500 Words

Free Thought, Free Speech - Not Quite

2006-01-14T22:29:00.000-05:00

740 instances of profanity in first Sirius broadcast; Family Media Guide steals some publicity

In case you don't have satellite radio yet and you missed Howard Stern's first show, the friendly folks over at Family Media Guide have compiled a handy accounting of Stern's expletive usage for you. According to the group's tally the "F-word" was used 77 times during Stern's debut broadcast on Sirius, despite Stern's promise "that there would be no profanity on his first show." Stern did try to self-impose a no-cursing rule, but that rule was almost instantly broken. I am not offended by cursing on the radio or in any other medium and it seemed odd that Stern would impose such a rule. If he wants to use so-called foul language, then he should be allowed to do so, unapologetically.

As a writer I enjoy having every possible word in the language at my disposal to most effectively communicate a message and, therefore, am naturally opposed to the idea of censorship. Generally, I don't use "curse" words in my writing because I have ample time to choose my words carefully. Not considering me as a writer -- merely as person interested in relating to my fellow people on an intelligent and genuine level -- the idea of censorship still bothers me. See, I can write or say that Stern used the "F-word" 77 times during his first show and, when that phrase is read, each and every one of you know that the "F-word" I am referring to is fuck. There. I've made you think about the word fuck. So, if I am allowed to use a very special code-word in my message to make you think about the bad word and you, in decoding my message, are then able to think about the bad word, then why can't we, as intelligent and communicating human beings, just scrap using the very special code-word and use the bad word freely?

Message decoding; some people aren't idiots

In fact, we can use whatever words we want when communicating directly with each other. We are only restricted from doing so when using certain media. We can talk on a phone, or exchange email or instant messages and use any "indecent" words we want. But if we choose to communicate via another medium such as radio or television we automatically lose some freedom of speech and have to resort to using silly code-words.

The conventional argument for justifying censorship is the protection of children. While that is a noble idea, many children have more colorful vocabularies than adults. And for those children who don't, perhaps parents talking to children about the nature of the world rather than patently sheltering them from everything that isn't "decent" might allow people to enter adulthood better adjusted. We live in a country and world where people use "bad words" and actually do far worse. Who exactly are we trying to kid that society is a utopia where everyone uses flowery language all the time and everything is always magnificent?

One element of freedom of speech is freedom not to speak. No one is required to use certain “offensive” words. Hearing and seeing those words on occasion is part of the imperfect American experiment. Censoring speech on the fictitious notion of a perfect moral and lingual world is fucking bullshit.

Look for a censored version of this column in Tuesday's edition of Metro New York.

Happy 30th Birthday...To Me!

2006-01-08T14:03:00.000-05:00

Powered by Castpost
Blast from the past

"If you're not a rebel by the age of twenty, you've got no heart, but if you haven't turned establishment by thirty, you've got no brains," said Kevin Spacey's character, Buddy Ackerman, in the movie Swimming With Sharks. That's actually a bastardization of a Winston Churchill quote that goes, "Any man who is under 30 and is not a liberal has no heart; and any man who is over 30 and is not a conservative has no brains." Frankly, the quote from Swimming With Sharks, written by George Huang, makes a little more sense to me. Although, as I turn thirty today it has me wondering what the hell I've been doing with my life, where the hell I am right now and where the hell I'm going. Well aware that I'm no Stephen Hawking (who also has a January 8th birthday), I find myself wondering if indeed I have "no brains," despite being certain many of you will assure me that I have no brains.

I got a bit of a late start rebelling against the establishment. I really didn't begin my rebellion until after I graduated from college, when I was 22. Up until that point my rebellion was limited to my parents. So, I like to think that even though I'm turned 30 at 10:21 AM today I still have a two-year grace period to become a part of the establishment. If I'm not part of the establishment by the time I'm 32 then you'll know I truly have "no brains."

Rebel or Establishment Guy? You decide

My first serious challenge to the establishment came with the cable access cult hit, The Anti Show. It was a show I created and produced with my comedian friends David Gelles, Kevin Miller and Dave Rubin. We managed to "borrow" a studio from NBC in which to tape the show before a live audience and then we aired the show on MNN, Manhattan's cable access channel. For about two years The Anti Show was a wild ride of emotional highs and gut-wrenching lows. I'm so emotionally scarred I still can't really talk about it on anything but a superficial level. Our plan was to have the show be picked up and be successful, but here we are about five years later and that has yet to happen, despite a psychic predicting that it wold get picked up. The list of people who rejected the show is long and distinguished, with NBC, Showtime and Comedy Central among them. The New York Observer did a huge cover story on us, but ultimately the show went down in a ball of miserable flames.

Other January 8th birthdays

I also wonder if I have somehow accidentally become part of the establishment. I have worked for a couple good TV shows and a bunch of shows I'm ashamed of having worked on and for. I've had several Op-ed columns published in Metro daily newspaper. Perhaps I am part of the establishment...who knows? I guess that's up to the public.

Partied with friends last night to celebrate becoming establishment
From left: Tim Walton, me, TJ Anghelone, Matt Shannon, Phil Kiernan

Even though today is my birthday, let me give all of you a gift. Above is a clip of one of my favorite bits that we did on The Anti Show. It's pretty funny and features great performances from Tim Walton, Mike Singer, Melissa Rauch and Erik Braunstein in addition to the talented hosts. Please accept this as my gift to you on my 30th Birthday. All I've ever wanted to do is entertain and provoke the general public and make the people think a little. Hopefully I can do that for you, even if it's only on a small scale. Enjoy the clip. And now you'll have to excuse me. I'm going to go get back in the fetal position and cry myself to sleep because I'm 30 and only marginally successful.

Just kidding...come on.

FYI - If you have crappy AOL or can't view the video on this site, click herel to view the clip.

Letterman Vs. O'Reilly

2006-01-04T15:07:00.000-05:00

Powered by Castpost
The No Tough Questions Zone: Watch the video here

Last night Bill O'Reilly appeared as a guest on The Late Show with David Letterman. Unfortunately, Letterman wasn't up to the task of matching wits with the Fox News Channel blowhard. Letterman made a good point about O'Reilly's unfair criticism of Cindy Sheehan and the bogus premise on which the war in Iraq is based. But Letterman let O'Reilly off the hook when O'Reilly basically suggested no one should ever question president Bush and ended up telling O'Reilly that he thinks "about 60% of what you say is crap." Overall, Letterman, who is a vastly superior interviewer than his nemesis Jay Leno, seemed unprepared for the interview and missed a golden opportunity to back O'Reilly up against the wall. Like Leno often does, Letterman seemed out of his league. Too bad. Anyway, feel free to watch the video above and decide for yourself.

FYI: If you have AOL or see an advertisment above click here to view the clip.

In Memoriam

2006-01-03T15:42:00.001-05:00

Nick Tavani, Jr. - 1943-2005

It’s hard for me to believe, but yesterday was exactly one year since my dad died. In the early morning hours of January 2nd, 2005 my dad expired in the family room of his home for the previous thirty years, surrounded by family and friends. His death ended an excruciating battle with two forms of cancer and the barbaric chemotherapy and radiation treatments he endured. We were devastated. It was only a year and three months since he was diagnosed with cancer and we watched him suffer through two operations and the physical and psychological effects of a slew of treatments that proved to be futile.

It wasn’t fair that such a good, 61 year-old family man had to suffer the way he did and have his life cut short. Everyone present (my mom and brother, Alex, my grandmother, my dad’s uncle and wife, my cousins, my parents’ friends the Dunns, my girlfriend and my brother’s girlfriend) shared that sentiment. While we waited for the medical examiner to examine the body and pronounce my dad dead we all sat in the family room and told stories about my dad, reminisced and even laughed a little. The medical examiner told us that our behavior was rather healthy given the circumstances. She said she had seen other families in a similar situation screaming at each other and even coming to blows. I think our behavior was a reflection of the effect my dad’s life had on all of us. In his life, he made us feel good, so fighting or yelling at each other would have completely contradicted his life, even though we were filled with feelings of sadness, anger and loss. At least I was filled with those emotions.

Yesterday was somewhat of a microcosm of the whole year, emotionally. Once again I had mixed feelings—sadness, even a little anger, confusion. Yesterday felt weird, as did the entire holiday season. Clearly I miss my dad. But I don’t just miss the person I love. I miss the personality whose abscence from our family has left a void. Before my dad died, I contemplated the possibility of his death and the notion that life would be sad without him. I never considered the larger effect it would have on the family as a group. People relate to one another differently when someone important is missing. It’s not a grossly obvious difference, but a subtle change. There was a delicate balance before my dad died and now that balance has been slightly altered.
As my grandmother said yesterday, it simultaneously feels like a long time ago and just yesterday that my dad died. I still remember the last look I had at my dad, about two hours after he died. I sat next to his hospital bed to say a last good-bye before the people from the funeral home took him away to be cremated. I didn’t even recognize him. He was beginning to turn gray. He was bald from the chemotherapy and emaciated, about sixty pounds lighter than what he was while healthy. I thought to myself that the body lying before me wasn’t my dad anymore. I desperately didn’t want to remember him that way, but a year later that is my most enduring image of him. The grief process is a long, confusing one. I imagine that eventually I’ll be able to focus more on his life than the circumstances of his death.

I know I represent the whole family by recognizing that he has been missed dearly this past year and will be missed for years to come.

Milking An Ad Campaign & The American People....Priceless

2005-12-29T11:58:00.000-05:00

"I'm Lovin' It" -- Always have exact change at McDonald's with Mastercard

Evidently, the executives at Mastercard aren't very impressed by or concerned with America's weight problem. The loan sharking company has been thumping its chest in a new line of Priceless commercials about its Tap 'N Go Paypass technology which can now be used at the drive through window of Mastercard's corporate bedfellow, McDonald's. In case you haven't been fortunate enough to see the "Drive Through" commercial on TV yet, you can view it right here.

According to the American Obesity Association's fact sheet 64.5% of American adults are overweight and 30.5% of American adults are obese, yet the Mastercard braintrust thinks it's still too difficult for Americans to shove fast food into their mouths. About the only way Mastercard could make eating fast food any easier for Americans would be to offer complimentary Mastercard shovels® to all Tap 'N Go users. Yeah Mastercard, I stuck a little "R" next to shovel, so you can't steal that idea.

Mastercard trying to super size its profits by exploiting America's eating problem

It's no surprise that an American corporation is flagrantly unscrupulous, but Mastercard overflowing with pride, like it does in the "Drive Through" commercial, that it is simultaneously fattening up Americans and the company's bottom line is disappointing. If Mastercard at all had its customers interests in mind it might produce a commercial about how it priceless it is that Americans can use the credit card at a bookstore to purchase a copy of Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser and educate themselves on the dark side of the fast food industry. Or Mastercard might make a commercial informing Americans that they could use the credit card to buy or rent the DVD Super Size Me, in which people can learn all about the plethora of health risks eating fast food presents. But, Mastercard is in the business of exploiting its customers for the sake of the bottom line. Enabling and feeding into America's fast food addiction to turn even more massive profits would be ingenius if it weren't so diabolical. Money is the bottom line.

Furthermore, Mastercard's Priceless advertising campaign is old and tired. The ad campaign was clever when it debuted in 1997, but the company has milked it and now the campaign is a trite, dried up cash cow. It was time to retire the Priceless campaign when the Y2K catastrophe was narrowly averted.

Too much self-congratulations can lead to continuing shoulder problems

Part of the problem with Mastercard's lack of creativity is that the company's indentity is almost singularly built on the Priceless campaign, which was the brainchild of Chief Marketing Officer Larry Flanagan. And the marketing people at Mastercard have suffered serious shoulder injuries from patting themselves on the back about the fact that the commercials are seen in "more than 97 countries and 47 languages." On its web-site Mastercard boasts that the Priceless ad campaign is "award-winning," but good luck finding out what award Mastercard won or when the company won it. Sorry Mastercard, one of those stupid Cleo Awards for TV commercials doesn't count as a real award.

Mastercard has been milking the Priceless campaign for nearly a decade now and it's time they get to work on a new ad campaign. If Mastercard insists on pitching more fast food to Americans, the least the company can do with some of the profit swell is come up with a new ad campaign. Feel free to email Larry at Larry_Flanagan@mastercard.com and tell him and his marketing staff to retire the Priceless campaign. You can even send him your ideas for a new ad campaign, but make sure you put one of these ® or © symbols next to anything you submit so Mastercard can't steal the idea from you.

Not everything is priceless.

Merry Christmas & Happy Chanukah: Some Last Minute Shopping Advice

2005-12-24T08:51:00.000-05:00

Nobody busts Santa's balls for not wearing a necktie

Editor's Note: Thank you everyone who visits, reads and comments on 500 Words. You all make the otherwise mundane experience of writing a blog a little more interesting. I hope you all have a happy and healthy holiday season. Now, read on please.

As a 21st century man I‘m always trying to think of ways in which we, as a culture, can progress. Occasionally, I find myself inspired by something that strikes me as old-world or blatantly over-priced. As luck had it, I stumbled upon an item that embodied both of these characteristics when I walked into a Banana Republic a few days ago. Amid all of the controversy surrounding the purported “war on Christmas” I found another subtle dilemma facing Americans.

I don’t want to go into why, but I was faced with a situation that required the purchase of a new necktie. Trying to make the experience of buying a tie as painless as possible I entered the store distracted by music from my iPod, went directly to the tie section and picked up the first one I saw that looked as aesthetically pleasing as a tie can possibly look. Without glancing at the price tag, I lamented the fifteen or twenty bucks I was never going to see again and headed for the register. The lovely cashier scanned the price tag and the figure $64.95 appeared on the register display. Too stunned to call off the transaction, and worried I would look stupid in front of a woman of great beauty for doing so, I robotically handed her my debit card and walked out of the store feeling as if I’d been held up.

Antiquity Is Bliss

The mind visits dark places when it’s been violated and I pondered why men began wearing ties. Turns out, the history of the necktie is almost as nebulous as its modern day purpose. The necktie’s roots can be traced back almost 2000 years to a Chinese emperor who suffered from Thanatophobia (the morbid fear of death) and allegedly was the first to wear a tie. Or history points to the Thirty Years War, when King Louis XIV purportedly liked what he saw around the necks of Croatian mercenaries and began wearing a cravat. Ties began appearing throughout Europe and America in the 1860s, worn as fashion statements or to serve the practical purpose of a bib. The tie as we know it today developed in the 1920s as a symbol of refinement.

Today, especially during the commercialized holiday season, the fashion industry will tell you that a necktie’s purpose is to hide the buttons on a dress shirt and accentuate the vertical figure of a man. Apparently the fashion industry will tell American consumers anything to convince them they need to continue the tradition of buying over-priced, useless articles of “clothing.”

Modern Times

Wearing a tie in modern society indicates people are taking a given situation seriously. Funerals, church, business meetings, work, Christmas, Chanukah – things Americans traditionally regard with a certain gravity. Perhaps, for the 21st century, our culture can agree on a new tradition to signify that we’re taking a given circumstance seriously. One of those “Hello, my name is,” stickers with the words “I’m taking this seriously,” written on it would arbitrarily suffice and be more economical than the $64.95 I got back from Banana Republic when I returned their tie. Luckily the cute cashier wasn’t in that day.

This holiday season give the gift of not giving a tie. Instead, buy a practical article of clothing, or something else altogether, and spare men (and yourself) further participation in this silly, antiquated tradition.

A Lesson On Responsibility For The Anti-Christ President

2005-12-19T08:12:00.000-05:00

Imposing his ill-informed war agenda on America

Many Americans have been vehemently complaining about the false intelligence on which president Bush based his war in Iraq for over a year. Only now has president Bush acknowledged (last week and during Sunday’s prime time address ) the error. Furthermore, the president even suggested that he takes responsibility for the bad intelligence and the decision to go to war. If he grasped the concept of responsibility he would either resign or fire the individual(s) on his staff that misled him and the country. Merely stating, “I am responsible,” and then not taking any action or suffering consequences is actually the opposite of taking responsibility.

When he speaks to the nation about Iraq, president Bush almost always gives the American people a lengthy reminder about what an awful guy Saddam Hussein is. It’s been two years since Hussein was captured, yet Bush feels the need to reiterate what a “raging tyrant” Hussein was, as if he thinks Americans have forgotten and somehow become drinking buddies with Saddam. Almost every American agrees Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. Americans question whether the loss of life and the financial costs are worth the increasingly nebulous purpose, particularly since, as Bush admits, the war has “attracted al Qaeda to Iraq,” a place in which the terrorist organization had no presence prior to the war. Bush essentially promised to continue forcing his will down the throats of Americans. How did the country arrive at this objectionable circumstance?

Self-advertised poster boy for Christianity

Remember Bush’s 2000 campaign? During a debate he named Jesus Christ his favorite philosopher because “he changed my life.” In the Gospel of Matthew 5: 17-48 Bush’s favorite philosopher gave a “Sermon on the Mount” and said, “Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Evidently, President Bush disagrees with his favorite philosopher on how to handle an evil person. At no time did Christ endorse war, but Bush has defined his presidency on the concept of war. President Bush is as good at being a Christian as the biblical Jesus would have been as an American president. In fact, Bush’s lack of respect for life make him more anti-Christian than Christian, despite how he presented himself to voters. Bush, masquerading as a bible-thumping Christian, was able to hijack the support of the Christian base and get enough votes to be elected and re-elected. The result: yet another holiday season marred by President Bush selling Americans the idea that the troops would have their morale decimated if they were brought home. Yes, soldiers seeing their family and friends and being out of constant, grave danger sounds like a most depressing idea.

No one knows what is happening in Iraq. President Bush may be right that some progress is being made. But does that progress outweigh the ruined lives and massive debt the war has cost America? A leader that takes responsibility for his mistakes would step aside and let someone else answer that question. Perhaps the President would like to ponder that possibility over the holiday in which he celebrates the birth of his favorite philosopher.

See You On The Other Side, Howard

2005-12-16T17:34:00.000-05:00

Delivering his media manifesto

Howard Stern broadcast his final show on terrestrial radio today, bringing an end to a legendary era with a spirited speech to his loyal fans in the streets of Manhattan. Stern, whose show has been squeezed by the tightening vice of censorship the last two years, finally got fed up with inane fines and suspensions and cancellations. Now fans of his show and alleged Stern haters (who still listen) will have to tune into Sirius satellite radio beginning in January if they want to hear the unique show, a change that brings with it a conflict of thoughts and emotions.

On one hand, an uncensored Howard Stern radio show stands to be infinitely better than the show millions of people have come to know and love. Finally, listeners will have a chance to hear the show the way Stern has always meant it it to be and the possibilities are limitless. On the other hand, it is a shame that Stern was forced by the extreme right wing in this country into satellite and a show that I (and certainly many other listeners) have taken for granted for years on "free" radio will now have to pay to listen to. In essence Americans lost some freedom today.

One of my favorite books is Howard Stern's Private Parts. I read the book in 1993, during my senior year of high school. At that point I was one of those people who didn't like him, but still listened occasionally. After recommending the book a friend loaned it to me and I began reading. Immediately I was immersed in the humor and candor of the book and suddenly the radio show made perfect sense to me. Then one day, Ms. Garafolo, my sociology teacher ironically enough, confiscated Private Parts from me, saying, "Stern is a smut peddler and smut is not welcome in my classroom." I wasn't reading the book during her class--just between classes before the bell rang. She then proceeded to keep the book from me for two weeks until I asked her for $20 so I could buy my friend a new book. Too cheap to stick to her weak and ignorant principles, she returned the book and I finished reading it. This censorship took place in a Catholic school and if the Catholics are known for anything, it's their open-mindedness. In fact, she probably secretly read the book for the two weeks she kept it from me.

The end of radio as we know it

During Stern's speech to his fans today he reiterated that he was "the last of a dying bread." Sadly, he is somewhat right. Howard Stern is the only celebrity or performer of any prominence that stands up to the religious right and calls it on its phoniness and hypocrisy. It's simultaneously amazing and sad that religion basically runs America. Religion's only true purpose in this world is to lead people by the nose. That, and that alone, is the only reason all religions thrive, even in our modern times. Religion exploits peoples' fears and insecurities about the world and universe and imposes a restrictive lifestyle and philosophy on people. Stern boldly defies everything religion, socially conservative leaders and closed-minded high school sociology teachers stand for. He is a champion of open-mindedness and embracing the human experience.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: while Stern is a wildly popular figure, he won't truly be appreciated for the comic genius and influential social commentator that he is until after he, and probably most of us, are long dead. All too often, that is the fate of people who challenge the norms and strive for progress and change.

Don't Demolish NYC & American History

2005-12-13T20:26:00.000-05:00

New York; the new Rome

John Lennon once said "America is the Roman Empire and New York is Rome itself." If you're familiar with the history and culture of the ancient Rome Lennon was referring to, you know that New York City's role in today's world is indeed remarkably similar to Rome's former role. And if you've ever visited Rome, you might also be aware it's nickname is "The Eternal City." Unfortunately, New York may never achieve the eternal status of Rome thanks to a controversy brewing in lower Manhattan.

Recently here in New York City's Battery Park, while digging a new tunnel for the 1 subway line, MTA contractors unearthed a 45 foot-long ancient wall that archaeologists think might date back to the late 1600s. Workers also found a halfpenny coin dated 1744, a pewter medallion dated 1755, several smoking pipes, and pottery. According to President of the Professional Archaeologists of New York City, Joan H. Geismar, "It's the only remain of its kind in Manhattan." The wall, ten feet below ground level, is part of a fort that protected pre-Revolutionary War Manhattanites from potential attackers. What's even more surprising than this captivating and historic discovery are the disappointing approaches being considered regarding how to handle the wall. One suggestion is to remove a three foot section of the wall, preserve that three foot piece of wall elsewhere and continue with the demolition and construction so that the project finishes on time. Another involves attempting to relocate and preserve the entire wall.

If you've ever been to Rome you have also witnessed the reverence with which the city regards its ancient ruins. Wherever Roman ruins are discovered, that given area is partitioned, preserved and built AROUND, even if that's right in the middle of a busy street. The result is ancient Rome and modern Rome literally living side by side in perfect harmony. It's one of the many exquisite attractions of the city, allowing visitors a unique perspective on life then and now. Where else in the world can someone see 2,000 year-old homes in the same line of vision as fine clothing stores, restaurants and automobiles zipping by? The same should be done here in New York.

The historic wall in question - don't tear it down

Why can't construction of the subway tunnel circumvent the historic site? The historic wall is the priority in this matter -- not the timeline of the tunnel construction. The MTA should do whatever it takes to cooperate with archaeologists and conservationists to figure out a way to build the subway tunnel without disrupting the piece of ancient Manhattan. Other options should not even be considered. And if the MTA doesn't do so on its own accord, Mayor Bloomberg should force it to. Should the Mayor not readily force the MTA's hand, New Yorkers should urge him to do so. If in fact this is the only ruin of its kind in the city, then it is something to be celebrated and cherished, not wasted or potentially destroyed attempting to move it.

While Lennon was perceptive in observing the similarities ancient Rome and New York City share, New York will never be an "eternal city" if its history is allowed to be casually demolished for a new subway tunnel.

A Sport Is A Sport Of Course -- But Car Racing Isn't

2005-12-09T15:42:00.000-05:00

Shameless Greed

Recently you've probably heard the phrase "culture war" being thrown around, particularly by cable news talking heads.The phrase refers to the differences in values of the people who comprise the conservative, religious right and the more open-minded, liberal people in this country. Well, a new TV agreement between ABC/ESPN and NASCAR brings this so-called war into the realm of media and pop-culture.

In the blockbuster eight year, $4.4 billion deal NBC loses its rights to broadcast NASCAR races and ABC and ESPN (both owned by Disney) will share the broadcast of the entire NASCAR post-season. Who knew they had a post-season?

The rise of the NASCAR "sport" is incomprehensible to me. First of all, calling it a sport is as gross a misnomer as is calling horse racing a sport. Dictionary.com defines sport as: an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition. 2: the occupation of athletes who compete for pay. There are no athletes taking part in car racing, therefore it cannot logically be a sport. Hunting and fishing require more athleticism than driving a dumb car in an ellipse. I think "game" might be a more appropriate label for car racing.

Wouldn't drunk driving make NASCAR more interesting?

Aside from it being a misnomer, I have a few philosophical problems with car racing. The game is wantonly wasteful and destructive to the environment. In a single race, drivers race hundreds of laps around an elliptical track at speeds sometimes in excess of 200 MPH. That means they are wasting gasoline at a colossal rate and putting harmful exhaust into the atmosphere for absolutely no good reason at all. I hear technology these days is rather amazing. Couldn't they do the very same thing with car simulators, that would be a more environment-friendly? I'm not an environmentalist, but car racing seems excessively destructive.

Also, NASCAR is the very epitome of selling out to corporate America. The cars and drivers are literally wrapped in advertisements. How would you like it if your favorite football or baseball team changed their uniforms to Bed, Bath & Beyond ads because the company paid the team to do so. NASCAR is the world champion of shameless greed.

Even this wasn't fun

On top of all of that, the game is abysmally boring. I couldn't even get into it when I was a kid and I had one of those figure eight toy, electric racetracks in my basement. Watching a TV that hasn't been turned on is more compelling than watching cars go round and round a track. In fact, to make NASCAR more interesting , perhaps they can introduce an alcoholic element. It would be far more interesting to see Jeff Gordon and Mark Martin try to drive their vehicles after putting away a half a case of Milwaukee's Best than it is to watch them drive around sober.

The Beast

Boring and stupid as it may be, if watching cars drive around is your forty of Natty Light, I can understand that. But I think it's a shame that ESPN, an all sports network, has been passing off (and will continue to pass off) car racing as a sport and so many people are buying into it.

How Did It All Go So Wrong?

2005-11-30T07:55:00.000-05:00

For complete Eagles coverage visit Philadelphia's premiere sports site, The Broad Street Journal

Will the Eagles' loss end up being the Cowboys gain?

Now that Terrell Owens’ career in Philadelphia is officially over, I’m still baffled at how the relationship between the star wide receiver and the Philadelphia fans went so bad so quickly. Even though I’ve lived in New York City for the last five years, having grown up in the Philadelphia suburbs I still share and understand the passion and frustration of Philadelphia sports fans. Owens seems to me like the type of player that Philadelphia should love to love, but just the opposite has occurred.

Consider the Terrell Owens era in the context of another Philadelphia athlete of Hall of Fame pedigree, Allen Iverson. The city has embraced Iverson to the point that his name is now synonymous with Philadelphia. But, remember all of his off-court problems? Domestic disputes, illegal weapons possession, controversial rap lyrics. And what about his on-court problems? Missing and showing up late to practice, his infamous “it’s just practice” press conference and mediating by Pat Croce to convince Larry Brown not to trade him to Detroit. All Owens did try was to get more money from his employer. Owens wasn’t personally asking each fan for a hand-out. He said some things that people found a little offensive, perhaps because they fear coming to grips with the reality of the franchise quarterback. He parked in Andy Reid’s parking spot one day. Certainly no disrespect is meant to Iverson, but Owens’ “problems” literally pale in comparison to Iverson’s, which is why I find the fans’ about-face toward him so perplexing. Where did Philly fans’ sense of humor go? Parking in Andy Reid’s spot is funny.

Many more "problems" than Owens

Somehow the local and national media, the fans and Eagles’ management converged to create the perfect storm of hostility, powerful enough to sweep Owens’ out of town. Led by captain ignoramus, Howard Eskin, fans actually buried an effigy of Owens in a coffin. That is ludicrous. Frankly, I thought Terrell Owens was fun. Remember all the TD celebrations, the wing flapping, the Monday Night Football promo with Nicolette Sheridan, the Superbowl? Those are reasons to like Owens, not vilify him.

Owens’ contribution on the field is indisputable. He simply made the Eagles a better team. And now that he’s gone they are a worse team, perhaps when they will need his abilities the most. The NFC East division that the Eagles have dominated for the last five years has gone through a power shift. The Giants, Cowboys and Redskins are all legitimate playoff contenders and the Eagles aren’t even as good the 2003 version that reached the NFC Championship game by the 4th and 26 miracle and only managed three points against Carolina.

What if?

Eagles management profoundly botched this situation. Iverson’s former boss Pat Croce has been vocal in the past about the fact that he wanted to buy the Eagles, but Jeffery Lurie beat him to it. We can only dream about how the patience and finesse with which Croce likely would have handled Owens and how a more diplomatic approach might have kept T.O. in Eagle green and, like Iverson, in the Philly fans’ good graces.

When Sitting In Front of the TV, Watch Rome

2005-11-23T15:25:00.000-05:00

Vorenus saves Titus Pullo

Considering the dearth of inspired programming on TV these days, it’s bewildering that a buzz hasn’t begun to spread about HBO’s latest drama Rome. This show is one of the network’s best yet, challenging The Sopranos for HBO and overall television eminence. Rome just wrapped up its first season and if you or a friend has HBO On Demand, catching up on it over the holiday weekend is strongly advised.

Loosely based on history, the show is set in 52 B.C. and follows Gaius Julius Caesar as he returns to and conquers Rome after an eight year excursion in which he and his army conquered Gaul. Rome is a smashing success on many levels.

Do as the ancient Romans and get naked...often

HBO and the BBC partnered to build an amazing set that is basically a new, old Roman Forum and reportedly cost $100 million. Of course a massive budget alone is no recipe for success and Rome manages all of the necessary ingredients for compelling television. The research of ancient Rome was meticulous and all of the details in the show are precise. The actors, most of whom you’ve never seen before, disappear into their characters. The writing, which uses history as a backdrop, deftly weaves fictional social politics and dramas into the on-going story. The violence is visceral. The Roman Forum comes to life with vibrant, gritty realism.

A victorius Titus Pullo ...

...among the dead bodies in one of the all-time great fight scenes

In short Rome, never for a moment, makes a common mistake of underestimating the audience. At times the violence is so shocking you actually turn your head for a second. The sex scenes are so real, they’re titillating, but the show’s creators know viewers can handle it all because the stories carry you through if you can’t make it on your own. I find the show to be so riveting that I simply cannot be interrupted for even a second while watching.

If you know your history (or your Shakespeare) then you know Brutus and his cohorts murder Julius Caesar, so I’m not ruining anything for you by telling you that happens in the last episode of the season which, along with the second to last episode are some of the best motion picture footage I’ve ever seen. The second to last episode ends with perhaps the best fight scene since Braveheart. Titus Pullo, sentenced to execution for murder, finds himself fighting for his life in the arena. He kills about eight guys in sword combat and just before he’s about to physically expire and get killed by a menacing villain his old soldier buddy, Vorenus, jumps to his defense, chops the villain’s leg off and kills him, saving Pullo. It’s a truly amazing moment. You MUST see it.

Real "Must-See TV"

Don't let the fact that you don't like period pieces prevent you from watching Rome. One compelling aspect is seeing how Romans, who lived over 2000 years ago, are similar to 21st century Americans or even New Yorkers. As much as our cultures are the same, though, they are also very different and this compelling element completes the recipe for one of the best TV shows to emerge in recent memory. Make sure you check it out.

In Newdow We Can Not Trust

2005-11-21T08:50:00.000-05:00

Fighting the unnecessary fight

Everyone's favorite atheist Michael Newdow is at it again, filing a law-suit to have the phrase "In God We Trust" removed from all U.S. Currency. Remember Newdow? He is the guy who tried unsuccessfully to have the Supreme Court remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Newdow is, however, successfully creating the perception that he has become just as unhinged as the religious right he so fervently opposes.

Newdow is the founder of "The First Amendment Church of True Science" whose suggestions are to "question, be honest and do what's right." He contends that stamping the words "in God we trust" on our money is a violation of the separation of church and state guaranteed by the Constitution. While I applaud his pursuit of truth through science and intellect rather than mythology, I have to criticize his misguided approach. Taking a stand against religion is generally an unpopular position in America. That considered, if a stand is going to be taken, those battles should be chosen wisely. There is no way Newdow is going to win his case to have the phrase removed from American money and here's why.

Money talks, but does anyone care what it says anymore?

First, if you closely examine the phrase "In God We Trust" you find that it is more of a spiritual statement than it is a religious one. Indeed, the word "god" often connotes religion and has been twisted together with religion throughout history, but the phrase standing alone professes no particular allegiance to or definition of a specific religion. Secondly, the phrase has been emblazoned on our currency for so long now that it has virtually no meaning anymore and has reached a state of cliché. It's harmless, even to atheists. That is, of course, unless someone makes a big deal about it and re-injects meaning into the phrase by stoking peoples' sensitive emotions on the issue of God and religion. Newdow, unknowingly, could be his own worst enemy on the topic.

Newdow certainly has a right to his belief that nothing exists beyond the physical earth. Although I am not an atheist, I abhor having religion and God shoved down my throat as much as the next guy, but I am able to accept the phrase as an innocuous metaphor. Frankly, I think the phrase "in capitalism we trust" would be more apropos, but I'm not going to the Supreme Court with a law-suit to have the phrase altered.

Blind faith in mythology is way more dangerous than words on money

The real shame in this case is that Newdow could better serve the public by taking on a more germane cause. The idea of Intelligent Design continues to gain support with conservative Congress members and even some moderates, such as John McCain. Adding Intelligent Design to the curriculum in public schools has a far greater potential to regress our society than four empty words printed on our money. Too bad Newdow is wasting his and everyone's time being litigious about minutiae and probably making a legitimate resistance of Intelligent Design that much more difficult. Perhaps he should take some of his own advice and "question, be honest and do what's right" by giving this irrelevant cause a rest.

Pointing The Finger Directly At McNabb

2005-11-15T00:28:00.000-05:00

For complete Eagles coverage visit Philadelphia's premiere sports site, The Broad Street Journal

McNabb's fault

Well, well, well, Donovan. Life after T.O. has been a barrel of fun, hasn't it? Let's see...your offense has managed a total of 30 points in two games. And in the crucial final moments of those last two games, against division rivals no less, you threw two inexcusable interceptions that cost the Eagles each game. Are you sure you don't want to re-think your decision to run Terrell Owens out of Philadelphia?

The truth is, Donovan McNabb had it made in the shade with T.O. as a teammate. Literally. Another sad truth is McNabb never knew as much. As long as Terrell Owens was on the team anything McNabb did (positive or negative) was slightly overshadowed by Owens. Too bad McNabb was too insecure to leave well enough alone. If McNabb makes an ill-advised pass that turns into an interception and blows the game with Owens on the team, fans and the media simply blame the lapse in judgment on the fact that Owens is a distraction to the team. Would Owens have dropped that pass from Mike McMahon with under thirty seconds to play like Reggie Brown did?

Turns out, Owens is good for more than just making game-breaking plays and scoring touchdowns. Owens is also a good whipping boy, who can take the intense scrutiny and absorb the bright spotlight without it affecting his game on the field. The same cannot be said for one Donovan McNabb.

Roy Williams is on the other team, Donovan

In recent years it has become sacrilege in Philadelphia to so much as even question the quarterback. Well, get ready for a heavy dose of blasphemy and sacrilege to fly. The fundamental difference between Donovan McNabb and Terrell Owens is that when his team needs him the most, Owens rushes back from a broken leg, against doctor's orders, and valiantly catches nine passes for 122 yards in the Superbowl. When his team needs him the most, McNabb throws a terrible interception and spends the final moments of the most important game of the year watching from the bench, impotent.

It is Donovan McNabb's fault that the Eagles are in serious jeopardy of missing the playoffs the year after almost winning the Superbowl. The finger is pointing at McNabb and McNabb alone. Not Terrell Owens. Not anyone else. It's McNabb who should have elected to have surgery to repair his sports hernia over a month ago, rather than risk being injured for good later in the season. But his ego got in the way. It's McNabb who should have stuck up for T.O. and his quest for more money, realizing T.O. is the very reason he had his career year last season. It's McNabb who should have checked his ego in the presence of a player of a higher caliber. It's McNabb who should have sucked up Owens words---they're just words--instead of having him kicked off the team. It's McNabb who couldn't handle not being the best player on the team while Owens was around.

McNabb is a good player. Owens is the type of player that comes along (maybe) every ten years. Sure, McNabb looked much more relaxed the last two games and he's even been running the ball a little. Hey, that's just dandy. But the Eagles are o-2 in that time. That's zero, as in no wins. Frankly, I'd rather see McNabb suffering from an ulcer because he's intimidated by Owens' talent and the Eagles winning than vice-versa. McNabb seemed rather pleased with himself while he was doing his corny Thriller dance and the moonwalk after his touchdown. He looked thrilled that he gets to do the touchdown celebrations now and soak up all the attention. I wonder if he's thrilled that he gets to soak up the blame now for blowing the game. Was he moonwalking in the locker room because the Eagles biggest pass play of the night went for a whole 18 yards?

Bring the player back

The Eagles need Terrell Owens for more reasons than they can imagine. They need him for the obvious on-field production he brings. They need him for the swagger they otherwise lack. They need him for the energy they otherwise lack. They need him for the entertaining TD celebrations they otherwise lack. And they need him for that massive ego that can absorb all of the criticism and melodrama without having any affect on his game.

There is still time for the Eagles to fix this situation. In my interview with Ralph Nader (below), Nader said he would negotiate a peace treaty between the Eagles and Owens. The Eagles should explore every option to get Owens back on the field ASAP. As Bill Parcells went to shake hands with Andy Reid at the end of the game last night, it looked like he was telling Reid to let Owens back if he wanted to make the rest of the season interesting. Anything short of the organization bringing Owens back would be obtuse and unacceptable.

Interview With The Great Ralph Nader

2005-11-12T01:34:00.000-05:00

Ralph to Philly Fans:
"Lighten up...If you want to win, you gotta have T.O. in that lineup."

Everybody has an opinion about the ongoing Terrell Owens-Philadelphia Eagles turmoil. Even people outside of Philadelphia and the sports world. Ralph Nader is the latest to enter the fracas and, perhaps, the most sensible voice yet. He sent a letter to the Eagles and the NFL imploring the team to either reinstate Owens or release him so he can play elsewhere thereby allowing fans to enjoy Owens' brilliance on the field.

Nader's contention is that Owens has been overpunished for his "boorish" transgressions and fans who purchased tickets with the expectation of seeing one of the game's most electrifying players are being unjustly deprived of that opportunity. He is the first interview subject of 500 Words and I am excited to bring you the following meeting of the minds. By the end of the interview Ralph starts asking me the questions. Also, Nader tapped into my personal struggle with this mess--which is that I'm being prevented from watching the best player in the NFL and that devalues the product.

History Lesson:

Ralph Nader has a long history of consumer advocacy and social criticism dating back to the 1960s. He inspired such watch-dog groups as the Aviation Consumer Action Project, the Center for Auto Safety, the Clean Water Action Project, the Congressional Accountability Project and, most notably, Public Citizen. That means you'd be wise to stay on his good side, or else he'll be all over your ass. Nader also ran for President in 2000 and 2004 and has fought for campaign finance reform to allow for more legitimate Presidential Campaigns and elections. He is the founder of the League of Fans, an advocacy group for fans of professional sports, the purpose of which is to increase the awareness between sports and society. Make sure you check out the web-site here! And you can always keep abreast of how Ralph is tirelessly working in the interest of the public at Nader.org.

Editor's Note: I have been known to write the occasional satirical/fictional interview for other online publications. This interview should not be confused with satire or parody in any way. This is the genuine article--the transcript of a recorded phone conversation.

The Interview:

Andrew Tavani: Is the Eagles suspension of Terrell Owens unprecedented in American professional sports?

Ralph Nader: There are players in professional sports who have done far worse (than Terrell Owens) and got suspended far less. You know, athletes that have committed crimes and serious wrong-doing, drug-dealing, mayhem, beating up girlfriends, wives, drunk driving. Set aside all other variables and he's been over-punished.

AT: All he was doing was answering questions asked of him by reporters.

Ralph: Right, it's not like he started off unilaterally. And it was such a big deal that he complained that they (the Eagles) didn't take note of his 100th TD. You can count on your hand the number of receivers who reached 100 TDs by the time they are 31 years old in the history of professional football.

AT: He's actually only the fifth receiver to catch 100 TD passes in the history of the NFL.

Ralph: And he's only 31. Okay, I've been to ball games where a guy gets his 2000th hit and a big deal is made out of it. Or his 1000th RBI, the team makes a mention of it. Why is he being persecuted for something like that? The other thing is it's all speech. He hasn't engaged in any conduct, he hasn't smashed equipment in the clubhouse.

AT: The Eagles did accuse him of engaging in a locker room fight.

Ralph: There were no punches exchanged, number one. Number two: he was provoked by a guy who comes in and starts talking about faking injuries.

AT: Right, it wasn't another teammate and it wasn't a coach. It was a former player, who was cut after training camp who came into the locker room and accused Owens of faking an injury. Owens' professionalism has been called into question throughout this entire saga. Isn't that an unprofessional work environment for the Eagles to put Owens in?

Ralph: Of course. Here's the key thing: is he performing on the field to help the team? Yes. Even when he knows he's not going to be a part of the play, he gives 110%. He doesn't goof off like some of these high-priced baseball players that don't run out the ball to first base. This guy gives 110%. Almost everybody agrees with that. The basic point is people have to rise above, the team has to rise above these irritations. You know, they (football players) swear at each other a lot and they cuss each other out and they get grumpy sometimes after plays.

AT: Have you contacted or been contacted by Terrell Owens or his agent, Drew Rosenhaus?

Ralph: No.

AT: What about the NFL Players' Association?

Ralph: No, no contact. Even the two men (Eagles Owner Jeffrey Lurie and NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue) we wrote the letter to.

AT: They haven't responded to you yet?

Ralph: No, not yet.

AT: What do you expect the response to be? Do you think the Eagles will reinstate Owens?

Ralph: You know, I've received a lot of emails from anti-T.O. fans and their argument basically is that he has poisoned the relationship inside the team and that's why he has to go. It isn't about him, it's about the team. My question is: where is the evidence for that? Why don't they have an independent survey, a private poll of the team to see if they would rather play every Sunday with him or without him. If the management conducted a poll, the teammates would be afraid to say what's on their mind. They would be compelled to agree with management.

AT: That's a great idea. A lot of people said that while Owens said some negative things about McNabb, none of the players on the team actually stepped forward to defend McNabb.

Ralph: Yeah, and also T.O. apologized. The team doesn't have a good running game and they don't have great receivers. They're 4-4 and McNabb wants to win and so do all the other players. You know the old saying, "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never harm me?" You've heard of that old saying?

AT: I have heard of it.

Ralph: He (T.O.) hasn't thrown any sticks and stones. Look, this is a rough and tumble league with rough and tumble players. You and I know what they say to each other when they get mad at each other. You can see it on TV when the camera catches it. These guys aren't blistered by moon beams. They're tough.

And the fans buy tickets with the expectation that they're going to get a good performance from the Eagles, which also means a good performance from Owens. And then you have this pouting management, which apparently is more interested in suppressing embarrassing comments by its players because the most important thing for management and the owners is authority and control. They'll cut off their nose despite their face. The bottom line is this: when it comes to performance on the field Owens is a team player. He's a great individual player. He obviously lifts the team up with his excellence. He's critical to McNabb's performance, just like McNabb is critical to his performance. They all ought to grow up and get in the clubhouse and agree to cut all this stuff out and get their best team on the field--which includes T.O.--and win for the fans.

AT: Your message to McNabb would be to toughen up, don't have such a fragile ego and get over it. Accept T.O. and play football?

Ralph: I don't think McNabb is the problem. It's the control freaks. The coach and the owners. McNabb knows that his performance relies, to a degree, on T.O.

AT: McNabb set career highs in every passing category and that happened to be T.O.'s first year with the team.

Ralph: Right, and the other thing that is important is a little history here. I go back a long way with sports. I remember the things that baseball players used to do. Ted Williams, for example, was disliked by the press, disliked by many of his teammates because he was aloof and he was a curmudgeon. A lot of fans disliked him. He, at times, would give the fans the finger. Do you think anyone in the Boston Red Sox organization would ever think of suspending Ted Williams? They rose above it. They said, "Look, the guy's a great player and is making our wins possible. He's got some rough edges, he's a little boorish--big deal! The main thing is he's hitting .345." Now, this is one of many examples. There are guys who have attacked their coaches and haven't been suspended like T.O. Let's look at this as over-punishment. Turn it around and McNabb could easily get him reinstated.

AT: That's all it would take. For McNabb to come out and say to the owner or even his coach, Andy Reid, let's bring him back.

Ralph: And the key is Owens apologized.

AT: You realize you're taking an unpopular position on this. As you said you started getting anti-T.O. email.

Ralph: Yeah, it's amazing! Most of the email I've received has been against Owens!

AT: In a Philadelphia Inquirer poll almost 90% of Eagles fans agreed with the team's decision to fire Owens.

Ralph: Isn't it amazing?

AT: What is your message to Eagles fans?

Ralph: Lighten up! Rise above it. He's committed no crimes, no serious wrong-doing, he hasn't engaged in any kind of adverse conduct, like socking a guy in the locker room. They're talking about words. This is a rough and tumble game and people lose their tempers, they have egos--not just T.O. The press happens to provoke his ego, because he's a star. They ask him provocative questions and he happens to be more candid and less diplomatic and maybe a little boorish. Get over it! If you want to win, you gotta have T.O. in that lineup. They think the team will do better without T.O. Okay, so let's see what happens with the next five games.

AT: You made a good point earlier. He gives 110% on the field. So what if he talks a little off the field.

Ralph: He's not a slacker on the field.

AT: Would you be willing to sit down with the Eagles and Terrell Owens and try to be their relationship therapist? Would you be a peacemaker between the two parties?

Ralph: I wouldn't mind, but they would never do it.

AT: But you would do it if they agreed to it?

Ralph: But, now you asked me the question and I said I'd do it if they want it. (Laughs) Then they'll say what a monumental ego Nader has. You see what I mean? So, what you want to say is, "When asked directly if he would perform a mediating role, Nader said, 'Why not?'"

AT: Don't worry. My questions are going to be printed right above your answers, so they'll know that it's my idea and not your idea.

Ralph: The answer is, why not?

AT: And you could probably work this whole fiasco out?

Ralph: I didn't say that. How would I know? We'll never get there...

What about this poll that had 90% of people agreeing with the Eagles firing T.O.? Was this a scientific poll?

AT: No, it was done on the Philadelphia Inquirer web-site.

Ralph: That's not scientific. People who are against T.O. come out much more aggressively than his supporters.

AT: True, it's not scientific, but I think it does somewhat accurately reflect the sentiment toward Owens in Philly.

Ralph: Let me ask you this question: Why do you think that 90% of those that responded to that poll--what is it that drives them up the wall to respond in those numbers against T.O.?

AT: I think the reason is two-pronged. Partly it's because Philly is somewhat of a blue collar town and they don't like to see a multi-millionaire athlete making a big deal that he's not making enough money. I think that's part of it. That irks people. And, secondly, I think it's that McNabb has achieved a god-like status there. If anyone even questions McNabb it gets a knee-jerk reaction of ire.

Ralph: Yeah, that was pretty harsh what he said about McNabb, but it was in response.

AT: He didn't even say it. He answered a question in response to something that ESPN analyst Michael Irvin said and he just agreed with it.

Ralph: They're baiting him, aren't they?

AT: Oh yeah, the media have exploited him. ESPN had their analyst make the statement about Favre, then they had a reporter ask him if he agreed with it and when he did all of the analysts on ESPN tore him a new one and vilified him.

Ralph: By the way, do you think that McNabb was tired in the fourth quarter of the Superbowl?

AT: I think he probably was. He looked tired to me.

Ralph: He did to me too. Was that a question T.O. was asked?

AT: No, that goes back to the spring when T.O. made it public that he wanted a new contract and he said that he wasn't the one that got tired in the Superbowl. Perhaps he implied that McNabb did, but the media had a field day with that, saying that Owens blasted his quarterback.

Ralph: (Laughs) So he never even mentioned McNabb?

AT: No, he never mentioned McNabb by name. In fact, he hadn't played a football game in seven weeks because he was coming off the broken leg and he didn't get tired, you know? Which was something he might've expected since he hadn't played a football game in almost two months.

AT: Hey, thanks for taking a few minutes to discuss this with me.

Ralph: Oh, no problem.

AT: And if the Eagles or the NFL responds to you, please let me know.

Ralph: By all means.

AT: Have a good weekend.

Ralph: You too.

Nader Tells Eagles to F.O. & Let T.O. Play

2005-11-11T13:13:00.000-05:00

Consumer/Eagles Fan Advocate

Consumer Advocate and former Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader has come to the defense of embattled Eagles wide receiver Terrell Owens. Nader, who recently founded the League of Sports Fans, sent the letter below to NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue and Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie. Finally, someone is saying something sensible about this saga. Although Eagles fans are likely loathe to admit so, Ralph Nader could be the savior of the Eagles' tumultuous season.

I made a call to Ralph Nader's office earlier this afternoon and hopefully he will return the call soon and answer a few of the questions I have for him. If any of you have questions that you'd like to ask Ralph just let me know what they are in the comments section and I'll try to squeeze them in.

You can find the letter also @ nader.org

November 10, 2005

Jeffrey Lurie
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Philadelphia Eagles
1 NovaCare Way
Philadelphia, PA 19145

Paul Tagliabue
Commissioner
National Football League
280 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017

Dear Messrs. Lurie and Tagliabue,

I am writing to urge you to rescind the misguided suspension and planned inactive designation of Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver Terrell Owens. If the Eagles management declines to remedy its mistake, Commissioner Tagliabue, you should intervene to overturn the team's decision, which dishonors this country's traditional respect for free speech and cheats fans of an opportunity to see arguably the best receiver in football. Let him play.

There is no question that Terrell Owens' comments have been boorish and unwarranted. However, the comments were just that -- comments.

Let a player play...& speak

It should be the policy of the Eagles and the National Football League, as well as other sports teams and leagues, that players not be punished merely for what they say.

There is a great tradition in this country of respecting free speech, and the Eagles and NFL should express those values in handling even churlish speech. This is not a matter of law: U.S. constitutional speech protections and most state speech protections do not extend into the workplace; and the NFL collective bargaining agreement affords teams the right to suspend players for "conduct detrimental" to their team, a provision that has been interpreted to cover speech and other expressive conduct. No, it is not a matter of law, but of principle. And the principle should be: employees are not penalized for speaking out, even if what they have to say strikes management as ill-informed or offensive.

That the Eagles' proposed punishment for Owens -- a four-game suspension followed by an inactive designation for the rest of the season -- is so harsh, and so far in excess of punishments applied to other players who have engaged not in ill-considered speech, but criminal conduct or serious wrongdoing, points to how injudicious the Eagles' approach is.

There is, as well, a consumer issue at stake here. Fans have purchased tickets for Eagles' games, in Philadelphia and elsewhere, on the assumption that they will see one of the game's most exciting receivers, so long as he is healthy enough to play. The Eagles' action denies them this opportunity.

If the Eagles do not want Terrell Owens on their team, then they should release him. Instead, the Eagles propose not just to suspend him for the term permitted by the collective bargaining agreement, but to make him inactive for the duration of the season. This vengeful approach keeps him as an effective hostage -- kept away from the fans who would like to see him play.

I look forward to your response, and would be pleased to discuss these matters with you further.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader
Founder, League of Fans

It's Over - T.O. Slapped With A Time Out

2005-11-07T20:06:00.000-05:00

For complete Eagles coverage visit Philadelphia's premiere sports site, The Broad Street Journal

Can't they both just get along?

The Eagles have put their foot down with an emphatic stomp, sending Terrell Owens into exile for the rest of the season. Watching this soap opera devolve into a full blown fatal attraction begs the question: how in the world did this happen? Why was Terrell Owens suspended for the rest of the season?

The easy answer is that T.O. was a petulant child and brought this on himself. That would also be the wrong answer. Hard as it may be to acknowledge, the Eagles’ are just as responsible for this situation as Owens. The Eagles’ pride completely impeded any chance for resolution of this calamity from the beginning. The Eagles’ blind loyalty to Donovan McNabb, a less talented player than Owens, further insulted Owens and then its pride instigated Owens.

Unwilling to keep his best player happy

The media helped out too. When Owens observed that he didn’t get tired in the Superbowl after recovering from a broken ankle and not playing football for almost two months, the national and local media spun the story to have a more sensational angle, reporting that Owens “blasted” his quarterback. That got the hype machine rolling at full steam and the Eagles’ pride couldn’t take being publicly emasculated. Considering the actual quotes, Owens never said anything that disparaging of McNabb. Even though it has somehow become sacrilegious to question McNabb, until Owens came to town McNabb was undeniably a shaky quarterback. It was no coincidence that Owens’ first year with the team was also McNabb’s career year. Owens knew it. McNabb knew it and even the Eagles, though unwilling to admit so, knew it too. However, rewarding Owens for improving the team and McNabb would evidently violate the team’s loyalty to the quarterback and it refused to re-work Owens’ contract. Loyalty to a player is a nice concept in this cynical world, but blind loyalty is foolish. The Eagles should have kept their most valuable asset happy.

People contend that Owens antics regarding a new contract were tolerable, but his divisiveness in the locker room, culminating in fisticuffs with Hugh Douglas, is unacceptable. What’s unacceptable is that Douglas, who’s neither a player nor a coach, was in the locker room accusing Owens about the veracity of his injury. Owens simply should not have to answer to a has-been player who isn’t a coach. According to reports, Douglas is a “paid ambassador” for the Eagles. Read: company yes-man. Owens’ professionalism has been much maligned, but what does that say about the organization’s professionalism? Even if the organization didn’t orchestrate the confrontation, the fact that it happened at all is inexcusable.

"What plays will I call now?"

Does Owens have a massive ego? Yes. The Eagles knew this and manipulated Owens into either submission or insubordination. And now they’ve fired him for insubordination. The organization thinks it saved face, but you could cook an omelet with all of the egg on its face. Without Owens against the Redskins, L.J. Smith was never open, Westbrook was neutralized, McNabb threw the ball right to the defense in the final minute and the Eagles are in real danger of missing the playoffs. Yeah, life without Owens should be a blast. Alas, the Eagles should be swelling with pride.

A Dictator & His Dress Code

2005-11-03T21:35:00.000-05:00

Imagine if your employer prohibited you from wearing your iPod into work

The NBA season is fully underway and amid players’ grumblings of racism there has been virtually 100% compliance with the league’s controversial new dress code. As a long-time fan of the NBA I am disappointed to see the league enact such an absurd policy. Even more disappointing is that the new policy has my childhood favorite player, Charles Barkley, submissively walking the NBA company line. Barkley has been supporting the new policy because, as he told the L.A. Times, “young black kids dress like NBA Players.” And because young black kids don’t get paid like NBA players they have a hard time at job interviews, since society frowns on their sense of fashion. This is from the very same Charles Barkley who, during his playing days, said he wasn’t a role model and that parents should be kids’ role models. Most people gain wisdom with age, but Barkley is clearly shattering that cliché. The issue of kids being socialized is a legitimate one, but he was right twelve years ago. Parents should advise their kids on the proper way to dress for a job interview.

The Round Mound of Rebound as I like to remember him:
outspoken and not a company guy

The dress code policy is wrong for several reasons, primarily because the players already wear uniforms while they are “working.” A second dress code is excessive and reeks of corporate fascism. It’s even deemed business casual. Last I checked NBA players are legal adults and adults don’t need a stuffy, old white guy or anyone else telling them what to wear while they’re off the court. The dress code actually deflects attention away from what I think is an actual problem with the NBA. Why does anyone care what a player wears on his way into and out of the arena anyway?

For the last two or three years the media’s coverage of NBA has been changing. Some Einstein producer had the brilliant idea of taking a cameraman out to the parking lot so they could tape high profile players like Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant walking from their cars into the arena. This paparazzi tactic is a superfluous attempt to hype up a game on TV. It adds absolutely nothing of substance to the broadcast. If anything it detracts. Why doesn’t David Stern ban the media from having cameramen following a player around on his way to the locker room? That’s right—the money party David Stern is throwing for himself and colleagues. This dress code is really all about appealing to the broadest audience possible. All it does is water down the product.

The Worm would have scoffed at the absurdity of this policy

Denver Nuggets center Marcus Camby said the league should provide a wardrobe stipend to players in order for them to comply with the new policy. A stupid policy warrants a stupid response. Most people aren’t sympathetic to the players’ situation because they make millions of dollars to play a kids’ game. However, that money is only a fraction of what players generate for the NBA economy. The owners are the ones rolling in the big bucks.

If David Stern was really concerned with improving NBA basketball he would scrutinize the competence of the league’s officials, but evidently, an iron fist is a part of Stern’s personal dress code so don’t expect him to do that.

An Endorsement By Another Democrat

2005-10-30T14:16:00.000-05:00

Another Four For Mayor Mike

I imagine that Anthony Weiner, Gifford Miller and C. Virginia Fields must have felt like they were enduring Chinese water torture while they watched their party's candidate Fernando Ferrer grossly out-performed by Mayor Bloomberg in yesterday's New York City Mayoral Debate. He simply is not a worthy candidate. I almost felt bad for Ferrer because he was out of his league and never really had a chance against the incumbent. Ferrer came prepared with a few pre-packaged quips that must have sounded witty and biting while being rehearsed at his campaign headquarters, but which fell flat when Ferrer used them gratuitously and at inappropriate times.

Indeed Bloomberg is not the perfect candidate. He has spent an obscene amount of his own money (some $60 million plus) on his campaign and the timing of the subway terror threat was somewhat questionable. But arguing with the results he has rendered in his four years is a nearly impossible task. Just ask Ferrer. Bloomberg managed to balance the city's budget despite the financial crisis caused by September 11th. He ended social promotion in the third and fifth grades. With 3,000 less cops on the force crime has actually decreased on his watch. And, in what I think is one of his most under-appreciated achievements, Bloomberg banned smoking in New York City bars and restaurants. Although the smoking ban was met with some initial static, it is one of the most progressive social policies ever enacted in New York City. Bloomberg has established a forward-thinking vision for New York City and has systematically gone about accomplishing that vision in his four years as mayor.

The first of two Mayoral debates

As for Ferrer, I am still not sure what his vision for the city is. I know he wants to give a tax cut to the middle class and lower property taxes, but during the debate he was unable to articulate how he would do it and why a tax rebate for the middle class is advantageous or necessary. I know Ferrer guaranteed to fix the city's 50% drop-out rate in high schools, but offered no plan on how he would do so despite lower property taxes. Apart from that, all I was able to glean from the debate was that Ferrer was agitated with Bloomberg for trying to bring the 2012 Olympics to New York because he harped on it ad nauseum.

Plenty of bad one-liners for Bloomberg

At the end of the debate each candidate was given a minute to make a closing statement. Bloomberg's was concise, articulate and delivered straight to the camera and New Yorkers. Ferrer's was superfluous, poorly prepared and delivered to the people in the studio and not to New Yorkers. Poor debate preparation aside, the bottom line is New York is better now than it was four years ago and is headed in a prosperous direction. One of Ferrer's enthusiastic canned one-liners was that he wasn't going to be the Mayor of the fourth grade. Fortunately for New York, it looks like Ferrer won't be the Mayor of anything.

The Beginning of the End?

2005-10-11T14:02:00.000-04:00

Insiders expect Robertson's next campaign will be to overturn the findings of Galileo

Leave it to the acutely honed intellect of Pat Robertson to explain the natural disasters that have wreaked havoc around the world this year. The preacher, invoking “the blessed hope” of New Testament scripture, said that we might be at “the end of time,” likening the earth quakes and hurricanes to the birth pangs felt by a woman going into labor. As absurd as that old-world mumbo-jumbo sounds, be assured I am not making it up. Robertson actually made these comments to Wolf Blitzer on CNN.

Ludicrous commentary spewing from Pat Robertson isn’t surprising anymore, but what is surprising is that there are many people in America that still take Robertson seriously, agree with him and think that this is the beginning of the end of the world and the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Aside from being antiquated, the idea of a second coming and judgment is a wildly egocentric concept. Does Robertson think that throughout the infinite universe God is wholly concerned with the people of planet earth and our need to be judged? If so, that is simply a pompous outlook. If not, then it is an unethical attempt to mislead people by the nose. The truth is that hurricanes, earthquakes and Tsunamis have happened throughout the planet’s existence. However, the planet is more populated now than it ever has been and, statistically, there will be more casualties caused by disasters. 150 years ago most Americans would never have known about a Tsunami in Indonesia, but in today’s global village we know about everything that happens, sometimes within minutes of the occurrence. Although it lacks the biblical drama of fire and brimstone, what might seem like an increase in catastrophes might simply be more immediate knowledge of events made possible by modern technology.

Word has it He wasn't happy with the Red Sox winning the World Series last year and if the White Sox win it this year, we could all be doomed

What’s also largely counterproductive is the idea that we all need to pray for salvation. How practically effective is all of the prayer that is going on all the time? One day in sixth grade my teacher, a Catholic nun, advised our class that “God helps those who help themselves.” Even though basically everything else she told our class contradicted that notion, it still applies even today. Imagine if, instead of or in addition to all the praying, we as a society addressed how what we do affects the environment and whether or not that increases the frequency or severity of hurricanes. Imagine if, instead of donating money to someone like Pat Robertson, society contributed to the scientific community and looked to our government leaders to adequately prepare vaccinations for the threat of the bird flu. Not only will we save lives, but we can prevent more apocalyptic predictions from those looking to exploit peoples’ minds and beliefs. How about that instead of sitting around and praying for a magic trick to happen? Or is any semblance of existentialism completely lost on modern culture?

Hopefully, the televangelist is wrong about this being the end of time and, instead, the early 21st Century marks the end of times in which society pays attention to circus clowns like Pat Robertson.

Leadership Not Bush's Forte

2005-09-16T12:38:00.000-04:00

August 30, 2005:
People were being raped in the Superdome & the Prez was jammin'

Even though President Bush has "accepted responsibility" for the lackadaisical federal response to hurricane Katrina and an investigation of some sort seems imminent, much of the general public is still confounded by the President. As the facts of how federal, state and local government officials prepared for and responded to Katrina have come to light, the less responsible President Bush actually appears to be. Mistakes were made across the board and it seems like virtually everyone underestimated the severity of the storm.

Perhaps what has so thoroughly irked the American public is the combination of the President's sluggish response with the laissez faire attitude he exhibited in those critical first couple of days after the storm. Real American people had drowned. Real homes were completely destroyed and real lives were utterly ruined. Yet President Bush seemed to be acting in a surreal manner.

Two weeks later & singing a different tune

Two days after the storm, pictures of President Bush playing the guitar at a birthday party on Tuesday, August 30th surfaced on the internet. Then, when President Bush finally acknowledged the devastation, one of his earliest comments was, "Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch." People in one of the country's poorest areas were suffering unimaginable grief amid natural disaster and a breakdown of social order and President Bush was waxing optimistic about fraternizing on a porch with a very wealthy pal of his that many people in America consider a racist. Believe it or not, those words are still posted on the White House web-site. Moreover, he praised Mike Brown, the head of FEMA, for doing "a heck of a job" with disaster relief. Yes, that is the very same Mike Brown that he eventually replaced in New Orleans and who has since resigned altogether. When it came time to call on Americans to help the victims of the storm, President Bush delegated that responsibility to his father and former President Clinton.

Last night's address to the nation, a choreographed attempt at conjuring his bull-horn speech from Ground Zero, depicts a tale of two presidents. One, whose blasé attitude inspired nationwide acrimony and one who, feeling the heat two weeks later, made grandiose promises in a desperate attempt to repair his tattered image. However, all of the promises, apologies and investigations will not change the fact that President Bush simply is not a strong leader. This can be seen in stark reality when, for instance, he praises the director of FEMA one day and fires him the next. Poor leadership trickles down and is the root cause of the mayhem that has marred his entire presidency and negatively effected the country’s morale. As an interesting exercise, try Googling the word "failure."

Exactly where a bio of the President appears as a result of a Google search of the word "failure"

The job of President of the United States requires the person in office to be tough, decisive, diplomatic, pragmatic, capable of thinking on his feet, sympathetic and empathetic among others. Unfortunately, President Bush is neither sympathetic nor empathetic. The job of President is by no means an easy one. That's why we don't let just anyone have it.

Or do we?

Office Dispute of Colossal Proportions II

2005-09-14T11:13:00.000-04:00

There's a dispute going on in my office and, as I like to do, I am turning to my blog to settle it. The argument is over NFL wide receivers Jerry Rice and Terrell Owens. If you are an NFL coach and you have one game to win, which receiver would you put on your roster? Both players are in their prime and all other variables are equal. You can only have one of these two receivers for your team. Who is it?

Future Hall of Famer Jerry Rice

Fact: All-Time NFL Record 197 Career Touchdown Receptions

OR

Touchdown Celebration Extraordinaire Terrell Owens

Fact: All-Time NFL Record 20 Receptions In A Regular Season Game

For the record, I would take Owens in a heartbeat while my co-worker, Mike, who is renowned for knowing everything about everything no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, would take Rice. One thing we agree on is to let the people decide which one of us is right.

Time Has Come

2005-09-07T11:34:00.000-04:00

Time for some "Yeas" to remove Bush from office

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina criticism of President Bush has reached a sensational pitch, as is often the case when stereotypical “bleeding heart” liberals start taking shots at the President. Unfortunately, these attacks usually come off as being overly emotional and biased, however true their premises may be. The simple truth is that the time has come for President Bush to be removed from office.

The most convincing reason for Bush’s dismissal is his overwhelming mismanagement of the military and the pre-emptive war against Iraq, which has since morphed into a war against al Qaeda in Iraq. First, President Bush cut taxes. Then, he used faulty intelligence to start an unpopular war for which our soldiers were ill equipped to fight. According to the Department of Defense 13,877 soldiers have been injured and 1,891 soldiers have been killed in Iraq—numbers that continue to grow. Furthermore, the President has squandered over $190 billion in Iraq while Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks, remains at large. Granted, the advantage of hindsight is used to highlight these colossal errors, but, frankly, that’s what hindsight is for. Whether or not President Bush doctored the WMD intelligence, he acted on faulty intelligence and grave results have ensued.

The future's so bright I gotta wear shades

President Bush has sat idly by and done nothing to curb soaring gasoline prices. The national average price for a gallon of gasoline in July 2004 was $1.93. In about a year gas prices have sky-rocketed nearly 100% and despite allegations of price gouging by oil companies President Bush has simply done nothing. Everyday Americans are paying dramatically more for their gas and his gas, which is subsidized by U.S. taxpayer dollars allocated to the Secret Service. President Bush’s negligence on this issue, which, exacerbated by Hurricane Katrina, could have potential long-term effects on the economy, is an alarming indication of how out of touch the President is with the very issues affecting his constituents.

The country is more vulnerable then ever, before or after September 11, 2001. Hurricane Katrina has exposed a glaring weakness in President Bush’s ability to react to anything that isn’t part of his agenda. And, because our military and National Guard are preoccupied in Iraq, National Guard forces were tardy in their mobilization to the disaster area. Moreover, the insulting $1 million dollar donation from Japan to aid hurricane victims and the lack of a donation from our supposed top ally, Great Britain, illustrate the international community’s indifference and apathy toward a Bush-led America, making the country highly vulnerable.

Finally, a CNN/Gallup poll released in August showed that the 51% of people polled disapproved of President Bush’s handling of his job and 57% of those polled think the war in Iraq has made America less safe from terrorism. The poll reflects President Bush’s conspicuous incompetence. In America when someone is hired to do a job and the job isn’t done well, the person often gets fired. The job of President should be kept to the same strict standard, if not stricter.

The good news for Americans is that there is no office beyond President for George W. Bush to continue failing upwards. The question is whether public outcry will call for the President’s dismissal while the better part of his second term can still be salvaged and a replacement with a competent and demonstrable exit plan from Iraq can be designated.

Tipping the Tables of a Social Ritual

2005-08-23T23:34:00.000-04:00

No more tipping this guy?

On September 1 Chef Thomas Keller will make the bold move of abolishing tipping in his Columbus Circle restaurant, Per Se. While, at a glance, this seems like a progressive idea that will erase the awkwardness associated with practice of tipping, it really isn't anything ground-breaking as Keller's new policy will add an automatic gratuity of 20% to every check instead of giving the patron the option of if and how much to tip.

Many people will be averse to this concept because it takes the power to judge the quality of the service they received out of their hands. This cultural shift Keller is enacting brings to mind a memorable scene in the movie Reservoir Dogs in which Mr. Pink sums up his philosophy on tipping, to the surprise of his fellow thugs. "I don't tip because society says I gotta," explains Mr. Pink adding that, as far as he's concerned, waiters are "just doin' their job." I don't believe in tipping either.

Comes in a convenient wallet size

Let's examine the social ritual of tipping. Contrary to what Mr. Pink believes, it's actually the restaurants that tell society to tip and society complies. Think about how backward that is. Restaurants pay waiters $3.85 in New York City (less elsewhere) - well below minimum wage - and then saddle their clientele with the responsibility of supplementing their employees' salaries to bring them to the realm of dignifying. In a show of patent disdain, restaurants undervalue their employees and their patrons. Amazingly, they've established a context in which the patrons are responsible for taking care of the restaurants' employees. Apparently, restaurants don't even view waiters as employees - they consider them independent contractors hired by the clientele to serve them food. By that rationale, I should be allowed to hire a personal independent contractor as a waiter to serve me at whichever restaurant I choose to frequent. However, I highly doubt any restaurant would allow me to bring in my own independent waiter to fetch me food.

Several years ago, when I was employed as a waiter, I was indifferent to my measly $1.72 per hour salary. It was tantamount to nothing. Therefore, even though I don't believe in the ritual, I usually over-tip just a little because I know that the waiter is being under-compensated and, particularly in New York, I know that most of these folks aren't career food servers and are just waiting tables until they get a break in something else. That considered, food servers should still be treated like employees by their employers and be privileged to health insurance and benefits in addition to a fair salary. Restaurant owners and managers probably offer a high turnover rate as a reason that offering benefits to their service staff isn't practical, but perhaps if the jobs were actually worth their while more people might make a career of it.

Mr. Pink; not a Tip Table card carrier

Frankly, I imagine greed is behind food servers' poor salaries. Restaurant owners need to re-evaluate how important their servers are. Food servers allow commerce to take place. Without them, restaurants wouldn't be able to sell a steak marked up 300%. Or there would be mass confusion in restaurants as independent waiters and some people who might feel they don't need a waiter at all run to and from the kitchen with their meals and then leave the table without busing and cleaning it.

Think of it this way: we don't tip the salesperson in a department store after she goes to the back and brings out a shirt in a different color and then rings up the sale. And we don't tip the cashiers at the supermarket or drug store. They are fairly compensated by their employer. So why are we expected to tip our food servers? It's time for restaurants to remove the responsibility of compensating their employees from the general public and take it on themselves. I realize restaurant owners are going to want to spit in my food after reading this but they've had their cake and eaten it too for long enough. Thomas Keller should tinker with his idea and try something truly outside the box.

Keeping You Abreast of Civil Rights

2005-08-15T23:22:00.001-04:00

"Oh, how I want to be free!"

While the heated debate over random subway searches and the compromising of Americans' rights continues here in New York City, on Sunday in Central Park a new debate over rights began. Women (and men) demonstrated topless in an effort to generate support for the reversal of New York State Penal Code 245.01, which makes exposing a female breast in public illegal.

In the year 2005, with all of the highly visible erectile drug advertisements on TV, in magazines, on the outfield wall in baseball stadiums and all of the other sexual images used in commerce and readily available on the Internet, I find it incomprehensible that this penal code is still in effect. This double standard smacks of antiquated social puritanism--one of my least favorite things. Why is it that a man can go to the Great Lawn in Central Park and take off his shirt and sunbathe, but if a woman does the same, it's grounds for being arrested? What makes this penal code even more difficult to comprehend is that it was probably written and passed by a majority of men. What man has a problem with a breast? I'm pretty sure even gay men enjoy gazing upon a woman's exposed breast from time to time. There's a current story about a priest who is evidently a fan of female breasts! The worldwide popularity of breasts is undeniable. Yet they remain socially unacceptable in America.

Breasts shouldn't be feared; they're a natural part of the female body...like these

The fact of the matter is that our culture is seriously repressed when it comes to our bodies and sexuality and that is unacceptable. Topless women on the beach are commonplace in many European and South American countries, yet here in America topless women in public is not only taboo, but illegal. This is an old-world notion and, as a culture, it's time for America to progress. It's time to reject the puritanical social programming with which we were raised and catch up with the rest of the world by embracing the breast. What is so dangerous or inappropriate about a woman's naked breast?

Exposing a woman's breast isn't illegal at 500 Words

People always talk about how, since September 11, we live in a different world. A dangerous world of terrorism, war and conflicted ideologies. Isn't it time to lighten up and let women expose their breasts in public if they feel like it? As a country and a society we should be looking to gain new rights, not lose them. I, for one, say it's time to reverse Penal Code 245.01 and give women the right to expose their breasts...now!

Nice

Here at 500 Words, exposing women's breasts is not only legal, but it's enthusiastically encouraged. Therefore, if you support the cause to overturn Penal Code 245.01, send a picture of your breasts and they'll be exposed here until the day comes that you can walk topless in public proudly...and legally.

A Persistent Reality

2005-07-29T12:04:00.000-04:00

NBC Entertainment President; not quite Einstein

"We're insane if we stay on the same track. That is the definition of insanity, to keep making the same mistakes and doing things the same way," President of NBC Entertainment Kevin Reilly was quoted saying in a CNN article. Actually, that is a paraphrasing of Albert Einstein's definition of insanity. Reilly's not quite on the level of Einstein, but I think what Reilly really meant by his insanity comment is that he and other NBC executives will be out of work if they continue to make the same mistakes and get the same unsatisfactory results.

It sounds like there might be some dissent brewing in the posh NBC Executive office suite. A brief overview of some of the network's programs that have aired this summer and upcoming shows indicates that they are making and will continue to make the "same mistakes." Enter The Biggest Loser, Average Joe, The Law Firm and Tommy Lee Goes To College into evidence as people's exhibits A, B, C and D as more of the "same mistakes." Despite Reilly's claim that NBC needs to avoid the same mistakes (alluding that he thinks they were made by former NBC Entertainment President Jeff Zucker), President of NBC Universal TV Group Zucker flatly denied in the CNN article that Reilly admitted the network has made mistakes. Just a suggestion, but maybe if they focused more on programming and less on who's president of which sub-divisions in NBC, some actual good content would make the air. I'm getting confused just writing this.

Dead Rock Stars

The fact of the matter is that there is plenty of blame to go around--the state of television in general and NBC's pitiful fourth place finish in Nielsen Ratings last season is not just the fault of Zucker and Reilly. Let's focus on the Tommy Lee going to college show. Ultimately the blame lies with Tommy Lee for even entertaining an such an inferior idea. Not only is he making a mockery of the television medium, he is tarnishing what it means to be a rock star. Frankly, it's not just Tommy Lee who is guilty here, but INXS, who have a reality show (the name of which isn't even worth doing a Google search on) in which they are holding a singing contest to find a new lead singer. I imagine that all the dead rock stars, like Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Kurt Cobain, Freddy Mercury and Michael Hutchence (of INXS) would like to revoke Tommy and INXS' rock star membership...if they weren't dead. I guess, technically, Tommy Lee and INXS are dead rock stars now, because what they're doing is the antithesis of what being a rock star is.

The truth is that Tommy Lee's ego can't deal with reality that his mediocre metal band is no longer relevant. Same with INXS, except they didn't play metal. Instead of searching for some inspiration, dropping acid out in the desert, releasing a new home-made porno or attending therapy sessions with a psychiatrist and receiving shock treatments, someone was able to convince network executives at NBC and CBS that a reality show starring these has-beens would be a magnificent idea.

Persistence

Unfortunately, this isn't a very difficult feat. Most of the general public isn't aware of the how the TV industry generally operates. The industry is based largely on fear and greed. Most executives are so afraid of losing advertisers, and eventually their jobs, that they make no inspired choices and end up watching a mass exodus of advertisers because people simply don't watch. In fact TV networks will actually sign someone to what is called a "Talent Hold Deal" when the network thinks someone might be popular on TV but the network has no idea for the person. However, they are afraid that another network might come up with an idea, so the network will literally pay millions of dollars to someone to do absolutely nothing. Essentially, the network will take someone off the market. I know...it's hard to believe this is standard operating procedure.

And greed comes into play with reality shows, which are far cheaper to produce than sit-coms and dramas. Aside from a prize that the show awards to one person, the network doesn't have to pay the "talent," or losers who appear on reality shows. If they were making a sit-com or drama they would have to pay actors, writers and directors and they would have to pay them union minimums at least. They sell prime time ads to sponsors and make a killing on the shows. Of course there is no shelf-life for these shows, because the 37 or so people that watched Average Joe in first-runs, certainly will never tune into a re-run of it, but networks still turn a huge profit. If you're thinking that sounds like exploitation, you just might be a network TV executive.

This is one reason why I think myself and others like, Dave Rubin, haven't been successful in TV and are now turning to the internet, which will prove to be a brave new (and lucrative) world of programming. Of course, we would be open to re-working The Anti Show, or any of our other ideas, if the right people asked us to. In fact, help us out and email NBC Entertainment President Kevin Reilly at kevin.reilly@nbcuni.com and suggest that he offer us something...even if it is only a talent hold deal.

Einstein had another quote that is appropriate here: "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Apparently, so is reality TV.

The Media & Oversimplification of Terrorism

2005-07-22T10:33:00.000-04:00

The American Media

Last night on The O'Reilly Factor Bill O'Reilly (who I think is a great broadcaster, a mediocre journalist, stronger with his analysis on domestic issues than foreign issues and has to be taken with the grain of salt that he works for the very right-wing Fox News Channel and, despite what he says, is a conservative) made a big deal about a British reporter questioning U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair about whether Blair's policy (i.e., participating with the United States in the war against Iraq) might be the motivating force behind the two terrorist attacks in London the last two weeks. O'Reilly essentially contended that this journalist was somehow disrespectful and irresponsible for having asked Blair such an insulting question immediately following an attack.

While it was surprising to hear O'Reilly, who prides himself on his smash-mouth "No Spin Zone" where he asks tough questions of guests, chastise this reporter for not lobbing lollipop questions at Blair, his criticism is also indicative of the current climate in which the American media operates. And that climate is one of inexplicable deference to politicians concerning foreign policy, particularly policy on terrorism and the Iraq war. Why does O'Reilly disapprove of this reporter putting Blair on the spot and asking a legitimate question? Everyday people have died and been injured in these attacks. Frankly, it would be irresponsible for the reporter to not ask that question, as refraining from doing so would be silencing the peoples' voice. After all, the terrorist attacks haven't been targeted at the military or the government. Immediately following the attacks is precisely the proper time to ask such a question! The whole point of the media, in the first place, is to keep an eye on the government, so citizens at large aren't exploited. If Blair finds that line of questioning insulting (as O'Reilly surmises), then he needs to develop some thicker skin or find work in a sewing circle--he's a politician and he has constituents to answer to.

O'Reilly disapproves of hard-hitting journalism?

As hard as this may be to believe, President Bush has constituents too, particularly the American people. Unfortunately, because of O'Reilly's attitude, which is really a microcosm of the entire attitude of the American media, no one in the media questions President Bush rigorously and therefore we, the people, are losing our freedom. If you don't think we are losing our freedom, just look at what's happening here in New York City: the NYPD is subjecting all subway riders to random searches of their bags and personal belongings. This procedure, even though it's probably a good idea to prevent a terrorist attack, flies in the face of what is a legal search. Think about that. I actually agree that illegally searching me is a good idea. I'm surrendering my rights, practically with a smile on my face. Which right will I gladly forfeit next?

How is the media not protecting the interests of the American people? Quite simply, they are reducing the issue of terrorism to the point of biblical simplicity: good vs. evil. The issue of terrorism is more complex than that and, as complex topics often do, require some extra attention. It is impossible for me to watch all the news channels and read all the newspapers and magazines all of the time, but one angle on the terrorism issue that has been widely, if not completely, ignored by the mainstream media is that the attacks on September 11, 2001 were "an inside job."

What's more insulting? Americans losing their rights or asking politicians tough questions?

Clearly that is a shocking concept. But as The Bulldog Manifesto points out, the story of what exactly happened on September 11 was practically cemented within two days of the horrifying attack, while Americans were experiencing a whirlpool of shock, disbelief, fear and sadness and that story was never thoroughly questioned. The blog also points to a host of suspicious coincidences about the day in question that, at the very least, is worth a scratch of the head. Furthermore, the testimony of former Air Force pilot and commercial airline pilot Russ Wittenberg, who disputes many of the accepted explanations for September 11, has been all but ignored by the press. I'm not suggesting that all of these conspiracy theories are necessarily true, but how can the American people ever know where the truth lies for sure if the media doesn't allow them into the marketplace of ideas and investigate them accordingly? 3,ooo peopled died on September 11. If inquiring into whether the Bush administration had knowledge of or was culpable in any way for the attacks is insulting, then our leaders should quit politics. It's senseless, but professional athletes in America actually endure tougher questioning by reporters than government officials.

They've Got A Bridge--I Mean Star--To Sell You

2005-07-20T13:04:00.001-04:00

Profits from deceiving the stupid multitude?

While it is arguable whether or not P.T. Barnum ever actually spoke the words, ”There’s a sucker born every minute,” the truth of that statement is indisputable. In fact, the veracity of that observation has never been clearly illustrated and exploited more than by an Illinois-based company called the International Star Registry (ISR). Surely you’ve heard of ISR before. They’re the magnificent folks who, for the bargain price of $54, will let you name the star of your choice in our galaxy and send you that name on a nice piece of parchment.

I remember first hearing about ISR around 10 years ago and, after getting past the overwhelming corniness of the idea, recall asking myself, “Why didn’t I think of that?” The concept is brilliant: since the earth is out of available real estate, sell some real estate in outer space where there’s an unlimited supply and buyers will never actually be able to visit or do anything with their purchase. This concept takes the idea of selling the Brooklyn bridge to astronomical heights, literally.

No one falls for the old "I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge" trick anymore, so the ISR braintrust came up with something more suitable for the times

What’s even more surprising (and simultaneously alarming) is that there’s a market that has kept this company thriving for over 25 years now. According to a 2001 article in Wired magazine celebrities like Nicole Kidman and Winona Ryder had actually purchased stars as gifts for their significant others Johnny Depp and Tom Cruise (and everyone thought Tom dumped Nicole because of the Scientology). I had forgotten about ISR until recently, when the company began another radio ad campaign here in New York. Frankly, I was shocked they were still in business, so I wanted to know who was in charge of this money machine. The ISR web-site offers you very little info on anything more than buying a star and as I scrolled further down my Google results page, I discovered why.

It just so happens that in May of 1998 one ISR was issued a violation by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs and fined for “engaging in a deceptive trade practice.” Turns out, ISR’s star-naming is neither sanctioned nor recognized by the International Astronomical Association (IAU) or any other professional astronomy organization for that matter (as if it were officially recognized, that would somehow make buying a star not stupid). The NYC Department of Consumer Affairs found that ISR’s ads implied that the naming of stars was “official” (ISR doesn't use the word "official" on its site or in ads) thereby misleading consumers. Busted!

Even if he didn't make the famous quote, he'd probably be proud

Evidently the Department of Consumer Affairs fine hasn’t deterred ISR or hurt business very much. A phone call to ISR headquarters will put you on the line with a cheerful someone who is eager to “help you name a star” and, apparently, not shy about giving out the name of the President and CEO of the shady business, Rocky Mosele, who has yet to return a call for comments.

For anyone that might be considering buying a star, I would advise against it. In fact, if money is really burning a hole in your pocket, send me $20 for giving you the sage-like fiscal advice and you’ll still be $34 richer than if you had bought the star. In the meantime, I’ll wait for Rocky Mosele to return my call and update everyone if he has anything significant to say.

Click here to read the NYC DCA press release in its entirety.

The Cure For What Ails the Democratic Party

2005-07-18T11:57:00.000-04:00

Docile Democrats

For the last 11 years, as long as I’ve been an eligible voter, I’ve been a registered Democrat. I am a Democrat for two basic reasons: because I don’t want to be a Republican and because I want to be able to vote in a primary election. In short, I’m a reluctant Democrat. I agree with Democrats’ policies more than I do with Republicans’, but I don’t feel any genuine allegiance to the party. And I don’t think I’m alone. The Democratic National Committee has, in the wake of two presidential losses to George W. Bush, admittedly been searching for inspiration and hired Howard Dean as its Chairperson and antidote.

Uninspired

Recently, I’ve put my finger on why I’m not enamored with Democrats. First, Democrats always come off as whiney and bleeding-hearted, even to me…a Democrat. When Karl Rove impugned Democrats’ reaction to September 11, Democrat politicians merely asked him to retract his statements and apologize, instead of berating him and calling him the lying, calculating manipulator that he is. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Secondly, as a registered Democrat and member of the party’s web-site, these emails are painfully uninspired, preachy (to the choir, no less) and written in the same pathetic, whiney tone that many Democrats use on the Senate and House floors and on television. Howard Dean is a good guy, but his current leadership isn’t turning things around. The Democrats need to do something drastic and unconventional. I suggest the DNC offer Larry David the Chairman position and here are three reasons why, since I’m sure you’re very skeptical right now.

The new chair of the DNC?

Reason # 1 to offer Larry David the DNC Chair: He has no political experience.

That’s right, none whatsoever. That fact will be most peoples’ reason to disqualify him from contention, but I firmly believe that people who lack experience in a given field (provided it’s not something as specialized as heart surgery) are far less prone to employing the same-old, same-old conventions of the business. Larry would be more apt to bring fresh ideas into the DNC’s arena. If you need proof, he wrote a blog entry for Arriana Huffington’s site a couple weeks ago. Strategically, he is the perfect nightmare for the Republican party.

Reason # 2: He is a media darling.

He’s not a household name like Tom Hanks, but the media has been favorable towards him. Howard Dean, by contrast, is a media pariah. Look what happened to him in the race for Democratic presidential nominee. With a few overly candid and unsavvy interviews, the media turned Dean from the election favorite into a sacrificial lamb. Not only is Larry David in the media’s good graces, he’s media-savvy to boot.

Reason # 3: Overwhelming Success.

Even though I listed the reason third, it’s probably the most important. When Larry David is in charge of something, it turns into a smashing success. Simply look at Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm, both of which are popular, critical and financial successes. He gets results and it’s very hard to argue with results.

Unfortunately, it’s probably more likely that Al Gore will get another vote recount in Florida than the DNC will offer Larry David the job or that he would accept it if offered. Nevertheless, it is precisely the type of unconventional move the Democrats need right now as Karl Rove's career slowly crumbles and I propose that this entry begins a petition to appeal to both the DNC and Larry David and see if it can’t at least make them consider the idea. If you're not laughing hysterically, sign the petition by making a comment in the comments section and, if there's enough interest, I'll handle forwarding it to the appropriate parties. Let's call it a socio-political experiment.

In The Name of the Father, Son & Holy Spam

2005-07-15T12:09:00.001-04:00

"Word" up, J.C.

Receiving the occasional spam e-mail advertising erectile drugs, sedatives or pornography is a tolerable nuisance of having an e-mail account. But, the line for inappropriate spam needs to be drawn somewhere and I suggest we draw it at religious spam. Over the last six months or so my inbox has occasionally been in receipt of Christian spam. I’ve received e-mails notifying me that up to seven bibles (notice the symbolic number) are reserved for purchase under my name. I’ve been presented the opportunity to mingle with “Christian singles in your area.” I’ve been offered a “Christian mortgage.” And I’ve even been invited to attend Christian “meetings” where I can only imagine people gather to pontificate on Jesus Christ’s pivotal role here on planet earth.

If Christians firmly believe that Jesus is so great and important, why are they flagrantly and shamelessly defying the third commandment? Seems like sending spam e-mail that invokes the name of Christ would qualify as taking the Lord’s name in vain. I’ve never put any stock in the third commandment, even while being raised as a Christian. Who is God, anyway? Woody Allen? I don’t think the entity that created the entire universe (and could instantly destroy it) would have such a neurotic complex about the usage of his name. And if God did have a problem with it I think he would’ve done something about it by now, considering how many people have cursed His name since He made the commandment. That’s my opinion, though. Real-life Christians, if they actually believe the literal text of the bible, and what they say and teach, wouldn’t be so cavalier in sending spam depicting Jesus’ name. Furthermore, call me litigious, but I’d like to see a contract with Jesus’ signature on it granting these people permission to use his name and likeness in their spam. Although it certainly is nice news, somehow, I can’t imagine that a “Christian mortgage” is what Jesus meant by the “good news.”

Not merely "good news" - fantastic news

And where is the spam from other major religions? I haven’t received any e-mails from Jews inviting me to convert. The Buddhists have never attempted to recruit me via spam. Even the fundamentalist Muslim groups have yet to make an appearance in my inbox. So far, it’s only the Christians.

What’s more, I find it odd that Christians, by sending out spam, would lump themselves in with the erectile drug companies and the pornographers considering their moral position on those salacious counterparts. Or is Christianity, and religion as a whole, just another marketable commodity like sex and drugs.

Blue chip commodity

Just a decade ago spam was a novel form of meat in a can, and we all probably wish that were still true. However, I can live with most spam. I can’t live with insidious e-mails inviting me to mingle with Christian singles. Why are the people e-mailing me so concerned that I meet Christian singles? What’s really going to happen there anyway? I know they don’t want me to fornicate….hmmm. I imagine Jesus is somewhere marveling at how misunderstood he has been.

The Hand That Feeds The NHL

2005-06-30T12:54:00.000-04:00

Tired of having his face bludgeoned & looking for a new job?

Even if you aren't one of the few remaining NHL Hockey fans still in existence you may have heard about Philadelphia Flyers center Jeremy Roenick's unprecedented, profanity-laced case of biting the hand that feeds him. Roenick, referring to the ongoing lockout that resulted in the cancellation of an entire season, told fans to "kiss my ass" and not attend games if fans think NHL players are "greedy and spoiled" for not agreeing to a salary cap.

Two days later Roenick appeared live on Sportscenter making a futile attempt at damage control in which he defended himself as a passionate person and inarticulately groped for a resolution to the lockout. The best he could come up with is that the NHL players and owners need to do "something" for the fans, the league's customers, although he seemed unable to think of anything specifically. Since Jeremy appears to be at a loss for ideas to rectify the situation perhaps he and the league will accept my suggestion.

Jeremy, since the idea of a salary cap was so unacceptable to the players I suggest players and owners implement something as unprecedented as the cancellation of an entire season: a ticket price cap. Would it not be a show of tremendous faith by the NHL to put a cap on the price of tickets so that whatever happens in the league, the average fan won't have to pay so dearly for it? Not only would a ticket price cap protect the fans fiscally, it would require owners to spend their money responsibly on free agents and players to play hard to earn top market value, thereby protecting the integrity of the game. Consider what will happen if a ticket price cap is not implemented. Ticket prices will eventually rise and the NHL fans will have to pay more money for the same or watered-down NHL product. The league and the players make a collective bargaining agreement to protect each parties' respective interests. They should also make a commitment to fans not to raise ticket prices for at lease five years and then see where things stand.

Eventually, the NHL could become a shining example to the other major sports that fans should indeed come first. A ticket price cap might create new form of comeptetion in which professional sports leagues offer fans good customer service. The NHL could one day surpass other major sports in popularity which would force other sports to follow in the NHL's trailblazing footsteps.

Professional sports are a transcendent part of American culture and significant part of the American economy, but sports are increasingly about benefitting parties other than the fans. Owners, players, merchandisers and advertisers continue to profit at the fans expense. Jeremy Roenick's alienating comments simply illustrate how spoiled and out of touch he is. Without fans paying for tickets and buying merchandise and over-priced concessions he wouldn't get to play hockey for a living. I wonder how he would fare as a word processor at a law firm or as a construction worker--jobs he'd be lucky to get and at which he'd actually have to work, not play, for a modest wage. For his sake, and that of the fans, hopefully Roenick and the league will see the big picture.

A Burning Hot Topic

2005-06-24T09:20:00.000-04:00

Free Speech vs. "Patriotism"

The issue of flag-burning has reared its head again after an amendment to outlaw “physical desecration of the flag” was decisively passed by the House yesterday. While a spirited debate on the issue of flag-burning is always healthy, unfairly spinning the issue to be about patriotism rather than free speech in the post September 11 era is cause for alarm. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-California) was quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times saying, “Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them, and they will tell you: Pass this amendment.''

Besides flagrantly defying common logic by suggesting that the people he invoked should, alone, have the final say on flag-burning, Cunningham’s statement uses the sensitive subject of September 11 to exploit Americans' emotions to achieve a political agenda. In essence the statement above is an attempt to disguise nationalism as patriotism. I find that to be more offensive than the burning of a thousand American flags, especially considering that this Senate vote, should it take place, will be the first since September 11, 2001. This is an issue on which Senators should vote with their heads, not their hearts.

U.S. Rep. Randy Cunningham, Political Spin Doctor

Granted, it’s highly unlikely that the amendment will be passed and then ratified by 38 states within seven years, but the prospect of losing some freedom over the desecration of a national, cultural symbol is a scary idea. In fact, the idea smacks of the very same sentiment that enraged Muslims when a Newsweek story alleged that Korans were being desecrated by the U.S. Military. Many Americans consider our culture to be more civilized than our middle eastern counterparts, but an emotional attachment to cultural symbols is one way in which we might be similar.

Frankly, I’ve never felt compelled to burn a flag – I prefer to write an editorial column – but, I can understand that some people may feel so disgruntled that burning a flag is the only way to express their disillusion. And as long as the flag being burnt is their own private property, I respect their right to do so. Furthermore, if an amendment prohibiting flag-burning is passed one day, exactly how far down the slippery slope will we slide? Consider that newspapers, such as the New York Post, publish a picture of the American flag in its masthead. If it were illegal to burn a flag, would that mean that burning a New York Post or merely picture of a flag would also be illegal? Imagine if an amendment outlawing flag-burning led to an amendment outlawing editorial columns in newspapers. I certainly wouldn’t want that scenario, or something worse, to evolve from an amendment that was passed on the wings of nationalism disguised as patriotism.

Could it one day be illegal to burn this beacon of print journalism because it has a picture of the flag on it?

The Declaration of Independence highlights the concept of “inalienable rights” and I consider the right to freedom of speech inalienable and even transcendent. A strong belief in the First Amendment allows for a physical symbol that our country may hold dear, like the flag, to be desecrated while the spirit of that symbol and the rights it represents are still preserved. Therein lies the wisdom of the First Amendment.

Fear & Loathing In The Dentist's Office

2005-06-21T18:19:00.000-04:00

Skeletal smile of a blog writer

As an adult, managing your life is no easy task. There are a myriad of responsibilities and obligations that you must stay on top of if you want to avoid physical, professional and social peril. There are even more obligations if you actually want to excel in life, not merely survive. It can be overwhelming to say the least.

One thing I’ve been neglecting for some time is getting to the dentist for a regular check-up and cleaning. I made my first trip to the dentist’s office in about two and a half years the other day. After having X-Rays taken and an exam by the dentist, I was dealt the bad news. I had a laundry list of violations: staining on the backs of a few teeth; gingivitis; five cavities, two of which were caused because I have, apparently, been grinding my teeth at night. Therefore, the dentist said I need to wear a night mouth-guard (something another dentist prescribed me when I was 21 and was clenching my teeth at night), I need five fillings and, rather than the normal cleaning, a deep-scaling cleaning because of my gingivitis. Since I don’t have health insurance the total bill piled up to around $1400. I gave them the green light to go ahead with the deep cleaning and fillings. The night guard runs about $500 alone, so I told them I would try self-hypnotism to break my nocturnal grinding habit.

Dentist-suggested oral health arsenal

Before the dirty work got underway the dentist was very cordial and talkative with me. Following the deep cleaning and the fillings he seemed so disgusted with me that he issued a curt lecture about the importance of flossing every day and then could barely utter a good-bye as he raced out of the room. The deep cleaning, which is a cleaning below the gum-line, was painful indeed, but I’ve endured much worse in the dentist’s office before. When I was fourteen I had a root canal without Novocain (I have an irrational fear of needles), so I can pretty much take any type of physical pain lobbed my way while in the dentist chair.

Everyone is familiar with all the clichés about visiting the dentist, but at that moment I realized that far worse than the physical pain is the suffering that my ego endured there. I felt like a failure of a human being. I hadn’t visited the dentist in two and a half years. I’ve flossed maybe ten times since my last visit. My teeth and gums were in such bad shape that the dentist thought that I’m a smoker, which I’m not! The hygienists seemed to sneer at me repugnantly. With all my problems I felt like a mess. All of my imperfections suddenly seemed magnified. However, if you look at me, my teeth look nice and white and my gums relatively healthy.

4 out of 5 people abhor the dentist's office

I remembered that after my last dentist visit I tried to make a conscious effort to floss regularly and use Listerine. But, around that same time, I made a New Year’s resolution to start eating healthy and get back to working out at the gym. Somehow the eating healthy and working out took precedence and the flossing idea faded off into my imagination.

It’s really difficult to balance all of the necessary things an adult needs to do just to be semi-normal and healthy. I’m going to try again to get this whole oral health thing down. I wonder how everyone else does it and I wonder if I’ll be able to from now on.

Here's To You, Dad

2005-06-15T17:12:00.000-04:00

My dad and me about a month before he was diagnosed

One rainy summer day in 1977, while on vacation in Ocean City, New Jersey, my dad decided to go see Star Wars in an attempt to salvage a lost day at the beach. After some persuading, my mom reluctantly allowed him to bring their one and a half year-old son to the movie with him. Despite my young age, I recall that day with surprising clarity. I remember my dad holding me in one arm and an umbrella in his other while he sang “Singin’ In The Rain” to me as we made our way along the soaked boardwalk to the movie theater. I remember the Tootsie Roll candy my dad bought me at the concession stand. I remember propping my head on my dad’s shoulder and looking away from the screen when Darth Vader’s loud breathing freaked me out. And I remember clutching my uneaten Tootsie Roll the entire walk home after my overwhelming fear of Darth Vader forced us to make an early exit. I remember my dad trying to assuage my panic that Darth Vader was going to get me.

On January 2nd of this year my dad died, losing a difficult battle with two types of cancer. Last weekend my family finally buried his cremated ashes. I was faced with the opportunity to once again confront my feelings about my dad’s death—something that, at times over the last six months, I’ve avoided like I did Darth Vader’s breathing at my first movie-going experience.

My dad was thirty-three years-old when I was born and, while growing up, there was an apparent generation gap and, perhaps, something of a personality gap. Even though my dad scarcely had so much as a casual interest in sports he would engage me for hours on end as I would filibuster about the Phillies or the Eagles. At the time, I thought my dad’s interest in sports matched mine, but as I grew up I realized he was actually more interested in his son and saw my interest in sports as a way to bond. It was that selfless, soft-spoken nature that I only began to appreciate in my dad as I got older. We had some tumultuous times too, especially the teenage years when I was forming my own identity and I said I hated him.

A young Nick Tavani & his chubby new son

Over the last year and a half of my dad’s life my mom, brother and I had to watch my dad die as one treatment after another failed. During that time my relationship with my dad sped forward at hyper-speed – we both knew what was happening, but never verbally acknowledged it until his final week – yet it never crystallized to the point where we were two adults drawing on many shared experiences. Perhaps that’s why my trip to the movie theater with my dad, one of my earliest memories, remains so clear to this day. He was thirty-four at the time, only five years older than me and, in retrospect, I understand that young man.

This Father’s Day, the first in my life without my dad, there are many things I’ll miss about my dad including his generosity, his sense of humor and his sincerity. More than anything I’ll miss the relationship that we will never have.

A Monster Myth

2005-06-08T14:41:00.000-04:00

Trumpasaurus

The self-proclaimed job search engine Monster has unleashed a new advertising campaign for the summer purporting that “today is the day,” and as usual I took the bait and visited the web-site. Monster seems to be perpetuating one of the most elaborate myths on the American public by boasting that they actually get people new jobs.

My experiences with Monster have been completely one-sided. I would estimate that over the last few years I responded to approximately 150 supposed jobs posted on Monster.com. And out of those approximate 150 applications, I have received a whopping zero responses. And no, I haven’t been merely sending my resume to posted jobs. I signed up and got a “My Monster” account and an online resume and the whole nine yards. Despite all of the time I’ve wasted on that sham of a web-site and reading their spam email “Monster Network Reports,” not one single time has a “potential” employer ever contacted me. This fact seems to defy the law of averages as at least one or two of the postings I responded to should have at least returned correspondence or one of the many unknown employers that view my resume online should have initiated correspondence. It should be noted that I am a college graduate and have an average resume – not incredible, but certainly not bad. Furthermore, I’ve talked to a great many people and not one has ever reported even hearing back from a potential employer let alone actually having landed a job.

Corny mythology

If you’ve never been to the web-site do yourself a favor and visit it if for no other reason than to see how laughable it is. It used to be that every time you clicked on a job-posting to see the description a pop-up ad would appear. Apparently, somebody put on their thinking cap over there and disposed of that practice. Now, you only get a pop-up ad every few clicks or so. Virtually every page of the site is littered with advertisements and in the spaces that Monster isn’t hocking products they run stupid work-related polls.

As if the above isn’t condescending enough, Monster actually has the nerve to try to trick people into thinking that the job search is something fun and giddy. The reality of searching and interviewing for a job can be one of the most humiliating and grueling experiences a person can endure. Monster’s response to this is to devote an entire page of their site to a place where job-seekers can “meet the Monsters,” a fictitious group of monsters that actually have biographies. I realize Monster is trying to provide some comic relief, but my advice to Monster would be to provide people with a new job, like they claim they are capable of doing. There are plenty of comedy sites out there where people can find something that’s actually funny.

Classifieds and a red pen are more effective than Monster.com

If you still think that Monster has people’s interests in mind, perhaps the online Monster store where you can purchase Monster hats, t-shirts, coffee mugs and other Monster paraphernalia ad infinitum will destroy that notion. This company is a complete joke and they don’t do what they say the do. I believe that’s known as false advertising. Monster is the type of company that makes me want to get a new job, perhaps as a consumer advocate.

If anyone can refute the above please feel free to comment and defend Monster.

Etiquette In An Elevator

2005-06-03T16:05:00.000-04:00

"After you, ma'am."

Roughly six years ago I entered the “professional” working world and having a job in Manhattan meant I began participating in the daily ritual of riding elevators to get to work. Having grown up in a suburb I was not at all cognizant of the existence of an unwritten, unspoken code of elevator etiquette.

Apparently, and contradictory to popular belief, chivalry is not dead – at least not on elevators in Manhattan. Due to the freelance nature of my business I have worked in several different office buildings mostly in midtown, but also in Noho and downtown. One characteristic each of these places has in common is that the male employees virtually always allow female employees to enter and exit the elevator first. Now, while I think that’s certainly a considerate and magnanimous idea in theory, the practice of the concept has become trite and even absurd. It most definitely has in my office building, at least.

There are men in my office building who will be riding in the very front of a packed elevator, right by the opening of the elevator doors, who will then push their way to the back of the elevator when it reaches the lobby…I guess so it’s “easier” for the women to exit the elevator. Men in my building seem to gesture for women to enter and exit first as a rule, even if not in such dramatic fashion as mentioned above. I’ve even begun to observe some of the women flashing quizzical looks at these men as if they are trying a Jedi mind trick on the men in an attempt to remind them that we’re living in the 21st century.

Only actual Jedis should attempt a Jedi mind trick

When I entered the work-force I started letting women on and off of elevators first too, without ever questioning the behavior, because that’s what I saw other, older men doing. Now, wiser and perhaps jaded a little, I feel like I’m capable of recognizing when enough of the faux chivalry is enough. In an attempt to lead by example I’m happy to report that I no longer participate in this learned behavior. For a couple of weeks now, in the spirit efficiency, if I am closest to the elevator door, I exit the elevator first. Or if I am the first person waiting for an elevator, I enter the elevator first, regardless of the genders of the people around me. Men and women are perpetually complaining about the excessively slow elevators in our building, yet the men still resort to this behavior only making the whole elevator experience even more lengthy.

I wonder if this brand of elevator etiquette is merely typical of New York or if it’s going on in office buildings the country and the world over. Perhaps someone should conduct a study. I know it’s practiced in hotels and other buildings with elevators and I think it’s appropriate in those situations. But, in the workplace, where we all see each other everyday and we’re all just trying to get to and from our office as quickly as possible, is this meticulous elevator etiquette really necessary?

For Immediate Release

2005-05-31T22:40:00.000-04:00

Queen of Daytime TV
Not pictured is the mountain of money Oprah is sitting atop

Many people wonder what I do with myself when I have a day off during the week as was the case yesterday on Memorial Day, therefore I am issuing the following press release. I leisurely visited Central Park here in New York City and then watched an episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show. Oprah's show was all about celebrities and their favorite foods and restaurants - a most riveting topic.

Most of the show revolved around Oprah and her favorite foods and places to frequent. But she did include a few other celebrities like Chris Rock and Maya Angelou (Angelou was promoting a cook book). I almost could've overlooked the obvious pretense of the contrived topic and Angelou's timely inclusion, however Oprah did a short segment on Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen's favorite food. You read that correctly - their favorite food. For the record the twin sisters claim that their favorite food is a taco from Henry's Taco Stand in Los Angeles. Meanwhile, as the Olsen's are describing what is so great about these tacos Oprah's producers are showing the viewers some celebrity B-Roll (that's an industry term) of the two girls looking emaciated. I find it very hard to believe that Oprah thinks her audience is actually stupid enough to buy such a preposterous segment. After all, this is the same Mary Kate Olsen who was admitted to a clinic last June for an admitted eating disorder and, by the looks of the video on Oprah's show yesterday, spending time at the clinic was an exercise in futility.

Since they're twins, they naturally like all the same things

Clearly Oprah Winfrey is a smart woman and I can't imagine that she either came up with the idea for the show topic or the Olsen twins segment. If that is the case, then she must not have much to do with the production of the show anymore, because it was highly condescending. Perhaps Oprah's viewers aren't generally savvy enough to recognize what was going on in that segment or maybe they love Oprah so much that they just don't care. It seemed blatantly obvious to me that the segment was the brainchild of the Olsen's publicist who is attempting to repair their image and make people forget that Mary Kate has an eating disorder so they can continue selling the myriad of things they sell. The segment was so contrived that the Olsen's couldn't even act like they eat tacos.

Check out those ribs

In today's edition of AM New York (page 10) Herb Stark wrote to the editor asking, "What's with the media's obsessive coverage of Paris Hilton?" Well Herb, I'm not the editor of AM New York, but the answer to that question is two-fold. First, you can blame the publicists of Hilton and others who are constantly issuing a barrage of press releases on whatever their clients are up to. A few months ago I saw a story which pointed out that Lindsey Lohan was in the hospital with a fever. For real. Secondly, you can blame the editors and producers that actually read these stupid press releases instead of rolling them up and smoking something with them. These are the people that are most responsible for this nonsense. Publicists know that gossip editors and most of these producers are so devoid of original thought (or even the mere capability of simple thought) that they will basically run a story or produce a segment as long as it involves a famous person. They generally lead such boring, pathetic lives and are so incompetent at their jobs that they can seldom distinguish an interesting story idea from their own excrement. Perhaps once in a while they get lucky, but for the most part editors and producers are pawns of the publicists. As a result, the majority of what the average audience member watches or reads isn't remotely what it seems, but rather a surreptitious commercial for a different agenda.

So, that's what happens for me on a day off. I'm supplied with more evidence for why the entertainment industry is largely a farce and then I get to explain that to the imaginary readers of my blog. Good thing I have to work the rest of the week.

Melodrama In Philadelphia

2005-05-26T11:07:00.000-04:00

For complete Eagles coverage visit Philadelphia's premiere sports site, The Broad Street Journal

Lots of money & lots of passes should be on the menu for T.O.

The Terrell Owens' contract dispute continues to drag on and the longer it does the more the Eagles look wrong. They simply need to rethink the organization's conventional wisdom and work out a deal with Owens, who is not the conventional NFL player.

The only possible defense that can be made for the Eagles is that they are disgusted with Owens' agent, Drew Rosenhaus, and they can't be blamed for that. Rosenhaus digusts me, not only for being an agent in the first place, but because he alarmingly resembles Bob Sugar, played by Jay Morh in Jerry Maguire, who is basically satan-incarnate. By and large in this world (not just football or sports) the only purpose agents serve is the furthering of their own agenda. And their agenda is money and ego.

Bad Guy, Bob Sugar; Rosenhaus' inspiration?

So, it's perfectly reasonable to loathe Drew Rosenhaus and everything he stands for because even though he claims to stand for T.O.'s best interests, he's really only looking out for his own best interests - more money in T.O.'s pocket equals more money in his pocket. What seems unreasonable to me is that Eagles fans, and people in general, have contempt for Owens because he wants more money. Evaluating the situation in a logical sense, whether or not you like Terrell Owens, he is undoubtedly being compensated under his market value. Forget for a minute that the market value we are considering is measured in millions of dollars. Based on his off-season preparation, on-field performance and merchandising appeal, he should probably be one of the top two paid players at his position if not in the whole sport.

Owens, like many other people in all walks of life, is grossly underpaid for the service he provides. How many people in the general public feel like they are grossly underpaid and never say anything to their boss or do anything about it? I don't. Therefore, instead of being labeled greedy and egotistical people should look at T.O. as an example of someone who stands up to his boss and demands his rightful value. In a perfect world Owens would inspire people everywhere to confront their bosses and ask for more money. But, this isn't a perfect world and the football world operates a little differently from the real world.

Date Night: Popcorn & a Movie

Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Stephen A. Smith offers some interesting observations on why the Eagles and Owens can't come to an agreement. If what he asserts is true, then the whole issue is spiraling into a melodrama of soap opera proportions - and both Rosenhaus and the Eagles are to blame. Perhaps Joe Banner, Andy Reid and Drew Rosenhaus need to pop some Orville Redenbacher's and sit down together for a viewing of Jerry Maguire. The movie seems eerily relevant to this situation, except from one aspect. The Rod Tidwell character has a big mouth, like T.O., but in the beginning of the movie the knock against him was that he didn't play with heart. For all of his obvious football assets Owens' heart might be his greatest asset.

That's why it's imperative that the Eagles try to compromise with Owens and at least pay him a competitive salary commensurate with the current market. And Eagles fans should support this not only because they are logical thinkers, but because they're wise enough to realize that their Superbowl dreams are contingent on T.O. being around to make plays.

Memo To Middle America

2005-05-25T11:49:00.000-04:00

Maybe Christians and Muslims Should Start a Book Club

Once upon a time the United States was a thinking man’s country – the country of independent thinkers that built and sustained it. Where have the likes of those minds gone today? One place they haven’t gone is to Forest City, North Carolina. Look at the sign that pastor Reverend Creighton Lovelace put in front of his Baptist Church. He defended his actions saying, "I believe that it is a statement supporting the word of God and that it (the Bible) is above all…” Actually, the statement is about the Koran – you beginning to see the problem here?

Long and Boring Work of Fiction

The sign refers to the controversial story reported and then retracted by Newsweek alleging interrogators at Guantanamo Bay flushed the Koran down a toilet in an attempt to get information from detainees. The fact that people died in riots because a book was flushed down a toilet (true or false) is plain stupid. However, the stupidity of that fact is only surpassed by the stupidity of our fellow countryman down in Forest City who put up this sign. Why is the sign so idiotic? For one, the bickering between extremist Muslims and Christian zealots over what boils down to their differing taste in literary fiction is alarmingly antiquated for the 21st century. It’s tantamount to me throwing a riot because my favorite book is The Catcher in the Rye and someone else’s favorite book is The Sound and the Fury (a book I can’t stand). Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason should be required reading for both religious groups. Perhaps an objective interpretation of the texts in question would help enlighten these simple minds.

Holden Caulfield wouldn't stand for this nonsense

Secondly, this sign is foolish because of the potential effect it could have on New York City, the capital of open-mindedness. Apparently, Reverend Lovelace is so far behind the times that he doesn’t realize we are living in the digital information age. Within days of the sign being put up pictures of it were plastered on the world-wide web. Despite his oblivion, the reverend is well within his First Amendment right to the freedom of speech. However, he has the luxury of exercising his First Amendment right in such a cavalier manner without ever having to worry about the potential repercussions. The next time America is attacked by terrorists, they won’t be targeting Forest City, North Carolina. Instead, they’ll be targeting New York City. Lovelace, by putting up such an asinine sign, has made it abundantly clear he didn’t remotely exercise any common sense before exercising his constitutional right. This sort of profound ignorance seems to be limited to middle America, where President Bush successfully exploited Christianity in the last election. Is it too much to ask middle America to do some independent thinking about the nature of religion and international diplomacy?

And, Reverend Lovelace, on behalf of New Yorkers, the people at greatest risk of suffering the consequences of your irresponsible actions, please take down your stupid sign. Even if you are right about the Bible, I’m certainly not interested in finding out early because of another terrorist attack that you help incite.

Office Dispute of Colossal Proportions

2005-05-24T11:05:00.000-04:00

As overwhelming malaise set in here in our 10th floor cubicle a debate with a co-worker emerged that needs resolution.

What's Harder?

The issue in question is whether it is more difficult for a Major League Baseball Player to get a hit off of a Major League pitcher...Or for a pro tennis player to return the serve of another pro tennis player. I tried several different ways to explain to my co-worker, Susie Banikarim, that hitting a baseball is the most difficult single task in all of sports. She still contends that because tennis serves reach speeds of 130+ mph, returning one is more difficult. And she delights in not admitting when I'm right, even when she knows I am. Naturally, I've decided to turn to my blog to settle the dispute. I should note that I turned to my other co-worker, Adam Wade, for validation but Wade, who cowers in the face of office politics, has taken a neutral stance on the issue.

Readers, the responsibility is yours to decide the rightful winner of the argument. Use your Solomon-esque wisdom and click on our pictures to vote and leave your comment.

Me, because I'm always right?

Susie, because you like her tiny picture?

Wade, because he's wise to avoid office politics?

The War Is Going Great

2005-05-22T18:01:00.000-04:00

No one in America is rioting over this

The high threshold for dissatisfaction among the people in America is astonishing. In light of the Newsweek story alleging that Korans were being flushed down the toilet and the release of some unflattering pictures of Saddam Hussein in his tighty-whities, there are clearly some questions that need to be asked of our media as well as our government. Most likely these questions will never be asked by anyone of prominence in the media and if they are they likely will never be answered. Nevertheless, I’ll ask these questions, even if doing so is only in vain.

Thick book going down a small hole

Assuming that the story about a Koran being flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo is indeed false, it seems like Michael Isikoff, the reporter who wrote the story, neglected to investigate into what the hell kind of toilet the military might be using that an entire book could be flushed down it. Did he just presume they were using industrial strength toilets? If I put one ply of toilet paper too many in my New York City apartment toilet the whole thing backs up. How are these toilets able to swallow a whole book? I don’t think the Neorest 600 by Toto (retails at over $3000), one of the most expensive toilets on the market, is capable of getting down a whole Koran. And what is Newsweek doing with their so-called “senior U.S. government” source? If the source so erroneously mislead Newsweek, why is Newsweek not outing him as a liar? And why isn’t the Pentagon or White House conducting an investigation to find out who misrepresented our country’s interrogation tactics?

One powerful toilet?

Perhaps Isikoff did look into the type of toilets being used at Guantanamo and, it turns out, the military got a good deal on a few Neorest 600s and Korans go down without so much as a burp and the whole story is true. Why then did the Pentagon and White House only react to the story’s content after it caused violent riots and death in Afghanistan, a week after they initially reviewed the report? And how did Newsweek get strong-armed into saying they got it all wrong? Whichever scenario is true, they both leave Americans with the dilemma of not being able to trust our media or our government. If our media is capable of reporting a story accurately, then we can’t trust them to stand by their story in the face of pressure from the government. That’s simply wrong. And if our media can’t get the story about our government right, then who can Americans rely on for information? Certainly not the same government that mislead the world about weapons of mass destruction.

Apparently Geneva Convention rules don't require Calvin Klein underwear

It’s truly curious that our government feels compelled to speak with authority on the concept of getting the facts straight. Apparently most Americans have forgotten that the entire war still taking place in Iraq is based on the phony premise that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. And the government even admitted they got that wrong. If America wasn’t fighting a bogus war to begin with then Newsweek would have never reported the controversial story, true or untrue – a concept entirely lost on the Bush administration.

Now the Bush administration has condemned the publication of the captive Saddam Hussein pictures. Will the Bush administration ever learn that changing their policies might result in more favorable reports on what they’re doing? Or do Americans simply not care what the Bush administration does?

Now or Never For Phillies

2005-05-17T10:40:00.000-04:00

GM Ed Wade
There's nothing funny about another disappointing season

In the last few days both the Phillies GM, Ed Wade, and manager, Charlie Manuel have shown fans a microcosm of their respective baseball ineptitude. First, Ed Wade pulled the trigger on a blockbuster deal that sent Marlon Byrd to Washington for Endy Chavez and his hefty sub .200 batting average. And Manuel was quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer telling fans, "If you want to come to the ballpark to boo us, go ahead." These two numbskulls just don't get it.

The Byrd/Chavez trade is like putting a band-aid on the gaping laceration the 2005 season is quickly becoming. And asking the fans to come to the park to boo is flat-out idiotic. Thanks Charlie, but fans will boo from home (or the internet). Start winning and then you can expect fans to shell out money to pay a visit to Citizen's Bank ballpark. What these two examples, and the rest of this young season, illustrates is that the concept of success is completely lost on these two very complacent people. In fact, Wade's entire stewardship illustrates his satisfaction with mediocrity.

Clueless

Manuel's inability to motivate aside, he's woefully inferior at managing simple situations and choosing a lineup that works. I don't know who is responsible for the continued use of David Bell and Vicente Padilla, but both of these dolts need swallow their pride and play guys with smaller contracts on an everyday basis. If players aren't producing, put guys in who do produce. They should've learned that concept at the high school level. Chase Utley and Placido Polanco should be in the lineup every day and David Bell should have his ass bolted to the bench. Utley, an electrifying player at the plate and in the field, shouldn't miss another game the rest of the season. It's painfully obvious Padilla will never give them a full season of quality pitching. He shows flashes of brilliance now and then, but it's time to give up on him and get a consistent starter in there. And how many times does Tim Worrell have to be lit up for Manuel to realize that the loopy pitcher is impotent on the mound?

Explosive Player

In short the time has come for the ax to drop. It is imperative for Wade and Manuel to be cut loose if the Phillies organization has any desire whatsoever to be competitive in the National League this year or down the road. It's been almost twelve years since the Phillies have played a post-season game. The core group of players on the Phillies have been producing medicore results for several years now. Larry Bowa, a fantastic baseball mind, wasn't the guy to get this team over the hump. In light of that, I don't know what possessed Ed Wade to think Charlie Manuel would be. That mistake should be his last in Philadelphia. These guys have to go and the sooner the better. Their dismissal starts with the fans. The silence and emptiness of no fans attending games will be far louder than any boos every could be.

It's Only Rock & Roll, But I Like It

2005-05-13T14:17:00.000-04:00

Longevity

Anyone with even the faintest pulse has to be taken aback by news that The Rolling Stones are about to polish off another album and embark on a nationwide tour. Quite simply they are nothing short of amazing. Consider that they released their first album, The Rolling Stones, in 1964. That’s 41 years of rock and roll. By the time I was born in 1976 the Stones had released 23 albums. In 1994 I was fortunate enough to see them on their Voodoo Lounge tour.

What’s so remarkable about The Rolling Stones is their extraordinary staying power and their mass appeal across generations. The Rolling Stones are a quintessential rock and roll band with a plethora of catchy tunes and an intoxicating stage presence while performing live. But in their time they weren’t nearly the most inspired songwriters. The Beatles, The Who, The Doors, Led Zeppelin (to name a few) broke more ground and wrote more profound lyrics. Still, the Stones have long outlasted all of their peers as they incredibly head into their fifth decade. In doing so, they have built a library of songs that spans the decades and samples a flavor of each decade. Moreover, they appeal to perhaps the widest age range of music listeners. When I saw them in concert eleven years ago I was surprised to see kids as young as about ten and people who looked to be in their sixties at the concert.

Like all real rock stars, Jagger has a mug shot.

No other band has a legacy as marvelous as The Rolling Stones and that inspired me to ponder whether a band from my generation will ever have the staying power and long-term appeal similar to what the Stones possess. Of course my generation consists primarily of the early 1990s alternative movement led by bands like Nirvana, Alice In Chains, Soundgarden, Stone Temple Pilots, The Smashing Pumpkins, Jane’s Addiction and Pearl Jam. Of those bands only one – Pearl Jam – remains intact today, some fourteen years after their inception. Granted, Pearl Jam hasn’t been quite as prolific as the Stones in their first fourteen years, but they have some similarities.

Pearl Jam
They're still alive

Pearl Jam wasn’t the most edgy or groundbreaking of their peers, but they have managed to dodge pitfalls like death, serious drug problems and ego complexes that spelled the end for other bands. And Pearl Jam has survived a myriad of followers that have blatantly ripped off their sound, all the while shying away, for the most part, from going the mainstream MTV route. Like the Stones, Pearl Jam has released their share of songs and albums that didn’t sit well with critics and some fans, but they still remain as one of the pillars of alternative rock music. Pearl Jam even got political and appeared before Congress to challenge Ticketmaster’s monopoly.

Even though Pearl Jam is in the midst of what is generally considered a creative ebb, I can’t help but think that that lull is akin to what The Rolling Stones went through in the ‘80s. At some point Pearl Jam, like The Rolling Stones, will find their creative flow again and a whole new generation will welcome them back to the fold.

The Great American Media

2005-05-10T22:13:00.000-04:00

Media Dunce

Criticizing the media is one of my favorite pastimes. But, sometimes people in the media make it so easy to impugn them it almost takes the fun out of it. The latest example is MSNBC talking head and former Florida republican representative Joe Scarborough, who hosts Scarborough Country. On the MSNBC web-site Scarborough touts himself as a "regular Joe." Recently, though, Scarborough looked more like a regular idiot after issuing the following lecture to California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger:

"You know, this guy has been in so much trouble. He's got sagging poll numbers. He's got political groups criticizing his every move. And now the governator is making all his enemies' job easier. According to the London Evening Standard, Arnold recently went on Howard Stern's radio show and offered his theory on how to end premenstrual syndrome, saying -- quote -- 'If we get rid of the moon, women, whose menstrual cycles are governed by the moon, will not get PMS. They will stop bitching and whining.' Hey, Governor, way to make 50 percent of California's voting population turn frigid towards you. I don't know how it works in Austria, but let me tell you something, friend, jokes about such matters -- not laughing subjects to women in America."

Too bad the quote he attributed to Schwarzenegger was actually a parody, said by an impressionist as part of a joke on The Howard Stern Show. And Scarborough didn't even get the name of the British paper that first reported the comments right. It was actually the London Daily Mail. Scarborough Country went 0 for 2 on that one. I don't have any formal journalism training, and I don't know how it works in Scarborough Country, but I think if I was going to lambaste the governor of California on a "news" show over something he allegedly said, I would make a phone call to the governor's office to confirm what he said first. Amazingly no one has yet to be fired from this show (and I use the word show in the loosest sense).

Okay, so no one made a call--if they had any media intelligence whatsoever, they could've averted this mistake. Mistakes happen, but this wasn't a phony caller on live during breaking news. Scarborough Country is taped. What the hell is going on in Scarborough Country? Not one person on the staff thought to himself that that quote sounded a little too good to be true? Not one staff member even listens to Stern in the morning? Whether or not you like Stern, his media relevance cannot be ignored. How can people that are in media make this laughable a mistake? It reminds me of when Ali G managed to catch 60 Minutes curmedgeon Andy Rooney off guard and made him look like an imbecile. Somebody at 60 Minutes, even if they only aspire to think of themselves as media-savvy, should've known the true identity of Ali G. These people are supposed to be journalists, delivering news to the American public.

Media King

Apparently Scarborough isn't delivering much of anything to the American public as he is lucky if he cracks 300,000 viewers a night. I guess that begs the question: if a regular Joe make's an ass of himself on his trite cable show and no one sees it, does it affect his credibility? Probably not, because technically has little or no credibility in the first place since virtually nobody is watching.

This blunder makes me wonder about what exactly passes for leadership over at MSNBC. The fact that no one has been fired over this reflects poorly on Rick Kaplan, MSNBC president. Evidently, Microsoft (which puts the MS in MSNBC) wants to yank its name from the network moniker, and it's not hard to figure out why. Americans at large are smart enough to steer way clear of Scarborough Country. Scarborough and his staff of dolts could learn something about media from someone like Howard Stern. In the meantime I would like to see someone get canned over this. Perhaps I'm going to make trying to get people fired my new hobby. Please Rick Kaplan, fire Joe Scarborough. Thank you.

NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL RACE POLL

2005-05-10T10:41:00.000-04:00

City Flag

With New York City's mayoral election day less than six months away it's time for an unscientific poll to see which mayoral candidates (if any) have an early edge with New York voters leading up to what will certainly be a hotly contested race.

If election day were today which candidate would you vote for? Scroll down to see the candidates.

Before the real mud-slinging begins please vote by clicking on the picture or name of your candidate of choice. Respond with the following information: Your candidate, Borough, political affiliation (i.e., Democrat, Republican, Independent), age, sex. No further personally identifying information is necessary, but opinion is always welcome. Please only vote if you are a resident of one of New York City's five boroughs. Thank you and let the voting begin.

Bob Kerrey is only considering a run for mayor at this point, but for the purposes of this poll please consider him a candidate.

Beating A Horse's Ass

2005-05-09T13:04:00.000-04:00

Mix-up in shipping & receiving?

There are certain things in life I find so bewildering that they make me wonder if there was an error in God's shipping and receiving department which resulted in my soul being mistakenly sent to the wrong planet. One of these things is Kentucky Derby. Perhaps I'm slow or something, but I understand neither the appeal of horse-racing nor the hype among the general public – the common folk.

Clearly, the Kentucky Derby, and horse-racing in general, is lucrative to the gambling industry and the upper class people who own these horses. What surprises me is that the "sport" of horse-racing has caught on with the middle class in this country, who have no economic stake in it. Frankly, I find the whole idea of horse-racing to be obnoxious. I've never remotely been a militant PETA member or supporter and I fully endorse eating red meat and living life, but horse-racing strikes me as highly unnecessary and overly insulting to the horses. Horse-racing smacks of aristocratic snobbery. Maybe I don't get it because I'm not rich.

I didn't interview any horses for this column, but I'd venture to guess that none of the horses ever to have been born have sought a career in racing. The owners and the jockeys appear to be too lazy to run the race themselves, so they force a horse to do it for them. Unfortunately, that is a mentality all too par for the course with rich people in this country. Poor people can be happy doing something simple, like throwing around a football or baseball. Rich people have to go out and get an entirely different species of animal to do all the work for them. Just look at the sports many rich people often partake in, such as the equestrian events. Rich people have to go out and spend $50,000 on a horse and then set up little fences for him to jump over. And then they congratulate themselves like they just cured Polio when the horse jumps over the fence. Of course he's jumping over the fence--it's in his way!

"Faster you stupid horse!"

More vexing is that horse-racing is widely accepted as a sport in our culture. ESPN sends reporters to the Kentucky Derby and makes it one of the top stories on Sportscenter. Maybe no one is aware, but there are no athletes involved in horse-racing. Sorry, beating a horse's ass with a leather whip does not qualify someone as an athlete. If the jockeys actually got off the horses and ran around the track then maybe I would give it sport status. I imagine real athletes must feel somewhat emasculated by this gross misnomer.

I realize people will argue and say that the “horses are treated better than many humans and live good lives. Horse-racing is good for the economy. It's fun to bet on horses running around an elliptical dirt track.” I wish I had some disposable income to fritter away by gambling on horses. If horses could talk I'd bet they tell their filthy rich owners to stop whipping their asses and to quit giving them corny names.

Not Necessarily News

2005-05-05T23:08:00.000-04:00

Editor's Note: The following column comes to you courtesy of New York City's own Dave Rubin, a comedian, writer and above-average amateur basketball player. Dave is also a good friend of mine and I realize I'm resorting to a little nepotism here, but I figured if everyone else is doing it, why shouldn't I? After all, this blogging business is really all just about who you know. For any further Dave Rubin related needs please visit his town/universe Rubinville.

Guest Columnist

I just finished watching ABC’s Primetime Live self-proclaimed “explosive” expose on Fox’s American Idol. In the cutting-edge news expose ABC’s contestant Corey Clark made a bombshell claim that he had an affair with Paula Abdul who, in turn, helped young Corey by picking out his songs and even his wardrobe. I haven’t been this outraged since Saddam turned out not to have weapons of mass destruction.

Outrage!

As I watched I couldn’t help but think how sad it is that this is what news has become. News is now, all too often, either a commercial for, or an expose against, an entertainment show. Somehow, I don’t think that executives at Fox are really worried about the fallout from this ABC piece, because as the old adage goes, “Any publicity is good publicity.”

Reality TV is not real, folks. Not only is it not real, it is basically the furthestthing from reality that there is. I’ve never been in a contest to lose weight. I’ve never eaten a bull’s testicles or married someone that I met that very night. Well, actually I did eat bull’s testicles once, but it was on a drunken dare.

Fox Fix

Every reality show - every single one of them - is fixed at some level, either by how they select their contestants, how they edit the footage or who the judges are sleeping with. As if it isn’t bad enough that the medium of television has hit rock bottom, now our news programs are doing stories about the faux reality. And our news programs are hardly reality either, because they’really in bed with the entertainment shows, which is exactly why right after Primetime Live’s special, ABC’s Eyewitness News was sure to tell us that it too had a story about the great American Idol scandal. In the corporate world this phenomenon is referred to as synergy, but we know it’s actually just one hand washing the other.

Osama who?

I’ve spent the last seven years of my life doing stand up comedy here in NYC. I have relentlessly pursued my dreams because I love the chase and I find meaning in the struggle. On the few occasions I’ve pitched shows to networks I get the same response, which is basically, “We’re really more interested in reality TV right now.” Of course, in real reality, what they mean to say is, “We don’t want to have to pay writers or actors, so we’ll stick with the cheap stuff—exploiting people, both participants and viewers.”

The only way we can stop television from feeding us more of this garbage is if we actually turn off our TV’s. And I really think this has to start with New Yorkers, because we are the trendsetters for the entire country. Go out to dinner. See a show on Broadway. Check out some live stand-up comedy. Whatever you do, don’t just sit there watching crap just because it’s what they are currently feeding us.

Find your own reality. It’s out there, and I promise you it’s better than anything on television. And if you do eat a bull’s testicles make sure they are well-done.

The Case of the Runaway Bride

2005-05-03T16:48:00.000-04:00

Runnin' Against The Wind

Seems like all I'm doing anymore is defending people, but when they come under unreasonable attack I feel the responsibility to do so. Hopefully someone will defend me when I need it someday.

In any event, Jennifer Wilbanks, the so called "runaway bride," has apparently rubbed Shirley Lasseter, the mayor of Duluth, Georgia and District Attorney Danny Porter the wrong way. Lasseter is looking to sue Wilbanks for $100,000, the approximate number of tax dollars spent on the investigation and search for Wilbanks and Porter is looking to press misdeamonor and felony charges that could result in Wilbanks spending up to five years in prison. While it's highly unlikely Wilbanks will do any hard time, it seems preposterous for either the Mayor or DA to proceed with their "cases." However, their complusion to do so shouldn't be surprising because it typifies our culture's approach to problem-solving: punish the sympton of the problem rather than treat the problem itself.

The fact of the matter is that Wilbanks, a thiry-two year-old woman, did waste a lot of people's time and money and caused her family and friends a great deal of undue anxiety and pain. But that's where it should end. Why do the mayor and DA feel compelled to waste more taxpayer money and cause more pain with a law suit and prosecution? Quite simply it's idiotic and, likely, politically motivated. Fortunately, Jennifer Wilbanks wasn't kidnapped and murdered as many people thought. That's great. So she's a bit of a drama queen and wasted some taxpayer money in trying to get out of her wedding. Deal with it. There are far more egregious squanderings of tax dollars currently happening in this country. $100,000 is virtually nothing.

Cutting your own hair often goes awry

Clearly Wilbanks has problems and I feel bad for her that she felt so trapped in the extravagance and pomp of the upcoming wedding that the only way she felt she could get out of it all was to cut her own hair and fake her own kidnapping. Behind those wild eyes is probably a very disfunctional person--but not a bad person. She probably needs a prescription antidepressant and some therapy. Then she'll act perfect, like everyone else.

Of course the media deserves no thanks for sensationalizing this calamity. It almost seems like the media is fueling everyone's fire of contempt toward Wilbanks because she didn't turn up murdered by her husband. They jumped all over this story as if it were another Scott/Lacy Petersen case and when Wilbanks turned out to be crying wolf, they felt like they had egg on their face. Now it's time for paybacks.

The Media

Jennifer Wilbanks has probably endured (and will continue to endure) all of the humiliation that she deserves. She'll be parodied and satirized by late night shows and comedians, which is fine. Letting the social commentators of our time put her in her place seems like a reasonable sentence to me. Seeking legal action against her is just mean-spirited and wasteful. Just in case she does end up owing the city of Duluth $100,000 perhaps you'd like to peruse her wedding registry and buy her a gift that she could pawn one day. There a still a few reasonably priced gifts on there.

When Maggie Gyllenhaal Speaks People Lash Out

2005-04-26T12:02:00.000-04:00

Has a brain and can use it

I realize I’m in an insignificant minority, but I would like to implore native New Yorker Maggie Gyllenhaal to not apologize for her remarks regarding the September 11, 2001 attacks and defend her right to have made them.

First of all, it is highly refreshing to see an actor that possesses the ability to formulate opinions and the courage to express those opinions as opposed to the norm for show business, which entails performers regurgitating politically correct drivel fed to them by their publicists or agents so as to not jeopardize the amplitude of the next payday.

Gyllenhaal’s remarks and the subsequent media sensationalizing of those remarks highlight a problem here in America – a problem that Gyllenhaal probably couldn’t fathom, but is now becoming all too familiar with. Almost four years after the tragedy at the World Trade Center and in the supposed “land of the free and the home of the brave,” an individual really isn’t “free” to say anything on the September 11th issue that deviates from the “oh, what a terrible tragedy,” archetype because we, as a country and culture, aren’t “brave” enough to confront our own fears about the day in question. Moreover, our culture, led by the media, is so fearful that when someone like Gyllenhaal speaks her mind in a manner incongruent with the social norm, the media falsely accuses her. There have been various headlines and even a city councilman that accused Gyllenhaal of asserting that America deserved the attack on the World Trade Center. Have a look at the quote: “Because I think America has done reprehensible things and is responsible in some way and so I think the delicacy with which it's dealt allows that to sort of creep in," said Gyllenhaal about The Great New Wonderful, a film that deals with September 11. Since when is accepting some culpability for a tragedy equivalent to claiming America deserved it? Aside from being sheer yellow journalism, making an accusation as such is plain stupid. Even worse, Newsday is running a poll on its web-site, the purpose of which seems to be to force an apology from Gyllenhaal. How un-American is that? The young lady simply spoke her mind, an exercise that is the basic fabric of what is supposed to be great about our country.

To reprimand Maggie Gyllenhaal, or even sacrifice her career based on her opinions about September 11, is misguided. If her acting is bad, then her career should suffer. Not because she has an opinion of her own. So, please Maggie, don’t apologize for being a responsible American.

Remember this?

What is the point of having freedom of speech if we don’t wholeheartedly embrace that freedom? We should use our freedom of speech to create a public discourse to advance our culture and not use it to get people to retract statements from the marketplace of ideas that scare some of us. Is that a mild earthquake I feel? Oh, no, that must be the collective rumbling caused by the founding fathers of the country rolling in their graves.

Happy Retirement

2005-04-22T17:07:00.000-04:00

Take It Easy

Reggie Miller is the type of player I loved to hate when I was growing up. One of those guys that you'd admit to loving if he was on your team, but couldn't stand as an opponent. Miller played his last regular season game the other day, bringing a close to what has probably been an underrated 17-year career.

Aside from being one of the all-time great three point and free throw shooters and 5-time All-Star, Reggie Miller always displayed a flair for the dramatic in the playoffs, despite never winning a championship. No one will ever forget those big threes he hit against the Knicks at the Garden. I forget the year, but I won't forget his clutch shooting in that series.

Miller began his career when I was twelve and I was always annoyed by him when I was a youngin. He wasn't a flashy player and looking at his gangling physique I couldn't comprehend how he was even a good player. However, as I got older and my appreciation for the game of NBA basketball evolved so did my appreciation of Reggie Miller as a player. In a sport that has been getting more youthful in recent years, Miller has been a quintessential example of a player that embodies fundamental, team basketball--something that is completely lost on many of today's younger players. I never thought I would, but I'm going to miss seeing him play for the Pacers. Hopefully he'll land a job as a TV analyst. Perhaps ESPN will wise up and replace the unwatchable Greg Anthony with Reggie Miller.

Small guy carrying a big load

As for the playoffs, which begin tomorrow, I will be watching closely for a Philadelphia upset of Detroit. It's not likely, but nothing would be sweeter than seeing Allen Iverson knock his former coach, Larry Brown, out in the first round. Iverson has had by far the best season of his career averaging 31 points per game and almost 8 assists. He never put those kind of assist numbers up under Brown's stewardship of the Sixers, although Brown was often credited (somewhat rightly so) with Iverson's development as a player. If it weren't for Steve Nash having such a profound impact on the Phoenix Suns this year and leading them to a 60-plus win season, Iverson would be the hands down choice for MVP.

Unfortunately, Iverson has had to carry the Sixers all year, even after the trade for Chris Webber. Once upon a time Webber was a legitimate low-post presence, but is merely a shell of the player he used to be, milling around the top of the key and settling for 18-foot jumpers. The Sixers have an explosive player in rookie Andre Iguodala, but he's nowhere near his potential yet. Upsetting the defending champs will be a tall, but not impossible, order for the Sixers.

Playoff Spectacular

I'm sure we're in for an exciting playoffs despite the fact that there's no Kobe or Garnett or Lebron in the playoffs. A great chance for some other guys like Ben Gordon, Gilbert Arenas and Amare Stoudemire to step up and establish themselves a stars.

Racial Harmony In New York City

2005-04-19T23:02:00.000-04:00

Not everyone can get along

A black guy, a white guy and a Hispanic guy are riding on a crowded New York City bus. No, I’m not about to tell you a hack joke that would make Jay Leno proud. The following is a true account of my cross-town bus ride on the M96 tonight.

The M96 was packed, standing room only. I was sitting just past the mid section of the bus, towards the back. For some reason the M96 took a detour and headed down CPW to 86th Street and crossed through the park there. Apart from the detour and the unusually large crowd of riders, it was a typical bus ride…until the bus crossed Fifth Avenue and a black guy sitting in a chair toward the front, on the driver’s side stood up, looked menacingly at a white guy who was standing over him and launched into an incoherent diatribe, the theme of which seemed to be about being overworked and underpaid. At first the white guy looked confused as to how he should react since the verbal assault was unprovoked and, even though the black guy was looking at him, it was unclear at whom exactly the black guy’s ire was directed. After a few minutes and as the black guy raised his voice and his words became more inflammatory—“I’m gonna fuckin’ kick some ass!”—a look came across the white guy’s face that suggested he was contemplating kicking some ass.

M96: usually an uneventful ride

Meanwhile, the bus was making stops and a few people were leaving, but everyone remaining on the bus was fully absorbed in the drama/action unfolding. I was in the midst of a cell phone conversation and began doing play-by-play for my friend T.J.

The white guy managed to keep his composure and eventually the black guy turned away from him and appeared to address the bar that people who are standing hold on to. The obscenities continued to fly as the volume of his voice escalated and his babble became increasingly unintelligible. For a minute, it looked like the situation was going to diffuse and I informed T.J. that the impending fight looked like it wasn’t going to happen…until the black guy realized he wasn’t getting much of a reaction from the bar he was bellowing at.

He then turned and faced a diminutive Hispanic guy, dressed in a shirt and tie, who was standing on the other side of him. The black guy hurled racially charged invective at the Hispanic guy and began punching his fist as if he was readying himself for a bout. The Hispanic guy stood calm for a couple minutes, looking unfazed. The black guy mentioned to him that he was going to “kick his fucking ass!” And then he asked the Hispanic guy, “What are you going to do about it, faggot?” An incredulous look flashed across the Hispanic guy’s face. The bus came to a stop and the driver opened the front door. The Hispanic guy quickly grabbed the bigger black guy and to the shock and delight of everyone still riding the bus—and in super-hero fashion—threw the black guy out the door of the bus. The black guy tumbled into the street, his belongings spilling onto the blacktop. An eruption of cheers and laughter came from the riders. From my vantage point it looked like the black guy may have lost a tooth during his ejection. The Hispanic guy wanted more and turned and headed back as the driver pulled the bus away from the stop saying, “I’m gonna kick his ass! That’s what you get when you call me a faggot.” People on the bus grabbed him, congratulated him and told him he had done enough. I congratulated him too and gave T.J. a wrap-up of the brouhaha. What a ride.

Who ever said racial harmony eludes us?

CLICK HERE - Listen to the first Dave Rubin & Andrew Tavani Podcast

2005-04-18T17:43:00.000-04:00

Radio is the Future (for Dave & me)

Either that, or we are THE FUTURE OF RADIO...internet radio, that is. Since Dave and I continue to be repeatedly rejected by the TV industry, we have decided the time has come to evolve and go back to the future. Listen to our evolution as we try our voices at the tried and true medium of radio. Download the show, then upload it to your iPod or lesser MP3 player and let us entertain you on your way to work. Or just listen on your computer as you surf for porn or while you're supposed to be hard at work. Most importantly, let us know what you think.

Stupider By The Minute

2005-04-17T23:31:00.000-04:00

Social Experiment?

Have you ever seen a movie that made you wonder whether what you just watched wasn't in fact a movie, but actually a social experiment designed to gauge the level of stupidity the American public will pay good money for without rioting after seeing it? Unfortunately, I happened to watch Cheaper By The Dozen on HBO a few days ago. The good news is I didn't have to pay any of my money to see this debacle caught on film. The bad news is that Cheaper By The Dozen is in fact a movie, not a social experiment, and many Americans forked over their hard-earned U.S. currency to see it. Furthermore, there were no riots reported at movie theaters in 2003 when this movie was release.

I imagine that if I had seen this movie in the theater I would've incited a riot in the lobby afterwards or at the very least I would have written a nasty letter to 20th Century Fox demanding them to refund my money for subjecting me to such unadulterated idiocy. Apparently the majority of people in this country have a much greater riot threshold than me. Or most of the people that saw this movie are well-tranquilized with anti-depressants.

The movie (a remake) stars Steve Martin who, once upon a time, was a great comedian and actually was very funny in several movies worth seeing. I don't know what force of nature compelled Martin to do this movie. I can't imagine he's that hard up for money, but something made him sign up for it. What's worse is that this is considered a family movie, targeted at kids and their parents. Frankly, I think it might be better for kids to see graphic violence and hard-core sex scenes than insulting their young intellects with something like this.

The director, Shawn Levy, must have set some sort of cliche usage record in the making of Cheaper By The Dozen. He buries you with cliches and predictability right up to the typical Hollywood happy ending. The movie literally gets stupider by the minute. The bottom line is that this movie dramatically illustrates how remarkably devoid of ideas Hollywood is. It's that simple.

Take a look at Vin Diesel's latest movie, The Pacifier--another one targeted at kids. I hope to never see this movie as I already feel dumber for having seen the trailers on TV, but it seems to me that Vin should be alarmed at the current state of his career. When the majority of the major cast members you are working with are babies that don't speak the language yet, you have to wonder where things are headed. Ironically, Vin isn't the worst actor. He was good in a movie called Boiler Room, but the industry decided he'd be better doing retarded action movies and now they've got him being bit on the nose by a duck while baby-sitting. It's amazing.

That's a Diesel skirt

By and large American moviegoers plainly accept these movies and even pay to see them. I don't know about you, but I think that is cause for serious concern. I hope someday we find out that Cheaper By The Dozen and some of these other braindead motion pictures are actually part of a social experiment being conducted on late 20th and early 21st century American society. That would make their existence have somewhat of a point beyond picking the pockets of unsuspecting Americans.

Show T.O. The Money

2005-04-14T12:33:00.000-04:00

For complete Eagles coverage visit Philadelphia's premiere sports site, The Broad Street Journal

Time for Lurie to open up the check book

The Philadelphia Eagles need to nip this situation in the bud. Otherwise, it could spiral out of control and ruin their chances of winning the Superbowl next season and securing the organization's status as a bona fide dynasty. Quite simply, if Terrell Owens asks for more money, open up the check book and give him more money. Do whatever it takes to keep him happy, because the Eagles Superbowl hopes and dreams will run out of of town faster than the star receiver runs to the endzone to celebrate if he's not happy.

The man with the money Owner Jeffrey Lurie

Jeffrey Lurie, Joe Banner and Andy Reid have done an exceptional job over the last few years of making shrewd player personnel moves. Trading for T.O. tops the list. Now is the time to protect that move and maintain the new dominant atmosphere that Eagles fans enjoyed last season. Those are three smart guys, but if they can't figure out or admit to themselves that Terrell Owens is the player that pushed them over the NFC Championship edge, then, sadly, they are lying to themselves and one another.

Without T.O. the Eagles are a good team. They have experience, some good athletes and a pretty good coach. With Terrell Owens, even on one healthy leg, they are a Superbowl contender and on two good legs they most likely are a Superbowl winner. Without mincing words, Terrell Owens is the MVP of the league, even if the league doesn't want to acknowledge that fact. Look at the impact that he had on the Eagles. 14 recieving touchdowns in 12 and 1/2 games. That's almost THREE TIMES what all Eagles wide receivers COMBINED for in 2003. His 1200 receiving yards made him the first 1000 yard receiver the team has had this side of the turn of the century. And the intangibles he brings to the team are immeasurable. Before T.O. came to town this team lacked personality and even looked scared and confused at times on the field. Owens brought a swagger and a confidence to the team. By example he taught the team how to have fun while playing the game. Not since the Buddy Ryan era has an Eagles team had as much unadulterated fun out on the field. He took the attention off of people like Donovan McNabb and Andy Reid, whose egos are ill-equipped to handle the bright shine of a national spotlight and took all of the attention and unwarranted criticism in stride to his fifth consecutive thousand yard season.

If DBs don't miss, they get swatted out of the way

Unbelievably, there are many "experts" who think Randy Moss and Marvin Harrison are better receivers than Owens. This is simultaneous hype and fallacy. Moss and Harrison are very good receivers, but when has Randy Moss ever thrown aside a linebacker or defensive back while making a catch over the middle? Owens might give up a step to them, but those two don't break tackles and outsize defensive backs. And what player at a skill position works harder and is in better physical condition than Owens? He is an incomprehensible physical specimen. His Superbowl comeback seemed to defy medical logic. With Owens, you know exactly what you're getting for your money. And that's why it is imperative for the Eagles to renegotiate his contract and keep him happy. Everything the organization and fans yearn for is contingent upon Owens' staying happy in Philly.

The Untitled Andrew Tavani & Dave Rubin Project

2005-04-13T16:53:00.000-04:00

Magnetic Personality

Below is a list of shows currently in development/production in the entertainment industry. Try your best not to be overly dazzled by the innovative titles.

1. The Untitled Lloyd-Keenan Project
2. The Untitled Holly Hester (NBC Universal TV/Conaco Prods)
3. The Untitled Marsh McCall Project (Warner Bros. TV/Jerry Bruckheimer Films)
4. The Untitled Michael Douglas Project (Sci-Fi Channel)
5. The Untitled Chris Kattan comedy project (20th/3 Arts)
6. The Untitled Freddie Prinze Jr. project (Warner Bros. TV/Mohawk)
7. The Untitled Yuspa-Goldsmith comedy project (Sony Pictures TV/Paramount Network TV)

As someone who has been working in the industry and trying to get a good show (i.e., The Anti Show) picked up for the last five years, the above list stacks up like a Mount Everest of frustration. Aside from the day to day adversity of having to work in TV the fact that people like Chris Kattan and Freddie Prinze, Jr. (who aren’t funny or compelling in any way) somehow convinced people to pay them large sums of money to develop shows without titles is is more difficult to figure out than what the hell goes on in Michael Jackson's head. I’ve never been able to understand why actors/performers/writers get all these “opportunities” when they have no ideas, ambition or ability. Chris Kattan and Freddie Prinze, Jr. have produced so much cheese in their respective careers that the fine state of Wisconsin has become bitterly jealous.

I know you’re already formulating your unsympathetic response: “This day in age it’s easier than ever to be on a TV show—stop your pathetic whining.” That’s true. If you want to be a pop star singing cover tunes, there’s a show for you. If you’re obese and you want to be humiliated in front of a national audience while you attempt to lose weight, there’s a show for you. If you were born with a grotesque face and an entirely unattractive, disproportionate body and want to have thousands of dollars of plastic surgery performed on you, there’s a show for you. If you are romantically desperate and want to whittle a group of twenty-five people down to the one that will be your spouse, there’s a show for you.

But if you are a writer or comedian who works on your craft and genuinely wants to offer entertainment to the public that doesn’t insult their intelligence, well there’s very little for you.

Even Martha Stewart is a TV show magnet. Upon leaving prison she notified everyone that she had not one, but two, TV shows in development, which is great...for her.

Had I known that simply spending five months in a women’s penitentiary was the ticket to getting two TV shows, I would’ve done this long ago. And I would’ve had some friends join me. I guess in some way though, the last five years have been somewhat of a figurative prison, toiling in virtual anonymity.

Cable Access Stars

My good friend and fellow comedian, Dave Rubin, and I have co-produced two independent TV projects in the last four years. And get this: they have titles! And actual concepts. First, along with a couple other people, we created The Anti Show and put it on Manhattan cable access. Then, we made a sit-com called Truly Great People. We produced, wrote, directed, edited and financed these shows on a small budget from our personal bank accounts. Yet the industry won't even give us The Untitled Andrew Tavani & Dave Rubin project. Instead, Chris Kattan gets an untitled project (the only thing I ever saw him do that was of any interest was eat an apple really fast on SNL). While we generally work with titles and complete ideas, Dave and I are fully capable of dumbing ourselves down if it means receiving a dignifying pay check-- just ask us.

Who's better than Dave & Me?

Lately, our agent has been trying to get an executive at TBS on the phone to make a pitch, but the executive (whom I won’t name) refuses to return her call. TBS has added a bunch of edgy comedy shows to their line-up, which is why we think our show would fit in there. Plus, “Very Funny” is TBS’ new slogan. All of TBS’ shows are syndicated reruns, like Seinfeld, Friends, Everyone Loves Raymond and Sex and The City. I don’t understand why the executive is having such a problem returning our agent’s call. It’s not like there’s much to do over there when none of your programming is original. March Madness is over, so the office pool is no longer a valid excuse. I know they have a high call volume with all the civilians calling in to ask if their various situations are funny, but our agent has gotten through and left a few messages.

Or very bad at returning phone calls?

Dave and I have never claimed to possess the magnetic personality of Martha Stewart or the apple-eating prowess of Chris Kattan, yet we feel we're still capable of being entertaining. Perhaps we should have ourselves sentenced to a woman’s penitentiary. At least then we’d be guaranteed three meals a day and maybe when we get out we’d have two Untitled Project TV shows, rather than the one we are hoping for now.

Epilogue: Amuse yourself by reading the tag lines for the list of Untitled Projects. For further amusement write some hilarious situations that you would pitch if you were in the "creative" meetings on some of these shows and I'll publish them here.

The Untitled Lloyd-Keenan Project has added Paula Marshall as one of the doctors in this comedy focusing on a family of doctors. The cast is lead by Christopher Gorham, Stockard Channing and Henry Winkler.

Untitled Holly Hester (NBC Universal TV/Conaco Prods) starring Brenda Blethyn middle-aged woman who suddenly decides to make a change in her picture-perfect family life, gets divorced and gets a job, has cast Erin Hershey Presley has her young neighbor.

Untitled Marsh McCall Project (Warner Bros. TV/Jerry Bruckheimer Films) project has cast Katherine Waterston as one of the three siblings all gathering to support their father who has just been left by their mother. Waterston joins Jonathan Silverman and Reid Scott.

Untitled Holly Hester project (NBC Universal TV/Touchstone TV/Conaco Prods) has signed Eugene Byrd to join Brenda Blethyn as her boss. Blethyn plays a woman who decides to give up her 'perfect' life, get a divorce and find a job.

Untitled Chris Kattan comedy project (20th/3 Arts) adds Leigh-Allyn Baker as Kattan's assistant in this comedy about a consumer reporter (Kattan) and a fledging cable news network. Also on board are James Patrick Stewart, Tinsley Grimes, Chris Williams and Kate Hodge.

Untitled Freddie Prinze Jr. project (Warner Bros. TV/Mohawk), a comedy about a young man who was raised in a house full of women, now living on his own and and successful, and the women come move in with him, has added Jacqueline Obradors to the cast.

Untitled Yuspa-Goldsmith comedy project (Sony Pictures TV/Paramount Network TV), aka Stroller Wars, has added JoBeth Williams to the company, as Tiffani Theissen's mother, in a project about a young couple who are dealing with being new parents.

MTA: Problem In The Name

2005-04-10T19:25:00.000-04:00

Power Trippin'

Naturally whenever a price increase occurs customers should expect service to deteriorate considerably. Oh, wait—that’s the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s idea of good business, not yours or mine.

In one entry for the word, Dictionary.com defines “authority” as “a public agency or corporation with administrative powers in a specified field.” Evidently, the MTA has let its name go directly to its head. The fact that a government-operated “authority” is granted sole administrative power to run the transportation system virtually guarantees riders (customers) over-priced, mediocre service at best. Meanwhile, the MTA adds insult to injury not only with latent, perhaps covert, apathy it shows customers, but with wanton apathy. Everyone is aware the MTA ignored the general public’s strenuous opposition and approved an unprecedented second fare hike in less than two years.

You probably never even notice the latent apathy the MTA shows you, which is a relatively new phenomenon that’s a function of the contemporary 2, 4, 5 and 6 trains. Have you ever heard the conductor play the enthusiastic recording that goes something like, “Thank you for riding with MTA, New York?” Interesting. The MTA is thanking us for riding on their subway as if we chose the MTA subway over the other New York City subway system. Therein lies a philosophical problem. The MTA doesn’t need a newsflash to inform it that there is no competing subway system. The MTA exploits the lack of competition regularly. How about when your train is sitting on the track, going nowhere, for no apparent reason? The conductor plays a recording that says, “We apologize for the unavoidable delay!” Wonderful! An automated MTA apology. We can all do more with an MTA apology than we could do with our money back or a free one-day fun pass? When there’s no competition there’s seldom any accountability either.

The MTA needs to rethink the prevailing mentality regarding the treatment of its customers. Last week the MTA went so far as to blame its customers for many of the recent service problems and shortcomings. Not every subway rider is perfect, but the problems simply are not all our fault. The platforms are usually overcrowded due to a dearth of trains. With the whopping 41% increase in the cost of an unlimited weekly Metrocard over the last two years combined with state tax subsidies, shouldn’t the MTA have the revenue to get a few extra trains running? Clearly there is a lack of anything remotely resembling leadership at the MTA. Chairman Peter Kalikow would probably have more integrity if he personally mugged New Yorkers on the subway platform during a lengthy wait for a train. At least then he would be doing something for his money.

Money For Nothing... ...Chicks For Free?

In all likelihood, an entrepreneur in the private sector could devise a model to outperform the MTA sans state tax subsidies. Since practicality will never permit that, it would behoove the MTA to pretend they have some healthy competition. Thank New Yorkers with better service and lower prices. Not a condescending recorded message.

Death Of The Pope – A Second Time

2005-04-05T02:11:00.000-04:00

Circa '89, the Pontiff in his prime barking orders at altar boys

Of course the death of any human being is a sad occurrence and the death of Pope John Paul II is no exception. But what’s more sad than the Pope’s death is the Pope’s life, even if the media frenzy surrounding his death would have you believe otherwise. Putting the Pope’s death in its proper perspective requires some insight into who he was and who he became. He was born in Poland in 1920 as Karol J. Wojtyla, the second of two sons. By the age of twenty-one his entire nuclear family was dead and shortly thereafter he turned to the priesthood and was ordained in 1946, fulfilling the wish of his late father.

Becoming a priest has always seemed to me like a withdraw of sorts from society and Karol’s biography seems to indicate such was the case. Without a family, the vast majority of his accomplishments revolve around his rapid promotion through the ranks of the Catholic Church and his scholarly achievements as he sank into a more isolated existence. In 1978 Karol Wojtyla became Pope and was renamed John Paul II – a metaphoric death and rebirth if you will.

Despite his cloisterd lifestyle Karol maintained a silly side even after his name change

Throughout the years of his new life as the pontiff he became increasingly reclusive, living a life cloistered behind opulent Vatican walls. He never was intimate with anyone. He never connected on a deep, meaningful level with another individual. He never really loved another individual. He never lived life even close to the fullest. Instead, he became an icon to Catholics the world over, whom he “loved” as a formality of an office that demanded him to love everyone.

Some of the quotes I’ve read or heard in the media the last couple days have perplexed me. Americans in their twenties have asserted that Pope John Paul II was the most important person in their lives, the closest thing to God and someone who has done so much for them personally, despite the fact that they never even met the man. As someone who was raised Catholic I can confidently say that the Pope never did one thing for me either on a personal or spiritual level. In fact, there were times when the Pope actually perturbed me with his sluggish response to the priest sexual misconduct scandal and his so-called infallible positions on issues such as birth control and homosexuality. Those opinions seemed irresponsible, but the Pope was beyond reproach, hiding behind his devout man-of-the-cloth status. He bewildered me as an authority on social ethics, when in reality he had very little real-world experience on which to base that authority.

I don’t mean to suggest that the Pope didn’t mean well. Most people of any religious persuasion usually do mean well on some level, however misguided they often may be. Nor do I mean to suggest that the Pope was a bad person. Rather, I think we should scrutinize the current media hype being fed to us and put into perspective the death of a man who lead and, perhaps, even squandered what was largely a sad life.

Bye, Pope.

Choking A Tradition

2005-03-29T20:43:00.001-05:00

Antiquity Is Bliss

As a 21st century man I‘m always trying to think of ways in which we, as a culture, can progress. Occasionally, I find myself inspired by something that strikes me as old-world or blatantly over-priced. As luck had it, I stumbled upon an item that embodied both of these characteristics when I walked into a Banana Republic a few days ago.

I don’t want to go into why, but I was in a situation that required the buying of a new necktie. Trying to make the experience of having to purchase a tie as painless as possible I entered the store distracting myself with music from my iPod and went directly to the tie section. I picked up the first tie I saw that looked as aesthetically pleasing as a tie can possibly look. Without glancing at the price tag, I began lamenting the fifteen or twenty bucks I was going to never see again and headed for the register. The lovely cashier scanned the price tag and the figure $64.95 appeared on the register display. Too shocked to call off the transaction, and worried I would look stupid in front of a woman of great beauty for doing so, I robotically handed her my debit card and walked out of the store feeling like I’d been held up.

The human mind travels to dark places when it feels violated and I pondered why men began wearing ties. Turns out, the history of the necktie is almost as nebulous as its modern day purpose. The necktie’s roots can be traced back almost 2000 years to a Chinese emperor who suffered from Thanatophobia (morbid fear of death) and allegedly was the first to wear a tie. Or to the Thirty Years War, when King Louis XIV purportedly liked what he saw around the necks of Croatian mercenaries and began wearing a cravat. Ties began showing up throughout Europe and America in the 1860s and were worn as fashion statements or to serve the practical purpose of a bib. The tie as we know it today developed in the 1920s as a symbol of refinement.

Modern Times

Today the fashion industry will try to tell you that a necktie’s purpose is to hide the buttons on a dress shirt and accentuate the vertical figure of a man. Apparently the fashion industry will tell men anything to convince us we need to continue the tradition, started centuries ago either by a French King or a neurotic Chinese Emperor, of buying over-priced, useless articles of “clothing.” In a practical sense, wearing a tie today indicates people are taking a situation seriously. Funerals, church, business meetings, work – things many modern Americans traditionally take seriously. I wonder if, for the 21st century, our culture can agree on a new tradition to signify that we’re taking a given circumstance seriously. Seems like one of those “Hello, my name is,” stickers with the words “I’m taking this seriously,” written on it would arbitrarily suffice and be more economical than the $64.95 I got back from Banana Republic when I returned their tie. Luckily the gorgeous cashier wasn’t in that day.

POLITICIANS CLICK HERE!

2005-03-24T21:48:00.000-05:00

BREAKING NEWS - PAT O'BRIEN VOICE MAIL - CLICK HERE!

2005-03-23T11:30:00.000-05:00

I think we can all gain a new respect for Pat O'Brien after listening to his coke-induced dirty talk. Revel in him trying to seduce an unidentified Hollywood babe by clicking the link above. You gotta hand it to a guy who is so unabashedly in touch with his kinky side. Access Hollywood could've been a great show if he did some of this material.

VISITOR MAIL

2005-03-22T15:50:00.000-05:00

Not all of you are as pleasant as that mailman...
or as stupid as this mailman...

It’s been an exciting first two weeks in the life of 500 Words. Nearly 2000 different people have visited the blog, many of whom took part in a Poll that saw Dan Rather reclaim his reputation as a worthy investigative journalist by handily defeating the T-Mobile Terrorist. I’ve also received some interesting comments and emails, the best of which follow. And one reader took the time to make fun of me by suggesting I could be the son of Henry Winkler. Please enjoy.

On The NY Press

From Tanalee:
Hi,
I have a blog too: tanalee.blogspot.com. I'd like your stuff more if it was more personal, more heartfelt, more emotional. I'm female so maybe that's why I wasn't connecting with it.

Tanalee, you'll be glad to know I'm now chewing a popular Japanese gum that raises estrogen levels and enhances breasts. I just started two days ago, but check back again in a few weeks and see if you can better connect with my writing then. And this will be the last time you get a cheap plug.

From Anonymous:
One of the things I love about the NY press is that it's NOT a liberal paper...nor a conservative one.

Anonymous:
They may not endorse conservative or liberal politics, but no conservative paper would mock the death of the pope like that and the powers that be over there bowed down like Catholics on Easter Sunday to the New York Post.

On Free Speech

From simpleman415036:
for one thing , carlos delgado isn't a citizen of the united states, he works here but thats all, the first amendment is for U.S citizen's only , carlos country of birth hasn't shed any blood for this great country, so entitlement of free speech is not for him to use, the boo's you talk about are protected by the 1st amendment and are shouted out by american citizen's. i am ahame that you would use him as an hero, carlos delado make's his living here and should respect our way of life , if cannot he should respect the game, its just like an liberal to pick a non citizen to champion the right to free speech!

Simpleman:
I was going to respond to you, but I think your mastery of the English language makes any point better than I'll ever be able to.

On Chaney

From Anonymous:
This is clearly written by someone who has no idea about competitive athletics or the meaning Chaney holds w/in the community. It is exactly these types of articles that are leading us to achieve true pascification in sports when such a concept will only cause more harm and essentially ruin the games we hold so dear. What if the illegal tactics employed by St Joe's had hurt one of Temple's players? John Bryant fell to the floor breaking his arm on Nehemiah Ingram's fifth foul, if his fouls had been so violent where were the referees? Chaney had mentioned well before the game that St Joe's has used such tactics and the referees still let it go unabated. So Chaney had to take matters into his own hands, something that, if it is no longer, was an extremely common practice. Common, when people fell in love w/this game and enjoyment of the game spread like a virus, back when March only meant Spring was soon upon us. I will definitely admit that Chaney made a major mistake in referring to Nehemiah Ingram (one of his players he recruited) as a goon. If his player is able to forgive Chaney I think it is important he return next season.

Anonymous:
I actually played competitive sports for 12 years and I also endorse tough, physical play. But you can't have a college coach going out there and pre-meditating an attack on players that could (and did) result in a serious injury. If this were the NBA, it MIGHT be a different story.

On Me
From Anonymous:
Oh my God, I know HIM! No wonder he's so cool! Fonzie's long lost son! Putzie!

Anonymous:
Your Photoshop wizardry is clearly unparalled among cyber-geeks and you're somewhat funny to boot.

Putting The Real In Reality TV

2005-03-20T14:33:00.000-05:00

You're not necessarily a geek if you watch.

For a television industry that appears to be infinitely lacking inspiration lately it is simultaneously alarming and refreshing that I have to turn to The History Channel for some semblance of quality programming. But turn there I did a couple of weeks ago and I happened to catch an episode of Breaking Vegas, the channel’s new one-hour series. I haven’t missed one since.

Breaking Vegas tells the stories of how real life gambling cheaters left their lasting mark on the gambling industry. The show is clearly influenced by the old Robert Stack-hosted Unsolved Mysteries as it adeptly weaves testimonials with re-enactments to take you back to the sixties and seventies and behind closed doors where the mastermind cheaters developed their methods and conspired with their cronies to take full advantage of casinos. If you love a good caper story and ever wondered, for instance, why they use six decks at the Blackjack table, Breaking Vegas delivers every week.

In reality a good show

But there is more to Breaking Vegas than simply ripping off casinos. The people they profile are often not who you might expect to even walk into a casino let alone steal from right under the casinos’ noses. A recurring theme on the show focuses on how these brainiacs, usually a gifted mathematician or computer programmer, become obsessed with proving a scientific theory that they have. After repeated testing of their theory in the privacy of their homes the desire to put their methods to profitable use on the casino floor overwhelms them. Since most of these guys are of humble means they require funding from a seasoned gambling veteran capable of bankrolling such an operation. Inevitably these two unlikely parties always manage to find one another. There’s a certain satisfaction to watching the serendipity of two worlds colliding to exquisitely beat casinos at their own games. What is so compelling about the characters is the vastly different fusion of lifestyles predicated by these partnerships, the insatiable lust for money the unlikely co-horts share and the moral dilemmas some of these brilliant yet demure people grapple with.

From a TV perspective Breaking Vegas refrains from insulting viewers with the conventional “reality” format of voting people off of a contrived show and over-produced confessionals featuring people gossiping about one another. Breaking Vegas has an edgy tone and lacks a monotony of gimmicks that typify reality shows because the stories actually stand on their own merit. The show is narrated by someone who sounds like a grittier Christopher Walken, uses the real people to tell the stories through confessionals and peppers dramatic reenactments throughout to show you how it was all executed. It airs Tuesday nights at 9 PM. All you have to do is conquer the stigma of being a geek that accompanies watching The History Channel and tune in. You’ll be glad you did. Ironically, the reality of the matter is that with Breaking Vegas The History Channel, much like the people it depicts, is beating its industry at its own game.

Jagged Little Steroid Pill

2005-03-15T17:46:00.000-05:00

Scrub Ballplayer

Jeremy, not Jason, Giambi is the very reason Congress should call off their foolish hearings into the problem of steroids in baseball, cease wasting everyone’s time and money and go back to doing some real work. The lesser-known Giambi recently admitted to having used steroids and asserted that other users should do likewise and come clean. That’s certainly a reasonable idea. But let’s come back to Jeremy Giambi.

Allegedly, Congress is investigating baseball because it is concerned that Major League ball players are sending kids the wrong message by casually taking steroids. It’s not easy to be a kid these days. I know this because it’s not very easy being an adult these days. Just the other night I saw one of “The Anti Drug” commercials, which suggests to parents that if they talk to their kids about pot their kids won’t smoke it. Immediately following that commercial was one for the erectile drug Cialis. What the hell are parents supposed to say to their kids if they watched that advertisement tandem together? “Ah, son, we need to talk…see, it’s okay for me to take these pills so I can achieve an erection, but I will ground you for two weeks and take away your SUV if you so much as take one drag of marijuana to have fun with your friends.” How is the message baseball is sending to kids any worse than the, “only take the drugs corporate America is peddling” message? The mixed messages society is sending our kids are stupefying.

For Congress to hype this inquiry as “for the kids” is farcical. There are a myriad of things Congress could investigate if they were really worried about our kids. Getting back to Jeremy Giambi, the simple fact of the matter is that Giambi having admitted to using steroids illustrates that taking steroids does not necessarily make someone a better baseball player. Look at his career stats: .263 average and 52 homeruns. He’s a scrub. The brothers Giambi are an intriguing example. Both took steroids. One was an excellent ballplayer and the other scarcely approached mediocre – very likely a microcosm of the entire league. It’s not that complicated. Kids just might figure that one out without Congress’ help.

Yet, Congress still wants to stick its imposing nose into baseball and steal all the headlines for the next six months to a year. Instead, they should leave the outing of steroid users to the Jose Cansecos and Jeremy Giambis. In fact, Canseco was doing a fine job of it and now Congress is trying to steal his thunder. If indeed baseball has a problem, it will work itself out one way or another. If indeed Congress is genuinely concerned with the youth of America, perhaps it could instead figure out how to get schools more money so that all kids today and tomorrow can continue to be taught to think for themselves. Or is it possible that our government wants to be doing our thinking for us?

POLL RESULTS ARE IN - RATHER WINS IN LANDSLIDE

2005-03-14T20:17:00.000-05:00

The people have spoken and have resoundingly chosen Dan Rather as the more legitimate investigative journalist by a margin of 73% to 27%, a bona fide land-slide, in the first ever 500 Words poll. Despite his retirement under suspect circumstances it seems the general public still has faith in the surly anchorman's journalistic integrity. It should be noted that many voters do not know who the T-Mobile Terrorist is. Thanks for voting and check back for visitor mail, the best of which I'll be publishing in a few days.

All's Fair In Love & Soda War

2005-03-13T22:38:00.000-05:00

The New New Coke

A medical report released last week from Tata Memorial Hospital in India has concluded that there is a link between drinking carbonated soft drinks and developing esophageal cancer. According to the report, in the year 2000 the average American consumed 49.2 gallons of soda per year. That year I probably drank more soda than any other year in my life. I was drinking such an obnoxious quantity of Cherry Coke that I was beginning to disgust myself, so that year I quit drinking soda altogether. I occasionally enjoyed a ginger ale or Sprite, but I placed stricter sanctions on cola consumption than the U.S. had on Iraq in the 90s.

Last week the world’s largest soft drink producer came out with their brand-spanking-new lime flavored Coca-Cola. Almost simultaneously a report in Beverage Digest noted that both Coke and Pepsi had seen overall declines in sales for the year 2004. Apparently, Coke is scrambling to reclaim their share of the market with their new lime flavored soda. Although both of the above reports were released just last week, Americans seem to be grasping – somewhat - the concept that soda isn’t a healthy beverage. One reason their soda sales are down is that diet soda and energy drink sales continue to rise. Another reason is the Cadbury Schweppes Company, the makers of Dr. Pepper. Dr. Pepper has been boosting sales for Cadbury Schweppes and has them in third place behind Coke and Pepsi, respectively, among the top soft drink producers. Frankly, I don’t really know anyone that drinks Dr. Pepper, but it strikes me that Dr. Pepper is becoming to Coke and Pepsi what FOX was to NBC, ABC and CBS fifteen years ago. If you’ve been yearning for an epic soda war, behold. One just might be upon us. In ten to fifteen years Dr. Pepper could overthrow Coke and Pepsi for the ever-coveted soda supremacy.

Upon reading the report about soda and esophageal cancer I was relieved that I’ve scarcely drunk any soda for the better part of the last five years. However, for the integrity of this column, I felt the responsibility to give the new Coca-Cola with Lime a try, even if it meant putting my esophageal health at risk. Like Paul Giamatti’s character in Sideways did with Pinot Noir, I smelled the soda and then rolled the lime-flavored cola over my tongue before swallowing. At first, it just tasted like regular Coke, so I took a second, third and fourth sip only to notice a subtle lime aftertaste. While rolling the soda over my tongue, as if I were a wine snob, I pondered the different flavors and gimmicks that have been fused with Coca-cola over the years. Coke has added cherry, vanilla and lemon to its cola and even had the nerve to sell us the ill-fated “New Coke”—remember that? I wondered how long it might take Coke to return to the practice of including cocaine in the soda recipe, which they haven’t done since 1929. All’s fair in love and soda war.

Won't Get Fooled Again

2005-03-09T15:27:00.000-05:00

“Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me,” is how the old cliché goes. Those words have particularly special meaning to our generation of Americans as President Bush attempts to force his agenda for social security down our throats. Over the weekend the Bush administration had the old gang of yes-men on the Sunday morning politics shows perpetuating the concept that the country is in need of social security reform and then thumping their chests for Bush’s reform plan (save for Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell). If Sunday is your day off from politics, the Republicans have commercials on TV to help persuade you over to Bush’s grand idea that privatizing Social Security is the only way to save Social Security. Sifting through all the propaganda and partisan points of view on whether or not Social Security is in trouble is no easy task. But, aren’t all these persuasive theatrics by the Bush administration beginning to seem a little too familiar?

Clearly President Bush has consciously selected Social Security reform as the trademark issue of his second term in the White House. I know it’s hard, but if you try to remember all the way back to President Bush’s first term you will recall that Bush also had a bitterly-debated trademark issue on which he got his way. Remember? Bush wanted to invade Iraq because he was absolutely, positively certain that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. And we all know how that turned out. Time eventually revealed that there were no weapons.

President Bush recently asked Congress for another $81.9 billion (yes, billion) to continue the war in Iraq. Since Bush took office he has completely squandered the budget surplus left for him by President Clinton and run the national deficit to an all-time high of $477 billion, a feat that would be magnificent if it weren’t so flagrantly irresponsible. Certainly some of those dollars could aid the apparent Social Security problem. Aside from these reasons there are a couple more why we shouldn’t trust President Bush on Social Security. First, Bush really can’t manage money. Obviously he never heard from his parents the old line that “money doesn’t grow on trees.” I’d like to see Bush handle a $20 a week cash allowance. Secondly, no one in Bush’s lineage is ever going to need Social Security, therefore his cavalier plans carry little or no personal risk.

As Americans we’re faced with a choice: we can be reactive, as many of us have been in response to the debacle in Iraq, or we can be proactive and try to stop Bush from continuing to retard the country’s current and future progress. Now is the time to contact our members of Congress and implore them to oppose Bush’s agenda. Time will tell if Bush is wrong or right about this trademark issue, but given recent history I think we’d be wise to borrow a phrase from The Who and tell our Congress we won’t get fooled again.

I promise my next entry will be more on the lighter side.

Religion Almighty

2005-03-08T15:49:00.000-05:00

It’s terrifying how much power religion wields in the year 2005. It seems that the further technologically and scientifically advanced we become and the more intellectual we become as a human race, the more seriously we take religion. It’s an odd relationship to comprehend, but if you doubt that it’s happening just observe the aftermath of N.Y. Press editor Jeff Koyen’s decision to run a piece entitled the “52 Funniest Things About the Upcoming Death of the Pope,” by Matt Taibbi. The list of 52, some of which are amusing and some of which are plain boring, is drawing the ire of a variety of humorless people.

Not surprisingly, topping the list of humorless people scorning the satirical list as blasphemy are politicians. New York’s senior senator Chuck Schumer declared that the list of 52 is “the most disgusting thing I’ve seen in 30 years of public life.” Really Chuck? What, were you fast asleep on September 11, 2001? The attack on humanity that day might’ve been a tad more disgusting than a one-page satire article published in an alternative newspaper. Mayor Michael Bloomberg got in on the act too saying through a spokesperson, “As disgusting as this is, sadly it’s par for the course for this publication (N.Y. Press).” What does this say about our politicians? Well, for one, apparently the senator’s and the mayor’s press secretaries are both highly fond of the word disgusting. More importantly it illustrates how the two politicians are cowering at the political implications of not patently defending the criticism of a religious icon. After all politicians, and the country at large, just received a lesson on the influence religion has on politics in the latest presidential election. In reality Schumer and Bloomberg are actually fine public servants, both of whom I’ve voted for. But leading the bandwagon with their hyperbolic criticism goes to show how enslaved by religion mainstream America is.

Amid the maelstrom of controversy over the article Koyen was reprimanded with a two-week suspension and a nursery school-esque order from his publisher, Chris Rohland, to go sit in the corner and “think about what this paper should be.” Defiantly, Koyen quit proclaiming the alternative paper “already is the paper it should be,” and that his bosses are “weenies.” Rohland claims Koyen wasn’t suspended for the list of 52, rather for printing another piece that parodied what The New York Post’s cover would look like when the Pope finally succumbs (scroll down to see it). Whatever the truth of their he-said, he-said soap opera actually is you can bet the power of religion influenced the decision to suspend Koyen. Either the N.Y. Press suspended Koyen as an act of contrition for printing Taibbi’s scathing article or because they didn’t want to aggravate The Post, a paper notorious for pandering to the religious right.

Ironically, no deities were even mocked. Merely roasting a religious symbol can result in professional, social and political consequences, and worse, a decidedly liberal paper can casually submit to the intimidation of a conservative paper. In America that is scary.

What is the Ultimate TV Game Show?

2005-03-07T15:46:00.000-05:00

Ultimate TV Game Show

Being a quasi-geek I’m already ensconced in Jeopardy’s ultimate tournament of champions that began in February. What are you waiting for?

In the wake of Jeopardy-savant Ken Jennings’ record 74 game win streak and over $2.5 million in prize money many fans of the quiz show had been clamoring to know how Jennings might fare against some of the all-time great Jeopardy players. Meanwhile, other fans and conspiracy theorists postulated that the fix was in and Jennings was either being fed the questions or producers were setting him up with hack opponents that he could dispose of like a free daily newspaper. “This Tournament is an opportunity to give those past champions another chance to shine,” said executive producer Harry Friedman. Presumably, it also gives Jeopardy the opportunity to further milk the ratings bonanza that Ken Jennings created for the show.

In its 21st season, and in the opening round of its Ultimate Tournament of Champions, Jeopardy received six day-time Emmy nominations last week validating the show’s legacy of supremacy and importance in the game show annals. No other game show more thoroughly tests a contestant’s vast reservoir of knowledge, ability to quickly recall trivia and overall poise under intense pressure like Jeopardy. Created by Merv Griffin, the game’s unique simplicity of supplying the contestants with the answers and requiring the contestants to determine the questions is its sheer brilliance. The show originally ran from 1964 through 1975 on NBC and was hosted by Art Fleming. In 1984, with Alex Trebek as the host, Jeopardy was resurrected and became the syndicated quiz show we know today, beginning game-play immediately following Trebek’s introduction and throwing contestants directly into the Jeopardy fire, where only the quick-witted survive.

Over the last twenty years Jeopardy has gone through subtle changes. The contestant small talk was originally conducted in the middle of “single” Jeopardy and then was fit in between single and double Jeopardy and has since returned to the middle of single Jeopardy. Also, the trivia content has become noticeably more pop-culture in subject over the years, with categories taking on themes and creative cultural references. Moreover, under the pressure of newer game shows, like Who Wants To Be Millionaire, which offered much larger paydays to contestants, Jeopardy found a way to award more prize money. They doubled the dollar values of each question and removed the five-win limit allowing players to continue winning until they were beaten. No one exploited the latter rule-change better than Ken Jennings whose run on the show actually spanned two seasons.

Now that flash-in-the-pan shows like Millionaire, The Weakest Link, and 21 have died deaths that no one remotely lamented Jeopardy rules the landscape of TV game shows, emerging once and for all as the ultimate TV game show. The current tournament is an epic fifteen-week saga that is searching for two of 150 all-time great players worthy of challenging Jeopardy’s ultimate champion, Ken Jennings. What is must-see TV? Quite frankly, Jeopardy.

Sports Media Madness

2005-03-03T15:42:00.000-05:00

The Coach

Even if you seldom turn to the sports page you’ll know by looking at your calendar that the time of year dubbed March Madness is just about upon us. What you may not know is that a controversy is brewing in Philadelphia involving Temple University’s bombastic basketball coach John Chaney.

Chaney, considered an institution in NCAA basketball, sent one of his bench players, Nehemiah Ingram, into a game as a “goon” to “send a message” of retaliation to what the coach perceived as illegal screens being used by St. Joseph’s University. As a result, Ingram delivered a couple of extra hard fouls, one of which knocked St. Joe’s senior John Bryant out of the game.

What’s more alarming than the result of Chaney’s dirty tactics is the fact that they were premeditated. Before the game Chaney warned that if St. Joe’s engaged in the use of illegal screens he would send a goon into the game and then he went out and actually did it.

Chaney’s immediate damage-control response was to suspend himself for one game and only when Bryant’s X-rays revealed his arm was broken, effectively ending his college basketball career, did Chaney extend the self-imposed suspension to include the Atlantic 10 tournament as well. Meanwhile, virtually everyone in the sports media has taken a similar wait-and-see approach, gauging the appropriate level of Chaney’s punishment based on the degree of Bryant’s injury, not simply on the merit of Chaney’s deliberate recklessness.

In doing so, the sports media at large has nearly condoned Chaney’s tactics. No one has called for his firing or resignation. No one has pointed out that Temple University is a “commonwealth system of higher education.” Is it possible that Pennsylvanians would approve of their tax dollars subsidizing the salary of a coach who stoops to such vigilante measures? Is that the type of education Temple University and alumni want taught to their students? What if Bryant hadn’t been injured at all? Or worse, what if he broke his neck? Shouldn’t a precedent be set here?

Why is the sports media so insecure about taking a stance on the issue? There is a myriad of potential reasons. Perhaps they fear losing relationships they’ve developed with other coaches if they speak out against Chaney. Many analysts are ex-coaches and players and maybe there is an unwritten code they don’t want to break. Whatever the reason, the sports media is proving to be painfully unreliable. It’s madness.

Texas Tech coach Bobby Knight was fired by Indiana University for slightly less acrimonious transgressions. Chaney has had an undeniably illustrious career – over 700 wins, five Atlantic 10 championships and 18 NCAA tournament appearances – which is why, like Bobby Knight, he will make a comeback somewhere else in a couple years. But right now he needs to be fired and given some anger management counseling. Eventually, public outcry will demand Chaney’s dismissal. It’s a shame the sports media will have little or no responsibility for that outcry.

A Ticket Price Cap...For The Fans

2005-03-02T15:36:00.000-05:00

Poor Kids

Quite frankly, I don’t miss the National Hockey League. I find NHL hockey to be profoundly boring and lacking the strategy, drama and excitement of the other three “major” sports and if it never comes back I’ll be just fine. The best part of a game is when a fight breaks out. Maybe owners and players need a good, old-fashioned bare-knuckle brawl on some frozen water to help settle their petty labor dispute…ahh, to dream.

As a sports fan, what compels my attention to this issue is the apathy the league shows its fans, its customers. By canceling an entire season the NHL owners and players made it abundantly clear that they do not care about the fans, despite what they might contend. The major point of contention in this dispute is a salary cap. The owners want to implement a salary cap to prevent players’ salaries from soaring so they maintain competitiveness in the league and keep more money in their pockets. Naturally, the players don’t want to see their earning power limited. Who would? They want their fair cut of the market for the services they provide. In the end, players entertained the idea of a salary cap, but eventually neither side would compromise and too much of the season had been missed to justify having one at all.

Someday the owners and players are going to figure out a way to settle their differences and get the money machine rolling again. And when they do, fans will come crawling back. Ticket prices, if not immediately, will rise and the rank and file NHL fan, that permits the league to exist, will have to pay more of their hard-earned money for the NHL product. Or, the owners will bring in scab players and fans will pay to watch a watered down brand of hockey.

The NHL is in an important and influential position. They are in serious danger of a colossal collapse, if that’s not what has already occurred. However, they could make a marvelous comeback and show their fans that they genuinely care about them by implementing something as unprecedented as the cancellation of an entire season: a ticket price cap. Would it not be a show of tremendous faith by the owners and players to put a cap on the price of tickets so that whatever happens in the league, the average fan won’t have to pay so dearly for it? Not only would a ticket price cap protect the fans, it would require owners to spend responsibly and players to play hard to earn top market value.

Furthermore, the NHL would become a shining example to the other major sports that fans should indeed come first. The NBA collective bargaining agreement expires at the end of June. Major League baseball is in danger of losing fans amid the steroid scandal. They both could follow in the NHL’s trailblazing footsteps. I might be able to afford season tickets someday.

Hey, you can’t blame me for dreaming.

The End Of Halftime As We Know It

2005-02-09T15:38:00.000-05:00

Have you become as weary as I have with the prattling discourse about the Superbowl halftime show? It’s as ridiculous as Fox News purporting itself to be a journalism outfit. Janet and Justin: too risqué. Paul McCartney: too boring. Who is the NFL trying to please anyway?

Halftime shows featuring Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake or Paul McCartney aren’t for the amusement of football fans. The shows pander to the semi, casual or non-fan that is only watching because the event has basically taken over the world on that given Sunday. These folks are going to watch whether or not the halftime show is Justin Timberlake fondling Janet Jackson’s breast or that freaky guy who can fit himself into a little glass box the size of a footlocker (which, come to think of it, isn’t a bad idea for next year). If I were NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue my top priority would be pandering to true football fans, their core audience, and not casual fans.

The most effective way of doing this would be to hold the Superbowl in a cold-weather city, outdoors! How great would the Superbowl be if it were played on the “frozen tundra” of Lambeau Field in Green Bay or in the midst of a lake-effect blizzard in Buffalo? Football, after all, is a cold-weather sport and, on Sunday, was played by two teams from cold-weather cities. The Eagles and Patriots battled their respective way through the playoffs and the elements of frigid winter weather. Only to reach the Superbowl in Jacksonville, Florida where the game-time temperature hovered around sixty degrees, over three times the temperature for both conference championship games. The result: a boring halftime show and Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb dry heaving in the fourth quarter from heat exhaustion.

By holding the Superbowl in a cold-weather city Tagliabue would not only please purist football fans who want to see the weather be a factor, but he would simultaneously please every complainant that whines about the halftime show. Quite simply, there would cease to be a halftime show as we know it. What pampered, prima Donna celebrity is going to march out on the field and perform when the wind-chill is five below? I think that’s the happy medium that yesterday’s columnist Will Johnson, requested. Problem solved, Will.

Superbowl Sunday should really be about football, which is why I find the halftime force-feeding of pop-culture so agitating. Even if you enjoy the conventional half-time shows, admit that it irks you to see the faux concert backdrop and choreography of teenyboppers waving light-sticks during "Hey Jude," a song they’ve probably never heard until then. If the NFL is adamant about having kids on the field during halftime, I say have two Pop Warner football teams get out there and play some football for thirty minutes while the pros make their halftime adjustments.

The NFL is a multimedia, financially powerful juggernaut. They have carte blanche. Tagliabue should recognize this and that the added drama of inclement weather would more than fill any “void” left without a traditional halftime show.

A Nose Up On Personal Grooming

2005-01-21T15:33:00.000-05:00

For the Love of God!

I’ve noticed something that seems to be developing into a minor epidemic here in New York City. An overwhelming number of adults have a nose hair problem and, what’s worse, they don’t seem to remotely be aware of the problem. By problem, I mean some people have hair protruding, in some cases, what looks like up to a half an inch out of the nostril. Quickly, look around you at some people on the subway or bus you’re riding. See what I mean? I don’t know how these people can walk around in complete oblivion. What are they looking at when they peer into a mirror?

For the record, I am vigilant about neutralizing my nose hair. I first noticed that I was growing hair in my nose seven years ago, sometime during my senior year of college: a highly rude awakening into adulthood. At that point I began plucking my nose hairs, which is an ongoing undertaking. Plucking takes devotion. It’s a long-term commitment that involves using a mirror and really finding your way up into every nook and cranny of your nose. It is, however, worth it, because I can confidently stroll around knowing I don’t have nose hairs offending the masses.

With the above in mind, I’m surprised more people aren’t as attentive to this all-important issue, especially here in New York where we are often relegated to extremely close quarters with complete strangers. I’ve pondered this puzzling matter and observed some of the city’s most blatant offenders. My observations reveal that the problem of nose hair protrusion cuts right across all socio-economic and racial lines. Rich, middle class, poor, black, white, Hispanic and Asian people all seem to have representative offenders. There seemed to be no rhyme or reason to this social anomaly. Naturally, I looked a little closer. Upon further review I realized that most offenders (certainly not all) are older, approximately age forty and up, and a large portion are men. Indeed, there are women offenders as well.

An effective tool

Just a few years ago, on a date, I was moving in to kiss a girl and as I did I saw what looked like spider legs crawling out of her nostrils. Fortunately, I was able to use a timely call from a friend on my cell phone to fabricate a story about having to go heckle Carson Daly immediately with friends. Frightening, yes!

I don’t understand why some people pay absolutely no attention whatsoever to their nose hair. I’m not suggesting people be obsessive about it, but it wouldn’t kill them to harvest a crop of nose hair, say, once a season. That’s only four times a year. I think that’s reasonable.

Perhaps people simply don’t care about their nose hair and perhaps someone else’s nose hairs do not faze them, even when they’re pressed up against a complete stranger on the subway. As humans we do a lot to make ourselves presentable. It seems silly that many people ignore fastidious grooming of the nose.

Put The Media Under The Microscope

2005-01-18T15:28:00.000-05:00

Contrived photo-op, not journalism

News that the search for “WMDs” has officially been whistled dead certainly hasn’t derailed President Bush’s plans for a gala celebration following his second inauguration on Thursday. Reportedly, the Bush administration will spend in excess of $30 million of taxpayer money on his post-oath soiree. Yet, when Barbara Walters sat down with Bush for an exclusive interview last week, she didn’t even approach asking a question as investigative as ‘why gratuitously spend taxpayer money on self-glorification in light of the (bad for the president) news freshly reported on the primary reason why we are fighting a war in Iraq?’ As evidenced by his position that he made no mistakes in judgment during his first term, President Bush doesn’t seem to question any of his decisions, so apparently, no one seems to be allowed to question the president’s decisions.

Look at the culture the Bush administration fostered with the media over the last four years. Have you ever actually seen the President asked a tough question during a press conference or interview? No. And the answer why is simple: with President Bush there is never even a modicum of modesty. He is above simple examination, not to mention reproach and much to the misfortune of the American people the media agrees.

In the months leading up to the election, Michael Moore released a movie that vilified the president. Whatever credibility issues you might have with Moore, you cannot ignore that Fahrenheit 9/11 was a blockbuster, grossed over $100 million at the box office and portrayed Bush as a pathological, self-interested liar. Nevertheless, President Bush was never asked one question about the movie. Not one question.

From a campaign perspective it makes perfect sense for the Bush camp to counsel the president to avoid answering questions on the topic. “Don’t dignify the movie with a response,” is a credible strategy. But the president never had to avoid answering any questions about Fahrenheit 9/11 because he was never asked any questions about Fahrenheit 9/11. Somehow the media were amazingly barred from asking such a question and thus accelerated their slide down a slippery slope.

If President Bush was the CEO of a public company and he mismanaged billions of dollars of company funds as he’s done with our tax dollars, not only would he be fired, but most likely, he’d be prosecuted. As president he is impervious. Perhaps some of Barbara Walters’ questions seemed challenging, but if that were the case, the questions certainly wouldn’t have been approved by the president’s staff. And you wouldn’t have seen Barbara posed with the president and first lady in publicity pictures.

As we begin another four years under Bush's stewardship it might behoove us to encourage our media to embrace their duty to the American public and to erode the immunity to questioning that the Bush administration has cleverly built. Otherwise, who will ask the president, “Why are you spending tax dollars on extravagant festivities when a very large minority didn’t vote for you and doesn’t approve of your policies?”

Game Shows & Obsolete Magic

2004-12-16T18:44:00.000-05:00

Well, you’ll all be glad to know that I have officially filled out my application to Wheel of Fortune and now I just have to wait and hope to get lucky in being called to a contestant tryout. I’m holding my breath.

The last few days have been brutally cold here in New York and going out to bark for Joe Franklin’s Comedy Club has been a miserable experience. Today, as I write this, the temperature has climbed to 41 degrees (I’m actually thinking of hitting the park for a little sun bathing when I’m finished writing this). Last night as we headed out into the frigid air a fellow comic, Brian Baumley, was telling me that he watched the David Blaine DVD, which was from his ABC special. We were both pointing out how good of a performer he is and how his new style of magic really works a lot better than the traditional magicians, like David Copperfield, who are overly dramatic. Blaine’s cerebral approach is much more hip and cutting edge. However, later on I was thinking there are some things I really miss about the traditional magicians like Copperfield.

When I was a kid magicians always used to do the trick where they’d make a woman disappear. Remember that one? Blaine, for all his captivating tricks, doesn’t do this old favorite. In fact, it seems like magicians may think this trick is passé and have left it for quasi-celebrities. I saw an episode of The View a couple of weeks ago and I noticed Starr Jones is trying to do this trick. If you don’t believe me tune in to an episode for a few minutes and you’ll see her doing this trick right before your eyes. Starr Jones used to resemble a bloated beached whale, but now, due to stomach stapling or some other sleight of hand, she is literally disappearing. I’m not exaggerating. Her overall mass has been dramatically reduced almost to the point where I didn’t even recognize her. My hope is that she doesn’t stop and completes the trick by disappearing all together.

Believe it or not I used to watch The View on a regular basis. My main reason for tuning in was a segment they used to do on the show called “Dancing with Starr.” The premise of the segment was that a ballroom dancing teacher - a skinny, dorky-looking white guy - would come out and show Starr a few moves and then actually dance with her. As if watching an enormous black woman ballroom dancing with a scrawny white guy wasn’t funny enough, the producers would put Starr in/on these tiny little high-heel shoes, that had the thinnest little heels. It used to bewilder me that she never crushed one of those heals while sauntering around on the hardwood. The suspense of waiting for one of those heels to crumble under the weight of Starr was profoundly riveting. But it never happened. Either that was something of a magic trick in and of itself or those heels were made from titanium. In any event, now that Starr has been performing her disappearing trick the show doesn’t seem to be doing that segment anymore. It’s too bad. It was one of the genuinely (albeit unintentionally) funny things on TV. Magic Trick?

Getting Personal

2004-12-10T18:47:00.000-05:00

Jeopardy Savant

I have to be honest with you people: I miss Ken Jennings. Jeopardy isn’t even remotely as enjoyable as it was during his reign on the show. And that woman who beat him (whose name isn’t even worth mentioning) lost the very next day. That just supports my theory that Ken threw the game. Or, at the very least, it was a fluke of monumental proportions.

Speaking of game shows, I have decided to go on Wheel Of Fortune. I watched an episode of the show last night and it is so easy that I have to go on there just to earn the easy money. My only concern is that they have an IQ ceiling that prohibits people with an IQ above something like 80 to go on the show. The contestants on Wheel Of Fortune are such retards. And there’s enough of a balance of luck and skill that goes into winning that basically anyone with a pulse is going to win some money even if you aren’t the big winner. I think my girlfriend’s dog Cleo could win $2000.

I haven’t watched Wheel in many years, but one thing stood out to me that I didn’t grasp as a kid. Pat Sajak and Vanna White have the easiest jobs in America. All Pat does is say the dollar value that the wheel stops on and makes silly banter with the dim-witted contestants. And Vanna doesn’t even have to turn the letters anymore. The panels just light up and she touches them and the letters appear. It’s probably been at least 10 years since I last saw Wheel Of Fortune and the game has changed a lot, but amazingly it seems like Vanna hasn’t changed. She looks phenomenal. I remember being in third grade and everyone thought she was the hottest woman alive. That was 20 years ago! Her plastic surgeon must be a modern day Michelangelo. And I would have sex with her in two seconds if she wanted to.

People have been telling me I need to get more personal in this column, so I’m going to attempt to do so now. I work in a midtown office building on the 11th floor. And on our floor there are several other offices spaces that house employees from other companies. Everyday I go to the bathroom and use the urinal and everyday, without fail, the rim of the urinal is littered with pubic hair. It’s disgusting. There are long pubes, short pubes, straight pubes and curly pubes. How are these pubic hairs getting there everyday? I know they’re not old pubes, from the day before, because sometimes I go into the bathroom early and the urinal is clean. So clearly a janitor is cleaning up in there on a nightly basis. That means that there is a pubic hair perpetrator somewhere in this building and likely on the 11th floor. I want to know what this guy is up to. It looks like he brings a brush with him and brushes his pubes over the urinal everyday. If that is what’s happening, why can’t he do this demented ritual at home? And why isn’t this guy trimming his pubes. Some of them are in excess of about four or five inches if I had to estimate.

Ultimately, I don’t know how to deal with the situation of the pubic hair perpetrator. I don’t know if I should post a sign in the bathroom, calling him out. Or if I should conduct a more detailed investigation into this matter. Or perhaps I should request my own private bathroom. Anyway, if anyone has any advice on how to deal with this please let me know. And if the pubic hair perpetrator happens to read this, please either turn yourself in or brush your pubes at home.

Steroids In Baseball

2004-12-06T15:25:00.000-05:00

So baseball players taking steroids is back as one of the major scandals in our culture. And everybody from politicians to sportswriters to fans is lashing out and ready to lynch people like Jason Giambi and Barry Bonds. Observe the cover of Friday’s New York Post that had a most unflattering picture of Giambi and the words “Boot the Bum.”

President Bush made it clear in his State of the Union address that eliminating steroids from baseball is one of his top priorities. And now Senator John McCain is giving baseball until January to do something about steroids before he “introduces legislation.” I don’t know about you, but I sure feel safe now that the real villians Jason Giambi and Barry Bonds are going to get in big trouble, while that guy Osama bin Laden, who murdered over three thousand Americans, is still plotting the extermination of infidels over three years after committing his crime. Yeah, now I feel safe. But sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong is a hallmark of the Bush administration, so their encroachment into this matter isn’t so hard to believe.

What I find more vexing is the public outrage over the scandal. People want homeruns, so these players take steroids to make them stronger with the hope that they produce more homeruns. And when these players hit homeruns people actually have the nerve to question the manner in which these guys provide the homeruns.
Moreover, the players use steroids to increase their own market value at work. Players’ careers are fleeting in length and they perform under a pressure and microscope most of us simply can’t fathom. How many of these people calling steroid users “cheaters” and “bums” could say that they undoubtedly wouldn’t use illegal performance enhancing drugs to increase their market value?

I think many office managers would take performance enhancing drugs that might help them brew the office coffee more efficiently in the morning. Or how many stock brokers would take them if they could better predict the fluctuation of the NASDAQ? If I could take something that would allow my writing to always be more pithy, convincing and using the proper past participle, I would at least consider it.
Or, is everyone already using performing enhancing drugs? I see a lot of people with coffee cups in their hands as they make their way to work. And how many people are tranquilized by antidepressants just to make them socially functional thereby increasing their own market value?

I know what you’re thinking right now. “Hey, this guy is just sticking up for these players because he has a vested interest or something!” Okay, I’m busted. I have four Barry Bonds rookie cards and my early retirement hinges on his homerun record staying legitimate.

The truth is I feel bad for Giambi. He seems like a nice guy who was just trying to make himself better at his job and it’s a shame to see him vilified so harshly by the public.

Random Cultural Observations

2004-12-01T18:48:00.000-05:00

Today is world AIDS day. I could be wrong, but I don’t think a debilitating, fatal disease that kills millions of people each year is necessarily something to celebrate.

Jeopardy fans had to say good-bye to Ken Jennings last night when he finally lost and had his remarkable 74 game winning streak snapped. Not to worry though, you’ll be glad to know my streak of consecutive Metro Card swipes without getting a “Please swipe again” from the turnstile is still intact at 129 and counting. I’d say, based on the abilities we were each born with, my streak is comparable to his.

After winning over $2.5 million Ken lost in Final Jeopardy on the answer, “This firm’s 70,000 seasonal employees work only four months a year.” The question: H&R Block. Ken guessed Fed Ex. Although I missed the episode, in the back of my mind I can’t help but think Ken might’ve thrown Final Jeopardy to let someone else win for a change. Or he’s so smart that he knew if he missed a question that easy H&R Block would step up and offer him a lifetime of free tax preparation, which they did.

Check this one out: Money magazine is giving people advice on how to avoid donating money to various charities when your co-workers ask you for a holiday hand-out to their favorite charity. Basically, Money’s suggestion is to politely decline and say you’ve already donated to another charity this holiday season, even if you haven’t. EXCEPT if your boss asks you to make a donation. Then, Money suggests, you should make a donation to your boss’s favorite charity. Their logic is that if you and others are up for a promotion having made a charitable donation could get you the promotion. Or, if your boss is contemplating firing you and he remembers you donated to his charity he probably won’t drop the axe on you. I’m not making this shit up, I swear.

What does this say about the culture of our work environment? Are bosses really this arbitrarily fickle? What ever happened to simply doing a good job to get a promotion or not get fired? Forget doing a good job. It seems like the only way to get ahead in the workplace is to kiss the asses of your superiors. For the record, I never kiss ass at work—perhaps that explains why six years after graduating from college I still get paid to make copies and send faxes. At work I sit a couple of desks down from a guy who kisses his boss’s ass all day. He never stops. It is nauseating to say the least. No matter what his boss says he agrees with her and tells her how funny she is. It’s truly astonishing that an adult human being is capable of acting this pathetic. I think that if his boss launched into a tangent about how Newton was wrong about gravity he would probably agree with that too. I imagine he must go home from work and vomit for about an hour everyday. His behavior is so sickening I am thinking of going over to him and politely saying, “Hey, you’re a nice guy and all but this incessant ass-kissing is sickening and I’m afraid I’m going to throw up on my desk and ruin my computer. Could you please cut back on it a little?” Would that be entirely out of line?

Thanksgiving Review

2004-11-27T18:50:00.001-05:00

Hopefully everyone had a great Thanksgiving and plenty of food to eat. Now that Thanksgiving is over with we're entering the home stretch of the countdown ‘til Christmas. And you know what that means...you have about a month to figure out some good presents to buy for your family, so they don’t have another reason to secretly dislike you.

The Christmas shopping season got kicked off the day after Thanksgiving on what they call "Black Friday." Have you noticed what some of these stores are up to? There are stores opening up as early as 5 AM. Who is SO excited about shopping that they want to arrive at the store as early as five o’clock in the morning? I figure you’d most likely have to be insane to want to go shopping at such a ludicrous hour - certifiably. Think about it. If you want to arrive at the store when the doors open, you have to wake up at about 4 AM. That is, if you’re not a total scum ball and you’re going to take a shower before you go out for your day of shopping. That is quite a passion someone must have to want to arise at four in the morning just to go shopping. I would say that passion is probably misdirected.

It is unbelievable that some of these stores actually open that early, but it’s true. When I saw some commercials for these early openings on TV I thought that perhaps this was going to be a decoy and way of rounding up all the insane people in the community so it would be easier to have them committed. But no such thing occurred. The stores actually opened and people actually arrived even before the doors opened.

Corporate Retards?

Target had the most retarded thing you’ll probably ever see going on for Black Friday. You could actually register at their store or on their web-site for a wake-up call at 5:30 AM. And then, I guess, one of their poor employees would call you and wake you up and tell you to get your ass over to Target so you can start spending money. First of all, if you actually signed up for something this asinine then you are a loser of groundbreaking proportions. And can you imagine how awkward it must’ve been for the Target employees that actually had to call and wake these idiots up? You know the economy must not be doing well when this is what people will do for eight bucks an hour.

Corporate Sell-outs?

And lastly, Ice-T and Darth Vader were in the Target wake-up call commercial together. I don’t know about you people, but both of them have lost any street credibility that they might’ve had with me. Or in Vader’s case, any galaxy cred. Those guys are clearly major sell-outs going mainstream the way they have.

The Proofreader.

Endorsing The First Amendment

2004-07-22T15:20:00.000-04:00

How shallow is our appreciation of the rights afforded us by our wonderful First Amendment? Everyone has at one time or another used the phrases ‘freedom of speech’ or ‘this is America’ to justify an opinion he or she has expressed.

In light of that it is astonishing the way Toronto Blue Jays first basemen Carlos Delgado was greeted with nationalistic vitriol when his cellar-dwelling team dragged themselves down to New York in the middle of July for a few games at The Stadium. The invective lobbed his way is not very likely because his team is some 19.5 games behind the AL East-leading Bronx Bombers and Yankee fans are concerned about Delgado and the Blue Jays making a run at the Yanks.

New Yorkers directed their ire at Delgado for his ongoing refusal to stand on the field during the 7th inning playing of “God Bless America,” as part of his delicate expression of war protest. What should be appreciated as a breath of fresh Canadian air blowing into town seems to have been arbitrarily rejected by those who have a knee-jerk negative reaction to anyone with a differing opinion on a sensitive topic.

New Yorkers should at least pause for a few seconds before booing Delgado to consider that they are witnessing an anomaly in pro sports. It just so happens that a professional athlete thinks that God may not in fact be blessing America in our country’s war with Iraq and isn’t afraid to express the opinion about that notion. New Yorkers have the right to be offended by that opinion and even disagree with it vocally by booing. But after some reflection on the matter, applause (not boos) for Delgado would advisably be in order. New Yorkers have that right, too.

Carlos Delgado has taken a small stand against one of the symbols of our country to effectively communicate his opinion on an issue. This brave stance comes in a time when athletes refrain from commenting on anything other than their sport and occasionally, underneath all their lip service, they don’t even comment on that. Have Americans and New Yorkers become overly accustomed to players like Alex Rodriguez, who merely regurgitate the clichés fed to them by their agents so as to not jeopardize the potential payday of a product endorsement?

Unfortunately, many Americans value our American symbols over the actual ideals the symbols represent. As a result what people will see is Carlos Delgado being booed here in New York and other cities he visits as his protest gains publicity. And, likely, what people won’t see is Carlos Delgado peddling Speed Stick, or whatever product of the week, on television. Delgado will, however, be endorsing something radically more valuable than products and the revenue products generate for already-wealthy players. Delgado will be endorsing the First Amendment, a genuinely American endorsement that protects the foundation of a culture which allows us lose ourselves in such trivial distractions as baseball at a time like the present.