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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.