No NFL in 2011 could be just the beginning

September 15th, 2010

I’m starting to wonder if American football may soon be a thing of the past.

It is not a secret that the lifespan of a professional football player is significantly shorter than that of the average man (football players die in their 50s on average). Common sense suggests that the abuse a player’s body takes throughout the course of his career is what leads to an earlier demise. But revelations made over the past few years that have shown the effects of the head trauma football collisions cause has me wondering how long this beautiful-but-violent game has before it is simply deemed too unsafe to play.

Over the last several years, the medical community has revealed more and more that head trauma – especially the kind prevalent in football – leads to an ever-widening array of medical problems. Concussions, once considered to be not especially serious, are now being treated with an extreme level of care. Science has revealed that players who suffer repeated concussions – which is a bruising of the brain – can increase their odds of long-term damage exponentially. It is the bruising of a not-entirely-healed brain that can lead to many ailments including paralysis and dementia, among others. Recently, a Boston University study found that head trauma can lead to ALS, commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.

The National Football League, for its part, has become proactive in making rule changes to try and lessen the potential for such head trauma in the game. But as the years roll on, and more and more disturbing information is released about the long-term health risks football players take, I can only wonder when the time will come that the league is forced to change drastically, or cease to exist altogether.

Given what we have learned about the relationship between football, brain injuries and the consequences thereof, I wonder how much longer American football will continue to be, and what it will look like if it is still around in ten, twenty years.

Cash is King: The Advantages of Paying with Cash over Plastic

August 16th, 2010

I understand the appeal of the debit card.  Really, I do.  The idea of not having to fumble through cash, not risking theft of cash, not having to make the extra trip to the ATM, ease of tracking expenditures… there are advantages.  I get it.  The debit card has its place, and in a pinch, it can come in handy.

Advantageous though it may be, carrying a debit card in lieu of cash is a distasteful and, frankly, unmanly practice that men must stop.  Here are just a few of the reasons cash is king.

CARDS MAKE EVERYTHING MORE EXPENSIVE

Most people don’t realize this, but retailers are charged a percentage – up to 3.5 percent – for every transaction processed via VISA or MasterCard. (If you’re a huge flaming corporate dick and use American Express, that goes up to 5 percent, which is why AMEX is accepted at many fewer places.)  It is more expensive for businesses to accept the card than to take cash.  Do you think retailers are just going to pay that additional cost out of their own pockets?  No.  They adjust pricing based on the percentage of transactions that take place via card.  The more people use their cards, the higher prices are raised.

THE RESTAURANT FIASCO

There is nothing more pathetic than six adults sitting at a table pulling out six different cards to pay the check (and no, I don’t care that Patrick Bateman did it – look how he turned out).  The waiter has to go back to his little computer stall and redistribute each item on the check   Sure, it’s computerized, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a hassle.  So you’re okay with hassling the poor bastard who has been serving you like a king for the last hour while you sat on your fat ass and bitched about the lack of ketchup?  Why make a hard job harder?  It’s one thing for women to bust out a calculator – or even for women to commit this same Restaurant Fiasco; women are expected to be more difficult to deal with, because, let’s be honest, women are usually more difficult to deal with.  But men?  Men have an obligation to play it cool; act smooth.  There is absolutely NOTHING smooth, cool or manly about asking the server to split up the check.  It’s cheap and it’s lousy; stop doing it.

THE TIP

Tipping on a card is the final insult to the person you’re tipping.  Take a moment to consider the folks who work in the service industry.  Is there anything desirable about their jobs?  Yes: CASH TIPS.  When you tip on a card, you create a paper trail, thus eliminating pretty much the only advantage there is to being employed in the service industry: easy income tax evasion.

Do not fuck with the people serving your food.  Tip them in cash.

THE SPEED

Fortunately, most places have instituted new policies aimed at making the card transaction move more quickly.  If your purchase is under $25, you no longer are required by law to provide a signature; the swipe is enough.  But some places still require the signature – and some places still have the old dial-up modem system of verification, rather than broadband internet connections.  Standing in line behind some assbag who is paying for a pack of gum via a 56k connection circa 1995 America Online when he should’ve had some cash on him like a real man would?  That should be punishable by castration.  It’s a no-no, so no more of it!

THE FRAUD

You’re really going to trust the $8-an-hour kid at 7-Eleven, who can barely put on a pair of pants, with direct access to your checking account?  I wouldn’t let that drooling idiot mow my lawn let alone access my account!

In all seriousness, we all know somebody who has been the victim of some form of identity theft or credit theft and the like.  It’s a problem, and the use of debit cards only serves to escalate said problem.  Paying with cash keeps your accounts secure.

THE BRIBE

Let’s say it’s 3 AM, and you have an insatiable desire to get into the VIP area of the club you’re in, because the ridiculous blonde who was grinding your junk went in there, and you think you’ve got a shot, if only you can somehow get into that VIP room.  Well, you don’t have a shot… but that’s not the point.  How in the hell do you expect to grease Grizz and Dot Com at the VIP entrance without cash?  You can’t swipe your card down their cracks and expect to get anything other than a beatdown.  But if you slip them some good old fashioned greenbacks, you might get to process an entirely different transaction later on.  Why risk it, Plastic Boy?

THE BALLS

We live in a day and age where meterosexuality is not only prevalent, but appealing, even.  That’s a good thing; ridding society of neanderthals is a positive step toward a more civilized society.  But as we men become more refined, we must guard against losing our gender identities altogether.  Paying with a card is tantamount to a note from your mother saying you’re good for the cash.  It’s half a step up from paying by check, which is only slightly less humiliating than using coupons, or begging on the corner.  Nobody respects a man who pays with plastic where cash is feasible.

We men have precious few avenues to express our primal maleness anymore.  Currency is one of them.  There are few things more confidence-inspiring than walking around with a big fat wad of cash in your wallet.   Having the peace of mind to know that you can stumble into almost any challenging situation and buy your way out of it is a luxury only afforded to men with cash.  With the right amount of cash in your pocket, you can pretty much make anything you need or want happen, no matter where you are or what time it is.  No longer can a man carry a sword or a knife or a pistol in polite society; but he can still carry cash, and if you get jammed up, cash can be just as effective a weapon as any other.

Cash is impressive, and it is a universal language.  It is not limited and not traced.  Cash represents freedom.  It doesn’t matter who you are; if you have the right amount of cash, you’re just as good as the next guy.  Cash trumps all – it is the ultimate ace in the hole.  Where debit cards get things paid for, cash gets things done.  This is why Cash is King, and your plastic is just a pawn.

Late Night Wars 2: This Time It’s Ginger!

January 13th, 2010

It seems that ever since the story broke last week that NBC is fucking Conan O’Brien in the ass taking the 11:35 ET time slot and giving it back to journeyman comedian and likable chin fellow Jay Leno, The Internets has become abuzz with various declarations of allegiance to folks’ various favorite late night personalities.

Lost in all of this has been, largely, the truth.  Conan O’Brien is a fairly funny guy – certainly a superior entertainer to Leno, at least in the eyes of most people in the two-digit age spectrum.  But O’Brien is hardly among the all-time late night elite. He’s just barely the third-best late night host currently on TV.

As a result of the late night chaos, I, being hilarious myself, as well as an excellent judge of television programming quality, have taken it upon myself to craft what I call the Talk Show Host Power Rankings.  This will include any nightly comedy host – network or cable – but will be limited to the currently employed.  (Johnny Carson, naturally, is the untouchable Number One.  The Yankees of talk show hosts, if you will… but without being a turd.)

Without further adieu, here are the inaugural Talk Show Host Power Rankings:

1. David Letterman – His sharp edge has softened as he’s grown older, but Dave is still the only guy beloved enough to take sharp jabs at people – to their face, in some instances – and not lose his audience.  Sex scandal aside (what Stupid Human Tricks were they turning over there?), Dave is still very much the best in the business, 30 years after beginning his great run.

2. Craig Ferguson – I am still not convinced that anybody is watching this show (after Letterman on CBS), but they ought to be, because this guy is a loose cannon.  This extremely likable Scotsman can get away with any number of deranged or even creepy jokes, but because of his charm and that hilarious accent which US audiences ate up – so to speak – when Mike Myers unleashed Fat Bastard upon the world, Ferguson can get away with some awesomely funny shit that wouldn’t fly on any other show.

3 (tie) Jimmy Kimmel – Doughy, bloated idiot who is perfectly willing to acknowledge being a doughy, bloated idiot for a laugh.  I don’t know if it’s fair to call Kimmel the most fearless among the network hosts, but he’s certainly unafraid of giving the audience and his guests a peek into his warped mind.  Where guys like Letterman and O’Brien are somewhat concealed by the awkward schtick they’ve both perfected over the years, you don’t get the impression that Kimmel is any different sitting on his couch than he is sitting behind the desk… other than wearing a suit.

3 (tie) Conan O’Brien – I remember that first time I saw Conan on TV.  He was practically pushed out the curtain at Jay Leno’s “Tonight Show”, to be introduced to the world as Letterman’s replacement on “Late Night”.  I remember how starry-eyed he looked, how unfunny he was, and how he seemed like a toddler who was just thrown into the deep end of the pool.  I was convinced he’d be done in a year.  But this is one huge leap of faith NBC made that panned out, because he is now their best late night host.  Naturally, they’re letting him walk out the door in favor of somebody much less funny.

5. Jimmy Fallon – He’s not great yet, but he’s likable and funny enough to carry him through until he becomes great, which I believe is possible

6. Jay Leno – It isn’t as though Jay is an unfunny man.  He’s a perfectly competent professional stand-up comedian who couldn’t conduct an entertaining interview to save his soul, and has been forced to cater to octogenarians, because his network evidently thinks that the elderly spend money and are desired by advertisers.  I don’t blame any of the current mess on Jay; the man just wants to work.  NBC, sadly, thinks that his doing so is a good idea for them.  The rest of us beg to differ.

7. (four-way tie) George Lopez, Carson Daly, Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart – I don’t think Leno is good, but it’s almost a disservice to humanity for these four stiffs to be listed just one notch below him.  Not one of these people is watchable by any standard.  Lopez seems to have crafted an entire talk show based around his one-trick-pony comedy act, after beating that pony to death via the sitcom for years.  Daly was perfectly suited for the eleven-year-old-girl audience of “TRL”, and has been in over his head ever since.  Colbert’s act is to portray the politically-minded version of Michael Scott, but Steve Carell is funnier, and we can watch that show without being beaten to death by the left’s inaccurate view of… everything.

Jon Stewart, plainly and simply, is the most embarrassing person on television.  His smarmy act goes over huge with the brain-dead twentysomethings who started paying attention to politics because it was fashionable and ended up destroying the country electing Barack Obama in the process.  The fact that so many of his fans believe his show to be a news source rather than an entertainment program is only slightly more scary than the thought that the rest of his fans think it’s entertaining!  Four-feet-ten-inches of unfunny, it’s unconscionable to me that this man remains employed anywhere other than a used car lot.  Somehow, he and Comedy Central have hoodwinked an entire audience of people into believing the untruths that his show is either usefully informative, remotely entertaining, or culturally significant in any way whatsoever.  Every time I consider the loathsome screaming nitwits on the cable “news” channels (such as Bill O’Reilly), I shake my head and feel sad that folks are actually watching those shows.  When I consider Jon Stewart, it makes me wonder what time O’Reilly comes on.

The new Sherlock Holmes movie…

December 24th, 2009

…was directed by Guy Ritchie.  This is bad news for moviegoers, because Ritchie is a bad director.  With a filmography that boasts such horrors as “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels”, “Snatch” and “Swept Away”, one can only cringe at the thought of how Ritchie will abuse Holmes.

However, there are three redeeming factors that can allow for the possibility of a good, or even great, film here.  The first is Robert Downey Jr. (as Holmes).  The second is Jude Law (Watson).  The third is Cameron Crowe.  Crowe had nothing to do with this film of course, but he did set a precedent for shitty directors with a history of bad films (“Jerry Maguire”, “Almost Famous”) following up with a brilliant one (“Vanilla Sky”).

Perhaps Ritchie can redeem himself as Crowe did.

The Bears and my birthday: a love(hate) story

December 9th, 2009

Having a birthday in December has very few advantages if you dwell in a wintry climate, as I do.  Most years, my birthday is a cold and miserable one, gloomy and dark and overshadowed by the holidays.  And that’s fine; I am not a big birthday person, so I don’t mean to complain about that element.

But as a sports fan, I’ve always wanted to be able to celebrate my birthday in conjunction with one of my favorite teams.  Baseball fans with summer birthdays have incredible good fortune in this regard; they have warm weather, the beautiful ballpark, lots of sunlight and all that goes with it.  I, on the other hand, have my abusive spouse-like football team, the Chicago Bears, to torture me.

I thought back upon it, and I couldn’t recall if the Bears had ever won a game on my birthday.  I remember a party on my golden birthday in 1990 where the Bears lost to the Washington Redskins.  So I did some research, and discovered that, lo and behold, my favorite team had never gifted me a victory on my birthday.  Not only that, in the four instances during my lifetime that they’ve played on December 9th, they’ve performed especially hideously on that date.  Let’s have a look:

1984: my third birthday

The beloved achieved their highest offensive output in any of the December 9th games, scoring 14 points against the hated Green Bay Packers.  Starting quarterback Rusty Lisch – nope, I’ve never heard of him either – threw no touchdowns and an interception in the 20-14 loss.  But noteworthy was Hall of Fame running back Walter Payton’s touchdown pass to Matt Suhey, which was – disturbingly – the first of only two passing touchdowns the Bears have mustered on my birthday to date.  That’s correct: four games, two passing touchdowns, one of which was by a running back.  Wow.

1990: my ninth birthday

Quarterback Jim Harbaugh led an explosive Chicago scoring attack to three Kevin Butler field goals.  Redskins quarterback Mark Rypien desperately attempted to gift myself and my Bears the victory by throwing a stunning five interceptions, but Harbaugh’s own pair of misfires ultimately sealed our fate in a 10-9 nail biter.  Boy, that sucked.

2001: my twentieth birthday

It took eleven years for the calendar to align with the schedule and allow the Bears another crack at breaking the hex of my birthday.  And let’s face it, if there was an appropriate decade in team history to skip, it was the 1990s.  After all, they’d compiled a 70-98 record following the ’90 game through the 2000 season, the odds were well stacked against me during those lean years.

But if ever there was a year they could do it, 2001 was it.  They came into my 20th birthday with a record of 9-2, the surprise Cinderella team of the entire NFL (well, one of them… the other one had Tom Brady).  The Bears had this incredible streak of luck.  They won back to back games where safety Mike Brown returned interceptions for touchdowns in overtime.  Hell, their quarterback had the same name as my best friend!  How could this team let me down?

The game was a rematch against one of only two teams that had beaten the Bears that year, the loathsome Green Bay Packers.  Quarterback Jim Miller threw for… an interception.  The Bears lost to Brett Favre and the Packers, 17-7.  The lone score came on a run by rookie running back Anthony Thomas.  The Bears won their next four games that year and went into the playoffs at 13-3, where Donovan McNabb and the Philadelphia Eagles promptly disposed of them in the final game played in old Soldier Field.  The bottle of Jack Daniels I followed that game with had no chance.  Neither did the futon I reupholstered that night.

2002: my twenty-first birthday.

In retrospect, this would’ve been a good game to go to.  A jaunt down to Miam in December for my 21st?  Take in a Bears-Dolphins game?  What could be bad about that?  Nothing… except for the game itself.  The Bears achieved what I thought was impossible that Monday night: putting on their worst performance my birthday had ever seen.

Chicago had three quarterbacks on the roster that day, and all three of them played… and played badly.  Miller completed three passes for nine yards – and an interception – before being carted mercifully off the field with an injury.  Chris Chandler heated it up for 86 yards on 7 completions, but blemished his Unitasian effort by throwing two interceptions of his own.

But wait, there’s more!

After Chandler proved his worth(lessness), coach Dick Jauron put in perhaps the most infamously inept quarterback in Chicago Bears history: Canadian Football League legend Henry Burris.  ”Smilin’ Hank” completed one pass.  Of course, that pass was the lone touchdown thrown by a Chicago Bears quarterback on any of my birthdays.

As you might imagine, the Bears lost to the Dolphins that Monday night, 27-9.  (They were so bad they botched the extra point after Burris’ touchdown.)  Chicago quarterbacks – dig this – completed just 11 of their 32 passes for 101 yards, a touchdown, and three interceptions.

Cumulatively, the Bears are 0-4 on my birthday, and their running backs have thrown as many touchdowns as their quarterbacks, who boast a 1-to-7 touchdown-to-interception ratio.

I can’t even imagine how this is possible.

I mean, it’s not as if they owe it to me to win on my birthday.  But for God’s sake, it’s also the birthday of the greatest linebacker in history, Bears legend Dick Butkus!  Surely if they don’t care for me, they must care for Number 51!

Ehh, maybe not… the day the team retired Butkus’ number 51, they lost 33-6 to Favre and the Packers.

Happy birthday, Mr. Butkus.  Happy birthday to both of us.

Escalation: the good kind of change?

December 2nd, 2009

It is remarkable that, a year removed from campaigning on the premise that he would end the US occupation Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama is sending in additional troops to Afghanistan.

Remember the surge?  Remember the outrage?  I remember indignant liberal Richard Belzer describing the term as “vulgar”, and suggesting that it concealed the reality, which was an escalation of war.  I’m curious what Belzer would say to Obama’s escalation of the Afghanistan war.

Quite frankly, I am okay with it.  I support anything that distracts Obama’s attention from his seemingly well-intentioned but grossly misguided domestic agenda of implementing socialist principles to banking, industry and health care.  It took Pearl Harbor to distract a well-intentioned but grossly misguided Franklin Roosevelt from his own socialist initiatives, which themselves only prolonged the Great Depression.

Of course, I would prefer that war didn’t take place.  But if it must, and if the choice is between war with a proven enemy and domestic economic collapse, the choice is pretty easy to me.

Bears’ season ends in November?

November 13th, 2009

As is wildly apparent throughout Chicago Bears Nation in the aftermath of their 10-6 loss to the San Francisco 49ers, the time has come to pack in any and all hope for the 2009-10 season, and begin looking forward to determine what can be done to fix a deeply flawed team for next year and beyond.

There are four specific on-the-field areas of glaring weakness on this team, but none has proven to be more detrimental to the team’s success than the offensive line.  An argument could be made that with even league-average line play, the Bears’ offense would’ve made this a legitimate playoff team.  But league-average would’ve been an enormous improvement.  The left side of the line has to be remade in the off-season, no questions asked.  Orlando Pace and Frank Omiyale have been purely awful, allowing pass rushers to pillage and plunder quarterback Jay Cutler at will.  While Olin Kreutz, Roberto Garza and Chris Williams aren’t exactly studs, remaking an entire offensive line in one off-season is a monumental task.  The left side, for the second year in a row, is top priority.

While the offensive line is very much the top off-season priority, the other three primary areas of need seem to be at a similar level of importance to one another:  safety, wide receiver, defensive line.  The Bears have had a black hole at safety for years, thanks initially to never-ending injury problems for Mike Brown, and more recently due to a succession of failed draft picks at the position.  It’s difficult to determine whether or not anybody from the current crop of young safeties has any real future, but just because it’s difficult doesn’t mean the scouting department is off the hook for doing so.

They likewise do not get a pass for the ongoing ineptitude at wide receiver.  Devin Hester is a good number three NFL receiver, and Earl Bennett and Johnny Knox may well become decent twos or threes in their own right, but the Bears lack a legitimate one or two at the position, and they have since the departure of Bernard Berrian, who was a passable number two, but hardly worth the money he ultimately commanded.  It has been seven or eight seasons since the Bears last have had even a decent number one, dating back to Marty Booker’s prime, where he went to a Pro Bowl.  Unfortunately for the current crop of receivers, the quarterback who is charged with getting them the ball has no time whatsoever to get that task accomplished – thanks to the porous line play.

The defensive line is another ongoing problem that the Bears have had a bunch of bad luck with, to go along with bad drafts, and it all starts with Tommie Harris.  The line – and indeed the entire defense – was dominant when Tommie Harris was healthy and effective in 2005 and 2006 (until injury ended his year prematurely).  Since that time, only an occasional flash of the dominant Harris has appeared (including Thursday night against the 49ers, where Harris had far and away his best game of the year).  However, most of the last two-plus seasons, Harris has been somewhat invisible, rather than the disruptive beast he was early in his career.  While it remains to be seen whether Harris can ever regain that form, it has become increasingly apparent that he won’t be doing so with the Chicago Bears.  Attitude issues and questions about his effort have surfaced, to the extent that he was effectively suspended for the Cincinnati game, and was thrown out early in the Arizona game for throwing a punch.  I would be surprised if Harris is still a member of the Chicago Bears come next season.

While the defensive line has had to sink or swim with Harris, ends Adewale Ogunleye and Alex Brown have never produced eye-popping sack numbers, and as they age, are becoming less effective run stoppers as well.  The Bears are hoping that Gaines Adams – acquired for their 2nd round draft pick in 2010 – will have a big enough impact that any other changes are insignificant by comparison, this unit is plagued with some of the same problems that several other areas on the team have; lack of depth due to ineffective draft classes.  The list of failed defensive linemen the Bears have drafted over the last six years is staggering.  From Michael Haynes to Tank Johnson to Dan Bazuin and so on, the Bears have continuously shot themselves in the foot with their inability to draft effectively.

If you’ve noticed a common theme in the Bears’ problems, you aren’t alone.  College scouting has proven to be the Achilles heel of Jerry Angelo during his tenure as Bears’ General Manager.  The playmakers on the Super Bowl XLI team were primarily drafted by somebody else – whether it was the previous Bears regime, or Angelo’s acquisitions from other teams via trade and free agency.

Where Angelo and his staff have been quite good at scouting and acquiring professional talent via free agency (John Tait, Thomas Jones, Garza, Ruben Brown) and trade (Ogunleye, Cutler), his drafts have produced far less talent than is required in order to consistently win in the NFL.

Those fans calling for Angelo and Lovie Smith and the coaching staff to be dismissed will not be happy with the outcome of this coming off-season, as neither are likely to be dismissed with multiple years remaining on their respective contracts.  On the other hand, it’s quite possible – better than a 50-50 chance, I think – that Ron Turner will be made the scapegoat of the 2009 Bears, which will be quite unfair and unfortunate, considering that he was the offensive coordinator who oversaw the two most productive offensive seasons the Bears have had in the last 20 years (2006, 1995), and cannot be blamed for the poor drafting and bad acquisitions that led to him having the worst offensive line the team has had in ten years.  Nobody short of Bill Walsh himself could’ve had success with this line, yet ill-informed fans are calling for Turner’s head on a platter, and I suspect they’ll get it.  Turner does not deserve the same fate as Terry Shea, Gary Crowton, and John Shoop, but he’ll likely get it.  So goes life as an NFL coach.

As for this season, while Lovie Smith will continue to talk about improving and getting back into the playoff hunt and so on, I feel the top priority should be protecting the franchise’s most important asset:  Jay Cutler.  Keeping Cutler unscathed is critical for the long-term success of the franchise.  A healthy Cutler will be the key to the Bears’ success in three to six years, when they are next ready to compete for a championship.  Cutler is the lone shining light on this team, and is likely one of only a handful of players currently on the roster who will be on the next Bears team to reach the Super Bowl.

If Angelo has done nothing else in his tenure, he has stabilized the most important position on the field for years to come.  The horrendous offensive line he has built in front of Cutler can NOT be allowed to jeopardize the cornerstone of the franchise, as they have through the first nine games of 2009.

I’ll dream it up, you make the money

November 3rd, 2009

Ever have a great idea, and lack the necessary skills or wherewithal to make the idea a reality?  Well, I have… several times.  And each time it happens, I later discover that someone else has done it, to varying degrees of success.

DARK LORD WAL ‘D’ MART

A fan of the Harry Potter films (I am unwilling to invest the time in the books) from their premiere, it occurred to me that the name “Valdemort” sounded a lot like “Wal-Mart”.  I thought it would be amusing to write a character called the Dark Lord Wal ‘D’ Mart, combining the Potter character with some of the criticisms of the retail giant.

Lo and behold, a Wal-Mart watchdog group did it.  And, naturally, they did it a lot better and funnier than I would have.  There wasn’t any money to be made from this concept anyway, so I don’t feel that badly about missing the boat.

LASER TURNTABLE

As a kid who was always into technology, and always into audio, I was fascinated with how recording and playback devices worked.  I learned how the needle of a turntable worked, and how the sound was created by the physical friction of the needle against the impressions in the vinyl.  I found it ironic that the very method of playing back a record was exactly the activity that would eventually scar the disk and gradually degrade its quality.

When I learned about how a CD player worked – the laser reads millions of strands of tiny binary-like code, and from there, a computer chip decodes the data and distributes it as audio – I thought, why couldn’t a laser do the same thing with a vinyl record?  Why couldn’t it read those impressions in the grooves on the vinyl surface – without the damaging effect that contact with a needle has?  A computer could decode the physical properties of the disk, and records could last forever while still being used.

Contrary to what I originally thought, I’m obviously not the smartest man in the world… because somebody else had the same brilliant idea.

On one hand, I’m pleased that my idea worked.  On the other… DAMN IT!

PODCAST

This is the worst one, and the one that stings the most.  I mean, I had it… then I lost it!

Growing up, I loved radio.  I played radio host as a kid, doing a little show with whatever equipment I could muster in a makeshift studio in my bedroom.  I mimicked my favorite broadcasters, and I was in love with the format.  It was a love that never really went away, and eventually, it became an adult hobby.

In January 2001, I started doing a radio show in my dorm with some of my buddies.  I determined that I could spread the word about this show over the web – which, at that point, was still very much dominated by the dial-up connection.  But I needed a method of distribution of the show, and I did not have the resources to establish a stream or a full-blown website, and limited bandwidth made it unlikely that large audio files would be distributed very easily no matter what method I tried.  So what I did was make the shows available on Napster.  No, not the Napster you see now – corporate owned, iTunes-wannabe garbage.  This was the original, grass-roots, honest-to-God file-swapping Napster.  The Napster that made the record industry take a collective dump in their pants.  THAT Napster.

And as far as I knew – and as far as I still know – my show was the first show to do such a thing: produce for and distribute via peer-to-peer file-sharing.  In other words, I had one of the first podcasts.

Yes, I’ll say it:  I’m the father of the podcast.  Sue me.

I ended up doing it as a hobby for seven years.  By the time I stopped, everyone and their mother had a podcast, and a couple of them had figured out how to make money on them.  That, of course, is not something I was capable of figuring out.

Upon No Review: Bears-Bengals postmortem

October 26th, 2009

The past twenty-four hours have been pretty difficult for Chicago Bears fans.  It started with the team’s most lopsided defeat in six years, and continued with the overwhelming (but not unexpected) wave of overreaction to the game by fans and beat writers alike.

It is no easy task to try and say a positive word about the team after that defeat.  Quite frankly, I hate that I feel obligated to do it.  But I do, and I will, because it appears that I’m the only Bears fan whose reason and logic have not completely abandoned them.

First, a (true) cliche.  A team is never rarely as good as it looks when it is winning, and never as bad as it looks when it is losing.  A 45-10 loss to the Cincinnati Bengals (who, by the way, I picked to turn it around this year and go 9-7, thank you very much) is not an accurate indicator of the quality of this team.  That game was an aberration; an ugly, awful, cringe-inducing, soul-crushing aberration.  But it is no more and no less representative of the 2009 Chicago Bears as their 48-24 dismantling of the Lions, their exciting 25-19 comeback over the Seahawks, or their 17-14 triumph over the defending Super Bowl champions.

In fact, each of their six games has taught us something about this team.  In Green Bay, against Pittsburgh, and in Seattle, we learned that they’re capable of coming back from a deficit and taking a lead late in the game.  In Green Bay and Atlanta, we learned that despite valiant fourth-quarter surges, they can be beaten on the last drive of the game.  Against Detroit, we learned that they are fully capable of completely dominating an inferior opponent.  And against the Bengals, we learned that they’re capable of laying an egg.

This is not the same team I picked to go 11-5 before the season.  The offensive line is considerably worse than I anticipated it being.  The biggest strength of the defense – the linebackers – has suffered a remarkable number of injuries.  Brian Urlacher may no longer be the best player on the Bears’ defense, but there is no question he’s at least second-best, and still just as important to the effectiveness of the unit as anybody else on the field.  His immediate understudy, Hunter Hillenmeyer, also has missed playing time, and has been forced into multiple positions due to injuries to a third starter, Pisa Tinoisamoa.  Depth at the running back position has been greatly diminished due to injuries to Kevin Jones and Adrian Peterson.  While injuries to depth players shouldn’t matter too much, the inability of the starter at that position – Matt Forte – to play effectively only highlights the injuries.

Where Frank Omiyale was expected to be a rather significant upgrade at the left guard position, he has been a tremendous disappointment.  Where Orlando Pace was expected, if healthy, to perform at an above-serviceable level, his play has been poor.  Where Greg Olsen was expected to take a step from solid tight end to Pro-Bowl tight end, he has not.  And so on.

Despite the injuries and ineffective performances, this team has managed to win three games, including one against the defending champs.  They have had moments of brilliance.  They are not the 11-5 team I was expecting, but they are not the 5-11 team many are now fearing.

Take a deep breath, Bears fans.  Exhale slowly.  Relax.  And remember: it was one game.  Only. One. Game.  Do not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Out with the old, in with the new TV season

October 13th, 2009

I’m currently in somewhat of a transitional period with the television shows I’m watching.  There are a couple of new shows that I’m really into, and a couple of old favorites that I’m letting go of.

OUT WITH THE OLD

I don’t know that I’ll ever be able to fully abandon “House“, because doing so means that I’m abandoning my favorite performer and character currently on TV.  Each season, the supporting cast of characters backing up Hugh Laurie’s brilliant title character becomes less and less interesting and palatable, and it has driven me to the brink of fandom.  I end up asking myself if I can really sit through an hour of television that contains one good character and a bunch of boring-as-hell doctors on what would otherwise be Just Another Hospital Drama.

In fairness, the Cuddy and Wilson characters (played by Lisa Edelstein and Robert Sean Leonard) have their moments of greatness.  But as the years wear on, we see the same tired, recycled storylines for them; both characters are stuck in 2005.  I cringe when Omar Epps appears on screen nowadays, because his Foreman is criminally boring.  Olivia Wilde is wild(e)ly attractive, but has been saddled by the writers with so many “issues” that the audience can hardly keep up with how bizarre she is. Worse yet, we don’t even care, because despite the attempt at spice, the character remains painfully disposable.

I hate the idea of missing a classic Hugh Laurie rant. I truly believe this is one of the best characters in television history. But the rest of the show is so profoundly weak that I can hardly rationalize suffering through what amounts to a bad TV show with one spectacular character.

-

The other show I’m just about done with is “How I Met Your Mother“.  This one’s a little easier to rationalize dropping from my line-up when I consider how hot it burned when it was really good a few seasons ago, and the unfortunate direction it has gone since.

Where the writers would, in the first couple of seasons, focus on the humor and hijinks that made the show great, there has been a palpable shift toward standard, coma-inducing romantic comedy territory.  For as funny and talented as Jason Segel and Neil Patrick Harris are, they can’t overcome the lazy, clichéd pap written for them over the past year or so, and neither can I.

That’s the problem half hour comedies must overcome with me; they’re fairly disposable.  Have a bad couple of weeks, and I’m just about done.  But with this show, it’s more than a bad couple of weeks.  I’ve been dissatisfied for an entire season now, and unfortunately for them, there are plenty of options.

IN WITH THE NEW

Two new half hour comedies have caught my eye so far this year.  The first is NBC’s “Community“, a wacky show about a bunch of community college misfits who were scammed into joining a study group in the pilot, and haven’t quite figured out that they’re getting no studying done.

This show stars Joel McHale, of E!’s “The Soup“.  The man’s delivery is hilarious, and worth the price of admission alone.  Chevy Chase supports with a hilarious know-it-all executive-turned-student character who serves to add his brand of racist comments and worldly wisdom, which his peers wisely disregard.

The style of this show is a blatant knockoff of “30 Rock“.  But if you’re going to rip off another comedy, why not rip off the funniest show on TV?  The formula works; quick-witted, sarcastic, jerky character who you shouldn’t like yet can’t help but love, and a lovable-but-kinda-clueless girl who is the foil in the wake of all of his shenanigans.  Alec Baldwin’s Jack Donaghy on “30 Rock” serves as the template for McHale’s Jeff Winger, and Jillian Jacobs plays the Tina Fey-like foil.

I have my doubts about the shelf life of this show, but while it’s fresh, I’m going to sit back and enjoy.  McHale is truly hilarious, and the supporting cast is not far behind.

-

The other comedy I’m enjoying thus far is ABC’s mockumentary-style “Modern Family“.  A very strong ensemble cast fleshes out well-written, only-mildly-exaggerated members of three branches of an extended family.  Ed O’Neil plays the patriarch, and exactly the kind of old man you would’ve expected a non-slapstick version of Al Bundy to become.  Grouchy, somewhat homophobic (which provides ongoing conflict with his gay son) grandpa whose trophy wife – the painfully gorgeous Sofia Vergara – is a good twenty years younger and a little too much for the old boy to handle.

As with all mockumentary shows like “The Office“, the comedy is in the awkward encounters.  Disconnects between gender, generation, culture and sexuality within the family provide the meat and potatoes of the comedy in this show.  These aren’t new themes, of course, but the cast is so damned funny that any sense of familiarity is quickly diffused by the terrific execution the actors provide.  This show is the “home life” counterpart to “The Office”, and could very well reap similar success.