Hetero As It Gets (Ladies...)

It has been brought to my attention -- more than once, I might add -- that some have bandied about the notion that I, your humble narrator, might be a homosexual. This truly baffles me. But first a few housekeeping tips.

I don't think there is anything "wrong" with being gay, obviously. In fact, I would like to think that if I thought I were a gay guy, that I would be comfortable enough to come out and say it. I don't know if, when the rubber met the road, I would be able to actually do this. But I would like to think I could.

In the wake of Barack Obama finally joining most non-hypocritical people by saying he thinks gays should be able to get married, it seems that most of my friends are pretty tolerant of gay marriage and gay-related issues too. And actually, I am super-tolerant of all lifestyles. After all, if you live in a society where homosexuality is marginalized, why would you "choose" it? Wouldn't it just be easier to "choose" to be a heterosexual? I don't think you pick it; it definitely picks you.

Which brings me to this point: I absolutely love women. It's not something I talk about all that much, because I have a working brain and don't have to default to uninteresting neanderthal grunting. I love girls a lot. I am very shy around them, but that does not mean I don't admire them. I did not choose this, by the way: I did not wake up one day and decide to become attracted to women. I've been attracted to women since as far back as I can remember. Even when I was a kid, I knew that there was something about chicks that was pretty all right. I never admitted this to anyone, mind you, because of the guilt inherent in an Irish-Catholic upbringing. But I have always -- ALWAYS -- been into broads. Sorry, "skirts."

That brings me to a second point, and please hear me out. I know I just said that I'm crazy-tolerant, and I am. But here's the deal: homosexuality disgusts me.

Let me finish.

I'm not saying that a person's lifestyle disgusts me, or that I judge anyone, or that I look down upon anyone for any reason. Someone being a homosexual doesn't bother me at all. Not in the slightest. But the idea of two men being together -- sexually, I mean -- makes me incredibly uncomfortable. Especially the thought of one of those men being me.

Now before you play junior psychoanalyst, no, this is not one of those "I think he doth protest too much" situations. I already told you that I'm cool with gay dudes who wanna rail each other in the privacy of their own homes. But in the few instances where I've been privy to images of male-on-male action, I get incredibly uncomfortable. I loved Brokeback Mountain ... except for all the dude-on-dude action.

To me it's like spiders: there is nothing inherently wrong with spiders, but they gross me out, dude! I wouldn't want to be sitting in a pile of spiders, or a pile of naked bro's for that matter. It's just a matter of personal preference. But I'm not saying that spiders should all be eradicated or that spiders shouldn't be allowed to marry other spiders if they want to.

If I may sidebar: I think this makes me more tolerant that most people even! It's easy for people who "support" homosexuality (ie. aren't grossed out by it) to be tolerant. It's a whole other kettle of fish for people who think it's grody to be okay with it.

Back to the original topic. I can see how someone might surmise that I'm gay since I haven't had a significant relationship with a girl in about 6 years (at least that anyone knows about!), but that doesn't mean that I haven't had ... let's say "episodes" here and there. And it doesn't mean that I haven't been working my magic.

I tend to fly solo to bars and when out to dinner, but that doesn't mean that I'm a closet case.

I will say this: I think that gay dudes are generally very interesting, more interesting than a lot of straight guys. I don't know if it's that they are wittier, more bitchy or better with cultural references (all three of which I am as well ... I guess that might be leading people to the wrong conclusion), but I do find that I enjoy talking to to them. I just don't wouldn't enjoy making sweet, sweet love to them.

What confuses me about the conspiracy theory about me is that I don't "fit the profile" of a gay man in any way. I am 250+ lbs., I am sloppy as hell, and I dress like shit. I will admit that I can perform a perfect sibilant "S," which also might give people the wrong impression. But don't take my quick wit and whistlin' "S"s fool ya: I'm all about boobs and child-bearing hips. Always will be.

I will say that I possess, one could say, less "masculine" qualities. I am sensitive (overly so, one might say), I get easily emotional, and I get nervous easily. I don't do manly shit like going to shooting ranges or doing Vegas with a gaggle of douchebags. I like foreign films and independent music. I'm pretty sure all the hops I've consumed in the last half-decade have quadrupled my estrogen levels, but that doesn't mean I want to grab another dude's johnson. Not by a long shot.

I guess if you were to look at the circumstantial evidence, I come off as a regular Kevin Spacey, without the acting chops, that the world knows about! I've never been married or even engaged. (Incidentally, I was at dinner with some new coworkers a few weeks ago, and I was asked if I've ever been married or had kids; I replied no to both, and everyone said, "Really? Never?" As if it was impossible to believe that I wasn't at least divorced at my age.) But I live alone: you will never hear of me living with any "longtime companions," unless you're referring to the silverfish under the floorboards.

Long story short: you have nothing to worry about ladies. I am as straight as an arrow and as hetero as the day is long. Sometimes I wish I could just get down with dudes, because frankly most girls suck. But I would just end up feeling like a real silly goose. What with all the male genitalia in my bottom and all.

Actor Hetero-Man Crush Time!

The following are the actors that I will watch no matter how crappy their movie appears (and they've had a stinker or two in their day). This is a list of actors right now, not (necessarily) over their body of work. Also, this is male actors only, because you can't have a man-crush on a girl, dummy!:

• Philip Seymour Hoffman (naturally)
• Paul Giamatti
• Michael Sheen
• Gene Hackman
• Robert Duvall
• Jon Hamm
• Jeff Bridges
• Bryan Cox
• John C. Reilly
• Alan Arkin
• Chris Cooper
• Don Cheadle
• Ted Danson (tv mostly)
• Willem Dafoe
• John Malkovich
• Luis Guzman
• Daniel Day-Lewis
• Richard Dreyfuss(!)
• Jeremy Renner
• Steve Coogan
• John Hawkes
• Geoffrey Rush
• Stanley Tucci
• Casey Affleck
• Viggo Mortensen
• Tom Wilkinson
• Michael Gambon
• David Strathairn
• Guy Pearce
• Ed Harris
• Alan Alda

That's enough for now I think.

Flying

I have flown a couple of times in my life, and largely without incident. Which scares the living shit out of me.

I know that the odds of being a plane crash are astronomically low -- somewhere between being hit by lightning and being eaten by a koala -- and yet, somehow my overblown ego feels that I'm likely to win the unlucky lottery. Even writing that sentence makes me think that I'm going to end up the footnote in some kind of ironic story where some schmuck in upstate New York predicted his own death, and how sad it was.

The thing is this: I'm not really afraid of dying, per se. It's not that I want to die, mind you, but death isn't the thing about flying. It's the falling, and the screaming, and the all that time you have to think about what a loser you are and how little you've done with your pitiful, meaningless existence. At least if I get hit by a bus, the lights are gonna go out pretty quickly and that will be that. If I ever have to put one of those fucking oxygen masks over my head in a plane, I might just tie the thing off so I can go off into the netherworld via a euphoric lack of oxygen, instead of a violent collision with the seat in front of me.

But is that really what terrifies me about flying? That's the endgame, truth be told, but there's a lot more leading up to that. You could die almost any day of your life, from almost any cause. You take a risk whenever you get out of bed or stick your face in a fan. So to me it seems (and I know that this is logically absolute bullshit) that the number of circumstances that could lead to death seem to escalate on a plane.

Side note: whenever you read about plane travel, they say that it's the safest way to get from one place to another, and then, for comparison, mention how many deadly auto crashes there are each year -- usually something like 40,000. Now I don't want to get into a fucking car either.

It's just that if the motor goes out on your car, you can pull to the side of the road and call AAA. You can't do that 30,000 feet up in the air. I know that planes can glide if power goes out (I'll take your goddamn word for it, thank you), but every little thing has to be perfect in order for a plane to work, right? Not only does each bolt have to be tightened, and the wings have to not fall off the side of the plane, but physics has to continue to work. I know that Newton proved his so-called "Laws of Physics" many years ago, but what if they aren't really laws at all. What if they're just "Tendencies of Physics"? Has anyone investigated this??

I'm not really afraid of terrorism so much, because that would be just dumb luck. The odds that my plane from Scranton to Wichita is going to be hijacked is slim. Also, it seems like if someone tries that shit these days, everyone on the plane will try to bumrush the guy. I wouldn't be one of them, only because if I take my hands off the armrests, the plane will destabilize and spin out of control anyway.

Do you know how many planes fly every day? It's something like 30,000 every effing DAY! Successfully! That has got to be some kind of witchcraft. There is no way that can happen. There aren't even 30,000 planes in the U.S., are there?

This is what scares me the most about flying. I've never had a "bad flight" (knock on Palo Santo wood), and I know that the more I fly, the greater the likelihood that I will. I've been in a few near-accidents in the car, and since I've seen them come and go, I'm pretty calm in the driver's seat when they look imminent. Not so in the cabin of a jet; the first sign of trouble and I will literally shit myself. Literally. I've done it over less.

So wish me safe travels as those engines spool up and the wind carries me and some unlucky saps to another area code. I need it.

Tumble Out of Bed and I Stumble to the Kitchen...

So here's something. 

I was unemployed for about four and a half months. The reason why is immaterial; suffice it to say that I was rather terrible at my previous job, and both my former employer and I decided that I probably should stop coming in. So I was on the government tit for 1/3 of the last calendar year; it's not something I'm proud of, but I paid into the goddamn thing, so get off my ass.

Anyway I have recently procured myself gainful employment (my new employer got a nice discount for my copious abilities), and am back among the working stiffs. And although I couldn't be happier about it, I should reflect briefly about my time on the dole.

Do you know what sucks about being unemployed?

• You don't make as much money as you used to.

That's the list. Everything else about it is incredible! I knew when I did get a job, I would have to give up some of the comforts of my freeloading existence. It almost makes me sorry that I'm so charismatic, convincing and qualified. 

When you're unemployed, you can get up out of bed whenever the hell you want. What day is it? Tuesday? Nope, it's Saturday. Every day is Saturday. I was shocked to see Judge Judy on TV when I got up instead of college football. One night I couldn't sleep, so I stayed up all night and watched TV until the sun came up. Then I went to bed around 11am and slept all day. Just like the old joke about the dog being able to lick itself, it was because I could.

This is true: one day I woke up and thought it was Thursday all day long, but instead it was Friday. Oh to have that kind of blissful ignorance at work!

There were times I needed to get to the bank (although I'm not sure why since they really didn't have anything for me) or the post office or wherever else. I didn't have to wait until my lunch break, or get up wicked early or rush there after work. I could get up, make some coffee, edit a few Wikipedia pages (okay, like a hundred of them) and go whenever I felt like it. Showering was strictly optional, though greatly appreciated.

If I wanted to go to a coffee shop or a diner or a book store, I could just get up and go LIT'RALLY any time I wanted to. (Granted, I never did any of those things, but you can imagine the possibilities!) Hit a matinee? Grab a beer at 12:30pm? Stay in bed? You're goddamn right.

I guess there are a couple downsides: when people ask what you do, you have to tell them you're unemployed or "between jobs," which always elicits a combination of sympathy and pretending it's okay. (When met someone and told her I was unemployed, she replied, "That's understandable." Bless her heart.) Also telling everyone you are out of work is pretty humbling; it usually comes up right after they told you they finally broke down and bought that solid gold front door.

Also, no round of drinks is truly on you: it's on Andrew Cuomo.

There is a certain level of despair, too, that comes with joblessness. It is a major blow to the ego, which is why (I'm guessing) that so many people lack the gumption to get up and find a gig. I know that I took my sweet-ass time (read: the holidays and a few weeks after New Year's) before I got my bee-hind out there looking for work. I had a total of three interviews: I was turned down for the first, I withdrew from the second, and I nailed the third. But my confidence took a big hit, and I knew it at the time. It was the kind of thing where I had to sit in my car for twenty minutes before every interview to simultaneously psych myself up and calm myself down. I can completely understand why people stay home on the couch instead of getting out there and looking for work: I did it too.

There is also a certain degree of loneliness you get when all your friends are at work and you are at home by yourself. There were days on end where I never left the house. Days fly off the calendar and you make not one dent in the world. That part stinks too I guess. But I would highly recommend taking a few months off if possible to decompress, get your head back in order, and get the "itch" to work again. Because before long, the itch becomes like a rash. The impetus to be around other people is also a surprising motivator.

But these days, as another working schnook, I have to get up before 8am(!), shower, put on pants(!!!) and show up to a place promptly in order to get a paycheck and not get yelled at. Isn't that really the Amer'can Dream right there? I like my new gig a lot so far, I just hope I'm good at it.

No I'm not doing play-by-play for Bills games, or working in a brewery, or writing for The Source, or any other dream job I had when I was a high school senior. But a j.o.b. of any type is nothing to sneeze at. It's not just the fact that they give you money for showing up, but it rekindles some sense of your own worth. I feel really bad for people who struggle to find jobs for whatever reason: no experience, lack of interviewing skills, lack of networks. It has to be maddening. I got very lucky that I fooled someone into thinking I'd be a good hire. 

I don't know what the hell the point of any of this was. Oh well. Happy Easter folks.

Bonus SNL: Best Ever Cast Members

Since I am still in my SNL frame of mind, I'm going to list what is, definitely, the best list of cast members the show has ever had. Let me set a few ground rules:

First, this is a list of those who performed best on the show. In other words, you won't see Robert Downey, Jr. Ben Stiller, or Sarah Silverman just because of their later success. If you didn't do it between 11:30pm and 1am, it doesn't count.

Also, this person might have gone on to have a flop of a career after SNL, but that doesn't weigh into my list. Which, by the way, is absolute gospel.

Also, this might not necessarily mean THE funniest (although I think most of them are) but sometimes the best role players or utility players. Some of them might not have been the primary focus of a given sketch, but they could be counted on more times than not.

Also, there are going to be some omissions here, and some might chalk it up to sexism or racism, but to me it's a matter of talent and performance. For example, some might think Amy Poehler is a no-brainer here, but aside from some early strong seasons, she got a little lazy with her impressions. (See: Clinton, Hillary; Grace, Nancy)

I am also going to put them into categories: Show-Stoppers, Utility Players, and Impressionists. The Show-Stoppers are the ones who could make a skit hilarious (regardless of writing) with just their charisma and humor. The Utility players could be relied on to do any role needed, despite the quality of the skit. (They were the ones you never realized you would miss so much when they left.) And the Impressionists were good enough to actually make you forget the performer's name.

Here we go...

SHOW-STOPPERS

• Bill Murray - The original "alternative comic" on SNL
  
• Eddie Murphy - Carried the show for 4 years by himself
  
• Gilda Radner - Oozing with charisma
  
• Jimmy Fallon - Despite his constant cracking up, his energy carried the show
  
• Kristen Wiig - The most talented female the show has ever produced
  
• Mike Myers - See Fallon above
  
• Will Ferrell - The heir apparent to Bill Murray

UTILITY PLAYERS

• Dan Aykroyd - The Swiss Army knife of the first cast
  
• Fred Armisen - Can play any race, always finds the funny part of the character
  
• Jan Hooks - The most versatile female the show ever had, and a great actress
  
• Joe Piscopo - Don't laugh, the guy was Eddie Murphy's only wingman
  
• Maya Rudolph - The female Armisen (or Armisen is the male Rudolph)
  
• Molly Shannon - Woefully underrated
  
• Phil Hartman - Never had a bad performance. Ever.

IMPRESSIONISTS

• Bill Hader - The best technician in show history
  
• Dana Carvey - No one did a better job of getting to the heart of the character
  
• Darrell Hammond - Sometimes phoned it in, but brilliant

WILD CARD

• Tina Fey - Didn't perform much, but re-energized the show

CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT

• John Belushi - I just never got him.
  
• Chevy Chase - I thought he did the same schtick over and over
  
• Chris Farley - Sometimes brilliant, but sometimes just over the top
  
• Amy Poehler - Got a little too impressed with her own talent

UNDERRATED

• Chris Parnell
  
• Will Forte
  
• Abby Elliot
  
• Jon Lovitz
  
• Jason Sudeikis

And the worst five cast members in SNL history:

5) Melanie Hutsell - One-note
4) Rob Schneider - The brainless "Richmeister" was his only notable character
3) Adam Sandler - One note (Opera Man, Cajun Man), and usually just juvenile
2) Keenan Thompson - Bad actor, terrible impressionist, always the same
1) Horatio Sanz -

I'm Here to Fix Things: "Saturday Night Live"

Since I'm so full of good incredible ideas, I've decided to get back into the blogosphere with my new feature, "I'm Here to Fix Things." It's my way to give free advice or guidance to an institution that clearly needs it. It's my version of pro bono work.

I'm not breaking any news here when I say that the venerable Saturday Night Live has been a little weak over the last decade or so. It has had some flashes of brilliance (the Betty White episode from last year comes to mind, even though I'm pretty annoyed that it was spurred on by a knee-jerk internet campaign), and once in a while a very funny skit. But for the most part, it's really not that funny. I mean I still watch it (usually on Sunday mornings) but not because it really makes me laugh.

If it didn't have a rotating cast, tradition on its side, and the occasional "buzz," it would have been cancelled years ago. There is no way that it has merited 35+ seasons based on quality alone.

Although Lorne Michaels may be a powerful "industry" big shot, he has really let the show get away from him. It's almost like he doesn't know comedy anymore. He has let one of the more talented casts that the show has ever had (Wiig, Hader & Armisen are all in the top 15 in cast history) die on the vine with atrocious, lazy writing.

So here's how to fix it.

1) Get rid of the dead weight, ie. Taran Killam and Keenan from "Keenan and Kel." Killam technically can do an "impression," but he doesn't do any of them well. Keenan used to be the token black guy, but now that they have the eminently more-talented Jay Pharaoh, Keenan is really no longer needed. Not that he was ever good. His impressions are awful (notably his godawful Al Roker), and he is too fat to play half of the people he plays (Herman Cain, Tiger Woods, etc.). He almost makes Horatio Sanz look like a great talent by comparison. Almost.

2) Get rid of the skits where the hosts play themselves. These usually manifest themselves as a talk show, where the talk show host says "ladies and gentleman, please welcome [real host]." The point of having a sketch show is to portray other people and events, not to be a vanity piece for your host. When Donald Trump hosted several years ago, there was one (1) skit in which he didn't play Donald Trump. We already met the celebrity in the intro, let's make that the last time we see those people as themselves.

3) Stop having Justin Timberlake on. I get it, he's supposedly talented, and somehow he's made a side-career for himself by being a comic. (I don't get it, the guy is not funny when Andy Samberg or Jimmy Fallon aren't writing for him.) The subtext of every Timberlake appearance is, "Isn't Timberlake TALENTED?!" Enough. He plays along, and good for him, but I'd take Jon Hamm or Alec Baldwin any day of the week at face value.

4) If you are going to do a spoof of another show (like "The View," for example) have it say something. It usually only does the same impression week after week, going to the tried and true impressions that the show has made into a weekly staple. But it should either say something about the show, or reach some kind of absurdity. In other words, it should have a POINT.

5) It doesn't need to always be "live." Some of the best bits have been the pre-recorded Digital Shorts that Samberg does. But the show stubbornly clings to the idea of "live." Being live might have been impressive in 1975, but it shouldn't be a hindrance to comedy. If you need to pre-record some material to make it funnier, then do it, goddammit.

6) Destroy all recurring characters except for the ones that REALLY work (The Barry Gibb Talk Show, ummmm.....). Warming Glow does a much better job than I could at listing the ones who should have been killed off after one try.

7) The intro should have the guest host actually doing something entertaining, and not just "taking questions from the audience" or talking to a parade of wacky characters from pop culture, or from the guest host's fake past. In other words, stop being lazy. (That could pretty much apply to everything on this list.) The guest hosts should be asked to do a lot more: otherwise they shouldn't be hosting at all (COUGHJanuaryJonesCOUGH). They need more Jon Hamms, more Melissa McCarthys. (And stop asking Timberlake to bail you out.) Get people who are not only popular, but can actually perform. So more Donald Trumps, no more fucking Tom Bradys.

8) Get Seth Myers off "Weekend Update," or at least give him another Amy Poehler to bounce things off of. He doesn't work as the sole anchor. At all. Especially because of his EXACT SAME DELIVERY!, on every punchline. (The same kind of sing-songy finish that you hear from a local on-the-scene news reporter right before they say "Maggie Malone, AC-tion news...." and throw it back to the anchor.) Seth may be a good writer, but he has turned Weekend Update -- which was a highlight when Fey/Fallon were there -- and turned it into the most predictably boring slog in the show.

9) Speaking of Weekend Update, let's lay off the "Here, with a commentary is [bad impression by someone currently in the news]." These impressions are the one that aren't good enough to be in an actual skit. This usually begins with someone wheeling in on a chair and saying "Woooooo!" (I'm looking at you, Keenan.) The formula has gone bad. They need another Norm McDonald, or Dennis Miller (when he was still funny and not a GOP mouthpiece), with topical humor that is not only funny, but actually says something. Don't use it as a repository for all your leftover C-plus material. (Bill Hader's "Stefon" is exempt from this rule.)

10) Speaking of satire and "saying something," this is where SNL has really lost its way. SNL used to be a snapshot of what was going on at the time, and mocking it. Now, it has been left in the dust by Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and even Daniel Tosh. Doing impressions is not enough. The impressions should either be dead on, putting the character in an unlikely situation, or should be something exposing the ridiculousness of a situation. In 1992, SNL was named the "Entertainer of the Year" by Entertainment Weekly magazine, because of how they helped shape much of the national dialogue of that year's presidential race.(Forget for a second, that EW's "Entertainer of the Year" award is specious at best, with such timeless performers as Ricky Martin, the cast of Grey's Anatomy, and Taylor Swift winning.) Can you imagine THIS crop of SNLers getting that award? For what? For Gilly? For satirizing Elizabeth Hasselbeck? What is the last culturally poignant skit they've had?

11) Finally, kill the skits that go absolutely nowhere and have nothing to say. Especially when they aren't especially funny. You know the type I mean: you see the skit coming to an end, and then realize it isn't going to have a punchline. It fizzles out, the camera pans back, and it goes to commercial. If your skit isn't going to shine some light on something hypocritical, or at least make humor out of something ridiculous, then cut it. We live in times that need humor to act as a spotlight on the danger, hypocrisy and insanity we see in the world. SNL simply hasn't had the chops to do so. It shouldn't be that way.

Am I a comedy writer? NO. Not in any way. But even I know that, when in doubt, you make the small big, and the big small. The Onion does this better than anyone. It's actually kind of a simple formula. You take a huge event and boil it down to some mundane detail; or you take an insignificant issue and magnify it. It's not that fucking hard. I need a job; hire me as a writer on that show and I'll crank out 10 or so good sketches in one season (which would be a single-season record for the last decade).

When I was a kid, I used to ask my mom if I could stay up to watch SNL, in the days of Christopher Guest, Martin Short, Billy Crystal and, well, Jim Belushi. I then get into the 1986-and-beyond cast of Dana Carvey, Phil Hartman, Jan Hooks, etc., and they were a criminally underrated cast of performers and of writers. Had Will Ferrell not come around, the show might have been cancelled, and rightfully so.

The show can and should be a showcase for brilliant young writers. They should let these writers go for a full season, even if with the current cast (minus Keenan, of course). There is no reason that SNL can't reinvent itself, as it has so many times, and become, once again, the rapier of American comedy.

But I'll believe it when I see it.

Kill the Penny!

In 2010, it costs about $0.0167 to make a penny.

The question is this: why in God's name are we still making pennies? At that rate of return, don't you think it's about time we just stop making them?

The government is constantly trying to save money; why not start here? If we are saving 67 cents for every penny we DON'T create, isn't that going to be a financial windfall, given the number of pennies created each year? If the number of pennies we make are in the 1-2 billion range, how much would we be saving by not making them?

I'm not saying we have to stop making them altogether, but maybe take 2011 off and see how it goes?

Have you ever run out of pennies? Ever? Have you ever needed pennies and not been able to find any? Do you ever look in your pocket and say, "I wish I had more pennies"?

Of course not, because they are everywhere. Getting pennies back is like jury duty: it's great in theory but it's just annoying when it finally comes your way.

It costs so much to make a penny because it has become so devalued. It's not worth much now, and it wasn't worth much 20 years ago. What makes you think it's going to be worth ANYTHING 20 years from now?

Why don't we slowly start phasing the penny out? (I'm obviously not the first person to come up with this idea.) Instead of getting pennies back, you can get a 1cent postage stamp, or a stick of gum, or a thumbtack or a band-aid or SOMETHING.

Most banks don't even accept rolls of pennies anymore. How is that even legal?

I'd even be willing to compromise with a 2-cent piece. You can even keep Lincoln's face on it. I'm guessing that most people wouldn't mind getting only $0.02 back in change when they are owed $0.03. That is how worthless the penny has become in our current currency.

Show me one real world item that is worth a penny. One practical equivalent that you could purchase for a penny.

That's right, there isn't one. We don't have penny candies anymore. Hell, I get annoyed by nickels, pennies are five times more annoying.

The worst part of this is that with all these pennies scattered across the globe -- and so many of those forgotten, lost or discarded -- we are probably losing millions of dollars a year in couch cushions alone. It is cluttering up an already cluttered world, and for what. So if you can accumulate five of them you can almost have enough for a small coffee creamer?

Just get rid of the damn thing. It's about time.

16 is Greater Than 18

All right I haven't put up a blog in a while, and it's a really stupid topic to make my triumphant return, but I'm starting to worry about the NFL.

Sure they are currently the #1 sport in the nation -- in terms of popularity, quality gameplay, parity and any other metric you want to use (this point is inarguable so don't even attempt it) -- but they are doing everything they can do kill the proverbial golden goose.

I could cite the fact that they black out a team with a large stadium and a tiny market (Buffalo: 3rd smallest market, 7th largest stadium) for non-sellout games, but don't prorate to take into account smaller stadiums with bigger markets (Chicago: third largest market, smallest stadium).

I could cite their not allowing two double-headers.

I could cite their ridiculous rule of only allowing 30 seconds of an interview for broadcast a few years ago. Or the fact that one network couldn't show another network's highlights while a game was still in progress. (Are you really trying to tell me that the league is trying to avoid saturation????)

I could cite the fact that there might be a lockout in 2011, and that certain owners (see: Jones, Jerry; Snyder, Daniel) are trying to circumvent the revenue-sharing that made the league the greatest sports league in the world in the first place.

I do worry about all of these things. They seem to portend pride before the fall. Baseball, boxing and horse-racing were the three most popular sports in the year 1900, and they are all laughingstock now. (Yes, I said they are ALL a laughingstock.)

But the thing that worries me the most is the idea that the league is thinking of changing the number of games in a given year from 16 to 18. This would a be a colossal mistake, and a possible sea-change in the future of the league.

Let's start with this: if they go to 18 games, they will never -- EVER -- go back. It will be permanent. And it will be horrible. And for me it has nothing to do with more injuries or not allowing rookies to make the team.

The league switched to a 16-game schedule in 1978, and it's no coincidence that it matches exactly to the point at which football started leaving basketball in the dust in terms of popularity.

16 games is absolutely perfect, and the reason it is perfect is that football is a game of fours.

What the hell am I talking about? Well, think of it this way: baseball is a games of threes and nines. Three outs, three strikes, three bases (plus home plate); nine players on each team, nine innings. Those numbers really do speak to the history and symmetry of baseball. They are the essence of why the game works and carries such tradition. It's why people like Billy Beane compare players from 1908 to players from 2008.

When the NFL switched to 16 games, it found its perfect number. Football is a game of fours. Four downs, four quarters, four divisions in each conference, four teams in each division. Sixteen games is four times four: most coaches split each season into four "quarters" of four games each to gauge their success. Even the 100-yard field can be split into four "quarters" of 25 yards each for offensive strategies.

And unlike any other sport in America, you can spit out a record to give an immediate shorthand of how good a team is. They are a 2-14 team, a 7-9 team, a 12-4 team, or a 14-2 team. (In the Patriots' case, they were a 18-1 team, but that's a different story.)

You won't hear anyone saying "I think the Twins will be a 91-71 team this year."

We all know about 16, and I'll bet it helps many of us with our math. We know the shorthand, let's stop the prospect of a team going 9-9, or 16-2. Or 4-14.

It doesn't sound right!

They always say that no sports organization is better than the NFL at improving its product and reducing flaws. This has always been true, but now they are becoming too clever by half. I know that an extra two games would add some extra revenue, but it's a permanent solution to a temporary problem (ie. the recession).

When the NFL switched the playoff format to allow 12 teams for the 1990 season, it was absolutely the right move. 10 was too few, 14 was too many. Twelve is perfect: it leaves good teams out of the playoffs, only allowing the VERY good ones in (in theory anyway). In that way it distinguished itself from Baseball (who only allowed 2 per league at the time, and only 4 per league today), as well as hockey and basketball (in which more teams make the playoffs than miss them).

Let's not forget that in 1993, the league experimented with an 18-week schedule (16 games for each team with two bye weeks). It was such a disaster, and so disruptive -- to teams' routines and fans' viewing habits -- that it was scrapped after only one season. Unless the league wants 2011 to look like the strike-shortened season of 1987 (ie. all f'd up) where they only played 15 games, they need to leave a good thing alone.

Eighteen games is a cash-grab, no more. It doesn't improve the product. It doesn't give two welcome extra weeks. (We are always geeked for the playoffs to start.) And there is no upside. It's going to provide for more sellouts, maybe, but also more blackouts for struggling teams. It's not for the fans, it's for the separation of loyal fans and their money.

If 18 wasn't good enough for a legal drinking age, it sure as shit isn't good enough for the League.

Record Stores are Relics

I have just over 1500 albums by my count, and though they weren't all purchased on CD or cassette, thousands -- if not tens of thousands -- of dollars of them were. Record stores became both a Mecca and a sanctuary for me in my younger life. My buddy Cialini and I went to Camelot Records in Eastview Mall every Saturday for the better part of a year to blow the bulk of our paychecks on the new music that was coming out that week -- as well as bricks of blank tapes for "dubbing" purposes. It didn't take Cialini and I long to amass a pretty huge collection of rap and hip hop albums of the early 1990s.

More than just being a place of commerce, record stores have always been a place of discovery for me. I have to admit, I've never been one of these DJ Shadow-type characters, going into the "back room" where the obscure vinyl was. But that didn't make my record store discoveries any less revelatory. Back in the days before the internets, there were no reviews online to tell you whether an album was going to suck or not. You had to either get The Source or RapPages to get the scoop. (Ironically, having only a couple of voices rather than thousands of them tended to lend more clarity than modern online criticism does.) But if you got to the record store and that month's issue of The Source hadn't come out yet, you were going on blind faith.

I would buy albums sometimes for no particular reason. I remember buying Stetsasonic's "In Full Gear" album because I thought the cover looked kinda cool. Ditto Grand Daddy I.U.'s "Smooth Assassin." I bought Lord Finesse's "Return of the Funky Man" because of a video I had seen once on MTV and liked; ditto Spice-1's "Spice-1" (a very bad album with one very good song). Record stores were not a safe place to take chances back then ... but that is what made every surprisingly good album such a great victory.

Back then I was a proud cassette man, partially because I found their analog pedigree more reliable than the fickle digital format, but also because I am a cheapskate and CDs were more expensive. Besides, I didn't have a Bose stereo or anything, so I didn't need CD-quality anything for the most part. By buying tapes, I could more quickly build up an arsenal of music that would later become the envy of a few of my friends. (This was the embryonic stage of a possibly self-destructive "ticker" mentality that has permeated into other avenues of my life and turned me from someone seeking pleasure in life to someone collecting the most shit.) There was almost nothing better than suddenly seeing an album that you had been mulling over buying for months in the bargain bin for like $1.99. I remember once I came home from the mall $80 lighter, but with 13 new albums.

I would quite literally quantify my paycheck in terms of how many tapes I could buy with it. I kid you not. I bought almost nothing else.

After college, I made it my mission to visit every single solitary record store in Rochester, New York, just because I loved going to them so much. I made quite a dent too, and spent hours upon hours sitting at vinyl listening stations and thumbing through stacks of CDs and tapes.

I used to go to Soundgarden in Syracuse, NY about once very two weeks, and I would drop between $30 to $50 on every single transaction. (I am physically and genetically incapable of buying only one CD.)

So with these qualifications in mind, please hear me out when I say this...

There is little need for record stores right now.

Now before all my record store employees and crate-diggers get mad, let me explain. I'm not saying that there WILL never be a need for record stores again, but right now, anyone with a computer can get any album they want for $9.99 on iTunes and the cost of a blank CD. (Some can get them even cheaper, if they know where to look. Wink wink.) The biggest problem is that while record stores are still a wonderful place to spend an hour looking through CDs, they are not practical in their current incarnation.

First of all, the staff at many record stores are assholes. I hate to say it, but it's true, and this is one place where it permeates both the mom-and-pop shops or the big box stores. At the mom-and-pop shops, the counter jockeys are aloof, too-cool-for-the-room hipster assholes who think they are Jack Black in High Fidelity. (This is a broad generalization, I know, but you know I'm not wrong.) They stare at their clipboard or their cell phone, and when you say "excuse me" to ask for help, they say, "What's up" in a tone that really means "this better be important."

The Best Buys and Circuit Citys of the world are hardly better. They may be slightly more friendly, but they generally know jackshit about the music they are selling. And at any one of these places, when you check out, they don't say "thank you" or "have a great day." They usually say "yuuup" as they dismissively hand you a receipt while looking the other way.

These oversights are simply stupid for the music industry. If a consumer can eliminate the annoying human interaction (yecch) that was inherent to purchases pre-1995, why wouldn't they? Why would I want to deal with some patchouli-smelling shitbag with a bad haircut when I can get the exact product -- the EXACT SAME PRODUCT -- online, usually for cheaper. I don't have to drive anywhere, I don't have to pay postage as I might if ordering from a catalog, and I don't have to put my pants on.

If anything, you would think that record stores would be bending over backward to make the customer experience more enjoyable for their patrons. You would think that they would employ armchair music experts who could not only point you to the album you want, but suggest one or two others as well. You would think that with download technology eclipsing their raison d'etre, they would find other innovative ways of dealing out the goods, much like other brick-and-mortar retailers have done with other products.

But the music industry has never been smart about catering to their customers. They have seen an unconscionable drop in sales, not (just) because the music of today stinks, but because they are not offering any more-attractive alternative. The entire idea of capitalism is that, if someone is willing to sell for cheaper, you go to them. Period, end of story. The Recording Industry has tried to litigate people into buying their wares, at exorbitantly marked-up prices.

And to me, this is the crux of why record stores are failing: they are following an old model, and relying on litigation and fear of prosecution to keep them competitive. (You know, in lieu of actually improving the attractiveness of their product.)

I think it's great that they are having "Record Store Day" tomorrow (April 17), and I may try and get out to a couple of record stores to show some support and buy some new tunes. (I have bought two CDs in the last two years, both by mail. I have downloaded dozens.)

But record stores are not going to recover until they drop their prices.

The bottom line is that with iTunes selling most albums for $9.99, along with the convenience of not having to go anywhere, record stores simply cannot compete. It is strictly impossible. But the price of CDs has not gone down significantly. Yes, it may be $8.99 now instead of $11.99, but that's a drop in the bucket.

When any new technology ages, the price naturally drops. It happened with the VCR, DVDs and players, TVs, computers... you name it. I remember when blank CDs were $1 per disc: now you can get a 100-pack for $15 if you know where to get them. It's natural evolution, and it's the way that inflation balances itself to some degree. But record stores have never received this proverbial memo.

Instead, you still have FYE stores selling CDs for $17!! Seventeen American dollars for a mass-produced piece of plastic that probably cost fourteen cents to make. This is the greed of the industry. Everyone's gotta make a living and make a profit, but this borders on extortion.

Think of music in opposition to the video industry. The video/DVD industry has a model: pay a small fee to watch one time or rent for a small window of time, and pay a larger fee if you want to keep it. There is a certain level of concession made by both parties in this transaction. If you only want to keep it for 3 days, it's $5; if you want to own it forever, it's $15. Simple. If you don't like the movie you rented, well it was only $5 to find that out; if you want to own it, here is a modest increase in the price, and you can watch it whenever.

The record industry has no such model. Unless you're in the library, you can't borrow a CD for $3 and then bring it back. Home recording equipment made that impossible. Why not, I'm not sure; renting didn't cripple the VHS market in the '80s and '90s, and illegal recording capabilities existed then too.

So what you have is a monolithic record industry who is not only unwilling to bend on pricing to meet market demand, but actually actively price-GOUGING. It's no wonder that the record industry has no goodwill with the buying public. They expect you to pay 5-6 times more than you should be paying, and that's with risking buying a crappy product! And all this for an unknown commodity you can't even rent ahead of time to see if you'll like it!

My solution: every record store should go the Fugazi route and sell every single album for $5.99 or less. You are still making a profit, you are underselling iTunes (by a lot, I might add), and you are bringing people into the record stores, where their eye might be drawn to another album they wanted. Oh and another one, oh and that one! They could walk out of your record store with four albums for under $25 ... instead of possibly one for $17.

You are also encouraging people to take chances on buying more music, and therefore broadening their scope to possibly purchase other music they might not have otherwise given a shot. If I know I only have to pay $6 for an album instead of $13, I'm going to take way more of a chance on trying something new that I might not have before. Good for company, good for consumer.

Again, the record companies are still making a profit, and I'm still walking away with a shit-ton of tunes.

Naturally, this will never happen, because the myopic, short-sighted music industry wants to squeeze every fucking penny they can out of you. They are not interested in creating a diverse culture of music experts, but rather of maximizing their profit-margin. What they don't realize is that if they would just ease up on their greed for a short period of time, they would probably get back on their feet.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to get in my car, drive downtown, find a place to park, pay $14 for a CD that I can't listen to beforehand, and spend 25 minutes trying to get the goddamn plastic off.

Video Store Memory

I don't know why I just thought of this, but there was an incident that happened to me at an old job, and it still bothers me to this day. I don't know why I can't let things like this go, but there was something about it that still infuriates me. It might be one of the reasons I hate people as a whole.

I was working at a video store -- this was about 1999 or so, when they still had VHS tapes -- and we had a program with our popular new releases that if we didn't certain titles in stock, we'd give you a coupon for a freebie for next time. This usually applied toward big-name movies, or "Blockbuster" titles, if you will.

One night was especially busy, and we were all out of one movie, and so we were handing out coupons left and right. (I don't even the remember the movie, which I should if I'm going to continue harboring resentment toward the incident.)

We did keep a small stockpile of these movies behind the counter, because we found out that people were coming around with no intention of renting the movie in question, just to get the free coupon. There was nothing more priceless than having some asshole come up to the counter saying, "You don't have any copies of ________, so I'll take a coupon." I would say, "Well actually, it's your lucky day!" and then produce a copy of the movie. More than a few times, the person would say, "Oh, no never mind," and I would leave a comment on their account not to give them any coupons or refund them any late fees for trying to scam. Ah, the good old days.

So anyway, this one guy comes up to get a coupon, and so I gave one. We were completely out of copies, even our backups. The kid didn't look like white trash: he was relatively well-dressed, nice-looking enough (no homo) and if I didn't know better I would have assumed he was not a piece of shit.

I gave him a coupon and dated it one month later to the day, which was the policy. Since we were so busy, I forgot about the kid and started ringing up other customers. The video store I used to work at did a ton of business, and Friday nights were often out the door.

About ten minutes later, the kid to whom I had just given the coupon for the freebie (to be redeemed at a later time) came up with the movie that we had been out of, and so he plopped that and the coupon on the counter, smiling a sketchy little smile as if to say, "Give my my free movie, bitch."

I was pissed for two reasons:

1) It turns out that this sonofabitch went into our "Employees Only" video drop box and found the movie he was looking for. (We didn't have a lock on it, and at this store it was out on the floor, not behind the counter.) He went into an Employees-only space, like a selfish hunk of shit, and just took what he wanted. Make no mistake, this was a violation. Since I had already given him the coupon -- and didn't wait until he left the store as I had been instructed to do by my manager -- I had no recourse. And the reason I had no recourse was ...

2) ...because I never put a date range on the ticket. I gave an end-date, but I never gave a beginning date. (From this point forward I would always put the next day's date on the ticket.) I still don't know whether I was furious at myself or at the scheming piece of trash who did this.

The worst part is, I'm sure he doesn't remember the incident. Even worse, I couldn't pick him out of a lineup, which means the odds of me identifying him well enough to punch him in the testicles gets slimmer by the day.

The Facts

I'm having trouble figuring out whether the Tea Party members and/or many Republicans are stupid, or just evil. And more importantly, which one would be worse. Which would you rather have in charge: a gang of good-hearted but foolhardy incompetents, or a well-oiled, brilliant evil cabal.

I honestly can't tell which these people are. I suppose that there has to be a combination of both. But with the groundswell of misinformation spreading around like so much astroturf-growing fertilizer, are the people perpetrating this horseshit actually too dumb to understand? Or are they so smart that they know repeating the lie over and over will eventually make it "truth."

Take the example of J.D. Hayworth -- the man who is running against John McCain for the Arizona Senate seat this year. He said in reference to gay marriage: "You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage -- now get this -- it defined marriage as simply, 'the establishment of intimacy.'"

Rachel Maddow, to her credit, kept her cool -- and a straight face -- when telling this dipshit that there is no mention of "establishment of intimacy" anywhere in Massachusetts law. The would-be senator basically said it's a "difference of opinion." No, fucko, it's not a difference of opinion. It's either a fact, or it's not. Why is it that facts suddenly mean nothing in today's political argument.

[Side note: I wish these subintelligent jackasses would stop using the "gay marriage is like allowing a man to marry a horse" fallacy. A marriage is not legal if is not with the bride's consent, nor can an animal given consent to marry. From a strictly legal standpoint, this is pretty clear I would think. If I have intimate relations with a woman -- just go with me on this one guys -- it doesn't mean that she and I are married, now does it? And if these hypocritical assholes are so concerned about this, why are they not up in arms over that waste of blood platelets in South Korea who just married his pillow? Why so quiet, Brent Bozell? I can't hear you, Mitt Romney.]

Facts are not malleable. Interpretations of facts certainly are, but facts themselves are not. Let's get that straight. When there is unequivocal proof of something, it is a fact and not just a matter of one's own opinion. So based on this, J.D. Hayworth pretty much embarrassed himself in front of anyone who could see that the pantless Emperor is running around with his dick swinging in the wind.

So when people call Obama a "communist" (or when radical-liberals called Bush a Nazi), I'm not sure if they were just trying to evoke an dishonest emotional reaction to a buzzword, or if they were too stupid to truly understand what those words really mean. While it's true that many of the Bush Administration's foreign policies smacked of imperialism, it was certainly a far cry from the Third Reich. And just because Obama believes in higher taxes for those who can afford it (and begrudgingly enacted TARP), that does not make him a "communist" or "socialist" as some might say. To paint him as such is not only dishonest, it's just fucking stupid. Anyone who would truly call him a socialist has a) no idea what Obama is really about, or b) what the words "communism" and "socialism" mean. There is also a third choice, c), that implies that they might be very knowledgeable, but are intent on steering their hapless flock of mongoloids the wrong way.

We know that the Republicans have been engaging in Psy-Ops for a while now, putting up "anonymous" billboards of Obama with a turban, or some other nonsense. The idea is that Obama must "hate America" and is trying to pull a fast one to ruin the country. He is a closet terrorist, you see??!?!? He's waiting for the right time to strike! And we better take back our country or else! [Cue Toby Keith music]

The problem is, Obama is not a terrorist. Anyone saying that he is, is either a liar, or too stupid to know the difference. Either way, that's a problem, because those people's votes count just as much as mine.

But people are afraid to call these assholes liars. (Calling these liars assholes only exacerbates the problem.) And this here is the conundrum of liberal influence. I hate to use the term, but people are far to politically correct to call these lying scumbags ... well ... lying scumbags. It is perfectly appropriate to call a liar a liar, and to point out exactly where he is lying. And if he's not lying but is incorrect, someone should be able to quote scripture and verse as to where someone is wrong. (Note to Republicans and teabaggers: this would work for you too, if you ever said anything based in fact.)

I had a conversation with a good friend of mine the other day -- one who has a conservative bent -- in a forum were some comments were left, and he and I had a disagreement, and that's fine. But one of his commenters said something so stupid that I couldn't believe it. He said (and I'm paraphrasing), "I can't wait until Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Obama are out of office so they can stop racking up trillions of dollars worth of debt, and Republicans can get back to making this country profitable again."

I'll let that one settle in for a second.

I hate to quote the creepy Eric Massa, but he did say one thing right: the national debt did not start last year. Without playing the "blame Bush" game here, in 2000, we had a huge surplus, and now, we have a huge debt. (Part of that is because we are fighting two wars and people with teabags hanging from their clothes don't want to pay any more in taxes, but that's a different point altogether.) That is economic fact. It's not an opinion I made up because I'm a "tree-hugging liberal." You can make the argument that you feel Republicans are better when they are in charge; that's fine, that's an opinion, and one to which you have the right. But what you don't have the right to is facts: the fact is, neither Obama, or Herr Pelosi, nor that sniveling ineffectual Harry Reid caused financial meltdown.

In fact, I read an article the other day saying that despite some hard-to-swallow realities, the Obama economic policies are actually working. [Update: here is the link to the article.] I would love to see him really nail the banks abusing TARP, and until he prevents them from anally-intruding their customers with prohibitive fees and unannounced interest-hikes, I can't say I approve with 100% of what's done. But to say that he's destroying the country economically is not matching up with the numbers.

[Side note: I sent a private message to my buddy telling him that his indignant friend was, and I quote, "a fucking retard." I'm not proud of using that language, but based on my limited exposure to this post-Keynesian economic theorist, I believe it in my heart. My friend responded, something to the effect of, "Well I don't know about that, he served in the military and saw a lot of combat." Out of respect to his service, I relented. However, can we please stop justifying people's right to an incorrect opinion just because they served in the military? I admire the service, but you don't suddenly become a genius -- or get credit for being a good person for that matter -- just because you put on a uniform. It's a total cop-out to say that just because I haven't worn the uniform that I don't have right to an opinion about something. That's a fucking cop-out, and it's how children argue. How about as long as my opinion isn't related to military inner-workings -- something of which I know nothing -- I'm not dismissed like some kind of coward? Just because you served and I didn't, scissors does not beat rock, sorry. Fuck that horseshit.]

Now I am not some rah-rah Democrat. Remember: I am not a registered Democrat and have not been for over a decade. I think Democrats are a bunch of weak do-nothings, who would rather be inoffensive than get things done. The way they squandered a year and a half of a supermajority is mind-boggling, and emblematic of why Dems can shit in their hat for all I care. But by comparison, Republicans on the whole come off like evil fearmongers. They would rather shout empty slogans and call people names than to have rational, fact-based arguments. [If you want a really great, nonpartisan site to sort out the lies, go to Politifact.com. They do a great job of separating truths, half-truths, untruths and outright bullshit.]

Can we please get to a place where facts make sense again? Where people are honest and forthright, even with difference of opinion? I don't even mind people having hatred for other people, but do it for the right reasons. Hate Obama for who he is (a liberal), not for who he isn't (a terrorist, a communist). If you are part of the white-noise, then you are part of the problem.

Feast or Famine

I had a routine physical last month and turns out that, for a fat guy, I'm actually in pretty good health. My blood pressure was good -- likely due to my dutiful consumption of blood-thinning alcohol -- and my cholesterol is only a hair above normal. This came as a shock to me, since when I got a "health screening" at work in 2006, all my metrics were way off. So I was happy, although it would have been nice to have the doctor say that I needed more peanut butter pie in my diet.

He did tell me that I have to drop some weight, because if I don't, it will lead to health problems down the road. Since my health is inexplicably decent, I figure that it's probably a good time to start shedding some unwanted poundage.

I told the doctor that I was planning to go to the gym a lot more, and that I was hoping that I could offset my high-calorie, low-nutrition diet with some hardcore exercise. And he told me something that I guess I had never considered before: no matter how much you exercise, you can't out-run a bad diet.

This was shocking to me. I had always figured that I could counteract any visit to the BK drive-thru with an hour on the elliptical. But it turns out it's the other way around: I could do three hours on the treadmill and a side of french fries would kill it.

This BLEW my EFFING mind.

Okay, not actually, but it did give me a new look on food. My relationship with food has always been close but not a healthy one (no pun intended). One of my New Year's resolutions was to start cooking more and cooking BETTER. Not necessarily healthier but more delicious and less easy; more food that's not made in the microwave. So when my doc told me I had to stop eating as much -- he even gave me a meal plan with a lot of cottage cheese and apples -- I thought I was kissing my delicious foods goodbye.

Then a couple of weeks ago, I stumbled upon a method of eating called ADF -- Alternate Day Fasting. It's also known as Intermittent Fasting (I.F.), and it is basically this: eat every other day. It sounds impossible, but I've been doing it for a couple non-consecutive weeks and it's really given me some interesting results and insights into my relationship with food.

Here's how I do it: I can eat pretty much however I choose from 6pm to 6pm on alternating days, and then I go without eating (or if I have to cheat, I keep it under 300 calories) on the other 6-6 shift. It's definitely not a quick fix -- my weight has gone down, but not drastically -- it's a long-term strategy. The idea is to limit calorie intake over time. Since the body deals with calorie intake over long stretches of time (week to week as opposed to day to day), it will result in long term loss of excess fat.

Oddly, there are also tons of additional health benefits, such as a reduction of glucose and insulin, and lowering risks of coronary disease, strokes and blood pressure. In fact, in all the research I did, there was no real downside ... other than the fact that many of us are miserable bastards when we are hungry.

I have been referring to it as the "Caveman Diet" because it follows the eating cycles of cavemen, who did not eat every day, but rather ate when they got hungry and then went and hunted their food, gorging on it when they could. They had very little if any belly fat, and actually had a longer lifespan than we do. (Their early deaths were due to other unsafe factors in their lives, like biblical floods and brontosauri.

For me, this method is forcing me to re-think my codependent relationship with food. Rather than absently chewing on food during bored hours in front of the tv, I'm now abstaining altogether. To me, this is so much easier than counting calories or staying away from foods I like. Now, I just don't eat one day, and I don't worry the next.

I'm starting to appreciate food more instead of feeling like I "need" to have it all the time. Truth is, I don't. Also, when 6pm rolls around and it's been 24 hours since I've had anything significant, having that first piece of food is like Christmas morning and the opening day of football seasons rolled into one. Not to mention, I am stuffed after even small portions now. Maybe that means my stomach shrinking, or maybe it means my body is not just getting full faster. Either way, it's gotta be a good thing.

You would think that this would give me a tendency to gorge on my "food days," and while that was true early on, I've pretty much reined that in. I probably do overeat a little bit, but definitely not to complete excess. And when you spread one days over-eating over two days (and repeat for several weeks), you are still looking at a net loss in calorie intake.

It's not the easiest thing in the entire world: there are days that I'm just a miserable asshole to everyone because of my self-induced starvation. When that happens, though, I'm not gorging on three slices of pizza; I'm having a granola bar and a cup of coffee for a little boost.

The worst part is, of course, beer. On days that I can't eat, I also can't drink anything but water, so booze is out of the question, unfortunately. That will probably be a good thing, long term, both for my liver and for my finances. Plus, I don't have to give it up altogether, just rein it in. And that's the beauty of this plan all the way around: I'm not giving anything up, I'm just limiting the window in which I can consume them.

I have no idea if this will work for me long term, or if I'll even be able to keep with it, but I am feeling pretty good about it so far. And the best part is, I don't actually have to DO anything ... I just have to "DON'T" something, and that's eat for 24 hours. Its actually much easier to do that than go to the gym. (Not that this replaces working out, I'll get back to exercising in about August or so.) I'm hoping that long-term, I won't "crave" food as much as just enjoy it when I get to it. It's okay to be a little bit hungry (or a whole hell of a lot-bit) every once in a while. And just knowing that 6:00 will come around soon enough is surprisingly comforting.

First Post of the 2010s!

It's been a while since I blogged, so I thought I'd weigh in on three things that are really annoying me right now. I have OPINIONS!

1) Yes, I admit that the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien hasn't been very good, and most of that has to do with Conan's (excuse the cliche) losing his edge. The day Conesy lost me was when he had Paris Hilton doing a Bob Hope-style walk-on, complete with golf club. It wasn't spontaneous, her jokes were not particularly funny, and worst of all, it let Paris Hilton in the club.

The thing that was great about Conan's old show is the way that it allowed all the nerds in. Those of us who were never the "cool kids" were able to relate to a guy like Conan -- although his self-deprecation is often too belabored. People like Paris Hilton were the target ... they shouldn't be allowed in the clubhouse. When Conan legitimized this talentless tart, I realized that he wasn't one of "us" anymore, he was one of "them."

Now, I do give him a little slack. It's not like I hate Conan, or think he's a true sell-out. But I was no-longer compelled to watch his show, because he wasn't getting the laughs. But I had expected Conan to find his groove ... eventually. After about a year or so, he probably would have found his new voice -- a la David Letterman, who holy shit will have been on the air twenty years in 2013.

But it looks like Conan won't get his chance, because for some reason, NBC seems to think that Jay Leno is the answer. Jay Leno, who milked Bill Clinton and OJ Simpson jokes for well over a decade, but somehow inexplicably trounced Letterman in tv ratings. (Well, actually, it's very explicable... Americans are fucking idiots.) So now, as if he was some sort of automatic ratings machine, NBC is going to move him back to 11:35, and then Conan to 12:05. Keep in mind, Leno has been ON TV FOR THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. Maybe people got tired of Leno, and you have to give them just a tad bit more credit than to think they would have forgotten he existed just because he was on at 10pm.

So after the Olympics are over, Leno is going to be on again AFTER the local news instead of before. And my hope -- as well as my prediction -- is that the public realized from the 10pm experiment that Leno is old and stale, and just not that damn funny, and that Conan bolts for another network and can do his own thing again without having to live up to the "Tonight Show" brand. Because at this point, who gives a shit.

2) The "Rooney Rule" is the rule in the NFL that all teams must interview minority candidates before they can make a hire. The idea is very noble: to get exposure for more minority candidates so that they will have more chances at jobs. It is affirmative action, yes, but it's also been proven to be very effective. (The Steelers, to their credit, put their money where their mouths are, as they hired Mike Tomlin, a black coach who led them to a Super Bowl championship last season.)

But this past week a pair of Washington teams -- the Redskins and Seahawks (see what I did there, football fans?) -- hired high-profile coaches without following the spirit of the Rooney Rule. The Skins did a cursory interview with their assistant coach Jerry Gray, and the Seahawks did a sham interview with Vikings defensive coordinator Leslie Frazier. Both teams knew they were going to hire established coaches, which makes the interviews of the minority candidates seem especially hollow, and condescending.

But you can't really blame the teams for hiring who they did -- two of the most well-known football coaches of the last fifteen years. Back in 2003, the Detroit Lions fired their coach because recently-deposted 49ers Steve Mariucci became available, and they knew they wanted him. The Lions got fined because they didn't interview a minority candidate. (The Cowboys, incidentally, did not, even though their sham interview consisted of a phone call with Dennis Green.)

But think about it, why force these teams to interview a minority when they know with 100% certainty that there is no chance that any of the minority candidates have a chance... not because they aren't qualified, but because the teams had pre-existing coaches in mind. But you can't just throw the Rooney Rule out, can you??? There's got to BE a better way!

I have the solution, and I'm not the first to come up with it, but I'll tell you about it. The Rooney Rule should be this: if you only interview ONE candidate (eg. Pete Carroll, Mike Shanahan), you don't have to do a phony interview with a minority candidate. This would allow these teams to expedite their hirings and stop with the phony bullshit.

If your team does MORE than one interview, however, that team has to interview at least as many minority candidates as they do white candidates. This, you might think, is also a sham, but it shouldn't be. A wider net cast would mean that teams would open up their searches anyway, so the more exposure the better for all. If they just implement this in the Rooney Rule, all will be well.

3) Mark McGwire is a selfish asshole and I hope he never gets into the Baseball Hall of Fame. I have never liked him, because of what an arrogant cock he was in 1998 when he broke the then-home run record and went on Letterman talking about what a service that he and Sammy Sosa did for the country. Not for the NL Central, not for Major League Baseball. For the COUNTRY. He can shit in his hat.

It's interesting that when he didn't get immunity in the 2004 baseball steroid hearings, he decided to pull his "I'm not here to talk about the past." And then he remained silent about the matter for over five years.

But today, he decided that he wanted to fess up about it. Why? Because his conscience was weighing on him? Because the truth needed to be told? Because he wanted to tell kids not to do it? No, of course not. It's because he wanted another job in baseball, and this was the only way that anyone was going to let him do it. If he wanted to take credit for saving the nation 11.5 years ago, he can take the heat for being a sack of shit.

4) I read a Facebook group called "I Shouldn't Have to Press '1' so Speak English!" Of course, this is blatant anti-immigration racism in the guise of pro-America populism. It's horseshit. If you don't like brown people, just admit it. Stop acting like somehow you are a more legitimate American just because you speak English. Remember, America has NO official language, and that's the way the Founding Fathers wanted it.

Of course, when you go onto the site to read the comments, there is a lot of "go home to your country" and "learn to speak English!" and other such nonsense. But do you know what's so ironic? Spanish speakers are not ruining the language in this country: English speakers are.

If you've ever listened to a NASCAR-loving hillbilly speak, you can tell that they don't have what we might call a "command" of the English language. Not only do they mix their metaphors, but they usually leave the "g" of gerunds, such as "learning," "talking" and "eating." They use phrases like "that dog don't hunt," and "git er done!" but somehow get upset about Ebonics. (Also, they are under the borderline retarded notion that Ebonics was something proposed to be TAUGHT in schools to students. It wasn't: it was meant to be taught to TEACHERS so that they could more effectively communicate with their students.)

Also, can we agree that even common language is dying? And it has nothing to do with people from other countries trying to usurp our linguistic dominance. It has everything to do with lazy Americans (blacks AND whites both) who don't feel like learning the correct ways to say things, instead relying either on what "feels" right, or what they thought they heard once.

The best example of this is "irregardless." I'm sure that a bunch of these shit-kicking hicks have used this combination of letters. But the truth is, there is no such word. It came about by some numbskull combining "regardless" and "irrespective." Before "Bennifer" and "Brangelina," there was "irregardless."

But do you want to know the infuriating part? Some dictionaries actually recognize "irregardless" as an actual word. Basically, the least educated of our society has somehow come to dictate language, and infiltrate the intelligent, correct-spelling world with their stupidity. If these "I hate pressing '1' to speak Inglish" people had any integrity at all -- or any LEGITIMATE respect for the English language, as opposed to using it as some kind of patriotic wedge issue -- they would be storming the offices of Webster's and demanding that such heresy be stricken from the books, to PRESERVE OUR LANGUAGE!

But no, these cro-magnon faggots will flip over their Bill Engvall cassettes and LOL whenever he says "Heerrrrrrrrrre's yer sign!"

Ahhhh... I feel so much better now. Happy New Year!

Best of the 2000s: Best Movies

The 72 MOVIES I LOVED IN THE 2000s

1. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - 2003 - Peter Jackson
   
2. The Departed - 2006 - Martin Scorsese
   
3. Borat - 2006 - Larry Charles
   
4. The Prestige - 2006 - Christopher Nolan
   
5. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - 2001 - Peter Jackson
   
6. Sideways - 2005 - Alexander Payne
   
7. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - 2002 - Peter Jackson
   
8. School of Rock - 2003 - Richard Linklater
   
9. Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World - 2003 - Peter Weir
   
10. Amélie - 2001 - Jean-Pierre Jeunet
    
11. Lost in Translation - 2003 - Sofia Coppola
    
12. 300 - 2007 - Zack Snyder
    
13. Donnie Darko - 2002 - Richard Kelly
    
14. Adaptation - 2003 - Spike Jonze
    
15. X2: X-Men United - 2003 - Bryan Singer
    
16. Good Night, and Good Luck. - 2005 - George Clooney
    
17. X-Men - 2000 - Bryan Singer
    
18. Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang - 2005 - Shane Black
    
19. Inglourious Basterds - 2009 - Quentin Tarantino
    
20. Mulholland Dr. - 2001 - David Lynch
    
21. The Fountain - 2006 - Darren Aronofsky
    
22. Zombieland - 2009 - Ruben Fleischer
    
23. Brokeback Mountain - 2005 - Ang Lee
    
24. Spirited Away - 2001 - Hayao Miyazaki
    
25. Minority Report - 2002 - Steven Spielberg
    
26. Milk - 2008 - Gus Van Sant
    
27. The Dark Knight - 2008 - Christopher Nolan
    
28. Ocean's Eleven - 2001 - Steven Soderbergh
    
29. The 40-Year-Old Virgin - 2005 - Judd Apatow
    
30. In The Loop - 2009 - Armando Iannucci
    
31. Imaginary Heroes - 2005 - Dan Harris
    
32. Narc - 2003 - Joe Carnahan
    
33. The Wrestler - 2008 - Darren Aronofsky
    
34. Step Brothers - 2008 - Adam McKay
    
35. Memento - 2001 - Christopher Nolan
    
36. Robots - 2005 - Chris Wedge
    
37. High Fidelity - 2000 - Stephen Frears
    
38. The Queen - 2006 - Stephen Frears
    
39. Serenity - 2005 - Joss Whedon
    
40. The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters - 2008 - Seth Gordon
    
41. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy - 2004 - Adam McKay
    
42. In the Bedroom - 2002 - Todd Field
    
43. About a Boy - 2002 - Chris Weitz
    
44. Hedwig and The Angry Inch - 2001 - John Cameron Mitchell
    
45. Wet Hot American Summer - 2002 - David Wain
    
46. United 93 - 2006 - Paul Greengrass
    
47. Blue Car - 2003 - Karen Moncrieff
    
48. Michael Clayton - 2007 - Tony Gilroy
    
49. The Salton Sea - 2002 - D.J. Caruso
    
50. Seabiscuit - 2003 - Gary Ross
    
51. Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story - 2004 - Rawson Marshall Thurber
    
52. Blades of Glory - 2007 - Josh Gordon
    
53. The Fog of War - 2004 - Errol Morris
    
54. Dear Zachary - 2008 - Kurt Kuenne
    
55. There Will Be Blood - 2008 - Paul Thomas Anderson
    
56. Thumbsucker - 2005 - Mike Mills
    
57. Storytelling - 2001 Todd Solondz
    
58. Ghost World - 2001 - Terry Zwigoff
    
59. Shattered Glass - 2003 - Billy Ray
    
60. Layer Cake - 2004 - Matthew Vaughn
    
61. Drowning Mona - 2000 - Nick Gomez
    
62. Bloody Sunday - 2002 - Paul Greengrass
    
63. In America - 2003 - Jim Sheridan
    
64. Spellbound - 2003 - Jeffrey Blitz
    
65. The Woodsman - 2005 - Nicole Kassell
    
66. Iron Man - 2008 - Jon Favreau
    
67. Return to Me - 2000 - Bonnie Hunt
    
68. 10 Items or Less - 2006 - Brad Silberling
    
69. In Bruges - 2008 - Martin McDonagh
    
70. Russian Ark - 2002 - Alexander Sokurov
    
71. Animal Factory - 2000 - Steve Buscemi
    
72. All the Real Girls - 2003 - David Gordon Green
    

...86 HONORABLE MENTIONS

• Secretary - 2002 - Steven Shainberg
  
• Personal Velocity: Three Portraits - 2002 - Rebecca Miller
  
• The Safety of Objects - 2001 - Rose Troche
  
• The Shape of Things - 2003 - Neil LaBute
  
• Thirteen Conversations About One Thing - 2001 - Jill Sprecher
  
• Pan's Labyrinth - 2006 - Guillermo del Toro
  
• A Love Song For Bobby Long - 2005 - Shainee Gabel
  
• North Country - 2005 - Niki Caro
  
• Eastern Promises - 2007 - David Cronenberg
  
• Waking Life - 2002 - Richard Linklater
  
• Full Frontal - 2002 - Steven Soderbergh
  
• The Secret Lives of Dentists - 2004 - Alan Rudolph
  
• Lost in La Mancha - 2002 - Keith Fulton
  
• We Don't Live Here Anymore - 2004 - John Curran
  
• Fanboys - 2009 - Kyle Newman
  
• Capturing the Friedmans - 2003 - Andrew Jarecki
  
• The Darjeeling Limited - 2007 - Wes Anderson
  
• I Heart Huckabees - 2004 - David O. Russell
  
• Friends With Money - 2006 - Nicole Holofcener
  
• You Can Count On Me - 2000 - Kenneth Lonergan
  
• The History Boys - 2006 - Nicholas Hytner
  
• Vera Drake - 2004 - Mike Leigh
  
• Far from Heaven - 2002 - Todd Haynes
  
• American Splendor - 2003 - Shari Springer Berman
  
• Gone Baby Gone - 2007 - Ben Affleck
  
• Confidence - 2003 - James Foley
  
• SherryBaby - 2007 - Laurie Collyer
  
• A Very Long Engagement - 2004 - Jean-Pierre Jeunet
  
• Wonder Boys - 2000 - Curtis Hanson
  
• Role Models - 2008 - David Wain
  
• Possession - 2002 - Neil LaBute
  
• Thirteen Days - 2000 - Roger Donaldson
  
• The Shape of Things - 2003 - Neil LaBute
  
• The Triplets of Belleville - 2003 - Sylvain Chomet
  
• Friday Night Lights - 2004 - Peter Berg
  
• In the Mood for Love - 2000 - Kar Wai Wong
  
• Elephant - 2003 - Gus Van Sant
  
• The Hours - 2003 - Stephen Daldry
  
• Billy Elliot - 2000 - Stephen Daldry
  
• Finding Nemo - 2003 Andrew Stanton
  
• Frequency - 2000 - Gregory Hoblit
  
• Thirteen - 2003 - Catherine Hardwicke
  
• Old School - 2003 - Todd Phillips
  
• This is England - 2007 - Shane Meadows
  
• Stardust - 2007 - Matthew Vaughn
  
• Cold Mountain - 2003 - Anthony Minghella
  
• Rachel Getting Married - 2008 - Jonathan Demme
  
• No Country for Old Men - 2007 - Ethan & Joel Coen
  
• Y Tu Mamá También - 2001 - Alfonso Cuarón
  
• Best in Show - 2001 - Christopher Guest
  
• Monster - 2004 - Patty Jenkins
  
• Punch-Drunk Love - 2002 - Paul Thomas Anderson
  
• Requiem for a Dream - 2000 - Darren Aronofsky
  
• Shaun of the Dead - 2004 - Edgar Wright
  
• City of God - 2003 - Fernando Meirelles
  
• Roger Dodger - 2003 - Dylan Kidd
  
• Frost/Nixon - 2008 - Ron Howard
  
• A History of Violence - 2005 - David Cronenberg
  
• Wall-E - 2008 - Andrew Stanton
  
• Meet The Parents - 2000 - Jay Roach
  
• Chicago - 2003 - Rob Marshall
  
• Kill Bill Vol. 1 - 2003 - Quentin Tarantino
  
• Casino Royale - 2006 - Martin Campbell
  
• Amores Perros - 2000 - Alejandro González Iñárritu
  
• Gran Torino - 2009 - Clint Eastwood
  
• 8 Mile - 2002 - Curtis Hanson
  
• About Schmidt - 2002 - Alexander Payne
  
• Infernal Affairs - 2002 - Wai-keung Lau
  
• Children of Men - 2007 - Alfonso Cuarón
  
• Palindromes - 2005 - Todd Solondz
  
• Talk to Her - 2002 - Pedro Almodóvar
  
• The Aviator - 2004 - Martin Scorsese
  
• Kill Bill Vol. 2 - 2004 - Quentin Tarantino
  
• Batman Begins - 2005 - Christopher Nolan
  
• Star Trek - 2009 - J.J. Abrams
  
• The Squid and the Whale - 2006 - Noah Baumbach
  
• Finding Neverland - 2004 - Marc Forster
  
• Moulin Rouge - 2001 - Baz Luhrmann
  
• The Royal Tenenbaums - 2001 - Wes Anderson
  
• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - 2008 - David Fincher
  
• Million Dollar Baby - 2005 - Clint Eastwood
  
• Cast Away - 2000 - Robert Zemeckis
  
• Oldboy - 2003 - Chan-wook Park
  
• Garden State - 2004 - Zach Braff
  
• Zodiac - 2007 - David Fincher
  
• Monsters, Inc. - 2001 - Pete Docter
  

AND MOVIES THAT WERE OVERRATED, DISAPPOINTING or JUST PLAIN TERRIBLE:

Overrated

• Wanted
  
• Scary Movie
  
• Superbad
  
• Almost Famous
  
• Slumdog Millionaire
  
• Ray
  
• Walk the Line
  
• Gladiator
  
• The Passion of the Christ
  

Disappointing

• Spider-Man (all three, but mostly "Spider-Man 2")
  
• Taken
  
• X-Men 3: The Last Stand
  
• Meet the Fockers (also see under: Terrible)
  
• Superman Returns
  
• Ocean's Twelve
  
• Babel
  
• Fever Pitch
  
• Unbreakable
  
• Insomnia
  
• The Ladykillers
  
• Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist
  

Terrible

• Gerry
  
• The Wedding Date
  
• American Dreamz
  
• Meet the Fockers
  
• 1408
  
• Cellular
  
• Changing Lanes
  
• America's Sweethearts
  

Jim Caldwell is a Gutless Coward

The only acceptable reasons that it would be okay for the Colts to tank yesterday's game against the Jets, bringing their record to 14-1 for the year.

1. They were trying to keep Denver or Pittsburgh out of the playoffs by giving the Jets an advantage. (The Jets now control their own playoff destiny.)
   
2. The Colts felt like the Jets were poised to beat them anyway, and they didn't want to tarnish their air of invincibility. (Unlikely, but possible.)
   
3. They wanted to honor Belichick's legacy.
   
4. Better draft pick position.
   
5. They think "Killer Instinct" is a Sharon Stone movie.
   
6. Mercury Morris is holding Reggie Wayne's mother hostage.
   
7. They knew they had no chance against Buffalo next Sunday anyway, so why prolong the inevitable?
   
8. So many teams go 19-0, it's not even a big deal anymore.
   
9. Fell for the Jets' old "you pull your starters, we'll pull ours" trick.
   
10. Painter is actually a better QB than Peyton and gives them their best chance to win.
    
11. Jim Caldwell inherited the great team that Tony Dungy left for him and actually has no clue how to coach a football team or how 19-0 puts you on the short list for greatest team of all time.
    

Whatever the reason, I will be rooting against the Colts and shooing away their bad karma for the entire postseason. (Unless they are playing Pittsburgh, Dallas or New England, of course.)

[Update: Man am I tired of being right. WHO DEY!]

Best of the 2000s: Twenty-Five Best Albums

Sure, we have about six weeks left, but I have decided that I am going to post my top 25 Albums of the Decade.

This decade really changed my music listening habits, and not just because of the invention of the iPod (although that had an incredible effect too). The fact that so much music was available online for download and for listening meant that I didn't have to rummage through some indie record store where some asshole with bad hair looked down on me because I wasn't buying the new "hip" album. I didn't have to take as my chances on my purchases, because for the most part, you could listen to part of every song on any album you wanted to. And if I heard something online or saw some great new artist on Conan, I didn't have to wait till the next day to pick up the album. I know this all sounds rudimentary, but the sheer availability of music made me so much more knowledgeable and made this decade a lot richer for me.

Also, the fact that there are SO MANY SOURCES online which to read about music has pointed me in some really great directions. Pandora, Last.fm, Stereogum, Pitchfork, AllMusic.com, RateYourMusic.com... These have all been great resources for me to find stuff I never would have heard of or known of otherwise.

The last is satellite radio. There is no better way to serendipitously come across great new bands than on Satellite. Go to one of the niche stations and just listen for a few hours, and you will find yourself hearing things you would never hear on regular, terrestrial radio. I really hope that the fledgling format finds an audience because it is now an indispensible part of my life.

I don't think the 2000s (are we calling them "the Aughts" now?) have been THE best decade of music, but they have been one of the most diverse. And although I think pop music hit its nadir some time around 2005, hard-to-find music has flourished and become richer than ever. So here we go ... the soundtrack to my life for the last ten years.

I had considered breaking them up into pop/rock music and hip hop music, but let's face it: the decade has been sort of thin on both, and so I just picked my tops from both and I'm putting them together. Still, I stand by this list as being 100% great. I also considered ranking them but then I just got too lazy.

I will start by saying that my top three albums from 2000-2009 are, in alphabetical order by artist:

Iron & Wine - The Creek Drank the Cradle


Shearwater - Palo Santo (Expanded Edition)


The Shins - Chutes Too Narrow

Don't ask me to pick my favorite because my mom always said that she couldn't pick her favorite kid, even though she's lying it's clearly me.

I will also give you 40 or so very excellent albums worthy of honorable mention:

AESOP ROCK - Labor Days (2002), Bazooka Tooth (2004), None Shall Pass (2007) - Indie hip hop


ARIZONA - Welcome Back Dear Children (2006), Fameseeker and the Mono (2007) - Indie pop


BABBLETRON - Mechanical Royalty (2003) - Indie hip hop


BLACKALICIOUS - Blazing Arrow (2002) - Indie hip hop


BLACK MILK - Tronic (2008) - Hip hop


BLITZEN TRAPPER - Furr - (2008) - Indie rock


BLOCKHEAD - Downtown Science - (2005) - Hip hop instrumentals


BLUEPRINT - 1988 - (2005) - Indie hip hop


BROTHER ALI - The Undisputed Truth - (2007) - Indie hip hop


CANDY BUTCHERS - Making Up Time - (2006) - Piano pop


CARIBOU - The Milk of Human Kindness - (2005) Electro-pop


ROB CROW - Living Well - (2007) - Indie rock / math rock


CUT CHEMIST - The Audience's Listening - (2006) - Hip hop instrumentals


DANGER MOUSE - The Grey Album - (2004) - Hip hop


EDAN - Beauty and the Beat - (2005) - Underground hip hop


EL-P - I'll Sleep When You're Dead - (2007) - Indie hip hop


EMILY HAINES - Knives Don't Have Your Back - (2006) - Chamber/piano rock


FEIST - Let It Die - (2004) - Indie pop


THE FLAMING LIPS - Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots - (2002) - Experimental rock


DJ FORMAT - If you Can't Join 'Em ... Beat 'Em - (2005) - Indie hip hop / nerdcore


GHOSTFACE KILLAH - More Fish - (2007) - East Coast hip hop


ILLOGIC - Celestial Clockwork - (2004) - Underground hip hop


JOY ZIPPER - American Whip - (2004) - Dreampop / Indie pop


MF DOOM - MM..Food - (2004) - Indie hip hop


MGMT - Oracular Spectacular - (2008) - Indie/electro pop


MIDLAKE - The Trials of Van Occupanther - (2006) - Lo-fi / indie rock


MOTHER MOTHER - Touch Up - (2007) - Indie pop, experimental folk


PINBACK - Tour EP 2008 [Ascii E.P.] - (2008) - Indie/math rock


RADIOHEAD - Amnesiac - (2001) - Progressive rock


DJ RHETTMATIC - Exclusive Collection - (2004) - Underground hip hop


SOUL POSITION - Things Go Better with RJ and Al - (2006) - Indie hip hop


SPOON - Gimme Fiction - (2005) - Indie rock


SUN KIL MOON - April - (2008) - Indie folk


SUPER FURRY ANIMALS - Rings Around the World - (2001) - Neo-psychedelia


SWITCHES - Lay Down the Law - (2008) - Indie pop / retro pop


WOLFMOTHER - Wolfmother - (2006) - Hard rock


ZERO 7 - Simple Things (2001), When It Falls (2004) - Ambient techno

Now here is the full list of 25 (plus one EP), in alphabetical order by artist (click on the album cover for more information):

---

AESOP ROCK - Float

Independent Hip Hop, 2000

---

ARIZONA - Glowing Bird

Indie Rock, 2009

---

BECK - Sea Change

Folk pop, 2002

---

BON IVER - For Emma, Forever Ago

Indie folk, 2008

---

CANNIBAL OX - The Cold Vein

Underground hip hop, 2001

---

NIKKA COSTA - Everybody Got Their Something

Electro/dance pop, 2001

---

DM STITH - Heavy Ghost

Experimental rock, 2009

---

BEN FOLDS - Songs for Silverman

Piano pop, 2005

---

SAGE FRANCIS - Sick of Waiting Tables (Compilation)

Independent hip hop, "emo rap," 2004

---

GRIZZLY BEAR - Veckatimest

Art-rock, indie rock, 2009

---

IRON & WINE - The Creek Drank the Cradle

Lo-fi alternative folk, 2002

---

MADVILLAIN - Madvillainy

Underground hip hop, 2004

---

STEPHEN MALKMUS & THE JICKS - Pig Lib

Grungy indie rock, 2003

---

OH NO - Exodus Into Unheard Rhythms

Underground hip-hop, 2006

---

NERINA PALLOT - Fires

Adult contemporary pop, 2005

---

RJD2 - Deadringer

Independent hip hop instrumentals, 2002

---

ROGUE WAVE - Out of the Shadow

Indie rock, garage pop, 2004

---

THE ROSEWOOD THEIVES - From the Decker House EP

Indie rock, folk-pop, 2006

---

SHEARWATER - Palo Santo (Expanded Edition)

Chamber pop / power folk, 2006

---

SHEARWATER - Rook

Indie rock / power folk, 2008

---

THE SHINS - Chutes Too Narrow

Indie pop, 2003

---

SUFJAN STEVENS - Illinois

Indie pop / progressive folk, 2005

---

TOBACCO - Fucked Up Friends

Techno hip-hop electronica, 2008

---

WEEN - Quebec

Ironic art-pop, 2003

---

WILCO - Yankee Hotel Foxtrot

Alt-country/rock, 2002

---

If you want, you can also read about my Best Post-Golden Age Hip Hop albums.

So that's been my decade. If you are interested in sampling any of these artists, I would suggest signing up at Last.fm, because it's the most accessible, it can track the songs you listen to on your iPod automatically, and to my knowledge there is no limit on the number of listens you can have. You can pretty much type in the name of an artist (or any artist you like) and listen to a whole truckload of songs. And let me know if you agree, or if any of my choices stink.