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.

The Perils of Avid Living

Caring about things sucks. You might think that is a terrible thing to say, but it's true.

I heard a very interesting conversation the other day, where some people were talking about the fickle nature of sports fans. It seems that sports fandom is a nice microcosm of what I'm talking about.

Let's take my Bills. They are not good right now, nor have the really been that good this decade. (One winning season in the 2000s: 9-7 in 2004.) I am what you call a "diehard." I almost never miss a game on TV, and I will be loyal to that team until the day I do, or the day they leave Western New York, whichever comes first.

But there are other fans that we'll call "casual." They like the team during a week that they have just won, but in the losing weeks, these people are nowhere to be found. They even talk of being SO FRUSTRATED that they switch allegiances. Sometimes in the middle of the season! They will usually latch on to another team they sorta like (or just don't despise) since they have a better chance to win. We call these people "poseurs," "frontrunners" and "bandwagon-jumpers."

But I ask you this: who has the more pleasant life? The poor sap who is loyal year after year, only to have his heart broken? Or the faux-aficianado who can turn the game off at halftime and go to the movies? (Hint: not me.)

You can see this kind of dynamic rear its head in other walks of life too, such as politics. People who are politically aware and/or active have to be the most miserable collection of assholes in the world. (And yes, I do count myself among them.) Why? Because they are constantly putting up a fight. Politics today is not about solving problems, it's about skewering the other side and being "right." Both sides are guilty of it, and so am I.

People who don't give a crap about politics don't have this added frustration in their lives. If you don't care one way or the other about politics, then these Tea Party assholes probably don't bother you at all. And the quote-unquote Reverend Al Sharpton's race-baiting doesn't have any more effect on your psyche than your fantasy football league standings.

And such is the ironic curse of the engaged, passionate life. If you don't care about anything, it seems that you live a much more stress-free life, not unlike the post-hypnosis Peter Gibbons in Office Space. You can feel free to meander from interest to interest, not really caring if one doesn't meet your needs. You don't get mad when your favorite director makes a piece of shit movie, or that your favorite band sold out. If your team loses you find something else to do for the next game, or if your politician doesn't win, you go to the mall. Rather than trying a local microbrew, you pick up a 30-pack of Rolling Rock.

I'm definitely not crapping on these people: they seem to be doing it the right way. It is an internal defense mechanism that keeps them from getting upset about things that really don't matter. They are the people who say "I don't care" when a discussion gets too heated, or "Whatever" when they get called out for being incorrect. It is this kind of life that I wish I could lead.

But I can't.

In fact, if anything, my own stubborn nature has created a life for me that is fraught with unhappiness, frustration and incredulity. Many people can see a comment on a message board and let it go: I am not one of those people. Some people can overhear a discussion in which one of the speakers makes a major factual error: I must be heard! When thirteen year old girls say that Twilight is by far the best movie ever made, I feel the need to rattle off twenty superior films.

I just can't let people have their own misguided opinions or incorrect facts. In my own brain, I'm actually trying to educate them. I want people to be freed from the shackles of their limited experiences. I want people to transcend their reluctance to explore things outside their knowledge base. But rather than coming off as a sage source of grand experiences, I come off as a pedantic prick.

I remember this starting in about 1998, when the movie Titanic was a colossal mega-hit, still making tons of money from its release in late 1997. The movie was so big that it was sure to win the Oscar (which it did that year), and was very popular with the teenage girl set. [Twilight:2009::Titanic:1998]

I remember being on the internet and reading people gushing about Titanic being the greatest movie ever. At the time, I was a burgeoning film scholar, and was DISGUSTED that anyone would have the AUDACITY to stay that this very long, very overrated film would even crack the top 50 American films! In fact, that same year the American Film Institute came up with its 100 best films, and they had to create a press release saying that Titanic would not be on the list because it wasn't eligible due to the year it was released. (The implication being that Titanic would otherwise, of course, be #1 on the list.) I allowed this injustice of such an overrated film to consume me that summer, and I would tell anyone that would listen that L.A. Confidential was ten times the film that Titanic was, and that Titanic was a poorly-written fairy tale created for simpletons by a megalomanical director. (By the way, these assertions are still all true.)

But I realized that if people really wanted to love that Leo-Kate boat movie, let 'em. Why should I care if they want to settle for lesser entertainment instead of getting out there and digging for true art? Yes, it irks me when shitty or mediocre things get attention without having earned it. (Tony Romo. Paris Hilton. Tiki Barber. 50 Cent. Slumdog Millionaire. Glenn Beck.) But I really shouldn't care. It's not going to stop good things from being made, and not going to stop me from finding them.)

I am now self-aware of this predicament, and have been making efforts to allow myself to step back, take a deep breath, and stop giving a shit. This is outside my nature, as I care too much about everything. But I'm slowly learning that not everyone in the world has the "curiosity gene," as they say. And trying to get everyone to try new things and experience a passionate position is not my job. I can't make anyone like craft beer anymore than someone is going to coerce me into watching "Nip/Tuck." It doesn't make them bad people, it just is foreign to me that people wouldn't want to expose themselves to the best things in life.

All I can do is continue to enjoy the things that I enjoy, and silently look down upon others because they do not.

Fuzz Defector

[Note: I had originally written this back on Tuesday, April 28, almost six months ago, and it acted as a valuable venting mechanism. But since I had a court date, I didn't want to inadvertantly put anything out there that could incriminate me. They have the Google now! Anyway, here is the story of the most trying two day stretch of 2009.]

So I got into a little issue with the New York State DMV this weekend. Apparently -- to steal a line from Willie Moe -- they expect you to pay for car insurance every month! Long story short, they took away my personalized plates (fine they weren't personalized, but they had the word "ARM" in them), as well as my car for safe-keeping.

When you used to having as-needed transportation, taking the bus throughout the Syracuse City limits is sobering and humbling. Having to be on someone else's schedule is something I am just not used to, and having to walk from bus stop to bus stop is brutal sometimes. I got lucky that it was in the spring and not the dead of winter. [Sidebar: why would the DMV north of the city have not one bus go anywhere near it?]

But basically my journey was like this:

Monday:

1. Taking bus from home to downtown; walking half mile to Erie Blvd DMV.
   
2. Being told by guy sweeping up outside building that DMV had moved to Western Lights Plaza.
   
3. Getting on bus I thought was going to Western Lights Plaza. Getting back on bus returning downtown.
   
4. Getting on correct bus to Western Lights; going to DMV.
   
5. Being told I had to come back the next day, because you cannot surrender your plates and get new ones on the same day (even though they were technically surrendered on Sunday).
   
6. Swearing at DMV.
   
7. Helping old lady with her bags to get on bus; considering myself a hero.
   
8. Going back downtown; getting off bus to run at top speed to catch next bus going near my work.
   
9. Panting all the way to work; applying swath of deodorant.

But it didn't end there.

Tuesday:

1. Taking bus downtown.
   
2. Waiting 50 minutes for next bus next to smell of garbage.
   
3. Taking bus north; getting off at wrong stop, 3 miles from where I needed to go.
   
4. Walking one mile in the blazing heat before saying "fuggit" and calling a cab.
   
5. Taking cab driving by sweaty mouthbreather to DMV. ($15)
   
6. Getting new plates and registration.
   
7. Taking another cab driven by friendly Jesus freak to police station to get release order for my car. ($20)
   
8. Finding out from ornery police department pencil-pusher that I needed to have a copy of the title, or else he wasn't going to give the release.
   
9. Taking cab back to the DMV to get this title for $20 and a green receipt. ($20)
   
10. Taking cab BAAAACK to the police station with the info I needed and getting my release. ($20)
    
11. Taking final cab ride ... in the WRONG FUCKING DIRECTION because the cop at the desk gave me the wrong address. (The tow truck driver would later tell me he thinks that this cop purposely fucks with people.)
    
12. Finally getting my final cab ride ($40) to a gas station where the tow truck driver picked me up to bring me back to my Cranberry-colored baby.

But here's the kicker -- and the irony, especially considering that my dear little brother is a member of law enforcement.

Out of all the people I dealt with on my 44-hour journey through the belly of the beast, almost all the people I dealt with were pleasant and helpful.

The tow truck driver, my main cab driver, the DMV folks, most bus drivers (although one of them was a fucking miserable asshole) and even the girl behind the bullet-proof glass at the Centro station (!) were all great, even if their circumstances limited how much they could help me.

Who were the two people that I dealt with who were full-fledged, grade-A bastards? You guessed it: the cops. The one that pulled me over, who said "You can sit in the back seat of my back car, I'm not going to cuff you." As if he had any reason to cuff me!

And the lifer behind the desk who sent me on a $40 wild goose chase when I could have just as easily called the tow truck driver first. (Apparently the tow truck would have come to the station to pick me up.)

My brother always tells me -- and I totally understand why -- that he gets annoyed when people talk back to him and say things like "I pay your salary!" That has to be irritating.

However, when police are paid to protect us, and they end up being condescending stewards for the DMV -- all the while ignorning real, heinous crimes -- it actually diminishes the great work that police do on a daily basis. People want to like police to protect them from actual criminals ... but when police go after the GOOD people (like me, you and all of the mostly law-abiding people we know), it makes them look like they just have chips on their shoulders and nothing more. The reason that people hate cops is not because they want to break the law unscathed; it's because they aren't doing anything wrong (at least morally), and are still getting hassled.

Anyway, my girl is back and it's great to be back inside her. Wait, that didn't come out right.

Keep Pluckin'...

To me the best part of this video is the female anchor's face after this guy tries to say "pluckin' that chicken."

Chris Collinsperv

Ladies and gents, your new Sunday Night Football analyst...

Al Franken Remaps America!

And somewhere Tom Delay is green with envy...

Glourious

My feelings about Quentin Tarantino go like this:

I love Pulp Fiction. I hated Jackie Brown. Reservoir Dogs is completely overrated, although well-crafted and very watchable. The Kill Bills were both very good. I didn't bother seeing his self-indulgent "Grindhouse" films.

The world of cinema simultaneously owes an enormous debt to Tarantino (the non-linear narratives, the importance of dialogue, the combination of violence and humor) and idolizes him far too much (the reliance on non-linear narrative, his reliance on his dialogue, his reliance on violence and humor). He is one of the great cinematic talents of this generation, but he's also one of the most derivative and sometimes becomes way too enthralled with his own sensibility.

Having said that, I saw Inglourious Bastards today, and this is the kind of movie that I have a feeling will stick with me for a while.

(SPOILERS AHEAD: SEE THE MOVIE FIRST)

There are so many things to love about it, and yet so many things I would change. Basically the plot is that two separate factions are on unknowingly on a collision course to try and topple the Third Reich in Nazi-occupied France. One is a young woman whose family was killed by the Nazis, another is a gang of "Basterds" who have taken it upon themselves to kill -- and scalp -- every Nazi they can find.

The film begins with "Once Upon a Time..." which gives the hint that this is not necessarily going to be historically accurate. In fact, part of the film's effectiveness is that it's not bound to any kind of historical fact. Every other Nazi film ever made by anyone other than Mel Brooks or Charlie Chaplin is hamstrung because you know how it all ends. (See: Valkyrie.) But Quentin casts aside all such shackles, and creates an alternate universe European Theater (no pun intended), where the unpredictability lies in the unknown. This isn't just a small story set in the backdrop of WWII, this is a WWII fantasia at whose heart is the entire outcome of the war itself.

There were a couple things I didn't love. (Here come them pesky SPOILERS I told you about.) First, does Quentin have to make heavy-handed references to other movies in every single film he makes? Usually it takes place in the dialogue, but in Basterds, the heroine owns a movie theater, which is also where the climax occurs. A main character is a (fictional) superstar German actress. There are references to then-popular culture throughout the film. I'm not saying it doesn't all work, because some of it does. But the fact that cinema has to play such a role in such a real-life time period says something about Quentin's possible lack of perspective here.

Secondly, Quentin needs an editor. I don't mean necessarily that the movie is too long, because if a movie is good (or near-great, as this one is) it can be as long as you want it to be. What I mean is that within his scenes of dialogue, Quentin doesn't have anyone who can stand up to him and tell him how to chop up the scenes. As dynamic and kinetic as his action scenes are, his scenes of dialogue are equally stodgy and overly verbose. (This is the plague that killed Jackie Brown.)

Quentin is so enamored with his own words that he doesn't know when to cut out a few words here or there, or let the subtext shine through. He could use a good David Mamet rewrite to get rid of a lot of the extraneous words. Some of the dialogue could be just as easily conveyed with a glance or a cut away to an object, or something non-verbal. When Quentin figures this out, he will make the greatest film of all time.

Those two qualms out of the way, this is a brilliant film. Absolutely brilliant. It's brutally violent, and it is tense throughout, notably in two scenes.

The first is a scene in an underground bar, where a game of Hitchcockian intrigue plays out, that ends in what has to be the loudest gun-battle I've ever seen. This scene is played to perfection throughout by all the characters, and it is so tense that when it's over it's like being jarred out of a trance. It's a brilliant scene and worthy of the greatest suspense films.

But then there is the coup de grace: the climax in the movie theater. And not for the reason you might think.

Yes, the heist-like scenes of hidden identities and moving explosives from one place to another are all very tense and effective. But they are nothing compared to the final reel ... and if you see the film, you'll know I mean that literally.

The climax can only be described as a holocaust revenge fantasy. It is one of the most powerful climaxes I've ever seen in any film. I don't mean to oversell it, but it affected me on a pretty deep emotional level. It is a catharsis, of every ounce of hatred that the Nazis elicit. It gives the Nazis the brutal, heartless, merciless ending they deserve.

The one image that I can't get out of my head is the look on Eli Roth's face as he haphazardly shoots his automatic rifle into a crowd of people. A theater burning around him, his eyes show the most intense evil you could ever see on a so-called protagonist. The Nazis are relegated to their own burning place, their own holocaust. Where they showed no mercy to others, none was shown to them. And the image of Hitler's body lying motionless, while his face is rent apart by machine gun fire, is haunting, and satisfying. It's a bloodlust that has been festering for six decades, and Quentin somehow finds a way to fuse his own violent sensibilities with the subconscious hatred we all feel. It might be the most satisfying climax I've ever witnessed on film.

The flipside to that is that Tarantino, to some degree, is also fucking with your head. The film that the Nazis are enjoying in the theater before the climax is one in which a Nazi "hero" snipes countless American/Allied soldiers from a clock-tower. The Nazis nod their heads and sometimes weep with glowing approval, and we are sickened by them. Yet when the tables are turned, and we watch those that WE hate get mowed down, it brings up feelings in me that I can only describe as euphoric. By turning the tables, it forces us to acknowledge our own base, vengeful desires.

It's not perfect, but it's great. I can see why it got an eight-minute standing ovation at Cannes, and people clapped at the theater in which I saw it too. It works on a much more subliminal level than any movie in recent memory, and it sets out to offer some sort of emotional closure. (Nothing ever could, of course, but it gives an idea of what that might feel like for a moment.)

It's a long movie, but a good one. And I think an important one.

I will leave you with Tarantino's all-too-true dissection of Top Gun.

You're Simply the Best!

Thruway Driving and You

I consider myself an excellent driver. Others don't, but I do. If there is one skill I have, it's driving on the New York State Thruway. I-90 is my turf, either east- or westbound, and I make the rules. If you don't want to follow them, you need to take back roads. Period.

My greatest gift in Thruway driving is "clearing the lane," as the Bohall calls it. It consists of unclogging the logjam in the left lane, like a quadruple bypass through an atery. I do this by tailgating and aggressive/copious use of turn signals (the tailgating + "hey, move it asshole" signal is a favorite). If you are in front of me, you are moving too slowly. I have shit to do, you are in my way.

There are a few simple rules of Thruway driving, and today, most people didn't care to follow any of them. So for those that forgot them, here they are:

• When in the left/passing lane, drive faster than the car to your right, or I will tailgate you. This is the simplest and most important rule in the book; if you can't follow it, you should not be operating a motor vehicle.

• Don't pull in front of me and then slow down, for I will stalk you and kill you. You can wait to do whatever it is you have to do; I can't.

• If there is no one in front of you, you need to drive faster, or I will eat your children. The Thruway is utilitarian; it is not meant for sight-seeing. If you want sight-seeing, get off at the next fucking exit and take the one-lane roads, dick.

• If you are to the left of me, hovering, and I put my left signal on, pass me, or I will throw a molotov cocktail through your window. It's a hint that you are driving like an asshole; take this nugget and learn from it.

• You should be driving at least 80 miles per hour any time you are in the left hand lane. The one exception is when you are coming up upon one of those "Don't U-Turn" signs, since that's where cops live. At this point, you may slow down to 75. If you don't do this, I will sideswipe you into the median.

• Get off your fucking phone if it causes you to drive 60 mph on the Thruway. I have places to be and I don't want to have to wait for your fucking ass.

• If you are in the left/passing lane, and multiple people are passing you on the right, take the hint and get the hell over. It's the driver's version of calling you incompetent at your task.

• Do not, under any goddamn circumstances, let an 18-wheeler pull in front of you in the passing lane. Pass it, and let it wait until there is NO ONE behind it. Eighteen-wheelers are the anti-Christ; if you help them, you are part of the problem.

• If you are in front of me, and I am up on your ass, and you hit your brakes to try and scare me, you might as well pick up that cell phone to call your relatives and say good-bye, because you have just signed your own death warrant.
  

No one enjoys driving on the Thruway, but it is a straight line, so we all have to deal with it. If you can't handle it, stick to the bunny slope, newb. If I see you out there and you can't follow all of the rules, you'll know I'm there soon enough.