tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16163389305526836062024-03-13T04:23:11.401-07:00BlogometricsGhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-32231994512184187152010-07-23T09:35:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.730-07:00Better Call Maaco<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TEnGEJYgKwI/AAAAAAAAAhM/HHSwszF8G4Y/s1600/untitled.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5497142594722867970" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 300px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TEnGEJYgKwI/AAAAAAAAAhM/HHSwszF8G4Y/s400/untitled.JPG" border="0" /></a><br /><div><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TEnFdxy9aWI/AAAAAAAAAhE/7fBitPd_pM8/s1600/untitled.JPG"></a><br /><br /><div><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TEnE-xbkPfI/AAAAAAAAAg8/UyF1Slkdvt0/s1600/untitled.JPG"></a><br /><br /><br /><div>Keep your car clean - it could save your life.</div><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><div></div></div></div>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-52139168518777867552010-07-20T12:16:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.730-07:00Shawt on TalentMore Smack Talk.<br /><br />'Nuff said.<br /><br /><strong>Smack</strong>: Check this out:<br /><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yxjopV3lfy4&hl=" width="660" height="405" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" fs="1?rel=" border="1" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed><br /><br /><strong>Blogometrics</strong>:<br /><br /><strong>How To Ruin A Song</strong><br /><br /><em>By Ian McCarty</em><br /><br />Here's a quick guide on how to ruin a song. It's a fairly simple process, but following these steps is key to ensuring that the song is completely and thoroughly destroyed.<br /><br /><strong>Step One</strong>: Pick a famous song.Picking a famous song does a few things. First, it provides a wide potential listening audience, as fans of the original will likely be curious to hear your update. Second, a famous song already has name recognition, so even those unfamiliar with the original's sound content will recognize the title as something once having had broad appeal.<br /><br />Now, choosing too famous a song can be detrimental, as listener expectations will most likely be very low. However, if you are going for parody, the more popular the song, the better. If, however, you choose to earnestly cover a classic song, choose a "lost" or "seminal" classic, one that is truly appreciated by it's fans, who, while not as great in numbers as the fans of all time classics, may be more musically knowledgeable, and keen to pick up on subtler notes such as production and engineering quality.<br /><br /><strong>Step Two</strong>: Throw away your drumset.<br /><br />In order to appropriately dismantle the genuine emotion that comes with any song, particularly a classic song from the days of analog recording, you must use as few actual instruments as possible. The first to go should be the drum kit. Replacing lives drums with a drum machine removes the rock and the roll, the soul and the feel of any classic. To complete the percussive hijacking of your selection, add synthetic tympani rolls liberally across your arrangement.<br /><br /><strong>Step Three</strong>: Don't try too hard to sound like a singer.As the American Idol phenomenon illustrates, Americans are less and concerned with the actual quality of a singer's voice, and will settle for a pitchy croon if true vocal talent is absent. The vocoder effect can be used to further alienate listeners with true musical taste, but do not be afraid to let your lack of ability shine through. Be mindful of points in the original performance where emotion or intensity were displayed by the vocalist, and be careful to remove these elements whenever possible.<br /><br />Also, in a combination move of steps two and three, don't be afraid to compensate for your lack of instruments - and the ability to play them - by "singing" a familiar instrumental hook from the original selection. When going this route, be sure to use a flat falsetto wherever possible, using a vocoder to dehumanize the effort, but not to correct the pitch.<br /><br /><strong>Step Four</strong>: Wheel out an aging member of the original group, or the original producer<br /><br />Adding an original member of the group - or, if you are choosing to "hip hop - up" the song, the producer, lends credit to your song much in the same way as step one does. Adding an original member instantly gives the song a certain credibility in many listener's eyes, while more discriminating music fans may be excited to see a famous producer at the helm. However, it must be made clear to this individual that their contribution to this piece has already been made long ago, and they are here to bring this song to a new set of fans: yours.<br /><br />Also, bonus points can be earned if the original member or producer is old enough where many listeners will think the effort is actually kind of "sad."<br /><br /><strong>Step Five</strong>: Add your own lyrics.<br /><br />There is no greater way to pay homage to a classic song than by changing the words. Update the lyrics with personal anecdotes, a rap, or even better, a reference to the specific year you are covering this classic.<br /><br />To further the effect of lyrical confusion, re-arrange or completely omit various verses and choruses held over from the original, but be careful not to simply sample the original. That is a realm only P. Diddy can successfully enter.<br /><br /><strong>Congratulations!</strong><br /><br />If you've managed to follow all five steps completely, you have yourself a totally ruined song. Now, don't be shy about sharing this with the general public. Outlets like Facebook, MySpace and especially YouTube are great ways to get your music out there. I recommend releasing your song during the early summer months, when every American is looking for a crummy, yet slightly original noise to be occurring nearby as they binge drink or char mammal carcasses. You'll know you've truly succeeded when you hear your song blaring through the windows of vehicles that aren't worth as much as the stereo system playing the song.<br /><br />Good luck, and if you run into trouble, just remember a little term I've devised to help me through my uncreative struggles: WWAD - "What Would Akon Do?"<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: <strong>Step 4a</strong>: Include at least 3 fist bumps with the original producer. It’s all about cred.<br /><br /><strong>Step 6</strong>: Make a music video in an exposed-brick loft furnished only with a baby grand piano. It’s the perfect location for musicians to meet up for impromptu cover songs.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: Why did you do that to me?<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: Well, the Shuggie Otis version was playing in Starbucks this morning but I couldn’t remember his name so I had to look it up. Then I was reading the Wikipedia article and it mentioned Quincy Jones & Akon making a cover. So I had to listen to it. Then you had to listen to it. Sorry.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: The real kicker is, The Brothers Johnson version is an All Time Top Five cover. Now, for this to occur, well - I'm speechless. Actually I'm not. I will say this: Pop is dead. Pop music got into some horrible accident at some point in the ealry 1990s. Some brain activity remained present for about 10 years, but after no signs of improvement, it was taken off life support at some time in the '00s. This is the proof that it's gone to hell.<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: A statement like that requires a list:<br /><br />All Along the Watchtower<br />Strawberry Letter 23<br />Wonderwall<br />Little Wing<br />Last Kiss<br />Hard to Handle<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: Ok.<br /><br />1) All Along the Watchtower (Jimi Hendrix covering Bob Dylan)<br />2) Tainted Love (Soft Cell covering Gloria Jones)<br />3) Little Wing (Derek & the Dominoes covering Jimi Hendrix)<br />4) With A Little Help From My Friends (Joe Cocker covering The Beatles)<br />5) Strawberry Letter 23 (The Brothers Johnson covering Shuggie Otis)<br />6) Turn, Turn, Turn (The Byrds covering Pete Seeger)<br />7) Nothing Compares 2 U (Sinead O'Connor covering The Family/Prince)<br />8) Hallejulah (Jeff Buckley covering Leonard Cohen)<br />9) Such Great Heghts (Iron and Wine covering The Postal Service)<br />10) Hurt (Johnny Cash covering Nine Inch Nails)<br /><br />Wonderwall (Ryan Adams covering Oasis), and Hard to Handle (Black Crowes covering Otis Redding) are both definitely on the Honorable Mention list, but Last Kiss' popularity doesn't make it an all time great cover - and you know I'm quite the Pearl Jam fan.<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: Hmm. I will have to listen to the “Such Great Heights” cover. Kinda shocked that you chose “Hurt” and cast aside “Last Kiss”. I know Johnny Cash spilled his guts on that song but he sounded like he was on his deathbed singing it. He did a cover of Soundgarden’s “Rusty Cage” which I would put above “Hurt”. “Last Kiss” was not only wildly (and unexpectedly) popular, but I also feel that it was a great choice of a song to cover.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: Johnny Cash covered a lot of songs well there at the end, but "Hurt" was the tops. The context - coupled with the delivery - were perfect. The fact that it was essentially his epitaph cement it as his finest, and one of the all time greats.<br /><br />Last Kiss is a fine song. Pearl Jam took and obscure pop tune and recorded it, faithfully - albeit slowed down a bit - at a Chicago soundcheck. They turned the song over to a charity for a compilation release. It was intended to be, and at times sounds like, a throwaway track. It became popular, but that doesn't increase the quality of the song. If Stone Temple Pilots, Creed, or any other top act of the day had covered it in this fashion, I think you'd agree. If you look at the songs on my list, these are classics in their own right - having nothing to do with the performer or the original performance. Whether it be from the rearrangement, the delivery or the genre change (and in may cases two or all three of these qualities), most of these songs are all time great songs, not simply great covers. Last Kiss belongs nowhere on a list like that.<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: Ok. That’s a convincing argument for “Hurt”.This cover of “Such Great Heights” reminds me of Sonic Youth’s cover of “Superstar”.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: Which is another Honorable Mention. Probably top 15. I think "Such Great Heights" gets the nod because of the greater distance between genres - but I really wouldn't fight a swap.<br />You ok with the list other than that?<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: Well I don’t know “Halleluiah” either… Or the original “Turn, Turn, Turn”… Or the original “Tainted Love”… And I’m fuzzy on “Nothing Compares 2 U”… But it looks right.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: Done and done.<br /><br />Next issue:<br /><br />Is it illegal to just eat a bird? As in, if I heard a chick peeping in a tree, reached up and plucked it from its nest and ate it, am I breaking any law?GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-65099408685693981172010-06-10T16:59:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.730-07:00Take Me To Your Theater<div><br /><div><br /><div><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBGF0TMD8XI/AAAAAAAAAgc/eEFMR-bUVhA/s1600/theater.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5481309355037159794" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 273px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBGF0TMD8XI/AAAAAAAAAgc/eEFMR-bUVhA/s400/theater.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><div>When it rains, it pours here at Blogometrics. That means another dose of "Smack Talk" with our old friend Smack.</div><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div>This time we try to hash out a movie idea that will use the theme of world domination, in the hopes that it gets us on our way to just that.</div><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div>As always, feel free to weigh in by posting a comment, and enjoy.</div><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div><strong>Blogometrics</strong>: I have a movie idea. </div><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div><strong>Smack</strong>: Ok. Shoot. </div><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: it's called The Liberators, or something to that effect.In essence, it's a sci-fi movie about aliens coming to Earth. However, instead of clouding the premise of their arrival with "are they here to conquer? to explore? for peace, war, resources, etc?" it's made clear right away, via a message sent ahead of their arrival, that they're here to liberate us. Liberate us from the unnatural state of slavery that we live in. The aliens point out that our society's flaws are the flaws that truly cause the Earth's problem. They point to the fact that we live our lives to work for some one else - long story short, they use the cliches that 1) you spend more time with your co-workers than you do with your family, 2) most of us carry out this work for a cause or purpose that we do not enjoy, fully understand, and work towards a cause which has supposed benefits to our society that we cannot understand, 3) our children are herded to schools to spend more time with teachers and classmates than with their families to learn the skills required to take an a job as described again, 4) no other living creature acts this way.</div><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div>Earthlings are obviously skeptical, as the exact nature of the liberation plan is not fully disclosed. Our political and military leaders are more than skeptical, they begin to pursue a strategy of conflict.<br /></div><br /><div>Now, where do you think it should go from there, and how could this film best hold the themes that A) we live, essentially, meaningless lives in a world we do not relate to within a universe we do not comprehend, B) there is no right and wrong, only your point of view, and C) keep the <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBGF7mQ4_gI/AAAAAAAAAgk/ZbBWzqNqwhY/s1600/theater1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5481309480416771586" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 180px" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBGF7mQ4_gI/AAAAAAAAAgk/ZbBWzqNqwhY/s320/theater1.jpg" border="0" /></a>obvious 'America invading Iraq to liberate people who could vaguely understand the idea that things weren't great there, but maybe just help us fix it instead of destroying everything we know as a civilization' themed reference (like every movie has nowadays)?<br /></div><br /><div>I'm thinking it should end in conflict, develop a storyline around a cautiously optimistic A) reporter, B) scientist or C) politician who wants to believe the aliens, sees the inevitable conflict coming, survives the global war of near annihilation, and begins to rebuild his life.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Thoughts?<br /></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: I feel like it’s too thinly veiled and the whole political allegory thing is overdone. I would like more information about this liberation plan, regardless of whether it matters in the movie.<br /></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Two thoughts on your first point:<br /></div><br /><div>1) Do you have a suggestion on how to better "mask" the allegory?<br /></div><br /><div>2) I was kind of tending towards leaning towards it being thinly veiled - almost satirical of Avatar, District 9 - and even other non-sci-fi movies that use these kind of themes. Do you think that I could even crank that to 11 and make it better as satire? Does it work as satire where it is now?<br /></div><br /><div>On your second point:<br /></div><br /><div>1) Sticking with the whole satire/allegory theme above, what if the liberation plan was the gift of freedom from A) possessions, B) money, C) access to an untapped wealth of resources elsewhere in the solar system/galaxy/universe (and a means to procure it)?<br /></div><br /><div>Now, sticking especially with the third theme, could we go even further into the satire/allegory and have it turn out that the aliens, in fact, would benefit from our mining the resources of another world - and it turns out to be our reporter/scientist/politician "hero" that discovers this scheme, alerts our military leaders and sets off the war of the worlds scenario?<br /></div><br /><div>Actually, that could be it. The aliens come to liberate us by providing us with a Utopian level supply of every resource we could ever devise, or need, including, say, the ability to create and manipulate matter. This would not only remove any sort of power advantage one person could have over another, but would also make any person as powerful as they wished to be (somehow our world would need to rid itself of its violent tendencies, but let's not get bogged down with the existential stuff when we've only got 2 hours to work with). The aliens point us in a direction of a Utopian, benevolent lifestyle...but it turns out that we are serving their interests by starving another world of it's resources and crippling the enemies of our "liberators." When this is discovered by the main character, he informs his former adversaries - the typical Hollywood generals, politicians etc who were all war from the word go, and after ultimately convincing Earth's leaders of the threat, all out war occurs.<br /></div><br /><div>How do I wrap this up?<br /></div><br /><div>And how do I not make this too much of an Avatar (which I have not seen) knock-off?<br /></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: What if you develop a character in one of the aliens? Kind of personify the alien and maybe the head aliens are convincing their species that what they’re doing is for the greater good, but <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBGGEoPxvZI/AAAAAAAAAgs/1vRjcW5D8C4/s1600/theater2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5481309635567795602" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 178px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBGGEoPxvZI/AAAAAAAAAgs/1vRjcW5D8C4/s200/theater2.jpg" border="0" /></a>then this one alien discovers that there’s actually a hidden agenda and revolts and joins forces with the humans and helps them combat the aliens and truly liberate the earth.<br /></div><br /><div>That’s basically Avatar.<br /></div><br /><div>What if you made this like a “Not Another Teen Movie” of political allegories? Except don’t make it slapstick.<br /></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Bingo.<br /></div><br /><div>We play it both ways. There's an alien sentinel sent ahead to scout us, or one of the visiting aliens develops a guilty conscience - either way, they're the ones who inform our reporter/scientist/liberal politician that he needs to put an end to this arrangement. The second scenario works better, because if all of the sudden "hey, I was a sentinel sent ahead of time and I've learned to love your people -that's TOO over the top in it's theft of literally every politically themed sci-fi movie ever. Or is that what we want?<br /></div><br /><div>Another tidbit I've thought of: The aliens claims to have no weapons, but when the conflict occurs, not only do they have traditional sci-fi movie lasers and typical blue energy bomb things - but they can also unleash the Earth's fury through earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc. This makes for a good excuse for some special effects wizardry, and also, if we are looking to incorporate as many sci-fi movies as we can (as our stated goal), you can add "2012" to the list.<br /></div><br /><div>Now we need to decide. Are we going to go the route of incorporating every sci-fi movie that draws on the current military/political hot topic of it's day (without going too overboard and, like you say, turn it into "Not Another Teen Movie"), or should we shy away from ideas that are already overtly taken?We also still need to wrap the film up. Our character finds himself in the post war/post every natural disaster ever world. Now...<br /></div><br /><div>- Is his alien informant there?</div><br /><br /><div>- What lesson does this movie want to ultimately teach?</div><br /><br /><div>- Does this movie even want to teach a lesson, or is this movie like Transformers (I dare you to find a lesson in those movies besides "be nice to your car, it may be an evil robot from space")?</div><br /><br /><div>- Do we borrow the lesson from another sci-fi movie?<br /></div><br /><div>Lastly, is there room for a love interest here? And don't even think of suggesting the informant and the reporter. Watching the attempted development of romantic chemistry between Mark Walberg as a human and Helena Bonham Carter as an "evolved" chimp in the latest remake of Planet of the Apes was one of the most singularly off-putting plot lines I have ever experienced.<br /></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: An interspecies romance between the informant and the reporter would also be Avatar.<br /></div><br /><div>Add Independence Day to the list. I’m thinking we’ll need either Will Smith or Harrison Ford for this movie. Or both. I think the resolution would be this:With the help of the alien informant, Earth’s superpowers are able to temporarily put aside their differences and band together to fend off the aliens. The informant stays on Earth or is killed in battle. Maybe throw in a tear <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBGGRCeT81I/AAAAAAAAAg0/KZtNjTv18R8/s1600/theater3.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5481309848766509906" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 135px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBGGRCeT81I/AAAAAAAAAg0/KZtNjTv18R8/s200/theater3.jpg" border="0" /></a>jerking scene where the alien slowly dies in the hands of the reporter. After all the natural disasters and war Earth enters a rebuilding phase. World leaders recognize that despite the alien’s ulterior motives, they were right about our self destructive way of life. The rebuilding and restructuring of Earth is undertaken with a new global philosophy which stresses autonomy, mastery and purpose in the workplace, while also valuing family and renewable resources. End with a potshot at Al Gore.<br /></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Hmm...<br /></div><br /><div>I think that crosses the line into "Not Another Sci Fi Movie" territory.<br /></div><br /><div>I think we could do it less tongue in cheek about the build up to war being a world wide united front all along, but as far as the rebuilding phase, I was thinking more wasteland-y than a scenario in which any world leaders - or much of a semblance of the world remains.<br /></div><br /><div>I'm thinking one of those simple lesson-teaching moments, like at the end of Planet of the Apes (gasp - it's Earth! - not sure the lesson there, but you follow me), here are a few examples (none of these should be used, most are for illustration AND humor):<br /></div><br /><div>- The lead character rises from the rubble, is the only human left for miles and miles of post-apocalyptic NYC, DC, Boston, Chicago, etc, takes out his wallet and burns his cash.<br /></div><br /><div>- It's years later. A small group of survivors, including the hero (in this case, played by Mark Walberg, who now has his silly Walberg beard to let viewers know "this is the wasteland, there are no razors!"), have banded together and are living a rural lifestyle in what appear to be the wooded mountains of the American West. As they sit around the fire one night, Marky Mark takes his trusty dog a few feet away from the circle, and into the woods. He bows down, looks him in the eye, pats him on the head, and lets him go.<br /></div><br /><div>- Jesus Christ shows up and takes the remaining humans with him to heaven.<br /></div><br /><div>Something like that. Simple, profound.<br /></div><br /><div>Ideas?<br /></div><br /><div><em>ed. note: Not surprisingly, Smack and I found it difficult to come up with an original ending to the most unoriginal sci-fi movie ever. So, if any readers have ideas, we're all ears.</em></div></div></div></div>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-45122771897001183572010-06-09T16:50:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.730-07:00Just Because We Get Around<div><div><div><div><div><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBAwmlNFevI/AAAAAAAAAfs/LkriWfiIRoY/s1600/getaround.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5480934185890052850" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 266px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBAwmlNFevI/AAAAAAAAAfs/LkriWfiIRoY/s400/getaround.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Hello readers, it's been a while. Thanks for hanging in there to those of you still checking in. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div>I'm sure you've heard of Generation Me. You've probably also heard that our generation is the most self centered and entitled generation in history. Well, since I'm always up for railing against the ills of our society, and getting into an argument over just about anything, I thought it might be time for a little "Smack Talk." </div><br /><div></div><br /><div>We try to get to the bottom of whether this generation is, in fact, the greediest and most self centered in our history, or whether we're just a misunderstood group facing an uphill climb not seen in this country for nearly a century. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div>To those of you who think we end up sounding like typical Generation Me-ers: Get your own damn blog.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Feel free to weigh in by posting a comment, and enjoy</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong>Blogometrics</strong>: I heard somewhere the other day that this generation - "Generation Me" - which was assigned to anyone from 24-36 (a bit large for a generation if you ask me), was the most entitled in American history - meaning, we expect the most return for the least amount invested. Do you agree with this?</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong>Smack</strong>: I would say that is way large for a generation. That would almost put you and Jason (my 23 year old brother) together. At first glance I disagreed, but then I read a little about “Generation Me” and it seems to mean that we have been ingrained with a “self first” philosophy. Not in a selfish way, but just that we are taught to cultivate the self more so than thinking of society first. That might be true.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: I would agree about the "self-first" attitude, but I look at it this way:</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Prior generations HAVE received more return on their investments. Take my parents, for example. In 1975, they bought a house for $52,000. Their combined income, both on jobs gained <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBAwwHT7syI/AAAAAAAAAf0/1boex_ue-CA/s1600/getaround1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5480934349664400162" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 159px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 240px" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBAwwHT7syI/AAAAAAAAAf0/1boex_ue-CA/s400/getaround1.jpg" border="0" /></a>with no college degree, was just over half that amount. Today, some one in their late 20s/early 30s is probably making around $40-50,000/yr without a degree. See any houses on the market for $90,000? The cars our parents drove were never over $10,000 - and these were new, reliable cars. Even as recently as the 1990s, you could get a Toyota Camry for under $15,000 new. Now you need to spend nearly a year's salary on a new car. You may say that "you don't need a new car" - but the point is that there is a marked decrease in the quality of goods available to people who fall into this age bracket against what has been available in the past.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>So, when some one like me says "I want a home" or "I want a new car" - am I acting entitled, or am I simply recognizing that past generations have had access to these things without much more of a substantial personal investment?</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: Wherever you heard about this, were they talking about entitlement and return on investment in a financial sense?If so, then I disagree. Saying we want more for our money is basically calling us cheap. If there was ever a penny pinching generation, it’s the one that is currently in nursing homes – the generation that went through the Great Depression. This current financial depression is going to produce another similar generation.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>If it means return on investment in the sense of expecting more for less effort, then maybe I can see that. We’re a lazier, ADD-ridden generation.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: But really Smack, how are we lazier? </div><br /><div></div><br /><div>What was it that our parents were doing with the time we spend playing video games, IM'ing each other or watching TV?</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>We work, in general, more than our parents did (I would put it to a bet that the average number of hours worked for a 24-36 year old has increased over the last 40 years, not decreased), yet for the most part have an equal or greater amount of social time - as we get married and start families much later than they did (this gets us back to the $$ - it takes us longer to be in a financially suitable place to undertake this). With this time, we might utilize "self-centered" technologies like cell phones, facebook, or whatever - but young(er) people have always gravitated towards this sort of behavior - from chat lines to mixers to key parties. Technology simply makes this phenomenon more personal and portable (and contributes significantly to the ADD epidemic you point to). </div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Now, I can see where the "self centered" and "entitled" get crossed - but to use an analogy without overly spelling it out - who would you rather be next to in the checkout line: The 26 year old Paris Hilton clone who's loudly chatting away on her cell phone and acts as if the cashier is a distraction, the 74 year old woman who argues every price, argues every coupon and pays in a <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBAw8bSi3vI/AAAAAAAAAf8/oVwPdO-Zx2g/s1600/getaround3.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5480934561185718002" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 162px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 240px" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBAw8bSi3vI/AAAAAAAAAf8/oVwPdO-Zx2g/s400/getaround3.jpg" border="0" /></a>combination of nickels, dimes and crumpled one dollar bills, or the 54 year old man who impatiently sighs every 6 seconds, mutters "Jesus Christ Almighty" when a price check is called for, and barks "just give me the receipt" when asked if he'd like to donate $1 to find a cure for a disease that he's hopefully stricken with one day? </div><br /><div></div><br /><div>I say if you look at it that way, there's plenty of "self centering" across every generation. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: Well just from going to and working at a summer camp from like 1990 to 2000, I witnessed a transition from kids that would play a ferocious game of head-hunting dodgeball without a tear being shed, to a rash of overweight kids that would bring their Gameboys and Pokemon cards to camp and just assume sit on their fat butts all day. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Is that the same issue, though?</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>I'm not going to argue that it's disgusting to see the number of overweight and obese children and high schoolers (those who you counseled at camp have probably blossomed into diabetic 20-somethings), and it probably elicits some sort of primal, negative reaction about the fate of our society - but I still don't think that's what's meant by "entitled." </div><br /><div></div><br /><div>I think I should clarify: I'm using the term "entitled" and I think the spirit of the initial question is"self-entitled." </div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Your little campers fall into the former category. Mommy and Daddy shut those kids up with Twinkies and Pokemon, and therefore entitled the kids to act like a full generation of Augustus Gloops. How do you think it would have gone over in our houses - or the majority of houses across the country - had an 11 year old you or I said "Naw Dad, I'm not going to baseball today. I'm just going to sit down here in my room and eat KFC and play Nintendo all day. In fact, since <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBAxH8qA29I/AAAAAAAAAgE/QdBfZk0epIw/s1600/getaround4.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5480934759121083346" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 155px" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBAxH8qA29I/AAAAAAAAAgE/QdBfZk0epIw/s400/getaround4.jpg" border="0" /></a>Mom bought me a TV and a sick sound system, I'm probably never going to play a sport again."</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Now, there were those kids when we were younger, the ones who didn't play sports, didn't belong to the boy scouts, didn't really have any outside interests at all, and had all the toys and candy you could imagine. They were the kids who's houses you might stumble upon once or twice on a weekend, or during the summer. Your initial reaction might have been "AWESOME!!! YOU ARE THE LUCKIEST PERSON I KNOW!!!!" But soon, after the third time of asking "You wanna ride down to 'place x' and 'engage in some sort of physical activity' with me?" and being met with a "nuh-uh" (because nothing stimulates the vocabulary like junk food, video games and a sunlight free existence), you left, and never went back.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>I think this sort of thing is a bigger problem now than it was even in your campground glory days of '99-00, but I still think this is a separate issue, because A) I think the majority of the children who have been crippled by this sort of lifestyle are still just that - children - and not yet 24, and B) These kids are "entitled" by their parents, not self entitled in the way that our generation is accused of being. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong>S </strong>(from an Internet definition): </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><em>Who is part of Generation Me?</em></div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Generation Me describes anyone born in the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s -- in 2006, this means people between the ages of 7 and 36. These are today's young people, those who take it for granted that the self comes first. I'm a member of this generation myself, born in 1971. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><em>How is Generation Me different from previous generations, especially from the "Me generation" of the 1970s?</em></div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Baby Boomers were sometimes called the "Me generation" in the 1970s, but this was a premature and brief label: Boomers did not discover the self until young adulthood, and even then did everything in groups, from protests to seminars like est. Generation Me has never known a world that put duty before self, and believes that the needs of the individual should come first. This is not the same thing as being selfish – it is captured, instead, in the phrases we so often hear: "Be yourself," "Believe in yourself," "You must love yourself before you can love someone else." These are some of our culture's most deeply entrenched beliefs, and Generation Me has grown up hearing them whispered in our ears like the subliminally conditioned children in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div>We live in a time when high self-esteem is encouraged from childhood, when young people have more freedom and independence than ever, but also far more depression, anxiety, cynicism, and loneliness. Today's young people have been raised to aim for the stars at a time when it is more difficult than ever to get into college, find a good job, and afford a house. Their expectations are very high just as the world is becoming more competitive, so there's a huge clash between their expectations and reality. More than any other generation in history, the children of Baby Boomers are disappointed by what they find when they arrive at adulthood. Generation Me will give Boomers new insight into their offspring, and help those in their teens, twenties, and thirties finally make sense of their generation. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: We could open up a whole big can of worms with the "duty before self" and "organizing protests" piece.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>I think Generation Me learned from it's parents that protests don't really work, but "community" does. I think Generation Me learned in 2000 and 2001 that there's really not a <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBAxSZo1h7I/AAAAAAAAAgM/pR9-R2hoIvU/s1600/getaround2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5480934938699466674" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 153px" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBAxSZo1h7I/AAAAAAAAAgM/pR9-R2hoIvU/s400/getaround2.jpg" border="0" /></a>whole lot you can do about things, anyway. Would it be better if we tried? Maybe. But, could it also be argued that the famous protests of the 60s and 70s actually yielded nothing more than a sense of community that in many ways has yielded no greater benefit than have the "self centered" social networking and constant contact mentality that "our" generation has adopted? Maybe.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Here's my take: Generation Me has increased the wealth of the wealthiest Americans more so than any generation has done for their wealthy counterparts in the history of this country. Everything pointed to as "things that make us self centered" are things that make the rich richer. We don't protest? Well, look at it this way: even the last major protests of the last generation - the Women's Liberation Movement - was only successful when fat cats realized that they could turn every household into a two income generating machine - meaning the price of goods could be reasonably inflated, while wages could remain relatively stagnant as "average" people, with their added second incomes, only noticed how expensive things had become when costs soared out of their collective grasp. Of course, at this point, even the "old school" or relatively affluent were forced into this world of a two income house when they, too found that in order to get by, Daddy wasn't bringing home enough bacon. Unions became less important, as the unionized jobs were shipped overseas and service jobs were populated by women new to the workforce, also leading to diminished wages - not to mention a Republican campaign against Unions rivalled in our lifetimes only by the Wars on Drugs and Terror.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>So now, we have 2 incomes (at some times three) being produced in every household, working harder for the wealthy to purchase the products average households can barely afford. Of course, that was all solved in the late 90s and first half of the 00s when it was "No Money? No Problem!" - and a criminal credit scheme was invented to first give us "entitled little brats" the artificially inflated goods and services that past generations afforded with more ease, and also insulate the institutions of the wealthiest Americans as the foundation of the economy itself - "too big to fail." Credit system collapses after the middle class and poor can no longer play ball? And the wealthy don't want to part with their favorite new tool? Hey! Bailout! No problem - keep making those profits. But I digress...</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>While I do agree that things like "No Score Tee-Ball" and daily affirmations for 1st graders are a troubling development, I still think the greater problem facing Generation Me is not the sense of self that's been instilled within them (by the same institution that profit from them, remember),<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBAxeAsUAlI/AAAAAAAAAgU/VrS895lsdYc/s1600/getaround5.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5480935138161590866" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 180px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/TBAxeAsUAlI/AAAAAAAAAgU/VrS895lsdYc/s400/getaround5.jpg" border="0" /></a> but the reality that even the most humble, duty-first "role models" of this period are still struggling to advance in an America that has drastically shifted its values - not from "we" to "me", but from "how can I help you?" to "what can you give me?" And this shift started at the top of the economic ladder, not the bottom - and that's the beauty of it: All of these Tea Partiers and young "get the moderates out of here" Republicans want to move blame down the economic line, to the poor, the sick, the minorities, immigrants and other people who evidently didn't populate "their parent's America." Problem is, the most dangerous new inhabitant of this country is pure, unadulterated and lethal greed (maybe those pre-schoolers do need a little good news ahead of what awaits them...).</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>So if that has some of us a little blue, a little testy and a little more willing to partake in an online round of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, so be it. Just don't try to sell me some version 2.0 self help book on how to deal with the disappointment of finding out I can't "be anything I want to be" - because most of us don't want to be that much of anything at all. We don't want to be millionaires - we want an affordable mortgage. We don't want $120,000 cars - we want to stop worrying about whether we'll be able to afford it when our transmission finally goes. In other words, we don't want extravagant wealth, we want a stability that's less and less attainable. One thing we're all taught is that there is, in fact, a difference between dreams and reality. And while we all have dreams, most of us are still rooted in a reality that has turned very, very bleak.</div></div></div></div></div></div>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-49668034917473256092010-02-03T15:33:00.000-08:002011-06-16T19:16:56.731-07:00Domo Arigato<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S2oNxCxIEvI/AAAAAAAAAfk/zDCW8O3xhLU/s1600-h/roboto1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5434171036583596786" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 168px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 240px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S2oNxCxIEvI/AAAAAAAAAfk/zDCW8O3xhLU/s400/roboto1.jpg" border="0" /></a>Alright readers, time for another round of "Smack" talk. This time, our friend and I return to the sports world, and discuss the limits of fandom, robots in sports, and exploding helicopters.<br /><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div></div><br /><div>Enjoy.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>Blogometrics</strong>: Do you think sports fans would root For robots? </div><div><br /><strong>Smack</strong>: No. Maybe cyborgs.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: I really wonder about this.<br /><br />Watching Roger Federer is almost like watching a tennis robot - he's just so solid. On top of that, he really doesn't have a personality outside of "I am the best, I am here to win tennis matches." Overall, very robotic.<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S2oNifXv48I/AAAAAAAAAfc/Z__8s9M--kw/s1600-h/roboto2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5434170786563744706" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 151px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 146px" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S2oNifXv48I/AAAAAAAAAfc/Z__8s9M--kw/s400/roboto2.jpg" border="0" /></a></div><div><br />I think in some sports the answer would be "yes" - others "no." NASCAR - "no." Horse racing - "no." Football, though? What if the human element was removed, and robots played out the strategies of their coaches...? Baseball...?</div><div><br /><strong>S</strong>: I might watch a few robot football games just because they’re robot football games, but I’m not going to become a huge Unit Number 8 fan and buy its game jersey. And once the novelty wears off I won’t watch anymore.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: Exactly. But are you really a big "Tom Brady" fan, or are you a fan of the "QB for the New England Patriots?" Did you root against Matt Cassell last year, because he replaced your "malfunctioning unit"?<br /><br />I think most fans root for the laundry - I'm not saying this robot thing would work, but I'm not sure it would be all "novelty."</div><div><br /><strong>S</strong>: Well I’m definitely a Welker fan just because of the way he plays the game. I like other players that don’t play for the Patriots, and I dislike players that are on the Patriots. You wouldn’t have diehard fans “bleeding red and blue” if it were a team of robots.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: Do you think a new style of fandom could develop? One that fed on the desire of fans to see the game played to it's highest possible level? Look at it this way: leagues spend most of the season whittling down to the best teams, ones that are playing at a level above all others. This weekend, we'll watch the two best square off.<br /><br />Look at Peyton Manning - robotic. Look at the Colts as a whole, actually. Look at the Saint's offense - robotic in it's execution.<br /><br />I just wonder how much fans actually latch onto the "human" personalities of the team.</div><div><br /><strong>S</strong>: No, I don’t think so. You don’t have people lining up to watch computers play chess against each other.</div><div><br />You can describe Peyton’s play as robotic but he’s still a human being with flaws and emotions. He can still be affected by pressure or get injured. If you remove the human element you’d lose the fans.</div><div><br />Would you honestly root for robots?<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: I'm just putting it out there - and the answer is "probably not." I think I'd watch a little more keenly than you say you would.<br /><br />I'm not sure your chess analogy works, because people don't really line up to watch humans play chess, either.<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: You and I don’t line up to watch chess but there are definitely pockets of chess fans, or at least people interested enough to watch a human vs human chess match. It’s really the only activity I can think of where a computer can pretty much do the activity flawlessly.</div><div><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S2oMrR7-RkI/AAAAAAAAAfE/4d6_cbpES9Y/s1600-h/roboto3.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5434169838064780866" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 297px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 214px" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S2oMrR7-RkI/AAAAAAAAAfE/4d6_cbpES9Y/s400/roboto3.jpg" border="0" /></a>The only way I think it could work is if we were rooting for the robot builders to build the best robot. If all the robots were built the same with the same capabilities it wouldn’t work.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: The strategic element is what I'm thinking of here - which is already present in the sports that I think this would work with (mostly baseball and football). You'd have coaches putting forth their strategies knowing that they'd be carried out to perfection - the only thing stopping them is the strategy of the other coach.<br /><br />As far as your follow up with chess, I'd relate that to "Junk Wars" or "Robot Wars" or any of those other TV shows slash quasi - sporting events, where people invent and assemble robots to do battle. I think there's as much a following here in the U.S. for that sort of thing as there is for chess - because I can't remember the last time I saw chess on t.v.</div><div><br /><strong>S</strong>: If coaches were working with perfect “players” and it just came down to strategy vs strategy, you’re not going to see Bill Belichicks in the league. It’s going to be all geeks. One of the things that makes a great NFL coach is the ability to work with personnel and work with matchups, etc. Like what the Pats were able to do with Troy Brown, or what they’re currently trying to do with Edelman.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: I totally agree with you - it would be very different. I just wonder whether it could generate a following.</div><div><br /><strong>S</strong>: Rather than wasting all the money on developing and creating physical robots, why not just make it an offshoot of Madden 2010 where they design a complete playbook and play with all players rated 100? Would there really be a difference?<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: Yes - you'd still see the action unfold before you on a real field.<br /><br />Another example: The Romans used to flood their colosseums and hold competitive naval battles. This wouldn't be so different than a competitive tank battle. I think people might watch that.</div><div><br /><strong>S</strong>: A robot that can physically outperform Drew Brees or Randy Moss would be more expensive to develop and build than those guys make, however there’s no way you’re going to generate the revenue that the NFL does. If I’m a venture capitalist, “Great idea, thanks for stopping by. Don’t call me, I’ll call you.”<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: True, but you're getting away from the point. I'm not talking about the feasibility, the cost, the anything - other than whether people would root for robots.<br /><br />You say no?</div><div><br /><strong>S</strong>: Not in any meaningful quantity. You might get the same fan base that Robot Wars got… </div><div></div><br /><div>Maybe a temporary buzz if you hype it enough.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: What if the robots were heavily armed, and very upset with each other? Well, programmed to be "upset."</div><div><br /><strong>S</strong>: So… a Plaxico robot?<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: Exactly. Coming around?<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: I think if you made robots with human elements, you’re at least giving potential fans something to latch onto. A “personality” if you will. If robots had certain strengths and weaknesses that could be discovered and exploited, then maybe you could have something there. But clone robots executing perfection wouldn’t be as entertaining, I think.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: You're probably right, though I actually think that having robots with human emotions would actually be the factor that turned it into a geek-fest, not the coaches.<br /><br />Can you imagine "Unit B6A1 doesn't like operating in the snow. Perhaps he is made from scraps <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S2oM41-gOAI/AAAAAAAAAfM/SjT7cRfnGjk/s1600-h/roboto4.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5434170071077369858" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 243px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 158px" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S2oM41-gOAI/AAAAAAAAAfM/SjT7cRfnGjk/s400/roboto4.jpg" border="0" /></a>of an abandoned Russian satellite. The Green Bay squad will surely exploit this weakness of the Tampa Bay squad."?</div><div><br /><strong>S</strong>: Well yeah, the Tampa squad would surely be equipped with shallow treads that would be much less effective on the Green Bay tundra. Battery insulation would be an issue as well. </div><div><br />What kind of artillery are we talking about when you say “heavily armed”? Shoulder spikes?</div><div></div><br /><div>What about liquid metal, like T1000?<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: Okay, let's just get this out of the way: If you do not agree that a field full of T1000s would be mind blowing, then you and I are done speaking. However, that's not what I'm getting at.<br /><br />I'm thinking more along the lines of rocket launchers - but that's really going off on a tangent. I wasn't serious, though it would be interesting to picture some rogue coach/robot design team secretly arming their robots. There would be no stopping them, theoretically. You'd actually probably have to call in the National Guard.<br /><br /><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S2oNGDDKFeI/AAAAAAAAAfU/3_1T5K7uTW0/s1600-h/roboto5.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5434170297924851170" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 133px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S2oNGDDKFeI/AAAAAAAAAfU/3_1T5K7uTW0/s400/roboto5.jpg" border="0" /></a>That would be interesting.<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: We’re changing the whole scenario, but yes I would watch 22 T1000’s duke it out. Or just plain heavily armed robots playing football. Would the point still be to get the football in the endzone? Would you bother with kickers?<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: No kickers. Instead, for the extra point, the scoring team would need to shoot down a helicopter.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-27254682317930102722010-01-25T11:52:00.000-08:002011-06-16T19:16:56.731-07:00Research and Arrested Development<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S135UqkAtAI/AAAAAAAAAeU/kGEspbl_ttU/s1600-h/godfather1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5430770859096716290" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 260px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 216px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S135UqkAtAI/AAAAAAAAAeU/kGEspbl_ttU/s400/godfather1.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><div><div>I know you're all asking yourselves, "when are we going to get some more 'Smack' talk?" Well, the answer is "right now" for those of you reading this "right now."</div><div></div><br /><div>Enjoy.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>Blogometrics</strong>: I have created something pretty funny - just a concept now - but it has potential. It's called the McCarty Celebrity Test (or Meter), and here's how it works:<br /><br />Actually, a little back story first. A friend (Curtis) and I were discussing movies this past weekend, and I made a reference to Gran Torino, with Clint Eastwood. I was surprised he had not seen the film, but quickly pointed out that I had not seen many, many famous movies - as I'm not really a "movie person." We discussed how certain films elicit a strong response in this regard - an example of which is the Godfather, which I have never seen. We agreed that I would elicit many, many "YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THE GODFATHER??"s from any range of people to whom I disclosed this.<br /><br />We tried to come up with other movies that would elicit such a response, and Curtis mentioned Star Trek movies. I disagreed (though we noted this brought an interested element of demographics to the table) by stating "I would need to be at a Star Trek convention in order to ever hear the exclamatory phrase 'YOU'VE NEVER SEEN 'WRATH OF KHAN??', yet there are countless rooms in America right now, full of people I've never met, into which I could walk, wearing nothing but a gorilla mask and a diaper and calmly say "I've never seen 'The Godfather' - and for every 'who the hell are you?', there'd be two "YOU'VE NEVER SEEN 'THE GODFATHER'??s.'"<br /><br />And so it was born - The McCarty Celebrity Test. This can be used not only on movies, but to gauge celebrity as well. Want to see if the Jonas Brothers are truly famous? (In a controlled environment, of course - but with an unsuspecting target) Walk up to a bank teller, pull down a ski mask and hand the teller a note that says "This is a robbery. I have no idea who the Jonas Brothers are." If the teller replies "YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF THE JONAS BROTHERS??" they pass the test.<br /><br />This could be used a thousand ways.<br /><br />Thoughts? </div><div><br /><strong>Smack</strong>: So you need to do something that would ordinarily get a response on its own, but then throw in the fact that you don’t know who some celebrity-in-question is, and see which the test subject is more concerned with?<br />What if you went to your PCP and then said “Doc, I think I have swine flu. I have no idea what swine flu is.”<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: Hmm. The physician example is a good one, but I'm thinking that there needs to be the element of surprise - almost like a hidden camera show / game show.<br /><br />You could have contestants in a studio, wagering on the reaction of unsuspecting people who will be confronted by A) a surprise visitor/unexpected situation, and B) the proclamation of "I have no idea what/who, etc "X" is/are. The contestant would be asked to wager based on both the <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S135da96W9I/AAAAAAAAAec/vGAshAZil3Q/s1600-h/godfather3.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5430771009529207762" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 180px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S135da96W9I/AAAAAAAAAec/vGAshAZil3Q/s400/godfather3.jpg" border="0" /></a>subject (who "X" is), and the targets. For instance, if Brittany Spears was the subject, the contestant would be more likely to wager positively if the target group was a Division 3 college cheerleading squad, hanging out in their quad's kitchen (and about to be interrupted by some one dressed as Bozo the Clown saying "I have no idea who Brittany Spears is). Conversely, the contestant would most likely wager in the negative if the subject was Paul Newman, and the target was the same. I don't think too many cheerleaders are going to challenge a psycho clown on that one.<br /><br />Get it?<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: Like an Arab man standing up mid-flight and screaming “Everybody listen up! Who the heck is Brett Favre?”<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: Perfect. Totally perfect.<br /><br />Is a game show the best use of this concept?<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: What if one contestant chooses the entity with which the actor will be unfamiliar and the other contestant gets to make the wager? That way contestant #1 will have to wisely choose an entity that could go either way. If he chooses Britney Spears when the subjects will be cheerleaders, the wager becomes too obvious.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: Okay - I see where you're going. The thing that I don't want to get lost in all of this is that we're talking about moments of extreme surprise. Picture yourself dressing in a prom dress and a Luke Skywalker Halloween mask, and bursting into your neighbor's apartment to proclaim "I have never seen Apocalypse Now." We're not talking about any 'obvious' wagers. That's what makes this such a true test of celebrity - that through all the surprise, adrenaline and panic, the target still cannot believe you've never heard of/seen/etc "X."<br /><br />I don't want to turn this into a case of "Jackass" with contestants, a la "Steve-O is going to put something in his mouth. If it's alive, will it A,B or C, and if it's on fire, will he swallow it? Your wagers, please!"<br /><br />The two main elements here are the level of celebrity of the subject, and surprise.<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: I’m with you. </div><div><br />Break into a Kindergarten classroom with a Scream mask on and growl, “Dora the Explorer has a brother!?”<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: Exactly.<br /><br />Why has no one thought of this before?<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: Do you think this inventor thought the same thing?<br /> <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S135lSwM8-I/AAAAAAAAAek/RuMH9i-G9Uo/s1600-h/godfather2.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5430771144763175906" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 276px" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S135lSwM8-I/AAAAAAAAAek/RuMH9i-G9Uo/s400/godfather2.JPG" border="0" /></a><a href="http://www.nubrella.com/">http://www.nubrella.com/</a><br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: No, that inventor was too busy thinking, "Dude, where's my car?"<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: I’m just thinking: why not a full body bubble if you’re going to go that route? In every picture the person’s body is still getting soaked. Or a full bike bubble. Impact resistant.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: That's called a car.<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: No, you’re not getting it. This would keep you totally dry. AND it keeps you warm.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: And would be more dangerous to operate while impaired than an F-14 Tomcat. I get it.<br /><br />I'm going to sit on the McCarty Celebrity Test a while, see if anything else occurs to me. Like how to keep it dry...</div></div></div>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-56956006985892893492010-01-20T13:46:00.000-08:002011-06-16T19:16:56.731-07:00Quick Hit<div><div><div><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S1d7Ey9K9iI/AAAAAAAAAd0/TiwOli9Pslg/s1600-h/pats.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5428943198146459170" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 355px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S1d7Ey9K9iI/AAAAAAAAAd0/TiwOli9Pslg/s400/pats.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Sorry for another long absence, readers. To hold you over until this site gets back up and running at full steam, here's a very (very) quick check-in with our friend Randy about the NFL <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">playoffs</span>, and the bitterness inside this New England Sports fan. </div><div></div><br /><div><strong>Randy</strong>: Who do you want in the AFC title game? J - E - T -S, Jets, Jets, Jets!</div><div></div><br /><div><strong><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Blogometrics</span></strong>: I agree. It's funny when your two least favorite teams match up in a title game. </div><div><br />I'm going with the Jets, because I don't mind Rex Ryan - at least he brings personality to the <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S1d7La0zs7I/AAAAAAAAAd8/jREw8eo9CZ4/s1600-h/ryan.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5428943311928013746" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 112px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 132px" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S1d7La0zs7I/AAAAAAAAAd8/jREw8eo9CZ4/s400/ryan.jpg" border="0" /></a>team - and I can't think of any instance within the realm of reality where I would be rooting for Peyton Manning. Even if he was fighting to save mankind, I'd still get a kick out of that little tantrum he throws when, ahem, his team lets him down.</div><div><br />This is really an awful scenario for the New England fan, though. We're so cynical that we've hate Brett "America's Hero" <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Favre</span> since long before the national backlash set in, we can't be compelled to follow a "feel good" New Orleans team, because those things just don't fly around here - and the Jets and the Colts are 1 and 1A in the rival department. Even watching the Chargers lose last week - which I love to do every January - was less of a thrill when accompanied by "The Mark Sanchez Experience" - which consists of watching Sanchez play about 5% better than <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">JaMarcus</span> Russell, but acting like he's just won an intergalactic power lottery every time he throws a touchdown pass, then give a post game press conference that reminds me that I'll eventually need to find a baby-sitter for my 6 month old.</div><div><br /><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S1d7SFTX62I/AAAAAAAAAeE/QT4xf4oeLGw/s1600-h/sanchez.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5428943426409720674" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 133px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 140px" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S1d7SFTX62I/AAAAAAAAAeE/QT4xf4oeLGw/s400/sanchez.jpg" border="0" /></a>The New England fan, especially the jerks like me, are looking down the barrel of any one of four pretty grim "Sports Center breakfasts" the day after the Super Bowl. We're either going to get A) "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Favre's</span> Super Send off...or is it?" - and repeatedly watch Mr. Gunslinger engage in the phoniest celebration since Kobe Bryant jumped around the Staples Center court like a high school drama actor re-enacting a Black Eyed Peas concert; followed by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Favre's</span> teary, blubbering, teary, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Vicodin</span> induced, teary, maybe, teary, I don't know, teary post game presser; B) the moment of conception for Rick Reilly's next awful book - "Redemption", where he chronicles how a ravaged city circled the wagons around a QB no one wanted - gasp! - a QB with his own tumultuous past - double gasp!! - and now, miraculously, the bayou levees could hold back a flood of molten lava being spewed by an army of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Godzillas</span>, because, well, those New <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Orlean</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">ites</span> have been through so much. Compelling, sure, but I don't think New Orleans fans will feel any better than we NE fans felt in 2002 - our local team won the Super Bowl for the first time. Whenever the sports media tries to convey the "this is more than sports" angle, they lose me - kind of like when an audience applauds a motivational speaker's tale of overcoming alcoholism, it's like "Congratulations, I guess. I mean, I'm not wasted, either - <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">yay</span> me." C) The aforementioned Sanchez Experience, and the knowledge that the "Over Exposed Mediocre QB" phenomenon that we most recently witnessed with Eli Manning, will be unleashed upon America like a drunken Rex Ryan being released into a Wendy's kitchen, or D) The sudden mathematical awakening of the Midwestern United States, wherein the more complex theory of the decade actually ending this coming December 31st will be resurrected...along with the traditional Midwestern math approach of '2 is more than 3' - and we'll get to hear about how the Colts are <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S1d7aevqdqI/AAAAAAAAAeM/6I-gwTzcKXI/s1600-h/peyton.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5428943570678216354" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 99px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 130px" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/S1d7aevqdqI/AAAAAAAAAeM/6I-gwTzcKXI/s400/peyton.jpg" border="0" /></a>truly the team of the decade. All while watching clips of Peyton Manning grasping the Lombardi trophy like his alternate universe self grasping an 8 pound trout in the Southwestern Tennessee Regional B.A.S.S. Masters amateur tournament. All while just having sat through the latest Peyton Manning commercial, where he dresses up like an astronaut to tell you that if your Sony <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Bravia</span> won't get reception on the moon, the Space Station gift shop takes <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Mastercard</span>. He's a hoot. </div><div><br />In any event, any one of the subsequent Sports Illustrated "special subscription offers" should get me drinking again, so at least I'll be able to hit the motivational speaking circuit in a couple of years.</div></div></div></div>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-22337522214975988732009-12-19T08:32:00.000-08:002011-06-16T19:16:56.731-07:00...And Doggone it, No One Likes MeHi all. I know it's been a while since the last post - apologies for that. I'll keep this one very brief, and simply pass on an interesting story from CNN.com.<br /><br />Al Franken was elected to fill a U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota last year, and apart from the controversy surrounding the numerous recounts and lawsuits, he really hasn't generated much media buzz. This stands in stark contrast to the hoopla surrounding Governor Arnold Schawzenegger in California, and former Governor Jesse Ventura in Minnesota, both of who were, like Franken, "celebrities", of a sort, prior to their elections.<br /><br />I guess the mainstream media prefers to tell the story of a major film star turning into a marginal politician, rather than the story of a marginal celebrity turning out to be an effective statesman.<br /><br /><script src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=dom&vid=/video/politics/2009/12/18/yellin.franken.senate.shut.down.cnn" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript></noscript>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-16918846264960299412009-09-04T16:50:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.731-07:00Words Fail<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SqGnwzg-n3I/AAAAAAAAAds/dO9rdtFM-wo/s1600-h/address1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5377763886961172338" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 279px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SqGnwzg-n3I/AAAAAAAAAds/dO9rdtFM-wo/s400/address1.jpg" border="0" /></a> Next Tuesday, President Obama will address the nation's school children. Well, some of them, anyway. School districts across the country are sending home <em>permission slips</em> that will<br /><div>ask parents whether they wish for their child to view the broadcast or not. Let me say that again: School districts across the country are sending home permission slips that will ask parents whether they wish for their child to view the broadcast or not.</div><br /><br /><embed id="mediumFlashEmbedded" name="undefined" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" src="http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/videolandingpage/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf" width="305" height="275" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="playerId=videolandingpage&playerTemplateId=fncLargePlayer&categoryTitle=Politics&referralObject=9165718&referralParentPlaylistId=14dd8d0f134b75c8565df1685e721eff8f003aac&referralPlaylistId=c985e69916535a2170b2b18ab0ab7eb60401f9bb" wmode="false" scriptaccess="always" salign="LT" menu="false" scale="noscale" play="false" quality="high" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000"></embed><br /><br /><div></div>Now, not every school district has made these permission slips available to parents, but Blogometrics is here to help. Below is a copy of a permission slip that readers are free to print out and send along to school with their children next Tuesday:<br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">Dear School Administrator,<br /><br />I am asking that my child (select one with an 'X'):<br /><br />____ Be allowed to view the president's speech, as I feel that this is a valuable opportunity for students, teachers, and parents to reflect upon and discuss the importance of education in our society. As parents, we fondly remember answering President Reagan's 'Physical Fitness Challenge' and valued the words of George H.W. Bush when he addressed the nation's students in 1991 to stress much of the same topic Obama will address today. However, we request that the viewing be stopped should President Obama begin to read from "The Pet Goat." Thank you.<br /><br />____ NOT be subject to radical subversion and indoctrination into President Obama's 'cult of socialism.' Instead, please send my child to the art room, so that he/she may paint Hitler moustaches on pictures of our 'president' so that I may bring these with me to the next health care town meeting. I believe that the government should stay out of public schools, and feel that the same communist forces who seek to allow students to 'opt out' of reciting 'The Pledge of Allegiance' are again at work, this time trying to corrupt the picture of the Real America that I rightfully draw out for my child every evening.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /></span><div align="left"></div><div align="left"><span style="font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;">_______________<br /></span></div><br /><br />Folks, it's one thing to disagree with the president. It's another thing entirely to indoctrinate your children into the cult of asinine, right wing, delusional and absolutely empty-minded "conservatism" running rampant in this country by excusing them from this speech, and pitting them against their classmates who - gasp - watched the president tell them to study.<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/scW26Z-wykE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/scW26Z-wykE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-66213145582021361442009-09-03T15:09:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.732-07:00Somebody's Watching...<div><div><div><div><div><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SqBImeNGoLI/AAAAAAAAAc8/1y_7KFBBGAQ/s1600-h/sean1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5377377780860625074" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 189px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SqBImeNGoLI/AAAAAAAAAc8/1y_7KFBBGAQ/s400/sean1.jpg" border="0" /></a> <div>Time to bring a new contributor into the fold here at <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Blogometrics</span> - <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">everybody</span>, meet Sean. Sean, welcome to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Blogometrics</span>.</div><div></div><br /><div>For Sean's maiden voyage, we'll move into uncharted waters for this site: the world of conspiracy theories. However, instead of the usual suspects, we'll try to start up a few of our own.</div><div></div><br /><div>As always, feel free to weigh in by posting a comment, and enjoy.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Blogometrics</span></strong>: Alright Sean, here's the scoop: Every so often, I'm going to try to come up with a 'gentle' conspiracy theory to banter about. Essentially, just but a thought out there that stands on it's own as a contradictory idea to any certain presumption. I'm not looking to stir the pot, just looking to get people to say "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">hmmm</span>" - pretty much like <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Arsenio</span> Hall.</div><div></div><br /><div><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Anyhoo</span>, here is the first one: I propose that automobile traffic - meaning: congestion - is a working model of transportation devised and supported by oil companies.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>Sean</strong>: Ever since I can remember driving, there has been some kind of construction on 495 between <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Taunton</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Natick</span>. Even when some parts seem complete, you end up driving over a strip of old concrete. Even 128 has been in some form of construction on and off for at least a decade.</div><div><br />Somewhat understandably, we dig up towns' roads when the water, gas, electric, or communications needs new wires, conduit, or pipe. But highways do not have those under them - beside them under the brush, yes - so I do not understand why I see newly paved sections being re-dug.</div><div><br />Something else I do not understand is why - with all of the technology we have - humans have not come up with a substance that can withstand harsh winters and scorching summers (let's say<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SqBIr7KYAfI/AAAAAAAAAdE/7Sy9l_U2hYY/s1600-h/sean2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5377377874533155314" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 160px" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SqBIr7KYAfI/AAAAAAAAAdE/7Sy9l_U2hYY/s400/sean2.jpg" border="0" /></a> -40<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">oF</span> - 120<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">oF</span>). Why are we still using ground up rock and tar?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: All good points - but here's what I'm getting at, and it builds on your examples: If we can stand road work every year, and in some places, year round road work, what is the reason that our roads are not updated to reflect 2009 traffic volumes, instead of the 1945 to 1970 volumes they were constructed to support?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: thought the same thing over the weekend while watching a program on the History channel called "<a href="http://www.history.com/shows.do?episodeId=452430&action=detail">The Crumbling of America</a>" </div><div></div><br /><div>The weight potential of these bridges and roads are built on much older standards like you're saying, but then they illustrated corrosion and wear which makes their weight threshold lower. I already think "what if" thoughts when going over man-made structures, and this program didn't help. Like many History channel programs, the computer-animated fill-ins were extra dramatic, adding to the what-if scenarios.</div><div><br />The real footage, though, was eye-opening. Somewhere in the program, they quoted $1.5 trillion as a necessary figure to make this go away. What has already been spent? Is this in addition to the Roads/Bridges/Construction stimulus already passed? The program is listed as 2009 in the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">IMDB</span>, so I wonder if they've left out the stimulus money.</div><div><br />Either way, without saying we need more committees, where is the taxpayer oversight?<br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">trackyourdollars</span>.gov ?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Sure, the cost is staggering - but in trying to whittle this down to a simple "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">hmmmm</span>" - inducer: Think of all of the revenue that has been lost due to traffic. When some one is late to <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SqBJCZmYYDI/AAAAAAAAAdM/RlaW_IHbiMg/s1600-h/sean7.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5377378260660805682" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 266px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SqBJCZmYYDI/AAAAAAAAAdM/RlaW_IHbiMg/s400/sean7.jpg" border="0" /></a>work, their employer loses money. When you miss an appointment, money is lost. When you are late getting home, advertisers have lost money because your eyes weren't focused on a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">tv</span> for the full prime time block. It goes on: when you are immobilized in your vehicle by traffic, your ability as a consumer nearly disappears - you lose the ability to actively consume. Sure, you can drink that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Dunkin</span> Donuts coffee, but you can't buy another 'until this traffic lets up' - and now you won't be able to stop at the bakery before your 9 o'clock meeting, either. You can still be advertised to, if you are some one that still listens to the radio, but even that takes place in a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">diminished</span> capacity, because you have no immediate ability to consume.</div><div><br />At these times, your only direct action is further <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">indebting</span> yourself to petroleum producers. That sort of 'captive market' does not occur too often - and I wonder if it is an actively manipulated phenomenon.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: It certainly could be. When I mentioned wondering about the non-production of a better substance for pavement given today's technology, the suppression of that technology certainly could be probable. Just like the technology for gasoline-efficient engines has existed for longer than their existence on public markets, I would not be surprised if the car producers, oil refiners, oil explorers, and logistics companies for both oil and cars would band together to prevent something that actually works.</div><div><br />I laugh when I see a single lane being added to a highway. A single lane? Really? Is that how to engineer for the future? </div><div><br />You make a really great point about the spending of money and time behind the wheel in traffic. That person is not spending money, and many hourly employees are also not making any money, either... almost like a deadlock. </div><div><br />Look at all the jobs created by traffic. Every station in the area has a "traffic on the [insert digit here]" report, and many stations like FOX25 put a helicopter in the air. Here is a list of more expenses brought on by constant construction:</div><div>- brakes being replaced because of constant acceleration followed by braking </div><div>- new tires for pot holes and cracks </div><div>- new windshields busted by gravel and debris (ask J.N. Phillips Auto Glass for the numbers) - shorter lives for the rest of vehicles components: spark plugs, belts, radiators, etc.</div><div></div><br /><div>While we're on keeping people on the highway, we are certainly keeping their work days longer.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Great points. I think the most laughable element of this is something you bring up (and this goes a bit off topic - <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Blogometrics</span>!): Traffic reports. I mean, what percentage of people who even listen to these reports actually alter their route should it be reported that 'traffic is bad'? I think most people only tune into traffic reports when they are already sitting in it (guilty), and even then it's more for the instant gratification of the ugly, frustrated person inside of a lot of us that says "there had BETTER be an accident up here!"</div><div><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SqBJM4LQRgI/AAAAAAAAAdU/Pa7y1yxRi2k/s1600-h/sean3.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5377378440667219458" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 125px" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SqBJM4LQRgI/AAAAAAAAAdU/Pa7y1yxRi2k/s400/sean3.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />If you think about it, traffic reports as a whole sort of play into this whole "frozen consumer" theory - they are usually the only <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">exclusively</span> marketed 'news' segment. You don't hear "...and now with today's Johnson's Water Seal weather report, here's a girl who's not hot enough for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">tv</span>...", but you do hear "...and now it's time for the Commerce Bank traffic report. Let's go up to Rusty <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">McDuff</span> in the Liberty Mutual traffic copter."</div><div><br />I'll say it: "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">hmmmmm</span>..."</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Hmmm</span>.</div><div><br />We could have a whole blog section devoted to traffic reports - really.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Again, good point. Alright, hopefully enough people are saying '<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">hmmmm</span>.' Now let's get them to, I don't know, chuckle.</div><div><br />Theory number 2: The South is actually rising again and has been fighting a proxy insurgency since at least 1945. And by 'South', I mean the Confederacy.</div><div><br />Go.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: OK.</div><div><br /><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SqBJcED3EqI/AAAAAAAAAdc/ki8YLFra7PY/s1600-h/sean4.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5377378701555471010" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 161px" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SqBJcED3EqI/AAAAAAAAAdc/ki8YLFra7PY/s400/sean4.jpg" border="0" /></a>By proxy, you mean the enlisting of third parties to fight this battle or do you mean the insurgency is the third party / proxy. I'll go with the insurgency being the proxy between the North and South for now until you respond. </div><div><br />After 1945 the whole new world politic began - globalization continued to grow more than ever as soon as the U.S. asserted its nuclear and aeronautic superiority. Now more than ever, the direction of the U.S. citizens and their global cause had to be steered. </div><div> </div><div>Disparate groups with the same goal of retaliating on the North to end the industry they had fought just a century ago were forming. Tobacco took on more fierce chemicals like DDT and gas chamber poison, whiskey prices soared, and bluegrass music along with blues migrated into rock n' roll specifically with the rising star - Elvis. The Cold War began topically, but underneath, the South was taking back their country that had once been lost to industry.</div><div><br />They have adopted the mid-west and corn belt - most recently making their corn stocks/stalks part of the non-oil but still fuel industry. Things like <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">NASCAR</span> have become household words, and every American business is on a car. This goes back to oil-run money pits. Sayings like "get her done" have made their way to the National vocabulary (even in the workplace) and look at how they have hijacked the country music genre.</div><div></div><br /><div>B: You hit it on the head where you bring up <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">NASCAR</span> - that's where I was going.</div><div><br />So, I'm reading <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">RollingStone's</span> review of the new Sugar Ray album, and they make note that singer Mark <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">McGrath</span> might have a future in country due to his <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">plaintive</span> song writing ability. They mean this as a compliment. That got me thinking "Since when has 'you've got a future in Nashville' been a compliment to a pop-rock star?'" I realized, "Oh, for about a decade." (I have great conversations with myself). Then I thought, "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">Hmmm</span>...Indy car racers are going from their circuit to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">NASCAR</span>, too...this never would have been the case in the past. And what's up with the national reading grade level? <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">The</span> average American reads at a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">SIXTH</span> grade level? That used to be reserved for places like Tennessee and Texas, and by the way - what's up with all the state's rights crap coming out of these 'tea parties'?"</div><div><br />Anyway, in the world of conspiracy theories, where there's dust, there's fire. </div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: Really - leave tea parties to Boston. The state power debate goes back to a debate during the <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SqBJpnkAmPI/AAAAAAAAAdk/_2ElcFVSNsc/s1600-h/sean6.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5377378934423853298" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 233px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 240px" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SqBJpnkAmPI/AAAAAAAAAdk/_2ElcFVSNsc/s400/sean6.jpg" border="0" /></a>genesis of this country: more Federal power or more State? Not much of a "party" there.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Yeah, I'm getting more at the folks who are still flying the Confederate flag as a symbol of "states rights." That's like saying the swastika symbolizes 'good luck' - which used to be true. </div><div><br />I guess what I'm saying is: There's something happening here, and what it is ain't exactly clear.</div><br /><div><br />Let's open this up to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">commenters</span> and see how crazy we are.</div></div></div></div></div></div>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-79994801510500794412009-09-03T14:30:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.732-07:00Hey Paul, Let's Get Rid of Clarence<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SqBEdaDzDqI/AAAAAAAAAc0/rNXjpEHKQf4/s1600-h/twitter1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5377373227082518178" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 150px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SqBEdaDzDqI/AAAAAAAAAc0/rNXjpEHKQf4/s400/twitter1.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>As always, I'm looking for ways to improve <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Blogometrics</span>, and make it more entertaining and interactive for you, the reader. Who better to turn to for help with this than old friend and fellow blogger "Smack"? </div><div><br />As always, feel free to weigh in by posting a comment, and enjoy.<br /><br /><strong><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Blogometrics</span></strong>: I had a thought about the whole 'main page commenting' mechanism. It would be rad (yeah, said it) if that tool could be used as a sort of community twitter - where anyone can come on and "tweet." It can be interactive or linear, sort of like a twitter community - but where chat rooms have the drawback of being in real time (one of the only times that 'real time' is a draw back, unless you're George W. Bush), this is more like a message board open to any visitor. I know there are message boards, but I don't know that they've been properly marketed, or anywhere that they're totally free-form.<br /><br />Thoughts?<br /><br /><strong>Smack</strong>: I think it’s a good idea. Not exactly the same concept as Twitter but I know what you mean. It’s better than having people write comments on posts asking for other topics to be discussed. I like the recent comments feature even more. You just need more people posting comments.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Right</span> - not twitter, but kind of. More like "open twitter", where instead of having only certain followers, or only following certain feeds, this would be open to anyone - so that person 'x' can do the whole "I'm watching ESPN, and what the heck is the story with Colleen Dominguez' hair?" - and then anyone can either reply, post their own - whatever.<br /></div><div>How do we get this going? What are some buzz words we can put on this site to get more hits, without stooping to x-rated levels?<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: Google indexes a lot of stuff on its own. Like if someone <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Googles</span> that British <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">PSA</span>, your site might come up somewhere down the list. I think a good way to generate traffic would be to start commenting on other popular blogs. Post as yourself, and write things that will make people click on your name and check you out. They’ll see your blog and probably go read it. Or maybe you need to make a viral video.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: Viral video! I knew there was a good reason I just bought an <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">HD</span> camcorder, besides my newborn son, that is.<br /><br />Alright - you're in on this. We need a premise. Maybe we could revisit our Australian movie idea, but that might get pricey...<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: Do you have any direction? I feel like most viral videos are bloopers or funny injuries. Or people who are so terrible at something that it’s hilarious…<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Hmmm</span>. Maybe something spoofing <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">PSAs</span>, like the "Just Say No" spot I jokingly came up with the other day. Or a "Don't Gamble" <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">PSA</span> featured a homeless dude who lost it all, getting beaten up by the stars of our "Just Say No" <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">PSA</span> in a cross promotional piece. "If You Can't Say No to Gambling, At Least Say No to Drugs."<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: Not bad.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: Yeah, too bad these guys already stole most of my good ideas...<br /><br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fJ3WOtHS-D8&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fJ3WOtHS-D8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></div>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-61057262247849498362009-09-02T18:04:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.732-07:00I Learned It By Watching You...Die<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Sp8a4qyLqSI/AAAAAAAAAck/FxvgFiqrDy0/s1600-h/PSA1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5377046040963426594" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 313px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Sp8a4qyLqSI/AAAAAAAAAck/FxvgFiqrDy0/s400/PSA1.jpg" border="0" /></a>Even the mundane conversations with "Smack" can go <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Blogometric</span>. Today, a simple "Hi, how's it going" took a wrong turn and will have me driving at 32 miles per hour for the foreseeable future.<br /><br />As always, feel free to weigh in by posting a comment, and enjoy.<br /><br /><strong><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Blogometrics</span></strong>: So, for dinner last night I had about 3 pounds of boneless ribs. Nothing else. Just 3 lbs of meat, sauce and seasoning. Then I watched <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wGR4-SeuJ0">Chad Vader</a>.<br /><br />Clint is a fool.<br /><br /><strong>Smack</strong>: That is also funny. I was telling someone about Chad Vader this past weekend.<br />On another, unfunny note, have you heard about this British <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">texting</span> while driving <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">PSA</span>? Most disturbing thing I’<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">ve</span> seen in a while. Makes me wonder when the elderly driver <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">PSA</span> is going to debut.<br /><br /><object height="360" width="580"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KF0_7qC6YFo&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><br /><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KF0_7qC6YFo&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="580" height="360"></embed></object><br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: Whoa. Wow.<br /><br />That was...wow. Were the sound effects necessary? I mean, we still want people <em>drive</em>, right? Man. You know what's crazy about that? It will be shown during some movie like The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Bourne</span> Supremacy, or Pulp Fiction, which will have been edited for TV to remove graphic violent content. I'm still floored by the sound effects. I mean, really? It had me expecting the two girls to awaken from the dead and start devouring the girl who survived, and then dash off into the woods. Then we would call it 28d L8TR.<br /><br />You know what's scarier than that (and this is true)? Last night I walked down to the video store after dark, and on my way home I passed a young boy - well, maybe 10-12 - riding his bike in the road - and this is Route 106 (not the busiest street, but I wouldn't ride it after dark) - no hands on the bars and, you guessed it, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">texting</span>.<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: I know. A car accident is a traumatic thing, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">nevermind</span> a 3 vehicle multi-fatality wreck with a dead baby and a little girl with dead parents. That’s a situation that you <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">wouldn</span>’t wish upon <em>anyone</em>, so why is that something that everyone watching TV should be subjected to? The visuals and sound effects are enough to leave viewers with nightmares. It’s totally over the top, tasteless, etc, etc. Almost unbelievably so.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: Seriously. I can't even think of an equivalent <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">PSA</span> - save for a similar one for cell phone <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Sp8bCvYcSKI/AAAAAAAAAcs/qdG31ZqEC3Q/s1600-h/psa2.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5377046213996333218" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 303px" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Sp8bCvYcSKI/AAAAAAAAAcs/qdG31ZqEC3Q/s400/psa2.JPG" border="0" /></a>driving, drunk driving...maybe a "Just Say No to Drugs" spot that starts with a kid taking a hit on a joint, follows him through addiction to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">meth</span>, and ends with his house being broken into by Afghan heroin dealers who shoot his mother and throw his kid sister into the fireplace - all because little Johnny forgot to pay the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">vig</span>.<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: Thanks for weighing in and as always feel free to leave a comment!<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: I'm reminded of a certain saying about flattery...<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: “Flattery is a counterfeit money which, but for vanity, would have no circulation.”It’s a good one. Write that one down.<br /><br /><strong>B</strong>: Will do, but I was thinking of "Flattery is alright so long as you don't inhale."GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-65358856107742334992009-08-31T15:29:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.732-07:00Powerchord Rankings<div><div><div><div><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Spx4-RRytyI/AAAAAAAAAb8/lL0SUvHpI0I/s1600-h/rock1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5376305066358781730" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 160px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Spx4-RRytyI/AAAAAAAAAb8/lL0SUvHpI0I/s400/rock1.jpg" border="0" /></a> Alright, time for everyone's favorite feature on Blogometrics: "Smack" talk. This time, Smack and I try to apply a little crossover technique to fuse the world of sports and the worlds of music. Well, to be more precise, the world of over-analyzing sports and the world of over-analyzing music - but hey, this is Blogometrics at its best. <div></div><br /><div>As always, feel free to weigh in by posting a comment, and enjoy.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>Blogometrics</strong>: Let's see if we can formulate Power Rankings for American rock bands. We'll hash out the criteria as we go along, but basically they have to be an active recording group, from the U.S., with enough clout to gain mainstream exposure/radio play (does that exist?) etc.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>Smack</strong>: Power rankings... I think this has to be mathematical. Some kind of formula that weighs longevity, how many charting songs, how high they charted, record sales, ticket sales. What else? </div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Alright. I see the need for statistical relevance in coming up with these rankings, but I also think there's a need for categories like "artistic integrity" "originality of sound" "image" etc. Not sure how we'd quantify those "intangibles."</div><div><br />I also think there might be some holes in some of the categories you propose, because Daughtry would be smoking groups like Pearl Jam, Foo Fighters, My Morning Jacket, etc. in every category but longevity. </div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: I know what you mean, but I feel like we would need to avoid subjectivity in order for this to<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Spx5I1RYtvI/AAAAAAAAAcE/KHBkpBWNdLI/s1600-h/rock2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5376305247819446002" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 172px" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Spx5I1RYtvI/AAAAAAAAAcE/KHBkpBWNdLI/s400/rock2.jpg" border="0" /></a> be legit. Maybe factor in consistency with longevity. Bonus points for the Rock and Roll HOF? Or figure out a way to quantify integrity, originality, and influence.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Let me back up - I was thinking this list could mirror NFL or MLB power rankings - and be current. So where you wouldn't put "1986 Mets" on the Top Ten teams in MLB right now, you wouldn't put Toto on this list.</div><div><br />So, let's say that recording was a sport - and the recording season started today. Who are the power players - taking into account only bands that could realistically produce major releases (not simply those with recent records, or those coming out soon)? So, Metallica would be in play, for instance. Still recording, still impactful. Green Day, Kings of Leon, etc.</div><div><br />Essentially, I'd like to try to come up with American Rock's version of NFL Power Rankings as of 8/31/2009.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: I assume you mean that for instance The Allman Bros Band may not top the list. How strict are you being with the Rock genre? Do crossover acts like Outkast get considered? Given your model, you may have to deal with Daughtry and The Fray near the top.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Okay, getting warmer. I would say "no" to Outkast, Lil' Wayne, or any hip-hop acts that are not called the Beastie Boys (who I don't think crack this list anyway).</div><div><br />I think basically it's the point of origin rule: Did this group start out as rock? So Fray - "yes" - regardless of how "hard" they rock." This is really all rock - even rock that has gone in the other direction, like Green Day (moving towards straight 'pop').</div><div><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Spx5SQ3g3eI/AAAAAAAAAcM/dPEeHlkMjMc/s1600-h/rock3.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5376305409845943778" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 180px" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Spx5SQ3g3eI/AAAAAAAAAcM/dPEeHlkMjMc/s400/rock3.jpg" border="0" /></a>I think these are the main players - let me know who I'm leaving out, in your opinion: Kings of Leon, Green Day, Pearl Jam, Foo Fighters, Daughtry, The Fray, Fall Out Boy, My Morning Jacket, MGMT, Springsteen, Wilco.</div><div><br />There are others...but let's start to flesh this out.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: Red Hot Chili Peppers, The White Stripes, The Strokes, Third Eye Blind, [ugh] Nickelback, Dave Matthews Band...</div><div></div><br /><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Good calls all, save for Nickelback - they're Canadian.</div><div><br />I think if we're going Top Ten, we can weed out Third Eye Blind and The Strokes - maybe even The White Stripes. Chili Peppers and Dave Matthews Band are definitely up there. I'm going to throw out what I think are the Top Ten, but not in any order:</div><div><br />Kings of Leon, Green Day, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Foo Fighters, Daughtry, Fall Out Boy, Pearl Jam, Wilco, Dave Matthews Band, My Morning Jacket.</div><div><br />The next tier is crowded, and there could be a few in this group that force out some of the "Top Ten" I just named. Here are the next few: Weezer, Linkin Park, Creed (who's "back" I guess)...any others?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: Tool, The Killers, and Ben Harper are at least in the second tier. I don’t know about Fall Out Boy being top 10. Also recently reunited is Phish. They’re way up there in terms of ticket sales. And they’ve got a new album coming out next week.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Hmmm. I shoot down Ben Harper, but good call on The Killers. Phish is a fringe group as far as Top Ten, and I definitely think Fall Out Boy is in the conversation.</div><div><br />Do you have a prelim Top Ten (ordered or not)?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: Equally weighing success in radio play, record sales, and concert ticket demand…Green Day, <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Spx5eOrDvPI/AAAAAAAAAcU/MjrMtMSkoGg/s1600-h/rock4.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5376305615415262450" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 172px" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Spx5eOrDvPI/AAAAAAAAAcU/MjrMtMSkoGg/s400/rock4.jpg" border="0" /></a>Foo Fighters, DMB, Kings of Leon, Chili Peppers, Pearl Jam, Killers, Wilco, Phish, The Fray.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Is that in order? Either way...</div><div><br />I don't think The Fray beats out Daughtry (I can't believe where this has gone, yet why am I surprised?), and they might not beat out Weezer or Fall Out Boy. As far as Phish, do you think that their record sales will match that of the new Creed album being released in the coming weeks? Because I think the ticket sales will be closer than you think, historically that is, regardless of Phish's reputation as a tour-de-force, so to speak. Creed draws huge quasi-Christian crowds over great swaths of this country - the same places where Phish might not be so hot a draw.</div><div><br />Other than that, it's a solid list. Let's try 1-3:</div><div><br />Green Day, Pearl Jam, Kings of Leon?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: My list was somewhat in order, give or take 2-3 slots for each band.</div><div><br />Green Day is top 3 for sure. I think Foo Fighters outperform Pearl Jam on the radio; not sure how they compare for ticket sales. Pretty sure Pearl Jam have them beat there. Kings of Leon are really hot right now but they still play relatively small gigs. The were at the Paradise within the past year. Good luck trying to get Pearl Jam or Foo Fighters in there without people dying.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Good point on the crowd size, but I do think if we're counting the intangibles, Kings of Leon have way more "buzz" right now - and their tunes are crossover hits - "Use Somebody" is (or was recently) Top 40, where I don't think Pearl Jam of the Foos have been there for quite some time. I also think that the Chili Peppers might trump the Foos and PJ on both counts right now - if you're looking at it from a "if a new record and tour launched tomorrow" perspective...<br /></div><br /><div>All right, here goes:</div><div><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Spx5qW-YkRI/AAAAAAAAAcc/zpK5KziGrSo/s1600-h/rock5.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5376305823802233106" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 192px" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Spx5qW-YkRI/AAAAAAAAAcc/zpK5KziGrSo/s400/rock5.jpg" border="0" /></a>1. Green Day 2. Foo Fighters 3. Kings of Leon 4. Pearl Jam 5. Red Hot Chili Peppers 6. Dave Matthews Band 7. Daughtry 8. The Killers 9. Wilco 10. Fall Out Boy</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: I’m ok with losing Phish and allowing Daughtry, but The Fray beats Fall Out Boy. I mean, I admittedly may not have an accurate pulse on the “tween beat” but that’s my opinion regardless.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: The Fray has had how many "hits" (I know several but Fall Out Boy has had their share)? The Fray plays to what size crowds? The Fray have been on the cover of what magazine how many times? I don't know...is there another band we could slide in at 10? Could we make the case that Weezer is still bigger than either? Metallica? Springsteen?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: Maybe Springsteen. Probably Springsteen, actually. They (Springsteen and the E Street Band) headlined at Bonnarroo this year, which is a legitimizer. Weezer has tanked so hard that I can’t give them the nod.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: So, are we good with that as the final Power Rankings (with The Boss at 10)? </div><div><br />If so, has any top ranked group ever had a worse song than '21 Guns'?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: How about “Hump de Bump” from Stadium Arcadium? Sometimes I think Anthony Kiedis just runs out of lyrics. There was a time when REM was top 10 and I would nominate “Shiny Happy People.” </div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Excellent work, Smack. Not sure "Hump de Bump" was ever holding the "biggest current hit by the biggest current band" title (band, yes - song no), but 'Shiny Happy People' is right there. Actually, 'Nightswimming' and 'Everybody Hurts' might contend as well.</div><div></div><br /><div>Let's open this up to commenters to get some feedback, and see who and what we might have missed.</div></div></div></div></div>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-27091739064845100052009-08-30T09:52:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.732-07:00A Fox FarewellAs I watched the media coverage of the Edward Kennedy funeral mass yesterday, I decided to check in with Fox News to get some 'fair and balanced' perspective on the life and achievements of a man about to be laid to rest.<br /><br />I endured about 2 minutes of coverage, and sat through a brief commentary by an anchor who felt it necessary to point out how fortunate we are to live in a country where some one like Ted Kennedy would not be jailed or beheaded for his views during times when his party was not in power. Obviously a nod to Kennedy's loyal opposition to the Bush presidency, I felt that this sort of idiocy was a bit <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">inappropriate</span> for airing during Kennedy's funeral procession (if it could ever be deemed appropriate, that is).<br /><br />I decided to explore the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Internet</span> for other nuggets from Fox's coverage of Kennedy's funeral and burial, and found the clip below:<br /><br /><object height="360" width="580"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KwDEWmI14ig&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KwDEWmI14ig&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="580" height="360"></embed></object><br /><br />What do you think? Was Fox News <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">inappropriate</span> in airing this sort of commentary during the funeral coverage?<br /><br />Also, if anyone can find the transcript of the commentary I reference above (I have so far been unable), please feel free to provide a link by commenting.GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-54634417964777032872009-08-26T19:13:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.733-07:00Hot Pursuit<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SpXsBmhPZlI/AAAAAAAAAb0/IZLvPKnMy8w/s1600-h/bulger1.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5374461242600547922" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 300px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SpXsBmhPZlI/AAAAAAAAAb0/IZLvPKnMy8w/s400/bulger1.bmp" border="0" /></a> You are looking at the FBI's latest "investigative leads" map in the search for James "Whitey" Bulger. Way to go, FBI, for narrowing it down a bit.<br /><br />Evidently, this is the FBI's attempt to open the search to a new generation of American crime fighters.<br /><br /><div></div><br /><object height="364" width="575"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ANTDkfkoBaI&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ANTDkfkoBaI&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="575" height="364"></embed></object>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-57109499205237898742009-08-26T18:29:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.733-07:00The Dreams Shall Never Die<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SpXonGUr-mI/AAAAAAAAAbs/wzfo0NHfzc0/s1600-h/kennedy.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5374457488746478178" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 220px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SpXonGUr-mI/AAAAAAAAAbs/wzfo0NHfzc0/s400/kennedy.jpg" border="0" /></a> <div><div>The challenges of greatness cannot be met by simply reinforcing the agreements that you hold with your allies, but rather they are overcome by convincing your adversaries of the value, virtue and power to be found within the plainest of your convictions: the truth.</div><div></div><br /><div>Rarely has a man so embodied this characteristic, that which reflects all that is to be admired of those among us who choose devote their lives to our service through elected office, than it was so by the late Edward Kennedy. </div><div></div><br /><div>Please join me in pausing to reflect on the life of a great American, and the loss of a tireless crusader who fought to attain the betterment of our society as a whole, through the betterment of our whole society.</div></div>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-17916965840485221062009-08-23T10:20:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.733-07:00Boston's Bad Boys<div><div><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SpF9DMj80hI/AAAAAAAAAa8/WWm9TCfXHzg/s1600-h/boston2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5373213324294803986" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 168px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 135px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SpF9DMj80hI/AAAAAAAAAa8/WWm9TCfXHzg/s400/boston2.jpg" border="0" /></a> <div>Time once again to check in with our friend Randy, this time to see if we can find a correlation between the career trajectories of some of the most popular names in music and sport.</div><div></div><br /><div>As always, feel free to weigh in by posting a comment, and enjoy.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Blogometrics</span></strong>: Alright Randy, choose the topic. We can go on any of these 3-<br />1) Is <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Plaxico's</span> sentence too harsh?</div><div>2) Does Brett <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Favre</span> actually deserve the flak he's taking?</div><div>3) (My favorite) Is Kurt Warner the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Aerosmith</span> of NFL quarterbacks?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>Randy</strong>: I like the topics, but I'm really curious on #3 since I am not a huge <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Aerosmith</span> fan (sacrilegious in these parts).</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Alright, here's the thing with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Aerosmith</span>: They are pretty consistently referred to as "The (or "A) Great American Band" or "The American Rolling Stones/American Zeppelin" - and, I think, this is a little bit of a reach. If you take a look back at their career, you get a different picture. They released their debut in 1973, only to have it toil in relative obscurity until the release of the next 2 albums brought them closer to the mainstream. In the mid to late 70s, they were among the major rock acts in terms of both sales and touring success - but then it fell apart. 2 original members left the band - including the lead guitarist (Joe Perry), which is never a good sign. Some pretty crummy albums followed until 1985, when Run <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">DMC</span> remade "Walk This Way." </div><div><br />Now, a lot of people consider that a big deal for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Aerosmith</span>, but Bod Dylan doesn't get any credit for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Jimi</span> Hendrix's amazing guitar work on his cover of "All Along the Watchtower" - if you catch my drift. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Anyhoo</span>, 1987's Permanent Vacation saw "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Ragdoll</span>" and "Angel" top the charts, but the album was a mixed bag of sorts that sold well, but was not the full fledged "comeback" it was cracked up to be. That comeback occurred in 1989 with Pump, with its 3 top ten hits and another single in the top 40. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Aerosmith</span> was back at the forefront of American Rock. The success continued with Get a Grip in 1993, but the string of "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Cryin</span>" "Crazy" and "Amazing" turned the band into sort of a punchline - and deservedly so, they released the same awful song three times under three cheesy names. </div><div><br />Nowadays, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Aerosmith</span> is more of a "personality act" than a legit musical force. Age, of course, factors into this - but they're still not as old as The Stones. Now, you could make the argument that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Aerosmith</span> is more likely to have one more "hit song" than The Stones, but their also more likely to make an appearance on The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Simpsons</span>, a late night talk show (as a guest), or in a format other than music.</div><div><br />Should I follow through with "The Kurt Warner Story" - or do you see where I'm going with <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SpF9MmVtOLI/AAAAAAAAAbE/PLwU8ucwWmQ/s1600-h/boston3.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5373213485833205938" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 92px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 125px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SpF9MmVtOLI/AAAAAAAAAbE/PLwU8ucwWmQ/s400/boston3.jpg" border="0" /></a>this? For the sake of those who'll read this and are not familiar: Warner was not exactly a hot prospect coming out of college, toiled in the arena league, and actually left football for a while. The Rams picked him up in '99 and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">BOOYAH</span> - Trent Green blows out his knee and Warner gets the starting job. The Rams become "The Greatest Show on Turf", win a Super Bowl, lose one more...and then run out of steam. Warner goes to the Giants, toils as a starter, toils as Eli Manning's back up...goes to Arizona...toils as Matt <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Leinart's</span> backup...until...BOOYAH - don't call it a comeback. The 2008 Cardinals become The Greatest Show on a Crazy Surface That Literally Rolls Around - and suddenly this guy is getting serious Hall of Fame consideration...</div><div><br />Slow start, a several year string of elite performance, obscurity, comeback, talk of being "great." There's my analogy (over-simplified) - work for you?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>R</strong>: Like the summary, but my move to Boston did not change my view of "The Great American Band". So while my allegiance to American League East teams has changed (I used to like the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">O's</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">pre</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Angelos</span>), I still am not a fan of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Aerosmith</span>. </div><div><br />If pushed, I liked their really old stuff (think "Rocks") and even got into <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Run's</span> version of "Walk this way", but that's it.</div><div><br />So, for me, while I think the parallels exist between Kurt and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Aerosmith</span>, I at least think Kurt has (or at least "had") real greatness. The other difference has nothing to do with performance, per <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">se</span>, but I just cheer for Warner. He seems genuine and I respect that he paid his dues and persevered. I mean he used to bag groceries after college, right? Good God! Not that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">Aerosmith</span> didn't, but I just get the sense that they have a higher opinion of themselves. Fair or unfair, that's my sense. Again, nothing to do with performance.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Here's the crazy thing: While Warner's Hall of Fame credentials are hotly debated - <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">Aerosmith</span> was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2001, and in 2005 the band ranked #57 in Rolling Stone magazine's 100 Greatest Artists of All Time.</div><div><br />Now, I know this actually kills my initial analogy, but I guess it takes a lot more to be considered an "All Time Great" in sports than it does in music...</div><div><br />It would actually be pretty hilarious, come to think of it, if Kurt Warner used this example to point out his legitimacy as a Hall of Fame candidate, a la "I am the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">Aerosmith</span> of NFL quarterbacks! 2008 was my Pump! For crying out loud, backing up Eli Manning should get me as much love as "Dude Looks Like A Lady!!"</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>R</strong>: 57??? Are you serious?</div><div><br />I would put Duran Duran in front of them. I think <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">Aerosmith</span> most resembles Jamie <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">Moyer</span>: long-lasting, had flashes, and is good, not great. At least <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">Moyer</span> has Digger as a Father-in-law!</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Can we think of another Athlete/Musician <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">analogy</span>? Is Brett <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">Favre</span> Kiss? Is Barry Sanders <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SpF9Vj4lc9I/AAAAAAAAAbM/rncxPDv8b3Q/s1600-h/boston4.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5373213639793013714" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 140px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 140px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SpF9Vj4lc9I/AAAAAAAAAbM/rncxPDv8b3Q/s400/boston4.jpg" border="0" /></a>Nirvana? Is Derek <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">Jeter</span> Brittany Spears? Are <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">Papi</span>, Manny, Bonds, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">McGwire</span> and Sosa Milli <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">Vanilli</span>?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>R</strong>: Barry Sanders and Nirvana. Deep! I like it.</div><div><br />How about Brady Anderson and "pick your favorite" one-hit wonder. I like <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">Falco</span> personally. </div><div><br />Did I tell you that I saw Milli <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">Vanilli</span> back in the day (with Paula Abdul, Was Not Was and Information Society)...yes, a girl was involved in this.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_39">Hmmm</span>. I'll give you a pass, for the concert. However, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_40">Falco</span> as the greatest one-hit-wonder?? I could think of a few that would come in above them like, I don't know, Information Society, maybe?</div><div><br />How about instead of greatest one hit wonders - the greatest behind the scenes athletes of all time? Just like the 3 or 4 people actually producing the infectious pop of "Girl You Know It's True" were unarguably talented musicians, you would quite literally have better odds at picking a specific grain of sand off the ocean floor than you would at picking any of those performers out of a crowd.</div><div></div><br /><div>On a related topic - here is the greatest co-worker Christmas card I've ever sent (I make my own, can you tell?): </div><div></div><br /><div align="center"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>A Warm Holiday Greeting</strong></span></div><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5373213779013407954" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 219px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SpF9dqhUFNI/AAAAAAAAAbU/BU6OL60cokE/s400/boston1.gif" border="0" /> <div></div><div align="center"><em>“Hello, I’m Fab <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_41">Morvan</span>, former ‘lead vocalist’ for Milli <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_42">Vanilli</span>.” </em></div><div align="center"><br /><em>“And I’m the re-animated corpse of Rob <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_43">Pilatus</span>, the deceased second ‘vocalist’ for Milli <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_44">Vanilli</span>.” </em></div><div align="center"><br /><em>We’re here to usher in warm Holiday tidings for you and your loved ones this Christmas season. Now, you may ask what Milli <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_45">Vanilli</span> has to do with the holidays, and the answer simple: If you think we’re selling these cards to help pay off our enormous tax burden and legal fees, well, Accounts Receivable, You Know its True. </em></div><div align="center"><br /><em>Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, </em></div><br /><div align="center">M.V.</div><div align="center"></div><br /><div align="left">(<strong><em>ed. note</em></strong> - Here's where the conversation between Randy and I went off-line. We joked about awarding our favorite New York shortstop Derek <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_46">Jeter</span> with the "Behind the Scenes <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_47">Athlete</span> Award" alluded to above, as a sarcastic nod to our opinion of his over-hyped status. However, after speaking with Randy, something else hit me, which I'll elaborate on below.)</div><div align="left"></div><br /><div align="left">Our friend "Smack" sent along the <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/joe_posnanski/08/19/jeter/index.html">link to a recent column by SI.com writer Joe <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_48">Posnanski</span></a>, in which he spends the first half of the piece supporting my argument that Derek <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_49">Jeter</span> has long been one of sport's most over-rated athletes, and the second half of the piece illustrates that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_50">Jeter</span> is quietly having the best season of his career in 2009. </div><div align="left"></div><br /><div align="left"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_51">Posnanski</span> is absolutely spot on with his summary of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_52">Jeter's</span> career, and as I put together this post shortly after reading <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_53">Posnanski's</span> column, it hit me: Derek <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_54">Jeter</span> is the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_55">Aerosmith</span> of <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SpGCiV9fqaI/AAAAAAAAAbc/qIODypnCiwY/s1600-h/boston5.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5373219356951947682" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 116px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 116px" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SpGCiV9fqaI/AAAAAAAAAbc/qIODypnCiwY/s400/boston5.jpg" border="0" /></a>baseball. He enjoyed early career success, which allowed his popularity to endure through a highly over-rated majority of his career, and this year is his "Pump" year - possibly the best of his career - and just like <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_56">Aerosmith</span> was beaten out in the Grammy race in 1990 (losing to Living Colour), <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_57">Jeter</span> will most likely see his MVP bid fall short (to Joe <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_58">Mauer</span>), as well.</div><div align="left"></div><br /><div align="left">Plus, the dude looks like a lady.</div></div></div>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-46955975497255249462009-08-21T09:05:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.733-07:00Irony ButterflyI normally try to steer away from off-color humour, but I cannot help but to nominate the following individual for "Most Ironic Name, 2009":<br /><br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5372449283838570818" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 343px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/So7GKMD_8UI/AAAAAAAAAas/0aaN_Jyn3EU/s400/caster-semenya(01).jpg" border="0" />For those not familiar (from SI.com):<br /><p><em><strong>Caster Semenya has been asked by to undergo a gender test, this after she burst onto the scene by posting a world leading time of 1 minute, 56.72 seconds in the 800 meters at the African junior championships. Her case gained more attention when she won the gold medal at the world championships on Aug. 19.</strong> </em></p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5372449766922017506" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 343px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/So7GmTsEWuI/AAAAAAAAAa0/i0Q9JlRIbdY/s400/caster-semenya(02).jpg" border="0" /><br /><p align="center"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JESUFemaos">I think we've got a winner.<br /></a></p>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-78873187082612091262009-08-17T15:56:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.733-07:00The Best a Man Can Get?<div><div><div><div><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooZXVMsQiI/AAAAAAAAAaE/vSwOnCDAyHI/s1600-h/woods1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371133394210800162" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 234px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 240px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooZXVMsQiI/AAAAAAAAAaE/vSwOnCDAyHI/s400/woods1.jpg" border="0" /></a>It's been a while since we've chatted with our friend Randy, so today we'll check in to talk a little golf, a little tennis, and engage in a little exercise in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Blogometrics</span>.<br /><div></div><br /><div>As always, feel free to weigh in by posting a comment, and enjoy.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Blogometrics</span></strong>: Alright, if you have time for a chat...</div><div><br />In light of Tiger's "collapse" this weekend at the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">PGA</span> Championships - who more dominates their individual sport right now: Tiger Woods or Roger <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Federer</span>?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>Randy</strong>: Right now? Then I would say Tiger hands down!You can't possibly say Fed, could you?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: I think you could make the case.</div><div><br />Y.E. Yang (as in: "Who?") beat Woods this weekend, marking the first time Tiger had ever lost while going in to the final round with a lead in a major. He was 12 for his previous 12. Now, to be fair, Tiger cannot be expected to win every major - but this is the first year since 2004 he has failed to win at least one. We've seen him lose to Padraig Harrington, Phil <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Mickelson</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Vijay</span> Singh, and a handful of other top-notch competitors - and now we've seen this. I am not implying in any<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooZdm8rH1I/AAAAAAAAAaM/pLC-JBKt5AI/s1600-h/woods2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371133502054670162" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 127px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 96px" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooZdm8rH1I/AAAAAAAAAaM/pLC-JBKt5AI/s400/woods2.jpg" border="0" /></a> way that Woods' run at the top of his game is over, but I think maybe his dominance has started to slip.</div><div><br />Looking at <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Federer</span> - and assuming you have a healthy <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Nadal</span> - he is one of 2 players in the world with any realistic shot at winning any tournament he enters (the other, of course, being <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Nadal</span>). I know Andy <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Roddick</span> gave it his all at this year's <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Wimbeldon</span>, but it illustrated perfectly that a top ten ranked player, playing way above their level, still cannot beat <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Federer</span> (unless their name is <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Nadal</span>). </div><div><br />Now, as for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Nadal</span>, it will be interesting to see how he bounces back from what has turned out to be a bit more of a knee issue than was originally thought. If you take away 1/10<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">th</span> of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Nadal's</span> mobility, I think that gives <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Federer</span> another few years as the sport's <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">pre</span>-eminent talent (or until Andy Murray can get his emotions in check).</div><div><br />Not every athlete has a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Smoltz</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">ian</span> (or Wang-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">ian</span>, or Big <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Papi</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">ian</span>) collapse. Some fade slowly, even if most folks don't realize it until the dominance is almost gone. What we may be seeing here with Woods is that he's falling back to Earth ever so slightly, albeit just enough to fall within reach of that next tier below him.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>R</strong>: Good points.</div><div><br />My whole issue with comparing golf to tennis is what it takes to win a tourney. In tennis, you have to beat 6-7 opponents to win a tourney. And the first 3 are usually outside the top 50. In golf, Tiger (for argument sake) has to beat EVERYONE. And I think even he was surprised at how well he played coming off the injury. While no majors in 2009, he leads the tour in wins...and they aren't the cheap ones (See Greater Hartford Open or whatever they call themselves with their 20 under par golf course).</div><div><br />Now I tip my hat to Yang for chipping in for Eagle, but bottom line is that Tiger had absurd pressure to win yesterday and Yang was free wheeling. It is obscene how we all just expected Tiger to win. Given the conditions and the chase to Jack's record, it's pretty unfair. And with all that said, if he makes any of those puts on the front 9, it is OVER.</div><div><br />But let me jump to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Federer</span>. A year ago at Wimbledon, people were saying he was "done". Not done as in no longer in the top 10, but done in terms of majors. Guess what, I think they were right. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">Nadal</span> owns the French...can you say the best of all time on clay (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">cuz</span> McEnroe did I <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooZl37TvWI/AAAAAAAAAaU/H-GONizOqCE/s1600-h/woods3.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371133644051299682" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 124px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 124px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooZl37TvWI/AAAAAAAAAaU/H-GONizOqCE/s400/woods3.jpg" border="0" /></a>believe). And once he went down, the path opened. Murray had the pressure of a country and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">Novak</span> lost his game in 09, which leaves A-rod. So he beats one top 10 guy and he gets a major. Tiger has to beat the field with everyone gunning for him...and luck is so much more in play in golf.</div><div><br />I play both sports, and my fluctuation in golf is crazy from day-to-day. Just saying...</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Those are all excellent points, but (of course) let me counter:</div><div><br />First, I'll argue that Tiger isn't directly competing against anyone - he's competing against the course, as is everyone else. If you want to bring direct competition into it, then it just makes Yang's chip in eagle look even more amazing - just as it reminds you that it used to be Tiger that made those shots...</div><div><br />As for the competition - and tournament formats - facing <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">Federer</span>, I agree, but in a way you're making the counter-point that, well, it is what it is. I think that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">Federer</span> is at least as far ahead of his field (except on clay - but Tiger has seemingly lost the ability to play links-style courses) as Woods is.</div><div><br />Maybe instead of trying to <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">point</span> to who is more dominant, we can <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">point</span> to how both men are in the decline of their dominance?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>R</strong>: I'm not ready to go there. It would not surprise me if Tiger wins 2-3 majors next year. Jack had a few years where he had no majors remember. Golf is just easier to win at post-30 years old.</div><div><br />Tennis is like being a RB in the NFL. You hit 30 or have a lot of miles, and it is a bad thing.<br />Back to Tiger, I think he has a hard time on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">Poana</span> greens because they are brutal to read, and he is probably the best all-time at reading greens.</div><div><br />Can you tell that I like Tiger? </div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Indeed I can.</div><div><br />Would it <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">surprise</span> you if Tiger had another 0-fer? Would it <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">surprise</span> you if <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">Federer</span> won 2 or 3 of his own? </div><div><br />Here's another way to look at it: Assuming <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">Nadal</span> is slow to bounce back from his knee (which seems to be the case), and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">Federer</span> holds off Murray and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">Roddick</span> (strong on the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">hardcourt</span> - plus<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooZuZyTBxI/AAAAAAAAAac/8tSIgM-Fc1E/s1600-h/woods4.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371133790579263250" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 124px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 121px" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooZuZyTBxI/AAAAAAAAAac/8tSIgM-Fc1E/s400/woods4.jpg" border="0" /></a> the home crowd) and wins the US Open (as he has every year since 2004), he has won 3 majors this year, to Woods' zero. </div><div><br />I think if you go back to the original question "who more dominates their sport right now" - that's a pretty compelling case. </div><div><br />Look at it this way: If a major tournament began in both golf and in tennis tomorrow, and you had to bet on either <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_39">Federer</span> or Woods to win their tournament outright - who would you pick?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>R</strong>: I like your final question. Tough one! </div><div><br />Personally I just have a hard time "forgetting" about that whole <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_40">Nadal</span> domination of the past year and a half. But with that said, and back to your question, I guess it would depend on which major. I really thought Roger would win Wimbledon once <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_41">Nadal</span> withdrew, but the Open is a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_42">different</span> ball game. In golf, Tiger is almost always favored vs. the field (at least in the court of public opinion).</div><div><br />So if we take the next 2 majors, I would favor Tiger at the Masters over <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_43">Federer</span> at the Open. But it is close! In fact, maybe a push?</div><div><br />The other piece that I probably subconsciously think about is that tennis is on the decline, while golf is booming! For every Steve <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_44">Stricker</span>, Lucas Glover and Hunter <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_45">Mahan</span>, there is a...wait for it...Jo-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_46">Wildred</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_47">Tsonga</span> and Marty Fish? Seriously. Very weak!</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: The mighty <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_48">Tsonga</span>!! <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_49">Ahhh</span>...the potential wasted...Still, watching him thoroughly dismantle <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooZ5dzdMoI/AAAAAAAAAak/ZgqVmtTm56w/s1600-h/woods5.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371133980636426882" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 120px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 133px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooZ5dzdMoI/AAAAAAAAAak/ZgqVmtTm56w/s400/woods5.jpg" border="0" /></a>Marcos <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_50">Baghdatis</span> in the '08 Aussie semis was, no doubt, a frightening sight for any competitive player (or fan) on the planet. Too bad he hasn't ever been ever put it all together, because (and now I'm veering <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_51">waaaay</span> off into hypothetical land), he really had a chance to be an elite talent.</div><div><br />See, here's the thing about your point: It kind of makes mine. If I were going to ask you "Who dominates their sport more: Tiger Woods, or Tim Duncan playing against 6<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_52">th</span> graders?" - you'd have to say Tim Duncan. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_53">Federer</span> can't control his competition...</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>R</strong>: Fair enough...I see where you are going. I guess the point that I was trying to make is that even against a historically weak pool of competitors, the drop-off of an elite tennis player (and arguably the best of all time...though I still vote for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_54">Laver</span>) is still dramatic. </div><div><br />I just checked and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_55">Federer</span> is 42-7 in 2009. While this may not be completely up-to-date, it's not dominant. And he has a losing record to Murray and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_56">Nadal</span>, correct?</div><div><br />Still, I see your larger point. My thing is that watching <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_57">Federer</span> in 2009 is like watching <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_58">Shaq</span> now. Still dominant, but not "as dominant". I don't feel that drop-off with Tiger, but 2010 just got a whole lot more interesting!!!</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Whoa whoa whoa...42-7 is NOT dominant? He wins 6 times more often than he loses. So, in other words, if there were 49 games on the, I don't know, hockey schedule, and a team went 42-7, they were NOT dominant? I don't know...but okay, let's look at Tiger...</div><div><br />He's entered 13 tournaments this year and won 5. That's a 5-8 record. Is that dominant? </div><div></div><br /><div><strong>R</strong>: Does he have 3 titles in 2009? Come on. And 2 of them you can throw out.</div><div><br />So if Tiger has won 5 titles and there are 100 people in each, does he get 500 wins?<br />Just saying that there have been more <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_59">dominant</span> years in the past for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_60">Federer</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_61">Sampras</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_62">Laver</span>, etc. </div><div><br />If <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_63">Federer</span> wins the Open, I will switch sides. But I just can't pour dirt on Tiger just yet. By the way, which is worse---being up 2 shots in the final round or being up 5-1 in the 3rd? Ouch!</div><div></div><br /><div>B: A) I'm not pouring dirt on Tiger, I'm simply making my case.</div><div><br />B) There are big differences between golf and tennis - but to answer your question, no. Tiger does not get 100 wins for each championship, he gets 1; but let's say it worked that way. If everyone, in every tournament, he finished ahead of was a 'win' - everyone ahead of him was a 'loss', do you think he'd have an .857 win percentage? That's <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_64">Federer's</span> stat for the year. This could probably (actually, definitely) be looked up, but I don't have time for your "facts."</div><div><br />C) Congrats to you, sir, on getting me to resort to A,B, and C arguments. I say congrats!!!</div></div></div></div></div>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-14183437234359654872009-08-17T15:51:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.734-07:00Sportspeak<div><div><div><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooXg1uw1LI/AAAAAAAAAZk/cUV8CuyNfVI/s1600-h/speak1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371131358539207858" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 296px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 250px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooXg1uw1LI/AAAAAAAAAZk/cUV8CuyNfVI/s400/speak1.jpg" border="0" /></a>You guessed it - more "Smack" talk is on the docket. This time, we're taking sights at a topic a little closer to home: the semantics of sports talk.<br /><div></div><br /><div>As always, feel free to weigh in by posting a comment, and enjoy.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Blogometrics</span></strong>: Okay, time for a contest. In the much-maligned world of sports sayings (i.e. "that's why they play the games" - etc.), is there a more ridiculous term than "if the season ended today"?</div><div><br />In terms of stupidity,I would stand that up against just about any saying, sports-related or not.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>Smack</strong>: Well, sports are so over-analyzed that they make it impossible not to get into <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">hypotheticals</span>. I agree that it’s stupid because obviously the season ends when it ends. Are you considering Yogi Berra and John Madden quotes or just common sayings?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: I'm throwing everything into the mix - even Madden impersonator quotes, as in "Basically, the offense is trying to score, and what the defense wants to do is stop them" or "See, right there, he tackles him." I always thought that Madden should have been on radio, or another area of broadcasting for the visually impaired.</div><div><br />Even Berra's quotes hold some sort of odd idiosyncratic relevance - For example: When asked "What time is it?" Berra would respond "You mean now?" That's borderline metaphysical. Madden's quotes are over-<span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">simplistic</span>, but true. "If the season ended today" is akin to "The Raiders would have finished last season 12-4 if their touchdowns had been worth 9 points each."</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: But that statement could hold just as much truth as the Madden-isms.<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Isn</span>’t one of Berra’s famous quotes, “It <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">ain</span>’t over til it’s over”?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Well, Madden-isms are straight-ahead, dumbed down truth. They make no attempt at analogy nor do they approach the theoretical. Berra's "It ain't over 'til it's over" works in another <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooXnxB5SWI/AAAAAAAAAZs/GI3G0FQeWWg/s1600-h/speak2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371131477536360802" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 129px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 129px" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooXnxB5SWI/AAAAAAAAAZs/GI3G0FQeWWg/s400/speak2.jpg" border="0" /></a>way: It takes a base truth, and gets you to reflect upon the fact that too many times, an event (of any kind) is considered 'over' before it is 'over.' I know this is getting really nit picky, but it's true. </div><div><br />The whole 'season ending today' is, again, akin to total make believe - like "Running backs would be harder to tackle if they rode horses" or, "That pass would have been incomplete if this game were being played on the surface of the Sun." </div><div><br />See my point? </div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: “It <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">ain</span>’t over til it’s over” is basically just a reply to people who say “if the season ended today…” They’re both on the same level.</div><div><br />“If the season ended today…” is just a way of pointing out where a team stands at the present moment. Is there any point to keeping track of the Red <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Sox</span> record during the season? However many games back they are <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">doesn</span>’t matter until October…</div><div><br />Same thing with projecting season stats based on performance through the All Star break. “David Ortiz is on pace to hit 4 home runs this season.”</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Hmmm</span>... I flat out reject your first point. "It ain't over..." makes a point that goes beyond it's words. An optimistic fan will look at a team that's down 15 with 3:26 to play and think "Well, it ain't over 'til it's over" - even though common sense tells the fan otherwise. I don't see the same <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooXy9Y7t6I/AAAAAAAAAZ0/McZboL5Hxcw/s1600-h/speak3.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371131669832775586" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 125px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 93px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooXy9Y7t6I/AAAAAAAAAZ0/McZboL5Hxcw/s400/speak3.jpg" border="0" /></a>bridge existing between, say, "The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Sox</span> are 1 game out of first place" and "If the season ended today..." </div><div><br />Your point about projections is a good one - and the strongest challenger to the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">crown</span> of "Dumbest Sports Quote" (this category excludes quotes by individual <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">athletes</span>/commentators , except for Madden and Berra - who we've already touched on anyway). Projecting anything in sports is ludicrous. After week one in the NFL, you'll have 16 teams on pace to go 16-0, and 16 on pace to go <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">winless</span>.</div><div><br />I guess "that's why they play the games."</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: Sometimes making projections is dumb, like your example about teams on pace to go 16-0. <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooX8M--eAI/AAAAAAAAAZ8/6Rec5yPOMD0/s1600-h/speak4.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371131828637693954" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 109px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 135px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooX8M--eAI/AAAAAAAAAZ8/6Rec5yPOMD0/s400/speak4.jpg" border="0" /></a>But sometimes there’s no other way to put a player’s performance into perspective. With a lot of stats, our only mental benchmarks are season totals, so it helps to hear where they stand relative to those. I think most people realize that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Pujols</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">isn</span>’t going to hit 14 HR every month, and Ortiz will eventually start to come around. “If the season ended today…” <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">doesn</span>’t compare to “That record will stand until it’s broken” or “To get more yards, it’s best to move the ball from the line of scrimmage down the field.” </div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Alright. As usual, we'll agree to sort of disagree. </div></div></div></div>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-50953771122595599892009-08-14T15:42:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.734-07:00Hot Water<div><div><div><div><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooVJR6PelI/AAAAAAAAAY8/s5NsbdNH430/s1600-h/sauna.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371128754763430482" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 147px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 143px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooVJR6PelI/AAAAAAAAAY8/s5NsbdNH430/s400/sauna.jpg" border="0" /></a>Another day, another installment of "Smack" talk. In keeping with our recent sports theme, we open up today to the "wide world" of saunas, bleachers, and sex scandals.<br /><div></div><br /><div>As always, feel free to weigh in by posting a comment, and enjoy.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Blogometrics</span></strong>: This is pretty interesting: Recently, in <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Scandinavia</span> - Finland, I think, the world sauna championships were held. Apart from the fact that this is an odd event (it's a duration contest), there was one fact that nearly floored me. Without employing Google, take a guess at what temperature the sauna was set to. As a hint, the winner endured the heat for 3 minutes, 46 seconds.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>Smack</strong>: Wow. Sauna is dry heat right? 170 F?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Try again.</div><div></div><div> </div><div><strong>S</strong>: I had to look this up before replying. 230, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">yowza</span>! This article says the winner lasted over 12 min. That’s literally hot enough to cook food. No way those people <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">aren</span>’t causing permanent damage to their bodies.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: That's what I thought. I have seen <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">recipes</span> that have 200-250 degrees as the cooking <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooVQ0U731I/AAAAAAAAAZE/esrgg8kgPQc/s1600-h/sauna2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371128884261281618" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 140px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 93px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooVQ0U731I/AAAAAAAAAZE/esrgg8kgPQc/s400/sauna2.jpg" border="0" /></a>temperature. Now, I know we here in New England do not get the kind of heat experienced by those in other parts of the country, but wherever you are, if it's 77 degrees and as muggy as a sauna - you notice. This sauna was 3 times that hot - THREE times. When you think about it, temperature is sort of like the Richter scale - as in, a 6.8 earthquake isn't 1/10 stronger than a 6.7, it's almost twice as strong. Now, I'm not saying that 93 degree weather is twice as unbearable as 92 degrees, but when you get up to that realm, every degree counts - let alone getting OVER 200 DEGREES. That's just nuts.</div><div><br />Now on to Rick <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Pitino</span> - cut and dry: Do you think that he should lose his job?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: I don’t think he should lose his job for cheating on his wife 6 years ago. It <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">doesn</span>’t sound like he’s done anything wrong aside from that. This woman sounds like a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Looney</span> Tune.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: I'm torn on this. I think it's a valid question - he is supposed to be a role model for the young men on his team, and while he's seemingly handled this well since it came to light, the fact remains that it was his severe <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">indiscretion</span> that placed him in this situation to begin with. Add to that the business side of things, where he has lost some of his recruiting luster, and the university does have an interesting decision on it's hands.</div><div><br />On the other hand, all we've been hearing about lately is how Michael Vick deserves his second chance (which he does). We'll hear it about <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Donte</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Stallworth</span> a year from now. Now, I can see the point where one would argue that Vick and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Stallworth</span> paid a penalty and are now moving past their incidents while <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Pitino</span> is still resolving his issue - and facts have yet to come out as to exactly what took place between <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Pitino</span> and this woman. The thing is, Vick and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Stallworth</span> committed criminal acts, and - unless there is a major bombshell about to drop - <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Pitino</span> did not. I think the case can be made that he's paid his debt already, both with his family - and now with the public embarrassment. However, just like Michael Vick's second chance is coming with different team, maybe <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Pitino's</span> should as well.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: Maybe I’ll have a different opinion if new information comes out, but with what’s out there <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooVXqX_QJI/AAAAAAAAAZM/1LJTxSxTlIM/s1600-h/sauna3.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371129001848815762" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 134px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 75px" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooVXqX_QJI/AAAAAAAAAZM/1LJTxSxTlIM/s400/sauna3.jpg" border="0" /></a>right now I don’t think he should have to leave Louisville. He’s a top 10 college coach of all time – I don’t think he’s any less valuable to the university because of this. He’s not getting away with anything. I mean, Clinton did it and remained <em>president</em>.</div><br /><div></div><div><strong>B</strong>: That's a good point. I <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">definitely</span> lean your way in terms of my opinion of the matter - although, if it does turn out that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Pitino</span> ordered and/or funded an abortion (as is being alleged), and did not simply 'pay for health insurance' (as he is claiming) that muddies the water a bit.<br />I guess this is a wait and see sort of situation.</div><div><br />Alright - on to The Cubs. Shane <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Victorino</span> is filing a criminal complaint against the fan who doused him with beer from the stands. Thoughts on this?</div><div></div><br /><div>S: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgxtW_abFh8">Here’s the footage.</a></div><div></div><div> </div><div>I <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">hadn</span>’t heard about this. After watching it, I’m on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Victorino</span>’s side. I’<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">ve</span> seen some “accidental” beer spills (and who could forget the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_soUrQeiwI">pizza throw</a>?) when players dive into the stands to make catches. I feel differently about that. When you enter the fans’ domain you open yourself up to that stuff. But this guy threw a full cup onto the field, and actually timed his throw really well. He nailed <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Victorino</span> right as he was catching the fly ball. That’s pretty dangerous and no way is that “part of the game.” Of course the fan is going to walk away with either a continuance or community service or something, but he should definitely have to answer for his behavior.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: A couple things about this: </div><div><br />1) I think <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">Victorino</span> is absolutely within reason (ahem) in filing this complaint. This could sound trite to a non-sports fan - who may think <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">Victorino</span> is overreacting - but if that ball had clunked him in the head, he could be very seriously injured. Now, it was not the fan's intent (we'd think) to harm <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">Victorino</span>, but that does not get him off the hook. For instance, I always wonder why fans rail against players being fined, suspended, penalized, etc. when the issue of intent comes up. Let's use Vince <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">Wilfork</span> as an example ( I know we're going from football to baseball, but...). <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">Wilfork</span> has a reputation of going for opposing <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">QB's</span> knees. Whenever he gets fined, many Pats fans cry foul, because, they say, his intent to harm the QB cannot be proven. Well, let's look at another football player, the aforementioned <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">Donte</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">Stallworth</span>. He is currently under suspension from the league for pleading guilty to vehicular manslaughter - and an interesting <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">parallel</span> exists. When you strike some one with your vehicle, and it is your fault, you are immediately "in the wrong." The severity of your penalty, however, stems from the severity of the harm caused to the victim. If the victim is in a coma (God forbid), you are charge with <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">assault</span>, negligence, etc. However, if (again, God forbid) the victim passes away days later from injuries sustained, you are immediately charged with manslaughter. The only way intent s factored in is whether that manslaughter is changed to murder. Either way, you have committed a criminal act - just like this fan.</div><div><br />2) I think an interesting sub plot to all of this is - the Cubs security staff apprehended the wrong <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooVjItAlGI/AAAAAAAAAZU/cqulVaJy7J4/s1600-h/sauna4.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371129198968607842" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 76px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 131px" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooVjItAlGI/AAAAAAAAAZU/cqulVaJy7J4/s400/sauna4.jpg" border="0" /></a>fan, and escorted him from the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">premises</span> in a 'not so gentle' way. It will be interesting to see if anything comes of that.</div><div><br />3) Lastly, and this is a bit nit-picky - can we ask that the sportscasters reporting on this story stop remarking how amazing it is that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">Victorino</span> caught the ball as he was being doused? I'm getting tired of hearing "I couldn't finish this sentence if you threw a beer at me" or "It just shows how amazing these <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">athletes</span> are..." I agree that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">Victorino</span> is quite an <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">athlete</span>, but I also think that plenty of non-elite <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_39">athletes</span> could make the same catch - mostly due to protective reflexes. I know, I know, this is nit picky - but still...</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: Well it’s not like the guy was walking in the aisle, tripped, and dropped his beer over the wall. He threw it. Pretty sure what happened is exactly what the guy intended, except for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_40">Victorino</span> making the catch, of course. Let’s say <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_41">Victorino</span> flinches after getting nailed with beer and takes the ball off the forehead. The guy would probably get (and deserve) an upgraded charge. That’s why there’s a law against attempted murder. Whether the victim dies or not makes a big difference. But then there’s also “involuntary manslaughter” and “accidental killing”, so intent is also taken into consideration.</div><div><br />I would have been more impressed if he had been hit a half second earlier and still made the catch. He was hit just as the ball was coming into his glove. It was too late to make him flinch enough to flub it.</div><div></div><br /><div>B: Right. We agree - for once.</div><br /><div></div><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooVtSjXc3I/AAAAAAAAAZc/FE3R_pOnzLc/s1600-h/sauna5.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371129373411210098" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 131px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 119px" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooVtSjXc3I/AAAAAAAAAZc/FE3R_pOnzLc/s400/sauna5.jpg" border="0" /></a></div><div> </div><div> </div><div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div>S: A pig just flew past my window.</div></div></div></div></div>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-2051678319187956002009-08-12T15:31:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.734-07:00Autumn Rush<div><div><div><div><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooNdMm-oVI/AAAAAAAAAYU/u_Wr6iY3Zws/s1600-h/pats1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371120300844818770" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 180px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooNdMm-oVI/AAAAAAAAAYU/u_Wr6iY3Zws/s400/pats1.jpg" border="0" /></a>Who better to turn to for help with the launch of the new Blogometrics site than our old friend "Smack" - and with football season just weeks away, what better topic than a little preview of the season ahead?</div><div></div><div></div><br /><div>As always, feel free to join the conversation by posting a comment, and enjoy.</div><div></div><div></div><div><strong></strong></div><br /><div><strong>Smack</strong>: Here’s a topic for you: <a href="http://www.miamidolphins.com/newsite/dolfanzone/dolphinsfightsong.asp">the new Miami Dolphins “Fight Song”, performed by T Pain.</a></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><strong></strong></div><br /><div><strong>Blogometrics</strong>: Hmmm. First inclination is to just roast this, but New England has become a big time glass house when it comes to gimmicks like this.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><strong></strong></div><br /><div><strong>Smack</strong>: What has the Patriots organization done that compares to commissioning T-Pain to record a fight song?</div><div></div><div></div><br /><div>If anything I figured the extensive, if not exclusive, use of Auto-Tune would put you over the <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooNjPxecII/AAAAAAAAAYc/-9-LuZRyP6M/s1600-h/pats2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371120404773367938" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 135px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 90px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooNjPxecII/AAAAAAAAAYc/-9-LuZRyP6M/s400/pats2.jpg" border="0" /></a>edge.</div><div></div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Speaking on a sports-in-general level, not specifically football, Boston/New England has some pretty awful gimmicks. </div><div></div><br /><div>The Dropkick Murphys being the official band of The Red Sox and the techno song "Sandstorm" being played for Pat's touchdowns, Bruin's goals, and God knows what else - probably successful free throws at this point, come to mind.</div><div></div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: Well I guess the Dropkick’s remake of Tessie is a comparable situation, but the Dropkicks aren’t T-Pain… And this fight song is just ridiculous. If you haven’t actually listened to it yet, please do. I think you’ll see my point. Every team plays music for touchdowns, goals, and even individual batters stepping to the plate. At least the Patriots use AC/DC and Ozzy Osbourne. I think the Sox using “Sweet Caroline” is as bad as it gets.</div><div></div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: After having listened to that song - which is apparently played after every touchdown - I'm <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooNqwtLw7I/AAAAAAAAAYk/a-JXNiszxCk/s1600-h/pats3.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371120533872821170" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 130px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 87px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooNqwtLw7I/AAAAAAAAAYk/a-JXNiszxCk/s400/pats3.jpg" border="0" /></a>not sure T-Pain can make that any worse.</div><div></div><br /><div>Related question: If the Browns sign Michael Vick, will they play "Who Let the Dogs Out" if he scores a touchdown?<br /></div></div><div><div><strong>S</strong>: Well the irony would be palpable. I think Mangini’s made it clear that he’s not interested, though.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Two rules in life:</div><div><br />1) Stay hydrated</div><div><br />2) Never trust Eric Mangini</div><div><br />Not saying that I think the Browns are interested - I just don't like Mangini. </div><div><br />Alright - what's your prediction for the Pat's season?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: I’m not putting much stock in Mangini’s statements, but the fact that he’s new in Cleveland coupled with the fact that a section of their stands is nicknamed “the Dawg Pound”… I just don’t see him being stupid enough to sign Vick.</div><div><br />I have high hopes for the Pats. It will all hinge on Brady staying healthy (just released Gutierrez). McDaniels was a tough loss, but luckily Brady was pretty involved in the play calling so it should be a smooth transition there. Maroney should be healthy and we’ve got Fred Taylor now. Did we resign Wilfork yet? Burgess was a good signing. And Moss, Welker, and Galloway are a solid WR group.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>B</strong>: Alright, since you asked - here's my position by position breakdown for the offense:</div><div><br />QB: Brady is the key. Having seen him at camp last Thursday, the knee does appear to be bothering him a bit, so it remains to be seen if his ability to step up in the pocket will be affected. If it is, look for the Pats to change up their coverage schemes and return to the tried and true "spread and screen" that worked so well in 2003, 2004 and 2007. </div><div><br />Unfortunately, the back up picture is not too rosy, saving any Cassel-esque surprises. Andrew Walter and Kevin O'Connell are substantial drop-offs, despite the praise for Walter coming from those who worked with him in Oakland since A)they traded him, and B) it's Oakland.</div><div><br />RB: Crunch time for Maroney. He's been an injury liability prone to streaky play since his <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooN0kJ-5SI/AAAAAAAAAYs/PdNlzGJ5gUo/s1600-h/pats4.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371120702302643490" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 96px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 123px" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooN0kJ-5SI/AAAAAAAAAYs/PdNlzGJ5gUo/s400/pats4.jpg" border="0" /></a>arrival, and the addition of Fred Taylor will not increase Maroney's touches. Add to that mix the versatile Kevin Faulk and (despite failing to protect Brady's knee last year) the under-rated Sammy Morris and you've got a very solid backfield.</div><div><br />WR: The Pats are so loaded at receiver that it's borderline scary. Regulars Moss and Welker return, along with newcomers Greg Lewis (from Philadelphia) and Joey Galloway (from Tampa) - who may be the fastest man in camp. The question that will be presented to opposing D-Coordinators is "Who do you single cover?" That problem gets compounded when you add to this receiving corps a backfield full of solid hands in Maroney, Faulk, Morris and Taylor.</div><div><br />Also look for rookie Julian Edelmann (drafted out of Kent State) to make an impact in the passing game one way or another. Edelmann could be the Pat's version of a 'wildcat' player - lining up at any number of positions, but look for him to make his presence felt in the short passing game, where he's drawn comparisons to Wes Welker in camp (having seen this in person, this is not a bad comparison). </div><div><br />TE: It appears the Benjamin Watson experiment has come to an end, with the tight end yet to appear in camp, so that leaves former Jet Chris Baker as the number one. Baker torched the Pat's last year in Foxboro, so - as is Belichik's habbit, he was brought aboard in the off season as a solid receiving tight end who is a more than adequate blocker. While he does not possess Watson's athleticism, he can hold on to the ball and presents Brady with a large target. Also look for WR and special teams ace Sam Aiken to line up at TE from time to time.</div><div><br />OL: The Pat's return their starting line, for better or for worse. Koppen and Mankins remain solid NFL performers at their positions, while the second guard position, opposite Mankins, will be a battle lasting through the season - much as it was last year. The tackle position is not as solid as in years past, with Matt Light another year older and another step slower. Each of the past few seasons has seen Light's play diminish somewhat, but in a year where Brady may have lost a step or two himself, look for the Pats to make efforts to protect Brady using various schemes and formations.</div><div><br />Overall, this is one talented offense which, on paper, has every reason to believe it can rival the marks set by the 2007 Pats. Brady's knee is the big question, and so long as it's healthy, look for lots of offense and lots and lots of points.</div><div></div><br /><div>S: Thank you for that.</div><div></div><br /><div>Do you agree with me about McDaniels?And how about defensively? Looks like Wilfork is still holding out. We added a DE in Burgess and bolstered the backfield. I’m mostly concerned with the DB’s. It’s been a problem since we traded Samuel.Watson was at practice yesterday, although I agree he could be done. It’s the final year of his contract anyway. Alex Smith is another strong candidate for TE.</div><div></div><br /><div>B: As far as McDaniel, we shall see what impact his departure will have. The team was able to withstand the loss of Charlie Weiss without substantial detriment. I think with the pieces in place, the Pats could go to the Madden '98 Chicago Bears playbook and put up 550 points this year.</div><div><br />Defensively, there are a lot of questions. Wilfork isn't holding out, and is signed for the season. Having him on the d-line will be important, with an aging Richard Seymour drawing less attention. Jarvis Green and Ty Warren are no slouches, either, and all 4 could be on the field at times should the Pats employ a 4-3 more often, as I'm inclined to think they will.</div><div><br />At linebacker, Mayo is another year older and wiser, which should sends chills through the hearts of plenty of opposing offenses, and Adelius Thomas returns to fill one outside slot. From there, look for a revolving door throughout camp, with Bruschi, Crable, Redd, Alexander, Banta-Cain and Woods fighting to fill the remaining inside and outside slots.</div><div></div><div> </div><div>Defensive back, the weak point of the D the last few years, should be interesting again this season. Gone is safety Rodney Harrison, but newcomers Shawn Springs and Leigh Bodden will strengthen the corner position - along with last year's rookie duo of Wheatley and Wilhite. I won't be surprised to see this group perform very well this year, despite continued low expectations.</div><div><br />I just realized - why am I writing like a high school newspaper reporter?</div><div></div><br /><div>S: Seriously. I was waiting for a “stuff the offense like a Thanksgiving turkey” comment.</div><div></div><br /><div>They still have Meriweather, no? Think he’s ready to step up?</div><div></div><br /><div>B: Blogometrics' Corny Camp Notes:</div><div><br />Look for newly minted Patriot Fred Taylor to dazzle the Foxboro faithful with his usual assortment of jaunts and jukes this fall....veteran signal caller Tom Brady looks to return to his <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooN-oyVxhI/AAAAAAAAAY0/nFsH1408oQM/s1600-h/pats5.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371120875344348690" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 101px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 136px" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/SooN-oyVxhI/AAAAAAAAAY0/nFsH1408oQM/s400/pats5.jpg" border="0" /></a>winning ways under center...Head Patriot Bill Belichik surprised the troops by calling off the dogs an hour early on Friday's afternoon workout...Randy Moss put on an exhibition of some snazzy sideline footwork in passing drills...The fumble bug plagued the morning session Thursday, so Friday's drill focused on ball protection...</div><div><br />Meriweather has been sort of a letdown so far - all the athleticism in the world, but still not totally comfortable as a pass defender, which is sort of important at safety. We'll see...Patrick Chung has looked good in camp, and James Sanders filled in well for Harrison last year on the weak side.</div><div><br />How about predictions on record (again realizing that they have yet to play an exhibition game)?</div><div></div><br /><div>S: 13-3. They put up big points but don’t top 2007 numbers.</div><div></div><br /><div>B: I'm going to agree with 13-3, but hold off on the final prediction until after at least 3 preseason games. If the defense gels, this team could be better than 2007. There's really no reason not to think that.</div><div></div><br /><div>S: How about relative to the rest of the AFC East? In 2007, let’s be honest… The rest of the division blew. Last year saw much more parity, with playoff spots up in the air until Week 17. Now the Bills have T.O., the Dolphins have T-Pain, and the Jets are Favreless. Should we be worried??? </div><div></div><br /><div>B: The only thing that worries me about the AFC East is the addition of T-Pain.</div><div><br />Buffalo already had a top-flight receiver in Lee Evans, adding T.O. won't solve their defensive problems. Miami will experience a come-down, now that the league has had a chance to catch up to the wildcat. I'd think The Jets are due for a rebuilding year, since no matter what, you've got a new QB and a new head coach.</div><div><br />Each of these teams would be fortunate to split with the Pats, but I have trouble seeing Buffalo and New York giving the Pats too much trouble.</div></div></div></div>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-28785888211703906772009-07-25T18:21:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.734-07:00Bad to WorseTime for another round of "Smack" talk. This time, <a href="http://withinreasonblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/worst-case-scenario.html">we revisit the topic of "look alikes"</a> - switching from pet owners with an eye for the unusual, to people with an eye toward the hidden star within...and with whom we'd rather spend eternity.<br /><br />Please feel free to weigh in by posting a comment, and enjoy.<br /><br /><strong>Smack</strong>: Here's another look alike comparison...<br /><br /><em>Ed note</em>: Photos reprinted from <a href="http://www.boston.com/ae/celebrity/gallery/celebrity_lookalikes?pg=44">Boston.com</a><br /><br /><br /><a title="View Celebs on Scribd" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 12px auto 6px; FONT: 14px Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/17684123/Celebs">Celebs</a> <object id="doc_723374669455032" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=" height="500" width="100%" align="middle" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" name="doc_723374669455032"><param name="_cx" value="17992"><param name="_cy" value="13229"><param name="FlashVars" value=""><param name="Movie" value="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=17684123&access_key=key-2n0rsrdi7hy877a6ti73&page=1&version=1&viewMode="><param name="Src" value="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=17684123&access_key=key-2n0rsrdi7hy877a6ti73&page=1&version=1&viewMode="><param name="WMode" value="Opaque"><param name="Play" value="-1"><param name="Loop" value="-1"><param name="Quality" value="High"><param name="SAlign" value="LT"><param name="Menu" value="-1"><param name="Base" value=""><param name="AllowScriptAccess" value="always"><param name="Scale" value="NoScale"><param name="DeviceFont" value="0"><param name="EmbedMovie" value="0"><param name="BGColor" value="FFFFFF"><param name="SWRemote" value=""><param name="MovieData" value=""><param name="SeamlessTabbing" value="1"><param name="Profile" value="0"><param name="ProfileAddress" value=""><param name="ProfilePort" value="0"><param name="AllowNetworking" value="all"><param name="AllowFullScreen" value="true"><br /> <embed src="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=17684123&access_key=key-2n0rsrdi7hy877a6ti73&page=1&version=1&viewMode=" quality="high" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" play="true" loop="true" scale="showall" wmode="opaque" devicefont="false" bgcolor="#ffffff" name="doc_723374669455032_object" menu="true" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" salign="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" align="middle" height="500" width="100%"></embed> </object><br /><br /><strong>Within Reason</strong>: Okay - What is worse, these people, or the pet people? - because some of these are pretty bad. My personal favorites are the folks with the Glamour Shots, which let you know that they are convinced that they're either 'dead ringers' or some one who looks enough like a celebrity to be one themself.<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: The pet people are worse. I agree some are bad but unless they think they look like Benji or Rin Tin Tin then they’re not as bad as the guy that thinks his poodle looks like the cookie monster.<br /><br /><strong>WR</strong>: This is a tough one. With the pet people, at least their delusions are focused on the animal.<br /><br />Are you telling me you'd rather be stuck on an island with the David Beckham look alike below than with a crazy cat lady?<br /><br />That's a tough call. Think about it - if you were on a sinking ship, about to be marooned with the Beckham look alike, you'd both be scavenging for a mirror (among other things). You, to signal planes overhead, him to make sure "his hair don't get all messed up."<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: Point taken, but…Would you rather be stranded with the person who thinks their German shepherd looks like Ben Affleck, or any of the Reese Witherspoon, Jennifer Aniston, or Gwen Stefani lookalikes?<br /><br /><strong>WR</strong>: You're missing the point - these (for the most part) aren't people who look like celebrities, they are people who THINK they look like celebrities.<br /><br />I think I'd rather wake up every morning to some one crying out for their beloved 'Yoda' than some one re-enacting scenes from 'Along Came Polly' - "okay, okay, you're Ben Stiller, right, and oh my God, he is sooo germophopic! Okay, Okay. Now you say 'Hi Polly...oh my God! Wash your hands!!'"<br /><br />See what I mean?<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: No, I don’t. With the kid that thinks he looks like Beckham, yes. But for the girl that is really a dead-on Marisa Tomei, she probably just gets it all the time and thought it would be cool to send it in.<br /><br />The pet people are just on another level. I mean, that guy or girl probably looks at his dog and actually sees Ben Affleck. To me, that’s scarier.<br /><br /><strong>WR</strong>: Sure, but maybe the pet people would just start chasing around an iguana yelling "Dustin!!! Dustin!!! I loved you in 'Rain Man'!!!"<br /><br />The pet people probably keep to themselves, and if you've got a cat lady on you hands, chances are you'd receive knitted seaweed goods occasionally.<br /><br />I'll give you that some of these people just "get it all the time" that they look like so and so - just like some of the pet people were kind of being cutesy...but I'm saying if there was a drawing to determine with whom you would be stranded with, and there were 2 hats to pick names out of, one full of celebrity lookalikes and one full of pet people - both running the gamut from 'normal' to 'crazy' - I'm reaching for the pet hat.<br /><br /><strong>S</strong>: Ok, so you reach for the pet hat, and what’s your best case scenario? I’m reaching for the celeb hat and hoping for one of the Jennifer Anistons. Worst case I get the Beckham kid, the Russell Crowe guy or one of the Nick Lacheys, and I just have to banish them to the other side of the island.<br /><br /><strong>WR</strong>: Best case is I get the person who thinks their parrot looks like Sean Connery, and we play "Dr. No" all day long.GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-9956778620238960152009-07-15T17:44:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.734-07:00Anybody Listening?<div><div><div><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Sl59ZMwk68I/AAAAAAAAAXo/fG-8YwoO1Os/s1600-h/rock2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5358858478492642242" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 180px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Sl59ZMwk68I/AAAAAAAAAXo/fG-8YwoO1Os/s400/rock2.jpg" border="0" /></a> <div><div>Word came down yesterday that WBCN, one of the longest running stations on the FM dial, will be signing off the air for good next month - and becoming an 'internet only' entity. In light of this news, we turn to our friend "Smack" for some feedback. </div><div></div><br /><div>Please feel free to weigh in by posting a comment, and enjoy.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>Within Reason</strong>: So down comes word from "The Man" that WBCN will be taken off the air - and become internet only - on August 13th. Thoughts on this?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>Smack</strong>: Yeah I heard that yesterday. It sounded like they’re changing the call letters and keeping their morning show on the new station, and still playing the Pats games and stuff.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>WR</strong>: If you ask me, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. </div><div><br />A) You're taking one of only 2 AOR stations off the air in the 'greater' Boston market (I do not count 101.7 WFNX, because that signal drops about 15 miles outside the city).B) You are replacing WBCN with an FM sports station. In some cities, this may make sense, but there's a little station called WEEI in Boston, which is not only the #1 radio station in the Boston market now, it's near the top nationwide. B pt.2) Past attempts, by other stations, to compete with WEEI have failed miserably. Perhaps WEEI is down, following their loss - 2 years ago - of exclusive broadcasting rights to The Red Sox, but there's a problem with that reasoning, too. Anyone south of Boston can already get FM sports talk and programming - including The Red Sox - on 103.7 FM, WEEI's Rhode Island affiliate.C) 104.1 - WBCN's frequency, will now be occupied by the 'mix' station, currently Mix 98.5. The new sports station will move to Mix's vacated 98.5 spot on the dial. I question the logic of retaining a 'mix' station, where you are directly competing against Kiss 108 (107.9) Mike FM (93.7) Jam'n 94.5 (which plays mostly hip hop and R&B, or about 30% of your top 40 'mix' material) and a handful of other stations already established in this market.</div><div><br />This leaves mainstream rock audiences with 107.3 WAAF (also broadcasting on 97.7) as the only choice on the dial. </div><div><br />So, if I get this straight, media companies like CBS would rather try to squeeze another 50,000 -<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Sl59kHhQs2I/AAAAAAAAAXw/vShkwZfcd88/s1600-h/rock4.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5358858666064786274" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 122px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 69px" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Sl59kHhQs2I/AAAAAAAAAXw/vShkwZfcd88/s400/rock4.jpg" border="0" /></a> 100,000 in sales out of a Kelly Clarkson record than to develop any sort of rock audience in Boston. That would be Boston, Massachusetts. I guess former Spinal Tap manager Ian "I wouldn't worry about Boston, it's not much of a college town" Faith has landed at CBS Radio...</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: Just a couple of points:They do still have the exclusive rights to the Patriots live broadcasts which is big.Mix has a pretty good market share despite all the competition in their format. Don’t see why that would change much.WEEI’s share has been down over the past few years.</div><div><br />Graphic from Boston.com:</div><br /><div></div><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Sl57W_Jb6DI/AAAAAAAAAXg/YNjnwX1W_mA/s1600-h/rock1.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5358856241455818802" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 170px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Sl57W_Jb6DI/AAAAAAAAAXg/YNjnwX1W_mA/s400/rock1.gif" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><div><strong></strong></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div><strong></strong></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div><strong></strong></div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div><strong></strong></div><br /><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><div><strong></strong></div><br /><div><strong>WR</strong>: Those are some interesting figures, but I do still find it odd that CBS is choosing to take on the top 2 stations in the market.</div><div><br />I would be interested in seeing exactly how the producers of these charts are defining "Boston" - as, again, there is an FM affiliate to WEEI in Providence that reaches much of Southern New England.</div><div><br />The main point, I think, is that every time a rock radio station goes off the air the devolution of music as a whole advances.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: Do you think AM/FM radio will eventually go the way of the newspapers as people get more and more options for real time news, music and sports talk? (e.g. iPod, Blackberry, XM, Sirius, HD radio, streaming internet radio)</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>WR</strong>: It's an interesting parallel. Where the issue facing newspapers is 'what was once $0.50 a day is now available for free' - the issue facing radio is 'there are less and less free outlets for music.'</div><div><br />You can look at the issues facing Sirius/XM as an example of this. As of yet, it doesn't appear that there are that many people willing to pay for radio. Just as is happening with information, actual media (in this case, music) is available from such a wide assortment of formats that audiences - or consumers - are divided and sub-divided over and over. What ends up happening is that monetizing this market becomes increasingly difficult. As a solution, larger media companies are forcing consumers to migrate towards 'fee for service' music. If I want to get turned on to a new band, I'll have to come up with some way other than terrestrial radio. </div><div><br />We've touched on this before, but a singles market (as opposed to an LP market) is bad for music. Record companies push out bands like Lady Gaga, Black Eyed Peas, etc in the hopes that <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Sl59zzRz99I/AAAAAAAAAX4/7biMX7PtTno/s1600-h/rock5.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5358858935509186514" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 95px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 135px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Sl59zzRz99I/AAAAAAAAAX4/7biMX7PtTno/s400/rock5.jpg" border="0" /></a>they'll get a few million $0.99 downloads - sort of like the new 45s. The problem is, the 'new' (post 1967) music economy was built on sales of the LP - not singles. This was especially the case in the 1980s and 1990s, when sales records were being set, and groups like 'Nsync, Brittany Spears and Pearl Jam could expect to sell 1 million copies of an LP in it's first week of release. Nowadays, 1 million in sales would put you in the top 10 for a calendar year. The problem with this new model is that there is no artist development - both because the 'artists' themselves are not strong enough to establish long term careers, and - as it turns out - even the 'big time' acts like Beyonce Knowles don't have the clout to maintain long term success on the level of past predecessors (see Beyonce vs. Madonna or even Brittany, Coldplay vs. U2 or Pearl Jam, heck - even Creed put up numbers that are, by today's new standards, astronomical).</div><div><br />Music will just get more and more homogenized, the quality will continue to diminish, and it will get more and more expensive.</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>S</strong>: Did music have these same issues pre-1967, when singles were the norm?</div><div></div><br /><div><strong>WR</strong>: I don't think they would be characterized as "issues" pre-1967 - it was just the market. It's becoming the market again, but this time it is doing so without the benefit of free promotion - commercial radio. I was discussing this with a co-worker earlier. ALL radio programming is commercial - even the songs themselves. The songs are commercials for the artists, and the records they produce. If you are some one who does not buy a lot of music, but you listen to the radio, you are the equivalent of some one who watches The Food Network, but shops and eats like any average consumer - thanks for watching, and now a word from our sponsors.</div><div><br />Downloading music for free, or "illegally" is not the culprit that it is made out to be by the media (of course, the same media that is suffering through this "music recession"). What you've got with downloading is a replacement for the radio. There are a few angles to this: First, if downlaoding was THAT big a problem, it could be stopped. Am I to believe that my cable company can block certain channels, my employer can block certain sites, and I can encrypt a personal data disk, but music companies cannot protect THEIR content? I doubt that. Second, downlaoding came about just as the 90s boom was beginning to fade. Through the 80s and 90s, record sales were exploding - and the bubble had to burst at some point. Whereas the hold-over between the hair band 80s and 'alternative/grunge 90s was brief, the post 90s rock scene has been slow to rebound and develop substantial artists to replenish the rosters of music labels. No offense to 3 Doors Down, but I wouldn't know if I were standing next to them a Home Depot - they're just that uninteresting. Third, there was a failure to acknowledge, on behalf of the labels, that along with this natural decline in sales was the advent of decreased music programming AND the availability of free music online. The current climate is the result of a perfect storm of poor business planning, a frustrated consumer base, and poor product.</div><div><br />In my opinion, music companies need to embrace free downloading, and rebuild their business model around incentivizing customers to spend their money. I understand that this is not easy in<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Sl59-DK0nGI/AAAAAAAAAYA/9lO_w0cIdL8/s1600-h/rock6.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5358859111573527650" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 124px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 100px" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QbmewWiebis/Sl59-DK0nGI/AAAAAAAAAYA/9lO_w0cIdL8/s400/rock6.jpg" border="0" /></a> an environment where all of your product may be available for free - but what about sites, sponsored by the label - that offer free downloads (and not just some promotional single, but additional content) to their customers? Like it? Well, buy the album here, too. Again, I know it doesn't make sense on the surface, but it's exactly how radio used to work - if you replace "downloads" with "air play" and "website" with record store."</div><div><br />Record companies need to remember that the radio is their advertising. Any company that said "Uh, we're going to essentially stop advertising, lessen the quality of our product, and make it available in fewer and fewer places" would eventually run into this brick wall.</div><div> </div></div></div></div></div>GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1616338930552683606.post-61833276232478378762009-07-13T17:59:00.000-07:002011-06-16T19:16:56.735-07:00The Wild, Wild SouthAs some one who does not own a gun, I, like many in my position, have mixed feelings about our Second Amendment rights. In theory, I strongly support our right to arm ourselves as a means of defense. However, when that theory becomes a practice, things can get complicated.<br /><br />Especially when alcohol is involved.<br /><br /><object height="400" width="512"><param name="movie" value="http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/emp/external/player.swf"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><param name="FlashVars" value="config_settings_showUpdatedInFooter=true&playlist=http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/emp/8140000/8145400/8145457.xml&config=http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/emp/config/default.xml?1.3.114_2.11.7978_8433_20090514110202&config_settings_language=default&config_settings_showFooter=true&config_plugin_fmtjLiveStats_pageType=eav6&config_settings_showPopoutButton=false&config_settings_showPopoutCta=false"><embed src="http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/emp/external/player.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="512" height="400" flashvars="config_settings_showUpdatedInFooter=true&playlist=http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/emp/8140000/8145400/8145457.xml&config=http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/emp/config/default.xml?1.3.114_2.11.7978_8433_20090514110202&config_settings_language=default&config_settings_showFooter=true&config_plugin_fmtjLiveStats_pageType=eav6&config_settings_showPopoutButton=false&config_settings_showPopoutCta=false"></embed></object><br /><br />What's more frightening than the prospect of inebriated gun owners acting as unofficial "deputies" is the unspoken precedent this law sets - which is "take the law into your own hands."<br /><br />Again, as some one who does not own a gun, I'm in no position to dispute Ms. Goesser's implied statement that, in the hands of a trained owner, a gun can be used to disable a perpetrator - not simply kill them. The real problem is that gun training alone does not substitute for law enforcement training.<br /><br />The Democratic sponsor of this new legislation, State Senator Doug Jackson, states "People are fearful about tomorrow. They feel insecure. And the Second Amendment right is something that they cherish and it's a means of protecting themselves and their family and defending what they have. It provides security in troubled times."<br /><br />Well, as of July the 14th, you're going to have plently more fearful citizens on your hands, Mr. Senator.GhostOfTyronehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05299509325839104698noreply@blogger.com0