|
3/31/03: Just got back from Southern California. It was between 80 and 85 degrees and sunny each day. More and more I realize that living in New York City is a choice I make out of a desire to avoid making choices at all. It's as arbitrary as dozens of other "choices" I've made, choices that amount to choosing a path that doesn't need to be cleared for me. Applying for my job, getting it, not leaving it --it's all completely random. I grew up here, and I liked the little piece of the city that I allowed myself to explore as a kid, really just a small fraction. I went to college at Wisconsin, and then I moved back almost exactly 10 years ago. I don't remember why I chose to come back. I guess it was the easiest thing to do. Madison, Wisconsin is a beautiful place, and I loved it there. But then I came back. There was no scientific process to my decision, it just sort of happened. Luckily, New York in the mid-1990's was a blast. I made new friends, I reunited with old ones, and I approached the city with a real curiosity for the first time. I went out all the time, I spent more money than I had, and I generally felt and acted like a wide-eyed kid in a brand-new big city. This went on for a good six or seven years, but then I started to peter out. Even before 9/11/2001, the city wasn't feeling magical for me anymore. I guess I was settling down (getting old), and I started to get a little annoyed at the things that people from Kansas get annoyed at about New York. Crowded subways, Herald Square, dog shit, grime, lack of space, lack of air, lack of the color green. AIDS, crack, Bernie Goetz. After 9/11, I have to admit it got even worse. Even though I felt proud to be a New Yorker amid all the emotional stories of goodwill that were circulating, and even felt a little bit like some kind of a hero for having done absolutely nothing, the spectre of terrorism became such a part of our existence here that it made everyday life very unpleasant. The repeated "The terrorists have already won" jokes hit on something true. The terrorists have already won. Our lives will never be the same, and living in a city like New York will always feel unsafe. The weather here sucks, there are way too many people for the amount of resources, apartments are small and dirty, and now we feel like a giant target. Other than some strange sense of responsibility toward my city, and the fact that my parents live here, I really don't want to live here anymore. Now that I'm married and living on the annoying Upper West Side, I don't even get the daily burst of energy that I used to get living in the East Village. I used to love looking at people walking down the street, all the posers and hipsters and just completely DIFFERENT types of people that made NYC special to me. And I really didn't see those people in San Clemente, CA, either, but it was fucking 85 degrees outside in March, and there were big green rolling hills and open spaces and basketball courts to go play on. I felt a sense of relief, and I started asking myself what was really valuable to me. Do I care about the change of seasons? No. Do I like waking up to beautiful days and playing outdoors all year long? Maybe I do. Maybe I need to get out of this angry, fearful, scuzzy little shitbag of a city before I become one of those diehard New Yorkers who just can't imagine living anywhere else, because they're too scared to leave. New York really is like no other city, and it can become a cozy little crib for those of us who don't know anything else -- we don't have to drive, we don't have to figure out how to buy or take care of a home, we don't have to do our grocery shopping in advance. But maybe I need to wean myself off this place for good. I can't get over how buff Carrot Top is, and how much he likes to show off his guns. It's really fucking with me. 3/28/03: Here are three of the least rock and roll moments in rock and roll history--does three constitute a list? -Billy Joel's sickening heavy breathing on the song "Just a
Fantasy" 3/27/03: There are a few milestones that generally occur in a person's life. Here is a basic list (I can't stop listing things): -first steps I think we need to challenge this list. For one thing, the list is so heavy in the early part of one's life, then tapers off to nothing at the end. We all know that life is cruel and short and peaks at age 17, but something needs to be done about years 30-80. We need to constantly pursue new milestones, new breakthroughs. And we don't have to accept the ones on this list, like real job, first sex, and children. I don't want to sound like a car ad, but let's make up some crazy-ass milestones for ourselves (not that that really sounds like a car slogan , but the sentiment is a little Chevrolet). Let's make sure we have a milestone every year or so after age 50. And let's remember that life's pleasures can come from anywhere, not just these big moments. Savor a nice long breath after a sip of your favorite beer, think for a moment how much you love your friends, take an extra moment circling the bases after a meaningless softball home run. The cumulative value of these little treats is worth more than a graduation party. But when I really think about it, a cool summer breeze and a soft la-z-boy chair are shit compared to first sex or learning to ride a bike. Getting old sucks. 3/26/03: Going to LA this week to keep my wife company. Her company got nominated for some diversity in programming award, and since she's a minority, her boss decided she should go represent the company. Seems kinda racist to me. Imagine if every company made sure it only sent minorities to events like this. Wouldn't that just look like tokenism? They literally didn't send this other girl because "she was basically this tall blonde, maybe the whitest person in the company." Describing someone as the whitest person in the company is offensive to me as well. What made her so white, any whiter than any other white employees? I had a (white) friend who said to me once, "Dude, you're like, so white." He wasn't talking about the tint of my skin; he meant that I embodied what to him was a "white" personality type. I challenged him on that ridiculous comment, and he was like, "No offense, I just mean, like, I couldn't ever picture you mugging someone." I left this completely ludicrous and racist statement alone, but somehow I felt like I needed to justify my personality, my being. Should I try to change the way I talk to seem less "white" to him? Would I even know what that meant? Would mugging someone seem less white to him? So silly. I should have mugged him. Some white people need to come to terms with their own whiteness. Or I need to start acting like more of a poseur. 3/25/03: Has there ever been a scarier, more robotic human being than John Travolta? Scientologists in general are a terrifying bunch, but he is just ridiculous. As much as it pains me to admit it, he's a talented performer...or at least he was before he completely turned the corner and became this smiling, glazed drone. There are some parts where you say, no other actor could have been that person. Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever" is one of those examples. He was born to play it. Real World Las Vegas has achieved what I thought might be impossible: it's actually managed to gross me out with too much sex. The people on the show are hooking up with such drunken abandon that I actually feel skeeved. 3/22/03: I love watching the NCAA tournament...the games are always so tight, so contested, and, even though college basketball is full of hypocrisy, there is just something pure about the whole thing. I especially like that moment when a big, high-profile school is playing against a small one. The big school comes onto the floor, and for the first five or ten minutes, the little school looks completely lost. They're tossing up bricks, getting worked over under the boards, and gasping for air. You can tell they feel like they shouldn't even be in the same gym as the big school. They're scared. Then, all of a sudden, there is a moment. Now, this doesn't happen in every mismatch. Many times, the big school just overwhelms the little guys. But sometimes, something occurs that gives the little guys hope. Maybe one of their guys drives the lane for a big dunk. Or gets a great block. Or they get a steal and run a perfect two on one break. But slowly, the little school realizes that they DO belong in the same gym with these guys. I guess it's sort of like the scene in "Hoosiers" when Gene Hackman measures the height of the rims to show his team that this gym is just like any other. There is a point where the momentum turns, and the little guys sense that they might just be able to climb this mountain. And from that moment on, you just know it'll be a great game. Whether or not the upset actually occurs, it's going down to the wire and it's just exciting to watch the confidence of the players growing. I think that is part of what holds me back when I play sports -- when I see an opponent who just looks bigger, faster, better than me, I can't get over that mental barrier. My game suffers from my lack of self-confidence. When you look at the great athletes, there is just no room in their game for self-doubt and fear. When it shows up, they're doomed. Doomed like Charles Smith or Nick Anderson. Another great thing about this NCAA tournament so far is how calm the young kids have been...games are being won by great shots and clutch free throws, not lost on bad plays due to nerves. It's amazing. To me, it also means the players are able to separate themselves from the importance of the moment, and are just enjoying the game in all its beauty. They've stopped thinking, they're just doing what they love to do. Porno actor names thought up tonight while watching the academy awards: Gregory Pecker (must star in "To Drill a Mockingbird") Among all the galling things about this war in Iraq (and it's been pretty galling in a lot of ways), today I am particularly offended by the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom." I mean, sure, I understand the need for the government to slap a little PR on the war. You can't call it "Operation Sport Utility" or "Operation For My Daddy," but "Operation Iraqi Freedom"? If we were going in there to liberate the Iraqis, why have we waited 25 years or whatever it is that Saddam has been in power, in particular these last 10? If they are going to pretend the war is about something that it really isn't, can we at least stick to the story about the Saddam-Al Queda connection? At least that makes sense to Americans, especially the ones whose kids, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers are being killed every day. And when I see the footage of Baghdad on fire, it's just so tragic. This is how we liberate a country, by burning it down? Rumsfeld and co.'s "Shock and Awe" posturing is also annoying. It's like a pre-fight press conference at Caesar's Palace. I know I am simplifying things, but what can I say? Complex concepts just confuse me. So I react to the simple things that I can easily comprehend. If this site is still up next year, I hope to remember not to
run the NCAA pool. 3/19/03: What a day today. Worked a full day, flew to Miami, checked into our hotel, found out it was kind of a shitty hotel, and now we're looking to check out. Oh, and the war started. 3/16/3: I am running my office NCAA pool this year, for like the seventh straight year. I draw the following conclusions: 1) running an NCAA pool will not get you fired 2) running an NCAA pool will not get people to take you very seriously when it's promotion time 3) running an NCAA pool does not give you greater insight into who is going to win the NCAA tournament 3/15/3: I crack up when I hear golf announcers basically masturbating over how good the players are. I mean, I like watching golf, it's nice to see the pretty trees and the short sleeves in the wintertime, but I really have a hard time taking it all that seriously. An announcer will go, "You know, he had to use a four iron, and so he only hit it 240 yards." This is said with total sarcasm because apparently that is indeed a great distance to hit a golf ball, especially with a four iron. The other announcer will say, while trying to control his hard-on, "How good is THAT?" While I do appreciate the skill involved in being a great golfer, there is nothing that inherently thrilling about watching a man dressed like your dad whack a stationary object around. I don't want to learn enough about the sport so that I understand off the top of my head just how incredible these guys are. It's the same as when guys get together and talk about cars or gadgets-- there is this kind of privileged, "I appreciate the finer points" tone that is just silly to those of us who, well...don't appreciate the finer points of stuff like that. I wish I had been born with a stronger affection for money. Then, by time I became nauseated by my own selfish wheelings and dealings and was ready to start a new, simpler life with my family, I might have saved enough of the sickening stuff to do all the simple, fun things that cost a lot of money. Instead, I have the impulses and tendencies of a lifetime hand-to-mouther. 3/14/3: Tortured is my spirit right now. I want nothing more than to grow a big bushy moustache (not that I am really capable of doing so), and my wife won't have it. She "hates moustaches," and has vowed not to come near me if I grow one. I want to be true to myself, but I also feel that her complaints have some merit. I would look ridiculous. Still, isn't facial hair something a man (or woman) should be able to choose for himself? As Pat Riley (or was it Roddy Piper?) used to say, "Sometimes a man's got to plant his feet, make a stand, and kick some ass." I just can't help but wonder if there is a better battle for me to choose. As for Riley, I guess his Heat have yet to learn this particular lesson. Although some of them have facial hair. I am always amazed at the way comedians recycle their material. I know it's a serious task to come up with new material for every public appearance, but these guys are so shameless. Even really good comedians. I saw Jerry Seinfeld one week in which he was on two talk shows on consecutive nights. He wasn't even doing standup. He had given both hosts the exact same set of seemingly impromptu questions to ask him, spurring identical comic riffs each time. He had to figure that some of his fans would be watching both nights. It was old-fashioned Catskills or something. Dave Chappelle, too - every time I've seen him do standup, he does that, "Look at him. He loves that chicken!" bit. Granted, it is one of the funniest bits of all time, so maybe he feels like he has to do it for each audience, like the Rolling Stones have to do "Satisfaction" every night. Unfortunately, for me anyway, jokes aren't like music -- there is only so much value that can be added each time you tell a joke. Maybe there are subtle nuances in the telling --there definitely are -- but is it enough to just keep altering your expression or your inflection and retelling jokes for 20 years? 3/13/3: I really don't want to Mormon-bash any more than is necessary, but I am totally creeped out by this Ed Smart, the father of the girl who just got returned after disappearing last June. Whenever I see him on the news, I think of a slightly more effeminate version of Bill Lumbergh from "Office Space." He just seems like a phony, so polished, so composed. I have this horrible feeling that there was more to this story than we know right now. I hate to say that, and I guess the thing we should all feel is an incredible sense of relief that Elizabeth Smart is alive. I was overjoyed when I heard it, but I can't help but feel a little weird about all the details that keep emerging. I don't really have much evidence of this, but I think there is something a little off going on in that house. Hopefully, I'm wrong, because there is no arguing over the fact that the life she has been leading for the last 9 months was not ideal. I hope she is truly safe and happy to be home. 3/11/3: I am trying to set up a survey/poll type thing on my site, but I am so not savvy I can't yet figure out how to do it. Here's what the question was gonna be: Which of the following has been the greatest breakthrough in home football watching? a. The yellow line indicating (roughly) where the first down is b. The small graphic with score, clock, possession, etc. that sits in one of the upper corners of the screen, giving you all the info you need without ever being an intrusion c. The television Hopefully, I'll figure that shit out. In the meantime, please feel to email us your preference. It always strikes me as a huge mistake when musicians make pop culture references in a song. I used to be able to clearly put into words why, but I am getting older and concepts that were once clear to me become vague. The best I can put it is, "When someone brings out your CD like 15 years from now, and they put on song #3, and you are singing about Kato Caelin, will the music still move that person?" I doubt it. I just came across a song on the digital cable music channel in which the singer says something like, "You're a reality show." How laaame is that? Like is that songwriter really so affected by reality television that they thought it needed to be immortalized in song? Or, more likely, was it a conscious effort to somehow connect to words that are in people's heads in the hope of creating a hit record? Either way, a great pop song should have some element of timelessness, and putting something in your song about "Jerry Springer" or "Courtney Love" or any dumb stuff like that sounds stupid immediately upon its release. I hate it. Unless your song is intentionally a piece of throwaway pop, or a novelty song, something that documents a certain pathetic moment in time, in which case I guess it's tolerable. 3/10/3: I remember during my second year in college, our RA/Housefellow guy was a kind of spacey, nice, handsome Kevin Costner type named Mike Ruzika. He was about 22, the rest of us were 19, and as pleasant a guy as he was, he had zero interest in the lives of the students on his dorm floor. He seemed like a grown man. He was rarely around, and when he was, he had a serious girlfriend who was usually in his dorm room, with the door closed. In the room he had a huge Indy Car tire that he had turned into a table, in true upper-classman style. I used to ask him if the tire was a souvenir that flew into the stands during a horrible wreck, the auto racing fan's equivalent of catching a foul ball. Anyway, one day we were on line with him in the mess hall, and in our (literally) sophomoric way, we decided to put him on the spot and ask him for some "serious" advice. I said, "Mike, what form of birth control do you use?" He looked a little nervous for a second, like he was worried he might say the wrong thing and lead his impressionable young pups astray. Then he smiled and said, "I use the Dumptruck Method." I said, "What's that, Mike?" "I pull out and dump my load all over," he replied. Ah, the Dumptruck Method. My question is this: do Catholics really believe that sex is only to be used for reproductive purposes, and if so, is the Dumptruck Method a sin? Is it like killing a child? I think Mike Ruzika may have been Catholic. I should have questioned him on this. Speaking of Catholics, there was a REALLY creepy article on Mel Gibson in this Sunday's Times Magazine. Apparently, he is a devout follower of something called Catholic Traditionalism, which, among other things, feels that the Vatican is a little too liberal, too in step with the times. That was one of three articles in there that totally bummed me out. Another was about the 4th circuit federal court of appeals and how conservative it is, and how much judges in general rule based on their ideology rather than their interpretation of what is legally right. The third was a photograph of a Pakistani-American man who has been living in the states for like 10 years, working and raising a family. Now he is being forced to register with the INS, and he is so disgusted with our country that he is moving his family to Canada, where he has no job and no connections. He is telling his friends in Pakistan that the U.S. is no longer a good place to come live. Oh wait, there was another article about a young computer programmer in Jordan who wants to either get a job at Microsoft or become a suicide bomber in the U.S., or both. You know when you read a report of someone who was murdered by an intruder in their home? The report always says, "He surprised a burglar in his home." Surprised? How surprised could the burglar have been? He breaks into someone's house, I'm sure that someone coming home and walking in on him is one of the most prominent thoughts going through his head. He probably wasn't surprised at all. The guy who walks into his own house after a hard day of work, toting a pint of Ben & Jerry's, ready to watch SportsCenter, and finds a goddamned armed burglar -- THAT guy is the one who's fucking surprised. I hope you enjoyed that 80's-style comedy. About two weeks ago, I had a conversation with my friend Danny about this Knicks team, and he was lamenting the fact that they were closing in on a playoff spot. He hates Scott Layden, he hates the way the Knicks always mortgage their future going after old, mediocre players and giving these players huge contracts, and he wants the Knicks to lose so they can get as many Ping Pong balls as possible and get Lebron or that guy Milic or whatever his name is. He's probably right in a lot of ways, but I got into a little argument with him, partly just playing devil's advocate, but also kind of surprised that any fan would want their team to miss the playoffs. My first three full years as a Knick fan, they won about 66 games total and missed the playoffs every year. It was hopeless and depressing. And as much as the McDyess deal looks terrible right now, maybe he'll be back strong next year. In the meantime, I sort of like rooting for my overpaid underdog Knicks. They play hard, they play together, and they can beat a lot of teams. I truly doubt they'll make the playoffs. I heard Spike Lee at halftime of the game the other day praying they miss the playoffs. He's like, better to miss the playoffs than lose four straight in the first round. First of all, I disagree. Making the playoffs is an achievement. With the fat payroll the Knicks have, it's a pretty insignificant one, but it is an achievement, especially with the injury to McDyess. I also hate this negative thinking --the East is wide open. We made it all the way through to the Finals in '99 as an 8 seed. All the teams at the top of the East are struggling. It's unlikely, but we could fucking beat one of 'em. If Al and Spree are both hot, we are tough. I know people want to rebuild, but it isn't an automatic thing -- look at Chicago. I like always having a competitive team, we've had two finals trips in the past 10 years, which is more than everybody except Chicago (4), LA (3), Utah (2), and Houston (2). I am glad the players are still playing hard for Chaney, he's doing a great job, especially having to play for fans who want you to lose. Sports are about competing, about trying, and this entitled attitude of NY sports fans is sickening. Like we deserve to have a champion because we are New York. Think about how psyched the Grizzly fans would be to make the playoffs. Also, Danny says the fans will be patient through a rebuilding process if they just see that the team has direction. Yeah, for about 30 games. Danny is right in his thinking that Layden is at least partly to blame for the overpaid mess in New York, but I think rebuilding is a myth at this point. Unless you have Shaq, you just have to be wise with your trades and signings and get very lucky along the way. Yes, Layden has made some bad moves, but I don't think the McDyess deal was so flawed. I know he was an injury risk, but risks are part of what you deal with in sports. It hurt the Knicks this year, maybe they will be upper echelon East next year, with McDyess. With or without LeBron. 3/9/3: I hereby issue the following statement, which may be an obvious thought, and may be erroneous and childlike in its assumptions, but here goes: If you voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 election, you should not be allowed to participate in any anti-war protests. The irony is that probably 85% of the Nader voters have been among those protesting the imminent war with Iraq (statistic courtesy of my ass). I motion that they not be allowed to have a voice of dissent, because it was their naive and selfish voting that got Bush elected in the first place. Of course I speak figuratively. But let's be honest. No matter how crooked the election was, this is indisputable: many thousands of voters (officially 97,488) checked Ralph Nader on their ballot in Florida, a state in which Al Gore lost by (officially) 537 votes. If we assume that 60% of those Nader voters would have voted for Gore if Nader had withdrawn from the campaign (which seems like a safe figure to me), Gore wins easily, and the world might look very different today. Or maybe if 10,000 (or 538) of those Nader voters themselves had seen how critical their votes were to Gore's cause, they could have swung the election, and, without exaggerating, the future of this planet. Ralph Nader's campaign, and those who supported it, made the world a worse place. Unless you like George Bush, in which case you can skip all of this nonsense and go enjoy the war. I remember a college friend explaining to me his logic in voting for Green party candidates in the early 90's. He said, "I cast my vote as a vote of dissatisfaction with the two main parties. If enough people vote this way, maybe eventually a third party can have a realistic chance to give a voice to people who feel about the issues the way I do. And even if that party doesn't win, if its votes are significant in number, the big boys in Washington will have to pay attention to our voice." I said, first of all, most newly-elected republicans I know seem to care more about the voices of the people who voted for them or gave them money than the party who stands in the deepest ideological opposition to them. And If the democrats win, do they say, "Phew. Even though all these Green party voters almost cost me the election, I better listen to them or I might not get elected next time"? I doubt it. By voting for a third party, you are most likely taking a vote away from the party that is closer to your heart, and thereby helping elect leaders who you more seriously oppose. He said, "Well, to me the democrats and the republicans are essentially the same, anyway. I don't care who wins. " Well, I think the Bush administration is living proof of how cynical and wrong-headed that thinking is. The parties and their candidates are significantly different, and the difference between Nader and Gore is smaller than the difference between Nader and Bush. I wonder if the Nader voters are enjoying this presidency, or feeling apologetic about it. No, they are probably out protesting its policies in the streets. The whole idea seems pretty collegiate to me. I guess it is all in how you view your vote. If, philosophically, you consider your vote your voice, your chance to be heard by whoever it is that might be listening, then by all means vote for the candidate that you identify most closely with. But if you see the vote as a chance to realistically help elect the better of two "similar" politicians, then there is no reason to waste a vote for a third party. Especially in a very close election, I think it's important to vote realistically. That said, what a horrible administration this is. In mid-September 2001, when Bush came to NYC and gave his John Wayne speech about how "the people who knocked down these buildings will hear you," it was probably exactly what we needed emotionally. And I can't argue with his whole "war on terror" rhetoric about holding countries who harbor terrorists responsible. Of course, Afghanistan was one of those countries. So are Saudi Arabia, Canada, Germany and the United States. The terrorists are EVERYWHERE. As long as people hate the U.S., there will be terrorists. Of course, I am all for tracking down terrorists and upsetting their networks, wherever they are. It just seems like a HUGE stretch to invade Iraq on this basis. Maybe the U.S. has more intelligence on this stuff than they've shown. But don't they have a responsibility to justify to the world what they are doing? They clearly haven't done that, as evidenced by the number of countries lining up to disagree with us. I sort of like the fact that we are threatening war; maybe it's causing Iraq to cooperate in a way they wouldn't without the threat. But even the threat of war against Iraq increases hatred of the U.S. around the world. And the level of hatred that exists right now makes me think that the war on terror is already lost. We can't let the terrorists dictate what we do as a country, but we do have an obligation, as the big kid on the block, to try to create fair foreign policy. That might mean less exploitation of other countries, and maybe Americans getting used to consuming less. I don't think that the war is "all about oil." I think that the administration honestly thinks Iraq is a key to battling terrorism; who knows, maybe it is. But I think it is premature and wrong to invade their country at the costs of many lives; I also think there is something personal involved on Cowboy Bush's mind. More important than fighting Iraq, to me, is creating policies that allow people to see the U.S. as the great country it could be, as well as doing some PR to enhance our image around the world. We will never see eye to eye with these psychotic Islamic fundamentalists, but we have to recognize them as the threat that they are. It's almost like Bush is trying to turn the war on terror into a traditional war, which is like forcing a square peg into a round hole. Like, we have a big bad army, we can conquer countries. But does that make us safer? I think the opposite: anything that makes us more hated also makes us less safe. Addressing the causes of the hatred seems like a good place to start. 3/7/3: Heard a few wild, remarkable rumors this week that, as usual, ended up having no basis that I could find. On Wednesday, a friend came up to me at work and whispered that another guy we work with had heard from his friend (?) who works at ABC News that things over there (ABC) were getting really hectic, because...."We just captured Osama!" Now I knew this was just a rumor, but I wanted it to be true, and I waited by the TV near my desk that day to see when the news channels would finally get around to covering the story that I had scooped hours earlier. As the day crept by, I figured out that it was pretty unlikely that a story like this could have been kept among the staff at ABC News, who were for some reason (government's request? I thought hopefully) refusing to break it, and the 5 or 10 people in my office who had heard about it. Then tonight my wife told me that her co-worker said that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's computer included plans to detonate bombs in NYC apartment buildings. Having been a little out of the news loop over the past few days, I hadn't heard this. I tried a brief search, but couldn't find the information. (3/10 update: now I saw something on a lower 3rd scroll on one of the news channels about this, so maybe there is something to it; still don't know the whole story.) Is it true? I have no idea, but it's made me worry a little more, like everything else. So both of these just fell into that category of weird little bullshit stories that have been circulating since 9/11/2001, either through word of mouth in a very junior high school fashion, or, more often, through the mainstream news media. I guess it's really two separate categories: -completely unsubstantiated rumors that you heard through your friend's cousin or something -- I remember the one where my wife's co-worker's brother (a different co-worker this time), who works for the FBI (in who knows what capacity, if at all) called up his sister on a Friday and said, "You need to get out of New York City by 3pm!" -actual developing news reports that are really scary and for some reason never get followed up upon (such as the time that cropduster sprayed a mysterious white powder on those people working on a barge in the Mississippi) There have been hundreds of both types, and all of 'em contribute to the anxiety that we feel over terrorism. As much false information as you come across, it's still hard not to pursue every rumor you hear, to be as informed as possible, in the remote hope that we learn something that saves our life in an attack, or maybe learn something that comforts us a little . So the double-edged sword is this: the more you attempt to protect yourself through the pursuit of information, the more vulnerable you end up feeling. All this murky shit makes me want to move to Nebraska or something, it truly does. I wonder if people there really fear terrorism, even in the back of their minds --I think everyone in New York does. In Nebraska, your worst fear is getting clocked in the head by a North Korean missile. In the case of the Osama capture rumor, I really felt like tracking the origin of that shit down. I mean, it probably spread from ABC News all the way to Bangladesh in 15 minutes, but where the hell did it get started? I didn't want to be a dick, but I felt like asking my co-worker who exactly at ABC he heard it from, and could I have their number? It seemed that I was close enough to the birth of this rumor that a few phone calls could track down whoever started it. Just to reach some conclusion about how something like this could get started would have brought me some peace. I have to assume that it was started through some accidental miscommunication or wishful interpretation of info, but perhaps there are just d-bags out there who get their kicks out of starting rumors, maybe the same people who hack websites and create viruses. Of course, I did nothing, and now it's just another one of those stories circulating around in my head, further confusing me. 3/5/3: My boss asked me to tape "Just Shoot Me" for him tonight. We are working on a new show and someone suggested to him that we might want to look at their little graphic with the magazine cover, in hopes of drawing some "inspiration" from it. The fact that I work in an environment where "Just Shoot Me" could in any way influence the creative output of my group makes me feel like saying, "Insert Obvious Punchline Here." However, as much as I detest that show and all that it represents (not sure what it actually represents, but I most likely detest whatever it is), I needed to figure out when it was on. I knew I had stumbled across some repeats at around 11:30 or midnight, so I looked it up at TV Guide. It turns out it's midnight, so then I decided to check to see if the show was still airing first run episodes on NBC. I realized it had fallen into that netherland between Network and Syndication, where you can't believe that a show is still on, but you don't remember it being cancelled. According to TV Guide, it airs Tuesday nights at 8:30 on NBC. I was shocked that it's still running, so I double checked NBC's site, and sure enough, it is still on there, but in a not so promising way: check out the site (don't forget to read the "Finchisms!"). So maybe everybody, even NBC, has the same doubts about this show that I do. To me, it's always been one of those "not very good at all" shows that survived either because a) they were in a particularly desirable time slot, and they took advantage of the American public's desire to remain wedged motionless in their comfy chairs, not even bothering to lift a remote-control finger to turn the channel, OR b) they were in such a bad time slot that delivering mediocre numbers was acceptable. Here are just a few terrible shows that I never really saw, but seemed to be on the air forever, or at least for far too long: -Just Shoot Me (7 seasons, I believe) -Night Court (42 seasons of the kind of jokes that sound like they might be funny, but really, truly are not) -Step by Step (Was this the name of that Suzanne Somers show that aired for like 8 years on Friday nights in the late-80's through the mid-90's, right before or after the terminally underrated Family Matters? Imagine ever watching that. It just doesn't make sense.) -Suddenly Susan (at least 4 anonymous years, it seemed like 10 -- why did it take so long for the public do detect the complete lack of chemistry, humor and charm, and the complete and obvious presence of Judd Nelson) -Mad About You (OK, I admit that I've seen this one -- Paul Reiser is so unlikable he made Helen Hunt seem likable. They just sat in that cozy little time slot for about 6 annoying years.) Please send me some of your all-time mystery shows. I realize the tone of this page is getting very negative, so let me say something positive: how wonderful is Kevin Garnett? His skills, his attitude, his charisma, his heart. Easily my favorite NBA player right now; he'd make a wonderful Knick. Back to negativity: isn't Wally Szczerbiak the lamest, most 80's teen movie villain-style dickhead in the NBA? I bet Garnett cringes every time the bus has to wait so Wally can finish gelling his hair. 3/4/3: I bought a new baseball glove this weekend, my first since probably 1983. My old one is a Rawlings, a Dale Murphy autograph model. I'm not sure why I chose his model, I never really loved him, even before I found out he was a Mormon. I never had one of those "Heart of the Hide" gloves, the really expensive ones. I always kind of wanted one of those. Well, my new glove is still not one of the really pricey ones. It's another Rawlings, model XKP25. I looked it up when I got home from the store and I can't find even one mention on the whole damn internet of this model. Isn't everything on the internet? I think maybe it's a bootleg glove or something, like those old four stripe adidas. It has fur inside, which I guess means at least two different species of animal paid the ultimate price so I can bobble groundballs in recreational softball this year. Thanks, guys. I will try to do you proud in my pimped out glove. The glove is a little small around my wrist...I wonder if perhaps it is a women's or youth model. That would be troubling. Oh well, I am just going to try to enjoy my little mystery mitt. In the meantime, if you have any knowledge of this glove, please contact me. 3/3/3: I looked at my sad digital watch today at 3:33 and like 22 seconds, and then I stuck it out so I could see 3:33:33 on 3/3 (the year is also 3 but that ain't on my little ironman display). I tried to share the excitement with the IS guy who happened to be standing by my desk, but he just glanced at his non-digital watch and said, "I think it's already passed on my watch." As if the moment would have meant anything on his watch anyway. I like this guy Giricek on Orlando, but I fear that he may be single-handedly redefining the traveling rule in the NBA (a rule that had already been pretty severely perverted through the years). I also have terrifying suspicions that I am joining that category of stodgy old fucks who think that sports just aren't like they used to be (as if that is so horrible). I try to stay in tune with the times, and I hate hearing people complain about the modern athlete and his ceaseless self-promotion and immaturity. Yes, it bothered me when Mark Jackson did his "Jiggle" after he merely retrieved a loose ball, and one that came directly to him. It bothers me when Richard Jefferson screams with egotistical delight after hitting an open 12 foot jumper. Allen Iverson leading the league in scoring and shooting less than 40% from the field is problematic. But in general, I can't help but see some serious underlying racism in the sanctimonious announcers (see Billy Packer) and columnists (take your pick) who constantly harp on athletes not playing the game the way it's supposed to be played. I mean, what can Billy Packer's playing experience in the early 1960's really tell me about what Allen Iverson has to deal with when he drives his little body through all those steroid-inflated monsters in the paint? Yeah, I know he lit it up in the Final Four in like 1961 or something, but he may as well have been playing lacrosse for all the similarity between his basketball and ours today. We all need to make an effort to accept the changes in the way the game is played, as unnatural as it may feel to do it. I mean, yes, Larry Bird was a deadly shooter. But have you ever noticed that in those old games from the 80's, a player had a wide open 15 footer on almost every possession. Offense may have dropped off, but defense has come a long way. Some things are better these days (shorts, physiques), some are worse (shooting, lack of mustachioed white guys). But the traveling is getting pretty ridiculous. I have grudgingly accepted the hop-step, which I am certain is a walk, because it is just too widespread to worry about it anymore. But I watched this guy Giricek doing this crazy European move like three times the other night in the Orlando game. He will drive to the bucket, either in the half-court or on the break, and take one long stride as if he is preparing to elevate and shoot. The defender will naturally time his leap in order to contest what seems to be an imminent shot, and then Giricek will just glide past him by taking an additional leaping stride. The basket will be unprotected, and he will just lay the ball in. He is gaining a ridiculous advantage, and the officials aren't calling anything. He's a rookie, so maybe they called it on him for the first couple of months, and he just kept doing it until they accepted it as legal. I was watching Sportscenter tonight and there he was, getting away with it again in a highlight. He can completely change direction in the course of his steps to the basket. Ridiculous. While I'm on the subject of enforcing violations, I need to address the rampant palming of the ball that goes on these days. I remember when Michael Jordan first arrived in the league, he was getting some flak for carrying the ball during his dribble. At the time, it seemed kind of cool. Well, a lot of people apparently wanted to be like Mike, because the palming is out of control in the NBA these days. It didn't bother me that much until I saw Kobe get away with a move in which he would literally pick his dribble up in one hand, fake a pass, and them continue dribbling. Three or four times on a single possession. Also, check out his dribble on the move before he dunked on Yao Ming. So illegal. I love Kevin Garnett, but he had his hand completely underneath the ball on like three consecutive dribbles, for about a second each time, as he backed his man into the post the other day. He was practically begging the officials to make a call. When they finally did, he was incredulous. I am reading "My Losing Season" by Pat Conroy, which is so far only mildly interesting, and he described what a great dribbler he (Conroy) had been as a youth. He makes the point that the art of actually dribbling is gone, and I believe him. Think about how much easier it is to execute a crossover dribble and change directions when you are allowed to hold the side or bottom of the ball for a moment as you make your move. And think about how silly and primitive those old films of Bob Cousy dribbling out the clock look, and then take a moment and realize that he was doing it all legally, and it takes a lot more skill to handle the ball that way than what's allowed today. What do gym teachers tell kids when they discuss dribbling these days? They're putting their kids at a disadvantage if they don't encourage them to palm the ball. Separate subject: why does Chris Rock make such stupid, formulaic movies? I mean, I guess he's being paid a lot of money, so I would probably be doing the same thing, but doesn't a comedian as insightful and witty as he is just cringe when he has to recite lines that are so inane and offensive? I just saw a preview for his new movie where he runs for President...wow. That "roof is on fire" joke was right out of an episode of "Fresh Prince of Bel Air." When is the entertainment industry going to tire of the "black people and white people are just so different...let's take a black person, and put him among a bunch of stodgy white people, and watch the comedic sparks fly" theme. Of course, there is the other "fish out of water" comedy, in which the stodgy white guy is sent to the "hood" and tries to fit in. This Steve Martin/Queen Latifah movie looks equally depressing. Hearing the dorky white guy try to change his vocal patterns to imitate a black guy is the most thoroughly mined comedy bit since dressing in drag. As for Chris Rock, why doesn't he just write himself a decent screenplay? Or maybe we should just not assume that a talented observational comedian is automatically going to be a big ol' movie star. 3/2/3: Sometimes I buy things that I really shouldn't. Over the years, here are a few items I've purchased: -A University of Wisconsin Golf Hat/beret thing, purchased a few days after I arrived in Madison as a freshman (1987). This was always my sad entry in the "What was your first (and most embarrassing) Wisconsin purchase?" game we used to play. It wasn't alone on my shelf of shame...I also had a Red Vinyl Wisconsin jacket with my name embroidered on it(!), a pair of red poly/cotton sweats with "Wisconsin" in huge letters down the leg, and plenty of other University-related trash. -A white Panama-style hat (1986) that I bought on the street in an attempt to cultivate some kind of "look." The look I achieved was apparently the "Please Ridicule My Hopeless Self" style that was briefly the rage. -Nike Air Huarache basketball sneakers (1992) -ColecoVision (1983), and, even more shameful, the ColecoVision Adam home computer system (1985) -At least 8 Billy Joel albums (1983-1984), while growing up in a house full of music snobs who tried their best to steer me away from that stuff. I remember my sister giving me a Led Zeppelin album for like my 13th birthday, and I didn't even listen to it once. I accused her of buying it for me because SHE wanted to listen to it. How sad, I wasn't even ready for Led Zeppelin. So I am no stranger to buying things that turn out to be disasters. But at least most of these decisions were made impulsively, out of an innocent, hopeful desire to improve my silly little life somehow. Yesterday I made a much worse purchase, one that should never have happened, because I knew in advance it was a mistake. A mistake I had made before, and regretted. A mistake I hope never to make again. I purchased Spin magazine off the newsstand. I remember when Spin first arrived in the mid 80's, it had a real hipster cred that was actually a bit annoying. It wanted so badly to show how NOT Rolling Stone it was -- remember its response to Rolling Stone's constant "Best of" lists? Spin named "It Takes Two" by Rob Base and DJ EZ Rock as the greatest single of all time. And then, over the last 10 years or so, it's undergone a well-documented, Rolling Stone-like descent into mainstream mediocrity. Blah blah blah. Well, it got to the point where it was so bad it was unreadable, even on a plane ride or something. About once every three years, I buy one, hoping that it has somehow transformed itself into something interesting. Well, as of March 2003, it still officially sucks. I bought it as I might buy an Us magazine, sort of Light Toilet Reading during a period of mild depression or mild constipation. It failed to even live up to those mild requirements. It was the "List" issue, which to me promised some kind of amusement...I figured it would be just endless lists of stupid music stuff, which it was, but the lists were so unbelievably lame and the entire magazine was so devoid of joy and wit that I almost ran out and bought another copy of Us. I guess I should have been wary of a magazine with Eminem on the cover (that's Eminem, #1 on the Spin "Most important artists making music right now")...why does everyone in the world feel the need to jock Eminem? Every time there is a news story on him, and the interview people on the street, every dorky, Spin-reader type white dude they talk to says, "I don't necessarily agree with the things he's saying, but he's got mad flow." As if by saying this, they themselves will somehow understand, or perhaps even achieve, mad flow. I mean, maybe he does have mad flow, but a lot of what he says IS stupid, and his music is only marginally interesting. What is so "important" about him? Is he the first artist to bring hiphop to the suburbs? Not even close. The first platinum-selling white rapper? Again, not even close. Is he the first obscene rapper to make it to the mainstream? Again, no. Maybe he is the first white rapper who truly gets respect from black MC's, but does that make him especially important? He's just another guy, and Spin is just another magazine. Barely. 3/1/3: Sometimes there's no better way to spend a Saturday night than going to see a brand-new Hollywood-issue shitty movie in a theater packed with low-wattage twits who laugh at just about anything. That's what I did Saturday night. I saw "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" with my wife. We had both had kind of a tough week, and a movie seemed like a nice little escape. It was perfect for the wife, who loves sappy, girly, silly romantic comedies like she loves coconut cream pie. And I figured that a happy wife, a big bucket of popcorn and a nice shitty movie sounded just right after my lame week. Plus, it had Matthew McConaughey, who will always be a hero, no matter how many bad movies he makes, because he was Wooderson in "Dazed and Confused." For me, my enjoyment of a movie is inversely connected to my expectations for it. I can think of probably 10 movies I hate that are probably quite good, but were ruined for me by my ridiculous expectations. The flip side of this is movies like "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days," which send me into hysterics with every decently written and delivered joke. I would almost argue that this movie wasn't even truly shitty, but rather decent and cute. Even better: I expected an enjoyably shitty movie, and got a kind of likable romantic comedy, only a little bit shitty, to go with my jumbo popcorn.
|
Times per day when the average New Yorker is almost a victim
of a violent crime: