Don't Hate the [Single] Playa [Mode]

I've been playing console video games since the late 80's, and the most significant change to the  gaming landscape since then HAS TO BE the complexity of modern multi-player modes.  Multi-player today is, quite literally, a gaming landscape!  When I first started out, "multi-player" meant my friends and I taking turns between playing as Mario and Luigi; today, gamers across the country can race each other as Mario and Luigi in Mario Kart Wii.  In Madden, players can oppose each other as the Seahawks and the Buccaneers...in Seattle and Tampa, respectively.  And in MMORPGs (if you don't know the acronym, look it up, Noob) like World of Warcraft, thousands of players can simultaneously interact with each other and the world of the game.  Because online multi-player modes are based on ever-changing human skill level instead of ever-lasting (and at times, predictable) computer AI, the replay value in such video games has increased exponentially; there are a limitless number of challenges awaiting gamers every time they connect to the online community.  This is the trend towards which the industry has gravitated; a game cannot be considered "cool" unless it has an awesome multi-player mode.  Unfortunately, this trend has been unkind to what should be the foundation of any video game; the single player mode.

A couple of years ago, my brother purchased an Xbox 360.  Naturally, I asked my trusted gamer friends for a short list of can't-live-without games for the system, and there was one title on everyone's list: Gears of War.  I bought the game shortly thereafter, and while I was impressed with how fresh its approach to the "shoot 'em up" genre felt, I felt short-changed by how...short...the game was.  There are only 5 levels in the game, and though each one is stuffed with battles that might kill you 10 or 15 times before you finally break through, the game can be completed in 10 hours. 10 hours!  And that's being generous! That's 5 days if you're playing at 2 hours a day, and what serious gamer only plays for 2 hours a day?  What high school or college kid, who's on winter or summer break, is only playing a game that they're engrossed by for only 2 hours a day?  No serious gamer that I know!

That was the problem with Gears of War.  I loved it, but it was over so fast.  And although I have never played it myself, critics have complained that Call of Duty's single player mode suffers from the same brevity.  Halo 3, another game that's widely accepted as one of the marquee games of the Xbox 360, has been criticized by GameSpot for being too short.  This is a disturbing trend that is poisoning the quality of video gaming, and making people pay more money for less game.  Simply put, it is style over substance.

Game developers and companies know what they're doing, and it doesn't seem as if Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 sales will suffer if it has a brief single-player mode.  But it worries me that the gamer who doesn't care about multi-player, who doesn't want to worry about anything else except the controller in his hand and the Doritos by his side, is being left with a one-dimensional afterthought which should be the meat of the game.  Multi-player is now the meat of the most popular games, and that strikes me as being unfair and almost lazy by the game developers.  Hell, the soon-to-be-released Super Mario Bros. Wii is being marketed by Nintendo as the first simultaneous multi-player experience by a Mario adventure game ever.  Well, that's cool, but did we Mario need or ask for that?

To be a serious gamer, a person has to be somewhat of a loner.  This person first started playing video games BECAUSE he fell in love with a game's single player mode.  Sure, they might have also fallen in love with the multi-player action in a game like Goldeneye for Nintendo 64, but what Goldeneye has that the aforementioned games are lacking is a richly rewarding, multi-faceted, and LENGTHY single-player quest.  This is a person who doesn't mind spending the occasional Saturday holed up in his room for a good, solid play-a-thon.  He doesn't know if he his friends will be available to take part in this play-a-thon, nor does he care.  He doesn't want to worry about his Internet connection failing, or if the competition in the gaming community is competent that day.  All he wants to do is to turn on his console and play.

Three Thoughts Of The Day

-What are the odds that the Verizon Fios guy and his portly, out-of-touch adversary star in their own ill-conceived sitcom on NBC?  I'm sure this discussion has happened in some network exec meeting.

-Excited for Super Mario Bros. Wii, although I hope that the game is substantial enough in its single player mode.  Knowing Nintendo, I'm confident it will be.

-My sketch group, Think Pound, is performing at Jackpot on November 24th in the East Village.  That's the Tuesday before Thanksgiving, so it'll be like a Thursday night for most of America.  You come!

The Worst Thing In The World Happened...

The Yankees won the World Series.  For a Yankee-hater such as myself, who was admittedly an obnoxious presence to both the Yankee fans in the bar where I watched the Bombers lose Game 1 and my Yankee fan friends and acquaintances throughout the playoffs, this is the worst thing that could have happened.  

I mention all of this not in attempt to gain your sympathy, but because it's important to note that the rest of this post my be coming from a biased perspective, and probably is.

But the idea that the Yankees are shoving down our throats--that their ailing boss, George Steinbrenner, "deserved" this championship--is utterly ridiculous.  It's news to me that George Steinbrenner deserves anything.  In his prime, he routinely terrorized and bullied his underlings, including successful Yankee managers like Billy Martin and Dick Howser.  It seems like a long time ago, but he ran the Yankees into the ground when he couldn't check his ego at the door, and he was SUSPENDED from baseball for trying to dig up dirt on Dave Winfield.  The fans would boo George, and there were empty seats at the Stadium.

That was his prime.  Now, the image that the Yankees are putting forth is that he's a sweet old grandfatherly type, and maybe that's what he's become as he's aged.  But shouldn't a person be judged during the prime of his or her life, as opposed to their later years when they need help going to the bathroom?

Many fans would respond by citing Steinbrenner's indefatigable efforts to satisfy their desire to win, as if he's some selfless sports philanthropist.  WHAT ELSE COULD HE DO?  That's the business of sports.  If the fans sense you don't care about winning, they are not going to come, especially when it's no secret that the Yankees are the wealthiest team in baseball.  I'm not saying that Steinbrenner doesn't have passion to win--clearly, he does--but the passion is part of an act to get people to buy into his product.

Derek Jeter made it clear that he wanted to "win it for George."  If someone was paying me a 9 figure salary, I'd probably want to make them happy, too.

In the end, the Yankees are his team, and Jeter, Cashman and the rest can dedicate the World Series to whomever they want.  But let's not change history; one of the most odious tyrants in sports history may be succumbing to old age, but he was still an odious tyrant.

Have you ever heard someone say, "I have no regrets?"  It sounds like the kind of phrase that should be uttered by a 14-year-old girl, only it's used by 34-year-olds.  Who was the first person to say this phrase?  Why did it catch on?  Most importantly, why is it so wrong to regret something?

After all, isn't a regret just a mistake you wish you didn't make?  It's funny how the phrases we've been programmed to say reveal how little we think about the words that come out of our mouths. The same people who say, "I have no regrets," also have probably said, "Everyone learns from their mistakes!"  How can you acknowledge that you've learned from your mistakes but you don't have any regrets?  If you made a mistake and you learned from it, I'm sorry, but that mistake was a regret.  A regret that fueled you in a positive way, I might add.

I suspect that people do not want to be associated with the word "regret" because it has a pronounced negative connotation.  For example, if a woman admitted that she regretted breaking up with her boyfriend, the image we might have of her is one of spending sleepless, tear-filled nights with her pillow.  "What a loser," we will think.  But we all have regrets; I have yet to meet the person who has never played back a particular event in their mind and wish they had resolved it differently.

All of this is to warn against the dangers of reflexively spouting out bullshit because you were programmed to do so.  Okay?  What up, bitches?

Why Feed The Pigeons?

This afternoon, I was trying to exit Marine Park on the paved road that leads back to the street, only to find that my path was obstructed by a blockade of pigeons.  A middle-aged woman was feeding them bread.  I didn't want to risk being shit on by the birds, or even touching them, and so I went around them, being forced to stomp on several blades of grass in the process.

Now, I don't like to get judgmental about how people spend their free time, but I will do so here.  If you have nothing better to do than to feed bread to birds, you need to take a long, hard look in the mirror.  We live in an age, I think, where it is impossible to be bored at home.  There's so much to do in the world, but for that subculture of people who like to disrupt the food chain, the world has passed them by.

This episode reminded me of the Avenue U train station in Brooklyn, where on most mornings, a person has placed a bag of bread on one of the stairway landings to which pigeons naturally flock.  Small wonder that the station is coated with bird shit.  It's not enough that people on the way to work or school have to deal with the stress of their daily routine; they have to worry about getting their clothes soiled because some old fart whose closest thing to a business meeting is watching The Price Is Right has nothing better to do than to feed the birds.

And somehow, I think that desire of certain people to feed birds is less rooted in concern for the winged creatures' hunger than it is the need to satisfy the hunger of the people's ego.  Birds were doing just fine before we showed up and gave them Wonder Bread.  Not that I'm an ecological expert, but I would argue that we are disrupting the balance of the food chain when we give birds bread.  Animals that birds would naturally eat (insects, worms, etc.) probably go untouched when we allow our feathered friends to fill up on bread, although I've never seen any animal reject food when presented with it.

All of this is to ask the question, Why must all of our actions prove or confirm our existence?  Why can't people just stay in and watch a good TV show rather than interfere with the natural lives of undomesticated birds?  

This may seem unrelated, but people shop, shop, and shop, but buy things that they really don't need.  I suspect that if you asked people individually, they would admit that a large percentage of the stuff they buy, they don't need or don't use.  So why do people do it?  I would argue that shopping is one of the few activities that proves that we exist to society at large.  We go to a store, we are seen by people.  We pay by credit and we get a receipt with our name on it.  Many stores have security cameras that watch us.  Commerce proves that we exist, even though it may be damaging to our wallets.   The act of staying at home and watching a good movie might be more satisfying personally and less strenuous on the wallet, but who is there to see you do it?

But I'll bet if we did more interesting, satisfying things than feed birds and shop for things we don't need, we'd lead more interesting, satisfying lives.

Who Is Running The Mets?

As a rule, I try to avoid the loudmouth sports talk television shows that make up most of the programming on local sports cable channels.  Recently, however, I happened upon SNY's Loudmouths, which pits Chris Carlin and Adam Schein, two former talk show hosts/producers on WFAN against each other in spirited, loud debate about current New York sports news.  On this day, they were responding to questions and comments from the fans, and one of them had this to say:

"Omar [Minaya] is going to do the same thing at the trading deadline that he has for the past 2 years; nothing."

Kudos to Loudmouths, an SNY program, for posting this comment, because I feel that this organization has not been criticized enough for its approach (or lack thereof) towards the last 2, even 3, trading deadlines.  In 2007 and 2008, when the Mets were right there in the mix, Omar did nothing at the deadline in both years--both years!--when they clearly had issues, especially ones in the bullpen.  Their complacency is difficult to understand, especially in 2008, when they had come off a terrible and terribly well-documented collapse at the end of the previous year, and they still had the arrogance to basically say, "Our team is good enough as is."

I am not saying it is easy to be a general manager.  But when I see virtually every contender add star veterans while only giving up 30 cents on the dollar (see whom the Pirates received for trading away Jason Bay last year), you have to wonder where Omar is.  Yes, he has brought many stars to this team.  But that's in the offseason.  During the season he just seems...lost.

But I don't mean to allocate all of the blame to Minaya.  As an organization, they have failed their fans.  I do not know if the Bernie Madoff incident has made the Wilpons cheap, but even before that, they didn't seem too keen on adding payroll midseason; it has been noted that they do not want to pay the luxury tax under any circumstances.  So the question I have is - Are the Wilpons handcuffing Omar, or is Omar incapable of making a deal for a veteran?

It's probably a mixture of both, but either way, this team has been bitterly disappointing since that very fun 2006 season.  They haven't added a significant offensive player (Delgado) to this team since the 2005 offseason.  They wasted the last 2 years when they were in contention, and now, they deserve the empty seats they will see at Citi Field in 2009.

If You Say Something Enough Times, It Comes True

We've been trained to think that whoever uses the phrase, "The Power of Positive Thinking" is an idiot or completely out of touch.  Those who practice optimism and blind faith are often characterized as being sappy, over-sentimental, intolerable sponges, and depending on the degree of optimism, that characterization may well be accurate.  

An example of such a person would be a passenger in a car that broke down at 3 AM on the New Jersey Turnpike in the dead of winter.  For argument's sake, we'll set this in a time when regular people did not have cell phones. This bubbly person would bounce out of the car and shout:

"Come on, let's walk to the nearest gas station!  Isn't this exciting?  It's New Jersey, it's 3 AM, and we're roughing it.  Let's go!"

Clearly, this is an annoying person; here, the power of positive thinking is making the others want to hit her.  But as with most things in life, there are two sides to everything, and there is a power of negative thinking as well.  Of negative speaking, in fact.  

Simply and crudely put, if you say something enough times, it becomes true; so if you constantly say you suck, well then, you're going to suck because everybody is going to think that you suck.  Shakespeare said it best in Hamlet: ..."There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."  Now, there are certain things in life you can objectively say are either good or bad.  Air conditioning - Good.  Slave labor - Bad.  But for the vast majority of areas in life about which there can be a variety of opinions, the words we use play a greater role in shaping those opinions than we think.  Sticking with the theatre track, a group of young actors might be putting on a play that has the potential to be quite good, but the actors insecurities are compelling them to bash it or minimize the guest list or subconsciously sabotage it, and so in the unofficial history of theatre, the play will go down as a failure even though there was nothing inherently wrong with the play.

In the world of sports, we see this too.  Sports talk radio (especially in New York) feeds on negativity, and forcing its listeners to believe that there are serious problems with their local teams.  Referring to the 2007 season in which the New York Mets suffered a terrible collapse but the New York Giants unexpectedly won the Super Bowl, sports radio talk superstar Mike Francesa has said, "For us (the sports media), the Giants winning the Super Bowl the way they did, that's a 9.  The Mets collapsing the way they did?  That's a 10."

Anyone who follows the Mets knows there is no sugar coating how badly they played at the end of 2007, but the sports media insisted that this was the WORST COLLAPSE IN THE HISTORY OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL.  Not one person, however, has sufficiently explained how blowing a 7 game lead with 17 games to play was worse than what the 1964 Phillies did, which was blow a 6.5 game lead with 12 games to play.  Both are choke jobs, no doubt, but because the media insisted that the recent Mets' collapse was more precipitous, it became truth, without any logic to support the assertion.

This kind of phenomenon is ubiquitous.  I was mildly amused but also troubled by a recent conversation I had with a person from Quebec.  I had mentioned that my mom had, for one reason or another, always insisted that the province's name was pronounced "Ke-Bec" instead of "Kwe-bec."  Somehow or other, this person characterized the pronunciation as an opinion, rather than a fact.  How can the pronunciation of a word be subject to opinion?  If you uttered the word "forest" and it sounded like "xylophone", I'm sorry, but you'd be wrong.  But because so many people say "Kwe-bec", even people from Quebec have resigned themselves to the fact that it can be pronounced either way!

This lowering of our standards is dangerous.  Anything that is said can become truth, as long as no one is brave enough to say "You're wrong," - two words that people have found it increasingly difficult to say.  But we must re-learn to say them.  Before I go, I will leave you with this link to a clip from Star Trek: The Next Generation, which illustrates this idea almost as well as I have.  Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_eSwq1ewsU

Pre 9/11 Time VS. Post 9/11 Time

Don't worry; this post is much less serious than its title would indicate.

I have found that many people struggle to remember when something happened unless it occurred on September 11th, 2001.  Generally speaking, they use that date as a time benchmark and lump everything into a "Before 9/11" or "After 9/11" category, without even attempting to think logically about what year certain events occur in.  For example:

"Hey, that was a fun Vegas trip in 2003!" (Even though the trip was in 2006)

"Mike's wedding was in 1995, right?" (It was in 1999)

"The White Sox; 2003 World Champions!" (They won it all in 2005)

I happen to possess an outstanding memory, and perhaps this is why my understanding of those who do not share that innate ability is limited.  But it is sickening that people don't even know their own lives; they don't know WHY they couldn't have possibly taken that Vegas trip in 2003, or that Mike didn't even know his future wife in 1995.  Unless we go back and examine receipts or look at old invitations, all we have is 3 or 4 important dates in our lives that we use as landmarks and the rest is just hazy conjecture, and what's worse is that we're content to be ignorant of the subtleties of our life's timeline.

When speaking with friends or acquaintances, I've often corrected them on what year an event occurred in THEIR LIFE (or, I've refrained if I didn't know the person that well and didn't want to seem like a stalker).  Like, a person will think that they were hired at a company one year, and I will remind them that they were still a junior in college that year.  How can I have a better picture of someone else's timeline?  This ignorance of oneself is highly disturbing to me, and I think it highlights a major societal problem: we have higher standards for other people than we have for ourselves. 

The Neighborhood Deli

While I was waiting to be served at my neighborhood deli this afternoon, the owner of the establishment was having a loud phone conversation.  He was in the midst of explaining that his store phone was not working, and the person on the other end must've asked him why this was so, because this was the owner's reply:

"Well if I knew the answer to that, I'd be working at the phone company, wouldn't I?"

We've all said things like this in the heat of anger (or frustration).  But I think we're much more capable of mastering our anger than we realize.  Not to get all Dr. Phil--I certainly don't have anything resembling a degree in psychology--but it's the truth.  First of all, it's perfectly within reason that the store owner would have been able to figure out what was wrong with his landline by calling the phone company, making his co-conversationalist's question a valid one.

(Incidentally, there is a mural painted on the gate of this deli which you can see when it's closed for business; the mural depicts the owner and his 3 henchmen as cherubs; they are shirtless, winged, and have halos over their heads.  Very strange, and gross, if you ask me, which you were about to.)

One final word; one time, I was delivered something by UPS.  After the delivery man handed me the package, he walked away without asking me to sign.  This was the first time I had not been asked to sign, and so when I asked him if I had to sign, he said, "Would I be walking away if you had to?"  What if I had saved his ass by reminding him that I had to sign?

All of this is to remind ourselves that there are already enough reasons to snap at your fellow man, so we don't have to go looking for more.

Washington Mutually Awkward

I just called my local Washington Mutual branch to see if they had normal business hours today and the Washington Mutual employee on the other end replied, "Who's this?"

I assure you, I did not dial a wrong number.

I'm Back!

This will be my first substantial blog post in about 2 months.  Who'd have thought that teaching takes a lot out of you?  When I first started this, I intended to post work regularly, and by regularly I meant every other day, if not every day.  Clearly, I have not lived up to that, and because I have lost your trust, you won't be checking this blog regularly, either.

It's funny that in our legal system, we're innocent until proven guilty, but in the court of public opinion of course, we are guilty until proven innocent.  To use a well-known example, Michael Jackson was accused of child sexual abuse but was never convicted, but the public will always believe that he had sex with kids, and he cannot prove his innocence, because it's hard to prove that you didn't have sex with someone, and also, he's dead.  And we want to believe that people who have easier lives than ours struggle with theirs because it makes it easier to accept that someone can have wealth and fame as long as they have their share of problems too.

But this line of thinking, "guilty until proven innocent", extends beyond legal issues.  When you start a new job, very often you're "incompetent until proven competent," which is fair; employers need to show restraint in praising an employee until he/she is certain that they can do the job.  

Among friends, however, this line of thinking can be damaging.  Let's take a 20-something male and call him Bill.  Bill's friends have noted to Bill that they don't think he will ever to run the marathon.  They have labeled him "incapable until proven capable."  Perhaps they have their reasons; Bill has never been in sterling shape.  He likes to stay indoors, sleep in, and watch HBO on Demand instead of spending that hour or two per day on exercise like many people do.  But Bill decides to train for a year and eventually completes that marathon.  Now his friends look foolish.

All of this is to say, we underestimate each other way too much.  Even among friends, I have encountered the attitude of, "I don't think he/she can do something until they show me they can."  This attitude isn't always mean-spirited, but it is often there.  Aren't friends supposed to assume the opposite?  I think we do this because it's comforting to freeze our images of our peers, to think that we're progressing while everyone else is staying the same.  But this is silly.  We would all be more mentally healthy if we admitted that everyone is constantly aspiring to improve themselves, which, of course, is the reality of life.

Johan

Johan, you gave up 4 homers, 3 to lefties.  Stop whining; your team got the win for you, probably because of Jerry Manuel's decision.

A Curious Saying From A Great Man

"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives." -Jackie Robinson

"That's easy to say if you're Jackie Robinson." -Josh Burstein

The first quote appears in the Jackie Robinson Rotunda in the Mets' new Citi Field; the second, mysteriously enough, does not.

Jackie Robinson was a remarkable, courageous individual.  Clearly, his actions opened up opportunities for a countless number of people, and positively impacted a great many lives.  Not only that, but he changed the way baseball is played, and for the better -- he turned baserunning into a nuanced skill.

But I don't like this quote.  As a friend of mine pointed out, it contains a flaw in logic: if Robinson considers "other lives" to be important enough to impact, then isn't "the life"--i.e., the individual--that is doing the impacting just as important?  In other words, if it has been decided that all lives are important enough to be positively affected, how can we deem an individual's life to be unimportant because he didn't have a strong impact on other lives even though we have already deemed his life important enough to be affected?  Read that sentence a few times and I think you'll understand.  Questions and comments welcome!

This logic flaw ties into my core issue with the quote, which is a widespread issue in human nature; that we tend to believe that the only way, or the best way, to live is the way in which we have lived our lives.  That is why I included my take on the quote at the top; it is easy to prescribe a sole method of living when that method is the one that you have lived your life by.  Obviously, Jackie was well-meaning when he said this, but the idea that there is only one way to live life or to measure the importance of an individual's life is utterly ridiculous (How can the impact one has on other lives even be measured?).  A recluse with no family and no job may have a very different definition of importance than Jackie Robinson, but does that make him any less important?   I, for one, don't think it's selfish to say that it's okay to derive importance from based on how your actions impact your own life as well as the lives of others.

Star Trek: The Next Generation - It's So Underrated!

As usual, I'm probably not saying anything new in this blog, but the following bears repeating: Star Trek: The Next Generation is a vastly underrated television series.  There's no sarcasm in that statement; if there has ever been a better science fiction show, I haven't been made aware of it.

There are those who might disagree that TNG is underrated.  Characters like Data, Picard, Worf, etc. are part of Sci-Fi lore, they might say, or, the show has survived forever in syndication; how can it be underrated?  Well, the original Star Trek made it on Time Magazine's "The 100 Best TV Shows of All-Time" list, but TNG, which is a much more thoughtful and fully-realized product, is absent. 

 Startlingly, no major network ever picked up TNG, which I believe has led to its being underrated.  So yes, while it continues to exist in syndication today, syndication is the only existence that TNG has ever known.  There was never a CBS, NBC, ABC, or even a FOX to lend its brand name, its seal of approval, to TNG.  Unfortunately, human nature does not always allow us to be open-minded, myself included, and so when selecting shows to watch, we require that they belong to a major network that will "vouch" for the show's quality.  WPIX, as it was called then, did not carry as much weight as the network giants.

I probably should do actual research to see how the show was received by critics, but if memory serves, it earned largely positive feedback.  But when do people actually talk about TNG?  Although the show transcends science fiction, people who aren't science fiction fans haven't embraced it the way they should.  Among the various issues addressed by TNG are: the definition of life, the risk of making peace with a dangerous opponent as opposed to destroying your opponent when you have the chance, the effects of absolute power, and whether or not it is justified to interfere in other cultures.  As far as I know, these are still relevant issues.  

TNG is an allegory for the troubles we face in the modern world.  But because it was never on NBC, has relatively low-budget special effects, and is labeled "Science Fiction", it has not received the due it deserves, and that is to our detriment.  

Job-Hunting

Recently, I had a curious job-hunting experience. I'm reluctant to mention the field that the job was in for fear of being blacklisted, but let's just say it rhymes with "gublic schmeducation" and the name of the job location rhymes with "Sanhattan Punter Trience Nigh Stool."

In short, this is what happened. About a month ago, I interviewed for this job with the AP and the person whom I would be replacing (she was leaving of her own accord). The AP promised me that he would contact me within a week to tell me whether or not they were interested to see me for a second interview. True to his word, he e-mailed me in the middle of the week, asking me if I could come in the following Tuesday; I replied promptly that I would be available for that.

On the Friday before I was to come in, I e-mail the AP to set the interview time, and he replied with the information that the boss person's father had passed away and that he would have to put my interview on hold for a few days. Completely understandable. Not wanting to seem like a jerk, I wait 10 days (the next Monday) to contact them again. On that Monday, I e-mail the AP, who tells me that he is no longer with the school; he's the principal somewhere else. But he promised me that he would touch base with the boss and get back to me the next day. Of course, he didn't, because he's a new principal somewhere else. To make an already long story shorter, I take matters into my own hands and call the school three times before they finally told me today that the position has already been filled.

Look, it happens; you don't get the job you want. But I'm bothered by the level of hypocrisy here. As an employee or a potential employee, you're expected to have your shit together. Especially in the field of schmeducation. It is not unheard of for administrators to take pictures of teachers' classrooms and use them as evidence of a classroom that is undecorated, no matter how good the teacher may be. God forbid student work artwork is not up on the walls (in a 12th grade Social Studies class).

But administrators are allowed to give potential employers false hope or misinformation about a job? Imagine if a teacher waltzed in at 2 PM on a Monday and said to his supervisor, "Sorry Bob, I forgot I was supposed to teach this morning; I guess my wires just got crossed! My bad for making your life more difficult due to my incompetence." Even in a great union, administrators still have the wiggle room to be shady and deceitful.

Meet the Mets, Meet the Mets, wnfionrigogiwrhiogrwhouif

Essentially, that is the Mets new theme song; at least, the part of the song that can be heard on WFAN, the radio station that broadcasts Mets games.  I will explain.

This year, the Mets moved into Citi Field, their new ballpark, after spending 44 years at Shea Stadium.  It is important to mention this because the change in ballparks also necessitated a change in the lyrics to their theme song, Meet the Mets.  Here are the older lyrics, which were sung by a really annoying female singer.

Meet the Mets, Meet the Mets

Come to the park and greet the Mets

Hot dogs, peanuts, all out at Shea

Guaranteed to have a heck of a daaaayayayay!!!!

Obviously, the Shea reference is obsolete now.  So today, on Opening Day, WFAN unveiled its brilliant alternative, which is reproduced below:

Meet the Mets, Meet the Mets

Come to the park and greet the Mets

Hot d-jfjkbgeijtgbibieuugreufgreibgfrugfiuru

j rfijg bebgg   uurwoifgoprw!##%oingentigoet

I am barely exaggerating.  After the "greet the Mets", you can hear the singer start to say hot dogs but then all you hear is static, which I believe was meant to be fans cheering, but sounds like static.

My comment to WFAN is this: You had over 3 years to come up with a suitable alternative to the "all out at Shea lyric."  Why didn't you?  It's almost as if the producer of "Mets Extra" woke up in the middle of the night and said, "Oh shit, we can't use Shea in the song anymore!"  Off the top of my head, I came up with, "Hot dogs, peanuts, whaddaya say?" or, "Hot dogs, peanuts, come out and stay," OR, "Hot dogs, peanuts, watch the Mets play."  Now, if the singer who did the original recording is unavailable, it would sound awkward to have a new singer record the new lyric and insert it, but somehow, I think it would be okay to get a new singer; this wasn't exactly Bette Midler singing.

All that said; Let's Go Mets!  Putz and K-Rod were great today!  One game up on the Phils, baby.

Opening Day

As Opening Day starts tomorrow, my thoughts will naturally shift nearly full-time to baseball.  I think baseball is the best game, and it's unfortunate that expressing this sentiment makes people think you are from that Billy Crystal/Bob Costas generation that grew up in the '50s and the '60s; you know, those men who wax poetic about Mickey Mantle, who would have sold their own mothers into slavery just to get a pat on the back from the Mick.  No, I was born in 1983, and though football has been and continues to be the more popular sport among people of my generation, it has not captured my imagination in quite the same way that baseball has (watch someone criticize baseball for "capturing" something).

I must say that football is an excellent game, and I watch as much of it as I can.  The NFL is clearly much better run than Major League Baseball, but when speaking of sports, a distinction must be made between the sports and the leagues that organize them.  For instance, a common criticism of baseball is that season is too long, whereas that of football is 16 games long.  "Each football game means so much more than a baseball game."  That's true, because the season is so much shorter!  But there's nothing about a game football itself that lends itself to higher drama than a baseball game.  Wouldn't it be silly to say that a football game is "more meaningful" than a baseball game?  People who argue that football games mean more than baseball games REALLY mean that NFL games are meaningful than MLB games.

My argument here is that, in a vacuum with no leagues, baseball is the most interesting sport.  More than any other sport, it allows the audience to play along.  For fans both casual and hardcore, watching a baseball game is an interactive engagement;  keeping a scorecard or running through a manager's options in your head--against a tough lefty reliever, should the team keep its light hitting righty bat (who is a major defensive asset) in the game, or should he insert his powerful lefty hitter, etc, etc--allow the audience to use their heads and really participate during a game.  By contrast, basketball and football are more passive forms of entertainment.  They're often flashier, but the crowd doesn't have to do as much thinking.  Not to take away from the strategic element of those sports, but the rule in baseball that a player is no longer available once removed from the game makes each managerial decision of the utmost importance.  And if you take a look at the modern history of sports in America, most of the great controversies have belonged to baseball.

An acquaintance of mine, who is a big fan of basketball and hockey, once made the following pithy remark to me about baseball: "How can you like a game that stops?"  I didn't realize what my response should have been until some years later.  I should have said, "What is it about perpetual motion that gives a game a higher quality?"  His line of thinking, of course, was that basketball and hockey are superior sports because the players typically move faster and more frequently.  We might as well just televise the inside of pinball machines, if that is the case.  What gives baseball is charm is the space in between pitches, in between the action, to allow the audience time to play along and catch their breath and to think about the last pitch and prepare for the next pitch and all its possible outcomes.  The basis of a Jerry Seinfeld comedy bit is that he prefers the spaces "in-between life" to life itself.  Baseball is a sport in which there is time set aside for that "in-between life."

NL West Preview - 2009

Baseball's most forgotten division, the NL West, hasn't yielded a World Series winner since 2001.  That's because the teams usually suck.  Will that change in 2009?  No.

1st Place - Los Angeles Dodgers

(2008 - 1st Place, 84-78)

I don't like to make these kind of statements, but the Dodgers are the only team with a shot in this division, and even they are not that good.  James Loney, Andre Either, and Matt Kemp are the solid young nucleus, and Joe Torre and Manny Ramirez always seem to find their way into the playoffs...because they are very good at what they do.  The rotation is not the best, but they have a solid bullpen behind Hong-Chih Kuo and Jonathan "Big Boy" Broxton.

2nd Place - San Francisco Giants

(2008 - 4th Place, 72-90)

The Gmen of baseball are anchored by their pitching; no secrets there.  The addition of Randy Johnson could help them, but their position players are too young and anonymous for the team to do anything special this year.  In fact, they are so anonymous that they danced in their underwear last night in Fisherman's Wharf and nobody knew it was them.  With a couple of free agent additions, this team might eventually be great, and can achieve something that everybody outside of San Francisco mistakenly believes they have already achieved; win a World Series in San Francisco.

3rd Place - Arizona Diamondbacks

(2008 - 2nd Place, 82-80)

Theirs was a more gradual choke job than the Mets, having started out at 24-8 and letting the season slip away from there.  But it probably should have never happened; this team probably has the best young talent in the division.  Augie Ojeda was a backup for Orlando Hudson!  Then again, I happen to believe that Brandon Webb, though he's won a Cy Young, is best suited to be a No. 2 pitcher in a rotation, and the problem with the D-Backs is that they believe he's a true ace.  

4th Place - Colorado Rockies

(2008 - 3rd Place, 74-88)

I'm only keeping them out of the cellar because the Padres didn't make any moves this offseason.  But has there ever been a bigger fluke that people were reluctant to admit was a fluke than the 2007 Rockies?  Mind you, what they did at the end of 2007 to get into the playoffs and World Series was nothing short of brilliant, but it was the definition of lightning in a bottle.  In fact, they were selling lightning in a bottle at Coors Field for $12 a bottle (only they removed the bottlecaps before selling them, so all of the lightning escaped, rendering the bottles unusable).  No Matt Holliday, no chance.

5th Place - San Diego Padres

(2008 - 5th Place, 63-99)

Adrian Gonzalez is the lone bright spot here.  They jettisoned Khalil Greene and Trevor Hoffman (finally).  The purgatory that this team finds itself in right now is retribution for their division titles during seasons in which the NL West was very weak.  And also for losing to the Cardinals in 2006, which allowed them to beat the Mets.  What do San Diego fans have to be optimistic about?  The beach.

"Irony" Doesn't Mean The Same Thing As "Coincidence"

Not to get all English teacher-y on your asses, but no, it doesn't.  Nevertheless, people tend to use the same words interchangeably because they don't pay attention.  For the convenience of my rabid readers, I have posted the Dictionary.com definitions of those words here:

Irony - An outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

Coincidence - A striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance.

When something occurs that is ironic, there is/are concrete reasons for the occurrence to be unexpected.  An author who hates to read would be an example of irony, for it would be reasonable to expect that a person who writes books would have developed that craft through an enthusiasm for reading.  

By contrast, two people who discover that they share the same birthday and who label this situation as "ironic" are incorrect.  This is nothing but a mere coincidence.  Granted, the probability of any two people sharing a birthday is relatively low, but only probability makes this so, and so it's a coincidence.  Furthermore, when one discovers that they share a birthday with another, it can't be the opposite of what one expects.  Did you expect the person to be born on April 12th, or December 9th?  These aren't reasonable expectations.

So, sorry Alanis, but, "A No-Smooohoohking Sign On Your Cigarette Brea-ayay-ak..." is not ironic, because No Smoking signs are everywhere; in fact, it would be expected to see them.

Thank you for reading, and let us use the word correctly, not so much for our children's generation, but for our own.  

Here are some other terms that people tend to fuck up:

"I couldn't care less about Josh's blog" vs. "I could care less..." which one is correct to say when trying to sound dismissive?

Correct answer: THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!  If you "could care less" that means you already care!  That's why I take it as a compliment when people say that they could care less about me.  If you "can't care less," that means you already care so little that you have no capacity to go lower on the care scale.

New topic -- Consider this sentence. 

"Joe became disenfranchised with his native country of Steinland after he saw firsthand how poorly it treated foreigners."

Q: Who wrote this sentence?

A: Someone who doesn't know what disenfranchised means.

Disenfranchise - To deprive a person of a right of citizenship, such as the right to vote.

Is that what's going on here?  No.  What this person probably meant to write was:

Disenchant - To free from illusion or false belief; disillusion.

You're welcome,

Blogstein

AL Central Preview

I figured that since I previewed the NL Central already, I might as well keep the symmetry and cover the AL Central.  The world would have blown up if I hadn't kept this symmetry.

Anyway, here goes.  In the interest of avoiding confusion, I should let my rabid readers know that the won-loss records are the team's records from 2008.  I'm only interested in predicting where the team's finish, not records.  You shouldn't be gambling during these tough economic times, anyway!

1st Place - Chicago White Sox

(2008 - 1st Place, 89-74)

This is almost a pick out of spite than out of any real logic.  Who am I spiting, you ask?  The people who don't give the White Sox the respect they deserve.  The 2005 White Sox were arguably the most dominant baseball team since the 1998 Yankees; they won 99 games and then steamrolled through the playoffs, losing only 1 game total against teams with loads more postseason experience than they had in the Red Sox, the Angels, and the Astros.  Did they go to their bench even once in that playoff run?  They pretty much just said, "Here is our starting 9, here is our starting pitcher, and now we're going to beat the shit out of you."  Which is what they did every night that season.  In the process, they ended an 88-year old championship drought, which nobody cared about because the Red Sox ended an 86-year old drought the year before.

Why bring this all up?  Because they did it when no one saw it coming.  Last year, they did the same thing when no one saw it coming, defeating everyone's perennial darling, the Twins, in a one-game playoff to seal the AL Central Crown.  Not enough people admit it, but the White Sox have more championship pedigree than the teams people pick to win this division, and that includes the Tigers, the Indians, and yes, even the Twins.  I believe someone actually picked the White Sox to finish last in '09, which is laughable.  Maybe it's because media types don't like Ozzie Guillen, and that's fine, but please be objective when making your picks.  Nobody else in the division improved enough, although I would give the Indians a shot to win it, but nobody else.  I wish I could talk about their players more, but you didn't let me.  Around 90 wins for the Pale Hose.

2nd Place - Cleveland Indians

(2008 - 81-81, 3rd Place)

The success of the Indians rests on a couple of pitchers duplicating their 2008 performances.  Can Cliff Lee go 22-2 again?  Probably not.  Can he come close to repeating that, is what will be key.  Can new closer Kerry Wood stay injury-free (you will never see me use the word "healthy" interchangeably with "injury-free", by the way...HUGE pet peeve) as he did last year with the Cubs for the most part?  The lineup, anchored by Grady Sizemore of Grady's Ladies should score some runs, but after Cliff Lee and Fausto Carmona, the rotation is thin.  Carl Pavano is the 3rd starter, followed by Scott Lewis as the 4th and Anthony Reyes as the 5th, which means that by the season's second week, Lewis will be the 3rd starter and Reyes will be the 4th.

3rd Place - Minnesota Twins

(2008 - 2nd Place, 88-75)

They usually exceed every expectation, but when I look at the Twins I see a team that will play competitively in the beginning of the year but will sputter around mid-August.  Joe Mauer is having back problems, which could be a grave concern in a lineup that, when it includes Mauer, is not quite formidable.  But the key to the Twins' success, as with most teams, is its pitching, and the rotation is solid, if not great.  They will need Francisco Liriano to be injury-free if they hope to do anything this year, but there is no reason to believe he can come close to duplicating his stellar 2006 campaign, let alone stay on the field.  As for the bullpen, as long as Joe Nathan is there, the bullpen should never be a liability, because they never seem to have trouble getting to him.

4th Place - Detroit Tigers

(2008 - 74-88, Last Place)

People are starting to realize that the Tigers are bad.  At least that's what Mike Francesa says.  The organization hasn't seemed to recover from their poor showing in the '06 World Series when the pitchers literally threw the Series away.  Their quick downfall has been rather inexplicable, as they have only made upgrades to the lineup and the starting pitching has stayed the same.  I guess it's not quite that inexplicable...the bullpen has been torn to shreds in the last few years.  Joel Zumaya, who threw a deadly fastball and changeup, has not been able to stay on the field, and Todd Jones was removed from his closer role.  Will the bullpen be able to stay together to give the Tigers a surprise division title.  NO!  The White Sox are winning the division.

5th Place - Kansas City Royals

(2008 - 75-87 - 4th Place)

This is one team that needs to be good again, and last year, they finally avoided the cellar.  But to me, they need to avoid the cellar for a second straight year before I pick them to do anything exciting.  They do appear to be on the right track; Joakim Soria did a fine job closing games for them.  There were nice flashes from starting pitchers Zack Greinke and Brian Bannister.  And CF David DeJesus is coveted by many teams, as is middle infielder Mike Aviles.  John Buck is a mainstay at catcher.  There is light on the horizon, but this is the kind of team that needs to play perfectly to beat the big boys.

Uh Oh - The MTA is Pissing Me Off Again

It's really happening.  For those of you who visit this blog for current events updates, the MTA bus and subway fares will increase from $2 to $2.50 for single rides, and from $81 to $103 for a monthly MetroCard.  AND, there will be service reductions!

Now, I understand that the MTA may be experiencing the same negative effects of the crippled economy that most other businesses are feeling, but the MTA isn't like most other businesses. They have a monopoly on the service they provide; I don't see any private companies drilling holes in the ground to create their own subway network.  Because of this, I can't help but feel like they are bullying their customers into paying higher prices, simply because they can, and they can especially justify these fare hikes during an economic crisis. 

But why the hell should service be reduced?  Shouldn't the point of these fare hikes be that the quality, or lack thereof, of service remain the same, or--heaven forbid--improve?  Are we to believe that, with 8.5 million riders a day, a 50 cent increase in single ride fares and a $22 increase in Unlimited MetroCards will not be enough to maintain services, and to help save the jobs of most transit workers?  No.  We are not.  Therefore, the MTA blows.

Naturally, I have suggestions for the MTA to not blow.  Especially since our wallets are going to be eviscerated by them:

1. When a train is delayed, please do not address the customers as if it is their fault.

"DUE TO NECESSARY TRACK WORK, THIS MANHATTAN-BOUND F TRAIN IS NOW RUNNING ON THE METRO NORTH LINE.  PLEASE BE PATIENT!!!!!!!"

2. Please do not waste any funding on any gimmicks that nobody gives a fuck about, such as "The MTA Cares About Art!!!"  Nobody cares that someone has reproduced a Monet painting on a subway station wall.  At least, a well-adjusted person wouldn't care.  People DO care that your station smells like shit.  There is no need to "culture-ize" a subway station; there is plenty of culture above ground in New York.  I just want to get from Point A to Point B, and on weekends, possibly point C.  (I know, I know, not my line)

3. The sick passenger.  Find a way to deal with him faster.  You know that collective groan when the conductor announces that there is a sick passenger on board?  That's because the other passengers know it will be at least 40 minutes until the train moves again.  If the passenger was truly sick enough for the train to be stopped, then he or she should be dead in the time the MTA takes to get that person help.  Just ALERT the next station, MOVE there, have EMTs get him off the train as quickly as possible, and move on!

Seriously, that's a big one, especially during rush hour.  Employers are naturally skeptical, and the "sick passenger on the train" will always sound like a lie, no matter how truthful it is, because it's an airtight excuse.  We have to much to worry about once we are at work; the MTA doesn't need to give us reasons to worry about the ride to work.

4. I hope they have increased their fares for sponsors in the same way they have for their customers.  If you have to boot the "Learn English - Make Friends!!!" ads, then so be it...the logic of that statement is flawed, anyway.  And Dr. Jonathan Zizmor will just have to be like other doctors and NOT ADVERTISE ON A FUCKING TRAIN!!!"

That is all for now.  So, MTA President Elliot Sander, when you read this, please strongly consider the above four suggestions...let's just call them the "Fantastic Four."

Responding To Accusations That Haven't Been Made

Some people might think that I have missed the boat on this blogging thing.  If you are one of those people, then you are a retard.  To paraphrase Will Leitch, the founding editor of the popular sports blog Deadspin, blogging is merely just another form of writing.  Naturally, upon hearing this, Friday Night Lights author Buzz Bissinger told Leitch that he was "full of shit," complaining that because any schmuck can write a blog, the overall quality of blogs will be mediocre compared to any kind of published work, but Leitch more or less countered that if any schmuck could get his work published, then the quality of that published work would also reflect the general schmuck-dom of society (he should have put it like I have, don't you think?). Follow?  

I don't think I am saying anything earth-shattering here, but it's good to reiterate these ideas every so often.  Especially when they are the correct ideas, which they are.  Because I said them.

At any rate, blogging has been going on since our ancestors drew cave-paintings on the wall.  If you don't think cave-painting is a form of blogging, then you're not Tom Hanks.  Or his character in the DaVinci Code.

NL Central Preview

At the start of each baseball season, I like to preview the divisions...or at least try.  You will thank me for this later.

This year, I've decided to start with the NL Central; baseball's most Mid-Western, and therefore, hospitable division.

1st Place - Chicago Cubs

(2008 - 1st Place, 97-64)

Although this team crashed and burned yet again in the NL Division Series, and their offseason moves were suspect, (trading away Mark DeRosa, getting Aaron "Home Run" Heilman a.k.a AaRUN on their team) they didn't lose any of their important pieces.  Derrek Lee, Aramis Ramirez, Geovany Soto and company headline the best lineup in the division, and their rotation, led by Carlos Zambrano, is formidable if not great, and enough to lead them to a 90 win season, enough for this division.  They are, however, the Cubs, and that means disaster is always looming.  Homer Heilman cannot see any important moments if this team is to go far.

2nd Place - Cincinnatti Reds

(2008 - 5th Place, 74-88)

The Reds should make a tremendous leap this year (finally).  The rotation will be deceptively deep; who else can throw Edinson Volquez, Johnny Cueto, Aaron Harang, and Bronson Arroyo at you?  No one except the Reds, obviously.  This team is about young players who seem to be emerging simultaneously; they are set and solid at nearly every position.  Look for Jay Bruce to continue to develop, and Brandon Phillips, Jeff Keppinger, and Joey Votto to have breakout years.  I was tempted to pick them to win the division, but their lack of experience and bullpen depth will deliver them to a cruel, cruel 2nd place finish, around 85 wins.  Could that be enough for a wild card?  Probably not.

3rd Place - Houston Astros

(2008 - 3rd Place, 86-75)

They usually underachieve, then overachieve, then underachieve again.  So why will 2009 be different?  It won't.  Does this team even make offseason moves anymore?  Ok, Pudge Rodriguez will at least solidify their defense at catcher, but this is a franchise that seems to be either shellshocked from getting swept in the 2005 World Series, or completely satisfied that they made it there.  The lineup will still be tough and steroid-ridden as usual, and the rotation, which still has Roy Oswalt, is decent.  Jose "Scary Looking" Valverde is the closer, who manages to compile saves, if not that intimidating in an actual game situation.  Bottom line: Can give you a tough game or a stinker every night.  Which pretty much makes them like every other baseball team.  82-79!

4th Place - Milwaukee Brewers

(2008 - 2nd Place, Wild Card, 92-70)

Losing C.C. Sabathia was obviously big for them (you heard it here first).  As such, their starting rotation is in shambles, and their bullpen will be terrible.  Their young position players will buoy them; they are too good for the team to completely stink, but they will not be good enough to repeat their 2008 postseason appearance, which I hope was satisfying, for their sake.  Expect a .500 finish.  Hey, at least Willie Randolph is on the team!  

5th Place - St. Louis Cardinals

(2008 - 4th Place, 86-76)

Like the Astros, the Cards are another team that seemed to pour everything into getting a championship and then decided to rest on their laurels.  Unlike the Astros, the Cards actually won a championship.  But doesn't it seem that they haven't done anything to their team since?  I wouldn't be surprised if Tony LaRussa showed up to Cardinals camp this spring and did a double-take when he saw short stop Khalil Greene and said, "Hey, we got Khalil Greene?"  That's what the Cardinals feel like right now.  However, they still have the best hitter in the world in reigning MVP Prince Albert Pujols, and Tony LaRussa is always good for 10 additional wins (and a case of Keystone Light on the drive from St. Louis to Kansas City).  A slightly sub .500 finish.

6th Place - Pittsburgh Pirates

(2008 - 6th Place, 67 - 95)

Uggghhh.  Hopeless.  What is there to say?  For forever, they have been a glorified farm organization for other teams.  Tom Gorzelanny, who looked to be a stud, will toil in the minor leagues.  The rotation will still be a relative strength of this team, with Ian Snell, Zach Duke, and Paul Maholm, and Ryan Doumit will be a good player for them until he is traded away to a team that has hope at the trading deadline.  Supposedly, they received decent players in return for Jason Bay, Damaso Marte, and Xavier Nady last year, but I can't remember their names right now, and I'm not sure if Pirates fan do either.

Recent Think Pound Videos!

Hi, friends!

In case you haven't seen the new Think Pound (my sketch group)  videos yet, I've posted a link to them here!

Haagen Dazs Has Paninis: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVhwwUmsEf8&feature=related
 

Magician Obstetrician: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVhwwUmsEf8

Enjoy!