After you pick a 2009 sleeper, you want them to win in Week 1 like this …
"Orton in the gun, Buckhalter right next to him. Orton, pumps again, to the sidelinnnnnnne … batted up, OH MY!!!!!!! STOKLEY!!!!!! DOWN THE SIDELINE!!!!!!!!!! CAN HE CATCH HIM? STOKLEY!!!!!!!!!!!! WOWWWWWWWWW!!!!! (pause) TOUCHDOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DENVER!!!!!!!!! UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!! OH MY GOOD-NESS WHAT A PLAY!!!!!!!!!!!!! EIGHTY-SEVEN YARDS!!!!!!!!!!! (Long pause) WHOOOOOOOOA!!!!!!!!!!!!"
(That was Gus Johnson's call of the miracle Stokley play. Obviously. By the way, I'd like to thank Stokley for helping me realize a lifelong dream: seeing a real NFL player try the "Madden" strategy of not running into the end zone right away to kill a few extra seconds of clock. I was more excited about that than the play itself.)
Note: I am not a political person, by any stretch of the imagination. I am registered to vote, but I am not a member of any party--that designation on my card reads "NOP", for "no party." My old Maricopa voting card read "PND", which means "party not designated," but I think what they really meant was "party pending." In any event, it's still pending.
That said, please do not read this as dripping, falling-in-love support for President Obama. I studied history and I grew accustomed to looking at things past from an outside perspective. In many ways, I look at current events in that same way. It's a bad habit; I should know better that occurrances in D.C. do affect me (and I already know this, if for no other reason, because I'm receiving an incentive for being a first-time home buyer). So I'm examining this situation from an odd perspective and appreciating it for what it is, without taking a lot of other things into account. I'm dissecting someone who is a historical figure by default (all presidents are), even though he's still around to change who he is, his legacy, his policies, etc. It's not a done deal. And yet, I'm sort of writing about it like it is.
In any event, keep that in mind. Not an Obama lover. Not a hater either, just making an observation (that you're free to disagree with, of course).
I'm not an Obama fan, necessarily. I don't think the nation is doomed as a result of his election, either. Rather, I'm waiting to see if he is worth the hype--or at least part of it (I don't think anyone can actually live up to the hype he receives).
That was a negative start, but keep reading. Juxtapose that with what I'm about to say.
The day after Obama was elected, I told my wife and several others who asked my opinion: for Obama to be as successful as everyone wants him to be, he has to go in there like FDR, in the first 100 days, and lay down dramatic new policy that actually reshapes the nation in a positive way (whether FDR actually did that, I'm not going to argue with you about that right now).
In at least one way, Obama has followed FDR's footsteps. FDR started the "fireside chats" where he addressed the nation on the radio on a regular basis. This was unprecedented, in part because the technology was new, in part because no one prior tried to use the technology in that way. Note that using the radio was not new; it was the President connecting with the people via the radio that was the bright and shiny idea.
Obama has done the same thing with the Internet. Rather than merely take questions from media and other officials, Obama took questions from the general public (perhaps that's giving Internet surfers too much credit on several levels, just go with it for now). He even briefly discussed legalizing marijuana. His first response wondered about the Internet crowd in general (see?), then he responded seriously by saying he doesn't think that's a good plan to help the economy.
This isn't the first time Obama has tried to "connect" with the people at large. The night before the election, both Obama and McCain were interviewed by Chris Berman of SportsCenter fame. McCain talked about steroids in professional sports and getting rid of them, which is a fine but tired answer. Obama said he wanted a playoff in college football. That's not a new idea, but it is a fun idea. It's controversial and heatedly discussed, unlike steroids, which is not controversial (generally we either don't care or we want them gone; few are arguing for more steroid use) and while passionate, not heated (again, no real argument for keeping steroid use).
(Moreover, both Katie and I noted that the steroid argument probably appeals to liberals and Democrats who seek equality (even in sports), while the college football argument was designed to endear Southerners to Obama. So these arguments were likely last-minute efforts to sway undecided voters. But still.)
Additionally, if you didn't know already, Obama filled out a March Madness bracket... and showed it to the rest of us (forgive me for not linking it). Is that dangerous because of it's ties to gambling? Maybe, but everyone fills out a bracket, right? (OK, not everyone; I didn't this year, but I usually do even though I don't follow college basketball--everyone likes to get lucky and pick the right "thing", and more points for lucky picks than educated ones.)
So here's what I'm saying: Is Obama going to sweep in like FDR's New Deal? Probably not. Is he a perfect leader. By no means. But he's already started a legacy in that he's made steps to connect with a more diverse group of people, in several ways. Is he (still) an elitist? Maybe, and those questions will never fade with Columbia and Harvard on his resume. But if that's the case, he's at least a smart elitist. Maybe it's a facade, but it's one that I don't mind for the moment, because people still have the opportunity to get involved, regardless of whether Obama really cares about their involvement.
I hope, however, that he's genuine in trying to get more people involved in government. If he does nothing else useful, that's a powerful legacy... if he continues to do it.
When I play games, I try to win. Whether and to what degree one believes I "try" is subject to interpretation. If you ask Katie, I always want to win and I will do whatever it takes to do so. If you ask me, I'm merely playing to the best of my ability and not giving anything up to be nice--no one wants to win because another person went easy on them.
In World of Warcraft, there is no real way to "win" (with the common exception that people who stop playing WoW (as it is commonly refered to) state that they "won" or they "beat WoW." I can't argue with this concept, but that's not what I'm talking about). The game progresses indefinitely, even if you beat the "last boss," which also changes as new expansions are released. Thus, the point is not necessarily to win; it is to enjoy the journey and continue to have fun engaging in various activities peripheral to beating the "last boss."
(It should be noted that it is commonly preached to enjoy the journey on the way to the result. Yet, this concept is not necessarily accepted as applied to video games--if there is no way to "win," what's the point, right? Perhaps the absence of an end point frustrates this concept. If so, I should buy into that, based on my other viewpoints of things with no end point: I didn't learn to drive until I had somewhere to go, and I generally don't take walks if there is no destination. But that's a conversation for another time.)
When I started playing WoW, the endgame raid zone known as Black Temple was either just released or released soon after. BT was supposed to be the "final" raid zone, containing the "last boss" until the next expansion (as it turns out, this wasn't the case, but that's not important either). BT is a Tier 6 raid, meaning that's the quality of loot that drops from enemies contained within, and because loot quality increases based on difficulty, BT was the most difficult raid.
I never set foot in BT. Nor did I see the Tier 5 raids, and my experience with the "high end" Tier 4 raids was limited (lower tier raids were part of the original game and rarely visited; again, not important, except to say that Tier 4 was the "entry level" raid when I started playing). See, because I joined the game at a later stage of the game, I was not well-equipped to see the higher tier stuff--the groups who did that had been together longer and didn't need new players. So, I did what I did, had a lot of fun, acquired new gear, but was never among the "best" or even the "best geared" in my class (which is not necessarily an attainable thing either).
Fast forward to the new expansion: I started playing at the outset of the newest expansion, collected some good gear in Tier 7 content, then through a cooperative agreement with another 10-man guild, collected some great gear in Tier 7.5 content. In fact, my character is very well geared and only missing a handful of pieces that would make him "best geared." Yet, I know and everyone knows that new bosses and raids are on the horizon, and that the current expansion will go until at least Tier 9 or higher. So while I'm on top now, so to speak, that will change swiftly once more difficult raids are available.
Is this a problem? Now that I'm, at the moment, "winning," is it terrible that my "winning" status will no longer apply once new content is available?
I say no, for a number of reasons. First, having great gear, while somewhat telling about what a player has experienced, is in no way determinative of anything more significant. If anything, it means I had the opportunity to be present when the gear happened to drop, and I managed to win the gear ahead of others who might also have used it. In other words, I could have been the most useless player--getting myself and others killed, not doing my job in damaging the boss, etc.--and I still could have "achieved" all this gear by virtue of my schedule and my ability to permit my friends to keep letting me raid with them despite my apparent incompetence. So, just because my gear is great doesn't mean I'm "winning."
Second, I have not really "won" in any sense of the term--though my guild has beat the current "last boss" once, I wasn't there when it happened, and we haven't duplicated the feat since. Plus, with the addition of "hard mode" bosses, the real "last boss" is no longer the most difficult feat in the game.
Finally, winning in this game is not really possible in terms we usually see it--it's about the journey, not the destination. In that sense--enjoying the journey--I have never stopped winning. I am enjoying the journey with friends and other players, meeting new people and sharing new experiences, and generally having a good time while progressing--slowly or rapidly--towards various "ends." I "win" every day, even when I lose.
Thus, though from a gear perspective, I am near the top--the Journey's End, so to speak (which is, funnily enough (or not), the name of the best melee weapon I can equip at the moment), as long as I'm enjoying the journey with good friends and good players, I am always on top. New content only allows us to continue the journey further. Thus, new content means more winning for everyone.
EDIT: I removed the pictures because they were too big for the viewing panel, and I think it's easier to see all of them on Facebook. So here's the link:
On a final note, it is no secret that I am a Broncos fan first. My first game at UoP Stadium was Broncos at Cardinals, and I wore my orange and blue Plummer jersey and cheered for Jay Cutler's offense. I enjoyed that game, though it was bittersweet--it was supposed to be the "Jake Plummer Revenge Tour," finally playing the Cards in the regular season after leaving the team... only at that point, Plummer had been benched for Cutler (the timing of the decision I still do not defend--Plummer may have got past that Seattle team where Cutler wasn't quite ready). As if that wasn't bad enough, Leinart passed Jake's rookie Cardinal passing record in that game.
I digress. Anyway, I admire Kurt Warner tremendously, as a man and as a player. When I first saw Fitzgerald play in person when Aaron Mertz took me to the Patriots/Cardinals game, I was impressed. He was instantly my favorite receiver in the league, with apologies to Hines Ward. I also enjoyed the tenacity of the then-no-name defense. I liked watching the Cardinals play. Clearly Whisenhunt knows what he's doing as a coach--he's done more than any other Cards coach, and in only two seasons. I liked Denny Green too, and the decision to bring him here (as well as Warner and Emmitt Smith), especially his soundbytes about the Bears, who we thought they were and where we can crown them. I've been paying attention to the Cardinals--not as much as the Broncos, but more than any other team besides.
Whether this makes me a Cardinals fan, you decide. I don't want to take anything away from those that have been following this team since their first season in Arizona (or before). Doubtless the Cardinals will have plenty of bandwagon fans claiming they always believed or they've been following from day one (trying to dig up an old Phoenix Cardinals shirt or buy one on Ebay). I'm not one of those. I wasn't even a football fan when the Cards came to Arizona--I didn't start liking football until I was in high school, and I chose the Broncos because my dad had always followed them AND they happened to be fun to watch at the time.
So take my "status" with the Cards for what you will. But if it's any consolation to those true fans who couldn't get tickets to the game, I made as much noise as I could for four quarters whenever the Eagles had the ball. I did as much as I could to affect the outcome of the game. So despite the status of my fanhood, I tried to play the part--in the good, non-self-serving way--the best that I could, without diminishing the fanhood of those who have been here longer than me.
This happened Nov. 24th, 2008, when the Supreme Court of Arizona sent me a certificate stating that I am licensed to practice law in Arizona.
Unfortunately, I am still working as a law clerk. Two recent openings in my office were given to others. I would like to stick around and interview for additional openings, but I have loans to repay and a new mortgage to work with, so I must consider other options. Thankfully there are many people in my office that do believe I will be a good attorney, and I'm certain their recommendations will be very helpful.
So, a great number of things are going on in my life:
1. Katie just went to the ER on Friday 2. On Saturday, I attended a wedding of someone I only knew through World of Warcraft 3. I passed the bar 4. Katie and I are in the process of buying a house 5. Many, many, other more important things
...But the thing that's going to get me to blog: I just saw a commercial for Guitar Hero 4.
This advertisement blew my mind. Whether it reaches the target audience, I have no idea, but it made my jaw drop.
First, Alex Rodriguez, in a dress shirt and underwear (a la Tom Cruise), slides into the room holding a guitar, while the opening riffs of the Chuck Berry classic play in the background. Next, Tony Hawk, similarly clad, enters the scene with a drum set. Michael Phelps quickly joins them. Finally, as the vocals come in on the song, Kobe Bryant slides in with a microphone, "singing" the vocals of the song. Then it cuts to a flat-screen television playing Guitar Hero 4.
Now, before I get to the nitty-gritty, the first thing my wife pointed out: "Who are they trying to reach with this ad?" My first reaction: I don't care; LOOK AT WHO THEY PUT IN THE COMMERCIAL?!?! But she has a good point. It's obviously aimed at sports fans, and there is a huge segment of sports fans who play Madden, so that seems the likely draw. Yet, this commercial fails to include an NFL player! So maybe it falls short for that reason. At the same time, I can't imagine who that NFL player might be, based on the current group. See, all four are the "rock stars" of their sports. I don't know that such a standout player exists this season. And I don't know that Peyton Manning fits here--I think that would detract from awesomeness of the ad since Manning is in so many. Though, perhaps Brett Favre...
Anyway, I digress. The point: my jaw dropped. The ad instantly grabbed my attention, then it delivered by showing four incredily talented and successful athletes playing pretend guitar, bass, drums and vocals. Do I want to buy the game? No; I don't have the systems it requires, and I'm loyal to the Rock Band genre for the time being. But was the ad incredibly exciting? You betcha.
EDIT: Yeah, I'm not too bright: for the first eight or so hours this post was up, it was referring to "Rock Band 4," when no such game yet exists. My apologies.
Alright, since I fancy myself a guru of television commercials, it feels appropriate to comment about this.
The new "I'm a PC" commercials put out by Microsoft are an interesting step. They're well-made and intriguing, and the people that appear in the commercial appeal to many walks of life. Additionally, they highlight all of the biggest and best reason to buy a PC: the network.
Networks get their value by the number of users of the network. This is like the cell phone plan that gives you free calling to everyone else who is with the same cell phone company. If you're whole family is with Jerkizon, you save on minutes, which means you may be able to get a cheaper plan and still talk to the people that are most important to you. But if not many people you know use Jerkizon, the ability to call anyone on their network is far less appealing.
It's no surprise that Windows and Microsoft have the largest network (by far) when it comes to computers. While it's not quite the same as the cell phone situation, it's similar: more users on one network mean more software companies willing to make software for that operating system, meaning more software to draw in users, etc.
So showing the quantity and diversity of the PC network is useful and arguably effective. However, it's not a new argument from Microsoft--actually, it's pretty much the same thing we've seen from them: we're big, we're established, and that means we're awesome. Buy our stuff. That's fine; it's old but it works.
So what is my problem with these ads?
...How long has Apple been playing the Mac vs. PC ads? And Microsoft just NOW responds? And their response, while somewhat clever, is just a rehashing of what we've heard before?
Perhaps it's a little unfair to assume that, if you wait a long time to respond, you're going to unveil the big stick that blows your competition away. Even so, I'm making that assumption anyway. Microsoft's new ad is too late and it's delivery doesn't make up for that lateness. In light of this, Mac is still ahead in the television ad debate.
Note: this has no bearing on which is the superior product (if any) or which I prefer. I own a PC but that decision was made five years ago and largely for gaming reasons. My "drug of choice" when it comes to gaming is World of Warcraft, which works on both Mac and PC, so when the time to upgrade comes around, who knows which way I'll buy? In any event, this is just about who is winning the ad war, and right now, it has to be Mac.
On Sunday, the Denver Broncos defeated the San Diego Chargers by going for a two-point conversion with less than a minute to play while only trailing by one. Of course, it was a gutsy call, but one that paid off.
There is little else in sports that is exciting as a two-point conversion for the win. A walk-off home run arguably comes close, but the truth is you'll take a home run anytime, whereas the two-point conversion always comes with risk, and there are many circumstances where it is not appropriate.
Seeing my beloved Broncos hand a two-pointer to the rival Chargers, who have defeated us four straight times over the past two seasons, was very exciting indeed.
The last "walk off" two-point conversion I witnessed was also thrilling--it was by another set of Broncos who hail from Boise State, going for two in the second overtime period during the Fiesta Bowl (in college, you have to go for two following a touchdown in the third OT period--such is not the case in the second OT). After all the other mind-blowing performances Boise State showed the world that day--the revival of the hook-and-ladder as well as the Statute of Liberty play--it was the perfect way to cap a shocking victory. Boise State was so good that day, and so fun to watch, that I don't think a single Oklahoma Sooner feels bad about that loss. They were fun to watch because of their talent, but this was enhanced by the creative and risky playcalling and execution of those plays.
Taking risks is always... risky. But the rewards can be great.
Let me drop some knowledge on the collective bums owned by hardcore Dems and GOPers: your blanket trashing of each others sides do not convince the voters you need to support your cause.
I'm not talking about the candidates. I haven't heard a whole lot of what they have to say, if for no other reason that the most vocal propagandists are shouting so loudly that I'd rather read about the new, cheap XBox 360 and figure out how that candidate stacks up to my long-time frontrunner Nintendo Wii.
No, this call is to the idiots in charge of the campaigns, and the loudest supporters blinded by the light of their candidate that they have no litmus test for how to speak to someone outside of their party--or worse, to someone unaffiliated with a party.
Um, I don't care how loud you shout that Sarah Palin is a liar, or a bordello madam, or any of the other monickers you want to throw on her. Because they're all a bunch of liars and ne'er-do-wells, not because they're politicians, but because they're PEOPLE. Shut up and give me something useful with which to make this weighty decision.
Nor do I care about generalizations about Reaganomics. Clearly one side thinks they work and the other says it doesn't work. Truth be told? Sometimes it works, other times it doesn't. If that's not the case, show me definitive numbers (that I can understand, because I'm not an economist) to prove the outcome one way or the other.
Maybe the information is out there to prove definitively that Palin is unfit for office or that there is one, true functioning standard for who to pass the money to, only I can't hear it or see it over the din of overzealous extremists trying to scratch each other's eyes out. Do us all a favor and lobby for the people who can help you achieve those goals--swing voters like me. Otherwise, I'll make the decision based on what sounds better (Obama/Biden doesn't look too different from Osama Bin Laden), what my wife wants me to do, or old loyalties based on my lifelong residence.
This occurred to me several weeks ago, but I forgot to post it:
It is important to keep in mind that some forms of art are meaningless to a person regardless of the quality of the art when compared to other pieces in that format. In other words, some people just don't get it. I don't get dance as a performance art. This isn't to say it isn't beautiful or difficult, or that it's not a valid art form--it just means that the beauty and difficulty of dance are wasted on me, because that art form doesn't speak to me.
Commercials, on the other hand, do. And I'm sure my wife wishes they did less so, less often, and that I responded with less enthusiasm.
In any event, I say that to say this: it's OK for someone to dislike commercials because it's just not a form of art that means anything to them. But if they try to raise other arguments, particularly the arguments I addressed earlier, they're going to get an earful. Keep it simple--just say you don't get it, and I'll say "that's cool, I don't get dance" and we can move on to some other topic.
Additionally, here is a commercial starring my best friend, Garrett:
Teasers are those things news people do to get you to come back after the commercial break. As Brian Regan put it, "There was a huge fire downtown ...maybe!" They're annoying like those reality TV shows that wait an unnecessarily long time to reveal who is "going home" that week. It's withholding information you want to know so that you'll stay sucked in longer. It's just plain mean.
However, Yahoo! has found the right way to use teasers during these 2008 Summer Olympics. Simultaneously, MSN.com and Hotmail have failed on a massive scale.
When my wife Katie logs out from Hotmail, the browser brings her to the MSN.com page, which has the most recent Olympic results displayed. However, because the U.S. televises the events after they happen (we're on the West Coast, so we've seen ZERO live events; thanks for nothing, NBC), she's seeing Olympic outcomes sometimes more than twelve hours before she'll have the chance to watch the contest on TV. And since we both love the Olympics, it's really frustrating to have the outcome spoiled. She saw the results of the 100m Butterfly just minutes before the race started thanks to MSN.com, and she already knows the outcome of the balance beam that will air tonight. All this because she wants to check her email.
Some might argue that, now that she is aware of this, she should stop checking her email, or she should close her browser rather than sign out. I think that is a ridiculous requirement; she shouldn't have to think "Am I going to spoil my Olympic viewing by checking my email?" No one should have to think about that--it would be like making sure not to answer your phone because someone might blurt out Olympics results as they're saying goodbye: "I love you sweetie, have a good day tomorrow, OMG DID YOU SEE THE U.S. SWEPT THE FENCING PODIUM??"
This is where Yahoo! gets it right. When I go to my Yahoo! home page, I see what events are coming up, and a hint at a potential outcome--basically, it's a teaser. For instance, today's headline read "Shawn Johnson's last chance for gold." I see that, and I remember "Oooh! I'll make sure to watch that!" AND if I want to know the result right now, I can click on it and find out whether she won already. Two days ago, the headline read something like "Controversy for Liukin on the Uneven Bars." It didn't tell me what the controversy was--it reminded me to watch. It's the best of both worlds, really.
Keep this in mind as well--Yahoo! has no vested interest in getting me to watch the Olympics, at least not on the same level as MSN.com, who is broadcasting some events on MSNBC. Doesn't it make more financial sense for MSN.com to use teasers instead of actual outcomes so people will watch their coverage? Yet Yahoo! knows not to spoil the Olympics for potential viewers, while MSN.com has no problem with spoiling the outcome for my wife.
What a ridiculous premise. Well, it wouldn't be the first time.
I record television on a TiVo-like device. It's great to be unhinged from the arbitrary schedules of the broadcasters and cable channel moguls. I watch TV when I want to watch, and I record enough content on a daily basis that there is always something to watch.
One popular reason people record television is to skip through commercials. I tend to skip through commercials only because I want to save time, not because I am annoyed by commercials. Quite the opposite in fact: I find commercials entertaining. Not all commercials--that would be as bad as finding all television entertaining, when a large amount of T.V. programming is not entertaining at all. But I don't write off the whole class of commercial advertising as boring.
I will be so bold as to say that some commercials... are art.
Before I explain why I can espouse such an outlandish idea, let me quell some arguments against the idea:
1. Commercials are advertisements and are designed solely to sell products!
First, this isn't true in every respect--I think the anti-tobacco ads speak for themselves here, unless they were funded by other bad habits in anticipation of luring you from one to the other. "Cigarettes? Cigarettes are for wusses! Brought to you by Fingernail Chewers United." But they're not; they're funded by government agencies or the tobacco companies themselves.
Secondly, and far more importantly: every other form of art is trying to sell something--itself! Books, movies, music, paintings--these are all created in anticipation that someone will pay money for the right to possess or view/listen to the piece of art. If anything, commercials are more honest about it. The idea that commercials should be excluded as art because of its association to sales is false.
2. Commercials are stupid, stupid, stupid.
Yes, many commercials are stupid--they're poorly made, not appealing, and completely fail to either entertain or persuade me to buy the product. How is this different from other art? There plenty of bad movies, bad songs, bad books and bad paintings that are created, bought and sold every day. Yet, people fall in love with certain types of art because they've seen the good versions of art and are delighted to discover more good art. Sometimes the search for good art means you necessarily see bad art. Anyway, I digress--the point is, there is more bad art than good art, we just don't see or remember the bad art.
Commercials are no different--there are more bad commercials than good commercials. In my opinion, 95% of all car commercials are awful. The few exceptions are usually not stellar--think of the "Da, da, da" Volkswagen commercial nearly a decade ago. It was OK, caught our attention, and even made the performer of that simple, CASIO keyboard melody a pretty penny for about a month. Then it just got annoying. That may be the ceiling for car commercials--good for a little bit but not classic. Other car examples are the Mitsubishi commercials from the early 2000s that featured "Days Go By" by Dirty Vegas and that "Get Up Put The Body In Motion" (not the actual title) by someone else who completely disappeared afterwards. In other words, a car commercial can be art if it creates a one-hit pop wonder. Maybe--there are no hard and fast rules in commercials as art; otherwise people would follow the rules and they'd all be art (and we know they're not).
Gold Bond--bad commercials. Any medical commercial--bad. They're not evil as far as commercials go, they're just not art. Any commercial where you have to explain how it works, then explain the side effects... you get points for making me forget that you're talking about reasons NOT to buy your product, but it will never rise to the point of art. Pills designed to help ED are sometimes clever but the description of the side effects will always kill it.
But, just as there are bad commercials, there are bad movies, books, etc. Any painting you see in a hotel is bad art. The Postman, Waterworld, Snake Eyes, any movie in the American Pie series, any movie in the Scary Movie series, any movie inspired by a video game (I want to say there is an exception here but it's not coming to me at the moment)... pretty much any movie released between February and April or September and October: BAD MOVIES--Hollywood is saving the good stuff for summer or the end of the year Oscar consideration. Anything good that comes out in the aforementioned time periods is an accident or any indy film that managed to capture our interest. Bad music--surely any genre you don't listen to is bad music, and if you claim you like all music, that's like saying you like all commercials. Please watch several hours of car commercials and get back to me about liking everything created in a specific medium of art. Thanks. Bad books--of course there are bad books. I'm done thinking about this.
Having exhausted you (and myself) with reasons why commercials are not NOT art, let me give you a few reasons why they can be art.
First, they can illuminate new ideas and new concepts. One recent example is the insurance commercial of the elderly gentleman who owns a giant umbrella, which he uses in a variety of ways to help several groups of people. Um, I don't have a desire to go make an umbrella-shaped boat or try to build an umbrella that flies, but the commercial was at least as clever as a painting or a book that encapsulates the same concept.
To use a ridiculous example, the GEICO commercials involving cavemen illustrate (more for comedic effect) that one shouldn't make fun of groups of people, regardless of whether such groups actually exist--or whether they have access to the object used to poke fun. For example, it's generally safe to make fun of the Amish because there is no chance they will find out about it--they don't use electricity and can never see or hear any televised or radio criticism of their beliefs or their way of life. But if Wisconsin v. Yoder is any indication, the Amish know how to take care of themselves and are very well represented; if by some chance they alter their centuries-held cherished faith and decide to start suing people, you don't want to be in the way of that. In much the same way, you don't want to be making fun of cavemen because you never know when one of these scientists is going to revive a frozen one and raise all sorts of legal chaos.
Those are very extreme examples and arguably not intended by GEICO. However, artists are always making points they didn't intend to, because art is subject to interpretation. If someone can interpret a caveman commercial as advocating tolerance, the world is a better place, and that commercial deserves some recognition for its artistic qualities.
Second, they can involve images that are just as beautiful and meaningful as images in a movie, painting, or those described in a book. Let's take a break to have a feminine moment.
The oreo commercial with the dad and the kid eating oreos together, only at the end we discover they're continents apart and communicating via webcam, the son is about to go to bed and dad is about to leave for work. That's touching. The commercial where the little girls slips the rabbit in the suitcase, so dad takes pictures of the rabbit in the places he visits and sends them as mementos to his daughter. That's touching.
These are the kinds of relationships and situations that books and movies take hours to set up, and the commercial brought me the best and most meaningful part in mere seconds.
There are other kinds of ideas that are passed along within a short time frame that are very effective. Everyone remembers the anti-drug commercial--"This is drugs. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?" If you saw the "sequel" to that commercial, you'd probably remember that too. A young woman (unknown at the time, but for the sake of completeness, it was Rachael Leigh Cook of "She's All That" fame... I don't think "fame" is the right term there. Let's just move along.) begins with the "This is your brain. This is heroin. This is what happens to your brain after snorting heroin. This is what your body goes through. It's not over yet." She proceeds to destroy the kitchen with the frying pan, yelling things like "This is your family! These are your friends! These are your hopes, your dreams, everything you cared about before!" Then she throws down the frying pan and says "Any questions?"
Look at the ideas that were passed along in mere seconds! The first commercial had a huge impact on a lot of people because it focused on the damage that drugs do to the most important part of the human body. But it failed to address the people who were OK with mutilating themselves with drugs under the notion that it is their own body and they're not hurting anybody else. The second commercial destroys that argument, quite literally.
The commercial, if done right, has the ability to send a message in a matter of seconds. The ability to communicate that clearly is a very valuable skill in all walks of life, and those that do it better than most are highly regarded. If a commercial can show me how to be a better dad despite my career path or vividly show me why I should avoid a certain lifestyle, it has passed along a valuable message in a unique and inspiring way. And I think that's artistic.
Finally (for now), commercials can be clever, witty and funny. GEICO commercials are usually good (and it's been that way since at least 1999, when they were running hand-drawn ads during Diamondbacks games), though the caveman thing went a little too far (check out a few of them though, they still hold up). AM/PM commercials are hit or miss, but when they hit, it's usually good. The same goes for Sonic commercials. Jack in the Box commercials used to be great but they've tapered off significantly.
Beer ads are all over the place, which I assume is the product of trying to hit on every person using every method. Every now and then I see a beer ad that makes me laugh out loud, and I want to yell "Just STOP whatever else you are doing and hire those guys!" Unfortunately, they never listen to me, and we get the stupid Love Train ad nauseum.
"This is SportsCenter" are probably the funniest and most clever commercials, even if they only appeal to sports fans. If you've never seen a SportsCenter commercial, it usually involves ESPN employees casually interacting with sports celebrities in an office setting. In one ad, LeBron James (in uniform, always in uniform) enters and sits in his cubicle, but something about the chair isn't right. He looks over at the guy in the next cubicle, who is sitting in a golden throne with the name "KING JAMES" inscribed on it. LeBron says "Hey Scott, did you switch chairs with me?" "Uh, no, uh, this was already here when I sat down man... sorry." LeBron sits down in his crappy chair, dejected by the whole experience.
In an older ad, it's late at night and an ESPN employee is working when the power goes out. He grabs a flashlight, walks down to the maintenance closet where we assume the fuses are located, and opens the door to reveal Lance Armstrong wiping his forehead, sitting on a bike attached to an electric generator. "Hey Lance, is everything OK?" "Oh, sure, yeah, I just thought everyone had gone home. I'm fine," and starts pedaling the bike, which restores power to the building. "Are you sure, you want me to get you a water or something?" "No thanks, I'm good." The ESPN employee then closes the door and heads back to his cubicle.
Mark McGwire acting like an animal in a Y2K scare. Scott Van Pelt finding a new nickname for the Celtics Trio. The Philly Phanatic messing with the teleprompter. Andy Roddick's frustration that Stu Scott will not refer to him as "A-Rod" on SportsCenter. Danica Patrick's open-wheel car towed away from the parking spot reserved for "D. Patrick" (which refers to Dan Patrick, the radio host, anchor, etc.). Any commercial involving Dan Patrick in the locker room, talking about SportsCenter the way an athlete would talk about his latest game.
The list goes on. This is SportsCenter. This is art.
Anyway, that's about all the steam I have on this topic, for the time being. It's long and disorganized, but in case you didn't read the disclaimer before you started reading any articles in this blog... it's generally not recommended.
But to summarize this (until I edit it later with a real conclusion (read: never)), commercials are good for all the same reasons that other art is good, and they're bad for the same reasons other art is bad. Their attachment to sales, while more overt, is not significantly different from other forms of art. Finally, commercials are effective at delivering a powerful message in ways that other art forms cannot comparably achieve, especially where time used to the convey the message is involved. For these and other reasons, I submit that commercials are an art form that should not be relegated to being skipped through in all instances.
Six years ago, my best friend Garrett married the love of his life, Lauryn, an Australian by birth. Lauryn moved to the United States and immediately applied for residency, citizenship, etc. and began the naturalization process.
Six years and who knows how much money later, the United States government finally deemed it appropriate to grant Lauryn citizenship as an American. Six years after she married a U.S. citizen, and six years of living in the U.S. and abiding by the laws that govern this country--not even a speeding or parking ticket.
Six years.
Six years for someone who looks like the majority of U.S. citizens. Six years for someone associated with a peaceful religion. Six years for someone who already "speaks the language."
Now, none of those factors should be considered when determining whether an applicant should become a U.S. citizen. And yet, people exist who consider those factors important, and arguably, a few of them work in the agencies responsible for immigration and naturalization. Even so, none of those reasons apply to Lauryn.
It took six years for someone with no red flags--legitimate or illegitimate--to become a U.S. citizen. Nevermind she was married to a U.S. citizen at the time she applied for citizenship.
...Does this seem right to you?
Do not take this to mean that, because the legal process of becoming a citizen takes too long that I approve wholeheartedly of illegal residency. Instead, I suggest that one possible way to reduce illegal residency in the U.S. is to streamline the process and shrink the time it takes to become a citizen.
What is a reasonable time? I'm not sure; how long does it take to do a background check? To apply for my character and fitness portion of the bar application, I must submit a list of everywhere I've worked, every traffic ticket I've ever received, a record of every time I have been fingerprinted, etc. It takes the state bar between seven and nine months to determine if I am of proper "character and fitness" to be licensed as an attorney. Of course, there are fewer applicants for the bar than there are applicants for naturalization, but isn't the turnaround more a function of resources than applicants? In other words, shouldn't the ratio of applicants to funding/manpower be the same?
Perhaps getting an attorney licensed is more important than naturalizing citizens, but is 9 months vs. 6 years (72 months) the right ratio?
In any event, I would argue arbitrarily that we can cut this in half, and reduce the time for naturalization to three years. That should be enough time for us to discover the skeletons in a particular persons closet. If there are red flags, it should take longer. If not, move the process along.
Six years, married to a U.S. citizen, law-abiding throughout that entire time. I think that's too long to wait, and I think reducing this time will encourage more people to go through the process legally.
NOTE: No one is going to get this. You have to be an avid World of Warcraft player who participates in Player versus Player events (PvP), AND a Disneyland fan. There's only one other person I know who is into both, and he doesn't do PvP.
So, having said that, here is the post that no one will understand:
If there's anything I know more about than Hunters, it's Disneyland.
Disneyland is a PvP battleground, but it's like AV where the objectives are more important than melting faces (in fact, you can get thrown out for this).
Have a plan, and go to the nearest objective. If you try to zerg to Small World, you're going to waste a lot of time that you could have used riding Space Mountain and Buzz Lightyear Astro Blasters. You'll notice I left out the Nemo Subs. Nemo is the Snowfall Graveyard of AV: don't take it, it's not worth it, it just leads to a three hour wait.
If the rest of your raid refuses to listen to you about zerging to Small World, here's an exploit you can use: take their tickets and get Fast Passes to Space Mountain. While the allies are waiting in line to cap, you'll quickly bypass them about two hours later FTW.
That's not really an exploit per se, so here is one: the Fast Pass has a time period in which you can return. You can't use it before the first time period, but you can use it anytime after that point, even after the end point. Why? It's the happiest place on earth! The CM (Cast Member) isn't going to penalize you for doing this, though they might gently remind you to try to come back earlier next time.
Badges: There are a ton of them, you don't have to collect all of them (or any of them). However, CMs have to trade with you as long as they don't have the badge you want to trade them. They'll even trade you epic badges (more commonly referred to as "hidden Mickeys")! This is the only way to get epic badges (that and ebay), so take advantage.
Some CMs have a backwards badge, and you can only see what it is by trading for it sight unseen. If the CM is a woman, it's probably an epic or something else good. If it's a male, watch out! It's probably gray quality or some other piece of junk.
Fantasmic!: This can be as difficult and tedious as summoning Lokholar, but it's very, very easy if you stop fighting in the road and take the high road! During the first show, take the train from Main Street to New Orleans Square. You'll bypass the first crowd (which is full of nubs who capped Nemo and came straight here to wait three hours for the first show) and be able to snag a great seat while they're clammering to get out. The alternative is to fight the crowd from the front and be forced to stand behind a tree for the second show.
Some final thoughts:
Don't try to pug DL, even as tempting as the single rider line is. Get a premade to maximize your fun.
DL PvP gear is optional, but can enhance your fun if you have the spare money lying around. But it comes enchanted, so that's something to consider.
Mickey evocates during Fantasmic! but watch out: his sword is a ranged weapon and his Power of Imagination is OP, IMO (you'll see). His loot table does not match the difficulty.
If the queue for DL BG is too long, head to California Adventure. It's not as rewarding but there are some great aspects to it. Plus, better chances for epic badges.
Avoid Nemo. Fastpass Space Mountain as often as possible, especially if you can't think of what ride you would want to do later.
Pirates and Haunted Mansion are required at some point during the BG. Teacups is highly recommended.
Indiana Jones with "well fed" food effects is not a good idea.
Peter Pan is surprisingly good. Mr. Toad is not. Neither are worth waiting in queue for two hours.
One of my first posts here was who we should slap with the next Madden Curse. It's time to take a look and see what happened with those folks, none of which made the Madden cover.
(First, I'm not going to link the original article in this post. There are like four posts on the entire blog. Scroll down.)
(Second, I'm not going to research who was on the 2008 cover. I think it was Vince Young. I don't care enough about him to discuss that, at least for now.)
Al Davis: Still alive. Still ruining the Raiders. Only the alive part is unfortunate, but if it means the Raiders still stink, I'm fine with that.
Peyton Manning: Won a Super Bowl! I should have said as much before now. Definitely not touched by the Madden Curse.
Terrell Owens: Hard to say here. Definitely not Madden Curse-esque, but perhaps a slowly unfolding disaster, like getting him within sight of the Lombardi Trophy only to continually fall short. That sort of thing can cause long term psychological damage. Perhaps the Madden Curse is more powerful than we think.
The East Coast Bias: Stronger than ever, no thanks to the Rockies. Enjoyed a brief hiatus during an Indy/Chicago Super Bowl, but rebounded quickly.
Golf: Same as ever. Tiger is still dominating, but I would rather him pitch or return kickoffs for touchdowns than have to endure golf just because that's the sport at which he chose to excel.
Tom Cruise: Analysis here will be awful, as I don't follow this sort of sludge. But I don't remember the last movie he was in--did the Samurai movie come out before or after War of the Worlds? I didn't see either of them. Based on grocery store tabloid covers, Katie Holmes appears to be doing OK, but that's all relative to how badly everyone else seems to be doing (and perhaps Cruise as well, only hiding behind the moderate success (read: no significant drug/eating disorder YET) of his... baby's mama (I don't know the status of their relationship beyond that)). On a final note, he definitely used his clout to get her a role in that awful concept of a film "Mad Money." My only question is why Queen Latifah got involved--we know Diane Keaton is spending money in droves trying to look 55 instead of 95. Isn't "Mad Money" a direct-to-video release that should star Steve Guttenberg's and Ted Danson's daughters?
(Why did I spend so much webspace on that?)
Steve Smith: Not doing so well. The Panthers didn't look good and don't seem to be getting any better soon. I feel bad; I wanted him to break the curse, not suffer for no good reason.
Randy Moss: Career turnaround with the Patriots. This is funny only because it shows how Terrell Owens is not as good, which is awful on so many levels. Both of them cause drama, but T.O. works hard and Moss doesn't. While Moss was with the Raiders, the notion that "hard work pays off" was absolutely true. Maybe this is still true--Moss arguably worked hard in New England--but the reward for taking a two-year vacation in Oakland shouldn't be flirting with an undefeated season. I'm not making sense with a lot of this, but try to focus on the fact that T.O. works and Moss didn't/doesn't, and one of them is (arguably) in a much better situation, when perhaps they should be flipflopped.
Houston Texans: (sigh) Are they getting better? I like Kubiak, but I'd much rather him be back in Denver when we were winning and at least making the playoffs. Still, I hope his team turns things around, because I like the guy.
Priest Holmes: Done. Huge bummer. But I don't care too much for KC or it's RB and coach, so whatever. Lamar Hunt deserved better than those two.
Jamal Lewis: I have a lot more respect for the guy now that he's in Cleveland. I'm not really sure why. I'm even ashamed of the things I wrote in the original post. I'm not thrilled that he diminished 2000, but I can't really blame that on him (I can blame it on Cleveland). Anyway, he's definitely turned it around in a good way.
Well, that's the breakdown. Not very informative. But hey, you get what you pay for.
I need to see the first one again to see what I think of Keaton.
Clooney was the only Bruce Wayne that really showed us his "international playboy" (whatever that means) side--there was no doubt in anyone's mind that Clooney was just having a good time with whatever supermodel he was attached to, and that no one was going to be falling in love. I prefer that to "let's fall in love then hurriedly explain why the chick left between movies."
Having said that, and even though I said I need to see it again, Keaton was the best Batman, and Clooney was the best Bruce Wayne.
Bale is in a different class because his movie fully develops the Batman and Bruce Wayne characters as they were forming. Bruce Wayne insulting the party guests to keep them safe is something "older" Bruce Wayne wouldn't do--he'd find a classier way to do it. Rough, unrefined Bruce Wayne is practically a different character that can't be compared to the others. His enthusiasm for the gadgets is also different--he's not used to them like "older" Batman is, so at times he's almost giddy about doing stuff that later becomes pretty routine. So I'm going to exclude Bale in my determination of whose best, except to say that he did a great job with it.
----
Incidentally, I ended up posting this on the forums after some editing (and coming to a conclusion).
Uh, the Chargers won a playoff game! But Norv Turner still sucks, and some of the Chargers are classless (LT obviously being the exception to any bad thing I ever say about the Chargers... LT, please come to Denver).
But I didn't come here to tell you about that.
I post in several forums, very often. I post in a place called Barry's World, which is a collection of Counter-Strike clan rejects who found their own little corner of the Internet and crafted perhaps the next phase of Internet evolution: the "No being offended" rule. Seriously, once every forum figures this out, flamewars and trolling are over (or, more importantly, reduced to their comedic value without the venom).
I post on the World of Warcraft forums, the value of which, heh, is only for trolling and starting flamewars. Sometimes, it's fun to be childish, you just have to pick the right places and moments.
I post on my World of Warcraft guild forums, coordinating raid times, arena times, and sharing new tips on how to progress further into game content. If you don't know, with games like World of Warcraft, you can't beat the game by yourself like you could with Super Mario Bros. Arguably, you can't beat the game at all, but for the sake of comparison, to beat the WoW version of King Koopa, you need 24 other people to come with you and know what they're doing. Additionally, there are no warp pipes: these 24 needed to (essentially) be with you through levels 6-1 through 8-3, without skipping a step in between. SOOOO, communication is invaluable to "beat the game," and talking while you are actually playing doesn't always further that goal. So, I post on those forums too.
By the way, I split infinitives. Always. So does Jean-Luc Picard before every episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. If you can find a better way to say "to boldly go" and still make it sound as cool without causing confusion with the meaning, please, instruct me. You will fail. But hopefully you will also learn to split your infinitives. Don't limit your language the way others have limited theirs. "To" is seperate. Use it to your advantage.
Back to the convoluted point: Oftentimes, I will post something rather lengthy on one of these forums, edit it a few times, then realize that no one who reads it is going to give two poops about what I wrote. Or, to be a little more clear, the content and style of my post is inappropriate for the maturity or attention span of the forum audience.
At the same time, I have this blog I haven't touched for a year.
So, I decided in the last ten minutes that, rather than simply erase those lengthy forums posts (or worse, post them in hopes of vibrant response), I will post them here for all of you (all two of you) to read. The content will not always be decipherable, but I tend to use analogies when I can, so maybe there will be something there that's worth reading. And maybe not. If nothing else, it will be a depository of thoughts I had on varied subjects... which is somewhat what a blog is supposed to be.
Did you get all that?
So, here's the most recent lengthy post that I decided NOT to post (cut short somewhat, once I realized I had no intention of actually posting this):
I played EQ2 for six months and raided the high end content (back when level 50 was the cap).
I loved the crafting. It was a lot of fun, but kind of broken because no one wanted to buy anything of the first three quality levels, and it was easy to make the best quality item, so those other items were sort of fluff. I'm generalizing, because quality level 2 items served a purpose, albeit a force-fed, unnecessary purpose.
Raiding was sort of bleh, with one exception: the Darathar fight. The rest of it, as I understood it, didn't require much coordination. I know Shade of Aran is an easy fight, but consider the stuff you have to know and do to stay alive. I don't remember anything as complicated as that in EQ2--and if it was, it was to compensate for glaring BUGS in the fight and not intended obstacles. Even Darathar is like a dumbed-down Nightbane: Stand behind his right foot, don't draw agro, heal up when he flies away (and Darathar didn't drop any adds on you). Having never played EQ1, but hearing about how complex it is, Darathar is an example of dumbed-down content.
Again, before you bash me, remember this was level 50 content. So much might have changed by now (for instance, there was NO pvp at that point).
The reason I left is my version of how SOE is basically beta-testing their live content through paid subscriptions and screwing the player over without good reason. I played a Troubadour, and I didn't know when I started, but basically I was a physical DPS buffbot. Everyone loved me and if I was on at the starting time, I was always selected for raids, because Rangers (who suck, btw) love to see their DPS go through the roof when a Troubadour is in the party.
Then the SOE "big change nerf" hit. Basically, SOE changed my character completely--instead of buffing physical DPS, I was buffing magic DPS. But Troubadours aren't casters, so I had no idea which of my new, revamped buffs were most beneficial to casters and which, though sounding cool, were broken and useless. Also, because I wasn't a caster, my buffs didn't do anything to buff ME, which killed my solo ability--I could still get some stuff done, but not nearly as easily as before. Put simply, it was like starting from zero, having to learn my character all over again. MY character, that I leveled to 50, starting out with zero knowledge. I might as well have just bought the character off of Ebay for how much I knew how to use it at that point.
So, I quit and didn't play anything else for a year and a half until TBC came out.
Maybe EQ2 has fixed the issues that made me quit, but I'm having way more fun in WoW than I ever did in EQ2. I'm not really going to analyze why, either.
Marty Schottenheimer had a new trick this season, a trick that would silence the Martyball critics and lead his team to playoff victory. Schottenheimer is known for becoming too conservative with play calling once his team gets to the playoffs. This season, however, Marty handed the play calling to his offensive coordinator, even during the regular season.
The difference was immediately noticeable. LaDanian Tomlinson broke several records as the play calls took the handcuffs off of him and the rest of the team. Even on nights when the dominant defense collapsed, the supercharged offensive found a way to win.
Enter Week Two of the playoffs. This is the time when old Marty would call conservative plays and ruin the game. Instead, the play calling was perhaps too gutsy, and probably lost the game for San Diego. A few examples:
Going for it on 4th and 11: In what realm does this make sense? I understand the Chargers were at that tricky spot where punting isn't a great option, but 4th and 11? It wasn't even 4th and 7, to show that the offense had made SOME progress: they had three downs to get progress and they LOST a yard.
The possession right after the Patriots tied the game: First down: Tomlinson, 6 yards. Second and Third downs: Incomplete pass. Conservative Marty would have run the ball two more times, and with the NFL MVP as your running back, you can't really blame him. If the Patriots had been able to stop LT--and that's a very big if--you say good effort by the Pats and move along. No one would criticize Marty for trying to use his best player to get the first down and move the ball. Instead, the Anti-Marty calls for two pass plays that STOP THE CLOCK and punt the ball away. Boo.
On the other hand, there were some player errors that come back to nerves or training, and that is a reflection on Marty (specifically, Parker trying to grab the muffed punt instead of fall on it). Brady's third INT that got them a new set of downs was a very strange situation, but all that needed to happen was for the player to either swat the ball away, or hold onto it. In both these situations, the conservative play--falling on the ball, swatting it away--would have been the better play.
Still, look at the two playcalling situations--the non-field goal, and the two passing calls on the last possession--and this game came down to two non-conservative calls that cost the Chargers the game.
Sometimes a little Marty goes a long way. But more importantly:
Just give the ball to LaDanian. Especially when you need the big play.
Christmas came, and I received two Final Fantasy games: FF3 (Nintendo DS) and FF5 (GBA). Since FF3 was only my second game for the DS, I played that one first.
SquareEnix recreated an old 2D Japanese-only classic into a 3D stylus-enabled adventure. Since I mentioned it: the stylus. Again, this is only my second DS game, but the use of the stylus in this game is pretty... useful. I could easily see somebody using the stylus for the entire game. However, it's not required, and the basic controls still function the same way as any FF game.
The 3D feature is nice. It appeared a bit blocky at first, but still preferable to the normal 2D stuff. Plus, it probably looks better than an FF7 port would.
The game has a WiFi feature that allows you to send mail to other FF3 players as well as NPCs in the game. All of these are required to open up some of the games secrets. The only frustrating thing about this are that you have to start mailing early, or you may find yourself tinkering with your DS clock to overcome the "1 mailing per hour" rule. Also, the button for the spacebar is NOT on the same page with the alphabet, but fortunately no one sends real messages to each other--they just post their Friend Code on a website and send nearly blank messages to get the unlocks. On the other hand, the game allows you to send weapons to your friends as well, though only at a certain point, and only the master weapons and armors. Still, pretty nifty function!
The story is good, if not choppy, but I can't really complain about this since it is only the third installment. The story is much more involved and much better than FF1 (and I haven't touched FF2, despite having it on PSone and GBA).
The gameplay is really intriguing. Your character can take on around 20 jobs, meaning you have the ultimate freedom to choose whatever you want for your characters. I took one character to Job level 99 Thief... and then realized there is only one worthwhile thing to steal in the entire game, and I probably wasn't going to use it. The variety is great and adds to replayability.
My biggest complaint is that the characters are not very personalized. Because they can have any job, you never get a sense of what they REALLY are. Great for playability, bad for character development. But worse than all of that... the first character you control is a dude who looks like a chick. Maybe this is to make up for the fact that there is only one female playable character, but I wish they had simply made it two girls and two guys, rather than two guys, one girl and "Pat."
Overall, this game is a lot of fun. Beyond what I have already mentioned, I especially enjoyed three different types of airships and the limitations imposed on each. If you're a fan of Final Fantasy, this is a must-have. But aren't they all? (Remember, Mystic Quest, just like Rocky V, DID NOT HAPPEN).
If you are a Broncos fan, or an avid reader of ESPN.com, you are likely aware that CB Darrent Williams died in a drive-by shooting on New Year's Eve, hours after losing to the 49ers in overtime and missing the playoffs.
Before his passing, a search of Darrent Williams on Ebay yielded maybe five entries, all jersey cards for very little money. Afterwards? Six pages of memorabilia.
There are (at least) three reasons why this is bothersome:
1. Darrent Williams only means something to Broncos fans. He doesn't have the universal appeal of a Reggie White, where non-Eagles/Packers/Panthers fans also love the player. The Ebayers are not providing a service--making jerseys available to those outside of Denver--they are simply making a buck. I understand both sets of Ebayers are interested in the money and NOT in providing a service, but our attitude about it is different (see below).
2. The violent nature of Darrent Williams's death makes the Ebayers more like vultures than when an athlete dies of natural causes. When Reggie White died, Ebay was flooded with his memorabilia as well. But Reggie was out of football four years, and health-related deaths are easier to understand (though potentially just as surprising and tragic). Our attitude is different. With Reggie, it was a feeling of loss and sympathy, but with Darrent we have those plus anger and frustration, maybe insecurity. Then we see someone hawking his stuff, and it's not the same. It's opportunistic and disgusting, especially because...
3. Darrent Williams's memorabilia is not going to be worth anything ten years from now, while Reggie White's definitely will be. So sellers are targetting emotional buyers right now and selling them a product that will only go down in value. Of course, plenty of sellers do this all the time, but in those instances, the reason for the increased demand in the product is not caused by a homicide.
The selling is OK, it's the gouging that is atrocious. Of course, if the price is too high, no one will buy. Is this a sick of example of "the market working itself out?" Maybe.
On Sunday, October 1, 2006, Luis "Gonzo" Gonzalez played his final baseball game as an Arizona Diamondback. The club informed Gonzo and the media nearly a month ago that it would not exercise it's option to retain Gonzo for another year. The Diamondbacks claim they are going for a "youth movement," but I think they meant to say "bowel movement."
Gonzo's Skills Have Declined, But... Luis Gonzalez is not the player he used to be. At 39 years old, he has come a long way since his 2001 season when he hit 57 home runs, won the Home Run Derby, and scored the winning hit in the 2001 World Series that ended the Yankee dynasty (from which they have still not recovered). Having said all this, letting Gonzo go was not the right move, especially for a new front office that has no fan support.
In addition to sending Gonzo packing, the club axed Craig Counsell and Miguel Batista, the last three players left from the 2001 World Series team (Bob Melvin and Jay Bell remain as manager and bench coach, respectively). Of course, both Batista and Counsell have left the team before but were called back to Arizona. Counsell is currently in the Top Five Diamondbacks of All Time list (that's not an official list, but just ask any Diamondbacks fan), but it is his time to go with the early emergence of Stephen Drew at shortstop. Miguel Batista has never been a dominant pitcher, but he also hasn't declined since 2001 either. On top of being one of the nicest guys in baseball--the nicest according to Sports Illustrated, who bestowed him that honor after learning of his extensive charity work--Batista is a solid third or fourth starter that can still contribute on a young team. Batista could and should stay, but the front office has other things in mind.
The New Front Office Ditches Purple and Colangelo Starting next season, the Diamondbacks will play in red and brown instead of their original purple, copper and teal. This is another new choice by the Diamondbacks front office, and a choice that remains wildly unpopular with the fanbase. The color change--along with the personnel change--is one more step in the new direction of the new Diamondbacks front office: as far away from Jerry Colangelo as possible.
Colangelo brought sports to the Valley with the Phoenix Suns. Since then, he brought us the Coyotes, Rattlers and Diamondbacks. Over the years, Colangelo assembled winning teams and never assembled lackluster rosters like another Arizona franchise I know. Colangelo brought Arizona it's first and only professional sports championship with the 2001 World Series victory. But for some reason, the Diamondbacks hotshots shoved Colangelo out the back door. That "reason" is probably along the lines of greed and glory, but that doesn't give anyone the excuse to kick your founding father in the teeth. Whoever these dimwits are--I don't know their names, because they're not important--they seem to fancy themselves as Stalin to Colangelo's Trotsky, only Mexico is a lot closer to Arizona than it is to Mother Russia.
What does all of this have to do with Gonzo's final game? After the game, the new president of the Diamondbacks--again, I don't know his name--hosted a "Farewell to Gonzo and Counsell" ceremony. The whole affair was bittersweet: here we are saying goodbye to two of the greatest Diamondbacks in the club's short history, and we're totally ignoring the fact that the two still want to play, and still want to play for this team. We're totally ignoring the fact that the person responsible for them leaving at all is standing right next to them, pretending to be their friend, even offering them their own replica of the World Series trophy as belated hush money to atone for his sins. He gave those same trophies to Jerry Colangelo, former general manager Joe Garagiola, Jr., and outgoing Diamondbacks president Rich Dozer. These five men stood together, fully knowledgeable of the snow job the new guy was putting on, but so calloused against the new management that they hardly cared about the farcical display.
Gonzo momentarily addressed the crowd in a farewell address, but his words rang hollow: his heart wasn't in it. He was too honest to lie, and too honorable to bash the organization that shut the door in his face. When you can't lie and you can't tell the truth, you're left with nothing.
The fans who stayed around for Gonzo's farewell enjoyed their last opportunity to see him as a Diamondback, but it was unfulfilling because every fan knew that it didn't have to be this way. Yet, Gonzo deserved for his fans to support him, so we stayed to show him that support, with tearful eyes of loss and bitterness for the new organization instead of tears of joy and nostalgia for the tremendous gifts Gonzo gave Arizona with athletic play and community leadership.
So I finally get into the 21st century by dropping one of my text-based Internet games (too involving for a text game) and picking up a copy of Battlefield 2. I like to wait for the first price cut or a sale before buying a game, and it only took about 18 months for BF2 to go for less than $50. Needless to say, I'm a bit behind the current wave, but I'm enjoying the game nonetheless.
Battlefield 2 is a first-person shooter (FPS) with a modern warfare theme. The object is to make the opponent lose all his "tickets." To accomplish this, players interact as a team to take over capture points (flags) and, of course, kill each other.
My favorite role is the medic, who predictably is armed with med packs he can distribute to his teammates for points. The medic is also armed with a defibrillator, used to bring fallen teammates back from the dead! Since I did extensive work with defibrillators (read: changed their batteries) when I worked for the American Red Cross, I rightly assumed the role of medic would suit me perfectly.
The game keeps track of your stats, so you can brag to all the 15-year-olds how "1337" you are and how much you "pwnzor" with the "noob tube." I don't do any of that, mostly because I am not "1337" (or "elite," for those who read English and not morontype). Above are my stats in the form of a forum signature. Some of those stats must be broken; most significantly, kill streak. I've barely killed 20 people in one round (to win my silver Veteran Medic Combat Badge), and I died at least 10 times in that run. So where did I get 30? Not like I'm going to have them fix this glitch anytime soon, though. It's my only potential link to "1337ness".
Battlefield 2 is a lot of fun and it holds my attention. That's all I ask for, really.
Now that Shaun Alexander's broken foot reaffirmed the power of the Madden Curse, I feel it's our duty as sports fans and concerned world citizens to come up with the next Madden cover person. We have almost a year to figure this out, but it never hurts to start thinking of candidates, especially since there is no current device to "elect" the next Madden Curse victim.
Here's my list of Madden Curse hopefuls:
Al Davis: The Raiders are horrible and Al Davis has been sucking from the unholy teat of inexplicable undeath for far too long. If the Madden Curse can keep the Raiders horrible or somehow cause Al Davis' death... YES.
Peyton Manning: This beloved commercial star and superior quarterback graced the cover of every OTHER football video game except Madden, and all he's had is success (well, in the regular season). I'm sure plenty of people would love to see him carted off in a gurney or throwing 30 INTs in a season. I don't really care either way, but it seems like it needs to happen.
Terrell Owens: He's thrown so many teammates, teams and coaches under the bus over the years. Physical injury is too predictable, and Kobe proved that the rape allegation doesn't have the same power it used to. How about a cocaine habit coming to light? He's in Dallas; after all, Michael Irvin experienced problems with coke and he's still not in the Hall of Fame. It seems fitting, so coke it is. Madden Curse, please make this happen.
The East Coast Bias: If we can shove all the New York and Boston athletes onto one cover, not so that each of them will be individually cursed but so that collectively they will receive less attention--even just for one year--the rest of the nation would be grateful. Tom Brady, Derek Jeter, David Ortiz, Tiki Barber, Eli Manning--these are all great athletes, but I'm tired of hearing about them and their teams.
Golf: Since I've already deviated (briefly?) from people who might actually make the Madden cover, let's go ahead and throw golf in there. It's boring, it excludes those who can't afford it, and it only features one true athlete: Tiger Woods. I do love that the one true athlete dominates all the pudgy players, but that does that mean we should keep golf? It's like keeping the XFL just because we love the mysterious player name "He Hate Me." Slap golf on the Madden cover, insert Tiger into a different sport, and let's be done with the whole thing.
Tom Cruise: This guy is nuts, we all know he's nuts, yet people still follow his every move and pay way too much to see his movies. Put Cruise on the Madden cover so we can expose the ultimate dirty secret that will lead to his imprisonment, banishment or murder spree (although let's hope he doesn't actually murder anybody so much as just try really hard and make a fool of himself).
Steve Smith: This move I actually favor for the opposite reason: Smith is the kind of guy that gets fired up in the face of adversity. Give him a Madden cover and he will fight the curse with vigor. The chip on his shoulder will carry him and the Panthers to an undefeated season and a Super Bowl victory. I'm not a Panthers fan by any means, but I would love to see Steve Smith as that kind of force, and I would really love someone besides the Dolphins having an undefeated season.
Players who have seemingly already been hit by the Madden Curse:
Randy Moss: Exiled to Raiders hell. Does he deserve it? Probably. Still, it's a drag to be hit by the Madden Curse without the actual thrill of being on the cover of the game.
Houston Texans: 'nuff said.
Priest Holmes: If there was any player who deserved to make the Madden cover, it's Priest Holmes. Now he may never return at all, much less to his former NFL glory.
Jamal Lewis: The Anti-Holmes in many respects, this guy got what he deserved. First, he racked up a 2,000+ yard season, and everyone thought that he was IT. Did everyone ignore the fact he racked up 600+ yards in two games against an atrocious Cleveland Browns team? His 2,000 yard season tarnished Terrell Davis's similar record AND reaffirmed what the pundits like to repeat from time to time: O.J. Simpson, the first 2,000 yard rusher, did it in just 14 games. Anytime you can contribute to making O.J. Simpson look better, you need to contemplate your actions and reconsider your direction in life. Of course, Jamal Lewis went to prison for his role in a cocaine deal, and hasn't been the same since. [Insert random prison/sexual orientation joke here.]
The correct answer to the most important things in my life are God, my wife, my family and my friends, in that order.
The next two foci, however, are law and video games, and those two compete for time and importance on a daily basis.
Usually, the law wins out, by virtue of the time requirement and the costly investment made towards my education. However, when the law becomes too tedious, I must "win" at something else to restore some confidence and learn to approach the problem in new ways. When that happens, I turn to video games for a quick ego boost. Right now, I'm playing two internet TEXT-BASED games (not totally unlike "Thy Dungeonman" but with other foolish "real-life" souls involved to bask in our collaborative desperation) and a GameBoy Advance game (Fire Emblem: Sacred Stones).
The point in telling you all this: most of these posts will be about the law or video games (or both). If you want warm fuzzy things, maybe my wife will make one of these and I'll link to her page.
