smaller bands out of the video business and the MTV had fewer videos in their library, which forced them to come up with non-video-centric shows. Unfortunately they got a little too good a making these non-video shows which is why today the only place you are less likely to find new music than the radio is MTV.
Things have boomeranged slightly because video equipment is cheaper than it has ever been. Also the software to edit videos is readily-available and very user-friendly. You could shoot a video in your backyard if you wanted to. But, as with all things in life, just because you can do something that doesn't mean you should. I can not tell you the number of times I have heard a piece of a song, been very interested in hearing the rest of it (maybe even buying a copy, what a novel concept) and then too distracted by how awful the video is to pay attention to the music. What these bands have to remember is that just because their diehard fans are going to love them no matter what and are going to be thrilled at whatever quality video they churn out, there is an above-average chance this video will be the first time a majority of these people ever see or hear them. The last thing they want to do is scare away a potential fan with a poorly-shot video shot by their cousin who went to one semester of film school and is filled with cliches from the late-90s which has nothing to do with anything. Remember, all those bands which had smoke machines and a random old guy sitting in the corner just being creepy were making a video for a song which was already a hit. Eccentricity is one of the spoils of fame, but you have to earn it.
So, if you are a band out there who thinks you have a great song but need a music video to push you over the top and get signed I have a piece of advice for you - keep it simple. You want people to focus on the song and that is hard to accomplish if we're sitting there trying to figure out why there is a piano on fire in the middle of an intersection when we thought the song was supposed to be about an ex-girlfriend. I happen to think what bands should do is look to the early days of music videos and an old standby - the concert video. For those of you who don't remember these, concert videos consist of the audio of a song over a collage of clips from live shows. These were done when the band either didn't have time for a video shoot or couldn't think of a concept for one and were all very similar (hot girl in crowd, band goofing off backstage, crowd cheering wildly, band giving it their all on stage, repeat as necessary). None of these concert videos were particularly memorable, but when the alternative is being remembered for being awful, I think you happily take solid and unremarkable every time. Plus they are cheap and hard to screw up, two things which are key when making a first impression. You can save all the crazy ideas for the first single off the next album, but first you have to get to the point where you are spending someone else's money to film it. Trust me, nothing is more rock 'n roll than that.
Bands used to make music videos as a way to promote themselves to record labels. It was a way for the executives to see what the band looked like (can't say music changes too much because that will always be as important as what they sound like) and gave them a chance to show off some personality. Then someone got the brilliant idea to put all these videos no one was ever going to watch again on one channel, which gave us MTV. At first it worked out well for everyone as the channel became immensely popular and the bands got exposure they never dreamed of before. Once the concept took off it evolved into a competition for musicians to produce the most exotic video they could dream up, with a couple of the video shoots taking on budgets large enough to produce an independent film. The problem is that the high cost of these mini-epics ultimately began pushing smaller bands out of the video business and the MTV had fewer videos in their library, which forced them to come up with non-video-centric shows. Unfortunately they got a little too good a making these non-video shows which is why today the only place you are less likely to find new music than the radio is MTV.
Things have boomeranged slightly because video equipment is cheaper than it has ever been. Also the software to edit videos is readily-available and very user-friendly. You could shoot a video in your backyard if you wanted to. But, as with all things in life, just because you can do something that doesn't mean you should. I can not tell you the number of times I have heard a piece of a song, been very interested in hearing the rest of it (maybe even buying a copy, what a novel concept) and then too distracted by how awful the video is to pay attention to the music. What these bands have to remember is that just because their diehard fans are going to love them no matter what and are going to be thrilled at whatever quality video they churn out, there is an above-average chance this video will be the first time a majority of these people ever see or hear them. The last thing they want to do is scare away a potential fan with a poorly-shot video shot by their cousin who went to one semester of film school and is filled with cliches from the late-90s which has nothing to do with anything. Remember, all those bands which had smoke machines and a random old guy sitting in the corner just being creepy were making a video for a song which was already a hit. Eccentricity is one of the spoils of fame, but you have to earn it.
So, if you are a band out there who thinks you have a great song but need a music video to push you over the top and get signed I have a piece of advice for you - keep it simple. You want people to focus on the song and that is hard to accomplish if we're sitting there trying to figure out why there is a piano on fire in the middle of an intersection when we thought the song was supposed to be about an ex-girlfriend. I happen to think what bands should do is look to the early days of music videos and an old standby - the concert video. For those of you who don't remember these, concert videos consist of the audio of a song over a collage of clips from live shows. These were done when the band either didn't have time for a video shoot or couldn't think of a concept for one and were all very similar (hot girl in crowd, band goofing off backstage, crowd cheering wildly, band giving it their all on stage, repeat as necessary). None of these concert videos were particularly memorable, but when the alternative is being remembered for being awful, I think you happily take solid and unremarkable every time. Plus they are cheap and hard to screw up, two things which are key when making a first impression. You can save all the crazy ideas for the first single off the next album, but first you have to get to the point where you are spending someone else's money to film it. Trust me, nothing is more rock 'n roll than that.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Sounds Familiar
On more than one occasion I have talked about how much I hate it when the local news mentions a story which doesn't qualify as news to anyone but people who work at that station. My favorite example to use is when the local Fox affiliate talks about the "American Idol" results more than a water main break which knocked out power to 5 blocks. (Then again, it is not like talking about it helps any one living on those blocks because they don't have the ability to see it.) Still, I believe that just because a show is popular that doesn't make it newsworthy and that time should be spent talking about something which actually affects the people in the viewing area. In that moment they aren't the local news, but the local network mouth piece. (The worst example of this ever happened a few years ago when several stations ran the same tape which looked to be a legitimate news piece until someone did some actual reporting and discovered it was essentially an infomercial for a sponsor.) Still, at least those anchors can still hang their heads slightly high because they still wrote the original copy leading in to the news story. Not everyone can make that same claim.
Most people watching their local news probably assume that someone at the studio is writing every piece of copy, but it is actually pretty common for stations to "borrow" stories from somewhere else, usually the network headquarters. In some instances it just makes sense - if it's a small station with an even smaller budget they can't very well afford to send a reporter to cover something making International headlines, so everyone works with the same tape and the reporter does a generic sign-off. That I can live with, because it beats the alternative of a story not getting any coverage. It is when people graduate from borrowing as a cost saving measure and switch to doing it because they are lazy that I get a little worried. Using video from an outside reporter is different because it is not like you can claim it was original reporting - everyone can see it isn't someone who works at the station. But since no one signs their scripts that same built-in system of crediting the person who did all the work doesn't apply. Until Conan O'Brien started putting together these clips I'm sure station managers thought no one would notice (which is how all plagiarism starts). Unfortunately for them, nothing stays hidden for long anymore.
I understand that there are only so many ways to write about the same subject and some overlap is going to happen. But there is overlap and then there is cutting and pasting, which is what this is. This blatant copying just illustrates the difference between print and TV journalism, because using someone else's words without giving proper credit can be career-ending in the newspaper business, whereas it is pretty obviously a wide-spread practice over on the TV side. This is why many newscasters are just seen a professional readers instead of journalists. (Not saying they are all that way, but it is a matter of guilt by association.) That is why if I ran a station I would be very wary of letting my people do this because it creates doubt in a viewers mind which doesn't need to be there. The last thing you want people with multiple news options to be doing is worrying that if your station plagiarizes from one report, what is stopping you from plagiarizing them all? Since these stations were all over the board in terms of network affiliation I'm sure they were taken off some wire service that the stations had paid to use but, honestly, how long does it take you to write an original first sentence?
Most people watching their local news probably assume that someone at the studio is writing every piece of copy, but it is actually pretty common for stations to "borrow" stories from somewhere else, usually the network headquarters. In some instances it just makes sense - if it's a small station with an even smaller budget they can't very well afford to send a reporter to cover something making International headlines, so everyone works with the same tape and the reporter does a generic sign-off. That I can live with, because it beats the alternative of a story not getting any coverage. It is when people graduate from borrowing as a cost saving measure and switch to doing it because they are lazy that I get a little worried. Using video from an outside reporter is different because it is not like you can claim it was original reporting - everyone can see it isn't someone who works at the station. But since no one signs their scripts that same built-in system of crediting the person who did all the work doesn't apply. Until Conan O'Brien started putting together these clips I'm sure station managers thought no one would notice (which is how all plagiarism starts). Unfortunately for them, nothing stays hidden for long anymore.
I understand that there are only so many ways to write about the same subject and some overlap is going to happen. But there is overlap and then there is cutting and pasting, which is what this is. This blatant copying just illustrates the difference between print and TV journalism, because using someone else's words without giving proper credit can be career-ending in the newspaper business, whereas it is pretty obviously a wide-spread practice over on the TV side. This is why many newscasters are just seen a professional readers instead of journalists. (Not saying they are all that way, but it is a matter of guilt by association.) That is why if I ran a station I would be very wary of letting my people do this because it creates doubt in a viewers mind which doesn't need to be there. The last thing you want people with multiple news options to be doing is worrying that if your station plagiarizes from one report, what is stopping you from plagiarizing them all? Since these stations were all over the board in terms of network affiliation I'm sure they were taken off some wire service that the stations had paid to use but, honestly, how long does it take you to write an original first sentence?
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Don't You Sleep?
If you were to ask most music junkies what was on their musical bucket list, a majority of them would answer South By Southwest. The festival (known as SXSW if you feel like being douchey) is held every spring in Austin, Texas and makes the town the musical center of the universe for that one week before it becomes a film fest for the following week. Not limited to any format, hundreds of unsigned bands converge on the city, desperate for stage time and the chance to be discovered. (This year's edition attracted 2,200 musical acts spread through 100 venues.) Whatever your musical tastes I can guarantee you will find a venue and musician to your liking (and if you don't like that place go next door and there will be another opportunity). Most people drift from show to show, hoping to be one day be able to say they knew about that now-famous band long before everyone else. It is a musical lover's paradise. Even better is that in the last few years many well-established acts have begun showing up for secret shows. Some of them are out there to promote a new record, but just as many are showing up simply because they want to be part of the fun. What is a little crazy is that while you would expect the unsigned band to pull a crazy stunt in the name of attention, sometimes it is the most famous acts which do the zaniest things, such as this year when Prince played a concert which lasted until 3 AM to close out the festival.
Now, playing an incredibly long show if far from the most bizarre, do-you-know-who-I-am thing Prince has done. (Many people would say it was changing his name to a symbol for a while, but since that was a business decision disguised as a personal statement, I'm inclined to lean towards the time he rented NBA star Carlos Boozer's house in Los Angeles and painted the entire place purple.) Still, this is right up there. The show was intended to be an intimate affair for a few hundred die-hard Prince fans who were able to track down items on a scavenger hunt list. (I actually really like that touch. It meant the people at this show had commitment. I hate it when tickets to performances like this are just given out to some executive's son who only knows two Prince songs.) Shows like this are not uncommon - usually put on my local radio stations. However, while those shows never usually amount to more than a dozen songs perform acoustically, Prince showed up with a 22 piece band and kept coming out for encore after encore. If you were a fan of the Purple One I can only imagine you couldn't believe your good luck and it was a mind-blowing affair that you never wanted to end... for a while. And that's the problem.
Because only the biggest Prince fans were in attendance they were probably thrilled as the concert kept going on and on. I am just curious as to what time people started looking at their watches and began debating their exit strategy. Reports from people inside confirmed that Prince did outlast several fans and I would just love to know what the tipping point was. Seriously, at what point do you say to yourself, "This is awesome, but I need to go to bed. Plus, I have a flight to catch in the morning." How do you weigh sleep versus a once-in-a-lifetime experience like this? I am always slightly jealous when I hear of people going to the Comedy Cellar on the random Tuesday night when Dave Chappelle randomly shows up unannounced and does a six-hour set. But, then I remember how much I also like being well-rested and that jealousy fades quickly. I am sure there are people in that venue who love Prince, but were also dying for him to wrap it up. One of the stories online says at the show say that Prince would disappear for long stretches at a time and the band would just keep jamming, which I think made it even harder to know when to leave because who knows when Prince would come back, if he was coming back at all, and how much longer the show would last once he did.
The simple fact is that no one wants to be the person who leaves too early, regardless of the event, out of fear that every story the next day will begin with the phrase, "Oh, man, you missed the coolest thing. It happened just after you left..." When to call it a night is a hard decision to make. Hell, it's hard to turn down anything which is a unique opportunity, even when it involves something you don't even like. (Trust me, I'm the same guy who watched several awful movies last weekend just because HBO was free and I had no idea when the next time I would get a free preview.) So, in some ways Prince is being incredibly selfish here. Some concert goers complain when you can find a tour set-list online because they feel like it takes all the spontaneity out of seeing a live show. I contend it helps to know whether or not to stay if the band won't be playing your favorite song. So, I'm not saying Prince was required to tell people whether or not he was going to play "Little Red Corvette" before the night was through, just that a quick announcement that the show was going to continue would probably have been appreciated. That way people could know how much longer the night was going to be and decide if they could make it to the end. They had already spent the day driving all over Austin to find hidden items I think they deserved a night without any more questions.
Now, playing an incredibly long show if far from the most bizarre, do-you-know-who-I-am thing Prince has done. (Many people would say it was changing his name to a symbol for a while, but since that was a business decision disguised as a personal statement, I'm inclined to lean towards the time he rented NBA star Carlos Boozer's house in Los Angeles and painted the entire place purple.) Still, this is right up there. The show was intended to be an intimate affair for a few hundred die-hard Prince fans who were able to track down items on a scavenger hunt list. (I actually really like that touch. It meant the people at this show had commitment. I hate it when tickets to performances like this are just given out to some executive's son who only knows two Prince songs.) Shows like this are not uncommon - usually put on my local radio stations. However, while those shows never usually amount to more than a dozen songs perform acoustically, Prince showed up with a 22 piece band and kept coming out for encore after encore. If you were a fan of the Purple One I can only imagine you couldn't believe your good luck and it was a mind-blowing affair that you never wanted to end... for a while. And that's the problem.
Because only the biggest Prince fans were in attendance they were probably thrilled as the concert kept going on and on. I am just curious as to what time people started looking at their watches and began debating their exit strategy. Reports from people inside confirmed that Prince did outlast several fans and I would just love to know what the tipping point was. Seriously, at what point do you say to yourself, "This is awesome, but I need to go to bed. Plus, I have a flight to catch in the morning." How do you weigh sleep versus a once-in-a-lifetime experience like this? I am always slightly jealous when I hear of people going to the Comedy Cellar on the random Tuesday night when Dave Chappelle randomly shows up unannounced and does a six-hour set. But, then I remember how much I also like being well-rested and that jealousy fades quickly. I am sure there are people in that venue who love Prince, but were also dying for him to wrap it up. One of the stories online says at the show say that Prince would disappear for long stretches at a time and the band would just keep jamming, which I think made it even harder to know when to leave because who knows when Prince would come back, if he was coming back at all, and how much longer the show would last once he did.
The simple fact is that no one wants to be the person who leaves too early, regardless of the event, out of fear that every story the next day will begin with the phrase, "Oh, man, you missed the coolest thing. It happened just after you left..." When to call it a night is a hard decision to make. Hell, it's hard to turn down anything which is a unique opportunity, even when it involves something you don't even like. (Trust me, I'm the same guy who watched several awful movies last weekend just because HBO was free and I had no idea when the next time I would get a free preview.) So, in some ways Prince is being incredibly selfish here. Some concert goers complain when you can find a tour set-list online because they feel like it takes all the spontaneity out of seeing a live show. I contend it helps to know whether or not to stay if the band won't be playing your favorite song. So, I'm not saying Prince was required to tell people whether or not he was going to play "Little Red Corvette" before the night was through, just that a quick announcement that the show was going to continue would probably have been appreciated. That way people could know how much longer the night was going to be and decide if they could make it to the end. They had already spent the day driving all over Austin to find hidden items I think they deserved a night without any more questions.
Monday, April 8, 2013
The Root Of The Problem
While I enjoy a well-manicured lawn, I am not the kind of person who feels the need to fill my yard with lots of brightly-colored plants in the name of aesthetics. I tend to go for a more minimalist vibe, especially when it comes to the area of my yard by street. I think a few bushes are more than enough to show I care, but not going require so much maintenance that I am out there every weekend. Still, even though I am not actively trying to up my curb appeal just to impress the neighbors I am also not trying to make things worse. Last year I noticed there were some thorny plants growing near the street. They came out of the ground in clumps and while your average rose bush can produce some massive thorns at least you get some pretty flowers as well. These didn't give you anything except extremely large and sharp thorns. Seriously, there was nothing useful about them. Not only can I not imagine someone planting these on purpose, I don't even see a use for them in nature. Anyway, I cut them down in the fall and hoped the harsh winter would finish them off but unfortunately that didn't happen. In fact, they came back with a vengeance. Even though we have only had a few warm days this spring these thorn vines had already started to come up (because it is always the stuff you didn't plant and don't want to grow which comes in the heartiest, whereas the things you plant with care and water religiously die within a month) and due to their location they had actually started to encroach onto the sidewalk. I don't want my house to be the one on the block where people have to cross to the other side when walking passed so I decided this year cutting them down wasn't going to be enough, I had to go deeper.
The (lying) weathermen had told me Sunday was supposed to be nice and so I went out equipped with long sleeves, heavy gloves and a seriously sharp pair of hedge clippers. After getting the thorn branches out of the way I turned my attention to the leftover stumps and the attached roots. I knew getting down to the roots was not going to be easy, but at the same time I didn't think I would have to dig to China and I expected that once I got there they wouldn't be a problem to pull out. Turns out I was double wrong because not only had I underestimated how deep the roots went (silly me, I was thinking these things would play fair), but pulling them out was like trying to figure out a subway system in a city I had never been in before. First the roots went in every direction and then they went on for a much longer distance than expected. Every pull on a root resulted in the ground three feet to my left coming free and just when I thought I was getting to the end the root would take a sharp turn and disappear even deeper into the ground, half of them going behind rock formation which would require digging up half my lawn if I wanted to make sure I had eradicated the source of my problem. And that was just on the roots I could actually get to the bottom of.
They say 80% of icebergs are under the surface of the water and I think that ratio applies to root systems as well. Some of the clusters had bases as thick as sapling under the ground and in trying to wedge them out using a shovel I was solidly convinced the shovel would snap well before the roots ever did. I eventually had to just cut some of them as low as I could get or I would have been out there all day. Even worse was that the roots were coated in some sort of slick material. Not sure if it was dirt or some kind of (no doubt skin-irritating) oil, but half the time my hand did more sliding than pulling. (Given my history with poison ivy I immediately showered with all the itch-killing lotions I have in my house - so far so good.) You know, I wouldn't have minded all this work if I felt I was accomplishing my goal, but I can't even claim victory. Despite literally pulling a trash barrel full of roots and thorns out of the ground I am resigned to the fact that it was all for not because I didn't come close to getting them all. The majority of these roots are still below the surface and working their way towards the sun, which means these thorny vines will be back, probably before summer even starts.
I've since come to the conclusion that if I want these things permanently gone I'm going to have to play dirty. I guess I could just coat that area in every chemical known to man, but I would rather not pollute the soil, especially since I may want to plant something there eventually. So, I went to our old friend the internet and tried to find out A) what this plant may actually be called and B) how to kill it. Sadly, there was little information on either. It appears no one on the planet knows why these thorn bushes are on their property, nor has anyone found a fool-proof way to get rid of it. The best idea anyone can come up with is just to rip up as much of the root as you can. Since that was my first idea, it is pretty obvious science hasn't been much of a help in this fight. I knew I was in trouble when one website suggested I would have to come back in September and cut them just before the Harvest Moon. When a gardening site is to the point of suggesting an Old Wives' Tale based on the location of the moon as a legitimate solution to your problem you can see just how desperate people are getting. If anyone out there has any thorn-killing remedies which don't require I wait until Jupiter has aligned with Saturn they would be appreciated. But if you can't give me one of those, I'll settle for a reliable lunar chart because I certainly don't want to have to do this again next spring.
The (lying) weathermen had told me Sunday was supposed to be nice and so I went out equipped with long sleeves, heavy gloves and a seriously sharp pair of hedge clippers. After getting the thorn branches out of the way I turned my attention to the leftover stumps and the attached roots. I knew getting down to the roots was not going to be easy, but at the same time I didn't think I would have to dig to China and I expected that once I got there they wouldn't be a problem to pull out. Turns out I was double wrong because not only had I underestimated how deep the roots went (silly me, I was thinking these things would play fair), but pulling them out was like trying to figure out a subway system in a city I had never been in before. First the roots went in every direction and then they went on for a much longer distance than expected. Every pull on a root resulted in the ground three feet to my left coming free and just when I thought I was getting to the end the root would take a sharp turn and disappear even deeper into the ground, half of them going behind rock formation which would require digging up half my lawn if I wanted to make sure I had eradicated the source of my problem. And that was just on the roots I could actually get to the bottom of.
They say 80% of icebergs are under the surface of the water and I think that ratio applies to root systems as well. Some of the clusters had bases as thick as sapling under the ground and in trying to wedge them out using a shovel I was solidly convinced the shovel would snap well before the roots ever did. I eventually had to just cut some of them as low as I could get or I would have been out there all day. Even worse was that the roots were coated in some sort of slick material. Not sure if it was dirt or some kind of (no doubt skin-irritating) oil, but half the time my hand did more sliding than pulling. (Given my history with poison ivy I immediately showered with all the itch-killing lotions I have in my house - so far so good.) You know, I wouldn't have minded all this work if I felt I was accomplishing my goal, but I can't even claim victory. Despite literally pulling a trash barrel full of roots and thorns out of the ground I am resigned to the fact that it was all for not because I didn't come close to getting them all. The majority of these roots are still below the surface and working their way towards the sun, which means these thorny vines will be back, probably before summer even starts.
I've since come to the conclusion that if I want these things permanently gone I'm going to have to play dirty. I guess I could just coat that area in every chemical known to man, but I would rather not pollute the soil, especially since I may want to plant something there eventually. So, I went to our old friend the internet and tried to find out A) what this plant may actually be called and B) how to kill it. Sadly, there was little information on either. It appears no one on the planet knows why these thorn bushes are on their property, nor has anyone found a fool-proof way to get rid of it. The best idea anyone can come up with is just to rip up as much of the root as you can. Since that was my first idea, it is pretty obvious science hasn't been much of a help in this fight. I knew I was in trouble when one website suggested I would have to come back in September and cut them just before the Harvest Moon. When a gardening site is to the point of suggesting an Old Wives' Tale based on the location of the moon as a legitimate solution to your problem you can see just how desperate people are getting. If anyone out there has any thorn-killing remedies which don't require I wait until Jupiter has aligned with Saturn they would be appreciated. But if you can't give me one of those, I'll settle for a reliable lunar chart because I certainly don't want to have to do this again next spring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)