The NFL's Head Protection Program

I talked about this idea before in my Andre Johnson not-getting-suspended-bullshit post. This is the more angry version of that.

Background: The NFL has started a huge stance against helmet-to-helmet hits. The aim is to protect the players, who are all suffering from concussions, and we're starting to see players who played the game having their bodies decline rapidly. Our bodies aren't made for this abuse, yet these players are glorified, "role models", and paid obnoxious amounts of money.

So the NFL's policy is to penalize the players who try to hit a player using their head. There's a 15-yard penalty and almost always a serious fine. For these players, the fine is insignificant because they make more money in one game than I make in one year.

Here's my problem with this: The game is SO fast and really uncontrollable. The player with the ball can move/lower his head/etc and that puts himself in a position to be hit by the defender's helmet. It happens in a split second. There's not enough time for the defender to change his positioning. Yet he is penalized for something out of his control.

In a similar vein, how exactly are you taught to tackle someone in football? It's my understanding that you tackle by squaring your shoulders with the ground, which leaves your head (obviously) bulging out from your shoulders. Naturally, your head is going to be most likely the first think that hits your target. The defender can't account for the offensive player lowering his head bracing for impact.

So my point is the defender gets the shaft here. He can't do his job. Instead, he has to play "safe", which can result in broken tackles and not being able to do his job to the best of his ability.

I understand trying to protect the players. The brutal reality, and everyone says this, is that football is an extremely violent game. It's made that way. There is intended contact on every single play. Someone is going to be dragged down or hit by another player(s). So while we're trying to protect the players, it's like a fruitless enterprise. How can you protect the players by allowing them to play a violent game? Unfortunately the violence won't go away. That's why this penalty is unfair.

The criticism we hear from talking heads is that the NFL preaches this "protecting the players" crap while working on creating an 18 game schedule. I totally agree. I think the NFL is a sham. They talk and say the right things, but how can you claim that and then suggest to put your players at risk for another 2 games? This game is brutal. By game 16, players are really feeling it. We'll never understand because we don't play it and we don't see it. These players go through extreme lengths, treatment, and other things to be out there on game day. They typically don't think long term. They're thinking about now. We can't pass up this opportunity because my leg hurts; this could be our chance; I need the contract. Then later down the line of life they're incapable of walking without feeling the pain.

When you watch an NFL game, they talk about trying to "rough the quarterback." I was watching a game a few weeks ago where the color commentator (I think it was Troy Aikman) said: "try to hit the quarterback, make his head hit the ground, give him a headache". WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIS HEAD HITTING THE GROUND AND HITTING SOMEONE'S HELMET? The level of damage is the same - in fact, it's arguable that the ground is harder than a helmet. This game is violent. It's socially acceptable to say "RIP HIS HEAD OFF" and get away with it. Ripping his head off is like a concussion, right?

So while the NFL acts like it's trying to protect the players, it is really after the money. That's what America is about; making as much money as you can on off something. But don't act like you really care about the players. Instead, it's cheapened the way the game is played. These players know and accept the consequences, and are paid *decently* enough to compensate for their occupation. I don't mean to crack a smile at this, I mean to be honest; the game is violent, the players know it, they've accepted it, so let's not have Big Brother (Roger Goodell) come in and try to act like it's a safe game. It's far from it.

In the meantime, can we stop ruining games over 15 year penalties? Those type of penalties make or break a game, so let's stop the front and play some real football.

1 Year of Blogging - Thank You

I haven't been sure how to write this, but I thought I should. It's going to be a mess.

I started this blog as a pre-cursor to a class I was taking at BU. Call it getting a head start. Whatever. I didn't really know what it would be or where it would go. I still don't really. It really started from my close friend Jens who said he was starting a blog. He didn't. I'm 99% sure he doesn't read this. He's a good friend I swear. Jens, if you read this, you're going down in fantasy this week.

Like I said, I had no real plan for this blog. Still don't really. It's honestly just my soap box for me to talk about whatever I want. It's been one of the most cathartic things I think I can do for myself. Just write and write about what's on my mind. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not. Either way, it's on my mind, and it's healthy to write it out/express all your feelings/thoughts/emotions. Clearly there's still some things about me that may not make it here - too much opening up for everyone to see, but I still enjoy this.

What has surprised me the most is the outpouring of people who have told me how good they think it is and love my blog etc etc. It's surprising and awesome at the same time. I cannot thank you enough. This isn't meant to be mean, but the randomness of the people I hear from is amazing. People I haven't talked to in the longest time or at all. Or through a friend of a friend. Every now and then I'll get a FB msg or IM that is like "I really love your blog" or "that post you wrote on X was so good. " It's always great to hear support for something you do.

I think every writer (not that I really consider myself a writer, but I do write) is cursed to hate his/her work. Maybe it's the self-pessimist in them. Looking back, there aren't many posts that I'm like "wow, I really kicked ass on that one." Yet the one's I don't like are the one's I've gotten the most reception to - which is great. I truly do appreciate that you guys find me entertaining enough to read on a consistant basis. Since usually these posts are just for me to express myself and for me to write my thoughts down.

I'm not sure why I'm writing this part, but I'm going to anyway: People have asked me how I think of ideas to write. Since I started the blog I've tried to think of an idea every day - no matter how bad it was - and to just start writing. Given that it's been a year and I've only written 100 some posts, only about 30% see the light of day. Some I really hate and can't post it. Some I can't finish in time and lose their mojo because I take too long (I was going to write a post about how Twitter broke the Cliff Lee story, but by the time I finished it was already Saturday). Some just really suck. There's really no other way I can write it. I'll try and think and get writer's block and it doesn't stand a chance. Some day's don't get an idea - as you can tell I went through a summer where the last thing on my mind was this blog.

There's some posts that are easy slam dunks - TV is always easy to write about. Lost always seemed to be easy to write about. Know what's funny about that? I haven't even thought about that damn island since I watched Season 6. Yet if you read these post you'd think I had nightmares about Ben Linus killing me in my sleep.

But there are those posts where I come up with ideas as I write and find it's usually the best idea I've had in a while - which isn't saying a lot. I really liked my "Our country was founded on religious toleration yet the religions we tolerate can't tolerate the ideals of our nation." sentence. I do have moments of brilliance that even astonish me.

Okay, I'm starting to turn this into the Pat Awards Show. That wasn't my goal. This post is just a thank you to all the supporters, I can't really put into words how much it means to me. And to that one "anonymous" hater who commented that I'm a *insert homophobic slur here* and should move out of my mom's basement, I'll have you know I'm moving out next week. Thank you to you specifically for your motivation. I couldn't of done it without you. I only hope you'll leave your name next time. Where's the fun in being an asshole online when you're anonymous? Have some balls kid.

PS that remark was serious, someone did say that. I did delete it. Sorry, I didn't feel like having trash on here. I hope we can still be friends.

What Happened to AIM?

Remember the original days of the Internet, when everyone HAD to use AOL to connect to the internet using their 28-56K modem on dial-up? Sure, the Internet was slower than a caterpillar, no speedy browsing, but it was also a much simpler Internet.

AOL started the fad of instant messaging. AOL Instant Messager. AIM. When I was young and in grade school it was cool to talk to everyone you could online, just for the sake of being able to. When we were kids we'd make a new screen name every week of our favorite sport or celebrity with a random set of numbers and thought it was cool. Part of it was being young, part of it was the development of the technology. The ability to communicate with someone instantly over this abstract world-wide-web.

I guess that was what, 12+ some odd years ago, and now everything has changed. There's plenty of different options that have serious advantages and disadvantages than their competitors. Just a quick sampling of some of the IM platforms I know: AIM, GChat, ICQ, Skype, MSN, Yahoo.

I can't honestly say I know anyone that uses MSN or Yahoo. I never did. I don't know if that's ever seen any success. I'm not sure why Skype isn't more successful, considering its popular for video chat and international calling. GChat is successful because of Google and it's incorporation with Gmail. ICQ I don't know much about either.

I understand and appreciate the idea of competition, but I'm going to argue that AIM is still the best, and I can't understand why it's not nearly as popular as it should be. AIM had such a huge head start on their competitors and lost a significant portion of it's market share.

I use AIM everyday, but it's clear to me that most of my friends don't. They've settled for other alternatives. The main culprit is: Facebook chat.

I personally detest Facebook chat. Mainly because of how we use Facebook. You "friend" people you vaguely know or may of met randomly, or someone's relative/sibling/whatever, that shouldn't entitle us to be able to communicate instantly. If we really had some kind of a connection, we'd find ways to communicate without it. That's not the way I see it used. I see it used more for people to "creep" on each other - from behind the screen. Even less real social interaction than we weren't accomplishing previously.

I know other people that love Facebook chat - makes perfect sense to them. Some of them qualify as the "creeps" and others qualify as just normal people who like everything all on one page to make it simple. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I think it's terrible. It's so crude and has so many bugs. Sometimes your message doesn't go through. Sometimes it says the other person is offline when they're online. I'll switch the page I'm viewing and forget I was in the middle of a conversation. It just doesn't feel well put together, and the randomness of people who will IM is creepy/bizarre/annoying/not worth it.

Now this is where you should be asking "so why do you use it?" Quite simple - I would if I didn't have to, but it's the only way I can communicate with one of my best friends in military school, as his phone's been taken away. This isn't a sob story - it is what it is. I want to keep in touch and it's great to hear from him. It's worth getting the random "hey what's up" from the girl-you-ignore-but-doesn't-seem-to-get-the-hint or the kid-from-class-who-thinks-he-is-friends-with-everyone-but-he-really-was-a-loser - those are the times when I quickly "log-off" to avoid conversations I didn't want to have in the first place. And don't you dare judge me, because you know you damn well do the same thing. And if you don't, you're too nice.

Let's not get it twisted though - there's been some positive experiences from Facebook chat - people who are really outgoing and reach out and that's how some friendships start because they don't know how else to contact you. That's not creepy - just friendly. They are just in the real minority - I feel anyway. I've seen too many of my friends creeping on girls to feel like it's really a good idea for me to talk to anyone, so I generally don't even pay attention to who's on. If someone IMs me, they do, but I don't pay attetnion

Anyways, my point is that I still think AIM is the best platform for instant messaging. GChat is a very close second, and their AIM integration makes it virtually the same thing. I don't have many friends on GChat (or AIM anymore for that matter) to really utilize it, but I still prefer AIM. Call it old habits. They die hard.

Somebody want to IM me? I'm bored.

The TV 'Hook'

I've been posting my TV thoughts over the past couple weeks and talking with my friends about shows etc and I keep talking about the "hook" and nobody seems to understand what I'm talking about. I think I know a bit more on shows than my friends - maybe I have too much time on my hands or I'm a loser, either/or I'm okay with. I am who I am.

When I talk about the "hook" it's really simple - it's something to get you really invested into the whole show. When you watch a new show you're really "eh" on it until something happens that really makes you want to come back next week. The problem is we typically don't have the patience for it to develop - or the patience to watch. As critically acclaimed as The Wire is, they were on the verge of being canceled almost every season because it didn't see any success at the time with the limited viewership. Arrested Development was recognized as the best comedy on TV, but couldn't stay alive because of ratings. That new show - Lone Star - was heralded as one of the best new shows of the fall, but it couldn't make it past two episodes.

My point is - the best shows don't always make it because they don't have a hook - they can't keep people's attention. I wouldn't necessarily say it has to be some cliff-hanger or truly "shocking" event, just something that says "I really want to keep watching." And when it's a new show fighting to survive it needs it in the pilot or it's going to need a network with enough faith in it to see a few more episodes.

Easy examples of "the hook":
Dexter: Dexter was able to do it in the first episode - establish Dexter the character and the antagonist of the Ice Truck Killer in the opening 60 minutes. The end of the episode where Dexter says "Yes, I want to play." actually got me really excited to watch more.

Lost: This one is too easy. Watch "The Pilot" and there's so much you want to know - what happened? Where are they? What is that noise? What's everyone's background? And can I marry Evangeline Lilly?

24: Mmmm, how about every episode? When I was younger and first started watching it every week and was innocent and thought that Jack might actually could die, I thought to myself "Ohmygod what's going to happen?"

Sometimes though, the hook doesn't really come in the pilot, and it takes the whole first season to really get into it. Surprisingly, these shows turn out being some of my favorites.

The Wire: I'll be completely honest, when I first started watching it I didn't like it. Too slow, too boring, not enough actually happening it was all talk. I think a few things - I was spoiled by Lost and 24 where every episode you'd go "what the hell" and think about it all week until the next episode. The Wire kept building and building and building. It's real 'wow' (read: I was hooked) moment came when Kima got shot and they ended the episode with Foxtrot and police everywhere. It was gripping and real, and I was addicted ever since.

Mad Men - I'm in the middle of re-watching the whole series - the first time since I've first watched it and didn't know what was going on. The hook here didn't really come till around the 5th episode, "5G", when we find out that Don's not really Don. The entire show then becomes, who the hell is Don? It takes some turns and doesn't just stick to Don, but let's not kid ourselves - Don Draper is the focal point here. His past, his present, his free-fall, and the unknown of where he'll end up, all encompassed in the 1960s.

Boardwalk Empire - I really should watch this again before I can fairly say when it is, but I'm going to commit anyway. The pilot was great, but I didn't think the show was great until about halfway through, when the FBI came and arrested some of Nucky's Irish 'brothers' for illegal possession of alcohol. It was the first real confrontation - and outside of the pilot it's felt like the only action in the whole season. There was a lot of talking and everyone literally looked the same - too much abstract talk to follow everything.

Sometimes though, shows need a game-changing moment to recapture people's attention after waning interest - a few years on air. The moment leaving you staring at your TV with your jaw open and the only thing you can say is either "what just happened" or "holy shit." (Queue Fred Ward's "Pardon My French". What a classic line.)

The perfect example of this is:

Lost. In season 3 when everyone's going "they're just spining their wheels, they don't know what they're doing, they ran out of stuff" they drop the "WE HAVE TO GO BACK" bomb that literally shocked everyone. That was when I went nuts for the show. Even I was losing interest in season 3, as they had such bogus episodes that felt like wastes of time. Of course, the Season 4 island-disappearing act was just as game-changing. That's part of what made Lost Lost. It's why there were endless discussions on sites like Lostpedia and other outlets to discuss and try to theorize what in the world was going on.

Other "game changing" examples:

24 - Two things, all happened in the same episode of season 6. Come season 6, we sort of know a few things, mainly that Jack won't die and that he'll always protect the country. But then they actually detonate a nuclear device. The post-bomb chaos was uncharted territory that showed more than we ever wanted to see. It wasn't the worst terrorist attack ever, but it was devastating. Then, Jack shoots Curtis. I never thought he was actually going to do it. But that is why Jack Bauer is Jack Bauer. Didn't hesitate, didn't miss. It upset him - the most upset we've seen him since Teri was murdered - and that was part of what made it so important and qualifies as game changing

Entourage - I know it seems random that I included this in here, but I really believed that the end of season six - Ari's Terinator scene, E dropping the "will you marry me" bomb, really got the "feel-good nature" of the show back and gave me renewed interest.

You see other shows pulling some kind of a stunt at the end of the season to make the next season seem interesting - Nip/Tuck moving from Miami to LA, Weeds moving from the rich white suburbs to Mexico, the ever-evolving name of where Don Draper works, Jack Bauer moving from LA after 6 years to DC then New York, when Heroes introduced Villains. It's all kind of a cheap way to renew interest.

Anyways, I'm starting to ramble, but I've gotten my point across. I'm not sure why I really felt the urge to post this, and realize I probably watch way more TV than most of my friends.

Do you guys still want to be my friend?

Fall TV Thoughts

1) Walking Dead

I'll be honest, I didn't hear anything about this until right around the day of the show's premiere. And I originally wasn't hearing how great it was, just that it was super scary. It wasn't. It was however, instantly compelling because of the way the story was told - and the aftermath. It's kind of Lost-like, in that we have to pick up the pieces after something catastrophic - like Oceanic 815 crashing or a virus turns everyone into the undead, hungry for more flesh - and the story is about how the survivors have to 'live together or die alone'. Man I really miss Lost.

I caught on late, but really like the overall concept. It's not just blood/guts/gore/death, it's really about the human connections made in times of panic. It's weak that the first season was so short and ended on such a rather open-ended note. There's alot of things that leave me scratching my head (how the doctor was going to let everyone die, how they didn't save Merle but went back to try to find him, etc).

With all that said though it is easily my favorite new show, and I have huge expectations for season two now that it's a a 'real' show and has been picked up.


2) Boardwalk Empire

I've said it before how I really want to like this show, but I just need a hook. Something to get me saying "wow." I realized I was treating it more like a Entourage when it's like The Wire in that the story is best appreciated after the last chapter is told. I couldn't agree more - they finally tied up some of the loose ends that started 12 episodes ago, with a really well-shot murder/press conference montage of Nucky.

I'm still not sold with Steve Buscemi. I said it before, I'm still not. I talked before how I think sometimes the people on Mad Men act too proper, and Boardwalk they act even more proper. That's our perception of how things were, we'll never know if it actually was. Maybe I just cannot fathom being in that time period and speaking in that manner. In the future they won't believe how we speak I suppose.

The end of the season set things up for an amazing second season with Darmady and Nucky's brother trying to truly "take back" AC. It was finally worth the long three months of the show.

3) Dexter

This season is really great. I originally thought that the first few episodes were so weak that this season was going to be such a drag. It picked up very, very quickly and getting Jordan Chase has become this huge priority. I still don't think it's better than the Trinity Killer of season 4, but it is interesting. I'm also guessing Lumen dies or takes the fall or something. It wouldn't be Dexter without him losing something.

Also, real quick - that might be the worst promotional poster I've ever seen. Just looks dumb.

4) Treme

Okay, so this isn't a new fall show, but it's been on my list since the summer and for some reason I didn't get around to it. I finally am getting around to it on round two of my "funemployment" experience.

I knew Treme as David Simon's latest creative show since the end of The Wire. Clearly, I'm a huge Wire guy and still believe it is the best show ever created on so many levels. That's what originally draw me to Treme. I heard about Treme as "Serious Glee." I've never seen Glee, but from what I've heard it doesn't sound like the type of thing I would be into. Except if they do a Bruce Springsteen episode, and even that might be brutal. Anyways, the Glee comparison scared me a little bit, but I gave it a shot because of The Wire connection.

I believe Treme is actually excellent. It looks at something that we as a country never really wanted to acknowledge - the aftermath of New Oreleans following Katrina. We were too worried about how we failed - on so many different levels - to worry about what the people still there were doing, and how this devastating event actually changed them and their way of life. I really don't think we can ever comprehend. Our country is so East Coast Bias with regards to the Northeast that we tend to ignore things going on elsewhere. It's a big country.

I personally didn't know much about the New Orleans musical history, or Indian heritage, and found it all to be fascinating and captivating all at the same time, mainly because it really happened. We can waste all the time we want talking about Lost, Dexter, Walking Dead etc, but none of them actually happened. Treme actually happened. Maybe not the exact way it's portrayed, but similar types or stories did occur all over the area.

I realized what makes David Simon so great is his authenticity. The Wire felt real. Treme feels real, as if you're watching a real reality show. Or reading a graphic novel. Other shows dumb things down to appease the viewer. This doesn't. The thing that's interesting is there hasn't been a hook - something that really captures my attention, but for some reason it has. Nothing really happens, there is no resolution to even the smaller plot lines. And I love it. Really looking forward to season two.

Is it time for Jersey Shore Season 3 yet?????

Happy "Holidays"

This post is 100% fueled by the latest going on in Philly, where the annual "Christmas Village" kept changing names in the past week from "Christmas" to "Holiday" and then executive mayoral order back to "Christmas." For more info, click here.

It's no secret that our country loves to find problems and be offended, and to consequently make everyone else suffer for their offense. People file lawsuits because their coffee is "too hot" or because "eating McDonald's made them fat." I'm sure someone has been offended by my blog, and if I had a job/any money/real success, I'd see some kind of a lawsuit or some group like PETA would make some ridiculous claim about how my blog kills insects.

I choose not to keep up on all of the absurdity of these claims because it makes me angry at what our country has become. Everyone's trying to make a buck off of somebody else for something SO stupid and claiming "psychological damage".

I couldn't ignore this whole "Village" incident however because it happened right in my backyard. I've been to the "Village" before, and it's really not THAT cool, but it's part of the true "holiday season" and has been happening in Philly for the past 3 years. To have to change it because the MINUSCULE minority of people who walk by it everyday is truly "offended" and needs it changed to prevent anymore psychological damage or whatever nonsense they claim. What about the Christmas show in JCPenny Center City? Or the one in the Comcast Center?

Full disclosure: I'm white, Catholic, spent something like 14 years in Catholic school, which if you know anything about kids who go to Catholic school, it means that I'm pretty non-religious because I'm tired of it being beat into me everyday. Or maybe I'm just young. I've got some other thoughts on religion, but I don't think they'll make it to the blog. Ask me in person sometime. Regardless, I celebrate Christmas, so I guess that makes me in the "majority" for this arguments sake.

Christmas is recognized as a national holiday in our country. We're not a Catholic country, but we were founded on their ideals along with religious toleration of everyone. Sure, Christmas does have religious connotations, but, if we are going to be SO extreme, find other holidays that are Catholic related: Valentine's Day (St. Valentine), St. Patrick's Day (founded after Saint Pat Wentling), Fat Tuesday/Marti Gras happens the day before Ash Wednesday leading into Lent. Those are just the three I easily came up with. Okay, so they aren't national holidays, but 2 out of the 3 are seriously acknowledged. Let's quickly look at what these holidays are: a reason to buy chocolate/be with a loved one/be depressed there is no love one in your life, get drunk, and get drunk/dance.

Again, I typically ignore these type of stories, but is anyone's religion really offended by these holidays? No, because they don't make the connection. We've neutralized the religious aspect of them and instead attached another meaning to it. Call it the Americanization of them.

So, in a similar sense, haven't we Americanized Christmas? No matter what anyone says, it really isn't about the religious connotations anymore. People don't celebrate it as their believed day of the birth of their Savior. It's gifts. It's buying gifts, giving gifts, seeing family, and getting off of school/work/life. It's Santa, Salvation Army, Snow, Reindeer, etc. Something to make the cold seem less brutal. After Christmas, every can be a grouch about the snow.

Don't get it twisted, I'm sure there are some devout people who honor the day from a religious standpoint, but I'd argue that a incredibly large majority do not. The joke among Catholics is they only go to Church twice a year - Christmas and Easter. I'm less than that.

Regardless of what religion an American celebrates, they still get a day off (or overtime pay). That really isn't SO bad, is it?

I understand being offended by certain things, but I think Christmas is bigger than the small minority that is offended. Santa Claus isn't going anywhere. The radio stations that play nothing but Christmas music starting November 1 aren't going anywhere (although maybe they should wait until Black Friday).

Our country is really starting to crack under the principles under-which it was founded. In God We Trust? Can't say that, people don't share the same God. God Bless America? Ditto. Our country was founded on religious toleration yet the religions we tolerate can't tolerate the ideals of our nation. Read that sentence again, make sure you understand my point. Isn't it backwards?

I'm not suggesting everyone should be assimilated into "our" way of thinking/acting/religious faith, but at least tolerate it like we tolerate yours. So you don't celebrate Christmas, no big deal, don't ruin the fun for everyone else.

Replace Christmas with any other holiday in our country. I'll name a few that don't really relate to me, yet I don't find myself offended: Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Black History Month, Cinco de Mayo, the several Jewish holidays in October that I don't really know, Ramadan. Okay, so the easy response to that is that I'm not Black/Mexican/Jewish/Muslim. You're right. And I'm not offended that people do things in public for them or that it affects my day.

I'm surprised it took this long for this kind of a stupid controversy. I'm surprised we haven't had more. Like people who are offended by Veterans Day because American soldiers killed their ancestors. Or people who are offended by Labor Day because they are unemployed (I'M SO MAD). I'm sure the Indians are offended that we celebrate Thanksgiving because we stole their land.

Just quickly because I'm starting to ramble - Where are we really headed? Are we getting to the point where we can't do anything in public? Where we can only acknowledge our own ideals in the private sanctity of our home? I think it's a bit extreme and will hopefully never happen, but it's getting beyond ridiculous. We can't let them win.

So anyways, hope everyone has a good "holiday" season!

Random Ramblings

Life is brutal, I don't have many things to do around here anymore. The person I talk to the most is myself. So maybe I'm a little bitter.

1) LeBron.

Dude, you need figure out who you are and stop blaming everyone else. Seriously. I hope you use tonight as a wake up call and realize what you had and what you lost - fans who would do anything, to fans who need a "Fan Up" campaign to come on time and not leave before the end of the 3rd quarter. Take some control of your life. You are the most talented player on the planet. Act like it. Before Durant steals everything from you. I know I've said this before, but Durant is going to be the best player in the universe in less than two years. He might even be now if he can stay healthy.

2) HR

I'm trying not to be too angry or hostile, but the role as a "human resources professional" is a mystery to me. I've tried to write this before and it always ended in me getting angry. In my seemingly never-ending job hunt, I've had so many strange and bizarre HR experiences that leave me scratching my head. From HR not responding to my e-mails to several HR staffing changes every time I apply, it doesn't make any sense.

The thing that bothers me the most - I have not once been told about not receiving a position without first having to ask. By that I mean, I would e-mail the HR rep and ask for an update on the job search process (usually a few days after I was told I would hear back regarding a decision,) and then would receive something along the lines of "we went with someone with a tiny bit more experience" and that of course is IF I get a response at all.

Why do I have to be the one who starts the conversation? Shouldn't it be their job to follow up and ensure that the applicant is informed of the decision - good or bad - like they said they would? It doesn't make the company look good for me to want to apply again if the HR representative can't take less than 5 minutes to send an e-mail. I understand nobody likes to send the bad news along, but I'm sitting, waiting, hoping that I've been selected, and then don't hear anything. As my first full-time job, this is something that will change my life and is really important to me. It isn't just another job. It's disheartening and honestly disrespectful to not even warrant a response after I ask. Play both ways. Don't just pay attention to me when I'm an applicant and then ignore me when I'm not selected. I promise I don't send angry e-mails - I just like to know the result instead of having to guess for myself. I really don't think that it's too much to ask, but maybe I'm showing my naivete towards how business is run. Which leads to:

3) I guess I'll call it "political correctness" in social situations.

I'm using this as my template for this idea: The Wednesday before Thanksgiving is known for being a popular night for high school friends to get back together because they are all home. Some may always be home, but a lot more actually come home from their jobs far away etc. There's always the local bar everyone goes to or the high school alumni event somewhere.

Whatever, I went to a bar on that Wednesday that was beyond packed with people, and while it's nice to see some kids from high school, there's that awkwardness when you see someone you were never really friends with trying to play catch-up like you were best friends in your adolescence. And you have to act like you care. (This is very Larry David of me.) The chances of seeing this person again are limited to one time: this same bar next year.

Then comes my favorite line: "We should hang out sometime man."

I'm not against making new friends, or being friends again with people who fell off over time for whatever reason, but some people just don't have a CLUE. And because nobody can say "no" you say yes and hope it was either an empty promise with no intentional follow through or will just kind of be forgotten, like your friendship once was. I think making new friends out of the academic life can be hard, but you can tell when you'll be friends with somebody and when you can't, and it's usually the people you can't be friends with that say it. It's absurd.

Of course the opposite of that when you're the idiot saying that with someone you really wanted to hang out with (probably like a girl, because it gets a little weird if you really want to hang out with a dude) and they say the obligatory yes and then you're either too dumb or nervous to follow through or tell if she's serious or not and you just look like a jackass. I'm not really speaking from personal situations, but more of people I know who do stupid things like this. Because we all know I do what I want.

My point is: we do things in those awkward social situations that are kind of jerk off statements. I guess I just don't want to do them anymore. Let's not kid ourselves and waste time. There's a difference between being PC and being real. Let's be real. There's nothing wrong with seeing an real old friend or acquaintance, just don't get it twisted. There's a reason it didn't work the first time. It could happen, but let's not jump the gun so quickly.

(I keep editing this part because more ideas come to mind that I have to write about)

Or what about that holiday mass text message? I probably got 20 "Happy Thanksgiving!" texts over the holiday. Only two of those people I had heard from since graduation. One of them I've actually talked to a decent amount since then. The other I talk to pretty much every day. They are both my friends - we'd definitely talk more/be friends if we were in the same city, so it's nice hearing from them - because we actually keep in touch/are friends.

The other people - what the hell? I don't hear from them in couple months or more, and then to get that mass text? It feels so insensitive. Does anyone really wish someone a bad holiday? Isn't it a given? What joy do you get out of saying that - in the most informal of circumstances - to people you don't speak to otherwise? The mass text is the worst - because it cheapens the whole experience. Saying the same thing once to 100 other people in two seconds. And then - similar to my friends in HR - you'll respond with an obligitory "you too/how have you been" and get nothing back. Why do you send a text if you have no intention of having a (albeit brutal) conversation with the person? Is this really how we operate in 2010? Yikes. It scares me for when I have to join a dating site in 20 years, where will we be then? I'm also really looking forward to the Merry Christmas text. I actually really love the holidays - just not this mass text absurdity. Technology is the death of us.

I think I'm too much of a "tell it like it is" person - I don't like to lie and act one way and do another. I'd rather tell people how I feel and what's on my mind, because again, why beat around the bush? Sure, there is sometimes where you just BS to get through something totally random, but if it's something that affects you, what's the point?

It's gotten me in trouble sometimes, and I've lost or almost lost some close friends of mine, and I feel absolutely terrible about that (seriously, I think about some instances everyday), but it's hard for me to just BS all the time and act like everything is okay when it's not. Sometimes I am wrong, and I can't really see it until another point in time, but I truly believed it at the time. I put my foot in my mouth because I say what I feel at that moment in time, kind of like a Kanye/Larry David type thing, without the national platform. I think it's important for me to acknowledge I was wrong, because I really don't believe everything I say/do is right. It just makes sense to me at the time. Time changes all.

I've started to get better and "go with the flow" and keep my mouth shut, but I really don't like it. And then I get in trouble for expressing my opinion elsewhere to other people and it comes back to them. Call it talking behind people's back. Everyone get's pissed at it but does it themselves. They talk about what's on their mind - and sometimes it's other people. Get over it.

People don't want you to start a confrontation, but they also don't want you to voice an opinion. Seems contradictory, because sometimes voicing your opinion upsets people. If something bothers you or you don't agree or have your own opinion, I believe you should say it instead of just saying "uh-huh" and moving along. Again, that ideal has gotten me into trouble, I've been wrong, and caused problems, but that's just kind of how I think. Maybe that's why I'm unemployed? (Jokes. But not really.)

4) Grammy Nominations.

Is it me or is there absolutely nothing exciting about this year's nominations? Eminem will deserve everything he gets because Recovery was an amazing album, but who else is really there to compete? Gaga? Bieber? Just seems like a pretty weak year.

5) The "celebrities turn off twitter to raise money for AIDS" campaign.

This isn't meant to be insensitive at anyone with friends/relatives/anyone affected by this terrible epidemic. It really isn't. Instead, I'm criticizing some celebrities in their attempt to raise money for the AIDS campaign. I know I'm (trying to be) in PR and it's most likely my colleagues who came up with this idea, but it's really dumb.

For those who don't know: A few celebrities, namely Kim/Khloe Kardashian (why are they a celebrity?), Alicia Keys, Justin Timberlake, Usher, Ryan Seacrest, among others are acting as though they are "dead" - they sacrifice their "digital" lives until they raise $1 million for AIDS research. Is this really a sacrifice? I think I might be among some of the people who are really happy that Kim Kardashian is out of the world for a minute - her tweets are usually self-promotion and advertisements. Seacrest talks to much about nothing important anyway. I'm saying this tongue-in-cheek, but you know what I mean.

Is this really a sacrifice???????? A REAL sacrifice? Ryan Seacrest just signed a $60 million contract - why doesn't he donate some of that over to this cause? Lead by example, not by "sacrificing" your "digital" self. That's just stupid. Nobody really wants to hear what Khole Kardashian has to say, and if you do, shame on you. Aim higher.

The campaign photos are absurd. Some of them agreed to be pictured in a coffin with the headline "(name) IS DEAD" Here's the link to the Kim Kardashian one. Again, it's an extreme to send a message. I understand the idea, but it's too much. The whole idea is ridiculous. If all of these celebrities combined their profit from just one year I'm sure would be more helpful than their digital loss. Plus, getting back to the digital sacrifice, isn't that like a blessing? Wouldn't it be nice to just cut yourself off for a few days from the never ending influx of the outside world? I personally enjoy it when I'm out of the country, and nobody talks to me ever, so it must be even better for celebrities who are constantly garnering attention.

I do hope that one day we solve all of these terrible diseases in our world, because too much tragedy has occurred from them that shouldn't. It's going to be a great world when we do truly beat these things, and we can't do it by ourselves. There shouldn't be a need to motivate this cause, and these celebrities having a "digital death" doesn't really cut it for me. Celebrities have a very tight rope to navigate between being genuine or doing something "because it looks good," and this just feels like an opportunity for Kim Kardashian to have another photo shoot.

The NFL is a Hypocrite

I'm furious. The NFL has been going on this "safety of the players/player image" sabbatical, fining and suspending players all over the league for their violent hits/extracurricular activities. They suspended Ben Roethelisburgr (I probably spelled that wrong) for 4 games for being accused of something.

Over the weekend, Andre Johnson and Cortland Finnegan brawled on the field. And I don't just mean during the play. They went above and beyond. They were kicked out of the game and following that fined $25,000.

No suspension.

I wasn't really furious until I heard the reasoning behind why they did not suspend Johnson; while watching SportsCenter this evening, Adam Schefter said that the NFL did not want to suspend Andre Johnson because it would put the Texans at a serious disadvantage playing on Thursday against the Eagles on the NFL Network.

What the hell is that? Really. They didn't suspend them because they were worried about the team's next game? Did they think about that when they suspended Big Ben? Or any of the other players? When did the NFL give a damn about a team over the league's image?

Fighting cannot be tolerated on the field. Fining them for 25k really isn't anything when these players make several million a year. By not suspending them they are proving they are hypocrites. They blow all this smoke about protecting players heads from concussions and Andre Johnson punches a player in the head twice without his helmet on. How are they really doing in protecting players if they don't suspend them for this?

To add to the hypocrisy and proving the NFL is a bunch of money hungry bastards, the game this week is on the NFL Network, which is (conveniently) owned, operated, and the profits go to the NFL. The game they are showcasing would look much worse if one opposing team didn't have it's top weapon, right? Which means the NFL would lose money. Why would they ever want to do that? What's more important; making a couple extra million or telling their players (role models) that you can get away with fist fights on the NFL field on national television?

Maybe I'm just wound up because this upcoming game is against my Eagles and it doesn't seem fair.

The NFL is telling the world they care more about the money than doing what's right. They want to talk about doing the right thing, but hope they can get away with turning a blind eye to the right thing.

I'm going back to hockey.

The Star Wars Condundrum

I have to preface this by saying I grew up a huge Star Wars nerd. I'm not embarrassed to admit it. It used to be my world. I played the video games and read the books and used to have all of these toys. If I could I would be a Jedi. I know I'm not alone in this - in fact I'm probably in some kind of a majority for young boys growing up in the 90s. I grew up a little bit (read: not too much) and don't watch Star Wars everyday like I did when I was seven, and I don't think about it everyday like I did when I was seven, but when people talk about it, I usually - quickly - transform back to the seven year old. I probably knew more about the Star Wars universe than I did about America's history. Again, I've grown up a little bit since then. Now I obsess over TV shows and sports.

Anyways, this isn't about my Star Wars knowledge - although I guess it fueled this conversation - but more about the series new place in movie/Hollywood/sci-fi lore now that the new movies have been out for over five years now.

I don't really know anyone that liked the "new trilogy" - because it was so radically different than the original. The acting was terrible, the special effects were too much, everything felt rushed. The only thing that people could say - as hardcore fans - was that they appreciated the story of Anakin becoming Vader. But I was thinking about it from a kid standpoint, like when I saw the originals when I was young, and what will they think? Because after all, it's always about the kids.

They can't possibly understand. The new three have all of these special effects and CGI and seem so bad ass, while the originals are so simple and just straight up look different (and by different I mean worse.) They can't understand why Yoda is moving around and kicking ass in the first three and then in the last three he can barely walk; why the clone troopers look so much cooler/effective/stronger/intelligent than the stormtroopers, any of it. It doesn't make any sense. Is my kid going to love Star Wars as much as I did? Or is s/he going to want to be a wizard of Harry Potter's world (ps the new movie sucked)? It's not up to me, but I'm just curious on what will be the future for the next generation of youth.

I almost think that it will change the legacy of the movies because they look so different. And the thing to blame I think is CGI - it gave Lucas too much freedom to do what he thought in his head. It's not a terrible idea to be constricted to the 80s special effects - which I really never thought were THAT bad. I've seen bits and pieces of all six movies on SpikeTV this long weekend, and I actually really liked the originals effects with space flying etc. I haven't seen the films for at least a year, so I realized some problems that I must have missed (like how come the lightsaber doesn't destroy everything it touches? Sometimes, it didn't. Puzzling) but I see now.

I'm not sure if I'm losing my childhood innocence/imagination but the original stories don't really make sense. It's almost like George Lucas made them up as he went along. The whole Vader being their father? Luke and Leia were into each other, and then they find out their twins? Building a second Death Star? All seems kind of crazy.

Either way, what's done is done. They had to make the prequels because people were clamoring for them. It would of been better if they made them about 20 years earlier, but that wasn't up to me.

I still really love the films. I can't say they're my favorite anymore - I think I lost my passion for films when I started watching good TV shows and our ADHD continues to cripple us so that we really are unable to sit and watch without multitasking or talking or doing something else that takes our attention away from whatever we were planning on doing.

The films are still classics. They continue to be a part of pop culture, as people reference and quote etc. about them. Everyone knows who Darth Vader is. They always will. It may not be on the tip of their tongues or something they think about ever, but they know.

To close, I wanted to put up my favorite image from the series - the twin sunset on Tatooine. It may or may not have been my background on my desktop for a while....

May The Force Be With You.

The Genius of Larry David

This post can't even begin to do justice to Larry, but I'm going to try.

I'm a huge Seinfeld fan. I used to watch three episodes a day when it was on TBS and Fox. I've seen every episode and can usually tell the episode within a line.

I think I'm an even bigger Curb Your Enthusiasm fan, because it gives the Seinfeld fan in me insight into how the series was made, and the basis of George Costanza, which of course is Larry David.

Larry is an interesting guy. He doesn't like how society operates - in fact he's got plenty of problems with how "we do things". He's a smart ass. He plays with a huge system - broadcast television - and created a show that was literally about nothing. A billion dollar industry is turned on its head by such a backwards concept that only a twisted mind like David could conjure it up, pitch it, and see it become the most successful sitcom in television's short history.

Larry's perspective of the world is interesting - it's what we should think, but instead we've told ourselves to think otherwise. For example (which could be one of many) - The doctor sign in sheet. It's something everyone does when we get to the doctor's office, and usually don't think twice about it. Larry hates this idea for a few reasons; people seeing his name listed, and for the pecking order - why schedule an appointment if your order goes based on when you sign in?

Such simple concepts like that irk Larry (I just used the word irk). It makes sense when you think about it. But we don't. We go along and don't ask questions. It's these type of thoughts that put him into trouble on the show - and put George in trouble on Seinfeld. It's surprising how much real-life instances that happened to Larry inspired the George story lines.

I've obviously never met Larry, but there's a part of me that thinks his self portrayal on Curb is pretty accurate to how he acts in real life. He may not always find himself in situations where he is getting yelled at by everyone, but he has some kind of a problem with everything that goes on. He'd rather not comment on things because it gets him in trouble, but chooses to anyway.

I thought of Larry when I wrote my post about tips. It's very Larry-esque. He's talked about it on Curb - how much to tip, to leave the same tip, were they worth the tip, etc. These are all things Larry would talk about, get caught up in, and it would bother him for the rest of the day.

The funny thing is the Seinfeld curse. Aside from Julia Louis-Dreyfus' recent success with that show I've never watched, none of four have been successful at another show. Larry David is the most successful person coming out of Seinfeld. Curb is really just Seinfeld without the national TV boundaries. No holdback from the FCC about language or content. Part of the genius of Seinfeld was them playing around with words and using innuendo to reference what they couldn't say. Larry comes straight out and says it - which makes it even more hysterical.

It's weird, because when I talk about my favorite TV shows, Curb and Seinfeld don't usually come to mind - mainly because it's something you don't get invested into like The Wire, Lost, Dexter, Mad Men, etc. The comedies are simple and you can watch one episode at a random time and still enjoy it. I think most comedies suck - that's why I don't watch them. In fact, outside of Larry's brainchildren, the only other two I watch are Eastbound & Down and It's Always Sunny. All the rest are lame.

Anyways, I'm starting to ramble, but my point is, I think Larry David, to sum it up in his own words, is pretty good.

Pret-tay, pret-tay, pre-tay, pretty good.

My Favorite Non-Traditional Christmas Music

Okay, so now that Thanksgiving is over it's the official start of Christmas music. Some radio stations (like B101 in Philly) start it after Halloween. I think that's absurd. Cut us some slack. These songs are fun, but only for so long. I used to HATE the idea of Holiday albums, because I thought it was just your favorite artist trying to milk you for more money during the holidays. Most of the time the songs aren't original, just the typical run of the mill Christmas song.

Anyway, these are my favorite Christmas songs that are "outside the norm" - except for a few "norms" that I love. I don't know why I'm writing this post. Enjoy?

1) Merry Christmas Happy Holiday - NSYNC

Well, this might be the norm these days. But who doesn't LOVE this song? The whole holiday album is awesome, but this song is clearly the best. Is it possible that this album will be their longest lasting? Since they don't seem keen on the comeback that BSB (which isn't really a comeback) and NKOTB are doing, this might be their biggest contribution. Every now and then I get my boy band fix, but to me this is the most frequent NSync song. My biggest problem is that the radios seem to cut out the bridge part (the part where the background chorus is clapping). How can you bastardize a song like that? Radio pisses me off enough just for cutting out Lil' Wayne's part in every song he's featured in. Okay, well that sidetracked.

2) I Won't Be Home For Christmas - Blink-182
This song is so ridiculous, but if your a Blink fan (or nut like I am) how could you hate it? Also add in Blink's "Happy Holiday's You Bastard" which is even more stupid, but it mentions Christmas, so it counts. They're idiots hahah.

3) Great White Sled & Don't Shoot Me Santa - Killers

4) The theme from Merry Christmas Charlie Brown
I don't know why this song isn't more popular. It's a classic. It's no words and just such a soothing sound, it's like a Christmas Eve Hot Chocolate song. I don't really know what that means. I'm losing my mind.

5) I want an Alien for Christmas - Fountains of Wayne

I really lost my mind.

6) All I Want For Christmas Is You - Mariah Carey

Any guy who says they hate this song is a liar. I used to get depressed listening to this song, now I'm just happy. It's just a festive (almost wrote Festivus) little tune that would probably sound a lot better if I was one of those "in love" people. But I'm alright where I am. And I know that's not the album cover, I just wanted an attractive looking picture of her. Sorry. At least it's Santa related?

7) The Transiberian Orchestra - The Holiday Album

I honestly have been a bad person and know NOTHING about this band except their holiday music. Do they do normal music? I know I sound like an idiot - whatever. Obviously "Carol Of The Bells" is their best, but the songs are great. Do they even have an album? I don't know. I sound like an idiot. Next please (Josh)

8) Ho Ho Ho And A Bottle of Rhum
There's debate over weather it's Rum or Rhum. iTunes says Rhum. So it's not a typo. This song really isn't really related to Christmas at all, but I love Jimmy, so it was a slam dunk.

9) Last Christmas - Taylor Swift
Well, that's really just because Taylor Swift is awesome. Did you hear that Colin? Do you still read this Colin? "you know Colin"

10) Santa Claus is Comin' To Town - Bruce Springsteen
You didn't expect me to write a post about music and avoid Bruce, did you? Child Please. This song is classic and I think has replaced the typical "Santa Claus is Comin to Town" version. I don't even know what that is. In doing the YouTube search, the first result is Mariah, and the rest are Bruce. Maybe he wrote it, who knows. Either way, Big Man kills it with the vocals and the horn. Love it.

RIP Philadelphia Spectrum

Today marks the day that the Spectrum will fall. After over 40 years of service to the Philadelphia area, the building that housed Dr. J, The Broad Street Bullies, and many other historical events, will be torn down in favor of "Philly Live" (which I will forever call "Philly Fail").

I can't say that I have such significant memories of the Spectrum as hardcore Philadelphians - mainly because the building was only functional for my first 8 years of life - so I'm allowed a reprieve. HOWEVER, The Spectrum is where I saw my first professional hockey game, saw several Phantoms games, saw Green Day and I really appreciated the old-school feel of the building. All the new arenas are so much more corporate don't feel like a sporting event so much as a hang out. The old arenas were so much smaller and the fans were really on top of the players - the sound in a building like that was truly deafening.

It was one of the first areans to be multipurpose for basketball and hockey, and to have a functional video screen and scoreboard overhead.

Of course, it wouldn't be a Pat Wentling post without mentioning the Bruce Springsteen connection; this was the first big stage for Bruce and the E Streeters. Being from nearby Jersey, Philly was like a second home, and Bruce never forgot that. Before the Spectrum's closing, Bruce played 6 more concerts there - rather than the larger capacity Philly Center - to honor the roots that helped him grow. And the shows were legendary - playing songs that he hasn't played in decades.

In the Wells Fargo Center (I hate that name by the way, it's only changed like 25 times in 14 years) they have a banner honoring the amount of sell-outs that Bruce has had in Philadelphia. After his most recent tour, he's up to 51 consecutive sell-outs between the two arenas - most of them at the Spectrum. It might be my favorite banner in the arena - until the Flyers win the Cup in my lifetime.

Anyways, this isn't totally about Bruce's relation to the Spectrum, it's about the building itself. Comcast Spectacor is tearing it down in favor of a hotel and a few hotels, restaurants, and shops. I don't know anyone in favor of what they are doing, it's just another opportunity for Comcast to make more money - but I do know that the Spectrum cannot stand forever. Eventually the building will deteriorate and it must come down. The reasoning behind tearing it down now is what bothers me. We'll never see an arena like it again, because the current arenas are made to maximze revenue, not about the best-possible fan experience. It's a sad day for the true sports fans in Philadelphia.

To close, I'll end with a (surprise) Springsteen song. Written specifically for the two stadiums that helped boost his career yet were being torn down within the year (Spectrum and Giants Stadium. The song is aptly called Wrecking Ball. You can watch the recording here - obviously a YouTube from his Spectrum show.

Bring on your Wrecking Ball.

This photo was taken Novemeber 22nd, the last night the Spectrum stood.