Before we get into this entry, I thought we should quickly revist the previous post and predictions for the playoffs (sorry for the alliteration, and if you spit on someone, for those of you who might read aloud). Just to recap, in case you haven't read it (what were you thinking!) or forgot (tisk tisk) or are illeterate (which would raise a lot of questions, most notably, how are you reading this right now?), I predicted Astros in 4, Cards in 5, Yanks in 5, and Sox in 4. I am happy to say that I got not one of the number-of-games correct (but missing every one by exactly 1 game, how creepy is that?), HOWEVER, I did predict the winner of every series, "so I got that goin for me, which is good" (see: Caddyshack). I would also like to add that, surprisingly, I never heard Joe Buck say, "it's Lima time," as I predicted he would. However, interestingly enough, every other broadcaster in the world did. Also, ESPN did replay the Dave Henderson homerun from '86, but only during game 1. So I guess that's pretty much in line with the way my predictions have panned out thus far. But enough basking in my own glory. The LDS are over, and we're on to the LCS.
I guess you want predictions again, right? Gah! You never stop hounding me... OK, ok. But we're doing it quick this time, no lenghty analysis, our time is precious and fleeting (much like Hillary Duff's career... I hope this doesn't end my chance of one day being romantically linked to her. Although she'd have to stop dating people from Good Charlotte first. Oh well...). OK. Ready?? Do you have a pen? Paper? A shot of whiskey? Here it is: Astros in 6, Red Sox in 7. There is no rhyme or reason to either of these picks. This is completely going on a feeling I have, of seeing Clemens his final game against the Sox in the World Series against the Sox, in a very emotional event for both sides. Plus there's the whole Ken Caminiti thing (a real shame and tragedy) for the Astros, who seemed to feed off it for game 5. The Yankees are not without their own tragic events, with Mariano's family and the bizarre electrocution thing (this sounds like a joke but isn't, 2 people died), but it's yet to be seen what kind of effect that will have on the Yankees. I don't know..... This is all very hard to call, and I hate predicting Red Sox outcomes because I am too emotionally involved. So continuing on that thought, here's what I do know....
Saturday night, I hung out with my friend (and fellow UMass grad), Pete. He recently moved to Somerville from Long Island, where he's from. Now being from Long Island (or as the natives call it, "Lon Gisland", and sometimes, "Strong Island") one would assume Pete was a Mets fan, as both Jeff (mutual roomate or both me and Pete at different times) and I did. But as Pete will atest, he is a Yankee fan. Go figure. I will never understand New York.
But nevertheless, Pete did something that few Yankee fans have ever been able to do: he got me to respect him (shock and awe). How did Pete do this, you ask?? Well, contrary to what you may be thinking, he didn't cast a spell, hypnotize me, or even threaten me with a weapon (as Yankee fans have been known to do). It was actually so easy, so simple, that'd you'd never even guess; so I'll save you the trouble and just tell you. When I asked Pete what he was doing for the ALCS, he told me he was going home. He wasn't going home to for any work related things, or to get clothes, etc. The look on his face, his demeanor, they said it all. He was going home to watch because, for him, it wouldn't be right to watch it in Boston.
No whether Pete wanted to watch with fellow Yankee fans, or escape Red Sox Nation, or just felt he coulnd't fully enjoy the series unless he went home, I can't be for certain. But no matter what the specific reason, I respect Pete for this.
It's been my experience that most Yankee fans get more out of taunting Red Sox fans than actually cheering on their own team. Now sure, you could say that Sox fans are notorious for, as Ahnold would say, "things of that nature," (see: "Jeter Swallows, Yankees Suck, A-Rod is an A-Hole, Posada is a little Bitch, et. al.), but their are two prominent differences. 1) This is done by the vocal minority of Sox fans (it just seems like a lot because of their boistrous nature), and 2) This is indirect taunting, where as Yankee fans, being the New Yorkers that they are, have a habit of getting up right in your face, or closer.
Case in point:
After one Red Sox loss during last Autumn's ALCS (it was either game 3 or game 5), I was walking down North Pleasant St in Amherst (bar hopping with my roomate Adam), dawning my Red Sox hat. While on the street, I ran into a slightly iniebrieated friend of mine, who I hadn't seen in a while. In her glaxed state, following the exchange of pleasantries, she looked glanced up to see what was hiding my baseball-tortured eyes from mass view. Noticing the Sox came on my head, she quickly (remarkably so despite her intoxication) swatted her hand at the the brim of my hate, knocking it off my head. The last thing I remember her saying was, "Red Sox? Pfffff" Did I mention she was from Lon Gisland???
I say this is the last thing I remember her saying because I have not talked to her since. Seriously. I haven't. It's been almost a full year, and I haven't spoken 1 solitary word to her since the incident, and have no intention of doing so any time soon. Aside from this being generally rude, as well as one of my triggers, it was a deliberate attack on me in a fragile and emotional time.
Maybe you think I'm overreacting. But let me put it in terms that might be more comprehensible. If it was Mother's day, and your friend's mom was sick, would you tease him about it? If it was labor day, and your buddy lost his job, would you call him up and taunt him for being unemployed? If a giant piano fell out of the air, crushing your friends car, would you call him up while playing an acoustic version of in cars on the piano? Of course you wouldn't (unless you were Satan, or perhaps Dick Cheney).
That is what it's like for me. That is what it's like for every Sox fans. Years of devotion and dedication, rewarded with frustration, disappointment, and to top it off, taunting from Yankee fans. You put all your heart and effort into something, only to have watch it come crashing down so many times. I'm not saying that's going to be the outcome this year. I hope it's not. I REALLY hope it isn't. Because I don't know if I can go through the pain and suffering this year that I went through last year. I really might not make it if that's the case. I might just have to move to Canada, where no one cares about anything, and the money looks like it was printed by enchanted elves.
I woke up on this dreary, overcast, ominous morning with a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach. I didn't for the life of me know why. I hadn't even gone to IHOP the night before. I turned on the TV, and heard, "...game one of the ALCS starts tonight..." That's all I needed to hear. Every time I get out, the Sox pull me back in. I survived the Anaheim series without much trauma, but that last game really hooked me, and my Sox fever started to boil again.
If a Yankee fan flips my hat this year after a Red Sox loss, I might not be as congenial as I was before. But at least I can take comfort in the fact that if something escalates between me and another rogue Yankee fan this year, they deserve what they get. The good ones, like Pete, are in New York.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Monday, October 04, 2004
I got a fever, and the only perscription is... more baseball
A NOTICE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISIONER: THIS ENTRY WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 5TH, BEFORE ANY GAMES WERE PLAYED, BUT WAS ACCIDENTALLY DELETED AND HAD TO BE REWRITTEN AS A RESULT. WE SINCERELY APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY. WE ARE ALSO SORRY IF THE CONTENT HAS SUFFERED AS A RESULT, BUT HEY, YOU TRY REWRITING 1,000 WORDS.
With the move from easyjournal to blogspot, I feel compelled to write more (either that, or I am very bored and have a lot more free time at this temping job than my last one. Actually, the later is probably the case). But make no mistake about it; this entry is coming from pure desire, a touch of grit, and a dollop of heart (which also makes for a great low-carb treat!) Now if you are Jewish, you are probably asking "What makes this entry different from all other entries?" Well, it's simple: I'm typing this with a broken finger.
Actually, it turns out I broke said digit a week ago when I fell on my hand while diving to break up a pass in a pick-up football game. I just hadn't gone to the doctor till today, after it had failed to improve significantly over the last 8 days. So it turns out I was playing hurt for that last entry as well (I am now the Brett Favre of the journal/blog circuit. To further follow in Brett's footsteps, I am looking forward to battling an addiction to pain killers, and pass for 30 touchdowns. I think both are very accomplishable).
The way I see it, this is a perfect introduction to the oncoming fall classic. And I'm not talking about the annual swooning of Drew Bledsoe. I'm talking baseball. And it's all I can think about this time of year (mainly because the Sox are still playing in October for the second straight year for the first time in my life). A lot of people (3) have been asking me what I think is going to happen in the playoffs this year. I used to be pretty good at this. At one point, during the 90's, I predicted the AL and NL World Series representatives successfully over a span of 4 consecutive year (this may not seem like much, but I was doing it in June). But with expansion teams improving rapidly thanks to free agency explosion (and a drop-off in general loyalty), I've fell on hard times in recent years. And I'm not gonna lie, this year doesn't look to be any easier. But you can't win if you don't play, so in that spirit, here's the LDS (Leagu installment of my (first annual?) 2004 MLB POSTSEASON PREDICTIONS:
NATIONAL LEAGUE:
Astros vs. Braves: I had Baseball Tonight on for background noise while cleaning my room (a monthly event that I plan to start selling tickets to) about a week or two ago, when I heard someone comment that the Braves will be dangerous in the playoffs this year. After involuntarily scrunching up my face like Mr. Magoo, I was so jarred by the comment that halted everything I was doing just to change the channel, because I cannot tolerate listening to that kind of incredible propaganda (and I sometimes watch The O'Reilly Factor). The Braves have been to the playoffs every year dating back to 1991, winning their division every time. Over that acknowledgeable run, they have made the World Series FIVE, count 'em, FIVE times, winning it ONCE, count 'em, oh wait, just ONCE. They have become so prolific at being an "also-ran" during the playoffs, that you can now use them in reference to "close-but-no-cigar" situations outside of baseball. For instance, the Sacramento Kings are the Atlanta Braves of the NBA. "Friends" was the Atlanta Braves of the Emmys. And the Democrats are the Atlanta Braves of politics. See! How fun! Try it with your friends! Anyway, you get what I'm saying. The idea that this year would suddenly be some sort of aberration from this is unlikely, seeing as how they are going against a HOT Astros club that has not lost a home game since the Clinton Administration (I exaggerate, but you get the idea). Maybe Rafael Furcal would be a dangerous threat, as some people are saying, if he wasn't busy drinking-and-driving. I'll take Clemens, Oswalt, Lindge, the killer B's, and the rest of the 'stros in 4.
Dodgers vs. Cardinals: Let me preface with this: I don't care how many games you win in the regular season, I don't like teams that back into the playoffs, which is just what the Cards did, losing 5 of their last 7 after clinching the Central early. Combine that with no Chris Carpenter for the first round due to injury, and this may become a tighter series than people expect. The Dodgers are not without their own woes, however, as an overused and possibly overtired Eric Gagne began showing signs of fatigue down the stretch. LA needs a perfect Gagne to anchor the bullpen, which has been the team's bread-and-butter this year. If that doesn't happen, the Dodgers could be living up to their name, dodging pills launched from the bats of the Cardinals, who bring the best lineup in the NL, and maybe the best 1-8 in baseball (Jason Marquis might have a nice swing, but he's no DH). In a close call, Cards in 5.
With the move from easyjournal to blogspot, I feel compelled to write more (either that, or I am very bored and have a lot more free time at this temping job than my last one. Actually, the later is probably the case). But make no mistake about it; this entry is coming from pure desire, a touch of grit, and a dollop of heart (which also makes for a great low-carb treat!) Now if you are Jewish, you are probably asking "What makes this entry different from all other entries?" Well, it's simple: I'm typing this with a broken finger.
Actually, it turns out I broke said digit a week ago when I fell on my hand while diving to break up a pass in a pick-up football game. I just hadn't gone to the doctor till today, after it had failed to improve significantly over the last 8 days. So it turns out I was playing hurt for that last entry as well (I am now the Brett Favre of the journal/blog circuit. To further follow in Brett's footsteps, I am looking forward to battling an addiction to pain killers, and pass for 30 touchdowns. I think both are very accomplishable).
The way I see it, this is a perfect introduction to the oncoming fall classic. And I'm not talking about the annual swooning of Drew Bledsoe. I'm talking baseball. And it's all I can think about this time of year (mainly because the Sox are still playing in October for the second straight year for the first time in my life). A lot of people (3) have been asking me what I think is going to happen in the playoffs this year. I used to be pretty good at this. At one point, during the 90's, I predicted the AL and NL World Series representatives successfully over a span of 4 consecutive year (this may not seem like much, but I was doing it in June). But with expansion teams improving rapidly thanks to free agency explosion (and a drop-off in general loyalty), I've fell on hard times in recent years. And I'm not gonna lie, this year doesn't look to be any easier. But you can't win if you don't play, so in that spirit, here's the LDS (Leagu installment of my (first annual?) 2004 MLB POSTSEASON PREDICTIONS:
NATIONAL LEAGUE:
Astros vs. Braves: I had Baseball Tonight on for background noise while cleaning my room (a monthly event that I plan to start selling tickets to) about a week or two ago, when I heard someone comment that the Braves will be dangerous in the playoffs this year. After involuntarily scrunching up my face like Mr. Magoo, I was so jarred by the comment that halted everything I was doing just to change the channel, because I cannot tolerate listening to that kind of incredible propaganda (and I sometimes watch The O'Reilly Factor). The Braves have been to the playoffs every year dating back to 1991, winning their division every time. Over that acknowledgeable run, they have made the World Series FIVE, count 'em, FIVE times, winning it ONCE, count 'em, oh wait, just ONCE. They have become so prolific at being an "also-ran" during the playoffs, that you can now use them in reference to "close-but-no-cigar" situations outside of baseball. For instance, the Sacramento Kings are the Atlanta Braves of the NBA. "Friends" was the Atlanta Braves of the Emmys. And the Democrats are the Atlanta Braves of politics. See! How fun! Try it with your friends! Anyway, you get what I'm saying. The idea that this year would suddenly be some sort of aberration from this is unlikely, seeing as how they are going against a HOT Astros club that has not lost a home game since the Clinton Administration (I exaggerate, but you get the idea). Maybe Rafael Furcal would be a dangerous threat, as some people are saying, if he wasn't busy drinking-and-driving. I'll take Clemens, Oswalt, Lindge, the killer B's, and the rest of the 'stros in 4.
Dodgers vs. Cardinals: Let me preface with this: I don't care how many games you win in the regular season, I don't like teams that back into the playoffs, which is just what the Cards did, losing 5 of their last 7 after clinching the Central early. Combine that with no Chris Carpenter for the first round due to injury, and this may become a tighter series than people expect. The Dodgers are not without their own woes, however, as an overused and possibly overtired Eric Gagne began showing signs of fatigue down the stretch. LA needs a perfect Gagne to anchor the bullpen, which has been the team's bread-and-butter this year. If that doesn't happen, the Dodgers could be living up to their name, dodging pills launched from the bats of the Cardinals, who bring the best lineup in the NL, and maybe the best 1-8 in baseball (Jason Marquis might have a nice swing, but he's no DH). In a close call, Cards in 5.
AMERICAN LEAGUE:
TWINS VS. YANKEES: I had actually considered giving the Twins a shot in this series, right up until Torii Hunter opened his mouth, saying he "wants the Yankees." That should be just about all the extra bulletin board material the Yankees need to get them fired up. Yes, Johan Santana is the best pitcher in baseball, but he can't help Minnesota if he leaves in the 7th trailing 2-1. The Yankees know how to handle great pitchers (I.E. Pedro Martinez, and I'm not just talking about this year). They'll try to do the same with Santana, taking all the pitches they can till they get to the bullpen. If the Twins could trot out two more quality starters, I'd give this series to them. But Radke, Rivas, and Lohse just don't do it for me in the playoffs. The Yankees pitching is not as bad as everyone would like to believe is it, and their lineup is the best they've featured in years. Yanks in 5.
...which brings us to the series I'm been avoiding predicting:
RED SOX VS. ANGELS: Before their remarkable 22 game run that pushed them into the postseason, the Sox had played .500 baseball for 92 straight days. But as they showed last year in the ALDS, and almost the ALCS, 1 game above .500 is all you need to advance... That's much easier said than done against this Anaheim team. The Angels do all the little things well: run, bunt, steal bases, and distract pitchers. Their bullpen is lights-out, with K-rod and Percival controlling a game from the 7th on. This means in order to win games, the Sox have to strike early and often against a rotation filled with these: ??? (Colon? Lackey? Escobar?). Boston's staff is not without their own set of ??? (Martinez? Lowe? Wakefield?) who will need to pitch leaps and bounds better than they did in September, when they went a collective 4-9, with a combined ERA reaching towards 7. And 1 over .500 isn't an option for the Sox this time around, as you can bet that Anaheim will not pull an Oakland and drop a series-clinching finale in California. That being said, the Sox need to play .750 ball at least, closing out the series in 4 games or less. If not, it's Angels in 5. .... But that's not good enough for you, is it? Damn you, always wanting more. Grrrrrrrrr..... FINE. Sox in 4. If for no other reason than so I can walk outside without being accosted.
* * * *
At this point, you may be looking for LCS and World Series predictions, but you know what? You're not going to find them here. I don't see the point in trying to prophesize matchups that haven't been established. It's like trying to predict the winner of a fight between Batman and Spider-man: it's fantasy (Unless Don King schedules this fight, at which time I will divulge in depth analysis). In the meantime, I'll try and tide you over, with a list of things to watch for in the LDS:
- Wu-tang Clan members RZA, GZA, Ghostface Killa, Method Man, Inspecta Death, and O.D.B. posing on-field in Minutemaid Park with Biggio, Bagwell, Berkman, and Beltran for a publicity spread that will read "Killer B's Forever"
- Rafael Furcal arriving late to Minutemaid Park after crashing his car into Wu-tang's bus on his way back from the bars.
- Bartolo Colon at a Dunkin Donuts in Boston
- Eric Gagne's arm falling off
- Tom Gordon's arm falling off
- Tony LaRussa trying to stitch together Chris Carpenter's arm
- Bartolo Colon at a Legal Sea Foods in Brookline
- ESPN replaying Dave Henderson's homerun against the Angels in 1986 2,498 times
- Ron Gardenhire glaring at Kyle Lohse
- Pedro Martinez glaring at Terry Francona
- Bartolo Colon glaring at a glazed donut
- Tim Hudson getting in a bar fight in Boston the night following game 3 after Barry Zito punks him by convincing Hudson that he's been traded to the Angels and is starting game 4.
- Joe Buck proclaiming "it's Lima time" every time Jose Lima takes the mound for the Dodgers
- Jose Guillen showing up in Anaheim despite being left off the playoff roster, spitting tobacco on Mike Scioscia's shoes, and subsequently getting suspended for the remainder of the playoffs.
- Jeff DaVanon striking out to end the series, followed by the media immediately questioning the suspension of Jose Guillen.
- Tim McCarver contradicting himself 3,724 times, followed by Deion Sanders pouring water all over him.
- Bartolo Colon at the Krispy Kreme in Medford.
I can hardly wait! As the saying goes, "I live for this."
Until Next Time,
Aaron
FOOTNOTES FOR THE UNINFORMED:
- Mr. Magoo is a little old man (cartoon character) with a scrunched up face.
- The O'Reilly Factor is a show hosted by conservative pundit Bill O'Reilly, who can also be seen licking George Bush's face as well as on occasion fetching his slippers.
- Wu-Tang Clan is a rap group whose members are also known as "The Killer Bee's," which is also what the Houston Astros' 4 B-initialled sluggers have come to be known as. All those who may be skeptical at the idea of the Clan posing for a photo-op like this, let me remind you of ODB's famous prolamation, "Wu-tang is for the kids."
- Joe Buck is a play-by-play announcer with a flare for the dramatic.
- Tim McCarver is a color-commentator who is about as fair and balanced as Fox News.
Friday, October 01, 2004
A Brave New World
Wow. So here I am, not at easyjournal, getting ready to type an entry, no longer a journal entry, but a blog entry. This is a very weird feeling. I'm still trying to get my bearings. What's this do.... Whoa! Bold face! Alright this might be good. But maybe I should stop. This is blatant excessive use. Ok I'm stopping. Ah, nice. I like this. Let's see what else this puppy can do. Italic.... YES!!!!!! You cannot even imagine how long I've been pining to use italics in my entries. Oh, my ship has finally come in. Alright, I think I've got it out of my system.... Psyche!!!!!! OOHHHHHH!!! BOLD ITALIC!!!!!! HAHAHA!
Ok. I've settled down. I had to splash some water in my face, but I'm ok now. This is all just very exciting. Before I move on, I'd like to thank the anonymous people at easyjournal for starting me off, hosting my journal for the last 10 months, and giving me a forum to tap and explore a creativity in me I didn't know was there. Without them, whoever they may be, I wouldn't be writing this now.
Some of you may be thinking, "Wait, how am I going to access all of Aaron's old classic entries??" Ok, so I doubt any of you are actually thinking that, but being the Cub Scout graduate that I am, I am preparing for everything, just in case. For the meantime, I will keep a link to those posted in my AIM profile. As soon as I figure out how to post a link to that site on this site (which could be today if work (temping) stays as slow as it is right now), I'll remove the other link from my profile, and everything will run though this site. Then, when financing permits, I will purchase a tank of sharks with laser beams attached to their heads....
Anyway, seeing as how this IS a blog, I should probably start blogging about something. Let's see.... Topic.... I need a topic.... hmmm.... What's happening in the world..... 35 children killed in Iraq? No, too depressing..... Martha Stewart going to prison? No.... too easy, too overdone..... I need something ridiculous, out of the ordinary, yet frivolous and pretentious, informative yet vague, and all the while screaming "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!" (yes, italics!) Oh, I've got it! No, not Ben Affleck. And shame on you for calling him frivolous and pretentious. No, it's Presidential Debate time! Or as my former coworkers and I imagine most of the country refer to it as, "Survivor Preemption Night."
Sponsored by the League-of-party-affiliated-campaign-advisors-who-will-decide-the-rules-of-the-debate-rather-than-you-the-voters, both John Kerry and George Bush took to the showcase, I mean stage, last night to try and demonstrate to voters that, in fact, they are two different individual people.
For the first half hour, they did just that, vigorously sparring and trading blows, much like Tyson-Holyfield '98 from the MGM grand. But after those first few rounds, Bush seemed to tire, losing his focus and becoming irritable, much like Tyson did. But similarities between the debate and the Tyson-Holyfield fight truly became undeniable when, gasping for air and hunched over, Bush leaned over Kerry's podium and bit a piece of his ear off. In post-debate analysis, conservative talk show host Bill "I-hate-stoned-slackers" O'Reilly called the move daring and unexpected, with conservative advocate Robert "sure-I'll-name-names" Novak deeming it a bold move in defending liberty and justice. In contrast, liberal activist and filmmaker Michael "don't-call-me-Demi" Moore called it a travesty of the American political system. Meanwhile, CNN anchor Wolf "I-don't-need-a-nickname-because-my-first-name-is-Wolf,how-tough-is-that?" Blitzer, who was the official scorer for the match, had it close, ruling in Kerry's favor with a 5-4 count in rounds, but ultimately disqualifying Bush for removing his mouth guard.
Speaking of Blitzer, I used to argue with my Israeli-friend at school (who shall remain nameless at her request) about the quality and integrity of Wolf. She would argue that he was very fair and balanced (where have I heard that before?) with a hint of liberal leanings, while I considered him to be just another media blow-hole (pardon the expression - too many donuts today) for the right wing networks. As I have come to watch more cable news with the election growing closer (it's becoming a sick addiction, no different than crack or heroin. Really, this stuff can be just as corrupt and damaging to your health) I've start to think that Blitzer is probably somewhere in between what the two of us thought. One thing I've decided for sure, though, he's a keen, intelligent guy who's definitely earned his keep in the business.
That being said, I can only wonder what he must think when he has to pitch to Bill "yes-these-are-my-real-teeth-and-hair" Hemmer. Through the magic of my imagination, let's take a look inside the mind of a Wolf:
Wolf: Alright, let's go live now to Bill Hemmer, who has been watching the debate with a group of undecided voters.
Wolf's head: I can't believe I am on the same show as this man, let alone the same network. This borders
on humiliation.
Bill (with fake toothy newscaster smile): Thanks Wolfman! I'm standing here with 20 undecided voters, who we gave these boxes to record their real time evaluations during the debate...
Wolf's head: If we gave a monkey a banana and a chew toy, and replaced Hemmer with it, I wonder if anyone would notice? They're about on par for journalistic integrity...
I'm telling you, this would be like "Being John Malkovich" and "What Women Want" put together, only better.
And while I'm on the subject, I have to take issue with these "real time" viewer reaction polls from these alleged "undecided voters." Many "news organizations" have taken to using these methods for gathering sample audience reaction during the actual debates. They give these people boxes that look like the ones professors handed out in college for those large lecture instant feedback-type quizzes (I never actually had to do one of these at college, thankfully, but I imagine I would have continually pressed 6969696969 before realizing I had failed). They press numbers, 1-10, and this is supposed to rate how positively or negatively they feel at each and every point during the debate while each candidate is speaking (just suspend your reality and your common sense for a moment and assume this could actually work effectively. After all, CNN did). Now I'm not expecting anything groundbreaking here, believe me, but when they are showing us the results on screen, which look like the digital image conception of a polygraph test and a line graph, you'd expect to at least be able to make out some noticeable distinction in movement and change (like when Andy Dick put his to-be-assistants in the lie-detector test): some kind of violent upswing or downfall. Instead, we see a small blip up or down. At the sight of this, Hemmer creams himself. "Look at that!" He shouts. With the type of enthusiasm he was displaying, I was expecting nothing less than seeing a naked Jenna Jameson fondling the candidates on stage (and if Clinton was still around, maybe we might have had a chance at this).
Furthermore, are we really supposed to take this seriously? Viewer reaction? Really? Do the viewers actually tell us what they're thinking? Do they at all comment? Do THEY actually SAY ANYTHING? (And yes, all these questions are approvable, as they are rhetorical, and thus allowed in the agreed-upon debate format) This "viewer response" is about as accurate in collecting a relevant, accurate view of a person's thought process as a standardized test (you know, the ones you always wanted in school if you didn't study, but dreaded if you actually knew something).
The funny thing is though, if you looked past the screaming dancing monke... I mean Bill Hemmer, the "viewer feedback" actually presented something very telling: There really WAS little variation in people's feeling during the debate. And if you want to extrapolate these results, they probably represent America as a whole. The truth is, most people are not being swayed strongly by either of these two candidates. Each, in reality, is a fraud, posing as something he isn't, while America is forced to cast their collective vote for a candidate that they feel "isn't as bad as the other." It's a culture of fear, and somehow, we turned from voters into pawns, waiting for a small nudge one way or the other, whichever way the wind blows. Which was why Freddy Mercury of Queen was so prolific when he sang, "anyway the wind blows, doesn't really matter to me..." A man ahead of his time....
Anyway, it's one down, two to go, PLUS, the all-exciting VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE next week! Dick "the-penguin-from-1970s-Batman" Cheney vs. John "I'm-too-sexy-for-my-shirt" Edwards. Integrity? Policies? Issues? I prefer to remain realistic. The most I'm hoping for is some eye-gouging, and if we really get lucky, maybe an atomic-wedgie....
FOOTNOTES FOR THE UNIFORMED:
In lieu of the usual "footnotes for the uniformed", I present to you: GREAT MOMENTS IN DEBATE HISTORY:
Ok. I've settled down. I had to splash some water in my face, but I'm ok now. This is all just very exciting. Before I move on, I'd like to thank the anonymous people at easyjournal for starting me off, hosting my journal for the last 10 months, and giving me a forum to tap and explore a creativity in me I didn't know was there. Without them, whoever they may be, I wouldn't be writing this now.
Some of you may be thinking, "Wait, how am I going to access all of Aaron's old classic entries??" Ok, so I doubt any of you are actually thinking that, but being the Cub Scout graduate that I am, I am preparing for everything, just in case. For the meantime, I will keep a link to those posted in my AIM profile. As soon as I figure out how to post a link to that site on this site (which could be today if work (temping) stays as slow as it is right now), I'll remove the other link from my profile, and everything will run though this site. Then, when financing permits, I will purchase a tank of sharks with laser beams attached to their heads....
Anyway, seeing as how this IS a blog, I should probably start blogging about something. Let's see.... Topic.... I need a topic.... hmmm.... What's happening in the world..... 35 children killed in Iraq? No, too depressing..... Martha Stewart going to prison? No.... too easy, too overdone..... I need something ridiculous, out of the ordinary, yet frivolous and pretentious, informative yet vague, and all the while screaming "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!" (yes, italics!) Oh, I've got it! No, not Ben Affleck. And shame on you for calling him frivolous and pretentious. No, it's Presidential Debate time! Or as my former coworkers and I imagine most of the country refer to it as, "Survivor Preemption Night."
Sponsored by the League-of-party-affiliated-campaign-advisors-who-will-decide-the-rules-of-the-debate-rather-than-you-the-voters, both John Kerry and George Bush took to the showcase, I mean stage, last night to try and demonstrate to voters that, in fact, they are two different individual people.
For the first half hour, they did just that, vigorously sparring and trading blows, much like Tyson-Holyfield '98 from the MGM grand. But after those first few rounds, Bush seemed to tire, losing his focus and becoming irritable, much like Tyson did. But similarities between the debate and the Tyson-Holyfield fight truly became undeniable when, gasping for air and hunched over, Bush leaned over Kerry's podium and bit a piece of his ear off. In post-debate analysis, conservative talk show host Bill "I-hate-stoned-slackers" O'Reilly called the move daring and unexpected, with conservative advocate Robert "sure-I'll-name-names" Novak deeming it a bold move in defending liberty and justice. In contrast, liberal activist and filmmaker Michael "don't-call-me-Demi" Moore called it a travesty of the American political system. Meanwhile, CNN anchor Wolf "I-don't-need-a-nickname-because-my-first-name-is-Wolf,how-tough-is-that?" Blitzer, who was the official scorer for the match, had it close, ruling in Kerry's favor with a 5-4 count in rounds, but ultimately disqualifying Bush for removing his mouth guard.
Speaking of Blitzer, I used to argue with my Israeli-friend at school (who shall remain nameless at her request) about the quality and integrity of Wolf. She would argue that he was very fair and balanced (where have I heard that before?) with a hint of liberal leanings, while I considered him to be just another media blow-hole (pardon the expression - too many donuts today) for the right wing networks. As I have come to watch more cable news with the election growing closer (it's becoming a sick addiction, no different than crack or heroin. Really, this stuff can be just as corrupt and damaging to your health) I've start to think that Blitzer is probably somewhere in between what the two of us thought. One thing I've decided for sure, though, he's a keen, intelligent guy who's definitely earned his keep in the business.
That being said, I can only wonder what he must think when he has to pitch to Bill "yes-these-are-my-real-teeth-and-hair" Hemmer. Through the magic of my imagination, let's take a look inside the mind of a Wolf:
Wolf: Alright, let's go live now to Bill Hemmer, who has been watching the debate with a group of undecided voters.
Wolf's head: I can't believe I am on the same show as this man, let alone the same network. This borders
on humiliation.
Bill (with fake toothy newscaster smile): Thanks Wolfman! I'm standing here with 20 undecided voters, who we gave these boxes to record their real time evaluations during the debate...
Wolf's head: If we gave a monkey a banana and a chew toy, and replaced Hemmer with it, I wonder if anyone would notice? They're about on par for journalistic integrity...
I'm telling you, this would be like "Being John Malkovich" and "What Women Want" put together, only better.
And while I'm on the subject, I have to take issue with these "real time" viewer reaction polls from these alleged "undecided voters." Many "news organizations" have taken to using these methods for gathering sample audience reaction during the actual debates. They give these people boxes that look like the ones professors handed out in college for those large lecture instant feedback-type quizzes (I never actually had to do one of these at college, thankfully, but I imagine I would have continually pressed 6969696969 before realizing I had failed). They press numbers, 1-10, and this is supposed to rate how positively or negatively they feel at each and every point during the debate while each candidate is speaking (just suspend your reality and your common sense for a moment and assume this could actually work effectively. After all, CNN did). Now I'm not expecting anything groundbreaking here, believe me, but when they are showing us the results on screen, which look like the digital image conception of a polygraph test and a line graph, you'd expect to at least be able to make out some noticeable distinction in movement and change (like when Andy Dick put his to-be-assistants in the lie-detector test): some kind of violent upswing or downfall. Instead, we see a small blip up or down. At the sight of this, Hemmer creams himself. "Look at that!" He shouts. With the type of enthusiasm he was displaying, I was expecting nothing less than seeing a naked Jenna Jameson fondling the candidates on stage (and if Clinton was still around, maybe we might have had a chance at this).
Furthermore, are we really supposed to take this seriously? Viewer reaction? Really? Do the viewers actually tell us what they're thinking? Do they at all comment? Do THEY actually SAY ANYTHING? (And yes, all these questions are approvable, as they are rhetorical, and thus allowed in the agreed-upon debate format) This "viewer response" is about as accurate in collecting a relevant, accurate view of a person's thought process as a standardized test (you know, the ones you always wanted in school if you didn't study, but dreaded if you actually knew something).
The funny thing is though, if you looked past the screaming dancing monke... I mean Bill Hemmer, the "viewer feedback" actually presented something very telling: There really WAS little variation in people's feeling during the debate. And if you want to extrapolate these results, they probably represent America as a whole. The truth is, most people are not being swayed strongly by either of these two candidates. Each, in reality, is a fraud, posing as something he isn't, while America is forced to cast their collective vote for a candidate that they feel "isn't as bad as the other." It's a culture of fear, and somehow, we turned from voters into pawns, waiting for a small nudge one way or the other, whichever way the wind blows. Which was why Freddy Mercury of Queen was so prolific when he sang, "anyway the wind blows, doesn't really matter to me..." A man ahead of his time....
Anyway, it's one down, two to go, PLUS, the all-exciting VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE next week! Dick "the-penguin-from-1970s-Batman" Cheney vs. John "I'm-too-sexy-for-my-shirt" Edwards. Integrity? Policies? Issues? I prefer to remain realistic. The most I'm hoping for is some eye-gouging, and if we really get lucky, maybe an atomic-wedgie....
FOOTNOTES FOR THE UNIFORMED:
In lieu of the usual "footnotes for the uniformed", I present to you: GREAT MOMENTS IN DEBATE HISTORY:
1976: Republican vice presidential nominee Bob Dole gained much of his reputation as a gruff attack dog in a debate with Democrat Walter Mondale. Among other things, Dole referred to the two world wars and Vietnam as "Democrat wars." Dole mellowed by the time he ran for president 20 years later, but the images of '76 stuck with him for a long time. (courtesy usatoday.com) Today, he battles his mellowness by taking viagra.
Until Next Time,
Aaron
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)