sumopopblog

Thumbs Down, Finger Up

2010-04-04T09:20:00.000-07:00

Well, isn't that just great. After doing everything they could to destroy the venerable At The Movies franchise, Disney announced on March 24th the cancellation of the long running show that launched the television careers of Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert.

The program started way back in 1986, and paired the two critics from competing Chicago newspapers (Siskel--Chicago Tribune, Ebert--Chicago Sun Times), often against one another in a discussion of the week's new movies. They were an odd pair, the balding, lean Siskel and the rumpled, hefty Ebert, and in the early days they didn't get along very well at all. However, despite their lack of TV ready good looks, the often caustic back and forth between the two made for great television. Their terse disagreements over everything from David Lynch's Blue Velvet (Siskel was for, Ebert against) to the otherwise forgettable Burt Reynolds starrer, Cop And A Half (Ebert for--astonishingly, Siskel against), masked the fact that most of the time their thumbs were pointed in the same direction.

Still, they had some great--and frankly hilarious dust ups. Here is a small sample:

[reviewing "Clifford"] Roger Ebert: [surprised] You took... kids to see this? This is the kind of movie where after kids see this, they should see "The Good Son" to cheer themselves up!

Gene Siskel: [criticising Roger's thumbs up for "Gorilla's in the Mist"] You're only saying you like the film because apes and a woman are there, and they look pretty.

Siskel: [responding to Ebert's statement "I enjoyed myself thoroughly"] "I'm sure you did enjoy yourself, it's the movie I'm talking about."

All that stuff is great, but what I will most remember them for is championing movies that, well, needed a champion. Films like Once Upon A Time In America, Do The Right Thing, Vagabond, and Salvador. Perhaps the most memorable recommendation they ever made for me was regarding Cameron Crowe's 1989 classic, Say Anything. During the show, Siskel had stated that earlier in the day he had sat through the awful Tony Danza flick (yes there was a time when Tony Danza could top line a movie and get it a theatrical release), She's Out Of Control. A movie so bad, that he seriously considered quitting his job. Then, as he put it, "I saw Say Anything (later the same day) and all was right with the world." Ebert concurred, and so did I after I saw it later that week.

They were equally entertaining when they brought out the knives to skewer some truly terrible movies. To wit:

Gene Siskel: [reviewing "Stargate"] Do you know that the budget, supposedly, of this picture was fifty-five million dollars? Roger Ebert: Boy, they must've had some great lunches.

Roger Ebert: [reviewing "Poltergeist III"] You always wonder how the tennis committee likes it where the building they own--- a condo--- is trashed in a movie like this. I hope they got free tickets. Gene Siskel: I hope they didn't.

Gene Siskel: [reviewing "Highlander 2: The Quickening"] I read about this picture and do you know that it cost 34 million dollars to make? Roger Ebert: You're kidding me! Gene Siskel: Shot in Argentina... where did the money go? Roger Ebert: 34 million, they must have had a limousine every time they went to the john.

Over the years, the two adversaries became great friends. And when tragedy struck in the form of a brain tumor that eventually took the life of Gene, Ebert penned a lovely goodbye note (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/02/i_remember_gene.html). The show carried on for a year (1999-2000) with a rotating group of guest critics before Ebert settled on fellow Sun Times columnist, Richard Roeper in 2001. While Roeper was not up to the standards of Gene Siskel, the union did have it's moments. For example:

Roger Ebert: You know, I'm giving this one a marginal thumbs-up... Richard Roeper: Who are you, and what have you done with Roger Ebert?

Richard Roeper: At least the thugs from "3000 Miles to Graceland" look like grown-up tough guys, unlike the teeny-bopper idols in "American Outlaws" who couldn't punch their way out of a casting call for a Gap commercial.

Roger Ebert: I have a theoretical question for you, Richard: How far down can a thumb go?

Their union lasted six years (2001-2007) before cancer reared its ugly head again. This time, it would be Roger who was stricken by thyroid cancer. After multiple surgeries robbed Ebert of the ability to speak, the show attempted to move on--respectfully--without him. While still calling the show "Ebert & Roeper At The Movies," Roger's spot in the balcony was taken by a series of rotating guest critics, much like the first post-Siskel year. Eventually, in a bitter contract dispute, Roeper left the show and Ebert took the famous "thumbs up, thumbs down" with him as his own intellectual property.

In a brazen and foolish effort to young the show up, Disney chose Turner Classic television host, Ben Mankiewicz and E Entertainment (for real) correspondent, Ben Lyons as replacements. Of the two Ben's, Mankiewicz clearly knew his stuff and was improving on a weekly basis. However, he was no match for the witless, grinning village idiot that was Ben Lyons. Lyons, the son of noted (if terribly mediocre) film critic Jeffrey Lyons, proved to be both a master of the obvious and a king of overstatement. His critiques of the films on the show were positively Palin-esque. To no wit:

"And it seems like this is going to be the one film we’re gonna see of this franchise." It wasn’t like Zack Snyder was trying to setup the sequel. I really appreciate that.” From the guy who said he was on his second reading of Alan Moore’s Watchmen and thus should have known that it was a self-contained entity with no sequel or spin off.

“It’s really important to tell people to go out and see W. so they can talk about it and have an opinion about it and this freedom of speech of course that allows us to go and talk about a film about a current sitting president.”

“You know what hurts a movie like Max Payne is the success of the Batman franchise. That obviously is about story and character so they think for all films of the genre it’s gotta be about story and character and this whole back story of him losing his wife. I don’t care about that. I wanna see Max Payne shoot people. That’s all I want from a movie like this.”

"I love how this film establishes that it takes place in the real world. It opens in London but then, of course, goes to the world of Hogwarts and Wizards.”

Lyons also called I Am Legend "one of the greatest movies ever made." And once attended the Sundance Film Festival where he stated that he saw a grand total of 5 films, and "some of them were pretty good."

I can only imagine what it was like for Mankiewicz to sit across from this bumbling nincompoop week after week. Finally, after so much damage was done to the At The Movies brand, Disney mercifully fired both Bens after less than one year as hosts in 2009. While Mankiewicz deserved better, I'm sure he was glad to be put out of his misery.

In their first decent move in awhile, Disney replaced the two Bens with Chicago Tribune film critic, Michael Phillips and New York Times Film critic, A.O. Scott. Finally, order was restored. While Scott and Phillips couldn't quite bring back the glory years of Siskel and Ebert, they did mark a notable return to thoughtful, erudite, on camera film criticism. Although they were more respectful and polite than the show's founders, they did have good chemistry and were both clever in a low key way. Plus, they both know movies. Which may seem obvious, but after the reign of non-sensical terror perpetrated by Ben Lyons, it's worth mentioning.

Unfortunately, this return to smart, knowledgeable criticism has not been enough to overcome the unfortunate recent past of the show. Phillips and Scott have not been able to return the show's ratings to an acceptable level for Disney, and will therefore air their last show some time in August of this year. And that will be that for quality televised film criticism. Film critics as a whole are slowly going the way of the buffalo. Major newspapers and magazines all over the country have been firing their film critics in cost cutting moves due to the fiscal pains that print journalism is suffering from.

And that's a damn shame. I know standing up for critics is almost like defending politicians, but I like a thoughtful, intelligent discussion on the art of film. This may sound silly, but Siskel and Ebert are the reason why I started college as a journalism major. Hell, I wanted their jobs. In fact, if I'm really honest with myself, they are a big reason why I write this blog (now you know who to blame). They inspired me as much as Paul Auster or Walter Mosley. Maybe that makes me decidedly middle-brow, but I can't imagine doing this if I had never been exposed to them.

But now, it's all over. Another nail in the coffin of thoughtful journalism. And the disease is spreading. If you look at all print and televised journalism, it seems sensationalism and loud voices rule the day while fact-checking and quality writing come well after. Maybe it's a stretch to pair the end of At The Movies with the decline of quality news journalism, but I don't think so. Today we value quick and pithy over deep and thoughtful. Few seem to want to read past the headlines or give a discerning opinion a second look.

Unfortunately, Disney agrees. So they are canceling At The Movies. A decision I give a thumbs down and a finger up to. I'm sure you can guess which digit is pointing skyward.

Sumo-Pop
April 4, 2010

Crude

2010-04-01T08:38:00.001-07:00

Well, I guess it had to happen sooner or later. It will come as no surprise to anyone who knows me that I have been an avid supporter of our current President. During the 2008 campaign, I attended rallies, gave money, and walked unfamiliar streets and knocked on the doors of strangers in an effort to bring his election to fruition. While I haven't always agreed with the President on everything, he has never truly disappointed me. Until now.

President Obama's decision yesterday to open up off-shore drilling along a variety of state coastlines is not only wrong, but counter productive. The argument that the President offered in favor of additional oil exploration simply doesn't hold up. His hypothesis that digging for "black gold" (Texas tea...) will reduce our reliance on foreign oil while being minimally invasive to the environment is completely flawed, if not disingenuous.

I know most people will choose energy independence over environmental conservation, but this move will not accomplish either.

Environmentally speaking, there are the risk of oil spills, and the further degradation of our coastlines. Why should we care about this? Well, anyone who remembers the Exxon Valdez crisis knows why an oil spill is a bad thing. The risk to wild life and ocean quality is argued to be minimal by the companies that intend to do the drilling. They will tell you the risk of a spill is almost non-existent. However, there have been 12 major U.S. related oil spills in the last decade. The cost to marine life and to tax payers (for the clean up) is massive. Not to mention the continual deterioration of our coast lines.

Probably the worst example of the negative impact from off-shore oil exploration revolves around the state of Louisiana. The loss of wetlands off the gulf coast greatly contributed to the disastrous impact that Hurricane Katrina had on the city of New Orleans. Wetlands create a barrier between tropical storms and the main land. Due in large part to off-shore drilling, the wetlands off the gulf coast have continually decreased in width and breadth. I know the media likes to talk about the porous levees that failed during the storm (and they certainly should), but they often failed to appropriately report the effect that the weakened coast line played in the magnitude of the disaster.

Ok, fine. Maybe you don't give two shits about the environment or marine life. Maybe all you care about is getting off of foreign oil and reducing gas prices. Which is certainly a worthy goal. Unfortunately, more drilling ain't gonna make that happen. You might ask why not? Wouldn't drilling and refining more of our own oil reduce our dependence on foreign suppliers while also reducing pain at the pump? Nope.

And here's why: First off, all this oil that we will be pulling out of the ocean is not simply going to stay in the United States. While the U.S. Government will buy a certain number of barrels for our oil reserves, by far, most of it will hit the open market, where it will simply be added to world consumption. Current estimates say that this decision will result in 14 billion new barrels of oil. Which sounds like a lot right? Well, it's not. Yearly worldwide oil consumption is 30 billion barrels a year. So, when all this "additional" oil hits the market, it will be swallowed up pretty damn quickly. Of course, other countries will still be producing oil, and therefore our new oil won't disappear in 6 months. But you can see that adding even 14 billion barrels isn't going to make a huge difference. And wait until you see what happens as the Chinese start buying more cars. China's economy is one of the fastest growing in the world, but right now they have only one car per 100 citizens. That will change greatly as the purchasing power of the populous increases. In fact, the only way that this oil exploration will reduce our foreign dependence is if we nationalize the oil industry and keep it for ourselves. Now, I know people like to refer to Obama as a socialist, but even he wouldn't consider that as a viable option.

As far as gas prices go, even if you throw out everything I said in the last paragraph, we won't see any of this oil for 10 years at minimum. It will take that long to set up, locate, drill, and refine all this new crude. And refining is a huge issue in this country. There hasn't been a single new refinery built in this USA since 1976, and many of the ones that do exist have merged together resulting in more refineries being operated by fewer companies and reducing competition. Which in turn reduces output. Most estimates state that at best, in ten plus years gas prices will come down a few measly cents. Hell, even John "drill, baby drill" McCain himself said that the benefits of off-shore drilling would be largely psychological. Psychological. I don't know about you, but I think we need real solutions not imaginary ones.

Real Solutions, like alternative energy. Fuel cells, ethanol, bio-diesel, hybrids, increasing fuel standards, whatever, is the answer, not this.

It's not that I don't think the President knows this either. During the 2008 campaign, Obama stated as much. Although, to be fair, he did hedge his bets by saying that he could find additional off-shore drilling acceptable as a part of a comprehensive energy bill that would focus primarily on alternative energy. But here's the thing, how's he going to get this comprehensive bill passed now that he's already given away a bargaining chip? Does he really think that Republicans are going to go along with any plan that he advances? There were over 200 Republican authored amendments in the health care bill, and he couldn't get one sorry vote out of either house of congress. They have already poo-poo'd this announcement by saying that he didn't go far enough. They aren't happy that he is still enforcing protections along certain coastlines (particularly the west coast). Hell, if Obama put on a hard hat and drilled straight through a baby seal resulting in a geyser of oil spouting from the ocean, they would still find a way to throw stink on it.

All this leaves me at a loss. The only reason why I can logically see why the President would make this decision is purely a political one. It may move independents and conservative democrats in the polls. It probably helps the "Blue Dog" Democrats in purple states too. And I suppose it takes away a Republican talking point in the mid-terms as well as the 2012 presidential election. Maybe the President will prove me wrong. Maybe he will be able to move some Republicans over to his side for a more forward thinking energy bill. I don't think so, but this President has surprised me before with his resilience and ability to make lemonade. So, I'm left with nothing but the hope that I will be proven wrong. Thankfully, it's happened before (ask my wife, or look at my NCAA bracket--once you piece it back together), and I'm hoping it will happen this time as well. I just wish I could see how.

Sumo-Pop
April 1, 2010

Yours Truly, Angry Mob

2010-03-24T21:55:00.001-07:00

I beg your pardon/I didn't mean you/I take the blame/don't stand accused/to you my love and apologies--Jesse Johnson

To any of my friends who might read this and think that I'm referring to any of them, please refer to the quote above. Now, on with the column.

Enough already. You lost. Learn acceptance and move on.

It was bad enough calling John Lewis a "ni**er," and Barney Frank a "fa**ot," while also spitting on another congressional democrat. No, that wasn't enough. They had to follow up with acts of vandalism and death threats.

The week after the health care bill was passed, several congressional democrats reported a variety of threats to the F.B.I.

--Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY came to work and found a window in her district office shattered by a brick. On her voice mail was a hate filled diatribe referencing "snipers."

--Rep. Bart Stupak, D-MI found similar threats on his voice mail as well. One caller suggested that Stupak will spend the rest of his days "looking over his fucking shoulder."

--However, the most egregious report relates to Tom Perriello, D-VA. A mentally challenged blogger named Mike Troxel from Lynchburg, VA posted what he believed to be Troxel's home address on his site with the suggestion to "drop by...and express...thanks regarding his vote for health care." As it turned out, it wasn't the Representative's house at all, it was his brother's. A brother who came home one evening last week to find his gas line cut. Troxel, who claims affiliation with the "Tea Party" movement has thus far refused to remove the address from his blog, stating that he still believes it's the Representative's house.

Which is hardly the damn point. This dangerous, backward ass fool is playing with someone's life. He is stoking angry fires that are burning deep in the hearts of those opposed to health care reform. And he seems to be saying, "Hey, if someone does something to somebody, well, all I did was post an address."

Look, it's more than fair to oppose this legislation (I have my own problems with it), and it's certainly acceptable to protest the bill. Hell, I've got no problem with people raising their voices about it and taking their case to the streets. However, once you cross over to death threats and property damage, you're pretty much a terrorist. What aim might you have other than to terrorize if you are engaged in these activities?

Of course, I know that not all "Tea Party" members are vandals or criminals, but I also don't think the number of bad elements within their ranks is that small. At least, it certainly doesn't feel that way right now. When you look at the rallies on television, the signs held up in the crowds aren't just full of anger and opposition, they are full of hate. It's one thing to call Obama a socialist, but a Nazi? Or how about the signs that depict him in "Joker" make-up? Or those that question where he was born? This is pretty nasty stuff.

Now, several "Tea Party" representatives have decried this most recent behavior, as have members of the Republican leadership such as House Minority Leader, John Boehner from Ohio. Which is fine, but also a bit late.

Republicans in Washington have clearly tried to harness the anger of the disaffected in an effort to galvanize new voters with an eye toward the mid-term elections. Several Republicans in congress have left open the suggestion that Obama is a secret Muslim, a Kenyan, and a socialist. They have encouraged "birthers," "deathers," and all manner of the willfully uninformed to support their party.

Much of this began during the 2008 election when the half-term Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin was chosen by John McCain as his presidential running mate. Palin, the pageant queen of the willfully uninformed, accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists" because he knew a Chicago Professor (William Ayers) who was once tried for terrorist activities. Nevermind that Obama's rather tenuous (at best) ties to Ayers were decades after he had been tried for his alleged crimes, Palin was not going to let pesky things like facts get in her way. Considering all the difficulty she seems to have remembering anything significant without writing it on her hand, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

However, this behavior is dangerous. This effort to appeal to the knuckle dragging, flat Earth crowd has no good end. Not only is it not good for our country, it's not even good for Republicans. Sure, they may get some short term gains in November from this crowd, but can anyone really imagine any long term benefit coming from aligning yourself with extremists?

The sad thing is, it didn't end with the 2008 election. Just last week, Palin had a map of cross hairs targeting the districts of vulnerable democrats on her Facebook page. Cross hairs! Boehner referred to one Democrat who voted for the health care bill as a "dead man walking." Not to mention Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-TX who called pro-life democrat, Bart Stupak, a "baby killer" on the house floor while Stupak was explaining his support for the bill. Maybe some people think this shit is funny, but I think it's irresponsible at minimum and dangerous at worst.

Of course, I'm well aware that right wingers aren't the only crazies out there. History is full of leftist types who often channeled their anger in destructive ways. Lee Harvey Oswald and the Black Panthers come to mind. There was even a left wing nut-job group called "truthers" who insisted that George W. Bush had something to do with planning the 9/11 attacks. They are no better, and I've got no use for them either. But that's not who we're dealing with now. And when Republican members of congress try to gin up these protesters by waving flags and cheering them on as if they're at a pep rally, well, quite frankly it's beneath them. Or at least it should be.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in free speech and peaceable assembly. I fully support the right of anyone to raise their voice in dissent. That right is an essential part of our history, and one of the truly great things about our country. But free speech doesn't mean screaming "fire" when there is none, and peaceable assembly shouldn't include epithets and projectile saliva. And it damn sure shouldn't lead to bricks through windows, death threats, and cut gas lines.

I don't know, maybe I'm not being fair here. I suppose that's possible. But I really don't think so. Sometimes, there aren't two sides to a story. Sometimes there is no "on the other hand." This I believe is one of those times.

These people who are out to terrorize democratically elected officials should be institutionalized in either a mental facility of their choice or a penitentiary of the court system's choosing. Or, they could just do the most simple and most American thing of all: Take all that anger and frustration into the ballot box with them and VOTE.

Sumo-Pop
March 24, 2010

Return Of The Jedi

2010-03-21T12:33:00.001-07:00

"The hell with giving people what they want. Give them what they need."--John Mellencamp

Boy, was I wrong. And I don't mean just a little wrong, I mean six ways to Sunday and in every way possible. On January 18th of this year, I wrote a column (http://sumopopblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/cant-anybody-here-play-this-game-ii.html) about all the ways the Democrats had screwed up since the 2008 election and how nothing big would ever get done again. I was full of gloom, despair and agony over watching the multi-left footed leaders of the majority party try to advance health care legislation, and their inability to hold Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat which fell to Republican Scott Brown on January 12th, 2010. I went on about how the Dem's couldn't run a campaign or stand up for what they purport to believe in. And then Sunday night, they passed health care, and I proceeded to happily eat a big plate of crow.

So, how did they accomplish this? First, President Obama reminded me of who I voted for in the first place. I suppose I had started to forget. During the many grueling months of the health care debate, he seemed passive, unwilling to fully engage and be forceful. After the special election loss in Massachusetts, I expected him to at best make an effort to nibble around the edges on health care and maybe pass some minor legislation relating to pre-existing conditions, or closing the "doughnut hole" in Medicare for seniors. It would have been difficult for politicians on either side of the aisle to vote against either of those recommendations. And that's all I thought he would do. And who would blame him? His poll numbers had dropped 15+ points, liberals and conservatives were angry as hell at him, so why not just walk away?

Instead, in a true act of political courage, he dove back in and fought for what he believed in. And he fought hard. I have no idea what this bill will do for Democrats in the 2010 mid-term elections. Conventional wisdom states that it will be a blood bath for their party and they may even lose both houses of congress. The whole thing could become an albatross around Obama's neck and result in a single term presidency. Of course, if I know this, then he certainly did too. Which is why I call it courage. He put what he thought was the best thing for the people ahead of his own job security and--even more amazingly--got enough House Democrats to go along with him.

He did this by taking on the Republican opposition twice in front of television cameras. The first time at a House Republican retreat where he went one on 140 something, and came away looking like he had cleaned their clocks. Secondly, at the Health Care Summit he brought both sides together for a frank and relatively even exchange of ideas. Then, he took his act on the road. Barnstorming across the country to better explain his vision for health care. Slowly, the polls started swinging back in his direction. And while these polls never reached the point of favoring his health care plan overall, the creeping momentum gave courage (or guilt) to enough House Democrats to bring this thing over the finish line.

In my previous grim faced, Dem bashing column that I referenced earlier, I had compared Obama to Lebron James. A great player who lacked sufficient assistance from his teammates to win a championship. Well, I now have to amend that statement. He has Nancy Pelosi. Yeah, I know, this is the point where anyone who is reading this will either start throwing shit at their computer screen if not kicking in their monitor altogether. But think about this: The first female Speaker Of The House didn't just get health care passed once, she did it twice! The first time by a narrow margin in a House created bill that included a public option. The second time, she had to get the Senate bill passed with assurances from that body of congress that they would fix the bullshit (Cornhusker Kick Back, Louisiana Purchase, etc.) that the House didn't like through the reconciliation process. She had to turn to her caucus--knowing they weren't going to get a single Republican vote--and ask them to pass a bill they didn't write, from a group of people they didn't trust, and give up the public option. Somehow, once again, she squeezed out the votes. She did her job. I have many friends who can't stand Pelosi, and some who downright hate her. But after Sunday, I defy any of them to call her weak.

Now, I should also mention that I am not completely crazy about this bill. It will be far from perfect even if all of the reconciliation fixes are implemented by the Senate. I am greatly disappointed that there is no public option. I think this would have provided competition for the execrable insurance companies and is the best tool to keep costs down. I would have liked to have seen Medicare made available to people at the age of 55. I have serious concerns about the "Cadillac tax" not going into effect until 2018. And of course, there's always the issue of whether the bill will be effective and/or too costly.

On the first count, we aren't going to know for awhile. On the second, well, we aren't going to know for awhile. What we do know is the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has declared that the bill will reduce the deficit by $132 billion dollars over the first ten years, and a whopping $1.3 TRILLION over the next ten. Now, they could be wrong. They have been before and these are only estimates. But these folks are a pretty conservative lot, who are not likely to give a "pie in the sky" outlook. And they could even be wrong in the other direction. There is a possibility that it could save us even more than they have estimated. It should also be noted, that those who opposed the bill on the basis of cost have never shied away from using the CBO's numbers when it has favored their own viewpoint.

So yes, the bill isn't perfect. But there are many good things in it. Here is a run down of what I like about it and when it will take effect:

2010:

--Tax credits for small businesses that provide health insurance to their employees.
--A $5 billion dollar pool for those with pre-existing conditions who cannot get insurance.
--Insurance companies will be barred from denying insurance to children with pre-existing conditions.
--Dependent children will be allowed to stay on their parents insurance plan until the age of 26.
--Health insurance companies will be required to cover preventive services.

2011:

--$11 billion in funding to community health centers.
--The Medicare "doughnut hole" will be closed

2012:

--$3 billion annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers will go into place.

2014:

--Federal subsidies will be available to offset the cost of health care for low income families.
--A state based insurance health care exchange will be created that allows the uninsured and small businesses to comparison shop for insurance policies.
--An end to all denials based on pre-existing conditions for everyone.

Not to mention covering 30 million more citizens and no longer allowing insurance companies to arbitrarily raise rates without justification.

I don't know about you, but I think these are some pretty good ideas. I know the opposition has called the bill "Armageddon," and probably worse. But did you know that there are over 200 Republican authored amendments attached to this bill? They had input, they just didn't have final say. That's what happens when you lose both houses of congress and the white house. It was that way for six years under Bush, and people like me had to grim up and deal with it. This is how it works in a democracy. You screw up, the other guy gets a chance.

Of course, many will view this bill as a screw up, and will point to the November mid-terms as their chance to take back both houses of congress. As I said before, it will be awhile before we know if this is a good bill or not, and it is certainly true that those that oppose this legislation will get their chance to take back power. However, from a counter intuitive perspective, I think it's a whole lot better for the Dem's to have an accomplishment to run on than not. Can you imagine what it would be like for the Democrats if they didn't pass this? Not only would they have to deal with the Tea Party movement, but also the loss of their base. At least now, they can say they have some chance.

To be honest with you though, I really don't care about that. If you lose doing what you believe is right, that should be something you're willing to live with. Which is what I think has happened here. And it's astonishing. It's certainly not the norm in today's politics, and on some level it deserves to be celebrated (well, by me anyway). To make a choice to do something that will be remembered versus doing something that will get you re-elected? Really, it happens so infrequently, that I think we fail to recognize it when we see it. To go against the polls, the opposition, the protesters (wasn't that a sight?), and members of your own party to do what you believe must be done to move our nation forward? It takes guts. And to drag enough members of your party with you to get it done? That takes more than guts. Hell, it takes the Force. I for one, was glad to see my President finally use it.

Sumo-Pop
March 21, 2010

Children By The Million

2010-03-18T07:49:00.001-07:00

It was once said of The Velvet Underground, that only a few thousand people bought their records, but every one of them started a band. The same could be said of the band Big Star, led by Alex Chilton. Chilton died on March 17th from heart-related issues, and if the three albums he released with Big Star were the only worthwhile pieces of music he ever recorded, then it would have been more than enough to cement his place in rock and roll history.

But Chilton did do more. Much more. In fact for a brief period in the late 60's, Chilton was fairly famous. At the tender age of 16, Chilton formed the Memphis based Box Tops, and topped the charts with their debut single, "The Letter" (give me a ticket for an aeroplane/ain't got time to take a fast train), later covered quite memorably by Joe Cocker. Follow up single "Cry Like A Baby" was nearly as big, and all told, the group hit the top 40 seven times before disbanding in 1970,

The Box Tops mixture of southern R&B and pop song craft would not have been the same without Chilton's masculine beyond his years voice. Only Eric Burdon of The Animals had comparably soulful, whiteboy pipes in the 60's.

Chilton never had another hit after The Box Tops. No matter, because next he gave us Big Star. Chilton was joined by fellow Memphis musicians Chris Bell, Jody Stephens, and Andy Hummel in 1971. The band's first release--the ironically titled (in hindsight at least)--#1 Record has become a power-pop touchstone for every one from Cheap Trick to Weezer.

However, despite great reviews and terrific hummable tunes like "Thirteen" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pte3Jg-2Ax4) and "Watch The Sunrise" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQqmnhSLOUQ), the record died quickly due to poor distribution on the part of their record label, Stax, which had been swallowed up by the major label Columbia Records. Who in their finite genius, saw no reason to give the record a proper release.

Their follow up, Radio City, was nearly as good. After the commercial failure of #1 Record, tensions within the band reached a boil, leading to Bell's departure. Still, Radio City was a phenomenal record with "O My Soul" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXNf3bH3ZlU) and "September Gurls" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNKSs1J38EA) being just two of many stand out tracks. Unfortunately, Columbia did no better by Big Star this time out either, and the album met with the same fate as it's predecessor.

Down to just two original members (Chilton and Stephens) in 1975, Big Star soldiered on with a variety of session musicians and squeezed out one more album, the darkly beautiful Third/Sister Lovers. A true departure from their first two releases, Third was referred to by RollingStone as a "maelstrom of conflicted emotions. Songs are drenched in strings and sweet sentiment one minute, stark and downcast the next." The album's centerpiece is the deeply disturbing--and well titled--"Holocaust" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsQ977u8Wuk) which was so sufficiently black hearted that it was covered by 80's goth band This Mortal Coil of all groups.

If the two previous albums were not deemed worthy of a proper release, then it doesn't take a seer to guess what happened to this difficult masterpiece. It never had a chance. Third didn't even get distributed until 1978.

As time passed, this trio of great albums found their way to some pretty fancy admirers. Artists as disparate as R.E.M., Beck, The Bangles, and Elliott Smith all covered Big Star songs. Jeff Buckley's version of "Kangaroo" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMCUeSwPW28) is perhaps the best of the bunch, and Cheap Trick's cover of "Out In The Streets" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUK0mrVVxg8) the most famous. How famous is it? Well, if you've ever seen a single episode of That 70's Show, then you've heard it. It's the theme song. Betcha didn't know that!

Chilton's subsequent solo career has been marred by an inconsistency in quality and regularity of output. From 1978 to 2010, Chilton only produced nine proper albums, with Like Flies On Sherbert, and High Priest being the best of an erratic lot.

Big Star reformed on an off and on basis from 1993 to 2008. Even recording a full length album, In Space in 2005 that won kind notices if predictably few sales. Still, it will be their 70's recordings that will live on as the chain to which all future power-pop bands will be tethered. It's a pretty damn remarkable--if brief--discography.

While my little scribbled, modest tribute is well meaning enough, it can't hold a flame doused candle to that of the ramshackle scribe, Paul Westerberg. Who recorded the ultimate deep bow towards Alex Chilton on The Replacements fantastic 1987 album, Pleased To Meet Me, the wonderful and bluntly titled second track, "Alex Chilton" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTSJYZyouek). Which in Westerberg's typically ragged voice and scrappy verse claims that children by the million/sing for Alex Chilton/when he comes 'round. Of course, this was sadly untrue. Children by the million never sang for Alex Chilton when he came 'round. That alternate reality existed only in the fantasies located in Westerberg's mind.

Mine too.

Sumo-Pop
March 18, 2010

Brackets

2010-03-17T17:48:00.001-07:00

Brackets. My favorite time of year (sports wise anyway). I would submit that the NCAA Tournament is the greatest sporting event in all of existence. There really is nothing else like it. It almost always lives up to the hype, and how many other things can you say that about? Upsets, Cinderellas, buzzer-beaters, and incredible story lines. Today is the day it all starts. So, like any other ass clown, here are my picks:

MIDWEST REGION:

Winner: Kansas--They are just too good, watch out for Georgetown though.

Sleeper(s): Tennessee, Georgia Tech, and Michigan State. The Vols have a great coach in Bruce Pearl and real guts were displayed after the loss of their best player, Tyler Smith to legal issues. Paul Hewitt's Georgia Tech team underachieved all year, but enters the tournament with some real momentum. Tom Izzo is one of the finest tournament coaches alive. Were it not for an injury to best player, Kalin Lucas, MSU would probably have been a 2 or a 3 seed. Lucas is back, and the Spartans could really challenge Kansas in the round of 16.

Upset Specials: Mark it down, 10 seed Georgia Tech will beat 7 seed Oklahoma State in the first round. And Ohio State better be ready for Tech in round two or they could see an early exit.

Best (potential) Game: Kansas vs. Georgetown in the round of 8. Both teams are loaded and playing well headed into the tournament. Big man Greg Monroe and guards Freeman and Wright could cause big-time match up problems for Bill Self's Jayhawks.

WEST REGION:

Winner: Syracuse (although with some hesitation). If the 'Cuse doesn't get Center Arinze Onuaku back from injury before the sweet sixteen, they will be in trouble. Coach Jim Boeheim has a short bench, and the lack of depth could spell trouble if Onuaku is out for longer than expected. However, at full health, the Orangemen are the clear class of this region.

Sleeper: I don't know if it's fair to continue to refer to the Butler Bulldogs as sleepers anymore, but when you watch them play and see their overall lack of athleticism, it's hard not to wonder how they keep doing it. If Syracuse is short handed in the round of 16, Butler could be poised for a huge upset.

Upset Specials: Murray State over Vanderbilt. The Racers from Kentucky won 30 games this year, and 20 of their last 21. They are under seeded as a 13, and 4th seeded Vanderbilt should have been a 6. Minnesota over Xavier. The 11th seeded Gophers hit the tournament playing their best ball of the season, and Tubby Smith is a GREAT (not good) coach who has taken three separate schools to the sweet 16.

Best (potential) Game: Pittsburgh vs. Kansas State. Two tough ass coaches with tough ass teams in a big time slug fest. Whoever wins will be seriously depleted heading into the elite eight.

EAST REGION:

Winner: Kentucky. No school in this region has better talent or a more successful tournament coach than the Wildcats. While their penchant for playing down to the competition makes me nervous, I've got a feeling that the big stage will bring out the best in Wall and Cousins, and if it does, they will be in the final four. Hands down.

Sleeper: Washington. The Pac 10 champion Huskies enter the tournament on a 7 game winning streak and are only seeded at 11. They have a big time player in Quincy Pondexter, and despite all the complaints about the weakness of the Pac 10 this year, I think Lorenzo Romar's team has a great shot at the sweet 16.

Upset Specials: Washington over Marquette in a round one nail biter. Marquette is notoriously hard to blow out, but they don't slap anyone around either. They will keep UW in the game and lose by a bucket or two. Washington over New Mexico in round 2. As I said before, I like the Huskies chances. While Steve Alford's New Mexico team has played well all year, they are coming off a loss in their conference tournament final to San Diego St.

Best (potential) Game: Kentucky vs. West Virginia. West Virginia should have been a 1 seed over Duke. Huggins' Mountaineers against Calipari's Wildcats sets up the ultimate showdown in mercenary coaches.

SOUTH REGION:

Winner: Texas A & M. Yeah, you read that right. The South is easily the weakest region of the four, and if the tough as nails Aggies get to the sweet 16, they'll be playing in Houston. Which last I checked is still located in Texas.

Sleeper: Louisville. It has been a tough personal and professional year for Coach Pitino and his 9th seeded Cardinals, but there are few better tournament coaches. Not to mention that Louisville beat Syracuse twice when the Orange were at full strength.

Upset Specials: Siena over Purdue. Purdue has been a shell of themselves since the loss of star forward, Robbie Hummel for the year. Anyone who saw the 27 point shellacking that Minnesota handed them in the Big Ten Tournament knows that the Boilermakers are very vulnerable. Louisville over Duke* in round 2. This match up should really get Pitino going. A chance at revenge against the Dukies and that turnaround jumper heart breaker by Christian Laettner over Pitino's former Wildcats that you see in ever March Madness promo will prove irresistible to a guy like Rick.

Best (potential) Game: Duke vs. Louisville.

Final Four Games: Kansas over Syracuse. Too much depth and talent for the Jayhawks to lose.
Kentucky over Texas A & M. After taking out West Virginia, Cal's Cats catch a break in Indianapolis.

Championship Game: Kentucky over Kansas. In a squeaker. With apologies to Syracuse, these have been the two best (and most talented) teams all season. Calipari vs. Self in a rematch of the 2008 championship (where Self's Kansas squad beat Cal's Memphis team in an overtime thriller) will have delicious story lines. Marquee coaches, huge talent, the youth of Kentucky vs the relative experience of Kansas, and the best point guard match up of the whole tournament (Wall vs. Sherron Collins). Don't be surprised if this one ends up going to extra sessions as well. In the end however, I think Kentucky has more talent, the Indianapolis location will turn the stands into a sea of Wildcat blue, and I'm not betting against John Wall.*

My overall impression of this year's tournament can be summed up by one word: Chaos. I expect more low seeds than ever will advance into the second round. Almost no one is safe. Parity, in all it's forms will be turning amateur prognosticator's brackets into shredder testing devices. And I think that's great.

Sumo-Pop
March 17, 2010

*Full disclosure: I am a life long Kentucky fan and a long time Duke hater. So take that into consideration when reviewing my picks. Still, I think I'm right (but then, I always do).

Tori Amos: Brick By Brick

2010-03-12T09:01:00.000-08:00

Tori Amos is a kook. A flake, if you will. She believes in fairies (or at least she takes the time to thank them in EVERY one of her album's liner notes), she has willfully precious and obscure lyrics, and she recorded a whole album with a harpsichord as a main instrument. Like I said, she's kooky. However, I would submit that she has one of the richest catalogues of any artist (especially female) over the last 20 years. So, here is a definitive (cuz I said so) breakdown of each of the Pagan High Priestess's solo albums:

Little Earthquakes (1992) *****(based on the 5 star RollingStone scoring system):

One of the most fully realized solo debuts in the history of popular music (once again, cuz I said so). Tori came from seemingly out of nowhere fully formed and ready to rumble. The first single "Silent All These Years" was a real shot in the arm for female alternative artists during the grunge years when testosterone reigned. I was running a record store in Michigan at the time of the album's release and short listed it on the basis of seeing her video at around 2am in the morning during one dark night of the soul. It's funny how a piece of music can completely alter your mood. I remember looking up from my seemingly insurmountable pile of home work and saying literally, out loud, "who the hell is that." And so it began. There are times when you purchase an album on the basis of a lead track and are left wanting from the rest of the record. This was not one of those times. From the gentle feminist anthem of the first cut, "Crucify," to the titanic closing title track, there isn't one toss away. The record is as intense and uncompromising as a piano driven album can be, but not without moments of lightness. "Happy Phantom" sounds exactly like it's name, jaunty and altogether pleasing. "Leather" is a wicked delight about the pleasures of, well, leather, if you know what I mean. However, my favorite track is the absolutely incandescent "Tear In Your Hand." A tune that references Neil Gaiman's comic book series "The Sandman," while also containing the line "me and Charles Manson like the same ice cream." No, I don't know what the hell that means, but I love it just the same. Of course, as Tori fans know, the most harrowing track on the album is "Me And A Gun." An extraordinary soul scorching a capella track that takes you through her very real experience of being raped at gun point. The song's killer line is: me and a gun/and a man on my back/but I haven't seen Barbados/so I must get out of this. Gives me chills just writing it. The first of the 5 times that I've seen Tori in concert, her performance of that song absolutely stopped the show dead. There were women crying in the audience and men left speechless. That's when I knew, that's when I knew.

Under The Pink (1992)****:

It's a hell of a thing to have to follow up a landmark album that has won you a sizable, legion sized cult of admirers, but for the most part, Under The Pink delivers. First single "God," with it's quasi-sacrilegious chorus of God sometimes you just don't come through/do you need a woman to look after you? made it clear that she had no intention of selling out. And while the album isn't a giant leap away from Little Earthquakes, Amos does add to her sonic pallet. "Cornflake Girl" broke out the harpsichord, and "Space Dog" is full of a muscularity not evident on her previous recording, and "Waitress" is playfully vicious. Still, it's tracks like "Pretty Good Year," and "Past The Mission" (with hushed backing vocals courtesy of Trent Reznor) that steer closest to her debut that resonate most deeply.

Boys For Pele (1996)****1/2:

Perhaps her most contentious and polarizing album. Long (18 tracks), dark ("Father Lucifer" is a song title), and musically challenging (this is the harpsichord album), Boys is a heavy lift, but it's also quite brilliant. At least it is according to my tastes (does anyone else's matter?). It's definitely a "grower," but with each listen the album reveals new edges and corners that are as fulfilling as they may be difficult to access. Songs like "Putting The Damage On" and "Blood Roses" are despairing, even bordering on emotionally violent, and in the case of "Professional Widow," the way she bangs away at the harpsichord, brings that sense of brutality home aurally. This record is akin to Lou Reed's Berlin or even Prince's Dirty Mind. Records that challenge you to stand with them or just go away. Potentially alienating, yes. But also rather genius.

From The Choirgirl Hotel (1998)****:

After the stark and rather grim nature of Boys, Choirgirl seems comparatively frothy. Not that it really is, but you can certainly say this album is more accessible and pretty fun in spots. The added use of samples, drum loops and heavier guitars on certain tracks add a level pop sheen heretofore unseen on her three previous records. The techno bounce of shoulda been a hit, "Raspberry Swirl" and the almost jaunty rhythms of "She's Your Cocaine" are just two examples of how much more smoothly this record goes down than any of her predecessors. This is still a Tori Amos album however. Which means tracks Northern Lad and Playboy Mommy bring on the downbeat like nobody's business.

To Venus And Back (1999)****:

Venus wasn't even intended to be a regular album. Amos had originally intended to put together a rarities/live collection as a placeholder for fans while she was marshaling her forces for a proper album. However, Amos shit canned that idea after being visited by the songwriting muse (or fairy--whatever), and came up with 11 new tracks to go along with the bonus live album. Doubling down on the samples and loops, Venus is quite possibly her most fully commercial album. First single, "Bliss" scored better than average radio play for the idiosyncratic artist, and second single "1000 Oceans" deserved to be a breathrough hit of the highest order. In fact, you could argue that "Oceans" may be her best song to date. Built on a drum sample, piano (natch), and some of her most straight forward lyrics, you could almost see this tune being a big hit for someone like Mariah Carey. Of course, it would suck mightily if Carey were to put her overly produced gloss on it and added her dog whistle high note, but still, you get the idea.

Strange Little Girls (2001)**1/2:

Oh, dear. Tori designed this covers album with the idea of taking songs from a predominately male perspective and twisting them to fit some sort of feminist narrative. It didn't work. Only the title track (a cut by The Stranglers) sounds like a song that would be proud to stand among any of her other albums. The rest of the record is filled with mediocre to misguided versions of Joe Jackson, Velvet Underground, and Depeche Mode songs among others. Really, the less said about this one the better.

Scarlet's Walk (2002)****:

A nice bounce back. Any concerns related to the Strange Little Girls record are put to rest here. While some of the songs get lost in the mix of 18 cuts, there are plenty of stand outs here. First single "A Sorta Fairytale" is a great pop tune, and if you haven't seen the bizarre video( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY5XLbD5SZI) starring Tori and Adrien Brody, I would urge you to do so--if only once. "Taxi Ride," "Don't Make Me Come To Vegas," and "Amber Waves (named after Julianne Moore's Boogie Nights character) are all nearly as good. As a collection, the songs are supposed to be some sort of feminist concept album about a woman named Scarlet who travels through all 50 states. I'm sure it made sense in her head, but I would just say "enjoy the tunes."

The Beekeeper (2005)**:

Thud. The absolute nadir of her career. A shockingly listless 19 song package of depressingly unremarkable tunes. Way too long, and bereft of the trademark quirks and weirdness--not to mention song craft--that usually sets her apart from her contemporaries. I would go on about certain tracks, but I can't really remember them. This is the kind of record you might hear in the Hallmark Store, and it brings me no pleasure to say so.

American Doll Posse (2007)*****:

Now we're cookin' with gas! While this may be another indecipherable concept album, no matter, as the tunes are first rate from stem to stern. 23 cuts (although 6 are under 2 minutes) that sail by on a staggering level of song quality. Pretty much every good thing you've ever wanted from a Tori Amos album is here. Weirdo sexual hot mama track? (Big Wheel), check. Quasi-dance tune extravaganza? (Bouncing Off Clouds), check. Uplifting and effortless pop song? (Secret Spell), check. And of course, some of the trademark sad bastard ballads that one would expect (Girl Disappearing, Almost Rosey). After the Lackluster Beekeeper album, this record is nothing less than a complete reaffirmation of a ridiculous level of talent. Her second best album evah.

Abnormally Attracted To Sin (2009)***:

A solid, if unremarkable record that doesn't forecast a future slide in quality, but also doesn't give you the impression that she was really going for it here. The song craft is basically in place, the touches of weirdness are certainly evident, but the songs just don't rise to the level of previous releases. No shame in that, one just has a right to expect more from Miss Amos. "Welcome To England" and "Maybe California" are the best of a pretty decent bunch. Hopefully, this will be just a minor hiccup on the road to a better record. Although the "every other album" syndrome of up and down quality dating back to Strange Little Girls is concerning.

So there you have it, the whole shebang. You might be wondering why I wrote this now. Well, the other day I was walking my hound dog when a track (Putting The Damage On) from Boys For Pele popped up on my ipod and set my heart a-sailin.' Sometimes you lose track of an artist for a while, but you only need one song to send you back to that place of discovery. And besides, it's my damn blog, and I can write whatever I want. :)

Sumo-Pop
March 12, 2010

The Tiger Went Tiger

2010-03-07T07:51:00.000-08:00

The only thing particularly shocking about the death of the Sea World trainer on February 24th--- due to the aggressive actions of a killer whale--- is that people are still shocked when a wild animal behaves in a way that showcases its very wildness. I mean really, it's about as stunning as Donald Trump's hair system. Sure it may be horrific, but we've seen this movie before.

This isn't the first time this has happened at Sea World. Hell, it's not even the first time this has happened with this whale. In 1991, Tilikum (as he is called) and two other whales were responsible for the drowning of a trainer at a Canadian water park. Again in 1999, a 27 year old man was found dead at Sea World, floating in a pool with Tilikum. And here's a tip: If the word "killer" is in the animal's name, maybe that should be accepted at face value.

Now I'm not trying to diminish the personal tragedy of the trainer and how that awful event affected her family, friends, and co-workers. From all reports, she was a model employee and truly loved the animals that she worked with. But there is an accepted element of risk involved when you try to train or domesticate creatures who make their homes in the wild. A risk that those at Sea World seem to be unwilling to learn. Sea World made a statement last week that they will continue to use Tilikum in events in the future, although on a more limited basis. However, the whale was already considered a high risk performer who required additional measures in handling prior to this latest death. So, one has to wonder how many more people have to die at Sea World so that animals can perform tricks for us.

Probably the best recent example of how bad things can go with a wild animal is the Siegfried and Roy debacle with a tiger in 2003. For those that don't remember, the two garishly dressed Vegas performers were doing their act when the tiger involved turned on Roy (or was it Siegfried?--whatever), latched on to his head leaving him clinging to life and resulting in permanent disability. While I'm certain that those in attendance will never get such a horrible occurrence out of their minds, I never understood why people thought the tiger must have gone crazy. Because, as my favorite living comedian Chris Rock put it: "The tiger didn't go crazy, the tiger went tiger."

Which is the whole point. Just because you remove an animal from the wild and socialize it with humans, doesn't mean you can take the wild out of the animal. In the case of a tiger, you are removing an animal from it's habitat and replacing its home with what is comparatively a blade of grass. Even worse, with a killer whale you are going from the vastness of the ocean to a pool that might as well be the size of a tear drop. Of course, I know that sometimes these animals are raised in captivity, but their underlying instincts remain. That instinct is the reason why birds fly south for the winter without having to be told.

These creatures were not born to be in the circus, a Vegas act, or a zoo. They weren't made to have handlers or trainers. And they certainly weren't put on Earth to entertain us. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that zoos serve no purpose (although the circus should be outlawed). A high quality, modern zoo is a great educational tool and some day may be the only place that you will be able to see these wondrous creatures. I once went to a zoo in Arizona and fed a giraffe from my hand. I was nearly moved to tears afterwards. That being said, we should all remember that these animals aren't in enclosures (as they are infamously referred to). They are in cages. I think we've all heard the phrase "like a caged animal" used to describe someone who acts out in a savage way, so why is it any surprise when an actual caged animal does exactly that?

A couple of years ago, my wife and I went to the Pottawatomie Zoo here in South Bend. A grossly underfunded facility that has paltry "enclosures" for the jungle cats in residence. We walked over to view two lions in a cage that must not have felt much larger than that of a paw print to the proud beasts locked inside of it. One of the lions was pacing around the perimeter of this prison when he made eye contact with me. He then turned away from me and sprayed a massive line of urine in my direction, missing me by less than a foot. I'm sure this act of defiance was nowhere near his true intentions. Were he able to, I'd bet he would have liked to have made a meal out of me. I suppose I could have been annoyed or at least amused, but I was mostly just sad. This massive beast that lives to roam the jungle, form a pride, and hunt for food, had been reduced to clanging his water cup against the bars of his cell in a vain effort to annoy his perceived oppressors. He knows he doesn't belong there, and we know it too. Or at least we should after what happened at Sea World 11 days ago.

Sumo-Pop
March 7, 2010

The Revolution Should Be Televised

2010-02-26T07:51:00.000-08:00

Now that we have had two televised meetings between Democrat(s) and Republicans, I'm starting to believe they should do this all the time.

When President Obama met with House Republicans on January 29th in Baltimore, no one knew what to expect. Hell, Republicans never even expected Obama to take them up on their invitation. Once the meeting began, it was clear that something unusual was afoot.

Given the opportunity to have a transparent, televised back and forth, both sides came off (mostly) as serious individuals. The Republicans were able to ask substantive questions, and the President was able to respond in kind. Of course, there were moments of the usual political nonsense. Such as Tom Price of Oklahoma suggesting he had a way to bring health care to everyone without spending one new dime. Or, when the President deftly side stepped a question from rising Republican star, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. But for the most part, the give and take was respectful and stuck to the issues. There was no sign of "birthers," "deathers," or any discussion about the President being a Nazi or the Republicans being "Tea Baggers." In a word, refreshing.

There are a lot of bad things that can be said about television. The programming at Fox News, MTV, the Lifetime Network, and so on are just a few prime examples. However, what television can do that no other medium can, is put people on the record in a way that is both visual and permanent. It forces people to either reveal themselves in a fashion they may not like, or it puts them on their best behavior. And for the most part, on that day in Baltimore, both sides behaved like statesmen.

It really shouldn't be this difficult. Our country is facing big problems. A slow economy, two wars, a health care crisis, the threat of terrorism and so forth. However, in the age of 24 hour media coverage, when every word you say and seemingly everything in your past is pored over like it's the antidote to cancer, we have come to expect the least from our public officials. Too many times you find politicians from both sides bringing out the worst in themselves in an effort to provide a pithy sound bite that cuts down their opponent in ways that are terribly demonizing. Neither side has the right to call patriotism their own. While I am an unabashed liberal, I have many friends who have voted for or consider themselves to be Republicans. Just because we have different political beliefs does not mean we can't talk. However, it seems that in Washington it means exactly that.

Obviously, the 24 hour news cycle can expose the ugly in those being covered, and often in the ones doing the covering. So, that's the bad side of television. However, the good side is that it's awfully hard to call someone names when they are sitting in front of you and there's a camera recording the moment.

Which is again, what we had yesterday at the Health Care Summit. Yesterday, with many of the most significant members of both parties in the same room, sitting at the same table we were able to see who's serious about the issue of health care. And except for a few notable moments, both sides came off fairly well. Oh sure, there was some grandstanding by Dem's Pelosi, Reid, and Republican's Boehner and Cantor, and in the end there was very little movement on either side, but the meeting was instructive for the American people. A frank exchange by both sides on camera allowed us to see where both groups are coming from. Democrats believe that everyone needs to have access to affordable health care, and Republicans don't believe this plan is financially responsible. While I may not agree with the right side of the aisle on this issue, I did find that Paul Ryan and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma had useful ideas and legitimate concerns. Ideas and concerns that I genuinely hope are addressed in any forthcoming legislation.

These two meetings have been treated as unprecedented events. Which is both true and unfortunate. In Great Britain they do this sort of thing all the time. Over there, it's called "Question Time." And if you've never seen it in action, it's quite a sight. Often, the level of civility that we saw in yesterday's meeting is nowhere to be found during Great Britain's Question Time. They will shout each other down and let one another have it. It's really pretty amazing. And while I think we have too many raised voices in our country right now, I would welcome these types of meetings on say, a monthly basis. That way we could get people on the record, out in the open, and start figuring out which of our elected leaders are grown ups and which are just here for the "show."

Now I'm not naive enough to think that after this meeting that both sides aren't going to return to their respective corners and come back out slinging the "politics as usual" mud that gets tossed around so often in Washington. But I do think events like yesterday's make it harder for them to do so. Because as my mama once said, "if you can't say it to my face..."

Sumo-Pop
February 26, 2010

Joannie Rochette

2010-02-24T08:52:00.001-08:00

Anyone who knows me can probably guess what I think of figure skating. However, to relieve the suspense, let me just say I hate it. I don't mean that I hate it just a little bit, I mean with big fat capital letters.

I don't even think it's a sport (although I will concede that it is athletic). In fact, I would say its more of a pageant on ice. And don't even get me started on pairs figure skating or ice dancing. Both of which are more like Dancing With The Stars on skates minus the third rate, over the hill, has-been celebrities that add a veneer of quasi-charm (or is it smarm?).

As a competition, it's a complete and utter flipping mystery. Even people who are die-hard fans can't explain the scoring system. And as for my own lying eyes, I could watch hundreds of routines, and unless someone falls on their ass, I would be at a total loss as to why one performance is better than another.

Having said all of that, no one is more surprised than me that I sat on my couch watching ladies figure skating last night with my eyes glued to the screen. Did I have some sort of conversion? Did I suddenly realize the error of my ways? No, on both counts.

The reason I sat with rapt attention is because of the story of Canadian figure skater Joannie Rochette, whom I had never heard of in my life until last evening. You see, Rochette's mother had made the trip to Vancouver to watch her daughter skate for their home country, and two days before her girl was to take the ice, she died of an apparent heart attack. After what had to be some terribly deep soul searching, Rochette decided to skate, to compete for her country, and I'm quite sure her suddenly departed mother.

I was paying the TV little mind when they began relaying her story on NBC. I was reading a magazine while waiting for a more interesting event, like curling--don't get me started on that either. I don't know how something can be considered a sport when a push broom is involved. In fact, if curling is an Olympic sport then why not bocci ball or jarts? But I digress. As the announcers were telling of Rochette's miserable misfortune, I actually began to look up and take note. What I saw was a stunningly beautiful young woman who was about to take the ice and was clearly holding on by the most slender of threads.

Then she did indeed take the ice. And with what must have been a Herculean effort, she somehow composed herself. Next, some ridiculous music started and she began to skate. As I said before, unless someone takes a header, I have no clue whether an ice skating performance is good or bad. I do know this: That bereaved girl completed jump after jump, contorted her body into extraordinary positions while balancing on one skate, and she never came close to falling. But as soon as the music stopped, she cracked. While the cheers of her country, her grieving father, and anyone else in the stadium who had even half a heart rained down on her, she broke down into sobs. It seemed it was all she could do to even make it off the ice. Once she did, she was as shaky as a newborn fawn and practically had to be helped to the area where the competitors wait for the judge's scores.

Rochette was (and is) in no way considered a favorite to medal, let alone win the gold. But when her results came up on the scoreboard, she was in bronze medal position with the highest score of her life.

Tomorrow night, she skates in the second half of the figure skating competition known as the long program. Which I'm guessing is more of the same--- except, you know, longer. And here's the upset, I will be watching. I want to see this young woman facing down what must be the absolute depths of despair. I don't care if she wins a medal or not (although it would be nice). I just want her to stay up on her skates and finish. But even if she falls flat on her face, I will be cheering for her.

This is what I love about the Olympics. These athletes train their hearts out for three years and 49 weeks to compete in a contest that may only last a few moments. Their whole lives poured into a blink of an eye. And then sometimes, that moment is threatened by an injury (usually), or in this case, much worse.

During the 1992 summer Olympics in Barcelona, there was a competitor hailing from England by the name of Derek Redmond. Redmond was a contender in the 400 meter sprint. As the race began, Redmond was in a good position to medal. Then the unthinkable happened, he completely tore his hamstring. As he pulled up lame, he began to cry from a pain that was more in his heart than in his leg. Then, he began to hop on one leg. And he kept hopping. Not off the course, but around the turn and into the straight away toward the finish line. His father stormed onto the track and with his one-legged son leaning on his shoulder, they completed the race together.

That young man may not have medaled, but he epitomized the Olympic spirit as well as anyone ever has. Only two years ago, in one of those fine Olympic promotional advertisements--featuring the mellifluous voice of Morgan Freeman--was Redmond's moment immortalized.

So, tomorrow night a woman that I had never heard of, competing in a sport that I can't stand is going to garner my undivided attention. And when she finishes, I imagine it won't be long before the folks at NBC call up Morgan Freeman and ask him to start warming up his wonderful pipes. Hell, they probably already have.

Sumo-Pop
February 24, 2010

John Mayer Is The Devil

2010-02-20T16:29:00.000-08:00

John Mayer is the Devil.

I had long believed this to be true even before the risible quotes from his forthcoming Playboy interview (link:http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1631667/20100210/mayer_john.jhtml) were made public. The evidence of his Lucifuge could be found in his 70's lite rock well before he referred to Jessica Simpson as "sexual napalm," casually called homosexuals "fags," and said his penis was a "white-supremacist" (dear God!).

If you look at his biggest hits, it becomes awfully clear that this guy is pitching to the lowest denominator. He has recorded a succession of songs that seem inoffensive on the surface, but when you dig deeper, it doesn't take long to realize that these tunes--delivered in Mayer's trademark, breathy, gauzy, vocal style--are pretty damn wicked. And not in the good way.

Let me run through three songs in particular:

Take his first hit, "No Such Thing." What is the difference between that shite-fest and "How Do You Talk To An Angel?" The vocals are painfully similar, the music safe and weak, and when he breaks into the high note on the chorus: "I want to run through the halls in high school/I want to scream at the top of my lungs." Well, I agree with the second part.

And how about "Daughters?" This tune sounds like the worst of the AM gold that I had to suffer through at the laundromat in the 1970's. The first notes of that rather ironic (see his Jessica Simpson quote) tribute to women instantly brings the fragrance of detergent to my nostrils, the whirring buzz of the spin cycle to my ears, and the words of Seals and Croft's "Summer Breeze" to my mind. The feeling evoked is damn near suicidal.

However, the worst and most evil of all Mayer songs has to be "Waiting On The World To Change." Given a cursory listen, the tune actually sounds like a breakthrough for Mayer. The track's soulful, Stax-like groove brings to mind an Otis Redding cut, or even the Memphis soul of Al Green. But if you look at the point of "Waiting," what you find is an anthem of apathy. Mayer essentially states that his generation can't be bothered to get involved until the world changes on its own.

Take the third verse:

"It's hard to beat the system/When we're standing at a distance/So we keep waiting Waiting on the world to change"

So don't stand at a distance you freakin' moron!

Or, how about this verse:

"It's not that we don't care/We just know that the fight ain't fair/So we keep on waiting/Waiting on the world to change"

So why fight at all? Why get involved? Let's just wait and see what happens? Bitch, please.

I'm real glad Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King Jr., and Harvey Milk didn't subscribe to this philosophy. Because while apathy might not be the root of all evil, it certainly is one of its sturdiest branches. Apathy allowed Jim Crow laws to exist, it kept women from voting until the 20th century, and it prevents homosexuals from experiencing equal rights to this day. It is one of the worst sins imaginable, and John Mayer has written its theme song. Congratulations, douche bag.

Maybe now that Mayer has revealed himself through his sexist, racist, and homophobic comments (what a trifecta!), the world will re-evaluate his useless music and confine it to the dust bins of history along side Air Supply, Jefferson Starship, and Gerry Rafferty. Maybe the guy who said he isn't "open" to having sex with a black woman because while he may have a "Benetton heart," he has a "David Duke cock," will just go away. However, if we can't get rid of R. Kelly, I'm not betting on our chances of pushing this ass clown to the side.

The shame of it all is that Mayer is not untalented. He's a fine and resourceful guitarist, and he has a way with a hook. Of course, I'm quite sure that Satan is good at a number of things too.

Sumo-Pop
February 20, 2010

Jennifer

2010-02-14T19:12:00.000-08:00

In the great John Cusack movie High Fidelity, there is a voice over midway through the film where Cusack states that when it comes to dating, "You have to punch your own weight." A theory that essentially says that you can go up a level, but if you go too far up in class, disaster will ensue.

On October 13, 2001, I married Jennifer Erin Zent. And she is way out of my league.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a pretty good person. My wife however, is a great person. I have three basic standards for kindness: How do you treat the elderly, children, and animals. My wife is aces at all three.

While still in college, Jennifer's grandmother was stricken with lung cancer. She practically moved into her grandparent's house taking care of her busia (polish for grandmother). She helped her to the bathroom, fixed meals, and cleaned up her vomit. A few years ago, my own grandmother was hospitalized after suffering from a heart attack. I watched my wife feed my grandmother when she could not do it for herself. And when my grandmother died while I was out of town, she went straight to my mother's side and stayed with her through those first horrible hours. My mom might have been lost without her on that awful day.

Jennifer also volunteered at the drastically underfunded local Head Start program for under-privileged children, and did so with a glad heart. For years she ran the children's department at Barnes & Noble where she read stories to children with gusto and created crafts for the kids who attended her events. She has something I don't have--the facility to find a child's mind fascinating. She can reach down to their level without pandering, because she doesn't have to feign interest.

Her love of the furry and four legged should not be overlooked either. When my precious 16 year old Australian Shepherd died, she left work to be with me and my family. And she cried too. She insists on getting our animals from no-kill shelters. She didn't blink an eye at the expensive cancer treatment required for our beloved Shar Pei-Beagle mix, Sarah, which gained us one more joyful year with that sweet dog. After that nasty disease finally claimed her and we finished crying buckets, we went to Pet Refuge and picked out the saddest dog at the shelter to take home with us, a gangly, broken-hearted coon hound named Lily. You see, she believes that all of us deserve a chance, canine, feline, or human.

Her loyalty to her friends should be the stuff of legend. She remains close to those she grew up with, and when her oldest and dearest friend lost her mother, it was Jennifer who held her hand and walked her up to the casket to say the hardest of goodbye's. I watched from afar in complete and total awe.

She's never been drunk or even tried drugs. She rarely swears, is unfailingly honest, and has a faith that puts mine to shame. Yet somehow, this beautiful creature (inside and out) took a look at a bald, misanthropic smart ass with a checkered past and chose to be with him, to be with me.

Now, she will read this and think I'm silly. Which both delights and bemuses me. The fact that she finds me worthy of her love--while bewildering--is the greatest compliment I have ever been paid. In response, I can only try to love her back. A skill that on occasion, I could be better at.

I do very much love the movie High Fidelity. There is great truth and wisdom in it. And the advice about "punching your own weight" makes a lot of sense. However, I have spent the better part of the last eleven years with the finest person I have ever met. So to hell with punching my own weight. Because for over a decade now, I wake up every morning feeling the way Buster Douglas must have felt the day after knocking out Mike Tyson--champion of the world, baby. Anybody want to guess why?

Sumo-Pop
February 14, 2010

The Saints Are Coming

2010-02-05T20:11:00.001-08:00

Sometimes, you just gotta root for the story. That's my advice to football fans like myself who have no "dog in the hunt" for tonight's Super Bowl. If you're not a Colts backer or a member of "Who Dat?" nation, the story is all you have.

The tale of the Saints is a highly improbable one. The Saints became an NFL expansion team in 1967. The 43 years that followed have established the Saints as one of the worst franchises in the history of sports.

It took the Saints twelve years to have a non-losing season (8-8 in 1979). The hope and promise of that season was quickly dashed by one of the most embarrassing years that any sports team has ever experienced. The 1980 version of of the Saints went 1-15, and it's hard to figure out how they won the one (a 21-20 squeaker over the poor New York Jets in the next to last game of the season). The team was re-christened the Ain'ts by the media (as in ain't gonna win), and fans took to the stadium with bags over their heads. I was only ten years old that year, but even I knew the Saints were dreadful. When we were chucking the pig skin around the playground, you didn't want to be on the losing side when you came back in from recess, because the losers were referred to as the Saints. And nobody wanted to be a Saint.

Eight more years (and 20 since their inception) had to pass before the Saints even made the playoffs. 1987 kicked off a seven year stretch where the Jim Mora led Saints finished .500 or better every year and made the playoffs four times. Still, it was another seven years before the Saints won their first playoff game in 2000. 33 years without a single playoff win--mind boggling.

However, little did the franchise and their fans know that the worst was yet to come. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall, leaving the city of New Orleans underwater. The city was decimated by faulty levees built by the Army Corps of Engineers, piss-poor planning by local officials (Mayor Nagin--dear God), and a pathetic post disaster response by the state and federal government.

In the aftermath of the worst national disaster in the history of the United States, much of the remaining local population made their way to the only shelter they could find--the New Orleans Super Dome, the home of the Saints. There, the refugees (and that's what they were) waited days for food, for water, and for rescue. They were left to their own devices in a roofless football stadium with no working plumbing or basic necessities. Surrounded by the stench of dead bodies baking in the summer sun and overrun toilets, it had to have been hell on Earth.

After the recovery began, there was much discussion over where the Saints would play. With the stadium in a state of dis-repair, and a displaced population, there was even a question of whether the Saints would ever return to New Orleans. Owner Tom Benson was in serious negotiations to move the team to San Antonio. While it's difficult to blame Benson for considering a viable opportunity for his franchise, one had to wonder how much more the city of New Orleans had to lose.

The Saints spent the 2005 season playing the bulk of their home games at Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge. After considerable hand wringing, and significant support from the NFL, the Saints returned to New Orleans for the 2006 season.

Led by new coach Sean Payton, and free agent quarterback Drew Brees, the Saints enjoyed a near storybook season that ended with a loss in the NFC championship against the Chicago Bears. Many thought the Saints were headed for a new era of prosperity, but the next two years that followed brought 7-9 and 8-8 seasons. The Saints were mediocre once again. However, this year, the promise of the 2006 season has been fulfilled. The 2009 Saints roared through the regular season and squeezed by the Minnesota Vikings in an overtime thriller to win the NFC championship.

If you contrast the Saints history with that of the Colts, it's a no-contest. The Colts are among the most storied franchises in the history of professional football.

Beginning in 1953 until their move to Indianapolis in 1984, the Baltimore Colts were the franchise of Hall of Fame coaches Weeb Ewbank and Don Shula. Led by Johnny Unitas--the best quarterback of his era--the Colts won two NFL championships (in the pre-Super Bowl era). They lost the 1968 Super Bowl to Joe Namath and the New York Jets, but returned two years later to defeat the Dallas Cowboys in Super Bowl 5.

The Colts had a long fallow period after the Unitas years, and a scabrous relationship between owner Robert Irsay and the city of Baltimore facilitated the exodus of the team to Indianapolis under the cover of darkness in 1984.

The Indianapolis Colts were a mediocre franchise until coach Tony Dungy joined quarterback Peyton Manning in 2002. The Colts have won 10 games or more every season since, peaking with a Super Bowl victory over the Bears in 2006.

This year's Colts team won 14 consecutive games before giving away the last two games of the regular season while resting their starters. In typical workmanlike fashion, the Colts took out the Ravens and the Jets in the playoffs to reach their second Super Bowl in four years.

These two franchises couldn't be more dis-similar. The oft-wretched Saints and the legendary Colts. The wild-eyed colorful fans of New Orleans, and the mid-western, vanilla fans of Indianapolis. The Colts have won 4 championships to the Saints none, and have 11 Hall of Famers to the Saints one (congrats, Rickey Jackson!). One team has history, experience, and one of the greatest quarterbacks ever. The other has Drew Brees, the "Who Dat?" nation, and a background of failure.

But here's what you also have: A team who's city had drowned, who's fans had scattered across the country, and who's government nearly forgot them while they fended for themselves in a damaged football stadium. A stadium that was once a house of horrors is now a symbol of pride. Only four short years later in a city still recovering from disaster and neglect, has come a team of unlikely heroes who rose out of filth infested waters to carry the hopes of an entire city on their backs.

So tonight, I'm rooting for the story, I'm rooting for the Saints. And to my own surprise, I'll be rooting quite hard. Who Dat say dey gonna beat dem Saints?! Who Dat?!

Sumo-Pop
February 7, 2010

The Greatest

2010-01-31T08:20:00.000-08:00

There were many moments worth remembering during the multi-network broadcast of the Haiti Earthquake Relief Telethon hastily put together by George Clooney on Friday, January 22nd. The soul stirring performances by Mary J. Blige, Coldplay, Bruce Springsteen and many others were very moving, and the stories of the Haitian people's tragedy, despair, and hope delivered by a bevy of celebrities were even more so. But the moment that affected me most was the sight of Chris Rock and a drawn, disabled man that the comedian spoke for while holding his hand. That man was Muhammad Ali.

Even though I have been keenly aware of his ongoing struggles with Parkinson's Disease, the sight of him in such a state was terribly unnerving. There are few things in life more sadly ironic than that of a broken down athlete. The betrayal of a body that was once so lithe and dexterous is truly cruel, and in Ali's case more so than most. Back in his 60's prime, Ali was a vision of athletic grace. A heavyweight boxer with lightning fast hands, an even faster mouth, and balletic feet, his gifts were staggering. But it's all gone now, taken away by one of the nastiest diseases known to man. He has been robbed not only of his physical mobility, but that of his communicative ability as well.

This is, of course, not the Ali I grew up with. When I was a kid in the 70's, everyone I went to school with loved Muhammad Ali. The same wasn't necessarily true of our parents. I can vividly recall coming home on a weekend night in 1978 and seeing my former alcoholic step father sitting two feet away from the television taking great pleasure in Ali losing to the unheralded Leon Spinks (a loss he would avenge 7 months later). "This guy's beating that draft dodger," he cackled. He also uttered some racial epithets that I will not share here. He was overjoyed, I was heartbroken.

My bigoted, drunken step father (and I'm using the word father in the loosest of terms) was hardly the only one who felt this way. Many people (mostly white) hated him for changing his name from Cassius Clay and joining the Black Muslims led by Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad out of New York. Even worse, they despised him for "dodging" the draft during the Vietnam War. Which wasn't even true, he didn't flee to Canada or go underground. No, he stayed right here and attempted to exercise his rights as a conscientious objector. This incensed whitey to no end. They called him a traitor, a coward, and worse. The United States Government illegally stripped him of his heavyweight title and made it virtually impossible for him to earn a living as a boxer. During the controversy, he infamously stated, "I ain't got no quarrel with the Viet Cong." However, that quote only scratched the surface of his protest.

Here was a man who was good enough to win a Gold Medal at the 1960 Olympics in Rome for his country, but then came back home to Kentucky and couldn't drink from the same fountains or eat at the same restaurants as white people. He took that Gold Medal and threw it in the Ohio River. Then, a nation that did not provide him with equal rights, had the temerity to demand that he fight for a country that would not stand up for him. So, at great personal, financial, and professional risk, he said "no." He did this even though he would have probably never even seen any combat. He was offered the same opportunity by the U.S. Government that Joe Louis received. Yes, he would be drafted and wear a military uniform, but like Louis, he would become a morale booster not a soldier. He could have (as Louis did) simply toured military bases as a glorified good will ambassador, cheering troops and performing exhibitions. Still, he said "no." He could not be bought.

Four years went by before the Supreme Court stepped in and restored his right to box, and his peak years went with it. The Ali that emerged from exile was neither as quick or as sharp as the younger version who dominated the heavyweight division. Oh, he was still great, but he won as much with will as he did with skill. This meant taking more punches than he did in his prime. His brutal trilogy with Joe Frazier and the terrible beating he took from Larry Holmes in his next to last fight exacted an awful toll on his body. His speech and athletic prowess were noticeably impacted by the time he stopped boxing. And it was only a couple of years after his retirement that he was diagnosed with Parkinson's. A disease that would eventually rob him of so many basic functions.

However, as time went on, these trials with the Government, society, and in the ring performed an interesting function--they humanized him. Most people either came to realize that he was right about Vietnam, or simply let it go. And as his body broke down, his spirit and true nature lifted him up. His warm heart and acts of kindness (particularly towards children) softened all but the hardest of hearts. He became a sympathetic and even revered figure. Today, he is almost universally beloved.

Many people have a favorite Olympic moment. For some it's the U.S. Hockey Team's "Miracle On Ice" in 1980. For others, it might be "The Dream Team" led by Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson in 1992, or maybe it's Michael Phelps and his otherworldly aquatic exploits at the most recent summer games. All of these are fine choices, but my favorite Olympic memory has nothing to do with the winning of a medal by any athlete. For me, it was watching U.S. Gold Medal swimmer Janet Evans ascending the staircase at the 1992 Olympics in Atlanta, and handing the torch to a trembling, disease stricken Muhammad Ali who then turned and lit the Olympic flame. I don't mind telling you I cried my eyes out that night. A man who had rightly rejected his country and tossed his own Gold Medal into the water had come a long way--and so had we.

Now, don't get me wrong, Ali is no saint. Due to an incorrigible inability to remain faithful, Ali went through wives almost as fast as he went through opponents. And he was capable of terribly cruel remarks when promoting an upcoming fight. His treatment of Joe Frazier was particularly odious. He called Frazier--as proud a black man who ever lived--a "gorilla" and an "Uncle Tom." He once gave Ernie Terrell a ruthless beating in the ring for refusing to call him by his Muslim name. Ali carried Terrell a full 15 punishing rounds, repeatedly screaming "What's my name motherfucker!" while delivering lethal combinations to Terrell's head.

Still, these sins are forgivable for so many reasons. The willingness to stand for what you believe in no matter the consequences, and countless visits to sick children in hospitals are only two. However, I think the greatest lesson he has taught us is that even if you are sick, crippled, and speechless, you don't have to hide. You can live openly despite your handicap. His recent years have been lived as a profile in courage. No one would blame him if he hid. He has all the money he needs, a loving and faithful wife, and friends and caretakers to look after him. Yet, there he was on that Friday night sitting while Chris Rock spoke for him. Because somewhere there were people in need and he thought he could help, so to hell with his disease, he had to be there. In some ways, he is far more heroic now than he ever was as a boxer.

For many years after his retirement, Ali lived year 'round in Berrien Springs, Michigan. Only a half hour away from my home in South Bend. He became a real part of the community. He paid for a local baseball park and could be seen around town on a regular basis.

In 1996, I was working for Barnes and Noble when I found out that Ali would be coming to our store to do a book signing. I was scheduled to close that night and the signing was set for the morning. So, I volunteered to work the signing as well as come back and close the store in the evening. On the Friday night before the event, I didn't get a second of sleep. I couldn't lie still or even hold a thought in my head. The anticipation was simply overwhelming. The next morning, I was the first person in the parking lot. We had a meeting prior to the opening of the store to go over the running of the event. I was told that I would be in charge of keeping the line moving, a task that would have me five feet from the champ. I thought I might vomit.

Due to his Parkinson's, Ali pre-signed what were called "book plates," which were essentially crack and peel stickers that customers could paste in their books after they met with Ali. Before the signing, it was my job to get all the bookplates pasted inside of the books set aside for my fellow booksellers. I was diligently and nervously slapping the plates on the inside cover of book after book when my co-worker, Brad turned to me and said "Dave, look behind you." I wheeled my head around and saw the man himself staring down at me with a mischievous grin. "Hi" I muttered as if my testicles were locked in a vice. Profound, I know.

What followed was a Job-like exercise in patience. The whole event was supposed to last two hours, but it went on for four. Ali didn't want to turn anyone away. He did magic tricks for kids, he signed memorabilia (even though it was very difficult for him), and posed for photo after photo. Most of the customers were gracious, although some were far less so. We had made it clear that Ali would not be signing any items at the event due to his condition, but that didn't stop any number of assholes from asking him to do it anyway. Yet, as angry as it made me, it didn't seem to bother him at all. Like I said, the patience of Job.

After the event was completed, Ali took the time to meet with the employees and take pictures with them. When it was my turn, I feared I might piss myself. I sat down next to him and took his outreached hand. He took one look at my shaven head and said "You look like Ernie Shavers," who was a similarly coiffed opponent of his in the late 70's. Those were the only words I heard him speak all day, and he said them to me. I could have died happily right then.

Like many people, I have a favorite Muhammad Ali story. Before Ali was to take on the heavily favored George Foreman in 1974, he visited the children's ward of a hospital. There he met a young boy stricken with terminal cancer. He told the child "I'm gonna beat George Foreman and you're gonna beat cancer!" After knocking out Foreman in the 8th round in Zaire, Ali returned to the young man's bedside. The child's condition had worsened considerably. Ever positive, Ali burst into the boy's room and said "See, I told you! I beat George Foreman and you're gonna beat cancer!" The boy replied, "No champ, I'm going to meet God, and when I do I'm going to tell him I know you."

Someday, if I'm fortunate enough to crash the gates, I'll be able to say the same. How good is that?

Sumo-Pop
January 31, 2010

Can't Anybody Here Play This Game II?

2010-01-18T19:33:00.000-08:00

"I don't belong to any organized party: I'm a Democrat"---Will Rogers

Several months ago I wrote a column about the downfall and ineptitude of the Republican party (http://sumopopblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/cant-anybody-here-play-this-game.html). Now, I'm back for round 2. Only this time, I'm taking the Democrats to the woodshed.

Say what you want about the Republican Party, but at least it took 6 years for them to fall apart (the mid-terms of 2006). On the other hand, the Democrats only needed about 12 months.

Think of what the Democrats have squandered in the last year: After battering the Republicans in the 2006 mid-terms, electing their best candidate in years to the white house, and pulling out powerful majorities in both houses of congress in 2008, they may lose both houses by the end of the year. Unfortunately, you have to do more than win elections, you have to lead, and most of these Democrats have proven incapable.

After Tuesday night's election debacle in Massachusetts, there's plenty of blame to go around. So, let's hand some out shall we? We can start at the top, with the White House. President Obama rode in on a wave of change. Little did he know that many of the Democrats that got swept in on his tsunami would be complete pains in the ass. Even worse are the entrenched dinosaurs he inherited. It's been said that Obama could use a little more LBJ in him when it comes to dealing with congress, and while that's probably true, blaming the President for this mess is a bit like blaming Lebron James for the Cavaliers not winning the NBA championship. I mean, dear God, have you seen his teammates? Sure, Obama was naive about the willingness of Democrats in congress to get behind his ideas. Maybe he could have rolled out his agenda more clearly and forcefully. Perhaps he could have twisted more arms in the Senate and moved health care along faster. However, it's worth noting that in our system of government, the President is not a king, he's more of a point guard. And to be a good point guard, you can't shoot all the time, you have to pass the ball.

So, Obama passed the ball to congress in early 2009 and asked them to advance health care reform legislation. Now, I know it's popular to knock House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but she's been fairly effective in getting legislation through the house. Unfortunately for President Obama, Pelosi had to pass the ball to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid after the health care bill cleared the house. Harry Reid, the only man who can take a super majority and turn it into a deficit. To be fair to "milquetoast" Harry, no majority leader should ever be saddled with the likes of Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson. Still, if Reid can't pull his party in line for the showcase issue of the Democratic platform, what good is he? Regardless, of what you may think of the Republican Party, they know how to carry the water for their president. Even if the destination for that water is off the edge of a cliff (see the Bush years), they will hold hands and pretend they can fly.

As far as the health care debate is concerned, it's worth noting that the Democrats in congress and the White House botched the roll out. It's difficult to defend a bill that doesn't exist yet, but easy for the opposition to take it apart. The Democrats took so long to figure out what they could agree on, that by the time they started to coalesce around a bill, the tea baggers, deathers, and right wing talk show hosts had done a real number on it. Whether it's death panels, socialism, or simply saying health care reform would destroy the deficit, the opponents of reform managed through uninformed (or willful) disinformation to shape the conversation around health care.

To be clear, there were no death panels in the bill, the public option that was being discussed (and eventually abandoned) was scaled way back from anything that would qualify as a government takeover, and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found the proposed bill to be both a short term and long term deficit reducer. However, starting with the town hall criers this summer and ending Tuesday night with the stunning election of an anti-reform Republican in the liberal state of Massachusetts---for the seat held by the greatest champion of health care reform in modern history (Teddy Kennedy)--- they controlled the debate.

One need look no further than the available polling data regarding the health care bill for evidence. In survey after survey, people who were asked if they were in favor of the bill or not, typically were opposed by solid margins. However, when they were asked specific questions about things that are in the bill like "Are you for ending the right of insurance companies to turn people down for coverage due to pre-existing conditions," they responded in favor of the bill's position by large margins. When you ask people if they are for disallowing insurance companies to drop people's coverage when they get sick (and therefore expensive), again, people largely responded "for." Hell, you can find many a poll that says that a plurality (if not a majority) of people are in favor of a public option. However, the Democrats, due to their plodding, were not able to make the sale. Now don't get me wrong, everyone who is against health care reform is not reflexively dishonest. Some folks just don't want government involvement in health care. I assume these same people are against Medicaid, Medicare, and the VA too. That would at least be consistent.

You could see this storm-a-brewin' before Tuesday night. The gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia earlier in the year were troubling signs of what was to come for Democrats. When incumbent Democrat, Jon Corzine lost in New Jersey to Republican Chris Christie, and fellow Democrat, Creigh Deeds got waxed by Bob McDonnell for the open seat in Virginia (previously held by current DNC Chairman, Tim Kaine), the Democratic Party got a taste of the future. Now, we have the election of Scott Brown over state Attorney General Martha Coakley in Massachusetts.

So, how did all this happen? How did these three seats held by Democrats fall to the opposition? Let's take a look at the candidates.

In New Jersey, Governor Corzine was a Wall Street connected (former chairman of Goldman Sachs), ineffectual, and highly unpopular politician. In fact, his job approval rating was in the 30s just prior to election. Numbers that were only slightly higher than that of George Bush in the final year of his disastrous presidency. Even though Corzine didn't have a strong opponent in Christie, he never had a chance.

In Virginia, Creigh Deeds ran a lousy campaign that never gave the people a reason to vote for him. On the surface, Deeds looked like a good candidate. He was well-known state wide, with rural roots, and had narrowly lost to McDonnell in the 2005 state race for Attorney General. Coming off Obama's victory in Virginia, Deeds looked poised to succeed Tim Kaine and keep the Governor's house with the Democrats. However, Deeds ran a negative campaign from the start, ran away from President Obama early on, then tried to close the contest by running back to Obama, and flailed away without a cogent message in between. To make matters worse for Deeds, the staunch conservative, McDonnell ran a terrific, disciplined campaign as a centrist Republican. While McDonnell's candidacy was not entirely on the level (he's no centrist), it was effective.

That leaves us with Martha Coakley, Scott Brown, and Massachusetts. You know how I said that Deeds ran a lousy campaign? Well, Coakley ran almost no campaign at all. After winning the Democratic Primary to become the nominee in the special election for the late Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat, Coakley sat on her hands until about three weeks ago, when her poll numbers started to crater. She ran (if you can even call it that) as the lady of the manor, as if there was no way in hell that the people of Massachusetts would ever consider someone else. She ran hardly any TV ads, turned down multiple opportunities to debate Brown (and got clobbered when she finally did), and actually said she didn't see the point in going out in 30 degree weather to "meet new people." Brown, on the other hand, worked his ass off. He had clever ads, struck a "man of the people" pose, and is blessed with good looks and a dynamic personality. In a normal year, Coakley might have been able to coast to victory. However, in a tough year for Democrats, Coakley simply couldn't rely on the base alone, she needed independents too. She never even gave them a reason to consider her.

So, why after one year is this such a tough time for Democrats? Well, to quote James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid." Unemployment is at 10%, and those that have jobs fear losing them. The year long health care debate made Democrats appear distracted from what people care about the most, work (or the lack of it). People are fed up with bail-outs, million dollar bonuses for the bankers who got us in this mess, and a stimulus plan that they aren't feeling the benefits of. And, they no longer care that Bush got us into this mess. Nevermind that most economists believe the bailouts and stimulus plan may have saved us from a depression, the people aren't buying it. Not to mention, that it's very hard to prove that if we hadn't done this, things would be even worse. This, along with a lazy candidate, is how you get an anti-health care reform candidate named Scott Brown winning the seat previously held by Teddy Kennedy (who must be doing 60 revolutions per minute right now).

So, now that the Democrats have lost their 60 vote super majority (needed to pass almost anything of major consequence) in the Senate, where does that leave us (to hell with them) now? Well, quite possibly, nowhere. Republicans are now emboldened as the party of "no," and sitting Democrats are scared shitless to move forward with anything that might be the least bit controversial. This means goodbye cap and trade, immigration reform, entitlement reform, and quite likely any significant health care reform. Oh, they may be able to pass some small things, do some nibbling around the edges, but forget about addressing the largest issues of the day. The only possible exception is the economy. Obama may be able to do something there by employing the strategy that Clinton used against Republicans when he was president. Take their issues and use them against them. Push for measures so popular with the public and dare the opposition to vote against them. Perhaps a bank tax, caps on bonuses and the salaries of bank CEO's, maybe even some financial regulation, and definitely some kind of jobs bill. That would be very difficult for the party of "no" not to say yes to.

But here's the thing that scares me most about our current two party system: Neither of them seem to be prepared to lead. The Republicans have positioned themselves as the party of financial responsibility despite all of the evidence to the contrary during the Bush years, and the Democrats in congress are too chicken shit to take a genuine stand for whatever it is that they profess to believe. And if Republicans are so sure that their comeback is at hand, they may want to be careful of overreacting. The overall popularity of Republicans is actually lower than that of the Democrats (although the Dem's are sure working on it). In fact, the most popular politician with the public at large is still President Obama.

Unfortunately for the President, he like Lebron James has no Scottie Pippen, or even a Horace Grant to back him up. Before Lebron joined the Cavaliers in 2003, the Cleveland Cavaliers were often referred to as the "cadavers" for their moribund play. Well, that's what Obama is left with now, a bunch of cadavers. And with the opposition party in no mood to compromise, we the people are left with two nasty, partisan, rudderless groups of politicians who are probably taking us nowhere at an excruciatingly slow place. In other words, we're fucked, again. Or is it still?

Sumo-Pop
January 18, 2010

Unobtainium

2010-01-18T11:46:00.000-08:00

There are some things in pop culture that I find difficult to understand. While I can gather why many things are popular, I sometimes struggle with the level of popularity of certain artists, books, or movies. Take Dave Matthews and John Mayer (please). I can understand why people like them, I just don't get why so many people like them so much. I mean, they're affable and inoffensive, but really pretty ordinary. When was the last time either of them did anything surprising? And I have to say, after seeing Avatar in the theater, I feel much the same about it.

As everyone knows, James Cameron's new picture about really tall blue people has become a massive phenomenon. Its extraordinary weekly box office results are now threatening Cameron's own Titanic for the mantle of the highest grossing film ever. To top it off, critics are down with it too. If you stayed up Sunday night and watched the Golden Globes then you already know that Avatar won best picture and is now the odds-on favorite at the upcoming Oscars. However, after leaving the theater last week, I felt decidedly underwhelmed.

I should first say that I am no hater of James Cameron. I have liked--to one degree or another--everyone of his previous films. From what I consider his high point of Aliens and the first two Terminator pictures, to his relative low point of True Lies, I have enjoyed them all. I am a staunch defender of The Abyss and I even think that Titanic is pretty terrific. So when I walked into the theater two Sundays ago, it was with no malice aforethought. I sort of see Cameron as Michael Bay with taste, class, and far more talent. He is the rarest of breeds, a visionary blockbuster filmmaker. But once you get past the visuals, Avatar is pretty average, even generic.

Obviously, for most people the visuals will carry the day. And it has to be said that Cameron's use of CGI and motion capture technology makes for a genuine leap forward in Avatar. The computer generated characters are more expressive and life-like than in any previous effects driven film to date. So, I will certainly give him all of that. Unfortunately, all this technical wizardry serves a lackluster, recycled story that mashes up elements of Star Wars, Dances With Wolves, Jurassic Park, and even Transformers.

As those who have seen it already know, Avatar tells the story of a paraplegic soldier (well played by Sam Worthington), who signs up to be a genetically created avatar to infiltrate the tribe of blue Na'vi natives whose planet contains a precious mineral that holds the key to Earth's survival (not that it's explained very well). The problem the mighty corporate soldiers of Earth face is the Na'vi--quite understandably--don't want their planet destroyed for the sake of the earthlings. So, it's Worthington's job to convince the big blues to move off their holy ground before the military takes it by force. If you haven't seen it, you can probably guess what happens next. As Worthington gets to know the Na'vi, he finds he respects these noble savages and even finds love (surprise, surprise) with the most comely of the big blues played fairly well by Zoe Saldana. All of this leads to a showdown between the Na'vi and the mean, nasty jarheads lead by the laughably militant, and over the top General Quaritch (Steven Lang).

Lang (a fine actor normally), is saddled with horrendously obvious dialogue. He actually uses the phrases "shock and awe" and "We'll fight terror with terror!" Lang's brute force method acting is no help either. He comes on like a man who chews nails and pees rust. He's so obviously one-note that I'm surprised Cameron didn't just use a computer generated John Wayne for the role. Hell, he should've just walked around in a black hat, smoking a stogie, and an "I'm a right wing racist bastard" t-shirt.

In fact, the politics of Avatar (to my liberally minded surprise) actually turn out to be a big problem in the movie. While the film's heart is (for me anyway) in the right place, it's so patently obvious that the perspective of the villainous earthlings is based on George Bush's administration, that there is no room in the film for nuance. Take the corporate weenie played by Giovanni Ribisi. He clearly is a stand in for every cut throat, pro-business at all costs, corporate bastard that you halfway expect him to start touting tax cuts for the rich or "trickle down" economics. From his weaselly demeanor to his adenoidal voice, he (like Lang) is a complete caricature.

It's not hard to see what Cameron's getting at here, because he beats you over the head with it. Every ham-fisted scene is so "on the nose" that I began to feel belittled if not downright insulted. Invaders: bad, indigenous people: good, corporations: bad, noble savages: good, military might: bad, people with bows and arrows: good, and so on and so on. The irritating part is that on the surface, I actually agree with Cameron's point of view. It's the presentation of these ideas that is lacking. It's sort of like Rosie O'Donnell. If she were to write down on a piece of paper everything she believes in, I would probably be down with 90% of it. However, that doesn't mean I want her as my spokesperson, or even to spend two minutes in a room with her.

Cameron has never been noted for his dialogue (see Titanic: "Jack!" "Rose!" "Jack!" "Rose!"), but did he really have to call the magical, earth saving mineral, "unobtainium?" I mean really, "unobtainium!?" I wonder whatever does he mean (this sentence washed in sarcasm)? And I know that in a movie like this there will be gaps of logic that you are supposed to overlook, but when the military chopper pilot (Michelle Rodriguez) aborts her Na'vi slaying mission (effectively becoming a mutineer), how in the hell does no one notice? It strains the mind that after said attack she is up walking around free and able to rescue the "good" humans and help defend planet Pandora from the Bushies, I mean earthlings, whatever.

Yes, I know I'm supposed to look past all of this and just stare at the screen and say "pretty" in a trance like state, but I just can't do it. After awhile I need more than visual stimulation. I need arresting characters, and you know, a compelling story. Well, I didn't find any of that here. In fact, I didn't care about any of the characters onscreen, or who ended up with the unobtainium, or whether Earth would be saved or not. I would even go as far to say that it bothered me more when the dinosaur-like creatures that inhabited Pandora died than it did when any of the oversized smurfs bought it.

As I implied before, I'm not against big blockbusters. I loved The Dark Knight and all three of The Lord Of The Rings flicks. Those movies moved and rattled me. They made me feel something. All Avatar made me feel was a sort of benign boredom. It's silly, hokey, heavy-handed, and way too long.

Of course, I'm keenly aware that I'm in the minority on this one, and that's okay, I've been there before. But ask yourself this, how could a man spend ten years creating an admittedly eye-popping, alien world and have the lynch pin of the movie hinge on something called "unobtainium?" Not good enough. Not even close. There was a movie that came out this summer that dealt with many of the same themes. It could be said of both films that the lead character had to become an alien to find his own humanity. That other movie is called District 9. I suggest you seek it out, it is vastly superior.

Sumo-Pop
January 18, 2010

Sumo-Pop's Top 10 Guilty Pleasures (music division)

2010-01-17T14:14:00.000-08:00

Here lies my great shame:

10) Billy Idol- Inexplicably respected in some corners, he may be the fakest punk rocker ever. It's all image kids, there's as much new wave synthesizers on his records as there is guitars. Yet, that voice is amazing. All raw, leathery and booming, he's like a male Joan Jett minus the credibility. And who doesn't turn it up when Billy sings "In the midnight hour/she cried more, more, more?" I would also say that he has the highest percentage of songs about fucking than just about anyone else.

Quintessential Cut: Rebel Yell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToeY7MkCm0c

9) Carly Simon- High grade cheez. Her voice is as annoying as it is distinctive. Her music as cloying as it is particular. She was even married to James Taylor, who I hate with a red-eyed passion. However, somehow this elevator music siren gets a pass from me.

Quintessential Cut: You're So Vain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC0EsLCPsF4&feature=related

8) Duran Duran- On the face of it, they are everything I'm against. They are slaves to style and fashion. Most of they're songs make no sense (The Reflex anyone?), and without the explosion of MTV and music video they would have disappeared faster than you can say Gary Glitter. However, they produced about 15-20 genuinely catching songs about God only knows what, and I like every damn one of them.

Quintessential Cut: Hungry Like The Wolf http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC0EsLCPsF4&feature=related

7) Frankie Goes To Hollywood- Other than the lead singer this wasn't even a real band. The other four guys on the cover of their debut album Welcome To The Pleasure Dome are said to not have even played on the album. This of course means that the only thing that separated them from Milli Vanilli was Holly Johnson's vocals. The very definition of producer puppets, these guys burst out of England with what has to be the dirtiest song to ever hit the Top 10 (Relax don't do it/when you wanna cum). That hit turned up in Brian DePalma's 80's grindhouse flick Body Double. In fact Johnson comes through the door while Relax booms over the soundtrack as lead actor Craig Wasson is about to give Melanie Griffith's porn star character (the wonderfully named Holly Body) the business. Which of course proves that Mr. DePalma knew exactly what the song was about, and how to best use it. Unfortunately, I approve.

Quintessential Cut: Relax (Body Double version) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2TLAxTY9Xs

6) The Goo Goo Dolls- I should really hate them. And I do mean really. The lead singer and creative force (such that it is) of the band, Johnny Rzeznik basically has been dumbing down and rewriting Paul Westerberg songs, while also imitating the style of The Replacements minus any rough edges or originality. Even worse, they have been far more successful than the band (who I LOVE) they so wantonly imitate. But I can't find one damn song by them that I can't hum along to. Sheesh.

Quintessential Cut: Iris http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpO9MSEWpxc

5) John Waite/The Babys/Bad English- Before John Waite went to number one with his pop-cheez classic Missing You, he was the lead singer of a British power pop band (The Babys) that couldn't get arrested in their own country (despite naming one of their albums Union Jacks!), yet somehow scored a trio of top 40 hits over here. After his solo career dried up, he essentially fronted Journey in the truly shitty band, Bad English lead by Mr. Don't Stop Believin' guitar hero Neal Schon himself. They scored two massive hits with the bloody awful When I See You Smile, and the nearly as bad Price Of Love. Their next album flopped and John Waite went back to his solo career and recently scored a hit on the country(!) charts with a remake of Missing You featuring Alison Krauss. I own all this crap. What can I say? The man's got pipes.

Quintessential Cut: Missing You http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjAPQJWIz6Y

4) Howard Jones- You probably remember the near Flock Of Seagulls hairstyle better than you do his succession of synth pop hits. But Things Can Only Get Better, New Song, What Is Love, Human's Lib, and Like To Get To Know You Well were unmissable during the 80s. Eventually, the hits disappeared along with his hairline, but every one of these bandless, artless, simple simon tunes makes me smile. What are you gonna do?

Quintissential Cut: Things Can Only Get Better http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lnVjSnS9EQ

3) Billy Squier- The man could sing like Robert Plant, minus the taste and relative class of course. He took that big voice and surrounded it with big dumb drums and big dumb guitars. His biggest hits The Stroke, Rock Me Tonite, and Everybody Wants You, have all the depth of a Michael Bay movie. In fact, how is it that none of these songs have ever made into one of Bay's abominations? Surely Armageddon would have been improved by My Kinda Lover during Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler's animal cracker scene. The last thing I ever heard about Squier was that he was making a concept album based on Dante's Inferno. Pray your Gods that never comes to light.

Quintessential Cut: The Stroke http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLHc-yIAPbg

2) Kenny Loggins- Sure, I like all those tunes from all those crappy 80s movies back when Kenny was the king of the soundtrack single (and what a thing to be). But what I really like is the early Loggins (you know when he was cool-ha!). Soft rock "classics" like Heart To Heart, This Is It, and Whenever I Call You Friend were always welcome when my mom took me with her to the Suds-Yer-Duds laundromat in Niles when I was a boy in the seventies. Just thinking about one of those songs brings the comforting fragrance of laundry detergent back to the forefront of my mind. Ah, those were the days.

Quintessential Cut: Footloose http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdSWXRZu7OM

1) Rick Springfield- The mother (father?) of all guilty pleasures. To my great and everlasting embarrassment, I can't think of a single Springfield tune I don't like. The Aussie singer had a top 20 hit in 1972 with a song that to the best of my knowledge no one has ever heard called Speak To the Sky. He then was lost from view until he took the job of playing Noah on General Hospital. That's right, his big break was acting in a soap opera. With his new found visibility, Springfield relaunched his pop career and became the object of desire for stay-at-home mom's everywhere. And once he got started, he couldn't be stopped. The hits began with I've Done Everything For You in 1981, peaked with the power chord monster hit Jessie's Girl the same year and ended with the top 30 hit Rock Of Life in 1988. In all, Springfield hit the top 10 5 times in the 80s and the top 40 15 times. Oh, it was Ricky's world and we were just livin' in it. Yeah, I know this should be terribly embarrassing (and to a degree, it is), but I'll never forget sitting in a movie theater, watching Paul Thomas Anderson's classic film about 70s porn, Boogie Nights and hearing Jessie's Girl blaring from the speakers during Dirk Diggler's (Mark Wahlberg) hapless attempt to sell drugs to a whacked out Alfred Molina. That's called affirmation, homeslice.

Quintessential Cut: Jessie's Girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adaYUM5wl7c

Alright, that's the list. I've shown you mine, now you show me yours. I'm sure there's some Styx and Journey fans (God help you) out there somewhere.

Sum-Pop
January 17, 2010

I'm In Love, What's That Song?

2010-01-09T12:19:00.000-08:00

"If you wanted to buy the new Sam Cooke album, where would you go?"---Prince, from Under The Cherry Moon

When I was working my way through college in the early to mid 90's by running a record store, I would often think of how ironic it was to be busting my ass for my Bachelor's Degree when I was already doing what I wanted to do. Back then, I thought I would spend the rest of my life surrounded by dusty vinyl and racks of CDs. Ah, the dreams of youth.

I was the manager of Nightwind's Music and Video from 1991-1996, and despite low pay and no insurance benefits, it is still the best job I've ever had. Selling music is the thing I was meant to do. During those heady days, an independent record store was more than a place to buy records, it was a communal gateway to discovery. Nothing made me happier than a full house of customers rifling through our CD bins in search of that one song, that one album to take home with them and make their night. Few things satisfied me more than some wide-eyed customer coming up to me and saying, "I saw this video on MTV of this red-haired girl playing piano..." That gentleman had discovered Tori Amos, but he needed me to complete his rendezvous with his favorite new artist.

There is a great scene in the wonderful movie High Fidelity, when Rob, the owner of Championship Vinyl (played by my boy, John Cusack), turns to his two co-workers and says, "I will now sell the three EP's by the Beta Band." Cusack's Rob pops the CD in the player and watches all the customers in his store start to vibe on the sounds coming out of the speakers. Over the five years that I ran that store, I turned people on to Leonard Cohen, Chris Whitley, Ephraim Lewis, and so on, and so on. I helped to play a very small part in the breaking of Pearl Jam, Nirvana, and SoundGarden during the grunge revolution. Even better still, were the artists I discovered by working in a place that surrounded me with music. This is where I fell in love with the music of Lou Reed, The Tragically Hip, The Replacements, etc. Artists who have bettered my life and helped shape my world views. And the best thing about discovering these artists was sharing them with my customers and co-workers. In the grand scheme of things, my influence on others may have been quite small, but it certainly didn't feel that way when I put a CD by The Catherine Wheel in some grateful buyer's hands.

That's all over now, of course. Not only for me, but for just about everyone. In the Michiana area, there is only one independent record store (Orbit Music) that sells new music. There are only two independently owned sellers of used music that I know of (Michiana Media and BuyCo). During the heyday of the 90's, I can remember at least six.

There are many reasons for the death of the independent record store. While most people will point to downloading, itunes, and illegal file-sharing, the trouble started long before.

The golden period of music retail began in the late 80's and peaked in the year 2000. Since the turn of the century, CD sales have fallen by 45%. While technology has certainly fueled this decline, the mismanagement of the music industry by the record labels cannot be overstated.

When the CD was introduced to the marketplace in the early 80's, the labels promised that once the new media gained a foothold and reached mass production, that the price of the compact disc would go down. Well, they lied. Nearly year by year, the labels continually raised the list price of new CDs. By the end of the 90's, mega artists like Janet Jackson and Mariah Carey saw the list price of their new CDs start out at $19.99. This made it increasingly more difficult for indy stores to offer competitive sale prices. While big box retailers were able to buy directly from the labels and receive deep discounts due to the high volume of their purchases, indy stores would have to purchase their music from a one-stop, or wholesaler. The labels simply didn't see the value in selling directly to indy stores unless they were willing to purchase CDs in numbers so large that they would be typically unaffordable to a mom and pop store.

Now, the big box stores completely dominate the music retail market. Between Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Target, they account for 2/3 of all record sales in the U.S. In fact, Wal-Mart is the largest music seller in the world. As these mass retailers started to penetrate the market in the mid to late 90's, the record labels began to put all their investment into these corporate monsters. They offered them the best prices, promotions, and advertising support to the complete detriment of the indy store. While this may have made a great deal of fiscal sense in the short term, the long term effects have been devastating to not only the indy stores, but to the record labels themselves.

For stores like Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Target, music is a small portion of their sales. That's why you can seldom find someone to help you when you shop in their music departments, and if you do, you will probably end up feeling you were better off on your own. These stores often use music as loss-leaders, selling CDs below cost in the hope that the low price will increase foot traffic and lead to sales in electronics, housewares, and clothing where they enjoy better margins. This practice has been crippling to indy stores. If 90% of your income is based on music sales, then loss-leaders by big box stores completely remove your profit margins if you choose to price match, and drive customers away if you do not. Worse still, only a couple of years ago Wal-Mart started dictating to the labels the price that they would be willing to pay for CDs. Because the labels had abandoned the indy stores to the point of near extinction, they had no choice but to acquiesce.

As the indy stores began to fade away due to downloading, excessive competition from big boxes, and lack of record company support, the labels were left with no secondary market with which to sell their product. In many areas of the country, the only place to buy new music is your local Wal-Mart, Best Buy, or Target. If the labels lose any of these mass retailers, then they may as well fold up shop. And I'm hear to tell you, the clock is already ticking.

As I mentioned earlier, the impact of downloading and illegal file-sharing has had a great impact on brick and mortar stores. However, even this advance in technology was forwarded by the poor decisions of the record labels. I'm sure some of us can remember something called the CD single. The sales of singles--from 45's, to cassette singles, to CD5's--had a great positive impact on the overall health of the business. The production of low-priced singles brought young people into the fold. Since young folks typically have less buying power, the sales of singles were an affordable entry point for the youth market. As anyone can tell you, buying music is a habit. And by creating this habit at a low cost to the buyer, it would typically lead to the purchase of full length albums as these youngsters grew into adulthood, got jobs and earned a disposable income. However, the labels began to slowly eliminate the production of singles, believing that by forcing people to buy the whole album to get one song would increase their profit margins. Once again, in the short run this worked, but in the long run they lost the kids and, therefore, the future.

Now, I'm not naive, the creation of Napster and itunes would have made a massive impact on the way people purchase music regardless of the mistakes of the record labels. But, by making music so expensive, they created a vacuum that cheaper, digital music was only to happy to fill. And make no mistake, it is a cheaper form of music. I'm not just referring to price, but to quality and value. While selling songs for .99 cents (or stealing music through illegal file sharing) certainly has made music more affordable, it's also made it more disposable. It has completely removed artistic design from the selling of music, as there is no record sleeve or album cover to hold in your hands. You no longer have lyric sheets or liner notes to pore over and learn more about the artist. This method of buying music is an entirely impersonal experience. Now, new music buyers have fewer reasons than ever to connect with the artist whose music they have purchased.

It's also worth noting the lack of sound quality in these MP3's. Maybe to most, this degradation of quality is imperceptible, but make no mistake, you are listening to a thinner, tinnier, more compressed sound recording than the original source. In effect, what you are listening to is a copy of a copy of a copy. As Bob Dylan once said about the quality of MP3's and the cheap price of music, "You might as well give it away, it isn't worth anything anyway."

Of course, digital music was always an inevitability, but even here, the labels managed to blow it. They were deeply resistant to the unstoppable change that was to come. They fought it tooth and nail through the court system, and continued to cling to the system they had corrupted. By the time they got on board, millions (if not billions) of dollars were lost.

Now that digital sales have continued to increase--leading to the massive decline in the sales of physical discs--the labels are confronted with a new problem. These big box retailers--who they have so relied upon to the detriment of the indy store--have decreased their shelf space for music by 20% over the last two years. After bending over backwards to meet the demands of these corporate giants, the labels are being squeezed out by the last music sellers left. Leaving them with nothing but a desperate grip on a dying industry. When--not if--the big box retailers eliminate their footprint for music product, where will the labels go? Their best margins are still made through the sales of physical discs, and their overhead is far too large to be supported by a purely digital market, and there are hardly any indy stores to come crawling back to. Unfortunately, they have nearly--if not entirely--destroyed their market through bad business practices. Hell, even big name artists are beginning to jump ship and either create or join an independent label.

The last CDs by Prince and Pearl Jam were both independently released. Even the artists can smell what's cooking, and they've decided they'd rather like to make the stew on their own. Some are selling music from their web sites and at their concerts. Others, like Prince and Pearl Jam--as well as KISS, Garth Brooks, and The Eagles--have entered into exclusive arrangements with Target or Wal-Mart. By doing so, they have performed a nimble end around on the labels, but also on the few remaining indy stores as well. Not that I can totally blame them, they are simply reacting to the business the labels and mass retailers have left them with.

I suppose this whole column is just a rant by a dinosaur (I still buy CDs!) who longs for the good ol' days when things were simpler. Maybe I have become that guy ("These kids today and their music"). Although, I will say that things aren't completely hopeless for someone like me. There will probably always be a collector's market. Used stores, Ebay, and web retailers will most likely be selling music for a long time, and the surprising increase in vinyl sales over the last few years at least points to a specialized market that could last for many years to come. But yes, I do miss the days when someone would walk into my store and say "I heard this song, do you know who it's by?" And more than anything, I will miss the opportunity to reply, because I was born to do this, but I can't, not anymore.

Sumo-Pop
January 8, 2010

Are You @#%&ing Kidding Me?!?!?! (and some other thoughts on today's MLB Hall Of Fame vote)

2010-01-06T15:25:00.000-08:00

Here are the results of today's Major League Baseball Hall Of Fame vote (75% required for induction):

Andre Dawson
RF/CF 1976-1996 77.9%
Bert Blyleven
SP 1970-1992 74.2%
Roberto Alomar
2B 1988-2004 73.7%
Jack Morris
SP 1977-1994 52.3%
Barry Larkin
SS 1986-2004 51.6%
Lee Smith
RP 1980-1997 47.3%
Edgar Martinez
DH/INF 1987-2004 36.2%
Tim Raines
LF 1979-2002 30.4%
Mark McGwire
1B 1986-2001 23.7%
Alan Trammell
SS 1977-1996 22.4%
Fred McGriff
1B 1986-2004 21.5%
Don Mattingly
1B 1982-1995 16.1%
Dave Parker
OF/1B 1973-1991 15.2%
Dale Murphy
OF 1976-1993 11.7%
Harold Baines
DH/RF 1980-2001 6.1%
Andres Galarraga
1B 1985-2004 4.1%
Robin Ventura
1B 1989-2004 1.3%
Ellis Burks
DH/OF 1987-2004 0.4%
Eric Karros
1B 1991-20040.4%
Kevin Appier
SP 1989-2004 0.2%
Pat Hentgen
SP 1991-2004 0.2%
David Segui
1B 1990-2004 0.2%
Mike Jackson
RP 1986-2004 0%
Ray Lankford
LF 1990-2004 0%
Shane Reynolds
SP 1992-2004 0%
Todd Zeile
C 1989-2004 0%

So, first things first: I am absolutely overjoyed for Andre Dawson! This was the Hawk's 9th year on the ballot and finally these ass clowns did the right thing and put Dawson in. Why he had to wait nine years is a complete mystery to me. He won an MVP, finished second in MVP voting twice, won 8 gold gloves and is one of 3(!) players ever to hit 400 home runs and steal 300 bases. The other two? A couple of guys named Willie Mays and Barry Bonds. I'm not saying that Dawson was as good as either Bonds or Mays, but if you can tell a person by the company he keeps...

Now, onto the injustices:

The worst of which is clearly the lack of sufficient support for Roberto Alomar. Alomar is at worst the 2nd best second baseman since WWII. Only Joe Morgan is considered better and you can make a great argument in favor of Alomar if you compare the two. Alomar retired with a .300 batting average, 210 homers, 1134 RBI's, 2724 Hits, 1508 runs scored, 474 stolen bases, 10 Gold Gloves, and was clearly the best player on two World Series winners. So what in the world crack pipe were the 26.3% of sportswriters smoking when they left him off their ballot? In a word, the reason is spit. Because Roberto Alomar lost his mind once in an otherwise unblemished career, and spat on umpire John Hirschbeck after being called out, he was punished by the sportswriters. It's funny how well they remember this one (admittedly awful) moment but are apparently completely unaware that not only have Alomar and Hirschbeck made up, but that Alomar has contributed time and money to Hirschbeck's cancer fundraising organization that he set up in the name of his son who died of the disease. And really, even if Alomar hadn't done those things, so what?!?! How many of that 26.3% would like to be judged by the worst moment of their lives? Not many I'm betting. If I were Alomar, I'd be mad enough to spit today too. Alomar didn't cheat, didn't kill, or maim anybody. Case closed.

While Bert Blyleven fell short once again in his 13th year on the ballot, he did get some good news. No one that has ever gotten as high a percentage (74.2) of the vote as Blyleven has ever not been voted in. Blyleven is 5th all time in strike outs and an astounding 9th all time in shutouts. Did you know that Blyleven has more career shut outs than Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux combined? I'm not saying he's as good as those two, but once again, the company you keep...

I was glad to see Jack Morris' percentage come up by 8.3%. It gives me hope that this pitcher who defined the term "horse," might actually get in some day. Morris was the most winningest pitcher of the 80's and the absolute best "big game" hurler of his era. I know the voters like to hold his 3.90 ERA against him, but I know that over a (roughly) 12 year period, if you were to pick one guy to throw one game for you, you would pick Morris. And that should be enough.

My personal favorite on the ballot this year was former Red's shortstop Barry Larkin. While Larkin didn't get very close to the needed percentage, he did start out with a higher vote total than a lot of former players who were eventually inducted (including Dawson, Sandberg, and Rice). I did some research on the shortstops already in the Hall Of Fame and found that only six of those inductees had a quality argument for being superior to Larkin. If I'm right (and I am), then how in the world does the seventh best shortstop of all time not get in on the first ballot? I think one of the main reasons is that some voters believe that not all hall of famers are worthy of first ballot induction. So, while on one hand this is comforting---I'm sure that Alomar and Blyleven will get in next year, and Larkin eventually---it is also maddening. It's not like Alomar or Larkin are going to hit any more home runs or Blyleven is going to strike out any more batters between this year and next. To me, either you're a Hall of Famer or you not. Now, I do agree that as time passes, a player who was once short on votes can begin to look better with age. I think for example, players who are thought to be clean of performance enhancing drugs will grow in stature over the next several years. Which brings me to Tim Raines, Fred McGriff, and Alan Trammell.

Raines is unquestionably the second best lead-off hitter of his era after Rickey Henderson. I think as voters spend more time poring over his numbers, his vote total will continue to increase (he was up 7.8% this year). I think Fred McGriff's 493 homers during the steroid era (without a whiff of controversy), will continue to look better and better. I do however, worry for Alan Trammell. This was Trammell's ninth year on the ballot, and while he did increase his vote number by 5%, he still sits at only 22.4% after nearly a decade on the ballot. Remember when I said that Larkin was at worst the 7th best shortstop ever? Well than Trammell is at worst the 8th. If you compare Trammell to Larkin, you can barely slide a thin sheet of paper between them. Larkin was clearly a better base stealer, but in nearly every other category, the differences between the two are negligible. Whether it's hits, runs, homers, RBI, batting average, gold gloves, etc., they are nearly the same player. I was sincerely hoping that if Larkin got in this year, it would improve Trammell's chances down the road. My last point about Larkin-Trammell is this: If Hall Of Fame shortstop Ozzie Smith were in his prime, would either the Tigers or the Reds have traded their guy straight up for the "Wizard?" Not in a million years. And I mean this as no offense to Ozzie, who certainly belongs in the Hall as the greatest fielding shortstop of all time, but you get the point.

Now, I have to get to my truly hopeless cause, the candidacy of Dave Parker. He and Trammell are clearly the two most underrated players on the ballot. Parker was an MVP and finished second once and third twice in MVP voting in other years, he won two batting titles, three Gold Gloves, led the league in slugging twice, hits and RBI once, won a World Series with the Pirates, made it to seven all-star games, and drove in 1493 runs over his stellar career, and only garnered the support of 15.2% of voters. The Cobra has almost no chance, and it's a damn shame.

The worst news for guys like Morris, Raines, Trammell, and Parker can be summed up by one year, 2013. In 2013 there will be no less than six potential Hall of Famers added to the ballot. Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Sosa, Schilling and Biggio all hit the roll in 2013. Even worse, 2014 will add Maddux, Frank Thomas, Glavine, Jeff Kent, and Mike Mussina. See what might happen here? Voters are only allowed to put ten names on their ballot and if some of these guys on the current ballot don't get in before 2013, they will either have a long wait (veterans committee), or no chance at all.

Now, you may feel that my referring to the sportswriters who didn't vote for Alomar as crack smokers, to be overly harsh. But let me make you aware of the biggest travesty of all: Not who they didn't vote for, but for who some of them did. At least two of these massive tools looked at the careers of Ellis Burks and Eric Karros and said (probably not out loud), that these two good (but certainly not great) players had Hall Of Fame mojo. And if that isn't bad enough, at least one of them thought the same of Kevin Appier, Pat Hentgen, and David Segui. That's right, David fucking Segui got a vote for the Hall Of Fame. A solid professional hitter with nowhere near elite numbers and an admitted steroid user, got a vote. Are you fucking kidding me?!

There is one solution for this, make all of the sportswriter's votes public. Can you imagine someone having to defend their ballot if it included the name David Segui? Getting spat on might be the least of their concerns.

Sumo-Pop
January 6, 2009

Purple Rain

2010-01-02T15:23:00.000-08:00

Without soul, Prince would be just a great song and dance man. which he is, but he's much more than that.---Bono at the 1988 Grammys accepting Album of the Year for The Joshua Tree.

During the summer of 1984, I was a 13 year old kid who didn't pay a lot of attention to music. Like most people, I liked music, but only as entertainment. To me, it was something to be enjoyed but not deeply felt. Then, in August of 1984, I went to see Purple Rain at the Ready Theater in Niles, Michigan. I would never feel the same way again.

I was certainly aware of Prince prior to Purple Rain. I thought 1999 and Little Red Corvette were "fun" songs. So, as I walked up to the ticket taker who asked me if my parents knew I was going to an 'R' rated movie ("Yes." I lied.), I was only expecting to have a good time. I had no idea that I would exit the theater forever changed. That was the night I discovered art.

For those who have not seen it (Philistines), Purple Rain tells the story of an up and coming Minneapolis musician struggling with family issues while trying to make it big. Viewed now---through the prism of hindsight---it's easy to see the flaws in the film. The screenplay is rudimentary, the style and direction dated, the acting of the female lead (Appolonia Kotero) is amateurish, and the whole enterprise is casually misogynistic. However, everything that was great about it at the time, is still just so. Mostly, I'm referring to the music, of course.

I can still recall the first time I heard the lead single from the Purple Rain soundtrack, When Doves Cry on the radio. It was a few weeks prior to the release of the album and film, when my mother was taking me to a friend's house to hang out. Then, out of the speakers like a shot, came this grinding guitar noise with a man's distorted groaning over the top of it, followed by a tense drum machine and "Dig if you will the picture..." My first thought was "what the hell is this." I wasn't even sure that I liked it, but I was certain that I had never heard anything like it before (or since for that matter). And if you would have asked me what it sounded like, I would have probably replied, "The Future."

I am still convinced to this day that it's the greatest song I have ever heard. It has everything, rockin' guitars, great lyrics, a commanding vocal, a spellbinding beat, and so on, and so on. But, what makes it truly special to me, is that it sounds like the whole world in 5 minutes and 52 seconds. It is intensely personal and poetic:

How can you just leave me standing alone in a world that's so cold?
Maybe I'm just too demanding
maybe I'm just like my father too bold
Maybe you're just like my mother
she's never satisfied
Why do we scream at each other?
This is what it sounds like when doves cry

While it's rarely the case, sometimes your biggest hit is indeed your best song. So it is with Prince and When Doves Cry.

So, I was well primed for the movie on that warm August night. But I was completely unprepared for the level of talent and artistry that I was about to witness. I have no idea whether Prince would have become a great actor or not had he put more time into it. I do know that as a screen presence, he was magnetic. Elfin, cat-like, and strikingly, well, striking, I had never seen anything like him before. And oh, the performance scenes! Dancing like James Brown, playing guitar like Carlos Santana, and singing with that 3 octave voice, he was more like an alien than a person of this Earth. His music made some nods to the past (Sly and the Family Stone in particular), yet sounded wholly original. And I wasn't the only one who noticed. At the end of the movie when Prince takes the stage and performs Purple Rain, the theater crowd was waving their hands in the air and singing alone. He had transformed that movie house into some sort of communal experience. It was staggering.

For an album with such a lofty reputation, it's hard to believe that there are only nine songs on the soundtrack, but every one of them is a gem and several are out and out classics. Other than Doves, there is the great guitar showcase, Let's Go Crazy, the soaring title track, the shimmering I Would Die 4U, and the pure pop tune, Take Me With U. All were hits with Doves and Crazy going all the way to number one and Purple Rain and I Would Die 4U cracking the top 5. Hell, even the deep tracks were memorable. The ecstatic Baby I'm A Star, the lush The Beautiful Ones, the freaky Computer Blue, and the really freaky Darling Nikki, are all standouts in their own right. For that summer and the next several months that followed, it was Prince's world and we just lucky enough to be living in it.

However, it wasn't just his talent, tunes, or appearance that made Purple Rain Prince's magnum opus, his genius move. No, it was the thing I saw in his eyes that I didn't quite understand while I was watching the movie that first time. It was hunger. A hunger to be more than just great, but to be legendary. With Purple Rain, Prince became exactly that, legendary.

As I said before, I wasn't the same after leaving the theater. After that fateful night, I skipped lunches at school so I could save money to buy the rest of his albums on cassette (yeah, I'm old). I plastered my room with Prince posters (which didn't help me with the ladies, not one bit), and every subsequent release date of a new Prince album became an occasion for mad partying in my little world. Some have criticized Prince for being too prolific, for releasing too many records and not leaving enough time between releases. I understand that criticism, but I can tell you that his decision to put out a new album every year is a big reason why I survived high school. Because, no matter how much I dreaded each new school year, I always knew I would have at least one thing to look forward to.

I've had the good fortune to see Prince in concert twice. the first time was in the old Rosemont Horizon in Chicago on his Lovesexy Tour. That night, when the house lights went down I was literally trembling with anticipation. Thinking about it now is kind of embarrassing, but that's what you do when you're young, isn't it? That show was great, but it was the second concert at Detroit's Fox Theatre on the Diamonds and Pearls Tour that was truly remarkable.

Of course, the performance was tremendous. Prince hopped from instrument to instrument, outplaying whatever member of his crack band that he took over for. But the real magic occurred when the show appeared to end. The house lights came up and slowly people began to file out of the auditorium. But I noticed that the roadies were really taking their time unplugging instruments and so forth, so I turned to my friend and suggested that we wait a minute before heading for the door. Then, one of the roadies turned to the crowd and made the "raise the roof" motion with his hands. So, instead of moving away from the stage, we began moving toward it, shouting and clapping as fanboys do. And then it happened--- he came back. At this time we had moved up over 30 rows and were only 8-10 feet away as his royal badness proceeded to electrify the crowd for another 30 plus minutes. About half through the encore, I turned for a moment and looked behind me at the balcony about 50 feet back and 70 feet up, and it was rocking up and down like we were hit with a 5.7 on the Richter Scale. The place felt like it was ready to lift off.

Now, I know in the years since, Prince's albums have been consistently inconsistent in quality. He really hasn't had an all out masterpiece since 1989's Sign O' The Times (although The Love Symbol album, The Gold Experience, and the massive 3-disc Emancipation come close). Far too often, his most recent releases have been too backward looking and retro to reach the heights of his 80's albums. But, I can forgive him for all of that and more. Because I can still remember that night leaving that run down movie theater, my head abuzz, alive to a whole new world and thinking that anything is possible. What more could I possibly ask for?

Sumo-Pop
January 2, 2010

The Duke Of Death

2009-12-26T09:18:00.000-08:00

During the college basketball season, I like to say that I have two favorite teams: The Kentucky Wildcats and whoever's playing Duke. There are many reasons to hate Duke. The pugnacious, self-righteous Coach Krzyzewski (which is somehow pronounced shi-shef-skee--annoying) is one. The holier than thou attitude by their fans is another. The overly effusive praise of television commentators (this means you, Dickie V), and let's be honest, all that winning is pretty aggravating too. But for me, all of that pales in comparison to the outcome of one game in 1992.

If you don't remember the game itself, I'm sure you'll recall the highlight. That shot of Christian Laettner hitting a turnaround jumper at the top of the key is shown in every single March Madness promo and shall be for years to come. Well, that last second, game winning shot was scored against my beloved Kentucky Wildcats. I grit my teeth every time I see it. If you were to ask me what my favorite sporting event is, I would reply "the NCAA Basketball Tournament." And because of that damn basket, my pleasure is forever (at least partially) diminished.

It may be hard to believe now, but the 1992 Kentucky team was a massive underdog when they took the court in the elite eight game against Duke. The Wildcats were just coming out of a three year probationary period due to numerous recruiting violations during Coach Eddie Sutton's tenure. New coach, Rick Pitino had slowly brought the program out of the wilderness and after recruiting star forward, Jamal Mashburn in 1990, the Wildcats were back to their winning ways. Still, that 1992 team could've been called Jamal and the 13 dwarves. Because other than Mashburn, none of these guys were highly recruited. This overachieving bunch roared into the 1992 tournament as a 2 seed in the eastern bracket. Then, in the round of eight they met what may have been Duke's greatest team. Led by Player of the Year, Christian Laettner, point guard Bobby Hurley, and forward Grant Hill, this Duke team boasted six future NBA players to Kentucky's one (Mashburn). Duke entered the game with the number one ranking and a 31-2 record. By contrast, the Wildcats were 29-6 when they walked onto the court that day, and no one gave them much of a chance despite their high seeding.

What followed is often referred to as the "greatest college basketball game ever played." The two teams went back and forth through regulation play until it was clear that only an overtime session would settle the score. With mere seconds left on the clock, Kentucky point guard Sean Woods drove the ball to the right side of the hoop and dropped in a beauty of a bank shot to put Kentucky ahead 103-102. As the ball fell through the net, Duke quickly called a time out to set up an out of bounds play with only a second on the clock. Coach Krzyzewski put Grant Hill on the base line to make the long distance throw into the front court. For reasons that still escape me to this day, Pitino put a defender on Hill instead of double teaming Duke's tallest player and best shooter, Christian Laettner. Hill proceeded to toss the ball 75 feet into the waiting hands of Laettner, who then turned and then...the horror...the horror.

At this point, you may be thinking that my hatred of Duke is merely based in the petty sufferings of a fan whose team lost a heart breaker at the buzzer. Well, you'd be right. But let me tell you what really burns my ass about this game: Laettner never should have been on the court in the first place. Often overlooked in the retelling of this historic game, is the technical foul that Christian Laettner received in the second half. Midway through said half, after a scrum underneath the Kentucky basket, a frustrated Laettner knocked seldom used reserve forward Aminu Timberlake to the ground. Then while the Kentucky player was prone on his back, Laettner intentionally stomped on the kid's chest. A technical was issued against Laettner but no ejection. Asked later why Laettner was not thrown out of the game, the referee said that since it was not a punch then an ejection was not in order. Seriously? A kick in the chest is not equal to a punch? I call booty on that. What do you think would have happened if the roles were reversed and Timberlake had put his size 13 square into the great white hope's chest? Hell, they probably would have thrown him out the stadium only after running him through a gauntlet. This sort of bullshit favoritism has been on Duke's side for years. Now, I know that if Laettner had been tossed that Duke still could have won the game and that nothing is guaranteed. I also know that I can be accused of "sour grapes" for anger over the referee's weak decision. But, sometimes bitterness is its own reward.

I did get a measure of revenge several years later when in the elite eight game of the 1998 NCAA Tournament, Tubby Smith's Kentucky Wildcats defeated Duke 86-84 in the southern bracket. That Kentucky team was down by 17 points with 8:51 left in the game to the number one ranked Blue Devils. That's when the dukies began to tire. Tubby had been substituting players liberally throughout the game while Duke had shortened their bench and largely stuck with their starters. In a less than genius move, Coach Krzyzewski used up all of his time outs before the 5 minute mark. Slowly the Wildcats cut into the lead as Krzyzewski kept looking down at the Kentucky bench waiting, almost pleading with Tubby to call a time out. Smith was in no mood to help out the desperate Duke coach. Tubby's kids were fresh down the stretch while the Duke players were clearly gassed, mouths open, pulling on their shorts. Kentucky took a two point lead with only seconds remaining and a 30 foot 3 point heave by Duke guard William Avery bounced harmlessly off the backboard and the game was over. The sound that proceeded to exit my body is not known to man. I ran outside in the snow (coatless) shouting "revenge, revenge!" It is the single happiest moment of my life as a sports fan, and not too low on the list overall. That Wildcat team went on to win the national championship versus Utah two games later. While I'm sure I took joy in that moment as well, I can scarcely remember the feeling of that game. But ask me to recall the vanquishing of Duke and I can wax poetic until you run from me screaming.

However, this is not the highlight they show every year when pumping up the tournament. No, I have to see Christian Laettner's lily-white ass turning around and crushing the dreams of all the Kentucky faithful. That 1992 Kentucky team was christened "The Unforgettables" by the Commonwealth's hoops crazies. For all they did to bring Kentucky back to prominence, they certainly deserved it. However, I do wish I could forget their last game. That terrible final highlight. But the damn powers that be at CBS won't let me. Every year is a nose rubbing siege against me and my fellow Wildcat fans. That long throw, that bastard Laettner, the Duke of death, every year without fail. Torturous, murderous, and just plain shitty. And that boys and girls, is why I hate Duke.

Sumo-Pop
December 26, 2009

@#%* Joe Lieberman And The Horse He Rode In On

2009-12-20T12:30:00.000-08:00

I can't stand Joe Lieberman. I mean, I really can't stand him. This vain, wishy-washy, in the insurance company's pockets Senator from the state of Connecticut makes me seethe. I can live with someone who disagrees with me or their party on principle, but I can't stand anyone who talks out of his ass like this guy.

It's difficult to think of a Senator who has given his party more headaches in recent years than Lieberman. The fact that he was the party's Vice Presidential nominee and running mate of Al Gore in 2000 boggles the mind. Let's go ahead and start with the year 2000 shall we? Next to Dan Quayle, has anyone brought less to a presidential ticket than Lieberman? In a campaign plagued with second guessing and bad decisions, Gore's choice of Lieberman may have been the worst. While it's possible that Gore thought that Lieberman was the best choice available, I think his decision was a cynical one. I'm willing to bet that Gore thought Lieberman would help him with moderates and help pull the Jewish vote in Florida and therefore take the presidency. Now Lieberman might have helped marginally in Florida, but clearly not enough to overcome the debacle of the 2000 "hanging chad" election. I really can't see any other state that Lieberman helped Gore with at all. It's not like the liberal state of Connecticut was in doubt. And how about his milquetoast performance in the VP debate with Dick Cheney? He came off about as tough as Mr. Rogers after he slipped on his sweater.

After 9/11, Lieberman quickly fell out of favor with his party. His full throated support of the misguided Iraq conflict all but sunk him with the liberal base. When Lieberman ran for the 2004 Presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, he was soundly defeated in every state primary or caucus that he campaigned in. When Lieberman ended his candidacy on February 4, 2004 he admitted that his support of the Iraq War was likely his undoing. Yeah Joe, that was it.

Things got even worse for Joe in Connecticut during his senatorial re-election campaign in 2006. Despite much greater name recognition and a distinct financial advantage, Joe lost in the democratic primary against antiwar candidate Ned Lamont by a 52-48 margin. After losing the primary, Joe then decided he would run as an independent vs. Lamont and the Republican challenger Alan Schlesinger. While Lieberman stated that he would continue to caucus with the democrats in the senate if he won, this is where the rift with his party began to open. By not accepting the results of his party's primary, Joe forced many of his democratic colleagues to choose sides. Would they stand by Joe or would they go with the voters in the Connecticut primary? The response had to be painful for Lieberman. High profile Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean declared their support for Lamont, and most others followed suit. In fact, most of the support for Lieberman came from Republicans who were probably hoping for a defection if Joe won. Well, Joe did win the three-way election. Despite receiving only 49% of the vote, Lieberman was helped by pulling most of the moderate Republicans in his state. In the end, Lamont came in with 40% and Schlesinger with 10%. And even though Joe didn't defect and continued to caucus with the democrats in the Senate, he would prove to be a serious pain in the ass for his party going forward.

This pain manifested itself fully in the Presidential election of 2008. Lieberman incensed his fellow democrats by throwing his full support behind John McCain over Barack Obama, stating the "war on terror" as his primary reason. Now, it's one thing to support a candidate outside of your party, but it's another thing to actively campaign for the Republican nominee, pull a "Zell Miller" at the Republican Convention, and internally campaign for the VP position of the opposition party. After McCain lost to Obama, many in the party wanted to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship positions in the Homeland Security and Environmental Services committees. None other than the new President---who Lieberman campaigned against so diligently---intervened on his behalf. In a certain light, Lieberman's position could be seen as honorable. Can we honestly say that Lieberman didn't think that McCain was the best choice? Maybe not, but after viewing his behavior during the health care debate, I have serious questions.

It's important to supply a little background on Joe's history with the health care industry. Since becoming a Senator in 1989, Lieberman's fourth largest campaign contributor has been the health care industry. His wife Hadassah, currently works for a lobbying company called APCO Associates, that represents a number of pharmaceutical and health care industries as well as major drug companies like Pfizer. Of course, none of this is illegal, but considering the flip-flops that Joe has made in favor of the for-profit health industry over consumers in recent months, it makes me want to ask "Who's side are you on?"

The first inconsistency is on the subject of the "public option." Many democrats (and most citizens) are in favor of a government ran option that would allow those who could not afford insurance to receive assistance from a national program. During that 2004 Presidential election, Lieberman campaigned for a public option. He stated that he thought it was the best way to reduce costs and provide assistance to those who could not help themselves. So you would think that when the issue of the public option was raised in the health care debate that Joe would be all for it, right? Wrong. Joe stated that a public option would add to the national debt and that he had to do the "right" thing by the country and his constituents in Connecticut. There are two problems with Joe's points. First, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office produced a report that stated that a public option would actually reduce the national debt. Secondly, in recent polling in his state, the citizens of Connecticut were in favor of a public option by a 69-21 majority. Did that give Joe pause? No. In fact, he even went as far to say that he would filibuster along side the Republican minority in effort to disallow a vote on any health care legislation that included a public option.

Due to parliamentary rules in the Senate, the Democrats need 60 out of 100 Senators to produce an up or down vote on health care legislation. Since they currently have exactly 60 Senators and no Republicans are willing to defect to the side of the Democrats, that means they need every single Democrat to stay home. With that in mind, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada crafted a compromise. One that would allow people between the ages of 55-64 to buy into Medicare if they were without employer provided insurance. In the past, Lieberman had always supported the expansion of Medicare. Only three months ago, Lieberman went on record stating that allowing people to buy into medicare at the age of 55 would be a quality alternative to the public option. He even walked out of the compromise meeting with Reid stating that he liked the "direction" they were going in. So far, so good, right? Wrong again. Joe again reversed course and said that he would filibuster any expansion of Medicare in the final health care bill.

I take this last bit very personally. Over a year ago, my dad lost his job at the age of 62. Months before that his company dropped their health care coverage. Thankfully, my dad, being a military veteran, could at least go to the Veteran's Administration Hospital in Ann Arbor, Michigan. But after his company went under, that meant a very expensive (gas, ya know) six hour round trip every time he needed care. Even worse than that, my mom was declared disabled by her doctor. And after fighting with social security for over a year in an effort to receive disability benefits, at the age of 56 has only now qualified for Medicare. While I am grateful that neither of them had a catastrophic health issue in the lag time between the loss of insurance to receiving coverage now, I can only think of how many other people weren't as fortunate.

So here's the thing, when you're Joe Lieberman, you are in the position to help people. In some cases, save their lives. Now, I don't expect every politician to be in favor of a public option or Medicare expansion. I do, however, expect those that say they are in favor of such things to back up their talk with action. Unfortunately, Joe Lieberman is not one of those people. I was watching a commentator on the news the other day describe Lieberman as the equivalent of a girl at a beauty pageant who isn't getting enough attention and therefore tears off her top and runs around screaming until everyone has to take notice of her. Well Joe, I've taken notice. And what I have seen is a vain man who has decided to put his own personal issues of revenge against his party and fealty to special interests over the needs of the people whom he was elected to represent. I'm not naive, I know Joe isn't the first or the last. Hell, he may not even be the worst. But he is a rat bastard, lying sack of shit. May he slip and fall, and right soon.

Sumo-Pop
December 20, 2009

Sumo-Pop's 25 favorite albums of 2009

2009-12-16T09:01:00.000-08:00

1) Florence and the Machine "Lungs"- From out of nowhere. Like a more fierce version of Sarah McLachlan or Kate Bush. I can play this album all the way through and resist the temptation of skipping a track with ease. Never saw her coming. Go on Florence, get down with your bad self.

Links to key tracks:

Kiss With A Fist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpsDegqioVA
The Dog Days Are Over: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TwqE2X55Wg
Drumming Song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpLXQorSQe8
You've Got The Love: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzMcNAe4nE8

2) Morrissey "Years Of Refusal"- Not only his best solo album, but maybe his best album period. Yeah, I said it. The geezer has no business making a record this good at his age, but he did.

Links:

I'm Throwing My Arms Around Paris: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wYmojcRoMo
Something Is Squeezing My Skull: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x5uNL2vp28
That's How People Grow Up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqeJ-etgrI8

3) U2 "No Line On The Horizon"- Still taking risks, still worth the trouble. Could have easily kept pumping out sequels to The Joshua Tree, All That You Can't Leave Behind, etc. Not these guys. The best and biggest band of their era. Believe that.

Links:

No Line On The Horizon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oKwnkYFsiE
Breathe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGurpsGKPCg
Magnificent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGurpsGKPCg

4) Metric "Fantasies"- Canadian band that's been on the come for a few years now, and with this album they graduated to greatness. Melding their new wave roots with a bigger sound and the best songs of their career. And front woman Emily Haines is badass. Massive.

Links:

Help I'm Alive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGbCFiqgmlE
Gimme Sympathy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqldwoDXHKg
Sick Muse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEz8N8AT-yo

5) Ben Harper "White Lies For Dark Times"- His mix of rock, folk, blues, and funk all came together this time. Scrapped his old band, hired a bunch of young honkies, shit canned the "jam band" tendencies, and came up with the album of his life. Who knew?

Links:

Fly One Time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt2ftbMjK6M
Lay there And Hate Me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbi3q77Izv4
Number With No Name: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F7y9zQPJjM

6) Neko Case "Middle Cyclone"- New career peak for alt-country high priestess. Delivered with toughness and beauty by the second best female voice out there (Florence, oh Florence). "But my courage is roaring like the sound of the sun." You bet your ass.

Links:

People Got A Lotta Nerve: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXl870NoF4E
I'm An Animal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khs_PofcsbQ
This Tornado Loves You: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNgPOSRoaho

7) The Temper Trap "Conditions"- Coming out of Australia with a soaring sound that recalls Coldplay and U2 but with a more danceable lean, this is the second best debut album of the year. Lead singer Dougy Mandagi is a one man choir. Rousing.

Links:

Sweet Disposition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEwfWFdTvQ4
Love Lost: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9NHrBaOVsg
Fader: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L18tjO2GYnU

8) Silversun Pickups "Swoon"- Oft chided as Smashing Pumpkins clones, whatever, I call booty on that. Billy Corgan would kill for these ten songs. This album gets better with repeated listens. The very definition of a "grower."

Links:

Panic Switch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQeJPb7VbKk
Substitution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsmDTkUo7Tg
There's No Secrets This Year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqZHIQp0ok0&feature=related

9) Regina Spektor "Far"- Like Tori Amos minus the fairies and slightly more conventional songwriting. The best piano-based album of 2009.

Links:

Laughing With: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rov3pV9PsRI
Eet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPMIXk-ipT0
Blue Lips: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqQXJ16mzrk

10) Phoenix "Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix"- New York garage rock + French disco= Phoenix. Who the hell thought that would work? Endlessly tuneful and succinct. 10 priceless pop gems in just over 35 minutes. That'l do, that'l do.

Links:

1901: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMOkORxF4JA
Lisztomania: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BJDNw7o6so

11) Mos Def "The Ecstatic"- Proving that hip-hop is not dead, comes the most creative rap album since Kanye gave up rapping for auto-tune and Andre 3000 decided to sing instead of rhyme. After years in the wilderness, Mos Def delivers. Welcome back, most definitely.

Links:

History: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OyfAmPM4hc&feature=PlayList&p=8E4C9BB7B42F8E2D&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=69
Quiet Dog Bite Hard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuwVP1WoIhg
Supermagic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_RXEJLx2Uw

12) Maxwell "BLACKsummers'night"- R&B's savior. Smooth and sexy, old school and new, Max took about a decade off and then came back with this silky classic. Somewhere, Marvin Gaye is smiling.

Links:

Pretty Wings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkPy4yq7EJo
Bad Habits: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRFTRMsZLBY

13) Tragically Hip "We Are The Same"- Canadian vets continue to toil away in relative obscurity in spite of a consistency of quality that is seldom seen. This collection of near alt-country tunes will make you wish Johnny Cash were still around to cover any number of these tracks for another Rick Rubin produced record. That good.

Links:

Morning Moon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRFTRMsZLBY
Love Is A First: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyMHiGXU3DM
Speed River: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84qJbG7q7uc

14) The Big Pink "A Brief History Of Love"- Mixing elements of the Manchester "shoegazer" movement with Depeche Mode synths, and Verve-like vocals, this UK duo carry on like hair metal and grunge never happened. Let's all party like it's 1989.

links:

Dominos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnNlQ-KNv4
Velvet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA3twi3iSNQ

15) Rain Machine "Rain Machine"- Freak soul, art rock from TV On The Radio's Kyp Malone. If you don't like TV than you won't like this, but if you do...

Links:

Give Blood: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvSLoo5rwZE
Smiling Black Faces: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFYHCBtSfgM

16) Green Day "21st Century Breakdown- Not on par with American Idiot, but that's a ridiculous expectation. No band other than the Red Hot Chili Peppers has ever improved so much, so late in their career.

Links:

21 Guns: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r00ikilDxW4
Know Your Enemy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_uEUWgovSw

17) Decemberists "Hazards Of Love"- Incredibly ambitious (maybe a little too much so) concept album that fuses victorian folk with 70s prog and even blasts of metal guitar, this Oregon band may have overreached on this release. However, if this is a failure, then it's an awfully good one.

Links:

The Hazards Of Love: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp_MVc3abXU
The Wanting Comes In Waves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp_MVc3abXU

18) Weezer "Raditude"- Relentless and catchy, as usual. A real return to form.

Links:

If You're Wondering If I Want Tou to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIzMGh94vo
Can't Stop Partying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VewCBGU77eQ

19) Jay-Z "The Blueprint 3"- Did you know this guy doesn't write down his rhymes? He simply memorizes them prior to entering the studio. Amazing. This new record is further eveidence of his genius, even if there is a little filler here.

Links:

Empire State Of Mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjsXo9l6I8
Run This Town: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVA-xTBeHyM

20) Tegan and Sara "Sainthood"- Not quite as good as The Con, but close.

Links:

Hell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eD5UA2A9h4
Arrow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsmrlJX2gIA

21) Yeah Yeah Yeahs "It's Blitz"- Turned down the guitars and turned up the synths, and you know what? It worked. Their best album yet.

Zero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGNo8RL5kM
Heads Will Roll: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auzfTPp4moA

22) Pearl Jam "Backspacer"- Their best album in years. As a friend of mine said: "Why can't they do this all the time?"

Links:

The Fixer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auzfTPp4moA
Just Breathe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuq7RYQ8Wa0

23) David Gray "Draw The Line"- Terribly underrated Irish singer-songwriter. The rightful heir to Van Morrison.

Links:

Fugitive:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REeqmxBJVm0
Draw The Line: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-LBrFs8Niw

24) Imogen Heap "Ellipse"- Cool and comforting techno music delivered by a lovely voice. Easy to overlook.

Links:

First Train Home: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax84xcaLfHs
Little Bird: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9diXbRy3qs

25) Steve Earle "Townes"- The real country outlaw. This collection of Townes Van Zandt tunes is both reverant and singular.

Lungs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps5nV0pGkZ8
Pancho and Lefty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPOOE02sovk

Sumo-Pop
December 16, 2009 (updated on December 26th)

My 2010 MLB Hall Of Fame Ballot (not that it counts)

2009-12-15T16:31:00.000-08:00

1) Andre Dawson- "The Hawk" Devastating blend of power and speed. Could do anything you wanted him to. Hit for power & average, steal a base, cover his position, and had one of the greatest right field arms of all time.

2)Bert Blyleven- 287 wins, 5th all time in strike outs, and an amazing 60 shutouts (9th all time).

3)Lee Smith- Retired as the all time leader in saves. That should matter more than it does.

4)Jack Morris- One of the greatest "money" pitchers ever. Voters hold his ERA and the fact that he's an asshole against him. To hell with the ERA, the man was a winner. And as far as assholes go, they let Ty Cobb in didn't they?

5)Tim Raines- 2nd best lead off man (after Rickey Henderson of course) of the last quarter century. Better than you might have remembered.

6)Fred McGriff- 493 home runs and no one argues about whether he was clean.

7)Alan Trammell- One of the 5-10 greatest shortstops ever. Compare him to any shortstop prior to the steroid years and tell me he doesn't belong. Ridiculous that this even has to be explained (and don't get me started on Lou Whitaker who isn't even on the ballot anymore).

8)Dave Parker- "The Cobra" Far better than you may have thought. 1 time MVP, finished in the top 10 five other times. 3 gold gloves, 7 time all star, 2 batting titles and a world series ring. For real.

9)Roberto Alomar- Best second baseman of his day. Had about a 5 year period where you could argue he was the best player in baseball.

10)Barry Larkin- See Alan Trammell.

Close but no cigar-

Mark McGwire- You only get 10 slots and I'll take McGriff first. He was a better all around player and never a whiff of PED controversy.

Edgar Martinez- Great hitter, although career stats are not overwhelming. Made no impact in the field (DH). Ask me again next year though.

Don Mattingly- Really great for 4 years, very good for two. Just not enough. Sorry.

Dale Murphy- See Mattingly.

Harold Baines- Edgar Martinez with more longevity and less dominance. Can't do it.

Andres Galarraga- Hmmm...wait 'til next year, maybe.

Sumo-Pop
December 15, 2009

Public Strangers

2009-12-13T07:35:00.000-08:00

"I am not a role model," Charles Barkley once said. "Just because I can dunk a basketball, doesn't mean I should raise your kids." True enough, although I'm sure that in Chuck's case this was a bit of a pre-emptive strike. Sir Charles was smart enough to know that he wasn't up to role model standards, what with his gambling, carousing, and drunk driving. So, that should be taken into consideration when thinking of his now famous (infamous?) quote.

You can probably guess where I'm headed with this. Yeah, I'm talking about Tiger Woods and what may likely have been the worst two weeks of his life. For those living in a cave, on November 27th, Tiger Woods was found bleeding from the mouth and face, prone, and barely conscious in his own driveway after backing over a fire hydrant and taking out his neighbor's tree. Suspicion surrounded the event from the outset. Why did his wife take a golf club to his vehicle in an effort to extract him? Why was there no blood in the vehicle if his injuries were suffered in the accident? Did his wife attack him after learning of an affair? Woods didn't help matters much by cancelling three separate interviews with the police. When he finally did discuss the incident, it was with a vague post on his web site referring to his "transgressions" and appealing for privacy. He has since made a second post regarding his infidelity to his wife and stating that he will be staying off the golf course for an indefinite period of time to deal with his family issues.

One wonders what Woods must be thinking with a new woman coming out of the woodwork everyday detailing her "relationship" with Tiger. This man who is adored by fans, has a beautiful wife and child, and has arguably taken over for Michael Jordan as the pre-eminent athlete of our time is now sinking like a stone. I mean seriously, what the hell was he thinking? It's not just the alleged affairs (he's hardly the first jock to misuse his, er, jock), it's the sloppiness and apparent rampant nature of them. Who knows if all these women are telling the truth or not, but there's certainly enough smoke there to send the media fire trucks and paparazzi dalmatians out of the station.

While this whole sordid ordeal is very disappointing (at least) for those who know and care for him, as well as his massive fan base, I think it points to the dangers of holding people you don't know in unreasonably high esteem. Not to say that the ubiquitous Woods hasn't contributed to this perception. He, along with his multitude of sponsors, have positioned him as the standard bearer of modern excellence. As a friend once said to me: "I'm tired of Tiger Woods telling me how to live." And although this same friend is a huge fan of Lance Armstrong--- therefore dripping his statement in irony---I get what he means. Tiger has certainly sought the pedestal that he has been placed on, and up until now, it's a position that he has clearly enjoyed.

However, the media and, yes, we the public have to take some responsibility for this too. How many times do we have to be burned by a public figure before we give up on these guys as models to live our lives by? I'm not suggesting that we can't admire any of these folks, and I'm definitely not saying that I haven't fallen prey to this level of affection myself. In fact, if Bono came out tomorrow as a womanizing man-whore who drowned puppies on the weekend, I would be crestfallen. So, as I write this, I am cleanly aware that this physician must also heal thine own self for I too am guilty.

As a child, I had no greater sports hero than Julius "Dr. J" Erving, the superstar pro basketball player for the Philadelphia 76ers. Hell, I'm still a Sixers fan to this day thanks to the gliding, acrobatics of the funky, claw-handed, militant afro'd small forward who was the very predecessor of such gravity defying players like Dominique Wilkins, Michael Jordan, and Lebron James. No one had ever seen anything like the good doctor when he came on the scene. And it wasn't just his high wire athletic endeavors that fascinated me. It was also his almost regal bearing, his thoughtful demeanor, and well-spoken intelligence. He seemed to exemplify class on and off the court. I know now that this was only a small part of the truth. Erving was also a terrible tramp who had a child out of wedlock whom he barely spoke to---let alone acknowledged---for over 20 years. He has only in the last year attempted to have a real relationship with his daughter. Absolutely shameful.

Now, does this mean he's no longer in any way a hero to me? Do his infidelities and absentee parenting take away from the wonder I experienced watching his athletic accomplishments? Of course not. It does however, put them into perspective.

I'm certainly not the first fan to suffer from the shock and disappointment of the sight of fallen idols. The list of loose, fifth limbed athletes reads like a who's who in sports for the last quarter century. Erving, Barkley, Jordan, Tom Brady, Muhammad Ali, and now Woods have all caused themselves and others great harm by their willingness to spread themselves around. Perhaps the most infamous example is that of former Seattle Supersonic star Shawn Kemp. At last count, Kemp had seven babies by seven different baby mamas. Revolting. Check that, I stand corrected. The most infamous example has to be OJ Simpson. The "Juice's" infidelities lead to divorce and eventually to body bags. I guess that makes him king of the assholes.

This sort of behaviour is hardly limited to athletes. Presidents Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Clinton all had a "little something" on the side. Even the greatest civil rights leader of the 20th century, Martin Luther King Jr. was known to copulate with someone other than his wife.

So why do they do it? Why do they put their income and image at risk for a little "strange," so to speak? Well, because they can. These individuals live a lifestyle that most of us can't possibly imagine. They are catered to wherever they go. They have agents who insist they are worth millions of dollars to their teams and advertisers. Consider the ego required to think that you're worth ten million dollars a year to put a ball in the hoop or on the fairway? Or how about living a life that constantly requires you to be away from your family? A lifestyle that has women throwing themselves at you every chance they get. Temptation, literally around every corner. Who wouldn't start to believe they were bulletproof? I once heard a quote that states, "fame doesn't change you, it just brings out who you already are." Ain't it the truth. I mean, you don't even have to be handsome. Look at Charles Barkley. If he weren't able to dunk that basketball, he would likely be a tubby, moon-faced UPS driver (not that there's anything wrong with that). A pretty hilarious one, but still.

So, does that mean these cads should get a pass for their lascivious behaviour? Hell no! It just means we should put their lives in context. A context far outside of our own. Someone once said that "the greatest mystery in life is someone else's marriage." Fair enough, but I think I can one up that statement. I would say that the greatest mystery in life is someone you think you know whom you've never met.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we can't admire their deeds and exploits. There are few things more enjoyable than watching someone do something that you, yourself can't. Whether it's sports, the arts, public speaking, whatever. It's also nice if the most talented among us are good people who do good things. Woods himself has a number of charities that he is involved in that benefit children and education. In fact, his Tiger Woods Learning Center is a model educational facility for children from grades 4-12. It's fair to say that Woods doesn't just give money, or lend his name to charities, he also give his time. Which I consider no small thing, and worth remembering while he's getting pilloried (and rightly so, more or less) by the media and the public.

I guess all I'm really trying to say is that we, and the media, play a pretty large role in the exalting of these public strangers. That there is a very real danger in falling in love from a distance (it's just a baby step from stalking, ya know). So yes, these are incredibly accomplished people and there is much to be admired about many of them. But, in the end, they are only people. And people are complicated, act accordingly.

Sumo-Pop
December 13, 2009