Is it Time to Trade Sabathia?

I’m only kidding. But I’m wondering how many bad starts CC Sabathia would need to have before the papers started calling him a bust. I’m putting the over/under at 3 bad starts.

A few thoughts on yesterday’s opener for the Yanks…

First off, my prediction of the Yankees going 162-0 has unfortunately fallen by the wayside. The ‘72 Dolphins reign supreme for another year.

I think the thing I’m most excited about after yesterday’s game is the versatility Brett Gardner is going to bring to bottom of the Yankees lineup. Our friends over at Rivera’s Cutter have been high on Gardner for a while, and I really hadn’t known much about him before this spring. But his speed at the bottom of the order is clearly a major weapon that is going to allow the Yankees to manufacture more with Jeter and Damon at the top of the order. I’m not entirely sold on Jeter batting lead off yet, but he’s a safe bet. If Gardner impresses for an extended period of time, I’d guess there will be some chatter about him moving to lead off. For now, I really like the lineup.

After 2 at-bats. I was ready to write off Matsui. He didn’t look like the same Matsui. There was a lot of writing in the offseason that made me wonder if writers were discussing Hideki Matsui or Hideki Irabu, and I was shocked. I had never thought of Matsui as a weak link, nor did I consider him to be another overpaid Yankee. But he looked weak yesterday in his first 2 at-bats, and I impulsively was ready to admit defeat. Then he took Chris Ray 410 feet into right center. Shows what I know. Hopefully Matsui will be a steady DH until he’s healthy enough to play the field again.

The most surprising part of yesterday– the booing of Teixera. What the hell? I get it, the Orioles were part of the bidding war and lost out. I get it, the Yankees pay big bucks to get high profile players. Is this really news? You’d think Teixera had slaughtered the first born of every family in Baltimore or something by the reaction he got (Happy Passover everyone).

The most disappointing part of yesterday– yeah, it was Sabathia. I had really hoped he would just crush his first start so that most of the pressure would dissipate around his monster contract. He was clearly nervous, and two wild pitches early on showed it. It makes him human. I’m not worried though. He’s going to be worth everyone penny. I’m more disappointed that the pressure got to him, not that he couldn’t get a W in his first start.

This lineup is going to be pretty scary though when you put A-Rod back in at clean-up. It did feel a little weak without him in there, going from Tex to Matsui. But Posada looked good, Cano looked good, and Swisher looked solid in his pinch hit appearance. There really aren’t any weak links, and I really like the depth they’ll have on a daily basis so that guys aren’t being overused. Even though the batters individually might not be as dangerous as previous lineups (i.e. maybe Abreu is more dangerous than Nady, and Sheffield more dangerous than Cano) I feel like this lineup has a rhythm to it. It flows more, complements itself more, if that makes any sense. The pitching is going to be there. The Yanks won’t give up 10 runs often this season. They’ve got innings-eaters and a solid bullpen that won’t be overused.

161-1 ain’t bad….

Lastly, let’s rank the great Yankee busts of the past 15 years. Here’s my list.

1.) Carl Pavano

2.) Hideki Irabu

3.) Randy Johnson

4.) Kenny Loften

5.) Kevin Brown

I know there’s worse, but I’m blanking. Bring back Danny Tartabull and Ruben Sierra!

Cramer vs Cramer (Stewart)

I know I’ve been slacking on the blogging lately. Grad school has been kicking my butt.

Speaking of butt kicking, Jim Cramer was on the Daily Show tonight. I’ve always been pretty impressed with Jon Stewart, especially now that I understand more an 1/17 of the show’s jokes. I like the Daily Show a little more than the Colbert Report mostly because Stewart’s interviews are the best part of his show, and tonight’s interview was particularly impressive.

I think the Daily Show has really evolved over the past 5 or 6 years. Though Stewart consistently claims that he is just a comedian and has no obligation to report the truth, he and the show’s writers are clearly recognize themselves as a very politically persuasive influences.

Even with that in mind, I didn’t expect such a lopsided knockout of Jim Cramer that made Peter McNeeley look like Ivan Drago. Stewart definitely came prepared, and the show had dug up some pretty incriminating evidence that left Cramer like a deer in headlights. Still, I don’t even think he needed it. Cramer was apologetic, obsequious, and mostly concerned with trying to distance himself from CNBC as a whole. “People make mistakes” was pretty much Cramer’s best argument. Stewart was open about perhaps unjustly targeting Cramer for the assault on irresponsible financial reporting by CNBC. But Cramer was trying to make himself out to be the victim, as if the satanic CEO’s pulled the wool over his innocent, hedge fund-running eyes. It was bad acting, and Stewart wouldn’t let him off the hook. He twisted the knife, and twisted it hard.

As much as I’m sure Stewart prepared for the interview, when push comes to shove, it was still all him- no writers or scripts, and he knocked it out of the park. Cramer had nothing. I’m disappointed. A high profile like Cramer should have had more. At least Bill O’Reilly puts up a fight.

And my last kudos is because Stewart is often criticized for exchanging blows in solo segments but then not calling out his targets when they agree to interview on the show. He didn’t back down or sugarcoat it, and it was damn impressive.

But maybe Jim Cramer being speechless is akin to the day the music died (or something metaphorical like that). When one of the country’s foremost financial media personalities gets a verbal raping from a pseudo-political comedian, maybe we can understand just how big of a screw-up this financial crisis really is. The more I’m learning about it, the more I’m realizing that it really could have been avoided.

Glad I’m halfway through my first Accounting course. I think it’s a good time to start learning a little something about money.

I Love FOX News!

If Bobby Jindal is the best they’ve got, the Republican Party is absolutely screwed

Okay as a preface here, since I started blogging, on every topic I write on, at least one of my friends knows more about the topic than I do. For politics, you can multiply this by 163,242. I didn’t know what a caucus was 10 months ago and I didn’t know the difference between a senator and a congressman until about a week ago. But I’m trying here, so feel free to kick my butt in the comments section afterwards telling me how stupid I am.

First off, I think Obama nailed the speech tonight in his address to congress. He kept driving home the central idea of accountability in the people of the America. Maybe Obama is an idealist, but when an idealist is President, a lot can happen. He encourages Americans to take responsibility to be better people, which I think is awesome. I feel it is my responsibility as an American to try to conserve energy. I never felt that way when listening to Bush. To be honest, I think that is the biggest difference in my responses to hearing Obama speak compared to when Bush spoke; Obama genuinely wants to inspire the people of America to be better people, and he’ll offer the tools to encourage that. I think that Bush just kind liked being the President.

I don’t know enough about the economic turmoil to know if and how efficient the stimulus package will be. But every response from skeptics completely ignores what Obama is preaching. I might not know a ton about economics or politics, but I’ve spent the past 10 years of my life learning how to dissect arguments, and Jon Kyl’s argument was a joke. It was one-dimensional and overly simplistic. Kyl had already printed out some stupid little graph that said that Obama’s plan would have us in the same amount of debt 3 years from now that we are currently in. Yes… duh. I know I’m new at this business stuff, but isn’t that how investments work? You spend money now in hopes that it will make money (or save money) later? Everything about renewable energy and education leads to prosperity 10, 20, 30 years down the road. I don’t understand how 3 years from now is any relevant gauge as to whether “so for you the math doesn’t add up tonight?” says the blue clad blond bombshell interviewing him (FOX news knows that sex sells). Give me a break. Let’s generalize just a little more and patronize Americans even more than Bush did. Talk to us like we are idiots. That works.

I am mostly interested in FOX news’s immediate segue to showcase the Republican Party’s “bright young star,” Bobby Jindal, 5 minutes after Obama finished his speech. Jindal mentioned absolutely nothing about the speech, and I’m actually wondering if his speech was pre-recorded before the presidential address. Is was a blatant pitch to promote both himself and the Republican Party, and did nothing in the realm of offering any support to the President. The first 3 minutes were an obvious attempt to make clear that he is an American citizen and could one day run for President. He mentioned his actions during Hurricane Katrina 10 different times. News flash dude; that didn’t work for Giuliani, and it won’t work for you either.

Jindal kept saying ‘Americans can do anything.” He argued that governmental regulation and spending is not going to fix the problem. “Money and power in the hands of Washington politicians,” is not the solution, he says. In all of the literature and history books I’ve read over the years, one common truth always resurfaces over and over again. As soon as rules are established, the first thing people do is try to figure out how to manipulate those rules for personal gain. People are selfish, self-serving entities that are darwinistic more than they are empathetic. FOX claimed that Jindal is all about “empowering Americans.” No, he’s not. Obama is about empowering Americans. Jindal empowers us to use our money wisely and responsibly. But this doesn’t work, and we have thousands of years of history to prove it (as if the past decade isn’t enough). Put a 20 dollar bill on the table and walk away; some people might steal it, and some people might not. The point is that the very presence of that 20 dollar bill creates an ethical dilemma where “not stealing” becomes a virtue. That’s where we are at now. Obama is never going to let that 20 dollars be out there to begin with. He’s going to invest that 20 dollars in education, healthcare, and renewable energy that will prevent us from having to spend much more than that down the road. And yes, I trust this government to spend money more wisely the Joe the Plumber. When push comes to shove, Joe the Plumber is much more selfish than the current administration. When push comes to shove, Joe the Plumber is a frickin idiot. I wouldn’t trust myself to revamp the American economy, and I sure as hell don’t trust Joe the Plumber to do it.

The reason I voted for Obama was mostly because he didn’t talk to me like I’m a child. Bush did. McCain did. And listening to Jindal tonight, I felt that he did too. He spoke to us like only thing we care about is 2 feet in front of us: we are losing money now, so we’ll give you money now. Clearly, this is so much more complicated than that. If this were just about putting money in our pockets to spend, we could just take the trillion dollar stimulus package and divvy it up among the country, averaging out to about $3,500 per person to go spend. That’s not the point. The point is to invest the money in the future of the country, not the current wealth of individuals. If we spend money on renewable energy it lowers the consumption of spending on energy later. If we spend money on education now, it allows the next generation to make smarter decisions about saving money down the road. My favorite line of the speech was about education, something about “those countries that out-teach us today will out-produce us tomorrow” (I don’t remember the actual line, but it was something like that). Obama is arguing to make decisions for the future because, clearly, whoever was supposed to be making those decisions for us now dropped the ball. Yes, it requires spending, but smart spending. Jindal claiming that “tax cuts” will solve all our problems insults the intelligence of the half of us who didn’t drop out of high school.

I don’t really consider myself to be a democrat or a republican. I don’t think democrats are brilliant and republicans aren’t. I don’t doubt that everyone is congress is significantly smarter and much more educated on these issues than I am. Assuming the republicans know something than the democrats don’t, as they keep suggesting, I just want them stop talking to the rest of us like all they have to do is flip a switch to fix everything. As soon as republicans stop talking to me like I’m an idiot, I’ll start listening. I don’t know if Obama’s answer is the right one, but he’s explaining it to me in terms that don’t seem like it’s what I want to hear to keep him in office. He’s saying what he truly believes will make this country better 30 years from now and beyond. Because he wants to make the people of this country better, he asked for bipartisan action in this movement, and the first friggin thing FOX broadcasts is how the Republicans could do it better. Democrats want to save the world, and the Republicans just want to get back in office. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

To sum it up, tonight I saw Jindal speak like a man who just wanted to be president. Obama spoke like a man who wants to make this a better country.

As a post script, I am watching John McCain speak on CNN right now, and he is significantly more impressive and eloquent than he ever was during the entire election. I don’t necessarily agree with his criticisms, but he’s not speaking like a guy who just wants to be elected. Patronizing comments like “I know where Osama Bin Laden is hiding,” aren’t on his agenda anymore, so maybe he can actually make a difference now.

A Letter to Uncle Ralph, August 2002

Hello everyone. Reading Jasmine SL’s thoughts on Uncle Ralph got me reminiscing as well. I remember in the summer of 2002, still winded from finishing the round the lake 10K, I was sitting on the Rock with Jasmine, watching Ralph slowly stroll across the clocktower lawn. I casually asked her, “do you think he has any idea how important he is?” Jasmine replied, “you should tell him.” I was 19 year old, and this when I was really starting to understand just how important camp was to me. I decided to tell him in a letter. This began a correspondence between Ralph and me for the next several years, which, I’m sorry to say, tapered off in the past couple. Nevertheless, I am so grateful that Jasmine encouraged me to write this letter, for it materialized a friendship that should have started long before it did. Below is the first letter I wrote him.

Dear Ralph,

I am embarrassed to say that you have probably been the most influential person in my life over the past decade, and I’ve never even introduced myself to you.

As I sit here typing on my little laptop computer, I am reminded of the fact that things are always changing. Things are always being updated or modernized, claiming to be more efficient or better in some way. Everything is always changing. But when I look at old photos from the late forties I always enjoy seeing the sign on the lower tennis courts that says “please park all autos here,” or something like that. I always enjoying finding landmarks in pictures of the past, knowing that the faces in the picture all traveled the same path I have. Gazing at this one little sign, I am reminded that what makes Camp Billings so unique has not been updated or changed at all.

People come and go, counselors and campers, each one leaving with a piece of camp in their minds. Camp is left with nothing but an echo of those who once dwelled there, a random comment in the dining hall about a past camper or absent counselor. But it is those people who outlast everyone else, solely because of their love for camp that make the difference. It is the people who put aside their summer internships, or their soccer tryouts so that everyone one on Lake Fairlee can see them for just one more summer. It is those people who continue to give and give to camp, because they are forever indebted to this Billings.

When I go home to New Jersey, and my friends want to know just why I love this camp so much, I can’t really give them an answer that will satisfy them. I have no idea. Sure, being on a lake is fun. Sure, we have a water-ski boat, which is fun. But that’s not why I keep coming back. When I really try to explain to them why I love it so much, they cannot comprehend… No one can. Unless you have actually been at camp and seen what it can do for people, there is no way you could ever get it. But once experience it, it becomes an addiction.

Since my first summer here in 1995, I have been addicted to camp. I had three incredible summers here as a camper. After two years as a C.I.T. I continued to return each subsequent summer. I am now in my fourth year as a counselor. However, since my arrogant days as a cabin fifteen kid, my attitude towards camp has shifted. Developed is probably a better word than shifted, because my attitude continues to develop every summer that I come back. Yes, I came back to see all my friends. And yes, I came back to camp so I can relax in Vermont for another summer. But this year, I can say with one hundred percent sincerity that my returning to camp is the first time I have ever been empathic in my life; I really wanted to give back the way camp cave to me. Camp gave me so much when I was camper. I didn’t realize it then, but being a staff member intensifies it I suppose.

I cannot imagine who I would be without camp. I don’t mean the memories or the friends; I mean the actual type of person I am. Camp has put everything in perspective for me. Everything always stays in proportion. I understand what is important in life and what is secondary. I have met so many people in the past few years of high school and college, and so many of them just “don’t get it.” They don’t understand how singing in the dining hall can be fun. They don’t get why a game like Jack’s Alive would one of the most anticipated evening programs. They don’t get why all my stories come from camp, and not somewhere else. They want to succeed in life, they want money or power or fame or something else, and they don’t care who they step on to get there. But I feel like I have already succeeded in life because I do “get it.” Camp gave me such a strong foundation for how to interact with people, a sense of what is right and what is wrong, a sense of what matters and what doesn’t. The core of who I am has been influenced by camp more than any other factor.

I guess I may as well get to the point, because I could probably write a book on why I love camp so much.

One hundred and fifty kids each session… Four sessions a year… Thirty-five years. The number of lives that you have touched is unfathomable. Camp Billings is epitomized by the people who continue to give back. I am forever indebted to camp. I think there are tens of thousands of other people who feel exactly the same way. The fact that you continued to come back year after year, just to give back to camp is why people like me feel so strongly about Billings. My addiction is nurtured by the fact that when the current cabin seven kids are senior staff ten years down the road, I want them to be thinking the way I taught them to think, the way that my counselors taught me to think, the way you taught my counselors to think— with the knowledge that the sky is the limit, and no matter what you do, everyone at Camp Billings will love you for it.

Camp Billings is what it is because of you. I am who I am because of you. Thank you so much for feeling so strongly about camp forty years ago, because I can feel the same way now.

The number of lives you have touched is unfathomable. Please don’t ever forget how important you are.

Sincerely,

Andy Schneider
August 5th, 2002

Rest in Peace, Ralph. You will be missed by those who knew you best, by those who only knew you a little, but mostly by those who will never get a chance to meet you.

An Addendum to Phelps and A-Rod

Jeff McGregor has a great article on espn.com which, though very critical, is spot on. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=macgregor/090209

He references Ben Johnson the sprinter, which got me thinking about Ben Jonson the poet, which got me thinking about poetry and then music, among other things. This led me to an interesting thought that I haven’t at all developed:

Could illegal drugs like marijuana and heroin, undoubtedly used by many if not a majority of artists (musicians, writers, etc) be considered performance-enhancing drugs?

They perform…. they make money…. they entertain…. kids look up to them…. kids practice a lot to try and be like them…. I’m sure there is a difference, but I can’t place it. I have no idea what the difference is. Can anyone deny that we never get the Beatles, The Grateful Dead, or Bob Marley without pot? Do we get Keats, Byron or Coleridge (or all of Romantic poetry) without opium? Do we get Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin, or Sid Vicious without heroin?

Why do we forgive and forge with rock stars? Am I on to something with this dying thing? Am I a genius in accidentally discovering that the only way for a star, athlete or artist, to be forgiven for using performance-enhancing drugs is to overdose on those drugs?

Maybe not necessarily. I guess it’s just tragic when they die period, right? Len Bias… tragic. Marco Pantani… tragic. I mean, Kurt Cobain didn’t die of an overdose, but that’s tragic.

Ken Caminiti might be the ultimate case study: admitted to using steroids then died of a cocaine overdose. It doesn’t seem like he is a martyr. He’s kind of a nothing. What the hell does that mean?

Would we forgive A-Rod if he overdosed on steroids and became a martyr? What if he overdosed on cocaine? What would be the difference?

We are sick sometimes. I am sick sometimes. I never should have started this stupid blog. Too much thinking, not enough answers, and not enough working.

Please, anyone, help me if you have answers to my nine million questions.

The Great Phelps Bong Catastrophe of ‘09: A Blessing in Disguise That Will Never Be Unmasked

Phelps ripping bong hits could be the greatest thing for American athletic development if anyone cared to spin it the right way…

Two athletes, both dominant. One loved by almost all, and one hated by almost all. One used performance enhancing drugs, one used illegal but not performance enhancing. And yet both are treated the some way by the media. This suggests that anyone fails to see any difference, which is a sad, sad thing.

The media views marijuana and steroids in the same fashion: The athletes have a responsibility to set good examples because they are role models. They are always under a microscope, and drugs, no matter how or why, are always a bad thing. It sends the wrong message to kids. Blah blah blah blah…

I haven’t collected my thoughts entirely on A-Rod yet. I do think it’s going to be a horrible thing for baseball. I felt that his eventual eclipsing of Bonds’s home run mark would eventually return some semblance of balance to MLB’s record books, a restoration of some sorts, signaling the official end of the steroid era. But it appears that this might not happen. Our good friends over at Rivera’s Cutter have some good thoughts that mostly mirror my own (http://riverascutter.wordpress.com/).

I am more interested in the fact that the The Great Phelps Bong Catastrophe of 09 was given almost as much publicity as the A-Roid scandal. This definitely relates to my post a few weeks back about why it’s in an athlete’s best interest to retire (or die) before the media destroys you (kudos to you, Len Bias). But this isn’t a blog to say the media is crappy. We already know the media unfairly builds stars up on a completely unjustifiable pedestal so we can subsequently knock them off, spit on their face, and tell them they weren’t as great as we told them they were.

Phelps getting all of this publicity for being a stoner could be the greatest thing to ever happen to American athletic development, if someone actually cared enough to spin it the right way. No one will, and the fact that the media is spinning Phelps the same way as they are spinning A-Rod is almost comical, but mostly tragic. No one with influence will spin it my way, but let me lay it out for you.

The media, both news and movies, constantly sends the most delusional messages to young athletes because they make for great story lines. We love movies like Rudy and Miracle because they send the message that, if you work hard, you can accomplish anything. The sad reality is that this is a load of crap. 95% percent of being a good athlete is genetic. Once you get to the top level, then hard work becomes very important because everyone is talented and everyone works hard. This is why even top athletes use performance enhancing drugs. If everyone else is already talented and works hard, this can set you above the rest.

But this message of hard work always paying off has sent a horrible, horrible message to young athletes. We also hear athletes saying “I never could have done it without my mom and dad, who never let me quit. They always made me work hard, and it made me who I am.” No, athlete, it didn’t, and you saying that has caused millions of delusional parents to push their kids who have no business being pushed. You found success because you are talented. You, Michael Phelps, are a sick swimmer because you are a genetic freak. Yes, you worked your butt off, but so did a million other swimmer who can’t touch you in the pool. We hear about how much Tiger Woods’s father pushed him. But Tiger is as good as he is because of talent. His hard work has enabled him to surpass a lot of other golfers who don’t have his talent. But those golfers work hard too; they just lack Woods’s talent.

The top athletes always say things like “Never give up. I got cut from Varsity Basketball my freshman year and then I went on to UNC and won six championships with the Bulls.” I don’t know if Jordan ever said this, but it’s a story that gets passed around a lot (and I told it a lot when I got cut from 8^th grade basketball). So now, any time a kid works hard and doesn’t reap the rewards, the kid and the parents both think they kid is being treated unfairly. “But he worked so hard and he wants it so bad!” (I ran in to this one a lot coaching high school sports). So did a lot of kids. A lot of kids work hard and never reach the top level. As a former coach of mine always said, “you can’t make chicken soup out of chicken crap.” Hard work makes good athletes great, but it can’t make a bad athlete good (I know this one first hand… it sucks, but it’s true).

By the way Kurt Warner, it’s not because of God either, thought it has been argues that Kurt Warner’s success is proof that God actually exists.

Athletes always want to chalk up their success to hard work because it makes it seem like they’ve earned it, but this train of thought undermines everyone else who works hard at doesn’t get to the top level. It poisons young athletes’ minds everywhere, and it has led to a disgusting trend in amateur athletics. Kids are specializing, that is, giving up other sports at a very early age and focusing only on one, because they believe, as the media tells them to, that they will find success if they work harder than everyone else. It leads to overuse injuries because younger athletes are only using the same muscles too much before they are done growing. It leads to parents’ over involvement and unhealthy stress being placed on young athletes to perform. Parents want scholarships for their kids, so they pick a sport and push them to limits they shouldn’t be pushed to, leading to resentment and a complete absence of enjoyment for sport. Ironically, specialization closes all doors to success in other sports that could eventually lead to other success. For example, a kid who could potentially be a scholarship collegiate rower will never get that opportunity because Herb Brooks preached from the tomb that said kid could play hockey at Michigan if he worked hard. And Rudy told Johnny-5-Foot that he could play football at Notre Dame when he actually had the talent to be a top end Division I runner all along.

So read it and weep kid. Michael Phelps can rip bong hits all he wants and can drink himself into a coma, wake up, and still kick your ass. It’s not just about hard work. Your coach is giving you a fair shake. You can’t play college football. You just suck, all around. You’re not that talented, and no amount of hard work can nullify that (by the way, there is no Santa Claus. Over there, that’s just a guy in a suit).

Here’s the moral of the story, kid. There is probably something out there for you, so don’t give up hope. There is something else out there that you are good at, and you don’t even know it. Maybe it’s another sport. Maybe it’s an instrument. Maybe it’s a subject in school. The point is, you’re never going to find it if you’re too busy trying to prove that you are the diamond in the rough that has talent that, for some reason, no one else can see.

The Snuggie and its Economic Implications

USA Today had an article about the Snuggie last week claiming that the Snuggie “transcends advertising to become a part of pop culture.” I don’t know if Malcom Gladwell would claim that the Snuggie has tipped in the same way Pogs or Snap Bracelets did, but there is something important going on here, and I am curious as to what that means.

A few important questions:

In the midst of global economic crises, how the heck can this product somehow become a commodity?

Are people not at all turned off by the fact that the Snuggie makes you look like an albino Opus Dei monk?

Is it possible that everyone else is really as dumb as I think they are?

Once I shake myself out of this presumption, I tell myself that most people have enough common sense not to fall into scams (except for the ShamWow, which is AWESOME). Therefore, I can only conclude that most people aren’t really buying the Snuggie for its functionality. I seriously think that people are buying it as a joke in most, if not all instances (for the Grandmother reading this who bought a Snuggie for her college grandson for Christmas, he hated it, and he lied to you about liking it. But then he went to college and his friends thought it was hilarious, and now he is the coolest kid in his dorm, and everyone photographs themselves on Saturday nights and puts Snuggie themed photo albums on Facebook… he was a social invalid, but you saved him. Well done, Grandma).

What does the success of the Snuggie mean then? Well, it can mean one of two things.

1.) People still can, want to, and will spend money of things they really don’t need, even in the direst of financial struggles. This attitude is suggestive that we will pull ourselves out of the turmoil and reboot the economy.

or…

2.) The reason this country is in economic struggle is because we are idiots with our money and we buy crap we don’t need when we can’t afford it.

I am looking to you, Snuggie, for an answer to these difficult questions.

The real Snuggie Infomercial:

The glorious Snuggie Parody

10 Reasons Why Scrubs is the Best Show on TV

This is kind of a tricky thing to write on, mostly because I don’t watch TV very much. In fact, I don’t really watch any shows routinely. So, for me to declare that Scrubs is the best show on TV really just means it’s better than the other one show I watch (Heroes). Still, I think the writers are brilliant and actors bring out the best in the scripts. Here are ten reasons that I think Scrubs is the best show on TV (better than Heroes).

1.) It’s a comedy, but people die all the time.

Call me insensitive. Even though the show is a comedy, I like that it’s still somewhat realistic (save for J.D.’s fantasy excursions, which are nevertheless awesome). It’s not really a show about medicine. It’s a comedy that takes place in a serious setting, which can be tricky. The fact that people die and there aren’t happy endings to every show mean that the writers try to work a comedy into an otherwise comedy-drained environment. Compared to a show like House, I find it to be much more realistic. The last episode of House I saw, there was a patient who wanted to die because he felt it would be awesome. House, to prove him wrong, stuck a fork in an outlet to almost die, recovering just in time to save the day. I’m serious. I know House is a funny character, but come on. I don’t know why I value realism in TV, especially in comedy. Maybe it’s because it adds an sense of importance to a show when you watch it if it is mildly realistic, as if the show “matters” in some way.

2.) They cover serious topics in unserious ways

Especially as the show progresses, the writers actively tackle taboo topics cleverly and humorously. Season 7 tackles both global warming and the war in Iraq, getting interesting opinions across through a variety of mediums. Still, the issues never take center stage, i.e. it’s never “a episode of Scrubs that every parent should watch with their children” (like Jessie and the caffeine pills… yawn). They cover the grieving process, cancer, child abuse, marital struggles, etc. without demeaning their seriousness, but also without allowing them to shift the tone away from comedic. They joke about cliched issues like race, which have been addressed so much in TV that they really have no meaning any more. They don’t demean their importance. Rather, the writers address it so casually is if to imply that they are above it, which I really like. For example:

Dr. Win: “Christopher, can we please stop the color commentary?”

Turk: “Why does it have to be color commentary? Because I’m black?…. just kidding”

3.) The actors are attractive enough not to offend, but not so attractive that it’s unrealistic or distracting from the plot (though Elliot does take her shirt off at least once a season… let’s face it people… sex still sells).

This is important, and I think it’s where a lot of shows go wrong. Yes, people like to watch attractive people on screen. Yes, I watched Saved by the Bell religiously because I was in love with Kelly Kapowski, not because it was good (actually, Chuck Klosterman writes that it was so bad, that its ratings were high because people subconsciously loved how predictable is was). If characters are really attractive, it inadvertently (or intentionally) shifts the focus. If you’re staring at a woman’s chest, you’re not paying attention to the show. I’ve watched House a few times. The female doctors are too hot. Yes, I like hot, but women who look like that aren’t doctors (or if they are, sign me up to take the MCATs). Yes, I’ll still watch it and gawk, but it doesn’t mean it’s good TV. None of the actors on Scrubs are stunningly attractive, but none of them are unattractive enough that they become repulsive or stir negative affects in the viewer. In general, a Scrubs audience should be a fairly balanced audience, if that makes any sense.

4.) They don’t really rely on cliffhangers.

I mentioned above that I watch Heroes. In fact, Heroes is kind of like crack to me. I’ll buy each whole season on DVD and rip through it in less than 48 hours (my students last year remember me cancelling classes so I could save the cheerleader, thus saving the world… please don’t tell Mrs. Beattie). But with a show like Heroes, or other shows I have heard people claim are great like Lost or 24, it seems like they really just keep you watching by making sure there are always loose ends at the end of each episode (Yes this might be oversimplifying, but it’s still a big part of why we continuously watch). Any show plays in to this a little bit, but I watched the whole first season of Lost and it was ridiculous. Every time they would tie up one loose end, they’d loosen 3 more. It was too frustrating. I kept watching because I had to (I couldn’t stop) but watching it doesn’t make it good (does it?). Scrubs packs a lot in to each episode, but they don’t leave too much hanging from week to week. The episodes are interconnected, but each can stand on its own as a solid half hour of entertainment. I don’t think lost or Heroes can do this. I haven’t watched 24 (and numerous people whom I respect as intelligent have cited it as genius) but I fear much of the allure might also lie in cliffhanger drama.

5.) The writers have avoided the Ross and Rachel trap with J.D. and Elliot.

For some reason, I really don’t want Elliot and J.D. to be together. I think this means that the writers have done a good enough job with other boyfriends and girlfriends that we don’t fall in to the Ross and Rachel trap. The Ross and Rachel trap (if it hasn’t been coined, I’m coining it now) is the trap where the audience wants two characters to be together to the point that, when other potential suitors or suitorettes are introduced, we immediately hate them. We don’t mind J.D. and Elliot’s occasional seasonal fling, but it’s much more interesting when J.D. is dating Tara Reid or Mandy Moore. Elliot’s boyfriend Sean (Scott Foley) in season 2 and 3 was one of the best characters in all 8 seasons… I was pretty bummed to see him go. The first episode with Jake (Josh Randall) in season 4 is hilarious. Keith in season 5 onward is pretty funny (though the engagement thing was kind of forced… was then when the writers were beginning to strike? I don’t know). Admittedly, I am partially biased because I am going to marry Mandy Moore one day, and I’d like to see more of her. Whatever it is, J.D. and Elliot don’t seem “meant for each other” at all, and I kind of like it better that way.

6.) The writers do a pretty good job of avoiding clichés.

This is kind of tied in to the people dying thing… I might be wrong about this one because I don’t watch other doctor shows, but there really aren’t many clichés in the plot. In fact, the writers seem to actively poke fun at other TV clichés. There is a “House” satire (when there is a patient who is tinted orange and Dr. Cox miraculously solves the problem in House fashion). “My Life in Four Cameras” is a pretty clever episode as well when Ken Lerner plays a sitcom writer with cancer, and they joke about all the problems going away and everyone learning life lessons in 30 minutes. The episode when three of Dr. Cox’s patients died in season 5 made me wonder if Scrubs was still a comedy, but it was also a good reminder that the show really does try to be realistic. The show definitely got more serious as the seasons progressed, but it’s still a comedy for sure. Every now and then they really throw you, like the last episode with Brendan Fraser (I won’t ruin the ending if you haven’t seen it… kind of Sixth Sense-ish though… did that ruin it?).

7.) The one dimensional characters get a chance to shine, but it’s never overkill.

The Janitor, Ted, The Todd, and Jordan are great for one-liners, and for some reason, they never get old. Definitely some of the best one-liners from the whole shoe have come from these characters. For example:

Nurse: “You know doctor, I’m getting a little tired of all your sexual innuendo”

The Todd: “In your endo”

8.) The actors are legitimately talented.

Elliot can speak German. Ted and his a capella band are actually really good. There’s one episode where the whole cast sings Colin Hay’s “Waiting for my Real Life to Begin” pretty impressively. The “My Musical” episode is impressive from both a performer’s and actor’s standpoint. And holy crap Turk can dance.

9.) Cameos work really well…

Scrubs has some great cameos without shifting the tone of the show. Michael J. Fox’s two episodes in season 3, where he plays a doctor with intense OCD were two of my favorites (and it no doubt struck a chord with audiences because of Fox’s own deteriorating health… I can’t figure out if this was intentional or not. His OCD in these episodes was made out to be somewhat tragic as if to mirror his own Parkinson’s). Van Wilder (it would be disrespectful to refer to him as Ryan Reynolds) has a great appearance at the end of season 2. Heather Graham is there for most of season 4. Tara Reid, Brendan Fraser, Tom Cavanaugh, Mandy Moore, John Ritter, Keri Russell, Colin Farrell, Jason Bateman, Elizabeth Banks all contribute at some point, but they don’t really play the caricatures one might expect them to play (except for Wilder, I mean Reynolds, who only has one character, but I love it).

10.) The music.

I don’t know if Zach Braff is the major influencing factor in a lot of the music that airs (I’m inclined to think so because of the overlap between Scrubs and Garden State) but there are some great tunes.

That’s my rant of the day. If you haven’t watched it, give it a go. It’s a great show.

If You Build Them, They Will Watch

As I sit here procrastinating, praying the snow will magically remove itself from my sidewalk, it dawned on me that now is the ideal time to discuss who I believe the top 5 athletes I’ve seen in my lifetime are.

In general, when gauging athletes and milestones, I think the best way to evaluate cross-sectionally is to see what their closest competitors were doing at the time (i.e. Ruth hitting 60 homeruns is more impressive than McGwire hitting 70 because McGwire’s closest competitor hit 66, whereas Ruth’s closest competitor only hit 21).

The truth is that, for whatever human reason it is, we love to see dominance. We love it see it win, and we love to see it lose. Close games and nail-biters are fun, but what makes a sport grow is domination, or even more importantly, when a dominant player or team crumbles, and the little guy becomes the hero. Cases where dominance leads to blatant growth and/or increased spectator interest in the sport: Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods, Michael Phelps, Mike Tyson. Cases where Goliath falls and increases growth and/or spectator interest in the sport: 1980 USA hockey, 2004 ALCS, 2008 Super Bowl. How many people tuned in (besides me and my therapist) in 2004 just to see if the Yankees would finally crumple to the Red Sox? To see if the magic of the curse of the Bambino had one more rabbit to pull out of its hat? How many more people (other than the ’72 Dolphins) tuned in to last year’s Super Bowl just to see if the Patriots could be perfect.

Despite being a fairly lame villain in Spiderman 1, the Green Goblin had it right. “The one thing they love more than a hero is to see a hero fall.” It’s true; we probably do tune in much of the time just to see if the dominant team or athlete will finally lose, and each time they win again we want more and more to see just how far it will go, how superhuman they really are. This is why there is something to be said for the athlete (or any public figure for that matter) that goes out on top. To see our superhumans looking, well, human, destroys the allure of what made them stars to begin with. There is something inherently Romantic about a hero who doesn’t stick around long enough for us to watch him decay and become, well, human. It seems our minds will fill in the blanks at how much better they could have been rather than watch them slowly depreciate into mediocrity (damn you Jerry Rice)… those who go out on top have given us our best comedian (Seinfeld) our best guitarist (Hendrix) our best poet (Keats) and our best presidents (Lincoln and Kennedy). (While this blog is very much about sports, this is also the reason that if some clown somehow assassinates Obama, he will become the most iconic figure for the next 500 years. In an Obi-Wan Kenobi sort of way, for someone who represents as much as he does, “if you strike him down, he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.” I’m getting off topic, but I think this might inspire blog #4). The point is, we love to see dominance, mostly because of the possibility of it failing. Love it or hate it, we watch it.

So here was the list I posted yesterday. 1.) Jordan, 2.) Woods, 3.) Phelps 4.) Armstrong 5.) Tyson.

Here’s why. These are the five athletes in my lifetime who have had that magic that gets people to tune in. For me personally, but on the whole, the NBA isn’t doing nearly as well is it did when the Celts-Lakers rivalries in the 80’s were hot, and when the Bulls were simply unstoppable in the 90’s. Jordan makes number one because, as good as his supporting cast was, he was the catalyst, and everyone on the court, including his opponents knew that he had a magic that couldn’t be beaten. He won three, retired for two years, then came back and won three more. It was simply incredible to watch Jordan play. The NBA hasn’t been the same for me since those Bulls teams broke up. But it was all Jordan. Lebron and Kobe are great, but they don’t have the air (no pun intended) about them that Jordan had.

Woods is probably the easiest sell on this list. In general, golf was an old guy sport, and miraculously in the mid 90’s it became a cool sport. Don’t kid yourselves… Tiger is the only reason this happened. I would be interested to see a psychological study on who the general public was rooting for in the 2008 US Open playoff between Woods and Rocco Mediate. We wanted to see the hero win, but we wanted to see the underdog win. We were torn. I seriously had no idea who to root for. I would guess the public was split right down the middle. But Goliath won, even though David played the game of his life.

Maybe I’m the only nerd who got excited about swimming in past Olympics, but my God did Phelps create interest in that sport. You want to talk about the magic? .01, one hundredth of a second, to win golds TWICE. You can’t write that stuff. Not to mention that the best part about Phelps winning those golds was that he actually played the role of dominator and underdog depending on the event, filling the audience’s need to root for both (and it also explains the slight disappointment when Ryan Lochte couldn’t hang with Phelps in the 200 IM). Watching Jason Lisak come back through the arrogant Frenchman Alain Bernard was the highlight of the 2008 games for me— watching the guy who plays second fiddle to the hero miraculously playing the hero for the benefit of the other hero who was the underdog just this once by defeating the villain who happened to be French which made it a victory for Americans everywhere. Does it get any better? Phelps is #3.

Lance is #4. He dominated. I put him below Phelps because blog #2 led me to the harsh realization that I think his entire team being dirty is the main reason he was so dominant. Stupid drugs.

Tyson at number 5. Like the BCS or Bracketology, everyone is always going to complain about the last one in or the first one out. I picked Tyson because, despite how ridiculous he has become, he’s got the magic. Tyson could come out of nowhere to take on the current heavyweight champion, and there isn’t a single person watching who wouldn’t be secretly wondering but it’s Tyson, and there’s just something about him that makes it possible. Of course it’s that same “something” that made him tattoo his face, rape, and bite Holyfield’s ear, but that’s besides the point.

Honorable mention goes to: Usain Bolt (holy crap that dude can run), Mark Allen (probably #6 on the list) Randy Moss (I’ve never seen a player change a football game like him) Alex Ovechkin (it’s like everyone else is playing in slow motion sometimes) Barry Bonds (with an asterisk, of course) Bonnie Blair (I don’t watch enough women’s sports to know who is dominant, but Bonnie Bliar definitely comes to mind).

Feel free to add you own lists.

A final thought. I lost touch with the NHL for a while, and I’ve recently started watching again in the past few years. If the NHL really wanted to get its ratings back up, they’d figure out a way to get high profile players on the same team. Manipulate the system (like you did in the winter classic last year when Crosby’s “magic” move helped the Pens win in a shootout… that was so staged) and trade Crosby, Hossa, and Ovechkin to a high profile city like New York, and watch the ratings climb.

Make a dynasty… people will tune it to watch it win or to watch it lose. If you build it, they will watch.

On Armstrong’s Alleged Doping…

Lance Armstrong is either the most falsely accused athlete on the planet or the stupidest athlete on the planet, and there is no middle ground.

The guy has been back for a week and already “the ominous cloud of doping” is hanging over his head.

I can’t claim to view the “did he or didn’t he dope” argument through an objective lens. I’m a big fan of the guy, and I’ll deny he’s guilty until someone shows me no few than 739 positive samples from each of his seven Tour de France victories.

I am well aware that just about everyone in cycling has used blood doping, EPO, Testosterone, or some form of performance enhancing drug. But there is a really important side note that the media tends to ignore when discussing “did he or didn’t he?” That side note is that everyone, literally everyone, who has challenged Armstrong has gotten caught, some multiple times— Ullrich, Basso, Landis, Hamilton, Pantani, Mayo, Rasmussen, Vinokourov… all of them. From 1999 to 2005, Armstrong was tested probably 3 times as often as any other cyclist. Why did everyone else get caught and not him? The “ominous cloud” that looms over Armstrong’s victories isn’t there because Armstrong did anything; it’s there because everyone else did, and cycling has reached a tipping point that you are now guilty until proven innocent (kind of like playing baseball from 1988 to 1998).

If Armstrong was doping between 2000 and 2005, he would have to be the stupidest human being on the planet. He had so much at stake that it would be idiotic to continue racing if he wasn’t clean. Between what he represented as a cancer icon, the message of his autobiographies, the Lance Armstrong Foundation, and his aspirations to run for office, there would be no logical reason to continue racing after winning once. Why try for 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 Tour victories, risking getting caught every single year with so much at stake, especially as he became more scrutinized and testing became more advanced? Even more telling is his going for a 7^th Tour victory. What would be the point? He was already the best ever, winning more Tours than anyone. Why would he risk nullifying all of it for a 7th?

If you’re guilty, you play it off like Floyd Landis, who, before getting busted, had already announced that he was going to “take some time off” after the 2006 Tour to rehab his ailing knee. This, of course, was because he had more testosterone in his body than a Rutgers frat house during rush week, and was just hoping to get away with it for a few more days. Landis knew he was going out, so he figured he’d give it one last shot to win, hoping maybe he wouldn’t get caught. Michael Rasmussen led the tour in 2007 for 3 days and got caught. Landis led it for one in 2006 and got caught. How many days did Armstrong lead it for without testing positive? They all get caught eventually…. except Lance (keep in mind that at the end of every stage on the tour, four riders are tested – the stage winner, the overall leader, and two random riders). It’s just impossible to be that sneaky for that long.

And now? Another comeback for Armstrong? Why the heck would he do it again? He’s made it clear that this return is all about his fight against cancer. It just doesn’t make sense that he’d risk so much to gain so little.

I wouldn’t doubt that pre-cancer Armstrong was doping before he became a star (though clearly the results didn’t show it). I wouldn’t doubt that every single domestique on Postal was doping and that’s what really helped Armstrong to win. I wouldn’t even doubt that Armstrong doped in 1999 when he won his first tour but somehow managed to elude a positive because testing for EPO was not possible at that point. If Armstrong was on something while he was winning, it must have been some sort of miracle drug that no one else knew about and the UCI didn’t even know existed.

The most likely possibility is that all of Armstrong’s teammates were the dopers. If they’re not winning stages or being the overall leaders, they wouldn’t get tested nearly as often (note that as soon as Hamilton and Landis became team leaders, they got busted). Cycling is consistently ignored as a team sport, but the main reason Armstrong was so dominant was because Postal’s focus every year was on the Tour, and Armstrong’s only focus was the Tour. Even with all of this, the guy is still one of the most dominant athletes I’ve ever seen (Lebron James recently said in an interview he thought the same), especially considering all of his competitors couldn’t beat him when they used performance enhancing drugs. Cycling has an odd mafia feel to it sometimes, in that the little guys do all of the work that is likely to get them in trouble while the big fish stays out of trouble and reaps the rewards. I’d liken Armstrong to Tony Soprano before I’d liken him to Barry Bonds.

If he didn’t dope from 2000 through 2005, it makes it all the more impressive that he beat a lot of guys who were using performance enhancing drugs. But if he doped from 2000 onwards, he has to be the stupidest athlete on the planet to risk so much. I’m inclined to think he’s the most falsely accused.

Still, I am thankful for the controversy in that it created this story , my all-time favorite Onion article.

As a side note, here are, in order, the best five athletes I’ve seen in my lifetime. Maybe this will be the subject of blog numero tres.

1.) Michael Jordan

2.) Tiger Woods

3.) Michael Phelps

4.) Lance Armstrong

5.) Mike Tyson

Over and out….