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.