I guess I'm unusual in many ways. I have four daughters. I have three jobs, all involving teaching kids. I'm a lifelong fan of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who has never been to Florida. I'm an Irish Catholic who doesn't drink much. And, I do not like reality television.
I could care less about American Idol or Survivor or The Bachelor/Bachelorette. I've never seen Jersey Shore or The Amazing Race. I simply don't care. In fact, just the premise of most of those shows annoys the hell out of me.
Of course, none of that means that I don't watch reality television. It's borderline impossible not to. It seems like two thirds of the networks available revolve around reality shows. There are some shows I rather enjoy. Not surprisingly, they revolve around sports and food. (Chopped is my personal favorite.)
But, since I am married with children, I end up watching far more reality shows than I normally would. Our girls love the Food Network. Cupcake Wars is quite popular, along with Sweet Genius (though, I swear that host is the creepiest person on television, with the possible exception of Kim Kardashian).
Like many families with kids, we allow our children to watch a limited number of stations on television, basically three. HGTV, the Food Network, and if we're really in the mood to be tortured and outraged, the Disney Channel. (I'll get to that disaster of a network at a later time.)
My wife enjoys real estate reality shows. I watch quite a few with her, and I don't mind them too much. Except for one. Million Dollar Rooms may be the most vile show on television not airing on Fox. To put it bluntly, that show pisses me off almost instantly. If you haven't seen it, it's not hard to guess its premise. It's a show that gives the viewer tours of amazingly beautiful rooms that cost over a million dollars to create. Not the most original concept. Anyone remember Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous?
Each episode showcases several homes. The host gets a guided tour, either by the home owner, a member of the owner's entourage, or a realtor. We're supposed to be blown away by the glorious materials (ivory from Africa, granite from Italy, metal from the third moon of Saturn, etc), along with the beauty and creativity of its design. Of course, everything is impressive. Spending $250,000 on a staircase better buy some open mouths and bulging eyes, along with a massage and sound financial advice. It also buys extreme agitation and disgust.
Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous had such a long run for two main reasons, I think. One, at that time period (mid '80's to mid '90's), there were far fewer television networks and shows to watch. This was one of them. That, and Robin Leach was just fascinating to watch. The man was weird. Second, the country wasn't in the shitter back then.
Don't get me wrong, there have always been rich people and poor people. There always will be. Rich people waste money on "necessities" and complain about paying taxes. Poor people complain about rich people and drink Old Milwaukee. It's a time honored tradition. Rich people have lots of money, the rest of us don't. I get it. It doesn't mean it should be broadcast internationally.
I saw a happy couple on the show last week glowing with pride about their Mayan indoor pool. (I sincerely doubt there were too many glass encased indoor pools in ancient Mexico, but I digress.) Even though the "room" cost well over a million dollars, "It's paid for itself a thousand times over" because of the joy it's brought their two children. Yeah. Whatever. I grew up with a Slip 'n Slide and a squirt gun and was quite pleased. Kids down the street run through a fifteen-year-old sprinkler in their underwear and have a blast. And the neighbor kids don't have to sign an insurance waiver to play. Of course, they aren't driven over in a limo either.
Another woman, after showing her breathtaking home, took the camera crew up in her helicopter, so they could truly "appreciate" the view. Really? Everything looks better from a helicopter. Tijuana looks like a splendid city from up there.
I realize people can spend their money however they please. If someone wants to drop millions of dollars on a 18,000 square foot house for their family of four, more power to them. I'm sure they give gobs of their money to the local soup kitchen too. But, that wouldn't be interesting television, now would it? That's what bothers me the most. Television executives decided this would a show worth broadcasting. Apparently, they were right. Obviously, I've seen it myself.
I'm curious, though. How much thought and discussion is put into showing citizens who use their money to help people and inspire others? Even more important, how many of us would watch it if they did?
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Kohl's
Everyone likes to save money. In America, we all know that to save money, we have to spend money. I'm sure other countries would disagree with that, but there is simply no way the most powerful country with the most outrageous debt could possibly be wrong. Spending money to save money is what we do.
But, spending isn't enough; the consumer must know exactly how much they saved. After all, how could we possibly know how much we saved without being told? It's too important to leave to chance. Just ask Kohl's.
One of the main pleasures of shopping at Kohl's is being handed the receipt. The helpful and polite cashier doesn't just hand over your receipt, she tells you how much you saved. She even circles it! The hard part is not laughing too hard when this ritual is done. Apparently, I'm supposed to be impressed by this rather large number circled and printed in bold type.
Our last visit to Kohl's was pretty typical. We bought a few t-shirts and gift items for Father's Day that were on sale (more savings!). Apparently, the sale was even better than we thought and what was advertised. We paid $50 and saved $80! Uh, no we didn't. There is no way those items were worth one hundred and thirty clams. How do I know this? Because we were at Kohl's.
The clothing in question were no doubt made by oppressed children in the Philippines, or some place similar. As Martin Starr says in the great movie Adventureland, "We pay little Malaysian kids ten cents a day to make these things. We can't just give them away." Too true. But, at these (sale) prices, we come pretty damn close.
The idea behind this entry is not to discuss child labor practices in third world countries. Honestly, I have no idea where Kohl's clothing is made. It could be in Akron, Ohio for all I know. I'm just curious. Why pretend that every consumer is saving dozens, if not hundreds, of dollars with every single purchase? Why isn't it enough to simply sell your merchandise at a fair price and leave it at that?
The answer is not difficult to surmise. We love to feel like we've accomplished something, even when we haven't. It makes us feel important, like we're actually doing something. Pretty powerful stuff, really. Just ask any politician.
It's so much nicer to think, Not only did I buy three kickass shirts, but I saved $37! We get so impressed with ourselves that we update our status on Facebook. That way, our "friends" can be impressed too. Life is sweet.
Of course, it doesn't seem to matter that we never would spend the supposed full price for those same shirts. Instead, we would drop the price tag as if it had Herpes, laugh at the price, and move on. Perhaps, we would even criticize the color, the quality of the material, and the ever-so-clever phrase across the chest. But, once we realize how cheap the shirt is, and how much we would save if we bought it (of course, we have to wait for the cashier to tell us), the shirt suddenly seems like quite the deal. It's just too good to pass up. Especially with so many colors and patterns to choose from! Like so many other things in life, it's all in the perception.
All that being said, it really isn't Kohl's fault. If they didn't have data showing we were actually impressed with these tactics, they wouldn't use them. It's really quite disturbing when you think about it. But, so is the idea of little Malaysian kids possibly making these shirts. Either way, the more I know, the more I Kohl's. Which is far better than Wal-Mart. Always.
But, spending isn't enough; the consumer must know exactly how much they saved. After all, how could we possibly know how much we saved without being told? It's too important to leave to chance. Just ask Kohl's.
One of the main pleasures of shopping at Kohl's is being handed the receipt. The helpful and polite cashier doesn't just hand over your receipt, she tells you how much you saved. She even circles it! The hard part is not laughing too hard when this ritual is done. Apparently, I'm supposed to be impressed by this rather large number circled and printed in bold type.
Our last visit to Kohl's was pretty typical. We bought a few t-shirts and gift items for Father's Day that were on sale (more savings!). Apparently, the sale was even better than we thought and what was advertised. We paid $50 and saved $80! Uh, no we didn't. There is no way those items were worth one hundred and thirty clams. How do I know this? Because we were at Kohl's.
The clothing in question were no doubt made by oppressed children in the Philippines, or some place similar. As Martin Starr says in the great movie Adventureland, "We pay little Malaysian kids ten cents a day to make these things. We can't just give them away." Too true. But, at these (sale) prices, we come pretty damn close.
The idea behind this entry is not to discuss child labor practices in third world countries. Honestly, I have no idea where Kohl's clothing is made. It could be in Akron, Ohio for all I know. I'm just curious. Why pretend that every consumer is saving dozens, if not hundreds, of dollars with every single purchase? Why isn't it enough to simply sell your merchandise at a fair price and leave it at that?
The answer is not difficult to surmise. We love to feel like we've accomplished something, even when we haven't. It makes us feel important, like we're actually doing something. Pretty powerful stuff, really. Just ask any politician.
It's so much nicer to think, Not only did I buy three kickass shirts, but I saved $37! We get so impressed with ourselves that we update our status on Facebook. That way, our "friends" can be impressed too. Life is sweet.
Of course, it doesn't seem to matter that we never would spend the supposed full price for those same shirts. Instead, we would drop the price tag as if it had Herpes, laugh at the price, and move on. Perhaps, we would even criticize the color, the quality of the material, and the ever-so-clever phrase across the chest. But, once we realize how cheap the shirt is, and how much we would save if we bought it (of course, we have to wait for the cashier to tell us), the shirt suddenly seems like quite the deal. It's just too good to pass up. Especially with so many colors and patterns to choose from! Like so many other things in life, it's all in the perception.
All that being said, it really isn't Kohl's fault. If they didn't have data showing we were actually impressed with these tactics, they wouldn't use them. It's really quite disturbing when you think about it. But, so is the idea of little Malaysian kids possibly making these shirts. Either way, the more I know, the more I Kohl's. Which is far better than Wal-Mart. Always.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Country Music in Public Businesses
I was in a Subway yesterday having lunch. I don't normally eat in the restaurant, unless I'm with my family. But, my classroom was in flux and I had no place to sit and eat, so I ordered my sandwich "for here". Mistake.
This particular Subway was playing a country music station (The Wolf) throughout its tiny establishment. I grimaced painfully when I realized I would have to listen to a man singing about wishing he had something to do with his hands. I'm not making this up. I almost left. I fought the urge to flee and instead just ate faster than I planned, which I suppose did force me to get back to work quicker. But, I was still pissed.
As you might guess, I don't like country music. At all. I'm not alone in this opinion, which brings me to my point. Why play a genre of music in your place of business that you know a large percentage of the public despise? People are not simply annoyed by country music, or find it mildly irritating. No, people literally despise it.
Of course, the other half of the population people love country music. I have friends and family who love it. More power to them. I don't understand their fascination. It mystifies me, quite frankly. But, to each their own.
Don't get me wrong. There are talented country singers out there, and quite a few of them have crossed over to our realm, Taylor Swift being the first that pops into mind. Honestly, she impresses me for two reasons. First, I always respect an artist, especially one as young as she is, when he/she writes their own music and lyrics. That shows true talent, country or otherwise. Second, anyone who can annoy and embarrass a notorious womanizer like John Mayer earns my admiration. Talent notwithstanding, it doesn't mean I want to hear anyone, Taylor Swift or not, twanging in my ear when I'm eating a tuna on wheat.
Obviously, the owner and/or manager of the Marysville Subway enjoys country music. I could care less. But, why risk annoying half the paying customers who walk in your door? It's the same reason no one plays opera music inside an Abercrombie and Fitch. People would drop their $64 hoodies, $32 t-shirts, and $197 jeans and run for the nearest Kohl's (where, apparently, they could save $237 while spending $43. But, that's a topic for another day.) They wouldn't even notice the wall size photos of naked people advertising clothes they aren't wearing. It would be anarchy.
There are people who pay hundreds of dollars to sit in formal attire and listen to very large people singing in Italian at a decibel level that would shatter Mr. Kool-aid from fifty yards. Whatever floats their boat. But, most people would pay the same amount of coin to not hear that music. Ever. Most business owners realize this fact and don't play it within the walls of their establishment.
Why aren't the same decisions being made for country music? I realize more people like country music than opera. It doesn't matter. Large segments of the population hate both; they should not be played in public, especially when there's food involved. Personally, I would be scared to play those kinds of music, simply for the cleanliness of my restaurant and my own safety.
People get pissed when they hear music they don't like. When people get pissed, they throw things. When they throw things, damage is done and insurance rates go up. When insurance rates go up, so do merchandise prices. When prices go up, people go elsewhere. When people go elsewhere, businesses close. Don't let your business close. Don't play country music in your public establishment.
This particular Subway was playing a country music station (The Wolf) throughout its tiny establishment. I grimaced painfully when I realized I would have to listen to a man singing about wishing he had something to do with his hands. I'm not making this up. I almost left. I fought the urge to flee and instead just ate faster than I planned, which I suppose did force me to get back to work quicker. But, I was still pissed.
As you might guess, I don't like country music. At all. I'm not alone in this opinion, which brings me to my point. Why play a genre of music in your place of business that you know a large percentage of the public despise? People are not simply annoyed by country music, or find it mildly irritating. No, people literally despise it.
Of course, the other half of the population people love country music. I have friends and family who love it. More power to them. I don't understand their fascination. It mystifies me, quite frankly. But, to each their own.
Don't get me wrong. There are talented country singers out there, and quite a few of them have crossed over to our realm, Taylor Swift being the first that pops into mind. Honestly, she impresses me for two reasons. First, I always respect an artist, especially one as young as she is, when he/she writes their own music and lyrics. That shows true talent, country or otherwise. Second, anyone who can annoy and embarrass a notorious womanizer like John Mayer earns my admiration. Talent notwithstanding, it doesn't mean I want to hear anyone, Taylor Swift or not, twanging in my ear when I'm eating a tuna on wheat.
Obviously, the owner and/or manager of the Marysville Subway enjoys country music. I could care less. But, why risk annoying half the paying customers who walk in your door? It's the same reason no one plays opera music inside an Abercrombie and Fitch. People would drop their $64 hoodies, $32 t-shirts, and $197 jeans and run for the nearest Kohl's (where, apparently, they could save $237 while spending $43. But, that's a topic for another day.) They wouldn't even notice the wall size photos of naked people advertising clothes they aren't wearing. It would be anarchy.
There are people who pay hundreds of dollars to sit in formal attire and listen to very large people singing in Italian at a decibel level that would shatter Mr. Kool-aid from fifty yards. Whatever floats their boat. But, most people would pay the same amount of coin to not hear that music. Ever. Most business owners realize this fact and don't play it within the walls of their establishment.
Why aren't the same decisions being made for country music? I realize more people like country music than opera. It doesn't matter. Large segments of the population hate both; they should not be played in public, especially when there's food involved. Personally, I would be scared to play those kinds of music, simply for the cleanliness of my restaurant and my own safety.
People get pissed when they hear music they don't like. When people get pissed, they throw things. When they throw things, damage is done and insurance rates go up. When insurance rates go up, so do merchandise prices. When prices go up, people go elsewhere. When people go elsewhere, businesses close. Don't let your business close. Don't play country music in your public establishment.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Gift Bags
I've attended hundreds of birthday parties in my forty-plus years. I'm sure most people have. But, I've noticed something since I started going to parties for my kids' friends. Something dark and sinister. Gift bags.
I'm sure the other parents out there know what I'm talking about. For the uninitiated (lucky bastards), gift bags are where the host of the party gives gift bags to the guests. Call me old-fashioned, but I always thought the birthday boy/girl gets the presents, those who come give the presents; everyone plays annoying games, someone cries, and everyone eats cake. It used to be a simple relationship and everyone knew the rules. Somewhere along the line, the rules were changed.
I would love to know what woman is behind this and why. I know that's sexist of me, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. You see, men don't think like that. Ever wonder why men suck at buying and giving gifts? We don't know how to buy something that isn't misconstrued. We don't know how much money to spend or not spend. (You spent what? I would've been happy with dinner and ice cream... Is that all I'm worth to you?) Should it be romantic? (Can't you ever think of something else? I do have a mind, you know.) Or handy? (Really? A book? How romantic!) We get slammed either way.
Men don't even buy presents for other men unless we're forced to. We don't like the obligation of having to return the favor at another time. Men don't like to shop for other men. It feels weird. There's also the awkward moment of receiving said gift. Is a hearty "Thanks!" enough? Or do we need to throw in an uncomfortable hug/high five/handshake? We. Don't. Know.
Our minds are preoccupied with three main topics, sex, food, and sports. That's about it. Gift bags satisfy none of those three cravings. Besides, we attend birthday parties for two reasons, free cake and because our wives make us. The whole gift bag thing is really starting to ruin the free cake.
I just don't get it. Why add more stress to an already stressful situation? There are kids to invite, and kids to not invite. There's planning. Is the party at home, at a pizza joint, at the zoo, at a park? Where? Is there a theme? What kind of cake? Homemade or bought? What kind of filling? Ice cream? Wait, there has to be a healthy component. Veggie tray, fruit, cheese sticks, something. Do any of the kids have allergies? Is the party a sleepover or for the afternoon? Should boys and girls be invited? Should we serve alcohol to the adults? (YES!) The list goes on and on.
Why add gift bags to the conundrum? It has to be filled with multiple gifts, of course. There always has to be extra bags too, because someone might bring a younger sibling, and there would be anarchy if Janie's little sister wasn't included, right? Gift bags are even made and given to siblings who stayed at home. I'm not kidding. I've seen it. I've personally brought home gift bags for my other, uninvited daughters. Thoughtful? Yes. Ridiculous? Hell yes. It really isn't necessary to buy and put together gifts for someone who wasn't even invited. I've asked around. It's really okay.
And there's the competition factor. Jake's party had such creative and cute gift bags! It's imperative that our bags be more impressive. Why? Are there really people who keep score between a town's birthday parties and note whose gift bags are better than the others? Yes, there are. Sad, but true.
Like most things in life that I don't like, gift bags aren't going anywhere. I don't know who started it. Martha Stewart, perhaps. Oprah? Ross The Intern? Whoever it was, I hope they're happy. I hope they realize what they've done. Birthdays used to be awkward for all the normal kid reasons. Knowing the birthday kid, but none of the other people there. The one boy in a girl party or vice versa. Being able to tell that everyone thinks your gift sucks. Now, we're adding adult petty stresses and competition to themed birthday parties. Something is wrong here.
I'm curious if the kids would even care if the gift bags stopped. Somehow, I doubt it. Which makes me wonder, at what point did simply throwing your kid a great birthday party suddenly become not enough? When did a child's birthday party become more about the gift bags and less about the birthday boy/girl?
It does bring up a valid point, though. If gift bags are all the rage for kids, when will they make it up to parties for adults? Personally, I hope I get a bag with bacon and alcohol. Just imagine what would be in a gift bag at a bachelor or bachelorette party. Now that would earn a hearty and authentic high five, followed by an enthusiastic butt slap, and dozens of photos on social media.
Nothing awkward about that.
It does bring up a valid point, though. If gift bags are all the rage for kids, when will they make it up to parties for adults? Personally, I hope I get a bag with bacon and alcohol. Just imagine what would be in a gift bag at a bachelor or bachelorette party. Now that would earn a hearty and authentic high five, followed by an enthusiastic butt slap, and dozens of photos on social media.
Nothing awkward about that.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Sports Writing/Reporting
I've loved sports all my life. I love to play sports, watch sports, talk sports, and read about sports. I've done all of those things as much as possible since I was six. I wish I was better at playing sports, but that's another issue entirely. Nevertheless, my love of all things sports has never wavered. Until recently.
I've always liked reading about game recaps, season and game previews, special reports, everything I could find about my favorite teams, and so on. Those articles used to be based mainly on the writers' knowledge and research. There used to be editors. Their job, if I remember correctly, was to edit stories written by journalists. They were supposed to be looking for mistakes to be corrected. There were facts to be checked, interviews to be verified, etc. Those all seem like good ideas.
I always enjoyed seeing the highlights on shows like SportsCenter and George Michael's Sports Machine. There are more highlight shows than ever before, and I watch many of them. But, things have changed. A lot.
Seemingly, sports writing and reporting are all about declaring winners and losers before the game has even been played. Case in point. The Boston Celtics beat the Miami Heat in Miami in game five of the Eastern Conference Finals last week. OMG! The series is over! LeBron has choked again. It was supposed to be so easy for LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh. The Big Three have failed for the second consecutive year. Blah, blah, blah. Never mind Boston still had to win another game. Not surprisingly that didn't happen. Miami won the next two games and are now in the NBA Finals against the Oklahoma City Thunder. Shocking, huh?
I actually read on ESPN.com that Miami had "come back from the dead" to win those last two games. The dead? Really? The team with the three time league MVP and two other outstanding players were dead because they were down 3-2. Because they had the gall to lose a game at home. It's not like teams haven't won two games in a row before to close out a series. But, it just sounds so much more interesting to phrase it that way, doesn't it? But, why is it even necessary?
I can't be the only person who isn't surprised that the Heat came back to win those two games. I suspect most sports fans expected the same. So, why didn't the writers? Of course, they did. But, it's so much more fun and exciting to paint a different picture. Let's pick on Miami some more. After all, they're the league's bad guys, right? Every single loss is devastating, isn't it? Every single loss must mean the entire team is falling apart at the seams. The coach must be to blame. He's on the ever evolving "hot seat".
Why can't reporters and journalists simply report what happened in game five and leave it at that? If they want to give their opinion about who they think will win game six and possibly seven, more power to them. But, they are not psychic. Don't come off saying a team is dead in the water. Games are played for a reason. To see who will win, because as most people know, anyone can win against anyone else. That's the point. Let them play. Then report on what happened. In other words, do your job.
But, things aren't so simple anymore. People are paid to give their "expert" opinions on everything. Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith seem to have one job recently, to argue for eight minutes about whatever topic they're discussing for the day. Apparently, they both know everything about basketball and any other topic deemed worthy of their "discussion". They must insult each other, raise their voices, and convince America that each one, truly, is the more knowledgeable expert. Am I supposed to care? I can see the same thing at any bar in the continental U.S. and with far more colorful language.
The NFL Draft is another example. Good Lord, literally months of mock drafts, discussions, predictions, rumors, etc, etc, etc. I love the NFL above any other sport. But, my God, enough is enough. The accuracy of these mock drafts is staggeringly awful. If I had results like these from my students' test results, I'd be wearing a red shirt and khakis and working at Target.
Seeing all the "Draft Grades" each day of the draft, and the days immediately after, are a joke. It's like predicting the tastiness of a meal before seeing who's cooking the food and how it will be prepared. Nothing's been cooked yet, let alone washed and prepped. A meal can be heavenly. It can also kill you. You never know until you actually wait and see. I even saw a mock draft for the 2013 NFL Draft the day after this year's draft. Seriously?
Everywhere you look on television there are "experts". To say that networks are scraping the bottom of the barrel would be an understatement. Career third string quarterback Tim Hasselbeck is an example. I saw him on television rating current starting NFL quarterbacks. Apparently, the viewers are supposed to be impressed by his five career starts on one career victory. Hasselbeck obviously thinks he's qualified. Even more so, ESPN does too.
The worst part of all this is what's happening to so many average fans. Try reading comments online during any sport's draft. Every single pick is chastised as being the worst pick in the franchise's history. People are calling for every general manager to be fired. Others are convinced these same rookies will undoubtedly bring next year's championship. Why can't we just be intrigued and hopeful? Hell, we can be doubtful instead. The truth is, no one has any freaking clue what will actually happen. That's the point. But, no one seems to realize that. Why does every single draft pick have to be the savior or the goat? Could it be we're learning from all those experts and journalists?
Despite it all, I'm still more optimistic than depressed. I still love sports. I still love to watch, talk, play, and yes, read about sports. I guess I always will, just not as completely as I once did. Since so many things from our past seem to return (the '80s seem to be the most recent example), hopefully, good journalism will, as well. I can't be the only one who thinks this way. There must be other true fans out there.
True fans who will watch upcoming games because they want to see who will win on the court, diamond, field, and ice. They want to see the joy of victory, the heartache of defeat, the amazing plays, stifling defense, the heroes and goats. They want to smell the peanuts, garlic fries, and freshly cut grass, and taste an ice-cold $12 beer and a $9 hot dog, and sit on the edge of their seat or La-Z-Boy and experience what will happen next.
In other words, they want the athletes to decide who wins and loses. And just maybe the experts won't have a damn thing to do with that.
I've always liked reading about game recaps, season and game previews, special reports, everything I could find about my favorite teams, and so on. Those articles used to be based mainly on the writers' knowledge and research. There used to be editors. Their job, if I remember correctly, was to edit stories written by journalists. They were supposed to be looking for mistakes to be corrected. There were facts to be checked, interviews to be verified, etc. Those all seem like good ideas.
I always enjoyed seeing the highlights on shows like SportsCenter and George Michael's Sports Machine. There are more highlight shows than ever before, and I watch many of them. But, things have changed. A lot.
Seemingly, sports writing and reporting are all about declaring winners and losers before the game has even been played. Case in point. The Boston Celtics beat the Miami Heat in Miami in game five of the Eastern Conference Finals last week. OMG! The series is over! LeBron has choked again. It was supposed to be so easy for LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh. The Big Three have failed for the second consecutive year. Blah, blah, blah. Never mind Boston still had to win another game. Not surprisingly that didn't happen. Miami won the next two games and are now in the NBA Finals against the Oklahoma City Thunder. Shocking, huh?
I actually read on ESPN.com that Miami had "come back from the dead" to win those last two games. The dead? Really? The team with the three time league MVP and two other outstanding players were dead because they were down 3-2. Because they had the gall to lose a game at home. It's not like teams haven't won two games in a row before to close out a series. But, it just sounds so much more interesting to phrase it that way, doesn't it? But, why is it even necessary?
I can't be the only person who isn't surprised that the Heat came back to win those two games. I suspect most sports fans expected the same. So, why didn't the writers? Of course, they did. But, it's so much more fun and exciting to paint a different picture. Let's pick on Miami some more. After all, they're the league's bad guys, right? Every single loss is devastating, isn't it? Every single loss must mean the entire team is falling apart at the seams. The coach must be to blame. He's on the ever evolving "hot seat".
Why can't reporters and journalists simply report what happened in game five and leave it at that? If they want to give their opinion about who they think will win game six and possibly seven, more power to them. But, they are not psychic. Don't come off saying a team is dead in the water. Games are played for a reason. To see who will win, because as most people know, anyone can win against anyone else. That's the point. Let them play. Then report on what happened. In other words, do your job.
But, things aren't so simple anymore. People are paid to give their "expert" opinions on everything. Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith seem to have one job recently, to argue for eight minutes about whatever topic they're discussing for the day. Apparently, they both know everything about basketball and any other topic deemed worthy of their "discussion". They must insult each other, raise their voices, and convince America that each one, truly, is the more knowledgeable expert. Am I supposed to care? I can see the same thing at any bar in the continental U.S. and with far more colorful language.
The NFL Draft is another example. Good Lord, literally months of mock drafts, discussions, predictions, rumors, etc, etc, etc. I love the NFL above any other sport. But, my God, enough is enough. The accuracy of these mock drafts is staggeringly awful. If I had results like these from my students' test results, I'd be wearing a red shirt and khakis and working at Target.
Seeing all the "Draft Grades" each day of the draft, and the days immediately after, are a joke. It's like predicting the tastiness of a meal before seeing who's cooking the food and how it will be prepared. Nothing's been cooked yet, let alone washed and prepped. A meal can be heavenly. It can also kill you. You never know until you actually wait and see. I even saw a mock draft for the 2013 NFL Draft the day after this year's draft. Seriously?
Everywhere you look on television there are "experts". To say that networks are scraping the bottom of the barrel would be an understatement. Career third string quarterback Tim Hasselbeck is an example. I saw him on television rating current starting NFL quarterbacks. Apparently, the viewers are supposed to be impressed by his five career starts on one career victory. Hasselbeck obviously thinks he's qualified. Even more so, ESPN does too.
The worst part of all this is what's happening to so many average fans. Try reading comments online during any sport's draft. Every single pick is chastised as being the worst pick in the franchise's history. People are calling for every general manager to be fired. Others are convinced these same rookies will undoubtedly bring next year's championship. Why can't we just be intrigued and hopeful? Hell, we can be doubtful instead. The truth is, no one has any freaking clue what will actually happen. That's the point. But, no one seems to realize that. Why does every single draft pick have to be the savior or the goat? Could it be we're learning from all those experts and journalists?
Despite it all, I'm still more optimistic than depressed. I still love sports. I still love to watch, talk, play, and yes, read about sports. I guess I always will, just not as completely as I once did. Since so many things from our past seem to return (the '80s seem to be the most recent example), hopefully, good journalism will, as well. I can't be the only one who thinks this way. There must be other true fans out there.
True fans who will watch upcoming games because they want to see who will win on the court, diamond, field, and ice. They want to see the joy of victory, the heartache of defeat, the amazing plays, stifling defense, the heroes and goats. They want to smell the peanuts, garlic fries, and freshly cut grass, and taste an ice-cold $12 beer and a $9 hot dog, and sit on the edge of their seat or La-Z-Boy and experience what will happen next.
In other words, they want the athletes to decide who wins and loses. And just maybe the experts won't have a damn thing to do with that.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
"Our Future" Part I
"The children are our future."
How many times have we heard that one? It must be in the training manual for politicians, right next to "always smile and always laugh when there's no reason to do so", because every single one, man or woman, Democrat or Republican, spouts that line every election.
There's no denying the fact that the children are the future. The problem is, the powers that be don't give a damn. Kids can't vote. Which means politicians don't care that much about them. Not really. If they did, our budget spending would be much different than it currently is.
I truly don't understand the reasoning behind some of these "leaders". I would love to be a "fly on the wall" in some of those Capitol Hill discussions.
"Okay, we're cutting another $120 million from education. Now, let's make sure we start holding those teachers accountable for their students' learning."
Hold me accountable. Go ahead. But, perhaps you could stop taking away all our instructional aides, librarians, music and p.e. teachers, etc. It would also be appreciated if you stopped cutting our salaries. Just maybe you could stop redirecting voter approved pay increases, and changing our contracts.
Imagine doing the same thing to a brain surgeon.
"Okay, Doctor. We're going to have you follow this new evaluation form. Basically, we just want to make sure your patients are receiving the proper care, and that they're progressing at an acceptable rate."
"Okay. No problem."
"Well, hold that thought. Unfortunately, we need to make a few other changes. Your budget is being slashed, so there won't be any nurses assisting you. Also, that new equipment that was approved by the shareholders, well, that had to go too, so you'll need to continue with your current outdated and nearly useless equipment. And, uh, we had to cut the maintenance hours too, so good luck with that, as well."
"Is that all?"
"Oh! Sorry, no. We're also cutting your salary. Now, about this new evaluation form..."
I wonder how many mothers and fathers would be encouraging their children to go to medical school then. If you're looking for a tough task, try finding a current teacher, at any level, who would encourage a college student to go into education. Make sure you pace yourself and moisturize before you peel. Bring a snack too. It could be a L O N G search.
Everyone knows education is important. Everyone knows the children are our future. Everyone also knows talking on your cell phone and driving is dangerous. Everyone knows smoking is bad for you. And so are Milky Way bars and ice cream. Gambling is addictive. So is Meth. People still do all those things anyway.
So, what does this all mean? I have no idea. Except, our "future" is in deep shit.
How many times have we heard that one? It must be in the training manual for politicians, right next to "always smile and always laugh when there's no reason to do so", because every single one, man or woman, Democrat or Republican, spouts that line every election.
There's no denying the fact that the children are the future. The problem is, the powers that be don't give a damn. Kids can't vote. Which means politicians don't care that much about them. Not really. If they did, our budget spending would be much different than it currently is.
I truly don't understand the reasoning behind some of these "leaders". I would love to be a "fly on the wall" in some of those Capitol Hill discussions.
"Okay, we're cutting another $120 million from education. Now, let's make sure we start holding those teachers accountable for their students' learning."
Hold me accountable. Go ahead. But, perhaps you could stop taking away all our instructional aides, librarians, music and p.e. teachers, etc. It would also be appreciated if you stopped cutting our salaries. Just maybe you could stop redirecting voter approved pay increases, and changing our contracts.
Imagine doing the same thing to a brain surgeon.
"Okay, Doctor. We're going to have you follow this new evaluation form. Basically, we just want to make sure your patients are receiving the proper care, and that they're progressing at an acceptable rate."
"Okay. No problem."
"Well, hold that thought. Unfortunately, we need to make a few other changes. Your budget is being slashed, so there won't be any nurses assisting you. Also, that new equipment that was approved by the shareholders, well, that had to go too, so you'll need to continue with your current outdated and nearly useless equipment. And, uh, we had to cut the maintenance hours too, so good luck with that, as well."
"Is that all?"
"Oh! Sorry, no. We're also cutting your salary. Now, about this new evaluation form..."
I wonder how many mothers and fathers would be encouraging their children to go to medical school then. If you're looking for a tough task, try finding a current teacher, at any level, who would encourage a college student to go into education. Make sure you pace yourself and moisturize before you peel. Bring a snack too. It could be a L O N G search.
Everyone knows education is important. Everyone knows the children are our future. Everyone also knows talking on your cell phone and driving is dangerous. Everyone knows smoking is bad for you. And so are Milky Way bars and ice cream. Gambling is addictive. So is Meth. People still do all those things anyway.
So, what does this all mean? I have no idea. Except, our "future" is in deep shit.
Sportsmanship
I saw quite the video on YouTube today, along with thousands of others. A high school girl named Meghan Vogel won the Ohio state championship in the 1600 meter race earlier. Her next race was another distance run and she was in last place. As she reached the final fifty meters, she saw a competitor had fallen. The girl's body had given out and she simply couldn't go any further. Instead of passing her by, Meghan helped the fallen runner to her feet, and nearly dragged her to the finish line, making sure the other girl crossed first. "She was ahead of me the whole race. She deserved it," said Meghan.
Not surprisingly, this story has been racing through Facebook, YouTube, and the talk show circuit. People are praising Meghan for her sportsmanship and kindness towards an opponent. The praise is deserved. My question is why.
Believe me, I understand what Meghan did was selfless and inspiring. It's rare to see such kindness and sportsmanship in athletics. Again, I ask why.
How many of us would see someone in obvious distress and pain, and then pass that person by? What if passing that person by made the difference between finishing 15th and 16th in a high school track race? How many of us would still keep running? Apparently, quite a few of us.
As amazing as Meghan's act was, let's look at the facts a moment. She was in last place. Meghan had already won a race earlier that morning. Did she really sacrifice that much? From what I can tell from an interview I saw, Meghan doesn't really understand what all the fuss is about. To me, that's the most impressive thing about her.
What would people be saying if she did pass the runner by? Would it even be a blip on the radar? Or would she be going viral for being selfish? Hard to say.
I would like to think that most people would help an injured and helpless peer, competitor or not. I would like to think that each of us would be praised for that behavior with a pat on the back and a hearty, "Good job". But, I would also like to see that "selfless" behavior and display of sportsmanship be expected. Maybe I'm naive. Maybe I'm just an optimist. I'm also upset.
What Meghan did was great. Amazing even. The best part of that video is hearing the roar of the crowd as the girls struggled to the finish line, followed by the crescendo when everyone realized Meghan was making sure her opponent crossed first. Goosebumps raced across my arms when I saw and heard the video. I hit "replay" several times. It inspired me, along with so many others. That very fact is also depressing.
Even more so, is the fact that Meghan broke the rules. It's actually written in the Ohio state championship rules that if a runner helps another runner cross the finish line, both runners are disqualified. Really? Not surprisingly, that didn't happen. But, it makes me wonder, why is that rule even there?
Not surprisingly, this story has been racing through Facebook, YouTube, and the talk show circuit. People are praising Meghan for her sportsmanship and kindness towards an opponent. The praise is deserved. My question is why.
Believe me, I understand what Meghan did was selfless and inspiring. It's rare to see such kindness and sportsmanship in athletics. Again, I ask why.
How many of us would see someone in obvious distress and pain, and then pass that person by? What if passing that person by made the difference between finishing 15th and 16th in a high school track race? How many of us would still keep running? Apparently, quite a few of us.
As amazing as Meghan's act was, let's look at the facts a moment. She was in last place. Meghan had already won a race earlier that morning. Did she really sacrifice that much? From what I can tell from an interview I saw, Meghan doesn't really understand what all the fuss is about. To me, that's the most impressive thing about her.
What would people be saying if she did pass the runner by? Would it even be a blip on the radar? Or would she be going viral for being selfish? Hard to say.
I would like to think that most people would help an injured and helpless peer, competitor or not. I would like to think that each of us would be praised for that behavior with a pat on the back and a hearty, "Good job". But, I would also like to see that "selfless" behavior and display of sportsmanship be expected. Maybe I'm naive. Maybe I'm just an optimist. I'm also upset.
What Meghan did was great. Amazing even. The best part of that video is hearing the roar of the crowd as the girls struggled to the finish line, followed by the crescendo when everyone realized Meghan was making sure her opponent crossed first. Goosebumps raced across my arms when I saw and heard the video. I hit "replay" several times. It inspired me, along with so many others. That very fact is also depressing.
Even more so, is the fact that Meghan broke the rules. It's actually written in the Ohio state championship rules that if a runner helps another runner cross the finish line, both runners are disqualified. Really? Not surprisingly, that didn't happen. But, it makes me wonder, why is that rule even there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)