Second In Command

I'll Never Be That Way... Will I?

2010-12-01T19:51:00.000-08:00

A woman came into my store and asked, "Do you have a senior discount?" I politely told her that we did not and offered her our rewards program. She left the counter and I did not pay it another thought for the rest of the day. Later that night, I remembered her question and wondered to myself about the tendency for our more, er, mature members of society to want to save money every chance they get. Sure, it is a wonderful thing to save money, but to openly ask for discounts? That would never cross my mind.

Why should seniors feel entitled to pay less than you or me just because they have lived more years? Aren't they lucky for having lived so many years when the rest of us have no idea how many we have left? Being cheap has long been a commonly recognized trait of seniors. Why is this the case? One reason could be that many who are in their 70's or older have lived through the Great Depression. Learning from a young age how to get by with practically nothing will leave a deep-seeded sense of never having enough. They are always looking to save as much as possible, never knowing when the economy will go bad.

Gregg Easterbrook, in his book The Progress Paradox, makes the case that things are better now than ever before because incomes have risen so dramatically while the real price of goods has fallen sharply. When seniors were younger this was not the case and the type of comfortable, luxurious lifestyle that even the middle class so commonly enjoy these days was only attainable through extreme hard work and severe spendthrifty behavior. Even once life is comfortable with fewer expenses, the feeling that nice things can only be attained while scrimping for every penny possible never subsides.

Older people also tend to be far more cranky than your average younger person. Why is this? I have three explanations. First, with so few years left to live, seniors feel a pressing need to get everything as fast and as easy as possible so as to continue living their lives the way they want instead of wasting time doing such things as waiting in lines and being civil. Second, their life has been difficult having lived through such difficult events as the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War, the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement. Too much exposure to difficult times tends to make one angry and embittered. Lastly, it is difficult for most seniors to navigate the strange new world of technology and global commerce. It is frustrating to have to live in a world you do not understand among other people with whom you cannot relate.

Are these tendencies something that comes naturally as you advance in years or are they a result of the time during which they lived? Will things be differently for the younger when they get older? Currently it is probably a combination of both. Certainly there are things that will be common with many future generations of oldsters. Frugality will arise where there is a drop in steady income, even if there is ample money saved in retirement accounts. Crankiness will ensue as they feel the clock ticking more and more loudly. As for the gawd awful combinations of clothes? Well, considering the dress habits of young people these days, I would bet that would continue long into the future.

I would surmise that many of the traits exhibited by the current generation of the elderly, and joked about by the young, are simply more pronounced as a result of the aforementioned events which transpired during their lifetimes. They are crankier, more frugal, and poorer dressers than future generations are likely to be. Yet we can expect to be the same way someday. Then, we will have to hear the whispers and joking behind our backs as the young whippersnapper punk kids make fun. Just as soon as we turn up our hearing aids.

Why Deny?

2009-12-03T09:46:00.000-08:00

In case you've been living on Mars, in a cave, with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears, Tiger Woods is in trouble. Not with the law, just with the swift justice of a golf club swung by his wife. After a week of insistent denials, Woods issued a statement expressing that he regrets his transgressions and blah blah blah. This statement was released right after Us Weekly released a recorded voicemail he "allegedly" (quotation marks because we're only 99.99999% sure it was really him) left on a woman's phone asking her to change her voicemail greeting so it would not include her name. For a week we all suspected the worst and it was finally confirmed by a tabloid magazine. How might Tiger's week have been different if he would have handled the situation more proactively?

We live in an age where everything is recorded, videotaped and time and date stamped. If you are a major celebrity you cannot go to the grocery store without a pimply 19 year-old taking pictures and selling them to TMZ or X17 Online. Why would someone of Tiger's stature believe that he could indefinitely have affairs with an assortment of young women and have it be a secret? When the National Enquirer first made the allegation that Woods had an affair with a well-known New York socialite he should have known that the gig was up. He must have known that he had left voicemail messages and texted the various women he was cavorting with. How would he not know they would come out? Yet he insisted that all of the rumors were false and there was no substance to them. Then he gets into the car accident that didn't add up and people's imaginations ran wild. Let's examine what he should have done.

When the National Enquirer story, which was accurate, came out he should have known that others he had been with would come forth, either through investigation or seeking a payday. He should have immediately told his wife everything like Vic Mackey did at the end of The Shield. Perhaps if he would have come clean from the beginning she wouldn't have blown up at him like she did and cause the embarrassing accident that had him in the hospital and leading the network news shows. There would have not been visits by the Florida Highway Patrol and subsequent stonewalling the authorities. He and his wife could have begun to handle things on their own time. Tiger then should have issued a truthful statement which directly addressed the allegations. Mine would have looked like this.

"There have been reports from the National Enquirer regarding an affair I was reported to have with a woman by the name of Rachel Uchitel. I can confirm that the basic details of the story are true, that Ms. Uchitel and I had a sexual relationship. I can also confirm that there were other women I have had sexual relationships with since I have been married. Some of what will come out in the coming days and weeks will be true and much of it will not. I will not comment any further on any specifics regarding any additional allegations that will arise. My family and I ask that you please allow us to treat this matter privately. Thank you."

A simple statement that does not put himself down, make any promises, create any expectations. It states that he will not address any further allegations so no matter what comes up he can lean back on his statement and not feel compelled to confirm or deny. Sort of a believe it if you want stance. This is what Woods should have done. Instead he denied, stupidly, and let his reputation take a further hit. The public is forgiving and could have lived with a powerful, famous, rich athlete who traveled all the time and succumbed to temptation. Instead, the public feels like he tried to deny, cover up, deflect and not deal honestly with his fans and sponsors. People feel that if you avoid the authorities you have something major to hide. This hurts him more than any infidelity ever could. Tiger should have taken a lesson from Presidents of the late 20th century.

Lyndon Johnson lost the trust of the country regarding Vietnam not because the war was not going well (which it wasn't) but because he was not truthful about how the war was going. If Johnson had looked the American people in the eye and told them that many thousands were dying and he felt bad about that but that us leaving would imperil millions of Vietnamese and perhaps the freedom of Southeast Asia he might have garnered more support, albeit tepid support. I believe the public would have viewed the war similarly to our current wars, disliking the results but accepting our reasoning for still being there.

Richard Nixon lost the trust of the American people not because representatives of the Republican Party broke into DNC headquarters at the Watergate Hotel but rather because of the subsequent cover-up. Had Nixon taken the stance that the break-in was wrong, that he would cooperate fully with any investigations and not tried to take revenge on those running the investigation, he might have been able to absorb the blow and move the country forward. Instead he came across as a schemer and paranoid, and nobody trusted him or believed a word he said.

Bill Clinton had some Tiger-like indiscretions while President. As much as the left-wing tries to claim that he was impeached for cheating on his wife, this is patently untrue. If Clinton had admitted to his affair with Monica Lewinsky under oath and at the now infamous press conference, instead of wagging his finger, he would have taken a popularity hit but could have continued on with his administration. Lying under oath, regardless of what it is about, is something that one can never do, especially the person most entrusted to uphold the Constitution, and therefore, the law. The public had looked past his extramarital dalliances before, there is no reason to think it would not do so again, especially if he delivered an empathetic, contrite apology saying something to the effect of he regretted not fully learning the lessons of the past and that he would work on trying to restore the dignity of the Presidency. If he would have done this, Hillary Clinton would not have gone on The Today Show and notoriously claimed it was all "a vast right-wing conspiracy." Had she not taken this credibility hit, perhaps she would be sitting in the same Oval Office her husband had occupied 8 years earlier.

The lesson here is that in our digital and tabloid society, nobody of any fame or notability can do anything for very long without it being found out. Why celebrities would try to do something that could get them in trouble with the law or embarrassed publicly is beyond me. But as we've seen, if you do get caught, it is better to get ahead of the story, let the public digest it quickly, then move on to who Paris Hilton left Pure Nightclub with last week. We've all been in trouble with our parents, lied to cover it up, then been punished worse for the lying than for the act itself. Why can't we learn this lesson from our childhood, especially when everything celebrities do ends up in front of the eyes of millions anyhow?

1/3 Baked Ideas

2009-11-25T10:35:00.000-08:00

The computer that is my brain never stops working. Even when I want it to power down for a little bit it keeps on whirring. Only through copious amounts of alcohol can I even slow it down. For all the times this is annoying, occasionally it yields interesting results. These results are my 1/3 baked ideas. For those of you new or unfamiliar, these are ideas which are not quite good enough to be half baked. Today you are getting 1/3 more of my 1/3 baked ideas. For you without calculators, that's 4. These come completely from my own brain. Any resemblance to any other ideas, past or present, is merely coincidental.

Idea 1. I love Twitter. I try to tweet every so often without being obnoxious about it. I also follow a lot of other people who are tweeting. I enjoy reading what they have to say and appreciate the updates. Unless it is an update on something that is on TV which has not yet aired on the west coast. Last night I checked my phone and saw there was a text message from twitter. I pressed OK to read it and the yet-to-be-aired results of Dancing With the Stars (I'll admit I watch it. I am not ashamed.) hit me in the face like a Manny Pacquiao right hand. The time was 8:26 PDT when I read the message and the final results show would not begin to air for another 34 minutes. I know people are eager to give congratulations for great achievements (or not so great achievements) but can this wait until everyone has had a chance to see it?

I propose that individuals not be allowed to tweet results of awards shows, competitions, etc. that have yet to air in their entirety on the west coast. Anyone caught violating this rule more than once will have their twitter account suspended. I should not have to forsake all contact with my cell phone for an entire evening so results are not spoiled for me. Thanks in advance.

Idea 2. The NFL, in its quest to make not just other worldly money but rather ungodly money, is throwing around the idea of extending the regular season from 16 to 18 games. More games means more revenue. This is a terrible idea. There are already so many players who get hurt during the course of playing 16 games of such a fast, violent sport. What do you suppose will happen if you make these tired, weary players play 2 more games? Fewer injuries? I don't think so. If the NFL wants to make more money without putting their players (without whom nobody would get all of this revenue) at risk here is what it needs to do.

The regular season is 17 weeks long currently. The extra week is because each team gets a bye week at some point during the season. What if the NFL just extended the regular season by one week and gave each team an extra bye week? Every team would play on the first week of the season and the last week of the season. Then each team would receive a bye in the first half of the season and the second half of the season. This would mean that 4 teams would have a bye each week. The same number of games would be played as before but revenue would be increased in two ways.

First, revenue would increase directly because the league could negotiate slightly higher TV rights contracts due to the extra week of football. Indirectly, revenue would increase because players would be better rested and less prone to injury. Viewership is up when key players are healthy and playing instead of injured. Also, with players having more time to rest, the quality of play will increase slightly, making the games more fun to watch and garnering higher ratings, which will lead to increased TV rights money and higher advertising dollars. The league gets more money and the players do not need to play any extra games. Win-win.

Idea 3. A couple days ago I got a paper cut at the very top of my finger, right by the edge of my fingernail. A traditional band-aid will not work because if you place it over the top of your finger, it will not stay on. Wrapping it around the finger at the top will keep it on but the paper cut is slightly exposed. Why can't we have a band aid that goes on kind of like a thimble, covering the entire top of the finger so that the wound can be completely covered. At the top of the bandage would be the antiseptic pad and the bottom would be sticky so it can adhere to the finger tightly all the way around. Problem solved.

Idea 4. We all have either played Rock Band or watched somebody play. We stand, mouth agape, in awe of someone playing at 100%. We laugh at that same person who has had too much to drink and cannot play nearly as well. Wouldn't you like to see this side by side? I propose a new web series that will show people doing the same things both sober and intoxicated. Imagine seeing a video of someone playing Rock Band. The camera looks over the shoulder as the same song is played sober and drunk so you can see the person racking up points on one side, messing up constantly on the other. We could expand this to other endeavors. How about sober vs. drunk free throw shooting? Or bike riding? (Without cars around and while wearing a helmet of course) How fun would it be to see highlights of someone taking an SAT exam sober vs. drunk and seeing how much more poorly they score drunk? Could someone do these things better while drunk? I think it would make for good entertainment. The possibilities are endless. Like you wouldn't watch this?

Those are the results of this week's endless thought. I'd like to think some of these ideas might work in a parallel universe. It's a shame my brain isn't wired to think about social problems or physics. Alas.

Unsportsman(or woman)like Conduct

2009-11-20T15:12:00.001-08:00

I am a father of two daughters. One is 9, one is 5. From the moment I wake up until the time I fall asleep I have only two goals for them. The first is that neither of them end up as a stripper. The second is that neither of them end up doing porn. Nothing worse than accidentally ending up in the adult film section of DVD Planet and seeing one of your daughters staring seductively back at you. Sorry, I just got back from taking a Silkwood shower. Those were the two most important things that guided each and every decision I made. That is until November 5. I now have a third goal: do not, under any circumstances let my girls grow up to be like Elizabeth Lambert.

Elizabeth Lambert played for the University of New Mexico's woman's soccer team against Brigham Young University in a Mountain West Conference semifinal. Her play, if you can call it that was so horrendously dirty that it has launched a firestorm of YouTube clips. Check the video out here. Go on, I'll wait. Seriously, what are you waiting for? Watch it now. Great. Your reaction was likely one of two things: shock or laughter. Shall we take a closer look?

For you soccer newbies, players are issued either a yellow card (caution) or red card (instant ejection) for play or conduct deemed dangerous or detrimental to the sport. A player who is issued two yellow cards during the same match is instantly ejected. If I told you that after all of these incidents she was not even ejected would you believe me? Let's break down the action.

Incident 1: Lambert puts a solid forearm into the back of her opponent. If an official were to see this a yellow card is likely issue. This could be eligible for a red card if it happened later but early in the match a yellow is more appropriate.

Incident 2: Lambert wildly kicks at a ball near her opponent's chest and roughly impedes said opponent's progress and brings her to the ground. This could bring out a yellow card but would most likely be a very stern warning from the official that anything else would mean receiving a card.

Incident 3: Lambert completely wipes out her opponent with an out of control tackle, barely making any real attempt at the ball. This would almost certainly be a yellow card, which at this point should have been her second yellow card, thus leading to her ejection. Details are cloudy but I believe Lambert indeed received a yellow card for this.

Incident 4: Lambert pulls a BYU player to the ground by her ponytail. Clearly this qualifies for a red card and disqualification, regardless of what point of the game this happened in or what had preceded it. Strangely this was not caught by the referee or any of the sideline officials who have the authority to stop the game, confer with the lead official, and assure that the appropriate action is taken.

Even more incredulous is Lambert's reaction to the outrage her play has caused. She states that more attention has been given to her because she's a woman. I don't believe this is so. This would have made mainstream sports highlight shows regardless of whether it was a man or a woman who had done this. She also states that her rough play was just hard play in the context of a soccer match and that casual fans wouldn't understand. I consider myself to be a slightly more than casual fan of soccer and I have never seen this before. Lastly, she states that the video makes her look like a monster and this is not the way she plays. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt on this to a degree. I have not seen any other games she has played but I have not heard of any other incidents such as this one. For this game, however, it is clear that she was intent on playing aggressively and doing whatever it takes to win. Whatever is right.

I have never seen rough play as blatant as Lambert's performance in this game. You will see one incident from time to time but never repeatedly. Why? Because officials usually are competent enough to stop this sort of play after the first incident! We documented 4 separate incidents where she could have received a yellow card and 2 where she could have received a red card. How so many incidents were overlooked by three officials over the course of the game mystifies me.

You have read previous posts by me about my growing love of soccer. I thoroughly enjoy the sport when it is played at the highest level. I yearn for the day when soccer is as important here as the other major sports and we can compete on the highest levels internationally. Exactly what needs to be done for this is a discussion for another day but part of the problem is we do not have the level of officiating needed to ensure that games are fair, well played and the skill of players is allowed to shine through. Once this is resolved we will be able to go a long way toward building the type of sport that Americans can enjoy on the highest level without having to look to Europe.

As I go to sleep tonight I will be thinking about Elizabeth Lambert and doing everything I can to make sure that my daughters do the opposite of her and conduct themselves with grace, honor and professionalism at all times as young women and on into adulthood. Oh yeah, and making sure they do not end up on a stripper pole or on YouPorn either.

Thrill of a Lifetime

2009-11-16T18:34:00.000-08:00

I'm back. After a bit of a sabbatical to tend to personal matters I have returned. I spent the vast majority of my time the last two weeks studying for my pharmacy tech certification exam. I am pleased to say that preliminary results indicate I have passed. I will get the official results in about a week and a half and then I will be able to officially call myself Tony Counsil, CPhT. Titles make me feel extra important. Thursday was the exam but Friday was also a big day for me.

As loyal readers to my blog will know I regularly refer to ESPN's Bill Simmons, a.k.a. the Sports Guy. I would consider him my favorite columnist on the web due to my unhealthy addiction to sports and his witty, acerbic take on them. He recently wrote a book which chronicles the history of basketball. While I am not finished with it yet it has proven to be excellent so far and I look forward to the remaining pages.

Mr. Simmons was in Anaheim signing his book for fans. Being that I have read every word he's written over the last 8 years as well as listened to every podcast he has done there was no way I was missing it. I lined myself up with 400 or so of my closest friends, eagerly anticipating a chance to see the man who has taken up more of our lives than anything except working and sleeping. To say that I walked away from the experience impressed would do a great injustice to the afternoon.

This was my first book signing that I have been to so I was a bit unsure of what to expect. I have heard that many authors will sign his or her name only. Some will write the same small, generic phrase or greeting in all books. I have even heard stories of authors not bothering to look up at the very people who are consuming their product. Bill Simmons did none of the above. As each person stepped up to the table at which he was sitting, he greeted each one with a smile and a kind word. He then proceeded to strike up a short conversation, noticing something about what the fan was wearing or giving a genuine answer to a question a fan might have asked. Only after about 20 or 30 seconds would he begin to write. The message? Something that related specifically to the conversation he had just had. At least that was my experience.

Standing in line for a while before the signing began, I had struck up conversations with a few of those in line. After we had our books signed we compared our experiences and all came away with the same impression: Bill Simmons was the greatest. For each of us he had written something that had pertained to the brief conversations we had with him. Our only conclusion was that he had done this for each and every person in line. To do this for a select few fans would have been nice. To do so for the 400 or so that showed up was downright impressive. He seemed to be truly appreciative for the support of his book and rewarded those of us who took the time to show up with something personal and treasured.

I may go to other book signings and be equally impressed with those authors, who for all I know may end up being even more appreciative and humble. But there is something about the first time you do anything that makes it extra special, and I cannot imagine walking away feeling any more elated than I did last Friday. So often we create heroes and idols in our minds only to meet those heroes and walk away thoroughly unimpressed. I am glad to say that my expectations were greatly exceeded and my signed copy of The Book of Basketball will be a prized possession until I am too senile to follow a basketball game on TV. Or on whatever people are watching games in 2058.

Grab Bag

2009-10-27T14:35:00.001-07:00

I have several things on my mind and could not narrow down any one thing to talk about so today I will truly meander with my thoughts.

I saw the funniest/stupidest thing today. I was at a four-way stop and two cars were moving into the intersection in front of me. Both of them needed to turn left but since neither of them had their turn signal on they assumed the other was going straight. They proceeded to hold up traffic for 15-20 seconds until they each figured out that the other was also turning left. I see so much terrible driving that I think there should be a mandatory behind-the-wheel test every 10 years so people don't idiotically forget the basics.

I was thinking about music and wondered what my Mount Rushmore of albums would be. Here are the four in no particular order.
1) Aja - Steely Dan This album is the perfect mood record to listen to when you are in the mood for some upscale jazz rock. From short impactful songs to long, winding, epic instrumentals it has a little bit of everything.
2) Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness - Smashing Pumpkins Speaking of having a little bit of everything, what can be said about this masterpiece that hasn't already been said? For anyone coming of age in the mid to late 90's and into any type of rock/alternative this was the album to own. Lay back, close your eyes and let yourself go on a two hour journey through every emotion. This will certainly go down as the best alternative album ever.
3) Court and Spark - Joni Mitchell Possibly my favorite album ever. Perfect in every way. The songs flow together perfectly, instrumentation is perfect, Joni's voice is perfect. I really grew into this album listening to it almost nonstop on the two cruises I went on. I have probably listened to this 500 times.
4) The Chronic - Dr. Dre The pinnacle of 80's and 90's gangsta rap. This was the first album to blend hard, real lyrics with unparalleled producing. Never before had there been so much melody on rap tracks and the only tracks to have more since ripped off other songs wholesale. Not everyone's cup of tea but definitely the defining album of a very large genre.

A few words about the Angels. My favorite professional sports team was eliminated from the playoffs by the New York Yankees on Sunday. The Yankees were simply better. Once you get so far you always think there is a good chance for your team to win but there is not shame in losing to a better opponent. Manager Mike Sciocsia gets a bad rap for not winning more World Series titles with the team he's got but it's hard to win. Since the Angels won a World Series in 2002, of the four times they have made the playoffs not counting this year, they have been knocked out of the playoffs by the eventual World Series champion three times. They may make it four out of five if the Yankees win this year. They simply are not the better team. It was too bad they couldn't go further but I am not at all disappointed with this year. Great effort all around. By the way, you should have to wait at least a week after your team fails in the playoffs to wear any branded clothing. Wearing Angels gear the next day is not cool.

Finally, a couple of quick notes. Anybody who is fat enough to have ample fat rolls around the stomach should not wear a message T-shirt. I saw a couple today that had illegible words due to excess folding in the midsection. Please do us all a favor; if you are super fat please stop wearing clothes meant for skinny people. Thanks in advance.

I passed a house that had what looked to be spiderweb decorations except they looked like the house got TP'd. Decorations that look like pranks = Halloween FAIL.

I'll stop rambling for now and hopefully on Friday I will have a reasonably coherent group of words for you to read. Until then.

Dreams

2009-10-16T08:53:00.000-07:00

Dreams can be uplifting, scary, emotional. I am not talking about the dreams we have for where our lives will end up; I am talking about the dreams we have at night. I am not sure if I am in the minority but my dreams border on out and out bizarre. I'll share a small sample of the past couple of nights. I have no idea what any of it means or why I would dream it, rather I am just writing it down.

My first dream the other night placed me at an Angels World Series Game. I was in a booth which seemed to have a very nice place to eat but not a very good view of the field. I watched Third Eye Blind perform a pregame song which tore up the field and caused a delay. Then during the game, a foul ball came into the booth where I was standing and right to me, which I proceeded to catch. Being that I had never caught a foul ball at a game before, I was quite excited. I moved down to a seat right along the field just as the final out was being made. I looked at the scoreboard: Angels 16, Dodgers 14.

My next dream wasn't very long but it did involve me hanging out at the home of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. Their house was filled with many hallways and I got the overwhelming sense of there being a lot of exposed wood beams and wood paneling. I have no idea why I was there, just that Brad was watching a football game and Angelina was off watching the kids.

My dream last night was the weirdest of all. I was at my grandmother's house and was watching a show on TV about Atlantis. They had celebrities, including Alan Thicke of all people, participating in experiments showing that Atlantis was not located off the coast of South America but rather under the coast of South America. There was someone in the room who studied different historical and extraterrestrial phenomena and I remember he had several books with him. I went outside and was surprised to see that instead of the usual cratering on the moon, craters were arranged to look like the back of a dime. Then suddenly what looked to be the sun rose over the horizon, only it wasn't. What it was I am not sure but soon after that something weird happened.

All of the birds in the sky started to fall as well as all of the airplanes. For some reason there were hundreds of birds and dozens of planes in the immediate area. A rather large passenger plane crashed just a couple hundred yards away and I remember being pelted with debris as I hid behind a wall. Before a minute more had passed some type of militaristic law enforcement officers drove up and down the street with loudspeakers telling us that we had to remain inside and would be under constant surveillance. We were also instructed to burn all pictures of loved ones and instead replace them with a list of encrypted names to represent who was supposed to have been in them. This is where the dream ends.

I am not sure if everyone has dreams with weird on a regular basis, but all of my dreams make no sense and most are approaching the level of strangeness in these. I need to look up what all of this means, though part of me is afraid to. I really should write all of my dreams down. It would probably make for either a good case study or a best seller.

Even More 1/3 Baked Ideas

2009-10-13T17:43:00.000-07:00

By now you are familiar with my 1/3 baked ideas. These are ideas which come to me and are not quite good enough to be half-baked. Two of today's ideas are sports related so if you quiver at the sight of a baseball, look away now.

The first idea I had involved how baseball teams select their pitching rotations. Usually, the idea is to have your best pitcher pitch in as many games as possible; therefore the best pitcher starts opening day and pitches every fifth game until the season is over. The second-best pitcher pitches the second game and so on. Virtually every team does this. Often, teams will set their pitching orders near the end of the season to have their best pitchers pitch in crucial games to make the playoffs or will arrange pitchers to prepare for the playoffs.

Why not take advantage of this? Instead of putting your teams number 1 pitcher against your opponent's number 1 pitcher or number 2 against number 2, why not stagger your pitchers? Pitch your worst pitcher against the other team's best. You will probably lose but it sets up the rest. Your number 1 goes against their number 2, your number 2 against their number 3, etc. Unless you are facing a team with 5 amazing pitchers, your team stands to have the best pitcher 4 out of 5 games. Suppose you are only able to win 3 of those 4 in which you have the pitching advantage. Even if you lose the game in which the advantage belongs to your opponent, you will still win 60% of the time. That equates to 97 wins which will almost certainly get you into the playoffs in most every year.

As the season progresses teams lose pitchers to injuries or rearrange their pitchers to accommodate days off. A team can do the same based on their upcoming opponent's pitching rotation. In most games you will have the better starting pitcher and this can equal more wins every year in a league where every win matters.

Idea number two also involves sports, but this time football. Everyone is familiar with a two-way mirror. The idea is that you can see through from one side of the glass but the person on the other side sees only a mirrored image. In football, many players have a tinted shield over their eyes to cut down on glare, but often times it is so the opponent cannot see which way they are looking. A quarterback's eyes often give away where he is going to throw the ball. Defensive players often intercept the ball because they track which way the quarterback is moving. Currently quarterbacks do not typically wear any sort of shield covering the eyes as it may produce glare or prevent the quarterback from seeing something. Why not develop an eye shield which utilizes two-way mirror technology in a form that wouldn't shatter and potentially cause an eye injury? How much would this be worth to a team pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue every year? It would allow the quarterback to scan the field as he chooses and not have to worry about defenders reading where he is going to throw the ball.

My third idea for today involves the delicate intricacies of marriage. Guys hate it when women nag. Women nag because most guys don't hear or understand the first time. There are many types of "grams"; candygrams, telegrams with a song. I suggest a new version: the Nag-o-gram. This involves hiring a gorgeous woman to come to the house under some pretense (while the wife is home of course) and do a little flirting with the guy while delivering a message about an opportunity for improvement. Something along the lines of "I love it when guys wear nice jeans instead of dirty sweat pants." Instead of losing points with your man by nagging him, score some points by livening up his day while subtly delivering a targeted message. Men will do anything if they think it will make hot women want them. Here's a way to convince them. You can even choose a woman based on the man's type. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Stay tuned for more 1/3 baked ideas. You never know when they'll pop out the oven prematurely.

2009-10-07T13:39:00.000-07:00

I'm back. After more than a month away I am set to deliver all of the great stuff that you've come to know and tolerate. I was trying to decide what to write about and thought it would be a great idea to do a mailbag column. You know, one of those where the writer answers E-mail questions from his or her readers. So I went to my E-mail and saw that there were exactly zero E-mails from anyone who reads this on a regular basis. After having a couple drinks and crying I decided that I wouldn't let such minor details derail the post. So I decided to do a mailbag as though I had received an avalanche of questions. As always, these are not actual submissions by my readers.

Why were you away so long? Did you pull a Dave Chappelle and go to South Africa?

I wasn't in South Africa; the airfare is outrageous! I'm not changing my name to Lemony Snicket anytime soon but I was beset by a series of unfortunate events. The first thing to happen is that I completely threw my back out. I'm not talking about needing a couple Tylenol and stretching; I'm talking about not being able to walk, sit up, or even roll over without excruciating pain. I was confined to bed for a couple of days before I could really walk and even then, I couldn't sit down in a chair for more than 5 minutes for about two weeks after. Then I got a bad cold which was compounded by a bout of what I think was food poisoning which wiped me out for a couple days. Throw in my whole family getting sick around the same time and much consternation regarding my future status as a pharmacy technician and it doesn't leave a whole lot of time to write. Oh yeah, and I spent some time with my family too.

Now that the baseball playoffs are starting, what do you think of your beloved Angels and their chance of winning the World Series?

I do like the way they have been playing recently, winning 8 of their last 9 games to close out the season. I don't like the way they are matched up against the Boston Red Sox again. I hear people saying that the Angels can't lose every match up against the Red Sox in the playoffs. While that's true, I have no reason to think that this year is any different. It is sort of like playing craps in Vegas. If someone is on a winning streak throwing the dice you have to keep betting on them until they lose. Same with the Angels. In reverse. If the Angels can get past Boston, I would rate them as 3 to 1 to win it all.

Bill Clinton appeared with Gavin Newsom this week. What do you think that will do to his chances running for governor next year?

First of all, let's have no pretenses here: Gavin Newsom is running for governor right now. He hasn't been a major difference maker in San Francisco for a little while. Getting an endorsement from Bill Clinton is kind of like getting an endorsement from your fun uncle. While it may help a little, nobody is going to take it that seriously because he's the fun uncle. He is still an important figure in the Democratic party when it comes to raising money but I can't see too many people voting for Gavin just because Clinton spoke on his behalf. The real front-runner, in my opinion, is Jerry Brown. He has been governor before, is popular, has some moderate credentials, and has no serious Republican opposition.

Did you see that guy's bungee cord snapping before he hit the water? Crazy.

I did see it. As if I needed another reason to not go bungee jumping.

Chicago lost out on the chance for the U.S. to host the Olympics in 2016. What do you think of Rio de Janiero as the host city?

Insert corruption joke here. As many jokes as have been made about how one of the most corrupt places in America couldn't bribe the International Olympic Committee enough, what could they have done? If you had to tempt the committee with prostitutes would you take some high class blondes or the best of the best of hot, beach-going Brazilian women? The hottest women in the U.S. couldn't touch the top 25% of women in Brazil. No contest. Sure, there are issues of crime, pollution, poverty, etc. One word: Carnival. Does United book 7 years in advance?

I think that with all of this cooler weather and the snowstorms sweeping the country there should be a 6 month moratorium on global warming talk. What say you?

I have never been a huge proponent of the fact that human activity has caused Earth to heat up like an oven and we are on a fast track to global calamity. But just as one can't point to a few years and conclude that we are indefinitely heating up, one also cannot point to the last few years and conclude that we are cooling and are definitely not heating up. Earth has been here for more than 4 billion years; the last hundred years are simply too small of a sample to draw conclusions from. Carbon output continues to rise yet temperatures have fallen a bit. It could be a natural cycle, it could be less sunspot activity, it could be the fact that I wore new shoes last year. We simply can't be sure. It would be nice to hear from Al Gore though. We heard nothing but how we were at the tipping point; that climatic armegeddon was right around the corner. Now it has been cooler the last couple of years and not a peep. People never crow as loudly when the evidence is going the other way. Can we all agree that maybe things are not as dramatic in either direction as we think they are? Let's just be reasonable and do what we can and what makes sense and things will work out the way they are supposed to work out.

What is your DVR recording this fall?

I have found myself watching more TV lately than ever before. I wondered why until I heard a great theory on Bill Simmons' podcast. The case was made that a couple decades ago great filmmakers were able to make their films without much executive interference. They got to make great art and chances were taken. TV was much more routine with typical sitcoms and bland dramas. Now the roles have reversed. TV, with so many different channels, cannot draw as many viewers. Because of this, networks do not need to appeal to 30 million people to make money and be a hit. More focused content and looser budgets allows networks to let the creative people be creative. The film industry is now tied up with formulaic content, with studios not willing to take a chance on an unknown writer or unknown actors. They would rather make a crappy sequel to a terrible film with a big star in it than make real art. Even the independent movies have become contrived; they are all about drugs, struggling in the arts, or being poor in a small town.

I have recently started watching Dexter and Mad Men and am very impressed. I enjoy The Mentalist, The Office, House, Medium, and The Simpsons among others. ESPN also has a new series of documentaries 30 for 30. The first was great and I expect the others to be. Essentially, I like to watch shows with which networks let their creative people be creative rather than having 16 brainstorming sessions per episode. I have also become interested in getting older shows which aired on pay cable delivered on Netflix. Shows like The Sopranos, The Wire and Deadwood. Much more interesting than the latest Fantastic 4 movie.

So, if you ever write again, will we have to wait as long for the next post?

No, I am going to be back to my regular Tuesday and Friday posts. I need the structure to make sure that I stay mentally acute, (as much as possible for me anyway) and make sure that I am adding something to the universe instead of constantly taking things in. Much as I know I will not add anything of lasting substance to the world but hope my kids will, I will keep writing knowing that perhaps this blog won't change the world, but that maybe somehow, someone will be inspired in some obscure way to do something great. Sorry, I couldn't say that with a straight face. Who am I kidding? I'm a blowhard and this is my outlet.

Look out for my next post on Friday. I promise I will be regular with my posts. I wish I knew how to quit blogging. I just can't.

Thanks for reading and big balls.

Creative Revenue

2009-08-28T10:10:00.000-07:00

It was recently announced that the forthcoming budget deficit over the next 10 years is an astonishing $9 trillion... with a t. This is a lot of money that we do not have. There are approximately 100 million households in the U.S., so if one does the math, this equates to $9,000 per year, per household extra that each household will have to earn to cover only the principle of this borrowing. I am not aware of a whole lot of households who have an extra $9,000 lying around with which to write the check to the IRS on April 15. Needless to say, the government must come up with some creative ways to make money. I offer a suggestion.

Weekends in fall are one of the most exciting times of year for millions across the country. It is not because of wonderful family outings or bond-building sessions of leaf raking in the backyard straight out of the JC Penney catalog (although these are fabulous ways to spend your time). It is all about football. Watching football is great, getting drunk tailgating at a football game is even better. One of the activities football fans are most passionate about is gambling on football games. Yes, evil, life crushing, debacherous gambling.

Americans love to gamble. Las Vegas has become THE place to go on vacation. Many of us frequent our local Indian casinos, which are springing up everywhere like Starbucks coffee shops circa 1996. For all of the protestations by various groups, I would like to borrow some of the logic of Adam Carolla for a minute and pose a question to you. Close your eyes for a minute and think about everyone you know who has lost everything due to a crippling gambling problem. I'll wait. Think of anyone? Probably not. This is because there are not millions upon millions of people who are recovering gambling addicts. There are some, to be sure, but the problem is not epidemic like some would like to have you believe.

We see gambling at casinos, gambling in the form of lottery tickets, even sports teams hosting Casino Night to raise money for charity. Clearly, as a society, we have decided that gambling is part of the mainstream and acceptable within reason. Why is it that we have drawn the line with sports betting? We allow it in Nevada but nowhere else. Every year we hear about how many tens or hundreds of millions of dollars are legally bet on the Super Bowl. How much more is being bet either through illegal bookmakers or online to offshore gambling sites? How much is being wagered throughout the year considering all of the thousands of college and professional football games played? How much more would be bet if people could do it legally? How much tax revenue could be had if all of that money was being wagered legally here in the U.S.?

When sports betting happens legally, taxes are paid regardless of who wins. If the casinos win, they pay taxes on the profit they make. If the bettors win, they, if they are following tax law which would require a whole other discussion, would pay taxes on the extra income they earn from it. Either way, the government gets a piece. Imagine if there were licensed bookmakers or legal online betting sites in this country for the government to tax. This could be billions coming back into the government till, helping to ease the financial burden of all of the government spending that has spiraled upward in the past 10 years.

This argument could also be applied to poker. Sports gambling and poker are two forms of gambling, (and yes, while poker is considered a skill game, every bet has an expected value and there are odds that govern winning and losing, therefore making it gambling) that have the highest expectations for experienced players because both allow you to use information to make smarter wages, either on sporting events, or choosing better bets while playing poker. We should reward folks for choosing to gamble in a way that can actually have a long-term positive expectation. Instead we shun these players and force them to play games which only have negative expectations. (I am counting blackjack because while the expectation is positive if you count cards, you usually cannot do that long enough to come out ahead long-term before the casinos ban you. Using basic strategy, which casinos do allow, affords the house a small edge. If this made no sense to you, read Casino Gambling for Dummies by Kevin Blackwood.)

I could spend an eternity on why sports betting has been stopped at every turn by politicians in Washington and how this links to all of the extra spending that Uncle Sam has been doing recently. Perhaps I will in another post. It suffices to say that there is a lot of extra revenue waiting to be claimed by the government if it were to allow people to legally do what they are already doing illegally. Granted, this alone will not solve the problem of where to come up with the $9,000 per household every year for 10 years, but no one thing will solve the problem. It will take many small solutions to add up to a big solution and this would be a great start.

Thanks for reading and big balls.

Bad Language

2009-08-25T18:33:00.000-07:00

F*#^, s&@*, c@*#. Ok, not that kind of bad language. I am talking about the kinds of egregious, bone-headed, unfathomable language mistakes that simultaneously make me cringe and make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. We all misspeak from time to time, but some errors are worse, and more common, than others. Here are some of my serial offenders.

Nothing is worse than when life-long English speakers manage to completely mispronounce common words. We all know about some of the more universal mistakes: pronouncing nuclear as nuke-you-ler or foliage as foil-age. How about some others? Do you say "Alls you have to do" instead of "All you have to do"? I heard a woman on TV say "volleyvall" instead of "volleyball". Seriously, what has this language come to?

Another of my pet peeves is when people use "I" instead of "me" and vice versa. One should not say "My brother and me went to the store." Nor should one say "Go to the store with my brother and I." Just use "I" or "me" as if the other subject of the sentence was not there. It's just that easy.

I am no English major (though I have known a few), nor do I profess to have perfect grammar and literary skills. I do not commit any of the aforementioned atrocities, and my ears would kindly ask that if you do know anybody who has difficulty with any of the above mistakes, you swiftly and forcefully smack him or her on the back of the head. Thanks in advance.

Hai Majide

Freedom of Speech?

2009-08-22T22:25:00.000-07:00

As regular readers of this blog will know I have recently taken a large dive into the world of international soccer and, especially, the English Premier League. One of my greatest daily treats was listening to a podcast of the Sirius show "World Soccer Daily". This show centered on all things soccer, focusing on international soccer and the English Premier League, all while based out of Los Angeles, giving it somewhat of an American flavor.

Today I was saddened to hear that the show is going off of the air. It is not ending because of poor ratings or contract negotiations; it is ending because the hosts and their families are receiving death threats via telephone, E-mail and Twitter. They are receiving these death threats from members of fanatical Liverpool FC fan clubs, all stemming from fairly innocuous comments made on the air a little while back.

The source of the controversy involved a tragedy that happened 20 years ago in England. You can check Wikipedia for a detailed treatment but I will summarize here. A crowd of people overran the outside gates of a match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forrest and congregated in a standing area near the field which was fenced in by tall steel gates. Too many people crowded the front and 96 people died when they suffocated while being pressed forward against this gate. Many blamed the tragedy on the fact that there were large pens where fans could crowd together. Some blamed police for opening up an outside gate to prevent crushing outside, allowing too many people to enter the stadium.

A less widely held view is that Liverpool fans bore some of the responsibility for events. Claims have been made that fans were drunk, violent, and congregated together in large numbers in a coordinated effort to outnumber police and gain entry into the event without tickets. One of the hosts of "World Soccer Daily", Steven Cohen, had expressed belief that Liverpool fans did indeed act badly on that day and should bear some of the blame for the tragedy. Although he apologized for anger this might have caused amongst Liverpool fans, he was on the receiving end of an effort to have him ousted as host of the show.

The efforts began as a massive boycott of the show and included phone calls, E-mails and letter writing to executives at Sirius radio to have the show removed. It then devolved into personal attacks and severe anti-Semitic slurs toward Cohen. Later, the attacks became direct against family members and, especially, against Cohen himself. Cohen decided enough was enough and bowed to pressure to attempt to alleviate the threats against him and his family.

Selfishly, as someone just starting to dive into soccer, it upset me that I lost the only daily soccer broadcast in this country. It also upset me that people would threaten someone's life over a statement that was made on a soccer show. A bigger disappointment is the fact that top executives at Liverpool FC knew full well what was going on and not once issued a statement condemning the hateful speech and threats. What I am most disappointed with, however, is that the campaign of hate and intimidation came not from fans in England, but rather from the U.S.

We live in a country where freedom of speech is such a basic right that it is guaranteed as the First Amendment to our Constitution. Certainly, making a comment about events 20 years prior on a soccer show would qualify. That people living in this country, under our Constitution, could ignore this fact and threaten away someone else's right to free speech is shameful. No matter how much we might disagree with one's position, he or she does not deserve to be slandered, be racially denigrated and have his or her family's life threatened.

Steven Cohen moved to the U.S. from England as a young man and promptly served 4 years in the U.S. Army. He has done nothing to deserve the vitriol that the animals supporting Liverpool FC have inflicted upon him. To think that it is 2009 and one could be killed for uttering a simple statement makes me wonder whether we are living in the United States or Iran. Such hatred has no place in this country, whether it is in entertainment, sports, politics or any other forum. We are all entitled to be heard. We are not entitled to threaten others to prevent them from being heard.

The Wisdom of Newton (Not the Fig)

2009-08-14T18:50:00.000-07:00

Bodies in motion tend to stay in motion and bodies at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. So summarizes Sir Isaac Newton's concept of inertia as described in his first law of motion. Although Newton was undoubtedly concerned with the motion of physical bodies, I think of inertia more in terms of human bodies; specifically how we live our lives day to day.

Isn't it funny how we all fall into habits? Some of those habits are good and some are bad. Either way, they are very difficult to get out of. If the habit involves doing something it is hard to stop. If the habit involves doing nothing, it is hard to get going. Don't blame it on willpower or desire; blame in on Sir Isaac Newton!

The best thing to do in life is to do things differently from time to time. Having the same morning routine, watching the same shows every day or every week, ordering the same foods at a restaurant are all good ways to become inertia's BFF. One needs to get outside of the comfort zones we surround ourselves with and do something new to grow every day. Maybe that is practicing another language, or a musical instrument, or learning a new recipe or researching a new subject. Continuing to expand our horizons in new and innovative ways helps us make the most of the precious little time we have.

Perhaps I should take a little more advice. My area of improvement involves setting a body in motion when it tends to be at rest. More specifically, I need to get my butt to the gym. I tend to find reasons why I can't get to the gym instead of finding reasons why I can. I like working out, I just find it difficult to get there. Once I get started I am pumped up to go, but it is the getting there that is the hard part. I made a promise to my daughter that I would be healthier by the end of the year. I am 7 1/2 months in and haven't made much progress. That will change. Next week I will go to the gym and overcome my inertia.

I believe that Confucius knew much more about inertia than he let on. He said, "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." He understood that getting moving was the most difficult part of any sojourn; that the rest would be much easier after that. I challenge you to find your own areas of inertia and do something to get moving, or perhaps, slow down. Take a step to start something you have been meaning to start or to stop something you have been meaning to stop. Let's all do a little something new to get from where we are to where we want to go. Sharks die if they stop moving. Be a shark. Doing something, no matter how small, is much better than doing nothing.

Healing Heath Care

2009-08-11T17:30:00.000-07:00

So it continues. The rushes of those at the upper echelons of our government are very eager to foist nationalized health care on us. The debate continues to be heated and to pretend to know what the final outcome will be would be difficult considering I broke my crystal ball a few days ago. I will come right out and say that I think national heath care is a bad idea. A colossally near-sighted, bloated animal of paying taxes out the butt bad idea.

The first reason it is a bad idea is that it will be the federal government running it. We all laugh when we think about the term efficient government and to think that things will change with health care would be quite naive. This is the same entity which runs the tax system, welfare and has gotten involved with public education, causing our schools to spiral out of control. Why would we believe that things would be any more streamlined, organized and efficient when it comes to universal health care?

On a related note, has anyone heard one great thing about Medicare? Granted, our senior citizens can become confused a tad easier than those in their twenties, but many a sharp-minded oldster have thrown their canes in disgust when trying to understand the program, what they qualify for, how much they have to pay, when they have to enroll, and so on. Imagine this times 100. I cannot believe that it will involve just a few forms and a few minutes of your time. It will be ridiculous, and will lead to people not getting appropriate care at the appropriate time at the appropriate cost.

How good are you with your money? Can you pay your bills? Do you support others who are a drain on your finances and pay nothing back into it? Welcome to the wonderful world of our federal deficit! The government is in debt $1.3 trillion dollars just this year alone. That is $1,300,000,000,000. The government pays for so many things that involve giving money to people who will not put money back into the system. Examples are those on welfare, Social Security and Medicare. There is way too much money going out in entitlements without sufficient sources to replenish those funds.

In a universal health care system, those using the system will be those who cannot afford to carry private insurance. Who will those people mainly consist of? The poor (who effectively pay no tax and if they qualify for the Earned Income Credit actually get more money back than they have paid in; kind of tax welfare), children and the elderly. None of those people are putting money back in the system. My taxes and your taxes will be raised to fund this. I will be paying money so that those who have not saved and cannot provide their family with the health insurance that they responsibly should, get health care at no cost. I will now light myself on fire.

Health care is not a right. The freedom of speech is a right. The freedom to worship whichever religion you choose is a right. Getting your arm fixed up when you fall off of a ladder or getting chemotherapy to shrink a tumor is not a right. Health care costs money and nobody who works hard should have money taken from their family to fix another family's medical issues. I don't want to sound like a cranky, paranoid extremist, but we have seen a rise in entitlements over the last few generations and universal health care is a giant step in that direction. That's not a direction I want to go in.

I am not the type to complain about something without offering a solution. Instead of giving health care for free at the expense of others or letting costs spiral out of control, why not look to control the costs of the health care? Instead of giving health care to all and getting over billed by greedy health care and insurance companies things should be left to the private sector. One could try to establish non-profit status with existing companies to discourage them from trying to make a profit. Companies would be required to only charge patients for premiums and care what it costs to provide it. There would be no profit taking and no margin goals to hit.

Companies that charge too much for care will be squeezed out and companies cannot lower standards of care to increase profits; if less money is spent on facilities and patients, costs for those patients will be lower as well. The market should settle into a happy medium in terms of costs and there will still be room for a range of care, similar to how people will pay more for better automobiles or televisions. Costs are kept in control and people get choices, not long lines for sub par government care. Costs will always go up, just like anything else, but at least this way people will get what they pay for; nothing more, nothing less.

Confirmed!

2009-08-07T17:35:00.000-07:00

At last we have reached the end of the saga that is the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court. Every time a new Supreme Court Justice is required I shut my ears to the inane cries coming from Washington D.C. With every nomination comes outrage from those on the other side of the political aisle, expressing outrage over how someone so outside of the "political mainstream" could be trusted with adjudicating the most pressing issues of our society. We have hearing after hearing where blowhard Senator after blowhard Senator weighs in, pro or con. Enough already.

Perhaps said screaming senators should remember a little cliche: to the victor come the spoils. Barack Obama won the election. Fair and square. The president gets to nominate the person of his choosing to fill any positions on the Supreme Court. The only requirement, the responsibility with which the U.S. Senate is to arbitrate, is whether or not said candidate is of sound legal authority and has the qualifications necessary to fill the Justice position. Essentially, if someone has an upstanding record of being a judge and is in good legal standing with their state bar association, he or she should be allowed to serve. Not whether the candidate believes in Roe v. Wade or what he or she believes on the topic of affirmative action. If President Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor it is presumed her political philosophies will like somewhat to the left. This is his right to do so.

What is laughable is that all of the Senators in Washington have a clear sense of what the political mainstream is. This country is too diverse to have a mainstream opinion anymore. Short of such common ground like banning bestiality or burning people alive, there is little, politically speaking, which you could confidently agree that 51% of Americans believe to be correct. Therefore the mainstream no longer exists. We are left with two diverse sets of opinions and at any given moment we are wont to switch between the two come Election Day. This past November we, as a nation, decided to swing left and this is reflected in Obama's nomination. That makes it the mainstream.

All voters know, or at least should know, that the President has the power to nominate someone of his choosing to the Supreme Court. I would assume that our esteemed Senators know this. How come, one wonders, it seems that with every nomination those of the minority party act shocked and outraged that the President would nominate someone with whom he shares political ideology? I suspect it is less about politics and more about grandiose showboating. In order to run for public office, one must posses a larger than average sense of self. Such shenanigans like we have seen in recent weeks is simply a way for ego driven Senators to get more face time on the NBC Nightly News. Can we please calm down and knock off all of this grandstanding? In the end we knew Ms. Sotomayor would be confirmed. How about these Senators just do their job and get back to what is really important? You know, finding new ways to waste our tax dollars.

More 1/3 Baked Ideas

2009-08-05T16:17:00.000-07:00

A little while back I wrote about a few 1/3 baked ideas I had. These are ideas that are not quite good enough to be 1/2 baked. Here are a few more which came straight from my brain. Results may vary.

A little while ago I was watching someone eat a Drumstick ice cream treat. As delicious as the whole thing is, my favorite part of the Drumstick is the very last bite; the bottom of the cone containing a thick layer of chocolate and a small bit of the remaining ice cream. From the moment I first bite into the top I can think of nothing else besides treating myself to that delectable combination of waffle cone, chocolate and vanilla ice cream (Caramel Drumsticks do not apply). It almost feels like I am cheating on the rest of the Drumstick by dreaming of another. Then I got to one of my more dangerous activities, which is thinking. What if they put out a version of Drumsticks where that last bite was all there was? It would just be a bin, a la Dibs, full of frozen Drumstick bottoms: tip of the waffle cone, thick layer of chocolate inside and just a bit of vanilla ice cream. Then I wouldn't have to eat the rest of the Drumstick while dreaming about the bottom. Heavenly deliciousness.

A few days back I heard a report on a local FM radio show I was forced to listen to at work regarding celebrity look alikes. These were not cheesy lounge performers mind you, rather these were sperm donors who look like celebrities so women can have children that look like they could be the offspring of said famous persons. This idea is quite creepy so naturally I had to draw it out to its furthest creepy extent. What if instead of getting the sperm of a celebrity look alike you could get the actual sperm or DNA of a celebrity? You want a baby from George Clooney? No need to have sex with him, just get a hold of a sample of his sperm and start having some of the best looking kids on the planet. Love Brad Pitt? Get a sample of his DNA and hire a shady lab outside the U.S. to clone him. My idea is to have a service by which one would procure said sperm and DNA samples from celebrities and sell them to potential stalkers, um, I mean really huge fans. A collection of good looking women surely could wrangle a sample or two from the best genetic specimens Hollywood and professional sports have to offer. It can all be done from other countries to get around the pesky U.S. legal system. Are there women who would pay into the six figure range to have a child that looks like their favorite stud? You know there are.

Those are my new 1/3 baked ideas. Check back for more ideas not good enough to be 1/2 baked at a later time when my brain sinks to depths which are more and more depraved.

Thanks for reading and big balls.

My Fair Pygmalion

2009-07-31T16:43:00.000-07:00

Imagine a very small island out in the middle of nowhere in the South Pacific. Imagine it being a very poor island with little to no industry and having been ravaged by previous settlers leaving the native inhabitants of the island nothing to show for it. Imagine the smallest town you can think of with one post office, one church, a small police station and one small school house. Now, imagine each of the above are in severe disrepair. You've imagined Banaba Island, part of the Republic of Kiribati.

Go ahead and look it up on Wikipedia or Google Earth. The island is only about 2 miles across and located 180 miles from the next closest island and almost 1,000 miles from any semblance of real civilization. The island was ravaged by almost 80 years of phosphate mining and has no real industry of which to speak. There are around 300 inhabitants of Banaba Island with the population decreasing slightly in the last decade. Let me be perfectly clear, this island has NOTHING.

So now imagine you are a billionaire. You are looking to spend money but not in the usual way. You are not into yachts or houses in the Hamptons or gold plated toilets. You want to do something creative, newsworthy and bizarrely educational. What better way to blow your dough than to invest in Banaba Island. Here's my crazy plan.

Much like the storyline in the book Pygmalion, later modernized in the movie My Fair Lady, it would be fascinating to see what would happen if you took a group of people who have nothing and suddenly give them everything. Would they adopt the change? Would they reject the assistance? Would they turn into couch potatoes and act like many American males living in their parents' basement? The possibilities are endless.

I would essentially give them everything they would need and which would be found in a modern, upper-class suburb. Everyone would have a spacious, comfortable home with full heating and air conditioning, excellent plumbing, insulation, and nice interiors. Every one's home would be the same so as not to differentiate between families or individuals. I would also upgrade all of the town's amenities. There would be a new post office, new community center, new church, new schoolhouse and a new medical center. I would also pave new roads between all key areas of the island, build a few large parks for recreation and construct recreational areas along the water's edge. There would also be a market where food, supplies and items for entertainment would be sold.

How would Banaba Island's residents earn the money to buy supplies and food? Everyone would be given a communications type job. It could be a telemarketing job or Internet monitoring. Everyone would do similar work and be paid a similar wage. This would ensure that all inhabitants would be just as well off financially as their neighbors. There could be no financial jealousy. This would all be facilitated by a modern communications center. All inhabitants would have access to full Internet, a wide variety of television and radio programs, and news from many different sources as well as full telephone access. Essentially they would be given all of the things a modern, middle-class American person would have access to.

This would all be supported by a fully trained staff. There would be top notch professionals in all fields to facilitate the needs of the islanders. There would be a doctor and support staff, a school teacher, trained security, hospitality workers for the community center, postal staff, communications staff and maintenance crew. These folks would likely have to be paid very well and do set stints on the island, 6 months at a time at close to 200% the going rate to account for the many months of isolation.

With all of that in place the real interesting drama unfolds. What becomes of the island inhabitants? One scenario is that they adopt a very modern lifestyle and with the high quality education and services they receive send kids out in the world to be professionals and make it in the wide world. Some might come back, have kids of their own and perpetuate the cycle and Banaba Island could become a bastion of greatness in the South Pacific. Another scenario is that they enjoy the modern lifestyle but do not appreciate it because it was handed to them. They let their houses fall into disrepair, the kids do not make the most of their education, staff is unappreciated and they fail to work hard to earn their living. Would a sense of entitlement set in so that they think they should continue to receive the best of modern life without putting any effort into work or maintaining the island?

I do not know enough about the people of Banaba Island to predict what the end result was. It sure would be fascinating to find out. You could even do a Truman Show like production to chronicle the lives and progress of those on the island. Typically, human nature shows itself to treat poorly what was not hard earned. It is the reason that people who win the lottery or athletes who make money from their physical gifts tend to spend money wastefully and end up broke when the money could last for generations. Those who make money by working hard and innovating tend to make the money last and spend it wisely. Perhaps that is why, as a freshly minted billionaire, I am spending my money in this fashion. Either result would be fascinating and could go a long way toward understanding true human nature.

Hai Majide

2009-07-28T16:34:00.000-07:00

Coming back from the Angels game last night I was driving in the 2 lane and came upon a car doing exactly 58 miles per hour (I know because I followed it for a mile or so). My first inclination was to become frustrated but my second inclination was to write a post about it. The freeway is the greatest and the worst thing about driving. By nature I love to drive, but nothing makes me want to take public transportation more than the freeway. Sometimes I think about how great it would be to have an Autobahn like system. Then I snap back to reality and realize that it could never happen in this country. Why is that? Let us count the ways.

1. We do not have enough aggregate driving skill. Many of us in this country, especially in the Los Angeles area, come from different areas of the world where driving is not an everyday part of life. It is very difficult to take a mature adult who has never driven and make them drive. It is a skill that needs to be learned from early in life, sort of like speaking a second language. It is hard to trust those with little to no history of driving with being able to choose their own speed on the highway.

2. Government and law enforcement still have a worldview that is set in the 1950's. Basically it is slow down, slow down, slow down. Setting low speed limits 50 years ago made sense for a couple reasons. First, there were gas shortages and going slower improved gas mileage. Second, cars were quite unsafe compared with modern standards. Seat belts weren't even standard yet. If there was an accident at those speeds a driver would surely be killed. Now there are routinely accidents on the freeway where everyone walks away. Cars are built better and safer and will not fall apart and shudder if the odometer hits 90 or 100 mph. Speed differential kills. There are folks who will drive as fast as they want regardless of the speed limit and many who stick to 65 mph because it's the law, many of these folks occupying all lanes instead of the right hand lanes. If we had a system where those slower cars had to stay to the right and fast cars could go fast we would have much better traffic flow without all the lane changes to clog everything up.

3. There are too many trucks on the road. I understand that these large 18 wheel trucks are the backbone of our economy. I get it. But can we tell these truck drivers to stay in the right hand lane? There is nothing more aggravating than coming up on a snarl of traffic created when a truck ventured into the 2 lane to pass a truck in the 3 lane at 61 mph who was passing a truck in the right hand lane at 59 mph. Seriously guys, I know we're all trying to make our times but we need to just accept the 59 mph and move on. There are many other cars on the road who would like to do more than 61 mph. There is no reason to have trucks 3 wide on a 4 lane freeway. Any truck in the 2 lane should get an automatic ticket. Any truck in the 3 lane for longer than it takes to pass another vehicle should be ticketed as well. It would keep the other 3 lanes free for cars and allow for better traffic flow. This will never happen however because "long-haul trucking is what built this country."

4. Americans are simply too distracted when they drive. If you ever go to Germany you will find that on the Autobahn, drivers are doing something revolutionary: they are driving! They are not talking on cell phones, yelling at their kids, eating, applying makeup, reading the newspaper or conducting an orchestra in their cars. All they do is focus on driving. This is a great idea since driving at 110 mph takes quite a bit of concentration. I just do not think American drivers have the discipline to simply focus on the road with a little bit of light background music to ease the long drive. Driving at over 100 mph while trying to read a map or talk on the phone is a recipe for disaster and would be inevitable.

I wish we could all be better drivers and could enjoy the liberating feeling of being able to get to your destination as fast as you would like without having to look in your mirrors every two seconds checking for Highway Patrol cars. Driving from L.A. to Las Vegas shouldn't take 6 hours if one travels the speed limit. You should be able to get there in 3 hours if you have a safe car and are comfortable driving at high speeds. Unfortunately we have no way to insert a driving chip to make everyone a great driver. Yet.

Thanks for reading and big balls.

More Things That Annoy Me

2009-07-24T14:08:00.000-07:00

Sequels suck. How many movies have been ruined by crappy, straight-to-video sequels that you wouldn't watch if someone was paying you $25,657.83 to do so. Recently I wrote a post about things that annoy me and promised a follow up. Here it is. It might suck, but hopefully not as much as a typical Hollywood sequel. Without further delay, and in no particular order, more things that annoy me.

OK, I'll admit it; I'm short. I'm 5'7" and not a hair's breadth taller. I've always had a bit of a complex about it and I obsess about height. I think I've looked at every post on celebheights.com at least a dozen times. I would give my left testicle to be 6'4" and am very sensitive to all things height related. I'm sorry. But as a courtesy to us small people I would like to extend a challenge to tall people everywhere. Please be conscious of what you are doing and how it relates to the vertically challenged. I have given change to a great many tall people in my life. Almost always, when accepting change they hold their hand straight out in front of them. The problem with this is that straight out for them is at my chest! So now I have to reach up above my neckline to put the change in their hand. It makes me feel 8 inches tall. Can we put the hand down a bit lower please? You're the one with the gift. Look out for the little guy, literally and figuratively.

Tattoos are great. They allow you to express yourself, be creative, and express to the world that you are indeed NOT a badass. So surely if you are way into the tattoo culture, what better way to let the world know (besides that tattoo on your neck) than a t-shirt covered with tattoo inspired art? Such is the logic behind Ed Hardy t-shirts. At first it was interesting but they are popping up everywhere. Remember when if someone had a tattoo they were edgy and unique? Everyone has a tattoo now. I think they have a new tattoo shop opening up with a new line of Disney tattoos for elementary students. The same thing has happened with the Ed Hardy shirts. People buy them to represent what tattoos used to represent: badassness (not a word but if making up words is good enough for Shakespeare it is good enough for me). The rub is that they don't make you a badass, they make you a douche. Especially the long sleeve t-shirts. I've believed this for some time but now that Jon Gosselin wears them all the time, even in the shower, I have never been more vindicated. Who is a bigger douche than that guy? I would like to have a 6 month moratorium on the Ed Hardy shirts and see if we're still clamoring for them after the absence. My guess is that we wouldn't.

What is the reason for the rise in allergies. There is so much medication now for nasal allergies, seasonal allergies, allergies to pet dander and so many other forms of allergies that you could fill 3 medicine cabinets to combat them all. I don't remember hearing about all of these things even 20 years ago let alone when my grandfather was a young man. He joined the armed forces when he was 15 toward the end of World War II. I don't think they were too concerned about itchy eyes back then. There were more important things to deal with. Our lives have become too easy. All you hear about lately is peanut allergies. Even one peanut in the same gymnasium as someone with peanut allergies could lead to that person going into anaphalactic shock. Huh? How did we evolve in one generation to suddenly now have a brand new type of allergy that nobody seemed to have fifty years ago? Because of that one kid students cannot bring anything with peanuts or peanut butter to some schools for lunch out of fear that someone will become ill from inhaling the slightest whiff. On many flights they hand out some crappy fiesta mix because they won't have the peanuts handed out any longer. Can we all just CALM DOWN? Here's an idea. If you're the one person out of 5,000 who has a peanut allergy how about you just eat in a classroom or get home schooled? Why do the other 4,999 kids have to alter their lifestyle to suit yours? Pretty soon we're going to go to a baseball game and not be able to buy peanuts because some albino hemophiliac sitting in a luxury box might have a hint of peanut waft in through the air conditioner. These things never seem to be a big problem in Detroit or South Los Angeles or anywhere people struggle financially; only in Malibu or Seattle. Toughen up people. We don't need to proceed with all the histrionics every time someone MIGHT get sick.

There is this one area outside of the store where I work that is an oddity. It is a very wide concrete ramp between a handicapped parking spot and an open, covered outdoor area. Nobody is quite sure what its purpose is. The one thing everyone can agree on though is that it is not a parking spot. Inevitably though, I see cars parked on that ramp from time to time. This despite the fact that the ramp is the same width and looks the same as the ramp which leads right up to the front door of the store. I am never sure who parks on this ramp but I know they have at least one thing in common: the car they drive is a luxury car. I don't want to jump to any conclusions because, after all, I am the last who would ever do so. But it seems to smack of the rich guy doing whatever the hell he wants doesn't it? I'm not saying they are bad people. I sincerely believe that many of these people aren't consciously thinking about the fact that it might not be a parking space and parking there anyway; the thought never crosses their minds at all. This is the true problem. Those with money tend to have the ability to smooth things over far more easily than those without money. There are not major repercussions for actions. It makes people careless and they end up parking in areas that are not supposed to be parking spaces. Can we, as a society, pay some attention on the road? If the parking lot is full and there is what appears to be a prime parking spot open, can we stop to think about why that space might not be filled? Maybe it is because it is not a parking spot after all. Just saying.

On that same note why are we so afraid to be wrong? I don't know about you but I have been wrong a time or two, or fifty thousand, in my life. When I'm wrong I say I'm wrong. It hurts sometimes but I know that admitting it and learning from it will make me a better person. I'm not sure when it became a crime to be wrong but people would rather kill than admit they made a mistake. I never understood grammar much until I studied German in school where I learned about the passive way of speaking. Instead of saying "I wrote the paper" you would say "The paper was written". It shifts the subject from the person doing the action to the action that was done. This passive voice has been growing louder in recent years. When someone cannot operate a machine they say "the machine will not work" instead of "I cannot work this machine". They say "this screw will not go in" instead of "I cannot screw this in". You get the idea. We have become a nation of people who must not be at fault at all costs. Perhaps it is because of hyperlitigious attorneys who use any admission of fault to extort money out of unwitting persons. Maybe not. Either way I had to get my requisite shot at attorneys in sometime. I think it's because of the artificial self-esteem inflation that has happened in schools. We are taught that we are great, no matter what others say, so why would we think WE are the ones who are wrong? It must be the fault of something, or someone, else. If we all took more responsibility for our actions and a little more blame upon ourselves maybe we would learn something and become better human beings. Is anybody against being a better human being? I didn't think so.

Thank you for letting me get those off of my chest. There are plenty of things that annoy me but that clears things up for a little while. All I ask as you go through life is that you pay attention to what you are doing and ask yourself if it is a good idea, if it's the right thing to do, or if it will make the world a better place. If not, try not to do it. I wouldn't want you to end up on one of my lists someday.

Hai Majide

Choosing a Club

2009-07-21T19:31:00.000-07:00

I like to grow as a person whenever I can. I try to improve myself little by little and maybe by the time i am 83 I will be halfway there. My new obsessing? International soccer. I love the passion of the fans, I love the high quality of play and I love the cool accents. What's not to love? I've even begun to call soccer football. (Which makes sense because you use the foot a lot more in soccer than in American football right?) Being that I am part English and I've seen more of the English Premier League than any other high quality football league, naturally it was a great fit for me.

I learned that one of my favorite columnists, ESPN's Bill Simmons, was also interested in pursuing this. I read oven some of his material and modified it slightly in order to come up with my own requirements to decide which club was going to be my permanently adopted club going forward. For better or worse, top flight or relegated, this is going to be my team for the rest of my life. I had to make sure that I really was making the best choice for me. I didn't have as many requirements as Bill Simmons; I was able to narrow it down to four.

Bandwagon Potential. I've always prided myself on the fact that when I choose a team I am very selective. All of my American sports favorites are teams that I inherited from family, are local, or struck me in a very personal way when I chose them. I've never been one to start liking a team because they are good or because they were on T.V. all the time. Could you imagine someone coming here from another country, deciding to follow baseball and then adopting the New York Yankees as their favorite team? Ridiculous. Therefore I cannot adopt one of the clubs that make up the "Top 4", so named because of their finishing in the top 4 spots in the league year after year. Those clubs are Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Aresenal. I absolutely excluded those clubs right away.

Good Team With History but Room to Grow. In making a lifelong commitment to an EPL club I want to make sure I will still be able to follow the club in top flight play years from now. Every year the bottom three clubs in the standings drop to the second league, which is called relegation. The top three clubs in the second league are promoted to the Premier League. I cannot follow a team in danger of being relegated soon. What fun is it to follow a club that will be sent to lower division play for who knows how long? Therefore, the club I follow must have averaged a top 10 (out of 20) finish over the last 10 years. This lets me know they will likely be around for the long haul. I also needed a club that had a bit of history but hadn't won anything of note in a little while. Winning league and club football titles in Europe in the past is important because it shows tradition and the potential to be a winning football club. The club I will follow would have to have not won anything in a while though, because it would make any future success unexpected and more appreciated. I need room to grow with my selected club so the feeling of elation when a title is won is genuine and hard earned.

Great Place to Visit on Vacation. If I am going to follow a club for life, odds are there is going to come a time when I may want to take a trip across the pond to see them in action live. I sure don't want to have to spend a week in a town with little or nothing to offer. Manchester is out. So is Blackburn and Yorkshire. London is ideal but there may be a long shot lurking out there.

Great Uniforms. What better way to support your sports team than to wear a jersey on game day. I simply cannot spend upwards of $100 on an ugly jersey. It needs to be something I would be proud to wear in public. Something that catches the eye and lets the seasoned fan know where my loyalties lie. Pretty straight forward; the jersey needs to look sharp.

So taking all of these things into consideration, I landed on the club which I will be supporting in perpetuity: Tottenham Hotspur. They really had everything I was looking for. They are popular but not one of the "Top 4", so nobody could accuse me of liking them because they are at the top of the standings. They have won 2 league titles and placed well in European club championships but have not won anything since I was a toddler. The highest they have finished in the last 10 years is 5th but they have not been close to relegation. Indeed, they have failed to be in the top Premier League only once in the last 60 years so they are not going anywhere. They are based in northeast London so if I ever wanted to travel to see them play a match or two there will be plenty to do when it is not match day. Lastly, the uniforms are SHARP. I would be very proud to wear the jersey on match days to show my support.

Beyond these points there were a few other wild cards. Tottehnam has a natural rivalry with Arsenal, one of the "Top 4", which lies just 4 miles west. To be able to beat one of the 4 and have it mean so much would be extremely sweet as a fan. There are plans to build a fantastic new stadium on the site of the old stadium which will be right at the top of the league in terms of features, proximity to the field and fitting into the surrounding neighborhood. It will be an excellent place to take in a match should I travel that way and will provide a very raucous atmosphere. Not to be underestimated are the celebrities which call Spurs their favorites. Among them are Salmon Rushdie, Jude Law, Shania Twain and, last but not least, Baby Spice Emma Bunton. Being that I had a huge crush on Baby Spice back in the day, that really clinched it for me. Also, you have to love a club whose motto is "To Dare is to Do". I look forward to following the progress of Tottenham Hotspur throughout this coming season which kicks off on August 15. Go Spurs!!!

Another Viewing of the King

2009-07-17T17:06:00.000-07:00

I guess the title is a bit of a misnomer considering there was not an actual viewing of Michael Jackson in the first place. Sure, you're thinking, another Michael Jackson story. But I swear this is an angle that hasn't been widely reported since his death three weeks ago. Everyone was so quick to focus on his music and his career that the last 17 years have been swept under the rug. The music was strong but I think people are almost as quick to remember all of the bizarre offstage antics during his life. But even to the extent these have been reported, hardly any attention has been given to WHY Michael Jackson was the way he was. I claim to have no inside information, nor do I pretend to have any definitive answers; all I have is my common sense and what I have observed of his life being very far removed from his world. This is not an attempt to disparage, slander, or spread gossip, but rather just throwing out a few theories.

We tend to forget just how young Michael Jackson was when he was Michael Jackson. The family moved to southern California from Gary, Indiana when Michael was a very young boy to strike it rich in the music industry. Michael and his siblings were pushed to great extremes by his father Joseph. It is very likely that Joseph abused Michael and his siblings in many ways including physically, emotionally and psychologically. From years of listening to the radio show Loveline, you knew if a woman called in and had a little girl voice she had been abused earlier on in life. I think part of Michael's voice comes as a byproduct of this abuse. Victims of abuse often are not able to interact well with others and have many true, meaningful relationships. It doesn't seem that Michael had any true friends, but simply an endless line of people who wanted to be around him or get something from him.

Due to the young life which was so structured in music I believe this is why he ended up in a state of constant youth. Michael grew up doing nothing but pursuing a music career and being at the whims of fame and his father. When he wasn't performing he was rehearsing. When he wasn't rehearsing he was recording. When he wasn't recording he was promoting. When he wasn't promoting he was doing his requisite schoolwork. There was no space in his life to be a normal kid, so he tried to be a kid his whole adult life. This isn't news. I do believe however that Michael Jackson always believed that he was a kid. Obviously he knew that according to his birth certificate he was an adult but always believed that he was no different from the kids. I believe that he did molest children but in a weird way, I also believe that he felt their equal and never felt like the responsible adult who should be looking out for them. In his own way, he felt like he was one of them and just acting out with his peers.

Being childlike also led him to be so dependent on others. Combined with his ability to buy whatever and whomever he wanted, did he really know how to do anything you or I would do without thinking? Could he cook? Do laundry? Mow the lawn? Wash a car? I think this led to his constant posse. He had handlers who took care of every grown up aspect of his life. This led to money being spent and eventually do his drug habit. He never had anybody to step in and say no to him because everyone around him was making money off of him being the celebrity he was. When people are on the payroll they are unlikely to stand up to you. His handlers simply allowed him to drift deeper and deeper into his habit and provide him with drugs. It was a very symbiotic relationship; they keep him high, he keeps them paid. It worked very well until 3 weeks ago when it all ended. We are still seeing the fallout from his death as it is now being treated as a criminal matter. Will we find out that certain people had something to gain from his death and planned it out to look like an accident? Time will tell.

I think the best modern comparison we can make to Michael Jackson's life (to the extent which it is possible to compare anyone's life to his) is Howard Hughes. Both grew up with wealth and in families which did not nurture them in a healthy way. Both had great success early in life (Michael with music, Howard with business). Both had fortune beyond anyone's imagination and pursued their own whims and interests with child like zeal. Both felt very isolated and lonely due to their celebrity and financial status. Both fell into drug habits which were perpetuated by a small group of handlers who were on the dole and didn't want to shake up the situation even though it would have been in their benefactors' best interest. Both died shrouded in mystery and will live on somewhat infamously even though both were arguably the best contributors to their respective pursuits as any of their contemporaries. Perhaps this will be the subject of a more in-depth treatment later on. For an honest, complete look at the life of Howard Hughes I would recommend HUGHES, The Private Diaries, Memos and Letters by Richard Hack. The parallels are a bit eerie.

Unfortunately, I believe Michael Jackson didn't get to live the type of life I'll bet he wishes he could have led. He wasn't free to do whatever he wanted, be with whomever he wanted, or go wherever he wanted. He was crippled by such an unusual, chaotic and traumatic childhood which caused him to not develop much of the adult sensibilities that most enjoy. He was forced to live in his own private world and those that were let in weren't the best influence on him. Perhaps if he was Michael Jackson, kid from Gary, Indiana he would have gone to school, went to college, met someone, had a nice career in another industry and settled into a "normal" life. Michael Jackson should have had the type of life that was so good that almost everyone would have wanted to trade place with him. Instead, he had the type of life that nobody would trade for. Regardless of what one might think of him Michael Jackson was a human being and now is no more. That's what's saddest of all.

Thanks for reading and big balls.

Things That Annoy Me

2009-07-08T19:39:00.000-07:00

All my life I've grown up with people telling me how annoying they think I am. At first I was insulted and shot back a sarcastic response. Now, as a more mature adult, I realize that I was simply projecting. What I was projecting were the countless things that annoy me on a regular basis. Not just things that make me roll my eyes but which make me shake my head repeatedly and want to tell everyone within earshot and beyond exactly how pissed off I am. I'm no David Letterman and so there will be no top 10 list. It's just a collection. Without further adieu...

What's with the kids sleeping on a baseball field in sleeping bags with their parents? I love sports more than anyone I know and there is NOTHING about this that would have appealed to me as a kid. First of all, it's weird to be out on a baseball field with thousands of others. The field is pretty dark, aside from a few lights coming from offices and in the concourse which would make for a rather eerie sight. Who could sleep with all those other people around? Would it stay quiet? And how far would you have to walk if you had to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night? If you're in the very middle of the field, that's bad times. And the kids that wet the bed? If you're next to one of those, that's worse times. I would not like to have any part of that.

A handshake is very personal; at least it should be. It is your introduction to someone. It says something about who you are. I believe a handshake should be deliberate, thoughtful, firm. What annoys me is the people who are in a hurry to shake your hand. They want to get it over with as soon as possible. Fair enough, but in their haste to get it over with, they clamp down too soon. They end up grabbing your fingers and shaking them. One, it makes it so they are applying all the pressure to your fingers and you can't apply any back so it makes you seem weak. Two, if the person shaking your hands, rather your fingers, has a good grip, your fingers hurt like hell afterward. If you find you are one who does this, do us all a favor. I need you to wait until the area between your thumb and index finger touches the same area on the other person's hand, THEN clamp down into the handshake. Thank you.

Do I live in a black hole? A black hole has such a gravitational pull that nothing escapes, not even light. Since my house shows up on Google Earth I'm guessing no, I don't live in a black hole. Try to get your air conditioner fixed though and you'll think otherwise. There are four cities that border Rialto: Fontana, San Bernardino, Colton and Bloomington. I saw not one, not two, but three different air conditioning repair businesses who serviced all four of these cities but not Rialto. Also, regional borders for some companies also seemed to stop right before getting to Brea, Riverside from the south and Fontana to the west. Perhaps the crime rate is so high that it is prohibitively expensive to carry insurance if they operate in Rialto. We had to roll the dice on a local outfit and luckily they came through. Would have been much easier had Rialto existed on the maps of the more reputable companies.

When thinking of some of the biggest fashion don'ts of the last 30 years, some make me laugh and some make my eyes bug out. Only one makes me want to slap the person committing the fashion faux pas. That serial offender is the mandal. You know the ones I'm talking about; the sandals with the straps that originally were used by hippies for being outdoors but now is the summer wear of choice for every uncool, middle aged suburban dork. Seriously, flip flops are classic and eternally cool. Either wear flip flops or wear shoes. Mandals look ridiculous. End of story. And don't even get me started on sandals with socks.

I have a suggestion to people. Please listen! My wife would find it ironic that I would mention this since she claims that I hear nothing and ignore everything. It's true that sometimes I don't hear the first few words of a conversation. But usually when this happens I try to find out what I missed or I just don't answer. Lately at work it seems everyone has been answering questions that I didn't ask. I will ask someone what type of something they need and they answer yes or no. Seriously, if you walk into a place of business and are looking to get help from someone that works there, then it pays to listen to what they are asking. The only thing you accomplish by not answering my question is getting me annoyed by having to ask it again. Odds are you're not going to get as good of a product when I am annoyed. By all means, if this is what you want then please come in my store and antagonize me. Otherwise please pay just the slightest bit of attention and listen the first time. Thank you.

This is only the beginning to what annoys me and there will be plenty more posts like this in the future. I will have another one soon. In the meantime, please be conscious of what you are doing so you don't end up on my list.

Hai Majide

1/3 Baked Idea Put Back in the Oven

2009-06-30T19:48:00.001-07:00

Is it weird to think highly of one of your own ideas? Conceited? I'm not sure but what I do know is that in my previous post I proposed an idea that touched a nerve in my own psyche. The idea was one of my 1/3 baked ideas; essentially to get everyone I went to high school with to allow me to add them as a friend on my new Facebook page. It came to me in a flash and I wrote my thoughts as I was thinking them. Now that I have had a little more time to digest the idea it has me sparked and thinking in a way that I don't remember in recent existence.

I have expanded the goal slightly. Not only would I like to see if I can get everyone from my graduating class as friends on Facebook but I would also like to find out a little bit about each and every person. Things such as did you get married? What age were you when you got married? How many kids do you have? What are their ages? What do you do for a living? Where do you live? Where did you go to college (if you went to college)? Ultimately I would like to get a broad view snapshot of where we have come as a collective group in the 11+ years since high school.

First thought that came to mind: can I do this? Is the goal actually realistic. I would say that it probably is not. There are some that simply would never set up a page on Facebook (or whatever the new medium becomes some time in the future while I am still endeavoring). It is possible that perhaps one or more of my classmates might no longer be alive, though I very sincerely hope that isn't the case.

Second thought that came to mind: what will be gained from this? I am by no means the smartest guy in the world, but what I've learned in my 28 years and counting is that life is too short to do nothing for no reason. Therefore just about everything I do must provide me with something constructive, be it knowledge, personal growth, entertainment. I feel that I will gain some knowledge from this should I prove successful. Learning a little bit about each person will be a unique way to connect to fellow human beings in a way that most don't and wouldn't. I find I will likely learn as much about myself as I would learn from anyone else I will interact with.

I then started to just think about what got me thinking about all of this in the first place. In your life you really have four opportunities to make lasting friendships. The first is school up through high school. For the most part, you grow up going to school with a group of people, sharing common experiences like teachers, cafeteria food, cultural flash points. The second opportunity is in college. College can really define who you become depending on who you spend it with. You hear about lifelong friends from college all the time, even more so than from high school. The coming of age which takes place during college is truly unmatched anywhere else in society. The third opportunity is in your career. You will work with many people for great lengths of time and have great chances to really get to know your coworkers and develop lasting bonds with them. The fourth opportunity is in the context of pursuing an interest or hobby, and I will include church in this. Having such a dominating common interest is a superb catalyst for connecting with people and pursuing relationships with those who share this interest.

I do not attend church or actively pursue a hobby which would let me interact with others who share the same interest. I have worked at a company where I have switched locations several times and never got more than a year or two with any one person. I attended a commuter school where everyone drove to school, attended class, then drove away to study, work or party with his or her own preexisting clique. My only real chance to make lasting friendships ended 11 years ago when we all drove down the hill after graduation. I am saddened to look back and see that I haven't had any connection with anyone I graduated with in 10 years aside from running into someone while at work or when out and about.

Don't get me wrong; what I will do is not an attempt to make friends. I will not pretend to be close friends with everyone I graduated high school with. Many I didn't know at all, other than hearing their names or seeing in the hall occasionally. What I will be is open to any and all possibilities that may arise from this endeavor. If that means I reconnect with past friends in a meaningful way I am open to that. If that means I connect with people I haven't ever really known that would be fantastic. Perhaps people have a very bad recollection of me and who I was and they want nothing to do with me. I would accept that too. I am going into this with a completely blank canvas and will allow the image to develop on its own, with no preconceived notion of what the final product will be.

Ultimately, as I stated above, life is very, very short. We never know how much time we have left or what waits for us when we wake up the next day. What we do know is that every minute gives us the power to make decisions to improve things or let them continue on their current paths. I'm not out to change the world. I'm just out to change my world; to embark on a journey that could take me to the tallest heights or to the lowest depths. I just want to try something new because of how it will make me feel to do it. I would wish that at the very least, everyone I interact with can understand this point of view and will be open to helping me accomplish this undertaking.

Thanks for reading, and big balls!

1/3 Baked Ideas

2009-06-27T19:32:00.000-07:00

As you'll see on my links one of my favorite media personalities is ESPN Sports Guy Bill Simmons. On his podcasts he has on a gentleman by the name of Kevin Wildes who is famous for his "half-baked ideas". With all due to respect to Mr. Wildes I am listing a few ideas which are a little short of half-baked. I'll call them 1/3 baked ideas.

First 1/3 baked idea: a new concept in restaurants. We all enjoy a fresh, hot, homemade meal. Shoving forkful after forkful of delicious, steaming food into our mouths is the epitome of a good time for about 95.78% of us. But even better, I would say, is reheating the leftovers the next day. Whether it is pasta with red sauce, pizza, meatloaf or turkey, the food only gets better with a night's refrigeration. Why not extend this comfort food to eating out? I propose that there be a restaurant entirely devoted to serving leftovers. Food is prepared thoroughly one day, refrigerated overnight, and then reheated upon a customer's order. The food is delicious, comforting, the wait times for meals is minimal and naturally would cost a bit less than a freshly made meal. Tell me you wouldn't take a huge plate of meatloaf and mashed potatoes leftovers over a large sized combo meal for fast food. I know you would.

Second 1/3 baked idea: getting every single person I graduated high school with as a friend of Facebook. The idea is to reach out to a few people that I knew well in high school and connect with them. Hopefully each one is connected with someone I didn't know and can get them added, then that person is connected to others and so on. I can also search for others on Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc. Hopefully they will enjoy the appeal of the project and will agree to go along with it. This could be difficult because some will not be on these sites and I will have to try to get others to get them online. I could even have to switch everyone over to a different type of site later on if this takes a while. I could always chronicle this to put together something at the end. The possibilities are endless.

Third 1/3 baked idea (that sounded weird to say it): I will begin to attempt to lose some weight, tone up and get healthier. I will also chronicle the journey in great detail. List what I eat, document my workout regimen and also generally describe my emotions and preparation for what I am doing. I believe this would work best as a real time chronicle. I don't think I have what it takes to create a website but perhaps a blog dedicated to this purpose alone which would be updated daily. I've got to believe that while reading it every day would prove tiresome, to check in from time to time to see how I am doing would be interesting. I also believe that regardless of what the outcome would be, it would be fascinating to see the final result and look back to see what the reasons behind the success or failure would be. This would also make a good compilation after the fact.

These are my three current 1/3 baked ideas. I would definitely pursue all of these at some point in my life, if not right now. After reading this please give me your feedback on what you think of these ideas and the odds that any of them would be interesting and would work on any type of commercial level. Ask your friends to read this too. I'd be interested to hear a variety of opinions on the subject.

Hai Majide

2009-06-25T12:49:00.000-07:00

I'm back. I know the world wasn't exactly waiting in anticipation but here I am. What a few weeks it has been. There were two reasons I was away. The first is that the past two weekends have been Father's Day and my 4 year anniversary. Needless to say not much writing was getting done during those weekends. We had good times and I enjoyed them very much. We have all taken to ABC Wednesday nights watching Wipeout and I Survived a Japanese Game Show. I have been looking for a line to sign off all of my blog posts with and I have found them. It will be one or the other. You'll see what I mean below.

The second reason I was away was due to my increased attention to sports. I love sports; so much so that when one of my favorite teams is close to winning a championship it consumes me. I read every article, watch every game, live and die by every play. Being a fan of the teams I am has been very rewarding this decade. The Lakers have made six trips to the NBA finals, winning four times, the latest being perhaps the most satisfying. My Cal State Fullerton Titans baseball team made it to the College World Series this year, as they have 6 times this decade, winning the NCAA championship in 2004. The Ducks have made two trips to the Stanley Cup finals this decade and were able to lift Lord Stanley's Cup in 2007. The Anaheim Angels won their first world series in 2002 and have been consistent playoff contenders since. USC football has won two championships this decade and played in the BCS championship game in 2006. Even in some lower tier sports such as Major League Soccer my team, the LA Galaxy have won the MLS Cup twice, in 2002 and 2005, as well as making it to the final game in 2001. UCLA basketball has not won a title this decade but made it to 3 straight Final Four appearances from 2006-2008.

These are all teams I have followed since I was 12 or 13 years old (1993-1994 for those of you scoring at home) with the exception of the LA Galaxy who only started play in 1996. To have all of these teams having so much success this decade it makes it very easy for me to enjoy the sports even more. I never have to worry about a disappointing loss or end to the season because I know that another one of my teams will be playing at a high level and competing for a championship very soon. I would argue that the Southern California area has seen one of the greatest runs in championships by a broad range of teams in history. I have been privileged to be a part of that and can only hope that further success ensues. I am back to writing until another one of my teams is tantalizingly close to a championship. I have to go now. The United States men's national team is gearing up for their Confederation's Cup final in South Africa.

Thanks for reading and big balls.

Let the Weak Fall (Capitalistically Speaking)

2009-05-31T09:19:00.000-07:00

"Because that's the way it is!" We've all heard these words from our parents at some point in our lives. We usually roll our eyes and ignore the advice only to find ourselves dispensing it in our roles as parents later on in life. Why do we seem to hold on to such a notion when time after time we try to talk ourselves into believing that it is no longer relevant? Fear. We are afraid of any type of real change that might affect the level of comfort in our day to day lives.

As innovative and entrepreneurial as we are as a country, we have some deep rooted issues as it relates to change and new paradigms in our lives. Every time there is a new technology most people are slow to embrace it, focusing on all the negatives without realizing how important and positive the change will be. When radio came along with its new form of entertainment, some folks thought of it as a tool of the devil. In actuality it brought the country together during World War II and helped steel the nation's resolve through President Roosevelt's famed fireside chats. When television came along it was thought that radio would be obsolete and television would be a negative influence, but yet we still listen to it almost every day. TV has transformed our lives in ways too numerous to list here but we can't imagine our lives without it. And don't even get me started about the internet, which many have still not yet embraced.

We should never just think that something needs to stay around just because it has existed for a long time. As we have seen throughout history, nothing is meant to last forever and we should not expect it to. The newspapers have been spiraling toward bankruptcy for many years now and will continue to do so unless major changes are made by the newspapers to gain more readers and more revenue. For a great discussion of how this can be done I refer you to Dallas Maverick's owner Mark Cuban's blog. In the event that this does not happen is there a real reason to keep the newspapers going? Maybe not.

President Obama entertained the idea of some sort of a bailout package to keep the Washington Post, New York Times and other papers running because it would be in the best interest of the country. I don't know anybody who reads these papers and we seem to get along fine in our lives. Why are these select sources of information placed above all others? I honestly don't know. We supposedly live in a capitalist society where you put out a good product and you reap the rewards. Put out a product people don't like and you'll find yourself out of business. Between TV and the internet very few people are getting much information from newspapers.

Circulation is down for newspapers for many reasons. The proliferation of the internet is certainly a reason but so is the editorial slants of the paper. Newspapers, whether leaning right or left, tend to only give one perspective on an issue and fail to give consumers the balance of information that they crave. The papers force readers to see the world as they see it rather than as it really is. Locally in Los Angeles, local radio hosts John and Ken held two rallies to protest all the proposed tax hikes in California. The LA Times was nowhere to be seen. 300 kids walk out of school to protest potential teacher layoffs and the LA Times covers the story from all angles. The reason is because the LA Times editorially wants more taxes to increase government spending so to cover the opposing side would hurt their cause. The LA Times would also love to keep every teacher employed even if it means higher taxes for local residents. The protest served the purpose of advancing the Times' agenda so they made sure every reader knew all about it and portrayed it in a positive light. I will have more on this whole story later but this editorial reporting on news stories is leading to the demise of the newspapers.

I don't want to have more money taken out of my paycheck to prop up a failing newspaper I don't read. It's simply not the American way and it is a shame that as soon as the economy starts to slide and things are looking the least bit bleak, we are willing to throw away the principles we have been operating under for decades. The government should not be in the business of spending our tax dollars on keeping failing businesses alive. We have operated for 250 years in this country on the premise that if you run a successful business you will succeed and if you don't, you won't. When the incentive not to fail is gone, all that will be left are failing businesses and less compelling competition as up and coming smart businesses are pushed out by the giants being subsidized by the federal government. Newspapers should be no exception to any other capitalistic enterprises. If they can't attract readers and make enough money to stay afloat, they should go. Just my editorial opinion.

2009-05-15T19:34:00.000-07:00

OK. So torture is the new buzzword, especially amongst every internet wannabe with a voice like yours truly. Does this mean that I have to jump on the bandwagon and throw my two cents in? You know me so well. There are a couple points we have to consider when talking about torture. The first is to define what torture is. Second is to discuss whether it has a place in our society in the year 2009.

One definition of torture is that it is "the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty." What would fall under this category? Certainly pulling fingernails would qualify. Running electrical current through a prisoner's genitals probably would also qualify (except for a few weirdos out there; you know who you are). Waterboarding? Probably not. It is psychologically taxing on the individual being waterboarded but does not seem to actually cause excruciating pain.

Another definition is "extreme anguish of body or mind; agony." More acts would fall under this category. Certainly extreme sleep deprivation would anguish the body and mind. Would it cause agony? Maybe, maybe not. I think the better tact would be to stick with something that almost everyone would agree on. Focus on the common sense question of whether you would be afraid of an impending form of "torture". Would most everyone be terrified if they were told that they would have their fingernails pulled off one by one? Certainly. Would the same reaction be caused by the threat of sleep deprivation or waterboarding? Probably not. Therefore, in my humble opinion, various painful physical tortures would qualify as genuine torture while sleep deprivation and waterboarding would not.

Now that we've determined what is torture, do we have a place for it in our modern society? That depends on a few factors. Does torture work? Certainly it does sometimes. We have harshly interrogated prisoners and obtained important information that has led to the potential saving of many American lives. A recent and notable example is that the "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, gave crucial information that led to the thwarting of a plot against the city of Los Angeles. One of the techniques used was waterboarding. I shudder to think about how many people could have died had interrogators refused to use this method of getting information.

As Adam Carolla has recently said, torture must work to some degree because if it didn't, it would no longer be around. It has been used for thousands of years because it does work. Name something else that has been around for so long and doesn't work. It is true that sometimes it doesn't work, and unfortunately in such a situation it can inflict useless pain on the subject. Is this worth it in the name of protecting Americans? As they say in Washington, yes and no.

We are in a unique position in the world. We are capable of inflicting far more pain than we would absorb. This is an argument in favor of torture. We will be able to torture more than we will be tortured and the information we gain much of the time will be valuable. On the other hand, our powerful position puts us in a position of having to set a good example for the world. The negative feelings toward the U.S. will only increase if we are acting as the bad guy. We need to be very selective in what we do and how often we do it. A little isolationism can be healthy but the world is small and we do need to at least have other countries willing to work with us a little from time to time.

So here is how I see it. Sleep deprivation and waterboarding cause no long-term physical damage and can garner helpful information for interrogators. War is hell. Sometimes you need to pull out all the stops in order to get crucial information that could save lives and shorten conflicts. Last I checked my last name isn't Machiavelli, but sometimes the ends really do justify the means. I don't think a person being honest with himself would argue that it would be better to have let countless people die in Los Angeles rather than waterboard a scumbag on principle. We do need to be harsh sometimes to get what we need. Peeling off fingernails is a big no-no but waterboarding and sleep deprivation are winners. That's where I would draw the line. Sometimes you just need to be the bad guy. Call me shallow, but I care about the lives of innocent Americans just a little more than scumbag terrorists. I'll take my chances in the court of world opinion.

Now What?

2009-05-10T22:50:00.000-07:00

Our world is based on ideas. If someone has a great new idea to improve the human existence it is accepted in time and put into motion. You can have a good life just implementing the ideas of others, but to have a truly revolutionary idea, you will become rich and leave a legacy that will outlast your physical form. We are always in need of an influx of new ideas. Some of them are good and some of them are, well, not so good. One question: since when did it become acceptable to do nothing except shoot down ideas without offering any new ones?

In the realm of politics there is no greater currency than good ideas. Unfortunately, due to many reasons which I will not get into here, good ideas are on short supply. We should be very happy to receive new ideas and should be looking for reasons to accept them and implement them. Instead, we are constantly looking for reasons to deny them without offering a new theory. When it comes to cutting government, universal health care, national defense, things clearly need a newly defined direction. Which direction I will leave up to you, but nonetheless, we need new ideas. The problem is everyone is so afraid of getting behind something that could end up failing that as soon as one problem is found with an idea the whole thing is scrapped without the dissenting voice presenting a new idea. Nobody is there to step in and come up with the "better" solution to take the place of the "potentially ineffective" solution.

Can we all wrap our heads around the idea that there is pretty much nothing that is totally right or totally wrong. There is a lot of gray area in this world and most great ideas involve some of said area. Microsoft has had many problems with Windows but yet it has helped advance human civilization to areas one couldn't imagine 30 years ago. If someone had said to Bill Gates that since there were problems with his software he should just ignore it and focus on something else we would be in a far different world. Why must we simply ignore an idea once it has been brought forth? Isn't there room to modify an idea, and reintroduce it as better? Maybe even do that a few times until the idea is fully ready to be implemented? Nature has done this with evolution. Why not with ideas?

If we are ever going to get anywhere in making this world more livable for ourselves we need to recognize that there is plenty of room to improve things, sometimes even after the fact. An idea need not be a perfect one without faults to be effective. Progress in small increments is still progress, and we should embrace any opportunity to move forward. How about we demand that politicians grow a pair and do something for us instead of worrying about their reelection? Wait, there might be some politicians who disagree with that so forget it; not a good idea.

Lost Again

2009-04-30T20:59:00.000-07:00

And now a few words about the TV show LOST:

First, since Faraday died in his present but his mom's past, does that mean that in her present she instantly has the memory of killing Daniel as a young woman as well as memories of raising him? Desmond had a memory of Faraday talking to him at the hatch from his past that suddenly came to him when Faraday was time skipping. Desmond had this new memory at the exact time in his present as Faraday's present frame of reference as though they were both running concurrently. This is my precedent for believing this. Either way, kinda weird.

Second, supposing the O6 are able to stop things from happening the way they originally did, what effect would that have exactly? I figure it this way. Supposing they were able to travel back to a time shortly before flight 815 they would still have memories of all that happened right, since it is happening to them all in their present time? They just would be able to live their lives after getting off in Los Angeles like they would have had 815 not crashed.

I'm also wondering about Charlotte. Supposing she leaves the island and it turns out that 815 doesn't crash, she would have no reason to visit the island post crash and thus would not be caught up in the time skipping. But she did die in her present, so would that mean that in late 2004, wherever she is in the world, she would die at that same time since she couldn't live after a point in which she would have died? Or do the rules change because she was time skipping? And would this apply to everyone who has died on the island after the crash of 815?

My head is swimming a bit so I'm hoping I can make sense of it. If you're into LOST I recommend Lostpedia.com or The Lost Diary for great info and ideas about where LOST is heading. If you're not into LOST you've saved yourself 15 hours per week of viewing, reading, thinking, dreaming and otherwise pondering. Congratulations either way!

A Brief History of My Warped Mind

2009-04-30T20:27:00.000-07:00

Sorry it has been a while since I've posted. Hope you all are still with me. I haven't had much to think about since I've been immersed in sports this last week with my Lakers and Ducks advancing in their playoffs. I did have a dream last night that got me thinking. I dreamed that I was trying to come up with something to write and got to thinking about time travel. I was trying to come up with the merits of time traveling forward or time traveling backward and which was easier and more likely. Here is my unedited version of what I came up with. Keep in mind this was all in my subconscious so this will either be genius or completely ridiculous.

I reasoned that if one were trying to time travel forward this could theoretically be done. As one travels close to the speed of light or accelerates near a large source of gravitational energy the effect on time is as follows. From the perspective of an outsider looking at the traveler, the traveler's time seems to slow down. From the perspective of the traveler, everything around him seems to speed up. Theoretically, if one could accelerate to such a speed and take a trip away from Earth and return to the same point later on, much more time would have passed for those on Earth than the traveler. Thus, the traveler would have effectively traveled forward in time. It would be difficult to do this for many reasons. First, no ship could carry enough fuel to reach these kinds of speeds. Second, hitting one microscopic particle at such speeds would completely obliterate the ship. Much more plausible would be unleashing a currently unknown force which would warp space causing a craft to pass through at high speeds (a la Star Trek).

Traveling back in time would be much more difficult though. To reach a particular place in time in the past would require warping space in such a way that it opens a wormhole to a specific point in space time (a theoretical four dimensions with three dimensions being space as we know it and the fourth time). This would prove much more difficult and thus is not likely to be done before we can travel forward in time. Unfortunately, traveling forward in time poses no paradoxical situations but is also less useful, as one can only see what he will miss were he to live his life as normal and would likely not be able to travel back to the point in which he came from.

I did dream all of that and will look forward to doing research on whether this actually makes sense or whether it was complete gibberish that Stephen Hawking would synthetically laugh at. It was one of the more interesting dreams I have had lately though. Sometimes I do wish I would dream more about sports more. My brain gets too tired to work too hard at night.

Blacked Out

2009-04-19T20:27:00.000-07:00

Just a frustration tonight. I was going to watch the Ducks play on VS. network in HD. One problem. Due to FCC and NHL league rules that are longer than War and Peace, if a game is on a local station, it is blacked out on the national station. OK, not a huge deal right? Wrong. The local station, Fox Sports Prime Ticket is broadcasting the game in standard definition. So I spent good money on an HDTV only to have to watch a game in standard definition when a broadcast in HD is available? What a disservice to Ducks fans. Fox Sports is allowed to be cheap and lower quality and we cannot vote with our remotes. Disgraceful! That being said, go Ducks!

Take Me To Your Leader

2009-04-17T16:57:00.000-07:00

Recently I saw a documentary about possible alien contact with humans throughout the history of civilization ranging from indigenous South American peoples to Egyptians, to Mayans and others. The supposition was that the pyramids, buildings and technologies that these cultures used derived not from the human mind but from the minds of aliens visiting these early civilizations based on the idea that no human of that time could have conceived of such wondrous and revolutionary ideas. It was interesting to say the least and while I'm not a firm believer it did get me thinking about a few things.

First of all, who is to say that humans couldn't have come up with such wonders as the great pyramids, Stonehenge and the Mayan calendar on their own. Certainly Albert Einstein was a genius of the highest order but certainly he is not the smartest human being to live is he? Some would argue that Sir Isaac Newton in the 17th century and Leonardo da Vinci of the 16th Century were just as smart, if not smarter than Einstein. It stands to reason that history is littered with individuals whose genius far surpassed those of their peers. Certainly there were such geniuses in the Roman Empire, Egyptian and Mayan civilizations. Why would it be unreasonable to think that a group of smart Egyptians, whose only job was to engineer a lasting monument to the great Pharoah Kufu, would be able to conceive the idea for the pyramids within a decade's time?

When comparing the intelligence levels of humans now versus 100,000 years ago it is certainly easy to make the claim that the overall potential of intelligent thought is much higher now that it was then. But 4,000 years ago? Certainly as a species we haven't yet evolved so far, or previous peoples were so far devolved, that the great wonders and structures of the past could only be built with the help of an advanced civilization from another planet or corner of the universe. Preposterous.

Does this mean I belive that aliens haven't visited Earth? Indeed it does. If they had visited for such long periods of time and made contact with so many people wouldn't we have 100% definitive proof that they had visited us? Certainly a civilization advanced enough to send spacecraft from past our solar system to visit us might be clever enough to escape our detection a few times, but thousands of times each time they abduct a hick from Kentucky and give him or her a probing? Not likely. Also, who is to say that such an advanced species and civilization would harmlessly observe us like we were an interesting animal species (which we are)? If their nature is anything like ours they cannot simply observe said creature but would find a way to exploit or kill it. Certainly if we were to make contact with an alien race it is likely they would not be entirely friendly to us and would likely posess greater powers than we would have. Does that sound like a wasp's nest we want to be poking at?

Naturally, you may be wondering if I believe that aliens exist. Well, I do. Here is my reasoning. Life on Earth sprang up almost as soon as it could have given the conditions of the early periods of the planet. As soon as temperatures were, well, temperate enough to support life, the first twitches of living matter began to burst forth into creation. If one were content to believe we are the only life in the universe it could be easy enough to explain away by saying God planned it that way. But then why would God also create bacteria on Mars? To jerk us around? Certainly the bacteria must have been created during a period when the atmosphere and conditions on Mars were more conducive to life. If this happened on a planet close to us certainly it might happen on other planets with conditions similar to ours.

What are the odds this would be the case? Glad you asked. This is all merely speculative of course because nobody can be sure what the state of planets is on a universal scale, especially considering we are only now discovering planets that are 500 light years from us and that the universe extends in all directions around us for more than 10 billion light years. But here it goes. There are estimated to be 100 billion galaxies each having approximately 100 billion stars. This multiplies out to 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe. Let us now suppose that only 1 out of 100 have a planet orbiting with them. Out of those stars that have a planet orbiting around it, only 1 out of 1000 have a planet with a solid surface. Of those with a solid surface only 1 out of 1000 have the elements that we know necessary for life. Of those planets, only 1 out of 100 are the correct distance from its star to keep temperatures moderate. And of these planets with all the right conditions only 1 of 100 will develop life with only 1 of 100 of those evolving to intelligent life.

Doing the calculations that would leave 100 million planets in the universe which would give rise to intelligent life. This is being extremely conservative as it is likely the ratios are much lower and thus the number of planents fostering intelligent beings is likely much much higher, perhaps by a factor of 10,000. That would leave as many as 1 trillion planets in our universe with intelligent life developing on it. So it would seem the universe would be teeming with sentient beings. But seeing as how there are 100 billion galaxies, that would leave only 10 planets in each galaxy harboring intelligent life. So as we see, beings who know they are special are still few and far between. Yet another reason I believe we haven't been visited yet.

Let's not be so naive as to think that we are the only ones alive in the universe able to take a step back and examine our place in it. Let us also not be so quick to believe that we are smarter and better than those who came before us simply because when we look at a calendar it reads 2009. Human beings have always been special and are as special now as they ever have been, though maybe not as special as we think.

Warming Up

2009-04-12T13:12:00.000-07:00

Funny how the smallest things can set the brain in motion. This morning my daughter wanted to play "Arctic". I'm not even sure what that means but it did get me thinking. Recently I've read a few articles that have come up about global warming. I know what you're thinking, but I swear that this isn't the usual opinion. I'm not here to argue about whether or not the global temperature is rising. For the record, I think it is but not as quickly as many alarmist scientists would have you believe.

The reason for this post is to discuss whether or not the global temperature rising would be a bad thing. Everyone seems so concerned with whether the temperature is going up and the thoughts of cataclysmic disaster that no perspective seems to go far beyond this. Nobody in the media will dare disobey the party line and suggest that the temperature going up is anything but the worst disaster in the history of human civilization. I disagree.

In Earth's history, there have been tens and even hundreds of millions of years where the global temperature was much hotter than it is now. There were no polar ice caps, no glaciers, and much of the land surface was covered in savannas, deserts and jungles. There weren't many evergreen forests or harsh winter conditions. Many have argued that in fact this was the way Earth was for most of its history and that right now we are in a moderately cool period. It is very possible that we are heading for such another period right now. The truth is that nobody knows for sure and anybody who can claim to know for certain is lying.

Some of the theories for what will happen include further melting of the polar ice caps, rising ocean levels, droughts, floods, more and stronger hurricanes, famine, nuclear war. Ok, maybe not the last one, but all of the other predictions have been repeated over and over and over on television, online, in the papers. If all of these things were to happen in the next century or two they would prove to have very bad consequences for us human beings. People would die, buildings would be destroyed, whole towns could be wiped out. As bad as this would be for us, would it really be so bad for the planet?

When wildfires burn in the western U.S. they are a disaster because people have chosen to build homes in areas succeptable to them. Sea levels will rise if the polar ice caps melt but that is only a bad thing because we have homes and businesses on the water's edge. An outsider looking down on earth from an altitude of 30,000 miles would not notice anything of significance to the overall health of the planet and would not be able to see the suffering of people below. Humans have not been on the planet but for a brief sliver of time. We will be gone long before Earth itself meets its demise in the outer gas layers of the Sun.

We need to accept that if things are warming up, there will likely be little we can do to slow down the momentum. Instead, we need to be focusing on ways to protect ourselves from the results of such a rise in temperatures. Not to be some kind of a granola lover or anything, but I think sometimes we do need to take a step back and realize that we are not the end all or be all of this planet. We need to learn how to adjust to what Earth is doing, rather than hope that Earth adjusts to what we are doing. Accept and embrace global warming and the fact that we don't have to go back to living in caves and straw huts to do something about it. Instead we just need to go forward in our lives and work with Earth, realizing that we are but small creatures on a large planet. Adapting our lives around Earth and not the other way around is the key to our survival.

Random Thoughts

2009-04-08T20:04:00.000-07:00

This will run a little longer than my previous posts, so make sure you have a little bit of time to really read through. Hopefully it will make sense.

Lately in sports every team has gone to great measures to try to find the latest way to get an advantage. With video everywhere and constant analysis of games, it is harder and harder to hide your weaknesses and tendencies. In baseball this is hardest of all. Teams scout games in person, assistants watch every frame of video over and over looking to see what a team does, how it does it, and when it does it. With all of this video espionage happening, is there any way for a team to prevent the world from knowing what it is going to do? Perhaps. If you have a basic knowledge of poker and baseball you will likely be able to follow the discussion with no problem. Even if you don't but enjoy numbers and new ideas, read on. If you have no inclination towards either poker, baseball, math, numbers or theories, then I won't be offended if you don't read this. Just check out my archive. I'll wait while you click the archive on the right. Still with me? Ok, let's begin.

In poker, the great players will randomize their play. Especially before the flop in no limit Hold 'Em, you want to disguise your play so your opponents will not know what cards you are holding. For instance when you are dealt a great hand like pocket aces, the tendency is to put in a good sized raise. If your opponents were not paying attention to what you were doing this would be the optimal play because you are putting in more money with the best hand. However, being that your opponents do pay attention to your play, if you raise every time with pocket aces your opponents may suspect that you hold aces whenever you put in a big raise. To counteract this you will need to just call with aces to disguise your play. Conversely, with marginal hands you will occasionally have to call or raise instead of folding so that opponents will not be able to know that you always have a good hand when playing. Pretty basic so far, right?

Going a step further, when do you decide to raise, when do you decide to call and when do you decide to fold? Well, you can try to mix up your play, but being human we tend to fall into patterns and eventually we will become somewhat predictable to the very observant. The way we get around this is to randomize play. For instance, you might decide to raise 75% of the time with aces and just call 25% of the time. How do you randomize? You look down at your watch and if the second hand is between 00 and 44, you raise. If it is between 45 and 59, you call. Even if your opponents knew you were doing this, unless they could see your watch, they still wouldn't know what you had on any given hand.

How does this relate back to baseball? Suppose you were in a situation with a runner on first base and 1 out. A manager might decide that with a runner on base he would want to have the runner steal 200% of the time and 30% of the time try to advance the runner with a hit and run play where the runner takes off on the pitch and the batter tries to hit the ball fair. So 50% of the time he will make some sort of move with the runner. So how will the manager decide which times to run and which not? If he tries to mix it up he may fall into a pattern. The best way is to, when the decision is made, glance at a watch and use the second hand to randomize the decision. Then, the opposing manager will never know fully when the move is coming and will have to either choose to be conservative and always play for the move, thus giving up position, or decide to ignore the possibility and make an attempt more likely to succeed when tried. It may be a slight advantage on any given time, but added up over the course of a season, it can amount to quite a lot.

This can also be applied to other situations such as picking a runner off of a base, bunting, or even whether to take the first pitch or swing. Many hitters either swing at the first pitch more than average or take the first pitch more than average. Knowing this, pitchers will throw more strikes to those who tend to take the first pitch and throw bad pitches to those tending to swing at the first pitch. Hitters will sometimes go against their own trend but this can lead to unintentional patters pitchers can pick up on. If a hitter randomizes this decision pitchers must make a choice. Let's look at some sample scenarios. We will ignore the idea of a pitcher throwing a ball when he intends to throw a strike and vice versa. These scenarios will likely cancel each other out.

The pitcher decides to throw a strike on the first pitch. The batter is swinging. The batter will either get a hit, end up with a strike, or hitting into an out. Let's give odds to each. Getting a hit will happen 50% of the time, ending up with a strike 25% and hitting into an out 25%.

The pitcher decides to throw a strike on the first pitch. The batter is not swinging. The pitcher will be ahead in the count. This will be a strike 100% of the time.

The pitcher decides to throw a ball on the first pitch. The batter is swinging. Either the batter will hit into an out, get a hit or will get a strike so the pitcher is ahead in the count. Odds of an out are 50%, getting a strike 40%, and getting a hit 10%.

The pitcher decides to throw a ball on the first pitch. The batter is not swinging. The pitcher will be behind in the count 100% of the time.

Adding up the percentages, and supposing the pitcher throws half strikes and half balls on the first pitch, a hit will happen 15% of the time. An out will happen 19% of the time. A strike will happen 41% of the time. A ball will happen 25% of the time. Outs happen about three times more frequently than hits on average during a game. During our scenario outs happen only about 30% more than hits rather than 300% more. And even if the ball is not put into play, the batter will only be behind in the count in 60% of those times. Not a bad result. Increasing your odds of getting a hit and not giving up a huge advantage in the count certainly puts you ahead of the game. This is a huge advantage which cannot be ignored.

Not to be lost in all of this is the psychological advantage you gain in the process. Typically, pitchers are deciding what is thrown and the batters must react. In this scenario, however, the batter knows what he is going to do and the pitcher must try to react to what he thinks the batter is going to do. This small distraction can cause bad results for the pitcher.

Not to say that this has not been explored before but I've never seen it and all of this is off the top of my head and based on the years of baseball I have watched. I do feel that there is a large upside to this approach and when utilized properly can swing a game and possibly the season. Just as a small edge exploited time after time can turn a losing poker player into a winning poker player, such can be the results in baseball. Whichever team can use this to their advantage will find themselves that much closer to a World Series Championship.

Too Many Choices, Not Enough Time

2009-04-05T20:47:00.000-07:00

On the way home tonight I heard the song "End of the Road" by Boyz II Men. I recalled how that song stayed at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 chart for 13 straight weeks. This was later outdone by the group themselves on a collaboration with Mariah Carey titled "One Sweet Day". That song stayed at number one for 16 weeks. Imagine almost 4 months with the same song as the most popular song in the country.

16 years later I take a look at the current pop culture landscape or our great nation and am 100% confident that could never happen again. The cycle of anything pop culture related is so sped up now that hardly anything has a chance to really catch on before it is old news. If a song hits number one, it is there for a couple weeks, then another song replaces is. Movies open to a huge weekend box office, then fade the next week as people consume the next movie. It is a never ending cycle of out with the (not so old) and in with the new.

Why is this? Certainly our current go go go society feeds into this attitude. With all of us having such busy lives we are moving from one activity to the next, paying only limited attention to all things on the periphery of our immediate doings. Nobody sits and listens to the radio anymore. It is only something that is on in the background in the car. TV is watched while doing homework, or working from home. With Netflix, even movies are mainly watched in the home and sent right back out. There are just too many options and too little time to enjoy them all. We no longer have a few radio stations, 3 TV channels and a 4 screen movie theater in town. Now we have 50 radio stations (over 100 if you have XM or Sirius), hundreds of channels on DirecTV and 30 screen multiplex theaters.

We no longer have the patience to consume slowly and completely anymore. True classics aren't heard or seen by nearly as many people as even a moderate hit was fifteen years ago. The internet has allowed us to target information quickly and precisely, allowing us to live in our own bubbles, consuming only what we deem necessary and not leaving us time to enjoy again and again. We should all slow things way down from time to time, fully enjoy what we are taking in, and spread the word and get outside our bubbles so others may also enjoy.

It is interesting how the more we have to enjoy, the less we enjoy it.

Life, Death & Cheating on Taxes

2009-03-31T18:24:00.000-07:00

I'm sure you are very aware at this point that many of President Obama's nominees for key executive positions, including Cabinet positions, have been put under intense scrutiny for the fact that many of them seem to have trouble paying the correct amount of taxes. Before you go jumping to any conclusions, this isn't a hit piece on President Obama or an indictment of the way he is selecting nominees. There are many other good blogs which can provide meaty vitriol for even the furthest right-leaning conservative. I aim to raise a larger issue.

Is there anybody in a position of power in this country who doesn't cheat on his or her taxes? I suppose with so much money coming and going and so many investments to track it could be easy to lose sight of a few hundred dollars here or there. The problem is that many of these tax bills are reaching into six figures and for a system which must necessarily rely on the fiduciary responsibility of its key players, this is simply unacceptable.

Another issue this raises is why anybody could in good faith, intelligence and conscience continue to insist that giving the government more money is in everybody's best interest. The IRS is supposed to be the most ruthless, cunning, seriously accurate department in the entire U.S. government. How much money is slipping through the cracks and adding to the immense deficits we are expected to run in the next decade? Not just legal loopholes but simply money that was intentionally or unintentionally not paid to the government. Can we really trust the government to handle such large scale programs as taking over trillions of dollars or bank assets or running large-scale national healthcare for everybody? Count me as a skeptic. I used to believe in only three things: life, death and taxes. Now, I'm not so sure about that last one.

Bizarro World

2009-03-30T19:49:00.000-07:00

Over the last few days something has really bothered me. No, it's not the economy or the lack of exciting NCAA Tournament games. What's really got me puzzled is just how many celebrities positively refuse to acknowledge the existence of anybody who has a camera unless it is held by someone on the red carpet.

So many celebrities will go to great lengths to keep from being photographed and I'm not just talking about at their homes. Whether it is to the grocery store or the park, they try to throw on their invisibility cloak and escape through the streets of Los Angeles or New York unseen. Perhaps I'm missing something, but living your life in a city built on celebrity probably isn't the best way to fly under the radar. Think you're going to go unseen in a city of 8 million people who all know what you look like? Then I've got a little bridge in that same city to sell you.

Don't get me wrong. 250 people crowding around Octo-Mom's SUV or dozens of cars driven by paparazzi clogging up Mulholland Drive are both out of control situations that deserve to see people cited by the police. But beating down a photographer on your way out of having a $50 salad at The Ivy? Give me a break. Drive a car with tinted windows to the closest fast food drive through if you don't want to be seen. It is very annoying when celebrities complain about all the attention they receive from paparazzi yet spend their time congregating in paparazzi hot spots like The Ivy, Mr. Chow, or shopping on Robertson. You can't have it both ways.

And speaking of hypocritical, what kills me is the whole premise in the first place. By nature, the job description of a celebrity is to be as popular as possible. Not only can the paparazzi make a celebrity more popular by artificially inflating his or her importance, but the sheer amount of attention a celebrity receives is directly correlated to how popular they are. The worst day of most celebrities lives is the day they leave the house to run errands and nobody cares enough to take a picture of them.

The fact is that, unless hounded to the degree specified above, a celebrity should be gracious when people are interested in his or her life. The only reason the paparazzi take pictures of celebrities is because they can sell them to media outlets. The only reason media outlets will pay for the pictures is because people want to see them. By definition the amount of money a star will make for a movie or show depends on how many people will want to go see them. If a star acts like a jerk and pushes away the media, fewer people will see their movie or watch their show, thus costing them money. Perhaps celebrities should look at playing nice with the photogs as an investment in their future. Oh, and the fact that someone actually cares about what they are doing; that sounds pretty good to me. If celebrities take that for granted, and keep dodging the flash bulbs, they may find that pretty soon there will not be any more flash bulbs to dodge.

Why Are We Afraid To Hurt?

2009-03-24T17:49:00.000-07:00

America is becoming a pharmaceutical society. We now have pills for everything. From depression and anxiety to arthritis and restless legs, if you are not feeling well just head for the doctor and get a pill to make you better. There is almost nothing that cannot be treated whether it is physical or emotional.

How about a pill for financial concerns though? Unless I missed the part of President Obama's news conference where he announced a new breakthrough pill for lack of funds I am pretty sure such a pill does not exist yet. Many in America would disagree with me though. They seem to think it exists in the form of the many programs those in government are proposing to deal with our economy. Regardless of how irresponsible the behaviors were that got us into this mess, we seem to be equally irresponsible in assuming that there is some magical formula which will instantly get everything going on the right track again.

In our blind haste and our unreasonable desire to find a quick panacea we are actually making things immeasurably worse. Sure, unemployment may dip a bit and perhaps home values will go up a bit. But how much are we actually getting for our money and how much is it going to cost? We are spending $9.3 trillion over the next 10 years that we do not have. Our children and grandchildren will have to spend $2 to repay the $1 now. $18.6 trillion dollars is an unfathomable amount of money, which explains why it is so easy for our government to sign a few papers and spend it, while we sit back and let, nay encourage, it to happen. Let Congress and the President sign new legislation, receive our finance pill, and we will all feel better for a while. Sounds great, but what happens when the pill wears off?

This nation was founded on the idea that we work for what we get and life is hard. 68 years ago we went to war knowing full well that we had just been through 12 years of economic depression and things were not going to get any easier. They knew there would be pain and sacrafice and that there was no magic pill that would take that pain away. The brave men and women living at that time did what they did not because it was easy but because it was the right thing to do.

We now face tough economic times which are the toughest many of us have ever known. We must measure our temperament and do not what is easy but what is right. This means some Americans will lose their jobs. This means our 401(k) accounts will continue to sag. This means that we will not be able to lease those SUV's or upgrade our plasma televisions. It also means we must hold our elected officials to an even higher standard than we ever have before. We must be willing to feel the pain now to ensure it will not hurt this badly again. There is no magic pill and it is not coming anytime soon.

Here Goes Nothing

2009-03-23T18:52:00.000-07:00

I guess it was finally time. I am now blogging and I'm only the 29,435,257th person to do so. What will make mine different? I'm not really sure. I have no idea what this blog will be. Perhaps it will be political, maybe sports related. Maybe it will be a stripped down Facebook page or maybe I will post this and never post again. Either way, I'm always willing to try new things and so here I am, a blogger.

I'm not looking to make money with this or become famous. I don't think I am the best blogger in the world, nor do I think I will be someday. I just know that I've got a lot to say and I need a forum in which to do so. My opinions are strong and varied. You never quite know what will pop up. Perhaps some thoughts on my favorite TV shows or my favorite sports teams. I might decide to ponder the latest news stories or social issues. I just might decide to rant about something that is on my mind.

My main objective is to be informative/entertaining. After all, nobody is going to read a blog unless they get something out of it, especially from a nobody like me. So I hope you enjoy what you will read. I encourage you to check back often, as I will try to post something almost every day. If you like it tell a friend. If you don't, tell an enemy. Just spread the word so that we can all get through this life together.