Buying Movies is Becoming More and More Difficult

Over the summer, we had just purchased an HDTV and I was excited about the advancements of watching TV. Then I started getting into the idea of Blu-Ray. I had heard it, seen it, wasn't going to do it because I didn't have a Blu-Ray player and I wasn't looking forward to spending more money than I have to.

I'm not sure what exactly it was that changed me - but I wanted to get involved. I wanted a PS3 anyway because I wanted to play the MLB game, so getting Blu-Ray was an added benefit of getting a PS3. I was in luck because my friend was selling his for real cheap, so I got a PS3 and now I just needed the discs.

I got all of Lost (obviously,) True Blood, and Weeds on Blu-Ray, and the picture is awesome. The content is different - more interactive. The discs were only $5 more expensive than regular DVD, I figured it was worth the High-Def quality. It totally was.

Problem is, Blu-Ray isn't as portable as DVDs. By that I mean when traveling or not at home, I can watch DVDs on my computer. I can't do that with Blu-Ray. This really limits where I can watch them. Also I can't take them over to my friend's house unless they have a Blu-Ray player either. So it's frustrating.

Then there is the Digital Format problem. Anyone can download movies/shows from iTunes - but they are limited to watching them on their computers. It's restricting and frustrating. Sure I can watch it on my laptop or my iPod (which I find incredibly frustrating to watch on an iPod, even the Touch) but I can't watch it on my TV easily. Apple's got the Apple TV deal, but it's not very successful.

It leaves the average consumer in a quandary. Which copy do I buy? Do I want the best picture? Do I want portability? I'm not buying 7 different versions. What is anyone to do?

I really like what Disney is doing. Most of their movies are for sale in a "Combo Pack" which includes DVD, Blu-Ray, AND Digital Copy versions of the movie. FOR 5 DOLLARS MORE THAN A REGULAR DVD. WHAT A SMART IDEA.

I wish every company had that policy. Yet they don't. Instead they're greedy and want to milk us for whatever they can get out. I'm sure someone bought The Dark Knight in all three different ways. Avatar will be bought in 5. It's a rip off.

The future is definitely headed towards the Digital format. A huge database of your films in one storage location. You won't buy discs, you'll just download from the store. It's already happening. What's one to do with the movies you already have? There will need to be some way to convert it.

In the meantime, I'm really trying to not buy anything. I'm not giving anymore money to those greedy bastards.

iPad - A Big iPhone or the Start of a Revolution?

Today was the big day. The reveal of the Apple Tablet, called the iPad. There had been rumors for months. There were a lot of ridiculous rumors and a lot of true rumors. I'm not reiterating the facts - if you want to know about it, go to apple.com.

While the tablet is cool and has so many features, I see it as the beginning of the future, but not the game-changer we were hoping for. As big the iPad is, Apple needed to knock this one out of the park. I don't think it did. The interface seems like a minor upgrade based off of the highly-successful iPhone/iTouch Operating System. I'm sure Apple used the "if it's not broken don't fix it" mantra, but I wanted something more. Something original. Not a copycat of what we already know. Maybe a smaller OS X system. Literally make the thing a touch computer. Maybe I don't need EVERYTHING that my MacBook Pro gives me on a tablet, but something between my MBP and my iTouch. I suppose that technologically is impossible to accomplish at a cheap price and with the hardware that would be needed.

The 10 hours of battery life sounds great, but I'm sure that is under very low-light and low-everything. If it really is 10 hours under maximum usage then props to them. People always don't tell the real stats about battery life though. Those bastards.

The biggest thing that I think is a blunder is the way the data will be transmitted. $15 for 250MB - if you download a movie, you're gonna have to pay $30 a month and then pay $15 for the movie itself. Not sure it is worth it. Do we really need more monthly fees? Amazon's Kindle has 3G capability through Nextel for free - the service is factored into the price of the product. However the iPad does so much more than the Kindle can, but once someone offers a cheaper medium, there's a hope that everyone else will follow. 3G isn't be-all end-all mainly because Wi-Fi is most places these days. Another blunder by Verizon in not securing this deal, but Apple & AT&T have a history. I'm also glad that the subscription isn't based on a contract - that's huge. If you know one month you'll be traveling more than another, it could come in handy.

I see the Tablet as something that be applicable for more lifestyle/home use. There's some things you just can't get rid of. Keyboards, Mice, Built-in Cameras, and DVDs being some of them - especially in the office. Apple is trying it's hardest to get rid of all accessories, make it all data over-the-internet oriented. It's the future, but I think Apple's pushing it too hard. The iPad isn't set up to replace computers - just replace browsing on the Internet and doing simpler tasks - which is what most people do anyway. Same situation as netbooks.

On a side note isn't it ridiculous how much buzz Apple has over any product announcement? The buzz over this thing is nuts - I myself got caught up in it (hence this post.) Every is jacked up - and imagine how it will get in 60 days when the first batches are released. It's going to be just as insane as the iPhone release. Then 30 days later for the 3G. I'm also excited to see what the other companies have in store for tablets - specifically from Google. They're the big bad "not evil" monster who I think really threaten Apple.

In conclusion - I want an iPad, but I think I want to wait until the second generation comes out. With Apple, the minute a new product comes out, they are always working on a new one. A new iPad will probably be out after a year. Cool stuff, but I do not think it is going to change the tablet-industry the way the iPod and iPhone did. Not yet anyway.

LOST - MORE THINGS I DON'T KNOW BUT I REALLY WANT TO

This is part 2 of a 2,000 part series on more things I need to know about Lost. After watching the Season 5 Finale again last night on ABC, it brought up new things that I am just so confused about.

I'll give a disclaimer now, if you don't like Lost and don't want to hear me question the universe, stop reading now. Go read something more interesting.

QUESTION 45) Where is DHARMA post-Purge?

This builds off my last point in my previous Lost post regarding The Swan site/The Button. In Season 3 we learn that Ben and the Others lead "The Purge" and killed/removed DHARMA from the Island. But then what happened to the Ann Arbor team? Someone HAD to have known what happened on the Island regarding the "Incident" (pending we find out what exactly the incident is - the effects of Juliet potentially detonating the bomb) so why wouldn't they have sent someone to keep pushing the button to prevent "the end of the world." Even if the University of Michigan were to drop the project, they would still owe it to continue to clean up the mess they made.

So maybe I'm taking to far/literal there including UMich. Next point.

QUESTION 92) Eloise Hawking
Things we know: Her and Charles Widmore were leaders on the Island. They gave birth to Daniel Faraday. At some point, she leaves to Island to raise Daniel, alone, without Widmore. She did not leave with him.

Things we don't know: How does she know about The Lamp Post station? How does she know that Desmond will need to push the button before he's even on the island (based off the S3 Episode "Flashes Before Your Eyes")? How does she even know about the button?

Eloise MUST be free from time in a similar way that Desmond is. She must be able to see things previously and in the future. How did this happen? Was this a result of the incident (that again may be changing pending Jughead's detonation)? She KNEW in 1990s that by sending Faraday (PS WHY IS HIS LAST NAME FARADAY AND NOT HAWKING) that she will kill him in the 1970s. BUT HOW.

Eloise also mentions the end of the world/war coming post-button. How does she know about this if she is not even on the Island? Is this about Ben and Charles or Jacob and The Man in Black (as ABC called him last night.)

Another point related to but not directly towards Eloise - How did the 1954 US Army turn from the Army to the Others. This builds somewhat off of the Richard Alpert questions earlier. How can he be the "leader" of the Army? He's clearly been on the island for a while. Somehow the Army troops turned into the "Others" slash "Hostiles." My guess was that this was another coming of "them" that Jacob and the Man in Black spoke of. Some were on Jacob's List to stay, while others did not.

SOMETHING ELSE THAT JUST POPPED IN MY HEAD - The Lamp Post was a Dharma Station. Probably made post-1954. Given that idea, how did the US Army find the island and be able to bring Jughead & set up camp there? Did they just find it (maybe at the help of Jacob)? Remember, the picture of the island from 1954 was in the Lamp Post Station, so someone must have returned.

PS - I really love and hate this show. It causes me to think about so much of it, but then random thoughts like that entire last paragraph pop up in my head and causes me to change my mind/opinion/creates an entire new opinion. And that will only last until I form something new, or I find out a little bit of what is actually going on. A gift & a curse.

QUESTION #42) Time Travel - Why, How, and WHEN ?

Lost has reset the rules of time travel that at least in my head was set by movies like Back to the Future and probably some Star Trek or other time-traveling series. The thesis used to be: You can't interfere with anything in the past, because it will affect the future - potentially your future. Marty McFly almost disappeared completely.

Our only real guide to the time complex is Faraday.

It's strange because Faraday flip-flops his opinion. First it's "Whatever Happened, Happened" then it turns to "Variables" - like the Losties in 1977 - CAN alter the past. We still don't know what's right or wrong. Based on events like Ben being shot by Sayid but still living, it would almost make sense that Whatever Happened, Happened. The Variable concept is what most people are familiar with. Is it real though? What actually happens? Obviously we intend to find out in the premiere, but it still raises a lot of questions, like:

If Juliet's detonation works, do the Losties just jump back to 2004, erasing EVERYTHING that has happened? The writers have said that doesn't happen, at least to end the series. The first episode is called LAX though. Everyone is coming back in some capacity. Something happens. I could speculate for days, so I'll just stop now. At least this is one of the answers that I know I will be getting in less than a week. Partially anyway.

Don't worry, I'm sure I'll think of something else the minute I hit Publish Post. And I'll probably post it soon.

I Think My Dentist is Sponsored by Crest

I'm Jewish, you're not a dentist. You have no idea what my people have been through. Did you know we have the highest suicide rate of any profession? Not Jews, the Dentists! - Tim Whatley, Seinfeld

I went to my dentist about a month ago for the first time in about six months, there was something different. Different pictures. Where they were warning me about being "dangerously close" to getting gum disease, which would lead to my teeth coming out of my gums. In general, I brush my teeth at least twice a day and use Listerine at least three times a day. Flossing is more of a variable, but at least three times a week. I wouldn't say my teeth are perfectly white, but being "dangerously close" seems like a stretch.

What was their recommended solution? Buy Crest. Everything Crest. Crest toothpaste. Crest toothbrushes. Crest electric toothbrushes. Crest Pro Action Health. Crest Face Wash. Crest Gum. Crest Shoes. Crest Crest Crest Crest. I thought I was in the Country of Crest the way he was shoving it down my throat. Those pictures I mentioned a paragraph ago? All Crest promotions.

Maybe Crest is the best - I can't really tell. But it got me thinking - maybe my dentist is technically "sponsored" by the brand the same way athletes are sponsored by Nike, Reebok, Adidas etc. I can't figure out the terms of the agreement (some sort of monetary value and free Crest products I would assume.) While this may be the case, I would think that it would violate some kind of Dentist/Client agreement. The Dentist shouldn't be swayed monetarily towards a certain product if it is not truly the best product available for his/her client. I have no idea what's the best out there, but I really hope my dentist isn't sponsored.

I hope this is just me being skeptical of my dentist. Maybe I'm thinking too much about marketing from my classes. It just doesn't seem to make sense why this was forced upon me.

LOST - I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON

SPOILER ALERT. IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED LOST UP TO SEASON 5 BUT PLAN ON IT, DON'T CONTINUE READING. IF YOU DON'T WATCH LOST, THIS POST IS WORTHLESS AND FULL OF GEEK SPEAK. THANK YOU.

Okay, so, now that we got that out of the way. This post is going to be long and I'm going to look like a total nerd. Deal with it.

This is it. The Final Season. We supposedly have all our questions answered. I'm SO excited for the premiere next Tuesday. It's great that the shows creators opted for the show to end on its own terms instead of dragging out until it was ultimately canceled (like The O.C. - RIP.) I'm sure ABC wants Lost to stay around. Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof said no though and apparently have had the ending set in stone since season 3 (which is really weird because it seemed like season 3 they were stalling)

This probably won't be my first Lost post before the season starts. So for this one, I'm going to post 3 (out of a possible 1000) things I need to know - and what I think - before the show is over.

Overall Question 1) What is the deal with Jacob and his nemesis?

We had no clue who Jacob really was until the last episode of the season. We didn't even know he had a "nemesis." Hell, we didn't even know if he was real or if Ben made him up. But he is indeed real, and wow, he lives in that damned statue that's been in our heads since season 2.

So clearly Jacob and his nemesis are clearly a good vs. evil metaphor. One wears white one wears black. Jacob seems nice and concerned and the nemesis only wants to kill Jacob but needs a loophole.

I believe - and so do many others - that the nemesis is the smoke monster, and he can assume the body of the people who die before they are on the island. My basis is clearly he's in Locke. Then when Ben went to the Temple, the smoke monster (via Alex) told him to trust Locke no matter what - setting up Locke ordering Ben to kill Jacob. Smokey was definitely involved in Mr. Eko's brother Yemi, because after Eko talks to "Yemi" the smoke monster kills Eko. I'm not sure what I think regarding Christian. Maybe it's Jacob. Maybe it's his nemesis. Maybe they rotate.

RANDOM QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS SITUATION - If Smokey is "inside" Locke in 2007 when he's at the smoke monster, who is in Christian in 2007 when talking to Sun? Is there a third variable? And what exactly are Jacob and his Nemesis? Are they gods? Egyptian Gods? Anubis? What role do Illana and Bram play - are they like worshipers of Jacob? How do they know about the Island? What happened to the statue?

Overall Question 2) The Black Rock & Richard Alpert

Okay, so maybe this is more of a two-part question (with 20 follow up questions)

How did the Black Rock ever get that far in the middle of the island? The only logical (and normal) possibility is that a storm lifted it (maybe the same storm that broke the statue/the black rock broke the statue because of the storm/dynamite????) However it's entirely possible that Jacob and/or his nemesis did something to bring it here. Maybe the nemesis brought it, used the dynamite to blow up the statue, but Jacob was still alive. It seems likely that the ship at the beginning of the last episode of season 5 was the Black Rock.

According to Lostpedia, The Black Rock was captained by Magnus Hanso, grandfather of Alvar Hanso, the main supporter of DHARMA. Is there any connection between Alvar knowing the island? Supposedly Magnus' burial site is at the Black Rock, so it can't be known if Alvar ever knew.


Now Ricard Alpert. Or Ricardus. I'm not sure. It's obvious that him and Jacob have some kind of a connection. Obviously I don't know what it is. It seems too easy to think that Richard was on the Black Rock. Given that the Black Rock was sometime in the 1800s and Richard is known by Illana and Bram as Ricardus (which is Latin) it makes sense to think he's from an even earlier time. What exactly is his role though? Is he just like Jacob's minion? Is Jacob like Yoda and Richard is a young Luke Skywalker? Well, that's a stretch, but I liked it. Does anyone else love the Star Wars references in Lost besides me? Some Like It Hoth. (I'm laughing on my end, which means you probably aren't)

Overall Question 3) The war between Ben and Charles Widmore - what is actually going on?


We've been told to trust neither of them. What are their actual intentions? I still really want to know if Widmore told Keamy to torch the island after they got Ben. It doesn't seem to make sense. Doesn't Widmore want to go back? Is he truly banned from coming back? How did he technically get removed as leader anyway? Who am I supposed to trust?

For some reason, I feel like Ben is the better of the two - with the best intentions of the island. That's also based on the fact that we don't see much of Widmore. He seems like he is more involved in getting as much information as possible in trying to bring down Ben. Ben just wants to be on the island in peace.

Something else I thought of after watching season 2 - what would the others do without Desmond? Did they know the significance of the button? If Desmond died, would they have stepped in and keep pressing it? Damon Lindelof says that the others 'probably didn't know,' so had Desmond died or quit or went insane, the island (and the world) would be destroyed. Supposedly. I'm thinking that if this were true then Widmore/Hawking would need to make more of an effort towards getting someone else on the island to keep the button pressed.


So that's what I'm thinking right now about Lost (another good day at work, right?) It's something that my brain obsesses over and I can't wait to see how it plays out.

The NFL Needs A Different Overtime System

"I didn't know you could tie in the NFL" - Donovan McNabb

Yesterday featured one and a half exciting games, with the NFC clearly being the bigger of the two. The game went into overtime because they were so evenly matched up. It was a great game until it went into overtime, where me and my buddies knew the winner based on the coin toss. It's not always a slam dunk though for who get's possession first is the winner (I.E. Tim Hasselbeck) but it's something like 80% of the time.

I don't claim to be a expert on what's fair. I do KNOW however that the NFL OT scheme is not fair. Sudden death seems to make sense because that's how it works in hockey (playoffs at least) and has a similar concept in baseball. Basketball doesn't have sudden death and that's fine. Ties are not acceptable ever. Who likes ties? You watch 75 minutes of football to have no decision? Awful.

In the NFL though, it's too easy to kick a field goal. Although this playoffs has had many bad kickers, it's still relatively easy. Get to the 30 yard line, move the ball to the middle on the next down, kick it, game over. Too simple. To be based on just a coin flip, it's sad that games are determined by such a simple means.

It's easy to say "switch to the college system" but the NCAA rules are more like a video game than reality - starting at the opposing team's 25 and ping-ponging back and forth. I thought about taking that system and tweaking it. Instead of starting at the 25, teams kick off. So in yesterday's example, the Saints get the ball and score a FG. They then kick off. If the Vikings score a FG, we do it again. If they score a TD, they win. No time limits. No ties. Nobody likes ties.

I read a great article (I think it was from Bill Simmons of ESPN, but I can't be sure) that suggested an auction system for who gets the ball first. Basically, the concept is that instead of a coin flip, the teams have a "silent auction" for what yard line they are willing to take the ball from. Whichever is closer to their own end zone gets possession. This is a big risk but an exciting format for teams and fans - you want the ball, but at what cost? Will you accept it at your 15, knowing that if you go 3 and out the other team will get the ball at roughly the 50? I thought at first it sounded cheese but after yesterday's event I believe it would work - and well too.

I'm not saying these two options are the best, but I believe they would be well-received and are definitely an improvement on what we have now, which is cheesy and stupid.

Hope For Haiti or Hollywood is Full of It?

Help me Help Haiti. With a drink in my hand

Tonight is the big George Clooney and Friends "Save Haiti from falling off the face of the earth" telethon extravaganza. It's going to be on about every channel. The same show across the country.

Before I keep writing I should mention that what's going on in Haiti is horrible. It's tragic that they are so poor to begin with and now can't help themselves.

So everyone's all upset. How can we help. Send a text message to Red Cross. Tweet something. Join a Facebook Group. The list goes on forever.

However I think that this Haiti telethon is garbage. It feels like more of a "well, it's going to look bad if we don't" type scenario. Not only to mention the day - Friday. Almost 10 days after the earthquake. What a great way to connect with most of the audience on a night when most people aren't home. The networks wouldn't want to bump American Idol, so it HAS to be Friday. God forbid the new Biggest Loser gets pushed to next week. No body watches TV on Friday anyway, that's why they have all the scrub shows on. This is supposedly what Hollywood can do to help. Orrrr they could actually go to Haiti and get hands on. It's not like they can't afford the trip.

The ONLY reason I would want to watch would be to see the Bruce Springsteen performance (obviously,) but I will be able to watch it on YouTube tomorrow or in 3 years. And that won't inspire me to donate anything to Haiti.

Celebrities think these things are good ideas in their head. Shaq suggested that Kobe and Lebron have a slam-dunk contest for Haiti. Kobe's smart though, and he realized that that wouldn't really raise much money, it would garner great ratings instead.

My point is, if people want to donate, they don't need celebrity guidance and suggestions. They can do it on their own. I don't need George Clooney or Brad Pitt telling me about the devastation. I watch the news. I read it. It's horrible. But don't waste time when there's better solutions.

On a side note, my favorite telethon moment of all time? Kanye's Katrina Moment. Hands-down. I still laugh so hard it hurts.

Good Luck Haiti.

Why the New York Times Shouldn't Charge for News

Today it was announced that The New York Times will start charging a premium for certain articles online starting in 2011. This is a process that they have tried and failed before. While details of what will be free and what won't, I'm positive that this will not be successful.

The greatest part of the Internet is that (almost) everything is free. If you want something more (usually a subscriber-based service,) you can pay for it. But outside of that, most content is free. It's a vast database of knowledge that can continually flood our minds with information.

By charging to view the content that was previously free, the NYT will be risking turning away their user base. The news will be available elsewhere. And for free. Maybe it won't be with the insight that the NYT provides, but it will still be the same general story. People are cheap - and even worse in "these financial times" that everyone cries about.

At the same time, I'm sure Times Co. is losing money from print and not making enough back. There's no right solution. Newspapers are an important source for our country, and losing them would be devastating. But there should be some other means to keep them afloat. I believe that charging will turn more readers away towards other outlets, rather than paying for content they can read for free elsewhere.

I Hate Jay Leno, NBC, and Capitalism

Over the weekend, Conan was officially terminated from his position on The Tonight Show in favor of bringing back Jay Leno. I know I ranted about this before, but this is too big to not keep talking about. This is most likely going to be a reiteration of my previous post. So if you read it, you can skip it. You're welcome.

There's just so many things about this whole issue that bother me, it's hard for me to focus on one at a time. Here's my first though - Jay Leno.

Leno hosted The Tonight Show for 17 years. 22 if you count being Carson's regular substitute. That's a LONG time. He accepted that he would step down in 2009 to make way for Conan. So why is he letting this happen? Why can't he just ride off into the sunset? I understand NBC's concerns of him stealing his audience to another network. That should of been in Leno's contract that he wouldn't jump to another network. Leno's near 60 - how well do you think he can connect with his audience? (Of course my favorite 60 year old, Bruce Springsteen, connects with my 22 year old self daily - but that's an entirely different level)

My point is, Leno should do something else. He had his time. He agreed to step down. It's the honorable thing to do. Go produce a show. Write a book. Star in a movie. Ride your bike across the country. Enjoy yourself.

Next up - NBC. They committed to Conan in 2009. They made a whole new set. Promotions out the ying-yang. So how can they 7 months later think about moving The Tonight Show to 12:05. The original late-night TV franchise. The one that started it all. It always started after your local news. To move the show is blasphemy. Obviously I wasn't around when the show started, but I believe in tradition. You don't see network national news being moved to 6 or 7.

So whatever, they went against their word. They picked Leno to be the 11:35 guy. But the way they went back on Conan, including NBC Sports Director Dick Ebersol calling Conan "gutless" and "chicken-hearted" for his jokes towards the network, is unprofessional. Why isn't this jerk off fired? The Olympics are going to lose near $200 million for NBC. Maybe he should be more concerned about his department making money than what the late night programming is doing.

Okay so clearly that comment got me fired up a bit. It's just unbelievable. What did they expect Conan to do? You piss someone off and give them an outlet to vent their frustration, of course they take advantage. You say crude things, you're going to get them right back. Conan's voice is just much louder than NBC execs - because they gave it to him.

My other question is what exactly is NBC planning for the future? Leno's almost 60. How long is he planning on doing this? 10 years max? Then who's hosting The Tonight Show? Jimmy Fallon? Some no name? Dane Cook? Jon Stewart? Good work NBC, you really have a good business plan. I wonder why you're 4th in ratings. Bravo. Good luck picking up males 18-35 for Leno. In Conan they had a set plan for at least 20 years. Good. Job.

Even if Leno was at 11:35 and Conan at 12:05, Then what happens when Leno retires, move Conan back to 11:35? Good for Conan for standing up and not taking NBC's BS and treating Leno like the second coming. I wouldn't take it either. He may be out of a job and may not have some options for a while, but he's keeping his pride and his manhood intact.

My point is - is Leno SO important to the network that they are willing to cut Conan. Clearly he is. I just don't see it. It angers me beyond belief. I don't think I'll watch Leno, mainly because I don't find him funny. But also just to protest NBC. I hate it. It's not okay.

I'm with CoCo.

I'm Really Excited About Foursquare

It's hard to stay ahead of the social media curve. Twitter exploded before anyone knew how to really use it. It's still evolving - daily. A lot of social media "experts" believe that the next big thing is going to be Foursquare, and I really hope they are right.

The concept behind Foursquare is simple - it's a location tool. People can "check-in" to places (typically bars and restaurants, but the possibilities are literally endless.) So for example, I can check in to the local Cheesecake Factory, and my friends can check and see that I am there. They may be nearby so we can meet up, or they may want to join. It's a way to connect. In such big cities, I could be at a bar and two doors down is a friend of mine. If we checked in, we would know how close we were to each other and get together. You can share the message through Twitter and Facebook to reach further out to your network.

There are two other exciting things about Foursquare. First, you can add tips for each place to tell other people about. Say you really enjoy the new coffee from Starbucks, you can share that with everyone and recommend it to other people who will be checking in. The other potential for Foursquare is the points system. Users get points for checking-in and become mayors of places if they have the most points. We're starting to see some restaurants reward people who check in - because they are promoting the restaurant. It can build a customer loyalty that we haven't seen before - and extend it into the social realm.

I was one of the 5,000 to receive the Beta Foursquare for BlackBerry application and cannot wait for it to be released publicly. Once it is public I believe it will really take off because BlackBerry's are so popular. Right now it has iPhone and Android support, but by adding BlackBerry application it opens up to a VERY large audience who has been known to be addicted (they're called CrackBerry's for a reason.)

I really see the potential for this new tool and really hope it succeeds, because it can really allow for users to meet and share on a different level than you can get from Twitter and Facebook.

Tablet Technology has Potential

There's been alot of rumors regarding Apple's iTablet. I'm sure they will come out with a bigger iTouch that can do more and act similar to a netbook, but cooler. The Kindle is blowing up and there are lots of competitors to it, along with potential rivals to the rumored iTablet.

I was pretty skeptical towards all of this technology until I saw this video on a blog I was reading. It actually made me excited for not only the new technology but also to show some positivity for the periodical industry, which has been decreasing in sales over the past decade, mainly thought to be due to the development of the internet.

I'm still not sure that this will all work out like it's demonstrated in the video, but it got me excited.

That's all I got, just thought I would share it with you (whoever it is that reads this)

MTV's Jersey Shore is NOT My Jersey Shore

On MTV today was a marathon of their unbelievably successful Jersey Shore show. This meant that I struggled to accomplish anything. However a friend of mine the other day asked me about The New Jersey Shore, and I told her it wasn't the show. At least my version isn't.

Jersey's got the reputation. Dirty Jerz. It's really whatever you want to call it, but there's rarely ever any positive connotations. I'm in South Jersey/Cherry Hill a decent amount when I'm home, and it's a decent enough area. The shore though is a totally different animal.

When you're from Philadelphia, your typical concept of the Shore is anything south of Atlantic City. Sometimes you go to LBI. Most of the time, I would be in Ocean City, the island south of AC. It's very vacation friendly, although a little too family-friendly - it's an entirely dry island. This isn't too big of a deal, as alcohol is readily available across the bridge. Ocean City's home of Mack and Manco, the best pizza I've ever had. It's been listed by Philadelphia Magazine as best pizza multiple times.


The past few years though I've ventured further south to Stone Harbor, which is much more relaxed of a shore town. It features really only one street of shops and restaurants, and everything else is just a residential area. Very nice and really just a fun quiet shore town.



My point is, what you see on Jersey Shore isn't the only thing about NJ. In fact, the people on the show aren't even from Jersey. I've never been to Seaside, but I've always been told it was scummy and trashy (hence what you see on TV.) To me, the Jersey Shore is a great summer vacation spot. Sometimes a bit overcrowded, but a spot I always enjoy my time there. I don't think of it as trashy or Guido city. It's a great summer spot.

24 Season 8 Preview

24 Season 8 starts on Sunday with the typical 4-hour two-night premiere. As a huge 24 fan, it's always an exciting time of the year for me. Last year was a huge revival to the franchise after a year off due the the writer strike and season 6 was just flat out brutal. Season 7 featured a move from Los Angeles to Washington DC and opened the show to a all new opportunities for terrorists to attack the United States.

This season takes place in New York City - another great change for the show. Sticking around the same location gets frustrating and routine. How many times could terrorists target the White House? The trailer looks sick (but the trailer wouldn't be doing it's job if it wasn't awesome)

What I'm looking forward to most is the return of CTU. Too much of the storyline in the past few seasons has been about the "racial discrimination" and torture tactics from Jack and CTU. CTU NYC will be set up and Chloe should be able to operate with no backfire. Also returning is Renee from Season 7 - a character that really emerged as a younger Jack in the making.

The challenge of a show like 24 is being able to create enough drama to last 24 episodes. Most television show's are only like 18 episodes max. 24 goes way beyond that, making the storylines drag and seem less believable. It's bound to happen.

The show almost has become predictable in terms of what will hpapen, but we just don't know how. There will be a rat. There will be some authority that will block everything. Someone from CTU will die (I REALLY MISS BILL BUCHANAN AND EDGAR.) Such repetitiveness and expensive cost is causing many critics to believe that this will be the last season. While I really enjoy the show, these things cannot last forever. It's been a great ride, and I'm looking forward to one more successful season.

Technology is Leading to the Destruction of Network Programming

I had a revelation at the gym today. 2010 is going to be the end of two (but probably four) of my favorite shows. Lost and Nip/Tuck are in their final seasons. 24 is rumored to end after this season because it's becoming too costly (and seriously, how many more bad days can Jack Bauer have?) On top of that, it's becoming more and more likely that Conan's run on NBC is going to end shortly.

While I assume Conan will be back on television in some capacity. The others will not. This will leave a huge hole in my regular television programs. I'm not sure what to do. I think it's become a state of television programing that I mentioned in a previous post. Companies are trying to save money, so they produce cheaper programs. Typically, it's the reality, game-show, or talk-show instead of a more costly-scripted show. Or a spin-off of a highly successful show (something ridiculous too, like CSI: North Dakota)

This is saddening, as the networks read success of shows in very literal terms of ratings and how much advertising revenue they can generate from these ratings. In today's age with video easily accessible on demand through various different outlets, ratings from when the show aired aren't reliable. For example, I don't get to watch Conan every night, but I'll try to watch it on Hulu everyday. Honestly I prefer the shorter format. 30 second commercials vs 3 minutes. I can watch when I want. It makes watching it when it airs not important. Technology has allowed for shows to be on demand. Legal or Illegal, it cannot be stopped.

Because of these technological advancements, the viewer is taking away network's primary source of revenue. I believe this is going to lead to less quality programming in favor of more cost-effective shows, which leads to the viewer most likely being less entertained. We can all enjoy some reality shows, but not ALL the time.

I'm not sure what the appropriate solution is here, because I don't see any stopping the Internet/DVR/TiVo phenomenon. It's just something to be aware of. Our forms of entertainment are evolving. The only shows that will get green-lit will be surefire hits. Shows that don't have great ratings, even with critical success don't keep airing. (I keep using the Southland example - I really should watch before I continue to use it.)

I think our best hope relies with Premium Cable networks, like HBO, who typically script higher quality programs than others. The Wire is widely considered by many (including myself) to be the greatest show of all time. It did not receive high ratings or garner much support from awards shows. However HBO stuck with the show and let it ride out its full five seasons, and everyone who has viewed it is thankful for that.

In the meantime, I plan on enjoying what's left of my favorite shows, and hope the entertainment industry can figure out how to make more quality shows, while finding a source of income.

Mark McGwire took Steroids. Shocker of the Decade.

I meant to post about this yesterday, but I was traveling. It's still timely however.


On Monday, Mark McGwire admitted to taking steroids. During most of his career. Most notably, that 1998 season that captured everyone's hearts and minds and made baseball relevant again. And it turns out to be not necessarily legitimate. Was any of baseball legitimate in the 90s?

I've always said that I think that steroids were unfortunately 'part of the game' in the 90s. There's alot of people to blame. Players, Managers, Owners, Fans, Bud Selig, but blame won't get anything done. It happened. Who knew who took what. I'm sure there's plenty of big-leaguers who took steroids and we have no idea. This is the bed that we all created. And we have to accept it.

Fans wanted something they could follow (like the breaking of a historic Home Run Record) and embrace the sport again. Players wanted to be signed to bigger contracts. Owners wanted to bring in more money. Bud Selig wanted higher TV contracts. They all got what they want, and now they act in shock and disgust for what happened. As if they didn't know that this day would one day come.

They're disgusted because it blew out of control. They really didn't know what they were getting themselves into. McGwire AND Sammy Sosa broke Roger Maris' 61 more than once. Barry Bonds was just a few years away from breaking that record, and then becoming the All-Time Home Run Leader. Is there ANY doubt that he took steroids?

As a fan I find it extremely frustrating how MLB has handled this. There's no accountability for the enablers (the clubhouse guys, owners, GMs, Jose Canseco, etc) outside of Victor Conte. Instead all blame goes to the players. While they are the ones who accepted the steroid injection, they had help in acquiring the drugs. It turned into a witch hunt, and a comical one at that. Congressional hearings. The Mitchell Report. Sosa forgot English. Rafael Palmeiro flat out lied. Curt Schilling ran his trap about how clean the game needed to be. The list can go on and on.

I just think it happened. It's hopefully over. There's still no HGH test. Steroids are clearly still in baseball if superstars like Manny Ramirez can get suspended. You can't asterisk the records, because it was on somewhat of a level playing field. Whether that particular pitcher was juicing vs that particular batter is unknown. Sports requires a competitive edge; doing 'whatever' it takes to get an advantage. How can anyone blame players for trying to get an edge? Sports has become so big and there's so much money at stake that it would seem stupid not to take steroids.

The thing that I think everyone doesn't really know (outside of users) is how effective steroids REALLY are. They do not enhances anyone's hand-eye coordination. Maybe it makes for a faster swing. Does it may the difference from a ball landing on the warning track versus out of the park? We only really look at home-runs, but how else can it help a hitter? Pitching, I would believe it can help recover after a 7+ inning game. There needs to be studies to test the differences these drugs can have on an athlete.

If anything, the only issue now is how MLB claims to be clean. But with every story of Alex Rodriguez, (previously determined to be the "clean" player who will take over the home run record that Bonds claimed.) that comes out causes doubts in the minds of every fan. I personally love Ryan Howard, but I just can't be sure. We know about Josh Hamilton overcoming drug addiction, but what about steroids? He's massive. Even players who aren't huge home run hitters. Bronson Aroyyo admitted to taking performance enhancers. David Ortiz. Jason Giambi. Andy Pettite. Miguel Tejada. Frank Thomas. The list goes on. Who knows who else was on the 2003 report. And Roger Clemens is just as much of a slam dunk as Bonds.

There's no answers, there's no solution. The entire baseball community just must accept the mistakes that have happened that lead to this point and understand that baseball isn't as 'clean' as it used to be. These players shouldn't be kept out of the Hall of Fame. It shouldn't be on their plaque that they were on steroids. They played the game in a different time frame and did great things. Mark McGwire saved baseball. He should be honored for that. It's still a beautiful game, and I hope that it can actually maintain it's legitimacy for years to come.

What the Hell is Wrong with NBC???

This might be my longest post yet, because the nature of the topic is so complicated. Consider yourself warned.


As of last night, NBC officially canceled The Jay Leno Show, what can only be described as a failed experiment with the best of intentions. They averaged 5 million viewers a night and saved a decent amount of money. Affiliates were complaining about a drop in their local news programs following Leno. I don't really understand how this happens. If anything, I'd rather watch Leno than typical NBC programming (ER (RIP), Law & Order, Biggest Loser, etc). In Philly, I really like the local NBC news broadcast, mainly because my neighbor used to run the station and I met several of the staff. I think overall I enjoy how NBC does it's broadcasts, especially in their News division. Lately though, they have been boneheads.

This all started five years ago, when NBC announced that Leno would move off of The Tonight Show and install Conan O'Brien, who had been waiting in the wings for almost 12 years. Then it got closer and closer to game time, and NBC was having second thoughts. Leno could go to Fox or ABC and take his fan base with him and away from NBC, who had the highest rated late-night shows. I get that issue, NBC doesn't want to lose it's highest rated comedian to another network. So why would they announce this plan five years ago? They clearly didn't think things through and started getting scared about the possible outcome.

Then came the revolutionary news. Leno would still have his show but at 10P.M, cutting their typical 10P.M. programming in favor of a five-night comedy talk show. It would save money on scirpted shows, but also was a huge change from the norm. It was a risk. NBC didn't expect the show to provide huge ratings - it just expected to save money. In the meantime, it had to cut a show that critics were raving about (Southland - which I really am interested in seeing) in favor of keeping Leno. Southland was picked up by TNT and the second season will be played Tuesday at 10 (conveniently where it would be on NBC, and also against the show that replaced it (Leno) show on NBC.)

So Leno didn't work out because affiliates were losing ratings in their local news shows at 11. I've expressed how this doesn't make sense to me. Are people so lazy that they will watch The Bachelor and not change the station after for the news? Is this serious? The only other guess that I could make would be that people watching The Bachelor or whatever programming would see the promo for the news (something ridiculous like "How to lose 100 pounds in 2 hours") and stick around to see that one story. Outside of this hypothesis, I'm really baffled. If I have one favorite local news broadcast, I can change the station. Maybe this shows how littler favoritism viewers have, because they will see the same news no matter what. It's possible the reflection of lower news ratings is due to the stream of information over the internet.

Now back to what NBC is doing now. The proposed plan is to have Leno for a half hour at 11:35, Conan have Tonight at 12:05, and Jimmy Fallon starts at 1:05. Conan is the one who gets screwed in this process. After being promised just five years for his dream job, he moved his family and entire staff from New York to Los Angeles to do the show. Conan was going to be NBC's lead comedian. No more Leno. And after a little over half a year, he is being told he has to be behind Leno, again. Technically he still hosts The Tonight Show, but isn't The Tonight Show supposed to start after the news? So it's not the same at all. Conan is getting taken away what was promised to him.

Before I keep continue, I should say that I have always enjoyed Conan. I don't know when I started watching, but he was always the highlight of my pre-driving Friday nights when I could stay up that late. Leno doesn't do anything for me. He's a clown with a big chin and a strange voice. I don't think Conan can succeed doing the same stuff an hour earlier. In many ways the show has changed from its Late Night time frame, but the core is still the same. Conan attracts the younger viewers - people like me. Leno attracted many older viewers who can't handle Conan's random behavior and cruder jokes.

I understand why ratings-wise he was not succeeding as well. I still enjoy him. I think he was funnier on Late Night because he could get away with more things at a later time slot. I think he can do the more raunchy material if he goes to 12:05. It's a matter of principle however. NBC made a commitment and are going back on it. I'm not sure why Leno isn't the expendable one here. Maybe give him a half hour show once a week during Primetime. It's not like NBC has really good shows outside of Thursday night (and maybe Heroes.) That way he can be funnier and work less. I'm sure there is a better solution.

Conan should want to leave NBC and go to Fox. I'm just not sure that's the best solution for him. Being at 11 is an even earlier position with potential for worse ratings, and being outside of the "Big-3" could allow for him to disappear. Does anyone really watch Fox for anything other than Idol? (and 24) Unfortunately, I think Conan's best interest is to stick with NBC and accept taking a later time slot. If I were him I would keep making jokes at NBC and ripping them apart. Do more racy material, bring back the masturbating bear, bring some of Late Night to Tonight.

The one other confusing issue is how does this affect the ratings? Letterman's competition gets cut in half. Same for Craig Fergueson. Fallon gets a half hour to himself in what can only be described as infomercial limbo (also known as the only place you can find Carson Daly on TV anymore - who I assume is getting axed). I never know what or when Kimmel comes on. Does anyone watch Kimmel?

There is no right solution. NBC has really dug themselves in a hole. They seem to enjoy digging themselves deeper. Maybe this will work out. Either way, Conan still got screwed. Fallon, who isn't as important to NBC and they never made any promises, is also getting the raw end of the stick. And this explains the Comcast buyout of NBC - the beginning of the end of national-wide broadcast stations.

UPDATE - 01.13.2010 - As of yesterday Conan released a statement said that he will not do Tonight after Leno, because it loses it's original identity if it's not at 11:35. He said he has no offers. This makes another even more interesting point I didn't mention. What if Conan leaves? What happens to The Tonight Show? Does Leno take over (again?) NBC is really screwing itself. Speaking of ratings, this transition can't help NBC at all. More people will flock to Letterman faster than a peacock.

In the meantime, I think Conan's frustrating his anger into GREAT comedy. Here's a link to last night's episode. I think it's one of his funniest Tonight Show's yet. When a comedian is actually invested in the jokes, it makes for better humor. It's surprising NBC allows for him to rant and joke so much about his job, but I have really enjoyed it. I really hope NBC gets it's head out of it's rear and gives Conan the job they promised him.

Cell Phone Ads = Brutal

This post counts as a rant. In watching most of the football games this weekend, I've seen TOO MANY AT&T vs. Verizon ads. There's a map for that. The better 3G experience. Owen Wilson is annoying, overweight, and a drunk. The DroidDoesn't make a difference to me. Blah Blah Blah. It's like watching political slander campaigns. They just trash each other back and forth. At least elections have an end date. This does not.

Regardless of whichever is better, these two cell phone giants have really alienated their customer base. I don't really know which one is better. I can read the 3G map, but can I trust it? I hate the concept of these 2 year contracts. It really screws the customer, as they are locked into the plan. Even if I wanted to switch to AT&T, I can't, because I'm stuck on Verizon. I don't know when my plan is up. It's frustrating.

Since I'm trapped into this phone deal, I don't care about whose map is better. As long as my phone works, that's all that matters. I'm not switching, mainly because I'm stuck. Yet the ads continue to flood my television. This is only encouraging me and other viewers to DVR/Ti-Vo everything in order to skip over the garbage. Or switch to Sprint in order to stick it to Verizon and AT&T. I don't think they would notice.

Can't Google just take over cell phone providers? They're taking over everything else. I hope it's only a matter of time.

Dave Spadaro's PR Disaster

Dave Spadaro is listed as the Philadelphia Eagles 'Insider.' Anyone that actually knows the organization know that he is more like the village idiot. He's a promoter of the team and most of the time seems to have his head up his rear when 'reporting' a story.

His latest stroke of genius includes posting a video to the Eagles website where he spits on the Dallas Cowboys star not once, but twice. Truly a class act.

There's two ways of looking at this from a fan's standpoint. There's the die hard fan that says "Good job Dave, way to speak for the fans!" then there's the intelligent fan who says "What a moron." The rest of the country just thinks "What a jackass."

This truly was a jackass move. While Spadaro's 'job' is to report stories for the Eagles while sipping the Kool-Aid, he still has to be professional. Sure, he can spin the story in the Eagles favor no matter what scenario, but he must do so in a respectful manner. He represents the Philadelphia Eagles to the entire country, being their spokesperson. That's a huge role in the sports realm.

The Eagles don't technically have a PR person. Spadaro is as close as it gets. And his public apology can only be described as a joke. This makes the Eagles look bad, which as an organization has prided itself on being one of the classiest football teams in the league. That's why Michael Vick chose to sign with the Eagles, he thought the Birds could help put him on a good path.

I think organizations are quick to fire people for miscues (see any ESPN Baseball Tonight firings for examples) I'm glad that Spadaro gets another chance. He's an idiot, but that's the kind of position that the team needs. Someone that keeps pumping team spirit amongst fans. It still has to be handled in a better manner than Spadaro did. Maybe he can use this as a lesson in being a better reporter and a smarter person.

Winter Break is Not Real

I love being home. I miss my parents and my friends. I miss Philadelphia. I enjoy it here. Yet I realized how winter break is NOTHING like real life. Unless your occupation is a teacher, you don't get these breaks. When else do you get 3-4 weeks to do whatever you like? Sure the holidays complicate things, but it's pretty open.

It's interesting because college is supposed to prepare you for the "real world" and getting a job, but outside of the class, it doesn't really do a good job (pun pun pun.) With all the free time, it's almost nothing like the real world. Lots of adults say to take advantage of the free time, but good luck having anyone 18-22 actually follow through. Their idea of free time means more time to go to a frat party or sleep. It's hard for me to disagree with that philosophy most times.

What's rough about break is there is not a lot of things to do. Everything costs money, so when you don't make any, its hard to spend. Philly's got great night life and restaurants, but I'm a poor college student. I've got nothing to do. I e-mailed a few PR firms in the Philadelphia area to see if there was any space for an intern over break, but they told me that it wouldn't be worth my time because of the slow-down of holidays and how little time would actually be spent. While I appreciate their honesty, that still doesn't leave me with anything to do.

This break is so long. It's not real. I'm frustrated. My friends are frustrated. Yesterday my buddy kept asking me what we could do and I had no good ideas other than going to the mall. I don't do much productive. Sure, I have a part-time job at a retail store, but thats only 10 hours a week. The rest of my week I'm free. This is the perfect time to find a new hobby or do something time-intensive that you couldn't do usually. I'm not sure what exactly that means. Something more interesting than sleeping and the television.

Instead I come home and am so burnt out from the stress of finals (another unreal aspect of college) I just want to relax. I have zero motivation. The few things I'm motivated by are Netflix, food, and friends. There's times where I can't tell if this is natural 21 year old behavior or I'm beyond-average lazy. I think it's a mix of both. Either way, it's nights like this where I feel like I'm just wasting time, but I'm unsure of how to correct this issue. I need to hit the pause button and figure things out.

On a sidenote, I'm in love with the TV show Dexter. It's awesome. Check it out immediately.

I Love Chickie's and Pete's

Chickie's and Pete's has become a staple of Philadelphia food. Typically, when people ask me about Philadelphia, it's always about the cheesesteaks. Some people know about Tastykakes. Yet over the past 33 years, Chickie's has established itself as the premiere sports bar in Philadelphia, with their crab fries becoming as synonymous with Philly as cheesesteaks.

In high school, I typically went to the South Philly Chickie's with my friends a couple nights a month. My mom even got me a Chickie's gift card for the holiday. This break, I've spent two of the past three nights at Chickie's, and the place is always full of people. It's such a great atmosphere. Even when there is no sports games on, you always have a good time there. But during any game (especially an Eagles game) it is like a huge family dinner. Everyone cheers and boos together. The experience is almost as good as being at the game.

But then there is the food. Sure, there is the crab fries. The buffalo cutlets are superb. Yet it's not just typical bar food. It's also got great seafood options. This usually isn't the route me and my buddies take, but tonight we got the crabs and lobsters. Delicious. I'm a pretty boring eater, and seafood is one of the last things I choose to eat, but I couldn't tell you when I had seafood this good. It makes me inclined to get it again.

Still, the crab fries. I keep coming back to them. They are so good. The concept isn't new, but they have perfected the art of the fries. Chickie's has opened restaurants in the greater Philadelphia area, including Philly International Airport, and also has kiosks at all of the ballparks. Their lines are always the biggest at the stadiums as well. Good luck getting crab fries in less than one inning. People can't get enough of it. It's the new Philadelphia tradition.

Reality Television has Ruined Quality TV

Reality television has been an ever growing genre of TV over the past decade. Blame it on The Real World or Big Brother whatever you want, but the reality (pun intended) is that it is here to stay. It's much more cost effective than paying for a scripted show, and can provide entertainment that people have come to crave. Wheather it is just normal reality or contest-specific, people cannot get enough.

I just finished watching another episode of Jersey Shore, and while I find it extremely entertaining, the show has been cause for alot of controversy. First, there was the sponsors pulling out. Then there was the Snooki-Punch that was blacked out . Many Italian American groups are asking MTV to pull the show. It won't get pulled. In fact it would be hard to believe it wouldn't get renewed for another season. This stuff is here to stay.

Is this really the kind of television we should stoop ourselves to though? It really breaks down to a psychological, almost 1984 Big Brother-like mentality, where we love to observe what other people are doing. Whether it's about people's love lives or just living their lives, people love to watch.

What the hell was the point of Jon and Kate Plus 8? There was no plot, it was literally just following the family through raising these children. So what? I never watched enough of the show to know more than that, but look at what celebrities Jon and Kate have become. While their drama has cooled down, they're still everywhere. It's unbelievable and sometimes pathetic. I'm picking on the TLC shows, because in general, they don't even provide any entertainment. It's literally, reality, just following. And that's what sparked the Ballon Boy drama. The Henne family wanted their own reality show and hoped by faking their son's disappearance was a ticket to the television. I'm sure that family would have been so boring it would of been painful.

At least the VH1 "celeb-reality" "love" shows are edited a thousand times with intent to provide entertainment and hooks to get people's attention. They cast actors and put them in a pro-drinking environment. Its a formula for disaster, which equals high ratings. The shows are cut copied and pasted into an entertaining format. They can cut down a week into a hour. Alot of details get cut out. Stuff gets edited into making things seem different than they are. Whatever The Hills actually is, they edit the hell out of that show, and it looks totally different than how it happened. The "stares" and "awkward looks" are all out of context. We're supposed to believe otherwise.

I'm starting to ramble, so I want to summarize. Reality television -- People love them. I love them. If you read this and are friends with me, you probably love them too. While not every show is for every person, it's wide enough to appeal to almost everyone. The television is such trash, but this is what we've dug ourselves into. And now we can't turn away. Networks caught on and there's 7 spinoffs to every show. We're stuck. We lose good shows like Arrested Development in favor of The Real Housewives of North Dakota. That's not really a show, it's to prove a point. It's a shame, but networks are greedy, and all the viewer asks is to be entertained.

Now if you'll excuse me, the latest season of The Real World just started, I'll see you later.

MP3 & iTunes are Gateway Drugs to OCD

I'm trying to go through and delete some music on my iTunes since I'm at 18,000 songs and running out of hard drive space. The MP3 format has allowed users to have as many songs as they can fit, and thanks to the Internet, most people can acquire them for free. This is a gift and a curse.

Clearly for me, I've become a victim of the curse. 18,000 songs is too many. That's a total of 55 days of music. Two months. Why? Why not? It's not like the songs are taking up "space." It's all virtual. It's just become too easy to acquire new music and too hard to part with it. My old tactic was to get as much music as possible. If I heard someone's single, regardless of if I knew the band, I would try to download the entire album. It's too easy not to.

During high school, my OCD was so extreme I would "rate" the songs. Literally. Every. Song. I still do it sort of so I can just listen to the top song playlist on shuffle, but not for every song. Not 55 days worth. I'm still a little OCD though - I hate sloppiness in iTunes. Some of my friends have it so unorganized and it always drives me nuts (I.E. Blink 182, Blink-182, and Blink182 - the exact same band/songs, but organized by different spellings.)

I'm trying to go through my library and delete music I've never listened to. It's hard to part with things that aren't taking up space and didn't cost money. I really don't know anything about the band "The Friday Night Boys," and I won't commit any time to them, yet I CAN'T GET RID OF THEM. I probably have at least 10-15 other bands I can say the same thing for. And another 10-15 bands where I really like this one song, but couldn't tell you anything about the rest of the album. Or I have songs I LOVED from high school, and they're not really songs I listen to anymore. The solution sounds simple: get rid of the songs you don't know or don't listen to. It just isn't so simple. It never is. It doesn't take up that much space, can't I just keep it?

So part of my 2010 rules (I don't like the word resolution, even though they are derivatives) is to stop wasting space. It was really hard to hit the delete button, but I was finally able to say goodbye to bands I never really knew. And I never would. It was hard, but I persevered. I like to think of this post as the first step of rehab in a long, continuing conquest against iTunes OCD.