So, the big news in the past couple days, if you're a Phillies fan, is that Gavin Floyd has made the team as the 5th starter and Ryan Madson has made the starting rotation as the 4th. This has the unexpected bonus of moving Ryan Franklin, a mediocre starter, to the bullpen as the 7th inning guy, where he did a good job several years ago. Now the complaints I had with the bullpen a few days ago have been addressed, though possibly not sufficiently, but addressed nonetheless. Plus it's good to see good things happening for Gavin Floyd, because I've been rooting for him for almost three years now. (That's right, I was rooting for him over a year before he ever appeared in the majors, because I'm that much of a baseball dork that I'm following Phillies prospects. Wanna know who I'm rooting for now who won't appear in a major league game until 2008? Cole Hamels, Mike Costanzo, and Gio Gonzalez.)
Anyway, long story short, the pitching staff suddenly looks a lot better to me, and that was everybody's biggest worry with this team. This could be the year... assuming no catastrophic injury pileups, no Tim Worrell-style meltdowns, and Mike Lieberthal and whoever is at third base not sucking, and consistancy and blah blah blah and a million other things.
Still... it's good news.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
As a source of academic knowledge, Wikipedia is, of course, useless. It's an open source encyclopedia, and even if it is fairly well moderated, there's still the possibility of you editing an article, then citing your own edit in a paper or something. So professors aren't a fan of it.
However, there are plenty of things Wikipedia can offer that real encyclopedias can't. Here are...
Five Things to Love about Wikipedia
- This picture. The picture itself isn't funny, but read the caption. What kind of real encyclopedia would ever run that?
- Hilariously unnecessary articles. Here's a good example. Where else can you find a succinct yet comprehensive source of famous moustaches, moustache styles, and the history of moustaches?
- Highly specific local folklore and inside jokes. That particular article is a glorious monument to the deep-seeded hatred of my university's administration, as well as a testament to how much people can actually do with their free time without actually accomplishing anything (says the guy writing a blog article, I know, I know).
- Coverage of current events. Ever want the back story after reading a newspaper article that assumes you already know it? Type it into Wikipedia, and voila! And Wikipedia doesn't have enough journalistic integrity to stop themselves from linking to accused murderer's former xanga sites, either.
- Above average coverage of music. They may not offer in depth reviews (although they do link to them), but have you ever read a pitchforkmedia article that listed every sample DJ Shadow used for his first record? You can't beat that.
So there you have it. I promise I won't get into too much of a habit of making unnecessary lists, but two in two days isn't encouraging...
However, there are plenty of things Wikipedia can offer that real encyclopedias can't. Here are...
Five Things to Love about Wikipedia
- This picture. The picture itself isn't funny, but read the caption. What kind of real encyclopedia would ever run that?
- Hilariously unnecessary articles. Here's a good example. Where else can you find a succinct yet comprehensive source of famous moustaches, moustache styles, and the history of moustaches?
- Highly specific local folklore and inside jokes. That particular article is a glorious monument to the deep-seeded hatred of my university's administration, as well as a testament to how much people can actually do with their free time without actually accomplishing anything (says the guy writing a blog article, I know, I know).
- Coverage of current events. Ever want the back story after reading a newspaper article that assumes you already know it? Type it into Wikipedia, and voila! And Wikipedia doesn't have enough journalistic integrity to stop themselves from linking to accused murderer's former xanga sites, either.
- Above average coverage of music. They may not offer in depth reviews (although they do link to them), but have you ever read a pitchforkmedia article that listed every sample DJ Shadow used for his first record? You can't beat that.
So there you have it. I promise I won't get into too much of a habit of making unnecessary lists, but two in two days isn't encouraging...
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Nobody likes a gratuitous list more than me. Likewise with the Beach Boys. So here, without further ado, is a gratuitous list about the Beach Boys:
Tom's Top Ten Underrated Beach Boys Songs
1. "Surf's Up" - In the mid-60's, Leonard Bernstein did a television special on the rising artistry of popular music, which was finally being recognized as a form of art and not just fatuous entertainment. And of all the songs by all the artists in the world he could have used to illustrate his point, he chose this one, calling it, among other things, "beautiful in its obscurity." The infamous Van Dyke Parks/Brian Wilson/Smile collaboration reached its peak with "Surf's Up."
2. "'Til I Die" - This one is Brian Wilson at his most desperately depressed. "I'm a leaf on a windy day, pretty soon I'll be blown away." A deep sense of melancholy with those trademark gorgeous Wilson harmonies, and you've got a minor masterpiece, as beautiful as it is sad.
3. "Caroline, No" - If it's possible for a track from an album so widely acknowledged as a masterpiece as Pet Sounds to be underrated, this one is. Beach Boys songs aren't often praised for their lyrics, but I can't think of a better way to capture the lost innocence of adulthood than "Caroline, No." (Except maybe "Surf's Up," actually.)
4. "The Little Girl I Once Knew" - The Beach Boys never get enough praise for their pre-Pet Sounds material, and this is a great example of a classic song recorded just months before Pet Sounds that just sort of slipped through the cracks of fame. In a just world, this would be on the greatest hits album between "California Girls" and "Wouldn't It Be Nice."
5. "Friends" - The title track from 1968's low-key, modest underrated album, this track is a simple ditty about the special bond between good friends. Simple in subject matter, production, and music, it's a perfect mood setter for the mellow brilliance of the album it was on.
6. "A Day in the Life of a Tree" - The Beach Boys did some great experimental work in the 60's, but it took until 1971 with this song for them to be truly bizarre. On the surface it's an environmental paean, but it's clearly a metaphor for Brian Wilson's troubled state of mind at the time. If you can stand the droning church organ and Jack Reiley's strained vocals, this can be a truly touching song.
7. "Keep an Eye on Summer" - Starting with Surfer Girl and going through All Summer Long, every album contained one or two ballads that all sounded pretty similar, but this one stood out enough for Brian Wilson to record it again for his 1998 album, Imagination, and deservedly so.
8. "Soulful Old Man Sunshine" - This one was so underrated that it had to wait until the turn of the 21st century for release on a rarities album, despite being recorded in 1968. As messed up in so many ways as he was at the time, Brian Wilson was still capable of producing sunny, upbeat pop like nobody else, and this one is all of that and yet has a swing unlike any other Beach Boys song, which might be why it got shelved for 30 years.
9. "Kiss Me Baby" - Another overlooked gem from the period just before Pet Sounds. Typically gorgeous vocals, subtle production, and a melody to die for.
10. "Our Sweet Love" - Pretty much all of the tracks on 1970's Sunflower could be considered underrated, but I love this one for its beautiful lead vocal by Carl Wilson, who was, appropriately enough, possibly the most underrated member of the group.
So that's that. Hopefully somebody will be inspired to check out some of these songs. They're all great, really!
Tom's Top Ten Underrated Beach Boys Songs
1. "Surf's Up" - In the mid-60's, Leonard Bernstein did a television special on the rising artistry of popular music, which was finally being recognized as a form of art and not just fatuous entertainment. And of all the songs by all the artists in the world he could have used to illustrate his point, he chose this one, calling it, among other things, "beautiful in its obscurity." The infamous Van Dyke Parks/Brian Wilson/Smile collaboration reached its peak with "Surf's Up."
2. "'Til I Die" - This one is Brian Wilson at his most desperately depressed. "I'm a leaf on a windy day, pretty soon I'll be blown away." A deep sense of melancholy with those trademark gorgeous Wilson harmonies, and you've got a minor masterpiece, as beautiful as it is sad.
3. "Caroline, No" - If it's possible for a track from an album so widely acknowledged as a masterpiece as Pet Sounds to be underrated, this one is. Beach Boys songs aren't often praised for their lyrics, but I can't think of a better way to capture the lost innocence of adulthood than "Caroline, No." (Except maybe "Surf's Up," actually.)
4. "The Little Girl I Once Knew" - The Beach Boys never get enough praise for their pre-Pet Sounds material, and this is a great example of a classic song recorded just months before Pet Sounds that just sort of slipped through the cracks of fame. In a just world, this would be on the greatest hits album between "California Girls" and "Wouldn't It Be Nice."
5. "Friends" - The title track from 1968's low-key, modest underrated album, this track is a simple ditty about the special bond between good friends. Simple in subject matter, production, and music, it's a perfect mood setter for the mellow brilliance of the album it was on.
6. "A Day in the Life of a Tree" - The Beach Boys did some great experimental work in the 60's, but it took until 1971 with this song for them to be truly bizarre. On the surface it's an environmental paean, but it's clearly a metaphor for Brian Wilson's troubled state of mind at the time. If you can stand the droning church organ and Jack Reiley's strained vocals, this can be a truly touching song.
7. "Keep an Eye on Summer" - Starting with Surfer Girl and going through All Summer Long, every album contained one or two ballads that all sounded pretty similar, but this one stood out enough for Brian Wilson to record it again for his 1998 album, Imagination, and deservedly so.
8. "Soulful Old Man Sunshine" - This one was so underrated that it had to wait until the turn of the 21st century for release on a rarities album, despite being recorded in 1968. As messed up in so many ways as he was at the time, Brian Wilson was still capable of producing sunny, upbeat pop like nobody else, and this one is all of that and yet has a swing unlike any other Beach Boys song, which might be why it got shelved for 30 years.
9. "Kiss Me Baby" - Another overlooked gem from the period just before Pet Sounds. Typically gorgeous vocals, subtle production, and a melody to die for.
10. "Our Sweet Love" - Pretty much all of the tracks on 1970's Sunflower could be considered underrated, but I love this one for its beautiful lead vocal by Carl Wilson, who was, appropriately enough, possibly the most underrated member of the group.
So that's that. Hopefully somebody will be inspired to check out some of these songs. They're all great, really!
Saturday, March 25, 2006
An annual springtime Phillies report
Ah, spring. The time of year when a young man's thoughts turn to our national pastime, and the prospects of his beloved Phillies ending their now 13 year playoff drought. What, that's just me? Ok then, here are my thoughts heading into the regular season, which starts next Monday, with John Lieber facing off against the Ghost of Chris Carpenter at Citizens Bank Park.
Like everybody else, I'm not worried as much about the offense as the pitching. Third base and catching appear to be the weak spots in the offense, but I think the Phillies will do better than expected, with Abraham Nunez taking most of the time at third and with Mike Lieberthal showing he still has some juice left in the tank in what will likely be his last season in Philadelphia (trivia of the day: Lieberthal is Philadelphia's longest tenured pro athlete).
The pitching concerns me, though. With Ryan Madson moved to the starting rotation, where he has only one career start (in which he didn't even make it out of the first inning, if my memory serves me correct), the Phils lack any kind of reliable middle relief pitcher. What we're looking at is a competition for the job between some aging has-beens (Julio Santana, Rheal Cormier), some never-weres with wasted potential (Chris Booker, Aquilino Lopez, Ricardo Rodriguez), and guys who would be better served with some more time in the minor leagues (Eude Brito, Rob Tejeda, Geoff Geary).
And don't get me started on the starting rotation. Brett Myers is going to be an ace eventually, but other than that, what have we got? Jon Lieber and Cory Lidle's inconsistency (although I have to give props to Lieber for winning 17 games last year despite that horrid stretch he had in June and July), Ryan Madson's unproven capabilities (he was great as a relief pitcher, but who knows how he will be as a starter?), and Ryan Franklin, who replaces the ultimate symbol of wasted potential, Vicente Padilla, who was traded to Texas for nothing. I fail to see how Franklin is an improvement over Padilla, who was actually an All-Star several years ago, but whatever. My guess is that by the end of July some big trade goes down and the Phillies will get either a better starter or a better third baseman, and Franklin will be gone, possibly replaced by Randy Wolf, who's waiting in the wings for his replaced arm joint to get up to speed.
On the bright side, the Phillies are going to score a ton of runs. They have at least four guys capable of 30 homers and 100 RBI in Chase Utley, Pat Burrell, Bobby Abreu, and Ryan Howard, and between Utley, Abreu, Jimmy Rollins, and Aaron Rowand, they should steal a ton of bases as well. For better or for worse, they'll live and die by the long ball, and the question is whether or not their pitching can sustain them on the days when the balls aren't flying out of the park, or when they play in Atlanta or San Diego.
My prediction? They can easily win the division if the pitching holds up, but without a major trade, I don't see that happening. Realistically, they'll probably fall just short of the wild card again (and for the record, I'm predicting Atlanta wins the division again after the Mets find a way to implode again despite their big flashy acquisitions), although there's still a part of me that sees them winning 100 games and breezing to a World Series title.
Call that the Philadelphian part.
Like everybody else, I'm not worried as much about the offense as the pitching. Third base and catching appear to be the weak spots in the offense, but I think the Phillies will do better than expected, with Abraham Nunez taking most of the time at third and with Mike Lieberthal showing he still has some juice left in the tank in what will likely be his last season in Philadelphia (trivia of the day: Lieberthal is Philadelphia's longest tenured pro athlete).
The pitching concerns me, though. With Ryan Madson moved to the starting rotation, where he has only one career start (in which he didn't even make it out of the first inning, if my memory serves me correct), the Phils lack any kind of reliable middle relief pitcher. What we're looking at is a competition for the job between some aging has-beens (Julio Santana, Rheal Cormier), some never-weres with wasted potential (Chris Booker, Aquilino Lopez, Ricardo Rodriguez), and guys who would be better served with some more time in the minor leagues (Eude Brito, Rob Tejeda, Geoff Geary).
And don't get me started on the starting rotation. Brett Myers is going to be an ace eventually, but other than that, what have we got? Jon Lieber and Cory Lidle's inconsistency (although I have to give props to Lieber for winning 17 games last year despite that horrid stretch he had in June and July), Ryan Madson's unproven capabilities (he was great as a relief pitcher, but who knows how he will be as a starter?), and Ryan Franklin, who replaces the ultimate symbol of wasted potential, Vicente Padilla, who was traded to Texas for nothing. I fail to see how Franklin is an improvement over Padilla, who was actually an All-Star several years ago, but whatever. My guess is that by the end of July some big trade goes down and the Phillies will get either a better starter or a better third baseman, and Franklin will be gone, possibly replaced by Randy Wolf, who's waiting in the wings for his replaced arm joint to get up to speed.
On the bright side, the Phillies are going to score a ton of runs. They have at least four guys capable of 30 homers and 100 RBI in Chase Utley, Pat Burrell, Bobby Abreu, and Ryan Howard, and between Utley, Abreu, Jimmy Rollins, and Aaron Rowand, they should steal a ton of bases as well. For better or for worse, they'll live and die by the long ball, and the question is whether or not their pitching can sustain them on the days when the balls aren't flying out of the park, or when they play in Atlanta or San Diego.
My prediction? They can easily win the division if the pitching holds up, but without a major trade, I don't see that happening. Realistically, they'll probably fall just short of the wild card again (and for the record, I'm predicting Atlanta wins the division again after the Mets find a way to implode again despite their big flashy acquisitions), although there's still a part of me that sees them winning 100 games and breezing to a World Series title.
Call that the Philadelphian part.
Friday, March 24, 2006
A random pleasant thought...
Wouldn't it be neat if, after Syd Barrett (link for those not fully aware of who that is) quietly passes away alone in his home in Cambridge, his family finds and releases a series of mind-blowingly amazing fully finished albums, proving that he never lost his gift after all?
One can hope anyway, right? Happy belated 60th, Syd. (Two months late is better than not at all.)
One can hope anyway, right? Happy belated 60th, Syd. (Two months late is better than not at all.)
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Rock Action with Mogwai
What do you do when you achieve perfection almost instantly? Mogwai have been answering this question for the better part of a decade, with varying degrees of success. Their debut, Young Team, was hailed almost universally as a masterpiece, and rightly so. Their subsequent albums have traded in the huge, epic interplay of dynamics for a quieter and, in many cases, more sophisticated take on the genre that people call "post-rock" (although Tortoise has a near-monopoly on "sophisticated post-rock," if you ask me). And, in my opinion, they haven't gotten nearly enough credit for what they've been doing, as I think that Rock Action and Happy Songs for Happy People are the equals of Young Team, depending on what kind of mood I'm in.
With that in mind, I expected something similar for Mr. Beast, their newest and most hilariously titled album. And for one track, the opening "Auto Rock," this holds true, with bubbling synths and a piano motif making up the center of the song.
Then something unexpected happens: "Glasgow Mega Snake" kicks in, and Mogwai cut loose with a screaming, heavy rocker, the kind that make you wonder if the sound could possibly get any more huge, right before it does just that. Take note, people: Mogwai are still kings of the genre, even if only for that fleeting moment.
And fleeting it is, because the album then settles into moody, "atmospheric" rock, and never really comes back. It's not immediately engaging, which isn't a bad thing, but it is a problem that it rarely rises above the level of vaguely satisfying background music, roughly equal to 1999's mostly hit-or-miss Come On Die Young. It's ground they've covered before, and done a much better job with it.
Overall, I'd say I'm mildly disappointed. It's somehow worse having been teased with the promise of a song as great as "Glasgow Mega Snake," but at least we have that one. When I make my list of my favorite songs at the end of 2006, I can almost guarantee that one a spot. (How dorky is it that I'm even thinking about that right now?)
With that in mind, I expected something similar for Mr. Beast, their newest and most hilariously titled album. And for one track, the opening "Auto Rock," this holds true, with bubbling synths and a piano motif making up the center of the song.
Then something unexpected happens: "Glasgow Mega Snake" kicks in, and Mogwai cut loose with a screaming, heavy rocker, the kind that make you wonder if the sound could possibly get any more huge, right before it does just that. Take note, people: Mogwai are still kings of the genre, even if only for that fleeting moment.
And fleeting it is, because the album then settles into moody, "atmospheric" rock, and never really comes back. It's not immediately engaging, which isn't a bad thing, but it is a problem that it rarely rises above the level of vaguely satisfying background music, roughly equal to 1999's mostly hit-or-miss Come On Die Young. It's ground they've covered before, and done a much better job with it.
Overall, I'd say I'm mildly disappointed. It's somehow worse having been teased with the promise of a song as great as "Glasgow Mega Snake," but at least we have that one. When I make my list of my favorite songs at the end of 2006, I can almost guarantee that one a spot. (How dorky is it that I'm even thinking about that right now?)
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
The REAL Best Picture: anything but Crash!
Let me straighten something out. I don't always take pride in my self-appointed role as parade-rainer, party-pooper, overbearing cynic, or whatever you want to call it. And I was perfectly content to just let the Oscars slip by unnoticed. But it couldn't be that simple, could it? They had to give "Best Picture" to Crash, the only nominee that I actually saw, and the only one that made me roll my eyes in disgust for almost the entire length of the film.
Here's my one-sentence summary of Crash:
EVERYBODY CAN BE RACIST AND RACISM IS BAD. (repeat 600 times)
You know how some things are like sugar, in that a little bit of it is great, but too much is terrible? Well Crash is like Brussels sprouts. You eat it because you have a vague notion that it will be good for you, but it tastes disgusting. Then you decide you've had enough Brussels sprouts, but you're not allowed to stop, because they tie you to your chair and force-feed them to you. Then Paul Haggis comes in and starts beating you over the head with a bat, and with every blow he yells, "RACISM IS BAD! RACISM IS BAD!" and the whole time you STILL HAVE TO KEEP EATING BRUSSELS SPROUTS!
Sorry, my metaphor got a little confused there.
Anyway, what I wanted to say is that Crash is a message film (which isn't bad in and of itself) with a message that's simplistic, fairly obvious, and not particularly insightful, and which presents itself (over and over and over) with dialogue and plot twists that aren't even remotely connected to anything that has ever happened in real life. If somebody made a movie about racism that explored the subtle ways in which it actually affects our lives (or anybody's life), I'd be all for it, but Crash just about redefines the concept of something being "contrived."I found it insulting and patronizing.
Or, as Scott Foundas from LA Weekly put it (scroll about 1/4 of the way down the page), it's "the best movie of the year for people who like to say, 'A lot of my best friends are black.'"
Don't ask me who should have won instead. I don't know. Crash was the only one I saw, so when it won I had to spout out my take on it.
Here's my one-sentence summary of Crash:
EVERYBODY CAN BE RACIST AND RACISM IS BAD. (repeat 600 times)
You know how some things are like sugar, in that a little bit of it is great, but too much is terrible? Well Crash is like Brussels sprouts. You eat it because you have a vague notion that it will be good for you, but it tastes disgusting. Then you decide you've had enough Brussels sprouts, but you're not allowed to stop, because they tie you to your chair and force-feed them to you. Then Paul Haggis comes in and starts beating you over the head with a bat, and with every blow he yells, "RACISM IS BAD! RACISM IS BAD!" and the whole time you STILL HAVE TO KEEP EATING BRUSSELS SPROUTS!
Sorry, my metaphor got a little confused there.
Anyway, what I wanted to say is that Crash is a message film (which isn't bad in and of itself) with a message that's simplistic, fairly obvious, and not particularly insightful, and which presents itself (over and over and over) with dialogue and plot twists that aren't even remotely connected to anything that has ever happened in real life. If somebody made a movie about racism that explored the subtle ways in which it actually affects our lives (or anybody's life), I'd be all for it, but Crash just about redefines the concept of something being "contrived."I found it insulting and patronizing.
Or, as Scott Foundas from LA Weekly put it (scroll about 1/4 of the way down the page), it's "the best movie of the year for people who like to say, 'A lot of my best friends are black.'"
Don't ask me who should have won instead. I don't know. Crash was the only one I saw, so when it won I had to spout out my take on it.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
These days, when dealing with the internet, I make an effort to stay away from overtly political material. This is because I have extremely strong opinions but can't stand the process of arguing them on the internet, because when you take people out of a face to face situation, arguments devolve into two people essentially yelling at each other with their fingers stuck in their ears, and nobody looks good. Also, I don't like arguing about politics on a blog because it keeps me from enjoying writing in it, which is the only reason that this exists.
All that said, I couldn't resist delving into the world of politics today after reading this column:
http://philadelphiaweekly.com/view.php?id=11662
Why? Because this column (which you should read before continuing here unless you want everything to be out of context), to me, is a perfect explanation of why abortion rights are more than politics. It involves real people, with real consequences. Taking away individual freedom is almost always a bad idea, and that column explains why: there are circumstances that people don't account for, that can't be accounted for until they arise.
Ms. Spikol says it best herself: "Why should other women-adults who may have their own reasons, or children who are too young to understand them-have fewer options? The right to an abortion doesn't lie in the rationale for getting one. Women shouldn't be forced to justify themselves, to tell their own stories, in order to make this crucial, well-considered decision."
I've been a loyal and consistent reader of Liz Spikol's columns for a long time (and her recently launched blog as well), and have had similar experiences to a lot of what she's written about, so maybe it's because she's not a complete stranger to me that this week's column moved me so much. Either way, I hope it's as thought-provoking for you as it was for me.
(In fact, I liked it so much that I wrote her an email about it, and she answered saying that I could distribute it to whoever I wanted to (like a writer will ever say, "no, I'd rather people didn't read my work") which is why I posted it here, and that she forwarded my email to her editor, who wanted to use it for the letters page. So look out for my name in the Philadelphia Weekly on Wednesday.)
All that said, I couldn't resist delving into the world of politics today after reading this column:
http://philadelphiaweekly.com/view.php?id=11662
Why? Because this column (which you should read before continuing here unless you want everything to be out of context), to me, is a perfect explanation of why abortion rights are more than politics. It involves real people, with real consequences. Taking away individual freedom is almost always a bad idea, and that column explains why: there are circumstances that people don't account for, that can't be accounted for until they arise.
Ms. Spikol says it best herself: "Why should other women-adults who may have their own reasons, or children who are too young to understand them-have fewer options? The right to an abortion doesn't lie in the rationale for getting one. Women shouldn't be forced to justify themselves, to tell their own stories, in order to make this crucial, well-considered decision."
I've been a loyal and consistent reader of Liz Spikol's columns for a long time (and her recently launched blog as well), and have had similar experiences to a lot of what she's written about, so maybe it's because she's not a complete stranger to me that this week's column moved me so much. Either way, I hope it's as thought-provoking for you as it was for me.
(In fact, I liked it so much that I wrote her an email about it, and she answered saying that I could distribute it to whoever I wanted to (like a writer will ever say, "no, I'd rather people didn't read my work") which is why I posted it here, and that she forwarded my email to her editor, who wanted to use it for the letters page. So look out for my name in the Philadelphia Weekly on Wednesday.)
Friday, March 03, 2006
Ode to the Winter Olympics
I'm used to thinking and/or stating things that are profoundly uncool and that most people seem to disagree with ("The Monkees deserve more credit than most people give them" or "I look good in these relatively tight-fitting clothes" or "Uggs are some fuckin' butt-ugly shoes"), so here's another one:
I like the Winter Olympics.
I like being able to watch 10 minutes of programming and be completely caught up with everything that's happened in the past four years in any number of relatively obscure sports. Shani Davis vs. Chad Hedrick? I know the entire back story. I know that Bode Miller is a disappointment, and seems like kind of an idiot, that Sasha Cohen is a choker, and that figure skater Johnny Weir (whose name is almost always preceded with "flamboyant" in media coverage) and I are both originally from the same tiny town in rural hick country, PA ("There are a hundred ways to cover your redneck past," says North Carolinan Ben Folds). And I know that he occasionally gets in trouble for drawing bizarre parallels between recreational drugs and his costume or skating routine (another skater's program was "more like a vodka shot, let's-snort-coke kind of thing"). And that my sister is apparently really good friends with his cousin.
I like the Winter Olympics because two weeks every four years is exactly the right amount of time for me to pay attention to things like speed skating, bobsledding, and alpine skiing. I even like curling, for the same reasons everybody else does: it's a great sport for gawking, and whether or not "What the hell is going on here?" is verbalized or simply implied through a baffled stare, everybody is thinking it.
I like international ice hockey, and watching teams like Slovakia and Switzerland, little countries that could, hand it to just about everybody in the preliminary rounds, and I like watching Finland, because I want to be president of the Antero Niittymaaki fan club, and because Finns play the game right: physical and scrappy, but with great skills, and with 25 guys whose names all end with "nen" (Kapanen, Numminen, Jokinen, Pitkanen, Timonen, Lehtinen, Niemenen, and Peltonen, it's your time to shine!).
Now that they're over, I'm not going to miss the games, but it'll be nice in 2010 to turn my eyes to Vancouver and find out everything that's happened to Apolo Anton Ohno and Joey Cheek in the last four years.
I like the Winter Olympics.
I like being able to watch 10 minutes of programming and be completely caught up with everything that's happened in the past four years in any number of relatively obscure sports. Shani Davis vs. Chad Hedrick? I know the entire back story. I know that Bode Miller is a disappointment, and seems like kind of an idiot, that Sasha Cohen is a choker, and that figure skater Johnny Weir (whose name is almost always preceded with "flamboyant" in media coverage) and I are both originally from the same tiny town in rural hick country, PA ("There are a hundred ways to cover your redneck past," says North Carolinan Ben Folds). And I know that he occasionally gets in trouble for drawing bizarre parallels between recreational drugs and his costume or skating routine (another skater's program was "more like a vodka shot, let's-snort-coke kind of thing"). And that my sister is apparently really good friends with his cousin.
I like the Winter Olympics because two weeks every four years is exactly the right amount of time for me to pay attention to things like speed skating, bobsledding, and alpine skiing. I even like curling, for the same reasons everybody else does: it's a great sport for gawking, and whether or not "What the hell is going on here?" is verbalized or simply implied through a baffled stare, everybody is thinking it.
I like international ice hockey, and watching teams like Slovakia and Switzerland, little countries that could, hand it to just about everybody in the preliminary rounds, and I like watching Finland, because I want to be president of the Antero Niittymaaki fan club, and because Finns play the game right: physical and scrappy, but with great skills, and with 25 guys whose names all end with "nen" (Kapanen, Numminen, Jokinen, Pitkanen, Timonen, Lehtinen, Niemenen, and Peltonen, it's your time to shine!).
Now that they're over, I'm not going to miss the games, but it'll be nice in 2010 to turn my eyes to Vancouver and find out everything that's happened to Apolo Anton Ohno and Joey Cheek in the last four years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)