TCU lost their bowl game tonight, 17-16, to Michigan State. Our group decided to watch the game at Buffalo Wild Wings, the official location of the TCU Dallas Alumni Association. And even though we arrived at the restaurant at 7:45 (for a 9:15 kickoff), we weren't seated for a table by halftime of the game. You see, the restaurant had a finite number of tables, and people weren't leaving. So even though we started the game 4th in line for a table, we left about two hours later without a table.
When we left, TCU was up 13-0. We watched the entire second half at our apartment, and the game ended 17-16 Michigan State. When you break it down, we won one half 13-0 (at Buffalo Wild Wings). We lost the second half 17-3 (at the apartment).
As the game fell apart for the good guys, a couple of us mentioned that we should've stayed at Buffalo Wild Wings. Because, as far as we were concerned, only one variable had changed (the venue). If we were doing a chemistry experiment and you change one variable, you're certain of the result. The new variable caused a change in the reaction.
From this perspective, moving from Buffalo Wild Wings to our apartment caused TCU to lose.
We call this phenomenon "superstition." A phenonmenon defined as "A widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice."
When this was uttered, my roommate scoffed. "Yeah, it had nothing to do with Trevone's injury or the defense's inability to stop Bell." Which is true. When you break down the game, that's what happened. Our quarterback was limited by an injury, and their running back began to play better.
But he discounted superstition.
*Please note that I'm about to get into a religious discussion. The following is simply me playing devil's advocate. My own religious beliefs are far too complicated to ever be put onto an internet blog. Thank you for your understanding.*
My roommate is a deeply religious man. He believes in a power greater than himself. He's faithful that someone he cannot see is looking out for him. And he believes that if he does certain things, it will lead to good things for him later.
And my question is....how is religion any different than simple superstition?
And I'm serious. How does the belief of where I watch football in relation to the outcome of the game differ from the belief that if I do not lie, I will go to Heaven?
In both cases, I'm believing in something that I cannot see (or even prove the existence of) and hoping that what I do will get me what I want.
Example one - John is watching his favorite team. He is wearing a ratty, old T-shirt in belief that it will make his favorite team win a professional baseball game.
Example two - John has a very important business meeting the following day. He prays at night that the meeting will go well so that he can get a promotion he desperately needs.
How are those two different?
I think someone like my roommate would argue that the first example is stupid because it's just a game. That God has more to worry about than can put more points up than the other team.
But it's never that simple. True...a bowl game result doesn't impact my life. But it does impact other people's lives. A win or a loss can change many people's lives. Coaches get fired by certain wins or losses. Senior's lives can change based on whether or not they left on top. Same goes for band members, cheerleaders, equipment staff, and administrators The list goes on and on. It's just as important to them as John's job (from Example two) is to John.
But then there's the question my mom brings up - what about the Michigan State version of myself? If staying at Buffalo Wild Wings is the key, then what happens if Michigan State Drew stays at Buffalo Wild Wings too? How does God decide who wins?
And that's a valid argument. But God has to make many of these decisions, and it doesn't impact whether or not we pray. In example two, John's presentation could be for a new client he's trying to get. And, almost certainly, that means that he's competing against another candidate for the same client. They're probably making similar prayers that they get the job, instead of John's company. In that case, whose prayer does God choose to side with?
In both sports superstitious examples and real-life prayer examples, God usually has to make a choice. Even when it comes to something good or bad (say, a relative fighting a disease)...where either the person lives (universally good) or the person dies (universally bad)....God has to make a choice. And sometimes he chooses to allow the person to die, despite an overwhelmingly large percentage of people praying for the other outcome.
So what's the difference? In both cases (superstition and religion), we're choosing to believe in something we can't understand. In both cases, we typically believe it with every part of our being. And in both cases, it's typically something that we feel is very important to us.
So why do some people dismiss superstition and embrace religion? Do we simply believe that God doesn't care about sports? Or other trivial things? But if we care about it, why wouldn't God care about it? If God doesn't care about certain things that we care about, how can we be certain that He cares about other things that we care about? If he doesn't care about something that creates the living of certain people, why would God care about something that creates our own living?
We often talk about "the football gods" when talking about such superstitious things. We pretend, for the moment, that we're polytheistic. But when we get down to it, "the football gods" are simply our one God. And we're hoping that God chooses between our team and the other team.
People like my roommate seems to think that God doesn't belong in this. But he either belongs in everything or he belongs in nothing. I don't think God would choose to take himself out of one "man vs. man" decision and insert himself in some other one. Just because it's a game doesn't mean it's important. Almost all of our prayers are usually directly against another person's prayers. When you pray for your grandmother to survive an illness, you're probably going directly against some malpractice lawyer's wish for a new case. When you pray that you get a great grade on a test, you're going directly against another student's prayer that no one busts the curve. When you pray for 1st prize in a competition, you're directly praying against dozens of others in the same contest that want it just as badly as you do.
At the end of the day, I don't see a difference. You want something, and you do something hoping that it will work. Wearing something somewhere (a lucky shirt at a certain restaurant vs. your nicest clothes to church) hoping to get what you want (a win vs. eternal happiness).
One might be more important than another, but we're making that choice. God isn't. So who's to say that one person's belief is crazier than another's?
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Sunday, November 25, 2012
A Different Kind of Thanksgiving
When TCU joined the Big XII, there were a bunch of benefits. Having teams like Texas Tech and Oklahoma forced to come play us at home. Never having to hear the "who have you played?" argument. Actually being on (real) TV.
And then there was playing Texas. In Austin. On Thanksgiving Night.
That's a tough task to ask for a lot of people. Thanksgiving is about family for many. Getting together and eating ridiculous amounts of poultry. But family has never been that big for me. Not unimportant. Just not big. We don't have much extended family that we deal with, and my sister just started her own family. Thanksgiving night would mean going with my mother to a family friend's house. Which is nice. But give me TCU.
I do like some of the pomp and circumstance (read: FOOD!) surrounding Thanksgiving so I jumped at the chance when I saw that TCU's alumni association was throwing a fancy (expensive) lunch. But it would have turkey and dressing and all the deserts....so it would feel like Thanksgiving before the big game.
Joining me on this voyage was Ashley, along with our friends Ryan and Carrie. We traveled separately but spent the rest of the time together. Ash and I decided to travel down Thursday morning and spend the night, coming back Friday. I drove. Now, I hate driving, but Ashley's truck has been in the shop for about a year and a half now. So it was on me - and it meant that I got control of the satellite radio the whole time....so that's not too bad. And we actually made really good time - no traffic at all.
Breakfast was a different matter. Going up to Oklahoma State, our little group had breakfast at the crack of dawn at Cindi's, and I thought that would be a good plan this time. And it was our plan all the way up until Thanksgiving morning. As we were walking over there, I had a thought that hadn't occurred to any of us.
What if Cindi's, for some crazy reason, decided not to be open on Thanksgiving. And, of course, they weren't. So our epic Thanksgiving began with a simple breakfast at Starbuck's.
We get to Austin, get back with our friends, and head to the fancy lunch. We parked in downtown Austin, and we found a lot right next to the hotel. Great. It's $10, and we're in spot 9. $10. Spot 9. But all the talk of $10 parking made Ryan a bit confused, and he prompted to put his 10 dollars in the slot of Spot 10. I was the only one that noticed, but it was too late. So the parking guys get free money, and we paid $20. Oops.
The lunch was really nice. Really good food, and it was pretty nice to hang out with fellow TCU people. A family was sitting next to us, and they were pretty nice. After that, we headed to a beer garden to watch some of the Lions/Texans game. There was a lot of burnt orange, but there was also a surprising bit of purple in the sea. And despite being draped in purple, I didn't hear much from anyone.
Being an away fan at a game is always weird. When I'm at a home game for any of my teams, I always look at the visiting fans with a bit of curiosity. As a kid, I always wondered what kind of person would grow up cheering for the Royals or the Cardinals, not quite being able to connect in my head that sports is usually 99% about geography and not choice.
College is a bit different because there's more choice involved. But I still look at it the same way. My team is the correct choice, and the other people are the oddity. There's just a lot more of them this time. But even at the game, it's very strange to have something bad happen for my team....and everyone cheers. Even the PA announcer seems excited. Very odd to me, even though it should be something simple.
After a while, we headed to the official Austin TCU Alumni tailgate. They had free food and drinks, and it was right next to the stadium. I was hoping to be able to watch some of the Cowboy game, and they did have a TV set up. It was actually set up in a Texas tailgate right next door, but they didn't seem to mind., Most of the others in our group went and hung out to the side, but I decided to torture myself and watch the Cowboys.
The Cowboys are a blog to their own, even in these times when I'm blogging once a month. I even started one that I might finish sometime. But the short story is that I have to watch the Cowboys. Whether I believe they'll win or whether I think they're good. Even if I believe they're trying or not (usually, if I don't think the team cares, I don't care).
Luckily, the game was interrupted with an unexpected visit from the TCU band, cheerleaders, showgirls, and SuperFrog. A couple of the baton twirlers even showed up (side story - one of the baton twirlers was way too skinny. And if you know me, that means a lot). That was pretty cool, and I thought it was nice of the nearby Texas fans to let us have our fun. They simply put their horns up and let us do our thing. It was a nice little moment for us.
So I watched as much of the Cowboy game as I could, either because they were awful to watch or because I was watching a relatively tiny TV from a safe-enough distance. But as the game hit halftime, the sun began to go down, and the excitement began to build, I started focusing a bit more on the Frogs. Plus, the Cowboys were down 28-3.
We got inside the stadium, and thankfully, we were in the visitor's section. It's always pretty fun to be in the visitor's section as you try and be the David to the rest of the stadium's Goliath. I know how much it sucks to have the visitors' cheers drown out the home cheers, and this is our chance to get payback. It always seems like we're really loud, but I always make sure to check with the TV broadcast for verification.
TCU started the game off pretty well with an interception and a nice little drive down the field. Our side chanted "T-C-U!" after every first down, and I started wondering if the Texas fans thought we were insane. You don't typically hear chants that often or that early, but then I remembered that these are the fans that have to deal with Oklahoma constantly playing Boomer Sooner after every two yard draw to the left.
TCU took the lead, and every time Texas looked in position to score, David Ash would make a mistake. There was a kid (who could've been anywhere from 15 to 21...everyone looks young to me now) in front of us who was cheering for Texas, and he got really excited whenever anything would happen. Every time a Texas player got into the open field, it was a definite touchdown, and he jumped up when anything happened. He chanted and cheered and held his horns up. I was thinking it was going to be annoying in our little purple haven, but it didn't really bother me as much as I though it would. I understood.
And TCU ended up holding on and winning. The game got interesting down the stretch, as we felt that the refs tried to keep Texas in the game with some favorable calls for the Longhorns. But Case McCoy made a terrible decision, and the Frogs came out on top.
The following day, I talked to Tucker about the game. Tucker's a big UT guy, and this is the one game every year where we're each going to be biased about our teams.
And there's something about football, particularly with two people that are really excited about their teams, that is really interesting to me. They say that there's holding on every play in football, and that the officials need to be smart about when to call it. So it's no surprise that both sides of fans always complain about holding. I mentioned three (to us) obvious holding penalties on Texas' TD-scoring drive that went uncalled, followed by a holding call against TCU on their next offensive drive. It seemed like the refs were letting Texas hold, while making a call on TCU (on a play that might have put the game away without giving Texas one more shot to tie) to extend the game.
Tucker, then, mentioned that he (and several UT fans) thought that the refs had been in TCU's corner all night. That there were some blatant holding calls against TCU that went uncalled.
And I think it's funny because of the way most people watch football. I think most people watch the quarterback and skill positions while their team is on offense, and they watch the lines while their team is on defense. It makes sense to watch the ball when your team can score and to watch the pass rushers when the other team can. Because you're looking for points on one end and sacks on the other (until the ball goes in the air, then you're worried about interceptions).
So, yeah, you're going to notice a lot of holding on one end. And almost none on the other. So I think it's not as much homerism as it is perspective. But I'm sure homerism has a lot to do with it.
And looking at UT fans, the Austin newspaper, and even talking to Tucker....I got the idea that Longhorn fans thought they lost more than TCU won. That their gameplan was sloppy or that the players didn't execute in the way they wanted.
And I think this is something else that's natural about watching football. I think we always think that the other team played the only way they could. Whenever we talk about "monday morning quarterback" stuff, we always change our team's variables. "If we only ran the ball more" or "If our defense would've done this" or stuff like that. We always keep the other team's variables the same. If Texas ran the ball more, TCU wouldn't have adjusted and Texas would've won.
I do it too. When my team loses, I think of the handful of plays that would've made the difference and change it up. I never give the opposing team credit for beating us - it's always something that we did wrong. Because, even when my team is terrible, my team should always win.
No matter what, TCU got the win. And it was cool to go into that stadium (which is great, by the way - maybe the best football stadium I've been to - especially at night with the Austin skyline in the background) and get a win. Especially in our first Big 12 try on national television.
And I'm really proud of my boys this year. Despite losing their starting QB, their top two running backs, and playing 17 true freshman, the team is 4-4 in conference and 7-4 overall. They're actually winless at home in conference, meaning they went 4-1 on the road in their first year in the Big 12. With a freshman at quarterback.
And, ironically, the team reminds me a lot of Texas last year. A strong but really young defense. Freshman quarterback with a lot of weapons that can grow together. Fighting hard and winning games they shouldn't.
A lot of fans told me before the season that Texas would win 10 this year and then be the favorites for the national championship next year. But they regressed this year, especially on defense. They've been forced to rely on Johnathan Gray a lot more, making their three-headed running game a bit more one-dimensional. Ash hasn't looked great in a lot of games.
So while the future looks bright for TCU, we have to be careful. Our kids need to keep growing and learning. No sophomore slumps. And our veterans need to step up.
We ended the night going out in Austin, which was cool. Austin can be a really fun place, and I'm glad we got to spend some time experiencing the local nightlife. I even had a locally brewed beer that was pretty solid.
All in all, it was an awesome trip. It's been a strange season for TCU, but that one night definitely makes it a memorable one.
And then there was playing Texas. In Austin. On Thanksgiving Night.
That's a tough task to ask for a lot of people. Thanksgiving is about family for many. Getting together and eating ridiculous amounts of poultry. But family has never been that big for me. Not unimportant. Just not big. We don't have much extended family that we deal with, and my sister just started her own family. Thanksgiving night would mean going with my mother to a family friend's house. Which is nice. But give me TCU.
I do like some of the pomp and circumstance (read: FOOD!) surrounding Thanksgiving so I jumped at the chance when I saw that TCU's alumni association was throwing a fancy (expensive) lunch. But it would have turkey and dressing and all the deserts....so it would feel like Thanksgiving before the big game.
Joining me on this voyage was Ashley, along with our friends Ryan and Carrie. We traveled separately but spent the rest of the time together. Ash and I decided to travel down Thursday morning and spend the night, coming back Friday. I drove. Now, I hate driving, but Ashley's truck has been in the shop for about a year and a half now. So it was on me - and it meant that I got control of the satellite radio the whole time....so that's not too bad. And we actually made really good time - no traffic at all.
Breakfast was a different matter. Going up to Oklahoma State, our little group had breakfast at the crack of dawn at Cindi's, and I thought that would be a good plan this time. And it was our plan all the way up until Thanksgiving morning. As we were walking over there, I had a thought that hadn't occurred to any of us.
What if Cindi's, for some crazy reason, decided not to be open on Thanksgiving. And, of course, they weren't. So our epic Thanksgiving began with a simple breakfast at Starbuck's.
We get to Austin, get back with our friends, and head to the fancy lunch. We parked in downtown Austin, and we found a lot right next to the hotel. Great. It's $10, and we're in spot 9. $10. Spot 9. But all the talk of $10 parking made Ryan a bit confused, and he prompted to put his 10 dollars in the slot of Spot 10. I was the only one that noticed, but it was too late. So the parking guys get free money, and we paid $20. Oops.
The lunch was really nice. Really good food, and it was pretty nice to hang out with fellow TCU people. A family was sitting next to us, and they were pretty nice. After that, we headed to a beer garden to watch some of the Lions/Texans game. There was a lot of burnt orange, but there was also a surprising bit of purple in the sea. And despite being draped in purple, I didn't hear much from anyone.
Being an away fan at a game is always weird. When I'm at a home game for any of my teams, I always look at the visiting fans with a bit of curiosity. As a kid, I always wondered what kind of person would grow up cheering for the Royals or the Cardinals, not quite being able to connect in my head that sports is usually 99% about geography and not choice.
College is a bit different because there's more choice involved. But I still look at it the same way. My team is the correct choice, and the other people are the oddity. There's just a lot more of them this time. But even at the game, it's very strange to have something bad happen for my team....and everyone cheers. Even the PA announcer seems excited. Very odd to me, even though it should be something simple.
After a while, we headed to the official Austin TCU Alumni tailgate. They had free food and drinks, and it was right next to the stadium. I was hoping to be able to watch some of the Cowboy game, and they did have a TV set up. It was actually set up in a Texas tailgate right next door, but they didn't seem to mind., Most of the others in our group went and hung out to the side, but I decided to torture myself and watch the Cowboys.
The Cowboys are a blog to their own, even in these times when I'm blogging once a month. I even started one that I might finish sometime. But the short story is that I have to watch the Cowboys. Whether I believe they'll win or whether I think they're good. Even if I believe they're trying or not (usually, if I don't think the team cares, I don't care).
Luckily, the game was interrupted with an unexpected visit from the TCU band, cheerleaders, showgirls, and SuperFrog. A couple of the baton twirlers even showed up (side story - one of the baton twirlers was way too skinny. And if you know me, that means a lot). That was pretty cool, and I thought it was nice of the nearby Texas fans to let us have our fun. They simply put their horns up and let us do our thing. It was a nice little moment for us.
So I watched as much of the Cowboy game as I could, either because they were awful to watch or because I was watching a relatively tiny TV from a safe-enough distance. But as the game hit halftime, the sun began to go down, and the excitement began to build, I started focusing a bit more on the Frogs. Plus, the Cowboys were down 28-3.
We got inside the stadium, and thankfully, we were in the visitor's section. It's always pretty fun to be in the visitor's section as you try and be the David to the rest of the stadium's Goliath. I know how much it sucks to have the visitors' cheers drown out the home cheers, and this is our chance to get payback. It always seems like we're really loud, but I always make sure to check with the TV broadcast for verification.
TCU started the game off pretty well with an interception and a nice little drive down the field. Our side chanted "T-C-U!" after every first down, and I started wondering if the Texas fans thought we were insane. You don't typically hear chants that often or that early, but then I remembered that these are the fans that have to deal with Oklahoma constantly playing Boomer Sooner after every two yard draw to the left.
TCU took the lead, and every time Texas looked in position to score, David Ash would make a mistake. There was a kid (who could've been anywhere from 15 to 21...everyone looks young to me now) in front of us who was cheering for Texas, and he got really excited whenever anything would happen. Every time a Texas player got into the open field, it was a definite touchdown, and he jumped up when anything happened. He chanted and cheered and held his horns up. I was thinking it was going to be annoying in our little purple haven, but it didn't really bother me as much as I though it would. I understood.
And TCU ended up holding on and winning. The game got interesting down the stretch, as we felt that the refs tried to keep Texas in the game with some favorable calls for the Longhorns. But Case McCoy made a terrible decision, and the Frogs came out on top.
The following day, I talked to Tucker about the game. Tucker's a big UT guy, and this is the one game every year where we're each going to be biased about our teams.
And there's something about football, particularly with two people that are really excited about their teams, that is really interesting to me. They say that there's holding on every play in football, and that the officials need to be smart about when to call it. So it's no surprise that both sides of fans always complain about holding. I mentioned three (to us) obvious holding penalties on Texas' TD-scoring drive that went uncalled, followed by a holding call against TCU on their next offensive drive. It seemed like the refs were letting Texas hold, while making a call on TCU (on a play that might have put the game away without giving Texas one more shot to tie) to extend the game.
Tucker, then, mentioned that he (and several UT fans) thought that the refs had been in TCU's corner all night. That there were some blatant holding calls against TCU that went uncalled.
And I think it's funny because of the way most people watch football. I think most people watch the quarterback and skill positions while their team is on offense, and they watch the lines while their team is on defense. It makes sense to watch the ball when your team can score and to watch the pass rushers when the other team can. Because you're looking for points on one end and sacks on the other (until the ball goes in the air, then you're worried about interceptions).
So, yeah, you're going to notice a lot of holding on one end. And almost none on the other. So I think it's not as much homerism as it is perspective. But I'm sure homerism has a lot to do with it.
And looking at UT fans, the Austin newspaper, and even talking to Tucker....I got the idea that Longhorn fans thought they lost more than TCU won. That their gameplan was sloppy or that the players didn't execute in the way they wanted.
And I think this is something else that's natural about watching football. I think we always think that the other team played the only way they could. Whenever we talk about "monday morning quarterback" stuff, we always change our team's variables. "If we only ran the ball more" or "If our defense would've done this" or stuff like that. We always keep the other team's variables the same. If Texas ran the ball more, TCU wouldn't have adjusted and Texas would've won.
I do it too. When my team loses, I think of the handful of plays that would've made the difference and change it up. I never give the opposing team credit for beating us - it's always something that we did wrong. Because, even when my team is terrible, my team should always win.
No matter what, TCU got the win. And it was cool to go into that stadium (which is great, by the way - maybe the best football stadium I've been to - especially at night with the Austin skyline in the background) and get a win. Especially in our first Big 12 try on national television.
And I'm really proud of my boys this year. Despite losing their starting QB, their top two running backs, and playing 17 true freshman, the team is 4-4 in conference and 7-4 overall. They're actually winless at home in conference, meaning they went 4-1 on the road in their first year in the Big 12. With a freshman at quarterback.
And, ironically, the team reminds me a lot of Texas last year. A strong but really young defense. Freshman quarterback with a lot of weapons that can grow together. Fighting hard and winning games they shouldn't.
A lot of fans told me before the season that Texas would win 10 this year and then be the favorites for the national championship next year. But they regressed this year, especially on defense. They've been forced to rely on Johnathan Gray a lot more, making their three-headed running game a bit more one-dimensional. Ash hasn't looked great in a lot of games.
So while the future looks bright for TCU, we have to be careful. Our kids need to keep growing and learning. No sophomore slumps. And our veterans need to step up.
We ended the night going out in Austin, which was cool. Austin can be a really fun place, and I'm glad we got to spend some time experiencing the local nightlife. I even had a locally brewed beer that was pretty solid.
All in all, it was an awesome trip. It's been a strange season for TCU, but that one night definitely makes it a memorable one.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Connection
I was introduced to a girl a couple of weeks ago. I met her for drinks on a Sunday, and we talked for a couple of hours. It went well. I wanted to see her again, and I asked her out. She said yes.
Our first date also went well. A bottle of wine. Delicious food. And conversation that filled another couple of hours. We talked about future dates. What we like. What we don't like. What makes us tick.
Again, going well.
A couple of days later, she comes up with an idea. Cirque du Soleil. She'd like to go - with me. A second date (third if the first meeting counts). I smile because it feels like something is building. This could be the start of something. We could look back on this, years later, and talk about our first dates. I could be living a story we would be telling for a long time. But that's a possible future- the present is too interesting to worry about it.
We go to the show. We have fun. It's nice.
I try to set up our next meeting. The first two went so well, there would have to be a third. I think back to things she said she'd like to do. Small keywords lead to grand ideas. Arboretum. Macaroni and Cheese. I'm planning. Scheming. Date three. Four. Five. Ten. Fifteen.
Silence.
No response for one day. Then a second. A phone call goes unanswered. Then the silence is broken with a statement. "I don't feel a connection. It's best to stop now."
Connection is a funny thing. When two people hold hands, a connection is made. One side feels it and the other side feels it. It's how almost every connection in the world works.
But not the heart. One side can feel a connection that the other side cannot feel. It's something that I've never really been able to understand. How can one person feel something when the other person feels nothing? How can one person cling on to something they feel is special, while the other person is comfortable letting go? How can something burn for someone with no effect on the other? How can "connection" be so one-sided?
In most ways, it's a good thing. From my experience, a quick, painful strike is much better than a slow one. And for most people, a connection cannot be created - it's there or it isn't. So if it isn't there, there is no point faking it..
But for now, it's sad. It's painful. But, mostly, it's confusing. Did I feel something? Or did I simply want to feel something? And, in the end, is there a difference?
Our first date also went well. A bottle of wine. Delicious food. And conversation that filled another couple of hours. We talked about future dates. What we like. What we don't like. What makes us tick.
Again, going well.
A couple of days later, she comes up with an idea. Cirque du Soleil. She'd like to go - with me. A second date (third if the first meeting counts). I smile because it feels like something is building. This could be the start of something. We could look back on this, years later, and talk about our first dates. I could be living a story we would be telling for a long time. But that's a possible future- the present is too interesting to worry about it.
We go to the show. We have fun. It's nice.
I try to set up our next meeting. The first two went so well, there would have to be a third. I think back to things she said she'd like to do. Small keywords lead to grand ideas. Arboretum. Macaroni and Cheese. I'm planning. Scheming. Date three. Four. Five. Ten. Fifteen.
Silence.
No response for one day. Then a second. A phone call goes unanswered. Then the silence is broken with a statement. "I don't feel a connection. It's best to stop now."
Connection is a funny thing. When two people hold hands, a connection is made. One side feels it and the other side feels it. It's how almost every connection in the world works.
But not the heart. One side can feel a connection that the other side cannot feel. It's something that I've never really been able to understand. How can one person feel something when the other person feels nothing? How can one person cling on to something they feel is special, while the other person is comfortable letting go? How can something burn for someone with no effect on the other? How can "connection" be so one-sided?
In most ways, it's a good thing. From my experience, a quick, painful strike is much better than a slow one. And for most people, a connection cannot be created - it's there or it isn't. So if it isn't there, there is no point faking it..
But for now, it's sad. It's painful. But, mostly, it's confusing. Did I feel something? Or did I simply want to feel something? And, in the end, is there a difference?
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Josh Hamilton
Thursday October 27, 2011 - Josh Hamilton hits a 2-run home run in the 10th inning of Game 6 of the 2011 World Series. It gives the Texas Rangers a 9-7 lead and moves them three outs away from winning the World Series.
Tuesday May 8, 2012 - Josh Hamilton hits four home runs in a game against the Baltimore Orioles. Just a month into the season, he has 14 home runs, 36 RBIs, and is batting .406. He's openly regarded as the best player in baseball, and DFW cannot say enough positive things about the free-agent-to-be future hall of famer.
Friday October 5, 2012 - In what is widely accepted as his final at-bat as a Ranger, Josh Hamilton strikes out for the second time in the AL's first Wild Card playoff matchup. In front of his home fans, Hamilton walks back to the dugout to a chorus of boos.
What happened in the last year? How could things go so horribly wrong for an athlete who should've had a blank check for the rest of his career? How does a guy who should be a World Series hero get booed off the field in a home playoff game?
It's a longer story than you would think. But the simplest answer is - "Because he's Josh Hamilton."
First of all, as we all know, the Rangers didn't win that game on October 27. Darren Oliver had two amazing things happen after Hamilton's home run - he somehow blew a save opportunity against two terrible hitters and a pitcher that had to bat - and he walked away from this experience without anyone saying a word. He blew a ridiculously easy situation and walked away without a scratch.
Which is strange because it completely altered Josh Hamilton's legacy. Not just as a Texas Ranger but as a baseball player in general. Singular moments like that don't happen very often in baseball. A home run to win a World Series. It's the stuff of legends. Josh would've been immortalized forever - not just in this town but everywhere that baseball is separated.
Darren Oliver blows it, and Josh's home run is forgotten.
Flash forward a few months, and Josh Hamilton has an incident with a "very average girl" in a Sherlock's Pub. He drank alcohol, and he allegedly had sex in the bathroom with some random woman. He apologized for his behavior, but he lost a lot of faith from fans. He was the squeaky-clean man of God who suddenly looked like a drug addict again.
But the thing that was the worst was the way he reacted. The fans tried to surround Josh with love, but he didn't really repay that love. We all figured that if there was a place that Josh Hamilton needed to be, it was Texas. It's a conservative (and mostly Christian) community that respects Josh's faith and family. We want to forgive him, and we want him to succeed. If any baseball player in the history of the world was going to give a hometown discount to a team, it was Josh.
Except that he said the complete opposite. That he didn't owe the organization anything. That if the Texas Rangers wanted to sign Josh, they were going to have to give him the big bucks just like any other team.
It wasn't what we wanted to hear, and it was so far in the other direction that it sounded like someone else. I wondered if it was the agent talking. Or maybe Josh simply isn't who we thought he was.
Josh got through it and started playing baseball. And he was the best player in baseball. The four homer night on May 8 was the pinnacle of an insane start to a season. He could do no wrong, and the Rangers looked like a dominant team. People were calling them one of the best teams ever. One of the most complete teams ever. A unanimous favorite to get back to the World Series for a third straight year.
Then the slump happened. And man did it happen. May 8 was the 30th game of the season. 132 games later, Josh ended up with 43 HRs and 128 RBIs. Incredible numbers. MVP type numbers. But nowhere near the pace he'd previously been on. And his average dropped all the way to .285. Hitting over .400 probably wasn't going to happen, but it was basically unthinkable for Josh to hit less than .300 for the season after the start he had. Slumps like that don't happen.
But this is Josh Hamilton.
Josh missed time because he drank too much caffeine and his eyes dried out. He blamed his slump on an addiction to chewing tobacco. And after a multi-month slump and a team shipwrecking, Josh made a gigantic mental error in the field in the biggest game of the season. In a 5-5 game that was going to decide the AL West championship, Josh Hamilton didn't catch a routine pop-up.
Maybe he lost it in the sun. Maybe he just wasn't focused. Maybe he was thinking about all the money he was going to make somewhere. It doesn't matter. It was a ball that every baseball player in the world could've made. And a Hall of Famer always makes. And he didn't do it.
And people were pissed. It was enough to burn through the rest of Josh's credibility in this town. And let me remind you that Josh had hit a HR less than a year earlier that should've won the World Series. If Darren Oliver finishes off the easiest save of his life, Josh Hamilton would never be booed in Arlington ever again. You don't boo heroes.
But Josh wasn't a hero anymore. In less than a year, he'd become a goat. And fans in Texas were tired of him.
I was at the game. I didn't boo Josh. But I understood why people did. For the first time in his career, Josh's effort was questioned. It wasn't the dropped ball in Oakland. Not just that, at least. Months of horrible at-bats and terrible performances had added up. And it was too much for a young fanbase that had taken too much psychological damage in the last couple of years.
They were done with their best hitter. The #3 guy in their lineup. Maybe the best player in franchise history. He was going to walk away, and they were going to let him. And they showed their displeasure in the only way they knew how.
I wish it didn't end this way. I wish Josh could've received the standing ovation that, honestly, he deserved. In five years, Josh Hamilton helped put the Rangers on the map. For forty years, the franchise did nothing. Then Josh Hamilton shows up, and the Rangers become a contender. Back-to-back trips to the World Series and favorite to win the division. One of the best teams in baseball and one of the best franchises in all of sports.
Josh Hamilton's journey in Texas should've never included boos. It definitely shouldn't have ended with them. But it was a weird journey, and it's how it ended.
Josh will go somewhere else next year. Some team will see the numbers and the highlights and pay him hundreds of millions of dollars. And at times, it will seem like a bargain. And at other times, it will be the worst contract in baseball. Never before has a baseball player been so good at times and so awful at others. But we're also talking about a player who is always one drink away from becoming an addict again. A person with such an addictive personality that he hurts his eyes with too much caffeine and an addiction to tobacco causes a year-long slump.
I wish Josh well. He's been one of the franchise's best players for a really long time. He's been a fan favorite from the second he arrived. What he's done for the Texas Rangers can never be forgotten. But, as a fan, I'm ready to see him go. I'm tired of the excuses, and I'm tired of the inconsistency. If Josh Hamilton would play to his potential every game, the sky would be the limit for the man. He could ask for almost any amount of money, and it would be very hard to overpay him.
But something keeps him from reaching that level on a regular basis. Something always happens, in or out of baseball, to distract him. To keep him from being the player he's capable of being. Which is probably why Josh's journey is always going to be a tragedy. Romeo can't end up with the girl because his destiny is not to be happy. Maybe Josh's life is just a lesson for the rest of us.
I wish Oliver had finished that game out. I wish Josh would've been carried on the shoulders of this city for the rest of his life. I wish we would've poured so much love onto the man that the franchise would've been forced to pay him whatever he wanted. I wish the idea that letting Josh go would've been so laughable that we wouldn't even bring it up. I wish the story of Josh and the Texas Rangers would've had a happy ending. Everything was in place for it to happen.
But it didn't. Less than a year from his should've-been-epic home run, Josh finally ran out of his fans' patience. And his time here is done. No ring, no love, no glory. Three strikes and he's out.
And it's weird to say it, but I'm okay with it. Almost 50,000 fans tonight were okay with it. Most Ranger fans are okay with it. He's still 31, coming of a year where he put up MVP numbers. With no replacement in site - possibly no replacement existing at all.
But we're okay with it.
Goodbye, Josh. I'm sorry, but this is the way it had to end.
Tuesday May 8, 2012 - Josh Hamilton hits four home runs in a game against the Baltimore Orioles. Just a month into the season, he has 14 home runs, 36 RBIs, and is batting .406. He's openly regarded as the best player in baseball, and DFW cannot say enough positive things about the free-agent-to-be future hall of famer.
Friday October 5, 2012 - In what is widely accepted as his final at-bat as a Ranger, Josh Hamilton strikes out for the second time in the AL's first Wild Card playoff matchup. In front of his home fans, Hamilton walks back to the dugout to a chorus of boos.
What happened in the last year? How could things go so horribly wrong for an athlete who should've had a blank check for the rest of his career? How does a guy who should be a World Series hero get booed off the field in a home playoff game?
It's a longer story than you would think. But the simplest answer is - "Because he's Josh Hamilton."
First of all, as we all know, the Rangers didn't win that game on October 27. Darren Oliver had two amazing things happen after Hamilton's home run - he somehow blew a save opportunity against two terrible hitters and a pitcher that had to bat - and he walked away from this experience without anyone saying a word. He blew a ridiculously easy situation and walked away without a scratch.
Which is strange because it completely altered Josh Hamilton's legacy. Not just as a Texas Ranger but as a baseball player in general. Singular moments like that don't happen very often in baseball. A home run to win a World Series. It's the stuff of legends. Josh would've been immortalized forever - not just in this town but everywhere that baseball is separated.
Darren Oliver blows it, and Josh's home run is forgotten.
Flash forward a few months, and Josh Hamilton has an incident with a "very average girl" in a Sherlock's Pub. He drank alcohol, and he allegedly had sex in the bathroom with some random woman. He apologized for his behavior, but he lost a lot of faith from fans. He was the squeaky-clean man of God who suddenly looked like a drug addict again.
But the thing that was the worst was the way he reacted. The fans tried to surround Josh with love, but he didn't really repay that love. We all figured that if there was a place that Josh Hamilton needed to be, it was Texas. It's a conservative (and mostly Christian) community that respects Josh's faith and family. We want to forgive him, and we want him to succeed. If any baseball player in the history of the world was going to give a hometown discount to a team, it was Josh.
Except that he said the complete opposite. That he didn't owe the organization anything. That if the Texas Rangers wanted to sign Josh, they were going to have to give him the big bucks just like any other team.
It wasn't what we wanted to hear, and it was so far in the other direction that it sounded like someone else. I wondered if it was the agent talking. Or maybe Josh simply isn't who we thought he was.
Josh got through it and started playing baseball. And he was the best player in baseball. The four homer night on May 8 was the pinnacle of an insane start to a season. He could do no wrong, and the Rangers looked like a dominant team. People were calling them one of the best teams ever. One of the most complete teams ever. A unanimous favorite to get back to the World Series for a third straight year.
Then the slump happened. And man did it happen. May 8 was the 30th game of the season. 132 games later, Josh ended up with 43 HRs and 128 RBIs. Incredible numbers. MVP type numbers. But nowhere near the pace he'd previously been on. And his average dropped all the way to .285. Hitting over .400 probably wasn't going to happen, but it was basically unthinkable for Josh to hit less than .300 for the season after the start he had. Slumps like that don't happen.
But this is Josh Hamilton.
Josh missed time because he drank too much caffeine and his eyes dried out. He blamed his slump on an addiction to chewing tobacco. And after a multi-month slump and a team shipwrecking, Josh made a gigantic mental error in the field in the biggest game of the season. In a 5-5 game that was going to decide the AL West championship, Josh Hamilton didn't catch a routine pop-up.
Maybe he lost it in the sun. Maybe he just wasn't focused. Maybe he was thinking about all the money he was going to make somewhere. It doesn't matter. It was a ball that every baseball player in the world could've made. And a Hall of Famer always makes. And he didn't do it.
And people were pissed. It was enough to burn through the rest of Josh's credibility in this town. And let me remind you that Josh had hit a HR less than a year earlier that should've won the World Series. If Darren Oliver finishes off the easiest save of his life, Josh Hamilton would never be booed in Arlington ever again. You don't boo heroes.
But Josh wasn't a hero anymore. In less than a year, he'd become a goat. And fans in Texas were tired of him.
I was at the game. I didn't boo Josh. But I understood why people did. For the first time in his career, Josh's effort was questioned. It wasn't the dropped ball in Oakland. Not just that, at least. Months of horrible at-bats and terrible performances had added up. And it was too much for a young fanbase that had taken too much psychological damage in the last couple of years.
They were done with their best hitter. The #3 guy in their lineup. Maybe the best player in franchise history. He was going to walk away, and they were going to let him. And they showed their displeasure in the only way they knew how.
I wish it didn't end this way. I wish Josh could've received the standing ovation that, honestly, he deserved. In five years, Josh Hamilton helped put the Rangers on the map. For forty years, the franchise did nothing. Then Josh Hamilton shows up, and the Rangers become a contender. Back-to-back trips to the World Series and favorite to win the division. One of the best teams in baseball and one of the best franchises in all of sports.
Josh Hamilton's journey in Texas should've never included boos. It definitely shouldn't have ended with them. But it was a weird journey, and it's how it ended.
Josh will go somewhere else next year. Some team will see the numbers and the highlights and pay him hundreds of millions of dollars. And at times, it will seem like a bargain. And at other times, it will be the worst contract in baseball. Never before has a baseball player been so good at times and so awful at others. But we're also talking about a player who is always one drink away from becoming an addict again. A person with such an addictive personality that he hurts his eyes with too much caffeine and an addiction to tobacco causes a year-long slump.
I wish Josh well. He's been one of the franchise's best players for a really long time. He's been a fan favorite from the second he arrived. What he's done for the Texas Rangers can never be forgotten. But, as a fan, I'm ready to see him go. I'm tired of the excuses, and I'm tired of the inconsistency. If Josh Hamilton would play to his potential every game, the sky would be the limit for the man. He could ask for almost any amount of money, and it would be very hard to overpay him.
But something keeps him from reaching that level on a regular basis. Something always happens, in or out of baseball, to distract him. To keep him from being the player he's capable of being. Which is probably why Josh's journey is always going to be a tragedy. Romeo can't end up with the girl because his destiny is not to be happy. Maybe Josh's life is just a lesson for the rest of us.
I wish Oliver had finished that game out. I wish Josh would've been carried on the shoulders of this city for the rest of his life. I wish we would've poured so much love onto the man that the franchise would've been forced to pay him whatever he wanted. I wish the idea that letting Josh go would've been so laughable that we wouldn't even bring it up. I wish the story of Josh and the Texas Rangers would've had a happy ending. Everything was in place for it to happen.
But it didn't. Less than a year from his should've-been-epic home run, Josh finally ran out of his fans' patience. And his time here is done. No ring, no love, no glory. Three strikes and he's out.
And it's weird to say it, but I'm okay with it. Almost 50,000 fans tonight were okay with it. Most Ranger fans are okay with it. He's still 31, coming of a year where he put up MVP numbers. With no replacement in site - possibly no replacement existing at all.
But we're okay with it.
Goodbye, Josh. I'm sorry, but this is the way it had to end.
Monday, September 24, 2012
A Unique Football Experience
I got a call from my grandfather on Friday with an odd question. "I have an extra ticket in (his boss') suite for the Cowboys' game. Would you like to go?"
What kind of question is that? Of course I want to go. People that have never heard of football want to go to Cowboys Stadium. Let alone in a suite.
There were two caveats. One, I had to drive. Two, I had to wear a sport coat because the suite has a dress code. Again, not an issue. I would've ridden to the stadium on a kid's bike in a gorilla costume for the chance to see what a Cowboys' luxury suite looks like.
So I drive us (my grandfather and uncle are with me) to the game. We get there around 11am for the noon kickoff, but there's about 50 minutes of traffic around the stadium. No worries, my grandfather says, because our parking pass is right in front of the stadium.
And he was right. Our parking spot was literally ten feet from the wall of the stadium. We got out of the car, and we were immediately on the stadium sidewalk. It was insane. Of course, my poor Altima was surrounded by Bentleys, Mercedes, and other luxury cars. I'm sure they wondered why the Hell it was even there, and I'm glad it wasn't simply towed on principle.
So the car went through security. Then I went through security. Then I had to show my ticket to three different people to get through various gatekeepers before I arrived in the Owner's Club area. I'm sure the people inside this area were all multimillionaires. And I work a 8-5 job at JPMorgan, even if I was wearing a nice Jos. A Bank sport coat.
But the "welcoming area" is this gigantic dining area with all kinds of food. Prime rib. Chicken and Waffles. Ham. Bacon. Turkey. An omelette station. Meatballs. Little sandwiches. And some of the best damn macaroni and cheese I've ever had. Apparently it all switched after halftime, but I didn't know that so I didn't have any room for anything else.
Oh, and the suite had some food too. Just jumbo shrimp cocktail and some pretty awesome chips and queso. Just snacks, I guess. And then the suite had every kind of drink you could imagine. Beer. Wine. Soda. Water. Liquor. Everyone had a bloody mary or a glass of wine or a pepsi. And it seemed endless.
The suite itself wasn't any larger than a suite at the American Airlines Center. And the view was pretty solid. We were over to the side a bit, but you could see everything without relying on the scoreboard too much.
The game itself sucked. Nothing exciting, and both offenses really struggled with penalties and ineffectiveness. Of course, one of the big things about sitting in a suite is that it's hard to really cheer. You're usually sitting with older people who aren't the kind of rowdy fans that I'm used to sitting with. So something happens and you kinda clap like a good golf shot was just hit.
And the way we did it was a bit strange. Despite the close parking, we arrived about three minutes into the game (Tony had already thrown an interception). Then, we sat and watched a couple series before my grandfather wanted to go eat. And even though you can bring food back, we just sat and ate in the dining area. There were TVs and audio in the room, but it was a bit weird to watch a game on TV when I'm in the stadium. I also thought it was weird to watch football while eating prime rib.
In the 4th quarter, the Cowboys were lining up for a field goal to go up 16-7 with a couple minutes left. My grandfather decides it's time to leave and beat the traffic. I'm not going to disagree with anything he says on this trip so I allow it. We leave with two minutes (which ended up being pretty exciting from what I could hear on the radio) and beat traffic home. We did make good time, but it was very strange to leave a game early.
So we arrived late. Missed a touchdown because we were eating in a dining area. And left early. As far as football goes, it was pretty bad. But as far as the experience goes, it was pretty cool. Not something I would like to do on a regular basis, but I can definitely see the allure of buying one of these boxes if you have a crazy amount of money.
If only we could get somepitching blocking in here.
What kind of question is that? Of course I want to go. People that have never heard of football want to go to Cowboys Stadium. Let alone in a suite.
There were two caveats. One, I had to drive. Two, I had to wear a sport coat because the suite has a dress code. Again, not an issue. I would've ridden to the stadium on a kid's bike in a gorilla costume for the chance to see what a Cowboys' luxury suite looks like.
So I drive us (my grandfather and uncle are with me) to the game. We get there around 11am for the noon kickoff, but there's about 50 minutes of traffic around the stadium. No worries, my grandfather says, because our parking pass is right in front of the stadium.
And he was right. Our parking spot was literally ten feet from the wall of the stadium. We got out of the car, and we were immediately on the stadium sidewalk. It was insane. Of course, my poor Altima was surrounded by Bentleys, Mercedes, and other luxury cars. I'm sure they wondered why the Hell it was even there, and I'm glad it wasn't simply towed on principle.
So the car went through security. Then I went through security. Then I had to show my ticket to three different people to get through various gatekeepers before I arrived in the Owner's Club area. I'm sure the people inside this area were all multimillionaires. And I work a 8-5 job at JPMorgan, even if I was wearing a nice Jos. A Bank sport coat.
But the "welcoming area" is this gigantic dining area with all kinds of food. Prime rib. Chicken and Waffles. Ham. Bacon. Turkey. An omelette station. Meatballs. Little sandwiches. And some of the best damn macaroni and cheese I've ever had. Apparently it all switched after halftime, but I didn't know that so I didn't have any room for anything else.
Oh, and the suite had some food too. Just jumbo shrimp cocktail and some pretty awesome chips and queso. Just snacks, I guess. And then the suite had every kind of drink you could imagine. Beer. Wine. Soda. Water. Liquor. Everyone had a bloody mary or a glass of wine or a pepsi. And it seemed endless.
The suite itself wasn't any larger than a suite at the American Airlines Center. And the view was pretty solid. We were over to the side a bit, but you could see everything without relying on the scoreboard too much.
The game itself sucked. Nothing exciting, and both offenses really struggled with penalties and ineffectiveness. Of course, one of the big things about sitting in a suite is that it's hard to really cheer. You're usually sitting with older people who aren't the kind of rowdy fans that I'm used to sitting with. So something happens and you kinda clap like a good golf shot was just hit.
And the way we did it was a bit strange. Despite the close parking, we arrived about three minutes into the game (Tony had already thrown an interception). Then, we sat and watched a couple series before my grandfather wanted to go eat. And even though you can bring food back, we just sat and ate in the dining area. There were TVs and audio in the room, but it was a bit weird to watch a game on TV when I'm in the stadium. I also thought it was weird to watch football while eating prime rib.
In the 4th quarter, the Cowboys were lining up for a field goal to go up 16-7 with a couple minutes left. My grandfather decides it's time to leave and beat the traffic. I'm not going to disagree with anything he says on this trip so I allow it. We leave with two minutes (which ended up being pretty exciting from what I could hear on the radio) and beat traffic home. We did make good time, but it was very strange to leave a game early.
So we arrived late. Missed a touchdown because we were eating in a dining area. And left early. As far as football goes, it was pretty bad. But as far as the experience goes, it was pretty cool. Not something I would like to do on a regular basis, but I can definitely see the allure of buying one of these boxes if you have a crazy amount of money.
If only we could get some
Sunday, August 12, 2012
2012: The Race to Suck Less
Negative political campaigns bother me. Only slightly more than positive political campaigns, but that's another matter. Negative campaigns are bad because they leave the voter feeling indifferent.
The following skit is not related to any politicians living or dead. Any similarities are coincidental.
Politician A - "Don't vote for Politician B! He's terrible with the economy! Taxes were high, unemployment skyrocketed, and gasoline prices went way up!"
Voter - "Holy crap, I can't vote for Politician B! I like a good economy, I hate paying taxes, I don't want to lose my job, and I hate paying more at the pump! I'm going to vote for Politician A!"
Politician B - "Don't vote for Politician A! He has a terrible track record in foreign policy! If he's elected, foreign governments will invade your homes, and terrorists will successfully blow you up!"
Voter - "Blow me up? I can't vote for Politician A! I guess safety is more important than money. I'll vote for Politician B, I guess."
Politician A - "But you can't vote for Politician B! He voted against health care reform. If he's elected and you have to go to the hospital, you'll either pay a billion dollars or die!"
Voter - "I don't have a billion dollars. So I'll die either way? I guess I'll vote for..."
Politician B - "But your children will die if Politician A is elected! He's voted to cut funding to schools, and he wants your children to become homeless urchins, wandering the streets doing drugs in gangs!"
Voter - "A gang of urchins? This is ridiculous. Neither one of you is qualified, apparently. I'm just not going to vote. Screw everything."
And...scene.
If both campaigns are strictly negative, you don't ever get confidence in any candidate. And that's what we have so far. I know I can't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon flip-flopper who wants to help the rich. And I can't vote for Obama because he doesn't do anything but play golf and he wants to bankrupt the country with billions of handouts.
Would you rather drown or die in a fire?
I understand the need to point out an opposing candidates flaws. If a candidate is a convicted rapist, I want to know about it. If he's voted to hand the country over to anarchists, I want to know about it. If he was in the KKK for the entire 90s, I want to know about it. These things are important, and they will help me make my decision.
But every once in a while, don't you want to mix in something good about yourself?
So far, I've heard a lot of bad things about both candidates. Republicans can't stop talking about how Obama isn't doing anything. Also, that he's doing really bad things. And Democrats can't stop talking about how Romney is a psychopath who will end up destroying the middle class. This stuff is coming from random people on facebook/twitter but also from the campaigns themselves.
When I see something political, it's almost always something negative about the other party. Never anything positive about their own guy.
And it's because neither party really likes their guy. Republicans hate Obama, and they're willing to vote for just about anyone. They're not excited about Romney, but he's the best they have right now. A lot like Kerry in 2004. Democrats are disenchanted by Obama, but they all seem to be in "trust the devil you know, not the devil you don't know" mode.
Ummm...why do I want to vote for a devil at all?
Now, I'm one of the few people that doesn't really think the man sitting in the White House will affect my daily life. Life under Obama isn't that different from life under Bush. Or Clinton. Because, at the end of the day, the president doesn't do much. And can't do much. Our government is so focused on hating the other side that we don't get anything done. So we could elect a beagle to the White House, and not much would change.
I also know that neither candidate is 100% evil. Obama hasn't fulfilled his promise of hope and change, but what were we expecting? In his first term, the country didn't fall apart - and that's all I really ask of the president these days. He tried something with the health care reform, and he passed through some legislation. He had some messes that he inherited, and I think he's done okay. He's an average president, and that's okay.
But you never hear about his successes from the Democrats. Almost everything they say is about Romney.
Romney isn't crazy. He's been successful in the private sector, and there's no reason to think that he can't translate that success to the government. And there are certainly areas that he's strong in.
But you don't hear about them from the Republicans. All they talk about is Obama.
If your guy is the right guy, tell me about him. Tell me about what Obama has done and what he hopes to do in a second term. Tell me about what Romney would do differently, and how his past experiences would help in the future. That's what I want to hear.
Because when all I hear is negative, I walk into the booth trying to decide between the lesser of two evils. If I only hear positive, I pick my favorite, and I feel pretty good either way.
Ashley and I were talking, and we decided that there needs to be a "positive debate" in every election. In this debate, each candidate is only allowed to speak about themselves. They are not allowed to speak about their opponent. The moderator will give each candidate a topic, and the candidate is allowed to speak as long as they would like.
"In what ways are you a good candidate in regards to (issue)?"
They can talk about whatever they like. Prior experience. Relevant education. Friends or colleagues that would be helpful. Whatever. And as they talk, fact checkers would figure out if any facts are true. If you say that unemployment fell 20% and it fell 18%, you're fine.
But if it rose 10%, you get a strike. If you get three strikes in the debate, you're done. And the other person gets to keep going. Lie three times in the first question, and the other guy gets to talk as long as he wants for the rest of the evening. As long as he tells the truth.
If you don't have anything to say, you don't have to say anything. If you're lacking foreign policy experience, talk about what you'd do. Who you would trust. Who you would talk with. Be honest. And make up for it in other areas. If you're a whiz with the economy, talk all you want about how great you'd be. If you can talk for 20 minutes about how great you'd be with the economy, I'll listen to the whole thing.
But I bet the debates will be much like the early parts of the campaigns.
"How are you with the economy?"
"I'll tell you who's not good with the economy. My opponent. He..."
And that's not what I want to hear. Stop talking about the other guy. If he's an idiot, we'll find out. If he's unqualified, we'll find out. Let the (legitimate) media track down the skeletons in the other guy's closet. You should focus on your own campaign.
Because last time, I voted for Obama, but I knew that McCain would've done just as well. This time, I have a feeling that I'm going to be depressed on election day no matter what. Because after ten months of mudslinging, I'm fairly certain that I'll be dead or dying months after either of these guys is elected.
The following skit is not related to any politicians living or dead. Any similarities are coincidental.
Politician A - "Don't vote for Politician B! He's terrible with the economy! Taxes were high, unemployment skyrocketed, and gasoline prices went way up!"
Voter - "Holy crap, I can't vote for Politician B! I like a good economy, I hate paying taxes, I don't want to lose my job, and I hate paying more at the pump! I'm going to vote for Politician A!"
Politician B - "Don't vote for Politician A! He has a terrible track record in foreign policy! If he's elected, foreign governments will invade your homes, and terrorists will successfully blow you up!"
Voter - "Blow me up? I can't vote for Politician A! I guess safety is more important than money. I'll vote for Politician B, I guess."
Politician A - "But you can't vote for Politician B! He voted against health care reform. If he's elected and you have to go to the hospital, you'll either pay a billion dollars or die!"
Voter - "I don't have a billion dollars. So I'll die either way? I guess I'll vote for..."
Politician B - "But your children will die if Politician A is elected! He's voted to cut funding to schools, and he wants your children to become homeless urchins, wandering the streets doing drugs in gangs!"
Voter - "A gang of urchins? This is ridiculous. Neither one of you is qualified, apparently. I'm just not going to vote. Screw everything."
And...scene.
If both campaigns are strictly negative, you don't ever get confidence in any candidate. And that's what we have so far. I know I can't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon flip-flopper who wants to help the rich. And I can't vote for Obama because he doesn't do anything but play golf and he wants to bankrupt the country with billions of handouts.
Would you rather drown or die in a fire?
I understand the need to point out an opposing candidates flaws. If a candidate is a convicted rapist, I want to know about it. If he's voted to hand the country over to anarchists, I want to know about it. If he was in the KKK for the entire 90s, I want to know about it. These things are important, and they will help me make my decision.
But every once in a while, don't you want to mix in something good about yourself?
So far, I've heard a lot of bad things about both candidates. Republicans can't stop talking about how Obama isn't doing anything. Also, that he's doing really bad things. And Democrats can't stop talking about how Romney is a psychopath who will end up destroying the middle class. This stuff is coming from random people on facebook/twitter but also from the campaigns themselves.
When I see something political, it's almost always something negative about the other party. Never anything positive about their own guy.
And it's because neither party really likes their guy. Republicans hate Obama, and they're willing to vote for just about anyone. They're not excited about Romney, but he's the best they have right now. A lot like Kerry in 2004. Democrats are disenchanted by Obama, but they all seem to be in "trust the devil you know, not the devil you don't know" mode.
Ummm...why do I want to vote for a devil at all?
Now, I'm one of the few people that doesn't really think the man sitting in the White House will affect my daily life. Life under Obama isn't that different from life under Bush. Or Clinton. Because, at the end of the day, the president doesn't do much. And can't do much. Our government is so focused on hating the other side that we don't get anything done. So we could elect a beagle to the White House, and not much would change.
I also know that neither candidate is 100% evil. Obama hasn't fulfilled his promise of hope and change, but what were we expecting? In his first term, the country didn't fall apart - and that's all I really ask of the president these days. He tried something with the health care reform, and he passed through some legislation. He had some messes that he inherited, and I think he's done okay. He's an average president, and that's okay.
But you never hear about his successes from the Democrats. Almost everything they say is about Romney.
Romney isn't crazy. He's been successful in the private sector, and there's no reason to think that he can't translate that success to the government. And there are certainly areas that he's strong in.
But you don't hear about them from the Republicans. All they talk about is Obama.
If your guy is the right guy, tell me about him. Tell me about what Obama has done and what he hopes to do in a second term. Tell me about what Romney would do differently, and how his past experiences would help in the future. That's what I want to hear.
Because when all I hear is negative, I walk into the booth trying to decide between the lesser of two evils. If I only hear positive, I pick my favorite, and I feel pretty good either way.
Ashley and I were talking, and we decided that there needs to be a "positive debate" in every election. In this debate, each candidate is only allowed to speak about themselves. They are not allowed to speak about their opponent. The moderator will give each candidate a topic, and the candidate is allowed to speak as long as they would like.
"In what ways are you a good candidate in regards to (issue)?"
They can talk about whatever they like. Prior experience. Relevant education. Friends or colleagues that would be helpful. Whatever. And as they talk, fact checkers would figure out if any facts are true. If you say that unemployment fell 20% and it fell 18%, you're fine.
But if it rose 10%, you get a strike. If you get three strikes in the debate, you're done. And the other person gets to keep going. Lie three times in the first question, and the other guy gets to talk as long as he wants for the rest of the evening. As long as he tells the truth.
If you don't have anything to say, you don't have to say anything. If you're lacking foreign policy experience, talk about what you'd do. Who you would trust. Who you would talk with. Be honest. And make up for it in other areas. If you're a whiz with the economy, talk all you want about how great you'd be. If you can talk for 20 minutes about how great you'd be with the economy, I'll listen to the whole thing.
But I bet the debates will be much like the early parts of the campaigns.
"How are you with the economy?"
"I'll tell you who's not good with the economy. My opponent. He..."
And that's not what I want to hear. Stop talking about the other guy. If he's an idiot, we'll find out. If he's unqualified, we'll find out. Let the (legitimate) media track down the skeletons in the other guy's closet. You should focus on your own campaign.
Because last time, I voted for Obama, but I knew that McCain would've done just as well. This time, I have a feeling that I'm going to be depressed on election day no matter what. Because after ten months of mudslinging, I'm fairly certain that I'll be dead or dying months after either of these guys is elected.
Monday, August 6, 2012
Something Greater
Something happened last week that really opened my eyes to something. I instantly became more focused, and a lot of the things that I think I'm looking for became very clear in my head. At the same time, everything also became very murky. I became very aware of the mistakes of the past, the sins of the present, and the fears of the future.
No, I don't think I'll be talking about it here. It wasn't anything dangerous or, honestly, all that Earth shattering. Simply an epiphany. Not really worth discussing.
But in times like this, I start thinking about the world we live in. The natural and, more specifically, the supernatural.
I'm not necessarily talking about religion. I could easily be talking about something a little more mystical or even something mythical. People choose to believe in what they choose to believe in.
And it usually ends up with a simple fact - we know that we are limited. And we think and/or assume that we are unable to get all that we want without a little bit of help. So whether it be God, superpowers, or some kind of spell, we want something else to take us part of the way.
Which is why I'm fascinated by someone like a friend of mine....who chooses not to believe in any of that stuff. He calls himself agnostic, but he's basically atheist. And I'm sure he'd simply laugh at loud at the idea of a psychic or anything like that. He doesn't really believe in anything outside of what he can see.
And while I can totally see that, it's almost impossible for me to understand that. He's okay with the idea that there's nothing after life, and that terrifies me to no end. This idea that there's something better than what we have here is something that has driven us forever. Because no matter how good someone's life is, there's something that tortures every soul. And I assume that all of us long for a time when that torture stops.
We've always told stories about things greater than ourselves, and it's always been something unknown. In old times, it was stuff like witchcraft. Dragons. Monsters. It was a big world, and we barely understood it. If something tore someone apart, it was a monster. If someone did something miraculous, it was magic.
As we advanced, we began to understand more. And while we still fear those kind of monsters, we've explored most of the dark and scary places on the planet. There are no dragons or monsters here. And from what we can tell, there's no such thing as magic. We've been forced to believe that magic and technology are one in the same.
So with a pretty solid general understanding of where we live, we try to think of the next thing to fear. In the last a hundred years, we look to the stars. Just like ancient man looked into the forest and realized that anything could be out there, we look out into space with the same fear. Space is gigantic, and there's no way we're here all by ourselves. So what's out there? And, more importantly, would they rather help us or harm us?
The one thing that we have held on to is religion. Most of us trust science, but science is silent on the subject of religion. It's unable to prove or disprove anything. We feel like we have a pretty solid understanding of the rules of the universe, but we don't know who wrote them. We feel like we know how the universe started, but it's hard to get a consensus on how it started.
And like with everything, we wonder whether or not God is on our side or not. Is my God more powerful than someone else's God? Does He love some people more than others? If I've had a hard life, does God hate me, or does He have a greater reward for me in the afterlife? Is God a parental figure? A disciplinarian? A supervisor?
But what it always comes down to is....what can God do for me? Can He make life better on Earth for me? Can he promise me eternal happiness if I put up with life on Earth?
Then there's prayer. Are we supposed to treat Him as a teacher and ask for knowledge? As a counselor and ask for guidance? Or are there times when we can treat Him like a genie? Is it irresponsible to wish things of God, or is that one of the real things that prayer is all about?
If I want something....and I mean truly want something....can God deliver it to me? Does He even take my desires into account, particularly if they disagree with His own? Or does God do what God wants to do, and the "answered" prayers are simply times when man's desires sync up with God's? Are "unanswered prayers" a lesson, or does God just not want something to happen and doesn't allow it?
Or, is it our worse fear, and are our prayers going on deaf ears? Indifferent ears? Angry ears? Or a complete lack of ears?
In my focus and lack of focus, I've tried to think of the best way to get what I want out of the time I'm here. And I've been trying not to leave any stone unturned. Because, at the end of the day, I feel like I'm in a place where I'm ready for the universe to open up to me. I already believe in something greater than myself, but I want something more. I want to know that I'm capable of my own greatness and that something out there is willing to help if I need it.
I want to believe in wishes and magic and a loving God that wants the best for all of us. Because at the end of the day, isn't it all the same?
No, I don't think I'll be talking about it here. It wasn't anything dangerous or, honestly, all that Earth shattering. Simply an epiphany. Not really worth discussing.
But in times like this, I start thinking about the world we live in. The natural and, more specifically, the supernatural.
I'm not necessarily talking about religion. I could easily be talking about something a little more mystical or even something mythical. People choose to believe in what they choose to believe in.
And it usually ends up with a simple fact - we know that we are limited. And we think and/or assume that we are unable to get all that we want without a little bit of help. So whether it be God, superpowers, or some kind of spell, we want something else to take us part of the way.
Which is why I'm fascinated by someone like a friend of mine....who chooses not to believe in any of that stuff. He calls himself agnostic, but he's basically atheist. And I'm sure he'd simply laugh at loud at the idea of a psychic or anything like that. He doesn't really believe in anything outside of what he can see.
And while I can totally see that, it's almost impossible for me to understand that. He's okay with the idea that there's nothing after life, and that terrifies me to no end. This idea that there's something better than what we have here is something that has driven us forever. Because no matter how good someone's life is, there's something that tortures every soul. And I assume that all of us long for a time when that torture stops.
We've always told stories about things greater than ourselves, and it's always been something unknown. In old times, it was stuff like witchcraft. Dragons. Monsters. It was a big world, and we barely understood it. If something tore someone apart, it was a monster. If someone did something miraculous, it was magic.
As we advanced, we began to understand more. And while we still fear those kind of monsters, we've explored most of the dark and scary places on the planet. There are no dragons or monsters here. And from what we can tell, there's no such thing as magic. We've been forced to believe that magic and technology are one in the same.
So with a pretty solid general understanding of where we live, we try to think of the next thing to fear. In the last a hundred years, we look to the stars. Just like ancient man looked into the forest and realized that anything could be out there, we look out into space with the same fear. Space is gigantic, and there's no way we're here all by ourselves. So what's out there? And, more importantly, would they rather help us or harm us?
The one thing that we have held on to is religion. Most of us trust science, but science is silent on the subject of religion. It's unable to prove or disprove anything. We feel like we have a pretty solid understanding of the rules of the universe, but we don't know who wrote them. We feel like we know how the universe started, but it's hard to get a consensus on how it started.
And like with everything, we wonder whether or not God is on our side or not. Is my God more powerful than someone else's God? Does He love some people more than others? If I've had a hard life, does God hate me, or does He have a greater reward for me in the afterlife? Is God a parental figure? A disciplinarian? A supervisor?
But what it always comes down to is....what can God do for me? Can He make life better on Earth for me? Can he promise me eternal happiness if I put up with life on Earth?
Then there's prayer. Are we supposed to treat Him as a teacher and ask for knowledge? As a counselor and ask for guidance? Or are there times when we can treat Him like a genie? Is it irresponsible to wish things of God, or is that one of the real things that prayer is all about?
If I want something....and I mean truly want something....can God deliver it to me? Does He even take my desires into account, particularly if they disagree with His own? Or does God do what God wants to do, and the "answered" prayers are simply times when man's desires sync up with God's? Are "unanswered prayers" a lesson, or does God just not want something to happen and doesn't allow it?
Or, is it our worse fear, and are our prayers going on deaf ears? Indifferent ears? Angry ears? Or a complete lack of ears?
In my focus and lack of focus, I've tried to think of the best way to get what I want out of the time I'm here. And I've been trying not to leave any stone unturned. Because, at the end of the day, I feel like I'm in a place where I'm ready for the universe to open up to me. I already believe in something greater than myself, but I want something more. I want to know that I'm capable of my own greatness and that something out there is willing to help if I need it.
I want to believe in wishes and magic and a loving God that wants the best for all of us. Because at the end of the day, isn't it all the same?
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Videos to Watch - NERD Edition
So with Dark Knight Rises out, I've been in a bit of a nerdy mood recently. So I've come across a couple nerd-awesome videos. Please note that these are both rated R videos. Violence and profanity!
Want the funny video or the badass video first?
Funny - Why The Death of Superman Ruined Comics Forever
Badass - Dirty Laundry
Friday, July 20, 2012
The Dark Knight Rises
It should go without saying that, if you haven't seen the movie, you shouldn't read this.
Batman is my favorite superhero. He may be my favorite character. He's a man with childhood trauma who decides to bottle up all the rage and insanity that goes with it into something good. It changed him into a monster, but he uses the monster to help people. He's the anti-Dexter because he shows everyone his true face, and he doesn't kill. His dark passenger has a billionaire funding him, and his "code" doesn't allow him to cross the line.
And what I love about Batman is that he works as a character no matter what situation you put him in. As a one-man crusader against a city that was too lost to be helped by anyone ordinary, he's fascinating. Throw in Robin or Batgirl or Nightwing or whoever, and he's a man who understands that bad things happen to children. And that it takes a man who understands the pain of a child to help them. He's the father he assumed he could never be. And if you throw him into a Justice League situation, he has the (emotional/human) strength to stand toe-to-toe with ridiculous heroes like Superman.
No matter what situation Batman is is. No matter what iteration of Batman you're experiencing, he makes sense. He's a scared little boy who faces his fear (the truth, the unknown, and himself) and does what he can.
So when Nolan did Batman Begins correctly, I was shocked. I didn't believe I could see Batman in the way I saw him on screen. I don't even remember being all that excited to see it. I watched trailers and it looked good. But I think I saw it a few weeks after it came out, in a theater that was mostly empty. But it was awesome. Someone did a superhero movie right, and it was about the GD Batman.
Dark Knight is incredible. We watched it the other night, and it's almost the perfect movie. Probably too perfect...just because it set up unreal expectations for the follow up. I want to do an entire post on the Nolanverse....maybe one movie at a time...so I don't want to spend any time on the second movie.
The Dark Knight Rises can be summed up with two items.
- It's not as good as the Dark Knight. And, in fact, I'd say it went out of it's way to try and not be a follow-up to the Dark Knight. The tone is amazingly different, the feel of the movie is completely different, and the story is much more linked to Batman Begins. In fact, if you somehow tack the ending of Dark Knight (Batman's sacrifice and Dent's arc) to Batman Begins, the Dark Knight Rises completely ignores the Dark Knight.
- It's not a movie about Bruce Wayne.
The thing that made Dark Knight great is that it gives everyone a chance to shine. People said the Joker hi-jacked the movie, but I don't think that's true. I think Heath Ledger was amazing, but he doesn't steal the show. Everyone gets their chance in the sun from Alfred to Lucius Fox to the crime bosses to Harvey Dent to Rachel. People said that Batman got pushed to the side, but the story is still, at it's core, about Bruce Wayne and Batman.
Dark Knight Rises is very different. For most of the movie, Bruce Wayne isn't at the center. And it's one of those things that I think rubbed me the wrong way. But in the six hours that I tried to sleep since I finished the movie, I'm starting to realize what he was trying to do.
Because while it's not a movie about Bruce Wayne, it's a movie the organically continues the story that started with Batman Begins. And it makes you completely alter your thoughts about the Dark Knight and what really happened.
Batman Begins saw Bruce stare into the eyes of the monster inside him. And he realized that he could use that monster as a symbol for good. To shake people out of bystander apathy. If they realized that they had power, they outnumbered the crooked and the corrupt. And the point of Batman Begins is that he does this. He's successful.
The Dark Knight starts off in a Gotham City where the (good) cops have taken control, and the people of Gotham have hope. It was a horror....now it's just a normal city. And out of the ashes of old Gotham City rises the Joker. As an agent of chaos, he unleashes anarchy onto Gotham to test it's foundations. And Batman proves that what he built cannot be taken down. Hope can't be destroyed once it stands up tall.
But then there was Harvey Dent. The Joker's ace up his sleeve. He tore Harvey down to tear down the rest of Gotham. And so Batman took the fall. He thought he could sacrifice Batman to finish what he started. That he could stop being Batman (which is what he wants) and rid the city of crime.
And he's right. While Batman ends the movie as a fugitive, I think the viewer naturally assumes that Batman was right. That Gotham would enter a state of prosperity, with or without the Batman.
And the Dark Knight Rises opens on this world. Crime is down. Way down. The city went from the most polluted to the most clean. Batman and Gordon's lie worked. The city is safe.
But neither is happy. They got what they wanted, but it was all wrong. Gordon struggles with the truth. Bruce abandoned the Batman persona and locked himself away in his new mansion. Gordon waits for the day he can let people know the truth, and Bruce waits for the day when he can end things correctly.
Enter Bane. Like Joker, Bane is a madman and an agent of chaos. Bane only has slightly more humanity than the Joker, and he only has a slightly more complete arc. At the end of the day, he's like the Joker was in the Dark Knight - not the primary villain....because the villain is something much more abstract. Like Joker, Bane just exists so that the abstract villain can have a human face.
Bane's plan is far more epic than anything I could've possibly expected out of a Batman movie. While I expected a "Broken Bat" tribute in this movie, it's actually much more like "No Man's Land" from the comics. Bane separates Gotham from the rest of the world and makes it tear itself apart. The whole movie is basically the story of the French Revolution, with the common man taking power away from the elite. They even storm the freakin' Bastille.
Before that, though, Batman shows up on the scene. And Bane knows that he needs to destroy Batman before his plan can truly come to order. He lures Batman to fight him and destroys him.
And I'm not going to lie, it was very sad to see Batman get his ass kicked by a superior opponent. Bruce, out of shape after not fighting for 8 years, is easily defeated by the physically superior Bane. As someone who loves the character of Batman, it was very hard to see him torn apart. You always expect Batman to win, and it was just very horrible to watch him lose so handily.
And for most of the movie, Batman is on the sidelines. Even Gordon spends much of the movie in a hospital bed. In his place are a lot of new characters - beat cop / detective John Blake might actually be the hero of the story. He spends most of the time running around, trying to fight Bane while Bruce and Gordon recuperate.
And this is where I think people get lost. The movie isn't really about Bruce Wayne. It's about how Batman's fight would naturally evolve. And how it would have to end. Batman's legacy has to be passed down to someone else. He has to have inspired someone. And I think he inspired John Blake into a force of good that can take over. If you see the spirit of Batman in John Blake, then you realize that the story might not be about Bruce Wayne.
But it's still a Batman movie.
So Bruce picks himself back up, gets back to Gotham, and saves the day. And unlike the Dark Knight, he's able to save the day in the light. In front of Gotham.
Bruce gets to end the journey his way. He fakes his death (although, in true Nolan form, "did he?"), kills Batman, leaves the symbol of good as a symbol of good, and gets to lives his life without Batman.
And, just in case, sets up John Blake to be a man who can take up his mantle should Gotham ever need a Batman.
It's actually the perfect ending to the story. And while it isn't as good as the Dark Knight, it actually makes the Dark Knight better. And I think it does what it needs to do for the story to be complete, even if it means doing things that make the movie, as a whole, not as great.
I'm going to have a lot more to say, but I'm running behind and need to stop. I'll summarize this way:
It's not the movie we deserved. But it's the movie we needed.
Batman is my favorite superhero. He may be my favorite character. He's a man with childhood trauma who decides to bottle up all the rage and insanity that goes with it into something good. It changed him into a monster, but he uses the monster to help people. He's the anti-Dexter because he shows everyone his true face, and he doesn't kill. His dark passenger has a billionaire funding him, and his "code" doesn't allow him to cross the line.
And what I love about Batman is that he works as a character no matter what situation you put him in. As a one-man crusader against a city that was too lost to be helped by anyone ordinary, he's fascinating. Throw in Robin or Batgirl or Nightwing or whoever, and he's a man who understands that bad things happen to children. And that it takes a man who understands the pain of a child to help them. He's the father he assumed he could never be. And if you throw him into a Justice League situation, he has the (emotional/human) strength to stand toe-to-toe with ridiculous heroes like Superman.
No matter what situation Batman is is. No matter what iteration of Batman you're experiencing, he makes sense. He's a scared little boy who faces his fear (the truth, the unknown, and himself) and does what he can.
So when Nolan did Batman Begins correctly, I was shocked. I didn't believe I could see Batman in the way I saw him on screen. I don't even remember being all that excited to see it. I watched trailers and it looked good. But I think I saw it a few weeks after it came out, in a theater that was mostly empty. But it was awesome. Someone did a superhero movie right, and it was about the GD Batman.
Dark Knight is incredible. We watched it the other night, and it's almost the perfect movie. Probably too perfect...just because it set up unreal expectations for the follow up. I want to do an entire post on the Nolanverse....maybe one movie at a time...so I don't want to spend any time on the second movie.
The Dark Knight Rises can be summed up with two items.
- It's not as good as the Dark Knight. And, in fact, I'd say it went out of it's way to try and not be a follow-up to the Dark Knight. The tone is amazingly different, the feel of the movie is completely different, and the story is much more linked to Batman Begins. In fact, if you somehow tack the ending of Dark Knight (Batman's sacrifice and Dent's arc) to Batman Begins, the Dark Knight Rises completely ignores the Dark Knight.
- It's not a movie about Bruce Wayne.
The thing that made Dark Knight great is that it gives everyone a chance to shine. People said the Joker hi-jacked the movie, but I don't think that's true. I think Heath Ledger was amazing, but he doesn't steal the show. Everyone gets their chance in the sun from Alfred to Lucius Fox to the crime bosses to Harvey Dent to Rachel. People said that Batman got pushed to the side, but the story is still, at it's core, about Bruce Wayne and Batman.
Dark Knight Rises is very different. For most of the movie, Bruce Wayne isn't at the center. And it's one of those things that I think rubbed me the wrong way. But in the six hours that I tried to sleep since I finished the movie, I'm starting to realize what he was trying to do.
Because while it's not a movie about Bruce Wayne, it's a movie the organically continues the story that started with Batman Begins. And it makes you completely alter your thoughts about the Dark Knight and what really happened.
Batman Begins saw Bruce stare into the eyes of the monster inside him. And he realized that he could use that monster as a symbol for good. To shake people out of bystander apathy. If they realized that they had power, they outnumbered the crooked and the corrupt. And the point of Batman Begins is that he does this. He's successful.
The Dark Knight starts off in a Gotham City where the (good) cops have taken control, and the people of Gotham have hope. It was a horror....now it's just a normal city. And out of the ashes of old Gotham City rises the Joker. As an agent of chaos, he unleashes anarchy onto Gotham to test it's foundations. And Batman proves that what he built cannot be taken down. Hope can't be destroyed once it stands up tall.
But then there was Harvey Dent. The Joker's ace up his sleeve. He tore Harvey down to tear down the rest of Gotham. And so Batman took the fall. He thought he could sacrifice Batman to finish what he started. That he could stop being Batman (which is what he wants) and rid the city of crime.
And he's right. While Batman ends the movie as a fugitive, I think the viewer naturally assumes that Batman was right. That Gotham would enter a state of prosperity, with or without the Batman.
And the Dark Knight Rises opens on this world. Crime is down. Way down. The city went from the most polluted to the most clean. Batman and Gordon's lie worked. The city is safe.
But neither is happy. They got what they wanted, but it was all wrong. Gordon struggles with the truth. Bruce abandoned the Batman persona and locked himself away in his new mansion. Gordon waits for the day he can let people know the truth, and Bruce waits for the day when he can end things correctly.
Enter Bane. Like Joker, Bane is a madman and an agent of chaos. Bane only has slightly more humanity than the Joker, and he only has a slightly more complete arc. At the end of the day, he's like the Joker was in the Dark Knight - not the primary villain....because the villain is something much more abstract. Like Joker, Bane just exists so that the abstract villain can have a human face.
Bane's plan is far more epic than anything I could've possibly expected out of a Batman movie. While I expected a "Broken Bat" tribute in this movie, it's actually much more like "No Man's Land" from the comics. Bane separates Gotham from the rest of the world and makes it tear itself apart. The whole movie is basically the story of the French Revolution, with the common man taking power away from the elite. They even storm the freakin' Bastille.
Before that, though, Batman shows up on the scene. And Bane knows that he needs to destroy Batman before his plan can truly come to order. He lures Batman to fight him and destroys him.
And I'm not going to lie, it was very sad to see Batman get his ass kicked by a superior opponent. Bruce, out of shape after not fighting for 8 years, is easily defeated by the physically superior Bane. As someone who loves the character of Batman, it was very hard to see him torn apart. You always expect Batman to win, and it was just very horrible to watch him lose so handily.
And for most of the movie, Batman is on the sidelines. Even Gordon spends much of the movie in a hospital bed. In his place are a lot of new characters - beat cop / detective John Blake might actually be the hero of the story. He spends most of the time running around, trying to fight Bane while Bruce and Gordon recuperate.
And this is where I think people get lost. The movie isn't really about Bruce Wayne. It's about how Batman's fight would naturally evolve. And how it would have to end. Batman's legacy has to be passed down to someone else. He has to have inspired someone. And I think he inspired John Blake into a force of good that can take over. If you see the spirit of Batman in John Blake, then you realize that the story might not be about Bruce Wayne.
But it's still a Batman movie.
So Bruce picks himself back up, gets back to Gotham, and saves the day. And unlike the Dark Knight, he's able to save the day in the light. In front of Gotham.
Bruce gets to end the journey his way. He fakes his death (although, in true Nolan form, "did he?"), kills Batman, leaves the symbol of good as a symbol of good, and gets to lives his life without Batman.
And, just in case, sets up John Blake to be a man who can take up his mantle should Gotham ever need a Batman.
It's actually the perfect ending to the story. And while it isn't as good as the Dark Knight, it actually makes the Dark Knight better. And I think it does what it needs to do for the story to be complete, even if it means doing things that make the movie, as a whole, not as great.
I'm going to have a lot more to say, but I'm running behind and need to stop. I'll summarize this way:
It's not the movie we deserved. But it's the movie we needed.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Getting Away
In a few hours, I will be on a plane headed to Europe. For a lot of people, I'm sure, the day one leaves on a Transatlantic voyage is one of excitement. For me, I'm a 9-year-old boy. In a bad way.
When I was 9, I left on a vacation with my sister to Los Angeles. It wasn't a big deal - we were just going out to see my grandmother. I'd traveled before, and I wasn't that worried about it. And the trip itself, outside of a weird experience/dream in a strange house where I could've sworn we'd been broken into, was fine. The return trip was fine. It was the news I got when I returned that wasn't fine.
While I was gone, my dad had died.
Now, this won't be a "Drew's dad died" story - it's more of a "how this affected Drew psychologically" story. Because 9-year-old kids are old enough to think but not smart enough to understand. So my 9-year-old mind equated "leaving" with "someone dying." My 9-year-old brain decided that, if I wasn't home, something bad was going to happen.
And, from that day on, I was a worrier.
I worried on the first day of school, nauseated on dozens of occasions. I was sick on the first day of all three mission trips I went on (including one to Europe). Going to college was a nightmare - I was sick on the one day of orientation I went to, and I skipped every pre-college activity until the first day of school. Every time I left home, no matter the destination or the duration, my 9-year-old brain worried that it would be the next time I'd leave and someone wouldn't be there when I got back.
Has it gotten better? Yes and no. First of all, let me state that I always got better immediately. The jitters I got for the first day of school never returned on the second. On every mission trip that I got sick, I felt better the next day. I happily went off to TCU in my sophomore through senior years. What I was dealing with mostly surrounded the plane flight taking me away from my protection duties and the fear of being so far away.
Secondly, I haven't had that problem in a while. I've been on a number of trips in the last few years with no issues at all. I think cell phone technology makes things a little easier because people are a phone call away. If someone was in trouble, it'd be harder to keep me in the dark the way I was kept in the past. And hearing someone's voice helps alleviate the fear that they are dead.
At the same time, I'm sitting here with a little knot in my stomach at the idea of being this far away for the first time in a long time. Because one of those little creature comforts that makes things so much easier (Mr. Cell Phone) won't be there. Oh, I can call if I want to spend high costs roaming, but that's surely not the wisest thing. And the sheer distance is something that I always worry about. If something happened, it would take me half a day to get back, as opposed to good old domestic travel, where I can be back in a matter of hours no matter where I am.
Now, I've been sick for a couple of days. My worst day was Wednesday night and Thursday. My mom, well aware of how I treat travel, asked if it was nerves. I didn't think so, and I don't think so. The Wednesday before a Saturday flight is too early, even for a trip this far and this long. In my head, the distance between Wednesday and Saturday is long enough to block off as "never going to get here." I'm usually a "get sick the night before and the day of" type person.
I just don't think an already-weakened stomach is very conducive to my 9-year-old brain's worries.
Will I be fine? Despite all the Taken references I've heard the last few weeks, I'll probably be fine. I'm traveling with people that know the land and know the language. Mostly everything on the trip was carefully planned with safety in mind, insured by people in their 20s that can afford to play for such things.
Will my people be fine? I imagine so. I have to trust that God and angels can take care of people while I'm gone (and I make that prayer before travel just in case). And as I've grown, I've come to realize that accidents can happen no matter where I am, and that I couldn't stop the inevitability way back when anyway.
But it's a strange feeling to look forward to a trip but also look forward to being back home. Instead of looking forward to seeing Paris, I spent last night thinking about the things I'm going to miss about home. And thinking about how short the trip will actually be and how soon I'll be home, the exact opposite of most travelers' thoughts.
I even started to wonder why I was going on the trip at all. The idea of two weeks at home started to fill my head with thoughts that I'd be super-relaxed when I was done. The fact that I'd spent all this money on a trip when I'm trying to start a business (even though I paid for one before I even thought up the other) popped into my mind, and I castigated myself for being so irresponsible. I started wondering what kind of love affair I ever thought I'd have with France or Germany or Switzerland that I'd even want to go on this trip.
It's all my 9-year-old brain, now armed with 27-year-old wisdom, trying to make last-minute attacks on the trip so I won't go. Of course it's better to go than not to go. It's just something I have to realize on my own because I typically depend on that "worry center" to keep myself and my loved ones safe. Ignoring it is something I just don't do very often.
This trip is going to be very important to me. Besides seeing Paris and Germany and Switzerland for the first time, it's happening at a very interesting time. Immediately after I get back, I'm going to get the first real look at the web site I'm creating. What happens on that front is anyone's guess. It could crap out, and it could make me a millionaire. If it goes really well, it could be a billion-dollar idea.
The site could change everything for the better. And, if so, this trip is going to be the final rest I get before this thing goes full speed ahead. Money is coming together. Networking is coming together. Stuff is getting built. And it might be a while until I have a chance to do something like this again.
It's why I'm going to buy a notebook and write down any and all thoughts I might have on this trip. I feel like I'm on the precipice of something big, and I'd like to record everything. Even if the precipice is just big disappointment in my web site failing, it's still a monumental thing that I'm doing. And I'll be doing all of this thinking on a continent full of things thousands of years older than the things we have here. Seeing stuff that most people only see on TV.
I need to keep my head straight to enjoy this trip, believe it or not. And I think the journal can make that possible.
So, for the next two weeks, hold things down for me. I'll be back soon, but hopefully not too soon.
When I was 9, I left on a vacation with my sister to Los Angeles. It wasn't a big deal - we were just going out to see my grandmother. I'd traveled before, and I wasn't that worried about it. And the trip itself, outside of a weird experience/dream in a strange house where I could've sworn we'd been broken into, was fine. The return trip was fine. It was the news I got when I returned that wasn't fine.
While I was gone, my dad had died.
Now, this won't be a "Drew's dad died" story - it's more of a "how this affected Drew psychologically" story. Because 9-year-old kids are old enough to think but not smart enough to understand. So my 9-year-old mind equated "leaving" with "someone dying." My 9-year-old brain decided that, if I wasn't home, something bad was going to happen.
And, from that day on, I was a worrier.
I worried on the first day of school, nauseated on dozens of occasions. I was sick on the first day of all three mission trips I went on (including one to Europe). Going to college was a nightmare - I was sick on the one day of orientation I went to, and I skipped every pre-college activity until the first day of school. Every time I left home, no matter the destination or the duration, my 9-year-old brain worried that it would be the next time I'd leave and someone wouldn't be there when I got back.
Has it gotten better? Yes and no. First of all, let me state that I always got better immediately. The jitters I got for the first day of school never returned on the second. On every mission trip that I got sick, I felt better the next day. I happily went off to TCU in my sophomore through senior years. What I was dealing with mostly surrounded the plane flight taking me away from my protection duties and the fear of being so far away.
Secondly, I haven't had that problem in a while. I've been on a number of trips in the last few years with no issues at all. I think cell phone technology makes things a little easier because people are a phone call away. If someone was in trouble, it'd be harder to keep me in the dark the way I was kept in the past. And hearing someone's voice helps alleviate the fear that they are dead.
At the same time, I'm sitting here with a little knot in my stomach at the idea of being this far away for the first time in a long time. Because one of those little creature comforts that makes things so much easier (Mr. Cell Phone) won't be there. Oh, I can call if I want to spend high costs roaming, but that's surely not the wisest thing. And the sheer distance is something that I always worry about. If something happened, it would take me half a day to get back, as opposed to good old domestic travel, where I can be back in a matter of hours no matter where I am.
Now, I've been sick for a couple of days. My worst day was Wednesday night and Thursday. My mom, well aware of how I treat travel, asked if it was nerves. I didn't think so, and I don't think so. The Wednesday before a Saturday flight is too early, even for a trip this far and this long. In my head, the distance between Wednesday and Saturday is long enough to block off as "never going to get here." I'm usually a "get sick the night before and the day of" type person.
I just don't think an already-weakened stomach is very conducive to my 9-year-old brain's worries.
Will I be fine? Despite all the Taken references I've heard the last few weeks, I'll probably be fine. I'm traveling with people that know the land and know the language. Mostly everything on the trip was carefully planned with safety in mind, insured by people in their 20s that can afford to play for such things.
Will my people be fine? I imagine so. I have to trust that God and angels can take care of people while I'm gone (and I make that prayer before travel just in case). And as I've grown, I've come to realize that accidents can happen no matter where I am, and that I couldn't stop the inevitability way back when anyway.
But it's a strange feeling to look forward to a trip but also look forward to being back home. Instead of looking forward to seeing Paris, I spent last night thinking about the things I'm going to miss about home. And thinking about how short the trip will actually be and how soon I'll be home, the exact opposite of most travelers' thoughts.
I even started to wonder why I was going on the trip at all. The idea of two weeks at home started to fill my head with thoughts that I'd be super-relaxed when I was done. The fact that I'd spent all this money on a trip when I'm trying to start a business (even though I paid for one before I even thought up the other) popped into my mind, and I castigated myself for being so irresponsible. I started wondering what kind of love affair I ever thought I'd have with France or Germany or Switzerland that I'd even want to go on this trip.
It's all my 9-year-old brain, now armed with 27-year-old wisdom, trying to make last-minute attacks on the trip so I won't go. Of course it's better to go than not to go. It's just something I have to realize on my own because I typically depend on that "worry center" to keep myself and my loved ones safe. Ignoring it is something I just don't do very often.
This trip is going to be very important to me. Besides seeing Paris and Germany and Switzerland for the first time, it's happening at a very interesting time. Immediately after I get back, I'm going to get the first real look at the web site I'm creating. What happens on that front is anyone's guess. It could crap out, and it could make me a millionaire. If it goes really well, it could be a billion-dollar idea.
The site could change everything for the better. And, if so, this trip is going to be the final rest I get before this thing goes full speed ahead. Money is coming together. Networking is coming together. Stuff is getting built. And it might be a while until I have a chance to do something like this again.
It's why I'm going to buy a notebook and write down any and all thoughts I might have on this trip. I feel like I'm on the precipice of something big, and I'd like to record everything. Even if the precipice is just big disappointment in my web site failing, it's still a monumental thing that I'm doing. And I'll be doing all of this thinking on a continent full of things thousands of years older than the things we have here. Seeing stuff that most people only see on TV.
I need to keep my head straight to enjoy this trip, believe it or not. And I think the journal can make that possible.
So, for the next two weeks, hold things down for me. I'll be back soon, but hopefully not too soon.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Privacy
My friend Brian (Plug) is one of the best people I know. He cares deeply about people, he works tirelessly to help people less fortunate than him, and he's very sharp. And while I think we're both very intelligent people, we see very differently on a few things.
One of those things is privacy.
On Twitter, he brought up a privacy issue. The government is apparently using drones to spy on people. He thought it was outrageous that anyone could possibly go along with it. And I, basically, said that I didn't understand the problem. Because, basically, I don't necessarily understand the right to privacy. Particularly when dealing with the issue of safety.
If I had to choose between privacy and safety, give me safety. Not even close.
If I had to choose between privacy and safety of the nation, give me safety. Not even close.
If I had to choose between privacy and safety of one person I know, give me safety. Not even close.
If I had to choose between privacy and safety of one person I don't know, give me safety. Not even close.
Do I close the door of my apartment? Yes. Do I close the blinds so that people can't see in? Yes. Do I close the door of my room, even when no one is there but my roommate? Yes. Do I do things in the privacy of my own space that I don't want people to see? Yes. Would I be embarrassed if things I do got out into the public? Yes.
I value privacy. I protect my privacy. But I don't value it over life. Any life.
I have things to hide. But I'm willing to expose my skeletons if other people expose their own. And if those other exposed skeletons can save lives, I'm more than happy to be a little embarrassed.
You might agree with me. You might not. Let's do a little mind test, though.
Would you allow cameras to monitor your life 24/7 if it meant saving a life? The life is chosen at random. It could be someone you know, it could be someone in your city or your state or your country. It could be a bad person or a good person. You don't know who it would be, and you would never find out.
My answer is yes.
If your answer is no, I have a follow up. Would you kill that person, in cold blood, to keep your privacy?
I asked this question to a person at work whose opinion I respect. She said that the person would have to die. Same with five people. Ten. One hundred. One million. She values her privacy over millions of lives. And that's fine. One right I believe in more than privacy is the right to one's own opinion. Like Brian, I respect the opinion of anyone. Not only if they disagree - especially if they disagree.
This coworker isn't a criminal. She has nothing dangerous to hide. If the government put surveillance on her, there would be nothing to gain. Same with Brian. Same with me. But there are people with dangerous secrets that they're trying to hide. And in matters of life, death, and embarrassment, I can't help but think of "One of these things is not like the other."
Embarrassment goes away. People don't come back from the dead. I've dealt with the death of a close family member, and I've been embarrassed in front of my entire high school. One is much, much worse.
Now one issue that I understand is - who's watching? If it means airing my secrets to the entire world, I better be saving a pretty great life. I'm not allowing a camera to put my life on the Internet to save a criminal on death row or a 99 year old man in hospice.
But we're not talking about that.
We're also not talking about 24/7 surveillance on every American. Simply because that's physically impossible. Unless we're outsourcing this surveillance to 350 million Martians, there aren't enough people to monitor everyone all the time. Even if there was a camera in every room, who's going to watch all those cameras? If I'm asleep, does the monitor get to sleep? Probably not. So does he have to stay awake all the time? Or do you have to assign two people to watch me 24/7? Three? Four? What if my guy gets sick? Or wants a vacation day? Five? Six?
It's a ridiculous idea. Big Brother can't happen because the resources don't exist. We could oursource it to intelligent machines, but we don't really seem to care about embarrassing ourselves in front of our current machines. I don't hide myself from a lamp. Or my TV. Or even the all-powerful Internet. If Commander Data wants to watch me undress, I don't think I'd care. Because he certainly wouldn't.
We trust certain people to do certain jobs. When your house is broken into, we trust that the police will come quickly and save our lives. Is there a chance that the policeman is more of a criminal than the intruder? Sure. The intruder could be a good but desperate man, and the cop could be as dirty as Matt Damon in The Departed. But at a certain point, we have to trust that the "good guys" are on our side.
It's the same with the government. Politicians might be sleazy, but they're people like you and me. I don't necessarily believe that any people are born evil. And I honestly believe that civil servants of any kind all started their careers wanting to help people. Any person monitoring any other person would be the same. I'd have to trust that they're going to be professional. Will they all be? Probably not. But I also don't think they'd all be evil.
If it means saving a life, go ahead and film me. Particularly if it's my life.
One of those things is privacy.
On Twitter, he brought up a privacy issue. The government is apparently using drones to spy on people. He thought it was outrageous that anyone could possibly go along with it. And I, basically, said that I didn't understand the problem. Because, basically, I don't necessarily understand the right to privacy. Particularly when dealing with the issue of safety.
If I had to choose between privacy and safety, give me safety. Not even close.
If I had to choose between privacy and safety of the nation, give me safety. Not even close.
If I had to choose between privacy and safety of one person I know, give me safety. Not even close.
If I had to choose between privacy and safety of one person I don't know, give me safety. Not even close.
Do I close the door of my apartment? Yes. Do I close the blinds so that people can't see in? Yes. Do I close the door of my room, even when no one is there but my roommate? Yes. Do I do things in the privacy of my own space that I don't want people to see? Yes. Would I be embarrassed if things I do got out into the public? Yes.
I value privacy. I protect my privacy. But I don't value it over life. Any life.
I have things to hide. But I'm willing to expose my skeletons if other people expose their own. And if those other exposed skeletons can save lives, I'm more than happy to be a little embarrassed.
You might agree with me. You might not. Let's do a little mind test, though.
Would you allow cameras to monitor your life 24/7 if it meant saving a life? The life is chosen at random. It could be someone you know, it could be someone in your city or your state or your country. It could be a bad person or a good person. You don't know who it would be, and you would never find out.
My answer is yes.
If your answer is no, I have a follow up. Would you kill that person, in cold blood, to keep your privacy?
I asked this question to a person at work whose opinion I respect. She said that the person would have to die. Same with five people. Ten. One hundred. One million. She values her privacy over millions of lives. And that's fine. One right I believe in more than privacy is the right to one's own opinion. Like Brian, I respect the opinion of anyone. Not only if they disagree - especially if they disagree.
This coworker isn't a criminal. She has nothing dangerous to hide. If the government put surveillance on her, there would be nothing to gain. Same with Brian. Same with me. But there are people with dangerous secrets that they're trying to hide. And in matters of life, death, and embarrassment, I can't help but think of "One of these things is not like the other."
Embarrassment goes away. People don't come back from the dead. I've dealt with the death of a close family member, and I've been embarrassed in front of my entire high school. One is much, much worse.
Now one issue that I understand is - who's watching? If it means airing my secrets to the entire world, I better be saving a pretty great life. I'm not allowing a camera to put my life on the Internet to save a criminal on death row or a 99 year old man in hospice.
But we're not talking about that.
We're also not talking about 24/7 surveillance on every American. Simply because that's physically impossible. Unless we're outsourcing this surveillance to 350 million Martians, there aren't enough people to monitor everyone all the time. Even if there was a camera in every room, who's going to watch all those cameras? If I'm asleep, does the monitor get to sleep? Probably not. So does he have to stay awake all the time? Or do you have to assign two people to watch me 24/7? Three? Four? What if my guy gets sick? Or wants a vacation day? Five? Six?
It's a ridiculous idea. Big Brother can't happen because the resources don't exist. We could oursource it to intelligent machines, but we don't really seem to care about embarrassing ourselves in front of our current machines. I don't hide myself from a lamp. Or my TV. Or even the all-powerful Internet. If Commander Data wants to watch me undress, I don't think I'd care. Because he certainly wouldn't.
We trust certain people to do certain jobs. When your house is broken into, we trust that the police will come quickly and save our lives. Is there a chance that the policeman is more of a criminal than the intruder? Sure. The intruder could be a good but desperate man, and the cop could be as dirty as Matt Damon in The Departed. But at a certain point, we have to trust that the "good guys" are on our side.
It's the same with the government. Politicians might be sleazy, but they're people like you and me. I don't necessarily believe that any people are born evil. And I honestly believe that civil servants of any kind all started their careers wanting to help people. Any person monitoring any other person would be the same. I'd have to trust that they're going to be professional. Will they all be? Probably not. But I also don't think they'd all be evil.
If it means saving a life, go ahead and film me. Particularly if it's my life.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Hi. I'm Drew. Still.
So I was asked to start blogging again, meaning someone is way more bored than they need to be. People that are that bored need to check out cracked.com. They're funnier than me, and they have years worth of material that is both interesting and educational.
Where have I been? Nothing has really changed. Apparently game six of the World Series changed everything and threw the blog off its axis. Which is fine because game six threw a lot of things off their axis. It still stings, but we're months into a new season now....and I'm hoping that a championship will fix the Rangers like it fixed the Mavs.
Why no blogging? Well, I'll be honest - Twitter is my new blogging. I can write something in 140 characters and get something out of my head the same way I used to use this place. It won't be as descriptive, but that wasn't really the point. I write things online to get them out of my head. Like I've said many times, that stuff is for me. If you don't read it, it doesn't matter. If you don't understand it, it doesn't matter. Now, I'll hopefully write other stuff that you might care about. But it's one reason I don't post my blog posts to Facebook or Twitter. Because, at the end of the day, I write for me.
I'm glad to have you here, though, Eastern Europe.
The other reason is that I've been busy with school....and I've started my own business. That's right, I'm now an entrepreneur. This is something that could be a long shot, and it *will* be a lot of work....but if it works, it could be huge. It's an idea that I can't believe isn't out there already, and I'm hoping to be the first one out in the market with it. If so, I think we'll be able to take the city by storm. And if we can expand properly, I really think we'll have a hit on our hands. I truly believe that.
So I've spent a lot of time putting together data, networking, making contacts, and trying to find investors to get the project off the ground. And I'm close...really close...and I'm really excited to get it out there and see what people think.
I'll try and keep up with this. Again.
Where have I been? Nothing has really changed. Apparently game six of the World Series changed everything and threw the blog off its axis. Which is fine because game six threw a lot of things off their axis. It still stings, but we're months into a new season now....and I'm hoping that a championship will fix the Rangers like it fixed the Mavs.
Why no blogging? Well, I'll be honest - Twitter is my new blogging. I can write something in 140 characters and get something out of my head the same way I used to use this place. It won't be as descriptive, but that wasn't really the point. I write things online to get them out of my head. Like I've said many times, that stuff is for me. If you don't read it, it doesn't matter. If you don't understand it, it doesn't matter. Now, I'll hopefully write other stuff that you might care about. But it's one reason I don't post my blog posts to Facebook or Twitter. Because, at the end of the day, I write for me.
I'm glad to have you here, though, Eastern Europe.
The other reason is that I've been busy with school....and I've started my own business. That's right, I'm now an entrepreneur. This is something that could be a long shot, and it *will* be a lot of work....but if it works, it could be huge. It's an idea that I can't believe isn't out there already, and I'm hoping to be the first one out in the market with it. If so, I think we'll be able to take the city by storm. And if we can expand properly, I really think we'll have a hit on our hands. I truly believe that.
So I've spent a lot of time putting together data, networking, making contacts, and trying to find investors to get the project off the ground. And I'm close...really close...and I'm really excited to get it out there and see what people think.
I'll try and keep up with this. Again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)