I know that only a couple people probably read this blog, and I've already told both of them about this. But, just in case, I wanted to post this. Visit the link, watch the video, and give a good rating.
"He's the Reef Hunter!"Thursday, January 29, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Lie To Me
Having watched a lot of Cowboys football, which normally will air on FOX, I saw dozens of previews for the network's new show Lie To Me. It is a show about a man (played by Tim Roth) who specializes in the art of detecting lies through body language. The show, despite the onslaught of programming, was very interesting to me, and I was determined to give it a shot.
There was only one problem: Lie To Me airs on Wednesday nights at 8pm. If you look immediately down the screen, you'll know that I absolutely love LOST. Getting the picture, yet?
(They're on at the same time)
First of all, I have a question for the geniuses at FOX. Are you insane? You have a show that you spent millions advertising, and it's a show that you're going to try and build an audience for. And not only do you decide to place it against one of the more popular shows on television (I know LOST's ratings are dropping, but I assume it's still extremely popular), but you premiere it the exact same night as LOST returns.
That's crazy.
Now I realize that since American Idol runs at least twice a week (I don't watch...it might be more), the options aren't great. And I also realize that a TV juggernaut runs at least once a night, and there will always be a CSI or a LOST or a Grey's Anatomy that you have to compete against.
But we're talking about a show that was debuting mid-season. It could've easily aired while LOST was on hiatus, and it might've established an audience by the time LOST came back. And while I decided to watch the show on the network's Web site, I'm not sure that enough people will be that patient.
As for the show itself, I found it to be very interesting, but I find interesting in the same way that I find another brand-new FOX show interesting (Fringe). I watch Fringe because the science on the show is pretty interesting, whether it be teleporting a man from a German prison or killer glass butterflies. But I'm eleven episodes in, and I don't really care about the characters. I'm more intrigued by the premise, and the characters are simply there to help out the premise.
I think Lie To Me's central character (Roth) has a chance to be a likeable-jerk (like the main character on House), but I don't even remember the other character's names. I'm sure, if I continue to watch, I'll get to know them, and I'll give them a chance. But this seems to be the kind of show that I'll watch just because I'll find it interesting to see, at least on the show, the signs that people are lying.
Which means, unless it grabs me, I'll be watching it as a dramatized documentary...meaning it will be more entertaining than a regular documentary but also probably less factual.
Now if they could only find a timeslot for it...
CORRECTION/UPDATE
Apparently Lie To Me did better in the ratings than LOST did (7.7/12 to 6.8/10). I'm extremely shocked to read that because I assumed LOST was back and kicking (it certainly got back to its original starting point story-wise). LOST actually ended up third on the night (both shows got beat by Criminal Minds...a show that no one I know watches).
It's possible, as my roommate pointed out, that LOST is such a niche show that it isn't the ratings superstar that it used to be (since it will lose viewers who are tired of the premise but not pick up new ones). That is sad.
I'm going to leave the original blog, as is, though. Other than the ratings bit, it still works about the same. And, even then, I can't imagine running anything against LOST. Because on Wednesdays at 8pm, that's what I'll be running. No matter what.
There was only one problem: Lie To Me airs on Wednesday nights at 8pm. If you look immediately down the screen, you'll know that I absolutely love LOST. Getting the picture, yet?
(They're on at the same time)
First of all, I have a question for the geniuses at FOX. Are you insane? You have a show that you spent millions advertising, and it's a show that you're going to try and build an audience for. And not only do you decide to place it against one of the more popular shows on television (I know LOST's ratings are dropping, but I assume it's still extremely popular), but you premiere it the exact same night as LOST returns.
That's crazy.
Now I realize that since American Idol runs at least twice a week (I don't watch...it might be more), the options aren't great. And I also realize that a TV juggernaut runs at least once a night, and there will always be a CSI or a LOST or a Grey's Anatomy that you have to compete against.
But we're talking about a show that was debuting mid-season. It could've easily aired while LOST was on hiatus, and it might've established an audience by the time LOST came back. And while I decided to watch the show on the network's Web site, I'm not sure that enough people will be that patient.
As for the show itself, I found it to be very interesting, but I find interesting in the same way that I find another brand-new FOX show interesting (Fringe). I watch Fringe because the science on the show is pretty interesting, whether it be teleporting a man from a German prison or killer glass butterflies. But I'm eleven episodes in, and I don't really care about the characters. I'm more intrigued by the premise, and the characters are simply there to help out the premise.
I think Lie To Me's central character (Roth) has a chance to be a likeable-jerk (like the main character on House), but I don't even remember the other character's names. I'm sure, if I continue to watch, I'll get to know them, and I'll give them a chance. But this seems to be the kind of show that I'll watch just because I'll find it interesting to see, at least on the show, the signs that people are lying.
Which means, unless it grabs me, I'll be watching it as a dramatized documentary...meaning it will be more entertaining than a regular documentary but also probably less factual.
Now if they could only find a timeslot for it...
CORRECTION/UPDATE
Apparently Lie To Me did better in the ratings than LOST did (7.7/12 to 6.8/10). I'm extremely shocked to read that because I assumed LOST was back and kicking (it certainly got back to its original starting point story-wise). LOST actually ended up third on the night (both shows got beat by Criminal Minds...a show that no one I know watches).
It's possible, as my roommate pointed out, that LOST is such a niche show that it isn't the ratings superstar that it used to be (since it will lose viewers who are tired of the premise but not pick up new ones). That is sad.
I'm going to leave the original blog, as is, though. Other than the ratings bit, it still works about the same. And, even then, I can't imagine running anything against LOST. Because on Wednesdays at 8pm, that's what I'll be running. No matter what.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
L O S T
Tonight was the premiere of season five of LOST. And if there's something that I love/obsess about more than sports, it's probably this show. I spent the majority of the day thinking about what was going to happen in tonight's episode...anticipating the premiere as much as I've anticipated anything in recent memory.
The show is so beautiful to me...so rich...so layered that it is hard for me not to get excited. I do not read spoilers (or even watch the after-episode promos), but I love going to Lostpedia and reading everything I can. Looking at character bios, making connections between characters, re-reading episode summaries to remember things I'd forgotten. You know, basically doing a wikipedia surf in a site dedicated exclusively to LOST.
I'm the kind of fan that immediately gets the inside joke from the writers. Who recognizes the obscure character before anyone else. I did that a couple times tonight.
And I'm fairly certain that my future wife will have to love LOST. Probably not as much as me, but she's going to have to appreciate the show for what it is. Because this show speaks to me more than many other things (music, politics, movies, etc) and I think that's a personality quirk that I think would have to match with me.
The show is so beautiful to me...so rich...so layered that it is hard for me not to get excited. I do not read spoilers (or even watch the after-episode promos), but I love going to Lostpedia and reading everything I can. Looking at character bios, making connections between characters, re-reading episode summaries to remember things I'd forgotten. You know, basically doing a wikipedia surf in a site dedicated exclusively to LOST.
I'm the kind of fan that immediately gets the inside joke from the writers. Who recognizes the obscure character before anyone else. I did that a couple times tonight.
And I'm fairly certain that my future wife will have to love LOST. Probably not as much as me, but she's going to have to appreciate the show for what it is. Because this show speaks to me more than many other things (music, politics, movies, etc) and I think that's a personality quirk that I think would have to match with me.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Inauguration Part Two
Okay, I thought about my blog from yesterday, and I started to wonder if what I wrote was fair. And I think I'm going to end up back in the middle.
Is it fair to say that Obama must have an above average presidency to be considered a success? No, I do not believe so. I simply believe that he's going to have to do more than just be known as the first black president. And I think that, wrong or right, his performance will be America's litmus test for how well a non-white-male president will perform. For example, if Obama's presidency is an unquestioned success, it will be much easier for someone like Bill Richardson (a Hispanic man) or Hilary Clinton (a woman) to be elected president because Americans will realize that a white protestant man doesn't have to be their leader.
But if Obama's term is an unquestioned failure, I'm sure we'll see the US dip back into a few more white male presidents until we get the guts to try something different again.
I think my main issue with Obama's success is where the bar is set. I think some of it is his own fault (hope and change is an easy cause to get behind but a very difficult one to accomplish, I believe), but some of his supporters are just plain ridiculous. A woman claimed that she believed Obama would pay off her mortgage. Others believe that Obama's presidency will bring about new money (the amounts vary) into their checking account.
And then there's all the messiah talk - how is that bar attainable?
You hear all that, and you wonder if Obama would be able to survive with simply "above average" results. Anything short of turning water into wine seems like it'd be a failure, and I'm only half kidding with that statement.
This is probably the most important presidency in many of our lifetimes, and I think it will create unimaginable pressure on President Obama. Future minority candidates are counting on him, the entire African American community is counting on him, and his zealots are really counting on him.
And he's also going to have to try to get us out of this war, fix the economy, deal with Gitmo, and push through Universal Health Care. And he's probably going to have to do all of that in four years.
I hope our new president is up to the challenge, but he needs to start by curbing some of the country's enthusiasm. The next four years aren't going to bring automatic positive change just because Barack Obama is in the White House. Many of our problems can't be solved in four years, and several probably can't be solved in eight.
Most presidents get credit by getting the ball rolling, or at the very least, stopping its movement in the wrong direction. I don't think that will be the case for Obama, and I think that, if he fails, his critics will be the least of his problem. All the people who expect change and don't get it might turn on Obama quicker than his conservative critics.
And that's why things have a chance to get really ugly. Because messiahs don't tend to fall short.
Is it fair to say that Obama must have an above average presidency to be considered a success? No, I do not believe so. I simply believe that he's going to have to do more than just be known as the first black president. And I think that, wrong or right, his performance will be America's litmus test for how well a non-white-male president will perform. For example, if Obama's presidency is an unquestioned success, it will be much easier for someone like Bill Richardson (a Hispanic man) or Hilary Clinton (a woman) to be elected president because Americans will realize that a white protestant man doesn't have to be their leader.
But if Obama's term is an unquestioned failure, I'm sure we'll see the US dip back into a few more white male presidents until we get the guts to try something different again.
I think my main issue with Obama's success is where the bar is set. I think some of it is his own fault (hope and change is an easy cause to get behind but a very difficult one to accomplish, I believe), but some of his supporters are just plain ridiculous. A woman claimed that she believed Obama would pay off her mortgage. Others believe that Obama's presidency will bring about new money (the amounts vary) into their checking account.
And then there's all the messiah talk - how is that bar attainable?
You hear all that, and you wonder if Obama would be able to survive with simply "above average" results. Anything short of turning water into wine seems like it'd be a failure, and I'm only half kidding with that statement.
This is probably the most important presidency in many of our lifetimes, and I think it will create unimaginable pressure on President Obama. Future minority candidates are counting on him, the entire African American community is counting on him, and his zealots are really counting on him.
And he's also going to have to try to get us out of this war, fix the economy, deal with Gitmo, and push through Universal Health Care. And he's probably going to have to do all of that in four years.
I hope our new president is up to the challenge, but he needs to start by curbing some of the country's enthusiasm. The next four years aren't going to bring automatic positive change just because Barack Obama is in the White House. Many of our problems can't be solved in four years, and several probably can't be solved in eight.
Most presidents get credit by getting the ball rolling, or at the very least, stopping its movement in the wrong direction. I don't think that will be the case for Obama, and I think that, if he fails, his critics will be the least of his problem. All the people who expect change and don't get it might turn on Obama quicker than his conservative critics.
And that's why things have a chance to get really ugly. Because messiahs don't tend to fall short.
Monday, January 19, 2009
The First Black President
Today is very interesting to me. It is Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and it is the day before the inauguration of Barack Obama as the first black President of the United States of America. It seems almost too perfect that we honor a man who believed in the unification of the US on the day before the US government's top post is finally led by an African American man.
My problem is this: is too much being made of the fact that Barack Obama is the first black president? I hear a lot about how proud Dr. King would be to see Obama elected president, and how it shows that the country is moving towards color-blindness. And I say, "If the country is color blind, the fact that Obama is the first black president shouldn't matter."
It's a milestone, though. Milestones cannot be ignored, but this is where the big deal needs to stop. In 1947, a big deal was made when Jackie Robinson became the first black player to play professional baseball. Today, no big deal is made when a black man makes his debut because I think sports, in a lot of ways, is color blind. Some sports are less color blind than other (white NBA players have to earn respect more so than black players, and black quarterbacks have to shake stereotypes in the NFL), but I think baseball is where we want to be in terms of racial issues.
If a guy can pitch, it doesn't matter where he comes from or his lineage. He can come from Iowa or Harlem, Cuba or Japan. If he can play, he's allowed to play. I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist in baseball, but I think things are almost about as good as they can be.
And I think African American people should certainly celebrate the first black president, but once the celebration is over, we can't continue to think of Obama as a black president. Because does anyone think of Clinton as a white president? Or Reagan? Or Lincoln? Or Jefferson?
No, these men were presidents. And in a 2050 history textbook, Obama's chapter/section cannot be titled "Barack Obama: First Black President" - because if it is, Obama will have failed. It needs to talk about how Obama united the country, got us out of the recession, created jobs, led to innovations, fixed health care/welfare/Social Security. The fact that Obama was the first black president needs to be a footnote.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
These are some of Dr. King's greatest words from his most famous speech. And I think a lot of people will use these words to describe tomorrow's events. But are they really going to be true?
Because let's be honest. A great number of people in the country did vote in the 2008 election because of the color of Obama's skin. Some people voted against him because he was black, but a great number of people voted for Obama because he was black. A lot of them didn't know what Obama stood for, and they probably still don't to this day. And I don't think that's something that Dr. King would want to have happen.
Jackie Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers because he deserved to be there. When he got to the majors, he won the 1947 Rookie of the Year and the 1949 MVP. He made the All-Star team six times, and he helped lead the Dodgers to the 1955 World Series title. Jackie Robinson proved that he was a great baseball player...not a great black baseball player.
And that's what Obama has to prove.
Because if Jackie Robinson had come in and hit .150, struggling through a couple years in the major leagues, he would've proved the racists right, and it probably would've been another decade before another African American was given a chance to play.
I voted for Obama because I thought he was the best man for the job. But the people who voted for him because of his race had better hope that he's the best man for the job.
Because if he succeeds, Dr. King's dream is one step closer to coming true. But if he fails, it might take several steps back.
My problem is this: is too much being made of the fact that Barack Obama is the first black president? I hear a lot about how proud Dr. King would be to see Obama elected president, and how it shows that the country is moving towards color-blindness. And I say, "If the country is color blind, the fact that Obama is the first black president shouldn't matter."
It's a milestone, though. Milestones cannot be ignored, but this is where the big deal needs to stop. In 1947, a big deal was made when Jackie Robinson became the first black player to play professional baseball. Today, no big deal is made when a black man makes his debut because I think sports, in a lot of ways, is color blind. Some sports are less color blind than other (white NBA players have to earn respect more so than black players, and black quarterbacks have to shake stereotypes in the NFL), but I think baseball is where we want to be in terms of racial issues.
If a guy can pitch, it doesn't matter where he comes from or his lineage. He can come from Iowa or Harlem, Cuba or Japan. If he can play, he's allowed to play. I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist in baseball, but I think things are almost about as good as they can be.
And I think African American people should certainly celebrate the first black president, but once the celebration is over, we can't continue to think of Obama as a black president. Because does anyone think of Clinton as a white president? Or Reagan? Or Lincoln? Or Jefferson?
No, these men were presidents. And in a 2050 history textbook, Obama's chapter/section cannot be titled "Barack Obama: First Black President" - because if it is, Obama will have failed. It needs to talk about how Obama united the country, got us out of the recession, created jobs, led to innovations, fixed health care/welfare/Social Security. The fact that Obama was the first black president needs to be a footnote.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
These are some of Dr. King's greatest words from his most famous speech. And I think a lot of people will use these words to describe tomorrow's events. But are they really going to be true?
Because let's be honest. A great number of people in the country did vote in the 2008 election because of the color of Obama's skin. Some people voted against him because he was black, but a great number of people voted for Obama because he was black. A lot of them didn't know what Obama stood for, and they probably still don't to this day. And I don't think that's something that Dr. King would want to have happen.
Jackie Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers because he deserved to be there. When he got to the majors, he won the 1947 Rookie of the Year and the 1949 MVP. He made the All-Star team six times, and he helped lead the Dodgers to the 1955 World Series title. Jackie Robinson proved that he was a great baseball player...not a great black baseball player.
And that's what Obama has to prove.
Because if Jackie Robinson had come in and hit .150, struggling through a couple years in the major leagues, he would've proved the racists right, and it probably would've been another decade before another African American was given a chance to play.
I voted for Obama because I thought he was the best man for the job. But the people who voted for him because of his race had better hope that he's the best man for the job.
Because if he succeeds, Dr. King's dream is one step closer to coming true. But if he fails, it might take several steps back.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Top 5 Worst Places on Earth
Completely randomly*, I've decided to rank the five worst places on Earth....counting down to #1 (the worst place in the world).
5. France - I've never been, but it looks like it smells like perfumed-over B.O. Plus, you have to surrender whenever you go there.
4 (Tie). Afghanistan/Iraq - War-torn nations where you could die at any minute.
3. Detroit - You have the same chance of dying as Iraq/Afghanistan, but the economy is worse.
2. Philadelphia - There's a reason the movie Philadelphia was set in Philadelphia. Enough said.
1. Buffalo - Suck it, Buffalo. Suck it.
*Not random at all
5. France - I've never been, but it looks like it smells like perfumed-over B.O. Plus, you have to surrender whenever you go there.
4 (Tie). Afghanistan/Iraq - War-torn nations where you could die at any minute.
3. Detroit - You have the same chance of dying as Iraq/Afghanistan, but the economy is worse.
2. Philadelphia - There's a reason the movie Philadelphia was set in Philadelphia. Enough said.
1. Buffalo - Suck it, Buffalo. Suck it.
*Not random at all
Monday, January 12, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
National Frustration League
The Eagles just beat the Giants, and they will face the Cardinals next Sunday. The Eagles, in the same spot the Cowboys would've/should've been in, beat a weak Vikings team and a struggling Burress-less Giants team to get to the NFC Championship Game.
And the only thing standing between them and the Super Bowl is the freakin' Cardinals.
It is so frustrating to think that the Cowboys aren't in these playoffs. Sure, they were a mess, but they were more talented than all these other teams. The were able to beat the Giants and Eagles. They should've beaten the Steelers, Ravens, and Cardinals. Most of their games were winnable. But the team lacked leadership and they lacked heart.
That could easily be the Cowboys in the NFC Championship Game. But it isn't, and it makes me mad. But, I guess, Go Cardinals!
And the only thing standing between them and the Super Bowl is the freakin' Cardinals.
It is so frustrating to think that the Cowboys aren't in these playoffs. Sure, they were a mess, but they were more talented than all these other teams. The were able to beat the Giants and Eagles. They should've beaten the Steelers, Ravens, and Cardinals. Most of their games were winnable. But the team lacked leadership and they lacked heart.
That could easily be the Cowboys in the NFC Championship Game. But it isn't, and it makes me mad. But, I guess, Go Cardinals!
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Writing again
I'm writing this for two reasons...neither much more (or less) selfish than the other. But the other day, I got the idea for a movie. It's a Knocked Up kind of idea (half romantic comedy and half sophomoric guy movie), and I think it's the kind of movie that could get made. And, in a lot of cases, that might be better than a movie that is good.
I think my main concern is that my execution could be flawed. Because just because you have a great idea doesn't mean your "art" will end up being great. A good recent example is Jumper - I thought the idea of Jumper was a great one...the idea of being able to teleport wherever you want is a fascinating one. And I think the idea that there are these two secretly warring parties (those who can teleport and those who want to kill them all) was also great.
But, in the execution, something was lost. The movie lost its way, and it didn't pick any particular direction to go. So, in the end, it stayed in the same place. I also think Nicholas Cage's movie Next had a great premise that was completely wasted. And although both movies had created universes with endless possibilities, they were both so bad that we'll never get to see the richness.
I think the idea for both of my novels are great. I particularly like the second one; I think it is a pretty interesting examination of the way I see the human soul. But I think the idea is so great that I'm afraid of my own execution. Because like Jumper and Next, I don't want to destroy the universe just because the camera I chose to shoot it with was mechanically flawed.
And because of that, I haven't let anyone read it. I've even been a little afraid to read it myself. Especially since there's a lot of myself in there, and I wrote it at a pretty dark time for me.
Which brings me back to this. I think this movie idea could be good, but I want it to be done well too.
Why am I mentioning this? What are the "two reasons."
1. I want to put it out there that I'm writing so that I'll have a reason to finish. Since I finished book number two, I've fleshed out several ideas for book #3, and I didn't do anything with them. If I put it out here, I'll be reminded of it every time I feel like writing. And it will make me either feel bad and write or just decide to write.
2. Let's say the script is good, and let's say that my Hollywood aunt (my aunt lives in Hollywood) can get it into the hands of someone cool. And it gets made. How cool would it be to come back and see this blog entry?
I think my main concern is that my execution could be flawed. Because just because you have a great idea doesn't mean your "art" will end up being great. A good recent example is Jumper - I thought the idea of Jumper was a great one...the idea of being able to teleport wherever you want is a fascinating one. And I think the idea that there are these two secretly warring parties (those who can teleport and those who want to kill them all) was also great.
But, in the execution, something was lost. The movie lost its way, and it didn't pick any particular direction to go. So, in the end, it stayed in the same place. I also think Nicholas Cage's movie Next had a great premise that was completely wasted. And although both movies had created universes with endless possibilities, they were both so bad that we'll never get to see the richness.
I think the idea for both of my novels are great. I particularly like the second one; I think it is a pretty interesting examination of the way I see the human soul. But I think the idea is so great that I'm afraid of my own execution. Because like Jumper and Next, I don't want to destroy the universe just because the camera I chose to shoot it with was mechanically flawed.
And because of that, I haven't let anyone read it. I've even been a little afraid to read it myself. Especially since there's a lot of myself in there, and I wrote it at a pretty dark time for me.
Which brings me back to this. I think this movie idea could be good, but I want it to be done well too.
Why am I mentioning this? What are the "two reasons."
1. I want to put it out there that I'm writing so that I'll have a reason to finish. Since I finished book number two, I've fleshed out several ideas for book #3, and I didn't do anything with them. If I put it out here, I'll be reminded of it every time I feel like writing. And it will make me either feel bad and write or just decide to write.
2. Let's say the script is good, and let's say that my Hollywood aunt (my aunt lives in Hollywood) can get it into the hands of someone cool. And it gets made. How cool would it be to come back and see this blog entry?
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Bad Idea, Good Idea
Bad Idea - Vantage Point, featuring Evil Jack - Ashley warned me the movie was bad. I didn't listen. I DIDN'T LISTEN!
Good Idea - Gay GOB on 30 Rock - Why didn't anyone think of that on Arrested Development?
Good Idea - Gay GOB on 30 Rock - Why didn't anyone think of that on Arrested Development?
Monday, January 5, 2009
Vicarious Happiness
Tonight, I went out with my friends Tucker and Keely to watch the Texas-Ohio State Fiesta Bowl. Growing up in Dallas, I had one of three choices when it came to college football: cheer for Texas, cheer for one of their rivals, or just pour myself completely into Cowboys' football and ignore college football altogether.
I chose the third option. Saturdays did not mean football at all. Football was played on Sundays.
It wasn't for a lack of trying. I actually went to an SMU football game as a kid, but they lost to Tulane...a school I had never heard of. And I owned an NCAA football video game for the Playstation, but something always weirded me out about having QB#4 throw to WR#19. One of my favorite things about football players is that they have names.
When I got to TCU, I jumped into college football with the Horned Frogs. Finally with a team, I was able to enjoy football on Saturday. But in the landscape of college football, I root for TCU first and everyone else is tied for last. Especially since TCU doesn't really have any rivals.
But this year, Tucker and Keely have come over a few times to watch UT games, and I've been following the Horns a bit. They watched a couple TCU games with me and cheered along...so I didn't have a problem returning the favor for their games.
With bad weather, their cable was not working. As soon as they showed up, our cable also stopped cooperating...so we set out to find somewhere to watch the game in peace. We ended up stopping at Mr. Gattis...even though we'd all already eaten. At halftime, we got kicked out of the restaurant, and we ended up at a very UT-heavy Pluckers.
Now let me let you inside my sports mind for a bit: the fact that other teams (i.e. teams I don't cheer for) have fans has always weirded me out. When I went on my famous trip to see all the baseball stadiums, I'd go to a Pirates game and be fascinated that all these people actually came to see the Pirates play. That they'd spend their Sunday afternoons watching the Pirates game. That they'd play hooky and go see the Pirates. That they lived and died with the freakin' Pirates.
Because, for me, it's simply natural to watch the Rangers (I know, it's a bad example, but go with me). There was simply no choice in the matter. Why would anyone else in the world be any different?
So to enter this place full of hardcore Longhorn fans was a little odd. Since I was with my roommate Ashley (a fellow Horned Frog and a quasi-secret UT-hater), I knew I wasn't completely alone in my lack of rooting interest. If not for Tucker and Keely, I wouldn't have cared who won.
But as I watched Texas take a decent lead and then blow it, I saw how the game affected my friends. And I started thinking back to this Cowboys season...or the TCU season...or other teams I care about. I knew how much it sucked to watch the Cowboys blow it against the Ravens, and how much it sucked to watch a BCS game slip away in TCU's loss to Utah. And I didn't want my friends to feel that way.
Plus, they were a lot more fun to joke around with when they didn't think their team was going to lose to a bunch of Buckeyes.
And when Quan Cosby scored to give the Longhorns the (eventual) victory, I was happy. Not in the same way I'd be happy if TCU had won, but I was able to summon up enough sports energy to have a rooting interest in the game. I got to enjoy the game through them, and after the last couple of football weeks, it was nice to be on the winning end of things.
So, for tonight, go Longhorns. You have a solid team, a great program, and some very hot female fans. Tomorrow? We'll see.
I chose the third option. Saturdays did not mean football at all. Football was played on Sundays.
It wasn't for a lack of trying. I actually went to an SMU football game as a kid, but they lost to Tulane...a school I had never heard of. And I owned an NCAA football video game for the Playstation, but something always weirded me out about having QB#4 throw to WR#19. One of my favorite things about football players is that they have names.
When I got to TCU, I jumped into college football with the Horned Frogs. Finally with a team, I was able to enjoy football on Saturday. But in the landscape of college football, I root for TCU first and everyone else is tied for last. Especially since TCU doesn't really have any rivals.
But this year, Tucker and Keely have come over a few times to watch UT games, and I've been following the Horns a bit. They watched a couple TCU games with me and cheered along...so I didn't have a problem returning the favor for their games.
With bad weather, their cable was not working. As soon as they showed up, our cable also stopped cooperating...so we set out to find somewhere to watch the game in peace. We ended up stopping at Mr. Gattis...even though we'd all already eaten. At halftime, we got kicked out of the restaurant, and we ended up at a very UT-heavy Pluckers.
Now let me let you inside my sports mind for a bit: the fact that other teams (i.e. teams I don't cheer for) have fans has always weirded me out. When I went on my famous trip to see all the baseball stadiums, I'd go to a Pirates game and be fascinated that all these people actually came to see the Pirates play. That they'd spend their Sunday afternoons watching the Pirates game. That they'd play hooky and go see the Pirates. That they lived and died with the freakin' Pirates.
Because, for me, it's simply natural to watch the Rangers (I know, it's a bad example, but go with me). There was simply no choice in the matter. Why would anyone else in the world be any different?
So to enter this place full of hardcore Longhorn fans was a little odd. Since I was with my roommate Ashley (a fellow Horned Frog and a quasi-secret UT-hater), I knew I wasn't completely alone in my lack of rooting interest. If not for Tucker and Keely, I wouldn't have cared who won.
But as I watched Texas take a decent lead and then blow it, I saw how the game affected my friends. And I started thinking back to this Cowboys season...or the TCU season...or other teams I care about. I knew how much it sucked to watch the Cowboys blow it against the Ravens, and how much it sucked to watch a BCS game slip away in TCU's loss to Utah. And I didn't want my friends to feel that way.
Plus, they were a lot more fun to joke around with when they didn't think their team was going to lose to a bunch of Buckeyes.
And when Quan Cosby scored to give the Longhorns the (eventual) victory, I was happy. Not in the same way I'd be happy if TCU had won, but I was able to summon up enough sports energy to have a rooting interest in the game. I got to enjoy the game through them, and after the last couple of football weeks, it was nice to be on the winning end of things.
So, for tonight, go Longhorns. You have a solid team, a great program, and some very hot female fans. Tomorrow? We'll see.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Money, money, money, money....money
I hate money.
That's right, I said it. I hate money. Some people say that "money makes the world go round," and I suppose that it does. But I believe in the other money-based cliche: "money is the root of all evil."
And it probably all stems from the fact that I don't really care about buying stuff or getting stuff. When some really cool technology comes out (new iPod, iPhone, video game console, TV, speakers, computer, etc), I don't rush out and get it. And, in fact, I'll probably never get it. I have AT&T's free cell phone that comes with my cellular service. I won my nicest gaming system (an XBox Classic) in a Taco Bell contest. I got my iPod for Christmas (and didn't even ask for it).
When I get things, I enjoy them. My roommate has a giant (and beautiful) TV and an XBox 360, and I enjoy both of those. But, I think, in the long run, I wouldn't buy those things unless I just had a ridiculous amount of money that I felt like I needed to spend.
But when people ask me what I want for Christmas, I don't really know. Maybe a DVD, maybe something random, maybe some clothes, but probably just money. And when I get money, I just put it in the bank.
I won $200-something dollars at a friendly poker game a few months ago, and I still have the money rolled up in a rubber band on my desk. I thought it might be fun to throw it on the table the next time they do a tournament, and I just never felt the need to spend it or even put it in the bank.
And I think my attitude about money really causes me to feel the way I do about work. I don't like my job (I actually like it more than I tell my friends but still don't like it), and I think millions of Americans feel the same way. And the main problem with me is that there aren't many jobs I think I'd like doing.
I think about GM of a baseball team, but then I think about all the pressure it would cause on my family (with the uncertainty of the job, the late hours, all the travelling). I consider teaching and nice hours and long vacations, but then I think about failing with kids and putting up with the ones that don't care. I went to school to get a journalism degree, but I quickly saw all the crap that came with that job. I grabbed an economics degree at the last minute, and that got me where I am now.
I think, deep down, I just want to be Turtle in someone's entourage. I want to wake up when I want to, do what I want to, hang out with my friends, and try to be as helpful as possible on someone else's tab. For a lot of people (probably including Turtle), that comes off as lazy because he's always expecting stuff from Vinny. I wouldn't really care about getting cool gifts or spending Vinny's money because the ride itself would be cool enough for me.
I think that's why novel writing is such a desire to me. If I can write (and I'm still not sure about that), it would be my meal ticket. I could make a decent living (my friends know how simple I live, and I don't think I'd really change no matter how much money I had), spend a few hours writing, and then do what I want. It's what I did for seven months when I had no job, and it was awesome.
So that's probably why I am the way I am about work. Because I don't really like being told to be somewhere every weekday for 8 hours doing something I'm not enjoying. Because what's the reward? Money. Money that will just go into the bank with all of its friends, get spent on essential items, and hopefully buy me the ability not to work at some point.
And, by the way, does anyone else hate what we spend money on? We spend money on food, water, and shelter. We can't even sleep for free anymore because someone always owns the space you're sleeping on.
I swear....there will come a time when we will pay money to breathe. Maybe it will be like Spaceballs where the air quality drops, and we all have to buy canned air. But, mark my words, it will happen. And sooner than you think.
That's right, I said it. I hate money. Some people say that "money makes the world go round," and I suppose that it does. But I believe in the other money-based cliche: "money is the root of all evil."
And it probably all stems from the fact that I don't really care about buying stuff or getting stuff. When some really cool technology comes out (new iPod, iPhone, video game console, TV, speakers, computer, etc), I don't rush out and get it. And, in fact, I'll probably never get it. I have AT&T's free cell phone that comes with my cellular service. I won my nicest gaming system (an XBox Classic) in a Taco Bell contest. I got my iPod for Christmas (and didn't even ask for it).
When I get things, I enjoy them. My roommate has a giant (and beautiful) TV and an XBox 360, and I enjoy both of those. But, I think, in the long run, I wouldn't buy those things unless I just had a ridiculous amount of money that I felt like I needed to spend.
But when people ask me what I want for Christmas, I don't really know. Maybe a DVD, maybe something random, maybe some clothes, but probably just money. And when I get money, I just put it in the bank.
I won $200-something dollars at a friendly poker game a few months ago, and I still have the money rolled up in a rubber band on my desk. I thought it might be fun to throw it on the table the next time they do a tournament, and I just never felt the need to spend it or even put it in the bank.
And I think my attitude about money really causes me to feel the way I do about work. I don't like my job (I actually like it more than I tell my friends but still don't like it), and I think millions of Americans feel the same way. And the main problem with me is that there aren't many jobs I think I'd like doing.
I think about GM of a baseball team, but then I think about all the pressure it would cause on my family (with the uncertainty of the job, the late hours, all the travelling). I consider teaching and nice hours and long vacations, but then I think about failing with kids and putting up with the ones that don't care. I went to school to get a journalism degree, but I quickly saw all the crap that came with that job. I grabbed an economics degree at the last minute, and that got me where I am now.
I think, deep down, I just want to be Turtle in someone's entourage. I want to wake up when I want to, do what I want to, hang out with my friends, and try to be as helpful as possible on someone else's tab. For a lot of people (probably including Turtle), that comes off as lazy because he's always expecting stuff from Vinny. I wouldn't really care about getting cool gifts or spending Vinny's money because the ride itself would be cool enough for me.
I think that's why novel writing is such a desire to me. If I can write (and I'm still not sure about that), it would be my meal ticket. I could make a decent living (my friends know how simple I live, and I don't think I'd really change no matter how much money I had), spend a few hours writing, and then do what I want. It's what I did for seven months when I had no job, and it was awesome.
So that's probably why I am the way I am about work. Because I don't really like being told to be somewhere every weekday for 8 hours doing something I'm not enjoying. Because what's the reward? Money. Money that will just go into the bank with all of its friends, get spent on essential items, and hopefully buy me the ability not to work at some point.
And, by the way, does anyone else hate what we spend money on? We spend money on food, water, and shelter. We can't even sleep for free anymore because someone always owns the space you're sleeping on.
I swear....there will come a time when we will pay money to breathe. Maybe it will be like Spaceballs where the air quality drops, and we all have to buy canned air. But, mark my words, it will happen. And sooner than you think.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Dallas Can't Do Anything Right
First, let me say that I love Dallas. I've been all across the country, and there's no place I'd rather call home. It has great weather (at least for me), all my favorite teams, all my favorite people, and some of the most beautiful women on the planet. Plus, like all Texas, I have that ridiculous over-pride in my city and state.
That being said, the city is a mess. Let's first look at it from a purely sports-based angle. The city blew the chance to bring the Cowboys back to Dallas, opting instead to pump money into the aged Cotton Bowl. And let's not forget the decision to release the championship parade route after game two of the 2006 NBA Finals (a series the Mavs would eventually blow...and I believe in karma).
Outside of sports, the Dallas ISD is a ridiculous mess, and the police department has spent the last couple of years getting rid of a horde of corrupt cops. Then there's the Trinity River Project...a pipe dream that will never happen, and it led to the ridiculous Industrial Blvd re-naming controversy.
Then there was last night...the Big D NYE celebration at Victory Park. I went to the one last year; I had Stars' tickets, and I thought it would be fun to go to the inaugural one in case it got really big. I had my Stars' tickets again last night, and I thought it'd be fun to go again. I had three separate groups of people I planned on meeting there, and I was ready to bring in the new year in style.
So I went to the game, and the Stars won in regulation. That meant that we were right outside the stadium at 10pm with an hour before the NYC ball and two hours before our own. Plenty of time.
The previous year, we just walked outside the stadium right into the festivities, but during the game, they kept announcing that the plaza exit would be closed. So my friend Tim and I exited and walked around, making our way towards Victory Plaza. And, immediately, we ran into a gate. People were piled into the street, and no one was getting inside. Rumors spread that the fire marshall wasn't letting anyone else into the plaza.
There are two problems with this. First of all, we walked immediately from the game to the plaza. Of all the people who stayed for the entire game (one that was in doubt until 40 seconds remained), we were probably in the first couple hundred to get to the barricade.
That basically meant that about 15,000 people were automatically excluded from getting inside. Which is odd because I thought the hockey game was supposed to, you know, kick off the whole thing.
The second problem was this...a fire code violation? Isn't that something that should've been foreseen? I'm guessing neither the size of Victory Plaza nor the fire code changed in the last year, and I can't imagine that the celebration simply attracted more people than the city expected. I'd heard nothing in the news about "getting there early" and I'd definitely heard nothing about "either go to the hockey game or get inside."
And Tim kept thinking aloud about how stupid it was that they weren't letting people in because of a fire code violation, but they packed us in outside a gate. If a fire did happen, the people who were being "saved" by the fire code would've simply run into a swarm of people....and a gate. How is that safe?
Either way, Tim and I kept hearing about places where we might get in. We heard that people were getting in 5 at a time as long as 5 people were leaving, so we moved to the front corner of the plaza. There, I became very familiar with a few people in the city. We were so cramped up there that modesty simply wasn't an option, and claustrophobia would've easily killed anyone in attendance. If you were the kind of person who likes copping a feel, it was heaven...because it happened whether you liked it or not.
And that's where we watched the NYC ball drop....cramped in a corner of the plaza. I kept thinking that people (maybe parents with kids) would leave after 11pm, and since we were near the front of the entrance, we might be able to meet up with our friends who were already inside.
It's about that time that my sister announced that her group had shown up, and we learned that my roommate's group had decided to skip it altogether. So of the four groups, we were caught in the corner, one group was inside, one group stayed home, and one group was God Knows Where. And it seemed impossible to meet up with any of them.
One of the guys inside kept insisting that there was an entrance that wasn't being watched. Tim wanted to check it out, and we decided to go around 11:30. We got there and waited for a minute as seemingly-random people were allowed entrance. Some drunk people kept trying to get one of their girls to flash the guard to let us in (one was about to), but the guard finally announced that only people with a special wristband would be let in.
With that, Tim and I decided to try and find my sister. But, by that point, the entire street was packed, and we had to make our way through to get a spot in front of the plaza. We ended up finding an okay spot, and I think it ended up being pretty fun. By the time things calmed down, my sister's group had already left and our old college friends were already on the train back to Ft. Worth.
All in all, I think it was pretty fun, but I think the whole thing just reeked of poor planning. People that go to the Stars' game shouldn't be automatically excluded from attending the party inside (in fact, it might even should be the opposite), and there should've been significantly better crowd control. Of course, our groups should've planned better, but I don't think that's really the point.
It was only the second annual event, and I'm hoping the city learned from its mistakes. Victory Park is really cool, and that has a chance to be a really great celebration for Dallas. But the city seems to always find a way to screw things up, and I guess this isn't an exception.
My final question is this...why can't we get a real band to play? I don't have much against cover bands, but Dallas is a top five media market. Can we not get an actual professional band to play at our one big celebration of the year? There are a number of famous bands from around the area, and I'm sure one would've agreed to play there. Would it have cost money? Probably. But I'm sure the city can find a way to pay for it without charging admission (whether it be tax money or corporate sponsorship).
It just seems cheap to have some random guy singing Metallica in the second largest city in Texas. I'm not suggesting we'd have to get the Killers or something gigantic, but I'm sure some medium-sized band would've loved to have played at Victory last night.
So for those of you who want to go to Big D NYE next year, make sure to get there early if you want to get inside. And if you plan on meeting up with people or going to the Stars' game, good luck with that.
Happy New Year, everyone.
That being said, the city is a mess. Let's first look at it from a purely sports-based angle. The city blew the chance to bring the Cowboys back to Dallas, opting instead to pump money into the aged Cotton Bowl. And let's not forget the decision to release the championship parade route after game two of the 2006 NBA Finals (a series the Mavs would eventually blow...and I believe in karma).
Outside of sports, the Dallas ISD is a ridiculous mess, and the police department has spent the last couple of years getting rid of a horde of corrupt cops. Then there's the Trinity River Project...a pipe dream that will never happen, and it led to the ridiculous Industrial Blvd re-naming controversy.
Then there was last night...the Big D NYE celebration at Victory Park. I went to the one last year; I had Stars' tickets, and I thought it would be fun to go to the inaugural one in case it got really big. I had my Stars' tickets again last night, and I thought it'd be fun to go again. I had three separate groups of people I planned on meeting there, and I was ready to bring in the new year in style.
So I went to the game, and the Stars won in regulation. That meant that we were right outside the stadium at 10pm with an hour before the NYC ball and two hours before our own. Plenty of time.
The previous year, we just walked outside the stadium right into the festivities, but during the game, they kept announcing that the plaza exit would be closed. So my friend Tim and I exited and walked around, making our way towards Victory Plaza. And, immediately, we ran into a gate. People were piled into the street, and no one was getting inside. Rumors spread that the fire marshall wasn't letting anyone else into the plaza.
There are two problems with this. First of all, we walked immediately from the game to the plaza. Of all the people who stayed for the entire game (one that was in doubt until 40 seconds remained), we were probably in the first couple hundred to get to the barricade.
That basically meant that about 15,000 people were automatically excluded from getting inside. Which is odd because I thought the hockey game was supposed to, you know, kick off the whole thing.
The second problem was this...a fire code violation? Isn't that something that should've been foreseen? I'm guessing neither the size of Victory Plaza nor the fire code changed in the last year, and I can't imagine that the celebration simply attracted more people than the city expected. I'd heard nothing in the news about "getting there early" and I'd definitely heard nothing about "either go to the hockey game or get inside."
And Tim kept thinking aloud about how stupid it was that they weren't letting people in because of a fire code violation, but they packed us in outside a gate. If a fire did happen, the people who were being "saved" by the fire code would've simply run into a swarm of people....and a gate. How is that safe?
Either way, Tim and I kept hearing about places where we might get in. We heard that people were getting in 5 at a time as long as 5 people were leaving, so we moved to the front corner of the plaza. There, I became very familiar with a few people in the city. We were so cramped up there that modesty simply wasn't an option, and claustrophobia would've easily killed anyone in attendance. If you were the kind of person who likes copping a feel, it was heaven...because it happened whether you liked it or not.
And that's where we watched the NYC ball drop....cramped in a corner of the plaza. I kept thinking that people (maybe parents with kids) would leave after 11pm, and since we were near the front of the entrance, we might be able to meet up with our friends who were already inside.
It's about that time that my sister announced that her group had shown up, and we learned that my roommate's group had decided to skip it altogether. So of the four groups, we were caught in the corner, one group was inside, one group stayed home, and one group was God Knows Where. And it seemed impossible to meet up with any of them.
One of the guys inside kept insisting that there was an entrance that wasn't being watched. Tim wanted to check it out, and we decided to go around 11:30. We got there and waited for a minute as seemingly-random people were allowed entrance. Some drunk people kept trying to get one of their girls to flash the guard to let us in (one was about to), but the guard finally announced that only people with a special wristband would be let in.
With that, Tim and I decided to try and find my sister. But, by that point, the entire street was packed, and we had to make our way through to get a spot in front of the plaza. We ended up finding an okay spot, and I think it ended up being pretty fun. By the time things calmed down, my sister's group had already left and our old college friends were already on the train back to Ft. Worth.
All in all, I think it was pretty fun, but I think the whole thing just reeked of poor planning. People that go to the Stars' game shouldn't be automatically excluded from attending the party inside (in fact, it might even should be the opposite), and there should've been significantly better crowd control. Of course, our groups should've planned better, but I don't think that's really the point.
It was only the second annual event, and I'm hoping the city learned from its mistakes. Victory Park is really cool, and that has a chance to be a really great celebration for Dallas. But the city seems to always find a way to screw things up, and I guess this isn't an exception.
My final question is this...why can't we get a real band to play? I don't have much against cover bands, but Dallas is a top five media market. Can we not get an actual professional band to play at our one big celebration of the year? There are a number of famous bands from around the area, and I'm sure one would've agreed to play there. Would it have cost money? Probably. But I'm sure the city can find a way to pay for it without charging admission (whether it be tax money or corporate sponsorship).
It just seems cheap to have some random guy singing Metallica in the second largest city in Texas. I'm not suggesting we'd have to get the Killers or something gigantic, but I'm sure some medium-sized band would've loved to have played at Victory last night.
So for those of you who want to go to Big D NYE next year, make sure to get there early if you want to get inside. And if you plan on meeting up with people or going to the Stars' game, good luck with that.
Happy New Year, everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)