The Social Skills Series: Fashionably Late

I do not have social skills. As such, there are some social conventions that are beyond my grasp. I thought about writing one post about this, but then it turned out that there were a bunch of things I wanted to talk about, so I'm going to make a series of posts about this over some unspecified amount of time ranging from 2 weeks to forever. Probably closer to forever.

One thing that I genuinely do not understand is the thing where you say that your party/dinner/social event starts at X o'clock and it's tacitly understood to mean that the event really starts at X+2 o'clock. (It's that thing of where midgets with dreadlocks lie on the floor and make a rug.) This fact, in conjunction with the fact that I have a thing about being on time for everything, has led to my sitting alone with the hosts of various events for upward of an hour between the time he invited everyone and the time that everyone else started to show up.

Is it ghetto style of me to actually show up on time for things? Am I pissing people off without realizing it when they actually expected to have more time to get ready for their event even though my arrival was within the predetermined parameters? I'm unclear on all of these issues. I'm not concerned about being cool, so if that's the only consideration, then we'll just leave that out.

Things That Are Overrated: The Stock Market

So, Greece can't get their shit together and they have a financial crisis. Some other countries are trying to think of ways to help them out. All of a sudden, someone is concerned that there might not be an easy way to help them out. Therefore, the stock market in America plunges. The Dow Jones Average dipped by a billion points or something today based on the fact that there was nothing that happened in Europe.

This stock market thing is a fucking sham. Some freaking scrote didn't have anything better to do with his time when he thought up this one. We'll raise a bunch of capital by selling shares of our company to the public and then once we do that, anyone with a few bucks in their pocket can go and buy that piece from the other gie and then he owns a little piece of the company. That one little piece of the company is essentially worthless save for the fact that it's value is constantly changing and maybe this gie can unload it for more than he got it for at some point in the future.

And then all of the stock prices are interrelated in some sort of Adam Smith invisible hand wet dream for absolutely no reason whatsoever. There isn't anyone on Earth who knows how this thing actually works. The fact that Jim Cramer is considered an expert on anything other than his own masturbatory habits is just downright disconcerting, but this is the guy that people look to for advice on this sort of thing. The notion that the entire market should cycle up and down when it represents companies that do entirely different things is just dumb. The whole "times are tough" thing is just a vague notion that no one really understands.

You can step in if you like with some sort of macro argument and the entity that is known as the "national economy" or even moreso today the "global economy", but all of that just doesn't sit with me. The whole notion is nebulous, and is, by it's very nature, indecipherable by anyone. The fact that people take this shit so seriously in conjunction with the fact that people can't see shit coming with any clarity whatsoever is just proof that this is a system that somehow everyone just got suckered into.

I'm happy to accept the idea of a stock market as a single trading post to represent all of the companies that want to participate. It's essentially a farmers' market for shares of companies. I am unwilling to accept the notion that the entire market in aggregate represents the state of things in the world. The few people who are privy to a more objective view of the market don't try to improve the state of business or the world, instead they try to exploit its weak points before anyone realizes what they've done.

In my opinion the stock market is proof of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The more we observe the state of the market, the less accurate is our knowledge of the market in what would otherwise be its natural state. We are bombarding the market with metaphorical photons and not allowing it simply be the electron that it wants to be.

Things That Are Overrated: The Ivy League

One time I went to a job interview and there were two people there and they were apparently choosing between me and some other guy and they were sortof thinking out loud while I was right there and the gist of the conversation was, "well, all else being equal, this guy went to an Ivy League school. It feels so right it can't be wrong. Do you want the job?" I didn't end up taking that job, but the point is that the only reason they offered me the job was because I went to an Ivy League school. That's wack. It's especially wack for the other guy who was just as qualified.

I am not trying to suggest that the quality of the education at the Ivy League schools is deficient in any way. In fact, the education I got at my Ivy League school was spectacular, and I'm thankful to have gotten it. When I went to college I really had no idea what I wanted to be. And when I left college I still really had no idea what I wanted to be. But still I ended up with an education that was applicable to really any field that I was potentially interested in. My studies in no way represented those of one who would one day become a math teacher, but when i decided that was what I wanted to do, I was qualified to do it based on my undergraduate coursework.

What I would like to suggest, however, is that the education available at almost every other school is as good, or, depending on your focus, perhaps better, than any Ivy League school. This is especially true at the undergraduate level. And what I've realized after teaching at an inner city high school that would under no circumstances be related to the Ivy League of high schools for seven years is that school is really what you make of it. If you want to study hard and make something of yourself, then you will. The concentration of those kids at Ivy League schools is high. At a state school, perhaps less so. But it's certainly not nonexistent. And we could make a list of colleges that would go on forever where the quality of the education and the student body is on par with any Ivy League school.

I could really go on and on about this.

Things That Are Overrated: 30 Rock

So 30 Rock just won it's third straight Emmy as the best comedy series or some such thing. This is an absolute travesty. I'm not going to try to persuade you that 30 Rock isn't a good show, it's pretty good, well it's OK, but all this praise is really unwarranted. Let's delve into this a little bit. I want to give you two examples (sorry to those who require 3 EXAMPLES!!!) of shows that are superior to this one, and I'd also like to talk about the flaws of the show.

First of all, the general format of the show is that they live in what is an obviously thwarted, but typically normal life, and then they cut away to crazy clips of strange things happening, and then they come back to the normal life. This is essentially how they show gets its laughs. Now this format isn't new, and isn't groundbreaking, and this isn't even the best show that has this format.

The best show with this format is Family Guy. Family Guy is way more edgier (yeah, I said more edgier, what are you gonna do about it?), way funnier, and amazingly is way more believable. It's much easier to carry through with this insane format in a cartoon, and I imagine that's why this show is so much more successful than any other with the absolutely arbitrary cutaways. I can't really picture a live action show where the kool-aid man blasts through the wall from time to time. Even so, this year Family Guy was actually nominated for the best comedy show along with 30 Rock, but obviously didn't win.

Another show with a similar format is Scrubs. For whatever reason Scrubs never really gained any traction, and for a show that's been on for like 7 seasons, I don't really know anyone other than me who loves this show. The format of this show is pretty similar to that of 30 Rock. JD, the main guy, walks around his real life but it is intermittently infused with these absolutely arbitrary fantasies about things he imagines happening that relate to the story in some way. This show is absolutely brilliant. The fantasy scenes are always good, and frequently astounding in their somehow being both completely random and perfectly apropos. I can't really say why this show never became super popular, especially given the popularity of both Family Guy and now 30 Rock. But this show is infinitely superior to 30 Rock.

Back to lecture at hand (perfection is perfected so i'ma let 'em understand). 30 Rock was a show that was being hailed as a work of genius by everyone before an episode ever even aired. Am I the only one who saw the first 5 episodes. Because this show took a while to find its stride. The first 5 episodes weren't just shaky, they were absolutely terrible. After that, they got into a bit of a rhythm, but it still doesn't live up its hype. I mean seriously, it's just not that funny.

Tracy Morgan, in like 15 years of being someone who I have been aware of as a comedian, has been funny like 6 times. He and Horatio Sanz should get together and start a comedy troupe of gies who were funny two times ever in their lives and somehow made a career out of it. Bring Jim Breuer with you, fellas (Jackpot!!).

The show has an ensemble cast of like 13 people who get like 2 lines each per show. I don't really understand this except it's clear that in writing this show it became apparent that the only characters who were worth anything were Jack Donaghy and Kenneth the page. The only reason this show is even watchable is because of Alec Baldwin. All of the show writers at this point are now just window dressing. And there's a third gie who supposed to be a cast member of the show who's not even in the show any more (though he did make a cameo in the season premiere in which they made fun of the fact that he's not on the show).

This show is hardly a work of genius. It is somewhat clever. It straddles the line between watchable and pretty good. There are at least 7 or 8 comedy shows on the air today that are better than this one. Family Guy, The Office, How I Met Your Mother, The Big Bang Theory, Scrubs is still technically on, this new show Modern Family is freaking hysterical. Anyway, the only reason 30 Rock gets all this praise is because whatever hipster douchebags decide these things decided that this was some kind of masterpiece without ever actually judging it. Side note, The Hipster Douchebags would be a great name for a band.

Things That Are Overrated: On The Road

I struggled for a moment trying to decide wether to put this in the overrated category, or just to make an arbitrary post about the book, but since my general conclusion was that the book is fairly overrated, I decided to use the pre-existing theme of the blog. I read this book last week, which also speaks to the lack of posting for those few days, for several reasons. Obviously it's highly regarded, so I figured it would be good. Also I'm into the classics, and this seemed like one of them. It's also just a good pop culture reference and I take my pop culture responsibilities seriously.

I'm not really certain where to begin. This book is one of the more influential works of the 20th century. There are plenty of songs and books, poems and movies that owe their existence to On The Road, but I can't really say that I connected to it. I think when the book was released it was met with praise about there being an underlying truth to it that transcends the time it was written in, but I don't think that's the case. I think the book immediately influenced people in the time it was written, but today it's pretty dated. Additionally, I'm not really in love with the prose that seems to be the defining trait of this novel.

A (very) short summary. This guy Sal is trying to make it as a writer and his not being tied down to a job or anything allows him to go all over the country to visit acquaintances who are spread all over. He hithchikes, takes buses, drives, and eventually works his way all over the country. At the same time this other dude, Dean, accompanies him a lot of the time. They rarely have a specific agenda other than to go around, listen to jazz, and pick up girls. There's a bit more to it, but that's the gist.

The summary is necessary in pointing out that the book is essentially autobiographical. Jack Kerouac sat down to write the book with the idea that he was telling his wife about his life in the years before he met her. The original manuscript had the real names of the people he encountered and everything, and were later changed during editing. I mention this because this wasn't a story that was created. There's no particular genius in just telling about things you did. With that being said, presenting that material in a way that's insightful or that leads to larger conclusions about life would certainly be a worthwile venture. But this isn't that. There is no analysis, there is no grand conclusion, it's all just exposition. This type of work could lead one to really analyze each scenario and decide what lessons one might have learned, especially given that the plot has essentially written itself.

As a result, the whole thing is really just kindof empty. The only time the prose really sings is in three separate sections when he's describing himself watching live jazz performances. Those sections are loaded with purple prose and captivating metaphors and are easily the highlight of the book. Outside of that, he might as well just be telling you about last night's episode of American Idol.

Now I think maybe the point of the book is that the whole thing is kindof empty. The book, life, and everything else. It is the defining work of the "beat" generation, so named because, in one respect, they are beaten down by life, and have, in one way or another, lost their way. But I didn't get the beaten down by life thing from the book. What I got instead was that this was a book about a bunch of losers who shirked thier responsibilities and allowed themselves to be easily swayed by thier ids, and drugs, and one guy who they all knew was a loser, but who was fun to be around until he no longer needed them at which point he would leave without a second thought.

There's an underlying sadness in this book. The main character, Sal, apparently a thinly veiled version of Kerouac himself, has no goals, no ideals, no plans, and no ideas of his own. And this is a book about a lost soul, in the same way that The Catcher In The Rye is about a lost soul, but it's completely different. These two books remind me of each other in the aforementioned lost soul wandering around looking for meaning type of way, but at the same time, On The Road is a far inferior version. What is great about The Catcher In The Rye is that there is a definite universality in the Holden character. We are not exactly the same as him, but we can identify with him and his journey. The style that Catcher is written in is similar to this one, though it is interspersed with Holden's interesting philosophy on life. And even though he's a lost soul, and even though he may never find his way, we at least know that he's striving toward something. The Sal character in on the road doesn't offer any of that. The one thing I know he's passionate about is jazz. Other than that, I can't say anything more about him other than the fact that he took these various road trips.

This is really where the book falls short for me. There is no underlying anything, other than sadness. I wish there was more beneath the surface and there really just isn't here. It's just a retelling of events. If we gave MMG 6 beers, he could recount an On The Road type of story about a fraternity party or a ski trip.

In conclusion, this book is overrated. It feels dated to me and the references feel stale. The Catcher In The Rye is just as old, but doesn't feel dated, and offers more than just a surface story. What's missing in On The Road, then, is that universal element, that timeless piece, the marrow.

Things That Are Overrated: Scarface

First of all, when I watch Scarface, what I find myself thinking is, "What freaking coke-head wrote this movie?" The answer, of course, is Oliver Stone, who was, in fact, a coke-head when he was writing this movie. The respective notions that this movie is a classic, is groundbreaking, is timeless, or is even inherently watchable are all ludicrous. Scarface does transpire in a frenetic, cokeheaded sort of way, but under the surface the movie is really formulaic, doesn't particularly explore any of its themes, and doesn't really resolve anything in a way that makes any sense at all. To say that this movie is a tragedy is an understatement, but just because everyone dies in the end doesn't mean you made some sort of grand statement about life.

I think the reason this movie is still even talked about today is because it seems to have a place in the hip-hop community as the movie that represents a particular kind of lifestyle that, as best I can tell, some people aspire to. I think the ruthless way in which Tony Montana handles things must have struck a chord with some people. And then a lot like the Yankees or slap bracelets, other people become fans without really knowing why, and without really understanding what they claim to enjoy.

I mean, there are other, much better, gangster movies. Goodfellas is a far superior movie in every respect, even down to quotability. Hell, even My Blue Heaven is a better gangster movie than this one. There are other, better, Al Pacino movies that don't get remembered with as much fondness. Dog Day Afternoon and Serpico come to mind. Donnie Brasco is better than this. The Godfather movies are clearly better than this one. And those are gangster movies with Al Pacino. Why choose hamburger over steak? Why this one movie stands out for some people over those others is really beyond me.

Also a lot of the movie is pretty silly. I mean, the scene with Michelle Pfeiffer and Al Pacino dancing in the night club is just ridiculous. Michelle Pfeiffer is waving her arms all over the place like a wounded chicken. Al Pacino can't dance to save his life. I mean, he's supposed to be Cuban. And Michelle Pfeiffer does not play a very convincing cokehead. Just because you thumb your nose at the beginning of a scene doesn't mean you're a fiend.

And who in the world thought that this hairstyle for Gina was right for anyone, let alone a girl who's supposed to be beautiful? Gina Montana, your brother is a drug kingpin and you own a beauty salon. Can you get a haircut that doesn't look so silly, please? It's distracting.

And what was the whole deal with the subplot about Tony's unnatural incestuous fascination with his sister? If you're gonna put that in the movie, then at least explain it. All they did here was that every time Tony's sister was on the screen they would show a close up of his eyes and play some high pitched synthesizer music. And from that we are supposed to infer every aspect of their relationship past and present. And the same is true for most of the themes in this movie. No words, no exposition, no flashbacks, just synthesizer music.

And let's be honest, there is just far too much synthesizer music in the movie for me to take it seriously. This is the most '80s movie this side of Manhunter, the 1980s version of Red Dragon with Brian Cox as Hannibal Lecter. Side Note: get a hold of both Manhunter and Red Dragon and watch them both consecutively. It's astounding. But Scarface is a very dated movie. For me, it has too much synthesizer, crazy neon colored sets, like Frank's office, which we are to believe has 3 black walls, a black ceiling, and one wall with a huge mural of palm trees near the beach at sunset.

And an I really supposed to believe that Al Pacino, Robert Loggia, and F. Murray Abraham are three Cuban criminals? Michael Corleone, Feech La Manna, and Antonio Salieri? Was Joe Mantegna unavailable?

In summary, this movie is overrated. It is hyper violent, hyper '80s, untertold, and over dramatized. The best part of the movie, however, is when he's in the tub and he goes, "Look at them pelicans fly. Come on pelicans!"

Things that are overrated: Chimpanzees

Worst part is, he's aiming at a puppy.

There have been a few news items lately regarding what "scientists" call "chimpanzees." Many people, it seems, still suffer the delusion that these wild beasts are "cute." (See above pic.)

I can understand older folks' problem with this. After all, way the hell back in 1980 those dumbasses elected some formerly shitty actor as President because of "films" like "Bedtime for Bonzo" and "conservatism" and the like. Back in 1951, people thought of those movies like I think of Harry Potter: non-fiction. To the elderly, chimpanzees are clearly loveable, harmless creatures. I get it. Not long before the current elderly, accepted facts included the world being flat, the appendix being useful, and burning witches being effective. (As we Potter-philes know, burning doesn't hurt, it tickles!) So anyway, point is: Don't make fun of old people.

But getting back to what's been going on lately with these chimpanzees, you've probably heard by now about the recent incident in Connecticut:

Travis the chimpanzee, a veteran of TV commercials, was the constant companion of a lonely Connecticut widow who fed him steak, lobster and ice cream. He could eat at the table, drink wine from a stemmed glass, use the toilet, and dress and bathe himself.

He brushed his teeth with a Water Pik, logged on to a computer to look at photos and channel-surfed television with the remote control.

But on Monday, the wild animal in him came out with a vengeance.

The 200-pound animal viciously mauled a friend of his owner before being shot to death by police.

Here's my favorite part:

Investigators are trying to figure out why — whether it was a bout of Lyme disease, a reaction to drugs, or a case of instinct taking over.

HE'S A WILD FUCKING ANIMAL, THAT'S WHY.

Call it "instinct taking over" or whatever, just like you can call a chimp "Travis" or "Bonzo" or "Gesundheit," sooner or later that thing is gonna snap.

Travis attacked 55-year-old Charla Nash as Sandra Herold frantically stabbed her beloved pet with a butcher knife and pounded him with a shovel. Nash was in critical condition Tuesday with "life-changing, if not life-threatening," injuries to her face and hands, Mayor Dannel Malloy said.

She survived, which I guess is the not-silver-at-all lining. This Nash woman pretty much doesn't have a face anymore, and we're all somehow supposed to sympathize with Sandra Herold because she had to stab her "beloved pet"?

What Sandra should've done is what I do all the time: watch the National Geographic channel. She might've seen this:

Anyway. All this is really just a lead-in. If you think that Travis ripping that woman's face off was bad...you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Read this article. It's titled, "The Worst Story I Ever Heard."

Once you're done, have fun sleeping. A while back, I tried to explain the simple notion of sharks eating people, but every summer not only do dumbasses go back into the ocean, they keep getting eaten by sharks. Dumbasses.

There's only so much a blogger can do. But as I said, read that article. If you need a visual that will disturb the fuck out of you, then look below. I'm putting it down a bit because it is pure nightmare fuel, so only look if you've got a strong stomach. What you'll see is what happens when human beings -- the sole species of reason, the only creatures on Earth who are aware that they will eventually die -- fuck with nature.

Things That Are Overrated (and Underrated): Baseball Managers

Argh. 23 wins, 26 losses. 7 losses in the last 8 games. Ladies and gentlemen, your New York Mets!

I hate to be Chicken Little here, but the goddamn sky is (very close to) falling. As Side Bar and I have said repeatedly this year (in bars, not here so much), the Mets just ain't that good. Certain very respectable baseball outlets predicted the Mets not only to win the division, but win as many as 99 games. That would now require the Mets to go 76-37 the rest of the season. That's a .667 winning percentage. That's winning 2 out of every 3 for the rest of the year. That's...unlikely.

Some have been saying that firing Willie Randolph is, if not a perfect solution, the right first step. I have no idea if the Mets would win more games the rest of the year with Willie or without him. I happen to think baseball managers receive waaaay too much credit and blame for the performance of the team. Joe Torre became the yankees' manager in 1996, a year after Buck Showalter utterly failed by getting his team to the playoffs for the first time in 14 years but lost in 5 games in the ALDS. What an asshole. Put that Torre guy in! He's got a career managerial record of 894-1003. That's a .471 winning percentage!

Lo and behold, Torre (single-handedly, from the bench, without ever pitching or hitting or fielding) won the World Series 4 of the next 5 years. And as we all know, he totally shat the bed the next 7 years, getting his team to the playoffs every year, the World Series twice, and tallying a 686-445 record (.606).

But hey, these are the fucking yankees. No World Series wins in 7 years? Fuck him. Gimme Girardi.

Girardi so far? 25-26. Last place. Um, Mr. Torre? You around? What's that about Los Angeles? Oh, okay. Well, call me!

You know what Willie Randolph is bad at? Selecting a lineup (Luis Castillo still bats second. Barf.), using his relievers (putting Aaron Heilman in, ever), responding appropriately and effectively when the umpires blatantly steal a 3-run Carlos Delgado home run. It took the bench coach, Jerry Manuel, a few pitches before he realized Willie wasn't gonna do shit, so he took things in his own hands and got himself booted. Well played, Mr. Manuel. Do you have a resume?

So what is Willie Randolph good at? I'm not really sure, but he seems to be respected by his players. I hear a lot of this “leader of men” talk about him, and I'm sure that's valuable in a manager. But ultimately, much like the esteemed Joe Torre of 1996-2000, the manager doesn't throw the ball, hit the ball, or field the ball. His main jobs are filling out a lineup card every game, choosing which reliever to use and when, handling the media (in New York especially), and leading the team (which can be defined many, many ways). You might say a manager makes all kinds of in-game decisions too, and you're right, but I'd say about 99 percent of those decisions are fairly easy to make if you know as much about baseball as a manager should. The remaining one percent should not outweigh any of the other factors.

Willie does okay handling the media (notwithstanding his recent comments about people getting pissed at him being somewhat race-related). And as I said, I hear he's a decent leader. But his lineups and bullpen usage suck. So I give him 2 up and 2 down. So keep him? Fire him? It's a coin toss. If you can find me a (currently unemployed) candidate who you are certain will be better than that, let me know. Better, email Fred Wilpon. (I don't have his info, so just post it in the comments. Fred's a reader.)

But back to Joe Torre for a sec. 1996-2000: too much credit? 2001-2007: too much blame? That's what I'd say. I'd say that the players played a bit better early in Torre's tenure than later. Pitching especially. That 1998 yankees team was so fucking good, I guarantee you I could have “managed” the team to, maybe not 114 wins, but a good 96 or so.

The 2006 Mets? What an awesome team. Much moreso because Carlos Delgado could still hit, Duaner Sanchez (pre-Phillies-fan-driven-taxi incident) was disgusting, Endy Chavez made that kinda half-decent catch, and much more.

Although, if you think about it, that roster really wasn't that much more than the current roster. Swap out Jose Valentin for Luis Castillo at second? Wash. Pedro was there for a while, then he wasn't, and didn't really make much of an impact (as a pitcher); this year, even less Pedro, still no impact. Most of the differences in the rosters are insignificant, even if they are many.

Certain players on both the '06 and '08 teams, despite wearing the same number, using the same name, and (allegedly) still being the same person, have not so far this season resembled their '06 doppelgangers.

I think you may already know who I'm talking about. But it really explains things quite clearly.

The Mets have 5 really good players (Reyes, Wright, Beltran, Santana, and Wagner), a bunch of mediocre guys (the always-hurt Alou, the fast-aging Delgado, the way-overperforming-but-I-love-it Ryan Church, some of the bench guys), and a bunch of guys who suck (the also-way-overperforming Brian Schneider, Castillo, the rest of the bench guys and most of the bullpen).

Currently, of the 5 good players, Wright, Santana, and Wagner have done what I expect of them – play really well – if not playing exceptionally well. (Though you could make a case for Wagner being the best closer in baseball so far this year.) But Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran have – much like '01-'07 Joe Torre, except in reality, not like what dumbass talk radio callers claimed – shat the bed. There is absolutely no way the Mets will get anywhere near first place this year if those two can't remember how to hit. The rest of the lineup can't cover them. Ryan Church has done his best (and made me forgive Omar for trading Blastings – possibly a greater feat than his play so far), but he can't make up for both Reyes and Beltran. Thus, 23-26.

Even if Beltran and Reyes revert to their 2006 form, I still don't see us winning more than 85 games or so. We need another bat and another arm – just like almost every other team. The problem is, we mortgaged the farm system to get Santana (a move I still support), so we have no one to offer. Therefore, the odds of us getting the extra player or two we need are slim, unless Omar can pull off another Santana-style miracle.

In case you hadn't noticed, I didn't really make any notes before I starting typing. Hence the total lack of structure. Sorry 'bout that. Whereby I now return to Willie Randolph. I guess my thoughts regarding his status now are:

1. I don't think it'll make much difference if he stays or goes;
   
2. I do think that the team's performance is largely due to the fact that Reyes and Beltran are sucking; and
   
3. Please understand that if a manager's players aren't playing well, it's highly unlikely that he can hold enough team meetings or get fired up on the field often enough to somehow “will” the team to a better record.

In conclusion, despite my disappointment and occasional display of irrational anger at the Mets so far this year, there is a very clear reason I've been able to maintain my emotional sanity:

The yankees are in last place.

:-)

Things That Are Overrated: George Carlin

Let's start by saying that George Carlin is pretty funny. With that being said, George Carlin just isn't that funny. Nor are his insights particularly mind-blowing. You're not going to watch one of his routines and then leave with a different outlook on life. You're not going to leave thinking, "good gracious, that was the funniest thing I've ever seen ever in life." I mean...shit I don't even really have words for this...he's just not as fucking great as the people at HBO would have you believe. He has an HBO special like every 2 years and he's essentially just flooding the market with mediocre comedy routines.

I mean he's just a cynical old guy. He thinks that most people are stupid, and he proves it by somehow convincing people that he's smarter or more observant than them. Jerry Seinfeld is infinitely better than George Carlin with the "observational humor" thing. And Seinfeld does it in such a way that he doesn't have to say that 90% of the population are assholes. I just watch George Carlin and I think to myself, "Dude, calm down a little bit. Take your blood pressure medication. Accept that people are selfish and do stupid things."

That 7 words you can't say on TV thing? Why is that funny? I've seen the routine. It's not funny. Nor is it particularly deep or philosophical or any of those things. He's not challenging society. He's not bucking the system. He's the guy who sits on the sidelines a basketball games yelling at the other team. At the end of the day, he didn't help win the game, he just went home with a sore throat.

Shit, this is a bad post. I don't even really have evidence or specific examples (GIVE ME THREE EXAMPLES. THREEEEEEEEEEE!!!!) I just know that whenever I watch George Carlin I end up feeling like I got gypped.

I'm not going to post this right now. I'm going to wait until the end of the day to post this so that beating up 5 year olds thing can get some play. This isn't nearly as good as that.

Things That Are Overrated: The Iowa Caucus

First of all, the Iowa caucus doesn't even decide anything. It is not a primary, and the outcome of the caucus doesn't decide any delegates, doesn't win you any states, and doesn't lead to anything tangible in the way of getting you elected president. This thing is just level after level of confundity. As best I understand it from reading the Wikipedia entry on the matter, the caucus determines local delegates, who then go and elect county delegates, who then in turn go to elect district delegates, who then select the state delegates. AKA, this process is useless.

Also the way the caucuses are run is a fucking travesty. In order to vote you have to take several hours out of your day and go to the meeting place. Then when it's time to vote you don't get to cast a secret ballot, instead you have to stand in a group with the people who all support the same candidate. And then in some other corner of the room are the people who support another candidate. So you could get mad peer pressured into casting your vote. Or you could just be a non-Goldman who doesn't like to stand out from the crowd and so you linger for a second and then get in the group with the coolest people in it or whatever. That shit is mad rigged.

Also, the result of the caucus doesn't exactly line up one to one with the eventual results of each party's nomination. Since 1972, which is apparently how long the media have been sucking cocks in Iowa, the Deomcratic winners have been: 1972-Uncommitted (more people essentially abstained from voting rather than pick a candidate. Good way to spend your two hours at the caucus, people), 1976-Uncommitted, 1980-Jimmy Carter (incumbent), 1984-Walter Mondale (eventual nominee), 1988-Dick Gephardt (Dukakis finished 3rd), 1992-Tom Harkin (Iowa senator, the other candidates didn't run in Iowa), 1996-Bill Clinton (incumbent), 2000-Al Gore (only other contender was Bill Bradley), 2004-John Kerry (after the Howard Dean meltdown)

The Republican winners have been: 1972-I don't know, apparently only the Deomcrats made a big deal about 1972, 1976-Gerald Ford (incumbent), 1980-George Bush Sr. (Reagan won nomination), 1984-Reagan (incumbent), 1988-Bob Dole (George Bush Sr. eventually won, finished 3rd), 1992-George Sr (incumbent), 1996-Bob Dole (eventual nominee), 2000-Dubya (eventual nominee), 2004-Dubya (incumbent).

All of this is confounded too by the fact that the Republicans also hold something called a straw poll in Iowa, which is an even earlier vote held in the previous year that sets the tone for the Republican caucus.

I lost something there in the middle, but my point is that this is essentially just a media exercise where nothing gets acoomplished unless you decide to scream like a chicken afterwards (Byaaaaaahh).

Things That Are Overrated: Saturday Night Live

I know, you're thinking, "Wait, Saturday Night Live has sucked since 1994. It's definitely not overrated. It just sucks." And that's true, but what I mean is that SNL is overrated by the people who work on it, especially Lorne Michaels, but also everyone else.

There was a time when SNL was the arbiter of comedy in America. There was a time when SNL was avant garde and walked the edge of right and wrong, truth and falsehood, and hysterical and vulgar. That time was 1979. Since about 1995 the show has sucked (with the Ferrell exception, of course), and I'll tell you why. First of all, the staff takes themselves way too seriously. If you've seen the like 60 minutes "a week in the life of SNL" piece, or the Iconoclasts show with Lorne Michaels and Paul Simon, or even if you've ever seen an episode of Studio 60, then you know what I mean. They still think that the shit they do is cutting edge. The last cutting edge skit they did was in 1970 something when Richard Pryor and Chevy Chase called each other racial slurs.

They think that the political skit they do at the front of the show is somehow changing the way Americans see the country. It's not. In fact most of the time there's about one laugh per 3 minutes in that opening sketch. If we're lucky, the first sketch of every show will be funny. If we're not, then the whole show sucks. I gotta give it up to my boy, Andy Samberg, who has been the funniest guy on the show for the last couple years. Those Digital Shorts are where their best material has come from over the past couple seasons. But if that doesn't hit, then you know the whole show is going down quickly.

Here's what I don't get. They take all week writing this show. They have a full staff or writers, a whole cast of performers, prodcuers and what not, and by and large the show sucks every week. I mean, these guys' job is to sit around and think of funny shit. Your whole job is to write a funny skit and, by and large, the majority of skits absolutely suck. How is this possible? You seriously can't just sit down and write a funny skit? If every writer wrote one actually funny skit per week, then the show would be hysterical. Instead, they churn out garbage. The show is nearly unwatchable after Weekend Update.

By the way, there is a separate writing staff for Update. As if Update is what's making people tune in to the show. As if Update is somehow the most important pice of the program. Guess what, Update sucks. Again in about 20 Update jokes, perhaps 3 are funny. That's a poor percentage. You're batting .150. And why do we have to watch those endless "opinion pieces" by the non-anchors. Only 1 in 10 of those is funny.

And you have to see the behind the scenes shit. They're standing there in front of the board with all the possible skits and what not deciding what should go where as if the fate of the world was resting on their shoulders and they're really just standing there trading garbage for garbage.

Those motherfuckers need far more structure. They need to work during the fucking daytime during the week. They need to submit a funny sketch per week, and they need to put on a show that will be entertaining for its entire run tme. If they can't write 90 minutes of funny shit, why don't they just cut the show down to an hour? At this point there's about 5 minutes of funny and 85 minutes of filler. They need to get rid of the guys who aren't funny right away. Perfect example, Horatio Sanz. That motherfucker was on the show for like 7 years. In those seven years he was never ever once funny. Not a single time. How is that possible?

The best episode of the last 10 seasons was last year's Christmas episode, with Justin Timberlake as host. They had funny skits all throughout that show. The Target lady was funny, the Cup O' Soup guy, the Barry Gibb Talk Show, the kids who danced in the cave ("You just got served, cave creature" and "Keep on dancin', Jo Jessica"), and who can forget Dick In A Box. It is beyond me why every episode can't be that funny.

And the bitch of it is that their cast right now is actually really good. Maya Rudolph, Amy Poehler, Andy Samberg, Fred Armisen, Kenan Thompson, Bill Hader, Jason Sudeikis, Kristen Wiig, all those guys are really funny. But they just don't make it work moset of the time. Watching SNL is like watching the Mets during September most of the time. You know that it should be funny, and you watch every time hoping that this time they'll realize their potential, but alas, they are mired in the muck, and there's just no hope.

I am confident that the reason this show sucks is because of Lorne Michaels. The way he runs the show is not conducive for bringing out the funny shit in people. The list of people who were on that show and did nothing and then left and blew the fuck up is astounding. Julia Louis Dreyfus sucked in her time there. Larry David, Larry fucking David, was a staff writer and never got a single skit on the air. Jay Mohr was in the cast for a season or two and sucked (yes Jay Mohr is goddamned hysterical otherwise, lest you were wondering). Chris Rock was never, ever funny on that show. Damon Wayans was in the cast for a season or two (did you even know that? Probably not.), and then he went on to do shit that was way funnier than SNL at the time on In Living Color. Sara Silverman was on the cast for a while (maybe she's an acquired taste, but I find her hilarious), did nothing. These people are funny. It's not a coincidence that the show kept them from being funny.

Their problem is that they're lazy. They put on one funny skit, and then they kill it with repeated skits in later shows. Or they'll put on a skit with a good premise that isn't completely written yet. Then what you get is about 20 seconds of funny and 3 minutes of "when is this going to end?". Let's take the two A-Holes as an example. The first time that skit was on, Christmas 2005, Jack Black hosting, it was hi-sterical. Since then it's been on like 4 or 5 more times. It's one premise that made one good skit, and then they brought them back again and again. The whole thing is really one joke. Once they did it once they had to bastardize it in order to get anything out of it. The whole, "you look like a rabbit" thing is funny, but then in order to make it work on the 4th time you actually have to have a picture of a rabbit hanging on the wall and Kristen Wiig saying that the picture of a rabbit looked like a rabbit. Not funny. Write a new sketch.

And stop taking yourselves so goddamned seriously. And be more funny.

Things That Are Overrated: The Breakfast Club

I saw this movie again about two days ago, which is what spurred this post.

The Breakfast Club is regarded as the quintessential '80s movie by the quintessential '80s director, but it's not that great. John Hughes was onto something when he wrote and directed this movie. It's a great idea, and I really like movies that run as if they were plays. This one is enterttaining because you can imagine yourself sitting in an auditorium watching this story that takes place in basically one room. (side note: another movie that runs like a play is "Two Girls And A Guy" with Robert Downey, Jr. and Heather Graham and someone else I forget who plays the second girl. I enjoyed that film, too.)

The basic idea is that he gets together 5 kids who have nothing in common on the surface, but come to realize that they actually have more in common than they would have thought. I think this is an really deep idea that should be mined for as much as it's worth. There's a lot of material here to mine out. The probalem I have with this movie is that it's just really disjointed and it's not executed as well as it should be. It's good, but it could be much better. So the reason it's underrated is that the potential for a classic movie is really there, but instead it's sortof a pedestrian affair.

The main problem I have with the movie is that the kids just go back and forth between liking and hating each other without any real reason. Judd Nelson is very good in the role, but his character just jumps between having sympathy for the others and then outright hating them within seconds. And then in the end, he's basically just like "I was just kidding, Molly Ringwald, I liked you all along." And then Emilio Estevez is like, "Gee, Ally Sheedy, you're pretty cute, lets make out for a minute or two." And Ally Sheedy is like, "Well, I've developed this image as an outsider and even though I'm pretty I'm gonna wear black eye makeup and not wash my hair so that I have copious amounts of dandruff, but since Molly Ringwald wants to put eye liner on me, I guess I'll abandon everything I've got going here and make out with Emilio Estevez for a minute or two."

Basically, the ending is kindof hollow for me because we really didn't get deep enough into the characters. Also there isn't really a moment when any of these relationships really form. Again, the groundwork is there. And the idea of the things they have in common slowly coming out through the course of the day is interesting. The little speech that each of them makes about how they really view themselves is pretty good. I can buy that all of them are friendly afterward, and the best part of the movie is when Molly Ringwald says that she probably wouldn't be friends with any of them on Monday. There just isn't enough there for these relationships to have formed at the end. Also the indecision through the course of in terms of liking and hating each other really bothers me.

The iMDB page for the movie says that the original cut was about 150 minutes and was trimmed down to an '80s style 97 minutes for theatrical release. So I'm guessing...I'm hoping, that the original cut wasn't quite so abrupt in dealing with these kids feelings, but the existing fils leaves me just a little bit hollow.

For the record, I do enjoy the movie and there are certain parts that are really powerful, but I felt like the whole thing could have been that powerful, rather than just a certain few minutes.

Things That Are Overrated: The Bill Buckner Play

The Bill Buckner play is grossly overrated as the symbol of the Red Sox futility. That was certainly the straw that broke the camels back, but it was just the end of the worst half-inning in baseball history.

Let's remember, the Red Sox scored two runs in the top of the tenth inning, and then opened the bottom of the tenth by getting the first two batters out (Wally Backman and Keith Hernandez). They were on the verge of winning the World Series and breaking the curse, and then all hell broke loose.

Gary Carter singled, Kevin Mitchell singled, Ray Knight singled and Carter scored, now the Mets are down 5-4 with Kevin Mitchell on 3rd and Ray Knight on first. Then the Red Sox replace their pitcher Schiraldi with a guy named Stanley who, and here's the crux of the post, promptly throws a wild pitch and allows Mitchell to score and Ray Knight to get to second. This was the boneheaded play of the game. This was the turning point. After the wild pitch that tied the game, the Red Sox had no chance of winning that game. They had no momentum, they had lost their spirit, and it wasn't going to happen. Immediately following the wild pitch Mookie Wilson hit the grounder to Buckner and the rest is history, but the game was already tied, and the Mets were definitely going to win that game at that point.

Buckner did let the winning in, but Schiraldi being unable to close the game out after retiring the first two batters, and Stanley throwing a wild pitch allowing in the tying run after geting the opportunity to close the game out were what lost the game for Boston. Buckner really was just the tail end of that shit storm.

Things That Are Overrated: Beer

I know, I know, this is blasphemy. At least read all the way through before you tell me how bad I suck.

Beer is a carbonated alcoholic beverage. If you want a carbonated beverage, then you should drink coke or sprite, both of which taste better than beer. If you want an alcoholic beverage, then you should drink whiskey or rum or vodka or you get the idea, all of which have more alcohol content and leave you with less of a hangover. If you need an alcoholic carbonated beverage, then combine the two into something like rum and coke or jack and coke.

Beer tastes like shit. There is no one among us who didn't cringe the first time he or she drank beer because it tastes bad. You're gonig to argue that the first beer we had was most likely a shitty beer, and it probably was, but there is no beer that tastes much better than your average shitty beer. And most of us just continue to drink shitty beer anyway, rather than spend real money on marginally better tasting swill.

I'll speak for myself i saying that I've only gotten sick from drinking when I've had too much beer. Almost all beer, unless you're drinking German beer for some reason (purity law), has various preservatives and so forth in it that just make you sick in abundance when combined with the alcohol. And if you're just trying to get shtfaced, really it's a catch-22 because the alcohol content in beer is so low relative to liquor that you have to drink far more beer to reach that level. (I was tempted to coin a phrase like "TestaBerskaGuiney Threshold", but decided against it.) So then by the time you drink al this beer you have all that carbonation in your gut and you know that ain't helping matters.

And it's not just that I personally don't care for beer. It's that a lot of people get really extra fired up about beer. There are festivals and contests and what not. People spend a lot fo time thinking about what makes a good beer versus what doesn't and it's really just unwarranted in my opinion. If you like beer, then that's fine, but just pick a beer and drink it and wallow in your misery in the corner like a good drunk. I don't need to hear about barley and tannins and what not. If I see the Sam Adams guy in a commercial one more time testing beer and talking about high standards and quality while he walks around his brewery in a lab coat when I know in my heart that Sam Adams tastes like absolute shit then I don't know what I'm going to do with myself. (You know a lot of people, and I mean a lot, will start the "If I see x one more time..." without having a reasonable conclusion in mind, that it's something that really should just be stricken from the lexicon. It seems blatantly inappropriate to set up that whole scenario just to say "...then I don't know what I'm going to do".)

If you see me tonight and I'm drinking beer, I don't want to hear shit from you. I didn't say I hate beer, I just said it's overrated. I still listen to U2 songs, it's just that they're overrated. If you can honestly tell me that there's a discernable difference between Coors Light, Bud Light, Miller Light, Original Bud, MGD, Amstel, Heineken, and whatever else, then I think you're just fooling yourself. I do like Blue Moon, though.

OK, let the mild raping begin.

Things that are overrated: Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak

Okay, first off, I want to be clear that I'm not just posting this because I hate the yankees and want to rip on some "treasured" yank history. I'm a baseball fan before yankee-hater. Much of my loathing of the yanks has to do with the George Steinbrenner era; I don't hold nearly the same feelings toward the old-school yanks.

I just feel like Joe D's hit streak -- though certainly amazing -- gets a bit too much credit from much of the baseball world.

In 1941, two things happened that haven't happened since in Major League Baseball. One was Joe D's hitting streak; the second is that Ted Williams batted .406, becoming the last player to hit .400 in a season. Joe D won the American League MVP, and the yankees went on to beat the Brooklyn Dodgers 4 games to 1 in the World Series. Williams' Red Sox finished 84-70, a distant 15 games behind the 101-53 yanks.

"I was a war hero. I won MVP awards, World Series titles
and still found time to bang Marilyn Monroe.
How's your life?"

The closest anyone has come to matching Joe D's streak is Pete Rose, who had a 44-game streak in 1978. (Willie Keeler also had a 44-game streak, but that was in 1897, and most pre-1900 records are not used now.) That's 12 games away from Joe D. A 12-game hitting streak on its own is a notable effort for most players, so that just reinforces how unique an achievement Joe's streak was.

I point these things out to make clear that I truly respect The Streak, and I agree that it stands head and shoulders above all else in its category. What I have a problem with is the amount of reverence for hitting streaks in general and, thus, the stature accorded to DiMaggio's in particular.

If you went 1 for 5 for 60 games, you'd still just have a .200 average. Granted, Joe D went 91 for 223 over the course of his streak -- an average of .408, which is remarkable. But a hitting streak only counts hits, not whether those hits mattered. But this is yet another plus in Joe's column -- during his streak, he carried the yanks from a mediocre season into an eventual 1st-place team. His hits clearly led to wins, which is a huge factor. So for even one more reason, this streak is amazing.

It is clearly hard to argue against The Streak. And I really don't mean to. I just feel that it is held up alongside Roger Maris's 61 home runs (which I still think is the real record -- Bonds, Sosa and McGwire can go to Hell) and Nolan Ryan's 7 no-hitters, two records which I feel deserve much more honor due to factors a hitting streak -- even a 56-game one -- cannot approach. Maris's 61 home runs took 162 games; Ryan's 7 no-hitters took 20 years. The Streak lasted from May 15 to July 16, two whole months during the first half of the season.

Let's contrast Joe's numbers during The Streak with, say, the other guy who had a good year in 1941, Ted Williams. During that two-month span, Joe D hit .408 with 56 runs scored, 15 homers and 55 RBI's. Extend those kind of numbers over a 154-game season (the length at the time), and he would have a staggering year: batting .408, and (approximately) 150 runs, 42 homers and 145 RBI's. But Joe D could not, of course, keep up that high a level of production throughout the season. He finished with a .357 average, 122 runs scored, 30 homers and 125 RBI's -- an inarguably tremendous season.

"I was also a war hero. And by the way, I was also the greatest hitter
of all time and I caught 400-pound marlins off Key West in my spare time.
What have you ever done?"

Ted Williams, on the other hand, finished 1941 with a .406 average, 135 runs scored, 37 homers, and 120 RBIs. Strictly numbers-wise, this is a better season. Obviously, statistics don't tell the whole story, and numbers alone do not determine who wins or loses. But in baseball, numbers are accorded far more weight than in other sports. Hence, The Streak's significance.

During those 56 games, DiMaggio hit .408. During the entire 154-game season, Williams hit .406, an average most closely approached since by George Brett's .390 in 1980. That's a .16 point difference, which basically means that even if Brett had hit .390 in 1941, he would've finished a distant second. The simple fact that no one has come close to matching Williams's season-long average necessitates the comparison to The Streak, as no one has since come close to that either.

My central point is this: the Yankee Clipper batted .408 for 56 games (and a still-excellent .320 the rest of the time); the Splendid Splinter just about matched that over a full season. (To add to that, Williams entered the final day of the 1941 season [technically] batting .400. His manager offered him the choice to either sit or play. Williams insisted on playing, knowing that his average was actually .39955, saying, "If I had 10,000 at-bats, it wouldn't be .400." During the double-header which ended the Red Sox's season, Williams went a combined 6 for 8, raising his average to an official .406.) He ended the season leading the AL in home runs, runs scored, walks (147), slugging percentage (.735) and on-base percentage (.551). Williams showed a lot of well-earned self-confidence playing on that day, and his final numbers reflect it.

I simply say that what Joe D did for 56 games, Teddy Baseball did for 154. Both of their achievements are notable, but DiMaggio's seems to get much higher acclaim. Again, I don't mean to denigrate his accomplishment; I just don't see why it sits so high on the all-time list. This was not ground-breaking; players don't aim for hitting streaks. If anything, hitting streaks serve as more of a distraction, a media angle, nowadays than as some sort of barometer of a player's role on his team. Hitting streaks of any great length are rare, but they do not lead to a team's overall success. They are achievements for the individual, just as Williams's numbers were in 1941.

The media angle is key. We are told that Joe D's streak "captivated the nation." Yeah, and? Does that make the actual act itself any more substantial?

In 2001, Barry Bonds set the single-season home run record with 73. The single-season home run mark is a cherished record in statistics-loving baseball. That season, Bonds led the Giants to the World Series. It's worth pointing out because his season-long offensive performance definitely was the leading role in the Giants' success that season.

(I still refuse to believe that people from Philadelphia -- where this
photo was allegedly taken -- could have spelled that many words
in a row correctly. Musta been some New Yorkers who made the
trip just to mock Baroid.)

Currently, Bonds is approaching Hank Aaron's career home run record -- the most beloved record in baseball (and by extension, since baseball is the most numbers-based, all of sports). Understandably, this is getting incredible media attention, due to both the number itself and the dubious circumstances under which Bonds has pursued it. Since Aaron set the record, no one has even come close, which makes clear the importance of what Bonds is doing. But anytime a player even reaches a 30-game hitting streak, all of a sudden Joe D is brought back into the spotlight, even though no one has gotten past 39 games (Paul Molitor, 1987) since Rose in 1978. Can anyone tell me any player with a 30-plus-game hitting streak whose team rode that to the playoffs?

When the yankees won the 1941 World Series, it was their fifth title in the previous six years. Did The Streak help them win it all? Sure. But during the other four Streak-less years, how did the yanks manage it? They had a hell of a team. Does anyone believe that if The Streak had ended at a mere 32 games, that that would have doomed the yanks' season? They won 101 games that year, most of which were not during The Streak.

"I'm no war hero. But I do still play "God Bless America"
every game during the 7th-inning stretch. I also rape puppies.
How much money do you have?"

A tremendous individual achievement over 1/3 of a season is just that. Not only does it not guarantee team success, it also leaves what that individual did over a significant majority of that season out. As far as individual achievements go, a season-long one is more impressive. Maris's and Bonds's feats attest to that. But even more impressive is an achievement that takes an entire career to fully add up and appreciate, and Hammerin' Hank's home-run tally defines that.

For whatever reason, something done over a mere 56 games has somehow managed to reach a similar level of prestige. And that just doesn't wash with me. After all, Ted Williams matched him -- and over a full season of 154 games -- yet his astounding season still lives in the shadow of DiMaggio's.

Again, DiMaggio did something undeniably amazing. But so did Williams. Neither effort has even been remotely challenged since. Yet one is a hallowed record, the other -- while respected -- doesn't come close in the eyes of most. That's why I say The Streak is overrated. A spectacular feat? Yes. But it stops there, and should not be considered among the top records in baseball history.

Things that are overrated, part II: Strip Clubs

(This post will circle around the state of Texas before it really gets to my thoughts on strip clubs, so bear with me.)

In two short days, Las Vegas will finally get what it has waited 28 long, excruciating years for -- my presence. And what a weekend it will be as well. I'm heading out there for a friend's bachelor party, and it seems like the fates have conspired to make this perhaps the ultimate weekend to be there. Aside from the bachelor party stuff, which will certainly be great fun, three other events have magically converged, thus making May 5, 2007, perhaps the greatest day in history:

1. Cinco de Mayo. I don't really know a whole lot about this day, but I know that drinking pails full of Coronas and margaritas somehow means I'm celebrating it. Excelente!

2. The Kentucky Derby. Some folks consider June 21 the first day of summer. Others say Memorial Day truly starts summer off. But over the past few years, I've come to believe that the first Saturday in May actually kicks things off. Though I'm not much of a gambler -- I feel like I have enough vices as it is -- I'll always head to OTB on Derby day. The Derby is the first big-time outdoor event in months (excluding Opening Day of baseball, since it is often ass-cold at Shea on April 1, and the Super Bowl, because half the time it's held in a dome), and May is usually my favorite month for weather, so that's often the first time I spend most of the day outside drinking -- what I would consider a good way to evaluate the start of summer. And finally, this is an event with an official drink. And what a drink it is! The Mint Julep! If you've never had one (you suck) here's what it is: fill a cup with crushed ice; grind up some sugar and fresh mint leaves; fill with bourbon (Maker's Mark, preferably). That's it. No mixers. It's just liquor with ice and a plant. And it tastes like ambrosia.

This is another thing I love about the derby: the way everyone gets all dressed up, especially the women and their hats. It's really a totally Southern, genteel style that dominates at Churchill Downs, something infrequently seen at major sporting events. And everyone gets wasted on Mint Juleps, as these fine folks are.

3. Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs Oscar de la Hoya. Quite simply, the biggest and most anticipated fight since Tyson-Holyfield, if not longer. It's the best fighter in the world vs the most popular fighter in the world. And naturally, it's in Vegas (where I'll be, did I mention that?). Right now on Stub Hub, back row tickets start at $834.00 each. When tickets went on sale, they were sold out in three fucking minutes. That's what I'd call in-demand.

So basically, I know my Vegas trip has Saturday planned out: Morning -- Coronas and margaritas by the pool as I chill out in my sombrero wearing my Mexican flag bathing suit while I curse in Spanish as much as possible, maybe even a Latina hooker or three; afternoon -- Mint Juleps and pulling for Nobiz Like Showbiz, hopefully nailing a hooker with an endearing Southern accent; night -- rooting for de la Hoya even while watching him be as effective at successfully hitting Floyd as Mr. Miyagi was at getting one of those flies with chopsticks, and finishing off with a hooker who's into letting me punch her (that's legal in Vegas, right?).


I know that clip doesn't have the chopsticks scene, but it's still pretty funny. You should click on to the Youtube site and check this guy's other movies-in-5-seconds clips. I especially love Titanic, The Three Amigos and Goodfellas (this one is pretty NSFW).

But that still leaves Thursday and Friday nights, and since I've never been to Vegas, I'm not sure what to go out and do. I'm sure I'll end up breaking my non-gambling style by throwing down too much money on 23 at the roulette table (just like Tony did on Sunday on The Sopranos -- that's my number too!), if for no other reason than drinks are free if you're gambling. If you can get free drinks, you do it. That's an absolute rule in any situation. Why do you think I go to church? Communion! But I'm not gonna spend all my time in Vegas just gambling, not when the city (allegedly) has so much more to offer. So what else to do? I've asked friends, and many have insisted that I check out the strip-club scene. To which I inevitably groan, and here's why.

Strip clubs blow. I've been to strip clubs up and down the Eastern seaboard, from Florida to Montreal, and with a few notable exceptions, I've had an awful time at all of them. As I mentioned before, my first trip to Stiletto's was great, even though I didn't have quite as -- how to say this... -- "explosive" a time in the private lap-dance room as some of the other 18-year-olds I was with (you know who you are). It was my first time there, and as I hadn't had much experience yet with naked women smiling at me to that point, how could I not enjoy myself?

The second good time I had at a strip club was in Montreal, where the rules are much looser (no pun intended). This club's private dances were hands-on, which is an entirely different experience from most lap dances where the mind-reading devices know instantly the moment you have an inkling of an idea to actually -- gasp! -- touch the girl's leg. (If you're in Montreal, go to Wanda's. Totally worth it.)

Lastly, when I was in Florida "researching" Friction, I went to a club called Cheetah. I didn't even get a lap-dance (or friction-dance, in local terms), but this seemed like the first club I'd been to that realized that having naked chicks walk around and charging exorbitant prices for everything wasn't guaranteed to make a guy enjoy himself. The whole vibe, from the girls' awesome attitudes to the free buffet lunch to the general unpretentiousness of the place, was different and in every way better than other strip clubs I'd been to.

But aside from those three, every other club I've been to sucks, and for many of the same reasons. The biggest beef I have with strip clubs is that, as a general rule in my life, I feel like if 1. There's a hot naked woman grinding on my crotch while she smiles at me and tells me how great she thinks I am, then 2. I SHOULD GET TO HAVE SEX WITH HER. Somehow, men have been fooled by the first part into letting the woman abdicate her role in the second part. And you have to pay her not to do it! Honestly, this situation has happened to me outside a strip club -- where a hot naked chick is lovin' me (numerous times, I swear!) -- but the big reason why that's an awesome thing when it happens is that very soon after, I know I will be having sex with her.

Other things that suck about strip clubs include:

• The enormous ATM fees are laughable. You can be charged $20 just to take out $40. What?
  
• The cover charges at half the decent places can run you up to $50, then you have the $20 coat check, then the whole drinks-cost-more-than-your-hotel-minibar thing.
• In New York -- and many other states -- most strip clubs aren't fully nude because that means they can't serve alcohol. I went into one club on 8th Avenue (again while "researching") that we chose because it was fully nude. It also had a two-drink minimum, which meant that as I watched a bunch of subpar-looking girls who were subpar dancers, I had to buy two $8 cokes (plus tip). And if you do want to drink, then you're looking at places like Scores and the Hustler Club, which will certainly charge the outrageous bullshit fees I mentioned above -- just so you can see chicks still wearing their fucking underwear.

I know a lot of these complaints are money-related, but I still feel like even if I was a bit more loaded than my poor ass is, I would still be most concerned with my first point -- the part about me having sex with girls who do things like that to me.

So in conclusion, I'm not sure I want to deal with the Vegas strip clubs, because a large majority of prior experience leads me to believe I will have a bad time there. If any of you who have been to Vegas know of a cool, fun club where I might enjoy myself, I'd love to hear about it, as my judgment while there will certainly be suspect, and it's not exactly unimaginable that I might somehow end up at one. But if I do, I'd like to be able to suggest a cool one beforehand.

Any other cool spots to go in Vegas would be great to hear as well.

And finally, since "Vegas" is (totally inappropriately) one small letter away from "vegans," I figured I'd put up a pic of what, or should I say "who," I'm having for dinner tonight:

Things That Are Overrated

Unless I can think of another one between now and when I finish writing the post, I'm only going to mention one overrated thing, thus rendering the title of the post inaccurate. But my idea is that as I think of more things that are overrated, I'll post about them, and I invite my co-authors to do the same. So when there are more posts about overrated things, then the title will match.

The first thing that is overrated is The Cheesecake Factory. If you go to the Cheesecake Factory at a time when most people eat meals, say dinnertime, then you are going to wait at least 45 minutes, probably more. If you wait that long, then the assumption is that the restaurant is worth waiting for. Cheesecake Factory is not.

The menu at the Cheesecake Factory is 25 pages long. They have all kinds of choices, from sandwhiches to pastas, fish, and everything else. As a result, none of their dinners are particularly good. They should pick one kind of cuisine and focus on that, or they should keep the categories, but shrink them all. The menu should be 3 to 4 pages long, not 25.

I worked for a professor in the psychology lab when I was an undergrad. The focus of her research was on choice. Her general finding was that people like to have choices, but when they have too many choices they get overwhelmed and, as a result, do not enjoy their choice as much. They have to spend far more time deciding what they want, then they wonder about what would have happened if they had chosen among the x number of other things they could have chosen. When people are given only one choice (not really a choice) they report moderate enjoyment. When they have a few choices, they really enjoy their selections. When they have a ton of choices, they report even less enjoyment than when they were only given one option.

This is what the Cheesecake Factory suffers from. Now the cheesecake is fantastic, but there's no reason to wait 75 minutes for a table and eat a mediocre dinner just to have cheesecake at the end. You can walk up to the bakery and order a cheesecake and roll out. That, in my opinion, is the only reason to go to the Cheesecake Factory. If you want dinner go somewhere else, perhaps Applebee's.