Herbnosis, Esq.

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.

Guitar Hero 4 Commercial (!)

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.

Mac vs. PC: Microsoft bites back...?

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.

Game-Winning Two-Point Conversion

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.

I Am The Swing Vote

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.

Shut up and get to work.

Addendum to Commercials as Art

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:

Olympic Teasers and Why Yahoo! Beats MSN, Hotmail

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.

Kudos to Yahoo! and shame on MSN.com and Hotmail.

Television Commercials as Art

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

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.

Herbnosis, J.D.

I graduated. I thought you all should know.

Forum Trash: Disneyland as a World of Warcraft Battleground

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.

Madden Curse Update

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.

More drivel that wasn't good enough for the forums: Who is the best Batman?

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).

Well, it's been almost a year, and...

...my adoring fanbase deserves an update.

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.