Linebacker

If I was a starting NFL linebacker, I would do two things:

First, during pre-game introductions, I'd want to be brought out on a leash.

Second, when I'm on the sidelines during the game, I’d want the coaching staff to keep me in a cage.

Rocky Balboa

I was drinking with a couple of friends the other night when all of the sudden one of them got very serious and turned to me and said, “Hey. You know what we’ve gotta do Wednesday night? Watch Rocky Balboa.”

In my mind I'd been trying to avoid the subject. But deep down, I knew he was right.

(Warning: This post may give away some of Rocky Balboa. But seriously, take a look in the mirror and ask yourself if there’s really anything I can “give away” about this movie)

I’ve never cried to Rocky or anything, but I’ve watched all five (and enjoyed I - VI.) One time I made my mixed doubles tennis partner come to my dorm-room before a match and listen to "Eye of the Tiger" and “There’s No Easy Way Out”, so needless to say, Sly has earned my $8.50.

My expectations, obviously, were low. Not because Sly is almost as old as my dad, but because Sly looks almost as old as my dad. (Sean Connery was ~70 in Entrapment, he was so old that I wouldn’t have been surprised if the ending of the movie was simply Connery’s character dying of old age. But he -- and I hesitate to say this, but he -- pretty much pulled it off. Although he wasn't fist fighting with 25 year olds)

As soon as I stepped into the theater it hit me: not only was this a big crowd, not only was this a big opening night crowd, but this was a big opening night ROCKY crowd! Without a doubt, it was going to be a once in a lifetime scene. People were genuinely excited. People started cheering and clapping when the movie started, and it took some restraint on my part to not stand up and shout, “I’ve been waiting 16 fucking years for this!” I could tell that there were plenty of guys there who wanted to shout something like that themselves, and I regret not doing it because it would have given them the green light to make some more obnoxious noise of their own. (I even suggested it to my friend (Moon), who was busy text messaging during the previews, which was clearly annoying the guy sitting next to us by himself) (I could just picture the conversation that guy had with his wife before leaving for the movie, “Honey, I’m going to go watch Rocky, and wait, before you even say anything… not only do I not care if you don’t want to come, but I’d almost prefer that you didn’t come.”) There was a lot of cheering during the movie, the loudest of which came -- of course -- when “Gonna Fly Now” kicked in as Rocky’s training montage began.

The fight scene had its moments too. Not so much for Stallone’s believability, but more for how much Antonio Tarver (his opponent) made viewers believe he was really surprised by Rocky’s toughness (which almost sold Rocky’s toughness.) However, the fight scene may have been the most edited scene in the history of film. You just can’t show those two standing next to eachother for more than a second or two, it looks too ridiculous.

And I’m not too big of a man to admit that I felt something at the end. I wasn’t crying or anything, but I felt something.

I really wanted the movie to work. I really did. I was constantly trying to make myself believe that heavyweight champ (Mason Dixon, played by Tarver) would agree to fight Rocky. But the writers made this very difficult for a rational person to believe. They opened the film with a scene establishing that although Dixon was the undefeated/undisputed heavyweight champ, he was very unpopular with boxing fans because he hadn’t fought any legitimate opponents. (They didn’t establish this subtly. In the first scene, fans were throwing things at Dixon, and announcers repeated over and over that the fans hated him because hadn’t fought anyone tough) 

So naturally, to gain credibility, he agrees to fight a 60 year old Rocky Balboa.

Fighting Balboa will somehow prove to the fans and critics that he’s not dodging tough opponents?

Dixon’s handlers talk him into taking the fight by saying how much money it’ll make him. That part could have also been believable if not for an earlier scene showing a party Dixon’s lavish mansion with his fleet of luxury cars in the driveway. And while the party was a party going on inside, Dixon -- apparently uninterested in all of the nice things around him -- was shooting hoops outside by himself. On top of that, they had a heartwarming scene where Dixon went back to his original trainer -- in the old neighborhood -- and told him how he wanted to get back to his roots and prove his critics wrong. The trainer even said to him, “the most important type of respect, is self respect.” A few scenes later Dixon was at a press conference talking about fighting a guy who could have dated his grandmother. A guy who’s last professional fight was in the USSR. A guy who might test positive for steroids because he needs them to breathe. 

I really wanted to believe in the plot. I really did! But they made it very difficult. The writing was surprisingly bad.

Another problem I had with this movie was that Dixon didn't come off as a villain. Rocky IV was so great because we hated Ivan Drago. But Dixon didn’t do anything to draw our hatred like Drago. In fact, his character was pretty redeeming.

Then, about halfway through the movie, it hit me: the villain shouldn’t have been Mason Dixon, it should have been Mike Tyson! The real Mike Tyson. Not only would Tyson have been a great villain, but it would have been a lot more believable for Rocky to fight an aging Mike Tyson than the current heavyweight champ.

For about 20 minutes, I sat there thinking I was a genius. But then right before the final fight scene, they actually showed Tyson sitting in the stands, as if to say, “look, for those of you who think we should have used Tyson as the villain; listen, we thought about that too, but trust us, its not going to work. There are forces at play here that you don’t understand.” I understood the message.

There were a couple of long passionate monologues by Rocky that just didn’t seem to fit in with the rough and tough Rocky character. During the second one I actually thought that maybe Sly was using it to show people in Hollywood that he can still act. It was like he was saying, “Listen, I could have been the dad in Meet the Parents, or the president in Independence Day. Just because I’m too old to box, doesn’t mean I’m to old to act.”

I liked the choice of casting an obscure leading lady. Watching Rocky trying to charm Renee Ruso or Susan Sarandon wouldn’t have felt right. But then again, watching Rocky trying to charm anyone is painfully awkward enough. (I like that about Rocky)

In conclusion:

- If you’ve seen the first 5 Rocky movies - you should go watch Rocky Balboa

- If you’ve only seen the first 4 Rocky movies - you should say “fuck it” and go watch Rocky Balboa

- If you’ve never seen any of the Rocky movies, watch I – IV, skip V, and then watch Balboa

Because even with all of the complaining I’ve done here, it's still pretty good. It's still Rocky.

Gym

I was doing some bicep curls today at the gym when this guy came over and told me that my form needed improvement. So I said to him:

Me – Man, I’m the strongest guy in this gym. Show me one asshole in here who's stronger than me.

Him – You’re crazy, I bet you that guy over there is stronger than you. (he points out a guy who’s twice my size, and has so much ink on his arms that you’d think he was serving his 40^th year of a life sentence)

Me – (to the big tattooed man, interrupting him in the middle of a set) Hey man come here for a second!

Big Guy – What the fuck do you want?

Me – I just wanted to let you know that this guy right here thinks you’re an asshole.

A True Test

A true test:

When you can go into a man’s living room for the first time, and turn on his TV without any help.

I’m not talking about a college student’s living room, or a woman’s living room. I’m talking about a man’s living room. An adult male. A man who works for a living.

And I’m not talking about just getting the screen to turn on. I’m talking about getting something to actually play on the screen, getting the sound on, and maybe even getting a video game on.

My dad has nine remote controls! NINE!! And I’ve used them all in the past week. You need them all.

You think I’m kidding?

There are some extras in this picture that are no longer used. (I took the picture a long time ago) But hopefully you get the idea.

Guitar Tab

Last night I was playing guitar with a couple of friends. Our play-list included some Nirvana and Tenacious D. (we played our one original song too) (which by the way is on a CD that can be bought in a store, but probably impossible to find) (I sing lead on that song too) One of my favorite Tenacious D songs is called “Double Team”, but last night I couldn’t figure out how to play it. So I was sitting there playing a few notes, trying find the first one. JP noticed me searching for it, so he said to me, “Its an E minor.”

I strummed an E minor. He was right. Then he said, “next it goes to a C.”

I strummed an E minor, then a C. He was right again. From that point I remembered how the song went, and we played the rest. (just to emphasize, it’s a great song)

Did JP break the law last night?

Websites, that essentially do what JP did for me last night are now being threatened with legal action. The Music Publishers’ Association is accusing guitar tab websites of copyright infringement. The biggest US guitar tab websites have already shut down. (there are still plenty out there)

Tab (short for tablature), is a way for people who can’t read sheet music (like me) to see how a song is played by diagramming the finger positioning on the guitar. Guitar tab websites do two things: 1) allow users to post their interpretation of how a song is played in the form of “guitar tab”, and 2) allow other users to view these tabs. According to Music Publishers, this is the same as stealing copyrighted sheet music.

According to me, the Music Publishers are idiots. Is the bad PR they’re going to get for this actually worth the money they hope to make selling sheet music? Who buys the sheet music for rock songs anyway?

It's one thing if webmasters were making profits from these sites, but they’re just running the sites to be an open forum. They’re showing people how to play a song, just like JP did last night.

Here's an article on it.

Tension in the Pakistani National Assembly

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and his political allies have sparked controversy by recently passing a bill that was strongly opposed by the third largest group in their National Assembly. Opposition leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman said, “This bill is against the Holy Koran. We will reject it and try to block it in any possible manner.”

The bill is so controversial that Rehman and his allies responded to its introduction by tearing up copies and storming out of a recent parliament meeting. Some chanted, “death to Musharraf” and “Allah is great.”

What's the big deal?

Most bills are met with political opposition, and fundamental Muslims aren't exactly known for their desire to appease ideological opponents -- but this one is a bit different. The bill that the Pakistani government just passed -- the same bill that united Rehman and his brethren in such passionate opposition -- is called the “Protection of Women” bill.

Before the Protection of Women bill, rape victims in Pakistan were required to produce four male witnesses in order to meet the burden of proof for a conviction --- and here come four words you’d never expect to follow that last sentence --- And that’s not all.

Before the bill, if a woman pressed charges for rape, but was unable to meet the "four male" burden of proof, she could then be prosecuted for adultery. As of this March there were over 4,600 women in Pakistani prisons awaiting trial for adultery. The former rape law (requiring the four witnesses) was one of a set of decrees known as the Hudood ordinance, that went into effect in 1979.

Reading this begs the obvious question; Has there been a single rape conviction in Pakistan since 1979?

I was thinking about the legislature’s intent when passing the Hudood laws. Did the discussion amongst Pakistani lawmakers in 1979 sound like this?

Senator 1 – “Look, I want to legalize rape as much as everyone else, but I think women should be raped behind closed doors. We don’t want to see rapes in public places. All of that screaming and commotion will be distracting to people trying to do business in the streets. And rapes may draw a lot of onlookers, and that'll slow down traffic in busier cities.”

Senator 2 – “So why not require the woman to produce four witnesses to the rape in order to convict? That’ll get people to do it behind closed doors.”

Senator 1 – “Make it four ‘male’ witnesses... just in case.”

Senator 3 – “Call it punishable adultery if she can’t produce the four male witnesses and you’ve got my support.”

(source)
(source)
(source)

Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

The new internet gambling bill prohibits foreign gambling websites from accepting payments from U.S. residents. This means I can no longer play those little $2 and $5 online poker tournaments I like so much.

But I shouldn't worry about that because:
1) I can still go the track and bet my life savings on horse racing (or dog racing),
2) I can still go to the gas station and buy as many lottery tickets as my bank account can afford,
3) I can still play poker, but now I have to go to a licensed casino to do it, and
4) I can still fill out some paperwork and buy a shotgun (Ok, that’s not as directly related, but it always makes me laugh.) (The government is essentially saying, “We don’t think you’re responsible enough to control your online gambling, but we’ll go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to handling firearms.”)

Last year online gambling brought in ~$13 billion in revenue, and that's projected to jump to $25.2 billion in 2010. (source) I think this number would be much higher if sports books in the US were allowed to do business online. Even back when foreign online sports books could accept US deposits, a lot of my friends were afraid to open online accounts because they didn’t trust their money in the hands of a sports book operating from a small Caribbean Island. So instead, they went through a local bookie -- a bookie who would honor point-spreads published in the local paper, a bookie who wouldn’t check his customers’ credit, but a bookie who would make his own rules when it came to debt collection.

If US based websites were legal, our government could tax their income. And collection could be done using legal methods. And perhaps even some legitimate establishments would create some sort of credit check system that would allow them to calculate an individual's betting limit.

And it's difficult to make the argument that the government wants people to stop gambling. I think that people who want to gamble can gamble. But if studies show that legalizing internet gambling in the US will increase the number of gamblers, and therefore increase the number of people with gambling problems, then go ahead and make it illegal. I don’t necessarily agree, but I don't vehemently disagree either.

But here’s the part that really gets me:

Two and a half years ago I went to a casino in downtown Detroit. In case you’ve never been to downtown Detroit: it is poor. Extremely poor. (And you see about as many white people in downtown Detroit as you see black people at an Ivy League swim meet.) My girlfriend’s dad works at the casino, so we went there to say hi and walk around. (and maybe I’d throw a few bucks down on the tables for laughs.)

I was definitely surprised to see such a grand casino in such a low income neighborhood. And I was even more surprised to see so many people gambling so early on a Saturday afternoon.

I knew the standard blackjack betting strategy, and I had big regular paychecks coming in, so I walked over to the blackjack tables and I couldn’t believe what I saw.

$15 minimum bet!

Even when I played blackjack at the Bellagio I was sitting at $10 tables, yet there I was, in arguably the poorest American city I’d ever seen, in a casino packed with its residents, and the cheapest table in the house had a $15 minimum bet!! I was stupefied. I sat down for a minute (one actual minute), played four hands, and lost $60. (my losing doesn’t influence my opinion on gambling, I just thought it was funny that I lost so fast that day)

Before the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, a person who wanted to play blackjack could turn on his computer and play $1 hands online. Now, if a Detroit resident wants to play blackjack, Federal law prohibits him from playing online. But, if he wants to walk over to the local casino and play $15 minimum hands, the Federal Government is surprisingly tolerant.

Wine Whining

I just read two articles about wine. First, this one -- probably not worth reading, but I’ve got time -- explains a hypothesis that a certain ingredient in red wine might help to offset some of the negative effects of a high calorie diet in humans because it does so in mice. But the mice were given a very high dosage of the ingredient, so humans would have to drink ~1,500 bottles of red wine a day to get the same amount that the mice were given in the experiment. (but nonetheless, there’s hope for us)

The second article was more entertaining. The Chicago Tribune recently gave out its “good eats” awards. One of the sections was on wine -- specifically discussing the invasion of low priced Australian wine. It also had reviews of some Aussie wines.

Like most recreational wine drinkers my age, I've had my fair share of Yellow Tail Shiraz, so I skimmed the other reviews and went straight to that one. Here it is, unedited.

2005 Yellow Tail Shiraz

Produced by Casela Wines in South Eastern Australia, this best-selling wine has a peppery berry aroma cooled by a hint of mint. The flavor is simple and sweet but the finish is astringent. Serve with pepperoni pizza, grilled cheese on multi-grain bread.

Two Corks, $6.

Why do wine critics feel the need to write such ridiculous things?

“Ridiculous” isn’t enough. Why do wine critics feel the need to write bizarre things like that?

Grilled cheese on multi-grain bread?

As I write this I’ve come to the conclusion that this review, and all others like it, are just part of an ongoing joke amongst wine critics. A wine critic for the LA Times probably reads that Yellowtail review and calls over his co-workers to look at it, “Hey, they really snuck a great one into the Tribune today, look at this!”

Well guess what Wine Reviewers of America... We Know! Ok, we know it's all bullshit. When most people drink wine, all they care about is how quickly it gets them drunk, how hungover they are the next day, and how purple it turns their teeth.

Wife: Honey, I made grilled cheese for dinner, can you open some wine?

Husband: Sure, I’ll be right back. (brings the wine, a 2005 Ravenswood Cabernet, opens it)

Wife: What the hell is this?

Husband: You said grilled cheese right?

Wife: Yeah, but I made it on multi-grain bread!

Husband: What a waste of good wine. (as he dumps the bottle down the drain)

Borat

I was hesitant to go to the Borat movie. I was afraid it would be the movie equivalent to the Nirvana album that Kurt Cobain killed himself not to make. (or like Rocky V)

Don't worry, its not. Its kind of sad because he won’t be able to do Borat anymore on his show, and people will be suing him for certain parts of it. But still, its worth watching.

on file

I got a phone call today. The dialogue went like this:

Me – Hello.

Caller – May I speak to Cyrus please?

Me – This is Cyrus.

Caller – Cyrus this is Bob Eagan I’m a partner at Bell, Edwards & Johnson, I’d like to talk to you about your resume that we received.

Me – (interrupting) but I sent you that resume almost a year ago, and you sent me a rejection letter within the week.

Caller – That’s true Cyrus, but if you recall, the letter also mentioned that we would retain your resume in our file and keep you in mind for the future. Its been a year, and now we've got an opening for a licensed attorney with no experience. So I went through our file of previously rejected resumes to search for candidates.

Me – Wow, I had no idea companies actually did that. All this time I’ve been thinking it was just a BS line -- a poor attempt to soften the blow of rejection.

Caller – That’s a popular misconception Cyrus. You see, companies often like to keep resumes on file in case of future openings.

Me – But its been a year, what if I had found a job by now?

Caller – Cyrus, that’s a great point. (pause)

Me - ...

Caller - I'll tell you what, that's a great fucking point. And I could sense your ability to make points like that by looking at your resume, and that's why I picked up the phone and called you today. What are your salary demands?

Saddam Hussein Trial

The verdict in the Saddam Hussein trial will be delivered tomorrow. (here’s the story)

Any chance he walks out of that courtroom tomorrow as a free man?

Iraq's a functioning democracy now, so he can get right back out on the campaign trail.

over the edge

What's even more frustrating than watching negative campaign ads, is hearing experts say that they are the most effective. It's insulting to our intelligence to be subjected to ads that exaggerate claims about the incompetence of an opposing candidate, without mentioning a single truth about one's own qualifications. And they’re ALWAYS exaggerated. (I know because I'm nerdy enough to go on the internet and try to verify the claims.)

I read an article today about a campaign ad launched by Indiana Congressman John Hostettler, warning listeners that a vote for his democratic opponent could trigger a shift in House leadership and advance the “'homosexual agenda.'' (link to the story) I didn't know that there was a formal homosexual agenda. But according to the Alliance Defense Fund, there is. ADF President Crain Osten says that a 1980’s book called “After the Ball” laid out the agenda’s six point plan:

1 – Talk about gays as loudly and as often as possible.
2 – Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
3 – Give homosexual protectors a just cause.
4 – Make gays look good.
5 – Make the victimizers look bad.
6 – Get funds from corporate America.

(I’m not making this up, (here's a link)) ("make GAYS look good")

After establishing that there is an agenda, Osten claims that its endgame is the destruction of marriage and traditional family values. (I think that divorce rates are damaging marriage without any help from “the agenda.” And the fact that going to google.com and entering “priest boys sodomy” results in 159,000 hits shows that traditional values will soon be redefined without any help from "the agenda")

So John Hostettler says that a vote for his opponent (Sheriff Brad Ellsworth), will advance the homosexual agenda. This makes me wonder what a vote for Hostettler advances... so I'm going to check out his website, www.johnhostettler.com.

Right away, the homepage reads, “This website will be used to help keep the voters of Indiana's 8th district informed about my vision for our future.” Now I’m excited. I like it when politicians go in-depth and articulate their stances on issues.

The first link I follow leads to his bio. Since this is one of the few links on the page, I’m expecting to find some substance. After a five paragraph life story, he gives the voters of Indiana’s 8^th district this lone paragraph explaining his platform:

“John Hostettler based his campaign on the importance of upholding the Constitution as America's governing document. His campaign promises were to work toward balancing the federal budget, strengthening our national defense, cutting taxes, and reforming welfare.”

Wow. He emphasizes “the importance of upholding the Constitution as America’s governing document.” I didn't know we had people out there opposed to the Constitution being America’s governing document.

“Balancing the federal budget, strengthening our national defense, cutting taxes, and reforming welfare.” Those seem to be standard conservative stances, but I’m assuming there has to be more to Hostettler’s website than this. After all, it's his “internet campaign headquarters.” And its purpose is to “keep voters of Indiana’s 8^th district informed about his vision for the future.” But so far all he's done is pretty much say, "I'm a republican." (Nothing against republicans, I'm a moderate, and can see myself being a republican someday)

The second link is labeled, “Founding Documents.” My curiosity is heightened, I'm not sure what to expect... I click on it. The resulting page is simply a list of links numbered 1-8:

1. Magna Carta
2. Declaration of Independence
3. U.S. Constitution
4. Bill of Rights
5. Federalist Papers
6. The Thomas Jefferson Papers
7. Founding Fathers Bios
8. The Gettysburg Address

Again, I am not making this up. I am nowhere near that cynical. (although my cynicism is growing as I explore this website) I click on “Magna Carta” and it takes me to an actual full -length translation of the Magna Carta! Now, I didn't learn much thirteenth century history in school, but I know that the Magna Carta was written by English nobles to place checks on the King’s power. Without a doubt it is an important document in the history of democracy, but its not exactly an important read for today’s voting public. Is it? Does Hostetler want his constituents to spend their time reading the Magna Carta? For those of you who haven’t tried it, let me tell you, it’s not an easy read. My personal favorite clause (and the one of the shortest):

“[34] No Man shall be taken or imprisoned upon the Appeal of a Woman for the Death of any other, than of her husband.”

so here's the dialogue:

Woman – Sheriff, sheriff, I’ve just witnessed a murder!

Sheriff – Ok ma’am, stay calm, I’m going to have to ask you a couple of questions. First, was the killer a man?

Woman – Yes, I can identify him.

Sheriff – Ok now ma’am, this is important, was the victim your husband?

Woman – No, he was my brother.

Sheriff – Ok, now what I’m going to have to ask you to do, is find a man who also witnessed the murder. Once you do that, have him call me and explain what happened. If we have his testimony, then we can proceed with the investigation.

Is a quick read of the Magna Carta, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers or the Gettysburg address going to inform Hostettler’s constituents? Is reading the Declaration of Independence going to help Indiana voters decide which candidate is most fit to represent them in Washington? (Is the use of rhetorical questioning in any text other than a law school casebook frowned upon?)

So I go back to Hostettler’s internet campaign headquarters to see if there is anything on this page that makes any effort to inform voters. One last possibility is labeled simply, “Links.” I click on it and come upon a page with a bunch of links to third party websites. Guess how many links were on the page?

Over 50! Sorted by the headings: National Organizations, Indiana Political Organizations, 8^th District Organizations, 8^th District Republican Parties, 8^th District Towns and Communities, 8^th District Universities, 8^th District College Republicans, 8^th District Newspapers, Other Useful links. Is someone supposed to go through all of these 3rd party websites and attempt to decipher what Hostettler will do in Washington?

What ever happened to the idea of a candidate simply stating an issue, explaining the discourse, and giving his/her stance? (and what ever happened to making points without using rhetorical questioning to do so?)

A vote for John Hostettler is a vote for a Republican who will fight to uphold the Constitution as America’s governing document!

It works!

(i lost a bet)