Side Bar asked what we should call the amazing play from the Super Bowl where Eli Manning escaped a sack and then threw the ball seemingly wildly down the field to David Tyree who pinned it against his helmet before securing the catch. Also yesterday on Mike and the Mad Dog, Francesa spent about 3 hours taking calls offering suggestions on what to call the play. Incidentally, Mad Dog was off yesterday and Francesa would sometimes just sit in silence for literally 10 seconds at a time pondering the suggestions people were making. Is he that big of a fucking deal that he can't follow rule number one of radio, never stop talking?
Most of the suggestions from Francessa were pretty bad, but there were some good ones. I wanted to maybe just list a few of the possible names for the sake of fun, and also perhaps to get the picture of the girl peeing in the middle of the street with her breasts hanging out below the fold of the page in the hopes that I can again blog at work.
Here are a couple of ideas, starting with the bad ones:
Flight of the Phoenix (get it, the super bowl was in arizona, near phoenix?)
The Escape Catch (get it, like escape hatch?)
Let's not forget my suggestion to pull in the Fox cross promotion: Prison Break
Those are only a couple of the bad ones I can think of. There were some much worse suggestions on the radio show. Here are some of the better ones:
Catch-42 (get it, for Super Bowl 42?)
Eli to D-Ty, Oh My.
The Helmet Catch
The Tyree-ception
So far I think "Catch-42" is my favorite.
UPDATE: Look what I (Open Bar, that is) did. On the left side of the screen, I set up a friggin' POLL to determine the answer. Should we now takes bets on the Over/Under of what day we reach double-digit responses? Suggestions for both new names for the catch and for what the O/U date should be in the comments, por favor.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Just Say Guess, You Fracking Fracks
One of the things that really makes me angry that I understand is entirely irrational is when people say "guesstimate". I am all in favor of combining words that share syllables in order to create two different meanings, except in this case you're combining words that share the same meaning. You're not fucking clever, you're just a redundant fucking clown.
Either say "guess" or say "estimate". When you say "guesstimate" it hurts my fucking ears. They mean the exact same thing, at least in the limited context that you understand the word "estimate" to mean. I'm not trying to insult Americans who understand the subtelties of the English language, but I am trying to insult the subset of stupid Americans who use the word "guesstimate". You people suck. Stop it.
Either say "guess" or say "estimate". When you say "guesstimate" it hurts my fucking ears. They mean the exact same thing, at least in the limited context that you understand the word "estimate" to mean. I'm not trying to insult Americans who understand the subtelties of the English language, but I am trying to insult the subset of stupid Americans who use the word "guesstimate". You people suck. Stop it.
Fine, whatever, f*ck it
I hereby give up my insistence that this blog not deal with politics, because, hey fuck it. There's clearly no stopping it. The four of us are very politically engaged and aware, so why should we rob ourselves of discussing what's on our minds? Also, we haven't figured out some kind of blog identity that was divorced from politics, so why not just unleash the beast?
Chuck just posted a very thoughtful description of what went through his mind prior to entering the voting booth. I applaud him for doing that, even though I disagree with some of what he said. The writers of this blog don't need to hide our political leanings -- we only need to be able to articulate them clearly. I guess.
I have been very much against turning this space into something politically oriented, but tonight -- Super Duper Tuesday, as the media has described it -- makes it clear: Where's Luke? must rise to the occasion. We here are four intelligent, politically aware writers, and with the current political environment, we must respond. Because, otherwise, how would our dear readers know what to think?
I could sit here at my laptop and talk about the Giants and the Mets and how awesome drinking is (It's awesome!), but would that be the best I have to offer? No. (Yes.) And I don't want to prevent my equally brilliant co-writers the opportunity to write what matters to them. (Jameson whiskey.)
So -- and not like any of us needed the invitation -- let's open this blog to politics. After all, Chuck, LJT, and Side Bar have already begun the discussion with their intelligent, lucid, well-thought-out posts.
I am an Obama supporter. This is because I love his message of bringing the country together, that "We aren't liberal America and conservative America. We are the United States of America." This has resonated with me because for a long fucking time, I have felt that the idea of a Red-State America and a Blue-State America was a Rove/Bush concoction that the media ran with. That very idea is ABSOLUTE FUCKING HORSESHIT. Any time I've been down South, I have had a blast. All the people down there are -- believe it or not -- very much like me and people I know. I have never felt for one second while I was in "Red-State America" that I was unwelcome. Yes, we're different, but in my experiences, our differences are far outnumbered by our similarities. And whatever our differences might be, trying to drive a "wedge" between them strikes me as a political maneuver, rather than any attempt to actually make the country better.
What I love about Barack is the idea that everyone is welcome at the table. If you've ever found yourself in a situation where you've actually had to solve a problem, then you know that simply insisting you're right and ignoring the other side doesn't solve a fucking thing. But if you are willing to listen to the other person and give their side a degree of respect, then they will be much more willing to listen to you and, therefore, take the next step. You may not get all you want, but it's a step forward. And with the way the country has been run recently, simply taking a step forward is huge.
I fully believe that the only candidate on either side who can do this is Barack Obama. Every other candidate, from Hillary to McCain to Romney (Ron Paul excepted -- he's awesome) will simply continue the same game we've been watching. It's in their interest. They're classic politicians, despite what their campaigns are painting them as. If you look even a little bit closely, you can see that there is a clear difference between them and Barack. He has not changed his message at all. He is the actual messenger of "change." It doesn't take a genius to see that. Look back, and you will see that he has been preaching change far longer than Hillary or Romney, who only took up the "change" banner when it became politically viable.
That, ultimately, is why I choose Barack over Hillary. Their policies, as presented, are very similar. But once one of them is in office, who do you trust to do what he/she promised? If Hillary is elected, I don't believe for one second that she'll care at all about what she said. She will simply do what she thinks is best politically. All she cares about is winning. If things look tough, she will cave. She will start to claim such ludicrous things like her vote in the fall of 2002 wasn't actually a vote to go to war with Iraq, it was simply to give the inspectors more time or to enforce the sanctions or blah blah blah. If you were paying any sort of attention, you knew that that vote was a choice of going to war or not. Any further interpretation is dumb. That vote was for war, and she made it because it was her best political move at the time. That's it. That's all she cares about.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, said something different.
And Barack has continued to say something different -- something completely reasonable: That we are not simply Republicans and Democrats, we are not Red-Staters or Blue-Staters -- We are Americans. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to fool you.
So between someone like Barack and someone like Hillary, who do you believe?
Chuck just posted a very thoughtful description of what went through his mind prior to entering the voting booth. I applaud him for doing that, even though I disagree with some of what he said. The writers of this blog don't need to hide our political leanings -- we only need to be able to articulate them clearly. I guess.
I have been very much against turning this space into something politically oriented, but tonight -- Super Duper Tuesday, as the media has described it -- makes it clear: Where's Luke? must rise to the occasion. We here are four intelligent, politically aware writers, and with the current political environment, we must respond. Because, otherwise, how would our dear readers know what to think?
I could sit here at my laptop and talk about the Giants and the Mets and how awesome drinking is (It's awesome!), but would that be the best I have to offer? No. (Yes.) And I don't want to prevent my equally brilliant co-writers the opportunity to write what matters to them. (Jameson whiskey.)
So -- and not like any of us needed the invitation -- let's open this blog to politics. After all, Chuck, LJT, and Side Bar have already begun the discussion with their intelligent, lucid, well-thought-out posts.
I am an Obama supporter. This is because I love his message of bringing the country together, that "We aren't liberal America and conservative America. We are the United States of America." This has resonated with me because for a long fucking time, I have felt that the idea of a Red-State America and a Blue-State America was a Rove/Bush concoction that the media ran with. That very idea is ABSOLUTE FUCKING HORSESHIT. Any time I've been down South, I have had a blast. All the people down there are -- believe it or not -- very much like me and people I know. I have never felt for one second while I was in "Red-State America" that I was unwelcome. Yes, we're different, but in my experiences, our differences are far outnumbered by our similarities. And whatever our differences might be, trying to drive a "wedge" between them strikes me as a political maneuver, rather than any attempt to actually make the country better.
What I love about Barack is the idea that everyone is welcome at the table. If you've ever found yourself in a situation where you've actually had to solve a problem, then you know that simply insisting you're right and ignoring the other side doesn't solve a fucking thing. But if you are willing to listen to the other person and give their side a degree of respect, then they will be much more willing to listen to you and, therefore, take the next step. You may not get all you want, but it's a step forward. And with the way the country has been run recently, simply taking a step forward is huge.
I fully believe that the only candidate on either side who can do this is Barack Obama. Every other candidate, from Hillary to McCain to Romney (Ron Paul excepted -- he's awesome) will simply continue the same game we've been watching. It's in their interest. They're classic politicians, despite what their campaigns are painting them as. If you look even a little bit closely, you can see that there is a clear difference between them and Barack. He has not changed his message at all. He is the actual messenger of "change." It doesn't take a genius to see that. Look back, and you will see that he has been preaching change far longer than Hillary or Romney, who only took up the "change" banner when it became politically viable.
That, ultimately, is why I choose Barack over Hillary. Their policies, as presented, are very similar. But once one of them is in office, who do you trust to do what he/she promised? If Hillary is elected, I don't believe for one second that she'll care at all about what she said. She will simply do what she thinks is best politically. All she cares about is winning. If things look tough, she will cave. She will start to claim such ludicrous things like her vote in the fall of 2002 wasn't actually a vote to go to war with Iraq, it was simply to give the inspectors more time or to enforce the sanctions or blah blah blah. If you were paying any sort of attention, you knew that that vote was a choice of going to war or not. Any further interpretation is dumb. That vote was for war, and she made it because it was her best political move at the time. That's it. That's all she cares about.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, said something different.
And Barack has continued to say something different -- something completely reasonable: That we are not simply Republicans and Democrats, we are not Red-Staters or Blue-Staters -- We are Americans. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to fool you.
So between someone like Barack and someone like Hillary, who do you believe?
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
A Vote For Idealism
First of all, I don't know about the other contributors feelings on blogging about politics, but I know that I'm not going to be able to keep myself from blogging about the upcoming election on a somewhat regular basis. If you don't want to read my thoughts on politics, then I expect you'll just not read my posts.
Anyhow, today is "Super Tuesday", the day when nothing really happens, but there are really good new graph technologies on CNN. Heading into today I was really, honestly torn between voting for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. As I think I've expressed in previous posts, my feeling is that the prudent vote at this point goes to Clinton, and the idealistic vote goes to Obama. I think we know with Clinton we're going to get a president that's a solid B+ and that she won't really be better and she probably won't be worse. Obama, on the other hand, has the potential to be an A or even better, but also might go down in flames, or at least be like a C.
I have never had to think so hard about which candidate I wanted to vote for. Voting for Bill Clinton in 1996, Bill Bradley and then Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004 (the nomination was wrapped up by the time the New York primary rolled around) were all no brainers for me. This year I read a lot about it, I watched all the Meet The Press I could, I even read Maureen Dowd's column for the past couple weeks (which is getting harder these days. We get it Maureen, you're cynical. Very clever). I even looked fairly specifically at some of their policy platforms. At the end of the day, I really feel like the two candidates are pretty similar, in fact I believe that they are only marginally different. Requiring Americans to buy into a health care plan is not exactly a difference. It is, but you know what I mean.
It really just comes down to two things for me. First is electability, second is that prudence vs. idealism thing. If I felt like one of these two would be entirely outmatched in the general election by the Republican nominee (which is looking more and more like McCain), then I would vote for the other guy. Honestly, though, even there I see that they both have convincing arguments. Clinton is entirely prepared to go into the general election today, whereas she may lose momentum come November. I think Barack will have to build up steam by first changing is message for a more cnetrist audience, and second weathering the personal attacks that would undoubtedly begin in earnest come August, but I think he would really get the proverbial train moving later in the race.
At the end of the day, I had to make a decision. I was still not 100% convinced either way as I walked into the voting booth. My decision came down to this. I'm 29 years old, this is the last time I will vote as a "young voter" with my heart rather than with my head, and I decided to cast a vote for idealism, rather than prudence. I voted for Barack Obama.
I'm still not convinced that I made the right choice, to be perfectly honest with you, but I don't regret my vote. And I could not be more happy that my vote will actually count for something because 1)the nomination is not yet decided and 2)New York is not a winner take all state (Clinton has already been projected as the winner) so whatever proportion of the vote Obama receives will determine the number of delegates he receives.
If my guy doesn't end up winning the nomination ultimately, I will happily vote for Clinton in the general, but for today I'm still young, today I'm still an idealist, today I voted for the guy who most closely represents me and my background.
Anyhow, today is "Super Tuesday", the day when nothing really happens, but there are really good new graph technologies on CNN. Heading into today I was really, honestly torn between voting for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. As I think I've expressed in previous posts, my feeling is that the prudent vote at this point goes to Clinton, and the idealistic vote goes to Obama. I think we know with Clinton we're going to get a president that's a solid B+ and that she won't really be better and she probably won't be worse. Obama, on the other hand, has the potential to be an A or even better, but also might go down in flames, or at least be like a C.
I have never had to think so hard about which candidate I wanted to vote for. Voting for Bill Clinton in 1996, Bill Bradley and then Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004 (the nomination was wrapped up by the time the New York primary rolled around) were all no brainers for me. This year I read a lot about it, I watched all the Meet The Press I could, I even read Maureen Dowd's column for the past couple weeks (which is getting harder these days. We get it Maureen, you're cynical. Very clever). I even looked fairly specifically at some of their policy platforms. At the end of the day, I really feel like the two candidates are pretty similar, in fact I believe that they are only marginally different. Requiring Americans to buy into a health care plan is not exactly a difference. It is, but you know what I mean.
It really just comes down to two things for me. First is electability, second is that prudence vs. idealism thing. If I felt like one of these two would be entirely outmatched in the general election by the Republican nominee (which is looking more and more like McCain), then I would vote for the other guy. Honestly, though, even there I see that they both have convincing arguments. Clinton is entirely prepared to go into the general election today, whereas she may lose momentum come November. I think Barack will have to build up steam by first changing is message for a more cnetrist audience, and second weathering the personal attacks that would undoubtedly begin in earnest come August, but I think he would really get the proverbial train moving later in the race.
At the end of the day, I had to make a decision. I was still not 100% convinced either way as I walked into the voting booth. My decision came down to this. I'm 29 years old, this is the last time I will vote as a "young voter" with my heart rather than with my head, and I decided to cast a vote for idealism, rather than prudence. I voted for Barack Obama.
I'm still not convinced that I made the right choice, to be perfectly honest with you, but I don't regret my vote. And I could not be more happy that my vote will actually count for something because 1)the nomination is not yet decided and 2)New York is not a winner take all state (Clinton has already been projected as the winner) so whatever proportion of the vote Obama receives will determine the number of delegates he receives.
If my guy doesn't end up winning the nomination ultimately, I will happily vote for Clinton in the general, but for today I'm still young, today I'm still an idealist, today I voted for the guy who most closely represents me and my background.
The Giants
I have honestly never been as excited being a sports fan as I was in the fourth quarter of that game. That David Tyree catch was the greatest play I can think of in the history of sport. The Giants won the Super Bowl.
I think that was a Haiku.
I think that was a Haiku.
I'm F*cking Matt Damon
Today, on Super Duper-uper-uper-uper Tuesday - that apparently won't decide anything all of the sudden, let's take a few moments out for some levity.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Easy Eli, the Helmet Catch, and the Psychosis of Being a Fan
My turn.
Without hyperbole, without exaggeration, and without even a split-second of hesitation, I can honestly write that last night was one of the most exciting nights of my life, and one I really do not think I will ever forget. In fact, other than the night I got engaged, and the day I got married, it may have been the very best.
Open Bar and I share an affinity for the same teams, so his discussion below about our previous experiences supporting a team that wins a championship pretty much says it all. Mets in 1986, Giants in 1987 and 1991. And nothing else.
Until now. Last night was simply perfect: watching the game with a dozen good friends, plenty to eat (side note: amazing, amazing chili out of Open Bar. Well done, sir.), lots of beers, a come from behind victory for our beloved G-Men, and a post-game celebration with friends and strangers at three (or was it four?) bars right in the heart of the winning town.
I can't get enough of it. I've watched SportsCenter all day, read every paper in New York, cover to cover (even the Sun), and scoured espn.com for tidbits of information, pictures, and interviews. I've also watched the Helmet Catch about 17 times (side note: I am going to do a separate post polling our audience about naming Tyree's catch. "The Catch" is already taken, as is the "Immaculate Reception," so I think the "Helmet Catch" will work).
There's a football on my head!
And yet, I couldn't help but contrast last night's elation, and this morning's joyous hangover, with the utter devestation I felt just four months ago watching the Mets' season implode, or the year before that, sitting at Shea, waiting for Beltran to hit that curveball. I keep coming back to a fundamental question about being a sports fan: why on earth do I care this much?
I am an adult, I have a job (usually) in a field that is totally unrelated to sports, I am intelligent, and generally pretty responsible. Eli Manning doesn't know who I am, and has no obligation or reason to care. Plaxico Burress will never ask me for my autograph. But despite all that, I am absolutely devestated when "my" team loses the big game, and numbingly elated when they win.
I am sure there is an explanation. Something about in-group/out-group theories in psychology, about wanting to feel part of a team, about the vicarious thrill we get from seeing others succeed. Or maybe it's the camraderie that is shared by fans in the stands or in the bar, the excitement of predicting, criticizing, and wondering. To be honest though, even though I wonder about it sometimes, when all is said and done, I don't care why I care. I just do.
It might be that it is a little silly to get so invested in it, to jump up and scream like idiots because some guy caught a football three thousand miles from here. It may not be worth getting so down when your team loses, which all but one of them is guaranteed to do every single year, in every single sport. It could be that there are better things to do with a Sunday afternoon than sitting inside a dark bar in a random town because there is just no way you are missing a game.
Maybe, but the Giants just won the Superbowl.
So this is what it feels like, huh?
Holyfuckingshit.
Son of a left-handed biscuit. (hat tip to Dr. Whatley, inventor of Tide)
By the power of Grayskull.
Oh my balls.
Great ghosts of Gargamel's Balls.
Balls of Mount Balls' Scrote.
K-Fed ate my baby's balls.
Those are a few of the nonsensical utterings my overwhelmed brain has coughed up over the last few hours. Brutal hangover notwithstanding, I now know what the limits of my central nervous system are. In other words, I've literally reached that point where something so extraordinary and unfathomable has occurred that I have no method of processing it. Instead, I tend to sit here open-mouthed (a la Eli), occasionally blinking myself back into awareness, only to be forced to reconsider the course of events of the last 24 hours.
This is a world where a marginal player can somehow catch a football-shaped ball with his FUCKING HELMET. A world in which I am humbled.
A world where one team can enter the Super Bowl with the never-before-achieved record of 18-0, then lose to a team led by a quarterback affectionately known as "the crappy one" in his family even when his oldest brother is some finance chump.
A world where, while watching the game last night, I screamed "Gisele's been to the abortion clinic four times already this month" and "I hope Wes Welker's children die," yet still, somehow, the Gods of Karma chose to...reward my over-the-top hostility and downright nastiness?
Where the fuck am I?
In my sports-watching life, the team I care about most -- the Mets -- has won one championship. That was in 1986, and at age 8, I had no proper perspective to appreciate the its magnitude. As if to hammer that point home, a few months later, the team I care about second-most -- the Giants -- won the Super Bowl. Four years after that, the Giants won it all again. Those three games -- each absolutely wonderful and spendiferous and scrumtrelecent, yes -- are it, though. Other than those three games, I have nothing but heartbreak, disappointment, and rage in my experience column.
That's why it's both beautiful and baffling to me as I sit here trying my hardest to compute what happened last night. It's been 17 years since I've been able to call my team Champion. In those 17 years, there have been some notable events which I, and those odd Giants/Mets fans have endured: the 49ers game, the not-even-close Super Bowl loss to the Ravens, this past September's Mets collapse, and, most painfully, a World Series loss to my most-hated enemy.
At this point, I feel conditioned to events like that. But for events like actually, you know, succeeding, alas, I got nothing.
I can say this though: It does feel quite nice. That surely sounds deserving of a Captain Obvious tag, but as I've never been old enough to properly experience something like this, "nice" is goddamn eloquent, nay Shakespearean, okay?
Holy humping Moses Malone's Tits, this feels good.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
A-Mazing
As documented in our blog, I'm not necessarily the biggest sports fan going but I couldn't help but get caught up in tonight's Super Bowl and the Giant's gripping playoff run.
My more avid Giant-fans co-bloggers will expand but I just want to take a moment to revel in tonight's win.
Congratulations to the whole Giants team, especially Eli Manning who overcame mad doubters (myself included, admittedly) to win the Super Bowl - becoming the Super Bowl MVP in the process.
Also, props to Plaxico for standing up for the G-Men during the week and not backing down.
A GIANT fuck you to Bill Belichick, you sore losing, fuck-you-touchdown scoring, cheating, Jets abandoning, home wrecking fucking douche bag.
Luke, I am your cheater.
Also, a GIANT fuck you goes out to Tiki Barber, you announcing your retirement half-way through the seasoning, shit talking your former team while Today Show hosting, caterpillar eyebrow having, coach hating even though he taught you how not to be fumbling and going down like a Chuck Knoblauch, rooting for the other teaming and Eli Manning clowning after you're retired bitch!
Don't worry Tiki, you may never win a Super Bowl but you could still land a spot on The View when Babarbara Walters retires.NNN
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)