Thursday, December 22, 2011

Why All the Hatin': A Defense of the Kardashians

            Maybe we should all just lay off the Kardashians. I know it sounds stupid. That particular family appears to be a great lightning rod for whatever malice people have towards the superficial, stupid, and privileged. However, I wonder what it is exactly that makes everyone so mad. If you really cornered someone who was mad at the very existence of the Kardashians in our popular culture I assume you would hear a lot of the very same things. Why are they famous? Why do I have to hear about them? They have so much and have done so little to get it. All of these appear to be salient points that most people who are detractors of their many shows could agree on, but I still wonder why everyone is so mad.
            The Kardashian Empire, to the best of my knowledge, began because Kim Kardashian filmed her sexual encounter with Ray J, singer Brandy’s brother. The tape was released, she was hot, he was a minor celebrity, and she was from a family with some fame. Her father, Robert Kardashian, was OJ Simpson’s friend. He was seen quite a bit during the OJ Simpson trial. Her mother is now married to former Olympian Bruce Jenner who has morphed his appearance into a peculiar mask with plastic surgery. So there you go. There are a lot of intriguing elements to the story, first and foremost, sex appeal. My guess is that none of the Kardashian fame would be possible if Kim was a six. It’s even possible that none of the fame would be possible if Kim just had a normal sized ass. The novelty of her butt appears to be a sizeable portion of her appeal. After sex appeal it’s really just down to name recognition. We as a people are vaguely aware of the characters involved in this story. Basically, the same circumstances that led to a movie about the board game Battleship and a reboot of Charlie’s Angels brought us the prominence of the Kardashians.
            Are they bad people? To the best of my knowledge the worst thing that the family has done is exploit themselves. They are willing to trade privacy, dignity, and modesty for fame and fortune. Does that make someone a bad person? Personally, don’t really think so. If you condemn the Kardashians then by proxy you would have to condemn every stripper, porn star, reality star, and parent of a child actor. To me, that just seems like to wide a net of judgment to cast for people who essentially only hurt themselves. Among the people that I just listed the only one who I would begin to call a bad person is the parent of a child actor, but you don’t hear the same anger directed towards Dakota Fanning’s parents. With that said, Kris Kardashian, the mother, does seem a tad on the despicable side, but I really can’t say that I have any anger towards her and her family.
            So, why are people so mad? If they are only hurting themselves, why is there so much anger directed at them? Their show is on a network dedicated to the type of celebrity driven vacuous nonsense that the Kardashians represent. They aren’t taking time away from better things. If anything they are taking time away from an in depth look into the life of Carney Wilson or repeats of the soup. My thought is that at least they are fun to look at. I think that a lot of what angers people is the fact that there are a lot of people who love them. They are wildly popular. There are a great many people who do want to be like them, act like them, and dress like them. However, my guess is that the people who love them would never be well liked by the people who hate them so what’s the problem? Liking the Kardashians is shorthand by which a person can be avoided. No longer do you have to have a relationship with someone to determine their ilk, now you can just ask them their opinion of Kim and you have a pretty good idea who you’re dealing with. That makes me happy, but I appear to be in the minority.
            All in all I think it comes down to people being jealous. I think that in a lot of ways people rarely progress past high school. Kim is the beautiful rich girl who was never going to date you or be your friend. You wanted nothing more than for her to be discovered as a fraud and for you to be popular in her stead. People will always be jealous of the beautiful, dumb, and successful because it is a caste that we feel we cannot achieve. I say, sit back, relax, enjoy what they look like or change the channel, but don’t get me started on Ellen.

Chuck Norris in The Expendables 2: An Emotional Breakdown


            So Chuck Norris is in the new Expendables. Are you happy hipsters? Are you happy? Now, because of your constant internet memes and stupid jokes about fists being inside beards, we now apparently consider Chuck Norris a big time action hero despite the fact that I far as I can tell his two most popular endeavors were Walker Texas Ranger and Sidekicks. He is the Zsa Zsa Gabor of actions stars. We all agree he’s famous, but nobody really knows why. This to me is the exact reason he is popular at all. I’ve been under a suspicion for many years now that hipsters and pretentious intellectuals scour the earth’s landscape seeking the most wildly unpopular things, everything from movies to food to music to clothing. They seek out these terrible, unpalatable entities and tout them as the best our society has to offer. This of course makes them seem brilliant and part of some exclusive club. Their theory being that exclusivity in and of itself denotes quality when in reality conventional wisdom would dictate that the opposite is true. Chuck Norris fits snugly into that role, he sucks. I personally believe that most things that are unpopular are that way for a reason. To think the opposite is to subscribe to the theory that either the vast majority of people are stupid and wrong or that there are forces in the world that keep these wonderful things from the mainstream some sort of omnipotent presence that doesn’t want most people to appreciate the brilliance of Bruce Campbell or the early work of John Carpenter, you know before he because all commercial. I personally, believe that neither of those things is true. I believe that if something is good it will find an audience, I believe that most people are lazy not stupid and I believe that Bruce Campbell is stupid. So, now the same people that brought you the popularity of Bruce Campbell and the Tron sequel now have shoe horned Chuck Norris into The Expendable 2 and I’m irritated.
           
Now, for the rebuttals to all of my wildly impulsive and opinionated conjecture:

Chuck Norris as a meme and fodder for humor is not really a hipster thing, he’s an internet thing and by those standards he is not unpopular.
-         I am basically speaking to the terrible nature of Chuck Norris and my assumption that the vast majority of people that make Chuck Norris jokes have never seen any of his movies. I am arguing that it is a hipster thing because if I were to complain about him being in The Expendables 2, the only people that would tell me how good he really is would have a beard, be wearing skinny jeans, and they would doing so in between sips of an IPA or a PBR.

I’m sure there are many people who know why Zsa Zsa is famous, but I’m pretty well versed in the entertainment industry and all I know is that she was in Green Acres, but for some reason I think she was famous before that.

I’m sure that there are also plenty of people that know why Chuck Norris is famous too, but my assumption is that if given the opportunity to name 5 of the man’s movies the vast majority of people would name at least one of Steven Segal’s.

These are of course wildly broad generalizations that I’ve built by living in Brooklyn and working in a creative field. I know that hipsters and pretentious individuals must like some popular things or rather the things they like become popular. Also, when someone touts something that irritates me I will regularly label them a hipster. This could be a chicken and the egg situation. With that said IPA tastes terrible and Sophia Coppola movies are boring.

I understand that it is entirely possible that most people are stupid and wrong, but call me optimistic, I don’t agree. Of course, saying this might mean that I’m stupid and wrong.

I don’t really hate Bruce Campbell, I just don’t think he’s funny. I don’t get him, you know why? Because there’s nothing to get. He’s not funny, he’s over acting, that’s his thing, and I’m not impressed. This outburst is brought to you by everyone in
Union Square
who laughed wildly when he appeared on screen in Spiderman.

I am fully aware that being upset over the lineup of a sequel to The Expendables is stupid. It’s stupid for many reasons. It’s stupid because the concept of the movie is almost rooted in hipster nostalgic irony to begin with. It’s stupid because Norris has just as much a place in the movie as Terry Crews if not more so. It’s stupid because while I am not familiar with the man’s catalog maybe he’s more popular than I think. While Chuck Norris triggered my vitriol, he is not the cause of it. I spent too many years attempting to be smart and have good taste, but falling short. I’ve been made fun of too many times for liking Linkin Park. I’ve had eyes roll at me too often for liking The Real World/Road Rules Challenge. So while I agree with all of the points made in this article, please understand that they are emotional reactions to feeling rejected for too many years. So in closing, sorry Mr. Norris, you were great in Side Kicks.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

My Relationship With MTV: A Tale of Bad Taste

            Why is almost everything I like lame? How did good taste pass me by? Throughout my teens I was constantly on the hunt for what I should like. The emphasis being on should. I wanted to like things with substance, critically acclaimed things. I wanted to have good taste. I used to investigate. I used to try things, but still, somehow, the good things apparently passed me by. In a nostalgia heavy culture where anyone can go to the mall today and get a Led Zeppelin or Ramones T-shirt for some reason I’m wishing I could get my hands on a nice 311 t-shirt or Limp Bizkit poster. I’m just kidding, I may have bad taste, but no one wants a picture of Fred Durst in their home, but seriously I do still love those bands and I don’t really have any taste. Who’s to blame? I think that one entity more than any other is to blame. MTV.

            I was 11 when I first started to break away from my parents musically. That is when I first started putting on MTV. There are a few moments which stand out in my mind marking this time. One was the Ice Cube video “Bop Gun” which featured George Clinton. Ice Cube’s opening verse always intrigued me. He starts out, “1993, much more fi-e-i-ounce.” I remember this specifically because the video was shown in 1994 and Mr. Cube holds up four fingers in the video when he says three. It always perplexed me, but I’ll never forget when I started watching MTV because of it. Another moment that marked my foray into the world of MTV was the death of Kurt Cobain. The media coverage surrounding his death really made me take notice of Nirvana. Before his death I just thought that all grunge was Nirvana, bands like Sound Garden and Alice in Chains were all being branded in my mind with the title of Nirvana. I’ll never forget watching SNL and seeing Eddie Vedder lifting the left part of his shirt to reveal KC written over his heart on his under shirt. I remember it because I was thoroughly confused. Prior to this moment I never was really able to distinguish between Pearl Jam and Nirvana, I just knew they were both cool. In addition to that I always thought Kurt was spelled with a C. So I didn’t even really get that it was a memorial thing, Eddie just looked broken up while the rest of the cast of SNL waived and smiled, but in any case I figured this Nirvana is something I should look into.

Luckily for me, that was the perfect time for a clueless suburban kid to get into MTV. Everything was easily palatable. Grunge was turning pop with a lot of videos with bright colors and interesting visuals. “Heart Shaped Box” while gritty in sound was an explosion of neon colors and striking visuals. “Black Hole Sun” was practically a cartoon with its characters over exaggerated smiles and disturbing take on suburbia, I remember excitedly waiting for the moment in the video when the girl spit out her ice cream. Alice in Chains put out “I Stay Away” which used Claymation. I was hooked. The thing that got me to listen to Marvin Gaye’s “I Heard It Through The Grapevine” was now selling me on grunge. On the other side of music was Dr. Dre and his G-Funk, the 70’s funk hooks and feel were the perfect spoon full of sugar I needed to help the hard core lyrics go down. Who cared what they were talking about as long as I could sing along to the George Clinton chorus?

In addition to the music of the time there was now The Real World. I started watching The Real World in the second season during re-runs. Even back then MTV had a proud tradition of showing the same show seemingly on a loop. So despite the fact that my parents had control of the television when the show premiered I was still able to catch up to not only that season, but the one that proceeded it and by the time the third season came around it was something that my mother and I would happily watch together. I can’t truly explain what was so gripping about The Real World. I think it may have been the lack of a narrative. You could come in to the show at any point and immediately pick up what was going on. It was simply people arguing about issues set to a cool soundtrack. The first scene I can ever remember seeing was the David pulling the blanket off Tammy controversy. It was loud, it was dangerous, and it was everything that I needed to get me into the show. By the time Tammy had slammed her bedroom door into Beth’s head I was hooked and I’ve never looked back.

What’s interesting about my experience with MTV is how drastically it shaped how I saw music. MTV was basically how I saw music and if you wanted my attention you better be overt. I basically had to be told what to like or someone had to die. I got into grunge because Kurt Cobain died. I listened to Tupac and Notorious B.I.G. after they died. Biggie is the one that truly made an impact. Why? Because of two men, the first was Diddy, then know as Puff Daddy, and the second was Hype Williams. Together these two took the death of Notorious B.I.G. and built themselves an empire in my mind. I never watched Yo MTV raps, but I always watched MTV News and the Week in Rock. Partially because Yo was on at night when I was watching sitcoms and MTV News was on every hour, ten to the hour and the Week in Rock was on weekend mornings when my dad was playing racquetball. Therefore, I never really knew much about Biggie when he was alive. “Big Poppa” was on MTV Jams for a little while, but it was never as big a deal as Dr. Dre or the grunge of the time. Plus, while Dre and Pac were reenacting Mad Max with autotune Biggie was hanging out with his friends in a brownstone. Where was the production value? However, when the two of them died it was all over MTV news so I was forced to notice. After that Diddy took over. Every breath you take was a huge hit to me. It felt important, it was more than just another song it seemed to bring with it a narrative, plus it was directed by Hype so even though it was a memorial we still had neon colors and a motorcycle in which Diddy actually fell off. Diddy’s music seemed to matter more because it brought with it a story of a man losing a friend. Plus Diddy knew who to sell to people like me, it doesn’t matter what you say as long as you say something and it’s set to a song I already know. He then paired that with Hype Williams style and it was a match made in heaven for a dope like me. I got to listen to cool versions of songs I knew while people in shiny suits and bright colors danced around in front of explosions with a fish eye lens. What more could I ask for? So, the Week in Rock told me I should listen to Diddy, Diddy played songs I knew, and Hype took it from there. I feel like every video I saw in the mid to late 90’s was directed by Hype Williams and personally I wouldn’t want it any other way. Because of Hype I discovered Busta Rhymes, Missy Elliot, Q-tip, Nas, and Jay-Z, although it wasn’t until Jay Z retired that I truly took notice. Once again, it took a news story for me to take notice of something that a lot of people had been aware of for some time.

In 1997 MTV moved to Times Square and it really seemed like I was part of something. They went to the biggest, flashiest part of NY and had shows that felt improvised and new. In the beginning Toby was the face of the new-look network. He was British and he was pretentious and watching him made me feel smart, but when the show MTV live turned into Total Request Live everything changed. Boy bands emerged. Now there were two camps, boy bands and those who hated boy bands. I was firmly planted in the hating boy band camp and luckily my camp was full. Lesser known bands like Korn and Blink 182 now realized that if they wanted to compete they would have to dress up their image. Korn put out got the life and while they didn’t sound much different, now the lead singer, Jonathan Davis, was wearing a neon green velvet coat. Their entire video for “Got the Life” was a satire of everything that music video had become, but what did I care, there were once again bright colors and striking imagery. Blink 182 got everyone’s attention with humor, they just ran around their music video for “All the Small Things” naked. So that’s how it went for me, I was sixteen and my psyche was split into two sections, anger and humor, they both felt rebellious and novel and they both were led by MTV.  Limp Bizkit closely followed Korn which I was delighted by. Limp Bizkit was more palatable, more cartoony, more rap inspired, and their music videos were basically rip offs of the style that Hype Williams created. Fred Durst basically took everything he saw Puff Daddy do in 1997 and made it angrier and to me, at sixteen, that meant it was artistic. I thought being artistic meant you were creative and being creative meant you went against the mainstream and at that time through my MTV window, the Backstreet Boys were the mainstream and anyone who was against them was creative and for me, the angrier the better. No one ever told me about The Romantics.

When I turned 18 my horizons expanded. I went to college, I found out I was poor, and for the first time I strayed from my MTV, right into the arms of MTV2. 9/11 happened and my anger turned to depression. It was a smooth transition. My depression wasn’t clinical by any sense, it was the type of depression that can best be described as “I’m thinking and thinking makes me sad.” Thank god for Linkin Park and the birth of emo. The anger of the late 90’s gave way to the sadness of the early 2000’s and I was along for the ride. Woodstock 99 made everyone hate the angry frat boy so I joined the whiny introspective camp luckily for me Staind worked as a nice transition from Limp Bizkit to Linkin Park. Basically, I followed whoever was headlining the Family Values Tour. So despite the fact that they were popularized by the same tour I casted aside Limp Bizkit and followed the new and improved version Linkin Park. To me bands like Linkin Park and Incubus were intelli-rock. These guys were dealing with issues, not just yelling about them. From there MTV2 showed me bands like New Found Glory, Thursday, and Saves the Day. New Found Glory was just punk enough to make me think it was smart and the other two were so angst filled that I was sure it was good.

Everything came to a halt when I moved to New York in 2003. When confronted with actual taste and pretension I simply couldn’t hang. MTV was out of the music business and well on their way to the exploitation of teens, business. I no longer had guidance. I no longer had a rudder. Now, I just had people that were richer and smarter than me telling me that I had no taste. So, I turned inward, I became self actualized to an extent. I stopped the quest for what was good and began the quest for what I liked. I realized the things that were at the core of what I had liked all along, I was simple. I liked bright colors and catchy hooks. I became ok with my taste being unpopular. To some degree, I relished it. I would play New Found Glory and Good Charlotte extra loud in my apartment, just in case someone with good taste could hear. I became lame. Fortunately for me, MTV did leave me with two parting shots in 2003. Jay-Z retired and Kanye West arose. MTV covered both. Jay-Z was finally big news to the network and Kanye was an artist on the rise. To this day these two artists remain my favorite, they were the stop I got off on and for better or worse I have MTV to thank for that.

In truth I have MTV to blame for most of my personality. Without them maybe I could’ve been cool, maybe I would’ve discovered bands that make people respect me, maybe I’d have some taste. Did MTV create my bad taste or did my bad taste bring me to MTV, who knows? All I know is, I hope the next season of The Real World is awesome and I hope Hype Williams is doing well.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

A Discussion of the Women's Movement and the Top 5 Worst Women on The Real World

            Last week I wrote an article discussing the worst Real World cast members of all time. It was a list of 5 and I stand by it. The one glaring point that was made to me later was the fact that there were no women on the list. I’ve thought for a little bit as to why that is. I certainly considered putting women on the list, but the reality of the situation is perhaps more offensive than placing them on the list could ever be. I think women were left off the list because I feel sorry for them. The opinion is as condescending as it gets, but I think that’s truly why they were excluded. No matter how terrible a Real World girl was, I always hated the bully mentality of their male counterpart more. The men that I chose seemed to fight to be awful; it appeared to be a choice that they made. Conversely, the women on the show appear at least to me to be victims of their own circumstances. Perhaps years of watching The Challenge has let me peak behind the curtain a little too much. I heard too much about what goes on behind the scenes. I’ve heard too many male cast members talk about the girl’s “daddy” issues. I’ve seen too many steroid induced tirades unleashed upon hungry girls with new breast implants whose only defense is to cry and hope for the mercy and pity of their attackers. Our culture is almost certainly too hard on women in general and the Real World is no exception. I think that the problem is two fold one is the Real World rule that states that a physical altercation is automatic grounds for expulsion, but another is the women’s movement as a whole.

Even as I write that it feels terrible to say, but hear me out. The quest for equality is not simply the path to being paid 25% more. On a deeper level, it’s challenging the ruling class, it’s redefining how society sees you, and unfortunately for women it’s attempting to share power with an entity that is physically stronger and more aggressive than yourself. That is not to say that it isn’t a fight worth fighting, but it is a fight and fights by their very nature leave the challenger bruised and broken and to some extent that’s what we see on the Real World. Equality, on some level, legitimizes victimization. In a fight between person A and person B, if A is commonly accepted as superior, then any attack on B by A would be interpreted as victimization and bullying, but if A and B are equal than a fight between the two is a fight about issue where whoever is right wins. The problem is in a fight between a man and woman the man will almost always have the upper hand because he has the physical advantage, if negotiations break down he can simply decide to hurt the woman, she doesn’t have that same option. Therefore, to some extent her victimization is legitimized by her own struggle for equality. To some degree it is the women’ struggle for equality that makes the despicable action of yelling at a woman justifiable. Either that or the men on the show are cowards.

Many of the fights that occur on the show between the sexes are the result of a women fighting for something and the male seeing that as an opportunity to cast aside any semblance chivalry and merely attack a weaker opponent. I’m always amazed at the fact that when a man is yelling at a woman on the Real World you almost never see another man rush to her defense. I’m always screaming at my television wishing that someone would put the bully in his place, but to the contrary the male cast members almost without exception choose to stay above the fray when it comes to fights that do not directly involve them. That leaves only the fellow female cast members to come to the defense of the woman in the argument. In addition to the women’s movement, the other factor that cannot be ignored is the Real World’s embargo against physical altercations.
Physical fighting is not always a bad thing. At its best it can level the playing field. It keeps people from saying things they shouldn’t. It lets people know where they stand. It can teach lessons and keep people in check. For me personally, getting into fights as humbled me and made me less brash, but on the Real World being humble and less brash are two characteristics that will lead to you getting less screen time. That may be the exact reason why the rule is there in the first place. The drama that is created by people simply knowing that they can’t be hit in the mouth for what they say has led to some of the greatest moments on the show. Who would say anything to CT if he knew he could just hit you and go on about on his merry way? Maybe people would tease Dunbar less if he were allowed to commit the atrocities that must be constantly running through his mind. That rule could be to blame for so many women getting screamed at over the many seasons of the Real World. If no one can get hit and the only thing that would usually stop a guy from yelling at a girl is the threat of him getting punched then removing that threat might give him free rein to be as monstrous as he wants to be. In any case it is the consistent victimization of the women on the show that was probably the driving force behind their exemption from the list of worst cast members, but alas their day is over because now it is time to countdown the top 5 worst female cast members of all time.

Coming in at number 5, a big name, Irene from Seattle. Irene was immortalized in Real World lore due to the parting shots that she made to fellow cast member Stephen. She asked to speak to Stephen alone and in that final moment she told Stephen that he was a homosexual. Following that interaction, Stephen brandished the stuffed animal that he had stolen from Irene, threw said stuffed animal in the water beneath their home on Pier 70, and capped the entire interaction by stopping her car and slapping her in the face. Honestly, this move almost exempted her from this list and added Stephen to the previous list. Stephen was an idiot and has since come out of the closet, but on a week to week basis Irene was not fun to watch. Over the course of the season Irene’s biggest obstacle was the fact that she had Lyme disease. In interviews following her appearance on the show she claimed that it was MTV’s manipulation and not her disease that led to her erratic behavior. Irene was bothersome on a couple different levels. She tried to come in between Nathan and his girlfriend. She attempted to talk fellow cast member Janet to leave the show. She complained more than any of her house mates and she would go on long rants about whatever would come to her mind. She was by far the most manipulative of all of the cast members and in a wonderful act of irony has done more complaining about MTV’s manipulation of her than maybe any cast member in the history of the show. Irene was a dazzling mix intelligent for her age, but stupid for a person. Her intelligence brought with it an arrogance and penchant for malevolence that never seemed justified. In general I didn’t like the fact that she agreed to go on the show well into the show’s run and then was deeply offended in the way the show was run. I feel like she should’ve known what she was getting into.

Coming in at number 4, a personal favorite of mine, Brooke from Denver. Brooke was a special kind of crazy. On the surface she was a perfect southern belle, but beneath her beautiful visage laid a troubled girl on the edge. Her most shining moment came when she went to get her nails done. She took to the streets of Denver on her own looking for the nail salon. After her odyssey took her through what she described as the ghetto she returned home frazzled and weary. She shared news of her ghetto exploits which were not taken well by her black roommate Tyrie, she then exploded, called her mother, and complained that she was in Hell. I’ve always enjoyed Real World cast members lost on their own because simple logic dictates that if we are able to see her, she wasn’t alone. She had to have been flanked by at least one camera man, a sound guy, probably a PA, and a story producer all of which probably had a van waiting for them around the corner. She couldn’t have been a likely target for any sort of crime. I just love that while we are watching someone go through the great turmoil of being lost there is a team of people that know exactly where they are and where everything is and the only thing they do to help is stop themselves from giggling (probably), but I digress. Brooke was a prissy and whiny as anyone who’s ever been on the show and her outbursts were numerous and loud. Her face would concoct in mysterious and delightful ways. She’s on the list, but her mania was truly the highlight of an already great season

Coming in at number 3, we go from my favorite on the list to my least favorite, Montana from Boston. Montana was awful. She was the hipster archetype before such a thing existed. She had all of the irritating foibles of Summer from 500 days of Summer only she didn’t look like Zooey Deschanel. I know how shallow that statement is, but let’s face it, awful behavior is more palatable coming from an attractive person. Montana was pretentious and judgmental. She had a long term, live in boyfriend in New York however that did not prevent her from straying. She carried with her a sense of entitlement, but that sense brought with it no accomplishments. She once complained that she tired of living with 18 year olds. It’s important to note that she was confiding this fact to her 18 year old roommate Elka. She was nearly removed from the show when she allowed the children whom she was responsible for to drink wine. Basically, she was wanted the world around her to be mature and sophisticated, but she was neither of these things.

Coming in at number 2, Kimberly from Hollywood. Kimberly was the second coming of Brooke. She too was a southern belle with all sorts of entitlement and she too had a slight penchant for the word ghetto. When in an argument with her roommate Brianne she requested that she “not get ghetto with her.” Her big goal was to be an entertainment reporter for E News, but aside from attending one audition which MTV set up for her she made no attempt to make that dream a reality. She had possibly the strongest accent that the show has ever seen and made no attempt to lose the dialect. She was the epitome of every person with big dreams and no action. In addition to that she was basically drunk most of the time, she was rude to her roommates, and generally had an air of superiority, but unlike Brooke, she wasn’t really fun to watch.

Coming in at number 1, the grand mother of them all, Beth S. from Los Angeles. Beth was the model by which all irritating women on the show would be judged. We saw her first in the show’s second season, but we got to know her even more in later years on the challenge. Beth has never been popular. She never really yelled or did any action that was overtly extreme. Her biggest foible was basically falsely accusing someone of rape. Dave the comedian from LA was kicked off the show after an incident with current Basketball Wife, Tammy. What started off as a playful interaction turned ugly when David pulled the covers off of underwear clad Tammy. It was Beth who fanned the flames and eventually led the charge for kicking David off the show, comparing what he did to rape. Beth was always in everyone’s business, seemed to relish controversy, and was generally annoying, which is probably her biggest quirk. Erratic behavior can be forgiven, but being annoying is unforgivable and that’s what Beth was until the end.

So there you have it. That’s my list. Please don’t be mad.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Top 5 Worst Real World Cast Members

“The Real World” is just something I can’t get away from. I’m 28 years old I should be moving on. I should have a wife and kids and own a home, but instead I sit in my home for an hour a week and watch seven strangers picked to live in house and find out what happens when people stop being nice and start getting real. “The Real World” isn’t the reason for my arrested development, but rather a reflection of it. I personally believe that a person can be intelligent and functioning and still like terrible reality television. This may be more self serving than I’d like to admit. I think that railing against reality shows like “The Real World” doesn’t make you more intelligent. I believe that in a free market, competitive culture where someone else’s laziness and stupidity can only result in your gain, the truly intelligent people accept the culture around them, keep their mouths shut, their heads down, and quietly go to work. I’d like to think I’m one of the intelligent ones, but I’ve never kept my mouth shut and unfortunately, by my definition, that takes me out of the running.
With all of that in mind, let’s talk real world. The latest season of “The Real World” premiered last week. The newest installment is based in San Diego for the second time in the show’s history. I find it a little weird that the show has been on for so long that it is now batting around San Diego is up. They’ve revisited cities before, New Orleans, New York (3 times actually, New York twice & Brooklyn once), Las Vegas, and LA (it was called Hollywood the second time). Personally, I think that they should keep trying new cities, but I guess we’ll all just have to wait with baited breath for “Real World: St. Louis: The Reckoning.” Anyway, this newest installment has most of the usual suspects, good looking people eager for the fray too young to understand that what they think is neither important nor will matter to them in 3 years. There was however a stand out character. On the show you can be a stand out for good reasons; see Isaac (Sydney) and Leroy (Las Vegas 2) or you can be a stand out because you are over the top despicable; see Ryan (New Orleans 2) and the Real World hall of famer, Puck (San Francisco). This season’s standout is the bad kind and his name is Frank.
I haven’t had this kind of guttural reaction to a character since Tuco in the first season of Breaking Bad, seriously, how did we all keep watching that show after that guy chewed up all the scenery? Frank’s true genius as a despicable character is truly his versatility. He is many terrible things at one time. He is starved for attention, wearing a yellow bandana and Hawaiian shirt for his first encounter with his roommates, a move that truly says “look at me, look at me, please god, everybody stop what you’re doing and acknowledge the unconventional manner in which I present myself!” He is sexually confused, which wouldn’t be an issue if he would simply deal with it internally like a normal person. When one is confused or undecided on an important issue it is probably in bad form to loudly proclaim and celebrate your confusion while at the same time have an extremely heightened sensitivity about the situation. He is also trying to get into a relationship with the one person in the house who is already in a relationship and he is doing so in a manner that in neither subtle nor logical. He suggested that the object of his affection, Alexandra, and her boyfriend didn’t seem to be right for each other and he ascertained this knowledge after a day of knowing her and no time knowing the boyfriend. He’s the worst and that’s why he is both the inspiration and the beginning of the following list: the 5 worst Real World cast members of all time. Frank is number 5.
Coming in at number 4, Ryan from New Orleans 2. Ryan was truly amazing. While most awful cast members are content to be attention grabbing over dramatic narcissists, Ryan brought a certain flair and creativity to his role as worst cast member. Ryan was a straight hair dresser who enjoyed cuddling with the house’s lone gay cast member, the Rajon Rondo look-alike Preston. He had a fetish for playing with ears and blow drying himself while contemplating the complexities of life. At a glance he would have been the gayest man in the house, but he paired his quirks and behavior with a penchant for homophobic behavior and gay slurs. He would intentionally terrorize the house mates, hiding the lone car that they all shared, and at the same time complain that nobody liked him. He even attempted to blame a roommate’s stolen xanax on the season’s most popular character, Knight. Knight had recently dealt with an addiction to prescription medication so that added a special wrinkle to the move. Ryan was eventually kicked out because the other roommates flat out didn’t like him. Usually, removal from the house comes with an inciting incident, but only the truly horrible are asked to leave simply because they suck.
Coming in at number 3, Adam from Las Vegas 2. Adam had the blind confidence of a successful NFL running back. Unfortunately for Adam, he was in his mid-twenties unemployed and living with his parents in Maine. His biggest source of pride was going to a juvenile detention center for selling drugs and being able to make multiple women his girlfriend. He also used to the term “make her my girlfriend.” He would intentionally get blackout drunk and be a general nuisance. It was that behavior that eventually led to his dismissal. He was as calculating as nearly any cast member in how he wanted to be portrayed on the show, but for some inexplicable reason he chose to portray himself as an asshole. He was also predictably kicked off his first challenge after only one night. Adam proves that it ain’t easy being a gangster…from Maine…on a reality TV show…who lives with his parents.
Coming in at number 2, Neil from London. Neil personifies why people don’t like Europeans. He was condescending, pretentious, and very, very British. He fronted a punk band called Unilever and had bleach blond hair. Basically, he was a mid 90’s homeless man’s Johnny Rotten. He talked down to all of the other cast members until during an unfortunate incident someone in the audience of a Unilever show bit off a portion of his tongue. Then he didn’t say much at all. The incident was an instant Real World classic as told by Neil, there was a man in the front row screaming incessantly at the band so Neil of course did the logical thing and went in for a kiss at which point the man “turned psychotic and bit my tongue off.” It’s a rare instant when someone’s irritating personal attributes actually result in them experiencing pain, but luckily for the Real World audience that was the case this time and we all were able to bare witness.
Finally, the king of the a-holes, coming in at number 1, Puck from San Francisco. Puck was the first made for TV douche. He was a real trail blazer he practically invented the concept of being a villain on reality television. Since its inception reality TV has always had irritating people, but before Puck no one had attempted to be irritating. He set himself apart. Puck didn’t have to try hard to be awful. He was already a bike messenger in San Francisco with a DUI whose main interest appeared to be soapbox racing. That’s right he was a grown man who spent his spare time participating in a past time made famous by the little rascals and this was something he took great pride in. In addition to those wonderful attributes, Puck was filthy, he would rarely shower, openly pick his nose, pick scabs, and he would mention how bad he smelled. Puck was in the house with openly gay and HIV positive Pedro Zamora, they did not get along. Pedro’s need to keep himself healthy due to his struggling immune system was put to the test by living with Puck. A situation that came to a head when it was discovered that Puck had eaten Pedro’s peanut butter by sticking his freshly nose picked finger into the actual peanut butter jar, a scene that was certainly the most entertaining scene ever that revolved around peanut butter. Puck basically made it his business to bother everyone in the house and like Ryan from New Orleans, he was asked to leave based more on an accumulation of being awful than one inciting incident. The straw that broke the camel’s back was when Pedro gave an ultimatum; either he or Puck would have to leave the house. Puck was voted out and sent to where all reality TV villains end up, obscurity.
So, that’s it. That’s my list. There was certainly a couple that I wish I could’ve added. I have to say that honorable mention goes to Chet from Brooklyn, Brooke from Denver, Kimberly from Hollywood, David (ski-dob-u-dee-dob-u-dee) from New Orleans, and Wes from Austin who is only lacking from this list because he was not really terrible when he was on the Real World, but has since morphed into reality TV’s equivalent of the Dark Phoenix. I hope everyone enjoyed the list and let me know what you think.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

I Hate the Red Sox, Please Help

I am a Yankees fan. I have been a Yankees fan since my father first traumatized me into it. I read somewhere that baseball teams are inherited and for me that was certainly the case. I was born in Florida, but that had no impact on which baseball team was supposed to be my favorite. My dad is from New York and he's been a Yankees fan ever since the Dodgers left Brooklyn. There was no way that his only son was going to support any team but his. Later in life I've gotten a lot of crap about being a Yankees fan. The first and most prominent reason was that since 1996 it makes you seem like a front runner, you're hopping on the band wagon, supporting an already successful team. Anyone who thinks that should go ahead and take a look at some footage of Yankee Stadium in the 80's and early 90's, it was a little sparse. All of the other reasons are just spin-offs of the first. I've gotten a lot of crap for not liking either of the two Florida teams. First of all the Marlins weren't added to MLB until 1993. Having been born in 1983, I already had 10 years of Yankee fandom under my belt at that time. In addition to that, the Marlins were in Miami, a full 5 hours from my home town. Second of all the Devil Rays didn't exist until 1998 so now we're up to 15 years of being a Yankees fan and we are now smack dab in the middle of the Yankees' dynasty. What kind of sociopath, half-assed fan would I be to change teams at that point? But I digress.
As a Yankee fan I was taught first and foremost to have dignity and class. Now, I know that there are a lot of Yankee haters that will point to battery throwing, bleachers being denied beer, and general taunting as proof that this class is certainly not how the Yankees conduct themselves. All I will say is that, that's what I was taught. Basically, since '96 it's been WWJD, what would Jeter do? I don't think anyone would deny he's a man with some class and dignity. Keeping that in mind, the party line was basically that we are Yankee supporters not Red Sox detractors. The concept is more or less refined arrogance. We don't hate the Red Sox, how could we? We don't think about the Red Sox, they think about us, and you can basically extrapolate that theory for every other team in the league. I was never taught to hate another team. We were Yankees, we were the best, and no other team mattered.
Unfortunately, in recent years I have given in to my own weakness. In recent years I have truly begun to hate the Red Sox. There were a lot of factors in this transformation. One, I moved to Park Slope, Brooklyn. For anyone who has never been to Park Slope, it has basically become a suburb of Boston. On any given block you are far more likely to see a Boston B, than my beloved NY. One time I was actually taunted for wearing my Yankees hat in a Park Slope bar by a guy wearing a Red Sox hat. I'm not sure if I can truly put in to words how frustrating it is to move into the city of your favorite team and still feel like you're rooting for the visiting team, but that's what I went through. Second, 2004 happened. No single sports moment had more cataclysmic consequences in my lifetime than 2004. I was never raised with any religion, the only thing that I truly believed was that God was a Yankees fan and he would never let us lose to the Red Sox. When 2004 happened my team didn't just lose, my entire belief system was shaken to the core. Finally, the Red Sox and their fans have changed. Prior to 2004 Red Sox fans were fun, they were self deprecating and funny, they hated the Yankees, but with a smile. After 2004 that changed. To be fair I'm probably not dealing with the same fans. That Red Sox acquired a whole new class of fans in '04, I've heard them referred to as "Pink Haters" which denotes the fact that prior to 2004 they didn't even make pink Red Sox hats and that's probably who I've been talking to. In either case the reality of the situation now is the majority of Red Sox fans I deal with now are cocky and entitled. The dynamic has changed. In addition to that the team has changed. In 2004 they actually had guys that I would be happy to have on the Yankees, Damon, Manny, and Ortiz. These were guys that you rooted against, but couldn't help but like. Unfortunately, Ortiz remains, but Damon and Manny have been replaced by Pedroia and Youkilis. I hate these guys, it's unhealthy and unfair, but I truly despise them. I hate the look of them, I hate Youkilis' batting stance, I hate that Pedroia jumps before every pitch, I hate their hair cuts, I hate their facial hair, I hate that they're respected, and I hate that they're names are even spoken in the same breath as their Yankees counterparts.
Again, none of this is justified, I'm wrong to feel this way, but I can't help it. This is what I've been driven to. To take a page out of Usher's book, this is my confession. I need help. I need Joe Buck and Tim McCarver to shut up. I need people who don't know who the Red Sox manager before Francona to stop talking to me. I need the Yankees to win the World Series again. I need to get my life together. Hopefully, with the help of my family and those closest to me I can rally. Hopefully, I can regain my class and dignity. It won't be easy, change never is. It takes a village to raise a functioning sports fan. All I can say is I'm sorry and I'm working on it.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Keep the NFL Violent


            The NFL is back. I think I speak for most Americans when I say thank god. My worry however is that now that we’re back to America’s most popular sport the powers that be will now get to work trying their best to make it less fun to watch. In recent years the NFL has made slanted the field significantly in the offense’s side. When it comes to the quarterback we are in near two-hand touch territory especially if you’re the type of QB that could grace a Wheaties box. Last year the rules became more stringent once the season had already begun. Fines were handed out to players for hits that would’ve seemingly been legal only a week prior. I think this is the worst thing that could happen to the sport.
            One of my earliest memories from childhood was seeing quarterbacks with filthy jersey. That used to be a thing, the tough quarterback.  Getting beat up used to be part of the game. That’s no longer the case. Can you remember the last time you saw a quarterback with a messed up jersey. The common theme now is a big name quarterback getting touched a second to late and then pleading with the referees to call the penalty. I don’t blame the quarterbacks; it’s not their fault. You can’t blame them for trying to exploit an advantage that the league has given them.
            For some reason everyone is now concerned with the health of NFL players. I understand the concept of protecting the basic health of another human being, but when your livelihood is incumbent upon risking your health then I say you made your choice. If they were rounding up people and making them play football, then I would say lets protect those pour people from Ray Lewis, but when you are strapping on pads from the time you could walk knowing full well that every time the ball is snapped someone on the opposing team is going to try to hurt you I don’t feel sorry for you and I don’t think that they need to be protected.
            If the players union feels that work habits are unsafe then they should raise an issue. However, the players union is not bringing about these fines. The reality of the situation is that Goodell appears to be acting on his own accord. It would appear that the mid-season fines were an attempt to prove that the owners and the league actually did care about the health of its players when in fact they were attempting to endanger them further by adding two games to the length of the season. The fines and the entire issue could have been a public relations stunt to garner fan support and give the impression of concern. Who suffers? The players suffer because money is taken out of their pocket and the fans suffer because they are now privy to a lesser product. Big hits used to be a huge part of the game. When I was growing up in Tampa the entire city was enamored with John Lynch. What was the reason? He gave huge hits to receivers coming across the middle. That was the reason he was so popular. I never knew how many interceptions he had, to me he could’ve been completely mediocre in every other way, but his hits were memorable. His hits made him popular. Now, those hits would get him a fine.
            What is a more lasting impression? Would you rather see Tom Brady pleading for a penalty or Ndamukong Suh trying to rip a QB’s head off? If I want to see whining and flopping I can just watch soccer. We watch football because it’s violent we watch it because it’s brutal. If the league is going to remain successful it needs to maintain that aspect of its appeal. Why should the health of NFL players be a concern at all? There doesn’t seem to be much of a public outcry for the health concerns of coal miners or ice fisherman, why? The reason is they understand the risks of the job and they accept them. The same is true for the players of the NFL. The only difference seems to be that a large portion of the players in the NFL are millionaires. To me those millions should buy the consumers of that product a little entertainment.
            Basically, lets all stop pretending that we care about NFL players. Sports journalists pretend to care because it gives balance to all of the terrible things that they say about the players.  Football players understand the risks and they accept them.  If you want to protect someone, protect workers rights in non spectator occupations, protect high school football players, protect college players, protect any number of people that aren’t millionaire union members with pensions. Spectators like football because it’s violent, players like football because it’s violent, let’s keep the sport violent and the hypocrisy to a minimum.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

The Acoustic Guitar: More Harm Than Good?


The acoustic guitar has long since been the tool of the artist. While the cool kids were using electric to expand their sound the artists of the world had no need for such frills. They preferred their simple instrument; they choose the natural sound that can only be created by strings, wood, and the traveling of sound between the two. Let the superficial jokers have their amplified sound. All they need was six strings and soul. Well in my opinion that’s ridiculous. I’m not here to say that the acoustic guitar has no place in music. There are many songs that I can site that are excellent examples of songs that I enjoy. However, I would say that the deck is stacked powerfully against the guitar. For every Nirvana: Unplugged there are thousands of chubby frat boys singing Dave Matthews covers in your local bar. For that reason I would submit that we as a society should consider removing the acoustic guitar from our lexicon or at the very least reduce it to accordion status.
I’m sure that the first person to write a song with the use of an acoustic guitar was quite sincere and possibly could be considered an artist. The problem is now because of those pioneers we now have to suffer throngs of trite fools that now have a short hand to appearing deep. If you have access and the ability to play an acoustic guitar you can now be considered emotional and passionate. That’s not fair you shouldn’t be able to buy your emotional status on craigslist. Whenever a band wishes to show there softer side they need only to play the exact same songs on a differently amplified instrument and instantly the song takes on a new connotation and feel. This is completely superficial. This is the antithesis of art. We are all victims of a Pavlovian response most likely created in adolescence. In the case of my generation it was probably “Good Riddance” by Green Day or perhaps it was earlier and that’s actually a terrible song. We may never know. German might be a beautiful language, but we’ve all seen too many documentaries with Hitler shouting so now no many how many lovely Dirk Nowitzki-type Germans come our way the language will always just sound Nazi-esque. I believe that a similar phenomenon is taking place here. Artists played acoustic guitars ergo acoustic guitars create art.
Personally, I feel that an electric guitar is simply the next logical step. It’s not an alternative it’s a progression. Submarines are now powered by nuclear energy, we fly airplanes with jet propulsion, TV’s are HD, and guitars should be amplified with the use of electricity. It is my belief that acoustic songs sound better when played on electric guitars, but almost never vice versa. For example, it is almost indisputable that “All Along the Watchtower” was much more enjoyable when performed by Jimmy Hendrix. On the other hand try listening to the acoustic version of “A.D.I.D.A.S.” by Korn. It’s an abomination. Even the greatest acoustic album of all time in my opinion, Nirvana: Unplugged, used some electric guitar. I feel that if even at its highest level a medium needs help from another, it becomes lesser. Black Sabbath didn’t need an acoustic guitar.
I know that most people will dismiss this argument as silly and to a certain extent it is. There is room for the acoustic guitar in the lexicon of music, but imagine for a minute the world that we would live in sans the acoustic guitar. No longer would you have to speak louder in a local pub because some tri-delt is really belting out “Screaming Infidelities.” No longer would your kegger be interrupted and brought to a screeching halt because the local stoner knows a couple Jack Johnson cords. Metal bands wouldn’t get that extra soft hit that infiltrates your mind for an entire day. We can stop paying attention to Bob Dylan. That’s the world that I want to live in. Join me; together we can make the world a better place.

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Superhero Movie Villains


Superhero movies. They’re big business. We will probably never again experience a summer without one. It doesn’t seem to matter how many come out or how many times they remake the same one the public still calls for more. The appeal is so great that the powers that be will remake a movie involving the same character within a five-year span. “The Hulk” came out in 2003 and then they redid it in 2008 with “The Incredible Hulk.” The extra word made all of the difference. Spiderman is being remade and will be out next summer and for those keeping score “Spiderman 3” was in 2007.  Superman is being remade once again after “Superman Returns” didn’t work out the way everyone had hoped. I say all this not to judge. I will go see all of these movies no matter how many times they get remade and I’ve never read one comic in my life.
However, one point did occur to me recently. The further down this rabbit hole we go the less the casual fan is going to be able to enjoy the movies. My reason for believing this is that comics are primarily for children and are not always of the highest caliber. Therefore if you’re like me and have no attachment to the base material and are there just to see cool characters dress in cool outfits and do cool stuff that most people don’t do, at least not while wearing a cape if the characters are stupid we’re not going to enjoy it. I came to this realization while watching “Captain America.” I was watching Hugo Weaving do the typical Nazi villain for the better part of an hour and then all of a sudden he pulled his face off and revealed a red skull face. Wow. Now I understand that this isn’t the fault of Weaving or the filmmakers, they were just doing what someone else had drawn. If they would've drawn outside the lines, as it were, they would’ve probably pissed off the very fan base that lines their pockets. Unfortunately, for me, I never read Captain America so the nostalgia was lost on me and I was left watching a Nazi caricature with a red head. I believe the “The Green Lantern” suffered the same fate. When I first heard they were making a superhero movie starring Ryan Reynolds I was ecstatic, then I saw the trailer. Needless to say I was less than ecstatic. It looked like a cartoon; it involved aliens and space travel, two things that will almost assure me not seeing your movie. Before I judged I checked with a comic book nerd and he assured me that that was what the comic was like and contrary to me he was excited about the film because of the trailer. There’s the divide. The comic readers are desperate to protect the integrity of their treasured base material and the non-comic readers, the people that just want to see action movies with bright costumes.
In the last decade I don’t think that anyone could debate that Batman is doing it best. They seem to be appeasing the nerds while at the same time basically making a crime driven action movie with costumes that anyone could enjoy. “The Dark Knight” was one of the highest grossing movies of all time and my guess is the villain. Heath Ledger’s joker was not just one of the best comic book villains, but he was probably one of the best flat out movie villains of all time. My question is why can’t all comic book movies follow suit? To be fair not all comic books have gritty reboots written by Frank Miller, which is exactly what the most recent incarnation of Batman is based on. That is how the new Batman is able to appease everyone, they’re following comic books, but the ones they are following were written more recently by one of the most widely respected authors in the graphic novel industry with a lean towards darkness and realism. I understand that there is only so much that a filmmaker can do, but the villain is an area that I think we, as a fan base should be able to find some common ground.
Why, so often are comic book movie villains one-dimensional caricatures? Is it because they have to be the polar opposite of the unwavering goodness of our protagonist? Is it because of the need for a PG-13 rating? Would it be so bad for the villain to be funny? Why can’t they be evil and entertaining? In the past decade we’ve seen some of the best actors in the industry completely handicapped by this need for a one-dimensional character. Willem Defoe, Kevin Spacey, and Collin Farrell have all fell victim to creating stupid characters and I’m not sure that it’s their fault. I feel like they all did the best with what they were given, but their characters were stupid and they probably played them like they were drawn. The best were probably the aforementioned Heath Ledger, Jack Nicholson (The Joker), Alfred Molina (Dr. Octopus), and this is going back a little but Gene Hackman (Lex Luthor). These guys created great characters that didn’t need the costumes to be interesting, with the exception of Molina, they all got laughs. They were not caricatures they were characters. That’s what they should all be striving for. Maybe I wouldn’t have minded Hugo Weaving’s red face if his character wasn’t so unwaveringly evil. Ron Pearlman has proven that red face paint doesn’t stop you from creating a fun character and Christoph Waltz proved that a Nazi could be fun to watch even funny at times.
This is in no way an indictment of the comic book movie industry or even of villain-playing actors. It's just something to think about. These movies can be better. Maybe if we were more focused on making compelling stories with compelling characters rather than staying true to something that most people have only a vague knowledge of then the movies would be better. This is going to have to be a team effort. Chris Nolan can’t do it all.

Friday, July 29, 2011

MLB Goon


Baseball is America's Pastime. That's the claim. That's the phrase that they invented long ago. It's also the phrase that baseball fans cling to in times of need. Since baseball hasn't been America's favorite sport in years. Fantasy football, gambling, and football's appeal to the most primitive of our human instincts, violence, has long since made football our country's favorite sport. Baseball is falling short. The sport is losing ground. It's time to change. With that in mind, one of the things that bothers me most about baseball is the DH. It is ridiculous that we have a major American sport where different divisions have different rules. The American league having a DH is tantamount to the Western Conference having a five-point line. It gives American League teams one talented hitter and makes life tough on American League pitchers. In the National League the hitter gets one guy in the line up who should be an easy out, the pitcher, no such luck for their American League counterparts. Now for the rest of our lives we'll get to hear sure he's good in the National League.
My favorite team is the Yankees and while I should be happy about the DH, I am not. For years I have watched the Yankees best players get beaned with little to no repercussions. In my opinion to quote the Dude, "This aggression will not stand." While American League pitchers take a beating due to difficulty they get their revenge by beaning hitters. Of course this is probably not a direct correlation, but it is a reality. Sure an American League pitcher has to face a strong hitter instead of a pitcher, but he also has the opportunity to throw at the guy without fear of retaliation. To me that’s MLB sponsored cowardice. If a pitcher gets knocked around and gets his feelings hurt he is well within his rights to throw at a batter, but he never has to get in the batter’s box himself. It becomes the team’s problem.
For example let’s say A.J. Burnett loses his stuff and gets taken for four hits and three runs in an inning against the Red Sox. He can then throw at David Ortiz to blow off steam and to show the Red Sox that he demands respect. Ortiz would most likely not be happy about it, but he would grudgingly take his base. In the next half of the inning, odds are that either Jeter or Arod would get beaned in retaliation. Neither of them had anything to do with the original aggression, but now they have been roped into this battle and all because A.J. thought he was being disrespected. Now Jeter wants revenge, so the next inning Pedroia gets beaned, at this point the benches are probably warned or the pitcher is thrown out or there is an out right brawl one the A.J. could choose not to take part in. In fact he would be encouraged by his coach not to take part in the fight so as not to cause undue injury. Catchers are taught from Little League on that it is their responsibility to protect the pitcher. So to follow the example, now Russell Martin has to stop a charging Dustin Pedroia and again, all because A.J. got his feelings hurt.
Of course the proceeding set of circumstances is overly specific and a special case at best. Most times when someone gets hit, the batter rolls his eyes and takes his base, but when such a circumstance occurs it infuriates me because it strikes me as cowardly. Why should the pitcher get to throw at someone without the fear of retribution? I don’t mind violence. In fact, I think that violence has a way of keeping people in line. Almost every father since the dawn of time has threatened the life of the boy taking out his daughter. Why? To keep him in line, that's why. Violence is not always a bad thing. It has the ability to keep loud mouths quiet and to right wrongs. I believe that violence could be the answer to this problem.
My solution is two pronged. One get rid of the DH, it makes games last longer and it gives the American league an unfair advantage. Now, when a pitcher throws at someone he can look forward to stepping into the box himself to face a fastball in the back. Two, introduce the idea of the MLB goon.
Hockey has been doing this forever. Hockey is a violent sport and to insure that a game doesn’t just become a street fight on ice. Hockey has put in place stringent rules that prohibit other players from joining in on a fight. These rules assure that a fight is one on one. Two men settling a dispute, it’s almost gentlemanly. In an effort to protect its best scorers all hockey teams have a goon. He is a guy that is there specifically to protect its best player. If you want to take a cheap shot at the leading scorer on a team, said team’s goon will fight you. Tit for tat, it sounds crazy, but it keeps the peace. Well, except for the fight, but we all love that, don’t we? If you have a problem with the barbaric nature of this practice, remember that these are grown men playing with sticks, hitting a puck into goal while wearing matching brightly colored uniforms in order to score more points than the other team. This is a billion dollar industry and we all love it. What I’m saying is if you’re going to have a problem with violence in sports just think about the ridiculous nature of the practice in general, let’s keep this in perspective.
My suggestion is to use the goon in MLB. With the goon, if a pitcher wants to throw at someone he would then run the risk of facing the other team’s goon. Some guy kept on the roster for the simple task of beating up the pitcher and possibly pinch running. It would basically eradicate all of the posturing and yelling and back and forth that goes on when someone gets hit. It would be great; it could be like in “Mr. Baseball.” If the pitcher apologizes and tips his hat then no harm no foul. If the goon charges him at that point he would suffer severe suspensions and fines, but if a pitcher thinks he’s tough and just wants to throw at someone to assert dominance, then the goon will charge him and a two man fight will ensue and hey if the pitcher is tough then the goon might have to swallow his pride or get beat up. There’s a reason we all love the Robin Ventura, Nolan Ryan fight.
Now, obviously eliminating the DH would work without the goon. They are two ideas that don’t necessarily run in conjunction with the other. It’s controversial and most likely stupid, but you have to think outside the box if you want to compete with football.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

24 Hour News Networks


It is a commonly held belief that being well informed is an essential aspect of being an intelligent person. How could you have an opinion or make a decision about the world unless you know about the world around you? Most people would consider themselves well informed if they watched the news on a daily basis. Ever since CNN became the best way to watch a war in real time in the early nineties watching the news meant turning to one of our 24 hour news sources. There are three main news channels Fox News, the right wing entry into the fray, MSNBC, Fox News' transgender, vegan, liberal counterpart, and finally the crown jewel in the 24 hour news channel collection, the grand daddy of them all, CNN. Each of the channels offers its own specific spin on news, but unfortunately it is my belief that the last thing that these networks provide is information.

When CNN began the 24-hour format they unknowingly bit off a little more than they could chew. Prior to that, the news was in the morning, the afternoon, and the evening. Even with that limited programming we were still seeing gripping footage of a squirrel water skiing. At the most there was 8 hours of news programming in the average day. CNN increased that total three times over. They decided to create the 24-hour format to fill a void. No longer would a person with a thirst for knowledge have to wait until 6pm to find out what's going on, they could simply click on over to CNN and in an instant they would have their fill of the goings on in the world. It seems that the thing that CNN overlooked was that there simply wasn't 24 hours worth of news to report. This flaw was hidden by the fact that there was a war going on in the early days of CNN. That war was not a long trek through sadness with no end in sight like our current predicament. The first Iraq war had everything that a news channel could ask for. It was swift, it was just, it was patriotic, it had a great villain, and it even had a cool name. It had two in fact. When Desert Shield was deemed not badass enough they upped the ante and changed it to Desert Storm. Who wouldn't watch that? Once the war was over CNN had to go to work to fill the void left by the interesting war. That's where the problem lies.

People treat the 24-hour news networks as if they are some sort of altruistic entity that exists simply to keep the public well informed. However, the economic model that keeps MTV in business is the same model that keeps the news networks in business. They are supported by cable subscriptions and advertising dollars. The revenue that is generated by advertising is dependent upon the amount of ratings that the network receives. Simply, the more people watch, the more money that the network makes. With that knowledge how could you possibly trust anything that is said by these networks? The original thought was a good one, but that's true of most television networks. Does anyone remember The Learning Channel, TLC, the same network that brought you Cake Boss and Little People, Big World? The only thing that is being learned from TLC is that stupid programming is way more popular. If you're not in the mood to watch little people struggle in a world that they never asked for, you could switch over to the History Channel and watch Ax Men. I'll never forget when I first read about lumberjacks currently living in America in my 8th grade history books. GE owns both networks. The same company that decided that a lumberjack show was a good idea for a channel dedicated to history is the same company that hired Keith Olberman to comment in the day's news stories. I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to get my news from a company with such lose programming ethics.

The reality of the situation is that they need to fill content just like any other network. The most sensational stories are of course going to be the ones that are shown. That's why you'll find so many intelligent people proclaiming that the end of the world is near and that soon our money will be worth nothing and the liberal pussies or the conservative bigots are ruining our once great nation. These people aren't stupid they've just fallen victim to the bullshit that is being spewed by our news resources. The networks are creating stories and there's is not a medium that attracts storytellers. So even if you are watching the networks for entertainment you're getting a sub par product. 

Solution? I don't really have one, unfortunately. I'm just another malcontent unhappy with what the world is providing. My best attempt at a solution would be to first and foremost ignore the news networks. I feel like it's better to know nothing about a topic rather that to know bullshit about a topic. That way if the issue smacks me in the face at least I can approach it with a clear mind. Secondly, worry about yourself. How terrible is your world going to be if you make your best attempt to improve the world in some way on a daily basis. At the very least you'll have a smug feeling of satisfaction. I feel that that is preferable to a foreboding sense of doom. I learned very early on in my life that while smugness is not an appealing quality it is better than doom. Finally, understand that everything is cyclical. Even the Vikings must have used the phrase "kids these days." It was probably said in some unintelligible savage language in between gulps of alcohol prior to a good pillage, but it must have been said. Things will probably continue more or less the same for your entire life. The economy will be good, the economy will be bad, but things will probably even out. Worst-case scenario is that America falls and even that would be at least a little cool. Maybe someday you'll be in a history book, maybe you'll even be important enough for a television show to be made about you, and hopefully if that time comes you won't be replaced by a show about little people lumber jacks.

Long story short, watch whatever the hell you want, I suggest Jersey Shore and Mad Men.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Derek Jeter: Coolest Person Ever?

Last week Derek Jeter became the 28th major league baseball player and the first Yankee of all time to get 3,000 hits. It was an amazing day and just another amazing moment in the long storied career of Derek Jeter. Jeter handled the situation with grace and humility. He was able to inject humor and in a rare circumstance he actually showed a little emotion.The question that I would like to ask is, is Derek Jeter the coolest person of all time.

First, we need to define coolness. The act of someone being cool is somewhat indefinable. Confidence is certainly an essential quality. You have to want to hang out with someone who is cool.  He has to be good with the ladies. We all know it when we see it. So lets discuss.

Let's now consider a list of the coolest people of all time just to see what we're dealing with. This is the list as I see it in no particular order. Frank Sinatra, Keith Richards, Snoop Dogg, Humphrey Bogart, Jack Nicholson, and of course Derek Jeter.

Frank Sinatra is kind of the archetype for cool. He's known for constantly having fun, strolling around collecting vices without any real repercussions. He gambled, he womanized, he drank and smoked. All the while he continued to be considered one of the great performers of his time. He and his friends were the coolest guys around and he was in charge. They made music, movies, and a lifestyle. Frank Sinatra belongs on the list.

Keith Richards basically invented what it means to be a modern day rockstar. He did this in conjunction with Mic Jagger, but Jagger's dancing alone takes him out of the running. Richards has somehow managed to stay functionally messed up for as long as we known him yet he is responsible for writing probably the coolest music that we have. The Beatles were innovators, the Beatles were artists, the Stones were rockstars and Richards was the guy at the helm.

I hate to create a negative trend, but up next is Snoop Dogg. I hate to put two guys right after one another that are basically drug addicts, but the reality of the situation is a lot of the rules we learn in high school are the rules that remain firm as we become adults. With that said drugs are cool. As adults we are able to differentiate between junkies and social users. People don't want to hang out with burnouts, but you also wouldn't want to have a party without some beers. Social users are always the coolest people. Nobody wants to be the out of control guy at the party, but everybody would like to be able to handle themselves with a buzz. Snoop Dogg is able to do just that he's been stoned since at least 1994 and I suspect longer than that. Snoop is a gangster rapper, but it appears that no segment of society is off limits to him. He's been on "The L Word," "One Life To Live," "Old School," and been the star of his own reality show and he has never stopped smoking weed or being who he is. It's that consistency that makes him cool.

Humphrey Bogart might be the original cool actor. In "Casablanca" he was the picture of cool. Quiet, sullen, drink in his hand, but at the same time he could melt Ingrid Bergman's heart. Not only could he melt her heart, he was able to let her go. Think of what he was going through in that movie, he could lose his business, lose his freedom, lose his love, and lose his life and all the time his expression barely changes. This doesn't happen in a Keanu Reeves constantly confused by life same face, but rather we, the audience are able to accept that he truly is not phased by what is going on. If that isn't cool, I don't know what is.

Up next Jack Nicholson. Jack is slowly turning into Jabba the Hut wearing sunglasses, but that hasn't stopped him from being worshipped at Lakers games, dating hot young women, and making successful movies many of which seem to be predicated on the fact that Jack is cool. After his appearance in "Easy Rider," he became the face of the counter culture. The great actor of our time. We wasn't an intimidating figure physically he was all attitude. Jack got fat and it didn't matter, Jack went bald and it didn't matter, Jack got disturbingly old and it still didn't matter. It seems that his coolness like his soul cannot be contained by a physical form.

Finally, we come to Jeter. I think he wins because of what I said about high school rules. In high school who are the coolest guys? The jocks. No matter what happens we can't fight high school. High school is a time when society is being created in real time. It's how we all choose to act before human decency and intelligence takes over. So try as we might to fight against it those rules are always in us. In addition to being a jock he also has the New York thing. New York is the coolest city in the country and Jeter is the coolest guy in the city. There is not one club that he couldn't get into, no restaurant that would make him wait, no apartment that he couldn't get. In a city of lines Jeter doesn't wait in any of them. He's good looking, popular, and rich. Jeter dated the hottest girls in hollywood. He was with Mariah Carey when she was at her hottest, he was with Jessica Biel, and now he's with Minka Kelly in an effort to apparently stay ahead of the curve. Jeter is calm in all situations. The Yankees are the greatest franchise in the history of sports and he's the captain. If they need someone to speak, it's him. His jersey outsells all others and in this season when all people could talk about is how washed up Jeter is he was still elected to start the Allstar game. Finally, when Jeter hit number 3000 into the left field stands and when he hit 3003 up the middle to win the game it proved once again that he produces in the grandest fashion on the biggest stages. Jeter is the man. I welcome any suggestions.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Kanye West vs The Rolling Stones

My generation has not been a great one. Well at least according to popular opinion. We are the first generation to look back at our parents and decide that they were cooler. Our parents had to deal with the fact that their parents were more hard working and braver having lived through WWII and The Great Depression, but my guess is that they never for a second bought into the fact that their parents were cooler. There were no big band t-shirts, there were no cars designed to look like Dick Tracy's. They were concerned about the future. They had the Beatles and Woodstock. My generation appears to be completely consumed with the past. You can walk into almost any clothing store in the country and find Ramones and Led Zeppelin t-shirts on sale. The Beatles are in advertisements for Apple. It seems that the best way to be cool, the true mark of good taste is having an appreciation of things that were relevant long before you were born.

I am of the opinion that most art, most manners of taste are subjective. Culture did not reach a peak in the 60's and 70's, that's just the bill of goods we've been sold by our parents. We are a culture raised with television. Every generation tries to sell their kids on their likes and dislikes, but while our parent's parents were working on a one on one basis our parents generation had television. The addition of cable television in the 80's and the exponential expansion of entertainment into our everyday lives gave our parent's generation a distinct advantage. Now, the artist of their generation could go to work creating programming, advertisements, and fashion all dedicated to the glorification of their ways and time. No longer were we able to just ignore and rebel against our parents because even if we did we ran right to the teachings of their contemporaries. Culture turned in on itself.

With this assertion I would like to consider this. Who is more culturally relevant to the youth of today, Kanye West or The Rolling Stones? This might seem like a peculiar premise at first glance. Kanye West has been a relevant artist for less than a decade. He is not for your parents, he is for our generation. He aspires to make the most culturally dominant genre of music, hip hop, something more. He seems to be constantly trying to take his art in new directions. I don't think anyone would argue that he is of this generation. The Rolling Stones, on the other hand, were conceived in the 60's. They have been steadily putting out albums for five decades. Your parents are much more likely than you to have seen a Rolling Stones concert. At first glance you would think that if you were in your teen's or twenties today Kanye is yours and the Stones are your parents. Is that the case?

Both artists released albums in 2010. Kanye West put out My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy his fifth. The Rolling Stones re-released Exile On Mainstreet they're classic album from 1972. Both albums went platinum. Both albums premiered at number 1 on the Billboard Top 200. How is this possible? The Rolling Stones are old enough to be grand parents, they strut around in tight pants, and they are corporate sponsored. The last thing they should be is cool. They didn't even make a new album they re-released their most critically acclaimed album that any true fan of the band should already own. Kanye West on the other hand put out a new album with experimental elements and basically tied them. Jimmy Fallon dedicated an entire week of his show to the re-release of Exile. Kanye West did an interview on mtv.com. It would appear that The Rolling Stones are winning. What does this say about my generation?

There might still be hope, soundtracks. When a popular film needs a song to fit the mood of a scene or to compliment there trailer they need music. This music can shape the way you see the film and the song. The two forever become intertwined and if the movie has a big enough impact the two elements could become eternally part of the fabric of our society and culture. This is where I think Kanye could win. Both are used extensively in film. The Rolling Stones were in The Fallen (Time Is On My Side), The Devil's Advocate (Painted Black), and most importantly they are laced through most if not all of Martin Scorsese's films. It is Scorsese's love of the band that is the most interesting, especially in this argument.  Kanye's music was in Jarhead (Jesus Walks), The Hangover (Can't Tell Me Nothing), and most importantly The Social Network (Power). I say The Social Network is most important because it is quite possible that that film could become the defining movie of our generation. Also, the film's director, David Fincher, is possible our generation's answer to Scorsese. If we allow him he could define our generation in the same way that Scorsese defined the previous one. The Social Network represents what are generation has been known to be, a cold, distant generation, obsessed with social status, and the acquiring of power, but at the same time still needing the same things that all of the generations before us, love, affection, acceptance. The use of Kanye's song clearly defined what the movie was about and also made it feel like something new. I also wonder if the chorus of the song isn't a movie reference itself. The line "No one man should have all that power," in conjunction to the staccato clapping known as "the power clap," I feel is a reference to the movie Malcolm X. There is a scene in Malcolm X where Malcolm X is able to control an entire mob with the simple raising of his hand and pointing of his finger a situation that causes Peter Boyle's character to say "that too much power for one man" while the members of The Nation of Islam march away in a militaristic manner. If I'm right and that is a movie reference turned into a song, we might truly be seeing the voice of a generation in Kanye West. Kanye has taken the cultural currency of our time, references, and turned them into art that has the ability to be the anthem of a generation.

In conclusion, I say these things not to disparage past generations, but rather to boost my own. If we are constantly looking back how can we ever truly create. I believe that every generation should feel some sort of competition with the one that proceeded it. How else are we to evolve and adapt? That's how we improve as a culture. Otherwise, we'll just be known for twitter and the Kardashians.